-------
should be adequate  for most  residences,  although for some residences  this
length may be inadequate.   Research has demonstrated  that  the  soil  moisture.
content at the time of excavation and the techniques  of  construction impact
significantly on  the longevity  of the  soil  absorption system  (Machmeier*
1975).  Thus, soil  absorption  systems  should  be constructed only  when the
soil  is  dry and equipment used  that minimizes compaction and smearing  of
the  soil  surface.    Improved   drainage   of  surface  waters  is  generally
included with the current installation of soil  absorption  systems,  and  this
should  continue.   In addition,  two  other practices  to  improve  drainage
should be applied  in  specific  situations.   One is the  installation of the
soil absorption system at  a  shallow depth with a mounded backfill (Figure
2-18).  This  practice enables  the septic tank effluent to be distributed
into  the  surface soils,  which  generally  are more permeable  and less likely
to be saturated than the  deeper soil material.   The other  drainage  improve-
ment  is  the  use  of curtain drains (Figure 2-18).  These drains improve the
natural drainage of the  soil and remove  excess water from the soil absorp-
tion  system.   An adequate outlet  for  the drainage  must be available  or a
small sump pump  would be required.  These drains could be  installed simi-
larly to  the  drainfield,  as  shown in Figure 2-17, or similarly to  agricul-
tural drainage tile, without  gravel backfill.

     Dosing and alternating  usage  of the soil absorption system have  been
found to  extend  the  life  of the  system (Machmeier 1975).   Dosing can  be
achieved by means  of  a  dosing  tank and  siphon (Figure  2-18)  or  by a small
dosing pump.  The  dosing  tank  and siphon require a  sloping  site  for opera-
tion; thus, would  be  limited to a minimum number of  residences.  Alternat-
ing soil absorption systems allows natural rejuvenation  of one system while
the alternate is  in use.   The  systems are  alternated in  use by  means  of a
diversion valve  (Figure  2-18)  periodically or whenever the  system in use
becomes overloaded.  Each soil  absorption system may  be  sized to  50 to  100%
of  the  size  of  a  full-sized  system  (USEPA  1980a).   Within the Special
Sanitary District  Ohio EPA requires the  installation of  a  diversion valve
for dividing the 900  If drainfield into two 450 If systems.

     The  soil absorption  system  most suited to  the  soils of  the watershed
is the mound (Figure 2-19).  The components of the mound system include the
                                 2-142

-------
u

3
^

w>
_1
                                    s  <
                                    IS
                                                      CO


                                                      ]|D
                                                      H—

                                                      0)
                                                      c

                                                      "S
                                                      c

                                                      CD

                                                      75
                                                      k.
                                                      o
                                                      «*—

                                                      CD


                                                      "cd


                                                      c
                                                      o

                                                      u.
                                                      CD
                                                       eo
                                                       o
                                                       C
                                                       CO

                                                       (0
                                                       c

                                                      'CO
                                                       c
                                                      '5
                                                      *-
                                                       l_
                                                       D
                                                       O

                                                      TJ
                                                       C
                                                       CO

                                                      2
                                                       CD
                                                      H^
                                                       c
                                                      'co
                                                       >_
                                                      •o
                                                       CO
                  00

                   I
                  CM

                   CD
                   L.

                   D)

                  L
2-143

-------

I«
                                                                      E
                                                                      o>
                                                                      •*-•
                                                                      to
                                                                      >
                                                                      CO

                                                                      T3
                                                                      C
                                                                      D
                                                                      O
                                                                      E
                                                                      i
                                                                      x.
                                                                      c
                                                                      ca
                                                                      *-

                                                                      Q.
                                                                      E
                                                                      D
                                                                      a
                                                                      i
                                                                      .£
                                                                      C
                                                                      a)
                                                                      •!-•

                                                                      O
                                                                      '+••
                                                                      Q.
                                                                      0)
                                                                      CO
                                                                     0)

                                                                      I
                                                                     CM

                                                                      0)
                                                                      O)
                                                                      il
             I
             -O  U
             —  (U
             •5?
             en  ui
2-144

-------
septic tank, a pump chamber, and the mound.   This system is best suited for
soils with slow permeability and a somewhat  high water table.   The mound is
designed so that the effluent percolates through the sand in the mound into
the original soil.   Most of the treatment occurs within the sand in aerobic
conditions.  The original  surface soil  then accepts the effluent  and con-
veys it horizontally and vertically away from the mound.

     The buried sand  filter (Figure 2-17) is another  option  for treatment
of septic  tank  effluent  (Section 2.2.1.).  These units are applicable only
where a  surface discharge  is allowed.   The  CCHD issues permits for systems
that have  access to  flowing streams, collector  lines, and  100 lineal feet
of drainage  swale  on  the  subject parcel.   The Ohio  Home  Sewage  Disposal
Rules specifies  that  the  discharge  requirement must  satisfy  the  rules  of
the  Ohio EPA in that  the  stream must  flow  continuously and  that  the dis-
charge must be  less  than one-fourth of  the  flow in the stream.  Generally,
the  sand filters do  not discharge any  effluent during extended dry periods
and have been acceptable to the local residents for that reason.   The unit
consists of a drainage line embedded in 12  inches of gravel overlain by 18
inches of filter sand.   Effluent is distributed to the sand by an overlying
distribution line embedded  in  another  12-inch layer of  gravel.   Sand fil-
ters are proposed  for  use  on a  limited  basis  in the future,  primarily for
replacement of  existing  failed  systems  on parcels where extensions of soil
absorption systems  are not possible.

     Blackwater holding  tanks  may be  appropriate for  existing residences
with soil  absorption  systems that fail  because the absorption system lacks
sufficient area.  Components of  the system  include a  low-flow toilet (0.8
gallons per flush), the holding tank for toilet wastes only, and the exist-
ing  septic tank-soil  absorption  system  for the  remainder of  the  wastes.
When the  toilet wastes  are diverted from the septic  tank-soil absorption
system,  that  system has an opportunity   to function  properly.   Significant
reductions of organic  loads, 20% to 40% reductions in phosphorus loadings,
and 80%  reduction  in  nitrogen  loadings  to the septic  tank-soil absorption
system occur  when toilet  wastes are excluded  (USEPA 1980a).   Blackwater
holding  tanks  are  recommended  if  the  lot  has  insufficient  area  for  any
other soil  absorption system.    With a   1,000  gallon tank, pumping  may  be
                                 2-145

-------
necessary following  every  fourth  month of occupancy.  Separation  of  waste
streams from residences is  not  permitted  by  the  Home Sewage  Disposal  Rules.
3701-29-02.(C).    Thus, a  variance  procedure would be required  for  imple-
mentation of  blackwater holding  tanks.   In most  situations, no  further*
expansion  or  modification  of  the  existing  septic tank-soil  absorption
system is necessary.

     Based strictly  on  a planning approach,  no new soil  absorption systems
should  be permitted  on Clermont  and  Blanchester  soils unless  extensive
measures are taken to improve the drainage.   On an individual lot basis,  it
is difficult to  improve the drainage sufficiently to enable  a soil absorp-
tion system to  function properly.   The Avonburg  soils have  slightly better
surface drainage; thus, on  a  lot-by-lot basis, soil absorption systems can
be  designed  to  overcome  the drainage  problems.   Shallow drainfields  and
mounds  should  operate  satisfactorily on  Cincinnati and Rossmoyne  soils.
The suitability of other soils are presented  in Table 3-4.

2.3.2.5.2.  Aerobic Systems

     Aerobic treatment  systems  (Figure 2-20)  are proposed  for use  in the
watershed where  soil  absorption  systems  would  not  work  and where  their
discharge  is  permitted.    The  present  arrangement  of  equipment  appears
adequate  for the  future.   The aerobic units  presently utilized in the area
experience few operational  difficulties but  must be inspected regularly to
ensure  that the  unit is operating correctly.  The  upflow filter  is essen-
tially  maintenance-free and very  reliable.   The  tablet chlorinator must be
restocked on a periodic basis to provide adequate disinfection.

     The Ohio Department of Health regards aerobic units as a "last resort"
choice for treatment for existing residences  where a soil absorption system
has  virtually  no  chance  of  successful operation.   The recommendation  is
based on  the public  health and water  quality  considerations of  an improp-
erly operating  unit.  Also,  operation and maintenance  costs are signifi-
cant, presently reported to be $20-22 per  month (Personal interview,  Harvey
Hines,  CCHD,   to WAPORA,  Inc.  ;August. 25,  1983).   For  these reasons,  a
limited  number  of  aerobic  units  are  proposed  for  future use  in  the
watershed.
                                 2-146

-------
From
upflow
unit
                                       •Tablet tubes

                                         »-  Discharge
                       TABLET CHLORINATOR
       —-T&V   ft
                  Jfc.
                  Perforated distribution pipe
                                                 Overflow pipe
          EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND ABSORPTION  (ETA) DED
                             •Blower
     Building
      sewer
           kTrasli       ^Aeration
            compartment  compartment


                  AERATION UNIT
                          ClarlHer
                          compartment


                            UPFLOW  FILTER
                                                           Sand media
Figure 2-20.  Aeration unit and upflow filter, tablet chlorinator and
              evapotranspiration and absorption (ETA) bed.
                               2-147

-------
     The use of  the  so-called  evaporation bed  (actually  an  evapotranspira-
tion and absorption  (ETA) bed)  was  not considered as a  widely used option
in  this study.   The  ETA bed is  a  soil  absorption  system  that  functions
similarly to the formerly used drainbed  design for septic tank  effluent.
Its difference is  that  it is installed at a  shallow  depth and has an  over-
flow pipe or earth dam.   Because  the effluent is well-aerated, failure  of
the soil to absorb the  effluent does not  result  in odiferous surface  pond-
ing as  with septic tank effluent.   Studies are inconclusive as to whether
aerobic tank effluent is  absorbed by the soil more  quickly than  is septic
tank effluent  (Hutzler  et al.  1978).   Thus,  because of the difference  in
operational  complexity  and  costs,  improved soil  absorption  systems with
septic tanks appear to be the better option.

     The collector lines  for  aerobic unit effluent can be permitted by the
health department if  three or less residences on  one  property are  connected
on  a  line  and   and  acceptable  receiving  stream is available.   OEPA has
jurisdiction over discharges that originate  from more than  three  houses  or
one parcel.   As  a condition  for  issuing  a permit, they  require that  a
public agency be responsible  for operation and  maintenance of the  treatment
units.

2.3.2.6.  Cluster System

     The cluster system  designates  a common soil absorption system and the
treatment and collection  facilities  for  a group  of residences.  The common
soil absorption  system  is used  because the individual lots are unsuitable
for on-site  soil  absorption systems.   An area  of  soils  suitable   for  a
common  soil absorption  system must  be available in  order to consider this
option.   The  only areas  where  these soils are available in the  watershed
are in  the valleys of the East Fork  and its tributaries.

     The present septic  tanks and aerobic treatment units  in the area are
adequate for continued use.   Septic  tank and aerobic  unit effluent could  be
conveyed by  small-diameter  gravity pipes  to  the  soil absorption  system
site.    These pipes could be  4-inch  diameter as  shown in Figure  2-21. Be-
                                 2-148

-------
            ^--—Junction box
            LI  and alarm
BuiIding
sewer
                                                                          Pressure
                                                                          sewer
                                                 To existing soil absorption system
                -Highwater
                 level
xPump  ^-Level     alarm
        controls
                       Precast septic tank
                         SEPTC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP LAYOUT
«.
_E
Building
sewer
„.
- -j 	 r«


>f=i
m.
1 Road
71 -^-Effluent
i*" did. effluent 1 ine

                       Precast  septic  tank
                    SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT GRAVITY SEV/ER LAYOUT
           Figure 2-21.  Collection options for cluster drainfields.
                                    2-149

-------
cause of the clear effluent,  the pipes do not need to be  laid  at  a  constant
slope nor in a  straight  line.   Cleanouts,  rather  than manholes,  are  recom-  .
mended so that less dirt  enters the pipe (Otis 1979).   Septic  tank  effluent
pumps and pressure  sewers  could  also  be used for  collection  (Figure  2-21).  '
These components would be  utilized where terrain  is undulating and several
pump stations would be required  in a  gravity  collection system  or where
shallow bedrock would  limit  excavation for gravity sewers. The small pump-
ing unit  would  connect into  the  household electrical system and  would  be
installed and maintained by  the operating agency.   The pressure  sewers are
typically buried at  a  shallow depth below the frost  line  and are  1.5 inch
diameter and larger.

     A means of dosing the soil absorption  system  is  required in  order to
achieve good distribution  of  effluent and to alternate application  to two
or  more  fields.   If sufficient  elevation difference is present,  a  dosing
tank and  alternating siphons  can  be  installed.   Alternately, a large wet
well with alternating  pumps  can be installed for  dosing  the  fields.   These
systems  are typically designed  to dose  each  field  once  each  day (Otis
1979).

     The  soil  absorption systems  would be  designed  as  three drainfields.
Two would be  dosed  on  a  daily basis  and the third would be  rested  for an
annual period.   The drainfields would be designed according  to the stan-
dards for the soil material on the site (USEPA 1977a).

     The  soils  information indicates  that cluster systems could  be instal-
led  along the East  Fork  or its tributaries without  extensive measures to
facilitate  drainage.   In areas where  the  Cincinnati,  Rossmoyne,  Avonburg,
and Clermont soils  are located,  extensive drainage measures  must  be util-
ized and  special  care  must be taken so that the horizontal conductivity of
the thin  surface  soils are not exceeded.  Narrow  mounds  separated by cur-
tain drains would be necessary for satisfactory operation.

     The  operation  and maintenance requirements  of the system are  minimal.
Periodic  inspections of  the  dosing system  and the drainfields  are essen-
tially all  that  is necessary.  Periodically, the  septic  tanks and aerobic
                                 2-150

-------
units would be  pumped.   Occasional  maintenance of the collection piping is
expected  to  be  minimal (Otis  1979).   Once a  year the rested  drainfield
would be rotated into use and another rested.   The system would be entirely
gravity-operated,  except  for  the  dosing  pumps  for  the  soil  absorption
system; thus, the  likelihood  of system failure and environmental pollution
are  minimal.    Blockages  of  the collection  system  should  occur  rarely,
because of the clear effluent.

2.3.2.7.  Septage Disposal

     The  use  of  a septic system  requires periodic  maintsnance (3 to  5
years)  that includes  pumping  out the accumulated  scum and  sludge, which is
called septage.   Approximately 65 to 70 gallons per capita per year septage
could  accumulate  in  properly  functioning  septic  systems '(USEPA  1977b).
Septage is  a highly  variable  anaerobic slurry having  large  quantities of
grit and  grease; a highly  offensive odor; the ability to foam;  poor settl-
ing and dewatering characteristics;  high solids and organic  content;  and a
minor  accumulation of   heavy  metals.   Typical  concentration  values  for
constituents of septage are as follows:

               Total solids             38,800 mg/1
               BOD5                      5,000 mg/1
               COD                      42,900 mg/1
               TKN                         680 mg/1
               NH3                         160 mg/1
               Total P                     250 mg/1

     Septage  disposal  regulations  have  been  established in states with
areas  that have a  concentration of septic tanks.  Many states,  including
Ohio,  prohibit  certain  types  of  septage  disposal  but do  not  prescribe
acceptable disposal methods.  The general methods of  septage  disposal are:

          •    Land disposal
          •    Biological and physical treatment
          •    Chemical treatment
          •    Treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
                                 2-151

-------
Land Disposal

     The two basic types of land disposal  are:
                                                                           4
     •    Methods which optimize nutrient  recovery  such as  application
          of septage to cropland and pastures
     •    Methods of land application in which  there is no  concern for
          the recovery of nutrients in septage  such as  landfils.

     Septage can be considered a form of fertilizer because of its nutrient
value when  applied  to the soil.  Nitrogen, phosphorus, and  micronutrients
are contained in  septage.   The septage application rate is  usually  depen-
dent upon  the amount  of  nitrogen available to  the crop.    The  die-off  of
pathogens  in septage which  is surface  spread  is  quicker  than that  of
pathogens in septage injected into the soil.  Septage incorporated into the
top  three   inches  of  the  soil will  generally have a  99% die-off  of  all
pathogens within one month (Brown and White 1977).

     The surface  spreading  of  septage should  occur only in  isolated loca-
tions due to  potential fly and odor problems.   However, both problems can
be minimized  by  applying the septage in a thin uniform layer, or by incor-
porating the  septage  into  the soil  immediately.  Ohio requires immediate
incorporation of  the septage into the soil, although  other  states do not.
Septage  should  not  be applied  to  land in the  following circumstances  :

     •    Used for vegetable crops
     •    Frozen, snow covered, saturated, or located within a  flood
          plain
     •    Located near dwellings,  wells,   springs,  streams,  bodies of
          water, or  land  adjacent  to bodies of water where there is a
          chance of pollution due to runoff
     •    Steeper than 8%
     •    Sandy (due to pathogen transmission to  ground water).

     The  advantages  of  direct cropland   application  of  septage are  the
recycling of  nitrogen and phosphorus; the low technology,  maintenance, and
cost  of the  system;  and the  hostile environment which  the  sun  and soil
create for pathogens and parasites.

                                 2-152

-------
     The major  problem with direct  septage disposal  on land is  that  the
material cannot be applied during certain soil  conditions.   Saturated soils
generally restrict  field access with  disposal equipment.  In addition to
getting equipment stuck,  soils  are  compacted and  ruts are formed.   Septage
runoff  is  a  problem  if  the waste  is  applied to  frozen soils  or  steep
slopes.  Low  temperatures  and  saturated  soil moisture  conditions will
lengthen the die-off period of  pathogens.

Biological  and Physical Treatment

     Septage  may be  treated  biologically  in anaerobic  lagoons  aerobic
lagoons, or  digesters.   Some advantages  of aerobic treatment are  that it
reduces  the  offensive  odor of  the  septage, produces  a sludge  with good
dewatering  characteristics,  and produces a  supernatant with a  lower BOD
than anaerobic  supernatants.   The major disadvantage  of  aerobic treatment
compared to  anaerobic  treatment  is the higher operation and maintenance
cost.   Advantages of  anaerobic  treatment systems  are that the waste under-
goes stabilization of organic solids and they have relatively  low operating
and maintenance  costs.   A disadvantage  of  anaerobic treatment is  the high
BOD  of the effluent and the potential  for  odor nuisance.

Chemical Treatment

     Treatment of septage  involving  the addition  of a  chemical  is used to
improve the dewaterability, reduce the  odor,  or kill the pathogens.   Chemi-
cal  treatment processes  include addition  of   coagulants,  rapid  chemical
oxidation,  or lime stabilization.   Some  advantages  of chemical treatment of
septage are:

     •   A  good reduction of  the pollutant concentration can  be
         achieved
     •   The dewaterability of  septage is  improved so the waste  can
         be dewatered on sand  beds
     •   There is effective control  of  the  pathogenic organism.
                                 2-153

-------
     Disadvantages of chemical treatment of  septage are:

     •    High costs  are usually associated  with chemical  treatment
          and in  many instances these alternatives are only  feasible
          where relatively  large quantities  of  septage are  produced

     •    Large quantities of chemicals  are  needed

     •    A relatively high level of technology is needed.


Wastewater Treatment Plant


     Septage can be  adequately  treated  at a properly operated WWTP.   Both

the  activated  sludge  or the  fixed media  type plants are  used to treat

septage.   Septage  could  be  discharged  into  the  liquid  stream or  sludge

stream of a WWTP.   If septage is handled as  a slurry,  the  possible  addition

points at  a  WWTP  are the upstream sewer, the bar screen,  the grit  chamber,

the  primary  settling tank,  or  the  aeration tank.  Discharge into the  up-

stream sewer has  the problem of solids   settling  out  in the  sewer  particu-

larly at periods of low flow.


     The septage addition  points in the sludge handling processes are  the

aerobic or anaerobic digester, the sludge conditioning process,  or  the  sand

drying beds.  Septage  added to  a WWTP at 2% or less of the total flow  will
have  little  impact  on  the  treatment  processes.   Advantages of  treating

septage in a WWTP are:


     •    Septage is diluted with wastewater and easily treated

     •    Few  aesthetic problems  are  associated  with this  type  of
          septage handling

     •    Skilled personnel are present  at the plant site.

     Disadvantages of septage disposal at a  WWTP are:

     •    A  shock  effect can occur in the unit process of the WWTP if
          septage  is not  properly entered  into the  wastewater flow

     •    Additional equipment and facilities prior to mixing with the
          sewage or  sludge stream  are required  for  separation,  de-
          gritting, and equalization of  the septage.
                                 2-154

-------
     The Facilities Planner  proposed  that a septage receiving facility for
the entire county be  constructed at the Am-Bat WWTP  but  not when the pro-
posed expansion is  constructed.   A pad, storage tank, and feed facility is
proposed.   No  alternatives were  considered  with respect to  treatment and
disposal of  septage.   A study  in Ohio (Brown and White  1977)  showed that
septage treatment  and  disposal by  using parallel  treatment and  storage
basins with  land application of the supernatant and the solids  was con-
siderably less expensive than either lime stabilization or sewage treatment
plant alternatives.

     A detailed cost-effective analysis is beyond the perview of this study
and  the  capital  costs of providing  the dump  station,  storage, and  feed
facilities is  included in the  sewage treatment plant costs.  The  cost of
treatment are  minimal and are  included in  the operation and  maintenance
costs of the WWTP.   The current dumping fee charged by Hamilton County and
the  decrease  in trucking  costs would  effect  a reduction  in the cost  of
pumping and disposing  of  septage within the FPA.  The  pumping and  hauling
costs are included  in operation and maintenance costs for on-site systems.

2.3.3.  Development and Screening of Components and Preliminary
        Alternatives

     A number  of wastewater management alternatives were examined  in the
Facilities Planning documents.    Some  regional  solutions were  previously
developed by  the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana  (OKI)  Regional Council  of  Govern-
ments (1971,  1976).

     Regionalization,  as  an  alternative, involves the  physical  connection
of smaller WWTPs to a larger  facility or the management of several sewerage
systems by a  single authority.   The advantages of  regionalization  usually
are  associated with   the  economies  of scale  and  centralized  operation.
Disadvantages of regionalization are commonly a result of  wastewater piping
and pumping costs and public  or  political acceptance.

     Regionalization  alternatives that  were evaluated  in  the  Facilities
Plan  (Balke  Engineers 1982a) for  the  Middle East Fork area  are  listed in
Table 2-70.  The  cost-effectiveness  analysis in the OKI  report  (OKI 197JR)
£ab4e-2-69s	The  co&t-effeetiveaess  analysis in the  OKI  report  (OKI 1976)
                                 2-155

-------
Table 2-70.  Potential regional  alternatives (structural  and  managerial)
             Middle East Fork FPA (Balke Engineers  1982a).
Regional Alternative	

Interconnection of treatment
facilities, or construction of
one large facility to replace
several smaller ones
Feasible for
  MEF FPA?

     Yes
Comments
Discussion of structural options
follows in the text
Combined management of sludge
operations
Combined management of labora-
tories
     Yes       CCSD has expressed willingness to
               cooperate with smaller villages in
               sludge disposal

  Possibly3    May be appropriate in some cases
Combined management of plant
operations
Designation of CCSD as lead agency
for construction, operation and
maintenance of all facilities
(including ownership)
     No
  Possibly3
Maintain "utility-customer" rela-
tionship between CCSD and any
connecting entities (villages,
MHPs)
     Yes
Local opinion is that centralized
management would negate the bene-
fits of operating independent
treatment plants

Implies abandonment of local treat-
ment plants and turning all coll-
ection systems over to CCSD.  In
early coordination, villages indi-
cated that CCSD responsibility for
all facilities would be an un-
acceptable alternative (control of
collection systems is an important
issue).  Also may be unacceptable
to CCSD (multiplications of O&M
problems in collection systems)

This would mean that if the Village
of Batavia, for example,  elected to
abandon their WWTP in favor of treat-
ment at the CCSD's Amelia-Batavia
facility, the village would pay for
sewage treatment each month just
like any other customer.   The vill-
age would also maintain ownership
and control of their collection
system
                                      2-156

-------
Jable  2-70.   (Continued)
"Regional  Alternative	

 Designation of  CCSD as  lead
 agency  for  construction of all
 facilities
 Establishment  of  independent
 Sanitary  District or  Regional
 Sewer District responsible
 for all wastewater matters
 (construction, O&M, funding)
Feasible for
  MEF FPA?

    Yes
 Possibly0
Comments
Consistent with original intent of
grant award; also, CCSD has indi-
cated that "group bidding" of
construction improvements would help
everyone save money.  May help in
financing capability

This alternative would require the
abolishment of the CCSD and replace-
ment by independent board of direc-
tors or trustees.   Requires cooper-
ative political climate
  Must be  evaluated  after  development  of  specific  alternatives.

 ""preliminary   estimates   indicate   that   total    regionalization   (all   flows
  treated  at  Amerlia-Batavia  WWTP)  would be  least  expensive  alternative  in
  dollar  cost.   However,   the  villages  of Batavia and  Williamsburg have  indi-
  cated that  the  alternative  of  maintaining  existing  local  treatment plants
  offers  greater  advantages in implementability   that  offset  any  cost  differ-
  ential.   The advantage  is only valid  if the  villages  maintain total  control.
  Thus,  the  decision  is  clearly  total   village control   or  total   regional
  control  by  the  CCSD or  another  authority;  no  acceptable  "middle ground"  for
  combined management  has  been  identified.
                                       2-157

-------
resulted  in  a recommended  plan oriented  toward  total regionalization  of
construction,  operation, and maintenance management.   Important aspects  of
the plan included the following:

     •    The Bethel WWTP was  to  be expanded and upgraded  to  provide
          advanced treatment  (AT)  at a  design  capacity of 0.480  mgd
     •    All  other  existing  treatment   facilities   (Williamsburg,
          Batavia, Holly Towne MHP  and  Berry Gardens MHP) were to  be
          phased   out  and connected  to  an  expanded  3.060 mgd Am-Bat
          WWTP with AT
     •    The CCSD was  to be  responsible for all  construction, opera-
          tion and maintenance of  municipal sewerage  facilities in  the
          planning area.

    , The  Facilities  Plan addressed shortcomings  of  the  OKI report (OKI
1977) and used current  data and information.  The economic cost and feasi-
bility of regionalization for each existing treatment plant (four municipal
and  two  mobile home parks)  were  investigated.    The USCOE East Fork Park
package  plant  was not  included  because optimum operation  of  the  existing
facility appeared  to adequately address  water  quality goals.  The Facil-
ities Plan stated  that  only the most obviously feasible  alternatives were
presented in detail.

     The Facilities  Plan developed  sub-alternatives for each regionaliza-
tion  alternative often  involving  different sewer alignments  as   shown  in
Table  2-71.    Regional   alternatives  and  recommended  action for  on-site
disposal problems were  presented  in a special report prepared as a supple-
ment  to the  Middle  East  Fork Facilities Plan  (Balke Engineers  1983b).
General findings  and recommendations of  the study  were:

     •    Of  3,100  unsewered  homes,  about 976 were found  to  be
          "obvious  on-site  problem"  sites  inconsistent  with  public
          health and water quality standards
     •    The 976  obvious problem sites require some sort of improve-
          ment action;  the  remaining 2,124 of  3,100  were considered
          not to  be  causing significant health  or water quality  prob-
          lems and require no immediate action
     •    Sewer  extensions  from municipal  system  were recommended  for
          700 of the 976 obvious problem homes
                                 2-158

-------
Table 2-71.
Existing
Discharge

Batavia
Regionalization alternatives for municipal discharges Middle East
Fork FPA (Balke Engineers 1982a).
            Regionalization
            Alternative

       Connect to Amelia-Batavia
  Sub-Alternatives
• Direct discharge of village
  force main to Lucy Run inter-
  ceptor sewer
• Pump flow all the way to
  Amelia-Batavia WWTP
Bethel
       Connect to Amelia-Batavia
• Pump flow along State Route
  125 west to Bantam, connect
  to proposed USCOE sewer exten-
  sion
Williamsburg
       Connect to Amelia-Batavia
  Pump flow west along Old State
  Route 32s connect to Afton trunk
  sewer at Half-Acre Road
  Pump flow west along New State
  Route 32 (Appalachian Highway),
  connect to Afton Trunk sewer near
  Bauer Road
Holly Towne MHP     Connect to Amelia-Batavia
Berry Gardens MHP   Connect to Amelia-Batavia
                                     Pump flow direction to State
                                     Route 125 force main,  pressure
                                     injection system
                                     Gravity flow down Back Run to
                                     USCOE Pump Station No. 2

                                     Pump flow out of Ulrey Run
                                     swale to USCOE Pump Station
                                     No.  1
Amelia-Batavia
       Connect to Lower East Fork
         WWTP
  Gravity flow along East Fork
  to Perintown
                                 2-159

-------
     •    Improved enforcement and upgrading of  individual  septic
          systems was recommended for 276  of 976 obvious  problem
          homes.


     The study also  concluded  that community cluster systems  had  technical*

merit but  were not  implementable  under management  constraints identified

for the planning  area.   Apparent cost savings potential led  to the recom-

mendation that a demonstration cluster project be constructed  in the FPA to

evaluate technical feasibility and identify management requirements.


     The Facilities  Plan considered  the  best practicable waste  treatment

technology (BPWTT) for the Middle East Fork FPA  to include:


     •    Biological   or  physical-chemical  treatment  of  wastewaters
     •    Discharge of  treated effluents  to  surface  receiving  waters
     •    Land application of effluents.

     Other conclusions of the Facilities Plan included:


     •    Reuse  of   treated   wastewater   did  not  warrant   detailed
          evaluation

     •    On-site and non-conventional  systems  were  not  viable  alter-
          natives for municipal discharges in the FPA

     •    No obvious  revenue-generating possibilities were  identified
          for  sale  of   crops  (land  application),  soil  conditioning
          (sludge   treatment),   or   energy   (methane   from   sludge
          digestion).


Amelia-Batavia WWTP
     The Facilities  Plan developed seven component  selection alternatives

and costs for  the  Am-Bat WWTP (Table 2-72).  The  upper  limit of the capa-

city  range  of 4.8  mgd was used  to ensure  that adequate  land,  hydraulic
capacity and other fixed items were available for any combination of flows.

The  NPDES  permit  limits (advanced secondary) were  20 mg/1 BOD   (91%  re-

moval), 20 mg/1 suspended solids  (95%  removal),  3.0  mg/1 ammonia nitrogen,

summer only, and  1.0 mg/1 phosphorus.   The  effluent must be  properly dis-
infected and must contain no more than  0.5 mg/1  chlorine  residual.
                                 2-160

-------
Table 2-72.   Summary of BPWTT component selection alternatives and costs
             for the Amelia-Batavia WWTP (Balke Engineers 1982a).
     Components/Process Features

AB-1 Conventional activated sludge
     Equalization basin - 1.625 MG
     Upgrade/expand existing
     plant to 4.8 mgd
     Uses current treatment
     process plus nitrification

AB-2 Conventional activated sludge
     (% flow) and RBC (h flow)
     Equalization basin-1.625 MG
     Upgrade/expand existing
     plant to 4.8 MS- v-.-rJ
     Based on very general expan-
     sion plan developed in 1979
     (time of last plant conver-
     sion/expansion)

AB-3 Rotating biological contactor
     (RBC)
     Equalization basin-1.625 MG
     Upgrade/expand existing
     plant to 4.8 mgd
     Separate-stage nitrification
     not required

AB-4 Packed biological reactor (PBR)
     Equalization basin-1.625 MG
     Upgrade/expand existing
     plant to 4.8 mgd
     Separate-stage nitrification
     not required

AB-5 Activated biological filtration
     (ABF)
     Equalization basin-1.625 MG
     Upgrade/expand existing
     plant to 4.8 mgd
     Separate-stage nitrification
     not required
                                         Cost in 1000's Of Dollars
Initial
Prelect
Initial
Annual
 0 & M
Total
Present
 Worth
6,842.7    645.3    13,630.0
7,099.6    659.2
          14,037.4
7,917.8    624.3    14,552.8
5,880.9    603.7    12,216.0
6,105.8    709.1    13,599.1
                              2-161

-------
Table 2-72.  (Continued).

                                         Cost in 1000's Of Dollars
                                                  Initial   Total
                                        Initial   Annual    Present
     Components/Process Features        Project    0 & M     Worth

AB-6 Aerated lagoon/overland flow       11,435.8   594.2    15,696.5
     Land treatment using overland
     flow system
     Abandon existing plant, use
     for flow equalization facility;
     application site south of
     Owensville

	  Regionalization                    —        --        14,500.0
     Abandon existing plant; convey
     flow to Lower East Fork WWTP
     via gravity interceptor along
     East Fork
a
 All  alternatives  sized for  4.8  mgd average  daily flow.   Process
 features  common  to   all   include  preliminary  treatment,  flow
 equalization,   secondary   clarification,   phosphorus   removal,
 disinfection, and aerobic sludge digestion and storage.

 Requires separate stage nitrification.
£
 All  alternatives assume   land  disposal  of  digested  sludge,  an
 Alternative  Technology  qualifying  for  a  115%  total  present
 worth  cost  preference.  Costs of  land  disposal  (equipment, O&M)
 not  included in this  comparison since  they  were developed under
 a  separate  study and  are  common  to all alternatives  (    10.6e/
 1000 gallons treated, equivalent annual cost).
                              2-162

-------
     Sludge plan  features for  1.2  and 4.8 mgd facilities  are  compared in
Table 2-73.  Alternatives AB-1 through AB-5 required construction of a flow
equalization  basin  with  reinforced  concrete lining  having  a  1.625 MG
volume.

     The  sixth alternative  also recommends  flow  equalization using  the
abandoned plant facilities.   Although the Facilities Plan states that final
design of  equalization  facilities would require confirmation of peak esti-
mates, no  indication of  design considerations to  arrive at the  1.625 MG
volume were indicated or presented.

     A screening  of  Am-Bat  alternatives is presented in  Table  2-74.   Land
treatment  was  eliminated from  further  consideration on  the basis  of high
cost and social conflicts.   Regionalization was eliminated on the basis of
environmental  and social conflicts,  but  evaluation  of  the  Shayler  Run
connection alternative was recommended for detailed evaluation.   The option
to be  utilized in constructing project alternatives is  AB-4,  packed bio-
logical reactors  in  combination with a 1.625 MG  equalization  basin.   The
size of the WWTP  would  be subject to further  investigation in  the project
alternatives.

Bethel WWTP

     The Facilities Plan developed six component selection alternatives and
costs for  the  Bethel WWTP  (Table 2-75).   The  design average flow  rate of
0.800 mgd  was  that  determined in  the  Forecast  of  Flows and  Wasteloads
section of the Facilities Plan.   The NPDES permit  limits (advanced treat-
ment) were 10  mg/1 BOD,.  (94% removal),  12 mg/1 SS  (92%  removal),  1.5 mg/1
                      j                                  , }
NH -N (year round),  and  1.0  mg/1  phosphorus (or 8.34 lb/ day, whichever is
less stringent).  The effluent  must  be  properly disinfected and must con-
tain no more than 0.5 mg/1 chlorine  residual.
                                 2-163

-------
Table 2-73.   Comparison of sludge disposal plan recommendations for Amelia-
             Batavia WWTP at 1.2 and 4.8 mgd capacities (Balke Engineers
             1982a).
Rec ommenda t io n

General procedure


Digester volume

Sludge yieldd



Storage capacity

Application rate

Land requirement


Liquid transport


Application methods



Plant access
 1.2 mgd                      4.8 mgd
Cajmcitya                     Capacity

Aerobic digestion and         Same
storage, land application

Not specified0

0.8 dry ton/mgd flow          Same
4,000 gal/mgd (§4.6% solids   Same
350 dry ton/year

0.5 MG @ 60 days6

15 dry ton/acre/yr

23.3 acres
Aber Road site

10,000 gpd
26 miles round trip

High flotation vehicle
(spray and incorporation);
irrigation equipment

Via bridge (new)
from State Route 222
1,400 dry ton/year

2 MG @ 60 days6

Same

93.2 acres
Aber Road site

40,000 gpd
26 miles round trip

Same
Same
Equivalent annual cost for:

     Sludge digestion    Not specified
     & storage
     Sludge transport    Not specified
     & land disposal
                              8.6c/1,000 gal flow1

                              10.6C/1,000 gal flowf
 Source:  "Facilities Plan, Waste Treatment Sludge Disposal Project, Land
 Application Process", Clermont County Sewer District, February 1977
 (Revised May 1979).

 May qualify as an Alternative Technology (land application).

GExisting digester volume is 0.54 million gallons (1981 construction).

 Apparently does not account for phosphorus removal.
£
 Does not include sludge from 1.2 mgd Nine Mile WWTP which may be stored
 at Amelia-Batavia WWTP (additional 0.5 MG storage capacity required).

 Estimations by Balke Engineers in 1982.

                                 2-164

-------
Table 2-74.  Screening of BPWTT alternatives for the Amelia-Batavia service
             area (Balke Engineers 1982a).
Alternative

Land treatment
(using overland
flow south of
Owensville)
Techni-
 cally
Feasible?

Yes, but
difficult
Environ-
mentally
Feasible?

Possibly
Regionalization
(connect to LEF
WWTP via intercep-
tor LEF)
Yes
No
Upgrade/expand      Yes
Amelia-Batavia WWTP
(existing sites,
alternatives AB-1
through AB-5
               Yes
Comments

•  Need = 400 acres;
   extremely difficult
   to assemble
•  Conflicts with resi-
   dential areas
•  Inconsistent with
   existing interceptor
   routings
•  Not consistent with
   land use plans
•  Does not meet 115%
   I/A cost preference
   criteria
•  Eliminate from fur-
   ther consideration

•  Direct conflicts with
   environmental con-
   straints in East Fork
   valley
•  Inconsistent with land
   use plans
•  Eliminate from further
   consideration

•  Few environmental or
   social conflicts
•  Probable lowest cost
•  Evaluate in detail
 Preliminary estimate.
3It is recommended that an evaluation be made of conveying the Shayler Run

 watershed of the Amelia-Batavia collection system to the Lower East Fork

 plant (partial regional connection).
                                 2-165

-------
     The alternatives required construction of an equalization basin having
an 0.8 MG volume.  No  indication  of  design considerations  to  arrive at  the
above value were indicated or presented.

     A comparison of  interceptor  alignment options for alternative BE-5 is
presented  in  Table 2-76.   A screening of  Bethel  alternatives  is  presented
in  Table 2-75.   The  Facilities Plan determined  that  land  treatment  and
construction  of a  new  treatment plant  on  a  new  site had  questionable
aspects  of  feasibility.   However,  overland  flow was  considered  to have
distinct advantages that required closer inspection.

     Based on the  costs  presented,  the option selected was  BE-5,  region-
alization with the Am-Bat WWTP, although costs for odor control at the pump
stations  along  SR 125  were not  included  (Personal  interview, Donald  J.
Reckers, CCSD, to WAPORA, Inc.  23 August 1983).

     Regionalization became  cost-effective when  the  USCOE constructed  the
two pump  stations and force mains along  SR 125  from  Ulrey Run near Bantam
to Hamlet.   CCSD contributed  funds  for the construction  so  that  capacity
could  be provided  for  Bethel.   The costs  for  treatment at  Am-Bat were
calculated based on  advanced secondary  treatment.  The Bethel WWTP options
were costed out for advanced treatment,  with phosphorus removal.

     The CWQR continued  the recommendation of advanced treatment,  based on
the  State's  lake  policy   that  all  WWTPs tributary to  lakes must have
advanced treatment.
                                 2-166

-------
Table 2-75.   Summary of BPWTT component selection alternatives and costs
             for the Bethel WWTP (Balke Engineers 1982a).
BE-1
BE-2
BE-3
BE-4
BE-5
BE-6
                                               Cost in 1000's of Dollars
                                             Initial
                                             Project
Components/Process Features

Conventional trickling filter
with separate-stage nitrification
Equalization basin - 0.8 MG
Upgrade/expand existing plant
to 0.8 mgd

Conventional activated sludge
with separate stage nitrification
Equalization basin - 0.8 MG
Upgrade/expand existing plant to
0.8 mgd
Uses existing site and structures;
discharge to Harsha Lake

Fixed-film (rotating biological
contactor) process (RBC)
Equalization basin - 0.8 MG
Upgrade/expand existing plant to
0.8 mgd
Plan originally developed by
Village of Bethel's consultant
in 1973; discharge to Harsha Lake
Overland flow land treatment system  3,033.0
sized for 0.55 mgd average annual
flow (year 2005)
Alternative technology; applica-
tion site south of Bethel
Regionalization; connect to
Amelia-Batavia WWTP
Equalization basin - 0.8 MG
Both facilities owned by
CCSD; interceptor along
SR 125; discharge below lake

Packed biological reactor (PER)
Construct new 0.8 mgd plant on new
site; discharge to Town Run about
5,000 feet downstream of existing
site; land availability unknown
2,267.2
          Initial
          Annual
          0 & M
aAll alternatives sized for 0.81 mgd average daily design flow.
          Total
         Present
         Worth
2,498.4    219.8    4,862.8
2,998.2    225.1    5,804.4
2,683.9    217.7    5,029.2
           159.6    4,264.6
145.5    3,772.4
                    6,000.0
                                 2-167

-------
Table 2-76.
Location

West of
Bethel
Comparison of interceptor alignment options Bethel  Alternative
BE-5 (Balke Engineers 1982a).
New Bantam
Option

Gravity sewer
from WWTP to
Poplar Creek a
SR 125; force
main to Ban-
tam (55' TDH)

Gravity sewer
from WWTP to
Town Run &
SR 125; force
main to Ban-
tam (40'TDH)a
Route interceptor
along New SR 125
avoid Bantam
             Route interceptor
             along old SR 125,
             through Bantam3
   Advantages
•  Less pumping dis-
   tance
•  More flexibility
•  One stream
   crossings
•  Lower TDH
•  Less area pressured
   for development
•  Fewer developmental
   conflicts

•  Easier construction
•  No construction
   impacts on Bantam
•  Development potential

•  Keeps development
   pressure off of
   vulnerable highway
•  Coordination with
   on-site recommenda-
   tions
Disadvantages

 •  Higher construction
    cost
 •  Two stream crossings
 •  Construction impacts
    along stream
 •  Higher cost

 •  More pumping
    distance
 •  Less flexibility for
    development west of
    village
   Secondary impacts
   from development
                                            •  Construction impacts
 Selected option.
                                 2-168

-------
Batavia WWTP

     The Facilities Plan  developed seven component  selection alternatives
and costs for  the  Batavia WWTP (Table 2-77).   The design average flow rate
of  0.500 mgd  was apparently  based on I/I  data presented  in a  report  by
McGill & Smith, Inc.  (1981a).   Peak design rates for  wet-weather conditions
were  reported  to be 0.50 to  0.62 mgd depending on  storm  intensity.   Peak
rates of one mgd or  more  were estimated  but these rates would be sustained
for only three to  six  hours.   The NPDES  permit limits (advanced secondary)
were  20 mg/1  BOD  (90% removal),  20 mg/1 SS  (88% removal), and  3.0mg/l
ammonia-nitrogen, summer  only.   The effluent must be  properly  disinfected
and must contain no more than 0.5 mg/1 chlorine residual.

     The alternatives,  BA-1  - BA-3, required construction of  an equaliza-
tion basin having an 0.5  MG  volume.   Alternative BA-4  utilized  three feet
of  freeboard   in  a one acre  aerated lagoon  to provide approximately  one
million gallons of  flow equalization.  No  indication of  design consider-
ations to arrive at the above values were indicated or presented.

     A screening of  Batavia  alternatives is presented  in  Table  2-78.   The
least  costly   option was   the  regionalization  with  Am-Bat WWTP,  although
upgrading and  expanding the  existing WWTP was close  in cost-effectiveness.
                                 2-169

-------
Table 2-77.   Summary of BPWTT component selection alternatives and costs
             for the Batavia WWTP  (Balke Engineers 1982a).
                                               Cost in 1000's  of Dollars
        Components/Process Features
BA-1    Fixed film (packed biological
        reactor)  process
        Equalization basin - 0.5  MG
        Upgrade/expand existing plant to
        0.5 mgd
        Village responsible for operation
        and maintenance

BA-2    Fixed film (activated biofilter)
        process
        Equalization basin - 0.5  MG
        Upgrade/expand existing plant to
        0.5 mgd
        Village responsible for operation and
        maintenance

BA-3    High-rate trickling filter with
        separate stage nitrification
        Equalization basin - 0.5  MG
        Upgrade/expand existing plant to
        0.5 mgd
        Village responsible for operation
        and maintenance

BA-4    Upgrade/expand existing plant using
        aerated lagoon (0.5 mgd)  and
        trickling filter process (0.35 mgd)

BA-5    Optimize existing plant using
        packed biological reactor process
        (0.2 mgd) and excess flow to
        county (0.3 mgd)
        Partial regionalization;  village
        would keep and maintain existing
        plant, but peak flows would go to
        CCSD's Amelia-Batavia WWTP for
        treatment; village would reimburse
        CCSD for treatment

BA-6    Optimize existing plant using
        trickling filter process (0.15 mgd)
        and excess flow to county (0.3 mgd)
Initial
Project
1,801.4
Initial
Annual
0 & M
 121.2
1,838.8    186.1
  688.5
1,045.4
  948.5
 Total
Present
Worth
"3,087.0
          3,810.4
1,653.5    130.1    3,038.7
  80.8    1,522.4
  74.7    1,925.4
  81.85   1,882.4
                                 2-170

-------
Table 2-77.   (Continued).
        Components/Process Features3

BA-7    Regionalization (connect to
        Amelia-Batavia plant)
        Village could keep responsibility
        for collection system;  would pay
        county for sewage treatment based
        on actual costs
                                               Cost in 1000's of Dollars
Initial
Project

  803.8
Initial
Annual
0 & M
 Total
Present
Worth
  57.5    1,519.2
 Alternatives BA-1 through BA-3 recommend upgrading existing plant to
 0.5 mgd design capacity.   Alternative BA-4 recommends upgrading existing
 plant to 0.35 mgd.   Alternatives BA-5 and BA-6 recommend optimizing exist-
 ing plant capacity to 0.15 mgd to 0.2 mgd and conveying overflow to
 Amelia-Batavia plant.
Williamsburg WWTP


     The  Facilities  Plan developed  five component selection  alternatives
and costs  for the Williamsburg  WWTP (Table 2-79).  Design flows with  re-

quired  flow  equalization were referenced to Balke Engineers project  files
and presented as follows:
          Condition
          No flow equalization

          With 0.3 MG volume
          equalization basin

          With 0.7 MG volume
          aerated lagoon (storage
          portion only)

          With 0.2 MG volume
          equalization basin
          (existing aeration tanks,
          regionalization)
Plant Design Capacity
        0.60 mgd

        0.45 mgd
        0.35 mgd
        0.68 mgd
     The NPDES  permit  limits  (advanced  treatment)  were 10 mg/1  BOD   (90%

removal), 12 mg/1 SS  (88%  removal),  1.9  mg/1  ammonia-nitrogen (7-day  aver-
age),  and  1.0 mg/1 phosphorus  (or 8.34 Ib/day, whichever  is less strin-
gent).   The effluent must  be properly disinfected  and must  contain no more

than 0.5 mg/1 chlorine residual.
                                 2-171

-------
Table 2-78.   Screening of BPWTT alternatives for the Batavia WWTP  (Balke
             Engineers 1982a).
                    Yes
Alternative
Land treatment
Upgrade/expand
existing WWTP
(various processes,
Alternatives BA-1
through BA-4)
Optimize existing   Yes
WWTP with overflow
to CCSD (Alternatives
BA-5 and BA-6)
                    Techni-
                     cally
                    Feasible?
Environ-
mentally
Feasible?
                    	see discussion for
                        Amelia-Batavia WWTP-
Yes
                                   Yes
Regionalization     Yes
(connect to Amelia
Batavia WWTP via
direct force main,
Alternative BA-7)
 Preliminary estimate.
                                   Yes
Comments
•  Eliminate from further
   consideration

•  Preferred by village
   representatives
•  Land costs high
•  Evaluate in detail
                  Requires accommodation
                  of peaks at Amelia-
                  Batavia WWTP
                  Need treatment agree-
                  ment with CCSD
                  Allows village to
                  continue operation of
                  existing plant
                  Evaluate in detail

                  Probably least cost
                  Village could retain
                  ownership of collection
                  system
                  Treatment agreement
                  required
                  Evaluate in detail
     Alternative W-l requires construction of an 0.3 MG equalization basin.

Alternative W-2 uses 4.3 feet of freeboard in the aerated lagoon to provide
0.7 MG of equalization.  Alternatives W-3 and W-4 require no special equal-
ization  considerations while  alternatives  W-5 and  W-6 propose using  the

existing aeration tanks to provide 0.257 MG of equalization.  No indication
of the design  considerations  to arrive at the  above values were indicated
or presented.
                                 2-172

-------
Table 2-79.
        W-l
        W-2
        W-3
Summary of BPWTT component selection alternatives and costs for the
Williamsburg WWTP (Balke Engineers 1982a).
         W-4
                                                    Cost in 1000's of Dollars
  Components/Process Features5

  Upgrade/expand existing
  WWTP to 0.45 mgd using
  extended aeration process
  Equalization basin - 0.3 MG
  Village responsible for
  operation and maintenance

  Upgrade/expand existing
  WWTP using front-end aerated
  lagoon (0.45 mgd) and
  extended aeration process
  (0.35 mgd)
  0.7 MG equalization basin
  with 4.3 ft freeboard in
  aerated lagoon
  Village responsible for
  operation and maintenance

  Overland flow land treat-
  ment system (0.45 mgd)
  Application site east of
  village near Hagemans'
  Crossing Road

  Optimize existing WWTP
  using extended aeration
  process (0.25 mgd) and
  excess flow to county
  (0.20 mgd)
  Partial regionalization:
  village would keep and
  maintain existing WWTP,
  but peak flows would go to
  CCSD's Amelia-Batavia WWTP
  for treatment.
  Village could reimburse
  CCSD for treatment
Initial
Project

1,494.6
Initial
Annual
  O&M

 159.7
  Total
 Present
  Worth

3,281.8°
  925.6C
 122.1
2,121.4C
1,634.6
 100.9
2,440.1
l,595.4l
 105.1
2,666.8°
                                      2-173

-------
Table 2-79.   (Continued)


                                                    Cost in 1000's  of Dollars
                                                           Initial            Total
                                             Initial        Annual            Present
               Components/Process  Features3  Project          O&M             Worth

         W-5   Abandon existing plant        1,415.5C         86.3           2,251.1
               and connect to Amelia-
               Batavia system via  Old
               SR 32 0.68 mgd pumping
               capacity
               Equalization basin  - 0.257  MG
               in existing aeration tanks
               Village could keep  responsi-
               bility for collection system;
               would pay county for sewage
               treatment based on  actual
               costs; existing plant to be
               used for aerated flow equal-
               ization.

         W-6   Regionalization (connect      1,806.4°        86.3           2,700.0
               to Amelia-Batavia system
               via New SR 32) 0.68 mgd
               pumping capacity
               Equalization basin  - 0.257  MG
               in existing aeration tanks
a
 Alternatives W-l,  W-3 and W-5 sized for 0.45 mgd design flow and
 W-2 sized for 0.35 mgd design flow.

 Other sites are available with comparable characteristics.

°These costs were from Balke Engineers (1982c).
                                      2-174

-------
     A screening  of  Williamsburg alternatives is presented  in  Table  2-80.
The Facilities Plan determined that land treatment had questionable aspects
of  feasibility.   The cost effectiveness analysis  indicated  that upgrading
and  expanding  the   existing  WWTP was  less  costly  than  regionalization,
although the total present worth was nearly equal.   Upgrading and expanding
the WWTP by adding an aerated lagoon that would also provide 0.7 MG of flow
equalization  and  by upgrading  the extended aeration  components (W-2)  was
the selected option for Williamsburg.   The Clermont County Board of Commis-
sioners decided that  the  regionalization option with Williamsburg connect-
ing to the  Am-Bat system  at Afton was  not  compatible with the  purpose for
construction  of  the  interceptor,  that  of providing capacity  for  future
industry and  residential  development  (By letter, Fred W.  Montgomery,  CCSD,
to  Richard  Fitch, OEPA,  1  April 1983).  The  other  regionalization option
(W-6) was considerably more costly (Table 2-79).

Holly Towne MHP WWTP

     The Facilities Plan developed two component selection alternatives for
the Holly Towne MHP  WWTP  (Table 2-81).   These were  to upgrade  to advanced
secondary treatment  or  to eliminate the discharge by connecting the Am-Bat
system.  The  no action and optimum operation  alternatives were previously
concluded  to be  inadequate  solutions.   Final  NPDES permit  requirements
(advanced treatment) were  required to be 10 mg/1  BOD , 12  mg/1 SS, 1.9 mg/1
ammonia-nitrogen  (7-day average),  and 1.0  mg/1 phosphorus (or 8.34 Ib/day,
whichever is  less stringent).   The  effluent  must be  properly  disinfected
and must contain no more than 0.5 mg/1 chlorine residual.

     Both  alternatives were  determined  capable  of  meeting final  NPDES
permit requirements  and water quality goals.   Upgrading the existing pack-
age  plant  is  considerably  less  expensive than  connection  to   the  Am-Bat
system.  The  option of connecting to the proposed  collection  system that
would serve currently unsewered areas was not  evaluated or costed.
                                 2-175

-------
Table 2-80.   Screening of BPWTT alternatives for the Williamsburg Service Area
             (Balke Engineers 1982a).
Alternative

Upgrade/expand Williams-
burg WWTP (existing site
Alternatives W-l and W-2)
Land treatment (using
overland flow east of
Williamsburg
Alternative W-3)
Tech-
nically
Feasible?

   Yes
Environ-
mentally
Feasible?

   Yes
   Yes
Possibly
  Comments

• Sophisticated process
  needed for discharge
  to lake (high O&M
  cost)
• Evaluate in detail

• Need 50 acres @ $5,000
  per acre
• Public acceptance
  questionable (farm land,
  development plans)
• Evaluate in detail
Optimize existing WWTP and       Yes
overflow to Amelia-Batavia
WWTP (Alternative W-4)
Regionalization (connect         Yes
to Amelia-Batavia WWTP
via interceptor along
Old SR 32, Alternative W-5)
Regionalization (via new         Yes
SR 32, Alternative W-6)
                  Yes
                  Yes
                  Yes
             • Need treatment with CCSD
             • Allows village to con-
               tinue operation of exist-
               ing plant
             • Evaluate in detail

             • Village could retain
               ownership of collection
               system
             • Avoids discharge to Harsha
               Lake
             • Evaluate in detail

             • Simpler pumping configur-
               ation than W-5, but more
               expens ive
             • May have advantages in
               coordinating with land
               use plans
             • Evaluate in detail
 Preliminary estimate.
                                      2-176

-------
Table 2-81.   Summary of BPWWT component selection alternatives and costs for
             the Holly Towne MHP WWTP (Balke Engineers 1982a).
          Components/Process Features5
H-l       Upgrade existing package plant
H-2       Regionalization (connect to
          Amelia-Batavia system via
          gravity sewer down Back Run)
                                                    Cost in 1000's of Dollars
Initial
Project
63.5
149.9
Initial
Annual
O&M
15.0
0.53
Total
Present
Worth
219.8
300. 2b
 Does not include 0 & M at Amelia-Batavia (is included in TPW).
 An alternative to H-2 is to make the regional connection via a  direct
 force main to force main connection using a pump station and force main
 constructed on the MHP property.   TPW cost for this option is  $240,000.
 Capital costs are $76,200 and annual 0 & M is $500, excluding treatment.
     Berry Gardens MHP WWTP

          The Facilities Plan developed two component selection alternatives for
     the Berry Gardens MHP WWTP (Table 2-82).   These were to upgrade to advanced
     secondary treatment or  to eliminate  the discharge by connecting the Am-Bat
     system.   The  no  action and optimum operation  alternatives were previously
     concluded  to be  inadequate  solutions.   Final  NPDES permit  requirements
     (advanced treatment) were required to be 10 mg/1 BOD , 12 mg/1  SS, 1.9  mg/1
     ammonia-nitrogen  (7-day average),  and 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus (or  8.34 Ib/day,
     whichever is  less stringent).   The  effluent must be  properly disinfected
     and must contain no more than 0.5 mg/1 chlorine residual.

          Both  alternatives were  determined  capable  of  meeting  final NPDES
     permit requirements and water quality goals.   Upgrading the  existing pack-
     age  plant  was less  costly than  connection  to the  AM-Bat  system and  is,
     therefore,  the selected option.   The option of connecting to  the proposed
     collection  system  that   would  serve  currently  unsewered  areas  was  not
     evaluated or costed.
                                      2-177

-------
Table 2-82.   Summary of BPWWT component selection alternatives  and costs
             for the Berry Gardens  MHP  WWTP  (Balke Engineers  1982a).
                                               Cost in 1000's of  Dollars
                                                      Initial            Total
                                        Initial        Annual            Present
     Components/Process Features3        Project          O&M             Worth
BG-1 Upgrade existing package plant       86.3            9.0             182.1
BG-2 Regionalization (connect to          137.5            2.0a            219.5
     Amelia-Batavia system via
     gravity sewer down Ulrey Run)
o
 Does not include 0 & M at Amelia-Batavia (is  included in TPW).
2.4.   Description of Alternatives

     The  facilities planner  combined  the  most  feasible  and  compatible
collection and  treatment ifor each  community into a system alternative  in
the Draft Facilities Plan.   In subsequent revisions to  the Facilities Plan,
new system alternatives were  developed  based on changes  in the  options  for
certain  communities.   The  system  alternatives  represent combinations  of
conveyance options for  wastewater flows, different treatment  levels,  siting
options, effluent discharge location  options,  and sludge disposal  options.

     The areas proposed to  be sewered expanded subsequent to the  publica-
tion  of the  Draft  Facilities Plan  in response  to  public comments.   The
alternative considered only general recommendation for the unsewered areas
that would not be  sewered.   The system alternatives and  the  costs associ-
ated with them are presented in the  following sections.
                                 2-178

-------
2.4.1.  No Action Alternative

     The  alternative  of   "no  action"  essentially  would permit  existing
on-site systems and other wastewater treatment facilities in the study area
to continue operation  without  modification,  upgrading, and/or replacement.
The "no action" alternative  implies  that USEPA would not  provide  funds  to
support new  construction,  upgrading,  or expansion  of  existing wastewater
treatment systems.   Presumably,  no  new  facilities  would  be  built;  waste-
water  would  still  be  treated  in  existing  plants  and  on-site  systems.
Existing  environmental  problems  associated with on-site  systems and WWTPs
would  persist  and could worsen  if  no Federal funds were  provided  for up-
grading the existing facilities.

     The  "no action" alternative does not preclude enforcement by  Ohio EPA
of the  effluent limits and  elimination  of  the  sewage  bypasses.   In that
case,  local funds  would be required  for  upgrading  the  wastewater  systems.
The Clermont County  Health Department could  enact  specific regulations for
requiring on-site  system  upgrades  and for precluding  installation  of new
on-site systems  in areas  poorly  suited for  them.   Ohio  EPA  could  declare
the FPA  a special  health  hazard and could  dictate what  measures  must  be
pursued by the  locals,  at  local  expense, to  mitigate those health  hazards.
Ohio EPA  has  issued  a connection  ban for Bethel  and would  likely issue
connection bans  for Batavia,  Williamsburg,  and  the  Am-Bat  system  in the
near future if the "no action"  alternative were followed.  The connection
ban could include the unsewered areas as well.
     Should growth stop in sewered  areas, the adverse consequences  would  be
such that villages  as  well as  the county  would  lose potential development
and anticipated population increase.   Water quality problems could  continue
to worsen.   Degradation of the physical  environment,  including William  H.
Harsha Lake could  occur.

     Continued  growth   in  unsewered  areas could result in further  aggra-
vation of  widespread on-site  problems.   Local water  quality  could  worsen
considerably  resulting  in health  hazards and an  increase in complaints.
Growth would  continue  in  unsewered  areas due to the  inability of  sewered
                                 2-179

-------
areas to accept new  growth,  placing increased pressure on unsewered areas.
Growth  would  become sporadic  and  uncontrolled and  would be  inconsistent.
with land use plans.
                                                                           v
     Because of severe water  quality problems,  degradation of  the physical
environment, problems  with  public   services,  and  damage  to  marketability,
the area could take on negative values and not be  aesthetically pleasing.
This would tend to lessen the attraction of persons  and subsequent growth
in the area.

     In summary,  the  "no action" alternative  is not acceptable.   Implemen-
tation  of  one  of  the  "build" alternatives will be necessary  to  eliminate
the environmental  problems  that are associated under  existing  conditions
and with the "no action"  alternative.

2.4.2.  Alternative Developed in Draft Wastewater  Facilities  Plan

     The Draft  Facilities Plan recoramendeS alternative  included  construc-
tion of collection sewers in 15 selected areas;  construction of the Shayler
Run and Bethel  interceptor  sewers;  upgrading and expanding  existing WWTPs
at  Am-Bat,  Batavia,  and  Williamsburg;  upgrading WWTPs  at  the Holly Towne
and  Berry  Gardens  MHPs;  and  abandoning  the  existing WWTP  at  Bethel
(Figure 2-22).   The  recommended alternative  included least total  present
worth  dollars  in  all cases  except  Batavia  where  implementation  was  the
over-riding issue.
     The  Draft  Facilities Plan  was  developed with  the  following effluent
limits and degrees of treatment for WWTP designs:
Am-Bat

Bethel
Batavia

Williamsburg
MHPs
BOD
(mg/1)
  20
  10
  20

  10
  10
12
20

12
12
   NH -N
    filil
    3

    1.5
    3

    1.9
    1.9
2-180
                    P
                  fr.8/1).
                     1
 1
N/A

 1
 1
                                                       Treatment Level
Advanced secondary
treatment (AST)
P removal
Advanced treatment
(AT) P removal
Advanced secondary
treatment (AST)
Advanced treatment
(AT) P removal
Advanced treatment
(AT)

-------
     For the Am-Bat  system  the recommended option (AB-4) was upgrading and
expanding the existing WWTP  because  it was lowest in initial project capi-
tal, initial annual  O&M,  and total present worth  costs.   Only the aerated
lagoon/overland flow component alternative AB-6 published subsequent to the
Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan (Balke Engineers  1982a) was lower in initial
annual O&M by 1.5%.  Other evaluation factors did not impact significantly on
the selection of this component alternative.
     Alternative  AB-4  included  expanding  the  existing  Am-Bat  WWTP  to
3.0 ragd  average  daily design  flow  and  utilized  the  following  treatment
train: preliminary  treatment;  flow  equalization in a  1.6 MG  basin;  primary
clarification;   packed  biological   reactors   (PBR);   phosphorus   removal;
secondary clarification;  chlorination/dechlorination;  aerobic sludge diges-
tion;  and land application of solids.

     The PBR process  provided advantages  of improved reliability,  nitrifi-
cation,   and simplified  operation  at  a   lower  overall  cost  per  volume
treated.  Cost benefits also  accrued by conveying part of  the Am-Bat sys-
tems flow to the Lower East Fork WWTP.

     Alternative AB-6 proposes  to  treat equalized flows from Bethel at the
Am-Bat WWTP.  For Bethel,  the recommended  option (BE-5) was regionalization
with the Am-Bat  system because it was lowest  in  initial  project  capital,
initial annual O&M,  and total present  worth costs.   Other  evaluation fac-
tors did not impact significantly on the selection of this component alter-
native.   Alternative  BE-5  included  an  0.8 MG  flow equalization basin  and
pumping  to  the  Am-Bat   system  along SR 125 using  the  existing  USGOE
interceptor.

     For Batavia, the recommended option (BA-4) was upgrading and  expanding
the existing WWTP  because it  was  lowest  in initial  project capital costs
and was  among those  alternatives easiest  to implement.  Although regionali-
zation with  connection  to the  Am-Bat  system (BA-7) was lowest in  initial
annual  O&M  and  present worth costs and displayed other  evaluation factor
advantages,   it  was  rejected  in   favor  of   BA-4  primarily   due   to
implementabili ty.
                                 2-181

-------
THIS  AREA
TO  LOWER
EAST FORK
 WWTP
               UPGRADE/EXPAND  WWTP
           A  ABANDON  EXISTING  WWTP
         	EXISTING  INTERCEPTOR
            •  --PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
   Figure 2-22. Recommended plan from the Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan
               Middle East Fork Area Clermont County, Ohio (Bake Engineers I982a).
                                      2-182

-------
     Alternative BA-4  included  expanding the existing Batavia WWTP to 0.35
mgd average daily  design flow and utilized  the  following  treatment train,
preliminary  treatment;  flow  equalization  (1.0 MG),  primary  treatment,
sludge digestion and  storage  in"the 3.2 MG aerated basin;  trickling filters;
packed biological reactors; secondary clarification; chlorination/dechlori-
nation; and land application of solids.

     For  Williamsburg,  the  recommended option  (W-2)  was upgrading  and
expanding  the  existing WWTP  because it was the  lowest  in initial project
capital  and  present   worth costs  of   the  considered local  alternatives.
Regionalization  alternative W-5 was the overall  lowest  in initial project
capital,  annual  O&M,   and  total present worth costs  and provided  the best
reliability and  flexibility but was rejected in favor of W-2 primarily due
to implementability, impacts on community, and land use planning.

     The  Afton  interceptor  was  specifically  designed  and installed  to
provide  an  economic   stimulus  in  central  Clermont  County.  Future  flow
increases  were  anticipated but  were not specifically  flows  from Williams-
burg.  Much of  the "growth reserve" in  the  Afton trunk  line would be used
up by  Alternative  W-5  unless  peak discharge rates  from  other  sources were
reduced.

     Alternative W-2  included expanding the existing  Williamsburg WWTP to
0.35 mgd  average daily  design  flow and  utilized  the following treatment
train, preliminary  treatment; flow  equalization (0.7 MG),  sludge digestion
and storage  in a  1.6  MG aerated basin; extended  aeration;  phosphorus  re-
moval;  secondary  clarification;   chlorination/dechlorination;   and  land
application of solids.

     For  the  Holly Towne MHP and the  Berry  Gardens MHP,   the  recommended
options (H-l and BG-1) were upgrading the existing WWTPs because they were
lowest in  initial  project  capital and total present worth costs.  Although
in both  cases,  regionalization  was  significantly  lower in  initial annual
O&M,  issues  of  responsibility and  enforcement  favored  the  recommended
alternatives.  The  alternatives  H-l  and BG-1 included equipment replacement
and the addition of sand filtration.
                                  2-183

-------
     A categorical  cost  breakdown analysis, including  estimated  construc-
tion, total project, 1985 initial  annual  O&M, and  total  present  worth costs
for  the  recommended plan  is  presented in  Table  2-83.   The more  detailed
data upon which the presented  analysis is  based  is contained  in Appendix D
(Tables D-1   through D-27 .    The  recommended  plan  has an estimated  con-
struction cost of $8,168,286,  estimated  total  project cost of $11,151,249,
estimated  1985 initial annual O&M cost is $867,442, and  estimated total
present worth cost  of  $19,115,583.   These  costs  do  not  include all  of the
1985 initial annual  O&M  and  total present  worth  costs of the  sewers  or the
total project cost of the sludge  management program.

2.4.3.  Alternatives Altered  in Addendum to Draft Facilities Plan

     As a result  of responses  to  OEPA and  USEPA  comments  and public hear-
ings, the following changes  were  made in  the  Draft Wastewater Facilities
Plan recommendations:

     Changes Resulting from OEPA/USEPA Comments Dated 1/11/83

     •    Batavia WWTP would  be  abandoned; flows would  be  treated at
          CCSD's Middle East  Fork Regional  WWTP
     «    Middle  East  Fork Regional  WWTP  capacity would be increased
          to approximately 3.6 mgd
     •    On-site   demonstration   project   would  be   excluded  from
          recommendations.
     _Changea Resulting from Public Hearing  Input
     •    Batavia WWTP would  be abandoned (as above)
     »    Some sewer recommendations  would be  re-evaluated, including
          some areas not previously recommended for sewers.
     j)ther Changes
     •    New  alternative  for Williamsburg  (W-8) would  be developed
     •    Recommended  location for  Bethel Interceptor pump  station
          would change.
                                 2-184

-------
Table 2-83.  Categorical cost breakdown for the recommended plan from the Draft Facilities
             Plan Middle East Fork FPA (Balke Engineers 1982a) .

                          Construction   Total Project   Total  Present   Initial Annual
       Cojst Category      	Cost          Cost	Worth      	Q&M

Am-Bat (3.0 mgd) AST
       Treatment works      2,956,000      3,693,900        8,485,300        459,598
       Sludge management      153,000             NAa       1,698,100        122,400
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES                   —          126,492
       -  Rehabilitation         —          227,400
       -  Subtotal               —          353,892
       New collector sewers 1,138,885      1,423,981               NA             NA
       Interceptor sewers     324,300        405,300        1,114,083             NA
         (Shayler Run)
       Subtotal             4,572,185      5,877,073       11,297,483        581,998

Bethel
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation         —          200,000
       -  Subtotal               —          200,000
       New collector sewers 1,148,732      1,435,916               NA             NA
       Interceptor sewers     990,300      1,237,500        3,772,400         58,519
         (Bethel)
       Subtotal             2,139,032      2,873,416        3,772,400         58,519

Batavia (0.35 mgd) AST
       Treatment works        528,900        688,500        1,522,400         80,825
       Inf iltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES                   —           66,600
       -  Rehabilitation         —          200,000
       -  Subtotal               —          266,600
       New collector sewers    71,568         89,460               NA             NA
       Interceptor sewers        —             —               —             —
       Subtotal               600,468      1,044,560        1,522,400         80,825

Williamsburg (0.35 mgd) AT
       Treatment works        736,500        925,600        2,121,400        122,100
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES                   —           80,800
       -  Rehabilitation         —          200,000
       -  Subtotal               —          280,800
       New collector sewers      —             —               —             —
       Interceptor sewers        —
       Subtotal               736,500      1,206,400        2,121,400        122,100
                                           2-185

-------
Table 2-83.  (Continued.)

                          Construction   Total  Project    Total  Present    Initial  Annual
       Cost Category      	Cost          Cost	Worth	O&M


Holly Towne MHP (0.03 mgd) AT
       Treatment works         50,800        63,500         219,800         15,000
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers      —             —                —             —
       Interceptor sewers         —             —                —             —
       Subtotal                50,800        63,500         219,800         15,000

Berry Gardens MHP (0.01 mgd)  AT
       Treatment works         69,000        86,300         182,100          9,000
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers      —             —                —             —
       Interceptor sewers         —             —                —
       Subtotal                69,000        86,300         182,100          9,000

Totals (3.74 mgd)
       Treatment works      4,341,200      5,457,800       12,531,000        686,523
       Sludge management      153,300            NA        1,698,100        122,400
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES                   —          273,892
       -  Rehabilitation         —          827,400
       -  Subtotal               —-        1,101,292
       New collector sewers 2,359,486      2,949,357              NA             NA
       Interceptor sewers    1,314,600      1,642,800        4,886,483         58,519
       Totals               8,168,286     11,151,249       19,115,583        867,442
a
 Cost data were not available.
                                           2-186

-------
     Some disadvantages identified by the facilities planner of the revised
recommended plan, presented in detail ir Map 6 and in summary in Figure 2-23,
were:
     •    Direct  contradiction  to  desires  of  elected  officials  in
          Village of Batavia to maintain the treatment plan  may cause
          implementation difficulties

     •    Loss of some community autonomy in Batavia

     •    County takes over "problem"  system in Batavia

     •    Firm O&M commitment required at Williamsburg WWTP and Bethel
          Interceptor pump station

     •    Correction of many  on-site  problems has high  cost,  and  may
          cause economic hardships in some areas

     •    Structural solutions  to many on-site problems are  not pos-
          sible, and available  management  solutions  do not completely
          address problem

     •    Some adverse  impacts  during  construction,  largely mitigable
          by careful design and construction supervision, and specifi-
          cation of erosion control measures.


     The  recommended  changes were apparently developed  with  the following

effluent limits and degrees of treatment for WWTP designs:
Am-Bat
BOD

(mg/D

  20
  SS

(mg/1)


  20
                                                       Treatment Levels
          N/A     Advanced secondary
                  treatment (AST)
Bethel
Batavia
  10
  20
  12
  20
1.5
          N/A
Advanced treatment
(AT) P removal

Advanced secondary
treatment (AST)
Williams burg     10
MHPs             10
            12
            12
            1.9
            1.9
                  Advanced treatment
                  (AT) P removal

                  Advanced treatment
                  (AT)
                                2-187

-------
THIS  AREA

TO  LOWER

EAST FORK

 WWTP
                                                                      WILUAMS3URS
                                                                         WWTP
             AMELIA   f
                            A
                      HOLLY TOWNE
                        WHP WWTP
                                  A
                              BERRY GARDENS
                                 WWTP

           A  UPGRADE/EXPAND WWT?

           A  ABANDON  EXISTING WWTP

         	EXISTING  INTERCEPTOR

         	PROPOSED  INTERCEPTOR
  Figure 2-23.  Recommended plan from the revised sheets for Section 7.0,
                "Recommended Plan" and Section 8.0, "Implementation"

                (By letter, Fred W. Montgomery, Clermont County Sewer District,

                to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, 1 April 1983).
                                     2-188

-------
     For  the  Am-Bat  system, the recommended change in option (AB-4) was to
 expand  the  existing  WWTP to 3.6 mgd average daily design flow and utilize
 the  following  treatment  train,  preliminary treatment; flow equalization in
 a  1.6  MG basin; primary  clarification;  packed  biological  reactors (PER);
 secondary clarification; chlorination/dechlorination;  aerobic sludge diges-
 tion;  and  land application of solids.  Phosphorus removal was not included
 in this  recommended option  because the draft NPDES permit did not require a
 phosphorus  discharge  limitation  (By  telephone,  Richard  Fitch,  OEPA,  to
 Charles  Brasher, USEPA, 1 March 1984).

     For  the  Williamsburg  system,  changes  were made  which  resulted  in
 increases  in  the  estimates  for  treatment works total  project  and  total
 present  worth costs.  Construction  and total  project  costs for  new col-
 lector sewers  were also added.

     No  changes were made for the recommended  alternatives for the motile
home parks.
     A  categorical  cost breakdown analysis,  including  estimated  construc-
 tion,  total project, 1985 initial annual O&M, and  total present worth costs
 for  the  changed  recommended plan  is  presented in Table 2-84.  The more
 detailed  data upon which  the presented analysis  is  based  is contained in
 Appendix D, Tables D-28  through D-39.   The changed recommended plan has an
 estimated construction cost of  $8,539,240, estimated total project cost of
 $11,630,212,  estimated 1985 initial  annual O&M  cost of $724,019,  and esti-
 mated  total  present  worth cost of $17,592,083.  These costs do not include
 all  of the  1985  initial annual O&M and total  present worth costs of the
 sewers  or  the total  project  cost  of  the sludge management  program.   In
 addition, these  costs  do not include the  Middle East Fork (Am-Bat) WWTP's
 share  of sludge  transportation and application  equipment  costs,  storage
 building  and  shop  costs,   and  bridge  (not grant-eligible)  and  access road-
 costs estimated at $186,100, $62,900 and $123,250 respectively.   These figures
 were developed in the  responses to comments by Balke Engineers  (By letter,  Fred
 Montgomery,  CCSD,  to Richard Fitch, OEPA,  11  February  1983)  for  a 4.8 mgd
 facility.  The total cost to the MEF plant was estimated at $1,485,600 with
 a  total  present  worth  cost of $3,080,205.   Both values  includes sludge
 digestion and  holding  costs.

                                 2-189

-------
Table 2-84.
Categorical cost breakdown for the recommended plan presented in Reviseds
Sheets for Sections 7.0 and 8.0 (By letter,  Fred W. Montgomery, CCSD, to
Richard Fitch, OEPA, 1 April 1983) for the MiddJe East Fork FPA.
       Cost Category      	
Am^Bat (3.6 mgd) AST
       Treatment works
       Sludge management
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
         (Shayler Run)
       Subtotal
             Construction
                  Cost
Bethel
                ,161,100
                 153,000
               4,988,160
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       Subtotal

_B_at_avl a
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correcti6n
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       Batavia pumping
       Subtotal

Wiinamsburg (0.35 mgd) AT
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       Subtotal
                 153,640

                 890,140
Total Project   Total Present
    Cost             Worth
3,950,670
       NAS
                   8,015,800
                   1,698,100
                              Initial Annual
                                     O&M
388,8CO
122,400
—
—
—
349,760
324,300
126,492
227,400
353,892
1,687,200
405,300



NA
1,114,083
6,397,062
                  10,827,983
   80,800
  200,000
  280,800
  192,050

1,440,750
                          NA

                   2,280,000
511,2CO
—
—
1,391,840
990,300
2,382,140
200,000
200,000
1,739,800
1,237,500
3,177,300


NA
3,884,000°
3,884,000


NA
58,519
58,519
56,000
103,000
159,000
736,500
66,600
200,000
266,600
70,000
128,700
465,300
967,900
NA
198,200
198,200
2,280,000
NA
8,200
8,200
122,100
     NA

122,100
                                           2-190

-------
Table 2-84.  (Continued.)
       Cost Category
Construction
     Cost
Total Project
    Cost
Total Present
     Worth
Initial Annual
       O&M
Holly Towne MHP (0.03 mgd) AT
       Treatment works         50,800
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers        —
       Subtotal                50,800

Berry Gardens MHP (0.01 mgd) AT
       Treatment works         69,000
       Inf iltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       Subtotal                69,000
Totals
       Treatment works      4,017,400
       Sludge management      153,000
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers 2,951,240
       Interceptor sewers   1,417,600
       Total                8,539,240
                    63,500
                    63,500
                    86,300
                    86,300
                  ,068,370
                        NA
                   273,892
                   827,400
                 1,101,292
                 3,689,050
                 1,771,500
                11,630,212
                     219,800
                     219,800
                     182,100
                     182,100
                  10,697,700
                   1,698,100
                          NA
                   5,196,283
                  17,592,083
                     15,000
                     15,000
                      9,000
                      9,000
                    534,900
                    122,400
                         NA
                     66,719
                    724,019
 Cost data were not available.
 Does not include costs of Batavia pumping.
cFrom summary of changes made to recommended plan (By letter,  Fred W.  Montgomery,  CCSD,
 to Richard Fitch, OEPA, 11 February 1983).
                                           2-191

-------
2.4.4.  Alternatives Altered by AT Requirement in Facilities Plan


     Balke Engineers  prepared  a  technical  supplement  to  the Middle  East
Fork  Wastewater   Facilities  Plan  (By  letter,  Richard   Record,   Balke

Engineers, to Richard  Fitch,  OEPA,  18 May 1983).  This report  provided  an
analysis of the effect of revised effluent limits (as proposed by Ohio EPA)

on  alternatives and  recommendations.   A comparison of  effluent  limits for

the  Middle  East   Fork  (Am-Bat)  WWTP  is presented  in  Table 2-85.   The
effluent  limits for  discharges tributary to Marsha Lake were  not  changed.
Table 2-85.  Comparison of effluent limits (30-day) for Middle East Fork
             WWTP (Amelia-Batavia)  WWTP.
Parameter
SS (mg/1)

Fecal coliform
(#/100 ml)
 Limits Used in
Draft Facilities
	Plan	

        20

        20

     1,000


   3.0  (summer)
   Draft
NPDES Permit'
  (2/7/83)

     20

     20

  1,000


3.0  (summer)
Phosphorus (mg/1)

Oil & grease
(mg/1)

pH (units)

Chlorine residual

DO (mg/1)
1.0
10
6.5 to 9.0
0.5
5.0
N/A
10
6.5 to 9.0
0.5
5.0
                                                              L im i t s
                                                            proposed
                                                             by OEPA
                                                              (5/3/83)
                                                                (12)'

                                                             (l.OOO)1
                                                              1.0 (summer)
                                                              3.4 (winter)

                                                                (N/A)b

                                                                (io)b
                                                            (6.5 to 9.0)'
                                                              7.0 (summer)
                                                              5.0 (winter)
'This permit was never issued (ay letter, Gregory H. Smith, OEPA, Lo Gene Wojcik,
^USEPA, 27 March 1984).
 Not specified in the letter; values in parentheses are assumed.  For SS,  value
 of 12 mg/1 would be needed, in all probability, to reach CBOD,. level of 10 mg/1.
                                  2-192

-------
     For the Am-Bat  system,  the effluent limits would require the addition
of final polishing units,  such as mixed media  filtration  to  the treatment
train.   Phosphorus  removal  would not  be required.   No changes in effluent
limits for the Williamsburg system or the MHPs were projected  at that time.

     A  categorical  cost breakdown analysis,  including estimated construc-
tion, total project,  1985 initial annual O&M, and total present worth costs
for the plan: with modified effluent limits is presented in Table 2-86.   The
detailed data  upon  which  the  presented analysis is based  is  contained in
Appendix D, Tables D-40 through D-46 .   These  figures  include  updated  cost
data  provided  by  Balke Engineers  in  additional  information  for  Summary
Report  on  Segmental  Approach  for the  Bethel  Area  (By letter,  Donald J.
Reckers, CCSD, to Gregory Binder, OEPA,  12 July 1983).   The modified recom-
mended  plan  has  an   estimated  construction  cost  of  $9,585,000 estimated
total project  cost $13,015,892,  estimated 1985 initial annual  O&M  cost of
$800,837,  and  estimated  total  present worth  cost of  $20,364,383.   These
costs do not  include  all of the  1985 initial  annual  O&M and  total  present
worth costs  of the  sewers or  all of  the costs for  the  sludge management
program presented in the preceding section.

2.4.5.  Reanalysis of Individual System Areas

     The problem areas  delineated by  Balke Engineers (I983b)  were reevalu-
ated  for  feasibility  and  costs  of  upgrading  on-site systems.   Certain
elements of  analysis  of  the  existing systems were  not  included  in  the
Facilities Plan  and  the assumption concerning  what on-site systems should
be upgraded  were at  variance  with the  Region V guidance  for  needs docu-
mentation  (USEPA I983a).   The  unit costs  utilized in the  Facilities  Plan
were somewhat higher  than those reported locally.

     The range of options considered  are presented in Section2.3.2.5.  USEPA
policy  specifies  that  all  feasible  options  be  considered  for evaluation,
even  those that  may  not meet  the Ohio Home Sewage Disposal  Rules (USEPA
1983a).   The  technical options  selected,  though,  must  adequately  protect
the water quality and health of the residents.
                                 2-193

-------
Table 2-86.  Categorical cost breakdown for the recommended plan for revised effluent
             limits for the Middle East Fork FPA (By letter,  Richard Record, Balke
             Engineers, to Richard Fitch,  OEPA, 18 May 1983).
       Cost Category
Construction
     Cost
Am-Bat
       Treatment works
       Mixed media
         filtration
       Sludge management
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       (Shayler Run)
       Subtotal
Bethel
  3,161,100

    962,000
    153,000
  1,351,920
    324,300

  5,952,320
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       (Bethel)
       Subtotal

Batavia
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       Subtotal

Williamsburg
       Treatment works
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers
       Interceptor sewers
       Subtotal
    736,500
    153,640

    890,140
Total Project
    Cost
  3,950,370

  1,202,500
         NAa
    126,492
    227,400
    353,892
  1,699,900
    436,980

  7,643,642
Total Present
     Worth	

   8,015,835

   2,296,565
   1,698,100
Initial Annual
	O&M	

    376,818

     88,800
    122,400
          NA
   1,114,083

  13,124,583
    967,900
     80,800
    200,000
    280,800
    192,050

  1,440,750
  2-194
   2,280,000
          NA

    2,280,000
         NA
         NA

    588,018
1,391,840
1,071,900
2,463,740
200,000
200,000
1,739,800
1,386,600
3,326,400
NA
4,359,700
4,359,700
NA
58,519
58,519
	
—
56,000
103,000
159,000
66,600
200,000
266,600
70,000
128,700
465,300


NA
198,200
198,200


NA
8,200
8,200
    122,100
         NA

     122,100

-------
Table 2-86.  (Continued.)
       Cost Category
Construction
     Cost
Total Project
    Cost
Total Present
     Worth
Initial Annual
       O&M
Holly Towne MHP
       Treatment works         50,800
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers      —
       Interceptor sewers        —
       Subtotal                50,800

Berry Gardens MHP
       Treatment works         69,000
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers      —
       Interceptor sewers        —
       Subtotal                69,000

Totals (3.74 mgd)
       Treatment works      4,979,400
       Sludge management      153,000
       Infiltration/Inflow
         correction
       -  SSES
       -  Rehabilitation
       -  Subtotal
       New collector sewers 2,953,400
       Interceptor sewers   1,499,200
       Total                9,585,000
                    63,500
                     219,800
                    63,500
                    86,300
                    86,300
                 6,270,570
                        NAa
                   273,892
                   827,400
                 1,101,292
                 3,691,750
                 1,952,280
                13,015,892
                     219,800
                     182,100
                     182,100
                  12,994,300
                   1,698,100
                          NA
                   5,671,983
                  20,364,383
                     15,000
                     15,000
                      9,000
                      9,000
                    611,718
                    122,400
                         NA
                     66,719
                    800,837
 Cost data were not available.
 Does not include Batavia pumping.
                                           2-195

-------
     The costs  for  the sewers  and treatment from the  facilities  planning
documents were used  for comparisons with  the  on-site  systems  costs.   Opera-
tion and maintenance costs  for  the pump  stations  were not  included  and  the
typical  CCSD  charges  for  sewer system  connections  were included,  rather
than the incremental costs of providing additional WWTP capacity  and inter-
ceptor costs.

     The disaggregation  of  projected  population  for  the  entire  FPA  was
completed  by   Balke Engineers  (1982a).   Of   the   projected  population  of
40,987 in year 2005, a  total of  31,225  would  be  sewered, with 9,762 remain-
ing on on-site systems.  Currently, 10,645  residents  are on on-site systems
and sewer  extensions by  1985 would serve 2,064 of these residents.  Thus,
population  growth   in  unsewered  areas  would  total   1,181  residents,   or
approximately 410 houses.

     In the Facilities  Plan, much of the  population growth was projected to
occur in the projected  sewer service areas  surrounding the  villages and  for
the  Am-Bat system.   If  sewers  were not  constructed within  these areas,
little or  no  growth would  occur within these  areas.   Then,  assuming  the
population  growth in  the Am-Bat  service area would  occur irrespective of
sewer  extensions  into  the   unsewered  area,   the  population  growth  in  the
unincorporated  area is  3,062  residents,  or approximately  1,060  houses.

     The costs  for  sewer  extensions is presented  in  Appendix E,  Table E-2,
and  the  calculation of  total  present  worth  in Table E~l.  The  component
selection  for  the  on-site  systems is presented  in   Appendix  E,  Table  E~4
through  Table  E-65,  and  the  calculation of   total present worth  costs is
presented  in  Table  E-3.   The comparison of  total present worth  costs  be-
tween sewering  and  on-site  systems is  presented  in Table  2-87.   The total
present  worth  costs for on-site  systems are estimated high, with a high
level  of  service provided  by  the  central  management  agency and  a high
estimate of system  failures projected.   Based on  records of  repairs, it is
highly unlikely that  the  projected number of  repairs would  be  necessary
during the  planning  period.   Alsok the high  cost  of  constructing roadside
drainage ditches  to State  highway specification   appears  unwarranted.   If
subsurface drainage  along back  lot lines were constructed in place of open
                                 2-196

-------
 14

 O
 CO

 >\
 CO


 0)
 CO
 I
 a
 o
 a
 cfl

 CO
 a
 o
•r-i
 CO
 a
 cu
 4J
 I-l
 HI

 3
 CO

 e
 CD
 cu
P-I
H
 CO
 o
 o









CO
4-1
CO
>,
CO

cu
1 1
•H
CO
1
a
0









CU
o
cfl
14-1
r-l
3
CO
Xi
3
00



cu
00
CO
a
cfl
i-i
a

cu
CJ
cfl
£
co














r-i
cd
•H
4-1
•r-l
^

I-l
Cfl
4-1
O
H


cu
60
cfl
a
•H
CO
U
O











g
3
0


r-i
«
4-1
•H
!
1

5
Pti
H





!3
PH
H




I
CO
4-1
CO
O
CJ

4-1
CO
O
(X CJ
CO
CJ









a
o
, J
CO
a
cu
S
w

S-l
CU
CU
CO





4J
a x:
r-i CU J-1
Cfl CO M
4-> CU O
O s-i 3
H Oi


4-1
a
0) X-N 4-1
s g w
0 i« O
cfl O CJ
CU v_x
l-l
H


I"K
r-i Cfl
CO 4J 4-1
4-1 TH CO
O ft O
HflU
                                  OoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

                                  OoOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  O  O  O O
                                   C7\  CN  CO     •<)• CN  r- It— I  CM CN i— It— It— I
                                              oo  •— ivO'-ocyicy\.3'CN.jtij''ioO.— i
                                  •co- in  CN  -3-
                                  m  vo  m  ir>  o in •*
                                  rH  00  CN  •<)•  U~l r~- O
                                  i-H  O  

 O  X>
     o
 a   ^
 o   a,
 CO
 t«   cO
 a w
     §VJ
     cu
o   u
oo
 I
CN
t}
R!
"O
S-l
O
fc,
a
o
•i-i
4-1
Cfl
CJ
O
rJ
k
13
CU
a
a
m
a
visions
. area
•H 4J
2 M
3 a
CO O
CO
CU r-l
CU -H
FQ S
CO r-i
0) CU
)-i J2
CO 4J
cu
• pa
4-1
CO U-l
o
>,
4-1 CO
•H
Wi ro
CO co
X3 r-l
U
0)
co co
d area
of Bethel
pJ
w
4-J
t-l "">
0 CN
ft r-l
M
•H Pi
<3 co
Rd west section
east section
ampbell St.
tarn Rd.

t>0
a
•H
M
U
cfl
4-1
CO
cj a
us oa
cl
a xi cfl
34-14.1
o 3 a
U O cfl
pa co pa
T3 T3
pi a ti
3 0
VJ PS 0
cu a
r-i ,*J 0
•H CJ CJ
W cfl
x> pa 13
ta m
CN LJJ >-,
a i-l r-i
O „ >M~l
4J Pi M O
co i-i co j-i tc
cu cu cu
j_i >H IM pa .
CJ O 4-1
<: «
•o
00 t-i
a o
•i-l IW
l-l CO
r-i a
O 3
Pi ,-J
- g
"& M I
CO CU
CN O i-i
CN cfl
CN w -a
•H a
Pi co -H
W ft, iJ
x-^
•n cfl
Pi -H
T3 CO
a *J
•H Cfl
J PQ
^-^
a^ .
a -u
CU CO
1-)
>1
<& r-{
H
Vw
Q ^

>-> ^
a u
a co
CU r-i
O CJ
60
W
rfi 60
- Jj
S 3
XI
^M -
0 S
5e u-i
0
CO
co rs
r^
CN
i« CO
vo Pi
r^. c/D
CN
TJ
K! r-i
CO O
ma & Greenbush-Cobb
of W'burg
r-l
Cfl CO
P4
CO
ca co
rJ i-l

CU Pi
O CO
 0)
r-i
JQ
 CO
H
                                                                                       CO CN     P")
                                                                                         •   « 10    «
                                                                                        CN CN     (O
                                                                           2-197

-------
ditches along  the  roads, the  difference in construction costs  ($3  rather
than  $14.70  per lineal  foot)  is  considerable.  The  total present  worth
costs  were  recalculated  to  reflect  this difference  and  these costs  are
presented in Table  2-87.   The costs  of constructing  ditches  ranged  from 15%
to 50% of the  total  present  worth cost  in  some  problem areas.   After this
change in costs was calculated,  the only  problem  area where  sewers  were
more cost-effective than on-site  systems was the South Charity  Street area
of Bethel (Problem  Area 4).

     By  conscientious  application  of water  conservation  practices,  con-
siderable cost  savings  beyond  the  costs  presented  are possible.   Also,
provisions  for  less  costly  septage  and blackwater  holding  tank  wastes
disposal are  possible  by having  a  local location  for  treatment  and  dis-
posal, in addition  to an area-wide contract  for hauling.

2.4.6.  Evaluation  and  Comparison of Alternatives

     The alternatives presented in the Facilities Plan and its  supplemental
documents are evaluated and  compared within  this section.  Because  final
effluent limits have not yet  been established,  final alternatives cannot be
fully developed at  the  present time.   Thus,  qualitative comparisons between
alternatives are made between the options of which the alternatives consist.
2.4.6.1.  Projected Wastewater Flows

     The  projected  wastewater flows  presented  in the  Facilities Plan did
not account  for all system overflows and included estimated removals of inflow
of 75%.   As  presented  in Section 2.3.2., the inclusion of overflows should
increase  the design capacity  of  the WWTP  so  that bypasses do  not occur.

     To  determine  the impact  of  estimated and  projected flows  on design
flow values,  a seven day  period  of time was selected  as reasonable.   The
seven day peak infiltration rates for each system and sub-system were added
to the  projected average  daily  base flows (ADBF).   Inflows  for different
rainfall events were added as one day occurrences to establish total weekly
mass  flow values.   The  capabilities  of  the  proposed  design  facilities,
                                  2-198

-------
including both  treatment and  equalization  capacities,  to  accommodate the
projected flows was  evaluated.   In addition,  the impact of  reduced  inflow
removal on  the  design  flow values was evaluated (Section 2.3.1.2.).   A 35%
removal, rather than 75% removal estimated in  the Facilities Plan,  was used
because typical removals  range from 30% to 40% nationwide (Personal  inter-
view, John J.  Coll, USEPA, to WAPORA,  Inc. 14  February 1984).

     The  results  of these  analyses (Table 2-88) verified  that  the  waste-
water design  flows  projected  in the Facilities Plan  could  be  accommodated
by  the  respective WWTPs.   However,  the projected flows that  included the
addition  of  quantified overflows  and  bypasses,  not  total  overflows,  pro-
duced design  system overflows  in all cases ranging  from 6.25 MG  per week
for an  equivalent  one-inch  rainfall event to  14.74 MG per  week  for  the 25
year  strom  with  the 35% rehabilitation  situation.   Williamsburg had  the
greatest overflows within the  system  that were unaccounted  for in  the WWTP
design.

     The  design  flows  currently  in the  facilities planning documents are
adequate for the early  years of the project without  overflows if  some newer
rehabilitation  takes  place and  the  capacity  of  some pump  stations  is
increased.   In the  future,  though,   overflows  at certain  locations  may
occur.  Improvements and  expansion of the system at a later date to  accom-
modate  future flows  would be  a local  expense  (Personal interview, John J.
Coll, USEPA,  to WAPORA,  Inc.   14 February 1984).   Also, the  consultant and
the community must certify that the planned and designed rehabilitation has
been  effective to  the  level  specified in  the Facilities Plan  (40 CFR
35.2218).

2.4.6.2.  Effluent Limits

     The effluent  limits proposed by Ohio EPA  for the  various WWTPs are not
final and likely will not be finalized for some time.   Based on recent dis-
cussions  among  the Federal  and State  agencies,  secondary treatment  levels
at  the  Batavia and Am-Bat WWTPs  will  be  designed  for at the present  time
until the issues surrounding settling effluent limits  are  resolved.   Efflu-
ent  limits  more  stringent  than  secondary likely will be required;  there-
                                 2-199

-------
4-1
14-1
CO
Li
Q

cu
f,
u
d
in

•o
0)
d
cu
CO
cu
Ll
a

CO
5
o
r— 1
14-1

C!
60
•H
CO
cu
T3

in
o
0
CM
J_l
Cfl
cu
>N

Ll
O
in

CO
cu
en
CO
(0
ex
re?
T3
CO

CO
IS
o
1-i
M-l
Ll
CU
>
0

^>
ftf
T3
|
d
01
^
cu
CO

Tj
cu
o
•r-1
O
Ll
PM

.
oo
oo
1
CM

cu
r-l
.n
cfl
H









.
CO
d
o
•H
4-1
CO

4-1
T-<
CO

d
o
•H
4-1
CO
4-1
•H
r-i
•H
JO
rrl
vQ
JS
cu
Ll

T3

cfl
r-f
r-l
CO
"4-1
d
•H
tfl


T3
CU
N
•H
r-l
Cfl
3
cu
£2
O
o

CO
3
O
•H
Ll
Cfl
>

Ll
O
U-4

d
cfl
I— (
PM

CO
cu
•H
•H
—1
CJ
cfl


























cu
CO
CO U
(0 O
(X
r*"!
PQ





LI
o

'O
4-J
cO
cu

H


•O

N
•H
r-l
cd
3
cr
W















D-l
g
IS







•J
o
f— 1
UM
d
M















O

d
o
•H
JJ
cfl
O
0





0

14-4
^j
cu

O




•a
cu
4-1
Li
o
CO
d
cfl
M
H


•a
CU
jj
o
JJ
CO

Ll
O




•a
cu
•H
cu
o
cu



•
cu

<

B
60
•H
CO
cu
Q



r— i
cfl
>
O

5J
04















CO
3
0
r-i
U-l
Li
CU

0






y-^
O

s^x









/— N
y
v^/









x-\
o
r*^
x^x








c?
—




,— ^
T>
60
B

^
O
r-1





,~*^
gsg
V.^






















4-J
Cfl

1
1












































&
O
r-l
14-1

r-1
cfl
jj
0
JJ
d
3
&

J^

cO

CM
rr,















CM
CM
vD I

0








0 0

O cO
r-l O
CM CM







in
CM
vD
.
rM 1
|






r**» Q
S c^
CM CM


















m in
r*^ f^



d u
60 O
•H 4J
CO CO
cu
cfl

a> >~i
>
co m
CM
CO
r—f CXl
W fTi















CO
CM
00
.
i— 1








0
o
o
^H
CM







in
CM
VD
,
i— 1







OO
5
CM


















LO
p^.



g
o
4J
CO

CO
cu
>,

m
CM

CO
^-1
pj

















1










VD
CO
00
OX
r— 1











1
I






**o
GO
r-l


















in
CO




rj
60
•H
CO
T3

•
CU
>
cfl

PJJ
fXj















00
•»^-
1— 1
•
rM








O
o
o
I—I
CM







m
CM
VO
•
i— 1







CO
£
CM


















in
CO



d
6C
•H
CO
cu
T3
•
cu
>
Cfl

CO
(— 1
M















ON
vO
1 CM

sf








0 0

o o
r-l r-l
CM CM







r-i in
O CM
ON vO

0 r-l







1—* "^"
cRS
CNJ CM


















LO ^
CO CO



aS
5 o
O 4-1
JJ CO
CO
Ll
Cfl CU
cu >>

l/^
«A CN
CN
CO
D-I HH
prf P£J

   cfl

   cfl
          sf
          CM
                 CO
                 CM  I
                   •  I
sf  o in
sf  m ON



O  O r-l
      OoOoOOOQ
      mmmmmmmin
      sfsfsfsf
cfl

PM
fit


d
60
•H
CO

•o

•
cu
>
cd

CO
M
Pd


C
O
4J
CO

Ll
cfl
cu
&**

m
CM

PM
Cxi


O

CO

Li
CO
CU


m
CN

CO
M
td



d
60
•H
CO
cu
•o

.
cu
>
cfl

PM
PL,


r«
60
•H
CO
cu


•
cu

cfl

co
M
Pd


C
O
LJ
CO

Ll
cfl
0)


m
CM

PM
Pn


O
4J
CO

j_l
cO
CU


in
CM

CO
M
Pd


                                       cu
                                      PQ
   O     r--.     m  ON sf
   ON     in     CM  1-4 r-i
I   co  i   r-i  i  r-  r-i r^
I    •  I    -I   ...
   O     r-l     O  O CM
                  ooOr-»OooOoo
                  h^Oi—lOinooo
                  in ^P  CM *»o  co ^^ **o  **^

                  sfinminsfininm
                     o
                     o
                   i  oo   i
                   i    '   i
                     o
          o
          o
          oo
   o o  o
   o o  o
I   oo oo  oo

                                                            o o  o
                  oo o  r~, i~»  oo m
                  •>. ON  r-t m  m CN
                  ,j»i i~^  ess m  co r-i

                  ^- ^o  in r^«  sf r^
                                              m m
                                m  m m  m
                                CO  CO CO  CO
PM
^

r-l
cu
_c
4J
cu
PQ
d
60
•H
CO
cu
cu
>
cfl

PM
Pn


d
-60
CO

CO

CO
M
frj


year storm1

in
CM

PM
Pn


q
O
CO
C8
01
>^
m
CM

CO
K-4
Pd


d
60
•H
OJ
CU
T3
•
cu
>
cfl

CM
Pn


d
60
•H
CO
1)
CU
>
CO

CO
M
Pd


year storm

m
CM

PM



C
0
CO
Ll
Cfl
0)
>.
in
CM

cn
M
Pd


2-200

-------
                 O  CO

                 d  o
                 O  r-f
                 Cfl   0)
                 O   >
                 O  O
                            60
                •H


                r-1
                                                                                              CU


                                                                                              4-1

                                                                                              CU
                                                                                              PQ
                                                                           cfl
                                                                          PQ
         CU      O

         CO  Ij 14-1  O
         tO  o  ^  S
         a,      cu  ^x
                       vO     CJN

                     I  \O  I  00
                     I    •  I
                   O  o
                   CM  vD
                   I-*  in
                                                       o  m
                                                                               !    !
                                         i   i
                                         i   i
                                    i   i
                                    i   i
   o
   00
I  O
                T)
             M   0)
             O   <-»
             4J   CO
             to   d
             
             N   I-l
            •H   O

             to  co
             3
             C71  to
            W   O
     CU
     >
    •H
     CU
     o
     01
    04
                    oooooooo
                    inmininm^mm
                    •^* "^ ^f  *^  "3"  "^  -^  *s}°

                    CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
                                       OOOOOOOO
                                       OOOOOOOO
                                       ON  ON  ON  ON ON ON ON  ON
                    OOcMOvoOoO
                    -*O
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  CM
                                                                                  O
                                           m
                                           r-»
                                           m
                                       co

                                    I   CM
   m
   CM
                            o  CM o ON m o
                            d  h^ CM vo r*1*. i—i
                            •H  oo r-^ oo CM co

                             -OOCMONCOONCMO-*
                            !3r—ICMr—ICMr—ICMCMCM
                            i-\
                                           t-~ m
                           \w i ~*  r—i  ^~f  CO O
                   cor^oocMcooNON   '
 (U

 d
•r-l
4-1
 d
 o
o
CO
oo
 i
CM
,0
 tO
H
                 cu  *~*
                 >  -o
                <  60

                 d£

                -r4° S
                 co  o
                 0)  rH
                n  fa
 >   cfl
 5   >  i
rH   O  '

 d   S
r-l  &
                    m
                    CO
                                       o

                                       o
                                   m m  m  in  m
                                   r^» r^  r^  co  co
                           in
                           co
                         •OS              S
                            a  to          a  c
                   o    d   1-1  o      c  C  o
                    d60O-'-'c!60O''J
                       •rH   4J  CO  dO -H  4-J  CO
                        Cfl   CO      i-l  CO  03
                    CO  CU      to  CO  CU      I-l
                -,;CUT3l-iCflalT3l-itO
                to 'O      tO  CU  TJ      CO  CU
                         '   Ol  X      •  Ol  >N
                co
 o>  >     m  cu  >
                                              m
                    >  tflincM  >  comcM
                    CO     CM      CO      CM
                       CO     CO      CO      CO
                   Pnr-lpL|WeHr-lpL,W
                   faCdfaMfatdfaU
                                                                      •H   Cfl  CO      -H
                                                                       CO   CU      I-l  CO
                                                                       V  13  to
                                                                      T3
                                                                              «)   Q)  T3
                                                           CO  CO
                                                           0)
                                                           cu   >
                                                                      m  a)  >
                                   31
                                   >N (
                                   Cfl  [

                                   CO
CM       tfl
    ai
CM  M (X,
    CN
CO
t-l  P-i
                    O

                    CO

                    u
                    cfl
                    cu
                                                                                                 t/3
                            to
                            4-1
                            O  O
                            4-1  r-l

                            d  co
                            3
                                                                                                          I-l
                                                                                                          cu
                            .einmminmmmin
                            cor-.r**r-»r^cocococo
60
d
•H
TJ
T— ( tfl
o d
X 60
CU -H
CO
- cu
PH
fc-<
3
^2

4-1
to
PQ
1
S
-d

.
a>
^
CO

P-I
fa

J
d
60
•H
CO
cu
T)

•
cu
>
cO

CO
I-l
w

Q
M
O
4-1
CO

VJ
cfl
CU


in
CM

P t
fa

g
o
4J
CO

I-l
to
cu
>>

m
CM

CO
M
W



d
60
•H
CO
cu
•o

•
0)
>
cfl

PL,
pn


d
60
•H
CO
0)
TJ

•
CU
>
tfl

CO
r-l
W


Q
O
4J
CO

I-l
CO
cu


m
CM

P-,
fa

g
O
4J
CO

|J
tfl
01
>,

m
CM

CO
H
W

                                                                            2-201

-------
13
 CU
•O
 3
i-I
 a
 d
 o
00
00
 I
CM

 CU
r-l
J3
 a
H
















13
0)
CO
05
cd
ex
(^
£














































































U-I
O CO
3
d o
O r-i
•H 14-1
4-1 l-l
CO CU
0 >
0 O
rJ





4-1
CO
pa
l
1





3
O
l-l x-s
Ij «-i O
o ^ S
cu s_x
^
o











•a
14 0)
0 J->
U x^
U Q O
O) C— i J£
4J 05 s_x
cd d
01 n)
i-i l-i
H H




3
O
r— i
4-)

r~(
CO
4-1
0
4-1
13 13
01  x-s
•H d5
CU S
O S_x
0)
Pi
r- i
o
d
•H
f\
3
0
rS
HM
•
0) x->
> 13
<3 60
CM S
H d s_x
l~f
ce
4-1
0
4-1
S 60
S -H 3! d
CO 0 3
0) r-<
O fa
Pi

VJ
0)

1-1
3 CB x-x
O > r>«
r-< O --••
1| .[ rt
d S
H pi
i-i
>s
cO
43
CO

60
d
•l-l
13
3
73
d
•H

*1
PM
P-H
^
£2

4-1
CO
pa
I
1



















1
1








CN
!->.
CO
00
r-t










1









CM
r-~.
CO
00
i— l








r-l
.
CO








m
i-x




rO
d
60
•H
CO
CU
13

.
cu
>
cO
P-t
fa


















r^
O
T 1 r-l
1 1 '
1— 1







O CJ> O
O \£> O
r>» co r-»
r-i cr, r-i
CM r-l CM








o m
r-l CM
 CO
r-J CO  •*
CM r-l CM



















m m m
i-^ i^. i^.




"° §
d S o
60 O W
•H 4J CO
05 CO
cu i-i
•o i-i cd
CO 01
. 01 >-.
CU >i
> m
ca m CM
CM
CO CO
H CM M
W fa W


















CO
vO
1 CO
1
0







0 0
r-l 0
co r--
CTV r-l
r-l CM








m
CM
1 ^3
|
r-l







O 00
r-l 00
CO ^O
CTl CO
r-l CM



















m m
co co




d
d oo
OO'-I
•H CO
CO CU
CU XI
13
•
. CU
0) >
> ca
ca
CO
CM M
fa W


















•s
>.
m
m CM
CM
CO
CM M
fa fcj








4J
CO
pa
I
1








CO
3
0
r-{
U-J

i— |
CO
4J
o
4J

ca
•H
CO
4-1
(0
pa

13
d
CO

!-f
0)
43
4-J
0)
pa

60
d
•r-l
13
3
(-^
O
d
•H
•\
3
5
i— <
M-l

r-i
cO
4-1
O
4-1

d
3
Pi

i-i
0)
i— i
>.
ca
43
W

60
d
•H
13
3
•H
O
X
CU

M
PM
£H
^
3

4J
cd
pa
l
1



















I
I








o
CO
r-l
CM
CM










1
1








0
CO
r-l
CM
CN







O
v£>
•
CO








m

















O
CO
m I
• I
r-l







0 .
in co
CM CN








m
CM
vO 1
• 1
r-l







r-l •*
r-l 0
 oo
vD M3 CM
r-i 1 in 1 r- co | 1 | 1 l
• 1 • 1 • 3 1 1 1 1 1
-* CM 00 O
!—{
>4-l

i— i
CO
4-1
O
4J
ocooOo -d-r-ir^o-d-
d
.
4-1 Cd
•n
T) •
0) d
13 CU
01 >
0) 0)
O * 05
X
0) 0)
43
0) 4-1
•H
13
4-1 d
cd CO
43
OO 4-13
CM O
1 CM r-(
' & t!
 ^^
K-l
d »j
•H O
"4-1
l-l
O CO
14-1 l-l
N v£> O 3
OCMQOO Cdr~r-lcOOCT\OCMO CO O
CM OO CM CM CM •HinCOONVOr-ICMCNvD JJ 43
m CM in m m cBvjocMr-~cot->.cooco o -*
CM CM CM CM CM 4JCMCOCMCOCMCOCOCO 43 CN
cO
P3

T3
d
cd

^*K
m in rH m cu CM
CM CN CM CM 43 O\
VO 1 \O r-l vo 4-1 | 1 I CM |
• 1 • CU 1 1 1 • 1
r-l r-l r-l r-l pa r-l

60
d
•H
13
3
1— i

•
IJ O
cu
> 60
o c
m -H
CM 60 IJ
I i ^o d i-i
1 1 • -H 3
T-l S-l ' 0
i-i cu u
3 4-J O
O cO
O l-l r-i
O r-i
d <$
r-l O <+-!
CMCOcNr-IcO UvJ-i—l|~^CM-3-CNvOCO ,--( .H d
O> CN CTi CN m d l~^ r- 1 OO "> CTi
o\ oo co co in v-i m <*"> cri oo r-i
o CM ON ^ m "^cMr^-^t^
3> CM m CO 4-1 'H
~J CM •* U-I CO CO
ro o o> -H 4J
COCMCMCMCO 3CMCOCMCOCNCOCOCO CE) i-i <*-i
O
r-i
M-l

r
CO
4-1
0 0
4J CO

d >*
3
Pi

i-i
0)
r^
>~>
CO
mminmin 43mminmin
l-l -H O
4-1
43 C «
O -rH 0)
d 43
•H & O
I ca d
0) O! n
d o.
o m
t^vO
CO cO •
13 -*
d
odd
o» o
TJ >
CU 0) X!
CO CO CU
m m m co co
r~~r~-i>-i^cocococo cor^-r^t^r^-cocococo 42 o> co




•o
d
60
•H
CO
cu
13


01
>
cd
PM
fa





4=
d S
60 O
•H 4J
CO 05
CU
-a K
ca
• 01
0) >>
>
ca m
CM
CO
M CM
Cd fa


60
d
•i-i
g a S "§ -°a S
O d"O r-icO dl-lO
4Jd6od4-i udeoowd
0) 60 -r-l 4J M doO'^-UOSciO
•H CO OS .H -r-l CO 05 i-I
UCOO) S-l 05CU l-ICO
cacuisi-ica « cu 13 M Q) s • CU >-. R • CU >-,
• 01 >> 3 • 0) >>
in 01 > m 3o)> moi
cM>comcN >cdmcM>
CO CM 4-1 Cd CM Cd
co co co cd co co
MCMMCMM papMMpMMpM
CdfaWfaW IfaWfaWfa
1
42 43 0)
CO 4-1 4-1
•H CO CO
13 -H l-l
a c c
gc 60 cd a c
o -H C o
60 O W CO « O -H
•H 4-1 05 CU l-l •"-> 4J
CO 05 T3 Cd 05 CO
0) l-l 0) Ij
13 U CO 01 >• *-" 4J
cd CU 60 "5 r-i
• CU >~> <0 rJ Ol iH
CU >1 rJ 0) >S <4-l
> m o> p4 d
co m CM > m -H
CM ca 0) CM
CO CO CU 4*i
M CM M 0) a 0) cB
W fa W 43 -r< 43 0)
H 4J H ca.
i CO rQ
                                                    2-202

-------
fore, provisions in the design for additional treatment units at each WWTP arc
warranted.

     The options of which the system-wide alternatives consist were not compared
with the possible effluent limits in all cases.  For example, regionalization
with Batavia at secondary and Am-Bat at advanced secondary were not compared.
While the effluent limits for Williamsburg and Bethel are not finalized, no
changes from those presented in the Draft Facilities Plan (Balke Engineers
1982a) are anticipated.

2.4.6.3.  Batavia

     The  recommended alternatives for Batavia have included regionalization
with Am-Bat  (OKI  1971,  1976),  an independent WWTP (Balke Engineers 1982a) ,
and  regionalization (By letter, Fred W. Montgomery, CCSD, to Richard Fitch,
OEPA,  1 April 1983).   In  the  Draft Facilities Plan,  regionalization with
the  Am-Bat  WWTP was  equal in cost-effectiveness  but  the perceived imple-
mentation  difficulties of  having Batavia  join the CCSD ruled it  out as
unfeasible.   Subsequent  to that,  Batavia expressed a willingness to con-
summate an  agreement  with the CCSD and  Batavia  was  included in regionali-
zation with Am-Bat.  The cost-effectiveness analysis for comparing indepen-
dent treatment with regionalization was calculated with secondary treatment
(ST) for  Batavia,  and with advanced secondary treatment (AST) and advanced
treatment (AT) for both facilities.
                                  2-203

-------
     Because the CWQR is not finalized,  the effluent  limits  for  the  Batavia
and Am-Bat WWTPs are  not  available.   The  Batavia  WWTP  may receive effluent
limits for ST,  while Am-Bat will  likely  be required  to  treat the AST levels
with nitrification and  may  be  required  to treat at AT  levels.   Therefore,
the costs  provided  in  the  Draft Facilities Plan  and its subsequent  revi-
sions were analyzed  for the potentiality.   Batavia WWTP  with ST and Am-Bat
WWTP  with  AST  and  nitrification to  3.0  mg/1  during  summer have   a  total
present worth cost of $8,665,500  (Appendix F).   With  both WWTPs  at AST,  the
total  present  worth  costs are $8,831,800.   The  regionalization  total
present worth cost  for  AST  is  $8,214,000  and for  AT  is $10,510,600.   Thus,
if  treatment  levels more stringent  than  AST were  to  be required  for  the
Am-Bat WWTP,  it would  be  more cost-effective  for Batavia  to remain  inde-
pendent.   However,  based on the work completed to date by  OEPA, effluent
limits more stringent than  AST or summer  nitrification more stringent than
3.0 mg/1 are not likely.

     Should Batavia  remain  independent  of the  Am-Bat system, the effluent
discharged to the East Fork would augment  the flow by approximately  0.3  mgd
and would  result in  less  flow  to be assimilated at Am-Bat.   Whether  the
effluent limits  would be  more  or less stringent for  Am-Bat  would depend on
how well the East Fork had recovered  from  the Batavia discharge.
     The  projected  wastewater  flows  for Batavia were based on a population
 increase  of 800 during  the planning period and on  constructing  sewers to
 250 residents  currently  unsewered.   OKI projections under development show
 A  population  growth of approximately 200.   Extension of sewers to 60 resi-
 dents  (20 houses)  was proposed.   Thus, the flow  projections  are somewhat
 greater than current expectations for growth.

     Regionalization of  Batavia  would have distinct operational advantages
 because a small community typically does not have the personnel and facil-
 ities  to  operate  a WWTP  properly.   Also,  some  local, concerns  have been
 expressed  about the potential odors from the  lagoon  proposed at Batavia.
 Aerobic treatment cells  are not odorous to the extent that anaerobic
                                 2-204

-------
lagoons are,  especially when anaerobic  lagoons  lose the ice cover  in the
spring.  Ice  would  not  form  on  the continually mixed aerobic  lagoon  and,
thus,  the  aerobic  lagoon should  never  be  more  odorous  than a  properly
operating conventional treatment  plant.

2.4.6.4.  Williamsburg

     The recommended  alternatives  for Williamsburg have  included  regional-
ization  with  Am-Bat  (OKI 1971,   1976)   and  an  independent  WWTP  (Balke
Engineers 1982a).   In the Draft Facilities Plan,  regionalization  with the
connection to the Am-Bat system at  Afton was  the  least costly but  perceived
implementation difficulties (of having Williamsburg join  the CCSD)  ruled it
out as unfeasible.  The principal  reason for  regionalization previously had
been  the  intent of  having no WWTP discharges to  Harsha Lake.  The  County
Board  also  ruled that  the interceptor  to Afton should be  reserved  exclu-
sively  for  future  industrial flows  because it was constructed   for  that
purpose, although no large industrial  facilities  are currently  proposed.
The  future  cost of  providing a parallel  force  main when it may be  needed
(possibly at   the  10-year  point)   was  not  compared to  the cost  of  the
parallel force  main  at  present  as  part  of the other regionalization  option
for Williamsburg.

     The estimated  wastewater flows for  Williamsburg were based  on a 50%
growth in the  community and  no extensions of sewers  into  currently  unsew-
ered  areas.    The  final  recommendations  for  on-site systems  have  sewer
extensions to  31 residences  along  SR 276  and SR 133 west of the  village.
OKI is preparing new population projections that  indicate  that Williamsburg
will experience minimal growth.  Thus, the sewer  extensions  would not  equal
the lower population growth expected in  the village.

2.4.6.5.  Bethel

     The  recommended  alternatives  for  Bethel have  included independent
treatment (OKI 1971,  1976) and regionalization with Am-Bat  (Balke Engineers
1982a).  Regionalization  became economically feasible when the USCOE  con-
structed the pump stations and  force mains along  SR  125 with capacity for
Bethel.
                                 2-205

-------
     The comparison of costs between independent treatment and regionalize—
tion may be  subject  to  further evaluation.   Also, odor control  facilities
for  the SR 125 interceptor  will  be nee'ded  but were  not costed into  the
regionalization alternative  (Personal  interview, Donald  J. Reckers,  CCSD,
to WAPORA, Inc. 23 August  1983).   The  Clermont County Board of Commission-
ers  decided  that  the existing WWTP site had to be razed and  abandoned
                                v-y- •->',•!,• '  -
because  residents  of  the  new  apartment buildings  that were  constructed
since  1974 are within 300  feet of  the  WWTP  and would be affected by  the
odors  from an upgraded WWTP  or pump station  with equalization facilities.
Thus, in the  cost  comparisons,  the only independent WWTP for Bethel costed
out  at  a  different  location was  the  aerated  lagoon  and overland  flow
option.  The  overland flow  system  included  costs for  removing  phosphorus
prior  to  application (an  incremental  present worth  cost of  approximately
$350,000).   Phosphorus removal during overland flow average 40% to 60% on a
concentration basis (USEPA  1981);  therefore,  phosphorus removal costs  could
be  less  and  the total present  worth of the alternative  could be signifi-
cantly reduced.
     The wastewater flows projected for Bethel in the Draft Facilities Plan
were  based on a  population growth of  712 residents, sewer  extensions  to
375 residents  (1,083 residents),  and  a  population growth  of 680  in the
outlying  area  where  sewer  extensions  were proposed.  In  the Final Recom-
mendations document (Balke Engineers 1983b), sewer  extensions  to nearly 500
residences  were   proposed.   The  OKI projections  currently  in preparation
have  village  projections  approximately  one-half   the  number  previously
projected  and  township  projections of  approximately one-half.   Also,  in
Section  2.4.6.,  Reanalysis  of  Unsewered Areas,   the  cost-effectiveness
analysis  indicated  that  few unsewered areas would  be added to the regional
system.

2.4.6.6.   Shayler Run

     The  portion  of the Shayler Run watershed  currently within the Am-Bat
service area  is  the area between Clough Pike and SR 125 and  east of McMann
Road.   A  pump  station at Clough Pike currently lifts the  sewage out of the
                                 2-206

-------
Shayler Run watershed.   The  Lower East Fork WWTP  currently does  not  have
capacity during wet weather  periods  (Section 2.1.8.)  for the  upper Shayler
Run wastewater;  therefore,  the wastewater must continue to be  pumped to the
Am-Bat WWTP until capacity at the Lower East Fork WWTP is provided.

     The analysis of the costs of continuing to treat the upper Shayler Run
sewage at Am-Bat or of constructing facilities and treating it at the Lower
East Fork  WWTP  (By  letter,   Fred W. Montgomery,  CCSD,   to  Richard Fitch,
OEPA, 11 February 1983) did not include costs for providing capacity at the
Lower  East Fork WWTP  while  costs of  expanding  the  Am-Bat WWTP  were in-
cluded.   Capacity  at  the Lower  East Fork  WWTP could  be provided  by ex-
panding  the WWTP  (indicated  in screening of the options) or by extensively
rehabilitating  the  sewer  system.  Assuming  that  the  costs  of  expanding
either WWTP and of  treatment were nearly equal and therefore excluded from
the  total  present  worth  (TPW),  the  TPW  of constructing  the  intercept/^is
$365,540 and  the  TPW of upgrading the Clough Pike Pump Station is $190,330
(By   letter,   Fred W. Montgomery,   CCSD,   to   Richard Fitch,   Ohio   EPA
11 February 1983).

     From a local  perspective,  the operation and maintenance  costs  of  the
Clough Pike Pump  Station  are  considerable  and elimination of  that cost  is
viewed favorably.  The  operation  and maintenance cost of  the  pump  station
are  estimated  as $64,160  per  year while  the cost for  the  interceptor  is
estimated as  $686  per year.   The reliability of the gravity interceptor is
high, compared to  the reliability of the  pump  station  which is subject  to
mechanical breakdowns and power outages.

2.4.6.7.   Amelia-Batavia (Am-Bat)

     The  recommended alternatives  for Am-Bat  have included  expansion  to
3.06 mgd and upgrading to advanced secondary treatment (AST)  to regionalize
Williamsburg,  Batavia,  Holly  Towne MHP,  and  Berry Gardens  MHP (OKI 1971,
1976), an expansion  to  3.0 mgd  and upgrading to AST  to  regionalize  Bethel
(Balke Engineers  1982a),  an  expansion to  3.6 mgd and upgrading  to  AST  to
regionalize Bethel  and  Batavia,  (By letter, Fred W.  Montgomery, Clermont
County  Sewer  District,  to Richard Fitch,  Ohio  EPA,  1 April 1983)   and  an
                                  2-207

-------
expansion to 3.6 mgd and  upgrading  to AT to regionalize  Bethel  and Batavia
(By letter,  Richard  Record, Balke  Engineers,  to  Richard  Fitch,  Ohio EPA,
18 May 1983).
                                                                           l
     In  the  Draft  Facilities Plan,  expansion  and upgrading of  the Am-Bat
WWTP was the least costly alternative and other  evaluation factors did not
impact significantly  on this recommendation.

     The estimated wastewater flows for  Am-Bat were based on a  51% growth
in the Am-Bat service area,  a 53%  growth in the Bethel  community, construc-
ting sewers  to  798 residents in the Am-Bat service  area,  and constructing
sewers to 1,285  residents in the  Bethel service  area.   This recommendation
also proposed to divert  the Shayler Run area  flows  to the Lower East Fork
WWTP.

     The Am-Bat WWTP was  designed to  provide  treatment which met the fol-
lowing effluent  limits:   20 mg/1  BOD  and SS,  3 mg/1 NH -N, and  1 mg/1 P.
Phosphorus removal was  included in  the treatment  train.   The plant system
would treat 80% of the total existing  and proposed sewered  flows in the FPA
with construction costs  of  $4,572,185, total  project costs  of  $5,877,073,
1985 initial annual  O&M costs of $581,998, and  total present worth costs of
$11,297,483.  The plant would contribute 500 pounds of BOD, 500 pounds of
SS, 75 pounds of  NH  -N,  and 25  pounds of  P  per  day to  the Lower East Fork
of the Little Miami  River when operating as designed.

     In  the revised  recommended  plan  (By letter, Fred W.   Montgomery,
Clerruont County  Sewer District,  to Richard Fitch,  Ohio  EPA,  1  April 1983)
expansion  and   upgrading  of  the   Am-Bat  WWTP remained the  least  costly
alternative.

     Projected growth for Am-Bat  and  Bethel remained the same  as above and
Batavia  with a  39%  projected  growth  was  added.   Sewer  extensions  were
proposed for 884  residents  in the Am-Bat  service  area,  1,337  residents in
the Bethel  service area,  and 58 residents in the Batavia area.   The recom-
mendation continued  to  propose  diversion of Shayler Run area flows to the
Lower East Fork WWTP.
                                 2-208

-------
     The Am-Bat WWTP  was  designed to provide treatment which  met  the fol-
    ig effluent  limits:   20 mg/1 BOD and
phorus removal requirement was eliminated.
lowing effluent  limits:   20 mg/1 BOD and  SS  and 3 mg/1 NH -N.  The  phos-
     The plant  system would  treat  90%  of the total  existing and  proposed
sewered  flows  in  the FPA  with  construction  costs  of  $4,988,160,  total
project costs of $6,397,062, 1985 initial annual  O&M costs  of $511,200,  and
total  present  worth costs  of  $10,827,983.   The  plant would  contribute
600 pounds of BOD,  600 pounds  of SS,  90 pounds of NH -N,  and an unquanti-
fied amount  of  P  per day to  the  Lower  East  Fork of the Little  Miami  River
when operating as designed.

     In  the  re-revised  recommended  plan (By letter,  Richard Record,  Balke
Engineers,  to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA,  18 May 1983)  expansion and upgrading
of the Am-Bat WWTP remained  the least  costly alternative.

     Projected  growth and proposed sewer  extensions remained  essentially
the same as above.  This recommendation also continued to propose diversion
of Shayler Run area flows to the Lower  East Fork  WWTP.

     In this alternative, the Am-Bat WWTP was designed to provide treatment
which  met  the  following effluent  limits: 10 mg/1  CBOD , 12 mg/1 SS,  and
1.5 mg/1 NH--N.   Phosphorus  removal  is  not required.

     The plant  system would  treat  90%  of  the total  existing and  proposed
sewered  flows  in  the FPA  with  construction  costs  of  $5,952,320,  total
project costs of  $7,643,642,  1985 inital annual  O&M costs  of $588,018,  and
total present worth  costs of  $13,124,583.   The plant would  contribute  300
pounds of CBOD, 360  pounds  of  SS, 45  pounds of NH -N, and  an unquantified
amount of P  per  day to the Lower East  Fork  of the  Little  Miami  River when
operating as designed.  This alternative would  almost halve the  pollutional
load compared to the revised recommendation.
                                 2-209

-------
2.4.6.8.  Holly Towne MHP and Berry  Gardens  MHP

     The recommended  alternatives for  the MHPs have included regionaliza-
tion (OKI 1971, 1976) and  upgrading  to advanced  treatment  (Balke  Engineers
1982a;   By  letter,  Fred  W. Montgomery, Clermont County  Sewer  District  to
Richard Fitch,   Ohio EPA,   1  April 1983;  By  letter,  Richard Record,  Balke
Engineers,  to Richard Fitch,  Ohio  EPA,  18  May  1983).

     In the Draft Facilities  Plan, upgrading of  the MHP WWTPs was  the least
costly  alternative  and other  evaluation  factors  did  not  impact  signifi-
cantly  on  this  recommendation.  The estimated wastewater  flows were based
on essentially no growth or expansion.

     The plants were  designed  to  provide  treatment which met  the  following
effluent limits in all cases:  10  mg/1  BOD,  12 mg/1 SS, 1.9 mg/1 NH -N,  and
i mg/1  P.   The two  plants have estimated construction  costs of  $119,800,
total project costs  of  $149,800,  1985  initial annual O&M costs of $12,000,
and total  present worth  costs of  $401,900.   The plants  would contribute 4
pounds of  BOD,  4  pounds  of SS, 0.7  pounds of  NH  -N, and  0.4 pounds of P to
the respective drainageways when operating as  designed.

2.4.6.9.  Individual Systems  Areas

     The currently  unsewered areas  within  the  FPA were analyzed  for fre-
quency of on-site system  failures to assess whether certain areas could be
excluded from further analysis and  recommendations.  The analysis (Section
2.2.)  indicated  that  the  percent of   problems  in  the   Facilities Plan
"problem  areas"  was not  significantly  different from  the  "non-problem
areas" and that no  discernable pattern of failures existed so that exten-
sive  areas could be excluded  from  further analyses and  recommendations.
The  types  of   solutions,  though,  could  differ considerably  between  the
problem  areas  and  the  non-problem  areas because the  problem areas were
usually constrained by the parcel  size.

     The  Draft  Facilities Plan  included  the  recommendation  of  optimum
operation where sewer extensions  would not  be constructed. No centralized
                                 2-210

-------
management or  grant monies  were  proposed for the unsewered  areas  for up-
graded  failures  while  USEPA Construction  Grant  regulations  specifically
endorse  construction grants  for  the  least costly  alternative,  including
decentralized  alternatives.   Therefore,  grants  for  upgrading  on-site  sys-
tems  are presumed  and  the  grantee will  institute  an  on-site  management
approach for the FPA.

     In  comparing  the  centralized  (collection sewers) to the decentralized
(on-site systems),  the  major factor is that on-site  systems  are  dependent
on favorable environmental factors while collection systems are less depen-
dent.  On-site systems  are  more  likely to malfunction where  the  hydraulic
conductivity  is  limiting  and water  table rises  in response to  extended
rainfall.  Also,  on-site  systems  respond  poorly to short-term  excessive
hydraulic loadings.  On-site systems  can be reliable if  they  are  designed
and  installed  correctly and  if the system is maintained  correctly  and  is
not overloaded hydraulically or organically.

     Those components  that  utilize power,  the   aerobic  systems and  pump
tanks,  are  considerably less  reliable  than the  standard septic tank  and
soil absorption system.  Operational neglect,  mechanical  failure,  and power
outages affect these systems directly.

     An  on-site system  failure  results in a small and diffuse pollutional
impact on the  environment  that  is assimilated quickly by  the  environment,
unless  it  remains  uncorrected for  a  lengthy  period.  A failure in  a  cen-
tralized sewer  system  would  have  an immediate  and  massive impact  on  the
environment.    These  failures could occur systematically as  they  presently
do whenever  infiltration and inflows  during rainfalls exceed the  hydraulic
capacity of  portions of  the system and  when  pump stations have not  been
functioning   for  a  lengthy   period,  as has also occurred.  Plugged  sewer
lines can occur with unpleasant results in residences also.  Another impact
occurs where discharge  at the WWTPs  to  the receiving  water occurs.   At  each
receiving stream location, degradation  of the water quality occurs  to  the
extent that  water  quality standards  are likely to be  violated in  the stream
during certain periods  of  the year.   Beginning in FY 85,  conventional  grav-
ity sewers and small pump  stations  and force  mains  are  no longer  eligible

                                  2-211

-------
for Federal grants, while  alternative  collection systems and on-site  sys-
tems are eligible for grants.   Thus,  the financial impact of constructing
sewers  would   be  greater  than  upgrading  on-site  systems.   Considerable
savings can occur to operation  of  on-site  systems if the projected number
of  upgrades,  either  initial or  future,  are  not necessary.   The  continued
use of water conservation,  including  installation of  some hardware, and the
installation of curtain drains  may  improve  operation of the existing  sys-
tems  sufficiently  so  that  blackwater holding  tanks,   mounds,  and  other
upgrades may not be  necessary.

     Presently, the Clermont County Sewer District does not  administer any
aspect  of  the  on-site  permitting  program  which  is administered  by  the
Clermont County Health Department and  by Ohio EPA.   Thus,  for the CCSD to
function as grantee  for administering  an  on-site system program, it  must
assume additional responsibilities and  acquire additional expertise.   This
represents  a  significant   implementation impediment  for administration  of
on-site systems.  Regardless of  how  many sewer extensions are constructed,
an  on-site management agency is called for as an  alternative to  sewering.

     Extension  of  sewers  into  currently unsewered  area would  prime  that
land  for  development  and  would  allow housing densities much greater  than
on-site systems  do.   Sewers may be  constructed into the areas where  they
have been  proposed for  purposes of  growth  but that purpose  is not meet the
criterion  for needs determination  (USEPA  1983a) and would  not  be  grant-
eligible unless  they  were  the  most  cost-effective solution to the  sewage
treatment needs.

2.5.  Selection of Recommended  Action

     The necessary information  for  developing a final recommended alterna-
tive  is not available at the present time.   Ohio EPA has committed to fund-
ing a portion of the wastewater facilities  during the Federal Fiscal  Year 1984
(FY 84  ends 30 September  1984)  and,  therefore, the portions of the  neces-
sary  improvements  that  are consistent  between the  feasible  alternatives
could  be  funded.   The approach of this section on  recommendations  is to
divide  the necessary  improvements  into Phase 1 improvements to  be  funded
                                 2-212

-------
     •    Replace pumps in the two USCOE pump stations
     •    Provide odor  and corrosion control facilities  in the force
          mains  (Personal  interview,  Donald  J.   Reckers,  CCSD,  to
          WAPORA, Inc. 23 August 1983).

     Phase 2 activities at  Bethel  would include sewering the South Charity
Street area and instituting the on-site management program and constructing
upgrades  for  failing  systems.   The  construction  of sewers  will not  be
grant-eligible  and  on-site  system upgrades  would  be  funded  at the  75%
level.

2.5.2.   Batavia

     No  improvements  to the Batavia wastewater  system    are  scheduled  in
Phase 1.  The recommendation that the  Batavia collection  system be rehabili-
tated  is  supported  by  the  available  evidence.    Because  30 cfs minimum
release  from Harsha Lake  will  be guaranteed by  the USCOE,  the  effluent
limits for the  Am-Bat WWTP  will be no more  stringent than  AST with  summer
nitrification  of  3.0 mg/1.    Then  the  cost-effectiveness analysis  demon-
strates that Batavia should be regionalized.
     Before Batavia  car. phase out its WWTP and connect to the Am-Bat WWTP,
the  Shayler  Run flows  currently tributary  to  the  Am-Bat  WWTP must  be
diverted  to the Lower  East Fork  WWTP.  Until major  rehabilitation  of the
collection  system or  expansion of the WWTP occurs, inadequate capacity dur-
ing wet weather is present at the Lower East Fork WWTP for the upper Shayler
Run flows.
     The connection of  Batavia to the Am-Bat WWTP would consist of a force
main extension  from  the current discharge location at  the  Batavia WWTP to
the Am-Bat  WWTP.  The  project,  since it would be constructed  in Phase 2,
would  be  funded  with  55%  of the grant-eligible  costs borne  by  Federal
funds and the remainder funded by the CCSD or the village.
                                 2-213

-------
during FY 84 and Phase 2 improvements to be funded subsequent to completion
of the  Comprehensive  Water Quality  Report and  further  cost-effectiveness
analyses.  The primary  objective  of  the Phase 1 funding is  to  improve the
wastewater facilities for  Bethel  so  that the connection  ban  can be lifted.

     The  basic  elements of Phase 1  are rehabilitation  of  the  Bethel  and
Am-Bat collection system,  construction  of  a pump station and  equalization
basin for Bethel at  Town  Run  and SR 125, a force main and  gravity sewer to
the USCOE  pump  station at  Ulrey Run,  replacement  of  existing  pumps  with
larger puoips  at the  two  USCOE  pump  stations,  and  expansion of  the Am-Bat
WWTP from 2.4 mgd to  3.6  mgd  at secondary treatment levels.   Other compon-
ents  of  necessary  improvements would  be  delayed  until additional  funds
become  available  and  the  issues   concerning  water  quality  and  cost-
effectiveness are resolved.   The  specific  recommendations  for each service
area within the  FPA are presented in the following sections.

2.5.1.   Bethel

     The  recommendation for  Bethel  includes  rehabilitation of  the  sewer
system and  transport of  the  sewage to  the Am-Bat  WWTP  for treatment  in
Phase 1.   This course  of  action is  recommended even  though  a  local treat-
ment  alternative may   be  less  costly  because  elimination  of  wastewater
discharge to Harsha Lake is a  desirable  feature of regionalization.
     Construction  in  Phase  1  would  consist  of  essential  components  to
transport  sewage  from the  existing  Bethel  service  area  to the  Am-Bat
system.  The components consist of the following:

     •    Rehabilitation of the sewer system
     •    Construction of  a  0.8 MG  equalization basin and  a  550 gpm
          pump  station at Poplar Creek and  SR 125 connected  to the
          existing  collection  system  with  an  18-inch  interceptor
     •    Construction of  force main  and  gravity  sewer  to  the USCOE
          pump station at Ulrey Run and SR 125

                                  2-21^

-------
     Although  on-site  systems may  be  more cost-effective  than  sewers for
the Clark and  Ely Streets area within the village (Table 2-87),  sewers are
recommended  for  this  area because of its location within the village.  The
cost of  sewers  would  be an entirely local cost and could be constructed at
the discretion of the homeowners and the village.

2.5.3.  Williamsburg

     No improvements to the Williamsburg wastewater system are scheduled in
Phase 1.   The   wastewater  flows  for  Williamsburg  utilized  in  the  cost-
effectiveness  analyses are  inadequate  to  prevent overflows  of  untreated
sewage to the East Fork even with a 75% removal of inflow in a major rehab-
ilitation  program.   The  lower  flow projections  associated  with  smaller
population projections currently being developed by OKI may somewhat offset
the underestimate of infiltration and inflow.

     The decision  of  the  Clermont  County  Board to disallow connection of
Williamsburg to  the interceptor  at Afton should  be  reevaluated,  particu-
larly  in view  of  the  slow economic growth  in this  part  of the  county.
Regionalization of  Williamsburg  with the Am-Bat system  is  not being ruled
out at the present time.

     The effluent  requirements for  Williamsburg are not  finalized.   When
they are finalized,  the cost-effectiveness of  the various treatment  altern-
atives  should  be  reconsidered and  new recommendations developed.   Since
Williamsburg may not be included in the regional system, it would  be evalu-
ated independently  for  funding priority.   Any construction at Williamsburg
would  be  funded  in Phase  2  and  would  be  funded with  55% of the  grant-
eligible costs borne by Federal  grants assistance and the remainder of the
costs funded by  Williamsburg  if  an independent system were continued or by
CCSD  if  the system were  regionalized.  A  potential  for   innovative  and
alternative  (I&A)  funding  at 75%  for  portions  of  the treatment  system
exists.

     Extension of sewers to the SR 276 and SR 133 northwest of the village
is not  recommended.   The cost-effectiveness  analysis  (Table 2-87)  shows
                                 2-215

-------
that upgrading  on-site  systems is  less  costly.   Inclusion of the  problem
area in an on-site management  district  is  the  recommended action.

2.5.4.   Shayler Run                                                        (

     The upper  Shayler  Run service  area  is  currently  part of  the  Am-Bat
system.  The  Lower East Fork  Facilities Plan  (McGill  & Smith,  Inc.  1974)
shows  it as  part  of  the Am-Bat service area but  states  that the  long-range
plan was to  divert the  flow to the  Lower  East Fork  WWTP.   No specific  year
for that diversion to occur was given and  it  was unclear  whether the  flow
projections  for  the  Lower  East Fork WWTP included  capacity for  the  upper
Shayler  Run  service area.   An 18-inch diameter  interceptor,  though,  was
constructed  up  to Olive Branch, so  that  interceptor capacity exists.   On
this basis,  Ohio  EPA concluded that  the  upper Shayler Run  service area was
intended  to  be  treated at the  Lower  East Fork WWTP and   that  sufficient
capacity  should  exist   (By  telephone,  Richard Fitch,   OEPA,   to  Charles
Brasher, USEPA, 1 March  1984).   Thus,  the  CCSD is  responsible for providing
capacity  at  the  Lower  East Fork WWTP and for  funding  provision of  that
capacity| either by expanding  the WWTP or by removing excess inflow.

     The total  present  worth  cost  of constructing the interceptor to Olive
Branch and of  providing the capacity for and  treating  the  flows  at
the Lower  East Fork  WWTP  is  greater than  upgrading the  Clough Pike  pump
station and expanding and treating  flows  at the Am-Bat WWTP. Nevertheless,
constructing the interceptor from Clough  Pike  to  Olive Branch is  the recom-
mended  action.    This   construction  would  take  place  during  Phase 2  and
funding for the grant-eligible portion at 55%  would  be provided.

2.5.5.   Amelia-Batavia

     The recommended action for the Am-Bat service  area includes rehabili-
tation of  the  existing  sewer  system,  upgrading and  expansion of  the exist-
ing WWTP to  3.6 mgd  to  accommodate Bethel  and Batavia  flows,  construction
of a 1.6 MG flow equalization basin, and  diversion of the upper Shayler Run
service area to the Lower East Fork WWTP.   Of  these  improvements, diversion
of  the Shayler Run flows  to  the Lower East  Fork WWTP  would  not occur in
                                 2-216

-------
Phase 1 of  the improvement  program.   The expansion  and upgrading  of  the
Am-Bat WWTP must  be  limited to provision of  secondary  treatment,  although
the facilities must be arranged and designed for additional treatment units
when the issue of design flows and treatment levels are finalized.   Phase 1
funding does  not  include  any sewer extensions into unsewered areas.   Balke
Engineers  (By letter,  Donald J.  Reckers, CCSD,  to Gregory  Binder,  OEPA,
12 July 1983;  By letter, Richard Record, Balke Engineers, to Richard Fitch,
OEPA,  23  June 1983)  did  not  propose  construction of  the  sludge  storage
tank, the septage receiving station, the East Fork bridge,  sludge transpor-
tation and application equipment,  storage building and shop.  Of these,  the
septage recieving station should be incorporated into the Phase 1 construc-
tion, unless  some other  septage  disposal option  for the  county  is being
proposed.   Septage  disposal  is a major  concern  in the county because no
legal disposal alternative exists.

     The  Phase 2 recommendations  would  be  initiated  after the  effluent
limits are  finalized.   Then,  the  cost-effectiveness analysis for Williams-
burg  can  be   completed  and  a  final   decision  made  on  regionalization.
Another critical decision is how to treat the upper Shayler Run flows until
capacity  is available  at  the Lower East Fork WWTP.   The proposed  schedule
for the Lower  East Fork WWTP does  not include sufficient rehabilitation  of
the collection system so that capacity would be available.   Also, no immediate
improvements or expansion is proposed for the WWTP (Personal interview,  Stephen
Martin, OEPA,   to  Charles  Brasher,  USEPA, 14 February 1984).  Batavia flows
would  not be  allowed into  the  Am-Bat WWTP  until sufficient  capacity  is
present by diversion of Shayler Run flows.

     Another task of  Phase  2  is  the reevaluation of the design flows after
the  rehabilitation  of the  collection  system is complete  and  overflows  at
pump stations  are eliminated.  At that time, the design flows presented in
the Facilities Plan can be  verified or new  flows developed.  An expansion,
as well as upgrading the WWTP, can be evaluated then.

     The  treatment level  for  the  Am-Bat WWTP would be finalized in setting
the effluent  limits  for  discharge  to  the East Fork.   At  least  some addi-
tional treatment  units beyond secondary  and nitrification  to  a treatment
                                  2-217

-------
level of 3.0 mg/1 NH -N or more stringent will probably be required  (Person-
al interview, John Nagy, USEPA, to Charles Brasher,  USEPA, 2 March 1984).

     The sludge storage and application equipment and ancillary facilities,*
including  the  East Fork  bridge  (not grant-eligible) at US 32 are recom-
mended as part of the Phase 2 program for improvements.

2.5.6.  Holly Towne MHP and Berry Gardens MHP

     The recommended  action for Holly  Towne  MHP and  Berry  Gardens  MHP is
for these  two  MHPs  to continue usage of  the  existing  WWTPs and to upgrade
the  treatment  to  achieve  effluent  standards  consistent  with  advanced
secondary treatment.  Because these WWTPs are privately owned, the improve-
ments would be privately funded.   The recommendation of the Facilities Plan
for the Holly Towne MHP was to add aeration capacity to the sludge tank and
lagoon influent point and install an intermittent sand filter (two cell) at
the  lagoon outfall.   For  Berry Gardens  MHP  the  recommendations were to
construct  a  detritus  and flow equalization tank, an aerated sludge holding
tank, and an intermittent sand filter (two cell).  Both WWTPs would receive
improved operation and maintenance procedures.

     These improvements  would  be  grant-eligible  if the CCSD were to assume
ownership  of  the  WWTPs.   Also,  the  Sewer  District  is probably  better
equipped to  perform the  essential  operation and  maintenance responsibil-
ities for  the  two WWTPs.  The respective owners  and the CCSD may pursue an
equitable ownership transfer and fee schedule for the WWTPs.

2.5.7.  Individual System Areas

     The recommended  action for the areas  currently on individual systems
is for  a management district or districts  to be organized under the author-
ity of  the CCS1J and for  individual systems  to be inspected and appropriately
upgraded.  This would be  accomplished in Phase 2 of the project schedule
since the  legal groundwork  for the CCSD to  implement the management district
is not  in  place on  the  local level.
                                 2-218

-------
     According  to  Ohio EPA,  counties  can  implement  on-site  management
districts  within  existing  state  laws.   The  Meigs County-Tuppers Plains,
Ohio  Wastewater  Facilities  Plan  (USEPA  1983c)  contains  a  plan  for  the
county  to  administer  an  on-site  management  district under  current  laws.
The  concensus  is that  sanitary  districts at the present  time  do not have
specific legislative authorization (Peat,  Marwick,  Mitchell & Co. 1983; By
letter, Charles  F.  Strubbe and Barbara H.  Sidler,  USEPA,  to Todd A. Gayer,
USEPA, 4 November 1980).  The  existing  legislation  has not been tested for
application to on-site management district operations.

     The Clermont County Health Department (CCHD) has regulatory authority
over individual treatment systems that serve one to  three  single family
dwellings on one lot.  CCHD cannot enter into contracts on behalf of home-
owners and cannot levy taxes  or user fees for services, nor can they issue
bonds.  Their authority is not considered complete  enough  to meet the re-
quirements for grantees in the USEPA Construction Grants program (Peat,
Marwick, Mitche] & Co.   1983).
     The grant  requirements  are not  specific  as   to  how the  public  body
conducts  the  programs,  only  that  it  be  specified  in  detail  (40 CFR
35.918-1).   Although  the  on-site  treatment  and disposal  units  are grant-
eligible if  they remain  in  private ownership (if  the  structure was built
before  27 December  1977),   public   ownership   is   encouraged  by  grant-
eligibility of  all  on-site systems.   Public ownership also must be certi-
fied as not feasible.   Current USEPA policy is  that  all  of the residences
in a  planning area  be  served by a  centralized  agency or  agencies and that
all alternatives include all  of the costs (USEPA 1982b).

     For this  reason,  the  ODH  has prepared amendments  to  Ohio Law  that
would  allow  local health departments  to assume operation and maintenance
responsibilities  over  on-site treatment facilities serving one- to three-
family residences.  The proposed bill also would strengthen ODH control over
local  health  departments.    Similar  legislation  that would assign  such
authority and responsibility  to the local sewer  district has been developed
by  OEPA.   The  planning and  redesign  of the centralized portion  of  this
project would be well  underway  before specific legislative  authority  for
on-site  and  cluster  systems  would  be  granted.  A bill  should  be forth-
coming, nevertheless,  so  that  State programs will  mesh with  USEPA policy.
                                 2-219

-------
     Peat, Warwick, Mitchell &  Co.  (1983),  after a  thorough  review  of the
State  laws  and on-site administrative  problems in  several counties,  pre-
pared  a  model program  for  the Ohio Water  Development  Authority  that  in-
cluded proposals  for  changes  in  the legislation regarding on-site  system »
administration.   The  legal  question posed  during  preparation  of the  re-
analysis  of   the  O'Bannon  Creek subdistrict  of the Clermont County  Sewer
District was  whether  the  sewer district could be considered a municipality
as defined in the Clean Water Act  for the purposes of receiving  grants when
that  entity  cannot own, operate,  or maintain  individual  treatment systems
(By  letter,   Charles F. Strubbe and Barbara H.  Sidler,  USEPA,  to  Todd A.
Gayer,  USEPA, 4 November 1980).  If the  assessment that  the  CCSD  cannot
implement an  individual treatment  alternative  for publicly owned  treatment
works  under  section 201(g)(l), then the option  of funding  for  privately
owned  treatment works under  section 201(h)  would be applicable and  imple-
mentable under existing laws according to USEPA Region V,  Regional Counsel.

     The  management  of  on-site systems  can be accomplished  in any  one of
many ways (USEPA 1982b;  USEPA 1980c).  The management structure will depend
primarily on  State law  and  local  preference.   The  USEPA  requires a public
agency to serve as grantee  and to provide assurances that the systems be
constructed properly and  that  maintenance be performed to  insure that the
envinromental laws are not violated.  Many different agencies are presently
responsible  for  on-site systems:   health departments, sanitary districts,
homeowners  association,  on-site  management districts, private companies,
and county governments.   Management  responsibilities range from a detailed
permit process  to  complete  ownership of all facilities.   There are certain
advantages  with each  type  of management and   ownership  option.   Complete
control  by  the  agency comes closest to guaranteeing that the systems will
be operating at optimal levels but represents the most  costly  approach.   The
least  costJy approach would  be to keep the homeowner responsible for all
his  own  maintenance activities and  costs.   He would  be  more  inclined to
utilize  water-saving  measures  and to utilize  other measures  to minimize
maintenance  costs.  However,  as is currently  the case, environmental pro-
tection  suffers when  the  homeowner is responsible for his own maintenance.
Other  factors also  should  be  considered.   Privately  owned systems con-
structed  after  27  December 1977 are not eligible for Federal grants.  This
                                 2-220

-------
constitutes a  penalty  for private ownership that the community may wish to
employ  as  a   means  of  discouraging  future  on-site  systems.   The  USEPA
requires the grantee to certify that public ownership is not implementable,
a policy  that  may be difficult to show.   The  agency with the most experi-
ence  with on-site systems  in the county  is  the CCHD.  They have not had
experience  with  writing and  implementing  contracts,  because  their primary
roles have  involved  issuing permits and inspecting construction.  The CCSD
has the experience with contracts and management of maintenance  activities,
although they do not have experience with on-site systems.   Experience with
on-site systems  is crucial  for the personnel responsible  for design,  con-
struction,  and inspection of  on-site systems.   On the other hand,  consoli-
dation of contracting  and billing functions with the  CCSD would result in
efficiency  of  operation.    It  is  anticipated that  the most cost-effective
managerial  system would be  implemented;  CCHD personnel will be  responsible
for the systems  and  the CCSD will provide  contractual  and billing experi-
ence.   The  local  costs for  construction of new  systems  and rehabilitation
can be  assessed  to  each of  the users  equally  by  a  variety of  means  or
assigned to the respective homeowner.  Operation and maintenance costs also
can be handled in the same  way, based on public or private ownership.   The
billing could  be handled similarly  to  the billing for the  sanitary  dis-
trict.  The billings for  water for  some of  the areas to  be  served  by the
on-site agency are presently in place; adding  the sewage billing would be a
reasonable  cost.   A  certain portion of the costs could be added to the tax
assessments for  the  residences  on on-site  systems,  similarly to the  sani-
tary district.   The FmHA could provide loans for revenue bonds,  if  they are
needed.

     The  district would arrange for the inspection,  design,  and construc-
tion of upgraded  systems.   Individual upgrades  would be made in consulta-
tion with the property owner and the system design would be selected from a
range  of  technical   options.   The first choice  of an  upgrade  would  be  a
septic  tank-drainfield in  compliance  with  Home  Sewage  Disposal  Rules.
Alternative absorption  systems,  dry  wells  or  mounds, would  be  considered
where  parcel  area is  limited and the  water  table  is  deep,  or where the
water  table is shallow and  the parcel is large.   Curtain drains  around the
soil absorption  system would  be appropriate for numerous parcels that have
a seasonally high water table due to upslope drainage or limited  permeabil-
                                  2-221

-------
ity soils, and  that  have  a suitable  drain outlet nearby.   Providing proper
outlets for curtain  drains  can  be  accomplished with surface or  subsurface
drains.   Balke Engineers  proposed  and costed  roadside  ditches  constructed
to  State   highway  specifications.    Subsurface  drains  were  prepared  and i
costed for comparison and  were evaluated  to be considerably less expensive.
The County  Highway  Department or  the township road commissions should  be
responsible for the  surface drainage  of these areas.

     Another  option   that  would be   implemented  is installation  of  flow
reduction devices (Section 2.3.2.)  in  household plumbing.  The types  and
numbers of  devices  would   be  limited by  the existing   plumbing  design  and
acceptabiJity to the homeowner.   One  aspect of flow reduction  that  would be
considered  is  removal  of  garbage  grinders  and  laundry  facilities  from
residences with  failing or marginally  failing systems.  If none  of  these
options could be  implemented  for a particular residence,  then  more drastic
flow  and  waste  reduction measures  or off-site  treatment would  be  con-
sidered.   Principal   among  these  is the  low-flow  toilet  and  blackwater
holding tank  for  toilet wastes  and the existing or upgraded system for the
remaining  (graywater)  wastes.  Any  of the  options enumerated  previously
would be satisfactory for  graywater treatment.

     A  holding  tank for the  entire  waste  flow is not  a  preferred option,
but may be required  for  certain residences  or  businesses.  For permanent
residences, the costs  are  prohibitively  expensive.  In that situation,  or
where a number  of adjacent parcels would  require holding  tanks,  construct-
ing a cluster  soil  absorption  system could  have cost and  environmental
advantages over holding tanks.

     No area  was  identified  where a concentration  of  residences  required
off-site treatment,  therefore, no cluster  systems are currently recommended
or costed  in  this EIS.   Upon further inspection and investigation, though,
cluster soil  absorption systems may be  justified.  Few  areas  have  soils
suitable  for  drainfields;  therefore, cluster  systems would likely require
mounds of unusual design.
                                 2-222

-------
     The  on-site  systems estimated  in  this EIS were  costed  by estimating
the types and  number  of upgrades that would likely be necessary in each of
the problem  areas and  the  townships.  Past upgrades,  currently  failed or
likely  to  fail systems,  and  site limitations were evaluated  to  arrive at
the estimates.   If there was no evidence to  the  contrary,  the assumption
was made  that  the systems  were  functioning satisfactorily.   Estimates of
the number of  system  components to be upgraded  initially  are presented in
Table E-4 to E-65 in Appendix E.

     During the planning period, it is anticipated that a number of systems
will require replacement because of change of occupancy, overloading of the
system, or  decline in  the  infiltration rate of the  soil.   The management
district  would  identify these  by the annual inspection of the  system,  by
the septic  tank pumping  contractor,  or by  information supplied  by  home-
owners.   For  costing  purposes,  the  number of  these future  upgrades  was
estimated  based on  an  approximation of replacements  that  have  been  in-
stalled  within  the  past  ten  years.  These  estimates are   presented  in
Tables E-4 to E-65 in Appendix E.

     Systems  for  new   residences  would be  constructed according to  the
current Home Sewage Disposal Rules; therefore,  the systems  would be limited
to conventional septic  tank  and soil absorption systems.   Based on popula-
tion  projection  disaggregations  prepared  by  OKI  and  modified  by  Balke
Engineers, the  estimated  numbers of  future systems is  presented  in Tables
E-4 to E-65 in  Appendix E.

     Estimated   costs   of  constructing  and  operating  the needed  on-site
systems (both initial  and future)  for the problem areas and  the  townships
are shown in Table E~3  in Appendix E.  These costs are summarized by town-
ships  in Table  2-89.   The total initial capital cost for on-site
systems is $14,604,000  and  the estimated capital cost for  upgrading exist-
ing systems and for constructing new  systems is $518,800 per year.
                                 2-223

-------
Table 2-89.   Estimated  costs  for on-site systems within the FPA by
             township,  in thousands of dollars.
Initial

Township
•V ?*—»»*
Batavia
Jackson
Monroe
Pierce
Stonelick
Tate
Union
Williams burg
Total

Capital
---1,689.9
I,?4M
— 5,341 i 2 *
62.5
1,221.2
408.2
529.1
5,341.2
10.7
1,689.9
14,604.0
Annual
O&M
- 150.9
v&t
1.4
29.7
15.6
22.9
150.9
0.8
54.6
426.8
Annual

Capital
154.5
J-54-.5
3.7
45.7
8.4
27.2
154.5
8.8
116.0
518.8
Future
Incremental
O&M
3.13
&
0.03
0.49
0.07
0.45
3.13
0.01
2.07
9.38
                                                               Total
                                                             Present Worth
                                                                  98.7

                                                               1,898.5

                                                                 624.8

                                                               1,017.6

                                                               8,132.1

                                                                 109.4

                                                               3,346.1

                                                              23,359.3
                                  2-224

-------
     (AM"-
                                      EAC
M.
 l.o
\48A




r r, 3
         1/35,4
7^7
                               3^7
                                       2.7
                                             53,1
              46.0
                                      74,0
                      '•?:-.




                     27 &
             $47,5  2

-------
3.0.  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

     The  existing  conditions of  the natural and  man-made  environs of the
Middle  East  Fork planning  area that potentially  could  be  impacted by the
implementation,  construction,  and/or  operation  of  wastewater  treatment
facilities are  presented in  this section.   Much  of the  information pre-
sented  in this  section  is  derived from the  Draft Middle  East Fork Waste-
water  Facilities Plan  (Balke  Engineers  1982a),  unless  otherwise  stated.

3.1.  Atmosphere

3.1.1.  Climate

     The  Abbe  Observatory,  located  in the  eastern portion of Cincinnati,
Ohio,  is  the closest continuously-recording  meteorological  station to the
FPA (approximately 10 air miles).

     The  climate of  the  FPA is characterized as temperate continental with
warm,  humid  summers  and moderately  cold,  dry  winters.  Large  daily and
annual variations occur in both temperature and precipitation.  The average
annual  temperature  is approximately  55 degrees Fahrenheit  (°F),  with ex-
treme  temperatures  of -17°F  and 109°F having been recorded.   The  average
frost-free (growing)  season  is  178 days.  The average  dates of the spring
and autumn killing frosts are 24 April and 19 October, respectively.

     Weather conditions  change  every few days from the  passing of  cold or
warm fronts and their associated centers of high and low pressure.  Summers
are moderately  hot  and  humid  with an  average of 33 days  of temperatures
90°F  or  higher.   During many  summer  mornings  and  some  afternoons,  the
humidity  is  often  in  the 80-90%  range, causing  uncomfortable conditions.
Winters are mild with an average temperature of approximately 34°F and only
a few days with temperatures less than zero.

     Precipitation in the area varies widely from  year to year; however, it
is normally  abundant and well  distributed throughout the  year.   The mean
                                  3-1

-------
annual precipitation is  39  inches;  of this amount, approximately 10 inches
falls during winter, 12  inches  during spring, 10 inches during summer, and
7 inches during  autumn.   Excessive  rainfalls in the  late  winter and early
spring cause flooding  in many parts of the planning area.   During the late
summer and early autumn,  the rainfall decreases significantly.  Showers and
thunderstorms account  for most  of  the rainfall during  the  primary recrea-
tion season (May through  October).   Thunderstorms occur on approximately 40
days each  year.   The  average annual  snowfall,  however,  fluctuates widely
from  this  annual  mean with  approximately one  of  five winters  having  at
least 30 inches of snow.

     Cloud cover  is  greatest  in winter and least in summer.  This seasonal
variation in cloud cover is most clearly  illustrated  by  the percentage of
possible sunshine, approximately 75%  in July, but  less  than 40% in Decem-
ber.  During the  primary recreational season it is  sunny  more than 69% of
the  time.   The prevailing  wind  direction  for the year is  from  the south-
west.  Damaging  winds  of 35  to  85  miles per hour  occur most often during
spring and summer and,  usually are associated with migrating thunderstorms.

3.1.2.  Air Quality

     The  air quality  of Clermont  County  is  influenced by  both regional
climatological conditions and the nearby Cincinnati metropolitan area.  On
the  average  of twice  a  year, significant  temperature  inversions occur in
the  Cincinnati  area  which  cause  pollutants  to  be "trapped"  in the lower
levels of  the atmosphere.  Periods of  high  temperature and  stagnant air
masses  also  aggravate air  quality problems.   These hot,  hazy  days  are
common in  the  summer months in the metropolitan area.   Clermont County is
located east of Cincinnati,  so it receives many pollutants generated in the
urban  area.   The  Middle East  Fork planning  area,  however,  has  no major
point sources of  air pollutant  emissions (e.g., steel mill, power generat-
ing station).

     State and  Federal  air quality standards are  presented in  Table 3-1.
The  state  standards  are   identical  to  the  Federal  secondary (welfare-
related) standards with the exception of the sulfur dioxide and non-methane
                                  3-2

-------
hydrocarbon  standards.   During  1979 the  annual  mean value  for  suspended

particulates  was  violated  at  Hamlet, Ohio  (Table 3-2).   The  USEPA has
Table 3-1. State
and Federal air
quality standards
.

Federal
Pollutant
Suspended
particulates
••
Sulfur
dioxide
ti
Carbon
monoxide
••
Photochemical
oxidants
Non-methane
hydrocarbons
••
Nitrogen
dioxide
c
Duration
Annual
a
mean
24-hour mean
concentration
Annual
mean
24-hour mean
concentration
3-hour mean
concentration
8-hour mean
concentration
1-hour mean
1-hour mean
concentration
3 -hour mean
(6-9 AM)°
24-hour mean
concentration
Annual
b
mean
State
60 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
60 ug/m
(0.02 ppm)
260 ug/m3
(0.10 ppm)

10 mg/m3
(9.0 ppm)


235 ug/m3
(0.12 ppm)
125 ug/m3
(0.19 ppm)
325 ug/m3
(0.50 ppm)
100 ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
d
Primary
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
3
80 ug/m
(0.03 ppm)
365 ug/m
(0.14 ppm)

3
10 mg/m
(9.0 ppm)
40 mg/m
(35.0 ppm)
235 ug/m3
(0.12 ppm)
3
160 ug/m
(0.24 ppm)


0
100 ug/m
(0.05 ppm)
e
Secondary
60 ug/m
150 ug/m3



1300 ug/m3
(0.50 ppm)
3
10 mg/m
(9.0 ppm)
3
40 mg/m
(35.0 ppm)
235 ug/m3
(0.12 ppm)
3
160 ug/m
(0.24 ppm)


100 ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
 Geometric Mean.
^Arithmetic Mean.
"All standards (other than annual standards) are specified as not to be ex-
 ceeded more than  once per year.
 Primary standard  - For protection of public health.
"Secondary standard - For protection of public welfare.
                                  3-3

-------
Table 3-2.  Air quality data for the Middle East Fork planning area, 1979
            (City of Cincinnati; Southwestern Ohio Air Pollution Control
            District 1979).

                               	Annual Mean Value	   Sampling
Pollutant                     Batavia, Ohio  Hamlet,  OjujD   Frequency

Suspended particulates
(ug/ni )                            53             63             I

Sulfur dioxide (ug/m3)             26             NMb            I,C

Nitrogen dioxide (ug/m)           31             NM             I

Ozone (ppm)                        0.024          NM             C
a
 I - Intermittent Sampling;  C - Continuous Air Quality Monitoring.
 NM - Not measured.
developed a health-related  index  (Pollution Standard Index [PSI]) designed

to be reported  by  the news media so  that  susceptible persons can know and

respond  appropriately to  changes  in  the  air  quality.   This  system also

makes  it possible  to analyze  and  compare pollution levels on  a uniform

basis  throughout  the  nation  (Council   on Environmental  Quality   1979).

According to  the PSI, the  Cincinnati metropolitan  area  had "unhealthful"

air quality on  69  occasions during 1978 and on three occasions during 1979
(Table 3-3).
Table 3-3.  Pollution standard index for the Cincinnati metropolitan area
            1978-1979 (City of Cincinnati; Southwestern Ohio Air Pollution
            Control District 1978, 1979).

Pollutant
Standard Index                     1JT78                          1979

1-50
(good)                             69 days                       113 days

51-100
(moderate)                        227                            249

101-199
(unhealthful)                      69                              3
                                  3-4

-------
3.1.3   Noise

     There are  no major noise  sources  in the FPA  and  no complaints about
local noise  problems have been  directed  to OEPA within  the  last year (By
telephone, Jeff Gahris,  OEPA  Columbus  Office,  to  WAPORA,  Inc. 9 January
1984).  Some  noise problems may result from normal highway traffic and also
from power boat operation on Harsha Lake.

3.1.4.  Odors

     Sewerage related odors  generally originate from incompletely oxidized
organic material  or  from  industrial  process chemicals.   The Southwestern
Ohio  Air  Pollution  Control  Agency (SOAPC)  is responsible  for air quality
(and odor) monitoring for  the  facility planning area.   The  SOAPC does not
record complaints  concerning odors associated with the WWTPs but routinely
directs complainants  to call  the  Ohio EPA  Southwest District  Office  (By
telephone,  Thomas   Tucker,  SOAPC  Cincinnati   Office,  to  WAPORA,  Inc.
23 November 1983).   The  Southwest  District Office has not  received  a sig-
nificant   number   of  complaints  concerning  the   WWTPs  (By  telephone,
Stephen H. Martin,  Ohio EPA  Southwest  District  Office,  to  WAPORA,  Inc.
23 November 1983).

     Several   complaints of  objectionable  odors  emanating  from existing
wastewater facilities were  made during a series  of public hearings recently
held  by  the  Clermont  County  Sewer  District.   The  "Public  Involvement
Summary Report"  (Balke  Engineers  1983c)  that summarized  the  four  public
hearings  on  the  facilities  planning  documents described  testimony about
odor  problems with the  Bethel, Batavia, and Am-Bat wastewater facilities.

     The Bethel WWTP  periodically  has experienced odor problems associated
with sludge digestion, drying,  and  disposal position operations.  The times
when the most objectionable odors were generated were when the digestor and
the   subsequently  handled  sludge  was   highly  odorous  (By  telephone,
Stephen H. Martin,  Ohio EPA  Southwest  District Office, to  WAPORA,  Inc.
23 November 1983).
                                  3-5

-------
     The Batavia  WWTP  frequently bypasses  untreated sewage  into  the East
Fork because the conveyance capacity of the  main lift station is inadequate
during wet  weather.  These raw sewage bypasses  likely  generate objection-
able odors.   The  Am-Bat WWTP  sludge digester occasionally has  had  opera-  *
tional problems with diffuser pumps  that have resulted in odor problems (By
telephone,   Stephen H.  Martin,   Ohio  EPA  Southwest  District  Office,  to
WAPORA, Inc. 23 November 1983).

     The above-mentioned odor problems at Bethel, Batavia,  and Am-Bat WWTPs
may be amplified during the summer by temporary inversions  of cool  regional
air masses  overlying warmer  air trapped in  the narrow river valleys around
the WWTPs  (Section 3.1.2.).   Additionally,  during  the  early  morning hours
of  the hottest months, cool and  damp air that has  collected  in the river
valleys  over  the  preceding  night can  remain stagnant  until  late-morning
breezes  break  up  this  local  stratification.  Because  dispersion  of odors
are  low  during  both  inversion  conditions,  residents  near the WWTPs are
subjected  to  a buildup  of sewage  process  odors that  otherwise would not
reach objectionable concentrations.

     Odors  have been  reported in  association  With  failing  on-site waste
treatment systems (Balke Engineers I982b; OEPA 1983).  The  scope and magni-
tude of failing on-site systems problems are described in detail in Section
2.2.

     Another  potential  odor source  within  the FPA  is  release of  hydrogen
sulfide  from Harsha  Lake dam discharges if  water from  the deeper  hypolim-
netic  zone, which  is typically anoxic,  is  released (USCOE 1974).   No com-
plaints have been made concerning odorous discharges to the East Fork below
the dam.

3.2.   Geology and  Soils

3.2.1.  Topography and Physiography

     The Middle East Fork  planning area  is topographically dominated  by the
valley of the East Fork of the Little Miami River.   This rather  small river
                                  3-6

-------
has  cut  down  through the  rolling  glacial  peneplain  (a  plain  of  little
relief formed by  long-term  erosion)  that is characteristic of  the  sectors
of the planning area not eroded since the last glacial  retreat.   The Middle
East Fork drainage  area  is  bisected by the generally  east  to west  flow of
the East Fork.

     The FPA  is  roughly  9  by 14 miles  in  rectangular  dimensions.  Of this
area, the  centrally-located river valley  dominates approximately 5  by 12
miles of landscape in overall dimension.  Elevation and slope  of the valley
walls vary  dramatically;  elevations range  from 600 to 900 feet  above  sea
level  (nisi),  while  slopes  average 25%  grade  with peaks of  35% or  more.

     The East Fork  has  formed  a dendritic  stream pattern with many  finger-
like  projections  which  contribute  to  the overall area consumed  by  the
valley.   However, the principal  river  valley  floor (composed  of the  stream
floodplain  and  terrace)  is narrow. This is due to the fact  that the East
Fork  is a  hydrologically  "young"  stream,  which  is  actively eroding  a
channel.  Average valley floor width is 1,000  to 2,000 feet.   The East Fork
Dam  utilizes  this deep, narrow,  steeply sloping valley as a natural con-
tainment for the WiJliam H.  Harsha Lake.

     The northern and  southern extremes  of   the  FPA  are  gently  rolling
plateaus which exhibit only minor influences  of the East Fork.   Some areas
are  nearly  flat,  as  in  the Afton  industrial  area north of  the  East Fork
Park.  Most of the non-valley area is moderately well-suited  to  development
under  certain  stipulations  (e.g.,  soil  capabilities,  utilities).   The
limitation most directly attributable to topography or  physiography  is that
of  poor  drainage in  some  of  the  flatter  areas.   When combined with  low
permeability soils,  as  it  usually is,  the  result is a  limitation to  septic
tank usage.

3.2.2.  Surficial  and Bedrock Geology

     Three very different types of materials make up the general geology of
the Middle  East Fork planning  area.   On the surface are sedimentary  depos-
its from streams,  winds,  and glacial  periods.   Beneath this  is found  a much
                                  3-7

-------
older  layer  of  bedrock having  sedimentary origins  from deposits  on  the
floors of the ancient shallow continental seas.   The third type of material
is the. hard core of igneous rocks known as the "basement complex".

     The "basement  complex",  the  oldest  geologic  materials,  is  the least  *
important  in  terms oT  formation of surficial soils.   This  extremely hard
complex was formed by igneous activity during the Pre-Cambrian Period, with
the resultant  formations being  granite and similar  types  of rocks.   These
rocks are located at great  depth (averaging 3,500 feet below the surface in
the planning area).

     The  sedimentary  bedrock of   the  Middle  East  Fork area  is  of  the
Ordovician  Age,  formed  440  to  500 million  years  ago  during continental
inundation by prehistoric oceans.  Clays, silts,  sands, and lime settled to
the  bottom to  later harden  into  a profile  nurture of  shale,  sandstone,
limestone,  and dolomite.   The  specific  geologic  series involved  are  the
Cincinnatian and  Trenton,  both  being characterized  by  alternate  layers of
bluegray calcareous  shale  and fossillferous to medium-grained limestone in
varying ratios.

     Normally, trin«o  formations  would  be found at  great depths because of
their  age  and  subsequent   sedimentation  on  top  of  them,  but due  to  the
Cincinnati Arch,  a major geologic domed-shaped uplift occurring at  the end
of the Ordovician Period, these  old rocks have been brought to the surface.

     Erosion has  worn  away  the  top layers  of the  dome,  leaving a nearly
flat peneplain with  arched underlying  strata.  The bedrock in the planning
area is  the  top  of this arch, with the strata dipping less than 10  feet in
a  horizontal  mile.   Many  streams  in  the  planning  area have  steep banks
which expose these sedimentary bedrocks.

     The Eden  Formation of the  Cincinnati Series is  prominent in the FPA.
This  bedrock  formation,  also known  as  the Kope  Formation,  is  found at
elevations of approximately 450 to 700 feet msl along the East Fork  Valley.
Typically  comprised  of 80%  medium to  dark  gray calcareous  shale  and 20%
limestone, this 20-foot thick layer is highly unstable when exposed  and may
                                  3-8

-------
become soft  and  susceptible to slippage.  This instability may be  ,i  r,ir.r.<>r
in design of some wastewater facilities for tbe planning area.

     The formation of a third type of material, the relatively recent  sedi-
mentary surface deposits, began with the Pleistocene Age (also known as the
Ice Age) and the associated glacial activity.  Continental glacial  advances
and  retreats scoured  the  upper  surface of  the  bedrock  and  deepened and
widened  the valleys.   Rock  and  gravel  carried  along with  the advancing
glaciers were  left as  deposits,  filling  scoured  valleys and  forming low
hills as the ice sheets melted.

     The first  glacial advance,  the "Kansan",  occurred  one million  years
ago and did  not  cover the  Middle  East  Fork area.   However, it was respon-
sible for  blocking  the course of  the  ancient Teays River and establishing
the course  of  the  Ancestral Ohio River, cutting deeply into the bedrock of
the Cincinnati Arch.   This  prehistoric river  bed  loops  north of the  loca-
tion of the present day Ohio River at an elevation more than 150 feet  below
the present topography (Figure 3-1).

     The second  glacial  advance,  the "Illinoian",  occurred  400,000  years
ago and  extended across  western  Ohio,  including  the FPA.   The Illinoian
glacier was  primarily responsible for great deposits of glacial till  which
covered the  land with  a  drift layer  ranging up to 50 feet  in  depth, but
usually fewer  than  10 feet deep.   The  course of the pre-glacial East Fork
was slightly altered  by it.  The  last  glacial advance,  the "Wisconsinan",
stopped in southern Warren  County, short of the planning area.

     The most  consequential glacial  stage was the  Illinoian.   All of the
true glacial deposits in  the planning area were laid down by this  advance,
most of the  deposits  being  clay tills.   An  old  portion of the prehistoric
East Fork  channel  near the reservoir dam site was  filled with  this  till.
Upland areas also were covered with the clayey glacial deposits.   The  usual
process  of deposition  was   the  stripping  away  of  the  exposed,  weathered
bedrock by ice,  followed  by  placement  of   the  clay till  on unweathered
bedrock.   Evidence of this  process is common in the FPA:   till compacted to
a  dense  state  by   the  ice  sheets is  found  overlying unweathered shale-
limestone strata.
                                  3-9

-------
Figure 3-1. Post-lllinoian  drainage  in the OKI region (OKI  1977).
                              3-10

-------
     In  addition  to the  '•ill deposit.•=:, tlie Illinoian  ice advance changed
the alignment of  the  East Fork valley  somewhat.   The  existing valley runs
roughly  parallel  to,  but  slightly  south  of,  the prehistoric  stream bed.
Actually,  the stream  course has  changed  little  near  Batavia  and  points
downstreaa, but has been  altered in the area of the William H.  Harsha hake
and Park.,   The  "buried  valley"  of the  old  river  bed cuts straight through
some of the meandering portions of the East Fork impounded by the lake.   In
these places, the  hard  glacial  till was placed on scoured bedrock, leaving
an easily  identifiable  trail of the previous course of the river.   Normal-
ly,  buried valleys  are  important  groundwater sources.   However,  in  the
Middle East Fork  area  the "valleys" are not extensive,  and the till is not
particularly porous.

     Thus,  the  importance of glacial  activity with respect to this project
centers  around  the Illinoian drift  deposits of  the period.   Deposits  of
dense Illinoian clay  tills cover portions of the  East  Fork banks.   On the
upland  areas,  much  of  the  underlying  parent soil  material also is  from
Illinoian  till.  Additionally,  up  to  60 inches of loess (fine silty parti-
cles of wind—blown drift from the glacial periods) have covered most  of the
elevated,  nearly-level  lands.   This loess was the primary parent  material
in the formation of upland soils.

3.2.3.  Soils of the Facilities Planning Area

     Sewage disposal in rural areas most often depends on soil-based sys-
tems.   Whether  they function properly or not depends on  proper design and
construction  of  the system  and a careful selection of proper  design cri-
teria.   The initial step in design of  on-site waste treatment systems is to
generalize soils into similar groupings based on  physical characteristics.

     The US 13A Soil  Conservation Service (SCS)  in  cooperation with the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources,  Division  of Lands and Soils  and  the Ohio
Agricultural Research and Development  Center have  classified and mapped the
soils  of the County  in  the  Soil  Survey for  Clermont  County.  They  have
mapped these  soils  in  detail , using criteria developed by the Soil Conser-
                                  3-11

-------
vation Service staff and university personnel.   This work was completed and
published in September 1975 (SCS 1975).

     Clermont County  was  one  of  the first  counties in  Ohio for which  a   t
modern soil survey was completed.   Thus,  some of the soils descriptions are
incomplete  and  certain information  commonly  supplied  in more  recently
completed surveys is  lacking.   For example,  the survey descriptions  of the
county  are  abbreviated;  the  depth  to   the  seasonal  high water  table  is
reported as, at maximum, greater than 36  inches; and flooding frequency and
duration  estimates  are absent.   The survey  is nevertheless adequate for
analysis of general design  criteria  for  soil-based on-site sewage disposal
systems.   However,  analysis  of  specific site  characteristics  may  not  be
possible with some soil types, (e.g.  seasonally flooded).

     The soils  of  the FPA first are described on an association basis.  "A
soil association  is a  landscape  that has a distinctive  pattern  of  soils.
It  normally consists  of  one or more major  soils  and  at  least  one minor
soil, and it is named for the major soils" (SCS 1975).   The association map
published in  the  Soil Survey is to be used  for a general picture of soils
of  the  area;  the  detailed characteristics soils of  a  specific  parcel must
be  seen on the  detailed  maps.  The  Avonberg-Clermont and  the  Rossmoyne-
Cincinnati associations occupy approximately 70% of the unsewered areas and
more  than  80%  of  the  remaining  developable  land  in  the FPA.   They are
identified on the gently rolling upland  plateaus where development pressure
is  most intense.   A  map  (Map 2)   showing  aggregations of  the  common soil
series has been prepared by Balke Engineers (1982a).

     The  Avonberg-Clermont association  is  characterized as deep,  nearly
level to  gently  sloping,  somewhat  poorly drained, and poorly drained soils
on  uplands.  This association dominates the north and south central part of
FPA.  These soils are  away  from  the drainageways and  are nearly level to
level.  The soil material is silty loam overlying clayey  glacial till.  The
till overlies the nearly impermeable bedrock of layered shale and  limestone
at  limited  depths  (generally  less than 25 feet).   Because  of  the slow to
very  slow  permeabilities  and  nearly  level  slopes, surface drainage and
internal drainage  is  slow.   Ponded water is common and persistent through-
out  much  of the year.  On-site sewage disposal systems are generally soil
                                  3-12

-------
based systems  and  generally incorporate surface drainage measures  so  that
surface water  does not  infiltrate  and cause problems with the operation of
the  drainfield.   However,  lack  of  drain outlets on  individual  parcels on
these soils may make satisfactory drainage difficult to achieve.

     The Rossmoyne-Cincinnati association  is  characterized  as deep, mostly
gently sloping to  sloping,  moderately well drained, and well drained soils
near major drainageways  and along  the tops of ridges.  This association is
located in river parallel bands approximately \ mile from the East Fork and
its major tributaries.  The soils are formed in windblown silty material to
depths of 40 inches  that overlies  the clayey glacial  till.   Both of these
soils have a fragipan (a compact,  brittle layer) at  about  a 1.5 to 3  foot
depth.  Also,  they are  underlain  by the layered shale  and  limestone  bed-
rock, sometimes at  little  more than a 6 foot  depth.   The fragipan, clayey
soil material,  and bedrock all result in severely limited vertical movement
of  water.   Because of  the  slopes,  surface runoff  is  moderately  rapid  and
ponding generally  does  not  occur.   On-site  sewage disposal systems  that
utilize the soil generally  operate satisfactorily if properly designed and
constructed.    Many  of   the  parcels within  this association also  border
drainageways so  that  on-site treatment  designs which  require  a  surface
discharge can be utilized.

     The  Hickory-Cincinnati-Edenton association  is characterized  as  deep
and  moderately deep,  mostly  moderately  steep to very steep, well  drained
soils  on  valley  sides  and  tops  of  narrow  ridges.   This  association is
primarily found  in a  parallel  river band  north of  the  East Fork  between
Batavia and Williamsburg (within the State Park).  Poplar Creek  and  Barne's
Run  Creek  also pass  through  substantial areas  of  this  association.   The
Cincinnati soil is formed in silty material up to 40 inches  thick overlying
clayey glacial  till and has a fragipan (a compact,  brittle layer)  near  that
interface.  Hickory  soils  have  a  very  thin silty  layer over the  clayey
glacial till.   The Edenton soil is  similar to the Hickory, except  the depth
to  bedrock  averages  20  to  40 inches.   Hickory  and  Cincinnati  soils  have
depths  to  bedrock greater  than  5  feet.   These soils  have very  limited
vertical permeability due to the fragipan,  clayey soil material,  and under-
lying bedrock.   Surface  runoff  is  rapid so that  ponding generally does not
                                  3-13

-------
occur.  On-site sewage disposal  systems  are primarily aerobic systems with
a  surface  discharge  to  drainageways.   Soil-based  disposal systems  can
function  satisfactorily  on the  Cincinnati  soils if  properly designed and
constructed.  However, many of  the  areas in this association are too steep
for soil-based treatment systems.

     ^e Ed enton-Eden association is characterized as moderately deep, mod-
erately steep to very steep,  well drained soils on walls of upland valleys.
This association is  identified  on the south valley  walls  of the East Fork
and its major  tributaries  entering  from the south.   Generally,  residences
are not constructed on these  soils,  although some of the minor soils in the
association may have  residences.  The soil material is clayey glacial till
and weathered  bedrock.   Few  on-site  systems  are  constructed on  the two
major  soils  in  the  association,  the Edenton and the Eden,  because of slope
and depth  to  bedrock limitations.  The on-site  systems  present  within the
association boundaries are constructed on the  minor soils, which generally
are deep,  gently  sloping, and  well  drained.   Drainageways  are commonly
utilized for discharges from  on-site systems.

     The Genesee-Williamsburg association  is characterized as deep, nearly
level  to  moderately steep, well drained soils  on  stream  floodplains and
terraces.    This association  is  identified  in  and bordering  all  of the
East Fork's floodplain area as  well as the lower reaches of the Cloverlick
Creek.  The  soil material  is  loamy stream  sediments;  the  Genesee near the
creek and  the Williams burg on  higher terraces.   The Genesee  soil may be
subject to flooding but the Williamsburg is seldom inundated.  Permeability
on  these  soils is  moderate  to rapid; soil-based sewage disposal measures
can function effectively  if  reasonable  design criteria  and construction
practices are followed.  Temporary flooding would result in saturated soils
and failure of the system to perform properly.

     The individual soil series are mapped on a scale of 4 in. = 1 mile and
the smallest area mapped is 2.5 acres.  This scale and detail is useful for
identifying the soil characteristics on individual parcels (SCS 1975).  The
relative  location  of the  more  common soil  series  is  shown in Figure 3-2.
                                  3-14

-------
2
o
     '""K^
     £'$£
     b°' " 0^
     «.cp&5
 Z
 5
CM
N.
O)


DC
Z
Q

O
s^

>
4->
C
3
O

O

*-l

o
o

_c

>
^=
a
CO
u.
O)
O
a
o
4*

•o

CO
                                                         CD
                                                         *-
                                                         ca
                                                         E
                                                         c
                                                         a
                                                         JOT

                                                         'o
                                                         CO
                                                         CO
                                                         c
                                                         g
                                                         *-
                                                         JES
                                                         v
                                                         DC
                                                         CO

                                                         0)
                                                         l_

                                                         O)
                     3-15

-------
     Each  series  represents  soils  that  have  similar  characteristics.
However, considerable variation may  be  present within one mapping  unit  on
                                                                             •
the detailed soil maps.   The characteristics of each series that relate to
soil-based sewage disposal are  presented  in Table 3-4.  Nearly  all  of  the  t
watershed area has  a  severe  rating for soil  absorption  systems.   The pri-
mary limitation is  moderately  slow to very slow permeability due to clayey
soil material,  a fragipan (a  dense, compact layer) or bedrock.  The various
soils,   though  rated as  severe based on permeability,  exhibit considerable
variability  in performance  of soil  absorption  systems.   Soils  with  re-
stricted permeabilities frequently  have the associated problem of seasonal
high water  table.   This  limitation is characteristic of  the Clermont  and
Blanchester  soils.   The  soils that  have  permeabilities  great  enough  to
warrant  a  moderate rating  for soil  absorption  systems  all  lie  in  the
valleys and consist of alluvial soil material.

     Slopes  more  than 12% limit  placement of  soil  absorption systems  be-
cause downslope  seepage  and  soil  slumping is  likely  to occur,  especially
where  permeability  is limited.  Construction difficulties on slopes more
than 18% prevent soil absorption systems from being installed.

     Seasonal  high  water  table and  flooding  can cause  malfunctioning  of
soil absorption systems.   In the  FPA, flooding  is of  short duration or is
mitigated  by  the  floodwater  storage  capability  of  the  Harsha Lake dam.
Although  some  soils  were given  severe  ratings based  on flooding,  this
should  not  be  considered  a serious barrier to installation of soil absorp-
tion systems where the  reservoir  has restricted  the extent  of flooding.
The seasonal high  water  table is generally associated with lack of surface
drainage on  level  areas.   The high water  table conditions persist through-
out  most of the winter  and spring  and  cause  persistent  soil  absorption
system  failures  if  surface  and   subsurface  drainage   measures  are  not
utilized.

     These  ratings  indicate  the  general  difficulties  in  designing, con-
structing, and maintaining soil absorption systems.    These limitations can
generally  be  overcome  and  operational   systems  installed.   However,  the
design  solutions may be complicated and expensive.  The county and the Ohio
                                  3-16

-------
o
en

CO
00

CO
g
4J
C
-<
o
W
-0
*j a
» CO
.C > i-t i-l rH
CO • •- 01 CO CO
ex a a. ex a. a ;> i ,0 ,0 ,a ,a c. a
>>>>Secocncot esB--
• sO
o •
: 1
00 CM
so •
N^ O
o OsO>£>sO^OsO>£>

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


rH rH r*
000 -1
r* -*4 -~t *-< sj
CO OJ W •*
^J^^-I^H— I^HC-ll >s>,>s
cococococococo coiooaobo oc
tH CD « CO CO
CO U-i U-. UJ -<
CMOO m oocoocMcomo.no
£N\DCNr>J^— ii-iCNCN | ,-i,--inf-<--* C

QJ tu b CJ






o o \o ^o *o
CO CO 1 CO CO CO
1 1 1
00 00 1

o o o o o
\o ^o i ^o ^o ^0
1
1





co en I cj


00 ""1 O
•sO 1 i-* CO L/1
1 1 1 1 1
CN | CN CO U1
—1 --H 

O ^  J-i
QJ CO O

o us
                 3-17

-------
,0
to
rH E
•H 01
0 U
CO tO
X
Ll CO
0
U-l C
O
tO "H
00 u
= £
CO CO
ft! J3










fu
i-1
^.
c
1-1
v~'
>>
«,
•rH
.0
to


S
rU









00
_B

T3
0
0
rH
CK




a

f CO
to oi
f- rS
CJ
LI e
0) "H

10
3



O >"N

CJ 01
43 0 JS
•U IH U
Q.-0 C
41 01 -H
0 DQ v^



0) 01
U Ll
10 3
Ll X
3 Oi
CO H




*~\
4J
01 Ol C
Oi ciO (U
o e o
rH B P
en pi D
o*
^


•o
c
10 rH
Ol -O


z cn
rH 00
0 —l
cn n.
Cu
CO tO
o S
CO










JJ
3

l*- tO
> >
0) 0)
cn to







y-v
r
f~
"£
O
CM

O

•— •* :
r-. "^
O -a-
tn \_^
CM
V 1
to to
o

o

ro


O
CM
1
0



rH
C
0
•H
to
to
CJ
CJ
o







tO
CO O









O 0










rH
CJ
to to







CM CM
1 1
0 0










£
0)
rH
OO rH
CO
U C
CU rH
•iH CO
d .c
rHrg









r^
"^
Ol rH rH
cn cn cn












.
b b


: cs CM
tO V 1
v^tO tO
• : :
755

• 0 O
o • •
CM CM
1 1
^ .
O O








•3
c
a

to
CJ
u
o







00 0 0
rH SO VD
1

CO






O O O











rH rH rH
to to to







CM CM to
O O CM










g

•< to
88

§01
-H
•o ^
£8








|

1 CO
rH OJ
cn cn








•~^
b
S
^
: 1
0 CM

*— ' O
CM ^-N
1 CT.

: CM
-a- l o

o to
• o
CM
1 0
to ^
o vr

o
CM
l
o
















O to
VO 1 CO
1
1







o o

1
1








rH 1
tO 1 rH






00
CM 1 rH
i! 1
1 CM
"-^






3 Q
-^
x
01 O
rH CJ
a, to
C o .c cj

LI -o .e e
XrH § C

jai > -a
o a: at









rH
to
CO








-— *
b
S
^
i


o

o\

CM
0

^o
o

0
r^


o
CM
1
o
















^
ro









0












rH






m
1
00
rH






&



















D< CX CX tX
CO CO CO CO
1.0 OT W W












: : : :

CO CO CO OO

CM CM CM CM
O O O O
1 1 1 1
O O O O
o o o o


C7\ O> CT\ CT\

O O O O


1 1
:=> o
01 -o
c c
X to
O -H

™
S









a a
S to













^^
^•t •
: O
tO to
1~ ^--
CN .
rH O
1 1
s~\ O

-^ ^~v
._j ;

• ^
CM to
to O

O CM
0


















o ci

i i








O 00










rH
rH U
to to






CM
1 1










to 0)
CO CO


10

Ll CD
CO CO






to


O.rH rH
W ^-t 14H
CO CO CO












x~\ /-N
;
O m
to r^

• . ^-x
O to :
1 1 O
• CM O^
o -^ •

: CO 1
crt co O

. ^ ^
O CM
1 1

O O





rH rH
CO B
C C
0 0

to to
CJ CJ
CJ O
0 0







O CO O

1 1

CO






00 O O











U rH
to to to






CO
1 1 1
rf









01 A *J


^
u
tQ rH
•H 0)
0 0
cn cn











rH
cn













,-*,

b

CM
rH
to
r

^
^_s
O

1
to

o



















o
to

•*^
CO






o
to










rH
CO







to
1
CM








01
T> rH
S rH »
B -H >
> 3
00 <0
LT C

01 Ll
e B
cfl S

rH
i-H
3









i-H r-H
CO CO
O 0)
S C-O













/^S ''"S
;
0 0

CM CN

1 1
C* C*
'
^4 CO
T-l O
JD O

fl) '•M
E 1
01 >^l
Cu
S J^"
rH O
0) Ll
T3


01
1 <-l
a.
to X

•O Ol
C -0
ra
. 01
• 0) 4J
tO B S
O L. — i
rH 01 rH
x3i
T3 g rrj
C 1 rH
CO *O
to o *
1 S J!
rH CJ
CO .« O
OJ ^
-j= -a
§00 01
•H *
O rH
rH tO O
1 J-!

B to X
rH JJ
0 - D-
X L* *O

rH > 01
-H 01 -LI

1 1 Ll
fH > 01
o ai -a
•H cn o
a> S
i
- .. ,0.
121
O CO
1 CO CU
rH E 0-
CU O
S co co
co X |
O CO i-H
r-
JJ O "
rH -H £S
PCX --H
)-! rH
rH O "•*
*iH to --Q
CO JD CO
« 0)
-. rH fi
0) TH QJ
Ll O Cu
10 CO
(0 Ll O •
C O rH X
O UH 0) u
•t-l OJ X rH
tfl C rH -H
TH O 01 .O.
r> TH JJ tO
CU 4J CO CD
l-< CO u S
-Q -_ 0) !_.

« oj o a
CU -Q 1 tU
U ^1 D, JJ
,3 CO CO CO
X CO CD
-------
EPA sanitarians have,  in their opinions, arrived  at  design solutions that
can satisfactorily treat domestic sewage on most of the parcels in the FPA.
These on-site systems presently thought to be satisfactory are described in
detail in Section 2.3.2.6.

3.3.  Water Resources

3.3.1.  Surface Water Hydrology

     The  East  Fork of  the  Little Miami  River is 82 miles  long  and flows
southeasterly to  its  confluence  with the Little Miami River below Milford,
Ohio  (Figure 3-3).   Average slope of  the East  Fork is  approximately  7.6
feet per  mile.  Ten  named principal  streams are tributary to the East Fork
inside the FPA (Figure 3-4).

     The  banks  of the East  Fork  of the Little Miami are heavily wooded and
moderately- to  steeply-sloping.   The more level upland  areas  are predomi-
nantly  agricultural   in  use.   The  presence  of  intensive  upland farming,
steep stream banks and drainage  ravines, and a relatively impermeable bed-
rock structure  (Section  3.2.2.)  cause  extremely rapid rainfall runoff and,
subsequently,   a  low  rate  of  groundwater discharge  to  the stream. As  a
result, base stream  flow is poorly sustained  and  peak  flows are far above
the mean.  For  example,  the average  and extreme stream  flows  for the USGS
gaging  station  (#03247050),   located  downstream  from  Batavia  (352 sq mi
drainage area), for the water years 1965-1980 are:

     Average discharge                  447.0 cfs
     Maximum daily discharge         28,700.0 cfs  [2 April 1970]
     Minimum daily discharge              0.14 cfs [23;  27 September 1967]
     These discharges represent the river conditions prior to the construc-
tion of the East Fork dam approximately eight river miles upstream from the
gaging  station.   Construction  of this  earthen dam  reservoir was  initiated
in  1970  and  impoundment  filling  began  in 1978.   As a result  of  reservoir
construction,   flood  hazards in  the  downstream watershed  are  reduced,  the
downstream sediment loads are  much reduced,  and augmentation of downstream
flows (during low flow periods) is possible.
                                  3-19
-------
                    MONTGOMERY _CO._
                    ~  [wARREN Co!
                                                    NOT TO SCALE
        Little Miami River basin
——— East Fork River basin
ias&*iffi Middle East Fork FPA
           Figure 3-3.  Little Miami River basin (OKI  1977).
                                3-20
-------
        I
       I
       I
      I
      I
      I
     I
     I
    I
    I
   I
   I
 I

 I

I
                                                                                    \
                                                                                    \
                                                                                     \
                                                                                    J
Cabin
       Run
*•»


\
                               x

                               CO
                               CE
                                                                                                           to
                                                                                                           •o
                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                           .a
                                                                         CO

                                                                         O)
                                                                         c

                                                                         "a


                                                                         CO
                                                                         CO
                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                           0)   .g
                                                                                                                      <

                                                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                                                      o.2
                                                                                                                      *- o
                                                                                                                      w o
                                                                                                                      03 —

                                                                                                                      UJ O)


                                                                                                                      ® =
                                                                                                                      •o a

                                                                                                                      T3 £
                                                                                                                      
             O  5


             CO LLJ
                                                                                                                      CO CO




•o
c
CD
D)
CD
_1
O)
c
'E
c
CO
a
>.
**
'o
(0
u.
^

a
«
$
UJ
O
0
CO
13
> 13

CD 0
0 .C
03 +-
H—
t- TJ
3 C
CO 03
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                                                      CO

                                                                                                                       0
                                                                                                                       O)

                                                                                                                      iZ
                                                               3-21
-------
     The Harsha Lake reservoir has a maximum capacity of 294,800 acre-ft to
elevation 795 msl.   During the 1980 water year,  the maximum volume reported
in  storage  was  163,100 acre-ft  (USGS 1981).   As  reported In  the  Little
Miami  River  Basin  Plan  (OKI 1977),  at maximum  pool  elevation the  dam
inundates 12  miles  of  stream  and 4,600  acres,  and creates 35-8 miles of
shoreline.   The  State  of Ohio  owns  water supply rights of  43,800 acre-ft
and  an  additional  22,000 acre-ft  of water  rights that are held for flow
augmentation  purposes  between  elevations 683  and 729 msl.  The seasonal
pool elevations  (present operating  range)  are  729 to  733  msl  and storage
within the seasonal  pool is 8,400 acre-ft (USCOE 1979).

     Mean hydraulic  detention time of Harsha Lake is estimated  to be in the
range of  100 to 122 days,  indicating  that  all  water  is replaced at least
three times per year.   However, this estimate Is based on total  theoretical
design  volume,   including   the  'dead  storage',  which  will eventually  be
filled with sediment.   Harsha Lake detention time will be reduced about 20%
once sedimentation approaches  the  design elevation (683 rasl).   Most of the
exchange  of water  occurs  in  February  through  May,  when  river  flows  are
highest (OKI 1977).   The tributary flows to the  lake are always  lowest July
through  October  and the  most  critical  low  flow months are September and
October.  Flushing of  Harsha Lake  is negligible between July and February.

     A number of published documents have made reference to desired minimum
rates  of reservoir discharge  during low-flow  periods.  The Little Miami
River Basin Plan (OKI  1977) indicated that the US  Army Corps  of Engineers
had  agreed  in a  Memorandum of Understanding to always  maintain a minimum
discharge from Harsha  Lake  of  5 cfs.  The Basin Plan  also  evaluated cost-
benefits of  maintaining 15  to 20 cfs  at all  times.   This evaluation was
made because,  prior to  dam construction,  the  7-day,  two  year  recurrence
interval low-flow at the Perinton gage was 3.98 cfs and the 7-day, 10 year
low-flow was  0.35 cfs, greatly limiting the effluent assimilative capabil-
ity of the lower East Fork.   At the time of the  Basin Plan preparation, the
storage  volumes  of  the  planned reservoir were  described  as sufficient to
maintain up to a maximum discharge of 82 cfs in the July - September period
and  74 cfs  in October.  However, no memorandum  or  statement of  intent has
been  presented   stating  that  such  flows  (above 5 cfs)  would   in  fact be
maintained by the USCOE at critical times of the year  (Appendix A).
                                  3-22
-------
     A ten-year period of discharge record at Batavia will not be available
until  1989  in  order  to  evaluate contemporary  stream flow  and  reservoir
characteristics.   When that  evaluation  is  made,  new  low-flow recurrence
interval statistics can be prepared.

     More recent stage-discharge data for the East Fork of the Little Miami
(water  years  1980,  1982) indicate  that  stream flow  at  Batavia  does  not
equal  the "guaranteed  5  cfs  minimum" release rate referred to in the Basin
Plan  or  the  "15 cfs minimum"  referred to  in  the Draft  Middle  East Fork
Wastewater Facilities  Plan  (Balke  Engineers  I982a).   For  example, the USGS
Water  Data Report  for  Ohio  (1981) reported flows at Batavia that were less
than 5.0 cfs  for  a total of 7  days  in  October and November 1980.  Minimum
1980 daily discharge at  Batavia was reported as 4.0 cfs (6 November 1980).

     The  Comprehensive Water  Quality Report  (CWQR)  prepared by  Ohio  EPA
(1983) for the  East  Fork of  the Little Miami  River  evaluated stream flows
above  and  below Harsha Lake during  June  through September 1982.   Precipi-
tation was much below normal  in the FPA during the  study.   Instantaneous
flow   values   as  low  as  1.5 cfs   (23  September)   were  measured  below
Williamsburg  at the river's entrance into Harsha Lake. Instantaneous stream
flow  downstream of the East Fork's  confluence  with  Stonelick Creek (below
Batavia) on 23  September  1982  was reported as  10  cfs  (OEPA 1983).   Stone-
lick Creek may have  contributed  some  flow  to the  East Fork above  this
gaging station and the Batavia and Am-Bat WWTPs also contributed some flow;
however, some  augmentation of  stream flow was occurring as a result of dam
releases.  Until  the  new statistical  calculations  of  low-flow are  made
available from  future records or are synthesized based on planned operation
of the dam and the other flow  contributions,  hydrologic  data for the East
Fork  below  Batavia  will be  generally  inadequate for  use  in  waste  load
allocation studies.

3.3.2.  Water Use and Quality
3.3.2.1.  Overview of Water Resource Use and Management

     The Little Miami  River  Basin has  a long history  of human settlement
which  illustrates  the  significance  of  surface  water  use to  cultural  and
                                  3-23
-------
economic development.   Consumptive  water uses were not historically signif-
icant in  tributaries  to the  Little  Miami River.  For  example,  high  land
relief from the river  bed made irrigation impractical  near the East Fork of
the  Little Miami River.   While  non-consumptive  uses were  important  for1
early settlers reJ.ying  on  stream  flow to operate grist mills,  the  tendency
of most Little Miami River  tributaries,  including the East Fork, to nearly
dry up  in  late  summer  made year-around water based shipping and  continuous
hydro-power generation  unfeasible  (USCOE 1974).   Because  of  these natural
limitations,  the  primary  historic uses  of   the  East Fork  of  the  Little
Miami River were as a  conduit for  drainage of runoff  and as a minor source
of drinking water for  livestock and for domestic  usage.   Partly as  a result
of these  limitations,  no  large  population centers developed in the area.

     The East Fork region  is  still rural in  character.   This rural charac-
teristic may  change, however,  in  response to increased  water use  opportu-
nities.   The  potential for future water supply  is now much  expanded  as a
result of  the newly filled (1979)  Harsha Lake reservoir, located centrally
in the project area (Balke Engineers  I982a).

     The Harsha Lake  dam was  constructed  to control flooding on  the East
Fork  and  to mitigate  flooding on the Little Miami River  mainstem and the
Ohio River (USCOE 1974).  Flooding on the East Fork and the mainstem of the
Little Miami River and  the Ohio  River historically has  been a  problem and
recent  improvements in upland drainage  probably contributed  to increased
flood peaks.  Drainage  was improved  for roads and residences and to facil-
itate more  intensive crop  production.   Stream base flows  have likely been
reduced as  a  result of improved drainage (OKI 1977).   Long-term  monitoring
has not clearly  established these  trends, although these drainage  improve-
ments and urbanization typically have these results.

     Construction of  the Harsha Lake  dam in the early  1970s  markedly in-
creased the capacity  of  the  East  Fork to store  water and thus  attenuated
downstream  hydrologic   extremes  (USCOE 1974).   Operation of  this  dam to
expand water use capacity in the area will become increasingly important to
local  residents  as  population  growth  continues  (USCOE  1974;   Exhibit
No. 59).   However,  it  is  not likely  that  the  reservoir  capacity will be
                                  3-24
-------
always sufficient to significantly augment downstream base flows in summer.
Due mostly  to the  geology  of the  East  Fork watershed and in  part  to  the
land  use  changes  of recent  decades,  future  river  flows from above  the
reservoir will  periodically reach  very  low levels.  For  example,  in late
summer and  early  autumn  of  very dry years,  much  or all of the stream flow
entering Harsha Lake is  domestic  wastewater treatment plant effluent (OEPA
1983).

     Future  release of  Harsha Lake water  to  benefit  downstream  effluent
dischargers may well engender  water use  conflicts in the FPA.   Maintaining
the wastewater  assimilative capacity  of  the lower  East  Fork  through low-
flow augmentation would  not  cause conflict while stream  flow  entering  the
lake is above or equal  to the dam release rate.   But, when reservoir inflow
is  minimal,  low-flow augmentation  of  the East  Fork would cause a  drop in
the lake level.   Maintaining  significant  augmentive flow releases  during a
drought year  would  likely  be  seen by the public as a detriment  to their
preferred water  uses -  recreation on the  lake  and  drinking  water supply
storage.   Additional population growth in the  area  will  mean  more  recrea-
tional use  of the  lake,  more water  supply demand, more  wastewater to be
assimilated  in   the downstream  segment   of  the  East Fork,  and  therefore
conflict over the need  to release lake water.

     Additional  interests may compete for the use of portions  of the Harsha
Lake  storage  capacity,  including  both public and private beneficiaries of
proposed hydroelectric  power  generation   facilities  at the dam site.   The
second phase  of  a federally sponsored hydro-power feasibility study is  now
being completed by  the  USCOE  for the Wm. Harsha Lake  dam site.  (By tele-
phone, Jeff Kleckner, USCOE,  Louisville Office,  to WAPORA, Inc., 20 October
1983). The  primary  alternative  under consideration  is installation of  a
combination peaking-power/run-of-the-river  generating facility  that would
produce power with  excess  flows  and otherwise  be  limited to  a 14-day (8
hours per  day)  turbine  operation for  the peak power demand  season (June-
September).    The  approximate  combined turbine flow  would  be  approximately
1,000 cfs whenever power is being generated, during both summer and winter.
Occasionally,  the reservoir storage capacity would  be utilized when inflow
drops below 1,000 cfs.   The original design intention for use  of the summer
                                  3-25
-------
pool was  that  it be  used solely  for  flow augmentation,  and  for  potable
water supply (Section 3.3.2.2.)-   A  description  of the  intended method  of
operation of the proposed  hydropower facilities  (preferred  alternative)  is
presented in Appendix G.

     The  EIS  on the East Fork  Lake project (USCOE 1974) did  not  address
the  impacts  of the  proposed hydroelectric  facilities  on the lake  and  the
downstream water quality.  With  respect to reservoir releases,  though,  it
stated that:

     "Storage of excessive runoff could occasionally necessitate open-
     ing the main gates  during  periods of  thermal  stratification.   At
     these  times,  water from  the hypolimnion containing  significant
     amounts of  dissolved iron  and manganese  and possibly  hydrogen
     sulfide  and low concentrations  of  oxygen  could  be  released,
     producing harmful  effects  to downstream aquatic fauna and prob-
     lems for water supply treatment	Even though  passage  of
     water through the outlet  works  wilJ  restore oxygen  to  saturation
     levels,  it  is possible  (but not probable)  that oxygen demand  in
     this water  would deplete  oxygen concentration downstream  to  the
     extent that there would  be an adverse impact."

     Although  this  statement   describes   probable  impacts  of  operations
related to flood control,  the  same procedures and  water  chemical reactions
would likely apply to tailwater  impacts of future hydroelectric facilities
operating during the  summer, when the  lake is stratified.   Near the end of
the  summer  and  when  reservoir storage is  at  a  seasonal  low,  usually  in
September or  October, turbine  intakes  from the  surface could  reduce  the
thickness of  the epilimnetic  (surface)  water  4  or 5 feet  increasing  the
release of hypolimnetic  waters  of poor chemical  quality.  An  environmental
assessment and feasibility study  of the proposed  hydropower alternatives
was published in December of  1983 in  preliminary draft  form.   The published
draft of this document will be  available early  in 1984  (USCOE 1983).
                                  3-26
-------
3.3.2.2.  Public Water Supply

     The  Facilities  Planning  Area currently  is  served  by  five  separate
public  water  supply  systems which rely on a combination of  surface  water
and groundwater supplies to provide service.

     Clermont   County   Water   District   (Pierce-Union-Batavia   Sub-
     district)
     Tate-Monroe Water System,  Inc.
     Bethel municipal system
     Batavia municipal system
     Williamsburg municipal system

These  supply  systems distribute  water  to the  majority of the  Facilities
Planning Area.  Portions  of  the area  not served by  public  water distribu-
tion systems are shown in Figure 3-5.

     Approximately 96%  of all  residences  connected to  the Amelia-Batavia
sewerage  system now  obtain potable  water  from the  Pierce-Union-Batavia
(PUB)  subdistrict  of the  Clermont County Water District.   The PUB  water
system  also  serves many  unsewered residences  in the northern part of  the
Facilities  Planning  Area.   The water  source  for  the PUB subdistrict  is
water wells in the Ohio River floodplain near New Palestine.

     The Tate-Monroe system  supplies  water to many unsewered  residences in
the  southeastern  part  of  the  FPA within  Tate  and  Monroe  Townships.   The
Tate-Monroe water  system  relies on a  well field adjacent to the Ohio  River
near New Richmond.   The  Village of Bethel, located  near  Cloverlick Creek,
currently relies on a surface intake in the creek for approximately 360,000
gallons per  month.   A similar  amount is purchased  monthly under  contract
with the Tate-Monroe Water System, Inc.

     The Village  of  Batavia municipal  system has  a surface water intake
located in a dammed pool on the East Fork.   The  treatment plant  has a  1  mgd
capacity and  Batavia currently  utilizes a fraction of  that capacity (Balke
Engineers 1982a).
                                  3-27
-------
1
        1000  4000
        0  2000     8000

          scale in feet
       Figure 3-5.  Areas outside the  state  park not served by
                    public water supply systems.
                                      3-28
-------
     The City  of  Williarasburg has a  surface  water intake in a dammed  pool
on  the  East Fork  upstream from  Williams burg.   The  current  withdrawal  is
approximately 0.15 mgd (OEPA  1983).

     According  to  the Facilities  Plan  (Balke Engineers 1982a),  the public
water supply systems  relying  on Ohio River groundwater may not have suffi-
cient capacity to serve the future needs for  public water  in unincorporated
portions of  the  respective service areas.  In the future, the public water
supply capacity of Harsha Lake could  fill this need.  Should Harsha Lake  be
increasingly utilized  for public  water supply,  at least  two  types of im-
pacts on water resources can  be anticipated.  First,  the water supplies now
being imported  from  the  Ohio  River Valley would  no  longer supplement East
Fork streamflows  through  WWTP effluent discharge.  Secondly, any reservoir
water used for public water supply would no longer be available for augmen-
tation  of  streamflow between the dam  and  downstream effluent discharges.

     The  Clermont  County  Water District has already constructed  a  water
intake  structure  in Harsha Lake  and is planning  to  take  advantage of the
considerable  water  supply capacity  of  the  reservoir.   Although  no  water
presently  is withdrawn  from   Harsha Lake  for  public water  supplies,  the
             r' ' • I   •  /     '-  ' •- • *   '"  • *',-'
supply design capacity of this reservofr (3.7 mgd) makes it one of the most
important potential sources of water  for future domestic and industrial use
(USCOE 1974).   Due  to the generally poor  quality of groundwater  in this
region, surface water  supplies from   the East Fork and from Harsha Lake are
important  for  the future. Increased use of  Harsha Lake  waters  for public
water supply could  potentially result  from increased park attendance, from
enlargement of  the  County distribution network, (Figure 3-5) and from sale
of water to replace currently used Ohio River well field sources.

     The Ohio Department  of Natural  Resources has sent a  letter  of intent
to  the  USCOE stating  that the State of Ohio will  take  whatever  steps are
necessary to utilize  the  design water supply capacity of Harsha Lake.  The
State also  has agreed  to pay  an annual fee to  the  Federal  government  as
compensation for the costs incurred in constructing the dam to provide this
water supply capacity (USCOE  1974).
                                  3-29
-------
3.3.2.3.   Waste Assimilation

     The ability of the  East Fork  of  the Little Miami River  to  assimilate
wastewater  treatment  plant effluent  is  limited primarily  by its  natural
hydrologic  characteristics  (Sections  3.3.1.).   However,  the  existing  con-
formation of WWTP discharges scattered along  the river  and  its tributaries,
as compared  to  the  proposed regional  collection and treatment system,  does
not  overwhelm  the  assimilative  capacity  of the East Fork.   In spite  of
ongoing poor performance and sewage bypassing at the Williamsburg,  Batavia,
Bethel, and  Am-Bat  treatment plants,  the East Fork now receives its  total
effluent  load  at dispersed locations  and is  not  degraded over any  reach
except for  minor degradation downstream  from Williamsburg.  This aspect  of
the  river's  existing  assimilative  capacity  was well  illustrated by  waste
load  allocation, model  verification  studies  for the  lower East Fork  WWTP
discharges as presented in the  draft CWQR (OEPA 1983).

     In the  computer  model verification  runs which  simulated  stream  char-
acteristics and their response  to sewage  bypassing  at the Batavia WWTP  from
17 to 19 July 1982,  minimum dissolved  oxygen  (DO) concentrations  at  no  time
fell below  6.0  ppm  at  four lower East Fork  stream  sampling stations  (OEPA
1983).  Mean DO concentration downstream  from the Batavia and  the Am-Bat
WWTPs, as  recorded  over  3.5 stream miles, held  within the 8.0 to  10.5 ppm
range  (OEPA  1983).   This  range of  DO  means was maintained under  streamflow
and temperature conditions approximately  those deemed critical by OEPA, and
was  sustained  through  the oxygen  "sag  point"  predicted  by   the  computer
model  at  River Mile  10.6.  Because  the  Batavia  WWTP  was  bypassing  raw
sewage from  a  community  of approximately 2,000  people on  the first day of
the model  verification  surveys  (17 July)  and,  over  the  two following days
did  not  result in  downstream  violations of  Ohio  stream  DO  standards,  it
appears that the capacity  of  the  lower  East  Fork  to assimilate  effluent
from a new regional system may  be more than the model predictions indicate.
Additional  stream  modeling work would be required  before this  assumption
concerning assimilative stream  capacity can be validated.
                                  3-30
-------
     Construction of a  regional  facility would discharge all the FP efflu-
ents at a  single  point  and thus would  alter  stream flows characteristics.
Construction of a regionalized plant at the Am-Bat site would have a direct
effect on stream low-flow characteristics from Batavia to the Am-Bat plant.
In drought conditions,  the river downstream from the Batavia WWTP presently
                ^w>\\ *--
is  made  up  in Laige-^part of  effluent  (Section 3.3.1.).   Diversions  of
Batavia wastewater  flows to  the  downstream Am-Bat WWTP  would  remove this
streamflow contribution.

     In  the  East  Fork  basin,  wastewater assimilation  and public  water
supply uses  are interactive.   Water supply,  stream assimilative capacity,
and  hydroelectric power  generation plans  are identified  in this EIS  as
major  factors  to  be weighed  in assessing impacts  of  the Draft  Facilities
Plan alternatives.

3.3.2.4.   Proposed Stream and Lake Use Classifications

     Ohio  EPA  (1983) has proposed specific stream  use classifications  and
biological habitat  classifications  based  on recent field investigations on
the  East Fork.  The diversity  of  aquatic life observed  by  OEPA warranted
the  recommendation  that the  East  Fork  and Dodson  Creek be  designated  an
Exceptional  Warmwater Habitat (EWH).   A Warmwater  Habitat  (WWH)  classifi-
cation has been recommended  for  all other  tributaries and  for  the  head-
waters of  the East Fork from RM 85 to  RM 75.   The  East Fork (with the
 exception  of the  headwaters from RM 85  to  RM  75) also  was recommended to be
 designated as  State and  National Resource Waters (SNRW).

     Recreational  uses  recommended for  the  East Fork  and  all  tributaries
are  secondary  contact  recreation   for  all waters  above  William H.  Harsha
Lake and  tributaries  to the  East Fork downstream  of the  reservoir.   The
mainstem of  the East Fork  downstream  of the reservoir has been recommended
to be classified as meeting primary contact recreation standards.

     With respect  to water  supply,  Ohio EPA recommended that Harsha Lake be
designated for public water  supply uses.   Because no observed agricultural
                                  3-31
-------
or industrial water supply uses were documented,  these uses were not recom-
mended in the classification system used by OEPA.

     USEPA currently  is reviewing the  recommendations  for proposed stream
classifications that Ohio EPA has developed for the entire East Fork water-
shed.  Once  this  Federal  review has been  completed  and  the proposed state
classifications published, a  public  hearing will  be held by Ohio EPA.   The
state  record of  decision on  these  classifications will  be based on  an
evaluation of  the public hearing testimony and written  comments submitted
by State and Federal agencies and other interested parties.

3.3.2.5.   Groundwater Use

     The FPA has very limited sources of groundwater.  The only substantial
sources of groundwater  are  found in the alluvial  areas along the East  Fork
valley, where  yields  of 5 to 25 gallons  per  minute (gpm) can be obtained.
This valley  area  is  sparsely  developed,  there are  few wells,  and  no  com-
plaints or evidence of groundwater contamination have been received.

     Most of the  upland, unsewered  portion of the FPA  is  covered with a
layer  of  glacial  till which is not  a  good source of groundwater.  Most of
the  clayey  soil  types  actually do contain a  significant  amount of water,
which  is  partially  "locked  in"  to the  structure  of  the  soil.  Movement of
water  through  the clayey soils is so  slow that  the potential groundwater
yields are insignificant (Balke Engineers 1982a).

3.3.2.6.   Projection of Phosphorus Loads to Surface Waters

     All  lakes  naturally proceed  toward  eutrophication  at  varying rates.
However,  in  many cases, human activities contribute heavily toward acceler-
ation  of this  rate  through  excessive inputs of  nutrients.   Such  is the
potential  situation  in  the  Harsha  Lake.   Inadequately  treated discharge
from  municipal sewage  treatment plants,  heavy  nutrient  runoff  from  sur-
rounding  agricultural land,  on-site system leachate,  atmospheric  deposi-
tion,  groundwater,  and  sediment resuspension from within  the lake, may all
contribute nutrients, resulting in a shortening of  the effective life span
                                  3-32
-------
of the  reservoir.   If  nutrient levels in surface layers of the lake become
high, the  increased productivity of  the aquatic system which  results  can
produce nuisance conditions.

     In most  cases, phosphorus  is  the  limiting  factor in  nuisance  algal
growth.   Determining the  magnitude  of phosphorus inputs from  all  sources,
it is possible  to  estimate the potential conditions that may result in the
reservoir,  as well as the relative importance of phosphorus sources.

     Where land use and  population  is known throughout the drainage basin,
phosphorus  loads  can be  calculated.   A breakdown of  drainage  basin  areas
within  the  planning area  is  given  in Table 3-5.  Land  use  and population
estimates were  found not  to be detailed enough  to  make precise phosphorus
loading estimates.  However,  an  attempt was made to determine the  order of
magnitude of  annual phosphorus  loads  and resulting  phosphorus concentra-
tions within  Harsha Lake,  as  presented in Table 3-6.   Based on these pre-
liminary calculations,  it was estimated that septic  tank systems contribute
less  than  10%  of  the  total  annual  phosphorus load  to Harsha  Lake.   The
predicted  annual   average  phosphorus   concentration  in   Harsha  Lake   is
0.04 mg/1.    This   mean concentration  is sufficient   to support a  highly
productive  phytoplankton  community,  depending  upon physical limnology  of
the  lake.   It  also could  promote  nuisance growths  of aquatic plants  in
shallow bays  and along shorelines.   Respiration by algae and  plants  could
result  in serious  depletion of dissolved oxygen in deeper  portions of  the
lake.

3.3.2.7.  Surface Water Quality

     Protection of water  quality  in Harsha Lake and maintenance   of  high
quality water in the East Fork of the Little  Miami River are  cited in  the
Facilities  Plan  as the  primary  reasons for providing improved wastewater
collection  and  treatment  in the  FPA (Balke Engineers  I982a).   The  need  to
provide adequate levels of treatment  at the  Williamsburg WWTP as a  means of
protecting  Harsha  Lake was recognized at a  much earlier date  by  the Ohio
Department  of Public Health,  as  indicated by that  agency's  comments on  the
EIS on  the  East Fork  Project  (USCOE  1974).   In order to assess the  water
                                  3-33
-------
Table 3-5.  Drainage basins and point source discharge within  the Middle
            East Fork planning area.
         Area
        i££r£l)   Po in t Pi scharg e
F-20     9,929    Williamsburg WWTP
                      Approximate
                           _(mg_d)_

                          0.3
                Drains to
           Harsha Lake
F-17a    9,537    None
                                     Harsha Lake
F-16a   26,542    None
                                     Harsha Lake
F-15    15,889    Bethel WWTP
                          0.5
           Harsha Lake
F-14     6,392    Berry Garden WWTP
                          0,01
           Harsha Lake
        68,289    Holly Towne WWTP
                          0.04
F-13     1,637    COE Damsite WWTP
                          0.001
           East Fork below lake
F-12    4,520     None
                                     East Fork below  lake
F-ll    4,435
Am-Bat WWTP

Batavia WWTP
2

0.2
East Fork below lake
F-10D   3,688     None
                                     East Fork below  lake
F-24    2,360     None
                                     East Fork  below  lake
F-23    4,531     None
                                     East Fork  below  lake
F-22    1,154     None
                                     East Fork  below  lake
F-21    4,295     None
                                     East Fork  below lake
 Basins having acreage outside the FPA.
 •"Basin not  within  natural hydrologic boundaries  of  the planning area,  but
 included due to service area extensions of Amelia-Batavia  system.
                                  3-34
-------
Table 3-6.  Estimated relative phosphorus loads to Harsha Lake.
                                                        Percentage of
Source                      Tot al Pho s pho ru s        Phosphorus Contribution
             n
Point sources
     Williamsburg WWTP             746                        3.7
     Bethel WWTP                   690                        3.A
     Berry Garden^WWTP              14                        0.7
     Holly Towne WWTP            	55                        0.2

     Sub total                   1,505                        8.0

Non-point sources
     Atmospheric wet
          and dry fallb            178                        1
     Watershed inputc           16,830                       84
     On-site systems in FPA
          (worst case)"          1,460                        7
     Total                      19,973                      100
*3
 Annual effluent volume  multiplied by an estimated  concentration  of 1.0 mgP/1,
 except for Williamsburg, estimated as 1.8 mgP/1.
 Lake surface area  (890  ha)  multiplied by the phosphorus  in  rainfall and dust-
 fall, 0.20 kg/ha/yr (USEPA 1980).
c                       2
 Watershed area  (342 mi  )  multiplied  by  the export  coefficient,  0.19 kg/ha/yr
 (USEPA 1980).
 Estimated number  of residents using  on-site systems in  FPA  tributary  to lake
 multiplied  by  approximately  "all  failing"  estimate  of  0.4 kg/cap/yr,  based
 on an  0.8 kg/cap/yr (USEPA 1980) loading from  the  septic tank and  50%  of  the
 phosphorus retained on the property.
                                  3-35
-------
quality  impacts  of  alternatives  proposed  in this  EIS   the  most  useful
parameters are  those  which  reflect  degradation of  streams  or lakes,  or
those  which  indicate  conformance  with  the  State  of  Ohio  surface  water
standards.  Therefore, the discussion of surface water quality  is  limited
in this EIS to:

     •    Primary  nutrients  such  as  phosphorus  and  nitrates  (P  and
          NO-,  respectively)
     •    Dissolved oxygen concentration (DO)
     •    Water   clarity   indicators   such  as  secchi   disk depth  and
          turbidity
     •    Biological  indicators  of enrichment  such  as algal  produc-
          tivity
     •    Fecal  coliform  organism  density  as it may reflect  the pres-
          ence  of untreated domestic wastewater.

     The  waters  of the East  Fork upstream  from  Williamsburg  wefe  recently
sampled  and  tested for  potential  pollution  from  a  major hazardous  waste
landfill  located  in  the  East Fork  watershed (OEPA 1983).   This testing was
specifically conducted to identify  potential leachates from hazardous waste
and is not useful for characterizing domestic organit  waste sources; there-
fore,  the values measured are  not reported  herein.   For a  comprehensive
review of surface water  qualities  in the  entire  East Fork Basin,  the CWQR
(OEPA 1983) and  the OKI-Miami River Basin Plan (OKI 1977)  may be consulted.

     Streams

     The  biochemical  qualities  of  the East Fork of the Little Miami River
are directly influenced  by the highly variable  streamflow patterns shared
by all  tributaries of the Little Miami  River Basin  (Section 3.3.1.)-  The
lowest monthly average streamflows  recorded on the Little Miami River near
its confluence with  the  East Fork  tributary, are for the months of August,
September,  and  October.    The  extreme low flows are  generally associated
with the  last weeks of September and  the first weeks of October, as surface
water  temperatures begin  to fall  with  the onset  of cool  autumn nights
(OKI 1977).
                                  3-36
-------
     Surface water  temperature  is  important because oxygen dissolution and
organic material  decay processes  in streams are  directly related  to  it.
The  low  flow extremes  are not necessarily  simultaneous with  the highest
stream  temperatures.    The  low  flow  extremes  are  associated  with  early
autumn, but  the highest  stream  temperatures occur  in July  (OKI  1977),  a
function  of  the highest  incident  solar radiation values  which follow  the
summer solstice (22 June).

     On a daily average  basis,  temperature of  the Little Miami  River is
approximately 25°C in July and early August.   Maximum stream temperature in
July may  be  as high as 32°C  and minimum July temperature as low  as 20°C.
August maximum and minimum stream temperatures both are generally about  two
centigrade  degrees lower  than for  July.    The  lowest monthly  average DO
concentrations  reported  for the Little  Maimi River at  Milford,  Ohio also
occurred  in  July  and August  with  daily  minimum  oxygen values  ocurring
between 8 and 10 AM during those months (OKI 1977).

     Public  use of the East Fork  waters for  fishing is  highly  dependent
upon  the   continued maintenance  of  adequate  levels  of dissolved  oxygen
throughout  the critical  summer months,  as defined  above.   The  Ohio  EPA
currently reports  that  the levels  of dissolved oxygen throughout  the East
Fork ma ins tern generally are adequate to sustain a high  quality warm water
sports  fishery  (OEPA  1983).   Additionally,  public  health  and  aesthetic
characteristics of the East Fork and its tributary waters were described by
OEPA  as  generally  adequate  to   support  whole  body  contact   recreation
(Section 3.3.2.).    However,  the Ohio  EPA  report and  other  investigations
have suggested  that short  segments  of the  East  Fork and its  tributaries
currently are somewhat  degraded by agricultural runoff,  seepage from fail-
ing  on—site  waste  systems,  and  poorly  operating  wastewater  treatment
plants.  The data presented in the  Comprehensive Water Quality Report (OEPA
1983)  and in  the  Facilities Plan  (Balke  Engineers 1982a) and supporting
documents  demonstrate  some  minor  impacts  from these potential  pollutant
sources,   although  the  CWQR indicates that overall East  Fork  water quality
is generally high during low-flow  to average-flow conditions.
                                  3-37
-------
     The water quality  impact  of  blue-green algae found in  flowing  waters
and attached  to  stream substrates  were  not addressed in the above  refer-
enced  studies.   Blue—green algae  can produce  large  amounts of  dissolved
oxygen  in  response  to  sufficient  light  levels and this beneficial  effect
may be increased  by wastewater effluents.

     As discussed previously,  very  low  instream DO levels can  be  expected
in  certain  segments  of  the  East Fork   during September-October  because
wastewater  dilution  by streamflow is  likely  to  be  minimal  during  that
period  (Section 3.3.1.).   Stream  temperatures may exceed 20°C  in September
through October while  streamflow  is approaching zero.  Under these  condi-
tions,  wastewater  effluent assimilation  may  cause problems downstream  of
the treatment plant discharges.

     When the midsummer stream temperature maximum (32°  C)  is  coupled with
moderate to low streamflow,  this  is likely to  represent the most critical
period  for  wastewater assimilation.  However,  field  surveys of  the lower
East Fork conducted in July 1982 indicated no violations  of  State dissolved
oxygen standards  for surface waters (6.0 mg/1 DO minimum).   These East Fork
surveys  were conducted  while  temperature  ranged from  22° to 25°C  and
streamflow  approached  critical low  levels (10-25 cfs),  simultaneous  with
direct discharge  of untreated sewage from the Village of  Batavia collection
system  (OEPA  1983).   The  OEPA  report  on  the  July stream  surveys  was not
conclusive as to why  the  assimilative capacity of the lower East Fork was
not exceeded.  However, algae may have had a strong role  in maintaining the
instream DO, as described  in the following paragraphs.

     The Harsha Lake dam,  constructed on the East Fork and filled to summer
pool  level  in June  1979,  was  designed to trap and settle much  of the sedi-
ment  and  nutrients arriving  from  upstream portions  of  the  watershed (OKI
1977).   Prior to  the complete  filling  of this  reservoir, the  upstream
wastewater  discharges  and  non-point  source  pollution may   have  had water
quality  impacts  extending down the  East Fork  to  its confluence  with the
Little Miami mainstem.  In both a biological and a physical  sense, this new
reservoir is  an  immense reactor vessel which provides treatment of organic
materials  and  inorganic  materials  arriving  from  upstream  (Table 3-7).
                                  3-38
-------
Table 3-7.  Ohio EPA stream sampling station locations; East Fork of Little
            Miami River,  summer  of  1982;  as presented  in the  CWQR (OEPA
            1983).

Station        Location

   6           McKeever Road - Upstream of Williamsburg
   7           Main Street - Downstream of the Williamsburg WWTP
   8a          Downstream of the East Fork Dam
   8b          S.R. 222 - Upstream of the Batavia WWTP
   9           S.R. 32 - Downstream of the Batavia WWTP and upstream of the
                         Am-Bat WWTP
  lOa          Adjacent S.R. 222 - Downstream of the Am-Bat WWTP
  lOb          Olive  Branch-Stonelick  Road - Upstream of  Stonelick Creek
     Harsha Lake is reported to be a fertile body of water which supports a
sports  fishery  (Section 3.5.3.).   Because the lake  receives  little tribu-
tary  flows  to  it  during late summer and because significant nutrient loads
are delivered to the lake during winter and spring runoff events, eutrophi-
cation  symptoms, such  as algal blooms, could be  imminent  if  not already a
problem (OKI 1977).  However, Harsha Lake is deep and often becomes strati-
fied  in summer, isolating  sedimentary nutrients from  the surface waters.
This  makes  it   less  likely  that the  phytoplankton  community would become
dominated by blue-green  algae  in  July, August,  and  early September.  Phos-
phorus and nitrates in the Williamsburg WWTP effluent probably do stimulate
the overall algal  community throughout the summer.   These plankton produce
supersaturated  levels of oxygen in the surface of the lake.

     The relatively small flows currently released from the Harsha Lake dam
during summer and  autumn (Section  3.3.1.) may result in improved downstream
dissolved oxygen  levels  because of the  increased phytoplankton biovolumes
cultivated in Harsha Lake.   These  oxygen-producing  algae probably increase
downstream oxygen  levels  above  what would be expected if the  lake were not
present and were not releasing biologically productive  water.   This situ-
ation may be especially  important  during the July temperature-light maxima
                                  3-39
-------
when oxygen  producing  phytoplankton  populations typically reach peak abun-
dance in freshwater lakes and when high stream temperatures in the East Fork
segment below the  reservoir  would otherwise preclude  the  river  from fully
assimilating wastewater.                                                    «

     The East Fork  downstream of Harsha Lake  flows  through  an alternating
sequence of  riffle  and pool  habitats; at least  four major pools are found
between the dam and the downstream-most area of wastewater impact below the
Am-Bat WWTP  (Table 3-7;  3-8).   Because lake-adapted  algae  would  tend  to
produce greater  amounts of oxygen under pooled  conditions,  peak photosyn-
thesis will  occur  in  the same deep-water stream  environments  where waste-
water  constituent   impacts  on  the  river  would  be  greatest.   Insoluble
amounts of  oxygen  produced  by  algae  tend  to form  gas  bubbles  around the
nuclei of  suspended solids  in  the stream (Table  3-9).   These bubbles can
redissolve as the  decay of organic wastes consumes dissolved oxygen in the
Table 3-8.  Diurnal  oxygen variations  for  the seven  sampling  stations on
            the East Fork within the FPA (OEPA 1983).
                                                           River Mile
                                                         Extent of Major
                                                         Stream Pools
                                                           33.3 - 33.1
                                                           14.3 - 13.5
                                                           13.0 - 12.8
                                                           11.5 - 10.2
  The  river miles  are based  on the  streambed  profiles  from  the Federal
  Emergency  Management Flood  Insurance  Study  (FEMA 1980)  and subsequent
  adjustment of  the sampling  station locations  as  reported in  the CWQR.

Station
Numbe r
6
7
NS
8a
8b
9
lOa
lOb

River
Mile a
33 9
32.9
Harsha Lake
19.8
15.2
12.8
11.0
8.7
Low
DO
mg/1
7.1
6.4
—
6.9
6.5
6.4
5.6
8.0
High
DO
mg/1
9.2
9.4
—
8.8
8.4
10.0
9.9
12.2
Diurnal
Variation
mg/1 DO
(2.1)
(3.0)
—
(1-9)
(1.9)
(3.6)
(4.3)
(4.2)
                                  3-40
-------
"Table 3-9.  Summary of 1982 Ohio EPA stream sampling data  for  the  sampling  stations
            within the FPA.



Average
Station
Number
6
7
NS
8a
8b
9
lOa
lOb
Stream
Character
flow! ng
flowing
Harsha Lake
flowing
flowing
pooled
pooled
flowing
DO
mg/1
8.1
6.2
NSa
8.6
8.6
8.2
8.0
7.9
Maximum
Temper-
rature
°C
25.0
24.5
NS
23.5
23.0
22.0
22.5
23.5

Mean
COD
mg/1
21.2
22.8
NS
16.2
18.4
16.6
17.6
18.8

Mean
NO -N
mg/1
2.04
2.78
NS
1.30
1.32
1.18
1.68
1.56

Phos.
(Total)
mg/1
0.16
0.29
NS
0.06
0.15
0.10
0.32
0.30

Maximum
TSS
mg/1
72.
155.
NS
11.
20.
24.
300.
306.
Mean
Fecal
Col i form
#/100 ml
___
52,433
NS
	
102
	
1,263
— — —
     = not sampled.

     pooled  environments  of  the  East Fork.   The discharge  of  oxygen super-
     saturated water from a pool to a downstream riffle would result in  a reaer-
     ation  rate  that  is nearly four times greater than that estimated under the
     assumption that atmospheric partial pressure of oxygen controls the reaera-
     tion rate.   The  partial  pressure of  pure  oxygen  would be rate-controlling
     because it would be available in the gas bubbles produced by algae.

          Ohio  EPA stream  survey  data  from 1982 (OEPA  1983)  provide  indirect
     evidence that the East Fork DO minima, expected as a result of July temper-
     ature  and  flow conditions, was counteracted  by  high phytoplankton produc-
     tivity.   Around-the-clock stream  sampling  conducted  at four  stations  in
     sequence, beginning above Batavia, demonstrated that supersaturated concen-
     trations of  oxygen  were present in the water column, both during and after
     bypassing  of raw  sewage  from  the  Village of  Batavia  WWTP  (Table 3-9) .

          The  beneficial  impact  of  phytoplankton  production  is  demonstrated
     particularly well  by  the Ohio EPA stream  survey  data collected 17-19 July
     1982 at  River Miles  11.2  and  10.2 (downstream from  the  Am-Bat  WWTP).   At
     the upstream end of this pooled portion, daily average dissolved oxygen was
     reported as  approximately 8.8 mg/1.   At  the downstream  end of  the  pool,
     where  the  stream  changed to  a  flowing  habitat, dissolved  oxygen varied
                                       3-41
-------
between 9.5 and  11.0 mg/1.   The  greatest diurnal variations were  measured
at the  downstream  end of  this  pool.   These data demonstrate conclusively
that algal  populations  in the mile-long pool of  the East Fork below  the
Am-Bat  WWTP were able to  produce sufficient amounts of oxygen  to  overcome
extraordinarily high  loads  of  oxygen demanding substances associated with
pollutants.   The minimum  State   dissolved  oxygen  standard of 6.0 mg/1  was
not violated at any time  upstream or downstream of  this pool.

     In  addition  to  round-the-clock  surveys,  the  water quality  of  the
East Fork was  systematically evaluated at 23 mainstem monitoring  stations
located  over  the  entire  length  of the  stream  channel.   Seven of  these
stations were located  within the  FPA,  (Table 3-7).

     Each station was sampled at least five and, in most  cases, six  times
in June through  September  1982.   A summary of the  data  for  six parameters
is presented in Table  3-9.

     Stations 6 and 7 are  upstream and downstream  of Williamsburg,  respec-
tively.  The beneficial  impact of Harsha Lake on  instream  water  quality  can
be seen by  comparison of  average levels of  temperature,  COD, NO -N,  phos-
phorus   (total),  and  TSS  upstream  and downstream  of  the reservoir.   In-
creased in TSS, phosphorus,  and  nitrates in Stations lOa  and  lOb are appar-
ently  due  to  discharges  from  the Batavia  and  the  Amelia-Batavia  WWTPs
(Table  3-7).

     Ohio EPA  also  conducted two' studies of diurnal oxygen and  temperature
variations at  the  23  stations on the East Fork during the summer  of  1982.
Day and night extremes of dissolved oxygen at the seven stations within  the
FPA are presented in Table 3-8,  excerpted from the  CWQR (OEPA 1983).

William H.  Harsha Lake

     Harsha Lake is  the  largest surface water  body  in  the FPA.   With  a
seasonal pool area  of  2,160 acres and a mean depth  of 43  ft,  this lake is  a
fishing, boating,  and swimming  resource of  regional  significance  (Section
3.10.3.).   Because  a  land area  in  excess  of 342 square  miles  drains into
                                  3-42
-------
Harsha Lake, there is  a  significant potential for non-point source pollut-
ants to excessively enrich  its  waters (Section 3.3.4.)-   The lake's water-
shed also  is documented  to have a  number of areas with  poorly  operating
on-site wastewater treatment  systems  (OEPA 1983,  Balke Engineers  1982a)  as
well  as  two municipal  WWTPs  discharging  inadequately  treated  effluent
during  times  of high  rainfall.   The potential  for  adverse water  quality
impacts due  to  these  nutrient sources appears to be  high (Section 3.2.5.).

     The  Ohio River  Basin  Commission  (OKI 1977)  similarly  concluded  that
Harsha Lake  was  impacted  by  three  major  sources  of  total phosphorus
nutrients:

     Agricultural runoff
     Municipal  wastewater effluent and  inadequately  treated  sewage  being
     discharged from Williamsburg and Bethel wastewater systems
     Bottom deposits of silt or lake-bed sediment.

     These  sources  could  be contributing  nutrients  which  accelerate  the
eutrophication of Harsha Lake.   Prior  to the warm summer period when algal
bloom  problems  could  be  most severe,  the  most  critical  nutrient  sources
would be the municipal WWTPs at Bethel and Williamsburg.   Wastewater efflu-
ent is  potentially the most significant water quality  influence because  it
contains  biologically  available  nutrients which  can  stimulate algal and
weed growth  much  more  than sediment-bound nutrients are able  to  (Williams
et al.   1976).  Streams tributary to Harsha Lake during  August and  September
of low rainfall years  are made up primarily of wastewater effluent (Section
3.3.2.).   This   streamflow,   carrying  the  effluents   of Williamsburg and
Bethel  WWTPs,  would  tend to disperse  within the biologically productive
shallows  of  the  lake,  stimulating  growth of nuisance  algae and  aquatic
macrophytes.   However, no serious problems with poor water  clarity,  blue-
green algae blooms,  weed growth, or fecal coliform contamination of  beaches
have thus far been observed in Harsha Lake (By telephone, Jerry Boone,  ODNR
Park Manager, to WAPORA,  Inc.  20 October 1983).

     The quality  of Harsha  Lake  and surrounding streams  has been  routinely
surveyed  by  the  US Army  Corps  of  Engineers,  Louisville District  Office,
                                  3-43
-------
since  the  early 1970s.   Prior  to complete  filling of  the  Lake in  1979,
USCOE sampling was infrequent because  few data  were necessary  for planning
the operation of the  uncompleted  reservoir.   Presently,  the  USCOE conducts
an  intensive  sampling  program  to assist in  reservoir  operation  and  in
evaluation of drinking water supply  characteristics at various depths  in
the lake  (Figure 3-6).   The USCOE water  quality data  for Harsha Lake  is
most extensive for  the 1981  through 1983 period.

     During summer,  the US Army  Corps  of Engineers  (USCOE)  conducts  strati-
graphic water quality  sampling  of  the lake at least every  two  weeks.   This
sampling is  conducted near  the dam's variable  depth  bypass structure  in
order to provide a  basis for day-today operational  decisions.   By following
                                  *\_/
water temperature trends, the operators are  able to anticipate  changes  in
the thermocline  and,  thus, stay  within the boundaries of  tailwater tempera-
ture guidelines for release water.  This  is necessary because during  late
summer  and  early  autumn, the water below the thermocline may have low  DO
and high  manganese  and  iron  and  therefore  be  unsuitable for release  (By
telephone,  David Zagurny, USCOE, to WAPORA, Inc.  20 October 1983).

     The USCOE sampling  program allows  preparation of  temperature profiles
or  thermographs showing  changes in temperature with depth (near  the  dam).
The primary station for these  profiles is  located near  the "log boom"  south
of the dam face  (USCOE Station #2EFR200) .   Additional, stations  are profiled
in  outlying  areas of Harsha Lake on  a   less  frequent  basis  to  determine
stratification characteristics in bays and nearer the inflow  point of  the
East Fork of  the Little Miami  River.   Examples of  temperature  profiles  at
the log boom station for 1981  and  1982 are presented in Appendix H.

     The USCOE  also  has sampled  the water  chemistry  of  Harsha Lake  at
various depths,  but  on  a less frequent  basis.   Parameters such as  iron,
manganese,  sulfates, nitrates, dissolved  solids,  turbidity,  oxygen  demand,
alkalinity, and pH were regularly tested  to allow  evaluation  of potential
drinking water  supplies.  A limited  sampling of  priority  pollutant  metal
ions  also  was  conducted.  These  data have  little  applicability  to  the
issues  being assessed  in  this  EIS   and therefore will not be  further
discussed.
                                  3-44
-------
       Range of Depths by Month to the Surface of the Unmixed (Hypolimnetic) Layer.
surface

     5

    10

    16

    20
    30

    35

    40

    45

    50

    55

    60

    66

    70
O
O
a
o
    80

    85

    90

    95

   100

  lako>
bottom
I
                           I
                                     I
         f  cvj   n
         CO  «0   CO
         a  9   a»
           April
                     (0   CO  CO
                     o»   o»  a»
CO
a»
                         00
                         CD
CO
CO
a»
CO   00  00
o»   o»  o»
T-   CM
ao   oo
ai   o»
ao
a»
T-   CM
CO   CO
o»   a»
n
ao
at
r-  CM
CO  00
o>  a»
oo
01
                       May
                        June
               July
                  August
            September
                 October
       Presence of Defined EpUimnion
 1983
 1982
 1981
                                                                     <8.0'-22.O' to MwmoeMnoi surtace)
                                                                (7.0'-22.0' to thwmocHn* surface)
                          I
                                                                    (14.5'-24.8' to ttwrmocMm aurtac*)
          April
                       May        June
                                    July       August    September    October
             Temporary loss of epMimnton
                                                       Continuous presence of surficial stratification
   Figure 3-6.  Range of depths by month to the surface of the unmixed  or hypolimnetic
                layer and presence of defined epilimnion in Marsha Lake,  1981-1983.

                                            3-45
-------
     A computer listing of  all  available  USCOE data (AURAS Listing; USCOE
water quality data on  the  East  Fork  of the Little Miami River,  1981-1983)
was  obtained.   Based  on  the  1981-1983  temperature data,  the extent  and
duration of  thermal  stratification  in the April  through  October  periods  t
were  estimated  (Figure 3-7).    In  general,  stratification  of  surficial
waters of  Harsha  Lake  (the 0 to 30  foot  layer)  was discontinuous  for  the
three  summers  for which  data  were  available.    Stratification onset  and
breakup dates also varied  significantly from  year to year in  this  period.
The  variability  in  stratification  characteristics makes  it  difficult  to
describe the water chemical condition of the biologically  important  surface
waters, because  the  dissolved  oxygen  content is strongly affected by  the
continuity  of  stratification,  as  discussed  in  the following  paragraphs.

     USCOE data on dissolved oxygen  levels at  various depths in Harsha Lake
are  limited.   For example, at  the  log boom  station,  a total  of eight DO
profiles are available  for  the  summers of 1981,  1982, and  1983.  Assuming
that these  profiles  typify  Harsha Lake, midsummer  oxygen  levels are gener-
ally inadequate to support  a balanced aquatic community below  the  thermo-
cline surface.  (A definition of  the thermocline surface  [Dt]  is  presented
in Appendix H.)  DO  concentration was  usually less than 2.0 mg/1 at depths
greater  than   20   feet,   when  surficial   stratification  was   present
(Figure 3-6).  On  two  July sampling  dates (1981, 1982) oxygen was almost
completely absent below a  depth  of  15 feet.   The ODNR Division of Wildlife
has  reported that  in 1982,  critically low dissolved oxygen levels occurred
at depths greater than four meters  in much of  the June-September period  and
at depths  greater than seven  meters during  October.   A dissolved oxygen
concentration of less  than  four  parts per million was regarded as critical
for  the survival of fish and aquatic  life  (ODNR Division of Wildlife 1983).

     July  and  August  are   the  only   two  summer   months  for the  1981-1983
period when surface  water  temperature  in Harsha Lake was found  to exceed
25°C  (Figure 3-7).   This  finding  may have   significance  to   the effluent
assimilative  capacity  of  the  downstream  segments of  the East Fork.   As
presented in Figure 3-7, when the surface  temperature of the Lake equals or
exceeds 25°C,  the  temperature  of the water at the level  of the deepest  dam
                                  3-46
-------
o
o
U)
CO
.ffi
4->
co

T>
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 O
                                                                                 E

                                                                                 CD
                                                                                 _*
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 I
                                                                                 •
                                                                                 CO -I
                                                                                 £ LU
                                                                                 Q. O
                                                                                 0) Q
                                                                                 "° CO
                                                                                 to D
                                                                                 co _
                                                                                 co E
                                                                                 °3
                                                                                 .0  CD

                                                                                 CD  jw
                                                                                 £  S

                                                                                 "co  a
                                                                                 *  E
                                                                                 s|
                                                                                 co  2
                1
                co
                                                                                    O)
                                                                                 Ji
                                                                                 •JS **
                                                                                 CO -4—
                                                                                 CD W
                                                                                 h= CO
                                                                                 •2 -^
                                                                                 sS
                                                                                 CD >
                                                                                 a *
                                                                                 E o
                                                                                 CD $
                                                                                 o5 >•
                                                                                    CD
                                      3-47
-------
bypass structure is always 8  to  10  degrees  cooler.   Release  of  this  cooler
water during July and  August  could benefit the assimilative capacity  of  the
East Fork  downstream  of  the  dam  if the  dissolved oxygen  concentrations
could be brought to saturation while water is being  released.

     The summary of the temperature  data presented in Figure  3-7 also is of
interest  with  respect  to  the observed  discontinuity  of summer  stratifi-
cation within the  surface  layer  of  Harsha Lake.   In general,  the oxidative
decay of organic matter  and  respirative uptake  of oxygen by  algae would be
highest when water  temperatures  are at  the  midsummer high.   Serious  oxygen
depletion in July  and  August  are likely to  be found below 20 feet of depth
when  thermal  stratification  isolates the underlying layers and  thus  pre-
vents any atmospheric  reaeration  of  that water.

     As  indicated  in  Figure 3-6, surficial  stratification of  Harsha Lake
was frequently disrupted in the 1981 summer  season.   Therefore,  because  the
climatic conditions did not favor strong surface stratification  in 1981, it
is  less  likely  that  oxygen  depletion of the  thermocline and  hypolimnion
would have  been  serious.   Unfortunate] y,  this  cannot be verified  with  the
limited number  of  oxygen  profiles  available  for the  1981  summer season.

     The  sampling  parameters  which  represent  Harsha Lake's recreational
potential and aesthetic conditions must  indicate phytoplankton productivity
and  water  clarity.   Chlorophyll ji  concentration,  Secchi  disk   depth,  and
algal cell density measurements from USCOE  sampling  provide  the  most  direct
indication  of  these by  pointing  to  the degree of  eutrophication and  any
associated  nuisance conditions in the lake.   For the 1981-1983  USCOE  sam-
pling period,  the highest single  algal cell density  (13,090/ml) was  re-
ported for a sample taken at  five feet of depth, on 9 June 1982.  On  9 June
1982, the mean  chlorophyll ji concentration (average of  two  samples, taken
at  0 and  10 feet  of  depth,  respectively) was  14.4  mg per cubic  meter.
These chlorophyll  £ and  algal  count data  indicate that moderate to high
phytoplankton productivity existed  in the  surface waters of  Harsha Lake in
early summer.
                                  3-48
-------
     Because so few  surface  water samples were tested for both chlorophyll
and algal cell density, it is difficult to generalize about the duration of
this  level of  biological productivity  throughout  the  summer.   However,
comparable  levels  of  chlorophyll a_  were reported  for a  May and  a  July
sampling  time  in  other  years,  as presented  in  Table 3-10.   Algal  cell
densities would generally exceed 10,000 cells per milliliter in Harsha Lake
Table 3-10.  Average chlorophyll ^concentration for Harsha Lake, based on
             samples taken at the surface and at 5 feet of depth at the
             "log boom" station (USCOE 1981-1983, unpublished).
                    Date                Chlorophyll a
                    21 July 1981        12.7 mg/nu
                     9 June 1982        14.4 mg/m^
                    25 May 1983         15.3 mg/m
surface waters at  the  end of the summer because freshwater lakes typically
experience  the   greatest  phytoplankton  growth  in   the   surface   layer
(epilimnion) during August and early September.

     A total of 10 Secchi disk measurements were reported for the 1981-1983
period, with values  ranging  from a low of 24 inches to a high of 66 inches
(mean value 46 inches).   Although nutrient levels appear  adequate  to  sup-
port a rich growth of phytoplankton in its surface layers (Table 3-10),  the
water clarity  of Harsha Lake, as  reflected by  the  Secchi  disk data,   is
generally  better  than would  be  expected if nuisance  blooms of blue-green
algae were common.

     The relatively great depth of the lake (over 120 feet in central areas
near the dam)  and  the  tendency of Harsha Lake  to  strongly stratify at  the
surface  probably  allows  much  of  the  silt  and  biologically  assimilated
nutrients  to  settle  out  during  summer.   This process  tends  to  reduce  the
potential for development of nuisance algae blooms by precluding continuous
recycling of nutrients.
                                  3-49
-------
     The  water  quality  of  Harsha Lake  is likely  changing  as  the  biotic
community  and  sedimentation processes  become  stable.   Shoreline  erosion,
for  example,  would  have been  at the  highest rate  immediately following •
reservoir  filling;  at present,  the  more erodible beach areas  should have
become vegetated or  have reached the angle of  stable  repose.   Thereafter,
aquatic plant communities can  become adapted  to a stable littoral environ-
ment.   Additionally,  the  fish  community  should be  considered  "unstable"
since  extensive stocking programs have only recently  been  initiated (Sec-
tion  3.5.).   Changing fish community  structure can play a  strong  role in
shaping phytoplankton  community structure and hence  can ultimately affect
water quality where nuisance algae are involved.

Fecal Coliform SampjULng Results

     Fecal  coliform  sampling  results  are  presented  separately  because
extensive fecal coliform sampling programs have recently been conducted and
reported  on for  various portions of  the FPA.   Fecal coliform  counts in
streams and drainageways of the FPA were reported in a technical supplement
to the  Draft  Facilities  Plan  (Balke  Engineers 1983a)  and  also  in the CWQR
(OEPA 1983).   Additional  fecal  coliform  sampling  is  conducted  by  the
Clermont  County  Sewer District  (CCSD)  to determine  the counts  in Harsha
Lake  near  the  constructed  but  non-utilized  public  water  supply  intake
structure (Section 3.3.2.).  However, the  CCSD data have not been released
for publication.   The Ohio Department of Natural Resources also samples the
lake  beach  areas  for fecal  coliform to determine the suitability for swim-
ming.  These sampling  programs  were  instituted to detect potential surface
water  contamination  by  fecal  materials and to determine the suitability of
those waters for  swimming  and  for potable water supply.  A general explan-
ation  for  using  fecal  coliform counts  to  evaluate  the degree  of fecal
contamination follows.

     Fecal  coliforms are a group of  bacteria found  in the feces  of all
warm-blooded animals.   They survive  outside of  the  bodies of  warm-blooded
animals in  soil or water for periods  ranging  from several hours up to 100
days  depending  on nutrient and temperature conditions  (USEPA 1983b).  In
general, they die off most rapidly when exposed to full sunlight.
                                  3-50
-------
     Fecal  coliforni  bacteria  density levels  in water  can  be  used  as  a
qualitative indicator of the presence of other pathogenic organisms associ-

ated with human  and  animal  feces.   There is  no  direct correlation between
the number  of  disease causing organisms  in  a body of water  and  the fecal

colifonn density in  a sample.   Also, the number  of  disease causing organ-
isms  that  will  initiate  sickness  in a  host cannot  be  known exactly and

depends  on  the  organisms,  the host,  and their  interactions (USEPA 1966,

1983b).


     Fecal  coliform  density levels  are  used as  water quality  criteria by

OEPA  to  classify and  regulate  recreational   water uses  (Table  3-11).   The
Table  3-11.   OEPA  water quality  criteria  for  fecal coliform  content  in
             samples collected from waters used for recreation (OEPA
             undated).

BATHING WATERS

     Water suitable  for  swimming  where a lifeguard and/or bathhouse facil-
ities are present, during the recreation season.

     Fecal.collform  -  Geometric mean  fecal  coliform content  (either most
probable  number  [MPN]  or membrane filter [MF], based on not less than five
s-amples  within  a 30 day  period  shall  not exceed 200 per  100  ml and shall
not exceed 400  per  100 ml in more than 10% of the samples taken during any
30 day period.

PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATION

     Waters  suitable for full  body  contact  recreation,  such as,  but  not
limited  to;  swimming and scuba diving with minimal threat to public health
as a result of water quality, during the recreation season.

     Fee a1 co1i fo rm  -  Geometric mean  fecal coliform content (either MPN or
MF) , basecPon  not less than five  samples  within a 30 day period shall not
exceed 1,000  per  100 ml  and shall not exceed 2,000 per 100 ml in more than
10% of the samples taken during any 30 day period.

SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATION

     Water suitable  for  partial  body  contact recreation,  such as,  but not
Limited  to;  canoeing and wading with minimal threat  to  public health as a
result of water quality, during the recreation season.

     Fecal coliform  -  shall  not  exceed 5,000 per 100 ml (either MPN or MF)
in  more  than  10%  of  the  samples  taken  during  any  30  day  period.
                                  3-51
-------
nature of  fecal  colifora sampling  and analysis  techniques  are such  that
OEPA  requires  each value be  expressed as  a geometric mean  of the  fecal
coliform content  of  samples collected  over a 30 day period.   The  maximum
fecal coliform content  suitable  for  the three levels of recreational  water 4
use are presented in Table 3-11.

     When fecal coliform  sampling  is used to evaluate  human  health risks,
it is not important to distinguish  between fecal coliforms  originating from
humans or from other warm-blooded animals because disease  causing organisms
from  both  can  be pathogenic.   However,  when  a  fecal coliform  sampling
program  is  conducted to  identify  human pollution  sources,  distinguishing
between  human  fecal  coliform  sources  from  animal  sources  is  essential.
Household  pets,  garbage, rodents,  birds,  and  farm animals  are typically
very  significant  sources of fecal  coliform  organisms  found  in stormwater
runoff from urban, residential,  and  rural areas.  Fecal coliform levels in
the  feces   of  humans  and  other  warm-blooded   animals are  presented  in
Appendix B (Table B-l).

     The report  on Surface Water  Quality, prepared as a  Draft Facilities
Plan  supplement  (Balke  Engineers  1983a),   presented  the  results of  fecal
coliform  sampling performed by  Balke  Engineers  between  12 July 1982  and
3 November  1982.   Surface  water   samples  were collected  from  roadside
ditches  and  drainage swales in  areas  designated  in the  Draft Facilities
Plan  as  having  "obvious  problems"  with  on-site  wastewater  treatment
systems.  The  samples were  tested  for  fecal  coliform bacteria  content but
did not  include  areas  without  suspected failing on-site systems to estab-
lish background levels associated with non-human sources.

     Stormwater runoff was present  in ditches and drainage swales when most
of  the  samples were  being collected.  Twenty-one samples were collected on
a  day when  precipitation occurred:   32  were  collected  one day,  20 were
collected two  days,  3  were collected three days, and 6 were collected five
days after precipitation had occurred.

     The typical background fecal coliform densities from non-human sources
affecting stormwater  runoff from  urban,  residential and  rural watersheds
                                  3-52
-------
are presented in Appendix B.  These background levels were used to evaJuate
the sampling  results presented by  Balke Engineers  (1983a).   Samples  with
fecal coliform densities  greater  than 13,000 per 100 ml were considered to
have a very high  probability of contamination from human sources.   Samples
with  fecal  coliform  densities between  6,500 per  100 ml  and 13,000  per
100 ml were considered to indicate a high probability of contamination  from
human sources  but also  indicate  the presence of coll forms  from  non-human
sources.   Samples with fecal coliform densities below 6,500 per 100 ml  were
considered to be  indeterminate because  they are below the background level
attributable  to   non-human  fecal sources  typically  found in  residential
areas.   Some  "indeterminate"  samples could  provide  identification of  a
health problem if taken directly from on-site system outfalls,  from ponding
directly over on-site  systems,  or from  similar locations directly affected
by a  specific on-site  system.   However,  exact sampling  locations  were  not
described in the Balke Engineers study.

     The above  criteria may underestimate  the number  of  samples  contami-
nated with fecal  coliforms  from animal  sources.   Many  of  the  samples  were
taken from  drainage  ditches immediately  adjacent to  streets.  Such loca-
tions are often  prime  areas for walking household pets  or for disposal of
pet waste removed from lawns.  Rodent visitation to these areas is frequent
because garbage and  trash is often placed there  for pickup.   Clustering of
bird populations also occurs in these areas due to the location of overhead
power and  telephone  lines  along  streets.   All are  strong  contributors  of
fecal coliform organisms (Appendix B).

     In  the Balke Engineer's  study,  six fecal coliform  samples were taken
directly downstream  of wastewater treatment  plants (WWTPs)  (Table  3-12).
The fecal coliforms  in these samples are most likely of human origin. These
results can  be  compared  with  those  recently  reported by Ohio EPA  for  the
East Fork of the Little Miami (Table 3-13).

     The Ohio  EPA maximum  fecal  coliform counts from  samples  taken down-
stream of  Williams burg  (Station  Number 7;  Table 3-13)  is similar  to  the
Balke Engineers   count  for  a   sample taken from  the  same general locale
                                  3-53
-------
Table 3-12.  Fecal coliform densities in samples collected dovmstream of
             WWTPS' or in WWTP effluent3 (Balke Engineers I983a).
                 h'.«
                                                            Fecal Coliform
Sample Location                 Date       Sample No.           #/100 ml

East Fork 1,000 ft            08/09/82         37                110,000
  downstream of                                                       ,
  Williamsburg WWTP           08/26/82         61                 TNTC
Downstream of Bethel WWTP     08/25/82         58                 11,000
                              09/30/82         80                 13,000
Discharge of Holly Towne MHP
  WWTP lagoon to Back Run     07/26/82         17                  9,700
Discharge of Berry Gardens
  MHP WWTP lagoon to
  Ulrey Run                   07/26/82         18                 56,000
aSample 26 (2,900/100 ml) is located approximately 3,000 ft downstream of
, Sample 18, discharge from Berry GardensMHP WWTP.
b
 TNTC—too numerous to count.
Table 3-13.  Range of fecal coliform counts from East Fork of the Little
             Miami River based on Ohio EPA sampling results; June -
             September 1982 (OEPA 1983).

Station
No.a
7
8b
lOa

SStation
Location ,
of River
Segment Sampled
Downstream
Williarasburg WWTP
Upstream
Batavia
Downstream
Batavia
Maximum Fecal
Coliform Count
#/100 ml
100,000
270

1,900
Minimum Fecal
Coliform Count
#/100 ml
2,600
25

650
Total
Numbe r
of Samples
6
6

4
nomenclature identical in Table 3-7.
(Table 3-12).  The single maximum fecal coliform count  reported  by OEPA  for

below  Batavia (Table 3-13) does  not indicate  a  high probability  of  human
fecal materials being present.  Apparently, the WWTP  at  Batavia  was operat-

ing properly  on the sampling date.
                                  3-54
-------
     The distribution of  the  feca]  coliform densities in  the  remaining 76
samples  taken  by Balke Engineers  are compared  to  the  typical  background

densities  (Appendix B)  and  OEPA  water  quality  criteria in  Table 3-14.
Nineteen  samples (25.0%)  had  fecal  coliform densities  above  13,000  per

100ml,  and  7  samples  (9.2%)  had densities  between 6,500 and  13,000  per

100 ml.  Therefore,  a total of 26  (34.5%)  of the samples indicate  a very

high  or high  probability of  contamination  by  fecal coli forms of  human
origin.   The  fecal  coliform  contamination  in  the  remaining  50  samples

(65.8%) could be from animal sources.
Table 3-14.
 Number of
  Samples
 Exceeding
 Threshold
   Level
    19


    26


    40



    30

    47

    65
Number of samples
background levels
Engineers 1983a).

  % of Total
    Samples
   Exceeding
   Threshold
     Level
      25.0


      34.2


      52.6



      39.5

      61.8

      85.5
with fecal coliform levels above typical
and OEPA water quality criteria (Balke
         Background or Criterion
             Threshold Level
         (Fecal Coliform #/100 ml)
    Animal contamination of stormwater runoff

    13,000:  business district background
             level

     6,500:  residential area background
             level

     2,700:  rural area background level

    OEPA water quality criteria

     5,000:  secondary contact criteria

     2,000:  primary contact criteria

       400:  bathing water criteria
 76 samples total.
     In general, the  results  of  the Balke Engineers sampling program  indi-
cate that there are  some  on-site systems in the  planning  area  with a very

high or  high probability of  having failures which adversely affect  water

quality.   However, the results do  not  allow assignment of direct  or  indi-
                                  3-55
-------
rect  evidence  of  failure  to any  specific on-site  system  as directed  in
USEPA Region V Guidance - Site Specific Needs  Determination  and Alternative
Planning for  Unsewered Areas  (USEPA 1983a).    Further explanation  of  why  *
the  fecal  coliform  data are  not  conclusive is  presented  in Appendix B.

     The Harsha Lake  Park-  Manager (By  telephone,   Jerry  Boone,  ODNR,  to
WAPORA, Inc.   20 October 1983) indicated that  public beach sampling  results
have indicated few problems  with  fecal coliform contamination of  the lake.
The single exception  is  the boaters beach located near where  the  East Fork
enters the lake.   Samples taken at  that beach  have elevated  coliform levels
in the day following  a summer rainstorm.   The source of the fecal coliform
at  that  beach could  be  bypasses   from  the WWTP at  Williamsburg  (By tele-
phone, Jerry Boone, ODNR, to WAPORA, Inc.  20 October 1983).

3.3.3.  Floodplain Delineations

     The Federal  Emergency  Management Agency  (FEMA)  has  published  a  de-
tailed flood  insurance study  that encompasses  the  unincorporated  area of
Clermont County (FEMA 1980).  The  analyses of  flooding potentials  contained
in that  study  reflect stream channel  conditions at  the  date  of  publishing
(October 1980), and do  not  account for flood level  changes due  to  stream-
side construction which may have occurred after  that date.

     Flood discharge values analyzed in the FEMA study do reflect the esti-
mated  flood  reduction  capabilities of  the Harsha Lake impoundment.   The
impact of the Harsha Lake facilities on flood  discharges was to reduce peak
flood flows from 10-, 50-,  100-, and 500-year  floods, at all points  between
the dam and the confluence of the  East Fork with the Little  Miami mainstern.
For example, the 100-year flood discharge at the Perinton gage,  located six
miles  downstream  from  Batavia, is  estimated  to have  been  reduced from
46,100 cfs   to 22,900 cfs,  as  a  result  of operation  of  the  Harsha Lake
facilities  (FEMA  1980).   Peak  flood  levels in the  East Fork also  are re-
duced by the  dam.   Flood waters impounded  in Harsha Lake do  not have sig-
nificant impacts  on  flood  discharges  and  flood levels  at Williamsburg and
upstream.
                                  3-56
-------
     Based on  the  FEMA flood insurance study of 1980, flood insurance rate
maps  were prepared  for  unincorporated  areas  of  Clermont County.   These
insurance maps were effective April 1981, the date when actuarial insurance
rates were  applied to  structures  located  in  flood  zones  for  which flood
elevation or depth was established.  In this EIS, the zone delineations are
pertinent where  wastewater  treatment  and  collection facilities are  con-
structed  or  are  proposed  to be constructed or upgraded inside the 100-year
or greater flood zone.

     The  Am-Bat  WWTP  site is located at an elevation of approximately 560
feet above mean  sea  level (msl).   As depicted  on  the flood insurance rate
map,  the  100-year flood  elevation  for  the Am-Bat site  is  between  563 and
564 feet, at  least three  feet above the  plant  grade.   Some elevations for
the plant components have been reported,  such as:

               Influent bypass (to outfall)            562 feet msl
               Contact stabilization units             568 feet msl
               Secondary weirs                         577 feet msl  (sic)
               Outfall                                 556 feet msl
               Sludge drying beds                       564 feet msl

          Thus,  influent  wet well  would be flooded  out by  floodSof less
than 100-year  probability.   The chlorination/dechlorination tankage eleva-
tions were not provided.

     The  Batavia WWTP site  is  located  between  elevations  of  565  and 570
feet msl.  The  flood  insurance  rate map depicts the  100-year flood eleva-
tion as approximately  572 feet msl,  from 2 to 7 feet above  the plant site.
Some  measures  have  been   taken  to  floodproof  the  plant  (OKI 1976).   No
elevations of specific units have  been reported but some units would likely
be flooded out by a flood  of 100-year probability.

     The Williamsburg WWTP site is located at an elevation of  approximately
806 feet  msl.   The  flood  insurance  rate  map  for  the  site   indicates  an
elevation of  between  807  and 808  feet msl for the 100-year  flood, at least
one foot  above the average grade of  the site.   The WWTP elevation  is re-
ported  to be  806 feet msl  (OKI  1976),   1  to  2 feet  below   the expected
100-year flood elevation.
                                  3-57
-------
3.4.  Terrestrial Biota

3.4.1.  Vegetation and Landscape

     The existing vegetative cover  of the FPA varies dramatically, depend-
ing on position  in  the landscape.   The nearly level  land  above the stream
valleys are  mostly cultivated  or  pastured or  is reverting  to woodlands,
having been cleared almost  completely of the  thick forests which blanketed
western Ohio  prior  to settlement.   Forested lands too steep to be cleared,
or  too  erodible  or wet  to  support  crop production, such  as  in tributary
stream  ravines  and along  river  floodplains, were  once commonly  used  as
forested pasture.  This  practice,  although mostly abandoned some time ago,
had precluded natural  forest succession and understory growth of most woody
shrubs.  Thus, only the  most  inaccessible forested  slopes  along  the East
Fork have remained in  a relatively natural state.

     Within the  FPA,  the new  East Fork  State  Park  is  managed to provide
forested  recreational opportunities;  the  abandoned  pasture  and  cropland
within the  park  are  passing  through the  early  forest  successional types.
Outside  the   park,  firewood harvest  and  residential growth  will  probably
tend  to  reduce  the extent  of  forest cover.  Presently,  forest covers ap-
proximately 31%  of  Clermont County,  although  the extent of forest cover is
greater in the FPA due to the State Park and  the numerous forested ravines
common to the East Fork watershed (USCOE 1974).

     The oak-hickory forest  (or western mesophytic forest) is the principal
forest type of the planning area.   Oak-hickory  forests  are located in the
southern and  western  sections  of  the county on  the  well-drained  soils on
ridgetops, along  the  river  valleys,  and  on  stream  terraces.   The virtual
elimination of  the American chestnut by  blight  has left  the  oaks as the
dominant types in the  original chestnut-oak forest areas.  Dominant species
are white  oak,  red oak, hickory, and  sugar maple (Balke Engineers I982a).

     The flat, wet  areas of the Illinoian  glacial  till plain  are occupied
by  several  species of  swamp  forest, mainly  pin  oak, sweetgum, white elm,
and red  maple.   Dutch  elm  disease  is  slowly eliminating  the elm.   Other
                                  3-58
-------
species include sassafras,  beech,  and red oak.  Most  of  the farm woodlots
on the wet  soils  are pastured.   Some fields  that  were formerly cultivated
have been abandoned  and  are reverting to woodland.  These wet areas have a
thick,  even-aged volunteer growth of young red maple, pin oak, and sweetgum
trees.

     Red cedars  grow on  eroded,  steep soils on hillsides  of shallow cal-
careous glacial till or shale and limestone bedrock.  In places they are in
thick  stands.   They have  little  competition from  trees  of other species.
Red cedars also are found in the flat, wet, acidic till plain areas.

     A second  growth of  black  locust has  covered many  acres  on the less
eroded  soils on sides  of valleys.   Numerous  old  beech trees are scattered
in woodlots  all over  the county,   left  uncut when  more  desirable species
were harvested.

     Several types  of  serai  communities  found in  central  Clermont County
resulted from  recent agricultural  activities (USCOE  1974).   Improved pas-
tures  and  abandoned fields  exhibiting  oldfield succession  and  stages are
two  common  types of these communities.   Common  herbaceous  vegetation  in
these communities is Queen Anne's Lace,  Ragweed, and Goldenrod.

3.4.2.   Wildlife

     The FPA is located  in a region  characterized  by low wildlife popula-
tions  and  diversity.  This  physiographic  region,   called the glacial till
plains, has soils  well  suited for agriculture and  crop production is exten-
sive.  With modern  agricultural  practice,  it is common to plant 'fence row
to  road  ditch,'  leaving  little year-round herbaceous  cover,  undisturbed
breeding habitat,  or natural  food  for wildlife.   Additionally, the proxim-
ity  of  the  FPA to  major metropolitan centers has  displaced those species
intolerant  of  human activity.  However,  due to the  presence  of  the  State
park,  the  wildlife  habitat in the  FPA may have a  better balance of  early
successional forest  and grassland/pastureland than outside the FPA.
                                  3-59
-------
     The  Environmental  Impact  Statement  prepared  for  the East Fork  Lake
Project (USCOE 1974) reported that as  many  as  52  species  of mammals may be
present in  the area.  The  likelihood  of  various  species occurring  in the
area is presented in Table 3-15, based  on  that  EIS.
Table 3-15.   Important mammals likely to be found  in the East  Fork drainage
             area.
               Abundant                                Very Rare
               Oppossum                                Badger
               Short-tailed shrew                      Coyote
               Chipmunk
               White-footed mouse
               Meadow vole
               Red fox
               Gray and Fox squirrels
               Cottontail rabbit
               Mink
               Weasel
               Muskrat
     The FPA and  surrounding  region has a rich bird fauna with 250 species
potentially occurring in the  region,  including 44 year-round residents, 28
winter residents,  64 summer residents, and 114 transient species.  Bobwhite
quail, a  popular  game  species,  is  common,  but the  Ringnecked  pheasant is
uncommon.  The  Mourning dove, an  important game  bird in many states, is
abundant and  protected  by Ohio  law.   Breeding water  fowl  are rare,  with
wood ducks being the only common nesting species (USCOE 1974).

     The Little Miami River  Valley  is inhabited by  31 species  of reptiles
and 29 amphibian  species.   Of the 31 reptilian species,  19  are snakes and
of these only 1, the northern copperhead, is venomous (USCOE  1974).

3.5.  Aquatic Biota

     The  most  common  forms  of  aquatic  life found  in  the  free-flowing
streams of Ohio can be  grouped into categories.  Each group  represents the
scientific or  resource  management  specialty which typically  is employed in
its  study,  (e.g., phycology  for  algae, icthyology  for  fish).   For  a
                                  3-60
-------
particular drainage area,  a comprehensive data base is seldom available for
all organisms belonging to the group of:
     Attached (filamentous) algae and free-floating (planktonic)  algae
     Adult game or sport fish and rough fish
     Minnows and various rare, non-game fishes
     Multiple life stages of bottom dwelling or plant-attached species
     of insects,  worms,  mollusks, crustaceans, and  plankton (benthic
     organisms)
     Rooted or detached vascular plants (aquatic macrophytes).

     Published reports on  the aquatic biota of the East Fork drainage area
provide a large  data base  on occurrence and  distribution  of fishes  and
benthic organisms  (OEPA  1983; USCOE  1974;  ODNR  1983).  Organisms  repre-
sented by  plant related groups were not included in these investigations or
were sparsely sampled.

     Fish  surveys  were conducted  in Harsha Lake  by ODNR in order  to plan
for and evaluate  the  success of the stocking of hybrid striped bass in the
lake  (By  telephone,  Jerry  Boone,  ODNR,   to  WAPORA,  Inc.  20  October 1983).
In 1982, 11 species of fish were sampled  in Harsha Lake by ODNR Division of
Wildlife  biologists.   The  results  of  the  trap  net sampling carried  out
through the  summer of 1982 were that carp comprised 54% of the total catch
and gizzard  shad  comprised 12% of the total catch (by number).   This find-
ing represented a  reduction in the number and significance of  panfish such
as crappie and bluegill  which had been predominant  in  the previous year's
trap net surveys (ODNR Division of Wildlife 1983).   It is not known  whether
the increased numbers of rough and forage fish represent a long terra trend;
although the predominance  of  gizzard shad could potentially  be reversed in
the  future as predator  populations,  especially  the hybrid striped  bass,
increase.

     In the  surface  layers of Harsha Lake and downstream in  the  East Fork,
algae are  probably abundant  in  summer months  as  a result  of the  contem-
porary  adaptation  of  phytoplankton communities  to  the  still,  deep-water
                                  3-61
-------
environment of the lake  (Section  3.3.6.)-   However,  no  species— or  genera-
level phytoplankton counts  have been  reported  for any East Fork drainage
area waters.   Therefore,  the productivity  and  water quality  impacts  of  this
important sector  of  the  aquatic  community  cannot be evaluated.

     The characteristics  of the mainstem  East Fork aquatic community  area
are:  the  predominance   of  rough  fish by  live  weight  and the numerical
predominance by non-game  fishes of  the total  fish  community.   Fish  surveys
conducted  in  1982  documented an  usually  rich diversity  of fish species,
both  above and  below Harsha Lake  (OEPA  1983).    However,  three electro-
fishing  surveys  of  the   mainstem  of the  East Fork conducted  by OEPA  also
documented that more  than one-half  of  the live weight of  all fish captured
was associated with two  species of  rough  fish.   In  terms of total  numbers
of  fish counted  during  these surveys,  non-game  species also were predomi-
nant, although this  figure has  less  significance because it  includes counts
of minnows or  forage  fishes in  the total.   The complete breakdown,  of  both
number  and live weight  percentage data  by species, as  reported   in  OEPA
study, is presented  in Appendix  I.

     The predominance  in small  streams  of  rough fish,  especially  carp,  is a
common  condition  where   organic  enrichment and  channel sedimentation  are
high and turbidity is elevated.   Carp  have a  competitive advantage  in  such
an  environment because   they are  tolerant of warm  water,  pollution,  and
turbidity and are able to feed  on  detrital materials  and pollution tolerant
benthic   organisms.    Previous   investigations have   reported  significant
potential for organic  stream pollution  and sedimentation caused by cropland
and  gully  erosion  in the portion  of the  drainage  area encompassed  by the
FPA.  Sub-drainages encompassed by  the FPA were  reported to have the high-
est agricultural  soil  loss rates in the East Fork watershed, up to an order
of magnitude higher than in the headwater  region  (OKI 1977).

     During  extremely warm  and  low-flow  summer  conditions effecting  the
East Fork mainstem,  Harsha  Lake now offers rough  fish populations a refuge
from these adverse environmental  extremes.  Therefore,  it is possible  that
rough fish such  as  carp  will further  increase in dominance, perhaps having
adverse  impacts  on  overall  water  quality of  the  streams and  Harsha Lake.
                                  3-62
-------
     As a result of the sediment roiling carp cause by their bottom feeding
and spawning  behavior,  stream  turbidity  levels may be  increased  as  their
numbers  increase.   This  may be particularly significant  in  the mainstream
of the East Fork,  considering  that  in 1982, three  years  after  impoundment
of the lake,  carp  were reported to make  up  48.2%  of the biomass captured,
followed in dominance by  the Golden redhorse sucker which made  up 16.4% of
the biomass sampled in 1982 (OEPA 1983).

     Based on OEPA  fish survey data,  the fish commonly classed as  game
species,   such as  sunfish,   bass,  and  catfish  species,  totaled  less  than
10.29% by weight of  the  total fish biomass captured  (representing a  total
of 19  game  species  out  of  74  species  found in  the mainstem  of  the  East
Fork).    In terms of  total numbers  counted, forage  fish species  were by far
the most numerous.   Silver shiners  were  the  most  numerous   forage  fish
(12.8% of  all fish captured),  followed by Gizzard shad (8.9%  of  all  fish
captured) .

     The six most numerous game fish in the mainstem of the East Fork  were:
Green sunfish (3.1%); Spotted bass  (2.3%); Bluegill (1.7%);  Smallmouth  bass
(1.7%);  Rock  bass  (0.8%);  and  Channel catfish (0.5% of  all  fish captured)
(OEPA 1983).

3.6.   Endangered and Threatened Species

     Plans for construction  of  interceptor sewers  and additional treatment
facilities as recommended  in  the  Draft  Facilities Plan  (Balke Engineers
I982a)  must be evaluated  to determine potential adverse  impacts  on endan-
gered  or threatened  species  of  plants and animals.   These impacts could be
quite direct  if  habitat  is  destroyed during construction, or  indirect if
noise  and  runoff  associated with  new  development  along the  interceptor
route  displaces  sensitive  animals.   Few  impacts,  if any,  are likely  to
occur  as a result of upgrading  existing  wastewater  treatment  plants because
all proposed WWTP improvements  would take  place  in  disturbed  areas. There-
fore,  the primary  objective  of  this section is  to  identify all  threatened,
endangered,  or rare  species  potentiaJly present in the FPA and,  if possi-
ble,  to  list  the habitat  requirements and migratory behavior which may be
affected by construction of interceptor  lines.
                                  3-63
-------
     The  species  considered  to  be  endangered,  threatened,  or  rare  are
typically determined based  on lists prepared  at the  national,  state, or
local level.  In some  instances,  awareness  of  a rare  or  threatened  species
in an area is based  on  limited local  observation,  and  must  be verified  by  a
state or Federal wildlife agency  representative if  its presence  is  consid-
ered significant to  a  proposed  project.   Status reviews may be conducted
separately  for  groupings  such as  plants,  mammals,  birds,  and fishes,  de-
pending on habitat.
     Plants
     The US Fish  and  Wildlife Service  and Ohio Department of Natural  Re-
sources have not  published official  lists  of  rare  or  endangered  plants  for
particular ecological  zones,  partly  because definition of  plants rarity is
problematic.   However,  the US Army  Corps of Engineers  published in  its
Final EIS on the East  Fork Lake  project,  a  list  of  plant species  identified
in Clermont County that  are considered  to be rare (USCOE 1974).

     Nationally Endangered Animals

     The USCOE  in its  EIS on  the  dam project creating  Harsha Lake  (USCOE
1974)  also  presented  an  extensive  list  of nationally rare or  endangered
animals potentially occurring in Clermont  County.   Two animal  species con-
sidered to be rare or  endangered  throughout the  US  may be present.

     These species  are  the Indiana  bat  (Myotis sodalis)  and  the  Southern
  \ :    . ,
Bald Eagle  ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus).   The  Indiana  bat  was  reported  to
have been identified in the vicinity of Harsha Lake,  although the necessary
nesting and roosting (cave) habitat  is  not  found in the park.   The  Southern
bald eagle is reported to  occur  in  the area only as a migrant.   This  birds'
habitat of  fish eating may attract  it to  the area waterways, although no
nesting sites are known  to exist  near the park.
                                  3-64
-------
     Birds of Regional and Local Significance

     The USCOE in the EIS on East Fork Lake (USCOE 1974) listed the species
of  birds  that  occur  in  the  area  and  also are  listed  in Ohio  as rare
(Table 3-16).

     Mollusks

     The USCOE  in  the East Fork Lake project EIS  (USCOE 1974)  listed sev-
eral  species of  mollusks  likely  to be  found  in the  Little  Miami  River
system that  are  considered to be threatened or  endangered.   However, only
one species, Simpsoniconcha ambigua, was actually found in the East Fork of
the Little Miami River.
     Fishes
     During November 1982,  the  Ohio  EPA conducted thorough fish surveys of
the East Fork  and  five of  its  tributaries  (OEPA  1983).  Slenderhead darter
(Percina phoxocephala), Silver chub (Hybopsis storeiana) and River redhorse
(Moxostoma carinatum)  captured  during the surveys are classified as endan-
gered in Ohio  (determined by the ODNR Division of Wildlife pursuant to the
Ohio Revised Code  Section 1531.25,  amended 1980).  A more recent classifi-
cation  by  the  ODNR,  Division of Natural  Areas and  Preserves  (during May
1982)  places   the   Slenderhead  darter  in  the  threatened category.   This
category  includes   species  which are  likely to  become endangered  in the
future if population  levels or  habitat conditions decline  for  any reason.

3.7.  Economics

3.7.1.  Local  Economic Characteristics

     Agriculture, manufacturing,  and mining  comprise the basic  sector of
local economy.   The basic  sector  produces goods  or services  exported  to
other areas.   The   specific  components  of  the  basic sector  may  vary with
locale,   but  usually  include  the industries  listed  above.    In  Clermont
                                  3-65
-------
Table 3-16.  Birds that are rare to very rare in Cleraont County, derived
             from the USCOE Environmental Report (USCOE 1974).
Name

Common Loon
Redthroated Loon
Rednecked Grebe
Horned Grebe
Pied-billed Grebe

White Pelican
Double Crested
  Cormorant
Whistling Swan
Common Egret
Cattle Egret
Black Crowned
  Night Heron
Yellow crowned
  Night Heron
Least Bittern
King Rail
Common Gallinule
Piping Plover
Upland Plover
Stilt Sandpiper
Short Billed Dowitcher
Ruddy Turnstone
Dunlin
Sanderling
Forsters Tern
Caspian Tern
       Seasonal Status
                                                                 Local
                                                               Abundanc e
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
  Rare-resident or migrant

     Accidental Migrant

           Migrant
           Migrant
       Summer resident
       Summer resident

 Migrant or summer resident

       Summer visitor
Migrant or rare summer resident
       Summer resident
       Summer resident
           Migrant
      Permanent resident
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
Yellow Bellied Flycatcher         Migrant
Red-Breasted Nuthatch    Winter resident or visitor
Winter Wren
Long-Billed Marsh Wren
Short-Billed Marsh Wren
Prothonotary Warbler
Worm-eating Warbler
Golden-Winged Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Black-throated
  Blue Warbler
Pine Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Northern Water Thrush
Mourning Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Orchard Oriole
       Winter resident
           Migrant
           Migrant
       Summer resident
       Summer resident
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant

           Migrant
           Migrant
       Summer resident
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
           Migrant
       Summer resident
     Rare
     Rare
     Rare
     Rare
Common migrant, but
otherwise rare
Very rare

    Rare
Very rare
    Rare
    Rare

    Rare

    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
Rare in Ohio
Rare to Uncommon
Rare to Uncommon
    Rare
    Rare
Very rare
Very rare to rare
Very rare to rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
Rare in Ohio
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare

    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
    Rare
Rare in Ohio
                                  3-66
-------
County, mining  is not  listed  among the  occupations  occurring within  the
County and therefore  is  not  part of the  local  economy.   The income gener-
ated by the  basic sector circulates within the local  economy  and supports
non-basic, or  "service"  sector  industries that provide goods  and  services
for local  consumption.

     Because income  and production data  are usually  difficult to obtain,
employment figures routinely are used  for small-area  economic base analy-
ses.  The economic and population trends are directly  related to employment
opportunities in  the basic sector.  The ratio of total  employment (basic
and service sector employment)  to basic employment quantitatively  describes
this relationship.   Specifically,  the  ratio indicates the total number  of
jobs generated by each job in the basic sector.

     Post-1970 employment trends  in Clermont  County indicate steady growth
in the basic sector (Table 3-17).  Employment in the basic sector  increased
31% between  1970  and 1980.   Manufacturing accounts for 96%  of the employ-
ment in the  basic sector and 38% of all employment in the county.   Employ-
ment  in  agriculture has  increased by  41%  between  1970  and  1980,  but
accounts  for only  4% of the employment in the basic sector.   Employment  in
the mining industry  is  not  listed by the Bureau of Census or the  Ohio Data
Users Center for Clermont County.

     Employment in the  service  sector  in Clermont County  increased  by  77%
between 1970 and 1980 (Table 3-17).  All service employment has had signif-
icant increases (more than  80%)  since  1970 with the exception of  transpor-
tation occupations that  increased  by only 37% over the same  period.   Tech-
nical,  sales,   and  administrative  support  occupations  were  the  largest
employment segment of the service sector followed  closely  by  managerial and
professional specialty occupations.  The  growth in the service sector is a
result of  growth of the  Cincinnati SMSA into Clermont  County  (By telephone,
Larry  Sprague,  Clermont  County  Planning  Commission,   to  WAPORA,   Inc.   16
November 1983).   The  ten largest  employers in Clermont  County are  presented
in Table 3-18.
                                  3-67
-------
Table 3-17.  Clermont County employment trends by sector in 1970 and 1980
             (BOG 1973,  1982a, and 1983).
Category

Total employment
            __ .....?.ersons Employed	
"llfTO™"   1980"              1982~
Census     Census      Ohio Data  Users  Center

34,769     54,140            53,314
Total basic                    16,409     21,563
  Agriculture                     554        783
  Precision production, craft
    and repair occupations      6,911      9,625
                              23,252
                                 860

                              10,441
  Operators, fabricators,
   and laborers
 8,944
11,155
11,951
Total service
  Managerial & professional
   specialty occupations
  Technical, sales, and
   administrative support
   occupations
  Service occupations
  Transportation occupations
18,360
5,237
8,241
3,163
1,719
32,577
9,432
15,078
5,706
2,361
35,637
9,759
15,849
6,282
3,747
Multipliers
  Basic service
  Basic total
  Basic population
    1.1
    2.1
    5.8
   1.5
   2.5
   6.0
   1.5
   2.3
   5.6
Labor force
  Employed
  Unemployed
Unemployment rate
  (% of civilian labor force)
            59,279
             4,957

              8.4%
                                  3-68
-------
Table 3-18.  Ten largest private employers in Clermont County
             (Clermont County Sewer District 1983).
Name of Employer

Ford Motor Company
Eastgate Mall
Cincinnati Milacron
  Plastics Machinery Div.
Kaiser Construction
Clermont Mercy Hospital
KDI Precision Products
Cincinnati Bell
US Precision Lens
Structural Dynamics
  Research Corp.
Midwestern Indemnity
Type of Business

Automotive
Shopping center

Machine tools
Industrial construction
Health care
Timing, fusing devices
Telecommunications
Optical lenses
Mechanical testing,
 computer engineering
Insurance
    Approximate
Number of Employees

     2,180
     1,500

       700
       600
       450
       400
       350
       350

       300
       250
     Because Clermont County is part of the Cincinnati SMSA, the employment

characteristics of  Clermont County  should  be compared with  those  for the

entire SMSA. Average  annual non-agricultural  wage and salary employment by

industry  for  the  SMSA is  presented  in  Table  3-19.   Generally,  service

sector employment  seems to  be  at a higher percentage  throughout  the SMSA

than in  Clermont  County.    Since  Clermont County  is not  a self-contained

economic  unit,  there  are  many  retail goods,  wholesale  goods and  other
services  available  elsewhere  within   the  Cincinnati  metropolitan  area.

Therefore, service jobs generated by growth of the basic sector in Clermont
County may develop  elsewhere.   However, because of the increase in popula-

tion and henceforth residential growth within Clermont County, there may be

a "lag time" in response of increases in service sector employment.


3.7.2.   Labor Force


     Clermont County  has  a  resident labor force  of 59,590 persons repre-

senting 46.4% of the  1980 population.   In 1970, the county had a resident

labor  force  of  37,510 persons  representing 39%  of the  population.   The

percentage of  the  population has  remained  slightly  below  that   for  the
entire Cincinnati  SMSA including  Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana  counties (OKI

1981).
                                  3-69
-------
Table 3-19.  Average  annual  non-agricultural  wage and salary employment by

             industry for the Cincinnati Metropolitan area (Clermont County

             Sewer District 1983).                                          r

                                             1982 Employment

                                             (in thousands)
INDUSTRY TOTAL                                    575.5
  Manufacturing                                   147.2
    Durable goods                                  80.5
      Furniture & fixtures                          2.2
      Primary metal industries                      2.1
      Fabricated metal products                    12.7
        Fabricated struc. metal prod.               4.2
      Machinery, except electrical                 23.1
        Metalworking machinery                     11.3
        General industrial machinery                3.8
      Electical equip. & supplies                   7.9
      Transportation equipment                     22.7
        Motor vehicles & equipment                  8.1
    Non-durable goods                              66.7
      Food & kindred products                      15.7
        Meat products                               2.4
        Bakery products                             2.4
        Beverages                                   4.5
      Apparel & other textile prod.                 3.8
      Paper & allied products                       6.0
      Printing & publishing                        11.5
      Chemical & allied products                   22.1
      Rubber & misc. plastics prod.                 4.2
  Non-manufacturing                               428.3
    Contract construction                          20.3
    Transportation & utilities                     32.3
      Communication, elec., gas serv.              14.6
    Wholesale & retail trade                      138.5
      Wholesale trade                              37.3
      Retail trade                                101.2
    Finance, insurance & real est.                 32.4
      Banking                                       7.4
      Insurance carriers                           11.4
    Service & misc. industries                    124.8
    Government                                     79.7
      Federal government                           12.5
      State govt. (includes edu.)                  18.0
      Local govt. (includes edu.)                  49.3
        Local govt. (except education)             21.7
        Local govt. education                      27.5
Multipliers
Basic service   2.9
Basic total     3.9
                                  3-70
-------
     Unemployment in Clermont County has been increasing over the last five
years (Table 3-20).   The  unemployment rate in the project area ranged from
6.2% in  Batavia  Village  to 11.3% in  Tate  Township (Table 3-21).  Eight of
the  thirteen  incorporated  areas  had  unemployment  rates  exceeding  the
Clermont  County  rate of  8.4%  (BOG  statistic), and eleven  of  the thirteen
areas had  unemployment  rates  exceeding  the overall  7.2% rate  of  the OKI
Counties.
Table 3-20.  Unemployment rates for Clermont County (Clermont County Sewer
             District 1983).
                                             % of Total Unemployed
               Year                          to Total Labor Force
               1978                                    5.2%
               1979                                    6.5%
               1980                                    9.0%
               1981                                   10.3%
               1982                                   13.4%
          March 1983                                  14.7%
Table 3-21.  Unemployment in Clermont County (BOG 1983; OKI 1981).
                                          Unemployed
Jurisdiction Total
OKI Counties 56,
Clermont County , 4,
Amelia Village
Batavia Village
Bethel Village
Williamsburg Village
Batavia Township
Jackson Township
Monroe Township
Ohio Township
Pierce Township
Stonelick Township
Tate Township0
Union Township 1,
Williamsburg Township0
Persons
a
957 - 5,340
38
53
100
67
448
70
241
206
329
209
388
084
194
Labor Force
a
8.4 - 9.0
8.1
6.2
10.2
8.3
9.5
7.4
9.5
9.4
9.0
9.1
11.3
7.7
9.7
,OKI statistics.
 Incorporated areas completely within the planning area boundaries.
CBatavia Township is completely and Tate and Williamsburg Townships are
 nearly completely within the planning area boundaries.
                                  3-71
-------
     The unemployment rates seem  to  coincide with a loss  of  jobs in manu-
facturing,  construction, and trade throughout  the upper mid-western region
of the US.   This coupled with a loss  of job opportunities and  population to
growth areas in the South and West is reflected by the  increasing unemploy-
ment rates (OKI 1981).

3.8.  Demographics

3.8.1.  Regional Population Trends

     The  most  significant  population  trend  that  is  apparent  in  the
Cincinnati metropolitan area is  the  loss of population in the central city
area and an  attendant  increase in population  in  surrounding  areas such as
the  Middle  East   Fork  planning  area.   This  trend  parallels  demographic
trends nationwide.  Between 1950 and  1980, the population in the Cincinnati
Standard  Metropolitan   Statistical  Area  (SMSA)  increased by 55%  (Table
3-22).   During  the same  period,  the population of the  City  of Cincinnati
decreased  by 24%.  Cincinnati  has  lost  population  in every  decade  since
1950;  the  city's  1950  population of  503,998  fell to  385,457 by  1980,  a
decrease of  23.5%.  In  1950,  Cincinnati's  population  made up  56% of the
population  of  the  SMSA.    By  1980,   Cincinnati's  percentage  of  the  SMSA
population  had  decreased  to  28%.   During  this  same  30-year  period,  the
population of the State of Ohio increased by 36% (Table 3-22).

     Population  growth  in  Clermont   County  between 1950 and  1980 demon-
strates  why  population growth  in the Cincinnati  SMSA  increased  by 55% in
spite of the large population losses in the central city (Table 3-22).  In
1950, the  population of Clermont County was 42,182.  By 1980, it had grown
to  128,483,  an  increase  of  205%.   The  greatest population growth  in
Table 3-22.  Population growth in the State of Ohio, Cincinnati SMSA, City
             of Cincinnati and Clermont County, 1950 to 1980.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Cincinnati SMSA
Cincinnati
Clermont County
1950
7,946,627
904,402
503,998
42,182
1960
9,706,397
1,071,624
502,550
80,530
1970
10,657,423
1,387,207
453,514
95,372
% Change
1980 1950-1980
10,797,419
1,401,403
385,457
128,483
36
55
-24
205
                                  3-72
-------
Clermont  County  (Figure 3-8)  occurred  between  1950  and   1960  when  an
increase of  91% took place.   Between  1960 and 1970,  growth  slowed  as the
population  increased  by  only  18%.   Between  1970  and 1980,  growth again
accelerated in Clermont County as the population increased by 35%.

     Although Clermont County  as a whole  has  experienced rapid population
growth during the  last  30 years, the  four  villages  within the Middle East
Fork planning area  have  had relatively little overall growth (Table 3-23).
Table 3-23.  Population growth in the Villages of Amelia, Batavia, Bethel,
             and Williamsburg, 1950 to 1980.
Jurisdiction
Amelia
Batavia
Bethel
Williamsburg
1950
601
1,445
1,932
1,490
1960
913
1,729
2,019
1,956
1970
820
1,894
2,214
2,054
1980
1,108
1,896
2,231
1,952
Percent
84
31
15
31
Change




Amelia has  experienced  the  greatest growth of  the  four  villages on a per-
centage  basis  (84%,  even  though  the population  of the village  declined
between  1960  and 1970).  Batavia  and Bethel  both  recorded  essentially no
population  growth  between  1970 and  1980; the  population  of  Batavia  in-
creased  from 1,894  to 1,896,  while the population of Bethel increased from
2,214 to  2,231  between  1970 and 1980.  Williamsburg lost population during
the last  decade;  the  population fell from 2,054  in 1970 to 1,952 in 1980.

     While the villages within the  planning area did not  experience signif-
icant population growth  between 1950 and 1980, the  townships  that make up
the planning  area  generally  were  experiencing rapid  growth (Table 3-24).
Only  one township,  Batavia,  is  entirely within  the planning area;  its
population  increased  by 148% between 1950 and 1980 from 4,239  to 10,525.
Approximately 72% of  the population of Williamsburg Township is within the
planning area and its population increased from 3,169 in  1950 to 4,537 in
1980.   Tate  Township also  is substantially within  the  planning area;  ap-
                                  3-73
-------
                                                                        \    -
                                                                         V    TJ
                                               .*
                                               k»
                                               o
                                               ^  co
                                               *.  0)
                                               w J-
                                               CO <

                                               U  0)
                                               CD.E
                                                                          \   -6

 I
O
CD
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 CM
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 0>
                                                                                                 0>
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 f~
                                                                                                 O)
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 IO
                                                                                                 O)
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 CO
                                                                                                 o>
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 ^
                                                                                                 en
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 o>
                                                                                                 00
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 IS.
                                                                                                 00
                                                                                                                0  c
                                                                                                               £  £
                                                                                                                05  S

                                                                                                                §
                                                                                                         .2
                                                                                                         *.
                                                                                                     a  §
                                                                                                     c  °
                                                                                                     I  °
                                                                                                     ^  ^rf
                                                                                                     a  c
                                                                                                     3  O
                                                                                                     a  E
                                                                                                     o  i»
                                                                                                     a  J£
                                                                                                     •o  O
                                                                                                         f
                                                                                                     *  i
                                                                                                     co  en
                                                                                                     co  *~
                                                                                                     c  co
                                                                                                     3  «
                                                                                                     O  o
                                                                                                     ®  .£
                                                                                                     £  O)
                                                                                                     *•  c
                                                                                                         O
                                                                                                      3

                                                                                                      S
                                                                                                      2  5
                                                                                                     CD  CO
                                                                                                                    «
O
CO
           I
           O
                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                 IO
                                                                                                 00
                                                                                                     •S  «
                                                                                                      o  -a
                                                                                                      w  2
                                                                                                     if  2
                                                                                                     CO

                                                                                                     CO
O
CM
§
O
CO
O
CO
O
CM
                                           (spuesnon; u|) NOIlVindOd
                                                          3-74
-------
Table 3-24.  Population growth in the nine townships within the Middle East
             Fork planning area, 1950 - 1980.
Jurisdiction
Batavia
Jackson
Monroe
Ohio
Pierce
Stonelick
Tate
Union
Williams burg
1950
4,239
1,292
1,662
2,960
2,292
1,956
4,533
4,757
3,169
1960
7,905
1,700
2,668
4,296
4,626
3,479
6,594
15,204
4,261
1970
7,872
1,930
3,180
4,336
5,320
4,117
6,759
20,131
4,434
1980 Percent Change
10,523
2,221
6,133
5,222
7,262
5,133
7,946
28,225
4,537
148
72
269
76
217
162
75
493
43
proximately  70%  of the  township  population is  within the planning  area.
Between  1950 and  1980,  the  population of Tate Township increased  by 75%,
from 4,533 to 7,949.

     In  summary,  the planning  area  can  be characterized  as  predominantly
rural, yet its  proximity to  the central city  has led to overall population
increases in Clermont County and the planning  area.   This growth has gener-
ally occurred  outside the incorporated  villages within the  planning area
which  may  have  suffered,  to  some  extent,  by  growth  and  development
elsewhere.

3.8.2.  Planning Area Population Projections

     Estimates of  design  year  (2005)  population  in the planning area must
be based on disaggregations of  statewide population projections  prepared  by
the US  Department  of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis  (BEA)  (40 CFR
35).   Population projections  for  the  region were  developed  by  the OKI
Regional Council of Governments and  accepted  by the State  of Ohio  for use
in  water  quality planning in  the  OKI region.  OKI  population  projections
are currently  undergoing revision.   To date,  however,  revised  projections
have not been published.   OKI has  indicated that  population estimates would

                                 3-75
-------
remain approximately equal for  the  FPA but  that  the villages  and  the east-

ern townships would grow less  than previously  projected.   The  1980 planning

area population (Balke  Engineers 1982a)  of  26,996  is projected  to increase

to 40,987  by the  year  2005,  an increase  of  52%  over  the 25-year  period

(Table 3-25).
Table 3-25.   Population projections  in  five-year  increments,  1980-2005,  for
             the Middle East Fork planning area (BaJke  Engineers  1982a).

               Year                                    Population

               1980a                                   26,509
               1985                                    29,405
               1990                                    32,301
               1995                                    35,197
               2000                                    38,091
               2005b                                   40,987
aActual 1980 population was 26,996  as determined  by Balke  Engineers  from
 field surveys, house counts,  subdivision records,  and  preliminary census
 data.
 Straight-line projection.	


This  rate of  increase  is  greater than the projected increase  for Clermont

County as a whole (Figure  3-8).   During the 20-year period (from 1980-2000)

the Middle East  Fork  planning  area is projected to grow  by 41%,  while  the
population of  Clermont County is  projected  to  increase by 33%.  (The  OKI

population projections  only extend  to  the year  2000;  to develop the  year
2005  projection,  the  Facilities Planner used a  straight  line  projection

based on the estimated 1980 to  2000 growth rate).


3.8.3.  Village Population Projections


     Population  projections  for  the  villages  of  Bethel,  Batavia,   and
Williamsburg are  included  in the  comprehensive  land  use plans  for these

villages  (Table 3-26).  These  projections  are  based on the  population
currently residing  within  the  existing corporate  boundaries  of the  vil-

lages.   Population  growth  resulting from possible  future annexations  is

accounted for  in the  flow  and  wasteload projections only.  Although  the

three villages  for  which  projections are available are expected  to exper-

ience relatively steady growth,  population growth in the Middle  East  Fork
                                  3-76
-------
Year
1980C
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005d
Batavia
1,896
2,220
2,330
2,430
2,540
2,702
Bethelb
1,231
2,373
2,515
2,658
2,800
2,943
Table 3-26.  Population projections in five-year increments,  1980-2005,
             for the villages in the Middle East Fork planning area.
                                                  Williams burg
                                                     1,952
                                                     2,197
                                                     2,447
                                                     2,696
                                                     2,946
                                                     3,195
Projections do not include possible sewer extensions to outlying areas and
.are based on unpublished land use plans prepared by OKI in 1980 and  1981.
 Includes elderly housing.
C1980 population is US Bureau of Census data.
 Straight line projection from year 2000.
planning area is estimated to occur at a slightly greater rate (Figure 3-9;
this figure includes the Village of Amelia).

3.9.  Local Financial Status

3.9.1.  Income

     The 1979 income  characteristics  of residents within the townships and
villages included  in the  facilities  planning  area are reported by  the  US
Bureau  of  the Census.   Three  descriptions are used  to  characterize  local
income  levels:   per  capita income,  median  household  income, and  median
family  income (Table  3-27).   Median  household  income  and median  family
income differ in that the family income statistics include the  total  income
in households with two or more related individuals and the household  income
statistics include  the income of  all households  (e.g.,  single-person and
families).

     Per capita  income  of the  townships and  villages  in  the  facilities
planning area ranged  from  $5,780 to $7,628.   Ten  of  the  thirteen  villages
and  townships  (77%)  had per  capita incomes  lower than county,  state,  and
national levels.   Those  incorporated  areas completely or  almost  completely
within  the facilities  planning area (Batavia,  Tate and Williamsburg  town-
                                  3-77
-------
   40 H
   30-
o
o
o
§ 20
O
a.
   10-
         Unincorporated Population (townships)
                            Incorporated Population (villages)
      1975
1980
1985
  I

1990
1995
  I

2000
2005
  Figure 3-9. Projected population growth incorporated versus


             unincorporated areas Middle East Fork Planning Area

             (Balke Engineers 1982a).
                                      3-78
-------
Table 3-27   Income characteristics of townships and villages within the
             facilities planning area (US Bureau of the Census 1983).
Income in 1979
Per Capita

Jurisdiction
CLERMONT COUNTY
TOWNSHIPS
Bataviaa
Jackson
Monroe
Ohio
Pierce
Stonelick
Tatea
Union
Williamsburga
VILLAGES
Amelia"5
Batavia
Bethelb
Williamsburgb
OHIO
US
n
Townships wholly
tillages wholly
Income
in 1979
7,001

6,651
6,181
5,780
6,224
7,628
6,601
7,005
7,387
6,708

5,924
6,819
5,825
6,511
7,285
7,341
or nearly
within the
Median Income
Household
20,093

17,843
19,407
16,210
17,500
22,742
20,299
18,309
21,776
18,558

12,862
15,403
13,108
12,596
17,754

entirely within
planning area.
Family
21,726

20,538
20,449
16,703
19,637
24,356
21,398
19,709
21,300
21,184

16,853
17,788
17,813
18,528
20,404

Below Poverty Status
Total
Persons
10,382

1,344
214
832
675
405
381
820
1,652
533

140
302
306
334
1,088,962

% of
Population
84

13.1
9.7
13.6
13.0
5.6
7.4
10.4
5.9
11.8

12.7
16.4
14.2
17.3
10.3

the planning area.



ships  and  the four  villages)  ranged in  per capita income  from  $5,825 to
$7,005 with  Tate Township being  the  only jurisdiction  with a per  capita
income above  the county  level  but still below state  and  national  levels.
     Median household  income in  the  planning area ranged  from  $12,596  to
$22,742.  The  four  incorporated  villages  have significantly  lower  median
household incomes than  the  surrounding townships (Table 3-27) and are well
below  county  and state  levels.   The  median family income  in the planning
area ranged from  $16,703 to $24,356.   Again,  the  four  villages  have lower
median family incomes than the surrounding townships (with the exception of
Monroe Township) although the difference in income is not as significant  as
the  median  household  income statistics.   Most  of the  incorporated  areas
that  are completely  within the  planning area  have  median  income  levels
lower than county and state levels.

                                  3-79
-------
     Another indicator of income is the portion of population that is below

poverty  level.   In  Ohio,  10.3%  of  the  population  is below  the  poverty

level.   Generally,  the percentage below poverty  level  within the planning
area exceeds the state and county percentages especially in those incorpor-

ated areas  completely within the planning area.  The highest percentage of
population  below poverty level occurred in  Batavia,  Bethel,  and Williams-

burg villages.   The  disparity between the income levels in the villages as

compared to the  surrounding townships is evident as presented in Table 3-27

for all  income indicators.


3.9.2.   Local Government  Finances


     The 1982 property assessed valuations, estimated full equalized value,
and estimated  statutory  debt limitations for each incorporated area in the

project  area are  presented  in  Table  3-28.   The assessed  valuations  were


Table 3-28.  Assessed valuations, estimated full equalized value, and esti-
             mated statutory  debt limits for incorporated villages and
             townships in the project area (Clermont County Assessors
             Office 1982).

                      Assessed            Est. Full                          ,
Jurisdiction          Valuation         Equalized Value3       Est. Statutory

Villages
 Amelia0            $ 10,135,141        $ 26,682,889             $   912,163
 Batavia0             15,962,153          39,747,893               1,436,504
 Bethel0              11,745,724          31,659,265               1,056,115
 Williamsburg0        11,865,853          30,751,666               1,067,927
Townships
 Batavia0             186,080,398         321,242,988              16,747,236
 Jackson              13,613,842          37,506,163               1,225,246
 Monroe               22,754,409          61,159,651               2,047,897
 Ohio                 22,769,977          59,150,955               2,049,298
 Pierce               145,902,105         288,325,345              13,131,189
" Stonelick            34,397,160          41,756,523               3,045,744
 Tate°                45,765,712         125,426,882               4,118,914
 Union                218,744,211         594,849,521              19,686,979
 Williamsburg0        43,589,783          97,904,822               3,923,080
                    $783,326,468       $1,806,164,563             $70,499,386
  Full  equalized value was estimated from assessed valuation data considering
  the assessed valuation  to 35% of the market value of real estate property and
  100%  of  the market value of personal property.  Five percent was added  to
  account  for an increase in property values since the assessment of property
  in 1981.
  The statutory debt limit was estimated at 9% of the total assessed valuation.
  Incorporated areas completely or nearly completely within the  planning  area.

                                  3-80
-------
real  estate  and personal property  and  reflect 35% of the market  value of
real  estate  and 100% of  the  market value of  personal property.   The full

equalized  value of  property   in  the project  area  has  been  estimated  by
converting assessed valuation to full 1981 market value and allowing for an

estimated 5%  rise  in property since 1981.  The  statutory  debt limitations
have  been estimated at  9%  of  the assessed valuations  (By  telephone,
Shirley Foley,  Deputy   Auditor  of  Clermont  County,  to   WAPORA,   Inc.
14 November  1983).   The  full  equalized  valuations  for  the  incorporated
areas within  the  project  area ranged from $26,682,889 to $594,849,521.   Of

the incorporated areas completely within the project area,  Batavia  Township
has  the  highest full equalized valuation of  general  property,  and Amelia
Village had the lowest valuation.


     Debt,  debt  interest,  property  tax,  local  purpose  revenue  and  the
revenue balance  as  of  31 December  1982 are presented in Table 3-29.   In
1982, none of  the  villages  or townships in the  project  area had any long-
term  general  obligation indebtedness.   Criteria  for prudent  fiscal manage-
Table 3-29.  Debt, property tax, local purpose revenue,  and balance of bud-
             get 1982 for villages and townships in the  planning area (Ohio
             Auditor of State 1983a,  1983b,  1983c,  1983d,  1983e,  1983f,
             1983g, 1983h, 19831, 1983j,  1983k,  19831,  1983m).




Jurisdiction
Villages
Amelia3
Batavia3
Bethel3
Williams burg3
Townships
Batavia3
Jackson
Monroe
Ohio
Pierce
Stonelick
Tate3
Union
Williams burg3
(Balance
12/31/82)
General
Obligation
Debt

-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-

-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-



Property
Tax

33,185
30,502
29,924
59,134

$128,055
14,562
20,896
29,800
113,024
19,657
35,843
172,201
46,880
                                               Local Purpose    Balance For
                                                  Revenue         12/31/82
                                                   177,715          7,589
                                                   155,018         97,776
                                                   150,090         22,388
                                                   115,169          5,865

                                                  $253,647       $407,798
                                                    29,212          2,135
                                                    67,208         14,795
                                                    35,943         11,897
                                                   201,627        105,406
                                                    43,567          6,813
                                                    99,557         14,435
                                                   299,572        249,796
                                                    74,234         26,165
o
 Jurisdiction completely or nearly completely within the planning area.

                                  3-81
-------
ment have  been developed  by  several authors,  and an  adaptation of these
criteria  is  presented  in  Table 3-30.  These  recommended  standards  can  be

used in the evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives.
Table 3-30.  Criteria for local government full-faith and credit debt
             analysis (adapted from Moak and Hillhouse 1975, and Aronson
             and Schwartz 1975) .

     Debt__Ra£^o                         Standard Upper Limit for Debt

     Debt per capita
          Low income                         $  500
          Middle income                       1,000
          High income                         5,000

     Debt to market value               10% of current market value
       of property

     Debt service to                    25% of the local government's
     revenue (or budget)                total budget

     Debt to personal income            7%a
     •a
        Not an upper limit, but the national average in 1970.
3.9.3.  Clermont County Sewer District


     The  Sewer  District  is a quasi—governmental agency that is responsible

for  its  own financial accounting.   During 1982 the District received total

revenues  of  $4,603,176   which  were  comprised  largely  of  sewer service
charges  ($3,481,971)  and  connection  fees  ($324,286).   Expenditures during

1982  totalled $3,485,278, which  were comprised of  salaries  and wages  in-
cluding  employee benefits  (41%),   interest  on  bonds   (22%),  and utility-

related  expenses (14%).    The  District  had a  coverage  ratio  (total excess
revenues  to maximum  annual  debt  service  requirement)  of  1.61  with a  re-

quired coverage  ratio of  1.30.


     The  Sewer District maintains six principal funds within its  accounting

system. These funds and their purpose are described below:


     •    Revenue Fund -  This fund accounts for receipts  from customers  and
          disbursements  made to  supply  sewage  services.   Also, utility-


                                  3-82
-------
          plant-in-service  (capital  improvements)  and  related  bond  in-
          debtedness  are recorded  in  the  Revenue  Fund.  The  accounting
          system requires  rates to  be  charged that  are  sufficient to pay
          operating costs  and  to  make  the  required  payments  into other
          funds.   In  order to  make  such payments,  an excess  of  revenues
          over  expenses  of  130% is necessary until  certain amounts speci-
          fied  by  the  bond  agreement are accumulated in  the Bond Funds and
          in the Replacement and Improvement Fund, at which time a ratio of
          1.2 is necessary.   Fund  balance represents  the excess  of assets
          over  liabilities, principally  utility-plant-in-service  less bond
          indebtedness.

     •    Bond  Funds -  These  funds include both the Sewer System's Refund-
          ing Bond  Account  (Bond Account)  and the Sewer  System's Refunding
          Bond  Reserve  Account  (Reserve Account).   Each  month  the  Bond
          Account receives certain prescribed amounts from the Revenue Fund
          in order  to  pay  the principal and interest on  bond indebtedness.
          (Actual payments of  principal  and interest are treated as trans-
          fers  to the Revenue Fund, because such fund reflects bond indebt-
          edness).   After the requirement to transfer prescribed amounts to
          the Bond Account  is met,  certain  amounts  are  required  to  be
          transferred from the  Revenue  Fund to the Reserve Account monthly
          until  the balance  in the Reserve Account approximates the annual
          debt service requirement  for bond indebtedness.

     •    Replacement and  Improvement Fund - After  the above requirements
          are met,  certain  amounts  are  required to be transferred from the
          Revenue Fund until the balance in the Replacement and Improvement
          Fund  approximates 5%  of  the principal amount of the bonds.  This
          fund  is   to   be  used  to  finance  replacements,  extensions,  and
          improvements to the system.

     •    Surplus  Fund   -  Any  remaining  net revenues  are required  to  be
          transferred to the  surplus fund,  which  is  available  for several
          purposes at the discretion of the County Commissioners.

     •    Construction  Funds  - Major  additions  to  the utility  plant  are
          recorded  in  these  funds  as disbursements  are made.   After proj-
          ects  are completed   and  in  service  for   a  one-year  guarantee
          period,  the  assets and any related  indebtedness are transferred
          to the Revenue Fund.

     •    Subsewer District Improvement Funds - These funds, which resulted
          from the consolidation of the various subsewer districts in 1977,
          may be used  only  to finance capital  improvement  programs in the
          respective subsewer district service areas.


     The  balance  of  the funds  as  of  31 December  1979  are  presented  in

Table 3-31.
                                  3-83
-------
4-1 4J
C C
3 Li 4J 41
5w u S co
s ^ S -o
41 U > d
4J W XJ O 3
d .Q w D to-
O 3 — O-
ec/> 0 S
M
Oi
U
d
CN O
CO —
.-• CJ CO
21
.2 S£
§c
o
0 U
s
r-l
m
m
s~* 3 CO
CO r-H -O
~- ad
CO Li 3
(Q 3 tn
.0 W
J=
CO
to
U 4U 4J
*~> d d
O> 4t
a> e e to
o QJ -o ai *a
c o d > d
w to to o 3
 s
a; M
•o
c-
3

•o
d
(0 CO
•a -a
m d d
at 03
4-1
^
S
0>
CO C 13
4J 01 C
at > 3
CO 01 fan
M QC
cO
U-*
0

4J
c s
at ts 3
e 01 -a
to .c u *j d
co o H a
U 01
^ r
u
Ll
JJ

o
u
s
w
>\ •
4J *-S
3 CO

O —i

U 4J
d U



01 CO

U Q



m
I
PO
u
J3
CO
H
-tfll
o -a- o inn
m o o CNN
CM O HI

F-. fN CNII

•eo-



MD 00 CO O'eNll

O^ f> 0^ O CNB
oo ^c CN o con
in — r-. r* mB
CN co CN r-i B





o o CN csin

HI
co o con
vo CN con
sr vr"
«• wfl


--i en

m r-.B
mB

oo mil
m ooli
*!


OB
-• o> mil
m o> mH
^ m Ht
r-B

o mB
m HI
^n
v> ^  CN mfl
•» * -. d°ji
-* i-H O CO VO f-4ll
CT* r*. (N CO O COH
m rn «-< •* nB
HI
CN mB
«- M «!



m ^a- o m co m mft
ft i-* es en CM CN mB
\o r>. m co r- •-* mil
o r-. r-t CN m! a
1^
u
W *H tD
0 •§ *
r-t ~ 00
•H 4J 4J O 01
CO 0) .. CO Li CO
ex o CD o P. a
-— O i-l CJ 01
o ^3 da
d -u co " -H X
•^ co > co O)



to cu 3 to



0) 0 U 3 a» — £Ur~< w
oicod u ^ 4-1 aj o -O
COUi-t  VX <^-ll 0)
re
u
<4-i
m O O in rxicMii u

^S oo 2 o CN!! a>
oo o o co oicon
\o -^-m m O mil M
m en o** oo >o -«• H d
	 u —
vo ^o m m o> n >
~-t ^-t CNI) O


o
U-i
01 0
00 O CO -» CNII J= 1

r- oo m folcjN B c,
- - * -1 -II no c
CTI vj- -^ -«• oon at o
 || CO U-
4.
<0- CO c
CO 0
,n |
•* -a- B o
r- r-, >, |
m mn 4-1 ».
-j -n d Q

CO COB O
m mB u q

" :
C 4.
0 J
Ll
^ i
O OB O L
m mil **-
•J -n • T

OJOB (U 7
m mil -^ e
- -II U 0
1-1  j


^H |CN O mil MJ
rH |^ CNtmll G 2
(0 4.

to -1
o«3-o"> ooi 4.
QJ tn U-t r_| ^

^ t. t3 d I

CJ CO CO (0 Li Q
a> x DO at LI (i
iH 4J XfO Ot — CO 3
^ c 4J « c " at uo
co 3 n e ro ts ^H ^-t Q
>i 0*-t30)0lt-l 4-> COi
ctt UAOd4J*H i oiaico u — < g i


c u a 001-^ r-i-rf w i
SOlLiCOB-O LirHg-H >>1
CJMOO-H o«o-ato at*
< ZO CO O H C jj £u.
3 O HC
t*. H to




















)


•









L



.





L
'




1

O O O O O 0 1 O«
t o O O O O OlO'l
*j oooooojon
j 3 o O o >n m oloii
j o o o so ""» CN o'-a-n
S CN co o> o m CN mn
"i •< - * *
CN CN \DH
i

•

D
i
o) ^ oo oo co m CN
AJ fs| -a* -^ •* Px CN
1 OS 00 O> CT» ^ ff\ 00
1

J
4

X

1 m oo




i co r-i r-
: Q m - - -
3,_« ^ ^ ^-i - Li
0) m at
J 3 XJ f-l -H ,-f r^ JD PH
a Q y — • — -- o«
1 Li U L> Li >t 4J 4U
i cti a a a co u o
: 2 < < < x o H

•
3-84
-------
a. o
§ —
4J
•d a.
a- a
bi 01
T3
r-l D
CO bi
d
O 01
— ' >
4J *-
O> 4-1
O U
01
o a
1-1 4J ta
01
bl 4J bl
it y
XI 01 01
a ••-> x:
01 X) 4J
y 3
Ot CO 4J
Q CQ
41
T3 U -
E CO r-*
(0 00
* O\

CO
0> Ot -
E -t 1-1
3 .*
i— i 4>
d J=
o t-> e
CU 01
x xi y
-H S 4>
•M SO
to y
3 01 d
E O O
B
(0 bl 4J
1 0> bi
--. u co
B  -H
X> 4J
3 d n
CO 3 -M
41 O
u cv e o
v« u « o
P CO O
& — -
- CO O
d P ao
o a^ »< x oi — 0^ b>34)O
§O> O> Ov 3 U-i X! O
,-( _| _4 4-1 4J CN
T3 rt 00
(y ... BdOd
CA ^
(fl 014)01 d-^COO
d x>x>x> o^oiO
O BBS Xi bi -
•^ cu a/ ai x ey o
4j o u y oi *-< 4-1 o
a oioio x:od"^
O Q Q O E->bi^4

01
x:
4-1 i— 1
to
E *J
v- O
H

CO
01
-H
XI
to
x
to
ex

en

1
E
C
BJ

bi
CU
a.
»4
00
f^

(4-1
O

01
u
CO
bl
4-1
CO .
CU r-l
bl
4) bi
4-1 0»
E J3
" §
0) U
x: o)
H Q
•c
§8
CO .-(
05
E
a\ 3
r- ^
t*
— ' E
O

4J -H
CO (0
a§
Is









u
G.
s ••
S 3
T) O
01 -H
bi 41
Xi

CO CO
E 01
o y

4-t b>
a a
0
41
O >

4-1
4-» y
U 01
oi a.
Xi 0)
3 P
CO
01
oi x:
bl 4-1
n
4J
tj* CO
CO
C7v ff>
r-l 00
CTS

bl r-l
0)
X) f
801
XI
y s
01 0)
o y
41
u O
4)
4-J E
tt-i O
CO
4-1
00 bi
d co
bl
3 d
4-1 M
CO
e s
CO
d •-!
o o
•**
cu
£ a









a. 4-1 a- — 4-1 ^, g x
— i o EI-I it a oi tj o x:
yd»«« o— ' to x: u ^ncod y
— 
(X. CO ctj O 41Od—u^'-< 01 4J UUrH
d U J-JCQi-H O"^ltCO CCOCUX1
O3^K*« CO4J *- b.-BcO *4 -O 4J a fl)
*H cotM^-i a <^ ra Ol3d Q.OOW CUOOIpH
 i-t • 4-1 y fc 00 CO
So? - w c «j •*-> X) » «; e: o x>
Xr-i • O^jy w-tbit-o WbifMcon)
-a co 4->r-i —341 oooiy— eaato
01 bltO bl ^H r-l 4-1 S 41 4-1 4-1 bl iJ
Qd bi 1) bi *^CArH X Li D> a) OlCUdCUd
cu x> • oi *Q o o y co w bi i-ix:oi34i
3 B *-• XI T3 -O CJ O C Cu 4-1 XI 4-1 fi 4) 4J
otoiaaa a>4> cQi-H -OpoiOvH X S O 01
o LI > i-i m m •< x: LI e co 0 LI co
x: 4J2 -^EO tNC B «w>rix:
4-»otc coa-H -oxo-o a dQ-4j
BI-'-Q S"H OO — XlO^ bi -O W bi
T3T3 B &,T3.-t4JO fOE SO
d to co d y-o-eu tocucow
co u • 4j (0 oj u m B cox:
blXrH 00 C H *J OJ r- 1 O T)0>b»
a co -u d 01 E xi o ro QO x dco e *->
•« -^x — a— ux!" oo*ocod
c CN LI m 4J u to o Oi u eg a pa a c 3
0003X4 y co s u ubi bi co - o
pq  >-H3 4) d3 X O
r-itgE b.bi- -awaiwa O&.M-IU
-*CT\ cu ao 4Jw^ oiw oC »4 Tioita

O>x ^H yc*J T^doEn *^4-i yr-i
- - co aicoiita 4-1 o 4j to x: y oicua
O PHfnlJ -nE -" !-i CO— 'COCO 4-1 O E ffl 3
— n S'Ot-'d **-iO >-o^ax Eu-teuaieo
bi 4I4IX! — 41 G- CO r-«O*J Oldd XI < >bi
oi d E •" ^ -u i in a. bi W g 41 t) u 4i
cxi 33 4* co d — -460CU ca xixi'o 4J n oa • x;
i-jt-j-fl 4J -o o a 3sy 41 4J bi •Q.*4t04)(0
B C7\O%O^ 4J eO T3 XI ^E H " 3 dG-^COT)
Ot r-i^Hr-i CO 41tO 05 o XI 4-1 T3 bi O O. CO (0 4-1 Li d
-a x 41 M x — y u y4to 0(033
ai ... en 3 to o — ai'Of-iOcii a — jQ(4-<
o- _, ,-t ^ Boa ta3 "-ibio-xi — co d a
biCU*-1 1-41 O« 10 bi T3 — — 00
CO 01014) 34>u.^ 3t00> O. CO T3 00 4J 4J3-au—0)
c xi xi xi oi oi u oi x: 4i- d^-<< x:—3E x: LI o O^UU-IQ x: t-i o LJ d 3
(5) Q o O H 4-> w (tj HU4J H M a- O Xi f-> *4-" 5S O — a
on
Oil
on
-n
on
 ••
4t CO
T3 CU
d u
•H E
cQ
•O 3
B CQ
01
3
B
ey
>
PS

00
E
TJ
d
3
U-l
01
&




03
X
cn

bi
01
3
o
OQ

0)
3
d
01
>
0>
04
_e
bi
cu
4-1
B


s
U
4J
CO
x
en

bi
u
3
B
O

cO
a
u


B
<:
4J
d
CO
bi
O



4_l
M
X
(n

bi
0)
3









en
TJ
C
O
CO

01
3
B
H
>
41
CC

CU
>
11
ad
d°

•o
d
3
U-l
01
C£

e
•5
4J
CO
X
w

bl
D
3
01
w
01
CO —i
— 1 - H
CO —4 3
a, co
-r-* bl CO
0 Jj W
-H o
bl U
a g
"fl
B
<0

CO
bl
CO
cu
X

00
c
*-< 0)
3 4-1
O ca
-< Q
•H
OOOOOOQOO
ooooooooo
ooooooooo
O O lA u~i O O O O iO
m  co


















m
-------
     The Clermont  County  Sewer District  has  been given  a bond  rating  of
Baal by  Moody's  Investors Service,  Inc.  and a  A- rating by  Standard and
Poors Corporation.  These ratings  are  both considered good with  bond  rat-
ings ranging  from Aaa to D  (default)  and  from  AAA to D  respectively (By
telephone,   George Shutleff,   Standard  and  Poors  Corporation,  to  WAPORA,
Inc. 2 December 1983;  By  telephone, James  Becam,  Moody's  Investors Service,
Inc., to WAPORA,  Inc.  2 December 1983).

3.9.4.   Clermont  County

     During  1982  Clermont County  had  total  receipts  of $24,073,838 and
total expenditures of  $33,426,425.   Of  these totals,  approximately 38%  were
General  Fund  revenues and  expenditures,   which  provided  for such  county
services as  the  courts,  planning commission, coroner, sheriff,  budgeting,
elections,   and  administration.   Individual  funds  were  established for
highways,  welfare,  sanitation, capital  improvements, civil  defense, and
welfare.

     As of  15 April 1983, the  county had  $33,205,000 outstanding in sewer
and  water   bonds,  $3,350,000  in  general  obligation  note.   $185,022  in
general  obligation   bonds,   $1,237,258   in   special  assessment   bonds,
$2,250,000  in  rated   bonds,   $12,500,000  in other  revenue  bonds,  and
$6,340,000 in certificates of  indebtedness.

     The county does not  participate in the financing, operation, or main-
tenance  of  the   Clermont County  Sewer  District's  systems.   The  county,
however, does participate in the management of District activities.

3.10.  Land Use

3.10.1.  Existing Land Use

3.10.1.1.  Middle East Fork Planning Area

     The majority of the  land  within Clermont  County is in agricultural use
or  is  undeveloped, despite substantial  population  growth during the last
                                  3-86
-------
two decades  (Section 3.8.)-   The agricultural./undeveloped  land  use cate-
gory is  projected  to remain the dominant land use  throughout  the planning

period,  although  residential,  commercial,  and  industrial  development  is
expected to continue.   Thus,  most  of Clermont County is, and will continue

to be,  best described as rural.  Although specific land use information by
acre for the county is not available, some information is available for the

Middle  East Fork  planning area.   Existing land use in the planning area is
depicted  in  Map  3.   Approximate  acreages  of  existing  land  use  in  the

planning area are presented in Table 3-32.
Table 3-32.  Approximate land use composition of Middle East Fork planning
             area (Clermont County Planning Commission 1976a).

                                                  Percent of
Land Use                      Acres               Total Acreage

Residential3                  7,723                    8.1%
Commercial                      378                    0.4
Industrial                      612                    0.6
Public/quasi-public             442                    0.5
Developed recreation         11,028                   11.5
Agriculture/undeveloped      75,259                   ^8.9

Total                        95,442                   100
 Includes only residential areas with approximate densities of 2 units per
 acre or greater.  Isolated single units or low density areas are included
 in the agriculture/undeveloped category.
     As indicated in  Map  3,  the majority of the developed  area  is located
in the four villages or along the major roadways.   The large amount of land
in recreational use  (11.5%)  also is significant,  although  the majority  of

this acreage is accounted  for by the East Fork  Park.


3.10.1.2.   Village of Batavia


     Batavia is the Clermont County seat and straddles the East  Fork of the

Little Miami River  in  Batavia Township (Figure 3-10).  Although  Batavia  is

located in a basically  rural area,  the opening of  the Clermont  General and
Technical  College,  the  industrial development  of  the Afton area,  and the


                                  3-87
-------
  O
  00
  O>
 CO
 ca
 *-
 CO
 DO
 0)
 O)
 CO
 d>
 CO
 D

T3
 C
 O)
 c
*-
 CO

'x
ULJ
 I
00

 CD
 O)
il
-------
development of the nearby Eastgate Mall illustrate the trend toward urbani-
zation that  is occurring  around  the village.   Existing  land use  for  the
Village of  Batavia is  listed  in Table 3-33.  Residential  uses,  primarily
Table 3-33. Land use within

Land Use
Residential
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation/utility ROW
Public/ quasi-public
Recreation
Vacan t/und eveloped
Total
the Village of

Acres

177
9
49
39
165
90
27
274
828
Batavia (OKI 1980a) .
Percent of
Total Area

21.4
1.1
5.9
4.7
19.9
10.9
3.3
33.1
100
single family detached  units,  are the most prevalent  land  use,  accounting
for  almost  25%  of  the  total land  area.   Industrial  operations  within
Batavia  include  the  Robinson  Steel  Company,  the  Cincinnati  Chemical
Company, the Clermont  Sheet  Metal Company, and several smaller operations.
These companies provide jobs for up to 500 employees, but only an estimated
15% of the people who are employed in Batavia  also reside there.

     In addition,  approximately 274  acres within the  village  are undevel-
oped.  This  undeveloped  acreage includes  land in the East Fork floodplain,
other land adjacent to the floodplain, and hillside land on the slopes that
surround Batavia on three sides.   Although it  is not known how much land is
suitable  and available   for  development,  future  development  in  Batavia
probably would be  of  an infill nature because of the constraints to devel-
opment or  annexation  posed  by  the surrounding hillsides and  the East Fork
floodplain.
                                  3-89
-------
3.10.1.3.   Village of Bethel


     The Village of Bethel  is  located  near the  junction of  State  Routes  125
and  133  and  historically  has  served as  an  agricultural  center  (Figure

3-11).  The majority  of  the  village  is devoted  to  single-family residential
use, although  the  development  of multi-family  dwellings  has accelerated

during   the  past  5 years.   There  aJso is  a large amount  of vacant land
within  the  village (170 acres).  This includes  73  acres  which have been

annexed since  1970 in  response  to  major  development  proposals  (i.e.,  at
present there are proposals  for  over  100 multi-family units  in the  southern

portion of  Bethel).   Existing  land  use  within the Village  of  Bethel  is

listed  in Table 3-34.
Table 3-34.  Land use within the Village of  Bethel  (OKI  1981a).

                                                          Percent of
Land Usea                          Acres                  Total  Area

Residential
     Single-family                  275                      45.1%
     Multi-family                    18                       2.9
Commercial                           30                       4.9
Public/quasi-public                 117                      19.3
Vacant/undeveloped                  170                      29.8

Total                               610                     100.0
Q
 Streets are included in all categories.
3.10.1.4.  Village of Williamsburg


     The  Village  of  Williamsburg  is located  in Williamsburg Township  in
east-central  Clermont County  (Figure  3-12).   The  village  is located  ad-

jacent  to  State Route  32,  the Norfolk  and Western Railroad and  the East
Fork  of the  Little  Miami River.   The majority  of the incorporated  area
(56.5%)  currently  is undeveloped.   Much  of the  vacant land recently  was
annexed  and is intended  for  residential  development.   It  is  anticipated

that  the  expansion  of new employment opportunities in the Afton industrial
area  will  induce  residential  growth in this area.  At present,  residential
                                 3-90
-------
3-91
-------


COMMERCIAL


INDUSTRIAL
CO
if
z
rf
OFFICES a B,
N a UTILITIES
O
p
TRANSPORTA


VACANT
3-92
-------
use accounts for 31% of the incorporated area and commercial and industrial
development  within  the  village  is  limited.    Existing  land  use  within
Williamsburg is listed in Table 3-35.
Table 3-35. Existing land use
(OKI 1981b).
Land Usea
Residential
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation/utility ROW
Publi c/ quas i-public
Vacant/undeveloped
Total
within the Village of
Acres

260
19
18
28
10
25
479
850
Williamsburg
Percent of
Total Area

30.6%
3.4
2.1
3.3
1.2
2.9
56.5
100.0
     Land use information for the Village of Amelia currently is not avail-
able.

3.10.2.  Future Land Use

3.10.2.1.  Historical Trends

     Prior  to  1950, Cleraont  County  could be  characterized  as completely
rural. As  was  typical  of  major cities  during  the  1950's,  the Cincinnati
metropolitan area experienced an unprecedented demand for new housing which
resulted in rapid  residential growth in outlying  areas,  including  eastern
Hamilton and western Clermont Counties.   This residential growth was accom-
panied by  commercial  development  along  the major  arterials  linking  the
urban core with new residential subdivisions.   Because of its distance from
Cincinnati, significant residential growth did not occur in the Middle East
Fork  planning  area during  the 1950's to  the extent  that  it  did  in more
accessible areas.
                                 3-93
-------
     During the 1960's, Clermont  County  experienced a declining birth rate
and a decrease  in  the  net population growth rate.   As a result, the demand
for housing decreased  throughout  most of the decade.  This trend is illus-
trated in Figure 3-13,  which portrays housing permit data by year from 1960
through 1978.

     During the 1970's, a second  housing "boom" occurred which contributed
in large part  to the continued growth of  Clermont County during the last 10
years.  One of  the primary factors supporting  this  growth is that much of
the residential area between  the  Cincinnati business district and Clermont
County  contains development  constraints that  limit  future  construction.
Much of this  area  is either built-up or has  physical restrictions such as
flood hazards  or   steep slopes.   Thus,   persons  seeking to reside east of
Cincinnati find  that Clermont County offers the  greatest variety  of  new
housing within  reasonable distance  of  the downtown  area.  This  trend is
exemplified by  the  success  of  new  residential  developments  throughout
western Clermont County.   Although most  of these developments are oriented
toward the Cincinnati  central  business  district, new employment centers in
Clermont  County have  begun  to  influence  the location  of   new  housing,
especially in the Middle East Fork planning area.

3.10.2.2.  Future Development

     The OKI  Regional  Council  of  Governments has adopted development poli-
cies  (OKI  1978) that  summarize  the results of a regionwide land use policy
review  process.   The overall  policy concerning future development is the
need  to coordinate local  zoning  and subdivision regulations with committed
and planned improvements  in public water supply, wastewater collection and
treatment, and transportation routes.  With regard to specific land use and
development issues, the OKI (1978) Development Policies reinforced concepts
previously presented in the Regional Development Plan  (OKI 1971) and tech-
nical support studies.   More current information on planned public facility
and  service   improvements  was  used,  in conjunction  with information on
constraints  to  development,  to  identify  potential  growth areas.   A  com-
posite map was produced that provides a good indication of the  areas where
growth  is  likely  to occur during  the planning  period.   The delineation of
                                 3-94
-------
     2800.,
     2000.
  DC
  HI
  0.
     1200.
                                  Total Permits (single and multi-family)
      400.
                                               Single-Family Permits
           r"
          1960
            1965
1970
1975
1980
Figure 3-13.
New housing permits, 1960-1978 Clermont  County, Ohio

(Balke Engineers  1982a).
                                  3-; 3
-------
growth areas  was  based on  the present or  planned availability of  public
water and  sewer  systems and the  lack of  physical constraints to develop-
ment.  The inducements  and  constraints  to urban  development  for  the  Middle
East Fork planning area are  depicted  in  Figure  3-14.

Clermont County Land Use Plan

     Land use within Clermont  County  was  inventoried  and  land  suitable  and
capable for urban  development, soils  inappropriate or unsuitable for urban
development,   and  prime  agricultural  lands were identified in  the Clermont
County Land Use Plan  (1978).  The most desirable land  use  patterns also
were  identified in the plan (Map  4).   The Clermont County Housing Element
was prepared in conjunction  with the  Land  Use Plan and contained an alloca-
tion  of  land  needed for  each  use on the basis  of anticipated  population
levels.   A  need  for 4,696  to  5,289  new  housing units  in the Middle East
Fork planning area  by  the year 2000  (the  range given  is  due  to limitations
in map interpretation)  was  projected  in the Housing Element.  Based on an
estimated year 2000 household size of 2.5, this represents a  population  in-
crease of 11,030  to 13,930.   This projected population increase  is consis-
tent with the 11,091 population increase  projected for the  same period by
the Facilities Planners (Section 3.8.).

     In  addition  to  these   two plans,  Clermont  County   also  has adopted
Subdivision Regulations (Clermont County Planning Commission 1979) which
incorporate many   of  the  goals   and policies  of  the  Land Use Plan  and
Housing Element.   In particular, the  Subdivision  Regulations  state:

     •    When the  property  to be subdivided  is  within 500  feet of  a
          public sanitary sewer,  public sewers shall be  installed to
          serve  all lots   (except where  contrary  to the. rules and
          regulations  of  the Clermont  County  Sewer District).  This
          requirement does  not apply to minor   subdivisions  (parcel
          that does  not require   a record plat to be approved by the
          Planning Commission,  also known  as  lot  split).
     •    Where public  sewers  are not required or provided, the  sub-
          divider will provide:
               A central treatment plant  installed in accordance with
               state and Clermont  County Board  of Health  requirements;
               or
                                 3-96
-------
         Areas with both urban capacity water and sewer service,
         existing or planned

         Areas with only one urban capacity service (water) existing or planned

         Areas with neither urban capacity water or sewer service, existing or planned
Figure 3-14.  Inducements and  constraints to urban development,
               Middle  East Fork Planning  Area  (OKI 1978).
                                    J-9/
-------
               Individual  disposal  systems  with written  verification
               from the  Clermont  County  Health Department  that  the
               lots   and   proposed   systems   meet   adopted   Health
               Department  standards.
Village Land Use Plans

     Batavia, Bethel, and Williamsburg  have  completed and adopted land use
plans  to  regulate  and  control  development  within  their  jurisdictions.
Batavia,  in  its land use plan,  identifies  a need for major  and  immediate
improvements in its sewer system.   The village also has adopted a  policy to
"examine alternatives for correcting  sewer  problems and seek resolution of
the problems."

     Bethel  also  has  identified  the  need   for  major improvements  in  the
sewer  system as  an  important  planning issue.   Included in  the  planning
policies  for Bethel  are recommendations  that  the village  work with  the
county in developing alternatives  to correct  current sewer system  deficien-
cies and actively seek the annexation of adjacent unincorporated areas that
are  scheduled  for full  urban  services.  Ohio EPA has placed  Bethel  on a
"connection  ban."   No new sewers may be connected to the existing system
until substantial improvements  have  been made.

     The Williamsburg land use  plan also notes  that  major improvements in
the  sewer  system  are  needed  and that there  are  large areas  of land avail-
able for annexation.  Although  no specific policies concerning these issues
were identified in the plan,  one of  the goals of  the village  is to "provide
for the maintenance and improvement of existing infrastructure."

     The Village of Amelia does not,  at present,  have  an adopted land use
plan.
                                 3-98
-------
3.10.3.  Recreational Facilities


     The dominant recreational feature of the project area is Wm. H. Harsha

Park  (also  known  as East Fork  Park).   This  park  includes  approximately
8,300 acres of  land  and another 2,300 acres of water.  The Ohio Department
of Natural  Resources is  responsible  for management  of most  of the park,
while  the  US  Army Corps  of  Engineers controls  the use of  600 acres sur-
rounding the dam  and its outlet structures.  Harsha Lake Park (Table 3-36)

offers a full  range  of  camping facilities including overnight backpacking.
Swimming beaches,  boat  launch facilities, picnic grounds, and  nature walk
facilities  also  are  provided.  Private concessions  outside  the park main-
tain canoe liveries for outfitting canoe trips on the lower East Fork below
Harsha Lake.  Future park development  plans  are reported to  include con-
struction of a lodge and golf course (Balke Engineers 1982a).
Table 3-36.  Recreational facilities in the Middle East Fork planning area
             (Balke Engineers 1982a) .
Facility Type/Name

REGIONAL
East Fork Park
COUNTY
Sycamore Park




Maple Grove Park



Roadside Rest Area

COMMUNITY
Burke Park

Grandview Park
Area (Acres)   Features
10,600
20
50
Boating, swimming, camping,
fishing, hiking, nature
education, picnic area,
winter sports
Basketball, Softball,
tennis, shuffleboard,
fishing, canoeing, playground,
picnic grove, two pavilions

Party building, softball,
walking trail, playground,
picnic area

Picnic facilities
               Picnic area, tennis courts

               Softball fields
                                 3-99
-------
     Recreational facilities  operated  by the  Clermont  County  Park Commis-
sion include Sycamore Park  along  the East Fork south of  Batavia and Maple
Grove Park  in  Amelia  (Table 3-36).   The county has  also  taken over opera-
tion of a roadside rest  area on State Route  125 west of  Bethel.

     Community recreational  facilities (Table 3-36)  include  Burke Park in
Bethel  and  Grandview Park  south  of  Batavia.   Additionally, most  school
grounds  throughout  the  area  serve  as year-round playgrounds  for  the sur-
rounding communities.

Visitation and Recreational  Use of Harsha Lake Park

     Records of  monthly total  park  visitations have been  kept  for Harsha
Lake Park since  January 1978.   Numbers of campers  in attendance have been
recorded on  a  monthly  basis  since  June 1980  when  the campground opened.
The numbers of  fishermen  using Harsha Lake  have been recorded on a monthly
basis  since July 1981.    These records  (Personal  interview,  Jerry  Boone,
ODNR,  to WAPORA, Inc. 22 September  1983)  are  presented  in Figure 3-15 to
identify any major trends of interest.

     Total  park  visitation  increased annually  from  nearly  190,000 persons
in 1978  to  over  830,000 persons in  1982, the  most  recent complete year of
record.  The number of fishermen using the lake were greatest in the summer
months,  somewhat in proportion to park visitation numbers  which also peaked
in  June and  July.   The  peak  month was July 1982, when  235,710 persons
visited Harsha Lake Park.   That month also had the peak number of fishermen
recorded (31,218) and the highest number of  campers recorded (20,183).  The
ratio of the number of fishermen to total park visitation for July 1982 was
0.132.   In the following July (1983) a total of 206,678 persons visited the
park  but the  ratio of  fishermen  to  total  visitors decreased  to 0.061,
indicating a lessened popularity of fishing among the visitors with respect
to the preceding year.

     In  general,  the monthly  visitation figures vary  from year  to year.
However, August  has  shown a continuous increase in  the number of visitors
since  1978.   Increased  late  summer  visitation of  the  park may be in re-
sponse to an increased diversity of recreational opportunities.
                                 3-100
-------
225,000
       Jan.   Feb.

     Figure 3-15.
                             Aug.  Sept.  Oct.

Monthly visitation records for  East Fork Park.
                3-IOI
 I
Nov.
Dec.
-------
3.11.  Transportation

     Transportation facilities,  both public  and  private,  have  an effect  on
population  and  local  employment   structure.    Transportation  facilities
especially are  considered  by manufacturers  and  other  potential  employers
when  locating  a  business.   The  FPA is  within  100  miles of  Cincinnati,
Dayton,   and   Columbus,   Ohio;   Louisville  and   Lexington,   Kentucky;
Indianapolis, Indiana; and  Huntington,  West  Virginia.

     Clermont County  is  accessible  by  interstate and state highways.   The
county is linked  to  Interstate  Highways  71,  74,  and 75  by the  Circle Free-
way  (1-275).  1-275  also provides  access to State  Route (SR) 32,  US 50,  US
52,  SR 28, and  SR 125.  SR 32 and  SR  125 are the  major  highways crossing
the  project  area.   SR  32  is a  four-lane,  limited-access highway  through
Clermont  County and  continuing  eastward.   When the presently  incomplete
segments  to  the east  are finished,  SR 32 will be  continuous to Baltimore,
Maryland.  Average daily traffic  flow  on SR 32 ranges from 22,000 cars per
day  at  the   intersection of  1-275 and SR 32,  to 19,600 cars  per day just
west of  Batavia,  to  6,100  cars  just north of Williamsburg.  SR 125 has  an
average  daily traffic flow ranging  from  24,200  cars  per  day at the inter-
section  of  1-275 and  SR 125,  to 25,100 cars per  day  west of  the inter-
section  of SR 125 and Amelia-Olive Branch Road,  to  24,700 cars  per day near
Amelia,  to 14,900 cars per  day in Bethel  (OKI 1980b).   Currently,  there are
no  new  major improvements  planned  for  highways In the  project  area.   An
interchange  off  of 1-275 is being built  west of  the project area and north
of   SR   32   to   serve  the  Ford  Motor   Company  plant.    (By  telephone,
Dave Neuhaus, Ohio Department of Transportation,  to WAPORA, Inc. 26 October
1983).

     The Norfolk and Western Railroad provides the  only  rail service In the
project  area.    It  serves   industrial  sites  from   the  City of  Milford  in
northwest  Clermont  County  through  Batavia-Afton  and  Williamsburg.   The
Chessie  Railroad System serves  the  northwestern tip of  the county but  is
not  within the project area.

     Three airports  service  the  area.   The largest  is  the Greater Cincin-
nati International Airport  accessible  from Clermont County via 1-275.  The
                                 3-102
-------
airport is  located  in Boone County, Kentucky and  provides  connecting ser-
vices to  135  cities.   Lunken Airport is located  in eastern Cincinnati and
maintains  runways  capable of  accompdating  business jets up  to the equiv-
                                   n.	
alent  size of  a Boeing  747.   Lunken  Airport handles  an  average  of 550
landing  and  take-offs daily.   Clermont County  Airport  is located  near
Batavia and handles about  50 landings and  take-offs  daily.   The  airport
currently  is  planning  to  expand its runways to accomodate jets.  Presently
the  airport can accomodate  airplanes up  to the equivalent size  of  a DC-3
(Clermont County Chamber of Commerce 1982).

     Four  bus companies  provide service in Clermont County.   The Croswell
Bus  Line  of  Williamsburg  serves the county by regularly  scheduled routes
and  chartered  bus service.   Greyhound operates throughout Clermont  County.
Queen  City Metro  connects  Greater  Cincinnati with the  western edge  of
Clermont  County.   CART,  the  county-funded  rural  transit  system, provides
some  service, generally  for senior  citizens  (Clermont County Chamber  of
Commerce 1982).

3.12.  Energy Consumption

     The  major energy supplier  for  Clermont County is  Cincinnati  Gas and
Electric.   In  1982,  approximately  153,980  million BTUs  of natural  gas and
277,555 million  BTUs  of  electricity  were consumed  by  persons  in Clermont
County.   Cincinnati  Gas  and  Electric estimates  that  their reserves  of
electric and gas energy is sufficient to cover any energy use required by a
sewage treatment plant (By  telephone,  Bernice Karwisch, Cincinnati  Gas and
Electric,  to WAPORA, Inc.  14 December 1983).  Other sources  of energy, such
as propane, methane,  oil,  and coal,  are utilized  for residential  purposes.

     Other  energy   sources  are  being  developed  in Clermont County.   The
William H.  Zimmer Nuclear  Power Station is being constructed near  Moscow,   \x
                                                                               \  it-
jus t  south of the  project  area along the Ohio River.   The  Zimmer  Nuclear     v\U
Station is  being built by Cincinnati  Gas and Electric  in  cooperation with    ',./{*
Dayton Power & Light and  Columbus & Southern Ohio  Electric.   The station is
intended  to provide power for  southwestern Ohio.   Currently,  construction
has been stopped due to litigation concerning some 15,000 violations of the
Nuclear Regulatory  Commission quality-assurance regulations  (Grieves 1983).
                                 3-103
-------
     A  hydroelectric  power  station  is  being  proposed  for  East Fork dam
within  the  project  area.   A private  firm,  Lewis  and Associates, has filed
pre-application papers with the US Corps of Engineers (USCOE) in Louisville
to  operate  and  maintain a small hydroelectric station proposed to be built
at  the  East Fork dam by USCOE.

3.13.   Cultural Resources

3.13.1  Archaeological Component

     Clermont County  lies within the Ohio  Valley  subarea of the expansive
Eastern Woodland  culture  area  (Figure 3-16).   This  cultural  area extends
from  approximately  96° west longitude (excluding  eastern Kansas),  east  to
the Atlantic coast  and from approximately  50° north latitude  south to the
Gulf  of  Mexico.   The  Ohio  Valley  subarea is  a  region characterized  by
deciduous hardwood  forests and  unusually fertile soil composition on allu-
vial river  basins.

     Abundant natural  resources and soil fertility  have attracted people  to
the  Clermont County area  for  thousands  of  years.   Long-term continuous
occupation, although not  always site-specific, provides a rich archaeologi-
cal record  in Clermont County.  The Ohio Historical Society maintains files
documenting  the known  archaeological sites within the  county.  Addition-
ally,  there is a  strong  likelihood  that  undocumented sites  exist within
this project area which could be archaeologically significant (By telphone,
Katherine Stroup, Ohio Historical Society,  to  WAPORA, Inc. 3 January 1984).

     The  most  outstanding  evidence  of  prehistoric  human  occupation  in
„Clermont  County consists  of earthen  mounds.   Evidence  suggests  that earth-
works  of  this type were  constructed  around 1000 B.C.  The earliest mounds
discovered  within the  project area and the  Ohio Valley  in general have  been
classified  as belonging to the Adena  phase  of  the Eastern Woodland  Cultural
Tradition (Figure 3-17).

     The  Woodland Tradition  appeared around  1000  B.C.  preceded by an un-
specified  Archaic Big-Game Hunting Tradition.   The origins of this tradi-
                                  3-104
-------
                       CINTHAl MISSISSIPPI  / I | O H I O
                           VAILIY
        Archaeological Sites, Phase*, Regional Locatio
   Eva site ond Upper or Western
   Tennessee region
   Green River region, Kentucky
   Northern Alabama region
   Slallings Island site ond Savannah
   River region
   St. Johns region, Florida
6  Region of Piedmont Sequence
7  Ellsworth Falls site, Maine
   Lamoko and later phases, New York.
   Oconto srte, Wisconsin
   Faulkner, Boumer, ond Kincord
   sites, Illinois
   Fovrche Mobne site, Oklahoma.
   Grove phase ond Ozork Bluff Dweller
   sites, Arkansas-Oklahoma
   Adena and Hooew.ll centers. Oho
   Poverty Poml, LowiHono
    Illinots River Valley region
    lespecially Fulton County)
    Eastern or Upper Tennessee region
    Middle Tennessee region (including
    Hiwassee Island site)
    Swift Creek, Macon Plateau,
    ond Lamar sites, Georgia.
19  Crystal River site, Florida.
30  Weeden Island site, Florida
21  Tchefuncte site, Louisiana
22  Marksvitle site, Louisiana.
23  Cohokia site, Illinois
24  Moundvtlle Mte, Alabama
25  Aztolon trie, Wisconsin.
24  Kotomoki site, Georgia.
27  CoJet Creek phase. Lovniona-
    Mississippi
21  Troyville silt, Louisiana.
                                                                                Dovtt site, Texas.
                                                                                New Madrid phote, Mtssoun.
                                                                                Porkn phase, Arkansas.
                                                                                Walk phase, Tennessee.
                                                                                Menord phase, Arkansas.
                                                                                Irene wte, GeoroM
                                                                                Sp.n>«te, Oklahoma.
                                                                                Ft Wafton wte, Florida.
                                                                                                                    Clermont County
Figure  3-16.   Archaeological  subareas  and  site  locations   in  the
                          Eastern  Woodlands  Area  (After  wniay  ioee).
                                                           3-105
-------
MAJOR PERIODS
TEMPLE MOUND II
TEMPLE MOUND 1
BURIAL MOUND II
BURIAL MOUND 1
LATE ARCHAIC



MIDDLE ARCHAIC
EARLY ARCHAIC


PALEO-INDIAN

DATES
-. 1700 —
_ 1500 —
— i?oo «_
_ 1000 —
— 500 _
A.D.
2:c-300
_ 1000

_ 2000 __
_ 3000 —

.»•. 5000 mm.

i— 7000 —
~ 8000 _


— 9000 —
OHIO VALLEY
Shawnee-Siouan
Fort Ancient

Intrusive
Mound Culture
Hopewell
Adena

Parrish-Ward

Indian-Knoll


Piano
Cumberland


Figure 3-17.  Cultural sequence for the Ohio Valley (After Willey 1966).
                            3-I 06
-------
tion are  unknown,  but  archaeological  evidence has  been found  within the
Ohio  Valley  dating   it  to  a  pre-Mesolithic   time  period  (Willey 1966).
Dr. Kent Vickery of  the University of Cincinnati has  identified 215 sites
within Clermont County,  many containing an Archaic  component.   Excavation
of these sites has yielded significant results (Appendix J).

     The Ohio Valley  was one of two subareas where  the  Woodland Tradition
reached its most  intensive expression.   It is characterized  by cord-marked
pottery, mortuary mounds, and plant cultivation, including maize.  The most
numerous  and  most   structurally  complicated  burial  mounds   found  in  the
Woodland  Tradition  were  located  within  the  Ohio Valley.   Many  of these
mounds have been  found  within the Little Miami River Basin but have subse-
quently been irretrievably damaged by intensive farming and/or construction
activities.

     Earliest maize  cobs within  the Woodlands region appeared  during the
Burial Mound  II period  on  Hopewell sites, whose  epicenter,  located in the
Ohio Valley,  followed on the  heels  of the Adena culture.   Associated ar-
chaeology  suggests  a  long  period  of domestication.   The  only preceding
cultigens found so  far  are sunflower, squash,  gourds,  and marsh elder from
the Burial Mound I period (Spencer and Jennings 1965).

     The  Woodland  cultural  pattern began  with  the Adena  culture  in the
Burial  Mound  I  period,  circa  1000 B.C.,  continued  through   the  Burial
Mound II period and  into the Temple Mound I period  around A.D.  700 when it
blended with  the Mississippian tradition.   This was  regionally specialized
in the Ohio Valley as the Fort Ancient phase,  around  A.D. 1200.

     The Adena culture  of  the Ohio Valley represents the earliest attempt
to  synthesize the  three major characteristic  components  of the  Woodland
Tradition and is therefore  considered  to be the beginning  of this  cultural
tradition.  Adena population centers were very small, usually consisting of
two to five houses,  probably an extended family unit.   It  is believed that
each village  belonged to a larger network of villages  that  maintained the
cultural  pattern.   Burial  mounds and elaborate  mortuary practices  began
with this culture.   Burial  mounds  were rectangular wooden tombs constructed
                                 3-107
-------
in subsurface pits,  housing two  to  three  bodies.   The  tombs  were completely
sealed over by earth forming the distinctive  morphological pattern.

     The Hopewell phase followed the Adena in the Ohio Valley  in the latter
quarter of the first millenium B.C.   It represents basically a continuation
of Adena  cultural  practices  and  is distinguished  from  the  former  by  in-
creased  elaboration  of  previous   patterns,   especially with  regard   to
funerary sites.  The  peak  of Hopewellian culture was  reached  in the south-
ern Ohio Valley between 100 B.C. and A.D.  200.

     Hopewell  burial  mounds and earth works were  considerably  larger  and
more  elaborate  than those  of the  Adena  phase.  They were  frequently com-
posed of  several mounds of various shapes,  interconnected by passageways
and have been  found  to enclose  as  much as one  hundred acres (Willey 1966).

     Numerous objects were  buried  with  the bodies  such  as  engraved copper
plates, fresh  water  pearls  and  sheets of mica  cut into various shapes such
as hands,  serpents  and  human profiles.   These  and other  raw materials,  not
found locally, give  evidence of  an  extensive  trade network.  It was  in fact
the  breakdown of this  network  that led  to  the  collapse  of   the  Hopewell
culture.

     The period  that followed,  called  the "Intensive Mound  Culture,"  de-
rived its  name from the practice of burying the dead in the  sides  of  old
Hopewellian  mounds.   This   culture  phase  is  not well known and  appears to
have  been  a  regional  development.   At   this  point,   the  Ohio  Valley  had
ceased  to  be  the  cultural  epicenter of the  Eastern Woodlands  Tradition.

     By A.D. 700 the  Mississippian  Tradition was beginning  to intrude into
the  Woodland tradition with  characteristic  flat-topped, rectangular plat-
form mounds  and  intensive  agriculture with new strains of maize.  Cultural
changes in  the well-established woodland region was slow and  site-specific
rather  than  general. This  argues  for the excellent  adaptive qualities of
the  components of  the  Woodland Tradition.  Not  until the  Temple  Mound II
period, A.D.  1200, did  a  blend, still dominated by the Woodland Tradition,
expressed itself in the Fort Ancient phase.  This culture,  comprised mainly
                                 3-108
-------
of Sioux and Shawnee tribes, persisted to European contact.   Their villages
dotted the banks of the Ohio River.

     Presently, the Federal Register lists two archaeologically significant
sites within the  project  area,  the  Elk Lick Road mound near Bantam and the
East Fork  site in  the vicinity  of Batavia.   In December 1983,  the  Ohio
Historical Society,  Department  of Contract Archaeology conducted  a pedes-
trian survey of the proposed sewer alignment west of Bethel  and the Amelia-
Batavia Wastewater Treatment Plant  area.   Shovel testing and test trenches
yielded no culturally  significant features and ethnic artifacts considered
not to be significant to warrant further investigation.

3.13.2.  Historic Component

     Clermont County has  been  the location of  continuous human occupation
from  the  prehistoric Archaic period  to the present day.   Many  creeks and
streams,  fertile  soil, and  abundant  wildlife  were  primary inducements to
settlement.   During  the   last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth century,  many
battles  were  fought  between Indians  and  white settlers.    Daniel Boone,
Samuel Kenton, and General Anthony Wayne,  who served during  the Revolution-
ary War,  fought  back the Shawnee for control of the territory.  The decis-
ive Battle of Fallen Timbers in  1794 between Wayne's forces  and the Shawnee
resulted  in  the  signing of the  Greenville Treaty the following year, open-
ing Ohio for pioneer settlement.

     General William Lytle, known as "the Father of Clermont County" exten-
sively  surveyed  the  East Fork valley  from 1795  to  1796.   He  platted  the
present-day  city  of  Williamsburg,  then called  "Lytlestown,"  which became
the first County Seat.   Williamsburg is the oldest town in Clermont County,
first settled by James Kain in  1796.  It was followed by Bethel then called
"Denham's Town," in 1798, platted and settled by Obed Denham.

     However, earlier  settlements occurred in unsurveyed areas.   The first
permanent settler was  Thomas Paxton who established his home  in 1794 near
Loveland.  He is credited as the first white man to plant an extensive corn
crop in the New World (Slade 1964).
                                 3-109
-------
     Originally, Clermont County was a part of the Virginia Military Reser-
vation, an  area of land  set  aside  for veterans of the  Revolutionary  War.
Therefore, most  early  settlers  were Revolutionary War veterans.   This was
land that had  been granted in 1609 to Virginia  whose  boundaries,  although
explicit   on   the   northern   and   southern   borders,   extended   west
indeterminately.

     By 1800,  numerous settlements had  been established  along  the Little
Miami  River.   Ohio gained  statehood  in 1803  and  by  1805 heavy migration
into the county had begun.

     Williamsburg  (Lytlestown)   held  the  position  as  county seat  from
1800-1824 when, after  a long  and occasionally violent controversy,  it was
moved  to  Batavia  where  it  remains  today.   The  original, courthouse was
replaced by  a  newer one in 1926 but  the  old sycamore tree, planted at the
construction of  the first courthouse,  still remains.  It  is  listed on the
files  of  the Ohio  Historic Society and the  American  Forestry Association.

     During  the Civil War, Clermont County was the site of Morgan's Raid in
1863 on  a route between  Batavia and  Williamsburg.  Bethel was  one of the
stopping  points  for the Underground Railroad.   It  is  estimated  that  3,000
Civil  War veterans are buried in the county.  Among Clermont County's most
famous natives is  Ulysses  S. Grant.   At  age eighteen,  he moved to Bethel
with his  father,  Jesse, and his mother, Hannah Simpson Grant.  Jesse Grant
later  became the first mayor of Bethel.

     Throughout  the  countryside,   century-old   brick  and  frame churches,
graveyards,  and  old grist  and  saw mills  can still be  seen.   The Federal
.Register lists one  farmstead,  one house, and one church within the planning
area (Appendix J).   There may exist other undocumented structures eligible
for  nomination  to  the  Register   (By telephone,  Katherine Stroup,  Ohio
Historical Society, to WAPORA, Inc. 3 January 1984).
                                 3-110
-------
4.0.  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

     The potential environmental  consequences  of  the wastewater management
alternatives  (Section  2.4.)  are discussed in the  following  sections.   The
discussions are primarily limited to Phase 1 construction and operation and
the prerequisite  options from  Phase  2  for selecting the  Phase 1  options.
The impacts resulting  from  the construction and operation of  the  alterna-
tives for  each of the communities may  be beneficial or adverse,  and  may
vary in duration (either short-term or long-term)  and significance.

     Environmental effects  are classified  as  either primary  or secondary
impacts.    Primary impacts  result  directly from  the construction  and/or
operation of the proposed project.  Short-term primary impacts occur during
construction.   Long-term primary  impacts result from the operation of  the
proposed facilities.

     Secondary  impacts  are  indirect  and  occur  when  the  project  causes
changes that  in turn  induce other actions.  For example, improved  or  ex-
panded wastewater treatment systems may open up land for urban development.
This  residential,  commercial,   or industrial  development  could create  an
increased demand for other  public facilities and services;  increase devel-
opment pressure on agricultural lands,  woodlands,  or other environmentally
sensitive  areas;  increase  ambient noise  levels;   lead  to  air and  water
pollution;  or displace  low and  moderate income families.

     Secondary  impacts  may  be  either  short-  or  long-term.   Short-term
secondary  impacts, for example, include the disruption of the environment
which occurs during the construction of induced development.   An example of
a long-term secondary  impact would be the urban runoff that  occurs indef-
initely after the induced development.

     The possible  mitigative  measures outlined  in  the following  sections
include planning and zoning activities  and the utilization of construction
techniques  which reduce  the  severity  of both primary and  secondary  adverse
impacts.    Construction plans  and  specifications,  developed  by  facilities
planners for  the communities  and reviewed by  the Ohio EPA,  must  include
                                    4-1
-------
appropriate mitigative  measures  if  Federal  funds  are used  to assist  in
financing the proposed projects.

4.1.  Primary Impacts

4.1.1.   Construction Impacts

     The alternatives include the construction of some new municipal waste-
water treatment  systems  and the  upgrading of individual  onsite  treatment
systems  throughout  the life of  the project.   The impacts  associated  with
the  construction  of  centralized collection and  treatment  systems   are
addressed in  the  following  subsections  for each  of  the major categories of
the natural and man-made environment.

4.1.1.1.  Atmosphere

     The construction activities  associated with the alternatives,  includ-
ing placement of conveyance lines and land clearing  for WWTPs,  will  produce
short-term adverse  impacts  to  local  air quality.  Clearing, grading, exca-
vating,  backfilling,  and   related  construction  activities will  generate
fugitive dust,  noise, and  odors.   Emission  of  fumes and  noise  from  con-
struction equipment  will be a  temporary nuisance to  residents  living  near
the  construction sites.   However,   the recommended  action requires  less
construction  than  does  the Facilities Plan.   Construction in  currently
unsewered areas  will be limited  to those residences  with failing  on-site
systems and would not include  extensive excavation for collection lines as
proposed in the Facilities  Plan (Map 6).

4.1.1.2.  Soil Erosion and  Sedimentation

     Soils  exposed  by construction  activities will be subjected  to accel-
erated  erosion until  the  soil surface is revegetated.   Conveyance lines
typically are laid  within  road  right-of-ways and  runoff  from their  con-
struction tends  to  flow into  roadside drainageways  and  to local streams.
The  actions  proposed  in  the  Facilities Plan involve laying  considerable
lengths  of  sewers  and force mains and can be expected to result in signif-
                                    4-2
-------
leant erosion  and  subsequent sedimentation.   The adverse impacts resulting
from  sewer construction  include nutrient  and  other  pollutant  inputs  to
Harsha Lake, clogging  of  road culverts, temporary flooding where drainage-
ways are  filled  with sediment,  and subsequent damage to structures, roads,
and ditches.

4.1.1.3.   Surface Waters

     Increased sediment  transport resulting  from  sewer construction could
degrade surface  waters as  noted above.  The  impacts  associated with  the
construction of sewer lines — increased sediment transport, turbidity,  and
siltation  —  would  occur  to  the greatest  extent  under  the  centralized
collection  and  treatment  alternative  proposed  in  the Facilities  Plan.
Depending on the alternative finally selected, impacts would vary in inten-
sity and  duration  depending on the length of new sewer lines,  their place-
ment  in   relation  to major waterways  and  the  mitigative  measures  used.

     Sewer  crossings of  the smaller  tributary  streams  will  probably  be
accomplished by  damming the stream,  excavating a  trench, laying  the pipe,
backfilling, and restoring  the stream channel.  The environmental effect of
this operation should be minimal if it is accomplished quickly and no heavy
rains  occur.   Installation of   pipes  across  streams  should be  scheduled
during  low-flow  conditions,  usually during  the  late  summer.    Low  flows
would  transport   smaller   sediment  loads  downstream.    Some  project  area
waterways  also may be  dry at the same  time  of year.   Potentially erodible
bank—cuts would  need to be  stabilized  in  the event of a storm to  prevent
significant erosion.   Section 10  (Rivers  and Harbors Act  of  1899)  and/or
Section 404 (PL  95-217) permits may be required for some stream crossings.

     Possible  water  quality impacts of conveyance  line  installation along
road ditches  and ravines  and  across stream  channels  cannot be  predicted
quantitatively.   The magnitude  of  sediment  erosion and  yield during  and
after construction will  depend  on  climate,  distance  to  the East  Fork  or
Harsha Lake,  and  on construction practices.   However,  the potential  for
serious erosion and sedimentation impacts is  great if all erosional  factors
combine to  create a worst  case situation,   especially on steep  terrain.
                                    4-3
-------
     Upgrades  of failing  on-site  systems or  construction of  new  systems
will  occur throughout  the  FPA  over  the 20-year  planning period.   This
construction  will be  non-simultaneous and will  be removed  from  drainage
channels  and  streams  and surrounded  by vegetated  landscape.   Therefore,
this regional wastewater management component will contribute little if any
nutrient and  sediment  pollution  to the East Fork  or to Harsha Lake during
any single storm event.

     On  the  other hand,  a substantial  increase  in the  acreage  served by
sewers will,  over the  life of the project, have continuing adverse impacts
on  water quality.  The  erosion  associated with  new connections  to  sewer
lines  and  attendant   residential  construction  will introduce  pollutants
directly  into the FPA  drainageways and  from there into streams and Harsha
Lake.  The  severity will be highly dependent  upon mitigative  measures and
on  climatic conditions.

4.1.1.4.  Groundwater

     Groundwater  may  be  impacted  by construction  activities  in localized
areas.   Construction  dewatering  may  cause some  local  failures of shallow
wells, especially where  collection lines and  pump  stations are to be con-
structed.

4.1.1.5.  Terrestrial Biota

     Construction activities associated with various components of the pro-
posed  alternatives would impact  wildlife and vegetation.  The construction
of  collection sewers  and  the rehabilitation  of  on-site  systems  on resi-
dential  lots  would cause  the temporary  loss  of  grass  and the removal or
death  of  trees.   Noise from construction equipment would  cause a temporary
displacement  of  most vertebrate  species and the  mortality of  a few (prob-
ably small mammal) species.

     Proposed  conveyance  lines  for  the recommended action  are generally
parallel or contiguous to  existing road rights-of-way.  A  strip of approxi-
mately 20  feet of roadside vegetation would be removed during construction
                                    4-4
-------
along county  road rights-of-way;  and a strip approximately 20  to  40 feet
wide would be disrupted for placement of force mains.

     Primary land use  along the proposed lines is  low density residential
and agricultural  cropland.   Small woodlots border  the  routes  at scattered
locations; thus second-growth roadside shrubbery would likely be destroyed.
Displacement of most animals  would be temporary coinciding  with the dura-
tion of construction.

     Construction activities  associated with  the  recommended  action would
not destroy  any  extensive stands  of  native  vegetation.   No  significant
impacts to terrestrial  wildlife are expected.

     The  impacts  on terrestrial  biota that would result from upgrading the
existing  systems  under the  EIS  recommended action would be insignificant
because a relatively small amount of construction on undeveloped land would
be required to complete the project.

4.1.1.6.  Floodplains

     Floods with  an expected  100-year  return interval  presently inundate
portions  of  the  Am-Bat WWTP  (Section 3.3.4.).   Unless corrected  by  the
recommended  action,  this  facility may  discharge  poorly  treated effluent
during  significant  flood  events.   At the Williamsburg  WWTP, the projected
100-year flood level presently exceeds the average  plant grade  level by one
to two  feet  (Section 3.3.4.),   An aerated lagoon may  be constructed which
would encroach  upon the  100-year  floodplain  by about  200  feet from  the
present WWTP bulkhead  line (Balke Engineers 1982a).   However, the East Fork
floodplain is wide  at  the point of encroachment and, therefore,  no  serious
upstream  flood  flow or level  impacts  are  anticipated  to  result   if  the
recommended  action  is   implemented.    The   Ohio   Department   of  Natural
Resources (Flood Plain  Unit) recommends  that  the facilities be  floodproofed
to 1.5  feet above  the  100-year  flood  level   (By letter,  George H.  Smith,
Ohio EPA, to Gene Wojcik,  USEPA,  27 March 1984).
                                    4-5
-------
4.1.1.7.   Land Use

     The construction and upgrading  of  WWTPs  at  the Williamsburg,  Batavia,
and/or Am-Bat sites under the  recommended  action would  require  the conver-
sion of approximately 10 acres of  open space floodplain land to  developed
status.   In general, open space  or recreational  land uses  would be compat-
ible with the WWTPs.  The  construction of  sewers could  temporarily disrupt
activities along  road  rights-of-way.  The  installation of collection  and
transmission lines also could  disrupt  existing farm operations  by damaging
drain tiles, by changing water table elevations, and by compacting soils.

4.1.1.8.   Demography

     Temporary  jobs created  by  the  construction  and  rehabilitation  of
wastewater facilities are not  likely to attract any new  permanent  residents
to  the  study  area.  These  positions probably would be filled by workers
from the FPA or from adjacent  communities.

4.1.1.9.   Prime and Unique  Farmlands

     The construction of WWTPs or  overland flow  systems would irreversibly
convert some  prime farmland to  developed  land  use.   At  the Am-Bat WWTP,
approximately 2 1/2 acres of  prime farmland would be used  for the proposed
expansion.   This  acreage is  currently  not  in  active  production but  is
included  in  a  Clermont County  Conservation  "Sensitive District"  wherein
construction can be permitted  by the County Planning Commission if impacts
are minimal and appropriate mitigative measures  are taken  (Balke  Engineers
1982a).

     In  July   1983,  the  US Department  of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service published  proposed  rules for implementing  the  Farmland Protection
Policy Act  (48 CFR 134) which  require  the  identification and consideration
of  the  effects of Federal programs  on the conversion of  farmland  to non-
agricultural uses.
                                    4-6
-------
     At the Am-Bat  WWTP,  the conversion of prime farmland to non-farm uses
would be required to allow for the necessary expansion.   Although this land
use  conversion represents  an irreversible impact,  the need  for expanded
wastewater treatment capacity is regarded as outweighing the impacts repre-
sented  by the  loss of  2 1/2  acres  of prime  farmland from  the county's
agricultural  land  base.   Land  that  is not prime agricultural  land  is not
available in the immediate vicinity of the WWTP.

4.1.1.10.   Economics

     The  construction  activities associated with both  of  the alternatives
would create  a  limited number of short-term construction  jobs.   Most jobs
would be  filled by  persons  living within  the FPA or  within a reasonable
commuting distance of the area.

     The  purchase  of construction materials from merchants  within  the FPA
would benefit the local economy.  However,  few firms offering the necessary
building materials are present within the FPA.   Most construction materials
would  be  imported  from  outside  the  area,   probably from  the  greater
Cincinnati  area.   Purchases  made by  construction  workers within  the FPA
would  also  benefit  the  local  economy.   These  benefits could  be  offset,
though, by  the  reduced  patronage  that businesses  along  the  sewer lines
would experience  as a  result  of the temporary disruptions  caused  by con-
struction activities.

4.1.1.11.   Recreation

     Any  increase or decrease  in the use of recreational facilities within
the  FPA,  attributable  to the  construction of  wastewater  collection and
treatment  facilities,   is  dependent   upon  construction  activities  which
detract from  recreational amenities.   Most recreational activities  within
the  FPA  are water  related  and  take  place  on  or  along the  perimeters  of
Harsha Lake and the banks of the East  Fork.  No major air,  water, noise,  or
traffic impacts are expected to occur near Har(h;sja Lake which would signifi-
cantly disrupt  recreational  activities.   However,  access  to  some  recrea-
                                    4-7
-------
tional facilities  along the East Fork  may be interrupted by  construction
activities  and  may  temporarily  curtail   some   recreation   and   tourist
activities.

4.1.1.12.   Transportation

     Increased truck traffic during  the construction of centralized waste-
water collection  and  treatment systems  would increase  traffic  congestion
and disrupt traffic flows.   Vehicular  traffic also would be  inconvenienced
by excavating, grading,  backfilling,  and temporary road closures  during the
construction of conveyance  lines along  roadways.   The temporary  closure of
some roads would  inconvenience  permanent  residents and result  in increased
traffic  congestion on  adjacent  roadways.    These impacts would  be  more
significant under the  alternative   proposed  by  the  facilities  planners,
because of the proposed construction of significant lengths  of new collec-
tion sewers,  than under  the EIS recommendation.

4.1.1.13.   Energy Resources

     Residential,  commercial,  and  industrial  energy  requirements  are not
likely to be  affected during the  construction of  wastewater  collection and
treatment  facilities.   Trucks  and  construction  equipment  used   for  the
construction  of  wastewater treatment facilities would  increase  demand for
local supplies of  gasoline and diesel  fuel.   The  increased demands result-
ing from  construction activities are not anticipated to have a significant
impact on the availability of fossil  fuels in the  FPA.

4.1.1.14.   Cultural Resources

     Archaeological data  for  the  FPA   indicates  the presence of  numerous
prehistoric sites.  Information on many of the locations, however,  is not
readily available  (Section 3.13.1.).  One archaeological site is  known to
exist  directly  adjacent  to the  Batavia WWTP.   Proposed improvements at
Batavia have  been situated  to  avoid the known limits  of  the  site.   Field
confirmation  will  be  required  prior  to detailed  design.   Other  investiga-
tions  may be  required  for proposed interceptors and  expansions  at the
                                    4-8
-------
Amelia-Batavia  (Middle East  Fork)  and Williamsburg WWTPs.   Construction of
wastewater  collection  facilities  under  previously  undisturbed routes  in
currently unsewered  areas  has the potential of  disrupting  these resources
to a  much greater extent  than upgrading  on-site  treatment systems.   All
routes  and  sites  should be  presented  to the  OHPO for assessment  before
construction  activities begin.    Construction   excavations  could  uncover
significant cultural  resources which might otherwise not be  found.

4.1.2.  Operation Impacts

     Each of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative,  include
operations that will continue through the 20-year  project planning  period.
Included  in the  definition  of  operations  are  upgrading  failing  on-site
systems under each of the alternatives,  constructing several new collection
sewers,  under   the alternative proposed  by the facilities planners,  and
under both the facilities planner's proposed alternative and the EIS recom-
mendation,  upgrading  and/or  expanding  wastewater  treatment  facilities.

4.1.2.1.  Atmosphere

     The  potential emissions from the operation of  the wastewater  manage-
ment  alternatives include  aerosols,  hazardous  gases, and odors.   The emis-
sions could be a nuisance.

     Aerosols are  defined  as  solid  or liquid  particles,  ranging  in  size
from 0.01 to 50 micrometers that are suspended  in the air.   These particles
are produced  at wastewater  treatment facilities during various treatment
processes.   Some  of   the  constituents  of aerosols  have the potential  of
being  pathogenic  and could  cause  respiratory  and  gastrointestinal  infec-
tions,  however, concentrations  of  bacteria or viruses in aerosols  are
generally insignificant  (Hickey and  Reist 1975).  The vast  majority of the
microorganisms  in  aerosols are destroyed  by solar  radiation,  desiccation
(drying  out),   and other environmental  phenomena.    There  is no epidemio-
logical  evidence of  disease outbreaks resulting from pathogens  present  in
aerosols.   Therefore,   no   adverse   impacts  are   expected  from  aerosol
emissions for any of  the alternatives.
                                    4-9
-------
     Discharges  of  hazardous gases  could have  adverse  affects on  public
health and the environment.   Explosive,  toxic,  noxious,  lachrymose  (causing
tears),  and  asphyxiating  gases  can  be  produced  at wastewater  treatment
facilities.  These  gases  include  chlorine, methane,  ammonia, hydrogen  sul-
fide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen  oxides,  sulfur,  and phosphorus.   The know-
ledge of  the possibility  that  such gases can escape from the facilities or
into work areas  in  dangerous or  nuisance concentrations  affects the opera-
tion  of  the  facilities  and  the adjacent  land  uses.   Gaseous  emissions,
however,   can  be  controlled  by proper  design,  operation, and  maintenance
procedures.

     Odor is  a property  of  a substance  that  affects the sense of smell.
Organic material that contains sulfur or nitrogen may be  partially  oxidized
anaerobically  and  result  in  the  emission of byproducts  that may  be malo-
dorous. Common emissions,  such as  hydrogen sulfide  and ammonia, are often
referred to as  sewer gases and have odors  of  rotten eggs and concentrated
urine, respectively.  Some organic  acids, aldehydes, mercaptans,  skatoles,
indoles,  and amines  also  may be  odorous, either  individually  or  in combi-
nation with other  compounds.   Sources  of wastewater related  odors  include:

     •    Fresh,   septic,  or  incompletely   treated  wastewater
     •    Screenings, grit,  and  skimmings  containing septic  or
          putrescible matter
     •    Oil, grease, fats,  and  soaps  from food handling enter-
          prises, home,  and surface runoff
     •    Gaseous emissions  from treatment  processes,  manholes,
          wet  wells,   pumping   stations,   leaking  containers,
          turbulent flow areas,  and outfall areas
     •    Raw or incompletely stabilized sludge or septage.

Effluent  odors  may  escape  from  lift stations where turbulent  flows occur
unless proper  design steps  are  taken to  minimize  odors.   The  occasional
failure of an  on-site system may release some odors. Septage haulers using
inadequate  or   improperly   maintained   equipment  may  also  create  odor
nuisances.
                                    4-10
-------
     Both  the  EIS recommended  action and the alternative  proposed  in the
facilities  planning  documents  will  eliminate  any  serious odor  problems
which result  from raw  sewerage bypasses at the Williamsburg,  Batavia and
Am-Bat WWTPs.  Wet-weather  sewerage bypasses appear to have caused serious
odor problem  at  both  Williamsburg  and Batavia.   These problems  may  have
been amplified by  local climatological events (Section 3.1.4.)-   Upgrading
the  treatment  facilities will  greatly mitigate existing odor  problems  at
these communities.

4.1.2.2.  Soils

     The  FPA  soils should  have adequate sorption  capacity for phosphorus
where on-site  drainfields  are constructed to standard  (Ellis and Erickson
1969).

     Nitrogen  would  be  present in  applied  wastewater principally  in the
form of  ammonium  (NH,),  nitrates (NO ),  and organic nitrogen.   When waste-
water  is  applied  to  soils,  the  natural  supply  of  soil  nitrogen  is
increased.  As in  natural  processes, most added organic nitrogen slowly  is
converted to ionized ammonia by microbial action in the soil.   This form  of
nitrogen,  and  any  ionized ammonia  in the effluent,  is adsorbed by  soil
particles.

     Soil  microbes utilize  ammonium directly  by  oxidizing  ammonium  to
nitrite  (NO  )  that is  quickly  converted  to  nitrate  (NO  ).   Nitrate  is
highly  soluble and can be leached  from the  soil into the  groundwater.
Under anaerobic conditions  (in  the  absence of oxygen), soil nitrate can  be
reduced  by  soil   microbes  to  gaseous  nitrogen forms  (denitrification).
These gaseous  forms  move  upward through  the soil atmosphere and  are  dis-
sipated  into  the  air.   Denitrification  depends on  organic carbon  for  an
energy source; thus,  the interface  between natural soil and gravel fill  in
a drainfield or mound has both  requisite characteristics for  denitrifica-
tion.
                                    4-11
-------
     Unlike phosphorus, nitrogen is  not  stored in soils except  in  organic
matter.   Increases  in organic matter  within the soils  would result  from
increased  microbial  action  and  from  decreased  oxidation.   The  increased
organic matter  improves  the  soil  workability,  water holding capacity,  and
capability of retaining plant nutrients.

4.1.2.3.   Surface Water

     The Facilities  Plan alternatives were developed to control  pollutant
loadings to  the East  Fork  of the Little  Miami River and its  tributaries
both from  WWTPs and  on-site  systems.   Future operational failures  of  the
WWTPs would violate  water  quality  standards  downstream  from  the discharge,
but these impacts would be short-term because of increased  system reliabil-
ity.  Sewer  line  breaks also could  occur at  stream  crossings and  cause
major short-term impacts in drainageways  and  in Harsha Lake.

     On-site  treatment  systems   can  be   expected  to  occasionally  fail,
causing  a  limited  number of  surface discharges to  drainage  ditches  and
streams.   Because  the  EIS  recommended  action includes a greater proportion
of  the population  being  served by on-site systems,  this action presents a
greater opportunity  for  short-term water  quality degradation than does the
alternative presented  in  the  Facilities  Plan.   However,  proper maintenance
procedures will minimize  this potential  and  upgrades  or replacements  of
inadequate on-site  systems can be  expedited  by the  CCSD at any time during
the 20-year design  period  (as proposed under the EIS recommended  action).

     Long-term operational benefits will  result from the recommended action
which includes  diversion  of  Bethel area  wastewater  to an upgraded regional
WWTP.  Presently,  the Bethel  WWTP effluent  discharges  to a  small  stream
tributary to Harsha  Lake.   The routing of Bethel wastewater  to the Am-Bat
WWTP would  eliminate  effluent discharge  and bypassed  sewerage impacts on
Harsha Lake.

     Additionally,  the proposed  improvements  in reliability  of  treatment
plant designs and  upgrading  of treatment capacity at the  Williamsburg and
                                    4-12
-------
Am-Bat facilities will  result  in short- and long-term  improvements  in the
water quality of Harsha Lake and the East Fork.   These benefits will  accrue
regardless of whether secondary or tertiary designs are required by OEPA at
either or both communities.   Sewgfrage bypassing now regularly occurs  at the
Williamsburg WWTP during extended wet-weather periods and has a significant
public health impact  on Harsha  Lake  because the  bypassed sewage  is  not
treated  or  chlorinated  before  it  enters  the  East  Fork upstream  from  a
public beach  on  the  lakeshore.   Although of  less serious  public  health
consequence,  wet-weather  bypassing  also has occurred at  the Batavia WWTP,
and  also  at  the  Am-Bat facilities.   The  most  serious problem associated
with bypassing from  these latter WWTPs is  lowered  dissolved oxygen  in the
East Fork,  especially during  summer  and early fall.   Also,  odor problems
are  caused  by  raw  sewage  in  the  stream  as  it  leaves  the  community  at
Batavia  (OEPA 1983).   Any  alternative which precludes  sewage  bypassing
through  operational  improvements  and  makes  reductions  in the  amount  of
clear water entering collection systems will improve effluent  quality and
increase  the  recreational  value  of  surface  waters.   Improvements  at
Williamsburg  also  will ensure  the  suitability of  Harsha Lake water  as  a
potable water supply.

     The  EIS  recommended  action will  not, however,   improve  the  trophic
status of Harsha  Lake  or result in increased summer  dissolved oxygen con-
centrations below 20  feet  of  depth  (Section 3.3.2.7.).    The  predominant
sources of oxygen-demanding materials to Harsha Lake are outside of  the FPA
boundaries  and  cannot be  abated  with  cost-effective methods  (Sections
3.3.2.6.  and 3.3.2.7.).  A significant volume of  Harsha Lake is expected to
be filled with sediment during the design life of the reservoir.   Parallel
with this high sedimentation rate, large amounts  of nutrients are delivered
to Harsha Lake from land-based nonpoint sources.

     On-slte waste treatment systems  are estimated to contribute an  insig-
nificant fraction of  the  total amount of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution
delivered to Harsha Lake.
                                    4-13
-------
     None of  the  proposed  alternatives will significantly abate  the  sedi-
ment and nutrient  loads  which  currently degrade  the quality  of  Harsha Lake
(Section  3.3.2.6).   Conversely,  alternative   actions   which   facilitate
increased construction and vegetation clearing  in the FPA  could  increase
the amount  of sediment  delivered  to Harsha Lake  and further  degrade its
quality.

     Future releases of oxygen deficient water  from Harsha Lake  may degrade
the East Fork,  eliminating  the  benefits  of  any  action  taken  to  improve
treatment performance at  downstream WWTPs.   This  could result from proposed
hydropower facilities which could draw off  the  well-oxygenated and biologi-
cally productive upper layers  of water from Harsha Lake  during summer and
autumn, promoting  entrainment  of anoxic underlayers by the  turbine  intake
structures.

     It  is   not  known  whether  the   proposed  hydropower facilities  will
actually be  constructed  (Section 3.3.2.1.) and the potential magnitude  of
downstream water quality impacts cannot be projected due to  lack of opera-
tional data.  Therefore, projection  of future  water quality  impacts of the
EIS recommended action cannot  be made until more information is available.
However, the WWTP design  can proceed  at least  to  the secondary level before
water quality issues  are resolved,  even though treatment beyond the secon-
dary will be required.  First  and foremost, OEPA  must finalize  the  water
quality standards  and  complete the next round of  permit  revisions for FPA
treatment  facilities.    It is  anticipated that  these  revisions  will  be
completed after this  EIS is published, necessitating the  preparation of a
supplement to the  EIS  (Chapter 1.0.).   Secondarily, the  impact  of expected
augmentive stream flow releases from  the Harsha Lake dam  must be quantified
and  FPA water  quality management policies and  procedures   developed and
formally agreed to by OEPA, ODNR, USFWS, USCOE, and USEPA.

     The ability to  augment stream flow under dry  season conditions  using
Harsha Lake  storage  capacity,  already authorized for that use,  could obvi-
ate the need for high levels of advanced treatment levels at  the Am-Bat
WWTP (Chapter 1.0.).   The  ability to augment flows in the East  Fork may in
turn be conditioned  by the proposal  to install hydroelectric facilities at
                                    4-14
-------
the Harsha Lake dam.  The water quality impacts of WWTP improvement actions
cannot be fully assessed until more is known about changes in the dissolved
oxygen regime  of  both Harsha Lake and  the  East Fork which may result from
proposed operation of the turbines.

     All small  tributary  streams  in the FPA (excluding the mainstem of the
East Fork), frequently dry up completely during late summer and early fall.
Flow  in  these  intermittent  streams  may  occasionally  be augmented  or re-
appear following  a  rain,  but this flow is not sustained due to the general
impermeability of the upper soil horizons in the area and resultant lack of
groundwater discharge.   Therefore, regardless  of  proposed  improvements to
wastewater  management  systems,  the  overall  outlook  for  water  quality
improvements in the  small streams is poor,  especially in light of the high
soil  erosivity and significant nonpoint  source pollution problems  in the
FPA (Section 3.3.2.7.).

     The EIS recommended  action is expected to result in increased amounts
of  impervious   surface  areas such  as  roads,  driveways,  and  roofs,  as  a
result  of  future  commercial  and  residential growth   (Section  3.8.2.).
Therefore, secondary  water  quality impacts  may occur  in  the East Fork and
in Harsha Lake with the increased discharge of  both urban and rural resi-
dential stormwater pollutants.  These  impacts  cannot readily be quantified
and therefore  are not  evaluated  in detail.   However, the  types of storm
runoff  impacts may  include  increased  sedimentation  in  the  stream beds,
reduced water clarity, and increased delivery of nutrients to the East Fork
of the Little Miami River and Harsha Lake.

4.1.2.4.   Groundwater

     Some failing on-site systems  will occasionally contribute  to localized
goundwater  quality impacts.   The recommended  action  includes  a  greater
number of on-site systems than does the alternative proposed  by the facili-
ties  planners  and,  therefore,  has  a greater  potential  to cause  adverse
effects.   However, proper  design,  construction,  and maintenance of on-site
systems should minimize potential  problems.   Residents utilizing individual
wells  obtain groundwater from the  bedrock strata.   The bedrock  generally is
                                    4-15
-------
relatively impermeable and thus vertical  leaching of  pollutants  from fail-
ing  on-site  systems  to  the  water  in the bedrock  will be  insignificant.

     Bacteria and dissolved organics  are  readily  removed by filtration and
adsorption onto  soil  particles.   Two  feet  of  soil  material is  generally
adequate for bacterial removal, except  in very  coarse-grained, highly per-
meable soil material.   Contamination from  on-site  systems of drinking water
wells or surface water with  bacteria and  dissolved organics  in  the FPA is
unlikely under any  alternative.

     On-site systems may be  contributing  to  algal growth in  small  streams
where effluent discharges  to  them.   However,  their contribution  to  eutro-
phication  in  Harsha Lake  is  small.   The  ability  to  predict  phosphorus
concentrations in percolate waters  from soil  treatment  systems has  not yet
been demonstrated (Enfield  1978).   Models  that have been developed for this
purpose have not yet  been  evaluated under field conditions.   Field  studies
have shown that  most  soils,  even  medium sands,  typically remove in excess
of  95%  of  phosphates at  relatively short distances  from effluent  sources
(Jones  and  Lee 1977).   The greatest  quantity of phosphorus would  be con-
tributed to groundwater under  the  No Action Alternative.  A  slight  amount
of phosphorus would be contributed  to the  groundwater under  the  recommended
action which depends more  on  on-site systems.   More extensive sewering, as
proposed in  the  Facilities Plan would abate almost all  phosphorus movement
to groundwater.

     The number  of  soil  absorption systems  in a  given  area is  reported to
be the most important parameter influencing  pollution levels of nitrates in
groundwater (Scalf  and Dunlop 1977).  That source also notes,  however, that
currently available  "information  has neither been  sufficiently  definitive
nor  quantitative to  provide  a basis for density  criteria."   The potential
for high nitrate concentrations in  groundwaters  is greater  in areas of high
density residential developments.   Depending on  the groundwater  flow direc-
tion and pumping rates of wells, nitrate contributions from  soil  absorption
systems may become cumulative in multi-tier  developments.  Thus,  separation
distances  are critical  for  new   construction  and  maximum density  codes
should be developed  and  applied  for new subdivisions which  rely on on-site
systems.
                                    4-16
-------
4.1.2.5.   Terrestrial Biota

     No  significant,  adverse  long-term effects  would be  expected  during
normal plant operating  conditions.   Wildlife,  especially waterfowl,  may be
attracted to sewerage  treatment  lagoons but there is no evidence that they
could be adversely affected.

4.1.2.6.   Wetlands

     None of the  existing or proposed wastewater  treatment facilities  are
anticipated to  adversely impact wetlands.

4.1.2.7.   Land  Use

     The release  of  low-level  odors  and aerosols  from WWTPs  and the know-
ledge  that  hazardous  gases  could  potentially be  released from them  may
affect land  use adjacent  to  the plants.   Improper  maintenance  of  on-site
systems  may  create  malodorous  conditions  which  would adversely  affect
adjacent land uses.

4.1.2.8.   Demographics

     The operation and  maintenance  of  wastewater facilities proposed under
the recommended action will not have a  significant impact on the  demography
of  the FPA.   A limited  number of long-term jobs  created by  the operation
and maintenance of these facilities  likely  will be filled by persons  living
in and around the FPA.

4.1.2.9.   Economics

     The operation  of  wastewater facilities under  the  centralized  collec-
tion and  treatment  component  of  the recommended  action would  create  few
long-term jobs.   These  jobs  could be filled by persons now  residing  in  the
FPA.   No  significant  economic impacts  are expected  to occur  during  the
operation of wastewater  treatment facilities under the recommended  action.
                                    4-17
-------
4.1.2.10.  Recreation

     The operation  of  wastewater facilities  under the  recommended  action
could affect recreational activities  in  the  FPA if a malfunction  of those
facilities occurred.   A future  failure  in the upgraded Williamsburg WWTP
could  cause  untreated  or  partially  treated  waste to  be  discharged  into
Harsha Lake.   This could result in short-term  closure  of the  boaters' beach
in Harsha Lake  State Park.   However,  failure  to implement  an action  alter-
native  which  abates  sewage  bypassing  and other  problems with  treatment
plant  performance  will have more  serious  impacts on Harsha  Lake.   Public
knowledge that the WWTPs at  Bethel and Williamsburg often bypass wastewater
effluent has  led to the  widespread perception  that  Harsha   Lake  has poor
water quality.  This perception may  result  in  decreased  use of the lake for
recreation.    Other  nearby  lakes would  then  be more  heavily utilized  as
substitute  recreational facilities  for  FPA  residents.   This  perceptual
problem  may  already have  developed to  some  extent,  as  reflected  in  the
decline in park attendance in 1983 (Section 3.10.3.).

     Implementation of  the EIS  recommended  action would  do  much to mitigate
adverse public perceptions about the quality of Harsha Lake.   This would be
a  substantial   public  benefit  from  a practical as  well  as  psychological
point  of view.  Installation of  proper  chlorination  facilities  at  the
Williamsburg WWTP,  at  a minimum,  would abate the occasional problem with
beach contamination on the  eastern shores  of  the lake.   However,  no  action
would  likely have a  measurable beneficial  impact on the overall  fertility
and productivity of Harsha Lake (Section 3.3.2.7.).   Therefore, no improve-
ment in the fishery resources is expected.

     The benefits of improved  wastewater treatment outlined  above could be
eliminated or  reduced, however, impacts associated with proposed consump-
tive uses of  Harsha  Lake  water.  Tentative plans for use of  Harsha Lake to
supply  potable  water,  generate  hydroelectric  power,  and augment  stream
flows above the observed downstream minimums could, in combination, compete
directly with recreational use of the lake.  The fishing and  boating  public
characteristically prefers  optimum water  levels  to be  consistently main-
tained  throughout the  summer season.   Thus,  the public  may  be discouraged
                                    4-18
-------
from utilizing  Harsha Lake  if  consumptive uses lower lake  levels  or have
adverse impacts on  game  fish populations.   As a result  of these potential
adverse impacts, it cannot yet be concluded that the EIS recommended action
will  have  a  net  beneficial  impact  on  recreational opportunities.   The
supplemental EIS will  address  these issues when the  flow  augmentation and
effluent limits are finalized.

     Odors  emanating  from malfunctioning  on-site  systems  may periodically
curtail outdoor recreational activities in the near  vicinity until proper
maintenance is completed.

4.1.2.11.   Transportation

     Impacts arising  during the construction of collection  and conveyance
lines  would reoccur when  maintenance  or repairs are made on those lines.
Occasionally some roads  may be closed on a temporary basis.   Truck traffic
to  and from  the  proposed  treatment  facilities  will be  associated  with
supply deliveries.

4.1.3.   Fiscal Impacts

     The  costs  of  implementing a wastewater collection  and  treatment pro-
ject in the study  area would be apportioned between  USEPA and local resi-
dents.   Apportionment  of  the costs is made on  the basis of  what costs are
eligible to be funded by USEPA.

     Wastewater collection  and  treatment facilities can create significant
financial  impacts  on  communities  and  users  who  are responsible  for  the
capital,  operation,  maintenance  and  debt costs.   Wastewater  facilities
projects with  substantial financing requirements  can reduce  a community's
ability  to undertake  other capital improvement projects  by  limiting  its
capability  to absorb additional  long-term  debt.   For individuals,  projects
which  result in high  average user costs can create a substantial financial
burden on the affected population.
                                    4-19
-------
     The USEPA  considers  projects to  be  expensive and to have an  adverse
impact on the finances  of  the users  when average  annual  user  charges  are:

     1.0% of median household incomes less than $10,000
     1.5%  of median  household incomes  between $10,000  and  $17,000
     1.75% of median household incomes greater than $17,000.

     Information on median household  income  in the  FPA in  1980  is  presented
in Table 3-27.  For  the  currently  sewered areas, the  percentage of  average
annual user  charges  to  median household income, under any of  the feasible
alternatives, is  estimated  as  1.0%  for  the  Amelia-Batavia  sewer  service
area  and 1.3%  for  the  Williamsburg  sewer service area   (Balke  Engineers
1982a).  Thus,  for currently  sewered  areas,  implementation of the  recom-
mended  action  should  not  have   a   significant   adverse  impact  on  area
residents.

     For currently unsewered areas, high user  costs would  result because of
the costs of  installing  collection sewers.  The costs of  providing  collec-
tion sewers to currently unsewered residences  are  estimated based  on front-
age assessment,  installation of a  connection lateral,  an improvement charge
and  a monthly  sewer service charge.   The  facilities planning consultant
estimates that  the  "typical" costs of providing sewer service  to  an unsew-
ered  resident would result  in an annual average  user charge of approxi-
mately $416  per year,  taking the above factors into  consideration (Balke
Engineers 1983b).

     This estimate  includes an "average"  frontage assessment of $600 per
household which is  based  on the assumption that collection sewers would be
'eligible for Federal grant assistance.  However,   the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981, PL 97-117,  stipulate  that
collection sewers will  no  longer  be  eligible  for  Federal  grant  assistance
in  FY 85,  unless  the governor  exercises his  discretionary authority to
approve  the  costs  for grant assistance.   Accordingly, the "average" front-
age  assessment  would  be approximately  $2,600 and the  estimated  average
annual user  cost  would  probably exceed $600.    Based  on 1980 median house-
hold  income  data,  this user cost  would represent  between 3.9% to  4.7% of
                                    4-20
-------
median household  income.    Although  these  percentages are  estimates,  and
could be somewhat  overstated  (because of a comparison  of  1980 income data
with 1983 user  cost estimates)  or somewhat understated (because the front-
age assessment estimate may be somewhat low),  it is apparent that providing
sewer service to  currently unsewered areas would  likely result  in signif-
icant  adverse  impacts  on the  personal  finances  of  affected  residents.
These adverse  impacts would  be  most  acute  for residents with  low and/or
fixed incomes and some displacement of such residents could occur.

4.2.  Secondary Impacts

     Wastewater  collection systems  may have  effects  that  extend  beyond
project construction and operational impacts.   These indirect,  or secondary
impacts,  are likely  to occur  when  improvements  in wastewater treatment
capacity and  capability lead to  changes  in  the study  area  that,  in turn,
induce or stimulate other  developments which would not have taken place in
the absence  of  a  project.   The categories that  may  experience significant
secondary impacts are described in the following sections.

4.2.1.   Land Use and Demographics

     Population growth  and residential development are dependent,  to some
extent,   on   such   factors  as  municipal services,  transportation  access,
employment  opportunities,  physical  setting  and land values.   One  of  the
more significant  factors  influencing the development potential  of  an area
is  the presence or absence of centralized wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems.   On-site  wastewater treatment  facilities may  limit  new con-
struction  to areas with  suitable  soil  and  site characteristics,  while
centralized   sewer  systems  allow greater  locational  independence.   The
construction of sewers  in  an unsewered area often increases the supply of
buildable land.  In part, this is  because local  municipal ordinances usually
allow development  at  greater  densities in sewered  than in  unsewered areas.

     Development also  can  be limited  by the  capacity  of  the  centralized
collection and/or  treatment facilities.  For  example,  new  development in
Bethel is currently  severely  constrained by  the connection ban  which pro-
hibits further  new connections  to  the Village's sewer system because  the
                                    4-21
-------
existing  treatment  plant  is  overloaded.   Until  the  treatment  plant  is
expanded, new development in  Bethel  is  essentially  prohibited.

     In some situations, improvements  in  wastewater treatment  capacity can
stimulate  growth  that would  not  have occurred  without the improvements.
Typically, such induced  growth  occurs  in  areas where a  general  demand for
residential development  already exists, but  that demand is constrained  by
the  lack,  of  adequate wastewater  collection  or  treatment  capacity.   Other
factors  such  as  site and  locational  amenities,  land values,  employment
opportunities,  transportation  access,  and related factors are also  impor-
tant factors in defining an  area's  development potential.   The dynamics  of
these  factors  obviously vary  according  to   the   characteristics  of  the
locality.

     It does not  appear  that  the  implementation of a wastewater  treatment
facilities plan in the  FPA  would  result  in significant  induced growth.   As
discussed  in Section  3.8.,  the FPA  has experienced rapid population growth
since  1950,  although  in the past decade,  the rate of growth has  declined
somewhat.  Significant  amounts of  buildable  land with  access to  sewers
currently are available,  principally along Old State Route 32 and in south-
western Batavia Township.  The  primary limitation to growth in these area,
as  related to wastewater  treatment,  is   the  capacity  of the  respective
WWTPs.   Additional treatment plant capacity is necessary for development in
these areas to continue.

     The  construction of new  collection  sewers in areas surrounding Bethel
and  in northern Monroe  Township has been proposed  by  the facilities plan-
ners  (Balke  Engineers 1983b).  The EIS recommended action, however,  con-
cludes that these sewer  extensions  are not cost-effective.  If these sewer
extensions are  not  constructed,  the  development potential of these areas
would be  limited  because these areas are generally unsuitable for on-site
systems.

     Thus, under  the  collection system alternatives proposed by the facil-
ities  planners,  future  growth in  the FPA  could  be  of a more  dispersed
nature because  the  development potential  of  development-constrained areas
                                    4-22
-------
would be  enhanced.   Under  the recommended action  presented in  this  EIS,
future growth would be oriented more toward those areas which currently can
be  served by  existing interceptors.   Neither  action should stimulate  or
induce population  growth beyond what  is projected.  There  are  no  indica-
tions that the provision of new collection systems in the FPA would step up
the urbanization process.   Rather,  the provision of new collection systems
would determine  in which  areas  of  the FPA future  population growth could
occur most rapidly.   In terms of the  overall FPA,  the availability of new
collection systems  probably would  not result in  changed  population growth
rates.

4.2.2.  Surface Water

     The  primary reason that Harsha Lake has not developed  the  whole-lake
symptoms of eutrophication is that  it is sufficiently deep to remain strat-
ified throughout  much  of  the summer.   Because  Harsha Lake  is  relatively
deep  (mean of  43 feet) , much of the pollutant load  delivered in  spring and
early summer runoff  settles out  and is trapped  in bottom sediments.   After
summer  stratification  the  nutrients  suspended  below  the   thermocline  or
settled to the bottom are sequestered from productive surface upper waters.
(See Section 3.3.2.7.  and  for Appendix H  for detailed  data on  the limno-
logical  characteristics of Harsha Lake.)

     Both the  alternatives proposed in  the facilities  planning documents
and the EIS  recommended action will result in increased residential devel-
opment  with  attendant  future  additions  in  impervious  land area,  storm
sewers,  and drainage ditches.  The  degree of water quality impact of runoff
from  developed land  will  vary  between  these  alternatives  based  on  the
amount of development supported, or "induced,"  and where  that development
is principally concentrated.  Development clustered  near the  lakeshore  area
or  on hillsides  bordering  perennial  streams  would  have  the most  adverse
water quality impact.   When runoff  takes  the shortest path to the lake,  the
opportunity  for  sediments  and dissolved  nutrients  to become bound  in  the
stream bed is reduced, and  fecal  coliform organisms  and pathogens enter  the
public waterways  before sunlight can reduce their densities.
                                    4-23
-------
     This is serious  concern  because,  with increased development,  nutrient
loads to  Harsha Lake will  be increased by  lawn fertilizer,  construction
erosion, roof drain  diversions  onto  driveways and roadway ditches,  buildup
of  litter  and  trash in  drainageways  and  increased  deposition  of  fecal
material from domestic pets.

4.2.3.   Recreation and Tourism

     A significant increase in population and land development could have a
negative impact on recreation.   This would occur if  the  physical  and cul-
tural  amenities of  the  FPA,  which are  highly  important to  recreation,
diminish.  A  major population  increase  could also  result in crowding  of
recreational activities.  However,  no serious adverse impacts on recreation
are  anticipated due  to  the  buffer of  undeveloped land provided by Harsha
Lake State Park.

4.2.4.   Economics

     Economic growth  should  continue as  a result of  the  population growth
and  development anticipated  in  the study area.   The increased availability
of centralized collection and treatment systems within the FPA could result
in additional commercial  development related to further residential devel-
opment.  If additional  commercial  development did occur as a result of the
construction of sewers  and  WWTPs,  the  local economy would benefit from the
increased  tax  revenues  and  employment   opportunities.   These  potential
benefits are not quantifiable, however.

4.2.5.   Sensitive Environmental Resources

     Floodplains

     Secondary  development  under any  of  the alternatives is not expected
within the 100-year floodplain areas within the FPA.   Filling of floodplain
areas  along  tributary   streams  may occur by  developers  and homeowners,
although the filling is not expected to significantly increase flooding of
structures.  Within  the East Fork  valley  no  induced development from con-
                                    4-24
-------
induced development from construction of wastewater facilities is expected.
The  Clermont  County Planning Commission has established  land  use planning
districts  for the land types unsuitable for development,  including flood-
plains,  and has mapped these as "Conservation  District"  and "Conservation
Sensitive/Buffer  District."   The Planning Commission  will permit subdivi-
sions within these areas where no impacts are identified or the development
plan includes specific mitigative measures to their satisfaction.

     Wetlands

     Construction  of  wastewater collection  and  treatment facilities  or
upgrading  on-site systems  will not  lead to  any  residential  development
pressures  on  wetland  resources.    In  addition,  local,  County,  and  State
ordinances  require special  purpose permits  for  filling  of wetlands  for
residential   development.    Sensitive   wetlands   are   included   in   the
"Conservation District"  and "Conservation Sensitive/Buffer  District"  map-
ping that are discussed in the preceding paragraph.

     Threatened and Endangered Species

     No  adverse  impacts  on Federally  listed   species  are  anticipated  to
occur from secondary residential development. No impacts are anticipated  on
species listed by the State.

     Cultural Resources

     Significant cultural resources  exist in  the study  area and  more may  be
uncovered during  construction of centralized wastewater collection  facili-
ties.  Prominent  among the  archaeological  features are prehistoric  earthen
mounds scattered  throughout  the  Little  Miami  River Basin.   While the  Ohio
Historical  Society maintains  records  of known  archaeological  sites  in
Clermont County, there is a  strong  likelihood that additional sites  will  be
discovered  during  planning  and  construction   phases   for new  collection
sewers and  especially  during construction of  new  development promoted  by
improvements  to  sewer  services.   The more important historic features  of
the FPA, such as  Civil  War  cemeteries,  grist and  saw  mills, and  churches,
                                    4-25
-------
can be protected  from  the  impacts of  future  development by  local  and  state
initiative.   A  comprehensive  listing  of historical and  architectural  fea-
tures encompassed by sewer  service areas was not available  (By  telephone,
Katherine Stroup,  Ohio  Historical  Society,  to WAPORA,  Inc. 3  January 1984).

4.3.  Mitigation of Adverse Impacts

     Many potential  adverse impacts can  be  reduced by  the  application  of
mitigative measures.  These measures consist  of  a variety of  legal require-
ments, and  design,  operation  and construction  practices.   The  extent  to
which these measures are applied  will  determine the ultimate impact of the
particular  action.   Potential  mitigative measures  are  discussed in the
following sections.

4.3.1.  Mitigation of Construction Impacts

     The construction  related  impacts  presented in Section  4.1.  primarily
are short-term effects  resulting from  construction activities at WWTP  sites
and along the route  of proposed sewer  systems.   Proper design should  mini-
mize  the potential impacts  and the plans and specifications  should incor-
porate mitigative measures  consistent  with the following discussion.
     Noise
     The impact of  noise  from construction of wastewater collection lines,
renovating wastewater treatment plants,  and upgrading on-site systems could
be minimized by appropriate scheduling and public notification of the time,
location, and extent of the work.

     Atmosphere

     Fugitive dust  from the excavation and backfilling  operations  for the
sewers,  force  mains,   and  treatment plants  can  be minimized.   Frequent
street sweeping during major construction activites would reduce this major
source of  dust.  Prompt  repaving  of roads disturbed by construction also
reduces  dust.   Construction sites,  spoil  piles,  and unpaved  access roads
                                    4-26
-------
should be  kept wetted  to  minimize dust.   Soil  stockpiles and  backfilled
trenches should be  seeded  with a temporary or permanent seeding  or covered
with mulch to reduce susceptibility to erosion.

     Street cleaning  at sites where  trucks and  equipment  gain access  to
construction sites  and  of  roads  along which a sewer or force  main would be
constructed would  reduce  loose  dirt that  otherwise  would generate  dust,
create unsafe  driving conditions,  or  be washed  into roadside  ditches  or
storm drains.

     Exhaust emissions and noise from construction equipment could be  mini-
mized by  proper  equipment  maintenance.   The resident engineer should  have
and  should  exercise the authority  to ban  from  the  site all  poorly  main-
tained equipment.

     Spoil disposal  sites  should be  identified  during  the project design
stage or  the  construction grant  will be conditioned on identification  of
acceptable  sites  to  ensure  that  adequate  sites  are  available and  that
disposal site  impacts are  minimized.   Landscaping and restoration of  vege-
tation  should be   conducted  immediately after  disposal  is  completed  to
prevent impacts from dust and unsightly conditions.

     Areas disturbed  by trenching  and  grading at  the  WWTP sites must  be
revegetated as soon as  possible  to prevent  erosion  and dust generation.
Native plants  and  grasses should be  used.   This also will facilitate the
re-establishment  of wildlife  habitat.

     Soil Erosion and Sedimentation

     Erosion and  sedimentation must be minimized  at all  construction sites.
Facilities Planning 1981 (USEPA 1981)  establishes  requirements for control
of erosion and runoff from construction activites.   Following are sugges-
tions that would  serve to mitigate potential problems:

     Construction site selection should  consider  potential  occurrence
     of erosion and sediment  losses
                                    4-27
-------
     The project plan and  layout  should  be  designed to fit the  local
     topography and  soil  conditions

     When appropriate,  land grading  and excavating  should be kept at a
     minimum to reduce the  possibility of creating runoff and erosion
     problems which  require extensive  control measures

     Whenever  possible,   topsoil  should  be  removed  and  stockpiled
     before grading  begins

     Land  exposure  should  be  minimized   in  terms  of  area  and time

     Exposed areas subject  to erosion should be covered as quickly as
     possible by means  of mulching or  revegetation

     Natural vegetation should be  retained whenever feasible

     Appropriate structural or  agronomic practices to control  runoff
     and   sedimentation   should   be  provided    during   and   after
     construction

     Early  completion  of stabilized  drainage  systems  (temporary and
     permanent  systems)  will  substantially  reduce erosion potential

     Access  roadways should be  paved  or  otherwise  stabilized as soon
     as feasible

     Clearing  and  grading  should not be  started  until  a firm con-
     struction  schedule  is  known and can  be effectively  coordinated
     with the grading and clearing activities.


     Transportation
     Route planning for  the  transportation  of  heavy  construction equipment

and materials should ensure  that  surface  load  restrictions  are  considered.

In  this  way,  damage  to  streets  and  roadways would  be avoided.   Trucks

hauling excavation  spoil to disposal  sites or fill  material to the WWTP

sites  should  be routed  along  primary  arterials  to minimize  the  threat  to

public safety and to reduce disturbances along  residential streets.


     Cultural Resources


     The Natural Historic  Preservation Act  of  1966, Executive  Order 11593

(1971), the Archaeological and  Historic Preservation Act of  1974, and  the

1973  Procedures  of the  Advisory  Council  on Historic  Preservation  require
                                    4-28
-------
that care must  be  taken early in the planning process to identify cultural
resources  in order  to  minimize  potential  adverse  effects.   The  State
Historic Preservation Officer must  be informed of the details of the proj-
ect to determine that the requirements have been satisfied.

     A  thorough  pedestrian survey  of the areas that will be  disturbed  by
Phase 1  construction has been conducted and  no  significant  archaeological
resources were identified.

     When the  Phase 2  component  selection is complete, a thorough  pedes-
trian archaeological  survey will be  required for those areas affected  by
proposed facilities.   In addition to the information already  collected, and
consultation with the State Historic  Preservation Officer  and other  knowl-
edgeable informants,  a  controlled  surface collection of  discovered sites
and minor subsurface testing  should be conducted.  A similar  survey would
be required  for  historic structures,  sites, properties,  and  objects  in and
adjacent to  the construction areas proposed  in Phase 2, if they might  be
affected by the construction or operation of the project.

     In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, it would
be determined if any  of the resources identified by the surveys  appears  to
be eligible for the National Register  of Historic Places.   Subsequently,  an
evaluation would be  made of  the  probable effects of the project on these
resources and the mitigation procedures required.

4.3.2.   Mitigation of Operation Impacts

     The potential  adverse  operational impacts  of  the WWTP  alternatives
relate  primarily  to potential  adverse  impacts  on surface  waters  and  of
possible public  health  risks.   Adverse impacts associated with  the  opera-
tion of  on-site  systems  are primarily related to public health.  Measures
to minimize  these  and  other  operation phase impacts from all the altern-
atives are  discussed  below.
                                    4-29
-------
     Atmosphere

     Adverse impacts related to the operation of the proposed  sewer systems
and treatment  facilities  would be  minimal  if the facilities are  properly
designed, operated, and maintained.   Aerosols,  gaseous emissions,  and odors
from the various treatment processes could be controlled to a  large extent.
Above—ground pumps  would  be enclosed  and installed to minimize  sound  im-
pacts.   Proper and  regular  maintenance of on-site systems also  would maxi-
mize  the efficiency  of  these  systems and  minimize  odors released  from
malfunctioning systems.

     Surface Waters

     Special care  to control  chlorination  and effluent  concentrations  of
chlorine  residuals  should  be  taken  to  minimize  adverse  impacts  to  the
aquatic  biota  of  the  East Fork.   Tsai  (1973)  documented that  depressed
numbers of  fish  and macroinvertebrates were found downstream  from outfalls
discharging  chlorinated  effluent.    No  fish  were  found in  water  with
chlorine residuals  greater  than  0.37 mg/1,  and the species diversity index
reached  zero at  0.25  mg/1.   A  50% reduction in the species diversity index
occurred at 0.10 mg/1.   Arthur et al.  (1975)  reported  that concentrations
of  chlorine residuals  lethal  to  various  species of warm  water fish range
from 0.09 to 0.30 mg/1.   The chlorine residual limits  are 0.5  mg/1.   Fur-
thermore, chlorination  of wastewater  can  result in  the formation  of halo-
genated  organic  compounds that are potentially  carcinogenic  (USEPA 1976).
Rapid  mixing  of chlorine and  design  of  contact chambers  to  provide long
contact  times, however, can achieve the desired disinfection  and the mini-
mum chlorine  residual  discharge  (USEPA 1977a).   Chlorination  will require
especially  careful  application  and  routine  monitoring   to  insure  that
chlorine residual concentrations are kept to a minimum.

     Adverse  impacts  related  to  the  proposed  continued utilization  of
on—site  systems  would  be minimal  if  the malfunctioning  systems  were  up-
graded, new systems were properly installed, and reasonable water conserva-
tion practices were followed.   Impacts on water  quality  can  be serious if
on-site  systems  are  malfunctioning.   If soil  absorption  systems  are  not
                                    4-30
-------
operating  properly,  untreated  septic tank  effluent  rises  to  the  ground
surface and  runs off  into  nearby drainageways.   The effluent  would  have
high  concentration  of organics,  nutrients,  and perhaps  pathogenic  organ-
isms.  Such  systems are  pollutant  sources and  public health hazards,  as
well  as  unsightly.   Whenever  a  soil absorption  sytem  malfunctions,  the
homeowner should report it to a management agency,  and they would institute
upgrading as  quickly  as  would be practicable.   Because the homeowner would
not be directly liable for the cost of upgrading, he should not be hesitant
about  reporting  failures.   Because upgrading  cannot be  completed until  a
dry  period  in most cases,  a short-term pollutional  hazard  would continue
until the upgrading could be accomplished.   The area over a soil absorption
system would usually be wetter than the adjoining area.

     Minimal  impacts  from aerobic systems  would result if they  were func-
tioning properly and have approved discharge locations.   By design, aerobic
systems will  produce  an  effluent  that meets the effluent standards  of the
Ohio Sanitary  Code if  they  receive  the  basic maintenance.   Additional
treatment  devices,  such  as ETA (evapotranspiration/absorption)  beds,  sand
filters,  or  drainfields,  will  improve  further the effluent  quality.   The
OPEA  should  analyze the  current discharge line locations and the assimila-
tive  capacity  of  the  drainageways,  and determine what additional treatment
measures are necessary on individual systems and what additional discharges
may  be  permitted.   Comments  expressed  on degraded water quality in  some
drainageways  indicated  that  it may  be  partly due  to failed systems  and
nonpoint sources, as well as soil characteristics.

Transportation

     The  impact  of  truck  traffic  related to  sludge and septage hauling
would be minor, considering  the small  number of trips  per year.   One  of the
contract or licensing stipulations should be that the trucks  be kept  clean,
well painted,  and  adequately  maintained  to avoid aesthetic  impacts  and  to
minimize  emissions.  The  trucks presently  must  travel  through  Batavia  to
reach  the  Am-Bat  WWTP.   The CCSD  has proposed construction of  a  bridge
across the East Fork  that would eliminate that traffic,  although it  is not
grant-eligible.
                                    4-31
-------
4.3.3.  Mitigation of Secondary Impacts

     As discussed in Section 4.2.,  secondary impacts will occur as a result
of construction  of wastewater collection and treatment  facilities.   These
impacts arise from population growth and attendant residential development,
and  the  effects  this  would  have  on  water  quality and the  agricultural
resource base.  Adequate  zoning, health,  and water quality  regulations and
enforcement would minimize these impacts.   Local growth management planning
would  assist in  regulating  the  general   location,  density,  and type  of
growth that occurs.

     The principal mitigative  measure  that would effectively eliminate the
anticipated  secondary  impacts  would be  to  construct  few new  wastewater
collection sewers  as identified in Chapter 2.0. under  the  EIS recommended
action.   This alternative would extend few collection lines into unsewered
areas with the potential  of inducing growth.

4.4.   Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

     Some impacts  associated  with  the  implementation of any  of  the alter-
natives except no action  cannot be  avoided.   The centralized collection and
treatment would have the  following  adverse impacts:

     •    Considerable  short-term   construction  dust,  noise,   and
          traffic nuisance
     •    Short-term  alteration of  vegetation  and wildlife  habitat
          along  the sewer  and  force  main  corridors  and  long-term
          alteration at the WWTP sites
     •    Considerable  erosion  and   siltation  during  construction
     •    Conversion of  a limited acreage  of  prime  farmland to WWTP
          use.
                                    4-32
-------
     The decentralized  components that primarily include  continued  use of
existing and  upgraded  on-site systems  would have  the following  adverse
impacts:

     •    Some  short-term  construction   dust,   noise,   and  traffic
          nuisance
     •    Some erosion and siltation during construction
     •    Occasional  ephemeral odors  associated  with pumping  septic
          tanks  and  aerobic  tanks  and  trucking   it  to  WWTPs  for
          disposal
     •    User fees for management  and operation of septage treatment
          services.

4.5.  Irretrievable  and Irreversible Resource Commitments

     The  major type  and  amounts  of resources  that would be  committed
through the implementation of  any of the alternatives except no action are
presented in Sections  4.1.  and 4.2.   Each of the  alternatives would  include
some or all of the following resource commitments:

     •    Fossil fuel, electrical energy,  and human labor  for facili-
          ties construction and operation
     •    Chemicals, especially chlorine,  for WWTP operation
     •    Tax dollars  for construction and operation
     •    Some unsalvageable  construction materials.

     For each alternative involving a WWTP, there is a significant consump-
tion  of  these resources with  no feasible  means  of recovery.   Thus,  non-
recoverable resources would be foregone  for the provision of  the proposed
wastewater control system.

     Accidents  which  could  occur from  system construction and  operation
could  cause  irreversible  bodily  damage  or death,  and  damage or  destroy
equipment and other resources.
                                    4-33
-------
     The potential  accidental  destruction  of undiscovered  archaeological
sites through excavation activities  is  not  reversible.  This would  repre-
sent permanent loss of the  site.
                                    4-34
-------
5.0.   LITERATURE CITED

     Aronson, R. ,  and E.  S.  Schwartz (editors).   1975.   Management policies
          in local government finance.   International City Managers
          Association, Washington DC.

     Balke Engineers.   1979.  Infiltration/inflow analysis for the Village
          of Bethel.   In Draft wastewater facilities plan Middle East Fork
          area,  Clermont County, Ohio.   Cincinnati OH,  31p.

     Balke Engineers.   1980.  Plan of  study for  the Middle East Fork
          facility planning area.   For Clermont  County Water and Sewer
          District.   Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1981.  Infiltration and inflow analysis for the
          Amelia-Batavia sewerage system.   In Draft wastewater facilities
          plan Middle East Fork area,  Clermont County,  Ohio.   Cincinnati
          OH, 23p.

     Balke Engineers.   1982a.   Draft wastewater  facilities plan Middle East
          Fork area,  Clermont County,  Ohio.  Cincinnati OH,  variously
          paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1982b.   On-site wastewater disposal in the Middle
          East Fork Planning Area:   problems,  alternatives and recommended
          action.   Prepared as a technical supplement to the Middle East
          Fork Facilities Plan.   Cincinnati OH,  variously paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1982c.   Development of alternatives cost effective-
          ness analysis,  Middle East Fork facilities plan, Clermont County,
          Ohio.   Cincinnati OH,  variously paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1982d.   Sewer system evaluation  survey.   Village of
          Bethel.   Prepared for the Clermont County Commissioners.
          Cincinnati  OH,  variously paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1982e.   Summary  report on a second-level public
          meetings for the Middle East  Fork wastewater  facilities planning
          project.   Cincinnati OH,  variously paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1983a.   Surface  water quality related  to on-site
          wastewater  disposal  in the Middle East Fork Planning Area.   Pre-
          pared  as a  technical supplement  to the  Middle East  Fork
          Facilities  Plan.   Cincinnati  OH,  variously paged.

     Balke Engineers.   1983b.   Final recommendations:   solutions  to on-site
          disposal problems  in the Middle  East Fork Planning  Area.   Pre-
          pared  as a  technial  supplement  to the  Middle  East  Fork  Wastewater
          Facilities  Plan,  Cincinnati OH,  variously paged.

     Brown,  D.V.,  and R.K.  White.    1977.   Septage disposal  alternatives in
          rural  areas.   Research bulletin 1096.   Ohio Agricultural  Research
          and Development Center,  Wooster,  OH, lip.
                                  5-1
-------
Clermont County Assessors Office.   1982.   Assessed valuations for
     villages and townships in Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Batavia,
     Ohio, 2 pages.

Clermont County Planning Commission.   1976.   Land Market Factors in
     Clermont County.   Batavia Ohio,  6 p.

Clermont County Planning Commission.   1979.   Subdivision regulations.
     Batavia OH, variously paged.

Clermont County Sewer District.   1983.  Official statement relating
     to the original issuance of $3,700,000  sewer system revenue
     bonds.   Batavia Ohio, 61 pages with appendices.

Cohen, S.  and H. Wallraan.   1974.   Demonstration of waste flow reduc-
     tion from households.  US Environmental Protection Agency,
     National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH.

Council on Environmental Quality.    1979.   Environmental quality.  The
     tenth annual report of the council on environmental quality.
     US Government Printing office,  Washington DC, 816 p.

Ellis, B.C., and A.  E. Erickson.   1969.  Movement and transformation of
     various phosphorus compounds  in soils.   Soil Science Department,
     Michigan State University and Michigan  Water Resources  Commission,
     East Lansing MI,   35 p.

Enfield, C.G.  1978.  Evaluation of phosphorus models for prediction
     of percolate water quality in land treatment.  In;  McKim,
     Harlan L. (Coordinator), State of Knowledge in land treatment
     of wastewater,  vol. 1.  US Army COE Cold Regions Research and
     Engineering Laboratory,  Hanover NH, 430 p.  (p.  153-162)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (Federal Insurance Agency).   1980.
     Flood insurance study for unincorporated areas of Clermont
     County, Ohio.  Community Number 390065.  25 pp with flood profile
     attachments.

Geldreich, E.E., L.C.  Best, B.A.  Kenner, and D.J. Donsel.   1968.  The
     bacteriological aspects of stormwater pollution.  Journal Water
     Pollution Control Federation, Vol 40, Washington D.C.,  p 1861-
     1872.

Geldreich, E.E. and B.A. Kenner.   1969.  Concept of fecal streptococci
     in stream pollution.   Journal Water Pollution Control Fedeation,
     Vol 41, Washington D.C., p.  R336-R352.

Grieves, Robert T.  1983.   "A $1.6 billion nuclear fiasco."  Time
     magazine, 31 October  1983, New York NY p. 96, 99.

Hartig, J.H., and F.J. Horvath.  1982.  A preliminary assessment of
     Michigan's phosphorus detergent ban.   Journal of Water Pollution
     Control Federation 54(2):  194-197.
                             5-2
-------
Hickey, J.L.S., and P.O. Reist.  1975.  Health significance of
     airborne microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes.
     Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, volume 47.

Hutzler, N.J., L.E. Waldorf, and J. Fancy.  1978.  Performance of
     aerobic treatment units.  In;  Proceedings of the Second
     National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium (ASAE) Publication
     5-77).  American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph
     MI, pp. 149-163.

Jones, David, and James Simpson.  1983.  Report on Williamsburg
     Infiltration/Inflow Analysis, Middle East Fork Facilities
     Planning Area, Clermont County.  Ohio EPA, Columbus OH, 4 p.

Jones, R.A. , and G.F.  Lee.  1977.  Septic tank disposal systems as
     phosphorus sources for surface waters.  EPA  600/3-77-129.
     Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK.

McGill & Smith, Inc.  Undated.  Environmental assessment, Lower East
     Fork, Little Miami River sewerage facilities.  Prepared for the
     Clermont County Sewer District, Clermont County OH, 26 p.

McGill & Smith, Inc.  1974.   Facilities plan, Lower East Fork, Little
     Miami River, regional sewerage project.   Prepared for the
     Clermont County Sewer District, Clermont County OH, 21 p.

McGill & Smith, Inc.  1981a.  Preliminary draft, infiltration and
     inflow analysis for the Village of Batavia.  In Draft wastewater
     facilities plan Middle East Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio.
     Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

McGill & Smith, Inc.  1981b.  Infiltration and inflow analysis for the
     Village of Williamsburg.  In Draft wastewater facilities plan
     Middle East Fork area,  Clermont County,  Ohio.  Cincinnati OH,
     variously paged.

McLaughlin, E.R.  1968.   A recycle system for conservation of water in
     residences.  Water and Sewage Works 115:4, pp.  175-176.

Machmeier, R.E.   1975.   Design criteria for soil treatment systems.
     Paper No. 75-2577.   Department of Agricultural Engineering,
     University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN, 35 pp.

Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc.  1979.   Wastewater engineering.   McGraw Hill Book
     Company, 920 p.

Moak, L.L,, and A.M. Hillhouse.  1975.  Concepts and practices in
     local government finance.  Municipal Finance Officers Association
     of the US and Canada, Chicago IL.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983a.  Financial report of townships:
     Williamsburg Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished, Columbus
     OH, 34 pages.
                             5-3
-------
Ohio Auditor of State.   1983b.   Financial report of townships:
     Stonelick Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,
     34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983c.   Financial report of townships:
     Ohio Township, Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,
     34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983d.   Financial report of townships:   Monroe
     Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,  34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983e.   Financial report of townships:   Tate
     Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,  34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983f.   Financial report of townships:
     Jackson Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,
     34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983g.   Financial report of townships:   Pierce
     Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,  34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983h.   Financial report of townships:
     Batavia Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,
     34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983i.   Financial report of townships:   Union
     Township,  Clermont County.   Unpublished,  Columbus OH,  34 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983j.   Annual financial report for Village
     of Amelia.  Unpublished, Columbus OH, 26 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983k.   Annual financial report for Village
     of Batavia.  Unpublished,  Columbus OH, 33 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   19831.   Annual financial report for Village
     of Bethel.  Unpublished, Columbus OH, 33 pages.

Ohio Auditor of State.   1983m.   Annual financial report for Village
     of Williamsburg.  Unpublished, Columbus OH, 33 pages.

Ohio Department of Health.   1977.  Home sewage disposal rules, an
     interpretive guide.   Columbus OH, variously paged.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources.   1972.  An inventory of Ohio
     soils, Clermont County.  Division of Lands and Soils,  Columbus
     OH, 48 p.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources,  Division of Wildlife.  1983.
     East Fork Lake 1982 annual report.   Second of two annual reports.
     Columbus OH, variously paged.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.   1983.  Preliminary draft on
     East Fork Little Miami River Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
     Columbus OH, variously paged and appendices.
                             5-4
-------
OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1976.  Facilities Plan for the
     Middle East Fork Planning Area.   Prepared by Harry Balke
     Engineers and Harza Engineering Company.  Cincinnati OH, 381 p
     and appendices.

OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1977.  Little Miami River
     basin plan within OKI region.   Cincinnati OH, variously paged
     and appendices.

OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1977.  Regional water quality
     management plan.  Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1978.  Development policies.
     Cincinnati OH, 158 p.

OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1981.  Regional development
     framework:  background report.   Cincinnati OH, 33 pages with
     appendices.

OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1981a.  Land use plan for the
     Village of Bethel, Ohio.   Cincinnati OH, 72 p.

OKI (Regional Council of Governments).   1981b.  Land use plan for the
     Village of Williamsburg,  Ohio.   Cincinnati OH, 149 p.

OKI Regional Planning Authority.   1971.  Regional development plan.
     Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

Otis,  R.J.  1979.  Alternative wastewater facilities for small communi-
     ties - a case study.   In:  Proceedings of a Workshop on
     Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems.  UlLU-WRC-79-0010.
     Water Resources Center and Cooperative Extension Service,
     University of Illinois - Urbana.  Urbana IL, pp.44-69.

Peat,  Marwick, Mitchell & Co.   1983.   Final report, model on-site
     sewage disposal management program for the State of Ohio.  Pre-
     pared for the Ohio Water Development Authority.   Washington DC,
     variously paged.

Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites.   1973.   Wastewater treatment reuse by
     land application, Volume 1,  Summary.   US Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Office of Research and Development,  Washington DC, 80 pp.

Scalf, M.R., W.J. Dunlap,  and J.F.  Kriessl.   1977.  Environmental
     effects of septic tank systems.   EPA 600/3-77-096.  Robert S.
     Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory.   Ada OK,  35 pp.

Siegrist, R.L., T. Woltanski,  and C.E.  Waldorf.   1978.   Water conser-
     vation and wastewater disposal.   In;   Proceedings of the Second
     National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77).
     American Society of Agricultural Engineers,  St.  Joseph  MI,
     pp.  121-136.
                             5-5
-------
Slade, Robert K.   1964.   Early Days in Clermont County.   The
     Manchester Signal,  Manchester, Ohio.

Slonecker, E.  Terrence.   1981a.   Septic systems performance analysis
     - Clermont County,  Ohio.   Volume 1.   The Bionetics  Corporation,
     Warrenton VA for Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
     Las Vegas NV, 19 p.

Soil Conservation Service.   1975.   Soil survey of Clermont County,
     Ohio.  US Department of Agriculture in cooperation  with the
     Ohio Department of  Natural Resources,  Division of Lands and
     Soil, and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
     Washington DC, 97 pp.  and map sheets.

Spencer, Robert F. and Jesse D.  Jennings,  et al.   1965.   The Native
     Americans, pp. 57-100.   Harper and Row, New York.

Tsai, C.  1973.  Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls.
     Transactions of American Fisheries Society 102 (281).

US (Army) Corps of Engineers.   1974.   Environmental impact statement
     on the East Fork Lake Project.  Volume 1 of final updated
     version.   District  Office Louisville KY, 99 pp.  with appendices.

US (Army) Corps of Engineers.   1979.   Water resources development by
     the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers in Ohio.  Ohio River Division,
     Cincinnati OH, 92 p.

US (Army) Corps of Engineers.   1981.   Reservoir regulation plan,
     William H. Harsha Lake.  District Office, Louisville KY.

US (Army) Corps of Engineers.   1983.   Preliminary draft  hydro-power
     feasibility study for William H. Harsha Lake, Ohio.  December
     1983.  Conducted as a part of the Miami River, Little Miami
     River, and Mill Creek Basins, Ohio Interim Report Number 4.
     District Office Louisville KY, 93 pp., with plates.

US Bureau of the Census.   1983.   General Social and Economic Character-
     istics.  Ohio Volume 1, Chapter C, part 37.   US Government Print-
     ing Office, Washington DC.

USEPA.  1976.   Disinfection of wastewater.   EPA 430/9-75-012
     Washington DC.

USPEA.  1977a.  EPA's research and development report on wastewater
     disinfection.  Technology Transfer, Environmental Research
     Information Center.   Washington DC.

USEPA.  1977b.  Alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems,
     on-site disposal/septage treatment and disposal.
     EPA 625/4-77-011.  Technology Transfer, Washington DC, 90 p.
                             5-6
-------
USEPA.  1979a.   Grant funding of projects requiring treatment more
     stringent than secondary.   Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM)
     #79-7.  Office of Water and Waste Management, Washington DC.

USEPA.  1979b.   (Draft) Management of on-site and alternative waste-
     water systems.  Prepared for USEPA Environmental Research Infor-
     mation Center, by Roy F. Weston, Inc., Cincinnati OH, 111 pp.

USEi'A.  1980a.   Manual for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal
     systems.   Prepared for USEPA by SCS Engineers and Rural Systems
     Engineering, Washington DC, variously paged.

USEPA.  1980b.   Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under
     uncertainty:  a manual and compilation of export coefficients.
     EPA 440/5-80-011.  Clean Lakes Section, Washington DC.

USEPA.  1980c.   Planning wastewater management facilities for small
     communities.  Prepared for USEPA, Municipal Environmental Research
     Laboratory, by Urban Systems Research Engineering, Inc.,
     EPA 600/8-80-030, Cincinnati OH, 141 pp.

USEPA.  1981.   Facilities planning 1981.  Municipal wastewater treat-
     ment.  EPA 430/9-81-002.  Office of Water Program Operations,
     Washington DC, 116 p.

USEPA.  1982a.   Costruction Grants 82 (CG-82).  EPA 430/9-81-020.
     Office of Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 127 p.  and
     appendices.

USEPA.  1982b.   Management of on-site and small community wastewater
     systems.   EPA 600/8-82-009.   Municipal Environmental Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 223 p.

USEPA.  1983a.   Final-generic environmental impact statement for waste-
     water management in rural lake areas.  USEPA Region V, Water
     Division,  Chicago IL, variously paged.

USEPA.  1983c.   Finding of no significant impact, Meigs County -
     Tuppers Plains, Ohio Wastewater Facilities Plan.  Chicago IL,
     19 p. and 3 exhibits.

US Geological  Survey.  1981.  Water resources data for Ohio; Volume 1
     Ohio River Basin, water year 1980.   Columbus OH, 620 pp.

Willey, Gordon R.  1960.   An introduction to American Archaeology:
     North and Middle America,  Volume One, pp. 246-342.  Prentice-
     Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
                             5-7
-------
6.0.  LIST OF PREPARERS
     The Draft  Environmental Statement  (DES)  was prepared by  the  Chicago

Regional Office of  WAPORA,  Inc.,  under contract to USEPA Region  V.   USEPA

prepared the DES and hereby publishes it as a Draft EIS.   The  USEPA  Project

Officers and the  WAPORA staff involved in the preparation of the DES/DEIS

included:
USEPA

Charles Brasher

Catharine Grissom-Garra

WAPORA, Inc.

Russell Stults

D. Keith Whitenight

John Johnson

Gerald D. Lenssen


Ross Sweeny

W. Owen Thompson

J.P. Singh

Thomas Nedved


John Laumer


Carol Qualkinbush

Mark Cameron

Joanne Pfirman

Steve McComas

Andrew Freeman

Judy Dwyer

Sharon Knight
Project Officer

Project Officer (former)




Project Administrator

Project Administrator

Project Administrator

Project Manager, Engineer and
Principal Author

Project Manager (former) and Engineer

Project Manager (former)

Project Manager (former)

Project Engineer and Principal
Author

Water Quality Scientist and
Principal Author

Socioeconomis t

Socioeconomist

Biologist

Environmental Scientist

Demographer

Geographer and Editor

Cultural Resources and Cartographer
                                    6-1
-------
WAPORA, Inc. ,^ Cont.

Peter Woods                             Graphics Specialist

Zear Meriweather                        Production Specialist

Delores Jackson-Hope                    Production Specialist


     In  addition,  one  subcontractor  assisted in  the  preparation of  this

document.  This  one  along  with  the  area  of  expertise  is listed  below:

     Septic Systems  Performance Analysis,  Clermont County,  Ohio
     USEPA Environmental Monitoring Systems  Laboratory,  Las Vegas,  NV
                                    6-2
-------
7.0.  GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

Activated  sludge  process.   A  method  of secondary  wastewater treatment in
     which  a  suspended  microbiological culture  is  maintained inside  an
     aerated treatment basin.   The  microbial organisms oxidize the complex
     organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced        treatment.   Wastewater  treatment to  treatment  levels that
     provide for  maximum monthly  average  BOD^  and  SS  concentrations less
     than 10 mg/1 and/or  total  nitrogen removal of greater than 50%  (total
     nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).
Aerated  lagoon.   A wastewater  pond  to which air is  artificially  added to
     hasten  biological decomposition.   Air  is  introduced  by release  of
     compressed air  below the  surface or by stirring air  into  the water
     surface.

Aeration.  To circulate oxygen through a substance,  as in wastewater treat-
     ment, where it aids in purification.

Aerobic.  Refers  to life or  processes that occur only in  the presence of
     oxygen.

Aerosol.  A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.

Algae.    Simple  rootless plants  that  grow in bodies  of  water in  relative
     proportion to  the amounts  of  nutrients available.  Algal blooms,  or
     sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.

Algal bloom.  A proliferation of algae on the surface of  lakes,  streams or
     ponds.    Algal   blooms   are  stimulated  by  phosphate  and   nitrate
     enrichment.
                                  7-1
-------
Alluvial.  Pertaining to material  that has been carried by a stream.

Ambient air.   Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere:   open air.

Ammonia-nitrogen.  Nitrogen in  the  form of ammonia  (NH )  that  is  produced
     in  nature  when nitrogen-containing  organic  material  is  biologically
     decomposed.

Anaerobic.  Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of
     oxygen.

Anoxia.  Condition where oxygen is deficient or absent.

Aquifer.  A geologic  stratum  or unit that is saturated with water and will
     yield its  water to wells  and  springs at a sufficient  rate  for prac-
     tical use.   The water may reside in  and travel  through  innumerable
     small or cavernous openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer,
     or fissures, cracks, and rubble in such harder rocks as shale.

Bar screen.   In wastewater  treatment,  a screen that removes large floating
     and suspended solids.

Base flow.    The rate of movement of water in a stream channel that occurs
     typically  during  rainless  periods,   when stream  flow is  maintained
     largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.

Bedrock.  The solid rock beneath the soil.

Benthic.   Referring  to organisms, primarily animals,  living in the bottom
     sediments of lakes and rivers.

Biochemical oxygen  demand  (BOD).   A bioassay-type  procedure  in which the
     weight of  oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
     the  organic matter present  per liter of water  is  determined.   It is
     common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
     a  subscript to the abbreviated name.   For example, BOD  indicates that
                                  7-2
-------
     the results  are based  on  a five-day long  (120-hour)   test.   The BOD
     value is  a relative measure of  the amount (load) of  living  and dead
     oxidizable organic matter  in water.   A high demand deplete the supply
     of oxygen  in  the  water, temporarily  or for  a  prolonged time, to the
     degree that many or all kinds  of aquatic organisms are killed.  Deter-
     minations of  BOD  are  useful in the evaluation of the impact of waste-
     water on receiving waters.

Biota.   The plants and animals of an area.

Capital  costs.    All  costs  associated  with installation  (as  opposed  to
     operation) of a project.

cfs.   Cubic feet  per second.  The volume  in cubic feet of water passing a
     given point every second.

Chlorination.    The application  of  chlorine  to  drinking water, sewage  or
     industrial  waste   for  disinfection   or   oxidation   of  undesirable
     compounds.

Circulation period.  The interval of  time in which the density stratifica-
     tion of a  lake  is destroyed by the  equalization  of  temperature, as a
     result of which the entire water mass becomes mixed.

Clay.  The  smallest  mineral  particles  in soil,  less than  .004  mm in dia-
     meter; soil that  contains  at  least 40%  clay  particles,  less  than 45%
     sand,  and less than 40% silt.

Coliform bacteria.  Members  of  a large group of bacteria  that flourish in
     the feces  and/or  intestines of  warm-blooded animals,  including man.
     Fecal   coliform  bacteria,  particularly  Escherichia  coli  (E.  coli),
     enter  water mostly in  fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runoff.
     Coliforms apparently  do not cause  serious human  diseases, but  these
     organisms are abundant  in  polluted  waters and they are fairly easy to
     detect.   The abundance of coliforms  in water,  therefore, is used as an
     index  to  the  probability of the occurrence of  such  disease-producing
                                  7-3
-------
     organisms  (pathogens)  as  Salmonella,  Shigella,  and enteric  viruses
     which are otherwise relatively difficult  to detect.

Comminutor.  A machine that breaks up  wastewater solids.

Community.  The  plants  and animals in  a particular area that are  closely
     related through food chains and other interactions.

Cost-effectiveness guidelines.  Developed by  USEPA to aid grantees  in  the
     selection  of  the  waste  treatment  management system component  which
     will result in the  minimum total  resources cost over a  fixed period of
     time to meet federal, state,  and  local  requirements.

Cultural  resources.   Fragile  and nonrenewable  sites,  districts,  buildings
     structures,  or  objects   representative   of  our  heritage.    Cultural
     resources are  divided into three categories:   historical,  architect-
     ural, or  archaeological.   Cultural resources  of  special  significance
     may  be  eligible for listing  on the  National  Register  of  Historic
     Places.

Demographic.    Pertaining  to  the  science of vital  and special  statistics,
     especially with  regard to  population density and capacity  for expan-
     sion or decline.

Design flow.   The average quantity of  wastewater which a treatment facility
     is designed  to handle,  usually  expressed in millions of  gallons  per
     day  (mgd).

Design  period.   Time  span over which wastewater  treatment  facilities  are
     expected  to  be  operating;   period over which  facility  costs  are
     amortized.

Detention  time.  Average  time required  for water  to  flow through a basin.
     Also  called  retention time.    Or,  the  time required for  natural pro-
     cesses to  replace  the entire volume of a  lake's  water,  assuming com-
     plete mixing.
                                  7-4
-------
Digestion.  In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
     where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.

Disinfection.   Effective  killing by chemical or  physical  processes  of all
     organisms capable of  causing infectious disease.   Chlorination is the
     disinfection method  commonly employed  in  sewage  treatment processes.

Dissolved oxygen  (DO).   Oxygen  gas (0_) in  water.   It  is  utilized in res-
     piration  by fish  and other aquatic  organisms,  and  those  organisms
     may be injured  or  killed when the concentration is low.   Because much
     oxygen diffuses into water  from  the air,  the  concentration  of  DO is
     greater,   other  conditions  being   equal,  at  sea  level  than  at  high
     elevations,   during  periods  of  high  atmospheric pressure  than during
     periods  of   low  pressure,   and  when  the  water  is turbulent  (during
     rainfall, in rapids, and  waterfalls)  rather than when  it is placid.
     Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water,  the concen-
     tration  tends to be  greater at low temperatures than at high  tempera-
     tures.    Dissolved   oxygen   is  depleted by  the  oxidation  of  organic
     matter and  of  various inorganic  chemicals.   Should  depletion  be ex-
     treme,  the  water may become anaerobic and  could  stagnate and  stink.

Drainage  basin.   A  geographical  area  or  region which  is so sloped and
     contoured that  surface  runoff  from  streams  and other natural  water-
     courses  is  carried away by a single drainage  system  by gravity  to a
     common outlet or outlets;  also referred to as a watershed  or  drainage
     area.

Effluent.  Wastewater or  other  liquid,  partially or completely  treated, or
     in  its natural  state, flowing  out of  a  reservoir,  basin, treatment
     plant,  or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.

Effluent  limitations.   The maximum amount  of  a pollutant  that  a  point
     source may  discharge into  a water body.   They may  allow some  or no
     discharge at all, depending on the specific pollutant  to be controlled
     and the  water quality standards established for the receiving waters.
                                  7-5
-------
Effluent limited.   Stream  segments which  meet and will  continue to  meet
     water quality  standards  once the  national  uniform point source  con-
     trols are applied.

EIS.   Environmental Impact  Statement.

Endangered  species  (federal  classification).   Any  species  of  animal  or
     plant declared to be in known danger of  extinction throughout all  or a
     significant part  of its  range.   Protected under  Public Law  93-205  as
     amended.

Epilimnion.   The turbulent  superficial layer  of a  lake  lying  above  the
     metalimnion which  does not have  a permanent thermal  stratification.

Environmental  Impact Statement (EIS).   A detailed  analysis of  the potential
     environmental  impacts a  proposed  project  requries  when  the  USEPA
     Regional   Administrator determines  that a project is highly  contro-
     versial or may have significant  adverse  environmental effects.

Eutrophic.   Waters with a high concentration  of nutrients and  hence a large
     production of vegetation and  frequent die-offs  of plants and animals.

Eutrophication.  The  progressive  enrichment of  a surface  waters,  partic-
     ularly non-flowing bodies of  water such as  lakes and ponds, with dis-
     solved nutrients,  such  as  phosphorus  and  nitrogen  compounds,  which
     accelerate  the  growth  of  algae and  higher  forms  of  plant  life  and
     result in  the  utilization  of the usable oxygen  content  of  the waters
     at the expense of other aquatic  life forms.

Fauna.  The total  animal  life of  a particular geographic  area or habitat.

Fecal coliform bacteria.  See coliform bacteria.

Floodplain.  Belt of low, flat ground bordering a stream channel subject to
     periodic inundation.
                                  7-6
-------
Floodway.  The portion  of  the floodplain which carries moving water during
     a flood event.

Flood  fringe.   The part of  the  floodplain which serves as  a  storage area
     during a flood event.

Flora.   The  total plant life of a particular geographic  area or habitat.

Flowmeter.  A guage  that indicates the amount of flow of wastewater moving
     through a treatment plant.

Forbs.   Non-woody low  vegetation species such  as  composites  or legumes.

Forcemain.  A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.

Grant-eligible.    Refers  to cost  of  planning and constructing a treatment
     facility which  may receive  federal  funds under  the  EPA  Construction
     Grants program.

Gravity  system.    A system  of conduits (open  or  closed)  in which no liquid
     pumping is  required.

Gravity  sewer.   A sewer in which wastewater  flows  naturally down-gradient
     by the force of  gravity.

Grinder  pump  (GP).  Pumping  facilities  designed to macerate  and transfer
     raw wastewater from a  residence to a higher estimate to discharge to a
     gravity sewer.

Groundwater.   All subsurface water,  especially  that part  in  the  zone  of
     saturation.

Holding  tank.   Enclosed tank, usually  of fiberglass,  steel,  or concrete,
     for the storage of wastewater prior to  removal or disposal at another
     location.
                                  7-7
-------
Hypolimnion.   The  deep  layer of a  lake  lying below the epilmnion  and the
     metalimnion and removed from surface influences.

Infiltration.   The  water  entering  a  sewer system  and  service  connections
     from the ground through  such  means  as, but not  limited  to,  defective
     pipes,  pipe joints,  improper connections,  or manhole walls.   Infiltra-
     tion does not include,  and is  distinguished from,  inflow.

Inflow.   The  water discharged  into a  wastewater  collection  system  and
     service connections  from such sources  as, but not limited to,  roof
     leaders,  cellars,  yard  and area drains,  foundation drains,  cooling
     water  discharges,   drains  from springs   and  swampy  areas,  manhole
     covers,  cross-connections from storm sewers and combined sewers,  catch
     basins,  storm  waters,  surface  runoff,  street wash waters or drainage.
     Inflow does not  include,   and is  distinguished   from,  infiltration.

Influent.  Water,  wastewater, or  other   liquid  flowing into a  reservoir,
     basin,  or treatment facility,  or any unit thereof.

Interceptor sewer.  A sewer designed  and installed to  collect  sewage from
     a series of trunk sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.

Innovative technology.  A  technology whose  use has not been widely  docu-
     mented by  experience and is not a  variant of  conventional biological
     or physical/chemical treatment.

Lagoon.   In  wastewater  treatment,  a  shallow  pond,  usually man-made,  in
     which  sunlight,  algal  and  bacteria  action  and  oxygen  interact  to
     restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.

Land treatment.  A  method  of treatment  in wich the soil,  air,  vegetation,
     bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
     In  its most simple  form,  the method includes three  steps:   (1) pre-
     treatment  to  screen  out large  solids;  (2)   secondary  treatment and
     chlorination;  and   (3)  spraying over cropland,  pasture,  or  natural
     vegetation  to allow plants and soil  microorganisms to remove  addi-
                                  7-8
-------
     tional  pollutants.   Some  of the  sprayed  water  evaporates,  and  the
     remainder may be  allowed  to percolate to the  water  table,  discharged
     through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.

Leachate.  Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
     or  other  materials  and extracts soluble  or suspended  substances from
     material.

Lift  station.   A  facility in  a collector sewer  system,  consisting of  a
     recieving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
     devices,  that  collects wastewater  from  a  low-lying district at some
     convenient point,  from which it  is lifted to another portion of  the
     collector system.

Littoral.  The shoreward region of a body of water.

Loam.  The  textural  class  name for soil having  a  moderate  amount of sand,
     silt,  and clay.  Loam soils  contain 7  to  27% of clay, 28  to 50%  of
     silt, and less than 52% of sand.

Loess.  Wind transported sediments derived from fine glacial outwash
     materials.

Macroinvertebrates.    Invertebrates that  are  visible  to  the unaided  eye
     (those  retained by  a  standard No.  30 sieve,  which has  28  meshes  per
     inch  or  0.595 mm  openings);  generally  connotates  bottom-dwelling
     aquatic animals (benthos).

Macrophyte.  A large (not microscopic)  plant,  usually in an aquatic
     habitat.

Mesotrophic.  Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
     production of organic matter.
                                  7-9
-------
Metalimnion.    The  layer  of  water  in a  lake bewteen  the epilimnion  and
     hypolimnion in which the  temperature  exhibits the  greatest  difference
     in a vertical  direction.

Miligram per  liter  (mg/1).  A  concentration of 1/1000  gram of  a substance
     in  1  liter of  water.   Because  1  liter of  pure  water  weighs  1,000
     grams, the  concentration  also  can be  stated as 1 ppm (part  per mil-
     lion,  by  weight).   Used  to  measure  and report the  concentrations  of
     most  substances  that commonly  occur  in natural and polluted waters.

Mound.   A mound, constructed  of sand, to which settled wastewater is
     applied.   Usually  used  in areas  where the thickness of soils and/or
     depth to watertable are  inadequate for conventional on-site treatment.

National  Pollution Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES).   The  effluent
     discharge permit system established under  the 1972 FWPCA which places
     conditions  on  the  type and  concentration of  pollutants permitted  in
     the effluent;  and schedules for achieving compliance.

National Register  of Historic Places.  Official  listing of the  cultural
     resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation.   Listing  on
     the National Register makes  property  owners eligible to  be considered
     for  Federal grants-in-aid   for  historic preservation  through  state
     programs.   Listing  also  provides potection   through  comment by  the
     Advisory  Council on  Historic Preservation on  the  effect of Federally
     financed,  assisted,  or  licensed  undertakings  on historic  properties.

Nitrate-nitrogen.  Nitrogen in the  form  of nitrate  (NO,.).  It  is  the most
     oxidized  phase  in  the  nitrogen  cycle  in nature  and occurs  in high
     concentrations in  the  final stages  of biological  oxidation.   It can
     serve as  a nutrient  for  the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.

Nitrite-nitrogen.  Nitrogen in the  form  of nitrite (NO ).  It is an inter-
     mediate  stage  in the nitrogen cycle in nature.   Nitrite  normally is
     found in low concentrations and  represents a  transient stage in the
     biological oxidation of organic materials.
                                  7-10
-------
Nonpoint source.  Any  area,  in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
     which pollutants  flow  in  to a body of  water.   Common pollutants from
     nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
     and sediments from agricultural soils.

Nutrients.   Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
     and development  of  an  organism;  e.g.,  carbon,  oxygen,  nitrogen,  and
     phosphorus.

Oligotrophic.  Waters with a small supply of nutrients and hence an
     insignificant production of organic matter.

On-site disposal.   Disposal of  wastewater by any of  several  methods that
     are contained on the property where the wastes originate.   Most common
     forms are septic tanks, aerobic treatment units, and privies.

Ordinance.   A municipal or county regulation.

Outwash.   Sand  and gravel  transported  away from  a  glacier by  streams  of
     meltwater  and  either  deposited  as a  floodplain along a  preexisting
     valley bottom  or  broadcast over  a preexisting plain in a form similar
     to an alluvial fan.

Outwash plain.  A  plain  formed by material  deposited  by  melt  water from a
     glacier  flowing  over  a  more or  less  flat  surface  of  large  area.
     Deposits  of  this  origin  are usually  distinguishable from  ordinary
     river deposits  by the  fact that they  often grade  into  moraines  and
     their constituents bear evidence  of glacial  origin.

Oxidation  lagoon  (pond).   A holding  area where organic  wastes  are broken
     down by aerobic bacteria.

Package  treatment  plant.    Small  treatment plant  which  is  partially  or
     completely preassembled by  a  manufacturer  and shipped to a designated
     location.  They  are  available in  a  wide  range  of  sizes  from  units
     designated to  serve  a single dwelling to  modular  units  capable  of
     handling one million gallons per  day (mgd).
                                  7-11
-------
Permeability.   The property or  capacity  of  porous rock, sediment, or  soil
     to transmit  a  fluid, usually  water,  or air;  it  is a measure of  the
     relative ease of flow under unequal  pressures.   Terms  used  to describe
     the permeability of  soils  are:   slow,  less than 0.2  inches  per hour;
     moderately rapid, 2.0 to 6.3  inches;  and rapid, more  than 6.3  inches
     per hour.   A very   slow class and  a  very  rapid  class  also may  be
     recognized.

pH.   A measure of the acidity  or alkalinity  of a material,  liquid or  solid.
     pH is represented on a scale  of  0 to 14  with 7 being  a neutral  state;
     0, most acid; and 14, most  alkaline.

Piezometric level.  An imaginary point that represents the static head  of
     groundwater  and  is  defined by  the  level  to  which water will  rise.

Plankton.   Minute plants  (phytoplankton)  and  animals  (zooplankton)  that
     float or swim  weakly in  rivers, ponds,  lakes,  estuaries, or  seas.

Point  source.   In regard to water,   any  pipe,  ditch,  channel,  conduit,
     tunnel,   well, discrete operation, vessel or other  floating  craft,  or
     other confined  and  discrete  conveyance  from  which a  substance  con-
     sidered  to  be a pollutant is, or  may be, discharged into  a body  of
     water.

Pressure sewer  system.   A wastewater collection system  in which household
     wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein  to the
     pretreatment and/or  pressurization facility.  The  system  consists  of
     two major  elements,  the  on-site  or pressurization facility, and the
     primary conductor pressurized  sewer main.

Primary treatment.  The  first stage in wastewater  treatment in which  sub-
     stantially all floating or  settable solids are mechanically removed by
     screening and sedimentation.   The process  generally moves  30-35%  of
     total organic pollutants.
                                  7-12
-------
Prime farmland.   Agricultural lands,  designated Class I or Class II,  having
     little or no limitations to profitable crop production.

Pumping station.   A facility with a sewer system that pumps sewage/effluent
     against the force of gravity.

Runoff.   Water  from  rain,  snow melt,  or irrigation  that flows over  the
     ground surface and returns to streams.   It can collect pollutants from
     air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.

Sanitary sewer.  Underground  pipes that carry only  domestic or  commercial
     wastewater,  not stormwater.

Screening.   Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
     solids from sewage.

Secchi disk.   A disk,  painted  in four quadrants of alternating  black  and
     white, which is  lowered  into  a body of water.  The  measured depth at
     which the disk  is  no longer visible from  the  surface is  a measure of
     relative transparency.

Secondary  treatment.   The second  stage  in the treatment  of wastewater in
     which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic  matter in  sewage.
     This  step is accomplished  by  introducing the sewage  into  a  trickling
     filter or an activated  sludge process.   Effective secondary treatment
     processes remove virtually all floating solids and settable solids, as
     well as 90% of  the BOD and suspended solids.   USEPA regulations  define
     secondary treatment  as 30  mg/1  BOD,  30 mg/1  SS.
Sedimentation.    The process  of  subsidence  and  deposition  of  suspended
     matter carried by water, sewage,  or other liquids,  by gravity.   It  is
     usually accomplished by reducing  the velocity of the liquid  below the
     point where it can be transport the suspended  material.
                                  7-13
-------
Septic  tank.   An  underground  tank  used for  the  collection  of  domestic
     wastes.   Bacteria in the wastes  decompose  the  organic  matter,  and  the
     sludge settles to the bottom.   The effluent  flows  through  drains  into
     the ground.   Sludge  is pumped  out at regular  intervals.

Septic tank effluent pump (STEP).   Pumping  facilities designed  to transfer
     settled wastewater  from  a septic  tank to a  higher elevation or  for
     some distance to a gravity sewer.

Septic tank-soil  absorption system (ST-SAS).   A system of  wastewater  dis-
     posal in  which  large solids  are  retained  in a tank;  fine  solids  and
     liquids are  dispersed into the  surrounding soil by a system of pipes.

Settling tank.   A holding vessel for wastewater, in which heavier particles
     sink to the bottom and can be  removed for  further treatment.

Sewer, interceptor.  See Interceptor sewer.

Sewer,  lateral.   A sewer designed and installed  to collect sewage from a
     limited number  of individual   properties  and  conduct  it  to  a  inter-
     ceptor sewer.   Also known as  a  street  sewer  or collecting sewer.

Sewer, sanitary.  See Sanitary sewer.

Sewer Service Area (SSA).   The area which will  be  serviced by a  centralized
     wastewater treatment system.

Sewer,  storm.   A conduit that collects  and  transports  storm-water runoff.
     In many sewerage  systems,  storm sewers are separate from those carry-
     ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.

Sinking fund.   A fund  established  by periodic  installments  to  provide for
     the retirement of the principal of term bonds.
                                  7-14
-------
Slope.   The incline of the surface of the land.   It is usually expressed as
     a percent  (%)  of  slope that equals the number of feet of fall per 100
     feet in horizontal distance.

Sludge.   The accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage or industrial
     wastes, raw  or treated,  in  tanks or  basins,  and containing  more or
     less water forming a semi-liquid mass.

Soil association.    A  group  of  soils geographically associated in a charac-
     teristic  repeating pattern  and defined  and  delineated as  a single
     mapping unit,  and  named  for  the principal  soils  within  the mapped
     area.

Soil textural  class.   The  classification of soil material according to the
     proportions of sand,  silt,  and clay.  The  principal  textural  classes
     in  soil,  in  increasing order of  the amount of silt and  clay,  are as
     follows:   sand,  loamy sand, sandy  loam,  loam, silt  loam,  sandy  clay
     loam,  clay  loam,  silty clay  loam,  sandy  clay, silty clay,  and clay.
     These  class names  are  modified to indicate the size of  the sand frac-
     tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
     and cobbly loam,  and are used  on detailed  soil  maps.  These  terms
     apply  only  to individual  soil horizons or to the surface  layer  of  a
     soil type.

State equalized valuation  (SEV).   A  measure  employed within a State to
     adjust actual  assessed valuations upward  to approximate  true market
     value.  Thus  it is possible to relate debt burden to the full value of
     taxable property  in each community within  that State.

Stratification.  The condition  of a body of water when the water is divided
     into layers of differing density.   Climatic changes  over the course of
     the seasons  cause a  lake  to divide  into  a bottom  layer and  surface
     layer, with a  boundary layer  (thermocline)  between  them.   Stratifica-
     tion  generally occurs during  the  summer  and again  during  periods of
     ice cover  in  the  winter.   Overturns, or periods of  mixing,  generally
     occur  once in the spring and  once in the autumn.   This  "dimictic"
     condition is  most common in lakes located  in middle  latitudes.   A lake
                                  7-15
-------
     which  stratifies  and mixes  more than  twice per year  is defined  as
     "polymictic."

Threatened  species.   Any  species  of  animal or  plant  that  is likely  to
     become endangered within  the foreseeable  future  throughout all or  a
     significant part of  its  range.

Till.   Unsorted and  unstratified  drift,   consisting  of  a  heterogeneous
     mixture of clay, sand,  gravel,  and  boulders,  that is  deposited by  and
     underneath a glacier.

Trickling  filter process.   A method  of  secondary wastewater  treatment in
     which the biological  growth  is  attached to a fixed  medium,  over  which
     wastewater is  sprayed.  The filter organisms biochemically oxidize  the
     complex organic matter in  the wastewater to carbon dioxide,  water,  and
     energy.

Topography.  The configuration  of  a  surface area including its  relief,  or
     relative  elevations,  and   the  position  of its  natural and  man-made
     features.

Unique  farmland.   Land,  other  than  prime  farmland, that  is used for  the
     production of specific  high  value food and fiber crops,  and  that  has
     the  special combination of  soil  quality,   location,  growing  seasons,
     and  moisture  supply  needed to  economically  produce sustained high
     quality and/or high  yields of a  specific crop under  modern management.

Wastewater.   Water  carrying dissolved  or  suspended  solids  from homes,
     farms, businesses,  and industries.

Waste  load allocation.   Distribution  of the total  "pollutant  load" per-
     mitted on a particular water body among the various  discharges to that
     water  body.   (Required  by section  303 of  the Clean  Water  Act.)   The
     "pollutant  load"  for  a particular  water   body  is  determined by  the
     water  quality  standards established for that water body.   Waste load
     allocations are applied in situations  where stream segments are  class-
                                  7-16
-------
     ifled as water quality limited.   They will generally result in imposi-
     tion of  stricter effluent  limitations  on discharges  to  a particular
     stream segment than secondary treatment.

Water  quality.   The relative  condition  of a  body of water,  as  judged by
     a  comparison between  contemporary  values  and  certain  more  or  less
     objective  standard  values  for  biological,  chemical,  and/or  physical
     parameters.   The  standard  values  usually are  based  on a  specific
     series  of  intended  uses,  and  may  vary  as  the intended uses  vary.

Water  quality  criteria.   The  levels  of  pollutants  that affect  the  suit-
     ability of water for a given use.  Generally,  water use classification
     includes;  public water  supply;  recreation;  propagation of  fish  and
     other aquatic life; agricultural use and industrial use.

Water  quality limited.   Stream segments  which will not  meet  water quality
     standards  with  the application  of  uniform  point source  controls.
     Additional  pollution control measures  for  industrial  and  municipal
     discharges  will  be  required if  water  quality  standards are to  be
     achieved.

Water  quality  standard.  A plan for  water  quality  management containing
     four major elements:  the  use  (recreation,  drinking  water,  fish  and
     wildlife propagation,  industrial  or  agricultural)  to be  made of  the
     water;  criteria   to protect  those   uses;  implementation plans  (for
     needed industrial-municipal waste treatment improvements) and enforce-
     ment plans, and an anti-degradation  statement  to protect existing high
     quality waters.

Watershed.  The  region drained by or contributing water to a stream,  lake,
     or other body of  water.

Water  table.   The upper  level of groundwater that is  not confined  by an
     upper impermeable  layer and is  under atmospheric pressure.  The upper
     surface  of the substrate  that  is wholly  saturated with groundwater.
                                  7-17
-------
Wetlands.    Those areas  that  are  inundated by surface or  groundwater  with
     a frequency  sufficent  to support  and under normal circumstances  does
     or would  support  a prevalence  of vegetative  or aquatic  life  that
     requires saturated or  seasonally  saturated  soil  conditions  for growth
     and reproduction.

WWTP.  Wastewater treatment  plant.
                                  7-18
-------
8.0.   INDEX



Aerial Photographic Survey, 2-75, 2-77

Aerobic systems, 2-145

Air quality, 3-2
  odors, 3-5
  standards, 3-2, 3-3

Alternatives
  Draft Facilities Plan, 2-179, 2-183
  EIS alternatives, 1-11
  evaluation and comparison of, 2-198 - 2-212
  No Action Alternative, 2-178
  on-site systems, 2-67

Aquatic biota, 3-59

Archaeology. See Cultural resources

Atmosphere.   S^ee Climate

Batavia, 2-23, 2-115, 2-170, 2-205, 2-216, 3-57, 3-87

Berry Gardens, 2-50, 2-127, 2-179

Bethel, 2-16, 2-119, 2-164, 2-207, 2-115, 3-90

Blackwater,  2-111

Clermont County
  description, 1-1

Climate, 3-1
  atmospheric impacts, 4-2

Construction Grants, 2-106, 2-214, 2-216, 2-222

Costs, 2-132 - 2-134, 2-147, 2-222, 2-223, 2-225

Cost analysis 2-186 - 2-188, 2-191, 2-193, 2-195,  2-198

Cultural resources
  archaeology, 3-104
  historic,  3-104

Demographics
  population estimates 2-4, 2-17, 2-27, 2-35, 2-47, 2-51,  2-54
  population projections, 2-199, 3-75, 3-76
  population trends, 3—72
                                  8-1
-------
Economics, 3-65
  employment, 3-67
  labor force,  3-69
  local characteristics,  3-65
  unemployment, 3—71

Effluent disposal methods
  surface water discharge,  2-136
  land application, 2-137

Effluent limits,  1-12, 2-128,  2-131,  2-136,  2-194,  2-204

Effluent quality, 2-15, 2-24,  2-31,  2-43

Effluent treatment methods, 2-144,  2-147,  2-148

Endangered species 3-63
  birds of regional and local  significance,  3-65
  fish, 3-65
  national endangered animals,  3-64
  plants, 3-64

Energy, 3-103

Eutrophication, 2-113, 3-39

Facilities planning
  costs, 2-198
  Draft Facilities Plan,  1-8,  2-182,  2-186
  grant application, 1-6

Fecal coliform sampling data,  2-79,  2-80,  2-81, 3-50

Federal funding,  1-13 - 1-15

Field surveys, 2-78, 3-38

Finances
  Clermont County, 3-86
  Clermont County Sewer District, 3-82
  income, 3-27
  local government, 3-80

Geography, 1-1, 3-6, 3-19

Geology, 3-7

Graywater, 2-111

Groundwater use,  3-32

Harsha Lake, 3-38, 3-42
  biochemical properties, 3-46
  visitation & recreation,  3-100
                                  3-2
-------
History.   See Cultural resources

Holly Towne,  2-46, 2-47, 2-50, 2-125, 2-172, 2-212, 2-220

Hydrology, 3-19, 3-22

I/I analysis, 2-4, 2-21, 2-29, 2-35, 2-101

Impacts,  4-1.  Also see Primary impacts, operation impacts,  secondary
               impacts and fiscal impacts.

Industrial discharge, 2-105

Lake use, 3-31

Land use
  Batavia, 3-87, 3-98
  Bethel, 3-90, 3-98
  Clennont County, 3-96
  future development, 3-94
  historical, 3-93
  planning area, 3-86
  Williamsburg, 3-90, 3-98


Lower East Fork system, 2-52, 2-54,  2-56, 2-57

Mitigation of adverse impacts
  atmosphere, 4-26, 4-29
  cultural resources, 4-28
  groundwater, 4-30
  noise,  4-26
  soils,  4-27
  transportation, 4-28

National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination system,  1-16, 2-128

Noise, 3-5

Odors, 3-5, 4-10

On-site system failures, 2-84
  backups, 2-84
  contamination of groundwater, 2-85,  2-86
  contamination of surface water, 2-86,  2-87
  identification of extent of problems,  2-90 - 2-95
  impacts, 2-213
  ponding, 2-85, 2-86
  probable areas of failure, 2-88
                                  8-3
-------
On-site waste treatment systems,  2-59 - 2-68,  2-141
  alternatives,  2-67
  evaluation method, 2-59
  failures, 2-77
  history, 2-60
  inspection, 2-62
  maintenance,  2-63
  performance data, 2-69
  permits, 2-60, 2-74, 2-75
  soils analysis, 2-70, 2-71
  types, 2-60

Operation impacts
  atmosphere, 4-9
  economic, 4-17
  fiscal, 4-19
  groundwater,  4-15
  land use, 4-17
  recreation, 4-18
  soils, 4-11
  surface water, 4-12
  transportation, 4-19

Parcel size analysis, 2-72

Permits, 2-60,  2-74, 2-128, 2-214

Phosphorus, 2-111
  ban on, 2—113
  eutrophication, 2-113
  projections,  3-32, 3-33
  removal, 2-128

Population estimates.  See Demographics

Primary impacts
  atmosphere, 4—2
  construction, 4-2
  cultural resources, 4-8
  demographic,  4-6
  economic, 4—7
  energy, 4-8
  floodplains,  4-5
  groundwater,  4-4
  land use, 4-6
  prime farmland, 4-6
  recreation, 4-7
  soils, 4-2
  surface waters, 4-3
  terrestrial biota, 4-4
  transportation, 4-8
                                  8-4
-------
Public participation, 1-17

Public water supply, 3-27
  impacts, 3-29

Recommended Action, 2-200 - 2-214, 2-215 - 2-225

Regionalization alternatives, 2-157, 2-159
  Am-Bat WWTP, 2-161, 2-191
  Batavia WWTP, 2-170
  Bethel WWTP, 2-164
  Berry Gardens MHP WWTP, 2-178
  Holly Towne MHP WWTP, 2-176
  Williamsburg WWTP, 2-172

Resource commitments, 4-31

Sanitary Opinion Questionnaire, 2-81

Sand filters, 2-64, 2-146

Secondary impacts
  cultural resources, 4-25
  demographic, 4-21
  economic, 4-24
  land use, 4-21
  recreation, 4-24
  surface water, 4-23

Septage disposal, 2-97, 2-152 - 2-155

Septic tanks, 2-62, 2-141

Service areas, 2-1, 2-16, 2-24, 2-34

Sewer System Evaluation Survey, 2-17, 2-101,  2-102, 2-104

Shayler Run, 2-208, 2-218

Sludge disposal, 2-140

Soil absorption systems,  2-63, 2-141, 2-144,  2-146, 2-149

Soil Conservation Service, 3-11

Soils, 3-11 - 3-18

Streams
  flows, 3-36
  use, 3-31, 3-37
  biochemical properties 3-36 - 3-42

Terrestrial biota
  vegetation and landscape, 3-58
  wildlife, 3-59

                                  8-5
-------
Transportation, 3-102

Treatment technologies
  land application,  2-137
  reuse, 2-140
  surface water discharge,  2-136

Treatment systems
  aerobic, 2-147
  collection sewers, 2-213
  on-site, 2-59, 2-141, 2-213
USCOE East Fork Park System,  2-44,  2-46,  2-125

Waste assimilation,  3-30

Wastewater flows, 2-4, 2-17,  2-27,  2-35,  2-200

Wastewater load factors, 2-113, 2-116,  2-119,  2-121, 2-125

Wastewater management
  alternative systems, 2-135, 2—156
  collection systems, 2-134
  design factors, 2-100
  infiltration/inflow 2-101
  on-site systems, 2-222
  planning, 1-4, 2-100
  pump stations, 2-135

Wastewater treatment systems, 2-11, 2-21, 2-31. 2-40

Water conservation,  2-106
  impacts, 2-109
  results, 2-109
  reuse systems, 2-108
  waste segregation, 2-109
  water saving measures, 2—107

Water resource management,  3-23

Water resource planning, 1-9, 1-10

Water quality
  criteria, 3-51
  impacts, 2-87, 3-38
  streams, 3-36
  surface water, 3-33

Williamsburg, 2-31,  2-35, 2-40, 2-121,  2-172,  2-207, 2-217, 3-57, 3-90
                                  8-6
-------
9.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR DRAFT EIS

Federal


    US Department of Agriculture
       Soil  Conservation Service

    US Department of Commerce
       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    US Department of Defense
       Army Corps of Engineers

    US Department of Energy

    US Department of Housing and Urban Development

    US Department of Health and Human Services
       Public Health Service

    US Department of the Interior
       Fish and Wildlife Service
       National Park Service
       Bureau of Indian Affairs
       Geological Survey

    US Department of Labor

    US Department of Transportation
       Coast Guard
       Federal  Highway Administration

    Ohio Congressional Delegation


State
    Office of the Governor
    Ohio Office of Management and Budget
    State Clearinghouse
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources
    Ohio Department of Public Health
    Ohio Department of Transportation
    Ohio Department of Justice
    Ohio Department of Economic and Commercial  Development
    Ohio Department of Energy
    Ohio Water Development Authority
    Ohio Department of Agriculture
    Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
                                      9-1
-------
Local
    OKI Regional  Council  of Governments
    Clermont County Board of Commissioners
    Clermont County Water and Sewer District
    Clermont County Public Library
    Clermont County Soil  and Water Conservation District
    Clermont County Health Board
    Clermont County Park  Board
    Clermont County Planning Commission
    Clermont County Extension Service
    Clermont County Recreation Commission
    Clermont County Housing Authority
    Village of Amelia
    Vil lage of Batavia
    Village of Bethel
    Village of Williamsburg
    Township of Batavia
    Township of Monroe
    Township of Tate
    Township of Pierce
    Township of Stonelick
    Township of Jackson
    Township of Williamsburg
    Township of Union
Interest Groups/Others
    Ohio Environmental Council
    Ohio Water Resources Center
    Ohio Environmental Health Association
    Ohio Academy of Sciences
    Archaeological Society of Ohio
    Nature Conservancy of Ohio
    Ohio Natural Areas Council
    Ohio Biological Survey
    Ohio Lung Association
    League of Women Voters of Ohio
    Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
    Ohio Chamber of Commerce
    Ohio Electric Utility Institute
    Ohio Municipal League
    Ohio Natural Heritage Program
    Ohio Sierra Club
    Wildlife Legislative Fund
    Ohio Water Pollution Control Conference
                                      9-2
-------
    Ohio Soil  and  Water  Conservation  Commission
    League  of  Ohio Sportsmen
    Ohio Conservation  Fund
    Ohio Conservation  Congress
    Ohio Audubon Council
    Izaak Walton League
    Ohio League of Conservation  Voters
Interested  Citizens
    (Complete list  available  upon  request)
                                      9-3
-------
              APPENDIX A
SAMPLE LETTERS OF COORDINATION BETWEEN
 OHIO EPA, USCOE AND BALKE ENGINEERS
-------
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                   LOUISVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                                P O  BOX 55
                        LOUISVILLE KENTUCKY 4O2O1
ORLED-D                                                   8 March  1976
Mr.-Dory Montazemi, Assistant Director
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council
    of Governments
426 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio  45202
Dear Mr. Montazemi:

This is in response to your 2 February 1976 letter concerning develop-
ment of sewerage plans for the Middle East Fork planning area.  The
following comments are offered on the hydraulic design factors discussed
in the Harry Balke Engineers letter, dated 29 January 1976, you inclosed.

The 41 cfs referred to as being a guaranteed low flow discharge needs
qualification.  This figure is the projected needed release, in conjunc-
tion with releases from Caesar Creek Lake, to meet the expected water
quality demands along the Little Miami River for the year 2027.  The
demand was,  as determined by U. S. Public Health Service, to maintain
a minimum D-.O. of 4 ppm for the once in 10-year 7-day average low flow,
assuming adequate waste treatment at each point source.  However, until
such water quality conditions exist which require this design release,
actual releases will only be in the amounts deemed necessary to assure
the maintenance of adequate water quality conditions in the downstream
reaches as determined by the joint monitoring activities of the Corps
of Engineers and the State of Ohio.  During the interim period, the
minimum amount of guaranteed release should be considered as about 5
cfs.  In this same regard, the normal maximum water quality release of
82 cfs would occur only under the proposed design conditions.

When East Fork Lake is placed in complete operation, the 5000 cfs maximum
will not be released during flood conditions unless warranted under ex-
traordinary conditions.  Operation during flooding conditions requires a
                                 A-I
-------
OKLED-D                                                     8 March 1976
Mr. Dory Montazemi

release of only 100 cfs and larger releases will not be made until condi-
tions at downstream control stations permit.  Releases up to the 5000 cfs
maximum following impoundment of flood waters will tend to maintain bank
full conditions until the East Fork Lake pool level returns to normal.

The anticipated wastewater contribution from the East Fork Lake recreation
areas to the Amelia-Batavia system is presented in the inclosed table.

If additional information is required, please contact us.

                                   Sincerely yours,

                                   /I
1 Incl
As stated                          Colonel, Corps of Engineers
                                   District Engineer
-------
                                     <7
                             OQO NASSAU STREET
                        CINCINNATI, OHIO -45206
                             TEL. 513 - 22I-O7OO
HARRY A. BALKE. PE--PRESIDENT AND CHIEF COKSULTANT
JOHN P. ROBINSON. PE.-V1CC PRESIDENT-CHIEF CMOINEER
HARRY A. BALKE. JR . SECfUTART-TREASUHER

                                                          January 29, 1976
Subject: Middle East Fork 208
         Planning Area;
         East Fork Lake

Mr.  Dory Montazemi
Assistant Director
OKI Regional Council of Governments
426 East Fourth St.
Cincinnati, Ohio  45202

Dear Dory:

On January 13 and 14 of this year, I had phone conversations with Mr.  Larry Martin
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  , Louisville District.  Our talk concerned the
East Fork Reservoir in Clermont County.  As you know, Balke Engineers  is responsible
for preparing preliminary Facilities Plans for much of Clermont County as a part of
the overall 208 Plan for the OKI Region.  Our interest with the Corps of Engineers
lies in the preparation of such plans for the Middle East Fork Planning Area, which
includes the East Fork project.  Mr. Martin and I discussed several hydraulic design
factors that may be critical  in the planning area.

Low-flow discharge from the dam is to be a guaranteed volume of 41  cfs in the months
of January, February, March, November and December.   Normal maximum discharge
will be 82 cfs. Currently, low-flow  on  the East Fork is 7cfs. Maximum discharge from
the dam during upstream flood conditions will be 5000 cfs.  This  value may be  realized
several times annually, but  exceeded only 1.86 times in 100 years.

The augmented low-flow values  may help in re-evaluation of stringent NPDES  levels
below the damsite  for facilities such as the Amelia-Batavia sewage treatment plant.
However, the peak discharge of. 5000 cfs may result in a downstream flood profile
that is detrimental to operation of that plant.  The  possibility of  sludge beds,  incoming
lines, and other components  of the plant being flooded hopefully has been considered
in designing that discharge volume.   Preliminary investigation and discussion with
operations personnel in the county have  indicated that flooding will not be a problem.
It will be necessary to document this fact through the Corps or possible ODNR  in order
to justify our recommendations for possible expansion of the Amelia-Batavia facility.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at 1-502-582-5513.  Mr. Lawrence Curry, also  In
Hydraulic Design and more directly involved with the East Fork project, may be reached
at 1-502-582-5764.
  A-3
(cont.)
-------
HARRY BALKE ENGINEERS
                \_Ss0n&ett&?i,a' ^^ta^i^ffi^
  oeo NASSAU STREET • • • CINCINNATI, OHIO -452O6              " 2 "                   JahuafV 29  1976
         Another problem stemming from the East Fork Park is the Corps' proposals for the park
         utilities plan. A good deal of the planning and cost analyses for the Middle East Fork
         Planning Area will be affected by the plan.  Thus far, we have received no preliminary
         indication of what wastewater collection and treatment facilities will be proposed.

         Because of the critical time factor involved, we will assume the following factors  for
         the East Fork Park in our planning, unless otherwise modified by the Corps of Engineers:

                         Park Visitors (annual):

                              1980       1.8 million
                             2025      3.0 million

                         Basic Development:

                              North      Lodge,  Golf Course,  Cabins, Camping,
                                        Beaches, Nature Center

                             East       Group and Primitive Camping, Boating,
                                        Beach

                             South     Conservation Area, Major Marina and
                                        Beach,  Day Use

                             West       Dam and Facilities, Conservation Area

                         Wastewater Facilities:

                              North      Sewered, using interim treatment facilities
                                        if necessary, ultimately pumping to Amelia-
                                        Batavia  line along Old SR 32.

                             East       Unsewered

                              South      Sewered, using independent tertiary pack"
                                       age plant

                             West       Sewered to north sector

                         Waste load (MGD):

                                       At least 0.275 MGD ultimate to Amelia-
                                        Batavia system
                                            (cont.)
-------
HARRY BALKE ENGINEERS

           r.tf -• • CINCINNATI, OHIO 49ZOO              ~3~                January29,  1976


          Please forward this information to the Planning Division of the Corps' Louisville  District
          if you think it necessary.  Perhaps the Utilities Plan is at such a stage to allow release
          of preliminary information.

          Should you have any questions on this information, please call me at this office.


                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                    BALKE  ENGINEERS
         RLR:cle                                    Richard L. Record
                                                    Environmentalist
-------
              APPENDIX B
INTERPRETATION OF FECAL COLIFORM DATA
-------
                   INTERPRETATION OF FECAL COLIFORM DATA

     The use of  fecal  coliform density data to determine the likelihood of
human  fecal  material  contamination  of  surface  waters  was discussed  in
Section 3.3.2.7  of the  EIS.   Frequently, the  meaning  of  even  relatively
high fecal coliform  counts  is obscured by the  possibility  of the coliform
organisms   originating  from non-human  sources.   Typically,   the  waterfowl,
dogs, and  other  animals  that frequent rural waterways and drainage ditches
contribute significant  quantities of  fecal  coliform bacteria,  especially
during rain events.

     NOTE:   Another  group   of   indicator  bacteria,  fecal  streptococci
(referred   to in  3.3.6),  can be used in conjunction  with fecal  coliform to
distinguish  between contamination  of  surface water by human  and  other
warm-blooded  animals.  The  ratio of  fecal coliform  to  fecal streptococci
(FC/FS ratio)  in surface water is typically at or  above 4.4 for human and
less than 0.7 for other warm-blooded animal contamination (Geldreich 1969).
Fecal streptococci densities  in  the feces of humans and other warm-blooded
animals and  FC/FS ratios are presented  in Table B-i.   in  addition  to the
FC/FS ratio,  identification of specific  coliform and streptococci species
can  be  used  to  further  differentiate  human waste products  from  the waste
products of other warm-blooded animals  (Geldrich 1969).

     Typical  fecal  coliform densities reported  in  stormwater runoff from
urban, rural,  and residential areas  contaminated with  animal wastes, and
raw domestic  wastewater are presented in Table   &2.   Typical fecal coliform
densities  reported in thr> effluents  of  on-site  wastewater treatment systems
are  presented  in Table^-3.   in  general, fecal coliform levels  in  septic
tank effluent are on the  order of 420,000/100 ml (Ziebell et al.  1975), and
fecal coliform levels  from  animal sources in stormwater  runoff  from urban
business districts, residential  areas,  and rural  areas are  on the order of
13,000/100 ml,   6,500/100 ml   and  2,700/100 ml   respectively  (Geldreich  et
al. 1968;  Geldreich 1969).
                                 B-l
-------
Table '£-1 .   Bacterial  densities in human and other warm-blooded animal
            feces (Geldreich et al.  1968;  Geldreich 1969).

                              Median Density #/100 ml	
Fecal
Source
Human
Animal pets
Cat
Dog
Rodents
Rat
Chipmunk
Rabbit
Livestock
Cow
Pig
Sheep
Poultry
Duck
Chicken
Turkey
Fecal
Coliform
13,000,000
7,900,000
23,000,000
330,000
148,000
20
230,000
3,300,000
16,000,000
33,000,000
1,300,000
290,000
Fecal
Streptococci
3,000,000
27,000,000
980,000,000
7,700,000
6,000,000
47,000
1,300,000
84,000,000
38,000,000
54,000,000
3,400,000
2,800,000
Ratio
FC/FS3
4.4
0.3
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.0004
0.2
0.04
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.1
o
FC-fecal coliform, FS-fecal stretococci.
Table J-2. Bacterial
wastewater
Water Source
Storm water
Business district
Residential
Rural
Domestic wastewater
densities in stormwater runoff and domestic
3 (Geldreich et al . 1968; Geldreich 1968).
Median Density
Fecal
Col if orm
13,000
6,500
2,700
10,900,000
///1 00 ml
Fecal
Streptococci
51,000
150,000
58,000
2,470,000
Ratio
FC/FSb
0.26
0.04
0.05
4.4
 Sampling from watersheds and raw domestic wastewater in Cincinnati, Ohio
 area .
 FC/FS less than 0.7 indicates predominance of bacteria from warm-blooded
 animals other than humans.
                                  B-2
-------
Table B~3   Bacterial densities in effluent from on-site wastewater treat-
            ment systems (Ziebell et al.  1975).
On-site system
   effluent	
           Q
Septic tank

Aerobic treatment unit

Sand filter
  following septic tank
  following aerobic unit
	Median Density #/100 ml
  Fecal                Fecal
 Coliform           Streptococci
   420,000

    11,000
     4,200
     3,100
3,800

3,300
   94
  730
                  Ratio
                  FC/FS3
111.0
  3.3
 45.0
  4.2
 Before entering soil absorption system, mound, or other treatment and dis-
 posal system.  Fecal coliform levels ranged from 500/100 ml to 18,000,000/
 100 ml, and the 95% confidence level of the mean was from 290,000/100 ml
 to 620,000/100 ml.
     The  distribution of  surface water  samples with  very high  and  high

probability of contamination  by  failing septic tanks in the specific areas

evaluated  for  on-site system  problems  in the  final  on-site  report (Balke

Engineers 1983) is  presented  in  Table B,-4.   A specific number  of failing

septic  tanks  cannot  be  determined  from the data presented  in  the surface

water  sampling report.   The  report  does not  indicate that the  sampling

locations were selected to identify individual failing systems.   Therefore,

the fecal coliform  contamination  in  any sample could originate  from one or

a number of problem systems.   A very high fecal coliform density level in a

sample does not necessarily  indicate that more than  one  failing system is

being measured.  As  indicated in Table B-3, the fecal  coliform  density in
the effluent of one septic tank can range up to 18,000,000/100  ml, or TNTC

(too numerous to count) depending on the test techniques.
                                  B-3
-------
  vO
  CN
              oo
o
H
•O
CU

cu

i-l
3
en

4-1
0
*j";



d
rH 0
CO iH
S I *
•H CO
4J U
cx cu
O CX
0

tn

d
4-1 0
|l_^ .^J
CO 4-1
r-l | 1 rH || ^ ^H Vl Cfl
in O I-i
^^* rn CU
r-J T3 CX
d • o
CO 4-1
vj a
/~"1* O 3
f ex g
CN CU -H
00 VJ 4-1
o> cx


o
•H CO
4-1 d
ex o
CU IH
CO 4-1
o
IM i CU
i-l T)
•H d
rH CU
•H B
r£3 B
CO O
£* CJ
O CU
VJ PS
CX
rrj
fi d
60 CO
•H
rd d
o
^3 *H
d 4J
cfl cfl
d
J3 60
60 1-1












p
cu
d

cfl
rH
PH

CO
cu
•H
4-1

rH
•H
O
CO
pp

K*%
r\

rrj
•H CO CU
rC CU
o
^>
H CtJ
0)  i-l
^3
.C
4-1 d
•H Cfl
3 rH
£-!
CO
0) 03
rH (U
CX "H
S J-*
en »H
M rH
•H
VJ CJ
CU Cfl
4-1 P=H
Cfl
U
•
E^»
CU
^
I-i
3
en

CO
CO
cu
(-1















rH
cfl
4-1
O
H
rH CU O
oor^m oom ^-^o 4-1
rHCN rHin 
•H CO
4-1 H
cx cu
O ex
o

CT\ d Cfl d Cfl
rH pd C 0) 4J
•H B Ctf
1 1 1 loo ^>cNCOCUl4-iarO
P** V4 *^t O
	 rH CU rH CU CJ B
01 cfl J3 CU O
C CO 4_) Vj p
•H ^^ !4H
60 14-1 CU
d 4-1 O H "^
W H cfl 0)
01
^
•H
CO
3
rH
O
d
o
a
d
M



d
rH O
CO -H
& 4-1
•r"4 Cfl
4_1 H
ex *H d
1 CU CO CU I-i
01 CD cfl 13 O
J= OJ 3
4J (-1 ^xrH CO
CX CO O S
f^
CU
CO U
o cu
cx s
o cu
H en
PI

fi o
CN ml r^ CN o '-N cr\
rH [ rH rH CN 00
X-X |^s.



01 C '
Cfl *H
>W 4J O
VJ Cfl ^ CU
3d co d »-i
co i-i cu cfl 3
B rH 4J CJ rH
4-i cfl fa. fi -H n
O 4-1 S O 60 4J Cfl
d co -H -H ex d M-I
f^O en 4J 43 CU O CO
vj u ex T3co-H B*
cfl In CU QJ VJ 4-1 (D CU
0 ^ CUCO >, O >4H CO 4-1 4-1
Sd 4J d CUOd COCfl
3cfl a) MH O > J=. iH >, 0
en 4-i £5 o *H fi H 60 r**! a *H
4-1 60 3 "H 4J Cfl *O
CU &>> Cfl »H C/3 ,d iH 4-1 CU d
CJ4Jdj3 rHd 4-1 H
<)• Cfl -H 1-1 rH CO >1 'H O -H
ch ^rHa^jScflctJl-i^QO C060
vj-Hcfl i-i 604J cuoico id
3J34J cu -H o vj>^a^ d-H
0) . en cfl d > S3 H 
T3 rH CO O
01 CO IH S-i
4-1 Cfl CO 0) CX
d cu vj 3
cu «H cu o) .d
CO Cfl CU CD 4-1
cu d -H
CX OJ 00 O
rH C3 «H CO
co rQ Pd B
cfl O T) eu
>H cu cu 4.1
CO CX ^ T) CO
eg rH d >^
cu o cfl cu co
VJ d CO B
co ^ a cu

ad d o -H
CU CO cfl CU CO
rH rH VJ 1
43 OJ O, C
o > co o
VJ -H Cfl Cfl
cx co cu eu i4H
3 i-t VJ O
CO rH 4J Cfl
3 CJ -H VJ
o d rH 01 cu
•H O -H CU J3
^ CJ CJ Vj S
r^ d Cfl jd 3
0 M Pi H 
-------
                               BIBLIOGRAPHY
Balke Engineers.  1982a.  Draft wastewater facilities plan Middle East Fork
area Clermont County, Ohio.  Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

Balke Engineers.  1982b.   On-site wastewater  disposal  in  the  Middle East
Fork Planning  Area:  problems, alternatives and  recommended action.  Pre-
pared as  a technical  supplement  to the Middle East  Fork Facilities Plan.
Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

Balke Engineers.   1983a.   Surface water quality  related  to on-site waste-
water disposal  in the  Middle East Fork Planning Area.  Prepared as a tech-
nical supplement to the Middle East Fork  Facilities  Plan.   Cincinnati OH,
variously paged.

Balke  Engineers.    1983b.    Final  recommendations:   solutions  to  on-site
disposal  problems  in the  Middle  East  Fork  Planning Area.   Prepared  as a
technical  supplement  to the  Middle  East  Fork  Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Cincinnati OH, variously paged.

Geldreich,  E.E.,   L.C. Best,  B.A.  Kenner,  and  D.J. Donsel.    1968.   The
bacteriological aspects of  stonnwater.   Journal  Water  Pollution  Control
Federation, Vol.40,  Washington DC, pp 1861-1872.

Geldreich, E.E. and B.A. Kenner.  1969.  Concepts of fecal streptococci
in stream pollution.  Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,  Vol. 41,
Washington DC,  pp R336-R352.

Ziebell,  W.A.,  D.H. Nero,   J.F. Deininger and  E.  McCoy.   1975.    Use  of
bacteria  in assessing  waste  treatment  and  soil  disposal  systems.   In
Proceedings of  the  National  Home  Sewage Disposal  Symposium, December 1974.
American  Society  of  Agricultural  Engineers,   St.  Joseph,  MI,  pp. 58-63.
-------
          APPENDIX C
SANITARY OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
  Sewerage; A Beginning

   Residents of the unsewered portion of Middle East
 Fork area, experiencing  "on site" sewage disposal
 problems are now able to help plan for improvements
 by providing some  information.  On-site disposal'
 methods include septic tanks, leach fields, sand filters,
 cavatets and outhouses.  Anyone having on-site
 problems such as noxious odors, pooling of sewage or
 clogging, should complete the accompanying printed
 form and sent it to: Clermont County Water and Sewer
 District, 2275 Bauer Road, Batavia, 45103 to the
 attention of Mr. Fred Montgomery.
   It is important that the form be filled out completely
 with accuracy and full detail. Those persons unsure of
 whether or not they reside in the Middle East Fork
 area may contact Mr. Fred Montgomery,  732-6550,
 or Mr. Rick Record, 761-1700, between the hours of i
 eight in the morning and five in the afternoon,  Monday
 through Friday.

               MIDDLE EASJ FORK
            ON-SITE SYSTEM SURVEY
                          Date.
  1.  Name and Address   ,	
    Phone N. (optional).
  2.  Number of persons living In the house.
  3.  WhattolhaaoBofyoufhouM
  4.  Whirls your tot size.
    Approximate frontage.
  6. What type of system do you have (Septic tank and leach;
    lines, cavatet or other)	,	
  6. What Is the age of your present septic system	
  7. What la the size of the septic tank	(gate.)
    Leach field	(sq. ft.)
  8. Has the septic system ever been Inspected, and when

  9. Has the tank ever been pumped, and bow long ago	

 10. Do you have the tank pumped ragulariy _^_	
    How often	
 11. Do you experience any (circle those that apply):.

                           What Hfns  When dMIt
                How Ofter)   o«*eaf    LaatHaanen
    Beck-Up

    Odor

    Septege Pooling
    on Surface
    Other.
 1 2. Have you repatodyouMyatim In the pest, and when _
 13
 14. Do you have a (circle those that apply):
   WaMhirtQ Macron*  Gtwt)AQt Dtopotflt  8unp Pump
 Dishwasher     Water Softener     Footing Drain
 16. WW* of the Items Inf1 4 oYaha Into your septic system

 16. Do you have • besemer
'17. What la your water supply	-
 18. Does water stand In your yard after a rainstorm _^__
 18. Does water (not aeptage) stand in the leech field area _

 20. Any other Information that you would like to give	
-------
                                APPENDIX D
                             DETAILED COSTS OF

                        WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
APNXD-A1
BS:ec 3/25/84
-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table
Numbers                      Subject of Tables

D-l-27     Costs for the Alternative in Draft Facilities Plan

D-l        Categorical cost breakdown for the recommended plan for the Middle
           East Fork Facilities Planning Area (MEF FPA)

D-6-8      Am-Bat, 3.0 mgd PBR

D-9-11     Am-Bat sludge management

D-12-14    Alternative BE-5 (0.8 mgd)

D-15-17    Alternative BA-4 (0.35 mgd)

D-18-20    Alternative W-2 (0.35 mgd)

D-21-23    Alternative H-l (0.05 mgd)

D-24-26    Alternative BG-1 (0.01 mgd)

D-27       Summary of construction and capital costs for the Shayler Run
           interceptor sewer

D-28- 39   Costs for the Alternative in the Revised Recommendation

D-28       Categorical cost breakdown for the recommended plan for the MEF FPA

D-29-31    Summary of costs for the MEF FPA

D-32, 33   Am-Bat, 3.6 mgd PBR

D-34-38    Am-Bat sludge program

D-39       Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Batavia
           influent pumping

D-40-46    Costs for the Alternative with Revised Effluent Limits

D-40       Categorical cost breakdown for recommended plan for the MEF FPA

D-41,42    Summary of costs for the MEF FPA

D-43,44    Am-Bat, 3.6 mgd, PBR+ mixed media filtration

D-45       Summary of construction and capital costs for the Bethel interceptor

D-46       Total capital costs for the Shayler Run interceptor
-------
Table D-l.  Categorical cost breakdown for recommmended plan Middle East
            Fork FPA (Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan Middle East Fork
            Area Clerraont County,  Ohio, Balke Engineers, May 1982).

                         Construction  Total Project  Estimated      Local
Cost Category            Cost	  Costs	  EPA Grant      Funds

Treatment works          $4,341,200    $5,457,800     $3,762,950  $1,694,850

Infiltration/Inflow
  correction
     - SSES
     - Rehabilitation
     - Subtotal

New collector sewers

Interceptor sewers

     Total               $8,014,985   $11,151,249     $8,229,376   $2,913,873
—
2,359,185
1,314,600
273,892
827,400
1,101,292
2,949,357
1,642,800
205,419
620,550
825,969
2,468,667
1,171,790
60,473
206,850
275,323
480,690
471,010
a
 Categories correspond to USEPA Cost Summary Schedule.

 Preliminary estimates.
APNXD-A2  ,
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-2.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended treatment works
            Middle East Fork FPA (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).


                              Construction        Total Project
     Service Area             Cost	        Costs	


     Middle East Fork a       $2,956,000          $3,693,900


     Batavia                     528,900             688,500


     Williamsburg                736,500             925,600


     Holly Towne MHP              50,800              63,500


     Berry Gardens MHP            69,000              86,300


          Total               $4,341,200          $5,457,800
ft
 Does not include interceptor sewer costs.
APNXD-A3
BS:ec 3/25/84
                                   0-3
-------
Table D-3.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended infiltration/inflow
            correction Middle East Fork FPA (Draft Facilities Plan,  1982).

                                                       Total Project
Service Area                       Item                Costs
Middle East Fork
     - Amelia-Batavia              SSES                $126,492
                                   Rehab                227,400

     - Bethel                      SSES                   b
                                   Rehab                200,000

                                   Subtotal             553,892

Batavia                            SSES                  66,600
                                   Rehab                200,000

                                   Subtotal             266,600

Williamsburg                       SSES                  80,800
                                   Rehab                200,000

                                   Subtotal             280,800

                                   Total               $1,101,292
a
 Rehabilitation costs are preliminary estimates to be refined after com-
 pletion of SSES.

 The SSES for Bethel is being completed under previous authorization and
 grant award at a cost of $54,770.
APNXD-A4  .
BSrec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-4.  Summary of operation and maintenance costs for the Middle East
            Fork Recommended Plan (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982)

          Service Area                       Annual O&M (1985)a

          Middle East Fork
            - WWTP                                $459,598
            - Bethel interceptor                    58,519

              Subtotal                             518,117

          Batavia WWTP                              80,825

          Williamsburg WWTP                        122,100

          Holly Towne WWTP                          15,000

          Berry Gardens WWTP                         9,000

          Sludge Management                        122,400
Q
 Does not include collection system O&M (other than proposed new
 interceptors).
-------
Table D-5.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended collection sewers3
            Middle East Fork FPA (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).

                              Construction        Total Project
     Area/Location            Costs               Costs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9a
9b

19
20
21
23,
Kennedy Ford Rd
Bee Subdivisions
Wilson St.
South Charity St.
SR 133 (south)
Airport Road
SR 125 (east)
Campbell St.
Brown St.
Subtotal
Bantam
Rolling Acres
Lunsford Rd
24,25 Fair Oak,
$ 23,856
547,070
116,120
100,800
13,916
178,636
75,544
10,934
81,856
1,148,732
89,320
139,800
50,000
760,765
$ 29,820
683,838
145,150
126,000
17,395
223,295
94,430
13,668
102,320
1,435,916
112,025
174,750
62,500
950,956
     Back Run, Mt. Holly
     Lindale roads

35,36 Denny Drive
     & Jenny Lind Rd              99,000             123,750

43

Subtotal
Batavia
Total
1,138,885
71,568
$2,359,486
1,423,981
89,460
$2,949,357
a
 As developed in the On-Site Wastewater Disposal Study (March 1982).
APNXD-A6  ,
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Cost
($xlOOO)
3,693.9
813.0
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
3,693.9
279.6
Table D-6.  Present worth analysis for Am-Bat recommended plan - (3.0 mgd)
            PBR (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness Analysis,
            Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
Item

Total project

Equipment replacement3
in Year 2000

Salvage value of item
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost

Variable O&M cost

     Total present worth
782.9



739.1



459.6

  1.2
   0.2410



(10/15)0.2410



  10.2921

    74.21
  188.7



  118.7



4,730.2

   89.0

8,485.3
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.
c
 Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
                                      D-1
-------
Table D-7.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Am-Bat
            recommended plan - 3.0 mgd PER.

                              Equipment	  	Structure
Cost Life
Item ($xlOOO) (yrs)
Preliminary treatment 33.3 15
Flow equalization 129.5 15
Primary clarifiers 74.0 15
PER (new) 55.5 15
PBR (convert
existing) 125.0 15
Phosphorus removal 16.5 15
Aerobic sludge
digester 50.0 15
Sludge storage tank3 100.0 15
Septage receiving
station 80.0 15
Yard Piping and
Pumping 75.3
Construction costs 739.1
A/E Fees (12.5%)
Administrative and
legal fees (0.7%)
Inspection (4%)
Contingencies (5%)
Interest during con- -
Salvage Cost Life Salvage Total
($xlOOO) ($xlOOO) (yrs) ($xlOOO) ($xlOOO)
0 99.0 30 33.3 132.3
0 388.5 30 129.5 518.0
0 222.0 30 74.0 296.0
0 166.5 30 55.5 222.0
0 375.0 30 125.0 500.0
0 49.9 20 0 66.4
0 150.0 30 50.0 200.0
0 300.0 30 100.0 400.0
0 240.0 30 80.0 320.0
226.0 135.6 301.3
2,216.9 782.9 2,956.0
369.5
- 20.7
- 118.2
- 147.8
81.7
  struction (7 3/8% x 30%
  x TPC)

     Total capital cost                                                  3,693.9

Q
 Costs provided by McGill & Smith (preliminary sludge disposal plan),
 1982 update.
APNXD-A8
BS:ec 3727/84
-------
Table D-8.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for the Middle East Fork
            Regional Recommended Plan3 (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).

                              	Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)
Item

Pretreatment

Flow equalization

Influent pumping

Primary clarifiers

PBR

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Sludge digestion

Sludge storage

Phosphorus removal

In-Plant pumping

Septage receiving station

     Total

     Year 1985 variable O&M costs = (2.5/3.0) 146,904 = $122,420
     Year 1985 total O&M = 337,178 (fixed) + 122,420 (variable) = $459,598
     Annual increase in variable O&M costs = (146,904 - 122,420)/20 = $1,200
Fixed (70%)
23,380
47,250
15,275
16,695
8,400
24,938
26,565
10,815
35,700
30,345
79,852
25,012
5,600
342,778
Variable (30%)
7,020
20,250
6,525
7,155
3,600
10,688
11,385
4,635
15,300
13,005
34,233
10,719
2,400
146,904
Total
23,400
67,500
21,750
23,850
12,000
35,625
37,950
15,450
51,000
43,350
114,075
35,731
8,000
489,681
a
 This table does not include O&M costs for the Bethel interceptor sewer,  which
 must be added to obtain total O&M figure for Middle East Fork subdistrict of
 CCSD.  O&M of existing collection system (pipes and pump stations) must  also
 be added for user charge estimation.   Sewers in Basin F-10 and the Shayler Run
 Interceptor are not included in the MEF O&M estimation because once the  inter-
 ceptor is constructed, that area will be part of the Lower East Fork subdistrict.
-------
Table D-9.  Present worth analysis for Am-Bat sludge management (Development of
            Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Middle East Fork
            Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
Item

Total project

Equipment replacement
in Year 2000

Salvage value of item
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost

Variable O&M cost

     Total present worth

                   1
Cost
($xlOOO)
435.6
0
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
435.6
0
                            111.7
0.2410
                                           (10/15)0.2410
26.9
     EAC (TPW x
                10.2921'
122.4 10.2921
0.4 74.21


1,259.7
29.7
1,698.1
164,999
     $/1000 gal (@ 4.27 mgd average flow over 20 years)
                   $0.106/1000 gal
                    or
                   10.6C/1000 gal
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.
-t
"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
                                     O-io
-------
Table D-10.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Am-Bat
             sludge management.

                    	Equipment	  	Structure	
                      Cost    Life   Salvage     Cost   Life   Salvage     Total
Item                ($xlOOO)  (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO) (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO)

Transport equip-     186.1     20       0       186.2    50     111.7      372.3
  ment, distribution
  equipment, equi p—
  ment storage and
  shop, access road,
  bridge and yard
  paving.            	                      	          	      	

Construction cost    186.1                      186.2           111.7      372.3

Service factor 17%                                                          63.3
  (McGill and Smith)

     Total capital cost                                                    435.6
APNXD-A.il
BS:ec 3/27/84
                                   P-ll
-------
Table D-ll.   Estimated operation and  maintenance  costs  for  Am-Bat  sludge
             management.

                              	Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)a	
Item                          Fixed  (70%)          Variable (30%)       Total

Transportation                81,200                34,800            116,000

Land application              10,500                 4,500             15,000

     Total                    91,700                39,300            131,000
 Year 1985 variable O&M costs  =  (3.75/4.8)  39,300  -  $30,700
 Year 1985 total O&M costs = 191,700  (fixed)  + $38,700  (variable)  =  $122,400
 Annual increase in variable O&M costs  =  (139,300  -  30,700)/20  = $430
                                    O-o-
-------
Cost
($xlOOO)
1,237.5
194.2
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Wo
($xlOOO)
1,237.5
66.8
                                             0.2410
                                           (10/15)0.2410
104.4
 28.4
Table D-12.  Present worth analysis for alternative BE-5 (0.8 mgd) Bethel
             interceptor (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness
             Analysis, Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982),
Item

Total project

Equipment replacement'
in Year 2000
Salvage value of item       433.0
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item       176.5
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost

Variable O&M cost

EAC of capital cost
  for expansion at Am-Bat
  Plant (EAC = 36.46    d
  C/1000 design gallons)

EAC of O&M costs for         87.0            10.2921                 895.7
  treatment at Amelia                                             	
  Batavia (EAC = 47.69
  C/1000 gallons treated)6

     Total present worth                                           3,772.4
58.5
0.1
106.5
10.2921
74.21
10.2921
602.1
7.4
1,095.7
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.

 Bethel design flow = 0.8 mgd
a
"Average yearly flow over 20 year period =0.5 MGD.
APNXD-A13
BS:ec 3/27/84
                                      p.l2>
-------
Table D~13.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for alternative
             BE-5 (0.8 mgd) Bethel interceptor.

                    	Equipment	  	Structure
                      Cost
Item
Cost
($xlOOO)
79.0
0
.r
i
57.5
.ar 0
Life
(yrs)
15
_ —
15
	
Salvage
($xlOOO)
0
0
0
— _
Cost
($xlOOO)
150.0
190.4
57.5
270.3
Life
(yrs)
30
50
30
50
Salvage
($xlOOO)
50.0
114.2
19.2
162.2
Total
($xlOOO)
229.0
190.4
115.0
270.3
Flow equalization

Gravity sewer from
  WWTP site to Poplar
  Creek pump station
  site

Poplar Creek pump
  station

Force Main from Poplar 0
  Creek pump station
  to Bantam

Gravity Sewer from     0       —      —       145.6    50      87.4      145.6
  Bantam to existing
  Ulrey Run pump
  station

Upgrade Ulrey Run pump
  station6            20.0     15      0         0       —      —         20.0

Upgrade Back Run
  pump station        20.0     15      0         0       —      —         20.0

Treatment at Amelia     —     —      See present worrth —
  Batavia WWTP8
Construction Cost    176.5                      813.8           433.0      990.3
A/E fees (12.5%)                                                           123.8
Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)                                                          6.9
Inspection (4%)                                                             39.6
Contingencies (5%)                                                          49.5
Interest during con-                                                        27.4
  struction (7 3/8% x 30%
  x TPC)
     Total capital cost                                                  1,237.5

*6800 l.f. of 10 inch sewer @ $28/1.f. (average depth 12 feet).
 0.8. mgd (350 gpm) firm capacity at 55 feet TDH (4.2 + 50 =  - 55)
^10,200 l.f. of 8 inch PVC force main @$26.50/l.f.
 5200 l.f. of 10 inch sewer @ $28/1.f. (average depth 12 feet)
 Replace existing 320 gpm pump-motors with 670 gpm units @ 87  feet
fTDH (47 + 39 = = 87)
 Replace existing 320 gpm pump-motors with 670 units @ 131 feet
 TDH (42 + 89 = * 131)
 Costs included in present worth calculations.
APNXD-A14
BS:ec 3/27/84
                                      D-H
-------
Table D-14.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Bethel Recommended
             Plan (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).
Item

Flow equalization

Gravity sewer

Force main

S.R. 125

Ulrey Run P.S.

Back Run P.S.

     Total
                                      Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)a
Fixed (70%)
29,400
910
193
3,738
3,818
5,129
$48,188
Variable (30%)
12,600
0
0
1,602
1,637
2,198
$18,037
Total
42,000
910
193
5,340
5,455
7,327
$61,225
 Year 1985 variable O&M costs = (0.68/0.80) 18,037 - $15,331
 Year 1985 total O&M = 43,188 (fixed) + $15,331 (variable) = $58,519
 Annual increase in variable O&M costs = (18,037-15,331)720 = $135
APNXD-A1S ,
BS:ec 372 7/84
-------
Table D-15.  Present worth analysis for Alternative BA-4 (0.35 mgd)
             (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness Analysis,
             Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
                           Cost
Item                     ($xlOOO)

Total project               688.5

Equipment replacement       282.5
in year 2000

Salvage value of item       109.8
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item       256.8
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost            80.8

Variable O&M cost             0

     Total present worth
  PW Factor

     1

   0.3439


   0.2410



(10/15)0.2410



  10.2921

    74.21
Present Worth
  ($xlOOO)

    688.5

     97.1


     26.5
     41.3 +
     27.0 (land)
    831.6

      0
                       1,522.4
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

'Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
APNXD-A16
BSrec 3727/84
-------
Table D-16.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
             BA-4 (0.35 mgd).

                    	Equipment	  	Structure
                      Cost
Item

Influent pumping
  (upgrade existing)

Pretreatment

Aerated lagoon

Upgrade existing
  trickling filters

Convert existing
  sludge digester
  (one only) to PER

Upgrade existing
  secondary clarifier

Upgrade existing
  chlorination and
  add new dechlori-
  nation

Yard piping &
  pumping

Construction cost

A/E fees (12.5%)

Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)

Inspection (4%)

Contingencies (5%)

Land (@ $27,000/acre)

Interest during con-
  struction (7 3/8% x 30%
  x TPC)

     Total capital cost                                                    688.5
Cost Life
($xlOOO) (yrs)
35.0 15
9.3 15
36.3 15
25.0 15
50.0 15
46.9 15
:r
30.3 15
24.0 15
256.8
0
x 30%
Salvage Cost Life Salvage Total
($xlOOO) ($xlOOO) (yrs) ($xlOOO) ($xlOOO)
0 15.0 20 0 50.0
0 27.7 30 9.3 37.0
0 108.7 50 65.3 145.0
0 0 20 0 25.0
0 50.0 20 0 100.0
0 0-0 46.9
0 20.7 30 5.2 51.0
0 50.0 50 30.0 74.0
272.1 109.8 528.9
66.1
3.7
21.2
26.4
27.0
15.2
-------
Table D-17.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Batavia
             Alternative BA-4 (0.35 mgd)  (Draft Facilities Plan,  1982).

                                      Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)a
Item
Influent pumping
Pretreatment
Aerated lagoon
Trickling Filters
PER
Secondary clarifiers
Chlorination
Dechlorination
Sludge pumping &
disposal
In-Plant pumping
Total
Fixed (95%)
6,864
11,400
1,900
3,800
3,800
5,700
11,020
5,700
4,750
4,750
76,784
Variable (5%)
361
600
1,000
200
200
300
580
300
250
250
4,041
Total
7,225
12,000
20,000
4,000
4,000
6,000
11,600
6,000
5,000
5,000
80,825
aYear 1985 total O&M = $80,825 (due to insignificant difference
 in costs, variable cost is assumed to be negligible)
APNXD-A18 ,
BS:ec 3/25/84
-------
Cost
($xlOOO)
925.6
430.5
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
925.6
148.0
Table D-L8.  Present worth analysis for Alternative W-2 (0.35 mgd)
             (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness Analysis,
             Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
Item

Total project

Equipment replacement
in year 2000

Salvage value of item
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost

Variable O&M cost

     Total present worth
122.9



391.4



122.1

  0
   0.2410



(10/15)0.2410



  10.2921

    74.21
  127.9



   62.9



1,256.6

    0

2,121.4
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
-------
Table D-19.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
             W-2 (0.35 mgd).
                              Equipment
Structure
Item

Pretreatment

Aerated lagoon

Upgrade existing
  aeration basins

New extended
  aeration basin

Upgrade existing
  settling tanks

New settling
  Tank

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Phosphorus removal

Rapid sand filters

Yard piping &
  pumping

Construction cost

A/E fees (12.5%)

Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)

Inspection (4%)

Contingencies (5%)

Land (@ $27,000/acre)

Interest during con-
  struction (7 3/8% x 30%
  x TPC)

     Total capital cost
Cost Life
($xlOOO) (yrs)
11.3 15
25.0 15
50.0 15
25.0 15
45.0 15
22.5 15
13.1 15
4.0 15
7.5 15
42.0 15
20.0 15
265.4
0
x 30%
Salvage Cost Life Salvage Total
($xlOOO) ($xlOOO) (yrs) ($xlOOO) ($xlOOO)
0 33.7 30 11.3 45.0
0 75.0 50 45.0 100.0
0 0 20 0 50.0
0 75.0 25 15.0 100.0
0 0 20 0 45.0
0 67.5 30 22.5 90.0
0 39.4 30 13.1 52.5
0 12.0 30 4.0 16.0
0 22.5 20 0 30.0
0 126.0 20 0 168.0
• 0 20.0 50 12.0 40.0
471.1 122.9 736.5
92.1
5.2
29.5
36.8
5.0
20.5
                    925.6
APNXD-A20
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-20.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for the Williamsburg
             Alternative W-2 (0.35 mgd) (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).

                                      Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)a
Item
Pretreatment
Aerated lagoon
Influent Pumping
Extended Aeration
Settling tanks
Chlorination
Dechlorination
Sludge pumping &
disposal
Phosphorus removal
Sand filtration
Total
Fixed (95%)
11,400
11,400
5,795
19,000
5,700
11,020
6,080
2,375
21,375
21,850
115,995
Variable (5%)
600
600
305
1,000
300
580
320
125
1,125
1,150
6,105
Total
12,000
12,000
6,100
20,000
6,000
11,600
6,400
2,500
22,500
23,000
122,100
SYear 1985 total O&M = $122,100 (due to insignificant  difference
 in costs, variable cost is assumed  to  be negligible)
-------
Table D-21.  Present worth analysis for Alternative H-l (0.05 mgd)
             (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness Analysis,
             Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
                           Cost
Item                     ($xlOOO)

Total project                63.5

Equipment replacement3       22.0
in year 2000

Salvage value of item        10.5
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item        20.0
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost            15.0

Variable O&M cost             0

     Total present worth
  PW Factor

     1

   0.3439


   0.2410



(10/15)0.2410



  10.2921

    74.21
Present Worth
  ($xlOOO)

     63.5

      7.6


      2.5
      3.2



    154.4

      0
                         219.8
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.
•V
"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
         7/84
-------
5.0
7.5
0
15
15
-
0
0
0
0
25.8
5.0
—
30
50
0
7.5
3.0
5.0
33.3
5.0
Table D-22.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
             H-l (0.05 mgd).

                    	Equipment	  	Structure	
                      Cost    Life   Salvage     Cost   Life   Salvage     Total
Item                ($xlOOO)  (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO) (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO)
Replace flow-meter     7.5     15       0         0      20       0          7.5
  and communitor

Replace blower

New sand filters

Misc. yard piping
  & valving

Construction cost     20.0                      30.8           10.5         50.8

A/E fees (12.5%)                                                             6-4

Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)                                                          °-4

Inspection (4%)                                                              2'°

Contingencies (5%)                                                           2'5

Interest during con-                                                         I'4
  struction (7 3/8% x 30%
  x TPC)                                                                  	
     Total capital cost                                                     63-5
APNXD-A23 /o/
BSrec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-23.  Estimated O&M costs for the Holly Towne MHP Alternative H-l
             (0.05 mgd) (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).

          Item                          O&M Cost ($/year)

          Extended aeration package          15,000
          plant with sand filtration
          (including sludge hauling)
               Total                         15,000
APNXD-A24
BS:ec 3/25/84
-------
Table D-24.  Present worth analysis for Alternative BG-1 (0.01 mgd)
             (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness Analysis,
             Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
                           Cost
Item                     ($xlOOO)

Total project                86.3

Equipment replacement3       22.5
in year 2000

Salvage value of item         9.2
1 in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of item        25.0
2 in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost             9.0

Variable O&M cost             0

     Total present worth
                                   PW Factor

                                      1

                                    0.3439


                                    0.2410



                                 (10/15)0.2410



                                   10.2921

                                     74.21
Present Worth
  ($xlOOO)

     86.3

      9.4


      2.2
      4.0



     92.6

      0
                                                          182.1
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
 ?NXD-
 >:ec
/84
-------
Table D-25.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
             BG-1 (0.01 mgd).

                    	Equipment	  	Structure	
                      Cost    Life   Salvage     Cost   Life   Salvage     Total
Item                ($xlOOO)  (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO) (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO)

Flow equalization      5.0     15       0       15.0     30      5.0        20.0

Replace comminutor,   12.0     15       0         0-0         12.0
  flow meter and
  blower
New sludge holding3    3.0     15       0       12.0     30     3.0         15.0
  tank

Sand filter   '         5.0     15       0       15.0     20      0          20.0

Piping & valving      	0_      -       0        2.0     50     1.2          2.0

Construction cost     25.0                      44.0            9.2         69.0

A/E fees (12.5%)                                                             8.6

Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)                                                          0.5

Inspection (4%)                                                              2.8

Contingencies (5%)                                                           3.5

Interest during con-                                                         1.9
  struction (7 3/8% x 30%
  x TPC)                                                                  	
 Costs provided by McGill & Smith (preliminary sludge disposal plan),
 1982 update.
     Total capital cost                                                     86.3
APNXD-A26  ,
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-26.  Estimated O&M costs for the Berry Garden MHP Alternative BG-1
             (0.01 mgd) (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).

          Item                          O&M Cost ($/year)

          Extended aeration package           9,000
          plant with sand filtration
          (including sludge hauling)
               Total                          9,000
-------
Table D-27.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Shayler Run interceptor sewer (Draft Facilities Plan, 1982).

          Item                             Total Cost

          Gravity Sewer from East             $324,300
          Clough Pike.  Pump station
          to Olive Branch-Lower
          East Fork interceptor

          Construction cost                   $324,300

          A/E Fees                              40,540

          Administrative                         1,150

          Legal and fiscal                       1,150

          Inspection                            12,975

          Contingencies                         16,215

          Interest during construction           8,970

               Total capital cost             $405,300
APNXD-A28
BSrec 3/27/84
-------
Table O-28.  Categorical cost breakdown for recommmended plan Middle East Fork
             FPA (Revised recommended plan, Balke Engineers, March 3, 1983).

                         Construction  Total Project  Estimated      Local
Cost Category            Cost	  Costs	  EPA Grant      Funds

Treatment works          $4,120,400    $5,154,270     $3,566,190  $1,588,580

Infiltration/Inflow
  correction
     - SSES                   —          273,892        205,419      60,473
     - Rehabilitation         —          827,400        620,550     206,850
     - Subtotal               —        1,101,292        825,969     275,323

New collector sewers      2,953,400     3,691,750      2,768,813     922,937
Interceptor sewers        1,314.600     1,642.800      1.171.790     471.010

     Total               $8,388,400   $11,590,612     $8,332,762  $3,257,850
aprivate entities (mobile-home parks) are not eligible for EPA Grant,

 Preliminary estimates.
-------
Table D-29.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended treatment works for
             Middle East Fork FPA (Revised recommended plan, Balke Engineers,
             March 3, 1983).
                                                               r*
                         Construction  Total Project  Estimated      Local
Service Area             Costs	  Costs	  EPA Grant      Funds

Middle East Fork3        $3,264,100    $4,079,370     $2,909,565  $1,169,805

Williamsburg                736,500       925,600        656,625     268,975

Holly Towne MHP              50,800        63,500           0         63,500

Berry Garden MHP             69,000        86,300       	0_    $1,588,580

     Total               $4,546,300    $5,714,600     $3,945,825  $1,768,775
 Does not include interceptor sewer costs.  Includes costs of Batavia
 influent pumping.
APNXD-A30,.
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-30.  Summary of operation and maintenance costs for the recommended
             plan (Revised recommended plan, Balke Engineers, March  3,  1983),

     Service Area                                 Annual O&M (1985)a

     Middle East Fork

          - WWTP                                       $381,258
          - Septage receiving station                     7,600
          - Bethel Interceptor                           58,519
          - Batavla influent pumping                      8,200
            subtotal                                    455,577

     Williamsburg WWTP                                  122,100

     Holly Towne WWTP                                    15,000

     Berry Garden WWTP                                    9,000
a
 Does not include collection system O&M (other than proposed new
 interceptors).
APNXD-A31 ,
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
                                                                         a
Table D-31.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended collection sewers
             for the Middle East  Fork FPA (Responses to OEPA/USEPA comments,
             Balke Engineers,  June 23,  1983)
Bethel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Am- Bat
19
21
22,34
23,24

25
35,36

APNXD-A
BS:ec 3
Area/Location
Kennedy Ford Rd
Bee Subdivision
Wilson Street
South Charity St.
SR 133 (S. of Bethel)
Airport Road
SR 125 (E. of Bethel)
Starling Road
(West part only)
Brown & Campbell Sts.
Subtotal
Bantam
Lunsford Road
State Route 222
Fair Oak, Berry,
Garrison and Back
Run Roads
Lindale-Mt. Holly
Area
Denny Drive & Jenny
Lind Road
Subtotal
.32
Construction
Costs
$ 36,000
601,200
97,800
100,800
19,600
229,600
128,480
101,360
77,000
1,391,840
83,440
76,600
303,320

333,200
403,200
150,000
1,349,760

Total Capital
Costs
$ 45,000
751,500
122,250
126,000
24,500
287,000
160,600
126,700
96,250
1,739,800
104,300
95,750
379,150

416,500
504,000
187,500
1,687,200

Estimated
EPA Grant
$ o
563,625
91,687
94,500
18,375
215,250
120,450
95,025
72,188
78,225
71,813
284,363

312,375
378,000
140,625


Local,
_ , b
Funds
$ 45,000
187,625
30,563
31,500
6,125
71,750
40,150
31,675
24,042
26,075
23,937
94,788

104,125
126,008
46,875


-------
                                                                         a
Table D-31.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended collection sewers
             for the Middle East Fork FPA (Responses to OEPA/USEPA comments,
             Balke Engineers, June 23, 1983) (continued).
Batavia Area/Location
43 Batavia Village
Williamsburg
44 SR 276/133 (West of
Williamsburg)
Total
Construction
Costs
$ 56,000
153,640
$2,951,240
Total Capital Estimated Local
Costs EPA Grant Funds
$ 70,000 52,500 $ 17,500
192,050 144,038 48,012
$3,689,050 $2,733,039 $ 956,011
aAs developed in the On-site Wastewater Disposal Study (March 1982)
 and revised in the report of Final Recommendations (February 23, 1983).

 Does not include private costs (connection laterals,  septic tank
 replacement).  Assumes 75% EPA Grant, 25% local funds (conventional sewers),
 ?NXD-A337...
 !:ec 3727/84
                                   P 33
-------
Table D-32.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Middle East Fork Regional Treatment Works (Revised recommended
             plan, Balke Engineers,  March 3,  1983).

     Item                             Total Cost       Grant Ineligible

     Pretreatment                     $  139,200

     Flow equalization                   518,000

     Primary clarifiers                  368,000

     Packed biological reactor (new)     336,800

     Packed biological reactor           500,000
       (upgrade existing)

     Aerobic sludge digester             200,000

     Sludge storage tank                 400,000

     Septage receiving station           320,000

     Yard piping & pumping               379,100

     Construction cost                $3,161,100

     A/E Fees                            395,100

     Administrative                       11,100

     Legal and fiscal                     11,100            $11,100

     Inspection                          126,400

     Contingencies                       158,100             94,800

     Interest during construction         87,800             87,800

               Total capital cost     $3,950,700

               Total ineligible cost      -                $193,700

               Estimated EPA Grant    $2,817,750

               CCSD funds             $1,132,950
APNXD-A34
BS:ec 3/25/84
-------
Table D-33.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Middle East Fork
             Regional Recommended Plan  (Revised recommended plan, Balke
             Engineers, March 3, 1983).

Item

Pretreatment

Flow equalization

Influent pumping

Primary clarifiers

PER

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Sludge digestion

Sludge storage

In-plant pumping

Septage receiving station

     Totalb                  286,523               122,802            409,325

          Year 1985 variable O&M costs (3.0/3.6) 120,402 = $100,335
          Year 1985 total O&M = 280,923 (fixed) + 100,335 (variable)  = $381,258
          Annual increase in variable O&M costs = (120,402 - 100,335)/20 = $1,003
Fixed (70%)
17,710
47,250
17,190
18,690
9,800
24,938
29,850
12,570
37,350
34,860
30,715
5,600
Variable (30%)
7,590
20,250
7,370
8,010
4,200
10,688
12,790
5,390
16,010
14,940
13,165
2,400
Total
25,300
67,500
24,560
26,700
14,000
35,626
42,640
17,960
53,360
49,800
43,880
8,000
o
 This table does not include O&M costs for the Bethel interceptor sewer
 and Batavia influent pumping, which must be added to obtain total O&M
 figure for Middle East Fork subdistrict of CCSD.   O&M of existing collection
 system (pipes and pump stations) must also be added for user charge
 estimation.  Sewers in Basin F-10 and the Shayler Run Interceptor are not
 included in the MEF O&M estimation because once the interceptor is con-
 structed, that area will be part of the Lower East Fork subdistrict.

 Excludes O&M cost of septage receiving station.
APNXD-A35
BS:ec 3/26/84
-------
Table D-34.  Summary of present worth costs for sludge program (MEF plant @
            4.8 mgd) (Responses to OEPA/USEPA comments, Balke Engineers,
            Feb 10, 1983).

                         Sludge Digestion    Transportation and
                         and Holding	    Land Application       Total

Present worth of
all capital and
project costs3              $1,129,441          435,600             1,565,041

Present worth of
all O&M costs0                 536,404        1,289,400             1,835,804

Present worth of
salvage values              -  283,740       -  283,740            -  310,640
Total present worth         $1,382,105        1,698,100             3,080,205

Equivalent annual cost°       $134,288          164,999               299,287

EAC/1000 gal treatedd             8.6             10.6                  19.2
 Includes equipment replacement costs as needed through 20 year design period.

 Includes access and building costs.
Q
 Calculated at an average annual flow of 4.27 mgd over 20 year design
 period.  Design capacity = 4.8 mgd.

 As presented in Draft Facilities Plan.
                                  0-3*/
-------
Table D-35.  Summary of sludge program project cost estimates (Responses to
             OEPA/USEPA comments, Balke Engineers, Feb 10, 1983).
Item

Sludge digestion
and holding

Access and
building

Transport and
application
equipment

Total
                Fees &
Construction    Conting.    Total Cost'


  $840,000      210,000     1,050,000


   438,00        74,500       512,500



   275,500       46,900       322,300

 1,553,500      331,400     1,884,800
Portion of Cost
Allocated
to MEF Plant
1,050,000


  217,800



  217.800

1,485,600
 This is the expenditure that must be made in order to implement the
 sludge program for the MEF plant.  However, this includes items that will
 be used by other CCSD plants (Lower East Fork and Nine Mile).

 This is the cost allocated to MEF plant based on proportion of design flow.
 Only those facilities and equipments used by all CCSD treatment plants are
 affected by this calculation.  The figures in this column are used in present
 worth calculations for determining costs of sludge treatment and disposal for
 the MEF plant.
                                  0-3-7
-------
Table D-36.
Sludge program equipment requirements (Responses to OEPA/USEPA
comments, Balke Engineers,  Feb. 10, 1983).
Quantity

2 each
1 each
1 each
1 each


1000 l.f.


2 each



1 each

1 each
              Transportation Equipment

            Description

            4,000 gallon full open
            end sludge tank mounted on
            single axle, diesel powered
            truck

              Application Equipment

            2,000 gallon full open end
            sludge tanks equipped for
            surface application or
            subsoil injection mounted
            on diesel powered, high
            flotation truck

            Agricultural tractor,
            diesel powered, 3-plow
            capacity, with disk
            harrow and sickle-type
            mower

            3000 ft power reel and
            "Rain Bird" type sprayer

            Four-inch alluminum
            irrigation pipe

            7,000 gallon portable
            sludge holding tanks
            (aerated and skid mounted)

            Portable sludge pump

            3/4 ton, 4 wheel
            drive pick up truck
Est. Cost
$120,000
  55,000C
  13,200
   9,000C
  1,8000
  14,000°
   4,500C

   6,000s
     '#07/84
                                    0
-------
Table D-36.  Sludge program equipment requirements (Responses to OEPA/USEPA
             comments, Balke Engineers, Feb. 10, 1983) (concluded).

Quantity                 Description                             Est. Cost
                                                                         Q
1 each                   Diesel-powered road tractor               52,000
                         with semi-low boy equipment
                         trailer
Total equipment costs                                            $279,500
a
 Items which will be used to handle sludge from Lower East Fork and
 Nine Mile CCSD Treatment Plants as well as MEF Plant.  Based on
 proportional design flow, costs would be assigned to the MEF plant as
 follows:

          Application Equipment = $155,500 total

               MEF FLOW            =        4.8 mgd         =    42.5% to MEF
          MEF + LEF + NM FLOW         4.8 + 5.0 +1.5 mgd

          (155,500) (0.425) = $66,100 share attributable to MEF sludge handling
                              only.

          Total Transportation and Application Equipment Costs Attributable to
          MEF Project = $120,000 + 66,100 = $186,100.
I :ec
     "3^7/84
-------
Table D-37.  Sludge program access and building requirements (Responses to
             OEPA/USEPA comments, Balke Engineers, Feb. 10, 1983).

                                                            Estimated
Item                     Description                        Construction Cost
                                                                       a
Storage Building         Used for storage and maintenance      $148,000
and Shop                 of sludge equipment.  Located
                         at MEF plant site
                                                                       o
Bridge and               Simple single-lane prestressed         290,000
Access Road              concrete slab bridge over East
                         Fork and paving of approaches
                         and remainder of access road
Total for access and buildings                                 $438,OOQ3
 Costs allocatable to Lower East Fork and Nine Mile CCSD Treatment
 Plant as well as MEF Plant, as follows:

 MEF Flow           =         4.8 mgd        =         42.5% to MEF
 MEF+LEF+NM Flow         4.8+5.0+1.5 mgd

 (438,000) (0.425) = $186,200    Share attributable to MEF sludge handling
                                 only
APNXD-A40
BSrec 3/27/84
-------
Table 0-38.  Sludge digestion  and  holding requirements (Kosponr, (••'. lke Engineers,  Keb. 10, 1981).
It em                      Description                        COIUM rurt Ion  i'i'l«t

Digestion                 F.xpand  existing aerobic               $ViO,ooo
                          digestion tanks to 1.1 MG
                          total capacity. Costs' aro
                              mechanical, and 7S% st.nirtural.
Storage                   Construct  new 2 MG aerated
                          sludge storage tank with
                          truck  loading station.  Cost?!
                          are  2"i% mechanical and 7*>%
                          structural
o
 Cost attributable  to MRK  Plant  only.
APNXD-Ml  ,
BS:ec 3/26/84

                                      P If
-------
Table D-39.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Batavia influent pumping (Revised recommended plan, Balke
             Engineers, March 3,  1983).

     Item                             Total Cost       Grant Ineligible

     Extend existing 8 inch             $103,000
     force main to Am-Bat
     plant
     Total                              $103,000

     A/E Fees                             12,900               0

     Administrative                          360               0

     Legal and fiscal                        360              360

     Inspection                            4,100

     Contingencies                         5,150              3,090

     Interest during construction          2,800              2,800

     Total capital cost                 $128,670

     Total ineligible cost                -                $  6,250

     Estimated EPA Grant              $   91,815

     Local funds3                     $   36,855
a
 CCSD and/or Village of Batavia funds (depending on final financial managements).
  5^-3^6/84
-------
Table D-40.  Categorical cost breakdown for recommended plan for the Middle
             East Fork FPA (Analysis of effect of revised effluent limits on
             alternatives and recommendations, Balke Engineers, May 18, 1983).
                                                               at
                         Construction  Total Capital  Estimated      Local
Cost Category            Cost	  Costs	  EPA Grant      Funds

Treatment works          $5,082,400    $6,356,970     $4,423,640   $1,933,330
Infiltration/Inflow
Correction
  - SSES
  - Rehabilitation
  - Subtotal

New collector sewers

Interceptor sewers

Total                    $9,350,400   $12,792,902     $9,190,212   $3,602,600
—
2,953,400
1,314,600
273,892
827,400
1,101,292
3,691,750
1,642,800
205,419
620,550
825,969
2,768,813
1,171,790
60,473
206,850
275,323
922,937
471,010
a
 Private entities (mobile-home parks) are not eligible for EPA Grant.

 Preliminary estimates.
APNXD-A43 ,
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-41.  Summary of estimated costs for recommended treatment works for
             Middle East Fork FPA (Revised March 3, 1983, May 17, 1983)
             (Referenced in D-56).

                         Construction  Total Capital  Estimated      Local
Service Area             Costs         Costs          EPA Grant      Funds
Middle East Fork3        $4,226,100    $5,281,570     $5,767,015  $1,514,555

Williamsburg                736,500       925,600        656,625     268,975

Holly Towne MHP              50,800        63,500           0         63,500

Berry Gardens MHP            69,000        86,300       	0_    $   86,300

     Total               $5,082,400    $6,356,970     $4,423,640  $1,933,330
a
 Does not include interceptor sewer costs.  Includes costs of Batavia
 influent pumping.
APNXD-A44
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-42.  Summary of operation and maintenance costs for the recommended
             plan (Referenced in D-56).

     Service area                            Annual O&M (1985)a

Middle East Fork
  - WWTP                                     $465,618
  - Septage receiving station                   7,600
  - Bethel interceptor                         58,519
  - Batavia influent pumping                    8,200
    Subtotal                                  455,577

Williamsburg WWTP                             122,100

Holly Towne WWTP                               15,000

Berry Gardens WWTP                              9,000
Q
 Does not include collection system O&M (other than proposed new interceptors),
APNXD-A45
BS:ec 3/26/84
-------
Table D-43.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Middle East Fork Regional Treatment Works (Revised 17 May
             1983) (Referenced in D-56).

                                    Estimated
     Item                           Construction Cost       Grant Ineligible

     Pretreatment                    $   139,200

     Flow equalization                   518,000

     Primary clarifiers                  368,000

     Packed biological reactor (new)     336,800

     Packed biological reactor           500,000
     (upgrade existing)

     Aerobic sludge digester             200,000

     Sludge storage tank                 400,000

     Septage receiving station           320,000

     Yard piping & pumping               379,100

     Mixed media filters                 962,000a

     Total construction cost          $4,123,100

     A/E fees                            515,400               0

     Administrative                       14,400               0

     Legal and fiscal                     14,400            $14,400

     Inspection                          164,900

     Contingencies                       206,200            123,700

     Interest during construction        114,500            114,500

     Total capital cost               $5,152,900

     Total ineligible cost                -                $252,600

     Estimated EPA Grant              $3,675,200'

     CCSD funds                       $1,447,700
Required additional AST effluent limitations proposed by Ohio EPA, 5/3/83.
APNXD-A46
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table D-44.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Middle East Fork
             Regional Recommended Plan  (Referenced in D-56).

Item

Pretreatment

Flow equalization

Influent pumping

Primary clarifiers

PER

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination
                   c
Mixed media filters

Sludge digestion

Sludge storage

In-plant pumping

Septage receiving station

     Totalb                 $343,083         .     $147,042           $490,125

          Year 1985 variable O&M costs (3.0/3.6) 147,042 = $122,535
          Year 1985 total O&M = 343,083 (fixed) + 122,535 (variable) = $465,618
          Annual increase in variable O&M costs = (147,042 - 122,535)720 = $1,003
Fixed (70%)
17,710
47,250
17,190
18,690
9,800
24,938
29,850
12,570
62,160
37,350
34,860
30,715
5,600
Variable (30%)
7,590
20,250
7,370
8,010
4,200
10,688
12,790
5,390
26,640
16,010
14,940
13,165
2,400
Total
25,300
67,500
24,560
26,700
14,000
35,626
42,640
17,960
88,800°
53,360
49,800
43,880
8,000
a
 This table does not include O&M costs for the Bethel interceptor sewer
 and Batavia influent pumping, which must be added to obtain total O&M
 figure for Middle East Fork subdistrict of CCSD.  O&M of existing collection
 system (pipes and pump stations) must also be added for user charge
 estimation.  Sewers in Basin F-10 and the Shayler Run Interceptor are not
 included in the MEF O&M estimation because once the interceptor is con-
 structed, that area will be part of the Lower East Fork subdistrict.

 Excludes O&M cost of septage receiving station.

CRequired for additional AST effluent limitation proposed by Ohio EPA, 5/3/83.
APNXD-A47
BS:ec 3/26/84
-------
Table D-45.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Bethel interceptor sewer (Revised 7/6/83) (By letter, Richard
             Record, Balke Engineers, to Richard Fitch,  Ohio EPA, 23 June 1983).

                                              Estimated
Item                                          Construction Cost  Grant Ineligible

Flow equalization basin (800,000 gallon         $   229,000
capacity, approx. 85' x 85' x 15', equipped
with diffused aeration and auto-wash system,
to be located at SR 125 and Poplar Creek)

Gravity sewer from existing plant to flow           272,000
equalization (6,800 l.f. of 18" @ $40/lf)

Pump station at flow equalization site              115,000
(555 gpm @ 55' TDH)

Force Main from pump station to Bantam              270,300
(10,200 l.f. of 8" $26.50/1.f.)

Gravity sewer from Bantam to existing               145,600
Ulrey Run P.S. (5,200 l.f. of 10" @ $28/1.f.)

Upgrade Ulrey run P.S.                               20,000
(870 gpm @ 13' TDH)

Upgrade Back run P.S.                                20,000
(870 gpm @ 13' TDH)

Total construction cost                          $1,071,900

A/E fees                                            134,000

Administrative                                        3,750

Legal & fiscal                                        3,750            3,750

Inspection                                           42,900

Contingencies                                        53,600           32,150

Land & right-of-way                                  42,900           42,900

Interest during construction                         33,800           33,800

Total capital cost                               $1,386,600

Total ineligible cost                                  -            $112,600

Estimated EPA Grant3                             $  955,500

CCSD funds                                       $  431,100

a
 Estimated at 75% grant level.
-------
Table D-46.  Total capital cost estimates and funding for the Shayler Run
             interceptor sewer (By letter, Richard Record, Balke Engineers,
             to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, 23 June 1983).


Item                           Total capital cost      Grant Ineligible


Construction                       $324,300


A/E fees                             40,540


Administrative                        1,150


Legal & fiscal                        1,150               $  1,150


Inspection                           12,975


Contingencies                        16,215                  32,150


Right-of-way                         30,000                  30,000


Interest during construction         10,650                  10,650


Total project cost                 $436,980


Total ineligible cost                   -                 $  51,530


Estimated EPA Grant3                289,100


CCSD funds                          147,880
Estimated at 75% grant level.
APNXD-A49
BS:ec 3/26/84
-------
             APPENDIX E

  DETAILED COSTS FOR COMPARISON OF
COLLECTION SEWERS TO ON-SITE SYSTEMS
-------
                     Detailed Costs for Comparison of
                   Collection Sewers to On-Site Systems
     The estimated costs  for  collection sewers are presented in Tables E-l
and  E-2.   These  costs were  taken from  the Facilities Planning  document
Final  Recommendations:    Solutions  to  On-site  Disposal  Problems  in  the
Middle East Fork  Planning Area.   Prepared as a technical supplement to the
Middle East  Fork Wastewater Facilities Plan,  Balke  Engineers,  Cincinnati,
OH, 23 February 1983.

     The  on-site  system  upgrades were   estimated  from  the  information
sources  presented in  Chapter 2.   The  detailed  costs  are  presented  in
Tables E-4 through  E-65  and  the  calculation of  total  present worth  was
calculated in Table E-3.   The number  of systems within each "problem area"
was  identical  to the  number  of  systems on  collection sewers for  purposes
of  comparison,   although   actual  counts  differed  from  the  Facility Plan
counts.

                  Summary of Detailed  Costs (by Township)
               ^Tables                                   Township
               E-4-19                                   Batavia
               E-20                                     Jackson
               E-21-25                                  Monroe
               E-26-28                                  Pierce
               E-29-32                                  Stonelick
               E-33                                     Union
               E-34-44                                  Williamsburg
               E-45-65                                  Tate
                                  E-l
-------
0-,
ptl
 M
 o
 co
 CO
•H


 01
 CO
 0
 CD
i—I

•§

 CX

 cu
 c
 o
 CO
 d
 o
•rl
 O
 co

 CO
 cO

T3
 0)
 4-1
 CO
 3
 d
 o
 •rH
 CO  /—x

 cu  co
 4-1  OO
 X  0>
 CD  —i

 rJ   CO
 01   rJ
 3   0)
 CD   0)
 co   d
     •t-l
 4H   60
 o   d
     w

 M   0)

 9  "^
 f3   ^d
 3  pa
 co  -^-^
 JD
 T3
 H









cu
0
•H
>
M
0)
CO












CD
O
)-i
O


























V-I
cu
^
0)
CO





































r-i
CO
4-1
•H
CX
cfl
U




^
O
4-J
CO
Pn
d
o
•H
4->
O
3
4-1
CO
d
0
0


d
•H
1





d
o
•H
4-1
CO
4-1
CO
ex
0
3
Cu



4-1
•H
d



_r*1
4-1
ex
CD








































4-1
CO
O
u






^-^
6s?
m
Ci





4->
CO
0
CJ






4-1
CO
o




4J
CO
0
u




cu

"e
3
S3


4-1
CO
0



/— s
4J
MH
^^


J2
4-1
to1
CU
'-1


















d
o
•H
4J
CO
O
O
-1


•0
0)
1-1
or-- -a- -H CO ~3" CM r- OO ON p^ CO CO
co "^" in *^* r~^ CN in co ON oo co "^ co m co
in c*i CM in co CM oo rH r"» CM oo -vt" r^- oo
i — i


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
CD CD CD CD CD OO \^ vD CD CD '•cj" CD OO CN) CD
fsj 00 OO ^«O *«C "^ ("O O^ C^ ^^ ^^ CO OO CO C^J
^H p"-* CD o^ CTN oo »— ~t f*1** r^> LO co CT^ -^ fo co
CD O^> CD '"H r^** ^J CD ^^ t^*- '"^ CO f"l P^« CD CO
^O ^^ ^*^ *~^ *~^ ^o cO <~H ^^ ro ro




Ol 1 1 1 1 |0ol 1 IOO)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Oil III 1001 IIOOOI
r> r- v* +• *•
m ON oo m o
m CN i— t co


Ol 1 1 1 1 1 O O 1 1 1 O O |
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
01 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1001
f. f f> ** *•
o o o o o
1 — v£> CO CO CO



1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1
CNOOOOOOCN-HOOOr-lr-lO
1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1





oOoooooo^OoNoor^r — ^ON
rH <— t <—<



ooooooooooooooo
«O r~^ ^J ^^ *«D OO ^*. lO O^ f*O \jD vO O^
rococo ooincop-.rHOcN-,d X4J4-lr-l d
d CO+JCO+JCOCO^-IT) o t^,
oco cucDcucucocuerf 4-1 M
•HCU>-,PQ(-|PQSCD^3 COi-l )_|
r/] t-i 4J nj exg cucu cu
•HCO-rlM-l W-IT3 0CO VjjH PQ
K* MO id o erf co *-* o it
•H4->cO Crf Cjd 
TJCO^CO W60 CO TD^JiJ
r> c_3 4-J d ^ ^ 60 H tjs CO
3d cO)-(in-H 0dOCNQ
CO O 42 CO O CN r— 1 drdCfl-HmCN
CO 4-* !~-l CX rH M 3 4J 4J rH 03 CM M
O>rH3 VJ CO O3dr-)C -H
CD *H o erf *H crf 4-* v-i o co o 3 erf co
CQ |^< Q/^ CO *^ CO CO CQ CO PO fvj . "] CO fT i


in
CO
0
0
o
o
r-.





o
o
o
^J.
"H


o
o
o
vO
in





1
0
1




1
o
1






1
o
1





oo
CN




CO




o
o
o
CN












cu

cti
r-t
, 	 1
*H
£>

cd
•H
^
rt
•M
^d
M


CO

O rH
O \o


0 0
0 0
O <}•
CN ^O
0 0-
•O- CN




O |
0 0
0 1
o
CN
T— (

0 |
0 0

••
o
CO



1
r-l 0
1





oo oo
CN CM




ON OO




0 0
0 0
o oo
ON oo




o
60X1
rJ O
3 O

•• *d
S M
3
MH 43
O -

•3-
CO Cfl

CN rH
CO CO
eu
erf
co cfl
•^
T3
rH 0)
0 O


in >o
0- xl-


o
in
CM
vO
CN
CN




0
m
CM
CO
in


0
o
o
CO
< — i
CN




O
o
o
o
1 — t


0
0
0
f.
m
CO




i — i






oo
CN




00




o
0
o
^o









60
rJ
3
jQ

£5

14H
o

CO

CO
CO
rH

Crf
CO



--t




•
0)
T)
•H
0
p
CX

4J
O
0
CQ
CO
4->
3
O

cO
CU
^

T-J
cy
rH
•iH
CO
1 1
0)
T3

cu
4-1
4-1
3


O
CO
rH
CO

TJ
CU
Ij
cfl
3
rH
CO

CU
CO
CO


CO
01
CO
3
o
J-J

1 — .
•-H
v~'
cu
d
o
rH
cfl
T-J
CO
O
erf

13
M
o
*4H
CO
d
3


M
O
14-1

CO
•H
CO

1-H
cO
d
cfl
4-1
10
0
o

<
cfl
                                                                      E-2
-------
£-3
n S
Incre-
Initial Cost mental Total
al Total Annual Present Worth Present
Present Worth Annu
tal Salvage O&M Capital Salvage O&M Total Worth
Area Location Capital Salvage O&M Salvage O&M Total Capi
oS2^3SS£csSS£££Sco
_t CM — I .-t — I —» eM.-<
CM
o
t--. r-* .$• —i sr -* —tvoooroO-d-om
CM m CM «-H _i _t cv| _< — i ro «-< co
CM
•" 	
ESSSSKKSSSSS^gKS
<± ro •-*•-<•-*•— i CM T-I rO
0
O vo OS  cx


CO
ro
O
m
CO
CM
OO
CO
-3-
3 £ 22 S £
CM o co in •-* cc
h*- 
CM CM CO CO
ro
!*•> CO O s}' CO
CO O ^-> CM CM
0 0
OO — t
CO O
CM
O
O
O
ro
o
CO
o

 ** c
2 " ^^
CM -H * CO f~^
r^ CM ^o CM  O •"•
CM vD OS
CM •-*
CM vo Os
^^ •— i CM
CM \o ON
•3- CT\ 00
rM T O
O CM CM CO
CM
f~-- <}• in r»» |m
ro
CM oo ro m
O ON Os OO
OO --•
O O CO OS
oo os m m
CM CM OO r^
vo r*- VD r-^
-* o ^ m
CM — t r-t CM
-* ^ co in
vO OO «-* CO
CO co ro r^
CM ^f f^ fM
O ^ -i ro
0 ° ^ £
r^
-------

S o> oo
CM


Oil
5 £S
« O
•-< --"CO
co r^ ^
a r*
ca —«
o

m CM
m CM
CN 
q 2
CO
o£2;D'£5cM'[n'Sco'ocoI£3£3S 5
..

•-t CO
oo m

ON

^
CN
0

^a m CM -H
O
oil NOcNinro-3'\ocJN
_H 00 CM 00 O
cd in ^ ~*
*J 0 vfr
••-t -
cd -<
U~l CM
m m
4J -HO
o rM oo
O CM
o o \o
ITl _i
NO
** CO
CO ~*
0 -H
-* ON
—•• Uj
*f CM
m co
CM CM
00 -*
O oo
CM oO
O 0
OvO
as — <
-
CM
CO
m
tn
O>
ONcr-«>oMJnmtoWir,C'mm ^r
S3
O ON
ro rM
O
~* 5 "^ tN
£SS§Sgg-SSSS22 ?;
ssssssssaasRsS i

m ^^
—4 <-* ~-l r-l i-t
"5c^o3c5c^S2in5^1ncr;

2 5 S S JN 2 S C « S S S S S


ON CN
CO
in oo
^ CO
m
CO
ro —* CM CM — » co CM
ss
^O r%l
O
CM ro
in co
O
CM m
CO CO
CM 0
•o-
00 S
CO CM
CO ~*
CM 
•* 0
m CM
CO ON
ro rM
CO CM
CO CM

O
CM
CO
o
CM
00

O
in
o
CM
OO
CO
CO

CM

ON m r^
o co co
CM — < CO
s
CO
00
-J
0
ro

CM
CO
CM
ON
0>

CM
CO
CO

m
*£>
CO

vO
fNj r-J (?>
CM «* *O
in co -cr
CO
ro
O r-*
CM O>
OO CN
0 0

CO CO
25

o
CN
oo co m
CO CO CT>
CM
in
PI ^ o
CM »*
O — '
O> CM
CO -H
vO O
 ON •

   CO  CM sO O^ CO O*> O i

   O>  co ON co —< O •-< '
g
o
H
  'Cuoiaiaicuaioi

   55<-<-<<:<:-<<-
                  l^r^-OOOOCrii—(i—«>-H>-HfH«
invO^^-OOCT^O '-•(NfO
                                             E-4
-------
«.   "•:
                ^  r







^^
.0
m
oo
C7*
*-*
tn

01

c
•H
M
C
U
01
rH
CO
^
ft

^
0
tu

4J
0]
CO
w

01
r-l
•o
«H
X

01
X


c
•H
•a
01
CO
3

CO

01

1
•H
c
01
4-1
X
ot
^
0)

cn
M
o
U-l

cn
4-J
o
CJ


4-1
(j
§

4J
C
01
to
01

a.

4-1
o
^

a
S
s
w


CN
1
w

0)
r-H
J*
H







U

4J

0
S
4J
C
0)
tn
01

P ,






o
a
01
O
M
O>
4J
C
M




rH
CO
4-1
O
H





rH
4J
o


































































0)

Cti
rH
Cti
C/3










4-1
C
Ot


cO
0)

H





0)
hO
cti
rH
fO





ca
4-J
-H
a.
3



4->
C
O>
I
o
tx
g
M


to
.-1C
CO
01
4J
cd







































i-H
4-1
O
H





01
3
to
>






£
3
o



4-1
to
o
o
^
y|
i£
O





01
3
CO
>





^
O
u







01
CO
CO
(^





0
4_>
X
O




tn
QJ
to
o
sc


















C
o
•H

cti
O
O




cti
0)
•4
CM
O
W3
CO
t*^.





O
m
o
^o





o
CM
O
2



O
in
00
,_,







o
0
00
CM




vj
m
5







o
o

C
c
0)





rH

00
1— 1
o
o>
o
m
*



CO
0
m
,_,





fN^.
rH
ro
O



00

m
&
CM






o
ro
^
,3-




O
CM
rH
O






O
o
•o-
o





^
o

r^c7\coo>oin^oo>v£)COcMr^ineN
in CM o oo ro CM in CM tn ^o c*^ in c^ CM co ^ CM co co
in co ^ -j* CN in CM CM ro in in (*•• co >— * CM ^c co co




f^«, ^Q fSj ff} -^ QQ ,— | Q^ (*1 [*^ 1,0 ^ QQ , | Q^ f^ ,_-) (Sj ft")
CM t/~i cr> in o^ \o O cs m ^- o^ co CM r^« CM FH <—< \& CM
^•tNinr^. jo in CM "•"* •4' *n oo ^ oo o o^ • 	 i •— < "^ r** co
1^0 rH co CM o 0^1 ••d' ro oo o m o oo r^- co o ^ CM oo
"i ** "i ~" "^ °° * •* "°. °° "^ °° "° ° "T. "° "*. N *"".
2?lKm2Scj!S5^SliSSSSS3S



NoOOOsfSfoo^NvOovOOONOcO^OCN

inr^r^.of^ioocr>inininininvorococN- O »-H ^ in in co r-*- co o r^. oo f^ o o co
o n r-.^ i^ •* CT> ^t o> m vocou-iOcMCM\£)in
ONroOc^-iincococ^c^cMc^cNoocN^tnr^r-




ovo^ooooor-.cnc^r-inr^ininKro-.om^-





Tj *Tj X>
ed C n o
X3 3 O "^ '""XJ U
CC M pdOp^ctibO I
o o o) c! -H t-i x;
•H -(-4 T-H j^ o 13 ^ ^\n tn
4-t 4-t o -H OOC-CO^b03
OO. W efl -H *J - VJ ,0.^
r—l rHflJOl*-* X)P3'-Oi-JCtiDC3CtlO
o) cucococo to in CQ x>o)^
x:x: cN^>,>,^^4-i-oi3

QJctiOitncnrH-o o x rH c • u -
CQOlCQOlctiOlpd 4-tpe4Moa)+-*3EM-4 3
UHCti'J-l &-6 0)0) 0) CO *W

•O pcj q]4J cJ O 4Jr-t-H H

W4_»WC) «*» &o'5Z'ctio)Q^^n"'a!W
cojjin-H BCocNQrH voai ro
CO O CM i— 1 C X3 Ca *H U-< CN! nj *>^ ^> p^. m Ct) CO
^CX-HU 3*-i+-trHcncNM-dC!rJCN (J--1
Cd-H0d4-* lj O TQ O 3 r*1 T] 'H U — -1 f^j — J n.' frf




CO CN CO
tnvor-*-co ococriOrH - -m -co^r--.
CM CN) fO
tn
•H
0)
rH
Cti
C
cti
CO
cn
0)

o>

4-1
U
0) O

4-* -31
0) CN
I
4J O
cn
O CO
0 -H
0) 0)
x: 3
cti
•H
0>
T3 M
CU cti
T3 >
3 rH
rH CO
cj w

•H l-J
o
4J U-4
O
C 13
C
to cfl
CO

0 O^
0) CM
4->
. cn o
cn x -H
•H to
cn cn
>-t C *H
rH O
CO -H ^

CO CJ . O
0) C
CO rH O fH
3-CQJrH *H Cti
c-ais' o 4-» 3
> o « c
•H 4J C
4J « cn to
CJ >H
01 x: a u
U-l 34-1
01 (^ CL
1 -H (-•
*-* jc x: o
(0 4-1 U 4-t
O *H Cti O
y > o) cti
0) ^-s Ui ^
x: n o o)
*-> to w-i x:
B "n *"
•<-< o> ••>

13 o> cti in
0) p» Oi r*
t3 l-i CO
3 O W) .
o o o
C "O 4->
•H cM O Cti

4-J "-— 'O Tj
O CM 01
C C  U
O cti
W -H 01 rH
CO 4-> X3 3
& cti O

to to *— • cti
rH 30
cti ex o
i-i 0 s 01
0) 3 t-i
•»-» a. 4-> cy
co to S
rH 01 O
XJ ° m
0) 4-t W
M x: cn
3 t-i *-> O
4J O ^ O
3 M-l 0
u-« > x:
4J 4J
4H CO 4-1 l-l
O O C O
O 01 S
4-1 tO

O l« t4 ti
O O CX 0)
tn
0) 01 01 01
x! x: J2 i-<
Cti J3 U
-------
Table E-4.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  upgrades,
            future upgrades,  and new systems,  and operating on-site  systems
            for non-problem areas in Batavia Township.
Item
Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Subtotal future cost
   35
$760
$26,600
$15,960
                                 O&M
338
40
31
12
5
12
25
100
0
58
8
8
8
20
20
395



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$64,220
30,400
35,340
26,400
26,950
3,600
35,000
90,000
—

17,336
4,400
880
30,000
15,200
112,575
460,801
161,280
622,081
$38,532
18,240
—
—
8,085
—
21,000
54,000
—

5,201
2,640
528
18,000
9,120
__
175,346


$9,126
1,080
—
—
325
—
—
—
—
13,340
—
—
—
—
5,200
16,985
46,056


$945
40
20
15
13
20
40
25
25

1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760

45,600
44,000
80,850
3,900
28,000
36,000
37,500
22,500
324,950
—
—
24,255
—
16,800
21,600
22,500
13,500
114,615
—
—
975
—
—
—
—
6,500
8,420
                                  E-6
-------
Table E-4.   Continued.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage      O&M

Future New Systems
  Building sewer            300         $38     $11,400      $6,840
  Septic tank               290         760     220,400     132,240     7,830
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield               240       2,200     528,000
   pump tank & mound         25       5,390     134,750      40,425     1,625
   sand filter               25       1,400      35,000      21,000
   curtain drain            150         900     135,000      81,000
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter      10       2,167      21,670       6,500     2,300
   evaporation bed           10         550       5,500       3,300
   chlorinator               10         110       1,100        660
   Administration           300         285      85,500       —      12,900

  Subtotal                                    1,503,270     406,580    33,075
  Service factor (35%)                           526,145
  Total future cost                           2,029,415
  Annual future cost                            101,471                1,654
                                  E-7
-------
Table E-5.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 21
(Lunsford, Eiler,  and Yelton Roads)  in Batavia Township.
              Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       7,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
40
5
7
4
1
3
0
12
400 l.f.
0
0
0
0
5
5
45



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$7,600
3,800
7,980
8,800
5,390
900
—
10,800
108,780

—
—
—
7,500
3,800
12,825
178,175
62,361
240,536
$4,560
2,280
—
—
1,617
—
—
6,480
65,268

—
—
—
4,500
2,280
—
86,985


                  4
                  5
                  2
                  3
                  0
                  7
                  3
                  3
 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$3,040

 4,560
11,000
10,780
   900

 6,300
 4,500
 2,280

43,360
15,176
58,536
 2,927
                                  O&M
                                                             135
                                                              65
                                                           1,935
                                                 $1,824     $108
 3,234      130


 3,780
 2,700
 1,368      280

12,906    1,018
                                  E-8
-------
Table E-6.
Item
            Quantities and costs for constructing initial  upgrades  and
            operating on-site systems for Problem Area 22  (SR 222  from
            Slade Road to SR 125)  in Batavia Township.
                          Quantity    Cos t   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       3,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Subtotal future cost

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                                       $760
$1,520
2
2
1
1
0
3
0
0
11
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760

2,280
4,400
5,390
300
—
2,700
—
—
16,590
                                                 16,590
                                                  5,807
                                                 22,397
                                                  1,120
 $912



1,617


1,620


4,149

4,149
                       O&M
18
4
4
3
1
0
0
10
000
0
0
0
0
3
3
22



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



3,420
3,040
4,560
6,600
5,390
—
—
9,000
44,100

—
—
—
4,500
2,280
6,270
89,160
31,206
120,366
2,052
1,824
___
—
1,617
—
— —
5,400
26,460

—
—
—
2,700
1,368
__
41,421


486
108
__
	
65
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
—
780
946
2,385


$54
                                                                          65
                                                                         119
                        119
                                  E-9
-------
Table E-7.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 26
(Judd Road) in Batavia Township.
              Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial_ Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 15
                  2

                  2
                  1
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  3
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  0
                  2
                  2

                 17
 $190
  760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
14.70

2,167
  550
  110
1,500
  760

  285
                           $760
$2,850
 1,520

 2,280
 2,200
 2,700
 3,000
 1,520

 4,845
20,915
 7,320
28,235
           $1,520
$1,710
   912
                                  O&M
  405
   54
 1,620
 1,800
   912
                                                  6,954
              $912
  520

  731
1,710
             54
1
3
0
1
0
2
2
2




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




1,140
6,600
—
300
—
1,800
3,000
1,520
15,880
5,558
21,438
1,072
—
—
—
—
—
1,080
1,800
912
4,704



                                                             520
                                                             574
                                  E-10
-------
Table E-8.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 27
(Herold Road) in Batavia Township.
              Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                  2
                  1
                  1
                  2
                  0
                  5
                  0
                  0
                                  O&M
24
4
8
3
1
1
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
6
6
30



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$4,560
3,040
9,120
6,600
5,390
300
—
4,500
—

—
—
—
9,000
4,560
8,550
55,620
19,467
75,087
$2,736
1,824
__
—
1,617
—
—
2,700
—

—
—
—
5,400
2,736
__
17,013


$648
108
— »
—
65
— —
—
—
—
460
—
—
—
—
1,560
1,290
4,131


 $760

L.140
>,200
5,390
  300
L,400
  900
L,500
  760
$1,520

 2,280
 2,200
 5,390
   600

 4,500
                                     16,490
                                      5,772
                                     22,262
                                      1,113
 $912



1,617


2,700



5,229
                                                              54
65
                                   119
                                  E-ll
-------
Table E-9.   Quantities and costs  for constructing  initial  and  future
            upgrades and operating  on-site  systems  for Problem Area 30
            (SR 276 southeast of  Owensville)  in  Batavia  Township  and
            Stonelick Township.

Item                      Quantity     Cost    Construction    Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   35         $190     $6,650      $3,990      $945
   replacement                8          760       6,080        3,648       216
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        8        1,140       9,120
   drainfield replacement     6        2,200     13,200
   pump tank & mound          2        5,390     10,780        3,234       130
   grading & topsoil repair   4          300       1,200        —       —
   sand filter                0        1,400
   curtain drain             15          900     13,500        8,100
   roadside ditches           0        14.70        —         —       —
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                          —
   tank & up flow filter       0        2,167
   evaporation bed            0          550        —         —       —
   chlorinator                0          110
  Low flow toilet             6        1,500       9,000        5,400
  Blackwater holding tank     6          760       4,560        2,736     1,560
  Inspection
   and administration        43          285     12,255        —      1,849
  Initial cost                                  86,345      27,108     4,700
  Service factor (35%)                          30,221
  Initial capital cost                          116,566

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     3         $760     $2,280      $1,368       $81
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2        1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     1        2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          1        5,390       5,390        1,617        65
   grading & topsoil repair   2          300         600
   sand filter                0        1,400
   curtain drain              5          900       4,500        2,700
  Low flow toilet             1        1,500       1,500          900
  Blackwater holding tank     1          760         760          456       260

  Subtotal                                       19,510        7,041       406
  Service factor (355)                            6,829
  Total future cost                              26,339
  Annual future cost                              1,317
                                  E-12
-------
Table E-10.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 32
(Benton Road and St.  Joseph Drive)  in Batavia Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   17        $190      $3,230      $1,938
   replacement                2         760       1,520         912
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     4       2,200       8,800
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              6         900       5,400       3,240
   roadside ditches           0       14.70        —          —
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & up flow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             2       1,500       3,000       1,800
  Blackwater holding tank     2         760       1,520         912
  Inspection
   and administration        19         285       5,415
  Initial cost                                   30,025       8,802
  Service factor (35%)                           10,509
  Initial capital cost                           40,534

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760        $760        $456
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —
   grading & topsoil repair   1         300         300        —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              3         900       2,700       1,620
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760

  Subtotal                                        8,240       2,076
  Service factor (355)                            2,884
  Total future cost                              11,124
  Annual future cost                                556
O&M
                                                           $459
                                                             54
                                                            520

                                                            817
                                                          1,850
                                                            $27
                                                             27
                                  E-13
-------
Table E-ll.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 33
(SR 222 north of Batavia)  in Batavia Township.
             Quantity   _Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 9
                 3

                 1
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 2
                 2

                12
 $190
  760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
14.70

2,167
  550
  110
1,500
  760

  285
                          $760
$1,710
 2,280

 1,140
 3,000
 1,520

 3,420
13,070
 4,575
17,645
             $760
$1,026
 1,368
                                  O&M
$243
  81
 1,800
   912
                                                 5,106
              $456
  86

 516
 926
            $27
3
1
0
0
0
2
2
2




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




3,420
2,200
—
—
—
1,800
3,000
1,520
12,700
4,445
17,145
857
—
—
—
—
—
1,080
1,800
912
4,248



                                                            320

                                                            320
                                  E-14
-------
Table E-12.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area  34
             (SR 222 north of Slade Road)  in Batavia Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage     O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   24        $190      $5,510      $3,306     $783
   replacement                6         760       4,560       2,736      162
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        4       1,140       4,560
   drainfield replacement     2       2,200       4,400
   pump tank & mound          1       5,390       5,390       1,617       65
   grading & topsoil repair   3         300         900
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain             10         900       9,000       5,400
   roadside ditches       4,000 l.f.   14.70      58,800      35,280
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                         —
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —        —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760        —
  Inspection
   and administration        35         285       9,975        —      1,505
  Initial cost                                  103,095      48,339   2,515
  Service factor (35%)                           36,083
  Initial capital cost                          139,178

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     4        $760      $3,040      $1,824     $108
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3       1,140       3,420
   drainfield replacement     5       2,200      11,000
   pump tank & mound          1       5,390       5,390       1,617       65
   grading & topsoil repair   4         300       1,200
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              6         900       5,400       3,240
  Low flow toilet             1       1,500       1,500         900
  Blackwater holding tank     1         760         760         456      260

  Subtotal                                       31,710       8,037      433
  Service factor (35%)                           11,070
  Total future cost                              42,780
  Annual future cost                              2,139
                                  E-15
-------
Table E-13.   Quantities and costs  for constructing  initial  and  future
             upgrades and operating  on-site  systems for  Problem Area 37
             (Mt.  Holly Road north of SR 125)  in Batavia Township.
Item
Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank                11
   upgrade                   10
   replacement                1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              2
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1
  Inspection
   and administration        11
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     2
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   1
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              1
  Low flow toilet             2
  Blackwater holding tank     2

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
             $190
              760

            1,140
            2,200
            5,390
              300
            1,400
              900
            14.70

            2,167
              550
              110
            1,500
              760

              285
             $760

            1,140
            2,200
            5,390
              300
            1,400
              900
            1,500
              760
$1,900
   760

 1,140
 1,800
 1,500
   760

 3,135
10,995
 3,848
14,843
  $760

 1,140
 4,400

   300

   900
 3,000
 1,520

12,020
 4,207
16,227
   811
$1,140
   456
                       O&M
 $270
   27
 1,080
   900
   456
                                    4,032
  $456
  260

  473
1,030
  $27
   540
 1,800
   912

 3,708
  520
                                               547
                                  E-16
-------
Table E-14.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 38
(Mt.  Holly Lane) in Batavia Township.
             Quantity   _Cos_t   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                24
                                O&M
21
2
3
2
0
2
2
10
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
$3990
1,520
3,420
4,400
—
600
2,800
9,000
—

—
—
—
3,000
1,520
$2,394
912
—
—
—
—
1,680
5,400
—

—
—
—
1,800
912
285
                          $760
 6,840
37,090
12,982
50,072
           $760
                                                             54
                                                            230
                                                13,098
  520

1,032
2,403
              $456
  $27
2
2
0
3
0
3
1
1




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




2,280
4,400
—
900
—
2,700
1,500
760
13,300
4,655
17,955
898
—
—
—
—
—
1,620
900
456
3,432



                                                            260

                                                            287
                                  E-17
-------
Table E-15.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 39
(SR 132 south of Batavia)  in Batavia Township.
             Quantity   _CosJ^   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 2
                 3
                 1
                 0
                 0
                 2
                 0
                 0
                                 O&M
20
2
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
3
1
1
1
3
3
25



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$3,800
1,520
1,140
2,200
—
„_
—
3,600
—

2,167
550
110
4,500
2,280
7,125
28,992
10,130
39,122
$2,280
912
__
—
—
—
—
2,160
—

650
330
66
2,700
1,370
—
10,468


$540
54
_ _
—
—
—
—
—
—
690
—
—
—
—
780
1,075
3,139


 $760

L,140
1,200
>,390
  300
L,400
  900
L,500
  760
 $760

2,280
6,600
5,390
1,800
                                    16,830
                                     5,891
                                    22,721
                                     1,136
                                                  $456
1,617
           $27
65
                        2,073
                        92
                                  E-18
-------
Table E-16.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 40
(Karen Drive) in Batavia Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    9
   replacement                1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   1
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              1
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             0
  Blackwater holding tank     0
  Inspection
   and administration        10
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     2
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              2
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                          $190
                           760
                           285
                          $760

                         1,140
                         2,200
                         3,390
                           300
                         1,400
                           900
                         L,500
                           760
$1,710
   760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
1,140
—
—
300
—
900
—
—
—
__
—
—
 2,850
 7,660
 2,681
10,341
  $760

 1,140
 4,400
 1,800
 1,500
   760

10,360
 3,626
13,986
   699
$1,026
   456
                       O&M
$243
  27
                                                   540
                                                 2,022
  $456
            430
            700
 $27
 1,080
   900
   456

 2,892
 260

 287
                                  E-19
-------
Table E-17.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 41
(Charles Drive)  in Batavia Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                78
                10

                 8
                 4
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 6
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 7
                 7

                88
                                  O&M
 $190
  760

  140
  200
  390
  300
1,400
  900
14.70
2,167
  550
  110
1,500
  760

  285
                          $760
$14,820
  7,600

  9,120
  8,800
  5,400
 10,500
  5,320

 25,080
 86,640
 30,324
116,964
           $3,800
$8,892
 4,560
$2,106
   270
 3,240
 6,300
 3,192
                                                26,184
 1,820

 3,784
 7,980
             $2,280
           $135
9
9
0
3
0
6
3
3




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




10,260
19,800
—
900
—
5,400
4,500
2,280
46,940
16,429
63,369
3,168
—
—
—
—
—
3,240
2,700
1,368
9,588



                                                            780
                                                            915
                                  E-20
-------
Table E-18.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 42
(Kent Road) in Batavia Township.
             Quantity   _pos_t_   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   12
   replacement                1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     2
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                4
   curtain drain              4
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   2
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             2
  Blackwater holding tank     2
  Inspection
   and administration        13
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              1
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                       O&M
                          $190
                           760

                         1,140
                         2,200
                         5,390
                           300
                         1,400
                           900
                         14.70

                         2,167
                           550
                           110
                         1,500
                           760

                           285
                          $760
                         1,140
                         2,200
                         5,390
                           300
                         1,400
                           900
                         1,500
                           760
$2,280
   760

 1,140
 4,400
 5,600
 3,600
 3,000
 1,520

 3,705
26,005
 9,102
35,107
  $760

 1,140
   900
 1,500
   760

 5,060
 1,771
 6,831
   342
$1,368
   456
 $324
   27
 3,360
                        460
 1,800
   912
                                                 7,896
  520

  559
1,890
  $456
  $27
   540
   900
   456

 2,352
  260

  287
                                  E-21
-------
Table E-19.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 43
(south side) in Batavia Township.
             Quantity   __Cosjt   Construction   Salvage
                       O&M
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
15
5
2
0
1
0
0
8
400 l.f.
0
0
0
0
10
10
20



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$2,850
3,800
2,280
—
5,390
—
—
7,200
5,880

__
—
—
15,000
7,600
5,700
55,700
19,495
75,195
$1,710
2,280
—
—
1,617
—
—
4,320
3,528

—
—
—
9,000
4,560
—
27,015


$405
135
— —
—
65
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,600
860
4,065


                          $760
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760
$5,320

 1,140
                                     4,500
                                     2,280

                                    13,240
                                     4,634
                                    17,874
                                       894
$3,192
$189
             2,700
             1,368

             7,260
            780

            969
                                  E-22
-------
Table E-20.  Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and  future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Jackson Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   12        $190      $2,280      $1,368      $324
   replacement                3         760       2,280      1,368        81
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          5       5,390      26,950      8,085      325
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              8         900       7,200      4,320
   roadside ditches           0       14.70
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                         —
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760        —
  Inspection
   and administration        15         285       4,275        —        645
  Initial cost                                   46,325      15,141     1,375
  Service factor (35%)                            16,214
  Initial capital cost                            62,539

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760        $760        $456      $27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition         1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     2       2,200       4,400
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —        —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —        —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800      1,080
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760
  Subtotal future cost                             8,100      1,536        27
                                 E-23
-------
Table E-20.   Continued.

Item                      Quantity     Cost    Construction   Salvage      O&M

Future New Systems
  Building sewer              8          $38        $304         $182
  Septic tank                 8          760       6,080        3,648       216
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield                 4        2,200       8,800
   pump tank & mound          4        5,390      21,560        6,468       260
   sand filter                0        1,400
   curtain drain              8          900       7,200        4,320
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter       0        2,167
   evaporation bed            0          550        —           —        —
   chlorinator                0          110
   Administration             8          285       2,280

  Subtotal                                       54,324       16,154       503
  Service factor (35%)                            19,013
  Total future cost                              73,337
  Annual future cost                              3,667
                                  E-24
-------
Table E-21.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on—site systems for non—problem Areas
             in Monroe Township.
Item
Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                  139
   replacement               15
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition       10
   drainfield replacement      6
   pump tank & mound         12
   grading & topsoil repair  15
   sand filter               15
   curtain drain             45
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet            10
  Blackwater holding tank     10
  Inspection
   and administration       154
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement      8
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition       18
   drainfield replacement      7
   pump tank & mound          4
   grading & topsoil repair   7
   sand filter                5
   curtain drain             18
  Low flow toilet            10
  Blackwater holding tank     10
  Subtotal future cost
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760
$26,410
11,400
11,400
13,200
64,680
4,500
21,000
40,500
—
—
—
—
15,000
7,600
43,890
259,580
90,853
350,433
$6,080
20,520
15,400
21,560
2,100
7,000
16,200
15,000
7,600
                                   19,404

                                   12,600
                                   24,300
                                    9,000
                                    4,560
                      111,460
                                   $3,648
 6,468

 4,200
 9,720
 9,000
 4,560
37,596
           O&M
                                  $15,846   $3,753
                                    6,840      405
            780
          2,600
                                             6,622
                                   92,550   14,160
            216
                                               260
2,600
3,076
                                  E-25
-------
Table E-21.   Continued.

Itern                      Quantity    Cost    Construction   Salvage      O&M

Future New Systems
  Building sewer             75          38        2,850       1,710
  Septic tank                70         760       53,200      31,920     1,890
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield                45       2,200       99,000
   pump tank & mound         15       5,390       80,850      24,255       975
   sand filter               10       1,400       14,000       8,400
   curtain drain             50         900       45,000      27,000
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter       5       2,167       10,835       3,251     1,150
   evaporation bed            0         550         —          —        —
   chlorinator                0         110
   Administration            75         285       21,375
  Subtotal                                      438,570     134,132     7,091
  Service factor (35%)                           153,500
  Total future cost                             592,070
  Annual future cost                             29,603
                                  E-26
-------
Table E-22.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 20
(Rolling Acres Subdivision)  in Monroe Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       2,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
O&M
22
5
2
2
0
2
4
12
00 l.f.
0
0
0
3
3
27



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$4,180
3,800
2,280
4,400
—
600
5,600
10,800
32,340
—
—
—
4,500
2,280
7,695
78,475
27,466
105,941
$2,508
2,280
__
—
—
—
3,360
6,480
19,404
__
—
—
2,700
1,368
—
38,100


$594
135
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
—
780
1,161
2,670


2
4
0
1
1
0
4
3
3




$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$1,520
4,560
—
5,390
300
—
3,600
4,500
2,280
22,150
7,753
29,903
1,495
$912
—
—
1,617
—
—
2,160
2,700
1,368
8,757



                                                            $54
                                                             65
                                                            780

                                                            899


                                                             45
                                  E-27
-------
Table E-23.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 23
(Fiar Oak and Berry Roads)  in Monroe Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches      12,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                          $760
$2,280
$1,368
5
3
2
3
0
5
2
2




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




5,700
6,600
10,780
900
—
4,500
3,000
1,520
35,280
12,348
47,628
2,381
—
—
6,468
—
. —
2,700
1,800
912
13,248



                       O&M
30
7
5
5
3
2
0
18
iOO l.f.
0
0
0
6
6
37



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$5,700
5,320
5,700
11,000
16,170
600
—
16,200
176,400
—
—
—
9,000
4,560
10,545
261,195
91,418
352,613
$3,420
3,192
—
—
4,851
—
—
9,720
105,840
—
—
__
5,400
2,736
__
135,159


$810
189
—
—
195
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,560
1,591
4,345


$81
                                                            130
                                                            520

                                                            731


                                                             37
                                  E-28
-------
Table E-24.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area  24
             (Back Run Road)  in Monroe Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage     O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    7        $190      $1,330        $798     $189
   replacement                1         760         760         456       27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —       —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —       —
   sand filter                3       1,400       4,200       2,520
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800       1,080
   roadside ditches           0       14.70
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —       —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760
  Inspection
   and administration         8         285       2,280        —        344
  Initial cost                                   13,710       4,854      560
  Service factor (35%)                            4,799
  Initial capital cost                           18,509

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760        $760        $456      $27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     0       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —       —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —       —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              1         900         900
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760

  Subtotal                                        2,800         456       27
  Service factor (35%)                              980
  Total future cost                               3,780
  Annual future cost                                189
                                  E-29
-------
Table E-25.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 25
(Lindale—Mt.  Holly and Concord Roads) in Monroe Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       9,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
63
12
14
5
2
9
0
50
600 l.f.
0
0
0
10
10
75



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$11,970
9,120
15,960
11,000
10,780
2,700
—
45,000
141,120
—
—
—
15,000
7,600
21,375
291,625
102,069
393,694
$7,182
5,472
__
—
3,234
—
—
27,000
84,672
__
—
—
9,000
4,500
__
116,760


                          $760
$5,320
10
6
2
5
0
11
3
3




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




11,400
132,000
10,780
1,500
—
9,900
4,500
2,280
177,680
62,188
239,868
11,993
$3,192
                                                 3,234
                       O&M
                                                            324
                                                            130
                                                          3,225
$189
                        130
                                                 5,940
                                                 2,700
                                                 1,368      780

                                                16,434    1,099
                                                             55
                                  E-30
-------
Table E-26.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and  future
             upgrades and operating on-site  systems for  non-problem areas
             in Pierce Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   37        $190       $7,030       $4,218      $999
   replacement               10         760        7,600       4,560      270
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        7       1,140        7,980
   drainfield replacement     3       2,200        6,600
   pump tank & mound          5       5,390       26,950       8,085      325
   grading & topsoil repair   8         300        2,400
   sand filter                5       1,400        7,000       4,200
   curtain drain             40         900       36,000       21,600
   roadside ditches           0       14.70         —          —
  Aerobic treatment systems  24                                       5,520
   tank & upflow filter       2       2,167        4,334       1,300
   evaporation bed            2         550        1,100         660
   chlorinator                2         110          220         132
  Low flow toilet             5       1,500        7,500       4,500
  Blackwater holding tank     5         760        3,800       2,280    1,300
  Inspection
   and administration        71         285       20,235         —      3,053
  Initial cost                                  138,749       51,535    11,467
  Service factor (35%)                            48,562
  Initial capital cost                           187,311

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     3        $760       $2,280       $1,368      $81
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        6       1,140        6,840
   drainfield replacement     5       2,200       11,000
   pump tank & mound          2       5,390       10,780       3,234      130
   grading & topsoil repair   3         300          900
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              9         900        8,100       4,860
  Low flow toilet             4       1,500        6,000       3,600
  Blackwater holding tank     4         760        3,040       1,824
  Subtotal future cost                            48,940       14,886      211
                                  E-31
-------
Table E-26.   Continued.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage     O&M

  Building sewer             10         $38        $380        $228
  Septic tank                10         760       7,600       4,560     $270
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield                 6       2,200      13,200
   pump tank & mound          4       5,390      21,560       6,468      260
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              8         900       7,200
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —       —
   chlorinator                0         110
   Administration            10         285       2,850        —        430

  Subtotal                                      101,730      11,256      960
  Service factor (35%)                            35,606
  Total future cost                             137,336
  Annual future cost                              6,867
                                  E-32
-------
Table E-27.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 35
(Denny Drive) in Pierce Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       1,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 1
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 1
                 1
                 1
                                  O&M
10
2
3
2
1
3
0
10
000 l.f.
0
0
0
0
2
2
12



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$1,900
1,520
3,420
4,400
5,390
900
—
9,000
14,700

—
—
—
3,000
1,520
3,420
49,170
17,210
66,380
$1,140
912
_M
—
1,617
—
—
5,400
8,820

—
—
—
1,800
912
__
20,601


$270
54
— M
— —
65
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
520
516
1,425


 $760

L,140
5,200
>,390
  300
1,400
  900
L,500
  760
 $760

1,140
  900
1,500
  760

5,060
1,771
6,831
  342
                                                  $456
           $27
  540
  900
  456

2,352
                                                             27
                                  E-33
-------
Table E-28.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 36
(Jenny Lind Drive) in Pierce Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       3,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                       O&M
19
4
2
3
3
4
0
18
500 l.f.
0
0
0
0
3
3
25



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$3,610
3,040
2,280
6,600
16,170
1,200
—
16,200
51,450

—
—
—
4,500
2,280
7,125
114,455
40,059
154,514
$2,166
1,824
—_
—
4,851
—
—
9,720
30,870

—
—
—
2,700
1,368
—
53,499


$513
108
—
—
195
—
—
—
—
— .
—
—
—
—
780
1,075
2,671


                          $760
$1,520
$912
$54
3
2
0
1
0
4
2
2




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




3,420
4,400
—
300
—
3,600
3,000
1,520
17,760
6,216
23,976
1,199
—
—
—
—
—
2,160
1,800
912
6,696



                                                            320
                                                            374
                                                             19
                                  E-34
-------
Table E-29.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for non-problem areas
in Stonelick Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Subtotal future cost
                       O&M
45
12
3
10
3
4
4
25
0
3
0
0
0
8
8
60



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$8,550
9,120
3,420
22,000
16,170
1,200
5,600
22,500
—

—
—
—
12,000
6,080
17,100
123,740
43,309
167,049
$5,130
5,472
— _
—
4,851
—
3,360
13,500
—

—
—
—
7,200
3,648
_ _
43,161


$1,215
324
_ .w
—
195
—
—
1,625
—
690
—
—
—
—
2,080
2,580
8,709


                          $760
$3,800
$2,280
$135
4
3
2
3
3
7
1
1

1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760

4,560
6,600
10,780
900
4,200
6,300
1,500
760
39,400
—
—
3,234
—
2,520
3,780
900
456
13,170
—
—
130
—
—
—
—
260
525
                                  E-35
-------
Table E-29.  Continued.

^Etem                      Quantity    Cos t   Construction   Salvage     O&M

Future New Systems
  Building sewer             65         $38      $2,470      $1,482
  Septic tank                60         760      45,600      27,360    1,620
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield                43       2,200      94,600
   pump tank & mound          7       5,390      37,730      11,319      455
   sand filter               10       1,400      14,000       8,400
   curtain drain             25         900      22,500      13,500
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter       5       2,167      10,835       3,251    1,150
   evaporation bed            5         550       2,750       1,650
   chlorinator                5         110         550         330
   Administration            65         285      18,525        —      2,795

  Subtotal                                      288,960      80,462    6,545
  Service factor (35%)                          101,136
  Total future cost                             390,096
  Annual future cost                             19,505                  327
                                  E-36
-------
Table E-30.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 28
(McKay and Benton Roads and US 50)  in Stonelick Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 4
                 4
                 2
                 2
                 0
                 7
                 1
                 1
                                  O&M
30
4
3
3
2
0
4
7
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
34



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$5,700
3,040
3,420
6,600
10,780
—
5,600
6,300
—

—
—
—
4,500
2,280
9,690
57,910
20,269
78,179
$3,420
1,824
_ _
—
3,234
—
3,360
3,780
—

—
—
—
2,700
1,368
_ _
19,686


810
108
__
—
130
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
780
1,462
3,290


                          $760
1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
  500
  760
1
$2,280

 4,560
 8,800
10,780
   600

 6,300
 1,500
   760

35,580
12,453
48,033
 2,042
                       $1,368
                        3,234
3,780
  900
  456

9,738
                                   $81
           130
                                   260

                                   471


                                    24
                                  E-37
-------
Table E-31.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 29
(SR 132) in Stonelick Township and Batavia Township.
             Quantity
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                29
                 4

                 2
                 2
                 5
                 2
                 0
                15
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 3
                 3

                33
Cost   Construction   Salvage
 $190
  760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
14.70

2,167
  550
  110
1,500
  760

  285
                          $760
$5,510
 3,040

 2,280
 4,400
26,950
   600

13,500
 4,500
 2,280

 9,405
72,465
25,363
97,828
           $3,040
$3,306
 1,824
 8,085


 8,100
                       O&M
 $783
  108
  325
 2,700
 1,368
                                                25,383
            $1,824
5
4
1
3
0
7
2
2




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




5,700
8,800
5,390
900
—
6,300
3,000
1,520
34,650
12,128
46,778
2,339
—
—
1,617
—
—
3,780
1,800
912
9,933



  780

1,419
3,415
           $108
                                                             65
                                                            520

                                                            693


                                                             35
                                  E-38
-------
Hible E-32.
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 31
(SR 222 and Olive Branch - Stonelick Road) in Stonelick
Township.
Item
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 4
                 0
                 3
                 3
                 0
                11
                 4
                                  O&M
48
12
12
8
3
3
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
60



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$9,120
9,120
13,680
17,600
16,170
900
—
27,000
—

—
—
—
18,000
9,120
17,100
137,810
48,234
186,044
$5,472
5,472
—
—
4,851
—
—
16,200
—

—
—
—
10,800
5,472
—
48,267


$1,296
324
__
—
195
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,120
2,580
7,515


 $760

1, 140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$3,800

 4,560

16,170
   900

 9,900
 6,000
 3,040

44,370
15,530
59,900
 2,995
                                                $2,280
 4,851
 5,940
 3,600
 1,824

18,495
           $108
195
                                                          1,040

                                                          1,343


                                                             67
                                  E-39
-------
Table E-33.   Quantities and costs  for constructing  initial  and  future
             upgrades  and operating  on-site  systems for  Union Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost    Construction   Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgjrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   12        $190       $2,280      $1,368      $324
   replacement                0         760         —           —        —
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        0       1,140
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390         —           —        —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300         —           —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              0         900         —           —        —
   roadside ditches           0       14.70         —           —        —
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                         —
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550         —           —        —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760         —           —        —
  Inspection
   and administration        12         285       3,420         —         516
  Initial cost                                   7,900        1,368       840
  Service factor (35%)                           2,765
  Initial capital cost                           10,665

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760         $760         $456       $27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     0       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390         —           —        —
   grading & topsoil repair   1         300          300         —        —
   sand filter                1       1,400       1,400          840
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800        1,080
  Low flow toilet             0       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     0         760

  Subtotal                                       6,540        2,376        27
  Service factor (35%)                           2,289
  Total future cost                              8,829
                                  E-40
-------
Table E-34.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for non-problem areas
in Williamsburg Township.
             Quantity
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Subtotal for future cost
                12
Cost   Construction   Salvage
 $760
$9,120
$5,472
                       O&M
254
219
35
24
12
5
10
5
90
0
16
3
3
3
14
14
270




$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285




$41,610
26,600
27,360
26,400
26,950
3,000
7,000
81,000
—

6,501
1,650
330
21,000
10,640
76,950
356,991
124,947
481,938

$24,966
15,960
—
—
8,085
—
4,200
32,400
—

1,950
990
198
12,600
6,384
—
123,933



$5,913
945
__
—
325
—
—
—
—
3,680
—
—
—
—
3,640
11,610
26,113


$324
25
15
5
10
0
40
20
20

1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760

28,500
33,000
26,950
3,000
—
36,000
30,000
15,200
181,770
—
—
8,085
—
—
21,600
18,000
9,120
62,277
—
—
325
—
—
—
—
5,200
5,849
                                  E-41
-------
Table E-34.   Continued.

Item                      Quantity    Cost    Construction   Salvage      O&M

Future New Systems
  Building sewer            300         $38     $11,400      $6,840
  Septic tank               290         760     220,400     132,240     8,100
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield               190       2,200     418,000
   pump tank & mound          50       5,390     269,500      80,850     3,250
   sand filter               50       1,400      70,000      42,000
   curtain drain            200         900     180,000     108,000
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter      10       2,167      21,670       6,501     2,300
   evaporation bed            10         550       5,500       3,300
   chlorinator               10         110       1,100         660
   Administration           300         285      85,500        —      12,900

  Subtotal                                    1,464,840     442,668    32,399
  Service factor (35%)                           512,694
  Total future cost                           1,977,534
  Annual future cost                              98,877                1,620
                                  E-42
-------
Table E-35.
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 44
(SR 276 and SR 133 west of Williamsburg)  in Williamsburg
Township.
Item
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       4,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 3
                 3
                 1
                 2
                 0
                 5
                 4
                 4
                                  O&M
27
4
2
1
3
1
0
15
500 l.f.
0
0
0
0
4
4
31



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$5,130
3,040
2,280
2,200
16,170
300
—
13,500
66,150

—
—
—
6,000
3,040
8,835
126,645
44,326
170,971
$3,078
1,824
«...
—
4,851
—
—
8,100
39,690

—
—
—
3,600
1,824
__
62,967


$729
108
—..
—
195
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,040
1,333
3,405


 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$1,520

 3,420
 6,600
 5,390
   600

 4,500
 6,000
 3,040

31,070
10,875
41,945
 2,097
                                                  $912
 1,617
 2,700
 3,600
 1,824

10,653
            $54
   65
1,040

1,159


   58
                                  E-43
-------
Table E-36.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 45
(Old SR 32 southwest of Williamsburg) in Williamsburg
Township.

             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage   	
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   35
   replacement               15
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        6
   drainfield replacement     6
   pump tank & mound          4
   grading & topsoil repair   4
   sand filter                3
   curtain drain             18
   roadside ditches       9,000
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             7
  Blackwater holding tank     7
  Inspection
   and administration        50
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        5
   drainfield replacement     1
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   2
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              8
  Low flow toilet             5
  Blackwater holding tank     5

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                   l.f.
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$6,650
11,400
6,840
13,200
21,560
1,200
4,200
16,200
132,300
__
—
—
10,500
5,320
14,250
243,620
85,267
328,887
$2,280
5,700
2,200
10,780
600
—
7,200
7,500
3,800
40,060
14,021
54,081
2,704
 6,468

 2,520
 9,720
79,380
                                                 6,300
                                                 3,192
                                                $1,368
                                                 3,234
           O&M
                                                $3,990   $1,505
                                                 6,840      405
                                                            260
          1,820
                                                          2,150
                                               118,410    6,140
            $81
            130
                                                 4,320
                                                 4,500
                                                 2,280    1,300

                                                15,702    1,511
                                                             76
                                  E-44
-------
Table E-37.
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 46
(De La Palma and Greenbush-Cobb Roads) in Williamsburg
Township.
Item
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches      10,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                       O&M
19
5
6
4
2
1
0
15
00 l.f.
1
0
0
0
4
4
25



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$3,610
3,800
6,840
8,800
10,780
300
—
13,500
154,350

—
—
—
6,000
3,040
7,125
218,145
76,351
294,496
$2,166
2,280
_H
—
3,234
—
—
8,100
92,610

—
—
—
3,600
1,824
__
113,814


$513
135
__
—
130
—
—
—
—

—
—
— —
—
1,040
1,075
3,123


                          $760
$1,520
$912
4
1
1
1
0
3
1
1




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




4,560
2,200
5,390
300
—
2,700
1,500
760
18,930
6,626
25,556
1,278
—
—
1,617
—
—
1,620
900
456
5,505



$54
                                                             65
                                                            260

                                                            379


                                                             19
                                  E-45
-------
Table E-38.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 47
(SR 133 south of Williamsburg) in Williamsburg Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       3,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                          $760
$2,280
$1,368
                       O&M
28
4
4
2
2
2
0
5
000 l.f.
2
0
0
0
8
8
34



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$5,320
3,040
4,560
4,400
10,780
600
—
4,500
44,100

—
—
—
12,000
6,080
9,690
105,070
36,775
141,845
$3,192
1,824
— —
—
3,234
—
—
2,700
26,460

—
—
—
7,200
3,648
—
48,258


$756
108
—
—
130
—
—
—
—
460
—
—
—
—
2,080
1,462
4,996


$81
3
2
1
2
0
4
6
6




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




3,420
4,400
5,390
600
—
3,600
9,000
4,560
33,250
11,638
44,888
2,244
—
—
1,617
—
—
2,160
5,400
2,736
13,281



—
—
65
—
—
—
—
1,560
1,706


85
                                  E-46
-------
Table E-39.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 48
(Twin Bridges Road) in Williamsburg Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   24
   replacement                3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2
   drainfield replacement     3
   pump tank & mound          1
   grading & topsoil repair   2
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain             10
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & up flow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             0
  Blackwater holding tank     0
  Inspection
   and administration        27
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3
   drainfield replacement     1
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   2
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              3
  Low flow toilet             2
  Blackwater holding tank     2

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                          $190
                           760
                           285
                          $760

                         1,140
                         2,200
                         5,390
                           300
                         1,400
                           900
                         1,500
                           760
$4,560
 2,280
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
2,280
6,600
5,390
600
—
9,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
 7,695
38,405
13,442
51,847
$2,280

 3,420
 2,200
10,780
   600

 2,700
 3,000
 1,520

26,500
 9,275
35,775
 1,789
$2,736
 1,368
                                                 1,617
                                                 5,400
                       O&M
$648
  81
                         65
                                                11,121
$1,368
 3,234
 1,620
 1,800
   912

 8,934
          1,161
          1,955
 $81
 130
 520
                                                            731
                                                             37
                                  E-47
-------
Table E-40.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on—site systems for Problem Area 49
(Concord-Bethel Road)  in Williamsburg Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   21
   replacement                4
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3
   drainfield replacement      2
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   1
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              8
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & up flow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             0
  Blackwater holding tank      0
  Inspection
   and administration        25
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement      2
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        5
   drainfield replacement      1
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   1
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              3
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank      1

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                                       $190
                                        760
                                        285
                                       $760

                                      1,140
                                      2,200
                                      5,390
                                        300
                                      1,400
                                        900
                                      1,500
                                        760
                                    $3,990
                                     3,040
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
3,420
4,400
—
300
—
7,200
—
— .
—
—
—
— —
                                     7,125
                                    29,475
                                    10,316
                                    39,791
                                    $1,520

                                     5,700
                                     2,200
                                    10,780
                                       300

                                     2,700
                                     1,500
                                       760

                                    25,460
                                     8,911
                                    34,371
                                     1,719
$2,394
 1,824
                                                                        O&M
$567
 108
                                                              4,320
                                                              8,538
  $912
 3,234
 1,620
   900
   456

 7,122
          1,075
          1,750
 $54
 130
 260
                                                                         444
                                                                          22
                                  E-48
-------
Table E-41.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 50
(Hennings Mill)  in Williamsburg Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 3
                 0
                 2
                 2
                 0
                 3
                 5
                 5
                                  O&M
24
6
2
4
2
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
30



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$4,560
4,560
2,280
8,800
10,780
—
—
9,000
—

—
—
—
6,000
3,040
8,550
57,570
20,150
77,720
$2,736
2,736
__
—
3,234
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
3,600
1,824
__
14,130


$648
162
__
—
130
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,040
1,290
3,270


 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$6,080

 3,420

10,780
   600
   700
   500
   800
                                    34,880
                                    12,208
                                    47,088
                                     2,354
                                                $3,648
 3,234
 1,620
 4,500
 2,280

15,282
           $216
  130
1,300

1,646


   82
                                  E-49
-------
Table E-42,  Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 51
             (Bootjack Corner Road north of Hennings Mill)  in Williamsburg
             Township.
Item
Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
jnitial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
   17
    4

    3
    3
    2
    2
    0
   10
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0

   21
 $190
  760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
14.70

2,167
  550
  110
1,500
  760

  285
             $760
$3,230
 3,040

 3,420
 6,600
10,780
   600

 9,000
 5,985
42,655
14,929
57,584
             $760
$1,938
 1,824
 3,234
                                  O&M
$459
 108
 130
                                    6,996
            903
          1,600
              $456
            $27
5
2
0
0
0
3
1
1




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




5,700
4,400
—
—
—
2,700
1,500
760
15,820
5,537
21,357
1,068
—
—
__
—
—
1,620
900
456
3,432



                                               260
                                               287
                                                14
                                  E-50
-------
Table E-43.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 52
             (Bootjack Corner Road east of Hennings Mill)  in Williamsburg
             Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage     O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   11        $190      $2,090      $1,254     $297
   replacement                1         760         760         456       27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          1       5,390       5,390       1,617
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              4         900       3,600       2,160
   roadside ditches           0       14.70        —
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                         —
   tank & up flow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —        —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             2       1,500       3,000       1,800
  Blackwater holding tank     2         760       1,520         912      520
  Inspection
   and administration        12         285       3,420        —         516
  Initial cost                                   23,120       8,199   1,425
  Service factor (35%)                            8,092
  Initial capital cost                           31,212

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760        $760        $456      $27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —        —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —        —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              1         900         900         540
  Low flow toilet             2       1,500       3,000       1,800
  Blackwater holding tank     2         760       1,520         912      520

  Subtotal                                       10,660       3,708      547
  Service factor (35%)                            3,731
  Total future cost                              14,391
  Annual future cost                                720                   27
                                  E-51
-------
Table E-44.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 53
(Hennings Mill Road and SR 133)  in Williamsburg Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    8
   replacement                0
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        0
   drainfield replacement     1
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              2
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1
  Inspection
   and administration         8
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     2
   pump tank & mound          1
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              1
  Low flow toilet             2
  Blackwater holding tank     2

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                          $190
                           760

                         1,140
                         2,200
                         5,390
                           300
                         1,400
                           900
                         14.70

                         2,167
                           550
                           110
                         1,500
                           760

                           285
                          $760

                         1,140
                         5,200
                         >,390
                           300
                         L,400
                           900
                         L,500
                           760
 1,520
 2,200
 1,800
 1,500
   760

 2,280
10,060
 3,521
13,581
  $760

 1,140
 4,400
 5,390
   900
 3,000
 1,520

17,110
 5,989
23,099
 1,155
  912
                       O&M
216
1,080
  900
  456
                                                 3,348
 $456
260

344
820
$27
  540
1,800
  912

3,708
520

547


 27
                                  E-52
-------
Table E-45.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for non-problem areas
in Tate Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Subtotal future cost
                35

                45
                50
                15
                12
                 0
                55
                10
                10
                                  O&M
419
70
50
30
15
10
12
200
0
41
4
4
4
30
30
530



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$79,610
53,200
57,000
66,000
80,850
3,000
16,800
180,000
—

8,668
2,200
440
45,000
22,800
151,050
766,618
268,316
1,034,934
$47,766
31,920
__
—
24,255
—
10,080
108,000
—

2,600
1,320
264
27,000
13,680
_ _
266,885


$11,313
1,890
__
—
975
—
—
—
—
9,430
—
—
—
—
7,800
22,790
63,198


 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$26,600

 51,300
110,000
 80,850
  3,600

 49,500
 15,000
  7,600
344,450
$15,960
 24,255
$945
 975
 29,700
  9,000
  4,560    2,600
 83,475    4,520
                                  E-53
-------
Table E-45.   Continued.

Item                      Quantity     Cost    Construction    Salvage     O&M

Future New Systems
  Building sewer            300         $38      $11,400      $6,840
  Septic tank               295         760      224,200      134,520     7,965
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield               200       2,200      440,000
   pump tank & mound          70       5,390      377,300      113,190     4,550
   sand filter               25       1,400       35,000      21,000
   curtain drain            175         900      157,500      94,500
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter       5       2,167       10,835       3,251     1,150
   evaporation bed            5         550       2,750       1,650
   chlorinator                5         110         550         330
   Administration           300         285       85,500        —      12,900

  Subtotal                                    1,689,485      458,756    31,085
  Service factor (35%)                           591,320
  Total future cost                           2,280,800
  Annual future cost                             114,040                 1,554
                                  E-54
-------
Table E-46.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 1
(Kennedy-Ford Road)  in Tate Township.
             Quantity
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    9
   replacement                2
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2
   drainfield replacement     3
   pump tank & mound          1
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              7
   roadside ditches       1,200
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & up flow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             3
  Blackwater holding tank     3
  Inspection
   and administration        11
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              2
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                   l.f.
Cost   Construction   Salvage
                                                $1,026
                                                   912
                                                 1,617
                        3,780
                       10,584
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$1,710
1,520
2,280
6,600
5,390
—
—
6,300
17,640
__
—
—
4,500
2,280
3,135
51,355
17,974
69,329
$760
1,140
—
—
—
—
1,800
1,500
760
5,960
2,086
8,046
204
O&M
                                  $243
                                    54
                                    65
                                                 2,700
                                                 1,368
                                                21,987
                                                  $456
                                   780

                                   473
                                 1,615
                                   $27
                                                 1,080
                                                   900
                                                   456

                                                 2,892
                                   260

                                   287


                                    14
                                  E-55
-------
Table E-47.  Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 2
             (Bee subdivisions)  in Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage     O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                  139         $190     $26,410     $15,846   $3,753
   replacement               40          760      30,400      18,240    1,080
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition       50        1,140      57,000
   drainfield replacement    20        2,200      44,000
   pump tank & mound          5        5,390      26,950       8,085      325
   grading & topsoil repair  18          300       5,400        —
   sand filter                0        1,400
   curtain drain            110          900      99,000      59,400
   roadside ditches      39,000  l.f.   14.70     573,300     343,980
  Aerobic treatment systems   2                                           460
   tank & upflow filter       0        2,167
   evaporation bed            0          550
   chlorinator                0          110
  Low flow toilet            30        1,500      45,000      27,000
  Blackwater holding tank    30          760      22,800      13,700    7,800
  Inspection
   and administration       176          285      50,160        —      7,568
  Initial cost                                  979,970     486,251   20,986
  Service factor (35%)                          342,990
  Initial capital cost                        1,322,960

Future Upgrades
,  Septic tank replacement    20         $760     $15,200      $9,120     $540
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition       15        1,140      17,100
   drainfield replacement     5        2,200      11,000
   pump tank & mound          5        5,390      26,950       8,085      325
  'grading & topsoil repair  10          300       3,000
   sand filter                0        1,400
   curtain drain             20          900      18,000      10,800
  Low flow toilet            15        1,500      22,500      13,500
  Blackwater holding tank    15          760      11,400       6,840    3,900

  Subtotal                                      125,150      48,345    4,765
  Service factor (35%)                           43,803
  Total future cost                             168,953
  Annual future cost                              8,448                  238
                                  E-56
-------
Table E-48.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 3
(Spring, Reed, Wilson, and Hinch Streets)  in Tate Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       4,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 4
                 1
                 1
                 1
                 0
                 6
                 3
                 3
 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$2,280

 4,560
 2,200
 5,390
   300

 5,400
 4,500
 2,280

26,910
 9,419
36,329
 1,816
                                                $1,368
 1,617
 3,240
 2,700
 1,368

10,293
                                  O&M
25
10
8
4
3
3
0
25
900 l.f.
0
0
0
0
8
8
35



$

1,
2,
5,

1,

14

2,


1,





190
760
140
200
390
300
400
900
.70

167
550
110
500
760
285



$4,
7,
9,
8,
16,

-
22,
72,

-
-
-
12,
6,
9,
169,
59,
229,
750
600
120
800
170
900
-
500
030

-
—
-
000
080
975
925
474
399
$2,
4,
_
-.
4,

-
13,
43,

-
-
—
7,
3,
_
79,


850
560
H
-
851

-
500
218

-
—
—
200
648
_
827


675
270
__
—
195
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2,080
1,505
4,725


             81
 65
780

926


 46
                                  E-57
-------
Table E-49.
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 4
(South Charity, Gaylord, Ohio and Grant Streets,  and Patterson
Road) in Tate Township.
Item
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   24
   replacement               25
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        8
   drainfield replacement    12
   pump tank & mound          3
   grading & topsoil repair   5
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain             30
   roadside ditches       9,000
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet            12
  Blackwater holding tank    12
  Inspection
   and administration        49
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     4
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        4
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   4
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              8
  Low flow toilet             5
  Blackwater holding tank     5

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                   l.f.
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$4,560
$19,000
9,120
26,400
16,170
1,500
—
27,000
132,300
—
—
—
18,000
9,120
13,965
277,135
96,997
374,132
$3,040
4,560
—
—
1,200
—
7,200
7,500
3,800
27,300
9,555
36,855
1,843
                                                $2,736
                                               $11,400
                                                 4,851
16,200
79,380
           O&M
            648
            675
            195
                                                10,800
                                                 5,472
                                               130,839
                                                $1,824
          3,120

          2,107
          6,745
           $108
                                                 4,320
                                                 4,500
                                                 2,280

                                                12,924
          1,300

          1,408


             70
                                  E-58
-------
Table E-50.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area  5
             (SR 133 South of Bethel)  in Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    7        $190      $1,330        $798      $189
   replacement                2         760       1,520         912        54
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3       1,140       3,420
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —       —
   grading & topsoil repair   2         300         600
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              6         900       5,400       3,240
   roadside ditches           0       14.70        —
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                         —
   tank & up flow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —       —
   chlorinator                0         110        —
  Low flow toilet             2       1,500       3,000       1,800
  Blackwater holding tank     2         760       1,520         912      520
  Inspection
   and administration         9         285       2,565        —       387
  Initial cost                                   21,555       7,662     1,150
  Service factor (35%)                            7,544
  Initial capital cost                           29,099

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     0        $760        —          —       —
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     0       2,200        —          —       —
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —       —
   grading & topsoil repair   0         300        —          —       —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800       1,080
  Low flow toilet             1       1,500       1,500         900
  Blackwater holding tank     1         760         760         456      260

  Subtotal                                        6,340       2,436      260
  Service factor (35%)                            2,219
  Total future cost                               8,559
  Annual future cost                                428                   13
                                  E-59
-------
Table E-51.   Quantities and costs  for  constructing  initial and  future
             upgrades and operating  on-site  systems for Problem Area 6
             (Airport,  Inez,  and Runway  Roads)  in Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost    Construction   Salvage     O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   56       $190      $10,640       $6,384   $1,512
   replacement               20         760       15,200       9,120       540
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition       15       1,140       17,100
   drainfield replacement    12       2,200       26,400
   pump tank & mound          3       5,390       16,170       4,851       195
   grading & topsoil repair  10         300       3,000
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain             58         900       52,200       31,320
   roadside ditches      12,300 l.f.   14.70      180,810     108,486
  Aerobic treatment systems   0                                        —
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550         —          —       —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet            16       1,500       24,000       14,400
  Blackwater holding tank    16         760       12,160       7,296     4,160
  Inspection
   and administration        76         285       21,660         —       3,268
  Initial cost                                  379,340     181,857     9,675
  Service factor (35%)                          132,769
  Initial capital cost                          512,109

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     6        $760       $4,560       $2,736     $162
Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        7       1,140        7,980
   drainfield replacement     3       2,200        6,600
   pump tank & mound          3       5,390       16,170       4,851       195
   grading & topsoil repair   2         300          600
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain             15         900       40,500       24,300
  Low flow toilet             7       1,500       10,500       6,300
  Blackwater holding tank     7         760        5,320       3,192     1,820

  Subtotal                                       92,230       41,379     2,177
  Service factor (35%)                           32,281
  Total future cost                             124,511
  Annual future cost                              6,226                   109
                                  E-60
-------
Table E-52.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 7
             (SR 125 east of Bethel)  in Tate Township.

Iten.                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   33
   replacement               10
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition       10
   drainfield replacement     5
   pump tank & mound          3
   grading & topsoil repair   5
   sand filter                3
   curtain drain             20
   roadside ditches       6,400
  Aerobic treatment systems   3
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             8
  Blackwater holding tank     8
  Inspection
   and administration        46
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        4
   drainfield replacement     1
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   3
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              7
  Low flow toilet             5
  Blackwater holding tank     5

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
l.f.
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$6,270
7,600
11,400
11,000
16,170
1,500
4,200
18,000
94,080
—
—
—
12,000
6,080
13,110
201,410
70,494
271,904
$2,280
4,560
2,200
10,780
900
—
6,300
7,500
3,800
38,320
13,412
51,732
2,587
                             $3,762
                              4,560
 4,851

 2,520
10,800
56,448
                              7,200
                              3,648
                             93,789
                             $1,368
                              3,234
                              3,780
                              4,500
                              2,280

                             15,162
                                        O&M
           $891
            270
                                         195
                                         690
          2,080

          1,978
          6,104
            $81
            130
          1,300

          1,511


             76
                                  E-61
-------
Table E-53.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and  future
             upgrades and operating on-site  systems for  Problem Area  8
             (west end of Starling Road)  in  Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost    Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   14
   replacement                3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        5
   drainfield replacement     1
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   2
   sand filter                1
   curtain drain             10
   roadside ditches       5,430
  Aerobic treatment systems   1
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             2
  Blackwater holding tank     2
  Inspection
   and administration        18
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     2
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   2
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              4
  Low flow toilet             3
  Blackwater holding tank     3

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
l.f.
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$2,660
2,280
5,700
2,200
10,780
600
1,400
9,000
79,821
__
—
—
3,000
1,520
5,130
124,091
43,432
167,523
$1,520
1,140
—
10,780
600
—
3,600
4,500
2,280
24,340
8,519
32,859
1,643
                             $1,596
                              1,368
 3,234

   840
 5,400
47,893
                               $912
                              3,234
                              2,160
                              2,700
                              1,368

                             10,374
                                        O&M
           $378
             81
                                         130
                                         230
                              1,800
                                912      520

                                         774
                             63,043    2,113
            $54
            130
            780

            964


             48
                                  E-62
-------
Table E-54.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 8
(east end of Starling Road)  in Tate Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       6.
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 3
                 1
                 1
                 2
                 0
                 2
                 2
                 2
                                  O&M
29
9
10
4
0
1
2
30
000 l.f.
0
0
0
0
6
6
37



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$5,510
6,840
11,400
8,800
—
300
2,800
27,000
88,200

—
—
—
9,000
4,560
10,545
174,955
61,234
236,189
$3,306
4,104
__
—
—
—
1,680
16,200
52,920

—
—
—
5,400
2,736
__
86,346


$783
243
— _.
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,560
1,591
2,586


 $760

1,140
1,200
j,390
  300
L,400
  900
L,500
  760
$2,280

 3,420
 2,200
 5,390
   600

 1,800
 3,000
 1,520

20,210
 7,074
27,284
 1,364
                                                $1,368
1,617
1,080
1,800
  912

6,777
            81
 65
520
                                                            666
                                                             33
                                  E-63
-------
Table E-55.
Item
             Quantities and costs  for  constructing  initial  and  future
             upgrades  and operating  on-site  systems  for  Problem Area 9
             (Brown and Campbell Streets)  in Tate Township.
                          Quanti ty    Cost    Co ns t rue t ion   Salvage
jnitial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches       2,
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
3
1
1
2
0
8
4
4
 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$2,280

 3,420
 2,200
 5,390
   600

 7,200
 6,000
 3,040

30,130
10,546
40,676
 2,034
                                                             $1,368
                                                              1,617
                                                              4,320
                                                              3,600
                                                              1,824
                                                                       0&M
33
8
13
4
3
2
0
25
400 l.f.
0
0
0
0
12
12
41



$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70

2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$6,270
6,080
14,820
8,800
16,170
600
—
22,500
35,280

—
—
—
18,000
9,120
11,685
149,325
52,264
201,589
$3,762
3,648
—
—
4,851
—
—
13,500
21,168

—
—
—
10,800
5,472
—
63,201


$891
216
—
—
195
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3,120
1,763
4,422


                                                                          81
                                                                          65
                                                                       1,040
                                                             12,729    1,186
                                                                          59
                                  E-64
-------
Table E-56.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 10
(Isabel and Schaller Roads) in Tate Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   22
   replacement                5
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        6
   drainfield replacement     3
   pump tank & mound          1
   grading & topsoil repair   2
   sand filter                3
   curtain drain             14
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & up flow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             0
  Blackwater holding tank     0
  Inspection
   and administration        27
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3
   drainfield replacement     3
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   3
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              4
  Low flow toilet             2
  Blackwater holding tank     2

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
 O&M
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$4,180
3,800
6,840
6,600
5,390
600
4,200
12,600
—
__
—
—
—
—
7,695
51,905
18,167
70,072
$2,280
3,420
6,600
—
900
—
3,600
3,000
1,520
21,320
7,462
28,782
1,439
                                                $2,508
                                                 2,280
                                                 1,617

                                                 2,520
                                                 7,560
  594
  135
   65
                                                16,485
1,161
1,955
                                                $1,368
                                                 2,160
                                                 1,800
                                                   912

                                                 6,740
  520

  601


   30
                                  E-65
-------
Table E-57.   Quantities and costs  for constructing  initial  and  future
             upgrades  and  operating  on—site  systems  for  Problem Area 11
             (Sodom and Oak Corner Roads)  in Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction    Salvage   	
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   15
   replacement                4
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3
   drainfield replacement      2
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   3
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              9
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             0
  Blackwater holding tank      0
  Inspection
   and administration        19
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement      1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2
   drainfield replacement      1
   pump tank & mound          1
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              2
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank      1

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
 $190
  760
 285
$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
$2,850
 3,040
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
3,420
4,400
10,780
900
—
8,100
—
__
—
—
—
—
            5,415
           38,905
           13,617
           52,522
  $760

 2,280
 2,200
 5,390
 1,800
 1,500
   760

14,690
 5,142
19,832
   992
                      $1,710
                       1,824
                       3,234


                       4,860
                                 O&M
         $405
          108
          130
                      11,628
          817
        1,460
$456
                       1,617
                       1,080
                         900
                         456

                       4,509
                                   $27
           65
          260

          352


           18
                                  E-66
-------
Table E-58.   Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and future
             upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area  12
             (Sugartree Road)  in Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   12        $190      $2,280       1,368       324
   replacement                3         760       2,280       1,368        81
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     0       2,200
   pump tank & mound          2       5,390      10,780       3,234       130
   grading & topsoil repair   1         300         300
   sand filter                3       1,400       4,200       2,520
   curtain drain              8         900       7,200       4,320
   roadside ditches           0       14.70        —          —        —
  Aerobic treatment systems   2                                          460
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550        —          —        —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             2       1,500       3,000       1,800
  Blackwater holding tank     2         760       1,520         912       520
  Inspection
   and administration        17         285       4,845        —         731
  Initial cost                                   38,685      15,512    2,246
  Service factor (35%)                           13,540
  Initial capital cost                           52,225

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760        $760        $456       $27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     2       2,200       4,400
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —          —        —
   grading & topsoil repair   1         300         300        —        —
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800       1,080
  Low flow toilet             2       1,500       3,000       1,800
  Blackwater holding tank     2         760       1,520         912       520

  Subtotal                                       14,060       4,248       547
  Service factor (35%)                            4,921
  Total future cost                              18,981
  Annual future cost                                949
                                  E-67
-------
Table E-59.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 13
(SR 133 north of Bethel) in Tate Township.
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches
  Aerobic treatment systems
   tank & up flow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank

  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                23
                 6

                 4
                 1
                 1
                 3
                 0
                10
                 0
                 1
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0
                 0

                30
 $190
  760
1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
14.70
2,167
  550
  110
1,500
  760

  285
                          $760
$4,370
 4,560

 4,560
 2,200
 5,390
   900

 9,000
 8,550
39,530
10,836
50,366
           $1,520
$2,622
 2,736
 1,617


 5,400
                                  O&M
$621
 162
  65
                                   230
                                                12,375
              $912
          1,290
          2,368
3
2
1
2
0
4
3
3




1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




3,420
4,400
5,390
600
—
3,600
4,500
2,280
25,710
8,999
34,709
1,735
—
—
1,617
—
—
2,160
2,700
1,368
8,757



            $54
                                                             65
                                                            780
                                                            899
                                                             45
                                  E-68
-------
Table E-60.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial  and  future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for  Problem Area 14
(Wiggonsville area) in Tate Township.

             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
 O&M
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   25
   replacement                5
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        5
   drainfield replacement     3
   pump tank & mound          2
   grading & topsoil repair   3
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain             12
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             6
  Blackwater holding tank     6
  Inspection
   and administration        30
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     2
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2
   drainfield replacement     1
   pump tank & mound     '     2
   grading & topsoil repair   1
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              5
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1
  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$4,750
3,800
5,700
6,600
10,780
900
—
10,800
— —
—
—
—
9,000
4,560
8,550
65,440
22,904
88,344
$1,540
2,280
2,200
10,780
300
—
4,500
1,500
760
23,840
8,344
32,184
1,609
                                                $2,850
                                                 2,280
                                                 3,234


                                                 6,480
 $675
  135
  130
                                                5,400
                                                2,736
                                               22,980
                                                 §924
                                                3,234
                                                  900
                                                  456
                                                5,514
1,560

1,290
3,790
  $54
  130
  260
  440
                                                            22
                                 E-6?
-------
Table E-61.  Quantities and costs  for  constructing  initial  and  future
             upgrades and operating  on-site  systems  for Problem Area 15
             (Pitzer Road) in Tate Township.

Item                      Quantity    Cost    Construction    Salvage      O&M

Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    4        $190         $760         $456      $108
   replacement                2         760       1,520          912        54
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     0       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390         --           —       —
   grading & topsoil repair   1         300          300
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800       1,080
   roadside ditches           0       14.70
  Aerobic treatment systems   4                                          920
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             1       1,500       1,500          900
  Blackwater holding tank     1         760          760          456       260
  Inspection
   and administration        10         285       2,850         —        430
  Initial cost                                   11,770       3,804     1,772
  Service factor (35%)                           4,120
  Initial capital cost                           15,890

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1        $760         $760         $456       $27
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390         —           —       —
   grading & topsoil repair   1         300          300
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              1         900          900          540
  Low flow toilet             1       1,500       1,500          900
  Blackwater holding tank     1         760          760          456       260
  Subtotal                                       7,560       2,352       287
  Service factor (35%)                           2,646
  Total future cost                              10,206
  Annual future cost                                510                    14
-------
Table E--62.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 16
(Donald Road) in Tate Township.

             Quantity   _C°_S!L_  Cons^t ruction   Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                    4        $190        $760
   replacement                1         760         760
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2       1,140       2,280
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —
   grading & topsoii repair   0         300
   sand filter                1       1,400       1,400
   curtain drain              2         900       1,800
   roadside ditches           0       14.70
  Aerobic treatment systems   9
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             1       1,500       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     1         760         760
  Inspection
   and administration        14         285       3,990
  Initial cost                                   15,450
  Service factor (35%)                            5,408
  Initial capital cost                           20,858

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     0        $760
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        1       1,140       1,140
   drainfield replacement     1       2,200       2,200
   pump tank & mound          0       5,390        —
   grading & topsoii repair   0         300
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              1         900         900
  Low flow toilet             1       1,500       1,500
  Blackwater holding tank     1         760         760
  Subtotal                                        6,500
  Service factor (35%)                            2,275
  Total future cost                               8,775
  Annual future cost                                439
                                                  $456
                                                   456
                                                                        O&M
 $108
   27
                                                 1,080
                                                          2,070
                                                   900
                                                   456
                                                 3,348
  260

  602
3,067
                                                  540
                                                  900
                                                  456
                                                1,896
  260
  260
                                                            13
-------
Table E-63.
Item
Quantities and costs for constructing  initial  and future
upgrades and operating on-site  systems  for  Problem Area  17
(Sodom Road) in Tate Township.

             Quantity    Cost    Construction    Salvage
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   10
   replacement                3
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        3
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   1
   sand filter                3
   curtain drain              2
   roadside ditches           0
  Aerobic treatment systems   1
   tank & upflow filter       0
   evaporation bed            0
   chlorinator                0
  Low flow toilet             3
  Blackwater holding tank     3
  Inspection
   and administration        14
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost

Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement     1
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        2
   drainfield replacement     0
   pump tank & mound          0
   grading & topsoil repair   0
   sand filter                0
   curtain drain              3
  Low flow toilet             1
  Blackwater holding tank     1
  Subtotal
  Service factor (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
14.70
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
285



$760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
1,500
760




$1,900
2,280
3,420
—
—
300
4,200
1,800
~ —
—
—
—
4,500
2,280
3,990
24,670
8,635
33,305
$760
2,280
—
—
—
—
2,700
1,500
760
8,000
2,800
10,800
540
                                                $1,140
                                                 1,368
                                                 2,520
                                                 1,080
                                                 2,700
                                                 1,368
                                                10,176
                                                  $456
 O&M
 $270
   81
                                                            230
  780

  602
1,9&3
  $27
                                                 1,620
                                                   900
                                                   456
                                                 3,432
  260
  287
                                                             14
-------
Table E-64.
Quantities and costs for constructing initial and future
upgrades and operating on-site systems for Problem Area 18
(South Bantam Road - SR125 to Crane Schoolhouse Road)  in Tate
Township.
Item
             Quantity    Cost   Construction   Salvage
Initial  Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade
   replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
   roadside ditches      10,500
  Aerobic treatment systems   0
   tank & upflow filter
   evaporation bed
   chlorinator
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding tank
  Inspection
   and administration
  Initial cost
  Service factor (35%)
  Initial capital cost
Future Upgrades
  Septic tank replacement
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition
   drainfield replacement
   pump tank & mound
   grading & topsoil  repair
   sand filter
   curtain drain
  Low flow toilet
  Blackwater holding  tank
  Subtotal
  Service factor  (35%)
  Total future cost
  Annual future cost
                 5
                 2
                 2
                 3
                 0
                 8
                 3
                 3
                   l.f.   14.70
                53
  285
 $760

1,140
2,200
5,390
  300
1,400
  900
1,500
  760
          154,350
 15,105
238,195
 83,368
321,563
 $2,280

  5,700
  4,400
 10,780
    900

  7,200
  4,500
  2,280
 38,040
 13,314
 51,354
  2,568
             92,610
0
0
0
3
3
2,167
550
110
1,500
760
—
—
—
4,500
2,280
—
—
—
2,700
1 , 368
                                               119,148
                                               $1,368
 3,234
 4,320
 2,700
 1,368
12,990
                                                                        O&M
46
7
8
4
2
4
0
20
$190
760
1,140
2,200
5,390
300
1,400
900
$8,740
5,320
9,120
8,800
10,780
1,200
--
18,000
$5,244
3,192
— —
—
3,234
—
—
10,800
$1,242
189
__
—
130
—
—
—
            780

          2,279
          4,620
            $81
  195
  780
1,056
                                                            53
                                E-73
-------
Table E-65.   Quantities and costs  for  constructing  initial and  future
             upgrades and  operating on-site systems for Problem Area 19
             (Bantam) in Tate Township.

Item                      (^uajot^ty^    Cost   Construction   Salvage      O&M
Initial Upgrades
  Septic tank
   upgrade                   28        $190      $5,320      $3,192      $756
   replacement               10         760        7,600       4,560       270
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        5       1,140        5,700
   drainfield replacement     3       2,200        6,600
   pump tank & mound          1       5,390        5,390       1,617        65
   grading & topsoil repair   4         300        1,200
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain             25         900      22,500      13,500
   roadside ditches       4,200 l.f.   14.70      61,740      37,044
  Aerobic treatment systems   1                                          230
   tank & upflow filter       0       2,167
   evaporation bed            0         550         —           —        —
   chlorinator                0         110
  Low flow toilet             5       1,500        7,500       4,500
  Blackwater holding tank     5         760        3,800       2,280     1,300
  Inspection
   and administration        39         285      11,115         —       1,677
  Initial cost                                  138,465      66,693     4,298
  Service factor (35%)                          48,463
  Initial capital cost                          186,928

jFuture Upgrades
  Septic"tank replacement     2        $760      $1,520         $912       $54
  Soil absorption systems
   drainfield addition        4       1,140        4,560
   drainfield replacement     3       2,200        6,600
   pump tank & mound          1       5,390        5,390       1,617        65
   grading & topsoil repair   4         300        1,200
   sand filter                0       1,400
   curtain drain              7         900        6,300       3,780
  Low flow toilet             8       1,500      12,000       7,200
  Blackwater holding tank     8         760        6,080       3,648     2,080
  Subtotal                                      43,650      17,157     2,199
  Service factor (35%)                          15,278
  Total future cost                             58,928
  Annual future cost                              2,946                   110
-------
                                 APPENDIX F
                    DETAILED COSTS OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT


                      LEVELS AT BATAVIA AND AM-BAT WWTPS
APNXF-B1
BS:ec 3/26/84
-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table F-l.

Table F-2.

Table F-3.


Table F-4.


Table F-5.

Table F-6.


Table F-7.


Table F-8.

Table F-9.


Table F-10.


Table F-ll.


Table F-12.


Table F-l3.


Table F-14.


Table F-15.


Exhibit F-l.

Table F-l6.


Table F-17.
Summary of various options of treatment for Batavia wastewater.

Present worth analysis for Alternative BA-4, 0.35 mgd ST.

Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
BA-4,0.35 mgd ST.

Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Alternative
BA-4, 0.35 mgd ST.

Present worth analysis for Alternative BA-4, 0.35 mgd AST.

Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for
Alternative BA-4, 0.35 mgd AST.

Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Alternative
BA-4, 0.35 mgd AST.

Present worth analysis for Am-Bat recommended plan-3.0 mgd PBR.

Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
Am-Bat recommended plan, 3.0 mgd PBR.

Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Am-Bat recommended
plan-3.0 mgd PBR.

Present worth analysis for Am-Bat recommended plan-3.6 mgd AST
with Batavia costs included.

Summary of constuction and capital cost estimates for the
Am-Bat recommended plan-3.6 mgd AST.

Estimated operation and maintenance costs for the Am-3at
recommended plan-3.6 mgd AST.

Present worth analysis for Batavia influent pumping
(Alternative BA-7).

Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Batavia
influent pumping.

Criteria for added costs.

Summary of constuction and capital cost estimates for the
Am-Bat 3.6 mgd AT.

Estimated operation and maintenance costs for the Am-Bat
3.6 mgd AT.
-------
Table F-l.  Summary of various options of treatment Batavia wastewater.
                              	Cost ($1,OOOX)	
WWTP
Batavia WWTP   0.35 mgd ST
            b
Batavia WWTP
     Batavia to Am-Bat
0.35 mgd AST
       c
                              Construction
428.9

528.9

103.0
                                Capital
                           Initial   Total
                           Annual   Present
                            O&M      Worth
563.4
688.5
128.7
76.8
80.8
8.2
1,356.1
1,522.4
198.2
Am-Bat WWTP

Am-Bat WWTP6
3.0 mgd AST

3.0 MGD AT
                              2,889.6

                              3,057.6
                               3,595.2

                               3,805.2
                          356.8

                          368.3
7,309.4

7,683.5
Am-Bat
Am-Bat8
3.6 mgd AST
3.6 mgd AT
3,264.1
4,226.1
4,079.4
5,281.9
397.0
485.8
8,214.0
10,510.6
 Costs are for 0.35 mgd WWTP consisting of aerated lagoon and upgraded
 facilities  with  secondary treatment  (ST).   The  packed  bed  reactor  (PBR)
 has been deleted (Development  of Alternatives, Cost Effectiveness
Analysis, Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
 Costs are  for 0.35  mgd  facilities with  advanced  secondary  treatment  (AST)
 (Development  of  Alternatives,  Cost  Effectiveness  Analysis,  Middle  East
 Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
 Costs are for force main construction and pumping costs for treatment
 at  Am-Bat  (By  letter,  Fred  W. Montgomery,  CCSD,  to Richard  Fitch,  OEPA,
dl April 1983).
 Costs are  for 3.0  mgd  WWTP consisting  of packed  biological reactors  (PBR)
 with advanced secondary treatment (Development of Alternatives, Cost
 Effectiveness  Analysis,  Middle  East Fork  Facilities Plan,  Balke Engineers
 1982).
 Costs  are  incremental  costs  for  adding  mixed media filter  costs to  the
 Am-Bat WWTP  to achieve advanced  treatment (AT) (By  letter,  Richard Record,
fBalke Engineers, to Richard Fitch,  OEPA,  18 May 1983).
 Costs are for 3.6 mgd PBR WWTP to achieve AST (By letter,  Fred W.
 Montgomery, CCSD, to Richard Fitch, OEPA, 1 April 1983).
 Costs  are  incremental  costs  for  adding  mixed media filter  costs to  the
 Am-Bat  WWTP  to  achieve   AT  (By  letter,  Richard  Record,  Balke  Engineers,
 to Richard Fitch, OEPA,  18 May 1983).
APNXF-B2
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Cost
($xlOOO)
563.4
282.5
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
563.4
97.1
Table F-2.  Present worth analysis for Alternative BA-4, 0.35 ragd ST.
Item

Total project
                     *a
Equipment replacement
in Year 2000

Salvage value of total      109.8             0.2410                 26.5
project in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of equipment  256.8          (10/15)0.2410             41.3 +
in year 2005    c                                                    27.0 (land)
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost            76.8            10.2921                790.4

Variable O&M cost             0                74.21                 0	

Total present worth                                               1,356.1
a
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies; costs are for WWTP
 that includes PBR units in existing digestor.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation; costs are for
 WWTP that includes PBR units in existing digestor.
c
 Assumes 15 year life for all equipment;  costs are for WWTP that includes
 PBR units in existing digestor.
-------
Table F-3.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
            BA-4, 0.35 mgd ST (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effective
            Analysis Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
                              Equipment
                                   Structure
Item

Influent pumping
(Upgrade existing)

Pretreatment

Aerated lagoon

Upgrade existing
trickling filters
  Cost    Life   Salvage     Cost   Life   Salvage     Total
($xlOOO)   (yrs)   ($xlOOO)   ($xlOOO) (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO)
  35.0


   9.3

  36.3

  25.0
Upgrade existing      46.9
secondary clarifier

Upgrade existing      30.3
chlorination and
add new dechlori-
ciation

Yard piping &         24.0
pumping              _

Total construction   206.8

A/E fees (12.5%)

Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)

Inspection (4%)

Contingencies (5%)

Land (@ $27,000/acre)

Interest during construction
(7 3/8% x 30% x TPC)

Total capital cost
15


15

15

15


15


15
           15
0


0

0

0
 15.0


 27.7

108.7

  0


  0


 20.7
                  50.0
                            222.1
20


30

50

20
                                     30
                 50
  0


 9.3

65.3

  0


  0


 5.2
                30.0
                                109.8
 50.0


 37.0

145.0

 25.0


 46.9


 51.0
                  74.0


                 428.9

                  53.6


                   3.0

                  17.2

                  21.5

                  27.0

                  12.2


                 563.4
-------
Table F-4.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Alternative BA-4,
            0.35 mgd ST.

                               	Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)'
Item

Influent pumping

Pretreatment

Aerated lagoon

Trickling filters

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Sludge pumping &
  disposal

In-Plant pumping

Total
Fixed (95%)
6,864
11,400
1,900
3,800
5,700
11,020
5,700
4,750
4,750
72,984
Variable (5%)
361
600
1,000
200
300
580
300
250
250
3,841
Total
7,225
12,000
20,000
4,000
6,000
11,500
6,000
5,000
5,000
76,825
a
 Year 1985 variable O&M = $76,825 (due to insignificant difference in costs,
 variable costs is assumed to be negligible)
BS: ec
-------
Table F-5.  Present worth analysis for Alternative BA-4, 0.35 mgd AST.

                           Cost                                 Present Worth
Item                     ($xlOOO)            PW Factor            ($xlOOO)

Total project               688.5               1                    688.5

Equipment replacement3      282.5            0.3439                   97.1
in year 2000

Salvage value of total      109.8            0.2410                   26.5
project in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of equipment  256.8          (10/15)0.2410              41.3 +
in year 2005                                                          27.0 (land)
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost            80.8            10.2921                 831.6

Variable O&M cost             0              74.21                     0
«a
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

c
 Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
Total present worth                                                1,522.1
APNXF-B6
8S:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table F-6.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Alternative
             BA-4 0.35 mgd AST (Development of Alternatives, Cost Effective
             Analysis Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke Engineers, 1982).
                              Equipment
                                 Structure
Item

Influent pumping
(Upgrade existing)

Pretreatment

Aerated lagoon

Upgrade existing
trickling filters

Convert existing
sludge digester
(one only) to PER

Upgrade existing
secondary clarifier

Upgrade existing
chlorination and
add new dechlorina-
tion

Yard piping &
pumping
Cost
($xlOOO)
35.0
9.3
36.3
25.0
50.0
46.9
30.3
Life
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Salvage
($xlOOO)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cost
($xlOOO)
15.0
27.7
108.7
0
50.0
0
20.7
Life
(yrs)
20
30
50
20
20
-
30
Salvage
($xlOOO)
0
9.3
65.3
0
0
0
5.2
Total
($xlOOO)
50.0
37.0
145.0
25.0
100.0
46.9
51.0
24.0
Total construction   256.8

A/E fees (12.5%)

Administrative and
  legal fees (0.7%)

Inspection (4%)

Contingencies (5%)

Land (@ $27,000/acre)

Interest during construction
(7 3/8% x 30% x TPC)

Total capital cost
15
50.0
                          272.1
50   30.0
                              109.8
 74.0


528.9

 66.1


  3.7

 21.2

 26.4

 27.0

 15.2


688.5
APNXF-B7
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table F-7.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Alternative BA-4,
            0.35 rogd AST.
                                      Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)a
Fixed (95%)
6,864
11,400
1,900
3,800
3,800
5,700
11,020
5,700
4,750
4,750
76,784
Variable (5%)
361
600
1,000
200
200
300
580
300
250
250
4,041
Total
7,225
12,000
20,000
4,000
4,000
6,000
11,600
6,000
5,000
5,000
80,825
Item

Influent pumping

Pretreatnient

Aerated lagoon

Trickling filters

PBR

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Sludge pumping &
disposal

In-plant pumping

Total
 Year 1985 total O&M = $80,825 (due to insignificant difference in costs,
 variable cost is assumed to be negligible)
 JNXF-B8  .
 >:ec 3/27/84
-------
Cost
($xlOOO)
3,595.2
813.0
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
3,595.2
279.6
Table F-8.  Present worth analysis for Am-Bat recommended plan, 3.0 mgd P8R.


Item

Total project
                     £*
Equipment replacement
in year 2000

Salvage value of total      782.9            0.2410                  188.7
project in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of equipment  739.1          (10/15)0.2410             118.7
in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost           356.8            10.2921              3,672.2

Variable O&M cost            0.94              72.21                 69.76

Total present worth                                                7,309.4
*a
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies; costs were not changed
 to reflect deletion of phosphorus removal.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

Q
 Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
-------
129.5
74.0
55.5
125.0
15
15
15
15
0
0
0
0
388.3
222.0
166.5
375.0
30
30
30
30
129.5
74.0
55.5
125.0
518.0
296.0
222.0
500.0
Table F-9.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Am-Bat
            recommended plan - 3.0 mgd PBR (Development of Alternatives, Cost
            Effective Analysis,  Middle East Fork Facilities Plan, Balke
            Engineers, 1982).

                    	Equipment	  	Structure	
                      Cost    Life   Salvage     Cost   Life   Salvage     Total
Item                ($xlOOO)  (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO) (yrs)  ($xlOOO)  ($xlOOO)
Pretreatment          33.3     15       0        99.0    30      33.3      132.3
 treatment

Flow equalization

Primary clarifiers

PBR (new)

PBR (convert
 existing)

Aerobic sludge        50.0     15       0       150.0    30      50.0      200.0
 digester

Sludge storage tank3 100.0     15       0       300.0    30      80.0      400.0

Septage receiving     80.0     15       0       240.0    30      80.0      320.0
 station

Yard piping &         75.3     15       0       226.0    50     135.6      301.3
 pumping

Total construction   722.6                    2,167.0           762.9    2,889.6

A/E fees (12.5%)                                                           361.2

Administrative and                                                          20.2
  legal fees (0.7%)

Inspection (4%)                                                            115.6

Contingencies (5%)                                                         144.5

Interest during con-                                                        64.2
  struction (7 3/8% x 30% x TPC)
Total capital cost                                                       3,595.2
 Costs provided by McGill & Smith (preliminary sludge disposal plan) 1982 update.
APNXF-B10
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table F-10.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Ain-Bat recom-
             mended plan - 3.0 mgd PBR.
                                      Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)a
Item

Pretreatment

Flow equalization

Influent pumping

Primary clarifiers

PBR

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Sludge digestion

Sludge storage

In-plant pumping

Septage receiving station

Total
Fixed (70%)
23,380
47,250
15,275
16,695
8,400
24,938
26,565
10,815
35,700
30,345
25,012
5,600
262,926
Variable (30%)
7,020
20,250
6,525
7,155
3,600
10,688
11,385
4,635
15,300
13,005
10,719
2,400
113,681
Total
23,400
67,500
21,750
23,850
12,000
35,625
37,950
15,450
51,000
43,350
35,731
8,000
375,000
SYear 1985 variable O&M costs = (2.5/3.0) $112,681 = 93,900
 Year 1985 total O&M costs = $262,926 (fixed) + 93,900 (variable) =
 356,826
 Annual increase in variable O&M costs = ($112,681 - 93,900)/20 = 939
APNXF-B11 .
BSrec 3/26/84
-------
Table F-ll.  Present worth analysis for Am-Bat recommended plan - 3.6 mgd
             AST with Batavia costs included (revised 3 March 1983).
Item


Total project


Equipment replacement
in year 2000
Salvage value of total       782.9
project in year 2005
(structures only)


Salvage value of equipment   739.1
in year 2005
                Q
(equipment only)


Constant O&M cost            397.0


Variable O&M cost             1.03


Total present worth
Cost
($xlOOO)
$4,079.4
813.0
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
4,079.4
279.6
   0.2410





(10/15)0.2410




  10.2921


    74.21
    188.7




    118.7




  4,086.0


     76.4


$ 8,214.0
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies; costs from 3.0 mgd PBR
 (Balke Engineers 1982c).


 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation; cost from 3.0 mgd
 PBR (Balke Engineers 1982c).


"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
APNXF-B12
3S:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table F-12.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Am-Bat recommended plan - 3.6 mgd AST (By letter, Fred W.
             Montgomery, CCSD, to Richard Fitch, OEPA, 1 April 1983).

                                                                  Total
     Item                                                        ($xlOOO)

     Pretreatment                                                $   139.2

     Flow equalization                                               518.0

     Primary clarifiers                                              368.0

     Packed biological reactor (new)                                 336.8

     Packed biological reactor (upgrade existing)                    500.0

     Aerobic sludge digester                                         200.0

     Sludge storage tank                                             400.0

     Septage receiving station                                       320.0

     Yard piping & pumping                                       	379.1

     Total construction                                          $ 3,161.1

     A/E fees                                                        395.1

     Administrative                                                   11.1

     Legal and fiscal                                                 11.1

     Inspection                                                      126.4

     Contingencies                                                   158.1

     Interest during construction                                 	87.j?

     Total capital cost                                          $ 3,950.7
APNXF-B13
BS:ec 3/26/84
-------
Table F-13.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for Am-Bat recom-
             mended plan - 3.6 mgd AST .
                                      Year 2005 O&M Costs ($/year)b
Item

Pretreatment

Flow equalization

Influent pumping

Primary clarifiers

PBR

Secondary clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination

Sludge digestion

Sludge storage

In-plant pumping

Septage receiving station

Total
Fixed (70%)
17,710
47,250
17,190
18,690
9,800
24,938
29,850
12,570
37,350
34,860
30,715
5,600
286,523
Variable (30%)
7,590
20,250
7,370
8,010
4,200
10,688
12,790
5,390
16,010
14,940
13,165
2,400
122,802
Total
25,300
67,500
24,560
26,700
14,000
35,626
42,640
17,960
53,360
49,800
43,880
8,000
409,325
o
 This table does not include O&M costs for the Bethel interceptor sewer
 and Batavia influent pumping, which must be added to obtain total O&M
 figure for Middle East Fork subdistrict of CCSD.  O&M of existing collec-
 tion system (pipes and pump stations) must also be added for user charge
 estimation.  Sewers in Basin F-10 and the Shayler Run Interceptor are not
 included in the MEF O&M estimation because once the interceptor is
 constructed, that area will be part of the Lower East Fork subdistrict.

Near 1985 variable O&M costs = (3.0/3.6) $122,802 = $102,300
 Year 1985 total O&M costs = $236,523 (fixed) + $102,300 (variable) =
 $288,823.
 Annual increase in variable O&M costs = ($122,802 - 102,300)/20 = $1,025
APNXF-B14
8S:ec 3/27/84
-------
Cost
($xlOOO)
128.7
38.5
PW Factor
1
0.3439
Present Worth
($xlOOO)
128.7
13.2
Table F-14.  Present worth analysis for Batavia influent pumping (Alterna-
             tive BA-7).
Item

Total project
                     *a
Equipment replacement
in year 2000

Salvage value of total       61.8
project in year 2005
(structures only)

Salvage value of equipment   35.0
in year 2005
(equipment only)

Constant O&M cost             8.2

Variable O&M cost             0                                  	

Total present worth                                               $ 198.2
   0.2410



(10/15)0.2410



  10.2921

    74.21
14.9



 5.6



84.4

 0
 Includes 10% surcharge for fees and contingencies.

 As identified in construction cost estimate tabulation.

"Assumes 15 year life for all equipment.
APNXF-B15
BSrec 3/26/84
-------
Table F-15.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for Batavla
             influent pumping (By letter, Fred W.  Montgomery,  CCSD, to
             Richard Fitch,  OEPA, 1 April 1983).

     Item                                                   Total

     Extend existing 8" force main to                       $103,000
     Am-Bat plant
     Total construction                                     $103,000

     A/E fees                                                 12,900

     Administrative                                              360

     Legal and fiscal                                            360

     Inspection                                                4,100

     Contingencies                                             5,150

     Interest during construction                              2,800

     Total capital cost                                     $128,670
-------
Exhibit F-l.  Criteria for added costs (By letter, Richard Record, Balke
              Engineers, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, 18 May 1983).
Effect on Alternatives and Costs
The Middle East  Fork Regional WWTP, under the OEPA-proposed limitations, must
produce a very "clean" effluent.  The process alternatives outlined in Section
5.0 of  the draft  facilities  plan are all capable  of  producing the specified
effluent quality if final polishing units (mixed-media filtration or the like)
are added  (a  common  cost  for  each  alternative).   Alternative  AB-4,  packed
biological  reactors,   remains  the  least  expensive  process  to  construct  and
operate over the 20-year period.   Calculations of the theoretical performance
of this  process  indicate that summertime effluent quality of less than 5 mg/1
CBOD  and  about  1 mg/1  NH  -N would be achievable.  The  additional  costs  for
final filtration to  meet the 5/3/83 Ohio EPA  proposed limits  are as follows:
          Construction Cost                            $   962,000
          Total Project Cost                             1,202,500
          Initial Annual O&M Cost                           88,800
          Total Present Worth Cost                       2,296,565
          Equivalent Annual Cost                           233,138
          (average flow =3.3 MG/yr)                   or 0.185/1000 gal

The increase  in  total  treatment cost per  1000  gallons  of 0.185 must be added
to the cost  of 0.884/1000 gallons given on  page 6-13 of the Draft Facilities
Plan.  Thus,  the total  cost of  treatment of  the  Middle East  Fork Regional
WWTP, assuming  proposed stringent  effluent  limits,  is  now  about $1.053/1000
gallons.   This figure has been used in re-evaluating the cost-effectiveness of
regional   alternatives  for  the  Batavia,  Williamsburg and Bethel discharges.

At  Batavia,  all  of the  alternatives  developed are  capable of  meeting  the
proposed  OEPA  limits if  final filtration  units  are  added  and operated during
the  summer  months (probably  would  not be needed to meet the  less  stringent
 Does not include any cost for phosphorus removal, which was eliminated in
 the facilities plan revisions dated February 11, 1983.
APNXF-B17 .
BSrec 3/27/84
-------
requirements  proposed  for  winter  months).   The additional  costs  for  final
filtration at Batavia are as follows:
          Construction Cost
          Total Project Cost
          Initial Annual O&M Cost
          Total Present Worth Cost
168,000
210,000
 11,500 (1/2 year)
374,100
This present worth  cost  of  $374,100 must be added  to "local" alternaties for
Batavia (BA-1 through  BA-5  on page 6-32 of the Draft Facilities plan).  Thus,
the least  expensive local  alternative,  BA-4,  now  has  a  total  present  worth
cost of $1,896,460.  The  recommended  alternative,  BA-7  (regionalization), now
has a  total present worth  cost of $1,817,200,  including the  higher  cost of
treatment  at  the Middle  East  Fork WWTP  due to more stringent  discharge re-
quirements.

For Bethel,  the increased treatment costs at the MEF Regional WWTP changes the
total present worth  cost  of the reommended alternative, BE-5, from $3,884,000
to  $4,359,700.   This is  slightly  more expensive than  alternative  BE-4, land
treatment, which has present worth cost $4,264,600.   However, alternative BE-5
is  still  concluded  to be  the  most  cost-effective  alternative for  reasons
presented in Section 6.2 of the Draft  Facilities Plan.

The Wi11iam s bu rg alternatives analysis has also been reviewed to determine the
effect  of  increased treatment  costs  at  the  Middle East  Fork  Regional  WWTP.
Alternative W-5, the least  expensive  regional alternative, increases in total
present worth  cost  from $2,251,100 to  $2,525,100.   Alternative W-2 (upgrades
and expand  existing  plant)  remains the most cost-effective alternative with a
total present worth cost of $2,280,000.

Overall Effect on the Recommended Plan
Increased  costs  for   treatment  at  the  Middle  Fjast  Fork  Regional  (Amelia-
Batavia)  WWTP and  Village of  Batavia  WWTP due  to proposed  more stringent
effluent  requirements  have  no  effect on  the Recommended  Plan as presented in
the Draft  Facilities  Plan (May 1982) as later amended (February 1983), except
for changes in cost.
APNXF-B18
BS:ec 3/27/84
                                   f-ll
-------
Change in Charges to Customers Due to More Stringent Limits

The construction, operation and maintenance of the final filtration facilities
will  result  in higher  charge  to customers in the  Cleraont  County Sewer Dis-
trict.   New debt  service  will  increase  by  $0.02/month/average residential
connection.  The cost of O&M and equipment replacement in the Middle Hast Fork
Subdistrict  of  the  CCSD  from  $.88/month/connection  to   about $5.68,  ex-
clusive  of administrative  and laboratory costs.   This cost  increase spread
equally among  all  users in the CCSD would increase the user charge by between
$0.10 and  $0.25/month/customer based  on preliminary calculations.  CCSD offi-
cials feel that $0.10/month is the most reasonable estimate.
Table F-16.  Summary of construction and capital cost estimates for the
             Am-Bat 3.6 mgd AT.
                                                                  Total
          Item                                                   ($xlOOO)
          Pretreatment                                           $  139.2
          Flow equalization                                         518.0
          Primary clarifiers                                        368.0
          Packed biological reactor (new)                           336.8
          Packed biological reactor (upgrade existing)              500.0
          Aerobic sludge digester                                   200.0
          Sludge storage tank                                       400.0
          Septage receiving station                                 320.0
          Yard piping & pumping                                     379.1
          Mixed media filters3                                      962.1
          Total construction                                     $4,123.1

          A/E fees                                                  515.1
          Administrative                                             14.4
          Legal and fiscal                                           14.4
          Inspection                                                164.9
          Contingencies                                             206.9
          Interest during construction                              114.5
          Total capital cost                                     $5,152.9
Required additional AST effluent limitations proposed by Ohio EPA, 5/3/83.

APNXF-B19
BS:ec 3/27/84
-------
Table F-17.  Estimated operation and maintenance costs for the Am-Bat 3.6
             mgd AT3.
                                      Year 2005 0&M_Costs ($/year)b
Item

Pretreatment

Flow equaliza i   •

Influent Pumping

Primary Clarifiers

Packed Biological Reactors

Secondary Clarifiers

Chlorination

Dechlorination
                   Q
Mixed media filters

Sludge Digestion

Sludge Storage

In-plant pumping

Septage Receiving Station

Total
Fixed (70%)
17,710
' , ,;-5c
17,190
18,690
9,800
24,938
29,850
12,570
62,160
37,350
34,860
30,715
5,600
$343,083
Variable (30%)
7,590
20,250
7,370
8,010
4,200
10,688
12,790
5,390
26,640
16,010
14,940
13,165
2,400
$147,042
Total
$25,300
67,500
24,560
26,700
14,000
35,626
42,640
17,960
88,800
53,360
49,800
43,880
8,000
$490,125
 This table does not include O&M costs for the Bethel interceptor sewer
 and Batavia influent pumping, which must be added to obtain total O&M figure
 for Middle East Fork subdistrict of CCSD.  O&M of existing collection system
 (pipes and pump stations) must also be added for user charge estimation.
 Sewers in Basin F-10 and the Shayler Run Interceptor are not included in the
 MEF O&M estimation because once the interceptor is constructed, that area will
 be part of the Lower East Fork subdistrict.

bYear 1985 variable O&M costs (3.0/3.6) 147,042 = $122,535
 Year 1985 total O&M = 343,083 (fixed) + 122,535 (variable) = $465,618
 Annual increase in variable O&M costs = (147,042 - 122,535)720 = $1,003

 Required for additional AST effluent limitation proposed by Ohio EPA.

 Excludes O&M cost of septage receiving station.
-------
         APPENDIX G
 COMMENTS ON AND PAGES FROM
  PRELIMINARY DRAFT USCOE
HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY REPORT
-------
               COMMENTS ON AND PAGES FROM PRELIMINARY DRAFT
                    USCOE HYDROPOWER FEASIBILITY REPORT


     The following comments were prepared to attempt to explain the content

of the  feasibility  report  as it relates to the impact of hydropower opera-
tion on water  quality  releases.   These comments are given and are followed

by copies of the pages relevant to them.


     On page 83; Operational Considerations, it is stated that:


     Releases  during  the spr ing season would  range  from 5,000 cfs to
     2,000 cfs  as  the  proposed new summer  pool  elevation  of 734 feet
     is approached  (Existing  summer  pool  elevation is 733 feet).  Up
     to 1,039 cfs of this will be routed through the turbines.

     Releases  from  ]  April through 6  September will  be  controlled to
     hold the  reservoir  between 734 and 729 feet  of  elevation.   When
     inflow  to  the  lake is  less  than or  equal  to  turbine capacity
     (apparently), 14 days  worth of  peaking power generation capacity
     will be  reserved  for  use  in the  July-August period.   In  this
     period   the  lake can be drawn down to 729  feet to provide 14 days
     of peaking  power  (average  daily  flow of 357 cfs because releases
     would  only take   place  for one-third  of  a given  day).
     every  time but  the 14 days  (of  peaking  power),  operation  will
     attempt to  hold  the  lake  stable  at elevation 734, or  after the
     14 days of peaking  (are  completed) at whatever is  the current
     elevation."  "This  is the same as  run-of-the-river operation if
     there are sufficient inflows or discharging only minimum releases
     (sic),   whichever  is  greater.   At any time of the year, releases
     when  the lake is  below elevation 729 will be limited to 15 cfs,
     the current minimum release rate."  This  means that  the storage
     volumes appointed for water supply and quality shown as below the
     summer   pool  level minimum  of  729  and  extending  down  to 683 feet
     cannot  be  utilized for hydropower  generation."


     On pages  23 and 31;  it appears that the  reservoir  flow routing model
was used  to  test the  effect of a  60 cfs  water quality release in combina-
tion with a  57 cfs  water supply withdrawal.  Then, as further explained on

page 31, "subsequent refinements were  made in the process prior to complet-

ing the initial  screening."   Apparently this meant they felt justified in
assuming only  15 cfs released  for  water quality in order to make the vari-

ous calculations  of return  on  capital investments.   However,  because  the

water  supply agreements  are "firm"  (pp 13)  this could  not be  adjusted

downward.   The  downward  adjustment in  release  allocations  have  come only

out of the water quality release category.
                                                                              G-l
-------
 that withdrawal is directly from the lake and  therefore not  available
 for hydropower.  Evaluation of remaining  alternatives,  following  initial
 screening studies, will test the sensitivity of  alternative  future  condi-
 tions relative to water supply needs.
      The current  minimum release  for  water quality  purposes,  as  established
 by coordination between the Ohio  Environmental Protection Agency and the
 Corps of Engineers,  is  established  at 15  cfs.  The  present  15 cfs minimum
 release for water quality was  utilized in initial screening studies.  In
 accord with project  authorization,  water  quality storage was  formulated
 based on a seasonally adjusted flow of 82 cfs in the year 2017.  The storage
 required to meet  this water quality demand in 9 of  10 years is 28,800 acre-
 feet.   In combination with Caesar Creek Lake, William H. Harsha  Lake was
 designed to assist in meeting  the needs in the lower Little Miami River.
 For the purpose of screening studies,  a 15 cfs minimum  release was utilized.
 Following screening  studies, sensitivity  analysis will  be utilized to test
 hydropower capability under alternate future water  quality  demand conditions.
      Estimated  recreation  use  and visitation at Harsha  Lake and the
 attendant  design of  recreation facilities was formulated  in conjunction
 with the water  supply  and  water quality project purposes.  General and
 fish and wildlife recreational visitation estimates developed  in support
 of authorization indicate  initial visitation (third year  of project opera-
 tion)  of 837,000 visitors,  increasing to an ultimate use  of 2,702,000.
 Records  show the third year of project use (1980) at 860,900 visitors,
 essentially in  line  with planning preconstruction estimates.   The first
 five years of recreation use at the  project have enjoyed  a more stable
 recreation pool with larger average  surface area and less drawdown than
 planned  for since water supply and water quality demands  have  not
 materialized yet.  For the purpose of screening evaluation, impacts on
 recreation resulting from  hydropower operations were evaluated based on
 impacts  under current  conditions rather than future conditions.  Sensitivity
'analysis will be utilized  to test alternate future conditions  following
 screening  evaluations.
                                    23
-------
stability analysis to determine any actions necessary to insure dam
integrity during construction.  Long term effects on dam integrity
would be insignificant with this option.  The conduit lining option,
however, would change the project outlet works function for the long
term.  Pressurizing the conduit would require structural changes that
would require careful consideration during design.  In addition, the
pressure conduit might create a situation conducive to piping of embank-
ment material along the outside of the conduit, thereby requiring
piezometer installation for monitoring purposes.

     The tunnel system option has more positive advantages than the
conduit lining and upstream powerhouse options with regard to all
evaluation parameters in Table 3 (except area disturbed) and is,
therefore, selected as the conveyance system of choice for the
William H. Harsha hydropower project.
STORAGE REALLOCATION STUDIES

     The initial screening of alternatives tested various storage
reallocation plans in an effort to define the sensitivity of energy
produced, optimum installed capacity, and impacts on existing project
purposes.  Initial evaluation of energy developed by each considered
alternative produced supplemental hydrologic and hydraulic data
necessary for development of costs and evaluation of impacts.

     Conditions established for the initial screening of all plans were
as follows:

     1.  Utilize a single Francis turbine (Francis turbines were selected
over other types because of the head range expected for the storage
regimes studied.)
                                   30
                                                                          G-3
-------
     2.  Each alternative was run for installed capacities of 1, 2,  A,  6,
7.5, 8.5, 10, 15,  and 20 megawatts.

     3.  Computer  modeling assumed 57 cfs withdrawn from the lake to meet
water supply commitments and an average 60 cfs minimum release from the
lake to meet the authorized water quality commitment.

     A.  Utilized  a fixed tailwater elevation as opposed to'a tailwater
rating curve.

     5.  No head losses (losses due to friction of water moving through
the conveyance system).

     6.  Utilize the authorized maximum release rate for the project of
5,000 cfs.

     While an initial iteration of energy runs were made using the above
defined conditions,  subsequent  refinements were made in the process  prior
to completing the  initial screening.   These subsequent adjustments,  which
reflect condition  definitions for the economic data presented in preliminary
screening of the alternatives,  are as follows.

     1.  Input head  loss equations into the computer model.

     2.  Reduce the 60 cfs average water quality release to 15 cfs to
represent present  and near term future probable conditions.

     3.  Maintain  the 57 cfs water supply withdrawal from the lake (volume
and head created by water supply storage is therefore not available for
hydropower).

     A.  Reduce maximum project release rate to 2,000 cfs to reflect more
accurately actual  operation practice, particularly during spring, summer,
and fall months.
                                   31
-------
       Plan 1R
                                                         Plan 4R
  ntv
  its i
ARC*
 Of
'POL
100
ACRES
20.
anr
   vot
   IMCJE
   KENT
            »r
    \.V£*1A—
        80.7
        18.B
  Plans/
Pool Zones
                          Minimum/Maximum Releases (cfs)
         Winter-Spring
                                 Summer
    Fall-Winter
Plan 1R

Above 734
734-729
729-683

Plan 4R

Above 740
740-733
733-729
729-683
          100/2,000  to  5,000
          100/ADF
          15/15
         100/2,000  to  5,000
         100/ADF
         100/ADF
          15/15
Present Operation
Above 733
729-733
683-729
         100/2,000  to  5,000
         100/2,000  to  5,000
          15/15
                           100/2,000 to 5,000
                            15/15
                            15/15
                           100/2,000 to 5,000
                            15/15
                            15/15
                            15/15
                           100/2,000 to 5,000
                            15/15
                            15/15
100/2,000 to 5,000
100/ADF
 15/15
100/2,000 to 5,000
100/ADF
100/ADF
 15/15
100/2,000 to 5,000
100/2,000 to 5,000
 15/15
             FIGURE 11.  Power Plans Storage  Operation Criteria
                                   50
-------
taking longer to evacuate flood storage, and more water available for
hydropower at higher average head.  Annual energy for Plan 4R drops
from the'earlier Plan 4 regulation due to Plan 4 being allowed to draw
down the pool during the summer, whereas Plan 4R holds at the 740 pool
during early summer.  The change in regulation from Plan 4 to 4R does
produce more energy during the critical July-August peak period and,
therefore, results in greater net benefits.
WATER SUPPLY/WATER QUALITY ASSUMPTIONS

     Present conditions relative to operation of the project for the
authorized water supply and water quality purposes are that no water
supply withdrawal has been made to date and the minimum release for
water quality, as jointly established between the Corps of Engineers
and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, is 15 cfs.  Project
authorization calls for 57 cfs water supply and a variable (by month)
water quality release which averages 60 cfs.  Water quality formulation
was designed to meet needs in the lower Little Miami River by the year
2017.  The intake for water supply withdrawal from the lake has been
constructed.  Plans evaluated in the "Initial Screening" section were
evaluated based on the authorized water supply and water quality
operation.  Evaluation of detailed plans was based on 57 cfs water supply
withdrawal from the lake, per the existing contract, and 15 cfs minimum
release for water quality purposes.  Operation in this manner would
                             A
reflect actual project operation early in the evaluation period if
water supply withdrawals are initiated.
DETAILED PLANS

     Storage allocations for Plans 1R and 4R are shown in Figure 11
and opeational concepts have been explained in previous paragraphs.
Features common to Plans 1R and 4R are "defined as follows.
                                   51
-------
Operational Considerations

     The tentatively selected plan was formulated to meet several criteria
concerning recreation, fish and wildlife, and net benefits.  The selected
plan would operate as follows.  Releases from the lake would depend upon
time of year, pool elevation and downstream flood stages.  When filling the
lake with floodwaters and restricting outflows due to downstream flood
stages, the discharge rate would be 100 cfs.  When discharging floodwaters
that have been stored, releases would range from 5,000 cfs while the lake
pool is near the spillway elevation, down to 2,000 cfs as elevation 734
(new summer pool) is approached.  (Up to 1,039 cfs of these outflows will
pass through the new tunnel and will be used to generate electricity.)
During the period 7 September through 31 March, daily peakins will attempt
                                                  V
to pull the lake pool from elevation 734 to 729 by discharging 1,039 cfs
for the 8-hour peak period and 15 cfs for the remaining 16 hours of each
day.  (This is the equivalent of an average, daily flow of 357 cfs.)  If
the pool reaches elevation 729 (winter pool), discharges will be cut back
to the minimum release race of 15 cfs.  During the period 1 April through
6 September, the discharges while the lake pool is between elevations 734
and 729 will be different.  During July and August the lake can be drawn
down to elevation 729 in order to provide 14 days peaking operation at
the discharge rate described above for an average daily flow of 357 cfs.
Because of computer modeling constraints, the energy generation and the
pool hydrographs show this 14-day period as the last 14 days in August.
In actual operation, the 14 days would be distributed over the two months
according to when peak electrical demand occurred.   For the rest of the
1 April through 6 September period,  that is, every time but the 14 days,
operation will attempt to hold the lake stable at elevation 734, or after
the 14 days of peaking,  at whatever is the current  elevation.   This is
the same as run-of-river operation if there are sufficient inflows or
discharging only minimum releases, whichever is greater.   At any time of
the year, releases when the lake is below elevation  729 will be limited
                                   83
                                                                          C-1
-------
to 15 cfs, the current minimum release rate.   The operating schedule
described above provides the following results:

     1.  Flood control downstream is not adversely affected.

     2.  No loss is incurred in recreation activities or use of recreation
facilities.

     3.  No loss is incurred in the usability of recreation facilities.

     4.  The lake -pool is held stable during  an  extended spawning season
of 1 April through 30 June (to the extent that flooding conditions will
allow).

     5.  Downstream spawning conditions from  1 April through 30 June are
no different than presently occurring.

     6.  Full capacity benefits (and higher net  benefits) are derived from
the reliability of 1A days of peak generation.
                                   84
-------
       APPENDIX H
MARSHA LAKE THERMOGRAPHS
-------
                         HAR.'JHA LAKE THERMOGRAPHS
     Figures H~l> H"2 ,  and jr3 are presented in this Appendix to illustrate
the  general types  of  stratification  observed  in Harsha Lake  between the
months of April and October (1981-1983).  In these figures, the approximate
depth to the bottom of the uppermost stratum is labeled as Dt (depth to the
top  of  the thermocline) .   For  example,  no  surface stratification was
observed on 5  August 1981  (Figure Hl~l) !  Dt was  16  feet  on 12 August 1981
(Figure H~2);  and   the  surface   was  destratified   on   26 August  1981
(Figure H-3), so that Dt was 0 feet.

     In the  same  series of temperature profiles  an  unmixed bottom stratum
or  hypolimnion was  formed.   This  layer  is  labeled  as  Du (depth  to the
unmixed layer from the lake surface).

     The progression is  from  Du = 0 ft on  5  August  1981,  to Du = 87 ft on
12 August,   and  finally  to Du =  53  ft  on 26 August  1981.    Note  that as Du
came closer  to  the  lake surface between  12 and 26 August,  the temperature
of this layer  increased  by approximately 2°C,  as  indicated by the temper-
ature  scale on  the x-axis.  This  increase  in temperature may  have  been
caused by turbulence-induced mixing of water below the Du level with warmer
water beneath  the  bottom bypass level (Figure H -2).   Turbulence could have
been caused  by  release  of water from  the  bottom  bypass,  by wind generated
eddys or by currents associated  with confluencing stream flows.

     The primary factors responsible for surficial stratif ication/destrat i-
fication effects are solar  input,  convective heat input  when  air tempera-
ture  is  greater  than  water  temperature,  convective  heat  loss  when air
temperature is below water temperature, and wind mixing.
     The additional eight figures ( t*-4 - ^-11) illustrate important changes
in the degree  of  surface stratification from the last days of June through
the  middle  of  August 1982.   The  profiles  illustrate  that  while  Du  held
relatively  constant  throughout,  the  depth  of  the  surface  stratum  (Dt)
increased from  10  to  approximately  22 feet by the  middle  of August.   This
process appears to  have  been influenced by high solar heat inputs from the
                                  H-l
-------
     of  June  through 28 July,  as surface  water temperature  increased  by
approximately 7°C  (1.8°C  per week)  in this interval.  Then,  from 28 July
until the  end of  18 August,  surface water temperature fell about  4°C and
the depth of the surface stratum increased to almost 22 feet (Figure R-ll).
This  cooling  and increase  in  stratum depth may well have  been  caused  by
gradual  mixing of  the uppermost layers with cooler water  at the top of the
thermocline.  Wind-induced  eddy  currents  are likely to have been the pri-
mary mixing force.

     All  thermographs   presented  in  this  appendix were  provided by  the
US Army   Corps of  Engineers, Louisville   District  Office  (Water  Quality
Section).  These data have  not  previously been published  and all interpre-
tations   made regarding  Harsha  Lake   characteristics  are   relative to  the
alternatives discussed  in this EIS only.
                                  H-2
-------
                      W.H. HPRSHfl  LRKE
                          810805
                             t*- re-iff
                              TEMP (DEC o
                        50   B6   62   68

                         WflTER TEMP (DEC F)
                G • GATE
                                       B • BYPASS
Figure H-1.  Thermograph of Harsha  Lake on 5 August 1981
             demonstrating no surface stratification present
             and no unmixed layers present.
                              H-3
-------
                   W.H. HRRSHfl LflKE
                       810812
    Ul
    Ul
    u.
    UJ
    ui
900
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-

720-

710-


690-
680

670'
660'
650'
640
630'
620
fitn
V 733.18
—
3?
Dt 16'_^~*
Pt?
'
$?

£P

I8 _
	 . 	
_ ~f~"
0 .
1 1 1 1 1 1 * • ' ill 1 1 1
: -2- » -B- -B - ro-ir 14- re -IB- 20-22 -24- 26^20 -
HflTER TEHP (DEO Cl
	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 J 	 L 	 1 	 .
800
790
780
770
760
750
740
730 ,,:
in
720 T
Ul
710 m
7m «-•
g
690 2
a
680 u)
d
Ul
670
660
650
640
630
620
Kin
          32  38
44
74
80   86
        50   56  62   68

         HOTER TEMP (DEC F)

G < GATE                 B i BYPASS
Figure H-2.  Thermograph of Marsha  Lake on  12 August 1981
            demonstrating  strong stratification  at the surface.
            Unmixed layer  is 71 feet below Dt.
-------
                  W.H. HfiRSHP LfiKE
                      810826
   to

   r
   ui
   UJ
   u.
   o
   UJ


   UJ
800-,
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710-
700-
690-
680-
670-
660-
650-
640-
630-
620-
cm .
V 732
, — -


.74 Dt = 0

" " " : : JL s*~ :

- / **-




Du 53'
• ^


1 l i i i i i

J £?

y X^
, .

&
\ ._
i i i t i ill.
» 1 1 4 i 11 l l i l i i i i
- -2- 9 -6- -B ~ ttD-12 14- TS ~1& 20~22 "24- 26^28 -
WRTER TEMP I DEC C)
	 J 	 .4. 1 . i . 1 .... 1 .- 4... i 	 .
-BOO
•790
•780
770
•760
750
•740
720
•700
690
680
•670
•660
•650
•640
•630
•620
Kin
to
                                                     UJ
                                                     o
a
>
UJ

UJ
         32  38   44   50   56   62   68   74   80  B6


                       WRTER TEMP (DEC F)


              G t GflTE                  B  i BYPftSS



Figure H-3.  Thermograph  of Harsha  Lake on  26 August 1981

             demonstrating no surface stratification.
-------
                 W.H.  HflRSHfl LflKE
                      820630
   in
   r
   u
   u.
   a
   UJ
   u
800-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
7TI-

720-

710-
inn .

690-
fian-

670
660'
650
640-
630-
620-
cm -
, *
, •
<7 733.45 Dt ^J*'
- Vj
>£~ I?
A
f~ $P
/
_f $P
1
_f~ &~ '
1
/ ^
. .
11 1 1 1 1 L ' " ' ' ' III
11 Illlt-lllt 1 'J.'
- ~v~ t -6~ -fl- rc-12 T r re -iff 20-22 -24- Vo?& -
WflTER TIMP (DEC Cl
	 _l 	 -I 	 1 	 1 	 1 — 	 1_ __ ,_| ... 4 	 .
800
790
780
770
760
750
740
730 '
in
720 r
UJ
710 [^

g
•690 ~
a
680 jj

UJ
670
•660
•650
640
•630
620X
• Kin
         32   3fl   44   50   56   62  68
74
80  86
                      WflTER TEMP (DEC F)
              C i  ORTE                 B  • BYPRSS

Figure H-4. Thermograph of Marsha  Lake on 30 June  1982
            demonstrating  weak stratification at the  surface.
-------
                 W.H.  HflRSHfl LflKE
                      820708
   in
   •
   r
   UJ
   u
   u.
   a

   U)
BOO-i
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710-
TOO-
690-
680-
670-
660-
650-
640-
630-
620-
cm -
. •
7 731.16
•

•
::

::

_:

"i
• •
. i
G .
llllll > ' I I 1 1 1
- ~z- T -G- -8 - ro~i? 14- re -IB- 20-22 -24- 2^28 -
WPTER TEMP (DEC C>
	 1 	 1 	 L 	 4. 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	
•BOO
790
780
770
760
750
•740
730 "•
/au in
720 *
t-
Li
•710 S
700 "
690 2
a
680 ^
d
670
•660
•650
•640
•630
•620
K»n
        32   38
44
50   56   62   68   74   80   86
                      WflTER TEMP (DEC Fl
                                     B . BYPPSS
Figure H-5.  Thermograph of Marsha Lake on 8 July 1982.
-------
                N.H. HRRSHfl LRKE
                    820714
  J
  U)
   *
  C
  u
  UJ
  IL
  a
  UJ
  u
BOO-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710-
700-
690-
680-
670-
660-
650-
640-
630-
620-
Rin
*
•
•
«
tt 733.08
—



~ Tr~ ~
_______ _»_ 'jef — —

_ _ f -ii_







I I 1 1 1 1 I

/ t? :

/ i?

_/ &

> i i i i 1 1 1 _
1 1 1 HI \ 1 1 1 1 1 J " l 1 1
~ "2~ * ~6~ "8 ~ tO~l? "t*~ r6 "IB" 20~22 ~24~ 26 28 ~
WflTER TEMP (DEC C)
	 1 • 4 	 — 1 	 1 	 J - .1. 1 . ._!
800
790
780
770
760
750
740
730
/3U W
720 *
LU
•710 |f
TOO -
•690 2
a
•680 21
UJ
•670
•660
650
•640
630
•620
cm
        32   38
44
74
        50   56   62  68

        W«TER TEMP (DEC Fl

G • CflTE                 B «  BYPASS
80   86
Figure H-6.  Thermograph of Harsha Lake on 14 July 1982
            demonstrating the inflow of two feet of water
            since 08 July 1982.
-------
 _J
 in
 r
 llj
 UJ
 IL
 a
 i
                W.H.  HRRSHfi LflKE
                    820722
800-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710-
TOO-
690-
680
670-
660-
650-
640-
630-
620-
cm .
> •
> •
> •
V 733.27
^_ ^1 .
C/
^-/ '
- __^-r^g_ .
- — — — — ____ ^_ -^ — *t — .
/
_/ I?
/
~f ^B
/
/ I?

.
1 1 1 1 1 l ' • ' II 1 III
ill II Illllll lji
- -2- * -6- -B- ro-12 i^re-ie- 20-22-24- 26*^28 -
WOTER TEMP (DEC C)
i 	 1 	 1 	 1_ ... _i 	 1 i 	 1 	 .
•BOO
•790
780
•770
760
750
•740
_i
•
•720 *
tD
•710 UJ
TOO -
•680 u
670
660
•650
640
630
620
Kin
       32   38
44
50  56   62   68
74
80  86
                     WflTER TEMP I DEC F)

            G • GRTE                  B • BYPftSS
Figure H-7.  Thermograph of Marsha Lake on  22 July  1982.
-------
                W.H.  HflRSHfi LflKE
                     820728
800-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
•

in
*
1 720'

£ 710-

/UU
g
S 690'
a
uj 680 •

670
660
650
640-
630
620
cm
DlU
t
•
«
«
«
i
tt 733.33
~ ^COJ- '
Ij
[ -<>^ '
j^^^ ^B-
-X^^ 1
Z I?
/
y' ^p~ ]]
~J
y I?

. ..
ii i i i i ii ii t i iii
VI 1 1 1 1 1 1 II t "IJI
- -2- * -6~ -8 ~ tt)-l? 14- rt -IB" 2O-22 -24- 26*28 -
WflTER TEMP (DEC C)
11111(11
»2 38 44 50 56 62 68 74 80 1
BOO
790
780
770
760
750
740
, ^^n *
W
*
720 r
W
710 tf
Z
g
690 -
•680 S
3
Ul
670
660
650
640
630
620
•Kin
i O1U
36
                     WPVTER TEMP (DEC FJ
             C i GQTE                 B i BYPASS
Figure H-8.  Thermograph of Marsha Lake on 28 July 1982.
-------
                 W.H. HRRSHR LflKE
                     820805
ELEVOTION IN FEET H.S.L.
800-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710'
TOO
690
680-
670'
660
650
640-
630-
620
etn .
• i
i i
tt 733.02
^- 1
R?
4
^—^^&"
/^
J. 1?~
y
/ ^~ •
/
JL I?
• •
0 .
1 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 V
- -2- <• -6~ -8- rO~12 44- re -18- 2CT22 "24- 26<4t28 ~,
HflTER TEMP (DEC Cl
	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1__ ...i 	 _i 	 1 	 1 	
800
790
•780
•770
760
•750
740
•720
•710
700
690
680
670
660
•650
640
630
620
-Kin
ELEVRTION IN FEET M.S.L.
        32   38
44
GOTE
50  56   62   68
 WOTER TEMP (DEC FI
74
80  86
                                    8 i BYPflSS
Figure H-9.  Thermograph of Marsha Lake on 5 August  1982.
                               H-n
-------
                W.H.  HflRSHfi  LfiKE
                     820811
  _l
  10
   *
  r
  UJ
  HI
  U

  UJ
800-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710-
TOO-
690-
680-
670-
660-
650'
640
630
620
cm
«
•
*
«
•
«
V 733.30
—
I?

	 	 	 	 	 	 ^^/_. 4L 	

1 3?
~-/
J. I?
/
. 	 	 yt- 	 	 _g ,

:7rr""vr"""r","K"
- -2 ~ 4" ~6- 13 - 10-12- -14- re -Iff 20-22 "24- 2^28 -
WOTER TEMP (DEC CJ
	 UJ 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 J 	 . J 	 __1 	 	 J 	 .
BOO
790
780
770
760
750
740
730 ^
720 r
i~
Ul
710 tf
700 ~
690 «
fr™
(t
680 uj
U)
670
660
650
640
630
620
Kin
        32  38
44
GflTE
50  56   62   68   74   80   86
                      WfiTER TEMP JOEG Fl
                                    B « BVPPSS
Figure H~10.  Thermograph of Harsha Lake on 11 August 1982.
-------
                 W.H.  HRRSHfl LflKE
                     820818
   CO
   *
   r
   kt
   UJ
   U.
   a
   u
   U)
BOO-
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
740-
730-
720-
710-
TOO-
690-
680-
670-
660
650-
640-
630*
620-
Kin-
V 733.02
•^L L
L 1?"
j
J I?
~^f
/^ &*
7
j $?
J
^ / t6"
. — — — — _ — /L_ — ^. — - -
> <
• •
D .
I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I | | 1
r -2- «• -B- -e - ro-i? it- re -ir 20-22 -24- 26*^8 •
WflTER TEMP tDEG C)
	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 j 	 1 	 1 	 .
800
790
780
770
760
•750
740
* wU 4«ft
01
720 r
U
710 tf
•700 -
690 ^
&
680 s
670
660
650
640
630
620
-Kin
        32  38
44
50  56   62   68   74  80   86
                      HOTER TEMP (DEC F)
             C i GATE
                    B • BYPRSS
Figure H-11.  Thermograph of Harsha Lake  on  18 August 1982.
-------
         APPENDIX I
FISH COMMUNITY OF THE EAST FORK
-------
Table 1-1.  Overall composition of the fish community, determined by electro-
            fishing in an 85 mile (137 km) segment of the mainstem of the
            East Fork of the Little Miami River (* denotes less then 0.01% and
            ** denotes less than 0.001%).  Derived from Comprehensive Water
            Quality Report on East Fork of the Little Miami River (OEPA 1983).
Species Name

Silver shiner (Notropis photogenis)
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
Longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotls)
Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Creek chub (Semotilus a t romaculatus)
Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum)
Golden redhorse (Moxostoma erythrurum)
Bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus)
White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
Greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides)
Northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans)
Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)
Spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus)
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochlrus)
Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui)
Fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare)
Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)
Rainbow darter (Etheostoma caeruleum)
Steelcolor shiner (Notropis whipplei)
Logperch (Percina caprodes)
Trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus)
Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)
Silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum)
Striped shiner (Notropis chrysocephalus)
Orangethroat darter (Etheostoma spectabile)
Spotfin shiner (Notropis spilopterus)
Common shiner (Notropis cornutus
Rosefin shiner (Notropis ardens)
Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus)
Quillback (Carpiodes cyprinus)
Banded darter (Etheostomba zonale)
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Johnny darter (Estheostoma nig rum)
White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus)
Blackside darter (Percina maculata)
Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)
Green Sunfish x Longear
Shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma mac role p id o turn)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
Black crappie (Pomoxi s nigromaculatus)
Black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei)
Mean
No/ km
115.13
79.82
65.07
64.68
59.35
56.35
50.86
41.78
39.03
34.94
33.14
27.99
20.90
15.47
14.96
13.58
11.88
11.59
9.57
9.10
8.28
6.71
6.61
6.20
6.22
5.79
5.56
5.35
5.35
4.86
4.89
4.41
4.42
4.26
4.17
3.73
3.77
3.44
3.30
2.50
2.19
2.06
% By
Number
12.81
8.88
7.24
7.20
6.60
6.27
5.66
4.65
4.34
3.89
3.69
3.11
2.33
1.72
1.67
1.51
1.32
1.29
1.07
1.01
0.92
0.75
0.74
0.69
0.69
0.64
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.54
0.54
0.49
0.49
0.47
0.46
0.42
0.42
0.38
0.37
0.28
0.24
0.23
Mean
KS/]EL_
0.202
5.292
1.127
50.883
0.758
0.282
17.343
0.097
1.218
0.093
3.271
0.506
1.443
0.444
0.878
0.016
0.019
0.015
0.035
0.060
0.034
0.574
4.042
0.057
0.007
0.016
0.100
0.011
0.008
2.553
0.007
2.096
0.005
0.367
0.117
0.007
0.460
0.072
0.833
0.179
0.115
1.050
% By
Weight
0.19
5.01
1.07
48.20
0.72
0.27
16.43
0.09
1.15
0.09
3.10
0.48
1.37
0.42
0.83
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.54
3.83
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.01
2.42
0.01
1.99
*
0.35
0.11
0.01
0.44
0.07
0.79
0.17
0.11
0.99
                                       1-1
-------
Table I-l.   (Continued)
Species Name

Silverjaw minnow (Ericymba j3U£ca_ta)
White bass (Morone chrysops)
Green sunfish x Pumpkinseed
River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio)
Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris)
Rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus)
Brook silverside (Labidesthesa sicculus)
Bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)
Black buffalo (Ictiobus niger)
Smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus)
River redhorse (Moxostoma crarinatum)
Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis)
Stonecat (Noturus flavus)
Yellow bullhead (^£t£liur_us natalis)
Sauger (Stizostedlon canadense)
Highfin carpsucker (Carpiodes velifer)
Bluegill x Pumpkinseed
Pumpkinseed x Longear Sunfish
Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus)
Skipjack herring (Alosa chrysochloris)
Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops)
Silver chub (Hybopsis storeriana)
Brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)
Orangespotted sunfish (Lepomis humilis)
Green sunfish x Bluegill
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)
Black bullhead (Ictalurus melas)
Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala)
Goldfish (Carassius auratus)
Longear sunfish x Bluegill
Mean
No/ km
2.04
1.72
1.64
1.55
1.45
1.29
1.28
1.00
0.99
0.90
0.70
0.62
0.65
0.44
0.49
0.40
0.38
0.33
0.27
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.22
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.03
% By
Numbe r
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
*
*
Mean
Kg/ km
0.003
0.085
0.060
1.106
3.058
0.001
0.002
1.713
1.110
0.813
0.387
0.003
0.003
0.043
0.110
0.172
0.006
0.008
0.148
0.004
0.012
0.002
0.014
0.001
0.008
0.001
**
**
**
**
% By
Weight
*
0.08
0.06
1.05
2.90
*
*
1.62
1.05
0.77
0.37
*
*
0.04
0.10
0.16
0.01
0.01
0.14
*
0.01
*
0.01
*
0.01
*
*
*
*
*
                                       1-2
-------
    APPENDIX J
CULTURAL RESOURCES
-------
  8858
Federal Register  / Vol. 48, No. 41  / Tuesday, March  1.  1983 / Notices
  YadkJn County
  Huntsville, White House. Shallowford Rd.
   (06/01/82)

  Yancey County
  Burnsville, Nu-Wraylnn. Off US 19E (04/15/
   82)

  OHIO

  Adams County
  West Union, Woods, Tet, Building, 307 Main
   St. (C3/25/82)

  Allen County
  Delphos, Marks-Family House, 233 North
   Franklin St. (04/01/82)

  Ashland County
  Jeromesville vicinity, Lakefork School, SE of
   Jeromesville (03/05/82)
  Loudonville, Caret John, House, NE of
   LoudonviUa on OH 95 (04/29/82)
  Savannah vicinity, Crittenden Fam, NW of
   Savannah on US 224 and US 250 (04/22/82)

  Athens County
  Athens vicinity. White's-VaJs Mill. OH 682
   (07/29/82)
  Athens, Athens Downtown Historic District,
   N. Court St. between Carpenter and Union
   Sts. and Congress and College Sts. (OS/30/
   82)
  Athens,. Sheltering Arms Hospital, Clark St.
   (08/25/82)

  Belmont County
  BarnesvilJe vicinity, Tower Site (33-B1-15),
   (06/11/82)
  Belmont, Schooley, Dr. Lindley, House and
   Office. Main St. (04/01/82)
  Martin's Ferry, Finney-Darrah House,
   Scenary Hill (03/15/82)

  Drown County
  Ripley, Red Oak Presbyterian Church,
   Cemetery Rd. (06/17/82)
  St. Martin, Murphy, Daniel, Log House,
   Anderson State Rd. (06/17/82)

  Butler County
  Hamilton, St. Stephen Church and Rectory,
   224 Dayton St. (07/29/82)
  Oxford, Langstroth Cottage, 303 Patterson
   Ave.. (12/21/81) (NHL

  Champaign County
  Urbana, Mosgrove. Dr. Adam, House, 127
   Miami St. (07/15/82)

  Clark County
  South Charleston vicinity, Green Plain
   Monthly Meetinghouse. Clifton Rd. (04/01/
   82)
  Springfield, St. Joseph Roman Catholic
   Church, 802 Kenton St. (03/15/82)
\ Clermpnt County jj
  New Richmond vicinity, Roas-Ilhardt Farm
    and Winery, N of New Richmond at 3233
    Coin Rd. (09/18/82)
  New Richmond, Ross-Gowdy House, 125
    George St. (06/01/82)
  Williamsburg vicinity, McKever, Lewis.
    Farmhouse. 4475 McKeeverRd. (04/01/82)
                     Clinton County
                     Sabina, Haines, Frank, House. 149 West Elm
                       St. (04/01/82)

                     Coschocton County
                     Plainfield, Johnson. Thomas, House, OH 541
                       (05/14/82)
                     Warsaw vicinity, Chalfant Church, S of
                       Warsaw off OH 80 (03/15/82)

                     Cuyahoga County
                     Brecks ville, Snow, Russ and Holland,
                       Houses, 12911 and 13114 Snowville Rd. (09/
                       28/82)
                     Cleveland, Cleveland Warehouse District,
                       Roughly bounded by Front and Superior
                       Aves., Railroad, Summit. 3rd, and 10th Sts.
                       (09/30/82)
                     Cleveland, Variety Store Building and
                       Theatre. 11801-11825 Lorain Avenue (04/
                       01/82)
                     Gates Mills, Keyt, Gideon, House, Chagrin
                       River and Deerfield Rds. (06/01/82)
                     Parma, Steams, Lyman, Farm, 6975 Ridge Rd.
                       (10/01//81)

                     Darke County
                     New Madison vidnity. Walker, Cristopher C,
                       House and Farm, SW of New Madison, N
                       of OH 121  (04/07/82)
                     Versailles vicinity, English, William, House,
                       11291 OH 47 (06/02/82)

                     Delaware County
                     Ashley vicinity, Sharp, Samuel, House
                       (Sharp's Run}, 7436 Horseshoe Rd (07/29/
                       82)
                     Westervilla vicinity, Sharp, Stephen, House;
                       N of Westerville on Africa Rd. (09/30/82)

                     Erie County
                     Sandusky, Hotel Breakers, Cedar Point, (04/
                     ' 22/82)

                     Fairfield County
                     Pickerington vidnity, Dovel, J. H., Farm, 860
                       N. Hill Rd. (03/15/82)

                     Franklin County
                     Canal Winchester, Canal Winchester
                       Methodist Church, S. Columbus and High
                       St. (03/15/82)
                     Columbus, Krumm House. 975-979 S. High St
                       (09/30/82)
                     Columbus, Long and Third Commercial
                       Building. 104-114 E. Long St. (07/01/32)
                     Columbus, Rankin Building, 22 W. Gay St.
                       (03/10/82)
                     Lockboume vicinity, Heir, Christian S.,
                       House. N of Lockboume at 1451 Rathmell
                       Rd. (03/05/82)
                     Gollia County
                     Ewington, Ewington Academy, Ewington Rd.
                       (09/30/82)

                     Greene County
                     Fairborn, Mercer Log House. 41 N. 1st St. (10/
                       18/81)
                     Yellow Springs, Yellow Springs Historic
                       District, Roughly bounded by RR tracks.
                       Yellow Springa-Fairfleld Rd., High and
                       Herman Sts.  (04/01/82)

                     Guernsey County
                     Cambridge, McCreary-Bumworth House, 220
                       Highland Ave.  (03/12/82)
 Cuyaboga County
 Cleveland, Tiedemann, Hannes, House, 4308
  Franklin Blvd. (03/15/82)

 Hamilton County
 Cincinnati vicinity, Salem Methodist Church
  Complex. 6137 Salem Rd. (04/29/32)
 Cincinnati, Anderson Ferry, Off U.S. 50 (see
  also Kentucky) (06/10/82)
 Cincinnati, Bramble. Ayres, L. House, 4416
  Homer Ave. (04/01/82)
 Cincinnati, Burdsal. Samuel. House, 1342
  Broadway St (06/10/82)
 Cincinnati, Carew Tower (Starrett
  Netherland Plaza Hotel), W. 5th St. and
  Fountain Sq. (08/05/82)
 Cincinnati, Gilbert Row, 2152-216d Gilbert
  Ave. (05/13/82)
 Cincinnati, Goldsmith, Moses, Building, 356
  Bryant (06/10/82)
 Cincinnati, Grace Church, 3826 Reading Rd.
  (09/18/82)
 Cincinnati, Hadden Hall, 3418 Readin Rd.
  (07/22/82)
 Cincinnati, Hulbert House and McAlpin
  Bridal Cottage, 333 and 341 Lafayette Ave.
  (04/29/82)
 Cincinnati. Ratterman, Bernard,  House, 1349
  Broadway. (09/30/82)
 Cincinnati, Ropes, Nathaniel, Buj/o!mg,.917
  Main St (09/30/82)
 Cincinnati, St. Rosa Church, 2501 Eastern
  Ave. (04/01/82)
 Cincinnati, Sycamore—13th Street Grouping,
  12th, 13th, and Sycamore St3. (06/01/82)
 Cincinnati, Underwriters Salvage Corps, 110—
  112 E. 8th St (07/15/82)
 Cincinnati, Wright, Daniel Thew, House, 3718
  River Rd.  (09/28/82)
 Cincinnati, Young Women's Christian
  Association of Cincinnati, 9th and Walnut
  Sts. (09/18/82)
 Loveland, Shield's, Edwin A/., House
  (William Johnston House), 220 Riverside
  Ave. (04/01/82)

 Henry County
 Napoleon, St Augustine's Catholic Church,
  221 E. Clinton St (09/02/82)

 Highland County
 Hillsboro vicinity. Trap Farm,  6250 Mad River
  Rd. (04/01/82)
 Hillsboro, East Main Street Historic District,
  E. Main and E. Walnut Sts. (06/01/82)
 Hillsboro, Lilley, Robert D., House. 7915 OH
  124.(06/17/82)
 Hillsboro, Mother Thompson House, 133
  Willow St. (06/01/82)

 Hocking County
 Logan vicinity, Woodruff, William H.. House,
  35330 Unton Rd. (07/29/82)

 Holmes County
 Lakeville vicinity, DeYarmon, Joseph L.
  House, SR 179 and SR 273. (05/04/82)

Jackson County
 Pattonsville, Keystone Furnace.  SR *?9. (03/
  18/82)

Jefferson County
 Smithfield, Smithfield School,  High St. (10/
  16/81)
-------
                     Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 22 / Tuesday,  February 2,  1982 / Notices
                                                                               4947
•BELL. C. S.. THEMATIC RESOURCES.
  Reference—see individual listings under
  Highland County.
PA TROL STA T1ONS IN CINCINNATI. OHIO
  THEMATIC RESOURCES. Reference—see
  individual listings under Hamilton County.

Ashtabula County
Jefferson, Jefferson Town Hall. 27 E. Jefferson
  St. (5-18-81)

Athens County
Chauncey, blester. Joseph, House, SB of
  Chauncey on SR 111 (11-28-80)
Athens, Herrold, Thomas Jefferson. House
  and Store. 234 W. Washington St (11-21-
  80)

Brown County
Wilmington. Pisgah C -isiian Church, NW of
  Bipley on Pisgah Rd. (11-21-80)

Butler County
Hamilton, Butler County Courthouse, 2nd and
  High Sts. (6-22-81)
Milford. Promont (Cov. John M. Pattison
  House). 906 Goshen Pk. (11-21-60)

Clinton County
Wilmington, Main. Building. Sngartfee St (il-
  21-80)
Wilmington, South Place, N. South St. (11-25-
  80)

Coshoctpn County
Coshocton vicinity, Milligan, Cuthbert,
  House, N of Coshocton (11-25-80)

Cuyahoga County
Berea, Berea Union Depot. 30 Depot St. (11-
  21-60)
Cleveland. St. Paul's Episcopal Church. 4120
  Euclid Ave. (11-25-80)
Cleveland, Warazawa Neighborhood
  District, E. 65th St and Forman Ave. (11-
  28-CO)
North Olmsted, First  Universalist Church of
  Olmsted, 5050 Porter Rd. (11-25-80)
North Olmsted. North Olmated Town Hall,
  Sl&d Dover Center Rd. (11-25-80)
Parma, Steams, Lyman, Farm.  6975 Ridge Rd.
  (10-1-81)
Strcngsville, Strong. John Stoughton, House,
  18810 Westwood St (11-24-80)

Darke County
Greenville, Carnegie Library and Henry St.
  Clair Memorial Hall, 520 Sycamore St and
  W. 4th St. (11-26-80) .
Versailles, Versailles Town Hall and Wayne
  Township Howe. 4 W. Main St. (2-18-81)

Delaware County
Ashley, Building at 500 East High Street
  (Eastlake Houses of Ashley  Thematic
  Resources) (11-25-80)
Ashley, Building at SOB East High Street
  (Eastlake Houses of Ashley  Thematic
  Resources) (11-25-80)
Ashley, Bailding at 101 North Franklin Street
  (Eastlake Houses of Ashley  Thematic
  Resources) (11-25-80)
Ashley. Building at 223 West High Street
  (Eastlake Houses of Ashley  "Thematic
  Resources) (11-25-60)
Faiifield County
Amanda. Ban-House, 350 W. Main St. (11-
  28-«0)
Rushville, Rushville Historic District, Bremen
  Ave,. Main and Maiket Sts. (11-24-60)

Franklin County
Central College Multiple Resource Area. This
  area includes: WesterviUe vicinity. Central
  College Presbyterian Church. Sunbury Rd^
  Fairchild Building.
Sunbury Rd.; Presbyterian Parsonage, 8972
  Sunbury Rd.; Washburn, Rev. Ebenezer,
  House. 7121 Sunbury Rd. (11-25-80)
Columbus, Broad Street United Methodist
  Church. 501 E. Broad St (11-28-SO)
Columbus, German Village, Roughly bounded
  by Livingston Ave., Pearl and Blackberry
  Alley, Nursery Lane, and Lathrop St
  (boundary increase approved 11-28-80)
Columbus, Ohio National Bank, 167 S. High
  St. (11-28-80)
Columbus. Welsh Presbyterian Church, 315
  E. Long St (11-24-80)

Gallia County
Patriot vicinity, Davis Mill, NE of Patriot on
  Cora Mill Rd. (11-28-fiO)

Greene County
Fairbom. Mercer Log House. 41 N. 1st St (10-
  18-81)

Hamilton County
Cincinnati, Aklemeyer Commercial
  Buildings, 19—23 W. Court St (12-9-801
Cincinnati, Ida Street Viaduct, Ida St (11-28-
  80)
Cincinnati. Mount Adams Public School, 1125
  St Gregory St (11-24-80)
Cincinnati, Ninth Street Historic District, 9th
  St between Vine and Plum Sts. (11-25-80)
Cincinnati, Police Station No. 8 (Police
  Stations in Cincinnati, Ohio Thematic
  Resources) Delta Ave. and Columbia Pkwy.
  (5-18-81)
Cincinnati Police Station No. 7 (Patrol
  Stationfin Cincinnati, Ohio Thematic
  Resources) 355 McMillan St (5-18-81)
Cincinnati, Police Station No. 2 (Patrol
  Stations in Cincinnati, Ohio Thematic
  Resources) 314 Broadway (previously
  listed in Lytle Park Historic District 3-28-
  76)
Cincinnati, Police Station No. 3 (Patrol
  Stations in Cincinnati, Ohio Thematic
  Resources) 3201 Warsaw Ave. (5-18-81)
Cincinnati Police Station No. B (Patrol
  Stations in Cincinnati, Ohio Thematic
  Resources) 1024—1028 York St (previously
  listed as part of Samuel Hannaford and
  Sons Thematic Resources 3-3-80)
Montgomery, Wilder-Swaim House, 7850
  Cooper Rd. (5-20-81)

Highland County
Hillsboro, Bell, C.S. Foundry and Showroom
  (Bell. C.S., Thematic Resources) 154-158
  W. Main St (11-25-SO)
Hillsboro, Bell. Mansion (Bell, C.S.. Thematic
  Resources) 225 Oak St. (11-25-80)
Hillsboro, Bell's First Home (Bell, C.S.,
  Thematic Resources) 222 Beech St. (11-25-
  80]
Hillsboro, Bell's Opera House (Bell. C.S..
  Thematic Resources) 109-119 S. High St
  (11-25-80)
Henry County
Napoleon, Henry County Sheriffs Residence
  and fail, 123 E. Washington St. (6-24-81J
Jackson County
Wellston, Clutts House. 16 E. Broadway St
  (11-26-80)

Jefferson County
Adena vicinity, Hamilton-lckes House. N of
  Adena on SR 10 (11-28-80)
Smithfield. Smithfield School. High St (10-
  16-81)
Wintersville vicinity. Bantam Ridge School.
  Bantam Ridge Rd. (10-1-81)
Knox County
Mount Vemon vicinity. Thompson, Enoch,
  House, SW of Mount Vemon on OH 661
  (11-25-SO)

Lake County
Mentor, Oliver. John G., House. 7645 Little
  Mountain Rd. (10-1-81)

Licking County
GRANVILLE MULTIPLE RESOURCE AREA
  (Partial Inventory). This area includes:
  Granville. Granvilla Historic District, OH
  37; Bancroft, A. A., House, N. Pearl St and
  Washington Dr.; Carpenter, Wallace W.,
  House (The Castle) 323 Summit St: Dustia
  Cabin, 597 N. Pearl SU Rogers House. 304
  N. Pearl St; Rose. Copt Levi, House. 631 N.
  Pearl St (11-28-80)
Johnstown. Monroe Township Hall-Op fro
  House. 1 S. Main St (7-8-81)
Newark. Rhoads, Peter P.. House, 74
  Granville St [11-28-80)

Lucas County
Toledo, Ashland Avenue Baptist Church,
  Ashland Ave. at Woodruff (11-26-80)

Medina County
Medina, Munson, Judge Albert, House.  231 E.
  Washington St. (11-26-80)

Meigs County
Pomeroy, Pomeroy Historic District, 2nd St
  and Main St. (Boundary increase approved
  11-22-80)

Mercer County
Celina,  Otis Hospital. 441 E. Market St. (11-
  25-«0)
Celina, Godfrey, Sen. Thomas/.. House. 602
  W. Market St. (11-26-80)
Miami County
Covington, Covington Historic Government
  Building, Spring and Pearl  Sts. (6-22-81)

Monroe County
Graysville vicinity. Ring, Walter, House aad
  Mill Site, SE of Graysville  on SR 575 (11-
  28-80)

Montgomery County
Dayton, Dayton Stove and Cornice Works, •
  24—28 N. Patterson Blvd. (11-26-80)
Dayton, Lafee Building, 22 E. 3rd St. (11-25-
  80)
Trot wood, Trotwood Railroad Station and
  Depot, 2 W. Main St (1-26-S1)
-------
                        NOTICES
                                                                                                             OHIO   7553
Pisgah vicinity. UNION TOWNSHIP WORKS
  II. (10-7-71) PH004371I
Ross vicinity.  DEMORET  MOUND,  W  of
  Ross, (10-21-75)
Ross vicinity  HOGAN-BORGER  MOUND
  ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT, N of Ross,
  (10-21-75)
Ross vicinity. ROSS TRAILS  A DEN A  CIR-
  CLE, NW of Ross, (10-10-75)
Ross vicinity. SHAW  FARM. 3357 Cincmnati-
  Brookville Rd., (7-24-74) PH0043702      ^
Shandon. THOMAS SELECT SCHOOL. 3637
  Millville-Shandon Rd., (4-1 1-77)
Shandon    vicinity.    VAUGHAN,    JOHN,
  HOUSE.  3756 Hamilton-New London Rd.
                                          Springfield vicinity. NEWLOVE WORKS, (6-
                                           4-73) PH0050059

                                                       clemont county
                                          Milfofd vicinity. PFARR LOG HOUSE. SE of
                                           Milford on Shayler Run Rd., (9-16-77)
                                                     I clermont rounryj
                                          Bantam   vicinity.  BETHEL  METHODIST
                                           CHURCH. 1 mi.  N of Bantam on Elk Lick
                                           Rd., (8-11-78)
                                          Bantam vicinity. ELK LICK ROAD MOUND.
                                           N of Bantam, (2-20-75)
                                       V Bantam vicinity.  PINKHAM FARM.  NW of
                                           Bantam off OH 125, (7-23-73) PH0050148
  (5-29-75)                             V Balavia vicinity. EAST  FORK  SITE,  S of
West Chester vicinity. MIAMI-ERIE CANAL     Batavia, (3-30-78)
  SITE HISTORIC DISTRICT, 5141-5251 Ri-
  altoRd., (12-18-78)
              Carroll county
Carrollton.       CARROLL      COUNTY
  COURTHOUSE, Courthouse  Sq..  (10-22-
  74) PH0050199
Carrollton.  MCCOOK,  DANIEL,
                                HOUSE,
  Public Sq,, (11-10-70) PH0094471
Carrollton vicinity. PETERSBURG MILL, 4.3
  mi. S of Carrollton on OH 332, (11-20-70)
  PH0050172
Minerva.  MINERVA GRADE SCHOOL, SE
  corner W. Line St. at Grant Blvd., (10-15-
  73)
Waynesburg   vicinity.   ST.  MARY'S   OF
  MORGES, 8012 Bachelor Rd., NW., (4-11-
  77)

            champaign county
Mechanicsburg  vicinity.   POTTER,   CARL,
  MOUND  (HODGE MOUND II), (8-13-74)
  PH0034321
Saint Paris. MONITOR  HOUSE, 375 W. Main
  St., (5-2-74) PH0050164
Urbana.  WARD, JOHN Q. A., HOUSE, 335
  College St., (7-30-74) PH0050156
Urbana  vicinity.  NUTWOOD PLACE, 1428
  Nutwood PI.,(12-12-76)

               dark county
Enon. ENON  MOUND   (KNOB PRAIRIE
  MOUND), (2-23-72)
South Charleston.  SOUTH CHARLESTON
  HISTORIC DISTRICT, OH 70, (7-17-78)
Springfield.  ARCADE HOTEL, Fountain Ave.
  and High St., (10-16-74) PH0050008
Springfield.  EAST HIGH STREET DISTRICT,
  Roughly bounded by E. High, S. Sycamore,
  and Walnut Sts., (10-9-74) PH0050024
Springfield.  LAGONDA CLUB  BUILDING,
  NW corner  of High and Spring Sts., (5-28-
  75)
Springfield  MUNICIPAL BUILDING (CITY
  HALL), S. Fountain Ave. between High and
  Washington Sts., (5-25-73) PH0050041
Springfield.  MYERS HALL, Wittenberg Ave.
  and Ward St., (6-30-75)
Springfield.  PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE, 1311
  W. Main St., (4-11-73) PH0050067
Springfield.  ST. RAPHAEL CHURCH, 225 E.
  HighSt , (6-22-76)
Springfield.  WARDER PUBLIC LIBRARY, E.
  High and Spring Sts., (2-17-78)
Springfield.  WESTCOTT HOUSE,  1340 High
  St., (7-24-74) PH0050075
Springfield vicinity. BREWER LOG HOUSE,
  2665   Old   Springfield   Rd.,  (8-13-74)
  PH0050016
Springfield   vicinity.   CRABILL,   DAVID.
  HOUSE,  5 mi. E of Springfield off OH 4,
  (10-10-75)
Springfield  vicinity.  HETZLER.  DANIEL,
  HOUSE,  W of Springfield off OH 4, (2-7-
  78)
v, Bethel vicinity. SALT HOUSE, SW of Bethel
    on OH 222, (6-22-76)
  Felicity vicinity. BULLSKIN CREEK  SITE, S
    of Felicity, (3-30-78)
  goshen  vicinity.  DEVANNEY  SITE, W of
    Goshen, (3-30-78)
  Milford  vicinity. CATCH  SITE,  (10-15-74)
    PH0294659
      Olive  vicinity.   WINTER,  WILLIAM,
    STONE HO USE, N of M t. Olive on OH 13 3.
    (3-25-77)
  Neville vicinity. EDGtNGTON MOUND, E of
    Neville, (7-15-74) PH0050105
  Neville  vicinity.  FERRIS  SITE,  (10-29-74)
    PH0034312
  Neville  vicinity.  SCHAFER  HOUSE,' E of
    Neville off U.S. 52, (5-13-74) PH0050121
  Neville  vicinity. SNEAD MOUND, Off U.S.
    52, (7-30-74) PH0050130
  Penntown  vicinity. STONELICK  COVERED
    BRIDGE,  E  of  Penntown,   (9-10-74)
    PH0054569
  Point Pleasant vicinity. CLARKE FARM SITE,
    (11-19-74) PH0043826
  Withamsville   vicinity.   GASKINS-MALANY
    HOUSE, 726 Bradbury Rd., (10-29-75)

               clinton county
     LYNCHBURG   COVERED   BRIDGE,
    Reference—see Highland County
  Clarksville  vicinity. HARVEY, ELI, HOUSE,
    1133 Lebanon Rd.. (2-14-78)
  Clarksville  vicinity.  PANSY METHODIST
    CHURCH AND SCHOOL HISTORIC DIS-
    TRICT, S of Clarksville on OH 730. (3-20-
    73) PH0050113
  Lumberton vicinity. HURLEY MOUND, W of
    Lumberton, (5-5-78)
  Martinsville vicinity. MARTINSVILLE ROAD
    COVERED BRIDGE, W of Martinsviile, (9-
    10-74) PH0054551
  Oakland   vicinity.    HILLSIDE    HAVEN
    MOUND, SW of Oakland, (11-21-78)
  Wilmington. COLLEGE HALL, WILMING-
    TON COLLEGE. E of College St. between
    Douglas  St.  and  Fife Ave. on Wilmington
    College campus, (4-23-73) PH0050083
  Wilmington vicinity. COWAN CREEK  CIRCU-
    LAR ENCLOSURE, SW of Wilmington, (7-
    15-74) PH0050091
  Wilmington vicinity. KEITER MOUND, N of
    Wilmington,. ( 10-21-75)

             columbiana county
  Clarkson  vicinity.  GASTON'S  MILL-LOCK
    NO. 36, SANDY AND  BEAVER  CANAL
    DISTRICT. Abput 1  mi. S of Clarkson in
    Beaver  Creek  State  Forest,   (5-23-74)
    PH0050229
  Columbiana. JONES-BOWMAN HOUSE. 540
    Pittsburgh St., (12-12-76)
  East Liverpool. BEGINNING POINT OF THE
    U.S.  PUBLIC LAND SURVEY,  On the
    OH/PA boundary, (10-15-66) PH0050202
    NHL. (also in Beaver County, PA)
                                                 East Liverpool EAST LIVERPOOL POST OF-
                                                   FICE, 5th and Broadway Sts., ( 1 1-21-76)
                                                 East  Liverpool.  EAST LIVERPOOL- POT-
                                                   TERY, SE corner  of 2nd and Market Sis.,
                                                   (10-7-71) PH0050211 o.
                                                 East  Liverpool.  THOMPSON.   CASSIUS
                                                   CLARK. HOUSE. 305 Walnut St., (9-28-7 I )
                                                   PH006001 1
                                                 Hanoverton.  HANOVERTON CANAL TOWN
                                                   DISTRICT. U.S. 30, (8-3-77)
                                                 Lisbon  vicinity.  CHURCH   HILL  ROAD
                                                   COVERED  BRIDGE, 3 mi. E of Lisbon  off
                                                   SR 867, (6-11-75)
                                                 Salem. STREET. JOHN. HOUSE, 631 N. Ell-
                                                   sworth Ave., ( 10-10-73) PH0060003
                                                 West Point  vicinity. MORGAN, JOHN  H.,
                                                   SURRENDER SITE,  3.1 mi. W  of West
                                                   Point on OH 518, (4-23-73) PH0050237

                                                              caschocton county
                                                 Blissfield. HELMICK COVERED BRIDGE, E
                                                   of Blissfield on Twnshp. Rd.. {6-1 8-75 )

                                                              coshoclon county
                                                 Coshocton.      COSHOCTON     COUNTY
                                                   COURTHOUSE, Courthouse  Sq..  (5-22-73)
                                                   PH0060O20
                                                 Coshocton.    JOHNSOfJrHUMRICKHOUSE
                                                   HOUSE,   302  S.  3rd  St.,   (10-9-74)
                                                   PH0060038
                                                 Coshocton.  ROSCOE  VILLAGE,   (4-3-73)
                                                   PHOO 60046
                                                 Coshocton vicinity. RODRICK BRIDGE, 8.5
                                                   mi. ( 1 3.6 km ) SE of Coshocton, ( 1 1 -29-78 )
                                                 West Lafayette vicinity. FERGUSON,  AN-
                                                   DREW, HOUSE, E of West Lafayette  on
                                                   OH 751, (11-30-78)

                                                              Crawford county
                                                 Bucyrus. MCCRAW  HOUSE,  116  S. Walnut
                                                   St., (7-18-75)
                                                 Bucyrus. PICKING, £>., AND COMPANY, 1 19
                                                   S. Walnut St., (7-1 1-74) PH0060062
                                                 Bucyrus. SCROGGS  HOUSE,  202 S. Walnut
                                                   St., (10-9-74) PH0060071
                                                 Crestline. CALVARY REFORMED CHURCH,
                                                   Thoman and John Sts.. ( 1 1 -29-78)
                                                 Crestline. CRESTLINE CITY HALL, 121 W.
                                                   Bucyrus St., (5-8-74) PH0060054
                                                 Crestline. HOFFMAN HOUSE (CRESTLINE
                                                 .  SHUNK MUSEUM), 21 1 Thoman St.. (II-
                                                   29-78)
                                                 Crestline.     METHODIST     EPISCOPAL
                                                   CHURCH, Thoman and Union Sts., (10-27-
                                                   78)
                                                 Crestline vicinity. HECKLER FARMHOUSE,
                                                   N  of Crestline off  OH 61 on Oldfield Rd..
                                                   (5-3-76)
                                                 Gallon.  BIG  FOUR DEPOT.  SE  corner  of
                                                   Church and Washington Sts.. (7-7-75)
                                                 Gahon.  CENTRAL  HOTEL.  HACXEDORN
                                                   AND  ZIMMERMAN  BUILDINGS.  SW
                                                   corner of Harding  Way E. and Market Sts ,
                                                   (11-13-76)
                                                 Galion.  HOWARD, ADAM, HOUSE. 230 S.
                                                   Boston St.. (3 -30-7 8)
                                                 Galion vicinity.  HOSFORD  HOUSE, 6288
                                                   Hosford Rd., (4-30-76)

                                                              cuyahoga county
                                                 Bay  Village.  ALDRICH,  AARON.  HOUSE,
                                                   30663 Lake Rd., ( 12-4-78)
                                                 Bay  Village.  BAY VIEW HOSPITAL. 23200
                                                   Lake Rd., (8-27-74) PH0060097
                                                 Bedford.  CLEVELAND  AND  PITTSBURGH
                                                   RAILROAD BRIDGE. Tinker's Creek,  (7-
                                                   24-75)
                                                 Bedford.  DUNHAM, HEZEKIAH,  HOUSE,
                                                   729 Broadway, (6-18-75)
                                                 Bedford. GATES, HOLSEY,  HOUSE, 762
                                                   Broadway, (6-30-75)
F'-DERAl REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 76—TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6.1979
                          3-3
-------
   the ohio histories! socie£i{
                                                                           xxxxxxxx
                                                                           466-3853

                                                          -FP/l  >,\

                                                       "  2; JiN c//
                                                       -
                                                       January 24, 1974
Mrs. Nancy Hippe.rt
Office of Budget and Hanagement
State Clearinghouse
62 East Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Mrs. Illppert:
                                    Re;   East  Fork Lake Project
                                         Array  Co;:ps OL Engineers
                                         E.I.S.  clrafu updated
The following cOTzasnts on this S.I.S.  perte::.n to  pp.  23-25 and appropriate
exhibits, relative to Archaeology  and  history and sites pertaining thereto.

Archaeology:

The discussion of the archaeology  within the  Easr Fork Reservoir axes is
surprisingly out-o'C-Jace.  While Prufer  and Baby's PalaeQ-.Indi.anq of Quip
(1963) lists or-ly on?, fluted point from  Cierr.ent  County, this figure rna-
be the result o£ sampling error, since adjacent counties have produced
many more.  An archaeological survey directed by  Dr.  Kent Vickery oi: the
University of Cincinnati, beginning in 1970,  located  at least 215 sitoa,
;naviy of yhich represent the Archaic culture;  one  cf them was excavated
in 1971 and 1972 with significant  results.  Thr-rafore, the stateracnts on
p. 23 of the E.I.S. that "little is known of  t-Le  earliest inhabitants ut
the Little Miami River area" and that  the Adena and Hopevell were the
first people La the region are erroneous.
    Adena (not Adenar.) and Hopewell  cultures  existed 2COO years a^,o, but
   C years is pushing  the chronology too  far  hick.   The term "effijy'*
The
300C years is pushing the chronology  ^v,  ,_„..  ^v..,..   *.„*. *.^*>»  ^<.^*.^,j
is used incorrectly in reference  co Hopevellian seometric earthworks and
hilltop enclosures.  We assume that Fort  Anciant is  the site considered
"the most important dyfirnple in the country  of che dc'rensiv-s nour.d typo..,
although it is not clear why it is not  daaigiia'ced by r.ane.  While rsany
burial mounds \if-^-^ been destroyed  -'p- 24),  v,»i lelievs that the> were ^01
numerous than etrc'ra-crks in prehlscoric tiraes o.s -trell aa now.
-------
Mrs. Nancy Hippert                 -2-                  January 24,  1974


The Fort Ancient, not  the  Erie,  inhabited  the  Clermont County area tQ
late prehistoric  times.  Their villages, according to Vickery, are
primarily along the  Ohio River.  Although  it is  not mentioned in the
EIS, there are probably some  Late  Woodland sites in tha vicinity of
the reservoir.

Besides the  two sites  located by Wright State  University people, there
are six small campsites within the pool level  according to a  letter
Vickery to David H.  Stansbery, Curator of  the  Ohio State University
Zoology Museum (Division of Archaeology, Ohio  Historical Society files).
While they are not particularly  impressive on  the surface,  it is possibly
that these sites could yield  significant information.   We urge the Corp»
to contact Vickery in  the  Department of Anthropology,  University of
Cincinnati for more  data.

The archaeology of the East Fork Reservoir has been dealt with rather
Superficially.  While  no major mound or earthworks complexes  occur there,
such sites do exist  farther downstream.  Thus  the utilisation of this
area as a marginal zone by prehistoric Indians is an important problea
to consider.  There  is also the  problem of the less obvious Archaic and
Palaeo-Indian stations that could  shad considerable light on  cultures
that have received less attention  in tha Ohio  Valley.

The site recommended for excavation (p. 24) is the Elk Lick Road mound,
about which we have  had some  preliminary conversations with the National
Park Service.  Since it is outside the flood pool, it  could be restored
as the focal point of  the  park development around the  reservoir.   The
Indiana mound (Exhibit 42, p. A168) should also  be excavated,  even before
the Blk Lick mound since it is within the  flooS  pool.

 History:

It is curious that the history of  this project area and environs as
presented is so similar to that  given for  the  Caesar Creek  Lkke project.
This is not a correct  assumption,  factually.   The historical  narrative
presented is extremely superficial and largely non-pertinent.

Efforts by the Corps to encourage  preservation of the  Pinkham property
(Mapla Sugar Farm) at  the  project  area are commendable,  but lack the
fiscal Assistance which any local  group oust obtain to  succeed  in  their
plana.  The property is on the National Register.   The  registered  property
includes 12 buildings  on 1.5 acres.  The Ohio  Department  of Natural Resouro
has been involved in these historical developmental plans.  That Departoeit
might consider fiscal  assistance to a responsible  local  agency  utilizing
precedents which hava  been used at other state parks, notably Hueaton
Woods.  Without this assistance,  preservation  of  this National  Register
property is probably impossible.
-------
   .  Nancy Hlppert
-3-
January 24,  1974
Other buildings within the project  area would probably have been eligible
for the National Register had they  not  been demolished or moved to new
locations.  The preservation of  these buildings and the total historical
aspects of terrain, water, and cultural components were considered impractical
by the undersigned as their evaluation  war.  requested after acquisition  by
the Corps of Engineers, leaving  few viable  alternatives except removal
or demolition.

In summary, it is futile to attempt to  comment upon a project area and
the preservation of its features after  the  fact of land acquisition and
the consaencetnent o£ development.

                                          Sincerely,
                                          Daniel  R.  Porter
                                          Director
DRP/eg

c.c.  Col.  Charles Fiala
     Miss  Judith Kitchen
     the ohio historical society ohio historical center columbus.ohio 43211
                         "5-
                                                              GPO 1984-755-650
-------
SCALE
n. ~

REVISIONS
-----
I T

^_
MOUTH
w^iv™™™^^™™,
tlEBHOItl COtHH OHIO
b
fS,^6,« •KS
- : ::: ON • SITE PROBLEM

^ :•:-:_: r^.... - 	 AREAS
. .-'-, , - ™ f^f ~ ""•
MAP


DATE AUGUST J
-------
 "•'-^fi-if^if '   ^.yfK^  '••'"\.*'K*

^fe^f  ' ^'wJ^-vi^F/;
.<>ttBM? ^ . S4) i^'.ij  if i e"J<5
                           :>"V. i   /, x  )   >^\";.r:
                           '. C^^/'M-^^,   ,^^^
itl'L-
REVISIONS
fftjf j*I
__ :-
1 !000
^r~T
^
NOflTH
CltBMOHI COUNTY y«TEFI WO SEWEB OIS™ICr
1«D VILLUMS Of BATWI* *ME WH.LUMSWWC
ib

vE I:EE£ RECOMMENDED
__ 	 ,..,. 	 y =—r--. PLAN
--' '" ' ^ I;;,;:,-.-;.-
MAP

DATE APRIL . /1S2
-------
(L

ZONING AND PROJECTED
CHANGES IN LAND USE
                                       MAP
                                        4
-------
8CU£
.2000T
~^T^
^
NORTH
««M ew KNK wwnwn MCUTKB *UH
EUMKMT COUNTY MKICH AND MMBI MTMCT
AMP MUWES Of wmm MO WUUMMUAQ
CLBWOMT COUMTV, OMO
b

• fSllfnu.
|= -ZONING AND PROJECTED
|i CHANGES IN LAND USE

M M A f^
MAP

«*^»~5~
-------
9OU£
fcT-

	
r-aootr
-i-T
*
NORTH
•nu EMT ram MttrewnR neum UMI
CUMKMT COUNTV. OMO

s
n
1 EL EXISTING
1 :;L.™~ -«n.- LAND USE
- - 	 >» saasrsr-"" l«^^l^l^ V/^JU.
Kfl A 1^
MAP


-------
SCALE
P^L
REVISIONS

	
	
r yooa
~£T^


NORTH

MOOU ewr FORK wuTOMm naures HJH
CUWONT cowry MNTPI AMD «wa narncr
WW VUJCCS <* BAMVM «NO WUiMtflBUAG
CLSMOKT COOWTf, OMO
^_
1?

««<.M,>M 0~— .»~BT IHIIIVfnO
iw ^^gtaua iMjimsLausnuuB*^ siuuns «j™a
h ,„„,.,„. a- IBS.—., ~^jf QOII Q
• .„,« 	 ™ ,;.._.„;.,_,,„ WV/ltO


aft «s, «a»!Bvaj"«"JMi-™», .«,.„.
KM A r^
MAP



IWTC &&SL38L-,
-------
SCALE l-'Mtxr
REVttKMS
	
NORTH
•oat* CMT POM VMTOMIM Mcunes PUN
CUmOMT COWTV VMOt MB ICWB) GVTMCT
CLOMONt OXMTY, OMO
ta_ S
T §? EXISTING SEWERAGE
SYSTEMS
MAP
1

-------