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
------- |