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

-------