FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
DISTRICT 47 REGIONAL
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
CITY OF HOUSTON
WPC-TEX-1008
WATER DIVISION, REGION VI
NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
MAY 1975
APPROVED BY
or
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
EPA, REGION VI
MAY 19, 1975
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1600 PATTERSON
DALLAS. TEXAS 752O1
Re: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT NUMBER 7415
TQ ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND PUBLIC GROUPS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, WE
ARE FORWARDING OUR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TO THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FOR THE 30-DAY REVIEW
PERIOD. THE FINAL STATEMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL AND
THE PUBLIC ON JUNE 23, 1975.
THE FINAL STATEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO FULLY CONSIDER THE
SUGGESTIONS, CRITICISMS, AND COMMENTS RAISED THROUGH THE REVIEW
PROCESS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.
John C. White
Acfing Regional Administrator
Enclosures
-------
EPA 904/R-09/007
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
WPC-TEX-1008
DISTRICT 47 REGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
IMPACT STATEMENT NO, 7415
WATER DIVISION, REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
APPROVED BY
for
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
EPA, REGION VI
MAY 19, 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY
1. NAME OF ACTION i
2. THE PROPOSED ACTION . i
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ii
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ii:L
5. LIST OF ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL iv
AGENCIES FROM WHICH COMMENTS ARE BEING
SOUGHT
6. SUBMISSION DATES x
I, INTRODUCTION
A. STUDY BACKGROUND !
B. EPA ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER 3
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
C. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 4
II• THE CITYWIDE CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS 5
B. THE EXISTING CITYWIDE WASTEWATER 5
TREATMENT SYSTEM
C. FUTURE DIRECTION: MOVE TOWARDS REGION- 6
ALIZATION OF TREATMENT FACILITIES
D. FACILITY PLANNING AREAS: BASIS FOR 8
PROGRAMMING FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
E. THE PROPOSED PROJECT: A STEP TOWARDS H
REGIONALIZATION
III, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING (Topography, 14
Soils, Geology/ Paleontology, and Surface
and Underground Water)
B. LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE 19
-------
PAGE
C. CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS 22
(Meteorology and Air Quality)
D. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT (Botanical, 23
Zoological and Wildlife Habitats)
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
E. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 25
(Archaeology and Historical)
F. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 26
(Population and Employment)
G. LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED 27
ACTIVITIES (Urban Functions)
IV, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. MAJOR OBJECTIVES 33
B. CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS 33
C. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL 35
ALTERNATIVES
D. COLLECTION SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 39
E. SUMMARY OF SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND 41
SELECTED SYSTEM
F. NO-ACTION-ALTERNATIVE 43
V, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE 45
DISTRICT 47 AREA
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES 43
C. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS ACTION WITH OTHER 52
HOUSTON WASTEWATER FACILITIES SYTEM
STUDIES
D. STATUS OF PROJECT, APRIL, 1974 52
-------
PAGE
VI, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION
Au SHORT-TERM IMPACT (Construction Impact) 53
B. LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 57
C. SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 66
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROJECT GROWTH 69
AND TYPE OF GROWTH DESIRED BY THE AREA
RESIDENTS
E. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE 70
ACHIEVEMENT OF LAND USE GOALS
VII, ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD
THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
A. SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS 71
B. SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIR- 73
ONMENT
VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE
PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
A. RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY 76
COMMITTED TO THE PROJECT
B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM 78
USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-
TERM PRODUCTIVITY
IX, COMMENTS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION
DISSEMINATION
A, SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, JUNE 21, 1973,
CONCERNING DISTRICT 47 WASTEWATER FACILITY 79
B. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT 80
C. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 80
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
II-l EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR HOUSTON 7
II-2 PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT REGIONALIZATION 9
PLAN FOR HOUSTON
II-3 FACILITY PLANNING AREAS 10
II-4 PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS AND THE DISTRICT 12
47 SERVICE AREA
III-l WATER COURSES AND RESERVOIRS 17
III-2 AREAS SUBJECT TO 100 YEAR FLOODS 19A
III-3 LAND SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN THE GREATER HOUSTON 21
AREA
III-4 CITY WIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSTON 30
V-l AERIAL MAP OF PLANT VICINITY 45
V-2 PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS 49
LLSTQF TABLES
PAGE
II-l ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 13
III-l LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION BY TYPE OF 23
POLLUTANTS FOR HARRIS COUNTY, 1972
III-2 HOUSTON'S EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK 1960-1990 27
III-3 POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS FOR 29
THE PROJECT AREA, CITY OF HOUSTON,
HARRIS COUNTY AND GULF COAST PLANNING
REGION 1960-1990
V-l CURRENT WASTEWATER QUALITY PROFILE FOR 47
TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE DISTRICT 47 AREA
VI-1 SECONDARY NET IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED 67
ACTION DURING 1970-1990
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX EE:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
APPENDIX HH:
APPENIDX I:
HOUSTON'S EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM:
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE
SETTING)
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY
DATA FOR HARRIS COUNTY AND SOUTHEAST HOUSTON
LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN THE HOUSTON-
GALVESTON AREA
CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE
HOUSTON AREA
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE GREATER
HOUSTON AREA AND THE SERVICE AREA OF
TREATMENT PLANT
POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, LAND USE AND RELATED
SYSTEMS FOR THE DISTRICT 47 AREA, CITY OF
HOUSTON AND HARRIS COUNTY
EXISTING TREATMENT METHODS FOR DISTRICT 47,
GULF PALM AND GULF TERRACE TREATMENT PLANTS
SECONDARY IMPACT ON AIR POLLUTION
RECORDS OF PUBLIC HEARING BY EPA JANUARY 6,
1975, HOUSTON
-------
HOUSTON
-------
SUMMARY
( ) Draft Impact Statement
(x) Final Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Region Vi, Office of Grants Coordination
Dallas, Texas
1. Name of Action
Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Action ( )
2. The proposed action involves Federal grant assistance as autho-
rized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500).
The City of Houston has requested Federal funds in the amount
of $3,296,082 to aid in its efforts to expand the wastewater col-
lection and related facilities for the District 47 Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant. The proposed facilities have been designed to
carry wastewater currently treated by two small treatment plants
in the service area and will be adequate to carry the wastewater
flow projected for 1990. The service area is approximately six
square miles in area and has a current population of 19,400.
The projected service area population for 1990 is 42,200 persons.
The proposed project calls for the construction of a collec-
tion system of 25,430 feet of gravity and force main sewer vary-
ing in diameter from 15 to 54 inches, together with the construc-
tion of an underground pump station with a capacity of 12,000 gal-
lons per minute. See Map A for the alignment configurations of
these proposed facilities. As a result of the construction of
-------
MAP A : PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS
SOUTH BRANCH-WEST
SOUTH BRANCH-EAST
© SOUTH BRANCH-MAIN TRUNK
NORTH BRANCH
18" DIVERSION SEWER
15" DIVERSION SEWER
GULF PALMS TREATMENT PLANT
(to be abandoned)
® GULFWAY TERRACE TREATMENT PLANT
(to be abandoned)
© DISTRICT 47 REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
CD EVELYN WILSON PARK PUMP STATION
^p?;ra^ V:s^7fii''-M-^"
i: Ajataig 3 , \ IsI 3 X>: 5 isl R>!LL=^
j— _ I BBS LJML ,i P"T-A -'t «\-p ' "
Illil BIN1
,;'' -ST ' \/"••:'••/«
~~T" • 111 "friV i i-"^n-"i%
^>5^^^'A^.^«KrP?P^
^Bfet^^^MH
DRAINAGE DITCH
^ g
•|EI|SCALE: l'"=l mile]
-------
these facilities, the existing Gulf Palms and Gulf Terrace Plants
will be abandoned as treatment plants. These two plants have a
combined capacity of 0.48 mgd. The District 47 plant has a de-
sign capacity of 3 mgd but is currently processing only 1.66 mgd.
It will be able to process the wastewater from the Gulf Palm and
Gulf Terrace treatment plants and also handle the areas currently
served by septic tanks within its service area.
The District 47 plant provides secondary biological treatment
using the activated sludge treatment process. The aggregate in-
fluent of 3.0 mgd will receive secondary treatment followed by
chlorine disinfection prior to discharge into the adjacent Harris
County Flood Control District drainage ditch, which empties into
Sims Bayou via Berry Gully approximately 4 miles northwest of the
District 47 plant site.
Sludge from the plant site will be conveyed through an exist-
ing sludge transfer line to the Sims Bayou Multi-Regional Sludge
Treatment Plant where it will be dewatered by vacuum-filtration,
and the fertilizer produced will be chemically conditioned and mar-
keted to a Florida-based citrus production firm.
The total cost of the project, including the local share, is
estimated at $4,394,776.
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
The proposed facilities will improve the quality of public health
in the project's service area and enhance water flow quality in the
adjoining drainage ditch, Berry Gully, Sims Bayou and the Houston
11
-------
Ship Channel. The impact of the project's implementation on the
orderly physical development for this part of Houston will be bene-
ficial.
The adverse effects which cannot be avoided are those normally
associated with the existence and operation of wastewater facili-
ties. The increased noise levels and occasional odors emanating
from the pump and plant sites will be kept at a minimum by providing
an improved treatment system and efficient plant operation.
Some degree of disruption of the environment and inconvenience
to citizens is unavoidable during construction but can be reduced
in severity by proper construction scheduling and techniques.
The construction of the proposed facilities should cause no
short-term serious adverse effects on the natural and man-made
environment; however, its long-term secondary impact on continuing
urbanization of the service area and associated adverse ecological
effects could be significant unless the City of Houston adopts and
implements comprehensive land use policies to avoid such effects.
The adverse effects in the immediate future will be insignificant
compared to the beneficial effects the proposed project will gen-
erate to enhance the values of urban living for the people of Hous-
ton in general and the service area in particular.
4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A nuirber of alternatives including the "No-Action-Alternative"
have been considered in the determination of facility locations and
in the evaluation of systems design. Due consideration has been
given to economic, social, technological and environmental factors.
111
-------
These alternatives are summarized below:
A. IJon-Structural Alternatives
These include policy regulations available to the City of
Houston for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and
pollution control, including enforcement of regulations governing
pretreatment of wastewater generated by industrial plants in the
city.
B. Structural Alternatives
These alternatives were explored and evaluated to deter-
mine:
1. Whether the service system should be centralized or
decentralized;
2. Where the pump station should be located; and
3. Where the sewers should be routed.
C. Subsystems Alternatives
A variety of options were evaluated for each subsystem,
including:
1. Collection system;
2. Treatment and disposal; and
3. Sludge handling and disposal.
5. LIST ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES FROM WHICH COMMENTS
ARE BEING SOUGHT
FEDERAL AGENCIES
UoS. Department of Agriculture
Environmental Planning and Management
U.S. Forest Service
Regional Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
IV
-------
Department of Agriculture
Dr. T. C. Byerly
Coordinator, Environmental Quality Activities
Office of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20250
Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
Col. William.L. Barnes
Executive Director of Civil Works
Office of the Chief of Engineers
Washington, D.C. 20314
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Richard Brown
451 Seventh Street, S»W.
Room 7206
Washington, D.C. 20410
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Robert D. Lanza
HEW North Building
Room 4062
Fourth and Independence, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
1114 Commerce Street
Room 904
Dallas, Texas 75202
U.S. Department of the Interior
Assistant Secretary - Program Development and Budget
Attention: Office of Environmental Projects Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
630 Federal Building
300 East Eighth Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Federal Highway Administration
Director Highway Programs Office
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Economic Development agency
702 Colorado
Austin, Texas 78701
-------
District Engineer
Galveston District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77550
Department of Transportation
Assistant Secretary for Environment and Urban Studies
Washington, D.C. 20590
Department of Housing and Urban Development
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Department of Commerce
Attention: Dr. Sidney Caller
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Environmental Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20235
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Federal Building
144 First Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Council on Environmental Quality
HQs - Environmental Protection Agency
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20506
Oil and Special Materials Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Attention: Alan Hill WH448
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Bern Wright WH447
Municipal Construction Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Federal Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Peter Cook
Washington, D.C. 20460
STATE AGENCIES
Office of the Governor
Division of Planning Coordination
Capitol Station
P. O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
VI
-------
Texas Air Control Board
820 East 53rd Street
Austin, Texas 78751
State Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, Texas 78756
Texas Industrial Commission
Dierector, Research and Planning Division
814 Sam Houston State Office Building
Austin, Texas 78711
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
John H. Reagan Building
Austin, Texas 78711
Texas Water Quality Board
P- 0. Box 13246
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Texas Highway Department
llth and Brazos
Austin, Texas 78711
Railroad Commission of Texas
910 Colorado
Austin, Texas 78701
Texas Water Rights Commission
722 Sam Houston Office Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Texas State Historical Survey Committee
P. O. Box 12276
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Department of Agriculture
P. 0. Drawer BB
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
General Land Office
Library and Archives Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Texas Animal Health Commission
1020 Sam Houston Office Building
Austin, Texas 78711
VII
-------
State Soil and Water Conservation Board
1018 First National Building
Temple, Texas 76501
Texas Tourist Development Agency
Room 500
John H. Reagan Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Texas Water Development Board
P. O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Association of Texas Soil and Water Conservation Districts
306 West 14th Street
Friona, Texas 79835
Texas Conservation Council, Inc.
730 East Friar Tuck Lane
Houston, Texas 77024
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas
Box X
University Station
Austin, Texas 78712
Texas Council for Wildlife Protection
3132 Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texas 75225
Vice President of Academic Affairs
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77843
Texas Forestry Association
P. 0. Box 1488
Lufkin, Texas 75901
Texas Organization for Endangered Species
P. 0. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
LOCAL AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS
City of Houston
City Hall
900 Brazos
Houston, Texas 77002
Turner, Collie and Braden, Inc.
3203 West Alabama
Houston, Texas 77002
Vlll
-------
John L. Spinks, Jr.
Southwest Regional Representative
National Audubon Society
P. 0. Box 9585
Austin, Texas 78757
Houston League of Women Voters
614 Harold
Houston, Texas 77006
Binkley and Holmes, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
2010 North Loop West
Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77018
Dannenbaum Engineering
4543 Post Oak Place
Houston, Texas
Honorable John Tower
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable William R. Archer
Honorable Bob Eckhardt
Honorable Barbara C. Jordan
Honorable Bob Casey
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Honorable Jim Wallace
Honorable Bob Gammage
Honorable Chet Brooks
Honorable Jack Ogg
Honorable A. R. Schwartz
Honorable Walter H. Mengden, Jr.
Texas State Senate
Austin, Texas
Honorable Ed R. Watson
Honorable Joe Allen
Honorable Ron Walters
Honorable Dr. Joseph F. Pentony
Honorable John H. Whitmire
Honorable Woody Denson
Honorable Larry A. Bick
Honorable Anthony Hall
Honorable Craig A. Washington
Honorable Ben T. Reyes
Honorable George LeLand
Honorable Senfronia Thompson
xx
-------
Honorable Kay Bailey
Honorable W. J. Blythe, Jr.
Honorable Sid Bowers
Honorable Milton E. Fox
Honorable Don Henderson
Honorable Raymond E. Green
Honorable Lindon Williams
Honorable Gene Jones
Honorable R. C. Nichols
Honorable Jim Clark
Honorable Ray Barnhart
Honorable Herman Lauhoff
Texas State House of Representatives
Austin, Texas
Dr. DeWitt Van Siclen
Department of Geology
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Center for Community Planning and Design Services
Rice University
Houston, Texas
Houston Geologic Society
815 Walker
Houston, Texas 77002
6. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was submitted to
the Council on Environmental Quality in October, 1974. Submission
of the Final Impact Statement has been scheduled for May, 1975.
-------
CHAPTER I'; INTRODUCTION
A, STUDY BACKGROUND
B, EPA ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (UNDER NEPA) AS THEY
APPLY TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
C, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. STUDY BACKGROUND
This century has been a time of great expansion and growth.
The United States experienced a population increase of 52 million
during the last 20 years.
The Bureau of Census predicts that by the end of the century
this nation will grow in population by another 60 to 75 million
persons. The Bureau further predicts that most of this growth will
occur in the nation's metropolitan areas. How to accommodate this
population without adversely affecting the natural environment or
without sacrificing the quality of urban living is a major issue
facing all levels of government. The City of Houston shares this
concern of environmental preservation and protection with the rest
of the country. It is attempting to halt the current trends of
water and air pollution and protect the ecological values within its
jurisdiction while carrying out the obligations to the demand of
urbanization within the limits of resources available to Houston.
One of Houston's critical problems is the collection and dis-
posal of wastewater generated by its population. The existing san-
itary system is inadequate in many parts of the city and represents
a serious threat to public health in these areas. Houston has
reached a critical level of air pollution. Water pollution has long
been a problem for the Houston Ship Channel, fed by the bayous and
other waterways that drain the Houston area. Effluent discharges
from the city's numerous sewage treatment plants serve as the major
1
-------
source of water flow in these streams during dry weather periods.
Improved water flow and quality in these waterways can reduce the
pollutants in the Houston Ship Channel. Construction of improved
methods of wastewater collection and disposal could be a powerful
stimulant for the channel's long-standing pollution problems, while
at the same time it can eliminate or minimize a serious public
health hazard. It is virtually inevitable that Houston will grow
into a corporate city of over 2 million persons by the year 2000.
Systematic planning and provision of the sanitary system is manda-
tory if Houston is to keep abreast of anticipated growth so that the
problems normally associated with urbanization can be avoided.
To achieve the goal of a better environment in the future and
to resolve some of its existing environmental problems, the City of
Houston has adopted a regionalization plan for its wastewater treat-
ment and related facilities. One part of this plan calls for the
construction of a number of trunk sewers and related facilities de-
signed to serve the population of a section in Southeast Houston.
The objective of these improvements, and indeed the entire sewage
treatment system of Houston, is to improve the public health and
facilitate the overall improvement of water and environmental qua-
lity within the Houston Metropolitan Area. The proposal outlined
in this report is intended to improve the quality of urban life and
protect the environment for an approximately 6-square-mile area in
the southeast section of the city, where a serious health problem
exists at the present time and where quality growth has not occurred
in the past as a result of the lack of sanitary facilities.
The resources currently available to the City of Houston are not
-------
adequate to address the city's environmental problem in general,
and to complete the specific task of providing the sanitary ser-
vices for the District 47 community, in particular. Houston, there-
fore, is seeking assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in fulfilling its commitment to improve the public health and
the urban environment for this part of Houston.
B. EPA ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT
Under Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-500, the Environmental Protection
Agency is given authority to fund 75% of the cost for construction
of sewage treatment facilities in order to comply with Section 301
of the Act.
Section 102 (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Public Law 91-190, charges all agencies of the Federal Government,
when funding a project, in part or in entirety, that will have a
significant effect on the environment, to prepare a detailed state-
ment taking into consideration:
1. The environmental impact of the proposed action;
2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented;
3. Alternatives to the proposed action;
4. The relationship between local short-term effects
on man's environment and the maintenance and en-
hancement of long-term productivity; and
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented.
-------
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
C. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
This report is the Final Environmental Impact Statement, based
on the environmental assessment submitted by the City of Houston
attendant to the construction of approximately 5 miles of gravity
and force main sanitary sewers varying from 15" to 54" in diameter
and an underground pump station of 12,000 gpm capacity. This re-
port evaluates the need for the proposed improvements from the stand-
point of social and economic benefits and identifies the adverse
and beneficial impacts of the proposed action on the man-made and
natural environment and suggests how the adverse effects can be
minimized. The preparation of this report has been guided by the
policies and procedures outlined in Section 102(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Air pollution in Houston and
subsidence problems of the project area are given a special eval-
uation in relation to the effects of the proposed project. Alter-
natives to the proposed action, including the "No-Action-Alternative,"
are evaluated in detail in light of their abilities to satisfy goals
established for the proposed action.
-------
CHAPTER II: I HE CITYWIDE CONTEXT FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
B, THE EXISTING CITYWIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
C, FUTURE DIRECTION: MOVE TOWARDS REGIONALIZATION OF
TREATMENT FACILITIES
D, FACILITY PLANNING AREAS: BASIS FOR PROGRAMMING FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS
E, THE PROPOSED PROJECT! A STEP TOWARDS REGIONALIZATION
-------
II. THE CITYWIDE CONTEXT FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
The 1970 Census ranks Houston as the sixth largest American
city with a population of 1,233,000 persons that occupy an area of
506 square miles. Sizable amounts of land are still vacant in Hous-
ton, which signals phenomenal growth in the future. In order for
Houston to maintain its dominance as the industrial and commercial
capital of the South and Southwest United States, it must face the
challenge of developing and improving those facilities and services
which are essential to assure a high-quality environment for all
parts of the city. The provision of adequate sanitary facilities
should be given a high priority and should have a minimum effect on
the natural environment. Those public programs which will pr )mote
the existing quality of air, water and other natural features should
be emphasized.
B. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
The City of Houston, over the years, has built a sanitary sys-
tem that currently consists of 42 wastewater treatment plants, 2
major sludge disposal plants, 179 pump stations and approximately
3600 miles of wastewater collection and conveyance lines. Much of
the system was constructed by the city itself, and the remainder
was acquired through purchase or annexation of water district sewer
systems. The existing system processed an average volume of over
172 mgd of wastewater in 1973. During the same year, the city's
-------
two major sludge disposal plants produced approximately 120 tons of
dried soil conditioner/fertilizer per day-
The Houston treatment system is highly decentralized. On the
average, one treatment plant serves about 30,000 persons, and there
are a number of plants which have a capacity of less than 1 mgd. In
comparison, one treatment plant has been planned to serve the entire
city of Fort Worth and its suburban communities. The entire city of
Dallas is served by only three treatment plants. Many plants in Hous-
ton are insufficient in capacity, and their treatment of wastewater
does not meet modern water quality standards and exceed the permis-
sible odor level associated with the sludge disposal plants. A more
elaborate description of each plant is given in Table A-l of Appen-
dix A. The geographic location of existing plants is presented in
Figure II-l.
C. FUTURE DIRECTION; MOVE TOWARDS REGIONALIZATION
To address the existing problems discussed in the preceding sec-
tion, the city has adopted a comprehensive policy of regionalization
of its wastewater disposal system. The revised plan will provide
for the diversion of sewage from the small plants to the regional
plants for treatment and disposal, and includes three regional sludge
treatment facilities designed to serve the need of the entire city
through the year 1990. Figure II-2 shows the proposed regionaliza-
tion plan.
The proposed city-wide system will have an aggregate capacity of
over 300 mgd. A large part of the regional plan has been scheduled
-------
FIGURE 1-1
EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR HOUSTON
PERMANENT PLANTS
|10 mgd and over
• 1 to 10 mgd
• 1 mgd and under
TEMPORARY PLANTS
A 1 mgd and under
Note: Some of the temporary plants do not appear on this map since
they have recently been phased out or are in- the process of being
phased out.
-------
for implementation through the city's next five-year Capital Im-
provement Program.
D. FACILITY PLANNING AREAS; BASIS FOR PROGRAMMING FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS
As shown in Figure II-2, the city-wide treatment system includes
18 regional treatment plants and three sludge treatment plants. To
better integrate each regional plant to the rest of the system, the
City of Houston has recently adopted a concept of "Facility Planning
Areas". Using this concept, the entire city has been divided into
three Facility Planning Areas. With each multi-regional sludge
treatment plant as a nucleus, various communities are served by
their regional plant which together constitute a Facility Planning
Area.
Under this system, each regional plant can be more effectively
interrelated with the rest of the plants within a given Facility
Planning Area. The objective is to maximize system performance and
minimize public expenditures for future improvement, maintenance
and operation. The Facility Planning Area can be used as a tool to
unify all individual projects as part of a total utility pattern for
a given segment of the city. See Figure II-3 for a delineation of
the Facility Planning Areas.
A comprehensive on-going program of sewage collection, treatment
and disposal will eventually be developed for each planning area to
facilitate improvement programming and scheduling. Northside Multi-
Regional Sludge Plant will be the nucleus of Facility Planning Area
I. Likewise, Sims Bayou and the Almeda-Sims Multi-Regional Sludge
-------
FIGURE II-2
PROPOSED REGIONALIZATION PLAN FOR HOUSTON'S
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
CAPACITY OVER 40 MGD AND MULTI-REGIONAL
SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
CAPACITY UNDER 40 MGD
-------
FIGURE II-3
PROPOSED FACILITY PLANNING AREAS FOR
HOUSTONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
CAPACITY OVER 40 MGD AND MULTI-REGIONAL
SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
CAPACITY UNDER 40 MGD
-------
Treatment Plants will be the functional centers of Facility Planning
Areas II and III, respectively. Following is a breakdown of regional
plants within each Facility Planning Area.
Planning Area Number of Plants
Facility Planning Area I 8
Facility Planning Area II 7
Facility Planning Area III 3
Total Regional Plants 18
E. THE PROPOSED PROJECT (COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR DISTRICT 47)
At present, three different treatment plants are in operation
for the service area of the District 47 Regional Treatment Plant.
The Gulf Palms and Gulfway Terrace Plants are currently overloaded,
and the present collection system does not permit wastewater from
these plants to be diverted to the District 47 Plant which has ade-
quate reserve capacity to allow treatment of all wastewater now gen-
erated in the service area0 Current plans call for abandonment of
these two temporary plants and the diversion of wastewater they now
treat to the District 47 Plant. Further, parts of the service area
are served by septic tanks, and a sizable amount of land is curren-
tly vacant since these areas do not have the sewer facilities needed
for urbanization.
The continued lack of sewage collection and diversion sewers
will create significant public health hazards for the service area
of District 47e
11
-------
FIGURE 11-4
PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS AND THE DISTRICT 47 SERVICE AREA
® SOUTH BRANCH-WEST
SOUTH BRANCH-EAST
SOUTH BRANCH-MAIN TRUNK
(g) NORTH BRANCH
18" DIVERSION SEWER
15" DIVERSION SEWER
GULF PALMS TREATMENT PLANT
(to be abandoned)
GULFWAY TERRACE TREATMENT PLANT
(to be abandoned)
DISTRICT 47 REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
Q) EVELYN WILSON PARK PUMP STATION
CREEK
-Ji
U.U1
"•Terr
SCALE: 1"=1 mile
12
-------
1. Proposed Response
•" "• ?Cife* /A" •-•
To address these problems, the City of Houston proposes to
construct a collection system of combination gravity and force main
of 25,430 feet, varying in diameter from 15" to 54" and a pump sta-
tion of 12,000 gpm capacity. See Figure II-4 for the geographic
configuration of this ff^lilflflJr-.ilfM* System. A more detailed descrip-
• '' •"-' V »f»W t -• -'• - '• *•*• ?WIIPPI|*P*1PF'*''fl ***
tion of the project elements is given in Chapter V, Description of
the Proposed Project, Page -*
- %«i i'*f '$•'
2. Financial Status for Project Construction
The total cost of the project as shown in Table II-l is esti-
mated at $4,396,776. The grant amount sought by the city is $3,296,082,
The funds required to finance the local share of the project cost
($1,098,694) have been acquired by the City of Houston through the
sale of bonds by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority under the
terms of a contract between the City of Houston and that Authority.
TABLE II-l
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Cost Items
Construction
Engineering and Contingencies
Land, Structures, Rights-of-Way
PROJECT TOTAL ';
Eligible Project Grant Amount
Grant Amount (75% of Project Total)
Matching
Costs
$3,464,950
929,826
0_
4,394,776
4,394,776
3,296,082
1,098,694
Source: Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc.: City of Houston, Department
of Public Works, Sanitary Sewer Division; and Shaner, Hicks
and Cherry, Consulting Engineers
13
-------
CHAPTER III; SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING (TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS,
GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY, AND SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND
WATER)
B, LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
C, CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS (METEOROLOGY AND
AIR QUALITY)
D, BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT (BOTANICAL, ZOOLOGICAL AND
WILDLIFE HABITATS)
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
E, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT (ARCHAEOLOGY AND
HISTORICAL ELEMENTS)
F, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT)
G, LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
(URBAN FUNCTIONS)
-------
III. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The social and environmental setting is discussed in two parts.
The natural environment includes the physical features and any
existing or potential changes resulting from urbanization. The
man-made environment includes man's modifications of natural fea-
tures in the development of living, working, moving and recreation
facilities.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING
1. Topography
The elevation of the Houston Metropolitan Area varies only
65 feet. The low point is approximately 25 feet for the east and
southeast, and the high point is about 90 feet for the west and
northwest sections of Houston. The topography of the service area
is one of low relief with slopes of less than 1%. The elevation of
the service area is between 35 feet and 45 feet from the mean sea
level. A more elaborate discussion of the topographic features of
Houston and the project area and their impact on the land use pat-
tern and drainage system is included in Appendix B. Figure B-l in
that Appendix shows the topographic relief of the service area.
2„ Soils and Geology
The service area consists of soils and substrata common to
the Texas coastal uplands. The land is composed of finely grained
14
-------
clays and mud soils including Beaumont soils series originating
from overbanking of alluvial and deltaic streams of the Pleistocene
period and Waller soils series originating from abandoned channels
of the same period.
The Beaumont formation soils are composed mostly of clay, silt
and sand. The clay is heavy, black and of the alluvial type. It
has a low permeability which eliminates the use of septic tanks as
a method of wastewater treatment.
A detailed analysis of soils and geology and their ramifications
on future development of the service area is included in Appendix B
of this report.
3. Paleontology
Studies attempting to uncover paleontological sites in the
Houston area are limited. There are no known sites of paleortolo-
gical value in the service area of the proposed project. In r con-
versation in June, 1974, Dr0 DeWitt Van Siclen of the Department of
Geology, University of Houston, and Dr. Charles Dodge of the Depart-
ment of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, reached the fol-
lowing conclusions on the difficulty of detecting paleontological
sites without undertaking extensive excavation activity:
The low relief of the area, humid climatic conditions and
deep acid soil development would tend to destroy most fossil
evidence at or near the surface. The rocks of the Beaumont
Formation are deeply weathered and probably contained only
limited fauna at the time of deposition. The nonmarine del-
taic sediments of this unit would not be conducive to fossil
accumulation or preservation.
Significant paleontological finds are, however, possible dur-
ing excavation of a site below the depth of soil development. Any
significant fossil, if detected, should be carefully extracted and
preserved by trained paleontologists.
-------
4. Hydrology
a. Subsurface Water
Three major aquifer systems have been listed by the
Texas Water Development Board Study No. 178 (1974) in Harris County;
(i) The Chicot, which ranges in depth from 50 to 500 feet;
(ii) The Evangeline with depth from 500 to 1400 feet; and
(iii) The Jasper with depth from 1400 to 2800 feet.
These aquifers are located in the Lissie, Willis,
Goliad and Lagard Formations in order of increasing depth.
The recharge area of these aquifers is to the north of
Harris County. Water quality is good. Aquifers serve as the major
source of water supply for the Houston area. Detailed data on the
aquifer system for Harris County can be found in the TWDB Report
178, Volume I, II and III, which describes well logs for various
wells and the records of wells and chemical analysis of well water.
Figure C-l in Appendix C is a contour map showing the depth to the
base of the fresh to slightly saline water sands in the Harris
County area. Figure C-2 in Appendix C is an Isopach (thickness)
map for the fresh water sands in the same area. The water wells in
Harris County are shown in Figure C-3 in the same Appendix.
b. Surface Water
Figure III-l, taken from the 1972 Regional Atlas pre-
pared by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, shows the major water
courses and reservoirs in the Houston-Galveston Planning Region.
The waterways which are directly or indirectly affected by the
effluent from the District 47 Plant are:
(i) Harris County Flood Control District Drainage Ditch
(ii) Berry Gully
(iii) Sims Bayou, and
(iv) The Houston Ship Channel.
16
-------
WATER COURSES AND RESERVOIRS
FIGURE III-l
-------
A detailed description of each of these watercourses is given in
Appendix C.
The two bodies of water to be most directly affected by
the proposed District 47 Project are Berry Gully and Sims Bayou.
Neither of these supply water to the residents of Houston. The pro-
posed project will improve both the water flow quantity and quality
in Berry Gully and Sims Bayou. Since Sims Bayou joins the Houston
Ship Channel, the proposed project will also improve water quality
in the Ship Channel.
Water flow and quality data collected at several points
along Berry Gully and Sims Bayou are presented in Appendix C of this
report. (See Figure C-5 in Appendix C for the exact location of
these points.)
c. Flood Prone Areas
Flood data for the project site and its vicinity were not
available from any agency in the Houston area normally responsible
for collecting and maintaining data of this nature. Clear Creek,
some three and one-half miles to the south of the project poses no
flood threat c, The 100 year flood level of this watercourse is at
50 geet from the mean sea level at the point where Hickory Slough joins
Clear Creek. There is an east-west trending low ridge about one
mile north of the creek that has elevations of over 55 feet, and
this acts as a natural barrier to any flood waters reaching the
project site or its service area.
Berry Gully drains into Sims Bayou to the northwest.
Berry Gully's headwater elevation is 30 feet. The average eleva-
tion of the project area is 39 feet above the mean sea level. Ele-
vation of the proposed pump site is 36 feet. Neither of these water
18
-------
courses poses any flood threat to the project area,, This is indi-
cated in Figure III-2. Based on available data on the topography of
the southeast Houston area, it appears that the existing District
47 Plant is not subject to 100-year floods, nor are the project
elements proposed for improvement in the service area.
Hurricane flooding is a potential problem in any coastal
zone, although it occurs infrequently in the Houston-Galveston area0
The frequency of floods, however, may increase because of the cont-
inuing land-surface subsidence in the Houston area0 As indicated
by Figure III-3, the District 47 area, as a result of subsidence,
has suffered an elevation loss of 3 to 4 feet. The continued use
of underground water will aggravate this problem. The storm surge
that accompanied Hurricane Carla flooded large areas of Harris County.
Flood elevations of up to 1503 feet above normal were recorded on
Buffalo Bayou to the northwest of Galena Park. An appropriate land
use policy by the City of Houston will be needed for areas which
are subject to hurricane floods so that potential damages to life
and properties can be eliminated or minimized.
B. LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN HOUSTON
The continued use of underground water will have serious conse-
quences for the environment of the Houston area. According to the
City of Houston Public Works Department, 70% of all water consump-
tion in the city is currently met by underground sources. Recent
studies by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of
Texas at Austin and by the United States Geological Survey indi-
cate that the subsidence problems in the Houston-Galveston area
are highly critical. The study reveals that more than 4,000 square
19
-------
FIGURE III-2
AREAS SUBJECT TO 100 YEAR FLOOD
~FT:^-^n^Xn:iJI DJ^
nsraSS/Ssynr al&WtHTO-tHiKJ
[DISTRICT 47 PLANT]
..,.-'-.'*'''f".'-'J-'
:?S^i^ | PUMP STATION 1 "*"""
r
[SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
100 YEAR FLOOD AREA
19A
-------
miles of area have subsided at least one foot and about 200 square
miles in the Pasadena-LaPorte area have dropped more than five feet
as a result of the pumping of underground water. (See Figure III-3)
A more detailed description of this problem and its impact on the
future land use is enclosed in Appendix D.
The City of Houston is keenly aware of the impact of the
use of underground water on the uneven settlement of lands. It has
abandoned the use of eastside wells because of the most critical sub-
sidence problem in this part of the city, where industries rely hea-
vily on the supply of underground water. Facilities for treating
surface water are limited at the present time. Plans for new faci-
lities to treat surface water are currently underway. Upon comple-
tion, these facilities will reverse the present ratio of underground
and surface water usage.
SURFACE FAULTS AND LAND SUBSIDENCE
Surface faults are direct result of land subsidence caused by
decline in aquifer pressure.
"The entire Texas Coastal Zone is traversed by surface faults.
Many of these faults are presently inactive; others display actual
displacement of the earth's surface.
"None of these surface faults pose a threat to land use pro-
vided they are either recognized and avoided or properly considered
in engineering design.
"Land-surface subsidence is prominent only in the greater Hous-
ton area. Principal effects of subsidence, created through with-
drawal of underground water, are (1) activation of surface faults,
(2) Loss of ground elevation in critical low-lying areas already
prone to flooding, and (3) alteration of natural slope and drain-
age patterns. Land-surface subsidence, particularly in response
to heavy withdrawal of underground water, is irreversible. Within
areas of present and projected subsidence, special attention should
be paid to problems caused by loss of ground elevation and activa-
tion of surface faults."
ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE TEXAS COASTAL ZONE
The Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at
Austin, Page 87.
20
-------
FIGURE 111-3
LAND SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA (1964)
21
-------
C. CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
1. Climate
The Houston climate is characterized by frequent precipi-
tation. The annual average rainfall is about 50 inches. Table E-l
in Appendix E shows monthly precipitation from 1965 through 1973.
Houston experiences high intensity showers during the spring and
late summer. Temperatures range from a low of 32°F in winter to a
high of 100°F in summer, the mean January temperature being 45°F
and July being 93°F. Below freezing temperatures are rare, and
snows are extremely infrequent.
Two principal wind regimes dominate the Houston area: per-
sistent southeasterly winds from March through November and short-
lived but strong northerly winds from December through February.
Data on the climatic condition of Houston, including wind direction
and hurricane tracks, are shown in Figure E-l in Appendix E.
Hurricane flooding is a potential problem for any coastal
zone; however, it occurs infrequently in the Houston-Galveston area.
2. Air Quality
Air pollution is one of the most serious problems affecting
public health in Housotn. The problem results from solids, liquids
and gases in the air in amounts that are injurious and detrimental
to man and the environment. The major source of air pollution in
Houston, as in other urban areas, is the automobile. Table III-l
indicates Houston's current level of air pollution. A graphic
presentation of the data in Table III-l is furnished in Figure E-2 in
Appendix E.
22
-------
TABLE III-l
LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION BY TYPE OF POLLUTANTS
FOR HARRIS COUNTY, 1972
Pollutants
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxides
(CO)
Sulphur Dioxides
(S02)
Nitrogen Oxides
*N02)
Total Hydrocarbons
TOTAL
Air Contaminants
Tons/Year
69,300
871,500
134,000
168,500
421,900
1,665,200
Harris County, 1972
Percent Distribution
4.20%
52.10%
8.30%
10.20%
25.20%
100.00%
Houston leads the cities with air pollution problems
in Texas. Over 50% of the total air contaminants in the city
are the result of the carbon monoxide, the major source of
which is the automobile. The current efforts by the City
to attack the root of the problem are limited in their scope,
though some improvements in air quality have been made since
1972. The current programs and their effect on air quality
in Houston are discussed as follows:
Current Air Quality Programs for Houston
In 1967, Houston established an Air Pollution Control
Program under the Department of Health to monitor sources of
air pollution and control, regulate, and reduce pollutants.
Since then, the Program has grown considerably and its scope
has been expanded. Monitoring information is published annually
and in 1974 the Program has started monthly reports. The City
now has over 60 personnel working on pollution monitoring and
control. The Program includes enforcement, engineering, technical
23
-------
services, and meteorology. Data is compiled and stored by a
computer telemetry system.
The number of monitoring stations has increased to 25,
including the Houston Ship Channel Industrial District, where
large concentrations of pollution sources exist. Two continuous
monitoring mobile units have been assembled to sample Carbon
Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxides, and Total Oxidants
on a continuing basis. Numerous surveys have been conducted
for various parts of the city, particularly for industrial
plants, to provide a basis for City Ordinances on incinerator
permits and pollution control. In addition, stack sampling
teams have been organized and trained to gather direct source
data for industrial control and regulation. In 1973, the City
has made over 1,100 inspections and 2,500 advisory visits. It
has attended to 3,100 complaints, and 989 notices were served
on 632 companies — 431 corrections have been made. A total
of 633 incinerator operating permits have been issued and 750
incinerators have been removed from service. See Table EE-3
in Appendix EE.
In the seven years the Air Pollution Control Program has
been in operation, the City has made good progress in the
monitoring, analysis, and control of industrial and small source
pollutants. However, the Program has not been able to adequately
address the problem of air pollution caused by the automobile,
other than to monitor some of the pollutants generated by the
auto. A more detailed description of the City's air pollution
control programs and related data are presented in Appendix EE.
24
-------
D. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
A brief description of the biological environment of Houston in
terms of plant and animal life is presented in Appendix F. Figure F-l
in Appendix F, taken from Proctor and Hall (1974) , shows the distribu-
tion of various plant assemblages and typical vegetation of the Greater
Houston Area. Common macro-biologic assemblages within the Texas
coastal environment are shown in Figure F-2 of that Appendix. Data
on major marine and wildlife habitats in the Houston region are shown
in Figure F-3 through F-5 of the same Appendix.
1. Botanical
Vegetation in the service area of the proposed plant is fairly
typical of the Gulf prairie and coastal plains. The service area is
largely barren of major vegetation with the exception of scattered grasses
and weeds and small amount of scrub trees. A more complete description
of the botanical elements of the District 47 area is given in page F-8
of Appendix F.
2. Zoological
The presence of wildlife in the service area is not significant.
Some wildlife — small furbearing mammals and aquatic fauna — are found
in the area creeks and bayous. A variety of small birds has been sighted
in the service area. A description of the zoological elements of the
project area is attached in Appendix F (pages F-8 and F-9).
Available studies indicate no evidence of significant existence
of any rare or endangered species within the project's service area.
However, according to the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, there
might be some endangered species in the Southeast Texas Region which
include Attwater's prairie chicken, redwolf, peregrine falcon, Eskimo
cuslew, bald eagle, ocelot, American alligator and Houston toad.
Specific locations of these species are not known.
24-A
-------
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
E. HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Archaeological and Historical Elements
Two items listed in the National Register of Historic
Places are the Cotton Exchange Building and the San Jacinto Battle-
ground. Both are located outside the service area of the District
47 Plant. According to the Texas Historical Commission, most recent
archaeological surveys were confined to one area of Houston. These
surveys have recorded ten sites along the White Oak Bayou. This
data, however, will not be available for public use until steps
are taken to insure the preservation of these sites.
Areas south of the city were surveyed prior to construction
of Army Corps of Engineers projects, and they were successful in
locating large numbers of sites of archaeological importance. Prior
to the construction of the proposed project, including the installa-
tion of trunk and diversion sewers, the proposed pump site and the
pipeline easements and rights-of-way must be subjected to a thor-
ough archaeological survey. If any site of archaeological value is
discovered during the survey, it should be recorded and its signifi-
cance appraised prior to its commitment to the project.
2. Cultural Elements
Houston is the cultural capital of the Southwest United
States. It is the home of the Houston Astrodome and 14 Universi-
ties of higher learning. Varied cultural activities of Houston in-
clude its many libraries, museums, public arena, theatres, music
groups, recreational and related facilities.
25
-------
F. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The type and level of public facilities, including sewage treat-
ment facilities, is a function of population and employment growth.
The manner in which population and economic activities are geographi-
cally arranged on the space dictates the land use pattern of the cityc
This land use structure is key to the geographic configuration of the
collection, treatment and disposal systems for wastewater. The future
land use, therefore, must be considered before effective plans for
public facilities can be developed and implemented-
1. Employment Trends and Projections for the Houston Area
Houston has been one of the fastest growing major cities in
the United States. The expansion of Houston's manufacturing, petro-
chemical and chemical production, educational facilities, aerospace
industry and medical research has contributed to this growth.
Table III-2 shows the past, present and employment projection for
the City of Houston, Harris County and the Houston-Galveston Plan-
ning Region.
These projections indicate the municipal facilities that
must be planned to serve Houston as it grows. Growth in various
parts of the city will depend upon the level and quality of public
services provided to those areas. The city's proposal for the ex-
pansion of the wastewater collection facilities in the District 47
area is an indication that future development is inevitable for this
part of Houston. The graphic illustration of Houston's employment
base is shown as Figure G-l in Appendix G.
26
-------
TABLE III-2
HOUSTON'S EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK: 1960 THROUGH 1990
Employment
City of
Houston*
Harris
County**
Houston-
Galveston
Region***
Number
1960
363,636
470,452
587,698
1970
515,599
711,749
797,421
Per Cent
Change
1960-1970
42%
51%
33%
Projections Through
1980
667,000
1.063,050
1,186,591
1990
1,000,000
1,400,000
1,575,600
*Employment projection for the City of Houston is based on the
continuation of its 1970 share of Harris County total employment.
**Volume 2, "Houston-Harris County Population Projection", Table 5,
Page 15, Texas Hiahway Department, 19670
***Projections by University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M
University for Economic Base Studies and Projections of the HGAC
Region, Page 9, "A Summary Projection, Land Use and Population,"
December, 1969.
2. Population Trends and Projections
In 1970, the service area of the District 47 Plant had a
population of 19,400 persons. This is a gain of about 50% over the
1960 level. During the same period of time, the city itself grew
31% and Harris County grew 40%. Population growth rates and pro-
jections for the City of Houston, Harris County and the Gulf Coast
Planning Region are shown in Table III-3. A more complete discus-
sion of population growth and trends and their implications on the
proposed project is presented in Appendix G.
G. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Existing and Projected Land Use
Figure G-5 in Appendix G shows the existing land use in the
project area. Over half of the land in the service area is unde-
27
-------
veloped and is available for urbanization. The predominant land use
is single family dwellings. A portion of the population within the
study area is using septic tanks and is not connected to the sani-
tary sewer system tributary to the District 47 Plant.
There is little industrial use in the service area at the
present time; however, its proximity to the Hobby Airport may in-
crease the prospect of industrial development in the future. Com-
mercial development is scattered throughout the area primarily along
the major thoroughfares. Planned commercial centers should develop
as the retail market grows with population increases in the service
area.
As the Houston area expands, the service area of the pro-
posed project will be subject to increased urbanization,, The devel-
opment of commercial establishments and light industry will likely
accompany the development of single-family dwellings and apartment
housing associated with population increases. The projected land-
use pattern for the District 47 area is shown in Figure G-6 in
Appendix G. The 1990 city-wide development plan proposed by the
City of Houston City Planning Commission is shown in Figure III-4.
2 0 Transportation
The service area's roads are for the most part surfaced for
all weather use. The major north-south transportation arteries, are*-'
Interstate Highway 45 and Galveston Road, which serve as the princi-
pal link between Houston Galveston. Major east-west thoroughfares
include Edgebrook and South Shaver. Almeda-Genoa Road, another
major street, passes through the southern half of the service area.
.Figure G-7 in Appendix G shows the existing and proposed
transportation network for the project area and surrounding vicini-
28
-------
TABLE III-3
POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE PROJECT AREA, CITY OF HOUSTON,
HARRIS COUNTY AND GULF-COAST PLANNING REGION - 1960 THROUGH 1990
Area
Service Area
of the Project
City of Houston
Harris County
Gulf-Coast
Planning Region
(13 County)
Past and Present**
1960
13,105
938,219
1,243,158
1,698,748
1970
19,400
1,232,802
1,741,912
2,305,196
Change 1960-70
Number [Percent
+6,295
+294,583
+498,754
+606,358
48%
31.39%
40.11%
35.69%
Future Projection*
1980
26,100
1,600,000
2,311,600
3,293,500
1990
42,200
2,300,00
3,300,000
5,157,100
Change 1970-90
Number
+22,800
+1,067,198
+1,588,088
+2,851,994
Percent
+120%
86.5%
8904%
12307%
N)
*Projections by HGAC, "A Special Report on Population Projection, 1970-2020," November,
1972.
**1960 and 1970 Censuses of Population and Housing for the Houston, Texas, Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area0
-------
FIGURE III-4
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSTON
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIA1
COMMERCIAL
i INDUSTRIAL
m OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
m AIRPORT
S.T.O.L. FACILITY
FREEWAYS
RAPID TRANSIT
REPRODUCED FROM HOUSTON'S GENERAL
PLAN STUDY FOR 1950, HCMJS;IEON CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION, JCTL* 1972
l inch = 3.55 miles
-------
ties, including rapid transit corridors. The transit system will
have a major impact on the northwestern sections of the service
area0 The transit corridor along the Interestate Highway 45 will
have a dramatic impact on the predicted growth pattern of the ser-
vice area0 High density, concentrated development will take place
around the transit stops. The energy crisis may cause rapid tran-
sit to develop much earlier than now seems likely- The actual 1990
population and employment will, in that event, far exceed the pro-
jections presented in this report. The need for an expanded sys-
tem of wastewater treatment facilities will increase accordingly.
3. Needs of the Service Area
An attractive living and working environment requires pub-
lic services, i.e., water, sewer, solid-waste disposal, parks,
streets, schools, public safety and so forth. The project area ur-
gently needs an adequate collection system to carry the wastewater
to the plant0 The project will enable the city to provide a clean
and safe environment for the citizens of the project area^
31
-------
CHAPTER IV: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, MAJOR OBJECTIVES
B, CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS
C, STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
D, COLLECTION SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
E. SUMMARY OF SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND
SELECTED SYSTEM
F, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
-------
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter identifies and evaluates the various alterna-
tives to the proposed action and recommends the most feasible
method to achieve the objectives defined for the project within
social, economic, environmental and technological constraints and
conditions.
Ao MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of the proposed action are:
1. Regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities in
Houston.
2. Protecting public health and promoting community welfare
and safety.
3c Satisfying increased wastewater facilities demands re-
sulting from new growth and development in the service
area.
4. Reduction of water pollution in receiving bodies of water,
and maintenance and enhancement of water quality in
these streams.
5o Compliance witli State and Federal Environmental Quality
standards and regulations.
60 Improving system performance related to sewage collection,
treatment and disposal system for Houston.
7. Improving the environment by the use of wastewater system
as a tool to promote quality land use.
80 Minimizing adverse impacts on the social and biological
environment.
B. CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS
1. Regulatory Constraints;
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Water
33
-------
Quality Board requirements, regulations and standards relating
to collection of influent and discharge of effluent, including,
TWQB Waste Control Order No. 10495, must be satisfied.
a. Environmental Protection Agency Standards:
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), all point sources (including publicly owned
treatment works) must obtain a permit for the discharge of waste-
waters to the navigable waters of the United States. For publicly
owned treatment works, the initial objective is secondary treat-
ment, followed by the use of the most practicable advance techno-
logy available for treatment purposes.
The minimum level of effluent quality* attainable by
secondary treatment as defined by EPA is as follows:
BOD[- and Suspended Solids
The arithmetic mean of 30 consecutive days
value not to exceed: 30 mg/1
The arithmetic mean of 7 consecutive days
value not to exceed: 45 mg/1
The overall removal efficiency based on
30 consecutive days of influent and
effluent monitoring not to be less than: 85%
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The geometric mean in a period of 30
consecutive days shall not exceed: 200 per 100 ml
The geometric mean in a period of 7
consecutive days shall not exceed: 400 per 100 ml
*Federal Register, Appendix D, EPA Water Programs Secondary Treatment
Information, August 17, 1973, Vol 38, No. 159, Washington, D. Co
34
-------
pH
The effluent value for pH shall remain within
the limits: 6U0 to 9.0
b. Texas Water Quality Board Standards:
The Board prescribes a treatment system capable of
producing an effluent having the following quality:
Average monthly BOD * 20 mg/1 or less
Average monthly TSS* 20 mg/1 or less
Average daily TSS 25 mg/1 or less
Individual sample BOD^ 30 mg/1 or less
Individual sample TSS 30 mg/1 or less
Residual chlorine after
a contact time of 20 1.0 mg/1 or less
minutes at peak flow
2. Economic and Financial Considerations:
The total cost of this project must lie within the financial
capabilities of the governments involved. The collection and
treatment facilities must be sufficient to meet the objectives
of the proposed action and minimize improvement and subsequent
operation and maintenance costs„
C. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
1. Non-Structural Alternatives:
These include policy regulations available to the City of
Houston for controlling growth in the city and for collection,
treatment and disposal of municipal wastes.
*Effluent quality standards are scheduled to become more restrictive
in 1979, because of water quality problems in the Houston Ship Channel.
Then, BOD5 and TSS limits for the District 47 plant's effluent will be
10 and 15 mg/1, respectively.
35
-------
a. Control of Growth:
The City of Houston does not have any zoning regula-
tions or a comprehensive plan for guiding and controlling the growth
of the city. It has, therefore, attempted to influence growth
through such methods as:
• Use of its authority to approve subdivision plats.
• Issuing and enforcing building permits.
• Construction and extension of streets, sewer
lines, water mains, drainage systems, and other public
services„
The city will continue to exert some control over
private development of the service area in this manner0
b. Control of Collection and Disposal of Wastewater:
The city's statutory regulations as defined in the Code
of Ordinance imposes the following limits on the sanitary sewer
system:
• Limitation of wastewater quantity discharged into the
sanitary sewer system0 This is controlled by sewer line
connection permits and applies to all sewer users„
® Limitation of wastewater quality discharged into the
sanitary sewer system by industrial users.
• Imposition of sanitary sewer rates charged as a function
of quantity.
• Imposition of sanitary sewer rates charged as a function
of quality.
• Prohibition of certain types of harmful discharges into
the system by the industrial users.
• Restriction on excessive discharges caused by storm or
overflow conditions into the system.
36
-------
The City will use these regulations to keep growth
and development of all parts of the city in balance with waste-
water system capacities for those areas.
2. Structural Alternatives:
These include those alternatives to the proposed action
which govern the wastewater collection, transport and disposal
systems. The policies that guided the development of these
alternatives are:
• Whether the service system should be centralized or decen-
tralized.
• Where the pump station should be located.,
• Where and how the trunk and diversion sewers should be
routedo
a. Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems:
The policy of the Texas Water Quality Board is to
require elimination of small plants and encourage centralization
of facilities wherever possible, as well as to prohibit further
construction of small plants.
The policy for regionalization of wastewater systems
has been adopted to:
• Permit improved planning and coordination of wastewater
collection and treatment activities.
• Facilitate application of new technology„
• Allow more efficient monitoring of effluent by regulatory
agencies at the local, state and federal "level0
37
-------
• Economize construction and operating costs=
Policies pursued by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal
Authority, the Houston-Galveston Area Council and the City of
Houston are in complete agreement with the regional approach to
wastewater collection and treatment systems established by the
Texas Water Quality Board.
b. Site Location Alternatives for Pump Stations
Pump sites should be sensitive to the constraints
imposed by land availability and costs and the nature of surround-
ing development, both existing and proposed. Their locations should
be sensitive also to the environmental constraints imposed by soil,
geology, topography, drainage patterns, air quality and other eco-
logical factors.
Where the collection of wastewater can be accomplished
through use of gravity flow, accompanying pump stations are normally
located in an area where the transport of waste to the treatment
plant is not feasible through gravity sewers„ Such locations can
minimize the cost of conveyance by reducing the size of pipes and
cost of excavation between the pump stations and the treatment
plantsc Since pump stations create noise and since in case of
operational failures can be odorous, they should usually be located
in areas where they can be built underground. Aesthetic considera-
tion also calls for placing the pump stations underground.
An optimum location for the proposed pump station would
be that which will minimize overall costs of the collection net-
work for the District 47 area and which will cause minimum adverse
38
-------
effects on the environment of the pump site vicinity.
Potentially, there are a number of sites in the pro-
ject area which can serve as location for the pump station. How-
ever, land cost factor can be eliminated if the plant is located
on a suitable site already owned by the city. That site is located
on the northwest corner of the Evelyn Wilson Park, approximately
2000 feet south of the District 47 Plant outside any flood plain
area and surrounded by open lands on three sides. For a description
of the impact of this facility on the Evelyn Wilson Park, see
Page 58, Chapter VI.
D. COLLECTION SUB-SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES;
In determing the optimum routing of the subsystem, the follow-
ing objectives were considered:
• Minimize sewer length wherever possible.
• Wherever possible, utilize existing utility easements held
by the City of Houston to avoid the expense of acquiring
new right-of-ways.
• Provide adequate service projected for the area to be served,
• Utilize gravity sewer when permissible.
• Minimize inconvenience to the area residents during con-
struction; and
• Maximize system conformity.
The proposed collection network in the District 47 area is
intended to phase out the present Gulfway Terrace and the Gulf
Palms Treatment Plants0 It includes the construction of the
District 47 Trunk and Diversion sewers which are designed to
transport wastewater from the abandoned plants to the District 47
39
-------
Regional Treatment Plant. See Figure V-2 in the next chapter for
the location and alignment of the proposed project elements.
The two plants to be abandoned are currently operating far
beyond their design capacities and cannot meet the effluent stan-
dard requirements. Accordingly, abandonment has been ordered by
the Texas Water Quality Boardo Expansion of these plants would not
meet any of the objectives established for the proposed action.
Also a sizable part of the project area to the south is currently
served by septic tanks. The construction of new sewers will elimi-
nate the operation of these septic tanks and allow the city to extend
sewer service to the areas which are currently vacant and where pre-
vention of septic tanks will only be possible if sanitary services
are provided by the city.
In construction of the trunk sewer, the alternatives considered
were whether to construct a gravity sewer or a force main or a com-
bination. For evaluation purposes, the trunk sewer has been divi-
ded into two sections. The south section is south of the proposed
pump station and intercepts two diversion sewers and several collec-
tion mains and laterals. The north section transports the collected
wastewater from the pump station to District 47 Plant. Alternatives
to each section are evaluated as follows:
1- South Section; The South section intercepts two existing
diversion sewers and several existing collection mains and
lateralso The latter are all gravity sewers. Therefore,
the south section must be a gravity sewer.
The route chosen for this section is the most feasible
and practical alignment which meets all criteria defined
in the preceding section governing trunk sewer routing.
40
-------
The route will lie along existing city street rights-
of-way or will go through dedicated easements. The chosen
route offers least interference with existing underground
utilities and is best coordinated with the transportation
network of the general area. Considering all factors,
the proposed interceptor route minimizes the conveyance
distance between the areas to be served and the District 47
Plant.
2. North Section. The north section of the proposed Trunk
Sewer is intended solely for transporting wastewater
collected in the south section to the District 47 Planto
Since there are to be no lateral connections in this
section, this section theoretically may be either a force
main or a gravity sewer. However, because the District 47
Plant site elevation is higher than the point where the
south section terminates, the north section has to be a
force main.
The alternative chosen for the north section is,
therefore, a force main, with a pump station at the north-
west corner of Evelyn Wilson Park. Overall, the force main
alternative is found to be more economical than a gravity
sewer. The former offers less interference to existing
underground utilities, since the pipe size is smaller and
the excavations are shallower than those required for a
gravity sewer.
E. SUMMARY OF SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTED SYSTEM:
The chosen conveyance system will transport wastewater to the
41
-------
District 47 Plant which consists of secondary treatment using the
activated sludge process, followed by disinfection of the effluent
through chlorination with hypochlorite, and discharge of the treated
effluent into the HCFCD drainage ditch adjacent to the plant site.
This effluent will subsequently flow into Berry Gully, Sims
Bayou and to the Houston Ship Channel. The sludge will be processed
off-site at the Sims Bayou Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant
by chemical conditioning (ferric chloride), dewatered by vacuum
filtration, flash dried, and sold as a soil conditioner/fertilizer.
The chosen system has been judged to be most cost-effective
for collecting wastewater for the District 47 Plant. Its construc-
tion will be consistent with the requirements and standards of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Water Quality
Board. It best achieves the objectives defined for the proposed
action earlier in this chapter.
One of the most important factors considered for selecting
the proposed action is the efficient use of the underused treatment
facility at the District 47 Plant» This plant is compatible with the
existing treatment plants and facilities operated by the City of
Houston. The city operates 16 other wastewater treatment plants using
the activated sludge process including two multi-regional sludge
disposal plan-Iso These facilities utilize standardized equipment
and machinery, minimizing the need for a large inventory of spare
parts and equipment within the citywide system. Under the standardized
system, the plants can be operated effectively by personnel familiar
with the processes involved but not necessarily with a particular
plant. The existing sludge disposal process produces a marketable
product, reducing the overall system operation and maintenance costs.
42
-------
F. NO-AC TION-ALTERNATIVE
In the absence of the proposed action, the existing Gulf Terrace
and Gulf Palm Plants will have to remain in operation, continuing to
produce substandard effluent quality; also, wastewater generated in
the south section of District 47 area in excess of 0048 mgd will have
to be bypassed without treatment. Further, septic tanks currently in
use in the area will continue to be operational. The following
effects would be inevitable:
• Continuation of inadequate wastewater collection, treatment and
disposal in the service area of the project;
• Continued intensification of water pollution in Berry Gully, Sims
Bayou and the Houston Ship Channel as well as the HCFCD Drainage
Ditch;
• Aggravation of public health hazards to residents of service area;
• Loss of opportunities for orderly development of the District 47
community and the City of Houston;
• Failure on the part of the City of Houston to fulfill the com-
mitment it has made to the service area residents;
• Failure of the City of Houston to meet the environmental regula-
tions imposed by the State and Federal Government; and
• Continuation of the present trends of land use development in
the service area which will generate a secondary negative impact
on public health and result in a polluted environment from the
standpoint of air, water and other elements of the ecology. The
entire community of Houston and perhaps the nation will have to
pay for correcting that situation.
In brief, the "No-Action-Alternative" does not address any of the
objectives outlined for the proposed action nor the goals and policies
of the City of Houston, the Texas Water Quality Board and the U0S0
Environmental Protection Agency. The only benefit the "No-Action-
Alternative" offers is that it does not require the economic invest-
ment needed for the proposed project. On balance, however, the "No-
Action-Alternative11 cannot be considered as a solution to the pro-
blem of inadequate sanitary facility in this part of Houston0
43
-------
CHAPTER V: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A, EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE
DISTRICT 47 AREA
B, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES
C, RELATIONSHIP OF THIS ACTION WITH OTHER
HOUSTON WASTEWATER FACILITIES SYSTEM STUDIES
D, STATUS OF PROJECT, APRIL 1974
-------
V, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action will affect three existing plants in
the District 47 Area. This chapter describes their capacity,
treatment methods and influent and effluent quality.
A. EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE DISTRICT 47 AREA
These include District 47, Gulf Terrace and Gulf Palm Treatment
Plants.
1. Existing Plant Capacities
The District 47 Plant was acquired by annexation in 1958 and
was designed to treat an average daily flow of 3 mgd. The plant cur-
rently has an average flow of 1.66 mgd. Gulf Palms and Gulf Terrace
Plants were both acquired in 1961, and at present treat an average
daily flow of 0.20 mgd and 0.28 mgd, respectively. These two plants*
will be abandoned upon the completion of the proposed facilities.
2. Existing Method of Treatment
The existing treatment plant of District 47 features
secondary treatment by the contact stabilization mode of the
activated sludge treatment process. Both Gulf Palms and Gulf
Terrace Plants use a combination of primary and secondary treat-
ment. The Primary treatment use Imhoff tanks and secondary treat-
ment is accomplished through trickling filters. Sludge from the
District 47 Plant is transported to the Sims Bayou Multi-regional
*The City has not yet finalized plans for ultimate use of
these plants. Several options are available. One will be to
return the unneeded land for private development. It is recom-
mended that unused portions, after dismantling, be used for
mini-parks for neighborhood children and community gardening by
the adult population. Both sites are ideally situated for such
activities.
44
-------
FIGURE V-l
AERIAL MAP OF DISTRICT 47 PLANT SERVICE AREA
45
-------
Sludge Treatment Plant. The digested sludge from the Gulf Terrace
and Gulf Palm Plants are wasted in sludge drying beds. Dried sludge
is then taken to a sanitary land fill for final disposal. A more
elaborate description of the existing methods of treatment is in-
cluded in Appendix H.
3. Existing Effluent Quality
Influent and effluent qualities and plant operating effi-
ciencies are shown in Table V-l. As shown in Table V-l current BOD5
and TSS from both Gulf Palms and Gulf Terrace Plants do not meet the
standards set forth by the TWQB or the EPA. On the other hand, ef-
fluent quality of District 47 is highly satisfactory, as reflected
in its BOD5 and TSS values of 6 and 8 respectively- It has an exist-
ing load of 1.66 mgd although its design capacity is 3 mgd. This plant
can easily treat another 1.34 mgd. The combined capacities of Gulf
Palms and Gulf Terrace Plants are only 0.48 mgd. Effluent quality,
when the District 47 Plant is operated at its 3 mgd capacity after
the construction of the proposed project elements, has been estimated
at 8mg/l and 10mg/l for BODg and TSS respectively. For further ex-
planation, see footnote on page 47.
4. Future Plans for These Plants
There are no plans for making any changes to the District 47
Plant at this time. However, the City of Houston anticipates expan-
sion of this plant to a 6 mgd facility by 1979. Under the present
proposal, both the Gulf Palms and Gulf Terrace Plants are to be aban-
doned and the wasteload of these plants will be diverted to the Dis-
trict 47 Plant for treatment and disposal.
46
-------
TABLE V-l
CURRENT WASTEWATER QUALITY PROFILE FOR TREATMENT
PLANTS IN THE DISTRICT 47 AREA
District
47 Plant
Gulf
Palms
Plant
Gulf
Terrace
Plant
Parameters
Permitted BODr
Permitted TSS
Actual BOD5
Actual TSS
Permitted BOD5
Permitted TSS
Actual BOD5
Actual TSS
Permitted BOD5
Permitted TSS
Actual BOD5
Actual TSS
Influent
(mg/1)
161
158
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
Effluent
(mg/1)
20
20
6
8
20
25
25
49
20
20
25
39
Removal
(%)
96*
95*
Source: Texas Water Quality Board, Self Reporting Data
*As a result of increased wasteload for District 47 plant, these
values are expected to slightly decline but would still meet the
discharge criteria established by the TWQB and the EPA. Exist-
ing data on Fecal Coliform is not available. According to Binkley
and Holmes, which has been engaged by the city to complete engi-
neering design for the plant, Fecal Coliform Bacteria projected as
the geometric mean in a period of 30 consecutive days will not ex-
ceed 200 per ml.
For calculating BOD^ and TSS for District 47 plant, when it
begins to process 3mgd wastewater the parameters in the following
studies were used: For TSS, "Analysis of Excess Flow Treatment
Costs at Plants not Receiving Transfer Sludge, 1974, Job No. 3074"
by Binkley and Holmes, and for BODc, "Complete Mix Activated Sludge:
Water Supply and Pollution Control" by John W. Clark, W. Weissman
and M.H. Hammer, International Textbook Co., 1971, p. 529.
47
-------
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITIES
The proposed project consists of three elements of waste-
water collection:
(1) A trunk sewer system
(2) A pump station
(3) Two diversion sewers
All project elements are shown in Figure V-2.
1. The Trunk Sewer System;
The trunk sewer has two branches, the north and south branches.
The south branch is south of the proposed pump station (See Figure
V-2). All sewers in this subsystem are gravity-sewers. The north
branch is north of the pump station and is intended to transport
sewage from the pump station to the District 47 Plant. This section
is a force main.
(a) South Branch:
The south branch is proposed to have three sub-
branches. These are:
(i) The South Branch East
(ii) The South Branch West
(iii) South Branch Main Trunk
(i) South Branch East:
This branch is proposed to begin at a point
approximately 1,500 feet northwest of Conklin Road. From this
point a 24-inch gravity sewer will run northwest a distance of
approximately 2,080 feet to a manhole on Gulf Palms Street
48
-------
FIGURE V-2. PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS
_t—11 a
353
I Totrnmt II
48'
L
1BBE
V
@ SOUTH BRANCH-WEST
(D SOUTH BRANCH-EAST
© SOUTH BRANCH-MAIN TRUNK
© NORTH BRANCH
(E) 18" DIVERSION SEWER
® 15" DIVERSION SEWER
© GULF PALMS TREATMENT PLANT
(to be abandoned)
® GULFWAY TERRACE TREATMENT PLANT
(to be abandoned)
(J) DISTRICT 47 REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
0) EVELYN WILSON PARK PUMP STATION
49
-------
between R and S Streets. From this point a 30-inch gravity sewer
will run north along Gulf Palms Street a distance of 1,780 feet,
at which point the sewer will be enlarged to a 36-inch line which
will continue north on Gulf Palms Street a distance of 3,580 feet
to Ross Street^ From this point, the trunk sewer will continue
north as a 42-inch line on Gulf Palms Street a distance of 900
feet to Hartsook Street, then west as a 48-inch line on Hartsook
Street a distance of 2,800 feet.
(ii) South Branch West;
This branch of the trunk sewer will begin as a
24-inch line on the west right-of-way of the Gulf Freeway (I.H0
45) at Rowlett Street. From this point the line will
cross under the Gulf Freeway to the east right-of-way of the
Freeway and continue northwest along the Freeway for a distance
of 380 feet, then north a distance of 380 feet to Hartsook Street.
From this point, the sewer will continue as a 30-inch line east
along Hartsook Street for a distance of 4,500 feet where it will
join the south Branch East.
(iii) South Branch Main Trunk:
This trunk sewer begins at the confluence of
South Branch East and South Branch West and continues as a 54-
inch line north along an easement to the proposed pumping station
located in the northwest corner of Evelyn Wilson Parka
(b) North Branch;
North Branch runs north from the pump station.
It will transport wastewater a distance of 3,030 feet as a 24-
inch force main along a Houston Light and Power Company easement
50
-------
to the existing 3.0 mgd District 47 Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Tunneling will be employed where the trunk sewer crosses
major streets.
(2) Evelyn Wilson Park Pump Station
The proposed pump station will be constructed
underground except for the concrete roof slab and upper walls which
will extend 12 to 18 inches above the ground surface„ The pump
equipment will all be located underground and will be sized for
economical enlargement as the volume of wastewater entering the
pump station increases. Initially, the pumps will have a maximum
capacity of 12,000 gpm which is projected to serve the need for
1990. With changes in impeller size, these pumps could have a fu-
ture maximum capacity of 22,500 gpm.
(3) Diversion Sewers
(a) Gulf Palms Diversion Sewer
Wastewater from the present Gulf Palms Plant will
be diverted to the South Branch East of the Trunk Sewer and ulti-
mately to the District 47 Plant via a 990-foot long, 18-inch gra-
vity diversion sewer running from the plant westward along Ross
Street to the intersection of Ross and Gulf Palms Streets. The
route of this diversion sewer is shown in Figure V-2.
(b) Gulfway Terrace Diversion Sewer
Wastewater flows from the present Gulfway Terrace
Plant will be diverted to the Trunk Sewer Pump Station at Evelyn
Wilson Park and ultimately to the District 47 Plant via a 2,500-
foot long, 15-inch gravity diversion sewer running from the plant
eastward along Hinds and Old Church Streets to the pump station.
See Figure V-2 for the route of this diversion sewer„
51
-------
C. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS ACTION WITH OTHER HOUSTON WASTEWATER
FACILITIES SYSTEM STUDIES
The construction of this collection-treatment-disposal system
under the proposed action is consistent with the Master Plan for
the city's sanitary sewer system and the city's wastewater^manage-
ment plant. These plans designate the District 47 Plant as one of
the regional wastewater treatment plants for the city. The proposed
action is part of a comprehensive program of phasing out small
plants in the city by constructing diversion and collection sewer
for transporting wastewater to the designated regional plants.
D. STATUS OF PROJECT, APRIL, 1974
1. Engineering Design Report
The report entitled "Engineering Design Report for Trunk
Sewers, Main Sewers and Pumping Stations" for the District 47 Area
was completed and submitted to the City of Houston in September,
1970, by Sheiner, Hicks and Cherry, Consulting Engineers0 Detailed
plans and specifications are in the final stages of preparation.
2 o Funding of Project
Funding for the City of Houston's share of this project has
been arranged by contract with the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Autho-
rity which sold the required bonds in November, 1973.
3. Timing
Construction of the proposed project will begin in April,
1975, and is scheduled for completion in April, 1976.
52
-------
CHAPTER VI: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, SHORT-TERM IMPACT (CONSTRUCTION IMPACT)
B, LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
C. SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
D, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROJECT GROWTH
AND TYPE OF GROWTH DESIRED BY THE AREA
RESIDENTS
E, IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ACHIEVE
MENT OF LAND USE GOALS
-------
VT. FNVTRQNMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION:
This chapter deals with the impact of the proposed project on
the natural and man-made environment within the immediate vicinity
of the project sites and the service area. Impact is classified
in three categories: short term, long term and secondary impact.
Short term impact is same as construction impact. Its duration
is short-lived and confined to the area where construction will
take place. Long term impact includes areas beyond the project
sites. Secondary impact will cause changes in the environment
as a result of new social and economic activities for the service
area and in some instances for the city as a whole.
A0 SHORT TERM IMPACT (CONSTRUCTION IMPACT)
Construction activity associated with this project will con-
sist of trenching and tunnelling for the trunk and diversion
sewer installation and some excavation at the pump site.
1o Impact on Physiography (Soils, Geo1 ogy, Vegetation,
Water Courses);
a. Alterations to Land Forms, Streams, and Natural
Drainage Patterns:
The construction of the project will cause no permanent
alterations in land forms, soil condition, streams, or natural
drainage patterns. Temporary alterations made in these features
will be rectified immediately following construction activities.
b. Erosion Control Measures
Because of the flat character of the area where
construction will occur, erosion should cause no problem. In
those areas where erosion might occur, it will be controlled through
53
-------
the use of temporary settling ponds and dikes„ The construction
sites will be graded , seeded and restored to their original
state upon completion of work.
c. Dredging, Tunnelling and Trenching
Construction will not require dredging0 Trenching and
tunnelling will be required during installation of the trunk and
diversion sewers. The proposed South Branch West of the Trunk
Sewer will cross the Gulf Freeway (U. S. 75 or 1-45) at Rowlett
Street. It will therefore be necessary to obtain permits from
the Texas Highway Department for necessary highway crossings.
Construction of this sewer will be correlated with established
Texas Highway Department policies affecting utility alignments
and tunnelling.
d. Protection for Cover Vegetation, Trees and Disposal
of Soil and Vegetation Spoil
Cover vegetation and trees will be protected, where
possible, by means of fences and wooden slats. Only such growth
will be removed from the right-of-way as is necessary for the
construction of project elements. No clearance involving the
use of herbicides, etc0, is anticipated. Top soil removed
during construction will be stockpiled and subsequently placed on
stripped or fill areas. Excess soil will be deposited in the
project site area. Vegetation spoil will be disposed of by burial,
e. Areas Affected by Blasting and Precautions
Due to the nature of the soils in the area, blasting
will not be necessary.
54
-------
2o Short-Term Social and Economic Impact of Project Construc-
tion
a. Property Acquisition, Relocation, and Project's Impact
on Land Values for Adjoining Properties
All lands needed for the project are either the public
rights-of-way or under public ownership. No additional lands are
required for the project*
The proposed project will require no relocation.
All lands in the southern part of the service area
are virtually vacant. Land values in this area should rise because
of the availability of sewer service. The abandonment of Gulf Palms
and Gulf Terrace Treatment will result in a beneficial impact on the
surrounding properties.- Since the sludge from District 47 Plant
will be treated and disposed of off-site, its handling of additional
sewage will have no adverse effect on the value of the surrounding
area0
b0 Construction Impact on Public Safety and Convenience
Whenever possible, construction activity will be iso-
lated from the public except for line work across and along roads„
The contractor will be required to furnish barricades, lightn and
flagmen to protect the public. Contract specifications will
include provisions governing public safety during construction to
insure public protection against construction hazards. Similarly,
he will be required to provide all available safety measures to
protect his employees0
City ordinances require the contractor to keep city
streets clean and clear. Appropriate traffic control regulations
55
-------
will be included in the contract specifications. The City
Engineer's office will oversee the implementation of these regula-
tions.
3. Construction Effect on Surrounding Environment
a. Dust Due to Construction and Control Measures
Dust control measures, where necessary, will consist
of frequent sprinkling with water. Effect on the surrounding envir-
onment will be minimalo
b. Effects of Night Work
The contractor, as a rule, will be required to limit
construction activity to daylight hours. Night work will be per-
mitted only for special tasks to take advantage of conditions
characteristic of such hours. In such cases, the use of flood
lights will be restricted to the work site only0 No harm to wild-
life or serious disturbance to area residents is anticipated as a
result of night work0
c. Areas Affected by Construction Noise and Precautions
The proposed pump station construction will take place
on the corner of a city park. This site is sufficiently removed
from residences so that construction noise will not be a problem*,
Some portions of the trunk and diversion sewer line work will be
close to residences and some noise may be heard. This should,
however, present no more than a temporary inconvenience to the
nearby residences.
Construction of the proposed facility will require the
use of machinery and equipment that will increase ambient noise and
56
-------
produce high temporary noise levels. The type of equipment to
be used will generate average noise levels ranging from 70 to
85 dBA. The contractor will be required to minimize the impact
of equipment noise as much as possible. Special precautions re-
quired to minimize noise levels should be specified in the con-
tract.
B. LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1. Effect on Physiography
This has been more adequately covered in Impact on
Ecology, Chapter VII, Page 75.
a. Project Relation to Flood Plains
The site for pump station and the District 47 Plant
are outside the 100-year flood plains. See Figures III-2,
Chapter III (Social and Environmental Setting), Section A,
Surface and Sub-Surface Setting, Subsection 4, Hydrology, (d)
Flood-Prone Areas, Page 18.
2. Impact on the Surrounding Environment
a. Relationship of the Project with Residences and
Business and Prevailing Wind Patterns
The proposed pump station is situated some distance
from existing activities in the surrounding area. Prevailing
winds, for most of the year, originate from the south. Since
there is no residential area to the immediate north of the pump
site, little possibility exists of occasional odor problems
57
-------
affecting the resident population in the surrounding area; however,
the District 47 Plant is surrounded by built up areas„ Its increased
handling of wastewater wil'l have some impact on the areas around it
but the problem will be minor because sludge will be treated off site.
bo Incineration
Plans for the proposed project do not include any sludge
incineration since sludge will be transported and processed into soil
fertilizer at another plant.
c. Possible Odor Sources, Assessment of Potential Odor
Problems and Their Effects
The selection of the project was carefully made to avoid
odor sources and their effects as much as possible. Since the
District 47 Plant utilizes the activated sludge process, odor ema-
nating from the treatment site is minimal except on unusual occasions.
All project elements have been designed to minimize odors.
The trunk and diversion sewer lines are completely enclosed. As such,
the confined wastewater should present no odor problem, except on
rare occasions when possible variations in flow may produce man-hole
"breathing" near the pump station. The incidence of this is also
minimized by placing the pump station underground. The operation of
the pump will not adversely affect the recreation functions of the park
area since it will located at a corner of the park away from the sport
and recreation areas0 Except in unusual cases, there will be no odors
eminating from the pump site. Its placing underground will keep the
noise level to a minimum. The overall adverse effect of the pump site
on the park will be insignificant.
The District 47 Plant requires all influent to be pumped to
prevent odors arising from raw sewage, pumps discharge the sewage below
the surface of the liquid in the aeration tanks. The aeration tank
58
-------
maintains aerobic conditions in all parts of the tank, thus
reducing odor problems associated with the treatment process.
No odor problems should arise from the sludge at the
plant site since sludge will be transported to Sims Bayou Multi-
Regional Sludge Disposal Plant. In that plant, vacuum filters are
completely enclosed and the air from that building is given ozone
treatment prior to its release into the atmosphere. This virtually,
eliminates odors in the surrounding area*, Also, after-burners are
utilized to combust the volatile gases released during flash-drying
of the sludge prior to its conversion into soil conditioner/fertilizer,
This process has been successfully used for the last 23 years by the
City of Houston.
d. Potential Noise Levels and Protective Measures
Noise and vibration cannot be completely eliminated
from the plant site and as such will to some extent inconvenience
the plant employees. This is not considered a significant problem,
however„
e. Ultimate Disposal Methods for Grit, Ash, and Sludge
Sludge generated by the District 47 Plant is and will
continue to be processed into soil conditioner/fertilizer at the
Sims Bayou Plant. The fertilizer will be sold wholesale to a market
in Florida which consumes all fertilizer produced from all sludge
disposal plants of the City of Houston.
3. Impact on Air Pollution
The effect on air pollution from the construction phase of
the project will be temporary. The other source of air pollution
includes the operation of the plant itself and possible odor sources
from the treatment process. The effects of these have been discussed
59
-------
in item 2.c in this section.,
When the District 47 Plant approaches the 3 mgd
load, its effect on the quality of ambient air will be very minor
compared to other sources of air pollution in Houston. However,
there will be some additional air pollution problems at the
Sims Bayou Plant site as a result of the additional sludge trans-
port from the District 47 Plant. It is estimated that only 0.21
tons/day of volatile gases will be incinerated by the afterburners
in the sludge drying process at the Sims Bayou Plant as a result
of the sludge transport„
A study* by the World Health Organization compared pollu-
tants caused by the automobile with that of municipal incineration„
The study reveals the following results for American cities:
Type of Pollutants
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxides
(CO)
Sulphur Oxides
(S02)
Nitrogen Oxides
(N02)
Organic vapors
including hydro-
carbons
Contaminants in Ibs/ton
Automobile Gasoline
0.12
1000.00
5.80
9.00 - 18.00
70.00 -140.00
Municipal Incineration
24,0
Data Not Available
2.0
2.0
1,20
Based on the above data, it is estimated that the quantities
of air contaminants to be released from the after-burners as a result
*Air Pollution, World Health Organization, Columbia University Press
1961.
60
-------
of sludge transport per day will be equivalent to the air con-
taminants generated from the combustion of approximately 30
gallons of automobile fuels per day. Considering contaminants from
the ozone treatment for sludge drying, the net effect of the
District 47 Plant on air pollution around the Sims Bayou Plant
is estimated to be equivalent to the combustion of 54 gallons of
automobile fuel per day. That level of air pollution is equiva-
lent to the air pollution that is caused per day from the use
of automobiles by 18 average families in Houston. The project's
primary impact on air pollution is, therefore, very minor.
4. Impact on Water Quality
a. Effect on the Quality of Water in Drainage Ditch,
Berry Gu'lley, Sims Bayou and the Houston Ship
Channel:
The proposed action will comply with the effluent discharge
requirements prescribed for the City of Houston by the state and
federal agencies. The existing effluent from the plant contains the
BOD5 and TSS levels of 6 and 8 mg/1 respectively. This effluent
quality is not expected to be significantly affected by the addition
of another 1.34 mgd of wastewater for treatment at the District 47 Plant.
The low flow in the adjoining drainage ditch and Berry
Gully is mostly the sewage effluent from the existing plants»
The increased quantity of effluent to be discharged by the District
47 Plant should change the streams' condition from one of periodic
low turbid flow to one of steady flow, eliminating the stagnation
which :auses odor problems. The water in Berry Gully at Forest Oaks
Street during low flow period has a BOD value of 38 mg/1. - The water
quality at this location as a result of additional effluent discharge
from the District 47 Plant is estimated at a BOD value of 20.2 mg/1 or
a BOD reduction of 48%0 The capacity of the receiving bodies of water
61
-------
is sufficient to absorb the new flow of 1.34 mgd without causing
any floods in these streams.
Since Berry Gully is discharging into Sims Bayou,
water flow and quality in Sims Bayous should improve. The proposed
project should also contribute to the water quality of the Houston
Ship Channel since Sims Bayou finally empties into that channel.
b. Effect on Municipal and Industrial Water Supplies and
Ground Water
The water of HCFCD Drainage Ditch, Berry Gully or
Sims Bayou is not utilized for water supplies purposes. The
effluent disposal is expected not to have any adverse effect upon
groundwater because of impermeable soil conditions. Surface water
supplies start about 40 miles north of the project and therefore
will not be affected.
5. Impact on the Biological Environment
a. Effects on Aquatic Life
Construction of the proposed project should have a
beneficial effect on the aquatic biota in the receiving bodies
of water by reducing pollutants in these streams. The dissolved
oxygen in these streams will increase as a result of low BOD
discharge. Also, the project will facilitate uniform water flow
conditions even during low flow periods. This will eliminate
stagnant pools which may cause odor problems. The adverse effects
of the chlorine residual on aquatic life in the receiving streams
will be only local. The free residual chlorine is short-lived in
the natural water system.
b. Effect on Insect Populations and Insect Control Programs
The proposed project will have no detectable effect on
the insect population of the service area. However, the mosquito
62
-------
population of the receiving streams will be reduced as a result of
the elimination of stagnation which causes odors and breeds mosquitos,
This is a beneficial effect since these insects carry germs to affect
public health.
c. Effect on Wildlife, Birdlife, and Plant Vegetations
Except for a minor disruption in and. around the pump
site, no effect or protracted disturbances of natural habitats will
result from the proposed action. The clearing of vegetation will
be temporary, and ground cover and trees will be restored to the
land immediately following construction. Increased water flow
and quality will have a positive impact on the growth of plants
and vegetation along the receiving streams,
6. Impact on Parks and Recreational Potentials
a. Effects on Historic Sites, Recreations Uses or Natural
Preserves
None of the project elements will affect any historic
site, area, or preserves. In fact, depending on the goals and
policies, the project could significantly enhance the parks and
open space development in the city. Implementation of the regional-
ized wastewater system will improve the water quality not only
in the receiving streams for the District 47 Plant but for other
waterways in Houston as well. The cumulative effect of this policy
can open up dran,"tic possibilities of parks and open space develop-
ment in the flood plain areas of Houston„ By pursuing an agressive
flood plain development policy, the city can restrict private
development in flood plains and use them for recreation and open
space , and at the same time, serve the cause of environmental con-
servation and beautification.
63
-------
A great opportunity exists in the service area of
the proposed project to develop linear parks and open space cor-
ridors along the drainage ditch and Berry Gully. Scattered parks
and open space spots along Berry Gully can be connected to form
linear open space systems. Pedestrian trails and bicycle paths
could be created along the drainage ditch. The improved water
flow and quality will aid in the achievement of recreation goals
of the Houston Area.
b. Local Areas Designated for Use as Recreational Areas
or Natural Preserves
None of the existing parks and recreation areas in the
service area have been designated as Natural Preserves. The bene-
ficial impact of the proposed project on recreational areas has
been discussed in Item 6 (a) above.
7. Impact on Resources Conservation
a. Wastewater Re-Use
Although wastewater re-use by industries is possible,
there is little or no market for such recycling at the present
time. A relatively inexpensive supply of water is available in
Houston. Projections indicate that available sources will be
adequate to supply water through the year 2000- However, in view
of the growing concern over Houston's emerging problem of subsidence
as a result of continued pumping of underground water and serious
environmental ramifications associated with this problem, every
attention should be given to develop markets for wastewater re-use
for commercial and industrial purposes so that the need for under-
ground water can be reduced. The possibility of installing additional
64
-------
treatment units in each wastewater treatment plant to produce im-
proved effluent which could be recycled for non-domestic purposes
should be explored.
b. Groundwater Recharge and Spray Irrigation
Though it may not be economically feasible to recharge
aquifers with treated wastewater in the immediate future, special
programs should be studied and if found possible, should be imple-
mented to recharge aquifers with treated effluent. The heavy rain-
fall in Houston is not enough for groundwater recharge because of
the generally unpermeable soil of the Houston area. There is no
spray irrigation conducted in the service area at the present time.
There is no agricultural activity in the area requiring spray irrigation.
8. Impact on Aesthetic Values
a. Interference with Natural Views of the Area
The proposed facilities will not interfere with or obstruct
any natural views. The placing of pump station and proposed sewer
lines underground will eliminate any possible interference with natural
views.
b. Architectural Techniques and Landscaping
Care will be taken to blend the pump site with the surround-
ing park area. Trees and shrubs will be planted and fences erected
where necessary in and around the site. Grass planting and other land-
scaping activities will be undertaken to esthetically make the site an
integral part of the Evelyn Wilson Park. Some noise and vibration from
pump operation will be unavoidable but its aesthetic intergation with
the park and its corner location will more than offset adverse effect
on the parko The recreational activities and continued use of the park
by the surrounding area population will not be affected by the construc-
tion of the pump at this location.
65
-------
C. SECONDARY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
"Secondary Impact" does not imply effects of secondary (minor)
significance, particularly for infra-structure projects. Such in-
vestments can stimulate other investments and changes in the area's
pattern of social and economic activities. These effects are often
more significant than the primary impact of a project. For instance,
the effect of a proposed project on population, economic development
and land use growth may be among the more significant secondary
effects.
lo The Impact on Commercial, Residential, Industrial and
Related Development
The addition of sewer service to an area is one of the key
factors for land use growth. Other factors are land availability,
transportation and so forth. Except for sewer service, the project
area offers ample opportunities for development. The provision of
sewer service in combination with other factors would probably cause
most of the vacant land in the area to be urbanized within the next
20-year period.
Though the effect of the proposed project on the develop-
ment of the service area cannot be completely quantified, the sec-
ondary net impact on the residential, industrial and related devel-
opments can be determined by making certain assumptions. A summary
of the net numerical impact of the project on the area development
activities is shown in Table VI-1.
66
-------
TABLE VI-1
SECONDARY NET IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION DURING 1970 - 1990
Net Impact On:
Population
Employment
Residential
Development
Industrial
Development
Commercial
Development
Parks and
Recreation
Schools
TOTAL
1
Magnitude of Net Impact
Number
22,000 persons
9,700
9,200 housing
units
-
—
5
5
-
Acres
-
-
1,225
195
106
23T
135
1,881 acres
As Table VI-1 indicates, almost 1900 acres of land could
be brought under urbanization to accommodate the social and
economic activities within the service area as a secondary impact
of the project elements0
The environmental implications associated with this urban-
ization are enormous. The ecology of the service area will be
vulnerable to this impact, unless precautions are taken to insure
that the natural characteristics/ both physiographic and biological,
are protected from adverse effects as development occurs. The
formulation and implementation of a comprehensive land use policy
67
-------
will be the key to avoid these adverse ramifications in the future.
a. Impact on Economic Development
The economic implications of the secondary growth are
also expected to be substantial. Over 9,000 new jobs can be
created as a result of the project and associated infra-structure
improvements. The enormous real-estate investments anticipated
as a result of the project could be a great opportunity for an
area which has somewhat been by passed by Houston's growth in
economic development. On the other hand, it could be a signi-
ficant liability to the area if the quality of development is
not assured by appropriate land use policies.
b, Impact on Other Urban Services
The city government of Houston cannot and should not
emphasize one or two major city services and ignore others. To
develop a desirable living pattern, other services and facilities
must also be provided. For instance, the 1990 increase in
population, employment and land use for the service area will
create a solid waste disposal need of 42 tons per day. This service
has also to be provided by the City. Likewise, transportation,
open space, protection and related services will demand attention
from the project area residents.
In the past, the development in the service of District
47 Plant has been characterized by uncoordinated public service
facilities. The result has been a haphazard pattern of growth.
This must be avoided in the future.
68
-------
2. The Extent to Which the Proposed Action will serve the
Unsewered Areas
Service will be provided to presently unserviced ar^as to
comply with "reserve capacity" requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Section 204 (a) (5).
Sewer policy in Houston has been for developers to construct
subsystems and deliver sanitary sewage to interceptor lines„ In
the event of failures by private developers to comply with this
practice, the city has the authority to levy front foot assessment
and hook-up charges sufficient to underwrite the costs of line
installation. The construction of the project will sewer the
part of the service area which is currently served by septic tanks.
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROJECT'S EFFECT ON GROWTH AND TYPE
OF GROWTH DESIRED BY THE AREA RESIDENTS
In the event, plans for future development are incompatible
with the wishes and desires of the residents, a variety of
administrative and judicial remedies are available to the citizens.
In 1973, the City of Houston Planning Department initiated a
Citizen Participation Planning Program under which the city has
been divided into a number of communities and neighborhoods for
planning purposes. The program calls for active citizen involve-
ment in the planning process. The program develops neighborhood
plans by utilizing inputs from those who live, work, own property
or do business in a neighborhood . It offers the residents of the
various parts of the city an opportunity to voice their opinions'
on the type and intensity of growth they desire for their parti- -
cular area0
69
-------
Through this program, the citizens can prevent the type of
growth which they do not want for their area. The effect of the
proposed project on the type of growth therefore cannot be such as
will be against the wishes of the area residents.
E. IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LAND USE GOALS
Unlike most cities in Texas and across the country, the
City of Houston does not have any zoning to control land use in
the city. It has, therefore, attempted to influence growth
through its authority to approve subdivision plats, issuing
building permits and through the provision of transportation,
sewer and water services, drainage systems, and so forttu
In view of the type of environment achieved through regula-
tory practices by the cities with established zoning, Houston
appears to have done relatively well without any zoning regula-
tions.
Absence of zoning has placed the City of Houston in a unique
position to manage growth through "impact policies" which, if
carefully applied, aire a superior technique to quide and promote
growth for large cities in the United States. From this
standpoint, the proposed action is highly compatible with the
current policy of the city in stimulating and guiding land use
growth to the benefit of all people in Houston.
70
-------
CHAPTER VII: ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE
PROPOSAL BE.IMPLEMENTED
A, SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
B, SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
-------
VII. ATWFRSF IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD
THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
The project is the outgrowth of a commitment made to the ser-
vice area property owners and residents. It has been designed to
minimize harm to the environment while collecting and treating
wastewater in the most efficient and economical manner possible.
A. SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided are:
• Occasional odor associated with pump station and manholes
• Minimal levels of pump and compressor engine noise.
e Construction noise.
• Some disruption of traffic flow during construction.
• Some air contaminants and particulate matter in the air
due to construction activities0
9 Some amount of thermal emissions into ambient air due to
the plant operation.
® Some disruption of natural earth within the pump site and
within public rights-of-way for installing sewer lines.
• Long term impact on environment and ecology (if present
trends of land use are allowed to continue).
1. Disruption and Inconvenience During Construction
The construction of this project will cause temporary
inconveniences to the users of some thoroughfares in the service
area. This will include blocked driveways and sidewalks, reduced
speeds in the construction area and soft shoulder surfaces
71
-------
following installation of sewer lines. With careful planning and
proper scheduling, the inconveniences associated with project
construction will be kept to a minimum. All contracting documents,
plans, and specifications will include provisions for minimizing
construction impacts. Ground surfaces will be restored as quickly
as possible after construction.
2. Noise
The construction process will require the use of machinery
which will create a moderate, temporary noise nuisance. Proper
equipment maintenance and noise reduction policies will be implemented,
3. Loss of Habitat
Loss of some habitats during project construction is possi-
ble. However, since the construction will occur on the corner of the
city park, loss of habitat is expected to be minimal. No loss of habi-
tat is expected as a result of sewer line installations.
4. Air Pollution
Construction activities will cause some temporary increases
in particulate matter concentrations due to dust. Water sprinkling
and minimizing equipment movements will keep this problem to a
minimum. Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other byproducts from
fuel combustion of construction equipment will be emitted in the
construction area but will not significantly affect air quality.
Within the pump site, some occasional odors will be un-
avoidable. Precautions will be taken to keep this problem to a
minimum.
72
-------
B. SECONDARY IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT (Under Present Conditions)
While the project's short-term adverse effects on the environ-
ment will not be significant compared to the benefits, its long-
term adverse impact on the quality of the environment could be
severe unless appropriate policy actions are taken to avoid
detrimental effects0 There are many secondary benefits to be
derived from the project. However, the adverse effects associated
with the change in the level of environmental quality resulting
from the expanding urbanization for the service area must be
carefully evaluated before beginning construction. The City of
Houston must consider these potentially adverse effects and develop
necessary policies with regard to land use location and intensity
to deter such effects on the service area of the projecto
1. Secondary Impact on Air Pollution
An additional 22,000 persons are expected to live in the
service area of the project by 1990. These additional people will
generate a total of 67,000 trips per day, which will call for an
extensive road building program to accomodate the travel need. See
Appendix HH for a more elaborate analysis of this problem. The
associated impact of this on air pollution will be considerable and
certainly be much more significant than the level of air pollution
caused by the primary impact of the project from the wastewater and
sludge treatments. This problem will affect not the service area alone
but other parts of the city as well. Unless the City of Houston adopts
a stronger measure on air pollution than the ones currently operational,
the secondary impact of the project construction could adversely affect
the public health and environment of the area. Since the problem
will be incremental, the City of Houston could implement a program
73
-------
of public transportation under which the need for automobile
travel could be incrementally reduced in the future.
j
2. Impact on Water Quality
On a short-term basis, the impact of the project on the
water quality of the receiving waters will be beneficial. However,
as vacant lands in the service area are urbanized, the water quality
of the waterways will deteriorate<> As the runoff increases in these
water courses, with increased dust particles, grit and related
spoils, the quality of water is expected to decline. Effects of
this condition will be harmful to the aquatic life in these
streams. Also, with expanded urbanization, drainage will become in-
creasingly difficult, making many areas subject to potential floods
that will cause damaging effects on life, property and the environment.
3. Impact of Subsidence on Underground Utility Lines
One of the major environmental problems currently facing
the City of Houston is the continuing subsidence of the Houston
area caused by the pumping of underground water for domestic and
commercial supplies. This subsidence, with its serious
consequences for the environment, will create a major problem
for the underground utility lines. The city's expanding program
for sewer extension should be carefully implemented so that the
uneven settlement of lands will not cause sudden failures of the
water, sewer or other utility lines. The breakdown of these
systems would be a hazard to public health and the environment.
A monitoring program should be instituted to identify areas where
74
-------
the problem is. serious now and where it may occur in the future.
This effort should be supplemented by undertaking rehabilitation
programs to correct breakdowns when they happen. All future
utility lines should be carefully planned and aligned to avoid
this problem^
4. Impact on Ecology
With the growth of the service area, some of the natural
elements will inevitably be affected by the secondary impact of
the proposed project. Man-made activities are likely to invade the
natural environment. Soils, geology, sub-surface hydrology and
vegetation all will be affected by the continuing growth of the
service area*
The goal of peaceful coexistence between man and nature will
not be an easy task to achieve. Unless new and innovative policy
programs are designed and implemented to create such a balance,
long-term consequences of the proposed project could be seriously
adverse to the quality of air, water, land, life and the environ-
ment. The City of Houston must balance its goals of urbanization
against the need of protecting the environment which took thousands
of years to evolve into its present state.
75
-------
CHAPTER VIII: IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS Q£
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED
ACTION. SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
A, RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED
TO THE PROJECT
B, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES
OF MAN S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
-------
VIII, IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE CQMMITMFNTS OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION. SHOULD
IT BE IMPLEMENTED
Certain irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
will be required for the construction, operation and maintenance of
the proposed project. Resources such as steel, concrete and fuels
are essentially nonrenewable, but the benefits gained by their short-
term depletion are expected to more than offset the costs of the
project improvement.
A. RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED TO THE PROJECT
1. Energy
Operation of the pump station in Evelyn Wilson Park will
require approximately 1,963,000 kilowatt hours of electrical energy
per year at peak capacity and the annual cost in Houston is esti-
mated at $21,000. With operation at expected capacity, electrical
energy requirements should be approximately 470,000 kilowatt hours
per year, and the estimated cost is $5,000 per year. These esti-
mates are based on historical energy requirements data available
for plants of comparable size and equipment. The additional energy
required for the District 47 Plant will be balanced by the energy
regain from the abandoned plants.
2. Chemical
The proposed action does not require the utilization of
any chemicals. The additional chemicals to be used for the District
47 Plant will be offset by the chemicals to be regained from the
abandoned plants.
76
-------
3U Manpower
Operation and maintenance of the pump station will require
an approximately 0.25 man-years or nearly $2,500. per year.
4. Money
Funds committed to this action will be retrieved through
customei- service charges. However, the opportunity to commit the
same funds to some alternative endeavor for the duration of the
bonded indebtedness must be considered irretrievable. Compensa-
tion for this irretrievability is reflected in interest rendered.
The estimated cost of this proposed action is approximately $404
million.
50 Land
During the lifetime of the sanitary sewer trunk and diver-
sion lines, land designated for right-of-ways and easements will
be in effect unavailable for other use. It is not anticipated that
these sewers will be abandoned. However, should they be, the
land may be returned to its former condition and made available
for other use.
The sites of the abandoned wastewater treatment plants will
be made available for other productive uses. They are ideally suited
for neighborhood mini-parks. No additional land for right-of-way
or easements is required for the proposed action.
77
-------
B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The improved sanitary system recommended for the District 47
Area, on balance, will enhance the environment by reducing water
pollution and public health problems caused by existinc septic tank
systems and overloaded, inefficient treatment plants. Efficient
and improved sewage treatment will increase long-term productivity
by allowing more efficient use of land and related environmental
resources in the service area.
The proposal does not and. will not impose harmful net cumula-
tive effect and long-term alterations on the environment of the
service area or the surrounding community. Inconveniences will
be primarily short-term and will be related to the initial construc-
tion of the proposed facilities. Long-term programs will be needed
to maintain long-term environmental values and associated natural
characteristicsc
If the proposed improvements are not made, then the degradation
of water quality and public health conditions will continue. The
people of Houston could suffer the effects over an indefinite
period of time. Construction of the project would, therefore,
control water pollution and improve the health and environment
in this part of Houstone This will be accomplished by providing
adequate public services, including wastewater collection and
treatment, while facilitating increased long-term productivity of
land and the environment. Delay of the project construction may
impose additional adverse social, economic and environmental
impacts on the area residents.
78
-------
CHAPTER IX: COMMENTS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A, SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21
JUNE 1973, CONCERNING PROPOSED
DISTRICT 47 WASTEWATER FACILITY
B, REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
C. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
IX, COMMENTS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21 JUNE 1973, CONCERNING
PROPOSED DISTRICT 47 WASTEWATER COLLECTION FACILITIES
Six Pollution Abatement Federal Grant Projects proposed
by the City of Houston were discussed in a Public Hearing held
in the Houston City Council Chamber — 9:00 a.m., 21 June 1973,
including Captial Improvements to the District 47 Trunk and
Diversion Sewers and related elements.
Plans for these projects had already been prepared and
applications sent to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting
federal participation in the amount of 75% of costs for each of
the six projects. The concensus of persons attending the public
hearing favored implementation of each project. No objections
or complaints were raised at the hearing against any of the
proposals. All were judged worthy and necessary by residents
of the affected service areas.
Several attendees expressed dismay at the slowness of
project schedules for extension of sewer lines to the areas
concerned. Some property owners objected to paying ad valorem
taxes while receiving inadequate sanitary service. Questions
were raised about the need for depending on federal funding
when the city has already sold sanitary sewer bonds for extending
sewer lines and making improvements to the treatment and disposal
facilities.
79
-------
B, REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
proposed project was distributed in October, 1974, for comments
and review by 25 agencies, 23 state agencies, and 46 local
agencies and individuals. The comments received from these
agencies are enclosed following this chapter. Comments made
or questions raised are answered following this section.
A public hearing was held on the proposed project by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, on January 6,
1974. The hearing took place in the Rice Hotel in downtown
Houston. Regional Hearing Officer, Mr. Jim Collins, presided
at the hearing. There was no opposition voiced against the
project. A complete record of this hearing is provided in
Appendix I.
C, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Of the agencies and individuals who responded to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement by returning formal responses,
only five agencies made some minor comments which call for
additional clarification. The rest of the agencies had no
comments to offer and were in agreement with the Draft. The
comments sent by the three agencies are discussed below. EPA's
response to each comment is made separately.
80
-------
1) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Galveston District Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77550
COMMENTS: The comments of the Corps of Engineers are suggested
corrections in the terms and definitions on flood levels
and corresponding changes suggested in tables and illustra-
tions in the Final EIS. The Corps also suggested some
minor adjustments in flood and climatologic data used in
the Draft EIS.
RESPONSE: Adjustments have been made as suggested. Reference
is made to pages 18, 19, C-7 of Appendix C and Table E-l of
Appendix E.
2) DR. DEWITT C. VAN SICLEN
Professor of Geology
University of Houston
Houston, Texas
COMMENTS: Dr. Van Siclen's comments focused on the geologic
faults which characterize the service area of the District
47 Plant, like most of the Houston area, which should be
considered specifically rather than in generalities.
RESPONSE: The discussion on the subsidence problem included in
the Draft EIS was not a general one. Perhaps Dr. Van Siclen has
not seen Appendix D and impact of subsidence on underground
utility lines, page 74. This 16 page long appendix supported
by a number of illustrations defining the subsidence problems
adequately covers the subject. According to a geological study
conducted by Mr. Martin Sheets, a local petroleum geologist,
"Surface Fault Zones, Houston Area, Harris County," there is no
major active geologic faults which will affect the proposed project
elements. The District 47 plant site is not subject to any
surface subsidence problems.
81
-------
3) MR. EDMUND L. NICHOLS
Assistant Commissioner
Texas Department of Agriculture
Austin, Texas 78711
COMMENTS: The comments from the State Department of Agriculture
are divided into three parts: (i) on a short term basis
the project will be beneficial to the environment by reducing
water pollution and improving public health through the
elimination of septic tanks and relieving overloaded treat-
ment plants, (ii) alternatives consideration lacked innovative
approaches that require less water and make use of the solid
waste products as energy sources, and (iii) additional studies
should be made of Houston wastewater management plans with
the specific goal of reducing per capita water to meet the
fresh water demand for agriculture and other activities
providing vital human supplies and services.
RESPONSE: No response is needed for comments under (i). Comments
(ii) and (iii) are highly interrelated since the thrust of both
comments leads essentially to the same issue which is how to
minimize per capita water consumption in the Houston area.
As to the adequacy of alternative uses of solid wastes
(sludge), the City of Houston has been converting sludge from
treatment plants into soil conditioner/fertilizer for the last
23 years for sale to a Florida-based citrus production firm.
This is considered a reasonably good resource conservation tech-
nique. The City is also producing hypochlorite solution from
the wastewater sludge for some of the plants for effluent dis-
infection before its discharge into receiving waters. One example
is the Northwest Treatment Plant. The District 47 is scheduled
for expansion after 1977. Engineering plans including infiltration/
inflow analysis studies are currently underway. According to
Binkley and Holmes, Inc., the City's engineering consultant,
hypochlorite solution will be generated on-site for the District
82
-------
47 plant when it is expanded.
The EIS study team of the EPA concurs with Commissioner
Nichols' comments that the City of Houston should explore methods
to reduce water requirements for its domestic and commercial
supplies for reasons beyond and above the ones cited here.
One of Houston's critical environmental problems is the land
surface subsidence directly caused by the pumping of underground
water. The continuation of this method will further aggravate
this problem. Reference is made to page 20, Subsidence Problems
in Houston, and Appendix D which discusses this problem in
considerable length. Also, see Impact of the Proposed Plant on
Resources Conservation, Wastewater Reuse, pages 64-65.
4) DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Regional Office
1100 Commerce
Dallas, TX 75202
COMMENTS: HUD has no reservations about the carrying out of the
proposed project. It believes that the project appears to
be very desirable, and the implementation of this proposal
and the larger system of which it is a part appears to be
very much needed and quite beneficial. HUD, however, raises
two questions which require further clarification. First,
the status of the two small plants to be abandoned upon the
completion of the project construction should be defined in
more detail in the Final EIS since if left standing for a
significant period of time, they might present attractive-
nuisance-type hazards for neighborhood children. Second,
though the expansion of District 47 plant is not a part of
the proposed project, HUD feels that its impact on the resi-
dential development within 300' from the plant site should
be given attention. FHA mortgage is not available for such
housing. The City of Houston does not have any zoning.
HUD therefore feels that the Final EIS should include recom-
mendations, suggestions and possibilities as to how develop-
ment might or should be guided or controlled by the City for
areas likely to be affected by the District 47 plant and its
operation.
83
-------
RESPONSE: The HUD comments are well taken. The second
comment which deals with one of the most fundamental issues
of urban development in Houston bears heavily upon the quality
of urban environment not only for this section of the city but
for the entire city of Houston as well.
(i) In response to the first comment, reference is made
to the 8-line footnote provided in page 44 of this report. The
wastewater regional!zation plan for Houston recommended the
closing of these two plants and diverting wastewater to District
47 plant. These two plants are scheduled to have lift stations
since these sites will continue to collect wastewater generated
from their present service areas. The land area needed for the
operation of the lift stations will be a portion of the total
site areas. The remaining lands could be easily developed into
neighborhood mini-parks and community gardening as recommended
in page 44. It is anticipated that the plant structures currently
used for wastewater treatment including sludge-drying beds, will
be dismantled immediately following the construction of the
proposed project elements. Such action will eliminate any
attractive-nuisance-type hazard for the neighborhood children.
(ii) As to the second comment, the adjoining tract to the
west of the District 47 plant is not vacant nor proposed for
single family homes. The land that appears vacant in Figure G-5:
Existing Land Use for District 47 Service Area, is the easement
r.o.w- for the adjoining drainage ditch in which effluent from
the plant is discharged. See page 45 which presents an aerial
map of the area. The tract to the north across the railroad and
84
-------
the Galveston Road is vacant and shown for multi-family
development in Figure G-6, page G-8. Land use proposal shown
in this figure was taken from the work of the Binkley & Holmes,
Inc., City of Houston's consultant who conducted the Infiltration/
Inflow study for the District 47 and the Easthaven area. The
City of Houston does not have any detailed land use plan for
this area, though their City Planning Department is currently
involved in a citizen participation oriented Neighborhood Planning ,
Program for Houston, but it has not yet completed plans
for this area.
The only development guide that is available for Houston
area is the 1990 Citywide Development Plan for Houston prepared
by the City Planning Commission. This plan is shown as Figure III-4
(page 30) in this report. This plan is highly generalized and
only indicates the District 47 area to be a low density area.
Within this general framework, many uses are possible, though the
basic thrust of future development is projected to remain low
density.
In absence of a specific land use plan for the District 47
area, Binkley & Holmes prepared its own land use plan which is
by no means binding to the City nor to the property owners of
the area. A land use plan for the area was needed by the Binkley
& Holmes, Inc., for its determination of wasteload from the area.
Considering the location it enjoys with respect to the Galveston
Road which is a major thoroughfare, 'the subject tract may well
develop as a commercial use instead of apartments. In any case,
85
-------
though the existing and proposed land use activities around
the plant are physically well buffered by the drainage ditch
to the west, Galveston Road and the railroad to the north and
northeast, and a collector street and ample setbacks to the
south, the District 47 plant does have some adverse effect on
the surrounding activities and this effect is likely to in-
crease as the actual wasteload increases as a result of the pro-
posed project. But these effects are those which are normally
associated with the operation of a wastewater treatment plant.
The primary problem is the odor but that is not expected to be
significant since sludge will be treated off-site at Sims-Bayou
Multi-Regional Sludge Treatment Plant.
On the broad question of adequate land use control for the
affected area, it is strictly a local matter to be handled by
the City of Houston. The private deed restriction method which
is a substitute for zoning in Houston is effective in some
cases. The Neighborhood Planning Program is expected to generate
citizen awareness of the quality of their area when this area
is undertaken for detail neighborhood planning. Some measures
could be taken at that time with the aid of the area citizens
(see pages 69-70).
The EPA study team concurs completely with HUD that develop-
ment control and guidance are indeed needed not only for the
District 47 area but for other parts of Houston as well since
this is a citywide problem and has to be dealt with as a policy
issue at the city level. Land use coordination is absolutely
essential for Houston if it is to provide a viable, pleasant
86
-------
and stimulating environment for its citizens. Though the EPA
study team is not in a position to recommend land use control
for Houston within the scope of an EIS study, nevertheless this
report as well as other EIS reports for Houston are reflective
of this concern. This policy theme has been resounded throughout
this report. Reference is made to Section B, Chapter VII, page
73 through 75, for example.
5) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 648
Temple, TX 76501
COMMENT: The only comment made by this agency is a reference
it made to its letter of December, 1974, in which it
included current soils data for the Easthaven Regional
Treatment Plant and indicated that the same data also
apply to the District 47 area.
RESPONSE: Adjustments have been made as suggested. See pages
B-3 through B-10, Appendix B.
87
-------
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
TEXAS FOREST SERVICE
File-
5.7
College. Station, Texo6 77843
Pecembe/L 18, 1974
MA. kAthuA W.
Re.Q4.onat A.dmini(>fiatoA
U. S. En.v-iSLome.ntai PAate.ction hge.ncy
Region I/I
7600 VatteA&on
VaUai>, Texa* 75207
Vean. Mfi. Bitten:
tz£t&i ofa PecembeA 12, 1974 tog&theA with, a copy ofi the.
EI5 Fox. ViAtnLct 47 Re.g^onat Wcu,tejMiteA Fao6tctce6, City
ofi Hoa&ton kcu> been ^.ecetv/ed.
I have, no c.onf,fuicitA,ve. comment to ofifieA otheA than Ln a
ge.nefi.atize.d way.
a. Riota plant mateAtat should be. pfLote.cte.d -in the. pto
je.dt ajte.a duAing the. conAttuiction pha&eA and ie.plac.e.d wheAe.
needed afiteA the. canAtsiu.c£ion phabeA have, been c.ompl&te.d.
b. TheAe. woi no eu-ofence -in the. above, octeof doc.wme.nt
that the. HouAton-Gatvuton A/tea. Connect paAticA.pate.d -in any ojj
the. deJtibeAationt> noA o^eAe.d any i.npu&> i.n the. pAe.panati.on ofa
the. doc.vme.nt. NOA aAe. the.y -inc£u.de.d on the. tiAt o& Agencxe6
. . . ai the.y tthou-td.
VeAy
MC//C
Maion C. Cloud
Head, FoAeAt EnviAonm&nt Ve.pt.
6AAW
-------
JOE RESWEBER
COUNTY ATTORNEY
B. R. KERR
FIRST ASSISTANT
EDWARD J. LANDRY
SENIOR ASSISTANT
JERRY B. SCHANK
SENIOR ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF
COUNTY ATTORNEY
HARRIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77OO2
December 19, 1974
IN REPLY REFER TO
C. A. FILE NO. 11 ,278
Mr. James L. Collins
Regional Hearing Officer
Region VI, Environmental
Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: Draft EIS, District 47 Wastewater Facility
Dear Mr. Collins:
Thank you for the copy of the draft EIS on the captloned facility. I have
reviewed it and find no fault with the proposal, and was especially grati-
fied to see the conclusion that this new facility will reduce water pollu-
tion and public health problems, and will improve the flow characteristics
through various drainage ditches or bayous.
My only adverse comment 1s that the data and statements made on pages 22
and 23 conflicts with other conclusions drawn by both EPA and local authori-
ties. However, since the conclusion 1n the draft is that air quality must
be considered in selecting the location of wastewater treatment projects,
and since that has apparently been done and the selection location approved,
there is no utility to pressing the point in this context. Otherwise, I
am satisfied with the draft, and do not currently plan to attend the public
hearing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
JOE RESWEBER
Coufity At
JR:JBG:bjw
By 'JEFFREY B. GORDON
Assistant County Attorney \
-------
£hb
of
JAMES E. PEAVY, M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH
FRATIS l_. DUFF. M.D.. Dr. P.H.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78756
January 3, 1975
BOARD OF HEALTH
HAMPTON C. ROBINSON. M.O.. CHAIRMAN
ROBERT D. MORETON. M.D., VICE-CHAIRMAN
ROYCE E. WISENBAKER. M.S. ENG., SECRETARY
N.U. BARKER JR.. M. D.
CHARL.ESMAX COLE. M. D.
MICKIE G. HOLCOMB. D.O.
JOHN M. SMITH JR.. M.D.
W. KENNETH THURMOND, O. D. S.
JESS WAYNE WEST. R. PH.
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
RE: City of Houston, Texas
District 47 Regional
Wastewater Facilities
WPC-TEX-1008
Staff members have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the City of Houston's District M-7 Regional Wastewater Facilities.
The proposed installation will eliminate two small overloaded plants
and is designed to treat the waste generated by the projected service
area population for 1990, which is estimated to be H-2,000 persons.
From the standpoint of public health, the project appears to be gener-
ally beneficial. Therefore, this Department offers no objection to
the Draft Impact Statement as prepared.
Sincere
G. R. HerzikJ- UJ.. ,
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental and Consumer
Health Protection
DMC/dec
ccs: Office of the Governor
ATTN: Wayne Brown, Division of Planning
Coordination
Program Planning and Evaluation
ATTN: A. M. Donne11, Jr., M.D., Director
Region VIII
Texas Water Quality Board
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
MBOION six
FOHT WORTH, TCXA> 7«tOX
819 Taylor Street
January 2, 1975
IN REPLY REFER TO
06-00.8
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement
for construction of District M-7 Regional Wastewater
Facilities at Houston, Texas. We have no comments to make
on the statement.
Sincerely yours,
J. W/White'
Regional Administrator
-------
W. A. QUEBEDEAUX, JR.. PH.D.
DIRECTOR
HARRIS COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
1O7 NORTH MUNGER • BOX 6O31
PHONE (713) 228-831 1, EXT. 681
PASADENA, TEXAS 775OS 6
December 30, 1974-
Mr. James L. Collins
Regional Hearing Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Collins:
Submitted herewith are the results of samples taken by our
office at three of the existing treatment plants in the area
of the proposed District 4-7 Vastevater Treatment Facility. We
trust this data may be of value to you in evaluating the histor-
ical data of the area and give some guidance to future planning.
The attached data represents the results for the past three
years. Data is probably available from our office for earlier
dates *f needed.
Sincerely yours,
C. E. Miller
Assistant Director-Engineering
Harris County Pollution Control Dept.
Copy to Greg Edwards 1/7/75
-------
GULF PALMS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
T.W.Q.B. Waste Control Order No. 10495
Date BOD TSS
11/13/74 62 38
10/10/74 46 26
9/03/74 31 42
' 8/01/74 60 48
6/18/74 55 34
5/09/74 53 38
4/09/74 — 86
2/26/74 135 38
1/31/7^ 73 78
197U average 6U 48
11/27/73 217 16
10/OU/73 102 28
9/12/73 88 22
8/29/73 131 16
7/31/73 81 31
6/26/73 57 39
5/2U/73 102 18
1+/10/73 167 lU
2/01/73 59 22
1973 average 112 23
11/21/72 27 7
11/07/72 28 38
10/11/72 71 3^
9/19/72 U8 66
8/16/72 53 ^0
7/18/72 53 42
6/14/72 67 0
5/16/72 61 56
2/29/72 12 12
2/03/72 49 48
1/13/72 36 40
1972 average 46 35
-------
GULKWAY TERRACE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
T.W.Q.B. Waste Control Order No. 10*495
Date BOD TSS
11/13/74
10/10/74 48 48
9/03/74 1^ 16
8/01/74 30 38
6/18/74 56 108
5/09/74 14 34
14/09/7^ — 34
2/26/74 130 22
1/31/74 43 34
1974 average 56 42
11/27/73 71 20
10/04/73 83 28
9/12/73 30 19
8/29/73 23 22
7/31/73 73 48
6/26/73 32 32
5/24/73 136 32
4/10/73 24 17
2/01/73 35 38
1973 average 56 26
11/21/72 18 0
11/07/72 31 48
10/11/72 26 26
9/19/72 132 36
8/16/72 81 112
7/18/72 39 31
6/14/72 50 44
5/16/72 54 60
2/29/72 21 128
2/03/72 51 12
1/13/72 47 44
1972 average 50 49
-------
FREEWAY MANOR S.T.P. WC&ID
T.W.Q.B. Waste Control Order No. 10^95
Date BOD TSS
11/13/7U 5 8
10/10/7^ 3 2
.9/03M ^ 1
i8/01/7tt 2 10
6/18/7U U 7
5/09/7U b 6
lt/09/71* ~ 6
2/26/7U 6 5
1/31/7^ ^ °
197U average U 5
11/27/73 16 0
10/OU/73 9 1
9/12/73 6 2
8/29/73 6 1
7/31/73 13 3
6/26/73 3 7
5/2U/73 13 1
VlO/73 H 1
2/11/73 2 U
1973 average 9 2
11/21/72 3
11/07/72 7 1^
10/11/72 7 10
9/19/72 7 8
8/16/72 U 7
7/18/72 i 10
6/1U/72 9 8
5/16/72 11 ^^
2/29/72 6 28
2/03/72 10 8
1/13/72 10 12
1972 average 7 15
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GALVE.STON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX I 229
GALVESTON, TEXAS 77550
SWGED-E
14 January 1975
Mr. Arthur Busch
Regional Administrator
Region VI, Environmental
Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
This is in response to your letter dated 12 December 1974,
transmitting for our review and comments a draft environ-
mental statement for the City of Houston's District 47
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
It is expected that the Corps of Engineers will resume
flood control studies for Sims Bayou in the fall of 1975.
Such studies will consider the effects of the wastewater
discharges during flood stages, and flood control improve-
ments will be designed accordingly.
Specific comments are as follows:
a. Page 18 - C. Flood Prone Areas - Third sentence
should be changed to "The 100-year flood level of this
watercourse is 50 feet mean sea level at ..." or "The
Intermediate Regional Flood (100-year) level ..."
b. Page 19A - Incorrect title on Figure III-2.
title should be "AREAS SUBJECT TO 100 YEAR FLOOD".
The
c« Page C-7 - Second paragraph should be revised
"...indicates a mean daily discharge (October 1971 -
September 1972) of 76.2 cfs ranging from 18 cfs to 2390
cfs for individual days."
-------
SWGED-E
Mr. Arthur Busch
14 January 1975
d. Table E-l requires corrections as indicated on
attached marked up copy. Data should be taken from same
station and referenced.
Sincerely yours,
As stated
-------
MONTHLY PJITCCIPITATION (HFASUKKD IN INCHES)
CITi' Ol-1 HOUSTON 19G5--3.973
Average 1955-1973: -49.41 Inches
1
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November-
December
TOTAL YEAR
7
&
1965
1.87
3.27
0.81
0.95
6.53
3.05
1.57
2.29
M6?'5*
3.09
4.82
6.15
37.97
tfcffi&Son
W&AirpeX+
1966
4.46
7.75
2.20
7.98
11.21
4.42
1.45
- 7.11
4.01
5.45
1.56
1.53
59.13
l-hns-kr)
W B diqtsri
1967
m
2+17
-ZT&-
1.83
4.42
2.54
0.17
7.77
1.60
4.84
3.18
0.50
5.02
35.45
Hswsfrn
MB drr-p^ff
-1968
8.02
1.99
2.92
3.02
13.24
11.18
6.49
2.90
3.87^
3.91
2.71
J K?
JUST"
61.44-.
tfcuskfr.'
pAAAirfW
"
1969
2.74
5.31
3.18
3.34
/1s ^
ll'/j^J
tio5-&£#~ff>c<>i
/or"1
\/
3.89
2.67
v
6.08
3.30
2.13
4.38
43.26
.-
L/
1970
1.93
2.52
5.08
2.21
14.39
4fy
0.26
2.28
2.03
6,22
9.09
1.54
0.64
48.19
ix'
1971
0.36
2.11
1.21
2.14
3.41
2.42
1.42
6.95
5.17
3.49
1.82
7.33
sl^f3
HertfS-fa*
k*i£c'/?P
1972
3.30 •
1.20
8.52
2.&S
1 I^j'bb -
6.99 .
3.02
2.76
3.90
6.23
3.34
•6.49
2.20
50.80
//e t,<£-fe-^
tt> && A P
1973
5.00
3.40
*rte-^'^
7.15
4.22
13.46
^rrter&,77
3.73
9,38
9.31
1.59
.2.47
i
70.16 '
O-JF^E: United States Deprrtr^r.t of Interior, Weather Bureau
-------
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
CULLEN BOULEVARD
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77004
GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
December 20, 1974
Mr. James L. Collins
Regional Hearing Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Collins:
The City of Houston's proposed District 47 Regional Waste-
water Facilities are located in an area crossed by several active
geologic faults. These should be considered specifically in
planning the construction, rather than in the generalities of a
quoted source as has been done on page 20 of the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
Very truly yours,
DeWitt C. Van Siclen
Professor of Geology
DWCVS:ae
-------
EPMUND L. NICHOLS
Assistant Commissioner
January 2, 1975
Mr. Arthur W. Busch "" ~
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
This is in response to your letter of December 12, 1974, solici-
ting comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
District 47 Regional Wastewater Facilities, City of Houston,
WPC-TEX-1008.
We have reviewed this statement and agree that the sanitary system
recommended will at least for the short term enhance the environment
by reducing water pollution and diminish the probability of health
problems arising from overloaded treatment plants and septic plants.
We are concerned, however, that very few alternatives were con-
sidered and evaluated. Furthermore, little ingenuity or creative
thought was displayed in selecting alternatives for evaluation.
Innovative approaches that require less water and make use of the
solid waste products as fuels were not considered.
This lack of consideration of concepts and techniques with reduced
water requirements compounds a situation in Houston that is already
bad. Specifically this Draft BIS indicates that about 1.3 million
residents now require 172 million gallons per day for an average
of about 140 gallons per day per person. This is slightly above
the per capita water requirement of other cities of comparable size.
The projected population growth and water use figures reflect an
anticipated per capita increase in the water requirement.
Clearly at some time this trend must be reversed or at least
stopped. This need is almost certain to be accentuated by growing
demands for fresh water in agriculture and other industries pro-
viding vital human supplies and services.
This line of reasoning leads us to suggest that additional studies
be made of the Houston wastewater management plans with the specific
goal of finding methods of reducing the per capita water requirement,
THIS PAPER is MADE FROM COTTON A PRINCIPAL CROP OF TEXAS
Texas Department of Agriculture, John C. White, Commissioner, P.O. Box 12847, Austin, Texas 78711
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
January 2, 1975
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to review the plan for this
important project.
icho1s
ELNram
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
1100 COMMERCE STREET
D-ALLAS, TEXAS 75202
January 22, 1975
REGION VI
IN REPLY REFER TO:
6MET
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VT
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed improvements to the
City of Houston's District 47 Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WPC-Tex-1008)
has been reviewed by environmental impact assessment personnel in the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development's Dallas Area and Regional Offices.
The Department's review comments on the subject Statement follow:
1. Cross Reference to Incoming Inquiry
The proposed action is to expand the wastewater collection and re-
lated facilities for the City of Houston's District 47 Regional
Sewage Treatment Plant. More specifically, it is to construct
diversion sewers from two small treatment plants and a trunk sewer
system including a pump station which will feed all sewage generated
within the District into the District Plant and make possible the
closing of the two small plants.
2. HUD Comment on the Statement.
Although the Statement indicates that the two abandoned waste-
water treatment plant sites will be made available for other
productive uses, possibly for neighborhood mini-parks, it is not
clear whether these facilities will be demolished immediately
following their being closed down. If left standing for any
significant period, it would appear that they might possibly
have adverse environmental impacts in terms of visual aesthetics
and as attractive-nuisance-type hazards for neighborhood children.
It is therefore felt that the Statement should go into more de-
tail regarding the disposition of these facilities.
Figure G-6 (Projected Land Use Pattern for District 47 Service
Area) on page G-8 of Appendix G indicates that a presently
•
K"/''-f TV \ \ ./' AREA OFFICES
-JgAJLllA^J^'xAS -LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS-NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA- OKLAHOMA C I !' Y , O K I A r'CM A - S i . 11 VONIO, 1 EX AS
Insuring Offices
Albuquerque, New Mexico - Fort Worth, Texas • Houston, Texas • Lubbock, Texas • Shre .'ep'-jrl, i. ^uisiana • Tiu;- -i. UKUihoma
-------
vacant tract adjoining the District Plant site to the west
is expected to be built up with single family residences and
that a larger vacant tract across State Highway 3 and the
railroad to the north of the plant site is expected to be develop-
ed for multi-family residential use. Although the action
currently under consideration does not involve any physical
changes to the plant but rather will only increase its treatment
load (but still only to a level substantially below its design
capacity), the Statement indicates that the plant will be doubled
in capacity by 1979. Accordingly, we question whether areas near
the plant which are now vacant ate suitable or desirable for
future residential use, and we are concerned that the City of
Houston is apparently not in a position to exercise any effective
controls over development in these areas to assure that it is
of a type that is compatible with a nearby sewage treatment
plant. Accordingly, we feel that the Statement should devote
more attention to recommendations, possibilities, and suggestions
as to how development might or should be guided or controlled
by the City of Houston in nearby areas likely to be adversely
affected by the plant and its operations. In this connection,
we might point out that the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment's Houston Insuring Office does not provide Federal
Housing Administration imortgage insurance for homes within
three hundred feet of the sites of future wastewater treatment
plants. Within areas near existing plants, the decision as to
whether such insurance should be approved for a particular resi-
dential property is made on the basis of an investigation and
determination of the extent to which the property is expected to
be subjected to the undesirable environmental effects of the
plant. Such determination is made on the basis of field visits,
knowledge of the area and of problems created by the plant over
a period of time, talks with people already in the area and
other knowledgeable people, etc. However, HUD's withholding of
FKA mortgage insurance in areas adversely impacted by sewage
treatment plants is not an adequate substitute for effective
local land use controls because in the absence of local controls
such areas can still be developed for residential purposes with
convential financing.
3. HUD Reservations about the Proposal
HUD has no reservations about the carrying out of this proposal.
The proposed .action appears to be very desirable. Our concern is
that adeq^^\A4ftl&44,eir^feion be given to the recognition and allevia-
tion of/thVlsroblems "identified in Item 2 above which might be
-------
expected or could result from the implementation of this proposal
and the larger system of which it is a part even though overall
both this project and the system as a whole appear to be very much
needed and quite beneficial.
Sincerely,
Travis Wm. Miller
Environmental Clearance Officer
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
January 24, 1975
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
We have reviewed the draft environmental statement for the City of
Houston's District 47 Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities, WPC-
TEX-1008.
Generally the statement adequately describes the environmental impact
of the proposed project and contains measures to minimize adverse effects.
On December 19, 1974, we included soils data in our comments on the
Easthaven Regional Treatment Plant. You may wish to refer to that letter
since the same data on soils will apply to this project area.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft and make appropriate
comments.
Sincerely,
Edward E. Thomas
State Conservationist
-------
The University of Texas at Arlington
76019
• \ ' ir ~
Planning Research and Design Center
Department of Architecture
April 16, 1975
Mr. George J. Putnicki
Deputy Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
1600 Patterson Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Sub: Archaeological Survey and Related Studies for
Draft and Final EIS Reports on WPC-TEX-1009-1074-1060,
WPC-TEX-1020, WPC-TEX-1047 and WPC-TEX-1008
Dear Mr. Putnicki:
I am writing this letter to offer additional clarification on
archaeological, historical and cultural studies included in the
City of Houston's Almeda-Sims, Northwest, Easthaven, and District
47 Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The following
table provides the reference of these elements in the Draft and
Final EIS documents for all four projects in Houston.
"RECEIVED
APR221975
E P A 6 A W
REGION. VI
An Equal Opportunities/Affirmative Action Employer
-------
TEXT REFERENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND RELATED ELEMENTS IN THE DRAFT AND
FINAL EIS REPORTS FOR HOUSTON PROJECTS
Project Name Draft/Final Date
Reference to EIS Reports on
Archaeological, Historical and
Cultural Elements
Almeda-Sims
WPX-TEX-1009
Northwest
WPC-TEX-1020
Easthaven
WPC-TEX-1047
District 47
Draft EIS
Final EIS
Draft EIS
Final EIS
Draft EIS
Final EIS
Draft EIS
Final EIS
June
1974
Oct.
1974
Sept.
1974
Jan.
1975
Sept.
Feb.
1975
Oct.
1974
March
1975
Section I, Subsection 4b, p.27, 28;
Section IV, Subsection 2w, p. 92;
Appendix H, p. H-l through H-5
Section I, Subsection 4b, p. 27, 28;
Section IV, Subsection 2w, p. 92;
Appendix H, p. H-l through H-5
Chapter^III, Section D, Subsection 2,
p. 48, 49; Chapter VI, Section A,
Subsection 2u, p. 110, 111; Appendix H,
p. H-l through H-5
Chapter III, Section D, Subsection 2,
p.. 48, 49; Chapter VI, Section A, Sub-
section 2u, p. 110, 111; Appendix H,
p. H-l through H-5
Chapter III, Section D, Subsection 2
and 3, p. 39, 40; Chapter VI, Section B,
Subsection 6a, p. 89, 90; Appendix G,
p. G-l through G-5
Chapter III, Section E, Subsection 1
and 2, p. 25; Chapter VI, Section B,
Subsection 6a, p. 63, 64
* Camera-ready copies of Final EIS Reports.for Easthaven and District 47
have been submitted to Greg Edwards, Project Officer, in February and
March 1975, respectively. We do not have copies of .the Final EIS on
these two projects in our office to provide an accurate reference.
-------
The UTA study team s.tarted the EIS preparation for the Houston
projects by evaluating the environmental assessments submitted by
the City of Houston which engaged the consulting services of Turner,
Collie and Braden, Inc. We verified the archaeological data
furnished by the TCB and found that the Houston area had only two
sites which are in the National Register of Historic Places:
The Cotton Exchange Building in downtown Houston and the San Jacinto
Battlefield located northwest of Houston. Both these sites were
outside the service areas of all four projects.
We however, did not stop there. To get additional information,
we contacted the Texas Historical Commission in Austin. We visited
their office in early June, 1974 and gave them a map of the Houston
metropolitan area showing the service areas of all four projects and
requested data on properties of historical and Archaeological .signi-
ficance in addition to the two items listed in the National Register.
A few days later, they responded to our request by sending a letter
(a copy of which is attached for your information) expressing their
appreciation of our efforts to consult with them in the early stages
of the EIS preparation and mentioning that the Corps of Engineers
located ten sites of archaeological significance along the White
Oak Bayou. It was our sole intent to exhaust all possible sources
to get an accurate picture of archaeological and historical sites in
.Houston and as such we contacted the Historical Commission in advance
of Draft EIS preparation for any of the Houston Projects.
Next we contacted the Corps of Engineers District Office in
Galveston in an attempt to get a map of White Oak Bayou showing the
location of the ten sites along this Bayou so that we could include
this information in the Draft and Final EIS Reports. Unfortunately,
we were informed by Mr. Ernie Wittig of the Ecology Section of the
Corps of Engineers of the Galveston District Office that the Corps
of Engineers had been asked by the Texas Archaeological Survey to
not make the location of these sites public until steps are taken
to insure the preservation of all these sites. A statement to this
effect has been made in all Draft and Final EIS reports. The archae-
ological and historical sections of these documents were thus pre-
pared by fully utilizing the available inputs from both the Texas
Historical Commission and the Corps of Engineers office in Galveston.
We wholeheartedly concur and still concur with the substance
of Mr. Brigg's letter with regard to a thorough archaeological sur-
vey of all plant sites and the proposed pipeline easements and
right of ways. With regard to the Department of the Interior's sugges-
tion of including the results of an archaeological.survey in the
Final EIS reports, I think the statement on "Prior to the con-
struction of the treatment plants and the sewer lines" has been
subject to varying interpretations. The Department of the Interior
went a step further in their revievj of the Almeda-Sims and Northwest
Draft EIS reports. They suggested that a survey should be made prior
to the publication of the Final EIS. We do not agree with this
suggestion. What was meant in the Draft EIS was that the survey
— 3—
-------
should be made by the City of Houston immediately prior to or
during the construction phase of the project development. There
is a significant difference between carrying out an archaeological
survey before the completion of a Final EIS and the actual con-
struction of a grant project in terms of time arid costs for a
project development.
There are several reasons why we did not recommend earlier,
nor do we recommend now, any archaeological survey before the
Final EIS. First and foremost, from our study of the Executive
Order No. 11593 and the Historical Preservation Act of 1966, we
did not find that an archaeological field Survey is required before
the preparation of a Final EIS Report. Secondly, there is no
archaeological site recorded in the National Register within any
of the project sites, easements, right of ways or the service
areas. Third, a reconnaissance survey which is mostly done through
a walk and search technique, is, in our opinion, not meaningful
since the possibility of detecting any sites through such techni-
ques is slim and do not always justify the costs involved. In
our opinion, real findings are possible through actual excavation
and construction. That is why we recommended the archaeological
surveys during the construction phase. As you already know, the
construction crew is probably the best source of finding archae-
ological and paleontological sites underground. We also recommended
that a trained paleontologist should be employed during the con-
struction phase. • Please see the sections on Paleontology in the
Draft and Final EIS documents.
In brief, we believe the statements on the archaeological
and historical elements presented in all EIS Reports for the
Houston projects are complete and sufficient. We have gone beyond
the requirements of typical EIS documents by including a separate
section on cultural elements in Houston supported by an Appendix
on Historical, Archaeological and Cultural Elements in each EIS
report.
The project's impact on the existing historic and archaeological
sites are neither adverse nor beneficial since they are all outside
the project areas. All four statements meet the requirements of
the Executive Order No. 11593 and the National Historic Reservation
Act of 1966. All statements reflect both the spirit and the letter of
-------
the policy objectives of the historic- National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. It was our pleasure to be involved in these
projects and we look forward to a mutually rewarding outcome again
in the future. In the meantime, if you have any questions or
need additional clarification on any of the elements of the EIS
projects in Houston, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Khan M. Husain, Director
UTA Planning Research and Design Center and
Associate Professor, Department of- Architecture
KMH/prg
Copy-to: Greg Edwards
Project Officer
Houston EIS Projects
Enclosure
-5-
-------
Texas Historical Commission
Box 12276, Capitol Station
Austin, Texs
Ttuet. Larimer
Executive Director
June 11, 1974
Mr. Khan M. Husain, Director
UTA/Planning Research and Design Center
Department of Architecture
The University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas 76019
Dear Mr. Husain:
In response to your request of 4 June, 1974, we have examined the
enclosed map and find that archeological surveys have been confined
to one area. Archeological surveys have recorded ten sites along
White Oak Bayou. Areas south of the metropolitan area have been
surveyed prior to construction of Army Corps of Engineers projects
and have been successful in locating large numbers of sites. For
this reason, we are recommending that-the area of any proposed
wastewater treatment facilities as well as any necessary pipelines,
easements for machinery, etc. related to the proposed installation
be subjected to an archeological survey prior to their construction.
Sites recognized during the survey may be recorded and their signi-
ficance appraised prior to their commitment to the project. Sites
which fulfill National Register criteria can then be nominated to
the National Register of Historit^Places.
Thank_you._for_-±he-opportunity_to_examine the map of your project
area_and for consulting with _the...Texas--HistoricalIC6mmissi6~n_at
th'is~early' stage of planning. If we may be of further assistance,
.please advisee'
Sincerely,
Alton K. Briggs
Archeologist
AKB:pc
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Doering, J., 1935, Post-Fleming Surface Formations of Coastal
Southeast Texas and South Louisiana, Bull. A.A.P.G., V. 19,
No. .5, pp. 651-688.
, 1956, Review of Quaternary Surface Formations of the
Gulf Coast Region, Bull. A.A.P.G., V. 40, No. 8, pp. 1816-1862.
Fisher, W. L., and others, 1972, Environmental Geologic Atlas of
the Texas Coastal Zone—Galvestor.-Houston Area, Bureau of
Economic Geology, Austin, 91 p., 9 maps.
Kouston-Galveston Area Council, 1972, Regional Atlas of the Houston-
Galveston Area Council.
Proctor, C. F. , and Kail, W. D., 1974, Environmental Geology of the
Greater Houston Area, Approaches to Environmental Geology,
Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigation No. 8"l,
pp. 123-134.
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (in
preparation) , Soil Survey of Harris County, Texas.
Texas Water Development Board, 1973, Ground-Water Data for Harris
County, Vols. I, II, III, Report No. 178.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1922,, Soil Survey of Karris County,
Texas.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1973, 7 1/2-minute topographic maps, printed
at 1/2 reduced scale, showing flood-prone areas for Houston and
vicinity.
Wood? T. A., and others, 1963, Reconnaissance Investigation of the
Ground-Water Resources of the Gulf Coast Region, Texas, Texas
Water Commission, Bull. 6305.
Public Law 91-190; 83 Stat. 852, 42 USC, SS 4321-47.
Executive Order 11514; March 5, 1970.
Federal Register? 40 CFR, Part 6.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1970 Census of Population and Housing,
Houston, Texas, SMSA, Census Tracts, May, 1972.
Turner & Collie, Master Plan for City of Houston Sanitary Sewerage,
Section II, 1964.
City of Houston, Sanitary Sewer Division, Department of Public Works,
1972-1990 City of Houston Sanitary Sewer System Wastewater
Treatment Needs and Master Plan Projections, 1972.
-------
Yum^r, Collie & Braden, jj^ive^Year jr>..plto.l liiiprgyeiaen'cs Prorr,-.,,. ;,r;a
Fiscal Study for the Sanitary Sewer SystcmT^'clty""o'F~iTo~.Vc.'6Trf'
Parts I and II, 1974. ~~
Houston-Calveston Area Council, Population Projections, 1970-2020 for
the Gulf Coast Planning Region, April 1972.
Turner, Collie & Braden, Comprehensive Study of Houston's Municipal
Water System, Phases I, II and III, 1971-1974.
Turner, Collie & Braden, Comprehensive Water Rate Study of the Houston
Municipal Water System, 1974.
U.S. Department of Interior, Weather Bureau.
U.S. Department.of.Interior, National Park Service, 1972 National
Register of Historic Places, 1972.
Houston-Galveston Area Council, Land Use 1971, Houston and Environs.
U.S. Department of Interior, Water Resources Data for Texas: 1971,
1972; Part 1, Surface Water Records, and Part 2, Water Quality Records,
Geologic Survey.
Texas Water Quality Board Waste Control Order No. 10495.
Texas 'Water Quality Board Order No. 69-9, as applied to City of
Houston, 69-9A.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1973 Survey of Needs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Form EPA-1, as completed by
City of Houston, July, 1973.
Application for Federal Assistance, U.S. EPA Form 5700-12 (Rev. 9-72)
submitted by City of Houston, April 1974, as per P.L. 92-500,
Section 66-400.
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority-City of Houston, Sewer System
Contract, dated April 1, 1974.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972; Section 204
(a) (5), reserve capacity-
Turner, Collie & Braden, City of Houston, Wastewater Management
Plan, Waste Load Report ""to the Texas Water Quality Board]
"(Revised), April 1, 1974.
Houston-Galveston Area Council, 1972, Parks, .Recreation and Open
Space, 1971.
Executive Order No. 11296; August 11, 1966.
-------
Texas Water Quality Board Discharge 1' erni.lt 10495, istiueci Ma^cl; .>. , ISoo
for the Northwest Sewage Treatment Plant, Ilouscon, Texas.
Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Transit Program for Houston, Vol. I,
1973.
City of Houston, City Planning Commission, Harris County Land Use
Inventory, 1972.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Special Flood Hazard Information: White
Oak Bayou, Cole Creek and Vogel Creek, Karris County, Texas , 1 97 2~
Office of Grants Coordinator, Region VI, Environmental Protection
Ag e ncy , Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Construction of
Wastewater Facilities, .City of Houston, 1974.
Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation, r. .ration/Inflow Analysis ,
Northwest Treatment Plant, City 01 ;,ston, "! "
r' "•'
Turner, Collie £ Braden, Inc», Master ; for .ary Sewerage ,
Northwest Area, May, 1973.
Interview with Mr, Ernie Wittig, Corps of Engineers Environmental
Branch, Galveston, Texas, by Sharla Marks, August 12, 1974.
Interview with Joe Johnson, Department of Sanitation, City of Houston,
Houston, Texas, by Sharla Marks, August 8 and 13, 1974.
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER II; THE CITY WIDE CONTEXT FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX A; HOUSTON'S. EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM; EXISTING
CAPACITY. INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
-------
TABLE A-l -
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY OF HOUSTONTS EXISTING TREATMENT PLANTS
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Northside
Sims Bayou
Almeda Sims
Chadwick Manor
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
CIWA
Eastex Oaks
Easthaven
Fontaine Place
FWSD 17
FWSD 23
FWSD 34
Gulf Meadows
Gulf Palms
Gulfway Terrace
Homestead
Inter continental
Airport
Longwoods
Mayfair Park
Northeast
Northwest
Red Gulley
Suspended Solids
rag/1
'. Raw
385
243
232
156
134
-
197
211
118
107
133
194
446
161
188
407
Effluent
141
61
27
24
100
80
-
49
48
45
35
45
18
8
49
39
55
42
25
38
18
24
34
5-Day BOD
mg/1
Raw
304
181
118
124
145
-
175
136
99
166
113
96
267
148
122
136
Efflu-
ent
79
23
9
6
36
35
-
24
25
39
15
• 12
13
3
25
25
16
23
17
15
7
7
9
Residual
Chlorine
mg/1
Effluent
0.7
006
1.3
2.0
1.2
1.9
-
2.0
1.3
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.7
2.1
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.0
1.5
2.0
Treated
Flow
Yearly
Average
mgd
89.69
39.64
0.819
0.040
3.305
0.754
-
0.183
0.476
0.275
0.7
2.154
0.631
0.999
0.283
0.231
1.435
0.311
0.075
0.39
1.567
6.135
0.367
Dry
Weather
Flow*
mgd
100.5
43.3
0.42
(E)
2.67
|
0.31
-
0.16
0.25
(E)
(E)
1.48
0.62
Oo75
0.23
0.14
1.13
(E)
0.18
0.87
0.13
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l
(Con't)
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Sagemont
Sherwood Forest
Southeast
Southwest
Turkey Creek
WCID 20
WCID 32
WCID 34
WCID 39
WCID 42
WCID 44-1
WCID 44-3
WCID 47
WCID 51
WCID 53
WCID 62
WCID 73
WCID 81
WCID 82
WCID 95
West District
Chatwood
Forest West
Lake Forest
Suspend
me
Raw
227
-
121
188
169
158
125
250
140
213
171
led Solids
r/i
Effluent
8
-
53
8
81
116
77
38
49
78
85
48
8
14
64
41
34
66
26
51
' 53
66
55
36
)'
5-Da
mg
Raw
166
-
41
147
146
161
136
222
155
209
170
y BOD
/I
Efflu-
ent
4
-
10
4
20
52
26
25
43
55
52
35
6
8
58
35
7
20
4
16
19
78
16
18
Residual
Chlorine
rag/1
Effluent
4.1
-
2.5
1.7
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
2.1
2.3
2.1
2.1
5.0
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.2
Treated
Flow
Yearly
Average
mgd
1.548
-
0.134
25.37
0.263
0.244
0.880
0.300
0.500
0.645
0.444
0.606
1.660
2.441
0.449
0.196
0.254
0.240
0.034
0.372
11.4
0.250
0.235
0.180
Dry
Weather
Flow*
mgd
1.60 i
1
i
0.19 j
20.9
i
0.14 ;
0.097
0.69
(E)
(E) i
0.33
j
o.9i :
(E)1.65 :
1.05
0.40
11-0
(E) 3 mo
(E) 8 mo
(E) 3 mo;
AT 2
-------
TEXT REFERENCE;
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
APPENDIX B: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING)
A, TOPOGRAPHY
B, SOILS AND GEOLOGY
-------
A. TOPOGRAPHY
Houston and its environs have been built on a gently
sloping part of the Texas Coastal Plain. The elevation of the area
varies only 65 feet having a low of 25 feet above the mean sea
level in the east and southeast to a high of about 90 feet in
the northwestern part of the city- The broad prairie presents
an undulating pattern of long and gentle swells and depressions,
ascending from the southern part of the city to Spring Creek near
the northern part of the city. In the past, the gentle slope
allowed easy drainage of the undeveloped prairie land, but with
the rapid urbanization of Houston over the last several decades,
drainage has become more and more difficult since much of the open
land has been covered by man-made structures., The problem will
further intensify unless appropriate land use policies are imple-
mented to halt the problem. Houston has no extreme topographic
features such as mountains or valleys. Its topographic pattern
played a major role in shaping a highly decentralized and an
expensive system of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal
activities.
The Service Area of the Proposed Project:
The service area of the proposed project lies in the
Texas Coastal Prairie, which extends westward along the Gulf
Coast, reaching inland 30 to 60 miles. The topography of the
se j Lee area is one of very low relief with slopes in the area
being generally less than 1%. The elevation for the service
B-l
-------
area is between 35 feet to 45 feet above the mean sea level„
The topographic maps included as Figure B-l in this Appendix
show the topographic relief of the area. Like the rest of the city,
the low relief and slope make runoff and internal drainage diffi-
cult and expensive for the service area0
The topographic features of the service area will
have a significant impact on the distribution and intensity of
future land use development. Since more than half of the
service area is still available for urban development, the city
can avoid the mistakes which characterized the past land use
pattern. Residential, commercial and industrial developments are
necessary to life, but land use policies can prevent continued
low density development. Subject to soils and geological con-
straints, efforts should be made to concentrate land use in
specific locations, permitting as much land as possible to re-
main open. This would ease the drainage of the area during
periods of heavy rainfall and reduce costs for utilities and
drainage projects. A very important byproduct of such policies
will be the preservation of the ecological values associated
with the natural environment. Such a policy if adopted, would
maximize the development of open space with a minimum of public
funds0
B-2
-------
FIGURE B-l
TOPOGRAPHY OF DISTRICT 47 VICINITY
SCALE : 1" = 3500 '
B-3
-------
B. SOILS AND GEOLOGY
1. Geology
Houston Area
Sand, gravel, silt and clay deposited along inland water-
ways or built up as deltaic, shoreline or lagoonal deposits along
the coast are the dominant geologic features of the Houston area0
The subsurface is mineral rich, containing sulphur, petroleum,
gas and salt deposits. In addition, the surface deposits provide
gypsum, limestone from shells, sand, gravel and brick clays,
Service Area of District 47 Plant
Most of the service area of the Project is underlain by
geologic formations in the Beaumont Group. The Geologic Atlas of
Texas, Houston Sheet (1968), mapped the Beaumont as a single forma-
tion and made no attempt to subdivide the unit. Doering (1935)
described the Beaumont as overlapping the underlying Lissie Forma-
tion (Motgomery of the G.A.T. Houston Sheet). Then, in 1956, he
subdivided the Beaumont into the older (lower) Oberlin Formation
and the younger (upper) Eunice Formation. Doering interpreted
the Oberlin -as being predominantly a clay unit overlapping the
older Lissie, and the Eunice as representing a period of deltaic
progradation. The Eunice of the Study area is somewhat sandier
than the older Oberlin, with the sands representing elongate,
sinuous and abandoned deltaic distributory channels that usually
appear on the surface as elongate distributory meander ridges.
The geologic formations of the Houston area are included
as Figure B-2 in this appendix. The service area consists of geo-
logic and soils substrata common to the coastal uplands.
B-4
-------
Soils
There are two detailed soil maps available for Harris
County. The oldest of these was prepared by the U. S. Department
of Agriculture in 1922. The Soil Conservation Service of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture is now completing a new soil map
for Harris County. A portion of this map, taken from the aerial
photos used to delineate the various soil series, is included as
Figure B-3 in this appendix. It covers the service area and shows
the various soil types that are found in the project area. A
brief summary of the characteristics of these soil types and
their consideration as determinants of urban land use and man-
made activities are presented following this section.
The types of soil that predominate in the service area
of the District 47 have low permeability, which virtually elimi-
nates septic tanks as a method of wastewater effluent. Yet, parts
of the service area are servicedby septic tanks. The continued
use of this system over a prolonged period of time will have an
extremely adverse effect on the environment unless action is
taken to remedy the situation in the immediate future.
From the standpoint of strength of soils to sustain
man-made activity loads for active land use developments, the
soils that dominate the service area have characteristics that
will restrict heavy construction, road building and other intense
structural construction unless proper stabilization and engineering
precautions are taken before such construction.
B-5
-------
FIGURE B-2: GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS FOR THE HOUSTON AREA
MONTGOMERY FORMATION
ALLUVIUM
BEAUMONT FORMATION!
SCALE 1" = 3,55 MILESJ
B-6
-------
FIGURE B-3
DETAILED SOILS MAP FOR THE SERVICE AREA AND VICINITY
LAKE CHARLES-URBAN
BERNARD-URBAN
J3 ARIS-URBAN
LAKE CHARLES
BERNARD
BERNARD-EDNA
g|PLANT LOCATION |
^r'jALMEDA-GENOA RD
B-7
-------
CHAPJUJTERI.STICS OF SOIL SERIES IN SOUTHEAST HARRIS COUNTY
There are 48 different mapping units in Harris County. They are
mostly clay, sandy loam, and loam textures. Clay textures predominate
in the area south of Buffalo Bayou, where the soil is dark, clayey, and
compact. On the margins of the prairie, especially where there are
small clusters of pine trees, the soil tends to be loamy, grayish or yel-
lowish, and acidic, with compact clayey subsoils. In the bottomlands
bordering streams, creeks, and bayous, deep grayish, loamy alluvial soils
occur. They tend to be poorly drained and are saturated during periods
of heavy rainfall.
In the service area of the proposed project, the Beaumont formation
soils predominate. They are composed mostly of clay, silt, and sand. They
support scattered grasses, weeds, and small amounts of timber. The clay
is heavy, b]ack and alluvial type, having low permeability, which virtually
eliminates septic tanks as a method of wastewater treatment since the soil
cannot satisfactorily absorb wastewater effluent. Their fine-grained tex-
ture and the high plastic montmorillonitic clay contents make for high
water holding capacity, plasticity, shrink-swell potential, and compres-
sibility. These characteristics represent restrictions to heavy construc-
tion, road building, and other intense structural construction unless
proper stabilization and adequate engineering precautions are taken before
such construction.
Following is a brief description of the types of soils which can be
found in the service area and general vicinity of the proposed
sewage treatment plant.
B-8
-------
The Addicks (Ad-Au) Soil Series occurs in limited areas to the south
and west of the Houston Domed Stadium. Soil depth ranges more than 78
inches for the "B23t" horizon. The Addicks is a poorly drained upland
soil with slopes of generally less than 1% and moderate permeability.
Soil pH ranges from 6.1 to 8.4, with a high corrosivity to uncoated steel
and a low corrosivity to concrete. The various soil zones have a plas-
ticity index that ranges from 5 to 27, with a low to moderate shrink-swell
potential.
The Aris (Ap-Ar-As) Soil Series occurs extensively in the service
area. Soil depths range over 78 inches. The Aris soils are poorly
drained and have a very slow permeability. The PI ranges from non-
plastic to 36, and the shrink-swell potential is low to high. Soil pH
ranges from 5.1 to 7.3, and the soils have a high corrosivity to uncoated
steel and a moderate corrosivity to concrete.
Each soil series may be shown on the soil map in several mapping
units. An example of this would be the Bernard soil series. The Bernard
(Bd) is the clay loam phase. The Bernard-Edna complex is shown on the
map as Be, in which the Edna series is a large component of the delineated
areas. The Bernard-Urban land complex is shown as Bg, in which there is
considerable disturbance of soil due to urban development.
Urban land (Ur) has been completely covered or modified by urban
development.
The Bernard (Bd-Be-Bg) Soil Series is extensively developed in the
service area and over much of the south central Harris County. Bernard
B-9
-------
soils are more than 90 inches thick. They have a plasticity index range
of 12 to 45, with moderate to high shrink-swell potential. Soil pH ranges
from 6.1 to 8.4 and varies with depth; corrosivity is high to uncoated
steel and low to concrete. The Bernard is a somewhat poorly drained, very
slowly permeable upland soil, with slopes of usually less than 17°.
The Gessner (Ge-Gs) Soil Series has a limited extent in the service
area, being restricted to the south central Harris County area near its
common corner with Fort Bend and Brazoria Counties. This soil extends
to depths greater than 84 inches. It is poorly drained, with slopes that
rarely exceed 1% and moderate permeability. The plasticity index ranges
from 4 to 20; thus, the shrink-swell potential 'is low. The soil has a
pH ranging from 6.1 to 8.4, with depth; corrosivity is high to uncoated
steel and low to concrete.
The Lake Charles (LuA-Lu) Soil Series covers a major part of both
the service area and of south central Harris County. It occurs in depths
greater than 100 inches and is somewhat poorly drained, very slowly
permeable, upland soil with slopes of mainly less than 1%.
As will be noted from these brief soils descriptions, almost all of
the service area is covered by deep soils with high shrink-swell poten-
cia^s p.nd moderate to high plasticity indices. Of ?.ll potential land
uses, from the point of view of a sanitary facility or community devel-
opment., only a sewage lagoon rates slight in the problem classification.
Septic tank absorption fields, sanitary landfills and cover, shallow
excavations, dwellings with or without basements, small commercial
buildings and local streets and roads are all rated as severe on the
soils survey interpretations range.
B-10
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (NATURAL ENVIRONMENT)
APPENDIX C: SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY
DATA FOR HARRIS COUNTY AND SOUTHEAST HOUSTON
A, AQUIFER SYSTEMS FOR HARRIS COUNTY (FIGURES
C-L C-2 AND C-3>
B, DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING STREAMS AND BODIES
OF WATER
C, STREAM FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA FOR
BERRY GULLEY AND SIMS BAYOU
-------
FIGURE c-i
BASE OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE WATFR SANDS IN
SUBREGIOH II OF THE GULF COAST RLGION
\ i \!tfF°^ //
*gm££j%&^5^
Contour indicotesdepth below sea level of
the base of the fresh to slightly saline water
Contour interval 200 feet
Datum is sea level
iiiiliiiiuuuimujmii'l
Boundary of area where intermediate sands
contain moderately saline to saline water __
Q Q' Boundary of rtver basin or of o ma (or JQJ/^
subdivision where it is the boundary of
Line showing lacation of section (ha QUK coa5» realon
-------
FIGURE c-2 -
ISOPACHOUS MAP OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE WATER SANDS IN
SUBREGION II OF THE GULF COAST REGION
*» ^C-'J~'~~—J rTARP'l^v / _ X. I f^&t
\ _..^xx. j, ^" ^x -r ^^">
'V'X-XX^-
/ h ,Y Vi P^7
Bcxjndory of river bosin or of o moior
subdivision where it is ^e boundary of
th« Gulf Coast region
--6OO
Line showing thickness of fresh to slightly
so'me voter sends
Interval Is 200 feet with sjpplementary
100 foot line rear coast
D1
Line showing toco^ion of section
Miles 5
L
-------
FIGURE c-3
LOCATION OF WELLS IN HOUSTON AND VICINITY
4-vr,
j. 05
-f^-
&
I,:-"
05 s .at
" •
.
•-••
op «
«'• •, oi
• *
'••***
•
-
.. »-**•
o»
EXPLANATION
Will for »luel> drilKr-s
log • includxj in tut
•j 4
•v ~
i i
i- r
/
•
JE
--v -01
T --.
SIT.
•o.
-a-I-rT
* .«
03* -1 -' ..«
"'" -' «.
«.
• «. • Of
o»ir ;•
p81 ;•
-•**•*•_::
-»
J.'fM
'f- •'
•« .a"
-, »•
A - • .'. — . -
9".-
-"w-*
Jfi-
•"*»•' t
i'r
SS
19 1
49*'- ^
"
..-..
M* ••: . V
;•
-'£i
-•-'
.; ».«
.
f.- •
-O.M
N
IPLANT LOCATION!-^.
-•X'**.
24 9
rr '
29 1
.01 3
•02
'to » -..M
Oi. 07
31 -"?-*- '
-_
.-
( -IT
l-r
-------
B, DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING STREAMS AND BODIES OF WATER
1^ Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) Drainage Ditch
The receiving stream for treated effluent from the District
47 Wastewater Treatment Plant is the HCFCD drainage ditch which
empties into Berry Gulley approximately three quarters of a mile
northwest from the plant.
2. Berry Gulley
Berry Gulley extends northwest through predominantly residen-
tial and commercial areas, emptying into Sims Bayou at a point
near the latter's intersection with the Galveston Road approximately
3015 miles northwest from the plant. There is little natural
flow through the ditch or the Berry Gulley which instead serve
as repositories for street runoff and effluent from treatment
plants.
3. Sims Bayou
Sims Bayou is located north of the District 47 service area.
It originates at the junction of Willow Water Hole Bayou and a
drainage ditch near the boundary separating Harris and Fort Bend
Counties. An irrigation canal associated with nearby rice farms
and several drainage ditches intersect the bayou as it passes
through the Southern part of Houston before emptying into the
Houston Ship Channel nearly two and one-half miles below the point
where Brays Bayou enters the Houston Ship Channel.
C-4
-------
FIGURE M: RECEIVING BODIES OF WATER
SHIP CHANNEL!
VINCE BAYOU
JBERRY GULLY
IHCFCD DRAINAGE DITCHI
PLANT LOCATION!
I Ii" = i MILE!
-------
Sims Bayou has been widened and cleared as part of Harris
County flood control activities, but it has not been lined with
concrete or other materials. The bayou passes through such parks
as Sims Bayou, Law, Reveille, Charlton and Charles H. Milby. Sims
Bayou has little natural flow and serves mainly as a repository
for storm water runoff and wastewater treatment plant effluent
flows.
4. Houston Ship Channel
The uppermost portion of the Houston Ship Channel is a nearly
25-mile section of Buffalo Bayou widened and dredged to accommodate
ocean-going vessels, capped by a turning basin three and one-half
miles east of Downtown Houston. Extensive industrial uses are
found on both sides of the channel from the turning basin eastward
to Galveston Bay. As a result of Houston's rapid industrial growth
over the past three decades, water quality has been deteriorating
in the Houston Ship Channel. Actions by both the public and private
sectors should be implemented to rectify this condition and improve
the quality for the Houston Ship Channel.
The regionalization plan for the city, as stated earlier, calls
for the expansion and modernization of a number of treatment plants
over the next several years. The City of Houston should take full
advantage of the opportunity presented by the implementation of the
regional system to address the problem of water pollution of the
Houston Ship Channel„ Since the effluent from all treatment
C-6
-------
plants are discharged to the area water courses, mostly emptying
into the Ship Channel, improving their water quality with the aid
of refined treatment systems will reduce the pollutants in the
Channel and even stimulate the water quality of the Calveston Bay.
The objective of the city's wastewater management program should
therefore be to improve and enhance the overall water quality of
the entire Houston area. The proposed project should be con-
sidered a step in that direction.
C. WATER FLOW AND QUALITY FOR SIMS BAYOU AND BERRY BAYOU
Water discharge data for the HCFCD Ditch and Berry Creek is
not available; however, data is available (Table C-l) for Berry
Bayou at its intersection with Forest Oaks Street.
Discharge data for Sims Bayou measured at State Highway No0
35, which lies northwest of the service area (Table C-2) indicates
a mean daily discharge (October 1971 - September 1972) of 76.2
cfs ranging from 18 cfs to 3,930 cfs for individual days. The
proposed action is expected to increase the water discharge of
Berry Gulley (Bayou), thereby increasing water flow in Sims Bayou.
Measurements available for Berry Bayou are shown in Table C-3,
with BOD5 ranging from 5.4 mg/1 to 38.0 mg/1. Comparable data for
Sims Bayou at State Highway No. 35 is presented in Table C-4, indi-
cating a BODc range of 4.1 mg/1 to 23.0 mg/1. Implementation of
the proposed project should improve the quality of water in Berry
Gulley and Sims Bayou by lowering their BODc levels. See page 61,
last paragraph, Impact on Water Quality.
-------
FIGURE C-5
LOCATION OF WATER FLOW AND QUALITY DATA
IPLANT LOCATIO
-------
TABLE C-l
Water Discharge Data: Berry Bayou at Forest Oaks Street
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075650 Berry Bayou at Forest Oaks Street, Houston, Tex.
LOCATION.—lat 29°40'35", long 95*14'37", Harris County, near left bank at downstream side of Forest Oaks Street Bridge In southeast
Houston, 0.8 mile upstream from auxiliary gage at mouth of Berry Creek, and 1.7 miles upstream from Sims Bayou.
DRAINAGE AREA.—11.1 sq ml.
V
PERIOD OF RECORD.—April 1964 to current year (gage heights only for some periods).
GAGE.—Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage 1s at moan sea level, datum of 1929, adjustment of 1959; unadjusted for land-surface
subsldonco. Auxiliary water-stage recorder 0.8 mile downstream at same datum. June 25, 1964, to Jan. 11, 1965, auxiliary nonrecord-
1ng gage 0.8 mile downstream at same datum.
EXTREMES.—Current year: Maximum discharge, 1,530 cfs Apr. 27; maximum elevation, 13.45 ft Apr. 27; minimum discharge not determined.
Period of record: Maximum discharge, 3,110 cfs May 10, 1968; maximum elevation, 17.59 ft Feb. 21, 1969 (backwater from S1ms
Bayou); minimum discharge not determined.
REMARKS.—Records fair. Discharge during storm periods computed using fall as a factor. Flow affected by tides and backwater
from Berry Creek and Sims Bayou. Discharge estimated for periods of Indefinite stage-fall-discharge relationship following
runoff periods. No diversions above station. Low flow sustained by sewage effluept from south Houston and Houston suburbs.
Recording rain gage located at station.
DAY
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OCT
30
80
20
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER
MOV DEC JAN FCB MAR APR MAY JUN
123
33
750
300
36
68
31
12
O>*4
9.2
: v
XOO
30
10
80
70
10
97
20
85
ZO
33
334
603
83
15
1972
JUL
29
13
AUG
SEP
91
66
227
48
81
62
2!
2'J
3D
31
MAX
(tt)
60
3.13
99
2.18
750
5.81
CAL YR 1971
Win YR 1972
MIX 750
MAX 750
tt
tt
46
50
332
3.15
33.04
44.59
100 PO
1.43 1.11
330
77
330
A. in
603
6.85
67
35
135
227
4.43
29
3'. 4 8
2.37
135
6.47
DAIE
12 5
PEAK DISCHARGE (BASE, 800 CFS)
TIME ELEV. DISCHARGE DATE TIME ELEV.
1600 13.00
about
1,400
4-27
5-12
1730 a13.45
0000 13.08
DISCHARGE
1,130
1,500
•H HMghtcd-inean rainfall, 1n Inches, based on two rain gages.
« Pe»k elevation did not occur at same time as peak discharge.
SOURCE: Water Resources Data for Texas, Part 1: Surface Water Records, 1972,
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, p.266.
C-9
-------
TABLE C-2
Water Discharge Data: Sims Bayou at State Highway 35
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIH
08075500 Sims Bayou at Houston, Tex.
LOCATION."1st Z9*40'27-. lonij 95*17'21>, Harris County, on left bank at downstream llde of bridge on State Highway 35 In southeast
section of Houston and 7.0 miles upstream from mouth.
OPAINAGE AREA.--64.0 sq ml.
PCRIOO OF RECORD.—October 1952 to current year.
GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage Is 0.61 ft below mean sea level, datum of 1929, adjustment of 1957; unadjusted for
land-surface subsidence.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.-20 years, 62.3 cfs (45,140 acre-ft per year).
EXTREMES.--Current year: Maximum discharge, 3,930 cfi Hay 12 (gage height, 23.38 ft); minimum diUy, 18 cfs Nov. IS, Aug. 18,
19. 30, 31.
Period of record: Maximum discharge, 8,800 cfs May 21, 1970 (gage height, X.22 ft); min,«ium dally, 0.9 cfs Aug. 7, 1955.
REMARKS.--Records fair. Low flow 1s largely sustained by sewage effluent from Houston suburbs
!?6
27
2 7
? '
<•'. . a
265
24
2.760
"I'l 15
M t N in.
.38 ft);
for Texas.
APR
22
21
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
21
21
22
21
20
19
20
19
20
33
43
20
20
20
19
'.06
?';2
'•1
25
1.217
43.?
406
19
2.570
«r-rr 35,
«C-fT 55.
Mjy 12 (16CO)
Part 1
HAY
21
250
100 •
40
25
20
250
100
43'
211
1.530
2.310
1,090
313
140
59
51
37
32
30
27
27
26
25
25
26
24
23
24.
22
24
'.005
226
2.390
20
13.990
190
310
3,930 cfJ
JUN
24
28
35
23
21
20
21
21
20
641
534
104
49
35
28
467
239
• 56
34
26
24
24
25
24
23
22
23
22
23
3 4
22
-2.658
83.6
641
20
5.270
(23.39 ft).
JUL
24
21
20
41
4,7
23
20
21
22
44
42
22
29
43
40
21
25
26
72
45
67
52
32
21
21
19
21
34
34
'43
* 3
DC
1.054
34.0
72
19
2.090
»UG SEP
24 21
21 24
23 23
24 26
21 24
20 33
19 33
20 29
19 25
27 23
25 25
23 32
21 27
30 40
44 37
22 29
19 20
18 19
18 19
38 19
93 21
25 21
74 38
66 150
SI 170
41 237
33 224
22 103
21 54
1 8 369
938 1.915
30.3 63.8
93 369
18 19
1.860 3.600
: Surface Water Records, 1972
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, p. 265.
C-10
-------
TABLE C-3
Water Quality Data; Berry Bayou at Forest Oaks Street
SAN JACINTO DIVER BASIN
08075650 BERRY tfAYOU AT FOREST OAKS STREET, HOUSTON, TfiX.
iVATION. --Lit 29°40'35", long 95*14'37", Harris County, at gaging station nt Forest OaKs Street
B>u«ton, 0.8 mile upstream from auxiliary gage at mouth of Derry Crook, and 1.7 mile* upstream
H.UXAGE AREA.— 11.1 sq ml.
f in 100 OF RECORD. --Chemical and biochemical analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
bridge In southeast
from Sins Bayou.
lll«RKS.--So« Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flows.
WATER QUALITY OATAi WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
TIME
OlTC
XT.
II... 0930
V:1,
n... nos
•<»0
•jqi
DIS-
SOLVFD
SODIUM
PLUS
POTAS-
SIUM
(MG/L)
290
330
270
400
130
230
720
190
29
250
490
330
--
TOTAL
NON-
F1LT-
>J«RLF
>JES10liF
(MG/L)
--
19
—
'i/«
T?
?7
?r.6
n.
—
7
—
--
BICAR-
BONATE
(HC03)
(MG/L)
396
338
242
454
266
348
2??
?02
8fl
306
292
288
--
VOL.
MON-
SETTLF-
4HLIC
MESinijf
(MG/L)
—
—
—
-_
—
..
—
_^
--
M—
._
--
CAR-
BONATE
(C03)
(MG/L)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
— -
HAPD-
NF.SS-
ICA.MGI
(MO/L)
180
130.
210
IflO
160
130
270
200
79
100
170
120
DIS-
SOLVED
SULFATE
(S04)
(MG/L)
67
39
56
41
42
34
30
37
15
28
33
30
— —
NON-
C»R-
BONATF
Haon-
NF.SS
<"G/L)
0
0
12
0
0
0
90
30
7
0
0
0
DIS-
SOLVED
CHLO-
RIDE
(CD
(MG/L)
320
400
380
470
140
250
1200
260
37
260
690
420
"
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
RATIO
9.5
13
8.1
13
4.6
8.8
19
5.8
1.4
11
16
13
DIS-
SOLVED
FLUO-
RIOE
(F)
(MG/L)
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.8
.7
1.0
.6
.5
.2
1.5
1.4
1.1
""
SPF-
CIFIC
con-
nucr-
ANCF
(MIC°0-
MHOS)
1780
1"10
1720
2?30
067
1430
3760
1230
312
1360
2^40
1740
ORGANIC
Nmo-
GEH
(N)
(Mft/L)
.57
.27
.38
.80
.59
.73
.90
.47
.35
.39
.31
.47
.41
PH
(UNITS)
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.5
7.9
7.3
7.0
5.0
14
1260
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-4
Water Quality Data: Sims Bnyou at State Highway 35
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075500 SIMS BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.
LOCATION—Lat 29*40'27", long 95'17'21", Harris County, at gaging station at bridge on
section of Houston, and 7.0 miles upstream from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA.--61.0 sq mi.
PERIOD OF RECOItn. --Chemical and biochemical analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
Pesticide anilyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
REMARKS.--See Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flows.
WATER QUALITY OATA( l^ATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 197?
Stat« Highway 35 in south,,,,
DUE
ocf.
19...
NOV.
17...
DEC.
02...
OR...
27...
JAN.
11...
31...
MAR.
OS...
27...
MAY
02...
23...
JULY
25...
AUCi .
08...
14 ...
29...
SEP.
11...
OATF
nr.r .
I1', . .
NOV.
17...
nr.r.
0?...
on...
? ' . . .
JAM.
11...
31 ...
HAW.
? ? . . .
APH.
O'i...
21 ...
HAY
0?,. .
2 '. . .
JUi.r
2'i. ..
AUG .
on...
l'>...
29...
5CP.
11...
TIME
1130
0830
1700
1110
1200
1155
1010
0910
0<)?0
1415
1130
1025
1145
1110
0900
0845
1015
TOTAL
NITHITF.
(N)
(MC,/L)
,0?0
.017
.021
.66
. 10
.061
.000
.10
.014
,0'«q
.016
.10
.090
. n'-o
.035
}1 1
.03?
DIS-
CHARGE
(CFS)
28
19
360
110
18
?0
340
48
21
88
165
22
20
19
20
IP'
26
*
AMMONIA
N1TRO-
GFN
(N)
(MG/L)
6.5
13
2.0
.79
9.5
10
.18
3.4
9.5
3.0
2.2
7.0
7.5
9.5
10
7.0
6.5
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(MG/L)
S4
19
* 5.3
12
19
18
12
15
7.4
7.7
6.0
16
18
19
19
-•
TOTAL
NITWATt
(Nl
(Mfi/L)
.00
.00
.8
1.2
.00
t
.02
1.3
.3
.00
.3
.5
.07
.04
.02
.07
.00
.01
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
(CA)
(MG/Li
53
63
48
30
57
55
24
V 42
72
25
26
55
54
51
41
47
— •
TOTAL
PHOS-
PHORUS
( P)
(MG/L)
2.H
4. Ft
3.5
1.0
4.0
5.9
.35
2.2
6.0
2.2
1.8
3.2
4.4
3.5
4.8
3.2
6.0
DIS-
SOLVED
MAG-
NE-
SIUM
814
f'j'l
71?
Ift90
3?4
?'5t;
VI 4
639
58J
707
660
—
DIS-
SOLVFO
SODIUM
PLUS
POTAS-
SIUM
(MG/LI
260
320
240
110
250
220
57
200
500
81
69
140
160
140
190
170
--
TOTAL
NO'J-
FU T-
hAHLF
RESIDUE
(fG/L)
—
--
63?
--
__
??.
.._
2-5?.
12
90
464
—
—
—
—
--
9
RICAR-
HONATE
(HC03)
(MG/L)
738
222
120
102
316
361
94
160
333
130
110
, 280
214
255
278
298
--
VOL.
MON-
SETTL1;-
AF3LE
RESIDUE
(MG/U
—
—
_-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
..
--
-_
..
._
--
8
CAH-
PONATE
(C03)
(MO/LI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-"
HARD-
NESS
(CA.MG)
(MQ/L)
180
210
150
100
240
210
98
140
?.60
98
98
210
190
180
170
190
—
OIS-
SOLVFO
SULFATE
1504)
(MG/L)
*2
63
37
28
65
36
26
230
460
24
33
48
42
50
45
55
••
NON-
CAR-
BONATE
HARD-
NESS
(MO/L)
0
29
56
20
0
0
21
11
0
0
a
0
in
0
o
0
.-
PIS-
SOLVED
CHLO-
RIDE
(CD
(MG/L)
370
500
390
160
350
280
82
150
440
110
92
170
240
180
240
200
-•
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
PATIO
8.4
9.5
8.5
4.7
7.2
6.5
2.5
7.3
13
3.6
3.0
6.1
5.0
4.5
6.4
S.4
—
DIS-
SOLVED
FLUO-
RIDE
(F)
(MG/L)
.3
.6
.4
.2
.7
.4
.2
.3
.8
.2
.2
.5
.5
.5
.6
.5
-•
SPE-
CIFIC
CON-
DUCT-
ANCE
(MICRO-
MHOS t
1680
2130
1520
766
1760
1540
676
1290
2780
638
566
1060
1230
'"70
1240
1250
1270
OR^K
HEN
IN)
(Mfi/L)
.SI
.10
.47
.33
.37
.50
.40
.45
.60
.30
.66
.63
.60
.30
.70
1.1
.53
PM
(UNITS!
6.9
7.?
7.?
7,0
7.5
7.5
7.3
7."
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.2
C-12
-------
TEXT REFERENCE!
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (SURFACE AND
SUBSURFACE SETTING)
APPENDIX D: LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN THE HQUSTON-GALVESTON AREA
BY:
R, K, GABRYSCH AND C, W, BONNET
U, S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/ OPEN-FILE REPORT
PREPARED BY THE U, S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN COOPERATION WITH
THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE CITIES OF HOUSTON
AND GALVESTON, 1974,
-------
LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE-IN THE
HOUSTON-GALVESTON REGION, TEXAS
By
R. K. Gabrysch and C. W. Bonnet
U.S. Geological Survey
ABSTRACT
The pumping of largo amounts-of ground water in the Ilouston-Galveston
region, Texas, has resulted in water-level declines of as much as 200 feet
(61 metres) in wells completed in the Chicot aquifer and as much as 325
I'eet (99 metres) in wells completed in the Evangeline aquifer during 1943-
73. The maximum annual rates of decline for 1943-73 were 6.7 feet (2.0
metres) in the Chicot aquifer-and 10.8 feet (3.3 metres) in the Evangeline
aquifer. During 1964-7'3, the maximum rates were JO feet (3.0 metres)
in the Chicot and 17.8 feet (5.4 metres) in the Evangeline. The declines
h\ artesian pressures 'have resulted in pronounced regional subsidence of
the land surface.
The center of subsidence is at Pasadena, where as much as 7.5 feet
(2.3 metres) of subsidence occurred .between 1943 and 1973. More than 1.0
foot (0.3 metre) of subsidence occurred at Pasadena between 1906 and 1943.
The maximum amount of'subsidence during 1964-73 was about 3.5 feet (1.1
metres).
In the southern part of Harris -County, about 55 percent of the subsid-
ence Is a result of compaction in the Chicot aquifer. The area'in which
subsidence is 1 foot (0.3 metre) or more has .increased from about 350
square miJes (906 square kilometres) in 1954 to about 2,500 square miles
(6,475 square kilometres) in 1973.
Estimates of subsidence are based on the amount ox water-level decline,
l.Iic thickness of the clay, and the compressibility of the clay. At Seabrook,
it is estimated that for each .1 foot (0.3 metre) of average water-level
decline, 1 foot (0,3. metre) of clay would compact 0.000031 foot (0.00094
centimetre). At Seabrook, for 1 foot (0.3 metre) of water-level decline,
0.0248 foot.. (0.756 centimetre) vi: subsidence would occur.
Planned use of surface water i n.stsucos. If pressure recovery occurs
the rate of subsidence should decrease substantially in the more critical
areas.
D-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
Land-surface subsidence has become critical in parts of the Houston-
Galveston region of Texas. Some low-lying areas along Galveston Bay are
subject to inundation by normal tides, and an even larger part of the
region.may be subject to catastrophic flooding by hurricane tides. ,The
Houston-Galveston region, as described in this report, includes all of
Harris and Galveston Counties and parts of Brazoria, Fort Bend, Waller,
Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Figure 1 shows the principal
areas of ground-water .withdrawals in the region and the average rate of
pumping in 1972.
Several reports have described land-surface subsidence as a result of
compaction of fine-grained material in the subsurface (Winslow and Doyel,
1954; Winslow and Wood, 1959; and Gabrysch, 1969). The compaction is
caused,by loading due to pressure declines associated with the removal of
subsurface fluids, principally water, oil, and gas. These reports and
other reports listed in the references describe the geologic and hydrologic
conditions resulting in land-surface subsidence. A generalized cross
section of the hydrologic system is shown on figure 2. The Chicot and
Evangeline aquifers furnish all of the ground water pumped in the Houston-
Galveston region.
For those readers interested in using the metric system, metric
equivalents of English units of measurements are given in parentheses.
The English units used in this report may be converted to metric units
by the following conversion factors:
From
Unit
acre
foot
million gallons
per day
square mile
Abbrevi-
ation
_
ft
mgd
mi2
Multiply by
0.004047
0.3048
30.48
0.04381
1.609
To obtain
Unit
square kilometre
metre
centimetre
cubic metre
per second
square kilometre
Abbrevi-
ation
km2
m
cm
m3/s
km2
D-2
-------
EXPLANATION
M rnjd) ?-«?• ,, ?^«*i -;r«a and ST2
FIGURE l.-Locations of principal areas of ground-water withdrawals and average rates of pumping in 1972
-------
°i
g| 4H
400 -i
Sea
level'
40O -
800 •
1200 •
1600 -
2000 -
-
2400 -
280O -
3200
3600 -
4000
EXPLANATION
''_, Approi'.male lone sf pn-.vif
048
Feet
-0
O 3 13 '5 K » ic=LC«ETES3
>ERT1C*'_ SCALE SREiTLY c X A35£=*i7E ^
t-400
Seo
level
-400
-800
-I20O
-1600
-2000
2400
-2800
3200
-3600
4000
L3 g
-200
-100
_S«a
level..
-100
-2OC
-3OO
-4OO
-500
-600
-700
-600
-soo
-KX50
-1100
-I20O
-BOO
FIGURE 2.-Ger>ers!!zed hydrologic section in the Houston-Gslvsston region
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF GROUND WATER IN THE
HOUSTON-GALVESTON REGION
Houston Area
In 1887, when the pity of Houston purchased a private water-supply
company,'the demand for water for municipal supply was 1 to 2 mgd (0.04
to 0.09 m3/s). The demand grew steadily, and in 1972, the Houston Water
Department used 164 mgd (7.2 m3/s) of ground water and about 58 mgd (2.5
m3/s) of treated surface water.
In 1973, the water department increased the use of surface water to
63 mgd (2.8 m3/s) and decreased the.use of ground water to 156 mgd (6.8
m3/s). Prior to 1954, at which time the ground-water supply was supple-
mented by surface water from Lake Houston, the total public supply was
obtained from the ground-water reservoirs. Public supply is the largest
use of ground water in the Houston area; in 1972, only 11 mgd (0.5 m3/s)
of a total of 195 mg'd (8.5 m3/s) pumped in the Houston area was used for
purposes other than public supply.
Pasadena Area
Pumping of ground water for industrial use in the Pasadena area began
near the end of World War I and grew steadily until 1936, when annual
pumpago was about 15 mgd (0.5 m3/s). In 1937, the construction of a paper
mill increased the pumping rate to 30 mgd (1.3 m3/s). Production increased
rapidly during and following World War II.
Surface water from Lake Sheldon and the San Jacinto River was brought
into the area in 1942, but the amount of surface water used was less than
20 mgd (0.9 m3/s) until Lake Houston was completed in 1954. In 1953, 87
mgd (3.8 m3/s)'of ground water was used in the area. In 1972, 120 mgd
(5.3 m3/s) of ground water and 82 mgd (3.6 m3/s) of surface water was used.
In 1972, about 104 mgd (4.6 m3/s) of ground water was pumped for indus-
trial use.
-------
Texas City Area
Ground-water pumping in the Texas. City area increased from less than
2 mgd (0.09 m3/s) in 1930 to about 12 mgd (0.5 m3/s) in 1940, then increased
to about 24 mgd!(1.1 m3/s) in 1944 and 1945. Withdrawals decreased slightly
at the end of World War II, then decreased rapidly after 1948 when surface
water from the Brazos River was brought into the area. Ground-water with-
drawals averaged about 10 mgd (0.4 m3/s) from 1950 to 1960, then gradually
increased to 14 ragd (0.6 m3/s.) in 1972. About 53 percent of the water
pumped in 1972 was for industrial use.
DECLINES IN WATER LEVELS
As a result of large: amounts of water having been pumped from the
ground, the pressure in the artesian aquifers has declined. This decline
in pressure, reflected by lower water levels in wells, is the principal
cause of regional land-surface subsidence. Figures 3 and 4 show the
declines in water levels for 1964-73 and 1943-73 in wells tapping the
Chicot aquifer, and figures 5 and 6 show the declines in water levels
for the same periods in wells tapping the Evangeline aquifer. These'
periods correspond to periods of releveling of lines of bench marks by
the National Geodetic 'Survey.
In the Pasadena and Baytown-LaPorte areas, where ground-water with-
drawals are heavily concentrated, the decline of water levels in wells
completed in the Chicot aquifer was about 200 feet (61 metres) during
1943-73. The maximum average rate of decline during 1943-73 was about
6.7 feet (2.0 metres) per year. During 1964-73, the center of the area
of maximum decline shifted eastward into the Baytown-LaPorte area, where
as much as 90 feet (27 metres) of water-level decline occurred. The max-
imum average rate of decline for the Chicot aquifer during 1964-73 was
10 feet (3.0 metres) per year.
Water levels in wells completed in the Evangeline aquifer declined
as much as 160 feet (48.8 metres) between 1964 and 1973, and as much as
325 feet (99 metres) between 1943 and 1973. The maximum average rate of
decline during 1964-73 was about 17.8 feet (5.4 metres) per year; the
maximum average rate,'during 1943-73 was about 10.8 feet (3.3 metres) per
year.
•' »
The maps showing water-level declines in the Evangeline aquifer were
constructed from water-level measurements in multiscreened wells. The
maps showing water-level declines in the Chicot aquifer are based on meas-
urements in multiscreened wells in the northwest half of the region and
on measurements in wells completed in the basal sand of the Chicot aquifer
in the southeast half of the region.
D-6
-------
-------
EXPLANATION
•IOO LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE. Interval 25 f«l (7.G2 m«l*rt)
FIGURE 4.-Approximate declines of water levels in wells completed in the Chicot aquifer, 1943-73
-------
O
l
\
\
EXPLANATION
SO LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE. Intervals 10 wd 20 tail
(103 gnd 6.K) m.ttn)
if*
FIGURE 5.-Approximate declines of water levels in wells completed in the Evangeline aquifer, 1964-73
-------
D
o
EXPLANATION
IOO LINE OF EQUAL W4TER-LEVEL
DECLINE. Intmal 25 ttil (T-62 r.
0 S IQ 15 £O ZS 30 KILOME^EHS
FIGURE 6.-Approximate declines of water levels in wells completed in the Evangeline aquifer, 1943-73
-------
The water-level declines shown on the map are composite average
declines in artesian pressure. Not every sand at a particular location
exhibits the same amount of pressure decline; therefore, not every clay
layer has the same amount of loading. Figure 7 shows the potentiometric
profile and depth to water in wells completed at different depths at
Baytown. The water level for the depth interval 390-500 feet (119-152
metres) was used in determination of the declines shown on figures 3 and
4.
COMPACTION AND LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
The withdrawal of water from an artesian aquifer results in an imme-
diate decrease in hydraulic pressure. With a reduction in pressure, an
additional load, equal to the reduction in pressure, is transferred to
the skeleton of the aquifer. The pressure difference between the sands
and clays causes water to move from the clays to the sands, and this in
turn results in compaction of the clays. Because the clays are mostly
inelastic, most of the compaction is permanent. Less than 10 percent
rebound can be expected from a total recovery of artesian pressure.
Figures 8 and 9 show the amount of subsidence in the Houston-
Galveston region for 1964-73 and 1943-73. These maps were constructed
from data obtained from the National Geodetic Survey leveling program,
supplemented by data from local industries. Some subsidence occurred
before 1943, but the amount is difficult to determine. Winslow and
Doyel (1954, p. 18) stated:
"The United States Coast and Geodetic Survey has established exten-
sive nets of first- and second-order level lines covering most of the
region. The first leveling in the region was the first-order line from
Smithville to Galveston, which was run in 1905 and 1906. The next was in
1918 when a first-order line was run from Sinton, Texas, to New Orleans,
Louisiana. During that period between 1932 and 1936 several other first-
and second-order lines were run and the two original lines were releveled.
"In 1942 and 1943 a large number of second-order lines were estab-
lished in the region and most of the old lines were releveled. At this
time subsidence in the Houston area was noted from the results of leveling,
although the actual amount of subsidence was not determined because of
changes in datum."
D-ll
-------
^
I MONTGOMCHY fl \.. COUNTY ^
• v V , v.
EXPLANATION
hciltld IMffMh 01 Mri Ofl IM 10.1
FIGURE ^.-Subsidence of the land surface, 1964-73
D-12
-------
.. ^xs, f
. ^>
•-~._AL *W»i I""- ..... WV • HARRIS «*»"."'
•. I Kcirwi -i*-.. •/
-.. •
\ >.---/
\ ' X1'*. . ...
FIGURE g.-SutasMenc« of th« land lurfaca, 1943-73
D-1-3
-------
An approximation of the amount and extent of the subsidence that
occurred between 1906 and 1943 is shown on .figure 10. The maximum amount
of subsidence shown on figure 10 occurred in. the Goose Creek oil field.
Pratt and Johnson (1926) concluded that the withdrawal of'oil and gas' from
the Goose Creek field.had caused 3.25 feet (1.0 metre) of subsidence
between 1918 and 1925. Data to determine subsidence since 1925 are not
available. Pratt and Johnson observed that subsidence was restricted to
the area of production..
Land-surface subsidence resulting from the pumping of ground water
first occurred in the Texas City area, where minor discrepancies in alti-
tude data were noticed between 1938 and 1940 (American Oil Company, 1958).
Before subsidence was definitely known, the search for an outside source
of water was begun. After recognition of the subsidence problem, efforts
were made to obtain water for industrial use from outside the area, and
the delivery of surface water from the Brazos River began in 1948. Ground-
water pumping for all uses decreased from about 24 mgd (l.'l m3/s) in 1948
to about 10 mgd (0.4 m3/s)' in 1952.
The decrease in ground-water withdrawals resulted in partial recovery
of artesian pressures in the -aquifers and in a. greatly decreased rate of
subsidence. Only about 0.2 foot. (6.1 centimetres) of subsidence occurred
at Texas City in each of the two 5-year periods 1954-59 and 1959-64. The
indicated rate of subsidence during those two periods was about 0.04 foot
(1.2 centimetres) per year compared to a reported rate of as much as 0.366
foot (11.2 centimetres) per year between 1940 and 1952.
Since 1964, a gradual increase in ground-water pumping in the Texas
City area and the effects of pumping outside the area have caused water
levels to decline to below their 1948 levels. An accelerated rate of
land-surface subsidence is now occurring. Figure 8 shows that about 1.0
foot (0.3 metre) of subsidence occurred between 1964 and 1973, which is a
rate of about 0.11 foot (3.4 centimetres) per year.
The center of the largest subsidence "bowl" in the region is In the
vicinity of the Houston Ship Cahnnel at Pasadena. As much as 7.5 feet
(2.3 metres) .of subsidence occurred between 1943 and 1.973 (fig. 9). The:
water-level declines due to pumping before 1937 and between 1937 and 1943
caused subsidence in excess of 1.0 foot (0.3 metre) between 1906 and 1943,
The maximum amount of subsidence between 1964 and 1973 was about 3.5 feet
(1.1 metres); the average maximum rate of subsidence was about: 0.4 foot
(12.2 centimetres) per year.
The area of active subsidence is expanding. Between 1943 and 1954,
about 350 square miles (906 square kilometres) had subsided 1 Coot. (0.3
metre) or more; by 1964, 1,350 square miles (3,497 square'kilometres) had
subsided.], foot (0.3 metre) or more. By 1973, 2,r>00 square miles (6,470
square kilometres) had subsided 1 foot (0.3 metro) or more. About: 4,700
square miles (12,173 square kilometres) subsided 0.5 foot (0.15 metre) or
more between 1943 and 1973.
D-14
-------
FIGURE 9>Approximat« subsidence of the land surface, 1906-43
D-15
-------
Except at low altitudes near the waterfront, subsidence is not gener-
ally recognized because it is regional in nature. The changes in altitudes
are not abrupt, and subsidence has not caused widespread structural damage.
Under the several ground-water investigation programs in the Ilouston-
Galveston region, borehole .cxtensoinotors (compaction recorders) h;ive been
installed to monitor compaction. To date (1974), seven .such monitors have
been installed at five sites, and two additional monitors at two other
sites are planned. The first monitor was installed on the cast side of
Houston in 1958 in an abandoned well. The well failed in 1962 and the
monitor was destroyed., The second monitor was installed in 1962 at the
Johnson Space Center and has been maintained since then. The compaction
monitored at this site and'the subsidence are shown on figure 11. Five
monitors were installed in 1973 at' four sites: cast of Houston; west of
Baytown; at Seabrook; and.-at Texas City. The compaction recorded at these
sites is shown on figure 12.
At the Johnson.Space Center in southern Harris County, the land sur-
face subsided about 2.12 feet (0.65 metre) between 1964 and 1973 (fig. 11).
Compaction of the material between the land surface and a depth of 750.
feet (229 metres) was measured as.1.17 feet (0.357 metre) during the same
period. Therefore, 55 percent of the subsidence resulted from compaction
of the upper 750 feet (229 metres) of material. The monitor at this site
is recording all compaction in the Chicot aquifer.
Figure 12b shows the amount of compaction measured at two depth inter-
vals at Baytown. The upper curve shows that 0.038 foot (1.16 centimetres)
of compaction, from land surface to a depth of 431 feet (131 metres),
occurred from July 24, 1973, until April 5, 1974. The lower curve shows
that 0.088 foot (2.68 centimetres) of compaction, from land surface to a
depth of 1,475 feet (450 metres), occurred during the same period. The
estimated rate of subsidence at the site during 1964-73 was 0.19 foot
(5.79 centimetres) per year.
On the basis of this short period of record (8?i months) at Baytown,
about 28 percent of the'Subsidence is due to compaction between the land
surface and a depth of 431 feet (131 metres), 37 percent is due to compac-
tion from 431 to 1,475 feet (131 to 450 metres), and 35 percent is due to
compaction below l,475>feet (450 metres).
Detailed' analysis of subsidence, artesian-pressure declines, total
clay-bed thickness, individual clay-bud thi.c'kuess, cluy properties, and
pressure profiles at sites at Baytown, Texas City, and Seabrook indicates
the following:
J. The change in pressure in both, sand and clay layers varies from
one depth to another; measurement of a single well does not necessarily
define the changes in pressure in the entire aquifer.
D-16
-------
IFXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
APPENDIX E: CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
1. CLIMATE
2. AIR QUALITY
-------
TABLE E-l
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (MEASURED
CITY OF HOUSTON 1965-1
i
I
1
1
Month
January
February
! March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL YEAR
Houston
WB
Airport
1965
1.87 '
3.27
0.81
0.95
6.53
3.06
1.57
2.29
3.56
3.09
4.82
6.15
37.97
Average 1965-1973: 49.50 Inches
i
SQ'JP.CEr United States Department of
Houston
WB
Airport
1966
4.46
7.75
2.20
7.98
11.21
4.42
1.45
- 7.11
4.01
5.45
1.56
1.53
59.13
Houston
WB
Airport
1967
2.41
2.17
1.83
4.42
2.54
0.17
7.77
1.60
4.84
3.18
0.50
5.02
36.45
Houston
FAA
Airport
1968
8.02
1.99
2.92
3.02
13.24
if. 18
6.49
2.90
3.87,
3.91
2.71
1.19
61 ,44--,
IN INCHES)
973
1969
2.74
5.31
3.18
3.34
4.73
1.51*
3.89*
2.67*
6.08*
3.30*
2.13*
4.38*
43.26*
_-
1970
1.93
2.52
5.08
2.21
14.39
0.26
2.28
2.03
6.22
9.09
1.54
0.64
48.19
1971
0.36
2.11
1.21
2.14
3.41
2.42
1.42
6.95
5.17
3.49
1.82
7.33
37.83
Houston
WSO AP
1972
3.30 •
1.20
8.52
2185 '
6.99
3.02
2.76
3.90
6.23
3.34
•6.49
2.20
50.80
Houston
WSO AP
1973
5.00
3.40
3.68
7.15
4.22
13.46
6.77
3.73
9,38
9.31
1.59
.2.47
70.16
* At Houston Irtcont. Airport
Interior, '/leather Bureau
- .
— ...
-------
rr- " t "• •"• n ••• r~
ULkLkiiE
FIGURE E-l
Annual average isohyets,
inches (1931-1960)
66
72
Annual average mean
isoinerm, in°F(1931 —
I960)
B
Percentage frequency of surface
wind d.rection (annual) (1951-1960)
\
Annjal average rainfall
(based on 1931-1960)
-overooe potential
evopolrcnsp.rct.cn
(Thorntnwaile rrielhoc1)
c
Points of entry ol tropicol cyciones
Tropical storms (winus >39mph and
74mph)
are shown by solid arrows
Numbers inaicate year storm
occurred.
BROWN'SVILLE
\ \
\
-- R(--ior,a] climatic data, Texas Coasia] Zone. A, Average annual precipitation (after J. T. Carr, 1967)
E, Averse Annual temperature (after J. T. Carr, : SG7). C, Precipitation deficiency (after Orton. 1969a). D, Frequency
o. sur:.,ce v.-ir.d c.rcclion (afu-r 0/ton, ISS-Q. I. H^rricgr.e tr;^;.-.;; .-.cross Texas coastline (after Hayes. 1967).
E-2
-------
'FIGURE E-2: -SOURCES.AND LEVEL OF AIR. POLLUTION IN HARRIS
"".- COUNTY, 1972 ' •
ij
I1
50 1
PARTI- CARBON SULPHUR NITROGEN, TOTAL
CULATE MONOXIDE DIOXIDES OXIDES \ HYDRO-
MATTER CARBONS
E-3
-------
IDOLREFEREICE:
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
CONDITIONS)
ABEENDJJLEE: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE HOUSTON AREA
1. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION OF AIR POLLUTION IN HOUSTON
2. COMPARISON OF HOUSTON'S AIR QUALITY AGAINST
NATIONAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
3, THE CURRENT PROGRAM OF THE CITY OF THE CITY IN
COMBATTING AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS FOR HOUSTON
-------
The Houston Air Pollution Control Program began in 1967 under
!
the City's Department of Health. The purposes of the program
was to monitor sources of air pollution and to control regulate,
and reduce these pollutants. The City assumed the responsibility
of monitoring and enforcing the State and Federal Standards on
air pollution. Their-activities include the determination of
where the standards are being violated and issuing citations to
make improvements in the general air quality of Houston.
1. Geographic Variation of Air Pollution in Houston
Currently, the Houston area has 25 monitoring stations
including the Houston Ship Channel Industrial District, where
large concentrations of pollution sources exist. These monitoring
stations are shown in Figure EE-1. In addition, two continuous
monitoring mobile units have been put into operation to sample
Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Dioxides, and Total
Oxidants on a continuing basis. Of the 25 monitoring stations,
none is located within the District 47 Plant's service area or
within 2 miles from the location of the plant.
Table EE-1 summarizes geographic mean data on suspended
particulates (in micrograms per cubic meter) for the three month
period of January to March, 1972 and 1973. Similar data on other
pollutants are not available. Data in Table EE-1 indicates the
EE-1
-------
FIGURE EE-1: AMBIENT AIR MONITORING NETWORK
I
to
• Permanent Air Sampling Sites
A Mobile Air Sampling Sites
-------
relative pollutant concentrations of suspended particulates at
25 locations. The pollution concentration in 1972 ranged from
146 mg/rat3 for location 21 (Pasadena area, Houston Ship Channel)
to 53 mg/mt3 for location 8 in the vicinity of the Houston
Astrodome. The pollution curve for 1973 ranged in Houston from
274 for location 18 (again the Ship Channel area) to 40 for
location 23. The nearest monitoring station location is approxi-
mately 3 miles south of the proposed plant site. This station
recorded a geometric mean (particulate matters) of 59 mg/mt during
January through March 1972. The recorded figure was 47 during
the comparable period in 1973.
The City Air Pollution Control Program in cooperation with
the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston has pre-
pared some computer maps showing the concentration of pollutants
of suspended particulates. Sulphur Dioxides and Nitrogen Oxides
and their geographic distribution. Figures EE-2 and EE-3 show
the heaviest concentration of industrial pollutants over the
Ship Channel Industrial District, downtown Houston and other
industrial areas. Figure EE-4 shows the heaviest concentration
of Nitrogen Oxides in the downtown area. The Ship Channel area
is high also, but so is much of the City. This concentration and
distribution pattern is largely caused by the automobile.
2. Comparison of Houston.'s Air Quality Against National
and State Ambient Air Quality Standards!:
The Ambient Air Network established and monitored by
EE-3
-------
TABLE EE-1
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE COMPARISONS
Geometric means [/ug/m ] : January through March
Site Location 1972 1973 % Change
Deer .Park 1
Pasadena 2
Houston 2
3
:4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
66
115
91
76
59
69
67
79
53
77
59
66
62
64
87
80
98
86
—
99
64
146
57
54
74
99
102
97
-47
68
71
60
46
63
54
59
57
62
93
78
72
63
274
123
55
79
66
40
+12.1
-13.9
+12.1
+27.6
-20.3
- 1.4
+ 5.9
-24.1
-13.2
-18.2
- 8.5
-10.6
- 8.1
- 3.1
+ 6.9
- 2.5
-26.5
-26.7
-
+24.2
-14.1
-45.9
+15.8
-25.9
EE-4
-------
FIGURE EE-2; SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTER ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN
^
»»*ti* it ti MI tt ii ii (••!• iififrfllTi.il i in* ODwC''-|j{ijnroLl'°oIjl''ii ,Luu<-t
•FVI "U J> _ ,i .U ,. h-A'UJ> "wuv«
V n.jFii, V it ji u^uiTu^'.OjOi-Oi.U'JOuy
JViiiU J> Ji uOOjJO^ijQOODLijUjOuO.
(•>>••• T »ii*' *'tt*»*tmt«*it*tt«tii« tiitti* t..H . i t > > » • OOOOJOOOOuyuyOlJt QtiuL
. ..... >T . , ••ll*n*lf***l*l*t|fl|tltt(lltl*Mtl*ltlll»l***l*lll*l*l«*tl*< DOOOuOOllDllOOVOOPDOLUl, JO
fl2So0»!SlS«n6i*fl«!J*»Ii*3*i'Sli! ?^t!oliw£c»!!!'
.ni'r*i.r- •',*'[ •", (-1
er8-yi . . . j .".»,'. f i f
• »*fl AP»LV|Mt Tu t»CN LtVtL,
M. lleCuBca i" HltHCir U.tt OMLTI
I;;! U::t »:t! tn;!S iU:t:
-------
FIGURE EE-3: SULFUR DIOXIDE ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN
w
td
i
o\
* », , , ,),. ,,..,
»*Utt.» bt.» 1 . »
,.,.,..,.<*,..,
::::i:::i I:::;:!:: Sffi {;«:«: (iiH
• ;:::::::: :::::::;: issjsssK {;;:;;:;: huiiil
»»*lg«*«*«"a«"»"«'»»"»-'«"'"«»«»«»»««<»««»»*it»>«
lUfiJOQl
it::! l!::n Jt:5J !!:» H:!f
iK II
»,«• ii.ii it,it ii.ii it.it
-------
FIGURE EE-4: NITROGEN DIOXIDE ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN
tt83^
JUC 0 eBBoertPOJoSrVsfSeecBOOo-flOfl
itraHiftitt?".
;L!::!HH!HHs;
TTTrrTT.. rrX . .. r77?lr •••• LI.O«JOC§I yrui i/fvoy Pff*1fpTl«*r9l!iMl5"!B3('>*>«**"5t*J>'l**rir°«>*"(P^\i3F»«Ou»«opi!f'(«* OLt--' "X • iiO"f *•••»>».»»t«i»ii.r.jartt»» Do8re8ep«tt|)"»OflcOg< ..
..I, -V ..i. tin.jfSnii Cr.jV^OLJO tUV^ fut.UJilMlJ.iil', iUtn*0.Mi n v.'U(*J\B<.3..Bji jl ]„. Hf*«ii5inK*eo \Vjui..'- •"• .**•••!»•-»»*•.n»»t OvvvOPUjOpgiO^oaStDB *..
| .«.*i4 uto(,ui-tijui>*flli>uc,ct,cij 4»/..»J 6LLi.«l*ii i1; S ud.'f>o.n, «»«.»»««A-*o'-»i-.e»£ V-bo«t*ioil«. i.ti.nlfc'.'t.tO'1 00'II r»i«^»*jt i.; .tk 11 j ity! c •" itiitc * • • »• »••• f o :i yOwOJOuL o lOooco «*
.' ..?... oLoti-.t oVfruuyuyuuouu -Jv«t [ - u/^Iw -gu^i. JL I'iwUOOu ^ ^ol JU 1.1. OL "f^C L, I'. BrM-scflotufet t ( ) * * * * C^S vV^'i VCirSrf°ilt>-)0 *
Ii. .!.,,! M«*H« t'JiJfCyi vvvvf1oyuu(,ouOL./yuc,/rcuvul,DOi-ro.^:ootv^i si^'iL^nui j Bcec3r.a"ocBfleoo- (j,.l.wtMflruvk.or ,vu,u^ TiJouaOtUi.^ Ju^.^Ci o ••*6ollt«tftiJe«e*»g»*B c ^IlnrM^fpfSi.fii .,..*••*
' J » luiffc o ut 3 L o 0 ( 6' JJk.uojooo voti'/. rifuLij HJ,in-OL,LJujiOLu(lj''io6ru «r.t( ipar»hn[-rt>T ft ^V tr.C j *.».,,o c i. jv »*»««•*« tf6BS6tOwi.Bi.iCO ••••••••••IJJ.60B OOt'OOut-gr H^VOu t*t •< »*».*
> ... * * ' i t « ,i lyrubLUwtiiJOO Q< i.ruuuc>00m< fc*»» !%•••« ••WjiJCOCvi.-QuCiuijuui.uLJi c^LOL vij (tr'-ti-- fc** r < ec te*lt XM 3i.wbrL. . i 1 t • • « • o . . , .. i. •..> - ^ ;...,. c >l Ik4f • y v g p d i,'y 0 c c. t uuUU^^r i<*uf''u4_^il*»"**J ^ o»»oBn«»i O^SuC Uu.tu I** *|« »«4i «•! t »l I r'itiCt'14 t^tLLubOOOtJCOJO OCJOtOofct.JCiOijJ iTT*^ t.******
A:.iV!, ............ . ...... , ....... ii|ffsl!Bsi!i$$:i$!^^
'" ! , ___ _^ _ ^ ____ __. . Mtj^ti ci.t.iwi.LK ..r^.i. «.,[ ..twti ij t«. um ""' ' ••'
mini
..C..HC
'
..IW.l'U V»LUt I.Mbl «>Pi fliifc TO ClCM LrytL
., » t.»tl
-------
FIGURE EE-5: TOTAL OXIDANTS ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN
w
M
I
CO
VQuU^^bv '»'»
OtuJCo-C «*»
Oytiijf' "* * * •
euvw ***+«*
o5B *»,.*.
««*i "*!iS i.»««*M* !»**«*»«• *.»..»...
!(•»!•
• i>tii«>iitii«ittt»«**> IKII \ 11 > i • > i • i.. i. * 4 >«./. ».tii**t*r(i»*(i^*ii.l*ttii»ii>*4»>*t>'»*>>*<'. , , , , i , i , , , , , t , . , , , i . , , , , . , , I . i t * t 11 • I tiK-^* % f T j *il*»MHt^*Li^«H^ ^. * •* M ' f til'***t**'*i^v'«'*****"****** LCOOttkUfcUUyiOUUiJtiU «it»liiwt(l>t>.« BtluQLQ IB
..«..» , Tnr 1 r i -!.•«. mi^n . ^..amirri n •» 11 m i L*1 ->l - - ) ,,,..« ^/? Tn" Hl*rW**TTt . i • - -^ ' iJXl_ ' 1 _ , ^jj i " •**•*«' '*• «*>»**!« IT '"fl" 1 If 'Iff flf' L|—--M •" "•""'' 1" »*>**«» J30Ct.LOb ttt
, i i 4 4 «t 11. /• i.n.. ir ( t f i t . • . i i i • . t . t ' < ••>»'•»' n*M/*» *>ti(fi*|i>*t.i(>*iivi(i.,4'., .11... j.. 'TTWiuui-.i W JiAJ 1 ' * * ** I/ ^"Vii'iAAirfiiin'tft*'**'"' 'T**^ *...,.«t»t*t»nt Out-COUOO t Ji
i«(i>it*iif>i-i»>i'ii>>.>•<•>.**>(.itiX,I,«ii»(.nit,(tt(,r.,(ll,,, IK, , , j . *. - "-(im L I, Bl3 rlt [TTTH'iBai itnnri 11 iVrnyft t II TJD i.i»t*i*i>>t>*>>»t«i«f 001,0 COO * t H
lliif iisStisS^t
i:::::;:;::::::::;;:;::;:.'::::^;?,-^^0.!;!!!!!!
?s.:;:Hi
»,,(11 i < 1111
:i:i:::i\:::i::::::::::::i::::i::::::::::::::::::i::!!!::::::::::::;!::::::i.ri::::::::::i:!s:iii:i^^
r £(«*" .,""j"",i'*,',j"|*.["]"f.""".|;."J".i|||^. "
1 I::::l !::::! issiJl !::;::! jlilj
" i:j;;:i hii
i II
Itail UC 11.11
:::: i::t: n;;t :::!i ;>:>:
If IKI Wlin«II1f tf Kill
Intl I.[kO-IU"HCC glr >ll MCPUU If IKI Wlin«I
»(ts<" KU'>cc untcg iu niliiiMu uul jl t lelri
•IVS ol.I, Futile »Ck(lCl
-------
the City of Houston Air Control Program of the Public Health
Department measures pollutant concentrations at 25 random
sampling sites and two continuous monitoring sites in the
Houston area. The particulate data collected annually from
1969 through 1973 have been summarized in the following table.
The table gives the percentage taken that exceeded the different
24 hour and annual standards established by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Texas"Air Control Board. Comparable
data for other pollutants (Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxides,
Nitrogen Oxides) are not available.
As Table EE-2 shows, Houston has consistently been in
violation of both the Texas Air Control Board and Environmental
Protection Agency standards for; Particulate Matters in both
the 24 hours average and Annual Geometric Mean. That the
State standards are far more strict than Federal standards is
evident from the above table. On 24 hour standards, Houston
comes close to meeting the EPA standards but falls short by
5-10% to meet state standards. The situation is highly
critical on the annual geometric mean standards since Houston
is well over the allowable levels of concentration permitted
by federal and state ambient air standards.
EE-9
-------
TABLE EE-2
COMPARISON OF HOUSTON'S POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
WITH NATIONAL AND STATE STANDARDS
Federal and State
Standards on Pollutant
Concentrations for
Particulate Matters
TAGS Standard
150 ug/m3
24 hr/avg
EPA Standard
260 ug/m3
24 hr/avg
TACB Standard
55 ug/m3
Annual Geometric Mean
Percentages by Which Houston Exceeded
National & State Standards on Partic-
J-ilate flatters
1969
10.2%
1.1%
94.1%
1970
4.6%
0.2%
70.6%
1971
4.8%
0.3%
84.4%
1972
3.8%
0.0%
88.0%
1973
7.7%
2.7%
88.0%
EPA Standard
75 ug/mj
Annual Geometric Mean
47.0%
29.4%
41.2%
35.2%
48.0%
SOURCE: City of Houston Department of Public Health, Air
Control Program Division, Annual Report, 1973, p.20
EE-10
-------
comes close to meeting the EPA standards but falls short
if
by 5-10% to meet state standards. The situation is highly
critical on the annual geometric mean standards since
Houston is well over the allowable levels of concentration
permitted by federal and state ambient air standards.
On the positive side, Houston's Air Pollution Control
Program has been able to reduce the levels of pollution by
controlling and limiting industrial polluters as shown by
generally declining annual concentrations, but it has not
been able to bring the City within State and Federal standards.
This declining pollution concentration trend is also evident
from data presented in Table EE-1. Most sampling locations
experienced a reduction during the first quarter from 1972
to 1973. This is to say that the current programs are beginning
to have some beneficial impact on pollutant concentrations of
Particulate Matters. But the program needs to be expanded
further to include control measures on other particulates,
particularly Carbon Monoxides, the major source of which is
the automobile.
3. The Current Program of the City in Combatting Air
Pollution Problems for Houston
The people of Houston and their City Government are
aware of -some of the problems facing the nation's
EE-11
-------
sixth largest city. Though the City has a long way
ahead of it in cleaning its air and maintaining it that
way, nonetheless, it has made a good beginning. The
continuation of current trends of program expansion may
enable the City in bringing the pollutant concentrations
to allowable limits within the next 10 to 15 year period.
a) Program History:
The City of Houston Air Pollution Control
Program has developed quite rapidly since its creation in
1967. Established with a goal to clean Houston's air of
noxious and annoying pollutants, the growth of the control
program has been significant. With an initial staff of less
than twenty individuals with technical equipment for air
monitoring and pollutant measurement. The following outline
reviews the.' growth which the program realized durinq the past
seven years.
1967 - 1968
(i) The Air Pollution Control Program was established
as a section within the City of Houston Health Department.
(ii) Seventeen ambient air monitoring stations were
established to monitor for both gaseous and particulate
pollutants.
(iii) A survey of vegetation throughout Houston was
conducted to determine if any air pollution damage could be
verified. The survey indicated no visible damage to vegetation.
(iv) Several public meetings were held to convey to members
of industry the information concerning the laws on air pollution,
EE-12
-------
(v) Much of the program's first year's activities
involved the purchasing of necessary equipment and the
survey of, industrial polluters.
1969
(i) The agency began conducting three hour ambient
air sampling to supplement the 24 hour sampling routine.
The three hour samples provided a better understanding of
pollution concentrations.
(ii) A comprehensive program to develop an emission
inventory was undertaken by the program in cooperation with
the Texas Air Control Board.
(iii) A second shift was initiated to provide complaint
investigation and surveillance between 5 p.m. and midnight.
(iv) During 1969 forty-one positions were budgeted for
personnel.
(v) A civil suit filed by the City of Houston against
an industrial polluter resulted in a $17,000 fine and an
injunction to prevent future violations of the air pollution
laws.
1970
(i) A program titled "Survey of the Composition of
Particulates in Air Samples from the City of Houston" was
performed with the cooperation.of the University of Texas
School of Public Health. The work constituted a significant
part in obtaining a more reliable picture of ambient air
quality over the city.
(ii) A stack sampling team was organized and underwent
training to familiarize themselves with procedural methods.
(iii) With an increase in available personnel, the
enforcement section developed air sampling teams and assigned
them to three air quality districts within the city.
EE-13
-------
(iv) The City of Houston filed five civil suits to
enjoin industrial polluters from emitting contaminants in
violation of the Regulations.
(v) During 1970 fortey-eight positions were budgeted
for personnel.
1971
(i) An incinerator survey program was initiated to
determine the impact on air pollution caused by incinerating
waste at small business establishments. The survey established
the number, type and location of the majority of incinerators
within the city. This survey served as the basis for an
ordinance which requires a permit to operate an incinerator
within the City of Houston.
(ii) The Houston City Council adopted the incinerator
ordinance in December 1971 thereby establishing the incinerator
permit program.
(iii) The program expanded its manpower and established a
permanent night shift to enable 24 hour coverage for air
pollution investigation. Standby personnel were on call for
weekend dity.
(iv) The Stack Sampling team established in 1970 became
operational in 1971 and initiated sampling of emissions directly
from the source.
(v) A stack sampling van was purchased to aid in the
efficiency of the stack sampling team.
(vi) Two continuous monitoring trailers were assembled
by staff members. The units became operational and began
sampling for Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide
and Total Oxidants on a continuous basis.
(vii) The Houston Polic Department joined the surveillance
activities of the pollution program by reporting emissions
sighted by the patrol helicopters.
(viii) The City of Houston filed nine civil suits to prohibit
air pollution emission from industries in the city.
EE-14
-------
"(ix) The monitoring technique for determining ambient
levels of Sulfur Dioxide was improved by switching from the
standard lead peroxide candles to Huey Sulfation plates.
(x) During 1971 fifty positions were budgeted for
personnel.
1972
(i) The program began issuing suspended particulate
forecasts in February 1972. The predictions currently reach
about a million people daily since they are used by television
and the Houston Post.
(ii) A program to analyze for heavy metals in the ambient
air was established. Utilization of an atomic absorption unit
to test the ambient air sampled and determine the background"
level of the following metals in the ambient air: Antimony,
Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead,
Manganese, Nickel, Vanadium, Mercury/ and Zinc.
(iii) The Emergency Employment Act allowed the program to
place ten additional employees and thereby establish a rotating
shift. Complete 7 day 24 hour coverage was established and
replaced the standby weekend duty.
(iv) Expansion of program personnel permitted establish-
ment of four separate sections for Enforcement, Engineering,
Technical Services and Meteorology.
Cv) The authority of the program was expanded to include
the Ship Channel Industrial District. Through a city entered
contract the program personnel were permitted to enter property
for investigation and sampling of the industries located in
this area.
(vi) ' The enforcement staff was expanded and the city
divided into four sampling districts to permit coverage in the
Houston Ship Channel District.
(vii) The ambient air monitoring sites were expanded from
17 to 25. Eight samplers were placed within the Houston Ship
Channel Industrial District.
(viii) The Incinerator Permit Program began issuing operat-
ing permits in February 1972.
EE-15
-------
(ix) The Incinerator Program substantially rediced the
number of polluting incinerators in Houston daring 1972.
Forty-six percent of the incinerators were taken out of
service, thirtenn percent were permitted and the remainder
were awaiting modification.
(x) The Program began issuing citations for incinerator
violations. The violations were set for hearings in Municipal
Courts.
(xi) Meetings were intiated with the City Planning
Department to permit an exchange of information and assist in
future city planning.
(xii) The Engineering Section began reviewing applications
for Texas Air Control Board Construction Permits.
(xiii) A program to determine odor problems was established
under contract to Copley International Corporation. The pro-
gram conducted sixteen public attitude surveys and conducted
training for odor evaluation.
(xiv) Scentometers, a device for determining concentrations
of odor, were tested by the program and incorporated as one
of the sampling techniques.
Cxv) City Council, amended the Houston fire prevention
ordinance to authorize the air pollution control personnel to
issue citations for outdoor burning.
(xvi) The City of Houston filed two civil cases to prohibit
air pollution from industry in the area.
(xvii) In November 1972 the program began submitting air
pollution violations to the District Attorney's Office for
filing in Criminal District Court. Three criminal cases were
filed during 1972.
(xviii) A total of 34 cases were filed in Civil, Criminal,.
and Municipal Courts.
(xix) During 1972 fifty positions were budgeted for personnel
and an additional ten personnel were added through the Emergency
Employment funds.
EE-16
-------
1973
(i) Preliminary work has been done on an ozone forecast
for use in the summers when the ozone problem can be substantial.
Part of the results of this work was used to show that industrial
sources were the primary cause of the ozone problem and that
radical transportation controls would be of small value in
reducing ozone levels.
(ii) A hydrocarbon study was conducted in conjunction with
the University of Houston to determine the background levels of
hydrocarbon in the ambient air of Houston.
(iii) Field enforcement, personnel began routine gaseous
and metal sampling of industrial sources.
(iv) The program began publishing monthly reports of current
air pollution data to supplement the annual report.
(v) A system seven computer was installed as part of the.
telemetry system for the continuous monitoring network.
(vi) A trial run of the telemetry system was successfully
conducted with equipment supplied by contract companies. The
program equipment was on order and being assembled as of March,
1974.
tvii) The Technical Services Section increased its monitoring
personnel to four individuals in order to adequately service the
continuous monitoring sites.
(viii) The Enforcement Section expanded its staff to'include
four individuals in each of the four sampling districts.
(ix) City Council approved the expansion of the engineering
staff with one public health engineer and three engineering
assistants. Seven investigator positions and two technician I
positions have also been provided.
(x) Fifteen criminal cases were filed through the District
Attorney's Office for air pollution violations.
(xi) Nine civil cases were completed with fines and
permanent injunctions imposed.
(xii) A total of 108 cases were filed against air polluters
in Civil, Criminal, and Municipal Courts.
EE-17
-------
(xiii) During 1973, 56 positions ware budgeted for
personnel and another ten additional positions v/e re added
to the program through the Emergency Employment Bounds.
(xiv) A total of 633 incinerator operating permits have
been issued and 750 incinerators have been removed from service
b) Program Summary:
The chronological accounts of the various acti-
vities by the City of Houston presented in the preceding section
explain the current level of involvement by the City in
addressing the pollution problems. In- summary it can only
be said that the program has made a significant stride in
reducing concentration of Particulate pollutants. Supplementary
programs are needed to combat other pollutant concentrations.
The automobile continues to.remain the major source of Houston's
air pollution problem. The various federal regulations con-
trolling transportation activities under the State Implementation
Plans for Transportation Control as well as through the
Indirect Source Control will have some effect in the future.
But these programs are primarily curative. What is needed is
a Comprehensive Prevention Program. The City's current program
should be expanded to incorporate federal regulations on local "
transportation control and more importantly, the City with
the aid of the federal government (through the recently passed
Mass Transit Bill) should make a shift in the basic pattern of
EE-18
-------
its transportation system. An aggressive mass transit program
is long over-due for Houston.
Tables EE-1, EE-2 and EE-3 show that the progress made by
the city in air control during 1973 is praiseworthy. Yet, much
remains to be done. A major policy shift is needed and a greater
priority placed in the Air Pollution Control Program. Public
funds are not unlimited in supply. Their wise allocation to
various programs and projects according to a rational order of
priority is essential. Air pollution as a program should receive
a high priority from the city government. The city has recognized
the need for it but commensurate level of priority has not yet
been given this program.
EE-19
-------
TABLE EE-3
HOUSTON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Activities
Total 1973
Hours on Air Pollution
Conferences Attended
Instruments Calibrated
Ambient Lab Samples
Plans Reviewed
Inspections
Advisory Visits
Complaints Serviced
Odor Evaluations
Visible Emission Evaluations
High Volume Samples
Gaseous Samples
Other Samples
Notices Issued
Violating Companies
Corrections Made
Cases Filed
Cases Won i
Cases Lost or Dismissed
85566
702
4207
9403
108
1147
2591
3120
84
109
276
34
216
989
632
431
108*
89*
20
* The difference in case numbers results from a
carry-over of cases filed in previous year.
EE-20
-------
TEXT REFFRFNCF-
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (NATURAL ENVIRONMENT)
APPENDIX F: BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE GREATER HOUSTON
AREA AND SERVICE AREA OF DISTRICT 47 TREATMENT
PLANT
A, BOTANICAL
B, ZOOLOGICAL
-------
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA
A. BOTANICAL
Common native plant life in the Houston area includes both
tropical and temperate climate zone vegetation. Forest trees
include ash, bay, cedar, cotttonwood, cypress, dogwood, elm, haw-
thorne, honeysuckle, jasmine, laurel, magnolia, oak, pine, poplar
and wild peach. There are narrow timberlines extending from main
bodies of timber along the streams out onto the prairie and up the
small water courses reaching out for miles. The trees line the
bayou banks and bay shores up to the water's edge.
Wild flowers are abundant through spring and summer. The
prairie is covered by such flowers as wild plox, evening primrose,
Texas bluebonnet, orange milkweed and standing cypress. In the
summer Texas bluebells bloom. The green-leaved possumhaw or yaupon
bears red berries in the autumn that provide bird food. Many var-
ieties of fruits and vegetables are indigenous to the Houston area,
including grapes, dew and blackberries. Houston has both coastal
prairie tall-bunch and mid-bunch grasses, as well as true prairie
grasses. Some salt and sand tolerant, short grass species are
common in the Houston area.
B. ZOOLOGICAL
Native wild animals include prairie chicken, partridge, deer,
wild turkey and squirrel. Seasonal or migratory animals include
geese, grant, sandhill, crane, curlew, snipe, plover and ducks of
every variety. Fire, drought, floods and other natural disasters
F-l
-------
sometimes upset the balance of nature by destroying animals and
their food, putting a strain on all wildlife struggling for sur-
vival. The process is further affected by continuing urbanization
of the city and its environments. While man-made activities are
needed to sustain civilization, a lasting balance must be found
so that man and other species of nature can exist in harmony.
F-2
-------
1 FIGURE F-l
PLANT ASSEMBLAGES FOR THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA
UPLAND FOREST AND SAVANNA ASSEMBLAGES
I, PINE HARDWOOD FOREST I5
I2 HARDWOOD PINE FOREST 16
I3 ISOLATED PINE HARDWOOD GROVE I7
I4 POST OAK SAVANNA
COASTAL PLAIN ASSEMBLAGES
n, COASTAL SHORT-GRASS PRAIRIE
BOTTOMLAND ENVIRONMENTS
HI I FRESH MARSH
mz SWAMP
m3 FLUVIAL WOODLAND
IH4 GRASS-COVERED FLOODPLAIN
m6
UPLAND TALL-GRASS PRAIRIE
HARDWOOD FOREST
ISOLATED PRAIRIE WITHIN
FOREST
GRASS- AND TREE-COVERED
DISSECTED, STEEP SLOPE
GRASS-COVER TERRACE
DEPOSIT
miles
N
10 15
F-3
-------
FIGURE F-2: COMMON MACRO-BIOLOGIC ASSEMBLAGES WITHIN TEXAS COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS
SUBAQUEOUS,
PRINCIPALLY BENTHOIMIC ASSEMBLAGES
SHELF (INNER) AND LOWER SHOREFACE:
Atrina, Dinocardium, Dosinia, Spistula, Tellina, Varicofbula, Nucu/ana, Pi tar
(clams); Architectonics, Busycon, Oliva, Phalium, Terebra, Anachis, Nassarius
(snails); Luidia (starfish);Mellita (urchin)
UPPER SHOREFACE:
Dinocardium, Dosinia, Tellina, Anadara, Mercenaria, Anomia (clams); Terebra,
Polinices, Oliva, Olive/la (snails); Mellita (urchin); Luidia, Astropecten (starfish)
INLET AND TIDAL DELTA:
Inlet includes Crassinella, Lucina, Tellidora (clams); Anachis, Polinices, Crepi--
- dula. Thais (snails); Dentalium (scaphopod); Astrangea (coral); bryozoans;
clionid sponges; Luidia (starfish); Mellita (urchin); Ophiolepis (brittle star);
tidal delta and marsh includes Littorina, Neritina, Bulla, Polinices, Busycon,
Thais (snails); Uca (fiddler crab); Paqurus (hermit crab); Mellita (urchin);
Spartina, Salicornia (marsh plants); Crassostrea virginica (oyster)
BAY MARGIN:
Diplanthera wrightii and minor amounts of related plants (marine grass);
Aequipecten, Trachycardium, Mercenaria, Cyrtopteura, Macoma, Mulinia,
Chione, Ensis, Tagelus (clams); Thais, Busycon, Nassarius, Melampus, Cerithium
and related forms (snails); Callinectes sapidus (blue crab)
GRASSFLATS:
Diplanthera wrightii, Ruppia maritima, Thalassia testudinum (marine grass);
Anomalocardia, Amygdalum, Tellina, Phacoides, Laevicardium (clams); Cerithi-
um, Cerithidea, Melampus, Neritina, Vermicularia, Modulus (snails);Pogonias
cromis (black drum), other fish
OPEN BAY WITH TIDAL INFLUENCE:
Nuculana, Mulinia, Corbula, Abra, Pandora (clams); Nassarius, Retusa,
Cantharus (snails)
OPEN BAY WITH REEFS:
Similar to open bay, with Crassostrea spp. (oyster) and other raef-associated
forms (see reef)
ENCLOSED BAY:
Nuculana, Mulinia common with Abra, Corpula (clams); Nassarius, Retusa
(snails)
ENCLOSED BAY WITH REEF:
Similar to enclosed bay, with scattered clumps of Crassostrea virginica and other
reef-associated forms (see reef)
REEF:
Abundant Crassostrea virginica (oyster); Anomia, Brachidontes, Diptothyra
(clams); Anachis, Mitrella, Thais, Crepidula (snails); Cliona (sponge); Balanus
(barnacle); bryozoans; Crangon (c'ustacean)
REEF FLANK AND MARGIN:
Clumps of Crassostrea virginica, broken shell, Callinectes sapidus (blue crab)
BAY WITH RIVER INFLUENCE:
Rangia, Macoma, Crassostrea, Petricola (clams); Littoridina (snail); Callinectes,
Macrobrachium (crustaceans)
SUBAQUEOUS SPOIL:
Variable assemblage
FRESH TO BRACKISH-WATER BODIES:
Marsh plants (see marsh); Littorina, Neritina (snails); Uca, Cambarus
(crustaceans)
*This table supplements IcctMid description on the Environments and flio
'oxic AR/wmblaHCB Mop. Generic rather than specific names are used for
nost subaqueous invertebrate organisms. Common names have been
placed in parentheses. The list docs not include an inventory of land and
narine vertebrates nor plant and animal micro-organisms. Plants and
inimals listed are common, environmentally diagnostic organisms that ale
>redominantly bottom-dwelling invertebrates in subaqueous environments,
ind also higher order plants in subaerial environments.
SUBAERIAL,
PRINCIPALLY FLORAL ASSEMBLAGES
BEACH:
Donax (clam); Terebra, Oliva, Olivella, Polinices (snails); Ocypode (ghost crab)
VEGETATED BARRIER FLAT, FOREDUNE RIDGE, BEACH RIDGE,
AND VEGETATED FLAT:
Andropogon littoralis (bluestem); Uniola paniculata (sea-oats), Paspalum mono-
stachyum (Gulf-dune paspalum), Cenchrus incertus (coastal sandbur), Ga/actia
so. (milkpea), Senecio spp. (groundsel), Iva ciliata var. annua (sumpweed);
marsh plants such asSa/icornia bigelovii (glasswort),Spartinaalterniflora (cord-
grass); Ocypode (ghost crab); rodents, snakes, fowl
SAND FLATS:
Uca (fiddler crab); Salicornia perennis (glasswort), Batis maritima (maritime
saltwort); shore birds
SALT-WATER MARSH:
Spartina alterniflora (cordgrass), Salicornia perennis, S. bigelovii (glasswort),
Suaeda spp. (seepweed), Batis maritima (maritime saltwort), Borrichia fru-
tescens (sea-oxeye); water fowl
BRACKISH TO FRESH-WATER MARSH:
Spartina spartinae (coastal sacahuista), Spartina patens (marsh hay cordgrass),
Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass), rare Spartina alterniflora (cordgrass),
Scirpus spp. (bullrush), Typha latifolia (cattail), Juncus spp. (rushes); nutria, ]
muskrat, rare mink, snakes, water fowl
BRACKISH-WATER MARSH (CLOSED):
Spartina patens (marsh hay cordgrass), Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass),
Distichlis spicata (saltgrass), Juncus spp. (rushes); nutria, muskrat, rare mink, f
water fowl 1-
INLAND FRESH-WATER MARSH: j
Juncus spp. (rushes), Scirpus spp. (bullrush), Typha latifolia (cattail), Spartina
pectinata (sloughgrass); nutria, muskrat, snakes, water fowl
PRAIRIE GRASSLAND:
Andropogon spp, (bluestem), Sorghastrum spp. (indiangrass), Paspalum spp.,
Prosopis spp. (mesquite), Sorghum halepense (Johnson grass), Celtis spp. (hack-
berry), Acacia farnesiana (huisache), chaparral, cactus; prairie chicken, quail,
some water fowl, rabbits, rodents
SWAMP:
Sabal minor (dwarf palmetto), Taxodium distichum (cypress), Ulmus spp.
(elm), bay, Morus spp. (mulberry), Quercus nigra (water oak), Nyssa biflora
(gum), Vitis spp. (grape), Ilex vomitoria (yaupon); raccoon, opossum, rare
mink, squirrel, fowl, snakes
FREQUENTLY FLOODED FLUVIAL AREAS:
Juncus spp. (rushes), Scirpus spp. (bullrush), Typha spp. (cattail), Salix spp.
(willow); mammals and fowl similar to swamp
FLUVIAL WOODLAND:
Carya illinoensis (pecan), Carya spp. (hickory), Quercus virginiana (live-oak),
Q. nigra (water oak), Q. marilandica (blackjack oak), Ulmus spp. (elm), Celtis
spp. (hackberry), Magnolia spp. (magnolia), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet-
gum), Crataegus viburnifolia (red haw), Fraxinus spp. (ash), Pinus echinata
(shortleaf pine), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Axonopus spp, (carpetgrass),
Cynodon dactylon (bermudagrass), Smilax spp. (greenbriar), Ilex vomitoria
(yaupon), Vitis spp. (grape); squirrel, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, rodents,
quail, other fowl, snakes
MIXED PINE AND HARDWOOD FOREST:
Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), P. palustris (longleaf pine), P. echinata (shortleaf
pine), Quercus spp. (oak), Carya spp. (hickory); rodents, rabbit, raccoon,
opossum, quail, other fowl, snakes
SMALL PRAIRIES IN FORESTED UPLANDS:
Small clumps of mixed pine and hardwood with prairie grasses (see prairie
grassland and mixed pine and hardwood)
OAK MOTTES AND GROVES:
Quercus virginiana (live-oak); small rodents and snakes
F-4
-------
FIGURE F-3: MAJOR MARINE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS
FUR BEARERS ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING ARE* AND INCLUDE
SUCH ANIMALS AS RACCOONS, OPPOSSUMS, MINK,SKUNK, ETC
F-5
-------
FIGURE M: MAJOR WILDLIFE HABITATS (BIRDS)
PLANT LOCATION
^ ; f v^-trfss
•
F-6
-------
FIGURE F-5: MAJOR WILDLIFE HABITATS (ANIMALS)
WOLF OP COYOTE
F-7
-------
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE DISTRICT 47 AREA
A. BOTANICAL
Vegetation in the area to be served by the proposed waste-
water facilities is typical of the Gulf prairie or coastal plain.
The service area is approximately 50% undeveloped, with some por-
tions devoted to light industry and single-family dwellings. The
area is largely barren of major vegetation with the exception of
scattered grasses and weeds and small amounts of scrub timber.
Major woody plants include oak, acacia, mesquite and elm. The
principal native grasses are tall bunchgrasses, including the big
bluestem, little bluestem, seacoast bluestem, Indiangrass, eastern
panicums, gulf muhly, bermuda grass and carpet grass. The forbes,
or inferior grasses, in the region include western ragweed, tumble-
grass, broomsedge bluestem, smutgrass, threeawns, yankeeweed,
ragweed, bitter sneezeweed and broomweed.
While native vegetation abounds in undeveloped portions of the
service area, it is largely absent from the densely settled portions
of the area as well as isolated developments scattered throughout
the area. Vegetation in residential areas is characterized by the
planting of non-indigenous shade and fruit trees, shrubs and grasses,
The only native vegetation found in the developed areas adjoins
rights-of-way and occupies the peripheries of developments.
B. ZOOLOGICAL
The service area is relatively undeveloped; however, a major
airport, an Interstate Highway and a U.S. Air Force Base border the
F-8
-------
area and discourage the presence of wildlife. Wildlife in the
service area consists of small fur-bearing mammals such as the
cottontail and jack rabbits, squirrels, opposums, skunks and
rodents, including mice, rats and moles.
The variety and abundance of aquatic fauna in Berry Creek
and Sims Bayou are limited due to their low flow and the poor
water quality characteristics. Several species of turtles, frogs,
reptiles, mollusks and rough fish, including buffalo, carp, gar,
mosquito fish, killy, sheepshead minnows, crayfish and sunfish,
are found in the Sims Bayou. On occasion other species of fish
enter the bayou at its mouth on the Houston Ship Channel.
A variety of small birds have been sighted in the service
area. Cardinals, mockingbirds and house sparrows can be found
throughout the year in the residential areas with brown thrashers
appearing in winter. In the weedy field portion of the service
area, seed-eating birds prevail, including meadowlarks, mourning
doves, redwinged blackbirds, grackles and other blackbirds. Other
varieties of birds sighted include short-eared owls and, in winter,
savannah and other sparrows, goldfinch, sparrow hawks, marsh
hawks and other species of hawks. During migration season, orioles,
robins and kingbirds can be found in the area.
-------
TEXT REFERFNfF!
CHAPTER III- SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT)
APPENDIX G: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, LAND USE AND RELATED SYSTEMS
FOR THE DISTRICT 47 AREA. CITY OF HOUSTON AND HARRIS
COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
POPULATION: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
LAND USE! PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION: EXISTING AND PROPOSED
-------
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS, TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
As of April, 1970, the service area of the proposed project
had a population of 19,400 persons» This is a gain of 48% since
1960. For comparable population growth rates and projections for
the City of Houston, Harris County and the Gulf Coast Planning
Region, see Table III-3, Chapter III! Social and Environmental
Setting, Page 26. A graphic illustration of these population
projections is shown in Figure G-2 in this appendix.
In 1980, the proposed project will be serving an estimated
population of 26,100 persons. By 1990, about 42,200 people will
require service, 22,800 more people than are being served today.
The City of Houston must not only improve sewer and other services
to meet existing needs and standards, but must also plan facilities
that will serve the future population expected for the city- In
1960, the service area accounted for 1.5% of the City of Houston's
population, but in 1970, its share increased to 1.7%. Its projected
share for 1980 and 1990 is expected to stabilize between the 106%
and 1.8% level since the City of Houston is also expected to grow
during this period.
1. Geographic Distribution
Figures G-3 and G-4 of this Appendix show the 1970 and 1990
geographic distribution of population for Harris County. At present,
the population is heavily confined within the Loop 610 and its
immediate outer zone, but continuing dispersion of Houston's
population appears most likely. The projected distribution of net
population change during 1970 to 1990, as shown in Figure G-4,
G-l
-------
would seem to indicate that there will be very little population
increase inside the Loop 610 between now and 1990. A close exam-
ination of the data presented in this map confirms that population
increase is expected for the project area since the service area
is located outside the South Loop 610 of the Houston Freeway System.
2. Population Density and Related Characteristics
The service area contains approximately 6 square miles of
land area. Gross population density for the area is 3,215 persons
per square mile, which is higher than the City of Houston's average
density of 2,840 persons per square mile. The 1970 population of
the service area was found to be almost entirely white, which
enjoyed a median family annual income of approximately $13,000.
With the shortage of lands inside the Loop 610 and processes
of urbanization in Houston expected to continue at least at the
present rate, the pressure for development utilizing vacant lands
within the project's service area will certainly increase. This
will increase gross density of population over the existing level.
Planning ahead of time and standing ready with the needed utility
system will indeed be a wise step on the part of the City of Houston
and its citizens.
G-2
-------
FIGURE G-l
PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GO
a
CO
o
o
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
HOUSTON-GALVESTON
PLANNING REGION
.Xjf- 4-
X** JHARRli
,*** x*** _l_
G-3
-------
FIGURE G-2
PAST, PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
•*' CITY OF HOUSTON
1960
1970
1980
1990
G-4
-------
FIGURE 6-3: 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR HARRIS COUNTY AND THE
SURROUNDING AREAS
•:,'".• •
"f "'• *" •*?!£?•'•£."'»' •'••• •• ''• )
•'•'ill 4r*»'.'SX ' *' ' ••, ^
S*2^?*?A^- ..••'.
. >v*,?•«+/ -^f; '••••''[PLANT LOCATION!
N
ONB DOT P>A FIVK
HUNDHMO PBOPLB
G-5
-------
FIGURE G-4: PROJECTED POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR HARRIS COUNTY
AND ADJOINING AREAS, 1990
'•'.•• ' •. •.'••*»'."/ . " ••* ''
'. .-'•.'•'. .V''l*i»'••:.'•'••.• :'. '• ,s A;".'
••'.•• ••^?-.--•••.-"-ft' V.»: •&.•:.•: •• •••":...•::
..••••• .;... •'.•:•-...a K»I-.-.'. • ii.vv. . ••• •• .'•. .'.'
.:V;V.:-.« .;••' .• :-.
f& •'•: •;"• -^
i?^*^1 ' "••:£' "' ' '•. '•'
fe'--;..,i:--':. • •.:
fc-vV -.^:- ; • '• .:;-.
0. »i..,. , ••• . •••'.•.•.:
0-1.- ..^v - .-i.
, »;. .x. , ••• . •••.'.•:•:•. ;.•}.
t^*^?'' f|
k'?»T *. :'? 2
'
-------
FIGURE G-5
EXISTING LAND USE FOR DISTRICT 47 SERVICE AREA
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI-FAMILY
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
OPEN SPACE
UNDEVELOPED
DISTRICT 47 PLANT
SCALE: "=2500'
G-7
-------
FIGURE G-6
PROJECTED LAND USE PATTERN FOR DISTRICT 47 SERVICE AREA
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI-FAMILY
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT 47 PLANT]
I SCALE: 1"=2500'
G-8
-------
FIGURE G-7: EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FOR
SOUTHEAST HOUSTON
*»**«*««<>»«'****»****
-•
LOCATION
THOROUGHFARES
SUFFCei&NT WIDTH
-__- To BE WIDENED
...... JO BE AC.QUIR&D
FRpEWAYS
SUFFICI^^T WIDTH
W TO BE'WkDENED
•••*• rX BE ACQUIRED
Illlllllll LOCATION; NOT YET/ DE TE1?M I N E D
/HOUSTON! cm bJ/MTrs
OTHFR INCORPORATED AREAS
COUNTY BOtlND/FHES
G-9
-------
TEXT RFFFRFNr.F.
CHAPTER V: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX H: EXISTING TREATMENT METHODS FOR DISTRICT 47.
GULF PAU1 AND GULF TERRACE TREATMENT PLANTS
-------
(1) DISTRICT 47 PI ANT:
The existing treatment plant features secondary treatment by
the contact-stabilization mode of the activated sludge treatment
process.
Influent raw sewage is lifted into the plant from the lift
station. It passes through a bar screen for removal of gross solids,
It then flows into an aerated contact chamber where the raw sewage
is mixed with recycled sludge. In this chamber dissolved organics
are adsorbed or absorbed by the sludge solids. The flow passes into
the final clarifier where the solids are allowed to settle out.
The clarified effluent flows to a contact chamber for disinfection
by chlorination. The chlorinated effluent is discharged to a
Harris County Flood Control District drainage ditch leading to
Berry Gully.
Most of the sludge from the clarifier is pumped to the stabili-
zation basin where the organics are oxidized the the sewage
microorganisms and converted into the energy or cellular matter.
The stabilized sludge is recycled to the contact basin. Excess
sludge is wasted and is pumped off-site for further treatment and
disposal at the Sims Bayou Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant.
(2) GULF PALM TREATMENT PLANT
The existing treatment plant features primary treatment in an
Imhoff tank and secondary treatment in a trickling filter.
H-l
-------
Influent raw sewage from the lift station enters the Imhoff tank
sedimentation basin where suspended solids are allowed to settle
outo The wastewater flows to a trickling filter where it is
distributed over a bed of slime covered rocks. Microorganisms
in the slime adsorb and absorb the organic material from the
wastewater and oxidize it to create energy or cellular material.
The flow continues to a clarifier where residual solids are allowed
to settle out. The clarified effluent flows to a contact chamber for
disinfection by chlorination. The chlorinated effluent is dis-
charged into a HCFCD drainage ditch which discharges into Berry
Gullyu
The solids from the Imhoff tank sedimentation basin drop
into the Imhoff tank sludge digestion chamber where they undergo
anaerobic digestion. The digested sludge is periodically wasted
to sludge drying beds. Dried sludge is taken to a city landfill
for final disposal. Sludge solids from the clarifier are returned
to the plant lift station for recycling through the planto
(3) GULF TERRACE TREATMENT PLANT
The treatment process for this plant is completely identical
to that to the Gulf Palms Plant described in the preceding section.
H-2
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER VII: ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD
THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED (UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS )
APPENDIX HH: SECONDARY IMPACT ON AIR POLLUTION
-------
IMPACT OF URBANIZATION ON AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
It appears that the people of Houston and their City Government
desire additional growth. To attract urbanization, public facilities
are needed such as expanded sanitary facilities. A previous section
has shown that the construction of the proposed facilities will aid
the city in bringing about an additional growth of 22,000 persons for
the project area. This population will require the development of
an estimated 1881 acres of land for various purposes such as housing,
work places, schools, and related facilities. The construction of
the project elements will improve the existing public health conditions
for those sections of the service area which are currently served by
septic tanks and the Gulf Palm and Gulf Terrace Plants. On a short
term basis, the quality of water in HCFCD Drainage Ditch, Berry Gully,
Sims Bayou, and the Houston Ship Channel would also experience a
beneficial impact from the construction of the proposed facilities.
It is not disputed that the growth and urbanization are in
themselves harmful. But going a step further when an analysis of
the possible consequences of urbanization on the quality of the
environment is considered, one faces the issue of deciding whether
or not such urbanizations are desirable. There are options available
for avoiding adverse ramifications of growth, though in some instances
people are not aware of or are not willing to take necessary steps
HH-1
-------
to make sure that only the beneficial impact of urbanization is
wanted and not its adverse consequences. For example, unless
the people of Houston are willing to undertake parallel programs
to keep the problem of air pollution to a minimum, the additional
growth of 22,000 persons would further deteriorate the quality
of air in the District 47 area of Houston. The following shows
how this may occur.
1. Impact of Population Increase on Travel Demand:
Travel demand is defined as the total number of vehicular
miles driven per day by the service area population in the process
of satisfying social and economic needs: work, shop, do business,
etc. In 1960, the people of Harris County traveled a total vehicular
miles of 9.6 million miles on an average day (source: Houston-Harris
County Transportation Study by the Texas Highway Department, November
1971, page XXIV). The average trip length was 2.6 vehicular miles
and approximately 3 vehicular trips per day were generated on a per
capita basis.
Total vehicular miles of travel by the net population
increase of the District 47 Plant's Service Area:
Total net population increase by 1990 = 22,000 persons
No. of trips = 22,000 x 3 = 66,000 vehicular trips
Total vehicular miles to be traveled per day = 66,000 x 2.60
172,000 vehicular miles per day.
HH-2
-------
Alternately,
Y = P(f1)(f2)(f3)(f4) where
Y = vehicular miles per year
P = population increase
f-± = total passenger miles per person
f.2 = the factor expressing the travel allocation
to the motor vehicle after adjustment for
mass transit
f$ = vehicular occupancy rate (no. of persons per
vehicle)
f^j = allocation of total miles to urban and
non-urban travel
[f-^ = 7,000 miles/year, ±2 = 0.85, f3 = 0.58 @1.72 persons per
vehicle, and f$ = .80. Source: A Guide for Considering Air Quality
in Urban Planning, PB-234 341, prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency, distributed by NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce,
March 1974, page 71.]
The values of f^, ±2f and f3 as suggested by the above study
appear to be appropriate for the Houston situation.
Y (for the District 47 Service Area) = 22,000 x 7,000 x .85 x .58 x
= 54,800,000 miles per year
Total vehicle miles to be traveled per day by the 22,000 additional
people in the service area = 54,800,000 = 150,000 vehicle miles/day
365
Average vehicle miles per day = 172,000 + 150,000
2
=161,000 miles per day.
HH-3
-------
2. Vehicular Transportation Emission Rates:
Considerable research has been conducted through the
auspices of the various federal agencies particularly the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to determine the emission rates of transpor-
tation and motor vehicles. These emission rates would vary from one
urban area to another, depending on the vehicular mix in terms of
the proportion of automobiles as a percent of total vehicular
distribution, vehicular age distribution, and related factors.
Based on the results compiled by an EPA study\ the following emission
rates appear to apply to the Houston situation. Also see page 64,
Table 8, A Guide for Considering Air Quality in Urban Planning,
March, 1974.
Emission Rates
Pollutant
1975 1980
CO 60.0 36.5
HC 7.66 4.1
N0x 4.9 2.8
in Grams per Mile
1990 and later
23.8
2.5
1.6
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second Edition,
AP-42, April 1973, Table 3.1.1-1)
HH-4
-------
The declining emission rates from 1975 through 1990 are
reflective of the projected impact of federal and state regulations
on motor vehicles under the Transportation Control Programs of the
1970 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments.
3. Estimated Secondary Net Impact of the Proposed District 47
Sanitary Facilities on Ambient Air Quality;
Applying the emission rates in grams per mile to the
projected vehicular miles of travel by the 22,000 persons, the
pollutant concentration per day in 1990 is estimated as follows:
CO 161,000 x 23.8 = 3,830,000 grams/day
HC 161,000 x 2.5 = 403,000 grams/day
NOX 161,000 x 1.6 = 257,000 grams/day
The corresponding pollution concentration in Ibs/day is as
follows:
CO 8,600 Ibs/day = 4.30 tons/day
HC 910 Ibs/day = .455 tons/day
NO 579 Ibs/day = .290 tons/day
X
4. Comparison Against National Ambient Air Quality Standards;
The preceding step shows the impact of the additional
transportation development in the service area of the District 47
Treatment Plant on ambient air quality in terms of Carbon Monoxide,
HH-5
-------
Hydrocarbons, and Nitrogen Oxides pollutants. In order for this
data to be compared against the pollution concentration defined
by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, this net increase
in pollutant concentration must be added to the level of existing
air quality for the service area. The 25 monitoring stations
established and used by the City Air Pollution Control Program, as
discussed in detail in Appendix EE, are at present collecting
and processing air pollution information only for particulate
matters. The District 47 area has no monitoring station within
1.5 miles from the location of the plant. Data on pollution
concentration on Particulate Matters is of limited use in defining
the projected impact of 1990 urbanization on the total air quality
.for the service area.
The transportation impact on air quality measured as 4.30 tons
per day or 1600 tons per year in Carbon Monoxides is certainly
substantial in magnitude. This is the adverse effect which can
only be avoided if the City of Houston undertakes an ambitious
program of public transportation so that the travel need of the
increased population can be met not through the conventional method
of private automobile, but through a mode that will not pollute the
ambient air. This is an adjustment which the Houstonians will have
to make in order for them to have both urbanization and clean air
at the same time. This is a "trade off" which should be given
consideration. Appendix EE has shown that Houston as a whole is
violating the national standards in every category of pollutants. Ways
must be found to bring the pollution level within allowable limits.
HH-6
-------
APPENDIX I: RECORDS OF PUBLIC HEARING BY EPA
JANUARY 6, 1975
RICE HOTEL, HOUSTON
-------
BEFORE THE
2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3
Public hearing in the matter ofs
DRAFT EMVISOMMEWTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON DISTRICT 47 WASTBWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES, MPC-TEX-IOOJ)
San? Houston Room
Rice Hotel
Main at Texas Street
Houston? Texas
January 6f 1973
BAGBY COURT REPORTING SEHtflCS
Suite 716
910 Houston Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
-------
CONTENTS,
2 STATEMENTS BY: - PAGE
3 Hearing Officer Collins 3
Ms „ Teresa Shavney ~: • •'• 10
5 Vic Hansen 12
6 D. P. Oibrich 15
7 C. E. Miller ' 17
8
9
12
13
14 I? Z E
15
16 1 17 17
17
18
19
20
2'?
23
25
-------
HEARING OFFICERS Good morning, gentlemen, and
welcome to this public hearing on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement regarding the Houston District 47 Region
Wastewater Treatment Facility, which I now call to order.
My name is Jim Collins, I am a licensed attorney
and the Regional Hearing Officer for Region VI of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, the Regional Administrator,
to vrfiom I directly report, has designated me as the
Presiding Officer of today's bearing.
Also participating in today's proceeding is
Ms. Teresa Shavney, on my right, who is an Environmental
Scientist from the Office of Grants Coordination of Region VI.
For .the record, this hearing is being convened on
January 6, 1975, in the Rice Hotel; Houston,, Texas.
Now I would like to give you a brief explanation of
what this hearing is about and the rales that will apply.
This is a public administrative hearing,, held by and through
the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency under
Public Law 91-190.
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act
which is Public Law 91-190, also referred to as JISPA, requires
that all agencies of the FederaJ. Government shall, and I
quote:
-------
j
j "Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach
I which will insure the integrated use ct'tb.e natural and
i
social sciences,, and the enviroiisjental design arts in planning
and in decision, snaking, which may have an impact on man's
environment»
"Secondly, identify and develop methods and
procedures, in consultation with the Council or* Environmental
Quality established by Title II of this Act, wiv'.ch will insure
that presently unquarrtll'ied environmental amenities and
values may be given appropriate consideration in decision
making along with economic and technical considerations,
"Thirdly P includo. In avery recommendation or report
on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions
ptigr/ificantly affecting the quality of the hwjKan envirorswettt:,
a detailed stciterasnt by tLis responsible official on the
environmental impact of fcbe proposed action.;, any adverse
environmental effects which eam'Qt'be avoided should the
px-oposal be implemented,; alternatives to the proposed action.
the relationship between .local short-tarm lisas of raaa!s
environment and the ffiair'.tens-->ice and enhaxice^eR/c of long--term
productivity,, also any irreversible ^ad irretrievable
ft
1*1 *T\
a .l,Ai.volV2d ia the proposed
action should it be inipj.^yv^enfcecl.,
Trier to issuing the fls.ai statement;, the responsibl
federal official sha.l 1 c'onsult with and obtain fclie comments of
-------
if
5
any federal agency which has jurisdiction by law, or special
E
expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
3
"Copies of such statements and, the comments and
views of the appropriate federal, state and local agencies,
which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental
6 standards, shall be made available to the President, the
Council on Environmental Quality, and to the public, as
8 provided by Section 552 of Title 5 of the IK s. Code, and
shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency
review processes."
To comply with the Act, the Office of Grants
Coordination, Region VI in Dallas, has prepared a Draft
13 Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed expansion
14 of the Houston District No. 47 Region Wastewafcer Treatment
15 | .Facility.
16 This Draft Environmental Impact. Statement was made
available to federal, state and local agencies, private
18 organizations and certain individuals on November 30, 1974.
19 I am certain that many of yo-i have received a copy
20 ! of that document. If not, there are a. .limited nusofoer available
21 I at the registration table out in the hall.
&2 i] The Council on Environmental Quality guidelines,
23 || promulgated, to implement J5EPA, established the following
t s
-------
appropriate federal, state and local agencies, assess in
2 detail the potential environmental impact in order that
adverse effects ara avoided, and environmental quality is
restored or enhanced,, to the fullest extent practicable.
RIn particular, alternative actions that will
minimise adverse impact should be explored and both long and
short-range implications to jrum, his physic-al and social
surroundings, and to nature, should be evaluate??, in order to
avoid to the fullest extent practicable undesirable
consequences fox- the environment:»"
EPA policy is directed to fully comply with the
?2 national Snviroumsntal Policy Act asici Council on Eaviron-
13 mental Quality guidelines.
14 Public participation is aa integral part o£ ths
15 agency planning and fiecisioij.-raalsing process. The agency
intends fco keep the public fully inforsisad about, the* status
17 and progress of the studies ami findings, and to actively
18 solicit coKijyaat;-; fros all coBcarucel aroisps and individuals.
( •>> e.
19 Approval of the proposed project here-, the subject
20 of this hearinge cannot be given until tJic Environmental
Impact Statement process is eompletac-. and wntil the project
22 meets all state and federal requlraffisatis«
23 l"n an effort to assure the fullest degree of public
participation possible in all of its ••anviiconsiental programs,
25 | the Environmental Protection Agency, in addition to soiled ting
-------
written comments, holds public hearings, such as this one, on
2
those issues where significant action is about to be taken/
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or when public interest is indicated. We encourage the
citizens from all sectors of the public to make their views
known.
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Regional Administrator, has
determined that the proposed federal action here will have a
significant impact on the environment, and that a public
hearing might identify environmental issues that might other-
wise be overlooked. This is why we are here today.
This hearing provides all interested persons an
I
| opportunity to express their opinions which will be pertinent
to the proposed project and the Draft Impact Statement*
Please bear in mind that the draft statement serves
only as a means of assessing the environmental impact of
proposed agency actions and is not to be construed as
justification for decisions already made.
All relevant testimony presented today will be
considered by SPA in arriving at a final decision and Impact
Statement. That statement, in turn, will relate to the
question of whether or not, or under what conditions, federal
r'
funds.'will be granted to further the project.
i i
Since today's hearing is not a rule-making hearing
under the Administrative Procedure Act? nor a court of law,
no formal procedures or rules of evidence will apply. Because
-------
this hearing is for the cole purpose of gathering all
pertinent facts relating to the environmental issues involved,
our rules of evidence will be rather liberal? howeverP they
will ba kept as consistent as possible with orderly
proceedixigs.
6 Participants taay present-, any information, which they
7 feel should be brought to £he attentiora of tha plamdng
agencies. Also,,- participants in this hearing may question
or disseusss any issue or point which is brought up by any
10 speaker, but only efter l.:hs close of his or her presentation.
It I do recp.ire that all form?;,! testimony submitted
12 today be relevant to the Draft Ssipaet Stat-amsnt we are
13 considering,, and that it. aot be. repetitive of previous
14 testimony.
55 1 may limit oral pros&:>,tatio:a if not pertinent or
material to the r«levazst issist-a suuTouwcllag the Draft Impact
17 Statement f and J. siay ask. tha'i rcd'andar^,; or corroborative
material be submitted rathe.t than read,
I also ask that'all stat.osaeiat.'S by any one individual
20 i*i excess of tvreiity sainvites .be
prccsdure for today's bearing will ba as follows,
22 After my opening remarks^ ^e will hea:c from Mis. Shavney from
23 tlxo Office of Grants; Coord.lrastio'A of :^c"jio« VIf Ms. Sh
24 will present perfciaent facts and ooi'&jia-aats eoB.c'S7.'niag tii
25 application, iavssntigati^n and Draft Impact Statement,
-------
we will hear from all those persons who have indicated a
desire to present formal testimony.
I would like to caution you now that this is not a
forum for debate, nor argumentative conversation, but rather/
one for the gathering of facts and opinions regarding this
Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
It is important that ws have only one person at a
time speaking. Therefore, I ask that you not engage in cross-
conversation, but rather, that you wait your turn and identify
yourself prior to speaking in order that the reporter may make
an accurate, permanent record of the testimony.
As you can see^ a verbatim transcript is being made
of today's proceeding, and it will be the sole official record.
Persons desiring to purchase copies of the transcript should
make arrangements with the reporter at the conclusion of the
hearing„
Shortly, a copy of the transcript will be available
to the public for inspection between f-.he hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 4 s 3D p,m., Monday through Friday, in the Offica of the
Regional Hearing Clerk in Dallas,, Texas. That's on the llth
floor, 1600 Patterson Street.
I am also in the habit of sending a copy to those
localities concerned, in this case, we will send a copy to the
Houston Chamber of Commerce, probably to Mr« Louie Welch's
office.
-------
10
The hearing record today will remain open for ten
calendar days after adjournment of this hearing™ If anyone
has any additional comments, or if you wish to raodify any of
the testimony you presented at this hearing, please send them
to my attention at. Region VI in Dallas f and it will become a
part of the record.
7 In addition to the testimony at this hearing,
written materials which have been submitted directly here or
to the Regional Administrator of Region VI„ previously or
within the extension period that I announced will also be
If considered in reaching a final decision..,
12 If your oral presentation haw been reduced to writing
13 1 would appreciate copies being given to the Chair and to ths
14 staff as an aid in transcribing today's proceedings.
55 As you come forward to testify, which will be at this
podium over here by the microphonee please identify yourself
'{y by name, title if with an organisation, ths actual organi-
IQ sation and locationf and if you are representing someone, the
19 name of the person or organisation you are representing.
2Q Does anyone in the audience have any question now as
to how the hearing is to be conducted?
22 £N° response.]
23 HEARING OFFICER; Ho one so .indicating, I will now
24 call on Ms,, Shatmey for her cormeats
25 MS. SHAVNEY: Thank you, Mr. Collins.
-------
11
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Houston's
District 47 wastewater treatment facilities has been prepared
and distributed in accordance with the Environmental Protectioi
Agency interim regulations on impact statements, dated
January 17, 1973; Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines,
dated August 1, 1973, and the EPA Preliminary Draft Manual For
Preparing Impact Statements, dated March 2, 1973.
This statement is intended to present BPA's analysis
of the environmental impact of the proposed project. In
complying with this objective, Chapter VI of the statement,
entitled, "Environmental Effects Of The Proposed Action," is
organised to contain a discussion on short-term impacts,
normally construction impacts such as noise and erosionj
long-term impacts such as water quality and land use, and
secondary impacts such as those resulting from additional
growth.
Discussions of short- and long™terra impacts cover
areas of environmental concern which are obvious, related to
the project, and which for the most part, can be measured or
understood.
Secondary or indirect, impacts of the proposed project
are not as easily understood or quantifiable.
This is a draft statement and no final conclusions
or recommendations have been prepared.
The information presented in this draft statement,
-------
12
together with all pertinent information presented at this
hear:ing, will lay the groundwork for our continued review
as the final impact statement is prepared.
Thank yon, Mr. Collins*
That completes ray presentation,
HEASIN3 OFFICERS Thank you, Ms. Shavney.
Do we have any questions at this time before we
start into the ones here who have form! testimony?
[Ho response.]
HEARING OFFICER; If not, we will turn now to
Mr. Vic Harjseii of the Houston Geological Society.
MR. HMfSENs This is a statement of the Houston
Geological Society-
The Houston Geological Sociaty, with, a-membership
of over 2,000 in the Kietropolitaa area of Houston, iis vitally
interested in the project described in the Draft Impact.
Statement.
Geologists are exposed to environmental problems
quite early in their educational aucl professional careers aadr
as a consequence f are •very ffi^c-h aware o? the importance of
changes that cccur to tho surface and fcb.e subsurface of urban
areas,
The majority of our merafoership live within the
confines of the city of Houston and as residents are concerned
citizens and therefore doubly interested ia the proposed progran
-------
13
We feel that improvement of water quality in our
streams, bayous, the ship channel, and consequently Calveston
Bay is a prime environmental consideration.
Therefore, we are in favor of the construction of
additional wastewater facilities for the city of Houston to
insure a better water environment.
However, the proposed wastewater facilities may be
affected by active geologic processes in the general area of
the proposed District 47 facilities.
These processes include active surface faulting and
land subsidence. Active faults have been noted in the area
surrounding the proposed facilities, that is, one-half mile
north in the city of South Houston, two and a half miles west
northwest on Panair Street, and two and a half miles west
southwest near the intersection of Radio and Almeda-Genoa Roads
The project area has undergone several feet of
subsidence since 1943, and will continue to subside as ground
water is withdrawn in the greater Houston area.
We ask these questions. Are there any active
surface faults in tine project area which might break the
sludge lines and gathering systems?
If so, can this be compensated for prior to
construction?
What effect will continued subsidence have on gravity
flow patterns in the gathering systems?
-------
3
4
5
<3
7
S
9
10
11
12
3
IS
20
We do not wish to sea wastewater projects delayed,
but we do suggest additional geologic studies of both the
surface and subsurface be made.
The above questions should be answered prior to the
beginning of construction, and a system installed to
continually monitor geologic processes affecting wastewater
facilities.
HEARING OFFICERS Thaiik you, MX. Bans en.
I believe the fsasie question was raised back a few
months ago on the Aliseda-Slsas project and also the Northwest
facility by your organisation? tind I believe that you have
probably found it obvious since t-heti, that we took sorae
special note*
Mr. Greg Edwar-is of the Office of Grants Coordination
I
is here also today,, and I would like to ask Greg at this time,
do you have any corament as to this question now, a.t this point
on this project?
Has that already bessi ta.Ir.SK into consideration?
MR. EDWARDS: We clid additional geological stacks
for Aliueda-Sima and. jfcrthm-5tf a:a$ we will do the saro.® -m
23
24
this one.
22 \ HEARING OFFICER: All right.
Mr. Hansen, arc yoxt aware of anything at this point
in the project as to what, we are doing, when it coraes to your
questions? Have you seen any results yefc?
-------
.15
1 MR. HANSENj No, sir. I'm not familiar with it.
2 BEARING OFFICER: Well, I hope you pursue it and can
3 get it together to your satisfaction that we are pursuing that
4 question. We think it is a vital question.
5 We will turn then to Mr. D. F. Olbrich, of Turner,
6 Collie & Braden.
7 MR. OLBRICHs Thank you, Mr. Collins.
8 My name is Doug blbrich. I'm an engineer with
9 Turner,, Collie & Braden, located here in Houston.
?0 Turner, Collie & Braden prepared the original
11 environmental assessment for this project, and I have prepared
32 just a brief summary of the proposed project and what it will
13 accomplish, and I will read that now for the record.
'14 This is the District 47 Regional Wastewater Facility,
35 The proposed project involves the expansion of waste-
16 water collection and related facilities for the District 47
17 Regional Sewage Treatment Plant.
10 The total cost is estimated at $4,394,776. This
19 includes an underground punip station with a capacity of 12,000
20 gallons per minute, and construction of 25,430 linear feet of
£1 15-inch through 54-inch diameter sexier pipe.
22 This construction will allow ths city of Houston to
i
bypass and abandon two small urban inadequate sewage treatment
plants. Gulf Palm and Gulf T
-------
,1(5
processed at the District 47 plant.
2 The District 47 Sewage Treatment Plant is located
3 at the intersection of Old Galveston Highway and Edgeforook.
The plant was designed to treat an average daily flow of
three million gallons per day? and features secondary treat-
ment by the contact stabilization mode of de~activated sludge
7 treatment process.
Treated affluent is discharged .into the Harris
'•>. |. •
County flood control ditch, thence to Baircl Gul.ley, thence to
10 Baird Creek and thence into the Houston Ship Channel.
11 Presently three sewage treatment plants are in
12 operation in the District 47 service area? Gulf Palm., treating
23 an average daily flow of 0,2 MGD, aad Gulf Terracef treating
14 0,28 MOD. Gulf Palra and Gulf Terrace do not znsat the
IS effluent standards set forts* by the Tessas Water Quality Board
16 or the Environmental Protection Agency,
In comparison„ District 47 produces effluent that
surpasses the parameters set forth by tb.© TWQB| although
19 District 47°s design capacity is three million gallons per
20 its existing load, is only 1.66 MC3D.
2.1 The District 47 plant can usually treat another
22 j 1.34 M.GD, and. the combined capacity if Gulf Palm and Gulf
I
23 i Terrace total only 0=48 MGD,
24 ^he proposed facilities are designed to accurately
25 carry the wastewater flow through 1990^, and vrill improve the
-------
17
quality of public health in the project service area and
enhance water flow quality into the Houston Ship Channel.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Olbrich.
Any questions on the presentation of Mr. Olbrich?
[No response.]
HEARING OFFICER: Any questions from anyone?
[No response.]
HEARING OFFICER: At this time is there anyone who
would like to add something?
Yes, sir.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Collins, I'm Charles Miller with
the Karris County Pollution Control Department.
I thank you for the opportunity to be notified about
this hearing that is held at this time.
I do have some data for you, which are our results
from the sewage treatment plants for the last three years,
and even in a few years before that because we concentrated
on that as well.
HEARING OFFICERS Thank you very much, Mr. Miller.
I will make this data Exhibit Wo. 1,
{Exhibit No. 1 was marked for
identification and was received
in evidence.)
HEARING OFFICER? Are there any other comments or
persons who wish to testify?
-------
18
[Wo response.}
HEARING OFFICERS Any questions?
[Wo response.]
HEARING OFFICER: If not, I will remind you that the
hearing record will remain opesi for tea calendar days and I
will accept anything, you want to send in in writing or any-
thing you %'ish to add to it.
Hearing no further coir-meritse then, I call this
hearing to a close.
(Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the record was closed.)
-------
S
6
DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
DISTRICT 47 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Q
18
21
22
23
24
25
19
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the Environmental Protection Agency in the matter of
FACILITIES, WPC-TEX-1008
10
Houston, Texas
12 | January 6, 1975
13
were had as herein appear, and that this is the official
transcript thereof for the files of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
B&GBY COURT REPORTING SERVICE
Suit© 716
910 Houston Street
Fort Worths Texas 76102
J.
Certified Court Reporter
-------
W. A. QUEBEDEAUX, JR., PH.D.
DIRECTOR
HARRIS COUNTY POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT
1O7 NORTH MONGER • BOX 6O31
PHONE (713) 228-8311, EXT. 681
PASADENA, TEXAS 775O2 6
December 30, 1974.
Mr. James L. Collins
Regional Hearing Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Collins:
Submitted herevith are the results of samples taken by our
office at three of the existing treatment plants in the area
of the proposed District 4-7 Wastevater Treatment Facility. We
trust this data may be of value to you in evaluating the histor-
ical data of the area and give some guidance to future planning.
The attached data represents the results for the past three
years. Data is probably available from our office for earlier
dates «f needed.
Sincerely yours,
C. E. Miller
Assistant Mrector-Engineering
Harris County Pollution Control Dept.
sg
Copy to Greg Edwards 1/7/75
-------
GULF PALMS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
T.W.Q.B. Waste Control Order No. 101*95
Date BOD TSS
11/13M 62 38
10/10/71* 1*6 26
9/03/71* 31 U2
8/01/71* 60 U8
6/18/7!* 55 31*
5/09/71* 53 38
l*/09/7l* — 86
2/26/71* 135 38
1/31/71* 73 78
1971* average 6H U8
11/27/73 217 16
10/OV73 102 28
9/12/73 88 22
8/29/73 131 16
7/31/73 81 31
6/26/73 57 39
5/2V73 1°2 l8
U/10/73 167 l1^
2/01/73 59 22
1973 average 112 23
11/21/72 27 7
11/07/72 28 38
10/11/72 71 3^
9/19/72 1+8 66
8/16/72 53 1*0
7/18/72 53 1*2
6/ll*/72 67 0
5/16/72 6l 56
2/29/72 12 12
2/03/72 1*9 1*8
1/13/72 36 1*0
1972 average 1*6 35
-------
GULFWAY TERRACE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
T.W.Q.B. Waste Control Order No. 10^95
Date BOD TSS
11/13/74 111 48
10/10/74 48 48
9/03/74 14 16
8/01/74 30 38
6/18/74 56 108
5/09/74 14 34
4/09/74 -- 3^
2/26/7l| 130 22
1/31/71* ^3 31*
1971* average 56 1+2
11/27/73 71 20
10/OU/73 83 28
9/12/73 30 19
8/29/73 23 22
7/31/73 73 ^8
6/26/73 32 32
5/2U/73 136 32
U/10/73 2U 17
2/01/73 35 38
1973 average 56 26
11/21/72 18 0
11/07/72 31 W
10/11/72 26 26
9/19/72 132 36
8/16/72 81 112
7/18/72 39 31
6/14/72 50 ^
5/16/72 5^ 60
2/29/72 21 128
2/03/72 51 12
1/13/72 ^7 ^
1972 average 50 ^9
-------
FREEWAY MANOR S.T.P. WC&ID
T.W.Q.B. Waste Control Order No. 10^95
Date BOD TSS
11/13/7^ 5 8
10/10/7^ 3 2
9/03/7^ k 1
8/OlM 2 10
6/18M ^ 7
5/09/7^ U 6
U/09/TU — 6
2/26/7^ 6 5
1/31/7^ ^ 0
average U 5
11/27/73 16 0
10M/73 9 1
9/12/73 6 2
8/29/73 6 1
7/31/73 13 3
6/26/73 3 7
5/2V73 13 1
U/10/73 11 1
2/11/73 2 U
1973 average 9 2
11/21/72 3
11/07/72 7 ^
10/11/72 7 10
9/19/72 7 8
8/16/72 U 7
7/18/72 1 10
6/1U/72 9 8
5/16/72 11 UU
2/29/72 6 28
2/03/72 10 8
1/13/72 10 12
1972 average 7 15
------- |