FINAL

     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                   FOR

  CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES


              AUSTIN,  TEXAS

               WPC-Tex-824

      IMPACT STATEMENT NUMBER 7104
               Prepared By

OFFICE OF GRANTS COORDINATION, REGION VI
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              DALLAS,  TEXAS
                            Arthur W. Busch
                        Regional Administration

                             May 26, 1972

-------
                 FINAL


     ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT


                   FOR


  CONSTRUCTION  OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES



             AUSTIN, TEXAS


               WPC-Tex-824


      IMPACT STATEMENT NUMBER  7104
               Prepared By


OFFICE OF GRANTS  COORDINATION,  REGION VI
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
              DALLAS,  TEXAS
                            APPROVED BY:
                               ^/V//v
                            Arthur  W.  Busch
                        Regional  Administration

                             May  26,  1972

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                               Page
SUMMARY
  I.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION                          1

      A.  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT               1

          1.  Population Trends and Projections                   4

          2.  Land-use Trends and Projections                     4

          3.  Character of the City of Austin                     7

          4.  Terrain                                             8

          5.  Geology                                             9

          6.  Water Resources and Water Quality                  11

      B.  DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT                                 13

          1.  Tunnel                                             15

          2.  Treatment Facilities                               18

          3.  Site Preparation                                   26

          4.  Architectural Considerations                       30

          5.  Electrical and Instrumentation                     31

 II.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION                    32

HI.  ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED                    38

 IV.  ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION                        44

      A.  TUNNEL                                                 44

      B.  TREATMENT PLANT                                        45

  V.  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S
      ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
      LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY                                     55

 VI.  IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
      WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD
      IT BE IMPLEMENTED                                          57
                                    TC-1

-------
                                                                Page

 VII.  PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE,
       AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND
       INDIVIDUALS                                               58

VIII.  CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY        63
 APPENDIX NO. 1

       COMMENTS ON DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT

 APPENDIX NO. 2

       HEARINGS
                  I
 TABLES

       TABLE 1  -  PRETREATMENT FACILITIES - DESIGN CRITERIA

       TABLE 2  -  BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT LIQUID PROCESS -
                   DESIGN CRITERIA

       TABLE 3  -  BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - SOLIDS DISPOSAL

       TABLE 4  -  COMPARISON OF COSTS - TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVES

       TABLE 5  -  ESTIMATED EFFLUENT QUALITY

 FIGURES

       FIGURE 1A  -  PROJECT LOCATION

       FIGURE 1   -  LOCATION MAP

       FIGURE 2   -  POPULATION

       FIGURE 3   -  BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT - GENERAL LAYOUT

       FIGURE 4   -  SCHEMATIC OF CROSSTOWN INTERCEPTOR AND
                     WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

       FIGURE 5   -  WALNUT CREEK RATING CURVE

       FIGURE 6   -  WIND ROSE

       FIGURE 7   -  CAPITAL COST COMPARISON - WASTEWATER
                     INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVES

       FIGURE 8   -  MAP OF EXISTING PLATTED SUBDIVISIONS IN THE VICINITY
                     OF THE WALNUT CREEK TREATMENT PLANT
                                     TC-2

-------
                          SUMMARY

                                  (  )  DRAFT    (X) FINAL


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF GRANTS COORDINATION

1.  Name of Action.  Construction of wastewater interception

and treatment facilities for the City of Austin,  Texas

(WPC-Tex-824). ' Pending action is the approval of plans

and specifications for the tunnel interceptor.

        Administrative Action (X)    Legislative Action  ( )

2.  Brief Description of Action.  A grant offer has been

made to the City of Austin contingent upon preparation of

an acceptable Environmental Impact Statement.  The grant offer

was made on September 28, 1971, and accepted on October 18,

1971.  The grant amount, $16,004,450, is based on total

construction costs of $29,099,000, all of which is eligible

for federal participation.



Eligible work consists of the construction of a deep tunnel

interceptor and the enlargement of an existing wastewater

treatment plant.  The tunnel will intercept wastewater flows

from existing and proposed interceptor flows and convey them

to the proposed wastewater treatment plant.



For the continuation of the project, the approval of the plans

and specifications for the tunnel interceptor by the Environ-

mental Protection Agency is required.  The plans and

-------
specifications for construction of the crosstown tunnel



interceptor have been approved by the Texas Water Quality



Board and have been submitted to the Regional EPA office.



3.  Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental



Effects.  Lake Austin and Town Lake are sources of municipal



water supply  (City of Austin) .  The project will relieve over-



loaded trunk sewers tributary to the Govalle Wastewater



Treatment Plant "and will reduce peak flows to the plant to



permit additional sewer service to the undeveloped Govalle



Treatment Plant service area - all at a minimum expense to



the City.  Since present wastewater overflows cause a detriment



to the environment, especially to the tributary creeks, Lake



Austin, Town Lake, and the Colorado River, the proposed project



will abate such existing conditions.








The proposed Walnut Creek enlargement has design features which



assure complete treatment of all flows, even at times of peak



wet weather flows, thereby alleviating the periodic overflows



of untreated wastewater to the Colorado River System.  All



treated wastewater flows presently discharge below Town Lake.








Minor adverse effects on the environment due to the construction



and operation of a larger treatment plant at the Walnut Creek



site will be offset by the benefits to be derived from more



complete and modern treatment facilities.  The existing
                            11

-------
treatment facilities consist of aerated wastewater lagoons



and stabilization ponds, with no discharge to surface water.



The expanded treatment facilities will be constructed at the



existing plant site; however, treatment requirements will require



the conversion of this site to a more permanent type of treatment



plant, and the land essentially becomes irrecoverable for other



land uses.  This is a basic and unaviodable effect because a



modern wastewater treatment plant must be built somewhere if



the public is to be properly served and current local, State,



and Federal demands and regulations are to be complied with.








The adverse effects during construction will be minimal due to



the construction scheme of the interceptor as a tunnel.  The



construction of the new facilities on the existing plant site



will minimize adverse effects from the construction operations.








The tunnel construction will permit the use of blasting.  The



magnitude of blasting will be limited to prevent adverse surface



effects.  The tunnel construction will be through subsurface



faults.  These faults are dormant and potential problems are



improbable.  The provisions for the plant construction have



considered attentuation of noise levels and odor control schemes



to minimize the detriments of wastewater treatment plant



operation.  Modifications to Walnut Creek to improve the



hydraulic regime will require clearing of small trees and brush



ground cover which will be designed to result in a park-like



area.
                            111

-------
4.  Alternatives Considered.  Numerous alternatives for the



project have been considered and are summarized below:



    Location of Plant



    1.  Expansion of the existing Govalle Plant to accommodate




        design flows.



    2.  Interception of flows at upstream points on trunk sewers



        and diversion to Walnut Creek site. (Method Selected)



    3.  Locating "the proposed treatment facilities at a more




        remote site near Hornsby Bend.



    Location of  Interceptor



    1.  Three preliminary tunnel routes were investigated and



        one of these routes was refined for design.  (Method




        Selected)



    2.  Relief of overloaded -outfall sewers by using parallel



        relief sewers to the Govalle Plant was investigated  in



        conjuction with the alternative to further develop the



        Govalle  site.



    Treatment Process



    1.  Biological treatment with effluent filtration.  (Method




        Selected)



    2.  Physical chemical treatment.



    Sludge Disposal



    1.  Dewatering and land fill.



    2.  Lagooning with pilot irrigation studies.  (Biological




        only)(Method Selected)



    3.  Waste lime recalcination and disposal of waste  ash.




         (Physical/Chemical only)
                               IV

-------
5.  List of all Federal, State and Local Agencies from which

Comments have been received.



CITY OF AUSTIN

     Curtis E. Johnson, Director
       Water & Wastewater Department
       City of Austin
     Mathews, Leeds, Hill, Jewett,
       Bryant, and Currington
     Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers
     S. A. Garza, C. E.
     Capitol Area Planning Council
     Freese, Nichols & Endress


FEDERAL AGENCIES

     Forest Service
     Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
     Army Corps of Engineers
     Soil Conservation Service
     Geological Survey


STATE AGENCIES

     Office of the Governor
     Texas Air Control Board
     State Department of Health
     Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
     Texas Water Quality Board
     Texas Highway Department
     Texas Water Rights Commission
     Forest Service
     State Soil & Water Conservation
       Board
     Texas Water Development Board


INDIVIDUALS & PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS

     Sierra Club, Austin, Texas Group
     R. M. Dixon Water Consultant
     Citizens in opposition to the
       proposed Walnut Creek Sewer
       Plant  (Petition of 160 persons)
     Mrs. F. K. Eidelbach
                              v

-------
6.  The Draft Environmental  Impact Statement was made  avail-



    able to the Council on Environmental Quality on  February  4,



    1972.  The Final Environmental Impact  Statement  was  made



    available to the Council on  Environmental  Quality  on May  26,



    1972.
                            VI

-------
I.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
    A-  Environmental Setting
    This project, located in Austin, Texas, involves the Colorado
River (of Texas) System having a drainage area of 41,800 sq. miles,
of which 39,900 sq. miles are in Texas.  The headwaters are north-
west of Lubbock, Texas, and flow in a southeasterly direction,
discharging into the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of Matagorda.
Hence, this river system, originating in the arid area of west
Texas, has extreme natural water quality variations generally
characteristic of the local area - i.e., high mineral character-
istics in the upper reaches to very acceptable and good quality
characteristics in the lower reaches.
    The Colorado River is probably one of the leading examples of
almost ultimate full development of a river basin flow by the
construction of dams from mouth to headwaters.  Figure 1A shows
the Colorado River Basin in its relation to the State of Texas
and also the location of existing and proposed dams.  It will
be noted that there are six upstream dams and reservoirs in the
immediate area.  These facilities were constructed and are
maintained and operated by the Lower Colorado River Authority
(LCRA).
    As a consequence, the water supply sources for present and
future growth of Austin are practically unlimited.  Also, the
control of excessive flood waters detrimentally affecting the
Austin environment is most remote.  Finally, the attraction of
these reservoirs - referred to generally as the Highland Lakes
System -- for recreational uses is tremendous. Austin, being the major

-------
municipality in this lake system, realizes all of these and


other fringe area benefits and is, therefore, most water conscious


and eager to maintain, protect, and improve upon these attributes.


    This project reflects the attitude and dedication of the City


to assure the maintenance of high quality water in the Colorado


River system while, at the same time, providing the necessary


wastewater utility facilities to provide for the obvious future
                •

growth and to have these facilities available and in operation


prior to the creation of critical and unsatisfactory water


quality conditions.


    As will be described more fully later, the City of Austin


presently is served by three wastewater treatment plants.  The


Govalle Plant is the major one, providing secondary treatment


including chlorination of the final effluent prior to discharge


to the Colorado River.  This plant presently treats about 85


percent of the total 28 mgd wastewater flow.  Another plant is


located at the Williamson Creek site and treats about 1.5 mgd


with final discharge to large stabilization ponds  (245.7 acres)


after mechanical aeration.  There is no discharge to surface


waters from this plant.


    The third plant is the Walnut Creek Plant, similar in nature


to the Williamson Creek Plant, and presently treating about 1.8.


mgd.  Existing facilities occupy about 100 acres of the  300 acres


at the site.  The facilities include bar screen and comminutor,


parshall flume, two 150' x 150' aeration tanks with mechanical


aerators plus the air discharge from blowers providing forced


draft ventilation for the Walnut Creek Outfall line to the

-------
plant.  The aeration tanks are followed by two 40 acre



stablization ponds.   The plant has never been loaded to



design capacity; consequently, there has been no discharge



to the receiving stream.  This is the plant which will be



enlarged as proposed in this project.   (Location of the three



 plants is shown on Fig. 1.)



    This project is part of the Highland Lakes System



Comprehensive Wdstewater Study prepared for the Lower Colorado



River Authority and the City of Austin, and financed by the Texas



Water Quality Board, as prepared by Freese, Nichols and Endress,



consulting engineers.  The Highland Lakes System includes an



area which covers portions of nine counties and is specifically



concerned with that portion of the Colorado River Watershed



which extends generally from the head waters of Lake Buchanan



downstream through San Saba, Lampasas, Burnet, Llano, Blanco,



Hays, Travis, and Bastrop Counties.



    There are 35 existing domestic sewerage systems covered by



22 Texas Water Quality Board Domestic Wastewater Discharge



Permits within the study area.  There are 15 existing industrial



wastewater systems covered by 11 Industrial Wastewater Discharge



Permits and there is one proposed fossil fueled power plant for



which a cooling water discharge permit has been granted.  In



addition to the domestic and industrial wastewater systems,



there are approximately 82,000 persons in the study area who




are served by septic tanks.



    The water in the Highland Lakes area, including Lake Austin,



is currently of good quality allowing the lakes to be used

-------
extensively for recreation and water sports.  Town Lake receives



significant amounts of surface run-off pollution and pollution



from overflowing sanitary sewer manholes during wet weather.



There are indications that it also receives some pollution from



septic tank wastewater disposal systems.  The numbers of fecal



coliform bacteria in Town Lake Water are encroaching on the




recommended limit for contact water sports.  The Texas Water



Quality Board is currently engaged in a program to control the



proliferation of septic tanks in the immediate vicinity of lakes



in the Highland Lakes System.



    The project proposed by the City of Austin is included as



part of the recommended improvements in the Highland Lakes



Study.  These improvements have been deemed necessary to prevent



sewer overflows into Town Lake and the Colorado River during



periods of peak wet weather flow.



1.  Population Trends and Projections



    Past and current records of population data for the City of



Austin were analyzed to indicate future projection trends.  The



Master Plan of the City of Austin was utilized to allow future



population projections to be related to planned land-use and



development trends.  Population projections were made for the



years 1985, 2000, and 2020.



2.  Land-use Trends and Projections



    The Master Plan of the City of Austin was published in 1961



and updated by a major revision in 1965.  Subsequent yearly




revisions have kept the Master Plan coherent during a period



of rapid urban growth.

-------
    Planned unit development permits and special property


development permits require an evaluation, including public


hearings, to assure that proposed development conforms to the


Master Plan.


    The City of Austin is physically growing in all directions.


Most rapid developmnt is occurring in the


    a.  Southwest along U. S. Highway 290 in the vicinity of


        the Oak Hill Community,
                i

    b.  South along IH-35, east and south of the industrial


        district, and


    c.  Northwest area, Dry Creek and Bull Creek drainage basins.


    As in most cities with rapid residential, commercial, and


industrial development, physical development within and proximate


to the City limits of Austin is greatly dependent on the City's


ability to provide utilities.


    To estimate future sewerage needs, the present development


of the City of Austin and of areas within reasonable sewer service


limits were studied to determine the type and intensity of land-


use.  Future land-use patterns developed by the City Planning


Department, to be effected by the Master Plan, were incorporated


into the projections of sanitary sewer needs.  Population projec-


tions and future land-use patterns for each major drainage area


were tabulated.  Tabulations were further subdivided for each


subdrainage area.


    Land-uses tabulated for use in estimating wastewater flows


included shopping centers, shopping districts, commercial uses,


manufacturing, central business district, public and semi-public,


and recreation and open areas.

-------
     The proposed tunnel will intercept wastewater flows from



areas north of the tunnel alignment; the existing system will



be modified and expanded to accommodate flows to the south



of the tunnel.



     The projected annual growth for the Bull Creek Basin for



the study period is much greater than for other areas.



     Land-use studies for the Bull Creek Basin reveal that future



development up to ten living units per acre, with a scattering



of commercial development.



     Sewerage needs in this area are expected to increase rapidly



due to accelerated physical growth.  Completion of the new West



Loop will become an impetus for development in the scenic areas



already a prime location for residential land-use.  Projected



population for the year 2020 is 60,000 persons within the



20,745 acres, all of which is either unsewered or served by



septic tanks.



     The Dry Creek Basin is similarly developing into an attractive



residential area.  A population of 15,000 persons has been



projected for the year 2020.



     The crosstown Tunnel has been designed to serve the Dry



Creek Basin and the Bull Creek Basin; however, the collection



system, interceptors, and lift stations must be constructed in



these areas to convey wastewaters to the tunnel.  These facilities

-------
are now in the planning stage and are expected to be constructed



concurrently with the tunnel project but are not a portion of



the eligible work included in the grant offer by the Environmental



Protection Agency.



3.  Character of City of Austin.  Austin is the state capital of



Texas and the county seat of Travis County.  Its metropolitan



area exceeds 1,000 square miles.  The altitude is 550 feet, the



yearly annual ra'infall is 32.6 inches and the mean maximum July



temperature is 95 degrees, and the mean minimum January tempera-



ture is 41 degrees.  The economy is diversified, but is



primarily based upon State and Federal governmental activities,



institutions of higher education and military installations.



Lime, sand, gravel and stone are the principal minerals produced.



There is little heavy industry in Austin.



    Some 350 manufacturers in the Austin area, are engaged in



activities and products such as research and development, office



machines, printing, stone and granite, brick, furniture, trans-



portation equipment, chemicals, fabricated metal, baked goods,



food and dairy products, electronic components, building materials



and boats.  The total payroll for manufacturing firms is about



42 million dollars annually.



    There are 90 State and 50 Federal agencies with aggregate



annual salaries totaling over $100 million.  Insurance home



offices number 35 with over 1,000 employees.



    The current enrollment at The University of Texas is



approximately 40,000 and three other institutions of higher



education report combined enrollments of nearly 2,000.

-------
    Bergstrom Air Force Base has over 6,000 personnel.  The



combined military-civilian payroll exceeds $30 million.  The



City of Austin is also a major shopping and distribution center



for a 20-county trade area serving a population of about



660,000 people.  Retail sales are estimated in excess of



$400 million annually.



    The Chamber of Commerce in Austin estimates that the



tourist industry brings more than $40 million annually into



the Austin economy.  Cash receipts from agriculture in 1958



amounted to approximately $12 million with livestock and



livestock produce contributing $7 million to the total.



Beef cattle, milk, mohair, grain sorghums, cotton, hay, hogs,



wheat, oats and wood are among the variety of farm products



in Travis County.



^'  Terrain.  The City of Austin is near the center of a great



geographical domain, located in the valley of the Colorado



River and at the edge of the wooded hills of central Texas



that mark the break from the Midland prairies to the high



plateaus and rugged mountains of the west.



    In the hill country to the west of Austin, the Colorado



River has been developed into a series of lakes by dams construc-



ted by the Lower Colorado River Authority.  This series of lakes



ends with the long narrow Town Lake located within the City.



Northwest of Austin, the Valley of the Colorado is narrow with




steep banks.  Within the City, the valley gradually widens and



the flat plains or bottom lands appear as the river passes




through Austin.
                              8

-------
    A series of creeks draining from the prairies to the river



have etched much of Austin's unusual topography.  The Austin



area includes more than 20 creeks, with many tributaries.  Shoal,



Waller, Boggy and Walnut Creeks form the north side of the



Colorado and Bouldin, Barton and Dellana Creeks in south Austin,



and are examples of the larger creeks.  In the extreme south



portion of the study area are the large drainage areas of



Williamson and Onion Creeks.



    The Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of



Agriculture has made a survey of the types of alluvial deposits



in Travis County.  The soil types in the Travis Lake area



indicate a severe limitation for septic tank drain fields.  The



comprehensive wastewater study recommended that septic tanks not



be permitted within 2,000 feet of the outer boundary of a



restricted zone, the restricted zone being the area immediately



adjacent to the Highland Lakes.  An order regulating septic tank



installations in this area has been issued by the Texas Water



Quality Board, and is being implemented by LCRA and the City of



Austin.



5.  Geology.  The substrata investigations made for the tunnel



construction indicate the presence of Austin Chalk, Eagle Ford



Formation, Buda Limestone, Georgetown Formation, Edwards Forma-



tion and Glenrose Formation.  These formations are considered



good for tunnel construction.




    A number of bedrock faults are expected to be encountered



during the tunnel construction.  The faults which are breaks in



the bedrock along which there has been movement, generally have

-------
a northeast to southeast strike or trend.  The faulting is in



the Balcones fault zone, which extends through the City.  The



extent of faulting in the area has been mapped in the field by



the Bureau of Economic Geology of the University of Texas at



Austin.



    Ground water is not expected to be a construction problem



along the tunnel alignment.  Ground water may be encountered



in the Edwards Formation primarily in the vicinity of the Mount



Bonnell fault.  Ground water may also be encountered along the



fracture surfaces in the Austin chalk limestone.  However, the



quantity of ground water in the Austin Chalk is not expected to



be large.  The sources of ground water are in fractures in



solution openings in the rock and possibly at some of the faults.



There is evidence that some of the ground water is under artesian



pressure high enough to raise the water above the source strata



level in wells and test holes, but not sufficiently high to cause



the test holes to flow.  Such occurrences are erratic and widely



divergent conditions are encountered within short distances.



    The artesian wells that are located in the area of the tunnel



line come from an aquifer well below tunnel grade.  Water levels



in test holes show the tunnel is below the level of the hydro-



static head from the ground water.  Sufficient failure of the



tunnel to permit leakage is considered very unlikely; however,



if this remote possibility occurred, infiltration rather than



exfiltration would take place since the outside water level will



be greater than the gravity pressure inside the tunnel.
                             10

-------
    The minor water supplies derived from ground water in the



area  (all of the City of Austin's supply is from surface water)



would be protected by this differential pressure from outside



to inside of the tunnel.



    The quality of ground water varies from poor quality having



a high sulfur content to good quality.  Also, the consolidation



grouting will seal off the area around the tunnel.



6.  Water Resources and Water Quality.  The Colorado River basin



has a total drainage area of 41,800 square miles of which 39,900



square miles are in Texas and the remainder is in New Mexico.



The average runoff in the basin ranges from a maximum of about



350 acre-feet per square mile near the mouth of the Colorado



River to less than 50 acre-feet per square mile in the contributing



area of the basin west of Coke County.  There have been many



large floods throughout the Colorado River Basin from the head-



waters to the Gulf of Mexico, with major floods occurring on



the average of every four and a half years.  Extensive overflows



are restricted mostly on the coastal plains downstream from Austin.



    Runoff from the drainage area above J. B. Thomas Reservoir



is generally low in dissolved solids, and water impounded in the



reservoir since its completion in 1952, has generally contained



not more than 250 mg/1 of dissolved solids, about 25 mg/1 of



chloride and about 60 mg/1 sulfate.  Below J. B. Thomas Reservoir,



however, the Colorado River becomes highly mineralized as a



result of inflows of oil field brine and naturally saline ground



water.  The saline inflows in the upper basin have historically
                             11

-------
degraded the quality of the flows for considerable distance

downstream, even though most of the major tributaries such as

Concho River, Pecan Bayou and the San Saba River contribute good

quality water which has diluted the saline flows from the upper

basin.  The Colorado River near San Saba has contained dissolved

solids concentrations ranging from about 200 mg/1 to more than

1,000 mg/1, equaling or exceeding 500 mg/1 about 50 percent
               t
of the time.

    Runoff throughout most of the remainder of the Colorado River

Basin is of good chemical quality and suitable for most municipal,

industrial and agricultural purposes, although generally hard.  As

a result of impoundment and releases of water from the series of

reservoirs in the middle Colorado River Basin  (.the Highland Lakes)

the chemical quality below Austin is comparatively uniform.  Dis-

solved solids concentrations in the river at Wharton in the lower

basin generally range between 100 and 400 mg/1, and have a

median value of approximately 300 mg/1.

    Organic loading throughout the Colorado River Basin is

generally low and presents no serious dissolved oxygen deficits

for extended periods of time.  However, as a result of municipal

and/or industrial return flows in Beals Creek below Big Spring,

the Concho River below San Angelo and in the Colorado River below

Austin, dissolved oxygen depressions have occurred seasonly.

    The Texas Water Development Board in Report No. 120, tabulated

the quality of the Colorado River at Farm Road 973 below Austin,

Texas, which is repeated below.  The station is located one mile

downstream from the Govalle sludge disposal site shown on Figure 1,
                            12

-------
                       COLORADO RIVER QUALITY







                  Nitrate Phosphate                   Dissolved

Date
10-10-68
12- 4-68
2- 4-69
4- 9-69
6-11-69
8- 5-69
Discharge
(cfs)
110
96
58
940
2000
1920
NO 3
mg/1
1.0
10
19
6.5
0.2
3.8
P04
mg/1
4.8
4.6
6.5
1.2
0.8
1.5

pH
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.5
Temperature
(°Celcius)
26
12
13
24
24
30
Oxygen
mg/1
6.3
7.3
5.4
6.5
7.8
7.6
BOD
mg/1
4.4
7.2
9.0
4.7
2.2
2.4
    B.  Description of Project



    The project proposed by the City of Austin consists  of



the construction of a deep tunnel interceptor and an  enlarged



wastewater treatment plant.  The location of these proposed



facilities has been illustrated on Figure 1.  The Crosstown



Tunnel will intercept all wastewater flows to the north  of the



tunnel alignment.  Therefore, wastewater flows presently con-



veyed by trunk sewers south of the proposed tunnel alignment



will discharge to the tunnel rather than to existing  overloaded



sewers, thus relieving those overloaded sewers by allowing



flows now being conveyed to the existing Govalle Plant to be



transported by the tunnel to the proposed Wlanut Creek Treatment



Plant.  Upon completion of the tunnel, flows to the Govalle Plant



will be substantially reduced and the existing plant  will be



adequate to handle additional flows that will be generated by



future development.  The design condition for the Crosstown



Interceptor Tunnel is planned for the year 2020.  The peak



design flow for the year 2020 is 131 million gallons  per day



(mgd) measured at the downstream terminus near the Walnut
                              13

-------
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The diameter of the inter-



cepter waterway ranges from 84 to 96 inches.



    The proposed Walnut Creek Plant primary facilities are



planned to have a hydraulic capacity consistent with that of



the Crosstown Interceptor Tunnel (131 mgd).  The average or



nominal design flow rate of the primary facilities for the year



2000 is 27 mgd.  The secondary facilities for the treatment



plant will be designed for the year 1984 and will have a rated



capacity of 18 mgd.  The Walnut Creek site will serve the Crosstown



Interceptor Tunnel as well as the Walnut Creek drainage area and



the areas contiguous to the plant site.



    After considering the merits of two alternative processes



for secondary treatment, the City elected to use biological



treatment followed by effluent filtration to produce an effluent



substantially free of suspended solids and biochemical oxygen



demanding material.  The treatment facilities for the biological



process are shown on Figure 3.



    The impact of the total project as proposed by the City of



Austin has been superposed on the water quality management



plant for the area.



    The Highland-s Lakes System Comprehensive Wastewater Study



has been approved by the TWQB and the EPA as a cost effective



interim water quality management plan consistent with applicable



guidelines.  The authorized planning authority, the Capitol



Planning Council, has certified that the project conforms to



regional plans being developed for the planning area.
                             14

-------
1.  Tunnel.  The proposed tunnel is planned to relieve the



existing overloaded trunk sewers tributary to the Govalle Waste-



water Treatment Plant and relieve the overloaded conditions at



the Govalle Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Figure 4 shows a schematic



diagram of the proposed and existing sewers tributary to the



Walnut Creek and Govalle Treatment Plants.



    The design flows for the year 2020 were developed from land-




use studies and expected wastewater flows from the various land-



use areas, including that portion of the wastewater flow due to



storm water and infiltration.  The present development of the



City and of the areas within reasonable sewer service limits were



studied to determine the type and intensity of land-use.  In



addition, the future land-use patterns, developed by the City of



Austin Planning Department, were incorporated into the projections



of the sanitary sewer needs.  The land-uses adopted for developing



wastewater flows were residential areas, shopping centers, shopping



districts, commercial and semi-industrial uses, manufacturing,



central business district, and public and open area land-use.



    In order to estimate the dry weather wastewater flows, data



were obtained from the City of Austin on single family customers



with water and sewer connections, and industrial and commercial



customers with water and sewer connections.  In order to determine



the portion of water usage which is discharged from users'



homes as waste, the cold weather months of December, January,




and February were evaluated in order to minimize the effect of



lawn sprinkling.
                             15

-------
    Water use information was also obtained for several of the



large water users in the area, along with estimates of the acres



of land occupied by the user.  The data analyzed indicated that



there was little or no correlation between the water usage in the



summer and the winter months; therefore, the annual water use was



averaged.



    Average dry weather wastewater flows were derived for the



residential areas and corresponding population by utilizing the



daily average per capita water use values developed.  In order



to determine peak domestic flows, the average values of domestic



flow were multiplied by peaking factors, as determined from the



American Society of Civil Engineers Manual of Engineering Practice



No. 37.



    Dry weather wastewater flows from industrial and manufacturing



areas were in part obtained from a Water and Sewage Works magazine



article  (July 1967) presenting data obtained in Kansas City,



Missouri.  The Kansas City data were based on measured water



consumption of industrial parks.



    Wastewater criteria from shopping centers were developed



from unpublished data collected by Horner & Shifrin in the



metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri area, and upon the previously



mentioned studies in Kansas City, which were based on actual



measurements of flows from shopping centers.



    Dry weather wastewater flows from the central business




district were calculated on the basis of 200 persons per acre




and an average flow of 30 gallons per capita daily, with the



peak flow being twice that of the average.
                              16

-------
    The average water usage of the University of Texas was computed



on an acreage basis with a peak flow of two times the average water



usage.



    The storm water and infiltration allowances were determined



 from actual measurements and from design assumptions.  A study




made in 1958 by Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers proposed a



sewer design basis which varied with the population density and



the total numbe"r of acres tributary to the point of design.  For



12 persons per acre the design flow varies from 4,500 gallons per



acre per day for a 500 acre sewer area to 2,980 gallons per acre



per day for a service area of 5,000 acres.  Although the flows



presented in the basis of design proposed by the Black & Veatch



report are less than the flows generated from developed areas in



the City, it was proposed as obtainable criteria.  Studies made



by Freese, Nichols & Endress on the Shoal Creek drainage area



indicated that a design basis of about 6,000 gallons per acre



per day is more representative of current flows.  Contract



specifications for the tunnel state that the rate of infiltration



into the tunnel shall not exceed 100 gallons per inch of diameter



per mile per 24 hours.  This infiltration allowance will allow



only a total of .098 mgd as infiltration at the downstream end



of the tunnel or only 0.074 percent of the design hydraulic



capacity at that point.  This specified allowance is much more



rigid than the design criteria of the Texas State Department



of Health which allows a maximum of 1,000 gallons in lieu of



100 gallons.
                              17

-------
    An extensive program to eliminate sources of infiltration

is practiced by the City as part of their routine collection

system maintenance program.  Also new building codes and sewer

construction methods promise reduced amounts of infiltration and

more strict regulations on illegal connections.  The design

proposed by Horner & Shifrin Consulting Engineers in the report

considering the alternative methods of collection was based

on approximately 6,000 gallons per acre per day for developed
               t
areas and were based on from 2,700 to 3,700 gallons per acre per

day for new and future service areas.

    The flow anticipated from the projected land-uses for the

year 2020 was used for design purposes.  The City is optimistic

that improvements on the existing sewage collection system will

reduce the amounts of infiltration and storm water entering the

collection system so that the interceptor tunnel will have an

extended life beyond the design period.  Modern pipe materials,

more rigid inspection of house connections, and elimination of

major sources of infiltration will result in a much lesser per-

centage of infiltration as total flows increase.

2.  Treatment Facilities.  The primary facilities include screen-

ing equipment, grit removal equipment, primary clarification and

flow equalization.  The flow from the Crosstown Tunnel to the

wetwell of the pumping station is by gravity.

    The flow will be carried under the railroad and Walnut

Creek by means of a triple siphon approximately 500 feet long.

An air line, carried in the concrete encasement of the siphon,

will be provided from the siphon inlet to blowers located on

the plant site.  The air line will provide ventilation for the
                              18

-------
Crosstown Interceptor to minimize the effect of hydrogen sulfide-



sulfuric acid deterioration of the interceptor.  The air within



the tunnel will, in effect, be changed over six times a day or



every four hours.  The air will be discharged to subsequent



process units to supplement aeration capacity.



    The siphon lines will be designed for use in stages, depending



on the amount of flow entering the siphon inlet.  Use of the



individual lines will be controlled by fixed weirs in the siphon



inlet structure.



    Flow will be measured with Parshall flumes.  The outlet



structure of the siphons is to be built integrally with the



Parshall measuring flumes.



    Two 60 inch lines will convey the wastewater from the Parshall



flumes to the headworks building.  Only one line will be in use



for flows less than 65 mgd.  The 60 inch line will operate in a



surcharged condition because of the weir control in subsequent



treatment units.  To minimuze deposition in the 60 inch line,



fluid jets will be installed at the invert of the pipe to induce



mixing action.  Access for maintenance to these jets will be



possible by diverting the flow to the idle 60 inch line and



draining the line previously in use.  Provisions will be made for



prechlorination for control of odors.



    Two mechanically cleaned bar screens will be provided in



the headworks structure.



    Aerated grit chambers will be used at the Walnut Creek Plant



for the removal of grit.  Aerated grit chambers operate on the



principle of providing a level of turbulence that will maintain
                            19

-------
organic solids in suspension and permit solids of a higher



specific gravity to settle to the bottom.



    Two aerated grit chambers will be provided.  Both units will



be in operation at all times, with a provision that one unit may



be isolated for maintenance.  The grit removed in the basin will



be conveyed to central hoppers by the use of a screw conveyor.



Bucket elevators will lift the grit from the hopper to a grit



washer located -in the screen room.  The washed grit will be



deposited in a steel drum for subsequent disposal by landfill.



    The flow from the aerated grit chambers will be equally



split over weirs and will flow to two center feed primary



sedimentation units.  The primary sedimentation units will be



designed for a high overflow rate to remove the floating and



heavy organic solids in the wastewater flow.



    During periods of peak flow conditions, it is intended that



mixing in the subsequent equalization basins be discontinued to



permit sedimentation of solids which will be eventually flushed



from the bottom of the basins and returned to the head of the



plant.



    The sludge from the primary clarifiers will be introduced



to the activated sludge process.



    The two cell, mixed and aerated, lined flow equalization



basin will be designed to equalize normal variations in flow



when significant quantities of infiltration are not present.




When significant infiltration occurs, the emergency storage



lagoon will be used.
                             20

-------
    Provisions for handling extreme flows during periods of



infiltration will be made by converting the existing second



cell lagoon to an emergency storage lagoon.  The emergency storage



lagoon will be used when flows exceed 1.33 times the nominal design



 rate of the secondary facilities and the flow equalization basins



are full.



    The emergency storage lagoon will provide the capability to



give full treatment to all flows tributary to the treatment plant



under all anticipated conditions.  The emergency lagoon will act



as an overflow storage system in the event of total power failure



at the treatment plant site.  This will permit continued inflow



to the plant at a rate of 27 mgd for one day.  Solids contained



in the wastewater will settle in the primary sedimentation basins,



and further solids removal will occur in the flow equalization



basin.  A weir common to the flow equalization basin and to the



emergency storage lagoon will permit overflow when the equaliza-



tion basins are filled.  The second function of the emergency



storage lagoon will be to divert flows by pumping when the inflow



rate exceeds 1.33 times the nominal plant design flow rate, the



equalizations basins are full, and power is available on the



plant site.  The storage capability of the second provision exceeds



that of the first emergency storage provision.  Storage of up to



75 million gallons is available.



    When the condition requiring diversion has been discontinued,



the stored liquid in the emergency storage lagoons will be



returned to the system for treatment.
                              21

-------
    The settled sewage pumping station will be constructed in



conjunction with a raw sewage pumping station.  The raw sewage



pumping station will accept sanitary flows generated from the



plant site and from areas tributary to the site, but not tributary



to the Crosstown Interceptor Tunnel or the Little Walnut Creek



Trunk Sewer.  The amount of flow from this area is minimal and



an ultimate flow from this area if fully developed, is estimated



to be 0.2 mgd." Discharge from the raw sewage pumping station will



be to the siphon outlet structure.  Washdown from the equalization



basins will be discharged to the raw sewage pumping station.



    The settled sewage pumping station will receive flows from the



flow equalization basin and the return flows from the emergency



storage lagoons.  The settled sewage pumping station wetwell level



will remain relatively constant over the full range of the level in



the equalization basins.  The discharge rate from the settled



sewage pumping station will be controlled by variable speed pumps.



    When diversion to the emergency storage lagoon is indicated,



the throttling valve between the equalization basin and the wet-



well can be deactivated to allow the wetwell level to rise.  The



diversion pumps to the emergency storage lagoon would then be



activated.



    Table 1 summarizes the design parameters and facility



sizing for the pretreatment facilities.



    The flow from the settled wastewater pumping station will



be split equally to two aeration basins.  The aeration basins



will be designed to permit operation under either the complete
                             22

-------
mixing or contact stabilization flow scheme.  Following the



aeration basins, a flocculation zone will be provided.  The



flocculation zone improves sedimentation in the final basins



during periods of upset.  Flocculant aids can be added and better



sedimentation is obtained by optimizing the flocculation energy



level.



    The flow from the flocculation basins will be carried to



the final sedimentation basins for solids separation.  A scum



removal device will be provided.  A portion of the flow from



the final sedimentation basins will be conveyed to the filters.



    Filtration of the effluent will be provided to assure a



high quality composite effluent and an effluent whose quality



variation will be within the requirements of the Texas Water



Quality Board.  The filters will be gravity flow concrete basins



and will operate from influent level control, and rate control.



A hydraulic capability of six gallons per minute per square foot



will be provided; however, a nominal application rate of three



gallons per minute per square foot will be used for the design



flow rate.  The flow will be chlorinated and discharged to



Walnut Creek.



    The backwash supply will be from pumps located in the



chlorine contact basins.



    The anticipated average quality produced by the filters



will be less than 5 mg/1 suspended solids and 5 mg/1 of



carbonaceous BOD.



    The only solid material requiring disposal is waste



activated sludge.
                             23

-------
    An aerobic digester will receive the waste activated sludge



from the activated sludge process.  To increase the solids



destruction capability of the aerobic digester, it will be designed



as a two-cell unit.  To minimize the size of the aerobic digester,



a decanting operation will be provided to allow solids concen-



tration.  The operation would consist of periodically turning



off the blowers to permit sedimentation of the solids and decanting



of the superna£ant.  The decanting operation would involve the



lowering of a weir, and permitting the decant liquid to overflow.



Solids would be discharged from the aerobic digester by pumping.




Aerobic digestion of all sludge prior to discharge to the lagoons



will be required to prevent odor problems.



    Table 2 summarizes the design criteria for the liquid process



facilities proposed under this alternative.  Table 3 summarizes



the design criteria for the alternative sludge disposal schemes



for the biological treatment process.



    The disposal of waste activated sludge will be to the existing



lagoons at a site remote from the Walnut Creek Site  (Hornsby Bend).



This method has the advantage of consolidating the Walnut Creek



and Govalle sludge disposal process at one location, enabling



economy of scale and the enhancement for the development of a



long-term sludge disposal plan.  Studies of alternative disposal



methods are planned by the City and evaluation of new methods of



sludge disposal are contemplated.  The residues from water and



wastewater processing have been the largest problem in the field



and emphasis of developing improved methods are planned by the



City.
                             24

-------
    The continued use of lagoons for ultimate disposal is not



considered to present a long-range sludge disposal plan.  The



aerobically digested sludge would be maintained in a definite




layer separate from the soil and a continual buildup of waste



sludge would result; whereas, if mixed with the soil, the sludge



will gradually blend in to form reclaimable land.  The mixing of



the sludge with the soil forms the basis of recommending that



the initial studies for improving sludge disposal be of wet sludge
              t


land disposal.



    The scope of the recommended study would involve establishing



a 20-acre pilot plot at the Hornsby Bend site for the land disposal



of aerobically digested waste activated sludge.  It is anticipated



that the plot would be divided into five equal sections and each



section would be loaded once a week and allowed to dry.  Periodi-



cally the plots would be plowed for the mixing of sludge and soil.



The recommended period of study is two years.



    It is further recommended that investigations of the quantity



of the present accumulation of sludge at the Hornsby Bend site be



made.  Once determined, methods of stabilizing and disposal of



this sludge should be analyzed to provide an opportunity to empty



each lagoon and reclaim the land.  It is suggested that the methods



of stabilization and disposal which should be included for consider-



ation are:



        Dredging, massive chlorination  (2,000 mg/1 dosage) and

        land disposal.



        Dredging, aerobic stabilization and land disposal.



    If the studies of land disposal of wet sludge prove satis-



factory, it is recommended that the land presently used by the
                              25

-------
lagoons be reclaimed and converted for use by land disposal.



Surveillance wells around the site shall be included to monitor



the ground water quality.



    It is estimated that approximately 240 acres would be



required for the disposal of the aerobically digested sludges



from the Govalle and Walnut Creek Plants by the year 2000.  The



application of sludge to the land is anticipated to build up



the land at a rate of less than one-half inch per year at the



year 2000 loading condition.



3.  Site Preparation.  The initial construction of the proposed



facilities will be within the limits of the first, or northern-



most oxidation pond.  This will place the plant in the forefront



of the site and require the second lagoon to remain in service



for treatment during the period of construction of the new plant



facilities.  During construction, the flows will, therefore,



be treated in the existing aerated lagoon, the second oxidation



pond and chlorination will be provided for the effluent.



    After completion of the expanded facilities, the existing



downstream siphon structure will be piped to the new siphon



outlet structure and the existing facilities downstream from the



siphon outlet structure will be abandoned, and the site restored.



    Investigations have been made to determine high water levels



on Walnut Creek in the vicinity of the plant.  A USGS gaging



station is located immediately downstream from the Farm Road 969




bridge, and discharge records are available from May of 1966 to



the present.  The peak flow record was 6,000 cfs and produced a
                            26

-------
flood level at elevation 449.7.  USGS personnel estimate that a


25-year storm would produce 15,000 cfs at the gaging station.



An estimate of the Walnut Creek drainage basin indicates a 100-



year flow of 25,000 cfs.


    The USGS rating curve for the gaging station at the Walnut



Creek Plant site is shown on Figure 5r and is the basis for


determining the "n" value for Walnut Creek in that area.  The
              i


"n" value varies from 0.05 to 0.09.  Assuming the "n" value at


0.09, the rating curve for this section was extended to a flow


rate of 25,000 cfs, and having the channel in its present natural



state, a flood elevation would be 460.0.  This represents a water


level of six feet above the present lagoon levee.



    To reduce the flood stage level, improvements to the channel


on the property owned by the City will be achieved by selective



clearing and grubbing of brush and small trees with branches


of larger trees trimmed below elevation 456.  By maintaining a



grass ground cover in the flood plain, and with the selective


clearing and grubbing, an "n" value of less than 0.04 will be


obtained.  Assuming normal depth, the natural USGS section was


recalculated based on the revised "n" value, resulting in a


25,000 cfs flow producing a flood elevation of 454.5.



    To confirm that the maximum level in the Colorado and the


railroad bridge on Walnut Creek would not affect the calculated



rating curve, backwater curves were calculated from the Colorado


River to the plant site.  The natural channel conditions downstream



from the railroad bridge were assumed to have an "n" value of 0.10
                            27

-------
and a slope of 0.0022 foot per foot.  Channel sections similar


to those found on the City property were assumed in this reach.


The oxbows in the area adjacent to the existing lagoon system


were assumed to be straightened.  The backwater curve for the


25,000 cfs flow was calculated and normal depth was attained


prior to the control section.  The effect of the railroad bridge


on the stream was investigated, and found to have a small effect
               •

on the backwater curve, but not sufficient to change the rating


curve.


    The velocities which occur during the 100-year flood flow


are in the erodible range and channel damage will result whenever


extreme peak flows occur.


    The levels on the Walnut Creek below the City property are


affected by the level in the Colorado River.  The 100-year flood


level in the Colorado River is estimated by the City Department


of Public Works to result in an elevation of 442.5.  This has


been confirmed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers, and has been


the basis of the calculations for the backwater curve.  All lower


water surface elevations on the Colorado River will result in the


same flood elevation at the plant site when the 100-year flood


flow occurs in Walnut Creek.  The Colorado River is highly


developed and controlled, and extreme flood levels have been


obviated.


    The reach of Walnut Creek between the proposed treatment


facilities and the Colorado River is subject to backwater effects


from the Colorado River.  Walnut Creek below the site is a
                             28

-------
meandering stream with bottom of shale, sand, and rock.  Stream



banks are erodible soils.



    The City of Austin plans to improve that portion of the



channel located on City property and is contemplating to construct



a channel to connect Walnut Creek to the Colorado River immediately



downstream from the Colorado River.  This plan would divert water



from private property and would raise legal questions but would



protect contiguous property presently subject to erosion.  The



peak discharge from the Walnut Creek Plant, 36 mgd or 56 cfs,



would not contribute to erosion in the area where bank sloughing



is now a problem.  The bank sloughing is occurring in that reach



of Walnut Creek less than 1,000 yards from the Colorado River and



where the tributary channel is undefined within the primary flood



plain of the Colorado River.  Bank undercutting is extensive on



high banks of erodible material.



    If the cut-off to divert flows from this area is not con-



structed, the only other alternative to protect the banks would



involve expensive bank stabilization and channel improvements.



    Maximum discharges from the Walnut Creek Treatment Plant will



not produce erodible velocities in Walnut Creek.  The additional



56 cfs contributed by the treatment plant will be insignificant



during flood conditions  (15,000 cfs for a 25-year storm).



    The plant site will be protected to elevation 457.0 to



provide a 2.5 foot freeboard for the 100-year flood flow.



    It is estimated that 150,000 cu. yd. of excavation will be



available from the associated plant construction of the peak
                             29

-------
storage lagoon with an additional 50,000 cu. yd. of earth available



from the tunnel spoilage and excavation form structures.  It is



intended that this excavation be used to provide fills around the



plant structures and roads so that the finished grade in the



general plant area will be 457.0 and will slope to meet existing



grade.  The plant entrance road will also be protected to elevation



457.0 until it connects with Farm Road 969.  Farm Road 969 is at



elevation 457.8 at the bridge over Walnut Creek and slopes to



 elevation 451.0 near the plant entrance road.  It is anticipated



that the 25-year flood will reach Farm Road 969.



4.  Architectural Considerations.  Building materials will be of



the permanent low maintenance type such as brick, architectural



concrete, aluminum windows, and no exposed metal flashing.



    All structures will be low and relatively small, with a



minimum setback of 500 feet from the highway to the administration



building.  All other structures will be grouped behind the admin-



istration building and appropriately  landscaped to present a



pleasing view from the road.  A boulevard type entrance will be



provided to visually terminate at the entrance to the administra-



tion building.  Service, maintenance and plant operation will



have vehicular access by an all weather service road west of the



plant.  The service road will parallel the reconstructed creek



area.  The area contiguous to the creek, with proper maintenance



and care, could be used as a park area.  Initial design and



subsequent care and maintenance will make this plant a pleasing



addition to the Austin community.
                             30

-------
Connected
Load
CkVA)
5,000
5,000
6,000
6,000
Peak
Demand
CkVA)
2,400
3,100
3,200
3,200
5.  Electrical and Instrumentation.  The estimated power demand

projections for the proposed plant are shown below:

                                             Anticipated
                            Connected
          Year

          1975
          1984
          1985
          2000

    The plant Will be served from two separate power generation

stations with transmission lines coming from separate directions

with plant distribution through an outdoor lineup of switchgear.

Dual feeds will be provided to the activated sludge blower building,

pumping station and plant, the screening and grit removal structure

and essential auxiliaries.

    Conventional instrumentation will be provided for control

of the plant functions.
                            31

-------
II.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION



    The proposed project will have a significant beneficial


effect on the water quality of Lake Austin, Town Lake, and the


Colorado River and the surrounding metropolitan area by providing


the capability to intercept and properly treat all wastewater



flows.  The beneficial effect on the environment by increasing



the effectiveness and reliability of treatment, providing



additional available hydraulic capacity at the existing Govalle
              «

site, and providing sewer service to areas not now served, or


served by improperly operating septic tanks, cannot be minimized.


    The present average discharge of approximately 25 mgd from



the Govalle Treatment Plant site presents a point load to the


Colorado River.  With the construction of the Walnut Creek Plant


site, a diversification of the load on the Colorado River will


result although the Walnut Creek discharge will enter the Colorado


River within the influence of the Govalle discharge, such diver-



sification will lessen localized effects on the Colorado River.


    The beneficial effect upon Lake Austin, Town Lake, and the



Colorado River is the primary purpose of the project.  Lake Austin


and Town Lake beneficial uses include water oriented recreation



and potable water supply.  The Crosstown Interceptor project will


eliminate the wastewater overflows which are a threat to these


beneficial uses.



    Downstream from Town Lake, the Colorado River beneficial uses


include fishing, recreation, agricultural irrigation and stock



watering, and wildlife propagation.  At present there are no
                             32

-------
domestic water uses downstream form Austin; however, the Texas



Water Plan recommends development of the lower Colorado to



provide domestic water supplies and associated uses.  The urgency



for the increased treatment capability and reliability proposed



by this project will help perpetuate these beneficial uses.



    The Walnut Creek site is presently used for the treatment



of wastewater generated from the Walnut Creek drainage basin.



The present flt>w rate to the treatment facility is approximately



1.4 mgd, and the plant capacity is nominally rated at 2.5 mgd.



The treatment process consists of aerated lagoons and oxidation



ponds.  At present, there is no overflow from the oxidation ponds



to Walnut Creek.  The liquid evaporates and percolates to the



ground water.  The City maintains ground water monitoring wells



to determine the effects of this recharge on the ground water, and



there is no indication of pollution of the ground water.  However,



there have been complaints to the Texas Water Quality Board and



to the City of pollution of wells in areas contiguous to the



site, but these claims have not been substantiated.



    The construction of the new facilities will result in the



discharge of wastewater to Walnut Creek and will eliminate the



holding ponds.



    The extablishment of a large treatment facility with a



design average discharge of 27 mgd will substantially impact



the reach of Walnut Creek between the plant and confluence with



the Colorado River.  A major point load source will be created



that did not exist before.  The dissolved oxygen sag of 0.5 mg/1
                             33

-------
expected in that reach should produce no serious adverse effects



on the stream, neither should the increased loads of BOD  and



suspended solids that will enter the stream.  The anticipated



effluent of less than 10 mg/1 BOD,- and 10 mg/1 SS is adequate



to prevent degradation of the receiving stream and should



not decrease water quality of the Colorado River.



     Upon completion of the tunnel and Walnut Creek facility,



the total flows at the Govalle Plant will be decreased with
               *


a commensurate decrease in that point load to the Colorado



River until development once again brings the discharge to



equal present flows.  If in the future, the point loadings



contribute to reduced water quality in the Colorado River,



the plants must be upgraded to produce a higher quality effluent.



     The existing Govalle Plant receives the waste from Jefferson



Chemical Company which because of the nature of their operation,



produces industrial waste having characteristics highly variable



in nature.  After project completion, the industry will be



tributary to the Walnut Creek site.  The recently enacted Industrial



Waste Ordinance by the City, construction of the flow equalization



basin, and provisions for additional control treatment by the



industry, will reduce the possibility of plant upsets, and will



provide a more reliable system to treat the industrial wastes.



This directly results in a beneficial environmental effect in



treatment plant efficiency and improved receiving stream quality.



     In the exploratory drilling program, limited amounts of water



were encountered in several holes, all primarily in the limestones.
                           34

-------
    The plans and specifications for the Crosstown Wastewater



Interceptor include provisions for consolidation grouting in the



event sizeable flows are encountered.  This grout will be pumped



under pressure from inside the tunnel and will extend around the



tunnel to cut off the inflow.  This seal will also prevent infil-



tration after tunnel completion.  In addition, contact grout will



be placed between the outside of the permanent lining and the



excavated surface of the tunnel.



    A study of Bulletin 5708 Records of Wells in Travis County,



Texas, prepared by the Texas Board of Water Engineers in cooperation



with Mr. Ted Arnow, Geologist, United States Geological Survey,



indicates that the tunnel should not encounter any major aquifers,



other than those which may be encountered in crossing the Balcones



Fault zone.



    Well H-ll, located on the Austin State School property is the



only major producing well the tunnel comes near.  This well is very



shallow and is in the gravel stratum above bedrock.  The tunnel is



in the limestone and passes 100   feet +_ below the bottom of this



well.  A test hole drilled in this area during the exploratory



drilling program of this project did not encounter significant



water flows.



    Besides the detrimental environmental impacts caused by a



project of this nature due to the inconvenience and temporary



intense activity associated with construction, there will also



be an additional organic load on Walnut Creek, which presently




does not exist, the remote possibility of tunnel failure due to
                            35

-------
subsurface faults, the displacement of certain forms of wildlife



on the Walnut Creek caused by the improvements to permit a more



suitable waterway for runoff, and noise and some odors generally



associated with the sewage treatment plant operation.



    The construction of 10 shafts in conjuction with the tunnel



contract, the construction of the siphon under Walnut Creek and the



treatment facilities at the Walnut Creek site will cause some



restrictions of traffic which will be a temporary inconvenience



to motorists and pedestrian traffic.  The necessary movement



of construction machinery to the shaft accesses will also create



some temporary inconvenience.



    The material excavated from the tunnel will be moved to two



primary sites, located essentially at the terminal and starting



points of the tunnel.  The soil removed at the terminal portal



 near the Walnut Creek site will be used for fill on the Walnut



Creek site.  The soil removed at the upstream terminal of the



tunnel is anticipated to be used as fill for an eroded area



to reclaim the land.  The change in topography caused by the



displacement of the soil from the tunnel to the two disposal sites



is not anticipated to result in a detrimental environmental impact.



The period during which the soil is moved will result in a



temporary detrimental impact caused by the noise and inconvenience



to motorists from the heavy earth moving equipment.



    The tunnel has been designed to permit construction by



conventional methods including blasting or by tunneling machines.



If blasting under conventional construction methods is selected
                            36

-------
by the successful contractor, the contractor will be required



to limit the blast size to result in minimum specified measured



surface particle velocities and will be required to muffle the



sounds at access shafts.  If tunneling machines are used, the above



effects of blasting will not be encountered.



    The exploratory drilling indicated fractured rocks, cavities,



and possibly gouge zones.  The design is premised on special



support system's when these conditions are encountered.
                           37

-------
III.  ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED



     The detrimental effects caused by the project construction



are minimal and are substantially less than those associated with



alternative plans.  The entire concept of the tunnel interceptor



is designed to reduce the adverse effects normally associated with



construction of large interceptors.



     The detrimental effects caused by a design discharge of



27 mgd to Walnut Creek which previously received no wastewater



discharge has been estimated by the engineer to result in a



dissolved oxygen sag of about 0.5 mg/1 within the reach between



the discharge and the confluence with the Colorado River.  This is



a minimal effect and generally not considered significant.  Also



the flow velocities in the creek are high, even at low flows, due



to the slope of the channel; and therefore, siltation or sedimen-



tation is not considered to be a problem from the plant discharge.



The remaining dissolved organics in the wastewater discharge and



the nutrients contained in the discharge will stimulate new growths



in Walnut Creek; however, the velocities associated with the



discharge in the Walnut Creek stream will assist in minimizing



the detrimental effects from these stimulated growths.



     The channel modifications to Walnut Creek channel result



in a detriment to the existing habitat, but will be offset by



the aesthetic enhancement of the creek on the site property.



The underbrush and small trees which will be removed to provide



less friction in the channel and permit a lower water elevation



during the design peak flood flow, and the removal of the lesser
                             38

-------
trees and underbrush will result in the displacement of the


small wildlife which live in the underbrush; however, thinning


out of the trees and the replacement of the underbrush with a


grass ground cover and the trimming of the remaining trees will


result in a pleasing park-like area, suitable and attractive to


many forms of wildlife.


    Figure 6 shows a wind rose which has been developed from


data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
             f

tration.  A prevailing wind direction is from the south.


    The construction of the Walnut Creek site will result in


a temporary concentration of heavy activity in an area which


presently is peaceful and rural.  During the period of construction,


the same degree of treatment of the flows tributary to the Walnut


Creek site will be provided and no change in the environmental


impact is anticipated.


    Construction of a permanent wastewater treatment plant at


the existing Walnut Creek site will adversely affect existing and


future development in the proximate area.  Society's willingness


to accept a wastewater treatment plant as a "good neighbor" is


prejudiced by the past history of such facilities; judgment is


not based on the fact that modern design and operation concepts


can produce a treatment facility that will cause only minor


physical adverse effects on the environment that are usually


acceptable to inhabitants of the area.  Modern technology and


effective planning cannot overcome the psychological adversity


and sometimes resultant emotional turmoil.  These intangible


adversities are indeterminate.
                            39

-------
    Generally, adverse effects regarding site location will be



of concern only to those persons living in the immediate area



of the plant site who might be subjected to odors from the plant



or to the intangible affects as mentioned above.



    There are two platted subdivisions, Craigwood and Cavalier



Park, within the immediate area of the Walnut Creek site.  Two



other platted subdivisions, University Hills and Springdale Hills,



are approximately one mile away but separated by industrial
             f


development and a main thoroughfare.  One other subdivision,



University Hills, is approximately two miles away.  Figure 8 is



a map showing the locations of existing platted subdivision



development.



    There are about twelve homes located on Nixon Lane less than



1,000 feet from the treatment plant site.  A history of residential



development in the area is given in the Appendix as a summary of



the public hearing of April 4, 1972.



    The history reveals that plans for the Walnut Creek Treatment



Plant were initiated prior to plans for subdivision development.



Applications by the developers to the City of Austin Planning



Commission were initiated in 1966 and continued to 1969, when the



City Council accepted the request as a variance to the Master Plan.



Actual construction of houses in the subdivision closest to the



treatment plant site, Craigwood, was begun in February 1969 -.-



more than three years after the Walnut Creek Treatment Plant began



operation in December 1965.  The Craigwood Subdivision is now



surrounded by land designated for commercial/industrial use.
                          40

-------
    Presently, there is little development to the north of



the Walnut Creek Plant; however, land subdividers have indicated



their intention of developing light industry or business land



uses in the area north of the plant.



    The odors associated with sewage will be minimized by the



use of prechlorination and postchlorination of the wastewater.



The project has been designed to minimize the septicity of the



incoming sewage"by designing a water flushing system for the



tunnel which will eliminate long-term deposits caused by low



velocities.  The source of flushing water will be the filter



backwash wastewater from the City's water treatment plant.  Also,



provisions have been made for an air change system in the tunnel



to minimize the effects of hydrogen sulfide-sulfuric acid corrosion



of the interceptor.  The air exchange system is designed to retard



the production of hydrogen sulfide gas to the extent that odors



and potential noxious fumes will be eliminated.  The air changes



also provides the associated benefits of some oxygen transfer by



passing large quantities of air over the wastewater in transit.



The air from the tunnel will be used again to maintain oxygen and



mixing in the equalization basins.



    Air injection will be used in distribution wells, scum



collecting pits, and in other similar facilities in order to



maintain aerobic conditions of semistagnant water.  The main-



tenance of aerobic conditions will minimize the potential of



odor problems.  The screen room will be closed and the ventilation



of the enclosure will be designed so that if odor problems are



encountered the ventilated air can be treated with ozone or other



means if odors become a problem in the future.





                              41

-------
     The primary source of  ioise associated with the wastewater
treatment plant will be the settled wastewater pumps and aeration
blowers.  B illding housing  his equipment for isolation of the
no se from  the plant enviro ment will be provided.
     Landscaping of the plant site upon completion of the con-
stcuction will be included  ,n the general contract.  A landscape
architect will be instructed to assure a planned, attractive
environment as described in earlier sections of this statement.
               «
     The chlorination of plant effluent at the new facilities
will increase concentrations of combined chlorine in Walnut
Creek below the plant, and to a much lesser degree - in the
Colorado River below the plant outfall.
     Chloramines are toxic ^o fish; toxicity varies among fish
species.  However, the extent of toxicity is greatly reduced by
dilution and mortality is highly dependent on exposure time.
These factors combine to prevent fish kills and deleterious effects
below treatment plant outfails.  Fish species that are affected by
the concentrations of chlor.unines will migrate to a more desirable
habitat.  This condition is a minor and reversible adverse effect
when weighed against the value of chlorination to reduce water-
borne desease.
     The potential impact associated with the construction of the
tunnel  through a major fault is an unavoidable detrimental
possibility irrespective of the project alternatives selected.
In this area the faults are stable and it is improbable that a
fault slip  will occur within the life of the project.  If the
fault were  to  slip, severe damage to any interceptor would occur
                              42

-------
and provisions for alternative disposal would be required.  The



Crosstown Interceptor Tunnel plan would permit temporary diversion



of the wastewater by us  ig temporary piping and portable pumping



equipment above the point of failure to the sewage collecting



system tributary to the Govalle Plant while the repairs were



being performed.  This would not necessarily be the case for



alternative plans considered.



     Plans and specifications for the project will include
               «

provisions to reduce temporary air pollution due to particulate



emission from blasting operations during construction of the



tunnel.  The extent of blasting to be required is not known.



However, specifications will provide for safety precautions



to limit the sequence and duration of blasting.  Muffling to



reduce noise pollution will be required.  In all probability,



the tunnel excavation will be accomplished by tunneling machines



or drilling instead of blasting.



     Explosives used underground will be of a permissable grade



of the non-gelatinous ammonia type and will not produce the



oxides of nitrogen which are harmful to humans.
                                    43

-------
IV.  ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION



    A.  Tunnel



    Two basic plans were considered for the collection of waste-




water flows from the area north of Lake Austin, Town Lake and the



Colorado River.  The first plan considered the use of parallel



relief sewers and enlarged pumping station capacities to conform



to the general existing drainage pattern.  The second plan con-



sidered the use .of the deep tunnel Crosstown Interceptor Sewer



and minor supplementary relief of existing interceptors, where



necessary.



    Under the first alternative, 18 separate relief sewer and



force main projects would be required to bring the principal



interceptor sewers of the Austin area system up to the capacity



required for the projected flows of the year 2020.  In addition,



six major pumping stations would have to be rebuilt or sub-




stantially expanded.



    The total construction costs of the sewers and pumping



stations required under this plan was estimated to be $13,066,600



based on 1969 prices.



    The interceptor tunnel plan would require five supplementary



relief sewer lines and construction of two pumping station enlarge-



ments to bring the entire system capacity to the requirements



established for the year 2020.  The total capital costs for this



plan  is estimated to be $14,757,000.



    The project comparison studies included computed equivalent



annual costs for each project based upon the construction of the
                             44

-------
individual elements at the time they would be required.  The



annual costs for each plan were computed on a cost flow basis



and are shown graphically on Figure 7.



    The overall economic advantage associated with the tunnel



plan was used as the basis for selecting that alternative.  Other



benefits not having an economic impact on the evaluation included



the substantially lower impact from the construction of the tunnel



as compared to the construction of shallow sewers.



    The additional benefits of providing a diversified wastewater



treatment system is also an advantage for the tunnel plan.



    B.  Treatment Plant



    The Walnut Creek Treatment Plant process selection considered



basically two alternatives.  The first alternative considered



biological treatment followed by filtration.  The second alterna-



tive considered physical/chemical treatment using chemical



precipitation followed by filtration and carbon adsorption.  The



alternative project costs are summarized in Table 4.



    The pretreatment costs are shown to be identical for each



alternative.  The secondary treatment costs include the facilities



required for the disposal of sludge.



    A 10 per cent allowance for engineering, legal, and adminis-



tration costs has been added to the total construction costs to



develop a total capital cost for the project.  This capital cost



has been amortized at a rate of 6 per cent over a 25-year period



to develop an annual cost.  The operating costs derived for each



section has been added to the annual capital cost to arrive at a
                             45

-------
total annual cost for each alternative, which is a comparable



number to determine the most economical project.



    The biological treatment system is the most economical



process to meet the 20/20 quality criteria.  For the anticipated



future criteria of 5/5/1, the most economical process would be to



add facilities to feed alum to the biological process.  All



alternatives considering physical/chemical treatment indicate higher



costs than do the processes involving biological treatment.



    The estimated quality which would be obtained from each



alternative process is shown in Table 5.  The basic biological



scheme is anticipated to provide an effluent having a median value



of 12 mg/1 of both BOD and suspended solids.  Very little phosphorus



removal is anticipated, and the effluent would be less than 1 mg/1.



The alternative process with lime differs only in the ability of



this system to remove nonbiodegradable COD in the precipitation



of the raw wastewater.



    The physical/chemical scheme with low lime  (10.0 pH) would have



an effluent BOD of 10 mg/1 and an effluent suspended solids of 5 mg/1,



The associated COD would be approximately 25 mg/1 and the phosphorus



in the effluent would be less than 1 mg/1.



    The high lime  (12.2 pH) physical/chemical scheme is claimed



by EnviroTech to have additional COD removal capabilities.  This



 is shown to be 15 mg/1 of COD and 6 mg/1 of BOD.  Although the



BOD values for the physical/chemical schemes are shown to be in




excess of the required 5 mg/1 future quality standard, there will



be a certain amount of biological activity within the carbon




adsorber, and a lower BOD will result.
                              46

-------
    This is not a predictable result, and only full scale



operation could prove the physical/chemical system's capability




of obtaining this level.



    The essential difference between the capabilities of the



physical/chemical process is the ability of each to remove



certain types of organics.  The physical/chemical process is



subject to apparent inefficiencies due to a certain amount of



nonadsorbable organics in the wastewater.  The biological process



is subject to apparent inefficiencies due to nonbiodegradable



organics in the wastewater.  Actually, each process is highly



efficient for their application.  It appears that for the waste-



water tested, 25 mg/1 of COD and 10 to 15 mg/1 of BOD is non-



adsorbable.  From the City records, it appears that there will



be a 40 mg/1 residual of COD which is nonbiodegradable.



    The physical/chemical process provides a higher degree of



COD removal, but an effluent BOD concentration cannot be



predicted.  The biological system has the inherent advantage



of removing BOD, and will present a method of predictably meeting



the future design criteria.



    The most often claimed advantage for physical/chemical



treatment is the system's resistance to upset from the application



of biologically toxic organics, and its ability to remove these



organics.  This advantage is in part negated by the equalization



system preceding the plant.  The frequency of occurrence at Austin




where toxic organics are released to the system is also low.



On the other hand, biological systems have been shown to be



capable of removing hexavalent chromium and cyanides, which



would pass through physical/chemical systems.





                             47

-------
    If the chemical sludges from the P-C system are not


recalcinated, they present an onerous disposal problem.  The


City presently disposes of approximately 50 tons per day of


waste chemical sludges on the Walnut Creek site, and the additional


30 tons per day from the wastewater treatment plant will result in


an annual estimated fill requirement of 10 acre-feet per year.


Although the lagooning of this sludge provides an economical


short-term disposal method, eventually land will not be available
               *

for further disposal.  The land so used will not be readily


reclaimable because of the continued semifluidity characteristic


of the sludge.  Therefore, continuation of this disposal procedure


does not appear to present a long-term solution to the disposal of


chemical sludges.  The addition of wastewater chemical sludges


would accelerate the need to move to a long-term disposal process.


    On the other hand, the processes considering recalcination


present a long-term solution to the disposal of both water and


wastewater chemical sludges.  An ash quantity of 10 to 20 tons


per day would require disposal? however, this would be a solid


 product amenable to a sanitary landfill operation.  The disadvantage


is the higher cost.


    An incinerator presents further problems with regard to air


pollution.  Again the solution to restrict the emissions to with-


in acceptable limits results in higher costs and there is a


 probable need for additional equipment to control emissions to


meet future standards.


    The biological processes considered have varying degrees


of solids processing problems.  The biological systems which do
                             48

-------
not include chemical addition for phosphorus removal are



inexpensively incorporated into the Hornsby Bend disposal



site.  The biological sludges could readily return to the



soil and will increase the soil's productivity.  On an ecolo-



gical basis the disposal of biological sludges to the land is



more compatible with the environment than is the disposal of



chemical sludges.



     If phosphorus removal is required in the future, massive



chemical dosages are added to supplement the biological treat-



ment process and the problems stated for the physical/chemical



systems are applicable.



     The biological system offers no relief for the disposal



of the water treatment plant sludges and should be recognized as



not representing a purely equivalent system.



     This report does not include a detailed analysis of the



consideration for disposing of the water treatment plant sludge;



however, as a point of reference, Gulp and Gulp in their book on



advanced waste treatment indicate a unit operating cost of $21.35



per ton for recalcinating lime sludge, plus $9.00 to $10.00 per



ton capital costs.  This would be about $31.00 per ton for lime



sludge handling.  For 50 tons per day, the daily cost would be



$1,550 or $86.00 per mg.  If added to the biological process,



this unit cost would be approximately $290.00 or essentially



equal to the costs associated with physical/chemical processes



including recalcination.
                               49

-------
     This fact can be interpreted that physical/chemical does



not appear to cost more than biological if the problems of the



water treatment sludge were handled similarly.  It can also be



interpreted that there is no apparent advantage to using the



physical/chemical process as a means of incorporating a system



for disposal of the water treatment plant sludge.



     The Z-M process proposed for Austin presents a new concept.



The process claims include hydrolysis of large unadsorbable



organic molecules to an adsorbable size by the addition of



massive lime dosages.  Tests run by Z-M personnel indicated a



distinct difference in the effluent quality between a high lime



dosage  (required for hydrolysis) and a low lime dosage, 100 mg/1



(Ca(OH) 2) .



     Similar tests run by Battelle-Northwest and the City were



unable to justify these claims.  The basis for these claims on



the Austin Wastewater included the use of a lower than optimum



lime dosage for solids coagulation on the low pH condition.



This allowed solids to escape the filters and carbon adsorbers and



indicated a higher phosphorus and COD concentration in the effluent.



This was unfortunate.  The high lime system did produce an excellent



effluent; however, the benefit from, or existence of, hydrolysis



was not established.



     The Battelle-Northwest tests showed a slight, but insignificant,



increase in COD removal by using the high pH process.



     No conclusions can be reached concerning the benefits of the



Z-M process; however, sufficient reservations exist concerning the




degree of benefit to disregard this alternative at this time,



especially in light of the costs associated with the process as



compared to the other processes.






                               50

-------
     Concerning the ability of each process to meet future possible

quality criteria, the following is presented to indicate the

additional processes required:
     Parameter
1.  BOD Removal
2.  SS Removal
                 *


3.  Nitrification



4.  Nitrogen Removal



5.  Phosphorus Removal


6.  COD Removal
           Additional Process Required

Biological - Designed to meet anticipated
             future quality
P/C - Unknown, requiring pilot or full
      scale work

Biological - Designed to meet anticipated
             future quality
P/C - No change

Biological - change operation
P/C - Add biological system or remove
      nitrogen

Biological - nitrify-denitrify, or ammonia
             stripping or ion exchange
P/C - ammonia stripping or ion exchange

Biological - chemical addition
P/C - no change

Biological - add 15 minute carbon
             adsorbers
P/C - No change
     If phosphorus removal is required, additions can be made to

the biological process which will result in a unit cost equal to

or less than the physical/chemical schemes.

     If additional COD removal is required, carbon adsorption will

be required; however, the facilities for adsorption would be

considerably less than those proposed for the P/C process.

     The selection of a site for the Walnut Creek Treatment Plant

was prejudiced by prior planning and land acquisition by the City

of Austin.  That is, land was purchased during the period of 1962-

1964 for the specific purpose of developing a treatment facility

to serve the Big Walnut Creek and Little Walnut Creek drainage
                                51

-------
areas.  The actual purchase of the land was authorized by the



Capitol Improvement Program during the 1961-1962 fiscal year.



Also, expansion of facilities at that site will allow continued



use of some existing influent piping, siphon, the plant operators



residence, and one stabilization pond which will be used as an



emergency holding pond to prevent bypassing during periods of



unusually high flows.



    An alternate site, approximately 3 miles to the east in the



vicinity of Hornsby Bend was also evaluated.  Location at that



site would increase total project costs by an estimated $8,900,000.



This increase includes $8,500,000 for extension of the Crosstown



Tunnel, and $400,000 for land acquisition.



    Construction and operation of facilities at the alternate



Hornsby Bend Site would minimize adverse environmental impact



in some respects.



    First, the site is further from extensively developed areas.



This is important because prevailing winds are from the east and



southeast.  Also, the area to the east and south of the Hornsby



Bend site is mostly undeveloped and the treatment facilities would



not impact existing development in that area.  Land in the Hornsby



Bend area has been designated as commercial/industrial in the



Master Plan.



    There is extensive suburban residential development to the



north and northeast of that site which might present tantamount



conflicts with existing land use such as those inherent to the



Walnut Creek site.
                              52

-------
    Construction at the Hornsby Bend site will not eliminate



adverse environmental effects; therefore, a "tradeoff" between



environmental factors and economics would still be necessary if



that site were selected.



    A Hornsby Bend site would allow a larger area to be serviced



by gravity and would further reduce pumping costs.  These benefits



would be offset by additional costs of the interceptor to that



site.



    No cost-benefit ratio for either site is available.  The



problems encountered in transposing intangible environmental



benefits and negative benefits to dollar values are complex and



usually indeterminate; no methodology has been established that



is realistic and acceptable to the majority of disciplines.



    The check and balance system provided by planning and review



by governmental entities and a public hearing process had indicated



that the proposed project, including site selection, has given



due consideration to economics and environmental issues.  A minor



decrease in adverse environmental effects that would result from



selection of an alternate site would not outweigh the additional



costs that must be borne by the citizenry.



    The alternative of using the Govalle plant as a central



treatment facility; that is, the one treatment plant concept, was



also evaluated.  The Govalle Treatment Plant site is nearly fully



developed and expansion on that site would require the purchase



of adjacent land.  The disadvantage of increasing the capability



of the Govalle site would be its restricted ability to serve areas
                              53

-------
in the Walnut Creek drainage basin.  The Walnut Creek site has the



ability to serve those areas tributary to the Crosstown Interceptor



Tunnel and the Walnut Creek drainage basin which at present is



sparsely developed.  The major areas of growth are anticipated



to be in the area tributary to the Crosstown Interceptor Tunnel



with a rapidly developing growth in the Walnut Creek drainage



basin.  Consideration was not given to sites in the Walnut Creek



basin site out of flood plain because of the inability to have



gravity flow to the plant and the reduced reliability associated



with the requirement of pumping to the plant facilities.  The



existing site at Walnut Creek provides the gravity flow ability.
                             54

-------
V.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
    ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-
    TERM PRODUCTIVITY

    The design life of the tunnel is estimated to be in excess

of 100 years.  The structures associated with the treatment plant

are likewise anticipated to have a safe life in excess of 100 years

and the equipment associated with the treatment plant facilities is

estimated to have an average life of 15 years.  After the design

life of the proposed facilities is exploited, the facilities may

be replaced with up-to-date treatment facilities or the land may

be reclaimed by removal of the structures.

    The treatment plant has been planned to be consistent with

anticipated future water quality requirements.  The plant has

been planned on a modular construction basis providing capacity

for periods of from 10 to 15 years after construction.  This

permits flexibility in future planning so that the plant can

be serviceable to a variety of tributary area considerations,

thereby allowing flexibility in future planning for wastewater

treatment.

    The project is justifiable at the present time on the basis

that further overflows from the sewage collection system to

Lake Austin, Town Lake and the Colorado River will inhibit the

beneficial uses established for those receiving waters and the

immediate elimination of the problem is necessary at this time

to prevent further quality deterioration of these waters.  If

no project were to be undertaken to solve the above stated problem,

the situation causing fish kills, excessive oxygen depletion,

increased treatment requirements at the water treatment plant
                              55

-------
taking supply from Town Lake, inhibition of recreational water



use of the Colorado River and Town Lake, odiferous and unsightly



conditions resulting from sludge and scum float, and excessive



aquatic plant growth stimulation will result.
                             56

-------
VI.  IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH
     WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE
     IMPLEMENTED

    For the biological treatment process, the primary irretrievable

commitment of resources is the demand for power to pump the waste-

water and supply oxygen for the bacterial stabilization of the

organics in the wastewater.  The power demand will cause the need

for more use of natural gas required to generate this power.

    The only chemical use for the biological process to be on a

continuous basis is chlorine.  Chlorine is manufactured by the

electrolysis of an aqeous solution of sodium chloride.  Sodium

chloride, because of its abundance and because the sodium and

the chloride are returned to the environment, is not lost.  The

demand for power for the electrolysis of the solution is an

irretrievable and committed resource.

    The materials used in the construction of the plant are

essentially irretrievable.

    The use of power and the construction materials are commit-

ments of resources that are justified by the preservation of the

water resources.
                             57

-------
VII. PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, AND
     LOCAL AGENCIES AND BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS


     The review process of the project has included three public

hearings before the City Council and two hearings before the Texas

Water Quality Board.  All of the above public hearings were

publicly announced prior to the hearing date.

     The order of hearings are summarized below:

     June 25, 1970, City Council Meeting;

     Comment:  'Mr. Isom Hale, a Consulting Engineer from Austin,

     presented the alternative of constructing relief sewers

     parallel to the existing sewers in lieu of the Crosstown

     Tunnel.  He questioned the cost estimates prepared by

     Horner  & Shifren.

     Response: Mr. Lyn Andrews, City Manager, stated that at the

     end of  15 years, both 50 year plans  (as presented by Horner

     & Shifren) would be at an even point  (financially).  From

     then on, there is a savings on the tunnel plan, which would

     mean 35 years of profit.

     Comment:  Mr. Isom Hale commented that although the tunnel

     system  and relief sewer system were equally acceptable sewer

     system  plans, it  (tunnel plan) does cost more in the beginning,

     almost  $2,000,000.

     "We have a recommended design criteria on which the costs of

     the sewer system are based.  It involved...4 to 6 times the

     normally accepted design for allowing infiltration to get

     into our sanitary sewer.  I object to allowing that much
                                58

-------
water get into the sewer, because if it can get in, it


can get out and cause pollution.  If we fix them  (the sewers)


to keep them from leaking and polluting out, then they are


not going to (leak) in".


Response: In discussions between the councilmen and the


City Manager and the Director of Water and Wastewater during


the open council meeting, it was stated that although the
           •

initial costs of the project over the life time of the tunnel


was less.  Mr. Schmidt stated that it was important and highly


desirable to stop infiltration from entering the sewers, but


also expensive and the process is inherently a long-term


project.


After working on the problem for more than three years, some


improvements have been made, but as yet there has not been


such a drastic improvement as to revise the hydraulic design


basis for existing areas.


July 30, 1970, City Council Meeting


Comment:  Mr. R. M. Dixon stated that in the 1966 master plan


report by Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers and Bryant-


Currington Engineers, the proposed sewer design basis was


2,980 gallons total flow per acre per day; however, the Shoal


Creek design basis formulated by Freese, Nichols and Endress


was 6,000 gallons per acre per day.  He continued his statement


by saying the design basis should be 3,000 gallons per acre


per day until measurements in the sewer system indicate


otherwise.  He proposed that the project be delayed until the


surveys and studies have been made.
                          59

-------
    Response:  The councilmen continued to ask Mr. Dixon questions


    regarding his objections to the present plan; however, no


    direct response to his objection was made.


    June 10, 1971, City Council Meeting;


    Comment:  Mr. R. M. Dixon, a Consulting Engineer from Austin,


    Texas, believed the concept presented in the Horner & Shifren


    report needed a thorough examination by a disinterested


    engineer.  The project would take care of only one fourth
               *

    of the north side  (of Austin) and would not serve the south


    side.


    Response:  Mr. Vic Schmidg, Director of Water and Wastewater


    for the City of Austin, said the design was to handle the


    drainage area of Bull Creek, Dry Creek, Johnson Creek, Shoal


    Creek and Waller Creek.  On the south side, there is an


    (existing) outfall that would be adequate for hopefully


    50 years.


    The Council approved the Crosstown Interceptor Tunnel


    preliminary design report and authorized proceeding with the


    final design work -  (7 to 0 vote).


    July 21, 1971, Texas Water Quality Board Hearing;


    See attached synopsis.


    August 5, 1971, Texas Water Quality Board Hearing;


    See attached synopsis.


    April 11, 1972, City of Austin Zoning Committee Meeting;


    See attached synopsis.


    Residents and property owners in the general area of the


Walnut Creek Treatment Plant have objected to the project con-


tending that the treatment plant will produce foul odors, destroy



                              60

-------
the residential quality of the proximate community, depreciate

the value of homes and property.

     The fact is, these people have valid reasons for not wanting

wastewater treatment facilities to be located in their neighborhood.

A treatment plant that is not designed properly and operated

efficiently will have a real and significant impact on their

environment and their lives.  Unfortunately, sewage treatment

plants have a p'ast history of being offensive and obnoxious to
               t
their environs.  This is a chagrin that the Texas Water Quality

Board and the Environmental Protection Agency are dedicated to

correct.

     The basic problem arises from the fact that wastewater

treatment plants must be constructed to abate water pollution and

prevent health hazards, yet seldom can a location for plants be

found that will be acceptable to all.  Most objections and

controversy relate directly back to plant location.

     The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted the policy

of allowing local government entities to determine the most

feasible site since those entities are most able to ascertain the

facts and respond to the needs of the citizenry by utilizing an

effective public hearing process.

     The Environmental Protection Agency must ensure, if federal

funds are involved, that the proposed construction and operation

 of wastewater treatment facilities will avoid to the fullest

extent practicable undesirable consequences to the environment.

The Agency requires that all governmental entities give due

consideration to both environmental impact and economic prudence.
                             61

-------
    Seldom is a proposed site both the least expensive alternate



and the one that will result in the least adverse environmental



impact, and frequently the most ecologically acceptable site is



not available or is not within the financial capability of the



City without sacrificing other vital project elements.  A com-



promise between environmental objectives and economic feasibility



is often necessary and acceptable provided human health is not



endangered and provided serious environmental impact will not



result from the compromise.



    The objections from residents and landowners, in the form of



letters, petitions, and comments at hearings, prompted additional



on-site investigations by a representative of EPA, Region VI, and



participation in a hearing regarding the site selection.  The



information gathered from the on-site investigation and at the



hearing were incorporated into this statement.



    As a result of these objections, the Environmental Protection



Agency will require that contract plans and specifications include



provisions for odor control techniques and devices to further



reduce the possibility of odors emanating from the plant site.
                             62

-------
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



    1.  The engineering information as presented in preliminary



studies, and preliminary design reports are very comprehensive



and complete.



    2.  The project concepts included in the proposed project give



appropriate and careful consideration to the environmental aspects



to ensure that environmental quality is enhanced.  Sufficient



alternatives were evaluated to minimize adverse impact.  The



selected alternative will avoid undesirable consequences for the



environment.



    3.  Public participation has been encouraged by three public



hearings before the City Council of Austin, Texas, and two hearings



before the Texas Water Quality Board.  Active solicitation of



comments from Federal, State, and local agencies, private organ-



izations, and individuals during the environment impact statement



process will allow further "two-way" communication.  Therefore,



no additional hearings are anticipated.



    4.  Since the proposed Walnut Creek Treatment Plant is to be



constructed in an area where platted subdivisions have been approved



by the City of Austin, the EPA will require that plans include design



concepts, equipment, and processes to ensure that odors do not become



a problem at the site.



    5.  The Environmental Protection Agency will recommend that the



City of Austin fully explore the feasibility of constructing a



separate outfall to the Colorado River for discharge of treatment




plant effluent from the proposed Walnut Creek Treatment Plant.



    6.  The Environmental Protection Agency will require that the



City of Austin give full consideration to the environmental impact
                              63

-------
of future sanitary sewer interceptors that will be proliferated by the




construction of this project.




     7.  The project as proposed by the City of Austin appears to be consistent




with local, state, and national environmental goals.
                                          63a

-------
                    APPENDIX NO.  1






     Comments received from Federal, State, and local




agencies and by private organizations and individuals in




the review process.

-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE	
P. 0. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
                                                        February 23, 1972
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Mr. Busch:

The draft environmental impact statement for  construction of waste-
water facilities, Austin, Texas,  was  referred to  the  Soil Conser-
vation Service for review and comment.

This statement adequately reflects the  effect of  the  proposed project
on upstream water resources and the change in streamflow character-
istics of Walnut Creek.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
project.

Sincerely,
ClydeYW. Graham
State Conservationist

-------
IN REPLY REFER TO:

D6427 Wastewater
Facility, Austin
                 United States Department  of the Interior

                       BUREAU  OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
                                MID-CONTINENT REGION
                         BUILDING 41, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
                               DENVER, COLORADO 80225
                                                        MAR 2
          Mr. Arthur W. Busch
          Regional Administrator
          Environmental Protection
            Agency, Region VI
          1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
          Dallas, Texas  75201

          Dear Mr. Busch:

          We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
          proposed wastewater treatment facilities to be located near
          Austin, Texas as requested in your letter of February 5,  1972.
          Our comments are general in nature since a site inspection of the
          area was not possible.

          Although we feel the environmental effects of the proposed project
          have been adequately covered, the statement could be strengthened
          by listing a broader range of alternative actions.  As noted in
          our February 23, 1972 comments on the proposed treatment  facilities
          near Pittsburg, Texas, we feel that a reuse situation should be
          considered whenever municipalities modify existing treatment plants
          or build new ones.  Waste treatment technology is advancing  along
          with social attitudes toward acceptance of the reuse of treated
          water to the point where tradition can be overcome in favor  of
          innovative practices.  A promising factor as far as recreation is
          concerned is location, since sewage is produced where the people
          are and that is also where the greatest recreation needs  exist.
          Therefore, we would like to see the statement address itself to
          possible reuse alternatives.

          One possible alternative which comes to mind (although we are
          uncertain as to whether it would be appropriate in this case) is
          the Project CURE concept.  This concept — which stands for  Clean
          Urban River Environment — was developed jointly by this  office
          and the Kansas City Water Quality Office and presented in a
          report dated November 1970 as a prospectus for development.
          Basically, this concept involves the advanced treatment of waste
          water near the points of use and collection, and then allowing
          the highly treated effluent to enter either natural or artificially
          created channels and flow freely along the surface through various
          reaches of the city where it can be utilized for recreational and

-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Page 2
environmental enhancement purposes.  So what we are talking about
is decentralizing treatment facilities, utilizing advance treatment
methods, and returning stream courses in urban areas to the surface
instead of piping them underground.  We have found in our investi-
gations that only approximately 40 percent of the original stream
miles remain on the surface in our larger urban areas.  Many of the
natural drainageways and streams have been "engineered" underground
through complex systems of sewers, pipes and tunnels, some related
to the sanitary systems, some quite independent of it.  Under CURE,
it would be possible to return the rivers back to a usable
condition.  The concept is an imaginative way of integrating waste
water treatment and reuse into the future development or redevelop-
ment of urban areas.  The obvious values of these newly formed
rivers and lakes are for water-oriented outdoor recreation and the
enhancement of the urban environment.  Herein lies the importance
of the CURE concept — considering the documented recreation needs
in most urban areas and the general deterioration of the quality
of environment in today's cities.

The only other comment we have to make is in regard to the sentence
on page 34 of the environmental statement which reads as follows:
"The overall economic advantage associated with the tunnel plan was
used as the basis for selecting that alternative."  We do not feel
that monetary costs and benefits should be the sole criterion used
in evaluating alternatives.

We thank you for affording us the opportunity to review this
statement.

                                 Sincerely yours,
cc:  Director, BOR
     Attn:  Division of Resource
            Area Studies
                                         D. Arnold
                                 Regional Director

-------
IN REPLY REFER TO:
                 United States Department  of the Interior

                       BUREAU  OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
                                MID-CONTINENT REGION
                         BUILDING 41, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
                               DENVER, COLORADO 80225
                                                       APR 2 8 B72
    Mr, Dan L.  Sherwood,  P.  E.
    Acting Chief
    Environmental Evaluation Section
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Region VI
    1600 Patterson,  Suite 1100
    Dallas, Texas 75201

    Dear Mr.  Sherwood:

    This refers to your  April 4,  1972 letter regarding your environmental
    impact statement number 7104  relating to construction of wastewater
    treatment  facilities in Austin, Texas.

    Based upon a review  of the material provided, it does not appear the
    interceptor tunnel will have  a direct effect upon the 49-acre Lakewood
    Park project (L&WCF  48-00162) at this time.  Although it may not be
    within the purview of this statement, we would like to take this oppor-
    tunity to  note that  possible  future developments above the presently
    proposed tunnel  entrance could have a substantial impact upon the park.
    Such developments could include additions to this system or attempts to
    increase the Bull Creek Channel capacity as the area develops and
    run-off increases.   In short, any alteration of the natural character
    of the creek in  the  park area would have a very damaging impact.

    We were unable to determine the nature of the tunnel right-of-way in
    the statement narrative.   However, as the result of the conversation
    between Ed Harris and yourself, we understand that no surface rights
    will be acquired for the route that could be utilized for bike trails
    or other recreation  pursuits.

    Regarding  the Walnut Creek plant enlargement, in several places the
    statement  refers to  selective clearing and grubbing along the creek;
    however, page 25 refers to the "reconstructed creek area."  Selective
    clearing and grubbing does not connote reconstruction.  Clarification
    is needed  on this matter.
                                                                     MAY 1   1972

-------
Mr. Dan L. Sherwood, P. E.
Page 2

We also note on page 25 the suggestion that the area contiguous to the
creek could be used as a park.  Has this idea been coordinated with city
park authorities?  The city park department is not on the list of local
agencies asked to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
As you know, flood plain areas can offer one of the most attractive and
refreshing recreation opportunities in the middle of the urban scene.
It would be a plus to the project if such an opportunity could be incor-
porated into this project or be used as a starter for a larger greenbelt
along the creek.

I enclose a Xerox copy of a 3/2/72 memo to your Regional Administrator
on this project.  We appreciate your thoughtfulness in contacting us on
the project to determine its possible impact on Lakewood Park.

                                                Sincerely yours,
                                                       A-
                                                Maurice D. Arnold
                                                Regional Director
Enclosure

-------
    United States Department of the Interior
                   GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
                     FEDERAL BUILDING
                    3OO EAST 8TH STREET
                    AUSTIN. TEXAS 787O1

                     February 8, 1972
Memorandum
To:       Mr.  Arthur W. Busch, Regional Administrator
          Environmental Protection Agency,  Dallas,  Texas

From:     I. D.  Yost, District Chief, Austin,  Texas

Subject:  PROGRAMS AND PLANS--Review of environmental  impact
                             statement - Construction of
                             Waste-water Facilities, Pittsburg,
                             Texas, WPC-TEX-722
The Texas District, Water Resources Division of the  Geological
Survey, has no comment to make on the subject statement.
                                    I.  D.  Yost
cc:  Regional Hydrologist, WRD, RMR, Lakewood,  Colorado
     G.  H.  Davis,  Research Hydrologist,  WRD,  Washington, D.C./w statement.
AGW:lk

-------
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                    FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                              P. 0.  BOX 17300
                          FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102
SWFED-PR                                               29 February 1972
Mr. Dan Sherwood
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas  75201
Dear Mr. Sherwood:

As requested by your letter, the draft environmental statement for the
proposed wastewater facilities, Austin, Texas, has been reviewed by
the Fort Worth District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

We concur with the basic text of the draft environmental statement.
However, the following comments are offered to assist you in the
revision of this environmental statement.

    a.  Page 2, paragraph 2, line 3.  It is unclear what is meant by
"complete treatment."

    b.  Page 2, paragraph 2, line 5.  What is "total flow"?

    c.  Page 2, paragraph 4, line 4.  It should be stated that Freese,
Nichols and Endress are consulting engineers.

    d.  Page 3, paragraph 2, line 3.  The statement "currently of good
quality" should be explained in depth.

    e.  Page 3, paragraph 2, line 4.  "Significant amounts of surface
runoff, pollution, etc." should be explained or quantified.

    f.  General, Land disposal of sludges.  Precaution should be
employed so that runoff from land disposal sites will not enter water
courses.  Also, the alternative of "no action" should be stated.

-------
SWFED-PR                                               29 February 1972
Mr. Dan Sherwood

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.
It is hoped these comments will be helpful in preparing the final
environmental statement.

                                  Sincerely yours,
                                  D. L. ORENDORFF
                                  Chief, Engineering Division

-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
 P. 0.  Box 648
 Temple,  Texas 76501
                                                       January 4, 1972
 Mr. Arthur Busch
 Regional Administrator
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Region VI
 1402 Elm Street, Third Floor
.Dallas, Texas  75202

 Dear Mr. Busch:

 This is in reference to your  Notice of  Intent to prepare an Environmental
 Impact Statement on the construction  of new  cross-town tunnel interceptor
 and expansion of existing Walnut Creek  wastewater treatment plant, City of
 Austin, Travis County, Texas.

 The land involved in both projects is not agricultural land; therefore,
 agricultural production will  not be affected.  The land use is urban.
 Erosion control will be of no consequence on either project.  There will
 be a minimum amount of sediment of these projects because of limited
 areas involved.  Neither of the projects will affect the agricultural
 drainage patterns in the area.

 We appreciate the opportunity to review and  comment on this Notice of
 Intent ,
 Sincerely
                ionist

-------
               UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                          FOREST SERVICE
                            Region 3
                      517 Gold Avenue,  S. W.
                Albuquerque, New Mexico  87101
                                                  1940
                                                  March  3,  197
 Mr.  Arthur W. Busch
 Regional Administrator
 Environmental Protection Agency
 1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
^Dallas,  Texas  75201
 Dear Mr.  Busch:

 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
 Construction of Wastewater Facilities, Austin, Texas, WPC-TEX-
 824, Impact Statement No. 7104.

 We have nothing to add to this statement, and therefore no
 comments to make.  We thank you for permitting our review.

 Sincerely,
 WM.  D.  HURST
 Regional Forester
                                                                    6200-11 (1/69)

-------
                              EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT
                             DIVISION OF PLANNING COORDINATION
PRESTON SMITH                        BOX 12428' CAPITOL STATION                           ED GR|SHAM

  GOVERNOR                             AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711                               DIRECTOR

                                     PHONE 512 475-2427
                                      March 3,  1972
          Mr. Ancil A. Jones
          Air and Water Programs Division
          Environmental Protection Agency
          1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
          Dallas, Texas  75201

          Dear Mr. Jones:

          The Office of the Governor, Division of Planning Coordination (State
          Planning and Development Clearinghouse), and affected Texas  State
          agencies have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for
          construction of wastewater facilities,  Austin, Texas.

          The following comments were received and summarized:

               1.  The Texas Air Control Board addresses the requirement of
          permits for particulate emissions of the furnaces used for calcining
          of lime and regeneration of activated carbon.  The Board further
          treats the subjects of air pollution resulting from oxides of nitrogen
          during blasting phase of construction and the need for incinerating
          hydrogen sulfide from the air change system if the quantity  requires.

               2.  The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recommends  the use of
          the physical-chemical treatment alternative to provide the maximum
          treatment of wastes now.

               3.  The Texas Water Rights Commission recommends modification of
          several parts of the statement in order to clarify ambiguities,
          strengthen justifications, and resolve issues.

               4.  The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board recommends
          that the improvement of the natural characteristics of the 20-acre
          pilot plot for wet sludge be made a part of the evaluation of the
          study if implemented.  The Board further recommends that adequate
          protective measures be taken to protect the banks of Walnut  Creek
          should the treatment plant be contributing to the banks' erosion.
                                                                         i

-------
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
March 3, 1972
Page Two
The comments of these State agencies are enclosed.  Other State agencies
responding concurred with the present content of the draft statement;
their comments are also enclosed.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft environmental impact
statement.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  Ed Grisham
                                  Director
EG:gtt

Encl.  (8)

cc:  Mr. Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., TWQB

     Mr. Louis McDaniels, TWRC

     Mr. Charles R. Barden, TACB

     Mr. James U. Cross, TP&WD       /

     Mr. Harvey Davis, TSS & WCB

     Mr. Harry Burleigh, TWDB

     Dr. James E. Peavy, TSDH

     Mr. J. C. Dingwall, THD

     Hon. Roy Butler
     Mayor, City of Austin

     Mr. Lynn H. Andrews
     City Mgr., City of Austin

     Mr. Richard G. Bean
     Exec. Dir., CAPCO

-------
                 TEXAS AIR CONTROL
                  1100 WEST 49th STREET
                  AUSTIN, TEXAS - 78756
CHARLES R. BARDEN, P. E.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
HERBERT C. McKEE. PhD., P.E.
             Chairman
HERBERT W. WHITNEY, P.E.
        Vice-Chairmon
             WENDELL H. HAMRICK, M.C>.
                    E. W. ROBINSON
                 CHARLES R. JAYNES
                      JOHN BLAIR
                  JAMES D. ABRAMS
                    FRED HARTMAN
             WILLIE L. ULICH, Ph.D.,P.E.
       March 1, 1972
       Mr. Ed Grisham, Director
       Division of Planning Coordination
       Office of the Governor
       Capitol Station
       Austin, Texas   78711

       Dear Ed:

       Following are our comments  on  the  Draft Environmental Impact
       Statement Construction of Wastewater Facilities, Austin, Texas:

            1.  Temporary air pollution will result from oxides
            of nitrogen during blasting operations in the con-
            struction phase of the project (page c of impact
            statement).

            2.  The calcining of lime is  a potential source
            of particulate emissions,  and the furnace used for
            this purpose will require a permit from the Texas
            Air Control Board  (page 20 of statement).

            3.  The incinerator used  for  regeneration of activated
            carbon is also a potential source of particulate
            emissions and will require a  permit from the Texas
            Air Control Board  (page 21 of statement).

            4.  The description of the air change system in
            the tunnel is not detailed enough to determine
            pollutant concentrations,  type of air change system
            or its effectiveness  (page 32 of statement).  Hydrogen
            sulfide is very noxious and,  if found in large enough
            quantities, should be  incinerated.
                                                                  MAR 1Q72

-------
Mr. Ed Grisham
Pc-igc 2
March 1, 1972
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project.  If
I may be of further service, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,
                               ^
Charles R. Harden, P.E.
Executive Secretary
Texas Air Control Board

cc:  Mr. Eugene Fxilton, Regional Supervisor, Waco
     Mr. Roderick Moe, Air Pollution Control Program, Austin-
         Travis County Health Department

-------
                  JxKS AND WllDLIFF  DEPARTMENT
                                  /;-Y  >\x
                                    i
                                      M
                                                       February 22, 1972


 Mr. Ed Coker
 Division of Planning Coordination
 Executive Department
 Capitol Station
 Austin, Texas  78711

 Dear Mr. Coker:

 We have reviewed the draft environmental impact  statement for the construction
 of wastewater facilities at Austin,  Texas,  and are in general agreement with
 the assessment of the project.

 In reference to the plans presented for the construction of the Walnut Creek
 Treatment Plant,  we would prefer the physical-chemical  treatment alternative.
 As we understand it, the physical-chemical  treatment scheme would result in
 greater BOD, COD and phosphorus removals, while  the biological treatment scheme
 would require additional facilities, not to be included at this time,  to provide
 equivalent treatment.  We feel that maximum treatment of wastes should be pro-
 vided now and not postponed until effluent  standards are upgraded.

 We appreciate having had the opportunity to review this draft environmental impact
 statement.


 Sincerely,
 •JAMES U. CROSS
LExecutive Director
                                                           RECEIVED
                                                             FEB S3  1ST?

                                                              of Plan. Coord.

-------
 COMMISSIONERS
OTHA f. DENT. CHAIRMAN
  475-2451
JOE D. CARTF.R
  475-2453
DORGEY B.HARDEMAN
  475-4325
                  TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION
                          SAM HOUSTON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
February 29, 1972
 LOUIS L MCDANIELS

 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

    475-2452

AUDREY STRANDTMAN

    SECRETARY

    /•.75-4514
           Ed Grisham, Director
           Governor's Division of Planning Coordination
           Sam Houston State Office Building
           Austin, Texas  78711
                                   Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                       for the Construction of Wastewater
                                       Facilities, Austin,  Texas, by the
                                       Environmental Protection Agency
           Dear Ed:
                  In response to your request of Judge Dent by memorandum of
           February 9,  1972, we have reviewed the referenced statement and sub-
           mit herewith for your use our staff memorandum of review of the ref-
           erenced draft environmental impact statement on the vital and complex
           $29 million construction project -- the City of Austin Crosstown Inter-
           ceptor Tunnel and the Walnut Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. We
           believe that the draft statement warrants substantial modification in
           order to clarify ambiguities, to  strengthen justifications, and to resolve
           issues.

                  We recommend that the attached memorandum of review be fur-
           nished to the Environmental Protection Agency, as they requested, by
           March 3, 1972, for their consideration in preparing the finalized impact
           statement which will be sent to the Council on Environmental Quality,
           urging early  review by the Council.  Also, we direct your attention to the
           underscored  last sentence of the second paragraph on page 10 which raises
           the question of use of state water for flushing the proposed tunnel  as being
           a beneficial use authorized by state law and subject to being permitted.
           We may have some problems with this point as proposed.
                                           Sincerely,
                                           Louis L. McDaniels
           Attachment
             As stated
P O. BOX I32O7
                                     AREA CODE 512
                         MM
                                                                       AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711

-------
For the Executive Director                   .    February 22, 1972
Texas Water Rights Commission
                      MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW
                               OF
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
            IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
              WRSTEWATER FACILITIES, AUSTIN, TEXAS
Prepared by:  Dr. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Environmental Sciences Analyst
   1.  INTRODUCTION

       1-1  Basis o£ Review — By Memorandum of February 9, 1972,
       the Director, Governor's Division of Planning Coordination,
       transmitted to, and requested the comments of .the Texas
       Water Rights Commission on the document entitled:  Draft
       Environmental Impact Statement for Construction of Waste-
       water Facilities, Austin, Texas, WPC-TEX-824, Impact.State-
       ment Number 7104.  This document was prepared by the Air
       and Water Programs Division, Region VI, Environmental Pro-
       tection Agency, Dallas, Texas,'in accordance with Section
       102(2) (C) of the National Environmental. Policy Act of 1969.
         *
       1.2  General Description and Scope of Project -- The proj-
       ect involves the construction of a  crosstown deep tunnel
       interceptor and expansion of the existing Walnut Creek
       wastewater treatment plant for the City of Austin, Travis
       County, Texas.  The estimated total construction cost  is
       $29,099,000.  A federal grant offer of $16,004,450 was
       made to the City of Austin on September 28,  1971, and  ac-
       cepted on October 18,  1971.  The EPA  (Environmental  Pro-
       tection Agency) Notice of Intent of November 18, 1971,
       further indicated that the State of Texas has offered
       financial assistance in the amount of  $7,274,750.   Con-
       struction was expected to start in March  1972 and be com-
       pleted by June 1974.   The basic application  for  the  fed-
       eral grant, pursuant to Federal Water  Pollution  Control
       Act, Public Law 84-660, as amended, was filed on April
       22,.'1971.
                                              7  MAR

-------
        General Description oj[ Crosstown  Tunnel Interceptor —
        a.  Length:  58,630 feet1

        b.  Depth below ground surface (varies):  25 to 425
        feet1

        c.  Capacity,  based on year 2020, measured at its
        downstream terminus near the Walnut Creek Wastewater
       • Treatment Plant:  130^- million gallons per day  (MGD)
        (Draft states  131 MGD — see page 9)
                                               •i -
        d. 'Diameter (varies):  60 to 96 inches-1"  (Draft:.  78-
        96 inches)

        e.  Types Considered:  Elliptical, Shaped Invert
        (Cunette), and Circular^          '

   1.4  General Description of the Walnut Creek Wastewater
   Treatment Plant —                  ".	  .                .

   ^~--a.  Hydraulic  capacity of primary treatment facility    t/
   •:-=-^:- will be based  on year 2020 needs, i.e., 131 MGD.

        b.  Average or nominal design flow rate of primary
        treatment facility will be based on year 2000 needs,   v
   -   -  i.e., 27 MGD.    (See page 9, Draft)
     •
        c.  .Rated capacity of secondary treatment facility     t
        designed for year 1984 needs, i.e., 18 MGD.   (See
   "  "" page 9, Draft)

        d.  Alternative types of secondary treatment processes
        being considered by the City  include biological and
        physical/chemical process designs.

   1.5  Basic Reports  and Literature  Reviewed —

   '—• a.  '"Long-Range Program of Sewerage Improvements —.
        Austin, Texas", Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers,
        and Bryant-Curington, Inc., 1966.
City of Austin, Texas, Crosstown Wastewater  Interceptor,  Prelimi-
nary Design Report -- Ma thews Leedshill Bryant-Curington,  May
1971, page 1-3.

-------
       b.  "Pre-Dcsign Study for Shoal Creek Sanitary Sower
       System - City of Austin,  Texas", prepared by Freese:,
       Nichols and Endress,  Consulting Engineers, October
       1968.

       c.  "Study of Wastewater Collection System, Phase I --
       City of Austin, Texas",  by Horner and Shifrin, Inc.,
       October 1969.

       d.  "Study of Wastewater Collection System, Phase II •
       City of Austin, Texas",  by Horner and Shifrin, Inc.,
       June 1970.

       e.  "Preliminary Design Report — City of Austin,
       Texas — Crosstown Wastewater Interceptor", by Ma-
       thews Leedshill Bryant-Curington, Engineering Con-
       sultants to the City of Austin, Texas, May 17, 1971.

       f.  "Report on Wastewater Treatment Walnut Creek Site
       for Austin, Texas", by Black and Veatch, Consulting
  -•-•---'  Engineers, and S. A.  Garza Engineers, Inc., December
       10, 1971.

       g".' " "The Highland Lakes System — Comprehensive
       Wastewater Study, 1970-1990, - Phase III, Concep-
       tual Design for Area-Wide Facilities, by Freese,
       Nichols and Endress,  Consulting Engineers, January
    -;  1971.

       h..  "The Highland Lakes System — Comprehensive
       Wastewater Study, 1970-1990, Phase IV - Implemen-
       tation of the Recommended Plans", by Freese, Nichols
       and Endress, Consulting Engineers, February 1971.

       i.  "Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm
       Sewers, Manual No. 37",  by American Society of Civil
       Engineers, 1970.

       j.  "Cost Effectiveness and Clean Water, Vol. II",
       by Water Quality Office,  Environmental Protection
       Agency, March 1971.
                  \
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

-------
Item
No.

2.1
Draft Page
NO.

Summary,
page a,
subpar.  2
       Coium e n t sand S u g g e s t i o n s
2.2
Summary,
page a,
subpar. 3
2.3
Summary,
page b,
subpar. 2
The statement:  "The tunnel will intercept
overloaded trunk sewer wastewater flows..
.." warrants-more precise, wording or
clarification.

Basis;  Page 73, report 1.5g, supra, states:
"...all three individual collection systems
have adequate capacity to handle present
dry weather flows but that the  'central1
system does not have adequate capacity to
handle present wet weather flows."

Pages 73 and 74, report 1.5g, supra, state
further that:   "The existing Govalle plant
has adequate capacity to handle present
dry weather flows, but does not have ade-
quate capacity to handle present wet weather
flows.  The city is now completing construc-
tion of an addition to this  (Govalle) plant
which will permit treatment of all wet
weather flows that can be transported to
it by the existing outfall lines."

Finally, mention is. made that the intercep-
tor tunnel is expected to alleviate flows
in the existing interceptors and lines down-
stream from the tunnel, through the year     -v
1990 only.

Identify what are the projects for which
"plans and specifications have been approved
by the Texas Water Quality Board and have
been submitted to the regional EPA office."

Basis;.  The narrative of the draft state-
ment under review indicates no mention of
completed plans and specifications for the
Crosstown tunnel or Walnut Creek plant.

More detailed clarification should be pre-
sented as to how and when the tunnel inter-
ceptor and the  still undecided type treat-

-------
       Draft Page
       No.
                     Comments  and Suggestions
2.4
Summary,
page b,
subpar. 3
ment to be adopted for the new Walnut
Creek treatment plant "will relieve the
overloaded trunk sewers tributary to the
Govalle Wast.ewater Treatment Plant. ..."
       \
Explanation also would be helpful as to
precisely how and where the "present
wastewater overflows cause a detriment
....to the tributary creeks, Lake Austin,
and the Colorado River...."  Perhaps,
some mention could be made of hydraulic
deficiencies and infiltration in the
older, existing sewerage system," and the
measures being taken to remedy these de-
fects.

Basis;  See pages 73-74, of report cited
in 1.5g, supra.  Also, see pages 45-46
of draft for discussion of infiltration
and related matters brought out during
hearings.                        :

The statement that the adverse effects
"due to the establishment of a more perma-
nent type of treatment at the Walnut Creek
site are considered minimal" warrants ei-
ther further explanation or modification.

Basis;  The type of treatment to be adopted,
the effluent standards to be established
and volume of discharge appear to be still
in an indeterminate status.  See pages 76-
81 of report cited in 1.5g, supra.  Also,
see pages 68-81, report 1.5f, supra.  Also,
see pages 35-41, of the environmental draft.
statment.  Analysis of the data in fore-
going references indicates that the net im-
pacts "on the environment could be signifi-
cant, depending on the final decisions to
be made concerning the type of treatment,
the modes of operation, plant failure safe-
guards and effluent or stream standards.
Also,  consideration should be given to the
overall regional plan of improvements of
                        -5-

-------
          Draft Page
          Ito.	;	Comments and Suggestions	

                       which this project is part,  (see page 82
                       of report cited in 1.5g,  supra), in as-
                       sessing whether the specific environmen-
                       tal effects of this component project can
                       be isolated,  and identified.

   2.5    .Summary,     Clarification should be made that the al-
          pages c &    ternatives are still being considered.
          d, subpar.   The present wording inferring completed
          4           - action should be modified;

   2.6    Pages 2-3    Suggest that the explanation showing that
                       "the project is part of the Highland Lakes
                       System Comprehensive Wastewater Study...."
                       be more precisely worded.

                       Basis;  See page 1 of the Hearing Commis-
                       sion Report appended to subject draft.
                       The above report indicates that the High-
                       land Lakes study was recommended by the
                       Texas Water Quality Board "as the interim
                       water quality management plan for the
                       Highland Lakes planning area. "  In this
                       regard, the undersigned believes that some
                       recognition should be given to the fact
                       that several local groupings of a number
                       of small treatment plants into collective
                       sewerage systems cannot be accurately re-
                       garded as true regional systems.

                              ^ indicates that:

                            "There are of course advantages of
                            scale to be obtained by consolidated
                                                  •*
                            operations, which however, are rapidly
                            countered by increasing costs of pip-
                            ing wastewaters as the area is ex-
                            tended. "
       ,  William, Jr.,  "Water Pollution Control Institutions",
Engineering Issues,  Proc.  of Amer.  Soc. of Civ. Engrs., Vol. 98,
No. PP 1, January 1972,  page 20.

       ,  Ibid, page 20.

-------
          Draft Page
          No.
                     Comme n ts  and Sugge s t ions
   2.7
Page 12,
Therefore, qualified wording should be used
to place the Austin Crosstown tunnel inter-
ceptor and the Walnut Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant in the proper perspective.
The project  (i.e., tunnel and plant may
eventually be part of a Highland Lakes Sys-
tem, but this appears to be still a conjec-
tural matter at this time.  Whipple  indi-
cates a major problem in wastewater treat-
ment regionalization:

:- :  - "There are usually institutional dif-
     ficulties in organizing collective
,: . . systems, which require state action
     to overcome."

A_discussion of the special institutional.
and organizational arrangements involved
in the Highland Lakes System is contained
in. the report cited in paragraph 1.5h,
'supra.  Salient aspects thereof should be
included in the discussion of the Highland
Lakes System made in the project descrip-
tion of this draft .environmental statement.

Statement is made that "an extensive pro-
gram to eliminate sources of infiltration"
As underway and it is inferred that sub-
stantial improvements will result there-
from.  However, on pages 45-46, discussions
at a public hearing indicate that the cor-
rection of infiltration is "expensive and
the process is inherently a long-term proj-
ect.  After working on the problem for more
than three years, some improvement has been
made, but as yet there has not been such a
drastic improvement as to revise the hy-
draulic basis for existing areas."
.Whipple, Ibid, page 20.

-------
Draft Page
Ncx,	• 	Comments and Suggestions	

             The matters of amount of infiltration,  and
             the basis of computing the amount of in-
             filtration appear to permeate disquietingly
             all phases of this project.

             Therefore,  in order to remove all misunder-
    .  '       standings,  it is strongly suggested that a
             very clear and complete explanation be  made
             of the techniques, methods,  data or mea-
             surements used in determining the design
             data of the collection systems'involved in
             the project.   This clarification of basic
             design capacities would be in beneficial
             pursuance of the bold cost effectiveness
             analyses urged by the Environmental Pro-
             tection Agency,  in the document cited in
             paragraph 1.5j,  supra:

          p. 117: "Thus, economies of scale and safety
                  margins are not, in and of themselves,
                  sufficient economic justifications
                  for overbuilding treatment plant capa-
                 . city.   Only if a community is expected
                 •to operate its treatment facility near
                  full capacity within the near future,
                  say five to seven years, will the  po-
                  tential cost savings be realized.   In
                  general,  a strategy of building capa-
                  city to meet current and near-term
                  needs will yield lower costs of con-
                  struction and operation than the stra-
                  tegy of overbuilding".

            •In view of the foregoing, it is evident that
             specia,! care must be taken in determining
             the design treatment load.  In this regard,
             the following additional cautions are given
             in the report, paragraph 1.5j, supra:

           p.  75: "Assuming the substitutability of un-
                  invested capital in one place for an-
                  other, and a generally fixed level of
                  funding,  overbuilding at one set of

-------
Item   Draft Page
No.    No.		'_ Comments and Suggestions
                         points at the same time that un-
                         treated waste discharges and over-
                         loaded waste treatment plants oc-
                         cur at other points contributes to
                         the persistence of pollutional
                         conditions...."
                                                         t

                  p.  77:  "...assistance that is used to
                         capitalize idle capacity when it
                         might be allotted for productive
                         purposes can under resource scar-
                         city only be considered to contri-
                         bute to the  persistence of pollu-
                         tion/ since, unlike local funds,
                         it is potentially available for a
                         number of other projects."

                    Further,

                  p.  77:  "It is probably safe to assume
                         that the major costs of misallo-
                         cating funds to purposes that have
                         a low-marginal utility — specifi-
                         cally,  adding to the stock of idle
                         waste treatment capital and sewer-
                         ing portions of communities that
                         do not require sewering — are borne
                         by the environment.  Continued pol-
                         lution of water is the prime price
                         that economy pays for directing in-
                         vestments into projects that offer
                         a low return relative to other,
                         more directly profitable purposes."

                    In view of the foregoing cautions, it
                    is recommended that any major doubts over
                    basic design criteria be quickly, thoroughly
                    and clearly explained.  This would greatly
                    strengthen the engineering environmental
                    and economic bases of this project.

-------
2.8
Draft Page
No.	

Page 13,
subpar.  2
                            Comments and Suggestions
2.9
Pages 16
to 21, in-
clusive
2.10   Page 26,
The question arises as to what measures
will be taken to minimize the effects of
hydrogen sulfide-sulphuric acid deteriora-
tion also in the relieved collector sys-
tems downstream of the proposed new inter-
ceptor.

Also, has adequate consideration been given
to the fractional losses or energy drops of
the air flow due to the siphons-and the ac-
cess shafts along the new, proposed inter-
ceptor line?  In addition, will effluent
resulting from periodic flushing of the
interceptor be treated?  But_,_ more_ funda-
mental is the question of whether_or_not
thej_use of Lake Austin water for this pur-,
pose is an author iz ed use oj^State watjjrs._
justifying issuance of a usage permit.

The comparative discussion of the biologi-
cal and the chemical/physical treatment
processes, should end with some firm recom-
mendations as to which process, or modifi-
cation thereof, should be selected, and
the justification for that selection, con-
sidering:  effluent standards adopted, es-
timated construction costs, and estimated
annual maintenance and operation costs.

In the discussion of treatment processes
further consideration should be given to
effects of effluent chlorination on the
receiving body of water.

Statement is made that the Govalle Plant
discharge "presents a point load to the
Colorado River", and that while the future
Walnut Creek plant discharge will  "enter
the Colorado River within the  influence of
the Gcvalle discharge, such diversification
will lessen the localized effects on the
Colorado River".  These remarks warrant fur-
ther elaboration to reflect the replies to th-.

-------
       Draft Page
       No.	Comments  and Suggestions	

                    following questions:

                       (a)  Will  the present modifications
                       to the Gove^lle Plant (not part of
                       this project)  increase  the present
                       discharge of 25 MGD,  and will  it
                       afford any mitigation in adverse
                       point load effects?

                       (b)  What  is the anticipated.discharge
                       of the future  Walnut Creek plant, and
                       can this  future discharge really be
                       regarded  other than  another major
                       point load source which did not ex-
                       ist before?  (It is  understood from
                       •the discussion on page  27 that there
                       is no discharge from the present Wal-
                       nut Creek plant; the future plant
                       will discharge.)

                    In summary,  it appears  that the anticipated
                    beneficial water  uses of Lake Austin, Town
                    Lake  and the Colorado River are contingent
                    upon  the establishment  of  stringent stream
                    and effluent standards,  and the design of
                    waste treatment facilities to insure those
                    high  standards.   Otherwise, the Govalle
                    and Walnut Creek  Plant  discharges will have
                    a very significant effect  on the  receiving
                    body  of water.

2.11   Page 32,      Statement is made that  odor control will
       subpar.  2    be obtained  by chlorination processes.

       Page 33,      Statement is made that  if a physical/chemi-
       subpar.  4    cal secondary treatment process is used,
                    the discharge of  air pollutants from re-
                    generation furnaces will be controlled by
                •   scrubbing of gases "to  provide a  quality
                    consistent with the National Air  Quality
                    Standards established by EPA."

-------
                Draft Page
                No.
         2.12
Pages 35-
42 inclu-
sive
   3.  RECOMMENDATIONS
                     Comment.s and Suggestions
Analysis of prevailing winds  (see figure
6, Draft) indicates that very stringent
odor and pollution control processes will
be essential since all major wastewater
treatment facilities for Austin will be
consolidated into a localized area from
which by-product odors and/or pollutants
could be driven by the prevailing winds
from south to north, across the major
portions of the city.

Cost data pertaining to the various treat-
ment plant alternatives should be furnished,
as they were for the tunnel project (see
page 34).

Some clarification should be made of the
major reasons why no final decision has
been reached concerning the type of treat-
ment process, sludge disposal process and
related matters.  What are the delaying
or complicating factors?

Special cautions should be taken to insure
the construction and operation of treatment
facilities to near-full capacity.  See dis-
cussion in Item 2.7, supra.  It appears
from the subsequent discussion on page 42,
regarding the construction of the treatment
plant on a "modular" basis that the eco-
nomies of balanced growth and flexibility
have been recognized.
       Recommend that the comments "and suggestions in paragraph 2,  supra
   be furnished to and considered by the Environmental Protection Agency,
   the City of Austin, and their engineer consultants, in preparation of
   the finalized environmental impact statement for the vital and complex
   project under review.
                                                          rezzo
AJD/tg

-------
                   TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
                                                               J. E PEAVY, MD
LESTER CLARK
  Viet.CHAIRMAN                          .xt?J~C>                       BYRON TUNNfLL
J DOUG TOOLE                          :x('f- "VJf &!?'•                      HUGH C. YAISTIS. JR.
                                    _                            EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HARRY P BLIRLEIGH
                                    '•-..':'...•••"                       PH. 475-2051
                                                                 AC. 512

                             314 WEST 11TH STREET 787O1
                           P.O. BOX 13246 CAPITOL STATION 7871]
                                AUSTIN. TEXAS
                             February 23,  1972

                                     RE:   Environmental Impact Statement
                                          Austin,  Texas
                                          WPC-Tex-824

  Mr.  Ed Grisham,  Director
  Division of Planning Coordination
  Office of the Governor
  P. 0. Box 12428, Capitol Station
  Austin,  Texas   78711

  Dear Mr. Grisham:

  In response to your memorandum of February 9,  1972, regarding the
  draft environmental impact statement for the City of Austin, this
  letter will indicate to you our interest in this matter in that the
  City has submitted an application to us under the Public Law 660 Pro-
  gram for construction grant assistance.  Also upon completion of the
  project, we will have regulatory jurisdiction over the lines as well
  as the treatment plant to which the wastewater will be conveyed.

  We have reviewed this project thoroughly and feel it has great merit.
  The Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been very adequately pre-
  sented with respect to the benefits the project will provide the Austin
  metropolitan area and the lower Highland Lakes System.

  The  project,  in conformance with the Highland Lakes System Comprehensive
  Wastewater Study as approved by the Texas Water Quality Board and the
  Environmental Protection Agency,  has been publicly aired on several
  occasions at the local and State levels.  Its acceptance by the public
  is reflected in the vote of confidence margin of 7-1 for bonds to
  support the project.

  The  State of Texas, by Texas Water Quality Board Order No. 71-1216-5,
  has  approved State Financial Assistance in the amount of $7,274,750.00
  for  the project.  The City of Austin has submitted an Environmental
  Assessment in accordance with condition Number 13 of their Part A
  (Grant offer) .                                              RECEIVED

                                                                FED 24 1972

-------
Mr. Ed Grisham
Page 2
February 23, 1972
We hope these remarks will be sufficient for  your  review process
Please call us if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,
        ',
Robert G. Fleming , P .E . ,  Director
Central Operations

NWC : jh

-------
           TEXAS  WATER  DEVELOPMENT  BOARD
  MEMBERS

W. E. TINSLF-Y CHAIRMAN
  AUSTIN

MARVIN SHUNUET. VICE CHAIRMAN
  PETERSBURG

ROBERT B. GK.MORE
  DALLAS

JOHN H. MCCOY
  NEW BOSTON

MILTON T. POTTS
  LIVINGSTON

CARL. ILLIG
  HOUSTON
  P.O. BOX 13067
 CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN. TEXAS 7(371 1
                               HARRY P. UURLFIGH
                                EXICUTIVE DIRECTOR
                                AREA CODE 512
                                  475-2201
                              3OI WEST 2ND STREET
  FEB
                                                               IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                                              TWDBP
    Mr. Ed Grisham, Director
    Division of Planning Coordination
    Office of the Governor
    P. O. Box 12428, Capitol Station
    Austin, Texas  78711

    Dear Mr. Grisham:

         Please refer to your memorandum of February 9, 1972 forwarding
    for our review and comment the draft environmental statement for
    the Construction of Wastewater Facilities, Austin, Texas (WPC-Tex-
    824), prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency.

         On September 17, 1971,  the Texas Water Quality Board,  of
    which I am a member under statute,  considered the application of
    the City of Austin for enlargement  of its  existing Walnut Creek
    waste treatment plant and the interception of flows at upstream
    points on trunk sewers for diversion to the Walnut Creek plant.
    After thorough evaluation of various alternatives by the staff
    of the Texas Water Quality Board, the Board approved the City's
    program as set forth in the draft statement and the accompanying
    Hearing Commission Report of the Board.

         The action of the Texas Water  Quality Board therefore repre-
    sents the views of this agency on the matter.  We also concur in the
    conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency as set forth on
    page 48 of the draft environmental  statement.

         Thank you for providing us "the opportunity of commenting on
    this statement.
      RECEIVED
            Sincerely,
               VS12

     DIv.ofPian.iL,
            Harry P. Burleigh

-------
FROM	±
                         tase
                         AUSTIN
          G. R. Herzik, Jr., P.E.
          Deputy Commissioner for
          Environmentnl Health
                                    INTER-OFFICE
SUBJECT.
                         TO.
                                     TEXAS

                                    Fratis L.  Duff,  M.D.
                                    Deputy Commissioner for
                                    Program P3.aiming	
Wastewater FacilitieSj  Austin,  Texas - WPC - Tex - 82M
         Draft Environmental Impact Statement
             We have completed a review  of the Draft Environmental Impact
             Statement prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency and
             submitted to this Department for evaluation by the Governor's
             Office. The project involves the construction of a cross town
             sewage tunnel which will extend from the intersection of Walnut
             Creek and FM 969 to the mouth of Bull Creek.  At the terminus
             of the sewer the Walnut Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant will
             be constructed. Improvement in the existing facilities at the
             Govalle Wastewater Treatment Plant will be concurrent.

             The net public health impact of the project is beneficial and
             will alleviate many of the problems associated with overflow-
             ing manholes and possible contamination of Town Lake.
             DMC/rf
                                                           SIGNED _
                                                                  February 2vv,

-------
            TEXAS  FOREST  SERVICE
File_5.329-E
                                       College  Station,  Texas  77843
                                       February 15,  1972
   Mr. Arthur W.  Busch
   Regional Administrator
   Environmental  Protection Agency
   Region VI
   1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
   Dallas, Texas  75201

   Dear Mr. Busch:

        The Texas Forest Service  has  no  constructive  comments  to  offer in
   response to the draft of your  environmental  statement for the  proposed
   wastewater treatment facilities  to be located near Austin,  Texas.

        Document received February  5, 1972.

                                      Very  truly yours,

                                      Paul  R.  Kramer, Director
                                       By:   Mason C.  Cloud

   MC/mm

-------
TEXAS STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
                     1018 First National Building
                       Temple. Texas 76COI
                     AREA CODE 817. 773-225O

                      February 25 ,  1972
Division of Planning Coordination
Office of the Governor
Capitol Station Box P
Austin, Texas  78711

Attention:  Mr. Ed Coker

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Construction of Wastewater Facilities, Austin, Texas, and
have these comments:

     1.)  We note with favorable interest the city's intention
          to investigate land disposal of wet sludge (pg. 19)-
          If the study involving a 20-acre pilot plot is im-
          plemented, we recommend that improvement of the
          natural characteristics of the treated land area be
          made a part of the criteria for evaluating the results
          of the study.

     2.)  Morrison Enterprises, in a letter attached to the
          draft statement, states that "considerable erosion"
          is occuring on the north bank of Walnut Creek down-
          stream from the treatment plant.  There appears to
          be little discussion of this particular problem other
          than general remarks on pages 23 and 31 that apparently
          conflict with the Morrison letter.  Although we have no
          information other than that presented in the draft
          statement, we believe that the permitted average
          discharge volume of 25,000,000 gallons per day could
          possibly cause accelerated streambank erosion resulting
          in downstream polluting siltation.  If an investigation
          indicates that the Walnut Creek plant is contributing
          to the problem, we recommend that adequate protective
          measures be made integral part of this project.
                                                           RECEIVED
                                                             FEB 28  |972

                                                             . of Plan. Coord.

-------
page 2
             Mr. Ed Coker
February 25, 1972
Other than these comments, we agree with the conclusions of the
Environmental Protection Agency and consider the  draft statement
to be a comprehensive and detailed presentation of the environ-
mental impact of the project.
Sincere
yours,       /
    /TO*
Harvey
Executive /Director
HD:mc

-------
     COMMISSION                                           STATE H.C.HW.Y L-VG.NEE!

                                                        J. C. DINGWALL
S;TCCS«TE||Y.CJHRA:RMAN      TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
CHARLES E. SIMONS
                            AUSTIN. TEXAS 78 7O1
                          February 18, 1972
                                                       IN REPL.Y REFER TO

                                                       FILE NO. D-5
 SUBJECT:  Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
           Construction of Wastewater Facilities, Austin,
           Texas, by the Environmental Protection Agency
 Mr. Ed Grisham, Director
 Division of Planning Coordination
 Office of the Governor
 Room 211, Sam Houston State
   Office Building
 Austin, Texas   78701

 Dear Ed:

 We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement which
 accompanied your memorandum of February 9, 1972 and  find nothing
 in it which would be detrimental to the interests of the Texas
 Highway Department.  As stated in the letter of December 27,  1971
 from Mr. J. M. Owens, District Engineer, Texas Highway Department,
 to Mr. Bill V. McFarland, Acting Regional Administrator of  the
 Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Austin  worked  in
 close harmony with the Department in the development of detailed
 plans for the proposed cross-town tunnel interceptor.

 The opportunity of reviewing the draft environmental impact
 statement is greatly appreciated.

                                 Sincerely yours

                                 J. C. Dingwall
                                 State Highway Engineer
                                 Marcus L. Yartcey, Jr.
                                 Administrative Engineer
                                                                   «.
                                                                   ' s
                                           l! * i

-------
      COMMISSION

OEWITT  C. GREEK, CHAIRMAN
HERBERT  C. RETRY, JR.
CHARLES E. SIMONS
TEXAS HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT
        Austin, Texas
       December 27, 1971
      Subject:  Proposed Cross-town Tunnel Interceptor and
                Expansion of Existing Walnut Greek Wastewater
                Treatment Plant, City of Austin,  Travis County
                                        IN REPLY REFER TO

                                        FILE NO.
      Mr. Bill V. McFarland
      Acting Regional Administrator
      Environmental Protection Agency
      Region VI
      1402 Elm Street, Third Floor
      Dallas, Texas 75202

      Dear Mr. McFarland;

      Reference is made to your "Notice of Intent" dated November 18, 1971,
      regarding the above subject and inviting comments for your use in the
      preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  This Notice
      was forwarded to this office for our comments.

      The City of Austin has discussed the proposed cross-town tunnel inter-
      ceptor with this office during their detail planning and have made
      certain revisions at our suggestions.

      The interceptor tunnel will be on the right of way of Farm Road 969
      from near the Walnut Creek outlet to Springdale Road.  The creek outlet
      was moved off of the right of way at our request and shaft S-l at Fort
      Branch was moved further from the pavement to allow possible widening
      of the roadway of Farm Road 969 without disturbing the shaft entrance.
      We have also discussed with the City the handling of traffic during the
      construction and use of this shaft. From the east end of the tunnel to
      where the tunnel leaves the right of way of Farm Road 969 there will be
      a. variation in cover from 20' to about 100'.

      From Springdale Road the tunnel goes cross-country crossing U.S. Highway
      183 about 68* underground near the intersection of U.S. 183 and Farm Road
      969. The interceptor tunnel will be about 78' underground at its crossing
      with Loop 111 (Airport Boulevard)5 about 1431 below I.E. 35 near East
      28th Street; about 120' under Loop 1 (Mo Pac) at about 29k Street and
      about 98' under Ranch Road 2222 at the Mt. Bonnell Road.

-------
Mr. Bill V. McFarland
December 27, 1971
Page  2
As we have told the City of Austin,  we do not see any problems which
would arise from the construction of this interceptor tunnel as far
as the Highway Department is concerned.

If further information is desired, please advise.


                                                  Sincerely yours
                                                     M.  Owens
                                                  District Engineer
                                                  District Fourteen
JMO: rb
cc  File D-5
    Mr. Ed Grisham
    District Maintenance Engineer Jack Wilder

-------
             /f^
         105 WEST RIVERSIDE DRIVE •  SUITE 246 •  AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704 •  PH. 474-2376

                          March  6,  1972
Mr. Lynn H.  Andrews
City Manager
City of Austin
P. 0. Box 1088
Austin, Texas   78767

Dear Mr. Andrews:

As per your recent request for  the  Capital Area Planning Council
(CAPCO) to review and comment on  the E.P.A.  "Environmental Impact"
statement regarding the City of Austin's  proposed Crosstown Inter-
ceptor and Treatment Facilities,  we have  done  so and have found
the statement well-prepared and apparently cognizant of the app-
ropriate environmental considerations.

!ou will notice from the attached "Project Summary" Sheet that
our Governmental Applications Review Committee  (GARC) concurred
with our findings and recommended a favorable  review and comment
on the project and the impact statement.  The  remaining steps
are to present the staff and GARC comments to  the CAPCO Executive
Committee at their Tuesday, March 14th meeting for their consi-
deration, followed by final summation of  all comments and re-
commendations and submittal of  same to the City of Austin and the
Environmental Protection Agency in  Dallas.

                               yours truly,
RGB/Jm
cc
                               Richard  G.  Bean
                               Executive  Director
                               City  of Austin
Curtis E.  Johnson,  P.  E.,  City  of Austin
Air & Water Programs Division,  Region  IV,  EPA, Dallas

-------
PROJECT  SUPiMARY         •     /b**-.  *w*
  Project Title  2 2-72-/J7 7E   Environmental Impact Statement,   City
\               of Austin  -  Crostovn Interceptor & Treatment Facility
                                                                    es
 Prescription of Project

 Construction of wastewater interception and treatment facilities for
 the City of Austin,  Texas.   Eligible work consists of the construc-
 tion of a. deep tunnel interceptor and the enlargement of an existing
 waste'Jater treatment plant.   The tunnel will intercept overloaded
 sewer •jastewatei* flows and convey then to the proposed wastewater
 treatment plant.

 The total estimated cost of this project is $ $293099>000f  all  of
 which is eligible for federal participation.

 Staff Comments '

 The staff reviewed this  proposed project and  found that it would
 adequately serve the needs  of the area.   However,  they stressed
 that care should be taken in  the construction process  to alleviate .
 the possibility of shifting and consequent  damage  in  the area.
 Otherwise, the staff recommended favorable  review  and  comment.

 GARC Comments                '      •                           ''
 	.	         ,.*•..

 GARC reviewed the proposed application and  found it to adequately
 serve the needs of the area and therefore recommended  favorable
 review and comment.

-------
                              AUSTIN TEXAS GROUP OF THE LONE STAR CHAPTER



               TO EXPLORE, ENJOY, AND PROTECT THE NATION'S SCENIC RESOURCES...
                                  7608 Rustling Road
                                  Austin, Texas   78731
                                  345-1351, 926-2800
January 11, 1972
Dr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Eiivironmontal Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite'1100
Dallas, Texas   75201

Dear Dr. Busch:

Subject:  Shortened Coordination Cycle, Austin Crosstown.
          Wastewater and Treatment Facility

By this letter, we are confirming the details of a proposal
discussed in telecons with Mr. McFarland, Mr. Danny Sherwood,
and Mr. James De La Plaine, and in writing to the City Manager
and City Council of Austin.  Specifically, we propose that a
pilot project be initiated in Austin to effect concurrent
public critique when an environmental impact statement is re-
quired for an environmental improvement project funded in pa-re
by the Environmental Protection Agency.  We propose that the
review periods of 90 and 30 days for the draft and final impact
statements could thereby be reduced, resulting in a cost re-.]
duction to the Government.  To achieve that end, the Sierra
Club has proposed to the City of Austin, and the City of Austin
has accepted, an offer whereby the Sierra Club will coordinate
a concurrent public critique of the plans and impact statement
associated with the cross town sewer intercepter tunnel and
treatment plant.

The Sierra Club previously performed a coordination activity
during- the preparation of Austin's Industrial Waste Ordinance.
This Ordinance was endorsed by all environmental groups in
Austin and by industry in Austin and was passed unanimously
by the City Council.  Organizations and individuals who in the
past supported us in this activity or who have volunteered to
do so or will likely do so include, in addition to the Sierra
Club, the Travis Audubon Society. Friends of the Earth, Friends
of the Environment, Ecology Action, St. Edward's Em/ironies
Center, the Institute for Advanced Environmental Studies, the
Texas Environmental Coalition, and other persons connected

-------
Dr. Arthur W. Busch
Page 2
January 11,
             1972
with the faculties and the universities in
with architectural and engineering firms.
which would be open to the public, would in
a "blue ribbon" panel.
                                           this city or connected
                                           This critique process,
                                            essence amount to
We suggest that this operation in'Austin be considered a pilot
project rather than an exception and that as a result of this
effort, sponsored jointly by the Dallas Regional Office of
EPA, the City of Austin, and the Sierra Club, a draft procedure
for subsequent projects could be distributed.  We, of course,
have had limited experience in the interpretation of the
regulations governing impact statements, but do get the im-
pression that the Council on Environmental Quality has the
prerogative of authorizing a reduction in the 90 and 30 day
review periods.  (Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 79,
Paragraph 10(d), second sentence:

     Similarly, where there are overriding considerations
     of expense to the Government or impaired program
effectiveness, the responsible
                                    agency
                                           should consult
     the Council concerning appropriate modifications of
     the minimum periods.")

Since all public groups in Austin who might reasonably be expected
to send in critiques will be represented, we are not bypassing
or subverting the public review process — merely making it more
timely and efficient.
It is our intent, as concurred with by the City of Austin, to
proceed with the review of the City's plans and impart statement
input by next week at the latest.  The members of the Sierra
Club and the other groups involved are willing to perform this
function as environmentally-concerned and civic-minded citizens.
Both we and the City are most anxious to'have a reply from your
office as to any relief which the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Office of Environmental Quality can grant on the.
time needed for the coordination process.

Yours very truly,
Donald C. Berman
Chairman, Austin Regional Group

DCB/bc

cc:  Mr. William McFarland
     Assistant Regional Administrator
       for Management
     Environuiontal Protection Agency
                                       Mayor Roy But lei-
                                       Austin City Council
                                       City Mgr. Lynn Andrews
                                       Mr. Curtis Johnson, Water
                                         and Wastcwater Dept.

-------
                             AUSTIN TEXAS GROUP OF THE LONE STAR CHAPTER



              TO EXPLORE, ENJOY, AND PROTECT THE NATION'S SCENIC RESOURCES...
                                 7608 Rustling Road
                                 Austin, Texas   78731
                                 345-1351, 926-2800
February 8, 1972
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas   75201

Dear Mr. Busch:

It has just occurred to us that perhaps you have not as yet
received a copy of the reply from the Council on Environmental
Quality regarding the Austin Crosstown Wastewater and Treatment
Facility.  A copy is attached for your information.

We would appreciate early receipt of the impact statement as
soon as it is available to the public for review.

Yours very truly,
Donald C. Berman
Chairman
Austin Regional Group

DCB/bc

Enclosure

-------
                        EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
                         COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
                               722 JACKSON PLACE. N. W.
                               WASHINGTON. D. C.  20006

                                                     JR!-; £ <• V3/Z

            Dear Mr. Berman:

            The Council has reviewed your letter of January 18 con-
            cerning the possibility of shortening review periods
            under Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
            Policy Act and the Council's Guidelines as they relate
            to the Austin Crosstown Wastewater and Treatment Facility»
            It is not possible for us  to agree to your proposal for
            the following reasons:

            1,   Section 10(d) of the  Guidelines leaves to the
            Federal agency proposing to take the action the duty
            of consulting with the Council in regard to modification
            of review period.  We have received no official corres-
            pondence on this matter from the Environmental Protection
            Agency.

            2.   Any request for such  modification of review periods
^           must closely delineate the emergency circumstances,
3           expense to the Government, or impaired program effective-
*           ness which make necessary  the consultation.  The prospect
&           of delay alone  is not a sufficient consideration, in this
j           regard because experience  has shown that an environmental
            statement process properly integrated into the on-going
            project review procedures  will cause no inappropriate
            delay.  Your letter  assumes that the 90-day review
            period under NEPA is a waiting period after all decisions
            to proceed have been made.  The Council cannot agree with
            this interpretation  of the Act.  Section 102(2)(c) states
            (in part) that  the statement  "shall accompany the
            proposal through the existing agency review process.1^

 }           3.   The Council is  very reluctant to consider shortening
            the review period for actions which involve the construc-
 -}           tion of a major interceptor sewer because of the unique
 •           set of beneficial and detrimental impacts which such a

 I
 j
 1

-------
            project usually entails.   Close  examination and full
            public review of these impacts and the relative benefits
            and costs is extremely important in the case of an
            action with such characteristics.   For example, the
            instant project appears' to have an effect on the pattern
            and pace of urban development in surrounding areas; we
            believe that issue requires fullest airing and discussion,
            with the maximum' expertise both within and without govern-
            ment brought to bear.

            4.   Finally, it is unclear to us what is meant by rising
            this review as a "pilot" for others.  If it is the belief
:            of your organization that in some classes of cases less
I            than the 30 and 90-day review periods should be required
j            for NEPA review, we would be interested in receiving your
i            comments and suggestions.  The Guidelines for 102 (2) (c)
'            are currently undergoing revision to bring them up to date
            with the current status of the Act under law.  It would
i            be helpful to us if you would let us know in the near
j            future what general ideas for revision you might have.
            Meanwhile, we are assuming that the 30 and 90-day periods
i            are appropriate as a general rule.
t
I            Thank you for writing the Council.  I hope this letter is
            responsive to your inquiries.
                                     Sincerely,
                                     Timothy Atke/son
                                     General Counsel
            Mr. Donald C. Berman
            Chairman, Austin Regional Group
            Sierra  Club
            7608 Rustling Road
            Austin,  Texas   78731

             cc:  Mr. Sheldon Myers, EPA
                  Mr. Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club
                  Mr. W. Lloyd Tupling,  Sierra Club

-------
  REGISTERED ENGINEER

CIVIL. - SANITARY - CHEM1CA
  R.  M. D1XON
WATER CONSULTANT
   AUSTIN, TEXAS


March 24,  1972
                                                    P. O. BOX 5216
                                                   512/345-0287
 Mr.  Arthur W. Busch
 Regional Administrator
 Environmental Protection Agency,  Region VI
 1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
 Dallas, Texas       75201

 Dear Sir:

 Attached to this letter of transmittal are the comments that
 I have prepared for your agency's consideration in connection
 with the consolidation of other comments and statements that
 are in response to your invitation in your undated communication
 which accompanied the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT for CON-
 STRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES for AUSTIN, TEXAS, designated
 as WPC-TEX-824.  DRAFT IMPACT STATEMENT IS NUMBERED 7104, and
 the cover page states that it was prepared by AIR AND WATER
 PROGRAMS DIVISION of Region VI, and it bears your signature
 as Regional Administrator, and in order to keep the record
 straight, I asked for an extension of the time mentioned in
 your Statement transmittal letter and it was duly granted
 and because of unforeseen circumstances which were explained
 by telephone to the ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SECTION I was
 granted some additional time in addition to what was in
 Mr.  Lee's reply to my letter request.  And I want to express
 to you my deep appreciation and sincerest thanks for their
 understanding and considerations.  And The Texas League of
 Conservation Voters join me in this expression for this analy-
 sis of the statement (IMPACT)  is  made jointly with their en-
 dorsement because:  I am their advisor in water and wastewater
 matters, and hold membership in the organization.

 I have enjoyed a close working relationship with the people
 in the Water Programs division and have found them to be
 dedicated and concerned and that goes quite a long way with

-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, March 24, 1972, Page 2
the people who contact them in this water pollution program
of attempted abatement.  Its magnitude and complexities loom
large to even those of us who have been in the game all of
our adult lives, and I feel sure that the situation is even
more baffling for the young engineer who has to perform his
assignments as a part of the Environmental Protection Agency.

                                      Yours very truly,
                                      Robert M. Dixon
RMD/d

Enclosure:  Impact Statement Analysis
            Statement No. 7104

-------
                       MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW
                                OF
               DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                For
           THE CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES BY
                       CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
                     (Statement Number 7104.)
    TO AND FOR:  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 Att'n:  Environmental Evaluation Section

    FROM:         R. M. Dixon, Consulting Engineer and Advisor to
                 The Texas League of Conservation Voters


1.   INTRODUCTION

    a.  Tunnel Sewer
        The project or projects designated as WPC-TEX-824 by
        E.P. A. involves the construction (proposed) of about
        58,630 feet of sewer tunnel which has been locally desig-
        nated as the Crosstown Tunnel Interceptor (sewer) and
        it varies in size (diameter) from 60 inches to 96 inches
        according to certain sources of information but in a
        recent report by Matthews, Leeds, Hill, Bryant and Cur-
        rington it is to be 78 inches at the upper end and 96
        inches at the terminal point.  That firm or combine
        prepared the preliminary design and was given a contract
        for the final design.  I have not seen their latest pro-
        posals.  The inside configuration or waterway is not
        circular for the entire length, but varies from circular
        to elliptical and to shaped cunette in selected areas,
        the main reason as given is to attempt to assure cleans-
        ing velocities of flow and those precautions and varia-
        tions are given extra attention by stating that augmentation
        water will be needed to increase the flows for certain
        periods and lengths of time, the water to be taken into
        the entrance or upper end of the tunnel, generally referred
        to as the Bull Creek area and the lower end of the tunnel
        terminates at what is designated as the Walnut Creek plant
        site, and the tunnel derives its name from the fact that
        its course between the two points traverses a large sec-
        tion of what is generally referred to as North Austin, even
        though it is planned to intercept the sanitary sewers that
        flow from north to south and except for interceptors and


                                (1)

-------
    pumping stations along what is referred to as Town and Aus-
    tin Lakes, the discharges would enter the lakes, which in
    reality are segments of the Colorado River channel but have
    been dammed to help control the river flow and to conserve
    flood waters.  (Austin has three water treating plants; two
    are in the western portion of the city and take water from
    Lake Austin and the third is close to the business district
    and it takes its supply (raw) from Town Lake which is referred
    to in this IMPACT Statement 7104 as receiving sewage from
    broken and leaky sewers and overflowing manholes, and states
    that that alone is adequate justification for construction
    of the Crosstown Interceptor and while this condition has
    been widely sold and almost as widely accepted, it is not
    supported by any present conditions where measurements have
    been made and reports properly supported.  And since this
    condition takes on so much prominence in the STATEMENT it
    will be dealt with in detail later in this analysis, and
    the treatment plant will come.

2.  Engineering Reports and Other Documents Examined and Reviewed.
    (1) Cost effectiveness and Clean Water, Volume 1 and 2, by
        Water Quality Office Environmental Protection Agency,
        March, 1971.

    (2) Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR Part 6)  Environ-
        mental Impact Statements, Procedures for preparation.
        Fed. Reg. Vol. 37, 1-20-72.

    (3) Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers,
        Manual No. 37, Jointly by the American Society of
        Civil Engineers and Water Pollution Control Federation,
        1970.

    (4)  Report on Wastewater Treatment, Walnut Creek Site, for
        Austin, Texas by Black and Veatch and S. A. Garza, 1971.

    (5) Capital Improvements Program, City of Austin, Texas
        1971-76.

    (6) Four (4) volume report titled The Highland Lakes Sys-
        tem, Comprehensive Wastewater Study, 1970-1990 by
        Freese, Nichols and Endress, 1971.

    (7) Preliminary Design Report for City of Austin;  Cross-
        town Wastewater Interceptor by Matthews,-Hill,-Leeds-
        Bryant and Currington, May 1971.


                              (2)

-------
    (8)  Study of Wastewater Collection System, Phases 1 and 2
        (2 volumes)  By Horner and Shifrin 1969 and 1970 re-
        spectively.

    (9)  Pre-Design Study for Shoal Creek Sanitary Sewer System-
        City of Austin, Texas by Freese, Nichols and Endress


3.   WALNUT CREEK PLANT SITE (Re introduction)  AND THE ENVIRONMENT

   >I have read and reread the January 20, 1972 guidelines (as
    published in the Fed. Register, vol. 37, no. 13)same having
    been furnished to me by the Air and Water Programs Division
    and it appears that the Impact Statement under considera-
    tion in this case does not comply with the provisions of
    those requirements.  Under Subpart B-Procedures (6.21 (8)
    seems to call for information that is not included) and
    assuredly Subpart C, Content of Environmental Impact State-
    ments there is full instructions in Sec. 6.45 which clearly
    indicate or require that the impact statements "shall not
    be justification documents for proposed Agency funding or
    actions.  Rather they shall be objective evaluations of
    actions and their alternatives in light of all environmental
    considerations.   Environmental Impact Statements shall be
    prepared using a systematic interdisciplinary approach.
    Statement shall include all relevant analytical disciplines
    and shall provide meaningful and factual data.  The presenta-
    tion should be simple and concise, yet include all facts
    necessary to permit independent evaluation and appraisal
    of the benefits and adverse environmental effects of alter-
    nate actions.  Statements shall not be drafted in a style
    which requires extensive scientific or technical expertise
    to evaluate the environmental impact of an agency action.."

    And the remaining portions of Sec. 6.45 seem to try and
    assure the public that there will be full information
    furnished, and exchanged and that according to par (e)
    there should be a full showing of who benefits and who
    pays.  In this case  (the crosstown tunnel and plant)  the
    price keeps climbing.  It was first presented by Horner and
    Shifrin as only from Shoal Creek to Walnut Creek with the
    tunnel to cost around 14 million Dollars and the plant
    (treatment) in the neighborhood of four or five Million.

    But when the Matthews-Hill-Leeds-Bryant and Curington Pre-
    liminary design was released it carried an extension to Bull
    Creek (which was the unstated but suspected statement by the
                              (3)

-------
general public) and the price had RISEN TO $25,290,000
and the Black and Veatch report on the treatment plant to
serve it has now risen to $11,700,000.  Austin water rates
were raised in 1970 by 46% (by council action) and the re-
port is now out that another raise is in the making and
that a separate sewer charge which has been estimated at
$4.00 per month is to be added.  Water and sewer service
charges are all lumped together in the water rate as of
the present.  So that is a fair indication of who will pick
up the tab for the tunnel and plant if built, and the tunnel
will serve only a part of the north part of Austin as planned
but its terminus will be in the hills north of the Colorado
River and above Austin, and the water and sewer line costs
in that area are fierce because the "ground" is solid rock
and it is much too hard to cut with a ditching machine.  It
is almost granite in hardness.  But the developers (land)
are pushing it with great zeal and to make it worse for
the small home owner, the City of Austin rebates to the
developer 90% of his cost (not a fixed amount per foot) and
in addition the developer gets 3% annual interest on his
unrebated portion of his cost.  But here is the payoff:
Some of the view lots, and particularly those on the rim or
edge of the top of the hill get around 15 to 25,000 dollars
per lot without a house.  Water, sewer and paving is all
except for the gas company's private lines and same for the
telephone company.

The Impact Statement leaves one with the feeling that the
people that wrote the Report on the Wastewater Treatment,
Walnut Creek Site also wrote the Impact Statement; namely
Black and Veatch and I base this on \the great amount of
detail about plant equipment and plant operation and almost
ignores the Environmental factors in their entirety.  For
Instance, no mention is made of the residential development
which has taken place in the past two or three years and/
is still expanding in what might be called a stones throw
from the proposed plant site for the new activated sludge
plant, and this has been repeatedly called to the attention
of many people.  The homes are being builty by Walter
Carrington and NashPhillips-Copus, both two 6f the more
prominent home builders in Austin.  Nash Phillips-Copus has
named their subdivision Graigwood and Carrington has named
his Cavalier Park.  The homes are modern brick and range up
$25,000 and both are in the direct path of any odors that
will be developed at the plant, either those that are brought
to the plant by the tunnel or those that are generally


                          (4)

-------
associated with the operations of wastewater treatment
plants or as we one time called them sewage treatment plants
and those that are acquainted with plant odors know that
they have a distinctive and easily identifiable character-
istics , and that in semi-tropical climates such as Austin
has, that these odors tend to be most troublesome in the
twi-light to near midnight hours when the breezes are light
(5 to 10) miles per hour and that they have a tendency to
remain near the ground when atmospheric conditions are not
suitable for dissipating them by rising to higher levels.
It may be contended that odors are nuisances and are not
health hazards but Keefer, in his book "Sewage Treatment
Works", page 489 deals with the deleterious effects of odors
and states that in some individuals there are health-asso-
ciated effects from noxious and the First Annual Report of
the Council On Environmental Quality refers to lowering
the quality of air as adding unpleasant smells in certain
instances and if adverse conditions are to be created by
man-made activities and if the spirit of the clean air
act is properly carried out, it is reasonable to expect
that some measure will be enacted to rectify it., even if it
requires tighter land use and specialized zoning.

The City of Austin has had suggestions regarding the elimina-
tion of the practice of fragmenting its wastewater treatment
and to take a longer and more realistic look at planning
for land use, main sewer locations, moving the nuisance
creators down stream to a point that the prevailing south-
southeast winds in the summer will not capture the plant
odors and under the conditions for holding the odors near
the ground and feeding them into the air currents that al-
most without exception on warm muggy nights will seek out
and folloV the valleys of the water courses and they can be
transported for appreciable distances.  The Impact State-
ment does not make mention of the fact that the Planning
Department of the City of Austin is now beginning on a real
land use study, its first.  I am told by the planning De-
partment that it will be at least another year before the
data will all be collected for a professional start on a
plan and that the plan is badly needed to gain some know-
ledge of which way should Austin try to shape its
growth for the future.  The so-called land use planning
that has been done and is so widely publicized was done by
the Department of Agriculture and they are the first to
admit that it does not furnish the information that is
needed and that their land planning programs are not geared
to helping to solve the more complex urban problems.  But
the press and electronic journalists fail to clarify that
situation for the general public.
                           (5)

-------
Some of us have maintained that if a tunnel is needed, and
we are not convinced that it is as will be explained when
the subject of Infiltration of Storm waters into Sewers is
presented, that it should be located along the Colorado
River so that both North and South sides of the river can
gravity to the "main line".  The location of the Crosstown
Tunnel Sewer will serve only Bull Creek, Dry Creek, upper
Shoal Creek, Upper Waller Creek, a small area in Upper
Boggy Creek, Upper Tannehill Branch and upper Fort View
Branch.  But that still leaves the lower portions of those
Creeks, their continued operation and maintenance, and does
nothing for the South part of Austin, but to charge them
for a project that is readily recognized as a special int-
erest undertaking, and when it was put before the voters
for approval of bonds, the ballot read "For Additions and
improvements to the Sanitary Sewer System" and some of the
most misleading promotion was carried out that has ever
been seen.  There will be exhibits and pictures enclosed
to bear this out, including an article by the local press
that was fictional from the word go.  (A Xerox of the arti-
cle is being submitted with this report and we then tried
to discuss it with the Council about a week before the
election, we were told to put it in writing and submit it
to the City Manager.  We did just that and we never even
received an acknowledgment from the City Manager or any
member of the Council, all of whom got duplicate copies and
the statement in the Impact Statement about the Council
held five public hearings on the project and the Water
Quality Board held two, all of which were widely publicized
and all that I have to say about the Council's public hear-
ings is that there is not an ounce of truth in it.  I did
make several attempts to get a public Discussion, with the
City presenting the merits and benefits of the proposals
and I would answer for the opponents.  They would readily
put me on the Council's weekly agenda but never once was
I able to get them to present their case so that the public
would get the benefit of what the projects mean.  When I
first made my request in 1970 the City Manager advised the
Council to refuse it, which they did, based upon his reason
that that constituted nothing ' but a waste of time and once
they began the practice of allowing such requests that they
would be doing nothing but holding public hearings on pro-
jects in the Capital Improvements Programs.  And we then
went to the planning commission for a similar request and
failed there because the then technical director to the
Commission said that if they got themselves involved in a
public hearing on that Tunnel project that it could well
                          (6)

-------
turn out to be one of the "most agonizing" experience that
they had ever witnessed.  He then refused a request that he
examine the projects and bring back an opinion for them at
the next regular meeting.  This he also refused, pleading
inability.  Some of the previously received Engineering re-
ports, with recommendations for improving the Austin Sani-
tary Sewer System, had been briefly reviewed and it was
interesting to note that the Black and Veatch Report, of
1966 had been put on the shelf so to speak, and that be-
cause of two overflowing manholes on Shoal Creek at the loca-
tion where it joined Hancock Branch and a little flurry of
citizen complaints that were received at about the same
time that other actions involving the sewer system began to
stir; namely, some interest in the Crosstown Tunnel which
had been mentioned by Black and Veatch as a possibility or
maybe so.  And that seemed to have been revived because of
some large real estate transfers in the Bull Creek area and
plans made to construct a traffic artery or loop around town
which would almost parallel Bull Creek.  And strange as it
might seem, an employee of Black and Veatch's partner (local)
in making the 1966 Long Range Report for the Sanitary Sewer
System was named as in the "Local contact engineer" to
represent the City in that joint venture.  And it is re-
ported that he gave birth to the idea of the tunnel and per-
haps there is some support for that because that is the
first report that advances the idea of investigating the
tunnel, its feasibility, costs, etc. and recommended such an
action for consideration.  That came as something of a sur-
prise because the Long Range Report had just been received
in June of 1966 and it was quite comprehensive and apparently
satisfactory.  But in less than two years the Shoal Creek
Report was contracted for and it was a surprising departure
from the 1966 Black and Veatch-Bryant and Curington in that
it pressed for an early investigation of the tunnel's
feasibility, a contract that was executed with Horner and
Shifrin in about two (2) months after the acceptance of the
Shoal Creek Report, and when Horner and Shifrin filed their
report in October of 1969 (phase one) they flatly stated
that the City had instructed them to delete Shoal Creek
from their study area, the contract for which had already
been signed to include it, and to adopt the data and informa-
tion developed in the Shoal Creek report by Freese, Nichols
and Endress and the important thing involved was that the
Shoal Creek Report almost exactly doubled the design cri-
teria that the 1966 Long Range Report had stated that it
had been found adequate and was reusing it for the 1966
list of improvements.   (The design Criteria being the peak
flows in sewers, including storm water infiltration.  For


                           (7)

-------
example, the City's design curve for sewer design was 3,000
gallons per acre per day for a population density of 12
and drainage area of 5,000 acres and the 1968 report raised
that to 6,000 gallons for the same deal.  So...when Horner
and Shifrin were instructed to use the Shoal Creek figures
as a guide, it became quite likely that a cost comparison
between the tunnel and sewer enlargements along the banks
of the lakes.  And it all went back to an assumption of
infiltration quantity of storm water which was totally
foreign to the cause of the overflow:  The manholes had
been constructed for over 30 years and were designed to
overflow because one 24-inch sewer could not handle the
flow from 4 sewers:  24, 21, 18 and a 15, all being on
exceedingly steep grades and two had been installed in a
lake above the manholes, and their condition was not known
because the precipitous (about 12 or 15 feet) grade just
above the manholes was too steep to allow the
pulling of the T-V camera for examinations.

There is enclosed a copy of the engineering contracts for
your consideration.  And it might be well to add that the
City has no high water marks in its creeks and therefore
no basis for correlation between the elevations of their
manhole covers and flood levels in the creeks, and only
this year has the city made arrangements with the U.S.
Geological Survey to begin gathering runoff data.  The
City's Engineers readily agree that some changes are over-
due.
                           (8)

-------
            Conclusions and Recommendations on 7104
                   Impact Draft by E. P. A.


1.  It is my understanding that the Engineers that are em-
    ployed by the City of Austin did actually draft or write
    the Draft Impact Statement for the Crosstown Tunnel Sewer
    and Wastewater facilities (treatment).   If this be factual,
    it is suggested that this is a near conflict-of-interest
    situation and that different parties be employed to pre-
    pare a more balanced, unbiased and truly effect-on-the-
    Environment substitute document.

2.  That the policy advanced in Volumes laand 2 of Cost Of
    Clean Water, prepared by the Environmental Protection
    Agency, Washington, D. C. be fully implemented to make
    for better coordination of future plans for Wastewater
    facilities and that the case against "building for 50
    to 100 years into the Future with the funds that we have
    available today" be adopted as a solid based criteria for
    policy making and guidelines development.  If the City of
    Austin is given approval for financial assistance in build-
    ing the tunnel, which they openly state is good for 100
    years, the pattern of development of the City is strongly
    influenced and may actually be fixed in perpetuity.  In
    a reply to Governor Preston Smith in connection with the
    Highland Lakes 4-volume study by Freese, Nichols and En-
    dress, the Dallas Regional Office called his attention to
    the desirability for an area-wide planning concept and
    suggested an early decision on the triple-pronged problem
    of Walnut Creek Sewage, Govalle Plant and the Sludge la-
    goons at Hornsby Bend.  This not only should have an early
    decision but should also be the recipient of some positive
    action.

    And it was noted in the Impact Statement that the Super-
    intendent of the Austin Water and Wastewater Department
    remarked at the public hearing on the Highland Lakes Sys-
    tem Report that he agreed that infiltration into sewers
    (by storm water) is a serious problem in Austin but that
    arresting it and obtaining a reduction of the in-flow
    volume as set by Freese, Nichols and Endress was a long
    and costly process but he agreed with this individual's
    question about examining the situation in depth.  But if
    the late information that I have been able to elicit from
    the City Sewerage  (or Wastewater) personnel is correct


                              (9)

-------
or even near correct, the people of Austin have been misled
and misinformed and if it was done by design and with a
fixed purpose in mind by those in the policy-making posi-
tions ,  then it seems to pale the recent stock fraud opera-
tions into something akin to children at play, and if the
Federal Government is to financially assist such an under-
taking with money that must be supplied by the taxpayers,
then there appears to be an opportunity, if not an invita-
tion, to conduct some field investigations.
                          CIO)

-------
    SUMMARY RECAP

1.  There is one outstanding question that the City Manager's
    staff has refused to discuss or to supply answers about;
    namely, what prompted the deletion of Shoal Creek Basin
    from the area that was delineated for study by Horner and
    Shifrin, operating under the contract that was executed in
    December, 1968, with no reduction in contract price ($78,000)
    but a reduction in work to be done by about 30% and in lieu
    thereof Horner and Shifrin states on pages 1 and 2 of their
    Report (first) and marked as phase I, Study of Wastewater
    Collection System, Austin, Texas.  A letter was written to
    the then Mayor Travis LaRue and the question was asked as
    to who authorized the deletion and under what Authority
    as pertains to the State Law and the City Charter.  He sent
    the memo letter to the Deputy City Manager who replied to
    him but furnished no relevant information to explain.   A
    letter was then dispatched to Mayor La Rue wherein this
    was explained and after some delay dealing with the subject
    correspondence, he finally replied "That he had done his
    best as a layman to furnish the information but if he had
    failed to get the information that he felt he had gone as
    far as he could."

    As stated herinbefore, the City has tried to maintain a
    strict cloak of silence and secrecy  (City Manager and his
    staff specifically) about matters of this nature, and this
    is a procedure of long standing according to a former mem-
    ber of the Council.  I was told that when the agenda is
    presented by the City Manager that quite often it becomes
    necessary to vote "blindly" for or against a proposition
    when it is brought up by the Manager.  I was told that this
    is no uncommon occurrence and that I should not feel too
    rejected about it if the Council members were not properly
    informed on projects and policies prior to time to vote.
    But if this switch had not been made in the Horner and
    Shifrin contract and instructions issued by the City (see
    reproduced pages from the Horner Shifrin Phase I October,
    1969 report.  The sheets are marked Exhibit No. 1, Horner
    and Shifrin.  If the report is analyzed only briefly and in
    the light of the "ordered change", it becomes evident that
    Horner and Shifrin was forced into a position to where they
    had to change their design criteria from that used in the
    design and construction of the present system  (sanitary
    sewers) as shown by the reproduced curves taken from
    Manual No. 37, The American Society of Civil Engineers and
    the Water Pollution Control Federation, the curves being
    plainly identified as the design curves used by the City of


                              (11)

-------
Austin, Texas.  (The manual edition is marked 1970.)
The pages are marked as Exhibit No. 2, Sanitary Sev;er
Design Curves for Austin.  By being required to "nearly
double" the housing for the sewage or wastewater flows
as compared to what the Black and Veatch-Bryant Curington
found to be adequate in 1966, and including peaking flows
and infiltration vs the arbitrary addition of 3,000gallons
per acre per day for infiltration and then compound that
by "peaking" the average flow per person per day by 3.0
and with an average population density of 12 per acre,
there is produced 6,000 gallons of liquid peaking  (Average
of 85 gals, per capital per day X three (3) for approxi-
mately 3,000 gallons per acre per day (for 12 people for
sanitary flow) and then increase that by 3,000 gallons
per acre per day from storm water infiltration (See
Exhibit Mo. Ill, Freese, Nichols and Endress, Shoal Creek
Pre Design Study.)

When Horner and Shifrin was faced with this situation involved
in a more--than lucrative contract for making the study, the
picture should begin to take form.  The Horner and Shifrin
study contract calls for a comparison (of sorts)  between
constructing the Crosstown Tunnel and examining the condi-
tions of the pumping stations (sewage) and North Austin
Intercepters parallel to the North banks of Town Lake and
Lake Austin and to convey the sewage with prevention against
spills into the lakes, for much had been said and written
about the broken sewers that leaked and the surcharged
lines and overflowing manholes.  The net result of the
ordered change in design criteria made it imperative for
Horner and Shifrin to add as much capacity to the present
system as the "new" or doubled criteria called for and
when all SEWERS BELOW THE PROPOSED TUNNEL ROUTE WERE
PARALLELLED AND ALL SEWAGE PUMPING STATIONS HAD TO BE GIVEN
EQUIVALENT ADDED CAPACITY, PLUS EXTENDING THE NORTH BANK
INTERCEPTORS AND PROJECTING FLOWS TO THE YEAR 2020, there
was no choice in terms of costs for the Plan A as Horner
and Shifrin designated the strengthening and expanding the
present system vs Plan B (Tunnel).  I told the Director of
the Council On Environmental Quality that an "in depth"
investigation should be conducted by some competent authority
that is clothed wifeh the power to subpoena witnesses, compel
attendance, subpoena records and documents and swear testi-
mony at a hearing that is designed and dedicated to uncover
this what give full appearance of an "unhealthy" situation.

And in closing mention should be made that the City of
Austin is advertising for construction bids at the present
time and as I understand E.P.A.'s rules and regulations


                          (12)

-------
this is not to be done.  No final decision has been announced
on the Walnut Creek Wastewater treatment facility and that
leaves the advertising to cover the tunnel only.

And one more item:  It appears that the construction of the
PRESENT Walnut Creek treatment plant, which is constructed
in the flood plain of Walnut Creek may be an illegal struc-
ture in as much as no record can be produced to show that
the City complied with the requirements of Texas statutes
by clearing the project before construction was accomplished.
And while speaking of complying with the laws of the State
of Texas, there is a possible problem that may develop when
attempts are made to take Lake Austin water for augmenting
the flows in the tunnel to prevent deposition of solids
and their putrefaction and deterioration, which is usually
accompanied by unpleasant odors, and while the Impact State-
ment recognizes the likely development of odors in the
sewers and tunnel, it speaks of employing chlorination,
both pre and post, to solve that difficulty.  But those who
have operated plants and have been plaged with odor problems
are well aware that their control is difficult and often
exceeds the operator's capabilities.

If the City had proceeded with the plans that it developed
for handling the wastewater from the Bull Creek and Dry
Creek areas, these yet to be developed areas could have
been served by way of following along the North Banks of
the Lakes, and thereby taken a big step toward a compre-
hensive plan for collection and treatment.  The designing
was done and about a half million dollars was spent on that
route before the accent was put on the tunnel project.  The
developments in the Bull Creek area are quite a gamble at
this time.  It may go but the early years will require a
lot of investments in public works improvements and if the
City "Underwrites" the water and sewer with the addition
of the rebate or refund contracts to the developer, the time
may be quite extended before enough customers for water
and sewer can provide adequate funds for the amortization
of the investment.  The City's power and light department
is quite lucrative as a revenue producer and it is in that
direction that the controlling interests seem to be moving:
Keep the taxes low and get the money from the utility user,
but the taxes are not noticeably lower than in other cities
of comparable size and location.
                           Respee-tsfully Submitted,
                                IT~V~<*~41 >?i
                                ^ M. Dixon, k:
                           Robert M. Dixon, (-Consulting feagineer and
                           Water and Wastewater advisor to the Texas
                           League of Conservation Voters.
P.S. The Cost of Clean Water,  Vol. II seems to have escaped the
     applicants herein.

-------
                                               R.   M.  DIXON
                                           WATER  CONSULTANT
                                                AUSTIN, TEXAS
   REGISTERED ENGINEER
CIVIL- - SANITARY -  CHEMICAL.
                                                                                                    P. O. BOX 521 6


-------
                  Harntr and Shifrin Exhibit N«, 1

              CITY  OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
  I  :i .r-—.-._ -L—
."".^""^lli.. 	 ii
                                 STUDY OF
                                      £»f
                                 PHASE-  1
                                           r~
                                               .
                  HORNER  &  SHIFRIN,  INC.
                        Consulting  Engineers
                         St.  Louis, Missouri
                               OCTOBER, 1969

-------
                    STUDY OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

                                AUSTIN, TEXAS



                              1.  INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE

     The purpose of this study is to determine whether the construction of
a crosstown tunnel is physically and economically feasible and to compare
such construction with other facilities providing equivalent service to the
present and future population of the study area.  The report considers popu-
lation and land use projections to year 2020, which was considered to be the
year of ultimate development in the study area.  Current land use plans and
population predictions developed by the Austin Planning Commission were
utilized in the preparation of the report.
SCOPE

     The study area for the report generally includes the area north and
east of Town Lake and Lake Austin and includes the drainage basins of Bull
Creek, Dry Creek, Taylor Slough, Johnson Creek, Shoal Creek, Waller Creek,
Boggy Creek, Tannehill Branch, Fort Branch, and the area contiguous to the
North Austin Interceptor sewer.

     The report includes specifically:

     1.  A study of land use and its effect in developing waste flows.

     2.  Estimates of population in the study area, generally in accord-
          ance with the City Planning Commission data when available for
          the time period considered.

     3.  Development of waste flows from the various land use areas of
          the study area, including that portion of the waste flow due
          to storm water infiltration.

     4.  Determination of existing sewer capacities and the relief sewers
          required with and without the use of a deep crosstown tunnel.

     5.  Cost estimates of waste collection systems with and without the
          tunnel and a comparison of the plans on an equivalent annual
          cost basis.

     6.  Cash flow requirements of recommended collection system plan.

-------
     7.  A special study of the Dry Creek and Bull Creek basins, with
          recommendations as to long-range plans for providing these
          basins with an outfall sewer for their wastewater collection
          systems.
                           2.  STUDIES OF LAND USE
     The present development of the City and of the areas within reasonable
sewer service limits were studied to determine the type and intensity of
land use.  In addition, the future land use patterns, developed by the City
of Austin Planning Department, were incorporated into the projections of
sanitary sewer needs.  The various land uses intended to be effected by the
Austin Master (Development) Plan for each watershed studied are shown in
Tables 1 through 7.  These tables are further subdivided into the land uses
anticipated for each of the subdrainage areas within the major watersheds
of Taylor Slough, Johnson Creek, Waller Creek, Boggy Creek, Tannehill Branch,
Fort Branch and North Austin Interceptor.  The corresponding subdrainage
areas are shown on each of the watershed maps (Figures 1 through 5) along
with the areas of projected land use.

     Since the watersheds of Dry Creek and Bull Creek lie wholly above the
considered tunnel alignment and no relief sewer requirements within the
basins themselves were considered, the establishment of subdrainage areas
was not necessary in these basins.  Bull and Dry Creeks are also expected
to be predominantly residential areas and the amount of land use other than
residential was considered to be insignificant.

     Land use data for Shoal Creek were not shown since this information is
available in the recent Shoal Creek Report prepared for the City of Austin
by others.  To avoid duplication, the City directed that the information and
data in the Shoal Creek Report be adopted for use by the Consultant.

     Figures 1 through 5 show the land uses as adopted for use in develop-
ing waste flows.  For simplicity, all residential areas i.e., suburban, low
density, medium density and high density, are illustrated alike; shopping
centers, shopping districts, commercial and semi-industrial uses are illus-
trated alike; manufacturing, central business district, public and semi-
public, and recreation and open areas are all illustrated individually.
                          3.  STUDIES OF POPULATION
     Past and current records of population data were analyzed in order to
arrive at a population estimate for the study area.  Population projections
were made for the years 1985, 2000 and 2020 (ultimate).

-------
Exhibit No. 2, A.S.C.E.& W.  P.  C.  F,
          Manual No. 37, 1970


(Note attached p»g« 20  for Austin
    Sanitary Scwcr Design  Curves.)
          ...TEE ..,

          .)- OV::

-------
•-*••"-•-•
               20    DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY, STORM SEWERS
                 6500
                          1000   1500   2000    2500   3000   3500    4000   4500    5000
                 1500
   FIGURE 2.—Design flows used in Austin, Tex. (Gpd/acrex0.00935 =
                    en in/day/ha; acre x 0.405=ha.)

5. Flow Estimates  Based on Population and Flow Trends

  Figure 1 shows a typical plot of past census populations of a small city
and estimates of the  population made from the number of electric meters
and water meters for each year subsequent to the last regular census year.
The records of the average daily and per capita water consumption which
may be used in lieu of measured sewage flows also are shown for the
previous 15-yr period.
                                                                                                         E
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                        en
                                                                      30 « 90 60  80 100
                                          TritMlary area, in thousands ot »cf«
                  FIGURE 3.—Design flows used in Dallas, Tex. (Gpd/acrex0.00935:
                                  en m/day/ha; acreX0.405 = ha.)

-------
  Exhibit No. 3, Fre..e , Nicfc.l.
PR E- DESIGN  STUDY
        FO R


SHOAL   CREEK

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
CITY OF AUSTIN,TEXAS
FREESE NICHOLS AND ENDRESS
CONSULTING    ENGINEERS
OCTOBER
1968

-------
    c.  As shown on Figure 6, construct a gravity line from the confluence




    of Main Shoal Creek with Hancock Branch to a point near West 9th, and




    continue the gravity line from the point near West 9th Street to West




    7th Street and Rio Grande, thence to West 1st Street and San Antonio,




    which would carry the combined  flow from Main Shoal Creek and Lower




    East Shoal Creek.  It should be pointed out that while this method




    received brief consideration and an estimate of the cost was determined




    this proposal was abandoned for the following reasons:




        (1)  The only existing line in West 1st Street at an elevation




        low enough to receive the flow from this proposed line is a 30-




        inch main which does not have sufficient capacity to carry the




        design flows.




        (2)  A new deep line at approximately the same elevation as the




        existing 30-inch line would have to be constructed.  Such a new




        line would be at an elevation too low to discharge by gravity




        into Canterbury lift station.




        (3)  A new pump station, probably in the vicinity of the existing




        old River Street Pump Station, would have to be constructed.




        (4)  Deep and expensive cuts would be required to install the




        gravity line to West 1st Street and along the route of the new




        outfall line.




B.  DESIGN DATA




    Hydraulic design of sewers has been based upon Manning's formula




using a value of n « 0.013.  The preliminary designs for the sizes of
                                                                1.7
                              rnccsr. NICHOLS AND CNDRCSS :

-------
proposed'mains were based on available profiles of the existing lines

and on gradients established from USGS contour maps.

    Previous reports indicate that average contribution to the sewer

system is 85 gallons per capita per day and that the peak dry weather

flow in the system may vary from 2.5 to 3.8 times the average dry

weather flow.  For this report, 85 gallons per capita per day has

been used with a peak factor of 3.0.

    Infiltration is a factor which has considerable effect on a sewer

system.  The usual sources of infiltration would include service connec-

tion joints, cracked or broken pipe, open pipe joints, leaks in manholes

and storm drains connected to a sanitary system.  Flow measurements made

from July 31st through August 6, 1968, indicate that during that period,

the 30-inch Main Shoal Creek interceptor had a peak dry weather flow of

8.2 MGD at West 6th and Wood Street.  The theoretical capacity of this

line hag been calculated to be 14.6 MGD at this location.  During the

same period, measurements indicate that the peak dry weather flow in the

18-inch interceptor just prior to entering the Shoal Creek Pump Station

was 3.8 MGD.  The theoretical capacity of the 18-inch line at this loca-

tion has been calculated to be 6.2 MGD.  Both of these lines have been

known to flow full and at their capacity during wet weather.*  The diff-

erence between full capacity and peak dry weather flow in the two lines,
*Note:  Section of both of these lines have been surcharged during periods
        of extremely wet weather.  It can be assumed, therefore, that the
        actual flows in such sections, particularly where the lines have
        flat grades, has exceeded the theoretical free flow capacities.
        Therefore, the assumption has been made that the lines have carried
        at least their theoretical design capacities at the locations given
        here.
                                                                     1.8
                             reccse. NICHOLS AND ENORCSS :

-------
 at  the above  locations, totals 8.8 MGD.  This is assumed to be from

 infiltration  and  is equal to approximately 1,100 gallons per acre per day

 based on distributing the 8.8 MGD over the approximately 8148* acres which

 contribute  to  the drainage basin.

     An unmeasured quantity of sewage has overflowed into Shoal Creek

 through surcharged manholes, principally at the confluence of Hancock

 Branch with the Main Creek.  Table 2 contains a list of recorded days when

 these manholes have surcharged and overflowed into the creek,  These over-

 flows have  ranged from a few inches to a waterspout in excess of two feet

 over the top  of the manhole.  While this overflow cannot be measured with

 any degree  of accuracy, it is estimated that the-overflow is at least

 equal to the  infiltration which enters the sewer.   It is believed that

 an allowance  of 3,000 gallons per acre per day would be reasonable to

|l use in the  design of the Shoal Creek interceptors.

     Table 3 gives design flow data, including areas, average contribution

 density and calculated flows.  Table 4 gives existing line sizes, capacity

 of existing lines based on minimum recorded grades and required pipe sizes.

     There are two areas which are contributing to the sewage flow in the

 Shoal Creek basin which deserve special comments as follows:

     1.  The sewage from an area of approximately 85 acres in the Northwest

     Hills addition, which lies along West Rim Drive and is in the Bull

     Creek basin, is diverted into the Shoal Creek system by means of a

     small pump station located at the westerly end of West Rim Drive.
 *Note:  The Main Shoal Creek drainage area contains approximately 6,657
         acres ard the Hancock Branch of Main Shoal Creek contains approx-
         imately  1,491 acres, for a total area of approximately 8148 acres.

                                                                    1.9
                                  .  NICHOLS AND CNORC35

-------







































(
(
E
CO |

123 '
IV] |
g!
"3* h- 1 *
^7?
0) 0- £
•H W f
43 pi C
n) c
H W C
N
M >
c/i *
C
H I
PL, C
M
PM ;
i-
«
<•
c





































^ o
cu i-i
M fn
•H M
00 O rH
fc< (0
01 44
0. O
•H H
P-i

^-^
m >
(U (2
N 0)
•H VJ -H
CO O O
Cu *H
0) M-l
a. cu
•H P




X*"N
,-H ^~.
0 >J P
C O
cu • a
•H 44 **~*
O CO
•H -H
1) [ K^
0) W
P

aj
D
-1 ^ CO
V CO 0)
d ^ C
_> 1 -H /-^
« >.rJ P
t3 i j rK
-i -H • a
3 O 44 ^w*'
-1 (0 CO
CU-H
xS n) X
d U W
d
4
x
1
-J CO
ejj T3 C)0
3 crt C
a n -H w
n o 44 cu
co C
a • -H -H
-1 12 X h-l

s a



^-^
CM
^— ' >^N
60 CO CO
C 01 CU
•H C N
4J -H -H
CO fri-1 CO
,-^1 ^^ /
X
w



/•"S
1— 1
^•^ S x~\
i-l O P
(0 iH O
^~ F&i JS
o «-*
H















r » z » " E
Csl 00 00 OO OO <•
* 0> 0V C7X 00 |oO 2^5 3**S M^rH











m m
I*"" ^D r*"* ^2 CO ^3 *^* C? ^D ^^ CO O^
com com coco coco coco cxico
• • •* • • • • • • • •










••S H » »IH CM " E v £
•j-oo sfoo  i-l f>» i-| CM CM

iH vO \O C7\ rH rH
•<)" *j* *3" *^* in m





o
O 0 O O
V-l 44
44 4444 4-144 4444 4J 42 42 4J
CJ<- <-CO COfM CMrH rHvO NOrH
o
O 4-1 4444 4444 4-144 4444 4444
£(0 (OCO COCO C0(0 (OCD (0(0
W& &S ^S S & J5S &S
cu
00

CO
* 42
P O
3 V4
O 3
42 CO
CO
4J 0
0 12
C
I)
CU 3
JM fjQ
(0
rH
n3 rH
C 3
(0 M-l

S 00
o c
rH -H
M-4 3
O
rH rH
O IW
S-J
4-1 CO
C 0)
O C
O -H
4-1
O 13 •
CO >>
(0 44
0 >H
T3 CO rH
CU -H
S-i T3 O
O (0 CO

O. 00
CU bO
0 0 _ C •
0) B >. 44 4-1
4J -H 44 CO -H
C! (2 -H -H rH
•H «H rH X «H
a -H cu o
= O cfl
v CO M-l CO 42 M-l
rH O M-l 44
1 -H 3
: co oo 3 o»
CO -H 0 0
CO -H G
(2 CO 44 O Cfl
•H 43 CO -H
•H 4J 0
CU C X 0 -H
O. O 0) C
•H 33
(XT} 0) >n O
01 42 G H
r 44 44 O M-l
on) o
CM rH «4-4 i-l
3 0 C nl
• "O CJ -H 44
0\ C' tH >, 0
CO CO 44 CU 44
CU O -H 44
(-1 = O CO >>
3 CM co n) M v-i
00 rH 0) P. 01 t-l
•H >H CO (3, CO
pL4 m 44 o o o
O -H
0 o co -a o
O CO n) CO rH 44
M G CX 0) 3
M-l O n) rH O CU
•HO 3D.
3 4J CO 3 -H
O O ODD.
rH CU 60 rH C
M-l CO C M-l -H M-l
•H rH O
rH 4J >,rH
co M >-i n) co cu
44 O r-l 4-1 -H N
O 42 CO O 42 -H
H CO CJ H H CO

rH CM co 

• •
(0
0)
44
O
FRCESE.  NICHOLS AND CNDRCSS :

-------



















o
H
PU
W
O
^3 r^t
H W
"*« H
Q 25
CO M
*jg
mow
rH _] W
.0 Pn W
flJ f^H
H 53 CJ
O
M HJ]
W O
Q 3S
CO

^5
M
.3





















rH !» <-x
n> o p
O F*H S*1
H v-*
c o
O Q
•H CH
4J O x-s
cfl P
M CN C3
W 0 S3
rH O XX
,_J ft
M "
M-< CO
d
M (Si
Q xx
|jj P
C4 r£! #E<
0) 4-1 ^^
&4 cd
IS
s
,>> o
^ iH
f^ ITI ^^
P
(U M O
M 0) g
cd j: '-'
M 4J
o> cd
> 0)
•5 S



/-N
•
o
60 4-> ^
nj -H co
W co C
0) C O
> 0) (0
-i




ON <3-
m m
rH





CO 00
in rH











co co
• •
CM «*
H rH


00 rH
o -a-
in rH






^
0>
01 f.
r4 0
U C
c«
rH M
co m
o
ft ^1
oo o
o
c u
•H C
ffl (^

rH 00 ON
l-H 0 rH
sr -
-------
                             TABLE 2
                       RECORD OF OVERFLOW*
               MAIN SHOAL CREEK AT HANCOCK BRANCH


               Year         Date
               1965         January 23 through 25
                            February 9 through 13
                            February 17 through 21
                            May 21 through 23
                            October 13
                            November 8
                            November 11
                            December 3 through 5
               1966         January 10
                            April 25 through 26
                            August 12 through 15
               1967         September 6
                            October 16 through 17
                            November 10 through 12
                            December 15 through 19
               1968         January 9 through 13
                            March 11 through 13
                            May  11
                            May  13 and 14
                            May  17 through  19
                            May  28
*Npte:  From City Wastewater Department Records
                               C. NICHOLS AND CMORCSS :

-------
         SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
          City of Austin, Texas
Copies of Engineering Contracts that the City of Austin
 entered into with Consulting Engineering firms since
                         1966
   (Note: Copies of the contracts covering work that
      is under way on the Crosstown Tunnel and the
             Wastewater Treatment Plant are not
                          included.)

-------
                                                                                   :/  \
THE STATE 0? TEXAS    X
                      X   KNOW ALL M1.-.K RY 'lilESG PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF TRAVIS      X
         I
     Thiii; upi'n the mutual agreements,  conditions and terras hereinafter con-
tained, the City of Austin,  hereinafter called "City," hereby engages the
professional services of Horncr & Shifrii.,  Inc., Consulting Engineers,
St. Louis, Missouri,  hereinafter called the "Engineer," Cor the preparation
of engineering studies relating to the feasibility of constructing a cross-
town interceptor sewer tunnel to relieve the trunk sewers on the north bank
of Lake Austin and Town Lake, as well as to reduce the load on the City of
Austin's Waste Water Plant No.  1 (Covallc Plant), and said parties do hereby
mutually covenant as follows:
            A.   SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY.. THE ENGINEER

          PHASE I                               .

          The Phase I studies would compare the construction of a cross-town
     tunnel with other comparable facilities to serve present and future
     population of the study area in order to determine whether or not the
     construction of said tunnel is physically and economically feasible.

          PHASE II

          The Phase II studies would be undertaken only after authorization
     by the City Council of the City of Austin.  If the Phase I studies indicated
     that the tunnel construction were feasible, the Phase II studies would
     investigate the tunnel in greater detail,  including the determination of
     the geological profile along the various proposed routes by test borings
     and the preparation of cost estimates for financing purposes.


                                    PHASE I
STUDIES OF LAUD USE

     The present development of the City and of the areas within reasonable
sewer service limits will be studied to determine the type and intensity of         '
land development.  Such studies will allow reasonable accurate projections
of sanitary sewer needs.   Residential,  commercial, and industrial land use
will be given consideration.  The effects of potential urban renewal will be
reviewed.  Probable limits and intensity of development for logical divisions
of the study area will be projected to the year 2000 and _to__saturation conditions.
City and civic leaders, including representatives of the City Planning Department
and' the Housing Authority, will be contacted as to probable future developments,
and any available reports and ordinances pertinent to the problems will be
studied.


STUDIES OF POPULATION

     Past and current records and previous studies of population will be
reviewed in order to provide a basis for estimates of future population within
the study limits.  Sftch major segment of the study area will be analyzed indi-
vidually in ac.cordar.cj with the data developed in the land use study.  Data           .
fron the Water Dep;ir tn.ent :inti electric and telephone companies will be             f
scrutinized to de terr.iine growth paLLcru^.  Ceimus data for the City and the
surrounding area will be analyzed.  The effects ot the transient population         '  -
upon sewers, will be determined.
                                        '
                                                                            1              .\
                                                                                           t

-------
 WATER     ..

      Water use  data  from  the Water  Department  for winter periods of  the year
 vill be obtained  and analyzed  to  determine  the patterns of water usage.  Such
 an analysis is  of primary importance  since  there is a direct relationship
 between water consumption and  the amount of  sewage contributed to the sewer
 system.  Domestic, commercial,  industrial,  anJ institutional accounts will
 he scrutinized.   Trends in water  usage will  be developed in order to serve-  —
 as a basis for  estimating future  water usage.  The effccts-of the transient  .
 population also will be studied.  The service limits of the water system
 ••#11 be scrutinized  as to their effects upon sewer extensions anil modifications.
 GROUND WATER INFILTRATION

      A substantial  component of  the  sewage handled in most older public sewer
 systems is  ground water  that infiltrates into  the system.  Estimates of the
 amount of such  infiltration will be  made, based upon actual recorded flow
 n^asurements in certain  of the City's sewers previously made by others.  If
  he estimated or observed amounts of infiltration appear to be excessive, the
 Engineer will recommend  corrective measures, if feasible solutions become
 apparent in the course of the study.                                 •      .
 DETERMINATION OF  RECOMMENDED  SEWER  SERVICE LIMITS
                                                                            •v_

      The limits of  the study  area will be defined in conjunction with  the
 Director of the Water and Sewer Department.  Watershed limits will be  deter-
 mined to approximate the study area.  The study area will generally encompass
 the area north of Toun Lake and Lake  Austin, extending from  the Bull Creek
 drainage area on  the west to  and including the Fort Branch drainage area on
 the east.
^RECOMMENDED SEWER PROGRAM

      In order to  determine  the  feasibility  of  constructing a cross-town
 tunnel interceptor sewer, two basic  plans will be studied and estimates of
 the cost of construction as well  as  annual  costs will be prepared.  These
 plans are as follows:

      1.  A plan involving a tunnel  traversing  across the City aligned
           generally from the mouth  of  Bull  Creek at Lake Austin  to  the
.-^         site of the  existing  Walnut  Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant.

      2.  A plan which  would provide  additional sewer capacity parallel to
           Lake Austin  and Town  Lake  to convey  the wastes to the  treatment
           plant sites.

  '    Both of these plans will be  examined or. the basis of providing capacity
 for the maximum flows  projected for  the design period.  In the case of the
 tunnel plan, various alternate  alignment3 will be considered in  order  to
 achieve the most  efficient  use  of the  existing sev:ers and pumping stations
 do:vnstream of the points of interception.   Estimates will be based  on  rock
 information available  from  the  City  and the Bureau of Economic Geology
 ar  the University of Texas.  It is  not anticipated that it will  be  necessary
 to  make any test  borings in this  phase of the work.  Critical reaches of each
 existing trunk sewer system will  be examined to determine its capacity as
 well as the aaxir.ua flow anticipated at the cr.d of the design period.  Based
 "Don this data, it will be  determined  where the trunk sewers should be
  itcrccptcd in order that the flow  may be conveyed 'to the tunnel and whether
•or  not ar.y relief sewers will need  to  be constructed.

      The alignment and the  hydraulics  of the tunnel system will  be  investigated.
 The tunnel and other required facilities will  be sized in sufficient detail
 to  enable estimates of cost to  be made.                                    . -

-------
       In  the second pi. in, studies utl)  be  muli;  to do trrmt no  tlv  nrct.':;:;.u y
  sewers,  including relief sowers, nntl pu;::;>l;-.nl •; l-il iour.  Including expansion
  of  cxlr-tlnjj works, In order  to  complete r. c- wr r .". ;• e facilities  vhlch  will  pro-
  vide  the some degree of service us  accm.ip 1 1. r.hcd by  the  tunnel ir\tevcupu>r
  plan.

       In  Investigating these  plans,  the F.r.-lnecr will review  previous  studies
  vhlch '.iave been made  for the City.  Tho.su portion:;  of  previous  plans  of
  Improvement which are adequate  to provide service for  the design period will
  be  Incorporated.  The capacity  of the  existing pumping stations will  be
  assumed  to be as stated in the  reports resulting from  previous  studies.

      Capital cost estimates  will be presented  In detail.  Since it is antici-
  pated *:hat the components of whichever plan is found feasible will be con-
  structed over a reasonable period of time,  the costs will be escalated in
  accordance with a suggested  construction  schedule to determine  the total
  capital  cost to the City.  Such escalation has been found  to be necessary
  within recent years due to the  steady  increase in construction  costs.

      Estimates of the cost of operation and maintenance also will  be  prepared.
  " ' =se estimates will  include labor, utilities  and other items normally re-
  quired for works of the type anticipated.  Labor costs will  be  developed on
  the ba-sis of the City's experience  with its existing facilities.  The cost
  Will be  developed on  a yearly basis and escalated to a point that  might be
  experienced in the median year  of the  design period.   The plans will  be com-
  pared on the basis of the equivalent annual cost, which comparison will take
  Into  account the life of the various portions  of each  plan.  Based upon this
  study, a recommendation will be made as to  the improvements  to  be  constructed.

      The Engineer will furnish  the  City fifty  (50)  copies of a  comprehensive
  report embracing the results of all studies, including construction and annual
  costs of all of the alternate plans investigated.   Recommendations as ' to  the
  improvements to be constructed  shall be contained in the report.


                                   PHASE II

      The Phase II preliminary design studies will not  be undertaken by the
  Consultant until authorized  by  the  City Council  following the  approval of
  Phase I.  These studies will make a final determination of  the  route  of the
  proposed tunnel.  In  order to do  this, borings will be taken along the proposed
  routes.  Such borings are not Included in the  services to be provided by  the
  Engineer, however the specifications for  and  the determination  of  the location
  of  sj;ch  tests are to  be included  in these services. Based  on  the  borings  and
 the  hydraulic studies  made in Phase  I,  the final  route, size, elevations and
   adients of the proposed tunnel will  be  determined.   Consideration will  be
  given to the daily variations in  flow  which occur,  as  well  as  to the  variation
  In  the flow quantities which will take place  over  the  design period In deter--
  mining the tunnel size and the  section to be  utilized.  Preliminary designs
  of  tunnel sections for the various  conditions  to be encountered, that is
  rock  sections, earth  sections,  and  mixed-face  sections, will be made.  Pre-
  liminary designs also will be made  for typical drop shafts,  construction
  shafts,  and other appurtenances.  Preliminary  designs  will  be  carried out
  to  the detail necessary to enable the  Engineer to prepare an estimate in
  sufficient detail to  enable  the City to determine  the  final financing re-
  quirements for  the project.  Considerations also will  be given  to  staged
  construction of the tunnel in order that  the  system will be compatible with
  the development of the area.

       The Engineer will furnish  the  City  fifty  (SO)  copies of a  report of  the
'  findings, estimates of construction cost, etc.,  developed in thin  phase of
  '•e. 'studies.
                   B. _ INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY
       1.   The  City will  furnish  the  Engineer copies of all previous reports
  and  planning  studies; maps  and  plans and profiles of existing sewerage facilities,

o                  :                               •

-------
        plnnu  of  existing  punipin;-  n tatlon:;,  nn,l  |ir r fc>n::,n\ce cuivor, for l!\c> Installed
        pumps;  flow measurement  data th.it may be usrful  In tlie course of these .studies.

            2.   The City  will furnish aerial photographs of Che study area.

            3.   Sub-surface  data  required by the Engineer which are available from
        che  Bureau  of Economic Geology of the University of Texas will be furnished
        by the  City at no  cost to  the  Engineer.

  t"~~        4.   Test borings  to determine the location and classification of sub--' --
        surface materials  will be  furnished  by the  City at noj:ost-to the Engineer.


                                C.  FEE TO  BE PAID ENGINEER                                      '

            1.   For the Phase I services, as outlined in Section A, the City agrees
,        t.o pay the  Engineer a fee  of Seventy-Eight  Thousand Dollars ($78,000), payable            \
i        in five  (5)  bi-monthly installments, of Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
i  f""^   ($11,500) each, upon  documentation by the Engineer of satisfactory progress,              j
j        e-nd  a  final installment  of Twenty Thousand  Five Hundred Dollars ($20,500)                 i
        upon completion of the studies and acceptance by the City of the report.        .          |

            2.   For the Phase II  services,  as outlined in Section B, the City agrees             •
      .  to pay the  Engineer a lump sum fee of Twenty-Seven Thousand Dollars  ($27,000)             j
        vpon completion of the studies and acceptance by the City of the report.                  j
                                                                                                  i

                                  D.   TIME OF COMPLETION                                         j.

            The  work for  Phase  I  will be commenced within two weeks after the                    .;
        authorization of  this Contract and the completed Phase I report shall be                  i
        submitted to the City within three hundred  sixty-five (365) calendar days
      •  of said authorization.                                                                     !

           ! The  Phase II  studies  will be commenced upon receipt of authorization                 !
        by the City Council.   The  completed  Phase II report shall be delivered  to                 ,
        the  City  no later  than one hundred twenty (120) calendar days after  receipt               j
        of authorization  to proceed.                                                              j

                                                                                                rl
                                  E.  TERMINATION CLAUSE                                          i
                                  •	                                         . t
                                                                                                  i
            The  Owner shall  be  entitled  to terminate this contract by paying the    •             j
   V.  •  Engineer  for work  performed  to the date of delivery to the Engineer  of                    ;
        written notice of  such termination.   The Owner shall reimburse the Engineer               •
        for  his direct salary cost multiplied by a factor of 2.5 for  time engaged  on             \
        the  vork  plus non-salary expense at invoice cost multiplied by a  factor  or                |
        1.V5*                                                                                      j

         "'  '                          '                                                            !
            IN TESTIMONY  WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed  these presents
        as of  the  //  day of  /?.-,-r"i/><•/     1968.
                                              CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS


                                              By _
                                                 Robert M. Tinstman
                                                 City Manager


                                              HORNER & SUIFRIN,  INC.
                                              Consulting Engineers
                                              By
                                                 E. E. Bloss
                                                 President
        ATTEST:
                 City Clerk

-------
         of rrt Certc.
         ER LOCATIONS
       AUSTIN, TEXAS
BUILT 3Y
                                             -5>f^/X
                                                       SEWER:    JOB NO.
FIELD BOOK,
DRAWN  BY_
DATE S-/8-50     LOCATION' S//0A L £/?££X	
DATE /0-/7-50     FROM //AA'COCX g/fAMCS/£AS£/-I£/,T
 EVISED BY
                          DATE
                                                          »V/=
CHECKED  BY <* ^ MO£iL f-r  DATE
                                              BOOK NO..
                                                           A
                                                                  SriE^T NO.
                                                   2403

-------
                                                                                          FOftM CD-25
                                                                                            134
                                   SEWER  LOCATIONS


                                          AUSTIN, TEXAS
O
     DSAvVM B
              ,Y S. SiP'-EX.
      -, —•, , ; — — r\ P[>/
      \ »•• : ^ hL .J a i —
      -H£CK£D 3Y_
 DATF g-?A.Q.o



 n^TF 5 - ~ • <^i



-DATE	



 OAT-
? ^C,'/ £. <7-'- AT  O A VLV ..gjOiV ^.
                                                                            3HEET NO.
                                                                                       52c

-------
                           SEWER LOCATIONS
                               AUSTIN, TEXAS
SA/*//._  _SEWER:    JOB NO.

LOCATION  Sf/OAL
                        DATE

                        DATE Q'/S'-SO

     N  RY  £>.A.S£LK£  DATS    ---     FROv,
     sD BY _ DATE              -    t/£sr w/i sr.  r/tsz/'ie/t
CHECKED BY Af/./'t(7£.'.F?'  DATE /c?-^<-./

-------
THE STATIC OF TEXAS   I
                     I
COUNTY OF TRAVIS     I


   THIS AGREEMENT mudo and enU-rod Into  this  the.- /3 "* /'"V °r !l'n>'' ly("'5i

by and between tho City of Auatin, a municipal  corporation organized and

existing under tho laws of the State of  Texas and situated in Travis

County, Texas, hereinafter called the  OV/NEK,  acting heroin by and through

W. T. Williams, Jr., Its City Manager, hereunto duly authorized, and

Bryaut-Curlngton Inc., of Austin, a corporation, and Black S; Veatch of

Kansas City, Missouri, hereinafter e.'.llcd tho ENGINEER:


                           SECTION I

        LONG-RANGE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR WATER SYSTEM

A.  Scope of Project and Work to be Dono by the Engineer

   1.  Tho groas aroa to be included in  the studios of the water system

requirements will include the Dull Creole Drainage Area to tho west, the

Big Walnut Creek area and Decker Creek Area to the north and east, and

the south ridge of Onion Creek Drainage  Area to the south.  In general,

the area covered is essentially ns shown on attached 15-minute Quadrangle

(Topographic) map marked Exhibit "A".

   2.  Population predictions, population distribution and related water

use studies, and aroa utilization trends will be made for a total ultimate

population of the abovo mentioned gross  area.

   3.  The studios will Include the usual and necessary statistics such as:

                          Population trends
                          Demand for Water
                          Equalizing Storage
                          fire Demand
                          Reserve Storage
                          Firm Capacity

   4,  The studios; will include recommended locations, capacities, and

preliminary estimates of coat of future  water treatment  facilities, with

studies of relative economic feasibility of alternate sites (if any) re-

garding size nnd length of trunk mains,  pimping heads, operatin" cost of
                                                                -
pumping and personnel, etc.

   5.  The studies will .LncUi'lc Jiytj-.'iiilio studies of the distribution syatcn

ns nuuck-J lor rocu:...-,! .-^;.t l<-;i foi- iul.ni-'-  1 .•,;,;;-.•;,n;;«.- v.a'.er di::t.i-ibut i o:i"£,vsto.a

-------
irapriA'omiiit.-!, to co->r;;r;t <>:' i,1 ;.o and  loontiouM  of trunk rarunr.. storage




reservoirs fun! booster pump nuaion:;, v.lth  [.roliini nary estimates of costs.




   G.  The studios will include a  priority  construction program for tho




recomcoudcd Improvements*




   7.  The ENGINEER will furnlah tho  OWNER  50 copies of a comprchcnsivo




report embracing the results  of all  the studios, onnlyaos, dosisns, etc.,;




and the recommendations, long-rnngo  improvement programs and  estimates  as




set forth above, together with  the tracings of the maps prepared for  tho




Report.




B.  Information to bo Furnished by O'.'i'KEU




   1.  The Ot'.'NER will furnish a copy of tho area under study  to scale of




l" » 800', showing location of  existing mains 12" and larger,  location




of water treatment plants, intakes,  pump plants, booster pump stations,




size and location of reservoirs and  elevated tanks,




   2.  The OWNER will furnish the  ENGINEER a copy of all reports,




statistics,  pump characteristics  curves, population charts and studies,




population distribution  and densities, and all other existing  data  and




information  including City Plan studies and information, that may  be




desired and  helpful in making the  required studies and recommendations.







                          SECTION II




       LONG-UANGE DEVELOPMENT  PUOGl'.AM FOR SEV/EBAGE SYSTEM




A.  Scope of  Project  and Work to  be  Pone by Engineer




   1.  The gross area to be included in the studies of the sewerage system




requirements will include  the Bull Creek Drainage Area to the west, the Big




Walnut Creek Area ami Decker  Crock Area to the  north nad cast, and the  south




ridge  of Onion Crock Drainage Arc-a to the ^outu.  In general,  the  area




covered is essentially  as  shown on attached 15—uinute Quadrangle  (Topographic)




map marked Exhibit "A".




   2.  The studies v/ill  include sovcr.il sewpge  flew measurements to bo  made




for 7  consecutive days  nt  ntraci';;ic  locations to be dotorr.itned at  a Inter




date as the  study progresses.




   3.  The studies v.'ill  include population trends, intensities and predic-




tions  fox' each drui:\a_;\>  area  i::V.er consj.d locations, capnc Ltiu:<, "'id  pre-




liminary estiiai'.tf:s of cv.it  ol 1'utur-j :\:wni;o 1 roai.mc-.it fucilitio.-;  i-.ttli--liifU.-s

-------
               of rclQllve Lcon.-mlc funallHllty  of ..Uornnto  nltcs (If <>»v)  r.-B..r i.,l'
  , j           se»ert,-c syatc-:.'. l.v r-rovc-.-nt';, i i: h j.r'-l i •• • nr.T v  r-.' !••;•».<

                   C.   Tl»0 btudiuu  will lncjuiln  n iiilurlly ,.4,n.-ii i .,..t IKI

               recommondcd improvements,

                   7.   Tho ENGJNEKit will furnish the OWNSll 50  copies of  a coinprohcnaive

  ,»          report embracing  the results  of  all the studies,  designs,  etc., nnd the
1  (i	)
!               recommendations,  long—range improvement progrmns  and estimates, n.s set

               forth above, together with tracings of the maps prepared for the Report.

               B.   Information tote Furnished  by OWNER

\                   1.   The CXI HER  will furnish n  contour mnp  of  t.lu^ /u'cu  undur nlmly lo

               scale of 1" o 800',  showing locution of ox tt; Li UK  o«I.U'ct«f maiiia, nud  also

               of  laterals In tho  vicinity or  tho nrons  Lo  bo  studied and at such other

 ;              places as may be  desired in determining suitable  locations for sewage

               measurements.  Such maps will include invert elevations  of several pointfa

               to  be determined  by the ENGINEER during the  preparation  of tho Report.

 ;                  2.   The OWNER  will furnish tho ENGINEI.T. with a copy of all reports,

               statistics, pump  station data,  population charts  and studios, densities

               and distribution, nnd other existing data, including City Plan studies  and

               data,  that may bo desired and holpCul in making tho required studies and

               recommendations.   The O'.VNliK shall, at Iti; own oxpeiiMu, uiali" fouli Uu'li^p

               ut  locations mutually agreed  upon in ordor to Hr>,OOO.ro at the tint;

      \__/      of  completion nncl Oolivory of both r>! t!if; rciiort:;.

                   2.   It tu uj.d'.'rstood OnJ aj.;ro<-:l ll:ot ihr-  work to ho done  v.-l 11 b'.' :iceun;-

               plinhed tlii-u-j;;h n co-.:biiiti1;toii of  tin: '.^i'..-:-lr':,;_•<•, (.0 '-::i>'iiK' L  nix!  J'OLOU ••(;<>"  of

               tho J.V,"Ji;<;':;:i;^, but.  tli/a OIH: of  t!...- iH-ii)Li,.^il::  :hn.!l i;v •!<'r:li.::'..-if.>.d «•,


-------
"c:oo-di natur" to  nc.i:  n.'t  11;.,.:•-,:, .,viili Mi:' I'ily.  Tin'' prl »<:l iiul "  ..ill  I.OL'I'V

the City in writing,  nt  or |,,.;,,:-„ UK: work ts ce..;::iem:ed,  of  tlio n~j.no of

principal designated  u.i  cocmliniif.or.  AJ .1 financial transaction:; botwi-en

the City and Engineers shall  be hr.aolecl through the coordinator; it  being

understood and agreed that  tho City i" *-P obtain tho collective oncinot-ring

services contemplated by tlila  Contract and that the division of moneys

paid hereunder between the :•: nr; i nee r:; shall not be  nn obligation of tho City.

   3.  Tho "Principals"  aro  to bo !1. IV. Cnrincton, K.  E.  Colls, Frank G.

Bryant and 1'aul D. Honey. 7'hc "I'rojeet Enftinoers" are to bo 2. G, Ferguson

and J. A. Franzotti,


                           SECTION_IV

          WORK SEQUENCE  AND  ESTIMATED COMPLimON' 7IMK

   Tho actual sequence of preparation of tho  reports will bo made in accor-

dance with the desires of the City in conference prior to the start of tho

work.

   It is estimated that  the  report on a long-rar.r;o development program for

the City's water  system  should be available for the City's  use in six (6)

months from date  of instructions to proceed on this phase of tho project,

and that 50 printed copies  of the report should be delivered in ueven (7)

months from said  date.

   It is estimated that  tho  report on a Ion;;—ran*.;o development program for

the City's sewerage system should be available for City's use in eight (8)

months fron date  of instructions to proceed on this phase of the project,

and that the 50 printed  conies of the report  should be delivered in nine  (0)

months from said  date.


   IN TESTIMONY V.'JIEllEOP  the  parties hereto have executed  these presents

as of the  /£Q-  dny of May, 1905,

                                             CITY OF AUSTIN,  TEXAS
ATTEST:                                      ny       .
        ^,     . C..  /     -                     W.  T.  wi 11 i'liniH," jr.'
      ^ [' -    /L   /'                     City Knnus'ir
     (f •V^-<-  -" / * * -' L-' |
City Clerk              //
                                                   -CUIlIKGTOlC IN2.    nnd

-------
STATE OF TEXAS    I

COUNTY OF TRAVIS  X
          THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this the  / J *  day  of

         	, 1968 by and between the City of  Austin,  a municipal corpo-
ration organized and existing under the laws of  the State of  Texas  and

situated in Travis County,  Texas,  hereinafter called the Owner,  acting

herein by and through its City Manager, hereunto duly authorized, and

FREESE, NICHOLS AND ENDRESS,  Consulting Engineers,  of Austin, Texas and

Fort Worth, Texas, a partnership,  hereinafter called the Engineer.


                      WITNESSETH:


          For and in consideration of  the mutual covenants and agreements

herein contained, the parties hereto agree  as follows:


                           SECTION I.


          The Owner hereby employs the Engineer  and the Engineer hereby

agrees to perform all necessary professional services hereinafter set

forth in connection with the following utility project of the City  of

Austin, Travis County, Texas, such project  being in two parts, located

and described as follows:
          1.  Shoal Creek Sanitary Sewer Line and Pertinent
              Facilities, beginning at the existing Shoal Creek
              Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station located at West
              First Street and t xu-nd Inp, upi;Lre;in> along .Shoal
              Creek to the confluence of Shoal Creek and Hancock
              Branch,  same being in the general vicinity of 49th
              Street and Crestmont Drive.   This project shall
              include a review of past studies of the sine of
              line required and a review of the adequacy of the
              existing Shoal Creek Pumping Station.

          2.  Lower East Section oC the Shoal Creek Sanitary
              Sewer Collection System and  Pertinent Facilities,
              beginning in the vicinity of West 5th Street at
              West Avenue and extending in a northerly direction
              to the general vicinity of 23rd Street at Nucces
              Street.   An engineering report shall be prepared
              which shall include a review of past studies and
              make recommendations as to size, location and
              estimated cost of the proposed facility.

-------
          (a)  The Engineer agrees that all services shall be rendered by




engineering personnel qualified for the particular work or phase of




engineering, and all such services uo rendered shall be under the direction




of a professional engineer licensed in the State of Texas to practice the




particular phase of engineering.  Each professional engineer assigned to




direct any particular phase of the engineering service shall affix his seal




to work performed under his direction.




          (b)  The Engineer agrees to submit the required plans to the




Texas State Health Department for approval and shall, if necessary, make




such changes as may be required to secure their approval.




          (c)  The Engineer agrees to commence the services to be performed




under this contract within    -'    days after the date of this contract




and to complete the services within approximately    -    months.




          (d)  The Engineer shall make the necessary field surveys and




investigations required for the preparation of working drawings.  He also




shall supervise the necessary borings, test pits and ground explorations




and tests, but the cost of such work shall be paid for directly by the




Owner and not by the Engineer.  In the event it is necessary to make




exploratory excavation to locate or determine the depth of any critical




utility, same shall be paid for by the Owner.




          (e)  The Engineer agrees to attend all necessary conferences,




and after approval by the Owner of the preliminary plans, the Engineer shall




prepare working drawings and speciflea Lions of the utility work project




hereinabove described; deliver to the Owner paper tracings drawn in pencil




of all the working drawings prepared by the Engineer; prepare all necessary




forms for proposals, contracts and performance bonds; and furnish the




Owner with five (5)  complete sets of plans and twenty-five (25) sets of




specifications, proposals and contract documents.
                               -2-

-------
          (f)  The Engineer agrees:   when Uic plunii .nul specification:; arc


submitted for bids to interest experienced contractors specializing in the


work to submit proposals tlicrcon, and, when bids are finally received, to


attend the letting, assist in the tabulation of bids and make an analysis


thereof, and file a written report on the merits of various bids and


qualifications of the bidders, including therein recommendations relative
                                         /

to the acceptance of the best bids.


          (g)  The Engineer agrees to review and make written recommendation


concerning any proposed change order which might be considered during the


construction phase of this project.   The Owner shall make a written request


for this service; setting forth the details of the proposed change order.



                          SECTION III,
          The Owner also agrees to make available to the Engineer all


existing records, plans, maps, reports, and all other data now possessed


by the Owner, where such data are necessary, advisable or helpful to the


Engineer in the prosecution of the work under this contract.


          The Engineer shall be provided with "permits of access" to properties


that are involved by this project.



                           SECTION IV.
          The Owner agrees to pay the Engineer for the performance of the

services prescribed in Section II above the sum of five and one-half (5.5%)


per cent of the contract price for the construction of the proposed work

as follows:

          (a)  Ninety (90%) per cent of the five and one-half (5.57.) per

cent of the agreed estimated construction cost of the work upon completion

and delivery to the Owner of the tracings, five (5) :,etB of plans and

twenty-five (25) sets of specifications and contract documents, Icsa all

previous payments.

          (b)  Five and one-half (5.5%) per cent of the contract price

for the proposed work upon the award of contract, less all previous

payments.
                               -3-

-------
           (c)  In the event the Owner cho<>si-.i to defer con.st met Ion of n




portion of the project, final paymnil muler paragraph (1>) :.liall lie based




on an agreed upon estimate oi the const met Jon cost- of tin* i-ntlro project.







                           .SKCTION V.






           (a)  Should the Owner require revision of plan;; or specifications




after same have been approved by the Owner; or




           (b)  During construction, should the Owner request consultation




and advice from the Engineer regarding the work, regarding clarification




and interpretation of the plans and specifications, or for other matters




such as studies upon which to base recommendations relative to the need




of change orders; or




           (c)  Should the Owner desire the Engineer to check shop and




working drawings and revise the contract drawings where necessary to conform




with the requirements of the contract - then the Owner will reimburse the




Engineer for his direct salary cost multiplied by a factor of 2.5 for time




engaged on the work as noted hereinabove in this Section V plus non-salary




expenses at invoice cost multiplied by a factor of 1.15.  Such payments




will be in addition to the payments set out in Section IV.




           (d)  Should the Owner desire or require the Engineer to revise




the contract drawings, with the assistance of the Resident Inspector, to




show the work as actually constructed, then the Owner will reimburse the




Engineer for his direct salary cost multiplied by a factor of 2.5 for




time engaged on making the revisions plus non-salary expenses at invoice




cost multiplied by a factor of 1.15.  Such payments will be in addition




to payments set out in Section IV.




          (e)  Should the Owner desire engineering during the "construction




phase" (not including resident inspection) as described in the Manual of




Professional Practice for General Knginecrinj; Services as published by




the Texas Society of Professional Engineers 1967, same shall be furnished




by the Engineer at a fee of ninety-five one hundredths (0.95%) of one




per cent of the actual construction costs.

-------
          (f)  Should the Chviu i  ,!«':;irf UK' Lnr.in.Ti  I o lurnisli ;i I'icld




Representative for full time resident inspection clurlnc, construction, same




shall be furnished by the Engineer at actual salary cost multiplied by




a factor of 2.0






                           SECTION VI.
          (a)  In the event the Owner determines to abandon the project




or delay it for an indefinite period, the Owner shall be entitled to




terminate this contract by paying the Engineer for work performed to the




date of delivery to the Engineer of written notice of such termination.




The Owner shall reimburse the Engineer for his direct salary cost multiplied




by a factor of 2.5 for time engaged on the work plus non-salary expense




at invoice cost multiplied by a factor of 1.15.




          (b)  Should the engineering firm, herein called the Engineer,




be disrupted before the completion of this contract through the death,




incapacity or loss of principal engineering personnel, or for any reason




so as to seriously impair the quality of the engineering services or




seriously delay completion of the engineering services to be performed under




this contract, then the Owner shall be entitled to terminate this contract




by paying the Engineer for services rendered to such termination date, and




the decision of the City Council of the City of Austin, Texas as to whether




the quality of the engineering services are impaired or whether the




engineering services will be delayed shall be conclusive and binding upon




the parties to this contract.







                          SECTION VII.
          The parties hereto bind themselves, executors, administrators,




and assigns in respect to all covenants of this agreement.  It is expressly




understood that neither the Owner nor the Engineer shall assign, sublet,
                               -5-

-------
 or  transfer  his  interest or obligation in tl.la ar.ivnni-.u v,HI,uuL  UK-  wrilten


 consent  of  the other  parly.



          Witness  our hands at Austin, Travis County, Texas,  this  the


                   !
       day of      /', ,, t ,..       1968.
ATTEST:
                                 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                      Robert M. Tinstman
    City Clerk
                                 FREESE,  NICHOLS AND ENDRESS
                               -6-

-------

-------

-------
 '-rnv
 111
le   Austin    Anie
   i.  59-No. 216
Read by tlie Decision-Makers of Texas
                 Austin, Texas, Wednesday, ;March  18,  1970
                       'J
                52  Pages
                          —f—
      .. .A  %$££:
     '  'i'H-^
        ~
&-.-•
 r- •  '
 li^l
 SF.WKK MAIN' ERUPTS. POURING RAWSKWAC;:. IN TO MIOAL CKF.KK
 S'27 million will help prevent breaks from pressure as  *.:u.^ nr.e did in l'J63.
                                                              i

 Austin  Has  Sewer  Ills      •

 Tliat Takes  Cash  To Fix:
    By ALAN BAILEY
      Staff Writer
   million In
bonds fur Austin. This article
I* im the $27 raiMion revenue
bonds for  sewer operations.)
 Granted,  it's nurd  for the
avr   » citizen to get worked
          up over sewer  collection  and
          treatment.
          i  It's real hard, unlil the sewers
          start backing up, usually during
          heavy r?ms, and diluted  raw
          sewage is dumped onto the city
          .stn-cts and into Toun Lake and
          creeks and toilets will not flush
          j—then citizens (^et worked up.
          .  Residents living along  the
          .Shoal Creek collection ba^in —
          'roughly bordered by Guadalup^-
          N. L^amar on the ea^-t and >?o
          Pac railroad on the west— are
          familiar with  the  sewer
          problem.
            Shoal  Crock  system is the
          worst of any sewer  collection
          systems, Vic Schmnit, head o;
          water  and sewer departtm-iit.
           said. "When heavy nims hit.
          toilcls will not flush easily, raw
          Ist'U-ase  pours  into the creek
           from pipes that break — we
           ha\e headache!*,1* he said.
            To help solve Austin's sewer
           problems, the  city is asking
                  voters to approve $27 million in
                  revenue   bonds   to  finance!
                  v'S.971,000 of  capital improve--
                  me'iis ir. sewer operations.
                   Ti. e sev, e r  bo nds are the
                  lar^t amount beint; requested
                       10 propo^ltions on the;
   (From  Page 1)

existing eipht systems, it \vnuld
5ave the city millions of dollars
in yearly operating costs.    |
  The present system requires ai
hi^h  operaliin:  co>t  on  1'ii1
stations  and cle^ni:^* out  the
pi;x:s, Schmidt said.
  Other   advantages  of   the
 interceptor are:          j
  — Reduce the possibility of I
 spillage into Town Lake and the
 creeks,
   —Not have to  di? up the
 pipes in the creek b?ds  andi
 replace them.
  ~ Less bcautification
 problems on Tov.ii Lake.
  — Almost no interference to
 traffic  and   local  property
 owners during the  conjunction
  (the  tunnel would  be
  const ructed with  a mole-type
  boring machine.)
    — Reduce  the  amount of
  right-of-way costs.
    — Less  worries  about
  mechanical  failures  of  lift
  s LIT ions.
   The  proposed route rougnly
  f-nlows K. I9;li. M'inor Rd.. W.
  C):h, and W. 35th UP-!  would cut
  Across eisht ^ou--r  drainage
  LaMiis :n Xnrth Austin.
   If t!w* proposed  int^rt^ptor is
  built i  the  city will  have to
  ^really expand  the Walnut
  Creek  treatment plant and the
  city -has earmarked  $9,234,000
1  fr*r its  expansion  and
  improvements to tJie Williamson
  •Creek pi Jut in South Austin.
    The remaining  allotment of
  about $15.5 million u-:ll go into
  ' other sewer collodions.
    The  three  bitj  collection
  expenditure  are  beefing up
  Shoal Creelc system, Bi? Walnut I
  Creek system and Williamson
  Creek system.
                  of all
                  ballot.
                    Hie real ;em of the proposed!
                  capital improvements,  Schmidt i.
                  •rinl. is the SH million for af
                  cro>s-town super sewer tunnel,^
                  or  often called  a   sewer-i
                  interceptor.            /•
                    Accor.'hng to an en^mcciing .
                  stufly. this would solve sewerj;
                  prot?K*ms nor'h of Town Lake;,
                  for me next fifty years.     . '
                    A  :,innlar  sewer  outfall. |
                  alihouL'h  somewhat smaller in ^
                  scoiw. was built several yean j
                  a-o in ^-'uih Austin.        <
                    Sclmiidt said although  the
                  interceptor cost about U million
                  more than would beefing up tht
                      (See BONDS, Page I)
      (This article contains  material
       that is not factual, is totally
                            	j;j. .„
                                                                                        ,  ,
                                                                                and is no credit  to
                                                                                       ith  it.)

-------
                                                                                      FOttM T.D-25
 '•.OS
             TO ASSIST IN UNDERSTANDING THE CONDITIONS
             THAT CONTBJBUTED TO AND ACTUALLY CAUSED VK
             MANHOLES AT HMJCOCK BHANCH TO OVERFLOW

               (Sugg«»t correlation with th« Fr«es«, Nietols a»4
                 Endress Exhibit if *n insight  into this what
                  has been called a truirped-up  In* ltr*ti*»
                          story to support the  rece™iend»ti«n»   \^
                             by Homer and Shifrin for th«
                                  Crosstown Tunnel vt th«    ;
                                   additions as needed to th«(
                                     Lake Interceptors and pumping
                                              stations.)

                                                    .'-'•X    '"''••.
                  \
                              SEWER LOCATIONS
                                  AUSTIN, T£XAS
r.i.i.TRY
BOOK //: ii'.'.£
                                                          SEWER:    JO..
                                                                                    -'£/.
                                                LOG \T1ON
                    _DATE	

                    _DATE_//:_:~ ••;-'••''•'
                                                               -/:^ S/~
                                                              A

-------
                                                                                    FORM CD-IS
                                                                                       184-
:;? # ; ; U ! i
,'O £• - "I '
.t;h ; , . 1 fl ;
O «j 0- i • jii " : 1
1 ^ . o' ' u ! L1 : ; '
"Yi^ 5 I fill . i ; ;

:H
\!
a
t-
i
K!l|
-J-j
: ' "*!
i 2 !J
; o !~J-i
"CT"i?|
:ul i^L
u , I ':•!,. i :
'•* • : i •-'.-.: ; ;
g • i i .. ; i : ! - i . I
; I - : j i :
• (i • '. ' '' \" . \ .
                             SEWER  LOCATIONS
                                    AUSTIN, TEXAS
BUILT BY_<
FIELD
DRAWN ny 'a-
REVISED BY
               W.\GNE.
-DATE.
_DATE.
-DATE.
-DATE.
             LOCATION
                       SEWER:    JOB
-1• Cl
CHECKED BY	
                                           	   BOOK NO..
                                                             A
                                  .SHEET NO. 5286

-------
(  I
             SHOAL  C/?££J<   f'
             HAMCOCK'S  &&AAJCH

-------
                 COMMENTS AND REMARKS APPROPRIATE TO AUSTIN'S
                             INFILTRATION" niBLGll
                               (Sanitary Sewers}


  An attempt was made to correlate the dates shown on one of the
reproduced sheets with the rainfall records of the National Weather
Service but the relatioship between the days or periods of rainfall
at the Austin Municipal Airport as reflected in their records and the
days and time durations shown for the overflow manholes on Shoal Creek
are in disagreement in several cases. And since The reproduced sheet from
the Freese, Nichols and Endress Shoal Creek report states that the data was
taken from the records of the City of Austin's Wastewater Department. So I
asked the Superintendent about giving me a complete documentary on locations
of manholes, days on which they overflowed and for how long and he was quick
to tell me that he did not keep such records in his Department, and that he
at present has only two (2) manholes that overflow. One is caused by a choke
induced by a short section of 12-inch pipe in a 16-inch line, zni that the other
one had not been investigated as to cause, but would be in a few days. The other
aforementioned 12-inch choke is being corrected, so he reported, and he assured
me that he was not holding back en any condition. And his long-time office clerk
that takes care of summarizing trouble calls and forwarding reorts to the Central
office said that the only sewer complaints that received attention and were report-
ed were those where sewage backs up into houses and that she did not receive reports
of overflowing manholes.

I made a similar inquiry of the Supervisor in charge of maintenance and repairs
and got virtually the same report from him. I told him that I wanted to visit with
him and review some of his pumping stations daily discharges to see what kind of
infiltration of storm water that was enterering the sanitary sewers , and he told
me that the Infiltration problem in Austin is what the lawyers refti &o as de minimus
and I asked him if it might be possible that someone had hoaxed the Austin people
in connection with the contents of the Newspaper article that this is attached to,
and his reply was it may have been.

My next inquiry to the maintenance supervisor dealt with the argument over the
source of the water that is showing in the photograph and disposed of by the Freese,
Nichols and Endress employee as "assumed to be infiltration water" that would require
a lot of money to fix, and I explained to him that I needed to know more about his
manholes, their location, heighth, etc. and whether he suspected pilfering, pillaging
and downright thievery that in turn would allow high water to enter the sewers at
such points. I told him that I had found 4 manholes on Hancock Branch (above the
overflow problem) but could find none on Shoal Creek and his reply was  ihat he
kept them covered with a little soil to hide them for even though they were bolted
covers, with 6 bolts normally, that such losses do occur  ans that open holes are
the result. But he assured me that the oevrflow in the picture was caused by trying
to force 4 sewers with high gradients into one 24-inch but when they corrected it
they installed a 54-inch and the Sewer Superintendent said that he would not
that the 54 was not an overdesign and of course that  is a waste of public funds.
But while they were trying to let a contract for that 54 and the question of size
was being discussed, one Councilman stated that he wanted to build them so large
that they could not possibly overflow, and went on to assure me that the Federal
Government was picking up the tab for 55$ of it and that the State of Texas was
supplying 25^ assistance. And that brings 113 back to  the COST OF CLEAN WATER, Vol  11
The waste in desig^ yng some of these projects is appalling.

If  it  is finally  sho-n that Austin's  infiltration problem  is purely fictional, and
our present severs are lar^e eaa-i^h w>iat £0 ive do with a  tunnel  that  is not rie*«:l*>
-------

-------
        , NICHOLS AND ENDRESS
 CONSULTING  ENGINEERS
SIMON W. FREESE
S. GARDNER ENDRESS
JAMES R. NICHOLS
ROBERT L. NICHOLS
LEE B. FREESE
ROBERT S. GOOCH
JOE PAUL JONES


W. LEARY EED3
JOE B. MAPES
OCIE C. ALLEN
ROBERT A. THOMPSON III
W. ERNEST CLEMENT
ELVIN C. COFELAND
ALBERT H. ULLRICH


MARVIN C. NICHOLS
  1927-1969
                                       September 10,  1971

  Mr.  Hugh C.  Yantis,  Jr.,  P.  E.
  Executive Director
  Texas  Water  Quality  Board
  314  West llth Street               >— ' ------- ~: ~ --
  P. 0.  Box 13246, Capitol  Station    '— •         ,,:,,::: ---------
  Austin,  Texas  78711               j --------- ;. -..   -.

  Dear Hugh:                          i          . .... . .,_ .

      Before  the second day Texas  Water Quail ty~ Board-meeting-
  you  indicated that you would like to  have  some additional  information  on
  the  design criteria  that  we  used  in the  design of Austin's new Shoal Creek
  sewer  interceptor.  I  have prepared some comments relative to  this  subject
  and  am sending you a copy herewith.

      You will note that these comments are dated September 9,  1971, and
  that they are based  on comments prepared for the City  of Austin,  June  23,
  1970.   Although the  City's staff  was  aware of the manner used  in  arriving
  at the Shoa1  Creek design criteria and agreed that  we  should use  them, the
  June 1970 comments were requested when the Cross-Town  tunnel project feasi-
  bility study was presented to the City Council  for  approval.   As  you know,
  both the former and  the present City  Council  have approved the tunnel  project.

      Please  let me know if you require additional information  on  this  subject.

                                              Yours very truly,
                                              Freese, Nichols and Endress

                                                        y
  AHU/cf
                                              Albert H.  Ullrich,  P.  E.
•ELEO^ONC 3 < Z « 7 8 - 8 7 ?. «   A U S T ' N r- ?•
                                           3 U I u ~ • N G   AUSTIN, TEXAS 787O1

-------
                            September 9, 1971
                   COMMENTS RELATIVE TO DESIGN CRITERIA
              DEVELOPED  FOR PROPOSED SHOAL CREEK INTERCEPTORS
     (Based  on comments  prepared for the City of Austin, June 23, 1970)
     During the  pre-design conference with the City's staff, it was agreed
that the Shoal Creek  interceptors should be designed, in so far as possible,
to prevent  future  oveflows and abate pollution in Shoal Creek from these
interceptors.  With this agreement as a basis, both the 1958 and 1966 Long
Range Programs for sewerage improvements were reviewed and a new study encom-
passing the Shoal  Creek drainage basin was undertaken.
     The new study, in  so far as design criteria are concerned, included
peak dry weather flow measurements in the existing Shoal Creek interceptors,
theoretical  full flow capacity calculations for these interceptors, estimates
of peak infiltration rates during full flow conditions, estimates of overflow
rates during extreme wet weather conditions, consideration of rates of potential
infiltration which could not flow into already surcharged Interceptors, and
consideration  of the likelihood of exfiltration during periods when the
existing collector lines may be surcharged.
     Flow measurements made from July 31 through August 6, 1968, indicated
that, during that  period, the existing 30-inch Main Shoal Creek interceptor
had a peak  dry weather flow of 8,2 million gallons per day (MGD) at West 6
and Wood Street  and that the existing 18-inch Main Shoal Creek interceptor
just prior  to  entering the Shoal Creek Pump Station had a peak dry weather
flow of 3.8  MGD.   The peak dry weather flow rate of these two interceptors
during this  period was 12.0 MGD.  The theoretical  capacity of the 30-inch
Interceptor  at West 6 and Wood Street was calculated to be 14.6 MGD and the
theoretical  capacity of the 18-inch interceptor at the point of measurement
was calculated to  be 6.2 MGD.   The theoretical  full  flow capacities of the

-------
two interceptors, as calculated, is 20.8 MGD.  Observations made by City
personnel and reported to Freese, Nichols and Endress indicate that both
of these interceptors have flowed full and at their capacity during extreme
                                                               //w
wet weather conditions.  The difference between theoretical ful!A capacity
and peak dry weather flow in the two interceptors in 1968 was 8.8 MGD.  It
is reasonable to assume that when these interceptors have run full in the
past, the difference between peak dry weather flows and their theoretical
capacity has been due to infiltration.  This difference of 8.8 MGD in 1968
is equal to approximately 1,100 gallons per acre per day when distributed
over the approximately 8148 acres which contribute to the drainage basin
served by the Main Shoal Creek interceptors.
     In addition to the above estimated 1,100 gallons per acre per day of
infiltration carried by the existing 30-inch and 18-inch interceptors at
the lower end of Shoal Creek, unmeasured quantities of sewage and infiltrated
water frequently overflowed into Shoal Creek through surcharged upstream
manholes prior to the 1968 Freese, Nichols and Endress Pre-Design Study.
These overflows ranged from a few inches to waterspouts in excess of two
feet above the top of a manhole near the confluence of the 15-inch and 8-inch
Hancock Branch interceptors and the 24-inch and 18-inch Main Shoal Creek
interceptors.  Overflows of this nature cannot be measured with any degree
of accuracy.  However, the calculated combined full flow capacity (without
surcharge) of the Main Shoal  Creek and Hancock Branch interceptors above
their confluence is 20.62 MGD, whereas the calculated combined full flow
capacities (without surcharge) of the Shoal Creek interceptors below this
location, which existed in 1968, was only 9.25 MGD.  The peak dry weather
flow at this location in 1968 is not known.  However, it is known that the
                                                                  /?w
interceptors below this point frequently operated at or near fully^capacity

-------
during dry weather periods.  Therefore, it was estimated that during manhole
overflows which amounted to approximately two foot high waterspouts, the
overflows were at rates in the order of 20.62 MGD less 9.25 MGD, or 11.37
MGD.  There are approximately 6569 contributing acres above the confluence
of Hancock Branch and Main Shaol  Creek.  On this basis it was estimated that
the manhole overflows which occurred during periods of extremely wet weather
amounted to approximately 1,700 gallons per acre per day.
     Adding the 1,100 gallons per acre per day of infiltration calculated
as being carried by the interceptors at the lower end of Shoal Creek to the
2,700 gallons per acre per day estimated as having overflowed, resulted in
an estimated infiltration rate of 2,800 gallons per acre per day.
     Other factors which were considered, but which cannot be measured were
(1) that surcharged sewers will carry more flow then when merely flowing full,
(2) that there may probably be some exfiltration from surcharged sewers and,
(3) that infiltration may be limited to some extent when sewers are surcharged.
     During the study on infiltration in the Shoal Creek sewer system a
comparable study of infiltration  in Austin's Williamson Creek sewer system
also was made.  This system was selected for comparison because its existing
outfall sewer has sufficient capacity to carry all present peak wet weather
flows without overflows and all flows are metered.  This study revealed that
in 1968 the highest average dry weather flow from July to December was 0.707
MGD, whereas the maximum daily wet weather flow during the year was 4.888 MGD.
In 1968 the developed and connected area in the Williamson Creek system was
887 acres.  Subtracting the peak  dry weather flow (2.5 times the average or
1,767,500 gallons per day) from the peak wet weather flow (4,888,000 gallons
per day) result in an infiltration rate of 3,120,500 gallons per day.   Based/

-------
on a developed area of 887 acres in 1968 the peak infiltration rate-into
this system was therefore, approximately 3,500 gallons per acre per day.
In this connection it should be noted that the infiltration rates  for the
Williamson Creek sewer system are based on actual metered flows.
     .On the basis of the above studies, it was concluded that an  allowance
of 3,000 gallons per acre per day for infiltration would be reasonable to
use in the design of the Shoal Creek interceptors.  Previous studies  had
Indicated that an average dry weather flow of 85 gallons per capita per day
with a peaking factor of 3.0 was a reasonable criteria to use for  dry weather
design purposes.

-------
     The 1966 Long Range Program for Austin's Sewer System includes "an




allowance for infiltration in a "Design Peak Flow" factor which is expressed




in terms of gallons per acre per day.  This factor includes peak dry weather




sewage flows based on projected population densities and an infiltration




allowance.  For a population density of 12,5, which is the approximate average




density used in the 1968 Freese, Nichols and Endress Pre-Design study for Main




Shoal Creek, the 1966 Plan indicates a "Design Peak Flow" factor of approximately




3,100 gallons per acre per day.  Converting the criteria proposed in the 1968




Pre-Design Study to the same basis as that used in the 1966 Plan, results in




a "Design Peak Flow" factor of approximately 6,200 gallons per acre per day.




This difference in the design criteria between the 1966 Plan and the 1968




Pre-Design study was brought to the City staff's attention, and it was agreed




that, in order to prevent, in so far as possible, future overflows into Shoal




Creek, the criteria developed in the 1968 Pre-Design Study should be used in




the design of the proposed interceptors.





     In further connection with these design criteria, it is noted that the




1966 Plan did not anticipate that the design criteria proposed therein would




be used as an inflexible guide for the design of sewer lines in all sections




of the City.  Referring to the design flow criteria shown in Table VII, page




40, the 1966 report states that the table is not intended for direct application




where a portion of the tributary is pumped, or where any factors can be expected




to modify the time of collection encountered with ordinary gravity sewers.  The




study made for the 1968 Pre-Design report indicated that the time of collection




at the confluence of Hancock Branch and Main Shoal Creek near West 45 Street




is considerably different from that encountered with ordinary gravity sewers.





     It is also noted that the 1966 Plan recognized that "infiltration is




responsible for severe increases in flow at times of peak flows and thus for

-------
the aggravation of some of the systems' more severe problems".  The 1966 Plan




also noted that "1957 flow measurements (made in conjunction with the 1958




report) revealed that infiltration in greater than usual quantities was occurring




on the collector sewers for the Shoal Creek and Waller Creek tributary areas".





     Subsequent to the 1958 report and prior to the 1966 report the City had




instituted an inspection program which resulted in the location and repair




of numerous sources of infiltration.  The 1966 report took note of this fact




and encouraged the City to continue and expand this program in order "to locate




and stop or reduce present infiltration".  Freese, Nichols and Endress agrees




that this inspection program is a valuable tool for reducing infiltration and




for the maintenance of sewer lines and should be continued.  However, it is




believed that the 1966 report envisioned a much greater reduction in infiltration




through, inspection and repair of collector lines than has been possible to




attain.  When the 1968 Pre-Design Study was made, the City's staff had concluded




that it would be a tremendously expensive undertaking to materially reduce




infiltration from then existing customer services and service connections in




the areas constructed prior to the adoption of present constructions standards




and construction inspection procedures.





     In connection with infiltration in the Shoal Creek drainage basin, it is




of interest to note that overflows have been a continuing problem.  As noted




in the 1968 Pre-Design Study, the existing Shoal Creek interceptors were




constructed as follows:  the smaller of the two existing Main Shoal interceptors




(8" - 18") was constructed over a period beginning with WPA projects in 1935,




to about 1945.  The larger interceptor (24" - 30") was constructed in two




24-inch and one 30-inch sections.  The first 24-inch section was constructed




in 1947 and the second section was constructed in 1949.  The 30-inch section

-------
was constructed in 1956.  It is known that overflows were reported in the early




1950's.  This could possible be attributed to the fact that the 30-inch section




had not been constructed.  Howev«r, overflows continued to occur after the




30-inch section was constructed in 1956.  As noted in the 1968 Pre-Design




Study, City Wastewater Department records show that overflows occurred on 21




separate days in 1965.  This was only 9 years after the completion of the




existing 30-inch interceptor.  The City's records were not reviewed to determine




if overflows occurred between 1956, the year of completion of this interceptor,




and 1965.  Overflows due to infiltration are, of course, influenced by the




intensity and duration of rainfall.  Wastewater Department records show that




overflows occurred on 7 days in 1966, on 11 days in 1967, and on 15 days from




January 9 through May 28 in 1968.  During the period of record from January




23, 1965 to May 28, 1968, inclusive, there were 55 days when overflows were




recorded into Main Shoal Creek from the existing interceptors.





     The "Design Peak Flow" factor of approximately 6,200 gallons per acre per




day computed from the 1968 Pre-Design report has been compared with design




criteria for the City of Dallas, Texas, which was published in the 1969 ASCE




and WPCF Manual of Practice entitled "Design and Construction of Sanitary and




Storm Sewers".  For the City of Dallas the estimate for this factor, based on




past construction in 8,000 acre areas is in the order of 5,000 gallons per




acre per day and in 1,500 acre areas this factor is in the order of 6,300




gallons per acre per day.  Considering the fact that the time of collection at




the confluence of Hancock Branch and Main Shoal Creek near 45 Street is con-




siderably more critical than that encountered with ordinary gravity sewers, the




approximately 6,200 gallon per acre per day criteria developed for the design of




Shoal Creek interceptors compares favorably with the Dallas criteria.

-------
     In connection with the design criteria for sewerage systems it sjiould




be stated some past designs have been based on the premise that overflows at




strategic and selected locations were permissible during extremely wet




weather conditions.  Design criteria based on this premise can no longer be




justified.
     In connection with the decision to design the proposed Shoal Creek




interceptor to carry all projected flows independently of the capacity of




the existing interceptors, the following factors were considered and discussed




during conferences with the City's staff:




     1.  The possibility of damage to the existing 24-inch interceptor during




         construction of the proposed new interceptor.  The working space in




         Shoal Creek is very limited and the possibility of damage to existing




         facilities cannot be ignored.  As noted by the City's staff and reported




         in the 1968 Pre-Design Study, the existing 24-inch sections of the




         (24-30)-inch interceptor is non-reinforced concrete pipe.




     2.  Due to the extremely limited working space in Shoal Creek and with




         the proposed new interceptor in place, replacement of the existing




         interceptor at some future date would be extremely costly.  There




         would then also be danger of damage to the new intercepter now proposed.




     3.  If the existing interceptor could be maintained in operable condition,




         it would serve a useful  purpose in the event population densities




         in the Shoal Creek drainage area should increase beyond present




         forecasts and expectations.





     It was agreed that these factors were of sufficient importance to warrant




preparation of cost estimates for (1) design of the proposed new interceptor




to carry all projected flows independently of the existing 24" - 30" interceptor




and (2) design of the proposed new interceptor to carry Only those flows in
                                       8

-------
excess  of  the  existing 24" - 30" interceptor.  Such cost estimates were made

and are as  follows:

     1.  Interceptor  to replace 8" - 18" interceptor and carry all flow from

         Hancock Branch to the Shoal Creek Pump Station (independent of the

         capacity of  the existing 24" - 30" interceptor).

         From  Hancock Branch to West 9 Street            $1,940,700

:"  "	From  West 9  Street to Shoal Creek Pump
               Station                                      380,800
                                                         $2,321,500

     2.  Interceptor  to replace existing 8" - 18" interceptor and carry only

         those flows  in excess of the existing 24" - 30" interceptor:

         From  Hancock Branch to West 9 Street            $1,788,300

         From  West 9  Street to Shoal Creek Pump
               Station                                      319,500
                                                         $2,107,800

     3.  Interceptor  to replace existing 8" - 18" interceptor and carry all flow

         from  Hancock Branch to the beginning of the existing 30" line at Gaston

         Avenue (independent of the existing 24" interceptor).

                                                         $1,151,900

     4.  Interceptor  to replace existing 8" - 18" interceptor and carry only those

         flows in excess of the existing 24" interceptor.

                                                         $1,110,800

     The difference in cost estimates 1 and 2 is $213,700 and reflects the

estimated difference  in the cost for providing capacity independent of the

existing 24" - 30" interceptor from Hancock Branch to the Shoal Creek Pump

Station.

     The difference in cost estimates 3 and 4 is $41,000and reflects the estimated

difference  in  the cost for providing capacity independent of the existing 24"

interceptor.

                                       9

-------
     At the time these cost estimates were prepared it was not known- at what




location the cross-town tunnel mentioned in the 1966 Plan would, if constructed,




pass under Shoal Creek.  However, during discussions with the City's staff,




it was agreed that in the first phase of construction, the proposed new Shoal




Creek interceptor should not extend south of Gaston Avenue, pending determina-




tion of the feasibility of the cross-town tunnel.  Based on this consideration,




it was agreed that benefits to be derived from providing full flow capacity




in the proposed new interceptor from Hancock Branch to Gaston Avenue far




outweighed the $41,000 difference in cost as shown in above estimates 2 and 3.





     During subsequent conferences with the City's staff it was agreed that




since the 1966 Plan indicates that the most northerly point where the tunnel




would pass under Shoal Creek would be in the vicinity of West 34 Street, the




first phase of construction of the proposed new interceptor should terminate




at West 34 Street, pending the outcome of a tunnel feasibility study.   It




was then also agreed that the section of new interceptor between Hancock Branch




and West 34 Street should be designed for full flow capacity and independent




of the capacity of the existing 24" interceptor.

-------
     e
MATHEWS  LEEDSHILL BRYANT• CURINGTON
Engineering  Consultants to  the  City  of Austin,  Texas
8330  Burnet Road, Austin, Texas  78758 •  (512) 452-9445
                                      March 1, 1972
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson St., Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas  75201

Attention:  Mr. Dan Sherwood, Air and Water Programs Div.

Re:  Draft - Environmental Impact Statement
     Crosstown Wastewater Interceptor - Austin, Texas

Gentlemen:

     I have reviewed the Draft of the Environmental Impact Statement
for Construction of Wastewater Facilities - Austin, Texas, WPC-TEX-824.
I have no adverse comments to make about this statement.  There are
two minor corrections I would suggest.

     On Page C, Paragraph 3, Sentence 1.  This should read:  "The tunnel
construction will permit the use of tunneling machine or blasting".  This
then will be in accordance with design criteria.

     On Page 9, B. Description p_f Project. Last line of the 1st Paragraph,
delete 78" and insert 8M-".  This then should read:  "The diameter of the
interceptor waterway ranges from 84 to 96 Inches" .

     Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Environmental Impact
Statement.

                                      Yours very truly,

                                      MATHEWS LEEDSHILL BRYANT-CURINGTON
                                      Hugh D. Blanchard
                                      Project Manager
HDB:ab
zc:  Mr. Al Sprague, Texas Water Quality Board
     Mr. A. M. Eldridge, City of Austin

-------
MRS. F  K   EiDELBACH
   S7OO D'?r TWOOD  DR.
   AUSTIN'. TEXAS  7B731

-------
• f$JI
                              (0
                       ' c'U< I
fl, . -T~T/1 ,'. i ,

-------
                             572 -
                                    February 29,  1972
 Regional Administrator
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Region VI,
 1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
 Dallas, Texas   75201
                                   RE:  WPC-TEX-824
                                        Impact Statement No.  7104
Dear  Sir:
                                                               Ik"
     Enclosed please find a copy of a petition  signed by  some S^'persons
who  reside in and around .the proposed site_of. the Walnut  Creek 'Vastewater
|Disposal Plant for the City of Austin.»• We would like to  explain to you in
some detail, the main points of our objections.

     We object to the location of the sewer plant in our  neighborhood
because it ivill constitute a nuisance.  Several weeks ago we apoe.nred
before the Austin City Council to present our petition and  our views   To
rebut our contention that the new plant would cause offensive odors in
the  neighborhood the Council called upon the City Engineer  mid asked hiia
a  few pointed questions about the odor.  His answers were totally incon-
clusive with phrases such as "generally" or "we can't say for sure"--
in short, yes, the new plant will produce offensive odors for nany years
to conie.

     Secondly, we would take 'direct""iSstfe^wijtfiryour statement on "ape 32
that the area to the north of the site location is going  to be light
industrial and commercial.  The City Planning Department  has indicated
that this area is projected to be low-density residential.  The area
immediately to the ^a^ and north&S|f is already low-density residential
at the present time.  "Xt the end of the Draft Statement from Vorrision
Enterprises indicates that they intend to subdivide their land in the
future.  Your map (Figure 1) is glossly outdated since it does not show
any  of the present residential communities which are near the proposed
site, namely Craigwood and Cavelier Park.

     Thirdly, fou constantly refer In 'the~statement to the  year 2020
indicating that this is.a design lacking to serve the future growth of
jthe  City of Austin./  Yet, you have conveniently limited this progressive
approval only to the Study Area, i.e., that area to be served.  What
about our area, the area that is going to be more harmed  than bencfitted.
When it canes to discussing our geographical area you say that it will
not  change the "established land use," page 33.  We consider the
established land use in and around the proposed site to be  residential,
and  who wants to live next to the sewer plant?

     Fourthly, tKe~aHernatives for site "selection were "primarily restricted
t^" existing sites alette-Walnut Creek and.Govalle Sites.'j  When you go
on to say at page "4l~that the Govalle Plant is almost fully developed.  What
kind of viable alternative site location is that?  We would like to see
the  Plant located further to the East of Austin in an area  not quite so
likely to be developed for residential use in the next few  years.
         ff-

-------
     In conclusion gentlemen, those odors which will be minimized by
prechlorination and past chlorination procedures are fine until you
have to put up with the mininum odors in your own neighborhood.  If
this plant were being built in West Austin instead of East Austin you
can bet there would be a dandy fight.

     We hope you understand the importance of our objections.  TOOT oraiy
Boes not fairly treat the people of East Austin who presently live near A
the site, nor that group of people who in the future might consider      t
building homes and raising families in the area.  Yet it -intensely considers
^he growth prospects of West Austin.
                                   Respectfully submitted,
                                   Harold IV. Darby
                                   Representing Citizens In Opposition
                                   To The Proposed Walnut Creek Sewer Plant.

-------
           CITIZEN'S PETITION IN OPPOSITION OP THE WALNUT
                  GREEK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
We, the residents of East Austin principally of the Cavalier Park,
Craigwood, Springdale Hills, University Hills and Stonegate communities,
object to the proposed site of the Walnut Creek Waste Water Treat-
ment Plant approximately 6/10 of a mile east of Bluestein Highway
on Webberville Road.  This proposed site is located in the immediate
area of these rapidly expanding communities which have moderately
priced homes.
We are objecting upon environmental grounds in that this proposed
plant will normally produce offensive odors and the prevailing wind
direction (according to the meteorologist reports) is from South-
east to the Northwest toward the communities mentioned above.
This proposed plant will produce in addition to health hazards, a
down-grading effect which will inhibit further expansion and growth
in this area.
We are not opposed to better Waste Water Treatment facilities for
the City of Austin, however, we feel that an alternate site approxi-
mately five miles further Southeast will not create a hardship and
will not adversely affect existing communities.  We are therefore
in accord that the proposed site is totally objectionable.  We
respectfully submit this petition for your information and consideration
and request your favorable response in alleviating this hardship
to our communities.

-------
PETITION IN OPPOSITION 0? THS WALNUT CREEK  WASTE


WA'i'Jg/1  TlflSATMtfflT PLANT



                                     	ADDRESS
-{,     v-;^-' '- '  P-
           ,.
        A.(Xi

                                                A
                                         11 7

-------

-------
  WL
.xUJ
^vLw
cow S850A-
      IA-ED 4-87/y
                                                                                   Ptiiitd U U. S. A. hr Pn4n«i*l Prw

-------
                                if <" 2 2.    .,
                                2j p? 2
                 \\,f(

                           /)..
c*


-------
I/.  T
                                          X



                                6" I c\
                                                   . ^. ^
                                                  V

-------
APPENDIX 2




 HEARINGS

-------
     OF EXISTING  PLATTED
SUBDIVISIONS IN  VICINITY
OF WALNUT  CtfFCK

-------
                                cv
                               SYNOi'SIS
      S_ul> j oo1. _o_f_ rip a r .1 IK;
 IT..   Hearing
      A.  Date:
III
IV.
         Location:

         Hearing
          Commission;

     D.   Appe a r a nc e s:

     Findinqs
                          Reviev/ of the Highland  Lai;or.  System
                          Comprehensive V>astewater  Study,  prepared
                          by 1'reese, Nichols,  and Endress,  Consult-
                          ing Engineers.               i
July 21, 1971

Austin,  Texas
                           Lee II. Nathews,  Presiding  Officer
                           Garner Jones,  P.E.,  Planning  Representative

                           See attached  list
      A.  The plan was financed by a grant  from  the' Texas  Water Quality
          Board and weis prepared with reference  to  and in  accordance
          with current Water Quality Board  wastewciter  quality standcirds .

      B.  As required by Federal regulations  and State of  Texas guide-
          lines, the plain makes a detailed  study of existing sewerage
          systems and problems in the study area and recommends the
          means for correcting the problems .   In accordance with Water
          Quality Board policy, the plan  recommends the establishment
          of regional sewerage systems  for  the Austin  and  Highland
          Lakes area.

      C.  Having reviewed and evaluated the plan, the  Hearing Commission
          finds that it is responsive to  the  planning  needs of affected
          persons and entities in the study area, and  that it satisfies
          all requirement.? for interim  planning.
            e"dat_ipns_:  That the Highland Lakes  System Comprehensive
      Wastewc.ter Study be referred to the Governor  of the State of
      Texas with the Board's recommendation  that the  plan be certified
      as the interim v;atrr quality management  plan  for the Highland
      Lakes planning ^
-------
]'< n ; i >••; '.. : .!" sir. .! en  H^poy1
1; '  ;.  ' •  !   •    ;; .'.-1 < •-,;  C;,>••••<,< i -
                        SUMMAkv' OF THE EVI
The Texeis W^ter Quality  Board  held a public hearing on July 2.1, .1971
in Austin, Texas  to  receive  evidence concerning the Highland Lakes
Systeift Comprehensive Wastewater  Study.   The hearing was called to
publicize the  study  emd  to allow those  persons interested in and
af fee Led by  the plan to  comment  on it cind to determine if the plan
should be certified  as the interim water quality management plan
for the Highland  Lakes area.

The Board's  staff has determined that,  in order to qualify as an
acceptable regional  or area-wide plan for a designated' planning
area, the plan should (a) provide planning to achieve and maintain
State of Texas water quality standards;  (b) fulfill the stated
policy of the  Water  Quality  Board to encourage the establishment
'of regional  sewerage systems;  and (c)  speak to matters required
for regional planning by the Federal regulations.

The Hearing  Commission was presented with affidavits .signed by
representatives of the Austin -•-AercaiS:ate'S]flan and the San Sab a
New s_a n d  St a r,  newspapers  of  general circulation in the planning
area, attesting that  public hearing notice was pub 1-ished according
to the Rules  of the Texas  Water  Qua] ity_Boar_d.  Notice was also
sent  to those  parties who  could  be affected by the plan.

Tlr.  first speaker  to  appear before the Hearing Commission was Mr.
Victor R.  Schmidt, Jr.,  Director of Water and Wastewater for the
City  of Austin. Mr.  Schmidt  expressed, concern that if present
population growth  in  the planning area (including Travis, San Saba,
Llano, Blanco,  Burnet,  and Bastrop Counties)  continues, problems
of pollution will  only get worse,  unless  constructive, corrective
actions are tciken  now.   The comprehensive plan to be presented
today represents an approach  to  water quality management for our
area.  Mr. Schmidt introduced Mr. Albert  Ullrich, a consulting
engineer  with  the  firm of  Freese,  Nichols,  and Endress, who pre-
pared the plan. Some of the  significant  points of Mr. Ullrich's
testimony arc:  as follows;

      1.   The study has  been divided into  4 phases.
          Phfi:..e  I is a population study that surveys
          present and  projected population in the study
          area;  Phase  II i.nclu Icn -ar j.M'-e r-'-.pry,  an
          an." ." v:

-------
                 C
    (including septio' tunk?;) in the study area;
    Phase 113 contains reco;>'mendciti our. and the
    conceptual desicjn fo'~ ar. a-wide facilities;
    Phase IV discusser c-ost  estimates for area-wj.de
    facilities, and the question of which entity
    or entities should sponsor the program of
    wastewater collection and treatment.

2.  One of the points of interest in the Phase  II
    report concerns septic tanks.  Soils analyses
    showe.d that much of the  soil  found in the  study
    area  is not conducive to good septic tank
    operations.  Visual observation of shorelines
    along several of the Highland Lakes have shown
    that many homes and commercial establishments
    are too close to the shoreline to allow suf-
    ficient soil area for absorption.  Consequently,
    some septic tank systems are already contribut-
    ing to pollution of the  lakes.

3.  Other sources of potential or existing pollution
    were found to be solid waste disposal facilities,
    marinas  and water craft, and agriculture runoff.
    The Phase II report concludes that waters in the
    Highland Lakes, including Lake Austin, are  still
    of high quality; however, it is recommended, that
    st/>ps be taken to control existing and future
    sc. rces of pollution in  order to maintain this
    high quality.

4.  What recommendations does the.plan make with
    regard to needed facilities?'  Chapter 6 of  the
    Phase III report is devoted to development  of
    a conceptual design for  area-wide wastewater
    collection and treatment facilities.  The
    study area was divided into 4 sub-areas for
    the purpose of presenting recommendations.
    The sub-areas and the recommendations for
    each are as follows:

    a.  Sub-Area 1 - Includes Bastrop County.   The
        principal citier. in  the county include
        Smithville, Ba/.Vrop, ^nd i.:lgin.  Because

-------
  w<-!
I'd.]',
             of the relatively  long  distances  between the
             cities,  it was not  considered  feasible to
             establish an area-wide  system;  thus,  we  '
             recommend that sev.'age  from each city con-J
             tlnuc to be treated in  individual plants .
             an is the practice  now.

         b.  Sub-Area 2 - That  part  of  Travis  County
             below Mansfield Dam.   The  City of Austin
             is the sub-area's  main  population center.
             The plan recommends that Austin, be selected
             as the site of an  area-wide treatment plant,
             and that the communities of Rollingwood,
             West Lake Hills, Oak Hill,  Pflugerville,
             and ax'eas along Lake Austin which use septic
             tank systems, construct collection systems
             within their boundaries and. connect these
             to the Austin area-wide system.

         c.  Sub-Area 3 - Septic tank areas along the
             Highland Lakes  (not including  Lake Austin
             and Town Lake).  Under  this plan, the
             existing City of Marble Falls  plant would
             serve  as an area-wide plant for the pop-
             ulation  centers along  Lake Marble Falls.
             Each development along  the other lake areas
             would construct a  sewage collection system'
             within its boundaries  and  route the sewage
             to a number of  "area"  plants for treatment.
             It is anticipated  that one central agency
             could assurae responsibility for operating
             these plants.

         d.  Sub-Area 4 - Areas within  the  study region
             not included in Sub-Areas  1,  2, and 3.  The
             plan recommends that because of the great
             distances between  the  cities in this area,
             the existing individual systems should be
             continued cinrl that the coiu.uunities of
             Dripping Springs and Lonieta construct
             their own individual systems.

         Consideration shou'c bo --iv-r  t- designation of the
         Low: v Colorado Riv-.. •• Ar° . ' ;.ritv 'hereafter referred
         to  a •• the LCRJX) ar,  "ha 0;:• cra<- or r-".d sponsor of the
                   "• - •- ••	" ''---  - - . : ^. ,  .1 -   ,• T.-PK cal led for

-------
                              .pi; v
         in Sub-Ai CMS 1, 3. ;-nd 4.  Tlr >  ":'.y of I\\r : In
         should bo considered for sponsor.ship  of  the
         program  for Sub--Arc  2 .

     5.  With "-ecjord to the problem of storm water  x-unoff
         into Town Lake, the plcin envir-ior.s the construc--
         tions of am interceptor tuimol  frova the  North
         side of  Town Lake  to divert storm flows  frora
         Shoal and Waller Creeks to a  storm Wciter
         treatment plant, located below Longhorn Dam.
         Treated  storm water would, be  discharged  below
         the dam.  A storm water diversion and treat-
         ment scheme such as this one would necessarily
         have to be preceded  by detailed feasibility
         studies.

The first of several persons to present  prepared  statements  to the
Hearing Commission was Mr. C. C.  (Pat) Patterson, who represents  the
local Sierra Club.  Mr. Patterson ma.de the following comments:

     1.  We have  carefully reviewed the  plan and  are
         especially pleased to note that it recommends
         elimination of the septic tanks in the study
         c'.rea and establishment of central sewage treat-
         ment systems.

     2.  We are concerned that the plan  implies that only
         BOD and  suspended .solids should be used  for
         evaluation of effluent quality.  We believe that
         other parameters,  including phosphates,  iron,
         chlorides, pH, pesticide residues, and certain
         heavy metals should be included in a  monitoring
         program.  In addition, the LCRA should authorize  further
         studies  to identify the limiting factors for
         vegetation growth  in the Highland Lakes, with
         a view to using this in format ion to insure
         that nutrients never reach a  detrimental level.

     3.  One of the outstanding features of the Ilighlemd
         Lakes is its natural beauty.  A comprehensive
         land use study of the Highland  Lakes  leading
         to a detailed waLerrhed water quality manage-
         ment program i?; nor do'1 .

-------
1'ririnq Co)' J !:.
Jl.ujh I .-Mfl ],.!'••.(.:;  Sy:,lr;:i  Cfa.
  V,\!: ••' i >v,v. I.t r Study
Pa.,i c G
     4.  Finally, we  feel  th;:.t  the  LCRA and the Cirty of
         Austin  should  undertake  the  implementing tasks
         as  specified in the  plan rather them create ;
         new agencies to fulfill  those functions.  Im-
         mediate follow-up on this  plan should be taken.
Several legislators from the Austin area  commented on
                                                       the plan.  State
Representedive  Don  Caveness,  a]:hough he did not attend the hearing,
informed the Hearing  Commission  that he supports the concepts set
forth in the plan.  United  State ^  Representative J. Jj (Jake) Pickle
was represented at  the  hearing by  Mr.  Cliff Drummond,  who presented
the following statement on  Congressman Pickle's behalf:

     1.  The recommendations  of  the  stxidy represent a
         giant  step forward toward abating the water
         pollution  menace  in  the Highland. Lakes.  I
         was especially gratified  to learn of (a) plans
         to provide treatment for  storm waters origi-
         nating around  Town Lake;  and (b)  recommendations
         for a  regional approach for the area around
         Lake Marble  Falls.   However,  I have some
         reservations that  the  large number of treat-
         ment plants  in the Highland Lakes area can be
         adequately maintained;  hopefully, some
         further consolidation  can be accomplished.

     2.  I would welcome reactions to the plan from
         cities,  counties,  State agencies, and quali-
         fied engineers who may  be affected by the
         recommendations of the  plan.

     3.  The LCRA and the City  of  Austin are being called
         on to  assume the major  role in implementing the
         plan.   I have  utmost confidence in both.  The
         plan represents a  new  approach to pollution
         control  in our area, but  we must squarely face the
         situation  to assure  adequate  clean water for
         the future.

The next witnons, Mr. Jim Stewart, Associate Director of the Capitol
Area Comprehensive  Health Planning Co:r,'p.ir:sion,  made the following
corrj'.tents and recoianiondationfi -.

-------
Hi-jlil n.i ]",.',!;(  Syi.it.< ;r\ Co'i'pr
  Wur-l.-'V.itc.  Study
Pauo V
     1.  First, we are  concerned  about  what  we consider
         are  sampling def lei me do 3  in the plan.  The;
         Wciter  samples  appear  to  have boon taken at
         irregular and  non-u'.-if orm  intervals.   There
         may  presently  be mo>e pollution in the High-
         land Lakes  than the Freose,  Nichols,  and
         Endress  sampling studies reveal.

     2.  Second,  there  is concern over  soil deficiencies
         along  the lakes.   Further  soil studies for thle
         region should  be conducted before any septic tank
         orders or regulations are  passed by the Water1
         Quality  Board. Permissible lot sizes should be
         determined  by  the  character of the underlying
         soils.   Also,  we have been informed that septic
         tanks  do not remove nitrates and phosphates;
         thus,  allowing any further septic tank con-
         struction is questionable.  We need to determine
         the  ultimate destination of septic tank effluent
         before authorizing their use.

     3.  Uniform  water  quality standards should be set
         for  the  whole  region  and these should be
         enforced.

Testimony was given  by  Mr,. JR. _M_.  JDixon  of Austin concerning certain
alleged deficiencies in the  planning effort.   The following is a
summary of his  remarks-.

     1.  The  City of Austin has  stated  that no land use
         analys s has been  made  to  determine where the
         increasing  numbers of people in the metropoli-
         tan  area will  be located.   This type of analyses
         must come before other  types of planning are
         conducted.

     2.  It is  doubtful that this is a  truly comprehensive
         plan.  We need to  study  in some detail such things
         as land  use, costs, etc.,  before a plan can truly
         be comprehensive.

     3.  There  is a  question as  to  the  quality parameters
         for  the  lakes.  The rerovt  diseases  BOD and
         suspended solids,  but do--.: no'.  :-./;::U ion other
         cor-".' di :i~^!. 5 onr. suv" ar.  '."'.•   '?c>;':"-'^-r o prest?\oe

-------
}k'C;'  i.n C' .1'  '• '-ion Report
liu,;/ :.   \, '   .' Sy.-;l '-'in t'un'
  V»Y i. L ' 'V.v.l '.- r  ,S i udy
Page 8
     4.  Enough study has not been given to the question
         of infiltration.  Storm water is constantly
         infiltrating into Austin's sanitary  sewers.
         Problems such as overflowing manholes have
         been prevalent in Austin in the past.  This
         is one of several problems that should get
         priority attention.

Mr. Schmidt responded briefly to Mr. Dixon's  statements.   According
to Mr. Schmidt, it is very difficult, in making long  range plans,
to predict exactly where people are going to  locate.  A plan  must
be flexible enough to allow for changes if later  the  predictions
and population projections prove to be wrong.  A  study of  viruses
will soon be studied under a 3 year program originating in Dallas,
Texas.  Finally, Mr. Schmidt agreed that infiltration problems  have
often been neglected in the past, but that progress in reducing
infiltratic \ is being made, especially in the new sewer lines now
being laid.

Near the conclusion of the hearing, several persons asked  questions
pertaining to various aspects of the plan.  'Mr. Brad  Smith, a citi-
zen of Rollingwood, inquired about the cost that  his  city  will
incur in implementing the recommendations of  the  pl-an as they apply
to his city.  The question was asked as to how pollution of Town
Lake would be curtailed under the plan.  Mr.  Schmidt  replied  that
surface runoff is the principle polluter of the lake, and  that  the
pl-.m's concept of a storm water interceptor sewer should be given
serious consideration.  This sewer system plus other  control
measures should, according to Mr. Schmidt, reduce pollution in
the lake to about one-half of what it is -now.  Other  questions
were raised concerning proposals for Lake Austin,  means of acquir-
ing rights-of-way and easements, tertiary treatment,  and others;
these considerations were discussed and commented on  by Mr. Ullrich.

Following the conclusion of the hearing, a. written statement  was .
received from Mr. Robert J. Hearon, Jr., an attorney  representing
Mr. Lem Scarbrough, Jr., who owns property in the Lake Lyndon B.
Johnson area.  As mentioned earlier, the Phase III report  recom-
mended that for Sub-Area 3—the area along the shorelines  of  the
Highland Lakes—-a system of individual collection lines and
treatment plants for the developing areas be built to eliminate
the septic tank systems (Plan A).  Another alternative  (Plan  B)
wr.s also proposed;  this filter native would also entail the

-------
eoe: . '. ''"ui. • I J e-a. of  cell eel .'ion J "-
ef.U'i  iu v.v.ild he  I '"UJI.SI.-G.'I I.'*
tipp:.  o,.i. rie ; '   :.-Ji<- )v :.r  the  d.  •
P.Hr -.< na t i ve  v.v  reject' ;''! bc-<  <
Mr.   1 U-''"xx~o;i ' ;. ].r-L 'L1'.-/  pi"< . 'VO-'.-ot
B.  I'lo" iiuu.v. ; .    Mr. I;c:aro]i  roc*..'
frcvu t'.hv.;  I." he Mr;:,  to  &  coal
virqc-,".  t ]'T ;  c'Vc;.-  i '  l'l;.i»  )•;  j.
grov! _d  ];.- l.v.. . c -11 M.-n:.: 7. ;:u-"l r
c^.rj-..: -, i,v. .';•'-   vh in  PJini A.
                                      no:..  < oj.  e:  •. h pap\0 a ti Ojj  oe;daa ,  b'ut   rhe
                                     -  to  a sub-  . i -,-a -v.-ida plant .To-, afcd  at an
                                       en.' ev ina  tVe  roapoctivaj la^'i  .   '.ible
                                      -jr. •:   or  tha  excessive  co. to  in vo.l ved .
                                      L]T t  }-\i n.>.'  !.'. lir  l(X'l  :.ox"  Lahc' Lynrt',.>..i
                                      i-'-:  :n thai   r;' v.v':r  linos }•).-: cc: istruci oc!
                                      ••! ( .1; })Of^  1  point  notn:  the  c'la'.u,   IIo
                                      -;C)i   i-.i^.'-p-'-r.  .-'' in  its aninc-ty,  a  rn:i. d^ij f
                                      >.:oi  '- c.' )lcin  as,  po'•.'•.sib3 c^

                                       i;.:.;-..!   '^  i r.. • Railro-'id C 01 a? a i?; si on,  the
                                      the  T.->:(;;  Pa> he and Wildlife Dap;, rf Mian!:
                                       the. t.  the.  plar: in  conaiatent wi th  the
.i.'ae e-ve/   ..••.    -,-., '-:-b'!c-  Ic  La'  He . rinq C\> :e'i:a: ion  i.nd.'cafc'P  tha.l".  the
•p>la-o  J-'' e-•        ;.-•  V'..d'.-:-•  Qi-e"! ; ;.y ]':oa3"d v;  ,:a f:\-/a.f.er  qnal j.fy  ntc noa.3 dn
rin<"  -  '   c        tl.r   it  |-.;.o;'O:.  >  .i -. :g ioi'.'.'.-1 ' •• - t .v >n  of sev:age  faeilities
iji  «   • a-;  i.'•..     a.1 t.j irivo'-'r!0 y  • 'ica^c^d  fei.  and  amenable  to suc^h tyt-rl eiiiS
tilt. I  it   r~p.  a">-•,  to tlte  rep..ai. ucr/T. of t}io I'ederal r-cgiilacl  nf/ for
are:- v;;; de  _|.i  . .-iriM^;  end  th.--.  it ] ^'"opaa-r:, t-ouiid  conceptual i\l tei:a;:-
ti v•.:-•.  to me-', c  the needb  o[  ti e  c Itixere,  of  the  Highland Lakea area..
The iv.   •,-•'  ^   oii-'iilr--j.on  in  er  ro that  ch.'..KJOS-;, laodlfj cationa,  E/.\d
co"r  « t ic. a.,  \r\ll ocenr  ar  t.h -  pi  n in i •i.plcvi.-eirted,  but it ir felt
th?a,  t !T;  < ic  rinj'. Jty arid co .> epi '  a}  ir~'t\:i.a  of the plan is such aa
to  ai'b..-?  th-. '-••.   chai'Hjor, v/;i •;]•••'   the  pla <. ' ;;  i j.-c-nat- ."orlc .   The r of o.te,
tlir- 3r  ,-rl. .._   <"r-.) .••••! i i.<-.;•. i ovj.  5 cc;..   -ne:   th, i   \ hp  J.fiq];l and Lakes Syntax  .
Cc-np  -h-  -  '\    h-•:•;•; c -'/-'tor flte  ' .-,-  )-;•  ado,'/,,  d by  t.he  Bo:red ajid  jefaiaud
to  t----  (r,-,.   .;,.    v.'.i th 'i)i'  r     "'' f.  reeca:   --'del ;i c:-if>  th? f the plan be-
oca t  •'.      .  .  t" ,-.  f f 'i :i olr 1  i,  ;  ,ee ;  v.Vit u i   '.j.-al.lty iiiajaujcnient  })l;a;,
for i ue  ,-e-.   :•  , - a•-!,,.,:  a a,   - .
                                                            »;:'.,  PA .. r.jd iai,  Or.' i c .j.v

-------
                       HEARING COMMISSION REPORT
                               SYNOPSIS
 I.   Applicant

     A.   Name:

     B.   Address

II.   Discharge

     A.   Volume:
      B.   Type:

      C.   Course:



III.   Hearing

      A.   Date:

      B.   Location:

      C.   Hearing Commission:
     D.   Appearances:
         1) Proponents:
City of Austin (Walnut Creek Plant)

P.O. Box .1088, Austin, Texas
Not to exceed an average of 25,000,000
 gallons per day;
Not to exceed a maximum ot 40,000,000
 gallons per day;
Not to exceed a maximum of 36,000
 gallons per minute.

Treated municipal sewage effluent

Into Walnut Creek; thence into the
Colorado River in the Colorado River
Basin.
                                   August 5, 1971

                                   Austin,  Texas

                                   J.  Randel Hill, Presiding Officer
                                   Merton J. Coloton, Technical Services
                                     Representative
Charles Dippel, Assistant City Attorney
 for City of Austin
Richard L. Hancock, Director of Electric   »
 Utilities for City of Austin
Curtis Johnson, Associate Director of
 Wastewater for City of Austin
Dave' Smallhorst, Staff Engineer for
 City of Austin
          2)  Opponents:
Mrs. Lottie Jacob, landowner

-------
.Hearing Commission Report ~ City of Austin (Walnut Creek plant)
 Synopsis
 Page Two
IV.   Findings
     A.   The proposed regional sewage treatment plant will be capable
         of producing an effluent conforming to the terms and conditions
         of the proposed waste control order attached hereto.

     B.   The old plant will be completely phased out upon completion
         of the new plant facility.   (approximate completion date
         December 31, 1974)
 V.   Recommendations
     A.   Waste Control Order Granted:
Yes
     B.   Effective Date of Board Action:    September 17,  1971
     C.   Status:
     D.   Special Provisions
preliminary Approval

1)  Area-wide clause
2)  Certified Operator clause
3)  Self-reporting clause
4)  The amended waste control
     order has effect only after
    • the Texas Water Quality
     Board has been notified in
     writing that the additional
     treatment facilities have
     been completed.
                 SUMMARY OF THE  EVIDENCE
 Submission of the required legal  description  of  plant  location and
 verification of publication of  the hearing  notice was  completed
 by the  applicant.

 The public hearing,  held on August 5,  1971, aid  in  developing the
 following evidence and information:

 The City of Austin has applied  for an  amendment  to  their  present
 Waste Control Order No.  10543 page 11, Walnut Creek Plant.   The
 primary purpose of the amendment  is  to, reflect an expansion and an
 improvement in treatment methods.  The types  of  treatment being
 considered for use in  the new plant  are:  1) biological process,
 2)  physical-chemical process and  3)  a  combination of both.

 The domestic population currently served  by the  existing  plant is  137,500.
 The proposed regional  plant facility will be  designed  to  facilitate

-------
Hearing Commission Report - City of Austin (walnut Creek Plant)
Summary of the Evidence
page Three
expansion to handle a projected 250,000 domestic population in 1986.
No significant industrial waste is anticipated.   The area surrounding
the proposed plant has some housing development, more rural than
urban in nature.

The present plant will be used to treat the currently permitted volume
of domestic sewage.  Upon approval of plans and specifications and
completion of construction, the new plant Will operate to discharge
25,000,000 gallons per day of treated municipal sewage effluent at the
quality level required by the Texas Water Quality Board.

Groundwater contamination, due to the presence of Escherichia coli
in wells in the area, has been attributed to three possible sources:
(1) septic tanks,  (2) wells constructed with uncemented casings
(3) unchlorinated effluent leaking from oxidation ponds of the
Walnut Creek plant.  This possible source number (3) will not be a
threat to groundwater in the area after construction of the new plant,
due to the fact that the oxidation ponds will be abandoned and the
effluent also will be chlorinated.

In view of the evidence, the Hearing Commission recommends that
preliminary approval be granted to the City of Austin with final approval
contingent upon approval of plans and specifications.
                                J/\Randel Hill, Presiding Officer

                                Dat^:   August 26, 1971


                                  ^/}/gUf}!^ u.  Ciii7Z~
                                Merton J.  Colpton,  Technical Services
                                  Representative

-------
                     PROPOSED WASTE CONTROL ORDER                 #1497
NAME:         City of Austin  (Walnut Creek Plant)
ADDRESS:      P. O. Box 1088
CITY:         Austin, Texas 78767

TYPE OF WASTE CONTROL ORDER:  Amendment to Waste Control Order No. 10543

NATURE OF BUSINESS PRODUCING WASTE:  Municipal sewage treatment plant

GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:

   Description:  A regional sewage treatment plant proposed to be of the
                 physical-chemical method of treatment.  Actual description
                 of facilities will be determined after submission of the
                 preliminary engineering report by the City of Austin.

   Location;     Located on Walnut Creek south of and adjacent to FM 969
                 approximately 3/4 mile east of U.S. Highway 183 in Travis
                 County, Texas and as shown on the maps submitted with the
                 application.

CONDITIONS OF THE WASTE CONTROL ORDER:

   Character;  Treated municipal sewage effluent

   Volume:  Not to exceed an average of 25,000,000 gallons per day
            Not to exceed a maximum of  40,000,000 gallons per day
            Not to exceed a maximum of      36,000 gallons per minute

   Quality:	NOT TO EXCEED
Item
BOD
Total Suspended Solids
Monthly
Aver acre
20 mg/1
20 mg/1
24-Hr. Daily
Comoos ite
25 mg/1
25 mg/1
Individual
Sample
30 mg/1
30 mg/1
   A Chlorine residual of not less than 1.0 mg/1 shall be maintained
   after at least a 20-minute detention time  (based on peak flow).

   Point of Discharge:  Into Walnut Creek adjacent to the plant site  in
                        Travis County, Texas; thence into the Colorado
                        River in the Colorado River Basin.

-------
Proposed Waste Control Order - Page 2
City of Austin (Walnut Creek Plant)

SPECIAL PROVISIONS:

This order is granted subject to the policy of the Board to encourage
the development of area-wide waste collection, treatment and disposal
systems.  The Board reserves the right to amend this order in accordance
with applicable procedural requirements to require the system covered
by this order to be integrated into an area-wide system, should such
be developed; to require the delivery of the wastes authorized to be
collected in, treated by or discharged from said system, to such area-
wide system; or to amend this order in any other particular to
effectuate the Board's policy.  Such amendments may be made when, in
the judgment of the Board, the changes required thereby are advisable
for water quality control purposes and are feasible on the basis of
waste treatment technology, engineering, financial, and related con-
siderations existing at the time the changes are required, exclusive
of the loss of investment in or revenues from any then existing or
proposed waste collection, treatment or disposal system.

These public sewerage facilities shall be operated and maintained by a
sewage plant operator holding a valid certificate of competency issued
under the direction of the Texas State Health Department as .required by
Section 20  (a) of Article 4477-1, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes.

Operation and maintenance of the facilities described by  this waste
control order shall be in accordance with accepted practices  for  this
type of waste treatment facility and shall  include related maintenance
such as painting, proper disposal  of solid waste, and weed and  grass
cutting.

The City shall comply with the provisions of Board Order No.  69-1219-1
relative to monitoring and reporting data on effluent described in
"Conditions of the Waste Control Order".

The waste control brder holder shall comply with the conditions of
Page 11 of Waste Control Order No.  10543 (effective March 5,  1964) until
the Austin office and District Office No. 3 have been notified in writing
that the additional treatment facilities described by this amendment have
been completed (approximate completion' date of December 31,  1974).
This Waste Control Order becomes effective upon the date of issuance and
is valid until amended or revoked by the Board.

-------
                                • fi v^^^x-e---^  rs--
                                , 'H> ..A--^--H'---'"-'^''^	
                                t^x-^fr*b ;•< \  &v"i.,  \-W:
^f ^t<)
 j^k.tJ  >^
 ^ril'^^^c-
 -^£|^V^-¥;^\<
 S^i^/lK^
 n -^MJ^M t-j#*i  A,./ A?\>
                            ^4,^ » c .v.,."..--:.\^:-.^'.^:p. >^r*V^r«;-:.V W  ':*  l\ \
                            V^. tr.v^^^~-4'^ " ;':7,"r-r::i3^s>.v...-T>.  S».  ;/ \
                            V\W' i-'^.^--^>^^ ^S- ;.^^-^.^  I '
                            XxX-'-'-'^f^^iy'  , J_.iv-;r':!'iL^*" .;."»;- /•;"p-'" ., •'f4^l^^^^4t>^l
                                  1'V  * •e"j=',t—^t/
                                  >\  X ^^ iLr^X
                                  - V/55-*:?^ ^fcn /> \ v^"

                                  ^O" \,-"/ ff. w--.s . *

                                    \nHL/  \VS*
>afc-^^
\ N^^r* r<£^ \'AJ:^^~
\'^t l\ ~^4 &(H i;
_ V^/. "Vr—0^^-' iL/^vv^ Ji,!-; -*.
                                             v\ "   p.*'.**?•• ~'/^>?

                                             ^.f*3>'~$$  \,f^-<
                                             i \r. /^. --* "• ••  '

-------
CITY OF  AUSTiM
   P.O. Box 1088
 Austin, Texas 78767
                            April  14,  1972
  CITY COUNCIL

    Roy Butler
     MAYOR

    Dan Love
  MAYOR PRO TEM
    COUNCILMEN
  Dr. Bud Dryden
 Jeffrey M. Friedman
  Berl L. Handcox
 Lowell H. Lebermann
    Dick Nichols
  Lynn H. Andrews
   CITY MANAGER
Dan L. Sherwood, P. E.
Environmental Evaluation  Section
Environmental Protection  Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson,  Suite  1100
Dallas, Texas 75201

                                   Re:  WPC-TEX-824
                                        Crosstown  Interceptor and
                                        Treatment  Facilities
                                        Austin, Texas

Dear Mr.  Sherwood:

Enclosed  are:

       (1)  Minutes  of  the April 4, 1972 City of Austin Zoning
       Committee  meeting regarding the City's application for a
       "special use  permit"  for the treatment facilities portion
       of  the  referenced project

       (2)  The text of opposition testimony by Mr.  Cleve Moten
       presented  at  the April 4, 1972 meeting

       (3)  The text of the evidence  summary and recommendations
       of  the  City's Planning Department presented at  the April 11,
       1972 meeting  of  the Planning Commission
                           (4)
            A newspaper account of the Planning  Commission meeting
                     The text of the statement by EPA1 s  Mr.  Cooper Wayman will be  included
                     in the minutes of the Zoning Committee  meeting when they are  published
                     and distributed.  Minutes of the  Planning Commission meeting  are  not
                     yet available but will be forwarded to  you as soon as possible.

                     Contact us if you require additional information.

                                                             Sincerely,
                                                             W.  M. Breneman, P.E.
                                                             Chief Engineer
                                                             Water and Wastewater  Treatment Division
                     ph
                     Enclosure.s  ,

-------
     *    £
                              SPECIAL PERMIT HEARING
                                  Official  Notice
The CITY PLANNING  COMMISSION will hold  a  public hearing on the
 City o! A';v?!% Wi-'ij'. w.o1 KflsJesvotet Department          for
for the use and  development of  property described below:
PROPOSED USE AND DEVELOPMENT

 Fxnoi>5ic*> oF fhe Walnut Crook Treatment Plant

DESCRIPTION

 300 acres of land, more or less, located

 South of FM 969 (Webbeivfllo Rood! bntwoen MKT & T & N.O, Railroad
                                                     V
                      lication of
                        Permit
                          dc^iU'.x' •d'j'^cnp'i'on V\ vn Hlo w'ih
  '10 C;f;' C't' ^'"v">"»n r!'.?!ip.<:>rt !1i?,'-r' !r.iC'?!:f
BASIS  OF APPLICATION AND PURPOSE OF HEARING

This  application has been filed as required under Section
and according to the procedures as specified in Section 10-B of  the  Zoning
Ordinance  of the City of Austin.  The application is accompanied by  the
necessary  site plan showing the intended use and development of  the  property.

This  hearing determines the advisability of granting or' refusing such
application and the need of imposing any conditions on the  proposed  use  and
development as will secure and protect the public health, safety, morals,  and
general welfare, both of the property included  in the application and in the
 immediate  neighborhood.

The hearing will be heard by the Planning Commission on  T»e\,  /•/:,(•*!  >\. '?72 >Ql3
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
    P.O. Box 1088
  Austin, Texas 78767
 For additional information, contact  the Zoning  Clerk of the Planning Department.
 Municipal Building, 124 West 8th Street,  3rd  Floor,  477-6511, Ext. 302.
                                                                    MAR 2 A 1972

                                                                        2 S MAR

-------
Summary Recommendation

     This Special Permit application is to construct a new Wastewater  Treatment
     plant at the existing Walnut Treatment Plant site.  The proposed facility is
     designed to handle wastewater from the proposed Crosstown Tunnel and from
     Big and Little Walnut Creek drainage basins.  Timing on this project is critical
     because of the following reasons:

          1) It is important that the proposed treatment facility should be completed
             at the same time the Crosstown Tunnel is completed.

          2) The existing treatment facility is approaching full, capacity and the
             new facility is needed to provide continuing quality wastewater  treat-
             ment for anticipated growth in the Big and Little Walnut Creek areas.

Public Hearing

     A brief summary of the public hearing last Tuesday is as follows:

     There were approximately 40 area residents at this meeting that strongly pro-
     tested against the proposed facility.  They did not appear to question the
     design of the facility but were adamantly against the proposed location.
     They claimed the alleged.odors and the contamination of ground water were
     detrimental to their homes.

     The City's position was that their existing plant does not pollute the ground
     water, as they have continually tested the ground water at their two test wells
     adjacent to the existing treatment facility and the results of the tests have
     not indicated any pollution from their existing lagoons.  Also the new facility
     will use concrete tanks to contain the wastewater  while it is being treated.
     The exception being the emergency storage lagoons.

     Although the capacity of the plant will be greatly increase, the odor problem
     should not increase but should decrease as the City will have better control
     of  the wastewater   reatment.  Examples of some of the safeguards are:

          1) The crosstown tunnel will aerate  the wastewater  during transportation
             of the wastewater  to the treatment facility.  This should keep the waste-
             water from becoming septic before it reaches the plant.

          2) The new plant will have safety features to maintain minimum treatment
             in almost any emergency.

          3) The proposed  treatment process will be a  biological type versus the
             stabilization ponds in the existing facilities.  This type of treatment
             will give  the City better operational control to prevent odors.

     Because the major  concerns of  the area residents  was the location of the plant,
     the Zoning Committee  requested additional information on the development of the
     area and  to estimate  the cost  of another site location.

     We  have copies of  the  following statements  on file in the Planning Department.

          1) Statements of Water and Wastewater  Department - City of Austin.

          2) Impact statement from  Environmental Protection Agency presented by
             Cooper Wayman at the public  hearing.

-------
          3) Statement of Cleve Moten, an area resident.

The Austin Development Plan Adopted June 8, 1961

     Original Plan

          1) Area east of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad; west of Nixon Lane;
             and south of 19th Street delineated as Manufacturing and Related Uses.
             (Site of existing Walnut Creek Treatment Plant.)

          2) Area west Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad; and south of 19th Street
             delineated as Suburban Residential (0.5 dwelling units per acre).

          3) Area east of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad; and north of 19th
             Street delineated as Suburban Residential.

          4) Area west of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad; and north of 19th
             Street delineated Low Density Residential  (3.0 dwelling units per
             acre).

Austin Development Plan Amendments

     March  7, 1963 - Residential to Industrial
          160 acres located south of  19th Street and between Ed Bluestein Boulevard
          and Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad

     November 3, 1966 - Industrial to Residential
          Approximately 95 acres south of 19th  Street and west of MK & T Railroad.

     November 3, 1966 - Residential to Industrial
          Approximately 200 acres  located east  of Ed Bluestein Boulevard; west  of
          MK &  T Railroad; and approximately  2,400 feet south of 19th Street.

          The recommendation  of the Planning  Commission for the tw0 Master Plan
          changes  on November 3, 1966 were:

                1.   Retain  Industrial  designation of 80-acre tract.

                2.   Change  200-acre tract to Manufacturing  and Related Uses.

                3.   The  100-acres south of  200-acre tract should be designated as
                    "future" industrial.

      September, 1969                                        '
           58 acres from Low Density Residential to Manufacturing and Related  Uses
           located  south of 19th Street and west of MK  & T  Railroad  to  the  east
          boundary of  Craigwood Subdivision.

 History

      The Austin Plan dated March,  1958  (not  adopted  by City  Council)

      Page 65 -  Section on Sanitary Sewers

            (4) In addition to  the present plant, two  additional plants  be built as
               required during planning period, one on Williamson Creek, and the
               other in the Walnut  Creek area.

-------
    The Austin Development Plan adopted by  the City Council June 8, 1961

    Page  25  -  Section on Sanitary Sewers

          "...  a long-range plan has been developed and detail  studies are being
          made  for the extension of sewers into the Walnut Creek areas...a third
          treatment plant will  be developed  to serve the Big and Little Walnut
          Creek areas."

    Capital  Improvements Program adopted by City Council October,  1961

    CIP authorized purchase  of land for Walnut Creek Wastewater Treatment plant
    during 1961-62 fiscal year

    City  purchased land for  site between 1962 and 1964

    Present  treatment facilities put  into operation December,  1965

Subdivisions

     Springdale Hills - First Section
     Recorded October 1, 1962.   First  Building Permit  issued August,  1965

     Cavalier Park - First Section
     Recorded May 8, 1968.  First Building Permit  issued February,  1969

     Craigwood - First Section
     Recorded March 14, 1969.  First  Building Permit  issued June,  1969.

     Stone Ridge - Section One (C8s-72-21)
     Recorded January 24, 1972.

Estimated Cost of Alternate Plant  Site

     If the  plant is moved about three miles to  the east  it will cost approximately
     $8,900,000 extra.   ($8,500,000 for extension of Crosstown sewer and $400,000
     for land.)  This is  in addition to slightly over $11,000,000 for the treatment
     plant.

Recommendat ion

     The Planning Department recommends approval of this section as:

          1) Departmental requirements have been met.

          2) The  project  needs to be expedited for the City continues to provide
             wastewater  service to the Walnut Creek area.

          3) The  proposed facility should improve the environmental quality of the
             surrounding area  as compared with the existing facility.

-------
•'.'.'-'j'..'^     City  of  Austin,  Water  and Waste Water Department
           South of FM 969  (Webberville Road) between MKT & T & N.O Rail-
           road  rights-of-way.

 STAFF REPORT:   This application  has been filed as  required under  Section 10-B,
 Sub-Section 3,  and according to  the procedures as  specified in the Zoning Ordinance
 of  the  City of  Austin.  This application is  for the purpose of allowing expansion
 and improvement of the existing  facilities of the  Walnut Creek Sewer Treatment
 Plant.   The site plan has  been circulated to the various City departments and
 the comments are as follows:
 Advanced Planning

 Fire Prevention

 Office Engineer


 Director of Public Works

 Electric

 Health

 Water and Sewer

 Parks & Recreation Dept.

 Fire Protection


 Storm Sewer

 Traffic Engineer


 Building  Inspector
  The applicant has satisfied
  this project.
  WRITTEN COMMENT

       None
No additional requirements.

No objections.

Returns on 30-foot driveways should be 10 foot
radii.

No objections.

Plat complies.

No objections.

No comment.

No comment.

Existing fire protection facilities are believed
to be adequate.

Plat complies.

Must review  final plans for parking, driveways, and
circulation.
                                   ;
l.The site plan indicates  off-street parking to be
provided will consist of 10 visitor spaces and 30
spaces  for employees.  The Ordinance does not list
a parking ratio for  this specific use; however, it
is recommended  that  at least 1  space be provided
for  each employee and a sufficient number to
accommodate  visitors. 2.Does not include Building Code
approval.

all requirements.  The staff recommends approval of


  TESTIMONY

-------
:-..: •••..- :'/; ':v.-.rrnission — Austin, Texas              Reg.  Mtg.      4-11-72

CP14-72-013  _ City of Austin, Water and Waste Water Department - Contd.

     PERSONS APPEARING

          Curtis Johnson:  Director of Water and Waste Water
          Mike Breneman:  Chief Engineer with Water and Waste Water
          Glen Pierce:  Civil Engineer with Water and Waste Water
          Henry Benjes:  500 South Evary  Rm. 4106               FOR
          S. A. Garza:  503 Scarbrough Building                  FOR
          Cooper H. Wayman,Regional General Counsel, Region VI
             Environmental Protection Agency
             1600 Patterson, Dallas, Texas  75201                NO OPINION
          Dan Sherwood, Sanitary Engineer, EPA, Dallas           NO OPINION
          Mrs. B. Jacob, Rt. 1, Box 240                          AGAINST
          Cleve Moten:  4907 York Hill Drive                     AGAINST
          Ursula A. Brown:  5308 Northdale Drive                 AGAINST
          Bill W. Ellis:  7703 Delwan Lane                       AGAINST
          Sgt. Jones                                             AGAINST
          R. L. Duke                                         '  .  AGAINST
          Harold Darby           .                                AGAINST
          Lewis Huff                                •'':'.  AGAINST
          Thirty other  area residents                       '     AGAINST

                              SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

     Arguments Presented FOR:                                              :

     Mr.  Breneman,  Chief Engineer with  the Water and Waste Water Department,  stated
     that this property was purchased during  the time  from 1962 through 1964.  There
     has been a  temporary  treatment plant there since  the end  of 1965.  The proposed
     plant  will  preclude many of the  alleged  faults of the present one.  This new plant
     will serve  the Crosstown Tunnel, but would be necessary even without  the tunnel.
      In case of  power failure the  sewage  coming in would be stored; however,  two  sources
     of energy are proposed in order  to reduce the chance of a power  failure.  He further
      stated that due to new processes for the proposed plant,  the possibility of  odor  is
      substantially reduced.   He pointed out  that  it is not  the Wastewater  treatment
      plant that creates the odor but  the condition of  the sewage when it enters the
      plant. With the Crosstown Tunnel facilities",  the  sewage will be  kept  fresh and not
      septic.  There will be no sludge handling facilities at this plant and no trees
      or vegetation will be destroyed  during  construction.  The site is within both
      the twenty-five and one hundred  year flood plains, but  construction will be  above
      the one hundred year flood plain elevation.   A more detailed report from the Water
      and Waste Water Department is on file  with the Zoning  Clerk in the Planning  Department.

      Two representatives from the Environmental Protection  Agency addressed  the Committee
      setting forth the government's position at this time.   A statement given by  Mr.
      Cooper H. Wayman, Regional General Counsel,  Region VI  is  on file with the  Zoning
      Clerk in the Department of Planning, stating a favorable  report  and  position on
      the site and its effects on environment, in accord with the preliminary environ-
      mental impact statement.

      Arguments Presented AGAINST:

      Thirty to forty area residents x^ere present in opposition to the Special Permit
      request.  Mr. Cleve Moten was spokesman for the majority of the residents, his
      statement is on file with the Zoning Clerk in the Department of Planning.   The
      residents present were mainly objecting to the possibility of odor, alleged

-------
.»'! .mni.np. Commission — AutiLl.n, To.xno ;             Rup.  Mt.g.     A-.1.1-72

CP14-72-013    City of Austin, Water and Waste Water Department - Contd.

     fouling of their water wells by the present plant, and the effect the plant has
     had and will have on their property value} as well as the fact that the City
     has allowed this Waste Water Treatment Plant so close to a residential development.

     Arguments Presented in REBUTTAL:

     Mr. Curtis Johnson, Director of Water and Waste Water, replied to comments made
     by property owners present, stating that during the last eighteen months this
     waste water treatment plant has been the concern of numerous public hearings by
     the City Council, Capital Improvements Program Committee, Capital Area Planning
     Council  (Environmental Impact  Statement), and the Texas Water Quality Board.
     The purpose of  the plant and the Crosstown Tunnel have been made quite clear and
     there was a full page ad in the newspaper in regards to this matter. City wells
     on  the site have been monitored and have shown no underground water pollution.  This
     tunnel and waste water treatment plant will serve areas of Austin north of the
     tunnel.  The  process  to  be used at the new plant and  the process presently used
     are entirely  different,  and the possibility of odor will  be drastically reduced.  . ".
     It was well publicized when this property was purchased from 1962 through 1964, _that
     a major waste water treatment plant was planned for this site.

                              COMMENTS AND ACTION BY THE COMMITTEE

      In response to questions from  the Committee Mr. Johnson stated  that the location
      five  miles  further down  the  creek  is an  arbitrary  figure  set up by someone in
      opposition  to this site, and no such relocation has been  considered. , The Depart-
      ment  would  not suggest moving  the plant  that distance.  The plant  now in existence
      is only designed for use as  a  temporary  facility.

      Mr. Jack Alexander,  Assistant  Director of Planning, reported that  in 1966  two
      Master Plan changes were granted in  the  area,  one for Tracer and a rollback  change
      for the developers of Craigwood,  the  latter  change being  done against the  recommenda-=
      tion of the Planning Commission and  the  Planning  Department.
                                                                      /
      Mr. Taniguchi stated that he did not  think that this  Committee  would  take  any
      action on the special permit at this  time but  will hear the testimony,  summarize
      it, and present it to the full Commission.   He stated that a full  hearing  at the
      Planning Commission would not be necessary, but that a representative  of the  residents
      and a representative of the Water and Waste Water Department should  be  on  hand
      to answer any questions the Commission members might have.  A report  on the  area
      subdivision activity was requested for the Planning Commission  meeting. The Committee
      then

      VOTED:    To REFER to the full Planning Commission case CP14-72-013  for action.

      AYE:      Messrs. Taniguchi,  Barrow, Betts, Faulkner and Hetherly.

-------
     We, the residents and property owners of Cavalier Park



Craigwood, Stonegate and Springdale Hills subdivisions, became



involved In this fight when it came to our attention that,



perhaps due to an oversight, the City of Austin was preparing



itself, under the direction of certain employed, appointed and


elected officials, to construct an enormous sewage treatment


plant pratically in our back yards.                 •




     As it was plain to see that anyone could easily, surmise


the deletorlous effects on these communities by the construction


of a 2^ million gallon a day sewage treatment plant in the


vicinity  —— and since we had had no cause to suspect that this


caliber of men represented us in city government -— most of



us  somehow felt that the whole matter was probably a mistake,
                                                       i


a rumor,  based, if on anything, inaccurate information^  For


indeed, we hadn't  heard anything about  it on the news, or read



anything  about  it  in the paper.  And surely anything that would


affect our lives  and property to the extent that this  would,



would have  made headlines.

                                           _>


      Furthermore,  what justification could  the  city give  	



what justification could any^ city  give	for  the  strange


 masochism involved in the destruction of a  growing1- and vital



 part of itself.

-------
     But as strange as the logic,  or Illogic,  of it seemed,
It soon became verifiable as fact.   And even after formal
presentation of our objections and petition embodying the
signatures of approximately 250 of the residents to the city
council, it was apparent that under the leadership of I-Ir.
Butler, the council would not even attempt to  redress our
greivances.

     But it seemed Important to us to know why the city was
planning to do this, to fill our lungs and those of our
children with the foul air emanating from 2^4- million gallons
of  sewage  daily; to depreciate the value of our homes and
property for  which we have had to work so hard and sacrifice
so  much; to destroy the residential quality of these new
growing and vibrant communities and prepare them,  in their
turn,  for  the fate  of still another urban renewal  project.  •
      I am certain that, were we to declare that this act was
being perpetrated against us because  of our race,  the  accusation
                                  /
would be met immediately by vehement  denials  from every quarter.
 But if this be not the case, then the people  of Austin must
 realize that the same could happen to any community developed
 in the city of Austin	in which case it becomes pointless
                                          s
 for anyone to invest in a home or residential property in
 Austin because the city government", in chasing moon beams,  can
 render it valueless overnight.

-------
      But the citizenry of Austin is going to be informed of much
 more than the speculative nature of investments In residential
 property here, for we are taking It upon ourselves to make them
 congizant of a great deal else,  that someone has obviously been
                   |
 careful to keep from them —- to vrit:  That the proposed cros's-
1 town tunnel and the presently proposed Walnut Creek sewage
 treatment plant is, clearly and unquestionably, the biggest
 fraud ever perpetrated against the people of Austin.  You know,
 it's alright to let someone sell you a dead horse — If, of
                                     o'<ubt',''^rofItable.
 But the people of Austin, .who are not in the sewer development
               tfhd4v-a^(^ 0.VQ Subtle ^     	
 business, have^been  sold a cross-town sewer tunnel which It
 doesn't need, and a  sewage treatment plant in a location which
 it needs even less.  All to the tune of $30 -f- million dollars.

       If we  concede that the city of Austin needs to make some
 improvements  in J|i?s wastwater collection, channeling and
                                                       • /
 treatment —  and we  will; in fact, we will concede that the
 entire city's sewage system  needs to be improved— for better,
 more  effective and efficient service, to effectively  eliminate
 the pollution of  our creeks  and streams and to make Austin
 generally a less  polluted environment sufficient to the point
 • of endearing our lives and health and that "of our posterity.

       Have we Justified the  existence.of a  sewer  tunnel yet?

-------
     If, after conceding that the entire city of Austin needs
sewage Improvements, we focus our attention on less than l/^
of the city and commit all of our present resources and our
posterity to the amortization of this bonded debt, expending
literally a fortune me^rely to divert a portion of the
                  i
wastewater in this l/^J- of the city — gentlemen, have we even
begun to solve the problem?  And ths rest of Austin, the entire
city which needs sewage improvements":; — x
^-—
     When they discover that they will have to pay for this
extravagant tunnel  of finitesimal value to the tune of a $^-
a month* sewer charge'' in addition to their water bill, followed later
by another increase  in that water bill itself '• — it might be too
late.                       .                            ,

      There is only one justification  for this  sewer tunnel, and
that Is to provide a handful  of "fat cats" the  opportunity to add
considerably to their fortunes at the expense  of Austinites.
The sole purpose of this sewer t unne 1 »ult 1 mat e ly ,  is  to provide
 sewer service to an undeveloped area  north-west of Austin - the
 Bull Greek area - so that a handful of men  can develop it and as
 a result, realize a considerable  profit.

      Some of the would-be developers  of .the Bull Creek area are
 one- and the  same with the developers  who,  only a few years ago
 found it profitable to develop Springdale  Hills,  Craigwood,
 Cavalier Park, and Stonegate — these same communities which
 they now, with the benevolent assistance of the city government
 are willing  to see destroyed — in the name of greater profits —
 sacrificed for economic  expediency; purely economic expediency.

-------
     I maintain that the puppets of the land developers,  employed
by the city, to whose salaries we all contribute,  along with
certain elected officials whom we all elected, were so embarassed
with the mounting costs of this impractical and unneeded  sewer
tunnel along with the resulting necessarily unneeded sewage
treatment plant, had to-(make sure the allocation of funds asked
for were kept as low as possible.

     Therefore, it  became economically expedient to sacrifice
these communities rather than plan the construction of the sewage
treatment plant another 5 miles out and make the already absurd,
unneeded expense  even more absurd and more apparent.
                                /^~^&L ^Usf
                          ',\/              ' '      *'*•
             ^t^f^^^^t^^^J ^tez-s^.  ^-^L-^-^j^fi^i-^^ '&£
hsU*fr£'i'£&' 6L^4i?i'££^~ s&" x^/c^^/"xx
-------
 Page 6— Austin, Texas
                                               American Wednesday, April 12, 197_2
     By MARY M. MOODY
         Staff Writer
  City   of  Austin  Water  and 1 protest
                              I Commissioner  Alan Taniguchij
                              !saying his negative vote was ai
                                                               Mrs. Jean  Mather also cast a:
                                                              'no"   vote.    Several    oilier!
                                                                                    The   commission   denied  a
                                                                                   request  by  area  residents  to'
                                                                                   liavf one  spo'ursrnsn  tdl  their-
                                                                                   side  of  the  issue  for  three'
                                                                                   mini.ir.es.   A   cny    i>uornr.-
                                                                                   spokesman  said  lu.jt  if  now'
                                                                                  l testimony was  ;yvr?\ the hennm:
                                                                                  | wouM have  to i>e rcsuvoviwj.
                                                                                   The official heroin;; on tiv1 issue
                                                                                  ivvas hriri  last,  v/eck  before the'
                                                                                  boning committee.
                                                                                  i      '                         ,
                                                                                    Opponents ;o in» permit  'n,w-.'
                                                                                   10  days  in  which
                                                                                                               ">
                                                                                   written nouen of
                                                                                                           to t;i<:
Waste
Tuesday
Water
 night
                   Department | council
                                       of  (he  way  the  city ! members agreed with Taniguchi
                                         has*    appro vedlbut  some  noted  the  sewage
                  r e c e i v e d I residential  subdivisions  in  the!treatment plant had been in the;
city council.
  In     ot.hfi     Action,    lh<»!
commission decided t.o poM nory-;
planning  commission  approvallarea    which    is    largely j area before most of the housing.
of   a   special   permit,    for commercial and industrial.
                                                               Taniguchi  said  he felt  the
expansion
          of the Walnut Creek   "Somebody is  being wronged sewer was a symbol in the East)
                                                                                  | a request for an .11
                                                                                   the Austin Deveiwf
                                                                                   ailow   the    AIJ;;
          Treatment:   Plant—a here,"   said   T an iguchi,
                                                              Austin area of ill treatment. He
                                                             said
move opposed by about 400 East[describing his protest vote as  a;
Austin residents  at last week's j "red flag" to alert, the council; idea  of  sewage
public hearing.                Uhat   the   commission  wasn't! Austin   draining
  The   vote   was   fi-2   with! fully satisfied with the matter.   \ Austin.
                                                               Chairman  William
                                                         the residents didn't like thejasphalt plar)f'
                                                                      from  North1 Kt i:i'e  Jnlei"
                                                                       into   East
                                                                                                                "!
                                                                                                                of
                                                                                                                     i-iri'ij-p
                                                                                                                   lifit  ji-ib.:
                                                                                                                   li"i oty
                                                                          Milsteadi
                                                    said  it was  not  a matter of |
                                                    direction but rather of elevation i
                                                   !and  that the sewage has to go
                                                    from "up high to low."
                                                      Water  and Waste  W a te r:
                                                    Department   Director  Curtis j
                                                    Johnson  told  the  commission
                                                    that   the    odors   after   the
                                                    'extension would  be less  than
                                                    they are now because of newer
                                                    i treatment methods.
                                                    j  The treatment plant will bo at
                                                    •one  end of  the  new cross-town
                                                    I sewer    tunnel    now   under
                                                    I construction. City officials  said
                                                    to move the location of the plant
                                                    three miles  east would raise the
                                                    jcost of  the  plant by more than
                                                    I $8,900,000.  Construction  cost  of
                                                    (the  tunnel is estimated  at $18.3
                                                    1 million.
                                                                                            t Road and I'M i'.w
                                                                                            |  A number  oi  •
                                                                                            'spOJif' ill Opp(i.'iit!O
                                                                                             the land  desijjnr.--
                                                                                            ImaniifBcturhi:;   .j.
                                                                                             us3.?R.  conteiKiiii,?.
                                                                                             is developing rewJ
                                                                                              The  matter wiJj
                                                                                             reconsidered   in
                                                                                             several large  tr-iris
                                                                                             on!side the ciiy  iinr.i
                                                                                             studied for new isrii] u;
                                                                                             planning director Dirk
                   ((/ ril.'lii. Ill"
                   .11  I" .'illliV.'
                   !   ni'iiisln.'ii
                   Iwl. the i.iii'i;
                   !;! > -t!,  V.
                   probably iy!
                   .nine  v.'iirn!
                            nd!
                                                                                                                   of
                                                                                                                      ;il  be
                                                                                                                      , said

-------
       STATEMENT TO BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
                        AUSTIN, TEXAS

    WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE-.IN THIS
HEARING,  PUBLIC HEARINGS OF THIS NATURE ARE AN EFFECTIVE
MEANS WHEREBY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CAN BE
ASSURED THAT THE PUBLIC IS INFORMED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
OF PROPOSED ACTIONS THAT WILL AFFECT THE- ENVIRONMENT,
    THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 REQUIRES
THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION
                            c
IN DECISION MAKING ALONG WITH ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL CONSIDER-
ATIONS FOR ALL PROJECTS WHERE A MAJOR FEDERAL ACTIVITY IS
INVOLVED,
    AS YOU KNOW, THE ClTY OF AUSTIN HAS REQUESTED FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE FOR FINANCING THE PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE CROSS-
TOWN INTERCEPTOR AND EXPANSION AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE EXIST-
ING WALNUT CREEK TREATMENT PLANT,  THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AS PERFORMED BY OUR OFFICE REVEALED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF THESE FACIUTIES MIGHT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ON THE QUALITY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT; CONSEQUENTLY, A DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION VI,  THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES,
AND TO  INDIVIDUALS,  THEIR COMMENTS WILL BE INCLUDED  IN AN
APPENDIX TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT,
    THE  INTENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT STATEMENT  PROCEDURES

                                                     APR 1 9 1972

-------
                              2
IS TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
PLANNING OF PROPOSED ACTIONS BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
    COPIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY THE
CITY CF AUSTIN, THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL AND DRAFT IMPACT
STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ARE
AVAILABLE FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS,
    THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO SUGGESTIONS AND
CRITICISMS BY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS,  THE PROPOSED PROJECT AS
PLANNED GIVES DUE CONSIDERATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS, AND
THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE IN INCLUDING
ADDITIONAL FEATURES IN THE PROJECT THAT MIGHT REDUCE ADVERSE
EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS REVEALED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS,
    WE ARE AWARE THAT RESIDENTS OF EAST AUSTIN, IN THE VICINITY
OF THE EXISTING WALNUT CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, HAVE
EXPRESSED OBJECTIONS TO THE LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
AT THE WALNUT CREEK SITE,  THESE CITIZENS CONTEND THAT THE
NEW PLANT WILL CAUSE OFFENSIVE ODORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
PRODUCE HEALTH HAZARDS, AMD WILL INHIBIT FURTHER EXPANSION AND
GROWTH IN THE AREA,  THE CITIZENS FEEL THAT AN ALTERNATE SITE
APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILES'FURTHER SOUTHEAST WILL NOT ADVERSELY
AFFECT EXISTING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT,
    HISTORICALLY, MOST OBJECTIONS TO SITE LOCATION STEM FROM
ODORS ASSOCIATED WITH TREATMENT FACILITIES,  UNFORTUNATELY,
TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE  PAST HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF OBNOXIOUS

-------
                              3
ODORS,  MODERN DESIGN CONCEPTS CAN MINIMIZE SUCH ODORS,   THE
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WILL ENSURE THAT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WILL INCLUDE DESIGN
FEATURES TO CONTROL ODORS,
    THE TUNNEL CONCEPT IN ITSELF WILL GREATLY REDUCE ODORS,
OBJECTIONABLE ODORS AT THE TREATMENT SITE WILL RESULT ONLY IF
INCOMING SEWAGE IS SEPTIC BECAUSE OF LONG TRAVEL TIME FROM COL-
LECTION TO TREATMENT,  THE TUNNEL GREATLY REDUCES THE TRAVEL
TIME,  ALSO, THE AIR  INTERCHANGE SYSTEM IN THE TUNNEL INHIBITS
THE FORMATION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE, THE PRIMARY OBJECTIONABLE
ODOR,
    THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED WALNUT CREEK
TREATMENT FACILITIES  ON ESTABLISHED LAND USE is OF CONCERN TO
CITIZENS OF EAST AUSTIN,  WE HAVE RECONNOITERED THE AREA AND
REVIEWED THE HISTORY  OF THE EXISTING SITE,
    THE CLOSEST HOUSING is 600-700 FEET FROM THE PROPOSED SITE;
THE CLOSEST RECENT DEVELOPMENT, CRAIGWOOD, IS APPROXIMATELY
WOO  FEET FROM THE SITE,
    THE CITY OF AUSTIN PURCHASED THE WALNUT CREEK SITE DURING
THE YEARS 1962 TO 1964 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING THE LAND
AS A  TREATMENT FACILITY,  LAND USE IN THE PROXIMATE AREA SHOULD
BE RESTRICTED  IN THE  IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE TREATMENT PLANT,
    ALTHOUGH SITE SELECTION is THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE PUBLIC ENTITY APPLYING FOR A FEDERAL GRANT,  IN THIS CASE,
THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY is
RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THE SITE SELECTION TO  ENSURE THAT

-------
PROPOSED LOCATION WILL MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACT AND WILL AVOID,
TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PRACTICABLE,  UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
    THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL SERVE  TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL
ADVERSE IMPACT THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND WILL FACILITATE
THE SOLUTION OF CONFLICT OR PUBLIC  CONTROVERSY,  THE COMMENTS,
SUGGESTIONS, AMD ISSUES SURFACED AT THIS HEARING WILL BE
ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL IMPACT STATEMENT,

-------
                GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, GET, HEARON, MOODY & GARWOOD
IRELAND GRAVF:, (100^
J CMRYS DOUGHERTY
THOMAS GIBUS CCf
RORERT J HEARON.JR
DAN MOODY, JR.

WILLIAM L. GARWOOD
JAMES A WILLIAMS
BEN r. VAUGHAN, HI

H LEE GODFREY

W AMON BURTON, JR
THE; AUSTIN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING

     POST OFFICE: BOX so

    AUSTIN, TEXAS  707G7
                           W. ST. JOHN CADWOOQ

                              OF COUNSEL
                    TELEPHONE

                    478 - 6*2 I

                     AREA CODE 512
August 3, 1971
                                                           DEPf. OF WATER AND
                                                         WASTEWATER TREATMENT
        Texas Water Quality Board
        1108 Lavaca Street
        Austin,  Texas 78701
                                     Re:  Application of City of Austin
                                          (Walnut Creek Plant)  for  amend-
                                          ment to Waste Control Order
                                          #10543, walnut Creek  and
                                          Colorado River, Travis County
                                          Hearing, August 5, 1971.
        Gerrtlemen:
        This statement is filed with reference to the above application
        on behalf of Morrison Enterprises, a partnership composed of
        Patricia Morrison Carothers, Charles H. Morrison and Gary E.
        Morrison, whose address is #301, Austin National Bank Building,
        Austin,  Texas.  Attendance at the hearing is not anticipated,
        but the  Hearing Commission and the Board are respectfully urged
        to consider the matters here set out in passing on the  application.

        Morrison Enterprises is the owner of a tract of over 300 acres out
        of the Phillip McElroy League No. 18 fronting on the Colorado
        River immediately east of and adjoining the Travis State School
        property.  The tract is bounded on the north by P.M. Road 969, on
        the east by a subdivision of smaller tracts, on the south by the
        Colorado River, and on the west by the Travis State School.  Wal-
        nut Creek enters the tract near the southwest corner and crosses
        the tract almost to the east boundry before it enters the main
        body of  the Colorado River.  Over a large part of this  distance
        Walnut Creek follows what is apparently an old bed of the Colorado,

        The Walnut Creek Plant is located on Walnut Creek a relatively
        short distance upstream from the Morrison Enterprises tract, on
        the west side of the Travis State School.  The proposed average

-------
Texas Water Quality Board       -2-           August 3, 1971


discharge of 25,000,000 gallons par day of domestic sewage efflu-
ent would flow down Walnut Creek,  crossing the Travis School tract
and the Morrison Enterprises tract before entering the Colorado
River.  Accordingly, Morrison Enterprises has a definite interest
in this application, and requests that serious consideration and
study be given to the following points:

          1.  Considerable erosion is now occurring along the
high bank on the north side of Walnut Creek,  particularly on the
Travis School tract and the west portion of the Morrison Enter-
prises tract.  This is observable on the ground and has necessi-
tated moving fences back as the bluff line recedes.  Using Walnut
Creek to transport an additional 25,000,000 gallons per day
average flow will obviously worsen the erosion problem along the
north bank and possibly cause serious damage to the Morrison
Enterprises tract.

          2.  The area south of Walnut Creek is generally bottom
land with several higher islands.   Walnut Creek itself runs across
this bottom a considerable distance essentially parallel to the
river before it enters the river.   In fact for a part of this dis-
tance the creek flows along an abandoned segment of river bed,  the
main stream of the river now being further south.  This entire
area is subject to flooding.  It seems probable that granting of
the permit would not only add to the general flooding problems,
but could result in stagnant pools and poor drainage in the flat
bottom areas.

          3.  Walnut Creek is an intermittent stream with an un-
steady flow except in times of flood or after recent rains.  The
25,000,000 gallons per day is such a large quantity, compared to
the average stream flow, that Walnut Creek would become nothing
more than a conduit for the sewage effluent.

          4.  The highest and best use of the Morrison Enterprises
tract is as subdivision land, and it ultimately will be so de-
veloped by someone.  The tract to the east has already been sub-
divided and there are several small property owners abutting the
bottom land near Walnut Creek.  Hence the area should not be
considered as if it were farm or ranch land only, but as potential
residential property with considerably higher population density
than it now has.  Flowing 25,000,000 gallons per day of sewage
effluent through Walnut Creek under these circumstances should
be given very careful study.

          The problems of erosion, stagnation and the like could
be greatly reduced by dredging a more direct channel from near
the Walnut Creek plant to the river.  This would avoid the long

-------
Texas Water Quality Board       -3-            August 4,  1971


crossing of the bottom land through the meandering Walnut Creek
channel and take the effluent on a more direct course to the
river.  It is respectfully urged that serious consideration be
given to such a new direct channel as a condition to approval
of the application.

It is recognised that the Board and its staff are qualified to
judge the technical sufficiency of the treatment facility pro-
posed, and Morrison Enterprises as an adjoining property owner
respectfully urgas that sufficiently high standards be adopted
to avoid any pollution of Walnut Creek or the Colorado River.

The opportunity of presenting this statement is appreciated.
We would appreciate being kept advised of the results of the hearing,

                             Yours very truly,

                             GRAVES, DOUGHERTY, GEE, HEARON,
                             MOODY & GARWOOD
                             By
                                  Robert J. Hearon,  Jr.
                             Attorneys for Morrison Enterprises
RJH/sm

cc:  Mr. Dave Smallhorst
     City of Austin

     Morrison Investments

-------
TABLES

-------
                                         Table  1

                           PRETREATMENT FACILITIES
                                  DESIGN CRITERIA
Tunnel Extension
   Size  (inch)
   Capacity  (mgd)
Siphon
  Minimum fto\v  (mgd)
  Maximum flow (mgd)
Mechanical
  Number
  Capacity  (mgd)
Aerated Grit Chamber
  Number
  Size  (1 x w x d)
  Volume (cu ft/gal)
  Air flow  (cfm)
  Condition
  Flow (mgd)
  Detention  (minutes)
Primary Sedimentation
  Number
  Size  (1 x w x d)
  Area (sq ft)
  Volume (cu ft/gal)
  Condition
  Flow  (mgd)
  Overflow rate (gal/sq ft/day)
  Detention  (hour)
  Estimated Removal
     BOD In (mg/1)
     BOD Out  (mg/1)
     SS In (mg/1)
     SS Out  (mg/1)
Equalization Basins
  Number
  Size  (I x w x d)
  Area (so ft)
  Volume (cu ft/gal)
  Air flow  (cfm)
Pumping Station

  Raw \Vaste\vater Section
     Installed capacity (mgd)
     Firm capacity (mgd)
     Number of units
  Settled Wastcwaier Section
     Installed capacity  (mgd)
     Firm capacity (mgd)
     Number of units
  Emergency Diversion Section
     Installed capacity  (mgd)
     Firm capacity (mgd!
     Numbei of units
              96
             130
            30 Inch
              7
              19
               2
             130
    60 x 18 x 16
   34,500/259,000
      360 to 720
  Design Average

              27
              14
   250 x 120 x 12
          60,000
720,000/5,400,000
  6,000 to 12,000
              36
              24
               3

              36
              18
               2
  Diameter
30 & 42 Inch
     19
     65
30 & 2-42 Inch
      65
     130
Maximum Day
     36
     10
   Peak Hour
     131
       3
120 x 120 x 8
28,800
230,000/1,728,000
Design Average
27
940
1.5
200
150
220
110



Maximum Day
36
1,250
1.2







Peak Hour
131
4,500
0.3




     2000

     10.5
    x 7.0
      3

     48
     36
      4

     54
     36
      3

-------
                                                   rj-  NO O  O —
                                                   
f>







O
O
o
o
o

m

O
0
o
o"
00 
<£

C
bD

0>
Q
•— •— O
o
co"








O oo
o _;
0 M
oo"








O ON
NO — '
M-








>,
                                                                 (S  r~l  O .
                                                                     -H  O t
                                                                         NO ~ -

                                                                     x  No"00
                                                                     to  f>
                                                                      5
I W
z 2
w u
S 2
TREAT
DESIG
(J
O
S

c
I**! Ui
:mentati(
Numbe
•o





c
o
Conditi



•o _ -3"
00 — d.
E ^S* ifi
_"oS.= «
^ % ^^ ~~ 2
£? 2 E f> c
^6 c S oo 5 5
> c co C "S e
| a ^ 3 3 3
u O *— O ') >
E (U S « O O



                                                                       •°   _
                                                                                 r bo
                                                                                 ' C '
-So

Q Q
O O
oa EC
        ."Es
                                                                                     « GO

                                                                                     OO CO
 3  N   S   O ^  ~
Z oo  <   r' '    ;


c
o
•c
c
o
o

£
CT1
I
m
52
II
5 a
o ii
E u^

>>
o
1
a
d
d
4)
*o
fij
rj
.§
UJ

c-^
'Si P
|E
<=o
I—C O
a o
o o
CQ CQ



~£S
c
00
w


™-l
to
E
a
O
C/3
C/5

.£
*VJ
«
ca
o
'•$
C u.
61
g §
•|z
o
•3"
^
£
X
O
s;
OO


^^
*rt
^
o
E
_3
O
>

mgd)/Peak fl
^--
£
o
c
I
o
J2

(minutes)

D
O
C)
c
o
U

3
S

WJ
*o
D
lo
S
CO
>
u
<
0>
c
0
SJ

o
rt
0
8
B5
CN in o
31
?
1—1 m"
>< &
00 O
0 C3
** >o"
NO
•>t
r~i in O
— o
QJ
§
N
tj
rt
C
o
U
*§
Tf* 'O
Tf ^H
* S
SO O
m o
W)"
uo
S? "

£ w
<

>
o
O-
^:
CJ
o
cu
t 0

rt
OJ
>
• ^*
^g^g «> 2
& 0 « '5
o
E
^
«
o
OH
•* o
E
1
a.
O cf)
O O
n-






o 2
•
- V <
* & c
Tt o .E?
Tf O^ g
"a Q
°- °. d x 5- 2
O PI TH; (U
fo O o ^
•*t in <
X c? C
r-> O M
§3 1
IS Q
0 •*
o o
ro




NO t^ '
E

, .
a "n » -2 3 c/o "3
"CT-S? * « -J ^")
£T3> ;U 2 o »- -0-5- *^.
a ^ il-i -1^ Te M
:|S;|Hi|§i§g BSx-|i|
!|.s|ll§IS§" I!8|1.M
= 2oo>^^saQ^. a 3Zoo>O-Q
f ' O
5


                                                                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                                                                                u .£ 2i
                                                                                                                                                                o  o .5

-------
                                     Table   3
              BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT -  SOLIDS DISPOSAL
Aerobic Digester
    Number
    Size (1 x w x d)
    Volume  (cu ft/gal)
    Condition
    Flow  (mgd)
    .Solids  (Ib/day)
    Detention  (days)
       Cell 1
       Cell 2
    Estimated removal
    Solids  In  (Ib/day)
    Solids  Out  (Ib/day)

Land Disposal Alternative
  Transfer  line
    Size (inch dia)
    Flow rate  (mgd)
    Solids  concentration  (mg/1)

Dewatering and Disposal
  Thickener
    Number
    Area (sq ft)
    Application rate (Ib/sq ft/day)
    Float solids concentration  (%)
  Filter
    Number
    Capacity  (Ib/day)
    Cake solids concentration  (%)
  Land
    Area (acres)
                                                   Cell 1
    200 x 36 x 12
173,000/1,300,000
  Design Average
            0.145
           24,000

              9.0
              5.8

           24,000
           16,000
                               Cell 2
  130 x 36 x 12
112,500/840,000
   Peak Flow
           0.18
         30,000

            7.2
            4.7

         30,000
         20,000
                                     0.5
                                   3,800
                                       2
                                   2,000
                                      12
                                       4

                                       4
                                  24,000
                                      10

                                      20

-------
                      NI
                          -co-
0
o
o
CO
ON
CM
CO
O
0
CM

                       o
0
0
o
CO
ON
CM
CO
O
0
O
OO
0
rH
r~.
O
0
o
rH
0
si-
o"
rH
0
o
0
o
si-
O
rH
o
O
0
rH
sf
sf
i-T
iH
                                                           O
                                                           o
                                                           o
                                                             *v
                                                           m
                                                           ON
                                                           oo
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         o
                                                                                         CM
                                                                                         OO
                                                                                         si-
           O
           O
           CM
                                                                                                    CO
               CTv
               O
               CM
                              O
                              CJ
                              CJ
                   B
                   4-J
                   cd
                   0)
                                      01
                                      S-l
                                     P-I
tment
                           C
                           o
                           CJ
                           0)
                          en













,_3
^3
H
O
H

•
e

<^j

*
T-H
cd
60
01
rJ

M
•
^
60
C
w
H
CO
0


, 1
^
H
M
5!
CJ

rJ

H
p



CO
O
CJ

rH
cd
4-1
•H
P.
cd
CJ
T3
0)
N
•H
4-1
V-i
O
S
•^





H
C/3
O
CJ
O

M
H

CM
w
p_l
o


4-1
CO
O
CJ

t-H
cd
c
c
<^

rH
cd
4-1
0
H
CO
c
o
rH
rH
cd
O

£
O *
•H *
rH TJ
rH CU
•H 4J
S cd
^ 0)
4-1 (-1
CO H
O
CJ
                                                                                                                                   cd
                                                                                                                                   cu
                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                                                  CN
                                                                                                                                  vO
                                                                                                                                          T3
                                                                                                                                          60
                                                                                                                                          B

                                                                                                                                          oo
                                                                                                                                          TJ
                                                                                                                                          01
                                                                                                                                          CO
                                                                                                                                          cd
                                                                                                                                          •X
                                                                                                                                          •K

-------
                     o
                    •H
                     E   0)
                     <1)   F:
                    f  -H
                    U  i-J

                    i-i  f,
                     cc   M..
                     o  -,-
                    •H  f,
                    .c
                    p-
                                                 V
        H
        O
w
                     TO
                     O
                    •H
                     e
                     0)   0)
                    x   e
                    U  -H
                        1-4

                     (X!   £j
                     O   O
                    •H  hj
                     W
 rt
 O   0)
•H   R
 bi -H
 C  K-J
T-I  ~^
 o   ;s
•H
            -X
            C
                                                                    V
        PJ

        C
        W
        H
        
-------
FIGURES


-------
                                               HIGHLAND LAKES
                                               STUDY AREA
COLORADO
RIVER
BASIN
              EXPLANATION
            ^-* River Baiin and Coastal Batin Boundaries
                                             PROJECT  LOCATION
                                                              Figure  I-A

-------
Figure

-------
CHANNEL
IMPROVEMENTS

                 LEGEND


                 PROPOSED STRUCTURE


                 FUTURE STRUCTURE


                 PROPOSED PIPING


                 EXISTING PIPING


                 PROPOSED DRIVE
SCALE IN FEET
                                       BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
                                          GENERAL LAYOUT
                                                                                                                         FIGURE  3

-------


:*:
Hn- <*
§ PS l_ ^ t-
Q- LU r-" t_ —
o v- z 52
g UJ UJ § LU
^g5t iJg^r-
zr-5 z  i? UJ<
55 fC-J 0< t£-J
5^1—0- & f \—Q-

00
ro
\
S O
UJ I CM (fj
>y to" —
H-< •-••-<
§£
u. ro
N:
-I 0
-1 X O CO
x" -^ <3
ni Z
• Is
 ^ C\J —
CO UJ IO
81.1 >-
DC —
oa o w
ro co
f- 0 =
. . C/5 _
r^<
HjS
5 \
s . ^
i 	 :
_J CM -O
*t H IO ~"
3r v) <*,-t
=* UJ *"'
Jn
n j
\
ro
00 U>
-i * N ^
< LU 'f
/™\ 111 I* r-
*
* * 0)
o  fr* - ~ J
O 1
•£ *
LU _-;
I • ^
\UJ =5 x>
L— v »O W
Zv rX to
\ - .,
%/
£
/rt f *
W/ CJ
w in
O ^j-
o: -, x
0 S •
vro rf
CON
__• N
CM
0 L0~ -•-<, 	 . 	 ^
g
0> CD O .-; \
v«0 v«0 V» \g «.
^\ o\ 
—• "^*
^ .\5 ^
o to








)


|
LU
? <->
a:
LU

z
fc
i

|
\J















1
LU
te
^ K-
•*" o
l°ffls
^ a: a:
—) f~* rt
< o £ °-
u. ^Sfe
O 2 0 LU
uj cc 2
tse *
i5«2 g
r
CO
CO
2
o














z
UJ
, , t;
UJ <
a: a
<
P ^
O 3
UJ ^~
S £
C£
°- <

C/) l_
f <
S a?
a ^
Q 1
i u.
^ 3
t 0^
o
5 5 tc
3> co S
T u. C z
' CJ < 2
^ S it 5
22 J2
r

*- 5
nf T OE
; .10 w «>. r^ .g giP£
} — v> CM cn . LU i
^ 5 !
P '
X S _
-P o -r S Q <
vx 5<: 5 3 CO ^ Z
i e r § "3 i i . §
CJ 0 CO * LU
' - CC . . -1
«i r>
3 S co 3
iJCO SI
3 ° w
^ S x
3 Q f-
\J "

9 *
to ~
\*
\N
K
S

-------
o
<£>
                               NOI1VA313
                                          NORMAL DEPTH RATING  CURVE
                                       FOR  WALNUT CREEK AT ...PLANT SITE
                                      	.1..J.L ,„.,.,„.; ;»_:	-. ,_.j_.,,^...,_.L,^^.^__..',^,;.0_,.^,,L,-^ . I ..,'. •,	,...-.,..
                                                                    Figure   5

-------
                                N
          NW
  W
          SW
DATA SOURCE: NATIONAL OCEANIC
            8 ATMOSPHERIC ADM.
    NE
    SE
PERCENT OF TIME
WIND IS FROM
NOTED 'DIRECTION
                                                WINDROSE
                                                         Figure  6

-------

tr
Q
                                       in
fe
8
&':'"• :: J :
I J ;.;;.;
s» • : ; j .
J :
cl , '
- i
p - •
3 ,
i [ • t
" !


•. . _,:
>




z
0 • 2
CF^ |nj
(3V ^ • f
^1_i • «^
:; •... I 	 a

t- J
                                       m
                                       GO
                                              ir
                                              <
                                              UJ
                                       O
                                       CD
                                            Figure  7

-------