United States           Region 7            EPA 907/9-84-003
            Environmental Protection      324 East Eleventh St.        June, 1984
            Agency             Kansas City, Mo. 64106
                                           EPA REGION VII IRC
           	    III
            Environmental Review		
           	    i linn iii
                                            069216
«EPA    Final  Environmental            Final
           Impact  Statement

           Proposed Wastewater
           Treatment Facilities
           Greene County, Missouri
                                       ECE1VED

-------

-------
    '
      ?    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                                    REGION VII
                            324 EAST ELEVENTH  STREET
                           KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI - 64106
TO:
          ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES,  PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS
     Attached is a  copy  of  the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Greene County, Missouri.  This
document has been prepared pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act  of  1969 (Public Law 91-190).   Any  comments on
this final EIS must be  submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) within 30 days after the Notice of  Availability  of  this document is
published in the Federal  Register.   The date  of notification is anticipa-
ted to be about June 22,  1984;  therefore,  comments  should be submitted by
July 21, 1984.

     Parties wishing to submit written comments  on the  final  EIS may do
so by  mailing them to  Edward C.  Vest,  EIS  Coordinator,  at  the above
address by the close of the review period.  A Record of Decision,  stating
EPAs chosen action  on the above project,  will be published following the
close of the 30-day review period.

     Additional copies of  the final  EIS will  be  available  for public
review at the following locations.
                                          Republic Branch Library
                                          135  South Highway 60
                                          Republic, Missouri 65738

                                          Hood-Rich Architects
                                            and  Consulting Engineers
                                          801  South Glenstone
                                          Springfield, Missouri 65802
    Springfield Main Library
    397 East Central
    Springfield, Missouri  65802

    Greene County Building
      and Planning Department
    833 Boonville
    Springfield, Missouri  65802

    Ash Grove Branch Library
    101 East Main
    Ash Grove, Missouri  65604

     Additional information on this document  or the review period may be
obtained from Thomas F.  Lorenz (816)  374-5593 or FTS 758-5593.

                                       Sincerely yours,
                                             Kay
                                       Regional Administrator
Attachment

-------

-------
                      FINAL
         ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
    PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
             GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        REGION VII, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
                    JUNE 1984
APPROVED BY:
                     Kay, Regional Administrator
                   Consultants
     Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
               St. Louis, Missouri

-------

-------
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

          In  1979,  the  Greene  County Sewer  District received a  grant
from  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA) to  initiate  com-
prehensive wastewater facilities planning for the Greene County planning
area.*  Since  wastewater management  and disposal in Greene  County may
have  critical   impacts  on sensitive  and valuable natural  and  man-made
environmental  resources,  and  could  increase  costs to  local  residents,
EPA initiated this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine those
potential impacts as a concurrent part of the planning process.
          The Greene County planning area includes most of Greene County
and  a  small  part  of  Christian  County  and is  located  in  southwest
Missouri.   The District  retained  Hood-Rich,  an  engineering  and  archi-
tectural  consulting  firm  located  in  Springfield,  to  prepare  the
facilities plan and to  coordinate public participation  in the  planning
process.   The  planning   area   is   divided  into   the  Springfield,
Battlefield,  Brookline,  Fair Grove, Republic**, Strafford, Walnut Grove,
Willard, and Unincorporated Low-Growth subareas for analysis.

A.   PROPOSED ACTIONS
          For  each  subarea, a "no  action"  alternative and alternatives
for  new or  modified  wastewater  collection and treatment  systems  were
developed.   The feasibility and  costs  of  cluster  systems and  gravity,
pressure,   and   vacuum  sewer collection  systems  were assessed for un-
sewered areas,  and treatment plant processes  and alternative discharge
points  were  evaluated.   New collection facilities and  improved  waste-
water  treatment and  management  were considered for  existing  systems.
The proposed improvements for each subarea are identified in the follow-
ing list and Summary Figure.
 *The  Greene County  Sewer District  was  formed  to  sponsor  wastewater
  facilities  planning.   Local  plan approval and  adoption,  as  well  as
  facilities  design,  construction,  and  operation,  remain the responsi-
  bilities of the individual municipalities in the planning area.
**The  Republic  subarea  was  recently  withdrawn from  the EIS  study  to
  expedite  proposed project  improvements.  This  action is  in accord-
  ance with EPA's environmental review finding of no significant
  impact, dated April 9, 1984.

-------
                    FACILITIES PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
                              BY SUBAREA

Springfield Subarea
          Conduct  a  sewer system  evaluation  survey to  locate  areas  of
excessive inflow and infiltration.

     Southern System:
          The following are proposed  to eliminate existing small treat-
ment  facilities  and pump  stations  and  to  serve presently  unsewered
development:
          Construct  Pierson  Creek  interceptor,   interceptor  extension,
and  contributing  lines  to deliver  wastes to  the Southwest  Treatment
Plant via the existing James River interceptor.
          Construct  the  Thompson Branch trunk,  pump station,  and force
main discharging to the  James  River interceptor;  also  several smaller
lines discharging directly to the James River interceptor.
          Construct several lines connecting to  the existing Ward Branch
trunk.
          Construct several lines connecting to  the Wilsons Creek inter-
ceptor; also  a  line and pump station discharging to the Southwest Plant
interceptor.
          Recommendations  with  regard  to treatment  are  as  follows:
          Conduct pilot studies of further sludge stabilization prior to
land spreading.
          Incorporate sludge treatment and disposal studies into overall
                    \
solid waste management.
          Consider industrial reuse of Southwest Treatment Plant effluent
with future expansion of Springfield's Southwest Power Plant.
          Analysis  at  this time  suggests  the James River pump station
and  Southwest  Treatment  Plant  should  be  expanded when needed  in the
1990's  rather than  constructing  a new James River treatment  plant  to
treat James River  interceptor waste flows.
                                   11

-------
                    FACILITIES PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
                              BY SUBAREA (continued)

     Northern System:
          Construct a new Northwest  treatment plant at the Murray site,
about three miles downstream of the existing Northwest Plant.
          Construct  the  Little Sac River interceptor  from the existing
Northwest plant site to the new plant site.
          Construct the South Dry Sac interceptor.

Battlefield Subarea
          A collection sewer  system  within  the city limits with pumping
to Springfield's James River pump station and Southwest Treatment Plant.

Brookline Subarea
          A collection  sewer system  to serve much of  the subarea with
pumping to  Springfield's Wilsons  Creek interceptor and Southwest Treat-
ment Plant.

Fair Grove Subarea
          A collection sewer  system  to serve most  of  the  subarea and a
treatment plant  discharging  to  a tributary of the Pomme de Terre River.

Republic Subarea
          Collection  system  improvements  within  the  city limits  and
replacing existing treatment facilities with a new plant nearby.

Strafford Subarea
          A collection system to  serve most of the subarea with pumping
to Springfield's southern system and Southwest Treatment Plant.

Walnut Grove Subarea
          A collection  system and treatment plant serving most of the
subarea is proposed.  The proposed plant would discharge to Sugar Creek,
a  losing  stream,  since  there  are  no cost-effective  alternatives  for
discharge to a gaining stream.
                                   iii

-------
                    FACILITIES PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
                              BY SUBAREA (continued)
Willard Subarea
          A collection system to serve parts of the subarea with pumping
to Springfield's Airport Branch trunk and the Northwest Treatment Plant.

Unincorporated Low Growth Subarea
          Criteria for  improved  on-site  systems are suggested for adop-
tion and program implementation.
                                   IV

-------
Existing and Proposed
Public Wastewater
Facilities
Summary
Legend


z z
Q &
CO
1- 1 H




	 ^— f77V-£g5g^i 	
-; i
-1 >,
ord §
If
9 ii "
£u a
0)
0
o
1 £

1
Z l| Z
s ,/ "
i- v.N N J
Southwest
^^1 Northwest
^Hj Lokewood Subdivision
Major Proposed Facilities
1 New Republic Plant
Springfield:
7 Pierson Creek Interceptor
8 Thompson Branch Interceptor
9 New Northwest Plant
10 Little Sac Interceptor
1 1 South Dry Sac Interceptor
>2 Battlefield P.S./FM.
13 Brookline RS./F.M.
14 Fair Grove Plant
IS Strafford RS./F.M.
16 Walnut Grove Plant
17 Willard RS./F.M.
Planning Area _______
City Limits
County I \m\te
_-_-_• in----? 1
Miles __^_tZZ3_B_B^ZH ^
Kilometer CZZZ_M.^Z]_BEZ!Z._H *"^^^
              North

-------

-------
          Impacts  of  the  recommended  alternatives  will  generally  be
beneficial, particularly to  surface  and ground water quality and effic-
ient  land  use  planning.   The  proposed  alternatives  would  replace  or
eliminate  inadequate wastewater treatment  plants  and provide  suitable
collection and treatment systems at communities with serious problems  of
failing  septic  tank systems.   Four of  the  outlying  communities  propose
to deliver wastewater  to  the City of Springfield  system  for treatment,
and   this   regionalization   was  found   to  be  environmentally   and
economically sound.
          Some adverse  impacts  associated with the recommended alterna-
tives will be relatively minor, and many will be of a short-term nature.
These include the erosion,  sedimentation, and damage to riparian habitat
associated with  sewer  construction in stream corridors,  and the traffic
disruption, safety  hazards,  and noise  caused by  construction  in urban
areas.  Proper mitigative measures as discussed in the Draft and Final
EIS will minimize  these impacts.  There  are  also  significant potential
long-term  or  irreversible  adverse impacts  that warrant  specific  con-
ditions for mitigation.  These include measures to  avoid or minimize the
hazard of sewer line failure in sinkhole areas and  avoid or minimize the
effects of construction on archaeological resources.
          Cost impacts  of collection  and treatment systems to residents
of the unsewered subareas will be great, despite efforts  to reduce costs
and the potential for grant  assistance.   Officials  and citizens of these
communities have participated  in  the  planning  for  these  subareas  and
their views are generally reflected in the proposed plans.   Cost impacts
for residents of Springfield and Republic will be moderate.

B.   AGENCY DECISIONS AND REQUIRED MITIGATIVE MEASURES
          Facilities  planning  and  this EIS analysis  were  performed
concurrently and  in coordination  to  help prevent  environmentally poor
choices.   This EIS analysis  has found that the environmental benefits  of
the proposed alternatives outweigh the  adverse environmental effects  by
a significant margin.   EPA  therefore  intends to provide  further federal
funding  for  these  projects,  subject  to  all  other review  and  approval
requirements of  EPA's  Construction Grants  Program,  as well  as  the re-
quirements   of  the   Missouri  Department  of  Natural  Resources  (MDNR).
                                   vii

-------
          During subsequent  design and construction phases of  the  pro-
posed  projects,  EPA  will be  responsible  for  seeing that  recommended
measures are taken to mitigate potential adverse impacts.   The principal
required mitigative measures are:
     o    The proposed force main from Willard to the Springfield north-
ern system  should  be  designed to minimize potential problems  from sink-
hole  subsidence.   A geotechnical  survey  should be  required  during the
final design stage to identify the sinkhole areas,  assess  the  subsidence
potential,  and  recommend  specific measures for mitigation.   The  use of
ductile  iron force  main, as  proposed,  and  pipe  joints that  provide
flexibility without leakage are recommended.  Flow and pressure monitor-
ing and alarm systems should be provided as warranted.
     o    The proposed  South  Dry Sac,  Little  Sac  River, and  Pierson
Creek  interceptors, and the  proposed Battlefield and Fair Grove facili-
ties  will  have  potentially significant impacts  on prehistoric archaeo-
logical  sites.   The sites have been  identified  as potentially eligible
for inclusion in the  National Register of  Historic  Places.   During the
detailed  design stage, the  proposed  facilities  should  be modified to
avoid  these sites, or, if avoidance  is  not  possible,  test  excavations
should  be  conducted  to  determine their  significance.   Mitigation of
archaeological impacts should be coordinated with the Center for Archae-
ological Research, Southwest Missouri State University.
     o    Sedimentation and  erosion  control  measures are  particularly
important  during construction of the proposed Pierson Creek,  South Dry
Sac, and Little Sac River interceptors.  These interceptors involve long
lengths  of  streamside  construction,  numerous  stream   crossings,  and
potential  reservoir or  stream  siltation.   Strict  stream  crossing and
sediment control specfications for construction of these facilities  (and
the preservation of a "green belt" along  the waterways)  should be pre-
pared  during the  final design stage  and followed during construction.
Native  vegetation  should be  replanted as  discussed in  the following
item.
      o    Several  interceptors  will  have  significant impacts on bottom-
land  forests, a  valuable  wildlife habitat.  Facilities should be aligned
to  avoid these  areas or  disturb as little  area as possible.  Minimizing
                                  viii

-------
the width of  construction  corridors  through these areas is recommended.
These corridors should be regraded to natural contour and replanted with
native  vegetation.   The  Missouri  Conservation  Commission  should  be
consulted in this regard and can help to provide for natural replanting.
     o    Design and  implementation  of  the  proposed project  at Walnut
Grove should  include  a program to monitor potentially  affected private
wells in the  Sugar  Creek receiving  stream  area.   Periodic  monitoring
before and after project implementation is recommended.
     o    Mitigative  measures  will  be  required  at two  landfill  sites
which affect  and are  affected by construction of  proposed Springfield
northern  system  facilities.   All  environmental  analyses,  mitigative
measures, and  remedial  actions required at the landfills will be deter-
mined by the  EPA  Superfund  Program for hazardous  wastes  clean-up,  and
shall include  any adverse  impacts associated with  the  installation of
the proposed Northwest treatment plant and Little  Sac River interceptor.
The implementation of remedial actions at the sites will not occur until
after EPA  completes  a  Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility  Study  of  the
landfills.
                                   IX

-------

-------
                        GREENE COUNTY FINAL EIS
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -
     A.   Proposed Actions                                       i
     B.   Agency Decisions and Required Mitigative Measures      vii
     Table of Contents
     List of Figures
     List of Tables
XI
xii
xiii
  I. INTRODUCTION
     A.   Background of the Facilities Plan
     B.   Background and Issues of the EIS
     C.   Organization of This Document
  1
  2
  6
 II. EIS STUDY SUMMARY
     A.   Environmental Setting
     B.   Wastewater Treatment Problems
     C.   Facilities Plan Alternatives and Recommendations
     D.   Impacts of the Recommended Alternatives
     E.   Issues and Comments in Response to the Draft EIS
  9
 35
 37
 76
 85
III. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS
 87
 IV. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES
     A.   Written Comments and Responses
     B.   Public Hearing Comments and Responses
 97
169
List of Preparers
219
                                   XI

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number                                                         Page
          Summary - Existing and Proposed Public                 v
            Wastewater Facilities
  1       Planning Area                                           3
  2       Ground Water Contamination Hazard Areas                25
  3       Facilities Plan Alternatives Not Proposed              39

Revised Draft EIS Figures:
  5       Faults                                                 89
 18       Annual Surface Wind Rose, Springfield, MO              92

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
Table
Number
  1       Municipal Point Source Dischargers                     15
  2       Domestic, Institutional, and Commercial
            Point Source Dischargers                             16

  3       Industrial Point Source Dischargers                    20

  4       Population Projections by Incorporated Area
            and Unincorporated Township Areas and for
            the Christian County Portion of the Planning
            Area                                                 30

  5       Springfield Southern System Current and
            Projected Waste Loadings                             44
  6       Springfield Northwest Treatment Plant
            Current and Projected Waste Loadings                 53

  7       Battlefield Subarea Alternatives
            Preliminary Costs Summary                            57
  8       Brookline Subarea Alternatives
            Preliminary Costs Summary                            60
  9       Fair Grove Subarea Alternatives
            Preliminary Costs Summary                            62
 10       Strafford Subarea Alternatives
            Preliminary Costs Summary                            65

 11       Walnut Grove Subarea Alternatives
            Preliminary and Final Costs Summary                  68
 12       Willard Subarea Alternatives
            Preliminary Costs Summary                            71
 13       Estimated User Charges                                 78
 14       User Charges/Household Income
            Comparison                                           79
Revised Draft EIS Table:
  7       Characteristics of Springfield's Drinking
            Water Supply Sources                                 88
                                  Kill

-------

-------
                           I.   INTRODUCTION

A.   BACKGROUND OF THE FACILITIES PLAN
          The  objective  of the  Clean Water Act  of 1977  and  the Water
Pollution Control Act  of 1972 is "to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and  biological integrity  of the Nation's waters."  To achieve
this  objective,  the  Acts  authorize . the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA) to make grants to local governments to assist in paying the
costs  of planning,  designing,  and  constructing  wastewater  treatment
facilities.
          During the facilities planning phase, referred to as "Step 1,"
the local government  defines  the wastewater problems  it  hopes  to solve
through facilities construction; identifies alternative means of solving
the problems,  including  alternative wastewater collection and treatment
systems;  analyzes  the  costs   and  environmental  effects  of  the  alter-
natives;  and  chooses  the  most  economically and  environmentally sound
alternatives.  Following approval of the wastewater  facilities  plan by
the state and  completion of the design,  the  local government may apply
for  the  Step 3  grant  for  construction,   which  includes  a  standard
allowance for design (formerly Step 2).   Small communities may apply for
a  combined  Step  2+3  grant, including a  design  allowance,  upon approval
of  the  facilities plan.   Funding for all  steps  is  dependent  upon the
priority assigned to the project by the state relative to other projects
in the state.
          The  Greene  County Sewer  District was formed in  1977,  and in
1979  received  a  Step 1  grant from EPA  under Section 201  of  the Water
Pollution Control  Act to  initiate  comprehensive  wastewater  facilities
planning  for  the  Greene  County area.   The  facilities  planning  area
covers all  of  Greene  County except for  Ash Grove  and Rogersville, plus
26 square miles  in  north central Christian  County (see  Figure 1).   Ash
Grove has  a suitable  treatment  facility,  and  the City  of Rogersville,
which  is mostly  in Webster  County, is  developing its  own  facilities
plan.

-------
          The   District   retained  Hood-Rich,   an   engineering   and
architectural  consulting  firm  located in  Springfield,  to prepare  the
facilities plan  and  to coordinate public participation  in  the  planning
process.   The  planning   area   is   divided  into   the   Springfield,
Battlefield,  Brookline, Fair Grove, Republic, Strafford, Walnut Grove,
Willard, and Unincorporated Low-Growth subareas for analysis.
          In    July    1983,     Hood-Rich     completed     the     draft
Wastewater  Facilities  Plan  for Greene County Sewer District,  prepared
concurrently   and   in  coordination  with   this   Environmental  Impact
Statement (EIS).   Public hearings on the Draft Facilities Plan were held
in July 1983 as part of  the ongoing public  participation  program,  and
official agency  reviews were conducted.   With some resulting revisions,
the  final  Facilities  Plan  was  distributed  in  early March, 1984,  and
approved by  the Missouri  Department of  Natural Resources on  April 9,
1984.   The Facilities  Plan  recommends  specific collection and treatment
facilities for implementation over the next 20 years  for each  planning
subarea.
          The  Greene  County  Sewer^ District  was  formed  to sponsor  and
coordinate wastewater  facilities  planning.   Local approval  and  adoption
of  the  respective   plan   elements,   as  well  as  facilities   design,
construction,  and   operation,   remain   the   responsibilities   of  the
individual municipalities  or other local political jurisdictions.

B.   BACKGROUND AND ISSUES OF THE EIS
          The  National  Environmental Policy  Act of  1969  requires that
the  federal  government prepare an Environmental  Impact  Statement (EIS)
for  any  major  federal  action  that   could  significantly  affect  the
environment.    Approving  the  Greene  County  Facilities Plan  and  the
subsequent  design  and construction  grants  would  constitute   such  an
action  because  of  the scope of  the  plan  and  the   cost  that  may  be
involved; because new and  expanded sewer service may affect the pattern
and  rate  of development,  which could  cause  adverse  community  impacts;
and because of the sensitive interaction between the area's ground water
and surface water resources that may be affected by proposed facilities.

-------
Greene County
3assville
         1 Palmetto
      RogersvilK!
                               Planning Area
                               Figure 1
  R20W
                               Legend

                               Major Wastewater Plants

                               •1 Northwest
                               •2 Southwest
                               Planning Area
                     —       City Limits
                               County Limits
                          Miles
                        Kilometer
                                  1   2
                                            456    North

-------

-------
EPA  therefore  issued  a notice  of  intent  to prepare  this  EIS  on  the
Greene  County  Facilities  Plan  and  retained  Sverdrup &  Parcel  and
Associates, Inc., as a consultant.
          The  purpose  of  this EIS  is to  provide federal,   state,  and
local  decision   makers  and  the   concerned  public   with   sufficient
information on the environmental,  economic,  and technical impacts of the
various  alternatives  to  make  sound  wastewater  management  decisions.
This EIS  also presents the  conditions which EPA  will  place  on further
federal grants  for  the design and  construction of the  proposed faci-
lities.   These  grant  conditions   are  to ensure  that  all  construction
resulting  from these grants  is in conformance with federal policies for
protection of the environment.
          To save  time  and  allow  better coordination among the involved
parties,  the  EIS  and  Facilities  Plan  were prepared simultaneously.
An  Environmental Setting  Report,  the  result of the first phase of EIS
preparation, was distributed in  January  1981 to  aid   in  the planning.
Hood-Rich  then prepared population projections for each of the planning
subareas in Greene County, and identified specific wastewater management
alternatives and costs.   The second phase of EIS preparation began when
the  alternatives identification  and  cost-effectiveness information for
the draft Facilities Plan was available.  The Setting Report was updated
and used for the environmental evaluation of alternatives to produce the
Draft EIS, which was distributed to interested agencies and citizens for
review and  comment in late January 1984.   A public hearing on the Draft
EIS was held  on  March 13, 1984 in  Springfield.   This  Final  EIS revises
the  Draft  EIS in  response  to the public and  agency  comments received,
and to recent developments regarding the final Facilities Plan.
          In the course of the preparation of the EIS for Greene County,
it  became  clear  that  it  should  focus  on several  major issues.  These
issues are briefly presented as follows:
     1.   Direct Effects on Sensitive Environmental Features
          A principal  concern of  the  EIS  is  the  determination  of  the
primary impacts  on  the sensitive environmental  features  of  the Greene
County planning  area, such  as floodplains,  sinkholes,  losing streams,

-------
wetlands,  forests,  prime  farmlands,   undisturbed  prairie,   rare  and
endangered species,  historic and prehistoric sites, and  drinking  water
supplies.
     2.   Induced Development in Outlying Areas
          In  order  to  encourage  efficient  patterns  of  development,
sewerage  facilities  planning should be  coordinated with plans  for  the
provision  of  transportation,  schools,  and  other necessary  community
services  and  utilities.   The  EIS  examines  the  compatibility  of  the
sewerage  facilities plan  with  the other growth management plans of  the
area.
     3.   Effects of Inadequate Treatment and Sewer  System  Inflow  and
          Infiltration
          Some  treatment plants  in  the  area   are overloaded, poorly
operated,  or  not  designed  to   meet  current  treatment  requirements.
Overflow  of  sanitary sewers and  treatment plant  by-passing  during  wet
weather  is  a  significant problem  at  existing  central  collection  and
treatment systems
     4.   Pollution from Failing Septic Tank Systems
          Most  of  the  smaller  communities  in  the planning area  are
unsewered and  serious septic  tank  effluent  surfacing  and  ground  water
pollution problems have been experienced.
     5.   Economic Impact of the Proposed Projects
          A very significant impact of  the proposed projects is the cost
to  local residents.   This  issue was  voiced during the  course of  the
Facilities Plan public participation program.

C.   ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
          This  Final  EIS  responds   to  comments  on the  Draft EIS  and
summarizes and  updates  information  previously presented.   The Executive
Summary  presents a  synopsis  of  the proposed Facilities  Plan actions,
environmental   impacts,   EPA's   decisions,   and   mitigative   measures.
Section II summarizes  the EIS  study information  and  alternatives,  but
does not  repeat the full text of the  Draft EIS.   Section III indicates
revisions to  the Draft EIS  without repeating the text of the Draft EIS.

-------
Section IV presents the written and public hearing comments on the Draft
EIS and EPA responses.  The Draft EIS may be consulted for added details
and references in regard to the EIS analysis.

-------

-------
                        II.  EIS STUDY SUMMARY

A.   ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
     1.   Geology and Soils
          The planning area  is  within one of the Ozark plateaus and has
gently  rolling  topography  except  for steeper  terrain along  the  major
streams.   The  area  is underlain  by cherty  carbonate rocks  which are
subject  to  solution activity.  These carbonate  rocks,  especially  those
with coarser  crystalline  structure, have been  extensively  dissolved by
downward-percolating water  that is actually very  dilute  carbonic  acid.
This acid  originates  from atmospheric carbon dioxide  absorbed by  rain-
fall,  from  decaying   surface  vegetation,  and  from  shales   with  acid
leachate.  The cracks, joints,  fissures,  bedding planes,  and chert beds
in  the  bedrock  facilitate  penetration  by the mildly  acid  water perco-
lating  underground,  permitting  it  to  cut crevices,  solution channels,
caverns, and cave  passages.   This  solution activity results  in a  topo-
graphy referred  to as "karst."
          Karst   topography is  characterized by  sinkholes  and related
collapse structures,  caves, springs, losing  streams,  and  an irregular
bedrock  surface  of "cutters" and  "pinnacles."  These  cutters and pin-
nacles  are  solution  crevices and  isolated pillars  of  rock,  commonly
marked by 10 to  15 feet of relief in the bedrock surface.  Approximately
20  to  30 percent  of Greene County  drains  into  sinkholes  and almost all
of the county is underlain by some  feature of the Karst topography.  All
of  these features have a  direct bearing on the planning of  wastewater
treatment facilities in the planning area.
          There  are  some  235 caves in Greene County.  Crystal Cave and
Fantastic  Caverns  are operated  commercially  as  tourist  attractions.
Fantastic Caverns was  identified in 1979 by the U.S. Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service  as  a   potential national  natural landmark.
The cave is  a habitat for three species of animals on the Missouri list
of rare and endangered species.
          The planning area has many  types  of soils, but  most of them
have moderate to severe  limitations  for septic systems  because of low

-------
soil  permeability,   shallow  bedrock,  high   rock   content,   flooding
potential,  or  proximity  to  sinkholes  or  other unfavorable  geologic
formations.   Many  of  the soils  in  the area  are classified as  "prime
farmland" by  the Soil  Conservation Service and, as such, are a  valuable
natural resource for agricultural productivity.
     2.   Water Resources
          The planning area is divided between two drainage basins - the
Osage River basin  to  the north and the  White  River  basin to the south.
The line that divides the two basins crosses Greene County from  Republic
to  Strafford,  roughly  following the  route  of the  Burlington  Northern
(formerly the St. Louis and San Francisco)  Railway.  The area's  location
on  a  drainage  divide  has important water  resources and  water quality
implications.   Since  streams  originate  near  divides,   those  in  the
planning  area are  small,  limiting water supply  resources  and  flows to
assimilate pollutants.
          The major  streams of  the  White River  Basin  in Greene County
are  the  James  River  and Wilsons Creek.*  The  White  River basin covers
the southern  part  of  Greene County, including 80 percent of the City of
Springfield.  Runoff  from Springfield  is carried principally by Wilsons
Creek,  which  enters   the James  River  in  Christian  County  near  the
southern boundary of the planning area.
          Streams  in   the  northern and  western areas  of  Greene County
discharge into  the Sac River or the Pomme de Terre River, both tributar-
ies  of  the  Osage  River.   The  major  tributaries of the Sac  River in
Greene County are  Pickerel Creek, Clear Creek,  Asher Creek,  the Little
Sac  River,  the South  Dry Sac  River,  and the North  Dry Sac River.   The
Little Sac  River originates northeast of Springfield and flows westward
into Fellows  Lake  and then into McDaniel Lake.  These  impoundments were
built  for  drinking water supply use of  the  City of  Springfield.  Their
drainage   areas are   about  22  square  miles  and  20  square  miles,
respectively.
          The Little  Pomme de Terre and the Pomme de Terre rivers drain
the  northeast  corner  of  Greene County.   They  flow  northwest,  and con-
verge about two miles  north of Greene  County.
 '^As  the creek  name,  the correct spelling is  "Wilsons";  as  the name of
 the battlefield park, it is "Wilson's."
                                  10

-------
          Ground water resources in the planning area are comprised of a
major  (deep)  aquifer and  a  minor  (shallow)  aquifer,  separated by  the
Northview formation  that  retards  the movement of water between the two.
The  shallow  ground  water  and  surface  waters  are closely  connected.
Streams recharge  ground water  during high flows, and  the  major streams
are  supplemented  during drought  periods  by  flows  from  springs.   There
are many "losing streams"  in the area which naturally lose much of their
flow into the  ground water.   Sinkholes and other recharge features also
provide a direct  connection  between the surface and the upper aquifer.
In  the  planning area,  the  ground water in the  lower  aquifer generally
moves northwest  following the  structural  dip of the  bedrock away from
the  Ozark  uplift.   A  ground  water  divide,  however,  is  located  at
approximately the Greene-Christian  county  line,  and ground water to the
south of this divide moves in a southerly direction, generally following
the dip of the bedrock.
          Understanding ground  water movement  in  the  minor  aquifer is
important,  because  the large  number of surface-subsurface  connections
facilitate  movement  of  surface  water  pollutants into  the groundwater.
Dye  traces  have been conducted by  the  Missouri Geological  Survey  and
others to determine  ground  water flow patterns.  Dyes have  been traced
from  introduction points  in  sinkholes,  streams,  and  sewer  lines  to
caves, springs, and streams.   This approach has yielded limited informa-
tion mainly because  of  the multitude of underground connections  in the
area and  because the studies  have  only been undertaken in  response to
isolated complaints  of  pollution.   Until there is  comprehensive testing
of  streams, sinkholes,  sewer lines, etc.,  throughout the planning area,
it  will  be  necessary to  extrapolate or postulate  flow  lines in areas
lacking positive testing.
          Normally,   ground  water movement is,  of  course,  downward in
response to  gravity.  Water levels in the minor aquifer  are generally
higher than those in the major aquifer;  therefore,  potential movement is
downward.    However,   the   Northview Formation   retards  downward  water
movement  and  acts  as  an  upper confining layer  to the major aquifer.
Water movement  to the  major aquifer can  occur where the Northview is
breached  either  by  natural  means  such  as  joints  and  faults  or  by
artificial means such as uncased or  improperly cased wells.
                                  11

-------
     3.   Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
          The planning  area occurs  in  the transition  zone  between the
Ozark  plateaus  and the  Osage  plains.  The Ozark plateaus  possess the
most diversified  flora  in Missouri.  Within the  broad  transition zone,
Ozark  flora  is  dominant on the broken rocky ground along streams, while
the prairie  and plains  flora occupies the more  level  and open sections
of the uplands.   Because of the diversified habitats found in the plan-
ning area, much of the  wildlife that once  occurred  in either the Ozark
plateaus or Osage plains has dispersed in both regions.
          Many of the  streams  in the area  are  characteristic  of very
clear  Ozark  streams.  Prairie  streams are more  turbid  and most evident
along the western edge of the area.  Native fish are distributed accord-
ing to stream  systems.   Often  a species that is widespread and abundant
in one stream  system is absent from  an  adjacent stream basin, although
the habitats are  similar.   While streams may be  only  a few miles apart
by land,  they  can be hundreds  or thousands of river miles apart.  Thus,
a fish in the  Sac River in  Greene  County would have to swim over 1,500
miles  to  enter  the James River in the same county.  As a result, separ-
ate populations may slowly evolve  into  subspecies  or  separate species.
The Niangua  darter, Etheostoma nianguae, is restricted to the southern
tributaries of the Osage River and is listed by the State of Missouri as
RARE and is proposed for federal listing as THREATENED.
          A  distinctive  feature  of karst topography is the cave and the
unique aspects  of  the  cave environment appear  in the  species found in
the deep  interior.   Cambarus setosus is a blind, white crayfish endemic
to  subterranean  waters   in  southwestern Missouri.   The Ozark cavefish,
Amblyopsis rosae,  is  a  blind cavefish that has been collected only from
underground  streams  in  southwestern Missouri and northwestern Arkansas.
The blind cave salamander, Typhlotriton spelaeus, is a  species unique to
the  Ozarks.   The Ozark  cavefish is  listed  as  RARE  by the  State of
Missouri  and is  expected  to be federally  listed as THREATENED by late
1984.  The  cave  crayfish,  Cambarus setosus, is  also on Missouri's list
of  rare  and endangered species.   Cave  organisms are  very sensitive to
pollution or other  changes in their stable environment.
                                   12

-------
     4.   Water Quality
          The quality  of  the  surface water and ground water  of an area
is an  integral  part of its natural environment, and, in turn, its human
environment.  The  consequences of  not  protecting water  quality  can be
very serious.   Some pollutants, including various toxic  chemicals,  are
not effectively removed by conventional drinking water treatment systems
and may pose  a  threat to health.   Contamination with bacteria, viruses,
and other  pathogenic  organisms may result in  water-borne  disease out-
breaks  if  treatment  is  inadequate.   Many  public and  private  well
supplies receive little  or no treatment and thus  rely  on the purity of
the water  source.   Water  treatment costs rise as  additional treatment
processes  are  required   to  remove  pollutants   from the  water  supply
source.   In  addition to  municipalities,  many  industries,   from  food
processers  to power plants,  require a dependable source  of  clean water
for use in production processes and for cooling.  Most fish and wildlife
species cannot  survive in  areas  where the water  is severely polluted.
Recreational opportunities can also be curtailed.
          Before 1978,  the White  River basin streams  immediately down-
stream of Springfield had poor overall water quality.  Wilsons Creek was
severely degraded;  water quality  standards were  consistently violated;
and to the  casual  observer,  the creek appeared dark in  color, gave off
an  offensive  odor,  and was  unable to support  any  aquatic  life.   The
creek  was   so  polluted  it  offended  visitors  to   the  Wilson's  Creek
Battlefield Park.   Several fish kills had occurred in the James River in
Christian County,  downstream of the planning area.   At the time of these
poor  water quality  conditions,  the  major  sources of  pollutants  to
Wilsons Creek were  Springfield's  Southwest  Wastewater Treatment Plant
and the city's storm runoff.
          The water  quality of Wilsons  Creek and the James River drama-
tically improved  after  the  Southwest Treatment  Plant  was upgraded in
1977.   The  U.S. Geological  Survey in 1980 concluded that,  under  normal
flow conditions,  there are no  statistically significant  differences in
water quality between  the stations on Wilsons Creek upstream and down-
stream  of   the  Southwest  Plant.    Sludge  deposition  in  Wilsons  Creek
downstream  of the  plant was  eliminated when  the  plant was upgraded.
                                  13

-------
          Nevertheless,  water  quality  standards  are  still  violated.
During  storms,  polluted urban  runoff  and infrequent bypass  flows  from
the  Southwest Treatment Plant  are carried  into Wilsons  Creek.   Phos-
phate,  a nutrient  which is not removed by the Southwest Plant, is still
present at high  levels in  the James River downstream  of its confluence
with  Wilsons  Creek,   as  is  nitrate,  a  treatment process  by-product.
          The Osage River basin streams in Greene County are affected by
fewer  water   quality  problems  than  the  White  River  basin portion  of
Greene  County.   Two Osage  River  basin  impoundments  (McDaniel Lake and
Fellows Lake) are used  as sources of Springfield's drinking  water and
are of  good quality.
          Water quality problems in the Little Sac River basin in Greene
County  are caused  by discharges from Springfield's Northwest Wastewater
Treatment Plant  and  by leachate from abandoned  landfills  in the flood-
plain  of  the Little  Sac  River.   The impact  of the  Northwest plant's
effluent is  more significant than that  of the  landfill leachate and is
greatest during low stream flows,  whereas the impact of the seepage from
the landfill  is greater during higher flows.
          The  Missouri Clean Water  Commission  sets  effluent  standards
for  point-source discharges  to prevent  the violation  of  water quality
standards  for  the  receiving  stream.   A  permit  is   issued   for  each
point-source  discharge,  which defines  its applicable effluent standards
and the required discharge sampling frequency.  There are five publicly-
owned  municipal  wastewater  treatment  facilities in the planning area,
four  of which  are operated  by the  City  of Springfield  and  the other
serves  the City of Republic  (see Table  1).  The Northwest and Southwest
plants  serve  the city's population and  are  the most significant indivi-
dual point sources in  the  area.  Other plants serve the Lakewood Village
and  Sunburst Hills subdivisions.   There  are 21  other domestic, commer-
cial,  and  institutional wastewater point  sources  in  the planning area,
serving mobile  home parks, schools,  subdivisions, shopping centers, and
other  developments (see Table  2).   Most treat  their  wastes in aerobic
lagoons or small aeration  plants.  Many  of the facilities have periodic-
ally  failed  to meet their  effluent limitations.  None of these  alone are
a  significant  individual  point  source  of  discharge,  but collectively
                                   14

-------
                                                  TABLE 1
                                      MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
Facility
                         Design
                       Flow (mgd)
         OSAGE RIVER BASIN

Ash Grove Treatment          0.33
  Facility (not in
  planning area)

Northwest Wastewater         3.5
  Treatment Plant,
  Springfield
Republic Municipal           0.75
  Wastewater Treatment
  Facility

         WHITE RIVER BASIN

Lakewood Village             0.06
  Subdivision, Spring-
  field

Southwest Wastewater        30
  Treatment Plant,
  Springfield
Sunburst Hills  '             0.015
  Subdivision,
  Springfield

(a)
(b)
Receiving
 Stream
                                          Tributary of Sac
                                            River
                                          Pea  Ridge  Creek and
                                          Little Dry Sac Creek
                                          Pickerel Creek
  Permit Limits
Item     Day/Wk/Mo
                                          Tributary of
                                          Lake Springfield
                                          Wilsons Creek
                        BOD
                        SS
                        BOD
                        SS
                        FC
                                                                      DO
                                                                        (c)
                        BOD
                        SS
                                          Tributary of
                                          Lake Springfield
                        BOD
                        SS
                        FC

                        BOD
                        SS
                        FC
                     Ammonia
                        BOD
                        SS
                        FC
30/-/-
30/-/-
15/-/-
15/-/-
200/-/-
6.0/-/-

30/-/-
30/-/-
-/30/20
-/30/20
200/-/-
                                                                             200/-/-
                                                                             21-1-
-/45/30
-/45/30
200/-/-
 (cO
Most permits also limit pH within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand (mg/1); SS - suspended solids (mg/1);
FC - fecal coliform (per 100 ml); DO - dissolved oxygen (mg/1);  Ammonia (mg/1).
Minimum DO of 6.0 mg/1 or 80% of saturation, whichever is least.
               Treatment
                      Oxidation ditch,
                        Clarifiers
                      Primary treatment,
                        aeration and reaeration
                        tanks, final clarifiers,
                        chlorination

                      Contact stabilization
                        plant, 3-cell lagoon,
                        chlorination
                      Contact stabilization
                      plant, chlorination
                      Primary treatment,
                        pure oxygen aeration,
                        secondary clarification,
                        nitrification, final
                        clarification, filtra-
                        tion, ozonation

                      Ext. aeration plant,
                        chlorination,
                        dechlorination

-------
                                                     TABLE 2
                                       DOMESTIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMERCIAL
                                              POINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
Facility

         OSAGE RIVER BASIN

Fair Grove School
Hood's Service Center
(1-44 & Hwys PP and K)

Lakewood Mobile Home
  Park
   Design
  Flow (mgd)
    0.024
  (0.026 actual)

    0.0057
    0.020
            (being connected to Springfield system)
Receiving
 Stream
Tributary of
Pomme de Terre River

Tributary of
Pickerel Creek

Tributary of
Dry Sac Creek
Springfield "44" Auto/
  Truck Stop (Strafford)
Willard Laundromat
  and Carwash

Willard Retirement
  Village
    0.013
    0.007
    0.0024
Tributary of
Little Sac River
Tributary of Clear
  Creek

Clear Creek
The Willows Subdivision
  (near Republic)
    0.045
Pond Creek
            WHITE RIVER BASIN
  Permit Limits
Item     Day/Wk/Mo"
BOD
SS

BOD
SS

BOD
SS
FC

BOD
SS
FC

BOD
SS

BOD
SS
FC
BOD
SS
FC

           30/-/-
           30/-/-

           -/45/30
           -/45/30
           200/-/-

           -/45/30
           -/45/30
           200/-/-

           30/-/-
           30/-/-
       5/15
                                                                                 200/-/-
           -/15/10
           -/20/15
           200/-/-
American Laundry
  (Springfield)
    0.009287         South Branch of
(softener backwash)  Jordan Creek
                        SS         30/-/20
                        Sodium chloride
                          Treatment
Septic tank, sand
  (rock) filter, laterals

2-cell lagoon,
  (No discharge reported)

1-cell lagoon, ext.
  aer. plant, chlorination
Holding basin, ext.
  aer. plant, 1-cell
  lagoon, chlorination

1-cell lagoon
Four home treatment
  units, open sand
  filters, chlorination,
  (two treatment units,
  sand filters, and
  chlorination being
  added)

Ext. aer. plant,
sand filter,
chlorination
                      None

-------
                                                     TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
                                       DOMESTIC,  INSTITUTIONAL,  AND COMMERCIAL
                                              POINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
Facility

Coronado Mobile
  Home Park (Springfield)
English Village Park
  (Christian County)

Federal Medical Center
  (Springfield)
General Council of
  Asemblies of God
  (Springfield)
 Design
Flow (mgd)

  0.0158
  0.08025
  0.016
(Softener
regenerant)

  0.18
(Cooling Water)
Receiving
 Stream

Sequiota Branch
Tributary of
James River

South Creek
Jordan Creek
                                                                        Permit Limits
Hi-View Mobile Home          0.039            Wilsons Creek
  Park      (Sewer District formed and petitioned for
            connection to Springfield - Wilsons trunk)
Hickory Hills Country
  Club
Holyoke Park
  Subdivision
  0.010
  0.0044
Tributary of
Pierson Creek
Workman Branch
Ozark Park-A-Home            0.045
            (Under litigation with MoDNR)
Prairie View Heights
  Subdivision
  0.050
                   Tributary of
                   Ward Branch
Tributary of
Wilsons Creek
Item
BOD
SS
BOD
SS
Set S
Chloride
Temp
BOD
SS
FC
BOD
SS
FC
BOD
SS
FC
BOD
SS
FC
BOD
SS
FC
Day/Wk/Mo
30/-/-
30/-/-
-/45/30
-/45/30
0.3/-/0.3
375/-/250
90/-/-
5/-/-
io/-/-
200/-/-
-/15/10
-/20/15
200/-/-
-/15/10
-/20/15
200/-/-
5/-/-
io/-/-
200/-/-
5/-/-
io/-/-
200/-/-
Treatment
1-cell lagoon
(usually no discharj
reported)
Ext. aer. plant,
chlorination
None
None
1-cell lagoon
Ext. aer. plant
sand filters,
chlorination
Ext. aer. plant,
sand filter,
chlorination (No
discharge reported)
2-cell lagoon
Ext. aer. plant,
pressure filter,
chlorination

-------
                                                            TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
                                              DOMESTIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMERCIAL
                                                     POINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
oo
       Facility

       St. John's Regional
         Center (Springfield)

       Timbercrest Mobile
         Home Park (Springfield)
       Village Subdivision
       Wilson's Creek National
         Battlefield Park
                        Design
                       Flow (mgd)

                         0.002
Receiving
 Stream

Fassnight Creek
                       (Softener regenerant)

                         0.0269           Thompson Branch
                         0.045
                         0.015
Wilsons Creek
Wilsons Creek
  Permit Limits
Item
Set S
Chloride

BOD
SS
Day/Wk/Mo

  0.3/-/0.2
  375/-/250

  -/45/30
  -/BO/60
BOD
SS
FC
BOD
SS
FC
-/15/10
-/20/15
200/-/-
-/15/10
-/15/10
200/-/-
    Treatment
None
2-cell lagoon
  (Little or no
  discharge)

Ext. aer. plant,
  filter, chlorination
                      Chemical add'n, mixing,
                        flocculation, clarifica-
                        tion, carbon adsorption,
                        pressure sand filtration,
                        chlorination
       (a)
       (b)
Most permits also limit pH within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand (mg/1); SS - suspended solids (mg/1);
           Set S - settleable solids (mg/1); FC - fecal coliform (per 100 ml);
         >, Temp - temperature (°F); Chloride (mg/1).
           Proposed permit limit.

-------
they contribute to  the  localized degradation of the  area's  surface  and
ground waters.   Twelve  industries discharge directly  to  surface  waters
in  the  planning area (see  Table 3).  Most of  the  industries  discharge
cooling waters and are located in the White River basin.   The industries
have generally been in compliance with effluent requirements.
          Nonpoint pollutants are  defined  as  "any material for which no
NPDES  permit  can be  issued,  which  enters  waters of  the state  and  is
detrimental to  the  uses for  which  that  water  has  been  designated."
Studies of Springfield  area surface waters in both drainage basins have
indicated  that  nonpoint sources  are significant, if  undefined.   While
most  nonpoint pollutant  sources have their  biggest  impact on  surface
waters  during  storms,   several  sources  also  discharge  pollutants  in
continuous, unmeasurable amounts.  The major sources of nonpoint pollut-
ants  in  Greene  County   may be  classified  as  urban,  agricultural,  or
industrial.
          Urban  nonpoint  sources  of  pollutants  include  uncollected
stormwater runoff, effluent from septic tanks, and seepage from domestic
wastewater  treatment lagoons.   Urban  stormwater  runoff  is  the  most
significant of  these.    It  contains  high amounts  of  organics and sus-
pended solids, and concentrations of a variety of metals  and pesticides.
Stormwater  runoff has  been shown  to have  a  severe,  acute  impact  on
Wilsons Creek and the James River.  Surges of runoff  were found to have
caused  fish  kills   in   the  James  River  downstream  of   Greene  County.
However, much of the pollution was shown to be restricted to the initial
flow  of  stormwater  in  Wilsons  Creek,  due to  the  coincidence of high
water  temperatures,  high toxic  chemical  concentrations,  and  extremely
low dissolved oxygen content.
          Urban stormwater  runoff  is a major pollutant source in Greene
County for a  number  of reasons.  First,  the area has  undergone rapid
development over  the past  few years, increasing the volume of runoff by
increasing the  amount of impervious (paved)  surface.   Urbanization also
decreases the quality of stormwater runoff.   Second,  Springfield's urban
runoff problems  are aggravated  by a  stormwater  sewer system that  was
constructed before  a proper  regard  for  land use and  geology  became an-
integral part of  sewer  planning.  Third,  the area's karst topography is
                                  19

-------
                                                           TABLE 3
                                             INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
NJ
O
      Facility
 Design
Flow (mgd)
               OSAGE RIVER BASIN
      Griesemer Stone Co.
        (Springfield)
(Stormwater at
  quarry)
                  WHITE RIVER BASIN
      Ash Grove Cement
        (Springfield)
      Dayco Corporation
        Springday Co.,
        (Springfield)

      General Electric
      James River Power
        Plant
      Kraft Foods Co.
        (Springfield)
0.006-Cooling
  Water
                                 0.001-Sanitary
                                   wastewater
Receiving
 Stream
Tributary of South
  Dry Sac River
Sequiota Creek
                   Sequiota Geek
  Permit Limits
Item     Day/Wk/Mo'
                          Treatment
SS         75/-/50    None - Water pumped
                        out
SS
Set. S
O&G

BOD
SS
FC
Storm runoff-limit on oil emulsion for dust control

                   South Creek             SS
                                           O&G
                                           Temp.
0.625 Cooling
  water and
  boiler blowdown

135 Once-through
  cooling water

3.0 Ash pond
  overflow

- By-pass

0.1695 Cooling
  and boiler
  blowdown (0.1325
  actual)
Tributary of
  Galloway Branch
Lake Springfield
Fassnight Creek
SS
Temp.


Chlorine
Temp

SS
O&G

Chlorine

  (c)
SS
O&G
Temp
                           (c)
                            (c)
           -/45/30
           -/0.3/0.2
           -/20/15

           -/45/30
           -/45/30
           200/-/-
           30/-/-
           io/-/-
           90/-/-

           45/-/30
           90/-/-
           0.5/-/0.2
           100/-/100

           100/-/30
           20/-/15

           0.5/-/0.2

           45/-/30
           20/-/15
           90/-/-
                                              Ext. aer. plant,
                                                chlorination
                                              Settling basin,
                                                oil skimmer

-------
                                                     TABLE 3 (Cont'd)
                                       INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
Facility

Lily Division, Owens
  Illinois (Springfield)
Mid-America Dairymen,
  Inc. (Springfield)

Paul Mueller Co.
  (Springfield)
Southwest Power
  Station
Springfield Regional
  Stockyards
Syntex Agribusiness,
  Inc. (Springfield)
                        Design
                       Flow (mgd)

                       0.0108 Cooling
                         water
                       0.180 Cooling
                         water

                       0.070 Cooling
                         water,  average
                       Coal,  limestone
                         storage runoff
Receiving
 Stream

Tributary of
  Jordan Creek
Jordan Creek
Jordan Creek
     Permit Limits
   Item
Tributary of
  Wilsons Creek
                           0.68-Drains,  ash
                             transport,  cooling
                           Landfill leachate
                       Stormwater runoff

                       Stock trough
                         overflow and
                         runoff
Tributary of
  Wilsons Creek
                       0.104-Cooling      Jordan Creek
                         water and boiler
                         blowdown, average
(a)
(b)
Most permits also limit pH within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
   O&G
   Temp
Surfactants

   SS
   Temp

   COD
   Set S
   O&G
   Temp

   SS
Day/Wk/Mo

  15/-/-
  90/-/-
  l/-/-

  45/-/30
  90/-/-

  100/-/75
  0.3/-/0.2
  20/-/15
  90/-/-

  50/-/-
    Treatment
                        SS
                        O&G
                        Chlorine
                        Temp.

                        SS

                        SS
              100/-/30
              15/-/10
              0.5/-/0.2
              100/-/95

              50/-/-

              50/-/-
BOD
SS
FC
SS
Temp
-/15/10
-/20/15
200/-/-
45/-/30
-/-/90
(No discharge
  reported)
    BOD - biochemical oxygen demand (mg/1) SS- suspended solids (mg/1); Set S - settleable solids (mg/1);
    FC - fecal coliform (per 100 ml);  O&G - oil and grease (mg/1); COD - chemical oxygen demand (mg/1);
, x Temp - temperature (°F); Chloride  (mg/1).
    Proposed permit limit.

-------
not compatible to urbanization.   The numerous sinkholes in the area tend
to channel flows  directly  to the ground water until the sinkholes clog,
at which  time  they flood.   In  addition  to  these effects  of  natural
drainage,  Springfield's  stormwater drainage system was  designed  in the
past  to  use  sinkholes as  artificial  receptacles.   Improved land use
planning  practices  will  help  avert  such  drainage  problems in  newly
developed areas; however, present problems are likely to remain.
          Septic  tanks  are  major  sources  of  organic  and  bacterial
pollutants in Greene County.  They are significant where they are highly
concentrated,  such as  near  Springfield,  and where  geologic conditions
are poor.  In  areas with sinkholes, rock fractures, or poorly permeable
soils, the septic tank effluents are not sufficiently treated by filtra-
tion  through the  soil  but  are instead  channeled  directly to the ground
or surface water.  Pierson and Sequiota Creeks have contained concentra-
tions of coliform bacteria many times those concentrations expected from
natural sources, with septic tank effluent the suspected cause.
          Agricultural sources are significant dischargers of pollutants
to  surface  waters  in outlying  areas  of  Greene  County.   Agricultural
runoff  contributes  high  amounts  of  nutrients  to the  planning  area's
surface waters, causing excessive plant growth.
          Industrial sources sometimes discharge pollutants beyond those
covered by  their discharge  permits,  through  runoff,  accidental  spills,
and  improper  design or  operation of  treatment  facilities.  Industrial
runoff adds  chemicals  to urban runoff, and thus increases its impact on
surface waters.
          The  danger of  ground  water pollution in karst regions is much
greater  than  in  areas  protected by  overlying  impervious  deposits  or
deposits  capable  of natural filtration.  Flow velocity in karst forma-
tions  is  generally  greater  than in normal soils  and bedrock,  and thus
contaminated  water  is  not  adequately filtered  for self-purification.
All  of  Greene  County is affected by the water quality of its aquifers  -
those underground rock formations that contain the area's ground water.
Industrial,  municipal,  and many  private  water  supplies  derive   their
water  from  aquifers.  Urban growth has  intensified  the demand for high
                                  22

-------
quality ground water  and  increased the possibilities for its contamina-
tion.  For example,  Springfield  plans to develop an  industrial  park in
an area that  is  extremely susceptible to contamination  of  ground  water
supplies.   The  result of  the  increased urban development  and  the con-
sequently greater demand  for  ground water is an  increase  in the number
of contaminated  wells and  aquifers,  or parts  of aquifers,  and in the
potential for ground water contamination throughout the area (see Figure
2).
          The present quality of  the ground water  in  the Springfield
area may be described as generally good,  but with localized contaminated
areas.  Two aquifers in particular are becoming  polluted, the "upper" or
"shallow"  aquifer,   and  the  Swan  Creek  Sandstone member  in the  lower
aquifer.   Numerous connections between the upper aquifer and the surface
have  developed  by weathering, and  improperly constructed  wells.  These
passageways allow rapid movement of surface water to  the  ground water.
The Swan Creek Sandstone forms the upper layers  of the lower aquifer and
lies below the Northview Shale, which is the relatively impervious layer
separating the  upper and  lower  aquifers.  The  Swan  Creek  Sandstone has
been  degraded by poorly  constructed  wells that  allow surface  contami-
nants to be transported into the ground water.
          Wells  that tap the shallow aquifer or  the Swan Creek Sandstone
aquifer are extremely susceptible  to  contamination.   Many private wells
in Greene County  have been contaminated by pollution  from  such sources
as urban  and agricultural  runoff,  septic tank  effluent,  leachate from
improperly sealed industrial and municipal wastewater treatment lagoons,
and  solid waste  landfills.   In 1970,  a study of 50 wells in Springfield
found 42 percent with bacteria levels over the  drinking water standard.
Studies in 1974  and 1980  of 106 Springfield area private  wells and 130
wells  in  unincorporated  Greene  County,  respectively,  found 26 and 28
percent  were  similarly  contaminated.   According   to  the  MDNR,  31.6
percent of the wells in Greene County were declared unsafe in 1977.  The
number  of   contaminated   wells   discovered  during  the   Springfield-
Greene County Health  Department's  routine  voluntary  sampling of private
wells varies  between 25  and  30  percent.  Many  of the  private  wells in
the  Springfield area  are  improperly built and cased,  and  penetrate the
upper aquifer or  the Swan Creek Sandstone.   The  areas  of  highest coli-
                                  23

-------
form concentrations  in 1972 were  wells in the west,  northwest,  south,
and southeast areas  of the  city.   The 1980 study found problem areas to
the west, northwest, and the urbanized periphery of Springfield.
          With  the  exception  of  the  Swan Creek  Sandstone,  the  lower
aquifer  is  relatively  pure and  is  utilized  by  the  largest  private,
industrial,  and  city public wells.   The upper  aquifer  can be  distin-
guished  chemically  from the lower aquifer in nonpolluted  areas  because
of the different rock units  that make up the aquifers.
          The chemical  quality of the county's spring water is  similar
to that  of  the  shallow aquifer,  because  of  the  many interconnections
between  the  springs and  the  shallow aquifer.  The  chemical quality of
water  from  the  deep aquifer  becomes nearly identical  to that of  the
shallow  aquifer  in urban  areas  such  as  Springfield  where  both  are
present.    Since  the  shallow  aquifer  is  a  source  of  recharge,  and
possible  contamination,  of  the lower aquifer,  further pollution  of  the
upper aquifer can only increase the likelihood of pollution of  the lower
aquifer and jeopardize its utility as a source of potable water.
          The  water  quality   of  Greene  County's  springs ranges  from
excellent to  severely  degraded,  and is affected by the quality  of  the
surrounding surface and ground waters, the land use of the area,  and  the
amount of protection given to springs.
          Septic tanks are believed to be the most significant  source of
bacterial pollution of the aquifers in Greene County.  Health Department
officials relate this to the poor construction and maintenance  practices
for  septic  systems and the generally unfavorable  subsurface conditions
for on-site wastewater treatment  systems.   However, septic tanks remain
the major method of sewage treatment  in Greene County outside of Spring-
field   and   are   of   signficance   even  within   the   city  limits.
Approximately 31 percent of the dwellings in Greene County are  on septic
tanks  and about  90  percent of the  county outside  of Springfield,  Ash
Grove, and Republic are on septic systems.  Many  of the systems in the
County are believed to be properly operating, but a system may appear to
be working when it is actually discharging to  the ground water.  Older
systems  in particular  are likely to  have  become  clogged and to channel
the  septic effluent directly into the groundwater via zones of discrete
                                  24

-------
 Dallas County
                  1	Z
                                 Groundwater
                                 Contamination
                                 Hazard Areas

                                 Figure  2
                                 Note:

                                 Christian County information inferred from USGS maps and
                                 based on Aley & Thomson, 1980 rating system. Specific data
                                 not readily available.


                                 The rated areas on this map have been generated from several
                                 categories. The map should be used with caution, for planning
                                 purposes only in the broadest sense For specific sites, addi-
                                 tional study is advisee).
R20W
       Legend


              Low Hazard

              Moderate Hazard

              High Hazard

              Extremely High Hazard

       Source:  (12)
                                 Planning Area ._.
                                 City Limits    	
                                 County Limits	
   Miles

Kilometer
                                                           North
                                                              25

-------

-------
recharge.  Many  of the  systems  near or  in the  city  have insufficient
space  to operate  and are  failing.  The  MDNR has  established  minimum
areas  for septic  system absorption  fields based  on  soil  percolation
tests.   However,  practically any  soil  will pass a  percolation  test if
tested in the dry season.  Also,  the percolation test by itself does not
indicate  whether  a   septic  system  will  function   properly,  but  only
whether  the  soil  will allow water to pass.  Septic  tanks do not accomp-
lish a high degree of bacterial removal.  It has been found that in some
soils bacteria can travel  as far as 180 feet and in fractured limestone
the distance  is  up  to 1500 feet.  Missouri has  no  comprehensive state-
wide  control  of  septic  tank usage.  Local authorities cannot regulate
existing  septic  systems, unless  a public health menace is found and so
declared.  Each  individual  septic tank  is only  a  small producer  of
pollution and many persons  cannot understand that individual systems can
cause problems;  however, the large number of septic tanks in use in the
planning area must be considered.
          There  are   a   number  of  abandoned  solid  waste landfills  in
Greene County that were poorly constructed and operated.  Not all of the
abandoned landfills  have been located  and few  have been monitored for
harmful  discharges  to the  surface water  or  ground water.   Two of the
City's former  landfills, located  in  the flood plains  of  the South Dry
Sac and  Little Sac River,  have been shown to  leach harmful substances.
Many  other  landfills,   particularly  those located  in   flood  plains,
probably leach pollutants during wet weather.
          No inventory of private wells exists in Greene County.  Wells
that  are  improperly  cased  when  drilled or   improperly sealed  when
abandoned serve  as  conduits  for pollutants from surface  water  or from
contaminated aquifers  to uncontaminated aquifers.   This  secondary con-
tamination presents a particular danger to Springfield's drinking-water
wells, which penetrate  the deeper,  unpolluted  aquifer   and  have  been
properly  cased against  the  upper  contaminated aquifers.   Cases  of con-
tamination have  been reported in the "Swan Creek  sand",  the uppermost
layer of the deep aquifer.   The Missouri Geological  Survey is recommend-
                                  27

-------
ing  that  wells  for domestic use  in the  Springfield  area be  properly
cased below  the "Swan Creek"  which ranges  in  depth from about  350  to
400 feet.
          Protecting the quality of  existing and potential water supply
sources is  extremely important in  Greene County.  Because the  area  is
situated on  a  major drainage divide, surface water supplies are limited
in  quantity  and  capacity  to assimilate  pollutants.   Ground water  re-
sources are also limited and very  vulnerable to  pollution because of the
karst topography  with  close and complex  interconnection  of  surface  and
ground water.
          Growth  and development  and  related wastewater  management  in
Greene County  may  impact water supplies in many ways.   Both surface and
ground water contamination could  cause serious  problems.   Ground water
concerns are magnified by  the  vulnerability of  the aquifers  in Greene
County and the difficulties in detecting or reversing pollution effects.
Most ground  water  supplies  in Greene County receive little or no treat-
ment.  The  larger  supplies  are protected by properly  constructed deep
wells, but  individual  and  other  private  wells  are often  shallow,  in-
adequately cased  and sealed,  and  not monitored  for quality.  Increasing
development  and the soils,  geology  and  other  problems  causing on-site
wastewater  treatment  systems  to  malfunction,   result  in surface  and
ground water degradation in many areas.
     5.   Cultural Resources
          Substantial numbers of prehistoric and historic archaeological
sites have  been found  in  Greene  County.   Most  surveys  have  been along
major rivers  and  streams,  but a few surveys of  upland divides and upper
reaches of  small  streams  have  revealed  a significant  number  of sites,
particularly  near  sinks and springs.   Prehistoric  Indian artifacts  and
sites  are  likely  to be  found  where there is a  permanent water source.
There are also sites where geological formations include stones used in
tool making, and probably upland hunting and burial sites.
     6.   Population
          The  City of Springfield,  which is ringed by several smaller
communities,  dominates  urban development  in the planning area, which is
                                  28

-------
divided  into  nine subareas  (Springfield,  Battlefield, Brookline,  Fair
Grove, Republic,  Strafford,  Walnut Grove, Willard,  and  the Unincorpor-
ated Low-Growth area)  for  wastewater facilities planning purposes.   The
area  has  grown rapidly  with much of  the growth in the  last  ten years
occurring to the south and southwest of Springfield.  An analysis of the
components  of population  change  (births,  deaths,  and  migration)  for
Greene County  and  Springfield demonstrates that most  of  the population
growth in  Greene  County has resulted from net migration (in-migration
less  out-migration)  rather  than from natural  increase  (the  number  of
births minus the number of deaths).  Furthermore, the share of the total
population change attributed to  positive net migration has consistently
increased in the  last  thirty years,  suggesting the relative attractive-
ness  of  Greene County  as  a  place  to live.  Springfield,  on  the other
hand, has shown increases  in its base population  from census  to census
but  these  increments  have  become  smaller.   The  contribution  of  net
migration to population change in Springfield has steadily declined.  In
the  last  10 years,  the bulk of the population change in Springfield has
been a result of natural increase.
          The surrounding subareas of Battlefield,  Fair Grove,  Republic,
Strafford,  and Willard  are  projected  to more  than double their  1980
population  by  the  year  2005,   and  the  population of  the  City  of
Springfield is projected to  increase from about 133,000 to over 168,000
(see Table 4).  The  total  population of the planning  area  is  projected
to increase from about 188,000 in 1980 to nearly 292,000 in 2005.  About
12.5 percent of the land in the study area is developed with the remain-
ing  undeveloped  land  in agricultural use  or vacant.  Residential and
commercial growth  will continue  to  decrease the  amount  of undeveloped
land.
     7.    Economics and Financing
          The planning area has a diverse economic  base characterized by
a  strong  wholesale  and  retail  trade  sector  (27 percent  of  total
non-agricultural  employment), manufacturing  sector   (20 percent),  and
service sector (23 percent).   Most of the employment oppportunities are
concentrated in the  City of  Springfield.  Agribusiness,  although not a
                                  29

-------
                                                               TABLE 4
                                                       POPULATION PROJECTIONS
                                       BY INCORPORATED AREA AND UNINCORPORATED TOWNSHIP AREAS
                                      AND FOR THE CHRISTIAN COUNTY PORTION OF THE PLANNING AREA
00
o
      Entity/Year
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Planning Area
Greene County
Ash Grove
Battlefield
Brookline
Fair Grove
Republic
Springfield
Strafford
Walnut Grove
Willard
Total Greene Co.
Incorporated Area
Boone Twp.
Brookline Twp.
Campbell Twp.
Cass Twp.
Center Twp.
Clay Twp.
Franklin Twp.
Jackson Twp.
Murray Twp.
North Campbell Twp.
Pond Creek Twp.
Republic Twp.
Robberson Twp.
Taylor Twp.
Walnut Grove Twp.
Washington Twp.
Wilson Twp.
Total Uninc. Area
Christian County
187
185
1
1


4
133
1

1

144

1
3

3
2
3
2

4

1
3
1

1
8
41
2
,968
,492
,157
,227
211
863
,485
,116
,121
504
,799

,483
644
,057
,742
851
,548
,341
,374
,627
957
,106
713
,151
,445
,799
683
,819
,152
,009
,476
206,338
203,100
1,212
1,625
212
1,073
5,575
139,900
1,430
538
2,244

153,809
660
1,086
5,612
867
3,652
2,828
3,541
2,745
977
6,916
729
1,169
3,524
1,848
701
1,878
10,558
49,291
3,238
226,500
222,500
1,265
2,020
231
1,287
6,566
147,050
1,743
571
2,681

163,414
688
1,123
7,770
903
3,814
3,389
3,760
2,905
1,017
10,179
759
1,218
3,632
1,912
731
1,952
13,334
59,086
4,000
248,510
243,750
1,332
2,420
254
1,501
7,597
154,550
2,056
604
3,210

173,524
720
1,165
10,229
945
4,001
4,024
4,002
3,081
1,066
13,877
795
1,275
3,763
1,986
765
2,030
16,502
70,226
4,760
272,520
267,000
1,400
2,816
278
1,715
8,627
162,400
2,369
637
3,739

183,981
762
1,217
13,023
1,000
4,238
4,750
4,295
3,299
1,128
18,078
842
1,350
3,920
2,076
810
2,129
20,102
83,019
5,520
291,740
285,400
1,468
3,210
298
1,929
9,658
168,550
2,682
670
4,306

192,771
776
1,256
15,215
1,019
4,342
5,316
4,472
3,425
1,148
21,374
857
1,374
4,003
2,127
825
2,190
22,910
92j629
6,340
312,160
305,000
1,537
3,610
317
2,143
10,688
174,900
2,995
703
4,874

201,767
799
1,291
17,587
1,049
4,488
5,937
4,686
3,583
1,182
24,953
883
1,416
4,107
2,190
849
2,262
25,971
103,233
7,160
330,700
322,750
1,605
4,000
330
2,357
11,717
181,500
3,308
736
5,427

210,980
812
1,320
19,536
1,065
4,579
6,434
4,851
3,699
1,200
27,877
896
1,437
4,179
2,234
862
2,318
28,471
111,770
7,950
350,240
341,500
1,673
4,400
343
2,571
12,746
188,400
3,621
769
5,981

220,504
829
1,352
21,615
1,087
4,690
6,977
5,035
3,833
1,226
31,008
915
1,467
4,263
2,286
880
2,378
31,155
120,996
8,740
369,530
360,000
1,741
4,800
356
2,785
13,776
195,500
3,934
802
6,534

230,228
843
1,386
23,597
1,106
4,795
7,489
5,213
3,959
1,247
33,996
931
1,493
4,346
2,337
896
2,438
33,700
129,772
9,530

-------
major employer,  is  nevertheless  an important economic activity and is a
principal contributor to  employment  in the transportation sector and in
the feed milling industry.
          Manufacturing has traditionally been the major employer in the
area, although  its  share  of  employment has decreased  in recent years.
This  relative  decrease  in  manufacturing  employment has  been  offset by
absolute  and  relative employment  gains  in the wholesale/  retail trade
sector  and in  the  service sector.   Government  employment  (civilians
only) is  an important job source in the planning area, but weighs less
heavily  in the  area than  it does  in  the state.   Employment  in the
transportation/communications field  and in the finance,  insurance, and
real  estate  sector  has been  fairly constant  since 1972,  a  trend very
similar  to  state-wide  employment for  these  activities.   Unemployment
rates in the  planning  area  have been  low,  relative  to  the  national
average.
          The  alternative methods  for financing wastewater  facilities
available to the various governmental or administrative  units within the
planning  area  include general obligation bonds,  revenue  bonds,  special
assessments, and tax bills.  The  authority to issue bonds for wastewater
facilities  is  available  to the  Greene County  Sewer  District,  Greene
County,  and the incorporated cities,  towns, and villages in the planning
area.  In general,  cities may incur a total debt  equal  to 20 percent of
their  assessed  valuation  (not   considering   an  additional  10 percent
available for industrial general  obligation bonds).
          Two  principal   types of municipal bonds  are  used to  finance
major  local  government   expenditures—general   obligation  bonds  and
revenue bonds.   General obligation bonds are secured by  the taxing power
of  the  local  government.    They  have traditionally  been  considered the
more secure of the two types because local governments can levy taxes to
meet  the  debt  service  (principal and interest)  on  the bonds.   General
obligation bonds  require  voter approval  by a two-thirds majority before
they  can  be issued.  An  important  feature  of these bonds  is  that the
cost  of  repayment  (debt  service) is shared by all  residents,  which is
acceptable when  the  financed  project benefits the community as a whole,
such as a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
                                  31

-------
          When it  is desired to have  only the users of a  facility pay
for its financing  and  not the entire  citizenry,  revenue bond financing
is used.  Revenue  bonds  are repaid from revenues  generated  through use
of the  facility, usually from user fees or service charges,  and require
voter approval by  a  simple majority.   They are often used  for projects,
such as a treatment  facility serving a new  industry, where  it would be
inequitable  to  distribute  the  cost to  the  entire  community.   Revenue
bonds have become  more  popular  than general obligation bonds in recent
years,  probably  due  to  an  increase  in  the  types  and specificity of
services provided  by  local  government and  the frequent difficulty in
gaining the  greater  voter approval for general obligation  bonds.  Also,
there are  no interest  rate  limitations associated  with revenue bonds,
and future rate or fee increases do not require voter approval.
          Tax bills  function very much  like  general obligation  bonds
(except that the general public  does not vote on them).   The tax bill is
essentially  a promissory note,  issued  by authority  of the  county court
to a private contractor, promising payment of principal  and interest in
annual,  equal installments over  a period of two to ten years.  The funds
to pay  the  construction portion of the debt are secured  by apportioning
the total cost including interest (previously limited to  six percent per
year) among  affected property  owners  in  the  sewer  district.  Property
already serviced by  lateral  sewers in the sewer district is exempt from
new tax bill assessments  for construction of  sewers except submain or
main  sewers.  While  the  law does not specifically mention treatment
facilities,   it  is  assumed  that the tax  bill  also  reflects this  cost.
          In  addition  to tax bill assessments for  construction of the
facilities,   the maintenance  and repair costs of the project are paid by
a  special  assessment on the assessed  value  of real estate within the
sewer  district.    All  property owners within the  sewer  district  are
subject to  this  assessment.   Finally,  a user charge based  on the amount
of water  supplied to  the premises is  normally billed to users of the
sewerage system.
          One  of  the  major  issues  in Greene  County  is  the  manner in
which construction-related  tax  bills  should be allocated among property
                                  32

-------
owners.    Since  previous state  law required calculating the  tax  on the
basis of  the area  of the property,  property owners  with  large  tracts
would have  to pay  a  proportionately larger bill than owners of  lesser
acreage without regard to the use or developability of the land.
          In 1983, House Bill 371 was passed by the Missouri legislature
and provides  for  apportioning the tax bills either by square footage or
by the  linear  feet  of sewer  line  running  along  or through the property
for each  lot,  tract,  or parcel of  ground  in the sewer district.   More-
over, no assessment is made against property owners for land that is not
platted unless the property owner petitions for sewer service.  The bill
also allows  the  tax bills  to bear the current interest rate as approved
by the  county  court.   Changing the acreage basis by which tax bills are
calculated results  in a more equitable distribution of costs.  Removing
the six percent limitation makes the tax bills a more attractive invest-
ment instrument.
     8.    Community Services
          Community  services  (police  and  fire  protection,  schools,
parks,  hospitals,  etc.)  and  transportation  are generally  adequate  to
serve the needs  of  the area.  The City of Springfield depends primarily
on surface water, supplemented with ground water, for its water supply.
The  surrounding communities  and  rural residents  rely on  ground water
supplies.   Securing future water  supply sources and protecting existing
sources to meet the needs of the mid-1990's and beyond is a very import-
ant concern of the City of Springfield.
     9.    Land Use
          There are approximately 57,000 developed acres in the planning
area accounting  for just  over 12 percent of the total  land area.   De-
velopment is  concentrated  around  Springfield with over 44,000 developed
acres (78 percent) located in the Springfield vicinity.
          Most of this developed area is residential.  Nearly all devel-
opment  in southern  Springfield and to the south and east of Springfield
is  residential.   Commercial  uses  are  located along  major  arterial
streets and  industrial development  is distributed  along  major highway
and rail routes.
                                  33

-------
          Much of the development outside of the Springfield vicinity is
residential.   It  is  fairly  scattered,  with the number  of  subdivisions
decreasing as  the distance from  Springfield  increases.   In  addition,
scattered industrial  and commercial uses  occur on a very  small  scale.
          Even though most  of  the  planning area's developed land  is in
the immediate Springfield vicinity,  nearly 70  percent of the total land
in that vicinity remains undeveloped.  There is thus considerable  vacant
or agricultural land  for future  development within or near  Springfield.
          Over half of  the  land  in the planning area, or 246,000  out of
452,000  total  acres,   is  devoted  to  agricultural  uses.   The primary
agricultural activity,  both in terms of acres  and total value, is live-
stock  raising.   Because the soils  in the planning  area are relatively
poor  in  comparison to  the  soils in northern  Missouri,  cultivation of
grain crops is less important.
          Agricultural lands are  obviously valuable for food production.
Such lands are also environmentally important because they reduce  runoff
and  replenish  ground  water  supplies  by  absorbing precipitation  and
because  they provide  buffer  zones  between  environmentally  sensitive
areas and urban development.
          Greene  County and the City  of  Springfield both  have compre-
hensive  plans,   zoning   regulations,  and  subdivision  regulations.   Of
relevance to this EIS is the Greene County Planning Commission's goal to
provide  the  county   with  alternatives  to or  improved management  and
control of traditional septic tank treatment of sewage.
          Planned  residential  zoning in unincorporated  parts  of  Greene
County  is to  be  restricted to an area  within  several  miles  of  the
Springfield  city  limits.  Commercial zoning would be along major high-
ways,  and generally within the  confines  of  residentially  zoned  areas;
the only  exceptions  would  be a  strip  along  Missouri Highway 13 between
Brookline  and  Republic  and   two  interchanges  along  1-44  west  of
Springfield.  Industrial zoning  in the county would be  limited to areas
adjacent  to the  City  of  Springfield's  industrially zoned  areas,  the
major  ones being  along  1-44 east and  west of  Springfield.   The balance
of the  county would  be  zoned  as an agricultural district.   The concept
                                  34

-------
of clustering  future  development  around Springfield, through zoning,  is
based upon  trunk  sewers  (and other services and utilities) being avail-
able in  the areas adjacent to Springfield  and  development being guided
to these areas.

B.   WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROBLEMS
          There are three major municipal wastewater treatment plants  in
the planning area,  serving mainly the incorporated areas of Springfield
and Republic  (see  Summary Figure).  A  number of  subdivisions,  mobile
home parks, and  other  developments have  their own  treatment  systems,
mainly lagoons and  small  treatment plants.  The remaining population  is
served  by  on-site  treatment  facilities,  mostly  septic  tank  systems.
          The  existing   Springfield Northwest  Plant  and  the  Republic
plant  have  frequently  failed  to meet  required effluent limitations.
Renewal of the expired discharge permits for both plants has been denied
because of  the serious  deficiencies.   The Republic and Northwest plants
are  both  overloaded  and  frequently do  not  meet  secondary  treatment
effluent standards, much less the more stringent losing stream standards
which  apply to each.   The lagoons used  for part  of the  treatment  at
Republic  represent  a  significant  threat  to  ground and  surface  water
quality  from potential  catastrophic collapse  associated with sinkholes
in the  area.  Springfield's  Southwest  Plant provides a  high degree  of
treatment and generally meets effluent limitations.  Excessive infiltra-
tion and  inflow  are  serious  problems for  the  Republic  and Springfield
systems,  overloading  collection   and  treatment  facilities during wet
weather.
          The  Northwest  Treatment Plant serves the  part of Springfield
lying  north  of   the  Burlington  Northern  (formerly the  St. Louis-San
Francisco)  railway  tracks.   The   Southwest  Treatment Plant  serves  the
rest of  the  city,  which  includes about  85  percent of  Springfield's
population and land area.   Both plants also serve some areas outside the
city limits.   Although  sanitary sewer service is provided to nearly all
parts of the city,  only about 85  percent  of the population is actually
connected to either system.   The  other 15 percent  uses  on-site systems
                                  35

-------
or small package plants.   Springfield's sanitary sewer system dates back
to  1894  and the  collection  systems for  both treatment plants  contain
some very  old sections,  with  some pipe  over 80 years old.   The  sewer
system  is  maintained by  the Public Works  Department, which  routinely
cleans  it  about once every  two  years.   The sanitary system is  not de-
signed to handle  storm drainage.   Efforts have been  made  to locate and
eliminate  sources  of extraneous  flows in  the most  troublesome  areas.
However, the  sewer  system  still  has  a  large amount  of  infiltration/
inflow (I/I),  increasing  the amount of  wastewater the system must convey
to  the  treatment  plants.   During  wet  weather,   the  wastewater  flow
exceeds the capacity of some pipes resulting in overflowing manholes and
basement flooding.   Causes  of the excess  I/I  include  deterioration of
old  pipe joint  materials,  faulty construction,  illegal  connection of
roof  and  foundation drains,  manhole  deterioration,  and  damage  from
abuse.
          Many of the small  treatment  systems are overloaded and poorly
operated and  maintained.   These  conditions limit  the  treatment effec-
tiveness and often result in violations of effluent limitations.
          The remainder of Greene County - that portion of the  popula-
tion  not served  by municipal  or  private  treatment facilities -  uses
on-site treatment systems for wastewater disposal.   The most common type
of  on-site  system is the  conventional septic  system,  consisting  of  a
septic  tank and an  adjacent absorption field.  Other  types of  on-site
treatment  found  in  Greene  County are aerated  septic  tanks with  absorp-
tion  fields,  and  a septic  tank with an  elevated absorption field (a
mound system), located in Strafford.
          A  properly operating   septic  system  provides   very  adequate
treatment  of  the wastewater from  a single home  or  a group  of homes.
Solids  accumulate in the  bottom  of the septic tank, where the sludge is
partially  stabilized by  bacteria.  Grease and  other light  particles
float  to the top  of the  tank  and are  trapped.    The  remaining liquid
flows  from the  tank to  the absorption  field and  into the surrounding
soil through  perforated pipes.   As the wastewater  flows downward,  it is
purified by bacterial activity  and reactions with  the soil.  There have
                                  36

-------
been  many problems  with  septic  systems  in Greene County.   Surfacing
sewage and infiltration of the groundwater by partially treated effluent
from  septic  systems  are  common  occurrences   in  some  areas.   These
problems  can  be traced  to several factors:  poor  design  and construc-
tion, irregular maintenance, and poor soil suitability.
          Current  design  and construction  practices  in  Greene County
often  lead to  malfunctioning  septic  systems.    For   example,  improper
laying of  the pipe results in uneven distribution  of  the  tank effluent
to  the  absorption field.   Inadequate  area for  the absorption  field is
another  problem,   leading  to premature  clogging of the  field  after  a
short operating period.
          Septic tanks should be  pumped  out on  a regular  basis to pre-
vent  solids  overflow  and clogging of the absorption field.   However,
there  are no   requirements  in  Greene County  for  regularly  scheduled
maintenance of  septic  systems.   General  practice is to pump  out septic
tanks only when the homeowner has problems with surfacing sewage or when
wastewater backs up  into the house.  By  that time,  the absorption field
has been  damaged  and pumping out the septic  tank provides only limited
relief.  Pumped septage  is disposed of at the Northwest  Treatment Plant
in Springfield or on nearby farmland.

C.   FACILITIES PLAN ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
          Specific alternatives for each  of the subareas  were developed
and evaluated as  discussed in the draft  and final Wastewater Facilities
Plan  for  Greene County Sewer District.  This section  briefly describes
these alternatives,  including regionalized  alternatives,  and indicates
the  specific  alternative  recommended  on  the  basis  of  engineering
criteria  and  costs.   New  information   and changes  since  the  draft
Facilities Plan and Draft  EIS  are  given.   Capital  and annual  costs of
alternatives  are presented.
          For each subarea, a "no  action"  alternative and alternatives
for  new  or modified wastewater  collection  and treatment  systems  were
developed.  The feasibility and  costs  of cluster  systems  and  gravity,
pressure,  and  vacuum   sewer  collection  systems  were   assessed  for
unsewered  areas,  and treatment  plant  processes, alternative  discharge
                                  37

-------
points, and  land treatment were  evaluated.   New  collection facilities
and  improved wastewater  treatment and  management were  considered  for
existing systems.
          For the unsewered communities,  it is unlikely that any central
collection and  treatment system  could  be financed without federal  and
state  funding assistance.   No  action alternatives for these communities
mean continued  use  of existing septic tank and small treatment systems,
and  installation of new  ones.   The  communities  and Greene  County  may
control  and  manage  on-site systems  to varying  degrees, but  soil  and
geological conditions preclude  the longer term acceptability of on-site
systems in many areas.
          Cluster  disposal  systems  using  absorption  field and  mound
system  variations  were evaluated  for unsewered areas.   These  were  not
found  to  be  cost-effective  because of  soil  limitations  for absorption
systems and high costs for mound systems.
          Combination collection  systems  using  gravity sewers, pressure
sewers  with  septic tank effluent pumping, and  on-site  disposal systems
in particular areas  were generally found to  be most cost-effective  for
the  unsewered  communities.   Vacuum  collection   systems  and  pressure
collection systems using grinder pumps were not cost-effective.
          Land application was not found to be cost-effective because of
soils  that greatly limit allowable application rates  and large storage
basin  requirements.   Costs  include land purchase for lagoon and storage
basin  areas, but application would be on private  land.   Negotiation of
long-term agreements  for the  use of the  private land  could also pose
problems.
          The proposed  improvements  and  other  leading alternatives  for
each  subarea are  discussed  in the following sections and  shown on the
Summary Figure and Figure 3.
     1.   Springfield Subarea
          The   Springfield  subarea*  includes   the  area  served   by
Springfield's  existing  collection  system,   existing  or planned  trunk
*The  Springfield  subarea as delineated by  the  MDNR includes the cities
 of  Springfield,  Strafford, Brookline, and Battlefield  and a large un-
 incorporated  area surrounding  Springfield.   Strafford, Brookline, and
 Battlefield  are  addressed as  individual  subareas  for facilities plan-
 ning purposes, with alternatives that include possible  regionalization.
                                  38

-------

-------
V
V
 \

-------
sewer  drainage basins,  and  other  significantly  developed areas  sur-
rounding  Springfield.   Wastewater  in the  Springfield subarea  is  pre-
sently  handled  by:   1)  collection  and  treatment  by  the  City  of
Springfield  system,  2)  private systems  serving  subdivisions,  trailer
parks, shopping centers, and schools,  and 3) individual on-site systems.
Approximate  numbers  of persons  currently served by  these  methods  are:

              Springfield Municipal System                 115,000
              Private Facilities                             5,000
              On-Site Systems (Septic Tanks)                40,000

          The  Springfield  Municipal  system serves  some  unincorporated
growth areas adjacent to it in addition to the City itself.   The Spring-
field subarea  is  separated by a major drainage divide into northern and
southern  portions,   served by  the  Northwest  and Southwest  treatment
plants, respectively (see Summary Figure).
          For  wastewater  facilities  planning,  population  projections
were  disaggregated  according  to major  system components  and  drainage
areas.   Projections  of  industrial,   commercial,  and  institutional  ex-
pansion and  locations  were also made.  Future flow and wastewater load-
ings were then projected and broken down by  segments:   1)  domestic, 2)
industrial,    3)  institutional,   4)   commercial,   and  5)   allowable
infiltration/inflow.   The  effects of future  flows  and waste  loads  on
system facilities and areas were analyzed.
          A  summary of the  additional  population  projected   for  the
Springfield  subarea  plus  existing  population not served  is  as  follows:

                               City of Springfield

              Existing Population Not Served                    19,400

              Additional Population by Year 2005                35,400

                   Additional Population to be Served           54,800
                                  41

-------
                               Unincorporated Area

              Existing Population Not Served                    16,540

              Additional Population by Year 2005                39,200

                   Additional Population to be Served           55,740

          The major new  facilities  proposed for the Springfield subarea
include:   the  Pierson  Creek and  Thompson  Branch  interceptors of  the
southern system;  and  the new  Northwest treatment plant and  Little  Sac
and  South  Dry  Sac interceptors  of  the  northern  system  (see  Summary
Figure).
          a.    Southern System.   The southern portion of the  Springfield
Municipal  system  handles about 85 percent  of  all residential customers
served  in  the city,  plus most of the  industrial and  commercial areas.
          The Southwest  Plant interceptor  and  newly constructed Wilson
Creek  interceptor  are   the  two  major  gravity  sewers  that  discharge
directly into the Southwest  Plant.   Several major interceptor and trunk
sewers are tributary to the Southwest Plant interceptor.
          The James River interceptor and pump station system serves or
potentially  serves  large portions of the southern  and  eastern parts of
the Springfield subarea.  These areas have grown significantly since the
early  1970's and are  projected  to  continue to  grow at a greater rate
than other parts of the subarea.
          Infiltration  and   inflow  (I/I)   to  the  Southwest  Plant  are
excessive  during  periods of  rainfall.  Flows of up to 75 MGD exceed the
42-MGD  hydraulic  capacity   and   supplemental  holding  capacity of  the
plant.  Infiltration and inflow for 7- and  14-day high flow periods were
calculated to be 8600 and 7600 gallons/inch diameter/mile/day.  Problems
of  surcharging  trunk and interceptor sewers are also  caused by excess
I/I.
                                  42

-------
          Needs  and  alternatives  to  handle  future  wasteloads  were
evaluated  for  the southern  system.   Collection and  treatment alterna-
tives  and  short  range  and  long range  improvements were  considered.
Areas  of  concern  include I/I,  treatment  plant  hydraulic  and process
capacities, sludge disposal,  trunk and interceptor sewers, and possible
effluent reuse.
               1)   Southern System Treatment.  A summary of current and
projected  flow,  BOD,  and  SS loadings to  the  Southwest  Treatment Plant
system and comparative design capacities of the existing plant are given
in  Table 5.    Even during  dry weather  the  current  flow  of  17.0  MGD
includes over  3.5  MGD I/I.  The year  2005  projected  loadings are shown
with  James River pump  station  flows (case 1)  and  without  (case 2).
Alternatives  for the Southwest Plant system  consist of  expansion and
improvements with  and without a new treatment plant for the James River
system,  the  possibilities of effluent reuse  or  land application,  and
potential  regionalization  that might  serve  the Battlefield, Brookline,
Republic and  Strafford  subareas.  The  regionalization  alternatives are
described  in  the sections on alternatives  for each  of  these specific
subareas.
                    a)   Plant Improvements and Expansion.   The primary
treatment  influent channels,  grit removal system and primary clarifiers
can handle peak  flows of 42  MGD compared  to  a  current  average day peak
flow  of  nearly  39 MGD.    Whether  or  not the James  River system remains
tributary  to   the  Southwest  Plant,  hydraulic   expansion  of  these
facilities will be needed before 2005.
          Calculations indicate the oxygenation system can hydraulically
handle flows 50  percent  over current design and can handle BOD loadings
as well as flow for the  year  2005.
          Studies  of  settling velocities  and  overflow  rates  find that
clarifier  capacity is limited to  the design peak  flow  of 42 MGD.  When
mixed  liquor   suspended  solids  in  the  oxygenation  system  are  high,
capacity is sometimes more limited.   If the James River system flows to
the  Southwest  Plant  continue  after  1992,  construction  of  additional
clarifiers will be necessary.  If not, the existing units will be satis-
factory until  2005.
                                  43

-------
                               TABLE 5
                     SPRINGFIELD SOUTHERN SYSTEM
                 CURRENT AND PROJECTED WASTE LOADINGS
Parameter

Flow (MGD)
- Average Day

- Peak Hydraulic

- Dry Weather

- Peak Day

- Peak Rate

- Peak Flow on Average
    Day

BOD (Ib/day)
- Average Day

Susp. Solids (Ib/day)
- Average Day
  Existing
   Plant
   Design     Current
  Projected-2005
Case 1      Case 2
30
45
--
--
--
—
25.4
--
17.0
74.7
100
38.7
35.7
—
26.8
86.2
115
53,7
30.3
--
21.7
79.9
109
46.0
92,600     44,400      80,655      68,755
50,000     35,300      63,200      49,625
*Case 1 includes the James River pump station flows while Case 2
 does not.
                                  44

-------
          The nitrification  system consists  of  the aeration  tanks and
clarifiers  of  the  original  plant and  three  added  clarifiers.   This
portion of  the  plant  has less reserve capacity than many others, and is
limited hydraulically to 42 MGD peak flow, or less if conditions are not
favorable for nitrification.   If  James  River system  flows  remain tri-
butary  after  1992,   expansion  of  these  facilities  will be  required.
          At  a  flow of 42 MGD the eight multi-media gravity filters are
loaded  at  4.2  gpm/sq.  ft.  These  units  should handle peak  flows  of at
least 60 MGD  (6.0 gpm/sq.  ft.)  and should thus be  adequate  to the year
2005 with or without James River system flows.
          Ozone is applied  at three parallel covered  tanks  with a flow
capacity  of  75 MGD.    The  system  performs  well  except for  equipment
failures and  during  periods  of  excessive I/I when  settled  overflow is
mixed with final effluent.
          When  plant  influent flow rate is  greater  than 42  MGD, waste-
water is routed to a 4.4-MG settling pond which overflows to two holding
ponds  of  7.4  and  29.4 MG capacity,  respectively.   Retained  flows are
pumped  back  to the  treatment  plant when  influent  flow   drops  below
42 MGD.  If the ponds are full,  overflows are disinfected at the ozona-
tion tanks  and  discharged.   For  the 1979 to  mid  1982 periods, overflow
quantities  averaged  246 MG/year.  Unless controlled,  quantities of I/I
and  resultant  overflows  can be  expected to increase  with  new  sewer
construction and existing collection system deterioration.
          The  sources  of sludge  at  the  Southwest  Plant   are  primary
clarifier sludge  and  waste activated  sludges from  the  oxygenation and
nitrification systems.   Solids  in the effluent filtration  system back-
wash,  flotation thickener  subnatant*, and  vacuum filter filtrate are
returned to the primary clarifiers.   Primary sludge and thickened waste
activated sludge are  anaerobically digested and  applied  to  farmland as
liquid or dewatered  cake.
*Subnatant is the  relatively clear water below the concentrated, float-
 ing sludge.
                                  45

-------
          The six existing  air  flotation thickeners for waste activated
sludge were loaded at 9.4 Ib/sq ft/day during 1981 compared to a maximum
design loading  of 44  Ib/sq ft/day.   Average loadings in  the  year 2005
would be  16  Ib/sq ft/day and the existing thickeners are therefore more
than adequate.
          The  existing  sludge  treatment  process  is  well  designed,
reliable,  and  energy  efficient.  The anaerobic  digestion process  is
satisfactory  with good  gas  production and  volatile suspended  solids
(VSS)  reduction.   Odor problems  from land spreading  of  the sludge are
caused by  the  relatively high VSS content of the treated sludge and the
application  rates  necessary on the available land.   Digester  gases are
used to  fuel  a diesel-driven air blower for nitrification, boilers that
heat  the  digesters,   and  boilers  that  heat the  blower  building and
office.   Analysis  showed that additional  anaerobic  digestion  would not
significantly  reduce the  potential odor problems from land spreading of
the sludge.
          In  1981,  about 40% of the  sludge was  spread  as  a liquid and
the  rest as dewatered  sludge cake with about  12  percent solids.  The
existing coil-type vacuum filters have a design solids loading of 59,700
Ibs/day  which  is greater  than the  2005  projected total  of  44,600
Ibs/day.   While  the  vacuum  filters  have  adequate  capacity  to handle
future sludge quantities, chemical conditioning costs and limited sludge
cake dryness are drawbacks.
          Since 1960, sludge  has been spread on about  1320  acres of area
farmland  and  City  owned  land.   Sludge  is hauled  to private  land on
request  from the owner.   Nearly all suitable soils  within a  five mile
radius of  the  plant  are now  being used for sludge disposal.  Potential
problems  will  increase in the future with greater quantities  and higher
VSS  content of digested  sludge, reduced  pathogenic  organism kill with
less  digester  detention  time,  and  a  reduced  land  availability from
suburban development.
           In  order  to control odors  and assure  pathogen kills, methods
for  further  stabilizing the sludge  were reviewed.   The  conventional
methods  available are  lime  stabilization,  aerobic  digestion, thermal
                                  46

-------
conditioning, or  composting.   A new method, "oxyozosynthesis," also has
some promise.
          Lime  stabilization  is currently practiced when  lime is added
to  help  produce  vacuum  filter  sludge  cake.   This  controls  odors
temporarily,  but. after land spreading, odor problems  develop  since the
sludges  are generally not  plowed  into the ground.  Providing an addi-
tional one  to two weeks storage at high  pH may improve lime stabiliza-
tion effectiveness.
          Oxyozosynthesis involves  the application of  oxygen  and ozone
at pH  5  and 60 psi pressure for  l\ to 2 hours.  Reportedly, the sludge
could  then  be  thickened   and  dewatered  to   produce   an  odorless,
bacteria-free cake.   Since  the  Southwest Plant has a  supply  of oxygen
and ozone  plus  flotation thickeners and  vacuum  filters for dewatering,
the oxyozone  reaction  chamber  and related equipment may be the only new
equipment needed.
          The use of  aerobic  digestion,  composting,  or  thermal condi-
tioning would require  major changes and  expenditures and  would only be
considered  if  further  lime   stabilization  or  oxyozosynthesis  is  not
feasible or effective.   The  addition of further VSS reduction and sludge
stabilization for  land spreading  appears  more practical and less costly
than a major  change  in disposal method such as landfilling or incinera-
tion.   Alternate disposal  methods  should  be  considered  and  evaluated
with  overall solid  waste  handling and  disposal.   Further  evaluation
should be   conducted  in the  next  few  years  as  Springfield's sanitary
landfill  is  nearing  capacity.  For  the  short  range,  pilot   or  plant
studies  on  oxyozosynthesis  and lime stabilization  should  be conducted.
          b)   Effluent Reuse.    The  potential  for  reuse  of  treated
effluent from the Southwest  Treatment Plant exists with future expansion
to City  Utilities Southwest Power  Plant,  about  1/4  mile  away.   Power
supply studies   in  1979 and  1981  addressed  the  possibility   of  using
effluent for  cooling water  on  future generating  units.   Further treat-
ment methods,  including phosphate  and  nitrate  removal,  are discussed.
Consideration should  be given  to  the  use of treated  effluent when the
decision to construct a new  generating unit is made.
                                  47

-------
          c)   Short Range Needs.   Needs within the  next  five years for
the southern system include:
     0    Pilot studies  of further  sludge  stabilization  prior  to  land
          spreading.
     0    Incorporation  of sludge treatment  and  disposal  studies  into
          overall solid waste management planning.
     0    A sewer system  evaluation  survey  to locate areas of excessive
          I/I and determine the cost-effectiveness  of removal or storage
          and treatment.

Preliminary  cost  estimates  for  these evaluations  are $50,000  for the
sludge pilot studies, $30,000 for sludge studies as part of solid wastes
management, and $2,500,000 for the sewer system evaluation study.
          d)   Long Range Needs.    Needs  within the  next  five to  ten
years involve major decisions  and significant improvements or additions
if  wasteloads  increase  as projected.  The  principal decision  will  be
whether to expand the Southwest Plant to handle all southern system flow
or  to construct  a  new plant on the James River for treating James River
system  wastes.   The  exact  needs  and better cost* comparisons can  be
determined  nearer   the  time  hydraulic capacities  are reached  but  pre-
liminary comparative  total annual costs  are $1,224,000 for expansion of
the Southwest Plant and James River pump station  system  and $1,511,000
for construction of a new James River basin treatment plant.
          The  effluent criteria  for discharge to  the James  River are
assumed to be the same as for the Southwest Plant.   Costs  are based on a
single  stage oxygenation  and nitrification  process.  The existing James
River pump station would be used to pump to the new plant, located about
one mile away.
               2)   Interceptor and Trunk Sewers.    Land  developability
studies  in conjunction with the population  projections for the Spring-
field subarea showed that significant growth can be expected in parts of
the  unincorporated  area  tributary  to  Springfield's  southern system.
These areas  are tributary to the James River interceptor, Ward Branch
                                  48

-------
trunk sewer, Wilson  Creek  interceptor,  and planned Pierson Creek inter-
ceptor.   Since most  of  the major trunk and interceptor sewer network is
in place and designed  as  a gravity system, planning for new sewer needs
is also  based  upon  conventional  gravity sewers.  Sewers  are  sized  for
the year 2025 population projections rather than 2005 to minimize future
environmental problems  and costs associated with  sewer  construction in
areas of  karst  geology, springs,  losing  streams, and  shallow bedrock.
          Sewers   are   considered   only  where   existing  development
warrants, since  much of the  area is now  sparsely populated.   Specific
needs for  each  major  basin  are  categorized  as  short range  (1 to  5
years),   and  long range  (5 to 10  years).   Sewers shown as  short range
needs will eliminate existing treatment facilities and pump stations or
serve developed areas with existing "dead"  sewers.   Sewers  shown as long
range needs will serve existing unsewered developments.
                    a)    Pierson Creek Basin.   Tributary to  the planned
Pierson  Creek interceptor  are about 3,850 acres of  unincorporated land
in which significant growth is projected.   There are also  several large
developments within  the  Springfield city  limits, east of  Highway 65.
There are  currently  about  8,000 persons in Springfield  and unincorpor-
ated  areas  in  the basin,  and  average existing  flow  is   estimated at
0.357 MGD.   Projected average flow is 1.445 MGD in 2005  and 2.207 MGD in
2025.
          Short  range  needs  include  a  1,000   ft  extension of  the cur-
rently planned Pierson  Creek  interceptor plus  three collection lines to
eliminate treatment  facilities serving a  subdivision and  trailer park,
and  provide  service  for several  subdivisions,  some with  existing dead
sewers.   The total costs for these projects are estimated at $2,511,000.
          Long  range needs  include  further  extension  of  the  Pierson
Creek interceptor  to just  north  of  Cherry Street and  construction of
several   additional  lines  which would serve unsewered  subdivisions  and
eliminate an existing  country club treatment  facility.  Costs of these
projects are estimated to total $1,366,940.
                    b)    James River Basin.  The James River interceptor
went into operation in early 1981 and will  serve some areas projected to
                                  49

-------
develop rapidly over the planning period.   In addition to receiving flow
from  the  planned  Pierson  Creek interceptor  and Thompson Branch  trunk
sewer, there are projected  growth areas directly tributary to the  James
River interceptor.   Projected  average  and peak flows to the James  River
interceptors are 4.092  and  9.41 MGD in 2005  and 5.988 and 12.87 MGD in
2025, plus  possible peak flows from the  Half-a-Hill area  of  6.32 and
6.50  MGD,  respectively.  The  interceptor  design capacity of 32 MGD is
thus adequate to handle the  2025 flows.
          Short range  needs  include the Thompson Branch  trunk  and pump
station, serving an area  immediately north of Lake Springfield, and two
collection  lines  directly  tributary to  James River  interceptor.   The
Thompson Branch trunk  would  eliminate the Lakewood Wastewater Treatment
Plant  and  the  two pump  stations.   The  collection  lines  would  serve
several subdivisions,  one  with  dead sewers,  and  eliminate  a treatment
facility serving a mobile home park and subdivision.  Estimated costs of
the Thompson Branch trunk and the two  lines  are $809,800 and $524,150,
respectively.
          Long  range  needs  include  a  line  to serve existing unsewered
residential developments.   The estimated cost is $302,500.
                    c)   Ward Branch Basin.  The Ward  Branch trunk went
into  operation  in  mid-1980  and serves a rapidly growing area within and
outside  the Springfield  city limits.    The Kickapoo  High  School  and
Arrowhead pump  stations and the Parkcrest treatment facility have been
eliminated with connection  to this trunk.  There are plans to eliminate
the  McAllister, Sheraton,  and Southvale  pump  stations  in  the  near
future.  Average  and  peak  flows  are  currently 0.1  and 0.2  MGD,  and
projected to increase  to  2.507 and  6.27 MGD in 2005 and 3.676 and 8.64
MGD, respectively,   in 2025.
          Short range  needs  include the construction  of  three  lines to
eliminate the  treatment facility  for Cherokee  School,  a pump station,
and  serve   several  existing  residential  developments,  some with dead
sewers.  Estimated  costs are $1,504,950.
          Long  range   needs    include   a  line   to  serve  developing
residential  areas  east of  Cherokee School,  and also some areas within
the City of Springfield.  The estimated cost is  $416,500.
                                  50

-------
                    d)   Wilsons Creek Basin.  The Wilsons  Creek inter-
ceptor went  into  service  in the late  1970*s.  It  connects  to the Upper
Wilsons Creek  trunk  and  discharges by gravity into the Southwest Plant.
Only  minor development  exists  in the  unincorporated areas which  are
tributary  to this  interceptor  and the only flows now carried are excess
I/I  overflows  from  the  upper  Wilsons  Creek  trunk.   Average  and  peak
flows are  projected  at 1.26 and 3.4 MGD in 2005  plus 6.0 MGD peak over-
flow  from  the  upper  Wilsons Creek trunk; and  2.28  and 5.59 MGD in 2025
plus 6.50 MGD peak overflow from the upper Wilsons Creek trunk.   This is
within  the 12.5  MGD  design  capacity,  if  I/I  does not become worse.
          Short range  needs include  a line planned  to serve  a mobile
home park which would eliminate a lagoon.  Other  needs are downstream of
the Southwest  Plant  and  not tributary to the Wilsons Creek interceptor.
A  line  in this  area would  serve  a shopping  center and  residential
developments,  and eliminate  two  pump stations   and  a  small  treatment
facility.  A major pump  station would be near Roundtree  Spring to pump
flows  to  the  Southwest  Plant  interceptor.   The  estimated costs  are
$1,265,650.
          There are  no identifiable  long range  needs although  signifi-
cant  growth  is projected  in  some areas.   Sewers are  likely to be  in-
stalled with this growth in view of current zoning regulations.
                    e)   Summary.   Most  of  the  previously  discussed
short and  long term  needs  will likely be constructed with local financ-
ing through the  intergovernmental  agreement between the City of Spring-
field  and  Greene County.   The City  intends to  pursue EPA construction
grants  for  some  majpr  projects  including  the  Thompson Branch  trunk
sewer, pump  station,  and  force main  and the  Pierson Creek interceptor
and extensions.
          b.    Northern System.  The northern portion of the Springfield
system handles about 15  percent of all  residential  customers  served in
the city,  plus a  few industries and  large  motels.   The Pea Ridge Creek
Trunk and  the  new Airport  trunk and  pump  station are the major convey-
ance facilities to the Northwest Plant.  The force main from the Airport
pump station discharges into the Pea Ridge trunk near the plant.
                                  51

-------
          Flow to the Northwest  Plant  currently averages about 3.5  MGD,
equal  to  the  plant design capacity.   Peak day  flow is 7.5  MGD while
average dry weather flow is about 2.4 MGD.  Added  treatment  capability
and  capacity   and   handling  excessive  I/I are  critical needs  of  the
northern  system.   In 1978  and  1981,  heavy rains caused  the  dikes  pro-
tecting the plant  to be  topped and serious flood damage and  disruption
of the  treatment plant occurred.  Other northern system considerations
and  concerns  are  trunk  and interceptor  sewers,  sludge  processing  and
disposal,  effluent reuse, and  land application treatment.
               1)   Northwest  Treatment Plant.   A summary of current and
projected  flow,  BOD,  and  suspended  solids loadings  to the  Northwest
Plant system and comparative design capacities  of the existing plant are
given  in  Table 6.   Basic  alternatives  for the  system are no  action,
abandoning the  existing  plant  and  building a  new  plant at one  of two
downstream  sites,   and expanding and  upgrading the  existing  Northwest
Plant.
          The Little Sac  River is water quality limited with the follow-
ing requirements*:

                              Weekly Average      Monthly Average
     BOD  (mg/1)                    15                  10
     SS (mg/1)                     20                  15
     pH                                 6.0 to 9.0
     Ammonia (mg/1)                       2

                    a)   No Action.   The treatment plant would remain as
it is.   The existing plant is  overloaded and was not  designed  to  meet
current effluent requirements,  much less handle additional loads.
                    b)   Plant Relocation - Murray Site.   (Proposed  in
final  Facilities Plan) The existing treatment plant  would  be  abandoned
and  a new  plant of  expanded  capacity would  be built  about  15,000 ft
downstream on  a tract of land of the City's  abandoned Murray landfill
site.  The  plant site will encroach on a  filled area.   Excavation and
proper  disposal of filled material,  a  tile  drain  leachate  collection
system, and clean fill will be required.
    Updated waste  load allocation  studies were  completed by  the  MDNR
   to  determine  requirements for increasing the  Northwest Plant capac-
   ity.  The  updated effluent  requirements  are  expected  to  be similar
   to the previous limits.
                                  52

-------
                                TABLE 6
                 SPRINGFIELD NORTHWEST TREATMENT PLANT
                  CURRENT AND PROJECTED WASTE LOADINGS
Parameter

Flow (MGD)

- Average Day

- Peak Hydraulic

- Dry Weather

- Peak Day

- Peak Rate

BOD (Ib/day)
- Average Day

Susp.  Solids (Ib/day)
- Average Day
Existing
Plant
Design
3.5

5.25
Current"
3.2
Projected
2005
 6.0
--
--
--
9500
6900
2.4
7.1
9.0
4700
4200
4.8
9.9
16.3
9700
9100
"Representative data, 1979 to 1982.
                                   53

-------
          The planned treatment process is a two-stage biological treat-
ment system providing  carbonaceous  BOD reduction in the first stage and
ammonia  reduction  in  the  second  stage.   Recommended  cost-effective
treatment methods are  orbal  aeration  for the first  stage  and submerged
aerated rock filtration for the second stage.
          The  submerged aerated  filters  are  expected  to achieve  the
effluent  limits  without  requiring  final  clarification  or  granular
filtration as  would be  needed with  other  second-stage (nitrification)
treatment process  alternatives.   This  represents  a  relatively  new and
innovative process which is not fully demonstrated by similar full-scale
plant  applications.   Current  wasteload  allocation  studies  did  not
indicate  that   final   filtration  was   warranted;   however,  effluent
filtration could be added later if required.*
          The capital cost of the total treatment system is estimated to
be  $9,351,700  ($8,868,600  present  worth)  if  effluent  filtration  is
needed, and $7,566,200 ($7,149,500 present worth) if effluent filtration
is  not required.  Total  annual  costs  are  estimated at  $1,499,200 and
$1,325,800,  respectively.    The  new   15,000-ft  Little  Sac  interceptor
sewer  is estimated to cost an additional $3,235,000.
                    c)   Other Alternatives.      Other     alternatives
included expansion and upgrading of the existing plant, plant relocation
at  the Highway  13  site, land application,  and reuse.   These  were not
found  to be practical because of site constraints and costs.
               2)   Sludge Treatment and Disposal.    A   sludge   holding
tank and aerobic digester are recommended for the waste activated sludge
stabilization.  Belt filter press dewatering equipment for the sludge is
also proposed.   A 45-day  digester  detention time  will  be provided for
sludge stabilization and pathogen die-off as required by MDNR.
          Flexibility  in  the options   for  ultimate  disposal   will  be
provided as follows:
          Haul  liquid  sludge  and  dispose  of  on  one existing  and two
abandoned landfill sites.
 'cThe  selected  treatment  process  could  be  different,  depending  upon
 final design decisions.
                                  54

-------
          Haul sludge cake for disposal on landfill sites.
          Haul sludge cake for disposal with solid wastes.
          Haul sludge cake for disposal on nearby farmland.

               3)   Interceptor and Trunk Sewers.   There  are  approxi-
mately 14,000 acres  tributary to the proposed South Dry Sac interceptor
sewer,  including  about   1,800  acres  identified  as an  unincorporated
growth area  (generally north  of the Springfield  city  limits,  south of
the  South  Dry Sac River, east  of  Highway 13, and west  of  Valley Water
Mill).  There  are presently  about 850 residents in this area  and this
population is  projected  to  increase  to an estimated 9,000 by  the year
2025.
          Sewer  needs  include the  37,100-ft  South Dry  Sac interceptor
and three lines to serve  areas which currently use lift stations to pump
into the Pea  Ridge interceptor.   Costs for these projects  are estimated
at $3,195,300.
     2.   Battlefield Subarea
          The Battlefield  subarea  is presently  served  by  approximately
684  individual  wastewater  disposal  systems  and  an extended  aeration
treatment plant  serving  52  residences in one subdivision.   Planning for
the subarea is based upon existing and projected design year population
as follows:

                                                Population
                                            1980           2005
         Battlefield Residents              1,227          3,210
         Unincorporated Residents             963          3,856
                        TOTAL               2,190          7,066

At the design  population  of about 7,070, the average dry weather design
flow at 87 gpcd (existing water supply use) is 0.615 mgd.
          Central  collection and  treatment alternatives  evaluated  for
the subarea are  a  treatment plant discharging to Indian Springs Branch,
                                  55

-------
a  treatment plant  discharging  to  the James  River,  a  regional  pump
station  to  Springfield's  James  River Pump  Station,  a  regional  pump
station   to  Springfield's   Southwest   Treatment   Plant,   and   land
application.  Preliminary  evaluation of a  regional treatment  plant  to
serve  Battlefield,  Brookline,  and  Republic  indicated extremely  high
costs, particularly for Republic.   This alternative was thus eliminated
from  further  consideration.    For  the  collection  systems,  gravity,
pressure,  and  combination  collection  and  on-site  system  alternatives
were  evaluated.   The  combination systems  are  least costly, and  total
project,  annual  O&M,  and  total  annual costs  of the  alternatives  for
serving the entire subarea  are presented in Table 7.
          Indian  Springs  Branch  is  a  losing  stream and losing  stream
effluent  requirements  apply.   The  discharge location  is  approximately
0.9 mile  above   the  confluence  with  the  James  River.  The  treatment
system  for meeting  effluent requirements would  consist of  an oxidation
ditch,   two  clarifiers,   gravity   sand   filtration,  and   chlorine
disinfection.
          The James River is water quality limited based upon waste load
allocations with the following requirements:
                                       Monthly Average
    BOD (mg/1)
    SS (mg/1)
    pH
    Ammonia (mg/1)
    Fecal Coliform (per 100 ml)
10
15
Weekly Average
      15
      20
     6.0 to 9.0
          2
         200
          The  treatment  system for meeting  effluent requirements would
be  the same  as  that  for  the Indian  Springs Branch  treatment plant.
          The alternative proposed in the final Facilities Plan consists
of  a  regional pump  station and force main  southeast  of Battlefield to
deliver  raw wastewater  to Springfield's James  River pump  station and
Southwest Treatment  Plant.   An emergency electric generator is provided
in  case of  power outage.  The  scope  of  the  proposed project is to pro-
                                  56

-------
                                TABLE 7
                   BATTLEFIELD SUBAREA ALTERNATIVES
                       PRELIMINARY COSTS SUMMARY

                                     Total
                                    Project
                                      Cost
Indian Springs Branch Plant

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination

James River Plant

     Pure Gravity
     Combination

Regional Pump Station to
  James River Pump Station

     Pure Gravity
     Combination

Regional Pump Station to
  Southwest Plant

     Pure Gravity
     Combination

Land Application

     Combination

* Includes estimated treatment cost.
6,550,700
5,771,400
5,242,000
4,373,600
5,525,600
4,838,600
6,124,100
               Annual
              O&M Cost
 62,895
 51,765
130,505"
120,500^'
132,260-
121,135*
176,000
              Total Annual
               Equivalent
                 Cost
$6,378,000
5,578,200
5,469,600
$ 64,020
88,875
53,460
$679,770
836,930
. 646,935
693,585
665,725
638,575
606,300
665,020
648,975
823,183
                                   57

-------
vide  a  combination  gravity  and  pressure  collection  system  and  to
initially serve about  1,625  persons or 408 customers within the Battle-
field  city  limits only.   The  total capital  cost of  this  more limited
project is  estimated  at $2,483,400.  Average dry weather flow  would be
0.141 MGD initially.   The year  2005  population  served  is  projected at
3210 with an  average  dry weather flow of  0.279  MGD.   Depending upon an
appropriate intergovernmental  agreement,  operation  and  maintenance, as
well as  treatment, would  be the responsibility of  the  City of Spring-
field, and Springfield's normal sewer service charges would be billed to
Battlefield customers.
          Another  regional alternative consists  of  a pump  station and
force  main  northwest  of Battlefield to deliver  raw  wastewater  directly
to  Springfield's  Southwest  Treatment Plant.    An  emergency  electric
generator is provided in case of power outage.
          For  land application, a  1.32-acre aerated  lagoon and center
pivot  spray  irrigation system would  be  provided.   A  31.2-acre sealed
storage basin with 5^g  months  capacity would hold  the  lagoon  effluent
during the winter.  Monitoring wells and fencing are provided.  At a low
application rate  of  15 inches per year because of soil limitations, 551
acres are required for  the application site.
     3.   Brookline Subarea
          The Brookline subarea is presently  served by individual waste-
water  disposal  systems and a mobile home  park  with  a package treatment
plant  and effluent polishing.   Planning  for the  subarea  is based  upon
existing and projected  design year population as  follows:

                                              1980      2005
          Brookline Residents                 211       298
          Unincorporated Residents            302       302
                         Total                513       600

At  the design population  of 600, the  average dry weather design flow at
an  estimated  65 gpcd   is 0.039 mgd.
 *  Brookline does  not have  a  community water supply system;  therefore,
   actual  water  use  figures  are not  available.
                                  58

-------
          Central  collection and  treatment alternatives  evaluated  for
the subarea are treatment plants discharging to Pond Creek at six alter-
native  sites,  a  regional pump station to Republic,  and  a regional pump
station  to  Springfield.   Land application in  the  Brookline  subarea  and
surrounding areas.is not feasible because of extensive sinkhole develop-
ment  and other karst  topography features.   Lagoons  or  storage basins,
integral parts of a land application system,  would  have  a high risk of
failure  due to  sinkhole  collapse.   For the collection systems, gravity,
pressure,  and combination  collection and  on-site  system alternatives
were  evaluated.   Total project,  annual  O&M, and total annual cost esti-
mates of the  alternatives  for serving the entire  subarea are presented
in Table 8.
          Pond  Creek is  a  losing  stream,   and  losing  stream effluent
requirements  apply  at   all  sites.    The  treatment  system  for  meeting
effluent requirements would  consist  of  an extended aeration system,  one
clarifier,   a  recirculating  rock filter,   and  chlorine  disinfection.
          One regional alternative consists  of a pump station and force
main to deliver raw wastewater to Republic's system.
          The alternative proposed in the final Facilities Plan consists
of  a  pump  station  and  force main  to  deliver  raw  wastewater  to  the
Southwest Treatment Plant  via Springfield's Wilsons  Creek interceptor.
The force main will consist of  1,200 feet  of  4-inch ductile iron pipe.
An emergency  overflow basin with 24-hour holding  capacity will  be pro-
vided at the  pump station.   Chlorination will be  provided to help pre-
vent  the wastewater  from  becoming septic.  A combination  gravity  and
pressure sewer  collection  system will  serve  much  of the  subarea  but
on-site  systems  will continue in  use in some areas.  The pump station
and force main are sized to serve the entire subarea.
          The total  capital  cost of  this more limited project is esti-
mated at  $1,301,800.  Depending upon an  appropriate inter-governmental
agreement,  operation and maintenance,  as  well as  treatment, would be the
responsibility of the City  of Springfield.   Brookline's  customers would
be billed at Springfield's  normal sewer  service charge rate.
                                  59

-------
                                TABLE 8
                    BROOKLINE SUBAREA ALTERNATIVES
                       PRELIMINARY COSTS SUMMARY

                                     Total
                                    Project
                                      Cost
Pond Creek Plant Site #1

     Pure Gravity                   $2,688,400
     Pure Pressure                   1,801,400
     Combination                     1,980,030

Pond Creek Plant Site #2

     Pure Gravity                    2,723,200
     Pure Pressure                   1,801,400
     Combination                     1,911,330

Pond Creek Plant Site #3
     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination

Pond Creek Plant Site #4

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination

Pond Creek Plant Site #5

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination

Pond Creek Site #6
     Pure Gravity                    2,792,200
     Pure Pressure                   1,877,600
     Combination                     2,077,100

Regional Pump Station to
  Republic

     Pure Gravity                    2,859,000
     Pure Pressure                   1,937,500
     Combination                     2,100,700

Regional Pump Station to
  Springfield

     Pure Gravity                    2,553,000
     Pure Pressure                   1,631,000
     Combination                     1,562,400
* Includes estimated treatment costs.
                                   60
 Annual
O&M Cost
$ 47,965
  40,700
  31,270
  48,160
  40,700
  30,810
  47,555
  40,700
  30,585
  54,770*
  47,310*
  36,520*
   61,285*
   53,825*
   43,520*
Total Annual
 Equivalent
   Cost
$291,200
 218,735
 227,870
 294,290
 218,735
 221,605
2,700,600
1,830,600
1,989,030
47,360
40,700
30,585
291,285
221,345
227,610
2,724,200
1,848,300
2,012,600
47,360
40,700
30,585
293,285
222,940
229,615
2,753,900
1,859,700
2,042,300
47,360
40,700
30,585
295,820
223,970
232,140
 299,290
 225,485
 235,090
  311,020
  235,490
  241,730
  289,785
  214,205
  197,980

-------
     4.   Fair Grove Subarea
          The Fair  Grove subarea  is  presently served by  about  350 in-
dividual  wastewater disposal  systems;  three  lagoon systems  serving  a
trailer park, a senior citizens housing project, and an individual home;
and a  septic  tank-rock filter system for the  Fair  Grove School.  Plan-
ning for  the  subarea  is based on 1980 and projected design year popula-
tion as follows:

                         Population Equivalents

                              1980          1995         2005
Fair Grove Residents            863         1,501        1,929
Non-Resident Students           200 (800)*    234 (936)*   300 (1,200)*
Businesses                    	86           201          259
     Total                    1,149         1,936        2,488

*Number of  students from surrounding areas; the  population  equivalent
for determining  waste load  equals  0.25 times  the  number of students.

          The year 2005 design population equivalent is thus  about 2,490
and the average wet weather (including I/I) design flow at 100 gpcd** is
0.249 MGD.  A ten-year phasing of facilities was evaluated.
          Central collection  and  treatment  alternatives for the subarea
are a  treatment  plant discharging to the Pomme de Terre River, a treat-
ment plant  discharging  to  a  branch tributary to  the Pomme  de  Terre
River,  a treatment plant discharging to the Little Pomme de Terre River,
a regional  pump  station and force main to Strafford, and 6)  land treat-
ment  at  two  potential  sites.   For  the  collection systems,  gravity,
pressure,  and combination collection and on-site system alternatives are
presented.  Total  project,  annual  O&M,  and total  annual costs  of the
alternatives  for  serving the  entire  subarea  are presented  in Table 9.
          The Pomme de Terre  River is a gaining stream and classified
for whole body contact recreation.  Gaining stream effluent requirements
and  fecal  coliform  limits  apply.   The  treatment  system  for  meeting
effluent  requirements  would consist  of  an oxidation  ditch,  two clari-
fiers,  chlorine disinfection and dechlorination.
 '^Water use records show 87 gpcd not including school use.
                                  61

-------
                                TABLE 9
                     FAIR GROVE SUBAREA ALTERNATIVES
                        PRELIMINARY COSTS SUMMARY
                                     Total
                                    Project
                                      Cost
 Annual
O&M Cost
Total Annual
 Equivalent
   Cost
Pomme de Terre River
  Treatment Plant*

     Pure Gravity                   $3,824,188     $ 50,060       $396,016
     Pure Pressure                   2,988,771       72,685        403,737
     Combination                     3,358,626       54,380        381,766

Pomme de Terre River Tributary
  Treatment Plant

     Pure Gravity                    3,764,108       50,050        390,977
     Pure Pressure                   2,935,180       72,685        399,356
     Combination                     3,294,851       54,380        376,404

Little Pomme de Terre River
  Treatment Plant

     Pure Gravity                    3,646,313       50,060        381,060
     Pure Pressure                   2,935,562       72,685        399,552
     Combination                     3,183,277       54,380        367,062

Land Application

     Combination                     3,412,360      100,280        443,074

Regional Pump Station to Strafford

     Since the estimated annual capital cost of $116,282 for the pump
station system was greater than the oxidation ditch treatment plant
annual cost of $85,753, the regional pump station alternative was
dropped from further consideration.

^Dechlorination costs not included.
                                   62

-------
          The Pomme de Terre River tributary treatment plant is proposed
in  the  final  Facilities Plan.   The  receiving  stream is  gaining,  and
effluent  requirements  and treatment  are the same  as for  the Pomme de
Terre  River,  except  dechlorination   is  not  required.   A combination
gravity  and  pressure   sewer  system  will  serve  most  of  the  subarea,
although  a  few  on-site systems  will  remain.  The  total  capital cost of
the project  is  estimated at $1,208,800 with a  $17,000  annual O&M cost.
          For  the Little Pomme  de Terre  River treatment  plant  alter-
native,  the  receiving  stream is gaining,  and effluent  requirements  and
treatment  are  the same  as  at  the Pomme de Terre  River  tributary site.
          A  pump station  and  approximately  58,000 feet of  eight-inch
force  main would be used to transport  wastewater to Strafford.   This
alternative would be possible only if a central system for the Strafford
subarea  is  constructed.   Chlorination  would  be  provided  at  the  pump
station  to  help prevent  the  wastewater  from becoming  septic.   The
capital  cost for the  regional  pump  station system without considering
incremental  treatment  costs  at  Strafford is higher than treatment plant
alternatives.   Therefore,  this alternative  is  not  further considered.
          For  land  application  a 0.53-acre aerated lagoon  and  center
pivot  spray  irrigation  system would  be provided.   A 12.6 acre  sealed
storage  basin  with 5^  months  capacity  would  hold the  lagoon effluent
during the winter.  Monitoring wells and fencing are provided.  At a low
application  rate  of  15 inches  per year because of soil limitations,  223
acres are required for the application site.
     5.   Republic Subarea
          The Republic  subarea  was withdrawn  from the  EIS to expedite
proposed  wastewater  facilities  improvements   after  findings  that  no
significant adverse environmental impacts would result from this action.
Alternatives  that were  considered  but  not  found  to be cost-effective
were  a new  regional  treatment  plant discharging  to Shuyler  Creek or
McElhaney  Branch  and   serving   Republic,  Battlefield,  Brookline;  a
regional  pump  station  and  force main to Springfield's  Wilson's  Creek
Interceptor  and the  Southwest  Treatment  Plant;  and  land  application.
                                  63

-------
     6.   Strafford Subarea
          The Strafford subarea is presently served by individual waste-
water  disposal  systems and  a  small package plant and  lagoon  serving a
truck  stop.   Planning for  the subarea is  based on  1980  and  projected
design year population as follows:

                               Population Equivalent
                              1980                2005
Strafford Residents           1,121               2,682
Strafford Businesses             --                 268
Unincorporated Residents         98                 504
Non-Resident Students           171 (684)*          222 (890)-
               Total          1,390               3,676

* Number of students
          The design population  equivalent is thus about 3,680, and the
average dry weather design flow at 75 gpcd is 0.276 mgd.
          Central collection  and  treatment alternatives for the subarea
are  a  treatment plant  discharging to Pierson Creek,  a treatment plant
discharging  to  Davis   Creek,  a  treatment plant  discharging  to  Broad
Creek,  a   treatment   plant  discharging  to  the  South  Fork  of  the
Pomme de Terre River at  one of two sites, a treatment plant discharging
to  the Little  Sac River,  a regional pump  station to  the Springfield
sewer  system and  the  Southwest  Plant,  a gravity sewer  along Pierson
Creek  to  connect  to  Springfield's  Pierson  Creek interceptor  and the
Southwest  Plant,  and  land  application.   For  the collection  systems,
gravity,  pressure,  and  combination  collection  and  on-site  system
alternatives  were  considered.  The  combination  system  has gravity and
pressure system areas with some on-site facilities.
          Total  project, annual  O&M, and total  annual costs  for each
alternative are presented in Table 10.
                                  64

-------
                               TABLE 10
                      STRATFORD SUBAREA ALTERNATIVES
                         PRELIMINARY COSTS SUMMARY
Pierson Creek Plant
     Combination
                 (a}
Davis Creek Plantv '
     Combination

Broad Creek Plant
     Combination

South Fork Pomme de Terre
  Plant, Site #1
     Combination

South Fork Pomme ,-de Terre
  Plant, Site #2UJ
     Combination
  Union 76 Site
     Combination

Little Sac River Plant
     Combination

Regional Pump Station to
  Springfield Southern System
     Combination
Total
Project
Cost
$4,195,100
4,011,000
3,961,300
Annual
O&M Cost
$ 53,405
51,160
51,160
Total Annual
Equivalent
Cost
$482,885/435,600
460,585/456,600
457,730/399,500
                              4,098,100
                              4,174,600
 55,755
 51,485
                              2,544,600(c)(d) 29,200(c)(d)
                              3,970,800
 54,340
460,055/439,700
461,445/437,700

        405,500
461,930/415,300
                                                                            (c)
                                                                            (c)
                                                                            (c)
                                                                            (c)
(c)

(e)
                                                                            (c)
                         (f)
                              3,546,200       64,875rtQ     431,700 to/392,000
                                              0-7 ncn (•'•'•'     /.co QTC
                                                  87,050
                                                            453,875
Pierson Creek Sewer to
  Springfield Southwest System
     Combination
Land Applicattion
     Combination
                              3,926,300
                              4,321,600
 49,405rto     445,815 to/422,800
 71,58(r J     467,990
                                                                               (c)
                                                                               (c)
117,750
555,082/ —
(a)
(b)

(c)
(d)

(e)

(f)
Based upon gaining stream effluent requirements; since determined to
be losing.

Depending on treatment costs.

From Draft Facilities Plan, as differentiated from the other
figures presented which are from earlier preliminary facilities
planning comparisons.

Does not include chlorination and dechlorination.

Includes chlorination and dechlorination.

Preliminary costs based on connection to Springfield northern system.

                               65

-------
          Pierson Creek,  Davis Creek,  and Broad  Creek are all  losing
streams and  losing  stream effluent  requirements apply.   The  treatment
system for meeting  effluent  requirements would  consist of an  oxidation
ditch,   two    clarifiers,   gravity   sand   filtration,    and   chlorine
disinfection.
          The South Fork Pomme De  Terre River is a gaining stream in the
vicinity of Site #1 and gaining stream effluent requirements apply.   The
discharge is about  6.5  miles  upstream of the confluence  with  the Pomme
de  Terre River and  1.2  miles  upstream  of   the  first  of two  small
reservoirs.    Because  of  recreational  use of the  reservoirs,  fecal
coliform  in  the  effluent would  be  limited  to  200  per  100  ml.   The
treatment system  for  meeting  effluent requirements would  consist of an
oxidation  ditch  and  two  clarifiers,  plus  chlorine disinfection  and
dechlorination.
          The South Fork Pomme de  Terre River in the vicinity of Site #2
is  a  gaining   stream.   Discharge  is below  the  reservoirs noted  for
Site #1.   Effluent  requirements and  treatment  would be the  same  as for
Site #1.   With  a  treatment plant  at the Union  76  site*,  effluent would
be  piped to  the same  discharge  point  as  for Site #2,  and  the  same
treatment and effluent requirements apply.
          Gaining stream  effluent requirements  apply to  the Little Sac
River.   The   discharge  point  is  approximately 3.6  miles  upstream  of
Fellows  Lake.   Since  Fellows Lake  is  used for recreation*''5'  and  is  a
drinking  water  supply  source,  fecal coliform  in the effluent  would be
limited  to  200 per  100 ml.   The  treatment system  for  meeting effluent
requirements would consist of an oxidation ditch and two clarifiers plus
chlorine disinfection.
          Pumping to  the  Springfield southern system is proposed in the
final Facilities Plan.  A pump station and approximately 27,000 ft of 8"
force  main  would  be used to  transport wastewater to the Springfield
southern system near the quarry at Highway 65.
 ''"Proposed in  draft  Facilites  Plan but changed  in  the final Facilities
  Plan to pumping to Springfield southern system.
 ^Springfield City Utilities does not allow whole body contact recreation
  at Fellows Lake.
                                  66

-------
          A  Pierson  Creek  gravity  sewer to  the Springfield  southern
system  is  another  regional  alternative.   Approximately 36,000 ft  of
gravity  sewer  would  transport  wastewater  to  Springfield's  proposed
Pierson Creek interceptor and the Southwest Plant.
          For  land  application,  a  0.6-acre  aerated lagoon  and  center
pivot  spray irrigation system  would be  provided.   A 14.0  acre  sealed
storage basin  with  5^  months  capacity would  hold the  lagoon  effluent
during the winter.  Monitoring wells and fencing are provided.  At a low
application rate  of  18  inches  per year because of soil limitations, 247
acres are required for the application site.
     7.   Walnut Grove Subarea
          The  Walnut Grove  subarea is  presently served  by individual
wastewater  disposal   systems.   Planning  for the  subarea  is  based  upon
existing and projected design year population as follows:

                                 Population Equivalent
                              1980                   2005
     Walnut Grove Residents    504                    670
     Non-Resident Students      75 (300)-              90 (362)*
     Total                     579                    760
* Number of students

At  the design  population equivalent  of 760,  the average  dry weather
design  flow  at  100  gpcd  (existing  water  use  of  220  gpcd  appears
unreasonably high) is 0.076 MGD.
                   \
          Central  collection  and  treatment alternatives evaluated  for
the subarea are  a treatment  plant discharging to an unnamed creek north
of  Walnut  Grove, a  treatment  plant  discharging to   Sugar  Creek,  a
treatment plant  discharging  to  Turkey Creek, a pump station  and force
main to  Ash Grove,  and  land application.  For  the  collection systems,
gravity,  pressure,  and   combination   collection  and   on-site  system
alternatives are  included.  Total  project,  annual O&M,  and total annual
cost estimates of the alternatives are presented in Table 11.
                                  67

-------
                               TABLE 11
                    WALNUT GROVE SUBAREA ALTERNATIVES
                   PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COSTS SUMMARY
Unnamed Creek Treatment Plant

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure
                             (a)
Sugar Creek Treatment Plant

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure
Turkey Creek Treatment Plant
Pump Station to Ash Grove

     Gravity
     Pressure/Effluent
       Pumps
     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure

Land Application

     Combination

(a)
                           (a)
Total
Project
Cost
$1,957,660
1,744,925
Annual
O&M Cost
$31,945
44,420
Total Annual
Equivalent
Cost
$205,173/244,40*
215,820/223,101
                                 1,790,374
                                 1,736,412
                                 1,629,771
39,210
31,855
44,330
                                 1,495,352/ ,   33,545/ v
                                 1,700,500ICJ   35,200XC;
         206,627/210,201
         186,438/202,701
         206,037/215,001

         170,088/181,001
                                Costs would be similar to unnamed creek
                                alternative because of location and losing
                                stream effluent requirements.
                                 2,126,426

                                 2,020,164

                                 1,886,167



                                 2,079,000
33,610

46,085

35,300
(b)

(b)

(b)
51,615
 (b)

 (c)
Based on gaining stream effluent requirements, except for
footnote (c) costs.

Includes estimated treatment costs.

Costs from final Facilities Plan; Sugar Creek and unnamed
creek alternatives meet losing stream requirements.
217,521/219,40t

237,158/231,501

201,250/200,30<



250,943
                                   68

-------
          A  treatment  plant discharging  to  Sugar Creek  is  proposed in
the  final Facilities  Plan.  Sugar  Creek was thought  to be  a  gaining
stream  at  the  time  the  Draft  Facilities  Plan  was  prepared,  but
subsequent investigations have shown the lower reaches of Sugar Creek to
be  losing and losing stream effluent  requirements apply.   Turkey Creek
and the unnamed creek are also losing.  The treatment system for meeting
losing stream effluent requirements would consist of  an oxidation ditch,
two  clarifiers,  gravity sand  filtration,  and   chlorine  disinfection.
          To  deliver raw  wastewater  to  the Ash Grove system,  a pump
station and  about  36,000 feet of 6"  force main  would be installed.  An
aerated  flow equalization  basin  and chlorination  facilities to  help
prevent septic conditions would be provided.
          For land application,  a  0.14-acre  aerated lagoon  and center
pivot  spray  irrigation  system would be  provided.   A 3.44  acre  sealed
storage basin with 5^  months  capacity would  hold the  lagoon effluent
during the winter.  Monitoring wells and fencing are  provided.  At a low
application  rate  of  15  inches per year because  of soil limitations, 60
acres are required for the application site.
     8.   Willard Subarea
          The   Willard   subarea   is   presently   served  by  individual
wastewater disposal  systems.  Planning for the subarea is based on 1980
and projected design year population as follows:

                                 Population Equivalent
                              1980                    2005
Willard Residents             1,799                   4,306
Willard Businesses             -                        430
Unincorporated Residents        241                     317
Non-Resident Students           403 (1610)*             491 (1,964)*
               Total          2,443                   5,544
* Number of Students
                                  69

-------
The design population equivalent is thus about 5540,  and the average dry
weather  design  flow at  75 gpcd  is  0.416 MGD.   Existing water use  is
about  60 gpcd,  but  75 gpcd was  used  to allow  for  increased  usage  if
on-site wastewater disposal constraints are removed.
          Central collection and  treatment  alternatives for the subarea
are  a treatment  plant  discharging  to Asher  Creek,  a  treatment  plant
discharging to  the  Little  Sac  River, a treatment plant discharging to a
Little  Sac River  tributary  branch,  a  regional pump  station to  the
Springfield system,  and land  application.   For  the  central collection
and  treatment  systems,  gravity,  pressure,  vacuum,  and  combination
collection  and  on-site  system  alternatives  are  included.  Alternatives
for  treatment and discharge to Clear Creek  were  dropped earlier in the
facilities planning process because of public objection.
          Total  project,  annual  O&M,  and total  annual  costs  for each
alternative are presented in Table 12.
          Asher  Creek  is  a losing  stream,  and  losing  stream effluent
requirements   apply.    The  treatment   system   for   meeting   effluent
requirements  would  consist  of  an oxidation  ditch,   two  clarifiers,
gravity  sand filtration, and chlorine disinfection.
          The Little  Sac  River is effluent-limited  with the  following
requirements  for  the  Northwest  Treatment  Plant based  on  preliminary
results  of the  1983 waste  load  allocation study:

          BOD (mg/1)                         20
          SS (mg/1)                          20
          pH                            6.0  to 9.0
          Ammonia  (mg/1)                     2.0
          Dissolved oxygen  (mg/1)            6.0  (or 80% saturation,
                                                  whichever  is  less)

          The  treatment system for a plant  serving  Willard and meeting
similar  requirements  would consist of  an  oxidation  ditch,  two  clari-
fiers,  and  gravity sand filtration as presented  in the  final Facilities
Plan.   (The preliminary results of the 1983 waste load  allocation study
indicate that  a secondary  treatment plant for Willard would be  adequate
                                   70

-------
                               TABLE 12
                       WILLARD SUBAREA ALTERNATIVES
                         PRELIMINARY COSTS SUMMARY

                                     Total
                                    Project         Annual
                                      Cost         O&M Cost
Asher Creek Plant
     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure, On-site

Little Sac River Plant

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure, On-site

Regional Pump Station to
  Springfield

     Pure Gravity

     Pure Pressure

     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure, On-site

Land Application

     Pure Gravity
     Pure Pressure
     Combination/Gravity,
       Pressure, On-site

^Depending on treatment costs.
$6,006,900
 5,687,400

 5,248,300
 6,306,600
 5,723,700

 5,527,200
 6,501,500
 6,183,100

 5,743,400
$ 53,835
  95,010

  59,295
  53,710
  93,120

  59,430
 :25,960
 167,535

 131,820
                              Total Annual
                               Equivalent
                                 Cost
$600,100
 737,560

 572,120
 625,265
 738,460

 595,720
5,314,300

5,235,200

4,555,200

76,100 to
119,980*
119,185 to
156,145"
80,730 to
117,690*
556,100 to
599,980
715,850 to
752,810
527,250 to
564,210
 723,895
 861,765

 696,370
                                   71

-------
for discharge to the Little Sac River.   Filtration would not be required
to meet secondary treatment effluent limitations.)
          A site on a small tributary branch of the Little Sac River was
considered.  Geological investigation showed this to be a losing stream,
and losing stream effluent requirements would apply.  Treatment would be
the same as for the Asher Creek plant.
          A  regional pump  station to  Springfield  is  proposed in the
final Facilities Plan.  A pump station and about 33,000 ft of force main
would be provided  to deliver raw wastewater to  the Springfield Airport
Branch  Trunk and  Northwest  Treatment Plant.   A 24-hour  holding  basin
would be provided  at the pump station to  handle peak flows and provide
storage in  case  of failure.   Chlorination at the  pump  station would be
provided to help prevent the wastewater from becoming septic.
          The total  capital  cost  of the proposed project is $3,153,600.
The project would initially provide a gravity collection system only for
sub-basins "A and B" of the Willard subarea.  Other areas would continue
to be  served by on-site systems.   Treatment capacity would be based on
the year  2005 waste  load from the  entire subarea.  Depending upon an
appropriate  inter-governmental agreement,  operation and maintenance, as
well  as   treatment,   would   be  the  responsibility  of  the  City  of
Springfield,  and Springfield's  normal  sewer  service charges  would be
billed to Willard customers.
          For  land  application,  a 1.0  acre  aerated lagoon  and center
pivot  spray irrigation  system  would  be provided.   A 23.4  acre sealed
storage basin with  5^  months capacity  would  hold the  lagoon effluent
during the winter.  Monitoring wells and fencing are provided.  At a low
application  rate  of  18 inches per year because of soil limitations, 345
acres are required for the application site.
     9.   Unincorporated Low Growth Subarea
          The  unincorporated   low  growth  subarea  is  served  almost
entirely by septic tank wastewater disposal systems.   Planning for the
subarea is based on  1980 and projected population as follows:
                                  72

-------
                               Population

                    1980          2005        2025

     Residents      13,461       16,169      17,562

At 2.8  persons per household,  there would  be about 4808 homes  in the
subarea  of  which  409 are  in  platted  subdivisions  and the  remainder
scattered throughout.   At an estimated 85 gpcd, the year 2005 wastewater
flow  would   be  1.374   MGD   from   residences   and   small   commercial
establishments.
          Wastewater  disposal  alternatives  for  the low  growth  subarea
are  improvement of  existing  individual  systems,  and  construction  of
small central  collection and  treatment  systems  or cluster  systems for
subdivisions and  other more  densely developed areas.   The  methods and
criteria  discussed  in  this section  may  also be  applied  as at  least
interim solutions for other unsewered subareas.
          The  conventional  septic tank  and  absorption  field  is  widely
used for  on-site  treatment.   Variations  and alternatives to  this  system
include:
          septic  tank   and  dosed   or  pressurized   absorption   field
          distribution
          aerated tank and absorption field
          aerated tank and sand filter
          mound system
          lagoon
          septic tank and recirculating rock filter
          activated sludge treatment plant
          land application
The last four systems usually have a surface discharge of effluent while
the others are designed for subsurface liquid disposal.
          Methods to modify wastewater characteristics through reduction
of flow  or  pollutant  mass should be considered.  Good practice requires
that water  conservation/flow  reduction be  employed at a dwelling  served
by an on-site wastewater system.
                                  73

-------
          a.   Improvements  of  Subsurface  Disposal  Systems.    Common
types of  failures of  septic  tank and absorption field  systems  are  wet
weather surfacing of  effluent,  long-term clogging of absorption fields,
and  ground  water contamination.   If  the  soil  percolation rate  is  120
minutes  per  inch or  less  (percolation  test  time greater  than  120
minutes) flooding during  periods  of heavy rain  is  likely  regardless of
effluent  loading per  sq  ft  of  trench  or  trench  spacing.   Long-term
plugging  of the  absorption  field  can  be caused  by:   formation of  a
biological mat which clogs the soil voids, particularly, under anaerobic
conditions;  improper   smearing  or  compaction  of  the  soil  face during
construction; and overflow of solids  from the septic tank.  Groundwater
contamination may occur  in areas  of shallow fractured bedrock,  periodic
high water  table,  saturated soils, and soils that percolate too rapidly
or   contain  holes  or  other  large  openings.    Surfacing effluent  in
fragipan soils may  reenter the ground water through sinkholes  or other
interconnections.
          Key  factors in on-site  subsurface  disposal  are unsaturated
soil  conditions,  aerobic periods  for  absorption field  recovery, proper
construction practices, proper pre-treatment, and adequate operation and
maintenance.   The variations  to  conventional  septic tank  systems  are
attempts  to remedy particular  problems, but  are not without  cost  and
other possible performance disadvantages that must be weighed.
          Continued use  of on-site treatment systems with proper system
design,  construction,  and  operation  is  environmentally sound  for many
parts  of the unincorporated  low  growth  subarea.   Criteria developed in
the  Facilities Plan are:
    Criterion
    Depth to rock or
       restrictive layer  (ft)
    Depth to water table  (ft)
    Percolation  rate  (min/in)
    Surface flooding

    Maximum Slope (%)
Adsorption
  Fields
    5
    5
 10 to 100
   Rare,
   15
 Mound
Systems

   2
   2
 0 to 100
 Occasional,
  Brief
  15
   Land
Application

     2
     2
  10 to 100
     None
     Brief
    15
                                   74

-------
          These criteria will require site evaluation in addition to the
common  percolation test.  Additional  design parameters  for  subsurface
disposal systems are:
Adsorption Systems

    Loading rate (gpd/sq ft)


    Trench width (ft)
    Maximum trench length (ft)
    Trench spacing (ft)
    Maximum trench depth (ft)
    Trench grade
    Application method


    Construction Period
Varies from 0.2 to 0.65 depending on
percolation rate from 90 to 10
min/in, respectively
100
10 center to center
2
Flat
Dose twice per day for slopes less
than 5%; gravity for slopes greater
than 5%
Dry soil required
          Additional  criteria   for   mound   systems,   land  application
systems,  and septic  tank pretreatment  features  are  presented  in  the
Facilities Plan and Draft EIS.
          b.   Improvement of Surface Disposal Systems.    Surface  dis-
posal  systems  treat the  wastewater  to an  acceptable  level,  then  dis-
charge it to a surface waterway such as a ditch or stream, not depending
upon  soils  for final  treatment.   The systems will vary  depending  upon
effluent  requirements   and   cost  and  design processes,  considerations
similar  to   those  for  municipal systems  as previously described.   In-
adequate operation and maintenance of such small systems is a widespread
problem  and  failures may occur from periodic  upsets  of  the  treatment
process,  system  overloading,   and  systems  that  do   not meet  current
regulations.   Small mechanical treatment  plants  are  often prone  to
process   upsets   because  of   operating  deficiencies   and  wasteload
fluctuations.  Lagoon systems may not produce satisfactorily effluent or
                                  75

-------
may  leak   excessive  or  poorly   treated  flow   to   the   subsurface.
"No-discharge" lagoons may discharge  periodically  during wet periods as
well as leak wastewater to the subsurface.
          c.   Modification of Wastewater Characteristics.    Wastewater
modification  methods  encompass  three  basic  interrelated  strategies:
water  conservation  and   wastewater   flow  reduction,  pollutant  mass
reduction, and on-site containment for off-site disposal.  Each strategy
attempts  to  reduce  the  influent  wastewater  loading  to   the  on-site
disposal  system.   Flow  reduction  methods include  the  elimination of
wasted water; water-saving devices, fixtures,  and applicances; and water
recycle systems.  Over 70 percent of typical residential wastewater flow
is  generated  by   toilet  flushing,  bathing,   and   clothes   washing  and
efforts towards flow reduction should be so directed.  Methods to modify
wastewater  characteristics  are  discussed further  in  the  Draft  EIS.
          d.   On-Site System Management.  Adoption of an on-site system
management  plan is  a  controversial issue  (but  necessary for effective
and proper  on-site system use in areas such as these) and requires many
detailed items to be effective.  The goals of the plan would be:
          Sound design and construction practices.
          Periodic inspection to detect problems.
          Periodic  removal  of septic tank solids  with proper disposal.
          Periodic  maintenance  of  pumps, dosing  siphons,  and  other
          equipment.
          Wastewater  characteristics  modification,  particularly   flow
          reduction.

D.   IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
          Some  beneficial and adverse impacts can be  expected from the
construction  and  operation  of  the  various  wastewater  collection  and
treatment alternatives considered for the  planning  area.  Impacts of the
recommended  alternatives  will generally be beneficial, particularly to
surface  and ground water quality and efficient  land use planning.  The
proposed  alternatives  would  replace  or eliminate   inadequate wastewater
treatment  plants  and provide  suitable  collection  and treatment systems
at  communities with serious problems  of  failing  septic tank systems.
                                   76

-------
          Some adverse impacts  associated  with the recommended alterna-
tives will be relatively minor, and many will be of a short-term nature.
These include the erosion, sedimentation, and damage to riparian habitat
associated with  sewer  construction in stream corridors, and the traffic
disruption,  safety  hazards,  and  noise  caused by  construction in urban
areas.   In  addition to  construction  impacts, there  are  also potential
long-term  adverse  impacts  that  should  be  mitigated.  These  include
measures to  avoid or  minimize  the hazard of sewer line failure in sink-
hole  areas  and  avoid  or  minimize  the   effects  of  construction  on
archaeological resources.  Environmental analyses,  mitigative measures,
and remedial actions will be required at two landfill sites which affect
and are affected by construction of proposed Springfield northern system
facilities.
          Cost impacts of  collection  and treatment systems to residents
of the unsewered subareas will  be great, despite efforts to reduce costs
and  the  potential   for  grant  assistance  (see  Tables 13  and  14).
Officials  and citizens  of  these  communities  have participated  in  the
planning for  these  subareas  and their views  are  generally  reflected in
the  proposed plans.   Cost  impacts  for  residents  of Springfield  and
Republic will be  moderate.   Impacts of the recommended alternatives  are
discussed by subarea in the following sections.
     1.    Springfield Subarea
          a.   Southern System.  Possible wastewater management improve-
ment  alternatives  for  the  southern  system are  still  in  preliminary
planning stages,  but   could provide significant  environmental benefits.
Additional sludge stabilization prior to land spreading will reduce odor
problems and complaints  from  nearby  residents and help  to  assure that
land continues to be  made available by local  farmers for this purpose.
Effluent reuse by the City Utilities Southwest Power Plant could improve
the  ultimate quality  of the  effluent discharge  and  of  the receiving
stream through advanced  treatment,  including nutrient removal.  A sewer
system evaluation survey (SSES)*  would be beneficial in determining  how
to  cost-effectively  control  the  most  serious  I/I  problems  of  the
southern system,  and  control or reduce collection  and  treatment system
*A study to identify specific problems where excessive I/I are indicated.
                                  77

-------
                                                     TABLE 13
                                              ESTIMATED USER CHARGES

                         Community Share
Community

Battlefield

Brookline

Fair Grove

Republic

Springfield

Strafford

Walnut Grove

Willard


(a)
    Based upon estimated costs for 1984-1985.   Republic and Springfield Northwest Plant costs are based on
    pre-October 1984 Federal and State grant contributions for eligible items;  others are based on grant
    contributions that apply after October 1984.

    In 1984-1985 dollars and based on revenue bond amortization at 10 percent annual interest over a
    20-year period.  The payments cover bond retirement and an additional 30 percent bond reserve
    fund plus operation and maintenance costs.
Community Share
to Finance
$1,511,000
628,000
1,622,000
1,100,000
4,000,000
1,907,000
970,000
2,038,000
Average AnnuaJU
User Charges
$746
813
756
140
84
846
828
807
One -Time
Hook-Up Fee
$368
164
410
15
--
358
307
400

-------
                                                     TABLE 14
                                     USER CHARGES/HOUSEHOLD INCOME COMPARISON
Community

Battlefield

Brookline

Fair Grove

Republic

Springfield

Strafford

Walnut Grove

Willard

(a)
1980 Median
Household ,- >.
Annual Income
$22,218
18,267
15,488
17,451
14,881
14,897
10,477
17,755

Average Annual
User Cost1 }
$533
581
683
130(c)
84
604
592
577
User Cost Percent
of Median Household
Annual Income
2.4
3.2
4.4
0.7(C)
0.6
4.1
5.7
3.2
EPA Threshold
Percentage
(1980 Income)
1.75
1.75
1.5
1.75
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
(b)

(c)
(d)
1979 income multiplied by Consumer Price Index factor of 1.135.

1984-1985 user charges of Table 13 adjusted to 1980 dollars.

Costs of new and existing facilities,  including current charges  of about $2.50 per month,  depending
on metered water use.

Costs for new and existing facilities  including current average  charges of about $6.40 per month.

-------
overflows.  The longer-range decision on whether to expand the Southwest
Treatment Plant or build a new James River basin plant should not have a
major  differential  impact  on water  quality of  Wilsons  Creek  and  the
James River.   Significant land use and  archaeological  resource  impacts
are  not  anticipated   for   the   Southwest  Treatment  Plant  expansion
alternative.
          The collection system alternatives for the southern system are
compatible  with  land  use planning  to  serve  prime  development areas.
Numerous  small  wastewater  treatment  and  pumping  facilities  will  be
eliminated  and  developments  now   on  dead  sewers  will  be  served.
Significant  adverse  impacts  from  construction  include  erosion  and
turbidity  from  streambed construction,  disturbance of  archaeological
resources,  and  loss of  bottomland  wildlife habitat.   Individual lines
with 10  to 25 percent of their alignment  through  bottomland woods  are
the  Pierson   Creek  interceptor,   P-3,   P-9,   J-l,   Thompson   Branch
interceptor, and WB-3.
          The Pierson Creek basin facilities will help protect the water
quality  at  Springfield's James River water  supply  intake.   The  Pierson
Creek  and Thompson  Branch facilities  will also  reduce  eutrophication
potential of  Lake Springfield.   The collection facilities  will have a
beneficial  impact  on present  and future James River water  quality and
ground water quality.
          Survey  of  the  Pierson  Creek  interceptor  extension  route
revealed  prehistoric  site  23GR550  that  is potentially eligible  for
inclusion in  the National Register of Historic  Places.   The interceptor
extension  alignment   should   be   modified  to   avoid  this  site.   An
archaeological survey  and plans  to mitigate the  impacts of previously
designed  Pierson Creek  interceptor facilities  have been done  in  the
past.  No action has been taken on the recommended mitigative measures.
          b.   Northern System.    Replacing  the    existing   Northwest
Treatment  Plant  with  a  new  and  expanded  advanced  treatment facility
downstream  is   needed  because  the   existing   facility  is  becoming
overloaded  and was  not designed to  meet  current effluent requirements.
                                  80

-------
The  existing  plant  is not  suitable  for  continued  use  and  expansion
because  of severe  site  flooding problems,  the structural problems  of
constructing  plant  additions  on  a  landfill  area,  and  the  need  for
extensive facilities rehabilitation.
          Because  the  proposed Murray  site  is 15,000  ft  downstream  of
the existing plant, there will be adverse impacts  from further extending
the  plant  interceptor along  the  Little Sac River.   Adverse  impacts  to
archaelogical resources,  prime farmland, and bottomland woods,  and added
stream  turbidity  and  soil erosion  from construction would  occur along
the  interceptor  alignment.   Removing effluent from the reach  of stream
below the existing Northwest Plant to the proposed site would reduce the
dry  weather  streamflow   available   for  aquatic  life  and  livestock
watering.   (The   upstream  water   supply   reservoirs  already  affect
streamflows in this reach.)
          The proposed South Dry Sac  interceptor system  is  compatible
with land  use planning to serve prime development areas.   Several small
wastewater  pump  stations  will  be  eliminated.    Significant  adverse
impacts  from  construction include erosion and  turbidity  from  streambed
construction,   disturbance  of  archaeological  resources,  and  loss  of
bottomland wildlife habitat.   The South Dry Sac interceptor will benefit
the  longer-term water  quality of South Dry  Sac Creek,  including Valley
Water Mill, a component of Springfield's water supply sources.
          An  archaeological  survey  of  the  proposed  South  Dry  Sac
interceptor route  revealed eleven prehistoric sites:   23GR539, 23GR540,
23GR541, 23GR542,  23GR543, 23GR544,  23GR545, 23GR546, 23GR547, 23GR548,
and  23GR549.  Seven  of the sites,  as  underlined  above, are  potentially
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.  The
interceptor alignment  should be modified  to avoid these  sites,  or,  if
avoidance  is  not  possible,  test excavations  should  be  conducted  to
determine their significance.
          An archaeological  survey  of the Little  Sac interceptor route
(from  the   existing  Northwest Treatment  Plant to the proposed Murray
site) and  new plant site revealed six  archaeological sites.   Five pre-
historic sites are assessed as potentially eligible for inclusion in the
                                  81

-------
National Register of Historic Places.  The project should be modified to
avoid these  sites;  or,  if  avoidance is not possible,  test excavations
should be conducted to determine their significance.
          The Fulbright  and Murray  landfills  in  Springfield,  Missouri,
are  currently  listed  as  uncontrolled  hazardous  waste  sites.    The
Fulbright Landfill is on the Superfund National Priorities List.  EPA is
aware that  the City  of  Springfield now plans to  construct a  treatment
plant at  the  Murray Landfill and an interceptor and leachate collection
system that will cross both landfills.  The Superfund Program intends to
evaluate  the  impacts  of this  construction as a  part of  its  remedial
investigation of  the  landfills.   The investigation will eventually lead
to the implementation of remedial actions at the sites.
          The  implementation of remedial actions at the  sites  will not
occur until  after  EPA  completes  a  Remedial  Investigation/Feasibility
Study of the  landfills.   In the  investigation,  the  Superfund Program
will take into account the proposed interceptor and wastewater treatment
plant  construction   in   determining  the  possible  required  remedial
actions.  The  investigation  will be conducted and remedial action taken
pursuant  to  Sections  104  and  106  of the  Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC 9604 and 9606.
          All environmental  analyses,  mitigative  measures, and remedial
actions  required  at  the  landfills  will be  determined  by the  Superfund
Program  and  shall  include  any  adverse  impacts  associated   with the
installation of the proposed treatment plant and interceptor.
     2.    Battlefield Subarea
          The  proposed  force main  to the  James  River  pump station and
Southwest Plant  should  have less impact on archaeological  resources and
bottomland woods wildlife habitat than other alternatives.
          An  archaeological  survey  of  the route  of  the proposed force
main  revealed prehistoric site  23GR553,  which  is  potentially eligible
for  inclusion in  the National  Register of Historic  Places.   The force
main alignment should be modified to avoid  this site.
          All  central collection and treatment alternatives will result
in  very  high  user  charges  and  will  be  difficult   for the  City of
Battlefield to finance, even with grant assistance.
                                  82

-------
     3.   Brookline Subarea
          Receiving stream impact is a major environmental concern since
all discharge  alternatives involve losing  streams.  Adverse  impacts  of
the proposed pump  station and force main to Springfield's Wilsons Creek
interceptor and Southwest  Treatment Plant are judged to be less because
of  the  larger  scale  and  proven performance  of the existing  treatment
facilities.
          The  annual  equivalent cost of pumping to  Springfield is  also
estimated  to  be  significantly  less  than  other  alternatives.   The
proposed alternative will  result  in very high  user  charges  and will be
difficult  for  the  City  of  Brookline  to  finance,  even  with  grant
assistance.
     4.   Fair Grove Subarea
          Each   of  the   discharge  alternatives   would   impact   the
Niangua darter.    The   proposed  alternative   which   discharges   to   a
tributary of the  Pomme de Terre River is much  preferred  over discharge
directly to  the  Pomme  de  Terre River.  Providing  dechlorination or  an
alternate disinfection process, such as ultra-violet light disinfection,
should be  considered since  the discharge point is only  about  one  mile
above the confluence with the Pomme de Terre River.
          The proposed central collection and treatment alternative will
result in very high user charges and will  be difficult for the town of
Fair Grove to finance, even with grant assistance.
          An archaeological survey of proposed routes of some collection
system components and the Pomme de Terre River tributary treatment plant
site  (prior  to revision  of  the site  since the Draft Facilities Plan)
revealed prehistoric  site  23GR538  along a  proposed force  main  route.
The site is  potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of  Historic  places.  Force  main alignment should be  modified  to avoid
this site.
     5.   Republic Subarea
          The Republic subarea has been withdrawn from the EIS.   Earlier
evaluation found that proposed upgrading of the system, with improvement
of  effluent  quality to  meet losing stream  standards and  elimination of
the existing  lagoons  with  their  potential for catastrophic  collapse,
will greatly benefit both surface and ground water quality.
                                  83

-------
     6.   Strafford Subarea
          Other  than high  user  charges  and  financing  difficulty,  no
major adverse environmental impacts should result from the proposed pump
station and force main to Springfield's southern system.
     7.   Walnut Grove Subarea
          Since  the  time the  draft  Facilities Plan and Draft  EIS were
released, the  Missouri  Geological Survey determined that  all  discharge
alternatives involve losing streams.   Each of the discharge alternatives
impact  small  streams that  might be  inhabitated by the  Niangua darter
(Etheostoma  nianguae).   Pumping  wastewater to  Ash Grove  is  preferred
environmentally,  but  costs  are  significantly  higher  than  for  the
proposed Sugar  Creek  treatment plant,  even with added treatment to meet
losing stream requirements.
          All central collection  and  treatment alternatives will result
in very  high  user charges  and will be  difficult for the City of Walnut
Grove to finance, even with grant assistance.
     8.   Willard Subarea
          A new wastewater treatment plant on the Little Sac River would
have no major adverse environmental impacts.  The proposed regional pump
station  to  Springfield's northern system would  also be  rated  favorably
except  that there  is  potential  for  severe ground  water  contamination
from sewer  line collapse or leakage as the  proposed force main crosses
the  extensive  sinkhole  plain between Willard  and Springfield.   Mitiga-
tion of this impact should be required.
          All central collection  and  treatment alternatives will result
in very  high  user charges  and will be difficult for the City of Willard
to finance, even with grant assistance.
     9.   Unincorporated Low Growth Subarea
          The  Facilities Plan presents  sound technical  guidelines for
on-site  system  design,  construction,   and  operation.    Emphasis should
also be  placed  on  flow reduction and other means  to  modify wastewater
characteristics.   Adoption  and  implementation  of an  on-site  system
management plan will be needed for effective application and enforcement
of technical  policies.   The goals of the plan include sound design and
                                  84

-------
construction  practices;  periodic  inspections;   periodic  removal  and
proper  disposal  of  septic tank  solids; maintenance  of pumps,  dosing
siphons,   and   other   equipment;   and   wastewater   characteristics
modification.
          Varying  approaches  and  many  detailed  items  need  to  be
addressed  in implementing an on-site system management  plan.   Planning
and  zoning regulations and building  codes are important tools  and are
being used to a  limited  degree  in Greene County.  Licensing  of system
installers plus  inspections during installation  are  useful approaches.
Programs  to  reinspect,  maintain,  and  upgrade   existing  systems  are
needed,   but  are  often  controversial,  difficult,  and  expensive  to
implement.

E.   ISSUES AND COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT EIS
          The primary  issues  and  comments in response to the  Draft EIS
are  detailed in  Section  IV  of  the Final  EIS.   Principal  comments  on
alternatives and impacts included:
     o    Concerns about  the  costs of  proposed  projects  for  unsewered
          communities.
     o    Request  for   further  information  and  consideration of  land
          application alternatives, particularly  for Fair Grove.
     o    Concern  about the  impact on  private   wells  of  the  proposed
          Walnut Grove  treatment  plant  with discharge to Sugar Creek, a
          losing stream.
     o    Concern about nutrient  and  other  impacts on Wilsons  Creek and
          the  James   River   from  continued  and  increased  Southwest
          Treatment Plant  discharges.
     o    Concern about leachate  and  plant  siting problems  with respect
          to  landfill   impacts  on  the  proposed  new Northwest  plant.
     o    Endorsement  of   improved  on-site system management  in  the
          planning area.
     o    Concerns about water supply source protection.
     o    Concerns  about   compatibility  of the   proposed  actions  and
          proper land use  planning and prime farmland  impacts.
                                  85

-------

-------
                   III.  .REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS

          Comments on  the  Draft EIS revealed the need  for some correc-
tions  or additional  information.   Changes  consistent with  recent de-
velopments on the final Facilities Plan are also included.
          Revisions  (and  errata)  to  the  Draft  EIS and  corresponding
comment(s), where applicable, are listed below:

               Revisions                                    Comment(s)

Page 12, par. 1, lines 1-3:  Revise sentence to read:            W-4
     The Salem and Springfield plateaus contain one              W-53
     of the nation's greatest concentrations of springs,
     as well as several of the largest.

Page 16, Figure 5:  A revised Figure 5, Faults, is               W-54
     presented.

Page 28, par. 4, lines 4 and 5:  Revise to read:                 W-6
     "...the route of the Burlington Northern Railway
     (formerly the St. Louis and San Francisco Railway)."

Page 49, par. 1, line 3:  Revise to read:                        W-91
     "...depths of about 400 feet."

Page 67, Table 7:  A revised Table 7 presents more               W-44
     current water supply data.

Page 81, add at the end of paragraph 2:  A 1980 study            W-9
     found that 28 percent of 130 wells sampled in
     unincorporated areas of Greene County were bac-
     teriologically unsafe.  Problem areas were to
     the west, northwest, and the urbanized periphery
     of Springfield (233).
                                 87

-------
                                TABLE 7 (Revised)
               CHARACTERISTICS OF SPRINGFIELD'S DRINKING
                         WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
Parameter
PH
Color
Turbidity
Total Coliform (per 100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (per 100 ml)
Total Alkalinity as CaC03 (mg/1)
Total Hardness as CaCO., (mg/1)
Calcium Hardness as CaCO., (mg/1)
                                Blackman Plant
                               James River Source
                                      8.0
                                       10
                                        5
                                    2,000
                                      500
                                      145
                                      165
                                      135
         Fulbright Plant
U)         All Sources(b)
              7.7
                9
              3.7
            1,000
              150
              168
              186
              162
(a)
(b)
Typical of samples during calendar year 1983 when Fellows Lake water
was not being treated at the Blackman Plant.
Average of samples during calendar year 1983.  Other analyses for
pesticides and heavy metals indicated no problems with generally
non-detectable levels.
Source:  Springfield City Utilities, Yearly Analysis Summary, 1983;
         (nitrate not listed).
                                   88

-------
      Faults (Revised)

      Figure 5
Names of Faults
 1. Sycamore Creek
 2. Sac River - Republic
 3. Clear Creek
 4. Fassnight
 5. Ritter
 6. Kinser Bridge
 7. Pierson Creek
 8. Graydon Springs
 9. Fair Grove
10. Strafford
11. Valley Mills
12. Sawyer
      Legend

      Fault (Dotted Where Inferred)

      Sources: (12,15)
      Planning Area
      City Limits
      County Limits
         123456   North
                                89

-------

-------
               Revisions                                    Comment(s)

     Reference:
     233.  Bush, Bruce A., Investigation of Groundwater
           Quality in Unincorporated Greene County,
           Missouri,  Master's Thesis, Southwest Missouri
           State University, 1980.

Page 126, Figure 18:   A revised Figure 18,  Annual                W-17
     Surface Wind Rose, Springfield, MO is  presented.             W-58
     (Source:  Excerpt from the Springfield Airport
     Master Plan, received from the Springfield Airport
     Manager in April, 1984.)

Page 171, par.  2, line 2:   Revise to read:   "...north of         W-10
     the Burlington Northern (formerly the  St.  Louis
     and San Francisco) railway tracks."

Page 186:  Add after par.  5:                                     W-83
          Nearly 50 parks  and other recreational resources
     are provided in the planning area and  included  in the
     public and semi-public land use category.   Most parks
     are concentrated within the Springfield city limits
     and these are scattered throughout the city. The
     recreational resources of the  study area are import-
     ant contributors to the local  economy.  Wilson's
     Creek Battlefield National Park, two commercial caves,
     McDaniel Lake, Fellows Lake, and Lake  Springfield
     attract visitors from outside, as well as  within, the
     planning area.  This  results in expenditures for  local
     goods and provides employment  in the tourism sector of
     the local economy. As listed  below, matching federal
     funding has been received for  many local parks  through
     the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). If  pro-
     posed projects would  displace  any of these park areas
     from their present land use, approval  by the U.S.
     Department of Interior will be required.
                                 91

-------
NW
 W
SW
                  Annual  Surface Wind Rose

                              Springfield,  Mo.
K1   Figure 18  (Revised)
N                        NE
      Wind Speeds


      Annual

      Frequency MPH
                         SE
                              Scale
      4
                  20.6%



   0	6	10



    % Frequency of Direction a Speed
                        92

-------
               Revisions
               Comment(s)
                PLANNING AREA PARKS THAT HAVE RECEIVED
                          LWCF CONTRIBUTIONS

     (Source:  Outdoor Recreation Assistance Program, Missouri DNR)
     Park Name
     Fred Miles Park
     Springfield Neighborhood Parks
     Ritter Springs
     Springfield Neighborhood Parks
     Ballfield Development
     Grandview Golf Course
     Neighborhood Park - Bissett Area
     Model Airplane Park Development
     Zagony Park Development
     Springfield Parks Development
     Springfield Scenic and Bennett Park
     Springfield Tennis Court
       Development
     Fassnight
     Silver Spring
     Nathaniel Greene
     Greene County Overhill Park
       Development
     Fair Grove Mound Park
Location
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield

Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield

Greene County
Fair Grove
Page 311, par.  2:   Delete the last sentence and substitute:
     If avoidance  is not feasible, then each sinkhole and
     losing stream crossing should be examined to determine
     the best methods of crossing to avoid problems with
     structural integrity, contaminating ground water,  or
     impeding normal drainage.   Sealing of sinkholes and
     losing stream areas might be the recommended solution
     in some cases.
                    W-42
                    W-51
                                 93

-------
               Revisions                                    Comment(s)

Page 313:  Add at the end of par.  5:                              W-19
     Specific mitigative measures  relative to flood plain
     development and stream crossings include the following:
          Establish flood plain ordinance with use standards
          for floodway areas and fringe areas.
          Prohibit construction or encroachment in
          floodway areas.
          Establish base flood elevation and prohibit
          construction which increases this elevation.
          Elevate structures in fringe areas on piles or
          columns instead of embankments.
          Prohibit encroachment in fringe areas.
          Design and construct stream crossings so that
          the cross-sectional area is not reduced and
          flow is not obstructed.   Burying the pipe
          often satisfies these criteria.

Page 320:  Add at the end of par.  1:                              W-45
     Minor benefits to the water quality and aquatic
     ecology of small streams may result from effluent
     discharges if the receiving stream's capacity to
     assimilate the wastes (by absorbing them into
     the existing food web) is not exceeded, and the
     receiving stream has intermittent flow.  Given a
     steady baseline streamflow, a series of aquatic
     communities will develop to fill the niches
     available and utilize the food resources con-
     tained in the discharge.

Page 326:  Add at the end of par.  1:                              W-37
     The rock profile should be determined before con-           W-41
     struction.  Where rock excavation is required in            W-59
     cavernous areas, specific investigations should
     be made to determine the best method of  rock
     removal in order to preserve the bedrock integrity.
                                 94

-------
               Revisions                                    Comment(s)

Page 335:  Add at the end of par. 1:                             W-81
     Very high sewer user charges, such as those esti-
     mated for proposed projects for the unsewered
     communities in the planning area, could cause
     some prospective new residents and some existing
     residents to locate elsewhere and thus reduce
     growth.  This impact is weighed against the
     problems of reduced growth and other adverse
     impacts where on-site wastewater disposal
     problems are severe.

Page 343:  Add after par. 1:
          Plans and specifications should have provisions
     for possible encounters with hazardous materials
     and specific measures for which the contractor will
     be responsible and liable.

Page 361:  Add after last paragraph:                             W-83
          Construction of proposed facilities will not
     have significant adverse impacts on park and
     recreation resources.  No park land, including
     those assisted through the LWCF program, will be
     displaced as a result of construction.  (A
     small collection line for the proposed Fair
     Grove system was checked and found to be about
     one-fourth of a mile from Fair Grove Mound
     Park.)
                                 95

-------
                                Errata
Page 29, Figure 8:  Correct spelling is "Viraton."
Page 45, par. 4, line 4:  Correct spelling is "artificially."
Page 46, par. 3, line 4:  Delete "shelfstone" and substitute "siltstone."
Page 46, par. 4, line 3:  Correct spelling is "stratigraphic."
Page 59, par. 2, line 6:  Correct spelling is "sufficient."
Page 84, par. 1, line 7:  Correct spelling is "significance."
Page 167, par. 6, line 1:  Delete "are being constructed."
Page 168, par. 2, line 15:  Correct spelling is "Fellows"; delete
     "(not complete)."
Page 172, par. 2, last line (15):  Revise to read "...  Springfield area
     are..."
Page 311, par. 5, line 1:  Correct spelling is "beneficial."
Page 314, par. 1, line 3:  Correct spelling is "accidental."
Page 347:  Impact on Terrestrial Ecology - Loss of Habitat for collec-
     tion system alternative 4 should be "-1."
                                 96

-------
           IV.  COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND EPA RESPONSES

          The Draft EIS  was  published and made available  to the public
in  late  January 1984.   The  Draft EIS was provided  to  various Federal,
State, and  local agencies, concerned  individuals,  and  interest groups.
The public hearing  was  held in Springfield,  Missouri on March 13, 1984.
In addition to the public comments at the hearing (a transcript provided
herein),  a  number  of letters  were  received and  are included  in this
Final EIS.
          The  designations  in  the  margins of  the  letters  identify
specific  comments  for  which responses are given.   The  responses follow
all  of the  letters.   Similarly,  designations  in  the  margins  of  the
hearing  transcript identify  comments  for which  responses  are  given.
Where  public  hearing  comments were  similar to  the written comments,
transcript responses refer to the written comment responses.

A.   WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

                       Written Comments Index
Comment(s)
W-l
W-2

W-3

W-4 to W-13
W-14 to W-20
W-21 to W-28
W-29 to W-38
W-39 to W-42
W-43 to W-47
W-48 to W-52
W-53 to W-68
Name
Glenn E. Dillon
Lance Long

Robert R. Schaefer

Steve Stettes
Karen Entrup
Christopher J. Ives
Shirley Gammon
Stanley Huck
Joel C. Keller
Gary W. Krizanich
Wendell L. Earner
U.S. Department of Housing
  and Urban Development
Springfield Department
  of Public Works
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
                                 97

-------
Comment(s)
W-69 to W-74
W-75 to W-81
W-82 to W-89

W-90
W-91
W-92 to W-93
Name
Drew M. Holt
Mark T. Fremont
Sheila Minor Huff

Helen Murray White
Glenn E. Dillon
Craig Skinner
Agency
Citizen
Citizen
U.S. Department of
  Interior
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
                                  98

-------
                               W-1
99

-------
100

-------
101

-------
Mr,& firs.Glenn E.Dillon
309 W. Kingsbury
Springfield, MO 65807
     102

-------
                                Springfield, MO
                               February 1, 1984
     The information in this report was obtained in order to determine whether
the water in this county is polluted.

     Page (1) lists two springs and two wells.  These are wells and springs
that I am familiar with.

     Henley well is % mile East of the city and ^ mile South of HWY 60.  It is a
new well and is in the 400 ft. range.  It is 100 ft. North of the Henley Spring.
In drilling this well it penetrated the stream from the Henley Spring.  It was
cased 80 ft.

     Henley Well is free of nitrates, while Henley Spring tested 2.0 ppm.
Bryant Well is in the 400 ft. range and free of nitrates.  Bryant Spring tested
3.0 ppm nitrates. This spring and well are % mile East of the Henley Well.  These
tests were taken September 28, 1983.

     On October 4, 1983 I tested the Keltner Spring and Well.  The Keltner Well
is in the Robidoux formation and is in the 600 ft. range.  It is free of nitrates.
     The Vaughn Spring is near the Keltner Well and tested 3.4 ppm nitrate.  This
spring and well are J$ mile East of the Bryant well or on NN HWY ^ mile South of
HWY 60.

     Samuels Spring is 200 ft. North of Henley Well and is located in the Samuels
Springs Addition.  This addition has one acre lots.  These houses all use septic
tanks.  The Cunningham well is the nearest well to Samuel Spring which tested 3.5
ppm nitrate.  However, the Cunningham well is free of nitrates.  It has 80 ft. of
casing, and is in the 400 ft. range.

     On October 13, 1983 I tested the Sequiota Spring and it had a nitrate con-
tent of 2.6 ppm.  At that time I decided to experiment by testing the water at
the lower end of the lake that the spring empties into.  I found that the nitrate
content had dropped to 2.2 ppm.  I presumed that this was due to aireation.

     The same day I tested the Jones Spring which is just East of the city limits
on Catalpa St. and is a source of water for the city of Springfield.  Jones Spring
tested 3.3 ppm.  Jones Spring is surrounded by some of the finest homes in this
county and the valley that runs Eastward sloped toward the stream.  One could not
help but admire those lakes that follow one after the other.  To my astonishment,
the nitrate content drops to  1.8 ppm when it leaves the  last lake on its way  to
Pierson Creek.
                                      103

-------
     After the water reaches Pierson Creek, approximately 1 mile down stream it
enters James River.  Most of the time 100 head of Holstein cattle and 300 head
of Angus cattle use this stream at will to drink.  I was surprised to find that
the water at the Blackman Intake only had a nitrate content of 1.8 ppm.

     Across the road from the Blackman Intake I tested Don Rennet's well.  It
was also free of nitrates.  By this time I was positive that the nitrates were
dissipating into the- silt or the black soil found in the lake bottoms and creek
banks.

     My findings caused me to test the Doling Park Spring and Lake on October
27, 1983.  The spring tested 3.8 ppm and after the water had went through 10
sprinklers, I thought the water would dissipate itself of all of its nitrates
if air had anything to do with it.  The water tests 3.6 ppm as it leaves the
lake.

     Fulbright Spring has a nitrate content of 1 ppm.  This is the best spring
water that I tested.  When I tested it on October 30, 1983, I also tested the
water in the branch that runs along side of the Fulbright pump station., This
branch heads up close to Hillcrest High School and picks up the run off of the
zoo.  To my surprise I found that this water in the branch was free of nitrates.

     On November 4, 1983, the water in the Old Lime Quarry on HWY 13 that the city
diJtanpty its wastes from the water treatment plant into was found to have no
nitrates in a sample taken from the surface.

     My conclusions from these samples lead me to believe that the city of
Springfield should dispense all spring water or water taken from subsurface
sources into silt laden impoundments, preferable a series of these so that
they might be drained out at intervals before it enters its treatment plants.

     Water from the Turners Spring tested 5.8 ppm.  The lake below had rid
itself of nitrates.  \ mile below the lake water in Turner Branch had a content
of 6.2 ppm.  I tested no well that had nitrate ii^j^thjut I am confident that
any well that has not had the subsurface water^uch as that used by the city
would have a nitrate in it.

     Records in the Department of Natural Resources show that the last testing
done by that department was done in 1966.
                                       Glenn E. Dillon
                                       309 W. Kingsbury
                                       Springfield, MO 65807
                                         104

-------
                         Nitrate Nitrogen Concentrations
                                in Greene County
                       Wells,  Springs,  and Surface Waters
                       (Summarized from a February 1,  1984
                            Report by  G.  E.  Dillon)
               Location
        Approximate
Date    Well Depth   Nitrate (mg/1)*
Henley Well, 1/2 mile SE of Springfield
Henley Spring
Bryant Well, 1 mile SE of Springfield
Bryant Spring
Keltner Well, 1.5 mile ESE of Springfield
Vaughn Spring
Cunningham Well, 1/2 mile SE of Springfield
Samuels Spring
Sequiota Spring
Exit from Sequiota Lake
Jones Spring
Jones Spring Cr. @ Pierson Creek
James River/Blackman Intake
Bennet Well
Doling Park Spring
Doling Park Lake
Fulbright Spring
Fulbright Spring Branch
Old Lime Quarry, N. Hwy 13
Turners Spring
Turners Lake
Turners Creek, 1/4 mile down-
stream from lake
09-28-83 400'
09-28-83
09-28-83 400'
09-28-83
10-04-83 600'
10-04-83
10-04-83 400*
10-04-83
10-13-83
10-13-83
10-13-83
10-13-83
10-13-83
10-13-83
10-27-83
10-27-83
10-30-83
10-30-83
11-04-83
11-02-83
(lab rec'd)
11-02-83
(lab rec'd)
11-02-83
(lab rec'd)
less than 1
2.0
less than 1
3.0
less than 1
3.4
less than 1
3.5
2.6
2.2
3.3
1.8
1.0
less than 1
3.8
3.6
1.0
less than 1
less than 1
5.8
less than 1
6.2
'^Reported as  nitrogen;  the  drinking water standard is  10 mg/1;  analyses  by
 Southwest Branch Laboratory,  Missouri Division of Health.
                                        105

-------
                                           U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
                                           Kansas City Regional Office, Region VII
                                           Professional Building
                                           1103 Grand Avenue
                                           Kansas City, Missouri 64106
March 7, 1984

Mr. Ed Vest
U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, MO   64106

Dear Mr. Vest:

SUBJECT:  Draft  Environmental  Impact Statement -  Proposed Wastewater
             Treatment  Facility; Green County, Missouri
             (February  1984)


     This office has reviewed the subject Draft Environmental  Impact Statement
(EIS) for Greene County,  Missouri.  The document  was  found to  be satisfactory
in meeting the spirit and intent of the National  Environmental Policy Act    vi
(NEPA) of 1969 and  no apparent adverse impacts have been noted relating to   *
Department of Housing and Urban Development projects  in  this jurisdiction.

     We appreciate  the  opportunity to comment on  this matter.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Lance Long
                                    Environmental  Office!
                                    Office of Community Planning
                                      and Development
                                     106

-------
     CITY of
 SPRINGFIELD
                                    March 14, 1984
 Edward Vest, Chief
 Environmental Impact Section
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Region VII
 324 E. llth Street
 Kansas City, MO  64106

 Re:  Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Greene County Wastewater
      Treatment Facilities

 Dear Mr. Vest:

 During the public hearing on the draft E.I.S. on March 13, 1984,  in Springfield,
 two individuals made comments regarding pollution from two landfills previously
 operated by the City of Springfield.  These comments were negative in that they
 were attempting to show that constructing a new Northwest Wastewater Treatment
 Plant was not going to solve the water quality problem in the Little Sac River.

 In that these statements were not made with the full knowledge of our proposed
 project, the City of Springfield wishes to provide further information.   The
 design of the new Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant is being performed by
 Burns & McDonnell, a consulting engineering firm working for the City of  Springfield.
 The design has recognized that both Fulbright and Murray Landfills are potentially
 sources of pollutant loading to the stream.  Since it is necessary to construct an
 interceptor sewer through both of these landfills a leachate collection  system
 is also being provided as a part of this project to eliminate and/or minimize
 landfill pollutants entering the stream.  The City of Springfield has also agreed
 to perform grading work and other remedial work to help alleviate this landfill
 problem.  It is, therefore, the feeling of the City of Springfield that  the     W~3
 construction of the Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant and Interceptor will
 not only improve the water quality because of our improved wastewater treatment
 plant effluent, but also because pollutants from the landfill will be eliminated
 or certainly decreased to a drastic degree.

 This information has been provided to both the Department of Natural Resources
 and to certain sections of your agency.  It is hoped that the information
 contained in this letter will assist you in preparing a response to the  negative
 comments received.  If you require further information or clarification, please
 let me know.
                                            Very truly yours,
 RRS:cc
 ccs:  Randy Clarkson, M.D.N.R.
       Tom Lorenz, U.S.E.P.A.
Department of Public Works
830 Boonville
Springfield, Missouri 65802
(417)864-1900
 Robert  R.  Schaefer,  P.E.
 Superintendent  of Sanitary ^Services
107

-------
                              March 20, 1984
Mr. Edward Vest, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
Region VII
324 East Eleventh St.
Kansas City, Mo.  64106

Dear Mr. Vest:

     The comments on the accompanying pages concern
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 'pro-
posed wastewater treatment facility in Greene County,
Missouri.  These comments are enclosed in the hopes
that these observations can be used to improve the
final EIS which is to follow.
                              Sincerely,
                              Steve Stettes
                              533 E. Monroe
                              Springfield, Mo.  65806
                           108

-------
     COMMENTS ON "The Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility,

                     Greene County, Missouri"

               Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Introduction
page 12, sec. 3
Springs
 The statement that "the Salem and
 Springfield Plateaus contain the
 world's greatest concentration of  \A/_
 springs" is in error.   While this  **
 area does exhibit many springs,  the
 concentration cannot be expressed as
 the world's greatest.
page 18 & 19, sec
Seismology
 While correctly mentioning that
 "most of Missouri's earthquake
 activity has been concentrated in
 the southeast corner of the state,
 which lies within the New Madrid
 Seismic Zone," the statement fails  W~5
 to mention that the largest series
 and most powerful earthquake occurred
 in that area in 1811-1812.  This
 would tend to give a different inter-
 pretation to the problem and it's im-
 pact on the Springfield area,  and
 needs to be mentioned.
page 28, sec. B
Water Resources
 In speaking of the drainage divide
 in Greene County,  the divide is listed
 as "roughly following the route of the
 St.  Louis and San Francisco Railway. "ui/_
 This railroad no longer exists and
 mention of this divide should be changed
 to following the route of the Burlington
 Northern Railway.
page 46, sec. 2
Groundwater
paragraph no. 3
"Strategraphic" is misspelled and   W~7
 should be changed to "Stratigraphic."
                                109

-------
page 49i  sec.  B
Groundwater Movement
   The 197^ study regarding the
   potentiometric surface  in Springfield
   is outdated when compared to  the
   amount of growth experienced  since
   that time.   Expanding development
   and recent well drilling and  use
   have altered the potentiometric
   surface of the lower aquifer  from
   what and where it existed in  197^.
                                                                W-8
page 80, sec. A
Aquifers and Springs
paragraph no. 2
   Both a 1970 and 197^ survey are  cited
   in reference to the number of private
   wells found to  be contaminated.   An
   indepth study was conducted for  a
   thesis requirement by Mr.  Bruce  Bush,
   then a graduate student,  at Southwest
   Missouri State  University, in November,
   1980, into the  groundwater quality in...
   unincorporated  Greene County.   This  "
   study offers some striking results and
   needs to be listed especially since it
   is more current that the  two studi.es
   that are listed.
page 171, sec. A
Municipal Treatment
Facilities
   Mention is once again made to the
   St.  Louis-San Francisco Railway   W~1'
   which no longer exists, and should
   be changed to refer to the Burlington
   Northern Railway.
Misc. Comments
1.  The maps used in this draft statement
   should have been drawn onto or super-
   imposed over topographic maps.  ThisW"
   type of study is so closely linked to
   topographic constraints and the maps
   could better show this relationship
   if this method was used.

2.  No geologic map showing bedrock is
   incorporated into the report.  This
   type of map needs to be included   W~1
   to help show those areas where the
   subsurface geology may affect the
   project.

3.  A more detailed physiographic map
   should be used rather that the moreW~1
   general regional map used on page 10.
                                110

-------
March 21, 1984
Mr. Edward Vest
Chief of the Environmental Impact Section
Region VII
East Eleventh Street
Kansas City,  MO     64106
Dear Mr. Vest
As a graduate student in Resource Planning at Southwest Missouri State University,
I read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facilty, Greene Co.  Missouri, with intrest.  I hope you will
find the enclosed comments useful in the preparation of the final EIS for
the Wastewater Treatment plan.
Sincerely
Karen Entrup
                                         111

-------
COMMENTS ON "Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility Greene County Missouri,
             Draft EIS."

General Comments
The length of the report should be reduced.  I suggest greater use  of       W— "\ A.
referencing and scoping techniques.
Environmental Setting
The maps presented in this section,  and throughout the entire report,  would
                                                                           W—15
be more accurate if they were constructed from a topographic base map.
Characteristics of Planning Area Soils, page 27, figure 8
     An engineering geology map showing geologic formations and engineering
     properties of soils in this area would better serve the purpose of     .      _
                                                                           W~ ID
     this project.  A map of this type would also reduce the need for  the
     lengthy soil and geology descriptions included in the text.
Atmosphere, page 26, figure 18
     Because this study concerns the Springfield Area, wind data should  be
                                                                           W-17
     obtained from Springfield, not  Kansas City.
Specific Subarea Alternatives
Unincorporated Low Growth Subarea
     Adoption of a on-site system management plan, as outlined in this
                                                                           W-18
     report, is critical for maintaining water quality in this area.
General Impact Assessment

Water'Resources, page 313
     Mitigative measures to minimize stream cross section changes should   .
                                                                           W-19
     be described in greater detail.  The measured discussed must be adopted
     in order to insure groundwater  quality.
Energy and Other Resources, page 341
     This impact- can be evaluated by considering construction energy
     costs, design life and operational energy of the new facility. The   W—OH
     results of this evaluation can be presented in table form. The
     recovery techniques discussed  should be implemented in order  to  reduce
     energy costs.
                                           112

-------
                                         March 21, 1984
                                         1933 South Grant Apt. B
                                         Springfield,  Missouri
Kr. Edward Vest
Chief Environmental Impact Section
Region VII
East 11th Street
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
Dear Mr. Vest:
Enclosed are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the proposed wastewater treatment facility in Greene County,
Missouri.  The objective of these comments is to add to areas
of the impact statement that lack depth and to question
important issues in order to gain feeabacK from the Environmental
Protection Agency.
                                  Sincerely,

                                  CJ/wAtoffa^y
                                  Christopher J. Ives
Enclosure

                               113

-------
               COMMENTS ON  "The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                             for the Proposed Wastewater Treatment
                             Facility in Greene County,  Missouri"
1. Maps on pages 17, 21, 29, 37,  47,  51,  53,  79,  85,  87,  143,  189,  195,  and 203


     Maps on the pages listed do  not  show important roads or landmarks within
the city of Springfield.  Battlefield Road,  National Avenue, Grand Street and W~2
others are absent from these maps. Without  more of these trafficways identified,
location within Springfield is difficult. When these streets are added  to each
of the maps listed, detail assessment of the area will be possible.
2. Page 167, line 33 and 34


     The sentence should probably read as follows:
     An 11-mile pipeline and other facilities constructed to link the Blackman W~2
Plant and Fellows Lake were completed in 1983.
3. Page 169, lines 9, 10 and 11


     What are the projected costs of pumping or hauling in new fresh water
supplies if unrestricted growth contaminates the water supply?  This estimation..
seems to be important when determining the cost/benefit of the project.  Since Vv""2
a new source of fresh water will be needed by the mid 1990*s, restrictions on
wells and septic tanks seems mandatory.
4. Relates to number 3


     An economic assessment should be conducted on the affect construction will
have on the local businessmen, i.e. farmers and ranchers.  The cost of replacing
water lost by development on all creeks and rivers should be accounted for in
this impact statement.  Specialists in farm management could make an unbiased W"~24
decision to the proper amount of resources lost to development.  The figures
from this report should be included in the economic impact section of each of
the subareas.
5. Section II


     The overall statement of Section II is one of the harmful impact of

                                       114

-------
human expansion on the environment in Greene County.  Are there any regulations
for Greene County regulating or restricting growth in fragile environmental
areas?  If so, can these rules and regulations be used to maintain a liveableW~2w
human environment?
6. Page 536, lines 20, 21, 22, and 25


     Will this project meet the deadline of September 30» 1984 for the Municipal\AI
Wastewater Facilities Construction Grants Program?
7. Pages 336, 347 and 348


     Industrial development should only be encouraged where industrial activity
already exists.  The Springfield Subarea's Southern System does not, at the
present time, have any large concentrations of heavy industry.  The alternatives
for wastewater treatment in the Southern area are listed on pages 347 and 348.
as having positive impact for industrial development.  Is this to imply that  VV
this area can be considered for industrial development?
8. Page 351 and 552, chart


     Considering the community's financing ability is rated a -1 and that
federal and state funds will be at a minimum for this project, is a general W"~28
obligation bond the only potential method of financing this project?
                                      115

-------
E
-------
           Council  orv Ei
          oy
           Sec+'on . /S02.f,;n  the  x^aola+ions  W-29
         i-Kat  ^rlnal  ElS's  sKall  rvox-rnally noi"
         /SO pqaes ,  ov  300  pdaes  £OT  prop-
 osals  a^ onosua.\   scope,  ox-  G.orr\p le,*i f y.

       TKe  orQam^cxVioo  coold  be  i
 in.  so roe  a<*e.a& .  n^  example   woo\d be
       , vex-^  Qie.nera\  d-scos^ion  o^   landi use
                    s T
                                   f\a o
Ose^  PA<^£  342-    The  discossfon  round     _
                 and  QooaVfc Ecol
                               o
X rvd oced  Gvou3tV\  C paae 320 ) j corvVa*rvs
                         on
     proposed services   on  land  use  and
      QU€oceS or  suoK  land use cKanae^  ye"l"
    fS  in  a  T'A^ner  obscor-e  position  *,
UM/^/CORPOR^T£0  LOW
     It  ib   suH
-------
                                 8TT
                                            \>u iu
                                                •  • j  •    i .
                                                             Q I
pUOO^b
                                 5'  +J  - SSI
            VAj.|3  04    AWSS 3-33VJI  3.1
            up    ^
                                 uo
                                 c[ '


                                                         ii<
                                                  3S-Q
                                                 A
               »4)S-\xo   jo  ujt^^^s-  A^o-to^eb^^ x>
                                                 ^   so\  p
                                      f   ^vmo^  ^u-9^j.c\
                                   D  5 /  S !            '
18-M   |^3-5  °P  X   'S^^^OO?  ^$3^4.  ^^OJkl  Up. I 1.0 || od
                                                            J^Oi
                                 j||AA  saiso/w ^P  bujj

-------
+- ^
0 O
1
2~p
s s
P
^
At
0
CA
3 s
•f*
os cr 3
•o 7T c
I--5-
- »ro
- - j» ^
OD £
" 5 ^
— ^ ^
o. ^
* ^
0- "*.
fl> Q_ ^
D n (*
(ft <
V 1* -f
- r g-
-£ 3
cr 9
» £ ~
* 2 A
v\' -*• <
" -' *'
o ^
JT






^*- »
-^

^
3~
P
-i-
"™* »
2
Q_
g
-f-
^
D

H-.
3-
r»

.. "• CA
°» ^"°
4- -*
o —
0 ^
|r-
3 n>
^H-S:
?l<
o. C.
n> ^ p
-<~» ~ • - .
3 ?^
/* n
* ~.
-f- <*
ȣc
8-+i
< * "
(* * <
— (*
o < —
ti -• O
p 0 -o
°~ 5" g_
f* -^
•<
s


•«


^
CO
A
"°:£:;(L j:---o-f-p-i-p 0)+^"-
5-03-3-^ ^ j^ - . o ^- r o "3-^-^
Li /» ^ 3 ^.?^. £_*>3 ^,-
* ^ 4 f -; - 1 M - " ? ; P
£-5-oirfV?^-o?°'''3o ^
aP >5 . !is?rijc. "
s5-i,wi4: li-.i-ui^s-i-r,
^.cx» o § -1- i " -^ • -o ;•
-t^-'D ^ -<£A^^>>s^rfo:rrtv'?
's +^S4r!3 '.sg s; • -5^
(L X (t «*. ^ | ?. W^^P t^-o
-±e.-- 54 r^| • s '£ ;,c| l
^H•r•lls::•>l-Pt;:$^-l
^s-l.-'E^j^si?]0*??
-f -4-^Ti ^ o 0 -- ^ <* «* -t
a- ^ - B. J1 * ; ^ * - 5- J 

" 3^ 2<5o-*-s P ^ ;• •» -o »-*• 50- °- ? 1 * ? ?v •; • J i s - 1 ^ a.' 1 CO P ^ 3 /\ to- pi ff~ o o C -f -t- ^ o 0 4 1 *\ (* (* 3. P -S 0 C 3C O_ ^0 -w •^ C^> •^> •^ _ * 3 P >P CP ^•r>4~> 7* p ^ ^* ? S 0 -r> f* &. p SZ-o S cr 5 0 p X <^ ~> -. s> c! _ ? "J 3 oo -S -\> ^. -. «- p ^ i ^ ^ C "? § F s U" ^L H- 3 •n" 3" <* ^' ^» p~ * w &.S L S J-^5:-- *'. ^H M =r j. * 3 a £ o- £ -*• J — o — <* ? 5 , -r 5 £ r *|: 6^ W- ^ CO 10


-------


  o
  €^
  re
  0-
c^
  o
  -r>
M
N>
O
  O
  P
  <
  f»
rn
r
•>

rn
                             e


                               -          -
-•  3
^ -o
5  >


                                                          3
                                                                             -
                                                                                       s.

 •«;
 '•>  ?
    c
 ^
T>
*t>  -'


                                                                        H
                                                                                  f
                                                                                  8

-------
                            TZT
  l-U
 0-L
        >^s   \"x>uo)«5S ^^^o s
A»  mo |^x>  o-y  «5 \ '

-------
                                       Stanley  Huck
                                       1722  V.  Catalpa
                                       Springfield,  MO
                                                65807
                                      March  22,
Mr. Edward Vest
Cheif,  Environmental Impact  Section
United States Environmental  Protection Agency
Region VII
32k East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, MO  6'*106
Doar Mr. Vest,

    The preparers of this Draft EIS  did  a  good job of
covering the environmental impact  of the planning area.
There is no doubt that Greene County is  in need of a
new wastewater facility plan because of  the unsuccessful
attempt of the present facilities  to handle wastewater
treatment.

    The proposed plan of action for  each subarea appears
to be the best course of action considering the sensitivity
of the planning area and other available alternatives.

    Inclosed are some comments on  the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed  Wastewater Treatment
Facility Greene County, Missouri.
                                        Sincerely ,
                                        Stanley Huck
                           122

-------
COMMENTS ON:
The Draft Environmental  Impact  Statement
Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility
Greene County, Missouri.
General Comment
          The length  of  this  statement exceeds
          the recommended  length set forth in  W~39
          the guidelines of NEPA section 1502.7.
          Incorporation  by reference and tiering
          could have  been  used  more to decrease
          the length  of  this  statement.
Unincorporated Low
Growth Subareas.
Section k, page 305
          These areas are  severed  mainly by
          septic tanks  and  other on-site desposal
          systems.  In  part  (k) of this  section
          goals of the  plan  are listed.   These
          are very good  on-site system management
          goals.  The problem  lies in the
          inforcetnent an implementation  of the
          goals.  Newly  constructed systems can
          be monitored  during  construction for
          sound design  arid  construction  practices.
          But what can  be  done about existing
          systems to insure  proper maintance  W~~40
          and to reduce  the  amount of harmful
          discharge into the groundwater system?
          Tvho will be responsible  for monitoring
          these on-site  systems?
Geology and Soils
Page 308
Paragraph 2
          This section of  the  report  mentions
          blacking of the  bedrock  for excavation
          purposed.  It is apparent  that  in
          some locations this  can  not be
          avoided.  In these areas careful and
          through evaluation of  ttae  subsurface W~41
          geology is in order.   Blasting  in
          areas where shallow  caves  exist could
          cause a collapse, thus clogging the
          subsurface drainage  system  in that area.
                            123

-------
Geology and Soils
Mitgative Measures
Page 311
Paragraph 2
In this section it is stated that
construction across sinkholes and
loosing portions of streams will be
avoided if feasible.  If this is
not feasible then these features
will be sealed.  It was also ststed
earlier in this report that sealing
of sinkholes may disrupt the natural
drainage and increase flooding  in    W""42
adjacent areas.  Vhat measures  will
be incorporated to insure that  these
areas will not be adversly affected?
Considering how fragile the groiindwater
system is in the planning area,
sinkholes and loosing portions  of
streams should be avoided at all costs.
                             124

-------
                                                  March 22, 198^
      Mr. Edward Vest
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Region VII
      32^ East Eleventh St.
      Kansas City, Missouri  6^106
           Dear Mr. Vest:
           Following are some comments on the draft EJS for the proposed
      Greene County Wastewater Treatment Facility.  I hope these observations
      will be beneficial in preparing the final EIS to follow.
                                              This document is valuable in
                                              recognizing the distinct geologic   W~43
                                              qualities of Greene County and their
                                              importance in maintaining water quality.
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology
page 67             table ?
                                     Your existing water quality data is
                                     more then 6 years old.   Data of this VV~44
                                     type may be obtained through limited
                                     field work.
General Impact Assessment
page 319        last IP
                                     You state  that minor benefits in  water
                                     quality and  aquatic ecology occur as
                                     a result of  increased base flow in
                                     streams receiving discharge.   It
                                     should be  mentioned that evaluating iA/
                                     data on low  flow and low + effluent W
                                     flow is necessary to determine any
                                     beneficial or detrimental effects on
                                     water quality and aquatic ecology with
                                     increased  base flow.
page
sect.  3
It should be noted that impact from
sewage bypass during storm runoff is
minor, but can be severe in areas   W~"46
where discharge to losing steams and
other karst features occur.
                                              The Fair Grove Subarea is a sensitive
                                              area because of its poor alternatives.
                                              Storm bypass and facility overflow are
                                              most potentially harmful.   The inter-
                                              mittent character of the discharge   W—47
                                              streams make the land application
                                              alternative with its storage basin an
                                              ecologically more efficient alternative.
                                              Joel C.  Keller
                                      125

-------
                                                   ftPR 0 21984

                                               EHV  SECTIQH
                           Gary W. Krizanich
                           1848 S. Maryland
                           Springfield, MO  65807

                           March 22, 1984
Mr. Edward Vest
Chief Environmental  Impact  Section
Region VII
East llth Street
Kansas City,  MO  64106

Dear Mr.  Vest:

     Attached are comments  pertaining to the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement  for the Proposed Wastewater Treatment
Facility, Greene  County, Missouri.

                           Sincerely,



                           Gary W.v Krizanich

llm
Attachments
                          126

-------
     First, I must commend your agency on its selection of


proposed alternatives which would minimize the number of direct


discharge sites for effluent.  However, this plan is written


for areas which are unsewered at present.  Your choice of


alternatives is based on a presumption of community participation


in the construction of sewerage facilities.  Based on information

                                                                W-48
in Tables 41 and 42 concerning user charges for these facilities,


it would seem unlikely that construction of these new facilities


would be approved by community residents.





Page 175 Paragraph 3


     During the period from 1979 to mid-1982, fecal coliform at


the Southwest plant were above the prescribed limit 11 percent


of the time.  Further, it is stated on page 65 that "Phosphate,


which is not removed by the Southwest plant, is still present


at high levels in the James River downstream of its confluence


with Wilsons Creek, as is nitrate, a treatment process by-


product."  There is a discussion on page 93 of methemoglobinemia


"a serious and sometimes fatal poisoning in infants" caused by


excess nitrates in drinking water.  Phosphates can cause an  W~49


acceleration of the natural aging process of lakes which may


have a profound impact on communities surrounding the planning


area.  By discharging these substances into the James River,


there is a potential for pollution of downstream water supplies.


While there is some discussion in the draft impact statement of


upgrading facilities, it would seem that for the present, the


pumping of sewage to the Southwest plant from three additional



                              127

-------
                                                           2

communities in the planning area (Battlefield, Brookline and

Strafford) would only compound these problems.  The discharge

of effluent, no matter how high quality, into a stream will

have a significant impact on that stream's environment.



Page 193 Paragraph 3

     Although plans for the new Northwest treatment site call

for building on a site not previously used for landfill, a

potentially hazardous situation exists at this site.  "Sampling

of the Murray and Fulbright sites indicates significant oxygen

demanding pollutants; cyanide was found at levels possibly    W~5(

toxic to aquatic life and two organic priority pollutants were

also detected."  Any spills in this area could result in

possible migration of these pollutants.



Page 311 Paragraph 2

     Avoidance of sinkholes during the construction phase must

be accomplished.  The potential for sinkhole collapse and

groundwater pollution is too great over most of the planning

area.  Sinkhole sealing is unacceptable in this area.  Aley
                                                             W~~5 1
and Thomson (1981, p. 1) in their report on the hydrogeology

of unincorporated Greene County discuss sinkhole filling:

          "Such sinkhole modification is not in the long-
     range interest of the people of Greene County.  If
     only the drainage points or a portion of the sinkhole
     is filled, then flooding within the remainder of a
     sinkhole is likely to become a more serious problem.
     If the sinkhole is completely filled and waters are
     diverted to adjacent sinkholes, then flooding problems
     in the adjacent sinkholes are likely to become more

                           128

-------
     severe.  Furthermore, subsidence and sinkhole collapse
     are more likely to occur in sinkhole areas which have
     been subjected to filling than in undisturbed areas."

     The following is a list of typographic errors encountered

in reading of the statement.

     Page

          Figure 8 title    septic

                            artificially

                            stratigraphic

                            sufficient

                            significance

                            beneficial

                            accidental
 xv

 45

 46

 59

 84

311

314
Para 3 line 4

Para 3 line 3

Para 2 line 6

Para 1 line 7

Para 5 line 1

Para 1 line 3
W-52
Reference Cited:

Aley, T. and Thomson, K.C., 1981, Hydrogeologic mapping of
     unincorporated Greene County, Missouri, to identify areas
     where sinkhole flooding and serious groundwater contamina-
     tion could result from land development, Ozarks Underground
     Laboratory, Protem, Missouri.
                           129

-------
Wendell L. Earner
Southwest Missouri State University
Department of Geography and Geology
Box 87
901 S. National
Springfield, Missouri 65804-0089
                                                 March 23,1984
Mr. Edward Vest
Chief Environmental Impact Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
324 East Eleventh Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Dear Mr. Vest;
     I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility in Greene County,
Missouri and would like to make the following comments and
pose the following questions in hopes that they will be reviewed
and considered in the Final Environmental Inpact Statement.
                          130

-------
     On page 12, line 3 o-f the EIS it  is stated  that  the "Salem
and Spring-field Plateaus contain the world's  largest  concentration
of Springs." This seems to be exaggerated  somewhat  and  should be... —«
read to say that the Missouri Ozarks contain  one o-f the nation's*»~''5o
greatest concentration o-f Springs  (see Springs o-f Missouri,  DNR
publication, 1982, p. 3).
     On page 16 the description given  in the  text concerning the
trends o-f some major faults in the area do not match  the figure.
According to the figure, Graydon Springs fault trends more      W~54
east-west and is in the northern part  of the  county while Valley
Mills fault trends east-west to the northeast of Springfield and
trends northwest-southeast to the east of  Springfield.
     Also, on page 16 you have a section on seismology.   I feel
you fail to consider the importance of seismology in  the area.
It's true that most of the earthquake  activity is in  the
southeastern portion of the state however  due to the  continuous
bedrock geology in Missouri, the propogation  of  shock waves from a
major earthquake will be felt statewide.   I'm concerned that a \/\/_cc
major earthquake may cause structural  damage  in  this  area which
could pose a threat to our water quality if wastewater  facilities
cannot withstand the stresses from the attenuation  of Shockwaves.
    The Mercalli scale is used in this text to describe the
intensity of an earthquake.  This scale is based upon human
reaction to different intensities of an earthquake  and  is
unacceptable as a scientific means of  evaluating earthquake
intensities.  The reaction of people will  differ nationwide as
well as worldwide due to changing geologic conditions and the
individuality of people.
     Page 46, paragraph 4, line 3, the word strategraphic should
be spelled strati graphi c .                                        W~OO
     Page 46, paragraph 3, line 4, the term "shelfstone" is used
in describing part of the Northview formation.   I'm not familiar
with this term and have been unable to find it in any modern    W~~57
geologic literature.   Could you please define this term or choose
a more appropriate term?
     On page 26, figure 18 gives wind  data from  Kansas  City
adjusted for Springfield.  I'm sure this information  can be    W~58
obtained from the National Weather Service in Springfield rather
than using Kansas City data.  I would  suggest using the data for
this area and not use the information  from areas outside the study
area.
     Paragraph 4 on page 307 states that "blasting  and  rock
drilling may be required when sewer lines  are routed  across rocky
area."  I'm concerned about this since you have  not indicated any
site studies, particularly geophysical studies to insure blasting
won't occur over a sink hole of underground cavern  system.  I hope
you will answer as to whether any studies  have been undertaken to
look at this aspect.  I'm sure there are areas that require
blasting, however, these areas should  be studied to determine  W~O9
whether or not they are? suited to this type of action.   In
addition I would like to know what type of site  studies, if any,
have been used to determine site suitabli1ity.
     Page 311. paragraph 2, states the possibility  that sinkholes
and losing streams may be filled if it is  unfeasible  to construct
                          131

-------
around them.  I -feel this is an inadequate mitigating action since
•filling in sinkholes or losing streams will affect the drainage in
the area.  On page 20, the last sentence states that "filling in a
cave could disrupt subsurface drainage systems."  Are you
impling that filling in a sinkhole or losing stream will not
cause the same problem?  I sincerely hope this mitigation is not
considered since there is no guarentee that filling in sinkholes
and losing streams will solve any problem except to disrupt    W~6
surface and subsurface drainage in the area.  You have also failed
to consider any short or long term affects of this action.  Why is
this?
     One of the proposed plans is to expand the Southwest
Treatment Plant.  Will this expansion of this facility be able to
meet and exceed future demands upon the system and meet discharge
requirements or will the system still remain unable to meet    W~6
discharge requirements due to problems within the system and during
periods of high water inflow?
     In preparing maps it would be extremely beneficial to use a
topographic base map so the reader can easily associate proposed
facilities with the location of existing cultural and physical
features.  In addition, using the overlay technique would be
beneficial in determining problems within the location of the  VV~~6!
proposed facilities and sewer lines.  Examples might include
overlaying the proposed facilities on a detailed soils map or
bedrock geology map which was not included in the DEIS.
     I would find it extremely helpful if a bedrock geology map
was provided in this text.  The geology and the geologic      \A/_ft<
conditions in this area are extremely important in            VV~D\;
the determination of site suitability of the proposed facilities
and this information should be provided instead of a general
discription of the geology in the area.
     A generalised soils map is provided in this text, yet with
the problems of the soils in this area no engineering data such as
the limitation of soils is provided.  I would suggest that thisW~6
information be included in the Final Impact Statement.
     The overall quality of the maps in this DEIS are extremely
poor.  There is no excuse for such poor draftsmanship in the  \A/_ft*
preparation of these figures.  This is not professional work.      v
     Section 1SOO.4 of the CEO guidelines calls for reducing
paperwork in various ways.  Page limits are established for final
EIS to normally be less than 150 pages and under unusual scope of
complexity shall normally be less than 300 pages  (1502.7 of CEQ
guidelines).  This Impact Statement is extremely encyclopedic and
certain requirements in the CEQ guidelines should be used to   W—6(
reduce bulk of this text.  If the preparers feel that the
information in this DEIS is pertinant to the project,, then they
should look at Section 1502.21 of the CEQ guidelines which states
"agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact
statement by reference when the effect will be to cut down on
bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action"
(CEQ guidelines, p.13).
     On page 51, a potentiometric map based on data that is
ten years old.  In ten years there has been a tremendous amount of
growth and change in the city of Springfield as well as in the W"~D
                           132

-------
county.  I feel this information needs to be updated to some
degree, maybe not a complete study, but new information needs to
be obtained.
     The last comment I would like to make refers to researching
areas with similar geologic conditions and problems.  I feel this
would help determine what actions should be evaluated and      W""68
proposed to eliminate problems and unnecessary mitigations.
     In conclusion, I agree that there is a need for the proposed
Greene County Wastewater Treatment Facilities and I agree with the
proposed plan for the area, however,  I hope the proceeding
comments and questions are considered and answered.
                                              incerely yours
                                             Wendell L. Earner
                          133

-------
March 23,  1984
Mr. Edward Vest
Chief Environmental Impact Section
Region VII
East llth Street
Kansas City,  Missouri  64106
Dear Mr. Vest:

Enclosed are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility for Greene County,
Missour i.

Sincerely,
Drew M. Holt

Enclosure
                              134

-------
                           COMMENTS ON
      "Draft EIS on Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility,
                    Greene County,  Missouri"


                Government and Community Services
                            pp  338-341

     There are many governmental  jurisdictions  involved  in the
design, planning and implementation of the proposed project.   W~69
The actual location of interceptors will practically determine
future growth patterns in Greene County.

     As the project progresses, coordination and cooperation
between and within the various levels of governments will be  \A/—70
extremely important.  Future planning efforts and efficient
administration of community services in a growing Greene County
will be enhanced by coordinated efforts now.


                           Sol id Waste
                              p 343

     In the Draft EIS reference is made to the  "Facilities Plan"
for analyses of alternatives' cost-effectiveness regarding sludge
processing and disposal.   However, the Final Facilities Plan nas\A/—71
only recently been completed and has not yet been distributed.

     The use of the term "land application" in  referring to
sludge processing and disposal results in confusion as "land    W"~72
application" throughout the remainder of the Draft EIS refers to
an alternative method of wastewater treatment and disposal.


                       Fair  Grove Subarea
                            pp  263-264

     In the discussion of the Fair Grove Subarea, sufficient    W"~73
comparative cost information on the Land Application alternative
seems lacking.

     Why is Land Application not a more practical alternative in
the Fair Grove Subarea specifically and in Greene County in
general?

     Has there been any public opposi t ion to this alternative?
                                                                W-74
     I have no personal problem with the proposed alternatives.
I believe that much effort has been made to thoroughly examine
each alternative and to select the most appropriate ones.
However, the Draft EIS has lacked clear and concise information
with regard to the Land Application alternative.  More clear and
concise information on this subject might have  reduced some of
the misgivings expressed at the Public Hearing  on March 13 and
allowed the public to make more informed decisions.
                            135

-------
                                                 MRRCH "S3* 1984
EDWRRD VEST
CHIEF ENVIRONMENT  IMPACT SECTION
REGION VII
ERST HTM ST.
KRNSRS CITY* MO  64106
DEI=IP SIR*

THE ENCLOSED  COMMENTS ON THE DRftFT ENVIRONMENTAL iMPftCT STATEMENT J
F'RaPOSED WflSTEWftTER TRERTMENT FftCIL-ITY  GREENE COUNTY!- MISSOURI I  ft RE
OFFERED IN THE  HOPES THFiT SOME DF THESE OESER^RT IONS WILL  IMPROVE THE
DOCUMENT.
                                       SINCERELY?

                                        MflRK T.  FREMONT
                                      136

-------
   COMMENTS ON "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT  PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREAT
   COMMENTS OH "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
        PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY GREENE COUNTY?
                                                               MISSOURI"
   1.  THE SUMMARY SPENDS TOO MUCH TIME ON THE CURRENT  SITUATION AND \A/ — 7 K
"1OST ND TIME ON THE" IMPACT OF THE PROJECT.  OF THE 5 PACES  OF TEXT IN
=" SUMMARY DMLY ONE PAGE SPEAKS TO THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT?  AND
EN ONLY IN VERY BROAD TERMS.

   2. MANY DF THE CHARTS USED IN THE DOCUMENT APE EXCELLENT  BUT COULD
.'E BEEN PLACED IN THE APPENDICES TO REDUCE THE LENGTH  OF  THE EIS TO W"~76
=: REQUIRED LENGTH.

   3.  THE POPULATION DISCUSSION STARTING ON PAGE 146 is EXCELLENT
 FAR AS WHAT IS THE CURRENT POPULATION BUT LEASES MUCH TO BE DESIRED
 WHAT  THE FUTURE WILL BE.   TWO BETTER METHODS COULD HAVE  BEEN USED  \Af_
 DEi.-'ELOFE THE FUTURE POPULATION.  ONE METHOD MOULD BE  TO  FIND ft
i A THAT HAS GONE THROUGH SIMILAR DE<,'ELO«='EMENT AND MODIFY  THE POPULATION
 FIT THIS AREA.  HNOTHER METHOD WOULD BE TO USE A SET  GROWTH
:> RECOMMEND THAT RULES GOVERNING GROWTH BE ESTABLISHED TO FIT
i LIMITS USED.   To USE THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT HAPPENED  IN THE
?T WILL HAPPEN AGAIN IS A POOR ASSUMPTION.
   4.  THE  ECONOMICS AND FINANCING DISCUSSION SHOULD HAI/
3UT THE  POEABILITY OF PASSING THE REQUIRED BONDS NEEDED
;  PROJECTS.   THE CHANCE
••ID ATTEMPTS  SEEM SLIM IF
                         ^ PASSING THE BONDS
                         NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
                                             IN
                                                          SOMETHING
                                                         TO  FINANCE
                                                l/IEW OF  PAST
                                                                    W~78
=fRIFY  IT  AS A GOOD MAP WOULD.
   5. THE MAPS IN THIS DOCUMENT FtRE SOME DF THE ='OnREST  MAPS  OF THE EFFECTED
E:A THAT HAi-'E BEEN VIEWED.   THEY TEND TO CONFUSE .THE  INFORMATION NOT   I
                                                                       I
                                &                                    W-79
   -   T                         8                                       I
   C-.  THE MAPS OF THE AREA COULD AMUCH BETTER IF THEY  WERE  DRAWN FROM  I
iTCH  WITH THIS DOCUMENT IN MIND.                                        I

   7.  TABLE 37 OF THE REPUBLIC SUEAREA. ON PAGE £66 SHOULD  HA>.--'E ANOTHER
.UMfiJ  WITH THE TOTAL HNNUAL Ec?U I L-'ALENT COST WITH FEDERAL AND  STATE  W~80
=iNTS.
   8.  THE  POPULATION IMPACT DISCUSSION ON PAGE 334 AND  335  SHOULD
iAK TO THE AFFECT OF AN 800 DOLLAR SEWER BILL ON GROWTH TO  AN  AREA.^— Q "J
IS  KIND OF SEWER BILL WOULD HAi/E A STRONG EFFCT ON NEW  RESIDENTS.
                                  137

-------
           United States Department of the Interior

                OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
                        175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
                          CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

ER-84/224                                March 23, 1984

Mr. Morris Kay
                                                    V
Regional Administrator                             f
United States Environm
324 East Eleventh Stre
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
United States Environmental Protection Agency          MM<
324 East Eleventh Street
The Department of Interior has reviewed the Draft Environmental  Impact
Statement (DEIS) for Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Greene
County, Missouri.  Consolidated Departmental comments are provided for  your
consideration during future planning for the proposed project.

General Comments

The Bureau of Mines reviewed the subject document for impact on  mineral
resources and mining activity.  The proposed action will have no adverse uu.
impact on minerals or mining; they have no objection to the proposal or the
DEIS as written.

Park and recreational resources in Greene County are not mentioned in the
draft statement; nor are impacts on these resources due to the proposed
project facilities or related construction activities Indicated.  The final
environmental statement should provide a descriptive analysis of all park
and recreational resources in the county and the project's Impacts on them.
Measures to avoid or minimize harm to these resources should be  described.

Fair Grove Mound Park, which has received matching funding assistance from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), may be impacted by  Alternate ...
C-2-A as shown in Figure 41 on page 261.  If the project will use any land
from this or any other area which has received LWCF assistance,  compliance
with Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act, as amended, must be accomplished.

Section 6(f) provides that no property acquired or developed with
assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary
of the Interior, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses.
It also requires the substitution of converted lands with other  recreation
properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent
usefulness and location.  The National Park Service is designated by the
Secretary of the Interior to consider approval of Section 6(f) conversion
requests upon submission through the State Liaison Officer for Outdoor
Recreation.  In Missouri this official is Mr. Fred A. Lafser, Director,
Department of Natural Resources, P. 0. Box 176, Jefferson City,  Missouri
65102.

                                138

-------
The draft describes the cultural resources in Greene County and discusses
general impacts and mitigative measures, but does not note any coordination
with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), who is      W—84
also Mr. Fred A. Lafser.  The final statement should evidence the approval
by the SHPO of the completion of compliance by the Environmental Protection
Agency with all mandates pertaining to the identification and protection of
cultural resources.

The DEIS adequately describes wildlife resources within the project area.
In qualitative terms, general impacts to those resources and potential
mitigative measures were also presented.  Because impacts were described in
qualitative terms, comparison of alternatives was difficult to conduct.
Additional quantitative information, such as acres of bottomland forests W~"O&
cleared and number of stream crossings, for each alternative would aid in
comparison of the alternatives.  Once such impacts are quantified,
appropriate mitigative measures can be more readily determined.

To facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, Federal agencies are required to obtain from the Fish and
Wildlife Service information concerning any species, listed or proposed to
be listed, which may be present in the area of a proposed action.
Therefore, we are furnishing you the following list of species which may be
present in the concerned area:
Endangered

                                  Haliaeetus leucocephalus
                                  MiT/\#--4 o rrt*4 a^Cfncmc
                                                                          W-86
Bald eagle                        Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Gray bat                          Myotis grisescens
The draft statement indicates that no caves will be directly impacted by
project implementation.  Although bottomland forests will be cleared with
project construction, it is unlikely that potential perch or roost sites
for the bald eagle will be affected since these bottomland forests do not
occur near suitable food sources.  Therefore, the project is unlikely to
affect the bald eagle or gray bat.

This precludes the need for further action on this project as required
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.  Should
this project be modified or new information indicates endangered species
may be affected, consultation should be reinitiated.

Specific Comments

Page 324, paragraph 1 - This paragraph states that contaminant-induced
     impacts may warrant special consideration.  An increased level of
     plant nutrients is identified as one of the contaminant-induced
     impacts.  Two mitigative measures are defined (specific treatment
     processes and wastewater treatment with land application); however,
     the measures were found to be either too costly or impractical.  No
     practical measures were identified, therefore, will these impacts go
     unmitigated?

                                 139

-------
Page 324, paragraph 2 -  Wastewater disinfected with chlorine was
     identified as the second contaminant-Induced impact warranting special
     consideration.  The draft statement indicates that wastewater
     treatment plants (WWTP) discharging disinfected effluent into the
     Little Sac River or the Pomme de Terre River basins should include   ...  QQ
     measures to mitigate for adverse impacts associated with chlorine    W~OO
     disinfection in order to reduce water-quality-related Impacts to the
     Niangua darter and other aquatic life.  No allowance is made for
     mitigating similar impacts from WWTP's discharging into other river
     basins.

Page 330, paragraph 2-6. Mitigative Measures - This paragraph describes
     mitigatlve measures for the loss of bottomland forests.  The measures
     involve grading of the right-of-way with natural revegetation and time
     of year construction constraints.  We are particularly concerned with
     the loss of bottomland forests and the mitigative measures outlined in
     the draft environmental statement.  Depending upon the amount of
     bottomland forest permanently lost by project implementation, (i.e.
     from plant sitings, etc.) natural revegetation in areas disturbed by
     interceptor line placement may not be sufficient to offset losses.
     However, such a determination as to the appropriate mitigative      W~89
     measures cannot be derived from the information provided in the
     statement.  As a minimum, and as outlined on page 380, interceptor
     lines should be aligned to avoid, to the extent practicable, impacts
     to the bottomland forests.  These corridors should be initially
     revegetated with native grasses and forbs to stabilize the disturbed
     soils and reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation.

                                     Sincerely yours,
                                    >^/-R!-OO-^->
                                     Sheila Minor Huff
                                     Regional Environmental Officer
                                 140

-------
5133 N. Old Highway 13
Springfield, MO 65803
March 23, 1984
Mr. Edward Vest, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
Environmental Protection Agency
324 E. llth Street
Kansas City, MO 64106

RE: EIS Statement, Greene County, Missouri
    Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Dear Mr. Vest:

I have reviewed the statement presented and attended the public
meeting held March 13 in Springfield, Missouri.

I would like to add a commentary to the information and ask why
certain areas were not treated in the study, and why those dis-
cussed, were in some cases, treated in a minimal fashion.

I have contacted a number of state agencies regarding the water
problem on our family farm:  Conservation, DNR, Missouri state
geologist, Missouri Clean Water Commission.

The farm on which we live has been in our family without any change
of hands since my great grandfather settled there in 1867.  He
settled there because he was impressed with the water supply--the
springs and streams which were on the land.

The family farmed this land after his death and it was passed down
to my father.  In 1929 the rape of the land began.  The Springfield
City Water company condemned part of the land for what is now
McDaniel Lake.  My father was paid the grand total of $2500 for
his land, reparian rights and any damages to the property.  The
appointed commissioners who judged the damage evidently felt that
there was little damage as they stated in the proceedings ( as
stated in the abstract) that there would always be water on the
farm, due to the large springs and the fact that water would be
flowing from McDaniel Lake into the stream in an orderly fashion
except in times of flood.

In the 1950's we noticed that something was going wrong.  Fellows
Lake was built just north of McDaniel Lake and the drought of the
50's caused City Utilities to drill additional deep wells in the
area of the lake.  The water table was lowered as we had to drill
                             141

-------
-2-

a deeper well; many of our neighbors also did the same.   Since
that time, there has been a decrease of water in the stream.   Each
year there has been less water in the stream as City Utilities has
impounded more water.

My husband and I built a new home on the property in 1977 and we
have observed what has happened since then.   The summer  of 1983
was not classified as a drought year and yet no water was released
from McDaniel Lake during the summer months  and the only water in
the river was what had been trapped in small pools.  Earlier in
the spring when water was flowing, fish had  come over the dam.
They were left trapped in the pools to die in the stagnant water.
We reported this to the Conservation Commission who wrote to the
City Utilities.  There was no response from  CU and no water was
allowed in the river.

It seems that City Utilities has the best of two worlds—they are
able to hold the water back as long as they  need it, but when rain-
fall occurs and they have flooding and run-off upstream, they
suddenly release the water.  Because a continuing stream channel
has not been maintained, our lands are flooded.

We have been denied a water supply by City Utilities and now the
City of Springfield enters the picture.

We have had water in the South Dry Sac River, although it was badly
contaminated by effluent from the Northwest  Treatment Plant.   It
is impossible to complain about having effluent removed  from the
river.  We have complained many times about  the odor and condition
of the water, particularly since Litton Industries and the airport
industrial area were put on the Northwest Plant.  However, when
the trunk line is built and the effluent is  diverted down that line,
and the City Utilities continues to hold back water at the Fulbright
Spring area, we will have very little water  left in that river.

We realize the quality of water will be improved down stream once
the new treatment plant is working, but we are concerned IF there
will be water coming down the river.

In discussing the easement crossing our property, Mr. Schaefer, from
City of Springfield brought up another concern.

The Fulbright landfill has been leaching into the river since it
was built.  The city intends to take the liquids out of the Fulbright
landfill, treat the liquid, and put down the stream before the
new treatment plant is built.  Then the city proposes to purchase
a temporary easement across our property to pass the liquids from
the Murray landfill to the old plant for treatment and then down
the river.
                             142

-------
-3-

If we have a Northwest Treatment plant which is already overloaded
and inadequate to handle the waste which is now being placed in it,
how can it handle safely the hazardous wastes from the Fulbright
and Murray landfills?  If this occurs during the summer of 1984,
we are going to have even more contamination in this river.

Our farm with b.oth Sac Rivers running through it, is an area
where many people from Springfield come to picnic and fish,
where wildlife are plentiful, with blue heron living down stream
only a short distance.  How will the wildlife,  the public, the
residents be protected?

I fail to understand how EPA can give permission for the construction
of the new Northwest Treatment Plant when no statement has been
given from City of Springfield on how this waste matter is to be
treated and how the public will be protected.

In the EIS I noticed one reference from DNR regarding waste
materials which are in both landfills, but since so little was
said about the types of wastes, I can only assume that you are
not too sure what is located in those landfills.

As I said, in the beginning of this letter, we have two concerns:
will we have water crossing our farm and will we and the public  W—90
be protected from transportation of hazardous wastes as the water
or liquid in the temporary pipes crosses the property or is disposed
in the Sac River.

I did not feel that the condition of the decreased water supplies
and possible contamination problems were addressed in depth in
the Environmental Impact Statement and I am asking for your response.
Sinqerely,
Helen Murray White
I
                             143

-------
-JZf

-------
M
  r.
                                       gfpw
                                     APR 0 2 1984
                                 JENV  SECTION
                a.
*f a
                                 u> Q er-

                    145

-------
                                                                     _s
                                                              :    'y  ,.'      *
                                                                          v
— M
               , , JL

-------
     Responses to Written Comments

W-l.   The additional  and more  current  ground water  quality  data pre-
       sented underscore  the need  for  the proposed projects  in Greene
       County.  Increased nitrate concentrations may indicate contamina-
       tion by excessive or poorly timed nitrate fertilizer applications
       or  livestock  operations,  as well as domestic wastewater.   Other
       water quality parameters,  such as fecal coliform and fecal strep-
       tococcus  bacteria  and  chloride,  can  be  analyzed  to  better
       indicate the  source(s)  of contamination.   Nitrate concentrations
       are  often  reduced as  a  stream  flows  through  an  impoundment
       because  of  algal  uptake  of  plant  nutrients,   which  include
       nitrate.

W-2.   Comment noted.

W-3.   Comment noted.

W-4.   A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-5.   Mention of  the  New Madrid earthquakes  of  1811-1812  is  primarily
       of historical interest.  Design and construction practices relate
       to  the Seismic  Risk  Map  of the U.S.,  referenced  by  the  BOCA*
       Basic  National  Building Code and AASHTO**  Standards.   The  Draft
       EIS covers seismic risk satisfactorily for design and the general
       public.   The  risk  zone,   acceleration,  and intensity  are  taken
       from the risk map.  Three epicenters near the study area are also
       identified.

W-6.   A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.
   Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.
   American  Association of  State  Highway and  Transportation Officials
                                 147

-------
W-7.   A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-8.   It  is  true  that  potentiometric surface  data  remains valid  for
       only a short time, particularly in areas of urban growth.   Unless
       a specific  study  has  been made, a potentiometric map  is  usually
       not available.  The 1974  study (published in 1978) is the  most
       recent known  to be available  for the  planning  area.   The  MDNR
       Division of Geology and  Land  Survey does  not  have updated  in-
       formation to  revise the  map,  and updating the map  is  not within
       the scope of this  EIS  study.

W-9.   Corresponding revisions to the Draft EIS are noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.   The study findings by Mr.  Bush were  consistent
       with the information presented in the Draft EIS.

W-10.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-ll.  Topographic base  maps are  often helpful, but were  not used for
       the Greene  County EIS because of the scale required to cover the
       planning  area,  the  reader  audience,  and  budget   and  schedule
       constraints.  To  provide  meaningful detail,  a   topographic  map
       scale  of one-half  that  of  quadrangle  sheets  would  be  needed.
       This would  result in a planning area map size of  about 28" x 40",
       which  is impractical  for this EIS.  The Draft EIS  utilized  maps
       from  the  Facilities   Plan  to  illustrate subarea  alternatives.
       Because  of schedule  and budget constraints,  the  production of
       different or  improved  subarea  maps for the EIS was not efficient
       or  justified.   Topographic maps were used  in  assessing  environ-
       mental impacts of the alternatives.

W-12.  A bedrock map of the planning area would be of limited usefulness
       because  of  the  availability   of  specific  engineering  geologic
       reports  at  the alternative  waste  disposal  sites,  and the scale
                                 148

-------
       required  to  cover  the  planning  area.   The site  investigations
       were conducted  by the MDNR  Division of Geology and  Land  Survey
       and the site  reports  for  each subarea are  included  in  the final
       Facilities Plan.   Also,  to provide meaningful detail,  a  bedrock
       map scale of  one-half that of quadrangle sheets  would be  needed.
       This would result in a planning area map size of  about 28"  x 40",
       which is impractical for this EIS.

W-13.  Figure  2  shows  the  regional  physiography of the  planning  area in
       the  context  of  the physiography  of the  State  of Missouri  and
       immediately adjacent  areas of  other states.  The  physiographic
       divisions  within Missouri are  those shown  in  MDNR  Division  of
       Geology and Land Survey publications.   Where local  physiography
       is  significant  to specific project  alternatives,  this has  been
       indicated  in other  portions  of the Draft EIS.  Further detail on
       physiographic   maps  of  the  overall  planning  area  would  be  of
       little  additional value.

W-14.  The  Greene  County  Facilities Plan  and EIS  are of  county-wide
       scope,  encompassing several  communities,  numerous  project  alter-
       natives, and many sensitive environmental factors.   The length of
       the Draft  EIS  was commensurate with these conditions.   The  Greene
       County  Final  EIS summarizes  and  incorporates, by  reference  much
       of the  information  of the  Draft EIS, and is thus not as lengthy.

W-15.  See response to comment  W-ll.

W-16.  One map cannot cover the engineering geology and  soils properties
       for the entire planning area.  Soils engineering  properties,  as
       they  affect  wastewater   treatment   facilities,   are  given  in
       Table A-l  of the  Draft  EIS.   Figure 8 of the DEIS shows general-
       ized septic  system soil limitations  for the planning  area,  and
       DEIS Figures A-l, A-3, A-5,  A-7,  A-9, A-ll, and A-13 show addi-
       tional   detail  of septic system  soil limitations  for individual
       subareas.

       Also, see  response to  comment W-12.
                                 149

-------
W-17.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-18.  EPA agrees  and encourages improved on-site  system  management in
       the planning area.

W-19.  Corresponding revisions to the Draft EIS are noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-20.  Tabulations  of construction materials,  design life, and  energy
       costs were  not specifically  included  in the  EIS,  but are  very
       much  reflected in the  cost-effective  analyses conducted  during
       facilities planning and summarized in the Draft EIS.  Operational
       energy comparisons of the central collection and treatment alter-
       natives  are presented   in  the  final  Facilities Plan,  and  the
       proposed  alternative  for each subarea was the  most energy effi-
       cient or among the most energy efficient.  Further extraction and
       tabulation  of   this   information  for  the numerous  alternatives
       considered  are not  warranted since  such tabulations would  not
       reveal meaningful  differences  that are not  already  shown  by the
       cost comparisons.

W-21.  The detail of the EIS base maps is appropriate for the large area
       and planning nature  of  the study.  Since the facilities  planning
       alternatives pertain  to  outlying  areas of Springfield and to the
       surrounding  communities,  additional  detail  on  streets  within
       Springfield would be of little value.

W-22.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-23.  The costs of replacement water supplies (or additional treatment)
       for  the  City  of  Springfield  pose   very   complex  hypothetical
       questions.   Costs  would  depend  upon  the  nature and degree of
       contamination,  which of the City's various sources were affected,
                                 150

-------
       treatment process applications,  and  alternatives for new sources
       of supply.  Water supply planning for the City of Springfield is
       based upon protecting the quality of existing sources, conserving
       and efficiently managing  these  sources,  and providing additional
       new sources  when needed.  The proposed  Greene  County Facilities
       Plan  actions  are consistent  with the protection of  ground  and
       surface  water  supply  resources  (and associated public  health
       protection) in the planning area.

       Planning by the  City of  Springfield in  the  late 1970's  resulted
       in the  new James River  intake  and Blackman Plant and the James
       River-Fellows Lake  pipeline.   Seventeen  interim  (2  to 20  years)
       source and management  alternatives  were  screened or  evaluated in
       the planning that led to  these James River water supply projects.
       Four  long-term  (beyond the year  2000) water supply  alternatives
       have also been identified:  Table Rock Lake, Pomme de Terre Lake,
       Stockton  Lake,   or   a  new County Line  Reservoir.   A long-term
       source yield  of  40  MGD would be adequate to about the year 2025.
       A new long-term source  would  supplement, not  replace,  existing
       sources.  Early results of an ongoing Corps of Engineers study of
       these water  supply  alternatives  indicate the Table  Rock Lake or
       County  Line  Reservoir alternatives  to  be  less costly than  the
       other two.  A preliminary estimate  of the present worth cost of
       water  supply  storage  in Table  Rock Lake,  and a pump  station,
       booster pump  station,  and pipeline to deliver  40 MGD  to Spring-
       field is about  $76  million.   A  comparable figure for County Line
       Reservoir storage with open channel transmission down the James
       River is $87 million.

W-24.  Neither  the  proposed  projects   nor  general  development   in  the
       planning  area  will  reduce  total  surface  water flows.   Water
       quality and  runoff  flow  rates  will be  affected  as  discussed in
       the Draft EIS.  Proposed  discharges  would increase base flows of
       some  streams and would meet  water quality requirements for agri-
                                 151

-------
       cultural  use.   The  projects  generally  benefit  the  quality  of
       ground and surface water resources.   Future water supply develop-
       ments and their impacts  on agricultural  or other water  uses  are
       not within the scope of this EIS.

W-25.  Section II of  the  Draft EIS presents a  summary  of  environmental
       conditions in  Greene  County,  and  is not  an indictment of  the
       effects of human development.  Both Greene County and  the City of
       Springfield have  zoning regulations  which  control  the  type  and
       density  of  developments according  to various environmental  and
       other planning  considerations.  The goals and objectives of  the
       local  governments  are  presented  in  their  comprehensive  (or
       master) plans.   Also, see response to comment W-31.

W-26.  The  facilities planning stage  and the associated EIS  are nearly
       complete.   Funding  by  the  September 30,   1984  deadline   also
       depends  upon  completion and approval of detailed  design,  local
       financing arrangements, and grant funding availability in accord-
       ance  with the  State  of  Missouri's  priority  list of  eligible
       wastewater  projects.   The  outlying  unsewered  communities   in
       Greene County are  unlikely to  meet these requirements and obtain
       grant funding before September 30, 1984.

W-27.  The  "industrial development" category includes  commercial activ-
       ities  and does  not differentiate  between  "heavy"  or  "light"
       industry.   Significant  industrial  development  already  exists
       within the Springfield southern system, and the EIS impact analy-
       sis  does  not  infer that  the nature  of additional  industrial
       development with  the proposed projects  would be different.   The
       impact matrix  indicates  that sewer service could make some  areas
       more  attractive  for  industrial  development,  such  as  commercial
       strips,  shopping  malls, and industrial  park  type industries, if
       other development  factors  are  favorable.  Similarly,  residential
       land uses may  also be stimulated and predominate over industrial
       use.   Industrial  development  in  areas without  proper wastewater
                                 152

-------
       disposal  facilities  can  cause serious  problems,  such as  those
       experienced at  Litton Industries  (Draft EIS, p. 78,  par.  2)  and
       the suspected  industrial source  of  trichloroethylene contamina-
       tion  of  well  water  at  Republic (Draft  EIS,  p. 92,  beginning
       par. 5, line 5).

W-28.  The -1  impact  indicates  the  projects would have  minor negative
       impacts  on Springfield's  financing  ability.   The proposed  new
       Northwest  Treatment  Plant  is high  on  the  State of Missouri's
       priority  list  for grant  eligible wastewater treatment projects.
       In  addition  to  grants  and  general  obligation  bonds,   other
       potential  methods  of  financing   include  revenue  bonds,  special
       assessments, and tax bills (see Draft EIS,  pages 158-164).   Funds
       collected  from  user  charges and  allocated for  "replacement"  may
       also be available.

W-29.  See  response   to  comment  W-14.    The  Council  on  Environmental
       Quality (CEQ)  guidelines pertain to a final EIS, not a draft EIS.
       The Greene County Final EIS summarizes and  incorporates by refer-
       ence  much of  the information  of the  Draft EIS  and  meets  the
       intent of CEQ guidelines.

W-30.  No response required.

W-31.  EPA encourages  improved on-site system management in the planning
       area,  but  does not agree that federal  funding of the proposed
       projects should be contingent upon  the adoption of a  recommended
       regulatory  management  system  by  Greene  County.   Greene  County
       does  not  have  primary  responsibility  for  the  proposed projects
       for the various communities of the planning area,  and  it would be
       inappropriate  and  environmentally   damaging   to   delay  needed
       projects pending  an  ideal on-site system  management  program  for
       the County.  Also,  Greene  County,  the City of Springfield,  and
       Strafford  already  have  important   on-site  system  control  and
       management elements  in place.
                                 153

-------
       In addition to its role in wastewater facilities planning,  Greene
       County regulations,  administered by the Building,  Planning,  and
       Zoning Department and the Zoning and Planning Commission,  require
       all subdivisions  in  unincorporated  areas  with lot sizes of three
       acres or less  to  have central wastewater  collection and disposal
       systems.    The  County  requires  professional  certification  of
       on-site treatment system sizing to obtain  a building permit.   The
       Greene County Planning  and Zoning  Commission has  authority  to
       control development  in sensitive areas, such  as  a December 1982
       ruling that  would not  allow  septic systems  at a  proposed  sub-
       division development  in  the McDaniel and  Fellows Lake watershed,
       and  required all  wastewater  generated  to  be removed from  the
       watershed.

       City  of  Springfield  subdivision  regulations  require  central
       collection sewers in all new developments.   The City of Strafford
       passed an  ordinance requiring all on-site  treatment systems  for
       new  construction  to  comply  with  testing,  design, and  review
       provisions before issuance of  a building permit.

W-32.  The  "vacant" designation  for the  Springfield vicinity is  that
       used  in  the  referenced  1976  Springfield  Planning and  Zoning
       Department study of land use by transportation zones.  This study
       combined agricultural land,  water,  and  truly vacant  land  into
       this  category  because  further  separation  was  not useful  for
       traffic  study  purposes.   For   the  EIS  study,  estimates  of
       agricultural  land,  water,  and  vacant land  areas of  the  entire
       planning area  were  made  as  presented and explained  in  the Draft
       EIS,  p.  185,  Table 24.   These  areas  include the  land   in  the
       immediate  Springfield vicinity  that is  further detailed as  to
       land use in Table 25.  The phrase "in or near Springfield"  refers
       to  the  "immediate Springfield vicinity"  as defined in the  1976
       transportation  zone  study  and  the Draft  EIS:   "The City  (of
       Springfield)  itself  plus  a  ring of land about two to three miles
                                 154

-------
       wide  around   it,   including   Battlefield,   Brookline,  part  of
       Willard, and unincorporated areas."  Information to better define
       the  irregular  and non-specific boundaries  of  the transportation
       zone study is not available.

W-33.  This statement  is  a  policy or goal for planning  and zoning pur-
       poses.  EPA  has no  jurisdiction  over land  use,  and  the  inter-
       pretation and  administration  of  such  zoning matters  are  deter-
       mined  by the   Greene  County  Court  through  the Department  of
       Building,  Planning,  and  Zoning  and  the   Zoning  and  Planning
       Commission.

W-34.  See the response to W-32 for the meaning of "vicinity."  EPA does
       not  agree  that  70  percent   of  the  land  in  the  referenced
       Springfield  vicinity  being  undeveloped   necessarily  indicates
       either  too  large  an area  for workable  planning or  sprawling,
       low-density development.  On  the  contrary,  land use  planning for
       outlying  areas  is   important  to  prevent adverse  environmental
       impacts and  other problems that  result  from  diffuse,  unplanned
       development.    Properly  planned development  of  increased density
       has many advantages,  one  of which is  to reduce the loss of farm-
       land.   EPA  has found that  the proposed  projects are  needed  to
       serve existing  development  and growth areas,  and are  compatible
       with proper land use planning.

W-35.  See the response  to  comments  W-33 and W-34.  EPA finds that the
       proposed  projects  will  help  to protect   planning  area  water
       supplies  and  that  the  EIS   presents  adequate   evaluation  of
       indirect impacts upon land use.

W-36.  EPA has no jurisdiction regarding the  Greene County Comprehensive
       Plan  and  its  administration; however,  goals  and policies  for
       agricultural preservation  are prominently stated  in  the Compre-
       hensive Plan.   As  discussed   in  the  Draft  EIS,  EPA  finds  that
       direct  impacts on  agricultural  lands  because of the  proposed
                                 155

-------
       projects will  be  small.  These  impacts include those  areas  re-
       quired  for  treatment  facilities,  pump stations,  interceptors,
       force mains,  and  sewers.  Land  can still be farmed  after  being
       crossed by a  sewer or  force main.   See  the  response to  W-34
       concerning indirect impacts on agricultural lands.   Agricultural
       land use impacts  from  the  proposed projects are more significant
       at  the local  level;  impacts  at  the  national  level  will  be
       negligible.

W-37.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS  is noted in Section III
       of  the  Final EIS.  Avoiding  construction  in  sensitive geologic
       settings  (areas  underlain by caves or other  features  of  Karst
       topography) is by  far  the  most effective  mitigation measure (see
       Draft EIS  pg.  325,  par.  3  and 5).  Given  the  widespread occurr-
       ence of Karst  topography in  the planning  area,  some rock removal
       impacts  on  caves,  springs,   and  other underground  systems  are
       unavoidable.

W-38.  Although EPA (for federally funded projects) and the local waste-
       water management agencies have authority to control specific land
       uses  including  vegetation types  on permanent  sewer right-of-way
       easements,  the individual  landowners  primarily  determine  these
       uses.   Since  there are significant costs  in keeping  such right-
       of-ways clear,  they may be  left unmanaged and return  to  their
       natural state  unless there  is specific incentive to keeping them
       clear.

W-39.  See the response to comment W-14.

W-40.  See the response to comment W-31.

W-41.  See the response to comment W-37.
                                 156

-------
W-42.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of  the Final  EIS.   (The  EIS  recommends  avoiding  construction
       across  known sinkholes  and losing  portions of  streams.   Other
       mitigating  measures  apply  only if  avoidance is not  feasible.)

W-43.  No response required.

W-44.  The water quality parameters listed are subject to natural varia-
       tion,  but,   except  perhaps  for  nitrate,  should otherwise  not
       change  appreciably.   A corresponding revision to Table  7  of the
       Draft EIS is noted in Section III of the Final EIS.

W-45.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-46.  Noted.  No response required.

W-47.  In addition  to  stream  impacts,  ground water quality  and socio-
       economic  (cost)  impacts must be considered.  Also,  see  response
       to comment W-74.

W-48.  EPA is  aware of  the  high costs in unsewered communities  and that
       approval  of  the  proposed  projects does  not assure federal  and
       state  grant  funding  or local  funding.  EPA  is currently  con-
       ducting  a study  of   financing  alternatives.  The  decisions  on
       local  funding  ultimately  lie  with the  citizens and  their  per-
       ceptions of the severity of the problem and their willingness to
       pay.

       Several communities have voted  recently on sewer  bond issues.   In
       February 1984,   Willard  voters  passed  general   obligation  and
       revenue sewer bonds with 81 percent in favor; Walnut Grove missed
       the margin  needed for  general  obligation bonds  by  seven votes,
       but passed revenue bonds; and Fair Grove missed  the  margin needed
                                 157

-------
       for  general  obligation  bonds  by  30 votes,  but passed  revenue
       bonds.  Battlefield  voters  turned down a proposition  to  upgrade
       its  status  from a village  to  a  fourth class  city, which would
       have  provided  additional bonding capacity.   Plans  for  a sewer
       bond issue have  been delayed pending another attempt to pass the
       fourth class city proposition.

W-49.  Additional minor impacts to  the water quality and aquatic ecology
       of  the  Wilsons  Creek  and  James River  system will result from
       adding Brookline, Battlefield,  and  Strafford to the service area
       of  Springfield's Southwest   Plant.   The total  20-year projected
       average  dry  weather  flow  of  0.93 MGD  for  these communities  is
       small compared to the waste loads and  capacity  at  the Southwest
       Plant.   Current  average flow  to the  Southwest system  is about
       25.4 MGD (17.0 MGD dry weather  flow) and is  projected to increase
       to  35.7 MGD  (26.8 MGD  dry  weather  flow) by the year  2005.  The
       average  day  design   flow  of  the existing  facility  is  30 MGD.
       (Refer to  p.  210,  Table 29  of the Draft EIS.)  The addition of
       wastewater from  these communities will  have little  net effect on
       the  receiving  streams.  In  this  case  it is preferrable  to add
       moderate  amounts of  additional  effluent  to  a stream  already
       impacted by  effluent  than  to  add effluent  to  a stream not cur-
       rently affected.

       No  municipalities  use  Wilsons Creek  or the  James River  as  a
       potable water  supply  source between Springfield and  Table Rock
       Lake.  Most  effluent  discharge  nutrients  that  reach  Table Rock
       Lake  are  likely  to  be trapped  in   the  reservoir  sediments.
       Nutrient removal was  considered in the 1974 Waste Load Allocation
       Study Report  of Wilsons Creek and the James  River, but  was not
       required  in the upgrading   of the  Southwest  Plant  and  is not
       required  to  meet current effluent permit limits.   The following
       is excerpted from the  1975 report:
                                 158

-------
            #  Nutrients  -  The James River  is highly  enriched by
            nutrients  discharged  by the  Southwest Plant.   Algal
            growth  exceeds  natural  levels   and  is  limited  by
            physical  factors  rather than  nutrient  availability.
            The  most  logical   approach  to  limiting algal  growth
            would be removal of phosphorus from the effluent of the
            Southwest  Plant.    Although   the   tertiary  treatment
            presently being  implemented will  have little effect on
            nutrient  concentrations  in  the receiving  stream,  the
            plant  could  be  further  upgraded  to provide phosphorus
            removal by the addition of mineral salts.  The effluent
            phosphorus concentration could  be  reduced to less than
            1.0 mg/1 for a  total estimated cost of $50 per million
            gallons, or approximately  one-half million dollars per
            year.   There  is no  criterion  for  phosphorus contained
            in the Missouri Water Quality Standards, and the extent
            to which phosphorus reduction would reduce algal growth
            in  the  receiving   waters  is  indeterminate except  by
            experimentation.  The extent to which fish productivity
            might be affected is also indeterminate."


W-50.  No  spills  should  occur at  the  new  Northwest  treatment  site.

       Excessive  wet  weather  flows  would  overflow  to the  stream  via

       designed  overflow  facilities.  Landfill  leachate collection  and

       treatment  is  planned as  part of the construction  of  the Little

       Sac River interceptor  (refer to  comment W-3  by R. R. Schaefer,

       Superintendent  of  Sanitary  Services,  City  of  Springfield, and

       Section II-D of the  Final EIS which discusses  the  landfills  and

       proposed Springfield northern system facilities).


W-51.  See response to comment W-42.


W-52.  Corresponding revisions to the Draft EIS are noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.


W-53.  See response to comment W-4.


W-54.  Corresponding revisions to the Draft EIS are noted in Section III

       of the Final EIS.


W-55.  See response to comment W-5.
                                 159

-------
W-56.  Corresponding revision  to  the Draft EIS is  noted  in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-57.  Corresponding revision  to  the Draft EIS is  noted  in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-58.  Corresponding revision  to  the Draft EIS is  noted  in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-59.  Corresponding revision  to  the Draft EIS is  noted  in Section III
       of the Final EIS.  Also, see response to comment W-12.

W-60.  See response to comment W-42.

W-61.  Orderly planning to meet  future demands  and  discharge require-
       ments  with  environmentally sound alternatives  is  the purpose of
       facilities  planning for the  Springfield southern  system and the
       related  EIS evaluation.   Upgrading  of  the  Southwest Treatment
       Plant  in  the mid-1970's dramatically  improved  the water quality
       of  Wilsons  Creek  and  the  James  River  and  the  recommended
       Facilities Plan approach should help to maintain and improve upon
       these  gains.   The  20-year  facilities planning  period  and the
       county-wide  scope  of  the plan  are  intended  to  avoid short-
       sighted, inefficient, and  uncoordinated decisions.

W-62.  See response to comment W-ll.

W-63.  See response to  comment W-12.

W-64.  See response to  comment W-16.

W-65.  See response to  comments W-ll and W-12.

W-66.  See response to  comments W-14 and W-29.

W-67.  See response to  comment W-8.

                                  160

-------
W-68.  Such  research  was  an  important  part  of  the  Greene  County
       facilities planning process.

W-69.  Sewers are  one of  several  important factors  that  influence (or
       follow) growth patterns.

W-70.  Comment noted.

W-71.  The Draft EIS  explained  the Draft Facilities Plan status at that
       time,  and  it  is  hoped  the  interchangeable  use  of the  terms
       "Facilities Plan"  and "Draft Facilities Plan"  in  some  instances
       did not cause confusion.

W-72.  "Land  application"  is  a  widely  used  term  in both  instances.
       "Land treatment" is  also  widely used to mean  a  method  of waste-
       water treatment.   The Facilities Plan generally used "land appli-
       cation" in  regard  to wastewater treatment;  and, for consistency,
       the EIS also uses this term.

W-73.  Comparative costs for the Fair Grove land application alternative
       were presented on p. 256,  Table 36 of the Draft EIS.

W-74.  According to the MDNR Division of Geology and Land Survey report
       on  the  alternative  land  application  sites  at  Fair Grove,  "a
       moderate  to slow  permeability is expected  from the silty clay
       soils and low  rate application of 12 to 18" of water per year is
       suggested forv initial planning purposes."   (As  indicated in the
       Draft EIS discussion, the facilities plan design used an applica-
       tion  rate of  15  inches  per  year.)   The  low  application  rate
       results  in  the  need for  a  larger  application site, which in-
       creases  costs.   In addition,  costs  of a  storage  basin  to hold
       wastewater during-cold and  wet weather are substantial.   A stor-
       age  basin  with  5-1/2  months  holding  capacity  at the  average
       design  flow of  0.249 MGD  would need  to  provide  126 acre-ft  of
       storage.   The  facilities  plan  design  is for  a  12.6  acre basin,
                                 161

-------
       resulting in  a  design water  depth of about  10 feet.   Membrane
       lining of the basin  is  provided to prevent excessive  percolation
       and ground water contamination,  in accordance  with MDNR require-
       ments.  While there have not been particular public objections  to
       land application alternatives at  Fair  Grove, actual negotiations
       of agreements for  long-term  use of private land for this purpose
       may be  difficult  and could  very well result  in objections.   If
       land were to be purchased  for the application  site,  costs  would
       be higher  than  those presented in the  cost-effective  analysis.

       Land  application  is a  technically feasible and environmentally
       acceptable alternative for Fair Grove, but costs appear unfavor-
       able  compared to  other  acceptable alternatives.  A very similar
       situation exists at  Walnut  Grove.   Fair  Grove, Walnut Grove,  and
       other unsewered communities  in  the planning area may  not be able
       to  implement  their  proposed wastewater  treatment projects  for
       some  time  and  community conditions,  funding   alternatives,  and
       technologies could change.   Land application or other  appropriate
       alternatives should  not  be  ruled out,  but should be re-evaluated
       as conditions warrant and more experience is  gained concerning
       alternative collection and treatment systems.

       In general, Greene County has various adverse  conditions for land
       application in  the form of low permeability and fragipan soils,
       sinkholes,  shallow bedrock,  steep slopes,  losing streams,  and
       less  than  ideal climate.  Each potential site must  be examined
       and  evaluated  as  was  done  for  the  Facilities  Plan  and  EIS
       evaluations.

W-75.  Comment noted.

W-76.  See response to comments W-14 and W-29.
                                 162

-------
W-77.  EPA  does  not agree  that the assumptions used  in the population
       forecasts are poor.   While  more sophisticated methods (not those
       suggested in this comment) for population forecasting exist, they
       are  not  necessarily better.   The  ability  of  all  methods  to
       accurately  (within a  reasonable error)  predict future population
       depends on the assumptions made, the availability of relevant and
       reliable information, and on the forecast period.  The assumption
       that what  has occurred  in  the past  will probably occur  in the
       future  is  not poor,  certainly  not for  the planning area.   The
       assumption  implies  that population growth  will  continue  at its
       current and .past  rate.   It  also implies that economic conditions
       and  the factors  shaping  them will be  similar to  the  past.   We
       have no information  suggesting that future  growth  rates  will be
       different.  Given the long-term (30 year) stability of population
       growth  rates  in  this  area,  the  past  serves  as  an  excellent
       indicator  of  future population  trends.   Had  there been  less
       consistency in the historical record,  forecasts based on the past
       would be more tenuous.

       The  planning  area  population  projections  developed  for  the
       Facilities  Plan  and  EIS  were compared with at  least four other
       independent  projections  and  were  "middle  of  the  road."   The
       planning  area  projections were also within  the  allowable  devia-
       tion from the State control  totals.

       EPA  feels that the planning area and  subareas themselves are the
       best model  of an  "area that has  gone  through  similar  develop-
       ment,"  and  trying  to find another similar area  on  which to base
       projections would be  of no  value.  EPA has  no  jurisdiction over
       local land use or other means to set and govern growth.

W-78.  See response to comment W-48.
                                 163

-------
W-79.  See response to comment W-ll.

W-80.  The  cost-effective  analyses for  all  the subareas  are conducted
       and  presented  prior  to consideration  of grant  eligibility  and
       potential grant  funding.   This provides  an  objective comparison
       of  alternatives.   Grant  funding  is  considered later  in  deter-
       mining   user   cost   estimates   for   the   most   cost-effective
       alternative(s) .

W-81.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is  noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-82.  Comment noted.

W-83.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is  noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.   Required mitigation measures are discussed in
       the Executive Summary of the Final EIS.

W-84.  Letters from the MDNR Division of Parks and Historic Preservation
       are  included  in  this  section  following   the  written  comment
       responses.

W-85.  In  accordance  with subsequent  communications  between Mr.  Lorenz
       of EPA and  Ms.  Huff,  required mitigation measures for protecting
       bottomland  habitat  and preventing  erosion and sedimentation are
       further  specified  in  the   Executive  Summary  of  the  Final  EIS;
       however,  quantification of  bottomland  impacts is  not required.

W-86.  Comment noted.

W-87.  These  impacts  will go  unmitigated.  Also,  see  response  to com-
       ments W-49  and W-74.
                                 164

-------
W-88.  The only proposed  projects  that involve discharge to other river
       basins  are  those  that  route  wastewater  to  the  Springfield
       southern system.   As described  in the Draft  EIS,  Springfield's
       Southwest  Treatment  plant  already provides  ozonation  to  avoid
       impacts  that  would  be  associated  with  chlorine  disinfection.

W-89.  Little  bottomland forest  would  be  permanently  lost by  imple-
       mentation  of  the  proposed  projects.   Also,  see  response  to
       comment W-38.

W-90.  In negotiating a temporary pipeline easement, the City of Spring-
       field reached an agreement with the Whites  that allows the Whites
       to tap  onto City  Utilities  raw water supply  line  from McDaniel
       Lake  to the  Fulbright Plant,  and purchase  water  at  a nominal
       rate.   This  will  provide  the White farm with  good  quality water
       during low flow periods and mitigate the loss of Northwest Treat-
       ment Plant effluent in this reach of stream.

       Also,  see response to comment W-50.

W-91.  A corresponding revision to the Draft EIS is noted in Section III
       of the Final EIS.

W-92.  See response to comments W-14 and W-29.

W-93.  See response to comments W-14 and W-29.
                                 165

-------
o
                                               Response to comment W-84.
             August 11, 1983
  CO
  LU
  O
  O
  CO
  LU
      o
  Z) ^
      lO
  0
CM
O
LO
•O
  <°
  111  8
  Qg
       o
      o
  O
  CO  g
  CO m
      Q
      Q."
Dr. Lloyd R. Young
Di rector
Center for Archaeological Research
Southwest Missouri State University
Springfield, Missouri  65804

Re:  Proposed Northwest Interceptor and  Treatment  Plant  Project  (EPA),
     Springfield, Missouri;   CAR-589

Dear Lloyd:

In response, to your letter dated 9 August  1983,  the  Historic  Preservation
Program has reviewed the June,  1983 final  draft  report entitled  "An
Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Northwest Interceptor and
Treatment Plant, City of Springfield,  Greene  County,  Missouri" by Jack
Ray and Burton Purrington.  Based on this  report,  it is  evident  a
thorough and adequate cultural  resource  survey has been  made  of  the
project area and we find the draft report  to  be  acceptable.

In respect to the investigator's recommendations,  we concur with the
recommendations outlined on  pages 63-64  of the draft report.   If at
all possible, the proposed project should  be  redesigned  to avoid
archaeological sites 23GR532, 23GR533, 23GR535,  23GR536  and 23GR537.
If this is not feasible, the following course of action  is strongly
recommended.  Sub-surface archaeological testing of  the  aforementioned
archaeological sites potentially eligible  for inclusion  in the National
Register, should be initiated with the results submitted to the  Missouri
Historic Preservation Program and to the Keeper  of the National  Register,
Washington, D.C. to ascertain eligibility  for inclusion  in the National
Register.  This process is stated in 36CFR Part  63 Determination of
Eligibility for Inclusion in the National  Register of Historic Places.

In the event these sites are determined  eligible,  then the appropriate
course of action as outlined in the Advisory  Council  on  Historic
Preservation's regulation Protection of  Historic and Cultural  Properties
36CFR Part 800, Section 800.4 should be  implemented.
  Christopher S. Bond   Governor
  Fred A. Lafser  Director
                           166
                                        Division of Parks and Historic Preservation
                                        John Karel  Director

-------
Dr. Lloyd R. Young
August 11, 1983
Page 2                                          Response  to comment W-84.


Pending completion of this process, no action should be taken that would
affect consideration of alternatives to avoid or satisfactorily mitigate
any adverse effects on archaeological  sites 23GR532, 23GR533, 23GR535,
23GR536 and 23GR537.

If I can be of further assistance, please call or write.

Sincerely,

DIVISIONxOF PARKS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Michael S£ Weichman
Chief, Review and Compliance

MSWrkld

cc:  Terry Timmons
                              167

-------
o
  CO
  LLJ
  O
  ID
  O
  CO
      o

  ID§
   0S
       to
       CO
   <0
       
-------
B.   PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comment(s)

H-l to H-3
H-4

H-5

H-6 and H-7

H-8 and H-10

H-9


H-ll
                     Public Hearing Comments Index
Name
Sherry Kensinger
James Edwards

Glenn Dillon

Helen Murray White

Darrell Lawson

Randy Clarkson


Thomas Lorenz
Aeenc\
Citizen/Greene County
Wastewater Facilities
Plan Citizens Advisory
Committee

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Citizen

Missouri Department of
Natural Resources

U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
                                 169

-------
 1                       UNITED  STATES  OF AMERICA

 2                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 3

 4 I   In re:

 5 I        Public Hearing on Draft EIS
           for Greene Comity Wastewater
 6 |        Facilities Plan

 7
 8                                 Auditorium,
                                   Springfield Art Museum,
 9 '                                1111 East  Brookside,
                                   Springfield, Missouri,

                                   Tuesday, March 13,  1984.

                The public  hearing in the  above-entitled matter

      was convened, pursuant to notice, at 7:00 o*clock p.m.,
   I
      Tim Amsden presiding.
14
      BEFORE:
15

16
   I
                TIM AMSDEN, Director  of Special Projects, Environ-
                            mental Protection  Agency,  324 East
   ,                         Eleventh  Street, Kansas City, Missouri
   1                         64106, Region  VII.

                TOM LORENZ, Project Officer, Environmental Protec
20 |                         tion Agency, Region VII, 324 East
                            Eleventh  Street, Kansas City, Misaour
21 I                         64106.

22 |             ROGER JUNGCLAUS, Project Coordinator,  Sverdrup an
                            Parcel, Incorporated,  801  North
23 j                         Eleventh, St.  Louis, Missouri 63101.

24

25

                                  170

-------
                          £ 0 N£E N££

 2    OPENING REMARKS  BY:                                PAGE

 3    TIM AMSDEN                                           3

 4    TOM LORENZ                                           4

 5    ROGER JONGCLAUS                                      9
 6

 7    STATEMENT

 8    SHERRY KENSINGER                                   22

 9    JAMES EDWARD                                        23

 10    GLEN DILLON                                         26

      HELEN MURRAY WHITE                                  29

      DARRELL LAWSON                                      32

      RICHARD WELCH                                       39
 14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19

 20

 21

 22

23

24

25

                                    171

-------
 i
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                                        3
                    £E2££l.P.l.S.G.s.
          HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  On the record.
          Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Tim Amsden and I
am your Hearing Officer tonight.  I ant Director of Special
Projects for the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
VII Office in Kansas City, Missouri.
          Tonight, March 13, 1984, we are holding a public
hearing in the Springfield Art Museum auditorium to take
public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the proposed wastewater treatment facility in Greene
County, Missouri.  This hearing is being held pursuant to
the requirements of Section 102 (2) (c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations promulgate!
pursuant thereto.
          If you wish you may submit comments on the Draft
EIS in writing from now until March 26, 1984.  If you wish
to provide written comments between now and March 26, 1984,
please send them to the attention of Ed Vest, V-e-s-t,
Chief, Environmental Impact Section, U. S. EPA, Region VII,
324 East Eleventh, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
          If you didn't get that address it is available
inside the EIS or Cathy, at the door, can give it to you
or any of us, after the hearing.
          If you have any questions about the Draft EIS or
anything else related to this process or the proposed
                              172

-------
                                                              4



 i    wastewater  treatment  facility, after  the meeting,  the man on



 2    nay right, his name  is Torn Lorenz. L-o-r-e-n-z, and he is the



 3    project  officer.  He  is  a representative of EPA.   His plume



 4    number in Kansas City, Missouri, is 816-374-5593.



 5              I would also like  to introduce Roger Jungclaus of



 6    Sverdrup and Parcel,  Incorporated, the contractors who  pre-



 7    pared the EIS.  He»s  on  fay left.



 8              Your remarks are being recorded by a court report-



 9    er, so as we get into the hearing please begin your remarks



10    by identifying yourself  and  speaking  clearly into  the micro-



11    phone on this side.



12              Some of you filled out cards, indicating your de-



i3    sire to  make a statement and I will ha\e those in hand when



14    we get to the public  comment period and I will go  through



15    them one at a time  and I will call on each of you.  If  you



16    haven»t  filled out  a  card and you would like to make a  pub-



17    lie statement Cathy,  who is  at the table outside the room,



18    this door over here,  will be glad to  provide you with one.



19    After we have gone  through the cards  we will see if there



20    is anyone else who  wants to  make a statement.



21              Prior to  opening it up we will hear from Tom


22
     Lorenz and  Roger and  then we will open it up to the public.


23
     We will  start with  Tom.


24
               MR. LORENZ:  Good  evening.


25
               My name is  Tom Lorenz and I am the project officer


                                     173

-------
                                                             5



 1    for the Greene County Environmental Impact Statement.  I am



 2    a representative of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agene



 3    Region VII, located In Kansas City, Missouri.



 4              You may follow this and Mr. Jungclaus»s presenta-



 5    tlon on the handouts you received when coming in.



 e              NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act of



 7    1969 requires an Environmental Impact Statement on any



 8    major federal action that can significantly affect the en-



 9    vironment.  Approving the Greene County wastevater facility



10    plan and subsequent design and construction was deemed such



11    an action.  The scope of the plan, that is being a county-



12    wide facility plan, the amount of interaction and inter-



is    municipal agreements demanded by this type of a planning



14    process, amongst eight different communities, the sensitive



!5    water resources in Greene County, the fact that Greene



16    County is built on a divide and must pump a lot of its



17    water, particularly Springfield is built on a divide, must



18    pump a lot of its water uphill into the city and as a con-



19    sequence of Chat their tuastewater flows downstream, down-



20    hill, and has a potential to contaminate their water re-



21    sources.  The fact that this county is largely built on a



22    Karst plain, Karst being a geological term used to describe



23    areas that are characterized by losing streams, caves, sink-



24    holes and underground water channels, the archaeological



25    resources that occur along some of the waterways in this



                                   174

-------
                                                              6


 x    county and  other environmental  features,  the effects on fu-


 2    ture development in  this county and  the existing problems


 3    of  Inadequate wastewater treatment and the number  of failing


 4    septic tanks in the  county, and the  socio-economic cost and


 5    impacts on  the local residents, the  impacts of all of  those


 e    particular  factors were considered in this Environmental


 7    Impact Statement.


 8              The Environmental Protection Agency has  gathered


 9    data from all sources known to  us, at the time, and to our


10    contractor  and presented them in an  Environmental  Impact


11    Statement as a disclosure document to help the federal,


12    state and local officials make  the decisions that  are  best


13    for the future of this county.


14              The EIS was prepared  concurrently with the


15    facility plan in an  effort to try and cut down on  the  cost


16    in  terms of time.  Generally speaking, when we prepare an


i?    Environmental Impact Statement,when  a facility plan is al-


18    ready standing in place, it takes us 18 months from the time


19    the facility plan is in our hands to come back with an


20    Environmental Impact Statement  and to follow through the


21    whole process.


22              The communities cannot carry on in the Federal


23    Grant process and receive federal monies  until after the


24    Environmental Impact Statement  process is finished and a

oc
     decision has been made.


                                   175

-------
                                                             7



 i              Consequently, by doing a concurrent Environmental



 2    Impact Statement we can finish that process within about



 3    six months from the time the facility plan is in hand.  At



 4    this point the final facility plan for Greene County has



 5    just been distributed.



 6              A little bit of history here.



 7              The initial facility plan grant was given by the



 8    Environmental Protection Agency in February of 1979.  The



 9    EIS notice of intent was published in July of 1980 and an



10    environmental study report was prepared by our contractors,



11    as part of the EIS, and it was submitted to the advisory



12    committee and to county and state officials on January of



13    1981.  The draft facility plan development included a public



14    participation program and in that program there were pub-



15    lie meetings, questionnaires, news media releases and


16    citizen advisory and committee activities and technical



17    coordination with federal, state and local interests.



18              The draft facility plan publication and public



19    hearings were held in July of 1983.  Sverdrup and Parcel


20
     produced a preliminary draft Environmental Impact Statement



     for internal review by EPA and the Department of Natural


22
     Resources in October of 1983.  The draft Environmental


23
     Impact Statement was published and distributed in February

24
     of 1984.  We are now at the point where we are having the

25
     draft EIS hearing, March 13, 1984.  Our next step will be


                                    176

-------
                                                              8


 :     the,  our receiving the  final  facility  plan.  That has  al-


 2     ready taken place,  it took  place  on Monday of  this week and


 3     the next step we will take  after  this  public hearing is to


 4     consider all comments that  have been made  on the draft


 5     facility plan, make modifications and  changes  in the EIS,


 e     where they  are necessary, and then publish a final facility


 7     plan,  excuse me, a  final Environmental Impact  Statement whicji


 8     will  address the comments that were made.  It  will provide


 9     the changes that were necessary and also contain the


10     transcript  of the  public hearing.


11              Thirty days after that  has been  standing and pub-


12   •  licly distributed we will issue a record of decision,  which


13     will  be the Environmental Protection Agency»s  decision on


14     whether or  not they approve of the proposed actions.   If


15     we approve  of the proposed  active the Environmental Protec-


16     tion  Agency will fund those actions with grant monies,  as


17     they  are available.


18              vlf you will take  a  look at Page  3 of the handout


19     you received there  is a map of the planning area included


20     in the Environmental Impact Statement.  This map shows


21     existing and proposed public  wastewater facilities,  service


22     areas, some of the  pipelines  and  other geographical  features
23
     that will be of interest to us this evening you will note
     that a small portion of Christian County that is immediately


25
     adjacent to GreeneCounty, which amounts to about 34 square



                                   177

-------
                                                             9
 i    miles, is also included in this.

 2              Those areas that are not included in the Environ-
 3    mental Impact Statement, at this point, are Ash Grove, that

 4    part of Rogersville that is in Greene County and Republic.
 5              How, the planning area includes all of Greene
 6    County, except those areas that I mentioned.  Originally nir

 7    subareas were designated for facility planning.  They were
 8    Springfield, Battlefield, Brookline, Fair Grove, Republic,
 9    Strafford, Walnut Grove, Willard and the unincorporated
10    low growth areas cf the county.
11              The Republic subarea has recently been withdrawn
12    from the EIS to expedite implementation of the recommended
13    draft facility plan there, due to the possibility of a la-
14    goon collapse inthat area.

15              I will now turn the rest of this over to Mr. Jung-
16    claus who will go into some detail and the individual alter-
17    natives that were considered and some of the factors that
18    helped make those decisions.
19              VSR. JUNGCLAUS:  Thank you, Tom.
20
               As Tom explained, my name is Roger Jungclaus with

     Sverdrup and Parcel.  Tom explained the EIS process and
22
     where we are and briefly how we got there.  I would just
23
     like to give you an overview of the EXS analysis that was
24
     conducted.
25
               First I will talk about in general terms the

                                  178

-------
                                                              10



 1    basic  facilities  plan and alternatives  that were analyzed



 2    for  this EIS and  note the major environmental factors that



 3    played on  these various  alternatives on a case by case basis



 4    Then I will discuss  briefly the eight subareas in the EIS



 5    and  the alternatives and the impacts that were the findings



 6    of the Draft EIS.



 7              If you  will turn to Page  5.



 8              The principal  alternatives that were addressed



 9    during the facilities planning  process  were a no action al-



10    ternative, and in this case there were  serious deficiencies



11    for  many of the subareas because of existing problems of



12    on-site disposal  systems or inadequate  existing treatment



is    sy s terns.



14              Upgrading  on-site disposal systems is an alterna-



is    tive for those communities that are not  presently sewered.



16              Then central collection treatment and disposal



i?    alternatives were addressed and auch of the decision making



is    revolves around the  different alternatives within this broad



19    category.   The types of  collection  systems for unsewered



20    communities, whether gravity or pressure or vacuum collec-



21     tion systems.  Economics are a  key  factor here.  The extent



22     of a given subarea that  can be  served.   Again, economics



23     play the vital role.



24               The  alternative treatment systems and goingright



25     along  with that the  alternative discharge pints of the



                                  179

-------
                                                             11


 i    various streams or the places on the stream where die dis~


 2    charge might be placed.


 3              Oftentimes the treatment requirements will differ


 4    because of the nature of the stream and this has a big effect


 5    on the type of treatment system and the cost of that treat-


 6    ment system.


 7              Land application was evaluated for the various


 8    subareas where central collection and treatment was con-


 9    sidered and also regionalization alternatives serving more


10    than one community with a central or a combined treatment


11    and disposal system.


12              Those are the basic alternatives that we have


13    looked at.


14              Row, if you will turn to the next page I would


15    like to talk about the very significant, the major environ-


16    mental factors in the Greene County area that played an


17    important part in the determinations on the alternatives.


18              Certainly, as Tom explained, the water resources


19    are limited and are very sensitive in Greene County.  Los-


20    ing streams are common.  These are streams where a good


21    part of the flow goes underground.  The connection between

cycy
     surface water and ground water is very close and compli-


23    cated.


               Oftentimes streams are water quality limited.


     That means standard treatment is not good enough to meet


                                  180

-------
                                                              12



 !    the  water  quality requirements  of  the  streams.   They have  a



 2    limited capacity to accept pollutants, so that  additional



 3    treatment  has  to be provided.   Ground  water  quality is  criti



 4    cal  because  of the use  of  this  for wells  and relating to



 5    species that inhabit the underground environment and, again,



 6    the  potential  for pollution because of the close surface and



 7    ground  water connections and this  relates to Karst  geology,



 8    which Tom  touched upon.  These  first three are  very closely



 9    connected, between, you know, ground water and  surface  water



10    and  geology.



11              Water supply  watersheds  are  of  critical impor-



12    tance.   Again, the water resources are limited  and  with the



13    development  pressures around Springfield  and the sensitivi-



14    ties of the  water supply,  both  quantity and  quality,  it is



15    a  very  critical issue.



16              Archaeological resources are another  very major



17    factor. Greene County  is  rich  in  both historic and pre-



18    historic archaeological resources  and  many of these are



19    located along  the streams  which were impacts from waste-



20    water systems, you know, are concentrated.  There are



21     several rare and endangered species of wildlife.  The



22     Niangua Darter which is found in the Sac  River  basin


23
      streams.  This is the drainage  to  the  north, that goes  to



      the  Osage  River.  The Sac  River and east, really.  The


25
      Pomme DeTerre  River is  a stream with important  populations




                                   181

-------
                                                             13


 i    of the Niangua Darter, which is listed as rare by the


 2    Missouri Department of Natural Resources and considered


 3    threatened by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  It is


 4    a small bottom-dwelling fish.


 5              Several species, cave-dwelling species or under-


 6    ground species, the blind cave fish, the blind crawfish and


     the blind salamander are significant.


               Riparian habitats, those important wildlife re-


 9    sources along streams are important.


10              Efficient patterns of development, seeing that


11    development proceeds in an orderly manner that the community


12    can serve efficiently.


13              Certainly very important are the cost impacts on


14    the residents, the socio-economic impacts.
15
17
               Now, if you will turn to Page 7, we have listed
16    the subareas, Springfield, Battlefield, Brookline and so
     forth and the major alternatives that were evaluated for
18
     these factors that I just talked about.



               The proposed projects are those with an asterisk


20
     and the other ones listed are alternatives that were


21
     evaluated.


22
               Very briefly I would like to go through these


23
     and explain what some of the highlights of the findings

24

     were.

25

               for the Springfield subarea, various improvements


                                   182

-------
                                                              14



 1    and expansion  facilities are noted here.   Inflow and in-



 2    filtration  to  the existing system is a major  problem,  both



 3    to the  Springfield northern system, which  is  tributary to



 4    the Northwest  Treatment Plant and to the southern  system,



 5    which is  tributary to  the  Southwest Plant,  so one  of the



 6    recommendations  is a further study to locate  these areas of



 7    excessive flows  that overload the plant during wet weather.



 8              On the southern  system, major new facilities



 9    would include  the Pierson  Creek  interceptor and  an extension



10    of the  previously proposed interceptor.  This  would  benefit



11    water quality  in the James River and Lake  Springfield,



12    serving areas  that are now unsewered, but  are  developing



13    quite rapidly, prime development areas.  It would  have  some



14    adverse impacts  in that archaeological resources and ira-



15    pacts on  bottom  land habitat would be significant.   In  these



is    cases proper mitigation would serve to ameliorate  or reduce



n    the impacts.



18              The  Thompson Branch trunk is another sewer line



19    that would  be  on the James River watershed  near  Lake Spring-



20    field.  It  would improve the quality of the James  River and



21    Lake Springfield and reduce problems from  future develop-



22    ment, as  well.



23              Moving to the Northwest Treatment Plant  — the



24    Southwest Treatment Plant,  at this point, does not require



25    any major improvements.  It is basically doing a good job



                                   183

-------
                                                             15


 i    in meeting effluent standards aoat of the time.


 2              The Northwest Treatment Plant does require major


 3    improvements.  The current plant is overloaded and it is


 4    not really designed to meet the water quality limitations


 5    that are now Imposed.  This Sac River which it discharges t<


 6    the Little Sac River, is a water quality limited stream and


 7    improvements in water quality are needed to meet the water


 8    quality standards in that stream.


 9              Several basic alternatives were evaluated.  Up-


10    grading the existing plant and two new sites, potential


11    new sites.  The selected alternative is a new site called


12    the Murray site, about five miles downstream.  It would


13    involve an interceptor from the location of the existing


14    plant down to the new plant and some significant impacts on


15    archaeological resources would be related to that intercept


16              Another interceptor — let me say about the North-


17    west Plant, the Murray site.  That is the site of an exist-

1 n
     ing landfill, but the treatment plant would not be on an


19    area that has been landfilled in the past.  It is owned by


20
     the city of Springfield.


21
               The South Dry Sac Interceptor would also serve

22
     prime development areas in the northwest system.  This woul

23
     be an interceptor extending up the South Dry Sac River from

24
     near where the existing northwest plant is.

25
               Moving onto the Battlefield Subarea.


                                  184

-------
                                                             16



               The selected or proposed alternative is pumping



 2    to the Springfield southern system.  Benefits would be to



 3    water quality, due to the problems of onsite systems, it is



 4    an unsewered area and potential ground water quality, as



 5    well as surface water quality problems from this.  There



 6    would be one archaeological site that would be affected from



 7    the proposed alternative and this would need to be mitigated



 8              Other alternatives that were evaluated included



 9    a treatment plant and discharge to the Indian Springs branch



10    This was a losing stream and also had potential archaeologi-



11    cal impacts.



12              Discharge to the James River.  This is a water



13    quality limited stream.  Essentially Springfield is dis-



14    charging through the Southwest Plant to the James River



15    system, Wilsons Creek and the James River.



16              Of course cost played an important role in these



17    decisions, as well, so generally the proposed alternative



is    was cost effective.  Some of these systems were not cost



19    competitive.  For instance, land application was evaluated,



20    but in the planning area it was found that because of the



21    climate and the storage requirements and the soils and the



22    very low application rates and also geological limitations



23    on putting in holding basins, renewing basins for storage



24    that land application was expensive and was not found to be



25    competitive, even for the smaller communities.



                                    185

-------
                                                             17



 i              A regional facility with Republic and Brookline



 2    was evaluated, but this did not look to be cost effective



 3    and, again, losing streams were involved for the discharge



 4    points.



 5              I will try to go a little quicker now.  I think



 e    you see some of the basic things we looked at.



 7              How, moving on to Brookline, again a regionalized



 s    alternative with pumping to the Springfield southern system



 9    was selected.  Losing streams and poor geology and cost



10    eliminated the other sites.  Brookline is currently un-



11    sewered so this would involve a new collection system to



12    serve a portion of the subarea.



13              Fair Grove, the alternatives involved discharges



14    of the Pomme De Terre basin, several locations.  The



15    selected one is a tributary of the Pomme De Terre and an



16    oxidation ditch and a clarification system is proposed with



17    disinfection.  All of the Pomme De Terre sites would poten-



18    tially affect the Niangua Darter with the direct discharge



19    of the Pomme De Terre being the most, having the most ef-


90
     feet.  Some of the other ones having a lesser effect.



21    Mitigation should be considered, particularly on the chlorii

99
     disinfection, because chlorine is a potentially toxic mater-


23
     ial and effluent to wildlife.  It is required for disinfec-

24
     tion because it is a recreation stream that Is used for


25
     body contact recreation, but consideration should be given


                                  186

-------
                                                              18



 j     to mitigating  those effects  on wildlife with  dechlorindation



 2     or an alternate  disinfection.



 3              Pumping to Strafford was considered for a combined



 4     regionalized system.  This was not found  to be cost effec-



 5     tive and  land  application, as I discussed earlier, was not



 6     found to  be cost effective.



 7              Page 8 lists  the Strafford  subarea  alternatives.



 8     There are quite  a number.  Several involve discharges to



 9     streams that were found  to be losing, Pierson Creek, Davis



10     Creek and Broad  Creek.   Others involved discharge to the



11     Pomrae De  Terre River basin,  the south fork of the Pomme  Be



12     Terre.  This was proposed, one of these discharge sites  was



13     proposed  in the  draft facilities plan.  There was concern



14     about opposition — well, there was opporftion from some  of



15     the residents  on the Pomme De Terre.  There was also concern



is     about impacts  on the Niangua Darter and on some small im-



17     poundments on  the stream and the city of  Strafford decided



18     instead to pump  to the Springfield southern system, which  is



19     now the proposed alternative.



20              There  was another route to  the  Springfield souther^



21     system that involved a gravity sewer  down Pierson Creek.



22     This was  environmentally less attractive  because of the  im-



23     pacts on  the bottom land habitat and  potential archaeologi-



24     cal sites and  inducing development in an  area  that would not



25     be most favorable for development.



                                   187

-------
                                                             19



 i              Walnut Grove, three discharge alternatives were


 2    looked at and all were found to be losing streams and the



 3    Sugar Creek alternative is now proposed.  Additional treat-



 4    ment will have to be provided, because it is a losing stream



 5    In addition to an oxidation ditch, clarificatitmrand chlori-



 6    nation filtration will need to be provided.  Losing stream



 7    requirements are more strict than the general requirements



 s    for streams that aren»t water quality limited or aren»t



 9    losing streams.



10              Pumping to Ash Grove was not found to be cost



11    effective and, again, land application was not cost effec-



12    tive.



13              For Willard the selected proposed alternative is



i4    pumping to the Springfield northern system, got to the air-



15    port interceptor and pump system and then to the Northwest


is    Treatment Plant.  Discharge of the Little Sac River, a


17    treatment plant and discharge of the Little Sac itself was


18    evaluated.  This would be an acceptable alternative en-


19    vironmentally also.



20              Two other streams were found to be losing.



21              The unincorporated low growth subarea was also



22    evaluated in the facilities plan in the EIS and measures to


23
     improve and upgrade surface and subsurface disposal systems


24
     are recommended.  This is important in the Greene County

25
     area, because of the very real problems with the water


                                   188

-------
                                                              20



 !    resources,  the geology and the soils  and management of the



 2    onsite systems is  something that should be  considered by



 3    the  county,  better management.



 4             Modification of  wastewater  systems  to reduce the



 5    load on onsite systems goes hand in hand with good manage-



 6    ment,



 7             So,  in summary,  as Tom said,  the  findings of the



 s    Draft Environmental Impact Statement  are that the  facili-



 9    ties, as proposed, the benefits far outweigh  the adverse



10    impacts and  this takes into account proper  mitigation of



11    those impacts, as  recommended.



12             The  planning process was  conducted  so that there



13    would be timely coordination on environmental impacts in



14    the  facilities plan so we  would get to  this point  and have



is    some concurrence on where  we were headed.   That's  one of



16    the  main purposes  of doing it this  way.



17             Regionalization  was found to  be environmentally



18    sound where  is was economically feasible and  four  communi-



19    ties, Willard,  Brookline,  Battlefield and Strafford, as



20    proposed, would be pumping their waste  to Springfield for



21     final treatment and disposal.



22              Now,  cost to the unsewered  communities would still



23     be very high and many  of these communities  will have diffi-



24     culty financing these  projects.   Each of the  communities


25
      has  elected  to pursue  central collection and  treatment



                                  189

-------
                                                              21



 l    systems, IB some cases scaling down the systems, but costs



 2    will be high and I know the communities and the planners foi



 3    the coosaunities are pursuring ways to try to reduce those



 4    cost  impacts and they have pursued those throughout the



 5    facilities planning process.



 e              We have presented some user charge figures on  the



 7    table on Page 9 and also the table on Page 10.  As you can



 s    see from the table on Page 9 estimates of local user charge!



 9    for the unsewered communities are in the range of $60 a



10    month and up and that is after grant monies have been es-



11    timated in the numbers.  Nevertheless, I understand that



12    several of the communities are still interested in going on



13    They do have some serious problems and they want to get  on



14    with doing the best they can on their projects.



15              These costs on Page 9 are given in terms of 1984



16    and 1985 dollars.



17              The costs on Page 10 and the comparisons with  the



18    EPA»s threshold as to what a high cost project are, are



19    cranked back to 1980 dollars when the criteria was develop-



20    ed, but as you can see, just for comparison purposes, the



21    last column gives the EPA threshold percentage based on



22    median household income, per cent of that income above whic



23    the project is considered high cost.  For instance, Battle-



24    field 1.75 per cent is considered the threshold percentage


25
     and the estimated user cost in 1980 dollars is 2*4 per cent



                                   190

-------
                                                              22


 i              Walnut Grove  is 5.5 per cent, compered  to a  1.5


 2    per cent  threshold  percentage•


 s              So certainly cost will be a  significant  impact.


 4              That concludes my remarks on the over all high-


 5    lights and  findings of  the EIS.


 6              I think now we will try to  get to  the main pur-


 7    pose  tonight, just  to hear from the public.


 8              HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  As I call your name


 9    please come over to the microphone, on my left, and make


10    your  presentation.


11              The first card I have is from Sherry Kensinger.


12                   STATEMENT OF SHERRY KENSINGER


13              MS. KENSINGER:  Well, really, all  I have  to say


14    about it  is, I was  on the Advisory Committee and  I  am glad


15    that we had the chance  to study water quality in  Greene


16    County and  I hope we can protect and  preserve our water for


17    the county.


18              There are a few things on this report that I pick-


19    ed up on  this report this evening that I would like to men-

20
     tion, beginning with Willard.  I mean, beginning  with Wal-


21    nut Grove.

22
               The people at Walnut Grove are currently  trying to

23
     go to a Lockwood form of treatment and I think this should

24                                                               H41
     be looked at again.  I wanted just to mention that.  I am

25
     not involved in that too much, but they feel that that would


                                    191

-------
                                                              23



 i    be the best way to go for their community out there and



 2    they asked me to mention that to you this evening*  I have



 3    a list of those people that I will turn in on the written



 4    statement.



 5              Then the Fair Grove subarea are interested in  lane



 6    application and I dontt believe die Fair Grove citizens  are

                                                                H

 7    really going to want to go with the Pomrae De Terre tributary



 8    discharge.



 9              Once again, at the beginning of the Green County



10    Sewer District Studies I and several people requested Roger!

                                                                H
11    ville be involved and they weren't.  We still feel that  was



12    a mistake and I just want to put it on the record.



13              I would like to thank the EPA for their work on



14    this issue and I hope the Advisory Committee can get to-



15    gether and taake a report jointly on their comments.



16              HEARIUG OFFICER AMSDEN:  Thank you very much.



17              Kext is James Edwards.



18                     STATEMENT OF JAMES EDWARDS



19              MR. EDWARDS:  I am from the Walnut Grove comimin-



20    ity.  I don»t live in Walnut Grove, but I live two miles



21    south on Sugar Creek.  I have mentioned in the meetings  at



22    Walnut Grove how Sugar Creek is a losing stream.  I might



23    add a few facts that weren't brought out before at the



     meetings at Walnut Grove.


25
               When they put the gas or oil pipeline across  the



                                      192

-------
                                                              24
 i     property north of us,  between us and Walnut Grove, they
 2     blasted to put in that line and approximately 150 feet be-
 3     low where the pipeline crosses, when it is not real rainy,
 4     the water goes into cracks in the ground there where they
 5     evidently broke the limestone structure there.  Up to that
 6   point the water had never stopped running down that stream
 7     and I have lived there for 30 years.  After they did that,
 8     when it was not raining, it goes in the ground and every
 9     summer I go up there and I pack in concrete, dirt, rocks,
10     anything I can to try  to get the water to come on down so
11     I can water my cattle.
12               This last summer I installed a plastic pipe for
13     approximately 40 feet  from a slight ledge drop off above
14     where it goes in the ground in order to carry water on down
15     to  water my cattle.
16               This wasn't  brought out in the other meetings
17     there and if I had realized what tremendous impact all of
18     this was going to take place on us and our neighbors down
19     this creek I would have taken pictures showing this.
20
                I asked at those meetings that an onsite survey
      be  made to investigate these places down the stream where
22
      it  goes in the ground.   We received a card in our mailbox
23
      from a geologist at Rolla that he flew over in an airplane
24
      and he observed springs and he saw no place where the water
25
      went into the ground.   I asked for an onsite inspection and
                                   193

-------
                                                             25

 i    even contacting me and I would go with whoever wanted to go

 2    and see this.  On down below me the water goes in the ground

 3              In this draft Environmental Impact Statement, on

 4    Page 373, it plainly states that Sugar Creek is rated un-

 5    acceptable as a discharge stream for their sewer.

 e              It has been brought to my attention in the last

 7    few days that the site for the treatment plant at Walnut

 s    Grove will rest on a place that is cavernous and the sink-

 9    holes, anyway there are holes under there, and I would
                                                               H
10    respectfully ask that this be very thoroughly checked out

11    before permission is given for Walnut Grove to place a dis-

12    charge plant, treatment plant, on this place.

13              Also, on Page 315 of this same book, it makes

14    mention of chlorine being used as a treatment and for

15    additional treatments of sewer plants.  Well, if you will

16    check this page here it tells how chlorine can act as a

17    poison going into the wells and water downstream.

18              Now, down Sugar Creek there, there are approxl-

19    mately, in that length before it goes into Cur Creek, 10

20    families or homes that are supplied by wells and springs

21    in the very proximity of this stream.  There is suggestion
nn
     an alternative going northeast from Walnut Grove an unnamed
23
     creek.  How, if this will be checked out. Walnut Grove does
24
     not want to go the other direction because it is more
25
     expensive, but there are fewer people and families and

                                    194

-------
                                                              26


 !     wells that would be affected  in that direction than there


 2     is  down our way.


 3               Also,  on Page  93  of this  same  draft  Environmental


 4     Impact book it makes mention  of phosphates  and nitrates.


 5     Now,  at one of the meetings at Walnut Grove it was  mentioned


 6     that  nitrates  and phosphates  cannot be screened out or


 7     filtered out of  the water going downstream. So this, in


 s     turn, if you read that page,  tells  the adverse effects  on


 9     health of this going into our well  water and I would re-


10     spectively ask that this Agency consider very  thoroughly


11     these points in  relation to a number of  families living in


12     this  area in relation  going to the  opposite direction   from


13     Walnut Grove.


14               How, I do not  deny  that Walnut Grove needs a


15     sewer, they could really use  it.  I know it is going to be


16     a tremendous expense for them.  As  I look around here to-


17     night I do not see a single person, council, mayor  or


18     citizen of Walnut Grove, that is even interested enough to


19     be  at this meeting to  find  out what the  situation is.


20               Thank  you.


21               HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:   Thank you,  Mr. Edwards.

99
                Next we will hear from Mr.  Glen Dillon.

00
                        STATEMENT OF GLEN DILLON

94
                MR.  DILLON:  I am Glen Dillon,
25
               My experience over 35 years in the water well



                                    195

-------
                                                             27



 i    business started with the assumption that anyone anywhere



 2    in Greene County could drill a well on their property and



 3    get water, that it did not have to be chlorinated to be use



 4    My belief  has not changed.  Me have learned more in the



 5    last 20 years about the moon than we have about the ground



 6    water.



 7              I have been doing some testing on water from



 8    wells, springs and lakes that catch the water from springs

                                                               h

 9    and have corae up with some interesting facts on nitrates.



10              This draft acknowledges the fact that more test-



11    ing needs to be done.  Most of the information on nitrates



12    in this draft were taken from Mr. Vineyards1 book on



13    springs and the last testing was 20 years ago.  In 20 years



14    there have been many houses built in rural GreeneCounty



15    and lots of them on one-acre tracts, yet my testing shows



16    that the nitrate content of surrounding springs has im-



17    proved in the last 20 years.  We have spent money on stud-



18    ies and on investigations, but very little on testing.  I



19    found that the water in the branch next to Fulbright Spring


20
     has less nitrate than the spring.



21              About 50,000 people in Greene County filter theii


22
     sewers through the use of septic tanks.  They do a good


23
     enough job that the use of chlorine is not needed, to drink



     that same water.  However, the sludge has to be removed


25
     and is usually dumped.



                                   196

-------
                                                              28



 l              Over  100,000 people of Springfield drink water



 2    that needs  to be chlorinated to be  pottable.  Springfield



 3    does just the opposite.  They recycle  their sludge and  dump



 4    their affluent  in  losing streams.



 5              My suggestions would be that the next  landfill be



 6    placed in the Springfield water shed.   If Springfield were



 7    to be told  that the only way they could build another land-



 8    fill would  be that it had to be in  their water shed, re-



 9    cycling of  solid wastes would be the main issue  of the  day.



10              Humus is a soft pliable substance that is left



11    from the decomposition of both human,  animal and plant



12    waste.  Humus is the ideal way to filter water to remove



13    nitrates.   Septic  tank laterals should have a coating of



14    humus ladden soil  in the bottom to  filter out nitrates.  I



15    am a firm believer in sewer systems and I am a firm believer



16    in land application.  The recycling of solid waste could



17    furnish, could  move sludge by low pressure steam and pump



18    it to farmland where our water could be recycled. I consider



19    this draft  to be like a computer.   Would you put 20-year old



20    information into your computer, if  you knew that it changed



21    every day?



22              HEARING  OFFICER AMSDEN:   Thank you, Mr. Dillon.


90
               The next speaker is Richard  Welch.  Is Mr.



     Welch here?


25              ,M           v
               (No response.)



                                  197

-------
                                                             29



 i              HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  If Mr. Welch is not pre-



 2    sent and doesn»t want to make a statement that concludes



 3    the cards that have been filled out.



 4              Is there anybody else who would like to make a



 5    statement or ask a question, at this time.



 6              Yes, ma*am, would you step to the microphone,



 7    please.



 8                  STATEMENT OF HELEN MURRAY WHITE



 9              MS. WHITE:  My name is Helen Murray White.



10              I have to say, when we talk about the Murray site



11    for a landfill I have to disclaim that that did not come



12    from our farm.



13              We, unfortunately, are located in an area which



14    is abutting the city of Springfield and the city utilities



15    so that we are in a grip between the two.  Our farm abuts



16    MeDaniel Lake and it also abuts the area by the Northwest



17    Treatment Plant.



18              We have complained about effluent coming down the



19    Sac River for a number of years and I suppose that I cannot



20    complain, now  that the Northwest Treatment Plant is going



21    to be built, but I have asked a question of which I have no


22
     heard an answer and I have not read It in your report and


23
     that is, when the effluent is going to be moved across our


                                                               *
     field, through the trunk sewer, then I donit know how much


25
     water is going to be left in our river and I did not see


                                  198

-------
                                                              30




 1    that addressed in your report.



 2             MR.  LORENZ:   I am aware of the issue and I really



 g    can't tell  you how much it  is going to be there,  you know.



 4    That is  the South Dry  Sac that  feeds down in that area,  it



 5    is  a losing stream. It is  going to be subject to run-off



 6    from the land  and whatever  is released from upstream im-



 7    poundraents.



 8             MS.  WHITE:   I was under the impression  that fur-



 9    ther  on in this  statement, in  this study,  that the state-



10    ment was made  that this was not a losing stream.



11             MR.  LORENZ:   Some parts of it  are upstream where



12    the existing plant is.   One of  the reasons  they are moving



13    that downstream — well, I»ll put it this way.  One of the



14    reasons  they are  building a new plant not only is to ac«



15    commodate increased volume  of waste waters  coming to it,



16    but also to provide a  higher degree of treatment  so that



n    the effluent will be of higher  quality.



is             That's  not going  to answer your question though



19    and I am afraid I can»t really  answer your  question,  as



20    to  how you  are going to provide — I take it you  are inter-



21     ested in water for your cattle?



22              MS.  WHITE:   Naturally,  we are  going to  lose water



23     in  the stream  for the  cattle and because we have  the problem



24     with city utilities at McDaniel Lake and do not have water



25     coming out  there  we envision no water across our  farm and



                                   199

-------
                                                             31


 i    that is quite a problem,


 2              Now, going along with this same question—


 3              MR. LORENZ:  I hate to point a finger at these


 4    guys, but I would take your fight to city utilities, they*ve


 5    got the water.


 6              MS. WHITE:  Well, I see, the city and city utili-


 v    ties are so entwined, one and the other—


 8              MR. LORENZ:  This really is a sticky question.  As


 9    I see it, you are unhappy with the quality of the water


10    coming down the stream and, on the other hand, you are un-


11    happy if we dry it up and there is no water coming down.


12              MS. WHITE:  I realize it is a Catch-22 situation.


13              MR. LORENZ:  Yes, It is.


14              MS. WHITE:  I have also a question about the


15    Fulbright landfill.


16              There is leachate coming out from that landfill.


17    That is going into the stream.  I was under the impression


1    that at least there is water right now, which is helping to

19
     dilute this leachate as it comes down the stream.  I did

20                                                              H-
     not see anything in your report which addressed how the

21
     handling or who is going to be doing what to the handling

22
     of the Fulbright and the Murray landfill.

23
               MR. LORENZ:  O.K.  The reason for that is that

24
     there is some -- O.K.

25
               The facility planners here in town, Hood-Rich,


                                  200

-------
                                                              32



 1     were  the  ones  that  prepared  the  facility  plan. They are



 2     not the ones that evidently  are  going  to  be building  the



 3     Northwest Treatment Plant.   As a consequence of  that  the



 4     plans and specifications  for that  plant have not been fully



 5     jelled yet.



 6               It is my  understanding,  I think if you check with



 7     the city  officials  and city  utilities  that there is some



 8     talk, at  this  point, about laying  a drain pipe,  I believe,



 9     along the interceptor to  pick up the—



10               MS.  WHITE:  That's across our farm.



11               MR.  LORENZ:  To pick up  the leachate.



12               MS.  WHITE:  No.



13               MR.  LORENZ:  Not that.   Wait a  minute, not  what?



14               MR.  SCHAEFER:   The city  is going to attempt the



15     construction of the interceptor  sewer to  install the  leach-



16     ate collection system, which will  eliminate leachate  getting



17     into  the  stream, because  we  recognize-*



18               MS.  WHITE:  Is  that only at Murray landfill or—



19               MR.  SCHAEFER:   No,  it's  not.  It is also at Ful-



20     bright.



21               MS.  WHITE:  All right, thank you.



22               HEARING OFFICER AMS&EN:  Anyone else?



23               Yes, sir.



24                    STATEMENT OF  DARRELL LAWSON



25               MR.  LAWSON:  My name is  Darrell Law son and  I live



                                   201

-------
                                                             33


 i    here in Springfield.


 2              I am just a little bit confused, wondering how


 3    the federal government, the state government and so forth


 4    can allocate money, give a grant to the city of Spring-


 5    field, to build the Northwest Treatment Plant, whenever no-


 6    body abides by the law here.  To explain what I am saying.


     The law says to be eligible for grant money that whenever a


 8    collection system is built everybody within a reasonable


 9    distance of that collection system shall hook onto it.  That


10    is not in force here.                                     H


11              Can anybody tell me how this grant money can be


12    funded until they do abide by the law?


13              MR. LORENZ:  I would believe that you are talking


14    about local ordinances rather than federal ordinances.


15              MR. LAWSON:  Well, the Department of Natural Re-


16    sources, it is right in their regulations that a grantee
17
     must adopt that ordinance and enforce it.  Mow, the city of
18
     Springfield has such an ordinance, but they don*t enforce



19    it.


20
               MR. LORENZ:  We had planned on having a  cepresan-


21
     tative of the Department of Natural Resources here tonight,

22
     but evidently he couldn»t make it.

23
               MR. LAWSON:  Yes, you«ve got one back here.



               MR. LORENZ:  Mr. C Larks on.

25
               Randy, can you help us out on this question?


                                  202

-------
                                                             34



 1    This is Randy Clarkson with the Missouri Department of



 2    Natural Resources.



 3              MR. CLARKSON:  The Clean Water Commission has



 4    adopted certain requirements that cities have  to comply



 5    with before they are eligible for a grant.  We do require



 6    that a city adopt a sewer use ordinance.  The city is ex-



 7    pected to enforce that, but there is little doubt in my mind



 8    to say that every city in the state of Missouri has re-



 9    quired every home within 100 feet or whatever  the ordinance



10    says for every sewer line to be connected would be very   H~



11    naive.



12              In general, in our working relationship with the



13    city of Springfield they have done an exceptional job of



14    complying with the rules and regulations.



!5              I see absolutely no reason for the department or



16    the Clean Water Commission to take the position that they



17    would not be eligible for grant funds.



18              MR. LORENZ:  Thank you.



19              MR. LAWSON:  I guess everybody is entitled to



20    their own opinion, but a 50 per cent hook-up is not even



21    good.



22              I want to ask you something else.



23              In these studies that have been done it says that



     land application is not feasible here for these towns.


25
     Now, go up here to Bennett Springs, which is about an



                                  203

-------
                                                             35
 i   hours drive, and you figure out the amount of visitors that
 2   park and so forth — back in 1979 it was equal to a town of
 3   1,500.  Now, they use land application there.  I think they
                                                                H
 4   shut the park down Thanksgiving, don»t they, and open it
 5   back up about the first of March, about 90 days.  So if that
 6   was a town the town would not need over 90 days storage
 7   through the winter.
 s             Now, there has been a lot of ballyhoo about
 9   Rogersville out here.  Well, the figures that I*ve seen, by
10   the year 2000 Rogersville is going to be about 1,400 or
11   something.  Now, I didn't measure off, outside of a wind*
12   shield measurement, but it looked like Bennett Springs
13   wasn»t using over five or six acres to retmovate all the
14   water.  So, if that was true, maybe Rogersville needs 10
15   acres.  Maybe Strafford out here would need  15 acres and
16   nobody can ever tell me that you can»t rennovate water on
17   an alfalfa patch.  After you go over here to the SC officer
18   Soil Conservation Office, they will tell you how many acres
19   of alfalfa, corn, fescue is a deep-rooted grass, there is
20
     a jlllion acres in Greene County that is suitable for
21    that and a lot cheaper.
22
               Now, another thing that comes to mind, every
23
     time we have a heavy dew, to be ridiculous,  they have to
     bypass the Northwest and Southwest Treatment Plants here,
25
     but Mr. Schaefer will tell you there is nothing wrong with
                                  204

-------
                                                              36

 !    it  because  the  water  is  diluted.

 2             Now,  why  don»t they just  build  a big hole  in the

 3    basin out at Rogersville and  don»t  put  it through any kind

 4    of  a  treatment  plant  or  anything, just  every time it rains

 5    a little bit let  out  some raw sewage.   I  mean, if that is

 6    an  acceptable method.

 7             MR. LORENZ:  We went into some  details  —  let»a

 8    address land application first.

 9             We went into some detail  in the Environmental

10    Impact Statement  concerning the applicability of  planned

n    application in  this area. We have  very good figures on it,

12    we  know what the  rainfall is  in this area, we know how long

13    storage we  have to  provide for it and what the application

14    rates are and the numbers simply are not  there.
                                                                H411
15             You will  note  when  you look in  the EIS  that

16    some  of the communities  require 25  or 30  acres of storage

i^    and some number of  hundreds of acres for  land application

18    at  a  rate of 15 inches per year.  You can only land  apply

19    certain times of  the year in  this area  and even though

20    there may be a  jillion acres  of good grass in this area or

21    alfalfa to  receive  that  it is a matter  of getting that

22    treated water to  those acres  and finding  people that are

23    willing to  accept it.  So far none  of those  instances have

24    been  known  to EPA or to  the facilities  planners in this

25    area.

                                  205

-------
                                                             37



i              There is another limitation in Greene County too



2    that is very, very serious and that is the potential for



3    collapse.  If you will remember some years ago there was a



4    catastrophic collapse of a lagoon down in the central/south



5    part of the state.  In 1968 there was a catastrophic col-



6    lapse of a lagoon in Republic.  This area is underladen witV



7    weak geological structure.  There are underground channels,



8    active subsidence in the area and it makes the possibly



9    of installing a lagoon a very high risk situation and it is



10    certainly not worth what it would take, the EPA feels it is



11    not worth what it would take to accept that as a trade off



12    for the level of treatment that they would get.



13              As far as discharging at high flow rates, sane



14    states have experimented with this, but only in areas where



15    the receiving streams went directly into large streams.



16    I can think of one in Iowa, they require a meat packing



17    plant to hold their waste water in lagoons over a period of



18    time and discharge only in the spring, high run-off period,



19    but they are only two miles from the Missouri River and


20
     it goes down across a flood plain into the Missouri River.


21
     It is not anywhere near analogous to the situations you have


22
     in Greene County, where almost all of your surface water in


23
     this area turns out to be a very valuable resource for the


24
     cities drinking water.


25
               MR. LAWSOH:  I won it disagree with you, that you


                                  206

-------
                                                              38



 1    can have a sinkhole appear  any place.   They had one down in



 2    Florida where it wasn't even ever  considered that it could



 3    happen.



 4              Now,  can you tell me that it can happen under-



 5    neath the Southwest Treatment Plant?



 6              MR. LORENZ:   The  sites for the treatment plants



 7    have undergone geological evaluation for their Integrity



 8    and although I am not  here  to guarantee anything, I can tell



 9    you we try and minimize that risk, as  much as possible, by



10    doing our homework before we approve a site.



11              MR. LAWSON:   You  can make the same kind of a  sur-



12    vey for a land application, sir.



is              Now,  land application is right to the east of us,



14    over here, the Department of Natural Resources.  You can't



15    argue with me on that.



16              MR. LORENZ:   I have been there and I have seen



17    that installation and  I can tell you that there are certain



18    generic differences between the situations used over at



19    Bennett Springs and what you could adapt to this area.



20              MR. LAWSON:   Well, they  cut  it out of the side of



21     a hill.   I have seen it.  I ha-vealso seen Lockwoods up



22     here,  irrigated,  run out on their  golf course.



23               You know this is  right and the law says,  I think



24     it  is  Public  Law 95-200 or  something like that, that says


25
      you are  supposed to prove that it  won't work.


                                   207

-------
                                                             39
i              Now, I»m a taxpayer and I would like Co get some-
2    thing back for ray taxes.  I think, in the first place, be-
3    fore you ever finalize the EIS study is to check in and see
4    whether people are obeying the law or not.
5              HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  Thank you very much, sir.
6              Anybody else like to make a statement?
7              MR. WELCH:  Yes, sir.
8                     STATEMENT OF RICHARD WELCH
9              MR. WELCH:  Richard Welch, landowner, adjoining
10    to the city of the new proposed Murray or new Northwest
11    Sewage Treatment Plant.
12              It is beyond my comprehension that they can even
13    think to be putting a sewage treatment plant in this loca-
14    tion, which is and was a city dump, which to this day still
15    leaks, whatever you want to call it, black sludge into
16    Little Sac.                                                H
17              The area they used for the landfill has never beei
18    reclaimed nor touched.  It smoldered for three to four years
19    Nobody in this room knows what is buried there.  There is
20    proof at the Fulbright landfill that there is toxic metal
21    and something called cydadine acid, but nobody really knows
22
     what is in the Old Murray.  I am saying there could be
23
     methyladian gas or just about anything.  You can drive down
     there this evening and drive a wrecking bar into the soil
25
     and out oozes black pollution.
                                  208

-------
                                                              40



 i             The  only  reason I  can see  the  city to put the



 2    plant  in there is because they own the  land. Three years



 3    ago they tried to sell the land,  no  takers.



 4             I called  personally  the Department of Conserva-



 5    tion,  which buys large tracts  of  land, and asked if they



 6    were interested.  They were  interested,  but  they said  we



 7    could  not touch it  because we  are afraid of  what might come



 8    back on this acreage  in the  future years.



 9             This area,  North 13,  has been  raped since 1935 by



10    the old treatment plant.   They have  three existing  dump-



11    sites.   We have a terrible problem with  the  trash trucks.



12    The city spends money on cleaning Highway 13.   The  existing



is    dump,  which is located six miles  from there, is about  to



14    reach  its limit.



15             Also, to  my knowledge,  Litton  sewage,  Airport  In-



16    dustrial Park,  all  this sewage is pumped from the airport



17    to  Fulbright.   This is ridiculous.   Why  pump is 12  miles



18    across  the vcity to  treat itl   I don't know.



19             Also, is  the city  of Springfield going to get  into



20    the sewer treatment business for  Willard, Rogersville,



21     Strafford, Walnut Grove,  bring all their sewage to  our area


22
      and then treat it?  It doesn»t make  sense.   You would  have


23                                                               *** " ' *~
      more control over smaller plants  at  their home  base than


24    bringing it all to Springfield  and having one great  big



25    fish kill on Little  Sac.  The Fulbright  plant has had two



                                  209

-------
                                                             41



 l    fish kills



 2              Little Sac, which the Hurrays were addressing



 3    earlier, if they shut Fulbright down will be dry.  That»s



 4    a fact.



 5              The only reason the city wants to put this over



 e    here is to put up Ritter Springs flow, which comes out right



 7    where they want to put it, which Ritter Springs belongs to


 s    the city people, it's a park, 300 to 400 acres, beautiful.

                                                               H1

 g    A lake is right opposite this river that they are going to


10    want to put the treatment plant on.  Everybody fishes in it.



11    Nobody will fish in it if you put a sewage treatment plant


12    in there.



is              When I bought my land, which adjoins the city,



14    I checked the records.  The city would reclaim this land.



is    The city would put a park there.  Nothing has happened.



16              There has also been rumors to control the dump,


n    the existing dump, they are going to put this lagoon around


18    it, catch the water, spray it back on there and retreat it.


i9    Another cost to the taxpayers money.



20              The Fulbright treatment plant, which is an exist-



21    ing plant, nobody has developed or built around it for


00
"•    years.


23              The Murray site, which they expect to put the new


24    treatment plant, beautiful homes, people have reclaimed the


25    land, made it look pretty and now they want to turn it back


                                  210

-------
 1
                                                              42
      into a sewage treatment plant.
                They did study earlier a side on Little Sac, over
 ,    by the Conoco quarry.   Nobody builds around Conoco quarry
 o
 4    because it will crack  your foundation.   If they are going to
 5    treat sewage from the  industrial park airport,  which they
 6    want to expand and from Willard, that would be  a very much
 7    closer ll&eation and wouldntt cost all that money to pump it
 8    over jj$ere -<|and treat it and then dump it into the river and
 9    watch it go by right to the same area.
 10              Also, all 1  have seen in the  Springfield paper,
 11    for the last two months, is the fear of Rogersville sewage
 12    in people»s drinking water.
 13              Springfield  is about to make  its limit on their
 14    drinking water.  They  propose a Webster/Greene  County line
 15    dam.  If this is not feasible and never goes Into effect
 16    their water will most  likely come from  Stockton Lake.
 17    Little Sac is Stockton Lake.
 18              You caught me kind of short.   I just  read this in
 19    Sunday's paper.  Where was the Environmental Impact Study
 20    when the Murray farm was allowed to let a landfill right
 21     next to a river, it killed fish for years.  It  still is.
 22               That»s about all I have to say.  I just think it
23     would be a total mistake to put it on the Murray farm,  I
24     don»t know how the city proposes to get to their treatment
25     plant, because you cannot drive on that land if there is
                                 211

-------
                                                              43
 1     any rain,  you will sink to your axle.   There is  an old
 2     bridge that I would presume is ready to collapse and I have
 3     checked with people that have lived in the area  for years
 4     and you just cantt walk on it, it is red clay, plus the
 5     trash under it.   It is very unfeasible.
                I also inquired 
-------
                                                              44


 l     here.


 2               Am I correct, you are talking about a 11 million


 3     gallon plant out there, this new Northwest Treatment Plant?


 4               MR. LORENZ:  Six and a half.


 5               MR. 1AWSON:  Well, your collection system here in


 6     the city of Springfield, on the north side, to use farmer's


 7     lingo, it won't hold ear corn let alone shell corn.


 8               This looks to me like a perfeet example of a man


 9     buying a saddle when he doesn't own a horse.  The plant


10     you've got out there will take care of it in dry weather.


11     In wet weather your 6£ million gallon,  you had better build


12     a collection system and then build a treatment plant.


13               HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  Thank you very much.


14               Anybody else who would like to make a presenta-


is     tion or statement?


16               (No response.)


17               HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  If there is nobody else


18     that wants to make a statement I'll remind you that if you


19     want to send us something in writing, either because of


20     something you heard tonight or because of any other reason


21     please send it to us by March 26, we will hold the record


22     open until that time, and if you have any questions call Mr

oo
      Tom Lorenz.


24               MR. WELCH:  Have you made your decision?


25               HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  We have not.  This is a


                                   213

-------
                                                              45
 1     draft Environmental Impact Statement.  We are looking for
 2
      information and comments, facts that we don't have or didn't
 3     have at the time we made the statement.
 4               MR. WELCH:  Have you made a tour of the site?
 5               HEARING OFFICER AMSDEN:  I have not.
 6               If there are no other comments we will close this
 7     hearing and I thank you all for coming out tonight
                (Whereupon, at 8:20 o'clock p.m., the public hear
 g     ing in the above-entitled matter was closed.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
                                   214

-------
                  CERTIFICATE
     I hereby certify that this is the transcript of

the proceedings held in the following matter:
     Before:

     Title:
   Tim Amsden
Draft BIS for Greene County Wastewater Facllltlefl
Plan
     Case No.j_

     Date:   _

     Place:
   March 13, 1984
  Springfield, Mo.
and that this is a full and correct transcript of the

above referenced proceedings to the best of my knowledge

and belief.
                                   '(Reporter
                         Bernice K.  Jackson Reporting Co,
                         -15 Eat: 63rd Street,
                         Suite ?C<5,
                         Kansas City,  Missouri  6^110

                         (816 ^23-^030)
                      215

-------
H-l.   The Lockwood system is a particular manufacturer's type of center
       pivot spray irrigation system used for land application of waste-
       water.  See response to comment W-74.
H-2.   See response to comment W-74.
H-3.   As  discussed  on  p. 1  of the  Draft EIS,  the  decision not  to
       include Rogersville  considered  that Rogersville was  developing
       its own facilities plan and  is located mostly in Webster County.

H-4.   Several investigations  of  the  Walnut Grove alternative discharge
       sites were  conducted by  the  MDNR Division  of Geology  and  Land
       Survey, but  some  uncertainty  still  exists regarding  gaining  or
       losing receiving stream characteristics:

       The unnamed Turkey Creek tributary north of Walnut Grove has  been
       tentatively  classified  as  gaining,  but if the  field  survey  were
       made during dry weather, it might be classified as losing.   Doubt
       about the stream is further evidenced by this drainage area being
       characterized  as  having  the  highest  collapse  potential  for  a
       lagoon of  the three plant sites evaluated for  the Walnut Grove
       area.

       The  first  two geologic  investigations  of Sugar  Creek (11/10/81
       and  03/30/83)  indicated this  stream was  gaining,  including the
       area  of  the  pipeline crossing and elsewhere  downstream.   A  sub-
       sequent  investigation   (09/19/83)  indicated   that  the  stream  is
       gaining for  approximately one and one-half miles from its head-
       waters (to  approximately one-half mile below the  existing pipe-
       line crossing); in transition between a gaining and losing stream
       for the next one  mile;  and then becomes  losing and remains  that
       way until it reaches Clear Creek.
                                 216

-------
       Considering  the  questions  about  the  classification  of  both
       streams, MDNR  determined (1/16/84 letter of Mr.  Randy Clarkson)
       that the most cost-effective environmentally sound alternative is
       to  construct a  wastewater treatment facility at  the  Sugar Creek
       site.  The selected alternative of the final Facilities Plan is a
       combination gravity  and pressure sewer collection  system  and an
       oxidation  ditch  treatment system with clarification,  filtration
       and chlorine disinfection.  The system is designed to meet losing
       stream  requirements.  EPA also  finds  that the  Sugar Creek alter-
       native  is  the  most cost-effective  ($181,000   equivalent  annual
       cost versus $210,200 for the unnamed creek alternative) means of
       providing  protection of  the  subarea's surface and  ground water
       quality,  including  private  wells   in  the  Sugar  Creek  area.
       Chlorine disinfection will  impact aquatic life in the stream but
       will protect,  not poison, ground water  supply  quality.   Adverse
       impacts, if any,  on ground water quality and local private wells
       are  not expected to be  serious; however, periodic  monitoring of
       potentially affected wells before and after project  implementa-
       tion is  recommended as  a precaution, as  indicated in  the  Exe-
       cutive Summary of the Final EIS.

H-5.   See response to comment W-l concerning nitrate  data.  Essentially
       all  surface water supplies need to be filtered and disinfected.
       Septic  tanks  and  absorption fields do  not remove nitrate  very
       effectively.   Nitrate   can  be  effectively removed  using  land
       application with  nitrogen uptake by certain crops.   Recycling of
       solid wastes  for the  Springfield  area may  certainly  have merit
       and  should  be  further  considered,  but is not  with the  scope of
       this EIS study.

H-6.   See response to comment W-90.

H-7.   See response to comment W.-50.
                                 217

-------
H-8.   See Mr. Clarkson's comments, H-9.

H-9.   Comment noted.

H-10.  The Bennett  Springs  conditions are very different  from  those in
       Greene  County.   See  response  to  comment  W-74 and Mr.  Lorenz's
       comments H-ll.

H-ll.  Comment (by EPA's Mr. Lorenz) noted.

H-12.  See response to comment W-50 concerning the landfill leachate and
       Section II-D  of  the  Final EIS which discusses  the  landfills and
       proposed Springfield northern system facilities.

H-13.  With regard to the final Facilities Plan and EIS, only wastewater
       from Willard would be routed to Springfield's Northwest Plant for
       treatment.   Strafford  wastewater would be  treated  by the South-
       west  Plant  and  Walnut  Grove  would  provide  its  own  treatment
       facility.  Facilities planning  for Rogersville is not within the
       scope of this EIS.

H-14.  Ritter  Springs  Park facilities  are  on  forested  higher ground
       across  the Little  Sac River and upstream of the Northwest treat-
       ment plant Murray site.  The park facilities are not right on the
       river and the forested areas will minimize adverse visual impacts
       during  the recreation season.
                                 218

-------
                            LIST OF PREPARERS

          This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Sverdrup &
Parcel and Associates, Inc., for the U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VII, under Contract 68-01-5995.  The technical analyses
were performed by or under the direction of the following persons:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri  64106
(816) 374-5593
     Thomas Lorenz                 Project Officer
     (succeeded Linda Kirkland)

Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
810 North Eleventh Street
St. Louis, MO  63101
(314) 436-7600
     Joe Leindecker, AICP
Project Manager; 6 years experience
as project manager or project coordi-
nator of EISs on wastewater treatment
facilities; B.S., M.S. (Transportation)
     Roger Jungclaus,  P.E.
     (succeeded Jim Chiesa)
Project Coordinator; Environmental Engineer
B.S. (Civil/Environmental Engineering)
16 years experience
     Keven Blair
Environmental Engineer
B.S., M.S. (Civil Engineering
5 years experience
     Luis Ortiz
Land Use Planner, Demographer, Economist
B.A., MA (Geography/Economics)
5 years experience
                                 219

-------
Murray Meierhoff
Aquatic Ecologist, Water quality analyst
B.A., M.A. (Aquatic Biology)
6 years experience
Ralph Seeger, CPGS
Geologist
B.A. (Geology)
37 years experience
Roger Stojeba
Terrestrial Ecologist
B.A., M.S. (Zoology)
6 years experience
Tom Schwartz
Graphics
B.A. (Design)
5 years experience
Dale Tolentino
Graphics
2 years technical school
13 years experience
Virginia Carothers
Denise Morris
Carol Bardelmeier
Word Processing
                             220

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
    EPA 907/9-84-003
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOWNO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
         Final Environmental Impact Statement:
  Greene County Sewer District Proposed Wastewater
  Treatment Facilities, Greene County, Missouri
             5. REPORT DATE
               June,  1984
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
 Thomas  F.  Lorenz
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  Region VII
  324  East llth Street
  Kansas City,  MO  64106
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                68-01-5995
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  Region VII
  324 East llth Street
  Kansas City,  MO  64106	
             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                Final EIS
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
        This final environmental  impact  statement addresses the social,  economic, and
   natural environmental impacts  potentially resulting from implementation of the pro-
   posed comprehensive wastewater treatment facilities presented  in  the  Wastewater
   Facilities Plan for Greene County,  prepared concurrently with  this  document.   The
   Greene County planning area for these studies was divided into subareas,  including
   the City of Springfield, six outlying communities, and the remaining  unincorporated
   area.

        Impacts of the recommended alternatives were generally found to  be beneficial,
   particularly to surface and ground  water quality and efficient land use planning.
   Mitigative measures are required to reduce adverse environmental  impacts,  including
   damage to riparian habitat and archaeological resources, potential  problems in sink-
   hole, losing stream, and landfill areas, stream sedimentation,  and  erosion.  Cost
   impacts to residents in presently unsewered areas will be great,  despite efforts
   to reduce them.  Cost impacts  for residents of the sewered areas  of Springfield
   will be moderate.  Four of the outlying communities propose to deliver wastewater
   to the City of Springfield for treatment.  This regionalization was found to be
   environmentally and economically sound.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                              b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COS AT I Field/Group
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
     Release unlimited.  Copies  are avail-
   able from performing organization at no
   charge until supplies are  depleted.
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
    Unclassified
                           21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
    Unclassified
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------
                                                        INSTRUCTIONS

   1.   REPORT NUMBER
        Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.

   2.   LEAVE BLANK

   3.   RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
        Reserved for use by each report recipient.

   4.   TITLE AND SUBTITLE
        Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
        type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
        number and include subtitle for the specific title.

   5.   REPORT DATE
        Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
        approval, date of preparation, etc.}.

   6.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
        Leave blank.

   7.   AUTHOR(S)
        Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.).  List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
        zation.

   8.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
        Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.

   9.   PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
        Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.

   10.  PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
        Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.

   11.  CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
        Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.

   12.  SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
        Include ZIP code.

   13.  TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
        Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.

   14.  SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
        Leave blank.

   15.  SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
        Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as:  Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
        To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.

   16.  ABSTRACT
        Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
        significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.

   17.  KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
        (a) DESCRIPTORS -  Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
        concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.

        (b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
        ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.

        (c) COS ATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject  Category List. Since the ma-
        jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
        endeavor, or type  of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
        the primary posting(s).

   18.  DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
        Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
        the public, with address and price.

   19. 8.20. SECURITY  CLASSIFICATION
        DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.

   21.  NUMBER OF PAGES
        Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.

   22.  PRICE
        Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)                                       & U.S. Government Printing Office: 1984—766-382/5220 Region No. 6

-------

-------

-------

-------
United States                        Environmental Review
Environmental Protection              Region 7
Agency                             324 East Eleventh St.
                                    Kansas City, Mo. 64106
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300

-------