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
fJ
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. OtherSubstances 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.. ' 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, properdisposal 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
------- |