905D76103
^ Delaware County, Ohio
Board of Commissioners
Olentangy Environmental Control
Center and Interceptor System
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V Chicago, Illinois
January, 1976
-------
33
\
<*
uj
(3
T
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Olentangy Environmental Control Center and Interceptor System,
Delaware County, Ohio.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regu-
lations promulgated by this Agency (40 CFR Part 6, April 14, 1975)
any comments on this Statement should be submitted by Tuesday,
March 30, 1976. Comments or inquiries should be forwarded to
the above address marked for Attention: Planning Branch - EIS
Preparation Section.
erely yours,
?rancis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
-------
Project No. C390698
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
For The
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OLENTANGY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CENTER AND INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM
Prepared By The
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
With The Assistance Of
ENVIRO CONTROL, INC.
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
APPROVED BY:
'FRANCIS T. MAYO I
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
JANUARY 1976
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
(X) Draft
( ) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, Chicago
1. (X) Administrative Action
( ) Legislative Action
2« P.§§£rigt^on_of _the_Action
A sewage treatment plant of 1.5 MGD to be expanded to 3.0
MGD by the end of the 20 year planning period will be constructed
in South-Central Delaware County Ohio, between state route 315
and the Olentangy River, immediately above the county line.
The treatment process is a two-stage activated sludge facility,
including phosphorus removal measures and tertiary rapid sand
filters. The effluent will be chlorinated prior to discharge.
Sludge will be aerobically digested at the treatment site and
then hauled to a State-approved sanitary landfill site.
The facility will discharge to the Olentangy River at Frank-
lin County Ohio, below the 1-270 interchange in the vicinity of
Longfellow Ave. Alternately, the effluent will receive addi-
tional treatment to remove chlorine and ammonia, and discharge
at the proposed treatment plant site, within Delaware County.
A new syste.m of interceptors will be constructed in three
phases. Phase I will serve the Alum Creek Reservoir and
Westerville Reservoir areas, Powell Road east of route 315,
and a residential area north of Powell Road and west of route
315, and the Village of Powell and it is Phase I which is
currently receiving a grant. Phase II extends to serve addi-
tional areas south of Alum Creek Reservoir. The south part
-------
of the 0 ' Shaughnessy Reservoir on the Scioto will be included
at this time. Sewers will extend up to Home Road in the Olen-
tangy basin. Phase II extends around Alum Creek Lake and ad-
jacent areas; extensively along the 0' Shaughnessy Reservoir
and its surrounding basin; and in the Olentangy basin up to
Delaware Township.
Water
The present waste load allocation will be met by the project.
Water pollution from malfunctioning septic tanks will be
eliminated as homes are sewered. Erosion, sedimentation,
and turbidity will be minimized through correct construction
measures .
Air_
Air quality is not anticipated to be a problem, but will
be dealt with in greater detail in the final EIS. Air-borne patho-
gens will not present a significant health hazard.
Land__Use
Construction of the interceptors and treatment plant will
have a short term adverse impact. A landfill for sludge dis-
posal is a long term adverse impact.
Secondary impacts will include increased rates of growth
and growth following the interceptor patterns. A greater
range of housing types will be possible. Active local plan-
ning is necessary to reduce runoff and erosion, maintain open
space, and to provide adequate public services.
11
-------
Biology
Terrestrial plants and aniamls will be displaced by con-
struction. Revegetation after construction will provide some
biological recovery. The high quality biology of the scenic
segment of the Olentangy will be protected either by treatment
to remove chlorine and ammonia to very low levels in the effluent,
or by moving the outfall downstream, where aquatic populations
could be altered by the effluent. This is not expected to be
as severe as impacts from an upstream discharge.
Sensitive Areas
An archeological survey of the treatment plant site is
underway. Highbanks Park will be avoided in the interceptor
configurations. Impacts on endangered aquatic species cannot
be precisely delineated. Loss of prime agricultural land
will occur with increasing residential development. Recrea-
tional development around the Alum Creek Reservoir will be
greatly facilitated. Flood plain development may be stimu-
lated by the presence of sewers. Discharge to the Olentangy
Scenic River segment will either be avoided or else will be
of exceptionally high quality.
Aesthetics
The visual impacts of the treatment plant have been reduced
through landscaping and architectural design. The plant will
be largely screened from view in Highbanks Park. Odor and
noise problems are not anticipated to be significant.
4• Alternatives Considered
a. Flow Reduction in the proposed service area.
b. Interceptor phasing and construction alternatives.
iii
-------
c. Site Locations
1. local - 10 sites examined
2. regional - 6 sites examined, several configurations
considered.
d. Treatment Process
1. treatment and discharge to surface waters
2. wastewater reuse
3. land disposal
4. additional treatment processes
a. chlorine removal
b. ammonia removal
e. Sludge Disposal - five alternative combinations examined
f. Discharge Points
1. at treatment plant
2. below scenic river segment
g. No Action
EfL'lf.lL^i.L-S t sJi6. L-3.1!^. _k°Jl^-^.fJl^ if-^-^Sl.tif ie(^ of this Act ion
Federal
Senator John Glenn
Senator Robert Taft, Jr.
Representative Samuel L. Devine
Council on Environmental Quality
Environmental Protection Agency
Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington, W.Va.
Department of the Interior
Geological Survey
- Fish & Wildlife Service
IV
-------
- Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare
Forest Service
National Park Service
Delaware Soil & Water Conservation District
State
Honorable James A. Rhodes
Representative Mike Stinziano
- Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Water Development Authroity
Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Historical Society
Local
Delaware County Board of Commissioners
Delaware County Engineer
City of Delaware
Delaware Co. Regional Planning Commission
Metropolitan Park District of Columbus & Franklin County
Franklin County Board of Commissioners
Director of Public Services, Columbus
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
- Mid-Ohio Health Planning Federation
Franklin County Sanitary Engineer
Delaware Co. Health Planning Federation
City of Westerville
Village of Powell
Delaware Co. Health Department
v
-------
Liberty Township Trustees
Orange Township Trustees
Dates
Draft statement made available to:
The Council on Environmental Quality January 1976
The Public January 1976
Acknowledgements
This document was prepared with the assistance of
Enviro Control, Inc., Rockville, Maryland.
Portions of this Environmental Impact Statement were
taken from the "Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Plan for South-
Central Delaware County, Ohio", August, 1974, prepared by
Burgess and Niple, Ltd., and its Supplement of December, 1974,
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Sheet
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 Background
A. Identification of Grant Applicant
B. Description of the Action Proposed in
the Facilities Plan
C. Location of the Proposed Action
D. Water Quality and Quantity Problems in
the Area
E. Other Water Quality and Quantity
Objectives
F. Costs and Financing
G. History of the Application
Page
VI
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-7
Chapter 2 The Environment Without the Proposed Action
A. Climate 2-1
B. Topography 2-2
C. Geology
1. Bedrock 2-2
2. Surficial 2-3
D. Soils 2-3
E. Groundwater
1. General 2-7
2. Water Quality and Quantity 2-8
3. Water Quality and Quantity Problems 2-10
4. Water Uses 2-12
F. Surface Water
1. General 2-13
2. Water Quantity 2-15
3. Water Quality 2-16
4. Water Quality and Quantity Problems 2-18
5. Water Uses 2-19
6. Water Quality Management 2-21
7. Flood Hazards 2-21
G. Biology
1. Plant Communities 2-22
2. Terrestrial Animals 2-24
3. Aquatic Animals 2-25
H. Air Quality 2-27
I. Land Use and Future Growth and Development
1. Overview 2-30
2. Regional context 2-31
3. Service Area 2-35
J. Historic and Archeological Sites 2-44
K. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
1. Archeology 2-45
2. Geology/Topography/Steep Slopes 2-45
-------
j. Plants and Animals 2-45
4. Prime Agricultural Lands 2-47
5. Recreation and Parks 2-47
6. Flood Plains 2-47
7. Aesthetics 2-47
8. Scenic River 2-47
L. Population Projections and Economic Forecasts
1. Overview 2-47
2. Selected Projections 2-48
M. Other Programs in the Area 2-52
N. Aesthetics 2-53
Chapter 3 Alternatives
A. Flow Reduction Measures 3-1
B. Interceptor Alternatives
1. Interceptor Phasing 3-1
2. Construction Alternatives 3-5
3. Stream Crossings 3-7
C. Site Location
1. Introduction
a. Description of Alternatives 3-12
b. Engineering Considerations 3-15
c. Land Use Considerations 3-18
d. Environmental Considerations 3-19
e. Biological Considerations 3-24
f. Institutional Considerations 3-25
2. Franklin County - 1-270
a. Overview 3-27
b. Site Selection 3-30
3. Powell Road - Olentangy
a. Overview 3-32
b. Site Selection 3-34
4. Powell Road - Powell
a. Overview 3-37
b. Site Selection 3-39
5. Stratford - Olentangy
a. Overview 3-41
b. Site Selection 3-43
6. Alum Creek
a. Overview 3-45
b. Site Selection 3-46
7. Other Basins 3-49
8. Delaware County - City of Delaware
a. Overview 3-50
b. Cost-Effectiveness 3-54
c. Environmental Effects 3-55
d. Institutional Considerations 3-61
9. Delaware County - Columbus
a. Overview 3-63
b. Cost-Effectiveness 3-75
c. Environmental Effects 3-82
d. Institutional Considerations 3-83
-------
10. Delaware County - Delaware City - Columbus
a. Overview 3-85
b. Cost-Effectiveness 3-86
c. Environmental Effects 3-97
d. Institutional Considerations 3-98
11. Conservancy District 3-99
D. Treatment Process Alternatives
1. Treatment and Discharge to Surface
Waters 3-101
2. Wastewater Reuse 3-102
3. Land Disposal 3-102
4. Additional Treatment Processes 3-103
E. Sludge Disposal Alternatives 3-105
F. Discharge Point Alternatives
1. Outfall Location 3-107
2. Outfall Design 3-108
G. No Action 3-108
Chapter 4 Final Selection Process and Description of
Proposed Action
A. No Action 4-1
B. Flow Reduction Measures 4-1
C. Treatment Plant Sites
1. Local Alternatives 4-2
2. Regional Alternatives 4-4
3. Comparison of Local and Regional
Alternatives 4-7
D. Interceptor Alternatives
1. Interceptor Phasing 4-8
2. Construction Alternatives 4-9
3. Stream Crossings 4-9
E. Treatment Process Alternatives
1. Treatment Approaches 4-15
2. Additional Treatment Alternatives
a. Aquatic Biota 4-16
b. Impacts from Chlorine Discharges 4-17
c. Chlorination-Dechlorination and
Ozonation 4-19
d. Impacts from Ammonia Discharges 4-19
e. Nitrogen Removal 4-21
'f. Conclusions on Additional Treat-
ment 4-22
F. Sludge Treatment Alternatives 4-23
G. Discharge Point Alternatives
1. Outfall Location 4-24
2. Outfall Design 4-25
3. Comparison with Additional Treatment
Requirements 4-26
H. Summary of the Proposed Action
1. Treatment Plant 4-27
2. Interceptors 4-27
3. Treatment Process 4-28
4. Sludge 4-28
5. Discharge Point 4-28
-------
Chapter 5 Environmental Effects of the Proposed
A. Water Quality and Quantity
1. Flows
2. Waste Loads
3. Water Quality
4. Impacts
B. Air
1. Air Quality
2. Air-Borne Pathogens
C. Land Use
1. Primary Land Use Impacts
2. Secondary Impacts on Land Use and
Growth
3. Planning Needs
D. Biology
1. Terrestrial Biota
2. Aquatic Biota
E. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
1. Archeology
2. Geology/Topography/Steep Slopes
3. Plants and Animals
4. Prime Agricultural Land
5. Recreation and Parks
6. Flood Plains
7. Aesthetics
8. Scenic River
F. Aesthetics
1. Visual Impacts
2. Odor Impact
3. Noise Impact
G. Impact Summary
1. Short Term
2. Long Term
3. Irreversible/Irretr ievible
Chapter 6 Federal/State Agency Comments and Publ
A. Previous Public Hearings and Meetings
1. Public Hearing on the Environmental
Assessment
Action
5-1
5-4
5-6
5-9
5-12
5-12
5-14
5-16
5-22
5-22
5-25
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-29
5-29
5-29
5-30
5-30
5-30
5-34
5-39
5-42
5-42
5-43
ic Participation
6-1
2. Public Hearing on the Facilities Plan 6-2
3. USEPA Community Workshop
B. Correspondence Receiving by USEPA
1. Federal
2. State
3. Local
4. Public
6-3
6-3
6-4
6-4
6-5
5. Summary of Issues Raised in the Correspondence
Received
6. Selected Letters
Chapter 7 Bibliography
1. Selected References
2. Personal Communications
6-6
6-8
7-1
7-8
-------
Appendices
A.
B.
C.
Final Effluent Limitations, OEPA Permit
Surface Water
1. USGS Discharge Data
2. Surface Water Quality
Biology
1. Plants of Flint Ravine and Highbanks
A-l
B-l
B-5
Park C-l
2. Endangered Wildflowers - Highbanks Park C-5
D.
E.
F.
G.
3. Animals of Franklin County
4. Highbanks Park - Animals and Birds
5. Waterfowl - O1 Shaughnessy Reservoir
6. Aquatic Organisms and Pollution
7. Alum Creek - Fish and Mollusks
Factors Affecting Development
1. Berlin Township
2. Concord Township
3. Genoa Township
4. Liberty Township
5. Orange Township
Population and Economic Projections
1. Introduction
2. Description of Projections
3. Evaluation of the Projections
Alternatives-Detailed Analysis
1. Franklin County - 1-270
a. Engineering Analysis
b. Land Use Analysis
c. Environmental Effects
d. Biological Impacts
e. Institutional Considerations
2. Powell Road - Olentangy
a. Engineering Analysis
b. Land Use Analysis
c. Environmental Effects
d. Biological Impacts
e. Institutional Considerations
3. Powell Road - Powell
a. Engineering Analysis
b. Land Use Analysis
c. Environmental Effects
d. Biological Impacts
e. Institutional Considerations
4. Alum Creek
a. Engineering Analysis
b. Land Use Analysis
c. Environmental Effects
d. Biological Impacts
e. Institutional Considerations
Computer Modeling of the Impacts on the
1. D.O.
2. Ammonia Level
3. BOD
4. Ammonia- Flowing Load
5. Organic Nitrogen
C-6
C-9
C-15
C-16
C-18
D-l
D-3
D-5
D-6
D-8
E-l
E-l
E-l
F-l
F-l
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-8
F-10
F-10
F-10
F-ll
F-12
F-12
F-13
F-13
F-14
F-15
F-15
F-17
F-18
F-18
F-19
F-20
F-22
F-23
Olentangy
G-l
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
-------
H. Cost-Effectiveness - Sludge H-l
I. Chlorine and Ammonia Impacts
1. Chlorine 1-1
a. Aquatic Impacts 1-1
b. Removal Methods 1-4
2. Ammonia 1-12
a. Aquatic Impacts 1-12
b. Removal Methods 1-17
J. Visability Analysis J-l
-------
List ot Figures
Chapter 1
1-1. Regional Context
1-2. Service Area
Chapter 2
2-1.
2-2.
2-3.
2-4.
2-5.
2-6.
2-7.
2-8.
Chapter 3
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.
3-6.
3-7.
3-8.
3-9.
3-10.
3-11.
3-12.
3-13.
3-14.
3-15.
3-16.
3-17.
3-18.
3-19.
3-20.
3-21.
3-22.
3-23.
3-24.
Soil Associations
Groundwater - Well Development
Significant Biological Areas
Increase of Earnings in the Region
Land Use for Delaware County
Land Use Plan for Delaware County
Historical Sites of the Service Area
Population Projections for a Region
Interceptors - Facilities Plan
Configuration
Existing Water Quality Problem Areas
a. Interceptor Crossings of the
Olentangy River
b. Interceptor Crossings of Alum Creek
Local Alternative Treatment Plant Sites
Regional Alternative Treatment Plant
Sites
Franklin County - 1-270 Alternatives
Powell Road - Olentangy Alternatives
Powell Road - Powell Alternatives
Stratford - Olentangy Alternatives
Alum Creek Alternatives
Delaware County - Delaware City
Subalternative #1
Subalternative #2
Delaware County - Columbus
Subalternative #1
Subalternative #2
Subalternative #3
Subalternative #4
Subalternative #5
The Columbus Sewer Interceptor Trunks
Delaware County - Delaware City
1-3
1-4
2-4
2-9
2-23
2-32
2-36
2-39
2-46
2-51
3-2
3-4
3-9
3-11
3-14
3-17
3-29
3-33
3-38
3-42
3-47
3-51
3-52
Subalternative #1
Subalternative #2
Subalternative #3
Subalternative #4
3-64
3-65
3-66
3-67
3-68
3-72
- Columbus
3-88
3-89
3-90
3-91
Diagram of Proposed Sewage Treatment
Plant 3-104
Sewage Outfalls 3-109
-------
Chapter 4
4-1.
4-2.
Chapter 5
5-1.
5-2.
5-3.
5-4.
Costs of Various Alternatives 4-5
Interceptors - Proposed Configuration 4-10
The 7-day, once in 10-year Low Flow in
the Olentangy River 5-2
Line of Sight Profile 5-32
Area of Visibility of the Proposed
Plant 5-33
Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels 5-40
-------
List of Tables
Chapter 2
2-1.
2-2.
2-3.
2-4.
2-5.
2-6.
2-7.
2-8.
2-9.
Chapter 3
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
Proposed
Distance
Existing
Costs of
Delaware
3-4.
3-5.
3-6.
3-7.
3-8.
3-9.
3-10,
3-11,
3-12,
3-13,
3-14,
3-15,
3-16,
3-17,
3-18,
3-19,
Groundwater Quality 2-11
Reservoirs 2-14
Olentangy Discharge 2-15
Surface Water Quality 2-16
Water Quality of the Olentangy River 2-17
Air Quality Data - Franklin County 2-28
Anticipated Public Sewer Service Assumed
in the Projections 2-48
Population Projections by Townships 2-50
Populatoin Projections as Estimated in
the Facilities Plan 2-50
Alternative Sites 3-13
from Site Center to Nearest
Structure or Parkland 3-21
Interceptor Sewer Network -
County - Delaware City
Subalternative #1 3-56
Costs of Regional Treatment Plant for
Delaware County - Delaware City
Subalternative #1 3-57
Incremental Costs of Using Delaware City
Sewage Treatment Plant,
Subalternative #2 3-58
Costs of the Interceptor Sewer Network
Delaware County - Delaware City
Subalternative #2 3-59
Capacity of Columbus Trunk Sewers 3-74
Costs of Interceptor Sewer Network -
Delaware County - Columbus
Subalternative #1 3-76
#2 3-77
#3 3-78
14 3-79
#5 3-80
Various Subalternatives -
County - Columbus 3-81
Subalternative
Subalternative
Subalternative
Subalternative
Costs of
Delaware
Incremental Costs of Columbus Southerly
Plant for the Delaware County - Columbus
Regional Alternative 3-81
Costs of Interceptor Sewer Network
Delaware County - Delaware City -
Columbus Subalternative #1 3-92
Subalternative #2 3-93
Subalternative #3 3-94
Subalternative #4 3-95
Costs of Subalternatives - Delaware
County - Delaware City - Columbus
Regional Alternative 3-96
-------
3-20. Incremental Costs of Columbus Southerly
Plant for Delaware County - Delaware
City - Columbus Regional Alternative 3-96
Chapter 5
5-1. Waste Loads of the Olentangy River 5-5
5-2. Comparison of Waste Loads 5-5
5-3. Sources of Odors in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants 5-36
5-4. Odor Prevention or Removal Methods 5-37
5-5. Maximum Anticipated Noise Level in dBA
at Various Distances from the Proposed
Blower Building 5-41
-------
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND
The grant applicant for the proposed Olentangy Environmental
Control Center and Interceptor System, Delaware County, Ohio,
is the Delaware County Bo'ard of Commissioners. The Grants
Administration project number is (C390698). The_Sanitary
^e_w.e-£a.'3.e-_Ea-<:Li:L it i6-3.-?!?.1!-^0.! _§°_H th -Ce 0. t Lil -^^t^^3.!6. _?_° HO. t Y. L _9!l i°_
was prepared in July, 1974, revised in August, 1974, and sup-
plemented with the M§P0.Q§e._t°._M^^jL_M^i£o-^5e-0.t£t_E£°te.clt.io.?l_..
Region_V_Questi.ons in December, 1974. The project is number
10 on the Ohio Priority List. The final effluent limitations
permit issued by Ohio EPA for the originally proposed project
is included in Appendix A. A new permit would be issued for any
new discharge location.
A sewage treatment facility of 1.5 MGD, with a peak capacity
of 3.4 MGD will be constructed in south central Delaware County,
Ohio, between State route 315 and the Olentangy River. This will
serve the area for the 20 year planning period.
The treatment process is a two-stage activated sludge facil-
ity, including phosphorous removal measures. This is followed by
tertiary rapid sand filters and chlorination for effluent dis-
infection. Sludge will be aerobically digested at the treatment
site, and then hauled to a State-approved sanitary landfill site.
The facility will discharge to the Olentangy River adjacent
to the treatment plant site just above the Delaware Franklin
County line.
1-1
-------
A new system of interceptors will be built to serve the
Olentangy Environmental Control Center, in three phases.
Phase I will serve the Alum Creek Reservoir and Westerville
Reservoir areas, Powell Road east of route 315, and a residen-
tial area north of Powell Road and west of route 315. Phase II
extends to serve additional areas south of Alum Creek Reservoir.
The south part of the 0'Shaughnessy Reservoir on the Scioto
will be included at this time. Sewers will extend up to Home
Road in the Olentangy basin, branching to serve the Carriage
Road area and the Powell area. Phase III extends around Alum
Creek lake and adjacent areas; extensively along the 0'Shaughnessey
Reservoir and its surrounding basin; and in the Olentangy basin
up to Delaware Township. The construction of collecting sewers
will be a local responsibility.
C. Lqcat ion _of _the _Pr_oposed _Ac t ion
The service area proposed for the next 20 years is in
south central Delaware County, Ohio, located between Columbus
(Franklin County) and the city of Delaware (Delaware County).
Figure 1-1 illustrates the regional context of the service
area. Figure 1-2 details the service area and the proposed
project location. The Scioto River and three of its tributaries,
the Olentangy River, Alum Creek, and Big Walnut Creek parallel
each other in Delaware County.
Southern Delaware County has traditionally been an agricul-
tural area, but with expansion of the Columbus metropolitan
area it has experienced increasing residential growth and
a decrease in working farms. Northern Franklin County has
undergone more intense suburban development than has Delaware
1-2
-------
-------
DELAWARE COUNTY .OHIO
I'iqure 1-2 .
1-4
-------
County. The planning area includes part or all of the townships
of Scioto, Concord, Liberty, Berlin, Orange, Genoa, and Berkshire
Major communities in the area are Powell, and Shawnee Hills
Regional water supply is increasingly obtained from streams
and reservoirs because of quality and/or quantity limitations
of the groundwater of this area. Reservoirs have been constructed
on all of the major streams of Delaware County. Streamflow
and flooding is regulated by these structures. Several existing
treatment facilities discharge in to area streams. Most soils
of Delaware County have severe limitations for septic tanks and
existing on-lot systems have resulted in nuisance conditions
and degraded water quality. These problems are discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 3, Sections E and F.
E • ^t^f-L-Watei.Quality^nd^Quant ity_0b_xec t ives
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (P. L. 92-500) require:
a. Secondary treatment of wastes for municipal sewage
and best practicable treatment for industrial discharges
by July 1, 1977. b. Best practicable waste treatment tech
nology for municipal wastes and best available treatment
for industrial wastes by July 1, 1983. c. Issuance of
permits for all point-sources discharges under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES
permit states the allowable waste loading and flow volume
that can be discharged to a receiving stream or lake.
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires the
designation of flood-prone areas in the United States and
1-5
-------
participation by appropriate communities and homeowners to
qualify for national flood insurance protection. The designated
communities who are participating in the program in southern
Delaware County include Powell, Galena, and Delaware. The
deadline for participation by designated Ostrander has not
yet been reached. Shawnee Hills has been designated but is
not participating in the flood insurance program. The unincor-
porated areas of Delaware County have not been designated.
In northern Franklin County, Westerville, Worthington, Dublin, and
also the unincorporated areas have been designated and are
participating in the flood insurance program. In the participating
communities of both counties detailed flood maps are not yet
completed.
A 20 mile segment of the Olentangy has been designated
as a State Scenic River, including the portion in southern
Delaware County. Several species on the list of Ohio Endangered
Wild Animals have been found in the Olentangy. The stream
supports a diverse biological life and is a valuable natural
and scientific resource. All of these factors are discussed
further in Chapter 2.
Water based recreation is popular in mid-Ohio and Delaware
County is the site of several large parks, lakes, and high
quality streams.
F • C°§t s_a^d_F^n^nc i.ng
The preliminary cost for the construction of the Olentangy
Environmental Control Center (1.5 MGD) and interceptors (Phase
1) is $11.5 million. Delaware County will be responsible for
financing 25% of the project while 75% will come from Federal
1-6
-------
grants.
G. History of the Applic at ion
The proposed project has been given a priority ranking
of 10 by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The following
is a chronological listing of major steps and events in the
processing of the grant application.
1964
1969
Jan. 1970
July, 1970
Sept. 1970
Oct. 1970
Oct. 1971
June, 1972
Nov., 1972
July, 1973
July, 1973
"Comprehensive Master Plan, Delaware County, Ohio."
"Delaware County Ohio Comprehensive Water and Sewer-
age Development Plan."
"Feasibility Survey and Report for Sanitary
Service and Sewage Treatment Facilities."
Application for grant filed with Ohio Water
Development Authority.
General plan and preliminary design for wastewater
treatment plant submitted to State of Ohio
Department of Health for approval at site north
of Powell Road and other sites. Revised March,
1971. Approved April, 1971 by the State of Ohio.
County placed under permit by Ohio Water Pollution
Control Board.
Location of treatment plant switched to east
of Route #315, immediately north of the county
line.
Ohio Water Pollution Control Board adopted
orders restricting "on-lot disposal systems"
and ordered County to file detailed plans and
specifications for wastewater treatment works.
Design of detailed plans initiated September, 1972.
Application for permit to construct submitted
to Ohio EPA.
Havens and Emmerson report on treatment plant odors,
Detailed plans of Olentangy River - Powell
Road Interceptor Sewer and Olentangy Environmental
Control Center submitted to Ohio EPA. Environmental
Assessment also submitted following interim
procedures of April 3, 1973. Approval of detailed
plans by Ohio EPA in November, 1973.
1-7
-------
Aug., 1973
Aug., 1973
Aug., 1973
Aug. , 1973
Aug., 1973
Sept., 1973
Oct., 1973
Jan., 1974
Feb., 1974
April, 1974
May, 1974
June, 1974
July, 1974
July, 1974
Aug., 1974
Sept. 1974
Oct., 1974
Jan., 1975
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission A-95
review approval.
"Evaluation of the Proposed Olentangy Environmental
Control Center" by Ohio EPA.
"Draft Preliminary Final Report on Compatability
Factors of a Proposed Delaware County Sewage
Treatment Plant with Highbanks Metropolitan
Park," for the Metropolitan Park District
of Columbus and Franklin County."
Olentangy designated as a State Scenic River.
Ohio EPA approved of site east of Route #315.
Initiated preliminary planning for Alum Creek
Lake sewerage facilities.
"Policy Plan, Delaware County, 1970-1990"
by Delaware County Regional Planning Commission.
Public hearing on proposed Olentangy treatment
plant and interceptors.
Settlement agreement between Delaware County
and Metropolitan Park District of Columbus
and Franklin County regarding treatment plan
site east of route #315.
Authorization by Delaware County for preparation
of Facilities Plan.
Ohio Priority list approved by USEPA; Delaware
County ranked #10.
Review of draft of "Facilities Plan" by Ohio
EPA. Comments to the Applicant, July, 1974.
Draft "Facilities Plan" formally available;
copies sent to U.S. EPA.
Public hearing on the Facilities Plan.
Project approved for funding by Mid-Ohio Regional
Planning Commission and the State Clearinghouse.
Revised Facilities Plan submitted to Ohio
EPA and USEPA.
Informal review of Facilities Plan by USEPA;
additional information requested.
Ohio EPA certified the Facilities Plan to
USEPA.
1-8
-------
Jan., 1975 Additional information on the questions to
the Facilities Plan received by USEPA.
March 19, 1975 Meeting with Delaware County officials and
USEPA.
March 28, 1975 Delaware County filed a Step 3 grant application
with Ohio EPA.
March 28, 1975 Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS issued by
USEPA.
1-9
-------
CHAPTER 2
THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Climate
The climate of Delaware County is temperate. Frequent and
rapid changes in weather occur in connection with the movement
of warm moist air associated with low pressure areas. The pre-
vailing wind direction is from the southwest. The normal annual
precipitation is nearly uniform over the county averaging
approximately 36.5 inches. The county lies directly in the
path of extensive meteorological disturbances which in winter
and spring generally travel from southwest to northeast.
Floods are the direct result of either summer or winter storms.
The summer storm usually occurs during May through October
and is characterized by rainfall of high intensity, short
duration, and relatively small areal extent. The winter storm
usually occurs during December through March and is characterized
by less intensive rainfall of extended duration and large areal
extent. The winter storms are generally caused by cold air
masses originating in the region of Alaska, interacting with warm
air masses sweeping northward from the Gulf of Mexico and southern
Atlantic Ocean. Occasional stagnation and stationary development
produces prolonged precipitation. Snow cover, saturated or frozen
ground, or combinations thereof, may greatly increase runoff rates
and volumes. The average annual snowfall over the county of about
26 inches represents only a minor portion of the total precipitation,
The temperature of the vicinity has varied from a minimum of -32
degrees during January to a maximum of 110 degrees in July. The
2-1
-------
mean annual temperature for the entire county is about 51.5 degrees
Fahrenheit.
B • Topography
Delaware County is a part of the nearly level surface of the
upper Scioto drainage basin. Sub-basins in the service area are
the Scioto River, Olentangy River and Alum Creek. The topography,
for the most part, ranges from relatively flat sections to areas
of undulating terrain dissected by stream corridors. Small areas
next to the major streams are rolling to steep. Disregarding the
stream valleys, the county is almost a level plain, with gently
rolling glacial moraines rising above this plain and some
isolated gravel hills in the eastern part of the county. Ground
elevations in the central and western portions of the county
are around 950 feet above sea level and in the eastern part around
1,200 feet above sea level, all sloping slightly to the south.
This reasonably flat topography is one of the prime require-
ments for agriculture, housing or industrial development.
The major streams and valleys are, as reported in various
studies and already proven through existing reservoirs, very
important in the development of flood control water supply
and recreational programs. The Highbanks bluffs provide a
valuable scenic resource in southern Delaware County.
C. Geology
1. Bed£ock
The bedrock underlying Delaware County consists of a series
of limestones, shales and some sandstones. As subsequently
discussed, the Olentangy River is approximately the dividing
2-2
-------
line separating the limestones in the west half and the shales
and sandstones in the east half of the county. The limestones
include the Columbus, Delaware and Monroe Formations. Shales
found within the county include the Bedford, Ohio, Olentangy
and Sunbury Formations. Berea Sandstone and the Cuyahoga
Formation, consisting o^; sandstone and sandy shales, complete
the list of bedrock formations.
2 • §HI^.i£iiI
Glaciers of the Illinoian and Wisconsin ages covered all of
Delaware County, with the earlier Illinoian till being swept
away by the more recent Wisconsin glaciers, about 23,000 years
ago. The glacial till covers almost all of the bedrock, except in
river valleys, where streams have cut through the till to expose
the ancient bedrock. The glacial till in the western half of the
county contains much limestone and dolomite and is highly calcar-
eous. In the eastern half of the county, large amounts of sand-
stone and shale and smaller amounts of limestone and dolomite
occurs in the moderately or slight calcareous till. Various
land forms were deposited in Delaware County by the glacial
outwash. The Powell End Moraine runs west to east through the
southern part of Delaware County, across the village of Powell
and Highbanks Park, and then northward to the east of Alum Creek.
D. Soils
The soil associations of Delaware County are presented in
Figure 2-1. Each major soil association contains many soil series,
some of which may have very contrasting characteristics to others
within the association. The soil series are described and mapped
in detail in the county Soil Survey, which should be consulted
2-3
-------
}F AGRICULTURE
"ION SERVICE
I \JATURAL RESOURCES
' 5 AND SOIL AND
COUNTY ' XPERIMENT STATION
"v *
SOIL MAP
OUNTY, OHIO
rrure 2-1.
Soil Associations
Morley-Blount
Blount-Pervamo
Cardington-Alexandria
Bennington-Pervamo-Cardington
Morley-Milton
f] Eel-Fox
nearest land disposal site
2-4
-------
for site-specific information (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1969).
The soils found in the county developed on glacial till or its
alluvium. The various soils are a result of different parent mater-
ials from the till and underlying bedrock of limestone, shale,
and sandstone, and of variations in natural drainage. The native
vegetation was mixed hardwood forest.
The Morley-Blount and Blount-Pewamo soil associations are
comprised of glaciated upland soils of limestone origin which
developed from highly calcareous clay loam till. They occur on
level to gently sloping or rolling topography. Poor drainage
and erosion are common problems.
Glaciated upland soils of limestone, sandstone, and shale
origin, which developed from moderately calcareous clay loam till,
make up the Alexandria-Cardington and Bennington-Pewamo-Cardington
soil associations. They occur on level to gently sloping or rolling
topography. Poor drainage and erosion are common problems.
In the Milton-Morley soil association, the Milton soils
formed in shallow deposits of glacial till over limestone bedrock
on gently to moderately steep slopes. They are well drained.
Morley soils formed on deep calcareous glacial till. Areas
shallow to limestone are drouthy. Erosion is a common problem.
Fox soils, in the Eel-Fox association, formed in 24 to 42
inches of loamy material over calcareous gravel and sand. They are
well drained; however, sloping areas need erosion control. They
occur on second bottoms and on some upland areas. Eel soils are
moderately well drained, but are often subject to flooding.
They occur in nearly level first bottoms.
2-5
-------
About 86% of the terrestrial area of Delaware County is soils
of the Soil Conservation Service's capability classes I and II.
These areas may be considered to be prime agricultural land, having
soils with either few, or slight and correctable limitations for
farm use.
The most relevant soil characteristic in the development of
sewerage facilities is the suitability of a particular soil for
septic tank disposal field. This is dependent upon the permeabil-
ity of the soil at the depth of the tile and below. A severe
limitiation is imposed upon the suitability of a particular
soil for such use by the presence of solid bedrock, a dense
compact layer, or a layer of clay that interferes with adequate
filtration and movement of the effluent from the soil. Conversely,
in areas that are highly permeable, or where creviced or shattered
bedrock is present near disposal field, care must be taken to
avoid contaminating nearby groundwater supplies with the effluent.
If the soil has a water table over the disposal field, or
the area is subject to flooding, the system will not function
regardless of the soil permeability.
The permeability of most soils in the county is relatively slow
and septic tank disposal fields must be carefully installed.
Septic tanks should not be concentrated on slowly permeable soils
because they absorb effluents slowly and may become saturated in
a short time. Of the soils found in the major soil associations,
the Morley, Blount, Pewamo, Bennington, Alexandria, Cardington,
and Milton soils are considered to have severe limitations for the
use of septic tanks due to slow permeability and/or poo*£ drainage,
or shallow depth to bedrock, or steep slopes. Fox, Ockley, and
2-6
-------
Thackery soils are the only ones considered to have slight or
moderate limitations. Though the majority of the soils are rated
poor, comprising about 97% of the surface area of Delaware County,
this rating does not imply that they cannot always be used for
septic tank disposal fields. However, it does indicate that the
limitations for such use are difficult to overcome and very careful
planning and design are needed.
1 . Gene r_a 1^
The availability, quantity, and quality of underground water
depend upon the nature and arrangement of the earth materials be-
neath the surface, i.e., upon geological conditions. An underground
water supply, whether for small domestic needs or for the large
requirements of a city or industry, can only be obtained where
geologic formations are present in such a manner as to transmit
water. Formations that are capable of transmitting water are said
to be permeable and are called aquifers. Generally, sand and
gravel deposits are the most permeable and, consequently, the most
important sources of underground water. Clay, silt, and shale are
the least permeable. Due to a change in geological conditions from
place to place, underground water is difficult to obtain in some
areas and readily available in others. Such is the case in Delaware
County.
The geologic formations which occur at, or near, the surface
in the county comprise two general classes: (1) consolidated
sedimentary layers of limestone, sandstone and shale, which form
the bedrock, and (2) the unconsolidated glacial deposits of clay,
sand and gravel. The Olentangy River is approximately the dividing
2-7
-------
line separating the limestone in the west half and the shales and
sandstones in the east half of the county, and the state as well.
Figure 2-2 is a generalized map depicting potential under-
ground water supplies and also presents the locations of a number
of typical wells found throughout the county. The map was pre-
pared from data published by the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Water.
2 • Water Qual j:ty_and_Quanti:ty
The areas where wells yielding less than five gallons per
minute can be developed consist mainly of thin to thick glacial
drift, composed basically of clayey till, overlying shale. Under
these circumstances, dug wells and cisterns are often necessary to
supplement water needs. Where wells in these areas are finished in
the limestone formations beneath the shale bedrock supplies may be
developed, but due to the high degree of mineralization, quality is
a deterrent to its use.
For most of the west half of the county, where yields of 100%
500 gallons per minute can be developed, limestone is the prime
aquifer. The glacial drift, though relatively thick, and ranging
from thin lenses of sand and gravel interbedded in clay to thick
layers of sand and gravel, seldom yields domestic supplies. For
this area, it may be said that the quantity of underground water
available increases with depth, but the mineralization also in-
creases; hence, the quality may be a deterrent for a specific use.
The area along Alum Creek, where yields of 100 to 500 gal-
lons per minute can be developed, consists of interbedded sand
and gravel deposits underlying thick till beneath the Alum Creek
valley, and yields may be as high as 200 gallons per minute.
2-8
-------
DELAWARE COUNTY ,OHIO
<*r rwSSvrin
-------
Those areas in the county where yields of 5 to 25 gallons per
minute can be developed mainly consist of thin to thick lenses of
sand and gravel interbedded in clayey till, overlying sandstone or
thin shale formations, with sandstone predominating east of Big
Walnut Creek. Wells finished in sandstone have reportedly yielded
as high as 70 gallons per minute, but the average yield is more
likely to be less than 25 gallons per minute.
In an attempt to generalize the underground water resources
in the county, it may be said that, using the Olentangy River as
the dividing line, the east half of the county has quality
but not quantity, the west half quantity but poor quality.
3 . Water _Quality and Quant ity_Prob_l ems
Iron levels may affect water taste, spot laundered clothes,
and stain plumbing fixtures. Not more than 0.3 mg/1 of soluble
iron is recommended for public water supply sources in EPA's
• Sorne °f tne well levels exceed this
in Delaware County, as listed in Table 2-1 .
The 1972 criteria recommend that sulfate be less than 250
mg/1 to avoid problems with taste and with laxative effects
to those not accustomed to high sulfate levels. Some wells
exceed this recommendation.
Taste problems also occur with high levels of chlorides in
drinking water. A maximum of 250 mg/1 is set in the 1972 criteria.
One well listed sharply exceeds this level.
2-10
-------
Table 2-1.
DELAWARE _COUNTY
GROUND WATER QUALITY
A
27 ft. deep
Gravel
B
125 ft. deep
Limestone
(For locat
Fe
mg/1
1.3
.2-
3.6
ions, see
S04
mg/1
125
878 -
928
Figure
Cl
mg/1
7.2
42-
45
2-2J
Dissolved
Solids
mg/1
571
1,720-
1,780
CaC03
mg/1
432
1,210
1,280
305 ft. deep
Limestone
.26
1,630
18
2,840
2,010
36 ft. deep
Gravel
.11
70
4.0
407
374
494 ft. deep
Limestone
8.8
22
9,330
16,000
4,100
2-11
-------
Dissolved solids include various specific substances as
chloride and sulfate, so high levels would have the undesirable
aspects of their component substances. The 1962 Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards recommend a limit of 500 mg/1
for total dissolved solids (TDS). Well water samples of Table
2-1 generally exceed this recommendation.
Groundwater in the county tends to be hard, as reflected
in the high calcium carbonate values. Households utilizing
well water usually have water softeners to correct this problem.
Malfunctioning on-lot sewage systems have the potential to
pollute groundwater, particularly in the shallow gravel aquifers.
About one-third to one-quarter of the population of south central
Delaware County is presently served by well water. Water softening
costs and increasing power costs for well pumping are making
groundwater wells a less attractive water supply alternative for
home use than the Delaware County water company's surface water
supply.
4 • Water^Use s
Groundwater is used for domestic and farm purposes,
although surface water is becoming more popular for domestic use.
Extensive industrial water consumption has not been possible
in central Ohio, due to limited water supplies. Southern Delaware
County has only slight industrial development of any kind at the
present time. Water quality and quantity problems would limit
the value of the local groundwater for extensive industrial use.
Within Fran,klin County, only about 10% of the municipal water
supply comes, from groundwater.
2-12
-------
F • :lH£f ice^Wa ter_
1. General
Four south-flowing streams, the Scioto River, Olentangy
River, Alum Creek, and Big Walnut Creek cross Delaware County in
nearly parallel north-south courses, with the last three being
tributaries to the Scioto. Big Walnut Creek is not within the
service area of this project. Due to the pattern formed by
these four major streams, the only tributaries of any size
enter Big Walnut Creek from the east and the Scioto River
from the west.
Delaware Reservoir, on the Olentangy River, and Alum Creek
Lake on Alum Creek are federally owned and operated for flood
control, recreation, water supply (not yet taken from the Dela-
ware Reservoir), and allied purposes. Hoover Reservoir, on Big
Walnut Creek, and 0'Shaughnessy Reservoir, on the Scioto River,
are owned by the City of Columbus and provide water supply
storage. These water bodies are shown in Figure 1-1 and addi-
tional information is provided in Table 2-2. Delaware County
has several ponds created in old borrow pits, but no major
natural lakes.
The Scioto and the Olentangy Rivers are considered navigable
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but traffic is limited to
pleasure craft. The Olentangy River has been designated a State
Scenic River from the Delaware Dam (northern Delaware County) to
Wilson Bridge Road (northern Franklin County).
2-13
-------
CN
I
CN
0
i—I
.0
m
E-i
co
g
3!
COI
Wl
X
rH
0
in
o
a
1-1
3
cu
>i
u
(0
g
•rH
1-1
Oj
0
>1 rH
•P .a
•rH (0
O W
(0 "- D
Q-i-P
(0 4-1
CJ 1
0
0 u
Ol O rH
(0 (0 <0
Vj — 4->
O 0
•P EH
CO
•
•H
g
0 •
•K fc^
O1 CT
m co
c —
•H
(0 0
l-t CJ
0 C
Qj-rH
O CO
c
M
U
_j
•f"1
0
>
u
0
CO
0
04
I
I
1
1 rH
O
VI
4J
C
o
I CJ
1
1 T3
1 0
1 0
I rH
| *
1
I
1
0
1 o
in
1
I **
I CN
1
1
O
O
o
1
!
00
ro
*
*s^
*>*
Oi
C
(0
4J
c
0
rH
O
rH
in
<"t\
cyi
rH
m
0
u
(0
5
m
rH
0
Q
>i
rH
Qj
a
3
co
Wi
0
4J
ITS
s
o
o
r-
•*
m
o
m
•<*
K
•^
•Si1
"31
O
rH
04
O
4J
O
•H
O
CO
m
o
/T\
Ui
rH
CO
Oi
Oi
•H
Vj
0
a
a
3
CO
0
4J
10
a c
3 O
CO CJ
0 O
•P O
(0 rH
<* !
•Hi
>i Ol
rH )-l
a-Pl
a cl
3 Ol
CO CJI
0 oj
•p o
(0 rH
O
O
in
o
oo
(Ti
^
vo
o
o
CN
K
m
on
CN
o
•rH
o
CO
CJ
g
3
CN
m
r-
(0
co
0
C
s:
Oi
3
ns
J2
co
O
0
0
u
CJ
3
O
on
o
o
o
EC
C
o
•H
-U
(0
0
Vj
o
0
i-l
o
o
w
•o
0
to
3
0
1-1
(0
w
i-.
•H
o
0
(0
0
i-l
c
-rH
-p
w
•iH
X
0
0
s:
co
o
s
rHl
I
CN
-------
2 • Water Quantity
Appendix B lists the U.S.G.S. stream gaging records
for area streams for the water year 1973, and historical
extremes. Flow in all of the streams of the service area is
regulated by artificial lakes and dams (Figure 1-1). Extremes
of flow for the period of record of each sampling station
are noted under "Extremes". (Note: To convert cfs to MGD,
multiply by 0.646; to convert MGD to cfs, multiply by 1.55).
Discharge to the Olentangy River from Delaware Lake is
as follows during low flow periods:
__________________ Tab 1 e 2- 3. 01 en tang y Pi s c ha r ge __________
Sc bed u 1 ed _D :isc h a ing e
1-10 July 10 c.f.s.
11-20 July 25
21-31 July 35
1-20 August 40
21-31 August 35
1 September-31 October 20
Minimum Release 5
Low-flow discharges as listed above are released from storage
when inflows are insufficient to maintain the required flows.
For other periods of the year normal inflow is released back
to the river, with the guaranteed minimum release being 5 cfs.
Discharge to Alum Creek from the new Alum Creek Reservoir
will have a guaranteed minimum release of 5 cfs as well, once
full storage is obtained. Extreme low flow on the Olentangy
(7-day, 10-year low flow) is 3.36 MGD (5.2 cfs) south of the
Delaware Dam. The similar low flow at Stratford on the Olentangy
is 2.93 MGD (3.77 cfs). These low flows are calculated on
the basis of the 5.0 cfs guaranteed release and reflect the
intakes for water use upstream.
2-15
-------
Extreme low flow on Alum Creek at Africa Road was im-
measurable low at times in 1963-65. Regulation by the dam
and reservoir will augment these extreme low flows with the
5 cfs minimum release.
3• Wa ter^QucQi. ty_
Water quality data for Delaware County are available
from several sources. Each is based on a limited number of
samples. The following is a summary from water supply intakes.
Table 2-4.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Delaware County, Ohio
Turbidity Units
Color Units
Total Solids
Total Alkalinity as CaCO
Total Hardness as CaC03
pH
Calcium as CaC03
Magnesium as Mg
Sodium as NA
Total iron as Fe
Manganese as Mn
Sulfates as S04
Nitrates as N03
Chlorides as Cl
Fluorides as Fl
(All units in milligrams
PH).
Sunbury
Big Walnut
Creek
0
7
286
3 125
212
7.5
4
19
14
0.1
0
40
-
26
0.2
per liter except
Delaware
Olentangy
River
30
13
422
140
228
7.7
-
9
17
1.2
0
75
17.1
28
0.2
turbidity,
Westerville
Alum
Creek
35
3
584
244
424
7.
-
50
54
1.
0
-
2.
70
0.
color , and
8
1
5
3
A summary of water quality sampling on the Olentangy
River is shown in Table 2-5 . This also includes Water Quality
Standards for certain parameters. Note that improvements of the
sewage treatment facilities upstream in the City of Delaware
has occurred subsequent to some of these records and this
is anticipated to lead to better effluent quality. Additional
2-16
-------
Table 2-5. Water Quality of Olentangy River
Data Source
River Reaches
Measured from the
Proposed Site (miles
Conditions
No. of Observations
Dates of
Observations
DO 1n mg/1
BOD5 in mg/1
KH, as 11 In mg/1
K03 as K in mg/1
Organic N in ng/1
ToUl P in nig/l
Temp, in °C
pH
Total CoTifonns
in 100 ml
Fecal Conforms
1n 100 ml
Fecal Streptococci
In 100 ml
T.S.S. 1n mg/1
T.D.S. in mg/1
C " in mg/1
e (dissolved) in mg/1
Cd 1n mg/1
Cr 1n mg/1
2n in mg/1
Mg in mg/1
Cu 1n mg/1
Cyanide in mg/1
Turbidity 1n JTU
Turbidity in pptn
Burgess &
Niple, Ltd.
0-2.5
Existing
24
10/31, 11/7,
11/25/74
7.4-12.4
1.3-12.7
0.0-1.7
0.0-0.9
0.0-3.4
0.11-1.16
4.5-20.0
7.6-8.1
Ohio Wesley an
Study Team
-22-1.
Before the
Expansion of
the Delaware STP
K.A.
6/13/72-7/28/72
4.3-6.7*
...
...
0.4-4.0
...
...
17.5-28
6.8-8.4
Scioto River Water Quality
Basin: Standards for
Waste Load John H. Oliver The River
Allocation Segment
Report
Delaware Dam - ,7 Delaware Dam
to Mouth to Mouth
Before the Before the
Expansion of Expansion of Existing
the Delaware STP the Delaware STP
13 13
before 3/1/74 Surmer —
1967-1969
a. 4.3-7.4" s Q-R « « n
b. 7.4-16 6.9-8.8 5.0
a. 2.5-13.2
b. 2.3-4.8
a. 0.1-3.75 . ,
b. 0.0-0.1 '•*
a. 2.1-2.8 . „
b. 2.1-2.8 8'°
a. 0.25-6.1
b. 0.5
a. 0.0-0.3 „ „_- ,,
b. 0.0-0.3 °'32 2'13
b' 19:28 21"M See Tab1e "6
1: 7:9-8:? o-3'8-5 6-°-9-°
800-2. 4xl04*
66-44x105
5.6-1205*
a. 530-tntc*** ._. MQ
b. 530-tntc*** 'uu
26-6.8x10*
6-6S
«• "I'394 500
b. 274-394 50°
40.4-73.2
...
a. 24-50 „_., 260
b. 24-50 if " 'bu
». 200-300
b. 200-300 '•°°°
<1 ... — — 5
<2-31
<20-80
...
...
S: S:S
1,000
a. 17 KR-UI
b. 17 56 86
<25-58
<3-8
...
...
500
200
7-43
29-156
•Only one observation per sampling location
"With one low value of 1.4 mg/1 of 0.0. at Station 5
between the Delaware STP's Sanitary Land Fill and Quarry
***Too numerous to count
a.During low flow periods
b.Other than low flow periods
Source: Enviro Control, 1975
2-17
-------
water quality records for the Olentangy River and Alum Creek
can be found in Appendix B. Water on these streams within
Franklin County tends to be higher upstream and decreases
downstream, as a result of point and non-point sources of
pollution from the Columbus urban area.
4 • W^Lt ?Jl_QHiLi t Y_a n^3 _Qu a n tity Problems
The Scioto Basin Report prepared by Ohio EPA indicates
that standards for fecal coliform bacteria are violated in
the Olentangy River. This is probably indicative of problems
both with municipal sewage treatment and septic tank mal-
functioning and subsequent stream contamination.
Overloaded sewage treatment facilities were present at
the City of Delaware prior to the rebuilding of their treatment
plant in the fall of 1974. Much of the existing water quality
data reflect these old conditions. The new facility should
improve water quality but the system has been prone to frequent
upsets, leading to less effective treatment than its design
capabilities. Downstream in Franklin County, the Worthington
Hills treatment plant is a small, but overloaded facility.
The septic tank ordinance which Delaware County enacted
in 1974 provides for systems on one-acre minimum lots. This
should help to have better functioning systems, if the or-
dinance is properly enforced. The soils of the county still
have general limitations for this type of system. Small package
treatment plants must be properly maintained and operated to be
effective at preventing water pollution.
The Olentangy, Scioto, and Alum Creek are all water quality
limited stream segments in Delaware County. The Scioto Basin
2-18
-------
Report lists point discharges in the area. Nonpoint sources of
pollution, such as stormwater and agricultural runoff may also
adversely affect area streams. The Basin Report has also de-
veloped waste load allocations for these streams (see Chapter 5).
Low flows can be a problem in streams because of increased
concentrations of the various pollutants. A diagram of water
uses and discharges under low flow conditions for the Olentangy
River is shown in Figure 5-1.
High water using industries have not been prevelant in the
Columbus area because of the dependence on surface water from
reservoirs.
At low flow in the Scioto River, polluted conditions exist
as far as 50 miles downstream of Columbus. With Best Available
Treatment (as defined by Ohio EPA) pollution would be expected
to extend to about 13 miles below the Jackson Pike Treatment
Plant. Stream degredation takes the forms of oxygen depletion,
and excessive levels of fecal coliform bacteria, ammonia,
fluorides, and some heavy metals (cadmium, zinc, lead, iron).
Upstream conditions in the tributaries to the Scioto within
Franklin County do improve, but high levels of fecal coliforms
and low dissolved oxygen levels present problems in Alum Creek,
and high levels of nutrients and of fecal coliforms occur in
the Olentangy River.
5• Water Uses
Surface water is an important recreational resource in
Delaware County. Stream corridors and the numerous impoundments
provide extensive water-based recreation for the region. Pleasure
craft utilize the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers. The Olentangy
2-19
-------
has been designated a State Scenic River for 20 miles in southern
Delaware and Northern Franklin Counties. Wildlife and aquatic
biota utilize the surface water bodies, with the streams being
classified as a warm-water fishery.
Water for human consumption is provided from the Hoover
and O'Shaughnessy Reservoirs, which are owned by the City
of Columbus. Delaware Lake is Federally owned, but not now
providing a water supply. Upon completion, Federally owned
Alum Creek Lake will provide water for the Columbus area.
An emergency water supply intake for Columbus is located at
the mouth of the Olentangy River, but has yet to be utilized.
Southern Delaware County receives over half of its water supply
from surface waters, via the Del-Co Water Company. Water is
withdrawn from the Olentangy River north of Home Road and
is piped throughout the southern part of the county. A future
water storage tank will help to reduce withdrawals from the
stream during periods of low streamflow. Most of this water
is for domestic use in southern Delaware County, as there
is very little industrial development, and many farmers use
the lower quality but cheaper groundwater for farming purposes.
Alum Creek provides part of the water supply for the City
of Westerville, to supplement the city's small reservoir.
About 90% of Franklin County's municipal water supply comes
from surface water sources.
Existing sewage treatment plants are located at Delaware,
on the Olentangy; at Worthington Hills, on the Olentangy;
at Columbus (Jackson Pike and Southerly) on the Scioto. A
Westerville plant was located on Alum Creek until 1975 when
2-20
-------
this area was incorporated into the Columbus service area.
These points are shown in Figure 1-1.
6• Water _Quality_Management
Section 208 ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 provides for areawide planning for waste
treatment management in large urban-industrial areas, or other
areas of the nation which have severe and complex water quality
problems. The Columbus region has not yet been designated
as a 208 area, but either the region or the State of Ohio
may commence 208 planning in the future for this area. If
that were to occur, this Environmental Impact Statement would
be incorporated into the 208 planning effort, if south central
Delaware County were included in the 208 planning area.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has the respon-
sibility for Section 303 of the 1972 Amendments whereby water
quality problems are identified and overall pollution abatement
strategies are established for all major river basins in the
state. The Sciotq_R.iver Basi1n_Waste Load Allocation Report
is a part of the 303(e) Continuing Planning Process, and includes
all area streams.
7 • £t9.°l_Ma.Ea.£^.§
Flooding in the project area has been largely eliminated
through the construction of reservoirs on all major streams and
their resulting regulation. The natural occurance of flooding
is greatly reduced for all but the most extreme and highly im-
probable storms.
The treatment facility and lift stations will be built
above the calculated historical 100 yr. flood plain.
2-2.1
-------
G. B io1qgy
1. ^l§.?lt._
The original vegetation of Delaware County was forest,
largely removed by early settlers for farming. The Beech-Maple
association predominates, especially on moraines, although
there are also some Oak-Hickory forests. Along the rivers
the Sycamore-Cottonwood-Box Elder association is found. Quite
a bit of osage orange was planted as hedge rows by farmers.
Several significant plant areas have been identified
within Delaware County, some of which have been declared Natural
Areas or Nature Preserves by the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, (Figure 2-3). No known survey of the aquatic plants
of Delaware County has been undertaken.
The Seymour Nature Preserve is located in the Olentangy
River drainage basin, south of the City of Delaware and north
of Winter Road. This preserve is considered a good second
growth Oak-Hickory area. This acreage has been donated to
the State of Ohio.
The Welch Beechwoods area is located in the Scioto River
drainage basin south of the 0'Shaughnessy Dam with the majority
of the area lying in Franklin County. This Beech-Maple forest
contains large three foot diameter beech trees.
The Wildcat Creek area is located in the Olentangy River
drainage basin in the vicinity of Home Road. This is a privately
owned area containing a mixed mesophytic community, with beech,
maple and oak. It also contains a rich herbaceous flora in
a scenic ravine with a stream and pond.
The Highbanks Nature Preserve, encompassing an area of
2-22
-------
DELAWARE COUNTY ,OHIO
reas
reserve
1s
83
3 Preserve
cenic Segment
'eservior-Scioto River
Big Walnut Creek
srvoir-Alum Creek
Figure 2-3,
2-23
-------
over 200 acres, is located entirely within the Highbanks
Metropolitan Park. The majority of the park lies within Delaware
County, just north of the DelawareFranklin County line between
U.S. Route 23 and the Olentangy River. The area remains in
good natural condition and contains two or three significant
archeological sites, which will be discussed in a later section.
Appendix C lists the plants of Highbanks Park and the wildflowers
of the park which appear on the Ohio Endangered Species list.
This park is considered to have Statewide significance as a
natural area.
Flint Ravine south of Highbanks Park in northern Franklin
County has been essentially maintained in its wild state and
has been identified as a noteworthy natural area by the Ohio
Biological Survey.
Farmland, woodlots, natural area parks, and streamside
areas provide the principal habitats for wildlife in the area.
The valuable plant areas just discussed above would also have
significance as wildlife habitat.
In Delaware County one would expect to find small animals
such as squirrels, rabbits, foxes, wood chucks, raccoons,
skunk, weasels, mink, opossums and muskrats. Deer also occur
in central Ohio. A variety of game birds, water birds, birds
of prey, and woodland and field birds live in the county, as
well as reptiles and amphibians. Appendix C lists the ter-
restrial animals and some birds of Franklin County. The animals
and birds of Highbanks park are also listed in Appendix C.
2-24
-------
3. Aquatic Animals
The O'Shaughnessy Reservoir is located on the Scioto
River in southwestern Delaware County. This 1,000 acre reservoir
is valuable as a largemouth bass impoundment. It also supports
good populations of small mouth bass, rock bass, white crappie,
walleye, bluegill sunfish, channel catfish, bulllhead catfish,
and various rough species of fish. Appendix C lists the
migratory waterfowl observed at the O'Shaughnessy Reservoir.
The Hoover Reservoir is located on Big Walnut Creek in
Delaware and Franklin Counties and contains approximately
3,300 acres of impounded water. It also contains sport fishing
species similar to the O'Shaughnessy Reservoir.
The borrow pits located in Delaware County can be considered
as having fish species similar to those for all borrow pit
ponds surveyed statewide. Thirty-four species were found to
inhabit borrow pit ponds when surveyed on a statewide basis.
Bluegill sunfish and large mouth bass were the most common
species represented.
The Scioto River in Delaware County supports a diverse
biological community. North of the City of Columbus the stream
is moderately degraded, while downstream from the city the
Scioto River has a greatly reduced biological diversity, limited
mostly to pollution-tolerant organisms; a few species occurring
in great numbers. Diversity and pollution is discussed in
Appendix C, "Aquatic Organisms and Pollution".
Alum Creek has supported a variety of fish and mollusks,
as presented in Appendix C. The ecology of Alum Creek has been
recently altered by the flooding of the Alum Creek Reservoir
2-25
-------
early in 1975. Within the impoundment changes in the numbers
of species and kinds of species will occur, but no known studies
have been conducted yet on the new lake. The Environmental Impact
Statement prepared for the Alum Creek Lake project in 1972 by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers predicted that 19 of the fish
species would be able to live only in streams, while 32 fish
species could continue to live in the new lake habitat. Game
fishes expected to flourish in the lake would include white
and black crappie, large mouth black bass, bluegill sunfish,
bullhead catfishes, and various sunfishes. If the lake were
stocked new species might include walleye, white bass, and
muskellunge. Carp and gizzard shad would also inhabit the lake,
as would some minnow species. Only 3 or 4 of the 27 known
naiad mollusks of Alum Creek are expected to be able to survive
in the impoundment. Other kinds of benthic invertebrates were
studied prior to reservoir construction (Olive, 1971). The
effect of impoundment on these -animals has not been estimated,
but species composition may be expected to change.
The Olentajigy River has regional to national significance
as a valuable biological resource It has been designated as
a State Scenic River between the Delaware Reservoir to the
Wilson Bridge Road in Worthington (Franklin Co.) in 1973.
The aquatic insects of the Olentangy have been inventoried,
as well (Olive, 1971; Olive and Smith, 1975). The sampling
station just above the Delaware-Franklin County line for
freshwater invertebrates has a relatively high species diversity.
About 70% of the sampled bottom-dwelling invertebrates are
considered pollution sensitive organisms. Of the clean-water
2-26
-------
indicator species that were collected, caddisflies, stoneflies,
and mayflies were included. Pollution-tolerant oligochaetes
were also collected and accounted for an average of 27% of
the benthic invertebrates. The high diversity of kinds of
species present indicates a healthy stream condition, despite
the presence of the oligochaetes.
The Olentangy is a healthy, attractive stream supporting
a diverse biological life, providing a recreational resource,
as well as a site for ecological study. Artificial lake con-
struction and urbanization have altered most of the regional
stream corridors of the area, adding to the uniqueness of
this portion of the Olentangy.
H. Air Quality
No known air quality data exists for southern Delaware
County. Air quality is not expected to be a problem in this
rural-suburban area.
The Ohio EPA has established ten air quality monitoring
stations in Franklin County. Data collected from several of
these stations for particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
dioxide is summarized in Table 2-6. State standards for
particulates require that the annual geometric mean not exceed
60 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m ), and that the 24-hour
concentration not exceed 15(Dug/m more than once per year.
In the absence of data representing the annual geometric mean
for particulates, Table 2-6 includes the arithmetic average
for 1974. Arithmetic means are generally somewhat higher than
geometric means. Thus, this data cannot be thoroughly evaluated
in terms of its exact relation to maximum standard values.
2-27
-------
vo
cu
^
.M
D
O
CJ
e
• rl
i
j.
«
U4
>
<0
4J
tO
a
-P*
.,_(
1
M
-r)
fi >
J <
U
a
Q
-J
o
z
•
o
0
•
4J
a
o
CO
vT
•1 <
£
c-
3- >i
rH
tft r^
O
JJ
CfJ
1 1
T] ^
rt
r;
t,
^ rJ
o ^
'U
c
G rH
1 |
•
J_|
3
£
C
3
^.
r-
cn
rH
T fN
in ••r cn r-l
r* LO m o
n co vo co
f"1* W) CO CO
CN \o in co
CN CO CO CO
rH
|f» CN o r-
cn \0 co cn
co n ^v ^"
cn en o CN
rH rH
iCN CO CO CM
n co o rH
rH rH rH
r- in r> o
cc r^* co cn
in rr in r^-
co r- o co
1,
in vo o CN
cn f~ cn cn
O VO LI f>
cn vo o co
f~ VO O rH
CO O O -1
rH
r~ o •=• er,
co r^ r- o
rH
O 0
^ ^
C < <
o
JJ C a r3
cn O X T
C -1 ~ O
•r4 Cl £s ZZ
x: -r< a.
'.0 S "3 C
r! O 'J5 ii
^? ^j O W
^ 0
• _; O SC
~ n u".
rH O r-> O
-r r" r- ,_-,
o o co ;N co
CN -H cs r^ en
rH rH rH
n LT r~- co • • >. >
M O H <
0 > CJ
^ < • 'Jl iH
y M o
4J < 2 'O r:
-P o r: "
O C -C "^ H o
i> y jj ~> - 5: >
UJ -J '.1 r-, O <
4-J " ^ r-4 rH O
•ji c- i; r-> co ^:
.•j -J 3 f — -^*
X. ^1 •""• '.^ ^-' ~"' 3
— ' O "^ O C
^S 2
•
D1
<
in
r-
cn
I
j^
O
b
C
f3
^
O
cu
Q
>
0
^ 2
E
* 8
V
•a
•rH .
X J->
•2 S
0 w
c
o
IT
0 01
H. 3
•^ <
•rj ^
^
>1
^
U
c
a
1-3
>,
s
rH
••H
!H
a,
T
pv.
O"\
rH
n en n o rH CN CM
in T ^" in n n n
vo in H r*- rH n CN
in ^f ^* ^i* ^" n n
cn r* n vo GO o o
rr ^r T ^* CN TT ^r
o cn n f^ in rH co
in *r T T TT CN CN
1 1 1 1 III
n
e
rH TT LO O ^ LI rH f^
min ^ in o" nn CN
*T>
O
•a
vo cn ^3* o '[j ^r cn
m T ^r in * ^r n I
-H
Q
M
3
ro ro oo «*-* CO ro
r- i»o 1 VJD O n n |
»— i
3
C/l
CO CO CO CO
^ l 1 -^ ro n I
rr tr a^
CO CTi | m f— 4 <— i |
i •
c >i ai c >i o
O i-l > O rJ >
-u O < -i 0 <
31 • 01 ^i • '-1
COMM O CO^iiH
•'< > 3 O DI -H > 3 O
J3<2« <3 JS<3«
01 T3 ^ « -a
-3 j£ tn c O r;j;jic
^-U--H > 3^*-*"-^
rH O £ < r- O !S
• rH rH . 1-1 rH
CO rH O J3 -J) — 1 O
JJ 3 CO -M JJ 3 CO
rHC/JMP- £ rH'.nWr~-
CO-jOrH O CO-JOrH
77! "" "^s
rH
n
in
n
vo
n
rH
n
1
rH
n
r-l
T
CO
n
CN
CN
O
n
rH
O
CJ
IN
O
>
r^
4.J
C
O
2-28
-------
However, in the absence of data given in terms of geometric
means the data can be used for a general view of particulate
levels in this area.
Regarding levels over a 24-hour period, an examination
of daily data indicates that of 20 to 212 days sampled at
various stations from April 1974 to February 1975, 0 to 18
days (the number of days varying at different stations) had
concentrations of particulates in excess of maximum standard
levels. The maximum 24-hour levels recorded were 236 and
222/ig/m at the Ohio State Fairgrounds and East llth Avenue,
respectively.
State standards for sulfur dioxide require that the annual
arithmetic mean not exceed 60/ag/m and that levels during a
24-hour period not exceed 260/ug/m more than once per year.
Ohio EPA data for sulfur dioxide are available for the period
from April 1974 to February 1975. During this time the arith-
metic mean was 31/ug/m , well below maximum standards. Although
this figure is not based on a complete annual record, it is
an indication of levels over a long-range period. Average
levels of sulfur dioxide during 1970 ranged from 10 to 50/ag/m ,
with higher levels concentrated in the center of Columbus.
Examination of OEPA daily data from the same period indicate
that of 19 to 36 days sampled at three stations, no days had
sulfur dioxide concentrations in excess of maximum standard
values.
Standards for nitrogen dioxide require that the annual
arithmetic mean not exceed lOOjug/m . The data summary in Table
2-6 indicates that for a 10-month period the mean value was
2-29
-------
This figure can be used as an indication of what average annual
values may be.
1• Land Use and Future Growth and Development
1. Overv Jew
Growth of population and industry has been occurring to a
large extent, north of the center of Columbus. This trend
has influenced growth in the project area in the past and
can be expected to have an expanding influence in the future.
Other major factors enhancing growth potential in the project
area are its excellent arterial and feeder system of highways,
its large tracts of relatively inexpensive, level land, its
easy access to major centers of employment, and its excellent
recreation amenities. Poor waste assimilative capacities
of the soil in most of the project area, combined with the
lack of sewering, is the major impediment to future development.
However, private package systems and septic fields are capable,
if public sewering is not implemented, of accommodating significant
amounts of development.
Most future development in the project area can be expected
to be residential. However, rising costs of land in Franklin
County and Columbus combined with the availability in the pro-
ject area of large, level and comparatively highways will
encourage significant future industrial development. Commercial
development within the project area will be primarily neighborhood-
oriented. The highest rates of residential and commercial develop-
ment can be expected in Orange and Liberty Townships. Most
development in Concord Township will be residential and most of this
2-30
-------
will occur in the Shawnee Hills-Dublin area. In Liberty Township
considerable amounts of residential development will occur
around Powell and some industrial development will occur along
U.S. 23 and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. Several portions
of Orange Township will experience considerable residential
development, while land adjacent to the Penn Central Railroad
has a potential for industrial development. Some scattered
areas of residential development may be expected in Berlin
Township. Strict zoning regulations in Genoa Township, if
continued, would limit development to moderate amounts of
residential and industrial uses.
2. Regional Context
The discussion of growth in a regional context sets a
framework for understanding growth and development in the
project area. For the purposes of this report, Columbus is
viewed as being the regional nucleus of Franklin, Delaware,
Fairfield, Licking, Madison, Pickaway, and Union Counties.
Factors determining growth and development in the Columbus
region influence local growth and development in each of these
counties.
The Columbus region has an excellent potential for future
growth and development. As Figure 2-4 indicates, high earnings
growth is projected for services, manufacturing, and government
in Franklin, Delaware, and Pickaway Counties. Several factors
provide the Columbus region with an excellent potential for
future growth and development. Columbus is excellently located
with respect to consumer markets. It is within 600 miles of
2-31
-------
CD
o
CVJ
o
CVJ
o
CM
CU
re
fO
o
O
O
CM
O
CT>
cn
<
LU
>-
o
CO
o
r^
CT>
C CO
« s-
S- to
M- O
-a r-»
cu wo
CO CT>
o •—
Q.
E *t-
O O
O
CO
C T3
O C
•r- 05
C7) CO
CU 3
CC O
CU 4->
-P C
•i—
C
•r-
CO
CO CU
O5'i-
C -(->
II
(O (_3
UJ
^S?
O 2
03
CU -^
CO O
(O ••-
CU D-
$-
o -a
c c
i
CM
(U
H
en
O
LO
o
o
CO
a>
o
3
o
CO
CU
a;
s-
01
•4->
ITS
O
T3
CU
Q.
(C
o
o
o
o
o
o
t\
LO
O
O
o
•N
o
o
o
o
o
o
A
o
o
o
•*
CO
o
o
o
ft
o
o
o
C\J
o
o
CD
w,
o
CD
o
CU
o
s-
rs
o
CO
savnoa do SGNVSROHI NI
2-32
-------
60 percent of the nation's markets and is thus attractive
to industries with national markets. Columbus also has a major
airport, Port Columbus International Airport, and is serviced
by three trunk railroads, one of which, Penn Central, is con-
siderably improving its present facilities. Columbus is also
located at the intersection of Interstate Highways 70 and 71,
providing rapid automobile and truck access in all directions.
The Ohio State University and several other accredited
colleges and universities are located in Columbus, attracting
major education-related resources into the region. The state
capital and numerous state and federal administrative organizations
provide large amounts of stable employment, while the headquarters
of numerous bank holding companies, insurance companies, and
savings and loan associations provide substantial amounts of
investment capital. Columbus also has a diversity of research
and development activities. It is evident that Columbus has
a diverse employment base with a well-educated labor force,
thereby minimizing the severe fluctuations in employment that
are common to more industrially-based regions.
There are other factors which provide Columbus with an
excellent potential for future growth and development. There
are numerous activity-oriented recreation facilities in Franklin
County and nature-oriented recreation facilities within the
other counties. Columbus's generally level topography and
subsoils are suitable for construction of buildings so that
costs for building factories, distribution facilities, and
transportation arteries are minimized. Finally, deposits of
coarse sands, gravel, and limestone support a significant
2-33
-------
quarrying industry.
Although Columbus has considerable potential for future
growth and development, there are major factors which inhibit
growth in the Columbus region. These include lack of deposits
of minerals, coal, oil, clays, gas, or other deposits to support
most basic processing industries and an insufficient water
supply to support industrial development which requires sub-
stantial amounts of water, such as steel making, paper mills,
and large chemical industries. In addition, Columbus is in
competition with other lake-basin centers in the attraction
of industry.
A number of special factors determine the location of
growth and development within the Columbus region. Of particular
relevance to this environmental impact analysis is the determin-
ation of those factors which most influence growth and development
in the ring of counties, including Delaware County, surrounding
the metropolitan nucleus of Columbus and Franklin Counties.
The major growth-oriented purposes that these outlying areas
serve are for low density housing, inexpensive land for industrial
development, and recreational land. The major factors in
determining to what extent each outlying county serves various
growth-oriented purposes are: (1) accessibility to major
areas of employment (2) accessibility to residential services;
(3) provision of sewer, water, gas, and electricity; (4) quality
and regional scarcity of recreational resources; (5) directions
of growth within Columbus and Franklin Counties; and (6) the
availability of sizable tracts of low cost land which does not
require costly modification to make it suitable for development.
2-34
-------
When Delaware County is analyzed in terms of the above
factors, a picture of strong potential for growth emerges.
The northern portions of Columbus have the most desirable
centers of employment and excellent highway arterials making
the southern portions of Delaware County very accessible to
these desirable areas of employment. These highway arterials
also give easy and rapid access from the southern portions
of Delaware County to residential services in the City of
Delaware, Westerville, and downtown Columbus. In addition,
Delaware County has widespread provision of water, gas, and
electricity services and large surpluses in facilities for
most of those recreational activities for which there are
insufficient facilities in the rest of the region. Finally,
growth in Franklin County is occurring primarily to the north
toward Delaware County and, to a lesser extent, to the east
and southeast as numerous large tracts of land suitable for
residential subdivisions or industrial activities are presently
being held for speculative purposes.
3. Service Area
Most of the land in the planning area is either used for
agricultural, residential, or recreational activities or
is held for speculation and future development. Industrial
and commercial uses occupy a very small part of the total
land area. Additional information describing current land
uses is given in Appendix D.
The most current available representation of land use
in Delaware County (1973) planning is shown in Figure 2-5.
The predominant residential feature of the planning area
2-35
-------
o
o
o
•H
CO
rH
n)
o
C/3
o
o
CU
S-
to
to
S-
o
C
to
i
CN
0)
•H
fa
OJ
,—
03
•^
o
S- tO
CU CU
e E
E O
o -G
o
CU
T3 r—
C T-
to -Q
O
r—
' tz
n3
•i- CD
•P E
C -r-
CU "O
T3 3
•n~ r~~
to u
CU C
S- -r-
•r—
S-
t-
(O
3
O"
CD
c
•r—
T3
3
r—
O
c
•1—
,
to
•r"
s-
-p
to
3
-o
C
•1—
c
o
-p
to
CU
S-
o
CU
s-
CD
c
•5
3
73
c:
• r—
U
•r-
^_
J3
3
Q.
oo
O
to
to
o
o
CD
c
(O
(O
c
o
CD
CU
a:
3
O
CD
to
CO
CU
o
3
O
CO
2-36
-------
is the occurrence in roadside strips and small subdivisions
of single-family detached homes interspersed with older , rural
farm homes. Commercial uses generally consist of service
stations, motels, restaurants and convenience stores widely
scattered along transportation arterials or clustered near
areas of residential concentration. Most manufacturing is
concentrated in the area west and south of the City of Delaware.
Elsewhere, industrial uses in the area are restricted to those
of a few scattered light industries along U.S. Route 23 and
the railroads.
Land used for transporation is so located as to provide
excellent accessibility to most portions of the project area
by private vehicle. However, the capacity of most existing
roads is not adequate to handle high volume traffic flows
and will need modification to handle the increased residential
population projected for the future. Agriculture is a major
land use; however, large areas of agricultural land are held
as speculative investments.
Land devoted to recreational uses is abundant and over-
supplies local needs, but because of the regional orientation
of most of the recreation facilities, they are used extensively
by residents of other counties. The attractiveness of these
recreation facilities is strongly influenced by the types of
activities supplied, the number of users the facilities can
support, the demand for the activities supplied, and the ac-
cessibility of the facilities from concentrations of population.
The proximity and recreational demand of the nearby, rapidly
expanding Columbus metropolitan area are significant factors
2-37
-------
which greatly influence Delaware County's recreation system.
Delaware County has almost half of the total acreage of regional
recreational facilities in the entire seven-county region
surrounding Columbus. Delaware County also has nearly half
the total acreage of outstanding natural areas and over one-third
of the total acreage of natural environment areas, as defined
by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, including Highbanks
Metropolitan Park.
The most current and detailed land use plan that describes
the Delaware County is the concept plan developed by Surveys
Unlimited (1973). It describes and/or delineates the planned
location of the following land use elements for a 20-year
planning period:
- Regional role of Delaware City
- Major commercial areas
- Major industrial areas
- Major residential areas
- Major public and semipublic areas
- Major vacant and open space areas
- Major improvements to the transportation system.
The geographical location of these plan elements is shown
in Figure 2-6.
This concept plan recommends that Delaware City be the
center of major commercial, administrative, health, and civic
needs in the county. The increasing countywide orientation
to Columbus makes the achievement of this concept less realistic.
New major areas of residential development are expected in these
portions of the project area:
North and southeast of Powell
North and south of Lewis Center
East and west of Interstate 71
- North and south of Powell Road.
2-38
-------
§
o
0)
s-l
§
-------
Major areas of residential expansion in the project area
are expected north of Westerville and south and west of Shawnee
Hills. Expansion of commercial areas is encouraged for Powell
and Westerville in the plan.
The concept of planned commercial development is based
upon the recommendation that growth of a countywide market
be encouraged to locate in the City of Delaware and that
convenience uses be encouraged in scattered areas thoughout
the county. Major industrial development in the plan is recom-
mended in the following portions of the project area:
South of Home Road along the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad
Along the Penn Central Railroad south of Powell
Road and east of U.S. Route 23
Northeast of Westerville along Maxtown Road
Near the intersection of U.S. Route 36 and
Interstate 71
Near the intersection of Big Walnut Road and
Interstate 71
- Along U.S. Route 23.
The plan's concept of recreational development centers
around the development of additional facilities in the Highbanks
Park and the Alum Creek Reservoir. Major areas of open space
preservation are recommended in certain watersheds and along
major drainageways. Recommendations for transportation include
the improvement of the capacity of most existing arterial roads
and collectors and the building of an interchange with Interstate
71 at County Road 109.
Information gained from various population, land use, and
socio-economic trends helps define aspects of growth and develop-
2-40
-------
ment in the service area. Population trends show that popu-
lation growth is occurring at an increasingly high rate. Land
use trends show that there are large concentrations of both
speculative land tracts in Liberty and Orange Townships and
recent residential development in Concord, Genoa, and Liberty
Townships. Since 1964 there have been more housing starts
in the service area than in the much larger area comprising
the rest of the county. The average value of new housing units
constructed in the project area from 1964 to 1972 well exceeds
the average value of all units constructed in Delaware County
during the same period. Land use trends also reveal that signi-
ficant decreases have occurred recently in farm populations,
and that an increasing percentage of workers are commuting
to Franklin County.
Current demand for residential development is indicated
by the strong demand for year-round homes whose location satis-
fies both vacation needs and easy accessibility to year-round
employment. Seasonal vacation homes are generally constructed
in those areas located within several hours highway travel from
major metropolitan areas and having considerable recreational
amenities. The service area exhibits both of these character-
istics. However, because the service area is within commuting
distance of Columbus, there is a strong tendency for people
to combine their needs for a vacation home with their needs
for a year-round residence. It is possible to live in the
service area, commute to Columbus, and still have a house
that is located in a high quality vacation environment. Thus,
serving vacation needs in a year-round residence appears
2-41
-------
to be a major factor in the location decision of many current
residences in the project area. These types of homes are located
in areas near the Scioto and Olentangy Rivers, and Alum Creek.
Residential development is currently constrained by a
strict septic tank ordinance. Although there is currently no
actual building ban, a septic tank ordinance affects develop-
ment by demanding the use of central sewering systems in all
but the smallest subdivisions and increasing the total cost
of homes serviced by septic fields. Septic fields are pro-
hibited in any subdivision containing more than four lots.
This requirement increases the total cost of new homes serviced
by septic fields because of two factors. First, each septic
field must be built on a lot covering a minimum of one net
acre. Second, there are special requirements in each septic
system for 2 tanks and drains to protect against limited drain-
age caused by high groundwater table levels.
Strict zoning in Genoa Township and floodplain zoning
provisions in Liberty and Concord Townships are the only current
major zoning constraints to development in the service area.
There is zoning throughout the service area which varies from
township to township. However, in most areas it is flexible
enough to provide for a wide range of types of development.
Most of the zoning regulations have provisions which would
allow high density developments such as PUD's, townhouses,
and apartment buildings. However, at present, Genoa Township
aloae provides for a minimum residential lot size of one acre.
Liberty and Concord Townships have rudimentary floodplain
zoning provisions which restrict development in floodplains.
2-42
-------
Trends in accessibility affect patterns of commercial,
residential, and industrial development. Descriptions of
each township in the project area emphasize that current
accessibility is excellent throughout most of the area (Ap-
pendix D). Improvements are being built along U.S. Route 23
and State Route 315, and there are plans for the construction
in the service area of at least one interchange with Interstate
71. There are trends toward improving the already excellent
accessibility by private transportation.
Most future growth and development will be residential.
However, moderate amounts of industrial development can be
expected in some areas and small amounts of neighborhood
commercial development can be expected near areas of major
residential growth. Rising land costs in the service area
will preclude any significant development of new recreation
areas. Major expected areas of residential growth and develop-
ment are:
- along U.S. Route 23
- along State Route 315
- around the interchange of U.S. Route 36 with Inter-
State 71
- Shawnee Hills, Dublin, and the Village of Powell
- around the proposed interchange of Interstate 71
with Lewis Center and Big Walnut Roads
- northwest of the intersection of U.S. Route 23
and Powell Road
Major expected areas of industrial growth and development are
along or near the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, the Penn Central
Railraod, and the proposed interchange of Interstate 71 with
Lewis Center and Big Walnut Roads. Commercial growth and develop-
ment is expected to be oriented primarily to neighborhood needs.
As such, some small commercial enterprises can be expected to
2-43
-------
locate near areas of growth and development. Appendix D
discusses localized patterns of growth and development by
township.
J• Historic and Archeo^ogical Sites
Several historic buildings and archeological sites within
Delaware County are on the National Register of Historic Places.
Others have been nominated to the National Register and still
other sites or buildings have state or local significance.
Information for this compilation was provided by the Ohio
Historical Society. Figure 2-7 illustrates the site locations.
Those sites on the National Register within the planning area
are the Highbanks Park Works, which is believed to be a forti-
fication of the Adena Indians. This works is located within
the Highbanks Metropolitan Park. The earthworks consists of
four elongated mounds about 3 feet high with a 3-7 feet deep
moat, extended about 1500 feet in a semi-circle. The site has
been disturbed very little since the time of its prehistoric
occupation, which makes it especially valuable. The site probably
represents a major fortified settlement of the Cole Indians
(ca. 800-1300 A.D.), possibly descendants of the Ohio Hopewell
Indiana population. It was first surveyed by Colonel Charles
Whittlesey in 1836, with his account being published by the
Smithsonian Institution in 1847. In 1951, the site was studied
by Dr. Raymond S. Baby and the Ohio Historical Society.
Highbank Park Mound 1 (Muma Mound) and Highbank Park Mound
2 (Orchard Mound) have been nominated to the National Register
of Historic Places. They are located within the Highbanks
Metropolitan Park in Orange Township. The Muma Site has been
2-44
-------
partially excavated and is approximately 54 feet in diameter
and 3 feet high. The Orchard Mound is a small mound 1.5 to
2 feet in height.
There are several other archeological sites located within
the 20 year service area. These sites are shown on Figure 2-7
along with other significant historic sites.
Indian artifacts are found in many places in Delaware
County and have been discovered at the proposed treatment
plant site opposite the Highbanks bluffs, in a survey by the
Ohio Historical Society. Further evaluation will be made of
the historical significance of this site.
K* Environmentally Sensitive Areas
1. Archeology
Three significant archeological sites within the Highbanks
Park have been described in Section J. An evaluation of other
possible significant archeological sites is presently being
undertaken by the Ohio Historical Society.
2• Geqlogy/Topogr aphy/S te ep Slope s
The shale Highbanks Bluffs on the Olentangy River are a
significant regional feature.
3 • Plants and Animals
The following animals have been found in the Olentangy
River and are on the Ohio list of Endangered Wild Animals:
Mollusks: QH^LHi.^-^.y.^iO.^Li?.3.—^.Y-iiD-^Li?.3- ~ <"0'3 Shell
Ep^oblasma^tqrulosa rangiana - Northern Riffle Shell
Pieuirobema c1ava
Simpsonaias amb£gua
Fish: Etheqstoma maculaturn - Spotted Darter
2-45
-------
DELAWARE COUNTY ,OHIO
e Area
,1 National Register)
to National Register)
logical Sites
2-46
-------
Particularly significant biological areas include the
natural areas of Highbanks Park.
^ • Pr ime Agr^icultural Lands
About 86% of Delaware County is in Capability Classes I
and II, considered ideal for farming, and a valuable resource.
5• Recreation and Parks
Major regional parks include the newly developing Alum
Creek Lake facilities and the Highbanks Regional Park. Two
youth camps are located at Flint Ravine on the Olentangy,
south of Highbanks Park and another is located south of Delware
City. Delaware County's stream corridors provide valuable
water based regional recreation - fishing, boating and scenery.
6. Flood_Plains
Flood plains are a natural part of the river. Flooding is
structurally controlled in the service area.
7• Aesthetics
Presently southern Delaware County has extensive areas
of open space and a predominantly rural character. A farmland
vista is seen from the overlook at the Highbanks bluffs.
8. Scenic River
The Olentangy River has been designated as a state Scenic
River in the southern part of Delaware County.
L. PopHl^ti0.?!—3.!!?!.-??-0-!!0-1!!!!!?-—?!.^!6-^.^.!0.^3.
1. Overview
Significant future economic and population growth can be
expected in the planning area. Reasonably accurate projections
of population in the planning area are 22,500 for 1980; 32,000
for 1985; 39,900 for 1990; and 61,300 for 2000. These can
2-47
-------
be compared to a highly accurate estimate of 13,196 on July 1,
1973. No projections were found which predicted future economic
growth in either Delaware County or the planning area. However,
the 1972 OBERS projections provide a reasonably accurate view
of future economic and population growth in a region consisting
of Franklin, Pickaway and Delaware Counties. Appendix E pre-
sents the reports studied and the evaluation methodology used.
2• Selected Projections
The evaluation in Appendix E yields several economic
and population projections which project future trends in
a reliable manner. The economic projections are Population
Estimates___and Projections and the 19^72 OBERS Projections.
The population projections are Population Estimates__and^Pro-
jections , Population Projections, and the 19^72 OBERS Pro jections.
Tables 2-7, 2-8 and Figure 2-8 describe the projected
information. Table 2-9, as a comparison, lists the population
projections made in the Facilities Plan.
Table 2-7. Anticipated Public Sewer Service Assumed in the
Projections
Township
1975
1980
1985
1990
Berlin
Concord
Delaware
Genoa
Liberty
Orange
Partial Sewering
City already
sewered
Partial Sewering
Very little
Sewer ing
Partial Sewering
Partial Sewering
Partial Sewering
2-48
-------
Sources: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1975
Delaware County Regional Planning Commission, 1973
The two economic and three population projections provide
a baseline which can be used to estimate the socio-economic
environment without the proposed action. The value of this
baseline is influenced strongly by the length of the period
of projection and the probable accuracy of each of the five
projections on which it is based. Generally, the longer the
period of projection, the more uncertain the results; therefore,
the probable accuracy of each of the projections varies. The
regional economic and population projections in the 1972 OBERS
Projections are expected to be highly accurate. The 1973 population
and economic estimates presented in Popu^ti.on_Esti:mates_a.nd
are also expected to be accurate. The Columbus
Area Chamber of Commerce maintains though, that certain economic
indicators point to greater regional population growth than
is estimated by this method. Population projections can be
expected to be fairly accurate because it is based on detailed,
current, and ongoing knowledge of development in Delaware
County. A factor which hinders its use as a projection of
population without sewering is that it assumes sewering in
most portions of the project area in the near future. However,
considerable future development can be expected in the project
area even if a public wastewater treatment system is not imple-
mented.
The populations projected for each township differ
from those projected in the facilities plan. Projections for
most townships are higher than those projected in the Facilities
2-49
-------
Table 2-8. Population Projections by Townships
Township
Berlin
Concord
Genoa
Liberty
Orange
Total
Delaware
Total
Delaware County
1970
1,412
2,732
3,096
2,625
1,902
11,767
16,928
28,695
42,908
1975
1,778
3,412
3,75o
3,353
2,174
14,452
18,621
33,073
NA
1980
2,134
4,094
4,296
6,073
5,924
22,521
20,483
43,004
75,695
1985
2,661
5,119
5,155
7,773
11,324
32,032
22,020
54,052
NA
1990
3,459
7,501
6,444
9,716
12,824
39,944
23,674
63,618
112,010
1995
NA
9,754
7,734
12,145
14,748
NA
24,854
NA
NA
2000
7,784
12,631
9,394
14,575
16,951
61,341
26,097
87,438
148,434
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970; Delaware County Regional
Planning Commission, 1973
Table 2-9.
Population Projections as Estimated in
the Facilities Plan
Townships
Berlin
Concord
Genoa
Liberty
Orange
1980
2,100
4,170
4,722
4,014
2,899
1990
3,500
6,356
7,144
5,731
4,417
Source: Burgess and Niple, Ltd., 1974
2-50
-------
o
o
LO
r-.
O
CM
o
CM
o
CM
o
o
o
CM
o
CTv
cn
o a:
CO «=E
CD LU
r— >-
O
l~^
cn
o
l£>
01
a> ai
10 -i-
o -M
O- C
E 3
O O
o o
c >,
O (O
CD (O
QJ J^
0£. 0
•r-
2
O (O
O) r-
•r-> c
ra 03
's u_
Q.
O M-
O. O
CO
1
O
LT>
CTi
o
3
O
t/)
a>
o
3
O
to
OJ
S-
OJ
(T3
O
q-
a>
+->
a.
fO
T3
O
C
O
•%
O
o
o
n
CM
O
o
o
t\
o
o
IT)
O
O
o
n
o
o
o
o
o
o
n
o
o
I.O
O)
u
o
co
NOIlVlfldOd
2-51
-------
Plan. A comparison of Table 2-8 with Table 2-9 shows that the
projections of population in 1980 and 1990 for Liberty and
Orange Townships are considerably higher than those of the
Facilities Plan. The differences between the two sets of
projections for Berlin, Concord, and Genoa Townships are much
more moderate. The high rates of growth projected by this
study tor Liberty and orange Townships are not only supported
by the best population projection, but are also further sub-
stantiated by a detailed analysis of land use trends, as dis-
cussed in Section I of this chapter.
According to calculations based on the population pro-
jections in Table 2-7, the population that would be served
by the proposed sewerage system would be 11,421 by 1985 and
28,591 by 1995. This estimate of the actual population served
is subject to a number of variables: the overall population
growth, the phasing of interceptor construction, the develop-
ment of new housing served by the system, and the percentage
of older housing which connects to the sewage system and aban-
dons septic tanks and package plants.
M• Other Programs :Ln_the Area
The Huntington District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has constructed two reservoirs in Delaware County; the Delaware
Lake on the Olentangy River, and recently, the Alum Creek
Reservoir on Alum Creek. These are multi-purpose projects,
for flood control, recreation, and water supply purposes.
Delaware Lake is not used for water supply at the present
time, but Alum Creek Reservoir will have this use. Additionally,
plans have been made for the construction of Mill Creek Lake
2-52
-------
near Ostrander, and a Final Environmental Impact Statement
was prepared on that project in 1971. No water supply use
of this lake was planned. The State of Ohio withdrew its
support of the project in 1973 and it has not yet been
constructed.
Presently, Columbus is preparing a Facilities Plan for
much of Franklin County's sewage collection and treatment.
Completion of the planning is anticipated early in 1976.
N • ^sthe t ics
Most of south central Delaware County is comprised of
farmland or scattered single family homes. Several small com-
munities are within the planning area and some commercial de-
velopment exists along the major highways. The river corridors
and their impoundments add to the visual interest of the county.
The terrain grows steeper near the rivers, most intensively at
the 100 foot Highbanks bluffs. Woodlands and parklands con-
tribute to the natural beauty of the area. A 20 mile segment
of the Olentangy has been designated as a State Scenic River.
2-53
-------
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVES
A• Flow Reduction Measures
The service area has no existing interceptor sewers, with
the present on-lot sewage treatment systems. Therefore, an in-
filtration-inflow analysis is not required. Roof drains, found-
ation drains, and other clear water connections to the sanitary
sewers are prohibited by a 1969 Delaware County resolution.
With the advent of the services of a water supply company
in the service area a good quality water supply has become avail-
able to Delaware County residents. This tends to increase
water use, above the older, more conservative usage patterns
with well water. Wastewater production might be decreased
by the reduction of water use by the residents of the service
area. This could occur through increasing the cost of water
the use of water-saving appliances, or consumer education on
the importance of the water resource and its conservation.
6• Interceptor Alte^natives
1._Interceptor Phasing
In the design of a new sewage system, it is important to
schedule the completion of the various interceptor lines in
response to current and anticipated needs. This phasing would
be consistent with population densities, water quality problems
and projected growth.
The proposed interceptor lines from the Facilities Plan
are shown in Figure 3-1. Planning phases are expressed in
terms of 10-year intervals, using 1975 as a baseline for Phase I,
3-1
-------
Interceptors-Facilities Pla:
N
Ficure 3-1.
GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY PHASE I
GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY PHASE II
GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY PHASE III
_._._._ GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS
>••••• FORCE MAIN SEWERS PHASE 1
FORCE MAIN SEWERS PHASE II
FORCE MAIN SEWERS PHASE III
REGIONAL WASTE WATER
LIFT STATION
REGIONAL WASTEUATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
Scale in Feet
E55Ei_ __ .
0 3000 6000 9000 1200
-------
though, due to present delays, 1977 is a more accurate baseline
date. The first phase consists of a short line along the
Glentangy River to a proposed residential development and
existing homes to a major system in the Alum Creek Basin which
would serve outlying areas north of Westerville in the vicinity
of Westerville Reservoir, and the area around Alum Creek Lake.
During Phase II, it is proposed to construct extensions
along the Olentangy River to include the Village of Powell
and more northerly areas, an expansion of the Alum Creek network,
and the completion of a force main to the lower Scioto Basin,
including Shawnee Hills. During Phase III, it is proposed
to construct an extension of the sewer system northward in
all basins and to install minor lines (Burgess and Niple,
Ltd. 1974). While this Environmental Impact Statement considers
all three interceptor phases, the immediate USEPA grant for
sewer construction will only apply to Phase I of this project.
A map supplied by the Delaware County Health Commissioner
(May, 1975) shows that significant septic tank problem areas
exist in Shawnee Hills, Powell, Seldom Seen Road, Carriage
Drive, Hyatts, Lewis Center, Cheshire, and the southern end
of U.S. 23 (see Figure 3-2). Smaller problem areas occur in
various areas in Liberty, Orange, Genoa, and Berlin Townships.
These water quality problems result from untreated or poorly
treated runoff from cesspools, septic tanks, and package plants
and are caused by both the unsuitability of soils in the area
for use as septic tank fields and the problems of sewage treatment.
Scattered rural development has led to scattered problem areas
in the southern part of the county.
3-3
-------
to
CU
r CN
-«J*
Q .c.1l-^S^ MO - .-V .. «4^Tt
¥ >,u-^V^'"M^V,-r~"t^4
Cfl
o
03
id
C
0)
60
0)
i-l
CO
cfl
CU
1-1
CO
6
CO
,-H
^3
O
1-1
O. 0>
CO
!>> CU
4J M
•H cd
i-H
o) e
3 cu
cr ^H
^3
M O
CU t-i
% a
£ M
0)
CU i-H
t>0 rH
V-t crt
cfl B
(J C«
CO
CO
Q)
O 4J
n a
PM 3
O
^ U
4-1
•H Q)
iH S-i
n3 cfl
3 S
O" aj
i-H
M OJ
cu p
4-1
ctf C
& H
Q)
M X!
C «
•H 3
4J O
W !/)
•H
X C
W -H
CM
I
ro
Q)
tn
-H
cr\
i-H
-i
O
CO
3-4
-------
The Delaware County Sanitary Engineer's Office has estimated
that 1,575 people will be served by the initial phase of the
project, mostly in the Alum Creek area. This figure is based on
a house count within 1,000 feet of the planned interceptors, an
assumed average of 3.22 persons per house, and a non-occupancy
rate of 7 percent. This would service approximately 13.4 percent
of the 1970 population in the total service area as estimated
by Burgess and Niple (1974). Phase II adds to this number sig-
nificantly by including Shawnee Hills and Powell. It is not
until Phase III that over half of the present population would
be served. Rapid population growth is anticipated in the service
area which may increase the numbers of persons served by the
system. Tapping into the system will be mandatory for homes
constructed after the formation of the sewer district in 1969.
This initial configuration is designed to protect the
Westerville and Alum Creek Reservoirs. Existing population
centers are fragmented, so it is difficult to readily serve
most of the area's residents. Each phase of interceptor con-
struction could be modified in order to provide service to
different areas, if desired. For example, the Powell or Shawnee
Hills areas could be included in Phase I, as centers of existing
population. Temporary waste treatment facilities for recreation
areas on the Alum Creek Reservoir could be constructed --
package treatment plants or sewage treatment lagoons -if
Phase I were to serve a different part of Delaware County.
2 L-CoQst - H£ _ i2H -^itejnia t iy §.^
The location of gravity interceptor sewers between termini
are established by the topography of the land and by other
3-5
-------
physical geographical considerations. Generally, the gravity
interceptor sewers are located so that surrounding areas will
drain to the sewer by gravity flow where possible. This condi-
tion, therefore, requires that the sewer be at a lower elevation
than the surrounding area. To minimize the depth of the excava-
tions, the sewers are usually placed in the valleys and swales
of the areas to be served. Alternate locations on higher
ground would involve deeper excavations, wider corridors and
greater damages to the environment.
Gravity sewers, in contrast to series of lift stations
and force mains, require less maintenance, operation, power
and energy utilization and are more reliable. Force mains,
on the other hand, generally require a smaller corridor due
to the shallow excavation necessary for installation, but
are not accessible for lateral connections or individual taps.
Gravity sewers are utilized whenever possible, but some
force mains and pumping stations are necessary for transfer
between drainage basins, or to transport to a higher point
within a basin. Interceptors follow roads in existing rights-
of-way whenever possible to reduce their construction impacts.
About 50% of the interceptors will follow existing rights-of-way,
The particular configuration of interceptors will vary
depending upon the treatment plant site and discharge point
chosen. These variations will be discussed in Sections C and
F of this Chapter.
Erosion control methods may be used to reduce the impacts of
interceptor construction. These will be discussed in Chapter 5.
3-6
-------
The number and location of stream crossings will depend
upon the particular interceptor configuration chosen.
Placement of sewer interceptor lines across or beneath
stream beds can cause temporary or permanent disruption of
stream flow and bed materials, and a corresponding increase
in sedimentation. This may in turn lead to adverse impacts
on water quality and sensitive biological organisms. These
impacts can be minimized by careful consideration of:
Number of crossings
Placement of crossings
Construction phasing
Construction techniques
Minimizing the number of crossings and correct placement of
those that are necessary are both important early in the plan-
ning process because these crossings affect emplacement of
lines that lead away from the stream. Construction phasing
provides assurance that such adverse impacts as erosion or
sedimentation, which might occur during temporarily delayed
construction, would be minimized. Construction techniques
are related to crossing emplacement in that bedrock depth
and soil type are determining factors in the identity of the
environmental problems posed and both the cost and technical
feasibility of the construction methods used.
The common method for minimizing stream crossings in a
basin, in which a river runs through the service area, is
to align interceptors along both sides of the river. This
permits connections to any portion from outlying areas with
3-7
-------
the use of gravity flow interceptors. This scheme is used
on both the Scioto and Alum Creek Watersheds in the Delaware
County interceptor plans because of the difficulty of con-
structing a crossing of the reservoirs. The present design
for the Olentangy River, however, includes ten stream crossings
between Winter Road on the north and the Delaware-Franklin
County line (Figure 3-3). Some of these crossings are designed
to avoid areas in which rock excavation or deep entrenchment
would be required; others are so located to avoid forested
areas. The large number of crossings also facilitates con-
nection with future housing developments and prevents developers
from constructing their own lines across the Olentangy in order
to connect with sewer service. In certain reaches of the river,
these objectives may also be accomplished at some additional
expense with a double line system.
Three stream crossings of Alum Creek below the dam are
indicated in the Facilities Plan for Phase I of the project, as
shown in Figure 3-3. These have been planned for environmental
and engineering reasons. A double line system would be an alter-
native for two of these crossings. Several construction techniques
may be used for stream crossings. Total or partial diversion of
the river could be utilized during construction. The crossing
may be directly dredged, or it can be bored under the streambed
with no surface disruption.
3-8
-------
Figure 3-3-a.
Interceptor Crossings
of the
Olentangy River
>• Phase I
'"••i in Phase II
arrows indicate
crossing locations
3-9
-------
i
j Figure 3-3-a.
Interceptor C
of the
Olentangy River , continued
fe=-r Interceptor Crossings
A I of the
Phase III
arrows indicate
crossing locations
3-10
-------
Figure 3-3-b.
Interceptor Crossings
of Alum Creek
Phase I
illinium inn
Phase II
arrows indicate crossing locatioi
3-11
-------
1. Introduction
a. Descr iption of Alternatives
There exist a number of possible local and regional alter-
natives to the proposed action. The ones discussed here are all
alternatives which have been suggested by local and regional
officials, engineers involved in the wastewater management of the
project, and other interested parties.
The local alternatives are discussed first. These are com-
prised of 13 possible plant sites located on three of the major
four basins in Delaware County. These basins are the Olentangy
River, Scioto River, and Alum Creek. These sites, along with
regional sites and pertinent existing treatment plants, are pre-
sented in Table 3-1. The geographical locations of the sites are
shown on the map in Figure 3-4. Each site has been given a site
code. The first two letters in the code denote the river basin
(for example SR denotes Scioto River) and the number that follows
is assigned on a general south to north basis in each basin.
The local alternatives are discussed in Sections 2 through 7.
These alternatives are grouped into geographic areas such that
many site characteristics within each group are similar. This
facilitates selection of the best alternatives, since one site
can be selected from each group based on the relative merits within
the group. This serves to reduce the number of sites which must
be compared in the final selection process in Chapter 4.
The regional alternatives involve construction or use of other
facilities than the one proposed by Delaware County. These are
illustrated in Figure 3-5. Merger of the service area with
3-12
-------
C
cd
r-l
c
•H
.u
co
•H
X
W
r-l
O
•r~)
co tn
S a>
•rl
T3 4-1
C C
10 g
W U
(U
•i-1 C
•H -H
CO r-l
^
cu c
> cd
•H r-l
C T3
r-l C
OJ CO
4.)
H CU
T) &
CU CO
CO rH
O CU
fXP
o
r-l C
PL. -H
I
00
4
a
o
43
tO rH
CO
4J £•
M-l
d
•rl
d
O
•H
4-1
P.
•H
M
O
CO
d)
O
d)
4-1
•H
en
d
•H
CO
PS
cu
T3
o
o
cu
en
H
f> 6
O rH
•H
O rX
c
M-l CO
0 43
SS
X X
oo oo
C C!
tfl tfl
4-1 4J
d d
rH rH
0 0
CM 00
Pi pi
0 0
o o
O ON
rH rH
0) d)
r-l rH
P. a
^ z.
TJ TJ
d d
CO CO
CO 0)
CO CO
cu cu
oo oo
^1 J-l
3 3
ff| rT]
o o
0 0
NO NO
m in
r — r — .
r*- r~-~
T3 •
Pi t3
rH
rH rH
CU rH
5 0)
O S
PL, O
M— (
O ^M
o
(
CO •
z:
0)
rH CU
•rl r-t
E e
CM rH
0 O
^ ^
d d
to CO
43 43
W W
X X
00 00
d d
tfl tfl
4J 4-1
d d
cu d)
rH rH
O O
Pi Pi
O O
o
ON
rH
cu r~
rH ON
CV, rH
S3 -
CO
TJ d
d -H
CO 43
u
CO 4-1
CO 3
d) 33
00
^1 •
3 >J
M g
o o
0 0
NO vO
0 0
i — 1 ON
ON 00
CU
d
•H
rH
y
d
3
o
o
TJ
c
tfl
J2
o
tfl
}-l
4-1
o
t^3
CJ
o
4-1 rH
rH
4-1 CU
d s
d) O
0 PL,
tfl
•0 M
TJ tfl
CO d)
C
rH
rH VJ
CU d)
3 >
Pu Cl
4H MH
O O
cn &
x X
00 00
12 C
tO tfl
4J 4-1
d d
cu cu
rH rH
0 O
Pi Pi
0 0
o
ON
rH
d)
rH
a
S3
TJ
d
to
CO
CO
d)
00
V4
3
o
o
VO
m
CO
oo
,
co
pi
(-1
d)
4-1
d
•H
J3
TJ
C
tfl
d
E
a.
tfl
£J
M-l
O
.
4-1
O
1-1
^
d
to
_Q
w
^
ox
d
to
4J
d
a)
rH
o
00
Pi
o
o o
ON ON
rH r-l
CU d)
rH rH
a, p.
S3 S3
TJ T3
d d
tfl tfl
CO CO
w co
d) CU
00 00
^•i M
3 3
0 0
0 0
u3 \O
in in
m CM
co oo
.
CO
TJ
pi
d
tO
g~
a
CO
43
CJ
T3
d o
tfl UH
4-1
rl tO
CU V-i
rH 4-1
•H en
o
1 MH
d o
co
cu •
pQ cn
MH 4J
O MH
• o
4-1 O
U O
*~3
CO
d)
}_l
tO
S
tfl
rH
d)
O
*,
.
4J
cn
x
)_l
^4
CJ
1~!
ej
M-l
TJ
d
cu
cn
oc
d
to
d
cu
rH
O
rH
2
O
\D
rH
cu «
rH •
a, o
->
TJ MH
&t O
rH .
rH en
a)
O rH
Pu -H
e
to m
(11 •
ly •
d o
cu cu
cu eu
0 0
^ E
3 3
rH rH
<: «:
rH CM
CJ CJ
< <
C C
CO tO
rH rH
PU PU
00 00
d d
•H *rl
4-1 4J
CO CO
•H -H
x x
W Pd
O
•
O
CM
rH 0
O O
. O
O rH
vO
0 0
00 O
vo r^
•
O
CJ
d
•H
rH
CU .**H
d f3
•H tfl
< — 1 rl
PL,
• 1
O TJ
O tfl
o
c oi
•H
rH .Si
^ £
C n)
ctf J-i
M PC-I
pL(
T3
d t3
H tO
d)
r-i (—5
4* ^— '
4-i r —
3 CM
0 1
CO H
4-J 4-1
tO CO
O O
4J 4-1
O O
•H -H
CJ O
CO CO
i-( CM
C/J CO
ON
CT>
"
O
u
<<3
M
CU
f3
•S
(Jj
43
pi
•rl
Pu
O
0
0
rH
ON
o
C3
TJ
tO
to
cu
C
O
u
O
•rl
CJ
cn
cu
o
cu
00
TJ
•H
J-i
43
OO
ON
rH
O
•rl
43
O
MH
o
•
cn
rH
•H
6
m
o
0
4-1
O
•rl
O
CO
co
Pi
cn
3-13
-------
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
Scale
0
miles
Figure 3-4. Local Alternative Treatment Plant Sites
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-14
-------
Delaware City and/or Columbus may require construction of new
facilities, or augmentation or increased use of existing ones.
A number of sub-possibilities involving systems specifications
and routing are often possible for a given regionalization plan.
These are discussed in Sections 8 through 11.
D • ^ES.iUf.f-.Li^.S. _c.°_0.s. iEl.f-E3. t i ofl3-
The objective of this analysis is to identify the engineering
problems and difficulties of each alternative so that each alter-
native is given a fair judgment on its engineering feasibility.
This detailed analysis is presented in Appendix F.
It is assumed that the engineering study of local alternatives
is limited primarily to the STP sites and the additional sewer
and pumping requirements for conveying the sewage from the col-
lection point to the proposed sites. The collection point of the
sewer network would be located at the Olentangy River and Powell
Road. Therefore, change of sewer system configuration would
not influence the engineering work of a given site.
The criteria or evaluative parameters considered for the local
alternatives are listed as follows:
- Pumping facilities requirements in the context of topo-
graphical characteristics of the site.
- Structural requirements for flood damage control as
related to the site location, if it is in the floodways.
- Sewer requirements as a function of site location with
respect to the collection point of the sewer network.
- Outfall pipe and work in the context of outfall location.
- Excavation work related to subsurface conditions and
slope of the site.
- Modification of buildings according to land availability.
3-15
-------
- Additional river, highway, or railroad crossings as a
function of site location.
All of the above criteria are used to evaluate the engineering
feasibility of a given alternative. However, the engineering
involvement in reduction of odor, noise, and residual chlorine
problems would not be considered as an evaluative criterion,
because there would be the same involvement for all local
alternatives.
The criteria considered in the valuation of the regional
alternatives are essentially the same as those for the local
alternatives, but on a larger scale. The major difference is
that, in the regional alternatives emphasis is placed on the
system configuration, available facilities and interceptor
network, and the system requirements. Therefore, some infor-
mation, such as requirements for flood abatement, excavation
work and building modification, would lose their significance
in the evaluation of the regional alternatives. In other words,
uniform soil conditions are assumed to be applicable for the
whole region so that trenching and excavation for a linear foot
of sewer of a given diameter would be the same throughout the
whole area.
For each regional alternative, the available facilities
and interceptors are estimated for their available hydraulic
capacity and level of sewage treatment. In this context, the
system requirments include the expansion of existing treatment
facilities and interceptor sewers, or construction of a new
wastewater treatment plant, its collection system and pumping
facilities.
3-16
-------
Regional Plant Site
0
b
SCALE
Smiles
Figure 3-5. Regional Alternative Treatment
Plant Sites
3-17
-------
c . Land_Use_Con£i_d«2£at.ioris
Land use is considered in this report in the analysis of
all alternatives except for the regional alternatives. Those
areas of concern which are covered in the land use analysis
in Appendix F for each alternative are:
- Current land use at site
- Current land use in vicinity
- Primary impacts of plant
- Secondary impacts of plant
- Primary impacts of sewers and outfall pipe
- Secondary impacts of sewers and outfall pipe.
A primary factor in considering the geographic scope of
analysis for each alternative is that the eventual service
area of each of the alternatives is identical. Differential
land use impacts between the alternatives studies are limited
to local effects due to the plant or the outfall. With this
in mind, the geographic scope of the land use analysis of each
alternative is limited to an area within one mile of the
plant, one mile of the outfall and outfall line, and downstream
from the outfall.
There are, however, three major land use problem areas
associated with the analysis of alternatives. These are:
- Secondary effects associated with any downstream
changes in water quality
- Compatibility with present land uses on and near
the site
- Compatibility with potential or probable future land
uses on or near the site.
3-18
-------
The secondary effects associated with any changes in water
quality downstream from treatment plant outfalls are primarily
related to impacts on recreation uses located near Alum Creek
and the Olentangy River. Many of these uses depend, either
directly or indirectly, on water quality. A major recreation
plan, (Labrenz Riemer, Inc. 1974), emphasizes even more con-
centrated future use of those portions of Alum Creek and the
Olentangy River which flow through Columbus or Franklin County.
d. Environmental Considerations
Four major areas of environmental problems for all the
alternatives are considered. They are water quality impacts,
visual impacts, noise, and odor problems. Appexdix F discusses
these considerations for each alternative.
To define and even quantify water quality impacts resulting
from an alternative action, the existing water quality condi-
tions are examined. Water quality data collected in the past
are compared with the stream water quality standards establshed
by the Ohio EPA. Violations of these standards are reported
and responsible source types are identified. Conformity of all
alternative actions with the Scioto Waste Load Allocation is
examined and discussed. The stream quality projected by the
computer simulation, which utilized the spatial distribution
of pollution sources as inventoried in the Waste Load Allocation
Report of the Scioto River Basin, is compared with the stream
water quality standards to assess any water quality degradation
in the future. After all the above analyses are undertaken,
the compatibility of the alternative action with the environ-
ment in terms of water quality is then assessed.
3-19
-------
The factors whch entered the above considerations and analysis
are the dilution ratios derived from the historical mean river
flow and the 7-day 10-year low flow, water diversion, stream
classification including scenic river designation, pollution
levels and pollutant loads. The water qualty parameters con-
sidered are DO, BOD , total P, NH,-N, NH.-N, total dissolved
solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), etc., based on
the available water quality data.
Visual impacts of the treatment plant are determined by the
architectural design of the plant itself, by the effectiveness
of screening and by the distance to receptors. It can be seen
from Table 3-2 that the plant would be within 1/2 mile and
presumably clearly visible from residences at all local alter-
native sites. In certain areas existing trees provide screen-
ing to hide the plant and blend it into the surrounding area.
In order to make the plant aesthetically pleasing, architect-
ural modifications commensurate with those planned for the
proposed facility would be necessary. This modification would
ensure that the visual impacts of the plant would be consider-
ably less detrimental to nearby residential or recreational
land uses.
Compatibility of the project noises with its environment
depend heavily on the noise levels that have been experienced
in the project area. For example, locating a sewage treatment
plant close to a heavily traveled highway interchange would
probably be very compatible, because the noises from the plant
might be well masked by the traffic noises. This example
demonstrates the importance of surveying existing noise con-
3-20
-------
Table 3-2. Distance From Site Center to Nearest
Existing Structure or Parkland as of 1973
Site Code
OR1
OR2
OR3
OR4
OR5
OR6
OR7
OR8
OR9
OR10
AC1
AC2*
Distance to Nearest
Structure (parkland)
in mi
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0 (0.3)
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 (0.1)
0.3
0.2
Distance to Nearest
Downwind Structure
(parkland) in mi
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.4
(0.3)
(0.3)
(0.2)
*as of 1961
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-21
-------
ditions in a noise impact study. The second factor is the
location of the sensitive receptors. Receptors farther from
noise sources receive less impact. Increasing the distance
or presence of noise barriers between the noise source and
receptor are effective ways of minimizing noise impact. These
are the evaluative criteria to be used for the assessment of
noise impact resulting from an alternative action.
The same considerations would be applicable to the study
of odor problems. Sources of odor, location of sensitve
receptors, prevailing wind direction, atmospheric stability,
and the topographical influence on the wind field are essential
factors for odor problem assessment.
The water quality data in the study area are limited. Most
of the water quality data do not tell whether they were taken
during the day or night. At night, respiration and the absence
of photosynthesis can deplete dissolved oxygen more severely
than during the day. A few field observations prevent any
statistical analyses. This makes the comparison of the collected
data with the stream water quality standards difficult, because
some of the standards are statistical in nature. Therefore, the
representativeness of these data for the area awaits further in-
vestigation. This is particularly true when there is low river
flow. However, they serve some qualitative guide for the assess-
ment of the water quality impacts.
The same limitation and uncertainty have to be reserved to
explain the results of water quality computer modeling, which
can nevertheless be a useful tool to depict the variation
of water quality parameters with river reaches. Extending its
3-22
-------
uses beyond that would be erroneous.
Two assumptions have to be made in order to delineate the
water quality effects resulting from alternative future actions.
First of all, the Basin Waste Load Alloction Program is assumed
to be effectively implemented so that the stream water quality
standards as required by the stream classification can be
achieved. The second is that the effluent quality of any pollu-
tion sources would be effectively regulated by the responsible
authority to the extent that the best practicable waste treatment
technology (BPWTT) processes allow.
As discussed earlier in this section, one task is to identify
the noise sources in the sewage treatment plant. The assumption
is made that the only noise sources are the air diffusers and
the mixing action in the aeration tanks. The other noise
sources, such as pumps, exhaust fans, exhaust of generators
would be fully enclosed and properly muffled so that the residual
noise levels at the property line of each alternative site are
less than the existing ambient noise levels.
In the case of odors, it is assumed that the influent wet
walls, the pre-chlorination units, the post-chlorination units,
and the rapid sand filters would be fully enclosed and ventilation
exhausts would be equipped with activated carbon adsorption columns
for odor removal. Therefore, the only possible sources of odors
are the aerators and the clarifiers. Odors from the aerators
usually are not strong and can be minimized by maintaining high
DO levels in the aerator liquor. Odors from the clarifiers can
be reduced by lowering weir drops.
3-23
-------
e• Biological Considerations
The Olentangy River near the Franklin-Delaware County line
supports a diverse and abundant benthic fauna and fish population,
There are various species of pollution-sensitive benthic (bottom-
dwelling) organisms present in this area of the river along with
many fish species that are also sensitive to the discharges of
treated sewage. Approximately 1-1/2 to 2 miles downstream
from the proposed outfall south of 1-270 the Ohio Department
of Transportation has built an artifical riffle-pool fish
habitat area that supports an even larger fish population
than that present at the county line. In order to support
this larger fish population, the benthic community in this
area, important as a food source, is assumed to be even more
abundant and diverse than at the county line.
Research evidence indicates that the fish in the area of
the plant's outfall could be harmed by the concentration of
discharged chlorine and ammonia. The fish most sensitive to
chlorine have been found to be the forage fish, i.e., minnows
and shinners. These fish make up a large portion of the food
of the game fish, such as the bluegill, crappie, and the various
bass species in the river. The concentrations of this compound
and ammonia that would be present in the river during a low-flow
condition are significantly deleterious to the fish population
near the discharge and further downstream and possibly also
to the artificial fish habitat area downstream. Upon expansion
of the plant capacity from 1.5 MGD to 3 MGD, the ratio of
the amount of the effluent to the amount of river water signi-
ficantly increases to the point where the effluent will make
3-24
-------
up approximately half of the flow of the river.
^ • Institutional Consider at iqns^
Several other federal, state and local institutions have
various responsibilities relevant to the proposed wastewater
treatment plant to be located either in southern Delaware County
or on various alternative sites. Relevant factors for each alter-
native are covered in Appendix F. Federal institutions include
tne Farmers Home Administration of the Department of Agriculture,
and the Federal Highway Administration. On the state level,
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio Water Development
Authority, and the Ohio Department of Transportation are per-
tinent to the project. The most important institutions are
local. They include Delaware County, Delaware City, Columbus,
and Westerville.
Delaware County is considering borrowing the 25 percent
local share from the Farmers Home Administration of the Depar-
tment of Agriculture. This agency offers loans repayable over
a 40-year period for the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities only where projects cannot otherwise be financed
at reasonable interest rates. The other federal agency which
may become involved with the project is the Federal Highway
Administration. If the proposed project has an outfall in
Franklin County near 1-270, then Delaware County would have
to obtain the Federal Highway Administration's permission to
use rights-of-way.
The most important state institution involved with the
proposed project is the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
3-25
-------
The OEPA, created by Section 3745 of the Ohio Revised Code,
is given comprehensive water resource management responsi-
bilities. Following these responsibilities and acting under
Section 6117.34 of the Ohio Revised Code, the OEPA upon
complaint by the State Board of Health, has ordered Delaware
County to construct wastewater treatment facilities. Delaware
County has submitted the Facilities Plan to OEPA for certifi-
cation before before it was formally sent to USEPA. If Delaware
County's plans include any contractual agreement with another
political entity for the joint usage or construction of any
facilities, this contractual agreement must be approved by
OEPA as stipulated by Section 6117.42 of the Ohio Revised
Code.
The Ohio Water Development Authority was established in
1969 to help fund the wastewater and water management facilities
of local communities. Delaware County is considering applying
to OWDA for a loan to pay its 25 percent share of the proposed
project. The remaining state institution which may be relevant
to the proposed project is the Ohio Department of Transportation.
If the Delaware County plant is located at the proposed site,
a mitigative measure would be placing the outfall along State
Route 315 to its interchange with Interstate 270. This action
would require the usage of state rights-of-way and the obtaining
of a permit from the Ohio Department of Transportation to do so.
The most relevant institutions to the proposed project are
those that exist at the local level. The Delaware County Com-
missioners established on June 2, 1969 a County Sewer District
under Section 6117 of the Ohio Revised Code. This Section enables
3-26
-------
the county to "lay out, establish and maintain sewer service
throughout the county." As a County Sewer District, Delaware
County is also authorized to enter into contracts with other
political entities for the connection of sewers or the joint
usage of sewage facilities. Also, under 307.15 of the Ohio
Revised Code, Delaware County can contract with any municipality
in its borders to assume full responsibility for providing sewer
service to that municipality.
Both Delaware City and Columbus have their own sewer systems
as provided for by Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitu-
tion. This Article enable municipalities to "exercise all powers
of local self-government" including the providing of sewer service.
In addition, Columbus's City Charter specifically creates a sewer
system to be operated by the city's Department of Public Service.
The other local institution which may be involved in the proposed
project is the City of Westerville in Franklin County. If the
proposed plant is located at an alternative site on Alum Creek,
an outfall can be placed in Westerville, provided Westerville
agrees and leases the needed land to Delaware County.
2• Frank 1 in County_- 1-270
a. Overview
The proposed sites in Franklin County are located west of the
Olentangy River near the 1-270 outerbelt. They are designated
OR-1 and OR-2 from south to north. These sites are being considered
due to the recommendation of Dr. Carol Stein of the Ohio State
Museum of Zoology who suggested in public hearing that the plant
be constructed so as to empty infeo the Olentangy in Franklin
County south of the northern loop of Interstate 270. The main
3-27
-------
intent was to place the effluent in the portion of the river which
has already been biologically degraded through channelization and
highway construction. While a precise location was not selected
by Dr. Stein, we have selected two sites in open areas north and
south of the outerbelt, east of the Chesapeake and Ohio tracks.
These are shown in Figure 3-6.
Site OR-1 is located south of 1-270, east of the Chesapeake
and Ohio tracks, north of Snouffer Road and almost a mile west of
the Olentangy River. The available land is about 1/2 mile square.
The elevation here is about 860 feet, or 100 feet above the river
level. The grade in the site area, however, is not very steep.
The site was set back from the river due to both residential
housing density and steep slope near the river. The site was
not located further south due to lack of available land outside
the flood plain.
Site OR-2 is located immediately north of the previous site
on the north site of the outerbelt. The area is bounded on the
north by a forested area and a small stream. As such, it is
smaller than the previous site, measuring only 1/4 mile on a side.
The elevation is similar extending from 860 to 870 feet. This was
the only site in this general area which was not obviously in an
existing subdivision.
Most of the important characteristics of sites OR-1 and OR-2
are similar. Both are located at relatively high elevations,
about a mile from the river. The effluent discharges from either
location would be in the 'Same river reach. The current land uses,
however, are somewhat different. The necessary system changes
from the basic plan here would include additional interceptor
3-28
-------
DELAWARE^ ^o
FRANKLIN CO
- v--^
Wp-* S
, imp / ,
\M,,V pitoo :-.:r- - - T;>;
V "*'
—V J-J*zt.
,-' -^
^ o--^_--^r .? o TIN A
^ ^
ti ' I - . i .
;/• 1 v--,r
KEY
Trunk Line ,
Force Main —.. —
Outfall Line. • .
Local Plant Site
Scale in Miles
Figure 3-6. System Requirements for the Franklin County 1-270 Alternative
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-29
-------
line in Franklin County, a pumping station, and an extended outfall
pipe.
b• Site Selection
Site OR-1 is the preferred site in this group. Its selection
is based on slight but important differences in engineering, land
use, environmental and biological impacts. Institutional,
political and legal considerations would be essentially the same
since both sites are within the corporate boundaries of Columbus.
The basic engineering differences between the sites concern
the placement of interceptor and outfall lines in relation to
nearby roads. The north site (OR-2) would require a line crossing
of the Ohio 315-1-270 interchange or the outerbelt itself in at
least two places. Both the intake and outfall lines would have
to cross these roads. This would involve either tunneling or
temporary disruption of a major interchange. With the usage of
the Wilson Bridge Road as a right-of-way across Ohio 315 only one
crossing of the outerbelt would be necessary. This one crossing
could utilize the existing tunnel where the river flows under
the outerbelt to minimize additional construction.
The land uses are somewhat different in that site OR-2 is
immediately adjacent to a planned subdevelopment. An on site
visit and photographs of the site revealed that grading is in
progress in some portions and may be expanded to much of the rest
of the site. There is currently enough land which is either
dormant or under agricultural use to accommodate the site but there
would clearly be significant impact on adjacent planned residences.
The southern site is brush and scrub from previously abandoned
land. Thus current land use would not interfere with location of
3-30
-------
the plant, but development may be occurring in the near future.
Effects on the immediate environment might include problems
of odor, noise and visual impacts. There are a number of resi-
dences that could be affected near both sites. The northern
site, however, has a high density populated area nearby in
Worthington Hills and Mount Air. Also the planned development
next to the site would be well within the objectionable range.
The southern site is within a mile of some residences. Their
density here is lower.
Biological impacts at both sites would include noise and
construction effects on nearby forested areas, although the
northern site would affect a more extensive forest as well as
a nearby stream. Most of the trees near the southern site
would be classified as brush rather than as grown forest at this
time. Aquatic impacts would be identical for the sites, provided
that the appropriate outfall location was utilized. This might
entail more difficult and expensive construction for the northern
site as mentioned above. Appendix F contains a detailed analy-
sis of these alternatives.
3-31
-------
3. PqwejLL Road - Olentangy
. .
Olentangy River near Powell Road are evaluated. Engineering,
environmental, and institutional charcteristics of the area
are discussed.
a._ Overview
The three sites on the Olentangy River near Powell Road
are designated OR-3, OR-4, and OR-5 from south to north. They
were originally suggested by Burgess and Niple, Ltd. in their
Feasibility Survey and Report for Sanitary Service and Sewage
Treatment Facilities (1970). All three have been subsequently
discussed as the major three feasible alternatives in locating
the southern Delaware County facilities (Ohio EPA, 1973). The
southernmost site, OR-3, is the site of the action proposed in
the Facilities Plan, (See Figures 3-7 for site locations).
Site OR-3 is located on the west bank of the Olentangy ap-
proximately 1.2 miles south of Powell Road (Ohio 750) in Dela- *
ware County. The site is only 900 feet north of the Delaware-
Franklin County line is on the lowest usable land within the
county at an elevation of 770 feet above sea level. The site
size is about 1/3 mile on a side. It is 0.2 mile from the
nearest structure according to 1973 data.
Site OR-4 is on the flood plain or river terrace on the
east bank of the river about 0.25 mile south of Powell Road.
Elevation here is between 770 and 780 feet above sea level.
This site is smaller than OR-3 and only has an area 0.2 mile
square. It is about 0.1 mile from the nearest residence as
of July 1975.
3-32
-------
m^& >l- r
-.>. ---- -r-___,.
xv-^.-^^i rp £ ^
'' - *> -.• •"
.-._> !??LA^V_AEE_ _co " |
FRAXKLIX CO
• ountAi •"./
'
; i xif ft \'s'
(•- •\^\^iMf/:^i-' v-'
.1 , •-\'/VS(/>I-*^-M"-i^"*%»s
J , « Ant • t\ / , , :-i ' 'i V
Figure 3~7-
Powell Road-
Olentangy Alternatives
and Outfall Route
Alternatives
I-
-f-
0 %
scale in miles
3-33
-------
Site OR-5 is also on the east bank but to the north of
Powell Road. It extends from the road northward for only 0.15
mile before being intersected by a small stream. In an east-west
direction the terrain becomes very steep about 0.2 mile back
from the river. The entire site is on steeper terrain than
either OR-3 or OR-4, ranging in elevation from 770 to 800
feet. There is a residence on the site itself.
b. Site Selection
Site OR-3 is the preferred site in this group based mainly
on cost, engineering considerations, and biological and other
environmental impacts. Differences in land use impacts are
deemed to be minimal between the sites. Institutional consid-
erations are not a problem within the Delaware County Sewer
District.
The major engineering differences between the three sites
involve differences in line length, site size, and subsurface
conditions. These last two considerations influence the ease
and expense of excavation and other construction. The sites
are equal in terms of pumping facilities and number of required
river crossings.
Site OR-3 requires approximately one mile more of 42" in-
terceptor than do OR-4 or OR-5. This is the interceptor which
would extend from Powell Road, south to the site. As Figure 3-7
indicates, sites OR-4 and OR-5 are adjacent to Powell Road and.
could utilize the east-west interceptor directly with only
slight rerouting. Due to biological considerations, it may
be advantageous to relocate the outfall downstream from the
plant south of the county line. This course of action would
3-34
-------
partially or completely nullify the savings of interceptor
line at sites OR-4 and OR-5 since an equivalent amount of
extra discharge pipe would be necessary from these sites.
The most northern site, OR-5, would probably involve some
difficulty and added expense in construction and excavation.
The site is the smallest of the three, and there are indications
that this area may have shallow soils. The topography is also
somewhat steeper than the other two sites. In addition, there
is currently a farm on this site which would have to be acquired.
Land use at sites OR-3 and OR-5 is agricultural. However,
OR5 contains a dwelling and farm buildings whereas OR-3 does
not. Site OR-4 is on land owned by Highbanks Metropolitan
Park which has presently been developed as a picnic area.
Odor, noise, and visual impact would be Jeast significant
from the proposed plant at site OR-5 since it is relatively
isolated from the park and residences. The other sites are both
visible and upwind from some portions of the park. Extensive
visual detriment, however, is not expected in any site with
the proposed design. Water quality would be equal at the three
sites, but the Park Board has expressed concern over possible
airborn pathogens at site OR-3 and OR-4 near the picnic areas.
This will be discussed in chapter 5.
Biologically, the equivalence or difference between the
sites depends on outfall location. If the proposed plant at
each site were to utilize a discharge pipe to a downstream
location, all three could be considered equivalent. If the
plants at sites OR-4 and OR-5 were to discharge at Powell
Road, however, significantly more biological damage would
3-35
-------
be done to aquatic organisms, particularly the naiad species
downstream. The plant at site OR-5 would also have some slight
detrimental impact to terrestrial biota because it is adjacent
to forested areas north and east of the site.
On the basis of the above considerations, we have selected
site OR-3 as the best site in this group. The optimal course
of action of locating the sewage outfall relatively downstream
makes this site equivalent or better from both an engineering
and biological standpoint. The alternatives for an exact dis-
charge point are discussed in Section F of this chapter. It
has slight advantages with respect to current land use and only
a slight disavantage with respect to aesthetic environmental
impacts. Appendix F, Section 2 presents further information on
these sites.
3-36
-------
4. Powell Road - Powell
a. Ove r v i_e w
The two proposed sites near the village of Powell are
designated OR-6 and OR-7 from south to north. These sites
are under consideration due to suggestions by Mr. Edward
Hutchins, Director-Secretary of the Metropolitan Park District
of Columbus and Franklin County, and Dr. Robert Teater, Director,
Ohio Department,, of Natural Resources, that the plant be located
on high ground 3/4 to 1 mile west of the river to minimize
encroachment on Highbanks Park. We have selected one site
(OR-7) adjacent to Powell Road which we feel is representative
and fulfills the intent of removing the plant from the park
vicinity. Burgess and Niple, Ltd. have selected a site near
the county line (OR-6) to fulfill the same criteria.(See
Figure 3-8 for site locations).
Site OR-6 is on land immediately east of the Chesapeake
and Ohio tracks and immediately north of the Delaware-Franklin
County line. We have determined that it would be advantageous
to modify this location slightly by moving it 0.25 mile north-
ward along the tracks to remove it from residences immediately
south of the county line. There is about 1/2 mile square of
available land. The elevation is about 900 feet on relatively
level land.
Site OR-7 is located on the south side of Powell Road about
0.6 mile west of the Olentangy. The site extends 0.3 mile
east-west and 0.2 mile north-south. It is immediately adja-
cent to Powell Road to the north and the forested area of
Bartholomew Run to the south. The elevation is 890 feet.
3-37
-------
KEY
Force Main —. . —
Outfall Line. . ,
Local Plant Site
Lift Station
Scale in Miles
1 MILE
Figure 3-8. System Requirements for the Powell Road-Powell Alternative
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-38
-------
The major differences in use of the two sites are engin-
eering and cost considerations involving pumping requirements
and force main length. Environmental factors which interact with
these are biological impacts from sedimentation and noise, as
well as effects on planned land use development in the area.
b. Site Selection
Site OR-7 is the preferred site in this group. The differences
between the sites, however, are relatively minor. Engineering
and cost differences are the main factor in favor of Site OR-7.
While some land use and biological considerations argue against
this selection, they are of a minor nature in this particular
instance and can be corrected by proper mitigative procedures.
Environmental influences are nearly identical and it is again
not necessary to consider institutional aspects extensively.
Primary engineering and cost differences between the two
sites result from the requirement for 7000 feet of additional
force main for Site OR-6 due to its distance from the river.
This longer force main would also necessitate larger pumping
facilities and use of more electrical power in the long run
due to increased frictional drag in the longer line. Burgess
and Niple, Ltd. have estimated the incremental cost of util-
izing Site OR-6 over Site OR-3 to be $1,900,000 in their
April 25, 1975 communication with Mr. Fred Stults. It is
anticipated that this incremental cost for Site OR-7 would
be significantly less. Force main cost would be less than
one-third of this total and pumping requirements would be
about two-thirds of this total.
3-39
-------
With respect to land use, however, Site OR-7 is at a slight
disadvantage. The site is near the center of one of the four
major development areas in the recently completed plan for
the Village of Powell (Lando and Bohm, 1975). Placement of
the plant at this site would necessitate some changes in the
Powell plan. Land use in the area is presently unintensive
and a slight modification to the plan should not cause any
major long-range problems. Another factor is that Site OR-6
is adjacent to a rail line and hence is an area more likely
to undergo industrial development than Site OR-7. The plant
would be more compatible with this type of use than with the
residential uses planned for OR-7.
Environmental considerations are nearly identical at the
sites. Visual impact, odor, and noise are equal, since housing
densities near both sites are the same. Neither site would
impact on recreational or other sensitive areas. Water quality
would be similar, but the biological impact of water quality
changes would be more extensive at Site OR-7 unless a mitigative
outfall relocation was used.
Site OR-7 would have some biological impact on the nearby
forested scenic ravine at Bartholomew Run. This impact would
include noise disturbance and sediment runoff, mostly during
construction. Site OR-6, on the other hand, is within 1/2 mile
of a small creek and woods area near the county line. While
little noise impact would be expected, sediments could still
be important here. Sediment problems could easily be avoided
at both sites by use of proper construction procedures. See
Appendix F, Section 3 for further analysis of these sites.
3-40
-------
4. Stratford - Olentangy
This section evaluates three sites on the Olentangy River
south of the town of Stratford. These sites were first proposed
to accomodate a regional facility combining the service areas
of Delaware City and southern Delaware County. All of the sites
are poorly suited geographically for use in treating the southern
Delaware County area alone. As such, we will consider these
sites only for the regional plan. An overview and site selection
will be performed here. All other aspects will be discussed in
Section 8 of this chapter. No discussion of this alternative
is included in Appendix F.
a. Overview
These three sites are located on the Olentangy River from 1
to 2 miles south of Stratford. They are designated OR-8, OR-9,
and OR-10 from south to north. The sites were originally pro-
posed by Burgess and Niple, Ltd. in their Feasibility Survey
and Report for Sanitary Service and Sewage^Treatment Facilities
(1970). The intent of the proposal was to utilize one of the
sites as a combined Delaware City - Southern Delaware County
treatment plant. Since that time, however, the Del-Co water
supply intake has been constructed about 2.5 miles south of
Site OR-7. Use of any of these three sites would involve
either outfall relocation or relocation of the drinking water
supply intake. All sites are shown in Figure 3-9.
Site OR-8 is located on the east bank of the Olentangy River
at the junction of Chapman and Winter Roads. This is approximately
5 miles north of Powell Road. The available land measures about
0.3 mile in a north-south direction and 0.2 mile in an east-west
3-41
-------
KEY
Force Main •
Local Plant Site
Lift' Station
Booster Station
Scale in Miles
Figure 3-9. System Requirements for the Stratford-Olentangy Alternative
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-42
-------
direction. To the north and east, the site is bordered by
forested areas adjoining Camp Lazarus. The elevation is 830 feet
and is fairly level in the plant site. The slope becomes much
steeper, however, immediately to the east of the site.
Site OR-9 is located 1/2 mile further north on Chapman Road
at the point where Bean-Oiler Road intersects Ohio 315 on the
opposite river bank. The available land here is substantially
smaller than Site OR-7 and also somewhat steeper. Only an area
measuring 0.3 mile north-south by 0.1 mile east-west is on
moderately sloping ground. Use of the area further east would
entail considerably more difficult construction work. Elevation
here is from 830 to 850 feet. Site OR-8 is bordered on the south
by the forested area around Camp Lazarus.
Site OR-10 is located on the river's west bank east of Ohio
315. Being a small site, it is bounded closely by the river and
the road. It is located 0.8 mile north of OR-9 and 0.8 mile
south of Stratford. The area here is extremely small, being
less than 0.1 mile east-west at the widest point and only 0.3
mile long. Compounding this problem is the fact that a signifi-
cant portion of this land is within the floodplain. Elevation
is 820 to 830 feet. River bottom vegetation can be found on
the eastern parts of the site and several residences are near
the western boundary.
b• Site Selection
Site OR-8 is the preferred site in this group. Its selection
is based primarily on engineering considerations and environmental
impacts, although land use and biological impacts contribute to
a lesser degree. Institutional considerations are equivalent for
3-43
-------
all three sites.
Engineering differences between the sites are primarily force
main and outfall length, pumping requirements, site size, and sub-
surface conditions. Force main length and pumping requirements
are governed by geographical location and elevation, whereas
recommended outfall line length may be governed by the distance
upstream of the Del-Co water intake. Site size and subsurface
conditions influence construction cost and difficulty and may
cause changes of plant design configuration in extreme cases.
All three sites would require placement of a force main from
Powell Road north along the river to the site. Site OR-9 would
require 0.4 mile more than OR-8 and Site OR-10 would require
1.2 miles more tha OR-8. Pumping requirements would be slightly
increased at Sites OR-9 and OR-10 due to increased friction from
a longer line, since the elevations are nearly equal.
Outfall line length is approximately equal if each site is
discharged into the river at the closest point. It would be
desirable, however, to locate the outfall below the Del-Co
water intake. In this case, outfall line lengths would be
2.5 miles for OR-8, 2.9 miles for OR-9, and 3.7 miles for OR-10.
With respect to usable site size and subsurface conditions,
only general descriptions can be made. Site size has been dis-
cussed in the overview. Both OR-9 and OR-10 are smaller and
OR-10 is partially in the floodplain. The floodplain poses
significant problems, since the plant design should include
extensive flood protection features. Subsurface conditions at
these sites have not been extensively determined. Soil survey
information, however, indicates limestone probably underlies
3-44
-------
Sites OR-9 and OR-10 at a depth of about 20 feet whereas OR-8 is
probably on sand and gravel to a depth of at least 5 feet.
Site OR-8 is presently composed of open field with some agri-
cultural use. Site OR-9 is only open field with no agricultural
use. Site OR-10 is overgrown and is gradually becoming forest.
There are several buildings on the north part of this site which
would have to be removed.
Environmentally, all three sites would have about equal impact
on the low density of residential receptors. Site OR-8 and OR-9,
however, might cause some odor impact on nearby Camp Lazarus.
All three sites are roughly equivalent in aquatic impact.
Terrestrial biological impacts would be most extensive at Site
OR-10 where considerable forest habitat would be destroyed
during plant construction.
From the above discussion, it can be seen that Sites OR-9
and OR-10 are disadvantageous for nearly all considerations.
Site OR-8 is the best of the three from all considerations ex-
cept odor impact.
6 . A]Lum_Cr ee l<
a. Overview
The two proposed sites on Alum Creek are widely separated
geographically, one being in the southern part of the county and
the other in the north near Killbourne. The sites are designated
AC-1 and AC-2 from south to north. Site AC-1 was suggested by
Burgess and Niple Ltd. (1974) as being a possible site on a basin
other than the Olentangy. Site AC-2 was suggested by Finkbeiner,
Pettis and Strout (1969) as a site for a 1.25 MGD plant to service
the northern Alum Creek Area. Since the time of this proposal,
3-45
-------
the Alum Creek Reservoir, an intended recreational and drinking
water source, has been constructed downstream from the site.
Site locations are indicated in Figure 3-10.
Site AC-1 is located 0.3 miles east of Alum Creek, and 0.9
miles north of the Delaware-Franklin county line. It is across
the creek and 0.6 miles east-south-east of the intersection of
Powell Road and Worthington-Galena Roads. The available land
that is clearly above the floodplain measures 0.4 miles east-west
by 0.5 miles north-south. The elevation is 820-840 feet or
15-35 feet above normal creek water level. The grade here is
rather flat and there were no buildings or forests on the site
in 1973. Distance to nearby structures is shown in Table 3-2.
Site AC-2 is located 0.5 miles south of the intersection of
Ohio 84 and Ohio 10 near Killbourne. It is on the west side and
immediately adjacent to the north end of the newly filled Alum
Creek Reservoir. The potential site size is 0.3 miles east-west
by 0.6 miles north-south. The land is gently sloping with an
elevation of 930-940 feet or 40-50 feet above normal reservoir
level. A forested section adjoins the site to the northeast and
to the south.
b. Site Selection
Site AC-1 is the recommended site in this group. Site
selection between these two sites is a simple process due to
severe disadvantages of the northern site.
Site AC-1 is located below Alum Creek dam at the southern
end of the county. Hence it can be fed by gravity interceptors
whereas AC-2 would require pumping stations and 13 miles of
force main up Alum Creek. AC-2 would have large impacts on
3-46
-------
-5^vi 7 •\rl3ir.';<--<:~\'!
"••\i--y ' '"••""' • I1'//' ' " \
N o E
;^^.v\v;^jiyflM^i;-y
.,''0 /-' <\V A=*>j^. J,%'j <$-V—.'} ><-
^^-?^^-v^ :%f%y^
^? . -,y^,:V V^^1\T"r"''^'7-fa/f ^"
^:^;0^j^M^^
^-^ 4 ; i r/S>
:-;'>.«'/. '.V- <.}rx* •••---
ir
~^
~7 ".»>-. .' r.i:
''<•--; .,. j t^- Powell Road »•;-?
i•' V,
li
/ r; ^
Scale in Miles
KEY 0 1
Trunk Line - •
Force Main —. — • — •
Outfall Line
Local Plant Site X
Lift Station •
Figure 3-10. System Requirements for the Alum Creek Alternative
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-47
-------
human health and aquatic biota due to its discharge into the
recently constructed Alum Creek Reservoir. The Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency has strong recommendations against effluent
discharge into reservoirs and drinking water supplies (Nottingham,
1975). The site was originally intended for a 1.5 mgd plant to
service northeastern Delaware County while a plant similar to the
proposed one serviced southern Delaware County. The site is par-
ticularly unsuitable for the currently proposed facility due to
the recent addition of the reservoir.
Site AC-1 has thus been selected for this group. Location of
the proposed facility here, however, is controversial from many
engineering and environmental standpoints. Appendix F, Section 4
explains these factors in greater detail.
3-48
-------
7• Other gasins
The two other Delaware County water basins that deserve
mention here are those of the Scioto River and Big Walnut
Creek. Only an overview and explanation of the problems with
locating the proposed facility on these basins will be dis-
cussed, since there are strong reasons to discount the one
plant site that has ever been proposed on these basins.
On the Scioto Basin, a site was proposed in 1969 by Fink-
beiner, Pettis and Strout for a 0.50 MGD plant to service the
northern Scioto Basin. This site is designated SR-3 to differ-
entiate it from the regional site at the Columbus Southerly
Plant (SR-1) and from the Frank Road Plant (SR-2) in Franklin
County, which will both be discussed in Section I. Site SR-3
is located 0.5 mile south of the Ohio 198 bridge over the
Scioto River near Radnor. Figure 3-4 indicates these sites.
Site SR-3 is not suitable for the presently proposed
facility. This is due primarily to engineering and water
quality considerations. Large amounts of additional force
main and large numbers of pumping stations would be required.
The cost in both construction and energy commitments would be
prohibitive. In addition, the discharge would be into the
Scioto only a few miles above the O'Shaugnessy and Grigg's
Reservoirs, which are primary drinking supplies for Columbus.
Discharge into these impoundments would be very undesirable
and mitigative measures such as outfall location would be
impractical from cost and engineering considerations. This
site will be removed from further consideration due to these
extreme problems.
3-49
-------
There are no suggested sites on Big Walnut Creek primarily
because of the Hoover Reservoir which extends south of the
Delaware-Franklin County Line, and because Big Walnut Creek
is outside of the planned service area. The City of Columbus
has expressed the intention to eventually service the southern
Big Walnut Creek basin in Delaware County.
8. Delaware County_- City of Delaware
a. Overview*
The wastewater treatment plant for this alternative could
be either the existing Delaware City wastewater treatment plant
upgraded to the required capacity or a totally new plant located
oetween the population centers of the two jurisdictions, desig-
nated Site OR-8. The former would be recognized as subalternative
1 and the latter as subalternative 2. Sites are presented in
Figures 3-11 and 3-12.
The first subalternative would require both the Delaware
City wastewater treatment plant to be phased out by year 10
in the plan, and the City's interceptor network to be retained.
Since, in this subalternative, a new wastewater treatment plant
would be constructed, no further discussion on the availale
treatment facilities is needed. The system requirements for
this subalternative are a new plant and the required pumping
facilities and sewer works. Compared to the basic plan for
the interceptor sewer network as given in Figure 3-1, an
additional force main 20 inches in diameter and 30,000 feet
(5.68 miles) long would be required between the collection
point at Powell Road and the proposed Site OR8 at Winter Road.
One additional lift station with peak capacity of 9 MGD and
3-50
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
SCALE
0 Smiles
I .... I
Regional Plant Site ~
Lift Station •
Booster Station O
. 7-11 Delaware County-Delaware City Regional Alternative, Subalternative #1
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-51
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
Regional Plant Site ^f
Lift Station •
Booster Station O
3—12.Delaware County-Delaware City Regional Alternative, Subalternative #2
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-52
-------
a system head of 200 feet and two additional booster stations
having the same capacity with a system head of 130 feet each
would be necessary as shown in Figure 3-11. An additional
sewer trunk composed of 10,050 feet of 42 inch sewer and
12,750 feet of 48 inch sewer would be required to convey the
sewage from the City of Delaware to the proposed site.
The second subalternative (Figure 3-12) requires the
examination of the existing Delaware wastewater treatment
plant, because it would be used as the proposed regional
plant after required expansion. The Delaware wastewater
plant was upgraded in 1974 and has a hydraulic capacity of
2.5 MGD. The plant uses contact stabilization process for
sewage treatment, which is one version of the activated
sludge treatment processes. The flow diagram of the plant
is the grit removal by grit chambers, followed by contact
stabilization units for removal of suspended solids and BOD,
and then the chlorination of the effluent before being dis-
charged to the Olentangy River. The outfall location is
adjacent to the plant site. In contact stabilization units,
clarifiers are provided to remove suspended solids and some
BOD. The sludge wasted from the clarifiers is dewatered by
the sludge concentrators. The concentrated sludge is conse-
quently disposed of by sanitary landfill.
One of the advantages of the contact stabilization process
is that its expansion to accomodate more sewage can be easily
doubled by simple redesign of the units such as the addition
of pumping facilities, and modification of sludge wasting and
piping requirements. The city engineer indicated that the
3-53
-------
existing plant can be easily expanded to take up 7 MGD of
of raw sewage with some modification. In addition, the plant
owns 50 acres of land which would be sufficient for the growth
of the plant to an ultimate capacity of 8.5 MGD.
The system requirements for this subalternative are the
upgrading of the plant components from 2.5 MGD to 4 MGD in
the first year of the project, 5.5 MGD total in the 10th year,
and 8.5 MGD in the 20th year of the project. A second stage
of the activated sludge process with clarification, and de-
chlorination and post-aeration of the effluent would be added
in the expanded plant to meet the effluent standards promulgated
by the Ohio EPA. As Figure 3-12 shows, an additional force
main 20 inches in diameter and 22,800 feet (4.3 miles) long
would be needed to convey the Delaware County sewage from
the Stratford area to the plant. The two booster stations
would be expanded in terms of system head of lift. The system
head for each booster station would be 290 feet in order to
overcome the frictional loss and the elevation differences.
b- Cost-Effectiveness
The cost of the first subalternative was based on the
basic plant and its phasing scheme and the additional system
requirements delineated in the preceding discussion. The
costs are separated into two major categories, the treatment
facilities and the interceptor sewer network. In each category,
costs are broken down into two phases for the two treatment
plant sizes.
Capital costs of the various treatment components, the
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the various treatment
3-54
-------
processes, and the plant management were obtained from reports
by Robert Smith (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1967 and 1969) and
were adjusted to the April, 1975 dollar utilizing several cost
indices. These indices include the sewer construction cost
index published by the Office of Water Program Operations of
the USEPA, the labor cost index for water, steam, and sanitary
system nonsupervisory works, the wholesale price index for
industrial commodities, and the consumer price index for
residential, water and sewerage services published by the
U.S. Department of Labor.
All the costs are shown in Tables 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6.
According to the 6 1/8 percent discount rate recommended by
the Water Resources Council (1975), both the present worth
value and the equivalent annual cost of this subalternative
were calculated as $32,005,000 and $2,533,000, respectively.
For the second subalternative these were $27,577,000, and
$2,183,000.
c • EnyAlojirofJlta^Ef^ec t s
The environmental effects resulting primarily from the first
and second subalternative are considered.
The dilution ratio during the 7-day 10-year low flow periods,
assuming the outfall is located at the proximity of the proposed
plant Site OR-8, would be 0.34 and 0.65 for the two plant sizes.
However, under the most probable conditions, the corresponding
dilution ratios would be 0.22 and 0.076.
During dry whether periods, the effects of the plant
effluent on the water quality would be adverse, especially
in terms of DO, NH , NO , and BOD , and total dissolved solids
3-55
-------
fi
o
U
0)
M
cd
rH 0>
(U >
Q -H
4-1
-.
4J
•H
O
cd
(O,
cd
CJ
4-1
C3
r-l
P-l
4-1
CO
0 )-i
CJ ^
v 7^
•^
^ ff
•H
0
•3^
4-1
H 4J
CX M
cd o
CJ CJ
4J
CO
o u
o ^
g
d f3
cd -H
4—1
•rl 4J
CX CO
cd n
CJ CJ
CO
4-1
CO
O
CJ
/
/
/
/
I-ft
/ B
/ §
/ 4->
f M
/ 4-1
/ »
/ n
/ w
/ u
o o o
o o , o
! ° ! ! °,
o •* "
oooo r-l -* ^ **
P-, r-f VO
00 0
o o . o
0 j 0 J j C3
en m oo
O- CM ^O
en en
^.
00 0 o g O OO
oo oo£o oo
oo o o OK o oo
r-T oo" CM |^ ^3 v£3 00 OO
cy> o en ON m oo mcM
~d-CN "-IcM^rH OOVO
„ •• «
m CM "^ i— 1 1-1
^H
CO
!-i
01
cu 'rt t-H
c/i o cd
M 60
M r-l 01 T3
0 -H hJ g
4J Ctj Cd
eu PS «
CO to C
O IS 01 O
M CJ tO U -rl
0) cd 01 -H W
4J -H > Cd
rj « 4-1 W H
M >-, -H O) 4-J
cd rH w co >,
S IS -H -HO
5 £ CO 0 60 C C
rHd6060 cd C-HO)
fn -H -H fi fe CO -H g 00
cdPd-H co 4-i t-i^plt-q
>,g CO 0) 60C! 0) O CUM rC P< O) -rlCO H
cd t-t >u pi a co oocdcj
Jj O -H cd S cd C
O fe & g Pn W W
o
c
M
4-1
O
o
o
(-1
•H
>
a
w
0)
o
^
o
C/l
3-56
-------
c
o
0)
0)
rl
r-l
•H
4-1 4J
c ca
CU C
6 ri
4->
cfl
0)
rl
H ,0
CU W
60
cfl «
IS 01
0) >
CO -H
4J
H Cfl
cfl fi
C ri
O 0)
•H 4J
60rH
Q)
a
H y
4-1
o*
i-H C
ca
•H ^
CJ °
4J
CO
^ .
o.S
rH Cl
ca -H
4-1
•H 4-1
P, CO
cd o
u o
CO
4-1
CO
0
o
Cfl
4-J
CO
o
O OOOOO O o °
O OOOOO O00
O OO OO 0||O 0°
ICO CO rH -i
4-> CO M 4-1 CU
s a, a) cfl 60 o)
T3 cu g co a c c
Cd 3 3 S >H -H Vj 60 -rl
Cd IrHp-iM-lU-l'O -rl fd60
4J IH M-I -H 3 < -H fd
60 OWMpcflo 13 C
^ >~,4-IMU-rl Ocfl CUO0
c/3 idcop4,cd 4-ico -HO-H
4->tdrO MO COCX C/i ,
i-H -H CU no OM O 4-I4-1O1COO
l4-|l4-|4->C/)3"CJ4-> 4J Cd CJ-HCd
OM-I C8rHi~,CUrH600) (3 OlMH-rl CdcU
0) W M 4H c/1 (-1 c/> T< (2 600) B O f>-H60
COCd CUOO) PH-Ht33 Q) HgCd
3 O>^~,c/l| O CU 0) 0) CUHOO
O'HO 4-lcflrHCU S-i 4iJ-H CU&W > 0 cd H
V4 S-i CJ C/3 M O CLi cfl ^ CJ rO 60 O O O S-I ^
4J OO) ICUd'rl g -HCfl O CflrH T3 S-I 4-1 CUrJ
d rHcn o
-------
Table 3-5. Incremental Costs of Using the Delaware City STP as
the Regional Plant, Subalternative 2
Phases of Planning Phase 1 Phase 2
Incremental Capacity , ,- , ,-
Cost Items ^ ln mgd
Incremental Capital Cost in $ 1,000,000 800,000
Annual O&M Cost in $/yr. 149,000 191,000
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-58
-------
G
O
U
CU
t-i
cfl
0) >
P -H
4-1
cu cd
,£ a
4-1 M
Q)
r4 4->
O i-l
14-1 cd
i-i en
§ -
4-J 01
0) >
S5 -H
JJ
>-i td
(U CU
C/} 4-1
i-l
M M
s -^
a
O -H
•o>
rH C
td -H
4-1
•iH 4-1
a co
cd o
O C_3
4-1
CO
o •
o n
^
lffil "^^
<0-
c
O -H
rH C
cd -H
4-1
•H 4-1
CX CO
td o
U O
CO
4-J
U)
o
c_}
y
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
PH /
/
/
/
/
/ Es
/ cu
/ M
/
/ CO
/ 5
0 O 0
o o o
0 O O
vo r^ i i co
vo r^
^
,f
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oo rH o^ oo ^o r^ r^
rHro OvOCNO in i— 1
OOOO i — li — IO< — 1 O^O
A n «\ M
CO rH rH VO
o o o
o o o
0 O 0
1 1
ON vo i I in
ro rH in
-H > g
a « 4-1 ti o
M >-, -H CU -H
Cd rH C/D 4-1
^ ? -H cd
O rC CO CJ 00 t-l
rHCMOO Cd C4-l|-4
Pn -H -H C fi< CO -H CO <3
rt tfi -H CO 4J J-i -H H
4-1 "COrHCCUCU'HH
•H CU S-IO O-H g p|g
> O CUt-i^! &,Q)'HT3
cd M >O C 6 CO 00<;
s-i o -H cd d cd d
CJ [^ P^ S PH W W
m
r--
a
c
a
o
o
o
S-l
•H
W
0)
a
M
3
O
3-59
-------
(TDS). This is also true in terms of waste loads. A computer
simulation at low flow would have to be undertaken; otherwise,
quantification of these effects would be difficult. The water
quality impacts on the drinking water intake area would be
negligible assuming the Del-Co Water Company would not with-
draw water from the Olentangy River during low flow periods.
During average conditions, stream water quality standards
are complied with without difficulties. However, the less
stringent ammonia effluent standard and no effluent standard
for residual chlorine might have some implication on possible
deterioration of the river flora and fauna.
The outfall would be located approximately 5 river miles
upstream from Highbanks Park, providing some opportunity
for the cleanup of the plant's effluent before it reaches
the Highbanks Park area. This advantage should be better
credited for the second subalternative, which utilizes the
existing Delaware STP, because the northern location of the
outfall would provide another 6 river miles for selfpurifi-
cation processes.
Siltation and erosion problems associated with project
construction are the same for all subalternatives, since the
additional system requirements for each subalternative would
be diminishingly small compared to the whole construction
requirement.
Referring to Figures 3-11 and 3-12, the sewage conveyance
from the collection point of the system to the proposed alternative
sites is exclusively furnished by force main. The erosion and
siltation problems are reduced, since construction of the force
3-60
-------
main involves less excavation work and thus less exposed land
surface as compared to construction of gravity flow sewers.
Odor problems originate primarily from the aeration and
clarification processes and could be mitigated by providing
higher dissolved oxygen levels in the aerated liquor and
reducing the weir drop elevation. However, the odor problems
would increase if the plant size continues to grow. The odor
problems are less for the subalternative 2, since the Delaware
STP is an existing plant.
Noise is not a problem for either alternative, since
the only noise sources are the air diffusers in the aeration
units, which are effectively mitigated by providing enough
buffer distance between the plant and the surrounding sen-
sitive receptors. The noises from the regional lift station
and booster stations are not a problem, because they would
be properly isloated and insulated.
^ • l£§ t i t ujb_ional_ Considerat ions
Two legal arrangements can be devised to construct the
proposed regional facility at Stratford along the Olentangy
River, Site OR-8, to eventually service both Delaware City and
southern Delaware County. Section 307.15 of the Ohio Revised
Code enables Delaware City to contract with Delaware County
for Delaware County to assume full responsibility for handling
Delaware City's sewer system. Under this contract, Delaware
County can construct the proposed plant at Stratford and
gradually phase out the Delaware City plant as they provide
service to the city. However, since the Delaware City plant
would not be phased out for another ten years, a contractual
3-61
-------
agreement under Section 6117.41 of the Ohio Revised Code is
more likely. Under this agreement, Delaware City and Dela-
ware County would develop plans to provide for the eventual
connection of their sewer systems and the joint usage of the
proposed plant.
If the proposed facility is built at Stratford to pro-
vide regional service to both Delaware County and Delaware
City, it would be financed with only one slight difference,
the same way as if it were built in southern Delaware County
to service only the county. In both cases, Delaware County
would build the plant with 75 percent of the funds being pro-
vided by a USEPA grant. The other 25 percent would be raised
by a loan from either the Ohio Water Development Authority or
the Farmers Home Administration of the Department of Agricul-
ture. This loan would be repaid from revenue raised from
tapping fees on those residences that would be serviced. This
revenue would also be used for the maintenance and operation
of the plant. If the proposed plant serviced Delaware City
along with Delaware County, Delaware City would have to com-
pensate Delaware County a predetermined amount for the usage
of the plant. Through negotiations, this amount would be
agreed upon by the parties involved and approved by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency as provided for by Section
6117.42 of the Ohio Revised Code. Section 6117.43 of the
Ohio Revised Code stipulates that this compensation be raised
by the levy of taxes, special assessments, or sewer rentals.
The contractual and financial agreements needed to ser-
vice both Delaware City and Delaware County could probably
3-62
-------
be negotiated. In the recent past they have considered building
one treatment plant for their mutual use. However, despite
their working relationship and the available legal and financial
mechanisms, there would probably be opposition with Delaware
City to a plan which would involve the phasing out of their
plant. The City of Delaware completed, in 1974, a two million
dollar remodeling program of its wastwater treatment plant.
The remodeled plant can be expanded considerably and is antici-
pated to have a lengthy life span. Delaware City officials
are opposed to phasing out in the near future a facility in
which they recently expended and considerable planning time
and money. However, both Delaware City and County officials
would probably be amenable to plan to expand Delaware City's
plant to service the southern part of the county.
9• Delaware County_-_Cqlumbus
a. Overview
If this alternative is implemented, the sewage from southern
Delaware County would receive the required treatment by the
Columbus Southerly Plant located on the Scioto River close
to the Franklin-and-Pickaway County line. The Columbus
Southerly Plant would be expanded accordingly to accommodate
the incremental sewage flow. Five possible subalternatives
were developed from the engineering judgment for this inter-
county connection of sewer systems. These subalternatives
are depicted in Figures 3-13 through 3-17. Detailed routing
of the connector trunk or the force main was not attempted.
The first subalternative, as shown in Figure 3-13, would
use the existing Olentangy Interceptor Trunk of the Columbus
3-63
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
SCALE
0 Smiles
Regional Plant Site
Lift Station
Figure 3-13.Delaware County-Columbus Regional Alternative
Subalternative 1
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-64
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
SCALE
0 Smiles
Regional Plant Site
Lift Station •
Booster Station O
_ .. . Delaware County-Columbus Regional Alternative,
Figure 3-14. subaltemative 2
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-65
-------
KEY
SCALE
0 Smiles
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
Regional Plant Site *y{
Lift Station •
Figure 3—15. Delaware County-Columbus Regional Alternative,
Subalternative 3
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-66
-------
"SI
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
SCALE
0 Smiles
I.I, -i 1
Regional Plant Site "f
Lift Station •
Figure 3-16.Delaware County-Columbus Regional Alternative,
Subalternative 4
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-67
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Regional Plant Site
o_i 7 belaware County-Columbus Regional Alternative,
'Subalternative 5
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-68
-------
sewer network whose northern terminus is located between the
the Delaware-and-Franklin county line and the outerbelt,
1-270. A gravity flow connector sewer 42-inches in diameter
would be run from the sewage collection point at Powell Road
along the Olentangy River southward until it reaches the northern
terminus of the existing Olentangy Trunk. It is estimated
that approximately 6000 feet (1.4 miles) of the gravity flow
sewer would be required.
Figure 3-14 indicates that the second subalternative would
require construction of a 16-inch force main approximately
84,480 feet (16 miles) long between the collection point of the
proposed Delaware County sewer network and the junction of the
N. Broadway Street and the Olentangy River in Columbus. This
subalternative is based on the assumption that no excess ca-
pacity of the Olentangy Sewer Trunk would be available. In
this subalternative, one lift station with peak capacity of 9
MGD and system head of 400 feet would be situated at Powell
Road. This subalternative would require two booster stations
with the same capcity and a system head of 130 feet each.
The third subalternative (Figure 3-15) is the intercon-
nection of the southern Delaware County sewer network with
the Alum Creek interceptor trunk in Franklin County. The
combined use of a gravity flow sewer and a force main would
be necessary for the transportation of the sewage from the
Olentangy Basin to the Alum Creek Basin. However, it is
anticipated that this subalternative would have more require-
ments than the first subalternative.
3-69
-------
The fourth subalternative is illustrated in Figure 3-16.
In this subalternative the Alum Creek sewer subsystem in
southern Delaware County would be separated from the other
two subsystems in the Scioto and Olentangy Basins. The
sewage from the Scioto and Olentangy River Basins would be
combined at the junction of Powell Road and the Olentangy
River, and connected to the Olentangy interceptor trunk of
the Columbus sewer network. The sewage from the Alum Creek
sewer subsystem would be dumped into the Alum Creek inter-
ceptor trunk of the Columbus sewer network by a gravity flow
sewer.
The fifth subalternative is shown in Figure 3-17. Under
this concept the Scioto River sewer subsystem, Olentangy sub-
system,, and Alum Creek subsystem would be connected to the
existing Columbus Scioto Interceptor Trunk, Olentangy Trunk,
and Alum Creek Trunk, respectively. This subalternative would
completely eliminate all interbasin pumping facilities and
force mains. The system requirement would be an additional
45,600 feet of 36-inch sewer pipe for inter-county sewer con-
nections.
At the last stage of the development of the sewerage
service in southern Delaware County, approximately 3 MGD
of raw municipal sewage would be introduced to the Columbus
treatment facilities. The volume amounts to approximately
2.8% of the capacity of the Columbus Southerly Plant and ap-
proximately 1.5% of the total capacity of the two plants
combined. It has been planned that an interconnector inter-
ceptor trunk would be placed between the Columbus Southerly
3-70
-------
Plant and the Jackson Pike Plant as shown by the dashed line
in Figure 3-18. Since the Jackson Pike Plant has almost identi-
cal treatment processes as those of the Southerly Plant, the
eventual destination of the sewage from the southern Delaware
County would not affect the level of treatment it would re-
ceive.
From the analysis of the sewage flows, the incremental
sewage load imposed on the Southerly Plant or Jackson Pike
Plant by this regional alternative would not require drastic
upgrading of the plant, since the peaking factor used for
the treatment plant design would be large enough to compensate
it. This would be more true, if a gravity flow sewer trunk,
such as the Olentangy Trunk of Alum Creek Trunk, could be
used for sewage transmission instead of force main. The reason
is that the time required for the sewage to reach the plant
might be long enough that it might not reach the plant during
the peak hour period.
The possiblity of using either the Olentangy Sewer Trunk
or the Alum Creek Sewer Trunk on the Scioto Trunk in this
regional alternative requires the analysis of their available
hydraulic capacities. There are six interceptor trunk lines
in the Columbus Service Area: the East Scioto Trunk, the
Olentangy Trunk, the Alum Creek Trunk, The Big Walnut Trunk,
the Big Walnut Trunk Outfall, and Scioto Big Run Trunk. The
Big Walnut Trunk Outfall Sewer was originally designed for
two barrels, only one of which has been installed to date.
Among these sewer trunks, only the Olentangy Trunk, the Alum
Creek Trunk and the East Scioto Trunk (with additions) offer
3-71
-------
Scale
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Regional Plant Site
5 mi
X
Figure 3-18.
Columbus Sewer Interceptor Trunks
Source: Adapted from Franklin County Regional Planning Commission, 1969
3-72
-------
the proposed interconnection, because of their proximity to the
southern Delaware County Service Area.
An analysis of the Columbus trunk sewers was conducted
by the Franklin County Regional Planning Commission and con-
cluded in the Water-Related Facilities Plan in 1969. The
study reveals that the infiltration and abuse allowance for
sewer trunk design in the 1954 plan (Franklin County Regional
Planning Commission, 1954) are greater than those recommended
in most engineering manuals and higher than those used in
other cities. The results of the analysis are duplicated
in Table 3-7.
The first column in Table 3-7 provides, at various points,
the actual sewer capacity in cubic feet per second for each
of the major trunk sewers. Column "A" is the sewage flow at
those points on the basis of the 1954 design criteria and 1985
distributed population. Column "B'1 is the sewage flow on the
basis of the 1954 design criteria modified to reflect only
those total acres that would be developed by 1985. Column
"C" is the sewage flow at each point based on 1985 population
distribution, with the peak flow factor applied on^y to the
average sanitary flow.
The latter criteria modification reflects the approach
in general engineering practice that design flow is equal
to a factored sanitary flow plus an infiltration allowance.
It is different from general engineering practice to apply
a peak flow factor to an infiltration allowance as in .done
in the 1954 criteria. The most generous allowance in the 1954
criteria might indicate that there is excess capacity available
3-73
-------
Table 3-7. Capacity of Columbus Trunk Sewers
Sewer
East Scloto Trunk
Bethel Road
Fishinger Road
Grlggs Dam
Olentangy Trunk
Outerbelt
S.R. 161
Morse Road
North Broadway
Frambes
A lam Creek Trunk
Westerville
Morse Road
U.S. 62
Broad Street
Livingston Avenue
Big Walnut Trunk
Havens Corners Road
U.S. 40
Outfall
Big Walnut Trunk Outfall
Junction
Groveport Road
Scioto Big Run Trunk
(excluding Hellbranch
Run Drainage Area)
Georgesville Road
Early Ditch
1-71
Capacity
in cf s
33
52
155
48
53
77
115
184
87
130
205
205
252
190
190
290
335
335
68
122
150
Flow in
A
44
60
180
35
56
84
117
139
62
141
200
231
279
117
163
217
507
562
35
84
132
cf s
:B
30
45
105
28
48
74
106
128
53
132
191
218
264
85
124
173
435
457
22
60
108
£
28
42
125
22
40
59
86
106
47
109
159
189
236
82
116
164
404
443
17
59
98
Source: Franklin County Regional Planning Commission, 1969
3-74
-------
for additional service areas such as southern Delaware
County.
As indicated in Table 3-7, the Olentangy and Alum Creek
Trunks would be marginally loaded by 1985 populations under
criteria "A" and "B", but would have excess capacity under
criteria "C" . The excess capacities of the Olentangy Trunk
by 1985 would be 16 cfs (10.9 MGD) at Outerbelt 1-270 and
23 cfs (14.9 MGD) at S.R. 161, more than that ultimately needed
by southern Delaware County. The excess capacity of the Alum
Creek Trunk by 1985 would be 30 cfs (19.4 MGD), which again
would be more than what the southern Delaware County would
need. Presently an Infiltration - Inflow analysis is being
conducted in Franklin County, but it has not yet been approved
by Ohio EPA. Sewer capacity must exist not only in these
interceptors, but also in the central Columbus area, down to
the treatment plants.
The approach taken for the cost-effectiveness analysis is
the same as discussed previously for the Delaware City and
Delaware County Regional Alternative. The major difference is
that the cost for the new treatment facilities would have to
be replace by the incremental costs for the modification and
system upgrading of the existing Columbus Southerly Plant,
the incremental capital cost of the plant, and the operation
and maintenance cost for the incremental sewage treatment.
The results of cost-effectiveness analysis for all sub-
alternatives are presented in Tables 3-8 through 3-14. Table
3-14 shows the incremental costs of upgrading the existing
3-75
-------
CO
I
rH
O
U
I
C
3
O
cu
O
a)
4J
o
14-1
O 0)
& >
4-> -H
0) 4-1
2
01 0)
& J->
CU rH
w cd
o w
4J
cx •
OJ 0)
o >
l-i -H
<1J 4J
4-1 cd
C C
o cd
c»
to o
4-1 -H
cn oo
o cu
O Pi
oo
r^
EH
CM
CU
co
cd
PM
rH
CU
CO
cd
PM
00
c
•rl
cd
rH
PM
O
CO
cu
CO
cd
O
•
CO
in
•
rH
'O
00
e
•H
^»
4-1
•rl
a
cd
ft
cd
4-1
c
cd
rH
PM
4-1
CO •
O VJ
^•^
S
rH C
cd iH
4-)
•H 4-1
ft CO
cd o
4-1
CO •
O M
u >•,
S
^ CJ
•rl
O
•CO-
rH C
Cd -rl
4-1
•H 4-1
ft CO
cd o
u o
CO
4-1
CO
o /
o /
/
/
/
/
/
I
/ 6
X S
/ 4J
/ H
/ ^
/ J
o o o
O 0 O
O 0 O
» 1 « 1 1
m i r^ i i o
rH CN
A
y >
OO OOOO OO
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
MA »>"*«\ **
OOOO HlTlOrH OOrH
rHcO O*sTOOCTi OOO
00 CO H rH CN CT\ \O
•V *
o o o
o o o
O 0 1 O
« 1 « 1 1 "
vO I vO 1 CN
ro r^ rH
rH CN
^
OO OOOO OO
OO OOOO OO
00 OOOO OO
**t *n«t«t *•*
com aiO-3-oo oom
OOrH OCNOOrO t^CN
CO O** CNJ Ovl OO rH CO >kO
«l ** *•
-* rH 00
CD
l*t
cu
CU Cd rH
co o cd
^ 00
>-( H CU T3
0 -H J C
4-i cd cd
ft Pd
cu co c
O T3 CU O
>-i C CD O -H
cu cd cu -H 4J
4-1 -H > Cd
C •> 4J )-l )-l
H >, -H 0) 4-1
Cd rH C/3 CO >%
5 JS -H -rl O
O ,£ CO 0 00 C C
rH (3'OOOD Cd C'HCUiJ
P4 vH iH (3 PM CO -H 0 00 S-iTldH
W »>COrHCCUCU4JH
•H CU V-iO O -H 6 CT3(3
> a cuj-i & ft cu -HCO
cd j-i >u cl S co oocdo
}-t o -H cd 3 cd c
cs fe pi g PM w w
O
C
O
i-i
4J
£3
O
O
•H
I
CU
o
O
C/3
3-76
-------
4-1
a
3
o
0)
(-1
Q
•H
1-4 4-1
o cd
M-l C
A! 0)
I-l 4J
O t-H
Ds cd
4J ,Q
0) -H
CO 4-1
Cd
V4 C3
O M
4J 0)
ft 4-1
01 i-l
o ~t
0) r-l
jj cd
a e
M O
•H
P
W r-(
o o
o u
CTi
I
ro
0)
CN
01
CO
jS
PM
H
01
co
CM
C
•rl
fi
fi
cd
rH
PM
14-1
O
CO
cu
CO
cd
n
PM
O
CO
m
,
iH
60
B
•H
^>
. t
•H
cj
cd
ft
cd
u
-U
c
cd
7-
4-J
o ^
sS
* a
o'H
r"~J £
4-> %H
•H jj
& to
n) o
4-1
CO .
O (_|
f>-i
- — '
s
08 c
o
J_> 'H
cd o
U c_>
CO
[ i
CO
o
*-^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ Q
g
cu
4->
H
/W
0
0
O O 0
o . o . . o
0 j 0 j j O
00 iH O
^^
oo o^^o oo
oo oxxo oo
oo o°°^o oo
OOCO O^COQ Zj[^
i— ICO rH1"100!-! OCO
o o o
0 0 0
o o o
r. 1^1 1 «
CM vO CO
m ri oo
CO CO
J^
oo °ooo oo
oo °,ooo oo
00 °OOO OO
moo ~*oooo ooco
inS r~'t^~?2 oo^
*» fl A «\ *\
•vT CO iH iH i-l
CO
a
0) cd i-l
co o cd
H M) T>
t-i i-H 0) C
O -H i-J cd
4-1 Cd
ft Pi " ^
cu co rl
a -o a» o
M c co a -H
0) Cd CU -H 4J
4-1 -H > Cd
C •> 4-1 >-l M
H >-, -rl CU 4-1
cd i-l co co |^
!3 S -H -HO
o x: w o M a fi
iHCJbOOO cd C-HCU
P4 -rl -rl C PM CO -rl B 60 l-J
cd ffl *H CO 4-1 M rO fi ^
f>^ ]5j CO CU 60 C CU *^ "H E~*
4J * u) f— { fi CU CU 4-1 O
•H 01 MO O-H § CT3CH
> U CUM ^2 ft CU -rlfiO
cd M >O C g CO 60cdO
M O -H cd 3 cd fi
C5 F"^ fV| 5*^ P j PTL] J"T"]
o
C!
4-)
O
O
M
•H
>
Q)
a
u
3
O
co
3-77
-------
ca
1
r-l
O
u
O
U
CO
i-l
01
O
J-J
O
M-l
O CU
33
0) 4-1
H M
01 CU
? -I-1
S H
C/> CO
O CO
4J
P. •>
0) 01
O >
rl -H
(1) 4-J
4J CO
d d
l-l rl
CO O
4J -H
05 bO
O (U
O Pi
O
iH
I
CN
CU
co
CO
PM
rH
CU
CO
CO
PM
60
d
•H
d
d
CO
rH
PM
4-1
O
co
d)
CO
CO
JS
PM
O
m
in
•
,
S
<•£) d
•H
o
•CO-
rH d
CO -H
4-1
•H 4J
ft CO
CO O
O O
4-1
co •
O rl
u >,
S -co-
ca d
-rl
O
•co-
rH d
CO *rl
4-J
•H 4J
ft CO
CO O
0 0
CO
4J
CO
O
o
01
4-J
p*H
4->
CO
0
U
O O 0
o o o
o o o
in r^ CM
r**» ON r**»
r-l CM
O O OOOO O
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
AA A A A A AA
OO CO r-H in O i— 1 f^O
^H CO ^^ **^ CO O^ ^^ CO
CO CO rH T— < CM O\ *^D
co in
O O 0
o o o
O O 0
CO **D *tf
co r^" c**i
r-l H
OO OOOO OO
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
o^ r^* o^ co "sf LO ^D CNJ
LO ^D o\
CO
}_l
cu
01 CO i-H
WO CO
M 00
M r-l CU T3
O -H _5 d
4-1 CO TO
ft K
cu co d
a TS cu o
rl d CO 0 -H
0) CO CU iH 4J
4-1 .H > CO
d •> 4J rl rl
H >, ^ Q) 4->
CO iH W CO >-,
!s g -H -HO
o ,d co o bo d d
rHdbOoO cd d'HCU
F^ -H -H d fn CO -H 0 bO hJ
cdffi-H co 4-1 ^T)diS CO 0) bOd tU <1 -rl H
4J «COr-ldCUCU4-IO
•H 0) MO O -r-l 6 dT3d H
> o oiri ,d cu cu -Hdo
cfl l-i >U d 6 CO oOcOU
i-i o -ri eg s co d
O |J4 P^ ^ pi pT~] [V]
in
u
d
M
O
t-l
w
d
o
o
o
rl
•H
d
w
cu
o
i-l
o
CO
3-78
-------
CD
I
rH
O
O
§
o
01
p
(-1
o
O 0)
S >
4-1 -H
0) 4J
Z ca
c
M >-l
CU 01
S w
0) rH
en co
A
rl 3
o w
4-1
a. "
cu cu
o >
M -H
CU 4J
4-1 CO
c c
M M
-,
^H
^8 C
•H
O
rH C!
CO vH
I I
•rl 4-1
OH CO
CO O
0 U
4-1
CO .
O >-l
u >,
•-H C
CO -rl
4J
•H 4-1
a, co
cO O
o o
CO
4-1
CO
O
u
/
/
/
/
/i
/CU
] t
1 1
4J
CD
0
0
O 0 O
o o o
O O 1 1 O
ft 1 1 ft
CM ON rH
r~~ co rH
H CN
OO OOOO OO
OO OOOO OO
oo oooo oo
OOOO rHinOrH t-~O
rHco o -H > Cfl
C " 4J MM
H >, -H CU 4-1
Cfl rH CO CO >-.
> ^ -rl -rl O
O rC CO O 60 C C
rHC&O&O cfl C-HCU
PLI -H -rl rj fn CO -rl B 60
cflCfl-H Cfl 4J MtJCi-J
^» S CO CU 60 C3 CU <3j *H ^C
4J ftCOrHCCUCU4-IE-l
•H 0) S-iO O -H g Ct3C O
> O CUM ,C ft 0) -HfJO H
cfl S-i >U fi B CO 60cflC_>
!-i O -H CO 3 cd C
C.5 I-1-* fV| *>^ fS | [V] PT"|
m
o
C!
C
O
o
•rl
C
w
CU
o
(-1
3
O
C/)
3-79
-------
CO
3
I
5*.
w
C
O
O
CO
ifl
rH
0)
P
J-i
O
o
4J -H
0) 4-1
Z ct!
M M
01 01
IS 4J
0) rH
cn ca
O c/1
4-1
fx "
Q) CD
O >
4-1 ft)
C C
M ^
til
0) 4-1
M-l rH
O CO
CO O
4J -H
CO 60
O CU
U PCi
CN
rH
ro
CU
CN
CU
CO
cfl
PH
rH
CU
CO
PH
60
C
•H
C
cfl
PH
MH
O
CO
(U
CO
CO
PH
O
0-)
in
^
13
60
B
C
•rl
^t
4J
•H
O
CO
cfl
U
60
fi
•H
a
C
cfl
PH
4-1
CO •
O SH
U >,
S
t^j rj
•rl
O
rH C
cfl -H
4-1
•rl 4-1
CX CO
CO O
U U
4-1
CO •
O J-I
•^^
s
c£j rj
•H
O
rH C
CO -H
4-1
•H 4-1
ft CO
cfl O
U 0
CO
4-1
CO
o
u
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ 1
/ CU
/ W
/ M
' 4J
/ "
/ 5
o o o
0 O 0
0 O 1 I O
•• "1 1 •>
CN LO r^
r*^ O r —
rH rH
OO OOOO OO
OO OOOO OO
oo oooo oo
oooo r-tinOrH r-~o
rHro OsJ-OO<7> OOO
00 rO rH rH CN O\ VO
»l **
o-i m
00 O
o o o
O O 1 10
1 1
m m o
CO OO CN
rH
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
LO vO O^ ^^ O^ O4 ^«O C3
O t-l oJ CN t— I rg eg
•s AM
VD rH 00
CO
^H
cu
£ T3
01 CO rH
oo o to
S-l 60
M rH 0) T)
O -H i-J C
4-1 Cfl CO
P, Pi
cu co C
O T) CU O
S-l C CO CJ -H
0) Cfl CU > 4J
4J -rl -H Cfl
C! •> 4-> S-i SH
M >~, -H CU 4J
CO rH C/3 CO >-,
S > -rl -HO
O J3 Cfl O 60 C C
rHCMI60 cfl C-HCU
PM -H -H fi f^ to -H B 60 h4
Cfl prj' «H CO 4-1 M *^ rjn <^
>,S W CU 60C CU<-HH
4-1 «COrHCOIO)4-lO
•H O) S-iO O -H B C13C H
> O CUS-i Ji &, 0) -rlpjo
cfl s-i >u C B co bocflu
SH O 'H cO P cfl C
O fn Pi S PM w w
u
a
4-1
C
O
U
o
M
•H
I
W
o
to
3-80
-------
§
O
u
cfl
ifl
rH
CU
Q
CO
cu
•ri CU
•U >
Cfl -H
PI 4-1
5H Cfl
cu pi
rH 0)
Cfl 4-1
"3 <
CO
rH
CO Cfl
3 PI
O O
•H -H
5H 00
CO 01
> PH
(+-) CO
O 3
Xi
cfl B
4-1 3
CO rH
O O
O CJ
m
Q)
01
•H
4-1
Cfl
g
CU
Cfl
rQ
3
CO
•H
4-1
CO
g
01
4-1
•H
4J
CO
C
CU
4J M
rH
CO
r\
3
CO
Q)
J>
•H
4-1
cfl
V-i
01
4J CS
rH
CO
3
CO
CU
>
•H
4J
CO
C
5n
0)
4-1 rH
i— 1
cfl
3
CO
CO
4_)
CO
0
CJ
0 0
0 0
0 0
oo c"O
«% •*
vO i — 1
rH
0 0
0 O
0 0
o-| O
m o>
n «*
r^~ rH
rH
0 0
0 0
O O
f\ «S
O G\
r**«
O*> i — 1
rH
O O
0 0
O(— \
*— '
m ^o
CT* ON
•N A
•sT rH
CN1
0 0
O 0
O 0
* A
01 OO
m -a-
OO rH
4-1
CO
O
O
!-H
C cfl
$
XI C
5-1
O 4-15-1
!3 C >,
CU -^
4J rH -CO-
PI cfl
CU > C
CO -H -H
CU 3
5H CT1
p_, jvj
CO
4-1 3
co *§
rH 3
PH rH
O
H
CU
4J 4-1
3 Pi
O 3
CO O
U
CO
3 CU
•9 ^
6 ctj
3 &
rH CO
O rH
O 01
Q
01
XI 0)
4-1 XI
4J
00
PJ 5-4
•H 0
W M-l
4-1
C4H PI CU
O Cfl >
rH iH
CO PH 4J
4J Cfl
CD rH G
O Cfl SH
O C 0)
0 4-1
rH -H rH
ft tS) ->
CO ~~^
O
0
C
rH -H
CO
4-1 4->
•H CO
PL, o
cfl c_>
u
^
^H
CO c^J
4-)
PI O
0)
B rH
0) CO
5n 3
0 PI
PI PI
M <(,
rC
O^
iH
A
,
u
I — 1
*l
iH
o
4-J
C
O
U
o
J_l
•H
^
a
w
••
0)
CJ
3
O
CO
o
5H
3
O
CO
3-81
-------
Columbus Southerly Plant to be used as a regional plant and
its annual 0 & M costs in various planning phases. Tables
3-8 through 3-12 give the costs of the sewer system require-
ments and their 0 & M costs for all subalternatives.
The present worth and the equivalent annual cost for each
subalternative were calculated by combining Table 3-14 with
the corresponding Tables 3-8 through 3-12. This is summarized
in Table 3-13. From Table 3-13 subalternative five appears to
be the most economical choice, if sewer capacity is available.
c • Eny ir^onmental Effects
This regional alternative uses the Columbus Southerly
Plant as the regional plant for sewage treatment. The water
quality problems caused by the effluent of the plant, if any,
would appear in the Scioto River, which is the receiving
river of the effluent of the Southerly Plant. Therefore, no
direct water quality effects due to the effluent would be
identified in Olentangy River.
As indirect effects, the water diversion from the southern
Delaware to Columbus would result in some water quality problems
in the Olentangy River during dry weather periods. This would
occur even assuming that Del-Co Water Company does not with-
draw water from the Olentangy River. The resultant flow by
accounting the water along the Olentangy River would be only
1.26 MGD (1.95 cfs) immediately south of the city of Delaware
even assuming that the city of Delaware withdraws only 2.1 MGD
(3.25cfs) to suffice its basic need of drinking water and that
a water conservation program is mandatory during 7-day 10-year
low periods. It is questionable whether this low flow could
3-82
-------
sustain the river ecosystems. Further investigation of possible
implications of this action, for example, the computer simulation
of water quality during dry weather periods, is needed, if this
regional alternative should be selected.
Under the most probable conditions, the median flow in
the Olentangy River would be 66.6 MGD. The diverted water
would be 2.3% and 4.5% of the median flow in the first and
second stages of the plant sizing.
The possible water quality effects on Scioto River derive
from the additional effluent from the Southerly Plant. The
incremental sewage flow would contribute approximately 5.6%
of the capacity of the Southerly Plant at the 3.0 MGD phase
of the proposed project. It is anticipated that the effects
on the water quality of the Scioto River would be insignificant.
This could be attributable to the time shift between the arrival
of this incremental sewage from the southern Delaware County
and the peak hours of the Southerly Plant. Along with the above
argument, the design factor of the plant would be large enough
to absorb this sewage increment without sacrificing its per-
formance, since the characteristics of the sewage from the
southern Delaware County would be of domestic type and would
not upset the biological treatment processes of the plant.
It is anticipated that the noise and odor problems resul-
ting from this regional alternative would not be significant
as the sewage would be treated with existing plant capacity.
Delaware County can contract with Columbus under Section
6117.41 of the Ohio Revised Code for its sewage to be treated
3-83
-------
by an expanded Columbus Southerly Plant. This law also en-
ables Delaware County and Columbus to contract with each other
for the joint usage and/or construction of any sewer lines
needed to transport Delaware County's sewage to the Columbus
Southerly Plant.
If Delaware County contracted with Columbus for its sew-
age to be treated by the Columbus Southerly Plant, Delaware
County would have to include provision for payment to Colum-
bus for this service. Delaware County would also have to
contribute for any expansion of the Southerly Plant which
would be needed to accommodate the additional sewage. This
payment would be negotiated by the parties involved as pro-
vided for by Section 6117.42 of the Ohio Revised Code. Del-
aware County could raise this money through a variety of means,
including the levying of special taxes, special assessments,
or sewage rentals. They may also be able to obtain their funds
by securing a loan from the Ohio Water Development Authority.
It is unlikely that Delaware County would enter into such
an agreement because of financial reasons. If the plant is
located at the site proposed in their Facilities Plan, Delaware
County, as discussed previously, would get a grant from USEPA
and a loan from either the Ohio Water Development Authority or
the Farmers Home Administration of the Department of Agriculture.
This funding arrangement is probably more preferable to Delaware
County than an arrangement where they would have to explore
different means to raise money to pay Columbus.
There is another obstacle to the implementation of the
required contractual agreement between Delaware County and
3-84
-------
Columbus. As a small semi-rural area, Delaware County is
conscious of its autonomy being threatened by a Columbus area
which is rapidly expanding. Columbus is cognizant of Delaware's
feeling and acts accordingly. The idea of "home rule" is very
strong in both Delaware County and Columbus. This idea of local
self-government includes an implicit belief that a political
entity has the right and responsibility to provide sewer service
and should not give up this aspect of self-government. Delaware
County would rather provide its residents service itself and
Columbus feels that it first must provide service to those
areas of Franklin County which need it before providing service
to another county. These attitudes would need to be surmounted
before Delaware County and Columbus would agree to have Delaware
County's sewage treated by an expanded Columbus
Southerly Plant.
10 • 5?.l§.wa£e_Cq un ty ~_P_e.l awar_e _C i ty_-_Col umbus
a. Oy_e_r_v_ :Le_ w
The existing Delaware Sewage Treatment Plant would be
phased out by the 10th year of the planning period if this
alternative is implemented. The Columbus Southerly Plant
would be utilized as the regional or central wastewater
treatment facility. The total sewage flow from the City of
Delaware and southern Delaware County combined would ulti-
mately average approximately 8.5 MGD (13.1 cfs).
The system configuration would be essentially the same as
that indicated in Figure 3-1. However, the proposed Olentangy
sewer trunk in Delaware County would have to be replaced with
a larger sewer pipe and would have to be extended up to the
3-85
-------
existing Delaware Sewage Treatment Plant site, which would
be used as the sewage collection point for the City of Delaware
sewer system.
Four subalternatives of the inter-county sewer connec-
tions are identified. The first subalternative (Figure 3-19)
would use a gravity flow sewer trunk, which would run along
the Olentangy River route from the Delaware S.T.P. site to
the northern terminus of the Columbus Olentangy Sewer Trunk.
This sewer trunk would consist of 10,050 feet of 42 inch pipe,
6,000 feet of 48 inch pipe, 32,000 feet of 54 inch pipe, and
10,800 feet of 60 inch pipe. This subalternative might not
be feasible, because the marginality of loading on the Colum-
bus Olentangy Trunk.
The second subalternative (Figure 3-20) would use a gravity
flow sewer trunk and a force main to transmit the sewage from
the City of Delaware and southern Delaware County to the junction
of the Olentangy River and North Broadway Street in Columbus.
Here the sewage would be introduced to the Columbus Olentangy
Sewer Trunk. The proposed transmission sewer trunk would
consist of 10,050 feet of 42 inch pipe, 6,000 feet of 48 inch
pipe, 32,000 feet of 54 inch pipe, and 89,760 feet (17 miles)
of 16 inch force main as shown in Figure 3-20. One lift sta-
tion, located at Powell Road, having a peak capacity of at
least 10.5 MGD and system head of 400 feet would be needed.
Two booster stations having the same capacity as the lift
station and a system head of 200 feet would be required.
The third alternative is presented in Figure 3-21. The
Alum Creek sewer system in Delaware County would be separated
3-86
-------
from the Olentangy and the Scioto sewer subsystem. As compared
to the first subalternative, the connector sewer between the
Olentangy and the Alum Creek sewer subsystems would be eliminated.
The Alum Creek sewer subsystem would be connected to Columbus's
Alum Creek Trunk with a gravity flow sewer. The combined Olentangy
and Scioto sewer subsystems would be connected to Columbus's
Olentangy Sewer Trunk by a gravity flow sewer. The system
requirements of this subalternative would be essentially the
same as in subalternative one.
In the fourth subalternative, shown in Figure 3-22, the
Scioto Interceptor Trunk, the Olentangy Trunk, and the Alum
Creek Trunk would be utilized simultaneously to convey the
sewage to the Columbus Southerly Plant. No interbasin pumping
facilities and sewer connection would be required. The system
requirements of this subalternative would be essentially similar
to those of subalternative 3, except that no interbasin con-
nection between the Olentangy and the Scioto Basins would be
required and an additional 26,400 feet of 36-inch sewer pipe
would be needed to serve as sewer connector between the Scioto
sewage collection subsystem and the Scioto Interceptor Trunk.
D- Co^t-Effectiveness
The approach taken for the cost-effectiveness study is
essentially the same as discussed earlier in this chapter.
All four subalternatives are considered for cost-effectiveness
analysis. The results of the analysis are given in Tables 3-15
through 3-20. Table 3-20 presents the incremental cost for
upgrading the existing Columbus Southerly Plant to be used
as a regional plant and the annual 0 & M costs in various
3-87
-------
^ArM^^
• ' . 3fc J f -X-l .j- i . '
rifr\VH^N3&
-JiiV\ 1 A <: rh^-
I ''"I*'VM' V 4-V/r
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk -Line
Force Main
SCALE
0 Smiles
Regional Plant Site ~^-
Lift Station •
Figure 3—19. Delaware County - Delaware City - Columbus
Regional Alternative, Subalternative 1.
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-88
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk'Line
Force Main
SCALE
Smiles
Regional Plant Site
Lift Station •
Booster Station O
3—20 Delaware County - Delaware City - Columbus
" Regional Alternative, Subalternative 2.
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-89
-------
i3e*mM
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Force Main
Regional Plant Site
Lift Station 9
o o-i Delaware County - Delaware City - Columbus
Regional Alternative, Subalternative 3.
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-90
-------
KEY
Existing Trunk Line
Proposed Trunk Line
Regional Plant Site
SCALE
0 Smiles
L . . . . • I
Figure 3—22. Delaware County - Delaware City - Columbus
Regional Alternative, Subalternative 4.
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-91
-------
3
O -H
4-1
cu cd
M (3
cd M
&
O -H
M-l 4-1
Cd
^ c
rl h
o rf
^
4-1
•H
o
cd
CX
cd
o
to
(3
•H
fl
(3
cd
•-H
PM
4-1
CO •
O M
O >>
S
^ {3
•rl
O
rH C
cd -H
4-1
••J _l 1
rt +«J
P. co
cd o
CJ CJ
4-1
CO .
O (-1
o >,
o3 C
•rl
O
•CO-
rH (3
Cd -r(
4-1
•H 4J
ft CO
cd o
0 0
CO
4-1
CO
O
CJ
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ i
/ cu
/ JJ
/ H
/ 4,
CO
/ °
/
O 0 0
O O 0
o o o
* *k •»
vo r^ c^™)
OO O*i 00
rH CN
, ^_,— -,
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
rHoo OOOOCN r~.r~-
men rHrHOOfO rH
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
AM r, f, f, n «t«i
OO CO CN *3* *^ *«O CO O
OOrH rOrHOOO\ VOCT\
COO1 i-HrOOOrH O\CN^
r-T rn" CN"
rH
CO Tt O
H 13 C
cu cd cu
5 13 60
Q) cd rH (3
CO O Cd -H
J-l 60 4-1
rl rH CU CJ
O 'rl iJ O
4J Cd O
pt fvj n
CU CO Xl
0 XI (U C
rl fl CO O Cd
cu cd cu -H
4J -H > C
C3 « 4-i MO
M >N 'rl Q) -H
Cd rH O CUMA3 ftCU-rllSE-i
cd t-i >O C B CO 60
-------
E*.
4-> CM
d
3
U -H
4-1
cu cd
ri C
CS M
& CU
cd 4-i
H r-l
a) cd
cu en
4J «
CU
rl >
O -H
IH 4->
cd
^ a
SH i-i
o a)
M cO
CU (3
IS O
CU -rl
(U
l-l Pi
o
•U CO
ft 3
(U ,0
o S
ri 3
4J O
rj C_J
M I
CU 4->
,fi -H
4-1 O
<4H
O
CO
o
CM
cu
CO
cd
PL,
H
cu
co
cd
rC
PH
60
C
•H
a
i
rH
*4H
O
CO
cu
co
cd
PH
in
•
in
m
•
f—i
•a
c
•H
4J
•rl
0
CO
ft
O
60
•H
c
cd
t-H
4J
CO •
O t-l
O >>
a^
t^( c4
•H
O
rH C
cd -H
4J
•H 4-1
ft CO
Cd O
U O
4J
CO
O >-i
U >i
53 •c/5-
t£J Cj
•H
0
<-H C
cd -H
4-1
•rl 4-*
ft CO
cd o
U U
co
4-)
CO
o
o
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ 1
/ 4J
/ rH
/ CO
/ o
/ °
0 O O
o o o
0 1 O 1 1 O
1 » 1 1
ro *^" r^
O m "")
i-H vo r^
^
o o oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
f, ft n r, r, r, t* *
rHoo cooo-* r^oo
inco i — icooo
rH
CO 13 O
ri a a
cu cd cu
S t3 °0
CU cd H (3
CO O Co -rl
>-< 60 4-1
rl rH CIJ f5
O -H i-J O
4J cd a
ft Pi -
CU CO T3
0 T3 CU pi
>-l 0 CO O Cd
CU Cd CU -rl
4J -H t> a
i3 » jj WO
H >i -H CU -rl
Cd rH 00 4J
13 3 'rl Cd
O ^3 CO O 60 rl
rH (3 60 60 cd !3 4J
fn -H -H C ft, CO -H W
cd EC -H CO 4-> rl -H J
>,S coa)60f3(lJ!3 O CUS-143 P4CU-HT3H
Cd S-i >O C 0 CO 60
-------
>»
•u rn
C
3
U -rl
4-1
cu cfl
V< C
« u
& (U
cfl 4-1
H rH
0) n)
°-§
(!) W
CU
Vi >
O iH
Vi Vi
o cu
4J rH
!2!
rH
CU C
CU -H
V5 60
CU
Vl Pi
O
4-1
co
0. 3
a) ,0
u
n
CU
M-l 0)
0 IK
o a)
u o
•H
rn
0)
I
CM
cU
co
ct)
p-l
H
CU
Cfl
cfl
P-i
60
C
•rl
C
Cfl
rH
P-i
o
CO
CU
to
cfl
P-l
y
m
•
m
m
•
rH
13
6
•rl
^i
4-1
•H
0
cfl
CU
C_}
60
C
•H
i
rH
P-l
>
CD •
O S-i
0 >,
S
rH C
Cfl -rH
•rl 4J
O- CO
Cfl O
U U
4-J
CO •
O t->
u t^
a
•H
O
rH C!
cfl -H
H^J
•H 4J
PH CO
tfl O
o o
CO
CO
O
o
/
/
/
/
/
/ CO
fj
/ 4-J
/ H
IJ
/ m
/ o
/ u
O 0 O
O 0 0
0 O O
LO O"N *^"
00 ro CM
rH CSI
' ^ >
o o o o o o o
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
rHoo oorHOcg r~-r-^
tncO i — IrHOOCO i — l*d"
OOCO rHCMCMrH COCN
»l »• *\
m rH oo
o o o
o o o
o o o
CO O^ G"N
in rH vD
J J
T^ P~l
^JS^
/ ^
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
!"•- r*- CNlO-J"iH OQ
A «t **
00 rH rH
rH
CO 13 O
vi c c
CU cfl 0)
S 13 60
0) Cfl rH C
CO O Cfl -H
H 60 4J
Vi H CU C
O iH J O
f*\| p^ •%
CU CO 13
a 13 cu C
v> c to On)
CU Cfl 0) -rl
4-J -H f> C
c - 4-1 vi o
IH >-, -rl CU -rl
Cfl rH C/D 4J
S & -H cfl
O J3 CO O 60 Vi
rH fl 60 60 cfl (- 4J
IJH -rl -H C pn CO -H CO J
cfl S -H CO 4J Vi *rt o ajvi rd cu cu -HIS
cfl Vi >O C g CO &0
-------
C
3 CO
o >
CJ -H
4-1
O -rl
O 0)
12 ^
4-1 rH
0) •<
M tO
CO C
£ O
Q) -H
CO M
Pi
t-l
O
•U CO
o 6
M 3
u nt
CO rH
O 0)
U Q
(30
r-H
ro
a;
CS
0)
CO
CO
PH
rH
O)
CO
a
PH
60
C
•H
C
3
rH
PH
o
CO
Q)
a
.a
PH
m
m
m
•
i-H
60
e
0
•H
f*.
4J
•H
O
CO
cO
O
Pf
•H
CO
rH
PH
/
4J
CO •
O l-i
cj >,
g -co-
c£j £5
•H
o
<0-
•H C
CO iH
4-1
•H 4-1
ex co
CO O
U CJ
CO •
O l-i
cj >-,
S
rH C
CO -H
4J
•H 4J
CX CO
CO O
O CJ
CO
CO
0
/
/
/
/
/ 5
/ 1 1
/
/
1 1
CO
O
0 O O
O 0 0
o o o
vO CO ""^
00 "* ^
^^ iH
^ ~"^ -,
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
rHOO OOrHOCM r^r^
in CO rH rH 00 OO rH ^^
OOCN rHCMCSiH COCS
9\ •* **
10 rH 00
O O O
0 O 0
o o o
rH* r~T oo
in CN r^
H <~t
f *x ^
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
oo oooo oo
t\ ft ******** *l *>
O^ CNIlOCNlr-H COf^*
iTjvO rnOO>ON O-3"
O rH rO CN rH (^ CTi
* ** **
/TV i [
rH
CO 13 t^
0) cfl C
S tJ
rj » 4-1 WC
M f^ -H CO 0
CO rH CO -H
£ £: -H 4J
O ,£! CO O 60 cfl J
f£ -S -rl C fH CO -H CD H
CO S3 -H co 4J l-i -H O
4-1 "WrHCCOOJ-H
•H (U MO O-H 6 P)0
> O COM J! fX CO -HT3
CO l-i >CJ 0 0 CO 60<
IH O *H cO 3 tO C
CJ fe p^ S PH W W
m
C
o
o
cu
o
M
3
o
CO
3-95
-------
Table 3-19. Costs of Various Subalternatives of the
Delaware County-Delaware City-Columbus
Regional Alternative
Subalternative
1
2
3
4
Present Worth
in $
24,024,000
32,428,000
22,961,000
21,821,000
Equivalent Annual
Cost in $/yr
1,902,000
2,567,000
1,818,000
1,727,000
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
Table 3-20. Incremental Costs of Using the Columbus Southerly Plant as
the Regional Plant for the Delaware County-Delaware City-
Columbus Regional Alternative
^•^ Phases
Cost Items
Incremental
Annual 0 &
of Planning
Incremental Flow
Xx^ in mgd
Capital Cost in $
M Cost in $/yr.
Phase 1
1.5
700,000
26,000
Phase 2.
4.0
1,800,000
92,000
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-96
-------
phases of the planning. Tables 3-15 through 3-18 give the
^Pr costs for the system requirements and the annual 0 & M costs
for various subalternatives. The results are summarized in
Table 3-19 which shows subalternative four to be the most
economical alternative, if sewer capacity is available.
This regional alternative would use the Columbus South-
erly Plant as the regional plant, and would have the same
water quality effects as discussed in Secion 9 of this
chapter for the southern Delaware County - Columbus regional
alternative.
Under dry weather conditions, the Olentangy River would
be subject to adverse stresses in terms of water quality,
because of the relatively tremendous water diversion from
the Olentangy River to the Scioto River. At the last stage
of the project development, this regional alternative would
have approximately 50 percent more water diversion than the
southern Delaware County - Columbus regional alternative.
Under most probable conditions, there would be some in-
direct impacts on water quality due to water diversion, but
they would not be significant. The amount of water diversion
would be 2.3% and 8.3% of the median flow in the first year,
for the first and second plant phases.
As far as the water quality effect on the Scioto River
are concerned, they would not be significant for the same
reasons presented for the southern Delaware County - Columbus
regional alternative.
3-97
-------
This regional alternative would require construction of
a bigger gravity flow sewer trunk from the Delaware S.T.P.
site to the Delaware - Franklin County line than that re-
quired by the southern Delaware County - Columbus regional
alternative. Therefore, more water quality would result from
this regional alternative in terms of erosion and siltation
because more land surface would be exposed.
As indicated in the southern Delaware County - Columbus
regional alternative, no significant noise and odor problems
could be identified, because the existing capacity of the
Columbus Southerly Plant would outweigh the sewage flow from
southern Delaware County and the City of Delware combined.
d. l!lstitutigjTia^_C^nj>^dej^a^ion!3
Delaware County, Delaware City, and Columbus can contract
among each other to treat Delaware County's and Delaware
City's sewage in an expanded Columbus Southerly Plant. This
contract can be effected by Delaware County contracting with
Columbus in the manner previously described, and by Delaware
County contracting with Delaware City as provided by the same
laws, Sections 6117.41 and 307.15 of the Ohio Revised Code,
as previously discussed. In addition, Delaware City would
have to contract with Columbus in the same manner that Delaware
County did unless Delaware County assumed responsibility for
Delaware City's sewage system as provided for by Section 307.15
of the Ohio Revised Code.
The Delaware County - Delaware City - Columbus alter-
native can be legally implemented, but the same obstacles
exist to its implementation that exist for the Delaware
3-98
-------
County - Delaware City and Delaware County - Columbus
alternatives. Delaware City does not wish to phase out its
newly remodeled plant and Delaware County and Columbus, be-
cause of financial and other attitudinal reasons, probably
cannot enter into the needed contractual agreement. It would
certainly be even more difficult to successfully negotiate among
three parties than two parties all the required financial and
legal contracts.
11. Conser_vancy_Dis t r_ic t
In the previous discussion of alternatives, only existing
institutions were considered. However, there are other institu-
tions which can be formed for the implementation of the proposed
wastewater treatment plan, especially if a regional approach is
adopted. Ohio law provides for Conservancy Districts, Sanitary
Districts, and Regional Water and Sewer Districts. Sanitary
Districts and Regional Water and Sewer Districts exist in var-
ious parts of Ohio, but in no case do they have multi-county
jurisdiction. However, there is one present case in Ohio
where regional, multi-county approach to wastewater treatment
is being implemented by a Conservancy District.
Section 6101 of the Ohio Revised Code provides for the
creation of Conservancy District. Section 6101.04 of the
Ohio Revised Code states that "any area or areas situated in
one or more counties may be organized as a conservancy district"
for a variety of purposes, including "the collection and dis-
posal of sewage and other liquid wastes produced within the
district". Ohio law enables Conservancy Districts to borrow
fundssd from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for their
3-99
-------
incidental expenses and to levy assessments on all real property
and on all public corporations upon which benefits have been
appraised in order to fund their official plan.
A Conservancy District encompassing several counties
has been in operation in the Miami Valley of southwestern
Ohio for at least 50 years. Although originally established
for flood control, the Miami Conservancy District recently
submitted three Facilities Plans to the Ohio EPA. One of
these plans includes a service area encompassing part of War-
ren and Montgomery Counties.
If a Conservancy District was established to include
Franklin and Delaware Counties and to handle the wastewater
treatment problems for that area, many of the institutional
problems associated with both the nonregional and regional
alternatives discussed in this chapter would be eliminated.
The need for agreements between unwilling parties would be
eliminated as one entity would be given responsibility for
the collectioion and treatment of wastewater regardless of
municipal or county borders. There is, however, one major
obstacle in Delaware and Franklin Counties. Under 6101 of
the Ohio Revised Code, a Conservancy District can only be
created on the initiative of the communities involved and
can only service municipalities which explicitly desire
service. It is unlikely that the parties involved would
take this initiative at this time.
As discussed previously, Delaware County, Delaware City,
and Columbus each have their own sewage systems. They have
invested much money and effort in their present systems and
3-100
-------
in the development of future plans. These parties would pro-
bably not surrender their autonomy regarding sewer service,
especially to an entity which would have the power to tax
them. Finally, the strained relations which exist between
Delaware County and Columbus make the creation of a Conservancy
District in the area in the near future all but impossible.
A Conservancy District would be a means to implement the
proposed plant in any of the alternative locations by avoiding
the need for negotiation between antagonistic parties. Yet,
negotiations between these parties would be necessary for
the creation of a Conservancy District.
*-*• Treatment Process Alternatives
1. T£eatment_and_Discha£ge_to_Su£face_Waters
A high degree of treatment is required for this facility
to protect surface waters. A biological treatment alternative
would be a two-stage conventional activated sludge treatment
facility followed by tertiary rapid sand filters. Phosphorus
reduction is also necessary and will be incorporated within
this system. The overall facility would include comminution,
raw sewage pumping, first stage aeration tanks and clarifiers
for carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) reduction,
second stage aeration tanks and clarifiers for ammonia-nitrogen
reduction, tertiary sand filters, chlorination, post aeration,
and sludge treatment. Facilities for feeding chemicals for
phosphorus reduction would also be provided. The treatment
process is shown schematically in Figure 3-23. Initial sizing
would be 1.5 MGD with a peak capacity of 3,4 MGD.
3-101
-------
Some regional treatment plant alternatives would utilize
existing treatment facilities at Columbus. The two major
sewage treatment plants in Columbus are activated sludge
facilities. The Jackson Pike Wastewater Treatment Plant
currently treats a dry weather average daily flow of about
80 MGD. The Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant has a dry
weather average daily flow of about 45 MGD. Each of the
facilities consists of grit removal tanks, preaeration tanks,
primary tanks, aeration tanks, final settling tanks, and
chlorine contact tanks. A 3.0 MGD plant, with peak capacity
of 4.5 MGD, will be required by the end of the 20-year plan-
ning period. The population to be served by the facility is
projected to be 328,591. The plans for the initial 1.5 MGD
plant would be flexible enough to allow subsequent additions
of any size desired.
2 • Wastewater Reuse
Wastewater effluent reuse for industry, such as cooling
or quenching, or commercial activities, such as golf courses,
sod production, Christmas tree production, or hay production,
are local possibilities. However, the effluent quality required
for these reuse considerations may vary along with the quantity
that can be utilized. At present, there are no known potential
industrial or commercial users available in south-central
Delaware County to reuse any wastewater effluent.
Land for the irrigation apporach to land application require-
ments for moderately permeable soils, with good productivity when
irrigated, would range from 62-560 acres per million gallons per
3-102
-------
day, plus buffer zones. Needed depth to groundwater is about
five feet. Generally, the soils in Delaware County do not
meet these requirements, as indicated in the County Soil Survey.
Due to the climatic conditions any irrigation would have
to be combined with an overland flow approach or storage lagoon
when the ground is frozen or when the irrigation approach is
hampered by natural' rainfall. The Soil Survey lists under
irrigation soil features that the soils generally are of slow
or moderately slow permeability with medium to high water
holding capacity.
Secondary treatment plus chlorination, or its equivilent,
would be required prior to land treatment by one of two methods:
a. disposal on the soil, with the impacts on groundwater
not to exceed Federal Drinking Water Standards.
b. disposal on the soil, with underdrains and sub-
sequent discharge of the effluent to surface waters.
The nearest suitable site for land disposal of sewage
has been shown in Figure 2-1. The site lies northwest of the
intersection of State Route 203 and Watkins Road, and would
require force main transport of wastewaters from southern
Delaware County.
4. Add^tiona]^_Tr_eatment_Prqcesses
More specialized treatment may be desirable to protect
the surface waters with certain discharge alternatives to
the Olentangy. These include additional control measures
for chlorine, ammonia, and total dissolved solids, and will
be discussed in Chapter 4.
3-103
-------
.<-
Chlorinators
and Surqe Tank
Raw
Sewage
1st Stage
recycle Clajifters
1st Stage
Aeration
SIudge
Aerobic
Digesters
pumps
2nd Stage
Clarifiers
Ultimate
Sludge
Disposal
o
o
o
a
an
an
an
Rapid
Sand
Filters
recycle
River
Post-Aeration
Tanks
Figure 3-23. Diagram of the Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
3-104
-------
The sludge produced by a wastewater treatment plant
is a watery mass of putrescible solids containing harmful
bacteria. This mass must be converted into a form that
can be disposed without creating a public nuisance.
Three things must be done to the sludge before it reaches
its ultimate disposal site: (1) The organic material in
the sludge must be oxidized so that it will not create
odors; (2) The pathogenic bacterial in the sludge must
be killed; and (3) Most of the water in the sludge should
be removed so that it can be handled economically.
There are a variety of processes used in treating sludge:
!• ^ickening This process concentrates the liquid sludge
by gravity or air floatation.
2- Cojidit,_ioninc[ Conditioning sludge produces dewatering
when the organic material is broken down and water is released.
This may be accomplished by chemical conditioning, biological
digestion, or heat treatment.
3* 2e_w.^§.£i.n.9_ Water is removed from the conditioned
sludge in this operation. Various methods for dewatering
include vacuum filters, centrifuges, gravity dewatering units
and filter presses, and sand drying beds.
4. Pa£tial_Disposal Incineration will oxidize all of
the volatile solids in the sludge and produces an inert ash.
5« Ultimate_Disposal_ sludge may be spread on land or
disposed in a sanitary landfill.
The various sludge treatment processes have been combined
into several possible alternatives for this project.
3-105
-------
Plan J\
Aerobically biologically digest sludge is applied to farmland
in a liquid form. The sludge would be hauled from the treatment
facility to farmland by truck. This land disposal of sludge
has the advantage of recycling the nutrients contained in the
sludge. Arrangements for farmland availability would have
to be made for successful utilization of this alternative.
The site would have to be carefully chosen and monitored, to
avoid possible contamination of groundwater from sludge com-
ponents. Standby equipment would be provided so that sludge
could be dewatered for hauling to a sanitary landfill during
wet periods. Landfilling wastes the nutrient value of the
sludge, however.
Plan_B
Aerobically biologically digest dewatered sludge is applied
to farmland. Transportation, land availability and nutrient
cycling considerations would be similiar to those of Plan A.
A sanitary landfill may be used for disposal when farmland
is not available or frozen.
Plan_C
Aerobically biologically digested sludge is disposed in a
sanitary landfill. Transportation would be again by truck,
but no arrangements for farmland are necessary. A suitable
large and environmentally secure landfill site must be avail-
able. Nutrients would not be returned to productive use.
Plan_D
This provides for chemical conditioning of sludge prior
to incineration. Thickeners precede the vacuum filtration
3-106
-------
of the sludge and its chemical conditioning. A holding tank
would be provided to store thickened sludge prior to vacuum
filtration. After conditioning the sludge it would be in-
cinerated and stored, before its ultimate disposal in an ap-
propriate sanitary landfill. The exhaust gases form the in-
cinerator could be a potential source of air pollution and
nutrients would also not be returned to agricultural use.
Plan_E
This provides for heat treatment prior to the incineration
of the sludge. First, the sludge would be thickened and then
it would undergo the heat treatment for conditioning. A gravity
thickener would then concentrate the sludge further and also
allow it to cool and depressurize. Relatively small vacuum
filters would then be required to dewater the sludge prior
to incineration, and the ultimate disposal of the ash would
be in an appropriate sanitary landfill. This alternative may
have an air pollution potential from incineration and ties
up the nutrients in a landfill.
Regional
If a regional treatment plan were chosen, utilizing existing
treatment facilities at Columbus, sludge would be thickened,
digested, heat treated, vacuum filtered, and incinerated.
F. Discharge Point Alternatives
1 • 2!dt f al 1 _Locat :Lon
For the treatment plant site location at OR-3, between the
Olentangy River and Route 315, the discharge point proposed in
the Facilities Plan is adjacent to the plant, immediately above
the Delaware-Franklin County line. An additional alternative,
3-107
-------
designed to avoid the Scenic River segment, would be a location
south of the 1-270 interchange and below the artificial riffles
area of the Olentangy. Figure 3-7 illustrates these two routes.
2 • Out fall De s ic[n
Several outfall designs may be considered for this project.
Tsai (1971) studied the four types of outfall designs in Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania, shown in Figure 3-24. Because Type I
was located on one side of the river, its effluent mixed gradu-
ally downstream toward the opposite bank. Type II, located in
the center of the river on the bottom, permitted mixing of the
effluent downstream toward both banks. Type III consisted of two
concrete barriers, each built out from one side of the stream,
allowing the sewage to discharge into the middle of the stream
and providing for thorough mixing of the effluent. Type IV had
multiple outlet ports across the river bottom. Tsai found Types
III and IV to have higher dilution efficiencies than Type I.
G- No_Action
The no action alternative would continue to utilize on-lot
waste disposal systems—septic tanks and small aerobic package
plants—in south-central Delaware County.
In October, 1974, the county adopted home sewage disposal
regulations. One acre minimum lots are required for new systems.
New subdivisions of more than four lots must have a central sew-
age collection and disposal system. Construction requirements are
outlined for the various types of disposal systems. This should
result in the construction of better functioning systems within
the county, if the ordinanace is appropriately enforced. However,
3-108
-------
TYPE I
WATER FLOW
TYPE II
TYPE III
TYPE IV
er
Figxjre 3-24. Sewage Outfalls Typed According To Locations and
Methods of Sewage Dilution in Stream
Source: Tsai, 1971
3-109
-------
the older systems will remain in use within the county. Periodic
maintance of all types of on-site systems is essential to their
proper functioning.
3-110
-------
CHAPTER 4
FINAL SELECTION PROCESS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. No Action
The no action alternative would result in the continued
use of septic tanks and small package plants of variable
treatment efficiency. Some continuing surface water pollu-
tion and nuisance conditions would be expected, due to the
poor soil permeability for on-lot systems, and the poor re-
liability of package plants. Newly built septic systems
should be more appropriate to local conditions, due to the
stringent county septic tank ordinance. However, substantial
water quality problems in the Olentangy River have been due to
loading from the Delaware City treatment plant above Powell Road.
Consistent operation of their new facility would aid in improving
water quality in the stream, particularly above Powell Road.
The county septic tank ordinance will encourage spotty
patches of development on large lots, with four or fewer
adjacent lots, unless the subdivision is served by its own
package plant. Construction of low to moderate-cost housing
would be difficult because of these sewage treatment require-
ments. Continued population growth would be expected to
occur without central sewage treatment facilities, but pro-
bably at a slower rate.
Reduction Measures
Emphasizing flow reduction measures would not eliminate
the need to consider a new central sewage system for the area,
because no interceptors presently exist. Utilizing flow
reduction would have result similar to the "no action"
4-1
-------
alternative. In tact, increasing water use is anticipated
in the area, from better availability, via the Del Co water
system, and population growth in the area.
c • TLiitment_P1 ^.ntJiJ i_tes
1. Local Alternatives
In Section C-2 through C-7 of Chapter 3 four possible treat-
ment plant sites were selected on the basis of a preliminary
screening each geographical area. These sites were:
* AC-1, on Alum Creek, near Powell Road
* OR-1, south of the 1-270 Outerbelt
* OR-7, on Powell Road near Powell
* OR-3, on the Olentangy, 1 mile south of Powell Road
Site AC-1 can be eliminated because of adverse impacts
on Alum Creek. While Alum Creek Dam has the same guaranteed
minimum release as the Delaware Reservoir, the average stream
flows are less than the Olentangy. The Olentangy is the source
for the surface water consumed in the service area and the use
of site AC-1 would divert the effluent to another basin. Some
additional pumping costs would be incurred to pump wastes from
both the Scioto and Olentangy basins to Alum Creek. The outfall
of the treatment facility would be above a water supply intake
for Westerville, possibly polluting this water source. 'Creating
a long mitigative outfall to a point below Westerville on Alum
Creek would be difficult because of the lack of a suitable
state highway right-of-way. Advantages to utilizing AC-1 include
reduction of impact on parklands, and possible reduction of
biological impacts. The latter is difficult to judge because
the biology of the Olentangy has been much more thoroughly
4-2
-------
studied than that of Alum Creek. In addition, Alum Creeek
is presumably undergoing some ecological changes as a result
of the newly constructed reservoir.
Site OR-1 has the advantages of isolation from parklands
and of discharging below the Olentangy Scenic River segment.
Problems with this site include only temporary isolation
from residential areas, and the necessity of setting up a
new sewer district with a portion of Franklin County, with
resulting legal and institutional complications. Extra ex-
penses from additional sewer construction and uphill pumping
would be incurred. A similar discharge point below the Scenic
River segment could be utilized with other treatment plant
sites.
Site OR-7 also has the advantage of being located away
from parkland, and being comparatively isolated from resi-
dential development, tor the present time. It would require
no modifications of the present sewer district. Some extra
engineering and operating costs would be encountered from
building force mains to pump the sewage uphill from the
Olentangy valley to the plant site, and tor the longer out-
fall back to the river. Impact to water quality and aquatic
life in the Olentangy would depend upon the exact outfall
location chosen. Impacts of construction on the Barthlomew
Run area could be negative, unless appropriate conservation
measures were practiced. Isolation at this site may only
be temporary, as the Powell area expands. The site is lo-
cated near one of the proposed activity centers of Powell's
land use plan.
4-3
-------
Site OR-3, selected in the Facilities Plan, is the basic
site used here for engineering cost comparisons. It is gen-
erally isolated from residential land uses, but is directly
west of the river adjacent to Highbanks Metropolitan Park.
Existing river bottom trees, vegetation, and topography screen
the site from the view from most parts of the park. Most of the
site is likwise visually screened from the Highbanks overlook
area. Maintenance of residential isolation would depend on
future landuse decisions relating to the conversion of farmland
to suburban uses. Likewise, the future maintenance of the vista
from the Highbanks overlook depends on these land use decisions.
As with site OR-7, the impact on the Olentangy will depend
upon the outfall location. Noise and odor from the facilities
would be highly controlled at any of the sites chosen.
Of the local alternatives, OR-3 is the preferred one.
2. Regional Alternatives
Regional alternatives have been presented in section C-8
through C-ll of Chapter 3. Figure 4-1 gives a cost comparison
for the regional configurations and a comparison with the local
alternative at site OR-3.
The subalternatives regionalizing Delaware City and Dela-
ware County are clearly the most expensive and would involve
upstream discharge points on the Olentangy. This would pollute
the Scenic River segment and have an adverse effect on stream
life and the endangered aquatic animal species. This set of
alternatives may be readily eliminated.
The alternatives for Delaware City, Delaware County and
Columbus would be moderate in cost if existing gravity in-
4-4
-------
Ol
> CO
4-1 0
Cfl
e s
H) -H
4-1 c/3
1
HH
<1 oo
c
^H -H
3 -H
4J o cfl
COS
3 1 l-i
o ;>-,
U 4-1 4-1
j i
•rl r-l
CD O <1
!^
Cfl N J— )
4J Cfl
c c
3 CO ^
0 3 cu
d i
Delaware
- Colur
egional A]
PS
0)
t>
4J 4-1 4-1
S -H cfl
3 0 C
0 r4
CJ Q) O)
' t< 4 l
i^ ij
M -» «•»
•H -H -H
s s s
E £ E
41 41 V
^ *(0 (d
1 II
v v >( y
o o o ofo
o ° o o 2
o o o o o
* * « • *
ov ^- co **"*
- * -
S S s
«^ •-» •*
1 II
4) 1 41 QJ
•3 'S ?
« •§!•§•§
W (A M , CA : V>
V 1r V V1 '
5*
o
o
m
00
s
C4
41
•H
4J
3
' M
S
rH
1
1 v v
o "~i o in c
CO CN CN rH f
co
CU
•H
W
Cfl
(3 10
CU O\
4J rH
•H
*A _
^
CO U
3 C
O M
•H
t-> «
Cfl rH
> o
4^ "W
o c
o
CD U
4-1
CO O
O Vi
0 -H
• £
rH
1
"*
-------
terceptors could be utilized in Franklin County. If force mains
were to be used, for reasons of existing sewer capacity and the
long distance of sewage travel, the project would be much more
costly. This site alternative would involve abandoning the new
treatment facility at Delaware City and would necessitate major
institutional and financial arrangements between Franklin and
Delaware Counties.
The regional alternatives involving Delaware County and
Columbus would be the most promising alternative on the basis
of cost. If gravity interceptors could be used, the project
costs would be comparatively very low. Even if a force main
were necessary, costs would be comparable to the local alter-
native at site OR-3. Similar institutional and financial alter-
natives between the two counties would have to be implemented
for this alternative.
Evaluating the choice between gravity sewers and force mains
is difficult at this time. Presently a study of Columbus's exis-
ting sewer capacity is underway, and it is difficult to interpret
the present status of sewer utilization. At this time, however,
it is our understanding that there is a capacity "bottleneck"
in the downtown Columbus area interceptors that limitg capacity
during storm periods, between the northern part of Franklin
County and the existing Franklin County treatment plants.
The major interceptors along the Scioto, Olentangy and Alum
Creek have been sized to serve only Franklin County at their
ultimate design capacity. While there would be room for im-
mediate utilization if these sewers were extended into Delaware
County, there would not be a guarantee of long-term capacity,
4-6
-------
so additional sewers would have to be constructed at a later
date. Thus the most feasible regional alternative would be
subalternative 2 for Delaware County and Columbus, utilizing
a force main to transport sewage to Columbus.
3. Compar ison of Local &. Regional Alternatives
Comparing the environmental impacts of local and regional
alternatives is difficult because of the more intensive past
study of impacts in Delaware County. Presently Columbus is
preparing its Facilities Plan, and from that study a better
understanding will emerge of the impacts of the two major
Columbus area sewage treatment plants on the Scioto River.
Downstream from Columbus the Scioto is degraded from the
effluent of the two secondary treatment plants. Adding the
flows from the service area of the Olentangy Environmental
Control Center would increase the pollutant load here only
slightly (only about 2.8 % of the capacity of the Southerly
Plant at the 3 MGD phase). However, it appears that Columbus
will have difficulty in achieving water quality standards on
the Scioto, even with the present volume of effluent. The
upstream reaches of the Olentangy would not be polluted by
this effluent but would receive correspondingly less flow,
since the wastewater would be returned to the river system
farther downstream. Existing treatment plant sites would be
used, thereby generating no additional land use conflicts.
Some new force mains would have to be built to accommodate
the additional flow.
Extensive legal, economic, and institutional arrange-
ments would have to be made to implement this alternative.
4-7
-------
Neither Delaware County nor Columbus are promoting regional
sewage treatment for Franklin and Delaware Counties at the
present time, discussed in Chapter 3.
The local alternative is preferred to the regional alter-
native. The costs of both systems are comparable (see Figure
4-1). Water quality considerations are important at either
location. With proper mitigative measures, (see section G-3
of this chapter) impact to the Olentangy River at the OR-3
site will be greatly reduced wheras discharge below Columbus
would aggrevate the existing water quality problem. Con-
structing new sewers through Columbus would cause extensive,
although temporary, disruptions in traffic.
D*
The proposed Phase I of the interceptor system is desirable
to protect drinking water supplies at the Westerville and Alum
Creek Reservoirs. Package plants at recreation sites would
provide only a temporary solution to the area sewage treatment
needs. Furthermore, they would discharge directly into the
reservoir and provide less reliable treatment than would the
larger facility. Sewage treatment lagoons are also a short-term
possibility, but would require larger amounts of land.
The present population of southern Delaware County is
predominantly scattered along the major roads, rather than
clustered in villages. As discussed in Section B-l, Chapter 3,
this makes it difficult to serve the existing population in
an efficient manner. The Village of Powell is one population
center adjacent to the proposed treatment plant site which
4-8
-------
could be served in Phase I with a minimum of additional interceptor
construction and this is recommended because of the population den-
sity and existing problems in the area. These changes are noted
in Figure 4-2. It would be desirable to include the population
center of Shawnee Hills in Phase I as well. However, this
would involve extensive intererceptor construction, including
the pump station to lift the sewage into the Olentangy basin
from the Scioto basin, greatly increasing costs. Application
for a Step 2 grant for the development of detailed plans and
specifications for the sewers to the Village of Powell should
be initiated/ so that this area may be included in Phase I.
2. Construction Alternatives
As discussed in Section B-2 of the last chapter, gravity
sewers are preferred over force mains, whenever this layout is
practical. Major pumping will be necessary to lift the sewage
from the Scioto and Alum Creek Basins into the Olentangy Basin.
Some force mains will be used in other parts of the system,
particularly around Alum Creek Reservoir to serve desired areas.
The recommended interceptor configuration is shown in Figure
4-2. This includes the additions in the Powell area to the new
Phase I. The location of the outfall sewer line will depend
upon the choice made for the outfall site, as discussed subse-
quently in Section G of this chapter.
3• Stream Crossings
The currently planned interceptor configuration has 3
crossings on Alum Creek (two in Phase I and two in Phase II)
and 10 crossings of the Olentangy River (two for Phase I, two
for Phase II, and six for Phase III). On the Olentangy, five
4-9
-------
Interceptors-Proposed Coni
N
Figure 4- 2
« » » t • » « I GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY PHASE I
IIIIIIIIII
GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY PHASE II
GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY PHASE III
... GRAVITY SEWERS,
CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS
•••••••• FORCE MAIN SEWERS PHASE I
MMMMMMMMMMW FORCE MAIN SEWERS PHASE II
= — = = FORCE MAIN SEWERS PHASE III
o
REGIONAL WASTE WATER
LIFT STATION
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
Scale in Feet
~^
0 3000 6000 9000 1200
4-10
-------
of the crossings occur above Home Road and five occur at or
below Home Road. These two areas are substantially different
in both topography and the availability of highway rights-of-way.
The topography below Home Road on the east bank of the river
is much steeper than upstream and is interrupted by a substan-
tial number of gulleys and small waterways. Shale lies near
the surface in this area. It would be difficult and expensive
to lay a sewer line entirely on the east bank in this area.
Because there is no highway rightof-way on the east bank, it
would be necessary to locate the sewer line through forested
areas. Some damage to the wooded area would result. The five
river crossings in this southern area are therefore justifiable
insofar as both costs and adverse environmental impacts would
be less than those incurred by the alternative of dual inter-
ceptors.
North of Home Road, however, the emplacement of an interceptor
line along both east and west banks would serve to eliminate five
river crossings with some additional impact on the terrestrial
environment. The topography here is less steep than further
downstream, and Perry, Taggart, and Chapman Roads could provide
convenient rights-of-way for the line. With the use of two
lines the required size of each interceptor would be less.
However, this alternative would generate more sediment and
erosion problems than would a single interceptor, and would
be more costly. Therefore, we would recommend construction
of the single interceptor.
Emplacement of stream crossings should be determined from
engineering, topographic, and environmental considerations.
4-11
-------
Permits trom the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are required
for crossings of navigable waters. Engineering and topographic
limitations have been well considered in the presently designed
southern stream crossings. No information is available concerning
aquatic life distribution on a fine geographic scale for the
area streams. No particular short stretches of river are known
to possess important habitat requirements compared to others.
Therefore, recommendations for small changes in interceptor
crossing locations cannot be made. The safest way to compensate
for this gap in information is to reduce impact of the crossings
through well-chosen construction phasing and techniques.
Well-planned construction phasing takes into consideration
the adverse effects of construction sites on which work is
delayed awaiting construction elsewhere. These delays usually
result trom attempts to reduce costs of mobilizing earth moving
equipment by clearing all sites at once. Under such circumstances
the savings are often obliterated by increased costs generated
by erosion and sedimentation. In this case, such a policy would
result in an increased load of sediments and pollutants washed
into the stream as well as onto adjoining farm, residential,
or forested areas. A preferred phasing policy would call for
completion of all construction phases on each river crossing
site or on small segments o*f line construction before proceeding
to the next section. This will prove more expensive in short-
term costs but advantageous in the long run because it would
minimize pollution runoff and lengthy habitat disturbance.
Stream crossing construction techniques may involve diver-
sion or partial diversion of the river. Total diversion of the
4-12
-------
Olentangy River or of Alum Creek would be unwise and unnecessary
due to the lack of a suitable diversion course and the low
water volume in the river. Other possible techniques involve
either partial diversion with temporary impoundments, dredging,
or boring under the riverbed.
Diversion of half of the river at a time is the method
recommended for this project. This entails building an em-
bankment completely around the construction channel for half
of the river width at a time. Both the building of the embank-
ment and the channelization of the stream could cause increases
in erosion and turbidity in the stream due to increased velocity.
This would, in turn, cause some detrimental impacts on downstream
aquatic life. The impacts of this construction technique can
be reduced through:
Use of sandbags or other noneroding material for embank-
ment stabilization
Agreement with Delaware and Alum Creek Reservoirs to
keep the river near low flow
Minimal dredging
- Rapid completion of the crossing
Re-seeding and/or replanting of the vegetation of the
stream bank, combined with temporary stabilization
mater ial.
Resurfacing over the upper cement pipe casing with the
original bottom sediments and restoring the original
topographic contour of the river bottom.
These measures should all be used in conjunction in order
to achieve optimization of cost and reduction of damages.
4-13
-------
It is particularly important to leave the river bed in its
natural state after completion of construction. In this
regard, some amount of bottom sediments should be replaced
above the pipe casing as a buffer against river bed changes.
Dredging and laying the pipe in an open trench without
diversion is another possible construction technique. The
pipe can be layed in segments and the water pumped out after
completion of the crossing. This technique, however, causes
a large amount of sediment to be washed into the river and
thereby results in some disruption of river habitat. If dredg-
ing cannot be avoided, a settling basin and long effluent skim-
ming weirs with significant retention time should be provided.
The settling basin would provide tor settling of the fine silt
which must be dredged first as well as providing enough detention
time for the oxidation of sulfides (HS or H2S) into less toxic
sulfates.
Boring under the riverbed is a more expensive but more
environmentally compatible solution (Levins, 1975). In this
technique, a hole 12-20 inches larger than the pipe diameter
is bored and a steel casing inserted as the hole is drilled.
After completion of the hold and pumping, pipe is inserted
and the area between pipe and casing is filled with cement.
This technique, if properly handled, has no adverse effects
on the river, but it might have a greater effect than other
methods on the surrounding terrestrial environment and upon
erosion because a larger construction area is required.
4-14
-------
E • •tmeitoc5ssAl tenat ives
Water reuse is presently an impractical alternative in
southern Delaware County because of a lack of potential large-
scale users.
Land disposal as a possible treatment alternative is strongly
limited by general poor soil suitability and shallow depth to
bedrock. Transportation expenses to the nearest suitable site
would be high, because it is uphill and about 18 miles away
from the planning area. Many acres of land would need to pur-
chased for the disposal site. A secondary wastewater treatment
plant would be required for pre-treatment . The water withdrawn
from the Olentangy for use in the planning area would not be
returned to that stream, aggravating low flow conditions.
Treatment at the existing Columbus treatment facilities
with discharge to the Scioto River would be appropriate only
if the regional treatment plant site had been chosen. Similarly,
discharge to other streams in Delaware County - Alum Creek and
the Scioto River - would depend on those treatment sites being
chosen.
Treatment and discharge to the Olentangy River is the
recommended alternative. The biological treatment process
proposed in the Facilities Plan, and outlined in Section
D-l of Chapter 3, would be utilized. Additional treatment
methods must be considered for the protection of stream life.
The facility will be designed for 1.5 MGD initially, with a
planned expansion to 3.0 MGD. Peak flow capacities will be
2.25 and 4.5 MGD for each phase, respectively.
4-15
-------
2• Additional Treatment Alternatives
a. Aquatic Biota
The bottom dwelling (benthic) animal community in the
Olentangy River downstream from the City of Delaware is not
nearly as abundant and diverse as the grouping and number
of clean water indicator species found further downstream
at Powell Road (Oliv*e, 1975). The numbers of mayflies, stone-
flies, and caddisflies in this stretch of the river significantly
increase upon reaching the Powell Roaa area of the river and
further downstream, thus indicating the influence that the
Delaware sewage treatment plant has upon the benthic macro-
invertebrates of the river. It is apparent that the increase
of the clean-water indicators, the mayflies, stoneflies, and
caddisflies, which are also excellent fish food sources, in
the area of Powell Road marks the area of the river where
it significantly recovers from the effects of sewage effluent
from Delaware City. Sewage treatment at Delaware has been
upgraded since many of these data were collected, but the
facility is reported still to have operating difficulties
with frequent upsets, resulting in less than optimal treatment.
The fish populations in the stretch of the river between
Powell Road and the river crossing of Route 23 are similar to
those found in the Powell Road area (Griswold, 1975). This
abundant and diverse benthic population extends downstream
past the proposed plant site to the proposed plant site to
the foot of the artificial riffle-pool area at 1-270.
The largest populations of desirable tish species, such as
the sunfish, smallmouth bass, rock bass, catfish, and bullheads,
4-16
-------
are found at the artificial riffle-pool structures about 2
miles downstream from the plant site. These structures,
built to supply the fish with habitats, are effective as
indicated by the increased numbers of fish being caught by
fisherman and by electroshocking collection data for this
area. These channel modifications might also be responsible
for the greatly decreased number of naiad mollusks found in
this area. No specific data on this artificial fish habitat
area have been collected, but the benthic community in this
stretch of the river is even more abundant than that found
and described at Powell Road by Olive (1975). Presumably,
such bottom-dwelling animals as the larvae of mayflies, stone-
flies and caddisflies must be present here in large numbers
because they are essential as a food source for the fish
reported to be here. Possible impacts to this large game fish
population from the plant's discharges of chlorine and ammonia
are discussed below.
b. Impacts_from_Chlorine Discharges
The 7-day once in 10-year low flow value (4.54 cfs at the
proposed site) has been used for the calculations in deter-
ming the chlorine and ammonia concentrations in the river at
the point of plant discharge. Because future drought conditions
are possible in the area, the use and consideration of the
worst river conditions are necessary for an accurate assessment
of the possible adverse impacts to the aquatic biota of the
river from this plant.
The concentration of chlorine in the effluent of the proposed
plant is expected to be 0.5 mg/1. At 1.5 MGD the concentration
4-17
-------
of residual chlorine during a low flow period in the immediate
area downstream from the outfall would be approximately 0.17
mg/1. When the 1.5 MGD plant is expanded to 3 MGD at a future
date, the chlorine residual concentration in the immediate
area downstream from the outfall during low flow period would
be approximately 0.254 mg/1. This is slightly above the concen-
tration that causes the fish species diversity to go to zero
(0.25 mg/1) (Tsai, 1971). This would mean that only one pollu-
tant tolerant species would remain.
Combinations of chlorine with ammonia and organic matter
may occur to the detriment of aquatic life. Thus, toxicity
to aquatic life does not solely depend upon the amount of
chlorine added, but also upon the concentration of residual
chlorine remaining and on the relative amounts of free chlorine
and chloramines present. Chloramines are formed whenever
water containing ammonia, ammonium hydroxide, or ammonium
ions is chlorinated. The Fish and Wildlife Service has recom-
mended against the plant's discharge limitations in a letter
to Mr. Ned Williams, Director of the Ohio EPA (Chapter 6).
This letter refers to the recommendation by USEPA that the
concentration of residual chlorine in the receiving waters
should not exceed 0.003 mg/1 in order to protect aquatic life.
Subsequent findings indicate that warm water fish are more
tolerant to chlorine than are cold water fish. A recent sug-
gestion is that a 0.01 mg/1 level is more appropriate limit
to protect warm water fish (Brungs, 1975). Much experimental
research is continuing on this topic. Appendix I discusses
the aquatic impacts in more detail.
4-18
-------
c • Chlqr^ination-Dechlor inat ion and Ozqnat ion
The most common disinfectants are the oxidizing chemicals
such as bromine, iodine, chlorine, ozone, and other non-oxidizing
chemicals such as acids and alkalies. Bromination, chlorination,
and iodination of the sewage effluent leave bromine, chlorine,
and iodine, respectively, in the effluent. Disinfection by
addition of acids or alkalies is not effective unless the
pH value of the water is less than 3 or greater than 11. Except
for ozonation, all the disinfection treatment processes which
involve the addition of chemicals, discussed above, leave
significant amounts of dissolved solids in the effluent. These
methods are further discussed in Appendix I. It is our conclu-
sion that sulphur dioxide would be the most cost-effective
choice for this facility.
d. Impacts from^Ammqnj.a Discharges
In surface and ground waters, ammonia is usually formed
by the decay of nitrogenous organic matter. Unpolluted rivers
generally contain low ammonia concentrations, usually less
than 0.2 mg/1 as nitrogen. Ammonia is soluble in water and
reacts with it to form ammonium hydroxide, which readily
dissociates into ammonium and hydroxyl ions. This tends to
increase the pH level. At higher pH levels, the ammonium
ion readily changes to NH^ which is harmful to fish. All of
+4
the various ammonium salts are soluble in water yield NH
and an anion (Becker and Thatcher, 1973).
The toxicity of ammonium salts and ammonia to aquatic
life is related to the amount of ammonia which is a function
of the pH of the water. A relatively high concentration of
4-19
-------
ammonia in water at a low pH may not have toxic effects on
fish life, but the toxicity of the ammonia would increase
as the pH is increased. The toxicity of ammonia to fish
life is also increased significantly with a decrease in
dissolved oxygen levels.
The proposed sewage treatment plant would discharge 1.5
mg/1 of ammonia when it first goes into operation at 1.5 MGD.
At this initial stage the concentration of total ammonia upon
dilution with the river during a low flow period would be
0.51 mg/1. Then, when the plant is expanded to 3 MGD at a
future date, the concentration of total ammonia when diluted
with the river during a low flow period would be 0.76 mg/1.
These discharges would experience pH increases upon mixing
with the river water when moving downstream. Appendix I
discusses the aquatic impacts of ammonia in greater detail.
4-20
-------
From the available information presented in Appendix I,
there is a significant possibility that the fish population
of the river would be damaged by the proposed ammonia dis-
charges of this treatment plant.
e • Nitrqgen_Removal_
The chief nitrogeneous pollutants in municipal wastewaters
have been categorized (Taras et al., 1971) into three groups;
ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen, and nitrite and nitrate
nitrogen. Ammonia nitrogen in wastewater is formed by the
enzymatic breakdown of urea, proteins, and other nitrogen-
containing substances. Most of the organic nitrogen is
wastewaters is in the form of amino acids, polypeptides,
and proteins. Nitrite and nitrate are the end products of
the oxidation of ammonia in the wastewaters.
A high ammonia concentration of the order of 1.5 mg/1
may have adverse effects on some aquatic flora and fauna.
The maximum total ammonia concentration of 0.27 mg/1 in the
receiving water would be desirable to protect all aquatic
species. This means that at the dilution ratio of 0.51 for
the 3.0 MGD plant, the effluent concentration of ammonia from
the plant must not exceed 0.53 mg/1 as nitrogen.
The conventional biological treatment processes employed
by the proposed plant have a short detention time in all bio-
logical treatment units, and can have only 30 to 50 percent
efficiency will achieve a 1.5 mg/1 effluent, it is not ade-
quate to reduce the effluent to the desired level of 0.53
mg/1. Therefore, more advanced wastewater treatment processes
would have to be employed. To bring the 1.5 mg/1 effluent
4-21
-------
down to 0.53 mg/1 requires a process which can achieve 65%
removal. These nitrogen removal processed may be categorized
into biological, chemical, and physical treatment processes.
The most cost-effectiveness alternative that would provide
the necessary 65% removal is anaerobic denitrification.
Appendix I discusses ammonia removal methods.
f. Conclusions on Additional Treatment
In order to protect the high quality aquatic life of the
Olentangy River, dechlorination of the effluent is necessary
if the discharge is within the Scenic River segment. Sulfur
dioxide would be the most cost-effective method for dechlor-
ination to achieve the desired maximum of 0.01 mg/1 of chlorine
in the effluent. The ozonation alternative for disinfection is
more costly and the impacts on aquatic life are now as well
understood as are those of dechlorination.
Similarly ammonia removal is necessary to protect the Olen-
tangy streamlife within the Scenic River segment. To achieve
the desired level of 0.02 mg/1 of undissociated ammonia during
extreme low flows, removal of at least 65% of the total ammonia
from the treatment plant effluent is necessary. Anaerobic
denitrification is the most cost-effective method for achieving
this objective.
The estimated equivilent annual cost of sulfur dioxide for
dechlorination is $13,479. The annual cost for ammonia removal
by anaerobic denitrification is $44,348. Section G-3 compared
the additional treatment alternative to a mitigative outfall
location. The total cost is $57,827 per year.
4-22
-------
F. Sludge Treatment Alternatives
The regional alternative, involving existing incineration
facilities at the Columbus treatyment plants can be eliminated,
since these site alternatives are not being used.
For all of the sludge alternatives discussed in Section E
of Chapter 3, the truck transportation involved in sludge dis-
posal could create a traffic nuisance and consume energy. The
transportation units would have to secure, to prevent leaks,
spills, or create odors.
Energy and chemical requirements differ for the alternatives.
Aerobic digestion requires more electrical power than incinera-
tion or heat treatment. Fuel requirements are greatest for
incineration and heat treatment. Chemical requirements are
greatest for incineration, with dewatered aerobic sludge second,
heat treatment third, and none required for liquid aerobic sludge,
Aerobic digestion is a less complicated process than incin-
eration or heat treatment, providing for a greater ease of
operation.
Selection of a sludge process alternate is based on a variety
of considerations. It is desirable that the process of treating
sludge not produce undesirable odors or otherwise create a
nuisance, be-reliable, consume a minimum of energy resources,
produce a satisfactory product, provide some degree of flexi-
bility, and be economical. Cost-effective analysis of these
five alternatives, A through E is presented in Appendix H.
Plans A and C have similarly low present worth and average
annual equivalent costs, with Plan B coming next. It is
recommended that Plan C be implemented. Initially, the
4-23
-------
dewatered sludge can be transported to a landfill while sludge
tests are being performed and suitable sites are investigated
for either liquid or dewatered sludge application. A combin-
ation of Plans A, B, and C can be utilized in the future,
provided Plan C is implemented initially and the sludge proves
to be satisfactory foe land application.
G • Discharge Point Alternatives
A better location for the outfall in order to protect the
fish populations in the river is below the artificial fish
habitat area which is located at Highway 1-270. Placement
of the outfall below this area would ensure preservation of
those areas of the river that contain the most abundant num-
bers of the fish found there by electroshocking and creel
surveys (Griswold, 1975). The electroshocking survey shows
that from the fish habitat area of 1-270 downstream to Henderson
Road, the fish population decreases greatly because in this
reach there is slow-moving water and a silty-mud bottom. Be-
cause the more desirable game species are not found in great
numbers in this area, it is the better location for the sewage
outfall. Upstream placement of the outfall, above the county
line, would have an adverse i*mpact on the scenic segment of
the Olentangy and its biological life, and the downstream
fish habitat in the artificial riffles. Low flow periods
would be most strongly impacted, unless additional treatment
measures were undertaken.
A right-of-way for the extended outfall exists along the
State Highway 315. The precise route of the outfall will be
4-24
-------
determined when detailed plans and specifications are developed.
About 2.7 miles of 42" gravity sewer would have to be installed
at an estimated cost of $1,200,000.
A new discharge permit must be issued when this discharge
location is utilized.
The equivilent annual cost of the extended outfall is
$113,268 per year, plus a very small operation and maintenance
cost per year. The outfall pipe would last beyond the 20 year
planning period.
The alternative to the extended outfall is to discharge
adjacent to the treatment plant to the Olentnagy River, just
above the Delaware-Franklin County line. This would require
additional treatment to protect stream life.
2 • 5Ht £ ill _Des ig_n
Of the four outfall types discussed in Section F-2 of
Chapter 3, types III and IV provide a quick mixing of the
effluent and river water, but produce a zone of concentrated
sewage across the river which caused heavy fish depletion
and a barrier that adversely affected fish movement and mi-
gration. In contrast, the effluent leaving a Type I outfall
traveled a greater length of river and required a longer time
before it became completely mixed with the water across the
river. Thus, the effluent underwent a better dilution and
natural purification. The mixing zone in this type of design
contained less concentrated sewage when compared to the other
three types of outfalls. From the standpoint of fish protec-
tion, the primitive Type I outfall is a better design than
the other more complicated types (Tsai, 1971). It is recom-
4-25
-------
mended foe this project. The outfall will be submerged, in
order to prevent excess foaming.
3. Comparison With Additional Treatment Requirements
Measures must be taken to protect the high quality biota
of the Olentangy River from excessive levels of chlorine and
ammonia during periods of low streamflow. This may be ac-
complished either by additional treatment to remove these
substances or by relocating the discharge point downstream
to an area of lesser biological quality.
The treatment approach has an equivilent annual cost of
$57,827 while the outfall extension has an equivilent annual
cost of $113,268. The annual cost for the extended outfall
does not include 0 & M, which is assumed to be small.
Although the extended outfall has a higher annual cost,
it is the more cost-effective alternative. This is because
there are large nonmonetary social and environmental costs which
are not reflected in the cost comparison. The protection af-
forded the aquatic life in the Olentangy in the vicinity of the
proposed site and the artificial riffle area is considered to
be sufficient to offset the higher annual cost of an extended
outfall. While the additional treatment alternative also
provides some protection it is not as reliable as the extended
outfall.
The outfall extension will have a longer life than the
additional treatment facilities, well beyond the 20 year
planning period. It will also not have to enlarged when the
facility is expanded to 3.0 MGD.
4-26
-------
The extended outfall is the more reliable choice. The
dechlorination and ammonia removal processes may at times
malfunction and provide less than their optimal degree of
treatment. This would result in damage to the aquatic life
of the Scenic River segment.
The additional treatment alternatives are more energy-
intensive than the extended gravity outfall since to pumping
would be required.
Legal and institutional provisions exist to construct the
outfall route in the state highway right-of-way.
The extended outfall will place the effluent impacts further
downstream in the Olentangy River. Under average flow condi-
tions this should not cause any problems. However, during low
flow periods levels of chlorine and ammonia may be high enough
to adversely affect the downstream biota. These impacts would
not be as severe as if they were upstream, because of the lesser
biological value of the downstream area. Organisms may migrate
downstream from the protected upstream areas to recolonized the
downstream segments when normal flow is resumed.
H. Summary of the Proposed Action
1. Treatment Plant
The treatment facility will be located above the Delaware-
Franklin County Line, between the Olentangy River and state
route 315 (site OR-3), as proposed in the Facilities Plan. It
will initially be a 1.5 MOD plant, expanding by the end of the
20-year planning period to 3.0 MGD. Peak flows for each phase
will be 2.25 MGD and 4.5 MGD, respectively.
4-27
-------
2. Interceptors
A new system of interceptors will be built to serve the
Olentangy Environmental Control Center, in three phases. Phase
I will serve the Alum Creek Reservoir and Westerville Reservoir
areas, Powell Road east of route 315, and a residential area
north of Powell Road west of route 315 and the Village of Powell.
Phase II extends to serve additional areas south of Alum Creek
Reservoir. The south part of the O'Shaughnessey Reservoir on
the Scioto will be included at this time. Sewers will extend
up to Home Road in the Olentangy basin, branching to serve the
Carriage Road area and more of Powell. Phase III extends
around Alum Creek lake and adjacent areas; extensively along
the O'Shaughnessey Reservoir and its surrounding basin; and
in the Olentangy basin up to Delaware Township.
3. Treatment Process
Sewage treatment will be a 2-stage biological activated
sludge process, including phosphorus reduction followed by
rapid sand filtration. Disinfection will be accomplished by
chlorination. A high quality effluent will result. The dis-
charge permit for the facility is shown in Appendix I.
4. Sludge
The sludge generated by bhe treatment process will be
aerobically digested and trucked to a state-approved landfill
site.
5. Discharge Point
A choice of two alternatives exists for the discharge
point. As a result of our analysis, our preliminary recom-
mendation is for an outfall located on the Olentangy River
4-28
-------
» in Franklin County, below the 1-270 interchange at the
vicinity of Longfellow Road. A new discharge permit will need
to be issued for this location. The other alternative is to
discharge adjacent to the treatment facility, to the Olentangy
River just above the Delaware-Franklin County line. Additional
treatment to remove chlorine and ammonia from the effluent will
be added to the facility, in order to protect aquatic life.
A final recommendation on these alternatives will be made in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Public input is an
important part of the decision-making and will play an important
role in our choice of final effluent discharge location.
4-29
-------
CHAPTER V
ENVIRONMENTAL_EFFECTS_OF_PROPOSED_ACTION_
A- Water Quality and Quantity
1± _Flows
A schematic presentation of 7-day, once in 10-year low flows
along the Olentangy River is given in Figure 5-1. When the
Olentangy Environmental Control Center is constructed, it
will discharge 3 MGD (9.3 cfs) of effluent into the Olentangy
River below the 1-270 interchange in Franklin County by the
end of the 20-year planning period. The dilution ratios based
on the 7-day 10-year low flow would be 0.34 and 0.51 for the
first phase (effluent flow of 1.5 MGD) and the second phase
(effluent flow of 3 MGD), respectively. The dry weather dilution
ratios at various locations along the Olentangy River are
also shown in Figure 5-1.
When the small Worthington Hills package plant is phased
out, dilution flows would be only slightly altered for the
two phases. The date when this will occur is not presently
known. To arrive at these dilution ratios, it has been assumed
that Del-Co Water Company would not withdraw water from the
Olentangy River during 7-day once in 10-year low flow periods.
This assumption is justified by the fact, that, during low
flow periods, the intake would be so close to the river bed
so that, for drinking purposes, extensive purification work
would be required to remove the silt content and turbidity
from the raw water. The Del-Co Water Company has a storage
reservoir with a capacity to meet 60-day water demand by its
customers, and the Company plans to expand the reservoir to
5-1
-------
CD
C CU
S- -P
I/) c;
O to ro
•r- CU i—
P tO D-
fO n3
oc -c -o
Q_ CU
c to
O to O
•i- ZJ Q.
•POO
3 T- S-
r— S- CL.
•r- ro
Q >
CM
CU
to
00
_J 00
iH
LO
O
CO
O
S-
CU T-
S- O
ro >
rO CU
i — tO
CU CU
o o:
* c
E <
ro r
Q C
CU
i- 0
£ C
ra
i — O
cu
Q :
5 A
T3
JP
4-
<•> J
C
2
O
Ll_ CO
CM
•£
o co
S- O
ro
CU LO
, — .
•a
Cn
E
4-
O r—
.t!*-'
CJ tO
cu u
-P LO
CM
1) « •
IT) CU CO
a -^
D ra •»<
p *
C CU
0 1-1 i.
rC
D S- 2
CU rO
O P i—
ra CU
D 3 Q
t
A A
^o to~
CO CM
CO i—
LO
CM cn
• •
LO r—
, — .
-o
cn
i_
ro tO
ro i—
'cu
Q ^
CU ^ cr
S- ra
•P Q
C
o a>
CJ S-
ra
S- ro
ro i—
p 01
3 Q
r*^
•H~ ^
s- ^:
\— -P
B^U8L
^ — *
T3
cn
t^
0
o
•* — *
i
to '
4- <
O 4
-1
i —
i— ^
o
•p
3
o
-Q C
to c
c
O^ C
ro
CD :
0 1
0
c
•r
flj
5 -
(/^ I
2 - !
E « r^
« - .£
o " ;
' CJ ^
111 *-
« ty £
3J ° "
3» -a u
§ §• s
3 rl: ;
^r—l rj
^ r* ^
A
CO
CTl
•
CM
^f
LO
•
•=*•
u
J
?
3
D
J
i
3
) 0
0 O)
£ C
B''-
. i •>
*%
\^J
3
S-
O)
o:
en
c
ro
•p
C
CD
CU
O
S-
ro
CU
>5
O
ro
T3
O)
in
a;
co
10
cn
s-
cu
in -
^ •*-
CTl Q
* -
* to
cu
u
•" 5-
un n
r- o
CTl tO
r- CU
to i —
i- ra
cu s-
cu 3
c -p
•r- ra
LU 4-
O
4-
O -P
C
to a>
o s-
O ra
D.
>> ai
-------
a 90-day capacity (Gilbert, 1975). One of the objectives of
expanding the storage reservoir is to reserve water for dry
weather periods during which withdrawal and purification of
water from the Olentangy River would be difficult. This will
also prevent the aggrivation of low flow stream conditions.
The proposed project would not incur any diversion of
water into or out of the Olentangy River Basin, because the
Del-Co Water Company and the City of Delaware is the sole
sources of surface water supply systems serving the planning
area. The water withdrawn by the Del-Co Water Company would
be returned to the Olentangy River in the form of sewage
effluent except for the losses due to consumption ,exfiltration /
and evapo-transpiration. This is a long-term, beneficial
impact, of class II irreversiblity.
Irreversibility of environmental impacts is divided into
two groups for this report. Class I impacts are those which
are absolutely irreversible, such as labor and fuel. Class II
impacts are for all practical purposes irreversible, unless
very extensive and costly efforts are made to alter them.
Examples of these impacts would be treatment plant structures,
and large scale biological changes.
Streamflow in the Scioto River and Alum Creek will be virtu-
•
ally unaffected by this project. Phasing out septic systems
will alter the water regieme slightly, by returning water to
the Olentangy rather than to the soil. This will tend to reduce
groundwater recharge, a long-term, adverse impact of class II
irreversibility. However, an increasing proportion of this
water will be supplied by the Olentangy, rather than from
5-3
-------
groundwater as discussed in Chapter 2.
2^ Waste Loads
With the relocation of the discharge point, a new discharge
permit will be issued for this facility. However, the following
discussion is based upon the present wasteload allocation and
the permit for discharge just above the county line. The waste
loads and their geographical distributions were investigated
and compiled in the Sc_ioto River__Basin Waste _Lqad All oca t ion
Repor_t (Ohio EPA, 1974). This report was the result of a basin
plan study specifically required by Section 303(e) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Table 5-1 tabu-
lates the existing loads of BOD , total dissolved soids (TDS),
ammonia (NH3), and fecal coliforms in the Olentangy River
reach between the Delaware Dam and the river mouth, at the
confluence of the Olentangy River and the Scioto River in
Franklin County. Their allowable loads (Ohio EPA, 1974) are
also indicated in Table 5-2. The allowable loads were derived
from the assumed low river flow of 9.7 MGD (15 cfs) and the
water quality standards for the Olentangy River in the Scioto_
Rive r^ Bag in Waste Load Allocat ion Report. This low flow differs
from the 7-day, once in 10-year low flow calculated from the
historical flow data. From the historical flow records, the
7-day, once in 10-year low flow would be only 4.54 cfs at
the site, which is less than one-third of the amount used
for calculation in the waste load allocation program. The
safety factor assigned in the waste load allocaion program is
approximately 2.0 or slightly larger, which will not be able
to provide the marginal safety if a 7-day, once in 10-year
5-4
-------
Table 5-1. Waste Loads of the Olentangy River Reach Between
the Delaware Dam and the River's Mouth
Variables
Load entering from
upstream
Load Added this Reach
Allowable Load
BOD5
1 b/day
178.2
59.4
768.1
*too
IDS
in 1 b/day
22,194
4,293
20,250
numerous
NH3 as N
in 1 b/day
14.8
113.5
117.1
to count
Fecal Col i form
in lOlO/day
19.48
tntc*
7.35
Source: Ohio EPA, 1974
Table 5-2. Comparison Between the Waste Load of the
Proposed OECC Plant and the Allowable
Load of the Olentangy River
Effluent u . . . f Allowable Load of the
Para- Concentration the Prooosed Mant Olentangy River with
meters Monthly Average . neJj°p MnlOM \ Built-in Safety Factor
inmg/l(MPN/100ml) }"at 3^) (1° /day) in Ib/day (lOlO/day)
BOD5
TSS
IDS
NH3as N
Fecal
Coliforms
Phosphorus
Oil & Greases
Chloride
8.0
8.0
596
0.5
(200)
3.0
10
90
200.4
200.4
14,930
12.55
(2.27)
75.15
250.5
225.45
768.1
—
20,250
117.1
(7.35)
—
—
10,125
Source: Ohio EPA, 1974
5-5
-------
low flow does occur.
The pollutant loads from the proposed plant based on its
20-year capacity of 3 MGD and its designated effluent quality
standards are presented in Table 5-2. All parameters appear
acceptable. This is a long term, beneficial effect which would
be reversible, if treatment levels were decreased.
3^ Water _Qua]Li.ty
Based on the initial design capacity (1.5 MGD) of the pro-
posed plant, a computer simulation was conducted using the Ohio
EPA computer model of the water quality conditions (Burgess &
Niple, Ltd, 1974) for the river segment between the proposed
plant site with discharge just above the Delaware-Franklin
County Line and the U.S.G.S. gage station approximately 2.6
miles downstream from the site. The river dilution flow was
assumed to be 8.6 MGD (13.3 cfs), the water temperature 25° C,
and the flow velocity 0.33 feet per second. This 8.6 MGD flow
is slightly less than the 9.7 MGD flow used by Ohio EPA to cal-
culate the wasteload allocation. The historical 7 day, once in
10 year low flow calculated for the treatment plant site is
2.93 MGD. The D.O. concentration and BOD 5, NH 3/ and organic
nitrogen loads were calculated by the computer program. This
program is based on the Streeter-Phelps equations for mixing
two pollutant streams. The computer results are given in
Appendix G.
In Appendix G two D.O. sags are noticed at the mixing
points of the proposed Delaware County plant and the Worthington
Hills STP. However, all the D.O. values are well above the 6.0
mg/1 standard promulgated by the Ohio EPA for this river system.
5-6
-------
An increase of 0.02 mg/1 of ammonia concentration from the
upstream concentration of 0.5 mg/1 is calculated at the mixing
point of the plant. This increase is attributable to the
effluent of the plant. The ammonia concentration remains
approximately constant with flow downstream and experiences
a rise of 0.31 mg/1 at the mixing point of the Worthington
Hills STP. The stream water quality standard for NH in this
river segment is 1.5 mg/1, therefore, no violation of ammonia
concentration is anticipated from the proposed action. This
would be true at the point where an extended outfall would
discharge as well. However, as dicussed in Chapter 4, this
level of NH3 is not sufficient to protect aquatic life in the
scenic river segment.
The flowing load of 6005 at the proposed site would be
270 pounds per day (Appendix G) which would be less than the
allowable BOD load (Table 5-2.) established in the Waste_Load
^il^f^t^on _?e_P°_!it.• ^e waste load of ammonia at the proposed
site would be 36 pounds per day of nitrogen compared to the
allowable load of 117.1 pounds per day (Appendix G). Therefore,
no violation would be observed. The organic nitrogen load at
the proposed site would be 89.0 pounds per day. No allowable
load tor organanic nitrogen has yet been promulgated. It
should be again noted, however, that this conputor simulation is based on
a low flow of 8.6 MGD (13.3 cfs) which is considerably higher
than the historical 7-day, once in 10-year low flow of 2.93
MGD (4.54 cfs) calculated for this site. To quantify the
effects when the 7-day, once in 10-year low flow does occur,
additional computer simulation would have to be conducted,
5-7
-------
both for developing a new waste load allocation and for modeling
the instream water quality conditions.
No apparent violations of the present water quality standards
and allowable waste load allocations would be caused by the pro-
posed treatment facility. It is anticipated that some violations
would occur if the historical 7-day, once in 10 year low flow
occurs, because the present waste load allocations are based
on a higher low flow value than this historical value. The
long-term effect would be beneficial, until flow becomes very
low, below the value used to calculate the present waste load
allocation, when the effect becomes detrimental. Inadequate
treatment could make these effects uniformly detrimental.
Using the discharge point south of 1-270 has the effect of
moving water quality impacts to a river segment futher down-
stream. Additional computer simulation would be necessary
to compare the effects on the stream at the proposed outfall
location south of 1-270 to the upstream site, adjacent to OR-3,
which has been the point utilized in the above simulation.
Phasing out the overloaded Worthington Hills package plant
will aid in improving water quality in the Olentangy. This
action is not included in the scope of the proposed project,
however. The Olentangy Interceptor to Columbus ends .by the
Worthington Hills facility, but the plant's flow has not yet
been incorporated into the Columbus system.
Water quality in the Scioto River and in Alum Creek will
also be improved, due to the phasing out of malfunctioning
septic tanks in the service area, and a reduction in the pro-
portions of new septic tanks installed. This is a long term,
5-8
-------
beneficial effect, which would be reversible if use of the
central sewerage system were decreased.
The water temperature, pH value, concentrations of dis-
solved oxygen, nitrate, total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride,
dissolved iron, chromium, zinc and copper are well within the
present water quality standards. Considering that the effluent
from the proposed plant would have at least 6 mg/1 of DO,
maximum 8005 of 8 mg/1, and the present allowable waste loads
for BOD and none of these should present significant problems.
These impacts are benficial and long term, but could be threat-
ened by less adequate treatment. Extreme low flow would create
adverse impacts, due to the comparatively high figure used for
the "low flow" value in the waste load allocations.
Ammonia standards are reported to have been violated approxi-
mately 10 per cent of the time in the past samples. (Ohio EPA,
1974). Under the assumption that the waste load allocation
program (Ohio EPA, 1974) would be successfully implemented,
the instream ammonia concentrations would be so reduced that
the ammonia concentration at the mixing point of the proposed
plant site would be within the 1.5 mg/1 limit at all times.
This is a long term benefit which used for calculating the
present waste load allocation. Additional ammonia removal
may be used at this facility.
The fecal coliform concentration of the river water has
been reported many times as "too numerous to count" (Ohio
EPA, 1974). The same situation has occurred throughout the
entire river segment, indicating that it is highly polluted
5-9
-------
by municipal sewage. (Municipal sources are specified be-
cause among the total source loads of 8005, TSS, phosphorus,
NH , and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, the municipal sources account
for more than 95 per cent and their discharges correlate well
with the fecal coliform loads). These municipal sources include
the Delaware Sewage Treatment Plant and small package treatment
plants of various commercial facilities and educational insti-
tutions (Ohio EPA, 1974). Septic tank runoff also contributes
to increased coliforni levels in the area's streams. The ef-
fluent limitation on fecal coliforms is 200 per 100 ml, thereby
assuring that the fecal coliform load from the proposed plant
is kept within the allowable load standards of the stream.
To achieve this goal, chlorination of the treated sewage after
the second stage clarification and prior to rapid sand fil-
tration is proposed in the plant design. The public health
aspects are long term and benficial, if not reversed by in-
adequate treatment. The biological implications of this are
discussed in Appendix I.
Discontinuing the use of septic tanks will help to im-
prove water quality. Improved operation of existing sewage
treatment facilities must also be persued to effect stream
clean-up.
No effluent quality standards have been established for
other constituents such as iron, cadmium, chromium, zinc,
and copper. Any industrial wastewaters which contain high
concentrations of these constituents would be adequately pre-
treated before discharge into the sewage collection system.
5-10
-------
Some adverse impacts on water quality can result from the
project construction. Erosion and siltation problems associated
with sewer construction; dissolved oxygen depletion, BOD, and
turbidity associated with the dredging activities for sewer
river crossings and outfall work are the major concerns.
Erosion due to plant construction could have some effects
on water quality such as increase of turbidity, total suspended
solids, and total settleable solids. Upon discharging these
materials into the river, siltation might result in the down-
stream segment where flow velocity decreases below that required
to maintain the load in suspension and it drops out, modifying
the channel form. Turbidity of the water will occur, even with
low levels of sediment being added to the water. These impacts
will be largely mitigated by sediment basins and other erosion
control techniques at the construction site.
Dredging activities required by the construction of sewer
river crossings and effluent outfall structures may cause some
water quality problems. Turbidity will increase, particularly
if there is much silt and clay in the riverbed. Dissolved
oxygen depression would be a consequence of the high chemical
oxygen demand by the re-entrainment of river bed sediments,
particularly if this occurs during warm weather. Levels of
total sufides, usually considered toxic substances and chemical
compounds of high oxygen demand, would increase near a dredging
site (Jeane & Pine, 1975). Although the river bed of the
Olentangy River is essentially of calcareous nature, the low
stream velocity at low flow cannot preclude the existence
of some organic sediments. The dissolved oxygen depletion
5-11
-------
may occur during dredging periods, but will not be so significant
as reported elsewhere where it dropped below 4.0 mg/1 (Jeane
& Pine, 1975), because of less organic content of the bottom
sediments of the Olentangy River. The degree of depletion of
dissolved oxygen due to river dredging cannot be quantified
without knowing the oxygen demand of the river sediment. Some
fo these impacts are short term, as turbidity while others are
long term, as sedimentation. These will be largely mitigated
by control measures, but the remaining impacts a are adverse,
and are essentially irreversible (Class II).
B. Air
!._ Air__Quality
Columbus is a Priority I area for particulates and oxidants.
Levels of these substances exceed primary standards. Sulfur
dioxide and carbon monoxide are considered as Priority III.
Air quality impacts within Delaware County are presently
being studied by USEPA and will be reported in the final EIS.
Sludge from the treatment facility will not be incinerated.
2^ Air-Borne Pathogens
It has been observed in a number of scientific studies that
microorganisms are emitted to the atmosphere by sewage treatment
processes (Fair and Wells, 1934), (Randall and Ledbetter, 1966),
(Adams and Spendlove, 1970), (Pereira and Benjaminson, 1975).
These bacteria and viruses will remain viable and travel further,
in general, with increased wind velocity, increased relative
humidity, lower temperatures, and darkness. Resistance to
environmental stress and increased viability also is highly
dependent upon the particular species and its life cycle stage.
5-12
-------
Studies have indicated extensive aerosol bacterial die-
off with increased from the source (Ledbetter and Randall,
1965). For example, downwind from a trickling filter treat-
ment plant coliform bacteria were found to be on one occasion:
100 yards 159 /m3
3
300 yards 70 /m
600 yards / /m
0.8 mile 3 /m 3
At another plant, these results were obtained:
130 feet 490 /m 3
300 yards 183 /m
0.5 mile 109 /m 3
(Adams and Spendlove, 1970).
The middle of the proposed treatment plant location at site
OR-3 is about 800 feet (0.15 mile) away from the closest point
of Highbanks Park, about 1600 feet (0.3 mile) from the Highbanks
Bluffs overlook point, about 4000 feet (0.7 mile) from the cen-
tral family picnic area, and about 4400 feet (0.8 mile) from
the northern family picnic area. Prevailing winds from the
site are towards Highbanks Park. These distances will assure
considerable reduced levels of bacteria in the aerosols gener-
ated in the sewage treatment process. As discussed above, the
actual viability is influenced by a number of environmental
variables, including distance.
The processes of the infection mechanism once contaminated
aerosols are inhaled or ingested by humans are uncertain. Be-
cause little is known of the minimum infecting dose of most
organisms, little can be quantitatively stated about the sig-
5-13
-------
1
nificance of the numbers of bacteria or viruses present in the t
human environment. However, there has been no known demonstra-
tion of any public health hazard from microbe transmission of
sewage treatment plant aerosols. No potential health hazard
is presented to users of Highbanks Park or other area residents
by this facility.
C. Land Use
Immediate land use changes occur ing from the proposed
action will be at the treatment plant site and along inter-
ceptor routes. The Olentangy Environmental Control Center
will be located in what is presently farmland. Interceptors
will follow existing rights-of-way when possible, about halt
of the time. Most interceptors will follow road alignments
or stream drainage patterns.
Surrounding land uses — farmland, parkland, and residential
areas — will be impacted by the treatment facility, although
these impacts have been greatly reduced through various miti-
gative measures. After construction is completed, architectural
treatment and landscaping will contribute to the attractiveness
of the treatment plant site, and largely screen it from sur-
rounding areas. The extensive odor and noise controls will be
discussed ia Section F of this chapter. The treatment plant is
a long-term, adverse structure serving a beneficial purpose.
It is in irreversibility Class II.
Revegetation of the interceptor routes will help to blend
them into their surroundings. Maintenance needs do not require
that the rights-of-way be kept vegetation free, however, another
5-14
-------
alternative would be to use these rights-of-ways as hiking or
bicycle paths. No exposed pipes will be present in the interceptor
system, except those crossing beneath bridges. Stream crossings
of interceptors will be buried.
Interceptors are long term, beneficial structures of irre-
versibiltiy Class II. Their construction causes short term
adverse impacts which may be mitigated to a large extent.
Building materials, labor and energy for both the plant and the
sewers are irreversible (Class I) long term commitments with
short term beneficial aspects to the economy from their con-
struction.
Energy will be consumed in project construction. This is a
short term, irreversible, adverse impact. Energy will also be
required for treatment plant operation and force main pumping-
This is a long term, adverse impact which is in reversibility
Class I.
Sludge disposal will occur at an approved sanitary landfill
site. This should minimize the hazard of ground water contamin-
ation from landfill leachate. If land application of sludge is
utilized, properly chosen sites and correct seasonal application
will minimize water pollution. The use of trucks for sludge
transport to the landfill si4te may create a slight adverse
traffic nuisance in some areas. Route planning and timing
will serve to minimize this problem.
If land application of sludge is to be used in the future,
nutrients will be recycled to the soil in a useful manner. This
would occur on local farms or golf courses or similar sites, and
would be compatable with these land uses. Landfilling sludge is
5-15
-------
a long term, adverse impact of Class II ir reversibil ity . It is
less beneficial than recycling the sludge to the land.
Secondary impacts of the treatment facilities and interceptors
may include those associated with industrial and residential de-
velopment, changes in land values, shifts in the centers of
retail trade concentration, shifts in the location of the
most attractive recreational sites, and changes in the pattern
of recreational activities. Secondary impacts on growth which
derive from the proposed action are determined by a comparison
of the amount and types of development which would occur without
the project, the "no-action" alternative, which assumes that
there would be no additional public sewering, with the amount
and types of development which are projected to occur is the
proposed action is implemented.
One secondary growth impact resulting from implementation
of the proposed action would be an increased rate of growth
in population and in economic activity in the project area.
However, if no public sewering were to be provided throughout
the project area, there would still be some growth, because
the project area is highly attractive to residential. and light
industrial development. Population growth is a long term im-
pact, reversible, beneficial to the local economy, but adverse
to the existing environment. The absence of public sewering
will not preclude development, unless a building ban is re-
issued for the area but will instead make development more
costly and alter development patterns and rates. The extra
cost involved in land development without sewers determines
5-16
-------
the degree to which the lack of public sewers will retard
development. In this project area the significance of the
extra cost of private package systems or septic field is mini-
mal. The project area is attractive to buyers of expensive
housing units. The addition of a few thousand dollars to
the initial cost of each house to provide for the added cost
of a package system or septic field, over that of land serviced
by public sewerage with high tapping fees would be expected
to lower demand for such expensive housing only slightly.
Similarly, the extra costs of providing
private treatment of the wastes of prospective industrial
users are also expected to be a minor factor in their de-
cisions to locate in the project area. Therefore, the
demand for industrial development will be lowered, at most,
only slightly. Because of poor local conditions for septic
systems, a buidling ban was in effect, however, prior to the
development of plans for a central sewage system.
Patterns of growth will be influenced by the interceptor
configuration, because it is less costly to connect collect-
ing sewers close to the main sewer lines. This will be partic-
ularly true when interceptors follow roads. Most of the rela-
tive increases in rates of population growth that could be
caused by the proposed action relate to the construction of
additional low and moderate cost housing. There would be the
possibility for the construction of apartments, and trailer
courts, it zoning permits these and in lower cost single-
family detached units. Public sewering, because it is financed
in this case with federal funding, and because the remaining
5-17
-------
local debt (25%) would be amortized over a long period, has
considerably less initial and long-term costs per dwelling
unit than privately financed waste disposal. The size of this
savings will aid in building less expensive types of residences.
This is a long term, beneficial effect, which is reversible with
rising costs.
The increased growth of population attracted by public
sewering would cause a number of related impacts. These impacts
would be moderate compared to the growth occur ing without the
proposed action, as some growth would occur under those circum-
stances. However these impacts could have a large absolute
impact on the environment, when compared to the existing envi-
ronment without the proposed action and the present population.
The impacts are:
Increased erosion
Increased stormwater runoff
More polluted stormwater runoff
Reduction of prime agricultural land and wildlife
habitat
Development pressure on remaining farmland
Increased siltation in local stream
Air pollution increases
Increased burdens on school systems, roads, and other
public services.
Increased erosion would result from construction of new
homes and other buildings on the easily erodable soils that
exist in most parts of the project area. Increased siltation
in local streams would result from increased soil erosion on
the slopes. This siltation could combine with increases in
5-18
-------
stormwater runoff to produce increased flood levels during
rain storms. Increased stormwater runoff would result from
increases in impermeable areas resulting from increased
development. Erosion control requirements in the area, if
initiated, would aid in greatly reducing these impacts. More
polluted stormwater would primarily result from rain flushing
oils and other petro-chemicals from paved areas. Estimating
the quantitative measure of stream pollution resulting from
urbanization is very difficult. Stormwater retention basins
and a stormwater pollution abatement program could minimize
these adverse effects. New housing will remove land from
agricultural and wildlife uses. Zoning could aid in retaining
these land uses. The remaining farmland may undergo intense
pressure for development via taxes or other mechanisms. Taxa-
tion and zoning methods could seek to retain prime agricultural
land in active farming uses. These mitigative measures would
have to be initiated at the state or local levels. Farm land
and habitat loss are long term adverse impacts of irreversi-
bility Class II.
Population growth and an increase in new homes and automo-
biles, will contribute to air pollutants in the Columbus area.
This is a long term adverse impact irreversibility Class II.
In general, increased growth would increase local costs of
providing various community services, such as schools, and
roads but presumably would be accompanied by an expanded
tax base. It is quite possible that revenues gained from
this increased growth would not completely cover the extra
expenditures necessary to provide the services to support
5-19
-------
the growth or that there would be a lag time between the need •*"
for the services and the ability to initiate and/or fully
finance the services. Local planning efforts here are essential
to minimize or reduce this problem. These would be adverse
impacts of short to long term duration which are reversible.
A number of other impacts which might result from the
implementation of the proposed action are directly related
to the types of growth and development that are facilitated
by public sewering These impacts are:
Leapfrog development whereby suitable areas in
northern Franklin County might be bypassed
Increased speculation
Changed spatial locations of new subdivisions with
respect to streams
Lower total cost of sewage treatment over the long
term.
Public sewering may possibly cause development to leapfrog
past areas in Franklin County which have not yet developed to
an extent commensurate with efficient utilization of their
sewers and roads. The advent of public sewering, would in-
crease development in the project area somewhat more than
the "no action" alternative. Hence, the amounts of excess
development will be proportionate and only slightly leapfrog
beyond that which is now taking place and likely to continue.
Extensive and rapid development is currently occuring in northern
Franklin County, however. Speculation, which is generally high
in areas expected to receive public sewering, is not expected
to be greatly increased. These are adverse, short term impacts.
5-20
-------
The Delaware County septic tank ordinance would encourage
choppy development patterns of homes on large lots. Subdivisions
of greater than four units require waste treatment through
means other than septic fields; package plants must discharge
into the continuously flowing streams. Hence, without central
sewage treatment, development of subdivisions with package
plants would be largely restricted to the proximity of perennial
streams. With the proposed project, development of subdivisions
could occur in a greater variety of locations and would tend
to cluster near the interceptors for economical sewer layouts.
Real estate development would not be attracted to perennial
streams for sewage treatment reasons except where the inter-
ceptors and streams parallel each other. These are long term,
Class II irreversible impacts which are generally beneficial.
Stream corridors are ideal areas tor recreation and preservation
of open space and high quality natural environments. This
could be accomplished if appropriate land use controls or
incentives were adopted locally.
The costs of first building a septic field or package
system and then, at some time in the future, replacing it
with a public sewer connection are duplications of expensive
items and therefore costly in terms of both public and private
capital. This is especially true of sewering areas which
have already undergone septic field development, as is the
case in southern Delaware County. The large lots required
for septic field development necessitates long feeder lines.
The duplication of costs is significant because public sewering
will eventually become a necessity in the project area. Tapping
5-21
-------
into the new system will be mandatory only for homes constructed
in 1969 or later, or for homes designated to tie in by the County 4fc
Health Department.
Current growth pressure in the project area will necessitate
changes in local and regional planning. These growth pressures
both complicate and magnify the importance of the planning
process. Population will grow significantly, employment struc-
tures will change, and already high accessibility will increase
in all portions of the project area. Development pressures,
unless properly guided, will degrade valuable local and rec-
reational, scenic, and natural resources. Many mitigative
measures can be locally initiated to reduce the adverse effects
of this project, as discussed in the preceeding paragraphs.
Planning for these development pressures, will necessitate
implementation of an overall planning program that is well
coordinated between the local, county, and regional levels,
not crisis-oriented, and dynamic in its ability to meet a
changing social and technological environment and future
contingencies.
D. Biology
!_._ T.f-l'Lf.str^al Biota
The proposed treatment plant site is presently a culti-
vated field. The only trees on the site are those along the
river bank on the east side of the site. These trees are the
typical river bottom species that are commonly found throughout
the county. They include cottonwood, sycamore, boxelder , maples,
and oaks. These trees will not be affected by this project and
5-22
-------
serve as a portion of the buffer between the plant and the
areas across the river, in addition to the site landscaping.
The plans for the treatment facility include the planting of
various evergreen and deciduous trees around the site to
provide a scenic and aesthetic buffer. The planting of these
additional trees is desirable because they would provide
food and cover habitats for the various birds in the area.
The wildlife that might live along or near the river banks
adjacent to this site should not be significantly affected
by the operation of this plant and those directly displaced
would be able to migrate to natural areas near the treatment
facility, if the populations in the remaining natural areas
were small enough to accommodate these additional individuals.
Problems would arise if the adjacent habitat were too small
to hold additional individuals, or if noise levels from the
treatment facility were too high for wildlife to tolerate.
The woodland vegetation to be crossed by the interceptor
lines for this project include such upland associations as
oak-hickory areas, beech-maple areas, and river bottom areas
which contain sycamore, cottonwood and boxelder trees. The
oak-hickory association is found on many sections of the hill-
tops where the soil is low in lime content, well-drained, and,
in most instances, sandy. Tfiese trees grow in soils which have
a fairly low pH; thickets of laurel, blueberries, and huckle-
berries are prominent as their understory. The more prevalent
upland wildlife species in these areas include such species
as quail, rabbit, squirrel, large mammals such as deer, smaller
mammals such as mice, moles, and shrew, and a variety of passerine
5-23
-------
(perching) birds. In addition, some higher food chain
carnivore species such as hawks, owls, foxes, and skunks
presumably inhabit these areas and have stable populations.
The beech-maple association and the typical river bottom
sycamore-cottonwood-boxelder areas are common along the streams
and river areas in the county. These tree types are character-
istically found in the lower elevations, along watercourses,
that have moist soil conditions. Wildlife species common in
the upland forest areas are also usually found in these areas
in fairly abundant numbers. Such species as the muskrat, mink,
river otter, raccoon, possum, reptiles, and amphibians are
presumably also abundant in these areas.
The use of various highway rights-of-way to install the
interceptor lines would greatly reduce the amount of vegetation
to be removed in construction. About 50% of the interceptors
are planned to follow existing r ights-of-way. The use of highway
rights-of-way has been found to be ecologically the most accept-
able method for placement of pipelines, because this location
causes much less disruption to the environment than crossing
tracts of forest areas. The wildlife in the areas that must
be crossed by open trenches would be temporarily displaced
to similar habitat areas nearby if populations are not' higher
than the remaining habitat may accommodate. Revegetation of
construction routes will aid in habitat restoration. Construction
of the interceptors should preferably not take place during the
spring but during the summer and fall, so as not to cause un-
necessary disruption or destruction of nesting areas or of
breeding and rearing habits.
5-24
-------
Interceptor routes will avoid the significant natural
V.
areas of the county, (see Figures 2-3 & 4-2).
The adverse impacts of the facility and interceptors on
terrestrial biota have been largely reduced to short term
impacts, which are reversible.
2 ^ __ Aquat ic _B i.o t a
The potential adverse effects of chlorine and ammonia on
aquatic life have been discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix I.
Because of the damage that may occur to stream life during
low flow periods, the outfall location has been proposed down-
stream at a point below the state scenic river segment and
below a local area of good fishing in artificial riffles.
This change will lessen the adverse impact upon the Olentangy
River by discharging into an area of less critical biological
value. It will be a reversible, long term impact. Additional
treatment would remove the adverse amounts of chlorine and
ammonia and would be reversible long term benficial impaact,
provided that the treatment process are reliable enough to
insure consistent removal.
The effluent will be highly treated and the instream con-
centration at average streamflows (345 cfs) for the critical
parameters will be:
Chlorine 0.003 mg/1 0.007 mg/1
Ammonia 0.010 mg/1 0.020 mg/1
(The above calculations assume a water intake of 0.77 cfs by
the Del-Co Water Company and the other water uses diagramed
in Figure 5-1) .
5-25
-------
The levels present in the average streamflow correspond
favorably to the level recommended for chlorine (0.01 mg/1)
and closely to the level recommended for ammonia (0.02 mg/1)
in Chapter 4. During periods of lower streamflow, some adverse
effects upon streamlife may result. These are reversible and
will be short term of species immigrate from upstream.
Although this facility will not violate the present waste
load allocation, its effluent will change the present stream
conditions, because the concentration of substances in the
effluent will not be identical to their concentrations in-
stream. These additions of substances from the effluent will
probably alter the stream ecology. This is because different
species have different tolerances of the various substances
found in water. For example, the increases in nitrogen and
phosphorus will alter the numbers of species and kinds of
species of algae in the stream. This change in composition
of the aquatic food supply will affect the numbers and kinds
of species which feed upon the algae, and so on, to other mem-
bers of the aquatic food chain. The nature and extent of these
changes is extremely difficult to quantify. These impacts are
short term and reversible, if the old species can migrate to
the acea from upstream.
Stream temperature may also be affected by the effluent
temperature. This could also affect the composition of stream
life or their reproductive patterns. This effect cannot be
quantified at this time.
Sedimentation resulting from erosion can be harmful to
aquatic plants and animals. Suspended sediments can obstruct
5-26
-------
' the amount of light penetrating to the stream bottom and this
can adversely affect the bottom-lying and floating microscopic
algae. Siltation can blanket animal habitats, clog gills and
respiration and interfere with filter-feeding or sight-feeding
species. As discussed earlier, these adverse impacts are
anticipated to substantially mitigated, but would be of irre-
versibility Class II.
Four species which have been found in the Olentangy River
have been listed by the State of Ohio as endangered. It is
very difficult to evaluate their present status in the river.
Locating rare species is difficult simply because there are
so few of them. In addition, the spotted darter lacks an air
bladder , which makes it difficult to catch by the conventional
fish-survey methods. The exact ecology of these particular
species is not well understood, which complicates an evaluation
of why these particular species are endangered. Some generali-
zations can be made, however. Ohio mollusks have a greatly
reduced habitat, because of construction of artificial lakes.
These animals can dwell in natural, free flowing rivers, but usually
not in impoundments. Channel modification eliminates the natural
variability of a stream bed, with a general adverse effect on
the aquatic ecosystem, whose members each require or prefer a
slightly different set of surroundings. The naiad mollusks
have complex life cycles, involving a specific host to harbor
the larvae. If the host is not present, that species could
not reproduce sucessfully. Water pollution from chemicals
and sediments can adversely affect both fish and mollusks.
There are fewer and fewer streams which can support a diverse,
5-27
-------
natural biological population.
The most extensive ecological studies of the Olentangy, in
which insects (Olive, 1971), and fish (U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, 1975) have been surveyed, indicate a healthy stream,
which supports a good variety of desirable aquatic life. In
addition, it is known that the four endangered species have
been and may still be present in this segment of the Olentangy.
Because of this diminishing ecosystem type, and not just the
endangered species, it is important to maintain the upstream
segment of the Olentangy in as healthy and unpolluted state
as is possible. Either downstream outfall location or addi-
tional treatment will aid this effort to maintain the upstream
Olentangy although the relocated outfall will provide a greater
degree of reliability.
E • En.Y.iL2.Ilm.e-0.t§.l.i.y_^e_Q.5.?iti.Y.e-_^£e.a.s-
1^_ Ar_cheolc>gy
The interceptors will totally bypass Highbanks Park, with
its archeological sites. An archeological survey of other
possible significant archeological sites is presently being
undertaken by the Ohio Historical Society.
2^ Geol9_gy/Topqgc_aphy/ Steep SIopes
The interceptor routes will avoid the shale Highbanks
Bluffs.
3._ P ^an t s__and _An iima 1 s
The natural areas of Highbanks Park will be avoided entirely
by the sewer configuration. Endangered species in the Olentangy
River will be largely avoided by the downstream outfall location.
5-28
-------
4. Prime Agricultural Lands
V. — —» —- — — — — — —-—.___ —. — —
As residential and commercial-industrial development of
southern Delaware County occurs, one secondary environmental
effect will be the loss of agricultural land. This is an
adverse, long term effect of Class II reversibility.
;?._!__ _?®
-------
development, which is a long term, adverse impact of irre-
versibility Class II.
7^ __ Aesthetics
Development permitted and encouraged by the advent of sewers
will alter much of the present rural character of southern Dela-
ware County, as the area becomes more suburbanized.
The treatment plant itself is provided with extensive controls
for odors, noise, and visual appearance. (See Section F.)
Q_._ _ Scenic River
Discharge to the Scenic River segment will be avoided by
the downstream discharge point. The treatment facility will
be screened from the river by mounds and vegetation. Stream
crossings of the Olentangy will be designed to reduce con-
struction damage to the stream.
The secondary growth impacts from population growth and
development in the Olentangy basin may adversely impact water
quality.
These factors are discussed in greater detail throughout
this chapter .
1 . Visual Impacts
The visual impact is a function of the area within which
a structure may be seen, the number of people in a position
to see it and the aesthetic response to this sight. The area
of visibility surrounding the proposed treatment plant is
determined by a 1 ine-of-sight analysis based upon the as-
sumption of a plant height of 18 feet, a general tree height
of 40 feet and an observer height of 6 feet.
5-30
-------
v it is further assumed that an observer within a wooded
area could see out of it, but that an observer outside of a
wooded area could not see through it. Sixteen, equally spaced,
radial line-of-sight transects, were constructed from the
plant site to the maximum limits from which the proposed plant
could be seen. These transects are shown in Appendix J. An
example of the graphic line-of-sight analysis is presented
in Figure 5-2.
The location of the radial transects and the interpolated
area of visibility of the plant are presented in Figure 5-3.
The area of visibility is an elipse in which the major axis,
about 4500 feet long, extends along the Olentangy Valley and
the minor axis, about 3000 to 4000 feet long, extends across
the valley. It is noteworthy that because of the roughly
convex curvature of the Highbanks, the plant would not be
visible from the very top of the bluffs and hill at an ele-
vation of 890 feet above sea level. Ridges which extend normal
to the Olentangy Valley and buildings, particularly in Mount
Air, also obstruct visibility.
The people who might be affected by this visual impact
include the fraction of the visitors to the Highbanks Park
who climb part-way down the cliffs to points 100 to 130 feet
above the river at the scenic overlook site. Also about 18-20
*
home dwellers in the northern part of Mount Air, about a dozen
home dwellers along the Olentangy River in Delaware County
south of Powell Road and drivers along State Route 315 south
of Powell Road will be affected.
5-31
-------
• west
east-
940-
930 -
920 -
910 -
900 -
890 .
rH 880 -
0)
>
•H 870 -
03
860 -
o 850-I
u 840-
c 83°"
•H
g 820 H
•H
W
« 810-
w 800 -
790 -
780 .
770 .
760 .
750 -
f
1000 2000 3000
Distance in 1000's feet from the site
4000
5000
Figure 5-2. A Line of Sight Profile (Profile 5)
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
5-32
-------
1000 0 1000 2000 JOCO -1000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
I—I I 1 I 1 r 1 I -T~ ^ 1 ~3
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
Figure 5-3. Area of Visibility of Proposed Plant
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
5-33
-------
In this context the Highbanks Park has established three
picnic areas
On the bottomlands of the Olentangy River about 5000
feet north of the proposed plant site
On the bluff above the Olentangy River about 4000
feet north of the proposed plant site
On the bluff above the Olentangy River about 4000
feet north northeast of the proposed site
Except for the screening provided by trees along the Olentangy
River and screening provided by tree planting about the site the
plant would be visible from the first site. Mounding will help
to screen the site further. Because of both the convexity of the
topography and the screening effects of trees in an intervening
ravine the plant would be obscured from the second picnic area,
designed for group events. Similarly, the proposed plant would
be obscured from the third picnic area both by the convexity of
the topography and the intervention of trees. However, the pro-
posed plant would be visible through the trees from certain
vantage points along the proposed nature trail in Highbanks
Park. This is a long term adverse effect of irreversibility
Class II.
The plan for the proposed plant and the site has an unusually
large number of provisions designed to enhance the visual impact.
The building design is compatible with the rural-suburban char-
acter of the neighborhood and landscaping has been carefully
planned to include trees and mounds that will screen the site.
2 • P-^O-L-IroPict
Odors in the proposed plant will occur from septic condi-
tions in wet wells in the primary stage or as a result of
5-34
-------
upsets during the secondary stage of treatment. Substances
which cause odorous emissions are hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Other inorganic odors include sulfur dioxide or carbon disulfide.
Organic odors identified are mercaptans, proteins degraded by
bacteria, which often transform into various amines. The odor
threshold, or minimum" level detectable by people, of concen-
trations of mercaptans, .certain amines, or hydrogen sulfide
is about 10 times lower than that of sulfur dioxide, and it,
in turn, is 10 times lower than the threshold for ammonia.
When several odor-producing chemicals are emitted simultane-
ously, there are synergistic effects. However, accurate
determination of these combined effects is difficult.
The sources of odors in municipal wastewater treament
plants are presented in Table 5-3. These odor problems can
be prevented by proper plant design or eliminated by add-on
treatment methods. Several odor prevention or removal methods
are given in Table 5-4.
All of the unit operations in the proposed treatment plant
are aerobic, hence all of the gaseous by-products produced
during sewage decomposition should be theoretically, odorless.
Septic odor-producing conditions may develop, however, in
certain areas. These areas include the raw sewage lift station,
the tertiary filter building, and the sludge concentrator
building.
The raw sewage may be septic as it comes into the plant
prior to its combination with activated sludge. Odor from
fresh sewage is minimal and is confined to the lift station.
In long sewer lines at low flow rates with no storm or ground
5-35
-------
en
§
B
cd
cU
1-1
H
S-i
cu
4J
cd
I
4J
CO
cd
13
•H
CJ
•H
I
CO
M
O
t3
O
CO
cu
CJ
M
3
O
co
CO
I
in
OJ
«d
4J
d
cu
E
0
u
cu
o
1-1
3
0
CO
1-1
o
13
O
C
O
•H
4-1
cd
a
0
*-"
d
cd
o
CO
cu
4-1
to
cd
£5
rH
cd
•H
J.J
4-1
CO
~j
13
d
•rl
C
•H
cd
rl
CU
O
d
•H
CO
d
o
•H
4-1
O
cd
cu
^1
o
•rl
42
o
cu
cd
d
cd
K^>
43
t3
0)
a
d
13
O
CO
cd
o
4J
d
cu
a
4-J
cd
cu
i-i
4-1
00
d
•rl
01
4J
d
cu
01
00
cd
£j
QJ
CO
}_j
0
13
O
01
f.
4-1
s^
r| |
•H
CO
C
01
4-1
fi
•H
CU
d
•H
T-H
J.J
cu
cu
CO
4-1
3
iH
P-I
X-N,
00
d
•H
CO
en
cu
o
o
c^
13
o
o
s— '
d
o
•H
4-1
cd
^
cu
rH
cu
CO
&
o
1-1
13
l-i
•H
CU
Z
01
N
•H
a
•H
C
•rl
s
01
D^
Cfl
CJ
CO
01
CO
cu
CO
cd
00
cu
rH
•H
4-1
cd
rH
O
to
1-1
•H
cu
1-1
o
00
d
•H
d
cu
cu
1-1
CJ
to
A
4-1
•H
rl
00
a
o
1-1
<4H
}_l
d cu
O 4-1
•H cd
4.) &
cd
J-i 43
o to
a, cd
cd &
W
H
ca
o
a
3
1-1
4-1
•rl
00
*
if
•rl
d
01
cu
CJ
CO
0)
^d
4-1
t-l
0
CO
4J
cu
rH
C^
O
rl
T3
rH
H
£3
CO
m
o
C
o
•H
4-1
cd
o
a.
cd
^
w
CO
C
•rH
CO
cd
rQ
)-)
0
1
cd
4-1
fi
0
•H
4-1
cd
1-1
0)
<3
CO
cu
CO
3
cd
CJ
CO
o>
rH
42
3
,jQ
*-M
o
01
CO
f^
cd
rH
r-H
O
O
to
rH
O
CO
O
rl
0)
cd
M~l
0
c
o
•H
4-1
cd.
g
o
4-1
01
4-1
cd
fi
•H
a
•H
rH
0)
c
cd
a
C to
00 l-i
•rl 0
CO 13
cu o
*"O
0)
1-1 to
0) 0)
A 42
0 4J
1-1
d-
1-1
o
CO
}-,
o
4-1
CO CO
01 0)
00 to
•H cd
13 00
1
B M-l
O UH
V-4 O
MH
00
to C
4-1 -rl
o ^
3 0
13 0
o o
t^, ai
J^
01 3
rH CO
•H to
4-> CU
cd ^i
rH fL,
o
0)
00
13
3
rH
to
UH
o
00
•3
CO
to
CU
CJ
o
rl
c^.
4-1
cd
cu
x
i-l
o
o
CO
a>
CJ
3
T3
cu
rl
00
d
•H
rH
o
0
ai
00
13
3
rH
CO
e
rl
cd
*J
*"O
c
cd
CO
rl
o
3
cr
•H
rH
4-1
o
43
4-1
c
cd
4-1
cd
s
01
a,
3
C/3
>-l
o
13
o
4J
d
01
CU
rl
c^
rH
rH
•rl
V
fi
o
•rl
4J
cd
cu
c
o
•H
4-1
a
cd
CU
rl
o
•rl
43
o
1-1
0)
fi
cd
^t
n>
13
cu
ca
3
cd
a
^
H
rH
cd
3
CO
CO
•3
cd
4J
00
fi
•H
13
i-H
O
r*.
)-l
O
CO
fi
O
px.
c
cd
o
4-1
c
cu
a
4J
cd
0)
1-1 1-1
4-1 O
13
0) 0
00
13 CU
3 4-1
rH Cd
to fi
•H
M a
CU -rl
CXrH
0 ,
1-1 rl
O 13
> fi
fi cd
o
13
•H
rH
o
CO
13 fi
fi 0
cd -H
4-1
oo cd
•H cd
rH CX
'O 0)
C CO
43 13
•rl
CU 3
oo cr
•O -rl
3 rH
rH
CO
CO
C rl
0 O
•H 13
4-> O
cd
>-i cu
cu co
ex cu
O 43
4J
r^
C OJ
Cd 4J
cd
C C
OO -H
•H a
CO -rl
CU rH
13 Ot
rl H
CU rH
ex -H
o S
}_l
Pn
0
•H
4-J
CO
3
o
a
0
o
CU
4J
01
r-H
ex
o
o
c
M
c
o
•H
4-1
cd
1-1
0)
•S
CJ
C
•H
CU
00
3
rH
CO
CX
•H
.-J
cu
a
rl
3
O
CO
5-36
-------
CO
13
O
01
a
td
o
0
01
§
•H
4J
G
01
0)
M
PM
O
13
O
I
in
0)
(0
EH
G
O
•H
4J
cd
CJ
o
(-3
rH
td
o
•H
P,
^
H
C
O
•H
4-1
O
-<3
13
01
4-1
co
0)
60
W)
3
13
O
,G
4J
01
a
01
60
to
O
4-1
CQ
T3
C
cd
13
G
o
P.
ft
G
0
0
60
cd
C
•- -H
S-I CQ
oi cd
£ rQ
s
en
13
cd
• n
01
4J
td
4J
•rl
60
Cd
13
G 01
cd c
o
S-l N
0) O
cd S-i
1? o
M 0)
0 C
•H
S-i S-l
•H O
cd i-H
13 CI
13
O
•H
ja
O
M
0>
cd
cd
13
01
rH
rH
O
4->
! s
G 0
3 -H
4-J
4-> -H
01 G
> O
0) O
£J
Pw
13
G
cd
«\
CO
13
C
O
P-
»,
CO CO
G .^
O C
O cd
60 4J
cd
H 0)
60
CO S-1
C 0
•rl 4-J
CO CO
td
pq
S-l
o
•t
G
O 01
•rl G
4-1 vH
cd ,c
G co
•H G
S-i 3
O CO
rH
JS 4-1
O 3
O
co a)
4-1 CO
C 0
CU rH
•rl CJ
J*j
4-1 O
3 4-J
C
S-l
01 01
0 0
0 CJ
0)
01 JS
cd o
60 vH 0)
rH J3 H
tO 5 rQ
td
<4H - G
O CO O
0 -H
G CO 4J
O v-l CJ
•rl C 01
4-1 Cd 1-1
Cd 60 ,0
0 S-i O
C o
000
II 1 J^ \ J
0 O
4-1 v-l 4-1 CQ
G 0 S-*
0) GO
> S-l cd TJ
0) O CJ O
£_)
PM
A
CO
S-l CO
0) S-l
4-1 0) 4-1
rH 4-1 C
•H rH Cd
M-l -H 4-1
4-1 Cd
60 G
C 0 H
•H 3 0)
rH 3 P.
J4 0 3
O cd CO
•H >
4-1 - O
CO 4J
" 60 CO
CO G 01
S-l -H 60
0) C -H
•H Q) 13 CO
4-1 01 ^
•rl M 13 C
!-J CJ G td
cd co cd 4-i
rH
u
60
C
•rl
CQ
3
O
fl
«l
4-1
O
o
}_l
A
CO
01
o
0
13
G
•H
15 >,
cd
4-J ^
G cd
01
> CO
01 !-l
M O
P< 13
0
O
4-1 60
G
CO -rl
o v^
13 l-i
o cd
a
01
C 0
•H 0
Cll i
M— 1
0
U
0)
60
cd
|5
Ol
CO
)4
^ O)
Cd -rl
r-l 4-1
•H
" r-l
j-i cd
01 rH
•rl 0
4H 1
•H r-l
r-l O
Cd 4-1
rH 0
a cd
01
r^t S-I
£^
cd 13
0 G
•H cd
S-i
PM
CO
S-i
I cu
• C J3
C cd 4-1
0) 0 O
60 C
£*, 01 T3
rl P. C
O cd
0
•s 3 **
C -H fl)
O CO 13
•rl CO -rl
4J td X
td 4J O
(-1 O -H
0) P. 13
cd
« cu
J2 0) C
60 C -H
3 -H 5-1
0 S-i O
S-I O rH
r! T-H r?
4J ,G CJ
O
C
O " Ol
•H 0) 4->
4-1 C td
cd 0 G
13 N nj
•H 0 60
M
0
*-W
0
4-1
C
01
4-1
cd
O) S-I
S-I 01
4-1 4J
cd
rH ^
SO)
J_)
•H W
B cd
OJ >
rC
O
13
Q)
4-1
G
cu n
0 Q)
60 &
3 i '
td o co
td
S-t S-i 60
OJ O
4-1 O
Cd " 4J
& 0)
4-1 01
rG -H C
4J rJ O
•rl O N
iS rH O
,fl
CO O 13
cd O 13
60 P, cd
r**>
4-1 .C ••>
o co
•> rH
60 Ol Cd
G 0 0
•rl -H -H
o f— | g
2 £>"o
o
C/)
13
§ ?
•H
CO CJ
0) 3
CO 13
td o
60 S-t
P,
13 1
01 S-i
4-> O
O 13
0) O
l-l rH
rH >~. Cd
O O -rl
CJ S-I S-I
4-> CU
4J CO 4-1
cd o) td
Q) 13 0
S-i
H
•3
4-J
P.
0)
o
3
O
5-37
-------
water additions, sewage may become septic. Chlorine has been
proposed as one method of odor control in the lift station.
This is economical because chlorine will be used also to
disinfect the final effluent.
In addition to the chemical control of odors in the raw
sewage, the lift station air vent will be equipped with a
scrubber system. This trap will effectively keep any lift
station odors from reaching the outside atmosphere. This unit
must be properly maintained in order to be effective.
The tertiary rapid sand filter and sludge concentrator
building air vents will be equipped with activated carbon
filters. Activated carbon will absorb and adsorb any odorous
compounds and prevent their reaching the outside atmosphere.
Although these filters are very effective, they do wear out
and must be replaced or recharged. This maintenance is the
responsibility of the plant operator and is necessary to
ensure adequate odor control. The wastewater from the periodic
backwashing of the tertiary filters will be returned to the
aerators for treatment. Therefore, no periodic odor problems
will result from filter backwashing.
One other potential source of odor, though not necessarily
an obnoxious odor, is the aeration-dechlorination system. One
purpose of this operation is to reduce the chlorine residual
by releasing it into the atmosphere. The chlorine may be detect-
able near the aeration tank, but its concentration there and
certainly outside the plant area should not be objectionable.
Any odor problems are a reversible, adverse impact, of
short or long term, depending upon their origin. These
5-38
-------
measures will mitigate these adverse effects.
3^ Noise_Impact
Unwanted sound, or noise, is generated by most mechanical
equipment including that proposed for the Olentangy Environ-
mental Control Center. Noise can have an adverse impact on
people that ranges from simple annoyance to psychological
stress. The extent of the impact depends primarily on the
loudness, pitch, intermittency, and familiarity of the noise
reaching sensitive human receivers (Wolsho et_a^., 1974).
Noise levels are typically measured in decibels in the "A"
scale (dBA). The scale emphasizes a certain set of frequencies
to which the human ear is most sensitive. Examples of common
indoor and outdoor noise levels are listed in Figure 5-4.
Noise can be attentuated, i.e., reduced, before it
reaches sensitive human receivers. Distance, vegetation, and
topography, including hills and walls, can reduce noise levels
significantly. Vegetation must be quite dense to attenuate
noise. In a dense evergreen woods with a visibility of 70-100
feet, the attenuation of sound is approximately 18 dBA per
1000 feet. Trees with tall trunks to a height of 6 to 8 feet
and spaced about 10 feet apart provide no attenuation (Embleton
and Thiessen, 1962). Planting vegetation to improve the
aesthetic appearance of the noise-generating area has also
been shown to reduce local sensitivity to noise without actually
reducing the noise levels (Sexton, 1969).
The treatment plant equipment that may cause a significant
noise impact on receivers outside the plant area includes the
blowers and the emergency power generator. The large pumps
5-39
-------
COMMON OUTDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
Jet Flyover at 1000 ft
Gas Lawn Mower at 3ft
Diesel Truck at 50 ft
Noisy Urban Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower at 100 ft
Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 300ft
Quiet Urban Daytime
Quiet Urban Nighttime
Quiet Suburban Nighttime
Quiet Rural Nighttime
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
-i-llO
•100
- 90
80
- 70
- 60
r 50
r 40
--30
20
- 10
J_ 0
COMMON INDOOR
NOISE LEVELS
Rock Band
Inside Subway Train (New York)
Food Blender at 3 ft
Garbage Disposal at 3ft
Shouting at 3ft
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft
Normal Speech al 3 ft
Large Business Office
Dishwasher Next Room
Small Theatre, Large Conference Room
(Background)
Library
Bedroom at Night
Concert Hall (Background)
Broadcast and Recording Studio
Threshold of Hearing
Figure 5-4. Common Indoor and Outdoor Noise Levels
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973
5-40
-------
will also produce high noise levels, but this equipment will
be located below ground level and the noise impact will be
limited to plant personnel who must service this equipment.
The nearest non-plant receivers include a residence and
a park approximatley 400 feet and 1000 feet away, respectively,
from the proposed site of the blower building. The blowers,
with their piping and blow-offs are capable of routinely
producing noise levels exceeding 100 dBA at a distance ap-
proximately three feet from the uncovered operating equipment
(Allis Chalmers, Inc., 1975). However, this equipment would
be housed in a structure with 8-inch thick cement block walls,
1-1/4-inch thick urethane insulation, and 5/8 inch thick
redwood veneer. If the blow-off is either vented inside the
building, or adequately muffled and vented outside, the total
noise level immediately outside the building should be consis-
tently below 90 dBA. Using a maximum noise level of 90 dBA
immediately outside the building, the noise levels at various
distances from the building are shown in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5. Maximum Anticipated Noise Level in dBA at Various
?istan.ces_f_r_qm_the_Pr_op_osed_B]Lqwer _Building
Distance
in ft. 50 100 200 500 1000 2000
Noise Level
in dBA 78 75 72 68 64 57
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
These levels are derived by the dissipation law of sound
pressure, assuming the absence of sound barriers. The treat-
ment plant site will be surrounded by existing and planted
5-41
-------
vegetation, and mounds, which will serve as additional sound
barriers. Lagging the piping, i.e., covering it with sound-
deadening insulation, may further reduce outside noise levels,
if this is necessary. (Allis Chalmers, Inc., 1975). These
precautions, together with the distances to the sensitive
receivers, should result in a minimum acoustical impact from
this noise source. Moreover, the strategic placement of the
blower building and emergency power generator housing with
regard to existing and proposed topography, and the planting
of aesthetically pleasing vegetation, should ensure local
acceptance of the minimum acoustical impact. The remaining
noise Itevels are an adverse short or long term impact of a
reversible nature.
G . Irop_ac t_Summar y
Stream turbidity
Energy consumption during construction
Pressure on community services
Speculation
Disruption of terrestrial biota
Impact on aquatic biota
Noise impacts from the treatment plant
Odor impacts from the treatment plant
2 •
Returning water frrom the Olentangy to the Olentangy
(beneficial )
Reduction of groundwater recharge (adverse)
Meet present water quality standards and the waste load
allocation (beneficial and adverse)
5-42
-------
Reduction of septic tanks (beneficial)
Decrease in coliform bacteria in Olentangy (beneficial)
Stream sedimentation (adverse)
Interceptor presence (beneficial)
Treatment plant presence (adverse, but serves a beneficial
purpose)
Energy consumption during operation (adverse)
Building materials commitment (adverse and beneficial)
Landfilling sludge (adverse)
Population growth (beneficial and adverse)
Possibility of greater housing variety (beneficial)
Loss of prime agricultural land (adverse)
Loss of habitat (adverse)
Air pollution from population growth (adverse)
Development away from streams (beneficial)
Impact on aquatic biota (adverse to beneficial)
- Flood plain development potential (adverse)
Visual impacts of the treatment plant (adverse)
Noise impacts from the treatment plant (adverse)
Odor impacts from the treatment plant (adverse)
a • C-L3.33 _?:iiksol utely _i££e ve r_s ibl e
Energy consumption - construction and operation
Labor - construction and operation
Commitment of building materials
b . C]Lass_II--ir_rever sible_for _al_l _P£a.ctical_pur poses
Returning water to the Olentangy from the Olentangy
Reduction of groundwater recharge
5-43
-------
Turbidity and sedimentation
Landfilling sludge
Interceptor presence
Treatment plant presence
Farmland and habitat loss
Air pollution
Development away from streams
Flood plain development
Visual impacts of the treatment plant
5-44
-------
CHAPTER 6
FEDERAL & STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Bearings and Meetings
1. Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment
The hearing on the Olentangy Environmental Control Center
and Interceptor Sewers for Subdistrict 1-A of the Delaware
County Sewer District, Delaware County, Ohio was held at
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 29, 1974, at the conference
room of District Six of the Ohio Department of Transportation,
Delaware, Ohio.
Major issues discussed:
* proper planning and provision for future development
and growth in the county
* avoid water pollution problems which now exist via sew-
age treatment facilities
* coordinate the sewer system with the new water system
* problem soils in the county for septic tanks; malfunc-
tioning
* local sewer planning efforts to connect into the county
interceptors
* impact of the project on natural areas and reducing
harmful impacts to the Olentangy area
* conflict of proposed site with Highbanks Park
* petition (144 signatures) citing inadequacies of the
Environmental Assessment and requesting an EIS on project
* desire for more information about sewer routes and phasing
and population served
* history of sewer planning effort
* possibility/probability of treatment plant breakdown
* alternate treatment plant location by 1-270 to also
serve Worthington Hills
* impacts of population growth on transportation and schools
* financing of the project -- with and without new de-
velopment
6-1
-------
* high degree of sophistication of the treatment system
A complete transcript is included in the Facilities Plan.
2. Public Hearing on the Facilities Plan
The hearing on the Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Plan for
South-Central Delaware County, Ohio was held at 10:00 a.m.
on Wednesday, July 31, 1974, in the Common Pleas Court
Room, Courthouse, Delaware, Ohio.
Major issues discussed:
* problem of poor soils and malfunctioning septic tanks
* EIS for the project requested
* impact on Scenic River, on Highbanks Park
* petition presented at the January hearing
* phasing of sewers and dates of construction
* adequacy of capacity of the treatment facilities
* alternative of going to Columbus
* possibility of meeting the future "no discharge" al-
ternative
* irreversible and irretrievable aspects of the project—
loss of farmland, river valley
* odors and noise from treatment plant
* impact of sewer line construction
* impact on Bartholomew Run area by the interceptors
* serving existing problem areas first
* have water system and now need sewer system to handle
the wastewater
* impact on Olentangy mollusks and other biota
* take time to do good planning before development
* land use rights and restrictions
A complete transcript is included in the Facilities Plan.
6-2
-------
3. Summary of Concerns Raised at the USEPA Community Workshop
May 21, 1975, 7:30 p.m. Olentangy High School Delaware,
Ohio.
Major issues discussed:
* sludge disposal
* overloading of interceptors
* EIS process, delay and rising project costs
* Columbus use of Delaware County for water supply
* compatability of a treatment plant with its surroundings
* need for orderly and coordinated development afforded
by sewage treatment
* Highbanks view; seeing area for oneself
* serving present sewage problems vs. future growth
* noise, odor problems of treatment plant
* existing malfunctioning septic tanks
* needs of county residents vs. county visitors
* protection of water supply
* question of diverting water from different basins
* recycling of effluent
* What site alternatives were proposed?
* Possibility of connecting to the Columbus interceptor
line which ends at Worthington Hills.
B. Correspondence Received Relating to the Draft EIS - US EPA
( * = letter reproduced here)
Senator John Glenn July 2, 1975
Congressman Samuel L. Devine August 24, 1973
October 12, 1973
April 17, 1975
May 28, 1975
July 2, 1975
6-3
-------
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
April 5, 1974
April 10, 1975
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service
* July 21, 1975
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Division
April 11, 1975
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District
April 16, 1975
May 15, 1975
July 31, 1975
2. State
Representative Mike Stinziano August, 1975
Representative Walter D. McClaskey April 15, 1975
Representative Lawrence E. Hughes April 15, 1975
Ohio Department of Natural Resources April 30, 1975
August 13, 1975
Ohio Department of Transportation April 16, 1975
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency January 14, 1975
March 11, 1975
3. LOGal
Delaware County Regional Planning Commission
April, 1975
Mid-Ohio Health Planning Federation April 28, 1975
Health Department, Delaware City and County
* April 11, 1975
City of Westerville, City Engineer April 9, 1975
* June 5, 1975
W.R. York, Mayor, Galena April, 1975
Metropolitan Park District of Columbus and Franklin County
November 4, 1974
December 12, 1974
February 5, 1975
March 6, 1975
March 14, 1975
6-4
-------
March 24, 1975
April 8, 1975
June 10, 1975
July 3, 1975
* August 21, 1975
* August 27, 1975
Correspondence Received from the Public Relating to the
Draft EIS by USEPA (* = letter reproduced here)
The Nature Conservancy,
Rivers Unlimited,
Trent D. Sickles,
Mary Lynn Jacobsen,
Susan B. Henrickson and
Nationwide Development
Barbara M. Cape
Roger Maize
Larry H. Lape
Del-Co Water Co.
Ohio Conservation Foundation
J. Vaughn Barnhard
* Walter T. Momot
Richard S. McCutchen
Lynn Edward Elfner
* John R. Schutte
* Carol B. Stein
Edmond L. Robbins
Ronald C. Sloter
E. Osborn
Carl E. Evans
Delaware County Farm Bureau
Don E. Fisher
Porter Twp. Trustees
Larry Mitchell
Liberty Twp. Civic Association
Thomas E. McNamara
C.B. Percy
Charles H. Perkins
John D. Wolf
John G. Whitney
Russell Tones
Sierra Club, Central Ohio Group
John H. Law
Edward A. Bischoff
Karen L. Rodde
George W. Hockaden
K.E. Snyder
Concord Twp. Trustees
John A. Chapman
L.R. Schreiber
Delaware Area Chamber of Commerce
Virgil E. Newell
Ralph E. Scott
Ohio Chapter
Cincinnati
Columbus
Wade-Shuta Campfire Girls,
Worthington
Co.
Columbus
Powell
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Cleveland
Westerville
Columbus
Columbus
Delaware
Powell
Columbus
Harlem Twp.
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Federation Delaware
Powell
Sunbury
Ostrander
Powell
Delaware
Lewis Center
Westerville
Delaware
Sunbury
Delaware
Delaware
Powell
Delaware
Powell
Delaware
Delaware
Powell
Delaware
Delaware
Lewis Center
Delaware
6-5
-------
Jane & Robert Smith
Clifford W. Andretch, Jr
Mack Fulton
David Wallace
James D. Klingbeil
John J. Hohl
Sharon Heit & class
Robert L. White
Mr. & Mrs. B.T. Mindlin
John C. Gunnin
Ohio Equities, Inc.
James M. Merkel
Patrick E. Blayney
Von Hill
Everett Baxter
Del-Co Water Co.
Walter T. Momot
John R. Schutte
League of Women Voters
Lovell M. Parsons
Lisa Roberts
Nick Gatz
Sondra L. Davis
Mary Gene Maher
Jane A. Healey
Mrs. Russell Davis
Dorothy R. Schaffner
William Havener
David Wallace
*0hio Biological Survey
Columbus
Dublin
Delaware
Columbus
Powell
Westerville
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Columbus
Westerville
Columbus
Radnor
Delaware
Columbus
Powell
Delaware
Westerville
Columbus
Worthington
Worthington
Worthington
Columbus
Powell
Columbus
Columbus
Carroll
5. Summary of Issues Raised in Letters to USEPA
1. Request for the preparation of an Environmental Im-
pact Statement.
2. General interest in participating in the Draft EIS.
3. Inadequate Environmental Assessment; need to examine
alternatives; land disposal.
4. Aggravating and expensive delays in the construction
of needed sewage treatment facilities.
5. Immediate sewage problems in southern Delaware County;
poor soils for sewage treatment; health hazard and
water pollution implications.
6. Impacts of sewage effluent on water quality and aquatic
life in the Olentangy; State Scenic River.
7. A central sewerage system is imperative for sound,
orderly development, and growth and prosperity in
Delaware County.
6-6
-------
8. A central sewerage system subsidizes new development,
without serving existing development.
9. Downstream impacts of effluent in Franklin County
on the Olentangy River.
10. Pollution in the Alum Creek watershed and effect on
Westerville drinking water supply.
6-7
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDI II . SI.RVICF
l-eileial Huildmg. I orl SiK'llii)|. ES-PER
V" '•'i .try Twin Cities. Minnesota 55111
X A.. ;
JUL i ± iy/i
Mr. Ned E. Williams
Ohio EPA RE: Powell Sewage Treatment Plant
450 East Town Street Powell, Ohio
P.O. Box 1049 Board of County Commissioners
Columbus, Ohio 43216 Delaware Counly
OEPA Permit No: K 901 *AD
Dear Mr. Williams:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the referenced proposed
facility and associated material describing the discharges and condi-
tions under which the applicant proposes to operate the facility. This
supercedes our letter of March 24, 1975. Our comment'• are submitted
under the authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661 et seq.).
On March ?4, 1975, the Service sent a "no action" letter to the Ohio En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) to indicate that we did not have
avail-:.bio resources, at the time, to make an investigation of the rp-
plicant's proposed facility and present our comments and recommendations.
'n'te subjr-cl permit became effective I'oy o, 1975. Since that tin.a, pos-
sible problems of having the sewage treatment plant (SIP) located at the
proposed site and discharging into the Olentangy Rivor have been brought
to our attention by several sources. For this reason a biologist from
our Lebanon, Ohio, field office made an onsite investigation of the pro-
posed plant site on Pay 28, 1975. Our concerns, which are explained
below5, are followed by recommendation? thai we have determined to be
necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources of the affected areas.
The applicant proposes to construct a sewage treatment plant with an
average effluent flo"-1 of 1.5 million on 11 one per oov ("CD), approxi-
mately ore-fourth mile north of the Dolware-Franklin County line.. U'c
understand thut the location of the SIP will be witivln the flood plain
but above the 100-year flood level. A March 28, 1975 memorandum from
the U.S. EPA further indicated that the initial capacity of the STP
would be 1.5 MGD with a 3.4 MGD peak flow capacity. Further expansion
is planned to 5.0 M-ij with 9.6 r'.GD peak flow. The effluent will enter
the Olentangy River opposite the Hignbanks Metropolitan Park located
north of the Franklin-Delaware County line. The affected reach of the
Olentangy River represents one of several streams in central Ohio with
a water quality adequate to support a substantial warmwater sport fish-
ery as indicated bv the followina survevs.
"'6-191* 6-8
-------
2.
In a partial creel survey conducted on the Qlentangy River from June 3,
1974 to September 24, 1974 (Weber, 1974) fishermen were interviewed on
each of the 49 survey days at three 1,000-meter reaches of the river--at
Powell Road, 1-270, and Henderson Road. The Powell Road site is charac-
teristic of the natural river and is located about 1 mile upstream
from the proposed outfall. At the intersection of Interstate 270, the
Ohio Department of Transportation has constructed a series of 5 artifi-
cial riffle-pool complexes which provide fish habitat along with a well
maintained public access. This area is located about 2 miles down-
stream from the proposed outfall. The sampling area at Henderson Road,
4 miles below the outfall, is characteristic of an old channelized
river in an advanced st?ge of recovery. The creel census data was ex-
trapolated to include the entire June-September period for these three
sites. The summarized data follow:
Total fishermen 1,560
Number fishenr.en-hours 2,753
Number of fish caught 1,079
Groups and species cf fish caught expressed as a percentage include:
Rock Bass 34%
Sunfish 29%
Smallmouth bass 26%
Chonncl catfish 6%
Other 5%
More detailed creel census information is given in Table 1 of the Ap-
pendix. In addition, extensive electrtfishing has been done in these
three 1,000-meter sections of the river. This data is compiled by
month in Table 2 of the Appendix. The fish population, which includes
smallnouLh bass end pan fish in abundance, is indicative of a healthy
wanr.v/ater stream environment.
The Ohio State l'iiivr>rr;i ty, Department cf Zoology, rrnducted ether fish-
ery surveys of the cnYuclcG reaches 01 t.iic dentally uiver ana have
found the spotted darter (Etjp.eustgi.ip i \cvl5>tL:Iil)» sr, endangered fish for
the State of Ohio (Ohio's Endangered UTlcTAnimals, Publication 316, Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife). Further, dead
shells of two State of Cnio endangered ino'Musks, cob shell (Quadrula
cyjindn'ca) and northern riffle shell Q pj_c_b_lnsr!f! cori'losa rangidnaj,
were found in a November 1974 study of the area (Stein, 197577*^
Two parameters limited in the proposed permit could be detrimental to
aquatic life, especially during low-flov/ conditions: ammonia which is
limited to 1.5 mq/1 for both a 30-day mean and a 7-day mean during the
12-month period, and residual chlorine which is limited to 0.5 mg/1.
6-9
-------
3.
Un-ionized Ammonia
Various fish species have yielded mean 96-hour LCgg values of 0.29 to
0.89 mg/1 of un-ionized ammonia (Ball 1967). Exposure of carp to sub-
lethal un-ionized ammonia concentrations in the range of 0.11 to 0.34
mg/1 resulted in extensive necrotic changes and tissue disintegration
in various organs (Flis, 1968). The maximum acceptable concentration
of un-ionized ammonia in water is 0.05 of the 96-hour LC5g. We under-
stand that the un-ionized ammonia form is very persistent in the aque-
ous medium. If pH and temperature remain constant, un-ionized ammonia
remains toxic until dilution reduces the concentration.
The concentration of toxic un-ionized ammonia is calculated from the
concentration of total ammonia limited in the proposed permit. Since
the percentage of resulting un-ionized ammonia is dependent on pH and
temperature, these parameters must be considered in the calculations.
Using a pH of 9 allowable in the proposed permit, and a maximum tem-
perature of 30° C, the final limitation of un-ionized ammonia could be
0.81 mg/1 (Thurston, et al.s 1974). U. S. EPA (1973) recommends that
the concentration of un-ionized ammonia be limited to 0.02 mg/1, or
less, for the protection of aquatic life. A dilution factor of 40.5
would be required to reduce un-ionized ammonia concentration to non-
toxic levels uuutir tiiese conditions. l\e understand from the U. S.
Army, Corps of Engineers that the minimum flow relee.se from the Dela-
ware Reservoir is set at 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 3.232 MGD.
The 7-day 2-year low flow for the Olentangy River at 3tratford is
3.736 MGD (Cross, 1965). Under such conditions effluent from the pro-
posed facility would only^be diluted 2.5 times, thus allowing toxic
concentrations of un-ionized ammonia beyond the mixing zone.
Although the above values are possibles the following table utilized
ranges of data from the U. S. Geological Survey, Halter Resources Data.
for Ohio collected at the gauging station on the Olentangy River near
Worthington, Ohio.
Table 1 indicates that under certain physical and chemical conditions
likely to occur in the Olentangy River, un-ionized ammonia will be
toxic to aquatic life. During peak load operations of the STP and with
the increased volume of discharge due to projected expansion of the
applicant's facilities, the concentration of un-ionized ammonia remains
toxic at a lower pH and temperature. Such concentrations of toxic am-
monia could exist in the Olentangy River over extended periods of the
year.
In addition to the insurance of a minimum release of 5 cfs from the
Delaware Reservoir, we understand from Corps of Engineers personnel
that additional water (20 to 40 cfs total) has been released from the
6-10
-------
4J
•rl
S CO (1)
S-l U-l
O "O CO •
CO O
T) CO H 4J
a m
01 • d
O CO -r-l
ex co
O O 4-1 O
M 4-) ,O QJ O
DJ O CO rH
m u-i
OJ « O Q)
Q)
a o
o
T3
CJ -H
5 C cr1
tO CO OJ
OHM
vo
CN
CO
QJ
P H
cO ^-^ cO
H fO QJ
C MH C -H
g 4-1 r-l
6 rO O
CO UJ CO CJ
4-J u-l -H
H cO 4J
cfl
•H
CO
a d
•rl O
•13 -H
•H a
U-l
o
d
o
•H
4-1
«
S-i
a
QJ
o
do
O LO
CO
-H o
Q U-l
O
O
CJ
H
o
U-l
o
4J tj
T3 QJ
CJ CJ N
NO -rl
•H m d
d rH O
O -iH
'H U-l I
o d
3
QJ
00 U-l
d o
cO
H d
00 CO
6 c
o
n -H
• 4-1
H CO
rH
CO 3
d a
•r) rH
Cfl CO
:D a
IH
o
o
a) -H
M 4J
3 CO
4J )-l
CO 4-1
M d
0) QJ
(0, O
s a
OJ O
4-1 U
CO CN
U-l
O Q)
rH
O ,0'
f> C
QJ
QJ CO
M QJ
CO H
O CO
H 4J
U-l CO
T3
U-l
o a
o
QJ M
e UH
rH T3
O QJ
> d
•rl
M CO
O 4-1
U-l ,Q
o
CO
M H
O (U
4J 4-1
O CO
co S
U-l
60
d c
O T-1
•H >
4-1 -H
3 Q)
•H CJ
•H
-------
4.
reservoir 'to aid in controlling pollution of the Scioto River below
Columbus, Ohio. There is, however, no binding agreement for this pol-
lution abatement measure. An independent water treatment firm uses
water from the Olentangy River downstream from the Delaware Reservoir.
If the STP is built, this firm plans to increase its operations, which
would decrease flows of the river affected by the proposed STP. Tabie
2 indicates periods of the water years 1961 to 1970 when the flow in
the Olentangy River was 20 cfs or less, at which times (11.4%) such
flows, under conditions indicated, would be inadequate to dilute toxic
levels of un-ionized ammonia. It should also be noted that low-flow
conditions are usually associated with the summer and early autumn when
water temperatures of the streams are near maximum upper limits. The
minimum flow for the consecutive 10-year period was 7.6 cfs.
TABLE 2. Periods of 4 consecutive days (96 hours), or more, in which
the flow in Olentangy River near Worthington was 20 cfs, or
less for water years 1961 to 1970.
Water year (Oct.-Sept.) Total number of days Periods (of 4 or more
with flow at 20 consecutive days)
cfs or less
1961 36 Dec. 9-13; Dec. 17-Jan. 13
1962 50 May 23-27; Jun. 2-5; Jun.
8-11; Jun. 13-23; Jun. 25-
Jul. 2
1963 26 Jun. 26-Jul. 1; Jul. 7-12;
Sept. 4-11; Sept. 14-30
1964 110 Oct. 1-Nov. 6; Nov. 24-
Jan. 17; Sept. 13-19; Sept.
21-30
1965 59 Oct. 1-Nov. 16; Jun. 21-30
1966 15 Sept. 13-19; Sept. 23-30
1967 36 Oct. 1-10; Oct. 12-15;
Oct. 18-24; Sept. 13-27
1968 25 Oct. 1-5; Oct. 11-18; Sept.
14-21
1969 41 Oct. 12-16; Oct. 19-28;0ct.
Nov. 6
1970 18 Sept. 13-30
6-12
-------
5.
Residual Chi orine
The toxicity of chlorine in water to aquatic life depends on the con-
centration of residual chlorine and choramines which are formed when
chlorine is in contact with nitrogenous materials. Choramines, how-
ever, are not monitored in the proposed permit. It has been shown that
total numbers of fish and diversity of fishes in receiving waters are
drastically reduced by chlorinated sewage effluents (Tsai, 1968, 1970).
Zillich (1972) determined that the threshold toxicity for fathead
minnow (Pimephales pjcornejjs) was Q.04-0.05 mg/1 residue! chlorine.
The survival of Gan£n
-------
6.
We would appreciate a response to this letter as to what action you
plan to take with respect to our recommendations.
LITERATURE: CITED
Ball, I.R. 1967. The relative susceptibilites of some species of
freshwater fish to poisons. I. Ammonia. Water Research 1:767-775.
Cross, W.P. 1965. Low-flow frequency and storage-requirement indices
for Ohio Streams. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Bulletin 40.
Flis, J. 1968. Histopathological changes induced in carp (Cyprinus
carpi o L.) by ammonia v/ater. Acta Hydrobiol. 10 (hY- 205-238.
Stein, C.B. 1975. The naiads (Phylum Mollusca, family Unionidae) of
the Olentangy River between Powell Road and I-P/0, Delaware and
Franklin Counties, Ohio. Ohio State University Museum of Zoology,
Columbus, Ohio. Jan. 1975.
Thurston, R.V., Russo, R.C., and K. Emerson, 1974. Aqueous ammonia
equilibrium calculations. Technical Report No. 74-1, July. Fisheries
Bioassay Laboratory, Montana State University.
Tsai, C.F. 19GS. Effects of chlorinated sewage effluents or. fish in
Upper Patuxent River, Maryland. Chesapeake £c1. 9 (2): 83-93.
Tsai, C.F. 1970. Change^ in fish populations and migration in rela-
tion to increased sewage pollution in Little Patuxent River, Maryland.
Chesapeake Sci. 11 (1): 34-41.
U.S. EPA. 1972. Water Quality Criteria 1972 U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington," D. C. 594 p.
Zillich, J.A. 1972. Toxicity of combined chlorine residuals to fresh
water fish. Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. 44:212-220.
Sincerely yours,
Regional Director
cc: U.S. EPA, Permits Branch, Chicago
Chief, Ohio Div. of Wildlife, Columbus
Mr. Boussu, NMFS, Gloucester
Mr. Edward F. Hutchins, Metropolitan Park District of Columbus
and Franklin Counties, Westerville
Mr. John T. Cuneo, Fnviro Control, Rockville
Mr. Harlen Hirt, Region 5 Planning Branch, U.S. EPA, Chicago
6-14
-------
Appendix Table 1.
Total No. Anglers
Interviewed
Total Angler-hours
Hours/Angler
Catch/Hour
Total No. Fish Caught
Summary of creel census data for the Olentangy
River taken by the Ohio Cooperative Fishery
Research Unit. Census represents randomly
selected 4-hour time blocks on 50 randomly
selected days between April 1 and October 30.
1972
Powell
Road
36
54
1.49
0.78
55
1-270
269
361
1.34
0.46
165
1973
Powell
Road
89
124
1.39
1.39
172
1-270
199
253
1.27
0.71
181
1974
Powel1
Road
85
167
1.97
0.71
119
1-270
145
232
1.60
0.55
127
Appendix Table 2.
Catch by electrofishing three 1000-meter sites
on the Olentengy River compiled by monthly
sampling periods (A-F)
Area A = Powell Road
Area B = Interstate 270
Area C = Henderson Road
as follow?:
6-15
-------
4-S ;-::.y !974 ,/
•r--, A
wi ;
f "...
i-.,j^
Go
Cc..
QJ:
l.'h:
He;
W . s_
Co;
• r ,.
V- '
*v»
r* -
v».k-
u>, I
l"sv^-s-
/•- _.
0,0
r-', .,
w • u
LC,".
i?..-,
Wtt.lU
l.Y.I
olc
i.CCI
:z^:~a Shad
;ko! iuncc ^'
'"i Uh
, /
£ kOkwCK Uci r*p 3 LI CKC P
vo Sucker
^ u c «'Co r
\^»\ j*\ou * lOr^ici
c_r. Fcahcno
ck Bui i head
Sew Lu i ! he-i
WO. i I"*' • -'.. -S t ,- '.
1111%; 1 va i i i bi i
.•.» A-c-.-
k W OdS-J
;> '-C---S ""
. i. «»• W.^^p
w.* Sun fish
-r,; i 1 Sur.f Ish
jv.,ir Sun fish
a iiv.outh Bass ^
to Crcpple
ck Crcpp le
rj- rn'.
1 v..'lCl 1
<**' /% /"•'"'" /!'^^
f O.Cuo ( i ;
<
I
f
| O.OOi(i)
1
| 0.3_2jJ_35)
; 0.030(9)
\
* •.»
j
: ^ "» E "7 A o ^
! o . U i / ( 2. 1
t
\
0.04s(D)
'« 0.24SC27)
^
; 0.003(1)
t
r fi o ; "^ r ^ ")
V • W1 t * \ <— /
'» O.COSCI)
1
r
s
u ^ t«-^^i^\
{ C. co-iCio)
, ,
» 0.035(4)
I
1 0.07iCC)
(
t
! 0. 714(80)
i
^s
. 0.255_(29i
1 0.071(3)
1
I 0.008(1)
1
!
!
f
0 . '^ w ^ ( 1 )
..
0.37- (64)
O.CJi(o)
C'.0:9(5)
0. 052(9)
-
0.274U7)
--
0.0:2C5)
C.CCdd )
O.O'.i (2)
C.!92(33)
"
0.2:0(33)
0.070-:! 2)
O.ci-XlOS)
0.590(101)
r, r r: o .' n \
U .u.^/.^i'^
0.040(7)
n.p.^-(l)
0.3i5 (33) i
0.0;G(2)
C. 774 (Co)
!
O.!2o(!4) !
i
1
0.072(8) j
!
0.03JC4)
i
0.3C5(34) !
f
o.cc;(9) i
F
o.cwd; ';
C.OG9(i) i
1
f
[,
O.C27C3) !
;
^•1 - - • ^' / X5 \
U.'v'^ov.S';
{
r* r ~ <: f •• \ •
0 . i^_. ^(.''f)
C.2432(2S) |
|
O^C2'^_(8) '
0±_l_2i(22) |
1
0.1:4(6) !
!
- !
'••Yi euros Represent Crrrch Per N'.inui
'-Fir arcs in Parentheses Reprose.vr
love! Number of Fish Teken
Table 2-A
6-16
-------
. *-- -. /
;-vi U^ A
Area C
C^tC/riLh •
C^.-p i •-C.'./-2i(-',5)-;";<
r
Cvjl [ i L,;ick Coro3uc!.'c.;~ ' o ':';--"'(c")
V.' •*.*'-,;*+ , — ,- ' ' f t- \
* '"*^< ^ ' • *•* ' V'^- ' \j * v i ^ \* \ O ^
f
u/Is.j.< i\cc,.l",or:,o | O.CCO(i^)
l;^.;Jc.'. f:^C.':O.'£O ' Q '/7-r-'j^
'L, !LC.\ L;- 1 i r.^ci
^ s * VJ-- ' ' ' -• • ; U « ^U".- \, t /
•--* -'-^= : O._r77(77)
:^k-..;,/; i S^nvlih j o.G5C(!2)
f
,-x. ..__._, .>_,..!•.,. 0. 5.^0 *. I k-li)
*-'.!.,^, t t til «-* V . 1 1 i^s^ ,^^> * 0 . * '^J }
\.'.r.\j Cr,;.ppio 1 Q. 117(24)
Liirc's Cfc-o^Ic - — .
S
j
1. '.-Move ! 0-009(2)
i
C. 152 (64)
' 0.034(12)
t
C. 094(33)
t
i A i""1 ^ *"* / D \
; 0.0u.iv f x
; 0.207(73:
;
f
i
0.752(254)
!
; 0.!3G(45)
t
;
0 • •-. <.'7 ( ! '> .^ /
s 0.022(8)
I 0.002(1)
| 0.005(2)
0.02! ('D
0.579 (.09)
O.C55CIS)
0.03i (6)
(
i
'
O.OL-^(i6) i
»_
0.322(62)
O.C25C5) !
i
O.CG5(S) |
0.154(29) i
i
0.03J (6)
0.03i (6)
0. [Co (20)
r
O.O^A^)
0.079(15)
0.005(1) [
!
O.OOS(i)
Rcprosent Catch Por I-
in P^rcivi'r.wScs
rcstn'l" Tov^ i Number or Fish Taken
TabJe 2-B
6-17
-------
25-25
974
Arcs
Area D
Co i' civ fsh
Ccrp
Quifibock Carpsuckcr
I'JMtc Sucker
Keg Sucker
SJ !vcr Red horse
Black Rcdhorse
Golcisn Rod horse
Si'.orthecd Rsdhorse
SJwOk EU ! iheaci
Yoi lov.» 3u! inead
C..c.nno! Catfish
ToipOJC f-'adtOiTI
Fssk Bess
.•5- --.-, <:•,,..::<-:-,
o< ^^,K wu
-------
26 August - 5 Septe.v.ber 197^
Aroa A
Area B
A roc, C
Gii^ard Snad
Goldfish
Carp
Qull! back Carpsuckcr
Whlto Sucker
HCCJ buckcr
SI Ivir Rodhorso
Black Rodhorse
Go! don Rcdhorse
Sr.ortnsad Redhcrse
Black Bu i 1 head
Yoifcv,.- Bulihoad
Oi'iLririC i uc.7 'v 1 sn
Stcnccat fed torn
Reck Sass
Grocn SunvJsh
Grr.nqcspot Sunfish
"
Zl i;o£,! I i Sunf ish
Lonc;oor Sun fish
Sr,'(U ! ! rrouth Bass
Lcrgercouth Bass
V/hfto Grapple
Black Crappie
Green side Darter.
l.c;i F:>rch
W0. 090(1 i )**•
0.057(7)
0.450(55)
0.0!5(2)
0.049(6)
O.Coi (1C)
0.095(12)
0.09S(!2)
O.I53C20)
—
—
0.040(5)
Of'N ~, -"1 t ! *
.UUOV * y
0.024(3)
0.557(68)
0.122(15)
y ' i "'/-•:*> i
U.^C^IV J)-'-'
0.565(59)
O.ISSC23)
—
O.I22C15)
O.I55CI9)
—
0.09CCI 1)
0. 124(50
—
0.170(44)^
0.020(5)
0.203(49)
0.020(5)
0.0:6(4)
0.024(6)
0.116(23)
0.004(1)
—
0.04;(!0)
0 .41/0(60)
0.015(2)
!
o . i y/ ( i s ) j
— •
0.022(3) j
~~ !
I
0.022(3) |
0.076(10) j
\
0.213(28)
i
;
i
I
0.022(5) :
••*• '
:
i
i 1
—
—
0.107(26)
0.414(100)
—
0.173(43)
0.!99(4S)
0.448(103)
0.029(7)
0.016(4)
0.033(8)
0.004(1)
0-0?0(5) 1
t
!
i
0.0!5(2)
i
0.075CIO)
i
0.007(1) !
O' • \J 2s w V ^ / i
0.137C8) '
0.030(4)
0.022(3) j
0.035(5) !
i
0.022(3) |
i
1
i
'"'FiQures Represent C<
""'rl-jiiros in P^rcr.tho:
itch Per N'.inuto
,05 Reproso.it Tota
6~19
Number of Fish Taken
Tab la 2-D
-------
CATCH BY ELLCT^CnC
0!or,tur,Cjy River
November
A 6 C
Gizzcrc Shaa
Niuskei i ur.ge
*0. 032(4)** i 0.137(23)
!
0.005(1)
* i
Stonorolier :- 0.317(40) j 0.005(1)
i *
S I
Golcfish 0.024(3) 0.005(1)
Corp 0.34-1(43)
i
Si !ve-r Shiner j 0.331 (43)
Spot-fin Shiner ' 0.230(29)
k
1
Biuntnose Minnow ! 0.135(17)
j
2.950(3S4) |
i
—
0.274(45) 0.317(33)
f !
0.030(5)
—
0.024(4)
I
Quil Iback Carpsuckc-r ! 0.159(20) 0.119(20)
l.r.ite Sucker 0.053(8)
j
s
it r* ( ^/*^^'^>'*">^"^
hOj1 Sucker j OiiSov^p)
j
Si iver Redhorse | 0.053(8)
Black Redhorse
Golden Radhorse
Shorthead Redhorse
0.063(8)
0.714(90)
—
s
0.095(16)
i
t
0.025(3)
0.108(13)
0.092(ii) !
j
i
0.012(2) t 0.003C1)
I
0.050(10) 0.067(8)
0.024(4) }
0.452(75) [ 0.292(35) j
0.012(2)
i
t
. ;
C 0.084(10) i
Yo How Bui 1 head | 0.053(8) 0.095(16)
Channel Catfish
Stonecat
0.016(2)
0.056(7)
i
Brook Si Iversides
Reck Bass
—
1.333(163).
0.054(9)
0.042(5)
0.008(1)
i
__. t —
0.024(4)
0.607( 102)
—
0.033(4)
*Nurr,ber of Fish Caught Per Minute
Tota1 Number of Fish Caught (Number in Parentheses)
Table 2-E
Area A = Unchannc!ized
Area B = Modified Chanr.o! with Riffle Pools
Area C - Old Criar.r.e! izcd
6-20
-------
CATCH BY ELECTROFISHING
Oicnvir.cy River
November !» 3' & 4' l97/t
B
o.'con o LJ r. T i ^r, |
Orciu^e Spct'ix-ci Sunfisr/
3 i uog ! i ! \
Lc.'^car Sun fish
S^iUou-tr, Boss [
< * "* ~ T •'">••'• *-. i— '^ C" C ^
.iT.Ire Ci'uppiQ i
i
Slock Crcppio j
rxjJ,,L.V,..' ^« .Vi, -
LO:> Porch ^
L
•"'0. 198 (25 )™ j 1.555(263)
0.003(!) 0.012(2)
0.349(44) 0.345(55)
\
0.7C6(S9) I.O:S(!7!)
i. 037(137) 1.827(307)
|
0.087(1!) 0.220(37)
• 0.197(23)
0.017(2)
0.100(12)
0.292(35) i
j
0.175(2!)
j
0.053(7)
{
0.222(23) 0.077(13) j O.I50C2)
0.357(45) 0.143(24) • 0.050(5) j
i i
, C7. >-.^ '• ... " __ i
*~ ' - [
(
0.302(33) ; O.CS3C4)
I
'
j
i
i
'"'t\'i!.T.jcr of Fish Ccught Per Minute
•""'Vovo I KuTn^or of Fish CoLjcht (Number in Parenrheses)
o ~ r-,oa ; "' ; >_c r
C — UiG One..'. .'(3 i
v/ 1 r, Rfvic- Pco
Table 2-F
6-21
-------
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Delaware City and County
DELAWARE, OHIO 43015
LLOYD P. MAY. M. D. lls North Sandusky Street
Health Commissioner ph°"e 363-4961
., , , PRO 'f-r
Apnl 11, 1975 RECE, v
APR I i. }
Mr. Harlan Hirt, Chief, Planning Branch ^lANiMWG Bfi
United States Environmental Protection Agency 'HE NO.
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: Southern Delaware County
Collector- treatment-disposal system
Dear Sir:
The notice that an environmental impact statement is being required before action
can be taken on the above project came as a great disappointment and I might say
even a surprise.
As health commissioner of Delaware County it seems I've been struggling for years
against problems which emphasize the unequivocal need for the waste management
system in question. In my mind the environmental impact of not getting this
system in as soon as possible is the critical issue.
The County Board of Health has been under fire for allowing individual home systems
to be installed in the rapidly expanding southern portion of the county. It's
been under a building ban until it tightened its sanitary regulations to where it
is requiring tremendous systems to be installed and is enforcing other measures
which in the long run means inefficient use of ever dwindling land supply.
The soils in Delaware County are not conducive to suburban development using indi-
vidual sewage disposal systems of the types now available. We are already years
behind in providing central sewage to southern Delaware County and if the growth
rate of the past few years continues without central sewage I'm sure the problems
will multiply to an insurmountable level.
Northerly development from Columbus is the pattern and I think this will continue.
The waste management facilities as proposed are long overdue. These facilities
can only be an asset if you look at it practically from any view.
More than 10 years ago I attended a meeting designed to interest Columbus in extend
ing its facilities to Delaware County with no results.
More than five years ago I attended my first meeting designed to provide the system
in question now.
6-22
-------
Still the county grows, building continues, the need for adequate sewage waste
management gets more necessary and still no such facilities in the most critical
area.
If an environmental impact study is a must, please get it done with all possible
dispatch.
We need this sewage disposal system now! The longer it takes to initiate its
construction the more valuable time we lose, and we are already ten years behind
schedule.
Sincerely,
Lloyd P,/ May, M.D.
Health Commissioner
LPM/f
cc: Delaware County Commissioners
6-23
-------
CITY OF WESTERVILLE
21 SOUTH STATE STREET
WESTERVILLE, OHIO
43081 6147 882-2317
Council-Manager Government Since 1916
June 5, 1975
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ATTN: Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief, Planning Branch
Project #C390698-01
RE: Delaware County Commissioners, Delaware, Ohio
Sanitary Sewer Interceptor System and Activated Sludge Facility
Input-Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Gentlemen:
This is to advise that the City of Westerville desires to participate
in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
subject project.
We are supplementing information previously furnished in our letter
of April 9, 1975.
The City of Westerville water supply is taken from Alum Creek and will
in the future obtain additional supply from the storage area connected
with the new Alum Creek Dam being completed at this time.
Delaware County proposes new interceptor sewers to serve the areas in
the Alum Creek watershed including the new Alum Creek Dam.
The City of Westerville wants to reemphasize its present and future
concern for the water quality in the Alum Creek watershed from which
water is obtained for treatment. As previously indicated, the septic
tanks along with the non-suitable soils for proper leeching fields have
produced conditions that are deplorable at the surface discharge points
and which finally become a difficult and expensive problem in later
treatment to produce a potable water supply. We have reviewed these
conditions first hand and can attest to the urgent necessity that these
conditions be alleviated or completely removed at the earliest possible
time.
6-24
-------
USEPA
Mr. Marian D. Hirt
Page 2
The Alum Creek pollution has increased steadily and at an alarming rate
during the last five years.
In the year 1970, the City water plant laboratory recorded the Most Probable
Number (MPN) of coli in raw water of 32,307. This count increased in 1972
to 36,307 and in 1973 to 95,490.
In 1974 the test procedure was changed by the Ohio EPA from the Multi-Tube
Fermentation (MPN) to the Membrane Filter Technique. The test indicates the
fecal coli as well as the total coli. The fecal coli count in 1974 was 4,144
colonies, being approximately 40% of the total coli count.
Due to this increase in pollution, the chlorine demand for water treatment has
also increased as follows:
a) 1970 - 10,811 pounds of chlorine - cost $ 1,164.55
b) 1972 - 14,629 " " " - cost 1,471.45
c) 1974 - 17,982 " " " - cost 2,395.58
The total pounds of chlorine per million gallons of water treated has increased
from 21 pounds to 34 pounds, an increase of 162%. The cost of chlorine per
million gallons of water treated has increased from $3.36 to $5.21, an increase
of 155%.
We recognize the necessity to consider the water quality problem and its re-
sulting impact along with the probable significant adverse environmental
impacts. However, we believe that all the concerns must be given their pro-
per priority and balance in the draft EIS statement so that Delaware County
can proceed with the construction. There is even doubt in our minds whether,
in fact, a draft EIS is needed or required.
Last but not least, any "no action" conclusion would be disastrous, not only
to the Alum Creek watershed but to the other watersheds involved. The con-
tinuous developments and resultant expanding pollution in these areas would
have a serious detrimental effect on the general welfare and health of all
the residents.
We believe that clean water should be the primary objective and we urge your
favorable consideration of this project at the earliest possible time.
Thomas W. Singell, P.E.
City Engineer
TWS/pl
cc: 0. H. Koeplin, City Manager
Fred L. Stults, Delaware County Engineer
file - 2
6-25
-------
Metropolitan Parks
METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT OF COLUMBUS AND FRANKLIN COUNTY
P.O. Box 72 • 999 Park Road • Westerville, Ohio 43081 • 614/891-0700
Board of Park Commissioners Director-Secretary
Michael B. Karr, Chairman Edward F. Hutchins
Everett H. Krueger Deputy Director
Robert M. Zollinger, M.D. John A. Metzker
August 21, 1975
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Region V Planning Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, South Central Delaware County,
Ohio, Sewage Treatment Project (Project #C390698-01)
Dear Mr. Hirt:
It is the intention of this correspondence to point out various issues and questions
which merit discussion in the preparation of the draft environmental impact state-
ment for the subject proposed sewage treatment project (S. T.P.) in Delaware
County, Ohio. To date, most of these questions and issues have not been addressed
by the applicant or have been dealt with in a cursory, conclusionary manner without
the utilization of data-based, analytical techniques and state of the art methodologies.
The justifications for the contention that the issues and questions raised should be
dealt with in the draft EIS are founded initially in the policies and goals, Section 101(b),
as well as Section 102(2)(c)(i, ii, iv, v) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Further justification is founded on Environmental Protection Agency—Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements, Final Regulations effective April 14, 1975 and a
memorandum from Russell Train to Regional Administrators dated June 6, 1975
discussing "Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects in the Construction
Grant Process."
One pertinent section of the Final Regulations is 6. 304(c)(3) which requires environ-
mental impact statements to contain a discussion of secondary impacts therein
defined as indirect or induced changes. Point (i) of 6. 304(c)(3) appears particularly
critical to the environmental statement text for the proposed sewage treatment
facility. Furthermore, the memorandum noted previously indicates, as a result of
its issuance and in its contents, the importance placed upon secondary environmental
effects by the Administrator. A policy statement in that memorandum is noted as
particularly applicable to the case in point--"Particular attention should be given to
large projects to be phased over several years so that funding of the current project
does not commit EPA to future actions which will result in significant adverse effects
on the environment.'"
Southern Delaware County, which comprises the service area for and the actual
location of the proposed sewage treatment facility, is included in the Columbus
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area by the U. S. Bureau of the Census. The
majority of that area is presently non-urban in character. That fact, coupled with
the proximity and ease of access to the urbanized portions of Columbus and Franklin
County, has led to concern for the development pressures facing the area. In the
past, large-scale, intensive development has been hindered by the lack of central
6-26
a system of regional natural • area parks
8LACKLICK WOODS • BLENDON WOODS • CHESTNUT RIDGE .DARBYCREEK • HIGHBANKS • SHARON WOODS • SLATE RUN
-------
water and sewage services. Consequently, one of the questions associated with the
proposal to provide a central sewage facility is the effects of that action on the pattern
of land use and population density and the resultant environmental impacts on the area's
resource bases.
Thus far, a systematic, analytical approach to an assessment of the long-term,
secondary effects of the proposed construction of the S. T. P. and associated inter-
ceptors and collection systems has not been accomplished. This type of approach
would appear to be a mandatory initial step to provide better information than is
presently available to assess indirect and induced changes associated with the pro-
posed project. In fact, the USEPA Final Regulations in Section 6. 304--Body of
ElS--call for ". . . using a systematic, interdisciplinary approach and shall
incorporate all relevant analytical disciplines to provide meaningful and facual
data, information and analysis. " Following a systematic analysis of the impact of
this project on the succession of land use from non-urban to urban uses, the ability
to evaluate associated secondary, long-term and irreversible effects of project
implementation would be enhanced.
It is suggested that a simulation is an appropriate technique to be utilized in
projecting future land use trends and population trends. An economic model and a
demographic model based on the economic model should provide useful information
pertinent to the necessary environmental analysis. Essential to an understanding of
the development potential of the region is trend information such as: employment/
unemployment rates, interest rates, housing starts, and inflation rates for com-
modities pertinent to the economic model. Population projections could then be
generated to reflect the trends evolving out of the economic development informa-
tion. Population projections should be based on vital rates by age group and migra-
tion rates for the region.
Questions raised about the capacity of the treatment plant and interceptors and service
beneficiaries have not been answered in other than a conclusionary manner. A
systematic analysis of the potential for the realization of (i. e., actual construction
and occupation) proposed developments such as Green Meadows Village, Olentangy
Woods, Muirfield Village, Powell Village--New Town et al. has not been undertaken.
Furthermore, the potential for further development has not been assessed from the
standpoint of the enhanced development potential provided by: the proposed project,
the provision of water supply by the Del-Co and Del-Co West Water Company, the
existence and planned development of the Alum Creek Reservoir, as well as the
proximity and ease of access to the commercial and industrial complexes of
Columbus. The simulation suggested above should prove useful in addressing the
issues of capacity for present residents vs. capacity for future developments. An
associated question becomes what ro*le the sizing and routing of interceptors and
the method of recouping local cost sharing (e. g., connection fees) will play in the
rate and intensity of land use succession.
Several other issues which constitute secondary environmental effects merit analysis
and discussion. While by no means all encompassing, the following points, not
necessarily listed in order of importance, provide examples of impact issues which
should be addressed in a systematic manner.
1) What is the long-term effect on water quality and quantity associated with
project implementation? Development of a stream model may prove beneficial
6-27
-------
in analyzation of the interactions of flow characteristics of the river, effluent
characteristics of existing domestic and industrial discharges, the phased elimina-
tion and continued existence of various of those discharges, withdrawal require-
ments of the Del-Co and Del-Co West Water Company, etc.
2) Having established the environmental effects associated with the above activities,
an analysis should be possible of the impacts on peak and low flows and water
quality associated with the potentially significant increases in storm water runoff
that can be expected should the area experience the anticipated large scale
development and resultant surface alteration.
3) Impacts can be expected and should be analyzed on the overall hydrologic cycle.
Impacts would result from project construction per se (in re: 1 above) and from
secondary impacts of project implementation (e. g., alteration of the flow regime,
land use effects on groundwater recharge, evapo-transpiration, etc.) as well as
from inter-basin water transfers.
4) What environmental impacts could be expected as a result of all of the above
factors on the aquatic environment in toto? The issue of toxicity of effluent
constituents on aquatic species (pointed out in the July 21, 1975, letter from the
Acting Regional Director of the U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service to the Director of the Ohio EPA) may prove more critical when
analyzed in the context of changed stream characteristics associated with project
construction and secondary changes discussed throughout this document.
5) Should development occur, it can be expected that a major portion of new resi-
dents will commute to work. No mass transportation system exists or is
presently being seriously contemplated for the area. What impacts can be expected
from the standpoint of the ability of existing highway systems to handle increased
vehicular traffic, especially during peak hours? This issue is particularly
critical with respect to State Route 315, a two-lane scenic highway, and State
Route 257, also a scenic highway. Should those roads prove unable to safely
handle increased volumes of traffic what remedial measures would be possible
and what effects could be expected on parklands, the scenic qualities of the
Olentangy and Scioto River valleys, as well as social impacts on residents
along these routes?
6) Another issue associated with the increased vehicular traffic generated as a
result of the transition of this area to more intensive urban land use is that of
air quality. An analysis of the potential for ambient air quality' degradation
appears merited. Such an analysis should consider the area's topographic,
meteorological, etc., characteristics, changes in those characteristics and
cycles resulting from alteration of the land surface and the increases in auto
emissions. Such factors may result in impacts on the environmental integrity
of the area.
7) In light of the recent emphasis on the issue, some discussion should be under-
taken of the indirect impact of interceptors on energy consumption (e. g., promo-
tion of low density housing patterns).
8) Another secondary effect related impact, is the issue of solid waste disposal
associated with large scale development.
6-28
-------
4
•
9) Another issue, that has yet to be adequately assessed, is the secondary environ-
mental effects of land use succession to non-urban uses on the agricultural base
and open space requirements of the region. Such irreversible commitments of
resources merit analysis in a broad context.
The emphasis herein placed on secondary effects associated with project imple-
mentation results from the current importance directed toward those issues by
Mr. Train, by various recent court decisions in land use law, and by the opinion
rendered by Judge Smith in the Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train (U. S.
District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 74-1485, June 5, 1975) case
wherein the court recognizes the importance of the nondegradation principle and the
1983 goal of clean water. Such emphasis does not dismiss the importance of the
remaining topic headings outlined in Section 6. 304 of the Final Regulations — (a),
(b), (c) (1), (d), (e), and (f). In fact, one point noted in 6. 304(b), "For alternatives
involving regionalization, the effects of varying degrees of regionalization should
be addressed, " is particularly applicable to the proposed sewage treatment project.
A rigorous evaluation of alternatives has not been accomplished. The documenta-
tion of alternatives provided in the environmental assessment statement submitted
by the applicant did not exhaust all alternative sites for the proposed plant per se
(e.g., location completely out of the floodplain, siting the plant further down-
stream such as in the vacant land of the Interstate 270 interchange). On the other
hand, one possible sub-regional approach that should be evaluated is the construction
of pre-treatment facilities in the three basins (Scioto, Olentangy, and Alum Creek)
with connection to the Columbus trunk sewers in those areas.
The Scioto River Basin was designated by the Ohio EPA as a basin with significant
water quality problems. The initial phase of the 303(e) Planning Process, a
Waste Load Allocation Report, was generated by the State and accepted by the
USEPA. The area was not, however, designated as a 208 Planning Area. In
light of the recent court decision (N.R. D. C. v. Train), unless a responsible agency
complies with the designation requirements, the State will have to develop a Water
Quality Management Plan for the area. The cumulative effects of separate actions
or the function of individual projects in a broader context must be considered in the
preparation of an EIS.
The result of the requirement for States to undertake 208 Planning for all non-
designated areas of the State should be a rigorous, systematic analysis of a region's
present and future environmental problems and recommendations for their allevia-
tion and prevention. The lack of comprehensive environmental planning for the
central Ohio region has resulted in the air and water quality and other land use
problems presently found throughout the area.
In light of this situation and the State's mandate to undertake Water Quality Manage-
ment Planning, the explanation required in Section 6. 304(e)--"ln addition, the
reasons the proposed action is believed by EPA to be justified now, rather than
reserving a long-term option for other alternatives, including no action, shall be
explained"--becomes important. This is particularly applicable from the stand-
point of the extent to which funding of the project will foreclose future options and
the effects of that situation on the State's or any other agency's ability to undertake
meaningful Water Quality Management Planning.
6-29
-------
We will continue to evaluate issues and monitor progress relative to the draft EIS
preparation. We therefore reserve the right to forward additional correspondence
relative to issues pertinent to the EIS process up to the issuance of that document.
We additionally intend to provide comments on the draft EIS.
Sincerely,
Edward F. Hutchins
Director-Secretary
EFH:akw
cc: Sheldon Myers, Director
Office of Federal Activities, USEPA
Gary Widman, General Counsel
Council on Environmental Quality
6-30
-------
Metropolitan Parks
METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT OF COLUMBUS AND FRANKLIN COUNTY
P.O. Box 72 • 999 Park Road • Westerville, Ohio 43081 • 614/891-0700
Board of Park Commissioners Director-Secretary
Michael B Karr, Chairman Edward F. Hutcnins
Everett H Krueger Deputy Director
Robert M. Zollinger, M D. August 27, 1975 John A. Metzker
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Region V Planning Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, South Central Delaware County,
Ohio, Sewage Treatment Project (#C390698-01)
Dear Mr. Hirt:
You will recall that Battelle Columbus Laboratories, in their August 15, 1973, re-
port "Compatibility Factors of a Proposed Delaware County Sewage Treatment Plant
with the Highbanks Metropolitan Park, " raised the question of airborne pathogens in
relation to picnic areas in Highbanks Metropolitan Park. Battelle indicated that
"the problem of airborne pathogens needs further technical evaluation. "
The May-June 1975 issue of PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS contains a most interesting
paper entitled "Broadcast of Microbial Aerosols by Stacks of Sewage Treatment Plants
and Effects of Ozonation on Bacteria in the Gaseous Effluent." Authors Pereira and
Benjaminson cite research pointing to "the existence of a possible health hazard,
such as mycobacterial disease, especially for . . . highly susceptible population
groups such as young children, the elderly, and the infirm who reside in areas where
the atmosphere is contaminated by the gaseous effluent of sewage treatment plants. "
Authors Pereira and Benjaminson cite evidence that the viability of airborne patho-
gens is not diminished significantly by ozonation and chlorination; also of interest is
the statement that "microbial aerosols originating from sewage treatment installations
do indeed contaminate the atmosphere downwind from these facilities. "
In view of the fact that downwind a short distance from the proposed Delaware County
sewage treatment plant are the extensive public picnic areas of Highbanks Metro-
politan Park, with projected daily visitation of upwards of 10, 000 picnickers (with
food almost entirely in the open), wet respectfully request that the question of possible
release of disease organisms from the proposed sewage treatment plant be fully in-
vestigated as a function of the Environmental Impact Statement now in progress.
Sincerely,
Edward F. Hutchins
Director-Secretary
EFH:akw
Enclosures
cc: Sheldon Myers, Gary Widman 6-31
a system of regional natural • area parks
BLACKLICK WOODS • BLENDON WOODS • CHESTNUT RIDGE • DARBY CREEK . HIGHBANKS • SHARON WOODS • SLATE RUN
-------
Broadcast of Microbial Aerosols by Stacks
of Sewage Treatment Plants and Effects of Ozonation
on Bacteria in the Gaseous Effluent
MARTIN RODRIGUES PEREIRA, PhD, and M. AARON BENJAMINSON, PhD
THE PURPOSE of the investigation was to demonstrate
that microbial pollution of the air by sewage treatment
plants is an environmental factor which deserves more
intensive study. The data derived from this study
should be taken into account in planning and locating
sewage treatment plants, since these facilities are often
constructed in or near residential areas.
Kenline (1), Adams and Spendlove (2), Goff and co-
workers (3), and others have shown that microbial
aerosols originating from sewage treatment installa-
tions do indeed contaminate the atmosphere down-
wind from these facilities. Coliform bacteria have
been collected up to 1.2 km (0.8 miles) downwind from
a sewage treatment plant's trickling filter system (2).
Ledbetter and Randall (4,5) concluded, after studying
the aerosolization of bacteria from an activated sludge
unit, that the number of micro-organisms in the air
after passage over the aeration basins increased
markedly and persisted for a considerable time and dis-
tance. They found enteric pathogens, especially Kleb-
siella, in large numbers in these aerosols. Dixon and
McCabe (6) listed the following micro-organisms that
have been found in sewage: Salmonella, Shigella, Lep-
tospira, Mycobactenum tuberculosis, Ascaris lumbncoides, En-
lamoeba histolytica, and Coxsackie, poliomyelitis, and in-
fectious hepatitis viruses. Grinstein and co-workers (7)
probed a stream receiving chlorinated effluent from a
sewage treatment plant for virus contamination;
virulent strains of poliomyelitis and ECHO viruses
were shown to survive the chlorination process.
Woodcock (8) and Blanchard and Syzdek (9)
demonstrated that the spreading of micro-organisms in
air is produced by bubbles breaking at the air-water in-
terface of a body of water, where some micro-organisms
tend to concentrate. We hypothesized that virulent
viruses surviving in chlorinated sewage effluent may be
aerosolized, as are bacteria, by this water-to-air
transfer mechanism. That viruses can be transported
by air currents indoors and that at least some of them
remain infectious is well documented. An example of
this transfer under nonlaboratory conditions occurred
in an outbreak of airborne smallpox in a West German
hospital (10). Hemmes and co-workers (11), Mayhew
and Hahon (12), and many other investigators have
noted that the decay rate under various environmental
conditions varies with the individual virus; that is, those
conditions favorable to the survival of one virus may be
detrimental to that of another and vice versa. At-
tempted studies of the effects of open air conditions
on the infectivity of viruses by Benbough and Hood (13)
and Berendt and Dorsey ( 14) have not yielded definitive
results. In any case, as is pointed out by Zeterberg
(15,16), there is a strong probability that bacteria and
viruses act synergistically in the causation of
respiratory disease; only one virus particle lodged in the
proper niche of the respiratory tree is required for infec-
tion; viruses need not retain their infectivity to cause
deleterious effects on hypersensitive persons.
The sewage treatment plant in our study is one of the
few in New York City where odor control is being
attempted by mixing ozone with the gaseous effluent.
This process is applied only at the building housing the
thickening tanks (see chart). In the future, this system
of odor control is slated for application to all sewage
treatment plants in New York City (oral statement by
Norman Nash, deputy director of plants, Bureau of
Water Pollution Control, Department of Water Re-
sources of the City of New York). Since our resources
were limited, our research was intended to be only a
ODr. Pereira is an environmental scientist in the Department of
Environmental Engineering, Gibbs and Hill, Inc., New York
City. Dr. Benjammson is associate professor of allied health
sciences, York College of the City University of .New York.
The research described in the paper was done under the
auspices of the Department of Air Resources, City of New York.
Tearsheet requests to Dr. M. Aaron Benjaminson, Allied
Health Sciences, York College of the City University of New
York, 150-14 Jamaica Ave., Jamaica, N.Y. 11432.
208 Public Health Reports
S-6/7S~
6-32
-------
Sites of aerosol studies of sewage treatment plant
;•//
Shell bank creek
-T ['
Dock --
KNAPP SJ
Stack
Thickener
building
COYLE ST
, School
I sampling
, site
_.-^ -
5f
21
^,
V
Uj
>
^:
CO
Uj
J
ct
o
0
>
r— ^
f
qualitative pilot study, and we have not attempted to
draw quantitative conclusions.
Materials and Methods
Aerosol \ludies. We sampled the air in and around a
New York City sewage treatment plant during the
period from December 1970 to September 1971.
Andersen samplers (17) were used to collect aerosols.
The pumps of these samplers were calibrated to draw
0.028 cubic meters of air per minute (1 cubic foot per
minute). The stages of the samplers were loaded with
petri dishes containing either tryptic soy agar (TSA) or
sheep blood agar (SBA), as we did not wish our collec-
tions to be subjected to an experimental bias (18)
The aeration building of the plant measures about
120 meters in length, 30 meters in width, and 15 meterc
in height. In the north wall of the building are eight
fans; each one draws in 300 cubic meters of air per
minute. At the southern end of the building are two
identical exhaust stacks, each with a diameter of 1 62
meters and each with two fans in parallel, together they
exhaust 2,100 cubic meters of air per minute (see
chart). The effect of all the fans is to draw the air inside
the building over the aeration tanks and force it up the
stacks and out into the air.
Sampling the open air in the vicinity of the plant
from December 1970 to January 1971 was done
equidistantly (about 300 meters from the aeration
building) upwind at a neighborhood school and
downwind at dockside on Shell Bank Creek (see chart).
These stations were probably not the best locations
from a maximum aerosol coverage standpoint, but they
were the most accessible.
The air inside the aeration building was sampled
during December 1970 and January and March 1971.
The internal atmosphere of one exhaust stack was
sampled during March 1971. The number of samplings
for each location is shown in table 1. Colonies for iden-
tification were chosen at random. Smears were made,
gram-stained, observed microscopically, and identified
as to morphology They v\ere then cultured in the ap-
propriate differential media. Further identification was
based on biochemical reactions in these media.
Table 1. Average counts of bacterial colony-forming units in
the atmosphere of a sewage treatment plant
Sampling point
300 meters upwind from ae-
ration building
Inside aeration building
Inside stack of aeration
building
300 meters downwind from
aeration building
Number
of
samplings
3
4
3
5
Average number
of colonies per
cubic meter
17
21 800
890
48
NOTE Atmospheric conditions during sampling period were as follows -10°C
to in°C temperature, wind westerly 2 2 to 22 meters per second, zero precipita-
tion, relative humidity of 30 to 50 percent All sampling was done during daylight
hours The sky varied from clear to overcast
Sewage liquor studies. Four liquid samples were taken at
random from one aeration tank. These were subjected
to routine bacteriological analysis for the identification
of bacteria The chance finding of acid-fast bacilli led to
the following sampling procedure.
Stack lumen studies for arid-fast bacilli. Sterile swabs
moistened with glycerine were inserted into the sam-
pling port of the stack located about 6 meters above the
roof of the aeration building, the top of the stack being
about 9 meters above roof level and about 22 meters
above ground level. Exact measurements of stack and
building heights were not available to us; therefore,
only estimates have been used. After being allowed to
remain in the stack lumen for about 15 minutes, the
swabs were digested with trisodium phosphate and the
concentrate inoculated into tubes of Pctragnani's
medium and incubated at 37°C. These cultures were
inspected periodically for suspicious colonies. Smears of
these colonies v\ere made and stained by the Ziehl-
Neelsen technique. The growth from those cultures
whose smears, upon microscopic inspection, showed
acid-fast bacilli, was then scraped off the surface of the
medium and emulsified in normal saline. Next, 0 2 ml.
of the suspension was injected intraperitoneally into
four female guinea pigs which had been previously
tuberculin tested and found negative. After 6 weeks, the
animals \\ere killed, and autopsies were performed.
Their lungs, livers, and spleens were examined for gross
lesions. Impression smears and histological sections of
the organs were made, stained by the Ziehl-Neelsen
technique, and examined microscopically.
Disinfecting properties of ozone intended for odor con-
trol. Although ozone is intended for odor control only,
May-June 1975, Vol. 90, No. 3 209
6-33
-------
it was deemed propitious to test the disinfecting proper-
ties of this gas in air, as it is sometimes used to disinfect
liquid effluents. The ability of ozone to disinfect the
gaseous effluent of the building housing the thickening
tanks (see chart) was tested in August and September
1971. Ozone generated inside this building is injected
at various concentrations into the stack at the level of
the twin, horizontally oriented exhaust fans. Andersen
samplers loaded with either TSA or SBA, depending on
the sampling run (tables 2 and 3) were placed on the
floor of the stack's mixing chamber (see chart), this be-
ing the most practical location. Samples were taken un-
der conditions of no ozone production, minimal (ap-
proximately 2.3 kg per day), and maximal (ap-
proximately 4.5 kg per day).
Table 2. Average counts of colony forming units (CPU) in a
series of tests in the ozone mixing chamber,
using sheep blood agar
Stages 01
Andersen
sampler
\
II
Ill
IV
V
VI
Control - no
ozone (CFU)
85
85
213
213
175
19
Minimal
ozone (CFU)
25
29
71
107
61
10
Maximal
ozone (CFU,
45
40
103
205
97
16
Totals
790
303
506
Results
The average numbers of colonies per cubic meter of air
sampled inside and outside the sewage treatment plant
are listed in table 1. The air inside the aeration building
contained 21,800 viable bacterial colony forming units
(CFU) per cubic meter. This number diminished to 890
in the stack of the building, but about 300 meters
downwind from the aeration building, that quantity
dropped to 48 CFU per cubic meter. At a similar dis-
tance upwind, the average count was 17 per cubic
meter.
Table 4 lists the organisms identified in samples
taken around the plant; the majority of corre-
sponding particles were in the pulmonary retention
range 2.0 - 5.5 Mm (stages III and IV of the Andersen
sampler). Those collected downwind included
Flavobactenum, A4icrococcus, Streptococcus, and
Klebsiellae were also collected inside the aeration
building, inside the stack, and downwind as well, while
haemolytic streptococci were captured inside the
building in addition to downwind. Aeromonas, Aiora\flla,
and Alcaligenes were identified in the atmosphere inside
the building. Salmonellae were identified in the liquid
samples from the aeration basins, as were
mycobacteria, which were also discovered in the stack
lumen. When cultured on Petragnani's medium, the
mycobacteria grew as irregular, rough, buff-colored
colonies within 2 weeks. Subcultures in vivo for 6 weeks
injected into four female tuberculin-negative guinea
pigs resulted in gross lesions of the lung, liver, and
spleen of these animals. Impression smears of these
organs stained by the Ziehl-Neelsen technique showed
acid-fast organisms, as did the histological sections.
Effect of ozone. The effect of ozone on counts of air-
borne bacteria is outlined in table 2, which shows
averages of several tests. Apparently, viability is not
diminished significantly. The highest viable counts,
both with and without ozone present, were found in
stages III and IV of the Andersen sampler. This result
indicates that these particles were in the 2.0 — 5.5 ^m
range and therefore may be retained in the lower
respiratory tract. The data shown in table 3 reinforce
the results in table 2. Additionally, the relative survival
of bacteria collected on enriched and nonenriched
media is compared in table 3.
Discussion
The data on Klebsiella (table 4), the most ubiquitous
organism found in this study, indicate that these
bacteria are carried from the air above the aeration
basins to the stacks and thence to the outside at-
mosphere via air currents generated by the fans inside
Table 3. Average counts of colony forming units (CFU) in a series of tests in the ozone mixing chamber,
using two media for comparison
Stages ot Andersen sampler
Total
No ozone
Minimal ozone
Maximal ozone
TSA (CFU)
SBA (CFU)
TSA (CFU) SBA (CFU)
TSA (CFU)
192
502
199
435
238
SBA (CFU)
I
II
Ill
IV
V
VI
33
23
50
58
23
5
64
72
153
153
55
5
16
28
47
70
35
3
45
38
105
190
40
17
45
12
55
fir,
50
11
52
45
160
nn
71
11
471
Note- TSA—tryptic soy agar, SBA—sheep blood agar
210 Public Health Reports
6-34
-------
Table 4. Micro-organisms identified in the atmosphere in and
around a sewage treatment plant
Organism
Mycobacterium . . .
Klebsiella
SalmonQlla
Bacillus
Flavobacterium . . .
Aeromonas ....
Moraxella
Alcaligenes ....
Streptococcus . . . .
Micrococcus ...
Inside Downwind
Inside aeration from
Sewage aeration building aeration
liquor building stack building'
^_
- - - +
+
- + - -
— f — -
'No organisms identified upwind of the aeration building
Note - no organisms present. + organisms identified
the aeration building. Our observations are in agree-
ment with those of Randall and Ledbetter (4,5) that
Klebsiellae are the best indicators of bacterial air pollu-
tion from sewage sources. These investigators correctly
observe that there exists a definite possibility of air-
borne infection from activated sludge plants, where
aeration basins are the most important source of
pathogens.
Although we have no direct data to support our
hypothesis, we believe that Klebsiellae. among many
other micro-organisms in the aeration tanks, are being
aerosolized by the mechanism described by Woodcock
(8) and Blanchard and Syzdek (9) via bubbles at the
air-water interface of a body of water where some
micro-organisms are concentrated. The fact that the air
inside the aeration building contained an average of
21,800 CPU per cubic meter t^nds to confirm our belief.
The smaller number of viable bacteria collected in
the stack could be explained by the settling of particles.
This tendency would be enhanced by the high relative
humidity within the building, which could hydrate the
particles. The possibility that some bacteria adhere to
the stack walls cannot be excluded.
The difference between the average numbers of CFU
per cubic meter of air sampled upwind and downwind
is most probably due to microbes being carried
downwind from the sewage treatment plant, a finding
in agreement with the observations of Goff and co-
workers (3) on the effects of meteorological conditions.
We believe that the atmospheric conditions under
which we sampled, specifically temperature and
sunlight, account for the lower numbers of bacteria
collected outside the plant.
The data in tables 2 and 3 indicate that ozone causes
no practical reduction in the numbers of bacteria.
However, the number of samplings was not sufficient to
verify this observation statistically. It is of particular in-
terest, in the light of findings of Zelac and co-workers
(79) that inhaled ozone can cause chromosome breaks
in circulating lymphocytes in vivo, that several sewage
treatment plants presently under construction in New
York City will employ ozone as a deodorant The roof
of one plant will be used for recreational activities, ,-nd
the entire complex is located in a densely populated
residential area (20) Research is urgently needed 10
determine how far ozone will travel downwind and still
be reactive
The large differences in viable counts between
samples collected on SBA compared with TSA (table ^ '
indicate that the addition of blood to the medium
allows the survival of fastidious or injured organism!. 01
both types. This, coupled with the fact that the
collected microbes are within the retention ranges of
the lower pulmonary tract, indicates that their entry
into the human body could cause disease
Klebsiellae, streptococci, and mycobactena arc well
established respiratory pathogens which could be c':s-
seminated by these facilities Klebuella is commonly
isolated from patients hospitalized with urinary tract
infections (21). Hospitals take no special precautions
for the disposal of infected urine from these patients. It
is passed directly into the municipal sewage system
Therefore, it is no surprise that these Klebsiellae find
their way into the aeration basins of sewage treatment
plants, where they are aerosolized. In his review,
O'Connor (22) cited several studies which show in-
creased susceptibility to Klebsiella infection in the
presence of gaseous pollutants Treatment of infection
caused by bacteria aerosolized by se\\age treatment
plants may be compromised by the increasing
resistance to antibiotics of fecal coliforms Sturtevant
and co-workers (23) have shown that se\\age is an ideal
environment for the successful episomal transfer of an-
tibiotic resistance genes among enteric bacteria.
Unfortunately, epidemiologic data on the incidence
of infectious disease among sewage treatment plant per-
sonnel and among residents of nursing homes and
children attending schools in the immediate vicinity of
sewage treatment plants were not available to us
Correlation of these data with findings such as ours
should be undertaken. The results of our preliminary
study indicate that a combined quantitative
microbiological and epidemiological study should be
carried out to clarify further the role played by sewage
treatment plants in the airborne dissemination of dis-
ease. Such a project could indicate that feasibility
studies be undertaken before the selection of prospec-
tive sites for the location of sevsage treatment plants.
Conclusions
The bubbling of air into aeration tanks causes some of
the bacteria concentrated at the liquid-air interface to
become airborne. Thus, these bacteria are found in
great numbers in the atmosphere of aeration buildings
The air currents created by fans in the wall of the
buildings and in the exhaust stacks carry numbers of
bacteria into these stacks and from there into the out-
side air. Among these bacteria are viable potential
respiratory pathogens. Ozonation does not appreciably
attenuate these aerosols.
May-June 1975, Vol 90, No. 3 211
6-35
-------
Our results point to the existence of a possible health
hazard, such as mycobacterial disease, especially for
sewage treatment plant workers and for highly suscep-
tible population groups such as young children, the
elderly, and the infirm who reside in areas where the at-
mosphere is contaminated by the gaseous effluent of
sewage treatment plants.
References
7. Kcnline, P. A.' The emission, identification, and fate of bacteria
airborne from activated sludge and extended aeration sewage
treatment plants Doctoral thesis University of Cincinnati, 1968
2 Adams, A. P , and Spendlove, J C Cohform aerosols emitted by
sewage treatment plants Science 169 1218-1220, Sept 18,
1970.
3 Goff, G. D , Spendlove, J. C., Adams, A. P., and Nicholes, P. S •
Emission of microbial aerosols from sewage treatment plants that
use trickling filters Health Serv Rep 88 640-652, August -
September 1973.
4 Randall, C W.. and LedbetterJ. O.: Bacterial air pollution from
activated sludge units. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 27 506 — 519,
November - December 1966.
5. Ledbetter, J. O., and Randall, C. W . Bacterial emissions from
activated sludge units Ind Med Surg 34 130-133, February
1965.
6 Dixon, F. R., and McCabe, L. J Health aspects of wastewater
treatment J Water Pollut Control Fed 36. 984-989, August
1964
7 Grinstem, S., Melnick.J. L , and Wallis, C.' Virus isolations from
sewage and from a stream receiving effluents of sewage treatment
plants Bull'WHO 42 291-296(1970).
8 Woodcock, A H Bursting bubbles and air pollution Sewage
Ind Wastes 27 1189-1192, October 1955
P Blanchard, D S , and Syzdek, L.. Mechanism for the water to air
transfer and concentration of bacteria Science 170 626 — 628,
Nov 6, 1970
JO Gelfand, H M., and Posch, J : The recent outbreak of smallpox
in Meschede, West German^. Am J Epidemiol 93 234 — 237,
April 1971.
77 Hcmmes, J. H., Winkler. K C , and Kool, S M. Virus survival
as a seasonal factor in influenza and poliomyelitis Nature 188.
430-431, October 1%0
72 Mayhcw, C H , and Hahon, N Assessment of aerosol mixtures
of different viruses. Appl Microbiol 20' 313 — 316, September
1970
13 Benbough, J E , and Hood, A M Vincidal activity of open air
J Hyg (Camb) 69. 619-626 (1971)
14. Berendt, R F., and Dorsey, L. D Effect of simulated solar radia-
tion and sodium fluorenscem on the recovery of Venezuelan
equine encephalitis virus from aerosols Appl Microbiol 21.
447-450, March 1971.
75 Zeterberg, J M A review of respiratory virology and the spread
of the virulent and possibly antigenic viruses via air conditioning
systems. Pt 1 Ann Allergy 31 228-234, May 1973
76 Zeterberg, J M. A review of respiratory virology and the spread
of virulent and possibly antigenic viruses via air conditioning
systems Pt II Ann Allergy 31 291-299, June 1973
77 Andersen, A A A new sampler for the collection and enumera-
tion of viable airborne particles J Bactenol 76 471-484,
November 1958
IS i Kingston, D.• Selective media in air sampling A review J Appl
Bacteriol 34: 221-232, January 1971
?y. Zelac, R. E., et al.: Inhaled ozone as a mutagen I Chromosome
aberrations induced in Chinese hamster lymphocytes Environ
Res 4- 262-282, August 1971.
20 Bureau of Water Pollution Control North River pollution control
plant, project number PW-164, environmental assessment state-
ment New York City, January 1972
27 Weil, A. J., Benjammson, M. A , and de Guzman, B. C.. The
Klebsiella-Aerobacter-Serratia division its role in common infec-
tions of man Trans NY Acad Sci 27- 65—72, November 1964
22. O'Connor, W.. Air pollution survey of biological aerosols New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division
of Air Resources. (Condensation of PHS, NAPCA Publication
No. APTD 69-30) Albany, September 1971.
23. Sturtevant, A. B., Cassell, G H., and Feary, T W • Incidence of
infectious drug resistance among fecal coliforms isolated from raw
sewage Appl Microbiol 21: 487-491, March 1971
PEREIRA, MARTIN RODRIGUES
(Gibbs and Hill, Inc., New York City),
and BENJAMINSON, M. AARON:
Broadcast of microbial aerosols by
stacks of sewage freafment plants and
effects of ozonation on bacteria in the
gaseous effluent. Public Health
Reports, Vol. 90, May-June 1975, pp.
208-212.
In the aeration basins of sewage
treatment plants, compressed air is
supplied to diffusers near the bottom of
tanks to aid in the conversion by
aerobic bacteria of dissolved and
suspended solids of sewage into par-
ticles that will settle. Air bubbles break-
ing at the air-water interface will
aerosolize bacteria that concentrate in
"SYNOPSIS"
the uppermost microlayer. The
microbiological output of a plant in New
York City with such a system was
monitored.
Samples of the gaseous effluent
were collected inside the aeration
building, inside the building's stack,
300 meters upwind (background
sampler), and 300 meters downwind
(test sampler), using Andersen
samplers. Among the genera identified
in the atmosphere in and around the
plant were Mycobacterium, Klebsiella,
and Streptococcus, all potentially
pathogenic.
The disinfection power of ozone,
which is generally used for odor con-
trol, was also tested. Samples were
taken from the ozone mixing chamber
in the stack of the thickening tank
building. No significant difference in
general bacterial counts could be
detected at different levels of ozone
production. It appears that in the air,
ozone is an ineffective bactericidal
agent.
Results in this preliminary study
demonstrate the need to evaluate the
hazard of microbial aerosols generated
by sewage treatment plants similar to
the one studied. The possibility of such
hazards is of special interest where
facilities are located upwind of pop-
ulations especially susceptiole to infec-
tions, because of age or debility.
Correlations with epidemiologic data
are indicated.
212 Public Health Reports
6-36
-------
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
June 9, 1975
*-rtnRG:j ii NiV'i f -,.,-), -,
P//L£WO l" Jxt'U'U1 K"*oa V
Mr. Kent Fuller a
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Planning Branch
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Fuller:
I have prepared a written statement for the public hearing concerning
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed
South Central Delaware County, Ohio sewage treatment project. It
will not be possible for me to attend the public hearing since I
will no longer be a resident of Columbus.
My interest in submitting this statement stems from my intimate
association with research carried on by myself, colleagues and my
students on this stream and secondly because I am at present a
property owner with frontage directly on the Olentangy River. I
reside at 3539 Olentangy Boulevard, Clinton Township, Franklin
County, Columbus, Ohio.
I believe the Olentangy constitutes an important, yet at time, little
appreciated, recreational resources for all the urban residents of
Central Ohio, particularly those of the inner city and I hope this
statement will be given full consideration in preparation of the
proposed Environmental Impact Statement.
Sincerely,
Walter T. Momot
Associate Professor
WTM:mee
6-37
-------
Walter T. Momot
Statement on the proposed sewage treatment plant for southern Delaware
County and its effects on the recreational resources of the Olentangy River.
Usually the siting of a sewage treatment plant on a stream results
in the enhancement of the water quality of the stream since the untreated
water borne waste of the watershed is collected, treated and the
resulting effluent released and diluted by the receiving stream. However,
the Southern Delaware plant, as proposed, may in fact contribute to a
substantial deterioration of the water quality of the Olentangy rather
than its improvement.
One reason is that this plant will collect and concentrate the
waste from three other watersheds as well as the Olentangy and place the
effluent into this single stream at a single point. It is interesting
to note that the other watersheds were not selected as a site for
effluent disposal because they constitute a public water supply.
Apparently the designers of the plant felt the effluent will deteriorate
the water for one human use but chose to ignore other human needs such as
public recreation in an urban environment that is becoming more crowded
every day.
The initial rated capacity of the Southern Delaware Sewage Treatment
Plant is for 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD) with a 3.4 MGD peak flow
capacity. Future expansion is planned for an effluent discharge of
6.0 MGD with a 9.6 MGD peak flow.
6-38
-------
The Olentangy River near Worthington has an average flow of 277 MGD
and a minimum low flow of 14.2 MGD was recorded. Furthermore, the
median flow is only 66.6 MGD . The Olentangy is characterized by the
Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources as having "poor
natural low flow characteristics' .
I believe the low flow characteristics of the river will prove
insufficient to dilute toxic wastes resulting from the discharge of
the effluent of the plant.
As an example, consider that the discharge of chlorine
in the effluent will be 0.50 ppm. Table 1 gives a summary of the results
of exposing fish to residual chlorine. All of these species are found
in the Olentangy.
Table 1. Summary of Results of Brief Exposures
of Fish to Residual Chlorine
Measured
Fish Species Effective Endpoint Time Chlorine in ppy.
Smallmouth Bass Median mortality 15 hr. 0.50
White Sucker Lethal 30-60 min. 1.00
Largemouth Bass 50% die 1 hr. >0.74
Largemouth Bass 50% die 12 hr. 0.365
Fathead Minnow 50% die 1 hr. 0.79
Fathead Minnow 50% die 12 hr. 0.26
The same publication^ indicates that many fish food organisms are
even less tolerant. The publication concluded that the EPA guideline
for streams receiving wastes treated continuously with chlorine should
have a residual chlorine content not exceeding 0.002 ppm. for the
protection of most aquatic organisms.
6-39
-------
To dilute 1.2 MGD discharge, the minimum river discharge ipust be
be 309 ft^/sec. According to the USGS gauge at Worthington, Ohio, this
flow was exceeded only 87 days during the recreational season (April -
October, 1972) and on 71 days in 1973.
For a discharge of 9.7 MGD, a flow of 2475.5 ft3/sec. would be
necessary to meet the EPA guideline for chlorine. This was exceeded
in only 18 days during all of 1972-73 and only 17 days during 1971-72.
What would happen during a drought year can only be guessed but the
record low flow of the Olentangy was 3.2 ft^/sec. on June 27, 1953
and this was after river flow had been supposedly regulated by
Delaware Dam.
I thus believe the dilution capacity of the Olentangy River is
not sufficient to handle the toxic concentration of various chemicals
which will be found in the effluent. At present the Olentangy meets
"A" water quality standards for aquatic life with an average oxygen
content of 6.2 ppm. at 21° C and a pH range of 6.0 - 8.5.2 It seems
folly to degrade a good quality stream in the name of environmental
protection.
I believe these concentrations will prove extremely detrimental
to the aquatic life of the river as well as the aesthetic appeal of the
stream upon which the recreational resource is based.
It is my contention that the Olentangy is a major urban
recreational resource for the citizens of central Ohio. The fish
population of the Olentangy river is much utilizecl by the citizens of
central Ohio, Table 2 and 3, and contains a high quality fishery comparable
with any other warm water stream in the U. S. (Tables 4, 5, 6.)
6-40
-------
I contend that the toxic effluent of the proposed treatment plant
will have a signi ficant detrimental effect on this fishery.
The sport fishery of the Olentangy is comprised of 12 major species
(Table 2) out of a total fauna of 61 species which have been collected
from the Olentangy. Included in the total are the Spotted Darter,
Etheostoma maculatum, which is on the list of rare and endangered species
for Ohio and the bluebreasted darter, Etheostoma camurum, a rare fish
known from only a very few localities in Ohio. Both species occur at
sites below the proposed treatment plant. Several rare and endangered
molluscs also occur in the Olentangy below these sites.
Angler use of the river below the proposed site is substantial
varying between 3,400 and 10,400 angler hours from June to October
with a catch of 2,000 and 4,000 fish (Table 3) of which a very substantial
proportion are game fish (Table 5) . Table 4_ gives an idea of populations
of these fish in the river using electrofishing gear. The most common game
species in the river are Smallmouth Bass, Rockbass and Sunfish.
Table 5 gives the gamefish catch per hour of anglers surveyed down-
stream of the proposed site.
6-41
-------
•p
(n
3
«
a)
4-4
•r-t
OS
•r-,4-1
6
O
t-i
4-1
h
O
(U
T— 1
I"H
O
0
XI
t/>
•H
4-1
0
£3
cd
bO
*O
C-1
CO
TJ
O
O
4n
4-1
O
P
t/1
•H
i-H
bO
C
•H
13
^
i-H
O
c
•H
.
*°o
•H
•s
o
Q
•
t— 1
(U
5
4-1
O
CD
e
cd
Z
o
C-,
p
o
z
•\
o
u
•H
^
c
r<
PH
•t
AS
f-|
cd
OH
^(
O
0
s
p
^j
o
2
«v
•
0
£>
<^
bO
C
•H
^
-0
o
o
PH
Is
cd
0)
fH
cd
cd .
rH ft
Q H
4-1
O «
C
•H C
r-H 0
AS -P
C C
cd -H
?H rH
PH U
•t
. •
O ft
u s
£_H
c
•H C
i-H O
AS -P
CS CJ
cd -H
ri i-H
P, U
c~|
• H
PH
XXXXXX X XX XX I-H LO
i-H tO
XXXXXx X XXX XXCM t^
i— 1 CM
XXXXXXXXXXXXX X ** 0
i-H •*
XXXXXXXXXXXXX X rj- rn
i-H \O
|"r|
co
I-H Q
PH PJ
Q
X Q OS
W O O
•H O U
4-t PH PJ
(/> 3t3t3cd Q
cdcd-H ftCD CJ |2ASrHPrH CL, AS <<
co xl
OS -P
PJ UJ
E-H
< CD
3: fn
cd
s
0 T3
oS CD
3
Z i-H
s o
o c
*** •}<
H-J
g
CD
•H
O
CD
ft
•P
O
03
o'
•H
O
C
•H
p*
cd
rH
ft
^
C
CD
s
•p
cd
CD
P
13
tn
O
ft
O
(H
ft
CD
P
^
O
i-H
CD
15
4J
•H
4J
cd
-rj
CD
P
CJ
CD
1— 1
i-H
0
CJ
CD
!H
CD
6-42
-------
Table 3. Estimated Angler Use of the Olentangy River below the
Proposed Site of the Southern Delaware Sewage Treatment Plant. >
Year
Wilson Bridge Road
to mouth of Stream
Proposed STP Site
To Wilson Bridge Road
Number Angler Number Fish
Hours Caught
Number Angler Number Fish
Hours Caught
1972
1973
1974
10,106
7,430
2,024 *
3,988
1,264
1,172
532
992
1,336
440
1,376
952
* Construction on St. Rt. 315 at Henderson Road
severely limited angler use of the River
during 1974.
6-43
-------
X
42
rH
0)
OS
0
§
o •
Cd, rH
O •>
CM -
rH 1-3
T) .
rt •
O rH
OS •->
0 3
O
0, -
•H
O
0
co
LO
O
o
vO LO
CM r^
O rH
o o
CM O
0 0
o o
oo a
ft O
•
o c
oo
LO
to
o
o
•*
0
O I~~
O> CM
LO OO
O rH
00
oo
r_4
•
o
LO
CM
rH
o
to
CM
to
o
oo r^
LO 00
CM O
O rH
-
LO
i-H
O
O
oo
LO
O
o
CM <7>
CM O
0 0
o o
1
•1
3
•
3
OO
O
O
o
CM
O
o
o
o LO
CM O
CM O
0 0
oo
0
0
»
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
r^ oo
OO O
o o
o o
0 43
o in
S -H
a 4-1
•p
3 rt
J U
3
3 rH
= 0
J C
XO (3
-i rt
5 6
LO
vO
O
0
OO O»
o f--
0 0
o o
1 00
1 rH
1 O
rH
O
•
O
o
o
o
CM
CM
O
o
"* CM
LO LO
o o
o o
CM
CM
rH
•
O
\o
o
o
rH
rH
O
VO rH
rH r^
O O
o o
0
•H
ft
oj
rH
U
0
•H
^
O
LO
1— 1
O
00
to
o
o
(^
t*^
0
o
CM
CM
CM
O
0
o
o
LO O
O LO
o o
o o
O CM
•<* to
LO O
0 0
to*
to
0
•
o
^)-
t-^
o
o
rH
o
o
0 10
Tj- ^3"
0 rH
0 0
LO
LO
rH
•
o
CM
LO
o
o
oo r-x
O LO
o to
0 0
0
• H
PH
rt
J_(
U
^
o
rt
rH
09
O
0
rH
0
rH O
to O
O rH
0 0
VO to
to to
o o
0 0
00
r*"-
rH
•
O
rH
r^.
i — i
o
to
rH
0
O LO
r — r^1
o to
0 0
LO
00
CM
•
O
LO
OO
rH
o
00
LO
0
o
rH CJ^
O to
0 0
rH
rH
•H
tx>
0
rH
09
O
to
o
o
LO to
o to
0 0
o o
[~~ LO
CM rH
o o
o o
^
o
rH
•
O
o
o
CM
o
00
CM
0
CM t~~
Ol O
i— 1 vO
O O
t^.
LO
LO
•
o
LO
r-.
o
£
to
o
o *o
vO to
rH tO
O rH
(/)
t/)
rt
PI
o
o
OS
o
to
0
o o
vO 00
CM ^f
o o
oo to
00 rH
CM CM
0 0
to"
rH
vO
•
o
CTl
LO
*t
o
o
CM
rH
Tf tO
CM f-
00 LO
O CM
r^
00
vO
•
0
to
t-^
o
00
Ol
LO
o
•«* 00
r-» CTI
o o
43
I/I
•H
4-1
en
t/>
3
0
•H
rH
rt
o
CM
o
o
VO vO
CM CM
O rH
0 0
r-. CM
00 CM
to o
0 0
) — 1
^"
o
•
o
o
^
0
o
oo
o
o
o'
CM LO
LO O>
0 0
0 0
o
^~
o
•
0
to
1— 1
o
o
•«*
CM
o
0*
LO to
CM vO
o o
0 0
in
"O
rt
0
43
i-H
rH
3
09
LO
o
o
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LO
o
c>
o
1 U
1 C
1 C
1
1 C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
o
o
00
1 O
1 O
0
0
t
I
V r
X
0) 0
rH ,i
rH 0
rt :
3 S
o
o
to
o
S
LO
o
•t
^
0
o
t*^
1— 1
•
o
CTi
00
rH
o
CM
LO
rH
o
•3 vO ^t"
3 O l~-
3 O to
3 O O
LO
^j-
o
•
o
CTl
LO
o
LO
CM
CM
o
1— 1
CM
to
o
D
«
-t
3
H
H
D
* PH
n H
3 rt
S U
r~-
rH
to
o
l~^
IO
rH
o
0
CM
o
rH
to
o
0X30
§ "3 3° O
<->*-}<&
II ll
3 rH
II
<
6-44
-------
Table 5. The catch per hour from June 3 to September 24 of game species
in the Olentangy River during 1974 downstream of Powell Road at
three sites in the vicinity of Powell Road, 1-270 and Henderson Road.
Smallmouth
Species All Rockbass Sunfish Bass Catfish Others*
catch/
hour 0.392 0.133 0.113 0.101 0.23 0.023
* Others included: White Bass, Crappie, Carp, Suckers.
Total fish caught 1080, Total hours fished 2,754.
The Olentangy Fishery compares favorably with other stream fisheries
in the Eastern U. S. as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Overall Catch rate of Smallmouth Bass in the Olentangy compared
to other smallmouth streams (From a thesis by Edward Perry)5
Multiple years are given by more than one estimate.
Smallmouth
Locale Overall Catch Bass Alone
Per Hour
Olentangy River 0.78, 1.39 0.22, 0.41
Massie Creek, Ohio 0.20 0.04
Little Miami Creek, Ohio 0.50 0.04
Potomac River Basin, Maryland 0.36 0.51, 0.37
Cacopon River, West Virginia 1.38 0.57
Shenandoah, Virginia 0.66, 0.79 0.46, 0.52
Riley Creek, Ohio 0.96 0.04
South Branch, Potomac 0.67, 1.14, 0.57 0.29, 0.71, 0.39
The catch rate per hour of smallmouth bass in the Olentangy is as good
as that of other major warmwater streams in the eastern United States.
6-45
-------
The Olentangy River constitutes a major quality sport fishery
resource for the urban citizens of a rapidly growing area. Many other
recreational uses of the stream are predicated on it's remaining a quality
stream. Since it is the only remaining greenbelt in the immediate
Delaware and northern Franklin County area it is a valuable resource
of open space. The location of metropolitan and city parks both
established and proposed attests to this valued In addition large
blocks of land, such as owned by Ohio State University, Union Cemetary
and Chemical Abstracts, retain their aesthetic appeal for users of
the stream providing a natural greenbelt area sorely needed particularly
by inner city residents.
There are many sites particularly between the West Bank of the River
and State Route 315 which could be developed for picnicking, camping,
fishing and access for canoeing or hiking . Already a scenic bikeway
exists along a significant portion of the river.
The citizens of Ohio have already invested a enormous sum of time,
energy and funds to ensure that the stream retains its aesthetic and
recreational value for future generations. It would be a tragic folly
to despoil this for the convenience of a few real estate developers
in the name of "environmental enhancement," and progress. How can we
permit the destruction of a significant urban resource upon which the
hope of so .many future generations of central Ohio citizens are predicated
for such limited short term gains.
No one denies the need for regionalization of waste treatment facilities,
I believe a viable alternative would be to include Southern Delaware
6-46
-------
County in a waste treatment plan utilizing the existing facilities
located in Franklin County and the city of Columbus for a truly
regional centralized waste treatment facility that would protect the
urban greenbelt for the recreational use of Central Ohio citizens.
6-47
-------
References
1. Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1963.
Water inventory of the Scioto River Basin. Ohio Water Plan
Inventory, No. 17. 76 p.
2. Brungs, W. A. 1973. Effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 45(10):2180-2193.
3. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Natural Area and
scenic river planning section. The Olentangy Scenic River
Study. 48 p.
4. Ohio Cooperative Fishery Unit. Data files on evaluation of the
sport fishery of the Olentangy River.
5. Perry, E. W. 1974. The effect of stream improvement structures
on the sport fishery in a channelized section of the Olentangy
River. M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University, School of
Natural Resources. 130 p.
-------
List of Fishes collected in the Olentangy River by members and staff
of the Zoology Department, The Ohio State University at stations
from Powell Road to the confluence with the Scioto River.
Gizzard Shad
Grass Pickerel
Quillback Carpsucker
Silver Redhorse
Black Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Hogsucker
White Sucker
Carp
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Hornyhead Chub
Blacknose Dace
Creek Chub
Suckermouth Minnows
Redbelly Dace
Silver Shiner
Rosyface Shiner
Rosefin Shiner
Striped Shiner
Steelcolor Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Sand Shiner
Mimic Shiner
Silver Jaw Minnow
Fathead Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Stoneroller
Channel Catfish
Yellow Bullhead
Brown Bullhead
Black Bullhead
Stonecat Madtom
Brindled Madtom
Troutperch
Silvers ides
White Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Rock Bass
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Green Sunfish
Bluegill
Orange Spotted Sunfish
Longear Sunfish
Logperch
Johnny Darter
Greenside Darter
Banded Darter
Rainbow Darter
Orangethroated Darter
Barred Fantail Darter
Bluebreasted Darter
Pumpkinseed Sunfish
Blackstriped Topminnow
Spotted Darter
Northern River Carpsucker
Blackside Darter
Walleye
Muskellunge
6-49
-------
SCHUETTE CONSTRUCTION CO.
5192 SELDOM SEEN ROAD
POWELL, OHIO 43065
Member of
(614) 889- 1768
June 11, 1975
Ms. Cathy Grissom
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V Planning Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Ms. Grissom»
The following are the slides you requested at the recent meeting you
held at the Olentangy High School, Delaware, Ohio.
Find enclosed the slides and their locations spotted on the county
map.
SPA #1
The location of this site is along St. Rt. #315 approximately 1 mile
north of the proposed site of the county sewage treatment plant. This
is on the west side of the highway. The Olentangy River is on the
east side of this highway. The slide ahova sewage with detergent flowing
along the berm of the highway,
EPA #2
This is the same location as BPA #1 except that it is approximately 75*
south, where the effluent pools and flows across Rt, #315 into the river.
The effluent seems to be clearer in this slide. This is caused by auto-
mobiles driving through. When the autos drive through it most of the
floating materials are hurled through the air and onto the surrounding
landscape*
EPA #3
This slide was taken along side of Home Rd. approximately 1/2 mile
east of the Olentangy River, It shows sewage effluent running in
the road ditch which empties into the Olentangy River.
EPA #4
This slide was taken along side of Home Rd., just west of U. S. Highway
#23. This area, being further east than that shown on slide EPA #3,
drains to the east into a ravine which flows west into the Olentangy River,
EPA #5
This slide uas taken in the road ditch on Seldom Seen Rd, (Twp. #121)*
It shows effluent from on-lot sewage systems which seeps into the road
ditch. This road ditch drains into a small run which empties into the
O'Shaughnessy Reservoir which supplies a part of the city of Columbus
with water.
6-50
-------
Page 2
BPA#6
This slide was taken in the road ditch on Rutherford Rd. (Twp. #122)
approximately l£ miles east of the O'Shaughnessy Reservoir. This ditch
empties into a small streamwaich winds through a subdivision and empties
into the Scioto River,
SPA #7
This slide was taken in the area just west of St. Rt, #257 across the
highway from a package sewage plant that serves Round Hill Estates.
When I took this slide I was standing in the public park on the shores
of the O'Shaughnessy Reservoir. Needless to say, this area of the park
isfl *t used to capacity. Round Hill Estates are located at 10,000 River-
side Drive,
All of the slides EPA #1 through EPA #7 were taken the junday before
you were here for the meeting with us at Olentangy High laoEooL, At
that particular time we had not had any rain for fifteen days in this
area. All of these areas would have been dry, if there wasn't sewage
effluent flowing into them,
EPA #8
This is an older slide taken in 1967 of the back yard of a home on
Hyatts Rd, just west of U.S. Highway #23. These are cattails growing
over a leach bed of an on-lot sewage unit. This area today does not
have cattails as the homeowner sprayed them. It now is rank with
marsh grass as it is too wet to mow. The effluent which runs off of
this area runs into a small stream which empties into the Olentangy R.
These are but a few of the many situations that exist all over
Delaware County. I would be very willing to show you or any of your
personnel working on this impact statement these and many more similar
situations in person, if you desire.
With the ever increasing influx of residents into Delaware County the
only thing that can keep this problem from getting worse is a central
sewage plant.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these slides for the study and
any further information I can supply.
Mr, John R, Schuette
i/
JRS/bms
6-51
-------
i^V ^r*i;-,t J^" 4j*^^"J*^??^1*'^>' 'r;
* * ' * "- " &" *# "E. i**s^ * \ %•» I^^W
6 -5?.
-------
6-53
-------
jt '•'*
6-54
-------
6-55
-------
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
14 April 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of a report on the naiad mollusks of the Olentangy River in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed sewage treatment plant opposite the Highbanks
Metropolitan Park in southern Delaware County, Ohio. This report was recently
prepared by me at the request of the Delaware County Commissioners.
I am firmly convinced that if the full effect of the proposed facility on the mollusk
fauna of the Olentangy River is to be accurately predicted, then the full extent of
the fauna in the area from the proposed sewage outfall to the mouth of the river must
be studied. Limitations of time and funds have thus far prevented such an extensive
survey.
We would be interesting in cooperating with the USEPA in conducting such a survey as
part of the preparation of the environmental impact statement for this project. We
believe that such a study is essential to determine the present status of the popula-
tions of endangered molluscan species known from this river.
I would appreciate receiving any available documentation and discussion of the alterna-
tives for water quality management considered in the facilities plan.
Sincerely,
Carol B. Stein, Ph.D.
Curator of Gastropod Mo Husks
Dr. Carol B. Stein
Curator of Gastropod Mollusks
Museum of Zoology
Ihe Ohio State University
2578 Kenny Road
Columbus, Ohio 43210
6-56
-------
THE NAIADES (PHYLUM MOLLUSCA, FAMILY UNIONIDAE) OF THE OLENTANGY RIVER
BETWEEN POWELL ROAD AND 1-270, DELAWARE AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, OHIO
by
Carol B. Stein, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University Museum of Zoology
Columbus, Ohio
January 1975
INTRODUCTION: The freshwater bivalve mollusks of the Family Unionidae, commonly
known as naiades, comprise a substantial portion of the biota of the aquatic
ecosystems of natural, free-flowing streams such as the Olentangy River. These
animals are major components of the food web of the natural community. They filter
algae and other suspended matter from the water and convert it to animal tissue,
which in turn serves as food for fishes, raccoons, and other carnivores. Ohio's
prehistoric Indians and early white settlers ate the naiades from clean, unpolluted
rivers. Early farmers drove their hogs to market along the rivers, keeping the
animals fat by allowing them to root out and eat the naiades in the shallow riffles
along the way.
The shells of these animals have been utilized by man in many ways. Shell
hoes and eating utensils as well as decorative shell and pearl jewelry were made
by the earliest occupants of Ohio. Mother-of-pearl buttons made from naiad shells
formed the basis of a major industry in the midwest from the late 1800's until
the end of World War II, when plastics and glass buttons could be produced more
cheaply. In recent years, the shells of certain species have been much in demand
by the Japanese cultured pearl industry, which uses beads of American naiad shell
as the nuclei around which the cultured pearl layer is secreted. Many thousands
of dollars worth of such shells have been shipped from Ohio to Japan for this
purpose within the past few years. The novelty industry also uses various shells
as raw material for everything from souvenir ashtrays to jewelry to imbedded plastic
countertops.
Researchers have discovered that naiades can be used as living monitors of
environmental conditions, as they live for many years and secrete shell layers
each year. The composition of the various shell layers can be used to trace the
past history of various contaminents, such as heavy metals. The bodies of naiades
also concentrate certain chemicals, such as pesticides, allowing scientists to
detect the presence of very low levels of these chemicals in the streams. Addition-
al research is now being conducted to determine how these living recorders can
best be "decoded."
Students of biology have learned much about the evolution and geographic
patterns of animal life by studying naiades. Some investigators are studying
various bivalve mollusks since certain chemicals present in their tissues appear
to have value in curing cancer. The full potential value and significance of
any species of naiad has never been fully explored. So long as the species sur-
vives and man's curiosity and inventiveness persist, new values and uses may be
discovered for it.
6-57
-------
A species which becomes extinct, however, is a lost resource. Its unique
biochemical makeup, its genetic potential, its possibilities as a source of
food, drug, or raw material for man's yet-unrecognized needs, are lost to future
generations forever. It cannot be restocked in renovated habitats, because all seed
stock is dead. Since no two species are alike, the potential opportunities
offered by an endangered species cannot be duplicated by another species which
may be able to survive. One species of naiad differs from another just as signi-
ficantly as a porpoise differs from a whale.
Most naiad species are highly sensitive to various kinds of pollution and
to other forms of environmental alteration. They have complex life cycles, and
successful reproduction of each species is dependent upon the presence of its
particular species of host fish or salamander at the critical stage of its larval
development, when the bivalve's glochidium larva must attach itself to its par-
ticular host or perish.
Several naiad species which have been found in the Olentangy River are now
considered by state and federal officials to be rare and/or endangered.
This study was undertaken at the request of the Delaware County Commissioners
to determine what naiad species are now present in the Olentangy River from the
Powell Road bridge, Delaware County, downstream to the 1-270 bridge in Franklin
County, Ohio.
PREVIOUS RECORDS OF OLENTANGY RIVER SYSTEM NAIADES: The earliest published re-
cords of naiades in the Olentangy drainage apparently are those in Sterki's 1907
"Preliminary Catalogue of the Land and Fresh-water Mollusca of Ohio." He reported
Anodonta grandis salmonia Lea from the Olentangy River (locality not specified)
and Anodontoides ferussacianus subcylindraceus Lea from the Olentangy River at
Delaware. Both were collected by Bryant Walker.
Dr. Harla Ray Eggleston of Marietta College made a statewide survey of
mollusks in the 1930's, and made collections on the Olentangy River north of
Delaware and on Whetstone Creek west of Ashley.
In a master's thesis deposited at The Ohio State University in 1940, Mr.
Afton E. Price recorded 25 species of naiades from Franklin County, including 11
species he found in the Olentangy River.
Mr. Kurt Boker of Kelleys Island, Ohio,has collected a number of Olentangy
River shells, including a fine set of live-taken Quadrula cylindrica and two
Cyclonaias tuberculata from Columbus.
Dr. David H. Stansbery, Director and Curator of Bivalves, The Ohio State
University Museum of Zoology (OSUM), made many naiad collecting trips to the
Olentangy River between 1956 and 1960 as part of his naiad research program. All
of the specimens collected by him were deposited in the OSUM bivalve research
collection.
In 1960 I began a research project on the naiad fauna of the Olentangy River
system as a master's thesis. Collections were made at 45 sites on the main stream
and its tributaries, and earlier records were summarized in the thesis, which was
6-58
-------
completed in 1963 (Stein, 1963a). All material collected during this project is
also deposited at OSUM. Additional Olentangy River records have accumulated at
OSUM since 1963 as a result of the efforts of museum staff and students.
A paper based on the results of my thesis study was presented at the 1963
annual meeting of the American Malacological Union, and an abstract (Stein, 1963b)
was published. Living specimens of 21 naiad species were collected in the Olentangy
River between 1956 and 1962. These were:
Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque, 1820) 10, 11
Amblema plicata plicata (Say, 1817) 10, 11
*Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica (Say, 1817) 10, 11
Pleurobema coccineum (Conrad, 1836) 10, 11
[Then considered a form of Pleurobema cordatum (Rafinesque,
1820)]
Elliptic dilatatus (Rafinesque, 1820) 10, 11
Uniomerus tetralasmus (Say, 1830)
Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820) 10, 11
Anodonta grandis grandis Say, 1829 10, 11
Anodonta imbecillis^ Say, 1829 10
Anodontoides ferussacianus (Lea, 1834)
Alasmidonta viridis (Rafinesque, 1820) 11
[Then known as Alasmidonta calceolus (Lea, 1829)]
Alasmidonta marginata Say, 1818 10, 11
Strophitus undulatus undulatus ( Say, 1817) 10, 11
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (Rafinesque, 1820) 10, 11
Toxolasma parva (Barnes, 1823) 10
[The genus Toxolasma was formerly known as Carunculina]
Villosa iris iris (Lea, 1829) 10, 11
Villosa fabalis (Lea, 1831) 10
Lampsilis radiata luteola (Lamarck, 1819) 10, 11
[Then known as Lampsilis radiata siliquoidea (Barnes, 1823)]
Lampsilis ventricosa (Barnes, 1823) 10, 11
[Then considered a form of Lampsilis ovata (Say, 1817)]
Lampsilis fasciola Rafinesque, 1820 10, 11
Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) 10, 11
[The genus Epioblasma was then known as the genus Dysnomia]
Five species listed in the 1963 study had been found only as dead shells, but
were apparently maintaining low-lei/el populations in the river at that time:
Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque, 1820) 10
*Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) 10, 11
Lasmigona compressa (Lea, 1829) 11
*Simpsonaias ambigua (Say, 1825) 10
[The genus Simpsonaias was formerly known as Simpsoniconcha]
Obovaria subrotunda (Rafinesque, 1820) 10
The remaining three species, found only as subfossil shells, were believed to
have been extirpated from the Olentangy River system prior to 1963:
Elliptic crassidens erassidens (Lamarck, 1819)
Actinonaias ligamentina carinata (Barnes, 1823)
[Formerly known as Actinonaias carinata (Barnes, 1823)]
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Lea, 1839)
6-59
*
-------
4 *
-------
the High Banks area; and (3) the High Banks area upstream from Mount Air. No
collecting was done at Mt. Air or below it on this trip.
At least one specimen of every species we saw was collected and brought back
to the museum for study. All specimens were identified by me and were verified
by Dr. David H. Stansbery. Voucher specimens of all species collected have been
deposited in The Ohio State University Museum of Zoology bivalve research collection,
where they are available for further study.
NAIAD SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE STUDY AREA:
Anodonta imbecillis Say, 1829
Two dead shells of this species were taken between Powell Road and the Orange/
Liberty Township line in the upper portion of the study area. This is a widespread
species throughout Ohio, though it is not generally found in large numbers. There
evidently is a living population in the study area.
Anodonta grandis grandis Say, 1829
This is one of the most common naiades of the Olentangy River system, and is
widespread throughout the state. Two living specimens were taken in the channel-
ized portion of the Olentangy at the 1-270 bridge, and four were found alive below
the Powell Road bridge. Dead shells were taken throughout the study area. This
species, like Anodonta imbecillis, evidently is one of the few naiades which is
able to survive and reproduce in some impounded and channelized rivers. It was one
of the first species to become re-established below Fifth Avenue Dam in Columbus
after highway construction there (Stein, 1972). Its thin shell has no commercial
value.
Anodontoides ferussacianus^ (Lea, 1834)
This characteristic species of small streams is not ordinarily found in rivers
as large as the Olentangy at Highbanks. However, one dead shell was taken below
Powell Road during this study. This is apparently the farthest downstream museum
record for the species in the Olentangy drainage. There may be a resident breeding
population of this species in the study area, but it seems more likely that the
specimen represents a stray glochidium carried down from the headwaters by a
migrating host fish.
Strophitus undulatus undulatus (Say, 1817)
This common and widespread Olentangy drainage mollusk was found throughout
the study area. Two living specimens were taken below the Powell Road bridge.
There is evidently a healthy population of S_. undulatus here, as in other small
rivers across the state.
6-61
-------
Alasmidonta marginata Say, 1818
A species of swift, well-aerated water and coarse substrate, the A. marginata is
maintaining a thriving population in this stretch of the Olentangy. TEIrteen
living specimens were collected below Powell Road, and fresh dead shells were
common throughout the study area. This species is becoming scarce throughout
its range as many streams in which it once lived are becoming unsuitable habitat
because of manmade physical and chemical modifications. If present trends con-
tinue, this species may be expected to appear on endangered species lists within
a few years.
Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820)
Although no living specimens of this species were taken during the present
study, dead shells were fairly common and there is evidently a reporducing pop-
ulation in the area. This is one of the common species of the Olentangy drainage
and is found in similar rivers throughout the state.
Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica (Say, 1817)
One dead shell of this rare species was collected below Powell Road during
the current study. It was also found at this site in 1960 and below Wilson
Bridge Road in 1959, 1960, and 1962. There may still be a relict population of
this once widespread species in the lower Olentangy River. However, no living
specimens are known to have been found in this river since 1961. The only known
breeding population of this species remaining in Ohio today appears to be in the
Mohican-Walhonding River system, where it is threatened by intermittent impound-
ment. The scattered records of this species from the Olentangy River, Big Walnut
Creek, and Big Darby Creek probably indicate populations which are almost extir-
pated. The Cob Shell is included by the Ohio Division of Wildlife in its official
listing of Ohio's Endangered Wild Animals.
Amblema plicata plicata (Say, 1817)
Living Amblema plicata were collected below Powell Road and at Highbanks
during this survey. Dead shells were found throughout the study area. This is
a common species, rather widely distributed in rivers across the state. Its
thick shells are used in the cultured pearl industry, and in recent years this
species has been commercially harvested in the lower Muskingum River and in parts
of the Ohio River.
Fusconaia flava (Rafinesque, 1820)
Several dead shells of Fusconaia flava were found from Powell Road downstream
to Mount Air. No living specimens were taken, but a small population of this species
is probably living in the study area. This is a common species characteristic of
swift current in small rivers throughout the state.
6-62
-------
Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque, 1820)
A single subfossil fragment of this species was found above the 1-270 bridge.
This is the eighth specimen of this species known from the Olentangy River. Two
specimens reported during my earlier survey (Stein, 1963a) were fresh dead shells,
30 to 40 years of age at the time of their death. All other recent specimens
collected have been subfossil specimens. It is possible that there may yet be a
few individuals of this species surviving in the Olentangy, but we have no evidence
of a large breeding population in the system. A few living specimens have been
collected in the upper Scioto River and in lower Big Darby Creek in recent years.
This species is frequently found in medium-sized rivers.
Pleurobema coccineum (Conrad, 1836)
Several dead shells of this species were found throughout the study area.
There evidently is a living population within this stretch of the Olentangy River.
The £. coccineum is found in rivers of medium size in both the Lake Erie and Ohio
River drainages in Ohio.
Elliptio dilatatus (Rafinesque, 1820)
Two living specimens were taken below the Powell Road bridge, and dead shells
were found throughout the study area. It is one of the most common bivalves in
Ohio, and has been found in nearly every unpolluted, undredged, medium-sized free-
flowing stream in the state.
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (Rafinesque, 1820)
Living specimens of this species were taken at the Highbanks and below the
Powell Road bridge. Dead shells were common throughout the study area. This is
a characteristic species of the riffles and runs of medium-sized unpolluted streams
in Ohio.
Villosa fabalis (Lea, 1831)
One subfossil fragment found at Highbanks has been tentatively identified as
this species. No fresh dead or lining specimens were found in the 1974 survey,
though a dead shell had been taken below the Wilson Bridge Road bridge in the
1963 study. This species has become quite rare in Ohio in recent years. The Ohio
State University Museum of Zoology collection includes live-collected shells from
the Olentangy River above Delaware, the Walhonding River, Big Darby Creek, and
Lake Erie. If present trends of habitat modification continue, V_. fabalis will
probably be added to the state endangered species list within a few years.
Villosa i_. iris (Lea, 1829)
As in the 1963 study, this naiad was found to occur throughout the area
studied, but it was not found in abundance. Several dead shells were collected,
6-63
-------
but no living specimens were found. There is evidently a living population
present, though the individuals are not numerous. Even in the earlier study,
only one living specimen was taken. This species is widely scattered across
the state and is not yet considered to be endangered.
Lampsilis radiata luteola (Lamarck, 1819)
The most abundant and widely distributed naiad in the Olentangy River
system, this species was found throughout the study area. Living specimens were
taken below Powell Road bridge, and empty shells were common on gravel bars and
islands where they had washed up during floods. This species evidently has wide
ecological tolerances and is one of the last to disappear from polluted streams.
It is one of very few species in its subfamily (Lampsilinae) which survives in
some impounded rivers. It occurs in nearly every stream in Ohio which supports
naiad life of any kind.
Lampsilis ventricosa (Barnes, 1823)
Lampsilis ventricosa was found living below Powell Road, and dead shells
were taken throughout the study area. This is a common species in the small and
medium-sized rivers of Ohio. In the 1963 study, L^. ventricosa and Lasmigona
costata were the only two species found within four miles below the Delaware
sewage plant outfall.
Lampsilis fasciola Rafinesque, 1820
This species was found living below Powell Road, and dead shells of it were
taken throughout the study area. It is a characteristic species of gravel riffles
and runs in swift current in many of Ohio's small rivers, but is not usually
found in large numbers. It is not now considered to be endangered.
Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820)
At the time of the 1963 study, the E. triquetra was a fairly common naiad
in the lower Olentangy River, especially Below the Fifth Avenue Dam. In recent
years, however, it seems to have become quite scarce. Further study is needed
to determine whether it still lives in the Columbus stretch of the river. Three
dead shells were taken in this survey, so it appears that there is still a pop-
ulation in the study area. This species, like Villosa fabalis, has become quite
rare in Ohio in recent years. If present trends continue, it will very likely
appear on the endangered species list within a few years.
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Rafinesque, 1820)
Two subfossil specimens of this rare species were found during the present
study. Only four had been taken from the system previously, and those had all
been found in Columbus. It is possible that a few individuals may yet survive
6-64
-------
in the lower Olentangy River, but I suspect it has been extirpated from the
system. There is still a breeding population in Big Darby Creek, and one is
believed to have existed in the St. Joseph River in northwestern Ohio until
recently. This species is included in the Ohio Division of Wildlife's official
list of the state's endangered wild animals.
In a letter to Ohio's former Director of Natural Resources William B. Nye,
Dr. Ronald 0. Skoog, Acting Chief of the U. S, Department of Interior's Office
of Endangered Species, stated that this species "is a candidate for the Department
of the Interior's official list of species that are threatened with becoming
endangered. International concern has been expressed over the plight of this
species. It appears in Appendix 2 of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna...which was signed on March 3, 1973,
ratified by the U. S. Senate, and implemented in the Endangered Species Act of
1973."
Corbicula sp.
This small round-shelled bivalve is not a naiad, but a true clam. It is
one of the most numerous bivalve species in the study area today. It was intro-
duced from Asia into California where it became a problem in irrigation ditches.
It was first noticed in the Mississippi River basin in the summer of 1957, when
it caused difficulties by clogging up small cooling water pipes at the Shawnee
Steam Plant on the Ohio River at Paducah, Kentucky. It was not found in the
Olentangy River until 1 January 1972, when Dr. Milton B. Trautman found two dead
shells on the shore of the Delaware Reservoir. Since then, it has spread rapidly
and is now one of the most abundant bivalves of the lower Olentangy River.
Living specimens and dead shells were found throughout the study area. Since
this clam has a planktonic larva and is not dependent upon the presence of a
suitable fish or amphibian host in order to complete its life cycle, it can spread
to bodies of water where the native naiads cannot become established.
OTHER SPECIES WHICH MAY BE PRESENT IN THE STUDY AREA:
Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819)
This rare species is on the official list of Ohio's Endangered Wild Animals.
The Olentangy River is one of very few rivers inthe state from which this species
has been collected within the past fifteen years. In 1960 and 1961 two rather
fresh dead shells were found at Worthington. Twelve subfossil specimens which
had been collected between the Delaware Dam and the Dodrige Street bridge in
Columbus were reported in the 1963 survey. A single subfossil specimen was taken
above the Delaware Dam at Claridon. It is possible that this species is still
living in the study area or in the Olentangy River downstream from it. If there
is a population at Worthington, as indicated by the two fresh dead shells, it
could be affected by the effluent of the proposed sewage treatment facility up-
stream.
6-65
-------
10
Elliptio crassidens (Lamarck, 1819)
One subfossil specimen of this species was collected from the Olentangy
River in Columbus in 1959. No other specimens are known from the Olentangy
system, although a few living specimens have been collected in recent years
from the Big Darby Creek and Big Walnut Creek. These individuals probably re-
present glochidia dropped by fish moving upstream from the Ohio River, where
there is a known breeding population. This species is characteristic of large
rivers and is rarely encountered in streams as small as the Olentangy.
Uniomerus tetralasmus (Say, 1830)
This species is very rare in Ohio, and is known in the state only from a
few disjunct populations, one of which still persists below the King Avenue
bridge in Columbus. It is not known to occur in the Olentangy River upstream
from this site. This population could be affected by a change in water quality
caused by new upstream effluents.
Lasmigona compressa (Lea, 1829)
One fresh dead shell of this species was collected at the Powell Road bridge
in 1960. It is one of only four specimens known from the Olentangy River system.
This is an uncommon species in Ohio, but a few individuals have been found in
several small rivers.
Simpsonaias ambigua (Say, 1825)
This rare shell, which is on the Ohio list of Endangered Wild Animals, was
represented in the 1963 survey by two shells. One of these was found just below
the study area, south of Wilson Bridge Road in 1962. The other was taken just
north of Delaware in 1960. It is quite likely that there are living specimens
of this species in the study area. This is the only Ohio naiad known to be
parasitic during its larval stage on a salamander rather than a fish host. The
mudpuppy, Necturus maculosus (Rafinesque, 1818), serves as host for this mollusk,
and reportedly the life cycle is completed under large flat rocks in fast flowing
rivers, the habitat of both species.
Alasmidonta viridis (Rafinesque, 1820)
One specimen of this species was taken at the Powell Road bridge in 1960.
It is typically a species of small streams and tributaries, and rarely is found
in rivers as large as the Olentangy River in the study area. However, there may
be a few living individuals present within the study area and below it.
Obovaria subrotunda (Rafinesque, 1820)
Dead shells of this species were found downstream from the present study area^B
during the 1963 survey, but no living ones are known to have been taken in the
6-66
-------
11
river since 1940. A few individuals may yet survive in the river. This species
is becoming less common in Ohio as its former habitats are being modified by
pollution, impoundment, and other alterations.
Actinonaias ligamentina carinata (Barnes, 1823)
This species once lived in the Olentangy, as evidenced by four subfossil
shells found in Columbus in 1959 and 1960. However, it has evidently been
extirpated from the entire upper Scioto River system. No living or fresh dead
specimens are known to have been collected anywhere in the Scioto River drainage
within the past century-, though living specimens are common in the Sandusky River
and in the Muskingum River systems.
Toxolasma parva (Barnes, 1823)
The range of this species in the Olentangy system is mostly downstream from
the study area. None were found in northern Franklin County or southern Delaware
County in the 1963 survey, though there are three scattered records above Delaware.
Eight specimens were collected in Shaw Creek, Morrow County.
SUMMARY: Living specimens of nine species of naiades were collected in the study
area during this survey. Eleven additional species were represented by dead shells
collected in November, 1974, in the study area. Two of these, Quadrula cylindrica
and Epioblasma torulosa rangiana, are on the official list of Ohio's Endangered
Wild Animals.
Dead shells of two additional species on the state Endangered Wild Animals
list, Pleurobema clava and Simpsonaias ambigua, were taken just below the study
area in northern Franklin County in the early 1960's. There is also a record
of Pleurobema clava for Powell Road bridge.
A table showing the numbers of each species collected, whether the specimens
were alive or dead when collected, and the section of the study area where the
specimens were found is attached.
As noted under Study Methods above, only two sites were collected under
reasonably good conditions for obtaining living specimens. Tnese were just below
the Powell Road bridge and just above the 1-270 bridge. Under conditions of low,
clear water in warm weather it is entirely probably that living specimens of most
of the species reported only as dead shells could have been found in the study
area. Perhaps some of the species found in the early 1960's but not in 1974 could
also have been found.
6-67
-------
LITERATURE CITED:
Price, Afton Ellmore
1940. A check list of the Naiades of the streams of Franklin County, Ohio.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
23 pp.
Stein, Carol B.
1963a. The Unionidae (Mollusca:Pelecypoda) of the Olentangy River in Central
Ohio.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
iv + 152 pp.
1963b. Notes on the naiad fauna of the Olentangy River in Central Ohio.
(ABSTRACT)
American Malacological Union Annual Reports for 1963. p. 19.
1972. Population changes in the naiad mollusk fauna of the lower Olentangy
River following channelization and highway construction.
Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, Inc., for 1971: 47-49.
Sterki, V.
1907. A preliminary catalogue of the land and fresh-water Mollusca of Ohio.
Proceedings of the Ohio State Academy of Science, 4 (Pt. 8), Special
Papers No. 12, pp. 367-402.
6-68
-------
NAIAD SPECIES COLLECTED IN THE OLENTANGY RIVER, HI6HBANKS STUDY AREA, IN NOVEMBER 1974
SPECIES
RIVER SECTION (FROM POWELL ROAD BRIDGE TO THE 1-2/0 BRIDGE)
Anodonta imbecillis
Anodonta grandis
Anodontoides ferussacianus
Strophitus undulatus
Alasmidonta marginata
Lasmigona costata
Quadrula cylindrica
Amblema plicata
Fusconaia flava
Cyclonaias tuberculata
Pleurobema coccineum
Elliptic dilatatus
Ptychobranchus fasciolaris
Villosa fabalis
Villosa iris
Lampsilis radiata luteola
Lampsilis ventricosa
Lampsilis fasciola
Epioblasma triquetra
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Corbicula (introduced;
not a true naiad)
IBs
i-H
O O
CD "•—^
o
4 live
0
2 live
13 live
4 dead
1 dead
1 live
3 dead
0
3 dead
2 live
6 live
0
1 dead
9 live
8 live
1 live
1 dead
0
19 live
C O) -H
3 C i-l
o a ^~.
T3 t- • !•—
O 0-t—
• 3 ••
TJ O h- "S-
- ^
.-H (3 £_ ..
O J* -3-
o c h—
-Q tl! O"\
OJ OQ iH
-p -c oo
CO Q) CO
3 -H O
o
3 dead
0
3 dead
13 dead
10 dead
0
3 dead
1 dead
0
6 dead
10 dead
17 dead
0
1 dead
22 dead
8 dead
9 dead
0
0
2 live
CO
-*
C L.
-P.8
CO
o m
0
6 dead
0
4 dead
15 dead
6 dead
0
3 dead
0
0
0
6 dead
15 dead
7) 0
3 dead
26 dead
6 dead
5 dead
0
0
8 dead
o) o $- 1-1 ••"•
01 -H o. *r
O TJ to o a co
O r-1 r-l 3 CCl
-O «H CD O O
-------
OHIO BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
INTER-INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SINCE 1912
December 8, 1975
105 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES BUILDING
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY^
484 WEST 12™ AVENUE
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43210
PHONE: 614-422-9645
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Planning Branch Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Ohio Biological Survey is currently under contract to the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Huntington District, completing an environmental inventory and
analysis of the Central Ohio region. The study area includes the Scioto River
watershed. Several items relevant to the proposed Powell Sewage Treatment
Plant on the Olentangy River are included in the report. The water quality of
that stretch of the Olentangy River has been evaluated to be "Relatively Good
Quality," the highest quality category in the study area. Also modern records
of four species of molluscs on the Ohio Division of Wildlife Endangered Species
list are reported for the same stretch of the river. The type localities of
five plant species are located in the general area, although these are very
difficult if not impossible to locate precisely. The visual quality rating
of the landscape in the area of the proposed plant is evaluated as high and
medium high.
This stretch of the Olentangy is one of the finest scenic areas in Central Ohio
and construction would be an environment intrusion into a high quality area.
I would recommend that every alternative be thoroughly investigated before
authorizing development of this facility.
Sincerely,
7
CCKrjkp
Dr. Charles C. KirigV
Executive Direct6*XNUIBniI1._u_
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RECEIVED
101975
PLANNING JIBANCfl.
PILE NO..
COOPERATING INSTITUTIONS AND MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD
THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON, John H Ohve*
ANTIOCH COLLEGE, Robert Bien
ASHLAND COLLEGE, RendeM Rhoades
AULLWOOD AUDUBON CENTER, Paul E Knoop, Jr
BALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE, T C Surra'-rer"
BLUFFTON COLLEGE, Richard F Pannabecker
BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY, Vvilliam B Jackson**
CAPITAL UNIVERSITY, Pau! E Zimpfer
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Norman A Alldndge*
CENTRAL STATE UNIVERSITY, David C Rubin
CINCINNATI MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, Charles Oehler
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, Jack L Gottschang
THE CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, Laurence Isard
CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY, Randall J Gee
COLUMBUS AND FRANKLIN COUNTY
METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, Edward F Hutchins
THE DAWES ARBORETUM, C. Burr Dawes
DAYTON-MONTGOMERY COUNTY PARK DISTRICT, Dane Mutter
THE DAYTON MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, E J. Koestner*
THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, Joseph D Laufersweiler
DEFIANCE COLLEGE. Gerardus C DeRoth
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CHARLES C KING,* The Ohio State University
DENISON UNIVERSITY, Allen L Rebuck
FINDLAY COLLEGE. A Jack Wilfong
HAMILTON COUNTY PARK DISTRICT, William E Canedy
HEIDELBERG COLLEGE, Howard W Hmlz
HIRAM COLLEGE, Dwight H Berg
HOCKING TECHNICAL COLLEGE, William B Price
THE HOLDEN ARBORETUM, R Henry Norweb, Jr
JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY, Edwin J. Skoch
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, Charles V Riley
KENYON COLLEGE, Robert D Burns
KINGWOOD CENTER, K Roger Troutman
LAKE ERIE COLLEGE, K Michael Foos
MALONE COLLEGE, Arnold W. Fritz
MARIETTA COLLEGE, David F. Young*
MIAMI UNIVERSITY, Charles M Vaughn
COLLEGE OF MOUNT ST JOSEPH, Pat R Sferra
MOUNT UNION COLLEGE, Charles W. Brueske
MUSKINGUM AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Melvm B Hathaway
MUSKINGUM COLLEGE, William Adams
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, OHIO CHAPTER, Ralph E Ramey*
OBERLIN COLLEGE, David A EglofT
* Executive Committee C _ *7 f\
*• Chairman of the Advisory Board O~~ / U
I HE OHIO ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Dwight M DeLong*
OHIO AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTER, Roy W Rings
OHIO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, Barry Apgear
OHIO DOMINICAN COLLEGE. William G Smith
THE OHIO HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Carl W Albrecht
OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY, Charles C Lamg
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Charles E Herdendorf
OHIO UNIVERSITY, Warren A Wistendahl*
OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. William F Hahnert*
OTTERBEIN COLLEGE. Jeanne Willis
METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT OF
THE TOLEDO AREA. Joseph P. Croy
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, Elliot J Tramer
URBANA COLLEGE. Clara May Frederick
WILMINGTON COLLEGE. Thomas K Wood
WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY, Nathan J Bolls
Con EGE OF WOOSTER, Donald L Wise
WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY, Jerry H Hubschman
XAVIER UNIVERSITY. Daniel J Higgms
YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY, David B Maclean
-------
CHAPTER 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, A. P. and J.D. Spendlove, 1970, Coliform Aerosols Emitted
by Sewage Treatment Plants, Science 169: 1218-1220.
Anonymous, November 1970, Ozone Bids for Tertiary Treatment,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 11.
Battelle Institute, August 1973, Preliminary Final Report on
Compatability Factors of a Proposed Delaware County Sewage
Treatment Plant With the Highbanks Metropolitan Park (Draft).
Becker, C.D. and T.O. Thatcher, 1973, Toxicity of Power Plant
Chemicals to Aquatic Life, United States Energy Commission by
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington,
Wash-1249-UC-ll, Section D and G.
Blumenfeld, Hans, Winter 1954, The Tidal Wave of Metropolitan
Expansion, Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
Blumenfeld, Hans, 1955, The Economic Base of the Metropolis,
Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
Brungs, William, 1973, Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic
Life, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 45 (10);
2180-2192.
Bureau of Business Research, 1960's, The Columbus Area Economy,
Structure and Growth, 1950 to 1985, The Ohio University.
Burgess and Niple, Ltd., 1970, Feasibility Survey and Report
for Sanitary Service and Sewage Treatment Facilities.
Burgess and Niple, Ltd., 1973, Environmental Assessment of the
Olentangy Environmental Control Center (superceded by the Fa-
cilities Plan) .
Burgess and Niple, Ltd., July 1974, (revised August 1974), The
Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Plan for South-Central Delaware
County, Ohio.
Burgess and Niple, Ltd. and the Delaware County Engineer's
Office, December 1974, RespdVise to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region V - Questions of October 22, 1974. (Supplement
to the Facilities Plan).
Burgess and Niple, Ltd., 10 April 1975, Letter to Fred L. Stults,
Delaware County Engineer.
Collins, H.F. and D.G. Deaner , August 1975, Sewage Chlorination
Versus Toxicity A Dilemma? Journal of the Environmental Engin-
eering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 101,
No. EE4.
7-1
-------
Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce, 1972, Population Growth in
Central Ohio, 1960 to 1970.
Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce, September 1974, Population
Projection, Columbus SM3A.
Committee on Water Quality Criteria, National Academy of Sci-
ences, National Academy of Engineering, 1972, Water Quality
Criteria, 1972, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cross, William P., 1965, Low-Flow Frequency and Storage-Require-
ment Indices for Ohio Streams, State of Ohio, Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Water, Bulletin 40.
Delaware County Board of Health, 1974, Home Sewage Disposal
Regulations .
Delaware County Regional Planning Commission, July 1973, Pop-
ulation Projections.
Delaware Regional Planning Commission, August 1973, Industrial
Data.
Delaware Regional Planning Commission, July 1975, Current
Housing Start Data.
Eliassen, R. and G. Tchobanoglous, 1975, Removal of Nitrogen
and Phosphorus from Wastewater: Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 3, No. 6-
Embleton, T.F.W. and G.J. Thiessen, January - February 1962,
Train Noises and Use of Adjacent Land, Sound.
Enviro Control, Inc. October 1975, Analytical Studies for
Assessing the Impact of Sanitary Sewage Facilities of Delaware
County, Ohio, Final Report under USEPA Contract no. 68-01-2853.
Fair, G.M. and J.C. Geyer, 1963, Water Supply and Wastewater
Disposal, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Fair, G.M. and W.F. Wells, 1934, Measurement of Atmospheric
Pollution and Contamination by Sewage Treatment Works, Proc.
19th Ann. Mtg. N.Y. Sewer Works Association.
Faulkner, C.E., July 1975, Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Letter to Ned Williams, Ohio EPA.
Finkbeiner, Pettis and Strout, 1979, Delaware County, Ohio
Comprehensive Water and Sewage Development Plan.
Franklin County Regional Planning Commission, 1954, Metropoli-
tan Columbus Master Plan Study, Sewers and Sewage Treatment.
7-2
-------
Franklin County Regional Planning Commission, 1969, Water
Related Facilities Plan.
Jeane, G.S. II, and P.E. Pine, 1975, Environmental Effects of
Dredging and Soil Spoil, Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 47, No. 3-
Labrenz Riemer Inc., 1974, Watercourse Plant for Columbus and
Franklin County, Columbus Department of Recreation and Parks.
Ladislas, Segoe, and Associates, 1964, Comprehensive Master
Plan, Delaware County, Ohio, Prepared for the Delaware County
Regional Planning Commission.
Lando, Thomas J,, and Friedrich Bohm, July 1975, The Birth of a
New Town, Cities and Villages.
Ledbetter, J.O. and C.W. Randall, 1965, Bacterial Emissions from
Activated Sludge Units, Ind. Med. and Surg. 34-130-133.
Liptak, B.C., 1974, Environmental Engineer's Handbook, Vol. 2,
Air Pollution, Chilton Book Company, Pennsylvania.
McKim, J.M., D.A. Benoit, K.E. Biesinger, W.A. Brungs- and R.E.
Siefert, 1975, Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Fish, Jour-
nal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 47 (6):1742.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., December 1974, Columbus Metropolitan Area
Facilities Plan.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., May 1975, Environmental Setting, Columbus
Metropolitan Area Facilities Plan, Draft, Prepared for City of
Columbus, Dept. of Public Service, Division of Sewerage and
Drainage.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1972, Wastewater Engineering, pp. 501-503.
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, March 1971, The Mid-Ohio
Region Housing Market Outlook 1970-1980.
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, June 1972, Expanding the
Regional Plan.
Momot, Walter T., 9 June 1975, Associate Professor, Ohio State
University, Letter to Mr. Kent Fuller of USEPA, Chicago, Illinois
Nitschke, Godwin, Bohm, 1974, Master Land Use Plan, Powell, Ohio.
Nitschke, Godwin, Bohm, August 1975, Alum Creek Reservoir Area
Study, Prepared for Delaware County Regional Planning Commission.
Odgen, J. Gorden III, 1965, Early Forests of Delaware County,
Ohio, Ohio Journal of Science 65:29-36
7-3
-------
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, 1963,
Water Inventory of the Scioto River Basin, Report #17, Ohio
Water Plan Inventory.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1970, A Statewide Plan
for Outdoor Recreation in Ohio 1971-1977.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Natural Area and Scenic
River Planning Section, August 1972, The Olentangy Scenic River
Study.
Ohio EPA, Division of Planning, Environmental Assessment Section,
August 1973, Evaluation of the Proposed Olentangy Environmental
Control Center - Delaware County Wastewater Treatment Facility
Sub-District 1-A.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, June 1974, Scioto River
Basin Wasteload Allocation Report.
Ohio State University Museum of Zoology, Unpublished Records, 1975.
Ohio Revised Code Annotated, 1974.
Ohio Revised Code Annotated, 1975.
Olive, John H., 1971, A Study of Biological Communities in the
Scioto River as Indices of Water Quality, The Ohio Biological
Survey and the Water Resources Center, The Ohio State Univer-
sity, Research Project Completion Report No. B-008-Ohio.
Olive, John H., and Kenneth Smith, 1975, Benthic Macroinverte-
brates as Indexes of Water Quality in the Scioto River System,
Ohio, The Ohio Biological Survey - New Series Bulletin, Vol. V,
No, 2 (unpublished manuscript).
Pennak, Robert W., 1953, The Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the
United States, The Ronald Press Company, New York.
Pereira, M.R. and M.A. Benjaminson, 1975, Broadcast of Microbial
Aerosols by Stacks of Sewage Treatment Plants and Effects of
Ozonation on Bacteria in the Gaseous Effluent, public Health
Reports 90:208-212.
Perry, Edwar.d, 1974, The Effect of Stream Improvement Structures
on the Sport Fishery in a Channelized Section of the Olentangy
River, Master Thesis (Unpublished), Ohio State University.
Presley, T.A. D.F. Biship and S.G. Roan, 1972, Ammonia-Nitrogen
Removal by Breakpoint Chlorination, Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 6, No. 7.
Randall, C.W. and J O. Ledbetter, 1966, Bacterial Air Pollution
from Activated Sludge Units, Am. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J. 27:506-519
7-4
-------
Servizi, J.A. et a^., 1969, Marine Disposal of Sediments from
Bellingham Harbor as Related to Sockeye and Pink Salmon Fisher-
ies, International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, Progress
Report No. 23.
Sexton, B.H., July 1969, Traffic Noise, Traffic Quarterly.
Smith, R., December .1967, A Compilation of Cost Information for
Conventional and Advanced Water Treatment Plants and Processes,
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Smith, R., June 1969, Cost and Performance Estimates for Terti-
ary Wastewater Treating Processes, U.S. Department of Interior.
Stansberry, D.H., May 1972, Comments on the Draft Environmental
Statement, Alum Creek Impoundment, Alum Creek, Scioto River
Basin, Ohio. (Included in Final EIS on the Alum Creek Reservoir).
Stein, Carol B., 1963, The Uniondae (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of the
Olentangy River in Central Ohio, Unpublished Master's Thesis,
The Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio.
Stein, Carol B., 1975, The Naiades (Phyllum Mollusca, Family
Uniondae) of the Olentangy River Between Powell Road and Inter-
state 270 Delaware and Franklin Counties, Ohio, Ohio State
University Museum of Zoology, Columbus, Ohio. (Unpublished).
Surveys Unlimited, October 1973, Policy Plan, Delaware County,
1970 to 1990.
Taras, M.J. et al., 1971, Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association.
Thruston, Robert V., Rosemarie C. Russo, and Kenneth Emerson,
1974, Aqueous Ammonia Equilibrium Calculations, Fisheries Bio-
assay Laboratory, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana,
Technical Report No. 74-1.
Trautman, Milton B., 1957, The Fishes of Ohio, Ohio State Uni-
versity Press, Columbus. «
Tsai, Chu-Fa, 1970, Changes in Fish Populations and Migration
in Relation to Increased Sewage Pollution in Little Patuxent
River, Maryland, Chesapeake Science, 11 (1):34-41.
Tsai, Chu-Fa, 1971, Water Quality Criteria to Protect the Fish
Population Directly Below Sewage Outfalls, The Department of
Forestry, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources Institute,
University of Maryland, Completion Report B-006-Md.
U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington, W.Va., August 1971,
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Mill Creek Lake.
7-5
-------
U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington, W.Va., Sept. 1972,
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Alum Creek Lake.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1950, Population of Counties by
Minor Civil Divisions: 1930 to 1950.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1962, County and City Data Book.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1967, County and City Data Book.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, September 1967, Areas of Ohio: 1960.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970, Population and Housing.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970- Number of Inhabitants,
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972, County and City Data Book.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, May 1975, Population Estimates and
Projections.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1969,
Soil Survey, Delaware County, Ohio.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1972,
National Register of Historic Places, Inventory and Nomination
Form, Highbanks Park Works.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 1975,
Employment and Earnings Statistics for the United States.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973, Fundamentals and Abate-
ment of Highway Traffic Noise.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1975, A Guide to the
Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA
Technical Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs
Operation, April 1975, Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant Construc-
tion Cost Index.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs
Operation, May 1975, Revised, Guidance for Preparing a Facility
Plan.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Water Resources Data for Ohio 1973,
Part 1, Surface Water Records.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1974, Water Resources Data for Ohio 1973,
Part 2, Water Quality Records.
7-6
-------
U.S. Water Resources Council, April 1974, 1972 OBERS Pro-
jections, Volumes 1,3,5, and 7.
U.S. Water Resources Council, 30 July 1975, Principles and
Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources -
Change in Discount Rate, Federal Register.
7-7
-------
2.personal Communications
Allis Chalmers, Inc., 1975.
Beemer, Harold W., Chief, Engineering Division, Huntington
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 11 August 1975.
Brungs, William, EPA National Water Quality Laboratory, Duluth,
Minnesota, 14 August 1975.
Calgon Corporation, July 1975.
Caterpillar Manufacturing Company, 1975.
Decker, Jane M., Assistant Professor of Botany, Ohio Wesleyan
University, 7 August 1975.
DeGrave, Nick, Wyoming Bioassay Laboratory, EPA Project #802292,
Grandville, Michigan, 14 August 1975.
Faulkner, C.E., Acting Regional Director, United States Depart-
ment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Recommendation
Letter to Mr. Ned Williams of the Ohio EPA, 21 July 1975.
Gilbert, Gary, Delaware County Santiary Engineer, August 1975.
Griswold, Bernard L., Ohio Cooperative Fishery Unit, The Ohio
State University, 1975.
Hinde Engineering Corporation, July 1975.
Lashutka, Greg, Staff Assistant for Ohio Affairs, Office of
Representative Samuel Devine, August 1975.
Levins, Ed., Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, July 1975.
Mantor, R., Superintendent, Delaware City Sewage Treatment Plant,
August 1975.
Mapes, Greg, Environmental Planner, Ohio EPA, August 1975.
May, Lloyd, Delaware County Health Commissioner, Delaware County
Health Department, July 1975.
Nottingham, James, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, District
Engineer, July 195.
PCI Ozone Company, August 1975.
Smith, Robert, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory,
25 July 1975.
Sprague, Rex, City Engineer, City of Delaware, August 1975.
7-8
-------
Stein, Carol, Ohio State University Museum of Zoology, July 1975.
Thomas, James, Director of Research, Columbus Area Chamber of
Commerce, 29 July 1975.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975.
7 —<
/
-------
Appendix A
Final Effluent Limitations OEPA Permit No. K 901 AD
During the period beginning when (a) facilities becomes operational,
or (b) infiltration/inflow is eliminated, whichever occurs first
and is applicable, and continuing therafter, the 30-day average
quantity of effluent discharged from the wastewater treatment
facility shall not exceed 1.5 MGD and the quality of effluent
discharged by the facility shall be limited at all times as follows:
A. The arithmetic mean of the BOD 5 samples collected in a
period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed a concen-
tration of 8 mg/1 or a total quantity of 45.4 kg/day.
The arithmetic mean of these values for effluent samples
collected in a period of seven consecutive days shall
not exceed a concentration of 12 mg/1 or a total quan-
tity of 68.1 kg/days.
B. The arithmetic mean of the suspended solids values for
effluent samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed a concentration of 8 mg/1 or a total
quantity of 45.4 kg/day. The arithmetic mean of these
values for effluent samples collected in a period of seven
consecutive days shall not exceed a concentration of 12
mg/1 or a total quantity of 68.1 kg/day.
C. The effluent values for ph shall remain within the limits
of 6.0 to 9.0. The ph limitation is not subject to aver-
aging and must be met at all times.
D. The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria values
for effluent samples collected in a period of 30 consecu-
tive days shall not exceed 200 per 100 milliliters. The
geometric mean of these values for effluent samples col-
lected in a period of seven consecutive days shall not
exceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
E. The Chlorine residual at the point of discharge shall not
exceed 0.5 mg/1 at any time.
F. The 30-day mean of ammonia nitrogen values for effluent
samples collected during the months of July thru October
shall not exceed a concentration of 1.4 mg/1 or a total
quantity of 8.5 kg/day. During the same period the 7-day
mean shall not exceed a concentration of 1.5 mg/1 or a
total quantity of 8.5 kg/day.
G. The 30-day mean of ammonia nitrogen values for effluent
samples collected during the months of November thru June
shall not exceed a concentration of 1.5 mg/1 or a total
quantity of 8.5 kg/day. During the same period the 7-day
mean shall not exceed a concentration of 1.5 mg/1 or a
total quantity of 8.5 kg/day.
A-l
-------
H. The arithmetic mean of the phosphorus samples collected
in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not exceed a
concentration of 1.0 mg/1 or a total quantity of 5.7 kg/
day. The arithemetic mean for these values for effluent
samples collected in a period of seven consecutive days
shall not exceed a concentration of 1.5 mg/1 or a total
quantity of 8.5 kg/day.
I. The 30-day mean of Dissolved Oxygen values for effluent
samples shall be at least 6.0 mg/1 with no values being
less than 5.0 mg/1.
A-2
-------
Appendix B
Surface Water
1. Discharge Data
SCIOTO RIVER BASIN
03228805 Ainu Creek at Africa, Ohio
LOCATION. — Lat IQoiO'Se", long 82°57<12", in SE VI sec.1, T.3 H., F.18 H. , Delaware County, on left Bank at
downstream side o£ bridge on Orange Township Road 109, 0.3 «i (0.5 km) west of Africa, 0.3 11 (0.5 fco)
downstream from outlet of Alun Creek dam, 2.7 ai (1.3 Km) upstream from Westerville Reservoir outlet, and 1. 2
mi (6.6 km) northwest of 'Westerville.
DRAINAGE AREA.— 122 ni* (316 km*) .
PERIOD OF RECORD. — Occasional low-flow measurements, water year 1962, June 1963 to current year.
GAGE. — Bater-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 817.28 ft (219.107 m) above Bean sea level.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE: — 10 years, 125 ftVs (3.5UO »Vs), 13.91 in/yr (353.3 um/yr).
EXTREMES. — Current year: Haximun discharge, 5,630 ftVs (159 »3/s) June 20, gage height, 13.51 ft (1.118 B) ;
•ininum, 0.80 ft'/s (0.023 B'/E) Sept. 18.
Period of record: Naximun discharge, 6,160 ft'/s (17t m'/s) Mar. 10, 1961, gage height, 13.95 ft (U.25*1
I), froa graph based on gage readings; no flow at tines 1963-65.
Flood of Har. 5, 1963 reached a stage of 11.2 ft (1.33 n) , from floodmarks, discharge, 6,160 tt'/s (183
REHARKS. —Records good. Flow partially regulated by unfinished Alum Cree'k Dae. Water-guality records tor the
current year are published in Part 2 of this report.
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1973 TO SEPTEMBER. 1973
DAY
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
HAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUS
SEP
1
z
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
zo
21
zz
Z3
24
Z5
26
27
28
9D
CT
^n
JV
31
TOTAL
MEAN
MAX
WIN
CFSH
IN.
CAL YR
WTR YR
DATE
11-J
11-8
1,350
1,060
150
683
186 1,920
105
MO
135
94
72 1
54 1
39
32
137
240
120 1
72 1
63
83
62
56
57
49
45
49
95
78
59
48
47
co
DT
lie
O3
^c
4,8*6 14
156
1.350 1
32
1.28
1.48
1972 TOTAL
1973 TOTAL
TIME G.
0630 10
2000 9
752
658
383
271
,130
,090
670
568
345
227
,130
,100
570
495
256
144
310
340
214
142
106
93
112
160
166
1 Eft
1 Dw
119
lie
,447
482
,920
93
3.95
4.41
79.273
79,164
H.
.16
.18
107
130
138
134
201
483
832
622
622
640
510
348
438
510
365
265
160
130
104
288
478
543
418
335
232
154
177
148
i y\
1 c J
1 *lf*
1 DO
5 IP
C Jt
10,0?3
323
832
104
2.65
3.06
.9 MEAN
.7 MEAN
DISCHARGE
2,610
'2,010
320
271
177
570
619
416
247
130
84
70
50
38
34
35
38
38
39
46
58
59
59
136
288
288
170
102
179
415
i ny
3Vc
CT A
D JU
3E 1
CS I
6,351
205
619
34
1.68
1.94
217
217
179 46
578 62
804 125
523 24.0
238 285
164 323
120 183
100 125
88 90
78 247
64 203
58 245
54 148
58 240
201 1,480
415 836
160 916
110 844
70 545
60 425
56 368
52 251
48 150
45 HO
42 138
40 385
38 670
38 285
• -1AC
4,481 11,051
160 356
804 1,480
38 46
1.31 2.92
1.37 3.37
MAX 3,070 MIN 1.0
MAX 3,540 MIN 1.5
PEAK DISCHARGE (BASE,
DATE TIME G. H.
11-14 21JO 9.10
3-15 1430 9.26
236
166
126
251
637
433
179
179
260
586
530
378
670
345
166
117
227
688
318
188
138
101
136
190
110
80
276
808
CAC.
r*UD
166
9,190
306
808
80
2.51
2.80
CFSM 1
CFSM 1
1,500
119
98
119
110
77
62
55
70
107
132
555
560
142
85
66
56
52
47
48
117
95
60
S3
51
49
49
54
57
59
89
I ? i
I C 1
3,414
110
560
47
.90
1.'04
.78 IN
.78 IN
FT'/S)
DISCHARGE
1,
2.
960
060
78.
49
39
96
370
460
495
162
82
58
46
117
698
388
69
71
156
348
340
3,540
860
358
152
88
68
54
58
89
•snc
JU9
102
9,796
327
3,540
39
2.68
2.99
24.17
24.14
DATE
6-20
8-16
59
45
188
117
303
185
62
42
32
28
26
23
21
18
17
14
17
12
5.7
16
20
54
65
50
126
146
303
130
4Q
"* V
3 1
J 1
?1
C-J
2,217.7
71.5
303
5.7
.59
.6t)
TIME
0100
0430
21
19
17
7.0
11
11
9.1
8.0
8.7
9.1
27
343
578
218
586
583
132
67
45
89
156
54
29
31
24
22
18
16
i *;
1 3
26
4 6
3,227.9
104
586
7.0
.85
.98
G. H.
13.51
8.55
10
1.5
3.2
3.6
4,9
4.4
2.6
2.0
2.5
1.9
2.5
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.8
2.9
2.8
1.7
3.6
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.7
4.0
4.V
57
• f
6-\
• J
110.1
3.67
10
1.5
.03
.03
DISCHARGE
5,630
1.660
source: (USGS, 1973, pt. 1)
B-l
-------
SCIOtO DIVER BASIN
03227500 Scioto River at Coluibus, Ohio
LOCUTION.—Lat 39O5U' 3U", long 83000'33", Franklin County, on right bank at sevage-treatnent works of city of
ColUBbns, 0.1 mi (0.6 kn) downstream froB bridge on Frank Road, 2.8 ni (1.5 ki) upstreai fro« Scioto Big Run,
and 5 li (8 k«) downstream from Olentangy River.
A
DRAINAGE AREA.—1,629 ni* (11,219 k»z) .
PEBIOD OF RECCED. — October 1920 to current year. Honthly discharge only for sole periods, published in VSP 1305.
GAGE. — Hater-stage recorder. Da tun of gage is 680.00 ft (207.261 •) above mean sea level. Prior to Oct. 1, 1921,
nonrecording gage at site 200 ft (61 B) upstreaa at same datum.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.—53 years, 1,369 ft'/s (38.77 I3/s).
EXTREHES.—Current year: Haiiaum discharge, 38,800 ftJ/s (1,100 s3/s) June 20, gage height, 21.12 It (7.352 B) ;
«ini»UB, 170 ft3/5 (1.81 n'/s) Sept. 16, 22.
Period of record: Haxinun. discharge, 68,200 ftVs (1,930 «3/s) Jan.- 22, 1959, gage height, 27.22 ft (8.297
B) , from high-water mark ir. well, froo rating curve ertended above 16,000 ft'/s (1,300 »3/s) ; ninitmm, 12 ttj/s
(1.19 B'/s) Sept. 6, 1930.
Flood of Bar. 25, 1913 reached a stage of 25.9 ft (7.89 B) , discharge, 138,000 ft^/s (3,910 BJ/E),
estinated by Franklin County Conservancy District.
BEHARKS.--Records good. Flow regulated by "Griggs Reservoir 10.1 BI (16.7 km) upstream (see station 03221500),
0'Shaughnessy Reservoir 20.1 mi (32.8 km) upstream (see station 03220'jOO) , and Delaware .Lake 35 Bi (56 ks)
upstream fron station (soe station 03225000). Records include only part oi sewage return flow for city of
Columbus. Water supply for city of Colunbus is obtained fron Scioto River downstream tro» Griggs Dam, Big
Balnut Creek downstream from Central college, and from well field in Alun Creek basin. For statement on
diversions froB Alum Creek basin and Big Walnut Creek, &ee SEHARKS lor stations 03229000 and 03229500. Water-
quality records for the current year are published in Part 2 of'this report.
EEVISIONS (HATER YEARS) .--KSP 713: 1927(11). KSP 803: 1922-21, 192t>-30, 1932-33. ttSP 1900: Drainage area.
OISCHAHfiF. I» CUBIC FEET PE» SECONO, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 197? TO 5EPTEMHER 1973
RAY
1
?
3
»
s
IS
7
H
9
in
11
12
n
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
«">
26
27
28
•a n
JV
3 1
TOTAL
Mt AN
MA<
KIN
CAL YH
WTR YR
OCT
4,660
4,120
4 ,960
3.4HO
1,980
1, 1MJ
1.27(1
1 .1)90
H7(J
564
571
1,170
1,210
1.240
1,200
947
856
AflO
793
611
564
525
564
604
R3H
H?8
68H
716
v f 7
fjn I
U I Q
n l 7
40.716
1. 113
4,960
454
NOV
975
5,960
7,730
6,340
6,550
h,6?0
*>.7?0
K.830
6.690
6.360
7. 100
6,580
b, 080
10,900
b.920
H.040
8,090
(1,1 10
7.070
5,680
4.340
3.890
3.2?0
?.440
l.flbO
1,710
1.720
1,870
?t I n
» t 1 U
164.695
'1.490
10.9UO
975
1972 TOTAL 920.
1973 TOTAL 917,
OFC
1,610
1 ,440
1.440
1,400
1,570
1.670
5,360
7,fMO
7.9^0
5.960
4,520
3.610
3.720
5,950
5,820
3. R«0
2,230
l,5on
1.540
2,230
3,540
5.430
5,290
4,400
1.850
2,930
2,640
-t i p n
e » 1 *r U
i 7 in
1 , ' ,' J
21 L n
, 1 "» U
10-), 740
J.5".0
7,9SO
1,400
361 MEAN
768 MF»N
JAN
4,870
5,080
3,410
4,960
5,610
4, 380
2,590
1 ,5<.0
1 ,?in
1 .050
828
723
695
667
709
730
723
730
695
702
681
I ,ono
1.920
?,990
1,960
1,430
1.320
2.360
4.270
2. Q 1 0
, "y j u
67,313
2.172
5.610
667
2.515
2,514
FEd
1 .960
3.M80
7.430
7,000
4,630
2.990
2.080
?,010
1 . t>60
1,260
1.U60
92ft
877
947
1,300
1,490
1,310
1,070
1,030
947
870
B07
786
716
660
660
597
545
51, SIS
1 ,840
7,430
545
MAX 12,500
MAX 20,600
MAR
53?,
551
758
1 ,630
?,830
3,360
2.950
2,410
1 ,600
1,690
?.9?0
6,500
6,570
5.590
9,370
11. 100
12,900
1 1,70(1
9,910
7,950
6,370
4,610
3,340
2.380
2,410
3,-)\0
4,680
3,980
) , 1?0
4,030
4,340
145.651
4,698
12.900
532
- M1N
MIM
APH
3,950
3,120
2,180
2,260
3,?4U
4.210
3,890
3,020
?.7iO
•4,160
5.390
4,840
6,580
5,420
3,800
?,730
2,390
3,940
?,610
2,200
1.910
1,610
1,740
1,690
1,720
1,500
1.890
4,770
5 , QUO
4,200
99,000
1,3011
6,580
1,500
195
200
MAY
2,600
2.020
1,730
1,690
l,3ftO
1,140
913
856
947
926
1,710
3,?50
3,470
3,050
2,590
1,??0
98?
KbJ
87U
1.030
1 .'iSO
2.010
1,150
961
1,030
1,630
1>48U
1,510
\ » ** ?0
1 t 0 4 0
4«,538
1 ,566
3.470
856
JIJN
1 ,»4(>
912
758
1,170
2,080
7.18H
3, 160
1 , *4U
3,3->(>
2.J7D
1.320
1.210
2.000
1 ,050
1,090
1,470
1 ,700
2 , b IU)
1 ,t)6-0
JO, 600
5,390
?. 7HI)
4,190
4,460
1 lt)60
979
1 ,040
1.240
1 , 75U
3,080
82,129
2.731
20.600
75d
JUL
2.410
1 .210
1.4-iO
1 ,5rtil
3,210
1,«8'1
2.9/0
1 ,610
\'< 120
SI44
853
748
727
685
63?
SJO
42?
341)
325
3HO
1, 1 3D
5 )6
1,110
2,050
3.HIJO
7,290
4,750
3,070
2,060
1,280
52.412
1 .691
4,750
325
Aur,
839
638
554
4H?
4??
3«6
350
335
170
356
350
2.290
5, 9MQ
4,670
4i5?0
4.730
4,000
3.610
2.440
1 ,440
1,240
1.400
1.110
"6
""
136
464
398
578
1 . 370
47,504
1 .532
5,9H()
320
741
512
374
3?(l
31U
270
?50
230
?3"5
POO
Z\*>
??CJ
24U
?15
210
210
345
3?0
8. Sic;
741
200
source: (uSGS,1973, pt.l)
B-2
-------
SCIOTO DIVER B»SI»
03226800 Olcntaagy River near vorthington, Ohio
tOCiTIOK.—tat «0°06'37", long 83°01'55", in NK V« T.2 N., R.'ia «., Franklin County, on left bank 350 ft (107 >)
dounstreai froi Interstate Highway 270 bridge, 1.5 mi (2.1 ki) northvest of Horthington and 2.8 li () abo»e lean sea -leTei.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.--18 jears, U39 ft»/s (12.U3 »'/s).
KXTBERES.—Current year: Haxinun discharge, 11,000 ft»/s (312 «J/s) June 20, gage height, 11.55 ft (3.520 «) ;
»ini»u«, 21 ft»/s (0.59 «>/£) Sept. 15, 16.
Period of record: Haxi«>u» discharge, 16,500 ftVs (*67 BJ/E) Jan. 21, 1959, gage height, 15.68 ft («.779
I), fro» high-vater «ark in well; II&IBUB, 7.6 ft'/s (0.22 «'/s) Oct. 8, 9, 1961.
Flood in January 1952 reached a stage of 15.3 ft (K.66 t), discharge, 15,100 tt'/s («28 »'/s), froa
information by Corps of Engineers.
KEHARKS.—Records good. Floir regulated by Delaware Lake 21 li (-31 kc) npstrean (see station 03225000) . Hater-
quality records for the current year are published in Part 2 of this report.
REVISIONS (SATEH TEARS).— WSP 1625: 1952 (B). HSP 1906: Drainage area. »RD Ohio 1972: 1971(11).
DISCHARGE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1972 TO SEPTEMBER 1973
DAY
OCT
NQV
DEC
JAN
FEB
APR
MAY
JUN
Ml
AUG
SEP
1 1.460
2 -1,620
3 3.240
* 1.840
5 768
6 577
7 557
8 447
9 210
10 119
11 244
12 466
13 550
14 570
15 505
16 330
17 337
16 321
19 304
20 211
21 210
22 210
23 225
24 268
25 509
26 .420
27 282
28 282
M9A^
CO J
^A 1 H
30 133
? 1 19^
3] Ic3
TOTAL 17,861
MEAN 576
MAX 3,240
MIN 119
606
2,730
676
660
2,830
3,530
4,170
2,340
470
1,650
2,630
3.240
3,430
3,270
527
613
2,260
3,330
3,670
2,320
1.290
1.350
1.120
623
ocS
641
644
693
Ol 4
O^*
7 15
I J£
53.914
1,797
4.170
470
CAL YR 1972 TOTAL 296.
KTR YR 1973 TOTAL 284,
506
459
467
471
540
1,490
1,890
3.080
1,910
1.2TO
1,300
1.190
1,260
2,230
2,110
1.300
1.130
365
276
692
,420
,970
,780
,350
,150
581
610
645
CO A
DO*
i 7 5
* I £.
f <1Q
r JO
35,226
1,136
3,080
276
858 MEAN
037 MEAN
1,580
1,610
918
1,560
2,010
1,630
1,080
750
390
280
210
170
160
160
160
230
250
230
203
192
178
325
826
967
482
388
411
1,150
«• Ttft
I f f ? V
If*2tl
t OCU
TfiQ
I OV
22,859
737
2,010
160
an MAX
778 MAX
569
1.480
2.440
2,610
1.370
723
561
625
541
309
295
283
276
290
427
517
509
308
293
289
282
277
264
219
211
207
160
156
16.493
589
2,610
156
4,370
5,500
158
171
354
727
1,030
1,150
923
763
413
508
795
2,210
1,900
1,610
2,450
4,560
5,500
4,550
2,910
1,830
1,710
1,200
767
506
713
1,170
1,240
1.120
827
oca
TOO
I ?^n
1 , C3U
45.973
1,483
5,500
158
MIN 40
MIN 30
1,090
657
161
265
464
1,160
1,110
749
751
1,100
1,630
1,790
1,920
1.360
835
456
585
906
606
543
477
379
433
483
370
294
660
1,240.
1 . 640
1 . T%0
1 . J Jv
25.524
851
1.920
J61
714
502
460
473
384
346
225
166
209
346
901
1,160
1,270
1.410
1.160
417
310
282
208
379
892
844
326
317
394
566
489
473
420
??7
C.C. 1
264
16.554
534
1.410
166
434
277
266
348
502
735
851
1.280
1.250
479
266
484
569
329
437.
414
336
402
1,390
4.460
576
453
3.720
3.110
490
266
239
301
900
i .ciAn
1 . DOU
27.166
906
4.460
239
802
320
405
581
1,140
1,630
9«7
493
269
214
218
207
274
266
191
183
90
li
70
65
89
172
202
901
744
473
454
206
347
253
106
12,459
402
1,630
65
77
73
69
65
62
60
60
60
57
65
87
616
910
531
1,060
692
850
1,080
454
218
319
162
111
77
t»y
63
62
60
57
1 4fl
I * u
1 46
1 ^o
8.812
284
1.080
57
65
5b
44
41
4)
45
41
40
40
40
38
36
36
35
30
30
35
36
35
35
36
37
52
41
4]
40
38
37
38
38
1.196
39.9
65
30
source: (USGS, 1973, pt.l)
B-3
-------
SCIOIO BI»ER .BASIS
03225500 Olentangy River near Delaware, Ohio
IOCHTION.—Lat 10°21'18", long 83°0it'02", HE 1/« T.5 N.. R. 19 H., Delaware County, on left bank 500 ft (152 «)
upstrean fro* highway bridge, 1,000 ft (305 •) downstrcaB froB'Delaware Dai, 1,300 ft (396 «) npstreai iron
Sorfolk and Bestern Railway bridge, and 1.0 mi (6.1 k«) north of Delaware.
DRAINAGE AREA.--393 mi* (1,018 kB*) .
PERIOD OF HECORD.--Or-tohor 1923 to September 1931, April 1938 to current year. Bonthly discharge only for sose
periods, published in V5V 1305.
GAGE. — Water-stage recorder and concrete control. Datun of gage is 799.5'8 ft (213.712 B) above Bean sea level
(levels by Corps of Engineers). Prior to Oct. 1, 1950, water-stage recorder at site 500 ft (152 B) downstreai
at flatus 76.7 ft (23.38 E) higher.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.—U6 years, 3145 ft3/s (9.770 «'/s).
IXTREHES.—Current year: Haxinum discharge, t.OHO ft>/s (111 B'/E) Har. 15, gage height, 86.15 ft (26.350 m) ;
BiniKUB, 11 ft'/s (0.31 «Vs) Aug. 1C, gage height, 79.68 ft (24.286 «) .
Period of record: Haxiuua discharge. It,100 ft'/s (399 B'/S) Mar. 21, 1927, gage height, 16.9 ft (5.15 m),
site and datun then in use; BipiBun, 0.1 ft'/s (0.003 »'/s) Aug. 20, 1930, Sept. 11-29, 1931.
REHARKS.—Records good. Flow cospletely regulated by Delaware Lake since 1951 (see station 03225000). Hater-
quality records for the current year are published in Part 2 of this report.
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECONO, WATFR YCAfi OCTOBER 1972 TO SEPTEMBER 1973
DAY
OCT
NOV
DEC
FEB
MAR
JUL
AUC
SFP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
87
28
30
31
TOTAL
MEAN
MAX
MIN
CAL YR
WTR YR
1,030
2,150
2,800
1.370
538
475
445
309
73
172
231
321
430
477
355
275
275
274
199
164
164
164
169
318
440
305
253
253
69
132
14.767
476
2,800
69
67R
705
49
1 ,060
2.800
3,340
2,930
479
435
1,990
2.490
3,060
2,770
839
38
1 ,030
2,400
3.270
3,?20
1,560
1,260
1,280
1,030
693
584
583
580
714
807
572
43,246
1.442
3,340
38
197? TOTAL ?44,
1973 TOTAL 222,
399
368
369
371
476
736
1,940
2,250
1.130
1,010
l,2flO
862
1, 140
2,260
1 ,670
7QB
497
179
?34
489
1,350
1,710
1 ,550
1,?70
468
538
569
ATA
«* J "*
375
28,278
91?
2,200
179
814 MEAN
404 MEAN
1,710
1,470
590
1,180
1.830
1,160
479
360
290
170
127
127
126
126
176
201
201
159
140
140
140
263
901
678
380
280
387
9S5
l',280
c 7 p
3 i C
18.138
585
1,630
126
669 MAX
609 MAX
444
1,090
2,390
2.090
1,100
563
535
540
323
252
252
250
249
250
300
444
332
252
252
252
251
249
206
186
186
141
119
119
13,617
486
2,390
119
3,970
3.970
120
18?
415
749
962
1,010
866
564
308
2B2
1.140
2.130
T.690
873
2,290
3,970
3,310
2,970
2,?00
1,610
1,490
1,010
517
490
694
772
1,050
88/>
551
741
1,080
36,922
1,191
3,970
120
MIN 11
MIN 16
859
262
16
29
409
1,150
835
609
392
1,010
1,400
1,410
1,410
f,030
575
304
277
351
387
386
313
275
348
316
250
206
265
903
1,540
983
18.500
617
1,540
16
505
363
382
342
306
209
98
68
149
170
911
1,080
1,180
1 ,4'40
735
298
253
179
144
451
924
526
269
269
426
464
396
395
156
13,641
440
1,440
68
336
237
237
249
249
384
825
1,300
937
358
197
160
160
308
381
290
173
301
493
2«7
39
1,150
3,500
2,200
230
177
113
207
1.390
17,928
598
3,500
39
520
275
275
470
1.110
1,570
720
376
208
171
171
232
261
202
166
91
53
53
53
54
55
55
268
393
266
299
150
337
264
142
50
9,310
300
1,570
50
50 34
50 26
50 26
50 26
50 26
50 26
50 26
45 26
45 26
45 26
46 26
695 26
449 26
552 26
1,070 26
810 26
914 26
1,050 ?6
?6fl ?6
217 26
21ft 26
115 26
59 26
50 26
50 26
50 26
49 26
49 26
49 26
40 26
7,269 768
234 26.3
1.050 34
36 26
source: (USGS, 1973, pt.l)
B-4
-------
2. Surface Water Quality
rH
I — 1
£ sajduiBg jo 'ON
.£
rH
0
pajduiBg suoseag
• •
0)
o
r*
g (uidd) X^Tp-pqanj,
GO
O) dura!
Hd
34-T2JinS
£ eOTIfS
•H
>N d
^Q ~* H HO. L "* J-i
c
cfl
4-J
c
Q) Tlr^SX'XO
rH ^
0
O>
^ UinTS3U§BM
• C1N.
^
C
ca
•^ Uin.TDTB'l
0} . L L/
0)
u apTJOTUD
B
* a.BuoqaBOTg
f-l \ C
3 c3 "rH .^~t
O* 4J -U
1 ctf 3
M 4-* O
a) to co B
1 1 ^j
ca TJ T3 B
!3 g co
a ca (H
CD *4H
o B
ca ca B
UH 0) ^
J_J £_J N /
3 J-i
GO GO
O** O
i-H CM i-H
on GO
on 3 GO
S GO D:
VO rH ON
"vf" *^" rH
CO CM VO
rH CM rH
-d- m CM
00 OO 00
cr. o o
00 CO O
rH rH CM
0 rH
CO rH
•H
Crf
*>N
60
C
ca
4J
c
0)
rH CO ON r^-
O CM co -d-
CM CM
3 3
OO GO
vO
m ON
rH CM
I — 1 I — 1
CM CM
co in
00 00
m
in i — i
in i — i
CO CO
t-^ m
01 m
• •
• — i i — i
m oo
• .
r^ oo
rH in
t^ r^
rH O
ON O
rH CM
ON CM
CO CO
o m
0 0
-------
Sampling Station Locations 1971 (Olive Report)
Alum Creek
km from mouth
4.
28
32
36
48
60
Olentangy River
km from mouth 23
39
47
74
88
S.E. Columbus
Westerville Treatment Plant
Below Westerville Reservoir
1-71
State Route 37
Myers Road
Highbanks area
Below Delaware City treatment plant
Above Delaware City below Delaware Lake
Above Delaware Lake
Caledonia
B-6
-------
SCIOIO SHE?" B»SIK
0.3228805 ALUM CREEK AT AFRIC4. OHIO
a>CATIOB.--I.at ao»10'56", long B2°57'<42", in SE 1/U sec. 1, T.3 ».. R.18 «. , Delaware County, at gaging sta.tion on
l«ft bank at downstreaa side of bridge on Orange Township Road 109, 0.3 mi (0.5 ka) west ot Atnca, O.J ai (0.3
ki) downstream from outlet of Alua Creek daa, 2.7 ai (Q.3 ka) upstreaa fron Hesterville Reservoir outlet, and
a.2 ai (6.6 ka) northwest of Uesterville.
DRAINAGE AREA. —122 ai* (316 k«') .
PE8IOD or RECORD.—Cheaical analyses: Hater year 1905 (pat tial- record station): October 1965 to Scpteiber 1970;
vater year5 1970-73 (partial-record station).
Hater temperatures: October 1965 to September 1970.*
Sedinent records: October 1969 to Deceaber 1972 (partial-record st&tion); January to June 1973 (discontinued).
SZBJBKS.—Flow affected by ice Jan. 8-11. Feb. 7-11, 17-27. Flow partially regulated by unfinished Una Creek
Dai.
CHEfllCaL KALISES, »*TEB TEAS OCTOBER 1972 TO SEPTEIiBER 1973
TOTAL
INSTA'4- T07AL
TA'VEOUS CAL-
OIS- CIU"
TIME CMAHGE (C«i
DATE (CFS) " C"C,/L) (
OCT.. 1972
OS... 1110 138
DEC.
OB... 1520 610
MAO.. 1973
26... 1030 76
27... 13*0 bl
MAY
17... 1*00 5*
JULY
17... 1425 15
SEP.
07... 1710 2.3
D1S- TOTAL
SOLVED TOTAL PHOS-
NITRATE NITRATE PHORUS
t*i> tut tpt
DATE (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)
OCT.i 1972
OS...
DEC.
08... 2.3
MAR.. 1973
26... K6
27..."
MAY
17...
JULY
17... .30
SEP.
07.1. .- .37 .01
MAG- 01S-
Ni- BlCArf- CA3- SOLUS!
SIU1* HONATE RPNATK SULFftTl
(MG) IHC03) (COD (SOM
«G/L> (Ml>/L> (MO/LI C<0/Li
*• -« -- *.
58
97
.- _. -- -.
.- -- __ «_
120
239 0 150
SPE-
NON- CIFIC
CAR. CON-
HARD- 80NATE DUCT-
NESS HARD- ANCE
(CA.MGI NESS (M1CHO-
OIS- DIS-
SOLVED SOLVEU TOTAL
) CMLO- FLU'J- FLUO- TOTAL
: NIOt PljF rflDE NITklTE
(CD IF) IF) IN)
1 («G/L) («G/L) IMG/LI (MG/L)
•. __ _.. •*
21
31
•_ .. .. __
•_ ._ «. ._
58
69 — .2 .00
DIS-
SOLVED
SOLIDS
(RESI- TOTAL
PH DUE AT RESI- TEMPER-
ISO C) DUE ATORE
(MG/L) (MG/L) 1HOS) (UNITS) (MG/L) (MG/LI (DEG C)
633
720 — 371
250 — 529
-- »07
619
350 — 766
781
15.0
7.1 — — 1.5
8.0 -- — 8.0
8.0
12.0
7.3 -- — 2S.O
7.8 — 668 25,5.
source: (USGS, 1973, pt.2)
B-7
-------
i
» -A
Hi
s 51!
c S^
* Sal
a ^- o oo 4 o P-«« «rM IN « B-^m— M— «nr>
-i *4« fi4*wM^ *>*M^^ IWM rs**M r*fti**M ^n^rfrf
V **4 j » «|4« *; J °, *ll"^ *\'t*>S lT«*t* I ». —— t>|Mt«
K«- ^ K ^ 1^ C? I* ^ f^4 K f^£ «»4^ P^«« «^»»
1 i*S '*" *!£"* ° > * 51^2 «l»4 IA««-m !»-*«( 41*0
2'2 £*i i1 i'2 S'2 i**o 1»«M« *)^o
t O J i^tOO tOO-t tm* O Q I ^ O O 1 ^ I>»|OV •)•* OlM^N iAIU^^ (4^4 I4«a 1M I IM tfV
2^*3 0)40 i»o* ij^* *^'* *2 • - S * Ss S'- S' S* 5'22 1*^5 1552 ^i«»
»M I 0 M | O -«- O IOO 4(MI
3O O « 3 » *
trt VI — O-. —
0144 010 «|44 (M t 4 * 1 M ^4 O t«D44 O 1 « *
SKS 5'2 5'»2 5'*£ S^S 'SKI S'SS
IOO 1 O IM Q I O » •^Olft * O I O Nl«\m fM ( « O I O ^ O t O t*l imru0> rv>«V OIP»O
i oo \ on** ( o * -o i -M ^olo o i -^ - o i - o J o ^ o I o-. ' 2£S iooa o ! S o
v o • • -• S -
W "
0*4 r i! •
O frt »* *) OU C
i* -' is!f
5^»i " ** *J»o »•* *><* £ *>• »- »5 "o ti «J — *I* «t »!• »-»*, U"^
5
I
a
5
p
S
s
8
S
H
H
5
u
1
8
«
i
4 r4
** ^
« (4
i§
u%
:s
la
^ a
Jj
rl •
H Ct
-•**
*?
H -
i5
*« *
t- M
3°.
C H
O
O A
P4 •
si
s.
IS
B*
H O
o
1
8
s
2
&
ID
H
|
9
o
.i
D»C»«b«r ]
S«pt»»b«r
o
i:
is
1*
:«
* * *•
s 1..
o •
S IJ
^ s's
a al
3 K 5
M O**
S ot
• a *>
3 «»
Si
I'
a **
• 2
o
jj~w
c
* •
*£
- •
s|
et •
S^"
• t-"
•i **
x*
ii _
i"
"I
•5."
l!
K H
as
i-;
4l •
** H
sll
i:\i
*> u • o
M *J 5
5 S * 5
t-sS
lii
325
"
w M
is;J
3|3»
is|3
Z2"
niil
ui
! 3-
1* at *»
SIS
J 0-
1
H
s
•'"* '*•• ' '• '•' ' '•' ' •'' •"• ! •' ' '•• '
Jo. !.., 'j. j,.'. .J, J-. J. .'32 j'j. '..j '-.o S'SS
• 1 * S 1*4(? 1*^ S-'* *2^2 i^22 2'* 5's* ^2* ^-°° t *V?t *t^S
OJOO JOOO (00 00(0 0010 0(00 010 0(00 OjOO (000 (000 0(00
£|£* |8gS US S»IJ 2518 *!*? §12 8IS* J|SS |££* 1 32» JISJ
l|l! Sll! SM IIS! !U! !?M IS! !5|! 12!! SMI Stll ISM
!|M 3111 Stt MSI |t|l ISM IS! (2M ISM SMI Sill I S II
• •04 »M ! 1 1 *!!*** S
A
OOO (A O O O <^OO O O O O O O O O O O O O OtttO O O O O OW>OO OOOO tflOOO O O O O J
O O O OOOO OOO OO««O OO»^O O — O O OOO O — O O O^OO OOOO -" O O O OOOO X
M
.::::.::::.:::.::::.::::.::;:.::: :::: w ::::>::::.:::: ^ :::: *
SOO~"4QOO«vmuJO^>*«o«*nimuJOOO'*'8o-*'*r>l&o«<*4OO-H^3OOOM 3oo-4rv3OO-«N>woo>«nt
ZO-ltLK**'* -*<•«
' '
"si*
(Ti
, |
..
•
rr\
0
°i
o
S-l
o
^H
^^^^
B-8
-------
Appendix C Biology
part
Plants of Flint Ravine and Ili^hbanks
TREES
Salicaccae - v.rillovr 1'amily
' Salix Tonc5T olia
" discolor
"
sericoa
Populus deltoides
Eetulaceae - birch family
Ostrya virginiana
Carpinus carol initoia
Urticaceae - nettle family
Ulirvus fu3.va
11 ' emcricana
n racemes a
Celtis occidentalis
1'orus rubra
Eosaccae - rose faj-nily
/jaalanchier canadensis
Prunus serotina
e -" IcgiaiS'f amily
(Tleciitsia triacanthos
Cercis canadensis
Robinia. pseudo-acacia
Olcaceae ,- olive f ainily
Fraxinus anericana
B quadrangulata
Ju£landaceac - v/alrmt
~~~ jTi£Tans~rfif,ra
11 cinorea
Caryn ovata
11 cordifoixiis
Fagaceao - beech fardly
iF gr and if o 3 i a
Quercus alba
11 inacroearpa
" muhlenbcrgia
11 rubra
11 vclutina
Aceraceae - map]e family
~Acer saccharvur.
11 sac char inum
11 rubriuu
11 nig rum
11 neg;uiido
• Saplndaccao" ~' soapberry "family
"-Aesculus glabra
Tiliaceae - Linden family
Tilia americana
Cornaceae - dogwood family
Cornus florida
Platanaceae - piano tree farrdly
Platanus occidentalis
SHRUBS
Asimina triloba
Benzoin acstivale
Cornus paniculata
Diervilla diervilla
Esronymus atropurpurea
Gaylussacia baccata
Haramaniclis virginiana
Juniperus virginiana
Ribco cynoGbati
Viburnum prunifoliun
Viburnuii acerifolium
Khus toxicodondron
Rhus £;labra
Staphylea trifoliata
Sambucus canadensis
Smilax'glauca
Smilf.i: hispida
Sinilax rotund if olia
Rubus allegnei^iojisis
Rubus occidentalis
Rubus vjllusus
Vacciniuii pennnylvanicum
Psedcra quinqucfolia
Vitis cordifolia
C-l
-------
HERBS
P bor 5 djjphyt Co_
" i'olyopdi urn
Adiantun pod at inn
Polys ticiiun acrostichoades
Equiseivun r..rvense
Grariine£i - £,rc-c-s family
.Andropo^on furcatus
11 sceparius
.Digits rin. pur.suin
11 a.r>lurmale
Setsria gjonca
Agrostis alba
Danthon IP. ro j c a ta
Dactyl is £ lone rat a
Poo. co^pi^cssa
Poa prater.? is
Glyceria ncrvata
Ulyr.ras Condon sis
Hystrix hyst
. family
Cypcrun stricosus
" eryihrorhizos
Scirpus ai?.rd:icanus
Carex strforoLnca
11
" vulpine-idea
» ^,. ,
penriGylvanica
11 platyr/nylla
" laxiKlcra
« pravji
11 hyntfiricinura
11 franVIi
tribuloides
n
Jtmcacoae - rush family
~~ Juilcus effusus
u tor-uis
Liliricoae - lily fairdly
"DvuTafia vc.rfoliata
Alliun i-r.lccocum
"
Sr.i 1 Ji c :'
a HIT. dun.
n ;'. r ; ; c on o " a
-'.l.uia -bif loriua
AmarylJ_idaceao (Mary 11 is family),
"Hypoxis hirsuta
Iridaceae - Iris family
Iris v:lrg.inica
Sisyrinchixim graminoides
Urticaccac - Kettle family
' UrTi"ca~~£racilis
11 diolca
Laportea canadensis
Pilea purniia
Boohi?.eria cylindrica
Parietaria pennsylvanica
Santalaceae - Sandalwood family
CoJYiandra umbellata
Aristolochiaceae - Birth'.vort family
Asarum canadense
Polygonaceac - Buckv.'heat family
Rumcx crispus
11 altissimus
11 obtusifolius
Polygonum aviculare
11 aero
'' convulvul\;s
11 virginicum
Chonopodiaceae - Goosefoot family
Chenopodium album
Atriplcx patula
Amaranthaoeae - amaranth faiaily
Amarajibhus retroflexus
Caryophy]laceae - pink family
"~StellaTia media
Corascium arvons©
Silene anbirrhina
Saponaria offic-Jnalis
Portulacaccae - purslane family
Claytonia virginica
Ranuncxilaceac - crovrfood family
Ranuncurus" rccurvalus
11 f ascjcuTaris
11 scptnr.l.ri onalis
11 aborlivus
C-2
-------
grandiflorura
11 cernuum
Smilox herbacea
Hepabica acutiloba
Anemone qirinqucf olia
11 canadcnsis
Isopyrum b.iternatum
Actaea alba
Berberidaceae ~ barberry family
" Podophyllun peltatum
Je£fersonia diphylla
Caulophyllun thalictroides
PapaveraccsG - poppy family
Sanguinaria canadcnsis
Fumariaceae *• Fumitory faraily
3)icentra cucullaria
" canadens is
Corydalis flavala
Cruciferae - mustard family
'Lopidiim virginicum
11 campcstre
Capsella bursa pastoris
Brassica ni^ra
Sisyinbriuin altissimum
Barbarea vulgaris
lodanthus pinnatifidus
Dontaria laciniata
Cardaniiric "bulbosa
" douglassii
Arabis 1 .rata
11 laevigata
Saxifragaceae - Saxifrage faraily
Heuchera araericana
Mitella diphylla
jRosaceac - Rose family
Fragaria virginiana
Potentilia candcnnis
Geum canauense
11 vernum
Legumiripsnc-Pulse fanixy
Srifb'iiuzn prat ens o
n rcpcns
Lcsncde?.a nut".ust?.folia
Molilotus officinalis
11 alba
1'cdicaj^o sab.iva
Aj.iphicurpa j.ionoiua
Tlialictrvm.
-------
OxaMjaccDo - V.'oocl sorrel family
' Oxalis cormculata
11 • s-bricta
Gcramaceao - Geranium family
Geranium ivo culatum
Erodium cicularium
Vor'bonaceac - Vervain family
Verbena stricta
Lippia lanceolata
- Klnt Fanily
Teucrium cojiad.er.se
ITepeta cataria
" hederacea
Prunella vulgaris
I.amiuin amplexicaule
Leonurus cardiaca
Ifonarda f iutxilosa
lledeoma pule^ioides
1'cntha spicata
Mentha piperita .
Lye.opus ainoricanum
Blephilia hirsuta
Solaiiaccae - Nightshade family
Soranun clulca!r.ara
11 nigrura
Datura stranonvum
Scrophulariaceae - Fig\vort family
" Verbascuin tuapsus
Ver"bascvua blattaria
Pens-tenon hirsutus
Mimulus rlnocns
Veronica poregrina
" arvens is
Podicularis canadensis
Acanthaceae - Acanthus f araily
nanthera jmericana
Plantaf.inaceae - Plantain family
Plantago ItxT^ceolata
v laajor
RuMaoeae - 7'adder family
G'oliwa sparine
11 circaesar.s
11 conciTinum.
11 asprellun
l.'itchella rcpenfi
lloustonia cr.orulea
Borr»f;inac.oao - Borage family
' LerteVTuia virginica
Lithofsperraum arvense
Cucurhitn.coae "- Gourd family
' Sicycs an£ulatus
Echinocystis lobata
Campar-ulacoae - Bluebell family
" S~p~ecul"aria porfoliata
.Campanula ataericana
Conpositac - Composite family
Vernonia alt5 ss ina
Eupo.bor.ixwi pupureum
" perfoliatum
11 urticaef oliiuu
Solida^o ncirioralis
Solida^o flexicavlis
Solicago cacsia
Aster lateviflorus
nacrophyllus
ericoudos
Eri^crou aimxius
" philadelphixis
Antcrjnaria plantaginif olia
Amtrosia trifida
" artemisiifolia
n
n
Rudbockia lacin^ata
ActiriO^r.cris altcrnifolia
Bifiens f rondos a
llelianthus diuaricatus
Achilles millcfoliuk
Anther li a cotula
Senecio aureus
Arctium lappa
Tarogopogon prat ens is
Tara^caciun. off icinale
Sonchus asper
Lactuca scariola
Prcnanthes al"ba
11 crcpidinea
11 trifoliata
C-4
-------
part 2. Endangered Wildflowers at Highbanks Park
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Canada Lily
Indian Cucumber-root
Showy Orchis
Fringed Orchids
Ladies' Tresses
Twayblade Orchids
Coral-root Orchids
Ginseng
Rose-pink Gentian
Virginia Bluebells
Partridge Berry
White Baneberry
Club Moss
Arisaema triphyllum
Lilium canadense
Medeola virginiana
Orchis spectabilis
Habenaria spp.
SpIranthes spp.
Liparis spp.
Corallorhiza spp.
Panax quinquefolium
Sabatia angularis
Mertensia virginica
Mitchella repens
Actaea pachypoda
Lycopodium spp.
These are from the Ohio State list of Endangered Species,
05
-------
part 3. Animals of Franklin County
Amphibians and Reptiles of Franklin County
^Amphibians
Salamanders
Mudpuppy
Necturus m. maculosus
Red-spotted Newt
Triturus y_._ vir'idescens
Jefferson's Salamander
Ambystoma jeffersonianum
Spotted Salamander
Arabystoma maculatum
Marbled Salamander
Ambystoma opacum
Tiger Salamander
Ambystoma t. tigrinum
Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus fuscus
Red-backed Salamander
Plethodon cinareus
Slimy Salamander
Plethodon g. glutinosus
4 Toed Salamander
Hemidactylium scutatum
Reptiles
Turtles
Snapping Turtle
Chelydra s. sernentina
Painting Turtle
Chrysemys picta marginata
Box Turtle
Terxapene c. Carolina
Musk Turtle
Sternotherus odoratus
Map Turtle
Spiny Softshelled Turtle
Amyda s. spinifera
Lizards
5 lined skink
Frogs and Toads
American Toad
Bufo terristris americanus
Fowlers Toad
Bufo woodhousii fowleri
Eastern Treefrog
Hyla v. versicolor
Spring Peeper
Hyla c_._ crucifer
Chorus Frog
Pseudoacris nigrita triseriata
Cricket Frog
Acris crepitans
Leopard Frog
Rana pipiens
Pickerel Frog
Rana palustris
Wood Frog
Rana sylvatica
Bull Frog
Rana catesbeiana
Green Frog
Rana clamitans
Snake,s
Black Racer
Coluber c. constrictor
Black Rat Snake
Milk Snake
Laraoropeltis doliata
trianqulum
Garter Snake
Thaicinoohis s.
sirtalis
Water Snake
Natrix s. sirtalis
Brown Snake
Queen Snake
Matrix septemvittata
Hog-nosed Snake
Heterodon P. olatvrhinos
Source: Good, E. E., Ohio State University
C-6
-------
Mammals of Franklin County
Farm Land Species
Forest Land Species
Wetland Species
Cottontail rabbit
Sylvilagus f loridanus*-
Fox squirrel
Sciurus niger^
Racoon
Procyon lotor2
Red fox
V ulpes fulva2
Woodchuck
Marmota monax^
Weasels
Mustella frenata^
Mustella rixosa3
Opossum
Didelphis virginiana2
Shrews
Blarina brevicauda^
Cryptotis~~
Sorex
White-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus2
Gray squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis1
Muskrat
Ondatra zibethicus
Mink
Mustela vison^
Gray fox Bog lemming
Urocyon cinereoargentus3 Synaptomys cooperi'
Red squirrel
Tamiasciurus hudsonicus2
Flying squirrel
Glaucomys volans
Skunk
Mephitis mephitis
Bats
Myotis lucifugus2 _
Pipistrellus subflavus^
Epitesicus fuscus'j-
Lasiurus borealis2
Lasiurus cinereus"-^
NycticeTus humeralis^
Chipmunk
Tamais striatus1
Common rat
Rattus norvegicus2
Moles
Parascalops breweri2
Scalopus aquaticus2
Ground squirrel
Citellus tridecemlineatus^-
Mice
Zapus hudsonicus3
Microtus pennsylvanicus-*-
Peroroyscus manlpulatus-*
Peromyscus leucopus^
Mus musculu?!
1 = abundant: easily seen or found in proper habitat.
2 = common: frequently seen or found in proper habitat.
3 = uncommon: seen or found in proper habitat only occasionally or very
infrequently.
Sources: Good, E. E., Ohio State University.
Ohio Deoartment of Natural Resources.
C-7
-------
Waterfowl and Shore Birds
Birds of Prey
Ducks, geese, swans
Wood duck
Aix sponsa*
Malllircl duck
Anas platyrhynchos *
Black ducR
Anas rubripes*
Lesser scnup
Aythya affinis"
Common ^goldeneye
Buccphala clangula"
Ring-necked duck
Aythya collaris"
Butflehead duck
Bucephala albeola"
Redhead duck"
Aythy_a_ americana0
American widgeon duck
Marcoa aitipricana0
GadweiT duel?
Anas strepera"
Shoveler~duck
Spatula clypeata"
American coot
Fulica americana0
Ring-necked grebe
Podiceps qrisegena"
Horned grebe
Podiceps auritus"
Pied-billed grebe
Podilymbus podiceps0
Common loon
Gavi a imrner"
Double-orested cormorant
Phalacrocorax aurifus"
Great blue heron
Ardfea herodias*
Green heron
Butoridos virescens*
Little blue heron
Florida caerulea0
Common egret
Casmorodius albus"
Snowy egret
Loucophoyx thula"
Virginia rail
Rail us lirnicola0
Blue-winqed teal
Anns discors"
Green-winged teal
Anns carolinensis0
Canvasback
Aythya valisneria0
Whistling sv/an
Olor columbianus0
Snow goose
Chen hyperborea"
Blue goose
Chen caerulescens"
Canada goose
Branta canadensis*
Hooded merganser
Lophodytes^ cullatus"
Common merganser
Morgus merganser"
Rod-breasted merganser
Herqus serrator0
Pintail duck
Anas acuta"
Ruddy duck
Oxyura jamaicensis"
Belted kingfisher
Megaceryle alcyon*
Bonapart's gull
Larus Philadelphia*
Herring gull
Larus argentatus"
Black tern
Chlidonias niger"
Caspian tern0
Hydroprogne caspia"
Common tern
Sterna hirundo°E
Killdeer
Charadris vociferus*
Sandpipers
Several species8
Least bittern
Ixobrychus exilis"
American bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus'
King rail
Rallus eleqans°E
Ring-billed gull
Larus delawarensis°
Hawks
Sharp-shinned hawk
Accipitor strlatus velox"E
Cooper's hawk **
Accipiter cooperii*
Red-tailed hawk
Butoo jamaicensis*
Marsh hawk
Circus cyaneus*
Sparrow hawk
Falco sparverius*
Red-shouldered hawk
Buteo lineatus*
Broad-winged hawk
Buteo platypterus0
Rough-legged hawk
Bubeo lagopus0
Osprey
_ ha li act us0
Bal
eagle
Haliaootus
leuco-
Owls
Barn owl
Tytg alba*
Long-cared owl
Asio otus"
Short-eared owl
Aaio f lammeus"
Saw whet owl
Acgolius^ acadicus"
Screech owl
Otus asio*
Great horned owl
Bubo virginianus*
Barred cv;l
Strix varia*
Vultures
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura*
Black vulture
Coragyps atratus
Upland Game Birds
Ring-necked pheasant
Phasianus colchicus*
Bob-wliiUe quail
CoJ inus virginianus mexicanus*
Woodcock
f'hilohela minor*
* N'est
0 Migrants
E Endangered Species (Ohio DNR)
"." Endangered Species (Ohio DMR and U.S. Dcp't. Interior)
Source: Good, E. C., Ohio State University
C-8
-------
Part 4. Highbanks Park Animals and Birds
(-.
O
ff^
o1
-M
O
•I-*
J-.
-»-»
en
iern Spiny Softshell Turtle (Tri
:hern Black Racer (Coluber cor
•F-( (^
X
• Racer (Coluber const rictor fo
TJ
CU
P.
01
X
b
d
'&
cu
A!
d
C
w
f4
CU
4-»
d
£
g
cu
A
TJ CO f-« T ^
a ca o fl o
§ w s pq z
"c?
15
3
-TJ
en Snake (Natrix septomyittata)
tern Milk Snake (Lampropeltis
,-^
'£,
d
.*
thern Brov/n Snake (Storeria de
CU 01 $4
3 d O
& W &
„
01
"d
f-l
w
tern Garter Snake (Thamnophis
:kRat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta)
W fit
d 43
w pq
M
2
d
2
o
c
3
•5
01
them Ringneck Snake (Diadophi
8
•g
•g
>i
•»-»
rt
p.
tern Hognose Snake (Heterodon
*rt
C
f/1 d
"l •?!
MAMMA!
rinia Opossum (Didelphis virgir
"d"
TJ
•^
a
~t-tailed Shrew (Blarma brevic
st Shrew (Cryptotis parva)
i* co rr S rt
o d £ J2 M J
0)
C
d
M
n)
>
4-J
o
-, o
tern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus)
le Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus
er-haired Bat (Lasionycteris n
my Bat (pipistrellus subflavus)
Brown Bat (Epitesicus fuscus)
Bat (Lasiurus borealis)
ry Bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
coon (Procyon lotor)
Oli; >W>bnTJ d O
rt ij -5 >, .s" <
i—* t
-Si
Oli
cu;
o;
!>i
X
£
'2 ^
w c^
55 p:
-3 « -^
Ss? I
5 CL R
»=• d
-------
en
.3
u
r,rav F™- (TTrocvon cinereoargent
wnnrirhuck (Marmota monax)
en
3
F.pgtern Chinmunk (Tamias striat
01
3
onic
T?»H Sniiirrel (Tamiasciurus huds
en
tn
r.rvnv Rnnirrel (Sciurus carolinen;
t,
0)
b£
•'S
en
3
^
^3
'3
CO
t— i
0)
^
h
3
O
W
1 §
fa
^
"en
^ 3
en
c;
eS
r— (
o
>
en
a
a
™
3
§
fi
en
Southern Flying Squirrel (Glauco
•D^afr-iP nppr Mouse (Peromyscu
,^
**" " t*
w
a
o
o
^J
(U
I—I
tn
Whitp-footed Mouse (Peromys GUI
,
C
^
en
3
o
•a
ri
^Southern Bog Lemming (Synaptoi
n/i»arfr,w Vole (Microtus pennsylv
*pinp Vole (.Pitvmvs pinetorum)
Muskrat f Ondatra zibethica)
Ho"«" Mouse (Mus musculus).
^_^
en
3
"c
O
en
•a
3
isinr-wav Rat (Rattus norvegicus)
8
w
rj
§
•a
•r^
0
C
en
a
rt
.2
Q
•x
%
w
— IX
en
3
S
'c
Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit (Sylvi:
wviitPtail Deer (Odocoileus virg
£
T)
<1)
^
*Within the range, but not obser
C-10
-------
3
oi
K
Vultures and
Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura)
"M
rt
•r*
Sharo-shinned Hawk (Accipiter str
^ °>
"^ •**
Coooer's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicens
to
a
•Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lines
01
.2
4>
Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypt
fim^
0)
I
w
ct)
r-*
0
^
!-,
0
.2-
P,
TJ
C
a
CO
TJ
0)
I
OT
"c?
Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solltar
o
3
Pectoral Sandpiper (Erolia melan<
S3
in
s
01
,-. u
Least Sandoioer (Erolia minutilla
Semipalmated Sandpiper (Ereunet
^13
^2
J fn
"^5 -^
•J H 01
D^ ft
BIRDS OCCURRING REG
HIGHBANKS METROPOL
Grebes
Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus)
u/
o
•iH
TJ
O
P.
01
5
£,
•r-t
TJ
O
P_J
P!
•M
xi
•o
H)
•M
b
Herons
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herpdias)
a
Green Heron (Butorides virescens)
Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis)
u
a
T)
C
0)
0
01
(U
o
o
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos).
Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
Gadwall (Anas strepera)
"»
Pintail (Anas acuta)
Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensi
Blue-winged Tefal (Anas discors)
0)
o
^
a)
H
(1)
American Widgeon (Baldpate) (Marec
Shoveler (Spatula clypeata)
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
Redhead (Aythya americana)
Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)
01
Canvasback (Aythya valisineria)
Lesser Scaut> (Bluebill) (Aythya affin
_
01
B
(3
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)
Hooded. Merganser (Lophodytes cucu
-------
01
S
o
tern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus;
at 'Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus
tern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe)
Ul 0) 01
n) !H rt
WOW
Ul
01
c
0)
dian Flycatcher (Empidonsx viresc
ra
f
01
st Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus
tern Wood Pewee (Contopus virens
rQ
01
• rH
C
rH
O
r-H
nj
3
£
!H
0)
.S
O
•M
01
T3
•H
01
1
01
O
r-H
l—(
in
•o
C
rt
(d
ned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
e Swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor)
k Swallow (Riparia riparia)
CDCTjcdM'.*' J^QJC
O JH QJ rt ^i O f-t oj
S-l
§C PS K
O
Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)
Doves and Cuckoos
Rock Dove (Columba livia)
01
3
*~~- fa
Ul
3
Mourning Dove (Zenaidura macroura)
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus american
•3
Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropth
Owls
Screech Owl (Otus asio)
Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus)
01
• rH
rH
3
°
01
Barred Owl (Strix varia)
Goatsuckers to Kingfish
0
Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus)
Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)
Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica)
Rubv-throated Hummingbird (Archliochus
Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)
Woodpeckers
Yellow-shafted Flicker (Colaptes auratus
nj
•a
0)
___ 0
01
3
Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus
Red-bellied Woodpecker (Centurus carolii
0
.c
Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes eryl
^^
w
3
'£
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus va
,-,
01
C
Hairv Woodpecker (Dendrocopos villosus)
Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos pubesce
C-12
-------
to
1
i
1
d
j^
d
>
d
Black-and-white Warbler (Mniof
01
ivoru
g
to
a>
>
0!
0
to
1
d
£
bo
O
0)
I
g
g
£
"d
^
*H
'o
C
tc
rt
Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica m;
"d
c
'S
be
Cape May Warbler (Dendroica ti
01
ti
D
Black-throated Green Warbler (1
_
d
d
a)
1
Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica ce
o
01
•a
d
Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroic
"(?
f\
"d
0
'c
g
o
•o
a
o
• r^
O
Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendr
1
£
01
c
Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludo
rt
'cJ
•4-J
M
"s
•-I
Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
Pathird (Dumetella carolinensis)
Rrown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufi
in U
0) r;
d .5'
Thrusl
Robin (Turdus migratorius)
Wood Thrush (Hvlocichla mustel
r-4
•d 3
2 01
Hermit Thrush (Hylocichla gutta'
Swainson's Thrush (Hylocichla u
g
••H
£
fi
d
Grav-cheeked Thrush (Hylocichl
.S
r-4
to
d
W
O
Veery (Hylocichla fuscescens)
Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis)
Gnatcatchers
d
01
3
C)
01
>fH
to
be
O
o
k
>»H
>
d
d
O
O
.51
>
^1
C
•S
^^
^^ 01
01
3
'S
^-*
*t-<
r-4
O
"o M
(U O
S-, V
~ S .h
o > >
J> -a S.
3
-r-»
0
o
d)
£
>
1 —
CJ
*c
«
!2
C-
c
c;
ju
>
•
c
«;
"S .^
•H «| 0 f >
£ 3 8 g «=
•0 t. ;rt r> ?
I
s
<
•o
o
C-13
-------
(O
3
c
'a
U]
p
13
'S.
CO
C
X.
ra
-H
en
Ol
c
S
^-^
Ul
til
rt
01
tn
.u
£
rt
tl
•O
o
£
.s
Ul
<-±
-3
Late-colored Jurico (
K O > cn
oi
o
o
43
nt
_d
ree Sparrow (Spizel
H
OJ
£
'?H
1>
w
Ul
cd
0.
d
u
N
-rH
a
cn
O
in
53
D.
cn
M
•rH
a
a
43
^^
rf
r— 4
to
3
a
_d
ield Sparrow (Spize]
O fe
Ul
>
f_,
43
O
O
O
3
Tiite-crowned Sparr
Tiite -throated Sparr
ox Sparrow (Passer
f $ fc
Ul
•r4
•J"^
rH
"o
O
.5
d
N
•r4
Q-
Ul
O
r— 4
D
incoln's Sparrow (M
-» ?
d
C
d
•r-4
fci
in
Q
S
O
(H
53
5-
O4
g
d
^
.>
•M
4-1
Ul
d
TJ
O
(U
s
d
N
p.
U)
O
r— 4
Ol
g
O
(4
53
o,
CO
tao
C
r*
-l cn cn PQ
• — •
d
"in
3
Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formoS'
43
a
r— 4
Mournin? Warbler (Oporornis philade
Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virensl
Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina)
Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla)
"d
•^ ^
r=.r,ada Warbler (Wil'sonia canadensis
•r-4
O
•r-t
a
rt
be
d
I
+J
(U
w
•M
53
•4-»
-3
01
p^
§
c
• r-4
tH
a
<
43
Weaver Fine
"d
TToiiee Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
Blackbirds
Trc.ctf.T-n Meadowlark (Sturnella magn
Ul
3
(0
o
•r-4
C
(11
Red-winsred Blackbird (Agelaius phoi
n-r-r-hard Oriole. (Icterus spurius)
Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula)
_^
rn rf
R,i=tv Blackbird (Euphagus carolinuf
r:omr".-in Orackle (Quiscalus quiscul
tH
4>
-J-»
T5T-««m -headed Cowbird (Molothrus s
Tanager
Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea)
Ul
Ul
0
!H
t.
d
o
CO
•n
S
Grosbeaks, Finches, i
1
(Q
•r-4
O
'>
0
T)
4
to
ra-rrfinal (Richmondena cardinalis)
•R rise-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticu
at
G
•{i
!H
01
a
Ul
TnHi
d
C
O
43
•£
£
0
U.
01
B
5
Ol
•8
o
u
U
ta
, 1
O
1
^-*
Ul
Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureu
C-14
-------
part 5. Waterfowl at 0'Shaughnessy Reservoir
Dabbl i n.q Ducks
f.ial !ard
Black Duck
GadwaI I
P i nta i I
Green-winged Tea!
Blue-winged Teat
Widgeon
Shoveller
Wood Duck
Diving Ducks
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Canvasback
Lesser Scaup
Common Goldeneye
Buff lehead
Ruddy Duck
01 d-Squaw
Hooded Merganser
Common Merganser
Red-breasted Merganser
Geese and Swans
Canada Goose
Blue Goose
Whist I i rig Swan
Ra iI FamiIy
Coot
C-15
-------
Pact 6. Aquatic Organisms and Pollution
Aquatic organisms can be used as indicators of the quality
of their environment. Such a method is based on the assumption
that individuals and communities exhibit characteristic responses
to particular environmental conditions. Generally, organisms can
be divided into pollution-sensitive,pollution-tolerant, and facul-
tative (adaptable to a wide range of conditions) types, depending
on their tolerance to organic pollution.
Diversity of species and numbers of organisms within each
species are also used as indicators. Generally, communities
containing many species of similar abundance are characteristic
of high quality environments, whereas communities containing
few species, but great numbers of each species with unequally
distributed abundance are often characteristic of poor quality
environments. Communities of bottom-dwelling invertebrates,
fish, and microscopic and macroscopic vegetation can all be
used to identify the quality of the aquatic environment.
Freshwater invertebrates include a wide range of organisms,
from simple unicelluar protozoa to macroinvertebrates such as
mollusks and anthropods. Most of the larger invertebrates are
benthic, or bottom-dwelling organisms, representing various
stages of the life cycle. Those that are classified as pollu-
tion-sensitive invertebrates including gill-breathing organisms
such as immature stoneflies (Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemerop-
tera), alderflies (Megaloptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera),
all of which are insects. Pollution-tolerant forms include
worms (Oligochaeta), certain midges of the family Chironomidae,
leeches (Hirudinea), and pulmonate snails (Gastropoda).
C-16
-------
-2-
Facultative forms that are able to adapt to wide range of
conditions include immature beetles (Coleoptera) , dragonflies
(Zygoptera), dipterans including certain chironomids, black-
flies (Simulidae), and craneflies (Tipulidae), gilled snails
(Gastropoda) and fingernail clams (Pelecypoda).
C-17
-------
part 7. Alum Creek—Fish and Mollusks
FISHES OF ALUM CREEK
UPSTREAM OF WESTERVILLE, OHIO
DELAWARE COUNTY
«
Common Hame_ Relative Abundance
1. Least Brook Lamprey "b/ L b/
2. Eastern Gizzard Shad ~
3. Central Redfin Pickerel a/ M
4. Central Quillback Carpsucker L
5. Black Redhorse *
6. Golden Redhorse M
7. Hog Sucker * M
8. Common White Sucker M
9. Spotted Sucker-a/ L
10. Carp
11. Goldfish b/ (probable) L b/
12. Goldenshiner b/ L F/
13. Northern Bigeye Chub ~~
14. Western Blacknose Dace *
Ib. Northern Creek Chub * M
16. Southern Redbelly Dace * b_/ L b/
17. Silver Shiner * L
18. Rosyface Shiner 'v
19; Ohio Rosefin Shiner M
20. Striped Shiner * H
21. Spotfin Shiner * L
22. Northeastern Sand Shiner M
23. Northern Mimic Shiner
24. Silverjaw Minnow * L
25. Bluntnose Minnow H
26. Ohio Stoneroller Minnow5'5 H
27. Yellow Bullhead a/ L
28. Black Bullhead L
29. Stonecat Madtom * L
'30. Brindled Madtom L
31. Fathead Minnow b/ L a/ b/
(Blackstripe topminnow) a/ — —
32. Troutperch L
33. Brook Silversides
34. White Crappie L
35. Black Crappie b/ L b/
36. Northern Rockbass , L "~
37. Northern Smallmouth Blackbass M
38. Largemouth Blackbass a/ M
39. Green Sunfish ~ L
40. Bluegill Sunfish a/ M
41. Orangespotted Sunfish b/ H b/
42, Central Longear Sunfish a/ L *~
43. Pumpkinseed Sunfish a/ ~~ L
44. Blackside Darter L
45« Ohio Logperch Darter L
46. Central Johnny Darter H
47. Greenside Darter * L
48. Eastern Banded Darter ft L
49. Rainbow Darter * M
50. Barred Fantail Darter * M
51. Mottled Sculpin * a/ b/ L a/ b/
(Central Redfin SculpTn) "~ ~~
C-18
-------
a/ Personal communication from personnel of the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, data obtained from surveys made in Delaware County,
prior to 1971. L - Low, M - Medium, H - High.
b/ The list of fishes (Table IV) as it appeared in the Draft Environmental
Statement was examined by Mr. Charles F. Willis after consultation with
Dr. Ted M. Cavender, Curator of Fishes at the Ohio State University Museum
of Zoology. Those fishes footnoted b/ were added to the original list
after their examination. Those fishes marked with an asterisk (*) are in
the opinion of Dr. Cavender and Mr. Willis "non-lake" species and will be
extirpated from Alum Creek in the area of the flood pool.
Alum Creek prior to reservoir construction had a known naiad (freshwater
mussel, bivalve, mollusk) fauna of 27 species. The U. S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has advised that the naiad Simpsoniconcha
ambigua presently occurs in a few widely scattered populations throughout
its range. The naiad Villosa fabalis (Lea, 1831) occurs in Alum Creek
and is believed to be one of two or three populations in Ohio. This
species is found in firm sand-gravel substrates in flowing water. It
was formerly widely distributed from the Great Lakes area south to
Georgia and Alabama. In recent years Villosa fabalis has been found
in isolated populations within this range.
C-19
-------
APPENDIX D
FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT
Five townships, Berlin, Concord, Genoa, Liberty, and Orange, form a
close approximation of the proposed project service area in Delaware County.
A geographic description of each of the geographic boundaries of these
townships are displayed in Figure D-l. Factors affecting the location of
development within each township are discussed in turn.
1. Berlin Township
Major factors affecting the development potential of Berlin
Township are accessibility to major highways, attractiveness of and
accessibility to the Alum Creek Reservoir, depth to bedrock, soil
drainage characteristics, and the suitability of soils for septic
systems. Accessibility of most of the township to the City of Delaware
is excellent and both the interchange of US Route 36 on Interstate 71
and US Route 23 allow good access to population centers in Franklin
County. The Alum Creek Reservoir should attract considerable numbers
of recreation seekers, but is not expected to attract extensive resi-
dential development.
Shallow depth to bedrock in the area of Peachblow and Platt Roads
might cause difficulty in the construction of homes with basements.
Generally, most of the area west of the reservoir has a high water
table and is poorly drained. Almost the entire township is poorly
suited for septic tanks. Each of these soil characteristics contributes
substantially to the costs of development.
Existing residential development is a mixture of old farm structures
and newer large lot, single family homes. These residential areas are
located in strips along existing roads; especially near Cheshire on
D-l
-------
r
AINOOO NOINO
CO
QJ
a
•rl
Cfl
a
CO
O
H
CU
bO
C3
cfl
!-i
O
13
>>
4-J
0)
•H
^
CO
O
c
0)
a
O
a
§
o
S-l
0)
I
Q
(U
^
rJ
Cn
ON
VD
0)
O
•H
O
CO
0)
0)
c
•H
60
Cd
c
3
O
0)
J-l
cfl
0)
Q
0)
O
o J.
-------
Cheshire Road, along Peachblow Road, and along Shanahan Road. Cheshire
Village has experienced a moderate growth rate. Small areas of commer-
cial development are located near the northeast and southwest corners
of the township. Industrial uses are virtually non-existent in the
township.
There is a p&tential for moderate development in Berlin Township.
Most of this development should be residential, although there may be
the addition of small areas of neighborhood commercial development
oriented to serving users of the Alum Creek Reservoir. Large lot, single
family residential development may occur in strips along existing roads
near US Route 23, near the intersection of US Route 36 with Interstate 71,
and in the area near the Village of Cheshire.
Most of the small expected amounts of neighborhood commercial
development will probably occur near US Route 23, near the Village of
Cheshire and near the interchange of US Route 36 on Interstate 71.
Some light industrial development can also be expected near the inter-
change of US Route 36 with Interstate 71. Residential development
which can normally be expected near a newly constructed reservoir will
probably not materialize here. The large acreage of government-owned
land around the reservoir will preclude home sites next to the water
and severely restrict the number of potential home sites within sight
of the water.
2. Concord Township
Major factors affecting development in Concord Township are accessi-
bility and soil conditions. Interstate 270, with interchanges at both
Sawmill Road and State Route 161, provides easy access between Columbus
D-3
-------
and most parts of Concord Township. Most of the soils outside of the
Scioto River Drainage Basin area are of a Blount-Pewamo-Morley associa-
tion. These soils present moderate to severe limitations on development
that does not have central sewering.
The Scioto River Drainage Basin area contains Milton-Morley soils
which, primarily because of their better drainage characteristics,
offer greater advantages to development that is not centrally sewered.
As a consequence, most current development in Concord Township is located
near the Scioto River. Erosion is a potential problem in almost all
areas of the township.
Current development in Concord Township is predominately residential.
The two incorporated areas are Shawnee Hills and part of Dublin.
Shawnee Hills has less expensive and older housing than the areas
immediately around it. Thus, much recent housing development has taken
place in the area around, but not in, Shawnee Hills. A high income
residential area is being actively promoted in the Dublin incorporation.
Other residential development in the township is located in scattered
sites on existing thoroughfares and in a few small subdivisions. Generally,
this development lies relatively close to the Scioto River.
Commercial development is entirely of a neighborhood shopping and
service type and is scattered on a few small sites throughout the town-
ship. Industrial development consists of a small site northwest of
Shawnee Hills and a quarry adjacent to 0'Shaughnessy Reservoir.
Potential development for that part of the township which does
not have central sewers is greatest in the area near the Scioto River.
D-4
-------
This development is primarily expected in the Shawnee Hills-Dublin area.
Most development will be residential, although some small commercial
and industrial uses may be attracted to the township.
3. Genoa Township
Major factors affecting the development potential of Genoa Town-
ship are restrictive zoning, accessibility, growth pressures caused
by the presence of Westerville, and soil conditions. Genoa Township
has two separate zoning ordinances. One ordinance, which affects only
small portions of the proposed service area, allows for the reduction
in minimum lot size required for planned unit developments. The other
ordinance, which affects much more of the proposed service area, does
not currently allow such reductions in the existing large minimum lot
size. Accessibility to areas within the township, to Westerville and
to Columbus is excellent. Growth pressures from Westerville, already
expressed by a small annexation, are mitigated by restrictive zoning
ordinances. Poor drainage, a high seasonal water table and poor suit-
ability for septic fields contribute to the cost of any development
in that portion of the township which lies in the project area.
Existing development is predominately residential of both strip
and subdivided varieties. Within the project area there are some
strip residential areas along Worthington-Galena Road and several
small subdivisions near Africa Road and Worthington-Galena Road. Al-
though commercial development is virtually non-existent, there is a
commercially zoned area near the township line on the east side of
Africa Road. Industrial development in the project area is insignifi-
cant in area.
D-5
-------
Potential development within that portion of the project area
lying in Genoa Township will be almost exclusively residential with
some supportive neighborhood commercial uses. Construction of a pro-
posed interchange at Big Walnut Road and Interstate 71 would enhance
residential development and possibly light industrial development
along Big Walnut Road. A possible interchange at Powell Road in
Orange Township would enhance the same type of development, but the
distance from the boundary of Genoa Township to the interchange would
limit the amount of development in Genoa Township. Strict zoning
regulations, if continued, will most certainly retard rapid future
development of all types.
4. Liberty Township
Developmental factors in Liberty Township are planned major growth
for Powell, accessibility to Columbus and the City of Delaware, and
soil conditions. The Village of Powell anticipates large amounts of
growth in the future and is presently in the first steps of implementing
a land use plan and instituting a planning process. The plan envisions
the rapid expansion of Powell from ta village of approximately 400 people
to a city of 30,000 people. Interchanges on Interstate 270 with Sawmill
Road and State Route 315 provide excellent access to Columbus. State
Route 315 provides easy access to the City of Delaware.
Soil conditions present severe limitations for septic tanks, except
for small amounts of Fox soils in the Fox-Eel associations. All soils
have poor bearing values and most soils have poor drainage. The poor
bearing values and poor drainage contribute to development costs.
Milton-Morley soils (steeper slopes) and Fox soils (mostly near the
D-6
-------
Olentangy River) are well drained but need erosion controls to facili-
tate environmentally sound development.
Existing development consists of residential, commercial, and
light industrial uses. Major residential areas consist of strip develop-
ment along Seldom Seen Road, Sawmill Road, and the Jewett Road-Olentangy
River Road area, small clusters in Hyattville and Powell, and several
new subdivisions near Olentangy River Road. Most commercial usage is
in scattered parcels adjacent to US Route 23, or clustered at the center
of the Village of Powell. The major industrial users are Searle
Reference Laboratories, Inc. (just north of Powell) and North Electric
Research Center (on US Route 23).
The greatest potential for development in Liberty Township is for
residential uses. However, there is substantial potential for small
scale commercial and light industrial development. The major concen-
trations of residential development are expected in the area covered
by Powell's land use plan. The plan visualizes the first major resi-
dential growth occuring to the southeast of the present boundaries of
the Village of Powell.
A proposed subdivision, Liberty Woods, located just west of the
Village of Powell may provide another node of residential development.
Neighborhood commercial uses are expected to develop near subdivisions.
Larger commercial uses are expected to eventually develop near the
Village of Powell and along US Route 23 as the population density
increases. Some additional industrial development is expected both
along US Route 23 and along the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad.
D-7
-------
5. Orange Township
Major determinants of development potential in Orange Township
are accessibility to major highways, slope of the land, drainage,
suitability for on-site sewage disposal, and bearing strengths of the
soils. Accessibility to Orange Township from other townships is good.
US Route 23 provides excellent north-south access to the western por-
tion of the township and Interstate 71 extends across the eastern por-
tion. Although there are no interchanges located within the township
one has been proposed for construction, either at Lewis Center and Big
Walnut Roads or at Powell Road.
Accessibility to most points within the township is excellent;
County Roads 10, 21, 13 and 106 serve as feeders to State Routes 315
and 750 and US Route 23. Slopes that might hinder development are
located along the Olentangy River, Alum Creek and tributary streams.
Most of the area west of Alum Creek Reservoir and west of Interstate
71 have soils with combinations of poor drainage, high water table, low
bearing strengths, and poor suitability for sewage disposal. These
factors add to the cost of, but do not preclude, development.
Existing development is primarily strip residential along existing
highways. A large amount of this residential development%consists
of new homes. Commercial development is concentrated in strips along
US Route 23. Swan Rubber Company on US Route 23, employing less than
100 people, is the only major industrial activity in the township.
Development potential is strong in several portions of Orange
Township. A 244-acre residential complex is planned west of US Route
23 and north of Powell Road. Impetus provided by the building of this
D-8
-------
complex will set the pattern for a major future node of development.
The increased accessibility to Columbus created by the completion
of any interchanges on Interstate 71 will foster large amounts of
development. An interchange at Lewis Center and Big Walnut Roads would
enhance residential and commercial development both at the interchange
and in the vicinity of Alum Creek Reservoir. Large incentives for
residential development near the reservoir do not exist, because the
government controls most of the land adjacent to or within sight of
the lake. An interchange at Powell Road would enhance residential,
commercial, and light industrial development along Powell Road and, in
general, in the southern portion of the township. Planned improvements
in the Penn Railroad may foster industrial development along its north-
south traverse of the county.
D-9
-------
Appendix E
Population and Economic Projections
1 • Introduction
Projections are simply current guesses about future condi-
tions. Three major factors influence the probable accuracy of
any such guess about the future. These factors are the assump-
tions made/^he methodology used, and the quality of the current
and historical data used. Assumptions are explicit statements
which define which past, current, or probable future conditions
influence a projection. A methodology is the procedure by which
basic data and assumptions are combined to project future con-
ditions. The quality of data is primarily determined by how cur-
rent and detailed they are, as well as by how descriptive they
are of the quantity being projected.
Three major types of projections are available for Delaware
County, its townships, and the variously defined regions surround-
ing the City of Columbus. These projections are for land use,
economic development, and population. The most important results
are highly interdependent, since predicted changes in one cate-
gory will directly influence changes in each of the other two
categories.
2. Description of Projections
The name, source, and Description of each evaluated pro-
jection are listed in the following tables. Each description
contains a summary of the assumptions made, the methodology
used, and the type of data base.
3. Evaluation of the Projections
There are a considerable number of relatively recent popu-
lation, economic, and land use projections which could be useful
in the prediction of future population in the proposed project
area. Because each of these projections predicts different
results, each projection needs to be evaluated to ascertain its
probable accuracy. The procedure used in this evaluation el-
iminates those projections which are probably least accurate.
First, each projection is analyzed in terms of the appropriate-
ness of its methodology and the quality of its data base. Those
projections which have inappropriate methodologies or are based
on low quality data are eliminated. The remaining methodologies
are then evaluated to determine how reasonable their basic as-
sumptions are. The result of the entire evaluation procedure is
to isolate and use the best projections to develop a reasonably
accurate representation of the future.
E-l
-------
Table E-l. Population Projections
Na:v mid Source
of Projection
P_opul;>tion Est^fialrs
and Proie.:! i_ons,
Sei uVp-STTlo. '-'.-
U.S. B'irpau of the
Census, May 1975.
Population
Population
V9J2. QHENS _p_r_oj_ec_t ions
Volume 5, Series ! , U S.
Water Resources Council,
April 197s
Population
Pppulrti on _ Projections,
Delaware County Regional
Planning CoiiHiission,
July 1973
Exjiandinn the_Regienal
Plan, tird'-Ohio'Re'cjiuial
Plannino Commission,
June 1972
Population
Populat ion
Del awa re Coun ty,
0 hj o_ ^ or :.rehens\y e
Ha t r r a_i_d_Scwer
P_eyelopr"cnt Plan,
Finkbcin^r, Pettis,
and Strout, 1969
Population
Area Coverage
Counties, incor-
porated places.
townships, and
ot ht*r govf t>-
menlal unit1;
Delaware , Fai r-
field, Franklin,
Madison, Pick-
away Counties,
City of Colbirhus
Columbus SMSA
(Delaware,
I rankl in and
Pickaway
Counties)
Delaware County
and each of its
townships
Frankl in County
and adjacent
townships
(those in Dela-
ware County
are Concord,
Liberty, Orange,
Berkshire, Genoa,
and Marlem Town-
ships)
Delaware County
and each of itc
townships
1 line Coverage
1970 actuals
10/3 estimates
1970 actuals
1975, 1950,
1990, and 2000
projections
1970, 1971
ac tual s
1980, 1985,
1990, 2000,
2020 projec-
tions
1940, 1950,
19GO, 1970
actuals
1980, 1990,
?000 projec-
tions
1960, 1970
actuals
1975, 1980,
1985, 1990
projections
1950, 1950
actuals
1965 estimates
1970, 1975,
1890, 1935,
and 1990
projections
Major Assumptions
t Migration can be
estimated accurately
frora changes of
residence rioted on
individual income
tax forms
» Pjased strongly or. a
dynamic demographic
nodi;! developed by
Ealtele Columbus
Laboratories
t Workers will migrate
to areas of economic
activity and away
from areas of rela-
tively slow growth
or dec 1 1 ne
• Estirates of the
establishnent of some
sewage in host
portions of the
project area by
1930
• Townships surround-
ing and adjacent to
Franklin County will
be tied to its
economic growth and
thus to its popula-
tion growth
e The projection made
is purposefully
somewhat optimistic
• Established communi-
ties, good high.vay
access, a full ranac
of utilities, and
amenities are major
attiactors of popu-
lation qrowth
Major Data Inputs
• State vi tal statis-
tics records
• Individual income
tax return data
* Historic data
e Predicted future
changes in employ-
ment (to predict
migra t ion)
t U S. Census data
from 1930, 1940,
1950, 1960, and
1970
• Plans for develop-
ment
• Past trends
• Bui dl ing permits
• Employ ient
projections
« Historic trends
• Building permit
records
» Historic population
trends
8 Surveys of services
utilities, and
amenities offered
in each township
Methodology
» Projections are
calculated from
natural increases
and migration
* Growth rates of
export industries,
fertility, and migra-
tion are each varied
to arrive at 8
different projections
• Projections are
calculated fra'i
natural increases
and migration
t Judgmental decisions
based on detailed
personal knowledge
of the area
• No concise state-
ment of methodology
is made in E/pa ru! i_na
th_p Regional Plan
The projections
for Delaware
County are derived
by comparison cf
its population
trends with
regional and
statewide trends
Projected popula-
tion growth within
townships is a 1 lo-
cated from the
total projected
population of
Delaware County
on the basis of
sources, utilities,
and amenities.
T_he Co 1 ui hus_ Ar_ea
E^onpii!y, Structure
and" !.ro',.'th," 195CT"lo
T9p>V Bureau of' "
Business Research,
the Ohio State
University, early
19CO's
Population
• Population
• Labor force
Franklin County
1950, I960
actual s
1965, 1970,
1930, and 19RS
projections
• Predicted chanqe
in the employment
structure is the
chief determinant
of the future size
and composition of
popul at ion
» Past population
trends
• Projected economic
growth
t Age, sex, and race
distribution', are
projected as
components
t A number of indepen-
dent projection
techniques
used, includn
ones based on!
population tr
projr. to-' crorv->ic
qrov.th, i-nd pro-
jected l.it-oi force
participation
E-2
-------
Table E-2. Economic Projections
Name and Source
of Projection Type of Projection
(Population Fstii.iates and
Projections, Scries P-25,
'No. 5SO, U.'S. BurcdU of
the Census, toy 1975
Expandino the Regional
Plan, nuKThTo Keg Tonal
Planning Commission,
June 1972
The Columbus Area
EconoiTf, Structure
and Growth, 1950 to
1985, The Ohio State
University, Bureau
of Business Research,
early I960' s
Economic (as
measured by
per-capi ta
income)
Economic (as
measm cd by
housing de-itind
and distribu-
tion of employ-
ment by
industrial
type)
Economic (as
measured by
employment,
value adde:!,
income, ttade,
and housing)
Area Coverage
Counties, incor-
porated places.
areas, townships
and other govern-
mental units
Frankl in County
and surrounding
townships (those
in Delaware
County were
Concord, Liberty,
Orange, Berkshire,
Genoa, and Harlem
Townsh) ps)
Franklin County
Time Coverage
1969 actuals
1972 estimates
Employment •
1960, WO
actuals;
1980, 1990
projections
Housing demand-
1970 to 19SO
estimates
Distribution
of employment
by industrial
type-
1950, ]%<".
actuals; 19?5
projections
1950, 1960
actuals
1965, 1970,
1975, 1980,
and 1935
projections
Major Assumptions
• Estimates are based
on total money
i ncome
t Increases in auto-
mation will slow the
rate of employment
increases in
manufacturing
industries
e The economic base
will diversify
• Local industries
ivi 1 1 increase their
proportional share
of employment and
economic growth
t Basic non-co:i™di ty
and local industries
will continue to
dominate the
economic base
• Change in employment
structure is the
chief determinant of
the future size and
composition of
local population
• Future (through
1985) net connuter
inflow into I-ron'O in
County from adjacent
Major Data Inputs
• 1970 Census income
and related data
• 1969 and 1972
federal income
tax returns
• State and county
money income
estimates prepared
by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis
t Data and supporting
projections from
J_he_Co 1 irntHi s_Area
Economy Structure
and~GrowTh"7 1950
to 1935
t Historic trends
• An input-output
economic base study
of Franklin County
Methodology
• Is reflective of
corrections to
census data and
changes in
income, popula-
tion, and geo-
graphic boundaries
• The methodology is
not sufficiently
explained; although
it appears to be
based strongly on
methodology
developed in The
Cpjiijibijs_ Area
Economy Structure
and' Growth 1950" to
1985
• Use of historic
trends
t Use of a strong
interrelationship
of employment and
economic projec-
tions to projec-
tions of trade,
incopie, and
housing
counties will re.nain
at the same prooor-
tion as that existing
in 1950
1?7
-------
Those economic projections which depend on an economic base
methodology ate prone to error. "The Economic Base of the Metro-
polis ", a detailed article by Hans Blemenfeld in the 1955 issue
of the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (pg. 114-
132) provides substantive criticism of the use of economic base
studies as a projection tool. Because of this objection, economic
projections in Expand ing The Reg ional_Plan and The Columbus Area
Economy,_ Structure and Growth, 19J5(^ to 1985 are each rejected.
The 1972 QBERSPr~o3¥ctions makes use of some economic base meth-
odologies; however, substantial use of other methodologies as
independent checks on accuracy helps maximize the probable ac-
curacy of the projections. All the economic projections are based
on accurate data. However, since The Columbus Area Economy,
Structure and Growth, 1950 to 198J3 was published In the early
1960's, Its data inputs do not totally reflect recent trends.
Some population projections depend strongly upon future em-
ployment figures projected by economic base studies. Expanding
the Regional_Plan appears to do this, and economic base studies
are definitely the basis of a number of population projections
in The Columbus Area Economy, Strugture and Growth^1950 to 1985.
Past population trends, however, are used as the basis of some
population projections in The Columbus Area Economy, Structure
and Growth, 1950 to 1985. These trends are based on pre-1970
data and do not totally reflect current conditions. The Dela-
ware Count y Ohio Compr ehensiye Water and Sewer Development Plan
has an excellent methodology, but is based onTata which is not
current. Population Projection,^Columbus_SMSA is based on cur-
rent data, but the methodology Is based pa~rtially on economic
base study techniques. Because the accuracy of these economic
base techniques is probably low, the population projections
derived from them are also probably inaccurate.
There is only one actual land use projection examined that
would provide information relevant to the project. This is The
Mid-Ohio Region Housing Market Outlook 1.97_0-198CK Other studies
only provide information about current land use trends or pre-
sent recommended concepts for the future distribution of land
use. Information on factors affecting the geographic distribu-
tion of land use are used to develop pro-
jections of geographical patterns of area growth. The method-
ology for The Mid-Ohio Region Housing_MarJ
-------
Three population projections need further evaluation. One,
Population Estimates^and Projections, does not predict future
populations. Instead^it estimates population change between
April 1, 1970 actuals,as determined by the Census of Population,
and July 1, 1973 estimates. A primary assumption is that the
migration component of population change in an area can be accur-
ately determined from changes in residence noted on individual
income tax forms. This assumption seems reasonable. Its accur-
acy depends on the accurate projections of the conditions which
lead to migration. The 1973 estimates form the most highly ac-
curate documented estimates of recent population changes. Caution
should be used, though, in interpreting these estimates. The
Columbus Area Chamber of Commerce believes that certain local
economic indicators point to somewhat more population growth than
is indicated by the July 1, 1973 estimates (Thomas, private com-
munication, 1975). The 1972 PEERS Projections assumes that popu-
lation migrates to areas of economic activity and away from areas
of less economic activity. This assumption is reasonable; there-
fore, the 1972 PEERS Projections probably forms the most accurate
of existing projections of regional (Delaware, Franklin, and
Pickaway Counties) population change. Population Projections
was developed by the Delaware County Regional Planning Commission.
It assumes establishment of central sewage in the project area
by 1978 and is based on detailed, current, and ongoing knowledge
of development in Delaware County. This knowledge of local
development maximizes the probable accuracy of the population
projections for Delaware County and each of its townships. How-
ever, it should be noted that long-term projections for small
populations, such as those In each township, are highly prone
to error. This error is lowered by grouping the townships into
an approximation of the total project area.
Two economic projections need further evaluation. Population
Estimates and Projections estimates per capita income as of July 1,
1974. It is based on the accuracy of federal income tax returns,
so its estimates of income are reasonable. The 1972 PEERS Pro-
jections is based on factors which have influenced past regional
economic projections.
The one land use projection was discarded because it uses
an economic base study as a primary tool for projectinq housing
demand. The discussion of geographic trends
should, however, shed some light on the amounts of probable future
growth of different types of land use.
E-5
-------
APPENDIX F
ALTERNATIVES - DETAILED ANALYSIS
a '
Construction of the proposed facility at site OR-1 would
require three major modifications of the basic system: extension
of the large interceptor which collects from the three basins,
a pumping station, and a relatively lengthy outfall line.
Approximately 2 1/2 additional miles of 42 inch interceptor
line through Franklin County would be necessary to reach site
OR-1. This could be most easily laid near Ohio 315 south to the
1-220 interchange. Here it could utilize the river underpass
before running inland to the site.
Sewage would be regulated by the wet wells of a pumping
station located 3/4 mile south of the interchange and to the east
of Highway #315 and relayed to the site by a 16" force main for
one mile. The pumping station would have a system lift of ap-
proximately 130 feet and design peak flow of no less than 9 mgd.
Two minor highway ramp crossings for the 42" sewer line and a
highway crossing for the 16" force main would be required.
The outfall location here is of prime importance since
the major reasons for suggesting this site were to minimize
biological impacts. The outfall should be located downstream
of the areas of good aquatic habitat. This consideration would
place the outfall location about a half mile north of Ohio 161
and immediately downstream of the riffle area. A 1-1/2 mile
outfall pipe would be required in order to meet this demand.
To avoid major highway crossing and damage to forested areas,
F-l
-------
the outfall pipe would run southwestward for approximately half
mile, hence along Snouffer Road eastward, swing southward at
Highway #315, and cross this highway where the divided section
ends.
b. Land Use Analysis
Land use in the immediate vicinity is a mixture of speculative,
residential and agricultural. Major transportation arteries are
already in existence to the north and east of the site. Nearby
land includes forested and recreational areas utilized by fisher-
men. These and other unintensive uses are being diminished by
the continued expansion of metropolitan Columbus. Construction
and operation of both the plant and its sewer system could have
impact on area land uses.
The plant would have small impact at the site which is pre-
sently composed of small trees, undergrowth and some agricultural
fields. There are no commercial or industrial areas near by and
only light residential development at present. Secondary effects
might include limitation of the residential and commercial develop-
ment that usually occurs near major highway interchanges. Some
local depression in land values might also be expected.
The sewer and outfall lines would cause only temporary
disruption of surrounding land during construction. Reduction
in recreational use of this section of the river for fishing
is to be expected during the construction period. This use
should return to normal upon projection completion since the
pumping station and lines are to be underground and the outfall
would be located below the major fishing area. Secondary ef-
fects of sewer construction might be to stimulate some growth
F-2
-------
north of the plant if the Worthington Hills and Mount Air areas
were to be serviced.
c • 10.Y.i£9.0.nie-0.^.?.i._§l.^.e-?.ts.
Environmental effects on the human sector would be signifi-
cant in this location. These effects can be classified as visual
impact, odor, and noise.
Visual impact is extremely variable due to possible differ-
ences in plant design. If the present park-like design were
used, this impact would not be a significant factor. The plant
would be clearly visible from the outerbelt.
Odor and noise would be much more adverse in this residen-
tial area than in other more rural sites. Prevailing winds would
carry odors northeast towards Mount Air or east over other outly-
ing suburbs of Columbus. The noise and odor reduction character-
istics in the plant design would have to be very carefully con-
sidered here to satisfy nearby residents. If left uncontrolled,
these might also influence nearby recreational, commercial, and
light industrial use. The extra pumping station required might
also contribute a certain amount of noise but this would probably
be covered by the normal highway noise at the interchange.
Water quality degradation is determined by both the effluent
concentration and the instream flow. Since the effluent concen-
tration is assumed to be the same at all sites and the instream
flow varies to only a minor extent, water-quality effects will
be nearly equal for all sites on the Olentangy.
The dilution ratio is defined as the ratio of the effluent
flow and the mixed flow. During 7-day 10-year low flow periods,
the dilution ratio would be 0.34 and 0.51 for the 1.5 MGD and
F-3
-------
3 MGD Phases. The above numbers are based on the assumption
that the Delaware City STP would be operating 20 years from
the commencement of the project operation.
During 7-day 10-year low flow periods, water quality would
deteriorate in terms of DO, BODs, NH3, N03, and TDS, simply
because of the limited dilution water. The problems would
increase significantly with the growth of the plant while the
dilution water remains unchanged.
Under most probable conditions, the Olentangy River would
have an average flow of 223 MGD and median flow of 47.8 MGD.
Using the median flow as the evaluative criteria, the dilution
ratio would be 0.030 and 0.05*9 for the first and second phases
of the project.
These dilution capacities are 11.3 and 8.6 times
those in dry weather conditions.
Under most probable conditions, the impacts of the project
on the river water quality "are expected to be insignificant for
DO, BOD5, NH , and N03, and TDS.
^• Biolog ical_Impacts
The major strong point in favor of sites OKI and OR2 is that
they are better suited to reducing impacts on the natural environ-
ment than sites in Delaware County. This particularly concerns
the aquatic environment in the Olentangy River. There would also
be no destruction of established forest areas necessary at these
sites.
The Olentangy River in Franklin County has not been desig-
nated as scenic beyond Wilson Bridge Road and much of the river
species habitat has been reduced or destroyed by channelization.
F-4
-------
As can be seen from Figure F-l, the populations of both living
and dead collected mollusk specimens are low immediately north
of the artificial fish habitat area 3 miles south of Powell
Road.
As Table F-l indicates, populations of desirable fish reach
a distinct peak north of the artificial habitat area and drop
abruptly south of the area toward Henderson Road. Benthic
organisms which are the fish's main food supply are numerous
and have a large diversity and abundance north of the site at
Powell Road (Olive and Smith 1975). Because there are large
populations of fish near the site, it is assumed that the
benthic organisms in this area must also have high populations.
The outfall from the site should be placed south of the 1-270
interchange about 1/2 mile north of Ohio 61 in order to avoid
the desirable fishing area near the interchange. Because of the
relative scarcity of large organisms downstream from the outfall,
the placement of the plant and outfall at site OR-1 would have
few noticeable biological effects on the river.
The large influx of nutrients from the effluent would re-
sult in an increase in algae and bacterial growth. The growth,
however, is largely independent of location, depending instead
on the dilution of the effluent by the stream. As the most
southerly site, the greatest flow and hence the largest dilution
factor occurs at this point due to additions from upstream
tributaries. Water quality deterioration would be reduced
slightly for these same reasons.
Two rare and endangered species of naiades (mollusks) and
one fish species have been found in past years near the site.
F-5
-------
o
•
Q
-o
o
•O
fl o
•H T3 Id
a n -H
C -H fl
(0 C
M (3
(5 rH
•rl T3 CO
> « *J
•rl 01 O
rH T3 4J
I I
I
T3
cfl
O
0)
S
o
01
pa
oc
C
C
0)
o
0)
C
o
o
•H
4-1
CO
iH
3
O,
O
OJ
cd
T3
-H
C
O
•H
C
;=>
tt)
•H
tr.
•H
En
Number of Naiads
F-6
-------
cu •
>
t-H O
O 2
cu o
X -a
60 cd
3 O
cd Prf
co cu
•H £
fn O
PM
MH
o m
o
M
cu ^:
r£l 4J
6 3
3 O
I
PM
0)
rH
X3
m
T3
Cd M-4
O O
pi
£4 4-J
O 3 13
CO O cd
M co o
cu Pi
13 CO
C CU rH
0) rH rH
rc -H rH
co vO r*^ t~H vo ^^*
CNJ CSJ CM ^O 00
CO
t3
cd
cu
rH
rH CO
3 co
PQ cd
PQ
Cj rC CO
cd 4J CO -H
3 CO >4H
J2 Q cd C
en E PQ 3
•H H en M
UH CX H ^J H CO 0 rH ,fi
Cd Cd 6 O rH 4-1
C_5 C_> W Di <1 O
s
rH
«
T3
rH
0
^
•H
M
o
• •
cu
o
V-l
a
o
F-7
-------
Subfossil shells of the naiad Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
(the northern riffle shell) and more recent but empty shells
°f QH£^.£Hla._?.Zti0.d.£i£.a_9.y-HIl^.£i.?^. (tne Cob Shell) have been
found near Wilson Bridge Road. However, no living specimens
have been found since 1961 in the few studies that have been
carried out. The Spotted Darter (Et^heostomajnaculatum) is
on the list of Ohio rare and endangered fish, and has been
collected three times in the Olentangy River. This fish was
found at Snouffer Road on at least two occasions during the
period 1958-1963 by Milton B. Trautman. The presence of these
rare and endangered species is an important consideration in
treatment plant placement; however, due to their low numbers,
their range and present existence in the river is poorly defined.
e • Instj.tutj1gnal_Cqnsiderations
Delaware County, as a County Sewer District under Section
6117 of the Ohio Revised Code, cannot condemn land in another
county for the construction of a wastewater treatment facility.
However, Section 6117.41 of the Ohio Revised Code does enable a
county to contract with another political entity for the joint
construction and usage of sewers and wastewater treatment fa-
cilities. Therefore, the proposed facility can be constructed
at site OR-1 within Columbus if it serves some area of Columbus
and perhaps Mt. Air and Worthington Hills within Franklin County
along with servicing Delaware County and if Delaware County and
Columbus agree to the necessary contract. It should be noted
that the northern areas of Columbus along the Olentangy River
are not yet being serviced by metropolitan sewers, but there
are some local sewer systems.
F-8
-------
There are political obstacles, however, to the signing
of such a contract between Delaware County and Columbus.
Delaware County feels its autonomy threatened by the rapidly
growing Columbus metropolitan area while Columbus, cognizant
of Delaware County's attitude and concentrating on developing
its own Facilities Plan, and expanding services within Franklin
County is not currently anxious to cooperate.
F-9
-------
2. Powe 11 Road - 01 entangy
a^_ Enginee^ring^ Analysis
As this is the site designed in the Facilities Plan, the
interceptor lines required are those outlined in Figure 3-1.
The site eliminates the necessity for any pumping stations
within the Olentangy Basin due to its low elevation. All in-
dications are that subsurface conditions would not pose any
particular construction problems at the site.
b^ Land Use Analysis
Site OR-3 is currently devoted to agriculture. It also
serves as a small part of a scenic vista from portions of the
Highbanks Metropolitan Park. Park authorities have expressed
considerable concern about impacts to recreational use in
adjacent parkland. It is possible that there would be slight
impacts on park users but the effect would not be severe enough
to change the land use of the park. Chapter 5 discusses these
points in detail.
Across Route 315 from the site, land is occupied by scat-
tered residences and a farm. There is also a subdivision several
thousand feet to the west-northwest. Significant residential
development could potentially occur in this and other nearby
areas.
A plant located here might limit future public access to the
river in this area. This access along the Olentangy River is
considered important by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources
in its Statewide Plan for Outdoor Recreation in Ohio 1971-1977
(1970). Construction of the sewers would also cause changes in
F-10
-------
land use, such as differences in growth rates and types of
development. The exact location of the outfall could cause
land use changes by affecting downstream recreation. Main-
taining water quality for recreational purposes is viewed as
extremely important by the Columbus Department of Recreation
and Parks and is an integral component of the Watercourse
Pian_f or_Co3Lumbus__and _F£an kl in_County (1974) .
c ._ Environmental Effects
Visual impact of the plant at this site is expected to be
minimal due to the extensively designed beautification program
in the Facilities Plan and natural riverside vegetation.
Odor problems from the plant at this site might be signifi-
cant to the Highbanks Park but are expected to be throughly
controlled.
Noise problems should not be significant here. Noise
levels at the park should be far below the decibel levels
recommended by HUD for recreational areas due to distance
and control measures.
Water quality in this section of the Olentangy has been
degraded both historically and presently due to upstream
sewage treatment facilities, sewage discharges from leaking
septic tanks and some nutrient runoff from surrounding farmland
The plant would eventually help reduce the amounts of coliform
bacteria through treatment and chlorination. Levels of other
substances will be within the Olentangy waste load allocation.
Environmental effects are discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 5.
F-ll
-------
Biological Impac t s
The major impacts upon aquatic life that might occur in-
volve effects on populations of mollusks, fish, and benthic
organisms. The naiad mollusks are organisms that feed on small
particles of organic matter and plankton. They are fed on, in
turn, by muskrat, mink, otter, raccoon, and turtles. The benthic
organisms which have been investigated are mainly insect larvae
which form the main food source for the fish.
Changes in the populations of mollusks, fish, and benthos
could result from various chemical compositions of the effluent.
The main effects are due to oxygen depletion and toxic substances.
Adverse impacts on or the elimination of rare and endangered
species could occur with respect to the four mollusks and the one
fish. These species have been discussed in Chapter 2.
e . Institutional Considerations
A mitigative measure for site OR-3 is the placement of an
outfall along the sides and median strip of State Route 315 in
Delaware and Franklin Counties, past the interchange of State
Route 315 and Interstate 270 in Columbus. This is developed in
Section F of Chapter 3.
F-12
-------
3. Powell _Road_-_PowelL]L
a' Engineer ing Analysis
Construction of the proposed facility at Site OR-7 would
require a lift station located immediately south of Powell
Road and on the east bank of the Olentangy River. A 16-inch
force main 3000 feet in length would be required to deliver
the sewage from the Olentangy and Alum Creek Basins to the
site. The lift station would have a peak capacity of 6 MGD
and a total system head of 200 feet. One river crossing and
one highway crossing would be required for the force main
and would run along Powell Road east to the river. The force
main and interceptor system carrying sewage from the Scioto
Basin would need to be re-routed; however, no significant
change in length of line would be required.
The extent of outfall work depends on the selected out-
fall location. Two possible locations are proposed. One
is located immediately south of Powell Road, and the other
approximately 1-1/8 river miles south of Powell Road at the
county line. The two would require 3,000 and 10,000 feet of
outfall pipe, respectively. Both would need to cross Ohio
315 once. The general route .would be east along Powell Road,
crossing Ohio 315 at the intersection and then following Ohio
315 south-south easterly for about a mile. This route has been
shown in Figure 3-8. The route would then turn east toward
the river near the county line. In the entire biologically
active scenic river segment, additional outfall piping would
be necessary. The incremental piping requirements would
F-13
-------
be the same as those of Site OR-3.
The site is on flat terrain and there is no indication
of near surface bedrock which would increase construction
problems. Some grading work accompanied by rapid planting
of ground cover might be required on the southern end of the
site to reduce erosion into Bartholomew Run area.
b. Land _U se An a 1 y s i s
Site OR-7 is currently open fields, possibly used for
grazing animals with some adjacent cropland. Forest area
adjoins the site on the south and partially surrounds it to
the west. None of this forested area is suitable for develop-
mental use due to the steep gradient. A small pond exists on
the western edge of the site and a road defines the eastern
border. There are several residences within 1/2 mile of the
site. The plant would be far enough away from the Highbanks
Park to ensure lack of impact.
Primary land use impact from the plant would be slight
aesthetic impact on drivers on Powell Road and possible changes
in the casual recreational use of the Bartholomew Run area.
Future impacts would be necessary changes produced in the
planning concept of the Village of Powell. Currently, plans
for the first development stages are centered around Site OR-7.
All sewer and outfall lines would be run along road rights-
of-way and so would have minimal impact on existing land use
except during construction. Secondary impacts, however, in-
volving recreational water, use below the outfall would be
similar to those for OR-3.
F-14
-------
c • _
Impact of the proposed plant on visual aesthetics is in-
significant. Although the plant will be visible from Powell
Road, trees planted on the northern perimeter would eliminate
this impact. No additional expense or effort would be neces-
sary to accomplish this, since the basic plan already includes
significant tree and shrub plantings.
The prevailing wind flow would remain similar to the re-
gional pattern from the southwest. The development within a
one mile radius of the site is presently quite sparse so that
odor and noise problems would not be significant on residential
receptors. There could be odor impacts on Powell Road, but
these are expected to be controlled.
Water quality impacts would be identical with previously
described sites. The amount of impact on biological organisms
would be dependent on which of the possible outfall locations
were chosen.
d . ?iol_og ica]L_I^mpac t^s
Aquatic impacts all relate to the outfall location of the
plant at this site. There are three possible locations:
- on the Olentangy directly east of the plant
- south of the plant site on the Olentangy at the
Franklin-Delaware County line
- on the Olentangy in Franklin County south of
the artificial riffle-pool area.
Placement on the discharge on the river east of the site
would affect the naiad population in this area of the river.
The largest number of living naiades was found in this area
near Powell Road by Dr. Carol Stein (1975). Thus the possibility
F-15
-------
of adverse impacts to this population would be increased by
placing the outfall in this location. In addition, the pre-
viously discussed fish population, considered by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to be abundant and diverse in this
area, would also be impacted by the chlorine and ammonia dis-
charges from the plant at this location. The even more abundant
fish populations at 1-270 intersection would also be affected,
since the chlorine and ammonia concentrations in the discharge
would not be adequately reduced in the river. Use of the dis-
charge at the Delaware-Franklin County line has been previously
discussed for Site OR-3.
The placement of the discharge location south of the artificial
riffle-pool area in Franklin County is the most ecologically
desirable. The areas of the most abundant naiades and fish would
be avoided, since both of these populations rapidly decrease
below this area. Although this outfall location is desirable
ecologically, it would require more pipeline. Outfall locations
are further discussed in Section F of Chapter 3.
The site is not forested, thus no tree clearing would be
necessary to construct the plant at this site. This site is
close to Bartholomew Run, which is an area that contains a
mixture of upland vegetation in the higher areas and some low-
land and river bottom vegetation in sloping and lower areas.
The characteristic upland vegetation is comprised of such
species as beech, red and sugar maple, red oaks, white oaks,
and ash. The lowland river bottom vegetation is characterized
by sycamore, cottonwood, box elder, maples, yellow poplar,
and oaks. Some of these areas would have to be crossed in
F-16
-------
order to place the plant's outfall at either the county line
or in Franklin County below the fish habitat area.
Rare and endangered species that would be impacted are the
aquatic naiad and fish species mentioned previously.
The only course of action here which would involve institutional
considerations is the placement of an outfall in Franklin County
below 1-270.
F-17
-------
4. Alum Creek
a. Engineering Analysis
The construction of the proposed facilities at the site AC-1
would require some modification of the interceptor trunk, force
main and pumping facilities between the Olentangy River Basin
and the Alum Creek Basin as illustrated in the base layout of
the interceptor network, Figure 3-1.
The modification would require a lift station located
south of Powell Road at the Olentangy River to deliver the sew-
age from both the Scioto River Basin and the Olentangy River
Basin via a 20-inch force main eastward along the Powell Road
beyond the ridge line approximately 500 feet east of the Norfolk
and Western Railroad. From the ridge line, the sewage would be
conveyed to the plant by a gravity flow interceptor 42 inches
inches in diameter. The 42 inch interceptor would take the
route along the north side of the Powell Road eastward, pass
the Worthington-Galena Road where Powell Road terminates,
extend southeastwardly down the valley, cross the Alum Creek
via a river crossing, and reach the plant from the east. The
modified interceptor would require the addition of:
- 13,000 feet of 42-inch diameter gravity flow
interceptor line
- 16,000 feet of 20-inch diameter force main
- one lift station with peak capacity of 7 mgd and
system head of 330 feet
However, the following items could be eliminated from the basic
plan:
- 11,000 feet of 27-inch diameter gravity flow inter-
ceptor line
F-18
-------
- 13,000 feet of 18-inch diameter force main
- lift station with peak capacity of 2.3 MGD and
system head of 205 feet
The incremental cost for this modification excluding
pumping facilities is approximately $410,000. Adoption of
this alternative site would considerably increase the con-
struction and operation costs of the lift station due to
larger capacity and higher lift than the base system.
Three outfall locations are possible. One would dis-
charge into the river directly west of the site. Required
pipe length for this would be 1000 feet. The route has been
indicated in Figure 3-10. The other outfall location would
be at the Delaware-Franklin county line. The rationale for
this is that it would be possible for the City of Westerville
to relocate their drinking water intake north of this location
in Delaware County, with the County's permission. Line length
for this choice would be about 0.9 miles. The third location
would be in the City of Westerville. However, Westerville
would have to agree to lease the needed land to Delaware County,
The plant site is in a flat area with no forested areas.
The soils are silt loams with no limestone or bedrock in the
top five feet. Grading site preparation, and construction
would be simple and inexpensive at this site.
k • Land Use
Presently site AC-1 is used as an undeveloped open field.
The immediate vicinity includes residential, transportation
and recreational uses. Residences near the site are of low
density except 1/2 mile to the northeast where there is
F-19
-------
considerable development near the Westerville Reservoir.
Recreational use is also primarily in this sector near the
reservoir. The Alum Creek Reservoir is over two miles north
and would not be significantly affected.
Primary plant impacts would be minimal. Possible slight
impacts are odor impacts on nearby residences and recreation
acres to the northeast. The land on the site would probably
become residential in the near future, and plant construction
would limit this use.
Construction of sewer and outfall lines for site AC-1
would be similar in land use impacts to sites on the Olentangy
River. Although the interceptor system requires additions
and deletions for this site, most of these changes in are in
line sizing rather than routing. Pipeline construction areas
might be somewhat larger along the major trunk from the Olen-
tangy to Alum Creek, but impacts would cease with the comple-
tion of of construction. As with the Olentangy sites, some
impact on stream recreation use would be expected downstream
from the outfall. There are some potential recreation areas
downstream but the extent of their utilization is not presently
known.
c • Env^ojimen ta^_Ef f ec t s
Environmental effects at this site include the aesthetic
impacts of visibility, odor and noise. In addition, however,
this site would be discharging water originally taken from
the Olentangy River by Del-Co water into Alum Creek and would
not rejoin its original water course until many miles downstream
at the confluence with the Scioto. Water quality impacts
F-20
-------
from the water diversion and from the discharge are compared
below with those expected to occur on the Olentangy.
The site would be quite visible from all directions
although following the presently proposed parklike architec-
ture for the plant would help minimize visual impact. If
this was not done, considerable landscaping and
structural arrangement would be necessary to minimize this
impact. The development on the north and northeast sectors
approximately 1500 feet and further from the site would
receive some odor problems, because they are situated in the
path of the local prevailing winds. Noise problems would be
minimal since the plant could be located nearly 1/2 mile from
the nearest residence.
The initial 1.5 MGD and projected 3.0 MGD sewage flows
would all originate from the Olentangy River due to the Del-Co
water supply which services all three basins. This would imply
a deficit of about 3.0 MGD in the segment of the Olentangy
River south to the confluence of the Scioto River and Big
Walnut Creek, of which Alum Creek is a branch. This water
would be added to the normal flow of Alum Creek.
The exact effects of this withdrawal and diversion are
«
complicated by such factors as the schedule of withdrawal by
Del-Co water, use of holding and storage tanks by Del-Co water
use of hold and storage tanks by Del-Co water and the recent
construction of the Alum Creek Dam. Under the most probable
circumstances, however, the water diverted across basins would
be approximately 9 per cent of the median flow (66.6 MGD or
103.0 cfs) in the Olentangy River. This small amount would
F-21
-------
have, at worst, minor adverse effects on the water quality in
the Olentangy. Lowflow effects would be more severe,, however.
The low flow in Alum Creek, previous to dam construction
was only 2.5 MGD (3.87 cfs). It has been indicated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1972) that a 3.23 MGD (5 cfs)
low flow will be maintained by the Alum Creek Reservoir.
Based on this 5 cfs low flow, the dilution ratios would
be respectively, 0.32 and 0.48 for the first and second
phases. These dilu-
tion ratios can be compared with those expected in the Olen-
tangy, which are 0.34 and 0.51 respectively, to see that
no significant differences exist. Thus water quality impact
during the most severe conditions would be similar to those
discussed for sites OR-1, OR-3, and OR-7. This could pose a
significant problem to the Westerville water supply if miti-
gative of ameliorative procedures discussed above are not
taken. Expected impacts on the water supply would include
problems from ammonia, nitrates, and total dissolved solids.
6• Biological Impacts
The effects of the new Alum Creek dam upon the aquatic
biota in Alum Creek are presently unknown.
Alum Creek has been described by U.S. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife (Corps of Engineers, 1973) as a
small mouth bass stream. The effects of the dam construc-
tion and operation upon the aquatic biota in the portions
of the creek below the dam need to be investigated to ac-
curately determine the presence or absence of the benthic
and fish populations that were previously there, including
F-22
-------
endangered mollusk species. Only when this investigation
k
is completed can a rational decision to use this site as an
alternative be made.
No significant terrestrial habitat would be destroyed
by the use of this site. Scrub plant species would be removed
and small animals inhabiting the open field would relocate
in nearby areas.
e• Institutional Considerations
The placement of the proposed plant on Alum Creek with
an outfall in Westerville below the Westerville water intake
would cause institutional and legal problems. Since Wester-
ville is located within Franklin County, Delaware County cannot
condemn easements within that municipality. Delaware County
can place an outfall within another county if they receive
a permit to use state-owned rights-of-way. However, there are
no state highways close enough to Alum Creek to make this action
practical. However, Delaware County can place the outfall
in Westerville, if Westerville agrees to lease the land to
Delaware.
Institutional problems may be minimized if the outfall
is located in Delaware County. However, this would require
the relocation of Westerville's water intake, north of the
Delaware-Franklin County line.
F-23
-------
Appendix G Computer Modeling of the Impacts on the Olentangy
»• • ft
• f f
/
/
\
\
\
\
\
• III
7-
-
(* t 1
V • *
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
X
\
X
1*11
CO
*
r-
tl*l
c
o
4-
TJ
c
o
O
E
(0
0)
t_
4-
w
o.
r>
X
f
\
~fc\
\j\
•-__^_
11*1
>0
•
r-
1 1 1 *
-4-
ro
4-
-C
•—
0
CL
•x.
iE
D
— — .
iii*
in
t~
f3t | •
4-1 ' '
c
(D
E
C
O
l_
— L
> (D
C 4-
UJ C
Q)
>-CJ
D)
C —
ro o
4- l-
C 4-
0) C
— O
0 O
•^ — -^
III!
1
»1 • •
999
4-
(O
4-
C
•—
O
a.
X
2:
<
~^" — — «^
• III
J
'
1411
^ I •
4-
C
•
r~
1 1 * f
s-
0
4-
c;
•—
O
a.
•
I *
O
~~
1 1 * 1
•
^
1114
• • ~
L.
0
>
O —
I- a:
>- >-
L en
Itl C
H (0
n 4-
Q C
- (D
l_ —
H 0
~—-- — ,
III*
o
-'
• g • •
v • I
Jill
C
1
— — -_
•III
r>
»
o
1 — ~^^
— • —
.vr-r
tu
^
•
•«
^---f "* 1
1 *
.£>
.
•0
O
0
o
in
o
o
in
•
•?
o
o
o
•
«*•
o
o O)
in -P
• •!—
n t/5
•a i-^
O) 0)
55 >
s §• "
? ° —
n °- o
cu £
^:
+-> c
cu
o E a;
o O >,
in s- x
• M- 0
N
E -a
res cu
2 £
+J o
S w °
S c <"
*? S -r-
n.. ° 0
T3
to cu
CU -(->
1 — o
o-r- cu
o s: T-J
in o
• s- s- ^i-
—• CU Q. |-~.
> CT.
•r- t^_ r—
C£ 0
s " 5:
n -i- 4->
2 o -1
•^ s-
Q- ai
Q.
0 r-\ "Z.
O
in oss
o to
to
cu
en
s-
3
CQ
o
0 CU
o
S-
Z5
o
C/5
ai UL oa
G-l
-------
»fl t I
• » I
/
/
/
/
/
J
fA,
^~7
/
-A
^
* \ \ i
s>
•
o
•jk k *•
* 1 I
i » i t
CO
•
o
t 1 * 1
c
^0
4-
TJ
C
o
o
E
to
Q}
1_
4-
10
Q.
rj
X
11*1
r-
*
0
i 1 1 *
x^^
*>~
O) —
C O
to u
4- 4-
c c
— c
S UJ
D
iii*
r-i
•
1
tilt
_
o
V
O
11*1
>*
03
3 I_
Q
H 5
t- >.
O CO
c
r(- 10
C 4-
- C
O O>
CL —
O
X
i- O
Z 4-
D
11*1
in
•
o
r •
III*
f
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
[\
i i (V
V1N
o
o
o
0
1 •
« in
o
•o
in
•t
o
o
0
•
<9
o
0
11%
•
o
o
o
o
•
en
o
o
in
(V
o
"o
0
.
(V!
0
O
in
•
*-i
0
, g
* °
-
o
o
in
o
o
» o
1
•z.
0) OO
-t-> ^
•i- Z
I/O
T3 C
Oi O)
CO CT>
0 0
CL S_
O 4J
S- -r-
Q- ^
Ol CO
.C fC
t \
-i—>
§O)
>
S- Ol
M_ 1
E •«
(0 T-
E
co E
C c£
o -o
Q Ol
4J
CO O
O) Ol
• (— . - f-
r~~ i 3 ^si
•r- o r~
s: s_ cn
O. r—
s-
Ol 4- "
> O
•r- "O
rv Q) 4-J
i— _1
•r-
C|_ «
O O>
S- r-
Q. O-
•z.
CM o3
CO
(/I
Ol
C71
S-
— ^
— >
D3
Ol
0
s-
3
O
oo
L/6m in M-J
G-2
-------
Q
O
CO
(O
c
O)
CD
(O
o
o
"o
CO
I
ID
o
•o
(O
o
Ol
01
o
a;
o
to
t/>
04
CD
S-
3
OQ
QJ
0
S_
3
O
CO
UL peon
G-3
-------
c
o
•o
c
o
o
to
CD
1_
-f-
tn
a-!
X
en
c
ro
4-
-c
0
O
s—
O
O
CL
D
to
in
n
in
l l
t_
CD
4-
C
0
O
till
t_
(D 4-
4- C
co to
^ —
55 CL
4-.
cn 4-
to c
3 CD
CO 4-
— (D
JD Q)
L. —
-t-
o
s
«=>
to
c?
in
o
(n
1*11
OJ
-o
CU
(/)
O
Q.
O
i.
(X
cu
-C
-!->
O
S-
4-
(O
C
o
o
(11
S-
O)
o;
CD
01
O
co
(O
(O
C
o
4-
O
T3
(O
O
O
-o
o;
-p
o
cu
•"-j
o
s-
o
cu
o
ex
O)
'o.
s-
3
03
O)
O
s_
3
O
CO
UL peon N-£HN
G-4
-------
k
1
1
1
1
•
»
1
1
1
1
1
1
^
1
*
q
1
f
>r
H
4
1
*
i
«
•
i
i
q
*
*
*
!
•
i
•
i
*
5
*
<
i
i
^
* y
i 7
i /
[ /
: /
/
/
/
/
/T\
vi/ /
/
<7i
• III
I 1 I
^
f)
i— •
"*
/'
1 * I 1
o
_-,
«~4
. *"*
C
O
+-
^j
c
O
O
E
(O
CD
1—
4-
in
CL
^>
X
^^
^^r^
^r
7
o
^
sO
o
*-4
^.
en
c
ra
c
0
o
s-
0
4-
c
O
CL
X
"S.
D
0
._
o
•"*
«-~
O
t-
c
o
o
*-*
(0
c
0)
S
O L
t- 0
> c
C
^
p
>
1 —
(T3
CD
U
H
0)
H
ro
^
0)
1- 4-
Ul C
ra ra
ex.
LO
- 4-
~ S
E E
1
1
V
* i i
o
^,
o*
^^
L.
ro
4-
3 L
r> QJ
{_ •_
4- 01
*t~ ^>
O 0
4- <0
C 4-
O 0
0- —
X
,___ f-
2: 4-
O
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
/
/
/
/
i*i
o
<0
CO
O
o
o
» in
• o
« 0
^ "
» -*
• c-
• o
• o
»*
• o
• o
• tn
9 •
» n
• o
• o
» o
• «
• o
• o
• in
* •
> fvj
o
• 0
• o
• *
rvi
o
o
in
•
r-4
0
0
•
0
o
.
o
o
o
•V /
.
C
0)
'•" O
oo t
-i->
"S '^
O o
Q. .,_
O c
£ ^
r
CL! o
C"
4-> i|_
0
° -o
•<- o
p- — J
(O CD
S- -^
•^ 2
to o
c .
2 u.
0
0 xi
O)
I/) +J
OJ o
f~ O) «3-
^- ^D O^
S- i—
i- Q.
> u_ "
S ° "°
CD _l
4— cu
O r—
S- Q.
Q- •!-
'ZZ.
LIT =3
-------
Appendix H
10 U)
=> o
c o
O)
> cr]
<
C -C
O +-
V) L.
0) O
o
o
in
%
VO
o
o
o
*
o
oo
O
O
oo
^
o
CO
o
o
VO
in
oo
o
o
tn
o
ro
f—
0>
r-
n
o
o
00
o
o
o
O\
O
o
ro
*,
CM
OO
in
W
o
CN
to
UJ
V) —
V)
U)
UJ
z o
UJ Z
— _J
I- O
o z
UJ <
t x
UJ UJ
-' 8
u. o
o
ro
"0
o
en
to
— o
C O
o
o
CN
O
O
in
•«
O3
O
O
VO
O
O
cr>
o
o
o
o
CO
*
00
IN
O
O
in
•i
o
CM
O
O
o
o
in
w
O
O
O
O
o
•k
CO
ro
O
O
VO
*,
o\
to
in
o
o
o
ro
o
o
o
*
Ox
O
O
vO
O
o
o
o
CN
^
VO
CM
C)
O
vO
ro
O\
o
o
O
O
r-
CM
O
O
O
O
vO
O
O
CO
ro
CM
o
o
co
ro
en
CM
o
o
vo
*
o
CN
O
O
CM
CM
O
O
in
o
o
O
c
ro
CM
O
O
r-
OO
CM
c
ro
D.
0
•H*
ro
c
t_
0)
<
c
O c
— O
CO 4-
O (O
CD U
a —
c\.^
O CX *O
xi a
O x> er
1- C —
0) (U _J
•
<
1
O c
._ o
0) ro
en o ---
... — -o
Q — 0)
CL i_
O CL 'D
— < 4-
^i ro
O X) 5
L. C 0)
a> ro Q
CD1
i
c —
o —
4- -+~
cn -o
o c-
o) ro -—
— _j -a
Q O
O (- O
•- 10 +-
.a 4- ro
O — 5
1- C 0)
c> ro Q
< CO ^
»
o
ro
c
ro
CO *-*
1 JT
C CO
0 <
4-
ro —
( —
o —
C M-
• — -£]
u c
c: ro
*
Treatment-
tary Landf i I 1
4- ._
(0 C
O ro
X co
*
UJ
H-l
-------
APPENDIX I
CHLORINE AND AMMONIA IMPACTS
a' Aqua tic_ impacts
Research by the USEPA is presently underway at a sewage
treatment plant in Grandville, Michigan. The Grandville
treatment plant treats only domestic sewage and contains no
industrial inputs. Most of the species of fish used for the
experiments are the same species present in the Olentangy
River; thus, similar conclusions can be drawn concerning the
effects of the proposed plant's discharges to the results of
the experiments. Table 1-1 presents the information obtained
from the research group at the treatment plant in Michigan.
This table shows that the species most sensitive to chlorine
are such forage fish as the shiners, and minnows. These fish
are large portions of the diet of the larger and more de-
sirable game fish, such as the bass and sunfish. Additional
information on chlorine effects is supplied by Table 1-1.
Tsai (1971) studied the diversity of fish, in three states,
in streams which maintained a residual chlorine concentration
of 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1 below sewage outfalls. He typically found
a clean bottom without living organisms in the immediate area
below these discharge locations. He found that the stream
bottoms near unchlor inated outfalls were usually covered by
large growths of wastewater fungi. The fish species diversity
showed a 50 percent reduction when the chlorine concentration
increased to 0.1 mg/1. The diversity then fell to zero at a
concentration of 0.25 mg/1, and no fish at all were found
1-1
-------
Table 1-1.
Acute 96-Hour TL-50* of Various Fish Species
Species
Golden Shiner
Pugnose Shiner
Northern Common Shiner
Fathead Minnows
Crappie
Bluegills
Largemouth Bass
Chlorine Concentration in ppm
test 1)
test 2)
test 1)
test 2)
0.040
0.045
0.051
0.095
0.082
0.127
0.278
0.195
0.241
* Median tolerance level (50 percent survival)
Source: DeGrave, 1975
Table 1-2. Toxic Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life
Species
Fathead Minnow
Black Bullhead
Yellow Bullhead
Smallmouth Bass
White Sucker
White Sucker
Walleye
Largemouth Bass
Phytoplankton
Largemouth Bass
Chlorine
Effect Endpoint Concentration
in ppm
Safe concentration
Total kill - 96 hr.
Partial kill - 96 hr.
Sublethal stress
Threshold concen.
96-hour TL-50*
7- day TL-50
All killed in 3 days
96-hour TL-50
96-hour TL-50
Absent in streams
7- day TL-50
7-day TL-50
7-day TL-50
7-day TL-50
50% reduction in
photosynthesis and
respiration
12-hour TL-50
0.0165
0.16-0.21
0.07-0.19
0.04-0.09
0.04-0.05
0.05-0.16
0.082-0.115
0.154
0.099
0.099
0.1
0.132
0.132
0.15
0.261
0.32
0.365
Reference
Arthur & Eaton,
1971
Zillich, 1972
Zillich, 1969
Arthur, 1971
Arthur & Eaton,
1971
Arthur, 1971
Arthur, 1971-72
Tsai, 1971
Arthur, 1971-72
Arthur, 1971
Arthur, 1971
Arthur, 1971
Brook & Baker,
1972
Arthur, 1971-72
* Median tolerance level (50 percent survival)
Source: Becker and Thatcher, 1973; Brungs, 1973
1-2
-------
in the water when the concentration was 0.37 mg/1. Tsai (1970)
concluded that those species which are sensitive to low dissolved
oxygen levels and organic enrichment decreased or disappeared
in the area. They were then replaced by other species which
were tolerant to the low dissolved oxygen levels and organic
enrichment and were able to increase their abundance. Species
found to be adversely affected included important game fish,
the smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and black crappie.
Arthur (1971-72, as cited in Brungs, 1973) studied the
effects of chlorinated secondary wastewater treatment plant
effluent containing only domestic wastes on the amphipod,
Gammar_us pseudolimneaus, and the water flea, Daphr^ia majgna. He
concluded that Daphni^i mag_na is one of the more sensitve inverte-
brate species because it died when the residual chlorine concen-
tration reached only 0.014 ppm. It did have acceptable reproduction
at 0.003 ppm and below. The amphipod, Gammarjjs pseudol imnaeus,
had its reproduction reduced by residual chlorine concentrations
above 0.012 mg/1. There were no toxic effects observed when the
same wastewater was dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide.
Although there have not been any known studies of the
zooplankton assemblages in the Olentangy River, the common
species of the water flea, Daphnia, probably exists in the
river system. It is a very important food source for both
young and mature fish (Pennak, 1953). The amphipod, Gammar^us,
is also a very common fish food and presumably is present
in the Olentangy River system (Faulkner, 1975). Olive (1971)
reported the amphipod, Hyallel^a, to be present in the river
near Powell Road.
1-3
-------
Arthur (1971-72, as cited by Brungs, 1973), using a calcu-
lated chlorine concentration of 0.03 mg/1 , based on dilution of
a measured concentration of 2.0 mg/1, found that phytoplankton
photosyntheses was reduced by more than 20 percent of the value
obtained with a similar experiment using effluent having no resi-
dual chlorine. This effluent was dechlor inated by sulfur dioxide.
The Wyoming Bioassay Laboratory in Grandville, Michigan
(DeGrave, 1975) has conducted experiments on the effects of
100 percent dechlor inated effluent upon the following fish
species: fathead minnow, bluegill, largemouth bass, pugnose
shiner, pugnose minnow, common shiner, and golden shiner.
The effluent had been dechlor inated by sulfur dioxide. Except
for the pugnose shiner, no mortality was found to occur when
the fish were subjected to a 100 percent effluent solution
that was 100 percent dechlor inated. The pugnose shiner experi-
enced a 25 percent mortality under these conditions. Reasons
for this mortality are not known, but the information obtained
by these experiements shows that the forage species and the
largemouth bass and bluegill, could swim through 100 percent
dechlor inated effluent and survive.
Bromination and iodination are not commonly used for sewage
treatment, because bromine aru3 iodine are more costly than
chlorine. Effluent disinfection by the addition of acids
or alkalis requires large amounts of acids or alkalis and
further requires neutralization of the effluent to pH 7. Only
the chlor ination-dechlor ination and ozonation methods and
their cost-effectiveness are considered here.
1-4
-------
Chloririation is used in wastewater treatment operations
for disinfection and reduction of BOD, ammonia-nitrogen, color,
odor, cyanide, and hydrogen sulfide concentrations. In a
plant the size of the proposed Delaware facility, chlorine
as free chlorine gas is dissolved in a sidestream of water.
Once the gaseous chlorine (Cl~) goes into solution, it reacts
almost immediately with the water (H20) to form hypochlorous
acid (HOC1) and hydrogen and chlorine ions (H+ and C1-).
The hypochlorous acid (HOCl) ionizes to form hypochlorite ions
(OC1-) and hydrogen ions (H+). The ratio between elemental
chlorine (C12)/ hypochlorous acid (HOCl), and hypochlorite ions
(OC1-) depends on the pH of the solution. At the anticipated
pH level of the effluent (6-7), hypochlorous acid (HOCl) should
comprise 60-80 percent of the chlorine added, and elemental
chlorine (C12) should be almost absent. These three forms of
chlorine are referred to as "free available chlorine residuals".
Ammonia (NH3), present in the wastewater, reacts with
the free available chlorine to form monochloramines (NH2C1),
dichloramines (NHC12), and nitrogen trichloride (NCl^). At
the pSi levels of wastewater, mono and dichloramines will pre-
dominate. These compounds are referred to as "combined available
chlorine residuals" and have some disinfecting ability; however,
this disinfecting property is considerably less than that of
free available chlorine residuals (Fair and Geyer , 1963).
By the addition of additional chlorine and the provision
of adequate detention time., the ammonia may be completely
oxidized, resulting in the formation and release of elemental
nitrogen gas. This process is referred to as "breakpoint
1-5
-------
chlor ination" and is one method of nitrogen reduction in waste-
c
water. In general, the chlorine dosage required to achieve
breakpoint on a molar basis is twice that of the ammonia.
The necessary contact time must be determined by on-site tests
(Fair and Geyer, 1963).
In addition to reacting with water and ammonia, chlorine
will also react with organic matter in the sewage, thereby
reducing the BOD but also forming complex organic chloramines.
Certain of these compounds are possible health hazards.
Free and combined available chlorine compounds at varying
concentrations are toxic to aquatic organisms. Examples of
the effects of various concentrations of chlorine residuals
on various fish types are listed in Table 1-1 (Brungs, 1973;
Becker and Thatcher, 1973). The recommended safe level for
chlorine residuals in warm-water aquatic systems is 0.01 mg/1
(Brungs, 1975). Assuming a river flow rate of 2.93 MGD the
(7-day, once in 10-year low flow), and the effluent discharge
of 1.5 mgd, the required residual chlorine concentration in
the effluent, to keep the stream chlorine concentration below
0.01 mg/1, would be approximately 0.03 mg/1. For the 3.0 MGD
facility, effluent chlorine concentrations of below 0.02 mg/1
would be required.
Reduction of chlorine residuals in sewage effluents may
be accomplished by various methods, including aeration, sulfur
dioxide addition, or granular activated carbon filtration.
Aerating the chlorinated effluent for 15 minutes to 8 hours
will reduce the concentrations of various related compounds
including elemental chlorine (C12), hypochlorous acid (HOC1),
1-6
-------
"* dichloramine (NHC19), and tr ichloramine (NCI ) (Fair and Geyer,
* ^ J>
1963; Hinde Engineering, 1975). Monochloramine, which is an
important chlorine residual, is not removed. Consequently,
the resulting residual chlorine concentration in the effluent
is difficult to estimate without actual operating data. Aeration
does not remove complex organic chloramines, but it increases
the dissolved oxygen concentration in the effluent.
Sulfur dioxide addition is also a suitable technique for
dechlorination. Sulfur dioxide reacts with chlorine to form
sulfuric and hydrochloric acids; consequently, a provision
for pH adjustment should be provided. Sulfur dioxide in the
gaseous state is dissolved in the chlorinated effluent until
the concentration of SO exceeds that of the residual chlorine.
At residual chlorine concentrations of 2 and 4 mg/1, approxi-
mately 37.5 and 62.6 pounds per day of S0~are required. A
relatively short contact time of ten minutes is required.
The resulting residual chlorine concentration should be less
than 0.01 mg/1. Complex organic chloramines are not removed
by the addition of sulfur dioxide. Furthermore, chlorides
and sulfates, as end products of the method, are left in the
effluent. The increase of total dissolved solids load from
this method ranges from 300 to 600 pounds per day as compared
to the TDS load to 14,930 pounds per day of the plant at flow
rate of 3 MGD.
Granular activated carbon may also be used for dechlori-
nation. It is more commonly used to absorb organic matter
and other compounds responsible for BOD and odor. Certain
types of activated carbon systems, such as downflow units,
1-7
-------
also act as filters and remove suspended solids. Filtration
may clog the downflow units and the BOD in the effluent may
encourage the growth of microorganisms on the carbon. Back-
washing of the downflow units reduces clogging and biological
accumulations. Countercurrent upflow units do not clog, hence
do not require backwashing. Absorption is a non-consumptive
surface phenomenon, and the carbon can be regenerated and
reused. In dechlorination, the chlorine is absorbed by the
pores in the carbon granules and reacts with the carbon to
produce carbon dioxide gas and hydrochloric acid. Therefore,
in this process, carbon is consumed.
Activated carbon systems are more complicated and expensive
to construct and operate than either aeration or sulfur dioxide
units. A capital cost comparison of aeration, sulfur dioxide,
and granular activated carbon dechlorination systems is presented
in Table 1-3. A sulfur dioxide system has the lowest capital
cost; the aeration units, depending on electrical rates, should
have the lowest operating costs. Aerating systems, however,
do accomplish the necessary goal of increasing the dissolved
oxygen concentration in the effluent. A combined system using
aeration and sulfur dioxide might be very cost-effective. The
aeration time required to raise the dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion is less than the aeration time necessary to dechlorinate.
Assuming that the effluent prior to discharge has a dissolved
oxygen concentration of. 1 mg/1 and that the final effluent must
have 5 mg/1, then 4 mg/1 or approximately 50 pounds of oxygen
per day must be added. A typical design figure for aeration
units is four pounds of oxygen transferred per horse power
1-8
-------
hour. At this rate, approximately 96 pounds of oxygen per
day could be provided by a one horse power unit.
Allowing for BOD, residual dissolved oxygen requirements,
and continuous supply regulation, 2, two-horse power units
would be needed. With a one hour detention time (instead
of 8 hours), this system should be able to meet dissolved
oxygen requirements. For dechlorination, sulfur dioxide could
be fed into the tank using the air bubbles for mixing. This
hydrid system is more expensive than the single dechlorination
system, such as aeration or sulfur dioxide addition, but it
appears to be the least expensive dual purpose system.
The dechlorination capacity depends on the residual chlorine
concentration in the chlorinated wastewater. A pH of 7, a
temperature of 21^3, a final residual chlorine concentration
of 0.01 mg/1- and loading of,l gpm flows/ft, of carbon are
assumed for the purpose of subsequent calculations. Using
these assumptions, the dechlorinating life of 1042 cubic feet
of granular activated carbon for incoming residual chlorine
concentration of 2 and 4 mg/1 is 5.3 and 1.7 years, respectively,
TABLE 1-3. Costs of Various Dechlorination Processes
CapItaI~Cost~in~$ ~0perating ~Co st
Process (1.5 MOD plant) in $/1000 gal.
Aeration 150,000 -------
Sulfur Dioxide 50,000 .016
Granular Activated 300,000 jll
Carbon
Combined Aeration, 80,000 .016+
Sulfur Dioxide
Hinde Engineering Corporation, 1975
1-9
-------
Many complex organic compounds including chlorinated
forms will be absorbed into the carbon surface. The resulting
effect on the dechlorinating ability of the carbon should not
be significant and the overall quality of the final effluent
should be improved.
Use of ozone as a disinfectant as compared to conventional
chlorination and dechlorination is increasing for a number of
reasons. Ozone is a highly effective disinfectant and leaves no
residuals and no dissolved solids. In addition to the bacterial
kills, ozone treatment can purge virus particles and pollutants,
such as surfactants, that survive treatment with chlorine.
Coin (1969) has reported that a little more than 3 minutes
of ozone treatment, with 0.4 milligrams of ozone per liter
of water, kills all three types of polio virus. Ozone is also
capable of higher reduction of residual BOD and total organic
carbon (TOC) than carbon absorption polishing, and is fully
cost competitive. Furthermore, ozone is more effective than
chlorine against the major taste-and-odor causing compounds,
such as phenols and amines. Chlorination merely converts these
into compounds that are less resistant to oxidation (Envi_£_on-
m.e-0.*i?A Sc^ejT^e^a^d^Tji^h^o^ojgy' 1970)- The shorter half-life
(20 minutes) of ozone in water, as compared to chlorine, limits
its application because it provides no residual protection
against contamination. This problem, quite pertinent to the
treatment of drinking water, apparently does not exist in the
treatment of secondary effluent.
In the process of ozonating effluent considerable amounts
of air or oxygen are introduced into the waste, thus increasing
1-10
-------
* the dissolved oxygen level of the receiving stream. Therefore,
if the ozonation process were to be adopted for the project,
the post-aeration process could be eliminated.
The two major inputs for a typical ozonation system are
air or oxygen, and electricity. The air usually is first
cleaned by filtration, its moisture removed by a refrigerative
unit, and further conditioned by an air absorptive dryer prior
to ozonation. Electrodes 20,000 volts are used to produce a
corona in the air supply to generate ozone. The concentration
of ozone generated is approximately 1 percent per volume of
air. If pure oxygen is used as the feed gas, the ozone output
can be increased to 2 percent by volume. A contact chamber
or ozone tower is used to affect the transfer of ozone from
the gas phase to the water phase.
The typical operation costs for ozonation systems are
approximately 3 to 4 cents per 1,000 gallons of water, which
is about 3 to 4 times higher than those for chlorination-
dechlorination systems, which cost 0.9 to 1.0 cent per 1,000
gallons of water. The cost estimates for the ozonation systems
are nearly all based on dosages of 5 mg/1 or less. By using
dry air as the feed gas, costs could be reduced to about 1.3
cents per 1,000 gallons of water (Collins and Deaner, 1975).
The capital costs of 2 ozonation units for a 1.5 MGD sewage
treatment plant range from $500,000 to $1,000,000 (PCI Ozone
Company, 1975).
1-11
-------
2. Aroroon^a
a- Aquatic Impacts
Cell membranes are relatively impermeable to the ionized
form of ammonia (NH ), but undissociated species (NH3) can
readily cross cellular barriers (Milne et al., 1974). Tabata
(1962 as cited in Thurston et a!L. , 1974) attributes some degree
of toxicity to invertebrates and fishes to the NH species.
Elis (1968 as cited by Ohio Fish and Wildlife Service,
Faulkner, 1975) has found that exposing carp to sublethal
concentrations of undissociated ammonia in the ranges of 0.11
and 0.34 mg/1 caused rather extensive decay and tissue disin-
tegration in various organs. Robinette (1974 as cited by McKim
et al. , 1975) conducted laboratory experiments with channel
catfish fingerlings to evaluate the effects of sublethal con-
centrations of ammonia. He found that there was a significant
growth reduction at 0.12 and 0.13 ppm of ammonia. Further
studies indicated that there was no significant difference
in the oxygen uptake between the control and experimental
fish. Microscopic evaluation of the gills of the fish revealed
that all fish exhibited hyperplasia (an abnormal increase
in the number of cells of a tissue or organ). The fish that
were exposed to the highest, concentrations of sublethal un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen displayed the greatest degree of
hyperplasia.
Table 1-4 presents the percentage of undissociated aqueous
ammonia that could be present in the plant's discharge at the
various pH ranges possible for the effluent. These percentages
are based on the equilibrium constants for dissolved undissociated
1-12
-------
ammonia and the ammonium ion, NH . The relative percentage
of these species is also governed by the water's temperature.
Table 1-4. The Percent Distribution of Aqueous Ammonia
Species at Various pH Values and Temperatures
Species
NH
. nH 0 aqueous
NH+4
NH
NH
2' n H20 aqueous
+4
pH
7
0
99
0
99
value
.566
.434
.273
.727
7
1
98
0
99
.5
.77
.23
.859
.141
7.
2.
97.
1.
98.
7
77
23
35
65
Temperature
8 in oC
5
94
2
97
.38
.62
.67
.33
25
25
15
15
Source: Thurston et al., (1974)
The pH value recorded by Olive (1971) for the Olentangy
River near Powell Road was 9.5. The effluent's pH values
from the plant, according to its permit, can range from 6
to 9. The pH value of the effluent will, of course, vary,
but it will usually be near a pH of 7 or slightly higher.
At the initial 1.5 MGD capacity, the plant effluent would
contribute 33 percent of the flow in the river during a low
flow period. The effluent plume, then, would experience a
pH increase from 7 to 8 upon mixing with the river water.
As shown in Table 1-4, the percentage of aqueous undissoci-
ated ammonia will increase almost by a factor of 10 when the
pH value is raised from 7 to 8 at both the 15°C and 25°C tem-
peratures. These two temperatures are within the range commonly
experienced by the river'. The increase of the aqueous undis-
sociated ammonia, the toxic form of NH3, by a factor of 10
when the pH changes from 7 to 8 does not necessarily mean
1-13
-------
that the plume's toxicity to the fish will be increased 10
times. This relationship is not definitely known, but this
increase indicates that the fish within the mixing zone of
the effluent plume would be more likely to be harmed than
would fish outside the mixing zone.
When the plant's capacity is expanded to 3 MGD, the plant's
effluent would contribute 51 percent of the river's flow during
a low flow condition. The plant effluent plume would undergo
a pH increase from 7 to 7.74 when mixing with river water at
a pH of 8.5. As shown in Table 1-4 this would increase the
percentage of aqueous undissociated ammonia by a factor of
5 at both the 15°C and 25°C temperatures.
The zone of the river downstream in which complete effluent
plume and river water mixing has occurred would have the undis-
sociated ammonia species present at the increased pH levels
described above. This portion of the river would have complete
cross channel mixing of the effluent and therefore the fish
in the downstream stretch of the river would be exposed to
increased concentrations of the toxic form of ammonia, the
undissociated ammonia species. Because at the initial level
of capacity of the plant, 1.5 MGD, this harmful species of
ammonia would increase by a factor of 10 from the point of
discharge, the potential for damage to the fish of the river
would be significant. The most abundant and desirable fish
population would be exposed to potentially damaging levels
of ammonia within this zone of completely mixed effluent and
water .
1-14
-------
Because of the toxicity of ammonia to fish, the European
Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC, 1970 and 1973,
as cited by Thurston et a^., 1974) has recommended a water
quality standard of not greater than 0.025 ppm of undissociated
ammonia. At a temperature of
25° C and a pH of 8, the total ammonia concentration
necessary for a level of 0.025 mg/1 of undissociated am-
monia is 0.164 mg/1. As indicated above, at the initial
1.5 MGD stage, the treatment plant would discharge, upon
effluent plume dilution, 0.51 mg/1 of total ammonia. If
this concentration of undissociated ammonia approximates
a correct safety level, then during a low flow river period
and under these temperature and pH conditions, the fish in
the river could suffer adverse impacts from the effluent's
ammonia concentrations and the plume's complete mixing further
downstream. Upon final expansion of the plant to the 3 MGD
capacity, with a 0.76 mg/1 total ammonia level in the stream
below effluent discharge the plant effluent pH increase upon
mixing would experience a pH increase from 7 to 7.74, and
the possibility for damage to the fish of the river from
undissociated ammonia would persist. The Olentangy River can
experience a temperature increase of up 30 C (Faulkner, 1975).
At this temperature and with the plume pH at 7.74, a total
ammonia concentration of 1.00 mg/1 would contain the 0.025
mg/1 of the undissociated ammonia which EIFAC identified as
critical to fish.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Chapter 6) recom-
mends a level of 0.02 mg/1 of undissociated ammonia to protect
1-15
-------
fish and other aquatic life. This concentration is even lower
than those previously discussed. In considering this recom-
mended standard and the worst river conditions of 30°C, river
low flow, and an effluent plume pH increase up to 8.0 for
the 1.5 MGD capacity, the plant could only discharge 0.79
mg/1 of total ammonia to achieve a 0.27 mg/1 concentration
and, upon dilution, maintain a level of concentration of
undissociated ammonia at or below 0.02 mg/1. Under these
same conditions and with a capacity of 3 MGD, the plant could
only discharge 0.53 mg/1 of total ammonia to produce a concen-
tration of 0.27 mg/1 total ammonia which, upon dilution, would
achieve the 0.02 mg/1 recommended concentration of undissociated
ammonia.
Further research upon the effects of ammonia on fish is
needed. Thurston (1975) reports that the amount of data on
the effects of ammonia upon both cold and warmwater fish
species is so limited that an accurate assessment of the
impacts from this proposed project cannot now be made.
1-16
-------
Table 1-5 compares various nitrogen removal processes.
The biological processes include nitrification, anaerobic
denitrification, and algae harvesting. The nitrification pro-
cess utilizes autotrophic bacteria of the genera Ni.t£osqmonas
and Nitr_obacto£ to oxidize ammonia to nitrate. The nitrates
are then reduced to nitrogen gas by a number of facilitative
bacteria including the genera Pseudomqnas and Baci^us. Methanol
is required as a supplementary source of carbon for the denitri-
fication process in which nitrates are reduced to elemental
nitrogen. A retention time of approximately 10 days in the
anaerobic denitrification unit is normally required (Eliassen
and Tchobanoglous, 1969).
Nitrogen in wastewaters may be removed by algae which are
grown at the maximum sustainable rates in specially designed
shallow ponds. Presumably, algae absorb nitrogen nutrients
from the wastewater and use them for growth of cell tissue.
It is necessary to supplement the waste with carbon dioxide
and carbon source such as methanol to achieve complete nitrogen
removal. The process involves a large land area, and costs
are incurred associated with harvesting and disposal of the
algae.
Chemical methods include ammonia stripping, ion exchange,
electrodialysis, and breakpoint chlorination. In the ammonia
stripping method, the pH value of the wastewater is adjusted
to 10 or above the water is agitated in the presence of air.
By this method more than 85 percent of the ammonia nitrogen
is released as a gas. This generally is done in a packed tray
1-17
-------
CO
cu
CO
CO
cu
o
o
J-I
PM
cfl
>
§
60
o
rl
4J
•rl
(5
O
en
•H
M
cfl
§•
o
m
i
H
0)
CU
4-1
cfl
•r-f
4J
en
W
rH
CO
o
S
cu
en
^j
CO
B
QJ
CU
ea <4-i
O
o
H T3
CU
CO CO
QJ O
4J ft
en en
cfl -H
C5 Q
rH
CO
00
c
•H 0
O
4J O
CO rH
o -~-
O 0
>> 4-1
0 C
C cu
QJ O
•H S-l
a 01
•H ft
U-l
<4H (3
W -H
eo
CO
cfl
rH
O
en
en
CU
O
o
M
PH
cu
00
""U
3
rH
CO
o
rH
1
ro
0
m
1
0
CO
rH
cfl
o
•H
60
O
rH
O
•H
PQ
rH
cfl
O
•H
00
O
H
O
•H
pq
rH
§£
O CU
•H S
4J 4-1
(i CO
Q) QJ
^ M
a H
O
a
QJ
a
o
a
o
•
ro
1
in
CN
in
ON
1
O
*sO
cfl
O
•H
60
O
rH
O
•H
m
0
•H
rQ
o
QJ
Cfl
rt
CH
o
•H
4-1
CO
O
•H
14H
•H
rH
4J
•H
C
QJ
Q
T3
QJ
13
CU
Q)
C
cfl
CU
cfl
•X)
C
cfl
rH
CU
60
VH
Cfl
T3
e
cfl QJ
00
*"O *"O
•H 3
3 rH
cr en
•H
H
in
•
CT)
1
O
CN
O
ON
1
o
m
rH
cfl
o
•rl
00
o
0
•H
pq
00
H
•rl
4J
en
QJ
M
cfl
w
cu
cfl
60
rH
<
G
O
13
CU
CO
CO
,0
^
a
a
cu
•H
o
•H
m
4H
w
1
1
in
•
CN
1
O\
O
00
o*»
1
o
00
rH
cfl
O
•H
^
QJ
6
00
•rl
ft
ft
•H
M
4J
C/}
cfl
•H
e
o
^»
r— |
c
o
c
0)
00
o
4J
•H
C
ca
•H
c
o
£j-
p
to
4J
""^ C-J
c ^
QJ 8
Pu ^~*
QJ cd
13 JU
S-l
4-1 •*-*
en Q)
O "
CJ ft
rrt 4-)
c o
cfl n^
cu
>> QJ
O ^
C 00
cu QJ
•H 13
0 _
•H C
u-i o
IH
W
id
•H
3
cr
•H
rH
o
ro
I
rH
CN
ON
1
O
00
(_|
cO
O
•H
g
01
cu
00
G
cfl
^
0
X
W
C
O
H
CO
•H
, — |
O
-a co
00
B B
ft
O ft
rH
1 O
rH O
O
C i-l
o
«\
13 ^
CU 4-1
CO -H
cfl O
,Q CO
ft
4-1 CO
Cfl O
O
*rj
•H
3
cr
•H
m
CN
1
O
rH
O
m
i
o
ro
rH
cO
O
•H
6
CO
•H
CO
rH
Cfl
•rl
13
O
4J
O
0)
rH
W
13
•H
3
cr
•rl
rH
O
•
PH
C
O
•H
4J
CO
rH
rH
•H
4-1
en
•H
o
ON
vD
ON
en
o
tH
00
O
•g
J=
o
H
13
C
CO
g
CO
ca
cO
•H
rH
w
QJ
a
rH
3
O
CO
1-18
-------
> tower equipped with an air blower. This process causes air
pollution problems by the release of ammonia gas and ammonium
sulfate aerosols. Calcium carbonate is deposited within the
treatment tower as a product of the use of lime (CuO) to control
pH (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969).
Ion exchange is a unit process in which ions of a given
species are displaced from an insoluble exchange material
(resin) by ions of different species from wastewater. With
the use of resin as an anion exchanger, anionic nitrogen com-
pounds can be removed efficiently. In this process, however,
material tends to foul the resin by selective absorption on
the resin particles. To make ion exchange economical for tertiary
treatment, it is desirable to use regenerants and restorants
that remove both the inorganic anions and the organic material
from the spent resin (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969).
Electrodialysis uses an induced electric current to separate
the cationic and anionic components in the wastewater by means
of selective membranes. Membrane fouling is the major problem
with the electrodialysis. Acidification of the wastewater is
required to reduce membrane fouling (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous,
1969) .
Breakpoint chlorination provides a selective means for
ammonia removal. The process was discussed in the previous
section on chlorine. The. end products of the process are
chiefly gaseous elemental nitrogen and small amounts of nitrate
and nuisance residual of nitrogen trichloride. Neutralization
of the excess acids produced with proper mixing during the pro-
cess is required to reduce the formation of nitrogen trichloride
1-19
-------
(Presley et al., 1972). The advantage of breakpoint chlor-
ination is that removal of ammonia and disinfection of effluent
can be achieved in one process.
The physical methods of nitrogen removal include reverse
osmosis and distillation (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969).
Reverse osmosis involves the enforced passage of water through
cellulose acetate membranes against the natural osmotic pressure.
This method has been used for the production of fresh water
from salt water. A major problem associcated with reverse osmo-
sis for desalinization is membrane fouling. In the application
of this method to wastewater treatment, pretreatment of the
water with sand filtration will reduce membrane fouling.
Distillation involves vaporization of wastewater by heating
and subsequent condensation of water vapor. In practice, a vari-
ety of different processes exists, such as flash distillation,
differential distillation, and steam distillation. They are
all quite expensive.
The efficiency of nitrogen removal and its costs are shown
in Table 1-5. In order to reduce the total ammonia concentra-
tion from 1.5 mg/1 to 0.53 mg/1, removal or conversion of am-
monia to nitrate at an efficiency of at least 65% would be
required for the proposed plant. Distillation provides extremely
high removal at a very high price. Reverse osmosis would provide
appropriate removal, and is also costly. Electrodialysis does
not provide sufficient removal. Algae harvesting is fairly
inexpensive, but requires large land areas. Site OR-3 is limited
by the adjacent floodpalins and highways. It is also desirable
to keep the treatment plant site compact to provide minimal
1-20
-------
v encroachment to the view from the Highbanks bluffs. Ammonia
tf
stripping provides a very high degree of removal, but has
undesirable air pollution effects. Ion exchange provides
removal in excess of the minimum 65% for this facility, but
has a fairly high cost. Anaerobic denitification provides
appropriate removal at a reasonable cost.
The most cost-effective choice is therefore anaerobic
denitrification. More recent cost estimates indicate the
following values for ananerobic denitrification:
Table 1-6. Cost for Anerobic Denitrification
Plant Size (MGD) Capital (C/1000 gal-) 0 & M (C/100 gal.)
1.5 3.5 4.6
3.0 2.4 3.7
(EPA, July 1975).
1-21
-------
-------
APPENDIX J
VISABILITY ANALYSIS
The following 16 figures describe vertical profiles of the landscape
in 16 different directions from the proposed site. Figure 41 on page 262
describes the direction and extent of each profile. Each of the pro-
files in this appendix shows the proposed STP on the left. The placement
of the STP in no way affects the accuracy of the determined limits of
visability.
J-l
-------
O)
900 '
890 '
880 '
870
860 '
850 •
840
830 -
820
810
800 -
790
780
770
760
750
limits of
visibility
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
4000
PROFILE 1
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-2
-------
limits of
visibility
-------
zone of
restricted
visibility
-p
OJ
c
c
o
0)
"«
930.
920 .
910 .
900 .
890 .
880
870'
860-
850
840 •
830-
820-
810 •
800-
790-
780-
770-
760'
750-
/
1
limits of
visibility
with foliage
winter
limits of
visibility
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
4000
PROFILE 3
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-4
-------
limits of
vi sibil ity
930 -
920 .
910 .
900 .
890 •
880
870
| 860 H
c 850
o 840
OJ
cu
830
820 -I
810
800
790
780
770 1
760
750 J
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
4000
PROFILE 4
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-5
-------
940
930
920
910
900
890
880
870
850 -I
o 840
-P
-------
limits of
visibility
O)
930
920
910-
900 -
890-
880
870
860
850
§ 840 i
•i—
5 830
QJ
« 820 -
810 -
800 -
790-
780-
770-
760-
750-
/
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
4000
PROFILE 6
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-7
-------
limits of
visibility
01
O)
930
920 i
910
900-
890'
880
870-
860 '
850-
840'
830'
820-
810"
800-
790-
780-
770-
760'
750
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
4000
PROFILE 7
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-8
-------
o
o
o
O
O
O
in
O O)
O 0)
O <4-
c
to
O
O
O
CO
O
O
O
OJ
QJ
to
— i —
o
en
1 —
o
o
cr>
— i —
0
CTl
oo
— — \ —
§
oo
r~~
o
I--
co
— 1 —
o
CO
*
~~~1 —
O
un
oo
391
o
CO
UL U'
•
0
CO
OUB/
— i —
o
CM
CO
\aia
i
0
CO
— ~I —
0
o
CO
I
o
cr>
^
— 1 1 —
o o
CO r-,
r-. r-.
o
<£>
r~-
o
LO
"^
tn
r-.
CTi
O
c
o
o
o
o
s-
d)
O
oo
J-9
-------
O •!-
V) •!—
4-> -Q
o
O
o
LT>
O
O
O
CD
0)
OJ
O C
O tO
O r-
ro Q.
O)
0)
CTi
Lul
g
D-
O
O
O
CM
O
0)
0
C
03
ON
o
c
2
o
C_3
O
o
co
00
o
CM
00
O
CO
o
o
CO
o
en
o
tn
UL
cu
u
S-
zs
o
oo
J-10
-------
930.
920-
910-
900-
890-
880-
870-
860 -
850 -
840 -
830 -
I 820 -I
OJ
0)
c
o
-------
winter
limits of
v i s i b i1i ty
930
920
910 1
900
890 1
880
870
860
I 850 -
•^ 840 .
c
£ 830 ,
J 820 .
0)
810 .
800 .
790 .
780 .
770 -
760-
750-
limits of
visibility
with foliage
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
PROFILE 11
4000
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-12
-------
a;
930
920
910
900'
890-
880-
870
8601
850
840'
830-
18201
8101
800
790
780'
770'
760'
750 J
limits of
vi sibility
1000 2000 3000
distance from treatment plant in feet
PROFILE 12
4000
Source: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-13
-------
0)
930
920
910
900
890
880
870
860
850
• 840
c
£ 830
-------
930
920
910-
900
890-
880-
870-
s860"
^850"
•r~
§840-
•i—
^8301
cu
^820-
810-
800-
790-
780-
770-
760 .
750.
winter
limits of
v i s i b i1i ty
limits of
visibility
with foliage
1000 2000 3000 4000
distance from treatment plant in feet
5000
PROFILE 14
ource: Enviro Control, Inc., 1975
J-15
-------
930
920
910
900
890
880
870
£860
cu
c850
§840
*r*
5830
Ol
810
800
790
780
770
760
750
winter
limits of
visibilit
limits of
visibility
1000 2000 3000 4000
distance from treatment plant in feet
5000
PROFILE 15
Source: Enviro Control, Inc.
J-16
-------
o
o
•o
00
o
o
o
CD
o
o
o
O +->
o c
IT) 1C
c
OJ
o
O E
o o
OJ
u
o
o;
O-
o
ro
CO
o
CXJ
CO
—I—
o
CO
o
o
CO
o
Ol
o
co
—I—
o
o
s~
o
S-
OJ
------- |