Environmental Impact Statement Olentangy Environmental Control Center And Interceptor System Draft

                      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

-------
     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

-------
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
-------