.. ' J. K EINOU.TO.-J rS.CIAl.-.'AII . f • gfc ^ _ . .vta r. ciE"E.s's • «(; \rr-P HUGH c YANTIS. JR. : V.HD D. EOSW.-LL X^"^/ . ' tXlCUUVE n.r^TOK , ^*»» -•• IIOO LAVACA ST. X75-7&5I AUSTIN, TEXAS 707O1 March 30, 3971 3 ALL, PARTIES IK'ir:Kj:,SrJ.ED I?I THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF PITTSL'-URG: uon 1-3 oman: he Texas 15th and arch ?6, 1971 -\s enclosed Hearing Corgis^ion Report will be presented to t; Water QvnJity Bo:,rc at the John H. Reagan Building, Room' 105, ( jngress Avenue, Austin, Texas, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on Mar Ccnviienls on this report are invited. If comments received 3 ead to sub- ! -ant ia.l changes 5n this report, you wi!3 be notified of such changes prior to trie tJrre the report is considered by the Board, Written excep- tions to the Heai ring Conrii ision Report" way be fi3ed. These except) 0:1? ^ .13. be considered by the Board. Hi1 ?'he Board,, in its circrct.ion^- may aJso permit ora-1 arguments on issues t 'rt.ainir.g to the app3 ication. Vic request that v:ritten exception? and written ;-:e chests be subnntlcd to the Board staff at 3 east five days prior 1 . the EOF:ret irccting. If the requests to speak or the written exception? c c in the m-.lure of protest;; Lo the issuance of a waste, control order, it is desircvb?e, out of fairness to the applicant, that the applicant also 1 ve notice of the exceptions or requests to present oral arguments at l^ast five days prior to the Board meeting aft outlined below. 1 o request that written exceptions and written requests for time to speak be suLr.iitcd five days prior to the Board meeting is in no way in- V nded to 3 in it the matters .that corue to the attention of the Board. V< ittcn exceptions and written requests for time to speak v.hich are re- ceived by the staff at any time prior to the day of the Board meeting v/ill fc presented to the" Board along with the Hearing Concussion Report, How- c :?r, the weight which the Board gives evidence presented to it on roatters which the staff has not had tir-'o to research and the applicant har> not had t i> opportunity to prepare rebuttal may be limited accordingly, Vo ry r u 3 v v o u r e . • - - ' c._—-—^ - cc: Office of the Attorney Gc-ncrul -/^ ".'." H. Sho-./-:i, Acting Director. Texas, State :Ie;.l-Lh rjoparLni-rtr.'c Ii'earing: £< r':;Coroe.-":TiC ' Tox?o Air Control Board Texts We'.Lor EXHIBIT Y,0. 9 rn . Tf. n ,: . _ L,jM:ntl . 89 Texas Parks & Wi3ol]fe Dcpt. ft i tr 0 1'!?I nif.vui n- ••-' %--'— i -t ^
-------
                       HEARING COMMISSION REPORT
                      i

                               SYNOPSIS
     A.   Name:
     B.  Address
II.  Discharge
     A.  Volume:
     B.   Type:
     C.  Course:
LIT.'  Hcarj-ng

      A.   Date:

      B.   Location:

      C.   Hearing
           Commission:

      D.   Appecirances:

          1)  Proponents:

       •


          2)  Opponents:
City of Pittsburg

P. 0. Box 462
Pittsburg, Texas 75686
Dry Creek Plant - an average oil 200,000
                  ga!3.ons per day;
Sparks Branch Plant - an average of 450,000
                      gallons per day.

Treated domestic sewage

Dry Creek Plant - into Dry Creek; thence
into' Big Cypress Creek; thence into La?
-------
   Hearing  Corvni ssion  Report  -  Synopsis
   City of  1'ittsburg
   Page 2                       '   •  .
      A.  The proposed Dry Creek plant  ancl  the  renovated  Sparks
          Branch plant will be  capable  of producing  effluents  accept-
          able to the Texas Water Quality Board.
                         •        "                       *         r
      B.  Improvements at the Sparks. Branch site will  relieve  overloaded
          conditions and improve the quality of the  creek water; the
          Dry Creek disc/large will not  have any adverse water  quality
          impact.

      C.  The Dry Creek plant site is located close  to a  highway and
          near several residences.  The Hearing Commission recommends
          that the proposed site be approved; however, an alternate
          site downstream would be available to the  city  at an
          increased cost.
  V.  	

      A.  Waste Control Order Granted:    Yes

      B.  Effective Date of Board Action: March 26, 1971

      C. • Status:  Final Approval

                     j

                         SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
  The City of Pittsburg has applied to the Texas Water Quality Board
  for an amendment to its statutory Permit No. 10250 authorizing the
'  discharge of effluent from two sewage treatment plants.  The fol-
  lowing is a brief description of the two plants and the receiving
  streams:

       1.  Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant - for a proposed
           discharge (to be in operation in June, 1971)  not
           to exceed an average flow of 200,000 gallons per
           day nor a maximum flov.' of 500, 000 gallons per day
           of treated domestic sewage from its proposed facil-
           ity, (an o':i elation 'ditch type so wage treatment plant)
           which  is to be located on Dry Creek approximately

                                     91

-------
Hearing Commission Report
Suir:nary of the Evidence
City oil Pi'ttF.burg
Page 3
         600 feet southwos't of F. M. 2254 in Ccunp  County,
         Texas.  The applicant proposes that the effluent
         wall ho discharged into Dry Creek, thence to  Brig
         Cypress Creek, thence to Lake 0' the  Pines  in the
         Cypress Creek Basin.

     2.  Sparks Branch Sev:age Treatment Plant  - for  a  proposed
         discharge  (to be in operation in June, 1971)  not to
         exceed an eiverctge flow of 450,000 gallons per day
         (an increase of 170,000 gallons per day over  th-3
         presently pcrnittcd volume) nor a maximum flov; of
         1,1?5,000 gallons per day of treated  domestic sewage
         from its facility (consisting of a conversion of the
         existing sewage treatment plant to a  high rate
         trickling filter typs plant) which is to  be located
         immediately south of Sparks Branch approximately
         4,500 feet east of Mowory Street and  east of  the
         City of Pittsburg in Camp County, Texas.  The ef-
         fluent is to be discharged into Sparks Branch,
         thence to Dry Creek, thence to Big Cypress  Creek,
         thence to Lake 0' the Pinon in the Cypress  Creek
         Basin.

The applicant submitted an affidavit signed by the publisher of  7'Cr
Pi t1 F.bu r g Ga 2 o 11 e,  attesting that public hearing notice- v;as published
within the statutorily prescribed tirae period.  Notice was also  sent
to interested parties in accordance with the rules of  the Texas  Water
Quality Board.
                          *
Mr. Robert E. Fix,  an engineer retained by the City  of Pittsburg,
spoke in behalf of the "application:

     1.  The northern two-thirds of the city is located
         in the Sparks Branch watershed and is presently
         served by the permitted Sparks Branch sewage
     •  '  treatment plant.  The facility, built in  1933,
         5s presently overloaded and discharging a poor
         quality effluent.

     2.  The Sparks Branch plant is to be rebuilt  and
         ir.odi ii c:\;  after construction tho facilities will
         iiicKule a bar screen,  flow : otor, grit chamber,
         Jnihoff tank,  high rate trickling filter,  final
         clarificr.  and chlorination facilities.
                                   92

-------
                   ** ,

Hearing Commission Report
Svu'imary of the Evidence
City of Pittsburg
Pngc 4
     3.  The southern one-third of the city will be  served
         by a new plant to be located on Dry Creek.  A
         plant is needed in this nrea because of the rapidly
         increasing population and the septic tank overflows
         that are now occurring.  .The proposed plant will
         be capable of serving exbout 2, 000 people; present
         population of the southern one-third is approxi-
         mately 500.     ''

     4.  Sparks Branch, Dry Creek, and Cypress Creek are
         intermittent streams.  Both plant locations are
         approximately 15 miles upstream from Lake 0' the
         Pines, a domestic water supply for the cities of
         Daingorfield, Hughes Springs,  and Lone Star.
         There arc no known uses of the water in the 15
         mile stretch of creek bed.

     5.  The Sparks Branch plant is located in a wooded,
         hilly area northeast of the city; the Dry Creek
         plant is located in a rural pasture area south
         of the city.

     6.  The Dry Creek valley is generally flat with small
         banks; thus,  localized flooding is a common event.
         The Dry Creek plant's discharge should not  sig-
         nificantly add to the flooding conditions during
         wet weather.
          *
                          *
     7.  Final plans and"1 specifications for both plants
         have been  approved by the  State  Health  Department.
No one was present to protest the application, but several persons
telephoned the Hearings Examiner to request a meeting of concerned
partie^t arid Texas V.'aler Quality Board representatives in Pittsburg,
Pursuant to these requests, a meeting was held in Pittsburg on
Scptouber ?8,  1970,  to determine the nature of the objections.
Those in attendance included the following:
                                         •
     1.  Proponents:   D. II. Abernathy,  Mayor of Pittsburg
                      JiitUiu'c I).  Morris,  City Manager
                      Pat 1).  do Paraphi] is, Consulting Engineer
                                  93

-------
HcarJng 'Coircnission Report
Summary of the Evidence
City of Pittsburg
Page 5
     2.  Opponents:  Wayne V. R. Smith, Attorney
                     E. J. CJauson, Landowner '—•—
                     William CuiiL'aings, Landowner
                     J. L. T.inebsrgor, Landowner
                     R. E. Marriott, Landowner
                     Marvin L. Mat'thews, Landov/ner
                     Alton Rape, Landov/ner
                     R. L. Stale, Landowner
                     H. R. Scale, Landov/ner

     3.  Texas Water Quality Board Representatives:

                     Jimmy Starkey, Sxiper visor, District  5
                     Larry Fergusson, Biologist, District 5

At the public hearing, Mr. de Pamphilis presented the plans  of  the
city to provide additional sewage treatment facilities.   Most inter-
est and opposition v/as centered around the proposed Dry Creek pjant.
Mr. de Pcuvphilis noted that two other proposals had been  considered
and rejected;  First, that one combined plant - instead of two  -
should be provided at or near the junction of Sparks Branca  and Dry
Creek; or second, that all city sewage be collected and routed  to
a renovated plant at the present Sparks Branch site.

The engineer reported - and this was later confirmed and  supplemented
l>y a letter from Mr. Fix - that the first proposal would  involve the
additional cost of the outfall lines required to reach the new  plant
plus other'project costs and contingencies; estimates by  Mr. Fix
put the total additional^ cost at about $270,000.  The Pittsburg
City Commission rejectee! this proposal.  The second alternative,
that' of puirping the sewage from the Dry Creek collection  system to
the Sparks Branch plant,  was also considered and rejected because
of the projected cost of additional lift stations and the impracti-
cality of constructing gravity ]ines the length of the very  flat
Dry Creek valley.
i                   i
According to Mr. de Pamohi3is, the proposed Dry Creek plant  site is
located outside the city limits on a 20-acre site close to P.M. 2?54.
Trees and shrubbery wi]l be planted to shield the site from  the road.
           •
Landowners residing in the vicinity of the Dry Creek plant site
appeared in'.ouposition at the Pitt&bury hearing and gave  the fol-
1 owi tig ob j c c L i on s :
                     '  •            94

-------
Hearing 'commission Report
Surrjuary of the Evidence
City of Pittsburg
Page 6
     1.  Land values in the  a^ea  Dr.d  along  F.  M.  2254 will
         decrease if the plant  is constructed  at  the? proposed
         site.   (;l>l^ll}>2Ll!Lr50A-tinates that the total Additional project cost  of relocating
the plant further downr.trcam, including the construction of  an

                     ' •            95

-------
Hearing Commission Report
Summary of the Evidence
City of Pittsburg
Pago 7     '          ;
additional lift station, a by-pass storage pond, 4,000 foot of outfall
line, the redrawing of plant plr.ns,  and the securing of additional
easements, would be about $30,500.  If additional PL660 funds could
be secured, the city vould still be forced to raise about .$27,000;
this the city probably-cannot do. -

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has offered no objection to
the explication.  The Texas State Health Department has investigated
the proposed Dry Creek site and has reported that from a public
health standpoint,  the site is acceptable; however,  the Health
Department believes that a downstream site might be more acceptable
in terms of aesthetics and increased residential development in the
area.

Texas Water Quality Board files indicate that protest letters were
received from the following persons:   Marvin Matthews,  E. J. Clauson,
Wayne V. R. Smith,  R. E. Marriott and R. L. Scale.  These letters set
out substantially the sane objections set forth at the Pittsburg
hearing.
                                                 r    *
                                            •
Mr. Homer Tanner,  Manager of the Northeast Texas Municipal Water
District, has informed the Hearing Commission that the District
endorses the city's attempt to improve and expand their facilities,
which should reduce the BOD loading on stream flows received by
Lake 0' the Pines.

In light of the evidence,  the Hearing Commission recommends that the
application for amendment to Waste Control Order No. 10250 be approved
in accordance with the City of Pittsburg's proposals and the Proposed
Waste Control Order attached hereto,  subject to the possibility that
the Board nviy wish to inquire into the feasibility of relocating the
Dry Creek plant further" downstream.
                                  Lee H.  Mathews,  Presiding Officer
LHM:nd
                                  March 1.0, 1971
            *
                           •

      :                             96

-------
Proposed *7eisfcc Controj Order


i il-y of Pittsburg


Page 3
   r * ]  '( I ' i  A- -; ~x^^",\, ,\-A,-'-.v-.-''---" \ iX!v-  r  "I  , I  ^V'T^
   v\l^.u>r :  f';^. , Yrf-v-v-^r. i?7   -• |-ta.vAy^-
   \ xV;i f--<,  i- '-•• '  i'"   V -">X"'I  V'-r-f-v /  -- -^j " i  f- •


   iafc4H*-/ ^  W-' '^-^

   m^m^m M *s/^
   ^K^-'K- -Kvrv;-'">  ^4^/) -fi/-i ^r.^:^hc---
    /X. -//-'.S^. f--'v\i   '"'- x?vr  -f  -' ]U"-""U   .•"Xr^'-v..1  :•_ _-
    ;0xjr -. r ^-h:^^v ^ 0>l.^t;^<^r:x:--^t:
    /1-|.1r\--r-x—-VM?7 \ A  :-*'.V.^--U<7;v-~.v-^> ;*-^--...*.^
                                             N
                               ,/iL=^-} >:
                               ,(i  i •• •'•
                             i:/! v.
S'/j j '"'p.'. \ .:-> ^r^vC-'-/
,>.\.LI  j.\...- J v ^•?-;''r~~:.:."..:-'     60 ,• >,  .-  ^ i  i •-<•; •;--•;
-c.>-'-^]- -•-'.„Mi>V -V^.:--T \ ^v.   •_••••! ^   * .JK I   /- .\.:.^
&:.—j-b--:C 'j^-:\\^^~'C«'*Art,!Enr rLAifr*-*^""-) \ \r~/{? -  -^>f


tb<-^« ^^r-^rCi;---: 'V^H^-   r
i1^.''.  \  *-.^--.«^» , V *.  \  " ""*- V i » J^-'^>v "*•  • C •  t    \ v - _, iN *"*1 1

fl"^'X- -5LA ---vCx-'-r^-1 •S^rv~J,,."-• -v : K.fVV-J

        /"i  -s^r-.\\-s^ vc-^..-^\\ •A/^A
    ?V-.T7!^-:-.--;
    f;:.rv.v 'Y"~

         -..-•." .''\ '
         - •/_.'••' ' "r>
    -                    :   .
    --^1 -: -1" V "H^- - - ' •]l- -  "W-.-f -N r - :- X-.—-x^:^ v;. f^-,
                ---            ?            '
                           97

-------
ago 3.   This amcndiT.ont  5-.uprrscdes and replaces Page 1  (issued  January 30,
';S3) of. Waste Control Order  No.  10?r-0.

;>,M£:          City of  Pittsburg
nDKESS:       P.  0.  Box 462
IT'/:          Pittsburg,  Texas   75685

VPE OF WASTE CONTROL OUUnR:   Amendment to' Waste  Control  Order No. 10250
                                                             page 1
•ViURE OF BUSINESS PRODUCING ViaSTE: Municipal  sewerage  system
r£L;EUAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:  •
          jj^£ion_:   par  screen ,  flov; motor, grit chamber,  Imhoff tank,
                    high rate trickling filter, final  clarifier, cind
                    chlorinatic n facilities.
                                                                 .f*
          lpJl:  Adjacent to FM b'/'I }  approximately 1.0 miles  east of
                the intersection of U. S. Ilighv/ay 271 and FM 577 in
                the City of Pittsburg, Carop County, Texas.
                     i
     HONS OF THE V.'ASTE  CONTROL OR.UER;

     Ch a ra e t c r ;  Treated doiuG.stJc sev/age

     Volume ;  Not to exceed an  average of 450,000 gallons per  day;
              Not to exceed a maximum of 1,125,000 gallons per  day;
              Not to exceed a maximum of      750 gallons per  minute.
                                                  *
                                             NOT TO EXCEED         '
                                   Monthly   24-hour Daily   Individual
                                   A vor c)g_e_ ___ Compos j^te ____ _Sa.mp 1 _e_ ___
                                          "                   ~       "
     B.O.D.          !              20 jng/l      25 iug/1       30  mg/  _
     Total Suspended Solids        20 mg/1      25 mg/1       30  mg/1
                     !                                         *
     A Chlorine residual of  not  less than 1.0 mg/1 shall be  maintained
     after at least i\ 20--minute  detention time.
                     i
                     i
     £2-LQi_9_£ J?_l'irJiclr-?L?J   Into Sparks Branch adjacent to the plant site
                        •  in Camp  County, Texas; thence into Dry  Creek;
                           thence into Big Cypress Creek; thence into
                         'Lake 0'  the Pines in the Cypress Creek  P., is in.

-------
                    I       ,
Proposed Waste Control  rclor
f'ly of. Pittsburg
i  ige 2
SPECIAL PROVISIONS:

This order is granted subject to the policy  of the  Board to encourage
the development of area-wide vaste collection,  treatment and disposal
:  'stems.  The Board reserves the rig/it to  amend this  order in accord-
ance v:5th applicable procedural requirements to require  the system
c  vered by this ordc>r to be integrated into  an area-vide system,  should
t  ch be developed; to require the delivery of the wastes authorized to
be collected in, treated by or discharged  from said system,  'to such area-
v  do system; or to amend this order in any other particular to effectuate
tjie Board's policy.  Such araencauentr may be  made when, in the judgmei/c of
the Board, the changes required thereby are  advisable for water quality
c  ntr.ol purposes and are feasible on the basis of w£irte  treatment
technology,  engineering,  financial, and related considerations existing
&'• .the time the changes are required,  exclusive of the loss of investment
5   or revenues from any then existing or proposed waste  collection,  treat-
ment or disposal system.

J  esc public sewerage facilities shall b:? operated arid maintained  by a
sewage plant operator holding a valid certificate of  competency issued
n  clcr the  direction of the Texas State Health  Department  as required by
Sv.-ct5.on 90 (a)  of Article 4477-1,  Vernon' s Texas Civil Statutes.

1  Q City  shall co^nply with the provisions  of Board  Order No. 69-1219-1
illative  to monitoring and reporting data  on effluent described in
"Conditions of the Waste Control Order".
                                                                     t
Operation and rraintenance of the facilities  described by this waste
control order shalJ be in accordance with  accepted  practices for this,
t pe of waste treatment  facility and shall  include  related maintenance
such as .painting,  proper•disposal of solid waste,  and weed and grass
cutting.

BGS:ns
                                      99

-------
 cige 2.  This. amendment adds Page 2 to Waste Control Order  No.  10250.
•TVIF.:           City of Pit tsburg
 DDRESS;        P. O. Box 462                                   .
:TTY:           Pittsburg, Texas   75606

 fl'FJ OF WASTE CONTROL ORDER:  Amendment  to Waste Cpntrol Order No. 10250
                                                             page 2

xATURE OF BUSINESS PRODUCING '.VAST}::  Municipal  sewerage system

 •;NKRAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:

          - i pt i ojn :   Bar screen, lift station, ParshaDl  flume,  oxidation
                    ditch, iv/o stabilixation ponds,  and ei holding pond
                    for by-par.sod se\;agc.

           ^1!:  Adjacent to I'M 2254, approximately  1.5 miles  south
                 of the intersection of  U. S. Jlighv/ay 271 and  FM 2254
                 in the City of: Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas.

CONDITIONS Or THo V.'ASTE CONTROL ORDER;

          L£l:S-~l:   Treated dojucstic sev;age

          i£^:   Not to exceed an average  of 200,000 gallons  per day;
               Not to exceed a Maximum of  500,000 gallons  par day;
               Not to exceed a maximum of       350 gallons  per minute.
      Quality:                      .	
                                   Monthly    24-hour  Daily  Individual
      Item   •               '       Average     Coinoosito
      B.O.D.                   •     20 mg/1       25 mg/1       30 rag/1
                           •»
                          v     _       a                                <

      ppij_n_t_of Dischrrge ;   Into Dry Creek adjacent to  the  plant site in
                           Camp County, Texas;  thence  into Big Cypress
                           Creek; thence into Lake 0'  the  Pines in the
                           Cypress Creek Basin.
                                     100

-------
Proposed Waste Control Order
rltv of Pittsburg
   J                    •
     2        '        .
LSECIhl. PROVISIONS:

'. lis orcV>r is grantee! subject to the pol icy "of the  Board  to encourage
tne development of area-wide waste collection,  treatment  and disposal
pasterns.  The Board reserves the right to  amend this  order  in accord-
< ice v.'iih applicable procedural requirements  to require the system
covered by this order to be integrated into an area-wide  system,  should
£ ch be developed; to require the delivery of the wastes  authorized  to
J.  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
t e Hoard's policy.  Such amendments may ba made when, in the judgment  of
t.,e Board, the changes required thereby  are advisable  for water quality
control purposes and are feasible on the basis of waste treatment
t chnoloyy,  engineering, financial, and  related considerations existing
av. .the tiivo the cha-iges are required,  exclusive of the loss of investment
jn or revenues from any then existing or proposed waste collection,  treat-
j. nt or disposal system.

t'-ese public sewerage facilities shall be  operated and maintained  by a
s wage plant operator holding a valid certificate of competency issued
under the direction of the Texas State Health  Department as  required  by
£ ction 20 (a)  of Article 4^.77-1,  Vernon' s Texas Civil Statutes.
                      I                                               .
The City shall comply with provisions of Board Order No.  69-1219-1
x lativc to monitoring and reporting data  on  effluent described in -
"conditions of the Waste Control Order".

( >eration and maintenance of the facilities described by  this waste
Control order shall be  in accordance with  accepted  practices for this
£vpe of waste treatment  facility and shall include  related  maintenance
£ ch as painting, proper disposal of solid waste, and weed  and grass
cutting,              ;

3C ;:ns
                                      101

                                    AUG  9 Ml

-------
^roposccl VJaste Control Order
'iLy of Piltsburg
     3
                              ;: --
                                                                        N
                                      102

-------
                                  EXHIBIT NO.
                                KNVJii(rtPij.N'j.\L ASSESS:
                                APrL/CAWT  ar.r! SiATi:
                                                                (A. -\
                                                            Date   March 17, 1971
Applicant ' s J--^>l''_J>'?llfi_'-l1^ Addicts :

     City or Pittsburg, Texas      P.  0. Box  462      Pittsburg, Texas  75SSS

J-H^Al.1!?._°.f l^J.p^l5   (city)   Pittsburg     (county)   Camp         (State)  Tcras
     Attc.f.1  rrp slKvin^ 3ocv.t.ion of thi; project
   ((Location rsp  attached)

     Cons live t-ion  of new scv/age  treatment plant on Dry Creek; additions  to existing
     sc'vafjc treatment plant on  Sparks Branch;  and construction of elevated water
     tank,  voter mains, and sanitary  sewor lines
	E!V\ -Ppj?c-i: -1^.-WC-1ox-7??., ~ --—-.,-E.DA Project^'p^,0,8-1-00928	—	—





     2.   1')•£>'.>nb_lfLJl'-ll'c rji£. J!.1!'!3'Jl'liL '>' nj j'_"L c;f_f >;c t s wli 1 ch  cani-_o t__kc_(lY£L^ ^:

           (SEE ATTACH lEfiT)


           (SEE A'fTACir-.ENT)

         nance and__C'pli'tnc c.ncnt_of_ ] op^-tc^r.n  prodtict i\'j 1 y:

           ( I J
     -*•   A0)l A1Xc^9r£I£ty c_°ll_3JL'_i'l_LJ'cZ.ay_c> -c-9-  inJlpc'iit of resoiu^ce^ by  tills project:

           (SEE ATTACH!ENf)


           (SEE ATTACHMENT)                   D.  II. Abarpathy, Mayor

                            t,                   ^w* \ \ \O^ j  I/I  V \ V^   r \ ' '""
                                                v  J i  "A    Vx'V^'XA"' T~~V'Vx %V.'**s
                                               (Signature of  AulhorisS: A Re prc sent at 3 vc)

B-  ^Aij^c^^s_ASjr^s_s^i;_r                            Date  _Mar.ch_1.7J.j9Zl	

     [X]  V.'c have rc;v3c:\;cd thj.s  fiss-cr-siiicnt  and  r.grcc that  no adverse  cnvirc'ivir-pt rl
          iiiipact  as proli-:.!.] c .

     [ __)  Our  cO'..:-.ents. upon  tl.e  cnvjro.i icntal  xvpact  arc  z-tLachcd.


                                                      /^T7>'   /./'/•'
                                              "(SJfr~;:Tu>ro) Ro]Dbrt"G", >'lc:a.ii"iny "I'.'K". .
                                                Director,  Central Opera Lion f.

                                              	 T CXLI s - Wu t cr. -Q u a .1 .It y_ _ Bo nr c]	
                                               C>tnU. Agency)
APK 1 3 1971
                                          103

-------
                           City of Pittsburg, Texas
                          EPA Project No. WPC-Tex-722
                          EDA Project No. 08-1-00928
A. APPLICANTS ASSESSMENT


      1. This project v/ill have little, if any, impact on the environment
because it is a relatively small project and would cause no change in population
patterns, etc.  The project v/ill however increase the quality of the water in
the receiving stream and therefore be of some benefit to fish and wildlife.

      2. There are no adverse environmental effects caused by this project.  The
prevailing winds, such as thr-y are, come from a southerly direction; however
the winds vary in direction at different seasons of the year.  A major portion
of the housing and all recreation?! facilities and major highways are to the
west of the proposed sewege treatment plants.

      There are no provisions for odor control as there is very little chance
that odors will be of any problem.

      3. (a) The city studied several alternates to the sewage treatment plant
sites.  There was the possibility of one large plant located at the convcngenco
of Dry Creek and Spares Branch (which are the receiving streams from the two
plants in question), but it was decided that it was not possible to finance such
a project at this time.  Thus it was decided to enlarge the existing sewage
treatment plant 0,1 Sparks Branch and construct a small second plant on Dry Creek.

         (b) The Sparks Branch location was chosen because the existing plant
is located o.i the site and the city owns enough land to make the proposed en-
largements to the present plant without purchasing additional land.

      The silo for the Dry Creek was chosen because of the favorable topography
and because it was at a lower elevation than the city and sewage will flow to
this site by gravity.  Sites located farther downstream on Dry Creek will in-
crease the cost of the project and would be of no additional  benefit to the
city either now or in the future.

      4. (a) It is not likely- that the Sparks Branch will  be enlarged again.
It is 'possible that the Dry Creek  plant could be enlarged at some future date.
In the event of enlargement there  will be no noticeable impact on the environ-
ment for the same reasons listed in Item No. 1 of this attachment.

         (b) The landscaping for this project v/ill  consist of site  grading and
the planting of grass.  The project site is presently pasture land  for the
Dry Creek plaiit and of course a sewage plcml is existing on the Sparks Branch
site.  The project will therefore  blend with the surrounding area.   The city
plans, at some future date, to plant trees, shrubs, or other such growth to
shield the Pry Creek site from vie1,/ of the  ffi Highway [Jo.  2?54 if this should
become1 necessary.
                                           104

-------
                    Attachment to Form CG-99  (Rev.  1-25-71)

                           City of Pittsburg, Texas
                          EPA Project f.'D. K'lnC-Tcx-722
                          EDA Project No. 08-1-00928
      5. The Spaiks Branch sewage treatment plant is located approximately -„
mile east of the eastern city limits arid is about 1,000 feet north of  FI1
Highway I.'o. 557.  Ihe closest houses are located on IT. Highway Ko. 5t>7 and rre
approximately 3, ir.ile fron the plant.  These houses are scattered and the near-
est concentration of houses are located approximately ^ mile north of  the site.

      The proposed Dry Creek plant site is located approximately one mile south-
east of the cio.y limits and near FII Highway flo. 2254.  There are scattered
rural houses within 1; mile of the site, buc the nearest concentration  of houses
is located approximately one mile northwest of the site.  Doth plant site:.
could be reclaimed for other i,ses after the plants outlive their usefulness
and are abandoned.

      G. (a) The organized groups which have publicly expressed approval of the
project arc: (1) the City Council of the City of Pitisburg, Texas, (2) the
East Texas Council of Governments, and (3) the North Cast Texas  Municipal
K'ater-District who holds the water permit and controls the conservation stor-
age spcce in the Lake O1 the Pines.

         (b) Several property owners who have land near the Dry Creek site
protested the project rt the waste disposal  p:->rai I hearing conducted by the
Texas I'atc-r Quality Board.   The property owners objected in general to the
construction of a sewage treatment plant on  the Dry Creek site, but they offered
no evidence or expert testimony to substantiate their objections.

         (c) The bonds to finance the city's share of the project have been
voted and ware overwhelmingly approved by a  vote of 439 for to 25 against.

         (d) Plant solids will  be removed in the form of dried sludge from the
sludge drying beds of the Sparks Branch plant; there wi11  be no solids removal
to contend with on the Dry Creek plant because of the nature of the plant.  All
solids removed will  be disposed of as sanitary land fill.

         (e) There are no insect and rodent  control  procedures because there  is
no anticipated insect and rodent control  problems.
                                         105

-------
('lev. 1-25-71)
                               co:-i:i:-,Nrs AND iii'ccx-f.-iKxnATioN'S
                                          of  the
                     STATP.,  IO'.CIOXAL, on ;'.:-.r;y;roLiTAN ci.h\KI\GHOUSK
!sc?ne of Clearinghouse:
                           EAST TEXAS COUNCIL OF  COVEKIMEIJTS

                           1116 K.  Kilgore Street
                           Kilgora,  Texas 7D6G2
A.  CO.-'L' <:!'! ^;s'vi: ?LA:;MNG  ci^rriyLC.VIION
Date   March  29,  39?1
    The project described  on  pj-c 1 of this  for.n UOi:S [ X ] DOES  FOT [__]] cor.forn
    with  Lhc  co iorc urn^ Jvc p] .ia dcvclopod or  in  process of development fur  the
    area  in \/lilch iL is  locjtod.                  ,  /       .  .       .
    Co? ^cuts  ar-J Reccrj .apdaLi
      This r-.ppl Lcalion h?G "bean  rcvjo;:cd and found to  be consictsnt \;ith
      sc'i er pian.s,  both erclr.tiiig and  developing in this  parLiculcir area.
      We know  of no conilicL bci,i;ecn  this xeqaost and  that of any other
      p] armed  at this time.
                                                         of Authorised Rc:)j es'.iU ..Live
                                             of C.1oarJu
13.
D.--LC  Marcli 29, 197"!
    [ x ]  ^,'e  have LcvJc'/ed  this  m^cayiont and  agree LhaL no adverse uav5)
               cL it, probable.
    [  ]  Oui  cor.Viicnts upon  the  onvJ ro.v.cnlal  JMipacL aie as follows:
            t
                                             (Si [_n it A'.I- (jf /ui.ho
                                             of CJ ca/ j a^hoit ;o)
                                                   106

-------
                                     ?3£s'. COPC.U A»*n. M.O.
 ~PUTY COt'MISSIOMtTR
                            AUSTIN, TEXAS
                          February  3,  1971
   BOAHO C F HLA;TH

HAMPTON C RC tS'JW •*, f'.Cl . CM/ I MM A"
noti^RT t »".'**ic ,i o.v'cf-cn^i^'\
w. r r NNFTH Tt js "• o, t> o .SL:c«^T/R^
*MCKle C HOI C »»• i, t >
h. I  DA> ^L»» J" I. ~>
Jhss *AVM v^ s r H r H
JOHN *'  S»'lTH Jf »' O
NOiJLE H f T'C L. t 'J
HOVCC E V.ISt ' HM ' H, M t CNG.
             F.ix tnid At^ociates
Consulting  Engineers
IMth jincl 35lh  Floors
Feoples National Bank Building
TyU-r, Toxns        7S701

ATTENTION:   Robert E. Fix, F.E.
                                             RE:   Pittsburg, Trxns
                                                   Sewage Fanj]ilios
                                                   WPG - Tex - 12?.
                                                   EDA No.  08-1-00928
         Gent] emeu :

         We have c 0,1133 le tod  our revicv.' of your p.1ans  and spec if jcdtions
         rp^jidin^ \,\\^ nclditionK to the rx.ibi.Lng vasl'ewatcr treoLnient fa-
         cilities  and also  tbo new Dj^y C)-eek Plant for the above rofcronced
         project.  The plans  and contract documents  on file arc in gcncxMl
         compliance with  the  Design Cr.Ltcr.ia of the  Texas State Department
         oi~ Health and approval is herewith given for this project.

         Under separate cover two (2) sets of the approved plans and
         specif icati cnt, fire being forwarded to the Federal Water Quality
         Administration for theia1 review and subsequent approval for
         construct.! on .
                                •»
                               *~

         •It is noted that the Dry Creek Plant is to  be an oxid.ition ditch
         and ponds with a design flow of 200,000 GPD, a detention time  of
         approximately 28 days,  and will feature a bar screen, lift station,
         flow ii.eabiiring device and a l.ll million gallon holding tank for
         emergency sto'Mgo  of raw sewage.  The existing plant will he modi-
         fied by the addition of  a digester, converting the existing trick-
         ling filter from a standard rate to a high  rate filter.  Oilier
         improvement b include a  measuring device, chlorination facilities,
                                             107

-------
I'.i sr'iib.-.kcr, ]\ix dad Associ
?..;.:•  2
I'eln-'uii'y 3, .1971
fin,..!  clariticr,  slud;',o  drying beds and  an aeration  tank  for
IJK-  si pi riK> 1 ,'iii: liquor.   The.1 design capacity of tills plant  now
is Joe ;.ii <'\x)\j^c- ilc»/  of 'I ^0,000 GTD.
]f \'o  i.r.y 1)L-  of furthc.T cisb.i.s

Very  U:u">y yours,
                                      }  please  let us  l;now.
c. Mi.  v^'"'O ljv- A !'•>••'
1)0;);. ' y 'Co :i\n' L,;,J e\" V for
Knv i I'o.i,; .MI Ldl Hoc' 1 Ui
cos:   Honorable-  D.  II. Aborna t)iy,  Mayor
          Cj ly  op Pittshur^
       Mr., Jjm.uio U. Morris, City  Manager
        /C.Hy  of I'll Lsburo
      tU. doiMl  U'a ter Qua3ity Ad'.iinisi ration
          A'L'TN:   Hendon  C/V.JIG, P.C.
       Lcoiior.i fc Dc've 1 opir-jn L Adi.n'nlstrntion
          ATTN:   W.  W. Grcaf, ]\i:.,  Chief
       RL 'L>, i on 7
       Tc'x.'.s \,'tiU'r OualJiy P.oard
          AV'i'N:   Roljert  G.  Mem ing,  I'.E.
                                     108

-------
                          EXHIBIT  NO.  11




                              DRAFT




                       (City  of  Pittsburg)









MATTHEWS, ET AL     )




      vs                                 CIVIL ACTION 1549



RUCKELSHAUS, ET AL  )









On Thursday, September 9, 1971, a hearing  was  held  on above




styled cause, in Marshall, Texas, before Judge William Steger




(Gibson vs Lufkin).  On motion  of Government's Attorney,  hearing




was confined to Plaintiff's  motion  for temporary  injunction.









Government Attorney focussed  defense  on prematurity of suit,




citing Lufkin 5th Circuit opinion.









Plaintiff's presented oral testimony  only,  alleging location




of STP was undesirable as possible  health  hazard, nuisance




and improper land use.  No concrete evidence  nor  expert




testimony was offered.  Plaintiff's failed  to  present  any




evidence that EPA had failed  to comply with applicable laws




and regulations.









Court ordered that Plaintiff was denied temporary injunction  on




basis of Lufkin, that he would  retain jursidiction  of  suit  and




that upon a date two weeks prior to actual  construction should





                              109

-------
Plaintiff's still desire hearing on merits  for  permanent  injunc-




tion courts would put it on docket for  final  hearing.









On Plaintiff's motion, City of Pittsburg was  ordered  to notify




Plaintiff two weeks prior to starting construction, and EPA




would furnish copies of pertinent reports on  project  (Impact




Statement?) to Plaintiff.
                             110

-------
                       BIBLIOGRAPHY

                     PITTSBURG, TEXAS


Broom, M.E.  Ground-Water Resources of Cass and Marion Counties,
  Texas.  Texas Water Development Board Report No. 135, October
  1971.

Drewry, W.A. and Eliassen, R.  Virus Movement in Groundwater.
  Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 40,
  No. 8, Part 2, pages R257 - R271, August 1968.

Harvey, Clark.  Use of Sewage Effluent for Production of Agri-
  cultural Crops.  Texas Water Development Board Report No. 9,
  December 1965.

LeGrand, Harry E.  Management Aspects of Groundwater Contamina-
  tion, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
  36, No. 9, September 1964, pages 1133-1145.

Leifeste, Donald K.  Reconnaissance of the Chemical Quality of
  Surface Waters of the Sulphur River and Cypress Creek Basins,
  Texas.Texas Water Development Board Report No.87,December
  1968.

Ground Water Contamination, U.S. Department of Health, Education,
  and Welfare.  Technical Report W61-5, April 1961.

Ground Water-Resources of Camp, Franklin, Morris, and Titus
  Counties, Texas, Texas Water Commission, Bulletin 6517, July
  1965.

-------

-------
                       APPENDIX "A"

                  Alternatives Cost Data

                     Proposed
                      Action      Alt, b     Alt, c     Alt, d

Total Project Cost   $730,000   1,000,000   470,000    764,000


Alternative b - Construct a single plant at the confluence of

Sparks Branch and Dry Creek and abandon the existing Sparks

Branch plant.  This c ;  .^rnafte included the following improve-

ments and costs:

    Combined Plant                              $250,000

    Outfall Sewers                               309,455

    Total Construction Cost of P.L. 660 Work    $559,455

    Total Construction Cost of EDA Work          257,437

    Total Construction Cost                     $816,892

    Admin., Cont., etc.                          183,108

    Total Project Cost                        $1,000,000

Alternative c - The construction of a temporary plant at the

proposed Dry Creek site and minimum improvements at the Sparks

Branch plant.  The following improvements were proposed for

Sparks Branch:

    Sludge Drying Beds                          $ 16,250

    Sludge Pumping System                          3,458

    Total                                       $ 19,708

-------
The total construction cost for this alternative was then esti-

mated as follows:

    Outfall Lines                              $ 87,250

    Dry Creek Plant                              80,000

    Sparks Branch Plant                          19,708

    Total Construction Cost of P.L. 660 Work   $186,958

    Total Construction Cost of EDA Work         244,103

    Total Construction Cost                    $431,061

    Admin., Cont., etc.                          38,939

    Total Project Cost                         $470,000

Annual costs for this alternative were estimated as follows:

    Amortization  (6.5% @ 20 yr.)               $ 25,950*

    Maintenance                                   2,500

    Labor                                         8,728

    Electricity                                  12,264

    Laboratory Tests                                540

    Chlorine                                      1,228

    Total Estimated Annual Cost                $ 51,260

*Based on $285,475 City's matching funds for P.L. 660 grant
 work only.

Alternative d - Make necessary improvements to Sparks Branch

to satisfy the requirements of the TWQB and construct a 2000

PE plant on a site 3/4 mile downstream from the proposed Dry

Creek site.  The following is the current estimated cost of the

action proposed and this alternative:

-------
    Sparks Branch Plant                 $177,250

    Dry Creek Plant                       86,810

    Outfall Sewers                       105,440

    Total Const. Cost of P.L. 660 Work   369,500

    Total Const. Cost of EDA Work        257,437

    Total Construction Cost              626,937

    Admin., Const., etc.                 137,063

    Total Project -'cjt                   764,000

Annual costs for this alternative were estimated as follows:

    Amortization (6.5% @ 20 yr.)         $18,000*

    Maintenance                            2,760

    Labor                                  6,731

    Electricity                            6,700

    Laboratory Tests                       1,080

    Chlorine                                 810

    Total Est. Annual Cost               $35,271

*Based on $197,000 as the City's portion of the construction
 costs.

Alternative e - Proposed Action.

    Sparks Branch Plant                 $177,250

    Dry Creek Plant                       86,810

    Outfall Sewers                        80,440

    Total Const. Cost of P.L. 660 Work   344,500

    Total Const. Cost of EDA Work        257,437

    Total Construction Cost              601,937

    Admin., Const., etc.                 128,063

    Total Project Cost                   730,000

-------
Annual costs for this alternative were estimated as follows:

    Amortization (6.5% @ 20 yr.)        $17,200**

    Maintenance                           2,641

    Labor                                 6,731

    Electricity                           6,387

    Laboratory Tests                      1,080

    Chlorine                                810

    Total Est. Annual Cost              $34,849

**Based on $188,025 City's matching funds for P.L. 660 grant
  work only.

-------
        V  II TJ II
 APPENDIX  "B
Legal Briefs

-------

-------
                                                        FILED
                                                          U S DISIKIO IOUPF    '
                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS™* D.SIR.U of .EXAS  • ,
•FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                              0 6 K'7 J
                       MARSHALL DIVISION
                               v
                                    BY
JAMES R COONLi, CLCRX [

        CARLYNN GIST
  MARVIN L. MATTHEWS, ET AL
  ys.
            •I
                                CIVIL ACTION NO. 1549
  WILLIAM A, RICKELHAUS, ET AL       /  .                            I
  " j         i                                     ,    *                    i


  ..;        '      '     • ORDER SETTING HEARING                        '

                 TMfl day ca.me on to be considered the plaintiff 'a application '

'. in the above styled and numbered cauce for a preliminary and a final

  injunction; and after  consideration of the same, th3 court finds that it would

  be in the interests of justice and judicial administration to combine the hearing

 ' on plaintiffs' application for a p reliininr.i-y injunction v/ith their applicrtior. for

  a final hearing and permanent injunction,  accordingly, it is

  , "•              ORDERED that n hearing be held ou the plahtL'fs1 applicr.lio/i
                      r
  for a preliminary injunction, and final injunction in the above ctyled r.r>d

 , numbered cause on the 10th day of August, 1971, at 10;SO A. M., ia the United

  Statoo Dioti'ict Court at Sherman,  Textis.

' /",       '       SIGNED asid ENTERED thin ths 
-------
                                                                  ,U  !

             !| f       UNITED STATES  DISTRICT COURT         • v       -' '
             |; ,      '  EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS    U- > •
             11          Marshall       DIVISION    „..,.,
             I [         ^»«__^_v^_v» « K^WH^W^^     (       £^ • _ J "
             I i!
  MARVIN L. MATTHKT/S. KT AL
                VS                  X      CIVIL NO.  1549
             ,,                                    ,
. WILLIAM A. RICKELIIAUS. Administrate^,      _'                          I
                                                                      «
 Environmentaj Protection Agency, eff al                         '      j



    S,                     WRIT TO SERVE  COPY


  To the Marshal c r the Eastern District of Texas  — GREETING:

     ' •   YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO serve


  'William A. Rickelhaus, Administrator,  Environmental Protection Agenc;
  'thru Roby Hadden, United States Attorney, Tyler, Texas




  wit'h the accompanying certified copy of


  ORDER
  HEREIN FAIL NOT, and due return of this writ make,
                                                     Presiding
  ,   ..    WITNESS, The Honorable Halbert O. T/oodv/ard /Judge of the


   •  ''   District Court of the United States  for  the Eastern
     iT
     \'   District of TexaB, and the seal of said  Court,  at
     .*•*                  •
     v!  Marshall, Texas _ this the _ day  of

     -',  August                   , 1971-.
         —————
                                    JAKES R. COONEY,  CLERK
                                        jr—*.          *    / }

-------
,"',
w
          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
            f
           'FOR THE EASTERN .DISTRICT  OF TEXAS
                                                FILED
                                                  u $ DIMRICT COUST
                                                {ASTERN OiSDcICI Of
                                             BY
                   MARSHALL DIVIS.-.3N
 MARVIN L. MATTHEWS, H. R.
"~SEALE, R. L. SEALS, ALTON
•'RAPE, E. J.' CLAWSON,  Indi-
!vidually and on behalf of
•others oinilarly situated

-'vs.

 WILLIAM A. RICKELHAUS,
'•Administrator, Environmentel
 Protection Agency, I1AURXCE H.
(STANS, Secretary, Department
•of Commerce of the "United
;States of America, and THE
 CITY OF PITTSBUPsG, Camp County,
 Texas.
          PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDEO COMPLAINT
                                                  •AUG051971
                                               DAMES R. CGONE.IC, CJ.
                                          CIVIL ACTION NO.
                                                 I.
                                                     £& A ,
                                                      e/ft.
 ,TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

 •••.            COMES NOV7 the plaintiffs in  the  above styled and nuirjser-

 cd cause of action, and would chow unto  the  Court as follower

 -.i:                          I.        .

 .,  '       '   Your party plaintiffs are:

             1.  Marvin L. Matthewo is an adult  individual domiciled

* in Camp County, Texas, and owns land and a home on F.M. 2254 East
 'V '
 sof the City of Pittsburg in Camp County, Texas;   he is a taxpayer

 "to both Camp County, Texas, and the United States.

 ";            2.  H. R. Scale is an adult  individual domiciled in

 'Camp County, Texas, and owns land and a  home on F.M. 2254 East of

 the City of Pittsburg in Conp County, Texas;  he is a taxpayer to

 both Camp County, Texas, and the United  States.

             3.  R. L. Scale J D an adult  individual donici lecl in

 .'Camp County, Texas, and owns Hand and a  homo on F.M. 2254 Ea^t of

 the City of Pittcburg in Camp County, Texas;  ho is a taxpayer to

 ,both Camp County, Texas, and the United  States.
                                             A 1RMC COPY I CTHIY
                                             j,'i,vs n c^r. n, cir.a
                                             u s nisi ,..-r WIM       .
                                                   ';;T-T'W  ^/-j

-------
;.           j'4.  Alton Rape is an adult  individual  domiciled

Camp County, Texas, and owns land and a home  on P.M.  2254
            I :
the City of Pittsburg in Camp County, Texas;   he is a
             .   •           '               !
both Camp County, Texas, and the United States.
•;  .          ; i                             '
             5.  E. J. Claw&on is c-a adult  individual  domicile :
,             '
Camp County, Texas, and ownc land ,and a home  on P.M.  2254 £ai>i_
 V
                                          1
,the City of pittsburg in Camp County, Texas;   he ia a taxpayer
 \           *                              ,
both Camp Count,, Texas, and the United States.


             Your party defendants are:

             6.  William A. Rickelhouo io the  administrator ct i

Federal Agency, the Environmental Protection  Agency,  which ha.

primary jurisdiction over federal programs and grants concernii
                  i    j
'Water pollution, water use and sewage treatment facilitioa.   J
                  r
may be had  upon the United States Attorney, Tyler, Texas, tin-

Attorney General's office, Washington,  D.  C. ,  and  upon thj „_!,

administrator of said agency at his otfice in Washin9ton, D.  >-

             7.  Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce of th .

United States of America, of which Department of Comnerco this
i
Economic Development Administration is  a cub-agency,  and "the  ,i

merit of Comnierce through the Economic Ljo^lopir.ent  Juiudni^tt .,1

has primary jurisdiction over federal piograms and yranta c^n

ing the cont.truotion ol public \/orks, Including  i,«_w.isu

facilitioo.  Service nay ba had upon the- United States

Tyler, Ttixtid, the Attorney Gcuoral's office,  t/ashington, D. t

and upon Haurice H. Stano, in his capacity as Secretary cf v'  •

and head of the Economic Development Administration at hie, ci!

in Washington, D. C.

             8.  The City of Pittsburg,  Texas,  is an incorporat

municipality of the Stnte of Texas which has  instituted proce,

to locate a oc\;ago treatment, plant in the  immediate vacinity  c

homes and property owned by tho plaintif£» named above, and h>.

-------
 applied to the Environmental Protection Agency, and ito predecesuor,
 (i<    *      **
•for  a federal subsidy for said sewage treatment facility;  and

[Jimmio Morris is the Cit;y Manager of the City of Pittsburg.

               '          TT
                         AA •            —             ,            - -

            Jurisdiction of this Court in this matter is grounded

'on 28 U.S.C. 1331 as this matter involves .federal laws and rights
 '  "  '     i                                             '
 under the Constitution and Laws of the United States and the amount
*         *
•in Controversy exceeds $10,000.00.                        >
'v           The City of Pittsburg has filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency, by and through its predecessors in the Depart-

ment of the Interior of the United States of America, an application

for federal subsidy funds for use in construction of proposed

sewage treatment facilities by and for the City of Pittsburg on
t
-.                                                                •
'land adjoining the land and homes owned by the plaintiffs.  On or

before May 20, 1971, the Environmental Protection Agency made an

['initial grant commitment to provide to the City of' Pittsburg an.',

amount of $137,570.00 dollars by way of federal subsidy, and has
     ,
;jaince that time made a further grant commitment to provide the City

'of Pittsburg an additional amount of $93,000.00 by way of federal

subsidy for this project.

••   "   '      Prior to the filing of this suit, and at or about the

same time as the negotiations were made with the Environmental

Protection Agency, the City of Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas, made
'r_
.application to the Economic Development Administration, a depart-
•}
ment or agency of the Department of Commerce of the United States

of America, for federal subsidy funds for use in the construction

of proposed sewage treatment facilities by and for the City of

.Pittsburg on land adjoining the land and homes owned by the plaintiff;

Prior to this suit being filed, the Department of Commerce, through

tho Economic Development Administration, made an initial grant

commitment to provide to the City of Pittshurg an amount in excess

-------
 of $100,006.00  by way of federal subsidy for use in the construction


*p£ said sewage  treatment facilities.


.'<;>     . • i "  The existing record concerning said project by the city


-of Pittsburg fails to show that the commitment by the Environmental


Protection Agency and the Department  of Commerce, through the
                                                                   i

^Economic Development Administration,  meets the minimal requirements
j i

 established  by  33 U.S.C. 1157  et seq.;   42 U.S.C. 3121, 3131, 4331


^et. seq.,  4341|  18 C.F.R. 601.26(a);  18 C.F.R.'601.32; and related
 •v        '          •

: statutes.'


             The existing record concerning said project by the City


•of Pittsburg" fails to show that the Environmental Protection Agency


'and the Department of Commerce, through the Economic Development


 Administration, by providing federal  subsidy for caid project, will
 ^                                                                i

-not foster and  cause damage to the ecology and environment, par-


Jticularly in those areas immediately  adjacent to said proposed


 sewage treatment facilities including,  without limitation, lands


"'owned by the named plaintiffs.  In truth and in fact, said project

3'
 will cause oaid damage to the  ecology and environment.
 J-t                                         »        ,

'£      •      The existing record concerning said project by the


,,'City of Pittsburg fails to show that  the Environmental Protection
t
-•Agency and the  Department of Commerce,  through the Economic


'Development  Administration, by providing federal subsidy for said


'project, will not cause a waste of tax  funds both federal and local.


 'In'truth and in fact, said project will cause such waste of tax


 funds, both  federal- and local.


>"              'IV.


             On  or about March 26, 1S71, the Texas Water Quality


 Board gave final approval to the application of the City of


I'Pittcburg, Camp County, Texas, for an amendment to Waste Control


.Order No.  10250, permitting the construction of a new sewage treat"
                                                    #
 'ment facility,  -to be known as  Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant and

-------
'Plant will causa extensive and severe property damage or economic loss to


;f-         I           •                                                   i
 these plaintiffs, and to other similarity situated, and also that such location

i-  .      •                                                               *

/would be injurious and directly adverse to the health and welfare of these

'*                                                   i
 industrial or commercial plants or facilities, that the project will not assist in th
f>

'creation of additional jong_term employment  opportunity for such area, that



• the project will not primarily benefit the long-term umomployed and members



.of low income families ir» the area, and that the project does not fulfill a



pressing need of! the area in which it is located. Further, plaintiffs would

t*

show that the area in which this eewage project is to ba located does not have



:an approved overall economic development program for such area, and the



project in question will not be consistent with any so-called program th*.t the
>l                     i


defendants may contend exists. For these reasons the action or decision
'X
I, f

Of tho Environmentd Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce

 ,'                                             »

through the Economic Development Adminstratlon,  and the City of Pittsburgh
i                                                              "*

is invalid, arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of the rights of these

«•

plaintiffs under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,

*   '                                                       •

and tho State of Texas.
r                 -  •             v.
i'

\      ' .         The plaintiffs reaps ctfully pray that thio Court sot p.n



appointed time and place, and upon hearing and notice to all defendants, make
*                                                     i

and enter a preliminary injunction enjoining tho City of Pittsburg, its officers

f

agents, and employees from proceeding with the construction of the proposed
i,
i

Dry Creek Sewage Trcntmont  Plant, enjoining William A. Rlckelhaus, and his
i

successors, and tho Environmental Protection Agency from tnking r.ny action
              *


to fulfill tho initial commitment of the Environmental Protection Agency



                                                      proposod Drv

-------
 'Creek Sewage Treatment facility and enjoining the Department of Commerce,

 "i           :                                 I
 through tho Economic Development Administration,  from providing federal


 subsidy to tho City of Pittsburg for such proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treat-
  :            -                 >               I
                  Plaintiffs further pray that upon final hearing hereof

                                     ^'y injunction hercunder sought against
  the City of Pitteburg, itc officers, agents and employees,  William Fickelhaus,'
  * i                                                                          !
                                                                            i
-  'his successoro and officers and the Environmental Protection Agency, and    ,


  Maurice stans, Secretary, Department of Commerce, and head of the Economic


  Development Administration,  Into a permanent Injunction against eaid parties.


                  The plaintiffs would further show that unless such injunction


  is granted,  the plaintiffs herein will suffer immediate, irreparable and


  permanent damage and harm, and that they will be denied their rights under


  the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America and the State of


 • Texas; further, that the evidence and testimony that the plaintiffs will orfer


  to support their prayer for a preliminary injunction will bs substantially simile*


  to the evidence find testimony they would offer In support of their prnjier for


 ,' a permanent and final injunction, and that it may bo in the  interest of justice


  and economy of the judicial adminstration for the Court to  combine the
             i        *                  »

  hearing on plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction with the hearing


  in plaintiffs' application for a permanent and final Injunction.


                  WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, plaintiffs pray


  that a time and dote and place be sot for hearing on the plaintiffs' application
                                          *

  for a preliminary  injunction ponding final hearing,  but that if the Court In Its


  discretion should decide  that tho application for a preliminary  Injunction mr.y ba


  combined v/lth tho application for a final injunction, that ouch hearing be held


  on all matters prayed for, and that tho preliminary f.nd/or final injunction


  be granted at  such hearing, and that judgment bo entered v/hlch enjoins the


  City of Pittsburg,  Its ofhccra, agonic and employees, from proceeding with


  its pb.no of con;:truction d tho proposed Dry Creole Treatment PJrmt in the

  i
  iminocU-ito vlci.iily oC HID homon and property ol ther/o plaiatiffu, Judgment bo

-------
 -.entered which enjoins William Rickelhaus and his successors and the



 '•Environmental Protection Agency from taking any further action to

 i

 -fulfill the current initial commitment of the Environmental Protection

           j

.  Agency to provide fedaral subsidy to the City of Pittsburg for the construction
i                                                  '                       (

 (bf the proposed Dry Creek sewage treatment facility, and that Judgment bo


 i-                                    .                                 '  '
 •-entered which enjoins Maurice H. Stons,  and his successors  as Secretary



  of the Department of Commerce of tha United States of America, and nlso the



 '{Economic Development Administration, its officers andagents, from



  taking any furthsr action to fulfill the current initial commitment of said



' Department of Conferee, by and through the Economic Development



  Adrninictration, to provide federal subsidy to the City of Pittsburg for



  the construction of the proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment facility.



                  Plaintiffs additionally pray for such other and further



 'relief to which they may be Justly entitled at law or in equity.


 t'                                                           ,


                                  Respectfully submitted,
                                  WaynV.R. Smith

                                  P.O.  Box 457

                                  Gilmer, Texas  75044


                                  Attorney for Plaintiffs
  STATE OF TEXAS
                      i
                                                            *

 .COUNTY OF UPSIJUR



 i                BEFORE ME, the undorsigncd authority, on this day



 "personally appeared Herbsrt R. Sealo, who, after being by me first duly



  sworn, deposes and cays thsi he is ono of the plaintiffs in the above



 .entitled and numbered cause, and that the factual allcgntlona of tho foregoing
 i


  complaint are truo and correct.
 ;,,  ,                              Herbert R.'Scale
 • i


                  SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before mo by Herbert R.



 Scale, thla the 2nd chy of A«gurt, 1971, to certify rhlch witnsos my hand



 nrd teal of of/lco.

-------
Notary Public In and for Upahur County,  Texas

-------
                                                                 i •
                                                         F I l_  E D
                                                        ,, . o $ Dls;mCTCOU3i ,
                                                      1 '  fASTfRN DiSldlCrOf IIXAS   .
   •.  .   .k  -  ;  • .'.IN THE UNITED STATES  DISTRICT COURT ',    >  , /• ( .   'J.  •.


  .-,  '•-  ,.'.'r-''*' '  FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT'OF TEXAS.   '    W   *•'-.-,''
                         -  .MARSHALL DIVISION        .BY.-  :  ' "cARL'.TCN~GIS?
                         ,.,,.;   i     '|^:;    .•;   .fyIp.,-;7:T-T^~,

 '..MARVIN L.-MATTHEWS, ET AL  .   '• )    ,V- •'••'.:••-*   •  • ;*   :;^L-. ".'

   Vs.              '      'J'"  '•'   , )    ^  '. CIVIL ACTION NO.-1519  '"  '•
'-.        '                 '          \    '                      '•if,

  •WILLIAM A.  RUCKELSHAUS,  ET AL   )    -              ;;.,.';  s    "  "


   '•''••  ;,  ''   DEFENDANT, WILLIAM A.  RUCKELSHAUS', '
                 _J	MOTION TO DISMISS    	
                 —"    — -   '                """'•-           1

•   TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:,

       ' COMES  NOW William A.; Ruckelshaus,  defendant in the above  '

  • entitled cause, by and through his attorneys,  Roby Hadden, United

   State's Attorney for the  Eastern District  of Texas, and C* Houston

'-  Abel, Assistant1U. S.  Attorney, and  respectfully moves the Court
• '       '      .,***'                        '     *   i
 •'.to dismiss  on the  .following 'grounds: '

       .1.  -'The  Court has .no 'jurisdiction  to  enjoin William A.
 T '       '  *
» ' '            tit     ,
 ,  Ruckelshaus,  Administrator of -the Environmental  Protection Agency

''."'(EPA) at this stage of the administrative  proceeding — this ' ;  ••'
                        '                              i *           ^j *- -
   complaint for Injunctlve relief is premature.

'       /2.   The-complaint .fails to state a claim against these

•'defendants  upon which  relief can be granted  in that  the agency's"

,' "actions  and activities,' although'not within  the  purview of NEPA,

   are  in substantial compliance with the policy underlying NEPA  "  .

•   and  its  implementing regulations.     '                . j-

        3.   The'complaint falls  to state"a claim against these

   defendants  upon';which  relief can be granted  in that  the alleged
1       •'                                 i-                        •  ~,
   violations  of the-National Environmental Policy  Act,,  43 U.S.C'.A.~

   1321 et.seq.(NSPA),  has  no r.erit because NEPA is  inapplicable to'

   the  present grant  because  the challenged action  (grant) is not  a1

" major federal .action significantly affecting the  quality of huv.a'n

   environment.'
                                                  A TSUF rnr-v I CERTIFY
                                                  j;.v:s R CCO-.FY. CLERK
                                                 , U S MSniCT COURT
                                                      ,.[/U,T!iCT. TfX/S

-------
     WHEREFORE, Defendant William A.  Ruckelshaus prays- for an *; } \

Order dismissing the above, cause.
                              .;  ROBY HADDEN
                              I. United States 'Attorney
                                C. HOUSTON ABEL         ,
                                Assistant U. S. Attorney
                     CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE


     I hereby certify that I have delivered a copy of the foregoing

'Motion to "Dismiss to Mr.'Wayne'V. R. Smith and to Mr. W. C.'Hancock,
           ,••','••        !       '          •  " -'          -.>•'•''
by handing each of them a copy of same at the ^United States District
            '   *          •            '                        *
Courtroom in Marshall, Texas, on this 9th day of Sentembfti'. 1071. '
                                     ,C. HOUSTON ABEL

-------
                                         •ft-   •   '
               I '               *             f
                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 'COURT

               V'FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP TEXAS ;

                -...   '. ; •. , MARSHALL DIVISION

                1          • * f
 MARVIN L.  MATTHEWS, ET AL .     }
        -  '' •                   j ' )                 <,.,.„,
Vs.    ,  -  '*    '   •   .'  ' i   •  )   i :'' CIVIL ACTION NO. • 1549

•WILLIAM A:  RUCKELSHAUS, ET  AL   )                           {


                MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT.
                WILLIAM A. RUCKELSHAUS',.,  MOTION TO .
                              DISMISS        ,   ;  '
                    . '     .              i

               '- •' , • !  FACTUAL SITUATION
                ,;      ''   '                          .         i i '> »
      The  City o'f  Pittsburg,  Texas,  presently has one sanitary

 sewer plant (constructed1by  WPA in  the 1930's) located outside

 the city  limits along Sparks Branch.  Its original design   !'
            •    '
 capacity  was  for  service to  3,550 people when constructed by

 WPA In the early  1930's.  This plant is-now working under the ~

 original  capacity with people •co  be served  now numbering     >

 approximately 3,500.  '   The. quality of the  effluent from the

 plant is  approximately  *I2 parts  per million of Bio-chemical'

 oxygen demand and the quality required  by the Texas Water Quality

,Board Is  approximately'20 parts per million Bio-chemical oxygen-

,'demand.   Much of  the  population of  the  City of Plttsburg lies

 outside and 'South of the drainage area  of the present  plant

-(the're are no lift stations) and  along  the  drainage area of. Dry  .
       * *                               *                         i *""
 Creek. Tnose persons living in the Dry  Creek drainage area

 to be served  by the proposed Dry  Creek  facility are for the most
                           r               I                «    1 I '
 part • of'the so-called "low income bracket"  and are .now presently ,.

 served for the most part by  outhouses  (in some cases, built direct-

 ly over Dry Creek itself) 'and some  cases 'served by, cesspool-t'yoe.

 waste disposal.

-------
      The'City of Pittsburg '(City) was orderedx'by the Texas Water -'
                                                        '      .'•'".
 Quality Board to clean up its effluent in the Sparks Branch  in   .

 1968, at which time the"City engaged the engineering firm of
                                      ''  ,-             ,'         *  •' •.
 Wisenbaker Fix 4 Associates of Tyler, Texas, to begin planning   _»
                        '                                      *    ^
 building specifications immediately and the City began investlga-  _
                                                          '      ''  :
 tlons to obtain federal funds, and to vote a bond issue.  In      t
                                                              '  '.  i
 June of 1970 the City filed its application for a federal grant

 for sewage treat'me.,'   vorks from the Federal Water Quality Adminis-

 tration which, as of June 1, 1971> became the Environmental

 Protection Agency.  The Federal Water Quality Administration, and

 later as Environmental Protection Agency, made its investigations

 and on May   , 1971, made Its offer of a federal grant in the sum

 of $137,570.00 which was accepted by the City on June'7, 1971-

 The total estimated project costs being $1)32,900.00.  None of the

 grant money is to be used ift the acquisition of the plant site,
                                         *
 The grant is conditioned upon many things enumerated in the  offer
                             •  «»                •*               I
 and acceptance.  The City accepted the offer and by so doing    -  -
                                                                '  * " '
 agreed to numerous conditions, all of which have to be met pri"or

 to the actual funding of the grant, Including construction of the
                                                                r-
 plant to approximately 25% of total completion.                '•_''-'
                            .                                   *.'  .* i •
      In the Spring of 1970, the City filed an application with

 the Texas Water Quality Board for a Discharge Permit approximately

   miles- outside the city limits on Dry Creek and to enlarge  the  "
    .                                         *                     ' ' '
 capacity on Sparks Brancr..  The Texas Water Quality Board gave

 notice- ar.d held public hearings in September 1970 on the proposed
                         4
'.Discharge Permit and on March 26, 1571, issued a Discharge P'ermit

 to the City at the proposed site.  Although duly notified, none  of
                                     ' . •  • ,      '  •     '         ;•  ' •
 the plaintiffs attended'-'said hearing,' although several persons

-------
                         MEMORANDUM OF LAW

                          '  ' '  i   -.   .'
      1.   This  Court has r.o  Jurisdiction to enjoin the Environner.ta,!.

 Protection Agency at this stage of its admlriistratlve~"proceedlng.
                                                              ,    •*
• The-Administrator has taken no action — no'grant has bee*n made,~
                                                           ,»
 indeed it may  never be made.  During this interim period the Envlron-

'mental Protection Agency will have ample opportunity in the event

 all applicable lavs and regulations are not complied with under  the
                            *,                 '                      ,
 grant offer and a^c^pt'ance  to decline to issue any funds.  Conse-

 quently,  the contentions on the part of plaintiffs are in all things
                                                              i
 premature.   At 'most., all 'the Environmental Protection Agency has
                   '                                  *               v
 done by making its initial  grant offer to the City has been to say
                                                              l  ' '" -;:'.
 to the City that if it complies with all the regulations and laws

 concerning the funding of the project, the funds will be advanced .^
                i                                              '>..'_"
 for the project.        '                    '          '       .''-.-",'.-

      The  Fifth Circuit (Brown, Chief Judge, and Gewin and Morgan,

 Circuit Judges) has ruled on this precise point by Order dated '    *: '
                                         •       '               '•>'''
 August.9, 1971, in City of  Lufkin, Texas v. Benjamin P. Gibson,
                                                               "'•'••-
 et'al.', No. "71-1161 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, wherein it v '  .;

 vacated the injunctions against the City of Lufkin and the Environ-

 mental Protection Agency and remanded to the  District Court with
                                                              1      ' o*
'instructions to "retain Jurisdiction of the matter to enable it  to''
          *   **      '         i                                 '
 consider' whether on application of the plaintiffs made immediately
         ,       '      ,, '     ,                                       _ >"
 prior to  construction of the sewer treatment  facility relief is    '.'"
       ,         • T                     •                        i    '  ' *
 appropriate or desirable', or required within the Jurisdiction and' '  ''.
             *   *                                               *  i  "" *
 power of  the United. States  District Court and any appropriate  "   .'•''.
                                        •^                           ' l«
 federal  statutes."  The factual situation regarding the injunction',;
                                                                  ,  >
 against  the Environmental Protection. Agency was remarkably similar

 to the Instant case in that'there had'been only an offer and ;  :  '  •'
        ',            * - t *            \    i    i                ,    f  , ,

 acceptance with none of .the conditions to the offer and acceptance." '
                     "• •  ":     !     .:;•-'.-•       ,    •   •    i  .  , •
 being met by'the City of Lufkin.    '.        • .      (-1.   ;    j' \  ^   '•

-------
                                       *  .
'g on  September  28,  1970, _to" determine
  prior to the  hearing requested; the  public -meet'lng in Pittsburg  ; '._,!

 •with the Texas  Water 'Quality  Board  which was- granted and a

•  meeting was held  in Pittsburg

  the nature  of' any objections.

       The City held a bond  election  on March 2*1,  1970,'in the, •  _• \>"

  amount of $285,000.00 to help pay for the  improvement of the  ,  '
                            ,    '       '    .                    ' I  !   '„•
  existing plant  and a new plant.   The bond  election passed and   ;

  the City began  acquiring land for the site on Dry Creek —
                                                                ^   «
  partly by purchase and partly by condemnation (no condemnee is  .

  a party herein).    '                     .,                     ' .,    .
                       •                         '               i
       In November  1970- the  Texas Water Quality Board issued its State

  Priority Certificate and Project Approval  — giving as Justification

  that the project  "will aid in the propagation of aquatic life,'wild

  life, and will  help conserve  the water in  the Lake of the Pines for

  public water  supply and recreational purposes."               . )  •   >
                                         •                        *   i
       On December  29, 1970, the City of Pittsburg completed its
                             '             *""                    '   i ' '*
  .environmental assessment whicn was  reviewed and*concurred in by

  the East Texas  Council of  Governments acting as  the Clearinghouse

  and by the  Texas  Water Quality Board.  This environmental ass'ess-
                                                                     1
  ment was made pursuant to  a requirement of the Environmental
                        '                                             i
  Protection  Agency pursuant to Directive Com 3200.1 dated October 15,
                 I           •                             ,
  1970, setting cut requirements of the statement  to be in accordance

 •with Council  or. Environmental Quality Interim 'Guidelines.

   •  *- On March 15, 197l', Ancil Jones, Cnief of Government Grants

  'Program, Environmental Protection Agency,  issued the Environmental

  Protection  Agency Certificate as to Adequacy of  Treatment, certi-
               i                                                ^
  fylng that  the-proposed plant would provide treatment'of water .to
          , <    ""          •             -                  s   S     t ' "
  VconfoYm with applicable water quality standards".   ,   '    •.'•',

-------
   -        v    I.       ,       •      1, _, i          '     '.-,•'.
    •  This is also precisely the type of1 situation which the"Supreme

 Court of the United States had in mind'in Eccles v.. Peoples Bank of
                        1 ,   V          "                    .
 Lakewood Village, Gal.. 333' U.S.  426,  68 S.  Ct.  641 (1948J, rehearing

 denied April 19,  1948,  333 U.S. 877, 68 S. Ct.  900, where the Court

 stated:                 '                 •               '' '•. '' \
         *               »                          i           } s t 4
        , ,       "Where administrative intention is expressed '  j '
           but not coire  to fruition (Ashwander vs. Tennessee •'  ".
           Valley  Authority,  279 U.S. 288, 324,  56 Sup. Ct.  ,
           466,472, 80 L.Ed.,688), where that intention is   :    '  '-
           unknown (Great  Atlantic & Pacific  Tea Co. vs.       -' -
           Grosjean, 301- U.S.  412, 429, 430,  57 Sup. Ct.     "•   '  . '
           772, 779, 81  L.Ed.  1193, 112 A.L.R. 293), we have ',
           held that the controversy is not yet ripe for
           equitable intervention."  333 U.S. 434 68 Sup.  Ct.     '  -;
           616-     ;  ,             .                               !

      Plaintiffs apparently contend that these determinations  were  '

 required to  be made by  Environmental Protection Agency, prior to

 the making of its' initial grant offer  to the City of Plttsburg on

 May 19, 1971, with this contention being apparently based upon the

 enactme.nt of the,National Environmental Policy Act  of 1969 (Pub. L

 91--190 42 U.S.C.  4331 et  seq.), which  became effective January 1,

 1970, and the regulations which may have been promulgated there-

 under.  Congress  in enacting  the  National Environmental Policy Act'   ,

 of 1969 expressly provided that the various  governmental  agencies

.had until July 1, 1971,'to 'fully  comply with the policies declared
                 4                                             *  i    ' (
                                                               f    (
 by this Act.   This expression is  found in 42 U.S.C. 4333  which  •     ;

 reads as follows:   '                '                        *fr' i.  •
    It'                                                   N . <     ,  •
                                                             f
       , "'\     "All agencies  of the federal  government
   ' ,      .shall review  their  present statutory authority,
         , administrative  regulation, and current policies
       - ' and procedures  for  the  purpose of  determining
          -whether there are  any deficiencies or inconsist-
         ';  encies  therein  which prohibit full compliance
       ; '", with the purposes  and provisions of this  chapter
       '  ;' , and shall propose  to the President not later than
'•'       ,' July 1, 1971 > such  measures  as may be necessary
         '.-, 'to bring thier  authority and policies into
        • . conformity with the intent,  purposes,  and proce-
          ,dures set "forth in  t~his
i
,r \

-------
  Obviously, Congress realized that the*"broad policy set forth in the

  National Environmental Policy Act of 1969- could not be 'implemented_

  overnight and that the various government agencies involved should

  have time to implement and change their procedures to reflect such
                        'i                               .         •
  policies.  Consequently, under the terms of the National Environ-
                         t                                         ,
  mental Policy Act of 1969, as quoted above, agencies were free to

  process pending busiucrs under the same policies and procedures

  that they had theretofore operated under until at least July 1,

  1971.  Therefore, it is obvious that the environmental determinations,

  'were not required to be made prior to the grant offer May 19, .1971,
*                                                                    i •  ••
  and in the case of the City of Pittsburg if necessary at all need
                i                                                    *
  only be made prior to actual funding of the grant which is many
         *      '                                                     '
  months and conditions away.                                       ,']

       2.  Defendant is of the opinion that the facts set out In this

  memorandum show that a grant in the amount of $285,000 (approxl-
             k                          i                     • *         **
  mately) and the resulting impact does' not significantly affect the

  quality of the human environment, as contemplated by the National  '
                         .    '                                       *i
  Environmental Policy Act, *)2 U.S.C. §1331 et. seq., and therefore"

  reliance by 'plaintiffs on the Act Is inapplicable to the present
             «                                                       ** .-   ^
  situation.  Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc. v. Bartlett ,     •'

,. 315 F.Supp. 238 (D.C..M.D. Pa. 1970), appeal filed; Sierra Club v.

  Hardin  (Tongas's Forest), 2 ERC 1385 (D.C. Alaska, 1971).

       3.  In the alternative, the facts set out In this memorandum

  show that where the Environmental Protection Agency's actions have

  been in suostantlal compliance with the policies underlying NE?A
  '       \.               4                         |
  and Its Implementing regulation, ar. Injunction should not be'

  issued." Daly y-.-Volpe, 2 ERC 15C6 '(D.C. W.D. Wash., 1971); Sierr?.
                                              i      "          *
  Club v.. Hardin (Tongass Forest), supra.             •    "   •> Js,

-------
  .            ,i       •              „..
    • This is also precisely the type of1 situation which the"Supreme

Court of the United States had in mind'in Eccles v.. Peoples Bank oj
                       •,    >         ' •                     ,
Lakewood Village. Cal.. 333' U.S.'426,  68 S. Ct. 641 (1948), Rehear!

denied April 19, 1948, 333 U.S. 877, 68 S. Ct. 900, where the Court

stated:        '         '

               "Where administrative intention is expressed
       ,  'but not coire to fruition (Ashwander vs. Tennessee
          Valley Authority, 279 U.S. 288, 324, 56 Sup. Ct.
          466,472, 80 L.Ea.,688), where that intention is
          unknown (Great  Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. vs.
       '  Grosjean, 301, U.S. 412, 429. 430, 57 Sup. Ct.
          772, 779, 81 L.Ed. 1193, 112 A.L.R. 293), we have
          held that the controversy is not yet ripe for
          equitable intervention."  333 U.S. 434 68 Sup. Ct.
          646.      ;   .

     Plaintiffs apparently contend that these determinations were  '

required to be made by Environmental Protection Agency, prior to.

the making of its' initial grant offer to the City of Pittsburg on
                         t                                   •       i
May 19, 1971, with this contention being apparently based upon the '
             f                                                      "
enactme.nt of the,National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L

91-190 42 U.S.C. 4331 et  seq.), which became effective January 1,

1970, and the regulations which may have been promulgated there-

under.  Congress in enacting the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 expressly provided that the various governmental agencies

had until July 1, 1971,'to fully comply with the policies declared
                *                                            % i
by this Act.  This expression is found in 42 U.S.C. 4333 which  •
            '  '  -                                        "•    ••••••
reads as follows:
              *

          4     "All agencies of the federal government
          •shall review their present statutory authority,
          administrative  regulation, and current policies
          and procedures  for the purpose of determining
          •whether there are any deficiencies or inconsist-
          encies therein  wnich prohibit full compliance
          with the purposes and provisions of this chapter
          and sh&'li propose to the President not later that:
          July 1, 1971, such measures  as may be necessary
          to bring thier  authority and policies into
          conformity with the intent,  purposes, and proce-
          dures ^set forth in t>iis chapter."

-------
   Obviously, Congress realized  that  the*"broad  policy set forth in the

   National Environmental  Policy Act  of 1969" could not. be Implemented
                          *             • ;             "
   overnight and that the  various government  agencies involved should

   have  time to implement  and  change  their procedures to reflect such
                         »     i                                       - -
   policies.  Consequently, under the terms of  the National Environ-
                          * i                                         <  -
   mental  Policy Act of  1969,  as quoted above,  agencies were free to

   process pending business under the same policies and procedures

   that  they had theretofore operated under until  at least July 1,

   1971.   Therefore, it  is obvious that the environmental determinations,

  'were  not required to  be made  prior to the  grant offer May 19, ,1971,
 t                        i                                            \ •  -~
   and in  the case of the  City of Plttsburg if  necessary at all need

   only  be made prior to actual  funding of the  grant which is many
         *     '                                                • ' *    '
   months  and conditions away.          '                              ,!]

        2. Defendant is of the  opinion that  the facts set out in this

   memorandum show that  a  grant  In the amount of $285,000 (approxi—
'.            •                              *~                  • •
   mately) and  the resulting impact does' not  significantly affect the

   quality of the human  environment,  as contemplated by the National
                              1                                       ''
  'Environmental Policy  Act, 42  U. S.C. §1331  et. seq.,  and therefore"

   reliance by-plaintiffs  on the Act  is inapplicable to the present  '•
                                                                     v ••  .'
   situation.   Pennsylvania Environmental  Council, Inc. v. Bartlett,  "  !

 ..  315 P.Supp.  238  (D.C..M.D.'pa. 1970), appeal filed;  Sierra Club v.
                              i   t                                t

   Hardln  (Tongas's Forest). 2  ERC 1385 (D.C.  Alaska, 1971).    -   '•  ''•
                                                                     'i
        3. In'  the alternative,  the facts  set out  in this memorandum

   show  that where' the Environmental  Protection Agency's actions have-

   been  in.substantial compliance with the policies underlying NEPA
 t'        ^               *                     '    •
   and  its Implementing  regulation, an injunction  should not be'

   issued'." Daly y-.-Volpe. '2 ERC 15C6 '(D.C. W.D. Wash., 1971); Sierra
         '                                     '    ' " .         '
   Club  v.. Hard in  (Tongass Forest), supra.             .    "  '"<;'•' •  ,

-------
 the repaired improvement of an existing facility; that tho action of the Texas

:            ', ;                                i
\Water Quality Board thus approved the location of a new sewage treatment
facility in tho midst of a residential area oa F. M.  2254 Eaaf of the City
                                              !              •
i              '                                I
;-of Pittsburg;~Cam p County,~Tej3i3T~Th r-plaintiffs-wouldT; how~that-tho -loc ation

              I                                <
.-of the new sewage treatment facility should have been decided by the City of
!                                              '

pPittsburg, but that Difact^the City of PittsburgUnlavTfully^delegated the

£--     -    ;'
•responsibility of choosing the sites of the proposed new facilities fo the        '
                                                                            I

• engineering firm hired by the City to plan tho proposed facility,  and all without


' notice to the landowners In the immediate area, nor the homeowners In the


'immediate area; that the  landownars arcl homeowners in the area have never


been provided a proper opportunity to bs heard on this matter.   Plaintiffs


"would further chow tint thoy have formally mot v/ith the City Council of the


'City of Pittsburg and protested the location and were advised recently that the


',City of Pittcburg would stand by the location chosen by its engineers, and


would not move the location to an nllermte site.


'.':      •          Plaintiffs would further show that several of them own


homes  located adjacent to Dry Creek, down stream from the proposed naw


'sewage treatment facility; that the proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment


Plant will bo an oxidation ditch type of plant, End will b2 located in a shallow


basin which flood3 to highway level at lease onco a year; that several of theco


plaintiffs have shallow wells in the immediate area of Dry Crook down stream


from the  proposed plant that may ba polluted be effluent from the sewrge


treatment plant; that the effluent from the proposed treatment plant will clls-

•                             i
charge into Dry Creek and pr.cs through the property and homes  of the


plaintiffs; that several of these plaintiffci have yorag children,  and  stock and


animals,  all of which will bo directly affected by tho  quality of the water in


Dry Creek posing by and through their homos and lots; and that there is an


Immediate clangor of tho water eupply  cyctem of sevcrnl of thaso plnintiO,


•to-wlt, E. J. Clav/con and Mr.rvin Matthews", bslng polluted and inundated


by effluent from tho proponed sewage pb.nt.  Plaintiffo v/ould further sho\/ that


b/ rencon of ths proi osod locriUc'i of  tho Dry Creek S^v/ngo Trer.tmcnl T'lij-t^


tiicro v.-ill I i cr-uacd to coHoc-t iu Uic f.k-ca p, grer.t riL,'.!id'\r.ce of

-------
 flies, mosquitoes, and other air-borne and land-born insects, that Otherwise
 ,              1
 do not eslst in said area,  that carry disease and infection, and that the
               I
 location of the proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant would bs

 directly adverae-to the health and welfare of those plaintiffs,-thsir-children,—

families, and c ther stock in the area.

rr~—	.	The plaintiffs would further chow ttat^he Environmental
                    i     i
'Protection Agency and the Department ol Commerce,  through the Economic
                    r                                       >
-Development-Administration has given, perfunctory JipprovaLol-the_£ite:,_witb-__
t

 out investigation,, and that the  City of Pittsburg Ins chosen the proposed site of

 the Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Pl?,nt vithout consultation v/ith the homeowner

,in the area, without notice to them, without providing them with an adequate
i
 hearing, and without instituting condemnation proceedings against these

plaintiffs,  In this connection,  plaintiffs would show that the location of the
*  •
.proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant would have a direct and adverse

 effect on the economic  value of their homes and land ia the Immediate area of

 the proposed cite,  and hereby  alleged that the value of their homes and

property would decrease by a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 100% by

 reason of tho proposed location; that the plaintiffs have heretofore met v/ith

the Tesis Water 'Quality Board and with the agents of the City of Plttsborg  '

'und have designated to them an alternate sito down ctream from tha homos  '

and present proposed oite  which would be far leas Injurious to the health,

welf.-u.-e and property of the.^e plaintiffs, and of all other Iroid  owners

and prospective land homeowners similarly situatad in the surea, but that

 the City of Plttsburg has continually refused and dscistod from using such

 proposed alternate sito even though it is available for such use; and thit the;

 City of PHtcburg has arbitrarily and v/ilfally refused to relocate tha silo, fill

 to the detriment of theso pbiuti'fo.

            .  •  Plaintiffs r/ould chow by reason of all tho above and

foregoing,  that tho proposed oito of tho now Dry Creek Sown go Treatment

-------
                                 F  ! !_  El D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT «<•> T'""-'«>URI
                                         ICI Of ILJ>.5
                           CIVIL' ACTIOM NO. 1549
            *  FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS  S&P291971

                       MARSHALL DIVISION

MARVIN L. MATTHEWS, H. R.
SEALE, R. L. SEALE, ALTON
RAPE, E. J. CLAUS01I, Indi-
vidually and on behalf of
others similarly situated

vs.
WILLIAM A. RICKELHAUS,
Adninistrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, JlAURICE H.
STAIIS, Secretary, Department
of Commerce of the United
States of American, an,d THE'
CITY OF PITTSBURG, Camp County,
Texas.

                           ORDER

          On this the 9th day of September, 1971, case on'to be

heard the Plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction,

and cane the Plaintiffs in person and with thsir attorney of

record, and cans the Defendants and their attorneys of record,

and the Court having heard the pleadings and proof submitted in

connection therewith, and being of the opinion that the prelim-

inary injunction should not at this tiiae issue;

          It is accordingly ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the

Court that the Plaintiffs' application for preliminary injunction

be and the same is hereby denied; that this Court will retain

jurisdiction 01 this matter to enable it to consider whether or

not, on an application or Plaintiffs cade immediately prior to

the construction of the sewer treatment facility, relief is

appropriate, or desirable, or required within the jurisdiction

and power of this Court under any appropriate federal statutes;

that the Defendant The City of Pittsburg,  Texas,  shall notify

the attorney for the Plaintiffs at least ten days prior to the

commencement of construction that they will construct such sewer

treatment facility,  and that all the Defendants will furnish

to the attorney for the Plaintiffs any pertinent  developments

-------

-------
regarding environmental orders and work in  connection therewith.
          Costs of this hearing are taxed against the Plaintiffs.
          ENTERED this  the  1 '/^ day of <^/>T <* -£-S , 1971.
                               '  "-'       ?,/  #.

-------

-------
           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

            FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP TEXAS

                   MARSHALL DIVISION
MARVIN L. HAT-THEWS, ET AL, *
                «

V.                         *     CIVIL NO. 1549

WILLIAM A. RUCK3LSHAUS,    *                 -/-
              KOglOM FOR EXTENSION OF

       COZffiS NOW William Ruckelshaus, defendant, by his

attorneys, and respectfully moves the court for an
                              t
extension of time to and including December _7, 1971,

within which to file its answer herein, for the reason

that defendant ' s attorneys have not received the in-

vestigative report from the Environmental Protection

Agency and has no information with whibh to formulate

the defendant's answer.
                                               i
       WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant prays

for an extension of time as set out hereinabove to file

its answer or otherwise plead.
                           ROSY KADDEN
                           UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
                           C. HOUSTON A13SL
                           ASSISTANT U. S. ATTORKCY

-------

-------
                CERTIFICATE OF  SERVICK

       I hereby ceitify that -1 have mailed a copy of
the foregoing motion to fir. Wayne v.  u.  Smith and to
Mr. ,/. c. Hancock this 8th day  of October,  1971.
                           C. HOUSTON AE3L

-------

WPC-TEX-722 1972
                                  FINAL

                     ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT

                                    FOR

                  CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER  FACILITIES

                           PITTSBURG, TEXAS
                             WPC-Tex-722

                     IMPACT STATEMENT NUMBER  7102
                               PREPARED BY
               AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS DIVISION,  REGION  VI
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              DALLAS, TEXAS
                                            APPROVED  BY:
                                            Arthur W.  Busch
                                            Regional Administrator

-------

-------
I vc-~"r-:\-7:r
        Page
           i
          ii
         iii
          IV
           v
                        Table of Contents

   Summary
     Description of Proposed Action
     Environmental Effects of Proposed Action
     Alternatives
     Reviewing Agencies
     Draft and Final Statement Release Dates

   I.  Project Description
       A.  Introduction
       B.  Proposed Project

  II.  Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
       A.  Sparks Branch                                       7
       B.  Dry Creek                                           8
       C.  Effects on Receiving Waters                        14
       D.  Effect on Lake O1 the Pines                        17
       E.  Effects of the Proposed Interceptors               18

 III.  Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided  18

  IV.  Alternatives Considered                                21

   V.  Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's    25
       Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
       Long-term Productivity

  VI.  Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of          26
       Resources Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed
       Action Should It Be Implemented

 VII.  A Discussion of Problems and Objections Raised by      26
       Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Individuals in
       the Review Process

VIII.  Conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency     79

   Exhibits

   Bibliography

   Appendix A - Costs of Alternatives

   Appendix B - Legal Briefs

-------

-------
                     List of Exhibits
Exhibit No.                Title                    Page
    1          Location Map                          80
    2          Population Forecast                   81
    3          Project Map                           82
    4          Design Data                           83
    5          Map of Sewer System                   84
    6          Cypress Creek Field Report            85
    6A         Water Quality Requirements            86
    7          Cypress Creek USGS Flow Data          87
    8          Sparks Branch Effluent Data           88
    9          TWQB Hearing Commission Report        89
   10          Applicant's Assessment and           103
                 Health Department Approval
   11          Hearing Synopsis                     109

-------

-------
                          SUMMARY

         ( )   Draft Environmental Impact Statement
         (X)   Final Environmental Impact Statement

              Environmental Protection Agency
         Region VI, Air and Water Programs Division
                       Dallas, Texas

1.  Name of Action

    Administrative Action  (X)
    Legislative Action     ( )

2.  The proposed action consists of federal grant assistance

    as authorized by Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution

    Control Act.  The City of Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas

    has applied for federal funds to aid in upgrading its

    existing wastewater treatment plant on Sparks Branch,

    constructing a second treatment plant on Dry Creek,  and

    constructing interceptors to serve the new Dry Creek

    facility.


    The existing Sparks Branch facility employs an Imhoff tank

    and a fixed nozzle trickling filter.  These units are pres-

    ently receiving more waste material than they can effec-

    tively treat and the result is an effluent that is high

    in organic wastes, nutrients, and suspended solids.


    Residents in the Dry Creek watershed employ individual

    septic tanks and pit privies which discharge wastes  to

    the creek by direct flow, seepage, or run-off.  The  dis-

    charge of inadequately treated wastes to the creek rep-

    resents a potentially serious public health hazard and

    is aesthetically objectionable.

-------
    Sparks  Branch joins  Dry Creek approximately 3  miles east



    of  Pittsburg,  and the combined wastes  from the two drain-



    age basins  are carried to Cypress  Creek and Lake O1 the



    Pines.   These combined wastes are  contributing to the



    degradation of water quality in Cypress Creek  and the



    eutrophication of Lake 0" the Pines, which is  a prime



    recreational area in addition to supplying potable water



    to  area communities  and industries.






    The City proposes to upgrade and expand its Sparks Branch



    Treatment Plant (3500 PE present-4500  PE design)  and construct



    a new 2000  PE Dry Creek Treatment  Plant.  Both plants would be



    designed to produce  an effluent meeting the required 20 mg/1



    BOD (biochemical oxygen demand)  standard.   Implementation  of



    this plan is expected to improve water quality in the receiv-



    ing streams and reduce the volume  of raw and partially treated



    sewage  reaching Dry  Creek.





    The immediate effects of the proposed  project  - the elimination



    of  potential health  hazards, pollution abatement, land-use



    changes - will be limited to Pittsburg and Camp County, while



    the long-term effects - improved water quality, reduced lake



    eutrophication - will benefit Morris and Marion Counties and



    all other counties and cities relying  on Lake  O1  the Pines for



    potable water or recreational activities.   Reduced eutrophica-



    tion will result if  this project is  incorporated in a compre-



    hensive water management program for this area.



3.   The result  of the proposed project will be improvement of  water



    quality in  Sparks Branch and Dry Creek; therefore, water




    quality in  Cypress Creek and Lake  0" the Pines will





                               ii

-------
also be improved.  This improved water quality means less



nutrients will be reaching the lake and the potential for



accelerated eutrophication will be reduced.  In addition,



the potential health threat posed by raw or poorly treated



sewage reaching these streams will also be reduced.





Adverse effects will be primarily limited to land-use



changes in the area of the proposed Dry Creek Treatment



Plant.  The selection of a site for the facilities approxi-



mately 1/4 mile from the nearest residential dwelling has



resulted in objections to the plant from area residents.



These objections include land devaluation, water pollution,



odors, insect propogation, and retarded area development



due to the proximity of the plant.



Alternatives:



a.  No action - The City could elect to abandon the pro-



    ject and leave the environmental setting in its present



    condition.



b.  Construct a single treatment plant at the confluence



    of Dry Creek and Sparks Branch and abandon the exist-



    ing facility.






    This alternative is presently beyond the City's finan-



    cial capabilities.  To achieve an immediate solution



    to its pollution problems, the City adopted its present



    course of action as a less costly interim solution pend-



    ing construction of a central facility at the confluence



    of the two streams at a future date.  The length of






                        iii

-------
        this interim period is dependent upon the rate of



        residential  and industrial development,  effective-




        ness of the  proposed treatment plants,  and the growth




        and stability of the City's economy.   Therefore,  no




        accurate estimate of the  interim period is possible.




    c.   Construct a  temporary treatment plant on Dry Creek




        and make minimum improvements to the  Sparks Branch




        facility.




    d.   Construct a  new 2000 population equivalent plant  on



        Dry Creek 3/4 mile below  the proposed site and up-




        grade the Sparks Branch facility to meet present




        treatment standards.



    Further administrative action by the Environmental Pro-




    tection Agency has been deferred; the final selection of



    the most feasible alternative is contingent on thorough




    evaluation of both economic and ecological  aspects to




    assure that the  project concepts will minimize adverse




    effects on the human environment without  unduly burden-




    ing the citizens.




5.   The following agencies offered comments and suggestions




    after reviewing  the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.




    These Agencies will receive copies of the Final Environ-




    mental Impact Statement.
                            IV

-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES


Bureau of Outdoor Recreation           Denver Federal Center
                                       Building 41
                                       Denver, Colorado  80225

Environmental Development Agency       Hugh M. Farmer
                                       Chief, Technical Support Div.
                                       702 Colorado Street
                                       Austin, Texas  78701

Department of Army, Corps of Engr.     Northeast District
                                       P.O. Box 60267
                                       New Orleans, Louisiana 70176

Forest Service                         Region 3
                                       New Federal Building
                                       517 Gold Avenue
                                       Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101

Soil Conservation Service              P.O. Box 648
                                       Temple, Texas  76501

-------
STATE AGENCIES
State Department of Health
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.
Texas Water Quality Board
Texas Water Rights Commission
Texas Water Development Board
Texas Forest Service


Texas Highway Department

Department of Agriculture
1100 W. 49th Street
Austin, Texas  78701

John H. Reagan Bldg.
Austin, Texas  78701

P.O. Box 13246
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas  78711

722 Sam Houston Office Bldg.
Austin, Texas  78701

P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas  78711

c/o Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843

Atlanta, Texas  75551

P.O. Drawer B.B.
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas  78711

-------
INDIVIDUALS & LOCAL AGENCIES
Honorable D.H. Abernathy, Mayor
Jimmy D. Morris, City Manager
Northeast Texas Economic
  Development District
Northeast Texas Municipal Water
  District

Wisenbaker, Fix and Associates
W.C. Hancock, City Attorney
Homer Tanner, Manager
Mr. Houston Abel
Welby K. Parish



Herbert Seale


E.J. Clawson


Marvin Matthews


Wayne V.R. Smith
City of Pittsburg
P.O. Box 462
Pittsburg, Texas  75686

City of Pittsburg
P.O. Box 462
Pittsburg, Texas  75686

Executive Director
City Hall
P.O. Box 1967
Texarkana, Texas  75501
P.O. Box 680
Daingerfield, Texas
   75638
Consulting Engineers
14th & 15th Floors
Peoples National Bank Bldg,
Tyler, Texas  75701
P.O. Box 460
Pittsburg, Texas
                                                         75686
Northeast Texas Municipal
  Water District
P.O. Box 680
Daingerfield, Texas  75638

First U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney's Office
P.O. Box 1049
Tyler, Texas  75701

P.O. Box 457
218 Jefferson Street
Gilmore, Texas
Arch Davis Road
Pittsburg, Texas
75686
Arch Davis Road
Pittsburg, Texas  75686

Arch Davis Road
Pittsburg, Texas  75686

P.O. Box 457
218 Jefferson
Gilmer, Texas

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




    able to the Council on Environmental Quality on January 21,




    1972.  The Final Environmental Impact Statement was made




    available to the Council on Environmental Quality on




    May 30, 1972.

-------
              ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT






I.   Project Description



    A.   Introduction



        The City of Pittsburg,  the county seat of Camp County,



    is  located in the northeastern part of Texas (Exhibit No.



    1).   The City is presently undergoing a period of indus-



    trialization as manufacturing and industrial concerns



    move into the area.  As the economy of the area shifts



    from agricultural to industrial,  the population growth



    pattern of the City is changing.   The remainder of Camp



    County, which remains primarily agricultural, has experi-



    enced a general decrease in population while Pittsburg"s



    population has steadily increased since the turn of the



    century (Exhibit No. 2).



        In order to stimulate industrial growth and population



    expansion, the City of Pittsburg  joined six other area



    cities to form the Northeast Texas Municipal Water Dis-



    trict.  In conjunction with the Corps of Engineers, this



    Water District sponsored the construction of Terrell's



    Bridge Dam on Big Cypress Creek near Jefferson in Marion



    County.  The impoundment is known as Lake O1 the Pines



    and  covers approximately 20,000 acres.  The upper reaches



    of  the lake are approximately 15  stream miles from the



    proposed treatment plants in Pittsburg (Exhibit No. 3).



    In  addition to being a source of  water for industrial



    and  municipal uses, the lake and  vicinity has become



    a popular recreational

-------
area.  To protect it's investment in the lake, the City




of Pittsburg must reduce the amount of its wastes reach-




ing the lake in order to avoid degradation of the lake




through accelerated eutrophication.




    The present Sparks Branch plant was constructed in the




mid 1930s to treat the wastes produced by the 2,700 resi-




dents of the City.  The plant utilizes an Imhoff tank for




primary treatnent and sludge digestion and a trickling




filter for secondary, biological treatment.  In recent




years, contributing flows have increased and the wastes




have become more concentrated.  This has resulted in a




hydraulically overloaded plant, inadquate treatment (Exhibit




No. 4) and pollution of the receiving stream.  In addition,




development south of the City, in an area drained by Dry



Creek, has resulted in the pollution of the creek by septic




tank seepage, direct waste discharges, and surface run-off.




These combined wastes are degrading water quality in Cypress




Creek and adding nutrients to Lake O1 the Pines which may




adversely stimulate lake eutrophication.




    The discharge of raw or partially treated sewage to




Dry Creek represents a potentially serious threat to the




health of downstream residents.  During periods of low




flow this sewage may pool and become septic, resulting in




an odor nuisance as well as being aesthetically objection-



able.  Field investigations have reported sewage flowing




in roadside ditches and natural waterways.

-------
        In order to meet the demands of anticipated develop-



    ment,  to eliminate existing and potential pollution and



    health problems, and to protect the water quality of Lake



    0'  the Pines, the City of Pittsburg authorized their Con-



    sulting Engineers, Wisenbaker, Fix, and Associates, to



    plan and design a wastewater system to meet these goals.



B.  Proposed Project



    The City's plan for upgrading the Sparks Branch plant



    includes:



    1.   Addition of screens at the head end of the plant to



        remove large solids that could damage plant machinery



        and upset treatment.



    2.   Addition of a flow meter to aid in properly controlling



        all phases of processing.



    3.   Addition of a grit removal system to remove inorganic



        solids that might otherwise build up in the treatment



        units.



    4.   Construction of a laboratory/office building.



    5.   Convert the Imhoff tank to a primary clarifier and



        add sludge pumps to transport the settled solids to



        a  new, separate sludge digester.



    6.   Equip the trickling filter with a rotating manifold to



        permit control of treatment rate.



    7.   Add recirculation facilities to achieve a filter



        recirculation ratio of 1 : 1.



    8.   Construct a final clarifier to collect sloughing



        humus from the trickling filter.

-------
 9.  Add a chlorinator for disinfection of the effluent.



10.  Construct additional sludge drying beds with under-



     drains to collect and transport filtrate to plant



     inlet.



     The trickling filter process involves removal of settle-



 able organic solids in the converted Imhoff tank.  The



 solids will be pumped to an anaerobic digester where the



 wastes will be stabilized prior to dewatering on sand



 drying beds.  The f., Itrate from these beds will be returned



 to the plant inlet for treatment, while the dried sludge will



 be removed and used as sanitary fill.  Liquid effluent from



 the Imhoff tank will be aerobically treated in the trickling



 filter.  The liquid will be sprayed on a slime covered gravel



 filter bed where the microorganisms present in the slime will



 consume some of the organic wastes as part of cellular respira-



 tion.  Liquid effluent and sloughed slime fragments will be



 transported to the final clarifier where they will be separated.



 A portion of the liquid will be returned to the trickling filter



 for additional treatment.  The clarified effluent will be dis-



 infected by chlorination before discharge to Sparks Branch.



     The modified plant will be designed for 4,500 population



 equivalent  (PE) based on 100 gallons/capita/day.  The facili-



 ties will discharge an effluent that is expected to meet the



 Texas Water Quality Board's 20 mg/1 BOD and 20 mg/1 total sus-



 pended solids  (TSS) standards.

-------
    The Dry Creek plant will include the following units:



1.  Pump station to lift wastes from the interceptor to



    ground level.



2.  Screens and grit removal units.



3.  Oxidation ditch for sewage aeration and initial stabi-



    lization of wastes.



4.  Two stabilization ponds operated in series to achieve



    maximum retention period.



    These facilities will be designed for 2,000 PE at design



capacity; however, initial service will be to approximately



195 people now living in the sewerable portion of the water-



shed.  This low initial flow will result in retention periods



well in excess of the design periods of 1 day for the ditch



and 21 days for the ponds.  Extended retention periods will



permit maximum natural stabilization of the wastes.



    The entire Dry Creek facility will employ aerobic sta-



bilization.  The oxidation ditch will aerate the sewage



with a brush aerator to produce an acceptable environment



for aerobic heterotrophic organisms which will stabilize



the wastes as part of cellular respiration.  This aerobic



environment will be maintained in the ponds by natural



surface aeration and photosynthesis.  Respiration of the



photosynthetic autotrophs (algae) and the heterotrophic



organisms will effectively reduce the BOD concentration



to meet the 20 mg/1 standard requred by the Texas Water



Quality Board.  The 20 mg/1 TSS standard is not applied

-------
to pond effluents since the presence of beneficial algal




cells in the water creates a high TSS level that would




erroneously indicate a need for additional treatment.




    The proposed outfall sewers will consist of approxi-




mately 2370 linear feet of 10" gravity sewer and approxi-




mately 10,090 linear feet of 8" gravity sewer.  All lines




are designed to carry the maximum flow which is expected




when the drainage area served is completely developed.




    The location of the plants and proposed interceptor




lines is shown in Exhibit No. 5.

-------
II.  Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action



     A.  Sparks Branch



         The principal effect of the proposed modifications of



     the Sparks Branch Treatment Plant will be the immediate



     improvement of water quality in Sparks Branch.  The up-



     graded facility will reduce the present discharge of 98



     Ibs/day of BOD5 by 42 percent to 56.7 Ibs/day (Exhibit No.



     4).  The plant is expected to discharge 75 Ibs/day BOD^



     (77 percent of present loading)  at design capacity based



     on present waste strength.  This reduction in organic



     loading will reduce the possibility of septic conditions



     developing in the receiving stream by reducing the oxygen



     demand caused by the present high loadings.



         Trickling filter treatment facilities, such as the one



     proposed for Pittsburg, have historically been odor free



     plants.  Recirculation capabilities, process control,



     chlorination facilities, and a separate sludge digester



     will significantly reduce the possibility of septic or



     putrid odors emanating from the plant.



         Methane produced by the anaerobic digestion of sludge



     will be collected and burned with no noticeable odors.



     No particulate residues are expected from the proposed gas



     flare so no air pollution problems should result.  No



     violations of federal or state air quality standards are



     expected.



         Since the plant was constructed in the 1930s, no changes



     in land use are expected in the area immediately surrounding

-------
the plant site.  The additions to the collection system



(not an eligible part of this project) will stimulate land



development and population growth in the area of the expanded



system and increase the flow to the treatment plant.  No



adverse effects to land use or population growth are



expected from the expanded system.



    Noise and traffic disruption during construction will



adversely affect the area.  These nuisances will be of



short duration and will produce no lasting effects.



B.  Dry Creek



    The Dry Creek Treatment Plant will improve water quality



in the stream by collecting and treating almost all of the



wastes presently being treated by individual septic tanks



and pit privies.  No measurement of the amount or strength



of sewage reaching the creek has ever been made; however,



field inspections of the area have reported pools and streams



of sewage in roadside ditches.



    Texas Water Rights Commission Bulletin 6517, Ground Water



Resources of_ Camp, Franklin, Morris and Titus Counties,



Texas, estimated a minimum rate of ground water recharge as



12,000 acre-feet per year.  Approximately 1100 acre-feet of



this recharge actually reaches the lower levels of Cypress



Aquifer; the remaining 10,900 acre-feet is discharged to



streams, ponds and reservoirs.  In the Dry Creek watershed,



this ground water flow transports partially treated wastes



from existing septic tanks to the creek.  That portion of

-------
the wastes that is transported through the soil more than



100 feet does not present a serious pollution problem.



However, effluent seepage and overflow from septic tanks



that becomes surface water after flowing only a short dis-



tance underground, will be carried as overland flow to



the nearest water course and eventually to Dry Creek.  In



this manner, overloaded or poorly operating septic tanks



are prime sources of pollution.



    Based on the proposed initial service to 198 persons,



the average daily BOD^ discharge to the creek should be



less than 3.3 Ibs/day.  Design flow, expected in the year



2000, will be approximately 33 Ibs/day of BOD  based on



present plant loading rates.



    The collection system will serve only those drainage



areas that can be served by gravity flow.  Excluded are



those homes downstream of the proposed plant.  A pump/force



main system to serve these homes would be an irretrievable



investment because the future construction of a central



plant at the confluence of the two receiving streams would



make gravity service available to the small number of resi-



dences in this presently unsewerable area.



    Aerobic stabilization will be used throughout the treat-



ment plant so no odors common to anaerobic decomposition



should be produced.  The minimum one day retention period



of oxidation ditch should permit ample time to rectify



breakdowns or power failures affecting the brush aerators



or pumps before significant adverse effects result.  Facili-



ties to store excess flow due to heavy rains or power failures

-------
will be included at the plant site.  These facilities



will permit treatment of the wastes when the overflow



condition ends, thus precluding the possibility of raw



sewage bypassing the plant and being discharged directly



into the stream.



    As in the Sparks Branch basin, the proposed Dry Creek



collection system and interceptors will stimulate land



development by eliminating existing septic tank systems



and the problems associated with them.  This will aid in



creating a healthier environment for the present residents



and a more conducive setting for prospective homeowners,



thus generating residential development and population



growth.



    The immediate effect of the treatment plant on adjacent



area land use will be adverse.  The presence of such facili-



ties has historically been objectionable to residents and



landowners.  However, with normal plant operation, no



odor, noise, or insect nuisances, or water pollution is



expected.  Proper landscaping will restrict the view of



the plant from nearby residences (600 to 1700 ft)  and FM



Hignway No. 2254 which passes near the plant site.  While



these factors of operation and landscaping  will not negate



the aesthetic restrictions placed on development,  they



should minimize the adverse effects on existing land values



and land use.  In addition, the interim nature of the Dry



Creek facility indicates a future reversal of all adverse



effects when the plant is closed and dismantled.  Removal



of the plant will stimulate development in the area adjacent





                        10

-------
to the intersection of Dry Creek and Highway 2254 since




sewer service by gravity flow would become available to



the entire Dry Creek watershed.



    The proposed Dry Creek Treatment Plant will be constructed



on the Dry Creek flood plain and will therefore be subject



to potentially damaging floods.  Calculations using data



from an area stream gaging station indicate that the 100



year flood stage in the plant site area is approximately



310 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL).  Based on these calculations



the plant's facilities will be protected by levees built



to a height of 311 feet MSL.  In the event that flood waters



exceed the 311 feet MSL stage, wastewater which has under-



gone varying degrees of treatment, will encroach the flood



plain.  However, the large volume of flood water will



dilute possible pollutants to concentrations that are not



likely to create health hazards or residual pollution.



    During floods that do not cause overtopping of the



levees, flood waters will not cause problems that will



reduce the usual degree of treatment, or effect operation.



    Selection of a plant site in a flood plain is subject to



criticism.  However, such sites usually permit the maximum



use of gravity sewers and thus eliminate or reduce the need



for costly pumping facilities.  Proper protection of the



plant against flood damage will minimize the potential



danger of pollution during severe floods.



    Field reports indicate the presence of at least two



water wells penetrating the Dry Creek alluvium downstream






                        11

-------
of the proposed plant.  These are reportedly shallow wells



supplying domestic and livestock needs and are located




300 feet from the stream.




    Hydrologic and geologic data indicate that stream flow




in Dry Creek is made up primarily of discharged ground




waterJ  91 percent of the estimated 12,000 acre-feet of




aquifer recharge is discharged to surface streams annually.



This ground water is a function of aquifer recharge due to




rainfall experienced in the area (minimum average rainfall




- 2.5 inches in August, maximum average rainfall - 5.4




inches in May).  Under normal conditions ground water will




flow toward Dry Creek and well infiltration by stream water




should not occur.  Some direct percolation of stream water




into the soil will occur but will be limited to an inter-




face of several feet.



    Well infiltration by stream flow may result if:




    a.  The well is used to pump large volumes of water at




        a steady rate, thus drastically depressing the




        piezometric surface.




    b.  Drought conditions lower the water table.




    c.  Flood waters result in surface water pressure exceed-




        ing ground water pressure to allow intrusion of sur-




        face water into the well.




The possibilities listed above will produce a lower water




level in the well than in the stream which will cause water



to infiltrate in the direction of the wells.
                        12

-------
    Well infiltration by stream water carrying treated



sewage plant effluent does not necessarily mean the well



will be contaminated.  Bacterial contamination of the



well will be restricted by four factors.



    1.  Filtering



    2.  Sorption



    3.  Attenuation



    4.  Chemical environment of the ground water



1.  The benthic and sedimentary layer of the stream bottom



    will have a filtering effect on the bacteria, trapping



    most before they can enter the soil.



2.  Bacteria not trapped by filtration will have a tendency



    to become attached to soil particles by the process of



    sorption.



3.  Bacterial attenuation (loss of potency) occurs with time



    and the slow passage through the soil will have a decay-



    ing effect on bacteria.



4.  Chemical studies indicate that shallow ground water in



    this area has an acidic pH of 4.5 to 6.5.  This acid



    environment will destroy most bacteria.



    Studies of bacterial infiltration have concluded that



most pathogenic organisms will not survive travel over 100



feet through most soils.  Considering the four factors listed



above, this distance does not seem unreasonable for this area.



    In the event floods cover the well's physical surface



structure, well contamination by direct seepage may result.



This seepage will occur primarily in poorly or improperly






                        13

-------
constructed and operated wells.  Should such seepage occur,




the well should be disinfected before it is placed back in




operation.  This should be done regardless of whether the




stream is carrying plant effluent.




    No noise nuisances will emanate from the plant since




the contract specifications will require that all primary




noise producers (motors and pumps) be muffled.




    Proper maintenance of the plant will eliminate any




potential insect problems.  Vigorous mechanical agitation




of the oxidation ditch by the brush aerators will make




insect propagation impossible.  Natural turbulence of wind




action will make the ponds unfit for floating insect larvae.




Insect problems arise when weeds are allowed to grow in the



ponds and the effects of wind action are reduced.  This can




be avoided if maintenance includes weed control.




C.  Effects on Receiving Waters.



    No precise statement on the effects of the plant effluents




is possible since no detailed physical, chemical, or hydraulic



data has been collected on the streams.




    Only two valid statements are justified based on observed




information:



    1.  The proposed Sparks Branch Plant modifications will




        improve water quality in Sparks Branch by reducing




        the BOD loading.




    2.  The potential health hazards associated with exist-




        ing treatment systems on Dry Creek will be reduced




        by constructing the Dry Creek Treatment Plant.






                        14

-------
    Dry Creek, above its confluence with Sparks Branch, is




presently designated an intermittent stream.  Implementa-




tion of the proposed plan would generate a perennial flow




condition which would reduce the possibility of pooling




and septicity in the creek bed by maintaining flow and mix-




ing action.  Since both streams are naturally intermittent



during at least part of each year, it is probable that flow




during such periods would consist entirely of plant effluent;




thus, stream quality would be the same as effluent quality.




    In order to estimate the effects on the receiving




streams, low stream flow conditions are evaluated since




maximum degradation generally occurs during this period.




The following facts considered in the evaluation are based




on research, observation, calculations from known data, or




assumption based on similar conditions in other streams.




    1.  Minimum Sparks Branch discharge will be 340,000 gpd.




        and minimum Dry Creek discharge will be 20,000 gpd,




        assuming average flows from both treatment facili-




        ties.



    2.  Effluents will contain 20 mg/1 6005 and 20 mg/1 TSS.




    3.  Average slope is approximately 0.0014, ft/ft.




    4.  Aquatic plants and stream bed roughness will reduce




        flow velocity by increasing friction.




    5.  Stream depth will average less than 0.5 feet.




    6.  Average flow velocity will be less than 0.4 fps.
                        15

-------
    7.  Benthic oxygen demand will be minimal since floods




        or high flows will have a scouring effect on the




        stream bed for part of the year.  This will mini-




        mize benthic accumulations.




    Stream recovery under these conditions will be a function




of stream reaeration.  Turbulence, an important factor in




reaeration, will be limited by the low flow velocity.  However,




the aquatic plants, stream bed roughness, and shallow depth




should create enough turbulence to permit sufficient reaera-




tion to maintain aerobic conditions in the stream.




    In addition to mechanical reaeration, aquatic plants and




algae will add oxygen to the streams by photosynthesis.  A




238-day growing season, an annual average of 255 days of sun-




shine, and no extended seasonal periods of cloud cover will




result in maximum photosynthetic reaeration.




    Based on this information, reaeration should be adequate



to insure aerobic conditions in the stream.  These conditions




will make waste assimilation by autotrophic and heterotrophic




organisms possible and result in further reductions in the




stream's organic load.




    Without a detailed stream analysis, the extent of addi-




tional waste stabilization cannot be accurately estimated




so it will be assumed that the wastes will enter Big Cypress




Creek (5 miles below the plants)  with a BOD^ concentration




of 20 mg/1.  State water quality standards  (Exhibit No. 6)




limit the annual average BOD^ concentration in Cypress Creek




to less than 5 mg/1 under discernible flow conditions.  At




design capacity the plants will discharge 1.0 cfs of 20 mg/1




                           16

-------
         effluent.  Average flow in Cypress Creek is 356 cfs



    (Exhibit No. 7).   This flow would dilute the BOD5 concen-



    tration to less than 0.1 mg/1 which would represent a



    negligible increase in Cypress Creek loading.  Minimum



    monthly mean flow (4.5 cfs) in Cypress Creek occurs in



    August.  This would dilute the plant effluent to about



    4.4 mg/1 BOD5.  This additional load will probably result



    in a stream BOD^  concentration greater than 5 mg/1 but



    under such low flow conditions the water quality standards



    will probably not apply so no violations will occur.



        The discharges from the proposed plants will not effect



    an appreciable increase in flood stages below the plant.



    Exhibit No. 7 indicates that the combined design discharge



    of both plants (1.0 cfs) represents a very small part of



    the average monthly flows in Cypress Creek (18-750 cfs),
                                  f


    and the maximum recorded flood flow of 58,500 cfs measured



    on March 30, 1945.



D.  Effect on Lake 0' the Pines



        As in the case of the receiving streams,  no accurate



    estimate of the effect on Lake O"  the Pines is possible



    without a detailed,  long-term study of stream and lake water



    quality.  Research in the field of eutrophication indicates



    elevated concentrations of phosphorus and suspended solids



    are the prime factors in accelerating eutrophication.  Modi-



    fications to the  proposed Sparks Branch Plant and construction



    of the new Dry Creek Plant will reduce both concentrations.





                               17

-------
      "Without the detailed analysis required to identify all



      nutrient sources above Lake O1  the Pines, it is impossible



      to determine the contribution from Pittsburg's treatment



      facilities.  However, studies on similar watersheds indi-



      cate that even small contributions of phosphorus will have



      a stimulating effect on lake eutrophication.  Due to such



      findings, it is obvious that any improvement to the exist-



      ing facilities will have a retarding effect on the rapid



      aging of Lake 0' the Pines.



          If,  in the future, studies indicate that additional



      nutrient reductions are required, both facilities are



      amenable to advanced waste treatment modifications.  The



      construction of AWT units at both plants would bring about



      further reductions in phosphorus and TSS concentrations



      in the plants' effluents and further reduce the rate of



      eutrophication.



      E.  Effects of the Proposed Interceptors



          The proposed interceptors will be constructed through



      undeveloped land and the effects will be limited to temporary



      disruption of the ecology during construction.  These effects



      will be short term and reversible since the contract specifi-



      cations will require restoration of the construction area



      to the fullest practical extent.



III.   Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided



      Adverse effects will be limited to the following five areas:



      1.  Land-use changes



      2.  Disruption during construction





                              18

-------
    3.   Decrease in treatment quality at Sparks Branch




        Plant during trickling filter modifications




    4.   Sedimentation and siltation during construction




    5.   Effects of chlorination on the receiving streams.



1.  Land-uses will be unchanged or beneficially affected




    in all areas covered by the project except near the




    proposed Dry Creek treatment plant.  Residential develop-




    ment in this area will be retarded and land values may




    decrease slxghtly; however, proper plant operation,




    maintenance, and site landscaping should negate these




    initial land value losses.  A complete reversal of all




    adverse effects will occur when the Dry Creek plant is




    closed and dismantled.  Under these conditions, resi-




    dential land development will be stimulated by the presence




    of the interceptor server that will serve the entire Dry




    Creek drainage basin.




2.  Noise, dust, traffic disruption, and the other short-term



    nuisances common to construction will adversely affect the




    area.  These conditions will be kept to a minimum by the




    use of modern, efficient construction techniques.



3.  During construction it will be necessary to bypass all




    or part of the flow from the Imhoff tank (primary settling




    tank) around the trickling filter which the rotary mani-



    fold is installed.  After primary settling the wastes




    will be disinfected by chlorination before discharge




    to the stream.




        Effluent quality during this period will have a




                        19

-------
    high BOD concentration since no biological treatment
    will occur.  This condition may cause a temporary,
    reversible decrease in water quality but no health
    problems are anticipated due to pathogen destruction
    by chlorination.  Proper planning and modern construc-
    tion techniques will minimize the period of bypass in
    order to minimize the adverse effects of the effluent
    on Sparks Pranch.
        The long-term beneficial effects of the modernized
    plant justifies the decision to allow short-term stream
    degradation during filter modification.
4.   Sedimentation and siltation will probably occur since;
    a) both plant sites drain to local streams;
    b) both plants will require open excavation and soil
       stock piles, and
    c) the average precipitation per month exceeds 3 inches.
    Due to the limited quantity of soil expected to be
    washed into the streams, no special precautions against
    sedimentation and siltation will be taken except to
    minimize the construction period and plant grass on the
    sites as soon as possible.
        Bottom deposits of soil from the plant sites will be
    restricted to the areas immediately below the plants.
    This is due to the low flow velocities expected during
    non-flood periods.
        Floods occuring after construction will scour the
    stream bottom and carry the soil deposits downstream.
    This will result in more even distribution of the sedi-
    ments along the entire receiving stream system.
                        20

-------
     5.  High chlorine concentrations in the plant effluent may




         have an adverse effect on the receiving stream.  Lysing




         of algal cells and other beneficial organisms in the




         receiving streams will release their organic constituents




         to the stream and effect an increase in stream BOD and



         stream degradation.




             This is not expected to be a problem in Pittsburg




         since chlorination is a costly process and will warrant




         close monitoring.  Proper operation of chlorination




         units will minimize costs while maintaining acceptable




         residual chlorine concentrations which will not adversely




         affect the stream.




IV.   Alternatives Considered




     A.  No action.



         Adverse public opinion or lack of funds could force the




     City to abandon the project and leave the area environment



     in its present state of development.  This alternative would




     leave water quality in the stream unchanged and the present




     nutrient load reaching Lake O1  the Pines would remain the




     same.




         The rate of population growth can be expected to decrease




     due to the lack of proper sewage collection and treatment




     facilities; however, additional area development, even at a




     reduced rate, would increase waste loads to Sparks Branch




     and Dry Creek resulting in further degradation of both streams.




     An increase in stream loadings would make the potential health




     hazard in both streams more acute and the possibility of






                             21

-------
septic conditions developing in the streams would also



increase.  In addition, the nutrient load to Lake 0' the



Pines would also increase and lake eutrophication would



be accelerated.



    Since increased stream pollution, accelerated lake eutro-



phication, and an increase in potential health hazards are



undesirable conditions, this alternative should not be



selected.



B.  Construct a single treatment plant at the confluence of



Dry Creek and Sparks Branch and abandon the existing facility.



    This alternative would have several obvious advantages



over the proposed plan.



    1.  It would eliminate the objections from residents



        near the proposed Dry Creek site.



    2.  It would permit gravity sewer service to all residents



        living on Dry Creek above Sparks Branch.



    3.  The single plant would be a permanent structure



        employing modern treatment facilities amenable to



        expansion and advanced waste treatment.



    4.  Closer plant monitoring would be possible since the



        operator would have only one plant under his super-



        vision.  Under the proposed plan the operator would



        have to divide his time between two plants.



    These advantages indicate that this alternative would have



the most beneficial impact on the area by best improving stream



water quality.



    Two disadvantages to this alternative would also be obvious.






                        22

-------
    1.  Residents in the area of the confluence of the two



        streams would probably object to the plant.



    2.  This alternative would be considerably more expensive



        than the proposed plan due in part to the need for



        three lift stations on Dry Creek.



    The advantages of this alternative seem to greatly out-



weigh the disadvantages; however, the cost of this alternative



far exceeds the City's financial capabilities so that this



alternative must be rejected at this time.



    Aware of this plant's advantages, the City has elected



to designate its proposed plan, an interim solution to its



waste treatment problems.  At such time as it is deemed



financially practical, the City will build the central plant



and close the facilities on Dry Creek and Sparks Branch.



    The proposed central plant would further improve water



quality in the receiving streams and reduce nutrient con-



centrations.  (Assuming AWT units are included in the plant.)



Adverse effects would be limited to land use changes in the



area of the plant and a decrease in flow volume in Dry Creek



above Sparks Branch by an amount approximately equal to the



volume of flow collected by the Dry Creek interceptor.



C.  Construct a temporary plant on Dry Creek and make mini-



mum improvements to the Sparks Branch facility.



    The Dry Creek plant would be the same as the one proposed



but the improvements to Sparks Branch would be limited to new



sludge lines and drying beds.  This alternative would improve



water quality in Dry Creek but would have little or no effect



on the Sparks Branch effluent.



                        23

-------
    The City originally intended to implement this plan



but the Texas Water Quality Board rejected it and instructed



the City to include plans to upgrade the Sparks Branch Plant



to meet present treatment standards.



    Since Sparks Branch is the primary source of water pollu-



tion in the area, plans to modify the plant to improve plant



treatment adequacy and water quality are necessary conditions



of the selected alternatives.



D.  Construct a new 2,000 population equivalent plant on



Dry Creek 3/4 of a mile below the proposed site and upgrade



the Sparks Branch facility to meet present treatment stan-



dards.



    The facilities constructed under this alternative would



be the same as those presently proposed but would locate



the Dry Creek Plant 3/4 of a mile below the proposed site.



This alternative would eliminate the land-use problems



associated with the proposed site but would place the pro-



ject costs beyond the City's financial capabilities.



    While the resolution of the land-use problems would be



desirable, the prohibitive costs of this alternative require



its rejection.



    Appendix A summarizes the City's present financial situ-



ation and the costs of the three alternatives.  A detailed



breakdown of the alternatives estimated costs is given in



the Appendix.
                           24

-------
V.  Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's
    Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement, Long-
    term Productivity

        The proposed project will have the long-term effect

    of improving public health conditions along the route of

    the receiving streams and particularly in the Dry Creek

    watershed.  In addition, stream and lake productivity will

    be improved by reducing the nutrient load and establishing

    a perennial flow condition in the streams.  Future upgrad-

    ing of the proposed plants or construction of a modern

    central facility will further extend the period of enhanced

    productivity and help protect Lake 0' the Pines from the

    dangers of eutrophication.

        The overall effect of the project will be the enhancement

    of long-term productivity.  The new collection system should

    increase land values, accelerate land development, and

    increase population growth.  The short-term retardation of

    land development near the Dry Creek plant will be greatly

    outweighed by the long-term enhancement of the productivity

    of the area served by the wastewater treatment facilities.

        Since both facilities are expected to be in operation

    for several years, the costs will be shared by those who

    directly benefit from the plants' existence.
                              25

-------
 VI.   Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
      Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Action Should~Tt
      Be Implemented

          Most phases of the project appear to be reversible.

      The only permanent, above ground structure that probably

      will not be removed is the Dry Creek lift station located

      at the head end of the plant.  This pump station, and its

      emergency holding pond/ will be left in place as part of

      the collection system serving the proposed central plant.

      The presence of this facility should not adversely affect

      land-use.

          The treatment facilities would represent an irretriev-

      able commitment of resources since the construction materials

      would be unsalvageable.  In addition, the cost of construc-

      tion and some of the plants' land value would represent an

      irretrievable commitment of funds.

VII.   A Discussion of Problems and Objections Raised by Federal,
      State, and Local Agencies and Individuals in the Review
      Process

          Three public hearings were held on this project by the

      Texas Water Quality Board as follows:

                 Date                       Location

          September 16, 1970            Austin, Texas

          September 28, 1970            Pittsburg, Texas

          March 26, 1971                Austin, Texas

      The Hearing Commission Report for the September 28, 1970,

      hearing states that landowners residing in the vicinity

      of the Dry Creek plant site appeared in opposition and

      gave the following objections:
                              26

-------
    a.  Land values in the area and along FM 2254 will



        decrease if the plant is constructed at the pro-



        posed site.



    b.  The Dry Creek plant will be subject to flash  flood-



        ing thus raising the possibility that raw sewage



        could be washed into the creek.



    c.  Several shallow water wells located adjacent  to Dry



        Creek may become contaminated if any discharge is



        allowed.



    d.  The proximity of the plant to several homes gives



        rise to public health dangers.



The Hearing Commission Report (See Exhibit No. 9) also



recommended that the waste control order be issued and noted



that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department offered  no



objection to the site and that the Texas Department of



Health found the site to be acceptable.



    In the absence of sufficient testimony to substantiate



the landowners claims the Texas Water Quality Board issued



an Amendment to Waste Control Order No. 10,250 on March 26,



1971.  This order authorized the discharge of treated



domestic sewage from the existing Sparks Branch plant and



the proposed Dry Creek plant.



    An environmental assessment was submitted to the  Environ-



mental Protection Agency on December 29, 1970.  After review-



ing this assessment, this Agency requested a more detailed



assessment which was received April 13, 1971.  The detailed






                        27

-------
assessment (See Exhibit No. 10) was reviewed by the East



Texas Council of Governments on March 29, 1971, and sub-



sequently by the TWQB — both agencies concurred that no



adverse environmental impact is probable.  On May 12, 1971,



the environmental assessment was approved and EPA reviews



of the application were completed.  An offer for P.L. 660



grant of $137,570.00 was made to the City of Pittsburg on



May 19, 1971.  The offer was accepted by the City on June 7,



1971.



    On April 27, 1971, the opponents filed suit in the 53rd



District Court of Travis County, Texas (Action No. 188,530)



asking that the Texas Water Quality Board be enjoined from



issuing the waste control order.  This suit was not filed



within the 30 day time limit required by the court.  This



case had not been acted on by the court at the time of this



writing.  August 3, 1971, the opponents filed suit in the



U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to



enjoin the EPA, EDA, and the City of Pittsburg from pro-



ceeding with the proposed Dry Creek Plant.



    On September 9, 1971, a hearing was held in Marshall,



Texas, before Judge William Steger, in the cause of Matthews,



et al, vs. Ruckelshaus, et al.  On the motion of the attorney



for Ruckelshaus, the hearing was confined to the plaintiffs



motion for temporary injunction.



    The plaintiffs presented oral testimony only, alleging



that the location of the treatment facilities was undesir-



able, a possible health hazard, a nuisance, and would impair





                        28

-------
land-use.  No concrete evidence or expert testimony was



presented.  The plaintiff failed to show cause that the



Environmental Protection Agency had failed to comply with



applicable laws and regulations.



    The Court denied temporary injunction, but retained



jurisdiction of suit and allowed the plaintiff prerogative



to file suit at a date approximately two weeks prior to



construction of the treatment plant should the plaintiffs



still desire a hearing on merits for consideration of a



permanent injunction.



    On the plaintiffs motion, the City of Pittsburg was



ordered to notify the plaintiff approximately two weeks



prior to construction, and EPA was ordered to furnish



copies of pertinent reports and to provide copies of the



environmental impact statement to the plaintiff.



    The hearing synopsis is given in Exhibit No.  11.
                        29

-------
Comments Received and Response to Those Comments
                     29a

-------
                   NORTHEAST TEXAS MUNIC'PAL WATER DISTRICT
                          EXECUTIVE OFriCH    -    P. O. BOX 680
^CRC^DP^HAM               DAINGERFIEI.D, TEXAS 75633
 EiF'UCL !. Dr'li ,AN
  VICE I
  B D wft< u>'c,->                      April  1, 1972
 Mr. Dan She rwood ,  P. E
 Environmental PJ oteet ion Agency
 1700 Patterson Street
 Dallas,  '] exs s TbZf'J

 Subject .   Pittsburg,  Te.;.; s ,  Sev, age Plant
           Project No. \VPC-Tex-722
           Re.  EPA Impact St." ternent

 Dear Mr.  Sherwood
  «
 Please, accept rm- sincere appreciation for reviewing with me the comments  by
 variou;,  a£',encj"s to the  draft -unp^ct stateinenL above captioned.
 T r'l. p'"' rl Jcul?5 i'ly dir ^ai^hecl at the response, i'aviri"  pvevjoxisly voiced no ob-
 jection at t>,c Tex'x- Vv'ater C-)u! i :  to he p^u.ied mil ch-it the e^ istiny Sparks  Branch sewage, plant is rot a
           se\va>^e p!,int aud is overloaded.  The BOD cf t'ie eflln^nt  of tins pl'uit
          %« if-,  r i> l'if;i) as ^'fj rro jh'graru s  per luer. Alf.o thi t> plajil j s  subject to  the
 overllow of ra\^ sewage durar.c;  pmod:, of high inf^ln an'on.  V,' e consider that the
 present oper "! lion i-(  this plr  properly because of the soil conditions.  l\a--v se\vagc  overflows
 from  these septic tr.nks ar>d pollutes the stream  flcvving to  the  Lake  O' the  Pines.
 We co^sidi r that the el jjnin?t '0:1 of raw seva^-e f i orn the stream flovvjng to our lake
 ai.'d fhc impro\v men! of 1h : cfijxent o< tlie e, ruling nkmt to meet the State  standards,
 ?'re e -3 ..-e -it'll,.! to p^e\C')l ]>o]l i^.^n of t.ur lake.
                                        (1)
                                               30
                                                                                  /
                                  HOARD o: OI;-?LOTO::S                              	
         v..Lcjr,-oi: I nrAiiii\M   CH.'RLEF BF-ABHAM  M i: SCNIGHT  UVAI DC I/IOE.RMCR  BMJCC I DCDM^TJ   c n. JACK&ON

-------
Mr. Dan Sherwood,  page ^


Second it 3 s to be pointed out tli.i1 the proposed new sewage treatment plant to
which ^ \'atershed  of our lake because thc\  have  an effluent          ;
and do not Jia. e lert ir/ trc?tmcnt, v/e v\:M do all v/c are able to do to encourage            j
cotisn -ic. iv'ii of :mpi ov onents and new facjljticp io that the off luei A r, from, other             i
?ewage tj eatjn^nl p'^nts in oar  Like watershed \villmeet  the State standards, as
is propo'-i d dl f j'ts'^'j :-, to help  jirotcct c>iu lake from cutroplncr; [ ion.
                                                                                               |
Fifth u if' io bo pointed out that if tertiary  treatment should be  required for the             1
P^t i-f 'vu L r;  .'C \\age tie it> ,ent  plant.o, such a re.-juir erpent \/ould be discriminatory            '
agaansi I^iH^1  i i'g ai d  not in  tlic public mti r(*••,!.   Also,  such a  requirement would           '
lesult in MI CM tor probohjlil^ for ei'tropliication of our lake because  it would delay          . J
the t.cie xvln'jj l^jttfhur g  j ^ able'lo remove  most of the nutrients fi om  their U'aste-          s
wolei.  Jji the e^-eut i'u!roj>h  ration  of our  lake: should become a problem, we will
always h.,'u e t'>e light  to apprar before the  Texas Water Quality Boircl to request
rjigradjn" of ."ill  jc\\'.''gc' tie.itraent plants in our  watershed by  requiring t.'rtiajy
treat/neui  <'P'1 biri( Icr elfJuejit standards.  Tf this ever  becomes neces^aiy, \ve do
no< plan 1 c di<-.c] inniiatt  ap.ajnsi Pittsh^jg bi,L Io request ihat  an^ \vastu tonliol
irdc,- D! in,- 'I'c ,^ vVaici- Qualit / I'oard a{.i>ly to all  sewage treafnient fariUties
\, ikuj' (..'r \.' r'icj '.h'-d.  j\ s ctateii  in our  01 igi lal letter ai;cl j'Tc:vio\ir>3y jn tins IcMlcr,
\', e do not  ' e.-  lite "e. ,i fuj  tetlia1 y tj-ertmc-nt at the Pit t-~ burg srv, as;e  p!ijit at tins
1i"i«.'    ]!<•>  (1\ '_ i-. -,yi d'i feel  thatve wi1! i ec_c j>- o favc-raL>K; c oiv.idi  i at i on from the
Tcs.a : V", ,i j (,vJit} jU/.'j  I, the < ily offn ia!s  of the  City  01 Pittshojg  and the <. ity


                                               31

-------
Mr.  Dan Sherwood,  page 3
officials  of the other cities in our watershed if the need for tertiary treatment
ever becomes a fact substantiated by evidence of the possibility of or beginning
of the eutrophication process in our  lake.

We urgently appeal to  you to allow Pittsburg to cfart their pi oject as soon as
practical to eliminate  the possibility of the  eutrophication of our lake from the
present raw and partially treated dewa^e  coming from Pittsburg.

                                           Yours sincerely,
                                                          /"-"       ^
                                                                   ^ r-_£-
                                           Horner Tanner /'Manager
                                           Northeast Texas Municipal Water
                                           District

cc: City of Pitt .s burg, Texas
    Wisenbaker, Fix, & Associates
     Texas Water Quality Boajd, N.  W Classen
                                            32

-------

-------
D H ABERNATHY
 Mayor

Cobby Law
Jewell P. Qarrett
Ben Brown
Leo G. Hoffman
W. H. Mayben
 Aldermen
              CITY  OF  PITTSBURG
                       POST OFFICE BOX 462
                     PHONE A. C. 214 856-2603
                          A. C. 214 856-5475
                  PITTSBURG, TEXAS 75686
                                            February 12, 1972
Jimmie D. Morris
 City Manager
 Louise Beggs
 City Secretary
  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Region VI
  1600  Patterson,  Suite 1100
  Dallas,  Texas   75201
                                            RE:   WPC-Tex-722,
                                                 Impact Statement #7102
                                                 Pittsburg, Texas
  ATTENTION:
  Gentlemen-
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
  The  purpose of this  letter is  to give our comments regarding the draft of the
  impact statement which was recently prepared for the proposed wastewater
  treatment  facilities  to be located near Pittsburg, Texas.

  We have studied this  impact statement and can find no appreciable point of
  difference with your  findings.

  Several alternate solutions to our waste treatment problems have been proposed for
  this project.   The project as  now proposed includes improvements to the existing
  Sparks Branch  sewage  treatment  plant and the construction of the new Dry Creek
  sewage treatment plant as well  as certain other needed water and sewer improvements.
  This entire project,  as now proposed, will result in an estimated expenditure of
  $365,000 in city funds.  We have been advised by our fiscal agent that we are
  approaching the limits of our  bonded indebtedness and that we are not financially
  able to supply any additional  funds toward this project.

  The  City of Pittsburg made the  initial application for Federal funds in December
  1968 and we have done everything in our power to get this  project under construction
  since that time.  Complete construction plans and specifications have been completed
  for  well in excess of one year  and the city funds have been available for two years.

  The  delay  in construction of these direly needed water and sewer improvements has,
  and  is, placing an undue burden on the City of Pittsburg  in the following ways-

         1.   The CMty has had to  reserve funds from current  revenues in order to
             accrue sufficient monies to meet 1970 bond commitments.  Tt was assumed
             that within 11 months from the bond election on March 24, 1970,
             approximately 200 additional customers would have been connected to the
             proposed sewer system and revenue from these customers would help meet
             these commitments.   The projects are still delayed.  It appears at this
             time that  it will be at least another year before the projects can be
             completed,  which extends the burden on the City.

-------
Mr. Arthur W. Bush                   RE:  WPC-Tex-722
Environmental Protection Agency           Impact Statement #7102          Page Two
	Pittsburg, Texas	


       2.  The existing Sparks Branch sewer plant is overloaded and must be updated
           immediately to handle the increased load and improve the quality of
           effluent from the plant.

       3.  Residents continue to be deprived of sewer service and in certain
           areas, raw sewage appears which is a health hazard.

       4.  Material and construction costs continue to increase which may result
           in originally proposed projects not being completed as proposed.

       5.  Repairs on certain streets have been delayed pending installation of
           these sewer lines.  These streets are in a deplorable condition.  It
           is false economy to repair them, then tear them up to install sewer
           lines.

       6.  The morale of our citizens and their confidence in the City Administration
           has been materially affected by the delay.

We are most anxious to begin work on this project and stand ready to proceed just
as soon as we can obtain final authority to do so from your agency.  Your assistance
in expediting this project will be sincerely appreciated.

                                          Yours very truly,
                                          D. H. Abernathy    \\
                                          Mayor
DHA:aec
                                    34

-------
WRIGHT PATMAN
  FIRST DISTRICT
  STATE OF TEXAS
     WASHINGTON ADPHCSSI
Z3?8 RAYOUHN HOU
         20215
     HOME AODOESSI
P.O. nox me. TFXARKANA, TEXAS
        73701
                    /Vf*1        . .   4* J f   /M/,   », k
                    (Congress? ci tfje cdmteo
                          &oti£e of ^epre
                            £ilas&mfllQ!T, JD.C.  20515
                              TEXARKANA,  TEXAS
                              November  22,  1971
                                                                       COMMITTErSi
                                                                DANKIN3 ANQ CLURENCY. CHAIrlMATI
                                                                JOINT COMMITTEE ON DCFCMSC Production,
                                                                 CllAfHMAN
                                                                JoJNf FCOHOMIC CoMMITTeC.
                                                                 Vice CM ii
  Mr. Bill V. McFarland
  Acting Rogional Administrator
  Environmental Protection Agency
  1402 Elm Street, Third Floor
  Dallas, Texas  75202

  Dear Mr. McFarland:
                                                              hoV^WI^M"!
       Thank you indeed for your  letter  of November 10 regarding your
  proposed Environmental  Impact Statement  incident to the construction of
  certain wastewater and  sewage facilities at  Pittsburg in Camp County,
  Texas (Impact Statement Number  7102).
                                                        #

       Please be advised  that  for m-^ny years I have been seriously concerned
  about the lack of adequate waste  treatment facilities in the Pittsburg
  area.  For one thing, as the county seat, the amenities of modern living
  are certainly to be expected; and  as one of  the  communities which has an
  environmental effect upon the Lake 0'  The Pines,  and the use of those raters
  for recreational purposes, it is  indeed  necessary that the treatment facil-
  ities should be adequate and proper.
                  *.
       A further point is that Pittsburg is an officially designated EDA
  growth center and our experience  has proved  beyond doubt that new industry
  and new jobs cannot be created  in  a community that does not offer adequate
  community facilities.  So far as  I can see there would be no adverse effect
  created by the new facility and,  on the  contrary,  the unacceptable con-
  ditions now existing will be corrected.

       I strongly recommend approval of  this project by reason of a favorable
  environmental impact and its overall improvement of the quality-pf living
  in the Pittsburg community.  Thank you for giving me this opportunity to
  state my opinions for the record.
                                             Sincerely  yours,
                                            'Wright Putman
                                35

-------
             UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
                        FOREST SERVICE
                          Region 3
                    517 Gold Avenue, S. W.
               Albuquerque, New Mexico  87101
                                                  1940
                                                  February 7,
72
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, Pittsburg, Texas  WPC-TEX-722,
Impact Statement Number 7102.

We have nothing to add to this report and have no comments to make
except that the statement appears to be concise, complete and clearly
prepared .

Sincerely,
  .  D. HURST
Regional Forester
                                36

-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE	
 P. 0. Box 648
 Temple, Texas 76501
                                                       December 8,  1971
 Mr. Bill V. McFarland
 Acting Regional Administrator
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Region VI
 1402 Elm Street, Third Floor
.Dallas, Texas   75202

 Dear Mr. McFarland:

 This is in reference to your Notice of Intent dated November  10,  1971
 to prepare an environmental impact statement in regard  to  the proposed
 construction of new wastewater treatment facilities and improvements
 to existing wastewater facilities and sanitary sewer interceptors  for
 the City of Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas.

 Considering those elements of specific interest in regard  to  agricultural
 production, land use, soil erosion, and sedimentation,  the proposed im-
 provements should have no adverse effects on the environment  and  should
 be very beneficial to the environment.

 Sincerely,
 Cl
 State'Conservationist
                                  37

-------
                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
                              REGIONAL OFFICE
                            1114 COMMERCE STREET
                             DALLAS. TEXAS 7S202                  OFFICE OF
                         February 10, 1972              THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Our  Reference:   EI# 0172-085
 Mr. Arthur W. Busch                  Re:  Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 Regional Administrator                   Construction of waste-water facilities
 Environmental Protection Agency - Region VI Pittsburg, Texas
 1600 Patterson Street, Suite 1100          dated 19 January 1972
 Dallas,  Texas 75201

 Dear Mr. Busch:

 Pursuant to your request, we have revieved the Draft Environ-
 mental  Impact  Statement for the  above subject project  proposal
 in accordance  with Section 102(2)(c)  of P. L. 91-190,  and  the
 attendant  guidelines for the Council  on Environmental  Quality
 of April 23,  1971.

 Environmental  health program responsibilities and standards  of
 the Department of Health, Education,  and Welfare include those
 vested  with the United States  Public  Health Service and the
 Facilities  Engineering and Construction Agency.   The U. S. Public
 Health  Service has those programs of  the Federal Food  and  Drug
 Administration (milk,  food, interstate  travel and shellfish
 sanitation),  and of the Health Services and Mental Health
 Administration, which include  the National Institute of Occu-
 pational Safety and Health and the  Bureau of Community Environ-
 mental  Management (housing, injury  control, recreational health
 and insect  and rodent  control).

 Accordingly,  our review of the Draft  Environmental Statement for
 the project  discerns no adverse  health  effects that might  be of
 resultant  significance where these  program responsibilities  and
 standards  pertain, provided that  appropriate guides are followed
 in concert  with state, county, and  local environmental health
 laws and regulations.

We therefore have no objection to the authorization of this
 project insofar as our interests  and  responsibilities  are
 concerned .
                                     Very truly yours,
                                     H.  D.  McMahan
                                     Regional Director

ORD-EI-1                       38

-------
           TEXAS  WATER  DEVELOPMENT  BOARD
W
  E TINSLEY, CHAIRMAN
  AUSTIN
MARVIN GriURBET. VICE CHAIRMAN
  PETERSBURG

ROBERT B GILMORE
  DALLAS

JOHN H MCCOY
  MEW BOSTON

MILTON T POTTS
  LIVINGSTON

CARL ILLIG
  HOUSTON
  P O BOX I3O87
 CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN. TEXAS 76711
                                                               HARRY P 6URLEIGH
                                                               EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
                                 AREA CODE 512
                                   475-2201
                               3O1 WEST 2ND STREET
FEB
      197?
                                                               IN REPLY REFER TO

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

     Dear Mr. Grisham:

          Please refer to your memorandum of January 21,  1972
     transmitting for our review and comment the draft Environmental
     Impact Statement for Construction of Wastewater Facilities,
     Pittsburg, Texas (WPC-Tex.-722).

          The Texas Water Quality Board,  of which I am a  member under
     existing statutes,  has made a comprehensive evaluation of the
     wastewater treatment needs of the City of Pittsburg.  After
     considering all factors and alternatives,  the Water  Quality Board,
     at its March 26,  1971 regular monthly meeting, approved the
     application of the  City of Pittsburg for an amendment to its
     existing Waste Control Order No.  10250.  Proposed improvements
     of existing facilities and construction of new wastewater treatment
     facilities are set forth in this  Order and in the draft Environmental
     Impact Statement.

          The actions of the Texas Water  Quality Board in this matter
     represent the views of this agency on the  environmental considera-
     tions involved.  We are also in agreement  with the conclusions reache<
     by the Environmental Protection Agency as  set forth  on page  35 of
     the draft statement.

          We appreciate  the opportunity of reviewing and  commenting on
                                39

-------
Mr. Ed Grisham                                        Page 2
the statement.  Since we also received a copy of the draft
statement from the Regional Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency with a request for comments, we are providing
that agency with a copy of this letter.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Harry P. Burleigh
cc:  Mr. Arthur W. Busch
     Regional Administrator
     Environmental Protection Agency
                            40

-------
            TEXAS  FOREST  SERVICE
File 5'329-E
                                       College Station, Texas 77843
                                       January 26, 1972
   Mr. Arthur W. Busch
   Regional Administrator
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Region VI
   1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
   Dallas, Texas 75201

   Dear Mr. Busch:

        Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft of the environmental
   impact statement dated January 19, 1972, and prepared by your office
   on the proposed construction of wastewater facilities, Pittsburg,
   Texas.  Incidentally, page 2 of the Summary Sheet Draft was  not
   received with the rest of the report.

        This office does not object to any part of the environmental
   impact statement draft prepared by the Air and Water Programs
   Division, Environmental Protection Agency, for this project.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       Paul R. Kramer, Director
                                       By:   Mason C.  Cloud
   MC/mm
                              41

-------
      COMMISSION

DEWITT  C  GREEK, CHAIRMAN
HERBERT C  RETRY  JR
CHARLES E SIMONS
TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
    Atlanta, Texas  75551
      December  22, 1971
                                         J C DINGWALL
        Re: Wastewater Treatment &
            Sanitary Sewer Facilities
            Pittsburg, Texas
        Environmental Protection Agency
        Region VI
        1402 Elm Street, Third Floor
        Dallas, Texas  75202

        Gentlemen:
        The notice of intent for improvements proposed to wastewater
        treatment and sanitary sewer facilities has been forwarded
        to this office for review and comment.

        The improvements as proposed in Pittsburg do not appear to
        propose any detrimental effects to existing or proposed high-
        way improvements as long as the intended water and sewer
        improvements are installed in accordance with current state
        policies for utility installations on highway rights of way.

        The opportunity to furnish comment is appreciated.

                                           Sincerely yours,
                                                                  IN REPLY REFER TO

                                                                  FILE NO
                                           G. A. Youngs,
                                           District Engineer
        cc: File D-5
                                     42

-------
                   NORTHEAST TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
                          EXECUTIVE OFFICE   -    P. O. BOX 680
 GEORGPRES,DBENTBHAM               DA1NGERFIELD. TEXAS 75638
  BRUCE I. DEDMAN
    V,CEPRESENT                    January 21, 1972
   B. B. WALDROP                           7
     SECRETARY
          Environmental Protection Agency
          Air & Water Programs Division
          1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
          Dallas, Texas 75201

          Attention Mr. Sherwood
                                               Re: Impact Statement #7102
          Gentlemen:

          The Northeast Texas Municipal Water District,  owners of the
          conservation storage in Lake O1 the Pines concurs in the findings
          of your above captioned Draft Statement.

          We urge your expeditious conclusions in favor of immediate con-
          struction of the proposed facility.  It is  evident the upgraded
          facility will have a favorable impact on Lake O'  the Pines.

                                               Submitted by
                                                   *• ;*••
                                                 \ , '
                                              Homer N. Tanner,  Manager
                                              For the Northeast Texas
                                               Municipal Water District

          cc: City of Pittsburg
                                 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
B. WALDROP  GEORGE T. BRABHAM  CHARLES BRABHAM  M K KNIGHT  UVALDE STOERMER  BRUCE I. DEDMAN   C H. JACKSON
 AVINGER       DAINOERFIELD      HUGHES SPRINGS     JEFFERSON      LONE STAR        ORE CITY       PITTSBURO
                                      43

-------
North East Texas  Economic Development
                          District, Inc.
          City Hall
          P 0. Box 1967
          Texarkana, Texas 75501
          214/792-8234
                                       February 1, 1972
MAURICE WOOLEY
President
Clarksville
W. F. MYERS
Vice President
Jefferson
BERNARD A. LEMSER
Secretary-Treasurer
Texarkana
SYLVIN R. LANGE
Executive Director
J. SAM SPEARMAN
Asst Director
  BOWIE
  CAMP
  CASS
  DELTA
  FRANKLIN
  GREGG
  HARRISON
  HOPKINS
  LAMAR
  MARION
  MORRIS
  PANOLA
  RED RIVER
  TITUS
  UPSHUR
             RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  STATEMENT FOR
                 CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
                 PITTSBURG,  TEXAS   WPC-TEX-722
                 STATEMENT NUMBER 7102
Environmental Protection  agency
Dallas,  Texas 75201

Gentlemen:

We have  studied the subject Environmental Impact
Statement and adjudge  it,  first of all,  to be com-
prehensive  and incisive.   We feel that  all pertinent
and significant factors have been properly considered
and investigated.

Our comment then is in agreement with Item 3, Page
2 of the subject statement, viz., "The  result of the
project  will be (the)  improvement of water quality
in Sparks Branch and Dry  Creek;therefore, water quality
in Cypress  Creek and Lake O' the Pines  will also be
improved.  In addition, the potential health threat
posed by raw or poorly treated sewage reaching these
streams  will also be reduced."

Thank you for this opportunity to review and comment.

                            Sincerely,
                SRL/MR
                            Sylvin R. Lar
                            Executive Director
  WOOD
  1/72
                                      44

-------
WELBY K.  PARISH              »         /,
                                     eu at oLaur
Wayne V.  E. Smith                                              p o  BOX 457
                                                              218 JEFFERSON ST
                                                              G I LM ER.  TEXAS
                                                                  843-2544
           December 2,  1971
           Air and Water Programs Division
           Environmental Protection Agency
           Region VI
           1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
           Dallas, Texas 75201

                    Re: Construction of wastewater treatment facilities
                         in Pittsburg, Camp County,  Texas.

           Gentlemen:

                    It is my understanding that your agency is preparing
           a Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the above
           project.  I would very much appreciate having the following
           comments considered in the preparation of this Statement.

                    Recently, a hearing was held before Hon. William
           Steger, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
           Texas, at Marshall,  Texas, concerning the location of one phase
           of this project, the proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
           At this hearing, I represented several homeowners and their
           families, all of whom reside in very close proximity to the site
           of the proposed Dry Creek plant.  The purpose of our efforts at
           this hearing was both direct and indirect.  Our direct purpose
           under the law was to seek an injunction against the grant of federal
           funds for this project; our  indirect purpose was to  achieve a
           relocation of the Dry Creek plant so that it would have a minimal
           impact on these families in the immediate neighborhood.
                                     45

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 2, 1971
Page 2
          Judge Steger had considered a similar problem prior
to this hearing, and on appeal from his temporary injunction in
that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed and remanded in a rather vaguely worded opinion.  As a
result, Judge  Steger in our case denied the application for a
temporary injunction but retained jurisdiction to determine any
pending questions immediately prior to construction.  It is now
clear to me that legal relief for these families will be a difficult
if not impossible burden  to achieve. It should be clear to all
attending that  hearing that the various federal agencies involved
will have little trouble in satisfying the various minimal require-
ments set forth in federal law prior to issuing federal funds for
this project.  The law  and the courts do not appear in a situation
such as this to be able to provide the desired relief because of
precedents and because of the narrow scope of review granted to
the courts.  My purpose  in this letter, then,  is not to argue law,
but to set forth a human version of the facts that may go unheard.

          The proposed Dry Creek plant in the Pittsburg sewer
project presents a very real drama in the lives  of these families
living so close to the proposed site. These are  the families of
Mr.  E.  J.  Clawson, Mr. Marvin Matthews, Mr. Lacey Seale,
Mr.  Herbert Seale, Mr.  Alton Rape and Mr.  Weldon Peek.  All
of these families have  homes within 1700 feet  of the proposed site.
All of these families have invested a major portion of their life
savings in building their  homes on this section of FM 2254 east of
the City of Pittsburg.   At the very least,  they have a right to the
peaceful enjoyment of their homes and property.  All this will come
to an end when the sewer plant is constructed  at the proposed Dry
Creek site.

          This road is one of the few paved arteries leading out of
the City of Pittsburg which is conducive to residential expansion.
The homes of  these families mentioned above  would encourage this
                             46

-------
WELBY K.  PARISH
                                       at
Wayne V.  R.  Smith                                              p o  BOX 457
                                                              218 JEFFERSON ST
                                                              GILMER  TEXAS
                                                                  843-2544
           December 2,  1971
           Air and Water Programs Division
           Environmental Protection Agency
           Region VI
           1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
           Dallas, Texas 75201

                     Re: Construction of wastewater treatment facilities
                         in Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas.

           Gentlemen:

                     It is my understanding that your agency is preparing
           a Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the above
           project.  I would very much appreciate having the following
           comments considered in the preparation of this Statement.

                     Recently, a hearing was held before Hon. William
           Steger, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
           Texas, at Marshall,  Texas, concerning the location of one phase
           of this project, the proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant.
           At this hearing, I represented several homeowners and their
           families, all of whom reside in very close proximity to the site
           of the proposed Dry Creek plant.  The purpose of our efforts at
           this hearing was both direct and indirect.  Our direct purpose
           under the law was to seek an injunction against the grant of federal
           funds for this project; our  indirect purpose was to achieve a
           relocation of the Dry Creek plant so that it would have a minimal
           impact on these families in the immediate neighborhood.
                                     45

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 2, 1971
Page 2
          Judge Steger had considered a similar problem prior
to this hearing, and on appeal from his temporary injunction in
that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed and remanded in a rather vaguely worded opinion.  As a
result, Judge  Steger in our case denied the application for a
temporary injunction but retained jurisdiction to determine  any
pending questions immediately prior to construction.  It is now
clear to me that legal relief for these families will be a difficult
if not impossible burden to achieve. It should be clear to all
attending that  hearing that the various federal agencies involved
will have little trouble in  satisfying the various minimal require-
ments set forth in federal law prior to issuing federal funds for
this project.  The law  and the courts do not appear in a situation
such as this to be able to  provide the desired relief because of
precedents and because of the narrow scope of review granted to
the courts.  My purpose in this letter, then,  is not to argue law,
but to set forth a human version of the facts that may go unheard.

          The proposed Dry Creek plant in the Pittsburg sewer
project presents a very real drama in the lives  of these families
living so close to the proposed site. These are  the families of
Mr.  E.  J.  Clawson, Mr.  Marvin Matthews, Mr. Lacey Seale,
Mr.  Herbert Seale, Mr.  Alton Rape and Mr. Weldon Peek.  All
of these families have  homes within 1700 feet of the proposed site.
All of these families have invested a major portion of their  life
savings in building their homes on this section of FM 2254 east of
the City of Pittsburg.  At the very least, they have a right to the
peaceful enjoyment of their homes and property. All this will come
to an end when the sewer  plant is constructed at the proposed Dry
Creek site.

          This road is one of  the few paved arteries leading out of
the City of Pittsburg which is  conducive to residential expansion.
The homes of  these families mentioned above  would encourage this
                             46

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 2, 1971
Page 3
sort of development.  In the face of this, the City of Pittsburg has
chosen a site, not only so close to the existing homes as to present
a substantial impact on their lives, but also within  close proximity
and plain view of the highway.  Thus, the City of Pittsburg has in
effect put a halt to all residential development in this area, and in
the process,  promises to create an obviously adverse effect on the
value of the homes and property of these people and others in the
area.

          The proposed site will employ an open, oxidation ditch
type plant,  enclosed only by earthen dikes.  It is admittedly the
cheapest form of construction; and why - because the City has
recognized in its own engineering report that this will only be a
temporary  plant, that it will not suffice in the future, that it must
be replaced by a larger,  more efficient plant.

         No doubt modern engineering is capable of producing many
wonders, but it is unlikely that this proposed plant  will withstand the
pressures  of  annual flooding known to occur in the basin of this site,
sometimes as high as six or seven feet. There is a very real danger
of flooding  of this plant and a spillage of raw sewage over and upon
the land and back yards of several of these existing homes.

         The City proposes to have a man in attendance on a limited,
part-time basis. If things go wrong, as they surely do in any type
of mechanical apparatus,  relief for the harm done to these home-
owners will be in all likelihood too little and too late.

         It is important to note that these various homeowners are
the first to recognize the grave need of this project in the City of
Pittsburg,  that many areas of the City will be benefited by the project.
And yet,  they bear the brunt of the economic and environmental
hardships,  and not one of them will be entitled to use the plant.  They
                       47

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 2, 1971
Page 4
must still maintain their own private privies.

          It is important, therefore, to recognize that there is a
very real human element involved in this project. It is difficult
for anyone to understand how an agency charged with the responsi-
bility of improving our befouled environment can participate in a
project that will have such a substantially adverse environmental
and social and economic impact on their lives.  At the hearing in
federal court, an engineer from your agency, Mr. James Steibing,
testified  unequivocally that the Dry Creek plant would have no
adverse environmental impact on these families in the immediate
area.  And yet, he also admitted he had never talked to any one of
them.  Perhaps he failed to recognize that there truly was an impact
upon them merely because they spent of their valuable time and money
to come to the court and ask why.  Surely this agency can take cogni-
zance of  the fact that these families will be adversely affected by the
Dry Creek plant, environmentally, economically, socially, psychologi-
cally,  and in many other respects relating to daily living.

          Our country has never lost sight of the fundamental principle
that each citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
to fair treatment and fair play.  These people are being denied these
rights when they face the spectre of a sewer nearly in their back yards
merely because engineers have decreed that the project is sound.  In
recent years, the engineers have decreed that it is sound to dam the
Colorado and convert the Grand Canyon into a lake, that it is sound
to build a barge canal through the Everglades despite the ecological
damage to the Everglades, that it is  sound to build highways through
parks in  Memphis and suburbs in San Antonio.  And yet, these projects
were and are halted because of  the impact on individuals.  Underground
oil on the North Slope in Alaska remains untapped until the ecological
impact on individuals can be minimized.  True, the proposed Dry Creek
Sewage Treatment Plant for Pittsburg is smaller in comparison, and
the environmental impact is on  fewer individuals, but it is every bit
as real and every bit as adverse.
                          48

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 2, 1971
Page 5
          On behalf of these families, I ask that strong consideration
be given to these human considerations, that the environment of
these individuals be protected and preserved, and that their lives,
liberties and pursuit of happiness in their homes be guarded.  I
respectfully suggest that this agency can take cognizance of these
things and can act in the interests of these families, and can
bring pressure to hear to move the proposed Dry Creek Sewage
Treatment facilities to a site that will have less impact on these
individuals and on the surrounding areas.

                           Respectfully submitted,
                           Wayne V. R. Smith

WVRS:jm
                           49

-------
         Response to Comments by Mr. Wayne V.R. Smith
COMMENT 1 :  This road is one of the few paved arteries leading
            out of the City of Pittsburg which is conducive to
            residential expansion.  The homes of these families
            mentioned above would encourage this sort of devel-
            opment.  In the face of this, the City of Pittsburg
            has chosen a site, not only so close to the existing
            homes as to present a substantial impact on their
            lives, but also within close proximity and plain
            view of the highway.  Thus, the City of Pittsburg
            has in effect put a halt to all residential develop-
            ment in this area, and in the process, promises to
            create an obviously adverse effect on the value of
            the homes and property of these people and otheis in
            the area .

RESPONSE:   The view of the plant from Highv/ay FM 2254 will be
            limited by proper landscaping of the plant site.

            In the area of the plant site, land development will
            be retarded and land value will decrease due to the
            plant.  Proper landscaping, operation, and mainte-
            nance of the plant will negate or reverse these
            effects as outlined in the body of the statement.
COMMENT 2:
RESPONSE:
            The proposed site will employ an open, oxidation
            ditch type plant, enclosed only by earthen dikes.
            It is admittedly the cheapest form of construction;
            and why - because the City has recognized in its own
            engineering report that this will only be a temporary
            plant, that it will not suffice in the future, that
            it must be replaced by a larger, more efficient plant.

            The alternative selected by the City of Red Oak, that
            is, the plan as proposed, gives due consideration to
            the impact on the environment.  The plan as proposed
            is not the most expensive, neither is it the least
            expensive.

            The proposed plan is a compromise which seeks to mini-
            mize adverse effects on the environment and yet is not
            beyond the financial capability of the City of
            Pittsburg, nor will the costs of construction and
            operation of the facilities place an undue financial
            burden on the citizenry.
                               50

-------
COMMENT 3:  The City proposes to have a man in attendance on a
            limited, part-time basis.  If things go wrong, as
            they surely do in any type of mechanical apparatus,
            relief for the harm done to these homeowners will
            be in all likelihood too little and too late.

RESPONSE:   An automatic alarm system at the plant will signal
            when processing deviates from normal routine.  This
            system will help to minimize the time the plant will
            not be operating at peak efficiency.

            This system, in addition to the extended retention
            period and the simplicity of plant operation, will
            allow minimum coverage by the operation.  This type
            system will not be significantly affected by short
            processing breakdowns; thus, problems affecting area
            residents are not anticipated.


COMMENT 4:  It is important to note that these various homeowners
            are the first to recognize the grave need of this
            project in the City of Pittsburg, that many areas of
            the City will be benefited by the project.  And yet,
            they bear the brunt of the economic and environmental
            hardships, and not one of them will be entitled to
            use the plant.  They must still maintain their own
            private privies.

RESPONSE:   The small number of residents located below the plant
            does not justify an expensive pump/force main system
            to provide them with sewer service.
                                51

-------
                                      December 13,  1971
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas,  Texas  75201
              Re:  Construction of wastewater treatment facilities
                  in Pittsburg,  Camp County, Texas.
Gentlemen:
              We understand that your agency is preparing a draft
environmental impact statement concerning the above project. We
would very much appreciate having our comments considered in the
preparation of this statement.

              All three of us own homes and property within a maximum
of 1700 feet from the proposed site of the Dry Creek Sewage Treatment
Plant, a part of the above project.  Mr. Clawson's home and property
is within 700 feet, Mr.  Matthews' home and property is adjacent to Mr.
Clawson's, and Mr. Scale's on the same side of the highway and approxi-
mately 1700 feet from the proposed site.

              Both Mr. Clawson's and Mr. Matthews'  home is served
by a shallow well for water,  and both of these shallow wells are in very
close proximity to the flood line of Cry Creek. Both of these homes are
down stream from the proposed site.  The  City proposes to build this
project in a low lying basin which floods annually on two or three occasions,
and each time the flood waters vary from three to eight feet in depth. This
brings the flood line of  Dry Creek downstream from the proposed site very
close to the water supply of these home owners.
                             52

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 13, 1971
Page 2
              From our personal observation, there is a grave danger
of the sewer plant on this proposed site being flooded or damaged by the
flood waters, and that raw sewage may be discharged into Dry Creek or
its waters, and deposited on or near the homes and land of Mr.  Clawson
and Mr. Matthews as well as other home owners in the immediate area.

              The site chosen is within plain view of the FM Road, No.
2254, and will therefore present an  obvious deterrent to growth in this
area, and to the economic value of the homes and property into which we
have placed considerable time and money.

              The proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant is to be
an open air type of plant, and it is our experience in the area that such a
plant will attract a far heavier concentration of insects and the like that
are not found in the area at the present time,  and that this would pose a
possible health and environmental impact upon the home owners and land
owners in the area and their families.

              We are fully aware that the City of Pittsburg is in need of
improved or revised sewage treatment facilities.  We fail to understand
why we who have spent our lives and savings on homes and property in t^is
area should be penalized by having a sewer plant located practically nexc
door to our homes.  Even when built, we will not  be able to take advantage
of the services offered by the sewage treatment plant,  and will still be
required to maintain our own home systems.

              We believe that the location of this plant will pose a health
and environmental problem to some extent on the  home owners and their
families in the immediate area of the proposed site, and further, that it
will be detrimental to the long range interest of the people in the area and
the people in the City of Pittsburg to have this site located so close to and
in plain view of the only road in the area.
                              53

-------
Air and Water Programs Division
December 13, 1971
Page 2
              We respectfully suggest, therefore, that this particular
proposed plant will have a substantial environmental impact upon the
families in the immediate area, as well as on the citizens of the City of
Pitts burg and Camp County in the area in the years to come, and we
urge that appropriate action be taken concerning the proposed Dry Creek
Sewage Treatment Plant in the above project.

                              Respectfully submitted,
                              Herbert Seale
                                  .  Clawson
                                                               f—J
                              Marvin Matthews
                              54

-------
        Response to Comments by Messrs. Herbert Seale,
               E.J. Clawson, and Marvin Matthews
COMMENT 1:  Both Mr. Clawson 's and Mr. Matthews' home is served
            by a shallow well for water, and both of these shallow
            wells are in very close proximity to the flood line
            of Dry Creek.  Both of these homes are downstream from
            the proposed site.  The City proposes to build this
            project in a low lying basin which floods annually on
            two or three occasions, and each time the flood waters
            vary from three to eight feet in depth.  This brings
            the flood line of Dry Creek downstream from the pro-
            posed site very close to the water supply of these
            homeowners .

RESPONSE:   See pages 11 through 15.
COMMENT 2:
RESPONSE:
            From our personal observation, there is a grave danger
            of the sewer plant on this proposed site being flooded
            or damaged by the flood waters, and that raw sewage
            may be discharged into Dry Creek or its waters, and
            deposited on or near the homes and land of Mr. Clawson
            and Mr. Matthews as well as other homeonwers in the
            immediate area.

            See page 11.
COMMENT 3:  The site chosen is within plain view of the FM Road,
            No. 2254, and will therefore present an obvious deter
            rent to growth in this area, and to the economic value
            of the homes and property into which we have placed
            considerable time and money.

RESPONSE:   See response to Comment 1 of Mr. Wayne V.R. Smith.
COMMENT 4:
RESPONSE:
            The proposed Dry Creek Sewage Treatment Plant is to be
            an open air type of plant, and it is our experience in
            the area that such a plant will attract a far heavier
            concentration of insects and the like that are not
            found in the area at the present time, and that this
            would pose a possible health and environmental impact
            upon the homeowners and landowners in the area and
            their families.

            See page 14.
                             55

-------
COMMENT 5:  We are fully aware that the City of Pittsburg is in
            need of improved or revised sewage treatment facili-
            ties.  We fail to understand why we who have spent
            our lives and savings on homes and property in this
            area should be penalized by having a sewer plant
            located practically next door to our homes.  Even
            when built, we will not be able to take advantage
            of the services offered by the sewage treatment plant,
            and will still be required to maintain our own home
            systems.

RESPONSE:  See Response to Comment 4 by Mr. Wayne V.R. Smith.
                              56

-------
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
    D6427-AWR
 Assistant for
C§niressi»nal &
Intergovernmental
   Relations
           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  near  Pittsburg,  Texas,
           as requested in  your letter of January  19,  1972.   Our comments are
           general  in nature since  a site inspection of the  area was not
           possible.

           There is  little  doubt  that the project  will be a  considerable
           improvement over the existing  inadequate  facilities.   There  are,
           however,  several ways  that the statement  could be strengthened with
           respect  to Outdoor Recreation  considerations.  The statement relates
           that the  new Dry Creek Plant will  be  located in  the flood plain,
           althougn  protected to  the 100-year flood  level by levees.  It
           should discuss  the question of whether  this is a  wise and beneficial
           use  of the flood plain,  especially since  there appears to be
           suitable  land  available  elsewhere  that  is not  subject to  flooding.
           Undoubtedly, as  development occurs in the Dry  Creek Watershed,  the
           100-year  flood  level will change and  the  project  will no  longer
           have this  level  of protection.

           We believe flood plains  should be  limited to land uses that  are
           compatible with  occasional flooding such  as agriculture,  recreation
           and  conservation uses.   In fact, the  open space afforded  by  the flood
           plain is  one of  man's  most important  nonrenewable resources.   We
           do not like to see federal funds expended to support  or expand
           facilities subject to  flooding that might require expensive  flood
           control devices  at a later date.   Development  of  this nature is
           inconsistent with the  intent of both  Presidential Executive  Order
           11296 and  the National Flood Insurance Act  of  1968.   We believe this
           aspect of  improper land use should  be  discussed in the statement.
           Also,  it would be helpful to know  if  the  areas to be  served  by the
           sewer lines, either under the  present development or  anticipated
                                         57

-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Page 2

future development, are located on a flood plain area.  The impact
of the sewer lines on improper flood plain development should also
be addressed.

The present "alternatives" section could be further strengthened
by discussing more fully the environmental gains and losses of
each alternative instead of emphasizing the economic costs.
Although we understand the financial constraints that appear to
limit the range of alternative approaches to solving the problem,
a complete environmental impact statement should list a broader
range of alternatives, especially ones that may be more compatible
from an environmental standpoint.  One possible alternative, for
example, would be to place the treatment facilities upstream from
the city on either Sparks Branch or Dry Creek and allow the treated
water to flow through (or adjacent to) the city, thereby increasing
the stream flow and enhancing the recreation potential of the river.
As noted in the statement, these streams at present are intermittent
and therefore not particularly desirable from a recreation stand-
point.  With a continuous flow, however, they could serve as focal
points for a civic recreational development.  It is our feeling that
a reuse situation should be considered whenever municipalities
modify existing treatment plants or build new ones.  Another possible
alternative might be to use the wastewater to irrigate agricultural
fields alter minimal treatment.  We have heard of successful
experiments with this technique.

We thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment.

                                      Sincerely yours,
Maurice D. Arnold
Regional Director
                                  /
                               •^f'

cc:  BOR, WASO, Division of Resource Area Studies
                              58

-------
    Response to Comments by Bureau of Outdoor Recreation


    EPA adheres to Presidential Executive Order 11296 by con-
sidering flood hazards in the review of each application for
federal grant funds and subsequent review of plans and specifi-
cations.  We recognize that treatment facilities are frequently
located in low-lying areas susceptible to flooding.  Although
the location of facilities is primarily the responsibility of
the Applicant, as guided by local laws and ordinances, we require
that provisions are made for protection of equipment and units
from possible flood damage.

    Similarly, local laws and ordinances will most effectively
limit sewer lines that would induce uneconomical and hazardous
flood plain development.  Collection lines most liable to be
used for improper development are not eligible for federal
participation and plans are not reviewed by this Agency.  We
do not approve interceptor lines and appurtenances that are
subject to flooding.

    Flood plains are ideally suited for locations for treat-
ment facilities if land-use planning takes flood hazards into
account and provided that possible health hazards are minimized.
Location in flood plains can take advantage of gravity flow con-
ditions to reduce operating (pumping) costs and frequently
allows reduction of initial costs if lift stations can be elim-
inated.  This economy is very important to small communities
with limited financial capability.

    The treatment plant site will be subject to danger of damag-
ing floods only when water surface elevations are extremely high;
that is, when flood heights exceed the estimated 100-year flood
stage.  This protection corresponds to that recommended by most
agencies.
                               59

-------
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
              NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                             P. O. BOX 60267
                     NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA  7O16O
IN REPLY REFER TO
LMNED-PC                                              7 March 1972
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas  75201
Dear Mr. Busch:                                         \
                                                         X *
                                                          x
Your letter dated 19 January 1972 has been referred to  this office  for
reply.

We have reviewed the draft of your environmental statement for
Construction of Wastewater Facilities, Pittsburg, Texas.  The  City  of
Pittsburg, the county seat of Camp County, is located in  the north-
eastern corner of Texas.  The action consists of offering grant
assistance to the City of Pittsburg in the amount of 55 percent of  the
eligible cost of the following:

     a.   Additions to the existing Sparks Branch wastewater treatment
plant.

     b.   Construction of a new wastewater treatment plant on  Dry Creek.

     c.   Construction of interceptor sewers to the proposed Dry Creek
wastewater treatment plant.

We submit the following comments for your consideration:

     a.   Pages 11 and 30, Exhibits No. 4 and 6.  The percent  of treat-
ment of waste constituents should be shown for proper evaluations.

     b.   Page 12. The effluent from the Dry Creek plant  should not be
considered as dilution for wastes not collected and treated under the pro-
posed system.  We recommend that all wastes be collected  by the proposed
system.
                                 60

-------
LMNED-PC                                              7 March 1972
Mr. Arthur W. Busch

The statement should include the quantity of raw wastes which is now
entering Dry Creek, and also include the percentage by which this
quantity will be reduced by implementation of the project.

     c.   Page 15, line 1.  There are specific criteria for waters to
be used for irrigation and livestock watering.  Will these waters meet
the criteria for these purposes?

     d.   Page 15, line 8.  It is doubtful that the addition of organic
wastes to the stream will increase the dissolved oxygen.

     e.   Page 15, line ?6.  Many of these algal and bacterial cells
would be dead from chlorination and would exert a load on the stream
rather than seed it.

     f.   Page 15, line 21.  The addition of nutrients to the stream
would be a detriment because of increased eutrophication, and not an
enhancement.

     g.   Page 15, line 24.  The specific criteria of the quality of the
water should be specified and the uses of the water by downstream land-
owners should be mentioned.

     h.   Page 18, Exhibit No. 6.  This exhibit should be presented so
a comparison can be made between the existing water quality and the
standards of the Texas Water Quality Board.  The exhibit indicates the
standards of the Texas Water Quality Board are occasionally exceeded.
This implies that Cypress Creek is relatively polluted.

     i.   Page 21, line 1.  Here and throughout the statement, the term
"outfall sewer" is used incorrectly.  "Outfall sewer" is a pipe at the
end of a system where a discharge enters a stream or other surface water
body.  The terms "sewerage", "sewer lines" or "sewerage collection system",
or "force main", where applicable, should be used.

     j.   Page 28, line 7.  Abbreviations such as TRA system should be
defined.

     k.   Page 31, line 4.  The addition of nutrients to Lake O1  the Pines
will increase productivity and accelerate the aging of the lake.   This
condition is completely undesirable.

General Comments;

     a.   We recommend the section of the statement on the environmental
setting without the project include information on the geology,  botany,
wildlife,  archaeology, and aesthetics of the proposed project area.
                                61

-------
LMNED-PC                                             7 March 1972
Mr. Arthur W. Busch

     b.   Some description should be provided on the effects of the
proposed project on the quality of the effluent entering Lake O1 the
Pines.

     c.   We recommend Section II, environmental impact of the proposed
action, include a discussion concerning the ground-water aquifer in the
Pittsburg area known as "Cypress Aquifer."

     d.   In view of the objections to the possible devaluation of land
values because of the proposed project, more time and study should be
given to measures which would effectively camouflage the proposed site.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.

                                   Sincerely yours,
                                   WILLIAM E. LEE, JR.
                                   Lieutenant Colonel, SE
                                   Acting District Engineer
                                   3

                                   62

-------
      Response to Comments by the Department of the Army
COMMENT a:  The percent of treatment of waste constituents should
            be shown for proper evaluations.
RESPONSE:
            See Exhibit No. 4.
COMMENT b:
RESPONSE:
            The effluent from the Dry Creek plant should not be
            considered as dilution for wastes not collected and
            treated under the proposed system.  We recommend that
            all wastes be collected by the proposed system.

            The statement should include the quantity of raw wastes
            which is now entering Dry Creek, and also include the
            percentage by which this quantity will be reduced by
            implementation of the project.

            This passage has been omitted from the statement.
            See page 51 to clarify EPA's position on collection
            of all discharges in the Dry Creek watershed.
COMMENT c:
RESPONSE:
            There are specific criteria for waters to be used for
            irrigation and livestock watering.  Will these waters
            meet the criteria for these purposes?

            Plans and specifications for the project were reviewed
            and approved by the Texas State Department of Health,
            the Agency responsible for establishing requirements
            for irrigation and livestock watering.
COMMENT d:
RESPONSE:
            It is doubtful that the addition of organic wastes to
            the stream v/ill increase the dissolved oxygen.

            The text has been changed to clarify this point.
COMIIENT e:



RESPONSE:


COMMENT f :



RESPONSE:
            Many of these algal and bacterial cells would be dead
            from chlorination and would exert a load on the stream
            rather than seed it.

            The text has been changed to clarify this point.
            The addition of nutrients to the stream would be a
            detriment because of increased eutrophication, and not
            an enhancement.

            The text has been changed to clarify this point.
                              63

-------
COMMENT g:  The specific criteria of the quality of the water
            should be specified and the uses of the water by
            downstream landowners should be mentioned.
RESPONSE:
See page 11.
COMMENT h:  This exhibit should be presented so a comparison
            can be made between the existing water quality and
            the standards of the Texas Water Quality Board.
            The exhibit indicates the standards of the Texas
            Water Quality Board are occasionally exceeded.
            This implies that Cypress Creek is relatively
            polluted.

RESPONSE:   See text.
COMMENT i:  Here and throughout the statement, the term "out-
            fall sewer" is used incorrectly.  "outfall sewer"
            is a pipe at the end of a system where a discharge
            enters a stream or other surface water body.  The
            terms "sewerage", "sewer lines" or "sewerage collec-
            tion system", or "force main", where applicable,
            should be used.

RESPONSE:   The text has been changed to clarify these terms.
COMMENT j:  Abbreviations such as TRA system should be defined.

RESPONSE:   See text.
COMMENT k:  The addition of nutrients to Lake 0" the Pines will
            increase productivity and accelerate the aging of
            the lake.  This condition is completely undesirable.

RESPONSE:   The text has been changed to clarify this point.
General Comments

COMMENT a:  We recommend the section of the statement on the
            environmental setting without the project include
            information on the geology, botany, wildlife, archae-
            ology, and aesthetics of the proposed project area.

RESPONSE:   See text.
                              64

-------
COMMENT b:  Some description should be provided on the effects
            of the proposed project on the quality of the
            effluent entering Lake O1 the Pines.

RESPONSE:   No data is available to detail the effect of the
            effluent on Lake 0* the Pines.
COMMENT c:  We recommend Section II, environmental impact of the
            proposed action, include a discussion concerning the
            ground water aquifer in the Pittsburg area known as
            "Cypress Aquifer."

RESPONSE:   See text.
COMMENT d:  In view of the objections to the possible devaluation
            qf land values because of the proposed project, more
            time and study should be given to measures which would
            effectively camouflage the proposed site.

RESPONSE:   See text.
                              65

-------
                  TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION

                          SAM HOUSTON STATE OFFICE BUILDING

 CCMMISS'ONERS                                                          LOUIS L McDANIELS
OTHA F DENT CHAIRMAN                                                       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
  475-245)                                                                  475-2452
JOE O CARTER                                                            AUDREY STRANDTMAN
  *75'2"3                                                                  SECRETARY

D°R475Y4325ARDEMAN                   February 9, 1972                       —'4
         Ed Grisham, Director
         Governor's Division of Planning Coordination
         Sam Houston State Office Building
         Austin, Texas  78711
                                          Re: D^'aft Erivirorm ental Impact
                                              Statement for Construction of
                                              Wastewater Facilities,
                                              Pittsburg,  Texas
         Dear Ed:
                In response to your request of January 21, 1972, directed to
         Chairman Dent, we submit herewith a copy of our staff Memorandum
         of Review on the referenced EPA draft environmental statement.  We
         recommend that items presented in paragraph 2 (Analysis) of the
         attached Memorandum be considered by the EPA in finalizing the impact
         statement.

                Your special attention is  invited to the fact that this project has
         been under litigation  and the United States District Court for the East-
         ern District of Texas still retains jurisdiction of the suit.  The  Court
         has allowed the plaintiffs (opponents to the project) the prerogative to
         file suit  about two weeks before construction  should the plaintiffs still
         desire a hearing on merits for consideration  of a permanent  injunction.
         Also, on plaintiff's motion the EPA was ordered to furnish copies of
         pertinent reports and to provide  copies of the environmental  impact
         statement to the plaintiff.

                In view of the foregoing,  it is recommended that EPA carefully
         finalize the environmental impact statement so as to include  a thorough
         clarification of all major points raised and to eliminate all inconsistencies.
                                          Sinc>eiv;ly,
Lo'uis L. McDaniels
                                                                RECEIVED
         Attachment
           as stated                                              FEB  9
P O BOX 132O7                           AREA CODE 512
                                                                        AUSTIN TEXAS 78711
                                                               _.    .. -.
                                                               Div. of Pia... Coord.

-------
For the Executive Director                          February 7, 1972
Texas Water Rights Commission
                      MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW
                               OF
     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
         IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER
                  FACILITIES, PITTSBURG, TEXAS
Prepared by:  Dr. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Environmental Sciences Analyst



   1.  INTRODUCTION

       1.1  Action Correspondence —

            a.  In general notice of January 19, 1972, by the Re-
            gional Director, Region VI, Environmental Protection
            Agency (EPA) requested that interested agencies and
            public groups submit comments on the draft environ-
            mental statement pertaining to a proposed wastewater
            treatment facilities project for the City of Pittsburg,
            Texas.

            b.  In memorandum of January 21, 1972, the Director,
            Governor's Division of Planning Coordination requested
            that the Texas Water Rights Commission review and sub-
            mit comments on the draft statement.

       1.2  Scope of Project —

            a.  The project includes the construction of new waste-
            water treatment facilities on Dry Creek, improvements
            to existing Sparks Branch wastewater treatment plant,
            and sanitary sewer interceptors to the proposed Dry
            Creek plant.  EPA action consists in offering grant
            assistance to the City of Pittsburg, in the amount oil
            55 per cent of the eligible cost of the foregoing proj-
            ect items. ' The Economic Development Administration  (EDA)
            of the United States Department of Commerce will provide
            50 per cent of the eligible cost for the concurrent con-
            struction of additional sewage collection facilities.
                              67

-------
     b.  The estimated total project cost is $730,000
     and estimated total annual cost is $34,849.

     c.  Construction is planned to start in March 1972
     and to be finished in December 1972.   (Based on EPA
     Notice of Intent of November 10, 1971.)

1.3  Status of Project — The draft statement under review
reports that:

     a.  Three public hearings were held on this project
     by the Texas Water Quality Board (TV7QB) (i.e., Sep-
     tember 16, 1970; September 28, 1970, and March 26,
     1971).  The Hearing report of September 28, 1970,
     indicates that landowners in the immediate vicinity
     of the proposed new sewage treatment facility on Dry
     Creek opposed the proposed new plant location due to
     anticipated land value depreciation, failure of the
     facility in flash floods, danger of contaminating
     local water wells, and health hazard to neighboring
     landowners.  (See page 32.)   The Hearing report also
     noted that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
     offered no objection to the site and that the Texas
     State Department of Health found the site acceptable.
     (See page 32.)

     b.  The Texas Water Quality Board (TWQB) issued a-
     mended waste control orders on March 26, 1971, au-
     thorizing discharge from the proposed treatment fa-
     cilities.

     c.  On May 12,  1971, the Environmental Protection
     Agency approved the environmental assessment of the
     project that was prepared by City of Pittsburg, Texas,
     on March 17, 1971, reviewed by the East Texas Coun-
     cil of Governments and approved by the Texas Water
     Quality Board on or about March 29,  1971.   (See page
     33.)

     d.  On April 27, 1971, the opponents to the project
     filed suit in the 53rd District Court of Travis County,
     Texas, asking that the TWQB be enjoined from issuing
     the waste control order.  The suit was not filed within
   1  the 30-day time limit required by the court.  No action
     has been taken to date.   (See pages 33-34.)
                         2
                         68

-------
         e.  On August 3, 1971, the opponents filed suit in
         the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
         trict of Texas to enjoin the Environmental Protection
         Agency, the Economic Development Administration and
         the City of Pittsburg, Texas, from proceeding with
         the proposed Dry Creek Plant.  The hearing was held
         in Marshall, Texas,  on September 9,  1971.   The Court
         denied temporary injunction, but retained jurisdic-
         tion of the suit and allowed the plaintiff preroga-
         tive to file suit at a date approximately two weeks
         prior to construction of the treatment plant should
         the plaintiffs still desire a hearing on meritr for
         consideration of a permanent injunction.  (See page
         34.)

         f.  In letter of February 3, 1971,  the Texas State
         Department of Health notified the firm of Wisenbaker,
         Fix and Associates,  Consulting Engineers,  retained
         by the City of Pittsburg,  that the plans and speci-
         fications for the project had been reviewed, were
         found to be in general compliance with the Design
         Criteria of the Texas State Department of Health, and
         were approved.

2.   ANALYSIS

    2.1  Economic Development Administration (EDA)  Project —
    It is noted that the overall project includes "additional
    sewage collection facilities."  In this regard the draft
    (see page 1) contains the following statement:

         "A certification as  to Adequacy of Treatment for
         EDA Project No.  08-1-00928 cannot be made by the
         Environmental Protection Agency."

    While the statutory basis for this distinction is appreciated,
    it is believed that both  a description of the EDA work and a
    certification of the adequacy of the EDA work should be made
    available to reviewing agencies to enable them to make a pro-
    per evaluation of the entire project and the EPA-funded por-
    tion of the entire project.  The development and presentation
    of the entire area-wide waste collection, treatment and dis-
    posal for review and evaluation is in consonance with the
    policy of the Texas Water Quality Board,  as expressed in the
    Waste Control Order Amendment No. 10250.   (See page 47,  draft)
                             3
                            69

-------
The relationship of $257,437 EDA construction work with
the $344,500 EPA PL 660 construction work warrants discus-
sion.

2.2  Effect of the Project on Water Quality in the Lake O'
the Pines — The various statements made throughout the
draft paper, concerning the extremely vital matter of the
anticipated effects of the project on the water quality of
Lake O1 the Pines, should be reviewed for consistency and
accuracy.

On page 16 of the draft is the statement:

     "Therefore, no degradation of Lake O' the Pines
     is anticipateJ due to the Dry Creek discharge."

However, on page 31 of the draft is the statement:

     "Long term effects of the discharge of conven-
     tionally treated  (85-90 per cent removal of BOD
     of biological methods) sewage to tributaries to
     Lake O1 the Pines have yet to be identified and
     evaluated.  It is reasonable to believe, however,
     that such discharges will add sufficient organic
     and inorganic nutrients to significantly increase
     the productivity of the lake's ecosystem.  In-
     creased sedimentation and increased taste and
     odor problems are also possible."

Also, on page 31 of the draft is the statement:

     "An evaluation of the effect of Pittsburg's dis-
     charge on Lake O1 the Pines cannot, however, be
     made independently of discharges from industry,
     cities, and agricultural operations within the
     watershed.  There is no evidence of potential
     long term effects."

On page 22 of the draft is the statement:

     "This area is not fully-zoned or covered by a
     land-use plan."

These statements reflect the need for regional system analysis
and planning to insure that individual projects developed for
                         4
                         70

-------
  a region serve not only local needs but also protect the
  quality of water in downstream reservoirs.  Analysis of
  the foregoing statements further shows the need for es-
  tablishing regional priorities for the construction of
  facilities.

  2.3  Need to Discuss the Major Technical Aspects Involved
  in the Interrelationships Between Project and Lake 0' the
  ^^ ^ WK r*i r*
  Pines ---
       a.  The proposed and existing treatment plants in
       the vicinity of Pittsburg are about 15 miles from
       the. upper reaches of Lake 0' the Pines  (see pa~je
       5, draft).  In this regard, mention should be made
       of the fact that the natural purification of pol-
       luted waters is never fast, and that heavily-pol-
       luted streams may traverse long distances during
       many days of flow before a significant degree of
       purification is accomplished.  It should be empha-
       sized that the time of flow, rather than the dis-
       tance of flow, is frequently the controlling factor
       in the bacterial self-purification of receiving
       waters.  This is seen at times by the improvement
       in water quality during the relatively slow passage
       of a stream through a lake.  However, this type of
       improvement may be temporary and costly if lake eu-
       trophication is intensive enough to be detrimental
       to the lake itself.

       b.  The draft (see page 23) indicates that excessive
       chlorination, resulting in the lysing of algal cells
       can reduce the as:?:inil?ti''2 capacity of streams.
       However, the report indicates that proper chlorine
       residuals have little adverse effect, and is widely
       used to decrease the number of enteric and patho-
       genic organisms.  It is believed that further analy-
       sis and discussion is justified on dilution and die-
       away of enteric pathogens in receiving waters between
       the Pittsburg treatment facilities and Lake 0' the Pines,
       The need for localized analysis is represented by Fair,
       et al,  (1968),1 as follows:
i
"""Fair,  G.  M; Geyer,  J.  C. ;  and Okun, D. A., Water and Wastewatej:
 Engineering,  Vol.  2,  New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968,
 pp.  33-7  to 33-8.


                           5
                          71

-------
  3 ~-_- -  ^ "We arrive at the paradoxical  conclusion
  c_" = l-~. '-that the destruction of enteric bacteria
  tr. = £ : rr- ; -is. more rapid  (1) in heavily polluted
  ~£.::1;. - '.-' ^streams than in clean streams,  (2)  in
  re -:_: t _-: :warm weather than in cold weather,  and
             (3) in shallow, turbulent streams than
               _deep, sluggish bodies of water."
       :Dilution and die-away are  important  safeguards  against
       waterborne enteric pathogens.   Pertinent  information
       6n die-away is by no means complete.

       Hydrographic exploration of receiving waters  is neces-
       sary in order to ascertain how  effective  natural dis-
       persion or dilution will probably be and  whether water
       intakes and shore properties will be polluted or not.
       In lakes, both displacement-and wind-induced  currents
       as well as temperature and other density  effects govern
       the degree of mixing and dilution.

       "c-. "A better reconciliation and clarification of the
       -following statements would be desirable in order to
       reflect consistency.  On page 29 of  draft, the  follow-
       ing statement is made:

       -" -  "The alternative adopted was based on eco-
       "  "  nomic necessity rather than ecological en-
            hancement.  The city is, at present, unable
            to finance a more expensive alternative."

       The above statement logically follows from the  remarks
       made earlier on page 22 ot draft:

       -  - -  "In general, economics or  engineering feasi-
            bility will greatly outweigh the effect  on
            land-use near the proposed site...This plant
            will become the limiting factor for  all  future
            development in the area until such time  as the
            plant is deactivated...."

       However, on page 34 of the draft, the statement is made
       that:
             "The plaintiffs presented cral testimony only
            alleging the location of the treatment  facili-
2Fair, et al, Id., p. 33-9.

-------
                 ties was undesirable, a possible health
                 hazard, a nuisance, and would impair land-
                 use.  No concrete evidence or expert testi-
                 mony was presented."

            In order to reconcile the foregoing statements, it is
            suggested that the conclusions on page 35 of draft in-
            clude a statement to the effect that the environmental
            assessment  (i.e., Exhibit No. 10, pages 50-52 of draft)
            contains an adequate description of the necessary engi-
            neering, economic and environmental compromises or
            trade-offs involved in the proposed project.

            d.  Explanation of page 35b of draft would be desirable.
            Is this the response to Mr.  Smith's letter of December
            2, 1971, shown on pages 35c to 35g?  If it is intended
            to be a complete reply, it appears that clarification
            of other important technical items raised in letter of
            December 2, 1971, have been overlooked, (as e.g., tha
            inadequacy and temporary nature of oxidation ponds,
            (see page 35e);  the inadequate manning of treatment
            facilities, (see page 35e);  the adverse correlation
            between the construction of a sewage treatment plant
            and residential development, (see page 35e)).

   3.  RECOMMENDATIONS

       It is recommended that the Environmental Protection Agency
   consider the items of paragraph 2 above in preparation of the
   final environmental statement.'
AJD/tg
                                73

-------
    Response to Comments by  the  Texas Water Rights Commission


COMMENT 1:  Certificate as to  Adequacy of Treatment.

RESPONSE:   The text has been  modified to clarify this puiat.


COKI1ENT 2:  Eutrophication of  Lake  O1  the Pines.

RESPONSE:   The text has been  changed to clarify this point.
COMMENT 3:  Need to discuss  the  major technical aspect-^  i n wive
            in the interrelationships between project and Lake
            O' the Pines.
RESPONSE:   The text has been changed
                                          clarify these ;~o_i.uts.
The following is an excerpt  from a  letter to the TWI-C tron EP.\,
March 30, 1972.

    "Your comments of February  7,  1972,  on the Draft r~n±ic>n-
mental Impact Statement  for  construction of Wastc^atei facili-
ties in Pittsbury, Texas  are greatly appreciated.  Those COITIRIP^ t -,
pointed out several shortcomings and inconsistencies -> " Lhe te::t
which we will attempt to  eliminate  before the final impact st;1 Ce-
ment is filed with the Council  on Environmental Quality."

    "The Environmental Protection Agency solicits and encoura<"^s>
comments from all state  agencies regarding proposed wastev
treatment projects.  The  advice and suggestions offered by
agencies will promote effective water quality manaijoi ient [-j
                               74

-------
              P A K K 3  A • M D  VV i L D LI F Z D LI P A R T f/i E NT
                                   v>:,^>'
                            uHNi H RE^AN B'J'LD'N
                            AUSTIN, TEXAS  787O1
                                                      February 2, 1972


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

Dear Mr. Coker:

We have reviewed the draft environmental  impact  statement for construction of
wastewater facilities at Pittsburg,  Texas,  and are  in general agreement with
the statement.  There are, however,  three points contained in the draft state-
ment with which we would not agree.

The first of those points concerns  a statement in Section II, Page 14..."The
reduced organic loading will stimulate  only moderate population growth which
is not expected to tax the dissolved oxygen concentration of this stream".
This statement only applies to heterotrophic  organisms and ignores the poten-
tial increase in autotrophs.  Furthermore,  we cannot be optimistic that a
favorable oxygen balance will be maintained during  periods of low solar input,
because the increased standing crops of autotrophs  will exert a considerable
oxygen demand during such periods.

The second point concerns the statement on  Page  15  that..."The perennial flow
condition and the consistent nutrient level of the  effluent would greatly en-
hance the ecology of the area,  create s.n  aesthetically acceptable setting, and
supply landowners with a year-round  souice  of water".  We can understand how
the situation in Dry Creek would be  improved, but we cannot understand how the
"ecology" of the area would be enhanced.  Also,  we  cannot conceive of an un-
diluted secondary sewage effluent as being  aesthetically acceptable.

The third point of disagreement concerns  the  statement on Page 16 that..."no
degredation of Lake 0' the Pines is  anticipated  due to the Dry Creek discharge",
We feel that even though degredation of non-conservative constituents of the
effluent will be nearly complete by  the time  the effluent reaches Lake 0' the
Pines, conservative constituents will be  largely unreduced, and as a result
eutrophication of the lake will be  accelerated.   In that sense, this discharge
cannot be segregated from other upstream  sewage  discharges as theii effect on
the reservoir is additive.
                                                         RECEIVED
                                                           FEB  4   1972

                                 75                     Div. of Plan. Coord.

-------
Mr. Ed Coker
February 2, 1972
Page 2


It is noted in the environmental impact statement that the Parks and Wildlife
Department did not object to the granting of a Water Quality Board waste con-
trol order to the City of Pittsburg, nevertheless we would like to encourage
the use of no discharge or tertiary treatment systems when the discharge of
a sewerage system is in close proximity to a standing body of water.  Lacustrine
ecosystems such as Lake 0' the Pines are very susceptible to eutrophication and
some of the concomitant undesirable conditions which ensue.  We would suggest.
that at a very minimum, the City of Pittsburg should develop a sewerage syston
which could occomodate an add-on tertiary treatment system.

We appreciate having had the opportunity to conment on the draft environmental
impact statement.


Sincerely,
 AMES U. CROSS
  ecutive Director
                                  76

-------
               Response to Comments by the Texas
                 Parks and Wildlife Department
COMMENT 1:
RESPONSE:
We cannot be optimistic that a favorable oxygen
balance will be maintained during periods of low
solar input, because the increased standing crops
of autotrophs will exert a considerable oxygen
demand during such periods.

See page 16.
COMMENT 2:   The second point concerns the statement on Page 15
            that...  "The perennial flow condition and the con-
            sistent nutrient level of the effluent would greatly
            enhance the ecology of the area, create an aestheti-
            cally acceptable setting, and supply landowners with
            a year-round source of water".  We can understand how
            the situation in Dry Creek would be improved, but we
            cannot understand how the "ecology" of the area would
            be enhanced.  Also, we cannot conceive of an undiluted
            secondary sewage effluent as being aesthetically accept-
            able.

RESPONSE:   From a practical view, a stream flow of plant effluent
            with less than 20 mg/1 BOD and 20 mg/1 suspended solids
            will enhance flora and fauna when compared to a dry or
            practically dry stream bed.   During periods of extremely
            low flow, natural flows might contain higher concentra-
            tions of BOD and suspended solids than would a flow
            composed entirely of treated wastewater.


COMMENT 3:   The third point of disagreement concerns  the state-
            ment on Page 16 that... "no  degradation of Lake 0'
            the Pines is anticipated due to the Dry Creek dis-
            charge".  We feel that even  though degradation of
            nonconservative constituents of the effluent will
           >be nearly complete by the time the effluent reaches
            Lake 0"  the Pines, conservative constituents will
            be largely unreduced, and as a result eutrophication
            of the lake will be accelerated.  In that sense,
            this discharge cannot be segregated from  other up-
            stream sewage discharges as  their effect  on the
            reservoir is additive.

RESPONSE:   The proposed interim facilities will effect a signi-
            ficant improvement in the existing environment of
            the area.  In order to protect Lake 0' the Pines
            from eutrophication caused by the "additive" effects
                            77

-------
of all discharges to the lake, a Water Quality
Management Program is needed.  The proposed pro-
ject represents a first step toward developing
such a plan.  This management plan would permit
control, analysis, and regulation of all point
and non-point discharges contributing to the pollu-
tion of Lake O1 the Pines.
                    78

-------
VIII.  Conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency



       A.  The proposed project should have no long-term or cumu-



       lative adverse effects on the environment.



       B.  The alternative selected by the City of Pittsburg, that



       is, the plan as proposed, gives due consideration to the



       impact on the environment.  The plan as proposed is not



       the most expensive, neither is it the least expensive.



           The proposed plan is a compromise which seeks to mini-



       mize adverse effects on the environment and yet is not beyond



       the financial capability of the City of Pittsburg, nor will



       the costs of construction and operation of the facilities



       place an undue financial burden on the citizenry.



       C.  Present conditions in the City justify implementation



       of the proposed plan at the earliest possible time.
                                   79

-------
/"v
       -l-n^-" .
       •*   I      LOfffvIl*
HARRISON
             GREGG
         Exhibit  NO.  I
         LOCATION  MAP
               80

-------
co
C
O
CO

0)
PU
VH
O

CO


nJ
CO

O

H

i

C
O
•4-*
nS

"5
CU
O
100
 90
 80

 70

 60

 50


 40



 30
 20
 10
  9
  8

  7

  6
 f.AVIF
r.oi IN
TN'
      o
      o^
      00
o
o
     o
     CM
                  O
                  in
                                                       o
                                                       sO
o
oo
o
o
o
                              Year
                        Exhibit No. 2
                                    *Revised According  to
                                         1970 Census
                       Population Forecast


                                 81

-------

-------
                        Design  Data

                       Exhibit  No. 4
                        Present
Sparks Branch

Population Served
Average Flow  (MGD)
Average Flow
Effluent BOD
% Reduction
Effluent TSS

% Reduction
(cfs)
(mg/1)
(Ibs/day)
(mg/1)
(Ibs/day)
2800
0.28
0.43
 42
 98

 84
196
                       After Imple-
                       mentation of
                         Proposed
                           Plan
3400
0.34
0.52
 20
56.7
 42
 20
56.7
 71
                            Design
4500
0.45
0.69
 20
 75
 23
 20
 75
 61
Dry Creek

Population Served
Average Flow (MGD)
Average Flow (cfs)
Effluent BOD (mg/1)
% Reduction
Effluent TSS

% Reduction
(Ibs/day)

(mg/1)
(Ibs/day)
               200
              0.02
              0.03
               20
              3.3

               40*
              6.7
               2000
               0.2
               0.3
                20
                33

                40
               66.7
*No TSS standards are applied to pond effluents due to high
 algae concentration.
                          83

-------
  Exhibit No. 5
     MAP  OF
THE SEWER SYSTEM

-------
Texas Water Quality Board field notes on Cypress  Creek  above
its confluence with Dry Creek.
         Parameter

         DO (mg/1)
         BOD5 (mg/1)
         pH
         Conductivity (micromhos/cm)
                 Range
              2.6 to  8.0
              1.0 to 19.0
              6.3 to  7.5
              194 to 710
The existing water quality Standards set by the Texas Water
Quality Board for Cypress Creek are as follows:
                March 1970 to March 1971
         Maximum BOD,

         Minimum DO

         pH Range
5.0 mg/1 (annual average)

5.5 mg/1

6.0 - 8.0 (annual average)
                                          Exhibit No. 6
                            85

-------
                                   CYPRESS CREEK
                                          0401
                               Water  Quality Requirements
                               Texas  Water  Quality  Board

     (THE GENERAL STATEMENT IS AN INTEG^A^A^? O?F THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.)


A.  Chloride, average not to exceed                                                        80  mg/1
B.  Sulphate, a\ erage not to exceed                                                       50  mg/1
C.  Filterable Residue, average not to exceed
     (Total Dissolved Solids)                                                     .      300  mg/1
D.  B.O.D., average not to exceed                                                         5.0  mg/!
E.  Dissolved Oxygen, not less than                                                       5.5  mg/1
F.  pH Range                          '                                                  6.0-80
G.  MPN (See General Statement)
H.  Temperature (See General Statement) Upper limit of the representative temperature-96°F., and not to
    exceed a 5CF. rise in the representative temperature above natural conditions.
        This temperature requirement is a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
        tration.
I.   Toxicity and Toxic Materials-These waters shall not exhibit either acute or chronic toxicity (or other
    harmful effect) to human, animal, or aquatic life to such an extent as to interfere with uses of the waters
    (See General Statement)
J.  Free or Floating Oil -Substantially free from oil.
K.  Foaming or Frothing Material-None of a persistent nature.
L.  Other—Substances or conditions not heretofore mentioned in these requirements may be controlled or
    regulated as the need arises Where these waters are the raw water to a public drinking water supplv the
    water shall be suitable.
M.  Radioactive Materials-Levels of ionizing  radiation and radioactive materials of all kinds, from both
    dissolved and  suspended matter, shall be regulated by the Texas Radiation Control Act, Article 4590 (0,
    Revised Civil  Statutes of Texas, and the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation issued thereunder.
                                                                   Exhibit No. 6A

                                                86

-------
                         CYPRESS CREEK

                  Flows Measured at USGS Gage
                       (Highway No. 11)
Period of Record 1943 - 1963

Maximum Flood - March 1945 - 58,500 cfs

Minimum flows occur in August of each year - Average flow in
  August is approximately 2 cfs

Zero flows recorded in August to October 1954 and August to
  November 1956.
                                          Exhibit No. 7
                              87

-------
                    SPARKS BRANCH PLANT

              (August 7, 1970 - August 4,  1971)

                         EFFLUENT
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand  (BOD5)

Total Suspended
Solids  (TSS)
                          Average
Maximum
Minimum
(mg/1)
42
84
(mg/1)
95
169
(mg/1)
11
25
                        DESIGN DATA
Population

Average Flow  (MGD)

Maximum Flow  (MGD)
Existing
2800
0.28
__
After
Collection
System
Additions
3400
0.34
__
Design
Capacity
4500
0.45
1.125
                                          Exhibit No.  8
                           88

-------
    •« »M
                           V/ATIIR QUALITY DOA..D
                                                               J. E. fTAV> . M C.'.
                                                                   /*.'i:.< Y
t  ,- t  Lr.OV/f.'Lff.              :         ,j