FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
NORTHWEST REGIONAL
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
CITY OF HOUSTON
WPC-TEX-1020
OFFICE OF GRANTS COORDINATION, REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
APPROVED BY
JANUARY 1975
Hsit. Q /
Toj-ARTHUR W, BUSCH
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
JANUARY 10, 1975
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
NORTHWEST REGIONAL WASTEVIATER TREATMENT PLANT
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
WPC'TEX-1020
IMPACT STATEMENT NUMBER 7413
WATER DIVISION, REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
APPROVED BY
(f
W, BUSCH
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
JANUARY 10, 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY
1. NAME OF ACTION i
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION i
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ii
4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED iii
5. REVIEWING AGENCIES iv
6. SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT x
I , INTRODUCTION 1
A. EPA AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
UNDER NEPA 2
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 3
II, BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES 4
A. PERSPECTIVE: CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS 4
B. PROPOSED ACTION 10
III, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 18
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 18
A. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING 18
B. CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS 36
C. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 40
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT 47
D. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 47
E. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 49
F. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 57
-------
PAGE
IV, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 55
A. GENERAL 65
B. MAJOR OBJECTIVES 65
C. CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS 65
D. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES 69
E. TREATMENT SUBSYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES 74
F. CHOSEN TREATMENT SYSTEM 79
G. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 82
V, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 84
A. GENERAL 84
B. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NORTHWEST PLANT 84
C. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY 90
VI, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 98
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD THE
PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED 98
B. SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 114
C. LONG-TERM SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACT 122
VII , ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED 125
A. GENERAL 125
B. SUMMARY 125
VIII. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USFS
OF MAN S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 128
-------
IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF~RESOURCES WHICH WOULD-BE.-INVOLVED -IN THE
PROPOSED ACTION. SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
A. RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY
COMMITTED TO THE PROJECT
B. ALTERNATIVES
PAGE
129
129
131
X COMMENTS, PUBLIC--PARTICIATION AND
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21 JUNE 1973,
CONCERNING PROPOSED NORTHWEST WASTEWATER
FACILITIES
B. NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MEDIA ACCOUNTS
C. REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
D. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
132
132
133
133
134
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX GG:
PRELIMINARY INVENTORY OF CITY OF HOUSTON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGIONAL
SEWAGE TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSIONS
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF NORTHWEST REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND THE GULF
COAST WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
PERMIT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY
BOARD FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST
REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL SERIES FOR NORTHWEST
HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, 1974
STREAM FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA FOR COLE
CREEK, WHITE OAK AND BUFFALO BAYOUS
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE
HOUSTON AREA
-------
APPENDIX H: HISTORICAL, ARCHAELOGICAL AND CULTURAL
ELEMENTS
APPENDIX I: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR A
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVING
COMMUNITIES IN NORTHWEST HOUSTON
APPENDIX J: TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX K: TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION
APPENDIX L: SECONDARY IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX M: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
APPENDIX N: NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS
APPENDIX 0: RECORDS OF PUBLIC' HEAR ING
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
II-l INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY OF HOUSTON'S
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANTS 7-i
II-2 ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS FOR NORTHWEST
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 14
III-l MONTHLY PRECIPITATION, CITY OF HOUSTON,
1965-1973 37
III-2 LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION BY TYPE OF POLLUTANTS
FOR HARRIS COUNTY, 1972 39
III-3 HOUSTON'S EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK: 1960-1990 51
III-4 POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE
PROJECT AREA, CITY OF HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY
AND GULF COAST PLANNING REGION: 1960-1990 53
III-5 EXISTING LAND USE DISTRIBUTION FOR SERVICE AREA 59
IV-1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS EVALUATION 76
IV-2 WASTEWATER-DISPOSAL SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND
RELATED WASTEWATER FACILITIES 81
V-l DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EXISTING NORTHWEST TREATMENT
PLANT 8 9
V-2 INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR EXISTING
NORTHWEST PLANT 90
V-3 DESIGN CAPACITY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 92
V-4 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED NORTHWEST TREATMENT
PLANT 93
V-5 INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR PROPOSED
NORTHWEST PLANT 94
VI-1 SECONDARY NET IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 116
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
MAP OF HOUSTON
PHOTOGRAPH OF HOUSTON
II-l EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR HOUSTON 9
II-2 PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT REGIONALIZATION
PLAN FOR HOUSTON 11
II-3 PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION AND SERVICE AREA 13
I1-4 SITE PLAN FOR THE NORTHWEST REGIONAL TREATMENT
PLANT 17
III-l TOPOGRAPHY OF PROJECT VICINITY 20
III-2 GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS FOR HOUSTON AREA 22
III-3 DETAILED SOILS MAP FOR NORTHWEST HARRIS COUNTY 24
III-4 BASE OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE WATER
SANDS IN SUBREGION II OF THE GULF COAST REGION 26
III-5 ISOPACHOUS MAP OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE
WATER SANDS IN SUBREGION II OF THE GULF COAST
REGION 27
III-6 LOCATION OF WATER WELLS IN HARRIS COUNTY 28
III-7 WATER COURSES AND RESERVOIRS 31
II1-8 AREAS SUBJECT TO 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVELS 35
III-9 CLIMATE CONDITIONS 38
111-10 SOURCES AND LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION IN HARRIS
COUNTY 1972 39 A
III-ll PLANT ASSEMBLAGES FOR THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA 43
111-12 MAJOR MARINE AND WILDLIFE REFUGES 44
111-13 MAJOR WILDLIFE HABITATS 45
111-14 MAJOR WILDLIFE HABITATS 46
111-15 PAST, PRESENT AND PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 50
111-16 PAST, PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION 54
111-17 1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION FOR HARRIS COUNTY 55
-------
Page
111-18 1970-90 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION INCREMENT,
HARRIS COUNTY 56
111-19 EXISTING LAND USE FOR SERVICE AREA 58
111-20 PROJECTED LAND USE FOR SERVICE AREA 60
111-21 CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSTON 61
111-22 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 63
IV-1 SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES FOR PROPOSED
NORTHWEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES 30
V-l EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM FOR
THE SERVICE AREA 86
V-2 PLANT DETAILS FOR EXISTING NORTHWEST TREATMENT
PLANT 8 8
VI-1 HOUSTON'S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
PROGRAM 121
-------
HOUSTON
-------
( ) 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
authorized 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 $4,594,912 to aid in its efforts to enlarge the wastewater treat-
ment facilities at the Northwest Wastewater Treatment Facility Site.
The expanded facility, located at Cole Creek and Randon Road has been
designed to treat the wastewater generated in its service area
through the year 1990. The service area is 18.6 square miles in area
and has a current population of 47,000 persons. The 1990 population
has been projected for 90,000 persons.
The proposed project calls for the expansion to a 12 Million
Gallons per Day (mgd) treatment facility on the existing 4 mgd
Northwest Facility Site. The enlarged plant will provide secondary
biological treatment using the contact stabilization mode of the
activated sludge treatment process. The additional capacity of
8.00 mgd will provide sufficient size to treat projected daily
wastewater flows through the year 1990. The projected influent
of 12 mgd will receive secondary treatment followed by chlorine
disinfection prior to discharge into the Cole Creek approximately
-------
1000' from its confluence with the White Oak Bayou.
Sludge from the facility will be conveyed through a combination
force and gravity main to the Northside Regional Sludge Treatment
Plant where it will be dewatered by vacuum-filtration at the plant
and the fertilizer produced will be chemically conditioned and
marketed to a Florida-based citrus production firm.
The total cost of the project is estimated at $6,126,549.
3. Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects
The proposed facilities are expected to reduce health hazards in
the Northwest Treatment Plant's service area; enhance water quality
in the Cole Creek, White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou, and the
Houston Ship Channel which represents the continuation of Buffalo
Bayou; and aid in orderly physical development for -the area to be
served by this facility.
The minor adverse effects which cannot be avoided are those
normally associated with the existence and operation of wastewater
treatment facilities. The increased noise levels and possible
occasional odors emanating from the facility will be kept at a
minimum by employing an improved system of treatment process and
efficient plant operation.
Some degree of disruption of the environment and inconvenience
to citizens during construction is unavoidable but will be reduced
in severity by proper construction scheduling and techniques.
The enlargement and operation of the proposed facility should
cause no serious problems or adverse effects unless drastic unfore-
seen changes take place in the magnitude and character of anticipated
future development. The adverse effects are expected to be minor
compared to the beneficial effects of the proposed project.
11
-------
4. Alternatives Considered
A number of alternatives including No Action Alternative have
been considered both in the determination of plant location and in
the evaluation of systems design with due consideration given to
economic, social, technological and environmental factors. These
alternatives are summarized below:
A. Non-Structural Alternatives
These include policy options available to the City of Houston
for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and pollution
control.
B. Structural Alternatives
Within the defined parameters of the non-structural alternatives,
the structural alternatives were reviewed to determine:
a. Whether the service system should be centralized or
decentralized.
b. Where the plant site should be located.
C. Treatment Subsystems Alternatives
A variety of options were evaluated for each subsystem in
terms of:
a. Collection system
b. Treatment process
c. Disinfection
d. Effluent disposal
e. Sludge handling and disposal
D. No Action Alternative
The treatment system chosen for the proposed project located
at the Cole Creek and Randon Road consists of biological treatment
using the contact stabilization mode of treatment process, followed
by disinfection of the effluent through chlorination with hypochlorite
and discharge of the treated effluent into the Cole Creek. The
iii
-------
chosen sludge handling and disposal system involves transporting
sludge through a combination force and gravity main to the Northside
Sludge Treatment Plant where the sludge will be chemically
conditioned, vacuum filtered, flash-dried, and finally converted
into fertilizer/soil conditioner for market absorption. The chosen
system proved to be the best alternative when measured and tested
against all economic, social, technological and environmental
constraints.
5. List all Federal, State and Local Agencies from which Comments
were sought
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Environmental Planning and Management
U.S. Forest Service
Regional Office
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
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)
Colonel 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 Broun
451 Seventh Street, S.W.
Room 7206
Washington, D. C. 20410
IV
-------
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Robert D. Lanza
HEW North Building
Room 4062
4th 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 Policy
Attn: Office of Environmental Projects Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Southwest Region
Federal Building
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
National Park Service
P.O. Box 728
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
630 Federal Building
300 East 8th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Regional Director
South Central Regional Office
Patio Plaza
5000 Marble, N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 1609
Amarillo, Texas 79105
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 1449
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
Federal Highway Administration
Director Highway Programs Office
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
v
-------
Economic Development Agency
702 Colorado
Austin, Texas 78701
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1042 Addicks-Howell Road
Houston, Texas
Departing:!'- of Transportation
Assistant Secretary for Environment and Urban Systems
Washington, D. C. 20590
Department of Housing and Urban Development
819 Taylor
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Department of Commerce
Attn: 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
Division of Municipal Wastewater Programs
Attn: Alan Hill
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Mr. Robert Kussman, Director
Water Programs Impact Statement Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Office of Federal Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Peter Cook
Washington, D. C. 20460
Management & Budget, Organization & Management Systems
Division
Attn: Mr. Charles Nelson
17th and Pennsylvania, Room 9026
Washington, D. C. 20503
vx
-------
State Agencies
Office of the Governor
Division of Planning Coordination
Capitol Station
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
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
10th Floor, State Finance Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
John H. Reagan Building
Austin, Texas 7b'/i;l
Texas Water Quality Board
P.O. 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.O. Drawer BB
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
General Land Office
Library & Archives Building
Austin, Texas 78701
-------
Texas Animal Health Commission
1020 Sam Houston Office Building
Austin, Texas 78711
Forest Station
c/o Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77841
State Soil & 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 & Water Conservation Districts
306 West 14th Street
Friona, Texas 79035
Texas Conservation Council, Inc.
730 East Friar Tuck Lane
Ho-j.ston, Texas 77024
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas
University Station, Box X
Austin, Texas 78712
Texas Council for Wildlife Protection
3132 Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texa:. 75225
Texas Forestry Association
P.O. Box 1488
Lufkin, Texas 75901
Texas Organization for Endangered Species
P.O. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
Vlll
-------
Local Agencies and Individuals
City of Houston
City Hall
900 Brazos
Houston, Texas 77006
Turner, Collie and Braden, Inc.
3203 West Alabama
Houston, Texas 77006
John L. Spinks, Jr.
Southwest Regional Representative
National Audubon Society
P.O. 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. Mdngden, Jr0
Texas State Senate
Austin, Texas
IX
-------
Honorable Ed R. Watson
Honorable Joe Allen
Honorable Ron Waters
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
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 September, 1974. Submission
of the Final Impact Statement has been scheduled for December, 1974.
x
-------
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
A, EPA AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
UNDER NEPA
B, PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The ever-increasing demand for housing, transportation, work
places and public facilities created by a growing population has
dominated the natural environment of our cities. While urbanization
must continue, it is the obligation of this generation to preserve
those environmental features which man cannot create. Policymakers
at all levels of government and concerned citizens are facing the
challenge of establishing a balance between the demands of urbaniza-
tion and preservation and conservation of the natural environment.
The City of Houston shares this concern of environmental preser-
vation with the rest of the nation and is trying to improve the qua-
lity of its environment through various public service programs.
One of Houston's critical problems is the collection and disposal
of wastewater from areas of human settlement. The present sanitary
sewer and treatment system is inadequate and allows the pollution of
city waterways, which is hazardous to public health. Water quality
is a well known problem for the Houston Ship Channel. Most of the
waterways draining the City of Houston empty into the Ship Channel.
Effluent discharge from the various sewage treatment plants in the
Houston area are a major source of water flow in these water courses
dirking dry weather periods. Improved water quality in these water-
ways will better the water quality of the Houston Ship Channel0 Mod-
ernization and improvement of the city's sanitary sewer system can
check the pollution problem of the Houston Ship Channel and its major
-------
tributaries and also improve Houston's urban environment by elimina-
ting a public health hazard.
The water carrier system of waste removal outlined in this re-
port is the most economically feasible and environmentally desirable
solution to this critical water quality problem for an area in the
northwest section of Houston. The objective of this project, and in-
deed the entire sewage treatment system of Houston, is to imp;, ove the
public health and facilitate the overall enhancement of water quality
within the Houston Metropolitan Area. This is a long established goal
of Houston's people and its government. The proposed project repre-
sents a step toward the fulfillment of that goal in an area where a
serious health problem exists at the present time.
The estimated cost of the proposed Northwest Sewage Treatment
Plant is $6,126,549- The City of Houston has applied for a Federal
grant of $4,594,912 to aid in the enlargement and expansion of the
project.
A. EPA AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER NEPA
Under Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Amend-
ment 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 sig-
nificant effect on the environment, to prepare a detailed statement
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 enhancement 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.
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
This report is a Final Environmental Impact Statement based
on the environmental assessment submitted by the City of Houston,
attendant to construction of an enlarged Northwest Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant with a 1990 projected capacity of 12 mgd. Procedures
set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have guided the
preparation of this Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report
identifies the impact of the proposed action with respect to both ad-
verse and beneficial terms and suggests how the adverse effects can be
minimized.
-------
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES
A, PERSPECTIVE: CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
B, PROPOSED ACTION
-------
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
II. BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES
A. PERSPECTIVE; THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
The City of Houston grew from a log cabin village laid out by the
Allen brothers in the 1830's to the nation's sixth largest city in
1970, with a population of 1,233,000 persons, encompassing a geogra-
phic territory of 506 square miles. Over 40% of the land inside the
city limits is still available for urban development. Continuation of
current trends of economic growth, transportation, recreation and en-
tertainment is expected to make Houston a corporate city of nearly two
and a half million persons by the year 1990.
Houston is the industrial, commercial and cultural capital of the
Southwest United States. To continue its dominant position, the peo-
ple of Houston and its government must face the challenge of develop-
ing and maintaining those urban facilities which are essential to
assure a high-quality environment for all parts of the city. The pro-
vision of an adequate system of public health services, including san-
itary sewage, must rank high in the order of development priorities
for the city. This task must be carried out in a manner such that the
natural environment will not fall prey to the structures of steel and
concrete, and such programs must promote the quality of air, water and
the man-made and biological environment of the Houston Metropolitan
Area.
-------
1. Existing Wastewater Treatment System
In response to the population increase and business and in-
dustrial development, the City of Houston hac built a sanitary sys-
tem over the years that consists of 42 wastewater treatment plants,
two major sludge disposal plants, 179 pump stations and approxima-
tely 3600 miles of wastewater collection and conveyance lines. Much
of the system was constructed by the city itself. The remainder was
acquired through purchase or annexation of water district sewer sys-
tems .
The system has been characterized by piece-meal planning and con-
struction of treatment plant facilities. The consequence of this prac-
tice has lead to a degree of decentralization that is unparalleled for
an urban conglomerate the size of Houston. On the average, one treat-
ment plant in Houston serves about 30,000 persons. The size of the
plants varies from 0.5 mgd for treatment plar.ts such as Easthaven and
Clinton Park, to 100 mgd for the Northside Plant. This compares with
one treatment plant that serves the entire City of Fort Worth and its
suburbs, with a population of 800,000 persons. The City of Dallas is
only served by three treatment plants, each serving about 300,000 per-
sons .
Despite the highly decentralized form of Houston's wastewater
treatment system, it processed an average volume of just 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.
Table II-l includes data for each treatment plant capacity, qua-
lity of influent sewage and effluent in terms of bio-chemical oxygen
-------
demand, suspended solids and chlorine residual. Many of these exist-
ing plants are beset with problems of insufficient capacity, treat-
ment standards that do not meet established water quality criteria and
odors associated with sludge disposal systems. A more elaborate de-
scription of each plant in terms of system components is attached in
Appendix A. The geographic location of existing plants is presented
in Figure II-l.
2. Proposed Treatment System for Houston
To address the problems of wastewater treatment and disposal
associated with the current system, Houston has adopted a comprehen-
sive policy of regionalization of its wastewater treatment system.
The City of Houston Wastewater Management Plan developed in June of
this year recommends the abandonment of a number of small plants in
favor of regional treatment plants, which together will have an en-
larged capacity of over 300 mgd, capable of serving a population of
approximately 3 million persons. The city's Capital Improvements Pro-
gram through 1977 provides for the regionalization of most of these
plants. In addition to the complete abandonment of some plants, sew-
age from several others will be diverted to the regional plants for
treatment and disposal. The proposed system also includes the devel-
opment of four sludge treatment facilities designed to serve the
sludge treatment need of the entire city through the year 1990. Fig-
ure II-2 shows the proposed Regionalization Sewage Treatment System
for the City of Houston. The grouping of the various sewage treat-
ment plants under each regional sludge disposal plant, the current
status of all treatment plants, the abandonment and diversion summar-
-------
IAB
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QuAjbiTY OF IIOU:
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Northside
Sims Bayou
i
Almeda Sims
Chadwick Manor
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
CIWA
Eastex Oaks
Easthaven
1 Fontaine Place
i
FWSD 17
FWSD 23
iTOi^ * o ^v-i-o
1
Suspended Solids 5-Day BOD
rng/1 itig/1
Raw
385
243
232
Eff luerrc rU
1
i
. p.u-
141 304 j 79
^No .,^A.
Chlorine
mg/i
0.7
61 181 23 Oo6
27 ; 118 9
24
156
134
-
197
211
118
FWSD 34 107
Gulf Meadows
: Gulf Palms
] Guifway Terrace
Homestead
! Inter continental
! Airport
Longwoods
Mayfair Park
Northeast
Northwest
; Red Guliey
133
194
446
161
188
407
' " C' " '
-L»J (j J.-
1
24 35
!
SO 145 i 35 i
1
- -
49
43 I'
45
35 1
24
,5 l 26
39
1
36 ; 15
45 99 | 12
0.3 156 i 13
8 1
49
39 i
55
42 . 2
25
38 i
18
13 i 3
25
25
I
96 i 16
67 ; 23
i
| 17
48 15
I
22 7
24 136 7
34
9
1.3
2.0 i
l
1.2
1.9
JZENT ?^"i^
Treated
Flow
Yearly
Average
89-69
39.64
o.s:,9
0 . o 4 u
3.305
0.754
'-°
Dry
Weather
Flow*
-1
100.5
43.3
0.42
(3)
2.67
0.31
_ _ -
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
," ~ i~. ~~
(j » J_ O .!>
0.476
0.275
0.7
2.154
0.631
0.999
0.283
0.231
1.435
0.311
C . 075
0.39
1.567
' 6.135
0.357
U J- O
0.25
(E)
(3)
/ Q
J- . 'J u
0.62
0075
0.23
0.14
1.13
i
i
' T? ^
0.18
0.87
I
1 "\ "i -\
VJ J. Ji
-------
TABLE
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
Suspended bo^ias 5-Day .uGD ; Resiaua..- Trea^o. ' ^ry
rcq/1 r.vr/1 Cho.orJ.ne j'icw Woac/.er
Raw
227
-
121
188
iiffj-uent Raw !2z±iu- rag'/i Yearly F^ow*
: . en'c ! 2rzj_ut:n"c . Avoracj'c; iTiC,i_i
! ragd ;
o |j.oo( 4 i 4.J. j-.D^o -L.OU
i i
_ _ _ _ !
53 41 10 2.5 0.134 0.19
8 J147 -i 107 , 25.37 20.9 j
i r r- - r ^-^!^-'
8 ju 2o ' o-.O { U./!OJ> U.j-4r
i ;
115 52 2oG 0.244 G.0b7 :
169 77 145 26 2.0 0.380 ' 0.69 |
158
125
250
140
38 25 1.8 0.300 vZ) :
49 43 1.9 0.500 (2) '.
78 55 i 1.9 0.545- 0033 ;
, 1
85 52 1.4 , 0.444
48 35 1.4 0.605 j 0.91
8 161 i 6 j 1.5 j 1.660 |
14 136 8 1.3 2.441 (E)1.65 '
! !
64 1222 58 2.1 0.445 j i
41 |155 i 35 2.3 0.196 j
34 ; 7 2.1 0.254 i.,05
213 66 2C9 | 20 2.1 0.240 '
26 ;4 5.0 0.034
51 , 16 i 1.6 0.372 0.40
171 ' 53 ;170 19 1.3 11.4 11. 0
66 78 1.5 ' 0.250 (2) 3 no.
55 ,16 1.6 0.235 (Z) S IMO.
36 18 2.2 0.180 ! (S) 3 ir.o .
i
-------
FIGURE II-l
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
1" = 3.55 MILES
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.
-9-
-------
ies, the proposed expansion schedule for regional plants, and
other related data are shown in Appendix B.
B. PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed project has been designed to meet the current
and projected wastewater facilities need of the 11,900 acres in
the Northwest Regional Plant Service Area. Much of the sewage
currently generated in the service area does not receive adequate
treatment and often does not meet the existing discharge require-
ments. The sludge currently generated in this plant is trans-
ported to the Northside Regional Sludge Treatment Plant for treat-
ment and final disposal. Until recently, the inadequacy of the
sludge line sending sludge to Northside used to result in periodic
failures causing public health problems for the area. The problem
has been corrected by constructing a new sludge line for trans-
porting sludge to the Northside Multi-regional Sludge Treatment
Plant.
10
-------
FIGURE 11-2
PROPOSED REGIONALIZATION PLAN FOR HOUSTON'S
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
CAPACITY OVER 40 MGD AND MULTI-REGIONAL
SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
CAPACITY UNDER 40 MGD
SCALE ."= 3.55 MILES
-------
1. Project Elements
To address the problem associated with the existing plant,
the City of Houston proposes to construct the following:
a. Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
The proposed plant will provide secondary biological
treatment by utilizing the contact stabilization mode of activated
sludge process to ensure adequate treatment of influent sewage. The
1990 design capacity of 12 mgd will meet the sewage treatment need of
the service area's projected population of 90,000 persons. The effluent
from the plant will be discharged into the Cole Creek approximately
1000 feet from its confluence with the White Oak Bayou. The service
area of the proposed project is shown in Figure II-3.
b. Sludge Line from the Proposed Plant to the Northside
Regional Sludge Plant *
A 68,800 feet force main and gravity combination sludge
line will be used to transport the sludge from the Northwest Plant to
the Nc/j-'thside Regional Plant for sludge handling and disposal to pro-
duce soil conditioner/fertilizer for sale to a Florida-based citrus
firm. An estimated 3800 feet of this line is an 8-inch force main con-
nected to a gravity line varying in diameter from 24 to 43 inches0 The
gravity line covers a distance of 10.2 miles, or 65,000 feet, before
termination at the Northside Sludge Plant0 A lift station has been
constructed at the llth Street location. (See Figure II-3.,) The pro-
posed use of this sludge line will eliminate the need for on-site treat-
*This is not a part of the grant application. This facility has
already been constructed by the City of Houston in anticipation of
the expansion of the Northwest Treatment Plant. The construction
of the facility has eliminated the sludge transporting problem
stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
12
-------
FIGURE II-3
PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION AND SERVICE AREA
NORTHSIDE MULTI-REGIONAL
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
[SCALE; 1" = 3.55 miles
-13-
-------
ment of sludge at the Northwest Plant, alleviating the air pollution,
odor and related problems in the plant vicinity. However, this will
exert some adverse effect on the surrounding environment of the North-
side Plant. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter VI, Page 106.
2. Financial Status
The total cost of the project covered by grant application is
estimated at $6,126,549, as shown in Table II-2. The funds required
to finance the local share of the project have been acquired by the
City of Houston through the sale of bonds by the Gulf Coast Waste Dis-
posal Authority in November, 1973, under the terms of a contract be-
tween the City of Houston and that Authority. A copy of this contract
is attached in Appendix C. In April, 1972, the City of Houston re-
ceived a permit from the Texas Water Quality Board for the construc-
tion of a 12 mgd treatment plant at the proposed location. A copy of.
this permit is attached in Appendix D.
TABLE II-2
ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS: NORTHWEST REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Construction
Engineering and Contingencnies
Land, Structures, Right-of-way
PROJECT TOTAL
Eligible Project-Grant Amount
Grant Amount
Local Matching Share
Non-Recoverable (prior expendi-
tures from private sources)
$5,011,475
$1,115,074
$ -0-
$6,126,549
$6,126,549
$4,594,912
$1,531,637
$ -0-
SOURCE: Turner, Collie and Braden, Inc., City of Houston,
Department of Public Works, Sanitary Sewer Division, and
Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation, Consulting Engineers
14
-------
3. Site Plan
A total of 27 acres of land, including the existing treatment
plant, is within the ownership of the City of Houston, Of this, only
three acres are currently utilized for the operation of the existing
plant. The expansion of the plant from its present 4 mgd to 12 mgd
will require the addition of four extra aeriation basins, two final
clarifiers of 135 feet diameter, two chlorine contact chambers, two
hypochlorite storage tanks, one hypochlorite generation set of equip-
ment, expansion of the existing pump station and a new tower building.
These activities will require another three to four acres of land for
their use and operation. Even if the 12 mgd facility is further expan-
ded to a 20 mgd facility after 1990, the total site requirement for the
plant will still not exceed 12 or 13 acres. That would leave about ±4
acres for open space and landscaped area. That much land will be ade-
quate for the development of a neighborhood park.
Availability of this additional open space on the site gives the
city an opportunity to make its Northwest Treatment Plant site more
than just a site for treating wastewater liquids. Land around the
plant site is remarkably suitable for creating a superior environment.
There is an abundance of vegetation and tall trees, and Cole Creek
flows through the area. It is naturally suited for park development.
The need for a neighborhood playground utilizing the balance of the
site area is accentuated by a residential subdivision across Cole Creek
on the north and the Acres-Home area northeast of the site across the
White Oak Bayou. Perhaps pedestrian bridges could be built over these
streams, connecting these residential sections with the playground,
which could be developed on the eastern half of the plant site0
15
-------
The residential area to the immediate south is populated primarily
by non-white persons, and there are no nearby neighborhood parks for
this population. The city is in an ideal position to devote part of
the plant site to such neighborhood recreation activities as tennis
courts, basketball courts, baseball diamonds and related facilities
for use by the people living north, south and east of the treatment
plant. Since the proposed system does not call for sludge treatment
at this site, the operation of the plant will be virtually odorless,
making it entirely possible to develop a neighborhood park adjacent to
the site. The proposed plant site thus can be a multi-functional faci-
lity by treating sewage and also providing neighborhood recreation for
nearby residents. With appropriate landscape design, a park and treat-
ment plant can exist side by side. (See Figure II-40)
16
-------
FIGURE IM
SITE PLAN FOR THE NORTHWEST REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
-------
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A, SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING
B, CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
C, BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
D, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
E- SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
F, LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
-------
III. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The social and environmental setting as identified in this chapter
is discussed in two parts: the natural environment and the man-made
environment. The natural environment includes the physical features,
their conditions and modifications from urban development. This in-
cludes surface and subsurface settings, climate and atmospheric condi-
tions and biological environment. The man-made environment includes
man's modifications of natural features in development of living, work-
ing, moving and recreation environments. This is discussed in terms
of historical and cultural environment, social and economic environ-
ment and land use, transportation and related systems.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SETTING
1. Topography
The City of 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. The low point is around 25' above the mean
sea level in the east and southeast, while the high point is about 90
feet in the northwestern part of Houston. The broad prairie presents
an undulating pattern of long and gentle swells and depressions, ascen-
ding from the southern part of the city to Spring Creek near the north-
ern part of the city. In the past the gentle slope allowed easy drain-
18
-------
age of the undeveloped prairie land, but with the unprecedented urban-
ization which Houston experienced in the last 50 years, drainage is
becoming increasingly difficult since much of the open land is rapidly
being covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings and other man-made struc-
tures. Houston has no extreme topographic features such as mountains
or valleys.
The service area of the proposed project lies in the Texas Coastal
Prairies, which extend westward along the Gulf Coast, reaching inland
30 to 60 miles. The topography of the service area is one of very low
relief with slopes in the area being generally less than 1% with the
exception of the banks of Cole Creek and White Oak Bayou where, along
the channels, the slopes exceed 25%. The elevation for the service
area is between 45 feet to 90 feet above mean sea level. The topo-
graphic map included as Figure III-l shows the topographic relief of
the area. Low relief and slopes make runoff and internal drainage
difficult and expensive.
The topographic features characterizing the service area have ser-
ious ramifications concerning the distribution and intensity of future
land use development. Since about 50% of the service area is still
vacant and available for urban development, the city can avoid some
mistakes that have been made in the past. While living and working
space must be provided for the people, this can be done through such
land use policies as will prevent the continuation of low density de-
velopment. Efforts should be made to concentrate land use in appro-
priate locations, permitting as much land to remain open as possible.
This arrangement will ease the drainage of the area during periods of
heavy rainfall, reducing costs for public works, engineering and
19
-------
FIGURE III-l
TOPOGRAPHY OF PROJECT VICINITY
1111 rt 11 »fiii i n 11111
PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT
SCALE: 1" = 2000'^
20
-------
drainage projects. A very important by-product of such policies will
be the preservation of the natural environment, and at the same time
will allow development of open space with minimum of public funds.
2. Geology
Sand, gravel, silt and clay deposited along inland waterways
or built up as deltaic, shoreline or lagoonal deposits along the
coast are the dominant geologic features of the Houston area. The sub-
surface 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.
Most of the service area of the proposed project is underlaid by
the Montgomery Formation, as shown in the Geologic Atlas of Texas,
Houston Sheet (1968). The Montgomery or Lissie Formation, as previ-
ously mapped, is a fluviatile deposit. The makeup of this unit varies
from granule pebble sized gravels to sand, silt and clay sized parti-
cles. These sediments were deposited by a Pleistocene river system
and the unit tends to be coarser to the north. Figure III-2 is a geo-
logic map of the service area of the proposed project as taken from
the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Houston Sheet (1968).
3. 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 19220 More recently, the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has completed a new soil map for Harris
County. A portion of this map, taken from the aerial photos used to
21
-------
FIGURE III-2J
GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS FOR HOUSTON AREA;
SCALE 1" = 3.55 MILESl
BEAUMONT
FORMATION1
MONTGOMERY'
FORMATION;
22
-------
delineate the various soil series, is included as Figure III-3 of
this report. It shows the four soil series that occur in the
source area of the proposed project. Soil series descriptions
and interpretations for these four series are presented in Appendix.
More than 50 specific types of soil are found in the Houston
area. They are mostly clay, sandy loam and loam types. Clay types
predominate in the area south of Buffalo Bayou, making the soil in
this area dark, blocky, and hard when dry except for a thin granular
surface layer a few inches thick and very high in clay content. On
the margins of the prairie, especially where there are small clus-
ters of pine trees, the soils tend to have a grayish, loamy surface
with either blocky, clayey, very slowly permeable soils or loamy
moderately permeable subsoils. In the bottomlands bordering the
streams, creeks and bayous, deep grayish alluvial soil, some being
mottled with other colors, are deposited in narrow flood plains
with timber immediately adjacent to the water course. Houston's
soils generally have poor drainage characteristics. They tend to
hold water and swell during periods of heavy rainfall.
In the service area of the proposed project, the Beaumont
and Montgomery formation soils predominate. They are composed
mostly of clay, silt and sand. They support scattered grasses,
weeks and small amounts of timber. The clay is heavy, black, 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
texture and the high plastic, montmorillonitic clay contents make
for high water holding capacity, high plasticity, shrink-swell
potential and compressibility. These characteristics represent
restrictions to heavy construction, road building
23
-------
DETAILED SOILS MAP FOR NORTHWEST HARRIS COUNTY
FIGURE 111-3
. . .
IPLANT LOCATIONt
r^^^l-^S*
M&:a&d£mS8
i;.'V^fms>s>^->c>
SCALE: 1"=2000'
-------
and other intense structural construction unless proper stabiliza-
tion and adequate engineering precautions are taken before such con-
struction.
4. Hydrology
a. Aquifer Systems
The Texas Water Development Board Report 178 (1974) lists
three major aquifer systems in Harris County: the Chicot, which ranges
in depth from 50 to 500 feet; the Evangeline, which ranges in depth
from 500 to 1400 feet; and the Jasper, which varies in depth from 2000
to 2800 feet. These aquifers are located in the Lissie, Willis, Goliad
and Lagart Formations, in order of increasing depth.
The recharge area for all these aquifer systems lies to the north
of Harris County. Water quality is quite good, and the aquifers pro-
duce the major part of the water for residents of the Houston area.
Detailed information 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, the records of wells and chemical analysis
of well water. Figure III-4 is a coutour map showing the depth to the
base of the fresh to slightly saline water sands in the Harris County
area. Figure III-5 is an Isopach (thickness) map for the fresh water
sands in the same area. Figure III-6 shows the location of water wells
in Harris County.
The continued use of water from underground sources in Houston
bears major significance on the environmental problem of the city and
its environs, including the Northwest Treatment Plant's service area.
25
-------
FIGURE 111-4
BASE OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE WATER SANDS IN
SUBREGIOH II OF THE GULF COAST RtGION
y *
* \ M
r \ \
x x .-
EXPLANATION;
Contour indicates depth below sea level of
the base of the fresh to slightly saline voter
Contour interval 200 faet
Datum is sea level
Boundary of area where intermediate sands
contain moderately saline to saline water
Line showing Location of section
Q' Boundary of river basin or of a major fajj/'
subdivision where it is the boundary of -r'l
the Gulf Coast realon
-------
FIGURE 111-5
ISOPACHOUS MAP OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE HATER SANDS IN
SIJBREGION II OF THE GULF COAST REGION
^r-^rK f
TV. \ V..X..5 ' T V
EXPLANATION
Boundory of river bosin or of o mojor
subdivision where it is the boundary of
the Gulf Coast region
--6OO
Line showing thickness of fresh to slightly
saline water sands
Interval Is 200 feet with supplementary
100 foot line near coast
D Dl
Li"e showing location of section
0 Miles 5
-------
FIGURE 1 1 1-6
LOCATION OF WELLS IN HOUSTON AND VICINITY
03 I
02
I4*g3 07J?|9?B 3W s*^l .514l!?5 'y ' til .32
V"' *'. «-v>ho'''Ci*» -
-" .» ** T f"
-.-. - .« .* .'»
'.OS
"
tr-0
(tjOT
*>
5 *OT 03
.v.tz--'
[PLANT LOCATIONrC.
,5--
<*. C
OS
1-13", X
63 «.
~J"
.
09 M/l
23. »» IT
.22. ,3 .J
t». 6.I9
.«- l
- «07
W3o
JO I,
.t ,,. i«
> > 7
31 "?-*- '
3S.3MT
-9.lt JJ«
.06 «K) ,
TT-
,
."!.
> "
EXPLANATION
Wtll for which dnltcr'i
log is me ud*d in tut
-------
At present, according to the City of Houston Public Works Department,
70% of all water consumption per year is met by underground sources.
A most recent study by the Bureau of Economic Geology of the Univer-
sity of Texas-Austin provides an alarming signal to the people of
Houston and its government about the future of Houston as an urban
environment:
"The Houston area is slowly sinking....Some neighborhoods are
sinking faster than others and this could create serious pro-
blems.... The uneven subsidence is creating faults. These are
breaks where slippage occurs between layers of earth. These
findings provide warnings for future land use locations in the
city.
The study further confirms that the "sinking spells" accelerate
during summer months when more underground water is pumped out
for municipal and industrial needs. Only minor movements occur
during the winter when pumping decreases sharply....More than a
thousand square miles in the Houston-Galveston area have subsi-
ded at least one foot.
More than two hundred square miles in the Pasadena-LaPorte area
have dropped more than five feet as a result of the pumping of
underground water....
According to Dr. William L. Fisher, Director of the Bureau,
future studies will be able...to predict where the faults will
occur as the land sinks at uneven rates....This would permit
businesses and industries to avoid selecting plant sites along
the breaks, which could cause serious damage to foundations."
Excerpted from Dallas Morning News
August 10, 1974
The City of Houston is fully aware of the impact of the under-
ground water use on the uneven settlement* of lands. It has abandoned
the use of eastside wells because of the most critical subsidence pro-
blem in this part of the city, where industries rely heavily on under-
ground water supply. While adequate surface water is available for
domestic and commercial supply, surface water treatment facilities
are limited at the present time. Plans for new facilities to treat
*For impact of this on the installation of underground utility lines,
see Chapter VI, Page 123 0
29
-------
additional surface water are currently underway. When fully opera-
tional these facilities will reverse the present ratio of underground
and surface water usage. It is projected that by the year 2000 sur-
face water will supply 70% of the City of Houston's water needs.
b. Surface Water
Figure III-7, taken from the Regional Atlas 1972 of the
Houston-Galveston Area Council, shows the location of all the water
courses and reservoirs in the Houston-Galveston Planning Region. The
waterways which will be directly or indirectly affected by the pro-
posed project are the following:
(1) Cole Creek
The receiving stream for treated effluent from the
Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is Cole Creek. Cole
Creek empties into White Oak Bayou several hundred feet east of the
treatment plant. Cole Creek is not concrete-lined at the present.
(2) White Oak Bayou
White Oak Bayou originates in the northwest area of
Houston and travels through the north and northeast portions of the
service area. It joins Buffalo Bayou north of the Houston Central
Business District approximately nine miles southeast of the North-
west Treatment Plant. White Oak Bayou is mostly concrete-lined,
beginning northeast of the treatment plant site.
(3) Buffalo Bayou
Buffalo Bayou originates in the western section of
Houston. It travels in an easterly direction through the Memorial
Park Area and empties into the Houston Ship Channel approximately 15
30
-------
FIGURE III-7
WATER COURSES AND RESERVOIRS
(PLANT LOCATION
18
-------
miles southeast of the proposed project. Buffalo Bayou is a natural
watercourse.
(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 accom-
modate ocean-going vessels, capped by a turning basin three and one-
half miles east of Downtown Houston. Land use on both sides of this
channel is heavily industrial, and the quality of water in the Houston
Ship Channel currently does not meet governmental standards. This con-
tinues to be a major environmental problem for the Houston area.
The two bodies of water most directly affected by the proposed pro-
ject are White Oak and Buffalo Bayous, neither of which supply water
to residents of the project area or the City of Houston. The treated
surface water supply to the area originates from the reservoirs at
Lake Houston and Lake Conroe.
The proposed project will influence the water flow and quality in
Cole Creek, White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou. The flow of water will
increase in all these waterways, and since the effluent from the plant
will be a better quality water, the construction of the project will
improve the water quality of the receiving bodies of water.
Since Buffalo Bayou enjoins the Houston Ship Channel, the proposed
project will also improve water quality of the Ship Channel. The re-
gionalization plan for the city, as stated earlier, calls for the ex-
pansion and modernization of a number of treatment plants over the next
several years. The City of Houston intends to 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 plants will be discharged into
area water courses, most of which empty into the Ship Channel, impro-
ving their water quality with better treatment systems will re-
duce the pollutants in the Channel and even stimulate the water qua-
lity of the Galveston Bay. The objective of the city's wastewater
management program is to improve and enhance the overall water quality
of the entire Houston area. The proposed project represents a step in
that direction.
Water flow and quality data collected at several points along Cole
Creek, White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou are presented in Appendix G
of this report. (See Page G-l in the Appendix for the:exact location
of these points.) The samples of water flow and quality taken at dif-
ferent sections are reasonably representative of the year-round flow
condition and water quality of these bayous since the samples covered
the periods of both low and high flow conditions. The sample also
appears adequate from the standpoint of geographic coverage since data
was collected at different sections encompassing up and downstream
characteristics.
c. Flood Prone Areas
A special Flood Hazard Report prepared in June, 1972, by
the U.S. Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas,
for the Harris Soil and Water Conservation District and the Texas
Water Development Board, provides flood hazard information for land
use planning in the flood plains of White Oak Bayou, Cole Creek and
Vogel Creek in the reaches above the confluence of Cole Creek and
33
-------
White Oak Bayou. The study covers about 14 miles of White Oak Bayou,
six miles of Cole Creek and four miles of Vogel Creek. Flood plain
areas delineated in this study for Intermediate Regional Flood (100
year flood level) are shown for the project vicinity in Figure III-8.
The proposed site is just outside the Cole Creek 100 year flood
plain area. The plant site is also outside the Standard Project Flood
which is defined by the Corps of Engineers in the same report as the
flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of metro-
logical and hydrological conditions considered reasonably characteris-
tic of the geographic area in which the drainage basin is located.
Peak discharge,-; for these floods are generally about 40% to 60% of
the probable maximum floods for a given basin.
The existing Northwest Plant is elevated and its expansion is pro-
posed to be patterned after the existing design and layout. The re-
quirements of the Executive Order No. 11296 regarding locating treat-
ment plants on flood plain areas are therefore not applicable. Detail
engineering plan for the site is now at the final stage of preparation
by the Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation in Houston. The plant site
is protected on the east side by a levy system built up just below the
confluence of White Oak Bayou and Cole Creek. The elevation of the
plant site is 75 feet ,above the mean sea level. The plant site is
unusually flat, and elevation fo;r all parts of the site is practically
75 feet above the mean sea level.
34
-------
FIGURE III-8
AREAS SUBJECT TO 100 YEAR FLOOD LEVELS
LEGEND
100 YEAR FLOOD AREAS
f GROUND ELEV
J (.S.C.&G.S.
C MEAN SEA LE
SCALE: 1" = 2000
ELEVATION IN FEET
1929 ADJ.)
MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM
PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT
35
-------
B. CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS
1. Climate
The Houston area is subject to frequent precipitation. The
annual average rainfall from 1965 to 1973 was 49.47 inches. The
monthly precipitation for this period is shov,7n in Table III-l, aver-
aging 4.12 inches per month. Houston experiences high intensity sho-
wers during the spring and late summer.
Temperatures range from as low as 32°F in winter, to as high as
above 100°F in summer. The mean January temperature is 45°F, and the
mean July temperature is 93DF. Below freezing temperatures occur
only seven days a year. Snows are extremely infrequent.
Two principal wind regimes dominate the Houston area: persistent
southeasterly winds from March through November and short-lived but
strong northerly winds from December through February. More elaborate
data on the climatic condition of Houston, including frequency of sur-
face wind direction and hurricane tracks, are shown in Figure III-9.
Hurricane flooding is a potential problem in any coastal zone, al-
though it occurs infrequently in the Houston-Galveston area. However,
the storm surge tides that accompanied Hurricane Carla flooded large
areas of Harris County. Flood elevations of up to 15.3 feet above
normal were recorded on Buffalo Bayou to the northwest of Galena Park0
2. Air Quality
Like many other large metropolitan cities in the United States,
air pollution is one of the most serious problems facing the City of
Houston. This problem results from solids, l.-.quids and gases in
36
-------
TABLE III-l
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL YEAR
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (MEASURED IN INCHES)
CITY OF HOUSTON 1965-1973
1965
1.87
3.27
0.81
0.95
6.53
3.06
1.57
2.29
3.46
3.09
4.82
6.15
37.97
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
1967
2.14
2.47
1.83
4.42
2.54
0.17
7.77
1.60
4.84
3.18
0.50
5.02
36.45
1968
8.02
1.99
2.92
3.02
13.24
11.18
6.49
2.90
3.87,
3.91
2.71
1.99
61.44;
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
36.83
1972
3.30
1.20
8.52
1.85
6.99
3.02
2.76
3.90
6.23
3.34
6.49
2.20
50.80
1973
5.00
3.40
3.18
7.15
4.22
13.46
6.66
3.73
9.38
9.31
1.59
2.47
70.16
Average 1965-1973: 49.47 Inches
SO'JP.CE-: I'm'ted States Department of Interior, Weather Bureau
-------
FIGURE 111-9
CLIMATE CONDITIONS
Annual average isohyets,
inches (1931-1960)
Annual average rainfall
(based on 1931-1960)
-20 -average potential
evapotranspiration
(Thornthwaite method)
-32
Points of entry of tropical cyclones
Tropical storms (winds =*39mph and
f 74mph) are indicated by dashed
arrows, hurricanes (winds >74mph)
are shown by solid arrows
Numbers indicate year storm
occurred.
-?3 Annual average mean
isotherm, in °F (1931-
1960)
B
Percentage frequency of surface
wind direction (annual) (1951-1960)
INDEX MAP W
Regional climatic data, Texas Coastal Zone. A, Average annual precipitation (after J. T. Carr, 1967).
B, Average annual temperature (after J. T. Carr, 1967). C, Precipitation deficiency (after Orton, 1969a). D, Frequency
of surface wind direction (after Orton, 1964). E, Hurricane tracks across Texas coastline (after Hayes, 1967).
-------
amounts that are injurious and detrimental to man, animals, plants
and properties. Its interference with the comfortable enjoyment of
life and the environment is undeniable,. The principal sources of air
pollution in Houston, as in other urban areas, are automobiles, aero-
planes, burning of fuels in industries and waste materials. The table
below indicates the extent of the problem of air pollution that curren-
tly exists in the Houston and Harris County area0
TABLE I I I- 2
LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION BY TYPE OF POLLUTANTS
FOR HARRIS COUNTY, 1972
Pollutants
Particulate
Matter
Carbon Mono-
xides (CO)
Sulphur Dio-
xides (SO2)
Nitrogen
Oxides (N02)
Total Hydro-
carbons
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%
25020%
100oOO%
A graphic presentation of data in Table III-2 is furnished in
Figure III-lOo
39
-------
FIGURE 111-10:
SOURCES AND LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION IN HARRIS
COUNTY, 1972
PARTI-
CULATE
MATTER
CARBON SULPHUR NITROGEN
MONOXIDE DIOXIDES OXIDES
TOTAL
HYDRO-
CARBONS
The air quality problem as it exists is highly critical. Houston
already tops the list of cities with significant problems of air pol-
lution in the State of Texas. The continued growth of the city and
39A
-------
its environs will intensify this problem further if appropriate
programs are not implemented to address the issue of air pollution.
Over 50% of the total air contaminants in the city currently result
from carbon monoxide, the major source of which is the automobile.
Unless Houston explores alternative modes of transportation, the
problem will continue to affect public health and welfare. The
current efforts by the City of Houston Public Health Department are
limited in their scope to fundamentally attack the problem, though
some improvements in air quality have been made since 1972. The
current programs and their effect on air quality in Houston are
discussed below.
Current Air Quality Programs for Houston;
In 1967, Houston established the City's Air Pollution
Control Program under the Health Department to monitor sources of
air pollution and to 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 services,
and meteorology. Data is compiled and stored by a computer tele-
mentry 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 moni-
toring 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
40
-------
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 GG-3 in Appendix GG.
In the seven years the Air Pollution Control Program has been in oper-
ation, 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 GG.
C. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
Common native plant life in the Houston area includes both tropical
and temperate climate zone vegetation. Forest trees include ash, bays,
cedar, cottonwood, cypress, dogwood, elm, hawthorne, 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 bluebonnets,
orange milkweed and standing cypress. In the summer, Texas bluebells
bloom. The green-leafed possumhaw or yaupon bears red berries in the
autumn that provide winter bird food. Many varieties of
40-a
-------
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.
Native wild animals include prairie chicken, partridge, deer,
wild turkey and squirrel. Seasonal or migratory animals include geese
brant, sandhill, crane, curlew, snipe, plover and ducks of every var-
iety. Fire, drought, floods and other natural disasters sometimes up-
set the balance of nature by destroying animals and their food, put-
ting a strain on all wildlife struggling for survival. The process is
further affected by continuing urbanization of the city and its envir-
onments. While man-made activities are needed to sustain civilization,
a lasting balance must be found so that the man and the other species
of nature can exist in harmony.
1. Botanical
Figure III-ll shows the distribution of various plant assem-
blages within areas in and around the City of Houston. Taken from
Proctor and Hall (1974), this figure shows the typical vegetation of
the area to the north and west of the city.
Vegetation in the service area of the proposed project is fairly
typical of the Gulf Prairie and Coastal Plains. However, significant
wooded areas exist, particularly along natural drainage ways such as
Cole Creek and White Oak Bayou. Major woody plants include oak, pine,
acacia, mesquite and elm. The principal native grasses are tall bunch'
grasses, including the big bluestem, little bluestem, seacoast blue-
41
-------
stem, Indiangrass, eastern gamagrass, switchgrass and Gulf cordgrass.
Other grasses include panicums, gulf muhly, bermuda grass and carpet
grass. The forbes, or inferior grasses, in the region include western
ragweek, tumble grass, broomsedge bluestem, smutgrass, threeawns, yan-
keeweed, ragweed, bitter sneezeweed and broomweed. Vegetation in res-
idential areas is characterized by the planting of non-indigenous
shade and fruit trees, shrubs and grasses.
2. Zoological
Major marine and wildlife habitats in the Greater Houston area
are shown in Figures 111-12, 111-13 and 111-14. This data was taken
from the Regional Atlas 1972 prepared by the Houston-Galveston Area
Council. Available studies indicate no significant evidence of the
existence of any rare or endangered species within the project service
area or the City of Houston. However, according to the Texas Depart-
ment of Parks and Wildlife, there might be some rare and endangered
species in the Southeast Texas Region which include Attwater's prairie
chicken, red wolf, poregrine falcon, Eskimo cuslew, bald eagle, ocelot,
American Alligator and Houston toad.
a. Wildlife Habitats
Wildlife in the area consists of small fur-bearing mammals
such as cottontail and jack rabbits, squirrels, opossums, skunks and
rodents (including mice, rats and moles). Small wolves or coyotes are
seen on rare occasions to the south of the City of Houston in south
Harris County.
b. Aquatic Fauna
The variety and abundance of aquatic fauna to be found in
Buffalo Bayou is limited by the low flow and the poor water quality of
the stream. Species of turtles, frogs, reptiles, mollusks and rough
42
-------
FIGURE III-ll
PLANT ASSEMBLAGES FOR THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA
(PLANT LO CAT I ONI
UPLAND FOREST AND SAVANNA ASSEMBLAGES
I, PINE HARDWOOD FOREST I5 UPLAND TALL-GRASS PRAIRIE
I2 HARDWOOD PINE FOREST I6 HARDWOOD FOREST
!3 ISOLATED PI;:E HARC.'.V-.C j G:;OVE \, i SOL A re-n uP<(;.Rir .viTH'fj
I4 POST OAK SAVANNA
COASTAL PLAIN ASSEMBLAGES
HI COASTAL SHORT-GRASS PRAIRIE
BOTTOMLAND ENVIRONMENTS
IH I FRESH MARSH
fflg SWAMP
HI3 FLUVIAL WOODLAND
m4 GRASS-COVERED FLOODPLAIN
m5 GRASS- AND TREE-COVERED
DISSECTED, STEEP SLOPE
ffl6 GRASS-COVER TERRACE
DEPOSIT
miles
N
10 15
-------
FIGURE 111-12
FIAJOR MARINE AND WILDLIFE REFUGES
PLANT LOCATION
c; i-i t-r jXKv' ' &
FUR BEARERS ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE PLANNIN8 AREA AND INCLUDE
SUCH ANIMALS AS RACCOONS, OPPOSSUMS, MINK,SKUNK, ETC
SQUIRREL
MAJOR SHRIMP AREAS
SHRIMP NURSERIES
MAJOR FLOUNDERING AREAS
DEAD OYSTER REEFS
LIVE NON-PRODUCING
OYSTER REEFS
LIVE PRODUCING OYSTER REEFS
SOURCE OF DATA: TEXAS PARKS AIID WILDLIFE DEPARTO1, SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPART»EU[ OF APICULTURE- WO
COUNTY AGENTS OF VARIOUS COUNTIES
WILDLIFE REFUGES
-------
FIGURE 111-13
! MAJOR WILDLIFE HABITATS
T LOCATION
PRAIRIE CHICKEN
DUCKS AND GEESE
45
-------
WOLF OR COYOTE
SOURCE IF DATA: TEXAS PARKS AND W.DLIFE DEPARTMENT* «nil
CONSERVATM SERV,CE, UH.TED HATES DEPARTHENT
46
-------
fish such as buffalo, carp, gar, mosquito fish, killy, sheepshead
minnows, crayfish and sunfish are found in the bayou. On occasion
other species of fish enter the bayou at its confluence with the
Houston Ship Channel. Aquatic fauna is essentially non-existent in
White Oak Bayou, as this waterway is concrete-lined.
c. Birds
Varieties of small birds have been sighted in the service
area. Cardinals, mockingbirds and house sparrows are found throughout
the year in the residential areas. Brown thrashers appear in the win-
ter. Seed-eating birds such as meadowlarks, mourning doves, redwinged
blackbirds, grackles and short-eared owls are found in the weedy fields,
Savannah sparrows, goldfinch, sparrow hawks, marsh hawks and other spe-
cies of hawks are often seen. Such migratory birds as orioles and king-
birds are also occasionally seen in the area.
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
D. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Paleontology
According to Dr. DeWitt Van Siclen of the Department of Geo-
logy, University of Houston, there are no known paleontological sites
in the service area of the proposed project. 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 Montgomery Formation are deeply weathered and probably
47
-------
contained only limited fauna at the time of deposition. The non-
marine deltaic sediments of this unit would not be conducive to fos-
sil accumulation or preservation.
Significant paleontological finds are, however, possible during
excavation of a site below the depth of soil development. Any fossil,
if detected, should be carefully extracted and preserved by trained
paleontologists.
2. Archaeological, Historical and Cultural Elements
There are six items listed in the National Register of Histo-
ric Places located in the Houston area. All are outside the service
area of the project. The Cotton Exchange Building is located in Down-
town Houston, and the San Jacinto Battleground is located northeast
of Houston. Others are Pillot Building, 106 Congress Street; Sweeny,
Coombs and Frederick Building, 301 Main Street; and the U. S. Custom's
House, San Jacinto at Rusk Streets.
According to the Texas Historical Commission, most recent arch-
aeological surveys were confined to one area of Houston. These
surveys have recorded ten sites along White Oak Bayou in northwest
Houston. 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
the Army Corps of Engineers projects and were successful in locating
large numbers of sites of archaeological and historical value. Prior
to the construction of the project, the proposed site should be sub-
jected to a thorough archaeological survey. Such sites as are recog-
nized in the survey at that time should be recorded and their signi-
48
-------
ficance appraised prior to their commitment to the project. Sites
which can fulfill National Register criteria can then be included in
the National Register of Historic Places.
The Houston Astrodome, Astrohall and Astroworld represent major
attractions in the Southwestern United States. A more detailed de-
scription of historical, cultural and archaeological elements in Hous-
ton is included in Appendix H of this report.
E. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The demand for public facilities, including sewage treatment faci-
lities, in any community is a function of population and economic
growth. The future need for sewage treatment facilities in Houston
will be determined by the type and intensity of growth in population,
employment and land use.
1. Economic Development
Houston, during the 1960"s, has been one of the fastest grow-
ing major cities in the United States. Major factors accounting for
this growth have been the continued expansion of manufacturing, petro-
chemical and chemical production, educational facilities, the aero-
space industry and medical research. From 1960 to 1969, 118 new in-
dustrial plants were located in the Houston area, and another 272
existing plants underwent major expansions. In 1970, Houston had
almost 150,000 persons employed in manufacturing alone. Table III-3
shows the past, current and projected employment for the City of Hous-
ton, Harris County and the Houston-Galveston Planning Region.
These projections are expected to have a far-reaching impact on
49
-------
PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIG
EMPLOYMENT IN 1OO THOUSANDS
- -»NWA«IO>^CO
-------
Houston in the planning and provision of adequate municipal facilities.
If Houston continues to grow at its present rate through the year 1990,
orderly physical development will depend greatly on the provision of
an adequate infra-structure system, including transportation and utili-
ties. How much of this additional growth could be allocated to various
communities within the Houston area will be largely dictated by the qua-
lity and quantity of public services provided to those areas. The pro-
posal for the expansion of the Northwest Treatment Plant is a recogni-
tion by the city that future development is inevitable in the service
area where public health problems will intensify without this facility.
TABLE III- 3
HOUSTON'S EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK - 1960 THROUGH 1990
City of
Houston*
Harris
County**
Houston-
Galveston
Region***
Employment
Number
1960
363,636
470,452
587,698
1970
515,599
711,749
797,421
Per Cent
Chancre
1960-1970
42%
51%
33%
Projections Through
1980
667,000
1,064,050
1,186,591
1
1990
1,000,000
1,400,000
1,575,600
'*Employment projection for the City of Houston is based on the con-
tinuation of its 1970 share of Harris County total employmento
^'Volume 2, "Houston-Harris County Population Projection", Table 5,
Page 15, Texas Highway Department, 1967.
***Projections by University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M Uni-
versity for Economic Base Studies and Projections of the HGAC Re-
gion, Page 9, "A Summary Projection, Land Use and Population",
December, 1969.
51
-------
2. Population Characteristics, Trends and Projections
As of April, 1970, the service area of the proposed project
had a population of 47,173 persons, including the annexed areas of
the Acres Home Addition to the northeast of the plant. This is a
gain of nearly 100% since 1960. Comparable population growth rates
and projections for the City of Houston, Harris County and the Gulf
Coast Planning Region are shown in Table III-4.
In 1980, the proposed project will be serving an estimated popu-
lation of 63,500 persons. By 1990, about 90,000 people will require
service, 43,000 more people than are being served today- The City of
Houston must not only improve sewer and other services to meet exist-
ing needs and standards, but must also plan facilities that will serve
the increasing population of the city- The population trends and pro-
jections for the areas affected by the Northwest Treatment Plant are
graphically illustrated in Figure 111-16. In 1960, the service area
accounted for 204% of the City of Houston's population, but in 1970,
its share jumped to 3.8%. While the service is rapidly increasing in
population, its projected share for 1980 and 1990 is expected to sta-
bilize at the 4% level since the City of Houston is also expected to
grow rapidly during this period of time0
Figures 111-17 and 111-18 show the 1970 and 1990 geographic dis-
tribution of population for Harris County. Presently, the population
is heavily confined within the Loop 610 and its immediate outer zone0
But continuing dispersion of Houston's population appears almost ine-
vitable. The projected distribution of net population change as
shown in Figure IJI-18 indicates that there will be very little popu-
lation increase inside the Loop 610 between now and 1990. A close
52
-------
TABLE III-4
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 Plant
City of Houston
Harris County
Gulf-Coast
Planning Region
(13-county)
Past and Present**
1960
23,862
938,219
1,243,158
1,698,748
1970
47,173
1,232,802
1,741,912
2,305,196
Change 1960-70
Number
+ 23,211
+294,583
+498,754
+606,358
Percent
99.00%
31.39%
40.11%
35.69%
Future Projection*
1980
63,460
1,600,000
2,311,600
3,293,500
1990
90,140
2,300,000
3,300,000
5,157,100
Change 1970-90
Number
+42,967.
+1,067,198
+1,558,088
+2,851,994
Percent
91.0%
86.5%
89.4%
123.7%
*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 Area
-------
FIGURE 111-16
PAST, PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
1390
-------
1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION HARRIS COUNTY, FIGURE 111-17
IPLANT LOCATIONS .;
' 100 PERSONS
4 8
Miles
-------
FIGURE 111-18
1970-90 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION INCREMENT, HARRIS COUNTY
V
XPLANT LOCATIONl
I -^vs-..^
> 100 PERSONS
N
miles
-------
examination of the data presented in this map confirms a sizeable pop-
ulation increase expected for the service area of the proposed project
through the year 1990 since the project area is located well outside
the Loop 610 of the Houston Freevay System.
F. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
1. Existing and Projected Land Use
Figure 111-19 shows the existing land use in the project area
and shows the considerable amount of undeveloped land available for
urbanization, especially in the northern portions of the study area
along the Northwest Freeway, which is currently under construction.
A portion of the population within the study area is apparently utili-
zing septic tanks and is not connected to the sanitary sewer system
tributary to the Northwest Houston Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Land use along the Northwest Freeway is primarily commercial, and
this is expected to continue as the freeway nears completio:.. More
commercial development is also expected along Hempstead Highway. Much
of the land along other major thoroughfares, such as Clay Road, Pine-
mont, West Tidwell and West Little York Road, will likely be used for
nonresidential establishments. The following table indicates the
existing land use distribution for the project area. (Page 59)
57
-------
FIGURE 111-19
EXISTING LAND USE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE
UNDEVELOPED
PROPOSED PROJEC
-------
TABLE III-5
EXISTING LAND USE DISTRIBUTION FOR SERVICE AREA
Land Use Percent
Single Family
Multi-Family
Commercial and Industrial
Public
Open Space
Undeveloped
TOTAL
29.00 %
3.16 %
10.96 %
0.58 %
1.18 %
55.12 %
100.00 %
As Houston continues to grow, the service area of the proposed
project will be subject to urbanization. Development of commercial
establishments and of light industry can be expected to accompany
the development of single-family dwellings and apartment housing asso-
ciated with the projected population increase. Projected land-use
structure for the Northwest District Service Area is shown in Figure
111-20. The area should become a low density residential area by 1990.
The city wide development plan proposed by the-. City of Houston is shown
in Figure 111-21.
2. Transportation
The service area's road system consists mostly of all-weather
surfaced roads that are passable all year round. The Northwest Free-
way currently under construction passes through the middle of the ser-
vice area diagonally bisecting the area in the southeast-northwest dir-
ection. The major north-south transportation arteries for the service
59
-------
FIGURE II1-20
PROJECTED LAND USE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC
OPEN SPACE
PROPOSED PROJECT
"TlTIMfl
Uaon >
^ILIX. jl.MC*
{ -Iliaiair
o«v.«._j^ JPn
-------
FIGURE 111-21
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSTON
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
m INDUSTRIAL
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
AIRPORT
S.T.O.L. FACILITY
FREEWAYS
RAPID TRANSIT
REPRODUCED FROM HOUSTON'S GENERAL/
PLAN STUDY FOR 1 9 9" 0 , HOUSTON CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION. JULY 1972
inch = 3.55 miles
-------
area are Hempstead Road and North Houston-Rosslyn Road. The major
east-west arteries are Pinemont and Little York Roads. The construc-
tion of Northwest Freeway, when completed, will facilitate accelerated
development of the area.
Figure 111-22 shows the existing and proposed transportation net-
work for the project area and surrounding vicinities, including the
proposal on a rapid transit system recently prepared by the City of
Houston. The transit system will have a far-reaching impact on the
southeast section of the service area. The transit corridors radia-
ting from the Central Business District along Katy Freeway and portions
of Loop 610 will drastically alter the growth pattern of the service
area projected for 1990. High density, concentrated development will
inevitably take place, particularly around the transit stops. The
energy crisis may well turn the transit development into a serious pos-
sibility. The actual 1990 population and employment will then far ex-
ceed the projections presented in this report. The need for an expan-
ded system of wastewater treatment facilities will increase proportion-
ately. The City of Houston should be prepared to respond to this sit-
uation.
3. Needs of the Service Area
A stimulating living and working environment must have public
services, i.e., water, sewer, solid-waste disposal, parks, streets,
schools, public safety and so forth. The project area urgently needs
an adequate waste treatment system. The proposed project will improve
water quality in Cole Creek, White Oak Bayou and Buffalo Bayou, the
Houston Ship Channel, and will help the city to provide a clean and
62
-------
FIGUKE 111-22
PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION i-JETl/ORK
^V >-j
Jr/-PSL! S
:-... \x I Tvi^
! , ""4 "\ iti^r;
'
"' p'?- ' i ;
^^* SUFFICIENT WIDTH
'ummwf' TO BE WIDENED f
««« TO BE ACQUIRED i j. .. ^ , .^^TT^?
' Illlllllll LOCATION NOT -YET/DETERMINE D p;
.swro?*f HOUSTON; CITY tiVifTS \
!. sswswwj* ' OTHER INCORPORATED AREA'S
^. COUNTY .BOUND-RtfiS
J . *^w »J- F^^IT
PLANNI'NS COMMISSION JURISEJTCTION
jtr. V JTT~~-; '.. - L_~J 1 L^» i** ***» » 'r * * '
63
-------
safe environment for the citizens of the project area. The area is
subject to substantial growth, and it is obvious that adequate sewage
treatment is urgently needed if critical health problems are to be
avoided.
As estimated, 4.70 mgd of wastewater is currently generated by the
service area, which is served by the Northwest Plant. This is 0^7 mgd
beyond its design capacity. The excess sewage is currently handled by
septic timks in some parts of the service area,, Increased land use
activities in the area will cause additional sewage generation in the
future. The projected population of 90,000 persons for the service
area will generate a total of 10 mgd of wastewater. The need for the
expansion of the Northwest Plciiit to a design capacity of 12 mgd by 1990
is evident.
4. Other Projects in the Service Area
The only known major project occurring in the service area at
the present time is the construction of the Northwest Freeway. The
Army Corp of Engineers has proposed that Cole Creek be concrete-lined
and that the lining of White Oak Bayou be extended. This project is
expected to commence in 1978 and be completed within five years from
that date., A number of private projects are currently underway for
the service area, mostly apartment and townhouse housing complexes,
further intensifying the need for the construction of the proposed
Northwest Sewage Treatment Plant
64
-------
CHAPTER IV: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, GENERAL
B. MAJOR OBJECTIVES
C, CONSTRAINTS A!C CONDITIONS
D, STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
E, TREATMENT SUBSYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES
F, CHOSEN TREATMENT SYSTEM
(SINGLE ALTERNATIVE REFLECTING SUBSYSTEM CHOICE)
G, No ACTION ALTERNATIVE
-------
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL
This section surveys various non-structural, structural, and
treatment-system a.H ernatives within the established framework
of major objectives, conditions and constraints.
B. MAJOR OBJECTIVES
The major objectives of the proposed action are:
1. Regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities.
2. Accomodation of increased wastewater treatment demands
resulting from new growth and development.
3. Reduction of water pollution levels in streams receiving
inadequately treated effluent and maintenance of adequate
water quality levels in the future.
4. Compliance with state and Federal Environmental Quality
regulations.
5. Protection of public health and safety.
6. Improvement of aesthetic performance related to sewage
collection, treatment and disposal.
C. CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Water Quality
Board requirements, regulations and standards relating to discharge
of treated wastewater, including TWQB Waste Control Order No. 10495,
must be satisfied.
1. Environmental Protection Agency Standards
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972
established a national system for preventing, reducing, and eventually
65
-------
elminiating water pollution. Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) , all point sources (including publicly
owned treatment works) must obtain a permit for the discharge of
wastewater. to the navigable waters of the United States. For
publicly owned treatment works, the initial objective is secondary
treatment, followed by the best practicable treatment technology.
The minimum level of effluent quality attainable by
secondary treatment as defined by EPA is summarized below:*
BODr and Suspended Solids
1. The arithmetic mean of 30 consecutive days
value not to exceed: 30 mg/1
2. The arithmetic mean of 7 consecutive days
value not to exceed 45 mg/1
3. The overall removal efficiency based on
30 consecutive days of influent and
effluent monitoring not to be less than 85%
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
1. The geometric mean in a period of 30
consecutive days shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml
2. The geometric mean in a period of 7
consecutive days shall not exceed 400 per 100 ml
The effluent value for pH shall remain within the limits 6.0 to 9.0.
2. Texas Water Quality Board Standards
The Board prescribes a sewage treatment process capable of
producing an effluent having an average monthly BOD of 20 mg/1
*Federal Register, Appendix D, EPA Water Programs Secondary Treatment
Information, August 17, 1973, Vol. 38, No. 159, Washington, D. C.
66
-------
or less, an average monthly TSS of 20 mg/1 or less, and a chlorine
residua] of at least 1.0 mg/1.
Texas Water Quality Board Order No. 71-0819-1 and Addendum
requires that the City of Houston abandon certain obsolete sewage
treatment plants and divert wastes from these plants to regional
and subregional wastewater treatment plants. This order also
requires the City of Houston to eliminate a recurring overflow of
untreated sewage into natural water systems.
Texas Water Quality Board Control Order No. 10495 specifies
the effluent standards imposed upon discharges from all sewage
treatment plants in Houston, including the Northwest Sewage Treatment
Plant. The TWQB standards require effluent having the following
quality:
Average monthly BODj- 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 minutes 1.0 mg/1 or less
at peak flow
The Texas Water Quality Board Order No. 74-0122-2 directs
the City of Houston to:
1. Initiate monitoring and evaluation procedures of load capacities
at various treatment plants, lift stations, and sewers.
2. Develop a comprehensive plan to build additional facilities
to satisfy future collection, treatment, and disposal
demands.
3. Restrict wastewater loading at existing facilities until
additional capacity can be provided.
67
-------
The order also requests a waste load report, which the
City of Houston first submitted in March, 1974, and will update
at six months intervals.
3. Scope of the Proposed Project
The existing Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant was proposed in the 1960 Master Plan. The first increment
of 4.0 mgd was put into operation in January, 1970. The second
increment of 8 mgd, presently being designed, will expand the
plant capacity to 12.0 mgd. The expanded plant will provide
secondary biological treatment using completely mixed system with
sludge reaeration. The waste sludge will be transported to
the Northside Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant for treatment
and disposal. The scope of this project is limited to addition
of an 8 mgd facility to the existing plant.
a. Physical Considerations
The area to be served by the proposed project is located
in the northwest section of Houston. The area boundaries are
quite irregular. The terrain is general y flat. The area slopes
from an elevation of about 100 feet above mean sea level in the
northwest to an elevation of 60 feet in the southwest. White Oak East
Bayou and its tributaries, Cole Creek and Brickhouse Gully, provide
drainage outlets for all of the study area except a small segment
in the southwest corner, which is drained by Spring Branch. Portions
of the service area lie within the 100-year flood prone areas.
68
-------
b. Political Jurisdictions and Agencies Involved
Except for a portion of Acres Homes, the area to be
served by the proposed project lies within the corporate limits of
the City of Houston. Several other political jurisdictions and
agencies involved are:
1. Harris County
2. The Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
3. The Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments
4. The Texas Water Quality Board
5. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
c. Economic and Financial Considerations
The total cost of this project must lie within the
financial capabilities of the government sponsoring agency or
agencies as the case may be. The treatment and transporting
facilities must be efficiently designed to meet the objectives
of the proposed action and alt;o to minimize capital costs and
subsequent operation and maintenance costs.
D. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
1. Non-Sttuctural Alternatives
These include policy options available to the City of Houston
for guiding growth and development in the service area, and
for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and pollution
control.
69
-------
a. Control of Growth and Development
The City of Houston does not have a zoning ordinance or
comprehensive plan for guiding and controlling the growth of the
city. It has, therefore, attempted to influence growth through:
Use of its authority to approve subdivision plats.
Issuing and enforcing building permits.
Construction and extension of streets, parks, 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 manner.
b. Control of Collection and Disposal of Wastewater
The city's statutory policy as defined in the code
of ordinance imposes the following limits on the sanitary sewer
system:
Limitation of total wastewater quantity discharged into the
sanitary sewer system. 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.
The city will endeavor through use of these non-structural
alternatives outlined above to keep growth of development in the
service area in balance with wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal system capacities.
70"
-------
2. Structural Alternatives
These include evaluation of those system alternatives which
govern:
Treatment process selection
« Design and construction of treatment facilities, and
Wastewater collection, transport and disposal systems.
These structural alternatives are examined in detail in Sectior. F.
However, the policies that guided the development of all structural
alternatives are discussed below:
Whether the service system should be centralized or decentralized.
Where the plant should be located
Where and how sewers should be routed.
It should be mentioned that the structural alternatives to
the project elements would be applied in conjunction with the
non-strnctural policies previously outlined. These structural
alternatives must exist in a state of economic balance when non-
structural policies are implemented.
a. Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems.
The general 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 construction
of additional small plants.
The policy for regionalization of wastewater systems
has been adopted to:
Permit improved planning and coordination of wastewater collection
and treatment activities.
71
-------
Facilitate application of new technology.
Allow more efficient monitoring of effluent by regulatory
agencies.
Economize the construction and operating costs.
Reduce the present inventory system by selecting equipment
compatible with other regional plants.
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 for the Houston area.
The proposed project represents action on the part of the city to
implement this policy.
b. Plant Location Alternatives
Sewage treatment plant location should be sensitive to
the constraints imposed by system design; land cost and availability;
and the nature of surrounding development, both existing and
planned. Plant location should be sensitive also to the environmental
constraints defined by the characteristics of soil, geology, topography,
drainage pattern and water courses, quality of water, air and related
ecological factors.
Where wastewater collection can be accomplished through
use of gravity flow systems, accompanying treatment plants are normally
located in an area of low elevation, preferably adjacent to a natural
watercourse which can serve as the receiving stream for the treated
effluent. Such locational arrangements can minimize the cost of
sewage collection by reducing the number and size of lift stations
required to move wastewater to treatment plants. Since treatment
72
-------
plants often require a large amount of land, they should usually be
located in areas where lands are available and costs are relatively
low.
For the Northwest Treatment Plant, an optimum location
will be that which will minimize cost of collection, treatment and
disposal, and at the same time will cause minimum adverse effects
on both the immediate vicinity of the plant and its service area.
In addition, the treatment plant will be located with respect to
the sludge treatment areas (Northside Plant) in such a manner
that sludge conveyance costs will be minimum. Keeping these
objectives in mind, the following alternative locations were
analyzed and evaluated to determine the optimum location of the
proposed facility.
Location 1: A new plant of 12 mgd will be located at the now
abandoned Forest West Plant site at Cole Creek and Antoine Drive.
The Northwest Plant will be closed.
Location 2: The location at the Northwest Plant as proposed
in this report.
Location 3: The proposed location (Northwest) will be expanded
by 2 mgd and another 6 mgd plant expansion will be at the West For-
est Plant. This together with 4 mgd existing facility at the North-
west Plant will handle the projected 12 mgd need.
A more elaborate description of the above alternatives is pre-
sented in Appendix I. Under each alternative, sludge will be trans-
ported to the Northside Plant for treatment and disposal.
73
-------
A detailed comparative evaluation of these alternative locations and
the selection of the optimum site is also enclosed in that Appendix.
The results of that analysis indicate that the plant location can
be optimized by locating the plant on a suitable site already owned
by the city. That site is located at the Cole Creek and Randon Street.
Appendix I further indicates that the proposed location of the North-
west site is by far the best location among the three alternatives
considered. This determination has been based on the evaluation of a
total of 12 location factors, ranging from the objective of regionali-
zation of the citywide treatment system to the aesthetic consideration
for plant construction (See Table 1-1 in Appendix I).
c. Routing of Sewers
Sewer routes should:
1. Minimize sewer length where practical to do so;
2. Utilize existing utility easements held by the City of
Houston wherever possible to avoid the expense of acquiring
new rights-of-way; and
3. Provide adequate service to the service area.
E. TREATMENT SUBSYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES
A wastewater treatment and disposal system, such as the proposed
Northwest project, consists of several component subsystems. These
subsystems include: treatment processes, disinfection, effluent
disposal and sludge transport.
A variety of alternatives are available for each subsystem.
These alternatives are listed below. Based on considerations of
technology, cost, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Water
74
-------
Quality Board effluent requirements, and the nature of the city's
existing sanitary sewer system, most optimal alternatives for each
subsystem were selected and then combined and reviewed as a unified
collection, treatment and disposal system. Technical details of
these alternatives are given in Appendix J.
1. Treatment Processes
Treatment process alternatives are limited by effluent quality,
reliability and operation under variable loading conditions, expansion
opportunities and economies. The following alternatives were
evaluated before the final selection was made:
a. Septic tanks
b. Primary treatment only
c. Secondary treatment
(i) Oxidation Pond
(ii) Trickling Filter
(iii) Activated Sludge
d. Advanced treatment
A more elaborate description of each of these options is included
in Appendix J. A critical evaluation of these processes is given in
Table IV-1. In order to evaluate the systems, the ratings*
Satisfactory (S), Questionable (Q), and Unsatisfactory (U) for different
areas of environmental quality have been used. The scores S, Q, and U
are added together to obtain the most desired system. The activated
sludge process ranks highest and has been selected for proposed action.
* These ratings were assigned to each alternative in the most objective
manner possible based on the professional expertise and judgments of
the required interdisciplinary team that was responsible for this study.
75
-------
TABLE IV-1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS EVALUATION
Treatment Process
Options
Septic Tanks
Primary Treatment
Only
Secondary Treatment:
Oxidation Pond
Sedimentation &
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
; Advanced Waste
Treatment
-p
c!
i a
-P -rl
H .H
H Oi
id e
a o
au
ss
u
U
u
Q
s
s
cd rd
0) 0)
M H
o
o
M -P
O< £
e a)
H e
v/is-
ial
Q
; S
U
Q
S
S
0
-H
-fp i
i
O T3 -P
oj m u t i
4J
-^
[H
-H
XI
rtJ
H
H
0)
tf
Q
S
Q
S
S
S
G
0 Q) C
H r-t tT> O
JJ M ,Q C -H
ns (U rd -H 4J
^ -d -H TJ -H
^ 0
u
u
u
u
s
s
S
t
r
C in
O in C
m -H a) o
O M o -H
c; o -P
-------
2. Disinfection Alternatives
Disinfection of treated effluents prior to final discharge
into the receiving bodies of water is necessary to insure destruction
of pathogenic organisms found in domestic wastewater, thereby
avoiding hazards to public health. Disinfection is generally accom-
plished by (a) ozonation or (b/ chlorination with gaseous chlorine
or hypochlorite solution. The following options were investigated.
Details of these options are discussed in Appendix J.
a. Ozonation
b. Chlorination using gaseous chlorine
c. Chlorination using hypochlorite solution (chosen).
3. Effluent Disposal Alternatives
The treated effluent must be discharged into the receiving
waters without any adverse effect upon the public health and well-
being. The following options were evaluated. A detailed discussion
of these options is included in Appendix J.
a. Ocean outfall
b. Natural evaporation
c. Artificial evaporation
d. Irrigation
e. Industrial reuse
f. Ground water recharge
g. Diversion to distant inland waters
h. Discharge into adjacent water system (chosen)
77
-------
4. Sludge Disposal Alternatives
Solids separated from the liquid portion of the wastewater
during treatment generally require additional treatment before ultimate
disposal. Sludge handling and disposal is relatively costly and is
associated with environmental problems such as air and land pollution.
Sludge treatment may consist of:
a. Stabilization to further reduce the organic fraction of sludge
solids;
b. Conditioning by chemicals to enhance dewatering and handling;
c. Dewatering to reduce the volume of sludge requiring ultimate
disposal.
Ultimate disposal operations may take the form of incineration or wet
air oxidation or land disposal.
a. On-Site Treatment and Disposal (Rejected)
Satisfactory treatment and disposal of sludge normally
require highly sophisticated installations and operations if
environmental pollution is to be minimized. Such facilities and
operations are relatively uneconomical when constructed and operated
to treat only small volumes of sludge. At the Northwest Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility, approximately 9 tons of sludge will
be produced per day. This is a relatively small quantity. Highly
sophisticated installations requiring full-time skilled operators
cannot be economically justified for such a small size operation.
b. Off-Site Treatment and Disposal (Chosen)
Since satisfactory treatment and disposal of sludge on-
site is neither practical nor economical in view of the volume of
-------
sludge involved, the sludge is to be transported via force main
to the existing Northside Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant
which provides a full range of treatment processes including ferric
chloride chemical conditioning, vacuum filter dewatering, flash
drying, and ultimate disposal by sale as a soil conditioner/fertilizer.
By treating large quantities of sludge at one central location, the
unit capital cost could be lowered due to the economy of scale.
Furthermore, this alternative will maximize utilization of already
existing equipment at the multi-regional sludge disposal facility.
Operational labor requirements for incremental capacity will also be
kept at a minimum by expanding the existing multi-regional sludge
disposal facility. Therefore, in the interest of economy and
environmental control, off-site sludge treatment has been chosen.
5. Summary of Subsystem Alternatives and Selected System
Table IV-2 lists the subsystem alternatives which have
been discussed in this section and Appendix J. A summary of
competing wastewater treatment, disinfection, effluent disposal
and sludge handling systems and optimum alternatives are given
in Figure IV-1.
F. TREATMENT SYSTEM (SINGLE ALTERNATIVE REFLECTING SUBSYSTEM CHOICE)
The treatment system chosen for the proposed project 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 Cole Creek at a point
adjacent to the plant site. The sludge will be processed off-site
79
-------
FIGURE IV-1
SUBSYSTEM
ALTERNATIVES
TREATMENT PROCESSES
PRO?
SU33Y5T2/A AND SYSTE/A ALTERNATIVES
WORTHY;5ST REGIONAL Y/ASTEV/ATER FACILITIES
CD
O
1. SEPTIC TANKS
2. PRIMARY TREATMENT
3. SECONDARY TREATMENT
a. ACTIVATED SLUDGE
b. OXIDATION POND
c. TRICKLING FILTER
4. ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
DISINFECTION
1. OZONATION
1. CHLORiNATIC.'i
a. GASEOUS CHLOFiir.E
b. HYPOCHLORITESOLUTK
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
1. INLAND SURFACE WATERS
a. ADJACEMT
b. DIVERT TO OTHER INLAND
SUFIc ACE WATERS
7.. OCEAN OUTFALL
3. WASTEWATER REUSE
4. EVAPORATION
a. NATURAL
b. ARTIFICIAL
5. IRRIGATION
6. GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
1. ON-SITE
1. OFF-SITE
OPTIMUM
SUBSYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE
SECONDARY TREATMENT BY
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
CHLORINATION BY HYPO-
CHLORITE SOLUTION
DtSCHARGE TO ADJACENT
INLAND SURFACE WATERS
(COLE CREEK)
OFF-SITE AT NORTHSIDE
MULTI-REGIONAL SLUDGE
DISPOSAL PLANT
OPTIMUM
LOCATION
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREAT-
MENT PLANT AT EXISTING SITE
AT REGIONAL PLANT
CENTRALIZED DISCHARGE
AT REGIONAL PLANT
MULTI-REGIONAL SLUDGE
DISPOSAL PLANT AT NORTH-
SIDE REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT SITE
OPTIMUM
ALTERNATIVE
COMBINE OPTIMUM
SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
INTO SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
-------
TABLE IV-2: WASTEWATER TREATMENT-DISPOSAL SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
AND RELATED WASTEWATER FACILITIES
(R) Rejected (C) Chosen
Treatment Processes
1. Septic tanks (R)
2. Primary treatment only (R)
3. Secondary treatment
a. Activated Sludge (C)
b. Oxidation Pond (R)
c. Trickling Filter (R)
4. Advanced treatment (R)
Disinfection
1. Ozonation (R)
2. Chlorination
a. Gaseous chlorine (R)
b. Hypochlorite solution (C)
Effluent Disposal
1. Discharge to adjacent inland waters (C)
2. Diversion to other inland waters (R)
3. Ocean outfall (R)
4. Re-use (R)
5. Natural evaporation (R)
6. Artificial evaporation (R)
7. Irrigation (R)
8. Groundwater recharge (R)
Sludge Disposal
1. On-site (R)
2. Off-site (C)
at the Northside Regional Sludge Disposal Plant by chemical
conditioning (ferric chloride), dewatered by vacuum filtration,
flash dried, and sold as a soil conditioner/fertilizer0
The treatment system chosen for this project has been judged
to be the most cost-effective method for wastewater treatment and
81
-------
disposal within the service area. The system would conform to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Water Quality Board
requirements and standards.
The primary advantage of the chosen system over other possible
combinations of subsystems is its compatibility with other treatment
plants and facilities operated by the City of Houston. The city
operates 16 other large wastewater treatment plants using the
activated sludge process and two major sludge disposal plants using
the vacuum filtration, flash drying, bulk soil conditioner/fertilizer
product process. Each of these plants and facilities uses standardized
equipment and machinery, minimizing the need for a large inventory
of spare parts and equipment within the citywide system. Being
relatively standardized, the plants can be operated effectively by
personnel familiar with the processes involved but not necessarily
familiar with a specific plant.
The processes chosen are the most flexible of the choices
available. Activated sludge units can be operated in several
different modes depending on the influent flows and concentrations.
Duplication of units allows shifting of loads in the event of
equipment downtime due to failure, repair, or maintenance. The
chosen sludge disposal process produces a marketable product, which
reduces the cost of overall operation and maintenance.
G. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
If the proposed action were not to be implemented, the existing
Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant will soon become
82
-------
overloaded. Also, wastewater in excess of 4.0 mgd will be bypassed
at the existing Northwest Plant into the Cole Creek. The following
adverse effects would result:
Continuation of inadequate wastewater treatment and disposal
in the service area of the project.
Intensification of water pollution in Cole Creek, White Oak
Bayou and other streams.
Aggravation of public health hazards to residents of the
service area.
Loss of opportunities for orderly development and economic
growth of the areas to be served.
Failure of the City of Houston to fulfill the commitment
it has made to the service area residents.
The "No Action" alternative does not meet any of the objectives
established for the proposed action nor the goals and policies of
the City of Houston, the Texas Water Quality Board, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The "No Action" alternative, therefore,
should not be considered as a solution to the defined problem of
inadequate sewage treatment facilities in this area of the city.
83
-------
CHAPTER V: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL
B, DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NORTHWEST PLANT
C, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY
-------
V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL
The Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Project will affect
two existing treatment facilities. The existing Northwest Plant will
be enlarged to a total average design capacity of 12.0 mgd by 1977.
The waste sludge generated at this plant will be transported to the
Northside Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant for treatment and
disposal. The scope of the action is limited to the 8 mgd expansion
of the existing Northwest Plant.
B. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NORTHWEST PLANT
The existing Northwest Treatment Facility began operation in Jan-
uary, 1970. It provides secondary treatment to an average design
flow of 4.0 mgd. This flow includes approximately 0.2 mgd diverted
flow from the Forest West plant, which has recently been phased
out. Figure V-l indicates the location of the Forest West and
Northwest Plants. The treatment process "Diffused Air Activated
Sludge"*, as defined by the City of Houston, is neither a true
conventional activated sludge nor a contact stabilization process.
However, the flow pattern would classify the process as contact
stabilization. A general discussion of "Diffused Air Activated
Sludge" as defined by the City of Houston and related design criteria
*"Analysis of Excess Flow Treatment Costs at Wastewater-Treatment
Plants Not Receiving Transfer Sludge, 1974", City of Houston, the
Department of Public Works, Job No. 347. Binkley and Holmes, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers, Houston, Texas.
84
-------
J..
. cB
-------
FIGURE V-l
EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM FOR THE SERVICE AREA
NORTHWEST
SLIP \
86
-------
are summarized in Appendix K. Also, a description of the contact
stabilization process is provided in this Appendix for comparison
purposes.
1. Process Description
Influent raw sewage is lifted into the plant from the lift
station which passes through a bar screen for removal of gross solids.
It then flows into the influent channel and then into an aerated
basin where it is mixed with reaerated sludge. The organic matter
and the nutrients are absorbed or adsorbed by the microbial cell.
The flow then passes into the clarifier where the microbial cells are
removed as sludge. The clarified effluent is chlorinated by sodium
hypochlorite solution prior to discharge into Cole Creek.
Most of the sludge from the clarifier is pumped into the re-
aeration channel for stabilization of assimilated food into the cell.
This sludge is subsequently mixed with incoming waste. Excess sludge
is wasted and pumped through an 8-inch force main to a 24-inch gravity
trunk sewer, which is enlarged to a 48-inch line. This trunk sewer
flows to the llth Street Lift Station, where it is transported for
treatment and eventual disposal at the Northside Multi-Regional Sludge
Disposal Plant.
2. Plant Design Criteria
The basic design criteria used for this plant is summarized
in Table V-l.
87
-------
FIGURE V-2 PLANT DETAILS FOR EXISTING NORTHWEST TREATMENT PLANT
oo AERATION AND REAERATION TANKS
oo
HYPOCHLORITE STORAGE FACILITIES
CLARIFIER
OUTFALL SEWER
-------
TABLE V-l
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EXISTING
NORTHWEST TREATMENT PLANT
Item Description
Design Criteria Used
Year Completed
Influent Quality
BOD5
Suspended Solids
Industrial Loading
Design Capacity
Average Design Flow (ADF)
Maximum Hydraulic Loading
Lift Station Capacity
Aeration System
Aeration Period
Aeration Basin
Reaeration Basin
Solid Concentration
Aeration Basin
Reaeration Basin
Air Supply
Aeration Basin
Reaeration Basin
Total Air Supply
Clarifier
Detention Time
Overflow Rate
Weir Loading
Sludge
Return Sludge
Waste Sludge
Chlorination
Contact Time
Chlorine Residual
Power Requirement
January, 1970
0.17 Ib/capita
0.20 Ib/capita
None
4 mgd
12 mgd
8,400 gpm
3.36 hrs (based on ADF)
7.92 hrs (Based on ADF)
2500-3000 mg/1
8000 mg/1
350 cft/lb of BOD
750 cft/lb of BOD
7300 cfm
2.88 hrs (based on ADF)
600 gpd/ft2 (based on ADF)
15,000 gpd/ft2 (based on ADF)
4 mgd maximum capacity
87 gpm at 8000 mg/1
20 minutes
1 mg/1
5915 kw hrs per day
Source: Data supplied by Dannenbaum
Houston, Texas.
Engineering Corporation,
89
-------
3. Plant Performance
The plant was designed for an average flow of 4 mgd. The
average daily flow at the plant is 6.14 mgd*. The effluent quality
of the plant is summarized in Table V-2.
TABLE V-2: INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR EXISTING NORTHWEST PLANT
Parameter
Value
Average Design Flow
Average Flow at the Plant
Permitted BOD in Effluent
Permitted Suspended Solids in Effluent
Reported Influent BOD,-
Reported Effluent BOD5
Reported Influent Total Suspended Solids
Reported Effluent Total Suspended Solids*
Reported BOD5 Removal Efficiency
Reported TSS Removal Efficiency
4.00 mgd
6.14 mgd
20-00 mg/1
20.00 mg/1
130.00 mg/1
5.00 mg/1
282.00 mg/1
14.00 mg/1
96.00%
95.00%
*1973 Average Values based on TWQB Self Reporting Data.
4. Future Plans for Existing Plant
This plant will be enlarged by 1977 to a total average design
capacity of 12.0 mgd. The existing plant will be incorporated completely
in the expansion and will continue to operate during the construction
of the expanded facility.
C. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY
1. Proposed Plant Capacity
Many wastewater treatment plants bypass a portion of the
influent flow during the time when infiltration/inflow is high. The
reasons for bypassing raw sewage at a treatment plant include insuffici-
ent raw sewage pumping capacity, restricted plant hydraulics and
90
-------
problems associated with washout of biological solids.
Recent Federal regulations have banned the discharge of
untreated sewage into receiving streams. Higher quality effluents
now require that all the influent wastewater receive some degree of
treatment. Therefore, wastewater treatment plants must be capable
of treating the total flow expected at the plant. As existing plants
are enlarged or upgraded, it will be necessary to include provisions
for handling maximum-hour wet weather flows.
The relative quantity of wet weather flow to be treated by each
individual plant must be determined from an infiltration/inflow
analysis including a cost-effectiveness analysis as prescribed by
EPA. Such a study for the Northwest Treatment Plant has been
completed.* Based upon the recommendations of this study and the
City of Houston design criteria, a wet weather flow of five times
the average design flow has been used for this project.
The enlargement of the Northwest Plant will allow treatment
of the projected average and daily peak flow from the Northwest
service area through the year 1990. This plant should also treat the
wet weather flows. The capacity of the proposed plant upon completion
of construction in 1977 is presented in Table V-3.
2. Proposed Methods of Treatment
*"Infiltration/Inflow Analysis Northwest Treatment Plant, City of
Houston", WPC-TEX-1020. Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation, June,
1974.
91
-------
TABLE V-3: DESIGN CAPACITY OF PROPOSED NORTHWEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
Flow Condition
Average Daily
Maximum Dry Weather
Maximum Wet Weather
Design Capacity, 1990
12.0 mgd
18.0 mgd
60.0 mgd
a. Process Description
The proposed expansion of the Northwest Plant will have
the same flow pattern as the existing plant discussed in Section B.I.
above. Details of the process are also given in Appendix K.
See Figure II-4, page 17, for a flow diagram of existing and proposed
facilities.
The only change in the proposed facility is production of
hypochlorite solution at the site. The facility will generate 75 Ibs/
hour of equivalent chlorine at an electric consumption of 2.0 kw/lb.
The electrolyte cells will be arranged in 10.7 Ibs/hr modules with
each module hydraulically and electrically independent. Each module
will require a minimum of 20 gpm of 3.5% salt solution.
b. Design Criteria_and Conditions
The design criteria used for design of the expanded
facility is summarized in Table V-4. This criteria has been used to
meet TWQB Effluent Set 2 Standard (monthly average of 10 mg/1 BOD
and 15 mg/1 suspended solids). As yet, no plant in Houston has been
designed and built under this new design criteria for clarifier
loading rate used in this design0
92
-------
TABLE V-4
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED
NORTHWEST TREATMENT PLANT
Item Description
Design Criteria Used
Year to be Completed
Influent Quality
BOD 5
Suspended Solids
Industrial Loading
Design Capacity
Average Design Flow (ADF)
Peak Dry Weather Flow
Maximum Hydraulic Loading
Lift Station Capacity
Aeration System
Aeration Period
Aeration Basin
Reaeration Basin
Solid Concentration
Aeration Basin
Reaeration Basin
Air Supply
Aeration Basin
Reaeration Basin
Total Air Supply
Clarifier
Detention Time
Overflow Rate
Weir Loading
Sludqe
Return Sludge
Waste Sludge
Chlorination
Contact Time
Chlorine Residual
Power Requirement
1977
225 mg/1
220 mg/1
None
12 mgd
18 mgd
60 mgd
44,800 gpm
3.36 hrs (based on ADF)
7.92 hrs (based on ADF)
2500-3000 mg/1
8000 mg/1
750 cft/lb of BOD
750 cft/lb of BOD
41,700 cfm
5.52 hrs (based on ADF)
360 gpd/ft2 (based on ADF)
5,000 gpd/ft2 (based on ADF)
20 mgd
260 gpm at 8000 mg/1
20 minutes
1 mg/1
56,613 kw hrs per day
Source: Data supplied by Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation,
Houston, Texas.
c. Plant Performance
The effluent quality at the proposed facility will meet the cri-
teria established by TWQB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The anticipated quality of incluent and effluent is summarized in Table
V-5. Detailed calculations* for developing effluent quality are given in
Appendix K.
-------
TABLE V-5: INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
FOR PROPOSED NORTHWEST PLANT
Parameter
Expected Value
Influent BOD5
Influent TSS
* Effluent BOD
* Effluent TSS5
Expected Removal Efficiency of
BOD5
Expected Removal Efficiency of
TSS
Fecal Coliform
Chlorine Residual
225 mg/1
220 mg/1
10 mg/1
15 mg/1
96%
94%
200/100 mg/1
1 mg/1
d. Sludge Treatment Disposal
The excess sludge from the proposed facility will be pumped
via an existing 8-inch force main to an existing 24-inch gravity trunk
sewer, which enlarges to a 48-inch line, and will flow to the existing
llth Street Life Station, where it is transported to the Northside
Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant. At this facility the sludge will
be given full-range chemical treatment, including chemical conditioning
* These calculations which indicate total BOD of 6.2 mg/1 and a TSS of
6.0 mg/1 (See Page K-ll of Appendix K) are subject to some assumptions
on flow variation and related factors. In the actual situation varia-
tions in these assumptions may result in a somewhat greater or smaller
value of effluent quality than calculated here. In view of the more
stringent regulations expected in the future requiring better effluent
quality, the City of Houston should keep the option open for incorpor-
ating advance treatment for its treatment system, including the North-
west Plant. The inclusion of tertiary treatment such as mixed media
or sand infiltration should be given consideration.
-------
prior to vacuum filtration for dewaterizing. The dewatered solids
will' be flash-dried and then converted into soil conditioner/fertili-
zer for sale.
e. Land Requirement
The enlargement of the Northwest Wastewater Treatment
Plant will be located entirely on the existing 27-acre plant site. It
is expected that this site will also be sufficiently large for all an-
ticipated future enlargements.
f. Relationship of this Action with Other Houston
Wastewater Facilities Systems Studies
The construction of this 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 Management Plan.
These plans designate the Northwest system to be one of the regional
wastewater collection-treatment-disposal systems for the City of Hous-
ton. The proposed action is one segment of the expansion of the city's
existing sanitary sewer system through its 1973-1979 capital improve-
ment program0
Other recently completed, in process or planned projects
in the northwest section of Houston are as follows:
(i) Construction of the White Oak Bayou Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant
This project should be completed in late 1974 or early
1975. The White Oak Bayou Regional Plant is an 0.5 mgd plant located
on the bank of the White Oak Bayou in the City of Jersey Village north-
west of Houston.
95
-------
(ii) Westway Utility District Wastewater Treatment Plant
Located northwest of Houston, an 0.1 mgd plant is now
in place and plans for expansion from 1.5 to 2.5 mgd are underway.
This plant serves a new unnamed residential development.
(iii) Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 6
A recently completed 0.914 mgd wastewater treatment
plant is now in operation northwest of Houston, serving a new
residential development.
(iv) Northside Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Plant
The City of Houston is currently adding six additional
vacuum filters to the Northside Plant. This will improve the
efficiency and capacity of the Northside Plant enabling it to handle
the additional sludge from the enlarged Northwest Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
(v) Acres Homes Collection System, Phase IV
The final phase of a collection system that provides
sewer service to the minority inhabited Acres Homes area located
adjacent to the Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in
northwest Houston. The project is scheduled for completion in early
1973.
(vi) Forest West Diversion
In late 1973, the Forest West Wastewater Treatment
Plant (capacity 0.10 mgd) was diverted to the Northwest Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
96
-------
g. Status of Project, April, 1974
(i) Preliminary Engineering Report
Report entitled "Preliminary Engineering Report,
Northwest Houston Water Supply Corporation, Phase IV, Acres Homes
Area-Harris County, Texas and Expansion of City of Houston Northwest
District Sewage Treatment Plant" was completed and submitted to the
City of Houston in March, 1973, by Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation,
Consulting Engineers, Houston, Texas.
(ii) Plans and Specifications
It is anticipated that the plans and specifications
for this project will be finished by the consulting engineers,
Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation, by September, 1974.
(iii) Funding of Project
Funding for the City of Houston's portion of this
project has been arranged by contract with the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority, which sold the required bonds in November, 1973.
(iv) Timing
The following table presents the anticipated schedule
of events related to this project:
Completion of plans and specifications September, 1974
Beginning of construction January, 1975
Completion of project July, 1976
97
-------
CHAPTER VI: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION
BE IMPLEMENTED
B, SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
C, LONG-TERM SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACT
-------
VI. FNVTRONMRNTAL EFFFCTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section identifies the primary and secondary effect of the
proposed project on the natural and man-made environment and suggests
how the adverse effects could be avoided or minimized while
accomodating the need for physical changes in the plant vicinity
and the service area.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
1. Construction Impact (Short Term)
Construction activity associated with this project will
consist of excavation at the plant site for the sewage treatment
plant.
a. Alterations to Land Forms, Streams and Natural Drainage
Patterns
There will be no permanent alterations to land forms,
streams, or natural drainage patterns other than the installation
of the outfall structure. Temporary alterations made during
construction will be rectified prior to completion of the construction
activity-
fa. Erosion Control Measures
Because of the flat character of the area where construction
will occur, erosion should not cause any significant problem. in
those areas where erosion might occur, it will be controlled through
98
-------
the use of temporary settling ponds and dikes. The construction
sites will be graded, seeded and restored to their original condition
upon completion of work.
c. Effect of Siltation and Sedimentation on Area Watercourses
It is possible that even with erosion control, some
sedimentation and turbidity will occur in the receiving waters of
Cole Creek during the construction period. Every precaution
will be taken to eliminate possible sources of siltation and
sedimentation.
d. Protection for Cover Vegetation and Trees
Cover vegetation and trees will be protected, where
possible, by means of fences and wooden slats. Only such growth
will be removed from the plant site as is necessary for the
construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of the treatment
plant.
e. Clearing with Herbicides, Etc.
No herbicides would be used for clearing vegetation
on the plant site.
f. Disposal of Soil and Vegetable Spoil
Top soil removed during construction will be stockpiled
and subsequently placed on stripped or fill areas. Excess soil will
be deposited in the plant site area. Vegetation spoil will be
disposed of by burial.
99
-------
g. Dust Control
Dust control measures, if necessary, will consist
of frequent sprinkling with water.
h. Dredging, Tunneling and Trenching
Construction will not require any dredging. The
proMem of trenching and tunnelling would arise in the installation
of a sludge line transporting sludge from the proposed project
to the Northside Plant. This facility, however, has already been
built and its capacity is adequate to carry the projected sludge
volume.
i. Areas Affected by Construction Noise and Precautions
The proposed plant construction will take place at the
site of an existing plant. Plant construction will be sufficiently
distant from residences so that construction noise will not be a
problem in the immediate vicinity. The nearest residential area is
to the north of the project across the Cole Creek. There are no
residential or commercial activities on the three other sides within
2,000 feet. All sides are well buffered by dense, tall trees and
plants.
Construction of the proposed facility will require use
of machinery and equipment that will increase ambient noise levels
and produce high temporary noise levels. Equipment to be used will
include backhoes, power shovels, trucks, and compressors and pumps.
Such equipment will generate average noise levels ranging from
70 to 85 dBA. The contractor will be required to minimize the impact
100
-------
of equipment noises as much as possible. Special precautions
required to minimize noise levels would be specified in the
construction contract to be administered by the City of Houston
Public Works Department. The contract will further specify that
working hours for the construct:' on crew will be generally limited
to daylight hours. Noise impact on wildlife, including birds and
insects, will be temporary.
j. Areas Affected by Blasting and Precautions
Due to the nature of the soils in the area, blasting
will not be necessary. No precaution is required.
k. Measures to Minimize Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic
Disruption
Since enlargement of this plant will occur at the
existing plant site, there will be no disruption of vehicular and
pedestrian traffic.
1. Effects of Night Work
The contractor, as a rule, will be required to limit
his activity to daylight hours. Night work will be permitted only
for special tasks such as line tie-ins which are best performed at
night to take advantage of low flow conditions characteristic
of such hours. In such cases, the use of flood lights will be
restricted to the work site only. No harm to wildlife or serious
disturbance to area residents is anticipated as a result of night
work.
101
-------
m. Protection Against Construction Hazards
Construction will be isolal > d from the public. Provisions
requiring the contractors to take all necessary precautions to protect
the public and construction workers from such hazards will be included
in contract specifications.
n. Land Acquisition and Impact on Land Values.
Land has already been acquired for this project. The
land at the project site is adequate not only for the construction
of the proposed facility but also to accomodate its future expansion
as and when that becomes necessary. Because of the availability
of improved sewer service, land values are expected to rise for
those parts of the service area which are currently served by
septic tanks.
o. Relocation
The proposed project will require no relocation.
2. Long -Term Impact
a. Land Affected by Construction
The proposed expansion will be accomodated on vacant
portions of the existing Northwest Treatment Plant Site. No additional
land purchase will be necessary. The proposed site lies outside the
100-year flood plain. The elevation of the plant site is 75 feet above
the mean sea level. The area around the plant is heavily vegetated
and has potentials of parks and open space development of recognized
102
-------
aesthetic value within the immediate vicinity. The site plan for
the project has been prepared accordingly (see page 17).
b. Beneficial Use of Land in Plant Vicinity
No beneficial use of land in the plant vicinity will be
altered by construction of the proposed improvements. Available
vacant lands in the immediate area will receive an added stimulus
as a result of the multi-functional nature of the proposed project.
The park and playground facility incorporated in the site plan will
have a beneficial impact on the surrounding area in terms of
subjecting lands to quality development.
c. Interference with Natural Views and Present Character
of the Area
The proposed facilities will not alter the natural
character of the area, nor will they interfere and obstruct natural
views of the general area. The addition of the park facility on the
site will strengthen the natural character of the project vicinity.
d. Architectural Techniques and Landscaping
Architecturally, the site will be designed to present a
low profile for the project structures. Care will be taken to blend
the proposed project with the surrounding natural environment. Trees
and shrubs will be planted and fences erected where necessary in and
around the project site. Grass planting and other landscaping
activities will be undertaken to beautify the project environment
and enhance its aesthetic values. Ample open lands are available
103
-------
within the designated plant site to provide a neighborhood playground
to serve the recreation need of the immediate neighborhood.
e. Relationship of the Project with the Residences and
Business, and Prevailing Wind Patterns
There is no commercial or industrial activity within
the immediate vicinity of the project. Prevailing winds, for most
of the year, originate from the south. There is a residential
subdivision to the north of the proposed site across the Cole Creek.
Remote possibility exists for occasional odor problems affecting
the resident population in the surrounding area since sludge treatment
and disposal will not be carried out at the site and odor from the
existing treatment process has been virtually none.
f. Incineration
Plans for the proposed project do not include any sludge
incineration.
g. Possible Odor Sources and Their Effects
The selection of the propo,-t-^ treatment process was
carefully made to avoid odor sources and their effects as much as
possible. Since the plant will not do primary treatment and will
utilize the activated sludge process (contact stabilization mode)
odor ema; ,-,-.-.::.ng from the treatment site is expected to be minimal
except on unusual occasions. Further, the proposed treatment process
excludes any primary treatment that can cause odor problems at the
104
-------
plant site. Also, the sludge treatment and disposal which is a major
source of odor associated with treatment plants will be handled in
another location, reducing the odor sources from the site of the
proposed project.
h. Assessment of Potential Odor Problems
The project has been designed to minimize odors. The
wastewater treatment plant design requires all influent to be pumped.
To prevent odors arising from raw sewage, pumps will discharge the
sewage below the surface of the liquid in the aeration tanks. The
aeration tank will maintain aerobic conditions in all parts of the
tank, thus minimizing any odor problems associated with the treatment
process.
No odor problems should arise from the sludge disposal
plant since it will be transported to the Northside Plant.
i. Effects on Air Quality
There will be two sources of air pollution from the
project activity. The ambient air will be affected by heat, smoke
and thermal emissions from the use of construction equipment and
machinery. Its effect will be temporary. For further discussion
see items "1" and "m" on construction impacts (pgs. 101-102).
The other source will include the operation of the plant itself
and possible odor sources from the treatment processes. The effects
of these have already been discussed in items "g" and "h" in this
section (pages 104-105).
105
-------
The effect of the project on the quality of ambient air
will be negligible compared to other sources of air pollution in Hous-
ton. However, there will be some additional air pollution problems at
the Northside Multi-Regional Sludge Treatment site as a result of the
sludge transport from the Northwest Plant. It is estimated that only
1.92 tons per day of volatile gases will be incinerated by the after-
burners in the sludge drying process at the Northside 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 for
American cities.
Type of Pollutants
Particulate
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 conta-
minants to be released from the afterburners as a result
of sludge transport per day will be equivalent to the air
contaminants generated from the combustion of approximately
270 gallons of automobile fuels per day- Considering conta-
minants from the ozone treatment for sludge drying, the net
effect of the Northwest Plant on air pollution around the
Northside Plant is estimated to be equivalent to the combus-
*Air Pollution, World Health Organization, Columbia University Press
1961.
106
-------
tion of 430 gallons of automobile fuels per day- That level
of air pollution is only 40% of .the air pollution that would
be caused per day from the use of automobiles by the number
of families that could be accommodated on the Northwest Plant
site were it devoted to single family residential homes in-
stead of a wastewater treatment planto (The total project
site = 27 acres, density assumed is seven dwelling units per
acre)."
University of Texas at Arlington
Arlington, Texas
j. Effects on Present Water Quality
The proposed action will comply with the effluent dis-
charge requirements prescribed for the City of Houston by the Texas
Water Quality Board and the Environmental Protection Agency- At no
time is the quality of the effluent discharge expected to be below
those currently required by the agencies. The final effluent from
the proposed plant will contain a BOD^ and TSS levels of 6.6 mg/1 and
6 mg/1 respectively.
At present, the low flow in the Cole Creek and White Oak
Bayou consists mostly of treated wastewater effluent from the existing
plant. The increased quantity of effluent to be discharged by the ex-
panded plant should change the condition of Cole Creek and White Oak
Bayou from one of periodic low torpid flow to one of steady flow, eli-
minating the stagnation which often arises during periods of low flow.
Minimum flow rates in these streams are expected to increase by 12.0
mgd once the plant capacity reaches saturation in 1990. The correspon-
ding net flow increase by 1980 is projected at 7.5 mgd. The reinforced
concrete outfall structure on Cole Creek has been designed to facilitate
low discharge velocities for the purpose of minimizing foaming and bank
scour.
107
-------
k. Effects on Aquatic Life
Construction of the proposed project should have, if any,
a beneficial effect on the aquatic biota in Cole Creek and White Oak
and Buffalo Bayous by reducing the pollutants in these streams. The
dissolved oxygen level in the receiving streams will increase as a
result of low BOD discharge from the plant effluent. Increased quan-
tity of improved effluent discharged into the bayous will maintain
uniform flow conditions even under low flow periods and eliminate
stagnant pools which can cause odor problems. These new conditions
of water flow will benefit the aquatic life of these streams.
1. Effects of Chlorine Residual on Aquatic Life
The adverse effects of the chlorine residual on normal
aquatic life in the receiving streams will be only local since free
residual chlorine is short-lived in the natural water system.
m. De-Chlorination
The plans for the proposed project do not include de-
chlorination.
n. Effect on Municipal and Industrial Water Supplies and
Ground Water
The water of Cole Creek and White Oak and Buffalo Bayous
is not utilized for drinking, industrial, irrigational or recreational
purposes. The effluent disposal is expected to have no effect upon
groundwater since (1) the soil is impermeable and (2) groundwater flows
into the bayous. The effluent discharged will not cause any groundwater
108
-------
infiltration. Surface water supplies start over 20 miles northeast
of the proposed project and will not be affected. Recreation poten-
tials of the areas along the Cole Creek and Buffalo Bayou will be en-
hanced as a result of the improved water flow and quality of these
bayous.
o. Present and Potential Market for Wastewater Re-Use
Wastewater re-use by industries is a possibility, but no
market for such a recycling now exists since an ample and relatively
inexpensive supply of water is available in Houston. Water supply pro-
jections indicate that available sources will not be exhausted in the
Houston Metropolitan Area before the year 2000. However, since the use
of underground water for water supply has been proving detrimental to
Houston by causing a much concerned subsidence problem, efforts should
be directed to recycling of Wastewater and re-use. The effluent quality
can be improved by additional treatment to conform with the industrial
water quality requirements and recycled at least for industrial re-use.
A citywide policy will need to be implemented so that re-use of effluent
will be possible from all treatment plants in the Houston area.
p. Effects of Re-Use on Receiving Water Quality
There will be no such effects since wastewater will not be
re-used in the immediate future.
q. Groundwater Recharge
There is no need, nor is it economically feasible to re-
charge aquifers with treated wastewater in the forseeable future. The
109
-------
Houston municipal water supply was formerly derived in full from
groundwater and is presently augmented by surface water from three
major reservoirs at Lake Houston, Lake Conroe and Lake Livingston.
The heavy rainfall in Houston precludes the need for any groundwater
recharge from treated wastewater. Further, the projected demand for
water supply in Houston can be met by sources without wastewater re-
charge, provided the problem of subsidence can be addressed.
r. Spray Irrigation
There is no spray irrigation conducted in the service area
at the present time, nor will there be any in the future.
s. Diversion of Flows Between Basins
There will be no such diversion under the proposed action.
t. Ultimate Disposal Methods for Grit, Ash and Sludge
Sludge generated by the proposed plant will be conveyed to
the Northside Multi-Regional Sludge Disposal Facility by means of an
existing sludge force main and gravity trunk sewers.
At the Northside Plant the sludge will be processed into
soil conditioner/fertilizer by vacuum filtration and flash drying. The
fertilizer will contain five percent nitrogen, three percent phosphoric
acid and small amounts of potash. It will be sold in bulk form under
the brand name Hou-Actinite to a Florida based citrus firm.
u. Effects on Historic Sites, Recreation Uses or Natural
Preserves ~~~
The proposed project will not adversely affect any exist-
110
-------
ing historic sites, areas or preserves. Depending on the goals and
policies of the City of Houston, the impract of the proposed project
on the parks and open space development could be highly beneficial.
Implementation of the regionalization sewage system can improve the
quality of water not only in Cole Creek and White Oak and Buffalo
Bayous, but for other waterways in Houston as well. The cumulative
effect of such an effort to increase water flow and quality in the
area can enhance the recreation potential of flood plain areas. Pur-
suing an aggressive flood plain development policy, the city can re-
strict private development in flood plains and utilize them for re-
creation and open space development. The net effect of this on envir-
onmental conservation and beautification could be substantial.
The service area for the proposed project could develop
linear parks and open space corridors along Cole Creek and White Oak
and Buffalo Bayous. Scattered parks and open space spots along Cole
Creek and White Oak Bayou can be connected in a linear fashion to
form an integrated system. Flood plain areas along White Oak Bayou
are predominantly vacant, presenting a unique opportunity for recre-
ation corridor development. The improved water flow and quality in
these bayous will aid in the achievement of parks and recreation goals
for Houston.
v. 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 beneficial
111
-------
impact of the proposed project on recreational areas has been dis-
cussed in item "u".
w. Potential Noise Levels and Protective Measures
Potential noise from the operation of pump motors,
compressors, fans, and other equipment shall be below 85 dBA.
All equipment used will comply with the noise level standards
promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
and the Noise Control Act of 1972. Noise at the site will be muted
by the use of equipment with low sound vibration levels. Noise and
vibration cannot be completely eliminated from the plant site and
will to some extent inconvenience the plant employees. This is
not a significant problem.
x. Control of Access to Facilities
The entranceway to the plant site will be an extension
of Randon Street. It will provide sole access to the plant. Cole
Creek and the dense trees will bound the project site on the other
three sides.
y. Effect, on Insect Populations
The proposed project will have no detectable effect
on the insect populations of the service area. The mosquito population
of the Cole Creek and White Oak Bayou will be reduced. These
insects carry germs affecting public health.
112
-------
z. Insect Control Programs and Use of Insecticides
None will be required.
aa. Effect on Wildlife, Birdlife and Aquatic Habitats
Except for a minor disruption of animal habitats in
and around the plant site during the construction period, no
significant effect or protracted disturbances of natural habitats
will result from the operation of the plant. Clearing of vegetation
will be temporary, and ground cover and trees will be restored to
the land immediately following construction of the plant.. For
the project's effect on aquatic habitats, see items "k" and "1".
bb. Project Relation to Flood Plains
The plant structures are to be built above the highest
anticipated level of flood in the area. The proposed site is outside
the 100 year flood plain area. Cole Creek, already channelized
for purposes of flood control, has been excavated to promote
sufficient drainage. Since groundwater is able to flow into the
stream, it lowers the water table and thus helps increase the
infiltration capacity of the soil to absorb rainwater. For detail
discussion on the site elevation and federal and local regulations
governing flood plain development ci).id design, see Chapter III
(Natural Environment), Section A, Subsection 4, Hydrology, (iii)
c. Flood-prone areas, page 33.
113
-------
cc. Operational Reliability
The proposed treatment facilities have been designed to
ensure operational reliability and prevent adverse environmental
effects stemming from plant operation. There should be no overload
either organic or hydraulic of the proposed system. In the event
high organic loadings occur or if slugs of toxic materials reach
the plant, the treatment process will result in a temporary
deterioration of effluent quality. However, any adverse effects
resulting from such contamination are expected to be offset by
the relatively large size of the plant.
Safety controls contained in the engineering design
of the system will prevent operational failures. The City of Houston
operates 16 other wastewater treatment plants closely similar to
the proposed plant and has experienced mechanical and electrical
personnel available to operate and maintain the plant. The proposed
system provides for spare units so that while a basin or a pump is
taken out for maintenance or repair, another unit will be available
for use in its place.
B. SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIOi"!
If the term "secondary impact" implies effects of secondary
significance, it will be an erroneous notion for an Environmental
Impact Statement study, particularly for a project which involves
the construction of infra-structure investments stimulating effects
in the form of associated investments and corresponding changes in
the pattern of social and economic activities for the service area.
114
-------
Such secondary effects, by their abilities to induce new facilities
and activities, can sometimes be 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. The stimulated growth of
this type as a result of the proposed Northwest Treatment Plant is
highly significant for its service area. This is an area in
the city which is experiencing rapid growth and where growth will
continue to take place in the future.
1. The Degree to Which this Action will Ultimately Affect
Residential or Industrial Development
The addition of sewer service to an area is a key factor in
encouraging residential or industrial development in an area. This
and other factors influence the intensity and type of growth that may
occur. For instance, land values and the availability of suitable
land, provisions for an adequate water supply, an efficient and
convenient transportation system, availability of parks and recreation,
and educational, cultural and entertainment facilities are all
needed to attract development to an area. Aside from adequate sewer
service, the project area has a favorable outlook for development.
The provision of sewer service in collaboration with other elements
of the infra-structure systen should result in an accelerated rate
of development which would probably cause most of the open land in
the area to be developed within the next 20-year period.
Although the proposed project's impact on the development
of the service area cannot be completely quantified, the secondary
115
-------
net impact on the residential, industrial and related developments
through 1990 is shown in Appendix L of this report, A summary of
the net numerical impact of the project on the area development
activities is shown in Table VI-1.
TABLE VI-1: SECONDARY NET IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Net Impact On:
Population
Employment
Residential
De ve lopment
Industrial
Development
Commercial
Development
Parks and
Recreation
Schools
TOTAL
Magnitude of Net Impact
Number
43,000 persons
22,000 jobs
16,780 housing
units
-
-
12
8
Acres
-
-
2,380
295
215
430
215
3535 acres
The Northwest Treatment Plant, when built to its proposed
capacity, wil.i. occupy 2? acres of land which is a very small amount
of land compared to the geographic area it is intended to serve.
As Table VI-1 indicates, 3535 acres or 6 square miles could be
urbanized in the service area as a secondary impact of the project.
The environmental implications of this urbanization are enor-
mous. The ecology of the service area is likely to be vulnerable unless
116
-------
precautions are taken to protect the natural characteristics of
the area.
The economic implications of the secondary growth are also
substantial. Thousands of jobs can be created in the area as a result
of the project and associated infra-structure improvements. The
enormous real-estate investments anticipated as an impact of the
project could be a great opportunity for the area residents and
property owners. On the other hand, it could be a significant
liability to the area if the quality of development is not insured
through sound practice in environmental planning and urban
development.
The city government cannot emphasize one or two major city
services and ignore others. To guarantee quality development,
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 90 tons
per day. This service has also to be provided by the City of Houston
along with the provision of water and sewer services.
In the past, the development in the service area has been
characterized by the lack of coordinated public service facilities
which have created a somewhat haphazard pattern of growth. This must
be avoided in the future by following an integrated policy of infra-
structure development if the full benefits from the investment in
the proposed project are to be realized.
2. Ultimate Effect of the Project on the Character of the Area
As noted previously, a part of Houston's population growth
117
-------
is expected to take place in the service area of the project. Its
construction will aid in coordinated occurance of that growth.
Commercial and industrial development along the Northwest Freeway
will grow. The rest of the service area, with the exception of
commercial strips along the major thoroughfares, is likely to develop
predominantly as low density residential use, though current trend
of housing development is multi-family and townhouses.
Completion of this project will aid the development of a
community in Houston that urban growth has somewhat bypassed in
the past. This will aid Houston in experiencing a more balanced
and uniform distribution of land use about the present city core.
The recent development trends in the service area are expected to
continue through the future. The proposed project will not reverse
that trend in anf adverse direction. The low density character of
the area is expected to persist.
3. Extent to Which Undeveloped Are.-is Will Ultimately be Served
Service will be provided to presently underserviced areas 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 the
subsystems and connect and deliver sanitary sewage to interceptor
lines. The City of Houston is empowered in the event of failure
on the par- of the private developers to levy front foot assessment
and hook-up charges sufficient to underwrite the costs of line
installation. The construction of the project will allow the city
118
-------
to sewer the area currently served by septic tanks. An estimated
6,000 persons are currently served by septic tanks in this part of
Houston.
4. Relationship Between the Project's Effect on Growth and Type
of Growth Desired by the Area Residents
The nature of anticipated development of the area seems to be
compatible with the wishes of residents and property owners; however,
should plans for future development prove incompatible with such
wishes, a variety of administrative and judicial remedies are availa-
ble to the citizens to reflect their goals on the type of growth de-
sired.
Recently the City of Houston Planning Department has initia-
ted a citizen participation planning program under which the city has
been divided into a number of communities and neighborhoods for plan-
ning purposes (See Figure VI-1). The program calls for active citizen
participation in the planning process. The manor intent of this project
is the development of neighborhood plans and dialogue with the people
who live, work, own property or do business in a neighborhood. It
offers the residents of the various parts of the city an opportunity,
on a continuing basis, to voice their opinions on the type and inten-
sity of growth they desire for their particular area0 A detailed de-
scription of this program is included in Appendix M0
The residents of Northwest Houston can utilize the city's
citizen participation program as a vehicle for reflecting their goals
and objectives in shaping city policies on land use, transportation
119
-------
and public facilities for their area. Through this program, the
citizens can prevent the type of growth they do not want. The
effect of the proposed project on the type and level of growth
therefore cannot be such as will be against the wishes of the area
residents.
The citizens of Houston and their city government have made
a commitment for the project. The citizens' commitment is reflected
in their approval of the bond program through which the local share
of the project costs will be funded. The City of Houston has entered
a contract with the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority for the
sale of bonds for the construction of this facility.
5. How This Project is Being Used to Implement Land Use Planning
Unlike most cities in Texas and the nation, the City of
Houston does not have any zoning to regulate and control land use
in the city. It has attempted to influence growth through such
available techniques as its authority to approve subdivision plats,
issuing and enforcement of building permits and through the provision
of various infra-structure elements such as transportation, sewer and
water services, drainage systems, and so forth.
In view of the quality of environment achieved through
regulatory practices of pro-zoning cities, Houston appears to have
done relatively well without any zoning regulations.
"Houston is the only large city in the United States without
zoning laws. Yet it is no more chaotic than other metropolitan
areas of its size. In fact, though it has some drawbacks,
marketplace determination of land use is working well indeed
for the Space City."
Urban Dynamics of Non-Zoning
Joseph W. Santamaria, AIA
AIA Journel, April 1972
The American Institute of Architects
120
-------
FIGURE VI-1
HOUSTON'S
NEIGHBORHOOD !IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM
FIRST TEN STUDY AREAS
1 . Moody Park
2. Sunnyside
3. Settegast
4. Acres Homes
5. Magnolia Park
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Dodson - Oak Park
Near North
Not Named
Washington
Navigation
Side
HOUSTON CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
121
March 1974
-------
Absence of zoning has placed the City of Houston in a
unique position to manage growth through "impact policies" which
can be, if carefully applied, more effective than conventional
zoning as a tool for controlling growth for large cities in America.
From this standpoint, the proposed project is highly compatible
with the current policy of the city in regulating land use growth
and distribution.
C. SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
While the project's short-term adverse effects on the environment
will not be significant compared to its benefits, its long-term ad-
verse impact on the quality of the environment could be quite severe
unless appropriate policy actions are taken to avoid detrimental ef-
fects. There are many secondary benefits to be derived from the pro-
ject; however, its adverse effects associated with the change in the
level of environmental quality resulting from the expanding urbaniza-
tion for the service area must be carefully evaluated before beginning
construction. The City of Houston must consider these potentially ad-
verse effects and develop necessary policies with regard to land use
location and intensity to mitigate such effects on the service area of
the project.
1. Secondary Impact on Air Pollution
An additional 43,000 persons are projected to live in the ser-
vice area of the project by 1990. These additional people will gener-
ate a total of 130,000 trips per day, which will call for an extensive
road building program to accommodate the travel need. Statistics in-
122
-------
dicate that more than 50% of Houston's air pollution is caused by the
automobile. Such a problem will affect not only the service area but
also the city as a whole, since other parts of Houston will also be
urbanized. By 1990 the air pollution index of the service area will
increase as a result of this growth. The reduction in present air
quality will be substantial if other sources of pollution are con-
sidered. For detail calculations of the impact of projected traffic
volume on ambient air quality, see Appendix L, Section H, Pages
L-7 through L-14.
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 va-
cant 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. Effect of this condition
will be harmful to the aquatic life in these streams. Also, with ex-
panded urbanization, drainage will become increasingly difficult, sub-
jecting many areas to 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 commer-
cial supplies. This subsidence, with its serious ramifications on
the environment, will create a major problem for the underground uti-
lity lines. The city's expanding program for sewer extension should
123
-------
be carefully implemented so that the uneven settlement of lands will
not cause sudden failures of the water, sewer or gas lines. The break-
down of these systems would prove to be greatly injurious to public
health and the environment. A monitoring program should be instituted
to identify where the problem is most serious now and where it may occur
in the future. This effort should be supplemented by undertaking reha-
bilitation 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 ele-
ments will inevitably be affected by the secondary impact of the pro-
posed project. Man-made activities will invade the natural environ-
ment. 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 pro-
grams are designed and implemented to create such a balance, long-
term consequences of the proposed project and similar projects could
be seriously adverse to the quality of air, water, land life and the
environment. The City of Houston must balance its goals of urbaniza-
tion against the need of protecting the environment which it took the
forces of nature thousands of years to create.
-------
CHAPTER VII: ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE
PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
A, GENERAL
B, SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
-------
VII. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD
THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
A. GENERAL
Careful planning and design and close supervision of construction
and scheduling activities will minimize short term adverse effects
resulting from project construction.
The project is the outgrowth of a commitment made to the service
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.
B. SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided are listed below:
1. Occasional minor odor associated with the wastewater treatment
plant.
2. Minimal levels of machine and engine noise.
3. Construction noises.
4. Minimal levels of air pollutants and particulate matter
in the air due to construction activities.
5. Some thermal emissions into ambient air due to the plant
operation.
6. Some disruption of natural earth, within the plant site during
the construction period.
1. Disruption and Inconvenience During Construction
The construction of the project will be totally limited within
the plant site. It will not cause any inconvenience to the residents
of the project vicinity. The only inconvenience that will occur will
125
-------
be for the construction crew who will be subjected to some noise
and heat during the construction period. 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. Upon the completion of the construction
activity, ground surfaces will be restored as quickly as possible.
2. Noise
The construction process will require the use of machinery
which will create a moderate but temporary noise nuisance. Proper
equipment maintenance and noise reduction policies will be adhered
to. Operation of the completed system will produce so little noise
as to be inaudible. Noise levels experienced by operators will
likewise be minimal.
3. Loss of Habitat
Loss of some habitats during project construction is possible,
However, since the plant construction will occur on an existing
plant site, loss of habitat is expected to be minimal.
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 level. Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and other byproducts
126
-------
from fuel combustion in construction equipment will be emitted in
the construction area but will not significantly affect air quality.
Within the plant site, some minimal level of occasional odors
will be unavoidable during the operation of the plant. To prevent
odors arising from raw sewage, pumps will discharge the sewage below
the surface of the liquid in the aeration tank. The aeration tank
will maintain aerobic conditions in all parts of the tank, thus mini-
mizing odor problems associated with the treatment process. Since
sludge will be transported to the Northside Multi-Regional Sludge
Treatment Plant, the project will affect the air quality around that
site. This is not expected to be a major problem, however. For de-
tails, see Page 106 and 107.
5. Aesthetic Considerations
All equipment, with the exception of the plant site equipment,
will be located below ground level. At the plant site, the buildings
will be built in low profile, and the site will be well landscaped.
Since the plant site is 1000 feet from the nearest street, there is
no possibility that anyone will see the plant other than plant
employees and the residential dwellers to the north, across
Cole Creek. The natural setting of the plant vicinity with
dense, tall trees on three sides will greatly aid the project from
being visible from outside the site. The addition of the playground
facilities on the site will remarkably enhance the visual and aesthe-
tic image of the treatment site.
127
-------
CHAPTER VIII: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
-------
VIII. RELATIONSHIP BFTWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF PIAIJ'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF JONG
TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The improved sewage treatment system recommended for the proposed
project will enhance the environment by reducing water pollution
and public health problems caused by existing septic tank systems
and overloaded treatment plant. 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 cumulative
effect and long-term alterations on the environment of the service
area or surrounding community. Any inconveniences will be short-
term and will be related to the initial construction of the proposed
facilities.
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 of inadequate waste
treatment over an indefinite period of time. Construction of the
project would, therefore, control water pollution and improve the
health and environment in the Houston area. This will be accomplished
by providing adequate public services, including sewage collection
and treatment facilities, while facilitating increased long-term
productivity of land and the environment. Delay of the project
construction may impose additional adverse short and long-term social,
economic and environmental impacts on the area residents.
128
-------
CHAPTER IX; IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BF INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED
ACTION, SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
A, RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED
TO THE PROJECT
B, ALTERNATIVES
-------
IX. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH
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 will more than offset the cost of the project
development and operation.
A. RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED TO THE PROJECT
1. Energy
Based on data on historical energy requirements for plants
of comparable size and equipment, it is estimated that energy
consumption when the proposed facilities reach design capacity will
be approximately 9,750,000 kilowatt hours of electrical energy per
year. The annual estimated cost of this energy commitment in Houston
will be approximately $86,000 or $235.00 per day at the rate of
$19.60 per million gallons of treated sewage. (This figure does
not include the energy costs for sludge processing and disposal.)
However, one return from this energy consumption is $45.20 of
marketable fertilizer per million gallons of treated sewage. Should
the present energy shortage persist and rising energy costs render
it impossible to use the present level of power, then the City of
Houston, with the aid of available technology, should attempt to
129
-------
use anaerobic sludge digestion for methane generation from the resi-
dual sludge. This will be only possible for those treatment sites
where sludge processing facilities are available. The poser genera-
ted from the methane gas will then provide an additional source of
energy for those treatment plants with sludge treatment facilities.
2. Chemicals
The only chemical which will be used for the treatment opera-
tion of the plant is chlorine. It will be used for disinfection.
Chlorine is the least expensive disinfection agent available.
It will be used in hypochlorite form in the treatment process. In its
use, care will be taken to avoid health and safety hazards usually
associated with the use of chlorine. An estimated 720 Ibs of sodium
hypochlorite will be used each day to produce 500 Ibs of free chlorine
to be used by the plant each day.
In the event that the nationwide shortage of chlorine supply
becomes a limiting factor, the City of Houston has wisely decided to
generate chlorine on the plant site for use by the plant operation.
The program has great merit and should be applied to other plants in
the city-,
30 Manpower
Operation and routine maintenance of the expanded Northwest
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant will require a staff of approxima-
tely twelve equivalent full-time employees at an estimated labor cost
of approximately $120,000 per year.
The additional load placed on the Northside Sludge Disposal
130
-------
Plant where sludge from the proposed project will be transported for
treatment and disposal will not require additional employees.
4. Money
Funds committed to this project will be retrieved through cus-
tomer service charges. There will be no opportunity to commit the
same funds to some alternative endeavor for the duration of the bonded
indebtedness and are therefore irretrievable. Compensation for this
irretrievability is reflected in the interest rendered. The estimated
cost of this proposed project is $6,126,549.
5. Land
During the lifetime of these facilities, land designated for
their use will in effect be unavailable for other uses. It is not
anticipated that these facilities will be abandoned; however, if they
are, then the land will be returned to its former condition and made
available for other uses. The return of the land to park use will
allow the proposed playground to expand into a community park. A por-
tion of the land used for the proposed project is now used for the
existing Northwest Treatment Plant. No additional land purchase will
be necessary.
B. ALTERNATIVES
Several alternatives have been considered from economic, social
and environmental viewpoints. The proposed project is considered to
be the best possible alternative for meeting the objectives outlined
in Section II.
131
-------
CHAPTER X: COMMENTS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A, SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21 JUNE 1973, CONCERNING
PROPOSED NORTHWEST WASTEWATER FACILITIES
B, NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MEDIA ACCOUNTS
C, REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
D, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
-------
X. COMMENTS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21 JUNE 1973, CONCERNING PROPOSED
NORTHWEST WASTEWATER 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 Chambers9:00 a.m., 21 June 1973, including
the expansion of the Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WPC-TEX-1020).
Plans for these projects had already been prepared and applications
sent to the Environmental Protection Agency requesting federal
participation in the amount of 75 percent of costs for each of the
six projects. The consensus 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 service area property owners objected to paying ad valorem taxes
while receiving inadequate sanitary sewer service. Questions were
raised about the need for depending on federal funding when the city
had already sold sanitary sewer bonds for extending sewer lines and
making improvements to treatment and disposal facilities.
132
-------
B. NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MEDIA ACCOUNTS
Samples of press coverage on wastewater treatment problems
in Houston, including those to be affected by the implementation
of the proposed project are included in Appendix N.
C. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
project prepared in July, 1974, was distributed in September, 1974,
for comments and review by 25 agencies, 23 state agencies, and
46 local agencies and individuals including the representatives
from the Houston area in the U. S. Congress and the State of
Texas Legislature. The comments received from these agencies are
enclosed following this chapter. Comments made or questions
raised are answered following this section (Section D).
A public hearing was held on the proposed project by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, on November 18,
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 enclosed in Appendix 0.
133
-------
D. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES;
Of the agencies and individuals who responded to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement by returning formal
responses, only four agencies made comments which call for
additional clarification. The rest of the agencies had no
comments to offer and were in complete agreement with the
Draft. The comments sent by the three agencies are discussed
below. EPA's response to each comment is made separately.
1) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Office of the Secretary
Washington, D.C. 20201
COMMENTS: The comments made by this agency are primarily
concerned with the proposed plant's effluent quality and
its possible impact on public health. Specifically, the
comments focused on (i) the type of industries served by
the Northwest project, the possible chemicals they dis-
charge in the city system; (ii) possible formation of toxic
chemicals as the result of the chlorination of effluent
prior to its discharge into Cole Creek; (iii) the potential
of the effluent entering the food chain through aquatic
species affecting public health; and (iv) the construction
impact of the project on the safety of the children attend-
ing school.
RESPONSE; (i) The types of industrial activities added to
Houston's industrial base during the 1960 decade have been
discussed in the Draft in page 49. These activities oriented
to petrochemical and chemical production, aerospace industry
and medical research are virtually all located in South and
Southeast Houston in and around the Houston Ship Channel
134
-------
Industrial District. Reference is made to Figure 111-21,
Citywide Development Plan which shows the distribution of
existing and proposed industrial areas in the city- This
figure further shows that the Northwest Section of the city
is generally free of industrial development. There are no
existing or planned industrial parks in the service area of
the Northwest Plant. The small scale, scattered industrial
activities in Northwest are predominantly light manufacturing
and warehousing oriented which do not use or produce chemicals
from which strong industrial wastes are generated. This is
indicative of the relatively good quality effluent currently
produced from the Northwest Plant with BOD,, and TSS values
of 7mg/l and 24mg/l, respectively. See Table II-l, page 7.
Further reference is made to page 70 which discuses the
City of Houston's statutory policy as defined in the Code of
Ordinance imposing control on the quantity and quality of
industrial wastes which could be discharged into the city's
sanitary system. Prohibition of certain types of harmful
discharges into the system by industrial users has resulted
in most industries undertaking a pre-treatment process of their
own before such wastes are discharged in the sanitary system.
These measures are being taken to produce better effluent
quality at the plant site to improve public health.
135
-------
(ii) On the question of possible formation of toxic
chemicals as a result of effluent chlorination, this may be
a potential public health problem for a large treatment plant.
For a facility the size proposed for the Northwest project
(12mgd), the possibility of public health problems is remote.
The EPA study team fails to see how the service area residents
can be affected by the use of hypochlorite solution generated
at the plant site for effluent purification prior to its dis-
charge into Cole Creek. The nearest residence is 1000 feet
from the plant site across Cole Creek. The only possibility
that exists in this regard is the effect on the plant site
employees. But the City of Houston has successfully applied
this method for the past 23 years for 16 other treatment plants
in the city. Besides, the on-site chlorine production from
sodium hypochlorite is considered to be a good program. The
program has a great merit and the on-site chlorine production
should be applied to other plants in the city.
(iii) On the effect of effluent quality on aquatic species
with potential for concentrating chemicals and thereby trans-
mitting them to humans, reference is made to pages 108 (Effects
on Aquatic Life, and Effects of Chlorine Residual on Aquatic
Life) and K-7 through K-ll of Appendix K. The predicted effluent
quality with BOD5 and TSS values of 6.6 and 6.0 mg/1 would
136
-------
have a beneficial impact on both the quality of receiving
waters and the aquatic biota, and would not contribute to
the concentration of chemicals by any aquatic species. The
effect of chlorine residual on aquatic life is very insigni-
ficant since chlorine is short-lived in the natural water
system.
The projected effluent quality will significantly increase
the dissolved oxygen in the waters of Cole Creek and White
Oak Bayou. While the data on the types of aquatic species
with potential for concentrating chemicals are not available
either for Cole Creek or White Oak Bayou, it is not believed
that these streams have significant aquatic population to
serve as a resource for fish production. White Oak Bayou is
concrete-lined from below its confluance with Cole Creek and
cannot have any significant aquatic population.
(iv) The project construction will have not effect on
the traffic hazards for the area since the project site is
well isolated from the areas of residential and commercial
activity. The project construction will be confined within
the plant site and will not interfere with the activities
outside. The Smith School, which is referred to as being
affected by construction activity on the project site, is
approximately 4000 feet from the plant site, far beyond the
walking distances. The safety problem for the school children
as a possible adverse effect of the project construction is
unfounded.
137
-------
2) DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Regional Office
Dallas, TX 75202
COMMENTS: HUD does not oppose the proposed facility. It
however makes some comments which are summarized as
follow: (i) the identification of pollutant concentra-
tions from projected traffic volume as a secondary impact
of the project and their comparison against the allowable
limits of air quality in Houston; (ii) a July 1974 study
by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department concluded
that the secondary treatment plants are inadequate for
the Houston-Galveston area; (iii) identification of
impact of the effluent on aquatic food-systems; and
(iv) EPA's apparent support for Houston's refusal to
undertake a public land use management controls system
(zoning).
RESPONSE: (i) The impact of 130,000 trips per day generated
from the service area of the Northwest Plant on ambient air
quality has been identified. Reference is made to Appendix
L, Section H, Impact of Urbanization on Ambient Air Quality,
pages L-7 through L-12. Page L-ll shows the pollutant concen-
tration of CO, HC, and NOX as being 3,200 tons/year, 340 tons/year,
and 219 tons/year, respectively. Unfortunately this impact is
not comparable against the NAAQS since data on existing ambient
air quality for Northwest Houston are not available from the
Houston Air Control Program office or from any other sources.
(ii) The EPA study team believes that secondary treatment
for the Northwest Plant will be adequate and would meet the
stringent effluent requirements should they be imposed in
the future. An extensive analysis has been made in Appendix
K (see page K-ll, Appendix K) to determine the plant's effluent
138
-------
quality in terms of BOD,- and TSS. These values have been
calculated to be 6.2mg/l and 6.0mg/l, respectively, which
would meet the requirement of stringent effluent criteria
anticipated after 1979. There are treatment plants in Houston
which would require tertiary treatment in order to satisfy
the effluent requirements by 1979 but Northwest treatment
plant would not be one of those. However, a statement has
been added in this final EIS to the effect that that option
should be kept open by the City of Houston to place tertiary
treatment for the Northwest plant should that be necessary.
Reference is made to the footnote in page 94 in relation to
Section C, Plant -Performance.
(iii) It is believed that adequate response has been
made to this comment in a preceding section. See the second
and third paragraphs, page 137.
(iv) HUD's comment that EPA seems to be taking a stand
against public land use controls in Houston is unfounded.
What was meant in the Draft EIS for the Northwest Treatment
Plant was that many cities have exercised zoning as a land
use control, yet they have not succeeded well in developing
quality environment. Houston has done equally well without
zoning. The EPA study team believes that zoning is an artificial
land use control system, often manipulated to protect and
139
-------
enhance parochial interests of a few, ignoring the larger
interest of the public at-large. Zoning as a tool raises
land values sometimes without regard for the market and often
without environmental considerations. The City of Houston
has been attempting to control land use through intra-structure
policies such as sewer and transportation systems. Reference
is made to Appendix N, Newspaper Accounts, offering evidence
that development in Houston would be contingent upon the
ability of the sewer system to support land use activities.
3) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
Temple, TX 76501
COMMENTS; Comments from this agency are essentially a two-part
suggestion on the Soils Section in Chapter III: Social
and Environmental Setting: (i) a few minor revisions,
primarily editorial in nature, in the description of soil
characteristics for the service area; and (ii) deletion
of Appendix E on the description of soils from the 1922
soil survey in favor of placing new data on soil conditions
available from the 1974 Soil Survey for Harris County.
RESPONSE; (i) Comments by this agency were constructive which
have been duly reflected in this Final EIS. Reference is made
to paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of page 23 . Corresponding changes
have been made in Figure III-3, page 24.
(ii) Appendix E has been deleted. Appendix F, "Character-
istics of Soil Series in Northwest Harris County," has been
expanded to include the now available data on 1974 soil series
furnished by this agency. This data was not available at the
time the Draft EIS was prepared.
140
-------
4) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Washington, D. C. 20240
COMMENTS; Major comments from the Department of the Interior are
are the following: (i) Need for including in the Final EIS a more
comprehensive, quantified land use analysis, projections and plan
development particularly with regard to the parks and recreation
facilities for the service area; (ii) need for including a list of
rare and endangered species in the Final EIS report; (iii) updating
the list of places which have been added to the National Register
of Historic Places during 1974; and (iv) the need to make a statement
whether the project site expansion and operation will be affected by
the subsidence problem which presently characterizes the Houston
area.
RESPONSE: (i) The EIS team for the Northwest Treatment Plant does
not agree with the comments that the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement does not adequately cover the land use analysis and fore-
casts for the project area. Reference is made to Figures 111-19 and
111-20, which indicate the existing and projected land use distribu-
tion for the service taken from the work of Binkley and Holms, Inc.
(the consultant engaged by the City of Houston for the Northwest
Project). The Houston quantified land use data is shown in
Table III-5.
The proposed park and playground facilities shown as a part of
the plant expansion is not a proposal by the City of Houston, rather
it has been suggested by the EIS team out of its own initiative.
It is a proposal which is feasible. Land is available to accommodate
such a facility adjacent to the plant site, and residential develop-
ments within reasonable distances make such a facility desirable.
Reference is made to the description of Site Plan given in Pages 15
and 16 of this report. Instances of an EIS team's boldness to pro-
pose such a facility in absence of any initiative from a city are
rare and indicative of this EIS team's objective appraisal of the
need for additional parks and recreational facilities for the service
area population.
-------
The Department of the Interior has entirely missed a section that
deals with land use projection as a part of the secondary impact ana-
lysis for the service area. This is covered in Appendix L, Secondary
Impact of the Proposed Action, Page L-l through Page L-7. Forecas-
ting open space is adequately covered in Pages L-5 and L-6 and in so
reflected in the table provided in Page L-7 at the end of that
Appendix which states that 430 acres of additional land will be needed
to support the parks and recreation need of the 1990 population of
the service area.
(ii) Its comment on the need to include a list of rare and
endangered species in the greater Houston area is appropriate. The
project's service area does not have any rare and endangered species.
However, according to the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife,
endangered species which might be in the region are Attwater's
prairie chicken, red wolf, peregrine falcon, Eskimo cuslew, bald
eagle, ocelot, American alligator and Houston toad. This has been
included in the final EIS. Reference is made to Page 42 of this
Final EIS.
(iii) On the comment on the project area's relationship with
the subsidence problem, the plant site and its immediate vicinity is
not subject to any existing or potential surface subsidence problem.
However, the sludge line which would transport sludge from the pro-
posed project site to the Northeast Multi-Regional Sludge Treatment
Plant, would cross a fault-line (reported by Mr. Martin Sheet - a
local geologist and patroleum consultant) approximately 3 miles
southeast of the plant location. That sludge line has already been
constructed and is not a part of the construction grant funds
142
-------
requested by the City of Houston under the expansion program of the
Northeast Plant.
143
-------
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
JAMES E. PEAVY, M.D., M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH
FRATIS L. DUFF, M.D., Dr. P.n.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
jSiate JJqwrfanent of
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78756
Octebeii.,30, 1974
*^^ **"T ii TI"~
f \ \ .11,
^r v
BOARD OF HEALTH
HAMPTON C. ROBINSON, M.D., CHAIRMAN
ROBERT D. MORETON. M.O., VICE-CHAIRMAN
RO Y C E E. WISENBAKER, M.S. ENG., SECRETARY
N.L. BARKER JR., M.D.
CHARLESMAX COLE. M. O.
MICKIE G. HOLCOMB. D.O.
JOHN M. SMITH JR.. M.D.
W. KENNETH THURMOND. O. D. S.
JESS WAYNE WEST, R. PH.
RE:
City of Houston
Northwest Wastewater
Treatment Facility Site
WPC-Tex-1020
Mr. Arthur Busch
Environmental Protection Agen'
Region VI, 1600 Patterson,
Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
We appreciate receiving a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement for the
Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities to be installed by the City
of Houston. Members of our staff have reviewed the document and found that it
is in general agreement with the policies of the Texas State Department of Health.
Our recommendations and comments are also being transmitted to the Division of
Planning Coordination, Governor's Office, in keeping with usual review procedures.
Sincerely,
'W.frL ,
~ Herzik//Jr. ,'P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental and Consumer
Health Protection
DMC/slm
ccs: City of Houston
ATTN: E. B. Cape, P.E., Director
Department of Public Works
Texas Water Quality Board
Region VIII
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GALVESTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1 229
GALVESTON, TEXAS 77550
SWGED-E
6 November 1974
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 7 October 1974,
transmitting for our review and comments a draft environ-
mental statement for the City of Houston's Northwest Waste-
water Treatment Facility, WPC-TEX-1020, prepared by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The project will have beneficial effects on the water
quality in White Oak Bayou and the lower reach of Cole
Creek, and it does not appear to affect any present or pro-
posed activities of the Galveston District, Corps of Engi-
neers. The statement appears to adequately present the
environmental effects of the project.
Sincerely yours,
W.
<' 11 1974
6MW
-------
TEXAS FOREST SERVICE
File-
5.7
Cot£e.ge. Station, TexoA 77*43
October 28, 7974
M/L. B^cce H.
Planning Coordination
P. 0. Box 1242S
Capitot Station
Austin, Texas 7X77?
I have. youA tsjUtvA o{ Octob&i 23nd le the. Viafit EnviAonmzntal.
Impact Statement fan. tke. City oft Hotuton, WPC-T o^/cce ha* no conf>t/w.ctive. comment to ofi&eA on tke.
99 and 113 C.OV&L adaquateJlLy the. meoiuA&s ne.ceAAOAy to
piote.ct cove/t vegetation and tA.e.eA during tka c.oni> traction
ofi the. piojzct ai> weJUL a* leAtoiation o& the. bite, with
cove/i faULom.nQ c.om>t/w.ction ofi the. plant.
SlnceAeJiy,
Ma&on C. Cloud
Head, foieAt EnviAonrnznt Ve.pt.
MC//
cc:
-------
aiJ2a>i.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION SIX
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 761oa
819 Taylor Street
November 8, 1974-
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 the Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities
at the City of Houston.
We have no comments to make.
Sincerely yours,
. W. -White
Regional Administrator
>
C.
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
South*oit*rn Arwi, Stot» and Print* Forntry
Atlanta, Georgia 3O3O0
December 4, 1974
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson
L- Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: Draft EIS for Northwest Regional Waste
Treatment Facilities, City of Houston
0- 31374
Dear Mr. Busch:
We acknowledge receipt of the above named environmental impact
statement.
Our review discloses that impacts on forest lands and forest
resources are negligible. Therefore, we have no comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
environmental impact statement.
Sincerely,
Q><
PAUL E. BUFFAM
Area Environmental Coordinator
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGIONAL OFFICE
1114 COMMERCE STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 OFFICE OF
October 24, 1974 ^z~~~\'-*u£ REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Our Reference: EI# 1074-429
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency \
Region VI \^
1600 Patterson RE: Northwest Regional Wastewater
Dallas, Texas 75201 Treatment Facilities
City of Houston
Dear Mr. Busch: WPC-TEX-1020
Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the Environmental Impact
Statement for the abofe project proposal in accordance with Section
102(2) (C) of P. L. 91-190, and the Council on Environmental Quality
Guidelines of April 23, 1971.
Environmental health program responsibilities and standards of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare include those vested with
the United States Public Health Service and the Facilities Engineering
and Construction Agency. The U. S. Public Health Service has those
programs of the Federal Food and Drug Administration, which include
the National Institute of Occupalional Safety and Health and the Bureau
of Community Environmental Management ^housing, injury control, recre-
ational health and insect and rodent control),.
Accordingly, our review of the Draft Environmental Statement for the
project discerns no adverse health effects that might be of signifi-
cance where our program responsibilities and standards pertain,
provided that appropriate guides are followed in concert with State,
County, and local environmental health laws and regulations.
We therefore have no objection to the authorization of this project
insofar as our interests and responsibilities are concerned.
Very truly yours,
William F. Crawfoi
Environmental Impact Coordinator
ORD El 1
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Reaction Review and Comments on Environmental Impact Statement for Projec.
Proposal:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Revicwed With Ob j cctions
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Reviev;ed With No Objections I
u To/22/74 1074-429
Agency/Bureau: DHEW/PHS
Project Proposal: Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities
City of Houston
Comments: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(f) of Public Law 91-190 we have
reviewed this project proposal and find no indication of adverse environ--
.mentul health impact where our program .standards and' responsibilities are
concerned.
However, I would suggest consideration be given to possible traffic
hazards which may exist in the three public 'school areas near the
construction site due to increased early morning traffic on streets
by or near these schools, 1 would recommend travel routes be established
for utilization of construction employees which will-provide minimum
congestion and dancer to children going to school in the inonrinrs
I also notice one school (Smith School) is very near the project area.
Hill' the noise of construct/ion become a problem with this school? Perhaps
the Department of Education should determine size of expected labor force
and this information could be used as a base for evaluation of the
potential environmental' impact upon school'population.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201
DEC 6 1974
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Agency
Dear Mr. Busch
We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement
concerning the City of Houston's Northwest Wastewater
Treatment Facility, WPC-TEX-1020. On the basis of our
review, we have the following comments:
1. The statement indicates (p. 49) that industrial
expansion in Houston has been considerable in
the areas of manufacturing, petrochemical and
chemical production, aerospace industry, and
medical research: 118 new industrial plants
between 1960-1969, and 272 major expansions of
existing plants. However, we found no indication
of the nature of the industrial plants whose
waste will be treated by the Northwest Wastewater
Treatment Facility and the chemicals which they
dis charge.
61
of formation of
the chlorination
should also be
The figures on pp. 13, 17, 20, 31, 58, 60
and 85 show present and proposed urban and
industrial relationships. Since EPA has recently
been considering the possibility
toxic chemicals as the result of
step in water purification, this
considered in this proposed project. This plant
plans to generate C12 from NaOCl on-site and use
the Cl? for disinfection of the water at the
Northwest facility prior to release into Cole Creek
and the White Oak Bayou. Sludge would be conveyed
to the Northside Plant for further treatment and
thus, this part would not be treated by the
chlorination step.
-------
Page 2 - Mr- Busch
3. Recent findings have identified chlorinated
Hydrocarbons and other potential hazardous
substances in water as a potential result of
chlorination. It may be wise to identify the
compounds found in the sludge, and hypothesize
the chemicals which may be formed as a result
of chlorination.
4. Despite the fact that the water is apparently
not going to be used as a source of drinking water,
one still must identify the potential of the
effluent entering the food chain. Some aquatic
species do have a potential for concentrating
chemicals and thereby transmitting them back to
humans. It is noted that Aldrin; DDD; DDE; DDT;
Dieldrin; Endrin; Heptachlor; Lindane; Chlordane;
Dioxane; Organo phosphurous; 2,4,D; 2,4,5,T ;
Silvex; Heavy metals; etc., have been found in
the San Jacinto River Basin. These chemicals are a
health hazard, for instance, 2,4,-D may be
associated with the presence of dioxones. From the
standpoint of Public Health and Safety, it would
be cogent that positive steps be taken to prevent
their entry into the food chain, and to assure
that there will be no exposure to humans.
5. We suggest that consideration be given to the
possible traffic hazards which may exist in the
three public school areas located near the construction
site. We recommend travel routes be established
for utilization of construction employees' which will
provide minimum congestion and danger to children
attending school.
Also, will construction noise have an adverse
impact on the Smith School which is located very
near the project area? The size of the expected
labor force should be determined and evaluated for
the potential environmental impact upon school
populations.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sincerely,
\»^-i-i
Charles Custard
Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL OFFICE
* HM * 1100 COMMERCE STREET
^Kta ***^ D'ALLAS, TEXAS 75202
December 2, 1974
REGION VI
/vO
Mr. Arthur W. Busch \-
Regional Administrator, Region VI \.. >:
United States Environmental Protection Agency ''
1600 Patterson ". , /
Dallas, Texas 75201 ' { ,... ^
Dear Mr. Busch:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Houston's Northwest
Wastewater Treatment Facility has been reviewed by environmental assessment
personnel in the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Dallas Area
Office. A summation of that Office's review comments on the subject Statement
follows:
1. Cross Reference to Incoming Inquiry
The proposed action is to expand the existing four-million gallons per
day Northwest Wastewater Treatment Facility in Houston to a twelve-million
gallons per day facility. The enlarged facility "will provide secondary
biological treatment using the contact stabilization made of the activated
sludge treatment process."
2. HUD Comment on the Statement
a. There should be more detailed discussion of this proposed project's
possible impacts on air quality. The expanded facility will generate
additional urban development which, in turn, will generate additional
automotive traffic with its accompanying pollutants. It would be
helpful, therefore, to include quantified data regarding the total
amount of automotive emissions that would result from the 130,000
trips per day generated. These totals should then be related to the
air quality standards established for the Houston-Galveston Area.
b. The Statement fails to discuss or set standards for thermal pollution
of waterways by the expanded plant's effluent.
c. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in its report, A Regional
Environmental Analysis of the Houston-Calveston Region, July, 1974,
indicates that secondary treatment plans are inadequate for the
Houston Area and states that "Tertiary treatment should be required
of all new residential developments." Yet the proposed facility
would provide only secondary treatment.
AREA OFFICES
DALLAS. TEXAS-LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS-NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA-OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA -SAM ANTONIO, TEXAS
Insuring Offices
Albuquerque, New Mexico Fort Worth, Texas Houston, Texas Lubbock, Texas Shreveport, Louisiana Tulsa, Oklahoma
-------
d. The statement should discuss the impact of the facility's effluent
on aquatic food-systems and the impact of excess nutrients on
estuarial waters and marine life.
e. It is felt to be unfortunate that EPA in this Statement appears to be
taking a stand against the need for public land use management controls
as evidenced by the fact that only Urban Dynamics of Non-Zoning by
J. W. Santamaria is quoted in regard to this area of concern.
3. HUD Reservation about the Proposal
HUD does not oppose the proposed facility. Rather, HUD is concerned that
the facility is proposed to provide only secondary rather than tertiary
treatment.
Sincerely,
>,J , /-.
David W. Baker
Environmental Clearance Officer
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
RcV£mber 22, 1974
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 Northwest Wastewater Treatment Facility, WPC-TEX-1020.
We offer the following suggestions for section IIIA-3:
1. Page 23, First Paragraph
The last two sentences should read:
"It shows the four soil series that occur in the
service area of the proposed project. Soil series
descriptions and interpretations for these four
series are presented in Appendix F."
Urban should be deleted from the legend in figure III-3 and
Appendix F because it is not a soil series but only indicates
disturbances of the soil by development. Also, we are en-
closing series descriptions and interpretations for the four
soils series. Appendix F would contain more factual informa-
tion if this data were summarized for each soil series. The
title for Appendix F would become, "Characteristics of Soil
Series in Northwest Harris County."
2. Page 23, Second Paragraph
It is difficult to relate information in this paragraph to
the proposed project. What are the limits of the Houston area
and the area south of Buffalo Bayou? If the purpose of this
paragraph is background information, you may want to use Harris
County as the evaluation unit. The second sentence of this
paragraph should read:
"Clay types predominate in the area south of
Buffalo Bayou making the soils in this area dark,
blocky, and hard when dry except for a thin
granular surface layer a few inches thick and very
high in clay content."
-------
Arthur W. Busch - 2 -
The third sentence should read:
"... the soils tend to have a grayish, loamy
surface with either blocky, clayey, very slowly
permeable subsoils or loamy, moderately permeable
subsoils."
The fourth sentence should read:
". . . deep grayish alluvial soils, some being
mottled with other colors, are deposited in
narrow flood plains with timber immediately
adjacent to the watercourse."
3. Pages 23 and 24, Third Paragraph
This paragraph could be improved if information on texture,
color, permeability, problems, etc. is abstracted from the
enclosed soil series descriptions. A statement about dominant
vegetative species found in the service area would be mean-
ingful. The meaning of the fourth sentence is unclear.
Septic tanks function poorly in most of the service area due
to flat topography, perched water table and slow permeability.
This condition is not confined to the small areas of alluvial
soil along the streams. In the fifth sentence, correct the
spelling of montmorillonitic. Also insert "high" before
plasticity and shrink-swell .
4. One of the primary soil problems in this area is poor natural
drainage of the loamy soils. The only soil series in the
service area of the project which has high shrink-swell potential
is the Aris and this occurs in the subsoil.
5. lie believe the 1922 soils information should be deleted since
you have information from a more recent survey.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft and make appropriate
comments .
Sincerely,
Edward E. Thomas
State Conservationist
Enclosure
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:
BGS
ER-74A294
Dear Mr. Busch:
This Department has received and reviewed the draft environmental
statement for Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
City of Houston, Texas, WPC-Tex-1020. The upgrading of wastewater
treatment facilities will be a positive step in improving regional
water quality through the reduction of overloading and bypassing,
both of which are prevalent problems in Houston's wastewater treat-
ment system. We offer the following Garments to further improve the
environmental statement.
Land Use
In general, we do not believe that the draft statement adequately
addresses the concerns of this Department with regard to land use.
We suggest that the final statement include a detailed, quantified
discussion of existing and planned recreation facilities in the area
and the proposed project's impact thereon.
It is indicated on page 103, "The park and playground facility incor-
porated in the site plan will have a beneficial impact on the
surrounding area ..." However, figure II-4, "Site Plan for the
Northwest Region Plant," depicts only a "possible playground."
Clarification is needed as to the city's specific plans relative
to park and open-space development and their timiiig.
Very little difference is noted in green color areas, i.e., open
space, between figure 111-19, "Existing Land Use," and figure 111-20,
"Projected Land Use." This would indicate that few park and open-
space developments are being planned to satisfy future growth and
development. A table should be provided depicting projected land-use
distribution for the service area.
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Dallas, Texas
It is stated on page 59, "The area in question should become a low den-
sity residential area by 1990." On page 118 it is stated, "The low
density character of the area is expected to persist." However, on
page 62, a somewhat different assumption is made: "The transit
system will have a far-reaching impact on the southeast section of
the service areas . . . High-density, concentrated development
will inevitably take place ..." Clarification is needed as to
the projected population density of the area before any accurate
planning assessments for land use can be projected.
On page 111 the report states, "Depending on the goals and policies
of the City of Houston, the impact of the proposed project on the
parks and open space development could be highly beneficial." A more
definite statement as to the commitment for parks and open space by
the city of Houston is necessary to adequately assess overall
environmental impacts.
Biological Environment
We find that the statement generally represents an adequate assessment
of the effects of the project on fish and wildlife.
The section entitled "Botanical" (p. 41) covers, in general terms,
botanical aspects of the project area. A more specific discussion
of plants within the project area, including rare or endangered
species, could be included in this section. The Rare Plant Study
Center of the University of Texas in Austin has released a listing
of "Rare and Endangered Plants Native to Texas." Four species found
within Harris County are listed. We suggest a study be conducted to
determine if any rare or endangered plant species will be affected by
the project and the results of the study should be included in the
statement.
"Wildlife Habitats," page 42, describes the mammal species found in
the project area rather than their habitat. We suggest that a
separate section on mammals would further strengthen the "Biological
Element" section of the impact statement.
A discussion of the Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis), listed as an en-
dangered species, and the project's impact upon its future existence
would be appropriate on page 42, under "Aquatic Fauna."
A section on national parks, historical areas, and national or State
game preserves or refuges could be appropriately included in this
section.
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Buschf Dallas, Texas
Figure III-6, page 28, would be enhanced by inclusion of information
pertinent to each well shown. If this information is not
immediately available, we suggest omission of the figure. Figures
111-17 and 111-18 are of little value to the reader without pertinent
data such as tables and boundary indications and we suggest inclusion
of such information on the figures.
Historical and Cultural Environment
The proposed wastewater facilities will not adversely affect any
existing or proposed unit of the National Park System, nor any site
eligible for registration as a National Historic, Natural, or
Environmental Education Landmark. However, with reference to page 48,
"Archeological, Historical and Cultural Elements," we wish to note
that several additional properties in the Houston area were added to
the National Register of Historic Places during 1974. All are
apparently outside the service area of the project, as are the two
currently mentioned in the draft statement. The additional listings
are: Pillot Building, 106 Congress Street; Sweeney, Coombs and
Frederick Building, 301 Main Street; and U. S. Custom House, San
Jacinto at Rusk.
We agree with the second sentence, page 48, paragraph 3, that "Prior
to the construction of the project, the proposed site should be
subjected to a thorough archeological survey." We suggest information
obtained from such a survey be included in the final statement, which
should also include the name of the professional archeologist who
surveys the project area, as well as information on the number and
types of sites discovered, their significance, and the impact the
project will have on the sites. If there will be an adverse effect,
the final statement should detail the actions to be taken to
mitigate such effects.
Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action
We wish to stress that any improvements in water quality and beneficial
effects on aquatic biota will result from the increased assimi-
lative capacity of the streams and not the reduction of pollutants
per se, as stated in the first paragraph, page 108. Increasing the
plant's net discharge rate from 4.0 mgd to 12.0 mgd may reduce the
concentration of pollutants in the effluent, but the daily effluent
loading (Ibs/day) will undoubtedly increase, particularly with
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Dallas, Texas
increased urbanization. In addition, the impact statement would
benefit from a more critical evaluation of disinfection alternatives
presented in Appendix J. Chlorination does not provide complete
disinfection, nor is it more efficient than ozone in removing
waterborne contaninants.
Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided
Subsidence resulting from excessive withdrawal of ground water is
recognized as a major problem in the Houston area (p. 123) but no
indication is given as to whether the project area has suffered
subsidence or is an area where subsidence is likely. This informa-
tion and a discussion of any required safeguards should be included
in the final environmental statement.
Vfe thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document and
hope that our comments will assist in the preparation of the final
environmental impact statement.
Sincerely yours,
Secretary of the Interior
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
-------
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--Galveston-Houston Area, Bureau of
Economic Geology, Austin, 91 p., 9 maps.
Houston-Galveston Area Council, 1972, Regional Atlas of the Houston-
Galveston Area Council.
Proctor, C. F., and Hall, W. D., 1974, Environmental Geology of the
Greater Houston Area, Approaches to Environmental Geology,
Bureau of Economic Geology, Report of Investigation No. 81,
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 Harris 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 Seweracye,
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.
-------
Yumo.,:, Collie & Braden, Five-Year Capital Improvements Prex,-."-,!,i. a/^
Fiscal Study for the Sanitary Sewer System, City of HoTaLonT"" "
Parts I and II, 1974.
Houston-Galveston 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 Permit 10495, issued Ma^cri ^, IS-^o
for the Northwest Sewage Treatment Plant, Houston, 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, Harris County, Texas, 1972.
Office of Grants Coordinator, Region VI, Environmental Protection
Agency, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Construction of
Wastewater Facilities, jCity of Houston, 1974.
Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation, Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
Northwest Treatitient Plant, City of Houston, 1974.
Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc», Master Plan for Sanitary Sewerage,
Northwest Area, May, 1973.
Interview at Northwest Treatment Plant by Greg Eastin, August 7, 1974.
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.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
TEXT REFERENCE
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES (EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM)
APPENDIX A; PRELIMINARY INVENTORY OF CITY OF HOUSTON WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
SOURCE:
CITY OF HOUSTON WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WASTE LOAD REPORT TO THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY
BOARD (REVISED)
APRIL lr 1974
BY!
TURNER, COLLIE & BRADEN, INC,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
TABLE A-l
Preliminary Inventory
City of Houston
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Treatment Unit Components
Treatment Plant Name
Aim eda- Sims
Chadwick Manor
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
Fastex Oaks
Easthaven
Fontaine Place
FWSD No. 17
FWSD No. 23
FWSD No. 34
Gulf Meadows
Gulf Palms
Gulf way Terrace
njomestead
Intercontinental Airport
Longwoods
Mayfair Park
Northeast
Northside
Northwest
Red Gulley
Sagemont
Sherwood Oaks
Sims Bayou
Southeast (Existing)
1
Stated
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
1.00
0.08
1.55
0.75
0.05
0.40
0. 33
1. 50
5.00
1. 30
1.00
0. 20
0. 18
0.80
0.60
0.02
0.40
2.00
55.00
4.00
0.30
2.00
1.50
48.0
3.0
Primary
Treatment
XX X
'
XXX
XXX
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
XX X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XX X
X XX
Sedimen-
tation
tl en fa
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Trick.
Filters
n4 h
w W
X
X
X
X
X
X
Activ.
Sludge
pq cq pq
U TO <
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
Sludge
Handling
ffi
p Q pq H
< z, o o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Disinfection
U
-------
TABLE A--1 (Cont'd)
Preliminary Inveritory
City of Houston
"Wastewater Treatment Plants
Treatment Unit Components
Treatment Plant Name
j Southwest
i Turkey Creek
i VTCID No. 20
VrCID No. 32
VrCID No. 34
"VrCID No. 39
v'CID. No. 42
vrCID No. 44 --1 '
VrCID No. 44-3
V;CID No. 47
VrCID No, 51
V7CID No. 53
V.'CID No. 62
V.'CID No,. 73
V.'CID No. 81
V.'CID No. 82
VrCID No. 95
Vf'es t District
Stated
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
30.0
4.00
0.25
1.00
0. 16
0.60
0.25
0. 50
0. 10
3.00
5.00
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.25
0.05
0.20
14.0
Primary
Treatment
S PU U to w O U O
X
X X
X XX
xxx
X XX
X XX
X XX
xxx
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Sedimen-
tation
M W k
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Trick.
Filters
&! w
X
X
X X
X
X
' ~ --I- -
Activ.
Sludge
PQ pq PQ
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
XX
X X
X X
X X
X X
Sludge
Handling
Q Q pq H
< ^ Q O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Disinf ectio
^ U Q Q
S U U O
X X
XX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
xxx
X X
X'X
X X
X X
X X
X X
xxx
-------
Inventory Codes
Treatment: Code.
Flow Measurements Flow Meter FM
Flow Meter/Recordo* FR
Screening! Bar Screen BS
Mesh Screen MS
Comminutor/Shredder CO
Grit Removals Grit Channel/Chamber GC
Aerated Grit Chamber AG
Primary Clarification; PC
Clarification - Sedimentation:
Imhoff Tank IT
Secondary Clarifier SC
Final Clarifier FC
Trickling Filters;
Primary Trickling Filter PF
Secondary Trickling Filter SF
Activated Sludge Processes;
Contact Stabilization: Contact Basin CB
Stabilization Basin SB
Activated Sludge, General:
Aeration Basin AB
Sludge Handling;
Aerobic. Digester AD
Anaerobic Digester ND
Drying Beds DB
Othertdncineration, Vacuum OTH
Filtration)
Diaihf ection ; Mixing Chamber j^£
Contact Chamber rr
Chlorine Disinfection QJJ
Other Disinfection Process QD
A--3
-------
TEXT REFERENCE;
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES (PROPOSED TREATMENT
SYSTEM FOR HOUSTON)
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGIONAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSIONS
SOURCE:
CITY OF HOUSTON WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WASTE LOAD REPORT TO THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY
BOARD (REVISED)
APRIL 1, 1974
BY:
TURNER, COLLIE & BRADEN. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
TABLE B-l
C i L y c £ F i = u cm
Wa .vci-j. Manag-.-'itnt Plan
Expand,'o:\ Summary
(Revised 3-15-74)
WCO Number
Exist I
Capacity
Expansion Date
Nature of Expansion
Alnioda-Sims
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
Easthaven
,_ ^ j
Hone? -£ = ;!
] i t eiccr "ine^tsl -A- rport
Northes.- 1
North? : ~e
Northwest
Red C-u'.iey
Sag&r:".-.t
ShervooJ Oaks
Southeast
Turkey Creek
wci: -"
10495-03
10495-09
10495-10
10495-65
1 n4QS-9^
1 VJH- 7 _J _ _>
10495-77
10495-01
10495-76
10495-71
--
10495-79
10495-85
10495-50
iiv.q^- Vi
1.00 MGD
1.55 MGD
0.75 MGD
0.51 MGD
080 MPT)
« Ow 1 l\jLJ
0.33 MGD
2.00 MGD
55.00 MGD
4.00 MGD
0.30 MGD
2.00 MGD
1.50 MGD
3.00 MGD*
0.75 MGD
3.00- XGD
14 .00 >7(-n
1975-1977
1984-1985
1974-1976
1977-1979
1975-1977
1 Q77-1 Q7Q
± ? i /j.^/ ^
1974
1976-1978
1975-1977
1975-1977
1980-1981
1974-1975
1975-1976
1974-1975
1977-1978
1988
1977-1979
10?;,;
Expansion proposed to 20 MGD (2)
Expansion proposed to 40 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to 8 MGD (2)
Expansion proposed to 2 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to 2 MGD (3)
"Fvn £3 n Q ~i On T"iT*OT"»i~tc or? t~ r\ ^ Vff""Tl f~l ^
£j A. pctilD-LUll pi.w|JtJc>t-U LL* _J Ki\jL.* \ L )
Expansion under construction to C
Expansion proposed to 8 MGD (2)
Expansion proposed to 12 MGD (1)
Expansion under design to 155 MGD
Expansion under design to 12 MGD
Expansion proposed to 16.0 MGD
Expansion proposed to 0.90 MGD (T
Expansion proposed to 5 MGD (2)
(1)
Expansion proposed to 6 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to 2 MGD (intc
Expansion proposed to 6 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to 12 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to 6 MGD (1)
E-ynan?:'! on nrono.qpr! f- n f) vnn fT\
-------
TABLE B--1 (Cont'd)
City of Houston
Waste-water Management Plan
Expansion Summary
Plant v=r.e WCO Number Existing Capacity Expansion Date Nature of Expansion
FWSD 17
Gulf Xeadows
10495-15
10495-20
0.75 MGD
1.00 M3D
1975-1976
1977-1979
Expansion proposed to 1.50 (3)
Expansion proposed
i
to
*Enlarger-ent completed 1974.
(1) Preliminary engineering in progress
(2) Engineering plans Le 1.1.1°; prepared.
(3) Engineering plans complete.
(4) Ccr.struction in piogre?s.
-------
TABLE B-2 (Cont'd)
CITY OF HOUSTON
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DIVERSION SUMMARY
(REVISED 3-15-74)
Plant None
Chadwick I-!auor
East ex Oaks
Fontaine Place
F,;SD 34
Gulf Pair.?
Gulfway Terrace
Longwoods
Kayfair Park
Sims Bayou
VC ID 20
VC ID 32
WC ID 34
WC ID 39
Plant Flow Data
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
0.08
0.05
0.33
1.30
0.20
0.18
0.02
0.40
48.00
0.25
1.00
0.16
0.60
Existing
Load
(mgd)
0.04
0.20
0.28
0.67
0.36
0.28
0,08
0.28
38.00
0.20
0.86
0.30
0.50
r
Diversion Plant Receiving Diversion
Quantity
(mgd)
0.08
0.20
0.33
1.30
0.36
0.28
0.08
0.40
10.00
20.00
23.00
0.25
1.00
0.30
0.60
Date
Dec. 1976(2)
July 1977(2)
June 1975(4)
(?)
1976(3)
1976(3)
July 1977(2)
June 1977
1977
1985
1990
(2)
(2)
(2)
June 1975(4)
Plant Name
Southwest
Prop. GCWDA STP
FWSD 23
WCID 51
WCID 47
VIC ID 47
Norths id e
WCID 51
A line del -Sims (5)
Aimed?, Sims
Aliaed?,--Si;as
Northeast
Nor the?, st
Southwest
FWSD 23
Design Treatrue
Capacity (mgd)
30.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
90.00
5.00
2.0.00
20.00
40.00
2.00
2.00
30. CO
5.00
-------
TABLE B-2
CITY OF HOUSTON
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
DIVERSION SUMMARY
(continued)
Plant Name
cm 42
3 ID 44-1
:CID 44-3
3 ID 53
CID 62
C ID 73
-CID 81
KG ID 82
WCID 95
Plant Flow Data
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
0.25
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.25
0.05
0.20
Existing
Load
(mgd)
0.68
0.46
0.46
0.38
0.19
0.20
0.36
0.051
0.42
Diversion ant Receiving Diversion
Quantity
(mgd)
0.68
0.50
0.46
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.36
0.051
0.42
Date
June 1975(4)
(4)
(4)
June 1974(4)
June 1974(4)
(1)
June 1974(4)
(1)
Dec. 1976(2)
Plant Nan. -
FWSD 23
Almeda-Sims
Aimed a- Sims
Southeast
Southeast
Prop. Cedar Bayou
Southeast
Prop. Cedar Bayou
West District
Design Treatmen
Capacity (mgd)
5.00
20.00
20.00
3.00
3.00
0.26
3.00
0.26
14.00
\t time of diversion
1) Preliminary Engineering in Progress
2) Engineering Plans Being Prepared
'3) Engineering Plans Complete
-) Construction in Progress
:) Diversion from Brays Bayou Watershed
td
I
-------
TABLE B-3
City of Houston
Wastewater Management Plan
Abandonment Summary
{Revised 3-15-74)
" 1 ant Name
3hadwick Manor
Lastex Oaks
"ontaine Place
~*7SD 34
ulf Palms
airway Terrace
ungwoods
.ayfair Park
VCID 20
'CIO 32
CID 34
CID 39
-CID 42
-ID 44-1
CID 44-3
JCID 53
WCID 62
WCID 73
WCID 81
WCID 82
WCID 95
WCO No.
10495-07
10336-01
10495-14
10495-69
10495-21
10495-22
10495-29
10495-81
10495-41
10495-43
10495-44
10495-45
10495 -'i 6
10495-47
10495-55
10495-58
1C495--82
10495-83
1C495-77
10495-84
Existing Design
Capacity (mgd)
0.08
0.05
0.33
1.30
0.20
0.18
0.02
0.40
0.25
1. 00
0.16
0.60
0.25
0.50
0.10
0,50
0.40
0.30
0.25
0 . 05
O.ZO
Anticipated Flow at
Time of Abandonment
0.08
0.20
0.33
1.30
0.36
0.28
0.08
0.47
0.25
1.00
0.30
0.60
0.68
0.46
0.46
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.36
0.051
0.42
Anticipated Date of
Plant Abandonment
Dec. 1976 (2)
July 1977 (2)
June 1975 (4)
(2)
1976 (3)
1976 (3)
July 1977 (2)
June 1977
(2)
(2)
(2)
June 1975 (4)
June 1975 (4)
(4)
(4)
June 1974 (4)
June 1974 (4)
(1)
June 1974 (4)
(1)
Dec. 1976 (2)
Disposition of Flow
Diversion to Southwest STP
Diversion to GCWDA Plant
Diversion to FWSD 23
Diversion to WCID 51
Diversion to WCID 47
Diversion to WCID 47
Diversion to Northside
Diversion to WCID 51
Diversion to Northeast
Diversion to Northeast
Diversion to Southwest
Diversion to FWSD 23
Diversion to FWSD 23
Diversion to Almeda-Sims
Diversion to Almeda-Sims
Diversion to Southeast
Diversion to Southeast
Diversion to Prop. Cedar EC
Diversion to Southeast
Diversion to Prop. Cedar I
Diversion to West District
(1) Preliminary engineering in progress,
(2) Engineering plans being prepared.
'3) Engineering plans complete.
[4) Construction in progress.
-------
CITY OF HOUSTON
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
REGIONALIZATION SUMMARY
(Grouping of Sewage Treatment Plants under Sludge Disposal Plants)
(4-25-1974)
The sewage treatment districts within the city limits of Houston
are proposed to be grouped under the three sludge disposal plants
as follows:
1. North Side System;
(a) North Side Wastewater Treatment Plant
(b) Homestead Wastewater Treatment Plant
(c) District No. 23 Wastewater Treatment Plant
(d) District No. 17 Wastewater Treatment Plant
(e) Clinton Park Wastewater Treatment Plant
(f) Northeast Wastewater Treatment Plant
(g) Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant
(h) West District Wastewater Treatment Plant.
(i) Turkey Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
2. South Side System;
(a) Sims Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant
(b) District No. 47 Wastewater Treatment Plant
(c) East Haven Wastewater Treatment Plant
(d) Sagemont Wastewater Treatment Plant
(e) Southeast Wastewater Treatment Plant
(f) Gulf Meadows Wastewater Treatment Plant
(g) Chocolate Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant
3. Almeda-Sims System;
(a) Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant
(b) District No. 51 Wastewater Treatment Plant
(c) Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant
In approximately four to five years, a new major system will be formed
and the following districts will be grouped under this system:
4. Northwest System;
(a) Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant
(b) West District Wastewater Treatment Plant
(c) Turkey Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
(d) Western Portion of the North Side Wastewater Treatment
Plant area
B-6
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES (THE PROPOSED ACTION)
APPENDIX C: IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
NORTHWEST REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND THE GULF COAST WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
LEGAL CONTRACTS PLACED HERE HAVE BEEN RETYPED TO
CONFORM TO STANDARD SIZE
-------
GULF COAST WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY - CITY OF HOUSTON
SEWER SYSTEM CONTRACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS S
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,
COUNTY OF HARRIS
WHEREAS, the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority (the "Authority"} is
a conservation and reclamation district created by Article 7621d-2, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes, pursuant to Article 16, Section 59 of the Texas Constitution;
WHEREAS, the Authority is an agency of the State of Texas operating
on a multiple county and regional basis;
WHEREAS, the City of Houston (the "City") is a city duly organized and
existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas;
WHEREAS, the Authority is willing and abie, in order to carry out a
purpose for which it was created, to acquire by purchase and construction,
for the benefit of the City, parts of a sanitary sewer system to render sanitary
sewage service to make certain improvements and additions to existing sanitary
sewer facilities of the City (with such sanitary sewer system, together with
said improvements and additions, being herein-after sometimes collectively
called the "Project");
WHEREAS, the City has filed or will file applications for Federal grants
for the Project with the Texas Water Quality Board and the Environmental Protection
Agency of the United States of America and the City will seek such grants in
the maximum amount available of the estimated reasonable costs of constructing
the Project;
WHEREAS, the Texas Water Quality Board has granted and given the necessary
permits in connection with the Project;
WHEREAS, the City and the Authority are authorized to make and enter into
this Contract under Articles 7621d-2 and 11G9J, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes;
WHEREAS, the City and the Authority have determined that it is in the
best interest of the parties to issue the Authority's bonds from time,to time
to acquire funds with which to carry out the purposes of this Contract, and
that this Contract will facilitate the issuance of and provide security for
such bonds.
IT IS THEREFORE CONTRACTED AND AGREED BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY AND THE CITY
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. DEFINITIONS. The terms and expressions used in this Contract,
unless the context shows clearly otherwise, shall have meanings as follows:
(a) "Project" means collectively and consists of all of
the following described work bearing the City's.job numbers
C-l
-------
designated by the Sewer Division of the Department of Public
Works of the City and having Federal grant application numbers,
to-wit:
Federal Grant
Number Job Number Description
WPC-TEX-1009 3304-DT Enlargement of Al
Sims Sewage ireatment
Plant
WPC-TEX-1010 3372 Enlargement of North
Side Sludge Plant
WPC-TEX-1008 3249 Trunk Sewer for
Diversion of Gulf Pal,,.:
and Gulfwsy Terrace
Sewage Treatment Plants
WPC-TEX-1060 3292 and 3378 Almeda, Knight, Cam-
bridge Trunk Sewer and
Pump Station
WPC-TEX-1047 3348 Enlargement of East
Haven Sewage Treat-
ment Plant
WPC-TEX-1074 3304-DS Almeda-Sims Sewage
Sludge Disposal Pla.v*,
WPC-TEX-1020 3405 Northwest Sewage Treat-
ment Plant Enlargement
and Sanitary Sewer Line
in Acres Home area
(b) "Board" and "Board of Directors" means the Board of
Directors of the Authority.
(c) "Bond Resolution" means any resolution of the Board of
Directors authorizing the issuance of Bonds and providing for their
security and payment, as such resolution(s) may be amended from
time to time as therein permitted.
(d) "Bonds" means any bonds to be issued by the Authority
for acquiring, by purchase and construction, any Component of
the Project, whether in one or more series or issues, any completion
bonds, or any bonds issued to refund same.
(e) "Component" means any one or more of components of the
Project designated by a Federal grant number in the above definition
of Project.
Section 2. A OBLIGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE.
The Authority agrees to pay, and will pay, pursuant-to this Contract all of
the actual costs of acquiring, by purchase and construction, any Component or all of
C-2
-------
(g) This Contract shall be cumulative of and in addition to any ether
agreements heretofore or hereafter entered into by the parties hereto, and this
Contract shall not affect the rights, duties, or obligations of either party
hereto under any 6ther agreement unless such agreement specifically provides
that any of the rights, duties, or obligations contained in this Contract
are affected by such subsequent agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the City, acting under authority
of their respective governing bodies have caused this Contract to be duly
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original,
all as of the day of , 1973, which is the
date of this Contract.
GULF COAST WASTE DISPOSAL AUTHORITY
ATTEST :
By
Chairman, Board of Directors
Secretary, Board of Directors
(AUTHORITY'S SEAL)
ATTEST:
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS
By
Mayor
(CITY'S SEAL)
COUNTERSIGNED:
LEONEL J. CASTILLO, City Controller
By
City Controller
C-3
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES (THE PROPOSED ACTION)
APPENDIX D: PERMIT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD FOR
THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST REGIONAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
LEGAL CONTRACTS PLACED HERE HAVE BEEN RETYPED TO
CONFORM TO STANDARD SIZE
-------
PERMIT (Page 76 of 77. An Amendment
NO. 10495 adding Page 76 to Permit)
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
1108 Lavaca Street
Austin, Texas 78701
PERMIT to dispose of wastes under provision of
Article 7621d-l, Vernon's Civil Statutes
I. Name of Permittee
1. Name City of Houston (Northwest Sewage Treatment Plant)
2. Address 900 Brazos Street
3. City Houston, Texas
II. Type of Permit
Regular Amended xxx
III. Nature of Business Producing Waste
IV- General Description and Location of Waste Disposal System
Description; Contact stabilization process
Location; Located at 5422 Randon Road in Samuel McClelland Survey,
A-544, Harris County, Texas as shown on the map with the application.
V. Conditions of the Permit
1. Character, volume and disposal area(s) or point(s) or discharge
authorized under this Permit. The conditions on the reverse
side are a part of this Permit and apply for all purposes.
Character; Treated Municipal sewage effluent
Volume; Not to exceed an average of 2800 gallons per minute:
not to exceed 5600 gallons per minute; not to exceed an average
of 4,000,000 gallons per day.
NOT TO EXCEED
Monthly 24 Hr. Daily Individual
Item Average Composite Sample
B.O.D. 20 ppm 25 ppm 30 ppm
Total Suspended Solids 20 ppm 25 ppm 30 ppm
A Chlorine residual of not less than 1.0 ppm shall be maintained after
a 20 minute detention time.
Point of Discharge; At a point adjacent to the plant site that will abut
Cole Creek, thence to White Oak Bayou, thence to Buffalo Bayou,
thence to the Houston Ship Channel.
D-l
-------
2. Special Provisions
SEE ATTACHMENT
3. This permit becomes effective February 29, 1968 and
is valid until amended or revoked by the Board.
ISSUED this 1st day of March , 1968
(Signed)
Deputy Director
(Signed)
For the Board
Standard Provisions
(a) This permit is granted in accordance with the Texas Water
Pollution Control Act (Article 7621d of V.T.C.S.) and the Rules,
Regulations and Modes of Procedure adopted by the Board, and is
granted subject to the rules and regulations of the Board, the laws
of the State of Texas, and further orders of the Board issued in
accordance with said rules and regulations.
(b) In the event the permittee discharges wastes which exceed the
quantity or quality authorized by this Permit, the permittee shall
give immediate notice to the office of the Board.
(c) Acceptance of this permit constitutes an acknowledgement and
agreement that the permittee will comply with all the terms,
provisions, conditions, limitations and restrictions embodied in
this permit and with the rules, regulations, and orders of the Board.
Such agreement is a condition precedent to the granting of this Per-
mit.
(d) This permit cannot be transferred without prior notification to
the Board.
(e) This permit is issued pursuant to the terms of section 5 of Arti-
cle 7621d of V.T.C.S., which reads in part as follows:
"Upon receipt of such application, the Executive Secretary
of the Board is hereby authorized to, and he shall immedi-
ately, issue to such applicant a permit to continue the
existing discharge covered by such application until fur-
ther order of the Board. Thereafter, the permittee may be
required for good cause, from time to time, after public
hearing initiated by the Board, to conform to new or addi-
tional conditions and terms imposed by the Board....
D-2
-------
Such permit or amended permit shall never become a vested
right in the permittee, and it may be revoked for good
cause shown, after public hearing initiated by the Board,
in the event of the permittee's failure to comply with the
condition or conditions of such permit as issued or as
amended."
(f) The application pursuant to which this permit has been issued
is incorporated herein; provided, however, that in the event of a
conflict between the provisions of this permit and the application,
the provisions of the permit shall control.
(g) There may be substituted for the foregoing features of the plant
other mechanisms, equipment, or treatment methods on prior approval
of the State Health Department, provided such substitutions do not
result in a reduction of the efficiency and operating safety of the
plant nor result in the discharge of a lesser quality of effluent
than that authorized under the permit issued previously.
PARAGRAPH (e) ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY AS WRITTEN AND IS REPLACED BY THE
FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH (e):
(e) The permittee may be required, for good cause, from time to time,
after public hearing initiated by the Board, to conform to new or
additional conditions and terms imposed by the Board following such
hearing. Such permit or amended permit shall never become a vested
right in the permittee, and it may be revoked for good cause shown,
after public hearing initiated by the Board, in the event of the per-
mittee's failure to comply with the condition or conditions of such
permit as issued or as amended.
D-3
-------
Permit Mo. 10495 Attachment
City of Houston Effective Date 2-29-68
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Plant enlargement to be by stages. Plans and specifications for
each state shall be reviewed and approved by the State Health Depart-
ment prior to construction. The Permit shall issue in installments,
following final approval of each installment by the Board, as plans
and specifications for each successive stage are approved by the
State Health Department. Each successive installment will include
the pertinent portions of preceding installments, which preceding
installments shall be superseded and cancelled.
The maximum average volume of discharge as approved by the Board is
to be 40,000,000 gallons per day. Provided, however, that the autho-
rized volume of discharge at any time shall not exceed the volume re-
quirements shown above.
This permit is granted subject to the policy of the Board to encou-
rage the development of area-wide waste collection, treatment and
disposal systems. The Board reserves the right to amend this permit
in accordance with applicable procedural requirements to require the
system covered by this permit to be integrated into an area-wide sys-
tem, should such be developed; to require the delivery of the wastes
authorized to be collected in, treated by or discharged from said
system, to such area-wide system; or to amend this permit in any
other particular to effectuate the Board's policy. Such amendments
may be made when, in the judgment of the Board, the changes required
thereby are advisable for water quality control purposes and are fea-
sible on the basis of waste treatment technology, engineering, finan-
cial and related considerations existing at the time the changes are
required, exclusive of the loss of investment in or revenues from any
then existing or proposed waste collection, treatment or disposal sys-
tem.
These public sewage facilities shall be operated and maintained by a
sewage plant operator holding a valid certificate of competency issued
under the direction of the Texas State Health Department as required
by Section 20 (a) of Article 4477-1, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes.
D-4
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(NATURAL ENVIRONMENT)
APPENDIX F: CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL SERIES FOR
NORTHWEST HOUSTON. HARRIS COUNTY. 1974
BY:
DR, CHARLES F, DODGE, CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
AND
REBECCA DODGE
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
AUGUST, 1974
-------
SUMMARY OF SOILS TYPES CHARACTERISTICS FOR NORTHWEST HARRIS COUNTY
1. The Addicks (Ad) Soil Series is found in limited areas to
the south and west of the Houston Dome Stadium. Soil depth ranges up
to 78 inches for the "C" horizon. The Addicks is a poorly drained
upland soil with slopes of generally less than 1% and moderately
slow permeability. Soil pH ranges from 6.1 to 8.4, with a high
corrosivity to steel and a low corrosivity to concrete. The various
soil zones have a Plasticity Index that ranges from 5 to 27, with
a low to moderate Shrink-Swell potential0
2. The Aris (An) Soil Series; The Aris soils are poorly
drained and have a very slow permeability- The soil is dark grayish
brown, and is up to 78" thick. The PI ranges from 9 to 36 and the
shrink-swell potential is low to high. pH ranges from 5.1 to 7.3
and the soils have a high corrosivity to steel and a moderate
corrosivity to concrete.
3. Clodine (Cd) Soil Series; The soid depth
ranges from 60 to 100 inches for the "C" horizon. The Clodine is
a poorly drained, moderately permeable upland soil with slopes mainly
less than 1%. Soil pH ranges from 6.1 to 8.4, with a high corros-
ivity to steel and a low corrosivity to concrete., The various soil
zones have a Plasticity Index ranging from 4 to 20, with a low to
moderate Shrink-Swell potential.
4. The Gessner (Ge) Soil Series has a
limited extent in the services area, being restricted to the south-
F-l
-------
central part of Harris County near its common corner with Fort Bend
and Brazoria Counties. This soil extends to depths of 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 steel and low to concrete.
5. The Midland (Md) Soil Series is found in the area east and north
of the Dome Stadium. The soil is up to 60 inches thick. Slopes
range up to 1%; it is poorly drained and has very slow permeability.
The pH values range from 5.1 to 8.4, with depth, and cause a
corrosivity that is high to steel and low to concrete. With a
Plasticity Index of from 12 to 40, it has moderate to high Shrink-
Swell potential.
60 Nahatche Soil Series (Na): Soil depth ranges up to 83 inches
for the "C" horizon. The Nahatche is a poorly drained, moderately
permeable, bottomland soil, with slopes mainly less than 1% but
ranging up to about 2%. Soil pH ranges from 5.1 to 7.8, with a
moderate to high corrosivity to steel and a moderate corrosivity to
concrete. The various soil zones have a Plasticity Index ranging
from 11 to 25, with a moderate Shrink-Swell potential.
As will be noted from these brief soils descriptions, almost all
of the service area is covered by deep soils with high Shrink-Swell
potentials and moderate to high Plasticity Indexes0 Of all potential
land uses from the point of view of a sanitary facility or community
development, only a sewage lagoon rates slight in the problem class-
F-2
-------
ification. 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.
F-3
-------
Establ\sbed Series
Rev. CMT:FFW
5/73
GESSNER SERIES
The Gessner series is a member of the coarse-loamy, siliceous (see remarks), thermic family
of Typic Glossaqualfs. These loamy soils have dark grayish brown Al horizons and grayish brown
A2g horizons that tongue into dark gray upper Bg horizons that are slightly more clayey. The
B2tg horizons are light brownish gray loam in the upper part and light gray loam in the lower
part.
Typifying Pedon: Gessner loam - pasture.
(Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap -- 0-7" -- Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry;
few fine faint yellowish brown stains around root channels; weak fine granular
structure; hard, friable; many fine roots; common fine pores; common worm casts;
few fine soft ferromanganese masses; few fine pockets and vertical streaks of
uncoated fine sand grains; slightly acid; clear wavy boundary. (4 to 10 inches
thick)
A2g -- 7-16" -- Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) dry; common
fine faint brown stains mostly around root channels; weak fine granular structure;
hard, friable; few fine roots; many fine pores; common worm casts; few fine soft
ferromanganese masses; common crayfish krotovinas filled with concave stratas
of loam and uncoated fine sand; few pockets of Btg material; slightly acid;
clear irregular boundary. (4 to 20 inches thick)
Bg&Ag -- 16-34" -- Dark gray (10YR 4/1) loam, gray (10YR 5/1) dry; few fine faint mottles of
yel 1 owish brown and brown; weak -coarse prismatic parting to weak fine subangular
blocky structure; very hard, friable; common fine roots; few patchy clay films
on some surfaces of peds; common ferromanganese concretions 2 to 10 mm. in
diameter; prism faces surrounded with uncoated fine sand grains (1 cm. and less
in thickness); about 30 percent grayish brown (10YR 5/2) A2g material; few
tongues of silt loam and fine sand extend through this horizon; about 10 percent
crayfish krotovinas; krotovina walls are coated with a layer of dark gray clay
about 1 mm. thick; neutral; gradual irregular boundary. (12 to 30 inches thick)
B21tg -- 34-53" -- Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) loam, light gray (10YR 7/2) dry; few fine
faint mottles of yellowish brown; weak coarse prismatic parting to weak fine
subangular blocky structure; very hard, friable; few fine roots; few fine pores;
few patchy clay films; few soft ferromanganese masses; prism faces are covered
with uncoated fine sand; few tongues less than 2 cm. wide and tapered at the
bottom; about 8 percent crayfish krotovina filled with silt loam and uncoated
fine sand; krotovina walls are coated with dark grayish brown clay about 1 mm.
thick; bottoms of krotovinas have dark gray clay coatings about 10 mm. thick;
moderately alkaline; gradual irregular boundary. (12 to30 inches thick)
B22tg -- 53-84" -- Light gray (10YR 7/2) loam, white (10YR 8/2) dry; common medium distinct
mottles of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) and brownish yellow (10YR 6/8); weak
coarse prismatic parting to weak coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard;
firm; few fine roots; few fine pores; few patchy clay films; few fine soft
ferromanganese masses; gray (10YR 5/1) streaks mainly in root channels; uncoated
fine sand grains on prism faces; 15 percent crayfish krotovinas filled with silt
loam, loam, and fine sand; moderately alkaline.
Type Location: Harris County, Texas; in pasture 75 feet east of Interstate Highway 45, from a
point about 2 miles south of the intersection of Interstate Highway 45 and Farm Road I960, which
is about 18.6 miles north of downtown Houston.
Range in Characteristics: Solum thickness is more than 80 inches. The A horizon is loam or
horizon is dark gray (10YR 4/1), gray (10YR 5/1, 6/1), dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2), grayish
brown (10YR 5/2; 2.5Y 5/2), or light brownish gray (10YR 6/2; 2.5Y 6/2) with brown or yellowish
brown mottles in some pedons. The A2g horizon is gray (10YR 5/1, 6/1), light gray (10YR 7/1, 7/2-
UIM-ICl-FOIT WOH. , ,,74
F-4
-------
Gessner Series 2
2.5Y 7/2), grayish brown (10YR 5/2; 2.5Y 5/2), or light brownish gray (10YR 6/2; 2.5Y 6/2) with
brown or yellowish brown mottles in some pedons. The A2g horizon has crayfish krotovinas and
streaks of uncoated fine sand and silt lihat tongue into the Btg horizon. The tongues or streaks
of A2g material extend through the BgSAg horizon, and become tapered with depth. The bottoms
of crayfish krotovinas have gray or dark gray clay coatings 2 to 20 mm. in thickness. The Btg
horizon is dark gray (10YR VD, gray (10YR 5/1, 6/1), light gray (10YR 7/1, 7/2; 2.5Y 7/2),
grayish brown (10YR 5/2; 2.5Y 5/2), or'1ight brownish gray (10YR 6/2; 2.5Y 6/2). Mottles in^the
Btg horizon are few or common, fine to coarse, faint or distinct brown, strong brown, yellowish
brown, brownish yellow, or red. The Btg horizon is loam or fine sandy loam. The average texture
is 12 to 18 percent silicate clay and more than 15 percent sand coarser than very fine sand. It
is neutral through moderately alkaline. --'-' -
Competing Series and the!r Differentiae: These are the Alikchi, Basile, Bissonnet, Caddo,
Calhbun, Clodine, Fountain, Frost, Guyton, Mollville, Ozan, Sorter, Tuckerman, Waller, and
Wrightsville series. The Alikchi, Basile, Bissonnet, Caddo, Calhoun, Fountain, Frost, and
Guyton soils have fine-si 1 ty control sections. Sorter, Clodine, an:d Tuckerman soils lack tongues
of A2 material penetrating the Bt horizon. Mollville soils have ped coatings of dark grayish
brown or very dark grayish brown. Waller soils have more than 18 percent clay in the control
section. Ozan soils are medium to very strongly acid in the upper Bt horizons. Wrightsville
soils have fine textured control'sections.
Setting: Gessner soi'ls occupy1 nearly level to depresslbnal areas in the dulf Coast Prairies.
Slopes are mainly les's than 1 percent. Low sandier mounds are associated with these soils in
some areas. Gessner soils formed' in thick beds of unconsol idate'd loam, sandy clay loam, and clay
loam sediments of Pleistocene age1. The climate is humid with mean annual precipitation ranging
from 40 to 52 inches. The mean annual temperature ranges from 68° to 70° F. The Thornthwaite
annual P-E indices range from 62 to 82.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the Clodine, Sorter, Tuckerman, Waller, and Wrightsville
soils of the competing series'and the Acadia, Addicks, Boy, Crowley, Edna, Hockley, Katy, Kenney,
Segno, Splendora, antf Wockley'soils. The Acadia, Crowley, and Edna soils have fine textured
control sections. Addicks soils' have mollie epipedons and have more than 15 percent calcium
carbonate equivalent in the Bt Poorly drained; surface runoff is very Slow to ponded; moderately
permeable. The soil is saturated with water during the winter and spring and for short periods
following summer rains. on the surface for long periods-in-depressional areas.
Use and Vegetation: Used mai nl-yi for native pasture. Small areas are cultivated where they
flecur in fields used for rice production. A few: areas are used fdr grain sorghum production.
Native grasses are species of Andr&pogons, Paspalums-, and Panicums. Timbered areas consist
mostly ;of :han.dw6od,s:y such,as; water < and *wi Mow oak, sweetgum, a"s!h, a'nd p'ers'immon. Pine trees
have encroached on some'areas.' ,
Distribution and iExtent: Gulf Coast Prairies of Southeast Texas. The series is of moderate
extent... > , ' - ;-<-,". .:.!-,'... '! , . . :- - . :...
Series Established: Harris County, Texas; Ii973. ' '
Remarks: These soi Is were formerly class i fied in the Low Humic Gley gre'at soi 1 group The
mineralogy is changed to si1iceous(based on Lincoln Soil Survey Laboratory 'data on closely
associated soils. '
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U. S. A, '... ".'..''.. . -
F-5
-------
TX006S SGIL S (j R V E Y I«Tl *(!:: T«TICNJ
PLRAI'l: 150
TYPIC 6LCSJ1CUALFS, CGArtSE-LOANY, SILICEOUS, ThESHIC
THE GESSNih SERIES IS A POORLY DRAINtC SOIL. IT HAS A DARn. GRAYISI- iifiKN L0.'.<< SUi>F»Cr hurU'.N THAI TL .<
GRAYISH LC/1H SUBSCIL. IT OCCUPIES NEARLY LEVEL TO DEPRESSIONAL AxlAS. SLOPES ARt LFiS THA\ 1 Pcl-UNT.
lUEPTHl 1
I IN. )| USCA TEXTtKE 1
1 1
tSTIHATfcC SOIL EROPtKlItS IA1
(Ft
UNIFIED AASHO \>~.
....... llf
ACTIPtrtCENT LF KATLhltL LcSS
INI IfciN i* PaSSING SIIUF NU.
CTI 1 4 1 10 1 4J 1 200
0-16JL, FSL ICL-Hl. CL, SC, SM-SC A-4 0 ISE-1CC 55-100 Ui-95 45-75
16-84IL, FSL ICL-HL, CL A-*, A-6 0 I 58-100 55-100 a5--i5 51-70
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
DEPTH PEOEA61LITYI AVAILABL
(IN. II (IN/HRI IkATER CAPA
1 1 (IN/INI
0-161 0.6-2.0 .10-. 15
16-6*1 C. 6-2.0 .15-.2C
1
FLCCDING
FREQLFNCV 1 CLRATIQN
NCNE | ,
SJMTARY ti
SEPTIC TANK
ABSCRPUCN
FltLCS
SEkAGt
LAGCCNS
SANIT/!FY
LANDFILL
(TRENCH
SAMTAkY
LANCF ILL
OILY
COVER FGR
LANDFILL
SHALLCh
cXCAVATICNS
DUELLINGS
WITHCLT
BASEMENTS
DWELLINGS
HT>
BASEMENT:
SfALL
COHCERCUL
BUILDINGS
LCCAL
RGACS ANC
STREETS
SEVERE-MET
SEVERE-k-ET
SEVERE-kcT
SEVERE-kET
FCCR-ktT
E 1 SOIL 1 SALINITY I SHRINK- C OP.kuSl VI T Y (EKCbiCN |HI M,
LlTYIRcACTIONl (HMHCS/CM) | SktLL _ liajtl^iilLROL.
1 IPhl IPCTfcNTIAL STttL. . JCUhCFLTil IS 1 T IliRubP
I6.1-T.8 - LUW HIGH LCk - - 1 -
16.6-8.4 L'-ili UGH LGk I
1
1
1 . ,,,HI6H kATtR TABLE 1 CEKtNT.20. PAN 1 dttk^CK 1 MIH SI TjEKCt
.1 DEPTH | KIk.il |Mnk.TH5 |OFPTM|H4Rf
MONTHS | IFJI 1 1 lUSJ 1
ILICLIUIPLOS-
ILIMIT ITICI TV
1 IJNLtX
117-26 4-10
I2U-4C 5-20
1
1
IhYClPCTENT'Ll
.NtSSICEPTH IhflkCNtSSIINIT.ITGTALlGRPI FRuST
1 ll&i 1 MINI lllhl i 1 JCIIJN
| | D 2.01 APPARtNTINLiV HAY 1 - 1 1 >6C 1 1 1
CILITIES IBI «LU«Lt 1-STl-ftIAI IH1
II
1
1 RCACFILL
II
II
II
II
1 SAM)
II
||
II
II
II GxAVCL
II
II
II
II
1 TGPSi.Il
II
11
II
II
1 1 PCN.D
. . . _. II RtSERVUIR
1 1 AREA
CCMKLNITY CEkFlriPHFM IBI 1 1
SEVERE-kET 1
1 DIKES AND
II LEVEES
I -^^ II 1
S[VERt-hET
SEVERE-ktT
II EXCAVATED
1 PCNCS
1 UOUIFIFR FtO
II 1
1
1
II
II
SEVERE-hdT.CORROSIVt ||
II
II IRRIGATION
II
1 1
SEVERE-kET, LCW
STRENGTH | |
II TERRACF.S
1 ANC
II CIVERSICMS
1 1
II
E££JthAL_iiSIE8EB£riIlIlN_s 1 GRASSEO
II kATF.RkAYS
II
II
._. . , M
II
II
II
II
PCCR-hET,LCk STRtNtTh
luyrj _
UNSLITfO
UN5U1TEC
PCCR-kET
.ATtR HANAGtMtNT
SLIGI-T
MCOEfaTfc-UNSTuBLL FILL.PIPINn
MCUtl-JTC-UEtP TC MATtR
HET
..
UbT
MET
WcT
F-6
-------
h-Cti, -Tlurt (L) ..
C£NP J.F...AS
SEVERE-i-i-T
riCMC :1<16SI
1
1
tliSS-
CETfPMNING
FhASE
ALL
1LITY ANO_
HILITY
lbih£J_LBji-
_l
PREDICTED YIcLOS LnJE
RICE GRAIN
SUKGHLH
j_ lavu iaui
J.HifiE_iJ
CLASS- ICRC
CCTERrlMNG ISYH
PHASE J\
ALL I3W
1
JR. NIRR^ lIRft.
ICC 55
dCOtLANO SJj:
NAKAGEMENT PRCBLEMS
chLSION
1LIGHT
I
tijUIP.
L}M|T
SEVERE
i LAS^-LtltSHIK'G PHASE
CLASS-
UETERMMhG i
ALL
L
SPECIES
NCNL
SEEDLINGI hINOlH.
flCBI'lL.! UAiMB.
SEVERc SLIGHT
PLuYfcl-CUI>LS
1 _. _1 , ..
PJTHS
AND
#Nlj HAlTLjR^
BiHaGrtiSS 1 l^
|BE(
_uuej L
6.0
L - J
.__ J.F
1 PLANT 1
a
riLt kiiLlCi»Heti-O_OJ.J
PH_Vt" turiv C^TTLK
NliCAL-h. Ll\T
_IAJJB_1 I LfllLl 1 LLjlil
£ 1 IH k . Ui-IiUi j Ipt . 1 M ^K 1 IKK .
0 SG 1 2iJ 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
_liiCL_illiiii_
GTrMIAL PRCt-^CTJVIlY 1
1CPHTAKT TPtES ISIT^I TnEl-b
IIUL.Xl
1L FLa^T
SEV.-r,-. ILJBLi-LLY PINE dO ILC.BLLLLY fll-r
IH-TEP cAK bO ISLAi.1' HIilt
IShCtTGUP Su
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 11
to I hDQRf AK <;
IHTI SPECIi
II
.i IbU
UILULIFE HABITAT SLITABIIIT
POTENTIAL FDR HABITAT fmMtMS
.RAIN tlGRAiS C| blLD IHAHDHD 1 COM FtRISHBOEb
SEEC KfGUMf HERB. 1 IRfrS (PLANTS
POOR FAIR FAIR OOCO FAIK
1 1
__ . POTENTIAL NATIVE PLAWT
CC.MPCN PLANT NAME
ISKI TChGRASS
KAiTERK CAM
1 LITT It eiLt. STEf
1 INDKNGUSS
ICARPETC-FJSS
IPASPALL'H
|PANICU>
ICTHEfi PEFrf,MAL GRASSLIKES
IGTHEP TRfLS
(VIRGINIA ULURYE
MAI ClM/^f
PINtHILL HLlirSTEM
S«ITChC«NE
SPLCItS IHTJ. SPcC
1
1
1
1
I 1
1 PuTtMlAL AS HA
HFTLAI.CI SHALL Jh uPE.NL i. lnllui.Lj »r-
yiANT?i 1 ^AT^K NlLLLF H^Li-^f- Ifll
ILS .MI
o-ii4i_£ua.i
LLLE IxILDLc
GCUC GCljt, FAIF C-L^t. l>Clt C
1 1 1 1 1
COHyuMTy (RAlUiELAIlL uh EUBcST UHCLPSIDRY WLbETATlLNI Itl
PLANT 1 PFRCENTA(
SYMBOL IRANGELANC
(M SPNI
PAVI2
TRCA3
ANSC2
SCNL.2
AXAF
PASPA2
PANIC
PPGL
TTTT
ELVI3
PAAN
PAHE2
A NO I
ARGI
I_££XAN
PCTLM1AL PPCCLCTICN ILBS./AC. DRY MT ) :
fAVORudlE YfcABS
i\J6HAL YEARS
20
15
U
10
10
5
10
^SS£om'
ltl_J
1C
5
1C
15
15
10
5
9000 271>0
' eocc zocc
70UU i |5CC
1 1
L 1
_J
^
k-"Ait
A ESIIMATrS BASED LN ENGIftutRINu |LS| OATA Fhi ^ -<,.L.>^ i >
!i n
-------
Established Series
Rev. JDCiCMT
5/73
CLODINE SERIES
The Clodlne series Is member of the coarse-loamy, siliceous, thermic family of Typic
Ochraqualfs. These soils have dark gray loam A horizons and gray, light gray and light brownish
gray loam Btg horizons that are slightly acid to moderately alkaline.
Typifying Pedon: Clodlne loam - pasture.
(Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap -- 0-10" Dark gray (10YR VI) loam, gray (10YR 6/1) dry; weak coarse subangular
blocky structure and fine granular structure; hard, friable; many fine roots;
many fine pores; many wormcasts; few fine soft ferromanganese masses; neutral;
gradual smooth boundary. (7 to 20 Inches thick)
B21tg 10-24" -- Gray (10YR 5/1) loam, light gray (10YR 7/1) dry; weak medium subangular
blocky structure; very hard, friable; common fine roots; many fine pores; many
wormcasts; patchy clay films on faces of peds and on pore walls; many fine soft
ferromanganese masses; slightly acid; gradual wavy boundary. (8 to 20 inches
thick)
B22tg -- 24-35" " Gray (10YR 6/1) loam; moderate medium and fine subangular blocky and blocky
structure; very hard, friable; few fine pores; few wormcasts; patchy gray clay
films on peds; 10 percent by volume of indurated, pitted CaCO, concretions less
than 1 inch in size; few fine distinct brownish yellow mottles around CaCO,
concretions; many fine soft ferromanganese masses; moderately alkaline; gradual
Irregular boundary. (6 to 20 inches thick)
B23tg 35-60" Light gray (5Y 7/2) loam, moderate medium and fine blocky and subangular
blocky structure; very hard, friable; few fine pores; patchy gray clay films on
peds; 10 percent by volume of Indurated, pitted CaCO^ concretions less than 1 inch
in size; few fine distinct brownish yellow mottles around CaCO, concretions; many
fine soft ferromanganese masses; moderately alkaline; gradual irregular boundary.
(15 to 30 inches thick)
B3tg 60-85" Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) loam; weak medium and fine subangular blocky
and blocky structure; very hard, friable; few patchy clay fi1ms on peds; common,
indurated, pitted CaCO, concretions; many fine soft ferromanganese masses;
moderately alkaline; gradual irregular boundary. (15 to 35 inches thick)
Cg 85-105" -- Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay loam; massive; very hard, friable; many
medium and coarse soft masses of ferromanganese oxide; few lenses or pockets of
very pale brown (10YR 7/3) loamy fine sand; moderately alkaline.
Type Location: Fort Bend County, Texas; 1 mile north of Farm Road 1093 from a point 4.1 miles
west of CIodine, 1/2 mile north of ranch house, or 1/4 mile north of Buffalo Bayou.
Range in Characteristics: The solum ranges from 60 to 100 inches in thickness. The soil is non-
sallne to moderately saline. The A horizon is dark gray (IOYR A/1; 2.5Y 4/1; 5Y A/1), or gray
(10YR 5/1; 2.5Y 5/1, 6/1, 6/0; 5Y 5/1, 6/1). It is loam or fine sandy loam and is slightly acid
through mildly alkaline. The Btg is gray (10YR 5/1, 6/1; 2.5Y 5/1, 6/1, 6/0; 5Y 5/1, 6/1), or
light gray (10YR 7/1, 7/2; 2.5Y 7/0, 7/1, 7/2; 5Y 7/1, 7/2). Most pedons contain few to common,
fine to medium mottles of brown and yellow. Texture of the B2tg horizon is loam or fine sandy
loam containing 12 to 18 percent silicate clay, 20 to 45 percent silt, and more than 15 percent
sand coarser than very fine sand. Some part of the Btg horizon between 20 and 60 inches contains
2 to 15 percent by volume of indurated, pitted CaCO? concretions. The B21tg horizon ranges in
reaction from slightly acid through moderately alkaline, and the remainder of the Btg horizon
ranges neutral through moderately alkaline.
Competing Series and their Differentiae: These are the Adaton, Amagon, Fountain, Routon, Sorter,
Tlcnnor, Tuckerman, Waller and Yonges series. Adaton, Amagon, Fountain, Routon and Tichnor soils
are of a fine-silty family. Fountain and Waller soils have tongues of A2 material extending into
the Bt horizon. Sorter soils are medium to very strongly acid in the upper' Bt horizon. Tuckerman
soils are fine loamy and decrease in clay content in the lower Btg horizon and lack carbonate
concretions. Yonges soils have an abrupt boundary between the A and Bt horizons.
u. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. FORT WORTH. TEXAS
UIU.«CI-r«IT velTH Til. I IT,
F-8
-------
Clodine Series 2
Setting: Clodine soils are on broad nearly level coaktal prairies. Slopes are mainly less
than 1 percent. Clodine soils formed In thick loamy unconsolidated sediments of Pleistocene
age. The mean annual temperature ranges from about 6)° to 70° F.; mean annual precipitation
from kQ to 60 inches; and Thornthwalte annual P-E indices from 64 to 82.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the Waller soils of the competing series and the Bernard,
Edna, Katy and Lake Charles series. Bernard and Edna soils are of fine textured family. Katy
soils are not dominated by chromas 2 or less in the Bt horizon. Lake Charles soils are clayey
and have intersecting siickensides.
Drainage and Permeability: Poorly drained; very slow surface runoff; slow internal drainage;
moderate permeability. The soil is saturated for periods of 3 to 6 months during winter and
spring.
Use and Vegetation: Used mainly for native range and for growing rice. Native grasses are
mainly species of Andropogon, Paspalum, and Panlcum. Myrtle (My r lea cerifera) bushes are
common. Mixed pine and oak forests have encroached on some areas.
Distribution and Extent: Coast Prairie of Texas, mainly east of the Brazos River. The series
is extensive.
Series Established: Fort Bend County, Texas; 1956.
Remarks: This soil was formerly classified In the Low Humic Gley great soil group.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U. S. A.
F-9
-------
TX0025
SOIL SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS
MLRA(S): 153
JOC:CPT. 5-73
TYPIC OCHRAOLALFS. CCARSt-LGAMY, SILlCECUSt Tt-ERMIC
CLCCINE SERIES
THE CLODINF SLRIES IS A POORLY DRAINfcE, MUDERATELY PERHtABLL UPLAND SOIL. IT HAS 4 OARK GRAY LCAM SURFACE AND A GRAY
SLIGHTLY ACIC TO KOCERATELY ALKALINt CLAY LOAM SUBSOIL. SLCPLS 4R~ PMNLY L£SS THAN 1 PERCENT.
ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES IA1
IDEPTM I
HIM. II LSCfl TEXTLRE 1 UNIFIED
1 1
O-LGIL. FSL ICL-ML, CL
10-24IL. FSL ICL, ML, CL-ML
24-85IL. FSL ICL-ML, CL
1 1
1 1
1 iFf
1 AASHO l>
ACTI PERCENT uF MATERIAL LESS
i INI THAN' 3" PASSING SIEVE NO.
>CJ11 4 1 _LO 1 40 1 2QQ
|A-4, A-6 0 ISS-100 95-100 85-100 60-75
IA-6, A-4 0 150-100 88-1CC 80-90 6O-75
IA-6, A-4 0 ISO-100 88-100 85-95 60-80
1 1
1 1
_ 1 11
ILIQUIDIPLAS-
ILIMIT ITICITY
1 1 INDEX
118-30 4-15
125-40 5-20
120-40 5-20
1
1
1
DfcPTHlPERMEABILITYl AVAILABLE 1 SCIL 1 SALINITY 1 SHRINK- CORROSIVITY iFKCSIGNlHINC
(IN.)I (IN/HR) IWATtR CAPAC ITY 1 REACTION 1 IMMHCS/CMI 1 SHELL 1 FACTORS 1 EROC.
1 UN/INI 1 (PHI
O-1CI C. 6-2.0 .15-.2C 16.1-7.8
10-241 C. 6-2.0 .15-.2C 16.1-8.4
24-051 C.6-2.C .12-.2C 16.6-8.4
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
JPOTENTIAL SIEEL ICQNfBETCj K T lQROL.p
1-3 1 LOW UGH LOW - - 1 -
2-6 1 MODERATE HIGH LOW I
2-8 1 MODERATE HIGH LOW J
1
1
i
FLCCCING 1 HIGH HATER TABLE 1 CEMENTED PAN 1 BiCRCCK (SUBSIDENCE
FRtOLENCY
1 DEPTH
1 DURATION 1 MONTHS 1 (FT)
NCKE 1 1 1 0-2.
SEPTIC T«NK
ABSCRPTICN
FIELCS
J
SEWAGF
LAGCCNS
SAMTAPY
LANDFILL
1 TRENCH)
J
SCMTAkY
LANDFILL
(ARE*)
J
DAILY
COVER FCK
LANDFILL
J
ShALLC*
rxCAVATICNS
J
DrttLLINGS
H ITHDLT
BASEMENTS
_J
DWELLINGS
WITH
BAStMEMS
J
SMLL
COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS
J
LCCAl
Kf!«CS *NC
STREtTS
-J
J
___ - -J
SEVERE-WET
SEVERE-WET
SEVERE-WET
_
FCCR-WET
qCMMLNITY ENVELOPMENT (B)
SEVERE-kET
..
SEVERE-WET
SEVERF-ktT
SEVtRE-WrT.CCRRCSIVE
StVERt-WtT
REGICh-L INTERPRETATIONS . .
1 KIND (MONTHS i JEFTH (HARDNESS 1 CfcPTH |HA*CNtSS 1 INIT. I TOTA
1 1 KIN) 1 1 {IN> 1 KIN) KIM
5IAPPARENTIDPC-MARI - 1 1 >60 1 1 - 1
SOURCE MATERIAL Ifll ..
II
II
II ROACFUL
II
1 1 J
II
II
1 1 SAND
II
It
II
II
1 1 GRAVEL
II
II
II
II TCPSC1L
II
J 1
II
II-
II
II PCND
II RESERVOIR
II ARfcA
II 1
II
1 1 EMBANKMENTS
II DIKES AND
II LCVEES
_11 i_J
II
II EXCAVATED
II PCNCS
1 lAOUIFIt-h FED
II 1
II
II
II JRAINAGE
II
II
II
II I*K1G£TION
II
II
II T£RP*CES
1 1 ANC
II OIVERSICNS
r 11
II
. , II GRASStC
1 1 WATERWAYS
II
II
II
II
II
_ , II
POOR-WET
_|HYC|POTENT'L|
LIGRPI FROST
1 t ACTION
1 D 1 ~
UNSLITEC
UNSUITED
PCCR-WtT
SLIGHT
._._ - - -
MOO ERATf-P I PING, COMPRESSIBLE
SEVERE-CEtP TC WATtR
PERCS SLOWLY
WET, PERCS SLOWLY
WtT.PERCS SLOWLY
WET, PERCS SLUWLY
L .
P-10
-------
CLCDINE SERIES
TX0025
RilCB£AllQN 1CJ . ,
SEVERF-hET
CAMP AREAS
SEVERE-WET
PICNIC AREASI
1
r 1
CAPABILITY AND PREDICTED
CLASS-
DETERMINING
PHASE
NON SALINE
SALINE
CAPA-
BILITY
NIRBIIRR
3D 3*
6S
RICE
NIRR IISR
11
CLASS- lORO
DETERMINING ISYM
NON SALINE I2M
1
II
II
1 IPLAYGPCUNDS
II
11 C 1
YIELDS
.
COTTON
LINT
ILBSI
. NIRR IIRR.
o toe
_l .11
HOCDI
AftD. SUI1
1 PATHS
I AND
I TRAILS
1 - _£-JL
jNO PASTUR
GRAIN
SORGHLM
W1BR 11KR.
60
1
6 B 11.11 1
E
SEVERE-hCT
SEVERE-kET
iblfib LEV'-L MA. N.A.'l&MfNT)
CORN (HAY CROPS f It
ANNUALS IBEF
IBUJ ilCfeil _J
JUBB-11BB... MPft IIRK. 1UII
65 3.5
1
L 1 1 . . . _ J
(PKOVfcD
tMUDAGK.
J^UMl
B IRR. ttJJSfi IIEE^
r
MIOASEME&T PROBLEMS I POTENTIAL PRCOL.CIIVIIY 1
EROSION! ECUIP. 1st
HAZARD LIMIT M
SLIGHT
SEVERE S
CLASS-CEItRMIN'G PHASE! SPECIES 1
CLASS-
DETERMINING (
ALL
NCNE
ED.li.Il
EDLING
IDEIil^J
EVERE
1
1
1
1
t_
JL^^J^J
XLAL_EC
KlhDTh.
SLIGHT
_hlLCiifii
iEttJi
HA61T4I
PLANT 1
CJMPET.I
IMPJPTANT TREtS ISITtl
SiVKRl ILOBLCLLY PINE 1 90 |LOE
ISKE'-TGUM ISLA
IWATtR CAK
(SOUTHERN RED CAK
1 J 1
ats_
5 Idll
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1 -
,RAIN tlGRASS C| MILD IHARUWC 1 COM FFR 1 SHR18S
FAIR FAIR 1 FAIR FAIR FAIR 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
. . - POTENTIAL NATIVE PLANT CG
CCMMCN PLANT NAME
(LITTLE BLIESTEP
IINDUNGPASS
IBIG BLUESTEC
IEASTERN GAMA
IBRONNSEEC P0SPALUM
SHITCHGPASS
FLORIDA PASPALUM
IHAIOENCANt
IPANICUM
OTHER PERENNIAL GR4SSLIKES
BEAKED PAMCUM
VIRGINIA UILCRYE
OTHER TREES
KM.UMTY
IR^NGtL^SO GR F;^ c * 5
__J
sptci4s__ _ |HT
at
i EQIcNTIA
TRELS TO PLANT
LOLLY PINE
SH PI ME
SPtCIES IHT
L AS HABITAT FCR!
hcTLANCISHALLCklCPtNLD I WJODLD 1 WETLAND I RANGtLC
ELANIS-J-haTcB-lMlLDLF 1'nlLOLF (MILDLF lyjILDLF,
GOOD 1 FUR | FAIR FAIR FAIR 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
T 1
JNCERST^'tV VtG-TATICjN)
PLANT 1 EfRC-ENIAGc-CjagCSITlDN IDRY hfclGHTl BY CLASS DETERMINING PUSS
SYMBOL 1 RANGE IKOCDUNC |
LXMi£lil_l 1 1 I
ANSC2
SCNU2
ANGE
TRDA3
PAPL2
PAVI2
PAFL*
PAHE2
PANIC
PPGL
PAAN
ELVI3
TTTT
POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY t.T) :
FAVORABLE YEARS
NORMAL YEARS
_ __ UNFAVORABLE YEARS
10
^
5
15
20
10
15
10
10
9,000
e.oco
iiftfli I
5
1C
10
15
15
1C
20
J
2t750
2,000
U5.C.C. J
FCOTNOTES
A ESTIMATES BASED CN ENGINEERING TEST DATA OF 1 PECCN FRCC KRR1S CfUNTY, TEXAS
8 RATINGS BASED ON GUIDES FCR INTERPRETING ENGINEERING UScS CF SC1LS, NOV. 1971
C RECREATICN R/TINGS BASED CN SOILS MEMORANDUM-69, OCT. 1968
D hILDLIFE RATINGS BASED CN SOILS MECORANDUM-74, JAN. 1972
1 RATINGS e»SEC ON SRKPC COHMlTTEfc IV GUIDEi DRAFT APR. 1970
F-ll
-------
Established Series
Rev. CMT:FFW
3/73
ARIS SERIES
The Aris series is a member of the fine, mixed, thermic family of Typic Glossaqualfs. These
soils have dark grayish brown fine sandy loam Ap horizons and grayish brown fine sandy loam A2g
horizons that tongue into B2tg horizons that are gray sandy clay loam in the upper part and dark
gray clay with prominent red mottles in the lower part.
Typifying Pedon: Aris fine sandy loam pasture.
(Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap 0-7" -- Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) fine sandy loam, grayish brown (10YR 5/2) dry;
common fine faint dark yellowish brown mottles; weak fine granular structure; hard,
friable; many fine roots; few worm casts; few fine pockets of uncoated fine sand;
neutral; clear wavy boundary. (4 to 10 inches thick)
A2g 7-21" ~ Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sandy loam, light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)
dry; common fine faint dark yellowish brown mottles; few fine faint reddish yellow
mottles; weak fine subangular blocky structure; hard, friable; common fine roots;
common fine pores; co/nmon worm casts; common fine pockets of uncoated fine sand;
few crayfish krotovina filled with very pale brown (10YR 7/3) uncoated fine sand
and lined with dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clayey material; slightly acid;
clear wavy boundary. (6 to 18 inches thick)
Bg£Ag -- 21-28" Gray (10YR 5/1) sandy clay loam, light gray (10YR 6/1) dry; common fine faint
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) mottles within the bodies of Bg material; moderate
fine and medium subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm; grayish brown
(10YR 5/2) A2g material occurs as tongues and interfingers and comprises about
20 percent by volume of this horizon; common 2-5 mm. pockets of uncoated fine
sand; few black concretions 2-5 mm. in diamter; few fine pores; few worm casts;
few crayfish krotovina filled with very pale brown (10YR 7/3) uncoated fine sand
and lined with dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) clayey material; medium acid; clear
wavy boundary. (4 to 10 inches thick)
B21tg -- 28-46" Dark gray (10YR 4/1) clay, gray (10YR 5/1) dry; common fine and medium
prominent red (2.5YR 4/8) mottles grading with depth to common fine distinct
yellowish red (5YR 5/8) mottles; few fine strong brown mottles; moderate coarse
prismatt'c parting to moderate fine and medium angular blocky structure; extremely
hard, very firm; continuous clay films; few fine roots; few black concretions 2-5
mm. in diameter; few crayfish krotovina filled with very pale brown (10YR 7/3)
uncoated fine sand; strongly acid; gradual irregular boundary. (12 to 24 inches
thick)
B22tg 46-60" -- Gray (10YR 6/1) clay, light gray (10YR 7/1) dry; common medium distinct
reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/8) mottles; few fine prominent red (2.SYR 4/8) mottles,
mainly surrounded by reddish yellow mottles; moderate coarse prismatic parting
to moderate medium subangular blocky structure; extremely hard, very firm; patchy
clay films; common fine yellowish brown stains along root channels; few black
concretions 2-5 mm. in diameter; grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sandy loam coatings
2-10 mm. thick on prism faces; few crayfish krotovina lined with grayish brown
(10YR 4/2) clayey material and filled with loamy material and horizontal streaks
of uncoated fine sand; medium acid; gradual irregular boundary. (10 to 18
inches thick)
B3g 60-78" Light gray (10YR 7/1) clay loam, white (10YR 8/1) dry; common fine reddish
yellow (7.SYR 6/8) mottles and stains along fine root channels; moderate coarse
prismatic parting to weak coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm;
grayish brown (10YR 5/2) fine sandy loam coatings 2-5 mm. thick on prism faces;
siightly acid.
Type Location: Harris County, Texas; in pasture 75 feet west of center-line of Gertie Rice Road,
from a point 0.7 mile north of its intersection with Clay Road, which is 1.8 miles west of its
F-12
-------
Aris Series
intersection with Texas Highway 6, which is 3-2 miles north of the intersection of Texas
Highway 6 and Interstate Highway 10 in Addicks, Texas.
Ranae in Characteristics: Solum thickness is more than 78 Inches. Thickness of the A horizon is
K 28 nches and is medium acid through neutral. It is mainly fine sandy loam, but ranges
to oam or silt loam. The Ap horizon is mainly dark gray (10YR 4/0, ^gray.sh browr, (10YR
4/2), or grayish brown (IOYR 5/2). In a few areas it is very dark gray ( OYR 3/0 or very dark
grayish brown (IOYR 3/2), but the thickness is less than 6 inches Mottles are few or common,
fine or medium faint or distinct yellowish red (5YR 4/6 yellow,sh brown (1OYR 5/*, 5/6),
strong brown (7-5YR 5/6), or dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4) The A2g horizon ,s dark gray sh
brown (IOYR A/2) or grayish brown (IOYR 5/2). Mottles are few or common fine, faint °r distinct
dark yellowish brown (IOYR 4/4), strong brown (7.5YR 5/6, 5/8), yellow,sh brown IOYR 5/6, 5/8),
reddish yellow (7-5YR 6/6) or gray (IOYR 5/1). The BgSAg horizon is dark gray (IOYR 4/1) or
gray (IOYR 5/1). Mottles are few or common, fine or medium, faint or distinct yellowish brown
(IOYR 5/4, 5/6, 5/8), strong brown (7-5YR 5/6, 5/8), yellowish red (5YR 4/6, 5/6, 5/8), or gray
(IOYR 6/1). It is sandy clay loam, clay loam, or sllty clay loam. Tongues and interfingers of
A2g material comprise 15 to 35 percent of this horizon. The Bg6Ag horizon is strongly acid
through slightly acid. The B2tg horizon is dark gray (IOYR 4/1) or gray (IOYR 5/0 in the
upper part and gray (IOYR 6/1) or light gray (IOYR 7/1, 7/2) in the lower part. Mottles are few
or common, fine or medium, prominent red (2.5YR 4/6, 4/8; 10R 4/6, 4/8) and few or common, fine
or medium, faint or distinct yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6, 5/8), strong brown (7.5YR 5/6, 5/8),
reddish yellow (7.SYR 6/6, 6/8) or yellowish red (5YR 5/6, 5/8). In some pedons, surfaces of
peds in the upper part of the B2tg horizon are very dark gray (IOYR 3/1). The B2tg horizon is
mainly clay, but ranges to clay loam or silty clay loam. Clay content of the control section
averages 35 to 50 percent. The B2tg horizon is strongly acid through slightly acid. The B3g
horizon is gray (IOYR 6/1) or light gray (IOYR 7/1, 7/2). Mottles are few or common, fine or
medium, faint or distinct yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6, 5/8), strong brown (7.5YR 5/6, 5/8), reddish
yellow (7.5YR 6/6, 6/8), or yellowish red (5YR 5/6, 5/8). The B3g horizon is clay loam or silty
clay loam. It is strongly acid through neutral, but in a few pedons it is mildly alkaline.
Competing Series and their Differentiae: These include the Basile, Calhoun, Crowley, Fountain,
Frost, Gessner, Katy, Hollville, Howata, Waller, and Wrightsville series. The Basile, Calhoun,
Fountain, and Frost soils have fine-silty control sections. The Crowley and Katy soils lack
tonguing of the A2 horizon into the B horizon. In addition the Crowley soils have montmori1lonitic
mineralogy and the Katy soils have fine-loamy control sections. The Gessner and Waller soils
have fine-loamy control sections and siliceous mineralogy. Mollville soils have fine-loamy
control sections and are less gray throughout. Mowata soils have montmori1lonitic mineralogy.
Wrightsville soils are more acid throughout and lack prominent red mottles in the B2tg horizon.
Setting: Aris soils occupy nearly level to gently sloping areas in the Gulf Coast Prairie.
Slopes are mainly less than 1 percent, but a few areas have as much as 3 percent slopes. The
soil formed in thick beds of unconsolIdated loamy sediments of Pleistocene age. The climate is
humid with mean precipitation of 40 to 52 inches. The mean annual temperature is 68° to 70° F.
The annual Thornthwaite P-E indices are 62 to 82.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the Gessner, Katy and Waller soils of the competing -
series, as well as Bernard, Clodine, Edna, Hockley, and Wockley soils. Bernard soils have mollic
epipedons. Clodine soils have fine-loamy control sections and lack tonguing of A2 material into
the Bt horizon. Edna soils have montmori1lonitic mineralogy. Hockley and Wockley soils have
fine-loamy textured control sections and have more than 5 percent plinthite.
Drainage and Permeability: Poorly drained; slow runoff; slow internal drainage- very slow
permeability. A perched water table occurs In the A2g horizon during the cool months or in
periods of excess rainfall.
Use and Vegetation: Aris soi Is are used malnl" for growing rice and for native pasture Some
areas are used for growing cotton, corn, grain sorghum, and vegetables. Native grasses'are
mainly ,nd angrass, little bluestem, big bluestem, swltchgrass" Florida paspalum and crtnkleawn
Loblolly pine trees have encroached on some areas. p«p«>ium, ana crinKieawn.
Distribution and Extent: Gulf Coast Prairies of Southeast Texas. The series is of moderate extent.
F-13
-------
Aris Series 3
Series Established: Harris County, Texas; 1973-
Remarks: These soils were formerly classified in the Planosol great soil group. They were
formerly included in the Crowley series.
Additional Data: Limited unpublished laboratory data is available for one pedon from the Texas
Highway Department 1271L-261, 262, 263 and THD-71-Tex-101-l1-1, 2, 3. Lincoln Soil Survey
Laboratory data 71L1310 and S71Tex-101-2, and memo dated April 12, 1972, indicate family texture
is fine, but close to the border between fine and fine-loamy. This same data indicates family
mineralogy is mixed, but borderline to montmon 1 loni tic.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U. S. A.
F-14
-------
TXO071
SOIL SURVEY INTERPRETATIONS
NLRA
1 111
(ACT (PERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS
1 INI THAN 3« PASSING SIEVE NO.
>CTI 4 1 10 1 40 1 200
(A-4 0 198-100 95-100 95-100 40-60
IA-6, A-7 0 100 95-100 95-100 55-75
IA-7 0 100 95-100 95-100 60-80
IA-7 0 100 95-100 95-100 60-80
1
1
SALINITY | SHRINK- CORROSIVITY IEROSIONI WIND
MNHOS/CMH SWELL 1 FACTORS IEROD.
(POTENTIAL HEEL
CONCRETE 1 K T 1 GROUP
(LIQUIOIPLAS-
(LINIT ITICITY
\ IINDFX
1 <25 INP-9
(39-48 118-25
142-62 121-36
(41-60 120-35
1 1
1 1
1 LOW HIGH MODERATE! - - 1 -
(MODERATE HIGH I MODE RATE! 1
1 HIGH HIGH | MODERATE! 1
1 HIGH HIGH (MODERATE 1
1 !
fiH HITif Tif C 1 CEMENTEp PAN | BEDROCK. 1SUBS1QEUCE
IHYDIPOTENT'LI
1 KIND (MONTHS (DEPTH (HARDNESS (DEPTH (HARDNESS 1 INIT. I TOTAL I GRP 1 FROST
1 1 MINI 1 1 UN) 1 MINI MINI 1 1 ACTION
immfrufD IMnu-MARI 1 1 AD 1 1 - 1
SOURCE MATERIAL IBI
II
II
1 | ROAOFILL
II
1 1
1!
II SAND
II
II
!',
II GRAVEL
II
II
II
II
II TOPSOIL
II
II
II
II
II
II POND
II RESERVOIR
1 1 AREA
HI
1 1 EMBANKMENTS
II DIKES AND
II LEVEES
II 1
II
II EXCAVATED
1 1 PONDS
IIAOUIFIER FED
II 1
il
II
II DRAINAGE
II
II
II
II
II IRRIGATION
II
II
II
1 1 TERRACES
II AND
II DIVERSIONS
1 1
II
II GRASSED
II WATERWAYS
II
II
II
I!
n
M
1 0 1
POOR-WET.LOW STRENGTH
UNSUITEO
UNSUITED
POOR-WET
HATER MANAGEMENT
SLIGHT
MODERATE-LOW STRENGTH, COMPRESSIBLE
SEVERE-DEEP TO WATER
WET.PERCS SLOWLY
WET.PERCS SLOWLY
WET.PERCS SLOWLY
WET.PERCS SLOWLY
F-15
-------
SEVERE-WET, PERCS SLOWLY
CAMP AREAS
SEVERE-WET
PICNIC AREAS
CA£U
CLASS-
DETERMINING
PHASE
ALL
IILITY AND
CAPA-
BILITY
NIHKIIRB.
3W 3W
PREDICTED Y
RICE
. NIRR 1 IRR.
130
RECREATION 1C]
II
1 | PLAYGROUNDS
II
II
II
I | PATHS
II AND
II TRAILS
U
inns -- tHUf.
CORN
IBUI
N1BR IIRR.
70
i_inu i-«aiui
COTTON
LINT
IIBS)
fflpR IfRR.
500
SEVERE-WET, PERCS SLOWLY
SEVERE-WET
iniun i^rwri r»n«im ni n
GRAIN 1 IMPROVED
SORGHUM IBERMUDAGR.
IRIII 1 IAUMI
NIRR IIRR. INIRR
1 IRR.
60 110.0
NIRR IRR. NIRR IIRR.
HOOOLAND SUITABILITY
CLASS- IORD
DETERMINING 1 SYM
PHASE 1
ALL I2W
MANACENEM
T PftOBL EMS 1
EROSION) EQUIP. (SEEDLING
MA7ABC LIMIT MTHIT «Y-
SLIGHT (MODERATE) SLIGHT
CLASS-OETERMIN'G PHASEI SPECIES IHTI
NONE 1
1
1
1
WINDTH.I PLANT
SLIGHT
MODERATE
UtMORlEAKS
POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY
IMPORTANT TREES
LOBLOLLY PINE
SOUTHERN RED OAK
SWEETGUM
SPECIES IHTI
1
1
ILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY
CLASS-
DETERMINING (
PHASE
ALL
PnTEHTfAL FOII HABITAT ELEMCHTS
MAIN ((GRASS C| WILD
SEED ILECHNE HCBR.
FAIR FAIR GOOD
POTENTIAL NATIVE PI IHT CM
COMMON PLANT NAME
LITTLE BLUESTEM
INOIANGRASS
BIG BLUESTEM
(EASTERN GAMA
(BROWNSEED PASPALUM
IGIANT CANE
ISWITCHGRASS
ICARPETGRASS
(OTHER PERENNIAL FORBS
(UNKNOWNS
(BEAKED PANICUM
(VIRGINIA WILDRVE
IPINEHILL BLUESTEM
(OTHER PERENNIAL GRASSLIKES
IQTHFK TIFIC
POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. D
1 FAVORABLE YEA
1 NORMAL YEARS
UNFAVORifllF Y
PLANT 1
IHAROHO ICONIFERI SHRUBS
TREES IPLANTS
FAIR FAIR
SPECIES
101
(SITE) TREES TO PLANT
IINDX1
190
IHT
1
1
1
1
1
LOBLOLLY PINE
SLASH PINE
SPECIES IHT
1
1
1
1
1
L 1
POTENTIAL AS HABITAT FOR:
IWETLANOISHALLQNlOPENLO 1 WOOOLD (WETLAND IRANGELO
IPLANTS WATER IHILDLF IWILDLF IUILQLF WILDLF
GOOD GOOD FAIR FAIR GOOD
JHITY IBAMCELAMO OR FDRFST UNDER^IQgT VEGETATIONI IFI
PERCINTACE COMPOSITION m»y yciO4Tl By
SYMBOL (RANGE
INI ONI I
ANSC2 1
SONU2
ANGE
TROA3
PAPL3
ARG1
PA VI 2
AXAF
PPFF
UUUU
PAAN
ELV13
AN01
PPGL
TTTT
»Y WTI l
RS
EARS
(WOODLAND
45
10
5
10
5
10
5
10
-
1500
6500
anno l
5
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
2750
2000
1500 J
CLASS DETERMINING PHASE
1
A ESTIMATES BASED CN ENGINEERING TEST DATA OF 1 PEDON FROM HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
B RATINGS BASED ON GUIDE FOR INTERPRETING ENGINEERING USES OF SOILS, NOV. 1971.
1 RATINGS BASED ON SRWPC COMM. IV GUIDE DRAFT VTO.
C RECREATION RATINGS BASED ON SOILS HEHORANOUM-69, OCT. 1968.
0 WILDLIFE RATING BASED ON SOIL MEMORANDUM-7», JAN. 1972.
E RANGE SITE "LOAMY PRAIRIE", WOODLAND GRAZING GROUP -M.ATWOOOS".
P-16
-------
Establ ished Series
R'ev. CMT:FFW:DTH
5/73
ADDICKS SERIES
The Addicks series is a member of the coarse-loamy, siliceous, thermic family of Typic Argia-
quolls. These loamy soils have black A horizons, dark gray B21t horizons, and light gray B22tca
horizons that contain more than 15 percent calcium carbonate equivalent.
Typifying Pedon: Addicks loam - pasture.
(Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise stated.)
Ap 0-11" -- Black (10YR 2/1) loam, very dark gray (10YR 3/0 dry; weak fine subangular
blocky structure; hard, friable; many fine roots; common worm casts; many
fine pores; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (10 to 18 inches thick)
B21t -- 11-23" -- Dark gray (10YR VI) loam, gray (10YR 5/0 dry; few fine faint mottles of
strong brown; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; hard, friable;
common fine roots; common worm casts of very dark gray (10YR 3/0 material;
common fine pores; few FeMn concretions up to 5 mm. in diameter; few patchy clay
films slightly darker than matrix; few very fine CaCOj concretions in lower part
of horizon; neutral; gradual wavy boundary. (6 to 19 inches thick)
B22tca ~ 23-49" Light gray (10YR 7/0 loam, white (10YR 8/1) dry; 30 to 40 percent of
matrix is light brownish gray (10YR 6/2); common fine faint pale yellow and few
fine distinct yellow mottles; weak coarse subangular blocky parting to weak fine
subangular blocky structure; very hard, friable; few fine roots; common fine
pores; few patchy clay films; few black concretions; few worm casts; few crayfish
krotovinas filled with dark gray (10YR k/\) material; 20 percent by volume visible
CaCOj in the form of soft masses and concretions less than 1 cm. in diameter;
moderately alkaline; calcareous; clear wavy boundary. (15 to 30 inches thick)
B23t -- 49-78" -- Light gray (tOYR 7/2) loam, white (10YR 8/2) dry; many fine and medium
distinct mottles of yellow (2.5Y 7/6); common medium and coarse distinct mottles
of yellowish brown (10YR 5/8); weak very coarse prismatic parting to weak medium
and coarse subangular blocky structure; very hard, firm; few clay films; few
black concretions; few crayfish krotovinas filled with very dark gray (10YR 3/0
and dark gray (10YR 4/1) loamy material; prism faces coated with light brownish
gray loam 2 to 15 mm. in thickness; 5 percent irregular shaped, pitted CaCO-j
concretions 1 to 6 cm. in diameter;- moderately alkaline; noncalcareous.
Type Location: Harris County, Texas; in pasture 75 feet south of Clay Road from a point 1.85
miles east of the intersection of Clay Road with Texas Highway 6, which is about 3.5 miles north
of Addicks, Texas, on Texas Highway 6.
Range in Characteristics: Thickness of the solum is more than 72 inches. The mollic epipedon
is 10 to 20 inches thick. The soil matrix becomes calcareous at 16 to 29 inches. The A horizon
is black (10YR 2/1), very dark gray (10YR 3/0, or very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2). It is
typically loam but may be fine sandy loam or silt loam. It is slightly acid through moderately
alkaline. The B2t horizon is dark gray (10YR 4/1), dark grayish brown (2.5Y V2), gray (10YR
5/1, 6/1), grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2), light gray (10YR 7/1, 7/2; 2.5Y 7/2), or light brownish
gray (2.5Y 6/2) and contains few to common distinct brownish and yellowish mottles. It is loam
or silt loam in the upper part but ranges to si1ty clay loam in the lower part. The average
silicate clay content of the upper 20 inches is 12 to 18 percent and it is neutral through
moderately alkaline. Some part of the B2t horizon contains 15 to 40 percent calcium carbonate
equivalent that occurs in the form of few to common soft masses and concretions with pitted
surfaces.
Competing Series and their Differentiae: These are the Bernard, Clodine, Jeanerette, Morey,
and Stono series. Bernard soils contain more than 35 percent clay in the control section.
Clodine soils lack mollic epipedons. Jeanerette and Morey soils have fine-silty control sections
and have less than 15 percent calcium carbonate equivalent in the Bt horizon. Stono soils lack
carbonates in the Bt horizon and have more than 18 percent clay in the control section.
F-17
-------
Addicks Series 2
Sett ing: Addicks soils occur on level to slightly depressions! areas of the Gulf Coast Prairies.
Slopes are mainly less than 1 percent. The soil formed in thick unconsolidated loamy sediments
of Pleistocene age. The mean annual temperature ranges from about 68° to 70° F.; mean annual
precipitation from ^0 to 52 inches and Thornthwaite annual P-E indices range from 62 to 82.
Principal Associated Soils: These are the Bernard and Clodine soils of the competing series and
the Aris, Gessner, and Midland soils. Aris soils have fine textured control sections and Gessner
soils have Ochric epipedons fine-loamy control sections and lack calcic horizons. Midland soils
have fine textured control sections and lack a mollic epipedon.
Drainage and Permeability: Poorly drained; slow surface runoff and internal drainage; moderate
permeability. Water table is at 12 to 30 inches below the surface for 1 to 2 months during
most years.
Use and Vegetat ion: Used mainly for pasture and growing rice. Native grasses are species of
Andropogons, Paspalums, and Panicums. A few pine and hardwood trees have encroached on some
areas.
Distribution and Extent: Gulf Coast Prairies of southeast Texas. The series (s moderately
extens ive.
Series Established: Harris County, Texas; 1973.
Remarks: These soils were classified in the Humic Gley great soil group. They were formerly
included in the Clodine and Morey series.
Additional Data: LSL 72L273~72L276 and thin sections on file in the Lincoln Soil Survey
Laboratory.
National Cooperative Soil Survey
U. S. A.
F-18
-------
TX006!
SOIL
S L R V f Y INT
T 4 T 1 L \
UlRACIt 1!0
CHTtFFk. 5-73
TVP1C AROA8LCLLS, CCA*SE-LOACY. SILICECUSi ThERKIC
TM ACBICKS SERIES CONSISTS OF POORLY DRAINEC, MCUEKATFLY PtRMt-'BLt UPLM.C S US. TYPICALLY,
BLACK LOA» StRFACE LAYERS AND LCKER LAYiKS CF GMYISh, ^OtBATHY SLKiLIN? LVX TK4T CC..4TMI
CALCILM CARBCMTE ESLIVALENT IN SCCE PART. SLOPES «~F MAINLY LftSS 7H*N 1 Pt-L.M.
SLXU <
Lii. SDILi H«v
f E TM.N 15 PI
1 tSTlHJTtc iCJt EP^Eirtlli R Ifl
IDiPTH 1 IF
II1N.II ISCA UXTLRt UMFIEO 1 AASKO l>
.......... .A. II
iAcT|F;rCtM CF CATtM-'L LtSS
1 INl_Th4»i 3" PASSII.li_iIkV£ NL.
'CTI 1 4_ 1 lii 1 4u 1 20C
0-11 Li FSL, SIL Clt CL-PL U-Tth
NET
NET
F-19
-------
ADC1CKS SERIES
PKMC «KE«SI
I
ALL
ALL
tAKF AFl£5
SEVESE-klT
SEVERE-kil
II
II
llPLAYGKCUf'DS
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
PATHS
AKC
TRAILS
S:VEKc-H-.T
SdVcPc-k1-!
ciass-
CETERI-INIKC
PhASE
.Lec&a.
KG
IL1 1 1 «I»U t
CAFA-
BHITV
ttifi£J IBfi-
2H
RICE
IBUI
tilBB JIRR-
110
---
GRAIN 1 IPPRCVEC
SOPGHUM IBERHUCKGR.
|_ IBUI 1 (ALJPl
jilRR IIRB. IN1RR IIRR.
70
e.o
-
CCTTO
LINT
ILBS1
Nias_iiR*.
450
L J
CLKH
...IBUI
.JlfcR USt.
10
- -
nIHh
ihh.
1
i
ilLIIAfliLlll
I PLTL.IT1AL
-- -
CETtRHMNG
_EhAS£_ J
SYM
2h
L__J
ERCSICK
HAZARC
SLIGHT
ECUIP.
LIMT
SEVERE
SEECLING
NCRT'Y.J
SEVERC
hINOTh.
hAZAnC
SLIGHT
PLANT
f^MPFT.
SEVERE
IMPORTANT
I
LJBLCLLY PI.M
StaEcTSUH
hATEH GAK
SuUThFRN «CC
| SITE I
ISO
ILuBLCLLV PINc
I SLASH Pi"(.;
CLASS-
CE7ERPIMNG
EhAii
ALL
NONE
POTENTIAL FOR HA
GRAIN CIGBASS El KILO IMROXC
SEED ILtCUMi I HfcRt. I T»gCS I PLANTS
FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR FAIR
hATEH GAK
SuUThFRN «CC C«K
00
1HII il££iLi LBU
1LJ
kT
TY 1L1 ^
E 1 PCTt
LBS iHtTLANCISHALLCklCPEMLL
1PLA>1TS l»Tfc(i IhlLLLF
GCOO FAIR FAIK
. . SPcCILS
TI*L «S HABIT
NUiuLO
-------
TEXT REFERENCE
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT: SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE SETTING)
APPENDIX G; STREAM FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA FOR COLE CREEK.
WHITE OAK AND BUFFALO BAYOUS AT:
1) COLE CREEK AT DEIHL ROAD
2) WHITE OAK BAYOU AT HEIGHTS BOULEVARD
3) BUFFALO BAYOU AT SHEPHERD DRIVE
-------
FIGURE 6-1
LOCATION FOR WATER FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA
DEIHL ROAD
COLE CREEK
[NORTHWEST
GHTS BOULEVARD
TE OAK BAYOU
SHEPHERD D
BUFFALO BAYOU
G-l
-------
STREAM FLOW FOR COLE CREEK, WHITE OAK BAYOU AND BUFFALO BAYOU
Water discharge data for Cole Creek presented in Table G-l were
recorded at the Deihl Road, which lies above the plant site to the
west. During the period October 1971 - September, 1972, the mean
discharge was 7.35 cubic feet per second (cfs) ranging on a monthly
basis from a minimum of 0 cfs to a maximum of 30.5 cfs. No data is
available for Cole Creek at a place below the plant site. Similar
data on the water discharge of White Oak Bayou recorded at Heights
Boulevard to t]*e southeast of the service area are presented in
Table G-2. During the same period of time the mean discharge at this
location was 84 cfs, the monthly variation of which was from a minimum
of 5 cfs to a maximum of 4,150 cfs. Data on the stream flow of Buffalo
Bayou recorded at Shepherd Drive are presented in Table G-3. The mean
discharge during October 1971 - September, 1972, was 419 cfs, varying
monthly from a minimum of 34 cfs to a maximum of 6,570 cfs.
WATER QUALITY FOR WHITE OAK BAYOU AND BUFFALO BAYOU
Water quality data for Cole Creek is not available. Table G-4 pre-
sents water quality data for White Oak Bayou taken at the Heights Bou-
levard during the period October, 1971 - September, 1972. The BOD at
this location ranged from 3.3 mg/1 to 18.0 mg/1. Table G-5 presents
comparable data for Buffalo Bayou at the Shepherd Drive location. The
BOD ranged from 2.1 mg/1 to 12 mg/1 during the same period of time.
G-2
-------
TABLE G-l
WATER DISCHARGE DATA: COLE CREEK AT DEIHL ROAD
U* JACINTO RIVER BASIN K7
08074150 Cole Creek tt Delhi Road. Houston, Tex.
LOCATION.Lat 29*51'04", long 95°29'16", Harris County, on downstream side of bridge at Delhi Road 1n northwest Houston and 1.8
lies upstream from mouth.
.DRAINAGE AREA.8.81 sq ml. Prior to Apr. 1, 1965, 10.0 sq ml. Apr. 1 to May 17, 1965, 8.81 sq ml. At Antolne Drive, May 18
to Aug. 1, 1965, 9.94 sq ml; Aug. 2, 1965, to Sept. 1, 1966, 10.2 sq ml. Drainage area changes due to relocations and changes
1n storn sewers.
PERIOD OF RECORD.--April 1964 to current year. Gage at temporary location 1.0 mile downstream at Antolne Drive Hay 18, 1965, to
Stpt. 1, 1966, due to bridge construction and channel rectification.
6ASE.--Hater-stage recorder. Datum of gage Is at mean sea'level, datum of 1929, adjustment of 1957; unadjusted for land-surface
subsidence.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.8 years, 5.56 cfs (4,030 acre-ft per year).
EXTREMES.Current year: Maximum discharge, 2,020 cfs Mar. 20 (elevation, 78.60 ft); no flow for many days.
Period of record: Maximum discharge, 2,020 cfs Mar. 20, 1972 (elevation, 78.60 ft); no flow at times.
REMARKS.Records f«1r. No diversions above station. Low flow partly sustained by sewage effluent from Houston suburbs. Recording
rain gage located at station.
DISCHARGE. .IN CUBIC FFET PE» SECOND. WATER TEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTFM8F.R 1972
06Y OCT
1
?
)
4
S 5
f> 13
7 3
1 1
9
10
11
17
13
14
IS
1*
17 1
1*
19
20 P
21 8
22 2
23 1
24
25
2*
27
29
29
30
31
TOTAL 52
MEAN 1
MAX
MIN
AC-FT
(tt) ' 3
CAL YR 1971
»TR YR 1972
DATE TIME
12- 2 0730
1-30 0915
3-20 1830
.01
.l'2
.03
.H2
.8
.9
.6
,H7
.00
.13
.11
.11
.05
.34
.20
.2
.78
.33
.6
.8
.8
.1
.52
.43
.?9
.18
.0V
.08
. 04
.71
.70
13
.01
105
.00
TOTAL
TOTAL
PEAK
ELEV.
73.51
72.52
78.60
NOV
.01
.01
0
.04
.01
.03
.03
.01
0
0
0
0
0
.01
.02
0
0
.11
.01
0
0
0
2.9
.74
.16
.04
.01
0
0
0
4.14
.14
2.9
0
8.2
.97
1.651.
2.690.
DEC
.10
1H8
53
12
87
119
37
14
11
14
6.8
4.1
2.9
2.4
2.6
6.3
6.2
2.6
2.0
1.5
1.2
.88
.85
.73
.46
.49
.45
.37
.49
2.9
3.8
585.12
18.9
188
.10
It 160
7.59
59 MEAN
10 MEAN
JAN
2.8
1.9
1.5
4.8
4.4
2.5
1.8
1.3
1.5
1.9
1.3
.86
.65
.54
.40
.33
.32
.62
1.4
5.0
2.5
1.6
1.2
.96
.70
.62
.61
.45
.50
152
FEH MAR
14 2.0
6.6 1.9
3.6 1.0
2.2 .91
1.7 .77
2.0 .57
1.8 .61
1.4 .65
1.0 .43
.91 .35
35 .34
32 .37
11 .32
5.9 .26
4.3 .83
3.5 .5?
2.7 .35
1.9 .21
1.3 .12
1.0 442
.90 429
.88 37
.87 9.3
.80 3.7
.73 3.0
.64 2.0
.5? 1.6
.48 1.7
1.9 1.3
233.96 141.53 944.80
7.55
153
.32
464
3.68
4.52 MAX
7.35 MAX
4.88 30.5
35 442
.48 .12
281 1,970
1.58 7.57
206 MIN 0
442 MIN 0
APR
.63
.53
.49
2.6
.82
.50
.17
.14
.10
.10
.10
.10
.17
.17
.20
.10
.05
.04
.04
.05
.28
.08
.07
.03
.03
.02
1.1
1.5
.67
t y
* -3(L
11.20
.37
2.6
.02
22
1.74
AC-FT 3.
AC-FT 5.
MAY
.17
2.1
.80
.46
.22
.18
100
27
4.9
Z7
86
97
41
14
6.2
2.9
1.8
1.2
1.0
.73
.54
.43
.34
.30
.29
.25
.22
.20
.18
1 fl
. I o
1 8
417.77
13.5
100
.17
829
6.23
280 tt 40.
340 tt 50.
JUN
.17
.18
.18
.18
.17
.14
.11
.10
.10
2.2
1.7
.31
.19
.24
5.2
7.7
1.3
.38
.?0
.10
.05
.03
.03
.02
.03
.05
.04
.02
0
n
21.12
.70
7.7
0
42
2.79
56
80
JUL
.03
0
.01
.08
.02
0
0
0
.01
.01
.28
.07
10
4.2
.55
.12
.51
3.0
2.7
.60
1.2
2.2
.88
.44
.21
.15
.10
.60
.36
e A
j*+
1 C
I tO
30.37
.98
10
0
60
4.55
AUG
.50
.24
.22
.06
.03
.03
2.9
.90
.27
1.3
13
8.1
4.3
6.0
12
91
2.6
.91
.44
.21
.11
.11
1.1
1.9
1.3
1.1
.22
.10
.08
.07
04
. w*.
151.14
4.9fl
91
.03
300
5.46
SEP
.04
.04
.04
.04
.06
.03
.02
.45
.63
.73
.74
.87
.92
.50
.15
.04
.68
3.9
5.6
.70
.18
3.6
1.6
2.9
3.4
15
14
1.5
.88
-I 7
J f
96.24
3.21
37
.02
191
5.64
DISCHARGE (BASE, 250 CFS)
DISCHARGE DATE
346
250
2,020
5- 7
8-16
TIME ELEV.
1630 72.53
0200 73.54
DISCHARGE
264
336
tt HclghttdHKtn ri1nf«11, 1n Inches, based on three rain gages.
Source: Water Resources Data for Texas, Part 1:
Surface Water Records. 1972. United States Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, P. 257.
G-3
-------
TABLE G-2
WATER DISCHARGE DATA: WHITEOAK BAYOU
SAW JACINTO RIVER BASIN
Ofi)74&00 HMteoak Bayou «t Houston, Tex.
upstream fron mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA -84.7 sq mi; unadjusted for basin boundary' changes. During extreme floods when capacity of drainage ditches 1s
exceeded, the drainage area 1s defined by natural ridges and is 92.0 sq mi.
PERIOD OF RECORD --Hay 1936 to current year (October 1965 to September 1966, monthly discharge only).
^^
It site 480 ft upstream at same datum.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE. -36 years, 68.9 cfs (49,920 acre-ft per year).
..
?995]Tft'£
n. present site and datum (discharge
ss iv
crtst, furnished by city of Houston.
REMARKS.-- Records fair. Low flow partly sustained by Industrial waste. No diversion above station.
REVISIONS.-- WSP 1732: Drainage area.
DISCHARGE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, rfATEP YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1973
DAY
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
Source
Interior, Geological Survey, P. 259.
SEP
1 11
2 11
3 13
4 31
5 179
6 102
7 52
8 26
9 21
10 16
11 16
12 16
13 19
14 21
IS 32
16 67
17 80
18 25
19 28
20 41
21 199
22 104
23 SO
24 31
25 . 21
26 17
27 16
28 16
29 13
30 14
31 14 -
TOTAL 1,302
MEAN 42.0
MAX 199
MIN 11
AC-FT 2,580
CAL YR 1971 TOTAL
»TB YR 1972 TOTAL
13
12
10
11
11
12
12
10
12
12
IP
13
9.6
12
12
14
14
74
14
9.6
9.0
9.0
103
16
10
10
9.3
10
10
12
497.5
16.6
103
9.0
987
21,903.
30,807.
14
1.340
561
173
957
909
36R
186
140
154
101
89
49
46
54
148
213
48
34
30
30
29
29
27
28
28
29
25
22
44
52
5,957
192
1.340
14
11,820
1 MEAN
9 MEAN
PEAK DISCHARGE (BASE, 2
DATE TIMF G.HT.
1-30 04CO 26.70
3-20 2145 43.50
DIS.HA.::E
3,420
17,300
DATE
5- 7
5-12
42
30
31
67
52
31
23
20
23
27
23
18
18
19
19
18
17
29
49
74
25
19
17
14
14
14
10
10
14
1,640
} A C
J45
2.753
88.8
1.640
10
5,460
60.0
8n.2
134
72
42
26
23
30
30
27
28
30
372
259
110
57
42
41
42
44
42
21
22
22
20
19
17
17-
16
16
IS
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
41 2,710
38 4,150
34
31
26
20
18
18
17
18
1.712 7
59.0
372 4
17
3,400 15
MAX 2,800 M
MAX 4,150 "
333
110
43
36
30
25
28
24
20
7 n
c u
,832
253
-ISO
13
,530
IN 4.
IN 5.
18
21
23
36
18
16
17
17
16
20
20
22
23
25
26
23
19
21
21
19
25
11
7.4
5.7
5.1
5.3
260
76
2?
15
853.5
28.5
260
5.1
1,690
0 AC-FT
1 AC-FT
13
105
38
22
16
16
929
324
86
413
71C,
1.090
525
286
125
67
41
29
33
19
IS
12
11
tl
10
8.7
7.0
8.3
fl.9
12
1 1
5.0C6.9
162
1.090
7.0
9,930
43,440
61,110
12
15
16
IS
IS
13
14
14
13
179
31
24
21
24
42
215
21
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
10
12
12
12
835
27. S
215
10
1,660
12
10
10
12
12
12
20
15
14
13
43
33
56
99
42
33
106
49
82
39
68
72
51
19
15
IS
49
46
3S
24
1,141
36.8
106
10
2.260
34
36
27
18
14
13
16
33
IS
31
79
143
256 -
140
93
270
S3
38
21
14
13
14
95
33
24
21
13
12
12
13
14
1.608
51.9
270
12
3.190
16
IS
IS
14
14
19
21
17
16
15
14
25
19
30
43
20
26
30
50
15
14
33
23
123
85
110
119
61
39
270
1.311
43.7
270
14
2.600
,000 CFS)
TIME
1100
0730
G.HT. DISCHARGE
25.53 2,720
24.37 2,180
: Water Resources Data for Texas,
Surface Water
Records,
Part 1:
1972, United
States
Department
of the
G-4
-------
256
TABLE Q-3
WATER DISCHARGE DATA: BUFFALO BAYQU
AT SHEPHERD DRIVE
SAM OACINTO RIVER BASIN
08074000 Buffalo Bayou at Houston, Tex.
LOCATION.Lat 29°45'36", long 95°24'30", Harris County, at bridge on Shepherd Drive 1n Houston an<< C.8 mile upstream from Waugh
Dr1v*.
DRAINAGE AREA.--358 sq ml, unadjusted for basin boundary changes
PERIOD OF RECORD.May 1936 to September 1957, October 1957 to.December 1961 (high-water records and discharge measurements), January
1962 to current year.
GAGE.Hater-stage recorder. Datum of gage is at mean sea level, adjustment of 1959. Prior to June 19, 1936, nonrecordlng gage
and June 19, 1936, to Jan. 16, 1962, water-stage recorder at site 0.8 mile downstream at datum 4.08 ft below mean sea level.
Since Jan. 17. 1962, auxilary water-stage recorder 0.8 mile downstream.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.8 years (1936-44) unregulated, 272 cfs (197,100 acre-ft per year); 23 years (1944-57, 1962-72) regulated, 243
cfs (176,100 acre-ft per year).
EXTREMES.Current year: Maximum discharge, 9,200 cfs Mar. 21 (elevation, 20.39 ft); maximum elevation, 23.06 ft Mar. 21; minimum
dally discharge, 34 cfs Nov. 13, 29.
Period of record: Maximum discharge, 10,900 cfs Aug. 30, 1945 (elevation, 28.82 ft), at site 0.8 mile downstream at present
datum; minimum daily, 1.3 cfs May 24, 1939, Nov. 5, 1950.
All flood data at site 0.8 mile downstream at present datum. Maximum elevation since at least 1835, 49.0 ft Dec. 9, 1935
(discharge, 40,000 cfs; furnished by engineer for Harris County). Flood of May 31, 1929, reached an elevation of 43.5 ft (dis-
charge, 19,000 cfs at bridge on Capitol Avenue 2.8 miles downstream, from rating curve extended above 15,300 cfs, stage-discharge
relation materially affected by bridge; furnished by city of Houston).
REMARKS.Records good. Floodflow regulated by Barker and Addicks Reservoirs (stations 08072500 and 08073000) 26.3 miles and 26.5
miles upstream, respectively. Flow affected by tides and backwater from Whiteoak Bayou. Low flow mostly maintained by sewage
effluent from Houston suburbs.
REVISIONS.--HSP 1732: Drainage area (former site).
DISCHARGE. IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
DAY
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
HAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
IT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TOTAL
MEAN
MAX
MIN
AC-FT
CAL YH
'_TR YR
505
490
490
550
867
424
308
460
475
445
445
430
415
415
415
484
505
460
400
364
400
415
394
378
372
366
358
350
386
296
198 -
13.260
428
867
198
26.300
1971 TOTAL
1972 TOTAL
194
146
65
51
47
43
39
39
41
39
38
38
34
35
37
39
39
106
65
41
43
38
300
100
75
60
51
47
34
AC
**3
1,969
65.6
300
34
3.910
167.929
153.373
36
571
669
225
1.300
1,450
711
313
221
213
350
392
336
316
333
319
548
324
316
294
282
280
277
280
280
274
277
277
280
i Tn
** JO
460
12.634
408
1,450
36
25.060
MEAN
MEAN
475
460
460
460
460
460
460
455
455
450
450
445
445
434
432
437
447
479
484
520
445
430
430
430
424
415
415
415
420
2, Qp ft
» 7tU
1. n7fi
t U f v
16,982
548
2,920
415
33,680
460 MAX
419 MAX
355
412
372
417
687
775
712
840
1,040
1,040
1,510
304
471
422
551
641
815
908
884
874
861
835
867
964
1,040
639
255
97
98
20,186
696
1.510
97
40,040
5,390
6,570
111
72
70
72
53
45
44
45
45
45
49
45
44
41
38
64
SO
45
44
107
6,570
2,240
646
829
863
829
795
710
778
54 0
py. 7
C.1* 1
16,176
522
6,570
38
32,090
MIN 25
MIN 34
211
180
108
55
49
47
51
52
47
46
44
44
49
47
49
61
54
51
47
44
131
102
68
61
57
49
249
351
213
?? 1
CC I
2,838
94.6
351
44
5,630
AOFT 333.
158
150
173
318
471
242
1,110
795
445
1,000
1,980
2.790
2,090
830
630
694
846
1,060
1.140
1,060
614
106
598
898
1,020
1,060
1,100
1,020
1,060
1 . nAO
1 1 UO U
1 n^o
1 , UDU
27,628
891
2,790
106
54,800
100
1.100
1.170
520
115
108
630
1.020
1.140
1.140
1.730
916
242
812
1.170
1.140
2.020
1,250
880
778
1,020
1,100
1,020
1,020
694
364
277
203
154
111
23,951
798
2,020
107
47,510
87
95
92
140
200
112
132
152
165
158
173
247
236
390
333
329
372
351
338
415
375
336
330
310
278
250
255
180
121
99
a-ie
C J3
7,286
235
415
87
14,450
254
146
180
175
238
231
188
285
150
100
200
400
300
350
275
242
152
109
102
70
68
75
158
133
123
96
81
84
66
65
5-7
5,153
166
400
57
10.220
57
54
55
55
56
78
as
94
80
99
108
US
114
211
356
152
168
178
160
142
122
101
120
350
250
300
350
350
350
600
5.310
177
600
54
10,530
AC-FT 304,200
Source: Water Resources Data for Texas, Part 1:
Surface Water Records, 1972, United States Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, P. 256.
G-5
-------
TABLE G-4
WATER QUALITY DATA: WHITEOAK BAYOU
8AM JACINTO BIVZH BASIN
08074900 HHITEOAK BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.
, 36
LOCATION.--L»t 29°46'30", long 95"23'49", Harris County, at gaging station on Heights Boulevard in Houston, 560 ft
downstream from Texas and New Orleans Railroad Co. bridge, and 2.4 miles upstream from Little Whiteoak Bayou.
DRAINAGE AREA.--84.7 sq ml, unadjusted for basin boundary changes. During extreme floods when capacity of drainage
ditches la exceeded, the drainage area is defined by natural ridges and is 92.0 sq mi.
PERIOD OF RECORD.--Chemical and biochemical analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
Pesticides analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
REMARKS.--See Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flova.
WATER QUALITY DATA, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
DaTE
OCT.
26.. .
NOV.
17. ..
IP. . .
DFC.
" 2 . . .
08...
27...
?4!..
1 1 ...
MAS.
21...
APH.
15.. .
27.. .
MAY
16...
22...
JULY
26...
AUG.
08...
14...
28...
SEP.
12...
DATE
OCT.
26...
NOV.
17...
18...
DEC.
02...
08...
27...
JAN.
24...
31...
MAR.
21...
APR.
05...
27...
MAY
16...
22...
JULY
26...
AUG.
03...
14...
23...
12...
OIS-
SOLVEO
CWLO-
ICL)
(MG/L)
100
170
35
9.0
14
140
120
20
10
220
16
38
48
140
55
34
130
"
TIME
0930
1100
1145
1215
1200
1400
1400
1110
1315
1245
1645
1035
1200
1115
0900
1045
0945
1130
DIS-
S'.-LvF-R
°K E
(Fl
("0/L>
.3
.*
.2
.2
.0
.5
.4
.1
.1
.4
.2
.2
. 3
.4
.4
.2
.6
0.1 S-
CMARGE
(CFS>
13
14
45
1700
155
32
14
310
1500
19
1150
65
18
10
30
45
11
6.0
JSjaNIC
IM
("'/D
.43
. 19
.IS
.15
.11
.»»
,-,r,
. 2^
.3?
. 13
.46
.35
.39
.22
.40
.27
.44
.37
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(MG/L)
30
21
4.3
1.8
7.6
21
19
5-2
3.8
15
4.7
12
9.0
21
12
6.6
24
(N)
iMr./L)
.42
1.1
.28
.OK'
. >1 3->
1.1
.50
.000
.03*
. ia
.013
.13
1.0
.86
.15
.029
.44
..50
G-6
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
(CA)
(MG/L)
66
62
33
14
18
76
72
23
22 -
81
24
36
36
70
33
33
64
A"«(INI 4
(EN
INI
,.
2.2
4.1
1.2
.55
.40
1. 1
3.2
.49
1.6
1.9
1.0
.80
2.4
3.1
1.3
1.1
1.8
3.5
BICAR-
BONATE
(HC03)
(MG/L)
256
327
90
76
67
340
342
78
64
326
75
136
194
304
138
123
302
~
DIS-
SOLVED
SOL I 'IS
'^u" OF
CONST I-
T U P N T 5 >
("G/L>
494
610
190
94
99
595
535
Us)
93
67ft
116
201
278
546
244
187
521
CAP-
80NATE
(C03)
(MG/LI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
NOM-
FILT-
OFMD^E
(MG/L)
69-S
__
47
__
526
30
1200
^_
^^
19
__
_
14
DIS-
SOLVED
SULFATE
(S04)
(MG/L)
57
31
35
9.2
8.8
44
31
12
14
32
14
11
17
32
20
18
2«
"
VOL.
NOM-
^FTTLF-
*£SinuE
(«G/L)
^_
._
-_
__
__
__
«
__
__
9
-------
TABLE G-4 (Continued)
IAB JACIHTO RITn BASIN
0*074000 WBITEOAK BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TK. --Continued
MATER QUALITY DAT*, MATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
DATE
OCT.
26...
NOV.
17...
IB...
DEC.
02...
08...
27...
JAN.
24...
31...
MAR.
21...
APR.
OS...
27...
MAY
16...
22...
JOLT
26...
AUG.
08...
1»...
2B...
SEP.
12...
.
DATE
OCT.
26...
NOV.
17...
18...
DEC.
02...
08...
27...
JAN.
21...
31...
MAR.
21...
APR.
05...
27...
MAY
16...
22...
JULY
26...
AUG.
08...
14...
28...
SEP.
12...
HARD-
NESS
(CAtMG)
(MG/LI
220
230
100
52
52
260
250
73
63
320
72
120
120
240
120
110
230
"
CHEM-
tCAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(LOU
LEVEL)
(MG/L)
23
15
45
31
33
25
28
*5
33
28
96
47
28
22
29
30
21
--
NON-
CAR-
BONATE
HARD-
NESS
7
0
BIO-
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEM4NO
(MG/L)
4.8
9.6
18
9.3
3.1
2.6
16
5.6
5.2
4.2
12
3.3
7.5
5.1
9.9
10
>9.3
7.5
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
RATIO
2.S
3.8
1.1
1.0
.8
3.2
2.7
.8
.3
3.2
.6
1.0
2.3
X.1
1.6
l.t
2.9
IMME-
DIATE
CDLI-
FORH
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
64000
1700000
660000
400000
300000
56000
3800000
3600000
690000
84000
170000
2EOOOO
96000
1
300000
3000000
280000
1400000
SPE-
CIFIC
CON-1"
DUCT-
ANCC
(MICTO-
HHOS)
910
1170
388
187
174
1050
975
226
186
1260
218
383
499
985
469
368
942
1040
FEC«L
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
100 MLI
18000
54000
2300
7300
9000
2300
140000
19000
-.8000
1«.00
100000
16000
440
1
17000
280000
34000
460000
PH
(UNITS)
6.8
7.7
6.6
7.6
7.1
7.8
7.8
7.S
6.7
8.0
7.8
7.4
7.2,
7.5
7.1
6.9
7.4
7.6
STREP-
TOCOCCI
(COL-
ONIES
PER
100 ML)
5600
71000
66000
55000
4900
680
9500
8700
90000
130
62000
2200
580
1
2400
33000
2100
U.lOO
TEMPER-
ATURE
(DEO C)
21. S
24.0
20.0
10.0
16.0
' 24.0 .
24.0
s.s
19.0
25.5
19.5
25. 0
28.5
31.0
26.0
26.0
29.0
29.5
PHENOLS
(UG/L)
2
19
16
4
20
0
4
0
2
0
13
21
0
10
5
0
0
«
COLOR
(PLAT-
INUM-
COBALT
UNITS)
70
30
40
220
160
40
160
120
70
30
no
160
SO
IS
40
65
35
30
METHY-
LENE
BLUE
ACTIVE
SUB-
STANCE
(MG/L)
.10
.72
.00
.00
.00
.10
.72
.00
.00
.16
.00
.07
.26
.20
.07
.04
.23
.22
TUR-
810-
ITY
(JTU)
35
40
110
220
50
20
30
80
ISO
IS
280
45
20
IS
80
80
IS
15
OIL
AND
GREASE
(MG/L)
«
10
20
--
--
20
0
--
--
-.
20
.-
200
120
»»
20
DIS-
SOLVED
OXYGEN
(MG/L)
1.2
10.9
8.3
10.5
10.4
10.5
11.6
11.0
6.6
18.8
8.6
8.2
9.7
13.2
6.9
6.7
11.4
14.2
DIS-
SOLVED
ARSENIC
(AS)
(UG/L)
«
-
0
0
--
--
10
0
--
«
--
«
«
50
30
._
30
«
Oft.
CfM
Si! -.
*Mr'»
t f
)?
it
VI
lc»
i;«
iii
ir
70
in
»/
411
12*
17*
a*
A?
1»«
IS*
OIS-
SOLvEP
c»n-
Nl'.IM
(Cm
(UG/L >
--
«
0
0
--
--
1
0
"
-
"
"
1
0
"
0
-
G-7
-------
,TABLE G-4 (Continued)
DATE
OCT.
26...
NOV.
IT...
ie...
DEC.
02...
08. .
2T...
JAN.
24.
31...
MAR.
21...
AM.
OS...
2T...
MAT
16...
22...
JULY
26...
AUO.
08...
14...
28...
SEP.
12...
u* JACIHTO aim BASIK
MOT4SOO WHITMAK BATOO AT HOUSTON, TBX. ~Contiiiu« (HG)
(UG/L) (UG/L)
100
0
170
0
.6
1 .2
110
20
80
2.6
3.2
.2
DIS-
SOLVED
NICKEL
(MI)
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
ZINC
(ZN)
(UG/L)
430
40
60
40
80
120
90
DATE '
NOV.
14...
OFC.
02...
JAN.
?<....
iPR.
?7..
Mir
16..
JULY
26..
AUG.
08..
1145
1400
1035
OIS-
CHARGE
(CFS)
i.5
1700
1*
USD
65
10
30
11
ALOHIN
(UG/L>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
noo
(UG/L>
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.on
ODE
(UG/L)
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.no
.00
DOT
(UG/L)
.03
.01
.00
. .10
.00
.00
.02
.00
01-
ELORIN
(UG/L)
.02
.03
.02
.07
.01
.01
.0*
.03
ENOPIN
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
HEPTA-
CHLOH
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
HEPTA-
CHLOR
EPOXIDE
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
DATE
10V.
18...
DEC.
n2..
JAN.
?<...
APR.
?7..
MAY
16..
JULY
26..
AUG.
08..
28..
LINDANE
(UG/L)
.07
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.02
CHLOP-
I1AME
(UG/L)
01-
(UG/L)
.10
.02
.15
.05
.24
.36
M AL A-
(UG/LI
.0"
.00
.00
.on
.00
.00
.00
.00
"FTHYL
pasa-
THION
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PARA-
THlON
IUG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
2.4-0
(UCi/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.15
.00
2.4.5-T
(UG/L)
.00
.05
.00
.00
.06
.05
.17
.03
SILVEX
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.1)0
.00
.00
.00
Source: Water Resources Data for Texas. Part 2: Water
Quality Records, 1972. United States Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, PP. 361-363.
G-8
-------
TABLE G-5
QUALITY DATA: BUFFALO BAYOU
AT SHEPHERD DRIVE
9M 8AK J AC INTO RIV1R BASIN
08074000 BUFFALO BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.
LOCATION.-_-L«t 29*45'36", long 95*24'30", Harris County, at gaging station at bridge on Shepherd Drive in Houston
and O.Bliile upstream from Waugh Drive. ,
DRAINAGE AREA.--358 sq »i, unadjusted for basin boundary changes.
PIRIOD OF RECORD.--Chemical and biochemical analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
Pesticide analyses: October 1968 to September 1972.
KIMARKS.See Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flows.
WATER QUALITY OATAt WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
DATE
OCT.
26...
NOV.
17...
HEC.
03...
08. i.
JAN.
24...
FEB.
02...
MAR.
21...
APR.
05...
MAY
09...
24...
JULY
26...
AUG.
14...
?e...
DATE
OCT.
?6. . .
NOV.
17...
DFC.
03...
09...
JAN.
24...
FE«.
02...
MAR.
21. ..
APrt .
OS...
MAY
09...
24...
JULY
26...
AUG.
14...
28...
TIME
0850
1140
1100
1230
1320
0835
1215
1320
1115
0920
1150
0950
0900
DIS-
SOLVE'S
FLUO-
RIDE
(Ft
(MG/L)
.2
.5
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
, 44
.2
.2
.3
.3
.6
DIS-
CHARGE
(CFS)
350
43
675
260
420
445
6500
55
485
900
225
175
96
ORGANIC
NIT^O-
GEN
(N)
(MG/L)
.53
.10
.22
.28
.14
.30
.29
.as
.37
.31
.25
.23
.37
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(MG/L)
19
21
4.2
9.1
5.5
5.4
2.7
17
.0
2.6
16
16
23
TOTAL
NITOITE
(>:)
(MG/L)
.44
.03
.0^3
.30
. 15
.011
.360
.34
."36
.'i^O
.25
.37
.071
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
(CA)
(MG/L)
17
56
20
19
16
21
16
54
20
15
35
30
44
A""CNIA
NITxO-
r'EN
(Nl
(M^/L)
.37
5.0
.<<.
.45
.52
.70
.53
-».o
.51
. s ;
.35
.33
5.4
DIS-
SOLVED
MAG-
NE-
SIUM
(MG)
(MG/L)
3.8
11
1.7
3.5
2.2
4.8
1.7
7.7
2.9
2.1
7.5
5.6
4.1
TOTAL
NITRATE
(N)
(MG/L)
.5
1.1
.5
.8
.6
.6
.4
.9
1.6
.3
.8
1.1-
\J
DIS-
SOLVED
SODIUM
PLUS
POTAS-
SIUM
(MG/L)
17
96
IS
IS
15
14
3.2
69
14
6.4
42
37
71
TOTAL
PhOS-
PhOnUS
<»>
(MQ/L)
.SS
3.7
* ^ 0
.55
.el
.5 )
.5*>
1.2
. 75
.53
.75
.70
1.1
BICAR-
BONATE
(HC03)
(MG/L)
74
279
71
68
62
79
46
257
65
52
139
115
199
DIS-
SOLVED
SOL ns
(PFSI-
OUE AT
180 C)
(M-j/L)
--
--
--
--
--
--
CAR-
BONATE
(C03)
(MG/L)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DIS-
SOLVE!
S'LIfiS
(SUM QF
Cd'iST I-
TUrNTS)
(MG/L)
119
4hR
in»
112
96
lie
63
370
103
7u
2^3
213
353
DIS-
SOLVED
SULFATE
(S04)
(MG/L)
2.4
28
13
9.2
8.6
10
8.*
18
9.4
7.6
11
17
24
TOTAL
NC\-
FILT-
"bLE
RFSIUUF
(MG/L)
--
312
--
66
554
16
342
--
Ul
--
--
DIS-
SOLVED
CHLO-
RIDE
(CD
(MG/L)
20
100
12
18
15
20
5.0
6fi
17
10
5H
44
7fl
HA^n-
KlESS
(Ci.'-T,)
(MG/L)
'iR
1HO
57
6?
40
72
u7
17(1
6?
"6
121
}»
130
G-9
-------
TABLE G-5 (Continued)
AM J AC INTO RIVE* BASIN
08074000 BUTFALO BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.--Continued
KATES QUALITY 0«T». *AJEH YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
DATF
OCT.
76...
NOV.
17...
OFC.
03...
JAN.
24...
FES.
02...
MAR.
21...
APR.
OS...
HAY
09...
24.. .
JULY
26...
AUG.
14...
28...
DATE
OCT.
?*...
NOV.
17...
DEC.
03...
08...
JAN.
?4. . .
FF4.
02...
!'
05...
MAY
09...
?"...
JULY
2h...
AUG.
14...
78...
NON-
CAR-
80NATE
HARD-
NESS
(MG/L)
0
0
0
6
0
7
9
0
9
0
4
4
0
910-
CMEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(MG/L)
4.8
2.1
12
4.7
2.5
4.5
4.o
3.2
10
3.5
. S.o
5.1
>9.2
HE«
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
RATIO
1.0
3.1
.9
.8
.9
.7
.2
2.3
.8
.5
1.7
1.6
2.7
IWME1-
DIATE
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
100000
"0000
1400000
300000
1200000
240000
4000
660000
64u ion
I 1 0 0 0 0
32'iOI
210:100
A-
SPF-
CIFIC
CON-
OUCT-
ANCF
(MICRO-
MHOS)
232
889
201
223
210
239
125
660
211
144
439
376
641
FECAL
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PFR
loo MLI
61000
5300
.-
J3000
7300
7700
34000
500
3tOOO
SoOOO
10000
lr-000
.1000
,
PM
If
^PER-
AFURE
(UNITS)
6.»
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.3
6.8
6.7
7.0
STHEP-
TOCOCCI
(COL-
OMtS
PEH
100 ML)
01000
150
2000
700
2100
46000
120
3700
6500
400
1400
IbOO
(DEG C)
21.5
22.0
9.5
14.5
19.5
10.0
19.0
23.0
22.0
24.5
29.0
25.0
28.0
PHENOLS
(UG/L)
.
1
21
17
23
3
1
0
0
0
5
5
0
10
COLOR
(PLAT-
INUM-
COBALT
UNITS)
140
30
ISO
160
160
120
SO
40
160
130
55
!5
35
METMY-
LENE
ULUE
ACTIVE
SUB-
STANCE
(MG/L)
.00
.17
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.13
.00
.01
.02
» 04
. 10
TUR-
BID-
ITY
(JTU)
45
45
ISO
65
40
70
200
10
140
60
65
60
30
OIL
AND
GRF.ASE
(MG/L)
_
«
20
10
10
"
..
10
--
20
10
10
DIS-
SOLVED
OXYGEN
(MG/L)
6.5
4.2
9.4
9.3
8.5
9.0
10.5
4.2
6.6
5.5
4.8
4.3
?.4
DIS-
SOLVED
ARSENIC
(AS)
(UG/L)
«
0
-
0
0
._
0
0
10
10
PER-
CENT
SATUR-
ATION
73
48
R2
90
91
80
112
48
75
6S
62
SO
30
DIS-
SOLVED
CAD-
MIUM
(CD)
(UG/L)
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(L°w
LEVFL)
(MG/L)
36
11
41
31
21
32
32
19
35
34
23
24
24
DIS-
SOLVED
CHRO-
MIUM
(CR)
(UG/L)
--
0
«
0
0
0
..
0
0
20
DIS-
V«L!iNT nis- DIS- OIS-
C-t»0- SOLVED SOL
M \'J
u COB
-LT CO?
(C^ol ICOI (C
0«TE
OCT.
NOV.
17..
DEC.
03..
08..
JAN.
24..
FEB.
02..
MAH.
21..
APR.
05..
HAY
09..
24..
JULY
26..
AUG.
14..
28..
(U'j/LI IU6
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
--
--
_
~
10
/L) (Uu
C
..
0
0
0
_~
0
0
2
vEl' SOLVEP
JE"< T c
'ON
DIS-
SOLVED CMS- DIS-
nis-
SOLVED M4«i- SOLVED SOIVEH SOLVED
Lt JO
II IFF) :^>
/L) (nr,/L)
..
9
._
16
12
..
__
4
3
3
5
..
120
._
410
330
_.
.»
130
120
160
20
G-' >
I '
FSE lErfC
'.HY NICKEL ZINC
N) (HG 1 (Nil
(ZNI
lUC'/L) (Ufi/LI lUr./L) UIG/LI fUG/LI
.
.
.
_
_
0
_
2
0
_
_
0
.
0
0
0
_
90
_..
0
0
__
_ _
0
_.»
80
0
120
--
-- _
«.2
-- -
< . 2
.2
-_ .
« .
.2
_ .
2.6
2.1
.2
"
_
0
_
5
0
_
7
_
0
0
0
__
30
40
20
__
M
30
60
SO
80
38T
G-10
-------
TABLE G-5 (Continued)
3M
AM JACINTO RIVXR BASIN
M074000 BUFFALO BATCH AT HOUSTON, TEX.--Continued
HATER QUALITY DATA. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
DATE
DEC.
03...
JAN.
24...
MAR.
21...
HAY
09...
24...
JULY
26...
AUG.
14...
28...
DATE
DEC.
03...
JAN.
24...
MAR.
21...
MAY
09...
24...
JULY
?6...
AUG.
14...
TIME
1150
0950
0900
01-
ELDRIN
(UO/L)
.06
.01
.03
.02
.02
.07
DIS-
CHARGE
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
(NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: CLIMATIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
CONDITIONS)
APPENDIX GG: 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 IN COMBATTING
AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS FOR HOUSTON
-------
The Houston Air Pollution Control Program began in 1967
as a part of the City's Health Department. The purpose 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 monit-
oring stations are shown in Figure GG-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, only one is located in Northwest Houston in the
vicinity of where Pinemont intersects with Northwest Freeway approxi-
mately three miles west of the proposed site of the Northwest
Regional Treatment Plant. See location 11 in Figure GG-1.
GG-1
-------
FIGURE GG-1: AMBIENT AIR MONITORING NETWORK
f Proposed Plant |
O
I
CO
41 Permanent Air Sampling Sites
A Mobile Air Sampling Sites
-------
Table GG-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 GG-1
indicates the relative pollutant concentrations at 25 locations.
Location 11 provides a general indication of the level of
pollution for the Northwest area of the City. This location
ranks 14th in order of pollution concentration in 1972 and
16th in 1973. Thus, it could be concluded that the extent of
pollution in this section of Houston is below the city average.
The pollution concentration in 1972 ranged from 146mg/mt for
location 21 (Pasadena area, Houston Ship Channel) to 53mg/mt for
location 8 in the vicinity of the Houston Astrodome, with
location 11 recorded at 66mg/mt . In 1973, the Northwest
location ranked 16th with a concentration level of 59mg/mt
in a distribution curve that ranged from 274 for location 18
(again Ship Channel area) to 40 for location 23.
The City Air Pollution Control Program in cooperation
with the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston
has prepared some computer maps showing the concentration
of pollutants of suspended particulates, Sulphur Dioxides and
Nitrogen Oxides and their geographic distribution. Figures
GG-2 and GG-3 show the heaviest concentration of industrial
GG- 3
-------
SUSPENDED
Geometric means
Site Location
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
TABLE
GG-1
PARTICULATE COMPARISONS
[-ug/m ]
1972
66
115
91
76
59
69
67
79
53
77
59
66
62
64
87
80
98
86
99
64
146
57
54
: January
1973
74
99
102
97
47
68
71
60
46
63
54
59
57
62
93
78
72
63
274
123
55
79
66
40
through March
% Change
+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
pollutants over the Ship Channel Industrial District, downtown
Houston and other industrial areas. Figure GG-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.
GG-4
-------
FIGURE GG-2: SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN
o
Q
1
ui
,-5 » »-
UOOOOOOOwOtbOOUOOQUOa
0000000*00000000
OOOOODOOljO»JOOOQOOOOOO
GQOOOOOQt»"OQl)Ot]UOQQOQn
OGOCQOOO'OOOOUOOOOOUCIU
nouooQco'uuoooouoQooo
000
000
000
ooojuooooog
OOD03JOJOClCGOODOO
OOOUOOQ000
ooocu*uMUouuuaoooooco
ooouooooouo
UaOUOODUOOQ
CUOOUOQOOQO
OOOOOOOtiOO
ooooocouacoOoo&
OOOOOOOCOOOOO
DoooocioOooPOhWooQDuuooo fleeeawww9« oooco
OOOOOOOOOOOOn-OOOOOUUOoOO WttUUDOO
OOOOOOOUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL-yOOOUUJOmjOOOuOOO
000000 OOOlJljOOIjOaOOOOOOOOOOUUOUOoOUOOOOuOGO
+ »»**+++**++«*-)*+»»«.**
* (. + * + * + * + *!**»*?» + *++ .,30.00. ,
OOCOOOOOOOOCy&OOOOOOOOOOOOODOOCiuaiJOuuOOO
COOOQOOOOOOfU UUOUOUOOO
0000000000 e»B0*98ftOB99*e OUOODUOUU
oooo ee90e0«9QQ0ae«eo99 Ltougooutooo
ouuOO
ogoooooouooo oneeeeoeoeeesfle^eoseeBti ououoouoo
ooouuno
ooooooooco
QJOOOOOO
OOJO
0000006460 OOOOuDOOO *>*+**
veu9999«ee ooooooooo ++++++
»e8fl^fl«fee jooouooog +*++*«
peoaopoeea ooooooooo »*++*»
PBiB99?"(J8 OOOOOOuOO ******
CrOOOOUOOU +****«*
UOOOOUOOO *******
*+ ooo T "" -""Tr "'- --=-;-- -- --.I-
* oooouoooooooooooooo ea9eoo9oo99oeoeo909floeo
ogo
oOu
ODOOOOOOOOOOUOOOO 090900000900900909000000090900000000
00000600000000 iee»ej9B8Be9B6«oBBB*BeB66»)B»o8e«fleei8t( oouooooooo
SUSPCtlOCO PAHTICUtATtSi U6/S3 - 1973-6.K.
HOUSTON AH8ICHT Alft SAWLlH* NCTWORK DATA
DATA APPLIED §T TEXAS h
LIAS
FORT
PCRCCNTACL OF TOTAL ABSOLUTE VA^UC NAbfiC APPLTIW TO EACH
-------
FIGURE GG-3: SULFUR DIOXIDE ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN
THIS TRChQ-SL'RFflCC MflP «6S PRLPftRiO nT THE IjNIVElRSITT OF TC>AS
HEALTH SCIENCE C£t,TtR IN nOUiTL;,, TEXAS AS d t-OOPtKAT 1 WE tfPOB
ITH QT^CH PUBLIC A6CWCICS
OLUTE VALUE Hhi»6£ OPPLTJljt TO EACH LEWEL
(.KASISUh-f iNCLULitD ItJ HIGHEST UVEL ONLY)
INIHUK U.uD 13.UU 30.CO 15.00 bO.OO
icD.uo 20. oo ije.cc 20.ot a*, oo
-------
FIGURE GG-4: NITROGEN DIOXIDE ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN
o
I
CUUOOcCjijtJl in.jO?l.DCOODOOOOOOOO(JOOOt;C'vupOL'OOCOOOCi-CUO +»*»+»**» ....
CL'^cco_uOocTCJt;i vt,'Ooooocc;coooct.GocDoo*-ii6tcpt/poo»viiLi& *** jjit****^'
COuOOCtQOOOOQOrOUUCQObi;00
OQf.tJOOOOOoCOaOnCCQIj.JOl;
lXtDOCuuOQOUQDUUUOOOOUrOOOO
UUuOOOOUOO
OOOOODOUOUQUUOOUOOUOOO
anooooooooguuouocooo
OnuCUOOOOOOuuOObOCuCi
OOC10000OOOUOU"JUODOOOO
Ot.ut,UUl»0
88OT888KM8H8SJ
.
ououcoot'Ooooouoooooouuuuoonoo
ooootouoocoocDnoooooocuoouo
tj 0
00000 00 00 O^rO
OOOOOOO
.
93.0^000000
oroo-.w[.ooc.o
floeoee
IOC00BQ
_ eoeeoe
88825SSS
ooooo
UOUUOUUOOU LrOUUoOUOUUO
OOUUuOOOOO OruOOQOOOOOO
gOUDCO 0"UOtCOOCOUl»UOOCUuCOOi.iJOOUOurOujOOOOOOli&auf.r,00003u.,tUt,U^OUOOOCOGCCjo
OOOaOOOLrouOUOOOOOUOUriOaorOULOOUOOOCOUJOl.UIJOOCuQGCUOOOCUl.ijl GGUuOOGOOOCiUCOI_UCOOi-C
.OuOOCOOC ''OjOCi CCOOnuGLuOLODCl/OtgOOOCOu OOluCOrOOCCiC&CO uCCCOOC pot CC gCOO_t
OCOOC ''OjOCi CCOOnuGLuOLODCl/Ot
lOOCQL <~aC"oO (.lOOOuOuoUOor'OOkrOOijOOGCO^ OOOuOOPuOUOCUOO
.
HjOOOnijf 0000 uLiOOOOt'LC'CO^OUHjOLiOijUCOij OOOLiOOtOOOLLLiOpJiO
OCOt-OOOOOCOOOOOt'SJ'-tCcOoCOCUOOOCtClOUOUOoCvi/rOC^uOC^Curn-
oo OcLO^CoojtoocEi
-, . ._
OuGOOUuCOOLC'U OOtl
UULUOOUCDDi 1-nuOlH
-TliCOOOOCOOCOOOOijOut.C
OCtDvUDUDi.CJuC
. ._.
WO 00 0 P Ci C U " QUO IjOO li i
lClOCiCtOOOOi ___
01/0 00 0 0 C, n 000 OUO 0 OO C.
i . -.
oooDt/ooPt.&ui.rCn'urooi'fDiJoocifOi.jotiot.opt.jOi ^oaooooouccuoi'Oocioooocictii.jouOiim or[;0uiuoc.,'jijpiif uoooooooo-uotcuooooouuuiiooo *»+*++**+ ............ t.
LtVLL 1 2
»....* :: ; :: :«: ::;;
.. |
3 1
! 1
!l ' !
MU] ..U.. » «« U^L »« "
ij00030Ctn
UlJUC'OCf Of?
UL30( i
op3or'i
I'JUL 1
CJ30I 1
03001
OJG(.i
030^1
03001
o^cri
ur aci i
st:t»:: itiinm »"»"«. u«.ots. -./,. - i«s.....
0***«e*8b illM HOusTOh *^6It-f'T Mlk SAMPLING IlLT-URK DATA
::::::; iiiS§"
i::: :s
>* !
I ^ »I
1 : ;i
i i *i
1 ** *' ABSOLUTE V*L^E flA«*fcL APPiTlyb TO E*CM LfVEL
(....Xl-U^. IfcLLUutl) U HiCHCST LLULC OhLT I
THIS THtNO-3LlflFACt
HtALTH SCTtNCt CCh
»ITH OT^CH PUBLIC
EAp HAS PNCPiHCO AT TMC
f IN HOUSTON. rt**J »3 .
-------
FIGURE GG-5: TOTAL OXIDANTS ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN
Q
O
I
CO
ocoo
COQQOCOO
COPOOODOUkOWOoOOO
OODOEuOOUUUOO
GOOOOOtOOOli»OljOOUtiO
OOOOOU.OUUOOOOO
8gopog>
OOOOOfc
* yOpOOOUOOOijUUOOO.OOyOOOOOOCtjpOOOOOO
» OOOCOObOCODOOODOO.jOUlJOOGtetak00000
OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOuOCiOOO * +
i^QinS^MWiisiso1:::;/^::;:!:
DDQOOQO
OOOUOOO 88t)968Sl
0000000 ,,....,,
++*t 0 0000
++ coo ooo
++ COO 000
OCOu 00 0
000000 00
kOOOoOOO
OOOOOW»d . uttta
OOUODOCOOCOCJ fl
ebeeoBi IIBIIIIIIB 1
HOUSTON AfblCNT AiH SAMPLING NET«tlRK DftTA
ILD BT TtXflS NETVJDKK
»nGt APPLYl.yfc Tu tACH LEtfCL
, li.tLUutj IN MlGMCST CLVtt O
L
,. __ ..... .. ._ PREPARED AT THE
IEAL.TH SCItUCE CENTER IN' HOUSTON. FtJtftS AS
iITfl OTh£« PUBLIC ASCNCIES
UlUWEKSITY OF TEXiS
A (.UCiPLKAUUE LI-FCRT
-------
A comparison of these print-outs reveal the relative
superior condition of Northwest's air quality compared to
the rest of the city and other parts of Houston. In terms
of both Suspended Particulates and Sulphur Dioxides, the
Northwest area has relatively cleaner air but in terms of
Nitrogen Dioxides, the problem is pronounced for most of
Houston. Yet, the Northwest area falls within the lower
concentration zone. Corresponding data on Carbon Monoxides
are not available.
2. Comparison of Houston's Air Quality Against
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Ambient Air Network established and monitored
by 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.
GG- 9
-------
TABLE GG-2
COMPARISON OF HOUSTON'S POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
WITH NATIONAL AND STATE STANDARDS
Federal and State
Standards on Pollutant
Concentrations for
Particulate Matters
TACB Standard
150 ug/m3
24 hr/avg
EPA Standard
260 ug/m3
24 hr/avg
TACB Standard
55 ug/m3
Annual Geometric Mean
EPA Standard
75 ug/m3
Annual Geometric Mean
Percentages by Which Houston Exceeded
National & State Standards on Partic-
ulate Matters
1969
10.2%
1.1%
94.1%
47.0%
1970
4.6%
0.2%
70.6%
29.4%
1971
4.8%
0.3%
84.4%
41.2%
1972
3.8%
0.0%
88.0%
35.2%
1973
7.7%
2.7%
,88.0%
48.0%
SOURCE: City of Houston Department of Public Health, Air
Control Program Division, Annual Report, 1973, p. 20.
As Table GG-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
GG-10
-------
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.
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 GG-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
keenly aware of the pollution problems facing the nation's
GG- 1L
-------
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 during 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,
GG-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.
GG-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 duty.
(iv) The Stack Sampling team established in 1970 became
operational in 1971 and initiated sampling of emissions directly
f rom the sou rce.
(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.
GG-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.
(v) The authority of the program was expanded tp 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.
GG-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.
(xv) 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.
GG-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.
(vii) 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.
GG-17
-------
(xiii) During 1973, 56 positions were budgeted for
personnel and another ten additional positions were added
to the program through the Emergency Employment Funds.
(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
GG-18
-------
its transportation system. An aggressive mass transit
program is long over-due for Houston.
Table GG-2 shows 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 place 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
received 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.
GG-19
-------
TABLE GG-3
HOUSTON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Activities
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 Piled
Cases Won
Cases Lost or Dismissed
Total 1973
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.
GG-20
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER III: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (MAN-MADE
ENVIRONMENT)
APPENDIX Hi HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS
SOURCE:
THE TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
VOLUME II, HOUSTON-HARRIS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
1967
-------
HISTORICAL SITES;
In the 1820's, the settlement named Harrisburg sprang up on the
banks of Buffalo Bayou at the confluence of Brays Bayou. In 1836,
during the Texas rebellion with Mexico, Harrisburg was destroyed
by fire. On April 21, 1836, General Sam Houston's small army
captured the dictator Santa Anna and destroyed his army. Within
months, the Allen brothers (real estate promoters) bought a
6,642-acre townsite for $1.42 per acre. The townsite was located
on the banks of Buffalo Bayou at the confluence of White Oak
Bayou; the town was given the name, Houston, after the founder
of the Republic of Texas.
There remain today two outstanding historical sites near
Houston: (1) San Jacinto Park Monument Museum located at the
spot where Santa Anna was defeated which is fifteen miles east
of the center of Houston and on Buffalo Bayou at the confluence
of the San Jacinto River. This site includes a large State park,
570-foot concrete monument and a museum of Mexican-American relics.
(2) Sam Houston Park located at the western fringe of the business
core of the city and containing several century-old wood frame
houses with antique furnishings.
The recent construction of Allen's Landing Memorial Park,
locatad at the foot of Main Street and Buffalo Bayou, is intended
to create a fitting memorial to the founders of Houston and to
serve as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the city's original
business area.
H-l
-------
CULTURAL ELEMENTS:
Education. There are 14 institutions of higher learning within
Harris County: (1) University of Houstona State school, the
largest in Houston, and second largest in the State, (2) Rice
Universitya privately endowed school of extra high standards,
(3) Texas Southern Universitya State school catering mainly to
Black students, (4) South Texas Collegea junior college and law
school, (5) Baylor University of Medicinea Baptist supported
college, (6) University of Texas Dental Brancha State school,
(7) University of Texas Graduate School of Bio-Medical Science
a State school, (8) Texas Women's University College of Nursing,
(9) Saint Thomas AcademyCatholic supported college, (10) Sacred
Heart Dominican Collegea Catholic school, (11) Saint Mary's
Seminarya Catholic school, (12) San Jacinto Junior College~-a
State supported technological school located southeast of Pasadena,
(13) Lee Junior Collegea State supported technological school in
Baytown, and (14) Houston Baptist Collegea new college located in
southwest Houston. Numbers (5), (6), (7) and (8) are located in
the world famed Texas Medical Center, a 150-acre medical park,
which contains fifteen hospitals with a major Veteran's Administra-
tion Hospital nearby. There are 403 public schools and over 1,200
churches of various denominations in Harris County.
Libraries. A vital element in Houston's educational and cultur-
al life is the Houston Public Libraryan institution dedicated
not just to the enjoyment of reading but specifically to the
H-2
-------
dissemination of information. The city also maintains bookmobiles
and branch installations scattered throughout the city in locations
convenient to all parts of Houston. There is also a County library
system which operates to serve smaller towns throughout the
County. Also, most public schools have libraries of varying
size, and the universities and colleges have excellent collections.
Museums. There are several public museums: (1) The Museum
of Fine Arts which is actually an art gallery of paintings and
sculpture, (2) The Museum of Natural Science and Planetarium
located in Hermann Park near the zoo, (3) The San Jacinto
Monument Museum, which is housed in the enlarged base of the
Monument and contains hundreds of relics of the Spanish and
Mexican ownership of Texas, (4) Contemporary Arts Museum,
and (5) Bayou Bend Museum. There are also many other privately
owned galleries with extensive collections of artistic value. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration installation in
southeast Harris County maintains a current exhibit of space hard-
ware and relics of their explorations into space.
Public Arena. The Jesse H. Jones Hall for the Performing
Arts is a structure of elegant architectural design which seats
3,-000 persons in luxurious seats for such performances as symphony,
ballet, and grand opera. The Music Hall is an auditorium of 3,044
seats used for a large variety of public entertainment The Sam
Houston Coliseum is an arena of 13,000 seats used for a great
H-3
-------
variety of entertaining shows. The Harris County Domed Stadium or
Astrodome is the world's only enclosed, air conditioned stadium for
sports events and conventions. The multi-purpose facility seats
46,000 for baseball, 53,000 for football, and 66,000 for boxing
and conventions. Other events held at the Astrodome include soccer,
rodeos, polo matches, bloodless bullfights, automobile destruction
derbys, circuses, musical performances, and spiritual revivals.
Rice Stadium (the Bluebonnet Bowl) has 73,000 seats. This outdoor
stadium was built in the year 1950 and received awards for its
outstanding beauty and utility of design.
Theatre. There are four "legitimate theatres" and four "little
theatres" in the area. The former are the Alley Theatre, which is
known nationwide and received a Ford grant to build a new building
in the core of the city, Houston Theatre Center, Theatre Incorpor-
ated, and the Houston Music Theatre, which is housed in a domed
structure of 288-foot diameter with 2,865 luxury seats. The little
theatres are: Country Playhouse Incorporated, Pasadena Little
Theatre, Theatre Suburbia Incorporated, and Southwest Theatre Guild.
Music Groups. The Houston Symphony Orchestra founded in 1913
has a total of 111 performances annually. This group has an annual
budget of $900,000 and received a Ford grant of $2,500,000. The
Symphony has been listed in an April 8, 1966, Time Magazine story
as being among the "Elite Eleven" in the United States. The Houston
Grand Opera Association performs five operas per season, and has an
annual budget of over $300,000.
H-4
-------
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES:
Recreational facilities in the Houston area consist, of park-;,
swimming pools, golf courses, botanical gardens, horse troiis,-
boating, camping, fishing, and bird-watching areas.
Harris County has 60 miles of salt water shoreline including
the Houston Ship Channel and the lower reaches of the San Jacint'"/
River. Nearby Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico have 260 niiler
of salt water shoreline within seventy miles of the City of Houstc
The northern part of Harris County together with nearby counties
has 600 miles of planned fresh water shoreline within a distance
of one hundred miles from the center of Houston.
H-5
-------
TEXT RFFFRFNCF:
CHAPTER IV: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION (NON-
STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES)
APPENDIX I: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR A REGIONAL
HASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVING COMMUNITIES IN
NORTHWEST HOUSTON
-------
LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of optimizing location for a sewage treatment plant
is manyfold. An optimum location will be that which will minimize
cost of collection, treatment and disposal, and at the same time,
cause minimum disruption of the environment in the immediate vicinity
of the plant, its service area and the city as a whole. In addition,
a treatment plant should be located in such a manner that the on-sit
v
sludge handling and disposal costs will be minimum, or if the sludge
is to be transported to another location, then the sludge conveyance
costs will be minimum.
All three alternative locations were analyzed and evaluated under
the constant assumption that the treatment process and disposal methods
will remain the same at each of these alternative locations as proposed
for the Northwest Plant Regional Sewage Treatment site. The following
table (Table 1-1) indicates the evaluation methods and the subsequent
results.
The location analysis presented in Table 1-1 clearly reveals that
the proposed location at the Northwest Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant is the best location among the three alternatives, considered.
The evaluation is based on a total of 12 location factors, encompas-
sing the objective of regionalization of the citywide treatment sys-
tem to the aesthetic consideration for plant construction.
Column 17 of the evaluation table indicates that the least optimum
location is the site of the now abandoned West Forest Treatment Plant.
This means that a new treatment plant of 12 mgd cannot be located here
to serve the service area.
1-1
-------
An aggregate of all factors indicates that Northwest is the opti-
mum location. The 12 mgd facility therefore can best meet the sewer
needs of the project area if it is located at the existing Northwest
Plant site which is proposed in this study.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANT LOCATIONS AND SELECTION OF OPTIMUM LOCATION
Alternative
Locations
ONE: Hew plant of
12 mgd at West
Forest site
TWO: Proposed
location
THREE : Expand
Northwest to 6
mgd, add 6 mgd to
new plant at
Forest West
l
I >i
td -p 6
N -H Q)
H O -P
r-H U3
fti U-4 >i
fl O W
0
H C OJ
tn O rd
i 5 0 >
-P -P M
H C 0)
rH O -P W
id -H O
H -P 0) >H
P rd Qj (d (d
C U W -P (D
(1) O 0) O U
CJ M M -P (fl
+
0
m
O fd
& (!)
fl -P O H
O -H 4J (tJ
-H ^
-P -P S)
O O U U
Q) tr> (U -H
H rtf PJ >
rH 3 W M
O f-l 0) 0)
CJ W 5-( CO
+
"
0
Cn
a
H
4J O (U
M -P T3
O -H
Oj (U W
w Cnx! -P
C T3 -P C
fd 3 M rt
H H O H
B W 2! Oi
City-
owned
land
+++
+++
+++
Land Availability
Avail-
able
land
-
+++
++
Land
costs
+++
++
Suitabi-
lity of
lands
+++
++
KEY FOR RATING SYSTEM:
Favorable: High = +++
Moderate = ++
Low = +
Neither favorable
nor unfavorable = 0
Unfavorable:
Low = -
Moderate
High =
* Ibid, Page 75
-------
TABLE 1-1
(Continued)
Alternative
locations
I
II
III
Future possi-
ble expansion
+++
+++
Impact on
Water Quality
Cole
Creek
+++
+
++
White Oak
Bayou
+++
+++
-!-++
Buffalo
Bayou
++
++
++
Effect on immedi-
ate vicinity; com-
patibility with
land use
Existing
++
0
Proposed
++
0
Aesthetic
consider-
ations
+
++
+
Total
Score
+
17
29
20
0
0
0
5
-
15
3
4
Aggregate
score (net)
+ 2
+26
+16
Rank in order
of optimality
3
1
2
Remarks
Rejected
Selected
Rejected
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHARIER IV: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION (STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVES)
APPENDIX J: TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
TQ THE PROPOSED ACTION
-------
1. TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
The treatment process alternatives have been evaluated principally
on the basis of ability to satisfy effluent quality, cost and intra-
system compatibility requirements. The state of this art offers a var-
iety of alternatives. These alternatives are discussed below.
a. Septic Tanks
Septic tank treatment for domestic wastewater is impractical
and inefficient in the project area. The population density existing
in the developed areas and projected for the now undeveloped areas
would allow insufficient land for soil absorption. Furthermore, the
soils in the project area are primarily clays, and as such, are un-
suited for wastewater absorption. Septic tank treatment in the pro-
ject area would lead to inadequate waste treatment and generation of
nuisances and public health hazards.
b. Primary Treatment Only
Primary treatment employes physical operations such as screen-
ing and sedimentation to remove floating and settleable solids present
in wastewater. Such processes seldom remove more than 35% to 65% of
contaminants present in the wastewater. Primary treatment along would
not be a viable alternative, since it would not produce an effluent of
acceptable quality.
c. Secondary Treatment
Secondary treatment is generally used in conjunction with pri-
mary treatment. It employs various biological processes to remove
most organic contaminants present in wastewater. The biological unit
J-l
-------
is followed by a clarification unit, in which solids and biological
floe developed in biological unit are separated from the liquid frac-
tion. Such processes usually remove 65% to 95% of contaminants pre-
sent in wastewater. These removal efficiencies are capable of satis-
fying effluent quality standards prescribed for the proposed project.
(1) Oxidation Pond
One form of secondary treatment involves the use of oxida-
tion ponds or lagoons. The biological processes in this form of treat-
ment proceed at natural rates. This alternative is not considered via-
ble because of the slowness of the degradation process involved and
the large amounts of land area required to provide the desired holding
time. Also, this process is associated with odor problems, insect and
vector problems, and ground water pollution.
(2) Trickling Filter
Another form of secondary treatment involves the use of
sedimentation basins followed by use of one of a series of trickling
filters. The trickling filter process concentrates contaminating bio-
logical organisms on a fixed media by exposing wastewater to such
media. This process has limitations and, generally, produces an efflu-
ent of marginal quality. Trickling filter units require large land
areas for installation. The trickling filter process is not considered
an acceptable alternative for this project.
(3) Activated Sludge
A third form of secondary treatment involves the use of
J-2
-------
activated-sludge process. In the activated-sludge process, the floc-
culated biological growths are continuously recirculated and contacted
with organic waste in the presence of oxygen. The oxygen is supplied
in the form of air bubbles or by mechanical turbulence. The process
involves an aeration step followed by a solid-liquid separation step,
from which a portion of separated sludge is recycled as microbial seed.
There are a number of activated-sludge variations. These
variations differ basically from each other in the manner in which the
micro-organisms are put to work and the manner in which the required
hardware is assembled. Some of the process variations are: (1) conven-
tional, (2) extended aeration, (3) Kraus process, (4) high rate aera-
tion, (5) completely mixed, (6) contact stabilization, and (7) pure-
oxygen systems.
These activated-sludge process variations differ within
specific ranges of influent flow as to efficiency and economy. The
activated sludge in each form generally produces an effluent of accep-
table quality and requires less land area than the other processes.
d. Advanced Treatment
Advanced wastewater treatment is used in conjunction with pri-
mary and secondary treatment processes and employs various chemical
and physical unit operations and processes to remove nutrients and dis-
solved salts not removed during primary and secondary treatment. These
operations and processes generally produce an effluent of excellent
quality. The production of an effluent of such a quality is not re-
quired at this time, nor is it economically -justifiable. However, the
treatment processes and facilities proposed for this project are de-
J-3
-------
signed in such a manner that advanced wastewater treatment facilities
can be added in the future.
2- DISINFECTION
Disinfection of treated effluent prior to final discharge from
treatment facilities is necessary to insure reduction of pathogenic
organisms found in domestic wastewater for reasons of public health.
Disinfection may be accomplished by ozonation or chlorination with gas-
eous chlorine or hypochlorite solution. These alternatives are sum-
marized in Table J-l.
3. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
A number of options for effluent disposal were investigated. A
summary is given in Table J-2.
J-4
-------
TABLE J-l
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
Review
Remark
Ocean Outfall
Due to the extremely high costs
of long distance piping con-
struction, direct outfall to the
ocean is not considered viable.
Rejected
Natural Evaporation
The alternative here is not
feasible because the hydrologic
cycle in the Houston area pro-
duces a negative net evaporation
rate during several months of the
year. Moreover$ pre-evaporation
effluent storage area requirements
cannot be met economically.
Rejected
Artificial
Evaporation
The option of effluent disposal
by artificial evaporation processes
is not considered desirable due. to
high capital and operating costs -
associated with artificial
evaporation facilities and prevailing
fuel costs.
Rejected
Irrigation
Irrigational use of the treated
effluent is not considered practical
inasmuch as (1) adequate water
supplies are presently available
for nearby areas now under
cultivation, (2) total acreage under
cultivation in the Houston area is
declining and (3) distances involved
in delivering effluent to cultivated
acreages where demand exists are
uneconomical.
Rejected
Industrial
Rause
The alternative of re-use of
treated effluent is not considered
feasible due to the increased costs
of treatment necessary to produce
water of satisfactory quality
compared with the current low cost
and abundance associated with
existing water supply sources
within the Houston area.
Rejected
J-5
-------
TABLE J-l(continued)
Alternatives
Review
Remark
Groundwater
Recharge
Groundwater recharge as a method
of disposal is not considered
feasible due to (1) the high cost
of treating the effluent to make
it suitable for injection into
deep aquifers and (?) the high
cost of injection facilities
themselves.
Rejected
Diversion to
Distant Inland
Waters
The alternative of diverting
treated effluent to another
natural drainage channel is not
considered viable due to the
great costs involved with long
distance pipe construction.
Rejected
Discharge into
Adjacent Inland
Waters
Treated effluent from the
proposed facilities will be of
quality sufficient to permit its
disposal through discharge into Sims
Bayou ( natural drainage channel
running beside the proposed plant
site) while respecting state and
federal regulatory constraints. It
is the least costly and most practical
environmentally acceptable effluent
disposal alternative.
Chosen
J-6
-------
TABLE J-2
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND SELECTION
Alternatives
Description
Remarks
Ozonation
Ozonation involves bubbling gas-
eous ozone (03) through the
effluent. Although ozone possess-
es high disinfective power, it
has high cost of generation and
associated hardware, and does
not maintain a residual concen-
tration.
Rejected
Chlorination
Compared to ozonation, chlorina-
tion is relatively inexpensive.
It also provides complete disin-
fection. Associated equipment
and hardware are easy to install
and operate. Two varieties of
chlorination are used in waste-
water disinfection.
Gaseous chlorine: is toxic and
dangerous although it requires
lower equipment and operating
cost than ozone. In the interest
of safety at the plant, gaseous .
disinfection is considered un-
desirable.
Hypochlorite solution; is safer
to use than gaseous chlorine.
Although hypochlorite solution
is associated with higher equip-
ment and operating cost, the
correspondingly lower chemical
cost and safety in its use makes
it a desirable chemical for
disinfection.
Rejected
Chosen
J-7
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER V: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX K; TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION
-------
1. Diffused Air Activated Sludge*
Diffused air activated sludge is the method of wastewater treat-
ment used by the City of Houston since 1916, when the first full-scale
activated sludge plant in the nation was completed at the North Side
Plant. There are presently 18 activated sludge plants of permanent
construction in the City of Houston. Nine smaller package-type acti-
vated sludge plants are now operated and maintained by the City of
Houston as a result of annexations of smaller communities and water
districts.
Figure K-l shows a flow diagram of a typical activated sludge plant
in the City of Houston today. . City of Houston policy is to minimize
process steps involving exposure of raw wastewater to the atmosphere,
thereby minimizing the potential for odor. Therefore, treatment plants
not receiving transfer sludge do not have grit removal facilities or
primary clarifiers. Raw wastewater received at a plant is pumped dir-
ectly into the aeration basin, where it is mixed with aerated return
sludge. After approximately 4.8 hours aeration (based on average daily
flow only), the mixed liquid flows to the final clarifier for solids
separation. Return sludge is pumped from the bottom of the clarifier
to the reaeration channel where it is aerated for approximately 11 hours
(based on return sludge flow only) before being mixed with the raw
wastewater. Excess sludge is pumped off-site through a force main.
The final clarifier effluent flows to the chlorine contact chamber for
Information has been extracted from "Analysis of Excess Flows Treat-
ment Costs at Wastewater Treatment Plants Not Receiving Transfer
Sludge", City of Houston, Department of Public Works, Job No. 347,
1974. Binkley & Holmes, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Houston, Texas,
K-l
-------
FIGURE K-l ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
TO OFF-SITE
DISPOSAL
SLUDGE
PUMPING
TO RECEIVING
STREAM
CHLORINE
CONTACT
SLUDGE
SEDIMENTATION
I
SLUDGE
REAERATfON
AERATION
IRON ADDITION
'("SET 3-p"EFFLUENTONLY]
RAW
WASTEWATER
PUMPING
INFLUENT
K-2
-------
a minimum detention of 20 minutes after hypochlorite addition, then
is discharged to the receiving stream. Table K-l shows the recommended
design criteria for activated sludge plants. These criteria have been
developed for 'the newly established TWQB effluent standards based on
City of Houston operating data.
As yet, no plant has been designed and built under the new design
criteria for clarifier loading rates. However, there are some plants,
due to below-design loading, that are operating in the range of the new
design criteria.
3. Contact Stabilization Process
In the contact stabilization process, the decomposition or diges-
tion of organic waste by microorganisms is brought about in two steps,
each in different process units. In the first step the microorganisms
"eat" or "consume" the food. More rigorously, this corresponds to the
diffusion of organic material and nutrients through the microbial cell
wall. This step takes place very quickly in a "contact zone". The
second step involves metabolic digestion or biochemical breakdown of
the material consumed. This process is more complicated, involving a
series of biochemical reactions, requires a longer period of time for
its completion, and is achieved in a "reaeration tank". A flow dia-
gram of a contact stabilization plant is shown in Figure A-2.. Raw
wastewater normally enters via a manually cleaned bar screen.
The screened waste flows to the "contact zone" where it is inti-
mately and quickly mixed with a sludge consisting largely of micro-
bial cells obtained from the "reaeration zone". The mixture of sludge
(called activated sludge) and raw sewage is retained approximately 30
K-3
-------
TABLE K-l
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DIFFUSED AIR ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
(Q = Design Average Flow)
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Firm capacity(with largest unit out of service)
equal to maximum hour wet weather flow
Aeration Basins
Size/mgd (1 x w x d - ft)
Volume/mgd (cu.ft.)
Detention (hr.)*
MLSS concentration (mg/1)**
BOD loading (Ib. BOD/lb. SS in Aeration)**
Firm air supply (Cf/lf. BOD)
Ferric chloride dosage - Set 3-P
Effluent only (mg/1 as Fe)
Final Clarifier
Overflow rate (gpd/sq.ft.)
Avg. flow (Q) - Set 2 Effluent***
Avg. flow (Q) - Set 3-P Effluent
Maximum hour wet weather flow
Underflow rate (gpd/sg.ft.)
Average condition
Maximum capability
Solids loading @ Q (Ib/sq. ft/day)**
Return sludge SS (mg/1)
Chlorine Contact Basin
Detention at maximum hour wet weather flow (min.)
Air mixing supply (cfm/1000 cu.ft.)
Hypochlorite dosage as equiv. Cl2 (mg/1)
Hypochlorite generation capacity (Ib/hr/mgd)
Q _ 10 mgd
Q 10 mgd
100 x 30 15
45,000
8
2000
0.125
1500
32
500
350
1750
150
600
7.6
8000
20
20
6
36
24
* Total volume of aeration and reaeration based on Q .only.
** Applies to Set 2 Effluent only. Addition of ferric chloride
for Set 3 Effluent requires higher MLSS concentration, lower
BOD loading and higher solids loading.
*** Applies up to 3.5Q, then maximum hour overflow rate governs.
Note: Set 2 Effluent Standard is defined as monthly average of 10
mg/1 BOD and 15 mg/1 SS.
Set 3-P Effluent Standard is defined as monthly average of
5 mg/1 BOD, 10 mg/1 SS and 2 mg/1 phosphorous.
K-4
-------
to 90 minutes in the "contact zone" during which period the first of
the two above-mentioned processing steps occurs. (This retention time
can be varied somewhat by adjusting the discharge rate of the return
sludge pumps.)
Wastewater flows from the "contact zone" to the clarification com-
partment where the sludge or solids settle. A sludge collector then
moves the sludge to a hopper, from which it is withdrawn and returned
to the "reaeration zone". Here, the second of the two basic steps men-
tioned above occurs as organic material absorbed by the activated sluclij.
in the "contact zone" is digested and assimilated for energy and produc-
tion of new cells. At the outlet end of the compartment the reaeration
activated sludge is ready to be mixed with a fresh load of raw sewage
in the "contact zone". The reaeration period varies from 3 to 6 hours.
A portion of the activated sludge from the clarifier is wasted
prior to recycle, to maintain a constant solid in the reaeration tank*
FIGURE K-2
FLOW DIAGRAM OF CONTACT STABILIZATION PLANT
Influent ^
*& >
Bar screen
Contact tank
(
Reaeration tank
X
Clarifier [
Return
sludge ,
1
i
Chlorinator
Effluent
K-5
-------
T _
Design criteria for contact stabilization plant is given in Table
i
TABLE K-2
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CONTACT STABILIZATION PLANT
Contact-Stabilization (Reaeration):
Basic Design Criteria:
Aeration:
Detention Time:* 1 hour
Air Aupply: 350 ft3 min./lb raw BOD
Sedimentation:
Detention Time:* 2 hours
Surface Loading:* 800 gpd/sf
Reaeration:
Detention .Time:** 4 hours
Air Supply: 750 ft3/lb raw BOD applied
Digestion:
Detention Time: 15 days
Volume (Aerobic): 1.5 ft3/capita
Air Supply: 20 ft3 min/1,000 ft3 volume
* Based on average daily design flow, Q, plus 50% return of
1.5 Q.
** Based on return flow of 0.5Q.
Blowers and compressors shall be capable of delivering the maxi-
mum air requirements considering the largest unit out of service,
Pumps and piping for return sludge shall be of such capacity as
is capable of returning 100 per cent of the sludge and/or 50 per
cent of the average design forward flow.
K-6
-------
3. Plant Efficiency Calculation
The total suspended solids and BOD5 removal calculations are given
in this section.
a. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
To illustrate the expected effluent quality criteria from
plants designed under the new criteria, 1973 operating data have been
compiled on several plants in Houston. Figure K-3 shows effluent sus-
pended solids variation with varying clarifier overflow rates. For
design overflow rate of 360 gpd/ft2, the effluent TSS obtained fro;r.
this Figure is approximately 6 mg/1. It is believed that under nor-
mal operational conditions, the suspended solids will remain below
15 mg/1 TSS criteria.
b. BOD^ Removal
The following mathematical equations apply to completely
mixed activated sludge systems operating in the declining growth
phase. Fundamental microbiological relationships indicate that growth
is controlled by the rate of addition of food in the declining growth
phase.
Fi
K = Km t + 1
BODeff = F + Kb Maeff
Ma
Maeff = MTeff x MT
MT = Ma + Me + M.J_ + M
11
K-7
-------
FIGURE K-3 1973 EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS VARIATION
AT CITY OF HOUSTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
S S s 2 £
AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT TSS-MG/L
rj.V4ae*xi4»KG3
''':
r *
h
'!;
. .
r -*-
[
-
f'"
r -
"
r
'
:
-
1
I
t~
"*
l^
i .
i
I r
-:r
i:
t I
"!:"
i-
-
'
'
t
<*₯Vft "^.f'.r: ^r^Tr^^^r^"
.i::.:t-.i!
- 1 ' t - i ' - -.l-'
::,:[:. :::;;- . ;!:.-;
A
.,, . .
^
"
-
^
M
;!:-::
)
~il
". '.:
r
t
',", I
:::
1^**
^-r^^^
'
S
G
%
..:
. :.
-.- '
:
! : :
1
LEGEND . i: ;
- . ., .,.,1. .... ).. .. + . ,..,.. , . - . j . - 1 . ; - , .
-'- t 1 . ' . . I *.- - . ... 1 - , . , .,..,. , . , . - - . ,..,... t . .
' ; ? i > ', } i - - - - , !;- 1. 1 - - i . t - -
:i::jTf;:j::;;-;i;;: p;-!:::: :-:-':: :':-'.' a :'.' '-.{ : ! ;.::r '-
:'!.:: |:::;j.::-|-.::;j::: r1;.:;;;- |:".j. . § .-..:!.. . : '!-..
: :-.;;; j. '.::.';. h..
. . . ' '. '. \ L* .. i \ . '. i ...
OUTHWEST;;- ': . ;;;::; \-. '.'' .\ :"
ULF MEADOWS ::;: ' '" I
CID NO, 47
'
; i
; ; ; ;
i : : i .
! . ' . i
1 . ...
: :; I; ;£
"!."".::
, . , 1 . . - J . ,
. '
: '^^n
".
.-....,.;....!..... ; ...
;.;:!:..: : ;.;! ..:
.-;'A' .-i::. =":
, . . . t , . . . . *
: .::!. -.-;. .i
. . t . 1 . . . , .... j , . . .
-. ;
; i
r
...
SET 3-P STO; ;
. : . ' ; ;:.':: t . : : .
! . . I . ; . . .
.- . : . A - - ! - t
-' r:--\^^*~9>
^^-^ '.-..:: A «
:i|:.;:!:.i:'i: .-!::;
:'l. ':':. : :' ' IT; ' '
ICO 200 300
AVERAGE MONTHLY C
: « ::.'.; 5 ' '"
j : ; . . j . . , w
-:<- T -': « :r; ;-= ;-. . ;:.[::
1; «M i".'-
Z ','. '.I'. ' °* ... .; '
O ,. 1 H ' !' ' ' ' '.
«::.::(.:.:. Jjj . . , : ;
^!:'i:::!: 3 ' ." l -\/'\
^ ^\ \ ' ' ' - !
SETt ASTtf0^^ B /:' ;'
. i . : ,''!
' to ' . ; _.'"' ::..',. '
. »- :': ' e j " ..-' ' -: ,' :
^j i ^ **'(
.; :.-, H A ,«<'- . " f :
'."' i ' : , j . . :
;..'.'.' ; ' j---' . ; . i B ''..'. ; ' '
,^^v. };; Vv:i;i-3i
' A* A' :.' :: ... ' , ..' ! .!...'!' . T
, 1 ' ! ! ' ''ii''".. ' ' ' ' "
*-' I ..-.-. j -.'l' .... . ..' * .'.' _'.'v'J-. j,
400 500 600
LARIFIER OVERFLOW RATE GPD/SQ.FT.
i '. . ':
'. . ! .
.. . ;,. . .
'.'.'.
. ' ; "
, :
; - '
, : i :. ,
..... ; .
'.::\ ~ "r
;..:;
:;!i
7(
: -|.- !::-.:
,.:i:
....
)0
-?
800
-------
KT = Km, Ks or Ke at temp T°C
K20 = Km/ Ks or Ke at temP 20°C
M- f = non-biodegradable organic suspended solids in influent,
11 approximately 40% of the VSS in normal domestic sewage
mg/1 VSS
Miiinf = inert ss in influent, mg/1 nonvolatile SS
For the operation of the Northwest Plant, the average operational
temperature in aeration tank is assumed to be 24 °C.
Km(24°C) = 7.2 (1.072)24-20 = 9 . 5/hr
KS(24°C) = 5.0 (1.072)24-20 = 6.6/hr
Ke(24°C) = 0.02 (1.072)24"20 = 0.026/hr
225 225
F = 9.5x3.36+1= 34=6.6 mg/1
Ib of MLSS in aeration tank +
ts = Ib SS in effluent and waste sludge/day - neglect
Assume MLSS in aeration tank = 3000 mg/1. The volume of the tank
is 1.68 million gallons.
Quantity of sludge wasted based upon 260 gpm at 8000 mg/1 =
25,000 Ibs/day.
Assume 48% solids constitute biological mass.
Biomass wasted per day = 25,000 x 0.48 = 12,000 Ibs/day.
1.63 x 3000 x 8.34 42,000
ts = 12 x 6 x 8.34 + 12,000 = 600 + 12,000 = 203 days
= 56 hrs.
6.6x6.6 6.6x6.6
Ma = 0.026 + 1/56 = 0.044 = 990 mg/1
Me = 0.2 x 0.026 x 990 x 56 = 290
K-9
-------
KSF
Ma = Ke
Me = 0.2 Ke Ma ts
ts
Mi = Miinf t
ts
Mii = Miiinf t -f 0.1 (Ma + Me)
Ib MLSS in aeration tank ^_^_ +
ts = Ib SS in effluent and waste sludge - Ib SS change in ML per day
KT = K2Q d.072) T~20
where F = unmetabolized BOD in the effluent, mg/1
Pi = influent BOD5 = 225 mg/1
Km = metabolism factor, 7.2/hr at 20°C
t = aeration time, 3.36 hrn
BODeff = BOD *-n effluent, mg/1
Kb = 0.8 (BOD factor)
Maeff = active microbial mass in effluent, mg/1 VSS
MTeff = total suspended solids in effluent, mg/1
Ma = active microbial mass, mg/1 VSS
Mrp - mixed liquor suspended solids, mg/1
Me = endogenous respiration mass, mg/1 VSS
MJ_ = inert, nonbiodegradable organic SS, mg/1
Mj^ = inert, inorganic SS, mg/1 non volatile SS
Ks = synthesis factor 5.0/hr at 20°C
Ke = endogenous respiration factor, 0.02/hr at 20°C
ts = sludge turnover time, hrs
K- 10
-------
MI = 0.35 x 0.9 x 220 x 56/3.36 = 1160
Mil = 0.1 x 220 x 56/3.36 + 0.1 (990 + 290) = 370 + 128 = 498
MT = 990 + 290 + 1160 + 498 = 2938 within the operating range
990
Maeff = 6.0x 2938 = 2 mg/1
BODeff = F + Kb Maeff =6.6+0.8x2=6.6+1.6=8.2 mg/1
Effluent Qual.ity
Active microbial mass = 2.0 mg/1
Total suspended solids = 6.0 mg/1
Soluble BOD5 =6.6 mg/1
Total BOD =8.2 mg/1
K-ll
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER VI: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX"L; SECONDARY IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION
THE DEGREE TO WHICH THIS ACTION WILL AFFECT
POPULATION, ECONOMIC GROWTH, LAND USE AND
RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
-------
A. SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS ON THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE INFRA-
STRUCTURE AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM
The term infra-structure is defined as those elements of the urban
environment which are conventionally provided by the public sector for
stimulating private development of housing, commercial, industrial and
other real-estate activities. These facilities are normally considered
as transportation, water and sewer services. Other facilities, such as
schools and parks, are also important determinants of private develop-
ment, and as such are classified as infra-structure elements.
The interrelationships of these facilities are crucial. Since
housing, industrial and commercial developments are often contingent on
these facilities, the absence of any one type of facility can deter
growth or at least can make the growth pattern haphazard and less than
attractive. Paradoxically, the presence of the same factor alone may
not be sufficient to bring about the desired growth. A balanced, com-
plete policy of providing all elements of the infra-structure system
for an area is vital.
In the context of the proposed Northwest Sewage Treatment Plant,
most other public facilities are adequate for the service area except
the sewer system. The proposed project will fill a vacuum that has long
persisted in the area. Its construction is expected to complete the
cycle of a full range of public services. The cumulative impact of these
elements is projected to be substantial as noted earlier in this report
on the section of population and economic base forecasts.
The secondary impact of the project on attracting population, em-
ployment, housing and land use growth as identified in this section re-
flects the integrated impact of all infra-strUcture elements as a sys-
L-l
-------
tern. But since a void exists in the area of sewer service, the impact
of the rest of the service elements has not been fully felt in the pact,
The present level of population and land use for the project service
area is testimony to that.
B. EFFECTIVE 1990 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT LEVELS FOR THE AREA TO
BE SERVICED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As noted elsewhere in this report, the project appears, in varying
degrees, the areas which together make up the total service area for
the proposed facility.
Population
Employment
1970
47,173
22,200
Population
Employment
1990
90,140
44,000
C. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
GAIN BETWEEN 1970 AND 1990
Population
Employment
1970
47,174
22,200
1990
90,140
44,000
Net Change
1970-1990
42,966
21,800
It could be approximately concluded that the construction and
operation of the proposed project will cause a population gain of
43,000 persons and an additional gain of 22,000 employed people within
its effective service area during the next 20-year period. Without
the construction of the proposed project, these people and workers are
not likely to select their residences or places of work in the service
area.
L-2
-------
D. NET IMPACT ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
1. Additional population increase by 1990 = 43,000 persons
Total Population
2. Persons per household = Total No. of Households or Occupied
Dwelling or Housing Units
Persons per household for:
1960 = 3.28 (Source: 1960 Census of Population and Housing)
1970 = 3.09 (Source: 1970 Census of Population and Housing)
1990 (Projected) = 2.90 (Source: The University of Texas at
Arlington
3. Total number of housing units required to house an additional
43,000
population of 57,180 persons = 2.90
= 14,700 Dwelling Units (occupied)
4. Vacancy rate: 1960 =7.1% (Source: 1960 Census of Population
and Housing)
1970 = 7.95% (Source: 1970 Census of Population
and Housing)
1980 (Projected) =7.8% (Source: The University
of Texas at Arlington
5. Total Housing Units = Occupied Housing Units + Vacant Housing
Units
H = 14,700 + .08 H
or 0.92 H = 14,700 units
14,700
H = 0.92 = 16,000 units
6. Anticipated displacement of existing housing as a result of
delapidation, damage due to flood, incidence of fire, etc.
= 5% of existing housing stock
= .05 x 15,600
= 780
L-3
-------
7. Total additional dwelling units required through 1990:
= 16,000 + 780
= 16,780 units
8. Land Requirement: at a projected net density of 7.0 dwelling
units per acre:
16,780
Residential land requirements through 1990 = 7.0 = 2380 acres
The construe'.ion of.a regional sewage treatment plant at the pro-
posed Northwest location will, in conjunction with other infra-struc-
ture elements, attract by 1990 a population of 43,000 persons to its
service areas, which will create the demand for 16,780 new housing units.
At an average density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre, a total of 2380
acres of vacar.l land is expected to be urbanized in the service area
for residential development.
E. NET IMPACT ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Anticipated net increase of employment through the year 1990 is
22,000 workers. Proportion of manufacturing workers as a percent of
total employment in Houston:
1960 = 21.6% (Source: 1960 Census of Population and Housing)
1970 = 20.4% (Source: 1970 Census of Population-and Housing)
The service area of the proposed project is not as suitable for
more intensive industrial development as several other communities in
the city. As such, the proportion of manufacturing workers for the
area is expected to be smaller than the corresponding city average.
Further, the supply of suitable lands for industrial development is
not ar abundant in the service area as elsewhere in the city. Consi-
L-4
-------
dering these factors, a 1990 projected figure of 16% for industrial
workers as a percent of total area employment for the service area
appears reasonable.
1990 manufacturing employment = 22,000 x .16
= 3520 workers
At a projected industrial density of 12 workers per acre of gross land,
net industrial land demand is:
3520
12 = 295 acres
F. NET IMPACT ON RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
..- These will include commercial ..retail, office and service activi-
ties; parks and recreation; schools and related activities. Following
is an estimate of lands to be developed for each of these categories:
1. Commercial Development
Total population = 43,000
At the rate of 5 acres of commercial land per 1,000 population,
5 x 43,000
Total commercial land demand = 1000
= 215 acres
This may include the development of one new regional shopping
center (75 acres), three community shopping centers (each 30 acres),
and five neighborhood shopping centers (each 10 acres)
2. Parks and Open Spaces
Following the national standard of 10 acres of park land per
1,000 population, the total parks and recreation demand by the 'net in-
L-5
-------
43,000
crease of population = 1000 x 10 = 430 acres
These park acreages could be allocated to various types of parks as
follows:
Four community parks @ 75 acres = 300 acres
Eight neighborhood parks @ 15 acres = 120 acres
The ample lands available in the flood-plain areas along the Cole
Creek and White Oak Bayou offer excellent opportunities for the devel-
opment of these parks and open space facilities.
3. Schools: J
Total Population - 43,000 persons
Five elementary schools, each serving a population of 7,000
to 10,000 persons
Two junior high schools, each serving a population of 18,000
to 25,000 persons
One senior high school, serving a population of 25,000 to
34,000 persons
The corresponding land area need is:
Five elementary schools @ 15 acres each = 75 acres
Two junior high schools @ 40 acres each = 80 acres
One senior high school @ 60 acres = 60 acres
Total 215 acres
G. SUMMARY CONCLUSION OF SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following table summarizes the net impact (secondary) of the
proposed Northwest Sewage Treatment Project on the development of var-
ious land use activities under the assumptions stated earlier.
L-6
-------
NET IMPACT ON:
Population
Employment
Magnitude of Impact
Number
43,000 persons
22,. 000 jobs
Acres
Residential
Development
16,780 housing units
2, 380
Industrial
1 npmpnt.
Commercial
Development
Parks and
Recreation
Schools
TOTAL
12
295
215
430
215
3,535
H- IMPACT OF URBANIZATION ON AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
It appears that the people of Houston and their City
Government desire additional growth. To attract urbaniza-
tion, public facilities are needed such as sewage treatment
L-7
-------
facilities. The preceding sections have shown that the
construction of the proposed facility will aid the city in
bringing about an additional growth of 43,000 persons for
its service area. This population will require the develop-
ment of an estimated 3,535 acres of lands for various purposes
such as housing, work places, schools, and related facilities.
The expansion of the facility will also improve the existing
public health conditions for those sections of the service
area which are currently served by septic tanks. On a short
term basis, the quality of water in Cole Creek, White Oak
Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, and the Houston Ship Channel would also
experience a beneficial impact from the project construction.
It is not disputed that growth and urbanization are in
themselves harmful. But going a step further when one analyzes
the possible consequences of urbanization on the quality of the
environment, one faces the issue of deciding whether or not
such urbanizations are desirable. There are options
available for avoiding adverse ramifications of growth,
L-8
-------
though in some instances people are not aware of and are
not willing to take necessary steps 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 43,000 persons would further deteriorate the quality
of air in the northwest Houston. This section shows how
this may occur.
1. Impact of Population Increase on Travel Demand;
Travel demand is defined here 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 Northwest Treatment Plant Service Area:
Total net population increase by 1990 = 43,000 persons
Ho. of trips = 43,000 x 3 = 130,000 vehicular trips
Total vehicular miles to be traveled per day =
130,000 x 2.60 = 338,000 vehicular miles per day.
L-9
-------
Alternately,
Y = P(fi) (f2) (f3) (f4) where
Y = Vehicular miles per year
P = Population increase
f , = Total passenger miles per person
f-2 = T^e factor expressing the travel allocation
to the motor vehicle after adjustment for
mass transit
fo = Vehicular occupancy rate (no. of persons
per vehicle)
f A = Allocation of total miles to urban and
non-urban travel.
[ f1 = 7,000 miles/year, f2 = 0.85, f3 = 0.58 @1.72 persons
per vehicle, and f 4 = .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, p. 71.]
The values of f-^, f 2/ and f_ as suggested by the above
study appear to be appropriate for the Houston situation.
Y (for Northwest Service Area) = 43,000 X 7,000 X .85 X .58 X .8
= 108,000,000 miles per year
Total vehicle miles to be traveled per day by the 43,000
additional people in the service area = 108 ,000,000
365
= 322,000 vehicle miles/day
L-10
-------
Average vehicle miles per day= (338,000 + 322,000)
= 330,000 miles per day
2. Vehicular Transportation Emission Rates;
Considerable research has been conducted through
the auspices of the various federal agencies particularly
the Environmental Protection Agency to determine the emission
rates of transportation 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, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Second Edition, AP-42, April 1973, Table 3.1.1-1, 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.
Pollutant
CO
HC
NOX
Emission Rates in Grams
1975
60
7-66
4.9
1980
36.5
4.1
2.8
per Mile
1980 and later
23.8
2.5
1.6
L-ll
-------
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
Northwest Treatment Facility on Ambient Air Quality;
Applying the emission rates in grams per mile to the
projected vehicular miles of travel by the 43,000 persons, the
pollutant concentration per day in 1990 is estimated as follows:
CO 330,000 X 23.8 = 7,850,000 grams/day
HC 330,000 X 2.5 = 825,000 grams/day
NO 330,000 X 1.6 = 528,000 grams/day
J*L
The corresponding pollution concentration in Ibs/day is as follows:
CO 17,600 Ibs/day =8.8 tons/day = 3,200 tons/yr
HC 1,850 Ibs/day =0.93 tons/day =340 tons/year
NO 1,190 Ibs/day = 0.60 tons/day = 219 tons/year
it
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 Northwest
Treatment Plant on ambient air quality in terms of Carbon Monoxide,
L-12
-------
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
GG, have the ability to collecte and process air pollution
information only for particulate matters. The Northwest Section
has only one monitoring station (Station 11) approximately
3 miles due west from the proposed 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
3,200 tons/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
L-13
-------
and clean air at the same time. This is a "trade-off" which
should be given consideration. Appendix GG has shown the data
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.
L-14
-------
TEXT REFERFNCE:
CHAPTER VI: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX M5 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
HOUSTON'S NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
PROGRAM
-------
HOUSTON'S NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
A COMMUNITY RELATIONS HANDBOOK
PRELIMINARY
AUGUST, 1973
HOUSTON CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ROSCOE H.JONES, DIRECTOR
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through a Grant
in accordance with Section 701 of the 1954 Housing Act as amended.
M-l
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD vii
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER I GENERAL NATURE OF CITIZEN 3
INVOLVEMENT
REASONS FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 3
NATURE OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 4
ORIENTATION OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANNER 5
CHAPTER n DATA GATHERING 1O
CITY WIDE DATA SOURCES AND FILING 1O
SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD DATA SOURCES AND 11
FILING
CHAPTER III INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT CONTACT 13
BEFORE THE INTERVIEW 13
DURING THE INTERVIEW 14
AFTER THE INTERVIEW 18
CHAPTER IV MEETING WITH RESIDENT GROUPS 23
GROUPS SEEKING INFORMATION 23
PRESENTATION OF THE SKETCH PLAN 25
MEETING WITH APPROVED PLAN 28
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION: WHAT ELSE? 3O
SERVICE FOLLOW-UP 31
RELATION OF RESIDENTS TO CITY SERVICES 31
INITIATE PERSONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 31
APPROACHES
TRAIN LEADERSHIP FOR CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT 32
ACTIONS
M-2
-------
GENERAL NATURE OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
REASONS FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
The Houston Neighborhood Improvement Program requires citizen-resident
involvement. This draws together the resident, the planning team and the
Community Relations Planner in an effort to bring about neighborhood im-
provement .
The resident knows his area better than observers living elsewhere.
He, more than a passer-by, knows from daily experience the needs and bless-
ings of where he lives. Field teams must, of course, check for a total
picture of the area and for precise data relating to physical conditions.
However, length of residency alone gives the citizen an advantage. He
sees his neighborhood in all times of day and night, in all seasons of the
year, in all kinds of weather.
An additional reason for calling on the residents for input and help
is that improvements are made for the use of the residents; to some ex-
tent these same improvements come under the care of the residents. Resi-
dents are inclined to take better care of what they themselves help bring
about. Hence the mors involved a neighborhood becomes in its own improve-
ment, the longer lasting the improvement and the further the tax-dollar
will stretch.
Not infrequently features of an area are beloved to the residents,
M-3
-------
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING METHOD
INFORMATION GATHERING
Working Base
In~Hou3e Info
Other Dept. Info
Working Maps
Presentation of Info
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT
Contact Civic,
Business and Church
Leaders
FIELD INFORMATION
Street Conditions
Natural Features
Historic Features
Housing Conditions
SKETCH PLAN
Overall Plan
Short and Long Range
Suggestions
NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW
Presentation of
Sketch Plan
Revisions of Plan
APPROVED PLAN
Final Presentation '
Final Layout,
Writing and Printing
PLAN ACTION
Implementation
Continuing Action
to Achieve Plan
FIRST
NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION
GATHERING
SECOND
_| [ ' NEIGHBORHOOD
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
X0'
F
UACT/
IELD
INFORMATION
13 CZ
SKETCH
PLAN
INFORMATION
GATHERING
13 CZ
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
^CONTA
THIRD
NEIGHBORHOOD
CT/
FIELD
INFORMATION
13 CZ 13
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
1
VIEW /
APPROVED
PLAN
INFORMATION
GATHERING
ZI CZ
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
FOURTH
NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION
'\CQNTACT/' GATHERING
\ f Fl
CZ -3
SKETCH
PLAN
ZI CZ
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
k^BEVIEW J
\
. 1 i
PLAN
<
V
FIELD
INFORMATION
SKETCH
PLAN
FTH
| NEIGHBORHOOD
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD 1
\CONT
ACT/ (
L_ :
FIELD
INFORMATION \
7
l«n« ) ^
*
S
%
7
FORMATION
1ATHERING
z cz
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
CONTACT/
M-4
-------
MEETING WITH RESIDENT GROUPS
GROUPS SEEKING INFORMATION
A local civic club or church group, hearing of the Neighborhood Improve-
ment Program may ask for more information about the Program. This is an
opportunity for the Community Relations Planner to provide this information
with the result that he will receive needed citizen input from the group and
obtain more contacts with residents.
To do this he will need maps, relating to the program, that point up
the work done city-wide and work done on this particular area. The number
of maps and the type of information they contain will depend on what the
in-house planning team has produced for his use.
A couple of points should be kept in mind. Minimally, it is requisite
that his talk convey clearly that the City Planning Department is working
on this particular area to develop a plan for it. Secondly, any added in-
formation of soon-to-be-added improvements should be mentioned to these
listeners. The general thrust of the talk should be aimed at arousing local
in tar ear. In sslf-betcartnent with the hope that initiative will acme forward.
Questions will be asked about the area and about areas unfamiliar to the
Community Relations Planner. These questions are to be answered honestly,
admitting your limitations as to what is asked. If appropriate, offer to
investigate a matter that is not known to you and yet is asked about.
M-5
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER X: COMMENTS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION
DISSEMINATION
APPENDIX N: NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS
-------
jy.ii
By MLMI CROSSLEY
Post Reporter
A partial cirywide ban on
n n w building permits has
been placed on Houston by
city officials because of the
overloaded sewer system,
pending an Improvement plan
to IK- r.ubmitted to state pollu-
ti'io authorities June 1.
Ory experts hope that the
plan for revamping the sys-
|Mn with $100 million In new
;. ' 'v r> r ral'."; . passed last
i- nlii hy Mayor Frod Hof-
!';>'. ,-ind the City Council
vlll keep the Texas Water
','ii;.||fy Hoaid from clamping
r n.it "Iso" on any further
l'l;ililm;;.
"''i' '?veri if tlie board ap-
r>-'vr-; tbr> j)lan, cily officials
..'V that future building in
i ]',inn -.- the iliinl fastent-
v 'i '-,- j 11 fj city in tlie na-
li- n- -.-.ill hi.1 tied directly to
juipnjvemrnls in waste scw-
n-;i- Irrnlinent plants and new
'inr":, in each of the city's 43
In. -itinrnt areas.
"vVf arc in control of the
silualion here in the city,"
s.iid Qiarles Williams, head
of the city's sanitary sewer
system. "We have actually
had a floating system situ-
ation for some time, issuing
permission 'for connections
area by erea as improve-
ments go in." '
Meanwhile, to limit con-
nections to the overloaded
system, no new construction
permits are being issued in
about one-third of the city,
and restrictions have been
placed on the type of con-
slruclion in lh? rest of Hous-
ton, public works o'Ucinlr,
confirmed
Altlmiijh ?H romuiir'nini's
previously i^'ifl for w.m'
ored, new p^unil1; ''.": 1 '.'in;;
generally hrl'.l t1.1 .? liinil c(
five residniti'i! 'inils )>r-r
acre, or the pqiiival -?:if o( nn?
two-story cc'Tnii; : c i;i) luiiid-
irif:, with duplexes still being
allowed on sin~le lots in ^otne
areas.
The restriction:: .;'.fi'ecl
apartment construction, to\n;-
houses, high-rise residential
and office buildings and lar;;e
commercial development
within the cily limits.
"Some" relaxation of restric-
tions is being allowed in the
southwest area where sec-
tions of a new relief trunk
sewer line are being laid and
an old water district treat-
ment plant has been Chased
out.
Other permits in olh^p sec-
tions are being allowed where
improvements in the sewier
lines paid for out of last
year's bond election are going
in.
Ilestrictioiis on issuing per-
mits in some areas of the city
l?r,7,-in In.^t fall, after the
1WQB warned Houston the
nnjority of its 43 waste treat-
ment pjjiii's were out of com-
pliance with state and federal
The ban at first affected
i li e Chocolate Bayou and
midli'Mst sections, the first
r-ii!;h limit put on building in
Houston since the Montrose
area was temporarily re-
stricted in 1DG1-62 until new
trunk lines were put in.
Issuing permits has gradu-
ally tightened, and new ruk<»
. Please see City/page 19.!
N-l
TOE HOUSTON POST
March 12, 1974
-------
''". ^vV//^1^ '::"-.
F~^WiriWifa1!!kill"*:Hl' ->;--
: ' l^! ill i'If, HH n //j£.\./ ////J/;//;;:./'//./ /7'!/.-''.';-.L/<>
-. ' /f'/rx-'-'''/1'/ ':i:i'i!!:i:^\'': !:!:!i'>:!l^:!ir''-:-''^'li:
I T^;n:ij^ln.r'!lil;i!ii!i!lli\l^
\^m'il;!ufc+&w
tMmm*
WF^
MW^
«la»il«
If ''V''/^1''/'// ^/;//;;;/^
ilMiiimm^
shows "buildin 'bcu, line.;; we restricted areas
Post map by Bud Eentley
N-2
THE HOUSTON POST
March 12, 1974
-------
limits building* permits
& JT
due
over!
sewer
( From paga 1 3
ref|mring landowners to file a
loiter with Hie City Public
\\"orks Department stating the
number of units to be built
for what use is likely to stay
in effect.
The -'letter only" quali-
fixation will hopefully stop in-
rlrmrcs whnic building has
r.i.ntrd \vitHoiit gelling per-
inr ion fitr.t'for Fewer hook-
ii;r:, ,1 (iinl)l'.in which has pl.i-
jvi'.'i' city officials in the past,
I-VCH from major building
"'hi;-, mnlhn v.ct improvements built
<'Mioul ovci loading the sys-
('lii in another area," said
i-r |i?niil in'-, in Houston
1 . I ML;
',»rl; of r<'Ti;i!i;>nri? with
;i I r l;iu > i'::;i!l,-!t'.i)(; the
.-MI 'ml of "v.ngo f oming in
:i.,i( ;;nji>;: our nf cadi, plant;
1 Tnvlni'-iit plnnts and
sewer lines unable to handle
"infiltration" or rain water
that floods the system In wet
weather due to seepage or
broken lines, backing sewage
up through the lines into
homes;
Raw sewage dumped
from the city's largest plant,
the North Side, directly into
Buffalo Bayou, and two points
in the central section served
by the Sims Bayou plant
where lines do not go to the
plant but dump raw sewage
right Into Brays Bayou, at
Hermann Park and one at
McGregor Parkway;
Catching up with tripled
growth in the past decade
and redevelopment whor*>
high-rise." find tiparimrnt1:
have bf?cn built on s-.?v. cr
lines put in /oi single f;i>ni!y
rnsidpncrs;
° Abandonment of o!d w;>-
tor- district plant." and i>>
placement of linos put in be-
fore city specifications wer'j
enforced, as In the case of
Sharpstown;
O Deterioration of sewer
lines because of hydrogen suJ-
fide (that "rotten egg" smell)
buildup In inadequate lines
And treatment plants;
3 Shifting guidelines for
federal grants and standards
pit put out by the Environ-
mental Protection /\gency
that have sent city engi-
neers back to the drawing
board just before bids were
ready to be let on several
projects, with a holdup in fed-
eral funds.
The plan that will be
presented to the TWQB June
1 will lay out a SI75 million
program, to be spent over
five yc:ir.> to build some 1.5
ii'-\v ';?v.a;;c.' treatment planls
;n>il ujriMil': or pnb.rge oth-
ers, .-!- u-<-'l) ii-i pi,-ins for trunk
n.'irl i i-ii ( linc.s.
f.'f llnl sum, JIO) million
v. il! i "i!ir> from t'ue nrw scw-
i?i MI'-. boosied by .100 prr
rent, the first increase in 10
The other 5"5 million Is ex-
pected In federal grants. The
total program will pomp
twice as much money per
year for capital improve-
ments over what was spent in
the past decade.
The building ban may not
have a drastic effect on con-
struction in the area, since
building has been somewhat
o'f due to tighter money con-
ditions, builders say.
"Its been more of an eco-
nomic trend." said Allen Nar-
inore, president of the Hous-
ton Apartment Builders Asso-
ciation. "In 1972, there were
24,000 apartment units under
construction and s,ome 14,000
in 1972. Financing and heavy
rains were the important fac-
tors," he said.
While building permits de-
clined inside the city limits in
January by 66.-1 per cent over
the previous year, permits
were also down in Harris
Countynot afflicted by sew-
rr problems some 65.r> per
cent from the same month in
1073, the Houston Chamber of
Commerce reported.
THE HOUSTON POST
March 12, 1974
N-3
-------
i H H u
a
L. T^a^.
-12
" **-
p
Cj
By IUKOLD SC.VRLETT
Post Environment Writ or
AUSTIN* The Houston
city by Jur.c 1
presort probh
solutions, and
rar.2» o'.an to
to
ms,
cha
,ge system may hiivo as a-se system acrszs
city gro-.vth.
The city, In
port due Marci:
many as 200 points over-
flowing raw sewage, iiirluding
some (hat are "a significant.
threat to public health."
So the Texas Watc-r ^--.-ility
Board was lol:3 \"ej !-.: :.:';; by'
iss 'ic!d operations -^-.'oicr,
John L--'c;:forJ.
Latch'nrc wr..i 3u: ..... .::.^
an interim report ;.-.= ;;»
cily itself, rsnuirc-J L.-.U-.-/ *
January order of :h
-------
APPENDIX 0: RECORDS OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 18,
RICE HOTEL
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2 REGION VI
3 ***
4 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HOUSTON NORTHWEST WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
***
6
7 November 18, 1974
8 Rice Hotel
9 Houston, Texas
10
MR. JIM COLLINS,
12 Regional Hearing Officer
13
14 MR. GREG EDWARDS
15 Environmental Scientist
16
17 MR. KHAN HUSAIN
18 Consulting Engineer
19
20
21
22 Reported by:
23 LINDA SCHMANKE
24
25
-------
Page 1
1 HEARING OFFICER: Goodmorning, Ladies and Gentlemen, and welcome
2 to this public hearing on the draft environmental impact statement
3 regarding the Houston Northwest Wastewater Treatment Facility, which
4 I now call to order.
5 My name is Jim Collins, I am a licensed attorney and a Regional
6 Hearing Officer for Region VI, of the Environmental Protection Agency.
7 Mr. Arthur W. Busch, the Regional Administrator, to whom I directly
8 report has designated me as the presiding officer of today's hearing.
9 Also, participating in today's proceeding is Mr. Greg Edwards, on
10 my right, who is an environmental scientist from the Office of Grants
11 Coordination of Region VI. On his right is Mr. Khan Husain from the
12 University of Texas at Arlington. For the record, this hearing is
13 being convened on November 18, 1974, in the Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas.
14 Now, I would like to give you a brief explanation of what this
15 hearing is about, and the rules that will apply. This is a public
16 administrative hearing, held by and through the authority of the
17 Environmental Protection Agency under Public Law 91-190. Section 102
18 of the National Environmental Policy Act which is Public Law 91-190,
19 also referred to as NEPA, requires that all agencies of the Federal
20 government shall and I quote:
21 "A. Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which
22 will ensure the intregrated use of the natural and social sciences,
23 and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making,
24 which may have an impact on man's environment;
25 B. Identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation
-------
Page 2
1 with the Counsel on Environmental Quality, established by Title II of
2 this Act, which will ensure that presently unquantfied environmental
3 amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in deci-
4 sion making along with economic and technical considerations;
5 C. Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for^
6 legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting
7 the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the
8 responsible official on the environmental impact of the proposed
9 action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
10 should the proposal be implemented. Alternative to the proposed
n action, the relationship between local short-term uses of man's
12 environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term pro-
is ductivity. Also, any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
14 resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it
15 be implemented.
16 Prior to issuing the final statement, the responsible Federal
17 official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal
18 agency which has jurisdiction by law, or special expertise with
19 respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such state-
20 ments and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, state
21 and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce the
22 environmental standards shall be made available to the President, the
23 Counsel on Environmental Qualities, and to the public as provided by
24 Section 552, Title V of the U.S. Code, and shall accompany the
25 proposal through the existing agencies review processes."
-------
Page 3
1 To comply with the Act, the Office of Grants Coordination,
2 Region VI in Dallas, has prepared a draft environmental impact state-
3 ment for the proposed expansion of the Houston Northwest Wastewater
4 Treatment Facility. This draft environmental impact statement was made
5 available to Federal, state and local agencies, private organizations
6 and certain individuals, earlier this year. I am certain that many of
7 you have received a copy of that document, if not, there are a limited
8 number available at the registration table.
9 The Counsel on Environmental Quality Guidelines, promulgated to
10 implement NEPA, established the following policy:
11 "Federal agencies will, in consultation with other appropriate
12 Federal, state and local agencies, assess in detail the potential
13 environmental impact in order that adverse effects are avoided, and
14 environmental quality is restored or enhanced, to the fullest extent
15 practicable. In particular, alternative actions that will minimize
16 adverse impact should be explored and both the long and short range
17 implications to man, his physical and social surroundings, and to
18 nature, should be evaluated in order to avoid to the fullest extent
19 practicable undesirable consequences for the environment."
20 EPA policy is directed to fully comply with the National Envi-
21 ronmental policy Act and Counsel on Environmental Quality Guidelines.
22 Public participation is an integral part of the agencies planning
23 and decision making process. The agency intends to keep the public
24 fully informed about the status and progress of the studies and
25 findings, and to actively solicit comments from all concerned groups
-------
rage 4
l and individuals. Approval of the proposed project here, the sub-
2 ject of this hearing, cannot be given until the environmental impact
3 statement process is completed and until the project meets all state
4 and Federal requirements.
5 Although this is not a court of law, what we are engaged upon
6 here today, is a very serious business. In an effort to assure the
7 fullest degree of public participation possible in all of its
8 environmental programs, the Environmental Protection Agency, in
9 addition to soliciting a written comment, holds public hearings on
10 those issues where significant action 1s about to be taken, or when
n public interest is indicated. We encourage the citizens from all
12 sectors of the public to make their views known.
13 Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Regional Administrator, has determined that
14 the proposed Federal action here will have a significant impact on
15 the environment, and that a public hearing might identify environ-
16 mental issues that might otherwise be overlooked. This is why we are
17 here today.
18 This hearing provides all interested persons an opportunity to
19 express their opinions which will be pertinent to the proposed
20 project and the draft impact statement. Please bear in mind that the
21 draft statement serves only as a means of assessing the environmental
22 impact of proposed agency actions and is not to be construed as
23 justification for decisions already made. All relevant testimony
24 presented today will be considered by EPA in arriving at a final
25 decision and impact statement. That statement, inturn will relate
-------
Page 5
1 to the question of whether or not, or under what conditions, Federal
2 funds will be granted to further the project.
3 Since today's hearing is not a rule making hearing under the
4 Administrative Procedure Act, nor a court of law, no formal pro-
5 cedures or rules of evidence will apply. Because this hearing is
i
6 for the sole purpose of gathering all pertinent facts relating to
7 the environemntal issues involved, our rules of evidence will be
8 rather liberal; however, they will be kept as consistent as possible
9 with orderly proceedings. Participants may present any information
10 which they feel should be brought to the attention to the planning
11 agencies. Also, participants in this hearing may question or dis-
12 cuss any issue or point which is brought up by any speaker, but
13 only after the close of his or her presentation.
14 I do require that all formal testimony submitted today be under
15 oath, that all testimony be relevant to the draft impact statement we
16 are considering, and that it not be repetitive of previous testimony.
17 I may limit oral presentation if not pertinent or material to
18 the relevant issues surrounding the draft impact statement, and I
19 may ask that redundant or corroborative material be submitted rather
20 than read. I also ask that all statements by anyone individual in
21 excess of twenty minutes be summarized.
22 The procedure for today's hearing will be as follows. After my
23 opening remarks, we will hear from Greg Edwards from the office of
24 Grants Coordination of Region VI. He will present pertinent facts
25 and comments concerning the application, investigation, and draft
-------
Page 6
1 j impact statement. Then we will hear from all those persons in the
2 audience who have filled out a registration card indicating a
3 desire to present formal testimony.
4 I would like to caution you now that this is not a forum for
5 I debate, nor argumentative conversation but rather, one for the
6 gathering of facts and opinions regarding this draft environmental
7 impact statement.
8 It is important that we have only one person at a time speak-
9 ing. Therefore, I ask that you not engage in cross conversation,
10 but rather, that you wait your turn and Identify yourself prior to
11 speaking in order that the reporter may make an accurate, perman-
12 ent record of the testimony.
13 As you can see, a verbatim transcript is being made of today's
14 proceeding, and it will be the sole official record. Persons
15 desiring to purchase copies of the transcript should make arrange-
16 ments with the court reporter at the conclusion of the hearing.
17 Shortly a copy of the transcript will be made available to the
18 public for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
19 Monday through Friday, in the office of the Regional Hearing
20 Clerk in Dallas, Texas. That's on the eleventh floor, 1600
21 Patterson Street. I am also in the habit of sending a copy to
22 those localities concerned. In this case, we will send a copy
23 of the transcript to the Houston Chamber of Commerce, probably to
24 Mr. Welch's office.
25 The hearing record today will remain open for ten calendar
-------
Page 7
l days after adjournment of this hearing. If anyone has any addi-
2 tional comments or if you wish to modify any of the testimony you
3 presented at this hearing, please, sent them to my attention
4 at Region VI in Dallas, and it will become a part of the record.
5 In addition to the testimony at this hearing, written
i
6 material which has been submitted directly here or to the
7 Regional Administrator of Region VI, previously or within the
8 ten day extension period that I announced will also be consid-
9 ered in reaching a final decision.
10 If there is anyone who wishes to testify but who has not
11 filled out a registration card, I urge you to do so as soon as
12 possiable in order that appropriate scheduling can be
13 arranged.
14 If you have written material to be entered into the record
15 as exhibits, make certain that you appear before me and have
16 your exhibits marked prior to giving testimony. Also, if your
!7 oral presentation has been reduced to writing, I would appreciate
18 copies being given to me and to the court reporter as an aid
19 in transcribing today's proceedings.
20 Before anyone gives testimony in this preceeding, they must
21 be sworn in. At this time, in order to expedite that aspect of
22 the hearing, I would like to have the oath administered to
23 everyone at one time. If those of you who feel you may partic-
24 ipate by presenting formal testimony would please rise and
25 raise you right hand.
-------
Page 8
1 Do you and each of you solemnly affirm that the testimony
2 that you are about to present represents the truth, the whole
3 truth, and nothing but the truth?
4 Answer, I do.
5 (Whereupon all witnesses were sworn.)
I " ~
6 Please be seated.
7 As you come forward to testify, please identify yourself
8 by name, title if within an organization, the actual organiza-
9 tion and location, and if you are representing someone, the
10 name of the person or organization you are representing. Also,
n please indicate at that time whether or not you have taken the
12 oath.
13 Does anyone in the audience have any question now as to how
14 the hearing is to be conducted?
15 No one so indicating, I will now call on Mr. Greg Edwards,
16 of the Office of Grants Coordination, Region VI.
17 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you.
18 The draft environmental Impact statement on Houston's North-
19 west Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility has been prepared
20 and distributed in accordance with the Environmental Protection
21 Agency Interim Regulations on Impact Statements, dated January 17,
22 1973, Counsel on Environmental Quality Guidelines, dated August 1,
23 1973, and the EPA Preliminary Draft Manual for Preparing Impact
24 Statements, dated March 2, 1973.
25 j This statement is intended to present EPA's analysis of the
-------
Page 9
l environmental impact of the proposed project.
2 In complying with this objective, Chapter 6 of the statement,
3 entitled, "Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action", is organized
4 to contain a discussion on short-term impacts, normally construction
5 impacts such as noise and erosion, long-term impacts such as water
--
6 quality and land use, and secondary impacts such as those resulting
7 from additional growth. Discussions of short and long term impacts
8 cover areas of environmental concern which are obvious, related to the
9 project, and which for the most part, can be measured or understood.
10 Secondary or indirect impacts of the proposed project are not as
11 easily understood or quantifiable.
12 This is a draft statement and no final conclusions or recommend-
13 ations have been prepared.
14 The information presented in this draft statement together with
15 all pertinent information presented at this hearing, will lay the
16 ground work for our continued review, as the final impact statement
17 is prepared. Following completion of our research, final conclusions
18 and recommendations will be prepared and included as a separate
19 section in the final impact statement.
20 Thank you.
21 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Greg.
22 I think at this time, according to how your time schedule is going,
23 we might want to let Mr. Husain give his slide presentation. Is there
24 any one of you who has indicated a desire to testify who would like to
25 precede this and give your testimony now?
-------
Page 10
1 Well, we might get a little better idea of the project, Mr. Husain
2 with your presentation.
3 MR. HUSAIN: Thank you. Would you please turn the lights off?
(At this time, a slide presentation was given by
4 Mr. Husain accompanied by the following remarks.)
5 MR. HUSAIN: Actually, the purpose of this slide presentation
6 is to summarize the materials that have been told in detail in the
7 draft environmental impact statement document.
8 This is the Northwest Regional Treatment Plant, City of Houston.
9 In continuation of what Mr. Collins and Mr. Edwards has said,
10 basically the purpose of the impact statement is to make sure that the
ll environment is not adversely affected.
12 For instance, the kind of pollution that you see on these two
13 slides, it is to be guaranteed that the proposed project will not
14 create these conditions even of a lesser magnitude.
15 In terms of water quality, the quality of the water is
16 detrimental to the extent that the aquatic life is seriously affected
17 as you can see on these two slides.
18 The slide on the left of the Houston Ship Channel indicates
19 the problems that exist there.
20 This is right in Downtown Houston and some of the areas sur-
21 rounding it are not so good as you can see. These are the kind of
22 conditions that must be avoided. EPA would like to make sure that
23 the proposed project does not add to this problem but rather that
24 they help minimize this kind of environmental problem. The purpose
25 of the project is also, if possible, to enhance the conditions as you
-------
Page 11
1 can see on these two slides.
2 Or even on these, where the man-made activities and the natural
3 activities can coexist in harmonious relationship.
4 On the proposed project of the Northwest Treatment Plant, the
5 slide on the left indicates the area that is going to be served by
6 this particular project. It has 18.6 square miles and a population of
7 47,000 persons. The future projection of the population is 90,000
8 persons by the year of 1990. Obviously, this indicates the need for
9 the facilities that have to be provided to meet the needs of the
10 population as well as to provide efficient services.
11 A project cannot be planned by just taking a look at the project
12 by itself. It has to be related to the entire city.
13 You can see from the chart on the left, the population projections
14 for the service area itself, the City of Houston, the county and also
15 the southwest planning regions. On the right side is the projected
16 employment period. These two correlate extremely well. As you can
17 see from the slide on the left both, the service area, the city and
18 the county, are expected to continue to grow through the year 1990 and
19 perhaps beyond. The City of Houston, on the left side, is the
20 existing treatment system. That includes some forty two different
21 treatment plants with a combined capacity of 172 to 175 million
22 gallons per day. Obviously, there are too many plants and they are
23 not very efficient. The City of Houston, therefore, has prepared a
24 regional addition plan under which are combined a number of plants
25 and the others are consolidated into a regional system. There are
-------
Page 12
l i some nineteen that they are proposing which would be more efficient
2 i in delivering the treatment services, the waste water services, for
I
3 the residents of Houston.
4 Under this plan -- again on the right side, you can see from
5 1 the northwest regional area to the south by the proposed project and
6 also our investigation includes the analysis of the comprehensive
7 plan that the City of Houston has prepared. This shows the proposed
8 land use consideration for the city and we have included the infor-
9 mation from this plant into the regional treatment plant in terms of
10 designing and so forth.
11 Lets take a few quick looks at the surface area, itself, and
12 the conditions as they exist at the present time. Here the charac-
13 teristies have been defined in terms of the natural environment and
14 the man-made environment. Together they constitute what is known as
15 the social and environmental setting as they exist at the present
16 time.
i? The natural environment is on the right side, the map that shows
18 the soil map for the area that is to be covered by this particular
19 plan. It is our findings that the kinds of soil that exist at the
20 present time there are not permeable. That eliminates that kind of
21 treatment plant or facility for meeting the treatment needs.
22 These two slides on the left are the topographic maps and show
23 the elevation of the area and the plant sites and the general area
24 j around it. On the right side is the area that is subject to hundred
25 i: year floods, Also shown here is the plant location which is beyond.
-------
Page 13
1 The outside area is subject to floods. There is a lot of open space
2 that is subject to flood and this could be created into parks and
3 recreation areas if the City of Houston does so desire.
4 I think I am missing a slide on the left side here but on the
5 | right side is the climatic conditions, some of the incuts that we
6 have considered from the wind directions and identifying the impact
7 of the project on the area, -- the wildlife. These things are all
8 explained in detail in the report itself.
9 Here are a couple of slides that indicate the project area
10 itself is really not inhabited by wildlife or marine!ife or related
11 aspects. On the left side is a map that shows the subsidence problem
12 for the City of Houston. On the right side is the air pollution --
13 as we all know, half the total pollution in the City of Houston is
14 coming from automobiles, which indicates the kind of solution the
15 city has to undertake sooner or later.
16 As far as the land surface subsidence, those of you here are
17 very familiar with that problem. Up to 1973, parts of the City of
18 Houston have subsided as far as ten feet in the northwest area, the
19 subsidence has been two to three feet, as we have found out.
20 These are two land use maps and they show the existing land
21 use and the proposed land use. A lot of land in the service area
22 is vacant and available for urban development. On the right hand
23 side is the projected land use and shows how the open land is going
24 to be used and that would really create the demand for these kinds
25 i of facilities.
-------
Page 14
l The proposed project is a four MGD facility at the present
2 time with projected twelve MGD. The existing quality of the
3 effluent for the treatment plant -- a couple of figures are mis-
4 printed here. The BOD5 should read as 7 and the TSS should read
5 as 24. _
6 When you add this kind of system that they are proposing,
7 under that the projected effluent quality according to our cal-
8 culations would be 8.2 and 6.6 for a 8005 and suspended solids.
9 These projected standards when compared against the require-
10 ments of EPA as well as the Texas Water Quality Control Board are
n by far below the requirement level. So in this particular term,
12 the project more than satisfies the environmental requirements as
13 far as impact on water quality is concerned.
14 This is coming a little closer to the area where the project
15 is located. On your right side is an aerial map and you can see
16 the existing plant and its occupancy as well as the proposed ex-
17 pansion. We found out that there is a lot of land available to
18 each side which could be used possibly as a neighborhood park and
19 that is indicated on the left hand side slide. The reason that
20 this suggestion has been made is because the areas on the east and
21 ! north are good residential developments where a lot of people
i
22 live who can use these facilities and it is a ideal location to
i
23 meet the recreational needs, also. The idea here is to develop
i
24 i the multi-purpose use, if possible and if it is possible at this
25 ji location, provided that the City of Houston does accept this
-------
Page 15
l position. It is not, however, a requirement.
2 The slides here show the plant itself, the aeration and the
3 reaeration tank on the left side. The clarifier is on the right
4 side. This is a pretty good plant as it operates at the present
5 time.
i
6 Here is the Cole creek into which the effluent from the plant
7 is discharged at the present time. On the left side you can see
8 the plant itself and on the other side -- looking from the northwest
9 to the southeast you can see the plant on this side and you can
10 see the residential development on this side of the creek. This is
11 a good residential quality development and, of course, this will
12 detract somewhat but not to an extent that the project is not
13 feasible.
14 The Northwest Freeway which is under construction in that area
15 would start a lot of development in that area. On the right side
16 is another residential area that is called Acres-Home. The EPA
17 would like to make sure that this kind of character that does exist
!8 at the present time will not be affected.
19 There is a lot of open space here, trees, and some commercial
20 development.
21 Now, the considerations on the alternative to the proposed
22 action, a variety of alternatives have been considered, both of the
23 treatment process as well as the location. I am not going to read
24 all of these things in detail. They are all documented in the
25 ! report.
-------
Page 16
l The proposed system itself is the biological treatment and
2 we have a slide to show you later on.
3 The alternative location here to the plant would be a one mile
4 distance.
5 Greg, maybe you would like to go over there and show the
6 location there. Do you mind?
(At this time, Mr. Edwards indicated the location on
7 the map.)
8 That is the proposed location. About one mile west is a plant
9 that has been abandoned. He did consider both as to which one would
10 be more desirable. We considered three alternative ways; (1) the
11 way it is now; (2) the other one is to have the complete plant
12 located on the Forest location and (3) the third one is distributing
13 half and half between the two plans. Of course, the detailed
14 evaluations have been shown in the report and indicated that the
15 proposed location is a better location.
16 The alternatives also include the no action alternative required
17 by law. In many cases, this alternative is better than many other
IB alternatives. In this particular instance, the no-action alternative
19 should have no effect on the autos beyond the present level and no
20 impact on the air quality. It will not help the water quality.
21 It will not help the water quality because the present water
22 quality is not as good as the projected one. In terms of the water
23 quality, the no-action alternative will not help at all. At the same
24 time the correlated factors on the aquatic life -- there won't be any
25 adverse effect on the wildlife but the no-action alternative will not
-------
Page 17
1 address the problem of public health which is a major significant pro-
2 blem which must be addressed by this kind of public investment.
3 Here on the primary impact, there will be some effect on odors but
4 it will not be significant. There will be very little impact on the
5 air quality. You will have a very positive impact on water quality and
6 a positive effect on aquatic life. There will be very significant
7 impact on wildlife and plant life. Of course, it will not help the
8 economic development, it will have a very beneficial impact on public
9 health.
10 The secondary impact is not quantifiable. We did make an attempt
11 to quantify this and the chart on the right indicates the amount of
12 land that will be organized as a result of this project. Altogether
13 over 3,500 acres could be served by this facility.
14 Of course, there will be some effects that can not be avoided.
15 There are the parts of the project itself, the disruption, the incon-
16 venience and some noise during construction, some loss of habitat,
17 very little impact on air pollution and there will be some occasional
18 oc|or problems. These are the things that have to be traded against the
19 benefits derived from the facility. The secondary adverse impact -- I
20 would like to make a qualification here -- as a result of the 43,000
21 population, there will be a lot of adverse impact -- on the air quality
22 on the water quality, the drainage and subsidence and so forth. These
23 problems could be avoided if the City of Houston does adopt some sort
24 of environmental program.
25 EPA is not saying -- it is my understanding that since these
-------
Page 18
l problems do not exist as a result of the project, that is why there can
2 not be any requirements that have to be imposed. That is simply
3 because some of the problems will occur in the next sixteen-year period.
4 During which time the agency of the city government will have the
5 opportunity of undertaking programs to alleviate the problem. The
6 purpose here is really to point out that unless appropriate programs
7 are undertaken, some of these problems will be serious enough to the
8 extent that they will jeopardize the environment. And that is a very
9 big problem that could come from the secondary impact. It will not be
10 adverse if these programs are undertaken.
11 Considering all these various social and economic and environ-
12 mental needs, the preliminary finding is that there is a need for this
13 project. Its also feasible. It also satisfies the requirements, the
14 environmental requirements by the Environmental Protection Agency. That
15 is a preliminary finding, it is not a recommendation. It is also
16 believed that if the project is built, it will not give rise to the
17 conditions as you see on these slides. It will also not alter the con-
18 ditions which are desirable and which should be obtained from the project
19 area. And it seems that some of these things could be enhanced, partic-
20 ularily the water quality, by the kind of construction you have in this
21 project.
22 I think that is all I have.
23 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Husain.
24 Lets go ahead and proceed with the formal statements of those of
25 you who have indicated a desire to speak and then we will allow some
-------
Page 19
1 questions of Mr. Husain or Mr. Edwards.
2 Elaine Clark, would you like to make your presentation at this
3 time?
4 MS. CLARK: I am Elaine Clark, a geologist with the Houston
5 Geological Society and I have taken the oath.
6 The Houston Geological Society with a membership of over 2,000 in
7 the metropolitain area of Houston is vitally interested in the cap-
8 tioned project with its attendant draft impact statement. Geologists
9 are exposed to the environment and environment problems quite early in
10 their educational and professional careers and as a consequence are
11 very much aware of the importance of changes that occur to the
12 surface and the subsurface of urban and suburban areas. The majority
13 of our membership live within the confines of the City of Houston
14 and as residents and concerned citizens are doubly interested in the
15 proposed program.
16 We feel that improvement of water quality in our streams, bayous,
17 Ship Channel, and subsequently Galveston Bay is a prime environmental
18 consideration. We are in favor of the construction of additional
19 wastewater facilities for the City of Houston to ensure a better
20 water environment.
21 The proposed wastewater facilities may be affected by active
22 geologic processes in the general area. These processes include
23 possible surface faulting and land subsidence associated with sub-
24 surface fluid withdrawal. The gravity of these geologic problems
25 is not fully known at this time. However, at this state we do not
-------
Page 20
1 want to see the project delayed but do suggest that additional
2 geological studies both surface and subsurface be made.
3 Thank you.
4 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Ms. Clark.
5 I Mr. Martin Sheets.
6 MR. SHEETS: I am Martin Sheets, a Houston independent consultant,
7 representing myself on geologic matters relating to the environment and
8 our energy supply. The section on geology in the subject Environmental
9 Statement is fine as far as it goes. However, it seems to fail to
10 recognize the tectonic features of the area which could be very
11 important and it seems to lack input by knowledgeable local geologists.
12 The proposed Eleventh Street Lift Station is located well within
13 one of the best known and most active zones of surface faulting in the
14 Houston area. The proposed sludge line crossed this same zone of
15 active surface faults and other areas in which faults are suspected.
16 The entire project is located within the area affected by
17 significant subsidence. All of these geologic factors deserve care-
18 ful consideration if the facilities are to operate safely and
19 efficiently.
20 Thank you.
21 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Sheets.
22 Does any one else have any comments they wish to make?
23 Does anyone have any questions of any of the people who participated
24 here?
i
25 Would you identify yourself?
-------
Page 21 i
1 MR. MILLER: I am Charles Miller with the Harris County
2 Commission Control Department. I would just like some further clar-
3 ification on what the existing BOD and total suspended solids values
4 are and if this is a thirty-day average or what do the numbers
5 represent?
6 HEARING OFFICER: That was the numbers you saw which were around
7 four and projected to be eight later on for the BOD?
8 Do you know --
9 MR. HUSAIN: The existing BODs value for this particular
10 project is seven. That was a mis-print in the slide and the TSS --
11 twentyfour. The projected BODs is 8.0 and the projected TSS is 6.6.
12 These are in the report.
13 MR MILLER: OK. Are these three-day averages?
14 MR HUSAIN: No they are five days. Monthly BOD five-day averages.
15 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
16 MR. HUSAIN: Incidentally the projected values are much lower
17 than what the standards by the Texas Water Quality Board and the
18 EPA call for.
19 I would like to make one comment here while the meeting is
20 still on and that is the proposed sludge line is not a part of
21 the project. However, it is not a part of the grant application.
22 The City of Houston has build a facility or is in the process
23 of building it under their own funding. That doesn't mean
24 that this particular thing would not be considered since we are
25 covering the entire service area. Anything that happens within
-------
Page 22
1 i this service area will be considered.
2 Your comments are well taken.
3 Thank you.
4 HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. Are there any other questions
5 or comments?
6 I have received one letter from a Mr. H. C. Clock, Associated
7 Professor of Geology and it is to EPA. I am going to enter this
as Exhibit 1 to this record.
9 I might remind you that the hearing record does remain open
10 for ten calendar days from this date and we will accept any
11 modifications for additional submissions that you would like to
12 send in as exhibits to the record.
13 Hearing no further comments, I would like to thank you all
14 for attending and participating and with that, call this
15 hearing to a close.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
Page 23
CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, LINDA SCHMANKE, Certified Shorthand Reporter, do hereby
4 certify that the facts as stated by me in the caption hereto are true;
5 I that_the fo_regoing proceedings were made before me by the
I
6 indicated speakers hereinbefore named and were thereafter reduced to
7 typewriting by me or under my direction.
8 Given under my hand this / 3 day of (/^~sss<&& ->
9 1975.
10
11
_
Linda Schmanke, CSR
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
RICE UNIVERSITY
HOUSTON, TEXAS
77001
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
AREA CODE 713
52S-4141
November 14, 1974
Mr. James Collins
Regional Hearing Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Patterson:
I have examined the draft EIS for the Northwest Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Houston, Texas (WPC-TEX-1020). I
would like to make certain that you are aware of the active
faulting in the 34th Street area. These faults are described
in the literature and are under observation now by our group as
part of an ongoing monitoring project.
This faulting does not affect the treatment plant itself
but does apparently intersect the sludge line and interceptor
system described on pages 13 and 86 in the vicinity of T. C.
jester and Sherwood Lane. There is active vertical displacement
of the ground surface in the fault area which, over time, might
have an effect on concrete work associated with the gathering
system,
A reasonable solution to this conflict with the geologic
environment might involve spot observations of this effect in
the fault area and repairs as necessary. We would be happy to
meet with the interested parties to pinpoint the fault area.
I will be at the Geological Society of America Meeting on
November 18 and thus unable to attend the hearing. I would
appreciate it very much if you would make certain that this
letter is read into the record at that time.
H. C. Clark
Associate Professor of Geology
HCC:bbh
cc: Mr. Charles Menut, chairman, Environmental Cc~.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
16OO PATTERSON, SUITE 11OO
DALLAS. TEXAS 752O1
February 5, 1975
OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
Re: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT NUMBER 7413
TO 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 FEBRUARY 10, 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.
Enclosures
C3£^~~s*
Regional Administrator
------- |