v>EPA Environmental Fin<
Middle East Fork Area
Clermont County, Ohio
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:
5WFI
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Middle East Fork
planning area in Clermont County, Ohio is provided for your information
and review. This EIS has been prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the subsequent regulations prepared
by the Council on Environmental Quality and this Agency.
Upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, a 30-day comment
period will begin. Please send written comments to the attention of
Harlan D. Hirt, Environmental Impact Section, 5WFI, at the above address.
After the close of the comment period, a Record of Decision will be
provided to all who received the Final EIS.
I relcome your participation in the EIS process for the Middle East Fork
nning area.
Valdas V. Adamku
Regional Adminis
rator
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MIDDLE EAST FORK PLANNING AREA
WASTEWATER TREAT ME NT SYSTEMS
CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO
Prepared by
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
with assistance from
ESEI, Inc.
South Bend, Indiana
August 1984
Appr
Valdas V. Adaiscui
Regional Administrator
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
{ ) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Final Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
1. NAME OF ACTION
Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Public Law
92-500) established a uniform nationwide water pollution control
program. Section 201 of the Act established grants for planning,
design, and construction of water pollution control facilities.
The Construction Grants program has been an important impetus for
planning improved wastewater collection and treatment facilities
within Clermont County.
The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority (OKI) ini-
tiated area-wide, wastewater management planning and published
the Regional Sewerage Plan in 1971. OKI further developed waste-
water planning for specific watershed areas identified in the
Regional Sewerage Plan and published the Facilities plan for the
Middle East Fork Planning Area in 1976.
In the early part of the decade, the need for upgraded and ex-
panded sewage collection and treatment facilities was recognized
by the County and the Villages in order to meet proposed effluent
discharge limits and to accomodate anticipated growth in the
planning area. Frequent bypassing of sewage from area collection
systems was a major problem, in addition, residents in unsewered
areas were reporting malfunctions of on-site disposal systems
-------
which were increasing
nuisance conditions.
concern over possible health hazards and
The Clermont County Sewer District submitted the Plan of Study
to carry out specific facilities planning for the Middle East
Fork watershed in 1978, which was subsequently approved in 1981.
The Villages of Batavia and williamsburg participated in the fac-
ilities planning efforts with the County as the lead grantee.
The USEPA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on October 1, 1980. The major issues to
be addressed in the EIS were the environmental impact of sewage
bypasses from existing sewer systems; low stream flows in the
East Fork of Little Miami River which could require advanced
treatment (AT) for all effluent discharges downstream of Harsha
Lake; the impact on Harsha Lake of continuing the upstream ef-
fluent discharges; high costs associated with constructing sewers
to serve unsewered residential areas; continued utilization of
on-site sewage disposal systems in certain areas; and preserva-
tion of historic and archaeological resources.
The preparation of the EIS was to occur concurrently with facili-
ties planning in order to facilitate the development of an envir-
onmentally acceptable alternative and to insure expedient prepar-
ation of the EIS document.
The Draft Middle East Fork Wastewater Facilities Plan was pub-
lished in May 1982 by Balke Engineers, consultants to the Cler-
mont County Sewer District. The improvements proposed included
upgrading the Williamsburg WWTP to AT {BOD510 mg/1, SS 12 mg/1,
NH3-N 1.9 mg/1, p 1 mg/1), the Batavia WWTP to AT (BODs20
mg/1, SS 20 mg/1, NH3-N 3 mg/1), and the Amelia-Batavia
(Am-Bat) WWTP to AT (BODs20 mg/1, SS 20 mg/1, NH3~N 3 mg/1,
P 1 mg/1). The Bethel WWTP would be phased out and its collec-
tion system connected to the Am-Bat system. Also, certain un-
sewered areas would be sewered based on a preliminary cost-ef-
fectiveness analysis.
Following the publication of the Draft Facilities Plan, a number
of supporting studies were completed, public comments were re-
11
-------
ceived, and implementation conditions changed. These resulted in
revisions to the Draft Facilities Plan. Table 1 lists the major
supporting documents and revisions completed after the Draft
Facilities Plan.
The Final Recommendations and Surface Water Quality documents
(Table 1, Items 5 and 6) were produced in response to comments
that the supporting evidence in the Draft Facilities Plan for
selection of areas to be sewered was inadequate. Also, public
comments revealed areas not examined in the Facilities Plan where
malfunctions of on-site systems were a serious problem.
The report, Revisions to Sections 7.0 and 8.0 (Table 1, Item 7),
was prepared when Batavia was added to the regional system. The
Analysis of Effect of the Revised Effluent Limits (Table 1, Item
8) was prepared in response to a letter from the Ohio EPA advis-
ing the County that effluent limits more stringent than previous-
ly issued might be required. This report determined the incre-
mental increase in costs associated with more stringent effluent
limits and whether a revised cost-effectiveness analysis would
yield different conclusions.
In an effort to utilize Federal fiscal year 1984 (F¥ 84) funding
for the most urgent problem areas, the Ohio EPA directed the
County to evaluate the costs of the minimum work necessary to
resolve the problems which resulted in the connection ban on the
Bethel wastewater system. Thus, the Summary Report of Segmental
Approach for the Bethel Area (Table 1, Item 10) evaluates connec-
tion of Bethel to the Am-Bat system and the necessary rehabilita-
tion of both sewerage systems.
In September 1983, the Ohio EPA published the preliminary draft
Comprehensive Water Quality Report (CWQR) on the East Fork of the
Little Miami River. This document contained proposed stream use
classifications and effluent limits that were different from
those used in the Draft Facilities Plan, thus, conclusions in the
Facilities Plan had to be re-evaluated. A number of assumptions
within the CWQR were questioned in the review of the document.
One important issue not resolved was the minimum flow from Harsha
Lake that would be required to meet water quality standards.
111
-------
TABLE 1
MAJOR FACILITIES PLAN SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS AND REVISIONS COMPLETED AFTER THE DRAFT
FACILITIES PLAN OF MAY 1982
Title of Report
1. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Village
of Bethel
2. Development of Alternatives Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
3. Summary Report on Second Level Public Meetings
for the Middle East Fork Wastewater
Facilities Planning Project
4. Addendum to the Infiltration and Inflow
Analysis for the Village of Williamsburg,
Ohio, June 1981
5. Final Recommendations: Solutions to the
On-Site Disposal Problems in the Middle
East Fork Planning Area
6. Surface Water Quality Related to On-Site
Wastewater Disposal in the Middle East Fork
Planning Area
7. Revisions to Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the
Facilities Plan
8. Analysis of the Effect of Revised Effluent
Limits on Alternatives and Recommendations
9. Summary of Flow Monitoring Results for the
Village of Williamsburg SSES
10. Summary Report of Segmental Approach for the
Bethel Area
11. Sewer System Evaluation Survey for the Am-Bat
WWTP System
Date
July 1982
July 1982
1982
January 1983
February 1983
February 1983
March 1983
May 1983
June 1983
July 1983
January 1984
IV
-------
In December 1983, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) dis-
tributed a preliminary draft Hydropower Feasibility Report and
Environmental Assessment for Harsha Lake. The proposed facili-
ties would alter the streamflow characteristics, the temperature
maxima, and the water quality of the East Fork in the vicinity of
the Am-Bat WWTP. Should hydropower be implemented, special ef-
fluent limits for Am-Bat may be required to accomodate the highly
variable streamflow conditions associated with hydropower opera-
tion.
The final CWQR, when completed, will contain the final effluent
limits for discharges into the East Fork and will evaluate the
possible effects of hydropower on the ability to meet water qual-
ity standards and the necessary minimum streamflow to meet water
quality standards.
Typically, a Federal EIS is utilized to select the alternative
that meets water quality objectives without over riding adverse
impacts at the lowest present-worth cost. Since final effluent
limits are not yet available, it was decided to use a Phase l/-
Phase 2 approach for project approval.
The concept of a phased EIS for this project, whereby Phase 1
construction will be approved ahead of Phase 2 construction, has
been brought about by two imposing factors: (1) The urgency of
solving the problems responsible for the connection ban in
Bethel, and (2) The fact that FY 84 is the last year in which the
Federal government will provide seventy-five percent funding for
construction. Projects approved after September 30, 1984, will
be eligible to receive fifty-five percent Federal funding.
As such, this Phase 1 project, most of which is proposed for
funding in FY 84, addresses the more urgent problems in the plan-
ning area which are not effected by the lack of final effluent
limitations. Thus, it is primarily focused upon improvement and
expansion of the Bethel and Am-Bat wastewater facilities such
that the connection ban in Bethel can be lifted. It is important
to note that the design of these facilities will not close out
-------
future cost-effective options for the completion of the project
following the determination of final effluent limits.
The Draft EIS evaluated the alternatives presented in the facili-
ties planning documents and compared some of the feasible com-
ponent options that were considered for the recommended alterna-
tive. Several factors that would affect the cost-effectiveness
analysis were changed. In the evaluations for selecting the com-
ponents of alternatives, the Draft EIS presented some significant
possible variations of conditions and attempted to project the
effect of these possible variations on the alternatives. The
Draft EIS also presented the process by which the Phase 1 project
components were selected.
This Final EIS summarizes the analyses and findings of the Draft
EIS and presents a summary of public comments and USEPA res-
ponses. It is the objective of the report to enhance understand-
ing of this very complex project in order to facilitate the
implementation of Phase 1 and the future planning required for
Phase 2 completion of the project.
3.
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives considered in the facilities planning documents
are presented in the following paragraphs.
No Action Alternative
The alternative of "no action" presumes that USEPA through the
Ohio EPA would not provide funds to upgrade or expand the WWTP or
expand the collection systems or to upgrade existing on-site
systems. The CCSD would have the responsibility to meet the
current effluent limits. The Clermont County Health Department
would have the responsibility for enforcing the health code with
the individual homeowners responsible for improving their own
system. The connection ban in Bethel would persist and connec-
tion bans in Batavia and Williamsburg may be imposed in the near
future.
VI
-------
Draft wastewaterFacilities Plan Recommended Alternative
The Draft Facilities Plan recommended that collection sewers be
extended to 15 problem areas; primarily around Bethel and in
Monroe Township. These were initially proposed to be a mix of
conventional gravity and septic tank effluent gravity sewers. No
centralized management of on~site systems was recommended or
deemed implementable.
The Am-Bat system recommendation was to upgrade and expand the
existing WWTP to 3.0 mgd and would include preliminary treatment,
flow equalization in a 1.8 mg basin, primary clarification,
packed biological reactors (PRR), also known as trickling fil-
ters, in existing tankage, phosphorus removal, secondary clarifi-
cation, chlorine/dechlorination, aerobic digestion of solids, and
land application of the sludge. The collection system would be
rehabilitated and extended.
An interceptor would be constructed to divert the upper Shayler
Run service area to the Lower East Fork WWTP.
The Bethel system improvements included the recommendation to
phase out the Bethel WWTP and pump the wastewater to the Am-Bat
system. A 0.8 mg equalization basin at the proposed Bethel pump
station was proposed for construction and the Bethel collection
system would be extensively rehabilitated. New sewers would be
extended to the adjacent problem areas.
The Batavia system improvements recommended were upgrading and
expanding the existing WWTP, including an aerated lagoon for
primary treatment and flow equalization. One sludge digestion
tank would be changed to become a trickling filter. Sludge would
be treated and stored in the aerated lagoon and in the other
sludge digestion tank. Sewers would be extended to one currently
unsewered area within the village.
For Williamsburg, the option recommended was to upgrade and ex-
pand the existing WWTP. Flow equalization, sludge digestion and
storage, and phosphorus removal would be added to the present
extended aeration treatment train.
VI 1
-------
The Holly Towne and Berry Garden mobile home parks (MHP) were to
have upgraded WWTPs that included equipment replacement and sand
£ iltration.
Alternatives Altered in Addendum to Draft
Wastewater Facilities Plan
As a result of comments from Ohio EPA, USEPA, and the public,
several changes were made to the plan recommended in the Draft
Facilities Plan. Foremost was that Batavia would be regional-
ized and the Am-Bat WWTP capacity would be increased to 3.6 mgd.
Also, some additional unsewered areas were recommended for ser-
vice. An additional change for the Am-Bat WWTP was the deletion
of the phosphorus removal requirement. The sludge treatment and
disposal costs were updated as well and costs were developed for
it, although these costs were not included in the total costs for
the alternative. The revised Draft Facilities Plan recommended
alternative is presented in Figure 1 and the costs are presented
in Table 2.
.Alternatives Altered by Advanced Treatment Requirement
forthe Am-Bat and Batavia WWTPs
In response to a letter from Ohio EPA (By letter, Richard Fitch,
Ohio EPA, to Clerraont County Board of Commissioners May 3, 1983),
Balke Engineers prepared a technical supplement (By letter,
Richard Record, Balke Engineers, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, May
18, 1983), that provided an analysis of the effect of revised
on the previously developed alternatives and
The proposed effluent limits were 10 mg/1
mg/1 NH3~N for the summer as the major
effluent limits
recommendations.
CBOD5 and 1.5
changes.
For the Am-Bat WWTP, mixed media filtration of the effluent was
proposed and costs were estimated. The total present worth costs
would increase by approximately $2.3 million.
A subsequent letter from Ohio EPA (From Gregory Binder, Ohio EPA,
to Donald Reckers, CCSD, dated September 19, 1983), indicated the
Vlll
-------
THIS AREA
TO LOWER
EAST FORK
V/WTP
BATAVIA
WWTP
WILUAMSBURO
- WWTP
UPPER
HAYLER/
RUN /
SERVICE
AREA*
A
HOLLY TOWNH
MHP WWTP
A
BERRY GARDENS
WWTP
A UPGRADE/EXPAND WWTP
A ABANDON EXISTING WWTP
EXISTING INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
Figure 1. Recommended plan from the revised sheets for Section 7.0,
"Recommended Plan* and Section 8.0, "Implementation"
(By letter, Fred W. Montgomery, Ciermont County Sewer District.
to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA. 1 April 1983).
IX
-------
TABLE 2
Categorical cost beakdovn for recommended plan presented In
Revised Sheets for Sections 7.0 and 8.0 (By letter, Fred W.
Montgomery, CCSl), to Richard Fitch, OEPA, 1 April 1983) for the
Middle East Fork FPA.
Total Total Initial
Construction Project Present Annual
Cost Category Cost Cost Worth O&M
Am-Bat (3.6 mgd) AST
Treatment works
Sludge management
Infiltration/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal
New collector sewers
Interceptor sewers
(Shayler Run)
Subtotal
Bethel
Treatment works
Infiltration/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal
New collector sewers
Interceptor sewers
Subtotal
Batavia
Treatment works
Infiltration/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal
New collector sewers
Interceptor sewers
Batavia pumping
Subtotal
Williamsburg (0.35 mgd) AT
Treatment works
Infiltration/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal
New collector sewers
Interceptor sewers
Subtotal
3,161,100
153,000
1,349,760
324,300
3,950,670
NAS
126,492
227,400
353,892
1,687,200
405,300
8,015,800
1,698,100
NA
1,114,083
1,391,840
990,300
2,382,140
159,000
736,500
153,640
890,140
200,000
200,000
1,739,800
1,237,500
3,177,300
465,300
198,200
388,800
122,400
NA
NA
4,988,160 6,397,062 10,827,983 511,200
NA NA
3,884,000C 58,519
3,884,000 58,519
•MB
56,000
103,000
66,600
200,000
266,600
70,000
128,700
NA
198,200
NA
8,200
8,200
967,900 2,280,000 122,100
80,800
200,000
280,800
192,050
1,440,750
NA NA
2,280,000 122,100
-------
TABLE 2 - Continued
Construction
Cost Category Cost
Holly Towne MHP (0.03 mgd) AT
Treatment works 50,800
Infiltration/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal —
New collector sewers •—
Interceptor sewers —
Subtotal 50,800
Berry Gardens MHP (0.01 mgd) AT
Treatment works 69,000
Infiltration/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal
New collector sewers —
Interceptor sewers —
Subtotal 69,000
Total
Project
Cost
63,500
63,500
86,300
Total
Present
Worth
182,100
Initial
Annual
O&H
219,800 15,000
219,800 15,000
9,000
86,300
182,100
9,000
Totals
Treatment works
Sludge management
Inf ilt rat ion/Inflow
correction
- SSES
- Rehabilitation
- Subtotal
New collector sewers
Interceptor sewers
Total
4,017,400
153,000
2,951,240
1,417,600
5,068,370
NA
273,892
827,400
1,101,292
3,689,050
1,771,500
10,697,700
1,698,100
8,539,240 11,630,212
NA
5,196,283
17,592,083
534,900
122,400
NA
66,719
724,019
Cost data were not available.
'Does not include costs of Batavia pumping.
'From summary of changes made to recommended plan (By letter, Fred U.
Montgomery, CCSD, to Richard Fitch, OEPA, 11 February 1983).
xi
-------
State's determination that a Phase I/Phase 2 approach was neces-
sary and that the Phase 1 project improvements should be designed
in consideration of the following effluent limits being recom-
mended in the Comprehensive Water Quality Report:
Summer
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Rest of Year*
CBODq
5
10
10
NH?-N
1
3.5
1.5
DO
7
7
5
* Assumes Harsha Lake Dam discharge greater than 30 cfs.
Following review of the September 19th letter, Balke Engineers
concluded that the trickling filter process recommended in the
Draft Facilities Plan was not capable of consistently meeting the
revised, more stringent effluent limits cited above. As such, an
Addendum to the Facilities Plan was submitted on June 21, 1984
(after the Draft EIS), reflecting a design change from the trick-
ling filter process to the activated sludge process. Costs and
environmental impacts were shown not to be significantly dif-
ferent from those of the previous recommended alternative.
4. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
In the Draft EIS, the alternatives presented in the facilities
planning documents were evaluated and compared. in addition, the
unsewered areas were re-analyzed using additional information,
different options for upgrades, and locally obtained costs.
Because effluent limits were not established, final alternatives
were not developed. Thus, gualitative comparisons between alter-
natives were made.
Reanalysis of Individual Systems Areas
A fuller range of options was considered in the Draft EIS than
that presented in the facilities planning documents. The options
estimated and costed included septic tank-soil absorption systems
with the following units:
Xll
-------
Drainfields
Dry wells
Buried sand filters
Pump tank and mounds
Curtain drains for soil absorption systems
Low-flow toilets and blackwater holding tanks
Some aerobic systems were proposed for repairs in acceptable
locations. Each of these would have either an evapotranspiration
and absorption bed or a sand filter for final polishing of the
effluent.
In conjunction with upgrading on-site systems, the costs pre-
sented in the facilities planning documents included roadside
ditches for improved surface drainage in many problem areas.
These were costed at State highway specifications and ranged from
15 percent to 50 percent of the total present worth costs within
some problem areas. Outlets for the curtain drains could be con-
structed more cheaply with subsurface drains along back lot lines
and these were costed.
In the revised analysis, only the South Charity Street area of
Bethel showed sewers as more cost-effective than on-site systems.
Because the estimating was done without full knowledge of local
conditions, other areas such as Bantam, may be sewered for less
costs than upgrading the on-site systems.
Projected Wastewater Flows
The projected wastewater flows presented in the facilities plan-
ning documents did not account for all the system overflows and
included inflow removal estimates of 68 percent to 75 percent.
Because the villages have old systems that have extensive inflow
and infiltration problems, inflow removal was difficult to esti-
mate accurately. For that reason, no changes in design flows
were recommended, although larger systems may be justified.
Effluent Limits
The effluent limits proposed by Ohio EPA for the various WWTPs
Xlll
-------
are not final and likely will not be finalized for some time. At
present, secondary treatment levels can be justified while limits
more stringent than secondary will need to be determined through
detailed water quality modeling in the CWQR. The effluent limits
for an independent Batavia WWTP will likely be secondary treat-
ment (30 mg/1 8005) and for the Am-Bat WWTP will likely be
advanced treatment with 3.0 mg/1 NH3~N, based on preliminary
modeling results conducted by Ohio EPA. The alternatives were
evaluated for those effluent limits and assumed a 30 cfs flow
minimum from the Harsha Lake reservoir for flow augmentation.
The effluent limits for the WWTPs tributary to Harsha Lake were
subject to further evaluation, although the limits will likely
require advanced treatment. Therefore, the treatment plants
tributary to Harsha Lake were evaluated for advanced treatment.
Batavia
If the Batavia WWTP must treat to secondary levels and the Am-Bat
WWTP to an NH3~N level of 3.0 mg/1, then it is more cost-ef-
fective to treat at the Am-Bat WWTP. If more stringent treatment
levels at the Am-Bat WWTP were required, then it may be less
costly for Batavia to maintain an independent WWTP. The Batavia
discharge to the East Fork would augment its flow and would les-
sen the flow to be discharged at Am-Bat, but modeling indicates
that the stream would not recover sufficiently from the Batavia
discharge to warrant less stringent effluent limits for the
Am-Bat WWTP.
Regionalization of Batavia with the Am-Bat system would have dis-
tinct operational advantages with one, rather than two WWTPs, to
operate. Also, regionalization of Batavia would insure a higher
priority for available federal funding.
Williamsburg
Regionalization had been proposed for Williamsburg to eliminate
wastewater discharges to Harsha Lake. Elevated fecal coliform
levels in Harsha Lake that requires closing the "boater's beach"
occasionally may be from bypassing within the collection system.
Implementation of the regional alternative appeared to be unfeas-
xiv
-------
ible and not cost-effective if a force main connection to the
Am-Bat system at Bauer Road were to be required. The modeling
required for assessing the impact of a continuing discharge to
Harsha Lake has not been conducted and, therefore, the impacts of
the discharge on the lake could not be assessed.
Bethel
Similar to Williamsburg, a continuing discharge to Harsha Lake
would have an unknown effect because the requisite water quality
modeling has not been conducted. The discharge from the Bethel
WWTP currently augments the flow to Harsha Lake, although it is
small. The re-analysis of individual treatment areas indicated
that sewer extensions are not cost-effective to many areas prev-
iously proposed to be sewered and that, in conjunction with lower
population projections currently under development by the OKI
Regional Council of Governments, would indicate that the residen-
tial flow contribution may be less than previously estimated.
Artie 1 ia-Batavia
The Am-Bat WWTP would be expanded to incorporate Bethel and
Batavia flows with the upper Shayler Run service area flows di-
verted to the Lower East Fork WWTP. The WWTP would be upgraded
to provide improved treatment. The specific treatment level will
be finalized in the future. Based on preliminary modeling,
treatment levels will not likely be more stringent than 15 mg/1
CBOD5 and 3 mg/1 NH3~N for a presumed flow in the East Fork
of 30 cfs. The population projections being developed by OKI do
not appear to be significantly different than the projections
previously developed. individual treatment units were recom-
mended for the areas that were proposed for sewer extensions;
therefore, future flows may be somewhat less than those projected
previously.
5. RECOMMENDED ACTION
A fully developed recommended alternative cannot be prepared at
the present time. Ohio EPA has committed to funding a portion of
the wastewater facilities during the Federal fiscal year 1984
xv
-------
and, therefore, those portions of the facilities that address the
most urgent problems can be funded were identified and evaluated.
The primary objective of the initial project (Phase 1) is to im-
prove the wastewater facilities that would serve Bethel so that
the sewer connection ban can be lifted.
The basic elements of the phase 1 project are full rehabilitation
of the Bethel collection system and partial rehabilitation (31%
inflow reduction) of the Am-Bat collection systems, construction
of an equalization basin and pump station for Bethel, a force
main and gravity sewer to the USCOE pump station at Ulrey Run,
replacement of the pumps at two USCOE pump stations, and expan-
sion of the Am-Bat WWTP from 2.4 to 3.6 mgd at secondary treat-
ment levels using the activated sludge process. Other components
of the necessary improvements would be delayed until additional
funds become available and the issues concerning water quality
and cost-effectiveness are resolved. The specific recommenda-
tions for each service area are presented in the following para-
graphs .
Amelia-Batavia
The recommended action for the Am-Bat service area includes the
Phase 1 improvements listed above and the Phase 2 improvements
that are yet to be determined. In Phase 2, the final rehabilita-
tion of the sewer system would be conducted. Upper Shayler Run
flows would be diverted to the Lower East Fork WWTP by construc-
tion of 9,060 lineal feet of 18-inch interceptor. The evaluation
and construction of collection sewers, if any are to be con-
structed, would be part of Phase 2.
At the Am-Bat WWTP, any additional treatment units required to
meet the final effluent limits would be added. Also, the sludge
storage tank, the septage receiving station, sludge transporta-
tion and application equipment, storage building, and shop are
proposed for Phase 2.
Bethel
The recommended action for the Bethel service area includes the
xvi
-------
Phase 1 improvements listed above and some Phase 2 action. Any
extension of sewers into unsewered areas would be a Phase 2 acti-
vity (conventional collector sewers would not be grant-eligible)
if the sewers were to be constructed.
Batavia
No improvements to the Batavia wastewater system are proposed in
Phase 1. In Phase 2 the collection system would be extensively
rehabilitated. Sewers would be extended throughout the Clark and
Ely streets area within the village (not grant-eligible). The
extension of the force main to the Am-Bat WWTP and phasing out
the Batavia WWTP would be accomplished in phase 2 at the 55 per-
cent funding level. Batavia would be regionalized after the
upper Shayler Run service area is scheduled to be diverted to the
Lower East Fork WWTP.
Williamsburg,
No improvements to the Williamsburg wastewater system are sched-
uled in Phase 1. After the effluent limits for Williamsburg are
finalized, the WWTP would be re-evaluated for design and costs.
The option of regionalization will be investigated with a connec-
tion to the Am-Bat system at Afton. Sewer extensions in the
vicinity of Williamsburg are not recommended.
Holly Towne and Berry Gardens Mobile Home Parks
The mobile home parks should upgrade the existing treatment sys-
tems by constructing sand filters for final polishing of the
effluent. Also, some equipment should be replaced and operations
should be improved. These improvements would be financed by the
individual owners since private WWTPs are not grant-eligible.
Individual System Areas
The recommended action for these areas is for a management dis-
trict or districts under the authority of the Clermont County
Board of Commissioners to be organized and for individual systems
to be inspected and appropriately upgraded. The work would be a
xv ii
-------
part of Phase 2 and would be grant-eligible at 75% of the elig-
ible costs as an innovative and alternative project. While the
specific administrative and managerial arrangement is a local
option, the CCSD in conjunction with the expertise of the Cler-
raont County Health Department could perform the inspections and
upgrades and schedule the routine maintenance.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Construction Impacts
Major direct impacts from construction activities associated with
implementation of the Phase 1 project would be concentrated along
the corridors of the interceptor sewers and at the wastewater
treatment facilities sites. Fugitive dust, exhaust emissions
from construction equipment, noise, destruction of vegetation,
accelerated erosion, disturbances of wildlife, disturbance of
streambeds, and interruption of traffic flow and patterns would
create short-term nuisance conditions and environmental damage
along the sewer and force main routes. The extent and range of
impacts are directly related to the lengths and locations of the
proposed sewers. The pump station and treatment plant sites
would also be further disturbed by construction actitivities.
The Bethel pump station and equalization tank will be located in
the Town Run ravine near State Road 125. The construction of the
interceptor and the pump station in the ravine will impact the
existing biota, soils, and aesthetic qualities.
Operation Impacts
Implementation of the Phase 1 improvements would result in water
quality improvements and would reduce existing public health
risks. Frequent bypassing in the Bethel and the Am-Bat systems
will be nearly eliminated. The Bethel wastewater discharge to
Town Run, Poplar Creek, and Harsha Lake will be eliminated. The
Am-Bat WWTP will be upgraded to consistently achieve secondary
effluent standards.
Already existing adverse impacts on the quality of surface waters
and public health would still be present in the facilities plan-
XVLll
-------
ning area because frequent bypassing at Williamsburg, Batavia,
and the Clough Pike Pump Station in the Am-Bat system would con-
tinue to occur. In addition, wastewater discharges at Williams-
burg, Batavia, and the Holly Towne and Berry Garden mobile home
parks would continue to discharge inadquately treated wastewater
until these are upgraded or phased out in the phase 2 project.
The Am-Bat WWTP discharging secondary effluent would cause viola-
tions in the water quality of the East Fork during low-flow
periods.
Failing on-site systems will continue to cause localized water
quality problems and would pose potential health risks and malo-
dorus conditions until an on-site management agency is esta-
blished and the failing systems are upgraded in the Phase 2 work
plan.
Septage trucking from septic tanks and aerobic units will con-
tinue to result in minimal adverse impacts. Some ephemeral odors
from the pumping operation would be detected and the truck traf-
fic would be present. Septage hauling would involve approximate-
ly 1,000 truckloads per year being treated in Hamilton County
until a septage receiving station is constructed in Clermont
County in the future.
Secondary impacts
The Phase 1 improvements are not expected to induce significant
development because considerable acreage is currently near major
interceptors within the Am-Bat service area. Development may
resume in Bethel, though, after the improvements are completed
and the connection ban is lifted. No other area is expected to
be affected by the Phase 1 improvements.
xix
-------
MIDDLE EAST FORK
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
xx
LIST OF TABLES
XXVI
LIST OF FIGURES
XXIX
LIST OF APPENDICES
XXXI
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1-1
1.1 Project Setting
1.2 Summary of Previous Planning Activities
1.2.1 Area-wide Waste Management Planning
1.2.2 Facilities Planning
1.2.3 Water Resource Planning
1.2.4 Environmental Impact Statement
1.3 Legal Basis for Action and Project Need
1.4 Study Process and Public Participation
1.5 Issues
1-1
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-11
1-12
2.0
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
2-1
2.1 Existing Centralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems
2.1.1 Amelia-Batavia System
2.1.1.1 Service Area
2.1.1.2 Existing Wastewater Flows
2.1.1.3 Existing Treatment System
2.1.1.4 Existing Effluent Quality
2.1.2 Bethel System
2.1.2.1 Service Area
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-3
2-6
2-8
2-9
xx
-------
2.1.2.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-9
2.1.2.3 Existing Treatment System 2-12
2.1.2.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-12
2.1.3 Batavia System 2-14
2.1.3.1 Service Area 2-14
2.1.3.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-15
2.1.3.3 Existing Treatment System 2-17
2.1.3.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-19
2.1.4 Williamsburg System 2-19
2.1.4.1 Service Area 2-20
2.1.4.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-20
2.1.4.3 Existing Treatment System 2-22
2.1.4.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-24
2.1.5 USCOE East Fork Park System 2-26
2.1.5.1 Service Area 2-27
2.1.5.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-27
2.1.5.3 Existing Treatment System 2-29
2.1.5.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-29
2.1.6 Holly Towne Mobile Home Park System 2-30
2.1.6.1 Service Area 2-30
2.1.6.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-30
2.1.6.3 Existing Treatment System 2-30
2.1.6.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-32
2.1.7 Berry Gardens Mobile Home Park System 2-34
2.1.7.1 Service Area 2-34
2.1.7.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-34
2.1.7.3 Existing Treatment System 2-35
2.1.7.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-35
2.1.8 Lower East Fork System 2-35
2.1.8.1 service Area 2-37
2.1.8.2 Existing Wastewater Flows 2-37
2.1.8.3 Existing Treatment System 2-37
2.1.8.4 Existing Effluent Quality 2-39
2.2 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems 2-40
2.2.1 Use of On-Site Systems 2-40
2.2.2 Performance of On-Site Systems 2-41
2.2.2.1 Soil Characteristics for 2-42
On-Site Treatment
2.2.2.2 Lot Size Analysis 2-42
2.2.2.3 County and State Permit File 2-43
Data
xxi
-------
2.3
2.4
2.2.2.4 Aerial infrared Photography
Survey
2.2.2.5 Field Surveys
2.2.2.6 Fecal Coliform Sampling Data
2.2.2.7 Sanitary Opinion Questionnaire
2.2.3 Problems Caused by Existing systems
2.2.4 Identification of the Extent of Problems
2.2.4.1 Batavia Township
2.2.4.2 Jackson Township
2.2.4.3 Monroe Township
2.2.4.4 Pierce Township
2.2.4.5 Stonelick Township
2.2.4.6 Tate Township
2.2.4.7 Union Township
2.2.4.8 Williamsburg Township
2.2.5 Septage and Aerobic Tank Solids Disposal
Practices
Wastewater Treatment System Options
2.3.1 Design Factors
2.3.1.1 Planning Period
2.3.1.2 Flow and Wasteload Reduction
2.3.1.3 Flow and Waste Characteristics
2.3.1.4 Effluent Requirements
2.3.1.5 Economic Factors
2.3.2 System Components
2.3.2.1 Wastewater Collection Systems
2.3.2.2 Wastewater Treatment
Technologies
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
On-Site Systems
Cluster Systems
Septage Disposal
2.3.2.3
2.3.2.4
2.3.2.5
2.3.2.6
Description of Alternatives
2.4.1 No Action Alternative
2.4.2 Draft Facilities Plan Alternative
2.4.3 Draft Facilities Plan Addendum
Alternative
2.4.4 Facilities Plan Alternative Altered by
AT Requirement
2-44
2-44
2-44
2-46
2-46
2-48
2-48
2-48
2-49
2-49
2-49
2-50
2-50
2-50
2-51
2-51
2-51
2-52
2-52
2-57
2-59
2-62
2-64
2-64
2-65
2-68
2-68
2-72
2-73
2-74
2-75
2-76
2-79
2-83
xxii
-------
2.4.5 Re-analysis of On-Site System Areas 2-85
2.4.6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives 2-86
2.4.6.1 Projected Wastewater Flows 2-86
2.4.6.2 Effluent Limits 2-87
2.4.6.3 Summary of Facilities Plan 2-88
Alternatives
2.5 Selection of Recommended Action 2-95
2.5.1 Bethel 2-96
2.5.2 Batavia 2-97
2.5.3 Williamsburg 2-98
2.5.4 Shayler Run 2-99
2.5.5 Amelia-Batavia 2-99
2.5.6 Holly Towne and Berry Gardens MHP's 2-101
2.5.7 On-Site System Areas 2-101
3.0
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-1
3.1 Land 3-1
3.1.1 Topography and Physiography 3-1
3.1.2 Surface and Bedrock Geology 3-2
3.1.3 Soils 3-3
3.2 Water 3-8
3.2.1 Surface Water Hydrology 3-8
3.2.2 Water Use and Quality 3-11
3.2.2.1 Overview of Water Resource 3-11
Use and Management
3.2.2.2 Waste Assimilation 3-13
3.2.2.3 Proposed Stream and Lake Use 3-14
Classifications
3.2.2.4 Groundwater Use 3-14
3.2.2.5 Phosphorus Loads to Surface 3-15
Waters
3.2.2.6 Surface Water Quality 3-15
3.2.3 Floodplain Delineations 3-26
3.3 Atmosphere 3-27
3.3.1 Climate 3-27
3.3.2 Air Quality 3-28
3.3.3 Noise 3-28
3.3.4 Odors 3-29
3.4 Biological 3-29
XXlll
-------
3.5
3.6
3.4.1 Vegetation and Landscape
3.4.2 Wildlife
3.4.3 Aquatic Biota
3.4.4 Endangered and Threatened Species
Manmade
3.5.1 Existing Land Use
3.5.1.1 MEF Planning Area
3.5.1.2 Batavia
3.5.1.3 Bethel
3.5.1.4 Williamsburg
3.5.2 Future Land Use
3.5.3 Recreational Land Use
3.5.4 Transportation
3.5.5 Public Water Supply
Socioeconomic
Employment
Demographics
Economics
Local Government Finances
3.7
3.8
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
Energy
Cultural Resources
3-29
3-30
3-31
3-32
3-33
3-33
3-33
3-34
3-36
3-38
3-40
3-42
3-43
3-44
3-46
3-46
3-49
3-53
3-54
3-57
3-58
4.0
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
4-1
4.1 Primary Impacts and Mitigation
4.2 Secondary Impacts
4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
4.4 Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource
Commitments
4-2
4-8
4-9
4-9
5.0 COORDINATION
5.1 Public Participation Program
5.2 Written Comments and Responses
5.3 Summary of Public Hearing and Responses
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-32
6-1
7-1
XXIV
-------
. n INDEX
8-1
APPENDIX A. Glossary of Technical Terms
APPENDIX B, Distribution List
APPENDIX C.
Middle East Fork Draft EIS (Separate
Document)
APPENDIX D. Facilities Plan Addendum Documentation
XXV
-------
MIDDLE BAST FORK
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Major facilities plan supporting documents 1-6
and revisions completed after the Draft
Facilities Plan of May, 1982
2-1 Am-Bat system summary of existing flows in mgd 2-5
2-2 Am-Bat WWTP performance data 1982-1983 2-8
2-3 Bethel system summary of existing flows in mgd 2-11
2-4 Bethel WWTP performance data Jan-Dec, 1980 2-14
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
Batavia system summary of existing flows in mgd 2-17
Batavia WWTP performance data Mar-Dec, 1980
Williamsburg system summary of existing flows
in mgd
Sewage Loads in the USCOE East Fork Park by
site
2-19
2-23
Williamsburg WWTP performance data Jan-Dec, 1980 2-26
2-29
2-10 Holly Towne WWTP performance data December
1980 - February 1981
2-11 Lower East Fork WWTP performance data August
1982 - June 1983
2-34
2-40
2-12 Summary of Flows and Wasteloads
2-58
XXVI
-------
2-13 MEF FPA NPDES permit effluent limitations 2-60
2-14 Proposed effluent limits for Batavia and Am-Bat 2-61
WWTPs
2-15 Economic cost criteria 2-63
2-16 Comparison of effluent limits (30-day) for the 2-84
Am-Bat WWTP
3-1 Soil series characteristics and ratings for
soil absorption systems
3-2 Ohio EPA water quality criteria for fecal
coliform content
3-3 Fecal coliform sampling results compared to
typical background levels and Ohio EPA water
quality criteria
3-4 Approximate land use composition of MEF
planning area
3-5 Land use within the village of Batavia
3-6 Land use within the village of Bethel
3-7 Existing land use within the Village of
Williamsburg
3-8 Clermont County employment trends by sector
in 1970 and 1980
3-9 Ten largest private employers in Clermont
County
3-10 Unemployment rates for Clermont County
3-11 Population growth in the State of Ohio,
Cincinnati SMSA, City of Cincinnati and
Clermont County, 1950 to 1980
3-6
3-23
3-25
3-34
3-36
3-38
3-40
3-47
3-48
3-49
3-51
XXVll
-------
3-12 Population projections in 5-year increments,
1980 - 2005.
3-13 Population projections in 5-year increments,
1980 - 2005 for Villages in the MEF planning
area
3-52
3-53
3-14 Income characteristics of Townships and 3-55
Villages within the FPA
3-15 Debt, property tax, local purpose revenue, and 3-55
balance of budget for 1982 for Villages and
Townships in the FPA
4-1 Short-term environmental impacts of the
recommended action
4-3
4-2 Long-term environmental impacts of the
recommended action
4-5
5-1 Public hearing attendees
5-33
xxviii
-------
MIDDLE EAST FORK
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Middle East Fork Planning Area location map 1-2
1-2 Facilities Planning Area map 1-3
2-1 Location of WWTP's in the MEF FPA 2-2
2-2 Am-Bat Collection System 2-4
2-3 Am-Bat WWTP Schematic 2-7
2-4 Bethel Collection System 2-10
2-5 Bethel,WWTP Layout 2-13
2-6 Batavia Collection System 2-16
2-7 Batavia WWTP Schematic 2-18
2-8 Williamsburg Collection System 2-21
2-9 Williamsburg WWTP Layout 2-25
2-10 USCOE East Fork Park Wastewater Service Areas 2-28
2-11 Location of Berry Gardens and Holly Towne MHPs 2-31
2-12 Holly Towne WWTP Schematic
2-13 Berry Gardens WWTP Schematic
2-14 Lower East Fork WWTP Service Area
2-33
2-36
2-38
XXIX
-------
2-15 Recommended Plan from the Draft Wastewater
Facilities Plan
2-16 Draft Facilities Plan Addendum Alternative
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
Relationship of Soils to Parent Material
and Topography
Existing Land Use, Village of Batavia
Existing Land Use, Village of Bethel
Existing Land Use, Village of Williamsburg
2-77
2-81
3-5
3-35
3-37
3-39
Inducements and Constraints to Urban Development 3-41
Areas Outside the State Park not Served by Public 3-45
Water Supply
Historical Population Growth and Population
Projections for MEF Planning Areas
3-50
XXX
-------
MIDDLE EAST FORK
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Glossory of Technical Terms
APPENDIX B Distribution List
APPENDIX C Middle East Fork Draft EIS
(Separate Document)
APPENDIX D Facilities Plan Addendum Documentation
xxxi
-------
-------
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Project Setting
The planning area is located in central Clermont County, Ohio,
about twelve miles east of downtown Cincinnati (Figure 1-1). The
East Fork of the Little Miami River bisects the 148 square mile
planning area on a westerly course to its confluence with the
Little Miami River near Milford, Ohio. Units of government with
jurisdiction in the planning area include nine townships of
Clermont County, the Clermont County Sewer District (CCSD), and
the incorporated Villages of Amelia, Batavia, Bethel, and
Williamsburg"(Figure 1-2).
Two prominent geographic features add strong aesthetic appeal to
the area. The steep slopes of the East Fork Valley provide vis-
ual relief and are attractive due to the heavy forest cover. The
8,000 acre East Fork state park which surrounds the newly
created, 2,300 acre William H. Harsha Lake offers diverse recrea-
tional opportunities. This park is administered by the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources. Congress authorized the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) to operate the dam facilities
primarily for flood control and water supply/water quality main-
tenance; however, recreational use of the lake is currently a
major consideration.
Residential development in the planning area has increased sub-
stantially in recent years. In addition to the strong appeal of
the state park and Harsha Lake, this growth has been fostered by
the relatively low property taxes in the area and Interstate 275
and state Route 32, which provide easy access to the employment
centers of Cincinnati. Residential development of the unincor-
porated rural lands has greatly expanded the facilities planning
area's population served by on-site sewage disposal systems.
Water quality concerns, potential health problems, and aesthetics
have made on-site disposal a major facilities planning issue.
1-1
-------
Dayton
MONTGOMERY
® Wilmington
CLINTON
19 IS fcm.
Figure 1-1.
Location of Middle East Fork planning area
in Clermont County, Ohio.
I-2
-------
Legend
, Facility planning ar*a boundary
Figure 1-2. Facility planning area.
I-3
-------
1.2 Summary of Previous Planning Activities
1.2.1 Area-wide Wastewater Management Planning
Area-wide wastewater management planning was initiated by the
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority (OKI) who pre-
pared the Regional Sewerage Plan in 1971 (OKI 1971). This docu-
ment concluded that a larger wastewater treatment plant for the
Amelia-Ratavia (Am-Rat) system was necessary because the pro-
jected industrial flows alone were greater than 3 MGD, while the
design capacity of the WWTP was 1.2 MGD. Prior to 1974, perform-
ance problems with collection and treatment systems were recog-
nized at the Am-Bat facilities and at Bethel, Ratavia and
Williamsburg.
Additional area-wide wastewater management planning studies by
OKI, under provision of Public Law 92-500, Section 208, were
initiated in late 1974. The purpose of these studies was to
develop a regional framework for solving the most significant
water quality problems in the most cost-effective manner. In
August, 1976, OKI published the Facilities Plan for the Middle
East Fork Planning Area, and in June, 1977, published the Region-
al Water Ouality Plan. These planning documents, designated the
CCSD as the management agency for facilities planning, identified
the Facilities Planning Area (FPA) boundaries, presented popula-
tion and wastewater flow projections, mapped land use and envir-
onmental conditions, and discussed the most desirable water re-
sources management options for the future, including options for
augmentation of stream flow with Harsha Lake dam releases.
A resolution was enacted by the Clermont County Board of Commis-
sioners (CCBC) (March 15, 1978) defining a legal, fiscal, and
administrative agreement between the County and the Villages of
Batavia and Williamsburg with regard to future facilities plan-
ning. This agreement, as revised in March, 1980, identified the
CCSD as the leading facilities planning agency in the FPA.
1.2.2 Facilities Planning
In 1978, the CCSD prepared an application for a Step 1 facilities
1-4
-------
planning grant. The CCSD selected Balke Engineers of Cincinnati
as their consultant. USEPA issued a Notice of Intent on October
1, 1980, to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (BIS) on
the facilities plan for the Middle East Fork Area. in response
to this Notice of Intent, representatives of USEPA, Ohio EPA, and
the CCBD mutually identified the need to coordinate the planning
and EIS work, thereby, avoiding redundancies and inappropriate
plan development. To this end, a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed by the agencies in September 1981.
The Step 1 facilities planning grant was awarded to the Clermont
County Board of Commissioners on January 29, 1981. Several major
problems to be addressed during facilities planning included
infiltration and inflow in nearly all major collection systems of
the FPA, frequent raw sewage bypassing that resulted in odor and
water pollution problems at several locations, and the need for
expanded service in Harsha Lake State Park and in all FPA commun-
ities. Since nearly half the population of the FPA resided in
unsewered areas, innovative and alternative treatment options
were to be evaluated relative to the problems of these rural res-
idents. The planning emphasis was to develop alternatives first
for the segment of the FPA called the "south shore". The "north
shore" segment, which received a reduced planning priority, in-
cluded the service areas of Williamsburg, Batavia, and the Afton
interceptor of the Am-Bat service area.
The Draft Facilities plan for the Middle East Fork FPA was pub-
lished by Balke Engineers in May 1982. This was followed by com-
pletion of a number of important supporting studies on sewer per-
formance and other plan topics essential for evaluation of the
Draft Facilities Plan alternatives (Table 1-1).
The Final Recommendations and Surface Water Quality documents
(Table 1-1, Items 5 and 6) were produced in response to comments
that the supporting evidence in the Draft Facilities Plan for
selection of areas to be sewered was inadequate. Also, public
comments revealed areas not examined in the Facilities Plan where
malfunctions of on-site systems were a serious problem.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1
MAJOR FACILITIES PLAN SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS AND REVISIONS COMPLETED AFTER THE DRAFT
FACILITIES PLAN OF MAY 1982
Title ofReport
1. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Village
of Bethel
2. Development of Alternatives Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
3. Summary Report on Second Level Public Meetings
for the Middle East Fork Wastewater
Facilities Planning Project
4. Addendum to the Infiltration and Inflow
Analysis for the Village of Williamsburg,
Ohio, June 1981
5. Final Recommendations: Solutions to the
On-Site Disposal Problems in the Middle
East Fork planning Area
6. Surface Water Quality Related to On-Site
Wastewater Disposal in the Middle East Fork
Planning Area
7. Revisions to Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of the
Facilities Plan
8. Analysis of the Effect of Revised Effluent
Limits on Alternatives and Recommendations
9. Summary of Flow Monitoring Results for the
Village of Williamsburg SSES
10. Summary Report of Segmental Approach for the
Bethel Area
11. Sewer System Evaluation Survey for the Am-Bat
WWTP System
Date
July 1982
July 1982
1982
January 1983
February 1983
February 1983
March 1983
May 1983
June 1983
July 1983
January 1984
1-6
-------
The report, Revisions to Sections 7.0 and 8.0 (Table 1-1, Item
7), was prepared when Batavia was added to the regional system.
The Analysis of Effect of the Revised Effluent Limits (Table 1-1,
Item 8) was prepared in response to a letter from the Ohio EPA
advising the County that effluent limits more stringent than
previously issued may be required. This report determined the
additional increase in costs associated with more stringent
effluent limits and whether a revised cost-effectiveness analysis
would yield different conclusions.
In an effort to channel Federal fiscal year 1984 (FY 84) funding
to the most urgent problem areas, the Ohio EPA directed the
County to evaluate the costs of minimum work necessary to resolve
the problems which resulted in the connection ban on the Bethel
wastewater system. Thus, the Summary Report of Segmental
Approach for the Bethel Area (Table 1-1, Item 10) evaluated con-
nection of Bethel to the Am-Bat system and the necessary rehabil-
itation of both sewerage systems.
1.2.3 Water Resource Planning
Two significant water resource studies were published after com-
pletion of the Draft Facilities Plan and after substantial pre-
paration of the Draft EIS had been completed.
0 A Preliminary Draft Comprehensive Water Quality Report
(CWOR) on the East Fork of the Little Miami River was
distributed by the Ohio EPA in September, 1983.
0 A Preliminary Draft Hydropower Feasibility Report and
Environmental Assessment for William H. Harsha Lake,
Ohio, was distributed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Louisville District Office in December, 1983.
These reports contain evaluations and management recommendations
which, if implemented, could have a significant impact on the
Facilities Plan alternatives. For example, the CWQR contained
State of Ohio recommendations for stream use classifications and
water quality standards for the East Fork. Effluent limits for
FPA treatment plants were proposed in the report based on water
1-7
-------
quality modeling conducted under the assumption that revised
standards would be acceptable to USEPA and that certain base
streamflow levels would always be maintained in the East Fork
during summer and autumn. Several of the concepts outlined in
the CWQR were at variance with those used in the Draft Facilities
Plan and, therefore, required resolution before the Draft EIS
could be completed. In addition, the issue of minimum streamflow
is, as yet, unresolved. Additional modeling and other steps will
be required for a final report and recommendations.
The Preliminary Draft Hydropower Feasibility Report and Environ-
mental Assessment presented several alternatives for construction
and operation of a hydroelectric facility at Harsha Lake. A
tentatively preferred turbine design and operation alternative
was selected and its environmental impacts were discussed. The
impact of the proposed facility on the effluent assimilative
capacity downstream from the dam was discussed. The proposed
facilities would alter the streamflow characteristics, the temp-
erature maxima, and the water quality of the East Fork during the
critical warm months of the year. Special effluent discharge
permit requirements may be needed for the Batavia and Am-Bat
(Middle East Fork Regional) wastewater treatment plants so that
in-stream water quality standards are not violated under the
highly variable streamflow conditions.
1.2.4 Environmental Impact Statement
The schedule for adoption of final effluent limits for the Am-Bat
treatment plant is dependent upon the minimum flow from Harsha
Lake and completion of the Ohio EPA's final Comprehensive Water
Quality Report. Also, final effluent limits for the Williamsburg
WWTP will not be available until the necessary modeling is con-
ducted by the Ohio EPA.
In spite of the lack of certain crucial data, USEPA and Ohio EPA
decided to expedite preparation of an EIS so that portions of the
project (termed Phase 1) could be funded during the Federal FY
84. An approach was developed which would provide plans to solve
the most urgent wastewater collection and treatment problems,
while retaining design flexibility for meeting the final stream
1-8
-------
standard* and ottluent limits to be established by the State.
Specifically, process designs evaluated in the Facilities Plan
art* capable of achieving a minimum of secondary treatment and are
adaptable to the addition ot unit processes for advanced treat-
ment in the future, if required.
The most urgent problems in the planning area, being addressed in
the phase 1 project, center primarily on the connection ban in
Bethel. As such, it has been proposed that the Bethel WWTP be
phased out, that the collection systems of Bethel and Am-Bat be
rehabi1itiated and expanded as necessary to handle the flows, and
that the Am-Bat WWTP be upgraded and expanded to treat the flows
to a secondary level until such time as the final effluent limits
are determined.
Following the Phase 1 project, the final treatment designs for
the Am-Bat WWTP must await the resolution of final effluent
limits and of augmentive flow releases from Harsha Lake. These
determinations will be influenced by the potential development of
hydropower facilities at the Harsha Lake Dam, should a Federal
permit be issued for its implementation. Once a final cost-
effective, regional alternative has been developed for the Am-Bat
and Williamsburg WWTPs, based on resolution of water resources
issues, the environmental consequences will be assessed in detail
in a supplemental EIS prepared after the Record Of Decision on
this Final EIS has been issued.
1.3 Legal Basis for Action and Project Need
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a
Federal agency to prepare an EIS on "...major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment..."
USEPA has developed regulations (40 CRF Part 6) for the implemen-
tation of NEPA. With respect to the Middle East Fork Facilities
Plan project, USEPA, Region v, determined that an EIS was re-
quired .
The Federal water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA, Public
Law 92-500), as amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act (CWA,
Public Law 95-217) established a uniform, nationwide water pol-
1-9
-------
lution control program according to which all state water quality
programs operate. The Ohio EPA has been delegated the responsi-
bility and authority to administer this program in Ohio, subject
to the approval of the USEPA. However, the authority for deter-
mining whether proposed actions are subject to NEPA is retained
by the USEPA.
Federal funding for wastewater treatment projects is provided
under Section 201 of the FWPCA. The USEPA will fund 75 percent
of the grant eligible costs for conventional collection and
treatment facilities for grant awards made prior to October 1,
1984. For grants awarded after October 1, 1984, Federal partici-
pation will cover 55 percent of all grant eligible costs (current
capacity at the time of the Step 3 award) and conventional grav-
ity collection sewers become ineligible for grant awards. For
alternative collection systems and treatment systems (e.g., pres-
sure sewers, septic tank effluent sewers, septic tanks, and soil
absorption systems), the funding level is 85 percent of the eli-
gible costs for grant awards made prior to October 1, 1984, and
75 percent of all eligible costs for grants made after October 1,
1984.
The dispersal of Federal funds to local applicants is made via
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants
Program administered by the USEPA. Currently, separate Federal
grants are no longer provided for Step 1, facilities planning,
and Step 2, design of projects. The Step 3 grant provides Fed-
eral funding for project implementation and includes an allowance
for Step 1 and Step 2 activities.
Communities may choose to construct wastewater treatment facili-
ties without financial support from the State or Federal govern-
ments. In such cases, the only State and Federal requirements
that apply are that the design be technically sound and the fac-
ility be capable of meeting its NPDES permit and public health
requirements. Also, applicable local ordinances have to be met.
Ohio is required by the Federal Clean Water Act {PL 92-500) to
establish water quality standards for lakes and streams, and to
establish effluent standards for the discharge of pollutants to
1-10
-------
those lakes and streams which are defined in the NPDES permits
issued by the Ohio EPA.
Federal law stipulates that, at a minimum, discharges must meet
secondary treatment requirements. Water quality standards pro-
posed by the Ohio EPA are subject to USEPA approval and must con-
form to Federal guidelines.
1.4 Study Process and Public Participation
Preparation of the Draft EIS was initiated in 1981, after distri-
bution of the Draft Facilities Plan by the Clermont County Board
of Commmissioners. The scope and direction of the EIS was deter-
mined at a meeting held October 3, 1980, between representatives
of Clermont County, USEPA, Ohio EPA, Balke Engineers (facilities
planning consultant) and WAPORA, Inc. (EIS consultant for
USEPA), in anticipation of the Draft Facilities Plan. This scop-
ing meeting was the first of several such meetings held to coor-
dinate and track EIS progress.
Since 1980, major participants in wastewater management planning
for the FPA have included the Clermont County Board of Commis-
sioners; the Clermont County Water and Sewer District; Ohio EPA;
USEPA, Region V; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Louisville Dis-
trict office; Ohio Department of Natural Resources; Balke Engi-
neers; and the villages of Amelia, Batavia, Bethel, and Williams-
burg. The OKI Regional Council of Governments and the U.S.
Housing and Urban Development Agency also had some involvement in
the facilities planning.
A full scale public participation program for Step 1 facilities
planning was conducted by Clermont County. This included forma-
tion of a Public Advisory Committee which met to advise the
County Board on facilities planning issues, plus a series of
four, formal public meetings which preceded completion of the
Draft Facilities Plan. The meetings informed citizens about
planning alternatives and funding sources and were a forum for
citizen comments about sewage collection and treatment alterna-
tives .
1-11
-------
The Draft EIS on the Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County,
Ohio, was completed in April, 1984. A public hearing on the pro-
ject was held on May 31, 1984, and the 45-day comment period
was open until June 11, 1984. Several comments on the Draft EIS
were received. These are summarized and responded to in Chapter
5.
1.5 Issues
Major issues which were addressed in this EIS process are:
0 Excessive clear water (I/I) entering the sewer systems
and the lack of treatment plant capacity to adequately
handle these extraneous flows,
0 Sludge handling and disposal problems at WWTP's,
0 Operation and maintenance problems at WWTP's,
0 Low streamflows in the East Fork of the Little Miami
River requiring construction of tertiary treatment
facilities at any or all WWTP's,
0 High costs associated with proposed regional wastewater
systems that may not be affordable by local residents,
0 Implementation of the Facilities Planning alternatives
may have secondary impacts through inducement of
residential growth where community services are not
present. Additional costs incurred by the community due
to this growth would result from the need to provide
additional school, road, water, and fire protection
services,
0 Construction of additional sewer lines may also have
adverse secondary impacts associated with increased
construction erosion, the resultant sedimentation of
Harsha Lake, and the irretrievable loss of agricultural
lands,
1-12
-------
Water quality problems and the need to improve
wastewater management to correct those problems,
Methods for mitigation of the impacts ot expanding and
upgrading treatment facilities in the floodplain of the
East Fork of the Little Miami River,
The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of upgrading
existing, on-site treatment systems and of using
innovative and alternative technologies for on-site
treatment, and
Archaeological and historic resources.
1-13
-------
-------
2.0 DISCUSSION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Existing Centralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
The seven WWTPs located within the Middle East Fork Facilities
Planning Area (FPA) are the Am-Bat, Batavia, Bethel, Williams-
burg, Holly Towne Mobile Home Park (MHP), Berry Gardens MHP, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) - East Fork Park Main
Office (Figure 2-1).
A description of the service area of each WWTP, wastewater flows,
treatment systems, and effluent quality characteristics follow.
All information is derived from the Middle East Fork Facilities
Plan (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2.1.1 Amelia-Batavia System
2.1.1.1 Service Area
The Am-Bat wastewater treatment facilities are owned and operated
by the Clermont County Board of Commissioners through the Cler-
mont County Sewer District.
The existing service area for the Am-Bat system encompasses 5,000
acres and spans eight drainage areas in central Clermont County.
The system serves two distinct areas including several subdi-
visions, rural and commercial areas, the Village of Amelia, sev-
eral light industrial firms, and the USCOE East Fork Park in the
southern area and scattered residences, trailer parks, two major
industries, and several institutions and governmental agencies in
the eastern area.
The collection system (Balke Engineers 1981). consists of approxi-
mately 57.4 miles of public sewers and 25.2 miles of private
laterals; most of which were installed in the early 1970s (Draft
EIS) .
Three pump stations are known to bypass and overflow sewage to
tributary streams of the East Fork. The bypasses and overflows
2-1
-------
f AM-BAT
I WWTP
>>~-
EAST FORK PARK
WWTP
HOLLY TOWNS
MHP WWTP
BERRY GARDEN
WWTP
LEGEND
Existing WWTP
Planning Area Boundary
Figure 2-1. Location of WWTPs. in the Middle East Fork
Facilities Planning Area (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-2
-------
are described in Table 2-2 of the Draft EIS, and are shown along
with the pump stations and WWTP in Figure 2-2.
There are no combined storm and sanitary sewers. Storm drainage
is diverted to roadside ditches or collected by storm sewers.
2.1.1.2 Existing Wastewater Flows
The 1980 serviced population was estimated at 10,031 persons. In
1977, 25 industrial plants discharged to the system {Draft EIS),
of which Ford Motor Company and Cincinnati Milacron were the most
significant. The south side facilities of the USCOE East Fork
Park discharge to the Am-Bat collection system.
The average daily base wastewater flow (ADBF) and infiltration
and inflow (I/I) rates for the Am-Bat system were developed sev-
eral times during the course of facilities planning. These esti-
mates varied somewhat based on the components of flow included
and the base data used to generate them. A summary of the exist-
ing system flows is shown in Table 2-1.
The use of these flows should be considered in light of the fol-
lowing facts. The infiltration component was found to be non-
excessive based on an incomplete analysis of the entire system.
The peak I/I component was estimated in the absence of accurate
flow metering and without monitoring overflows. Also, recent
data indicates that the Ford Motor Company plant may significant-
ly affect the Am-Bat system flows. Daily water consumption
records for the month of August 1983, averaged 689,000 gpd. (For
detailed discussion, see Section 2 of the Draft EIS.)
2.1.1.3 Existing Treatment System
The Am-Bat WWTP was constructed in 1972, and expanded in 1980, to
accommodate additional industrial flows. It is located on the
bank of the East Fork approximately eight miles downstream of the
East Fork Dam, near the Village of Batavia. The elevation of the
WWTP site is approximately three to four feet below the estimated
100-year floodplain elevation.
2-3
-------
s
LEGEND
B Known bypass
• Pump station
.-- Interceptor
A WWTP
Figure 2-2. Amelia-Batavia collection system (Balke Engineers I982a).
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1
Am-Bat system summary of existing flows in mgd.
Base flow (ADBF)
USCOE Greenbriar
USCOE Tate
Infiltration
Inflow
2
2
Mi n iraum
Dry
Weather
Flow
b
0.921
mo . avg .
0.013b
mo. min.
—
Annual
Average
Flow
1.055b
ann. avg.
0.230b
avg.
0.092
40" rain
One-Inch
Rainfall
Event
1.202b
2 mo . avg .
0.590b
7-day peak
0.850b
Balke
Projected
1980a
1.092
0.053
0.058d
0.590
0.850
Total estimated
flow
0.934
1.377
2.642
2.585
Flow treated at
WWTP
Overflows at WWTP
System total
1.004" 1.317
one day
1.140d
2 mo avg .
1.650C
Feb-Mar 7 day
2.585
0.790b
3.432 2.585
Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan Middle East Fork Area Clermont County,
bOhio (Balke Engineers 1982a).
Infiltration and Inflow Analysis for the Amelia-Batavia Sewerage System
(Balke Engineers 1981).
Responses to OEPA and USEPA comments (By letter, Richard Record, Balke
Engineers, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, 23 June 1983).
The Tate site was added to the system in 1983 (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-5
-------
Raw sewage is conveyed to the plant through two 24-inch diameter
gravity interceptor sewers. Treatment processes include primary
screening (2-inch bar screen rack), grit removal, conventional
activated sludge, secondary clarification (staged), chlorination,
dechlorination, aerobic sludge digestion, and sludge drying beds
(Figure 2-3, and the Draft BIS).
The plant has an average daily design capacity of 2.4 mgd and a
peak hydraulic design rate of 7.2 mgd. Treated effluent is dis-
charged to the East Fork. Aerobically digested liquid sludge is
either: (!) dewatered, transported by tank truck, and sub-sur-
face injected on agricultural lands, or (2) dewatered, dried on
sludge drying beds, and stockpiled at the plant, or sprayed onto
fields south of the plant.
Although the Am-Bat WWTP is generally in very good structural and
mechanical condition, operational problems are attributed to the
lack of primary treatment, hydraulic overloads during wet weather
periods, high BOD and suspended solids loadings, and possible
toxic effects from industrial discharges.
2.1.1.4 Existing Effluent Quality
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored daily at the Am-Bat
WWTP in accordance with the NPDES permit. Performance data for
1982, and 1983, are presented in Table 2-2.
2-6
-------
SANITARY SEWER
LUCY RUN
PRIMARY SCREENING
< 14' '_WASTE J
SLUDGE
6" SLUDGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE '
SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION
o>
•£»'
111
m
ui
•o-
Q
Figure 2-3. Amelia-Batavia WWTP schematic (Balke Engineers I982a).
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-2
AM-BAT WWTP PERFORMANCE DATA 1982-1983
(By letter, Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, to Charles Brasher, USEPA)
(October 21, 1983)
Date
May 1982
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1983
February
March
April
Average-Annual
Average-Summer
(mg/1)
28
19
24
16
18
14
28
14
22
27
30
40
23.3
SS
(mg/1)
35
17
15
15
23
13
28
16
26
55
49
60
29.3
NH3N
mg/1
Flow
(mod)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
82
74
30
38
30
26
36
1.64
1
1
1
40
49
33
1.52
1.46
* These months were used to calculate summer averages.
The Am-Bat WWTP currently is not capable of meeting final ef-
fluent limitations stipulated by the NPDES permit even though
flows in 1982 and 1983 averaged only two-thirds of design capa-
city.
2.1.2 Bethel System
The Clermont County Board of Commissioners acquired ownership of
and operational responsibility for the Bethel collection and
treatment facilities in 1974. At that time, the system was ex-
periencing significant problems and could not meet effluent dis-
charge standards. The residents of Bethel were included in the
uniform rate structure for sanitary services in the County, al-
though no significant improvements have been made.
2-8
-------
2.1.2.1 Service Area
The existing service area for the Bethel system, estimated to
contain 2,230 persons in 1980, encompasses approximately 459
acres within the Village of Bethel which is located in the south-
eastern portion of the planning area. The area served is almost
entirely low to medium density residential and commercial land
uses. No significant industrial wastes are discharged to the
system. The collection system consists of approximately 11 miles
of vitrified clay gravity sewers mostly of 8-inch diameter.
Approximately 45 percent of the construction took place in the
early 1940s, 50 percent in the early 1960s, and the remainder
since 1970 (Table 2-9 of the Draft EIS) . There are five pump
stations and an unknown length of force main. Three pump sta-
tions have known bypasses and overflow to Poplar Creek. Bypasses
are also located at a manhole 300 feet upstream of the WWTP and
at the WWTP, both of which overflow to Town Run (Figure 2-4).
There are no combined storm and sanitary sewers, but sanitary-
storm cross connections are suspected. Storm drainage is di-
verted to roadside ditches and collected by storm sewers.
2.1.2.2. Existing Wastewater Flows
An analysis of WWTP flows from December 1978 through April 1979,
determined "extraneous" flows at 0.325 mgd with WWTP recorded
flows of 0.591 mgd. The 0.325 mgd figure was used as the peak
infiltration rate in the SSES report and the cost-effective an-
alysis concluded that approximately 0.0576 mgd should be elimin-
ated through sewer rehabilitation. This report also established
the inflow rate to be 0.700 mgd based on an 1-inch rainfall in 24
hours and concluded that it was reasonable to assume 75 percent
removal.
Several estimates have been made of the various flow components
for Bethel. All available data is summarized in Table 2-3. The
information was developed using WWTP flow records and standard
procedures. None of the analyses directly took into account the
significant system overflows. The total estimated system over-
2-9
-------
State Rout* 128
Pump Station
Legend
B Known bypass
• Pump station
A WWTP
^ O
0 1000
•eal* tn fe«t
Figure 2-4. Bethel collection system (Balke Engineers 1979),
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-3
Bethel system summary of existing flows in mgd.
Base flow (ADBF)
Minimum Dry
Weather
Flow
0.213b
0.121
Annual
Average
Flow
b
0.213.
0.053,
TT266b
One-Inch
Rainfall
Event
0.213b
0.121°
Balke
Projected
I980a
0.121
Infiltration
0.195
0.336
0.325
0.325
0.300
Inflow
0.700°
0.700C
0.700
Total estimated
flow
0.316
0.6021
1.238'
1.146
1.121
Recorded WWTP flow
0.520
Jan-Mar 7 day
0.472"(l974-75) —.
0.591 (1978-79) 1.370
Peak
1.121
Overflow
-------
flows are in excess of 203,500 gallons for a typical storm and
1.063 mg for a peak event.
All estimated and recorded flows are greatly in excess of the
0.270 mgd design capacity of the WWTP. System overflows are by-
passed to Town Run.
2.1.2.3 Existing Treatment System
The Bethel WWTP was completed in 1961. It discharges to Town
Run, a small creek tributary to Poplar Creek that flows into
Harsha Lake, located approximately four miles upstream. The
plant is not subject to flooding.
Raw sewage from the Bethel service area enters the plant by a
12-inch diameter trunk sewer which has a restricted 8-inch pipe
section to regulate extreme flows. There is an operator con-
trolled 12-inch bypass in the bar screen chamber which overflows
directly to Town Run.
The treatment processes include preliminary screening, primary
settling, tricking filters, secondary clarification, sludge
digestion and sludge drying beds. There are no facilities for
disinfection (Figure 2-5 and Table 2-12 of the Draft EIS). The
plant has an average daily design capacity of 0.270 mgd. Liquid
sludge is trucked to the Nine Mile Creek WWTP for treatment and
ultimate disposal.
The primary settling unit is in poor condition. The lack of grit
removal equipment leads to a build-up of grit in the primary
tanks which cannot be removed by the sludge pumps. Some mechan-
ical equipment is deteriorating due to age and corrosion. Opera-
tional problems, other than equipment maintenance, involve hy-
draulic overloading even during the lowest flow periods.
2.1.2.4 Existing Effluent Quality
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored bi-weekly at the
Bethel WWTP in accordance with the NPDES permit. Performance
data for 1980 (Table 2-4), indicate that the plant does not meet
2-12
-------
Final clarifier
Trickling filter
Administration and Pump building
Sludge drying beds
Bar screen
chamber
influent
Clarigester, degritting
chamber and
Sludge digestion
Figure 2-5. Bethel WWTP layout (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-13
-------
the final NPDES treatment requirements. The inadequate perform-
ance is attributable to hydraulic overloading of the plant, lack
of effluent disinfection, mechanical problems and fundamental
limitations of the treatment processes. During even the lowest
wet weather flows, the Bethel WWTP will overload and upset with
solids overflow from the primary clarifiers.
TABLE 2-4
BETHEL WWTP PERFORMANCE DATA
JANUARY - DECEMBER, 1980
(Balke Engineers 1982a)*
Parameter
BOD5
SS (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
pH (units)
In-
fluent
(raw)
170
157
—
7.3
Ef-
fluent
Ave.
48
38
4.5
7.3
Ef-
fluent
Max.
102
200
2.1 (min)
6.0 to 8.2
Final Removal
NPDES Effi-
Limits** ciency
NH3N (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
NO2N (mg/1)
Fecal coliform
No data available
11.5 17.8
No data available
0.1 0.2fi
No data available
10
20
4.0 (min)
6.9 to 9.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
200
72%
76%
* All values are a 30-day arithmetic mean.
** As outlined in Ohio EPA NPDES Permit.
2.1.3 Batavia System
The Batavia wastewater treatment facilities are owned and
operated by the Village of Batavia's Board of Public Affairs.
2.1.3.1 Service Area
The existing service area for the Batavia system encompasses
approximately 377 acres within the Village of Batavia, which is
located in the central portion of the County. The area served is
almost entirely low to medium density residential and commerical
land uses. There are four industries in the system, but all pro-
duce wastewaters of normal domestic strength.
2-14
-------
The collection system, which overall is in poor condition, con-
sists of approximately 7.5 miles of public sewers, mostly of
8-inch diameter and approximately 5.4 miles of private laterals
of 4-inch diameter.
There are two pump stations and an unknown length of force main.
Both pump stations have known bypasses and overflow to the East
Fork of the Little Miami River. Two controllable bypasses at the
Batavia WWTP also overflow to the East Fork (Figure 2-6). There
are no combined sewers. Storm drainage is diverted to roadside
ditches and collected by storm sewers.
The 1980 residential population within the Village of Batavia was
estimated to be 1,890 of which 1,650 were served by the sewer
system and 240 were served by on-site systems.
2.1.3.2 Existing Wastewater Flows
Studies have indicated an average daily base flow of 0.092 mgd,
infiltration of 0.093 mgd, inflow of 0.042 mgd, for a total of
0.227 mgd. The maximum infiltration rate has been estimated at
0.151 mgd and the maximum inflow rate has been estimated at 0.180
mgd .
The Batavia WWTP design capacity is 0.150 mgd which is realized
only under minimum dry weather flow conditions. All other flows
exceed the hydraulic design capacity. A one-inch rainfall event
produces flow rates more than 3.5 times as great as the design
capacity. Observed overflows have ranged from 50,000 to 300,000
gpd in 1982, at the North Riverside Drive pump station. The
available data is summarized in Table 2-5.
2-15
-------
\ 5«* ?l sv
\ 31 :! 'MSi-
-------
TABLE 2-5
BATAVIA SYSTEM SUMMARY OF EXISTING FLOWS IN MGD
Base Flow (ADBF)
Infiltration
Inflow
Total Estimated
Flow
Recorded WWTP Flow
Overflow @ WWTP
System Total
Win Dry
Weather
Plow*
0.103
0.051
0.000
0.154
0.154
Annual
Average
Flow*
0.109
0.104
0.117
0.152
0.029
0.255
0.241
One inch
Rainfall
Flow*
0.109
0.182
0.265
0.556
0.330
0.300a
0.856a
Balke
Projected
1980**
0.092
0.200
0.265
0.557
0.557
* infiltration and Inflow Analysis for the village of Batavia
(McGill & Smith, Inc., 1981a).
** Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan Middle East Fork Area,
Clermont County, Ohio (Balke Engineers 1982a).
a Large bypasses at the lift stations are not included in
these flows.
2.1.3.3 Existing Treatment System
The Batavia WWTP was initially constructed in 1955, and upgraded
in 1964 and 1974. It is located on Foundry Road on the bank of
the East Fork, approximately 7 river miles downstream of the East
Fork Dam.
Raw sewage enters the plant through an 8-inch diameter force
main. There are bypasses from the trickling filter dosing cham-
ber and the trickling filter effluent. These bypasses are used
when maintenance of downstream equipment is required.
The treatment process includes comminution, primary sedimenta-
tion, tricking filtration, secondary sedimentation, chlorination,
anaerobic sludge digestion, and sludge drying beds (Figure 2-7,
and Table 2-17 of the Draft EIS). Digested sludge is dried on
sludge drying beds and applied to nearby fields. Land is avail-
2-17
-------
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
outfall
SECONDARY CLAR1FISR
Figure 2-7. Batavia WWTP schematic (Balke Engineers I982a).
2-18
-------
able for plant expansion without requiring the purchase of addi-
tional area. The plant is in overall good condition, but has
some need for mechanical repairs.
2.1.3.4 Existing Effluent Quality
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored on a daily basis at
the Batavia WWTP in accordance with the NPDES permit. Perform-
ance data for March-December, 1980, are presented in Table 2-6.
The data presented indicate the plant does not meet the Final
NPDES treatment requirements for SS and BOD. In addition, the
current treatment processes are not expected to meet the ammonia
or total phosphorus effluent limits.
TABLE 2-6
BATAVIA WWTP PERFORMANCE DATA
MARCH - DECEMBER, 1980
(Balke Engineers 1982a)*
Parameter
BOD5 (mg/1)
SS (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
pH (units)
C12
NH3N (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Fecal coliform
In-
fluent
(raw)
195
164
NM
NA
NM
MN
NM
NM
Ef-
fluent
Ave.
16.1
19.7
6.9
7.3
0.6
NM
NM
410
Ef-
fluent
Max .
36
71
6.4
7.0-7.4
0.75
NM
NM
NM
Final
NPDES
Limits**
20
20
4.0
6.5-9.0
—
Removal
Effi-
ciency
92%
88%
—
—
—
3.0 (summer) NA
1.0
1000
NA
NA
**
NM
NA
All values are a 30-day arithmethic mean.
30-day mean value as outlined in NPDES permit application,
Not measured.
Denotes that table entry is not applicable.
Not available.
2.1.4 Williamsburg System
The Williamsburg wastewater treatment facilities are owned and
2-19
-------
operated by the Board of Public Affairs of the Village of
Williarasburg.
2.1.4.1 Service Area
The existing service area for the Williamburg system encompasses
approximately 406 acres within the Village of Williarasburg lo-
cated in the east-central portion of the County. Approximately
965 residential units and businesses are connected to the system.
There were no known industrial discharges to the system in 1980.
The collection system, which overall is in poor condition, con-
sists of approximately 8.4 miles of public sewers; mostly of
8-inch diameter and approximately 9.1 miles of private laterals
of 4-inch diameter.
There are two pump stations with unmonitored bypasses which over-
flow to the East Fork of the Little Miami River and an unknown
amount of force main. One station is located south of the river
on State Route 32 and the other on Front Street. One station
overflow was virtually eliminated by recent upgrading of pumping
capacity. There are two other unmonitored bypasses located at
the N&W Railroad and Gay Street and at the foot of Gay and the
river. One internal overflow in the system is located at Gay and
Fourth Streets. The Williamsburg WWTP also has a controllable
bypass following the comminutor which overflows to the East Fork.
The known overflows are shown on Figure 2-8.
There are no combined sewers, but storm sewer cross connections
are suspected. Storm drainage is diverted to roadside ditches
and collected by storm sewers.
The 1980 residential population served was estimated to be
1,952.
2.1.4.2 Existing wastewater Flows
Studies have established an average daily base wastewater flow
(ADBF) of 0.090 to 0.094 mgd using an 88 percent average return
rate for 1980 water consumption data. This value translates to
2-20
-------
• Pump station
AWWTP
o Bypasses
and overflows I ~j\
^'
\ \\N '*' *^
Figure 2-8. Williamsburg collection system (Balke Engineers I982a),
2-21
-------
about 48 gpcd. These rates include wastewater from 929 resi-
dential connections and 36 commercial and institutional connec-
tions, including the village school facilities with a total water
use of 93,000 gallons per month.
Balke Engineers analyzed data for October through November, 1982,
and established a peak infiltration rate of 0.089 mgd and an
average unit inflow rate of 0.279 mgd per inch of rain. The
available data is summarized in Table 2-7.
In addition, a more recent analysis by Balke Engineers (1983) is
believed to be more accurate and indicates that even under mini-
mum infiltration/inflow conditions, the total flow in the collec-
tion system exceeds the WWTP average design capacity by more than
88,000 gpd. Approximately 75 percent of this flow receives
treatment with 25 percent being bypassed directly to the East
Fork above Marsha Lake. Following prolonged periods of rainfall
or snowmelt, approximately 50 percent of the total flow of about
500,000 gpd receives treatment with another 50 percent bypassed.
A typical storm, producing a total of 888,300 gpd of flow (more
than 3.5 times the WWTP design capacity), results in about 30
percent receiving treatment and 70 percent being bypassed.
The collection system appears incapable of conducting more than
0.521 mgd to the plant. Any excess is bypassed directly to the
East Fork by present overflows upstream of the WWTP. These over-
flows exceed 0.366 mgd for a typical storm event defined as
"generally, more than 0.1 inches within a period of a few
hours".
2.1.4.3 Existing Treatment System
The Williamburg WWTP was completed in 1962. It is located north
of Walnut Street on the west bank of the East Fork approximately
five miles upstream of Harsha Lake.
Raw sewage from the Williamsburg service area enters the plant
through an 8" diameter gravity sewer. There is an operator con-
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-7
Wil 11 anisbii rg system summary of existing flows In mgd.
Base flow (ADBF)
Infiltration
Inflow
Total estimated
flow
Recorded WWTP flow
Overflow
Systen total
Min. Dry
Weather
Flow
0.0843
0.254
0.338
0.254
Annual
Average
Flow
0.0943
0.123C
0.119
0.050C
0.031
0.213£
0.204
0.211
a
One-inch
Rainfall
Event
0.112
0.393
0.383
0.279C
0.888
0.2611
0.627*
1.515
Balke
Projected
1980
0.090
0.140
0.440
0.670
0.670
Infiltration/Inflow Analysis for the Village of Williamsburg (McGill &
Smith, Inc. 1981b).
Summary of flow monitoring results Village of Williamsburg SSES (By letter,
Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, to Charles Brasher, USEPA, 21 October 1983).
"Addendum to the infiltration and inflow analysis for the Village of
Williams burg, Ohio (By letter, Fred W. Montgomery, Clermont County Sewer
District, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, 11 February 1983).
Report on Williams burg Infiltration/Inflow Analysis (Jones and Simpson 1983).
'Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County,
Ohio (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-23
-------
trolled bypass to the effluent channel following the comminutor,
but it is rarely used.
The treatment plant processes include comminution, preliminary
screening, extended aeration activated sludge, and secondary sed-
imentation (Figure 2-9, and the Draft EIS) . There are no facil-
ities for disinfection. The plant has an average daily design
capacity of 0.250 mgd. Treated effluent is discharged to the
East Fork.
There are no sludge handling, treatment, or disposal facilities
at the site. Previous practice has been to store sludge in the
clarifiers and periodically discharge it via the effluent line
directly to the East Fork. Presently, a private contractor re-
moves 1,500 gallons of sludge about 10 times per month to an
unreported ultimate disposal site.
The plant is in overall good condition and is well maintained.
Land is available at the site to allow for expansion.
2.1.4.4 Existing Effluent Quality
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored on a regular basis at
the Williamsburg WWTP. The plant has a well-equipped, state
certified laboratory, but the sampling program is not adequate to
meet the anticipated requirements of a final NPDES permit. Per-
formance data for January through December, 1980, are presented
in Table 2-8.
2-24
-------
EXTENDED AERATION
& SETTLING TANKS
LAB &
BLOWER RM.
BAR SCREEN &
COMMINUTOR CHAMBER
•LIFT STATION
150 gpm
Figure 2-9. Williamsburg WWTP layout (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-8
WILLIAMSBURG WWTP PERFORMANCE DATA
JANUARY - DECEMBER, 1980
(Balke Engineers I982a)*
Parameter
BODg (mg/1)
SS (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
pH (units)
Clo
NH3N (rag/1)
Total P (mg/1)
N02N (mg/1)
N03N (mg/1)
In-
fluent
(raw)
190
255
NM
7.2
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Ef-
fluent
Ave.
20.0
30.0
6.9
7.1
NM
NM
1.8
3.2
11.0
Ef-
fluent
Max.
113
350
2.9(min)
6.3-7.7
NM
NM
4.2
11.2
18.5
Final
NPDES
Removal
Effi-
Limits** ciency
10
12
4.0
6.5-9.
—
1.9(7
—
—
89%
88%
—
0
—
-day) NA
1.0
—
"
**
All values are a 30-day arithmetic mean.
Based on permit drafted by Ohio EPA after 1977 (not issued)
NM Not measured
Denotes that table entry is not applicable.
NA Not available.
Balke Engineers (1982a) report that the present operation of the
Williamburg WWTP produces fair to good quality of effluent which
usually meets Interim NPDES requirements for BOD and SS. Avail-
able flow data indicate, however, that the flows through the
treatment system are maintained at or near the design flow rate
of 0.25 mgd with all excess flows bypassed. Balke Engineers
(1982a) further reports, however, that peak hydraulic surges due
to infiltration and inflow frequently cause displacement and
"washout" of the microbiological community in the extended aera-
tion reactors. This results in poor plant performance during and
after high flow periods.
2.1.5 USCOE East Fork Park System
The USCOE East Fork Park wastewater treatment facilities are
2-26
-------
owned and operated by the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers, and are
designed to serve planned recreation areas in the East Pork
Park.
2.1.5.1 Service Area
The existing service area for the USCOE East Fork Park system
consists of four subservice sites (Figure 2-10). The Dam and
Tailwater site has a collection system consisting of gravity
sewers, pump stations and force mains, wastewater treatment
plant, and chemical toilets. The Greenbriar and Tate sites have
collection systems that discharge to the Am-Bat system and chem-
ical toilets. The Concord and Bethel sites are undeveloped at
this time.
2.1.5.2 Existing Wastewater Flows
According to the Facilities Plan, the wastewater flow treated by
the USCOE East Fork Park WWTP was less than the plant capacity,
and the average daily base flow treated at the Am-Bat plant was
0.053 mgd. Sewage flows are shown in Table 2-9.
2-27
-------
WUUamsbura
Dam and Tallwater •ltd
LEGEND
Wastewater treated at
Amelia-Batavia WWTP
USCOE East Fork WWTP
Chemical toilet
Bethel
Figure 2-10. USCOE East Fork Park wastewater service areas
(Balke Engineers I982a).
2-28
-------
TABLE 2-9
SEWAGE LOADS IN THE USCOE EAST FORK PARK BY SITE
(Balke Engineers 1982a)a
Normal Weekend Day
Site
Dam and Tailwaterb
Greenbriarc
Tatec
Concordd
Betheld
Totals
Flow
Gallons
3,670
53,100
57,700
BOD5
Pounds
12.27
229.72
227.12
114,470
469.11
a Contribution from chemical type toilet facilities not
included.
b Treated at USCOE East Fork Park WWTP.
c Treated at Am-Bat WWTP.
^ Waterborne sanitary facilities not planned at this site
2.1.5.3 Existing Treatment System
The WWTP at the Dam and Tailwater site was completed in 1978
is located at the dam site in the East Fork Park.
It
The treatment plant processes include extended aeration activated
sludge, secondary sedimentation, and tertiary filtration. The
plant capacity is 4,000 gpd. Treated effluent is discharged to
the East Fork below the dam. The plant is in good condition and
has experienced no problems.
Existing flows from the Greenbriar and Tate sites are treated at
the Am-Bat WWTP. Chemical toilet wastes from all sites are
trucked to the Am-Bat WWTP for treatment with a normal weekend
day flow of 465 gallons, containing 86.8 pounds of BOD.
2.1.5.4 Existing Effluent Ouality
Final effluent is monitored monthly at the USCOE East Fork Park
2-29
-------
WWTP in accordance with the NPDES permit. According to the Fac-
ilities Plan, the plant currently meets all Final NPDES require-
ments .
2.1.6 Holly Towne Mobile Home Park (MHP) System
The Holly Town MHP WWTP is privately owned and operated.
2.1.6.1 Service Area
The Holly Towne MHP service area (Figure 2-11) is located on
State Route 125 east of Hamlet, encompasses approximately 46
acres, and can accomodate up to 181 mobile homes. No land is
currently available for expansion of the MHP, and no expansion
plans have been made by the owner. In 1980, there were 181
mobile homes in the park and an estimated residential population
of 597. There are no other connections to the system.
2.1.6.2 Existing Wastewater Flows
No accurate data is available on water consumption or sewage flow
(Balke Engineers 1982a). Flows reported to the Ohio EPA averaged
0.036 mgd for the period from December 1980, to February 1981.
Minimum and maximum flows during that period were 0.030 and 0.050
mgd, respectively. These were based entirely on water consump-
tion as there is no flow meter at the WWTP.
No data is available to assess the I/I rates, but it appears to
be substantial based on visual inspection by Balke Engineers.
The total flow (ADBF, plus I/I) in 1980, was estimated to be
0.051 mgd which is in excess of the 0.035 mgd design flow rate of
the WWTP. Additional data on the Holly Towne MHP average daily
base flow and I/I rates should be obtained before final design.
2.1.6.3 Existing Treatment System
The Holly Towne MHP WWTP began operation in 1969. The treatment
plant processes include extended aeration activated sludge, sec-
ondary sedimentation, disinfection with hypochlorite, and final
polishing in an aerated lagoon with approximately 11,850 square
2-30
-------
"loJ j/YPs^~\rr'
Figure 2-11. Location of Berry Gardens and Holly Towne MHPs (OKI 1976).
-------
feet of surface area (Figure 2-12). At one time, the plant had a
comminutor for preliminary treatment, but it has been removed.
There are no facilities for sludge treatment or disposal. Sludge
is periodically removed from the clarifier and hauled away to an
unknown site for disposal.
The plant has had a history of operation and maintenance problems
which include:
0 Excessive flows (due to I/I),
0 Solids carry over due to irregular sludge wasting
and aeration equipment problems,
0 Inadequate blower capacity,
0 Lack of comminutor, and
0 Sludge blanket and short circuiting in the
polishing pond.
Improvements scheduled in the near future include installation of
a flow meter and a 3,000 gallon tank for primary settling and
sludge storage.
2.1.6.4 Existing Effluent Quality
Raw sewage and final effluent are monitored bi-monthly at the
Holly Towne MHP WWTP in accordance with the NPDES permit. Per-
formance data for 1980 are presented in Table 2-10. The data
presented indicate that the plant does not meet the final NPDES
requirements. Treatment is adversely effected by excess I/I
flows and operation and maintenance problems. There have been
numerous complaints about odors at the plant and solids in the
receiving stream.
2-32
-------
FLOW FROM MKP
COLLECTION SYSTEM
0.036 MOD RATED CAPACITY
EXTENDED
AERATION
PLANT
HYPOCHLORITE DISINFECTION
DISCHARGE TO BACK RUN
6600 FEET UPSTREAM FROM MARSHA LAKE
Figure 2-12. Holly Towne WWTP schematic (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-10
HOLLY TOWNE WWTP PERFORMANCE DATA
DECEMBER 1980 - FEBRUARY 1981
(Ralke Engineers I982a)*
Parameter
BOD5 (mg/1)
SS (mg/1)
DO (mg/1)
pH (units)
C12
Fecal coliform
NH3N (mg/1)
* All values
** 30— dav mear
In-
fluent
( raw)
78
73
NM
7.5
NM
NM
NM
Ef-
fluent
Ave.
23
28
3.3
7.3
0
1,262
NM
are a 30-day ari
i value as oiihlirx
Ef-
fluent
Max.
100
98
2.0 (min)
7.1-7.6
0
3,000
NM
Final Removal
NPDES Effi-
Limits** ciency
10
12
6.0-9.0
0.5
200
1.0
89%
61%
NA
NA
NM Not measured.
Denotes that table entry is not applicable.
NA Not available.
2.1.7 Berry Gardens Mobile Home Park (MHP) System
The Berry Gardens MHP WWTP is privately owned and operated.
2.1.7.1 Service Area
The Berry Gardens MHP service area (Figure 2-11) encompasses 20
acres and can currently accommodate up to 71 mobile homes. Land
is available to allow expansion to a total of 140 units, but
there are no plans to do so at this time. in 1980, there were 69
mobile homes in the park and a residential population of 210 per-
sons. Some adjacent residences are also connected to the sys-
tem.
2.1.7.2 Existing Wastewater Flows
The 1980 annual average daily base flow (ADBF) was estimated at
0.011 mgd (52 gpcd) based on an 83% return rate of water pur-
chased for consumption. There is no data available to assess the
2-34
-------
I/I rate, but visual inspection by Balke Engineers indicated that
it has an impact on the treatment. The total flow rate in 1980
was estimated to be 0.021 mgd (ADBF, plus I/I), which is greater
than the 0.018 mgd design capacity of the WWTP. Additional data
on the ADBF and I/I flow should be obtained before final design.
2.1.7.3 Existing Treatment System
The Berry Gardens MHP WWTP was installed in 1968.
located on the west bank of ulrey Run.
The plant is
The WWTP consists of an extended aeration package plant followed
by a polishing lagoon with a surface area of approximately 12,800
square feet. Treatment processes include comminution, extended
aeration activiated sludge treatment, secondary sedimentation,
hypochlorite disinfection and final polishing in the polishing
lagoon (Figure 2-13). Balke Engineers reported the plant to be
in a "dilapidated" condition.
The final effluent is discharged into Ulrey Run approximately
7,000 feet upstream of Harsha Lake.
2.1.7.4 Existing Effluent Quality
The Berry Gardens MHP WWTP has never been issued a NPDES permit
and is not currently monitored by the Ohio EPA. No data is
available on the performance of the plant, but is believed to be
performing similar to the Holly Towne MHP WWTP. The Clermont
County Board of Health has received complaints about odors from
the plant during the summer, resulting from septic conditions in
the polishing lagoon.
Based on the limitation of the available treatment processes and
the existing condition of the plant, it is anticipated that the
Berry Gardens MHP WWTP would not meet the Final NPDES limits if
that NPDES permit were to be issued by Ohio EPA.
2.1.8 Lower East Fork System
The Lower East Fork wV-'TP is owned and operated by the Clermont
2-35
-------
FLOW FROM MHP
COLLECTION SYSTEM
EXTENDED
AERATION
PLANT
0.018 MOD ESTIMATED
RATED CAPACITY
DISCHARGE
TO ULREY RUN,
/ ULREY RUN
Figure 2-13. Berry Garden WWTP schematic (Balke Engineers 1982a).
2-36
-------
County Board of Commissioners through the Clermont County Sewer
District.
2.1.8.1 Service Area
The existing service area encompasses major portions of Union and
Miami Townships in the western-most part of Clermont County.
Small portions of Pierce and Goshen Townships are included. A
small area along Old state Route 74 at Olive Branch and Taylor
Road to the Clermont County Airport was diverted to the Lower
East Fork system by elimination of a lift station at Olive Branch
(Figure 2-14).
The Union Township sewer system was constructed in 1964-65, and
has been plagued by infiltration and heavy inflow problems since
the start of service. Approximately 60 miles of collection lines
and ten lift stations comprise the system. The Miami-Goshen-
Stonelick sewer system was completed and put into service in the
spring of 1973. Approximately 44 miles of collection lines and
20 lift stations comprise the system.
The 1970 census recorded a population of 20,487 for Union
Township and 22,776 for Miami Township.
2.1.8.2 Existing wastewater Flows
An analysis conducted by the Ohio EPA estimated that the average
monthly flow through the Lower East Fork WWTP was 5.80 mgd with a
minimum of 3.95 mgd and a maximum of 7.91 mgd (May, 1983). The
design capacity of the plant is 7.00 mgd.
An I/I report prepared in conjunction with the 1974 Facilities
Plan concluded that I/I was excessive and that the analysis "has
pointed up the absolute requirement that storm water inflow be
removed from the systems to be served by the regional facility"
(McGill & Smith, Inc., 1974).
2.1.8.3 Existing Treatment System
The main secondary treatment process at the Lower East Fork WWTP
2-37
-------
LOWER EAST FORK,
SEWERAGE AREA
LITTLE MIAMI REGIONAL
?!/Tv«Sff I
-"••• 'oii^-.1 ?•'.•••**/ $
*
NINEMILE CREEK
SEWER AREA
Figure 2-14. Lower East Fork WWTP service area (McGil & Smith, inc. 1974).
2-3H
-------
is composed of 33 rotating biological contactors (RBCs) arranged
in three parallel trains of 11 contactors. These are followed by
final clarification and sand filters. Hydrasieves precede the
RBCs in place of primary settling.
2.1.8.4 Existing Effluent Quality
Performance data for August 1982 through June 1983, are summar-
ized in Table 2-11. The hydraulic design capacity of the plant
was exceeded on a monthly average basis for April and May, 1983.
The WWTP has experienced operational problems with the RBC units
since start-up and is currently under orders to develop a plan
for meeting the effluent limits. Although it was constructed a
number of years ago, the plant has not yet consistently met its
effluent requirements.
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-11
LOWER EAST FORK WWTP EFFLUENT PERFORMANCE DATA
AUGUST 1982 - JUNE 1983
(By letter, Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA,
to Charles Brasher, U.S. EPA, October 21, 1983)
Date
August 1982
September
October
November
December
January 1983
February
March
April
May
June
Average
Average
Summer
BOD5
(mg/1)
7.9
10.8
10.2
17.2
14.4
14.3
12.0
11.8
7.3
8.3
11.4
SS
(mg/1)
2.8
3.4
4,.9
9.4
7.9
8..0
3,9
8
10
,3
,2
4..0
6.3
NH3N
(mg/1)
3.1*
4.7*
3.1
4.6
3.0
4.0
5.6
1.7
0.9
1.8*
3.1
3.2*
Flow
(mgd)
4.08
3.95
5.04
6.97
6.11
6.60
5.16
,03
,91
5.17
5.80
These months were used for the summer average.
2.2 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems
2.2.1 Use of On-Site Systems
Approximately 3,300 residences are served by on-site systems,
most of which include septic tanks. Two-thirds of these septic
tank systems utilize soil absorption for disposal of effluent
while the remaining third utilize systems that have a surface
discharge. Surface discharge systems are locally preferred, but
can be installed only where a drainageway for a discharge point
is present.
A number of aerobic systems are in use in the FPA. Owners of new
aerobic systems are required to have a maintenance agreement with
2-40
-------
the supplier of the unit. Some owners have the septic or aerobic
tank pumped regularly, but they generally have the tank pumped
only when a problem occurs.
The Clermont County Health Department (CCHD) inspects the dis-
charge of aerobic systems on an occasional basis. Other systems
are not inspected by the CCHD or the Ohio EPA unless a specific
complaint is registered.
The Ohio EPA has been given authority by the legislature to esta-
blish and administer special sanitary districts around state
parks. It established such a district around the East Fork Park
in 1978, and administers the Park from the Southwest District
Office in Dayton.
Probably the major factor in successful operation of on-site sys-
tems is regular, periodic maintenance, primarily regular removal
of solids from the tankage. Occasional inspection of the aerator
in the aerobic units is also necessary if these systems are to
function properly. In addition to maintenance, water conserva-
tion practices in the homes are essential for the continued suc-
cessful operation of many of the on-site systems. This is a
primary factor in the successful operation of many of the on-site
systems, particularly, the undersized systems. The water use
records indicate that water-saving practices are substantially
used within the watershed.
2.2.2 Performance of On-Site Systems
Data sources used to document the actual or inferred performance
of on-site systems in the FPA are:
0 Soil Survey of Clermont County (SCS 1975) was
interpreted to identify soils with constraints that
prevent satisfactory on-site system operation,
0 Clermont County Health Department and Ohio EPA records
were used to identify upgraded and new on-site systems
and personnel were interviewed for insights into
procedures,
2-41
-------
Aerial infrared photography performed by the USEPA
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory (EMSL)
of possible surface malfunctions were noted,
Field checking of selected areas were performed by
Balke Engineers and presented in the facilities
planning documents,
Lot size analysis was conducted by analyzing the tax
maps and ownership records from the Tax Map Office of
the Clermont County Engineer,
Fecal coliform sampling data for streams and drainages
conducted by Balke Engineers was evaluated, and
Sanitary opinion questionnaires prepared by Balke
Engineers were tabulated for information concerning
on-site systems.
2.2.2.1 Soil Characteristics for On-Site Treatment
The soils within the planning area are generally rated unsuitable
or marginally suitable for soil absorption systems. The soils
rated as unsuitable are located in nearly level areas away from
drainageways where the seasonal water table is at or near the
ground surface. The marginally suitable soils are located near
drainageways or on gently sloping soils.
2.2.2.2 Lot Size Analysis
The lot sizes in each township were enumerated by "problem areas"
and "non-problem areas" and presented in Table 2-29 of the Draft
EIS. The problem areas were identified by Balke Engineers as
areas with high concentrations of small lots that may be feasible
to sewer. A total of 53 problem areas in the FPA were identified
based on a total of 3,218 enumerated parcels. The following
observations were made:
2-42
-------
0 Parcels enumerated in problem areas were 1,344 (42% of
the total) with 665 located in Tate Township, 223 in
Williamsburg Township, and 208 in Batavia Township,
0 Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres totalled 160 of which 140
were within the problem areas,
0 Parcels within the problem areas that are smaller than
0.5 acres amounted to 10% or 140 of the parcels within
the problem areas,
0 Parcels within the problem areas that are 0.5 to 0.75
acres amounted to 24% or 326 of the parcels within the
problem areas, and
0 Tate Township had the greatest number (246) of parcels
smaller than 0.75 acres of the total of 657.
2.2.2.3 County and State Permit File Data
The files of the CCHD and Ohio EPA were reviewed for information
on on-site system problems and the number and types of upgrades
and new systems. The CCHD and Ohio EPA also issue permits for
system upgrades and new systems in response to applications from
homeowners and make field inspections when complaints are re-
ceived. These inspections are recorded at the County and State
offices and are indicative of persistent problems.
The records showed that 384 systems (12% of all existing on-site
systems) have been built since 1974. For this time period, 119
systems (4% of all existing systems) have either been replaced,
repaired, or upgraded. Only a slightly higher percentage of
repaired systems (4.4%) were found in "problem areas" compared to
"non-problem" areas (3.2%).
For new systems permitted since 1974 in the FPA, septic tanks and
leach lines (ST + LL) were most frequently chosen (208 systems)
followed by aerobic systems with upflow filters (145 systems).
For this time period, there were 1,135 sewer hook-ups.
2-43
-------
Complaints are also filed in county records. Since 1974, 33
complaints have been registered for the FPA. For 1974 through
1978, only three complaints were listed in county records, and
for 1979 through 1983, 30 complaints were recorded. Typically,
the complaints were in regard to surfacing septic tank effluent
from failing drain t" ields, or from surface discharges.
2.2.2.4 Aerial Infrared Photography Survey
An aerial photographic survey was conducted by the USEPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) in 1981, to
locate failing or discharging on-site systems in the FPA
(Slonecker 198la). The method utilizes color and color infrared
aerial photography to detect changes in soil moisture, unusually
lush growth, and other visible evidences that are characteristic
of septic system malfunctions.
The failures were located on an USGS topographic map by failure
classification. A total of 247 on-site system malfunctions were
detected in the FPA. The 173 malfunctions (either surface fail-
ure, seasonal failure, or seasonal stress) found within problem
areas indicated that 13 percent of the total number of on-site
systems within problem areas had some type of surface discharge
resulting in a malfunction signature. For comparison, 74 mal-
functions were found in non-problem areas, representing 4 percent
of the total number of on-site systems in non-problem areas.
2.2.2.5 Field Surveys
As a result of a windshield survey of housing stock and a pedes-
trian survey for relief lines, surface ponding, and excessive
odors, a total of 34 problem areas were defined by Balke Engi-
neers (Draft EIS). The typical problems included several of the
following: poor drainage, poor grading, septic odor, direct dis-
charges, many homeowner complaints, and/or high failure rates.
2.2.2.6 Fecal Coliform Sampling Data
Balke Engineers (1983a) conducted a surface drainage water samp-
2-44
-------
ling program for the purpose of identifying areas were potential
health problems may exist. Water samples were collected and
analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria from suspected problem areas
by sampling roadside ditches, drainage swales, and small creeks
and streams.
Samples were not collected from uninhabited areas or areas where
no problems were suspected. Therefore, actual background concen-
trations of fecal coliform, originating from other than human
sources, were not determined. Since no background data were
established, literature values typical of certain problems were
used to evaluate the results of the sampling program. However,
the findings based on these values cannot be considered conclu-
sive evidence of septic tank failures in an area.
Based on the literature values, samples with fecal coliform den-
sities greater than 13,000/100 ml were considered to have a very
high probability of contamination from failing on-site systems.
Samples with fecal coliform densities of 6,500/100 ml to
13,000/100 ml were considered to have a high probability of con-
tamination, although contamination from animal wastes would be a
possibility. Samples with fecal coliform densities below
6,500/100 ml were typical samples from residential areas and the
source of contamination was considered to be undetermined.
In the study conducted by Balke Engineers (1983a), a total of 82
water samples were collected (74 samples were collected from 53
suspected problem areas, 6 samples were collected at 4 sites
directly downstream of wastewater treatment plants, and 2 samples
were collected from Harsha Lake).
Of the 74 samples collected from suspected problem areas, 19
samples (26%) had fecal coliform densities above 13,000/100 ml, 6
samples (8%) had fecal coliform densities between 6,500 and
13,000/100 ml, and 49 samples (66%) had fecal coliform densities
below 6,500/100 ml. Therefore, 25 (34%) of the samples indicated
a high to very high probability of fecal coliform contamination
from human origin, representing 1R of the 53 problem areas. The
source of fecal coliform contamination in the remaining 49 samp-
les (66%) was undetermined. These results indicate 17 problem
2-45
-------
areas in the FPA with a high to very high probability of fecal
coliforra contamination originating from failing on-site systems.
2.2.2.7 Sanitary Opinion Questionnaire
An on-site system questionnaire was prepared by Balke Engineers
and distributed to homeowners in the planning area through public
meetings and workshops, the mail, and by publishing in five local
newspapers. Thirty-four homeowners returned questionnaires.
Most of these were from areas where sewers could be readily in-
stalled because the areas were adjacent to existing sewers and
had a relatively high density. Because of the extremely low res-
ponse, the questionnaire had no statistical validity.
2.2.3 Problems Caused by Existing Systems
On-site systems that fail to function properly can cause sewage
backups in household plumbing, ponding of effluent on the ground
surface, groundwater contamination that may affect water sup-
plies, and excessive nutrients and coliform levels in surface
water.
Backups of sewage in household plumbing constitutes direct evi-
dence of a malfunction if it can be related directly to design or
site problems. Plugged or broken pipes or full septic tanks
would not constitute an evidence of need.. No comprehensive in-
formation on backups within the planning area exists at the pre-
sent time.
Ponding of septic tank effluent above or around the soil absorp-
tion system constitutes direct evidence of failure. The aerial
photography and the field inspections identified many such sys-
tems. The systems that were confirmed as surface failures from
aerial photographs numbered 126 systems (of the 3,200). Those
identified as seasonal failures totaled 121 systems. other cor-
roborating evidence would be required to conclusively place these
systems in either the obvious or no problem categories.
Contamination of water supply wells constitutes direct evidence
of soil absorption system failure where concentrations of
2-46
-------
nutrients or bacteria greatly exceed the background levels of
yroundwaters in the area or primary drinking water quality stan-
dards. This is not a problem in the planning area, based on the
available data and the potential is not very great, since most
residents utilize public water supplies.
Within the FPA, the public health aspects of failing on-site
systems have been well documented. Certain waterways have ele-
vated fecal coliform densities that are strongly suspected of
being from failing on-site systems.
The water quality impacts attributable to nutrients, though, are
more difficult to assess. The water bodies of major concern are
the East Fork, both upstream and downstream of Marsha Lake, and
Marsha Lake itself. Water quality of the tributary streams are
of concern as they impact these two water bodies. Water quality
data indicate that on-site systems contribute a small proportion
of the total nutrients to these water bodies (less than 10 per-
cent), especially as compared to other non-point source runoff.
On minor water bodies, though, some impact of on-site system dis-
charges appears to be present, but the problem has not been quan-
tified.
Nutrients contributed to Harsha Lake from on-site systems are
estimated as minor. Major contributions from the Williamsburg
sewage system and from non-point sources far exceed the contri-
bution from on-site systems. Thus, improving the operation of
on-site systems or installing sewers would not significantly
affect water quality in Harsha Lake.
Indirect evidence that correlates with known failures can be used
as an initial screening device for locating areas where failures
were probable.
Within the planning area, the primary indirect evidence for iden-
tifying areas where failures are likely to occur are seasonal
high water tables in conjunction with slowly permeable soils,
especially below 40 inches depth.
2-47
I
-------
Aerobic systems or septic tanks with sand filters are not evi-
dence of unusual site limitations within the planning area.
These systems have been the preferred methods of treating wastes
and have generally been installed where a surface discharge was
allowable according to County practices. These lots are likely
to have surface drainage features which would allow soil absorp-
tion systems to function satisfactorily.
Numerous on-site treatment systems do not conform to accepted
design practices, particularly with respect to the size of tank-
age and the soil absorption system.
2.2.4 Identification of the Extent of Problems
Specific areas within the planning area were identified by Ralke
Engineers as having a combination of problems and lot size limit-
ations such that off-site treatment is necessary. The feasibil-
ity of extending sewer service to these areas, as well as the
continued suitability of on-site systems was assessed.
2.2.4.1 Batavia Township
The unsewered area within Batavia Township has a total of 822
parcels. Of that total, 208 parcels are located in 17 designated
problem areas as defined by Ralke Engineers (1982a). Problem
areas are characterized by undersized or inadequate septic tank/-
soil absorption systems (ST/SAS), widespread surface breakout,
direct discharge, backup, odor, many homeowner complaints and
inadequate or non-existent ST/SAS for a small unsewered area in
the center of Batavia Village.
In contrast to most of the FPA, a moderate percentage of soils in
the most developable areas in Batavia Township are rated unsuit-
able or marginally suitable for soil absorption systems.
2.2.4.2 Jackson Township
Only a small portion of Jackson Township representing 15 parcels
2-48
-------
is located in the FPA. No problems were found with the existing
on-site systems and no permits for repairs have been made since
1974.
2.2.4.3 Monroe Township
The unsewered area of Monroe Township, located within the FPA,
has a total of 301 parcels. Of that total, 166 parcels are
located in four designated problem areas characterized by surface
breakouts, relief lines to ditches, widespread ST/SAS failures
caused by poor soils and poor drainage, inadequate systems,
overland flow, and direct discharges. Two of the four problem
areas have had surface water samples with fecal coliform
densities greater than 6,500/100 ml and numerous failures were
identified by the EMSL aerial survey. Relatively few problems
were reported in the township outside of the designated problem
areas.
2.2.4.4 Pierce Township
The unsewered portion of Pierce Township, located within the FPA,
has a total of 108 parcels. Of that total, 44 parcels are
located in two designated problem areas characterized as having
widespread surface breakouts, overland flow, and direct dis-
charge, as well as small lots, poor drainage, and poor soils.
Both problem areas have had surface water samples with fecal col-
iform densities greater than 6,500/100 ml, but no failures were
identified by the EMSL aerial survey. A higher percentage of
permits for on-site system repairs have been issued in the non-
problem areas than in the problem areas.
2.2.4.5 Stonelick Township
The unsewered portion of Stonelick Township, located within the
FPA, has a total of 187 parcels. Of that total, 106 parcels are
located in three designated problem areas. One of the three
problem areas has had surface water samples with fecal coliform
densities greater than 6,500/100 ml. A slightly higher percent
age of permits for on-site repairs and the EMSL aerial survey
2-49
-------
detected failures were recorded for non-problem areas compared to
problem areas.
2.2.4.6 Tate Township
The unsewered portion of Tate Township located within the FPA has
a total of 1,274 parcels. Of the total, 665 parcels are located
in 19 designated problem areas characterized by numerous on-site
failures, surface breakouts, overland flow, direct discharge,
poor soils, poor drainage, small lots and/or inadequate systems.
Six of the designated 19 problem areas have had surface water
samples with fecal coliform densities greater than 6,500/100 ml.
Although the percentage of the number of permits issued for
repairs is similar for problem and non-problem areas, the number
of failures detected by the EMSL aerial survey and the number of
parcels less than 0.5 acres is greater for problem areas than
non-problem areas.
2.2.4.7 Union Township
Only a small portion of Union Township representing 12 residences
with on-site systems is located in the FPA. No problems were
found with the existing on-site systems and no permits have been
issued for repairs since 1974.
2.2.4.8 Williamsburg Township
The unsewered portion of Williamsburg Township, located within
the FPA, has a total of 533 parcels. Of that total, 223 parcels
are located in ten designated problem areas. Problems include at
least two of the following: poor soils, poor drainage, overland
flow, surface breakout, unpredictable failure locations, and/or
undersized absorption fields. Four of the designated ten problem
areas have had surface water samples with fecal coliform densi-
ties greater than 6,500/100 ml. The percentage of the parcels
less than 0.5 acres, the number of permits for repairs, and the
number of problems detected by the EMSL aerial survey is greater
for problem areas than non-problem areas.
2-50
-------
2.2.5 Septage and Aerobic Tank Solids Disposal Practices
Septage is the solid residual which collects in septic tanks and
aerobic treatment units. Periodically, these accumulated solids
must be removed and disposed of by private haulers who are
licensed to do so. The haulers contract with individual home-
owners to provide removal and disposal services. Generally, for
a permanent residence, fi5 to 70 gallons of septage is produced
per capita per year (USEPA 1977b). Thus, the annual septage
production from residences within the FPA is approximately
220,000 gallons per year.
The hauler assumes responsibility for disposal of the septage.
Since Clermont County has no sewage treatment plants where
septage is accepted, the haulers truck the septage to the Hamil-
ton County Sycamore Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. There,
they must certify that the septage is derived from Hamilton
County residences in order to receive dumping privileges. Re-
cause no other options are presently available to the haulers,
the present practice is allowed to continue. The dumping charge
is $5.00 per 1,000 gallons and costs of trucking that distance
are high. As such, individual homeowners are charged from S65.00
to $90.00 for pumping their septic or aerobic tank.
2.3 Wastewater Treatment System Options
2.3.1 Design Factors
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this EIS described existing centralized
collection and treatment systems and existing on-site treatment
systems currently operational in the Middle East Fork Facilities
Planning Area. Planning for proper wastewater management in the
future requires estimates of future populations and planning
periods; considerations for flow and waste reductions including
removals of excessive infiltration, inflow, and industrial flows;
definitions of flow and waste characteristics; identification of
effluent requirements of State and Federal agencies; and evalua-
tions of economic factors.
2-51
-------
2.3.1.1 Planning Period
Current USEPA guidelines specify that a planning period of 20
years be used in facilities planning (USEPA 1982). The period
1985 through 2005, is the facilities planning period for this
project. Population projections estimated for this period are
presented in Section 3.6.2.
2.3.1.2
Flow and Wasteload Reduction
A design year population typically is utilized to determine
sewage flow that would be generated by residents and by commer-
cial and industrial facilities. However, before a design flow
can be determined, other flows and/or wasteloads must be eval-
uated to document that proposed treatment facilities would not be
treating extraneous flows or pollutants that are not cost-effec-
tive to treat.
Elimination or reduction of extraneous wastewater flows and
wasteloads can substantially reduce the size of new or expanded
treatment facilities. Methods of flow and waste reduction con-
sidered for use in the study area include reduction of infiltra-
tion and inflow to existing sewers, reduction of commercial/-
industrial wasteloads, water conservation measures, waste segre-
gation, and a detergent phosphorus ban.
Infiltration/Inflow Reduction
Elimination of extraneous flow from infiltration/inflow (I/I)
into sewer systems can often substantially reduce the required
capacity of a new or upgraded WWTP. Current USEPA guidelines
{USEPA 1982) suggest the I/I may be excessive if average daily
flows are greater than 120 gpcd.
Sewer System Evaluation Surveys (SSES) (detailed surveys of lim-
ited portions of the planning area's collection systems) deter-
mined that in the major systems of the area, inflow was excessive
and is cost-effective to correct to the following extents:
Am-Bat 75% removal; Batavia at least 50% removal; Bethel 75%
removal; and Williamsburg 75% removal. infiltration in these
2-52
-------
systems was determined to be non-excessive in all cases with the
exception of Bethel where an 18% rehabilitation program was
recommended by the SSES.
The data presented in Table 2-44 of the Draft EIS indicate that
70% of the estimated peak flows are comprised of I/I. These are
anticipated to be reduced to 50% by successful removal and rehab-
ilitation programs in the major systems. A 45% I/I contribution
is expected in 2005, the design year, because estimated increases
in average daily base flow (ADBF) due to population growth ex-
ceeds estimated increases in infiltration due to collection sys-
tem deterioration.
The estimated inflow reductions (50-75%) are greater than typi-
cally achievable in most sewage systems. More realistically
achievable removals range from 30-40%. Thus, peak design flows
for each service area were estimated in the Draft EIS utilizing a
35% inflow reduction.
A planned program of sewer maintenance should be instituted to
identify and repair major inflow and infiltration sources. The
Sewer District must prevent overflows to the drainageways and
keep I/I contributions to a minimum in order to achieve that
goal.
Commercial/Industrial Wasteload Reduction
In addition to flow, the "strength" of sewage also greatly af-
fects the size and cost of sewage treatment facilities. Some
industries typically discharge sewage with ten times the strength
of residential sewage. TO be aware of and to potentially control
such industrial discharges, the USEPA requires approved sewer use
ordinances and industrial pretreatment ordinances. These
ordinances typically require all facilities that discharge waste-
water from commercial and industrial processes to have a permit.
The ordinances also allow the city to monitor industrial dis-
charges and, if excessive or abnormally high or low strength
wastewaters are being discharged, the city can assess additional
financial charges or require pretreatment of the wastewater. In
addition, the ordinances often prohibit discharge of certain
2-53
-------
storrawaters, high temperature wastes, greases and waxes, flam-
mable materials, solids, unshredded garbage, oils, acids, heavy
metals, toxic compounds, radioactive materials, or other mater-
ials in excess of limits established in the ordinance that could
damage collection lines or could be detrimental to sewage treat-
ment processes.
The Clermont County Sewer District is presently in the process of
evaluating and preparing industrial pretreatment requirements in
the County's collection system areas, which may reduce industrial
flows and, more importantly, wasteloads in the Am-Bat system.
Future treatment facilities will not likely be designed for, or
be subjected to, unreasonable amounts of industrial wastewater
flows. The Villages in the study area, however, should be en-
couraged to continue the monitoring and enforcement of the cur-
rent sewer use ordinances.
Wat_er_ Conservation Measures
Concerns over the high costs of water supply and wastewater dis-
posal and an increasing recognition of the benefits that may
accrue through water conservation are stimulating the development
and application of water conservation practices. In general,
water conservation practices may be divided into three major cat-
egories: (1) elimination of non-functional water use; (2) water-
saving devices, fixtures, and appliances; and (3) wastewater
recycle/reuse systems.
Non-functional water use is typically the result of wasteful
water-use habits, excessive water supply pressure, and inadequate
plumbing and appliance maintenance.
The quantity of water, traditionally used by household fixtures
or appliances, is often considerably higher than actually needed.
Thus, efforts to reduce wastewater flow volume, as well as its
pollutant load, have been directed toward use of these fixtures.
Some selected water conservation/wasteload reduction devices
developed for household use are toilet devices and systems; bath-
ing devices and systems; and clotheswashing devices and systems.
2-54
-------
Wastewater recycle/reuse systems provide for the collection and
processing of all household wastewater, or of fractions produced
by certain activities, for subsequent reuse. A system which is
most promising involves recycling bathing and laundry wastewater
for flushing toilets or for outside irrigation.
Another possible method for reduction of sewage flow is the ad-
justment of the price of water to control consumption. It prob-
ably would not be very effective in reducing sanitary sewer flows
because much of its impact is usually on luxury water usage, such
as lawn sprinkling or car washing which do not usually result in
increased sewage. Therefore, use of price controls in the FPA
probably would be only slightly effective in reducing wastewater
flows.
Other measures include educational campaigns on water conserva-
tion, and installation of pressure-reduction valves in areas
where water pressure is excessive (greater than 60 pounds per
square inch). Educational campaigns usually take the form of
spot television and radio commercials, and distribution of leaf-
lets with water and sewer bills. Water-saving devices must con-
tinue to be used and maintained for flow reduction to be effec-
tive.
Impacts of Flow Reduction on Wastewater Treatment Systems
Wastewater flows on the order of 15 to 30 gpcd can be achieved by
the use of several water conservation devices, systems and prac-
tices .
Reductions in wastewater flow or pollutant loads may provide the
following benefits to a wastewater program:
0 Reduce the sizes and capital costs of new sewage
collection and treatment facilities,
0 Delay the time when future expansion or replacement
facilities will be needed,
2-55
-------
0 Reduce operation of pumping and treatment,
0 Mitigate sludge and effluent disposal impacts,
0 Extend the life of existing soils absorption system(s)
that are currently functioning satisfactorily,
0 May reduce wastewater loads sufficiently to remedy
failing soil absorption systems in which effluent is
surfacing or causing backups, and
0 Reduce the size of the soil disposal field required
for new on-site systems.
USEPA guidelines indicate that water conservation and flow
reduction measures must be considered where the ADBF is greater
than 70 gpcd, unless the current population is less than 10,000
(USEPA 1981). Based on this criterion, implementation of water
conservation measures will not be required for the Am-Bat system,
Batavia, Bethel, and Williamsburg.
The water conservation measures described herein should be con-
sidered for implementation on an individual, voluntary basis,
particularly for the unsewered areas. Application of these
measures will enhance the operation of existing, upgraded, and
future on-site systems. where appropriate, some of these mea-
sures are included in the preliminary design and costing of
on-site portions or the wastewater management alternatives eval-
uated in the Draft EIS. For a more detailed discussion of water
conservation devices, refer to Chapter 2, of the Draft EIS.
Waste Segregation
Various other methods for wastewater flow and wasteload reduction
involve separation of toilet wastes from other liquid waste.
This serves to eliminate significant quanti'ties of pollutants,
particularly suspended solids, nitrogen, and pathogenic organisms
(USEPA 1980a} .
2-56
-------
Wastewater generated by fixtures, other than toilets, is often
referred to as graywater. Although residential graywater does
contain pollutants and must be properly managed; graywater may be
more simple to manage than total residential wastewater due to a
reduced flow volume. A number of potential strategies for man-
agement of segregated human excreta (blackwater) and graywater
are presented in Figure 2-16 of the Draft EIS. Since implementa-
tion of wasteload reduction measures is not mandatory for the
sewered areas (as explained previously), use of waste segregation
measures are not considered further in the development of alter-
natives Cor the sewered areas. Municipalities and individual
on-site system owners, however, are encouraged to consider and
utilize waste segregation facilities on an individual, voluntary
bas is.
Ban on Ph o sph orus
Phosphorus frequently is the nutrient that controls algal growth
in surface waters, and therefore has an important influence on
lake or stream eutrophication. Enrichment of lake waters with
nutrients encourages the growth of algae and other microscopic
plant life which can result in reduced water quality.
A phosphorus ban does not increase or decrease the cost of on-
site wastewater treatment systems. It is possible (although not
confirmed or quantified by previous research), that a reduction
in phosphorus discharged to soil absorption systems will result
in a reduction in the amount of phosphorus transported to the
groundwater from on-site soil disposal systems.
2.3.1.3 Flow and Waste Characteristics
Flow and wasteloads developed in the Draft Wastewater Facilities
Plan were evaluated. Changes were made in certain assumptions
which resulted in recalculated flows and loads for the EIS. This
procedure is detailed in Section 2.3.1.3 of the Draft EIS. Table
2-12 is a summary of the EIS flows and loads developed.
2-57
-------
TABLE 2-12
Parameter
SUMMARY OF FLOWS AND WASTE LOADS DEVELOPED
IN THE DRAFT EIS CLERMONT COUNTY PLANNING AREA
Williams-
Amj-Ra_t Batavia B_e_th_e_l Burg HTMHP* BGMHP**
1985 Flow (mgd)***
2005 Flow {mgd)
1985 BOD (Ibs/day)
2005 POD (Ibs/day)
1985 SS (Ibs/day)
2005 SS { Ibs/day)
1985 NH3N (Ibs/day)
2005 NH3N { Ibs/day)
1985 Tot-p (Ibs/day)
2005 Tot-P (Ibs/day)
2.500
3.310
4483
5935
8653
11456
313
414
208
276
0.472
0.576
787
961
984
1201
59
72
39
48
0.770
0.963
1284
1606
1605
2008
96
120
64
80
1.879
1.098
1393
1740
1869
2335
110
137
73
92
0.049 0.021
0.054 0.023
95 36
95 37
112 42
112 44
7 3
7 3
3 1
3 1
* Holly Towne Mobile Home Park system.
** Rerry Gardens Mobile Home Park system,
*** - . . ,
Average daily flows.
2-58
-------
2.3.1.4 Effluent Requirements
According to the Facilities Plan, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits were issued to all facilities
except the Berry Gardens MHP. The 30-day average effluent limits
that were applicable to wastewater discharges in the FPA at the
time of publication of the Draft Facilities Plan, dated May 1982,
are presented in Table 2-13. The Draft Facilities Plan developed
wastewater treatment improvement alternatives assuming the treat-
ment requirements outlined below.
Discharges below the Harsha Reservoir required advanced treatment
(AT), defined as 20 rag/1 for
and summer ammonia removal.
both BODc and SS with phosphorus
Discharges above Harsha Reservoir also required advanced treat-
ment (AT), defined as approximately 10 to 12 mg/1 for both
BOD5 and SS with phosphorus (1.0 mg/1), ammonia nitrogen (1.0
to 1.5 mg/1) and fecal coliform (200/100 ml) removals.
Subsequent to publication of the Draft Facilities Plan, require-
ments for phosphorus removal for discharges to the Ohio River
were rescinded. Equipment and costs for phosphorus removal were
subsequently deleted from later facilities planning documents.
In May 1983, the Ohio EPA informed the CCSD that the portion of
the preliminary Draft Comprehensive Water Quality Report (CWOR)
for the East Fork of the Little Miami River that dealt with the
effluent discharge limits for the Am-Bat WWTP had been completed.
The report would recommend more stringent effluent limits
(Table 2-14) than those previously issued. No changes in the
effluent limits for Williamsburg and Bethel were anticipated at
that time.
The preliminary draft of the CWQR was distributed in August 1983
(Ohio EPA 1983). The effluent limits were proposed at 5 mg/1
CBOD5, 1.0 mg/1 NH3~N, and 7.0 mg/1 DO. The more stringent
limits were recommended to protect the Exceptional Warmwater
Habitat of the East Fork and was based on defining the Middle
East Fork Regional WWTP as a "new source". Therefore, it is sub-
2-59
-------
0*
00
Ll
(0
42
O
en
CJ
1-1
3
O
to
o
ft.
Ll
O
01
00
SB
Ll
a>
•O
O
t»
o
4J
•r4
e
C
• l-l
vO
CM
EC r-J O
ft. CJ O
W
&
IT*
O
.
• t-i 60
cd g
3
OT3O
4.1 -H.
01-4-
m UJ
. Li
•*£>
CM
Sir-iO
O,OO
00
0
i/>
O
O
•
cr>
n)
OT3
UTH
co
O
CM
M r-i O
O. O Q
CO x-v|
W Li --^1
O O *0|
PLi CX ^-^)
1)
I H /-«
O B >>
'
C I O
~4 O Of O
n) u-i O O
o =
o
O
o
o
'o
o
CM
,1
r-i r«-
t)
C3
O
CM
oo
O
oo
O
O
O
CM
^
69
a]
O
c a
CQ v^
0)
p-S
41
JS
41
§
O
H
r-i
r-l PLI
O 3-!
DC §
te
C
01
Ll
Li
o
o
(A
a
i
f
i
o
o
CM
O
r-l
O
CO
CM
r-l
r^.
^^
o
-^
—I
u
W
cd
W
O .**i
U -4
CO O
O fa
the Batavia plant; limitations presented are based on a new permit drafted by OEPA
d (not dated).
U en
o a
U-l CO
CO
1^
-^ Li
O tU
en >
^O c*
T3 *J
01 3
Ll ft
Q, l~»
X r-
01 0.
4J
, j j.
a o)
01 u-i
ix «
>
4.
•r"
r—
••-
t
n
u-
Lx
tc
B
i
OJ
r
4J
Ll
o
u-
01
rt
a
«
(U
f
4-1
cd
01
Li
«
r
<
T3
C
CO
g
O
^,
^
O
u
r-
CJ
(^
C
ID
4J
*E
!_;
1
the Bethel plant; limitations presented are based on a new permit drafted by OEPA
Ll
O
f^.
«-^
,_(
cn
-^
prj
T3
01
Ll
a.
0)
4-1
"a
o>
PU,
CJ
•a
at
4J
*
T3
4J
O
d
0)
CO
CO
Ll
01
J>
41
e
4J
3
r>.
r-
fy\
r-l
Ll
41
3
f>
f^
f^.
o\
1-1
Ll
01
^ t
Uv
cd
Cu
Cd
0
>.
,O
lv
U
c:
M
2-60
-------
ject to the regulations that prohibit degradation of the appli-
cable water quality standards (OAC 3745-31-05[A]).
Subsequently, following the decision to initiate the Phase l/-
Phase 2 project, Ohio EPA requested that design of the Phase 1
improvements be done in consideration of the following effluent
limits (Ohio EPA letter of September 19, 1983, to Donald Reckers,
CCSD from Gregory Binder, Ohio EPA).
TABLE 2-14
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMTS FOR BATAVIA AND AM-BAT WWTPS
FROM PRELIMINARY MODELING FOR THE CWQR
(By letter, Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, to CCBC, May 1983)
Effluent Limits (mg/1) for
Exceptional Warm Water Habitat
WWTP
Alternative ^
Batavia
0.35 mgd
Am-Rat
3.0 mgd
A 11 e r na t ive 2
Batavia
Am-Bat
3.6 mgd
Season
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
CBOD5
10.0
30.0
5.0*
30.0
NH^N
7.5
13.5
0.8
2.9
Dissolved
Oxygen
6.0
5.0
7.0
5.0
Treatment at Am-Bat WWTP
Summer
winter
5.0*
30.0
1.0
3.4
7.0
5.0
* Results in water quality standard violation for dissolved
oxygen.
Following review of the September 19th letter, Balke Engineers
concluded that the fixed film (trickling filter) process recom-
mended in the Draft Facilities Plan (Balke, 1982a) and later in
the Draft EIS, was not capable of consistently meeting the re-
vised, more stringent effluent limits. As such, Balke Engineers
developed a Phase 1 plant design for secondary treatment using an
activated sludge process with modular capabilities which would
2-61
-------
allow the addition of process units to meet up to the most strin-
gent effluent limits proposed. Costs and environmental impacts
of the activated sludge process were not significantly different
from those of the previous recommended alternative. Thus, an
addendum to the Facilities Plan reflecting this change was sub-
mitted to Ohio EPA by the CCSD (By letter of June 21, 1984, to
Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, from Donald Reckers, CCSD). See Appen-
dix D for complete documentation and costs regarding the Facili-
ties Plan addendum.
Bethel and Williamsburg were not addressed in detail in the CW0R.
No stream sampling or modeling for either community was conducted
during the field investigations. Effluent limits for Williams-
burg are currently under development by Ohio EPA.
USEPA commented extensively on the preliminary draft CWOR and has
questioned some of the basic assumptions. The major USEPA com-
ments addressed flow releases from Harsha Lake, modeling assump-
tions, and the recommended effluent limits for Williamsburg.. The
Harsha Reservoir was authorized with 22,000 acre-feet of storage
for augmentive releases for water quality purposes, although the
storage has been utilized only minimally to-date. The current
minimum flow release in the Reservoir Regulations Manual {USCOE,
1981) is 15 cfs (although releases of 5 cfs are frequent), while
potentially larger releases were authorized in the reservoir pro-
ject. Ohio EPA is preparing revised water quality modeling for
the Ratavia and Am-Bat WWTPs. The modeling is considering dif-
ferent water release rates up to 60 cfs from Harsha Lake for the
flow in the East Fork at the effluent discharge point. Until the
effluent limits are resolved, the WWTPs are proposed to be con-
structed to meet secondary treatment standards. When final
effluent limits are issued, the WWTPs will be upgraded to meet
the required treatment levels.
2.3.1.5
Economic Factors
The economic cost criteria used in the EIS are presented in Table
2-15. All costs are indexed to the first quarter 1981, except
for the on-site system costs, which are current costs (September
1983). Costs of project alternatives are compared on a total
2-62
-------
TABLE 2-15
Economic cost criteria (Balke Engineers 1982a)
Item
Amortization period
Interest (discount) rate
USEPA WWTP construction cost index -
1st quarter 1981 (Cincinnati)
Power (electricity) cost
Land cost (except where otherwise noted)
jervlceLife
WWTPs and pump stations
mechanical
structural-existing
new
Sewers
On-site systems
structural
mechanical
soil absorption systems
Land
Salvage Value Assumptions
Pump stations
mechanical
structural
RBC WWTP
mechanical
structural
Other WWTPs
mechanical
structural
On-site systems
septic tank-structural
pump tank and aerobic unit
mechanical
structural
curtain drain-structural
roadside ditch-structural
Construction Period
Unites Value
years 20
% 7-3/8 (7.375)
194
kwh $0.05
acre $4,000-5,000
years 15
years 20
years 30-50
years 50
years 50
years 20
years 20
- permanent
50
50
30
70
25
75
100
50
50
100
100
Am-Bat WWTP
Other WWTPs
years
years
1.5
1.0
2-63
-------
present worth cost basis with an amortization or planning period
of 20 years (1985 to 2005) and an interest rate of 7.375%. Ser-
vice lives and salvage values for equipment, structures, and
sewerage facilities also are presented in Table 2-15. Salvage
values were estimated using straight-line depreciation for items
that would still have useful life at the end of the 20-year plan-
ning period. Appreciation of land values was assumed to be zero
over the planning period. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
include labor, materials, and utilities (power). Costs asso-
ciated with the treatment works, pumping stations, solids hand-
ling and disposal processes, conveyance facilities, and on-site
systems are based on current prevailing rates.
Total capital costs include the initial construction cost, plus a
service factor. The service factor includes costs for engineer-
ing, contingencies, legal and administrative, and financing fees.
Service factors used in both the facilities planning document and
in this EIS for each project alternative and alternative com-
ponents are 25% for all centralized wastewater collection and
treatment components and 35% for the on-site system components.
2.3.2 System Components
Standard planning and design information applicable to all alter-
natives was developed in the Draft EIS and various components of
complete treatment systems were identified and evaluated. System
components were identified, then assembled in various combina-
tions to form wastewater management alternatives. Components
identified as being potentially applicable to the FPA included
wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, effluent discharge,
sludge treatment and disposal, and on-site treatment and dis-
posal .
2.3.2.1 wastewater Collection Systems
Centralized wastewater management involves the transport of
sewage from individual homes to a central treatment facility.
The transport system consists of house leads, laterals, collector
sewers, and interceptor sewers which collect and transport waste-
water from a number of discrete areas to a WWTP through gravity
2-64
-------
sewers, pump stations, and force mains. The Facilities Plan
evaluated the following alternative collection systems:
0 Conventional gravity sewers - designed to collect raw
sewage and transport it by gravity flow to a WWTP,
interceptor sewer, or pumping station.
0 Small diameter gravity sewers - designed to collect
septic tank effluent (which contains less solids than
raw sewage) and to transport it by gravity flow to WWTP,
interceptor sewer, or pumping station.
0 Low pressure sewers - consisting of a pump at each con-
nection pumping wastewater through a small diameter
pressure main to a WWTP, interceptor sewer, or pumping
station. Low pressure sewers can be designed to pump
raw sewage (grinder pump system) or septic tank ef-
fluent.
Another collection system type, vacuum sewers, are available but
were not selected for evaluation because they are subject to fre-
quent malfunctions, and typically are not cost-effective when
compared with similar sized pressure sewer systems.
2.3.2.2 Wastewater Treatment Technologies
A variety of wastewater treatment technologies were considered in
the various facilities planning documents. In general, waste-
water treatment options include conventional physical, biologi-
cal, and chemical processes and land treatment. These unit pro-
cesses are followed by disinfection prior to effluent disposal.
Land treatment processes include slow-rate irrigation, overland
flow, and rapid infiltration.
The degree of treatment required and the treatment processes best
suited for utilization often are dependent on the effluent dis-
posal option selected. Effluent disposal options available for
use in the FPA are discharge to surface waters, disposal on land,
and reuse. The Ohio EPA will permit effluent discharge to the
East Fork of the Little Miami River for wastewater treatment
2-65
-------
plants that are capable of meeting the State's designated ef-
fluent limitations. Treatment processes considered in the facil-
ities planning documents for WWTPs discharging to surface waters
included physical/chemical treatment and a number of physical/-
biological treatment systems.
Physical/chemical treatment is best suited to facilities larger
than those under consideration because high capital and operating
costs are involved. Therefore, physical/chemical treatment was
considered not feasible for the FPA and was not evaluated fur-
ther.
Physical/biological treatment processes considered included ex-
tended aeration activated sludge, trickling filter followed by
activated sludge, rotating biological contactors {RBC) , and a
two-stage activated sludge process, all of which will provide
secondary treatment with nitrification.
Land application or land treatment of wastewater utilizes natural
physical, chemical, and biological processes in vegetation,
soils, and underlying formations to renovate and dispose of
domestic wastewater. In addition to wastewater treatment, bene-
fits of land application may include nutrient recycling, timely
water applications (e.g., crop irrigation), groundwater recharge,
and soil improvement. These benefits accrue to a greater extent
in arid and semi-arid areas, but also are applicable to humid
areas. Secondary benefits include preservation of open space and
summer augmentation of streamflow for land application systems
which include winter storage (Pound and Crites 1973).
Components of a land application system typically include a cen-
tralized collection and conveyance system, some level of primary
treatment, secondary treatment to achieve BOD concentrations of
50 mg/1 or less, winter storage, if necessary, and the land appl-
ication site and equipment. In addition, collection of treated
wastewater may be included in the system design, along with dis-
charge or reuse of the treated wastewater.
The suitability of an area for land application is largely depen-
dent on the depth of the soil, its slope, its permeability, the
2-66
-------
depth to the water table, and the climate of the area. Overland
flow treatment is generally suited to soils of limited infiltra-
tion rate (i.e., very low permeability), but requires moderately
large amounts of land. The soils in the FPA have the requisite
limited permeability for overland flow and an overland flow faci-
lity could be constructed for any WWTP. Slow-rate irrigation
(0.8 to 3.1 inches per week) utilizes soils that have moderate
infiltration rates and sufficient horizontal permeability so that
an efficient underdrainage system can be installed, if necessary.
Limited areas, particularly along the East Fork downstream from
Batavia, appear well suited for slow-rate irrigation. However,
due to low application rates, large amounts of land that are
required for slow-rate irrigation systems are not available in
the East Fork valley. Rapid infiltration (4 to 120 inches per
week) utilizes moderately coarse to coarse textured soils that
are unsaturated to a considerable depth. The presence of gravel
pits in the floodplain of the East Fork indicates that some
coarse textured deposits are present but the thickness of these
deposits is insufficient for a rapid infiltration system.
Wastewater mangement techniques included under the category of
treated effluent reuse may be identified as:
0 Public water supply,
0 Groundwater recharge,
0 Industrial process uses or cooling tower makeup,
0 Energy production,
0 Recreational turf irrigation, and
0 Fish and wildlife enhancement.
Reuse of treatment plant effluent as a public water supply or for
groundwater recharge could present potential public health con-
cerns. No major industries in the vicinity of the WWTPs require
cooling water. The abundant rainfall limits the demand for the
use of treated wastewater for recreational turf irrigation.
Direct reuse would require very costly advanced treatment (AT),
and a sufficient economic incentive is not available to justify
the expense. Thus, reuse of treated effluent currently is not a
feasible management technique for the planning area.
2-67
-------
2.3.2.3 Sludge Treatment and Disposal
All of the wastewater treatment processes considered will gener-
ate sludge, although the amount of sludge generated will vary
considerably depending on the process. Wastewater sludge is
largely organic, but significant amounts of inert chemicals are
present if phosphorus removal is performed. A typical sludge
management program would involve interrelated processes for re-
ducing the volume of the wet sludge and final disposal.
Volume reduction involves both the water and organic content of
sludge. Organic material can be reduced through digestion,
incineration, or wet-oxidation processes. Moisture reduction is
attainable through concentration, conditioning, dewatering, and/-
or drying processes. The mode to final disposal selected deter-
mines the processes that are required.
Sludge disposal methods considered in the facilities planning
documents were land disposal of liquid or dewatered sludge. Cur-
rent disposal methods include landspreading of liquid sludge on
farms, distribution of dried sludge to residents for private use,
and use of dried sludge as a fertilizer on public land.
2.3.2.4 On-site Systems
The on-site systems proposed for use in the Middle East Fork
watershed are those that are being utilized at the present time.
Some additional designs are suggested to improve the operation of
on-site systems. The presently utilized systems are described in
Section 2.2.1. In addition, a general discussion of the design
criteria of existing on-site systems and the detail design cri-
teria of additional on-site systems are discussed in subsequent
sections and in the Draft ETS.
Within the Facilities Plan the only technical options considered
were replacement of the septic tank and/or the soil absorption
system, and improvement of drainage with curtain drains and road
drainage. Operational improvements proposed were frequent pump-
ing (twice per year) and hydrogen peroxide treatment once every
five years.
2-68
-------
Segtic Tank Systems
The septic tanks presently being installed in the area are con-
sidered to be adequate both in terms of construction and capa-
city. Septic tanks should have an exposed manhole or inspection
port for facilitating monitoring of tank contents. During pump-
outs and inspections, certain septic tanks may be found to be
faulty or seriously undersized. Repair or replacement of these
tanks should then be conducted. The number of these would be
expected to be rather small because of the design code imposed on
the tank manufacturers prior to 1950.
The soil absorption systems currently being installed in the area
could have an average 20-year design life, if they were installed
properly and are maintained properly. The usual 900 lineal feet
of drainfield should be adequate for most residences. Research
has demonstrated that the soil moisture content at the time of
excavation and the techniques of construction have a significant
impact on the longevity of the soil absorption system (Machmeier
1975). Thus, soil absorption systems should be constructed only
when the soil is dry and equipment used that minimizes compaction
and smearing of the soil surface. improved drainage of surface
waters is generally included with the current installation of
soil absorption systems, and this should continue. In addition,
two other practices to improve drainage should be applied as re-
quired? the installation of the soil absorption system at a shal-
low depth with a mounded backfill; and the use of curtain drains
which improve the natural drainage of the soil and remove excess
water from the soil absorption system. An adequate outlet for
the drainage must be available or a small sump pump is required.
Dosing and alternating usage of dual soil absorption systems have
been found to extend the life of the system (Machmeier 1975).
Dosing can be achieved by means of a dosing tank and siphon
(Figure 2-18 of the Draft EIS) or by a small dosing pump. Al-
ternating soil absorption systems allows natural rejuvenation of
one system while the alternate is in use. The systems are alter-
nated in use by means of a diversion valve. The Ohio Department
of Health Rule ODH 3701-29-11(A) requires the installation of a
diversion valve for dividing leaching fields into two sections.
2-69
-------
Within the Special Sanitary District, Ohio EPA requires the
installation of a diversion valve for dividing the 900 lineal
foot drainfield into two 450 lineal foot systems. Clermont
County Health Department has allowed single drainfields to be
installed within the County.
The soil absorption system most suited to the soils of the water-
shed is the mound {Figure 2-19 of the Draft BIS). This system
performs well in soils with slow permeability and a somewhat high
water table. The mound is designed so that the effluent per-
colates through the sand in the mound into the original soil.
Most of the treatment occurs within the sand in aerobic condi-
tions. The original surface soil then accepts the effluent and
conveys it horizontally and vertically away from the mound.
The buried sand filter is another option for treatment of septic
tank effluent (Section 2.2.1). These units are applicable only
where a surface discharge is allowed. The CCHD issues permits
for systems that have access to flowing streams, collector lines,
or 100 lineal feet of drainage swale on the subject parcel. The
Ohio Home Sewage Disposal Rules specifies that the discharge
requirement must satisfy the rules of the Ohio EPA in that the
stream must flow continuously and that the discharge must be less
than one-fourth of the flow in the stream. Generally, the sand
filters do not discharge any effluent during extended dry periods
and have been acceptable to the local residents for that reason.
Sand filters are proposed for use on a limited basis in the
future, primarily for replacement of existing failed systems on
parcels where extensions of soil absorption systems are not pos-
sible.
Blackwater holding tanks may be appropriate for existing resi-
dences with soil absorption systems that fail because the absorp-
tion system lacks sufficient area. Components of the system in-
clude a low-flow toilet (0.8 gallons per flush), the holding tank
for toilet wastes only, and the existing septic tank-soil absorp-
tion system for the remainder of the wastes. Significant reduc-
tions of organic loads, 20% to 40% reductions in phosphorus load-
ings, and 80% reduction in nitrogen loadings to the septic tank-
soil absorption system occur as well. Rlackwater holding tanks
2-70
-------
are recommended if the lot has insufficient area for any other
soil absorption system. With a 1,000 gallon tank, pumping may be
necessary following every fourth month of occupancy. Separation
of waste streams from residences is not permitted by the Home
Sewage Disposal Rules 3701-29-02.(C). Thus, a variance procedure
is required for implementation of blackwater holding tanks. In
most situations, no further expansion or modification of the
existing septic tank-soil absorption system is necessary.
Based strictly on a planning approach, no new soil absorption
systems should be permitted on Clermont and Rlanchester soil
types unless extensive measures are taken to improve the drain-
age. On an individual lot basis, it is difficult to improve the
drainage sufficiently to enable a soil absorption system to func-
tion properly. The Avonburg soils have slightly better surface
drainage; thus, on a lot-by-lot basis, soil absorption systems
can be designed to overcome the drainage problems. Shallow
drainfields and mounds should operate satisfactorily on
Cincinnati and Rossmoyne soil types. The suitability of other
soils are presented in Table 3-1.
AerobicSystems
Aerobic treatment systems are proposed for use in the watershed
where their discharge is permitted and where soil absorption
systems will not work. The present arrangement of equipment
appears adequate for the future. The aerobic units in the area
experience few operational difficulties but must be inspected
regularly to insure that the unit is operating correctly.
The Ohio Department of Health regards aerobic units as a "last
resort" choice for treatment for existing residences where a soil
absorption system has virtually no chance of successful opera-
tion. The recommendation is based on the public health and water
quality considerations of an improperly operating unit. Also,
operation and maintenance costs are significant, presently
reported to be $20-22 per month. For these reasons, a limited
number of aerobic units are proposed for future use in the water-
shed .
2-71
-------
The collector lines for aerobic unit effluent can be permitted by
the health department for one residence. The Ohio EPA has juris-
diction over discharges that originate from more than one
residence. As a condition for issuing a permit, they require
that a public agency be responsible for operation and maintenance
of the treatment units.
2.3.2.5 Cluster Systems
The cluster system is a common soil absorption system and the
treatment and collection facilities for a group of residences.
This is an option where individual lots are unsuitable for on-
site soil absorption systems. An area of suitable soils must be
available. Areas where these soils are available are in the val-
leys of the Rast Fork and its tributaries.
Septic tank and aerobic unit effluent could be conveyed by small
diameter gravity pipes or pressure sewers to the soil absorption
system site.
The soil absorption systems would be designed as three drain-
fields. Two would be dosed on a daily basis and the third would
be rested for an annual period. The drainfields would be de-
signed according to the standards for the soil material on the
site (USEPA 1977a) .
The soils information indicates that cluster systems could be
installed along the Rast Fork or its tributaries without exten-
sive measures to facilitate drainage. in areas where the
Cincinnati, Rossmoyne, Avonburg, and Clermont soil types are
located, extensive drainage measures must be utilized and special
care must be taken so that the horizontal conductivity of the
thin surface soils are not exceeded. Narrow mounds separated by
curtain drains would be necessary for satisfactory operation.
The operation and maintenance requirements of the system would be
minimal. Inspections of the dosing system and the drainfields
and periodic pumping of the septic and aerobic tankage would be
required. Maintenance of the collection piping would be minimal
(Otis 1979) .
2-72
-------
Once a year the rested drainfield would be rotated into use and
another rested. The system would be entirely gravity-operated,
except for the dosing pumps for the soil absorption system; thus,
the likelihood of system failure and environmental pollution are
minimal.
2.3.2.6 Septage Disposal
The use of a septic system requires periodic maintenance (3 to 5
years) that includes pumping out the accumulated scum and sludge,
which is called septage. Approximately 65 to 70 gallons per cap-
ita per year septage could accumulate in properly functioning
septic systems (USEPA 1977b). Septage is a highly variable
anaerobic slurry having large quantities of grit and grease; a
highly offensive odor; the ability to foam; poor settling and
dewatering characteristics; high solids and organic content; and
a minor accumulation of heavy metals. Typical concentration
values for the constituents of septage are as follows:
Total solids
BOD5
COD
TKN
NH3
Total P
38,800 mg/1
5,000 mg/1
42,900 mg/1
680 mg/1
160 mg/1
250 mg/1
Septage disposal regulations have been established in states with
areas that have a concentration of septic tanks. Many states,
including Ohio, prohibit certain types of septage disposal but do
not prescribe acceptable disposal methods. The general methods
of septage disposal are:
0 Land disposal
0 Biological and physical treatment
0 Chemical treatment
0 Treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
Characteristics of the first three disposal methods are described
in Section 2.3.2.7 of the Draft EIS. Treatment of septage in a
2-73
-------
wastewater treatment plant was the proposed method in the Facili-
ties Plan. The advantages of treating septage at the WWTP are;
° Septage is diluted with wastewater and easily treated,
0 Few aesthetic problems are associated with this type of
septage handling, and
0 Skilled personnel are present at the plant site.
Disadvantages of septage disposal at the WWTP are:
° A shock effect can occur in the unit process of the WWTP
if septage is not properly entered into the wastewater
flow, and
0 Additional equipment and facilities prior to mixing with
the sewage or sludge stream are required for separa-
tion, degritting, and equalization of the septage.
Specifically, the Facilities Plan proposed that a septage receiv-
ing facility for the entire County be constructed at the Am-Rat
WWTP. However, this would not be constructed as part of the
Phase 1 project, but rather would be accomplished in Phase 2. A
pad, storage tank, and feed facility is proposed. No other al-
ternatives were considered with respect to treatment and disposal
of septage.
A study in Ohio (Brown and White 1977), showed that septage
treatment and disposal by using parallel treatment and storage
basins with land application of the supernatant and the solids
was considerably less expensive than either lime stabilization or
sewage treatment plant alternatives.
2.4 Description of Alternatives
The facilities planner combined the most feasible and compatible
collection and treatment components for each community into a
system alternative in the Draft Facilities Plan. in subsequent
revisions to the Facilities Plan, new system alternatives were
2-74
-------
developed based on changes in the options for certain communi-
ties. The system alternatives represent combinations of con-
veyance options for wastewater flows, different treatment levels,
siting options, effluent discharge location options, and sludge
disposal options.
The areas proposed to be sewered expanded subsequent to the pub-
lication of the Draft Facilities Plan in response to public com-
ments. The alternatives considered only general recommendations
for the areas that would not be sewered.
The system alternatives and the costs associated with them are
presented in the following sections.
2.4.1 No Action Alternative
The alternative of "no action" essentially would permit existing
on-site systems and other wastewater treatment facilities in the
study area to continue operation without modification, upgrading,
and/or replacement. Rxisting environmental problems associated
with on-site systems and WWTP's would persist and could worsen.
The Ohio EPA has issued a connection ban for Bethel and would
likely issue connection bans for Batavia, Williamsburg, and the
Am-Bat system in the near future if the "no action" alternative
were followed. The connection ban could include the unsewered
areas as well.
Should growth stop in sewered areas, the adverse consequences
would be such that Villages, as well as the County, would lose
potential development and anticipated population increase. Water
quality problems could continue to worsen. Degradation of the
physical environment, including Harsha Lake could occur.
Growth would continue in unsewered areas due to the inability of
sewered areas to accept new growth. This^ would become sporadic
and uncontrolled and would be inconsistent with land use plans.
Further aggravation of widespead on-site problems could worsen
local water quality resulting in health hazards and an increase
in complaints.
2-75
-------
Because of severe water quality problems, degradation of the
physical environment, problems with public services, and damage
to marketability, the area could take on a negative image and not
be aesthetically pleasing. This would tend to lessen the attrac-
tion of persons and subsequent growth in the area.
In summary, the "no action" alternative is not acceptable.
Implementation of one of the "action" alternatives will be
necessary to eliminate the environmental problems that are
associated with the existing conditions and with the "no action"
alternative.
2.4.2 Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan Alternative
The Draft Facilities Plan recommended alternative included con-
struction of collection sewers in 15 selected areas; construction
of the Shayler Run and Bethel interceptor sewers; upgrading and
expanding existing WWTPs at Arn-Rat, Batavia, and Will iamsburg;
upgrading WWTPs at the Holly Towne and Berry Gardens MHPs; and
abandoning the existing WWTP at Bethel (Figure 2-15). The recom-
mended alternative included least total present worth dollars in
all cases except Batavia where implementation was the over-riding
issue.
The Draft Facilities Plan was developed with the following ef-
fluent limits and degrees of treatment for WWTP designs:
Am-Bat
Bethel
Batavia
Williamsburg
MHPS
BOD5 SS NH3N P
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
20
20
10
20
10
10
12
20
12
12
1.5
3
1.9
1.9
1
N/A
1
1
Advanced Treatment
(AT), P removal
AT, P removal
AT
AT, P removal
AT
2-76
-------
THIS AREA
TO LOWER
EAST FORK
WWTP
»•••••*/_* * i«•* ""* T'.-".'Vr^^"«*-i^?-
AMELIA f
UPGRADE/EXPAND WWTP
A ABANDON EXISTING WWTP
— EXISTING INTERCEPTOR
•PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
FIGURE 2-15 Recommended plan from the Draft Wastewater Faclities Plan
Middle East Fork Area Ctermont County, Ohio (Bake Engineers 1982a).
2-77
-------
For the Am-Bat system, the recommended option included: expand-
ing the existing Am-Bat WWTP to 3.0 mgd average daily design flow
and utilizing the following treatment train; preliminary treat-
ment; Clow equalization in a 1.6 MG basin; primary clarification;
trickling filters; phosphorus removal; secondary clarification:
chlorination/dechlorination; aerobic sludge digestion; and land
application of solids. This represented the lowest initial capi-
tal cost, annual O&M, and total present worth costs.
For Bethel, the recommended option was regionalization with the
Am-Rat system because it was lowest in initial capital cost,
annual o&M, and total present worth costs. The recommended op-
tion for Bethel included an 0.8 MG flow equalization basin and
pumping to the Am-Rat system along State Route 125 using the
existing USCOB interceptor.
For Batavia, the recommended option was upgrading and expanding
the existing WWTP because it was lowest in initial capital costs
and was among those alternatives easiest to implement. Although
regionalization with connection to the Am-Rat system was lowest
in initial annual O&M and present worth costs and displayed other
evaluation factor advantages, it was rejected primarily due to
implementability.
The recommended alternative to Batavia included: expanding the
existing Ratavia WWTP to 0.35 mgd average daily design flow and
utilized the following treatment train: preliminary treatment;
flow equalization (1.0 MG) ; primary treatment, sludge digestion
and storage in the 3.2 MG aerated basin; trickling filters;
secondary clarification; chlorination/dechlorination; and land
application of solids.
For Williamsburg, the recommended option was upgrading and ex-
panding the existing WWTP, because it had the lowest initial
capital and present worth costs of the alternatives considered.
The regionalization alternative (connection to the Am-Bat) was
the overall lowest in initial capital, annual O&M, and total pre-
sent worth costs and provided the best reliability and flexibil-
ity, but was rejected primarily due to implementability, impacts
on community, and land use planning.
2-78
-------
The recommended options for Williamburg included: expanding the
existing Williamsburg WWTP to 0.35 mgd average daily design flow
and utilized the following treatment train; preliminary treat-
ment; flow equalization (0.7 MG); sludge digestion and storage in
a 1.6 MG aerated basin; extended aeration; phosphorus removal;
secondary clarification; chlorination/dechlorination; and land
application of solids.
For the Holly Towne MHP and the Berry Gardens MHP, the recom-
mended options were upgrading the existing WWTPs because they
were lowest in initial capital and total present worth costs.
Although in both cases, regionalization was significantly lower
in initial annual O&M, issues of responsibility and enforcement
favored the recommended alternatives. The alternatives included
equipment replacement and the addition of sand filtration.
The recommended plan had an estimated construction cost of
$8,168,286; estimated total project cost of $11,151,249; esti-
mated 1985 initial annual O&M cost of $867,442; and estimated
total present worth cost of $19,115,583. These costs do not
include all of the 1985 annual O&M and total present worth cost
of the sewers or the total project cost of the sludge management
program. The more detailed data upon which this discussion is
based is contained in Table 2-83 and Appendix D of the Draft
EIS.
2.4.3 Draft Facilities Plan Addendum Alternative
As a result of responses to the Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA comments
and public hearings, the following changes were made in the Draft
Wastewater Facilities Plan recommendations:
Changes Resulting from OEPA/USEPA Comments, Dated 1/1/83
0 Batavia WWTP would be abandoned; flows would be treated
at CCSD's Middle East Fork Regional WWTP.
0 Middle East Fork Regional WWTP capacity would be
increased to approximately 3.6 mgd.
2-79
-------
0 On-site demonstration project would be excluded from
recommendat ions.
Changes Resulting from ..Public Hearing Input
0 Batavia WWTP would be abandoned (as above).
0 Some sewer recommendations would be re-evaluated,
including some areas not previously recommended for
sewers.
Other Changes
0 New alternative for Williamsburg would be developed to
allow regionalization with Am-Bat and provide the
capacity in the Afton interceptor required for
industrial growth.
0 Recommended location for Bethel Interceptor pump
station would change.
The revised recommended plan developed by the facilities planners
is summarized in Figure 2-16. Some disadvantages identified by
the facilities planners were:
0 Direct contradiction to desires of elected officials
in the Village of Batavia plan may cause
implementation difficulties,
0 Loss of some community autonomy in Batavia,
0 County takes over "problem" system in Batavia,
0 Firm O&M commitment required at Williamsburg WWTP
and Bethel Interceptor pump station,
0 Correction of many on-site problems was high cost
and may cause economic hardships in some areas,
0 Structural solutions to many on-site problems are
2-80
-------
THIS AREA
TO LOWER
EAST FORK
WWTP
A
HOLLY TOWNE
WHP WWTP
A
BERRY GARDENS
WWTP
A UPGRADE/EXPAND WWTP
A ABANDON EXISTING WWTP
—-—EXISTING INTERCEPTOR
-PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
FIGURE 2-16
DRAFT FACILITIES PLAN ADDENDUM ALTERNATIVE
(By letter, Fred W. Montgomery, Ctermont County Sewer District,
to Richard Fitch. Ohio EPA. 1 Aprfl 1983).
2-81
-------
not possible, and available management solutions
do not completely address problem, and
° Some adverse impacts during construction, largely
mitigable by careful design and construction super-
vision, and specification of erosion control measures.
The recommended changes were developed with the following
effluent limits and degrees of treatment for WWTP designs:
Am-Rat
Bethel
Ratavia
Williamsburg
MHPs
20
20
10
20
10
10
12
20
12
12
NH-..N
(mg_/_n
1.5
3
1.9
1.9
1
N/A
1
1
Advanced Treatment
(AT)
AT, P removal
AT
AT, P removal
AT
For the Am-Bat system, the recommended change was to expand the
existing WWTP to 3.6 mgd average daily design flow and utilize
the following treatment train; preliminary treatment; flow equal-
ization in a 1.6 MG basin; primary clarification; trickling fil-
ters; secondary clarification; chlorination/dechlorination; aero-
bic sludge digestion; and land application of solids. Phosphorus
removal was not included in this recommended option because the
draft NPDES permit did not require a phosphorus discharge limita-
tion (By telephone; Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, to Charles Brasher,
USEPA, March 1, 1984).
For the Williamsburg system, changes were made which resulted in
increases in the estimates for treatment works total project and
total present worth costs. Construction and total project costs
for new collector sewers were also noted.
2-82
-------
No changes were made for the recommended alternatives for the
mobile home parks.
The changed recommended plan had an estimated construction cost
of $8,539,240, estimated total project costs of $11,630,212, est-
imated 1985 annual O&M cost of $724,019, and estimated total pre-
sent worth cost of $17,592,083. These costs do not include all
of the 1985 initial annual O&M and total present worth costs of
the sewers or the total project cost of the sludge management
program. In addition, these costs do not include the Middle East
Fork (Am-Bat) WWTP's share of sludge transporation and applica-
tion equipment costs, storage building and shop costs, and bridge
(not grant-eligible) and access road costs estimated at $186,
100; $62,900; and 5123,250, respectively. These figures were
developed in the responses to comments by Balke Engineers (By
letter; Fred Montgomery, CCSD, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, Febru-
ary 11, 1983), for a 4.8 mgd facility. The total cost to the MEF
plant was estimated at $1,485,600 with a total present worth cost
of $3,080,205. Both values include sludge digestion and holding
costs. A more detailed presentation of data upon which this dis-
cussio.n was based is contained in Tables D-28 throug'h D-39, Ap-
pendix P of the Draft EIS.
2.4.4 Facilities Plan Alternative Altered by AT Requirement
Balke Engineers '"prepared a technical supplement to the Middle
East For°k Wastewater Facilities Plan (By letter; Richard Record,
Balke Engineers, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, May 18, 1983). This
report provided an analysis of the effect of revised effluent
limits (as proposed by Ohio EPA) on alternatives and recommenda-
tions. ' A comparison of effluent limits for the Am-Rat WWTP is
presented in Table 2-16. The effluent limits for discharges
tributary to Harsha Lake were not changed.
2-83
-------
The total present worth costs for on-site systems are estimated
high, with a high level of service provided by the on-site man-
agement district and a high estimate of system failures pro-
jected. Based on records of repairs, it is unlikely that the
projected number of repairs would be necessary during the plan-
ning period. Also, the high cost of constructing roadside drain-
age ditches to state highway specifications appeared unwarranted.
If subsurface drainage along back lot lines were constructed in
place of open ditches along the roads, the difference in con-
struction costs (S3.no, rather than $14.70 per lineal foot) is
considerable. The total present worth costs were recalculated to
reflect this difference and these costs are presented in Table
2-87 of the Draft EIS. The costs of constructing ditches ranged
from 15 percent to 50 percent of the total present worth cost in
some problem areas.
After the change in costs was calculated, on-site systems were
found to be the most cost-effective solution in all but one prob-
lem area; the South Charity Street area of Bethel (Problem Area
4}.
By conscientious application of water conservation practices,
considerable cost savings beyond the costs presented are pos-
sible. Also, provisions for less costly septage and blackwater
holding tank wastes disposal are possible by having a local loca-
tion for treatment and disposal, in addition to an area-wide con-
tract for hauling.
2.4.6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternatives
The alternatives presented in the Facilities Plan and its supple-
mental documents were evaluated and compared. Because final ef-
fluent limits have not yet been established, final alternatives
were not fully developed. Thus, qualitative comparisons between
alternatives were made.
2.4.6.1 Projected Wastewater Flows
The projected wastewater flows presented in the Facilities Plan
2-86
-------
did not account tor all system overflows and included estimated
removals of inflow of 75 percent. Analyses in the Draft EIR
determined the impact of estimated and projected flows of a
seven-day peak infiltration rate for each system and subsystem
which was then added to the projected average daily base flow
(ADBF). Inflows for different rainfall events were added as one-
day occurrences to establish total weekly mass flow values. The
capabilities of the proposed facilities, including both treatment
and equalization capacities, to accommodate the projected flows
was evaluated. In addition, the impact of reduced inflow removal
on the design flow values was evaluated (Section 2.3). A more
typical 35 percent removal, rather than 75 percent removal esti-
mated in the Facilities Plan, was used.
The results of these analyses (Table 2-88 of the Draft EIS) veri-
fied that the wastewater design flows projected in the Facilities
Plan could be accommodated by the respective WWTPs. However, the
projected flows that included the addition of quantified over-
flows and bypasses, not total overflows, produced design system
overflows in all cases ranging from 6.25 MG per week for an equi-
valent one-inch rainfall event, to 14.74 MG per week for the
25-year storm.
The design flows currently in the facilities planning documents
are adequate for the early years of the project without overflows
if some newer rehabilitation takes place and the capacity of some
pump stations is increased. In the future, however, overflows at
certain locations may occur.
2.4.6.2 Effluent Limits
The effluent limits proposed by Ohio EPA are not final and are
subject to revision pending completion of the CWOR and negotia-
tions with the USCOE regarding flow releases from Harsha Lake.
Based on recent discussions among the Federal and State agencies,
secondary treatment at the Am-Bat WWTP will be designed at the
present time for the Phase 1 project until the issues surrounding
effluent limits are resolved. Effluent limits more stringent
than secondary treatment will likely be required; therefore,
2-R7
-------
provisions in the design for additional treatment units at each
WWTP are warranted.
The options of which the system-wide alternatives consist were
not compared with the possible effluent limits in all cases. For
example, regionalization with Batavia at secondary and Am-Rat at
advanced secondary were not compared. While the effluent limits
for Williamsburg and Bethel are not finalized, no changes from
those presented in the Draft Facilities Plan (Balke Engineers
1982a) are anticipated.
2.4.6.3 Summary of Facilities Plan Alternatives
Ba_ta_v_ia
The facilities plan alternatives for Batavia have included
reyionalization with Am-Rat (OKI 1971, 1976), an independent WWTP
(Balke Engineers 1982a), and regionalization (Py letter; Fred
Montgomery, CCSD, to Richard Fitch, Ohio EPA, April 1, 1983). In
the Draft Facilities Plan, regionalization with the Am-Rat WWTP
was equal, in cost-effectiveness but was perceived unimplement-
able. Subsequent to that, Batavia expressed a willingness to
consummate an agreement with the CCSD and Batavia was included in
regionalization with Am-Rat.
The cost-effectiveness analysis for comparing independent treat-
ment with regionalization was calculated with secondary treatment
(ST) for Batavia, and with advanced treatment (AT) for both
facilities.
Batavia, with ST (separate treatment plants) and Am-Bat at AT
(CROD5 20 mg/1, NH3~N 3 mg/1 summer), have a total present
worth cost of $8,665,000 (Appendix F of Draft EIS). With both
WWTP's at AT, the total present worth costs are $8,831,800. The
regionalization total present worth cost for AT (CBODs 20 mg/1,
NH3-N 3 mg/1 summer) is $8,214,000 and for AT (CROD5 It)
mg/1, NH3~N 1 mg/1 summer) is $10,510,600. Thus, if treatment
levels more stringent than AT (CBOD5 20 mg/1, NH3-N 3 mg/1
summer) were to be required for the Am-Rat WWTP, it would be less
costly for Batavia to remain independent. However, based on the
2-88
-------
work completed to-date by the Ohio EPA, effluent limits more
stringent than AT (CBOD5-20 rag/1, NH3-N -3 mg/1 summer) are
not likely.
Should Batavia remain independent of the Am-Rat system, the
effluent discharged to the East Fork would augment the flow by
approximately 0.3 mgd and would result in less flow to be assim-
ilated at Am-Rat. Whether the effluent limits would be more or
less stringent for Am-Rat would depend on how well the East Fork
had recovered from the Batavia discharge.
The projected wastewater flows for Batavia were based on a popul-
ation increase of 800 during the planning period and on construc-
ting sewers to 250 residents currently unsewered. OKI projec-
tions under development show a population growth of approximately
200. Extension of sewers to 60 residents (20 houses) was pro-
posed. Thus, the flow projections are somewhat greater than cur-
rent expectations for growth.
Regionalization of Batavia would have distinct operational advan-
tages because a small community typically does not have the per-
sonnel and facilities to operate a WWTP properly. Also, some
local concerns have been expressed about the potential odors from
the lagoon proposed at Ratavia. Aerobic treatment cells are not
odorous to the extent that anaerobic lagoons are, especially when
anaerobic lagoons lose the ice cover in the spring. Ice would
not form on the continually mixed aerobic lagoon and, thus, the
aerobic lagoon should never be more odorous than a properly oper-
ating conventional treatment plant.
Will Jamsburg
The facilities plan alternatives for Williamsburg have included
regionalization with Am-Bat (OKI 1971, 1976) and an independent
WWTP (Balke Engineers 1982a). In the Draft Facilities Plan,
regionalization with the connection to the Am-Bat system at Afton
was the least costly but perceived implementation difficulties
(of having Williamsburg join the CCSD) ruled it out as unfeas-
ible. The principal reason for regionalization previously had
been the intent of having no WWTP discharges to Marsha Lake. The
2-89
-------
County Board also ruled that the interceptor to Afton should be
reserved exclusively for future industrial flows because it was
constructed for that purpose, although no large industrial facil-
ities are currently proposed. The future cost of providing a
parallel force main when it may be needed (possibly at the
10-year point) was not compared to the cost of the parallel force
main at present as part of the other regionalization option for
Williamsburg.
The estimated wastewater flows for Williamsburg were based on a
50 percent growth in the community and no extentions of sewers
into currently unsewered areas. The final recommendations for
on-site systems have sewer extensions to 31 residences along
State Route 276 and State Route 133 west of the Village. OKI is
preparing new population projections which indicate that
Williamsburg will experience minimal growth. Thus, the sewer
extensions would not equal the lower population growth expected
in the village.
Bethel
The facilities plan alternatives for Bethel have included in-
dependent treatment (OKI 1971, 1976) and regionalization with
Am-Bat (Balke Engineers 1982a). Regionalization became economi-
cally feasible when the USCOE constructed the pump stations and
force mains along State Route 125 with capacity for Bethel.
Odor control facilities for the State Route 125 interceptor will
be needed but were not costed into the regionalization alterna-
tive. The CCBC decided that the existing WWTP site had to be
razed and abandoned because residents of the new apartment build-
ings and homes that were constructed since 1974, are within 300
feet of the WWTP and would be affected by the odors from an
upgraded WWTP or pump station with equalization facilities.
Thus, in the cost comparisons, the only independent WWTP for
Bethel, costed out at a different location, was the aerated
lagoon and overland flow option. The overland flow system in-
cluded costs for removing phosphorus prior to application (an
incremental present worth cost of approximately $350,000).
Phosphorus removal during overland flow averaged 40 percent to 60
2-90
-------
percent on a concentration basis (USEPA 1981); therefore, phos-
phorus removal costs could be less and the total present worth
of the alternative could be significantly reduced.
The wastewater flows projected for Bethel in the Draft Facilities
Plan were based on a population growth of 712 residents, sewer
extensions to 375 residents (1,083 residents), and a population
growth ot 680 in the outlying area where sewer extensions were
proposed. In the Final Recommendations document (Balke Engineers
1983b), sewer extensions to nearly 500 residences were proposed.
The OKI projections currently in preparation have village projec-
tions approximately one-half the number previously projected and
township projections of approximately one-half. Also, in Section
2.4.5 of this EIS, the cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that
few unsewered areas would be added to the regional system.
Shay 1 er _R_u_n
The portion of the Shayler Run watershed, currently within the
Am-Rat service area, is the area between dough Pike and State
Route 125 and east of McMann Road. The Lower East Fork WWTP cur-
rently does not have capacity during wet weather periods for the
upper Shayler Run wastewater: therefore, the wastewater must con-
tinue to be pumped to the Am-Rat WWTP until capacity at the Lower
East Fork WWTP is provided.
The analysis of the costs of continuing to treat the upper
Shayler Run sewage at Am-Rat or constructing facilities and
treating it at the Lower East Fork WWTP did not include costs for
providing capacity at the Lower East Fork WWTP, while costs ot
expanding the Am~Bat WWTP were included. Capacity at the Lower
East Fork WWTP could be provided by expanding the WWTP or by
extensively rehabilitating the sewer system. Assuming that the
costs of expanding either WWTP and of treatment were nearly equal
and, therefore, excluded from the total present worth, the total
present worth of constructing the interceptor is $365,540 and the
total present worth of upgrading the Clough pike Pump Station is
$190,330.
2-91
-------
From a local perspective, the operation and maintenance costs of
the dough Pike Pump Station are considerable and elimination of
that cost is viewed favorably. The operation and maintenance
costs of the pump station are estimated as $64,160 per year while
the cost for the interceptor is estimated as $686 per year. The
reliability of the gravity interceptor is high, compared to the
reliability of the pump station which is subject to mechanical
breakdowns and power outages.
Amelia-Batavia (Am-Bat)
The facilities plan alternatives for Am-Bat have included:
expansion to 3.0 mgd and upgrading to AT to regionalize
Williamsburg, Batavia, Holly Towne MHP, and Berry Gardens MHP
(OKI 1971, 1976); an expansion to 3.0 mgd and upgrading to AT to
regionalize Bethel (Balke Engineers 1982a); an expansion to 3.6
mgd and upgrading to AT to regionalize Bethel and Bataviar and an
expansion to 3.6 mgd and upgrading to AT to regionalize Bethel
and Batavia.
In the Draft Facilities Plan, expansion and upgrading of the
Am-Bat WWTP was the least costly alternative and other evaluation
factors did not impact significantly on this recommendation. The
estimated wastewater flows for Am-Bat were based on a 51 percent
growth in the Am-Bat service area, a 53 percent growth in the
Bethel community, constructing sewers to 798 residents in the
Am-Bat service area, and constructing sewers to 1,285 residents
in the Bethel service area. This recommendation also proposed to
divert the Shayler Run area flows to the Lower East Fork WWTP.
The Am-Bat WWTP was designed to provide treatment which met the
following effluent limits: 20 mg/1 BOD and SS, 3 mg/1 NH3-N,
and 1 mg/1 P. The plant system would treat 30 percent of the
total existing and proposed sewered flows in the FPA with con-
struction costs of $4,572,185, total project costs of $5,877,073,
.1985 annual O&M costs of $581,998, and total present worth costs
of $11,297,483.
In the revised recommended plan, expansion and upgrading of the
Am-Bat WWTP remained the least costly alternative. Projected
growth for Am-Bat and Bethel remained the same as above and
2-92
-------
Batavia with a 39 percent projected growth was added. Sewer
extensions were proposed for 884 residents in the Am-Bat service
area, 1,337 residents in the Bethel service area, and 58 resi-
dents in the Batavia area. The recommendation continued to pro-
pose diversion of Shayler Run area flows to the Lower East Fork
WWTP. The Am-Bat WWTP was designed to provide treatment which
met the following effluent limits: 20 mg/1 BOD and SS and 3 mg/1
NH^N. The phosphorus removal requirement was eliminated. The
plant system would treat 90 percent of the total existing and
proposed sewered flows in the FPA with construction costs of
54,988,160; total project costs of $6,397,062; 1985 annual GSM
costs of $511,200; and total present worth costs of $10,827,983.
In the re-revised recommended plan, expansion and upgrading of
the Am-Bat WWTP remained the least costly alternative. Projected
growth and proposed sewer extensions remained essentially the
same as above. This recommendation also continued to propose
diversion of Shayler Run area flows to the Lower East Fork WWTP.
In this alternative, the Am-Bat WWTP was designed to provide
treatment which met the following effluent limits; .10 mg/1
CROD5, 12 mg/1 SS, and 1.5 mg/1 NV^N. Phosphorus removal was
not required. The plant system would treat 90 percent of the
total existing and proposed sewered flows in the FPA with
construction costs of $5,952,320, total project costs of
$7,643,642, 1985 annual O&M costs of $588,018, and total present
worth costs of $13,124,583.
Holly Towne and Berry Gardens MHPs
The facilities plan alternatives for the MHPs have included
regionalization (OKI 1971, 1976) and upgrading to AT. In the
Draft Facilities Plan, upgrading of the MHP WWTPs was the least
costly alternative and other evaluation factors did not impact
significantly on this recommendation. The estimated wastewater
flows were based on essentially no growth or expansion.
The plants were designed to provide treatment which met the fol-
lowing effluent limits in all cases: 10 mg/1 BOD, 12 mg/1 SS,
1.9 mg/1 NF^N, and 1 mg/1 P. The two plants have estimated
2-93
-------
construction costs of $119,800, total project costs of $149,800,
1985 annual O&M costs of $12,000, and total present worth costs
of $401,900.
On-Site Systems Areas
The currently unsewered areas within the FPA were analyzed for
frequency of on-site system failures to assess whether certain
areas could he excluded from further analysis and recommenda-
tions. The analysis (Section 2.2) indicated that the percent of
problems in the Facilities plan "problem areas" was not signifi-
cantly different from the "non-problem areas" and that no dis-
cernible pattern of failures existed so that extensive areas
could be excluded from further analyses and recommendations. The
types of solutions, though, could differ considerably between the
problem areas and the non-problem areas because the problem areas
were usually constrained by the lot size.
The Draft Facilities Plan included the recommendation of optimum
operation where sewer extensions would not be constructed. No
centralized management system or grant monies were proposed for
the unsewered areas for upgrading failed systems in FPA. How-
ever, the USF.PA Construction Grant regulations do specifically
endorse construction grants for the cost-effective alternative,
including decentralized alternatives.
In comparing the centralized (collection sewers) to the decen-
tralized (on-site systems), it must be noted that on-site systems
are dependent upon favorable environmental factors while collec-
tion systems are less dependent. On-site systems are more likely
to malfunction where the hydraulic conductivity is limiting and
water table rises in response to extended rainfall. They respond
poorly to short-term excessive hydraulic loadings, but can be
reliable if they are designed, installed, and maintained correct-
ly and are not overloaded hydraulically or organically.
Those components that utilize power, the aerobic systems and pump
tanks, are considerably less reliable than the standard septic
tank and soil absorption system. Operational neglect, mechanical
failure, and power outages affect these systems directly.
2-94
-------
On the other hand, a failure in a centralized treatment system
would have an immediate and massive impact on the environment.
These failures could occur systematically as they presently do
whenever infiltration and inflows c?xceed the hydraulic capacity
of portions of the system and when pump stations have not been
functioning for a lengthy period, as has also occurred. Plugged
sewer lines can occur with unpleasant results in residences also.
Another impact occurs at the WWTPs discharge to the receiving
water. At each receiving stream location, degradation of
the water quality occurs to the extent that water quality
standards are likely to be violated in the stream during certain
periods of: the year.
Presently, the CCSP does not administer any aspect of the on-site
permitting program which is administered by the CCHD and by the
Ohio RPA. Thus, for the CCHD to function as grantee for admini-
stering an on-site management district, it must assume additional
responsibilities and acquire additional expertise. This repre-
sents a signficant implementation impediment for adminstration of
on-site systems. Regardless of how many sewer extensions are
constructed, an on-site management agency is required as an
alternative to sewering.
Extension of sewers into currently unsewered areas would prime
that land for development and would allow housing densities much
greater than on-site systems do. Sewers may be constructed in
areas where they have been proposed for purposes of growth.
However, a need for the sewers must be established and they must
be the cost-effective solution to sewage treatment needs.
2.5
Selection of Recommended Action
The necessary information regarding final effluent limits which
is necessary to develop a final recommended alternative is not
available at the present time. The Ohio EPA has committed to
funding a portion of the wastewater facilities during the Federal
Fiscal year 1984 (FY 84 ends September 30, 1984), and, therefore,
the portions of the necessary improvements that are most urgent
and are consistent between the feasible alternatives could be
2-95
-------
funded. This section on recommendations -divides the necessary
improvements into Phase 1 improvements to he funded during FY 84
and Phase 2 improvements to be finalized and funded after
completion of the Comprehensive Water Quality Report and further
cost-effectiveness analyses. The primary objective of the Phase
I funding is to improve the wastewater facilities for Bethel so
that the connection ban can be lifted.
The basic elements of Phase 1 are rehabilitation of the Bethel
and Am-Bat collection system, construction of a pump station and
equalization basin for Bethel at Town Run and State Route 152, a
force main and gravity sewer to the USCOE pump station at Ulrey
Run, replacement of existing pumps with larger pumps at the two
URCOE pump stations, and expansion of the Am-Bat WWTP from 2.4
mgd to 3.6 rngd at secondary treatment levels. Other components
of necessary improvements would be delayed until additional funds
become available and the issues concerning water quality and
cost-effectiveness are resolved. The specific recommendations
for each service area within the FPA are presented in the follow-
ing sections.
2.5.1 Bethel
The recommendation for Bethel includes rehabilitation of the
sewer system and transport of the sewage to the Am-Bat WWTP for
treatment in Phase 1. This course of action is recommended even
though a local treatment alternative may be less costly because
elimination of the wastewater discharge to Harsha Lake is an
environmentally desirable feature of regionalization.
Construction in Phase I would consist of essential components to
transport sewage from the existing Bethel service area to the
Am-Bat system. The components are:
0 Rehabilitation of the sewer system,
0 Construction of a 0.8 MG equalization basin and a
550 gpm pump station at Poplar Creek and State Route
125 connected to the existing collection system with
an 18-inch interceptor,
2-96
-------
0 Construction of a force main and gravity sewer to the
USCOE pump station at Ulrey Run and State Route 125,
0 Replacement of pumps in the two USCOE pump stations,
and
0 Provision of odor and corrosion control facilities in
the force mains.
Phase 2 activities at Bethel would include sewering the South
Charity Street area and implementing the on-site management pro-
gram which will be involved in upgrades for failing systems. The
construction of sewers will not be grant-eligible, but on-site
system upgrades would be funded at the 75 percent level.
2.5.2 Batavia
No improvements to the Batavia wastewater system are scheduled in
Phase 1. The recommendation that the Ratavia collection system
be rehabilitated is supported by the available evidence. if a 30
cfs minimum release from Marsha Lake is guaranteed by the USCOE,
the effluent limits tor the Am-Bat wWTPshould be no more stringent
than AT (CBOD5 20 mg/1, NH3~N 3 mg/1 summer). Then the
cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that Batavia should be
rey ionalized.
Before Batavia can phase out its WWTP and connect to the Am-Bat
WWTP, the Shayler Run flows currently tributary to the Am-Bat
WWTP must be diverted to the Lower East Pork as planned. Until
major rehabilitation of the collection system or expansion of the
Lower Fast Fork WWTP occurs, there is inadequate capacity during
wet weather for the upper Shayler Run flows.
The connection of Batavia to the Am-Bat WWTP would consist of a
force main extension from the current discharge location at the
Batavia WWTP to the Am-Bat WWTP. The project would be funded
with 55 percent of the grant-eligible costs borne by Federal
funds and the remainder funded by the CCSD or the Village.
2-97
-------
Although on-site systems may be more cost-effective than sewers
Cor the Clark and Ely Streets area with the Village, sewers are
recommended for this area because of: its location within the
Village. The cost of sewers would be an entirely local cost and
could be constructed at the discretion of the homeowners and the
Village.
2.5.3 Williamsburg
No improvements to the Williamsburg wastewater system are sched-
uled in Phase? 1. The wastewater flows for Williamsburg utilized
in the cost-effectiveness analyses are inadequate to prevent
overflows of untreated sewage to the East Fork even with a 75
percent removal of inflow in a major rehabilitation program. The
lower flow projections associated with smaller population projec-
tions currently being developed by OKI may somewhat offset the
underestimate of infiltration and inflow.
The decision of the Clermont County Roard to disallow connoction
of Williamsburg to the interceptor at Afton should be re-eval-
uated, particularly, in view of the slow economic growth in this
part of the County. Regionalization of Williamsburg with the
Am-Rat system is a potential alternative to be evaluated in Phase
2.
The effluent requirements for Williamsburg are not finalized.
When they are finalized, the cost-effectiveness of the various
treatment alternatives should be reconsidered and new recommenda-
tions developed. Since Williamsburg may not be included in the
regional system, it would be evaluated independently for funding
priority. Any construction at Williamsburg would be funded in
Phase 2 and would be funded with 55 percent of the grant-eligible
costs borne by Federal grant assistance and the remainder of the
costs funded by Williamsburg if an independent system were con-
tinued or by CCSD if the system were regionalized. A potential
for innovative and alternative funding at 75 percent for portions
of the treatment system also exists.
Extension of sewers to State Routes 27P and 133 northwest of the
Village is not recommended. The cost-effectiveness analysis
2-98
-------
(Table 2-87 of the nraft EIS) shows that upgrading on-site sys-
tems is less costly. Inclusion of the problem area in an on-site
management district is the recommended action.
2.5.4 Shayler Run
The upper Shayler Run service area is currently part of the
Am-Rat system. The Lower East Fork Facilities Plan (McGill &
Smith, Inc. 1974) shows it as part of the Am-Rat service area,
but states that the long-range plan is to divert the flow to the
Lower East Fork WWTP. No specific year for that diversion to
occur was given and it was unclear whether the flow projections
for the Lower East Fork WWTP included capacity for the upper
Shayler Run service area. An 18-inch diameter interceptor,
though, was constructed up to Olive Branch, so that interceptor
capacity exists. On this basis, the Ohio EPA concluded that the
upper Shayler Run service area was intended to be treated at the
Lower East Fork WWTP and that sufficient capacity should exist.
Thus, the CCSP is responsible for providing capacity at the Lower
East Fork WWTP, either by expanding the WWTP or by removing ex-
cess inflow.
The total present worth cost of constructing the interceptor to
Olive Branch and of providing the capacity for and treating the
flows at the Lower East Fork WWTP is greater than upgrading the
Clough Pike pump station and expanding and treating flows at the
Am-Rat WWTP. Nevertheless, constructing the interceptor from
Clough Pike to Olive Branch is the recommended action. This
construction would take place during Phase 2 and funding for the
grant-eligible portion at 55 percent would be provided.
2.5.5 Amelia-Batavia
The recommended action for the Am-Bat service area includes re-
habilitation of the existing sewer system, upgrading and expan-
sion of the existing WWTP to a 3.6 mgd activated sludge plant to
accommodate Bethel and Batavia flows, construction of a 1.8 MG
flow equalization basin, and diversion of the upper Shayler Run
service area to the Lower East Fork WWT1'. Of these improvements,
diversion of the Shayler Run flows to the Lower East Fork WWTP
2-99
-------
would riot occur in Phase I of the improvement program nor would
Hatavia's flow be diverted to the Am-Rat WWTP i! The expansion and
upgrading of the Am-Rat WWTP must he limited to provision of
secondary treatment, although the facilities must be arranged and
designed to accommodate additional treatment units when the issue
of design flows and treatment levels are finalized. Phase 1
funding does not include any sewer extensions into unsewered
areas, nor does it include sludge storage tanks, the septage re-
ceiving station, the Fast Fork bridge, sludge transportation and
application equipment, or the storage building and shop.
The Phase 2 recommendations would be initiated after the effluent
limits are finalized. Then, the cost-effectiveness analysis for
Williamsburg can be completed and a final decision made on re-
gional izat ion. Another critical decision is how to treat the
upper Shayler Run flows until, capacity is available at the Lower
East Fork WWTP. The proposed schedule for the Lower East Fork
WWTP does not include sufficient rehabilitation of the collection
system so that capacity would be available and no immediate
improvement or expansion is proposed. Ratavia flows would not be
allowed into the Am-Rat WWTP until diversion of Shayler Run flows
provide sufficient capacity.
Another task of Phase 2 is the re-evaluation of the design flows
after the rehabilitation of the collection system is complete and
overflows at pump stations are eliminated. At that time, the
design Clows presented in the Facilities Plan can be verified or
new flows developed. An expansion, as well as upgrading the
WWTP, can be re-evaluated.
The treatment level for the Am-Rat WWTP will be finalized upon
the establishment of final effluent limits for discharges to the
East Fork. At least some additional treatment units beyond
secondary and nitrification to a treatment level of 3.0 mg/1
NHjN or more stringent will probably be required.
The sludge storage and application equipment and ancillary facil-
ities, including the East Fork bridge (not grant-eligible) at
U.S. 32 are recommended as part of the Phase 2 project.
2-100
-------
2.S.P. Holly Towne and Rerry Gardens MHPs
The recommended action for Holly Towne and Berry Gardens MHPs is
for these two MHPs to continue usage of the existing WWTPs and to
upgrade the treatment to achieve AT effluent limits of 10 mg/1
CROn5, .12 mg/1 SR, 1.9 my/1 NH3-N, and 1.0 mg/1 P. Because
these WWTPs are privately owned, the improvements would be priv-
ately funded. The recommendation of the Facilities Plan for the
Holly Towne MHP was to add aeration capacity to the sludge tank
and lagoon influent point and install an intermittent sand filter
(two cell) at the lagoon outfall. For Berry Gardens MHP, the
recommendations were to construct a detritus and flow equaliza-
tion tank, an aerated sludge holding tank, and an intermittent
sand filter (two cell). Both WWTPs would receive improved opera-
tion and maintenance procedures.
These improvements would he grant-eligible if the CCHD were to
assume ownership of the WWTPs. Also, the Sewer District is
probably better equipped to perform the essential operation and
maintenance responsibilities for the two WWTPs. The respective
owners and the CCSD may pursue an equitable ownership transfer
and fee schedule for the WWTPs.
2.5.7 On-Site System Areas
The recommended action for the areas currently using on-site
systems is for a management district or districts to be organized
under the authority of the CCSP and for on-site systems to be
inspected and appropriately upgraded and maintained. This would
be accomplished in Phase 2 of the project schedule since the
legal groundwork for the CCSD to implement the management dis-
trict is not in place on the local level.
The on-site management district would arrange for the inspection,
design, and construction of upgraded systems. Individual up-
grades would be made in consultation with the property owner and
the system design would be selected from a range of technical
opt ions.
2-101
-------
-------
3 .0
SUMMARY OF AFFECTKO ENVIRONMENT
This section of the FITS describes the existing conditions of the
natural and manmade environs of the Middle East Fork planning
area that potentially could be impacted by the implementation.
construction, and/or operation of. wastewater treatment facili-
ties. The information presented was developed from the Draft
Environmental. Impact Statement, Middle F.ast Fork Area, Clermont
County, Ohio, April. L984 , (DRJS), and summarizes the most signi-
ficant issues addressed in the DEIS. Additional background and
supporting data may, therefore, be found in the DEIS.
3.1
Land
3.1.1 Topography and Physiography
The Middle East Fork planning area is topographically dominated
by the valley of the East Fork of the Little Miami River. This
rather small river has cut down through the rolling glacial, pene-
plain (a plain of little relief formed by long-term erosion) that
is characteristic of the sectors of the planning area not eroded
since the last glacial retreat. The Middle East Fork drainage
area is bisected by the generally east to west flow of the East
Fork. Elevation and slope of the valley walls vary dramatically;
elevations range from 600 to 900 feet above sea level (msl),
while slopes average 25 percent grade with peaks of 35 percent or
more.
The East Fork has formed a dendritic stream pattern with many
finger-like projections which contribute to the overall area
consumed by the valley. The principal river valley floor, com-
posed of the stream floodplain and terrace, is narrow, with an
average valley floor width of 1,000 to 2,000 feet. The East Fork
Dam utilizes this deep, narrow, steeply sloping valley as a
natural containment for the William H. Marsha Lake.
The northern and southern extremes of the FPA are gently rolling
plateaus which exhibit only minor influences on the East Fork.
Some areas are nearly flat, as in the Afton industrial area north
of the East Fork Park. Most of the non-valley area is moderately
3-1
-------
well suited to development where favorable conditions exist
(e.g., soil capabilities, utilities).
3.1.2 Surface and Bedrock Geology
Three very different types of materials make up the genera]
geology of the Middle East Fork planning area. On the surface
are sedimentary deposits from streams, winds, and glacial
periods. Beneath this is found a much older layer of bedrock
having sedimentary origins from deposits on the floors of the
ancient shallow continental seas. The third type of material is
the hard core oE igneous rocks, known as the "basement complex",
which averages 3,SOD feet below the surface in the planning
area.
The sedimentary bedrock of the Middle East Fork area is of the
Ordovician Age, formed 440 to 500 million years ago during con-
tinental inundation by prehistoric oceans. Clays, slits, sands,
and lime settled to the bottom to later harden into a profile
mixture of shale, sandstone, limestone, and dolomite. The speci-
fic geologic series involved are the Cincinnatian and Trenton,
both being characterized by alternate layers of bluegray cal-
careous shale and fossiliferous to medium-grained limestone in
varying ratios.
The importance of glacial activity, with respect to the planning
area, centers around Tllinoian glacial deposits. All of the true
glacial deposits in the planning area were laid down by this
advance; most of the deposits being clay tills. Deposits of
dense Illinoian clay tills cover portions of the East Fork banks.
On the upland areas, much of the underlying parent soil material
also is from Illinoian till. Additionally, up to 60 inches of
loess (fine, silty particles of wind-blown drift from the glacial
periods) have covered most of the elevated, nearly-level lands.
This loess was the primary parent material in the formation of
upland soils.
3-2
-------
3-1-3 Soils
The soils of the FPA are described by associations. The associa-
tion map published in the Soil Survey presents a general picture
of soils of the area and descriptions and limitations ot major
soil, associations and types. The most important associations in
the PPA are the Avonberg-Clermont and the Rossmoyne-Cincinnati.
The Avonberg-Clermont and the Rossmoyne-Cincinnati associations
occupy approximately 70 percent of the unsewered areas and more
than 80 percent of the remaining developable land in the PPA.
They are identified on the gently rolling, upland plateaus where
development pressure is most intense. A summary of important
features of these and other associations in the PPA follows.
The Avonberg-Clermont association is characterized as deep, near-
ly level to gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, and poorly
drained soils on uplands. This association dominates the north
and south central part of FPA. Because of the slow to very slow
permeabilities and nearly level slopes, surface drainage and
internal drainage is slow. Ponded water is common and persistent
throughout much of the year. On-site sewage disposal systems are
generally soil-based and usual ly incorporate surface drainage
measures so that surface water does not infiltrate and cause
problems with the operation of the drainfield. However, lack of
drain outlets on individual parcels on these soils may make sat-
isfactory drainage difficult to achieve.
The Rossmoyne-Cincinnati association is characterized as deep,
mostly gently sloping to sloping, moderately well drained, and
well drained soils near major drainageways and along the tops of
ridges. The soils are formed in windblown, silty material to
depths of 40 inches that overlies the clayey glacial till. Both
of these soils have a fragipan and are underlain by shale and
limestone bedrock. The fragipan, clayey soil material, and bed-
rock all result in severely limited, vertical movement of water.
Because of the slopes, surface runoff is moderately rapid and
ponding generally does not occur. On-site sewage disposal sys-
tems that utilize the soil generally operate satisfactorily if
properly designed and constructed.
3-3
-------
The Hickory-Cincinnati-Rdenton association Ls charaterizecl as
deep to moderately deep, mostly moderately steep to very steep,
well drained soils on valley sides and tops of narrow ridges.
The Cincinnati soil is formed in silty material overlying clayey
glacial till and has a frayipan near that interface. Hickory
soils have a very thin, silty layer over the clayey glacial till.
The Rdenton soil is similar to the Hickory, except the depth to
bedrock averages 20 to 40 inches. Hickory and Cincinnati soils
have depths to bedrock greater than 5 feet. These soils have
very limited, vertical, permeability due to the fragipan, clayey
soil material, and underlying bedrock. .Surface runoff is rapid
so that ponding generally does not occur. on-site sewage dis-
posal systems are primarily aerobic systems with a surface dis-
charge to dira inageways. Soil-based disposal systems can function
satisfactorily on the Cincinnati soils if properly designed and
constructed. However, many of the areas in this association are
too steep for soil-based treatment systems.
The Fdenton-F.den association is characterized as moderately deep,
moderately steep to very steep, well drained soils on walls of
upland valleys. Few on-site systems are constructed on the two
major soils in the association, the Edenton and the Eden, because
of slope and depth to bedrock limitations.
The Genesee-Wil1iamsburg association is characterized as deep,
nearly level to moderately steep, well drained soils on stream
Eloodplains and terraces. The Genesee soil may be subject to
flooding, but the Williamsburg is seldom inundated. Permeability
on these soils is moderate to rapid; soil-based sewage disposal
measures can function effectively if reasonable design criteria
and construction practices are followed.
The relative location of the more common soil series is shown
Figure 3-1.
in
The characteristics of each series in the FPA that relate to
soil-based sewage disposal are presented in Table 3-1. Nearly
all of the watershed area has a severe rating for soil absorption
systems. The primary limitation is moderately slow to very slow
permeability due to clayey soil material, a fragipan or bedrock.
3-4
-------
z
o
z
Z
CM
K
0>
cc
z
o
o
««••
>»
*-
o
o
o
o
Q.
2
o>
o
a
o
*-
•o
ed
co
**
o
«5
a
CO
«*-
o
a
!E
co
_
O
CC
I
eo
UJ
CC
3-5
-------
cn
u
ea
a
M
e
J3
q]
as
Vi «
o
o
«l -•
Ra 1 1 nj
Absorpt
^
h
.c
c
\^
>,
'ermeabl
Table
es) Flooding I
K u
a c
u ••«
s~
o
U VI f
«lj
n
V (V
U k<
(0 =1
a tn
V 01
Z 0,
a
i1
(0 • »
•- 4J
>»>»sea«oi
»>>>>>>>»
Q) CJ 41 fU Q,) V (U V V
C/lMCflt/JMOM W W
y*S
t
O
o
^4
: : t | co CO CO OO :
OOCOOO *
o o o E i i T i o
1 1 1 "-* 1 1 ] 1 1
dddcModddd
NW'
o
C4
r
*o
d
i i i i it
ooooooooo
r
TJ
^^4-4-4^^1-t^H CSi-l 1
atnacQoiwa ni
^H
•^4
01
>>>>>>>>>> TI>
«4>«4>«WVVUUdJ^H66>
(ouiuiuicncntnusnuitA tozto
tld^SSSSSC £££
OOO OOOOOO *fc^ O *"*• *^> O
sO^^OOOOOOOsD^OOO •
1 J 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 t 1
ooooooooo ooo
fit _|
(o a
8 §
to to
4 <9
u o
S S
1
00
(-1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
*4 -* *4
OOO -H
« a » -<
B ~"
oooooo oemojBaai
< u
Q IB IQ e d c a
u u u o o o t>
u «J S »
Be e C u
n ai «j -J — x e
C. 0.
e B 1 a n n
O V 41 U At
tn to vi crt en
o o ooo
o o o o o
sO so 1 so so so
O O OOO
O O so sO so
1 1 1
09 « 1
OO OOO
so sO 1 sO sO sO
CD a 1 u
03 m o
fsf 1 CM 4O in
p
u
*§, % BOB.
o o «->.*.*_
— 3! * X
•o a
Vi >,
_o — K
4> Q) U
«H Li -^
3-6
-------
•a
I
•H
-P
C
8
OJ
r-H
XI
^*
Oi 01
U b
« 3
LJ X
3 01
to H
"
a. oo 01
o B u
— eg n
en tt o
•0
B
a -i
a
01 -0
§B
R
z tn
-< 01
— a
o —
co a.
a
en a
u *
VI
S
=;•
> >
en to
<-^
rC
^0
O
1
o
--N:
oS
es •
••H O
1 1
t& >O
o
o
e*>
,_,
O
CM
1
O
»
B
0
—
S
u
s
<4>
0 0
CJ
o> a
1 t
„
01
5d
>
Cfl
« ""
ll
?
>
01
M
^
O
\o
.
CM
1
tC
O
(0
c
0
to
eg
5
to
1
M>
o
p-l
ee
,1,
^
5
1
OT CO
: i
O O
rg tN
7 7
: :
O\ CT>
o'o'
f^ CJ
1 1
\o *o
0 O
o o
^
0 0
~H p-<
en co
i i
B
< oo
S
u
-
m en to w m cfl w tn S w « "^
tji cu o v cu LO « en cAco£cocncn
: :
0 0
<0 xO
II:::: ; : /-» ^* ^.
- -OOOOGOCD co co t oo«n
^-N^^cgcvirMtN rgcgr^-— •>-'>-'
O^C7\OOOO OOfV • • .
^- -4 | | 1 I l|<->eoooa ooooooa
i i i i i i i t i i
CD flei OO fln CD CD CO 00 00 *0
OOOOOO O O O CO CO O
p^^^tDmcoa eocoaaaa)
<£> d
en IA i I CM co
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CMGOOCNCMeM CDUO^CMO
" ^ i i "*
a u
2 Qd
X
O 01
u < ta o u c -i < u Q
a cLOfa-neoex eovu^
a « a: a: as * g cncocnco
u u 8
e a> ai ti
eg B e B
x x a a
BO o ~< — a
a e s c -H
en co — co n
^o n m ^ o) o
o o o eg o) £
oi ce: c£ co co eo
i^.
1
Q
'o
<&
O
O
l*-l
a
eg
u
0
o
*o
•0
m
o
a
A
V
"83
U) * "5
00 tn
k< B
^ V<
U 0) V.
•^ B n
'H eg £
V x
B —
0 -1
U *rf
CA 3
en
to s
.
b o
r- r-
CM M
VB to
pp
-a- •«
o o
1 1
o o
o o
s s
o o
f-t -H
CM
1 1
CM M3
CO (J
CO
tn
b
r-.
CM
\C
P
3
o
j
v(>
d
o
•a
0
^^
a
00
CM
^
0
*
i
o
X
13
B
eg
a
I
pH
B
-
O
x
u
X
u
a
u
a
.
§
o
1
ft
§
o
^*
£
to
5
CO
tf
01
et)
a
B
a
a
S
Lrf
•£
LI
3
01
0 J
w
01
It
X
oo —
S2
9 n
O 01
p* 5
^ tj
cej o>
£ 0.
n
1 4
S —
£ m
01 k
* m
•"< 10
n "s
rQ e.^
ii
««
§0*
1 2
•o
kl •£)
01
1 "
a.
to -c
/^
6 t>
jl
2 5
oi 3
•O 1
o Jt>
? 3
i"l
X ^!
-- o
f "P
3
« o
to £
•» ex
07 01
01
01 **
1 k»
> «
oi -a
CO O
il
b B
eg
« 01
§ 0
« a
>^ 1
a <-H
e
•vH >
O Of ^1
2 eg *
4^6
5 'S S.
1 L£
eg a eg
e k.
to o>
00 -T»
B 01 O
a eg o.
u e
3
3-7
-------
The soils that have permeabilities great enough to warrant a
moderate rating for soil absorption systems all lie in the val-
leys and consist of alluvial soil material.
Flooding can also restrict soil-based sewage disposal systems.
In the FPA, flooding is of short duration or is mitigated by the
floodwater storage capability of the Marsha Lake Dam. Although
some soils were given severe ratings based on flooding, this
should not be considered a serious barrier to installation of
soil absorption systems where the reservoir has restricted the
extent of flooding. The seasonal high water table is generally
associated with lack of surface drainage on level areas. The
high water table conditions persist throughout most of the winter
and spring and cause persistent soil absorption system failures
if surface and subsurface drainage measures are not utilized.
These ratings indicate the general difficulties in designing,
constructing, and maintaining soil absorption systems. These
limitations can generally be overcome, however, the design solu-
tions may be complicated and expensive.
3.2
Water
3.2.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The East Fork of the Little Miami River is 82 miles long and
flows southeasterly to its confluence with the Little Miami River
below Milford, Ohio (Figure 1-1). Average slope of the Bast Fork
is approximately 7.6 feet per mile. Ten named principal streams
are tributary to the East Fork inside the FPA (Figure 1-2).
The banks of the East Fork of the Little Miami are heavily wooded
and moderately to steeply sloping. The more level upland areas
are predominately agricultural in use. The presence of intensive
upland farming, steep stream banks and drainage ravines, and a
relatively impermeable bedrock structure cause extremely rapid
rainfall runoff and, subsequently, a low rate of groundwater dis-
charge to the stream. As a result, base stream flow is poorly
sustained and peak flows are far above the mean. The average
and extreme stream flows for the USGS gauging station
3-8
-------
(#03247050), located downstream from Batavia (352 sq. mi.
drainage area), Cor the water years 1965-1980 are:
Average discharge
Maximum daily discharge
Minimum daily discharge
447.0 cfs
2R,700.0 cfs (April 2, 1970)
0.14 cfs (Sept. 27, 1967)
These discharges represent the river conditions prior to the con-
struction of the East Pork Dam approximately eight miles up-
stream. Construction of this earthen dam was initiated in 1970
and filling began in 1978, creating Marsha Lake. As a result of
reservoir construction, the downstream sediment loads are much
reduced, and augmentation of. downstream flows (during low flow
periods) is possible.
Mean hydraulic detention time of Harsha Lake is estimated to be
in the range of 100 to 122 days, indicating that all water is
replaced at least three times per year. This estimate is based
on total theoretical design volume, including the 'dead storage',
which will eventually be filled with sediment. Harsha Lake
detention time will be reduced about 20 percent once sedimenta-
tion approaches the design elevation. Most of the exchange of
water occurs in February through May; when river flows are high-
est (OKJ 1977). The tributary flows to the lake are always
lowest July through October and the most critical low flow months
are September and October. Flushing of Harsha Lake is negligible
between July and February.
A number of published documents have made reference to desired
minimum rates of reservoir discharge during low-flow periods.
Prior to dam construction, the 7-day, two year recurrence inter-
val low flow at the Perintown gage was 3.98 cfs and the 7-day, 10
year low flow was 0.35 cfs, greatly limiting the effluent assim-
ilative capability of the lower East Fork. The Little Miami
River Rasin Plan (OKI 1977) evaluated cost/benefits of maintain-
ing 15 to 20 cfs at all times.
At the time of the Basin Plan preparation, the storage volumes of
the planned reservoir were described as sufficient to maintain up
to a maximum discharge of 82 cfs in the July - September period
3-9
-------
and 74 cfs in October. However, no memorandum or statement of
intent has been presented stating that such flows would, in fact,
be maintained by the USCOR during critical times ot the year.
A ten-year period of discharge record at Ratavia will not be
available until 1989, in order to evaluate contemporary stream
How and reservoir characteristics. When that evaluation is
made, new low-flow recurrence interval statistics can be pre-
pared .
More recent stage-discharge data for the Rast Fork of the Little
Miami {water years 1980, 1982) indicate that stream Mow at
Ratavia does not equal the "15 cfs minimum" referred to in the
Draft Middle Fast Fork Wastewater Facilities Plan (Ralke Engi-
neers I982a) . The USCOF has pointed out, however, that the 15
cfs currently maintained is measured as a release from Marsha
letter of 6/18/84, See Chapter 5).
for Ohio (1981) reported flows at
5.0 cfs for a total of 7 days in
Minimum 1980 daily discharge at
Lake, not at Ratavia (USCOF
The USGS Water Data Report
Ratavia that were less than
October and November 1979.
Ratavia was reported as 4.0 cfs (November 6, 1979).
The Comprehensive Water Quality Report (CWOR) prepared by Ohio
F,HA (1983) for the Fast Fork of the Little Miami River evaluated
stream flows above and below Marsha Lake during June through
September 1982. Precipitation was much below normal in the FPA
during the study. Instantaneous flow values as low as 1.5 cfs
(September 23) were measured below Wi 11. iamsburg at the river's
entrance into Harsha Lake. Instantaneous stream flow downstream
of the Fast Fork's confluence with Stonelick Creek (below
Hatavia) on September 23, 1982, was reported as 10 cfs (Ohio FPA,
1983). Stonelick Creek may have contributed some flow to the
Rast Fork above this gaging station and the Ratavia and Am-Rat
WWTPs also contributed some flow; however, some augmentation of
stream flow was occurring as a result of dam releases. Until the
new statistical calculations of low-flow are made available from
future records or are synthesized based on planned operation of
the dam and the other tlow contributions, hydrologic data for the
East Fork below Ratavia will be generally inadequate for use in
waste load allocation studies.
3-10
-------
3.2.2 Water Use and Quality
3.2.2.1 Overview of: Water Resource Use and Management
The Harsha Lake Dam was constructed to control flooding on the
Bast Pork and to mitigate flooding on the Little Miami River
mainstem and the Ohio River (USCOE 1974). Flooding on the East
Fork and the mainstem of the Little Miami River and the Ohio
River historically has been a problem and recent improvements in
upland drainage probably contributed to increased flood peaks.
Drainage was improved for roads and residences and to facilitate
more intensive crop production. Stream base flows have likely
been reduced as a result of improved drainage (OKI 1977). Long-
term monitoring has not clearly established these trends, al-
though such drainage improvements and urbanization typically have
these results.
Construction of the Harsha Lake Dam in the early 1970s, markedly
increased the capacity of the East Fork to store water and, thus,
attenuated downstream hydrologic extremes (USCOE 1974). Opera-
tion of this dam to expand water use capacity in the area will
become increasingly important to local residents as population
growth continues. However, it is not likely that the reservoir
capacity will always be sufficient to significantly augment down-
stream base flows in summer. Due mostly to the geology of the
East Fork watershed and in part to the land use changes of recent
decades, future river flows from above the reservoir will period-
ically reach very low levels. For example, in late summer and
early autumn of very dry years, much or all of the stream flow
entering Harsha Lake is domestic wastewater treatment plant
effluent (Ohio EPA, 1983).
Future release of Harsha Lake water to benefit downstream ef-
fluent dischargers may well engender water use conflicts in the
FPA. Maintaining the wastewater assimilative capacity of the
lower East Fork through low-flow augmentation would not cause
conflict if stream flow entering the lake is above or equal to
the dam release rate. But, when reservoir inflow is minimal,
3-11
-------
Low-flow augmentation of the East. Fork would cause a drop in the
lake level. Maintaining significant augment!ve flow releases
during a drought year would likely be seen by the public as a
detriment to their preferred water uses - recreation on the lake
and drinking water supply storage. Additional population growth
in the area will mean more recreational use of the lake, more
water supply demand, more wastewater to be assimilated in the
downstream segment of the Fast Fork, and, therefore, conflict
over the need to release lake water. The current authorized dis-
charge from Harsha Lake for flow augmentation of the East Fork
ranges from 41 cfs (January-March and November-December) to 82
cfs (July-September).
Additional interests may compete Cor the use of portions of the
Harsha E.ake storage capacity, including both public and private
beneficiaries of. proposed hydroelectric power generation facili-
ties at the dam site. The second phase of a federally sponsored
hydro-power feasibility study is now being completed by the IKSCOH:
for the Harsha Lake Dam site. The approximate maximum combined
turbine flow of 1,000 cfs would be limited to a 14-day (R hours
per day) operation for the peak power demand season July to
August.
It was USRPA's understanding that the original design intention
tor the summer pool was that it be used solely for flow augmenta-
tion and potable water supply, however, the nsCOE's comments on
the Draft ETS {See Chapter 5) indicate that the original design
intention was to increase surface area for recreation. In either
case, the higher average summer elevation does provide greater
assurances of sufficient storage available to meet the water
supply and water quality demands and provides some flexibility
for future operation. Additional information describing the pro-
posed hydroelectric plant, may be found in the Draft EIS.
The ETS on the East Fork r.ake project (nsCOE 1974) did not ad-
dress the impacts of the proposed hydroelectric facilities on the
lake and the downstream water quality. A preliminary draft Feas-
ibility Report and Environmental Assessment of the proposed
hydropower alternatives was published in December 1983, followed
by the draft document in Feburary 1984. The public hearing for
3-12
-------
this project was held on March 2fl, 1984, at Ratavia High School.
USKPA commented on both of these documents. As a result, a meet-
ing between USRPA, Ohio RPA, and the USCOE was held at the State
offices in Columbus on April 5, 1984, to clarify certain issues.
It was agreed in this meeting that the issues of minimum flow,
water quality and water releases, as affected by the proposed
hydropower project, will be negotiated and finalized following
completion of the CWOR by Ohio RPA.
A Revised Draft Rast Fork Little Miami River Comprehensive Water
Ouality Report was published by Ohio RPA in April 1984, which
addresses nany of the comments made by USRPA on the original
draft document. This reviso^d report is currently under review by
USKPA, Region V.
3.2.2.2
waste Assimilation
The ability of the Rast Fork of the r.ittle Miami River to assimi-
late wastewater treatment plant effluent is limited primarily by
its natural hydrologic characteristics. However, the existing
arrangement, of WWTP discharges along the river and its tribu-
taries, does not overwhelm the assimilative capacity of the East
Kork. In spite of ongoing poor performance and sewage bypassing
at the Wil I iamsburg, Ratavia, Bethel, and Arn-Rat treatment
plants, the Rast Fork now receives its total effluent load at
dispersed locations and is not degraded over any reach except for
minor degradation downstream of Wil1iamsburg. This aspect of the
river's existing assimilative capacity was illustrated by waste
load allocation, model verification studies for the lower Rast
Kork WWTP discharges as presented in the preliminary draft CWOR
(Ohio RPA 1983) .
Construction of a regional facility would discharge all efflu-
ents at a single point and thus would alter stream flow char-
acteristics. Construction of a regionalized plant at the Am-Rat
site would have a direct effect on stream low-flow characteris-
tics from Ratavia to the Am-Bat plant. Under drought conditions,
the river downstream from the Ratavia WWTP consists largely of
effluent. Diversions of Ratavia wastewater flows to the down-
stream Am-Rat WWTP would remove this streamflow contribution.
3-13
-------
3.2.2.3. Proposed Stream and Lake Use Classifications
Ohio RPA (19R3) proposed specific stream use classifications and
biological habitat classifications based on recent field investi-
gations on the Fast Fork, The diversity of aquatic life observed
by the Ohio RPA warranted the recommendation that the East Fork
and Dodson Creek be designated an Exceptional Warmwater Habitat
(EWH}. A Warmwater Habitat (WWH) classification has been recom-
mend fd for all other tributaries and for the headwaters of the
East Pork from River Mile (RM ) 85 to RM 75. The East Fork from
Marsha Lake to the mouth was recommended to be designated as
Stat-? and National Resource Waters (SNRW). These designated uses
must meet specific water quality parameters as designated under
the Ohio Administrative Code, Chapter 3745.1.
Recreational uses recommended tor the Rast Fork and all tribu-
taries are secondary contact recreation for all waters above the
Marsha Lake and tributaries to the Rast Fork downstream of the
reservoir. The mainstem of the East Fork downstream of the
reservoir has been recommended to be classified as primary con-
tact; recreation.
With respect to water supply, the Ohio EPA recommended that
Marsha Lake be designated for public water supply uses. Because
no observed agricultural or industrial water supply uses were
documented, these uses were not recommended in the classification
system used by the Ohio EPA. The U.S. RPA currently is reviewing
the recommendations for proposed stream classifications that Ohio
RPA has developed for the entire Rast Fork' watershed.
3.2.2.4. Groundwater Use
The FPA has very limited sources of groundwater. The only sub-
stantial sources of groundwater are found in the alluvial areas
along the Rast Pork Valley, where yields of 5 to 25 gallons per
minute (gpm) can be obtained. This valley area is sparsely
developed, there are few wells, and no complaints or evidence of
groundwater contamination have been received.
3-14
-------
Most of. the upland, unsewered portion of. the FPA is covered with
a layer of glacial till which a poor source of groundwater. Most
of" the clayey soil types actually do contain a significant amount
of water, which is partially "locked in" to the structure of the
soil. Movement of water through the clayey soils is so slow that
the potential groundwater yields are insignificant.
3.2.2.5. Phosphorus Loads to Surface Waters
In most cases, phosphorus is the limiting factor controlling
nuisance algae growth in lakes. An attempt was made to determine
the order of magnitude of annual phosphorus loads and resulting
phosphorus concentrations within Harsha Lake. These results are
presented in the Draft EIK (Table 3-6). Based on preliminary
calculations, it was estimated that septic tank systems contri-
bute less than 10 percent of the total annual phosphorus load to
Harsha Lake, while the Williamsburg and Bethel WWTP's each con-
tribute less than 4 percent of the total load. The predicted
annual average phosphorus concentration in Harsha Lake is 0.04
mg/1. This mean concentration is sufficient to support a highly
productive phytoplankton community, depending upon physical
limnology of the lake. It also could promote nuisance growths of
aquatic plants in shallow bays and along shorelines. Respiration
by algae and plants could result in even more serious depletion
of dissolved oxygen in deeper portions of the lake.
3.2.2.6. Surface Water Quality
Protection of water quality in Harsha Lake and maintenance of
high quality water in the Bast Fork of the Little Miami River are
cited in the Facilities Plan as the primary reasons for providing
improved wastewater collection and treatment in the FPA (Balke
Engineers 19R2a) . The need to provide adequate levels of treat-
ment at the Williamsburg WWTP as a means of protecting Harsha
Lake was previously recognized by the Ohio Department of Public
Health (USCOE 1974).
S_t reams
The biochemical qualities of the East Fork of the Little Miami
3-15
-------
River are directly influenced by the streamflow patterns shared
by all tributaries of the Little Miami River Basin. The lowest
monthly average streamflows recorded on the Little Miami River
near its confluence with the East Fork tributary, are for the
months of August, September, and October.
The lowest monthly average dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations
reported for the Little Maimi River at Milford, Ohio, occurred in
July and August, with daily minimum oxygen values occurring
between 8 and in AM during those months (OKI 1977).
Public use of the East Fork waters for fishing is highly depen-
dent upon the continued maintenance of adequate levels of DO
throughout the critical summer months. The Ohio EPA currently
reports that the Levels of PO throughout the East Fork mainstem
generally are adequate to sustain a high quality warm water
sports fishery (Ohio RPA 1983). Additionally, public health and
aesthetic characteristics of the East Fork and its tributary
waters were described by the Ohio EPA as generally adequate to
support whole body contact recreation. However, the Ohio EPA
report and other investigations have suggested that short seg-
ments of the East Fork and its tributaries currently are somewhat
degraded by agricultural runoff, seepage from failing on-site
waste systems, and poorly operating wastewater treatment plants.
The data presented in the Draft Comprehensive Water Ouality
Report (Ohio EPA 1983) and in the Facilities Plan (Balke Engi-
neers 1982a) and supporting documents demonstrate some minor
adverse water quality impacts from these potential pollutant
sources.
The Ohio EPA stream water quality survey (Ohio EPA 1983) was not
conclusive as to why the assimilative capacity of the lower East
Fork was not exceeded. However, algae may have had a strong role
in maintaining the instream DO. Blue-green algae can produce
large amounts of dissolved oxygen in response to sufficient light
levels, and this beneficial effect may be increased by wastewater
effluents.
Harsha Lake is reported to be a fertile body of water which sup-
ports a sports fishery. Because the lake receives little tribu-
3-16
-------
tary flows to it during late summer, and because significant
nutrient loads are delivered to the lake during winter and spring
runoff events, eutrophication symptoms, such as algal blooms,
could be imminent if not already a problem (OKI 1977). However,
Marsha Lake is deep and often becomes stratified in summer, iso-
lating sedimentary nutrients from the surface waters. This makes
it less likely that the phytoplankton community would become
dominated by blue-green algae in July, August, and early Septem-
ber. Phosphorus and nitrates in the Williamsburg WWTP effluent
probably do stimulate the overall algal community throughout the
summer. These plankton can also produce supersaturated levels of
oxygen in the surface of the lake.
One of the functions of the Harsha Lake Dam is to trap and settle
much of the sediment and nutrients arriving from upstream por-
tions of the watershed (OKI 1977). Prior to the complete filling
of this reservoir, the upstream wastewater discharges and non-
point source pollution may have water quality impacts which
extended down the Fast Fork to its confluence with the Little
Miami mainstem. The reservoir now functions as a trap for organ-
ic and inorganic materials arriving from upstream.
The relatively small flows currently released from the Harsha
Lake Dam during summer and autumn may result in improved down-
stream dissolved oxygen levels because of the increased phyto-
plankton biovolumes cultivated in Harsha Lake. These oxygen-
producing algae probably increase downstream oxygen levels above
what would be expected if the lake were not present and were not
releasing biologically productive water. This situation may be
especially important during July maxima when oxygen producing
phytoplankton populations typically reach peak abundance in
freshwater lakes and when high stream temperatures in the Fast
Fork segment below the reservoir would otherwise preclude the
river from fully assimilating wastewater.
The East Fork downstream of Harsha Lake flows through an alter-
nating sequence of riffle and pool habitats. Because lake-
adapted algae tend to produce greater amounts of oxygen under
pooled conditions, peak photosynthesis will occur in the same
deep-water stream environments where wastewater constituent
3-17
-------
impacts on the river would be greatest. insoluble amounts of
oxygen produced by algae tend to form gas bubbles around the
nuclei of suspended solids in the stream. These bubbles can
redissolve as the decay of organic wastes consumes dissolved
oxygen in the pooled environments of the East Fork. The dis-
charge of oxygen supersaturated water from a pool to a downstream
riffle could result in a reaeration rate greater than that esti-
mated under the assumption that atmospheric partial pressure of
oxygen controls the reaeration rate.
Results of the Ohio EPA stream survey (Ohio EPA 1983) indicated
beneficial impacts of Harsha Lake on instream water quality and
adverse impacts due to discharges from the Ratavia and the
Amelia-Ratavia WWTPs.
William H. Harsha Lake
Harsha Lake is the largest surface water body in the FPA. With a
seasonal pool area of 2,160 acres and a mean depth of 43 feet,
this lake is a fishing, boating, and swimming resource of region-
al significance. Because a land area in excess of 342 square
miles drains into Harsha Lake, there is a significant potential
for non-point source pollutants to excessively enrich its waters.
The lake's watershed also is documented to have a number of areas
with poorly operating on-site wastewater treatment systems (Ohio
EPA 1983, Balke Engineers 1982a), as well as two municipal WWTPs
discharging inadequately treated effluent during times of high
rainfall. The potential for adverse water quality impacts due to
these nutrient sources appears to be high.
The Ohio River Basin Commission (OKI 1977) similarly concluded
that Harsha Lake was impacted by three major sources of total
phosphorus nutrients:
0 Agricultural runoff,
0 Municipal wastewater effluent and inadequately treated
sewage being discharged from Williamsburg and Bethel
wastewater systems, and
0 Bottom deposits of silt or lake-bed sediment.
3-18
-------
These sources could be contributing nutrients which accelerate
the eutrophication of Harsha Lake. Prior to the warm summer
period when algal bloom problems could be most severe, the most
critical nutrient sources would be the municipal WWTPs at Bethel
and Williamsburg. Wastewater effluent is potentially the most
significant water quality influence because it contains biologi-
cally available nutrients which can stimulate algal and weed
growth much more than sediment-bound nutrients (Williams, et.
al., 1976). Streams tributary to Harsha Lake during August and
September of low rainfall years are made up primarily of waste-
water effluent. This streamflow, carrying the effluents of
Williamsburg and Bethel WWTPs, would tend to disperse within the
biologically productive shallows of the lake, stimulating growth
of nuisance algae and aquatic macrophytes. However, no serious
problems with poor water clarity, blue-green algae blooms, weed
growth, or fecal coliform contamination of beaches have thus far
been observed in Harsha Lake.
During summer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) conducts
stratiyraphic water quality sampling of the lake on a weekly
basis. This sampling is conducted near the dam's variable depth
bypass structure in order to provide a basis for day-to-day
operational decisions. Ry following water temperature trends,
the operators are able to anticipate changes in the thermocline
and, thus, stay within the boundaries of tailwater temperature
guidelines for release water. This is necessary because during
late summer and early autumn, the water below the thermocline may
have low DO and high manganese and iron and, therefore, be un-
suitable for release.
Based on the 1981-1983 temperature data, the extent and duration
of thermal stratification in the April through October periods
were estimated. In general, stratification of surficial waters
of Harsha Lake (the 0 to 30 foot layer) was discontinuous for the
three summers for which data were available. Stratification
onset and breakup dates also varied significantly from year to
year in this period. The variability in stratification char-
acteristics makes it difficult to describe the water chemical
condition of the biologically important surface waters, because
3-19
-------
the dissolved oxygen content is strongly affected by the contin-
uity of stratification.
USCOE data on dissolved oxygen levels at various depths in Harsha
Lake are limited. For example, at Station #2EFR200, a total of
eight DO profiles are available for the summers of 1981, 1982,
and 1983. Assuming that these profiles typify Harsha Lake, mid-
summer oxygen levels are generally inadequate to support a
balanced aquatic community below the thermocline. DO concentra-
tion was usually less than 2.0 mg/1 at depths greater than 20
feet, when surficial stratification was present. On two July
sampling dates {1981, 1982), oxygen was almost completely absent
below a depth of 15 feet. The ODNR Division of Wildlife has
reported that in 1982, critically low dissolved oxygen levels
occurred at depths greater than four meters in much of the June-
September period, and at depths greater than seven meters during
October. A dissolved oxygen concentration of less than four
parts per million (4 mg/1) was regarded as critical for the sur-
vival of fish and aquatic life (ODNR Division of Wildlife 1983).
July and August are the only two summer months for the 1981-1983
period when surface water temperature in Harsha Lake was found to
exceed 25°C. This finding may have significance to the effluent
assimilative capacity of the downstream segments of the Fast
Fork. When the surface temperature of the Lake equals or exceeds
25°C, the temperature of the water at the level of the deepest
dam bypass structure is always 8 to 10 degrees cooler. Release
of this cooler water during July and August could benefit the
assimilative capacity of the Bast Fork downstream of the dam if
the dissolved oxygen concentrations could be brought to satura-
tion while water is being released.
In general, the oxidative decay of organic matter and respirative
uptake of oxygen by algae would be highest when water tempera-
tures are at the midsummer high. Serious oxygen depletion in
July and August are likely to be found below 20 feet of depth
when thermal stratification isolates the underlying layers and,
thus, prevents any atmospheric reaeration of that water.
3-20
-------
The relatively great depth of the lake (over 120 feet in central
areas near the dam) and the tendency of Harsha Lake to strongly
stratify at the surface probably allows much of the silt and
biologically assimilated nutrients to settle out during summer.
This process tends to reduce the potential for development of
nuisance algae blooms by precluding continuous recycling of
nutrients.
The water quality of Harsha Lake is likely changing as the biotic
community and sedimentation processes become stable. Shoreline
erosion, for example, would have been at the highest rate immedi-
ately following reservoir filling; at present, the more erodible
beach areas should have become vegetated or have reached the
angle of stable repose. Thereafter, aquatic plant communities
can become adapted to a stable littoral environment. Additional-
ly, the fish community should be considered "unstable" since
extensive stocking programs have only recently been initiated.
Changing fish community structure can play a strong role in shap-
ing phytoplankton community structure and, hence, can ultimately
affect water quality where nuisance algae are involved.
Fecal Coliform Sampling Results
A general explanation for using fecal coliform counts to evaluate
the degree of fecal contamination follows.
Fecal coliforms are a group of bacteria found in the feces of all
warm-blooded animals. They survive outside of the bodies of
warm-blooded animals in soil or water for periods ranging from
several hours up to 100 days depending on nutrient and tempera-
ture conditions (USEPA 1983b). In general, they die off most
rapidly when exposed to full sunlight.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources samples the lake beach
areas for fecal coliform to determine the suitability for swim-
ming. These sampling programs were instituted to detect poten-
tial surface water contamination by fecal materials and to deter-
mine the suitability of those waters for swimming and for potable
water supply.
3-2)
-------
Fecal coliform bacteria levels in water can be used as a qualita-
tive indicator of the potential presence of pathogenic organisms
associated with human and animal feces. However, there is no
direct correlation between the number of: disease causing
organisms in a body of water and the fecal coliform density in a
sample. Also, the number of disease causing organisms that will
initiate sickness in a host cannot be known exactly and depends
on the organisms, the host, and their interactions (USEPA 1966,
1983b).
Fecal coliform density levels are used as water quality criteria
by Ohio EPA (Table 3-2) to classify and regulate recreational
water uses.
When fecal coliform sampling is used to evaluate human health
risks, it is not important to distinguish between fecal coliforms
originating from humans or from other warm-blooded animals
because disease causing organisms from both can be pathogenic.
However, when a fecal coliform sampling program is conducted to
identify human pollution sources, distinguishing between human
fecal coliform sources from animal sources is essential.
Household pets, garbage, rodents, birds, and farm animals are
typically very significant sources of fecal coliform organisms
found in the environment.
The report on Surface Water Quality, prepared as
ties Plan supplement (Balke Engineers 1983a),
results of fecal coliform sampling performed by
between July 12, 1982 and November 3, 1982.
a Draft Facili-
presented the
Balke Engineers
Stormwater runoff was present in ditches and drainage swales when
most of the samples were being collected. Twenty-one samples
were collected on a day when precipitation occurred; 32 were col-
lected one day after; 20 were collected two days after; 3 were
collected three days after; and 6 were collected five days after
precipitation had occurred.
In the Ralke Engineer's study, six fecal coliform samples were
taken directly downstream of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs).
The fecal coliforms in these samples are most likely of human
3-22
-------
TABLE 3-2
OHIO EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FECAL COLIFORM CONTENT IN
SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM WATERS USED FOR RECREATION
(Ohio EPA, undated)
BATHING WATERS
Water suitable for swimming where a lifeguard and/or bathhouse
facilities are present, during the recreation season.
Fecal coliform - Geometric mean fecal coliform content
(either most probable number [MPN] or membrane filter [MF],
based on not less than five samples within a 30-day period
shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml and shall not exceed 400
per 100 ml in more than 10% of the samples taken during any
30-day period.
PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATION
Waters suitable for full body contact recreation, such as, but
not limited to; swimming and scuba diving with minimal threat to
public health as a result of water quality, during the recreation
season.
Fecal coliform - Geometric mean fecal coliform content
(either MPN or MF), based on not less than five samples
within a 30-day period shall not exceed 1,000 per ml and
shall not exceed 2,000 per 100 ml in more than 10% of the
samples taken during any 30 day period.
SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATION
Water suitable for partial body contact recreation, such as, but
not limited to; canoeing and wading with minimal threat to public
health as a result of water quality, during the recreation sea-
son.
Fecal coliform - shall not exceed 5,000 per 100 ml (either
MPN or MF) in more than 10% of the samples taken during any
30-day period.
3-23
-------
origin. These results can be compared with those recently re-
ported by Ohio EPA for the East Fork of the Little Miami River.
The Ohio EPA maximum fecal coliform counts from samples taken
downstream of Williamsburg is similar to the Balke Engineers
count for a sample taken from the same general locale. The sin-
gle maximum fecal coliform count reported by the Ohio EPA for
below Batavia does not indicate a high probability of human fecal
materials being present.
The distribution of the fecal coliform densities in the remaining
76 samples taken by Balke Engineers are compared to the typical
background densities and Ohio EPA water quality criteria in
Table 3-3. Nineteen samples (25.0%) had fecal coliform densities
above 13,000 per 100 ml, and 7 samples (9.2*) had densities
between 6,500 and 13,000 per 100 ml. These 26 samples (34.5%)
indicate a very high or high probability of contamination by
fecal coliforms of human origin. The fecal coliform contamina-
tion in the remaining 50 samples (65.8%) could be from animal
sources.
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-3
FECAL COLIFORM SAMPLING RESULTS COMPARED TO
TYPICAL BACKGROUND LEVELS AND OHIO EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
{Balke Engineers 1983a)
Number of
Samples
Exceeding
Threshold
Level
19
26
40
30
47
& of Total
Samples
Exceed ing
Threshold
Level*
25.0
34.2
52.6
39.5
61.8
Background or Criterion
Threshold Level
(Fecal Coliform #/100 ml)
Background from Animal
Contamination of Stormwater
Runo f f
13,000: Business district back-
ground level
6,500: Residential area background
level
2,700: Rural area background level
Qh_i_Q__EPA water Quality Criteria
5,000: Secondary contract criteria
2,000: Primary contact criteria
65
85.5
400: Bathing water criteria
* 76 samples total.
In general, the results of the Balke Engineers* sampling program
indicated that there are some on-site systems in the planning
area with a very high or high probability of having failures
which adversely affect water quality. However, the results do
not allow assignment of direct or indirect evidence of failure to
any specific on-site system as directed in USEPA, Region v,
Guidance - Site Specific Needs Determination and Alternative
Planning for Unsewered Areas (USEPA 1983a).
3-25
-------
The Harsha Lake Park Manager indicated that public beach sampling
results have indicated few problems with fecal coliform contamin-
ation of the lake. The single exception is the boaters' beach,
located near the East Fork entry into the lake. Samples taken at
that beach have elevated coliform levels on days following a
summer rainstorm. The source of these fecal coliform at that
beach could be bypasses from the WWTP at Williamsburg.
3.2.3 Floodplain Delineations
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has published a
detailed flood insurance study that encompasses the unincorpor-
ated areas of Clermont County (FEMA 1980). The analyses of
flooding potentials contained in that study reflect stream chan-
nel conditions at the date of publishing (October 1980), and do
not account for flood level changes due to stream-side construc-
tion which may have occurred after that date.
Flood discharge values analyzed in the FEMA study do reflect the
estimated flood reduction capabilities of the Harsha Lake im-
poundment. The impact of the Harsha Lake facilities on flood
discharges was to reduce peak flood flows from 10, 50, 100, and
500-year floods, at all points between the dam and the confluence
of the East Fork with the Little Miami mainstem. For example,
the 100-year flood discharge at the Perinton gage, located six
miles downstream from Batavia, is estimated to have been reduced
from 46,100 cfs to 22,900 cfs, as a result of operation of the
Harsha Lake facilities (FEMA 1980). Peak flood levels in the
East Fork also are reduced by the dam. Flood waters impounded in
Harsha Lake do not have significant impacts on flood discharges
and flood levels at Williamsburg and upstream.
Based on the FEMA flood insurance study of 1980, flood insurance
rate maps were prepared for unincorporated areas of Clermont
County. These insurance maps were effective April, 1981, the
date when actuarial insurance rates were applied to structures
located in flood zones for which flood elevation or depth was
established.
3-26
-------
The Am-Bat WWTP site is located at an elevation of approximately
560 feet above mean sea level (msl). As depicted on the flood
insurance rate map, the 100-year flood elevation for the Am-Bat
site is between 563 and 564 feet; at least three feet above the
plant grade. Elevations for some of the plant components have
been reported, such as follows:
Influent bypass {to outfall)
Contact stabilization units
Secondary weirs
Outfall
Sludge drying beds
562 feet msl
579 feet msl
569 feet msl (sic)
556 feet msl
566 feet msl
Thus, the influent wet well would be inundated by a flood of less
than 100-year probability. The chlorination/dechlorination tank-
age elevations were not provided.
The Batavia WWTP site is located between elevations of 565 and
570 feet msl. The flood insurance rate map depicts the 100-year
flood elevation as approximately 572 feet msl; from 2 to 7 feet
above the plant site. Some measures have been taken to flood-
proof the plant (OKI 1976). No elevations of specific units have
been reported, but some units would likely be inundated by a
flood of 100-year probability.
The Williamsburg WWTP site is located at an elevation of approxi-
mately 806 feet msl. The flood insurance rate map for the site
indicates an elevation of between 807 and 808 feet msl- for the
100-year flood; at least one foot above the average grade of the
site.
3.3 Atmosphere
3.3.1 Climate
The climate of the FPA is characterized as temperate continental
with warm, humid summers and moderately cold, dry winters. Sum-
mers are moderately hot and humid with an average of 33 days of
temperatures 90°F or higher. Winters are mild with an average
temperature of approximately 34°F and only a few days with temp-
3-27
-------
eratures less than zero. Large daily and annual variations occur
in both temperature and precipitation.
Precipitation in the area is normally abundant and well dis-
tributed throughout the year. The mean annual precipitation is
39 inches; of this amount, approximately 10 inches falls during
winter, 12 inches during spring, 10 inches during summer, and 7
inches during autumn. Excessive rainfalls in the late winter and
early spring cause flooding in many parts of the planning area.
During the late summer and early autumn, the rainfall decreases
significantly. Showers and thunderstorms account for most of the
rainfall during the primary recreation season (May through Octo-
ber) . Thunderstorms occur on approximately 40 days each year.
3.3.2 Air Quality
The air quality of Clermont County is influenced by both regional
climatological conditions and the nearby Cincinnati metropolitan
area. On an average of about twice a year, significant tempera-
ture inversions occur in the Cincinnati area which cause pollu-
tants to be "trapped" in the lower levels of the atmosphere over
the metropolitan area. Based on the Pollution Standard Index
(PSI) developed by the USEPA, the Cincinnati metropolitan area
had "unhealthful" air quality on 69 occasions during 1978 and on
three occasions during 1979. Clermont County is located east of
Cincinnati; so it receives many pollutants from the Cincinnati
urban area. The Middle East Fork planning area, however, has no
major point sources of air pollutant emissions.
State and Federal air quality standards are presented in Table 3-
1, of the Draft EIS.
Monitoring in Batavia and Hamlet in 1979, revealed a violation of
the annual mean suspended particulate standard at Hamlet. No
other air quality violations were reported in that year.
3.3.3 Noise
There are no major noise sources in the FPA and no complaints
3-28
-------
about local noise problems have been directed to the Ohio EPA
within the last year.
3.3.4 Odors
The "public Involvement Summary Report" (Balke Engineers 1983)
summarized four public hearings on the facilities planning docu-
ments that included testimony about odor problems at the Bethel,
Batavia, and Am-Rat wastewater facilities.
The Bethel WWTP periodically has experienced odor problems asso-
ciated with sludge digestion, drying, and disposal operations.
Sewerage-related odors generally originate from incompletely
oxidized organic material or from industrial process chemicals.
The most objectionable odors at Bethel are associated with the
digester and the subsequently handled sludge.
The Batavia WWTP frequently bypasses untreated sewage into the
East Fork because the conveyance capacity of the main lift sta-
tion is inadequate during wet weather. These raw sewage bypasses
are capable of generating objectionable odors. The Am-Bat WWTP
sludge digester occasionally has had operational problems with
diffuser pumps that have resulted in odor problems.
During the summer, the odor problems at Bethel, Batavia, and
Am-Bat WWTPs may be temporarily amplified by inversions of cool
regional air masses overlying warmer air trapped in the narrow
river valleys around the WWTPs. As such, residents near the
WWTP's may be subjected to a buildup of sewage process odors that
otherwise would not reach objectionable concentrations.
3.4 Biological
3.4.1 Vegetation and Landscape
The existing vegetative cover of the FPA varies dramatically,
depending on position in the landscape. The nearly level land
above the stream valleys are mostly cultivated or pastured or is
reverting to woodlands, having been cleared almost completely of
the thick forests which blanketed western Ohio prior to settle-
3-29
-------
merit. Lands too steep to be cleared, or too erodible or wet to
support crop production, such as in tributary stream revines and
along river floodplains, remain forested. Presently, forest
covers approximately 31 percent of Clermont County, although the
extent of forest cover is greater in the FPA due to the State
Park and the numerous forested ravines common to the East Fork
watershed (USCOE 1974).
The oak-hickory forest (or western mesophytic forest) is the
principal forest-type of the planning area. Oak-hickory are
located in the southern and western sections of the County on the
well-drained soils on ridgetops, along the river valleys, and on
stream terraces. Dominant species are white oak, red oak, hick-
ory, and sugar maple (Balke Engineers 1982a).
The flat wet areas of the Illinoian glacial till plain are occu-
pied by several species of swamp forest, mainly pin oak, sweet-
gum, white elm, and red maple. Other species include sassafras,
beech, and red oak. Most of the farm woodlots on the wet soils
are pastured. These wet areas have a thick, even-aged volunteer
growth of young red maple, pin oak/ and sweetgum trees.
3.4.2 Wildlife
The PPA is located in a region characterized by low wildlife pop-
ulations and diversity. This physiographic region, called the
glacial till plains, has soils well suited for agriculture and
crop production is extensive. With modern agricultural practice,
it is common to plant 'fence row to road ditch', leaving little
year-round herbaceous cover, undisturbed breeding habitat, or
natural food for wildlife. Additionally, the proximity of the
FPA to major metropolitan centers has displaced those species
intolerant of human activity.
The Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the East Fork
Lake Project (USCOE 1974) reported that as many as 52 species of
mammals may be present in the area, including opossum, short-
tailed shrew, chipmunk, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, red fox,
gray and fox squirrels, cottontail rabbit, mink, weasel, and
3-30
-------
muskrat. Badgers and coyotes are thought to be present, but, if
so, are very rare.
The FPA and surrounding region has a rich bird fauna with 250
species potentially occurring in the region, including 44 year-
round residents, 28 winter residents, 64 summer residents, and
114 transient species. Bobwhite quail, a popular game species,
is common, but the Ringnecked pheasant is uncommon. The Mourning
dove, an important game bird in many states, is abundant and pro-
tected by Ohio law. Breeding water fowl are rare, with wood
ducks being the only common nesting species {USCOE 1974).
The Little Miami River is inhabited by 31 species of reptiles and
29 amphibian species. Of the 31 reptilian species, 19 are snakes
and of these, only 1, the northern copperhead, is venomous (USCOE
1974) .
3.4.3 Aquatic Biota
Fish surveys were conducted in Harsha Lake by ODNR in order to
plan for and evaluate the success of stocking the hybrid striped
bass. The results of the trap net sampling carried out through
the summer of 1982, were that carp comprised 54 percent of the
total catch, and gizzard shad comprised 12 percent of the total
catch (by number). This finding represented a reduction in the
number and biomass of panfish, such as crappie and bluegill which
had been predominant in the previous year's trap net surveys
(ODNR Division of Wildlife 1983). It is not known whether the
increased numbers of rough and forage fish represent a long-term
trend;"although the predominance of gizzard shad could potential-
ly be reversed in the future as predator fish increase, especial-
ly the hybrid striped bass.
In the surface layers of Harsha Lake and downstream in the East
Fork, aigae are probably abundant in summer months as a result of
the adaptation of phytoplankton communities to the still, deep-
water environment of the lake. No studies have been conducted to
identify and enumerate phytoplankton for any Bast Fork drainage
area waters. Therefore, the productivity and water quality im-
3-31
-------
pacts of this important sector of the aquatic community cannot be
evaluated.
The characteristics of the aquatic community for the mainstem
East Fork and the small tributary streams are: the predominance
of rough fish by live weight and the numerical predominance by
non-game fishes of the total fish community. Fish surveys con-
ducted in 1982, documented an usually rich diversity of fish
species; both above and below Harsha Lake (Ohio EPA 1983). How-
ever, three electro-fishing surveys of the mainstem of the East
Fork conducted by the Ohio EPA also documented that more than
one-half of the live weight of all fish captured was associated
with two species of rough fish. The complete breakdown, of both
number and live weight percentage data by species, as reported in
the Ohio EPA study, is presented in Appendix I of the Draft EIS.
Based on the Ohio EPA fish survey data, game species, such as
sunfish, bass, and catfish, totaled less than 10.29 percent by
weight of the total fish biomass captured in the mainstem of the
East Fork. In terms of total numbers counted, forage fish were
the most numerous and, as such, describes exceptional to normal
characteristics for fisheries communities in Ohio.
3.4.4 Endangered and Threatened Species
The USCOE published in its EIS on the East Fork Lake project, a
list of plant species identified in Clermont County that are con-
sidered to be rare (USCOE 1974). They also presented an exten-
sive list of nationally rare or endangered animals potentially
occurring in Clermont County. Two animal species considered to
be rare or endangered throughout the United States may be pre-
sent. These are the Indiana bat (Myotis sola!is) and the
Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 'leucocephalus). The Indiana bat
was reported to have been identified in the vicinity of Harsha
Lake, although the necessary nesting and roosting (case) habitat
is not found in the park. The Southern bald eagle is reported to
occur in the area only as a migrant. These birds are fish eaters
and may be attracted to the area's waterways, although no nesting
sites are known to exist near the park.
3-32
-------
The USCOB (USCOE 1974) listed the species of birds that occur in
the area and are considered rare in Ohio. These are listed in
Table 3-16, of the Draft EIS.
Several species of mollusks are likely to be found in the Little
Miami River system that are considered to be threatened or en-
dangered. However, only one species, S impson i concha ambigua,
were actually found in the East Fork of the Little Miami River
(USCOE 1974).
During November 1982, the Ohio EPA conducted thorough fish sur-
veys of the East Fork and five of its tributaries (Ohio EPA
1983). Slenderhead darter (Percina phgxocephala) , Silver chub
(Hy bops is storeiana) and River redhorse (Moxostoma c_a_r_i_na turn)
captured during the surveys are classified as endangered in
Ohio.
3.5
Manmade
3.5.1 Existing Land Use
3.5.1.1 Middle East Fork Planning Area
The majority of the land within Clermont County is in agricul-
tural use or is undeveloped, despite substantial population
growth during the last two decades. The agricultural/undeveloped
land use category is projected to remain the dominant land use
throughout the planning period, although residential, commercial,
and industrial development is expected to continue. Thus, most
of Clermont County is, and will continue to be, best described as
rural. Approximate acreages of existing land use in the planning
area are presented in Table 3-4.
3-33
-------
TABLE 3-4
APPROXIMATE LAND USE COMPOSITION OF
MIDDLE EAST FORK PLANNING AREA
(Clermont County Planning Commission 1976a)
Land Use
Residential*
Commercial
Industrial
Public/quasi-public
Developed recreation
Agriculture/undeveloped
Total
Acres
7,723
378
612
442
11,028
75,259
95,442
Percent of
Total Acreage
8.1
0.4
0.6
0.5
11.5
78.9
100
* Includes only residential areas with approximate densities of
two units per acre or greater. Isolated single units or low
density areas are included in the agriculture/undeveloped
category.
The majority of the developed area is located in the four Vil-
lages or along the major roadways. The large amount of land in
recreational use (11.5%) is also significant, although the major-
ity of this acreage is accounted for by the East Fork Park.
3.5.1.2 Ratavia
Batavia is the Clermont County seat and straddles the East Fork
of the Little Miami River in Batavia Township (Figure 3-2).
Although Batavia is located in a basically rural area, the open-
ing of the Clermont General and Technical College, the industrial
development of the Afton area, and the development of the nearby
Eastgate Mall illustrate the trend toward urbanization that is
occurring around the Village. Existing land use for the Village
of Batavia, listed in Table 3-5, is primarily residential use
with single family detached units being the most prevalent.
3-34
-------
o
00
o>
00
*-
cd
CD
(1)
O)
(0
09
3
•o
c
a
O)
CO
'x
LLI
CM
I
CO
UJ
DC
3
O
-------
TABLR 3-5
LAND USE WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF BATAVIA
(OKI 1980a)
Land Use
Res ident ial
Single-family
Multi-family
Commerical
Industrial
Transportation/utility ROW
Public/quas i-public
Recreat ion
Vacant/undeveloped
Total
Acres
177
9
49
39
165
90
27
2JJ
828
Percent of
Total Area
21.4
1.1
5.9
4.7
19.9
10.9
3.3
_L3_vl
100
Industrial operations within Ratavia include the Robinson Steel
Company, the Cincinnati Chemical Company, the Clermont Sheet
Metal Company, and several smaller operations.
Approximately 274 acres within the Village are undeveloped, in-
cluding land in the East Fork floodplain, other land adjacent to
the floodplain, and hillside land on the slopes that surround
Batavia on three sides.
3.5.1.3 Bethel
The village of Bethel is located near the junction of State
Routes 125 and 133, and historically has served as an agricul-
tural center (Figure 3-3). The majority of the Village is
devoted to single-family residential use, although the develop-
ment of multi-family dwellings has accelerated during the past
five years. There also is a large amount of vacant land within
the Village (170 acres). This includes 73 acres which have been
annexed since 1970 in response to major development proposals
(i.e., at present there are proposals for over 100 multi-family
units in the southern portion of Bethel).
3-36
-------
3-37
-------
Existing land use within the Village of Bethel is listed in Table
3-6.
TABLE 3-6
LAND USE WITHIN THE VILLAGE OP BETHEL
(OKI 1981a)
Land Use*
Residential
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Public/quasi-public
Vacant/undeveloped
Total
Acres
275
18
30
117
1_7_0
610
Percent of
Total Area
45.1
2.9
4.9
19.3
29.8
100
* Streets are included in all categories.
3.5.1.4 Williamsburg
The Village of Williamsburg is located in Williamsburg Township
in east-central Clermont County (Figure 3-4). The Village is
located adjacent to State Route 32, the Norfolk and Western Rail-
road and the East Fork of the Little Miami River. The majority
of the incorporated area (56.5%) currently is undeveloped. Much
of the vacant land recently was annexed and is intended for resi-
dential development. It is" anticipated that the expansion of new
employment opportunities in the Afton industrial area will induce
residential growth in Williamsburg. At present, residential use
accounts for 31 percent of the incorporated area. Commercial and
industrial development within the village is limited. Existing
land use within Williamsburg is listed in Table 3-7.
3-38
-------
3
•0
W Z
K O
_l *"
O «
<* 5
Q
m
O
I! i|!
illi<
IliiD
3-39
-------
TABLE 3-7
EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF WILLIAMSBURG
(OKI 1981b)
Land Use
Residential
Single-family
Multi-family
Commericial
Industrial
Transportation/utility ROW
Public/quasi-public
Vacant/undeveloped
Total
Acres
260
19
18
28
10
25
479
850
Percent of
Total Area
30.6
3.4
2.1
3.3
1.2
2.9
56.5
100
Land use information for the Village of Amelia currently is not
available.
3.5.2 Future Land Use
The OKI Regional Council o\f Governments has adopted development
policies (OKI 1978) that summarize the results of a regionwide
land use policy review process. The overall policy concerning
future development is the need to coordinate local zoning and
subdivision regulations with committed and planned improvements
in public water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, and
transportation routes. A composite map was produced that pro-
vides a good indication of the areas where growth is likely to
occur during the planning period. The delineation of growth
areas was based on the present or planned availability of public
water and sewer systems and the lack of physical constraints to
development. The inducements and constraints to urban develop-
ment for the Middle East Fork planning area are depicted in
Figure 3-5.
Land use within Clermont County was inventoried and land suitable
and capable for urban development, soils inappropriate or unsuit-
3-40
-------
^ Areas with both urban capacity water and sewer service,
?j| existing or planned
Areas with only one urban capacity service (water) existing or planned
Areas with neither urban capacity water or sewer service, existing or planned
Figure 3-5 . Inducements and constraints to urban development,
Middle East Fork Planning Area (OKI 1978).
3-41
-------
able for urban development, and prime agricultural lands were
identified in the Clermont County Land Use Plan (1978). The
Clermont County Housing Element, prepared in conjunction with the
Land Use Plan, contained an allocation of land needed for each
use on the basis of projected populations. A need for 4,696 to
5,289 new housing units in the Middle East Fork planning area by
the year 2000 was projected. Based on an estimated year 2000
household size of 2.5, this represents a population increase of
11,030 to 13,930.
3.5.3 Recreational Land Use
The dominant recreational feature of the project area is William
H. Harsha Park {also known as East Fork state park). This park
encompasses approximately 8,000 acres of land and another 2,300
acres of water. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is
responsible for its management, while the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers controls the use of 600 acres surrounding the dam and
its outlet structures. Harsha Lake Park offers a full range of
facilities including overnight camping, backpacking, swimming
beaches, boat launch facilities, picnic grounds, and nature walk
facilities. Private concessions outside the park offer canoe
liveries on the lower East Fork below Harsha Lake. Future park
development plans are reported to include construction of a lodge
and golf course (Balke Engineers 1982a).
Total park visitation has increased annually from nearly 190,000
persons in 1978, to over 830,000 persons in 1982. Monthly visit-
ation numbers peak in June and July. The peak month on record
was July 1982, when 235,710 persons visited Harsha Lake park.
That month also had the peak number of fishermen recorded
(31,218) and the highest number of campers recorded (20,183).
Recreational facilities operated by the Clermont County Commis-
sion include Sycamore Park along the East Fork south of Batavia
and Maple Grove Park in Amelia. The County has also taken over
operation of a roadside rest area on State Route 125 west of
Rethel.
3-42
-------
Community recreational facilities include Burke Park in Bethel
and Grandview Park south of Batavia. Additionally, most school
grounds throughout the area serve as year-round playgrounds for
the surrounding communities.
3.5.4 Transportation
Transportation facilities, both public and private, have an ef-
fect on population and local employment structure. Transporation
facilities, especially are considered by manufacturers and other
potential employers when locating a business. The FPA is within
100 miles of Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus, Ohio; Louisville
and Lexington, Kentucky; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Huntington,
West Virginia.
Clermont County is accessible by interstate and state highways.
The County is linked to Interstate Highways 71, 74, and 75 by the
Circle Freeway (1-275). 1-275 also provides access to State
Route 32, U.S. 50, U.S. 52, State Route 28, and State Route 125.
State Routes 32 and 125 are the major highways crossing the plan-
ning area. Currently, there are no new major improvements
planned for highways in the County. An interchange off of 1-275
is being built west of the planning area and north of State Route
32 to serve the Ford Motor Company plant.
The Norfolk and Western Railroad provides the only rail service
in the planning area. It serves industrial sites from the City
of Milford in northest Clermont County through Batavia-Afton and
Williamsburg. The Chessie Railroad System serves the north-
western tip of the County, but is not within the planning area.
Three airports service the area. The largest is the Greater
Cincinnati international Airport accessible from Clermont County
via 1-275, located in Boone County, Kentucky. Lunken Airport is
located in eastern Cincinnati and maintains runways capable of
accomodating business jets. Clermont County Airport is located
near Batavia and can accomodate airplanes up to the equivalent
size of a DC-3. Current planning proposes to expand the runways
to accomodate jets.
3-43
-------
Four bus companies provide service in Clermont County. The Cros-
well Bus Line of Williamsburg serves the County by regularly
scheduled routes and chartered bus service. Greyhound operates
throughout Clerrnont County. Queen City Metro connects Greater
Cincinnati with the western edge of Clermont County. CART, the
county-funded rural transit system, provides some service, gener-
ally for senior citizens.
3.5.5 Public Water Supply
The Facilities Planning Area currently is served by five separate
public water supply systems which rely on a combination of sur-
face water and groundwater supplies to provide service.
1. Clermont County Water District (Pierce-Union-Batavia
Subdistrict) - Source: Wells in Ohio Fiver floodplain.
2. Tate-Monroe Water System, Inc. - Source: Wells adjacent
to Ohio River.
3. Bethel Municipal System - Source: Cloverlick Creek.
4. Batavia Municipal System - Source: Dammed pool on East
Fork.
5. Williamburg Municipal System - Source: Dammed pool on
East Fork (upstream).
These supply systems distribute water to the majority of the
Facilities Planning Area. Portion of the area not served by
public water distribution systems are shown in Figure 3-6.
According to the Facilities Plan (Balke Engineers 1982a), the
public water supply systems relying on Ohio River groundwater may
not have sufficient capacity of serve the future needs for public
water in unincorporated portions of the respective service areas.
In the future, the public water supply capacity of Harsha Lake
could fill this need. Should Harsha Lake be increasingly util-
ized for public water supply, at least two types of impacts on
water resources can be anticipated. First, the water supplies
now being imported from the Ohio River Valley would no longer
supplement East Fork streamflows through WWTP effluent dis-
charges. Secondly, any reservoir water used for public water
3-44
-------
1OOO 4000
0 2000 8000
seal* in frat
Figure 3-6. Areas outside the state park not served by
public water supply systems.
3-45
-------
supply would no longer be available for augmentation of stream-
flow between the dam and downstream effluent discharges.
The Clerraont County Water District has already constructed a
water intake structure in Harsha Lake and is planning to take
advantage of the considerable water supply capacity of the reser-
voir. Although no water presently is withdrawn from Harsha Lake
for public water supplies, the supply design capacity of this
reservoir (37 mgd) makes it one of the most important potential
sources of water for future domestic and industrial use (USCOE
1974).
The Ohio Department of National Resources has sent a letter of
intent to the USCOE stating that the State of Ohio will take
whatever steps are necessary to utilize the design water supply
capacity of Harsha Lake. The State also has agreed to pay an
annual fee to the Federal government as compensation for the
costs incurred in constructing the dam to provide this water
supply capacity {USCOE 1974).
3.6 Socioeconomic
3.6.1 Employment
Post-1970 employment trends in Clermont County indicate steady
growth in the basic sector (Table 3-8). Employment in the basic
sector increased 31 percent between 1970 and 1980. Manufacturing
accounts for 96 percent of the employment in the basic sector and
38 percent of all employment in the County. Employment in
agriculture has increased by 41 percent between 1970 and 1980,
but accounts for only 4 percent of the employment in the basic
sector.
Employment in the service sector in Clermont County increased by
77 percent between 1970 and 1980 (Table 3-8). All service
employment has had significant increases (more, than 80 percent)
since 1970, with the exception of transportation occupations
(only 37 percent). Technical, sales, and administrative support
occupations were the largest employment segment of the service
sector, followed closely by managerial and professional specialty
3-46
-------
Table 3-8 Cleraont County employment trends by sector in 1970 and 1980
(BOC 1973, 1982a, and 1983).
Category
Total employment
Persons Employed
1970 i960 1982
Census Census Ohio Data Users Center
34,769 54,140 53,314
Total basic 16,409 21,563
Agriculture 554 783
Precision production, craft
and repair occupations 6,911 9,625
23,252
860
10,441
Operators, fabricators,
and laborers
8,944
11,155
11,951
Total service
Managerial & professional
specialty occupations
Technical, sales, and
administrative support
occupations
Service occupations
Transportation occupations
Multipliers
Basic service
Basic total
Basic population
Labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment rate
(% of civilian labor force)
18,360
5,237
8,241
3,163
1,719
1.1
2.1
5.8
32,577
9,432
15,078
5,706
2,361
1.5
2.5
6.0
59,279
4,957
35,637
9,759
15,849
6,282
3,747
1.5
2.3
5.6
8.4%
3-47
-------
occupations. The growth in the service sector is a result of
growth of the Cincinnati SMSA into Clermont County.
The ten largest employers in Clermont County are presented in
Table 3-9.
TABLE 3-9
TEN LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN CLERMONT COUNTY
(Clermont County Sewer District 1983)
Name of Employer
Pord Motor Company
Eastgate Mall
Cincinnati Milacron
Plastics Machinery Div,
Kaiser Construction
Clermont Mercy Hospital
KDI Precision Products
Cincinnati Bell
U.S. Precision Lens
Structural Dynamics
Research Corp.
Midwestern Indemnity
Type...Qf Business
Automotive
Shopping Center
Machine tools
Industrial Const.
Health care
Timing devices
Telecommunications
Optical lenses
Mechanical testing,
computer engineering
Insurance
Approx. #
Employees
2,180
1,500
700
600
450
400
350
350
300
250
Clermont County has a resident labor force of 59,590 persons
representing 46.4 percent of the 1980 population, compared to 39
percent of the population. Unemployment in Clermont County has
been increasing over the last five years (Table 3-10). The unem-
ployment rate in the planning area ranged from 6.2 percent in
Ratavia Villge to 11.3 percent in Tate Township. Eight of the
thirteen incorporated areas had unemployment rates exceeding the
Clermont County rate of 8.4 percent (BOC statistic), and eleven
of the thirteen areas had unemployment rates exceeding the over-
all 7.2 percent rate of the OKI Counties. These unemployment
rates seem to coincide with a loss of jobs in manufacturing, con-
struction, and trade throughout the upper mid-western region of
the united states.
3-48
-------
TABLE 3-10
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR CLERMONT COUNTY
(Clermont County Sewer District 1983)
Year
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
March 1983
% of Total Unemployed
to Total Labor Force
5.2
6.5
9.0
10.3
13.4
14.7
3.6.2 Demographics
The most significant population trend that is apparent in the
Cincinnati metropolitan area is the loss of population in the
central city area and an attendant increase in population in sur-
rounding areas, such as the Middle East Fork planning area. This
trend parallels demographic trends nationwide.
Population growth in Clermont County between 1950 and 1980 demon-
strates why population growth in the Cincinnati SMSA increased by
55 percent in spite of the large population losses in the central
city {Table 3-11). In 1950, the population of Clermont County
was 42,182. By 1980, it had grown to 128,483, an increase of 205
percent. The greatest population growth in Clermont County
(Figure 3-7) occurred between 1950, and 1960, when an increase of
91 percent took place. Between 1960 and 1970, growth slowed to
an increase of only 18 percent. Between 1970 and 1980, growth
again accelerated to 35 percent.
3-49
-------
*
o
CM
O
o>
o>
o
h>
0>
» S
§ .2
8
t
c
o O
7 **
<9 C
3 g
a E
O "5
a £
A «
i
o
00
o
to
o
III
> o o o
» CO
O
a
§
o
IV
CO
o
IO
00
s
CO O)
3 T-
«. Ul
0 «
O «
I "
« o
3 U.
Q.
s s
o
if
K
00
UJ
3-50
-------
TARLR 3-11
POPULATION GROWTH IN THE STATE OF OHIO, CINCINNATI SMSA,
CITY OF CINCINNATI AND CLERMONT COUNTY, 1950 TO 1980
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Cin. SMSA
Cincinnati
Clermont Cnty.
1950
7,946,627
904,402
503,998
42,182
1960
9,706,397
1,071,624
502,550
80,530
1970
10,657,423
1,387,207
453,514
95,372
1980 Change
10,797,419 36
1,401,403 55
385,457 -24
128,483 205
Although Clermont County as a whole has experienced rapid popula-
tion growth during the last 30 years, the four villages within
the FPA have experienced relatively little growth at increases of
84%, 31%, 15%, and 31% for Amelia, Batavia, Bethel and Williams-
burg, respectively.
While growth in the Villages of the planning area was not signi-
ficant between 1950 and 1980, the townships were generally ex-
periencing rapid growth. Only one township, Batavia, is entirely
within the planning area; its population increased by 148 percent
between 1950 and 1980, from 4,239 to 10,525. Approximately 72
percent of the population of Williamsburg Township is within the
planning area and its population increased from 3,169 in 1950 to
4,537 in 1980. Tate Township is approximately 70 percent within
the planning area. Between 1950 and 1980, the population of Tate
Township increased by 75 percent, from 4,533 to 7,949.
In summary, the planning area can be characterized as predom-
inately rural, yet its proximity to the central city has led to
the overall population increases in Clermont County and the plan-
ning area. This growth has generally occurred outside the in-
corporated villages in the unsewered areas.
The 1980 planning area population (Balke Engineers 1982a) of
26,996 is projected to increase to 40,987 by the year 2005, an
increase of 52 percent over the 25-year period (Table 3-12).
3-51
-------
TARLK 3-12
POPULATION PROJECTIONS IN 5-YEAR INCREMENTS, 1980 - 2005
FOR THE MIDDLE EAST FORK PLANNING AREA
(Balke Engineers 1982a)
Population
26,509
29,405
32,301
35,197
38,091
40,987
1980a
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005b
a Actual 1980 population was 26,996 as determined by Balke
Engineers from field surveys, house counts, subdivision
records, and preliminary census data.
k Straight-line projection.
This rate of increase is greater than the projected increase for
Clermont County as a whole. During the 20-year period (1980-
2000), the FPA is projected to grow by 41 percent, while the pop-
ulation of Clermont County is projected to increase by 33 per-
cent .
Population projections for the villages of Bethel, Batavia, and
Williamsburg are included in the comprehensive land use plans for
these Villages (Table 3-13). These projections are based on
current populations. Although the three Villages are expected to
experience relatively steady growth, population growth in the
Middle East Fork planning area is estimated to occur at a
slightly greater rate.
3-52
-------
TABLE 3-13
POPULATION PROJECTIONS IN 5-YEAR INCREMENTS, 1980-2005
FOR THK VILLAGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST FORK PLANNING AREAa
.Year
1980C
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
d
Bajt_ay_ia_
1,R96
2,220
2,330
2,430
2,540
2,702
R_e_thel_b
1,231
2,373
2,515
2,658
2,800
2,943
Will Jamsburg
1,952
2,197
2,447
2,696
2,946
3,195
a Projections do not include possible sewer extentions to
outlying areas and are based on unpublished land use plans
prepared by OKI in 1980 and 1981.
k includes elderly housing.
c 1980 population is U.S. Bureau of Census data.
^ Straight-line projection from year 2000.
3.6.3 Economics
The 1979 income characteristics of residents within the townships
and villages of the planning area are reported by the U.S. Bureau
of the Census. Per capita income ranged from $5,780 to $7,628.
Ten of. the thirteen villages and townships (77%) had per capita
incomes lower than county, state, and national levels. Those
incorporated areas completely or almost completely within the
facilities planning area (Batavia, Tate and Williamsburg town-
ships and the four villages) ranged in per capita income from
$5,825 to $7,005 with Tate Township being the only jurisdiction
with a per capita income above the county level, but still below
state and national levels.
In Ohio, 10.3 percent of the population is below the poverty
level. Generally, the percentage below poverty level within the
planning area exceeds the state and county percentage's, especial-
ly in those incorporated areas completely within the planning
area. The highest percentage of population below poverty level
occurred in Batavia, Bethel, and Williamsburg Villages. The dis-
3-53
-------
parity between the income levels in the villages as compared to
the surrounding townships is evident from Table 3-14, at all
income parameters.
3.6.4 Local Government Finances
Planning Area Tax Base
The 1982 property assessed valuations, estimated full equalized
value, and estmiated statutory debt limitations for the planning
area are $783,326,468, $1,806,164,563, and $70,499,386, respec-
tively. Table 3-28, of the Draft RIS presents the breakdown by
Villages and Townships.
Of the incorporated areas completely withn the FPA, Batavia Town-
ship has the highest full equalized valuation of general proper-
ty, and Amelia Village has the lowest valuation.
Debt, debt interest, property tax, local purpose revenue and the
revenue balance as of December 31, 1982, are presented in Table
3-15. In 1982, none of the villages or townships in the project
area had any long-term general obligation indebtedness.
The statutory debt limitations have been established at 9 percent
of the assessed valuations. Other prudent fiscal management
3-54
-------
Table 3-14 Income characteristics of townships and villages within the
facilities planning area (US Bureau of the Census 1983).
Jurisdiction
CLERMONT COUNTY
TOWNSHIPS
Batavia3
Jackson
Monroe
Ohio
Pierce
Stonelick
Tatea
Union
Williamsburga
VILLAGES
Amelia"
Batavia5
Bethelb
Williamsburg
OHIO
US
Per Capita
Income
in 1979
7,001
6,651
6,181
5,780
6,224
7,628
6,601
7,005
7,387
6,708
5,924
6,819
5,825
6,511
7,285
7.341
Median Income
Household
20,093
17,843
19,407
16,210
17,500
22,742
20,299
18,309
21,776
18,558
12,862
15,403
13,108
12,596
17,754
Family
21,726
20,538
20,449
16,703
19,637
24,356
21,398
19,709
21,300
21,184
16,853
17,788
17,813
18,528
Income in 1979
Below Poverty Status
Tota] % of *
Persons Population
10,382
1,344
214
832
675
405
381
820
1,652
533
140
302
306
334
20,404 1,088,962
8.1
13.1
9.7
13.6
13.0
5.6
7.4
10.4
5.9
11.8
12.7
16.4
14.2
17.3
10.3
Townships wholly or nearly entirely within the planning area.
Villages wholly within the planning area.
Table 3-15 Debt, property tax, local, purpose revenue, and balance of bud-
get 1982 for villages and townships in the planning area (Ohio
Auditor of State 1983a, 1983b, I983c, 1983d, 1983e, 1983f,
I983g, 1983h, 19831, 1983J, 1983k, 19831, 1983m).
Jurisdiction
Villages
Amelia3
Batavia3
Bethel3
Williams burg3
Townships
Batavia3
Jackson
Monroe
Ohio
Pierce
Stonelick
Tatea
Union
Williams burg3
(Balance
12/31/82)
General
Obligation
Debt
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-o-
Property
Tax
33,185
30,502
29,924
59,134
$128,055
14,562
20,896
29,800
113,024
19,657
35,843
172,201
46,880
Local Purpose
Revenue
177,715
155,018
150,090
115,169
$253,647
29,212
67,208
35,943
201,627
43,567
99,557
299,572
74,234
Balance For
12/31/82
7,589
97,776
22,388
5,865
$407,798
2,135
14,795
11,897
105,406
6,813
14,435
249,796
26,165
Jurisdiction completely or nearly completely within the planning area.
-------
criteria are as follows:
Pebt___Ratio
Debt per capita
Low income
Middle income
High income
Debt to market value
of property
Debt service to
revenue {or budget)
Debt to personal income
Standard _Up_p_er Limit for Debt
$ 500
1,000
5,000
10% of current market value
25% of the local government's
total budget
7%a
a Not an upper limit, but the national average in 1970.
Clermont County SewerDistrict
The Clermont County Sewer District is a quasi-governmental agency
that is responsible for its own financial accounting. During
1982, the District received total revenues of $4,603,176 which
were compised largely of sewer service charges ($3,481,971) and
connection fees ($324,286). Expenditures during 1982, totaled
$3,485,278, which were comprised of salaries and wages including
employee benefits (41%), interest on bonds (22%), and utility-
related expenses (14%). Six principal funds. are maintained by
the District; revenue fund, bond fund, replacement and improve-
ment fund, surplus fund, construction fund, and the subsewer dis-
trict improvement fund. The total balance in these funds as of
December 31, 1982, was $38,849,988. For a detailed breakdown of
assets and liabilities by fund, see Table 3-31, of the Draft
EIS.
The Clermont County Sewer District has been given a bond rating
of Baal by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., and a A- rating by
Standard and Poors Corporation. These ratings are both consi-
dered good with bond ratings ranging from Aaa to D (default) and
from AAA to D, respectively.
3-56
-------
Clermont Courvty
During 1982, Clermont County had total receipts of $24,073,838
and total expenditures of $33,426,425. Of these totals, approxi-
mately 38 percent were General Fund revenues and expenditures,
which provided for such county services as the courts, planning
commission, coroner, sheriff, budgeting, elections, and admini-
stration. Individual funds were established for highways, wel-
fare, sanitation, capital improvements, civil defense, and wel-
fare .
As of April 15, 1983, the County had $33,205,nOQ outstanding in
sewer and water bonds, $3,350,000 in general obligation notes,
$185,022 in general obligation bonds, $1,237,258 in special
assessment bonds, $2,250,000 in rated bonds, $12,500,000 in other
revenue bonds, and $6,340,000 in certificates of indebtedness.
The County does not participate in the financing, operation, or
maintenance of the Clermont County Sewer District's systems. The
County, however, does participate in the management of District
activities.
3.7 Energy
The major energy supplier for Clermont County is Cincinnati Gas
and Electric. In 1982, approximately 153,980 million BTUs of
natural gas and 277,555 million BTU's of electricity were con-
sumed by persons in Clermont County. Cincinnati Gas and Electric
estimates that their reserves of electic and gas energy are suf-
ficient to cover any energy use reguired by a sewerage treatment
plant. Other sources of energy, such as propane, methane, oil,
and coal, are utilized for residential purposes.
Other energy sources are being developed in Clermont County. The
William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station was being constructed
near Moscow, just south of the planning area along the Ohio
River by Cincinnati Gas and Electric in cooperation with Dayton
Power & Light and Columbus & Southern Ohio Electric. The station
was intended to provide power for southwestern Ohio. Currently,
construction has been stopped due to litigation concerning some
15,000 violations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission quality
3-57
-------
assurance regulations (Grieves 1983). It is currently proposed
to change the nuclear plant to a coal fired plant.
A hydroelectric power station is being proposed for East Fork dam
within the project area. A private firm, Lewis and Associates,
have been issued a preliminary permit by the Federal Energy Regu-
latory Commission (FRRC) to study the feasibility of operating a
small hydroelectric station at the Harsha Dam.
3.8 Cultural Resources
Clermont County lies within the Ohio Valley subarea of the expan-
sive Eastern Woodla'nd culture area. Abundant natural resources
and soil fertility have attracted people to the Clermont County
area for thousands of years. Long-term continuous occupation,
although not always site-specific, provides a rich archaeological
record in Clermont County. The Ohio Historical Society maintains
files documenting the known archaeological sites within the coun-
ty. Dr. Kent Vickery of the University of Cincinnati has identi-
fied 215 sites within Clermont County, many containing an Archaic
component. Excavation of these sites has yielded significant
results (Appendix J of the Draft EIS).
There is a likelihood that undocumented sites also exist within
the planning area which could be archaeologically significant.
Presently, the National Register of Historic Places list two
archaeological sites within the planning area; the Elk Lick Road
mound near Bantam and the East Fork site in the vicinity of
Batavia.
In December 1983, the Ohio Historical Society, Department of
Contract Archaeology conducted a pedestrian survey of the pro-
posed sewer alignment west of Bethel and the Am-Rat WWTP area.
Shovel testing and test trenches yielded no culturally signifi-
cant materials or artifacts.
Historical figures of the area include General William Lytle,
known as "The Father of Clermont County". He extensively sur-
veyed the East Fork valley from 1795 to 1796, and platted the
3-58
-------
present day City of Williamsburg, then called "Lytlestown", which
became the first County Seat. Williamsburg is the oldest town in
Clermont County, first settled by James Kain in 1796. It was
followed by Bethel, then called "Denham's Town," in 1798, platted
and settled by Obed Denham.
Williamsburg (Lytlestown) held the position as County Seat from
1800 to 1824, when, after a long and occasionally violent contro-
versy, it was moved to Batavia where it remains today. The orig-
inal courthouse was replaced by a newer one in 1926, but the old
sycamore tree, planted at the construction of the first court-
house, still remains and is listed in the files of the Ohio
Historical Society and the American Forestry Association.
During the Civil War,
Raid in 1863, on a
Bethel was one of the
road. It is estimated
in the County. Among
Ulysses S. Grant. At
his father, Jesse, and
Grant later became the
Clermont County was the site of Morgan's
route between Batavia and Williamsburg.
stopping points for the Underground Rail-
that 3,000 Civil War veterans are buried
Clermont County's most famous natives is
age eighteen, Grant moved to Bethel with
his mother, Hannah Simpson Grant. Jesse
first mayor of Bethel.
Throughout the countryside, century-old brick and frame churches,
graveyards, and old grist and saw mills can still be seen. The
National Register of Historic Places lists one farmstead, one
house, and one church within the planning area (See Appendix J
of the Draft EIS).
3-59
-------
-------
4.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section of the Final EIS summarizes the major primary and
secondary environmental impacts of the recommended Phase 1 alter-
native. For a detailed discussion of the following, refer to
Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIS.
Primary impacts are those which can be attributed to the project
directly. Impacts of short-term duration are generally negative
and are associated with the construction of the project. They
may include loss of vegetation, noise, dust, soil erosion, stream
siltation, disturbance of biota, disruption of normal traffic
patterns, interruption of public utilities, and relocation of
displaced residences. Long-term primary impacts are associated
with the operation of the facilities and may include elimination
of pollution sources, improvements in surface and groundwater
quality, elimination of public health hazards and nuisance condi-
tions, and a general enhancement of the community.
Secondary impacts are indirect and occur when a project causes
changes in land use (development) with resultant environmental
impacts. For example, the construction of sewers and treatment
capacity may allow the unplanned development of land which other-
wise would be considered uneconomical to develop. The secondary
impacts caused by this induced, unplanned land development in-
clude short-term construction impacts as discussed above, as well
as long-term changes in precipitation runoff characteristics,
reduced groundwater recharge, changes in topography and vegeta-
tion, increased demand for schools, police and fire protection,
road construction and maintenance, and other public services. As
such, sewage facilities can help direct and concentrate urban
development in accordance with local and regional plans. Con-
versely, if sewage facilities are built indiscriminately, devel-
opment could be encouraged in areas not planned for growth or
where excessive damage to the environment is likely.
This summary of environmental impacts has been developed in tab-
ular form by impact category. In most cases, impacts were not
quantified, but rather given a subjective value of Beneficial
Impact, No Impact, Minimal Adverse Impact, Moderate Adverse
4-1
-------
Impact, or Severe Adverse Impact, from best to worst, respec-
tively. The terms Beneficial and Nonimpact are self-explanatory.
The term No Significant impact was used to describe impacts which
clearly exist, but are either too small to quantify on a regional
or local basis, or are greatly overshadowed by the impacts of
other common activities.
The term Minimal Adverse Impact was used to describe impacts
which clearly occur and are clearly adverse, but are either of
very short duration, are very localized or are not substantial
when mitigated compared to the total available resource.
Moderate and Severe Adverse Impacts describe those which affect
large areas or a substantial amount of the total resource in the
planning area or which may not be effectively controlled through
mitigation. The difference between these two is one of relative
degree.
4.1 Primary Impacts and Mitigation
Tables 4-1 and 4-2, which follow, summarize the short-term and
long-term impacts of the Phase I project described in Section 2.4
and recommended for approval in this BIS.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1
SHORT-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
A. ]">pact
'n . ""ItUjfltion
soisf, odors, dust, an
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
6. Floodplains
A. Impact
H. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Flood prooriny and new facilities at the Ara-Hat WWTP could obstruct flood flows
and raise upstream flood elevations.
Floodplain at Ara-Bat location is wide, thus, impacts would ho insignificant
with no mitigation.
No significant impact.
7. Prime^nd Unique Farmlands
A. Impact
Ft. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Improvements at the Ara-hat WWTP will require approximately 2-1/2 acres of prime
farmland.
No mitigation available.
No significant impact.
A. Impact
B, Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Businesses along interceptor routes could experience reduced patronage due to
the disruptions caused hy construction activities.
Scheduling should Minimize the duration of construction. Facilitate access to
businesses in the vicinity of construction.
Minimal adverse impact.
A. Impact
H. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Construction in the vicinity ol recreational facilities along the East Pork may
temporarily curtail some recreation and tourlfit activities.
Scheduling should insure that the duration of such construction is minimal.
Consideration couJel JK? given to constructing certain facilities during the
non-recreational season.
No signficant impact.
10. Transportat ion
A. Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Interceptor construction would disrupt the normal flow of traffic, plant
construction would increase truck traffic.
Detours, signs, flagman should be used to facilitate the safe flow of traffic
around construction sites. Route planning tor heavy equipment and trucks
should be used to avoid heavy traffic areas and to observe load limits.
Minimal adverse impact.
11. Cultural Resources
A. Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Although known prehistoric (archaeological) sites are being avoided by
construction, the destruction of currently undiscovered sites is possible.
Follow planning and evaluation procedures prior to construction which are
required by the State Historic preservation Officer. During construction,
follow specific mitigation procedures, which will be required by Ohio EPA in
project plans and specifications in the event cultural resources are
discovered. For details, see USEPA Response 110 in Chapter 5.
No significant impact.
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-2
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
1. Atnospjit-re ( »i_r }
A. Impact
B. Mitijatian
C. Impact Magni
with lit igat ion
(1) potential emission of aerosols, hazardous gases, odors, and noise from
central and on-site waste treatment facilities.
12) Elimination of Odors resulting from raw sewage bypasses and inadequate
facilitics.
Proper design, operation and maintenance of .treatment facilities and processes
including soundproofing above ground pumps.
(1) No inpact,
(2) Beneficial impact.
2. Soil Bros ion and
Sedimentation
A. Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Continued use of soils with severe limitations for on-site waste treatment and
disposal.
Proper maintenance by residents. Implementation of on-site waste management
district.
Minimal adverse impact.
Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Kinal water quality impacts of proposed actions cannot ho fully analyzed unt.il
tht* assimilative capacity and minimum low flows for the East Fork have bet?n
••stab! ishi-n .as well as impacts f rom Um Harsha Lake nom and proposed hydro-
«lHCtric facilities. These analyses will he conducted as part of the phase 2
project. Potential Phasy 1 impacts may include:
11 J Potential impairment to warmwater fisheries and decreased species
diversity from WWTP chlorine residuals greater than O.ni mg/1 insteam,
(2) Continued and increased nutrient loadings to orainageways, streams and
Harsha Lake trom malfunrtioninj on-site systems,
(3) necrnased nutrient loadings and resultant improved water quality from the
elimination of the Bethel WWTP and bypasses from the Bethel and Am-Rat
systems.
(4) Possible Long-term degradation of water quality from permanent sediment
deposits caused by construction activities and vegetation clearing.
(5) Possible Degradation of water quality caused by exceeding assimilative
capacities, improper location of outfalls or inadequate treatment technology
levels.
(11 Rapid mixing of chlorine with effluent and proper contact chamber design
to provide long chlorine contact time. Maximum chlorine residuals limited to
0.02 mg/1 instream and routine monitoring of instream chlorine concentrations.
(2) Proper design and maintenance of on-site systems by residents. Formation
of on-site waste management district.
(3) No mitigation required.
(4) Appropriate erosion control during construction.
(S) Analysis and determination of assimilative capacities, appropriate
treatment levels and technology and discharge locations by Ohio EPA. Proper
design of treatment facilities to meet water quality standards (All Phase 2
activities).
(1) Minimal adverse inpact.
(2) Minimal adverse impact.
13) Beneficial impacts.
(4) No significant impact.
(S) No impact.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued)
4 . Transportation
A. Impact
R. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
(1) Increased truck trat I ic from hauliny ot sludge and sc-ptic wastes.
(2) Low aesthetic quality and public acceptance of unmaintainud sludge and
suptic waste transportation vehicles. Excessive vehicle emissions.
(3) Transporation of wastes through Hatavia,
(II Provide routings which minimize public exposure.
(2) Contract or license stipulation requiring trucks to be kept clean, well
painted and adequately maintained.
(3> Proposed bridge construction across the East Fork to eliminate traffic
through Batavia.
(1) No significant impact.
(2) No impact.
(3) No impact.
5. r.roundwatcr
A. Impact
P. Hit igat ion
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
Continued localized increases in the concentration of nitrates,phosphorous and
bacteria in groundwater from failing on-site systems.
Upgrading of existing systems and proper design, construction and maintenance
of both existing and future on-site systems by residents. Formation of on-site
waste management district (phase 2).
No significant impact.
Terrestrial Biota
A. Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
No adverse impacts. Beneficial impact of Increased waterfowl visitation to
flow equalization basins.
No long-term mitigating measures required.
Beneficial impact.
A. Impact
h. Mitigation
£'. Impact Mafjni t u*J».'
wl th Mil iyat ion
Norn- anticipated.
Nunu ritqu i red .
No impact.
R * Lane Use
A. Impact
H. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
9» Economics
A. Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
The perception of emission, noise, odors, or unhealthy conditions from WWTP
facilities may inhibit development ot adjacent lands.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of facilities and equipment.
No significant impact.
The Phase l project will result in the creation of a limited number of
long-term jobs. Also the economy in Bethel will be enhanced by the lifting of
the current sewer ban.
None required.
Beneficial impact.
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-2 (continued)
10. Demographics
A. Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
None anticipated.
None required.
None.
I 1 . («'-cr< Jt if-n
A. |m;>ac!
K. M i L 1 tj a t i on
r. Impact Magnitude-
with Mitigation
'^ wafr quality, putil tc acceptance and use of Marsha
ion ul r«-conCTt;nclt?(l f aci 1 i t IL*S.
og«> to
HcneficiaJ impact.
12. Fiscal Impacts
A, Impact
B. Mitigation
C. Impact Magnitude
with Mitigation
User charges tor currently sewered areas are 1.0* of median household income
for the Am-Bat service area, J.3% for the Williamsburg sewer service area.
None.
No significant impact.
4-7
-------
From Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the phase 1 project will elicit no mod-
erate or severe adverse impacts. Long-term beneficial impacts
are associated with Atmosphere, due to the elimination of odor
sources: Surface Waters, due to the elimination of sewage by-
passes; Terrestial. Biota, due to the creation of waterfowl habi-
tat; Economics, due to the creation of jobs at the WWTP and the
removal of the sewer ban in Bethel; and Recreation, due to im-
proved water quality at Harsha Lake.
4.2 Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts have been previously described as environmental
impacts resulting from unplanned development which would not
otherwise have occurred without the implementation of the pro-
ject. Within the FPA, implementation of the phase 1 project
facilities are not expected to result in this type of induced
growth. Since no induced growth is anticipated, no secondary
impacts are expected from this project. Both the alternatives
proposed in the facilities planning documents and the EIS recom-
mended action, however, will not preclude the natural increases
in population growth over the planning period. This natural
growth will produce both short and long-term environmental im-
pacts not directly attributable to the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities. Rxamples of theso impacts include:
0 Increased area of impervious land resulting
in increased runoff and pollutant loadings
to surface waters and decreased groundwater
recharge.
0 Decreased land available for recreational use
and increased use of available recreational
facilit ies.
0 Increased economic growth, tax revenues and
employment opportunities.
0 Increased potential loss of existing and
undiscovered cultural, prehistoric (archaeological)
and historic resources.
4-8
-------
Future development or construction of wastewater collection and
treatment facilities or upgrading on-site systems will not ad-
versely impact wetlands, floodplains or threatened and endangered
species within the FPA.
Although construction of the phase 1 project will not bring about
induced growth, it will likely result in significant beneficial
impacts by encouraging anticipated growth into areas less suscep-
tible to adverse environmental impacts. Likewise, rehabilitation
of the Bethel collection system and expanded capacity of the
Am-Rat WWTP, while resulting in the removal of the sewer ban, is
designed to service existing needs and pent up demand without the
extension of collection sewers to service new areas.
4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Some impacts associated with the implementation of the Phase 1
project cannot be avoided. The centralized collection and treat-
ment facilities have the following unavoidable impacts:
0 Considerable short-term construction dust, noise
and traffic nuisance.
0 Short-term alteration of vegetation and wildlife
habitat al.ong the sewer and force main corridors
and long-term alteration at the WWTP sites.
0 Potential erosion and siltation during con-
struction .
0 Conversion of a limited acreage of prime farmland
to WWTP use.
4.4 Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
Implementation of the phase 1 alternative would include some or
all of the following resource commitments:
4-9
-------
0 Fossel fuel, electrical energy, and human labor
for facilities construction and operation.
0 Chemicals, especially chlorine, for WWTP operation.
0 Tax dollars for construction and operation.
0 Some unsalvageable construction materials.
With respect to the Am-Bat WWTP, there is a significant consump-
tion of these resources with no feasible means of recovery.
The potential, accidental, destruction of undiscovered archaeologi-
cal sites through excavation activities is not reversible. This
would represent permanent loss of the site. The likelihood however,
of such an occurence would be very small since special grant con-
ditions to protect archaeological resources vrill be required by
OEPA (see 5-28, item 10).
4-10
-------
5.0
COORDINATION
5.1 Public Participation Program
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Middle East Fork
planning area in Clermont County, Ohio, was published on April
27, 1984. The intent of the document was to provide the public
with information and an opportunity to review and comment on the
project. Upon publication, a 45-day comment period began. Writ-
ten comments on the project were accepted until June 12, 1984.
On May 31, 1984, a formal public hearing was held in the Clermont
College auditorium at 7:30 P.M., to give the public an opportun-
ity to present oral or written comments on the project.
This section of the Final EIS presents the written comments re-
ceived and usEPA's responses to the concerns of the public and
other agencies. It also includes a summary of the comments re-
ceived in the public hearing and USEPA'S responses.
5.2. Written Comments and Responses
All written public comments and USEPA's responses have been in-
cluded in this section of the Final EIS. Comment letters are
reproduced in the following order: Federal agencies, State
agencies, regional agencies, local agencies, and individuals.
Comments which required USEPA's responses were identified with a
vertical bar and a number in the right and left margins. USEPA's
responses corresponding to the margin numbers follow the written
comments.
5-1
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
17!V WEST JACKSON BOUUA'ARO
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS G0604
June 18, 1984
ER-84/571
Mr. BarIan D. Hlrt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 ,»
Dear Mr. Hlrt:
The Department of Interior has reviewed the draft environmental statement
for the Middle East Fork Area Project, Clermont County, Ohio.
Consolidated Departmental comments are hereby provided for your
consideration during ongoing project planning.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the subject document and finds
it adequate in its treatment of fish and wildlife resources. Therefore,
they have no comments on the subject document*
The statement should address the potential for both primary and secondary
Impacts on the quantity and quality of ground water In the East Fork
alluvium. It is explained that in the East Fork region appreciable
ground-water yields can be obtained only from the alluvium (p. 3-24).
The analysis of possible impacts should assess the potential for future
increased use of ground water In the area of this alluvium, as population
growth and development are encouraged* It would be useful to know if
centralized sewage-treatment and water-supply facilities will provide
water and sewage treatment to the rural areas of the East Fork alluvium
or If such development will increase the use of onsite sewage treatment
systems and of wells for water supply.
SECTION 6(f) COMMENTS
It is noted on page 3-99 of the draft statement that Sycamore Park is in
the project planning area. Because Sycamore Park has received matching
assistance from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), compliance
with Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act, as amended, will be required if there
is to be any conversion of the park to other than public outdoor
recreation uses. The final statement should Include the details of any
proposed Section 6(f) conversion, including the full proposed replacement
package.
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
5-2
-------
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 (SLO). In Ohio the SLO is
Mr. Myrl Shoemaker, Director, Department of Natural Resources, Fountain
Square, Columbus, Ohio 43224.
The SLO may approve the use of Section 6(f) lands for temporary
construction activities so long as the following conditions are met:
1. No public outdoor recreation facilities are lost,
2. No control and tenure over the land is relinquished,
3. Recreation uses will be minimally disrupted,
A. The land will be restored to its preconstruction condition*
At his discretion, the SLO may refer questions of temporary use to the
National Park Service for a final determination.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following are deficiencies in the draft statement related to the
identification and protection of cultural resources. The final statement
should correct these deficiencies.
3.13. Cultural Resources
The division of this section into an "Archeologic&l Component" and a
"Historic Component" suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of
cultural resources. The "Archeological Component" should instead be
termed the "Prehistoric Component," in reference to the period of the
resources rather than to their condition.
3.13.1. Archeological Component
The discussion of Eastern Woodlands prehistory, concentrating on the
Ohio Valley and Clermont County, appears to be based on general
textbook references from the 1960's supplemented with minimal
additional information obtained from the State Historic Preservation
Officer's (SBPO) staff by telephone. This is not an adequate
description of the resources to be Impacted by the proposed^project.
A more up-to-date and specific description should be Included in the
final statement. While it is noted that specific proposed development
areas have been surveyed by the Ohio Historical Society, there is no
record of the SHPO'e comments on the findings and recommendations of
the survey. Additionally, there is no evidence of coordination with
the SHPO on the overall project other than several telephone calls.
5-3
-------
5.
••I
8.
9.
The text of this component contains several errors. The Archaic and
Big Game Hunting Traditions are combined into the "Archaic Big-Game
Hunting Tradition;" the "Intrusive Mound Culture" is listed as the
"Intensive Mound Culture;" and the "National Register of Historic
Places" is referred to as the "Federal Register."
3.13.2. Historic Component
While this component contains more area-specific information than the
"Archeological Component," it is of limited utility in describing the
historic period cultural resources which will be affected by the
proposed project. The "National Register of Historic Places" is
referred to as the "Federal Register." Coordination with the State
Historic Preservation Officer appears to consist only of a telephone
conversation or conversations.
4.2.5. Sensitive Environmental Resources, Cultural Resources
It is not recognized in this component that the Federal agency
implementing or funding a proposal has the responsibility to Inventory
and evaluate cultural resources which may be affected as a part of its
planning process. It is unclear where the designation of Civil War
cemeteries, grist and saw mills, and churches as "the more important
historic resources of the FPA" originated. This component also
inadequately identifies cultural resources which may be Impacted by
the proposed project.
4.3.1 Mitigation of Construction Impacts, Cultural Resources
The requirements of the legislation and regulations referenced in the
first paragraph of this section are much more extensive than stated
here. The "Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966" should be the
"National Historic Preservation Act of 1966." The "1973 Procedures of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation" should be "36 CFR 800,
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties," the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act which were issued in 1979.
Documentation that the SHPO concurs that no significant cultural
resources exist within the Phase 1 construction area should be
Included in the final environmental statement. Cultural resources
should be considered in the selection of and planning for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 facilities rather than being considered as an additional
requirement to meet after the selections have been made. It is often
possible to design facilities to avoid significant cultural resources.
Blanket evaluation procedures described in this component such as
controlled surface collection and minor subsurface testing as used in
lieu of obtaining site-specific data on the planning area's resources
are insufficient. Instead, evaluation procedures should be designed
on a site-by-site basis and determined by the individual
characteristics of each site. While the draft states that an
evaluation of the mitigation procedures required will be conducted
5.
7.
8.
7.
9.
5-4
-------
9.
10.
should significant cultural resources be adversely affected by the
project, it does not state that full compliance with Section 106 will
be undertaken. The final statement should evidence the completion of
compliance with Section 106 and all other applicable cultural
resources identification and protection mandates.
4.5. Irretrievable and Irreversible Resource Commitments
Cultural resources may not be totally destroyed when encountered
during construction. Previous compliance with Section 106 does not
relieve the agency of its responsibilities to deal with cultural
resources discovered during construction. The final statement should
describe procedures which will be utilized to protect cultural
resources discovered during construction (refer to 36 CFR 800.7).
Sincerely yours,
9.
10.
Sheila Minor Huff
Regional Environmental Officer
5-5
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
11.
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief
Environmental Impact Section
Region V
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1984, giving notice of a public
meeting and providing a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) concerning the construction of facilities to upgrade sewage treatment
in the Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County, Ohio.
The Draft EIS references the National Register of Historic Places which
lists two archeological sites, Elk Lick Road Mound and the East Fork Site,
and three historic properties, Bethel Methodist Church, Pinkham Farm, and
the Salt House, within the project area. In addition, the Draft EIS notes
a likelihood that significant, undocumented structures and archeological
sites may exist within the project area.
We appreciate your efforts to research these properties; in addition, your
intention to conduct additional surveys to study and identify historic and
archeological properties within the area of the undertaking's potential
environmental impact seems appropriate. Pursuant to the Council's
regulations, "Protection of Historic and Cultural Resources" (36 CFR Part
800), we recommend that you determine, in consultation with the Ohio State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), which additional properties may meet
the National Register Criteria, assess the effect of the undertaking on all
properties included in or eligible for the National Register, and, if
appropriate, afford the Council an opportunity to comment.
Ion
(hi
Klima
Eastern Division
of Project Review
-------
UU'AKIMLNT' OF HEALTH A HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health St-rvio-
Centers lor Disease Conuol
Atlanta GA 30333
June 5, 1984
12
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section (5WFI)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County, Ohio. We are responding on
behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service and are offering the following
comments for your consideration in preparing the final documents.
We are in support of those Phase I improvements necessary to improve
wastewater treatment practices and minimize potential adverse health effects
and water quality effects caused by inadequate sewage treatment, sewage
overflows, and improper sludge and septage disposal practices. However,
safeguards must be incorporated into the project to minimize any potential
adverse public health risks. Special attention and care must be taken to
protect public and private drinking water supplies. Although no water
presently is withdrawn from Harsha Lake for public water supplies, the supply
design capacity of this reservoir makes it one of the area's most important
potential sources of water for future domestic and industrial use. As stated
in the Draft EIS, the groundwater is generally of poor quality. This makes
East Fork and Harsha Lake even more critical to this region as potential
public water supply sources.
Effluent discharges from any remaining point sources upstream of the reservoir
should be carefully studied for their impact upon the water quality of Harsha
Lake.
The impact of the wastewater management alternatives of this project upon
existing and potential vector polutions capable of causing vector-borne
disease problems or nuisance problems should be considered in determining the
acceptability of any strategy. Specifically environmental concerns of
lows t ream flows for this project area may influence vector related problems.
Septage disposal is a major concern in this project area because no legal
disposal alternative exists for Clermont County. The Final EIS should address
this problem and Include specific recommendations and plans for implementation
of disposal options.
12.
13.
5-7
-------
Page 2 - Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
I The Final EIS should provide additional information on the general quality of
sludges generated by the waste water treatment systems and whether they
contain chemical contaminants that could be harmful to public health if
applied to public lands, parks, or private gardens.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Should you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Mrs. Gailya P. Walter at FTS
236-4161. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the Final EIS when it is
available.
14.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen Margolis, Ph.l
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
5-8
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington. D C 2Q23G
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
6 7934
Mr. Marian D. Hi rt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
Environmental Protection Agency - Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hint:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement for
the proposed construction of facilities to upgrade sewage treatment in
the Middle East Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio. Enclosed are comments
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
We hope our comments will assist you. Thank you for giving us an
opportunity to review the document. We would appreciate receiving two
copies of the final environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
^
Joyce M. Wood
Chief, Ecology and
Conservation Division
Enclosure
DC:das
5-9
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Woshmglon, D.C 20230
June 5, 1984
N/MB21:VLS
TO: PP2 - Joyce M,
FROM: N - Paul M. Wolff
SUBJECT: DEIS 8404.13 - Middle Fork Area, Clermont County, Ohio
(Environmental Protection Agency)
15.
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of the
National Ocean Service's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and in terms
of the impact of the proposed action on NOS activities and projects.
Geodetic control survey monuments may be located in the proposed
project area. If there is any planned activity which will disturb or destroy
these monuments, NOS requires not less than 90 days' notification in advance
of such activity in order to plan for their relocation. We recommend
that funding for this project includes the cost of any relocation required
for NOS monuments. For further information about these monuments, please
contact Mr. John Spencer, Chief, National Geodetic Information Branch (N/CG17),
or Mr. Charles Novak, Chief, Network Maintenance Section (N/CG162), at
6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
15.
5-10
-------
16
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOUISVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 59
LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40201
June 18, 1984
ORLPD-R
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for proposed construction of facilities to upgrade sewage
treatment in the Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County, Ohio.
The Corps of Engineers is conducting a hydropower feasibility
study for William H. Harsha Lake, which is within the proposed
construction area.
Enclosed please find our comments on the subject document.
The Corps of Engineers exercises regulatory authority on
Sugartree Creek and Poplar Creek in Clermont County under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed interceptor sewerline
between Bethel and Ulrey Run may cross one or more streams within
our regulatory jurisdiction. These crossings may require
Department of the Army permits unless they meet either the
criteria of the Nationwide General Permit issued under the
provisions of 33 CFR 330.5(a)(12), or Regional General Permit 012
established for utility line crossings in Ohio. We need further
information concerning the design, method of construction and
location of the crossings to make a determination on permit
actions. Any questions on permit matters should be directed to
the above address, ATTN: ORLOP-FN, or by calling (502) 582-5607.
16.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
^
Dwayne G.(lee
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Enclosure
5-11
-------
COMMENTS
17.
18.
19.
20.
1. Page 2-87, Paragraph 3. The low level of dissolved oxygen
below 15-20 foot depths during summer stratification is a natural and
expected condition for lakes the size of Harsha Lake in this region.
Therefore, it is difficult to view this as a significant water quality
problem.
2. Page 3-22, Paragraph 1. The highest pool elevation reached to
date was in March 1979. Also, the storage between Elevations 683 and
729 (63,400 acre-feet) is divided within 28,800 acre-feet for water
quality and 34,600 acre feet contracted to the State of Ohio for water
supply.
3. Page 3-22, Paragraph 3. The statement that the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding to always
maintain a minimum discharge from Harsha Lake of 5 cfs is incorrect.
4. Page 3-23, Paragraph 2. The Corps has not guaranteed a minimum
flow of 5 cfs. Also, the 15 cfs minimum currently maintained is
measured as a release from Harsha Lake, not at a point 6.4 miles
downstream at Batavia. In referring to flows less than desired at
Batavia, the year mentioned should be 1979, not 1980. Harsha Lake was
closed during this period for work in the retreat channel. (The discharge
was 5 cfs.) The entire discussion of reservoir release and project
capabilities indicates that confusion exists in this area. The portion
of the document that deals with water quality releases should be rewritten
and reviewed by the Corps before final distribution.
5. Page 3-25, Paragraph 2.. Maintaining significant
augmentative flow releases during a drought year should not
affect drinking water supply because, although the water supply and
water quality storages are designated together, these are budgeted
individually.
t
6. Page 3-25, Paragraph 3. Sentences 3-5 should be changed to read
as follows: "The primary alternative under consideration is installation
of a combination peaking-power/incidental power generating facility that
would produce power with excess flows and otherwise be limited to a
14-day (8 hours per day) turbine operation for the peak power demand
season (July-August). The approximate maximum combined turbine flow
would be approximately 1,000 cfs during both summer and winter." Delete
sentence 5 beginning with, "Occasionally..." The sentence, as it now
reads, is correct only during the 14 days of peaking in July and August
and, then, only utilizes storage between elevations 729 and 734. Storage
below 729 is not used for hydropower.
7. Pages 3-25 and 3-26. The statement, "The original design
intention for use of the summer pool was that it be used solely
for flow augmentation...," is incorrect. The summer pool was
designed to increase surface area for recreation, not flow
17.
18.
19.
20.
5-12
-------
20.
21.
22.
23.|
24.1
25.
26.
I
augmentation. This higher average summer elevation does
"provide greater assurances of sufficient storage available to
meet the water supply and water quality demands and (provides)
some flexibility for future operation." (General Design
Memorandum, September 1965)
8. Page 3-26, Last Paragraph. The first two sentences are
incorrect. Addition of hydropower facilities will include the
construction of a new multi-level intake tower that will have the
capability to draw the full releases from various levels. The
levels will be selected so as to maintain current water quality
release criteria. Near the end of the summer and when reservoir
storage is at a seasonal low, i.e., elevation 729 or less,
releases will be no different either with or without hydropower.
9. Page 3-29, Paragraph 2. The last sentence is based on an
incorrect premise. Water supply storage is not used for down-
stream augmentation. Use or non-use of water supply withdrawals
does not affect discharges from the lake, but could affect pool
levels.
10. Page 3-29, Paragraph 3. The reference in the second
sentence to "3.7 mgd" should read "37 mgd."
11. Page 3-38, Paragraph 1. While the algae in a stream do
contribute to oxygen levels, the transportation of plankton and
attached algae into the reservoir can contribute to dissolved
oxygen reductions through respiration and decomposition.
12. Page 3-39. Paragraph 1.
stratified in summer.
Harsha Lake always becomes
13. Page 3-39. Paragraph 2. If algae are passed from the
lake, they may also contribute to decreases in dissolved oxygen
levels by respiration/decomposition.
14. Page 3-A4, Paragraph 1. Prior to filling in 1979, the
Corps routinely took water quality samples of inflows and the
future tailwater location almost monthly from 1972. Also, lake
data is most extensive from 1979.
15. Page 3-44. Paragraph 2. The first sentence should be
changed to read, "...stratigraphic water quality sampling of the
lake weekly."
16. Page 3-44, Paragraph 3. The third sentence should be
changed to read, "Additional stations are profiled in outlying
areas of Karsha Lake on a less frequent basis during scheduled
comprehensive sampling of the lake (3-5 times per year).
20.
21
22.
I
23.
25.
26.
5-13
-------
27.
28.|
29.
17. Pages 3-45 thru 3-48. The discussion of temporary loss
of a well-defined epiliranion need not be treated because water
quality in this surface (10-20 feet below) is essentially the same
regardless of the definition by temperature. For the sake of this
discussion, dissolved oxygen profiles would be better. (In 1984
or 1985, the Corps of Engineers will begin collecting D.O.
profiles along with temperature.)
I8- Page 3-51, Paragraph 1.
word, "other."
In the first sentence, delete the
19. Page 3-104, Paragraph 1. The second sentence should be changed
to read, "A private firm, Lewis and Associates, has been issued a
preliminary permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to
study the feasibility of operating a small hydroelectric station at the
Harsha Dam."
27.
\28.
29.
30.
32.
33.1
20, Page 4-14, Last Paragraph. The last two lines are
incorrect. The addition of hydropower facilities will not
adversely impact the ability to make the full currently authorized
water quality releases (i.e., 41 cfs to 82 cfs, depending on the
month).
21. Page G-l, Last Paragraph. The first sentence should be
changed to read, "...was used to test the effect of an average 60
cfs water quality release (i.e., variable between 41 cfs and 82
cfs, depending on the month)..."
22. Page G-2, Paragraph 2. The first sentence should be
shortened to read, "The current minimum release for water quality
purposes is 15 cfs as noted earlier."
23. Page G-3, Last Paragraph. Change to read, "l. Utilize
two Francis turbines..."
24. Page G-4. Paragraph 8. Change to read, "2.
the 60 cfs average water quality release."
Maintain
25. Page G-7, Lines 11 and 12. Change to read, "...daily
peaking energy will be generated between lake pool elevation 734
and 729 by discharging..."
26. Page G-7, Line 14. Change to read, "...daily flow of
357 cfs, not counting the 57 cfs needed for water supply.)"
27. Page H-l, Paragraph 4. Inflow and inflow teroterature are
primary factors in temporary and season end destratification.
130.
31.
32.
133.
5-14
-------
Ohio Historic Preservation Office
1985 Veima Avenue
Columbus. Ohio 43211
614/466-1500
April 20, 1984
Mr. Richard Record
Balke Engineers
7762 Reading Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237-2174
Dear Mr. Record,
APR 20 ec4;
OHIO
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
SIXCE 1885
I have received your letter of April 10, 1984 transmitting
the archaeological report "Preliminary Archaeological Survey of
Two Proposed Sewage Improvement Areas in the Middle East Fork
Little Miami River Region of Clermont County, Ohio", prepared
by Elsie A. Immel and Julie Kime. My staff has reviewed the
report and on the basis of their review I find that I concur
with the conclusions as presented on page 31 of that report.
The project, as it is planned, will have no effect upon any
properties listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the project may
proceed with no further need for coordination with this office.
If you need any additional information or clarification,
please contact Richard Boisvert at the number listed above.
Sincerely,
W. Ray Luce
State Historic Preservation Officer
WRL/RB:tc
x.c. Ms Elsie Immel, OHS
Ms Julie Kime, OHS
Rick Fitch, OEPA
5-15
-------
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
30 EAST BROAD STREET •
• COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
May 25, 1984
614 / 466-7461
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, (5WFI)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention:
Charlie Brasher
RE: Review of Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment Report
Title: DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement, Middle East Fork Area,
Clermont County, Ohio
SAI Number: 36-552-0014
Dear Applicant:
Your Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment has been received In
the Ohio State Clearinghouse and the review process has now started. You
may expect notification no later than 40 days following the receipt date
of a draft Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment and 32 days for a
final Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment that the review has been
completed.
A State Application Identifier Number (SAI) has been assigned to your
Environmental Report. Please refer to this number 1n all future contacts
with the Ohio State Clearinghouse.
Sincerely,
Anita Fries
Review Coordinator
5-16
-------
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
30 EAST BROAD STREET •
• COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
84-07-05
08 P
614 / 466-7461
Harlan 0. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, (5WFI)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attn: Charlie Brasher
Review of Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment
Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Middle East
Fork Planning Area, Clermont County, Ohio.
SAI Number: 36-552-0014
Dear Mr. H1rt:
The State Clearinghouse coordinated the review of the above referenced
environmental Impact statement/assessment.
This environmental report was reviewed by all interested State agencies.
The comments received in our office have indicated there are no concerns
relating to this proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement/assessment.
Sincerely,
.eonard E. Roberts
Deputy Director
Office of Budget & Management
&&UJ
LER:alf
cc: ODNR. Mike Colvln
OEPA, Barb Wooldridge
5-17
-------
BALKE
ENGINEERS
Engineers
Architects
Planners
7762 Reading Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237-2174
(513)761-1700
12 Orphanage Road
Fort Mitchell. Kentucky 41017
(606) 331-8068
June 15, 1984
Subject: Draft EIS
Middle East Fork Project
Clermont County, Ohio
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
OS EPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Mr. Charles Brasher
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Regarding the subject document, we have the following comments
for your consideration:
1. The recommended treatment process at the Amelia-Batavia
WWTP is an activated sludge, rather than trickling
filter, process. This change occured late in the
facilities planning process due to uncertainties in the
required effluent limitations. The total present worth
costs and envrionmental consequences are nearly the same
for either process, so the conclusions of the DEIS
should remain unchanged* Detailed information
pertaining to this comment has been submitted to your
office under separate cover*
2. On page 2-217 of the DEIS, the recommendation is made to
construct a septage receiving station as part of the
Phase I improvements at the Amelia-Batavia WWTP. While
we agree that the station is needed, we recommend that
this work be conducted as part of the Phase II
improvements, since the design volume of septage will
not be established until that time (dependent on final
collection recommendations for unsewered areas).
34
35,
34.
35.
5-18
-------
Letter to Mr. Harlan D.Hlrt
page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIS. We look
forward to receiving the final document*
Very truly yours,
BALKE ENGINEERS
Richard L. Record
Environmental Project Mgr,
sib
cc: Board of Clermont County Commissioners
Mr. Donald J. Reckers, P.E., Clermont County Sewer District
5-19
-------
BALKE
ENGINEERS
Engineers
Architects
Planners
7762 Reading Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237-2174
(513)761-1700
12 Orphanage Road
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky 41017
(606) 331-8068
July 2, 1984
Subject: Middle East Fork EIS
Clermont County, Ohio
Mr. Charles Brasher
U.S. EPA - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Brasher:
Bill Fritz of ESEI, called on Friday, June 29, 1984, to inquire
about potential impacts on Sycamore Park in Clermont County.
This letter is a follow-up to that call.
There will be no impact on the park due to the action proposed in
the EIS. There is an interceptor sewer along the park that was
installed in 1971 (see attached map). No new sewer construction
is proposed for this area, and no induced development is
anticipated.
Please call if you need additional information on this matter.
Sincerely,
BALKE ENGINEERS
Richard L. Record
PROJECT MANAGER
djb
enclosure
cc: Don Reckers, Clermont County Sewer District
Bill Fritz, ESEI
cinti Itrs, 1.39
5-20
-------
1 t
\'*JK±LA-^
-INVERTED
>£UAH&TAVIAWIP^
.^
Vk
'.V-
/;
r^
&*;
^
*^J^.•" -v^**s*£ < y.
•iX*:v*' ^sLN
~^_
BATAVl
^
/^
#£:
ft*
19
•^F^
f^-^-^Jr .
:^
.^-
-*~^"2 •
.DRIVE P.S. - ,/
'?•<
v>'X
-JW
r?
,-t-
??•<*?
'c.;
^ /?
Bat
'*r.
t9t)i
V -^-:<
^&v J^
- 7><
. -. .1
B
\1>
ff.
7r3
•i/ V
AMRSTOJE P,S.,'
^ ;- j;/^ / ;i •
- - • >- ^X >
-w< ^-!/
•"•'•/.- «—— •• •
•=~- :'('\ . rvf^^ '
^ ^ . f^~ L- ' ./ <
>/* _^
j-oT
t, » AV-^ j A ;VL£,
;/ 'A \1 ^F-
.,^ s-^r
HERITAGE
ESTATES P.S..
LUCY RUN: .-
INTHRftPTOR'
- ir'-^
••>• av ^-
:^J5 \ %
. "OAO.
J
^
k,
CHAPq
n*.
^>'
L'--J\ •
I/ - 'I
-------
P
-------
BALKE
ENGINEERS
Engineers
Architects
Planners
7762 Reading Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45237-2174
(513)761-1700
12 Orphanage Road
Fort Mitchell, Kentucky 41017
(606) 331-8068
July 5, 198A
Subject: Middle East Fork EIS
CJermont County, Ohio
Mr. Charles Brasher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Brasher:
In response to Bill Fritz's question about potential impact of the
MEF project on existing geodetic survey monuments, we offer the
following information. Our survey and right-of-way manager, Joseph
Kuhlmann, has located and evaluated all such monuments during the
past ten (10) months. He states that no NOA/USGS monument will be
disturbed in any way by the project as proposed.
Please call if you need further information on this item.
Very truly yours,
BALKE ENGINEERS
/ &f
Richard L. Record
Project Manager
rw
cc:
Donald J. Reckers, P.E., CCSD
William Fritz, ESEI
Richard Fitch, OEPA
Joseph Kuhlmann
5-23
-------
6943 Lynnfield Court
Cincinnati, Ohio 45243
June 7, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
I am the owner of a parcel of , real property ad-
jacent to the East Pork State Park in Clermont County, Ohio,
or. the north side of Macedonia Road 60O feet west of Ohio
State Route 133 and north of Bethel, Ohio.
36.
As you know, Phase One for the Improvement of the
sewer system in general area is for the upgrading, etc.,
of the Bethel system as well as its being connected with
the Amel la-Bat avia system. No collecting line is to be
extended north of Bethel beyond the Junction of Route 133
and the Concord-Bethel Road.
Since individual septic systems are not feasible
because of the nature of the soil in the area north of
Bethel and adjacent to the Park, I am asking that, as part
of Phase Two, a sewer line be extended north on Route
133 to its Junction with Macedonia Road so that I could,
at my own expense, connect to the sewer at that Junction.
36.
Very truly yours, .
Henry P. Shaw, Trustee
5-24
-------
0
37.
'}
-L
A -
o
^
^T V--7
"3
-------
37.
£i>-»-
^< ^ x/w»--«-t- T-^L;
GLXT-C^^ £
^pX^tXU^j r/^
37.
5-26
-------
USEPA'S RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN COMMENTS
1. Primary impacts to groundwater are discussed in Section
4.1.1.4. Future population growth and development are not
expected to be stimulated by the Phase 1 project, therefore,
no secondary impacts are anticipated (Section 4.2). The
Phase 1 project will not provide access to sewers in the
rural areas of the East Fork. If in the future access to
sewers is provided, it will be a local decision, paid for
with local funds. The Middle East Fork project is a water
pollution control project and, as such, only coordinates with
water supply planning, but does not direct it. No adverse
impacts to water supply systems are anticipated.
2. The Phase 1 project will not affect Sycamore Park (See Balke
letter of July 2, 1984).
3. The appropriate sections of this Final EIS have been revised
accordingly.
4. Clearance from the State Historic Preservation Officer, W.
Ray Luce, was received after the Draft EIS went to press in a
letter dated April 20, 1984 (reproduced previously in this
section).
5. These changes are acknowledged.
6. This correction has been made in the Final EIS.
7. Due to the complexity of this project, the EIS has been writ-
ten to be issue-oriented. All available evidence and anal-
yses developed in compliance with the SHPO requirements have
indicated that no known cultural resources will be affected
by the Phase 1 project. Since adverse impacts to cultural
features of the area are not an issue, a comprehensive des-
cription and further consideration of the area's historic and
prehistoric resources in the planning and selection of alter-
natives is not presented.
8. These changes are acknowledged.
5-27
-------
9. As referenced in the SHPO clearance letter of April 20, 1984,
the "Preliminary Archaelogical Survey of Two Proposed Sewage
Improvement Areas in the Middle East Fork Little Miami River
Region of Clermount County, Ohio", prepared by Immel and
Kime, concluded the project "will have no effect upon any
properties listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places".
10. Ohio EPA will require compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1979, as a condition in
the plans and specifications for the phase 1 project. The
following measures must be followed during construction to
prevent adverse impacts on known and unknown historical and
cultural resources.
A. All known archaeological and historical properties as
identified in the Facilities Plan that are adjacent to or
directly on construction easements must have temporary
fences erected along the easement to prevent construction
traffic and/or stockpiling of construction equipment on
known properties. The consultant will identify the
properties to the contractor and supervise the placement
of the fences.
B. If during construction any historical or cultural rem-
nants are uncovered during excavation, backfilling or
grading, all construction activities in the area must
cease immediately. The owner shall contact a local cert-
ified archaeologist who will inspect the material dis-
covered and decide if construction can continue or fur-
ther excavation of the site is needed.
C. Construction cannot continue until the archaeologist has
given approval.
11. Compliance with the SHPO has been carried out. See SHPO let-
ter of April 20, 1984 (reproduced previously in this
section).
5-28
-------
12. The Phase 1 project is designed to reduce public health risks
and adverse water quality impacts by eliminating from Harsha
Lake the untreated overflows and bypasses and the plant ef-
fluent discharges which currently emanate from the Village of
Bethel. The discharges from the Williamsburg WWTP which cur-
rently flow to Harsha Lake will be further evaluated in Phase
2 regarding the implementation of an action alternative.
13. A recommendation was made in the Draft BIS (page 2-217) to
include a septage receiving station in the construction of
Phase 1 improvements at Am-Bat. However, the USEPA does
agree with Balke Engineers' letter of June 15, 1984, that
insufficient data exists at the present time to size such a
facility and insure that the plant has sufficient capacity to
adequately treat the flow. As such, this will be further
addressed in Phase 2.
14. Sludge will be disposed of in accordance with the Clermont
County Sewer District's Sludge Disposal Program developed
separately from the Facilities Plan. The program is based on
aerobic digestion, storage, and land application of liquid
sludge. Final sludge quantity and quality will be determined
in the Phase 2 project following the establishment of final
effluent limits, treatment levels and the specific treatment
processes to be employed.
15. According to Balke Engineers, all geodetic control monuments
have been located and none will be affected by the Phase 1
project.
16. It is the State of Ohio's policy that prior to construction
within the stream and floodplain areas applicable, the
grantee will obtain the necessary USCOE permits. A copy of
the plants and specifications for the project have been sent
to the USCOE for review and comment. The review will
determine the areas where permits are required.
17. The source for the information presented in the DEIS was the
Regional Water Quality Management Plan prepared by the Ohio-
5-29
-------
Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, dated
January, 1977. Your information is acknowledged.
18. The DEIS went to press prior to in-depth coordination between
the USEPA, Ohio EPA and USCOE. In a meeting held on April 5,
1984, it was agreed that the minimum flow would be negotiated
after Ohio EPA's Comprehensive Water Quality Report is final-
ized and, thus, will be a Phase 2 project objective.
19. These changes are acknowledged.
20. These changes are acknowledged.
21. The phase 2 project EIS will assess these water quality im-
pacts in detail once minimum releases are established and
extreme conditions are projected using the most reliable
information available at that time.
22. USEPA agrees with your comment and acknowledges this change.
23. This change is acknowledged.
24. USEPA is pleased to know that this extensive data is avail-
able and we look forward to using it in our Phase 2 EIS eval-
uations .
25. This change is acknowledged.
26. This change is acknowledged.
27. This issue will be extensively addressed in the Phase 2 EIS
using the available data.
28. This change is acknowledged.
29. This change is acknowledged.
30. This issue will be fully evaluated in the Phase 2 EIS.
31. This change is acknowledged.
5-30
-------
32. This information was photocopied from the Preliminary Draft
Hydropower Report (USCOE, 1983). This change is acknow-
ledged .
33. USEPA agrees with this addition.
34. Documentation of an official Facilities Plan Amendment
regarding this change is provided in Appendix D. USEPA
concurs with its findings and has revised the Final EIS
accordingly.
35. A revision in the Final EIS reflects this position.
36,
37
Recommended Phase 1 activities do not include the extension
of an interceptor beyond Route 133 and Concord-Bethel Road.
Any future sewer extensions not recommended in the EIS would
be a local responsibility to be paid for with local funds.
Phase 2 will address failing on-site systems through the
creation of an On-site Management District described in
detail in Section 2.5.7 of the Draft EIS. At that time, the
most cost-effective solution to your problem will be
determined and proposed for implementation.
The creation of an On-site Management District as described
in detail in Section 2.5.7 of the Draft EIS will occur as
part of the Phase 2 project. This entity will provide the
mechanism by which the most cost-effective solution to
correct failing on-site systems can be implemented.
5-31
-------
5.3 Summary of Public Hearing and Responses
The public hearing for the Draft EIS was held on May 31, 1984, at
Clermont College in Batavia, Ohio, at 7:30 P.M. The hearing
officer was Mr. Gene Wojcik, Chief of Unit 1 of the Environmental
Impact Section, Region V, United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Assisting him were Mr. Charles Brasher, Environmental
Engineer and Project Monitor for the USEPA; Mr. Gerald Lenssen,
Engineer and Principal Author of the DEIS (WAPORA consulting firm
- consultants to USEP^ for preparation of the Draft EIS); and Mr.
Richard Fitch, Project Coordinator with the Ohio EPA. The pro-
ceedings were recorded by Ms. Gail Wilson, a court reporter. The
meeting was also attended by the persons listed in Table 5-1.
This section of the Final EIS contains a summary of the public
hearing and USEPA's responses to the oral comments received. The
following pages show the public hearing notice as issued and
published in the area.
5-32
-------
TABLR 5-1
PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEES
_Name_
Delno Raiser
Gerald Raiser
Dexter Bastin
Linda Bauer
Dale K. Pee
Larry Cadwallader
Jerry Carlier
R.C. Framk
Robert Graves
Orean Gullett
Ralph Hallister
Roger Hardin
Timothy E. Hoberg
Ed Hope
David Kabrin
Roger J. Maham
Jerry R. McRride
Louis H. Moore
Hugh L. Nichols
Pual Parlier
Donald J. Reckers
Chuck Repede
David F. Smith
Edwin E. Thompson
Steve Wharton
Mary L. Wichard
Robert L. Wisby
Representing
Self
Citizens Group (Bethel)
Village of Williamsburg
Bethel Village Council
Bethel Village Council
Williamsburg Township
Clermont County
Self
Village of Bethel
Village of Bethel
Self
Mayor, Village of Bethel
Self
Ohio EPA
Self
Mayor of Williamsburg
Clermont Co. Commissioner
Ratavia Township Trustee
Self
Self
Clermont Co. Sewer District
Village of Williamsburg
Rethel-Tate
Self
Village of Williamsburg
Self
Village of Bethel
5-33
-------
t
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
APR 2 01984
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF
SWF I-12
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency will hold a public hearing
on Thursday, May 31, 1984 to receive public comments on the Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement (EIS) for the Middle East Fork Area, Clermont County,
Ohio. The Draft EIS makes recommendations for the construction of facilities
to upgrade sewage treatment in the area. The public hearing is scheduled
at 7:30 p.m. at the Clermont College Auditorium, 725 College Drive, Batavia,
Ohio.
Persons or groups wishing to make oral presentations or submit prepared state-
ments on the Draft EIS may do so at the hearing. Interested persons who are
unable to attend may submit their comments to Harlan D. Hirt, Chief, Environ-
mental Impact Section at the above address.
June 11, 1984.
The deadline for all comments is
Copies of the Draft EIS can be obtained from the above address or will be
available for review at libraries in the Planning Area.
The Middle East Fork Planning Area includes the communities of Amelia, Bata-
via, Bethel, and Williamsburg as well as the Wi 1 liam H. Marsha Lake Reservoi r.
Your interest in the EIS process is appreciated and comments on this document
are invited.
Sincerely yours,
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
5-34
-------
\°/EPA Environmental
NEWS RELEASE
United States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Region V
230 S Dearborn St
Chicago. )L 60604
Technical Contact: Gene Wojcik
(312) 886-0237
Media Contact: Robert Hartian
(312) 886-6588
For Immediate Release: May 17, 1984
NO. 84-117
U.S. EPA TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SEWER UPGRADING IN
CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will hold a
public hearing on May 31, 1984, to receive public comments on a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Middle East Fork Planning
Area, Clermont County, Ohio.
The project proposes the construction of facilities to upgrade
sewage treatment in the area. The hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m.,
Clermont College Auditorium, 725 College Drive, Batavia, Ohio.
Persons making oral presentations or submitting prepared statements
on the draft EIS may do so at the hearing. Persons unable to attend may
submit their comments to:
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section (5WFI-12)
U.S. EPA
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
(MORE)
5-35
-------
- 2 -
Copies of the draft EIS can be obtained from the above address; they
will be also available for review at libraries in the Planning Area. The
deadline for all comments is June 11, 1984. Communities in the Middle East
Fork Planning Area include: Amelia, Batavia, Bethel, Williamsburg, and
the William H. Harsha Lake Reservoir.
5-36
-------
OHIO
NEWS BUREAU INC.
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44115
216/241-0675
CINCINNATI HOST
CINCINNATI, (L
?.M,,CIRC.177«50C
OHIO
NEWS BUREAU INC.
CLEVELAND. OHIO 44115
216/241-0675
CLERMONT SUN
BATAVIA, 0.
W, ClflC. 5.60Q
E>
on sewer
3ATAVIA - The U.J3. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency
will bold a public hearing later
this month on a proposaf to
phase out the Bethel sewer sys-
, tern and expand the plant serv-
ing Amelia to accommodate
both Clermont County towns.
The $5.9 million project,
-which, has been on the drawing
• board since 1978, would end any'
. discharge of unacceptable efflu-
ent from the Bethel system Into .
. the East Fork Reservoir.
. ' "The effluent 'now doesn't
"meet ""BIscharge requirements.
So the plan is to Just run It
(Bethei sewage) to a major sys-
..tern,""5»ald Clermont County
SanltatTrBnginiser Oonald
Reckers. -,,,.. " •" •••-«•*:.•_,
The Clermont County Sewer
District owns the current Bethel.
system,.,. _. . ": .4 .. •.-••>. >
Specifically under consldera- »
tlon at the public hearing will be *
an ..environmental-Impact
study, which must be completed •
before any federal grant money
can be released for the project,, . .'"
• ' '• The public hearing -will be at'
7:30 p.m. May 31 at Clermont
College: Audltorlumv72S College
Drive, Batavla, '-...>., :
- Oral and prepared comments
can be presented at the hearing. ;
if the grant is awarded be-
fore the end of this fiscal year,'
federal money could cover 75
percent of the project, said
Reciters. After that, the federal
match drops to SO percent, he
. As -part of the project, the
•plant now serving Amelia would
be upgraded and expanded to
•Candle Bethel. , '
MAY-23-84
MEETING SLATED
Fhe U.S. . Environmental
Protection Agency will hold a
public hearing on Thursday,
May 31, at 7:30 pjn. at
Clermont College auditorium
before drafting an environ-
mental impact statement . on
recommendations for construc-
tion of facilities to upgrade
sewage treatment in the Middle
East Fork area.
Persons may make comments
orally or in writing at the time
of the hearing.
Those unable to attend the
meeting, also .may mail com-
ments to Harlan D. Hirt, EIS
Section, U.S. EPA Region 5,
230 S. DearbornjSL, Chicago,
IL 60604, or calltf21g5>353-2315.
Deadline for/Comments is
June 11. (
5-37
-------
THURSDAY, MAY 24,1984
THE BETHEL JOURNAL
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES,
PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604 wlU hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 31,
1984 to receive public comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Middle
East Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio. The Draft EIS
makes recommendations for the construction of
facilities to upgrade sewage treatment In the area.
The public hearing Is scheduled at 7:30 p.m. at the
Clermont College Auditorium, 725 College Drive,
Batavla, Ohio.
Persons or groups wishing to make oral
presentations or submit prepared statements on the
Draft EIS may do so at the hearing. Interested persons
who are unable to attend may submit their comments
to Harlan D. Hlrt, Chief, Environmental Impact
Section at the above address. The deadline for all
comments la June 11,1984.
Copies of the Draft EIS can be obtained from the
above address or can be reviewed at libraries In the
Planning Area.
The Middle East Fork Planning Area Includes the
communities of Amelia, Batavla, Bethel, and
Wllllamsburg as well as the William H. Marsha Lake
Reservoir.
-------
STATE OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY,
SS:
Jennie Reardon, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the
representative of the Cincinnati Suburban Press, Inc., a newspaper
of general circulation, printed, published and in general circulation
in the State of Ohio; that there appeared in said Cincinnati Suburban
Press, Inc., on the dates hereinafter mentioned, a copy of the fore-
going ad, said dates being as follows:
Further afiant gayeth not
Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this
MARY JO KAUFMAN
Notify Public. State of Ohio
f Cbnunntton Expires June 27,1988
day of
LEGAL
TO ALL
INTERESTED AGENCIES,
PUBLIC GROUPS
AND CITIZENS .
The United States Envi-
ronmental Protection Agen-
cy, Region V. 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicago,
Illinois 60604 wiH hold a
public hearing on Thursday.
May 31, 1984 to receive
public comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Mid-
dle East Fork area, Cter-
mont County. Ohio. The
Draft EIS makes recom-
mendations for (he con-
struction of facilities to up-
grade sewage treatment in
the area. The public hearing
is scheduled at 7:30 p.m.
at the Ctermonl College Au-
ditorium. 725 College
Drive. Batavia, Ohio.
Persons or groups wish-
ing to make oral presenta-
tions or submit prepared
statements on the Draft EIS
may do so at the hearing.
Interested persons who are
unable to attend may submit
their comments to Ha/tan D.
Hirt. Chief Environmental
Impact Section at the above
address. The deadline tor
all comments is June 11,
1984.
Copies of the Draft EIS
can be obtained from the
above address or can be
reviewed at libraries in the
Planning Area.
The Middle East Fork
Planning Area includes the
communities of Amelia. Ba-
tavia. Bethel, and Williams-
burg as well as the William
H. Harsha Lake Reservoir.
CJSlT 5/29/84
Notary xfublic, Hamilton County,
7 , Ohio/
(My Commission expires )
5-39
-------
CLERMONT COUNTY REVIEW, Wednesday, May 30.1984
To all Interested
agencies, public groups and citizens:
The United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region
V, 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60604 will hold a
public hearing on Thursday, May
31, 1984 to receive public com-
ments on the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Middle East Fork area,
Clermont County, Ohio. The Draft
EIS makes recommendations for
the construction of facilities to
upgrade sewage treatment in the
area. The public hearing is
scheduled at 7:30 p.m. at the
Clermont College Auditorium, 725
College Drive, Batavia, Ohio.
Persons or groups wishing to
make oral presentations or sub-
mit prepared statements on the
Draft EIS may do so at the
hearing. Interested persons who
are unable to attend may submit
their comments to Harlan D. Hirt,
Chief, Environmental Impact
Section at the above address. The
deadline for all comments is June
11,1984.
Copies of the Draft EIS can be
obtained from the above address
or can be reviewed at libraries in
the Planning Area.
The Middle East Fork Planning
Area includes the communities of
Amelia, Batavia, Bethel, and Wil-
liamsburg as well as the William
H. Marsha Lake Reservoir.
5-40
-------
Page 8 - Clermont Sun - Wednesday, May 30, 1984
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES,
PUBUC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 230
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 will hold a public
hearing on Thursday, May 31,1984 to receive public comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement [EIS] for the Middle East Fork
area, Clermont County, Ohio. The Draft EIS makes recommendations
for the construction of facilities to upgrade sewage treatment in the
area. The public hearing is scheduled at 7:30 p.m. at the Clermont
College Auditorium, 725 College Drive, Batavia, Ohio.
Persons or groups wishing to make oral presentations or submit
prepared statements on the Draft EIS may do so at the hearing.
Interested persons who are unable to attend may submit their
comments to Harlan D. Hlrt, Chief, Environmental Impact Section at
the above address. The deadline for all comments Is June 11,1984.
«
Copies of the Draft EIS can be obtained from the above address or can
be reviewed at libraries in the Planning Area.
The Middle East Fork Planning Area includes the communities of
Amelia, Batavia, Bethel, and Willlamsburg as well as the William H.
Marsha Lake Reservoir.
5-41
-------
THURSDAY, MAY 31,1984
THE BETHEL JOURNAL
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES,
PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604 will hold a public hearing on Thursday, May 31,
1984 to receive public comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Middle
East Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio. The Draft EIS
makes recommendations for the construction of
facilities to upgrade sewage treatment In the area.
The public hearing Is scheduled at 7:30 p.m. at the
Clermont College Auditorium, 725 College Drive,
Batavla,0hlo.
Persons or groups wishing to make oral
presentations or submit prepared statements on the
Draft EIS may do so at the hearing. Interested persons
who are unable to attend may submit their comments
to-Marian D. Hlrt, Chief, Environmental Impact
Section at the above address. The deadline for all
comments Is June 11,1984:
Copies of the Draft EIS can be obtained from the
above address or can be reviewed at libraries In the
Planning Area.
The Middle East Fork Planning Area Includes the
communities of Amelia, Batavla, Bethel, and
Wllllamsburg as well as the William H. Harsh* Lake
Reservoir.
5-42
-------
THE STATE OF OHIO.
CI.ERMONT COUNTY, ss.
Pmonj% appeared bcloie me. * Nolarj Public, in
dnd for Clermont County
toi the publisher ol
THE IOVELAND HERALD
THE MILFORD ADVERTISER
THECLERMONTCOURIER
a weekly newspaper publ.siicd and ol general
CKCulai'on in said County, and made oalh
that Ihe annc>cd advertisement was pub-
lished m said newspaper once a week lot
/ __ consecutive numbers, commen-
cing on ihe ___3jL day ol
ftAfa-. A 0. 19 £j_ and
thai each inserlion was upon Ihe same day ol
Ihe week, viz: Thursday.
Charges \ / ~7> <2 "7_
S-«o
-------
The hearing began with introductions from Mr. Wojcik and an
explanation of the purpose and intent of the public hearing. Mr.
Brasher provided a brief historical profile of the EIS planning
process, and the reasons for creating the Phase 1 and Phase 2
projects. The Phase 1 and 2 projects were further described by
Mr. Fitch in terms of the facilities to be constructed and the
benefits to be gained. Finally, Mr. Lenssen provided a chronol-
ogical description of major planning steps regarding the project;
discussed the various sewer systems and sewage treatment facili-
ties, their problems and needs; delineated the uncertainties to
be finalized in Phase 2 regarding stream flow, effluent limits,
sewage flow, and community regionalization; defined the problems
associated with on-site systems and the conclusion that an
On-site Management District be created in Phase 2; discussed the
water quality of Marsha Lake and its relationship to water qual-
ity in the planning area; and summarized analyses which showed
that sewering the 3000 on-site systems in the planning area would
cost each on-site household $750 per year, while solutions other
than sewering would cost $260 per year.
Following the presentation, several persons gave oral comments
and asked for clarification regarding the project as described in
the Draft EIS.
Messrs. Chuck Repede, Dexter Bastin and Roger Maham (Mayor of
Williamsburg>, each representing themselves and the Village of
Williamsburg, expressed support for the project as defined in the
Draft EIS and urged that it be adopted.
Mr. Timothy Hoberg supported the concept of regionalizing the
Batavia system with the Am-Bat plant and eliminating the Batavia
plant. He, therefore, expressed favor for the plan as proposed
in the Draft EIS.
Mr. Louis Moore and Mr. Timothy Hoberg indicated that large sums
of money were at stake and asked what guarantees there were that
the new plant would perform as required and who provides these
guarantees. In answer to these questions, note that when facili-
ties are constructed, USF.PA requires that the grantee certify to
the reviewing agencies, one year after the start of operation,
5-44
-------
whether or not the facilities are capable of meeting project per-
formance standards. If not, a corrective action report with a
schedule and an estimated date when the plant will meet standards
is required. All costs of corrective action or repair are a
local responsibility (except for certain innovative or alterna-
tive projects). As such, the grantee can request certain guaran-
tees or other protections in their subagreements with the en-
gineers, contractors, equipment suppliers and others associated
with construction and performance of the project.
Mr. Roger Hardin (Mayor of Bethel) asked if limited connections
to the Bethel sewer system could be made before the project was
implemented and the connection ban in Bethel was lifted. Since
the Ohio EPA District Engineer issued the ban, such a request
should be directed to the Ohio EPA District Office. There, a
determination would be made, probably based on their evaluation
of the urgency of need and the severity of additional pollution
which would be associated with the connection.
Mr. Dave Kabrin and Mr. Paul Parlier described high groundwater
and drainage problems at their residences around Rantum and re-
quested information on when sewers would be available. The Draft
EIS stated that there would be no sewer extensions in the Phase 1
project and that analysis to date has shown that it is much less
costly to solve on-site system malfunctions in that area (and
most areas in Clermont County) by addressing the specific prob-
lems with the appropriate corrective action.
Mr. Gerald Raiser questioned the wisdom of Phase 1 design and
sizing of facilities when total flows would not be determined
until Phase 2 when no excess capacity could be obtained for
growth. In answer to this, it should be understood that Phase 1
addresses only the most urgent problems associated with the
Bethel connection ban and that the facilities proposed will be
necessary regardless of the final flows and effluent limitations.
Phase 2 will address the total problem including those of the
unsewered areas. Final flows, effluent limits and sizing will be
established then. Excess capacity for growth will be factored
into the final sizing, however, the cost of this excess capacity
will not be grant-eligible.
5-45
-------
Mr. David Kahrin and Mr. Paul Parlier inquired as to whether or
not the Ratum area will be provided with sewers. Sewer exten-
sions will not be constructed under the Phase 1 project and no
sewers are projected tor that area under the Phase 2 project,
however, the On-site Management District to be created under
Phase 2 will address those problems.
Mr. Dave Kabrin questioned the coverage of the sanitary opinion
survey indicating that his area was not covered. An unidentified
person indicated that petitions circulated in North Ray Township
several years ago received HO percent response favoring sewers
for the area.
Mr. Ed Thompson (McGill & Smith, Inc.) questioned the design of
the plant before stream flows and effluent limits were finalized
and was concerned about constructing facilities at great expense
which may not be required after the planning is completed. It
should be understood that the Phase I/phase 2 concept addresses
this lack of crucial design data and that Phase 1 only proposes
facilities which would be required as a minimum regardless of the
final flows and effluent limitations.
Mr. Ralph Houser spoke of odors and aesthetic problems at his
property downstream from the Rethel plant and indicated that he
favored the Phase 1 project which addresses the problems at
Bethel.
Mr. David Smith requested clarification regarding the difficulty
mentioned in the Draft BIS concerning the implementation of an
On-site Management District. The problem alluded to here in-
volves the fact that sanitary districts in Ohio are not legally
authorized to manage on-site systems. The Ohio EPA, the Depart-
ment of Health, the Ohio Attorney General, and USEPA have invest-
igated various options. Last year, the State approved and USEPA
funded a county operated on-site management district project in
Ohio. An On-site Management District for the Middle Bast Fork
planning area will be further investigated and implemented under
the Phase 2 project.
Mr. Dave Kabrin questioned the relativity of soil sampling done
earlier this year (1984) for a project that may not be completed
5-46
-------
for 3 to 5 years. In response to this, the soils characteristics
determined in sampling this year should not change in the years
it will take to complete this project. Mr. Kabrin indicated that
in the past 10 years, the water table has risen in his area.
There were no other comments or questions and the public hearing
was adjourned.
5-47
-------
-------
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Aronson, R., and E. S. Schwartz (editors). 1975. Management policies
in local government finance. International City Managers
Association, Washington DC.
Balke Engineers. 1979. Infiltration/inflow analysis for the Village
of Bethel. In Draft wastewater facilities plan Middle East Fork
area, Clermont County, Ohio. Cincinnati OH, 31p.
Balke Engineers. 1980. Plan of study for the Middle East Fork
facility planning area. For Clermont County Water and Sewer
District. Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Balke Engineers. 1981. Infiltration and inflow analysis for the
Amelia-Batavia sewerage system. In Draft wastewater facilities
plan Middle East Fork area, Clerraont County, Ohio. Cincinnati
OH, 23p.
Balke Engineers. 1982a. Draft wastewater facilities plan Middle East
Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio. Cincinnati OH, variously
paged.
Balke Engineers. 1982b. On-site wastewater disposal in the Middle
East Fork Planning Area: problems, alternatives and recommended
action. Prepared as a technical supplement to the Middle East
Fork Facilities Plan. Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Balke Engineers. 1982c. Development of alternatives cost effective-
ness analysis, Middle East Fork facilities plan, Clermont County,
Ohio. Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Balke Engineers. 1982d. Sewer system evaluation survey. Village of
Bethel, Prepared for the Clermont County Commissioners.
Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Balke Engineers. 1982e. Summary report on a second-level public
meetings for the Middle East Fork wastewater facilities planning
project. Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Balke Engineers, 1983a. Surface water quality related to on-site
wastewater disposal in the Middle East Fork Planning Area. Pre-
pared as a technical supplement to the Middle East Fork
Facilities Plan. Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Balke Engineers. 1983b. Final recommendations: solutions to on-site
disposal problems in the Middle East Fork Planning Area. Pre-
pared as a technial supplement to the Middle East Fork Wastewater
Facilities Plan, Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Brown, D.V., and R.K. White. 1977. Septage disposal alternatives in
rural areas. Research bulletin 1096. Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center, Wooster, OH, lip.
6-1
-------
Clermont County Assessors Office. 1982. Assessed valuations for
villages and townships in Clermont County. Unpublished, Batavia,
Ohio, 2 pages.
Clermont County Planning Commission. 1976.
Clerraont County. Batavia Ohio, 6 p.
Land Market Factors in
Clermont County Planning Commission.
Batavia OH, variously paged.
1979. Subdivision regulations.
Clermont County Sewer District. 1983. Official statement relating
to the original issuance of $3,700,000 sewer system revenue
bonds. Satavia Ohio, 61 pages with appendices.
Cohen, S. and H. Wallraan. 1974. Demonstration of waste flow reduc-
tion from households. US Environmental Protection Agency,
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati OH.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1979. Environmental quality. The
tenth annual report of the council on environmental quality.
US Government Printing office, Washington DC, 816 p.
Ellis, B.C., and A. E. Erickson. 1969. Movement and transformation of
various phosphorus compounds in soils. Soil Science Department,
Michigan State University and Michigan Water Resources Commission,
East Lansing MI, 35 p.
Enfield, C.G. 1973. Evaluation of phosphorus models for prediction
of percolate water quality in land treatment. In; McKim,
Harlan L. (Coordinator), State of Knowledge in land treatment
of wastewater, vol. 1. US Army COE Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory, Hanover NH, 430 p. (p. 153-162)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (Federal Insurance Agency). 1980.
Flood insurance study for unincorporated areas of Clermont
County, Ohio. Community Number 390065. 25 pp with flood profile
attachments.
Geldreich, E.E., L.C. Best, B.A. Kenner, and D. J. Donsel. 1968. The
bacteriological aspects of stormwater pollution. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol 40, Washington D.C., p 1861-
1872.
Geldreich, E.E. and B.A. Kenner. 1969. Concept of fecal streptococci
in stream pollution. Journal Water Pollution Control Fedeation,
Vol 41, Washington D.C., p. R336-R352.
Grieves, Robert T. 1983. "A $1.6 billion nuclear fiasco."
magazine, 31 October 1983, New York NY p. 96, 99.
Time
Hartig, J.H., and F.J. Horvath. 1982. A preliminary assessment of
Michigan's phosphorus detergent ban. Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation 54(2): 194-197.
6-2
-------
Hickey, J.L.S., and P.C. Reist. 1975. Health significance of
airborne microorganisms from wastewater treatment processes.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, volume 47.
Hutzler, N.J., L.K. Waldorf, and J. Fancy. 1978. Performance of
aerobic treatment units. In; Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium (ASAE) Publication
5-77), American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph
MI, pp. 149-163.
Jones, David, and James Simpson. 1983. Report on Williamsburg
Infiltration/Inflow Analysis, Middle East Fork Facilities
Planning Area, Clermont County. Ohio EPA, Columbus OH, 4 p.
Jones, R.A., and G.F. Lee. 1977. Septic tank disposal systems as
phosphorus sources for surface waters. EPA 600/3-77-129.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada OK.
McGill & Smith, Inc. Undated. Environmental assessment, Lower East
Fork, Little Miami River sewerage facilities. Prepared for the
Clermont County Sewer District, Clermont County OH, 26 p.
McGill & Smith, Inc. 1974. Facilities plan, Lower East Fork, Little
Miami River, regional sewerage project. Prepared for the
Clermont County Sewer District, Clermont County OH, 21 p.
McGill & Smith, Inc. 1981a. Preliminary draft, infiltration and
inflow analysis for the Village of Batavia. In Draft wastewater
facilities plan Middle East Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio.
Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
McGill & Smith, Inc. 1981b. Infiltration and inflow analysis for the
Village of Williamsburg. In_ Draft wastewater facilities plan
Middle East Fork area, Clermont County, Ohio. Cincinnati OH,
variously paged.
McLaughlin, E. R.
residences.
1968. A recycle system for conservation of water in
Water and Sewage Works 115:4, pp. 175-176.
Machmeier, R.E. 1975. Design criteria for soil treatment systems.
Paper No. 75-2577. Department of Agricultural Engineering,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul MN, 35 pp.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1979.
Company, 920 p.
Wastewater engineering. McGraw Hill Book
Moak, L.L. , and A.M. Hillhouse. 1975. Concepts and practices in
local government finance. Municipal Finance Officers Association
of the US and Canada, Chicago IL.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983a. Financial report of townships:
Williamsburg Township, Clermont County. Unpublished, Columbus
OH, 34 pages.
6-3
-------
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983b. Financial report of townships:
Stonelick Township, Clerraont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH,
34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983c. Financial report of townships:
Ohio Township, Clermont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH,
34 pages,
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983d. Financial report of townships: Monroe
Township, Clerraont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983e. Financial report of townships: Tate
Township, Clermont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983f. Financial report of townships:
Jackson Township, Clermont Coutity. Unpublished, Columbus OH,
34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. I983g. Financial report of townships: Pierce
Township, Clermont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983h. Financial report of townships:
Batavia Township, Clermont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH,
34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983i. Financial report of townships: Union
Township, Clermont County. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 34 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983j. Annual financial report for Village
of Amelia. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 26 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983k. Annual financial report for Village
of Batavia. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 33 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 19831. Annual financial report for Village
of Bethel. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 33 pages.
Ohio Auditor of State. 1983m. Annual financial report for Village
of Williamsburg. Unpublished, Columbus OH, 33 pages.
Ohio Department of Health. 1977. Home sewage disposal rules, an
interpretive guide. Columbus OH, variously paged.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1972. An inventory of Ohio
soils, Clermont County. Division of Lands and Soils, Columbus
OH, 48 p.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. 1983.
East Fork Lake 1982 annual report. Second of two annual reports.
Columbus OH, variously paged.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Preliminary draft on
East Fork Little Miami River Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
Columbus OH, variously paged and appendices.
6-4
-------
OKI (Regional. Council of Governments). 1976. Facilities Plan for the
Middle East Fork Planning Area. Prepared by Harry Balke
Engineers and Harxa Engineering Company. Cincinnati OH, 381 p
and appendices.
OKI (Regional Council of Governments). 1977. Little Miami River
basin plan within OKI region. Cincinnati OH, variously paged
and appendices.
OKI (Regional Council of Governments). 1977. Regional water quality
management plan. Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
OKI (Regional Council of Governments). 1978. Development policies.
Cincinnati OH, 158 p.
OKI (Regional Council of Governments). 1981. Regional development
framework: background report. Cincinnati OH, 33 pages with
appendices.
OKI (Regional Council of Governments). 1981a. Land use plan for the
Village of Bethel, Ohio. Cincinnati OH, 72 p.
OKI (Regional Council of Governments). 1981b. Land use plan for the
Village of Williamsburg, Ohio. Cincinnati OH, 149 p.
OKI Regional Planning Authority. 1971. Regional development plan.
Cincinnati OH, variously paged.
Otis, R.J. 1979. Alternative wastewater facilities for small communi-
ties - a case study. Jji: Proceedings of a Workshop on
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems. UILU-WRC-79-0010.
Water Resources Center and Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Illinois - Urbana. Urbana IL, pp.44-69.
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. 1983. Final report, model on-site
sewage disposal management program for the State of Ohio. Pre-
pared for the Ohio Water Development Authority. Washington DC,
variously paged.
Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater treatment reuse by
land application, Volume 1, Summary. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC, 80 pp.
Scalf, M.R., W.J. Dunlap, and J.F. Kriessl. 1977. Environmental
effects of septic tank systems. EPA 600/3-77-096. Robert S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory. Ada OK, 35 pp.
Siegrist, R.L., T. Woltanski, and C.E. Waldorf. 1978. Water conser-
vation and wastewater disposal. In_; Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium (ASAE Publication 5-77).
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph MI,
pp. 121-136.
6-5
-------
Slade, Robert K. 1964. Early Days in Clerraont County.
Manchester Signal, Manchester, Ohio.
The
Slonecker, E. Terrence. 1981a. Septic systems performance analysis
- Clerraont County, Ohio. Volume 1. The Bionetics Corporation,
Warrenton VA for Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Las Vegas NV, 19 p.
Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil survey of Clermont County,
Ohio. US Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and
Soil, and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
Washington DC, 97 pp. and map sheets.
Spencer, Robert F. and Jesse D. Jennings, et al. 1965.
Americans, pp. 57-100. Harper and Row, New York.
The Native
Tsai, C. 1973. Water quality and fish life below sewage outfalls.
Transactions of American Fisheries Society 102 (281).
US (Army) Corps of Engineers. 1974. Environmental impact statement
on the East Fork Lake Project. Volume 1 of final updated
version. District Office Louisville KY, 99 pp. with appendices.
US (Army) Corps of Engineers. 1979. Water resources development by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Ohio. Ohio River Division,
Cincinnati OH, 92 p.
US (Army) Corps of Engineers. 1981. Reservoir regulation plan,
William H. Harsha Lake. District Office, Louisville KY.
US (Army) Corps of Engineers. 1983. Preliminary draft hydro-power
feasibility study for William H. Harsha Lake, Ohio. December
1983. Conducted as a part of the Miami River, Little Miami
River, and Mill Creek Basins, Ohio Interim Report Number 4.
District Office Louisville KY, 93 pp., with plates.
US Bureau of the Census. 1983. General Social and Economic Character-
istics. Ohio Volume 1, Chapter C, part 37. US Government Print-
ing Office, Washington DC.
USEPA. 1976. Disinfection of wastewater.
Washington DC.
EPA 430/9-75-012
USPEA. 1977a. EPA's research and development report on wastewater
disinfection. Technology Transfer, Environmental Research
Information Center. Washington DC.
USEPA. 1977b. Alternatives for small wastewater treatment systems,
on-site disposal/septage treatment and disposal.
EPA 625/4-77-011. Technology Transfer, Washington DC, 90 p.
6-6
-------
USEPA. 1979a. Grant funding of projects requiring treatment more
stringent than secondary. Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM)
#79-7. Office of Water and Waste Management, Washington DC.
USEPA. 1979b. (Draft) Management of on-site and alternative waste-
water systems. Prepared for USEPA Environmental Research Infor-
mation Center, by Roy F. Weston, Inc., Cincinnati OH, 111 pp.
USEPA. 1980a. Manual for on-site wastewater treatment and disposal
systems. Prepared for USEPA by SCS Engineers and Rural Systems
Engineering, Washington DC, variously paged.
USEPA. 1980b. Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under
uncertainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients.
EPA 440/5-80-011. Clean Lakes Section, Washington DC.
USEPA. 1980c. Planning wastewater management facilities for small
communities. Prepared for USEPA, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, by Urban Systems Research Engineering, Inc.,
EPA 600/8-80-030, Cincinnati OH, 141 pp.
USEPA. 1981. Facilities planning 1981. Municipal wastewater treat-
ment. EPA 430/9-81-002. Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington DC, 116 p.
USEHA. 1982a. Costruction Grants 82 (CG-82). EPA 430/9-81-020.
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington DC, 127 p. and
appendices.
USEPA. 1982b. Management of on-site and small community wastewater
systems. EPA 600/8-82-009. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati OH, 223 p.
USEPA. 1983a. Final-generic environmental impact statement for waste-
water management in rural lake areas. USEPA Region V, Water
Division, Chicago IL, variously paged.
USEPA. 1983c. Finding of no significant impact, Meigs County -
Tuppers Plains, Ohio Wastewater Facilities Plan. Chicago IL,
19 p. and 3 exhibits.
US Geological Survey. 1981. Water resources data for Ohio; Volume 1
Ohio River Basin, water year 1980. Columbus OH, 620 pp.
Willey, Gordon R. 1960. An introduction to American Archaeology:
North and Middle America, Volume One, pp. 246-342. Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
6-7
-------
-------
7.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) was prepared
by ESEI, inc., EcolSciences Environmental Group, South Bend,
Indiana, under contract to the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Region V. Information and material from the
Draft EIS were used extensively in the preparation of this
document. The Draft F.IS was prepared by WAPORA, Inc., under
contract to USEPA. The USEPA Project Officers and WAPORA staff
involved in the preparation of the Draft RIS are given in Chapter
6 of that document. The USEPA Project Officers and ESEI staff
involved in the preparation of the Final EIS were:
USEPA
Gene Wojcik
Charles Brasher
Project Officer
Project Monitor
ESEI, inc.
John H. Baldwin
James C. Williamson
William T. Fritz
Steven E. Williams*
Nancy L. Gibbons
Project Administrator
Project Manager,
Senior Scientist
and Principal Author
Biolog1st
Senior Engineer
Editor and Word-
processor
Williams & Works, Inc., an ESEI subcontractor,
Cover photography by Charles Brasher.
7-1
-------
-------
8.0. INDEX
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: 5-6, 5-28
Aerial photographic survey: 2-42, 2-44, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50
Aerobic systems: 2-40, 2-48, 2-71
Air quality: 3-28
odors: 2-90, 3-29
standards: 3-28
Alternatives: 2-74 to 2-95
Draft Facilities Plan: 2-76, 2-8R to 2-95
EIS alternatives: 1-9
evaluation and comparison of: 2-86 to 2-95
Mo action alternative: 2-75
on-site systems: 2-68, 2-85, 2-101
Am-Bat WWTP: 2-1 to 2-7, 2-54, 2-92, 2-99, 2-100, 3-14, 5-18
Aquatic biota: 3-31
Archaeology: (See Cultural resources)
Atmosphere: (See Climate)
Balke Engineers: 5-18 to 5-23
Batavia: 2-14, 2-78 to 2-80, 2-88, 2-97, 3-14
Berry Gardens: 2-34, 2-79, 2-93, 2-101
Bethel: 2-8, 2-78, 2-90, 2-96, 5-45
Blackwater: 2-70
Clermont County: 1-1
8-1
-------
Climate: 3-27
impacts: 4-3, 4-5, 4-9
Cluster systems: 2-72
Collector lines: 2-72
Construction Grants: 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 2-95, 2-97,
2-100, 2-101
Costs: 2-79, 2-83, 2-86, 2-88, 2-91 to 2-93
Cultural resources:
archaeology: 3-58
historic: 3-58, 3-59
impacts: 4-4, 4-10, 5-3 to 5-5, 5-27, 5-28
Demographics:
impacts: 4-7, 5-2, 5-27
population estimates: 2-3, 2-9, 2-15, 2-20, 2-30,
2-34, 2-37, 3-49
population projections: 2-85, 3-51 to 3-53
population trends: 3-49 to 3-51
Dosing: 2-69
Dual soil absorption systems: 2-69
Economics: 2-62, 3-46, 3-53
employment: 3-46
impacts: 4-4, 4-6
labor force: 3-47, 3-48
unemployment: 3-48, 3-49
Effluent disposal methods:
surface water discharge: 2-65
land application: 2-65, 2-66
Effluent limits: 2-59, 2-61, 2-76, 2-82, 2-84, 2-87,
2-88, 2-92, 2-93
8-2
-------
Kffluent quality: 2-6, 2-12, 2-19, 2-24, 2-29, 2-32,
2-35, 2-39
Effluent treatment methods: (See Treatment technologies)
Employment: 3-46
Endangered species: 3-32
Energy: 3-57
Eutrophication: 3-20
Facilities planning:
costs: (See Costs)
Draft Facilities Plan:
grant: 1-5
1-4 to 1-7, 2-76, 2-79, 2-83
Fecal coliform sampling data: 2-44, 3-22 to 3-26
Federal funding: 1-7, 1-8, 1-10
Field surveys: 2-44
Finances:
Clermont County: 3-57
Clermont County Sewer District: 3-56
impacts: 4-7
income: 3-53, 3-55
local government: 3-54, 3-55
Floodplains: 3-12, 3-26, 5-29
Geography: 1-1
Geology: 3-2
Graywater: 2-57
Groundwater: 3-15
impacts: 4-3, 4-6, 5-2, 5-27
8-3
-------
Harsha Lake: 3-9, 3-12
biochemical properties: 3-19 to 3-26
biology of: 3-31
impacts: 4-3, 4-5, 5-7, 5-12, 5-29, 5-30
visitation & recreation: 3-42
Historical resources: (See Cultural resources)
Holly Towne MHP: 2-30, 2-79, 2-93, 2-101
Hydrology: 3-8
Infiltration/inflow: 2-3, 2-9, 2-15, 2-52
Impacts: 4-1 (Also see Operation, Primary, Secondary
impacts)
Income: 3-53, 3-55
Industrial discharge: 2-53
Issues: 1-12, 1-13
Lake use: 3-15
Land use:
Ratavia: 3-34 to 3-36
Bethel: 3-36 to 3-38
Clermont County: 3-33
future development: 3-40
impacts: 4-6
planning area: 3-33
recreational: 3-42, 5-2, 5-20, 5-27
Williamsburg: 3-38 to 3-40
Lot size analysis: 2-42
Lower East Fork system: 2-35, 2-91
8-4
-------
Mitigation of. adverse impacts: 4-3 to 4-7
National Pollutant Discharge Blimination
system: 1-10, 2-59
National Oceanic ft Atmospheric Administration:
5-9, 5-10, 5-23, 5-29
Noise: 3-28, 4-3
Odors: 2-90, 3-29, 4-3, 4-5, 5-46
Ohio Historical Society: 5-15
On-site system failures: 2-46
backups: 2-46
contamination of yroundwater: 2-46
contamination of surface water: 2-47
identification of extent of problems: 4-48
impacts: 2-47
ponding: 2-46
probable areas of failure: 2-42 to 2-48
recommended action: 2-101
On-site waste treatment systems: 2-40, 2-68
alternatives: 2-68
costs: 2-86
evaluation method: 2-41
failures: 2-44 to 2-46, 5-24 to 5-26, 5-31, 5-45
impacts of: 2-46
inspection: 2-41
maintenance: 2-41
performance of: 2-4.1
permits: 2-43
re-analysis of: 2-85 .
soils analysis: 2-42
types: 2-40
Operation impacts: 4-5 to 4-7
8-5
-------
Parcel size analysis: (See Lot size analysis}
Permits: 2-43, 2-59, 2-71, 5-11, 5-29
Phosphorus: 2-57, 3-16
ban on: 2-57
projections: 3-16
reduction ot: 2-70
removal: 2-84
Planning period: 2-52
Population estimates: (See Demographics)
Primary impacts: 4-3, 4-4
Public hearing: 5-32
Public participation: 1-11, 5-1
Public water supply: 3-13, 3-44
impacts: 5-2, 5-13, 5-27
Recommended Action: 2-95 to 2-101
impacts: 4-1
Rey ionalization alternatives:
Am-Bat WWTP: 2-92, 3-14, 5-44
Batavia WWTP: 2-88, 5-44
Bethel WWTP: 2-90
Berry Gardens MHP WWTP: 2-93
Holly Towne MHP WWTP: 2-93
Williamsburg WWTP: 2-89
Resource commitments: 4-9, 4-10
Sanitary opinion questionnaire: 2-46
Sand filters: 2-48, 2-70
8-6
-------
Secondary impacts: 4-8, 5-2, 5-27
Septage disposal: 2-51, 2-73, 5-7, 5-18, 5-29
Septic tanks: 2-40, 2-68, 2-69, 5-24 to 5-26, 5-31, 5-45
Service areas: 2-1, 2-9, 2-14, 2-20, 2-27, 2-30, 2-34, 2-37
Sewer system evaluation survey: 2-11, 2-52
Shayler Run: 2-91, 2-97, 2-99
Sludge disposal: 2-68, 5-8, 5-29
Soil absorption systems: 2-48 to 2-50, 2-68, 3-3
Soils: 2-42, 3-3, 3-8, 4-3, 4-5, 4-9
Special Sanitary District: 2-41, 2-70
State Clearinghouse: 5-16, 5-17
State Historic Preservation Officer: 5-6, 5-15, 5-28
Streams:
flows: 3-9
use: 3-12, 3-15
biochemical properties:
3-16 to 3-19
Terrestrial biota:
vegetation and landscape: 3-29
wildlife: 3-30
Topography and physiography: 3-1
Transportation: 3-42, 4-4
Treatment technologies:
land application: 2-65, 2-66
physical-chemical: 2-66
physical-biological: 2-66
reuse: 2-67
surface water discharge: 2-65
8-7
-------
Treatment systems:
aerobic: 2-in, 2-48, 2-71
on-site: (See On-site wastewater treatment systems)
USCOE: 5-11 to 5-14, 5-29 to 5-31
USCOE Kast Fork Park System: 2-26
U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services: 5-7, 5-29
U.S. Dept. of Interior: 5-2, 5-27
Waste assimilation: 3-14
Wastewater flows: 2-3, 2-9, 2-15, 2-20, 2-27, 2-34, 2-37
2-52, 2-86
Wastewater load factors: 2-57, 2-5R
Wastewater management:
alternative systems: (See Treatment technologies)
collection systems: 2-64
design factors: 2-51
infiltration/inflow: 2-52
on-site systems: 2-68, 2-85, 2-101
planning: 1-1 to 1-8
Wastewater treatment systems: 2-3, 2-12, 2-17, 2-22, 2-29,
2-30, 2-35, 2-37
Water conservation: 2-54
impacts: 2-55
results: 2-55
reuse systems: 2-67
use of: 2-41
waste segregation: 2-56, 2-70
water saving measures: 2-54, 2-55
8-8
-------
Water resource management: 3-12
Water resource planning: 1-7
Water quality:
criteria: 3-11
Harsha Lake: 3-19 to 3-26
impacts: 2-47, 5-7, 5-29
streams: 3-16 to 3-19
surface water: 3-16 to 3-26
Williamsburg: 2-19, 2-78, 2-80, 2-82, 2-89, 2-98
8-9
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TRRMS
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Activated sludge process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which a suspended microbiological culture is maintained inside an
aerated treatment basin. The microbial organisms oxidize the complex
organic matter in the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and energy.
Advanced treatment. Wastewater treatment to treatment levels that
provide for maximum monthly average BOD and SS concentrations less
than 10 rag/1 and/or total nitrogen removal of greater than 50% (total
nitrogen removal = TKN + nitrite and nitrate).
Aerated lagoon. A wastewater pond to which air is artificially added to
hasten biological decomposition. Air is introduced by release of
compressed air below the surface or. by stirring air into the water
surface.
Aeration. To circulate oxygen through a substance, as in wastewater treat-
ment, where it aids in purification.
Aerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the presence of
oxygen.
Aerosol. A suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas.
Algae, Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of water in relative
proportion to the amounts of nutrients available. Algal blooms, or
sudden growth spurts, can affect water quality adversely.
Algal bloom. A proliferation of algae on the surface of lakes, streams or
ponds. Algal blooms are stimulated by phosphate and nitrate
enrichment.
A-l
-------
Alluvial. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a stream.
Ambient air. Any unconfined portion of the atmosphere: open air.
Ammonia-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH ) that is produced
in nature when nitrogen-containing organic material is biologically
decomposed.
Anaerobic. Refers to life or processes that occur in the absence of
oxygen.
Anoxia. Condition where oxygen is deficient or absent.
Aquifer. A geologic stratum or unit that is saturated with water and will
yield -its water to wells and springs at a sufficient rate for prac-
tical use. The water may reside in and travel through innumerable
small or cavernous openings formed by solution in a limestone aquifer,
or fissures, cracks, and rubble in such harder rocks as shale.
Bar screen. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large floating
and suspended solids.
Base flow. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel that occurs
typically during rainless periods, when stream flow is maintained
largely or entirely by discharges of groundwater.
Bedrock. The solid rock beneath the soil.
Benthic. Referring to organisms, primarily animals, living in the bottom
sediments of lakes and rivers.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). A bioassay-type procedure in which the
weight of oxygen utilized by microorganisms to oxidize and assimilate
the organic matter present per liter of water is determined. It is
common to note the number of days during which a test was conducted as
a subscript to the abbreviated name. For example, BOD indicates that
A-2
-------
the results aie based on a five-day long (120-hour) test. The BOD
value is a relative measure of the amount (load) of living and dead
oxidizable organic matter in water. A high demand deplete the supply
of oxygen in the water, temporarily or for a prolonged time, to the
degree, that many or all kinds of aquatic organisms are killed. Deter-
minations of BOD are useful in the evaluation of the impact of waste-
water on receiving waters.
Biota. The plants and animals of an area.
Capital costs. All costs associated with installation (as opposed to
operation) of a project.
cfs. Cubic feet per second. The volume in cubic feet of water passing a
given point every second.
Chlorinatlon. The application of chlorine to drinking water, sewage or
industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation of undesirable
compounds.
Circulation period. The interval of time in which the density stratifica-
tion of a lake is destroyed by the equalization of temperature, as a
result of which the entire water mass becomes mixed.
Clay. The smallest mineral particles in soil, less than .004 mm in dia-
meter; soil that contains at least 40% clay particles, less than 45%
sand, and less than 40% silt.
Coliform bacteria. Members of a large group of bacteria that flourish in
the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded animals, including man.
Fecal coliform bacteria, particularly Escherichia colji ( E. coli),
enter water mostly in fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runoff.
Coliforms apparently do not cause serious human diseases, but these
organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are fairly easy to
detect. The abundance of coliforms in water, therefore, is used as an
index to the probability of the occurrence of such disease-producing
A-3
-------
organisms (pathogens) as Salmonel la, Shigella, and enteric viruses
which are otherwise relatively difficult to detect.
Comminutor. A machine that breaks up wastewater solids.
Community. The plants and animals in a particular area that are closely
related through food chains and other interactions.
Cost-effectiveness guidelines. Developed by USEPA to aid grantees in the
selection of the waste treatment management system component which
will result in the minimum total resources cost over a fixed period of
time to meet federal, state, and local requirements.
Cultural resources. Fragile and nonrenewable sites, districts, buildings
structures, or objects representative of our heritage. Cultural
resources are divided into three categories: historical, architect-
ural, or archaeological. Cultural resources of special significance
may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places.
Demographic, Pertaining to the science of vital and special statistics,
especially with regard to population density and capacity for expan-
sion or decline.
Design flow. The average quantity of wastewater which a treatment facility
is designed to handle, usually expressed in millions of gallons per
day (mgd).
Design period. Time span over which wastewater treatment facilities are
expected to be operating; period over which facility costs are
amortized.
Detention time. Average time required for water to flow through a basin.
Also called retention time. Or, the time required for natural pro-
cesses to replace the entire volume of a lake's water, assuming com-
plete mixing.
A-4
-------
Digestion. In wastewater treatment a closed tank, sometimes heated to 95°F
where sludge is subjected to intensified bacterial action.
Disinfection. Effective killing by chanical or physical processes of alt
organisms capable of causing infectious disease. Chlorination is the
disinfection method commonly employed in sewage treatment processes.
Dissolved oxygen (DO). Oxygen gas (0 ) in water. It is utilized in res-
piration by fish and other aquatic organisms, and those organisms
may be injured or killed when the concentration is low. Because much
oxygen diffuses into water from the air, the concentration of DO is
greater, other conditions being equal, at sea level than at high
elevations, during periods of high atmospheric pressure than during
periods of low pressure, and when the water is turbulent (during
rainfall, in rapids, and waterfalls) rather than when it is placid.
Because cool water can absorb more oxygen than warm water, the concen-
tration tends to be greater at low temperatures than at high tempera-
tures. Dissolved oxygen is depleted by the oxidation of organic
matter and of various inorganic chemicals. Should depletion be ex-
treme, the water may become anaerobic and could stagnate and stink.
Drainage basin. A geographical area or region which is so sloped and
contoured that surface runoff from streams and other natural water-
courses is carried away by a single drainage system by gravity to a
common outlet or outlets; also referred to as a watershed or drainage
area.
Effluent. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely treated, or
in its natural state, flowing out of a reservoir, basin, treatment
plant, or industrial treatment plant, or part thereof.
Effluent limitations. The maximum amount of a pollutant that a point
source may discharge into a water body. They may allow some or no
discharge at all, depending on the specific pollutant to be controlled
and the water quality standards established for the receiving waters.
A-5
-------
Effluent limited. Stream segments which meet and will continue to meet
water quality standards once the national uniform point source con-
trols are applied.
KIS. Environmental Impact Statement.
Endangered species (federal classification). Any species of animal or
plant declared to be in known danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant part of its range. Protected under Public Law 93-205 as
amended.
Epil iron ion. The turbulent superficial layer of a lake lying above the
rae.ta limn ion which does not have a permanent thermal stratification.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A detailed analysis of the potential
environmental impacts a proposed project requries when the USEPA
Regional Administrator determines that a project is highly contro-
versial or may have significant adverse environmental effects.
Eutrophic. Waters with a high concentration of nutrients and hence a large
production of vegetation and frequent die-offs of plants and animals.
Eutrophication. The progressive enrichment of a surface waters, partic-
ularly non-flowing bodies of water such as lakes and ponds, with dis-
solved nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen compounds, which
accelerate the growth of algae and higher forms of plant life and
result in the utilization of the usable oxygen content of the waters
at the expense of other aquatic life forms.
Fauna. The total animal life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Fecal coliform bacteria. See coliform bacteria.
Floodplain. Belt of low, flat ground bordering a stream channel subject to
periodic inundation.
A-6
-------
'loodway. Thi ,-irtion of the floodplain which carries moving water during
a flood event.
Flood fringe. The part of the floodplain which serves as a storage area
during a flood event.
Flora. The total plant life of a particular geographic area or habitat.
Flowmeter. A guage that indicates the amount of flow of wastewater moving
through a treatment plant.
Forbs. Non-woody low vegetation species such as composites or legumes.
Forcemain. A pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
Grant-eligible. Refers to cost of planning and constructing a treatment
facility which may receive federal funds under the EPA Construction
Grants program.
Gravity system. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which no liquid
pumping is required.
Gravity sewer. A sewer in which wastewater flows naturally down-gradient
by the force of gravity.
Grinder pump (GP). Pumping facilities designed to macerate and transfer
raw wastewater from a residence to a higher estimate to discharge to a
gravity sewer.
Groundwater. All subsurface water, especially that part in the zone of
saturation.
Holding tank. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass, steel, or concrete,
for the storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal at another
location.
A-7
-------
Hypolimnion. The deep layer of a lake lying below the epilmnion and the
meta limnion and removed from surface influences.
Infiltration. The water entering a sewer system and service connections
from the ground through such means as, but not limited to, defective
pipes, pipe joints, improper connections, or manhole walls. Infiltra-
tion does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.
Inflow. The water discharged into a wastewater collection system and
service connections from such sources as, but not limited to, roof
leaders, cellars, yard and area drains, foundation drains, cooling
water discharges, drains from springs and swampy areas, manhole
covers, cross—connections from storm sewers and combined sewers, catch
basins, storm waters, surface runoff, street wash waters or drainage.
Inflow does not include, and is distinguished from, infiltration.
Influent. Water, wnstewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment facility, or any unit thereof.
Interceptor sewer. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from
a series of trunk sewers and to convey it to a sewage treatment plant.
Innovative technology. A technology whose use has not been widely docu-
mented by experience and is not a variant of conventional biological
or physical/chemical treatment.
Lagoon. In wastewater treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-made, in
which sunlight, algal and bacteria action and oxygen interact to
restore the wastewater to a reasonable state of purity.
Land treatment. A method of treatment in wich the soil, air, vegetation,
bacteria, and fungi are employed to remove pollutants from wastewater.
In its most simple form, the method includes three steps: (1) pre-
treatment to screen out large solids; (2) secondary treatment and
chlorination; and (3) spraying over cropland, pasture, or natural
vegetation to allow plants and soil microorganisms to remove addi-
A-8
-------
tional pollutants. Some of the sprayed water evaporates, and the
remainder may be allowed to percolate to the water table, discharged
through drain tiles, or reclaimed by wells.
Leachate. Solution formed when water percolates through solid wastes, soil
or other materials and extracts soluble or suspended substances from
material.
Lift station. A facility in a collector sewer system, consisting of a
recieving chamber, pumping equipment, and associated drive and control
devices, that collects wastewater from a low-lying district at some
convenient point, from which it is lifted to another portion of the
col lector system.
Littoral. The shoreward region of a body of water.
Loam. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount of sand,
silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of clay, 28 to 50% of
silt, and less than 52% of sand.
Loess. Wind transported sediments derived from fine glacial outwash
materials.
Macroinvertebrates. Invertebrates that are visible to the unaided eye
(those retained by a standard No. 30 sieve, which has 28 meshes per
inch or 0.595 mm openings); generally connotates bottom-dwelling
aquatic animals (benthos).
Macrophyte. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an aquatic
habitat.
Mesotrophic. Waters with a moderate supply of nutrients and no significant
production of organic matter.
A-9
-------
Metalimnion. The layer of water in a lake bewteen the epilimnion and
hypolimnion tn which the temperature exhibits the greatest difference
in a vertical direction.
Miligram per liter (rag/1). A concentration of 1/1000 gram of a substance
in I liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure water weighs 1,000
grams, the concentration also can be stated as 1 ppm (part per mil-
lion, by weight). Used to measure and report the concentrations of
most substances that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
Mound. A mound, constructed of sand, to which settled wastewater is
applied. Usually used in areas where the thickness of soils and/or
depth to watertable are inadequate for conventional on-site treatment.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The effluent
discharge permit system established under the 1972 FWPCA which places
conditions on the type and concentration of pollutants permitted in
the effluent; and schedules for achieving compliance.
National Register of Historic Places. Official listing of the cultural
resources of the Nation that are worthy of preservation. Listing on
the National Register makes property owners eligible to be considered
for Federal grants-in-aid for historic preservation through state
programs. Listing also provides potection through comment by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on the effect of Federally
financed, assisted, or licensed undertakings on historic properties.
Nitrate-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrate (NO ). It is the most
oxidized phase in the nitrogen cycle in nature and occurs in high
concentrations in the final stages of biological oxidation. It can
serve as a nutrient for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants.
Nitrite-nitrogen. Nitrogen in the form of nitrite (NO ). It is an inter-
mediate stage in the nitrogen cycle in nature. Nitrite normally is
found in low concentrations and represents a transient stage in the
biological oxidation of organic materials.
A-10
-------
Nonpoint source. Any area, in contrast to a pipe or other structure, from
which pollutants flow in to a body of water. Common pollutants from
nonpoint sources are sediments from construction sites and fertilizers
and sediments from agricultural soils.
Nutrients. Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for the growth
and development of an organism; e.g., carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and
phosphorus.
Oligotrophic. Waters with a small supply of nutrients and hence an
insignificant production of organic matter.
On-site disposal. Disposal of wastewater by any of several methods that
are contained on the property where the wastes originate. Most common
forms are septic tanks, aerobic treatment units, and privies.
Ordinance. A municipal or county regulation.
Outwash. Sand and gravel transported away from a glacier by streams of
meltwater and either deposited as a floodplain along a preexisting
valley bottom or broadcast over a preexisting plain in a form similar
to an alluvial fan.
Outwash plain. A plain formed by material deposited by melt water from a
glacier flowing over a more or less flat surface of large area.
Deposits of this origin are usually distinguishable from ordinary
river deposits by the fact that they often grade into moraines and
their constituents bear evidence of glacial origin.
Oxidation lagoon (pond). A holding area where organic wastes are broken
down by aerobic bacteria.
Package treatment plant. Small treatment plant which is partially or
completely preassembled by a manufacturer and shipped to a designated
location. They are available in a wide range of sizes from units
designated to serve a single dwelling to modular units capable of
handling one million gallons per day (mgd).
A-ll
-------
Permeability. The property or capacity of porous rock, sediment, or soil
to transmit a fluid, usually water, or air; it is a measure of the
relative ease of flow under unequal pressures. Terms used to describe
the permeability of soils are: slow, less than 0.2 inches per hour;
moderately rapid, 2.0 to 6.3 inches; and rapid, more than 6.3 inches
per hour. A very slow class and a very rapid class also may be
recognized.
pH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.
pH is represented on a scale of 0 to 14 with 7 being a neutral state;
0, most acid; and 14, most alkaline.
Piezometric level. An imaginary point that represents the static head of
groundwater and is defined by the level to which water will rise.
Plankton. Minute plants (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that
float or swim weakly in rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, or seas.
Point source. In regard to water, any pipe, ditch, channel, conduit,
tunnel, well, discrete operation, vessel or other floating craft, or
other confined and discrete conveyance from which a substance con-
sidered to be a pollutant is, or may be, discharged into a body of
water.
Pressure sewer system. A wastewater collection system in which household
wastes are collected in the building drain and conveyed therein to the
pretreatment and/or pressurization facility. The system consists of
two major elements, the on-site or pressurization facility, and the
primary conductor pressurized sewer main.
Primary treatment. The first stage in wastewater treatment in which sub-
stantially all floating or settable solids are mechanically removed by
screening and sedimentation. The process generally moves 30-35% of
total organic pollutants.
A-12
-------
Prime farmland. Agricultural lands, designated Class I or Class II, having
little or no limitations to profitable crop production.
Pumping station. A facility with a sewer system that pumps sewage/effluent
against the force of gravity.
Runoff. Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that flows over the
ground surface and returns to streams. It can collect pollutants from
air or land and carry them to the receiving waters.
Sanitary sewer. Underground pipes that carry only domestic or commercial
wastewater, not stormwater.
Screening. Use of racks of screens to remove coarse floating and suspended
solids from sewage.
Secchi disk. A disk, painted in four quadrants of alternating black and
white, which is lowered into a body of water. The measured depth at
which the disk is no longer visible from the surface is a measure of
relative transparency.
Secondary treatment. The second stage in the treatment of wastewater in
which bacteria are utilized to decompose the organic matter in sewage.
This step is accomplished by introducing the sewage into a trickling
filter or an activated sludge process. Effective secondary treatment
processes remove virtually all floating solids and settable solids, as
well as 90% of the BOD and suspended solids. USEPA regulations define
secondary treatment as 30 tng/1 HOD, 30 mg/1 SS.
Sedimentation. The process of subsidence and deposition of suspended
matter carried by water, sewage, or other liquids, by gravity. It is
usually accomplished by reducing the velocity of the liquid below the
point where it can be transport the suspended material.
A-13
-------
Septic tank. An underground tank used for the collection of domestic
wastes. Bacteria in the wastes decompose the organic matter, and the
sludge settles to the bottom. The effluent flows through drains into
the ground. Sludge is pumped out at regular intervals.
Septic tank effluent pump (STEP). Pumping facilities designed to transfer
settled wastewater from a septic tank to a higher elevation or for
some distance to a gravity sewer.
Septic tank-soil absorption system (ST-SAS). A system of wastewater dis-
posal In which large solids are retained in a tank; fine solids and
liquids are dispersed into the surrounding soil by a system of pipes.
Settling tank. A holding vessel for wastewater, in which heavier particles
sink to the bottom and can be removed for further treatment.
Sewer, interceptor. See Interceptor sewer.
Sewer, lateral. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage from a
limited number of individual properties and conduct it to a inter-
ceptor sewer. Also known as a street sewer or collecting sewer.
Sewer, sanitary. See Sanitary sewer.
Sewer Service Area (SSA). The area which will be serviced by a centralized
wastewater treatment system.
Sewer, storm. A conduit that collects and transports storm-water runoff.
In many sewerage systems, storm sewers are separate from those carry-
ing sanitary or industrial wastewater.
Sinking fund. A fund established by periodic installments to provide for
the retirement of the principal of term bonds.
A-14
-------
Slope. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usually expressed as
a percent (%) of slope that equals the number of feet of fall per 100
feet in horizontal distance.
Sludge. The accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage or industrial
wastes, raw or treated, in tanks or basins, and containing more or
less water forming a semi—liquid mass.
Soil association. A group of soils geographically associated in a charac-
teristic repeating pattern and defined and delineated as a single
mapping unit, and named for the principal soils within the mapped
area.
Soil textural class. The classification of soil material according to the
proportions of sand, silt, and clay. The principal textural classes
in soil, in increasing order of the amount of silt and clay, are as
follows: sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, loam, silt loam, sandy clay
loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay.
These class names are modified to indicate the size of the sand frac-
tion or the presence of gravel, sandy loam, gravelly loam, stony clay,
and cobbly loam, and are used on detailed soil maps. These terms
apply only to individual soil horizons or to the surface layer of a
soil type.
State equalized valuation (SEV). A measure employed within a State to
adjust actual assessed valuations upward to approximate true market
value. Thus it is possible to relate debt burden to the full value of
taxable property in each community within that State.
Stratification. The condition of a body of water when the water is divided
into layers of differing density. Climatic changes over the course of
the seasons cause a lake to divide into a bottom layer and surface
layer, with a boundary layer (thermocline) between them. Stratifica-
tion generally occurs during the summer and again during periods of
ice cover in the winter. Overturns, or periods of mixing, generally
occur once in the spring and once in the autumn. This "dimictic"
condition is most common in lakes located in middle latitudes. A lake
A-15
-------
which stratifies and mixes more than twice per year is defined as
"polymictic."
Threatened species. Any species of animal or plant that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant part of its range.
Til I. Unsorted and unstratified drift, consisting of a heterogeneous
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and boulders, that is deposited by and
underneath a glacier.
Trickling filter process. A method of secondary wastewater treatment in
which the biological growth is attached to a fixed medium, over which
wastewater is sprayed. The filter organisms biochemically oxidize the
complex organic matter Ln the wastewater to carbon dioxide, water, and
e nergy.
Topography. The configuration of a surface area including its relief, or
relative elevations, and the position of its natural and man-made
features.
Unique farmland. Land, other than prime farmland, that is used for the
production of specific high value food and fiber crops, and that has
the special combination of soil quality, location, growing seasons,
and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high
quality and/or high yields of a specific crop under modern management.
Wastewater. Water carrying dissolved or suspended solids from homes,
farms, businesses, and industries.
Waste load allocation. Distribution of the total "pollutant load" per-
mitted on a particular water body among the various discharges to that
water body. (Required by section 303 of the Clean Water Act.) The
"pollutant load" for a particular water body is determined by the
water quality standards established for that water body. Waste load
allocations are applied in situations where stream segments are class-
A-16
-------
if led as water quality limited. They will generally result in imposi-
tion of stricter effluent limitations on discharges to a particular
stream segment than secondary treatment.
Water quality. The relative condition of a body of water, as judged hy
a comparison between contemporary values and certain more or less
objective standard values for biological, chemical, and/or physical
pariimeters. The standard values usually are based on a specific
series of intended uses, and may vary as the intended uses vary.
Water quality criteria. The levels of pollutants that affect the suit-
ability of water for a given use. Generally, water use classification
includes; public water supply; recreation; propagation of fish and
other aquatic life; agricultural use and industrial use.
Water quality limited. Stream segments which will not meet water quality
standards with the application of uniform point source controls.
Additional pollution control measures for industrial and municipal
discharges will be required if water quality standards are to be
achieved.
Water quality standard. A plan for water quality management containing
four major elements: the use (recreation, drinking water, fish and
wildlife propagation, industrial or agricultural) to be made of the
water; criteria to protect those uses; implementation plans {for
needed industrial—municipal waste treatment improvements) and enforce-
ment plans, and an anti-degradation statement to protect existing high
quality waters.
Watershed. The region drained by or contributing water to a stream, lake,
or other body of water.
Water table. The upper level of groundwater that is not confined by an
upper impermeable layer and is under atmospheric pressure. The upper
surface of the substrate that is wholly saturated with groundwater.
A-17
-------
Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with
a frequency sufficent to support and under normal circumstances does
or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that
requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth
and reproduction.
WWTP. Wastewater treatment plant.
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B
DTSTRI BUTTON [.1ST
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal
US Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
US Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
US Department of Energy
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
US Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
US Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Geological Survey
US Department of Labor
US Department of Transportation
Coast Guard
Federal Highway Administration
Ohio Congressional Delegation
State
Office of the Governor
Ohio Office of Management and Budget
State Clearinghouse
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Department of
of
of
of
of
Ohio
Ohio Department
Ohio Department
Ohio Department
Ohio Department
Ohio Department of Energy
Ohio Water Development Authority
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio Federation of Soil and Water
Natural Resources
Public Health
Transportation
Justice
Economic and Commercial Development
Conservation Districts
B-l
-------
Local
OKI Regional Council of Governments
Clermont County Board of Commissioners
Clermont County Water and Sewer District
Clermont County Public Library
Clermont County Soil and Water Conservation District
Clermont County Health Board
Clermont County Park Board
Clermont County Planning Commission
Clermont County Extension Service
Clermont County Recreation Commission
Clermont County Housing Authority
Village of Amelia
Village of Batavi a
Village of Bethel
Village of Williamsburg
Township of Batavia
Township of Monroe
Township of Tate
Township of Pierce
Township of Stonelick
Township of Jackson
Township of Williamsburg
Township of Union
Interest Groups/Others
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Water Resources Center
Ohio Environmental Health Association
Ohio Academy of Sciences
Archaeological Society of Ohio
Nature Conservancy of Ohio
Ohio Natural Areas Council
Ohio Biological Survey
Ohio Lung Association
League of Women Voters of Ohio
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Ohio Electric Utility Institute
Ohio Municipal League
Ohio Natural Heritage Program
Ohio Sierra Club
Wildlife Legislative Fund
Ohio Water Pollution Control Conference
R-2
-------
Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission
League of Ohio Sportsmen
Ohio Conservation Fund
Ohio Conservation Congress
Ohio Audubon Council
Izaak Walton League
Ohio League of Conservation Voters
Interested Citizens
(Complete list available upon request)
B-3
-------
-------
APPRNPIX C
DRAFT RNVIRONMRNTAL IMPACT STATRMENT
MIDnr.,R RAST PORK PLANNING ARRA
WASTRWATRR TREATMENT SYSTF.MS
CLRRMONT COUNTY, OHIO
April, 19H4
(This is a separate document available upon request)
-------
-------
APPKNIUX I)
PLAN ADDENDUM OOCUMKNTATION
-------
-------
ke: clermont County
Middle East Fork
Mr. Donald Beckers September 19, 1983
Clermont County Sewer District
2275 Bauer Road
Batavia, Ohio 45103
Dear Mr. Reckers:
The Ohio KPA has determined that the Middle East Fork project should be
divided into two phases. The initial phase would be <«11 improvements
necessary to eliminate the connection ban at Bethel. The second phase, funded
separately from the first, would be all other improvements approved in the
facilities plan and EIS.
The improvements listed below should be included 3n (his initial phase. These-
improvements closely follow the plan as outlined in Clcrmont. County Sewer
District's letter to me on September J, 1983.
1.
3.
Rehabilitate the Bethel collection system to eliminate excessive
infiltration and inflow, correct structural deficiencies and
deterioration, and provide- remedies for wet-weather bypasses. These
improvements should only be ones approved in the SSES.
Construct an equalization basin, pump station, and interceptor force
main and gravity sewer from Bethel to the existing sewer near
Bantam, eliminating the Bethel treatment plant and its discharge to
East Fork Lake.
Expand and upgrade the Amelia-Batavia treatment plant to 3.6 MGD.
The plant should be upgraded to meet the limits as established in
the East Fork Little Miami River Comprehensive Water Quality. The
limits, as recommended in the report, are:
Summer (Release from the dam is
<43 cfs)
Winter (January-March)
CBOD5
NH3-N
DO
5 mg/1
1 mg/1
7 mg/1
CBOD5
NH3-N
DO
10 mg/1
3.5 mg/1
7.0 mg/1
The rest of the year when the discharge from the dam is >30 cfs, the
limits would be:
CBODs
NH3-N
DO
10 mg/1
1.5 mg/1
5 mg/1
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
351 E. Broad St.. Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049. (614) 466-8565
-------
Mr. Donald Peckers
September 19, 1983
Page 2
The final facilities plan and Comprehensive Water Quality Report will undergo
an advance treatment review by U.S. EPA Region V. Based on this review, the
advance treatment components, to meet the above effluent limits, may be
deferred or eliminated from construction.
The three improvements listed above are based on the recommendations of the
facilities plan. Approval of those alternatives.as the selected project will
not occur until after the final EIS has been issued. Designing the above
improvements does not constitute approval of those elements until the BIS has
been finalized, and the facilities plan approval letter is signed.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Rick Fitch of my staff
at (614) 466-8866.
Sincerely,
Binder, P.E.
Chief, Division of Construction Grants
GLB/RP/ea
0227D/3
cc: Clermont County Board of Commissioners
Balke Engineers, Cincinnati
Ed Hope, GAS
George Elmaraghy, WES
Steve Martin, SWDO
Rick Fitch. EPS
Reading
n-2
-------
CLERMONT COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT
2275 Bauer Road
DONALDJ RECKERS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Batavia, Ohio 45103-1999 Telephone (513)732-6550
FRED W. MONTGOMERY
SM\»C«I Htnvuw
June 21, 1984
JAMES E. SINGLETON
Slip*-' - .'-CM Of A"*. "„ i"*' r«g
Mr. Richard Fitch
Environmental Planning Section
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049
Re: Middle East Fork Waste Treatment
Works Project, Grant C-391189-01.
Dear Mr. Fitch:
Attached hereto are copies of Pages 1 to 5 of the recom-
mended changes at the Amelia-Batavia (MEF) Wastewater Treatment
Plant submitted to our office by Balke Engineers. Also enclosed is
a copy of the revised Cost Summary for the Middle East Fork Regional
WWTP.
As previously agreed, we are submitting the aforementioned
pages as an addendum to the Facilities Plan for the Middle East Fork
Project.
We trust the foregoing will suffice to complete the revisions
as required to expedite approval and to clarify the apparent differences
between the detailed plans as submitted and the Facilities Plan, as
well as the E.I.S.
Very truly yours,
CLERMONT COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT
Sanitary E
ERS, P.E.,
neer
DJR/db
Enclosures
xc: Balke Engineers
n-3
-------
DISCUSSION OF CHANGES IN TREATMENT PROCESS
RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE AMELIA-
BATAVIA (MIDDLE EAST FORK) WVTP
Previous Recommendations
The Draft Facilities Plan for the Middle East Fork Planning Area
(May, 1982) developed treatment alternatives and costs for
upgrading and expanding the Amelia-Batavia WWPT. The effluent
limitsVised in these alternatives Included BOD- atnd SS of 20 mg/1
each, and NH--N of 3.0 mg/1, summer only. Under these
assumptions, the lowest present worth cost alternative was found
to be a fixed-film (trickling filter) process using plastic sheet
media contained in biological reactor-towers. This is the same
treatment alternative as described in the Draft EIS on the
project (April 1984).
"Changes in Effluent Limits
After the Draft Facilities Plan was published, the Ohio EPA
issued two letters outlining proposed changes in the effluent
limits for the Amelia-Batavia WWPT. The first was dated 5/3/83,
and proposed a CBOD limit of 5 mg/1 and a summer ammonia limit
of about 1.5 mg/1 (3.4 mg/1 winter) based on the results of a
recently completed comprehensive Water Quality Report. Balke
Engineers, the facilities planning consultant on • the project,
issued a report dated 5/18/83 summarizing the effect of the
revised effluent limits on the facilities plan recommendation.
The second letter from OEPA, dated 9/19/83, established even more
stringent limits based on season and river discharge conditions.
Under these proposed limits, it would be possible to have an
ammonia limit of 1.0 mg/1 during the months of November, December
or April in addition to the normal warm weather
1 of 5
D-4
j
RECEIVED
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SECTION
JUN
-------
This last set of proposed limits was critical because the fixed
film process recommended in the facilities plan would not be able
to consistently meet the required limits, the primary limitation
being temperature. The Amelia-Batavia system has a very low
seasonal waste water temperature (6 C average, 4 C minimum)
thai severely limits nitrifying activities, particularly in fixed
film reactors subject to higher heat loss to cold surrounding
air. Immediately after the 9/19/83 letter was issued, it was
concluded by the consultant that the fixed film process was not
feasible for the revised effluent requirements. A
suspended-growth (activated sludge) process was concluded to be
Lhe only feasible process for the extreme effluent and
ten,j>erature conditions involved. No formal report was issued
pertaining to these conclusions; however, several discussions
between the Ohio EPA's engineering staff and the consultant were
held to work out the details of the process requirements.
About the same time, the Ohio EPA and US EPA planning staffs were
attempting to reach a conclusion as to exactly what level of
treatment would be needed to meet water quality goals. As a
minimum, secondary treatment would be required (30 mg/1 BOD,, and
SS, no ammonia limit). The other extreme would be the limits set
forth in OEPA's 9/19/83 letter. No firm conslusion was reached
other than that at least secondary treatment would be required,
and that, in all probability, some level greater than secondary
would be required.
Given these conditions, the OEPA instructed the consultant to
develop a plant design for secondary treatment, but with a
modular approach so that process units could be added as needed
to meet any of the possible effluent combinations. It was agreed
2 of 5
n-5
-------
that the suspended-growth (activated sludge) process was the raost
appropriate alternative to meet these conditions*
Re-Evaluation of Costs
The attached table summarizes up to date cost information for the
two treatment alternatives involved. The first row of costs in
the table is the same information that was presented in the Draft
Facilities Plan and the Draft E1S. These costs were deveoped
during the planning stage based on information available at that
time for the fixed film process.
The second row of costs are for the same treatment process,
updated with more accurate information. The construction cost
estimate was modified to reflect the findings of the detailed
design procedure. The O&M costs were reduced slightly to account
for savings in flow equalization tank mixing and aeration,
recycle pumping, and lower sludge production rates (compared to
suspended growth systems) that were previously not considered.
The third row of costs pertains to the activated sludge process.
*
The construction cost estimate is based on detailed plans and
actual site conditions. The O&M costs has been reduced slightly
over that presented in the facilities plan to account for energy
and labor savings in the flow equalization tank.
From the cost data in the table, it is apparent that 1) The
fixed-film trickling filter process is slightly less expensive in
total present worth cost than the activated sludge process (the
difference is about $187,200), and 2) both the trickling filter
and activated sludge treatment alternative present worth costs
are now slightly less expensive than previously estimated, based
on recent information.
3 of 5
n-6
-------
The difference between the current trickling filter and activated
sludge PW costs is equivalent to about 2.4%. The recommended
activated sludge process is about 1Z less expensive than the
treatment PW costs used in the Facilities Plan and DEIS. These
differences are small, and are within the reasonable limits of
accuracy for analyses of this type.
Recommended Alternative
The activated sludge process is the most cost-effective treatment
alternative for the proposed Amelia-Batavia WWTP improvements.
Primary factors contributing to this conclusion are 1) total
present worth cost, and 2) ability and flexibility to meet a
variety of possible effluent conditions. The disadvantages of
the activated sludge process, including greater energy
consumption, increased solids production and increased
operational complexity, were considered in making this
conclusion. There is no significant difference in environmental
impact between the alternatives (same basic site plan, same
amount of land).
Environmental Consequences
There is no significant change in the environmental consequences
of the recommended action as outlined in the DEIS. The activated
sludge process will result in a 20 to AO percent increase in the
amount of dry solids produced by the treatment plant requiring
land disposal. Dewatering and thickening of the sludge prior to
transport is likely to reduce the actual difference in liquid
volume disposed of to insignificant levels.
A of 5
n-7
-------
REVISED COST SUMMARY
MIDDLE EAST FORK REGIONAL UWTP
Treatment Process
Construction Total Project Total Present Initial Annual
Cost Cost Worth 0 & M
Trickling Filter Process
(towers pcicked with
plastic sheet media;
2:1 recycle)
Preliminary Design as
in Facilities Plan
and DEIS
$3,161,100 $3,950,370 $8,015,835 $376,818
Modified Design as
per Recent Infor- , «\
mation $3,692,634*' ' $4,615,793 $7,760,800 $301,938
Activated Sludge
Process (conventional: ,,•*
plug flow or step feed) $3,381,000V ' $4,226,250 $7,948,000 $357,102
(3)
(5)
(1)
Corresponds with Table 2-86 in Draft EIS.
(2)
Construction costs revised using detailed estimates for process units common to
both trickling filter and activated sludge processes. Procedure used: 1)
determined total cost for activated sludge plant, 2) deleted costs for all items
related to activated sludge process (aeration tanks, diffusers, air piping,
blowers, flocculation tank, RAS/WAS pumps), and 3) added costs of trickling filter
process (biological towers, plastic sheet media, recycle pumps). Accounts for
reduced solids handling compared to activated sludge.
(3)
Cost reduction due to savings in 1) flow equalization, 2) recycle pumping and 3)
sludge digestion and storage.
(4)
Based on detailed design estimate.
Accounts for reduced cost of flow equalization aeration and mixing due to side
line configuration (facilities plan proposed in-line configuration).
Note: Costs in this table do not include septage receiving or disposal.
5 of 5
D-8
------- |