FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
CITY OF HOUSTON
WPC -TEX-1009-1074-1060
ALMEDA-SIMS REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANT
OFFICE OF GRANTS COORDINATION, REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS, TEXAS
OCTOBER
1974
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
CITY OF HOUSTON/ TEXAS
WPC-TEX-1009/1074/1060
IMPACT STATEMENT NUMBER 7412
OFFICE OF GRANTS COORDINATION/ REGION VI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DALLAS/ TEXAS
APPROVED BY
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
EPA REGION VI
OCTOBER. 1974
-------
TABLE QF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY i
1. NAME OF ACTION i
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION i
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADVERSE
EFFECTS ii
4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED iii
5. REVIEWING AGENCIES iv
INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND
A. GENERAL 1
B. PROPOSED ACTION 6
C. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 10
II, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL 47
B. MAJOR OBJECTIVES 47
Cf CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS 47
D. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVES 50
E. TREATMENT SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVES 55
F. TREATMENT SYSTEM: SINGLE ALTERNATIVE
REFLECTING SUBSYSTEM CHOICE 63
G. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 64
III, DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL 66
B. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TREATMENT
FACILITIES 66
-------
Page
C. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED TREATMENT
FACILITIES
D. PROPOSED ALMEDA-KNIGHT-CAMBRIDGE
TRUNK SEWER
E. TOTAL AREA TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS ?g
PROJECT
F. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PROJECT WITH
OTHER HOUSTON SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS /b
G. STATUS OF PROJECT, APRIL 1974 76
IV, ENVIRONMENTAL' EFFECTS"OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD THE
PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED 78
B. SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION 95
V, ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSAL'BE IMPLEMENTED
A. GENERAL 103
B. SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS 103
VI, RELATIONSHIP- BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM
USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE 106
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
VII, 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 107
B. ALTERNATIVES 11]-
-------
VIII. COMMENTS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PAGE
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21 JUNE
1973, CONCERNING PROPOSED ALMEDA-SIMS
WASTEWATER FACILITY 112
B. NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MEDIA ACCOUNTS 113
C. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT 113
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY INVENTORY OF CITY OF HOUSTON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
APPENDIX B: PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGIONAL
SEWAGE TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSIONS
APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOR ALMEDA-SIMS
REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND GULF COAST
WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
APPENDIX D: PERMIT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY
BOARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALMEDA-SIMS
TREATMENT PLANT, DATE 4/26/1974
APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF SOILS ABSTRACTED FROM THE 1922
SOILS SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
APPENDIX EE: LAND SURFACE SUBSIDENCE AND SURFACE FAULTING
IN THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA, PART I AND
PART II
APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF SOILS TYPES CHARACTERISTICS FOR
HARRIS COUNTY
APPENDIX G: STREAM FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA FOR BRAYS
AND SIMS BAYOU
APPENDIX H: HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX J:
APPENDIX K:
APPENDIX L:
APPENDIX M:
APPENDIX N:
EVALUATION OF LOCATION ALTERNATIVES AND
SELECTION OF OPTIMUM LOCATION
TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
SECONDARY IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT, THE
DEGREE TO WHICH IT WILL AFFECT RESIDENTIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: HOUSTON'S NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM
NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS
RECORDS OF PUBLIC HEARING, SEPT. 12, 1974
-------
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
SUMMARY
( ) Draft Impact Statement
(X) Final Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI, Office of Grants Coordination
Dallas, Texas
1. Name of Action
Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Action ( )
2. The proposed action consists of Federal grant assistance as
authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (Public Law 92-500).
The City of Houston has applied for Federal funds to aid in
the construction of additional wastewater treatment facilities at
its Almeda-Sims Wascewater Treatment Facility Site. The expanded
facility, located at Sims Bayou and Almeda Road has been designed
to treat the wastewater generated in the following area through
the year 1990.
Almeda-Sims Primary Service Area (28.46 sq. miles)
Almeda-Sims Diversion Area (11.70 sq. miles)
Sludge Producing Area from Plant No. 51 (9.25 sq. miles)
The proposed project recommends the construction of a 20
Million Gallons per Day (mgd) activated sludge treatment facility
on the existing 1 mgd Almeda-Sims Facility Site. Plant sites
WCID 44-1 and WCID 44-3 will be closed. Sewage will be pumped
from these sites to the proposed site for treatment. The Southwest
Pump Station (29.5 mgd) which currently pumps sewage to the Sims Bayc
Plant is operating at its design capacity. The 6.6 mgd of excess
sewage which is now discharged into Brays Bayou without treatment
would be carried to the proposed site through a diversion trunk
i
-------
sewer varying in diameter from 48 to 84 inches. The combined influent
of 20 mgd will receive secondary treatment followed by chlorine
disinfection prior to discharge into the Sims Bayou approximately
4 miles south of the Houston Astrodome0
Sludge from the facility, including the volume brought from
Plant No. 51, 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.
In addition to the treatment plant expansion, this project
will include the construction of a new trunk sewer of 18,280 feet
generally parallel to the existing Almeda Road. The total cost
of the project is estimated at $29,585,818.
3. Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects.
The proposed facilities are expected to reduce health hazards
in the primary service area, diversion area and the sludge producing
area; enhance water quality in the Sims and Brays Bayou, including
the Houston Ship Channel where these bayous terminate; and aid in
orderly physical development for the areas 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 minimized by
modern design techniques and efficient plant operation.
Some degree of disruption of the environment and inconveniences
to citizens during construction is unavoidable but will be reduced
in severity by proper construction scheduling and techniques.
11
-------
The construction 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.
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. Where the trunk sewer should be routed.
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.
D0 No Action Alternative
iii
-------
The treatment system chosen for the proposed project located
at the Sims Bayou and Almeda Road 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 Sims Bayou. The chosen sludge handling
and disposal system includes chemical sludge conditioning, vacuum
filtration, flash-drying and conversion into fertilizer/soil
conditioner for market absorption. This 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
are being 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 Development and Budget
Attn: Office of Environmental Projects Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
U. So Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
630 Federal Building
300 East 8th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Federal Highway Administration
Director Highway Programs Office
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Economic Development Agency
702 Colorado
Austin, Texas 78701
District Engineer
Galveston District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P- 0. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77550
Department 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
v
-------
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, N0W.
Washington, D. C0 20506
Oil and Special Materials Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Attention: Alan Hill WH448
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Bern Wright WH447
Municipal Construction Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Office Of Federal Activities
Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Peter Cook
Washington, D. C. 20460
State Agencies
Office of the Governor
Division of Planning Coordination
Capitol Station
P. 00 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 78701
Texas Water Quality Board
Po 00 Box 13246
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
vi
-------
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. 0. Box 12276, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Department of Agriculture
P. 0. 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
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. 0. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Association of Texas Soil and Water Conservation Districts
306 West 14th Street
Friona, Texas 79035
Texas Conservation Council, Inc.
730 East Friar Tuck Lane
Houston, Texas 77024
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas
University Station, Box X
Austin, Texas 78712
vii
-------
Texas Council for Wildlife Protection
3132 Lovers Lane
Dallas, Texas 75225
Vice President of Academic Affairs
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77843
Texas Forestry Association
P. 0. Box 1488
Lufkin, Texas 75901
Texas Organization for Endangered Species
P. O. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
Local Agencies and Individuals
City of Houston
City Hall
900 Brazos
Houston, Texas 77002
Turner, Collie and Braden, Inc0
3203 W. Alabama
Houston, Texas 77006
John L. Spinks, Jr.
Southwest Regional Representative
National Audubon Society
P. 0. Box 9585
Austin, Texas 78757
Houston League of Women Voters
614 Harold
Houston, Texas 77006
Binkley and Holmes, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
2010 North Loop West
Suite 220
Houston, Texas 77018
Honorable John Tower
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen
U.S. Senate
Washington, D0 C0 20510
Honorable William R. Archer
Honorable Bob Eckhardt
Honorable Barbara C. Jordan
Honorable Bob Casey
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C0 20515
VI11
-------
Honorable Jim Wallace
Honorable Bob Gammage
Honorable Chet Brooks
Honorable Jack Ogg
Honorable A. R. Schwartz
Honorable Walter H0 Mengden, Jr.
Texas State Senate
Austin, Texas
Honorable Ed R. Watson
Honorable Joe Allen
Honorable Ron Walters
Honorable Dr. Joseph F. Pentony
Honorable John H. Whitmire
Honorable Woody Denson
Honorable Larry A. Bick
Honorable Anthony Hall
Honorable Craig A. Washington
Honorable Ben T. Reyes
Honorable George LeLand
Honorable Senfronia Thompson
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 July, 1974. Submission of the
Final Impact Statement has been scheduled for October, 1974.
IX
-------
INTRODUCTION
• EPA AUTHORITY
• EPA RESPONSIBILITY UNDER NEPA
• PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
-------
INTRODUCTION
Man seeks an environment where he can utilize his full potential
as a creative human being. The advance of technology and the growth
of population have created an imbalance in the environment that
stifles man's creativity and lowers the quality of urban life.
The City of Houston is no exception to the problems of urbanization
and is looking for ways to mend the urban environment by improving
the quality of public services.
One of Houston's most critical current problems is the removal
of municipal wastes 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 the public health.
The problem of water quality has been long recognized for the
Houston Ship Channel. Most of the waterways draining the City of
Houston and Harris County empty into the Ship Channel. Effluent
discharge from the various sewage treatment plants in the Houston
area serves as a major source of water flow for these water courses
during the dry weather periods. Improving water quality in these
waterways will therefore cause a beneficial effect upon the water
quality of the Houston Ship Channel. The modernization and improve-
ment of the City of Houston's sanitary sewer system through the
regionalization of the wastewater treatment system can be used as
an instrument to address the pollution problem of the Houston Ship
Channel and its major tributaries.
The water carrier system of waste removal outlined in this
proposal represents the most economically feasible and environmentally
-------
desirable solution to this critical water quality and related
public health problem for an area in Houston. The objective of
the present proposal, and indeed the entire sewage treatment system
for Houston, is to improve 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 their
government. The proposed project represents a step toward the
fulfillment of that goal in an area where a potentially serious
health problem exists at the present time.
The estimated cost of the proposed Almeda-Sims Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant and related facilities is $29,585,818. The City
of Houston has applied for a federal grant of $21,070,000 to aid
in construction of the project.
EPA AUTHORITY
Under Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment of 1972, Public Law 92-500, the Environmental Protection
Agency is given authority to fund 75 percentum of the costs for
construction of sewage treatment facilities in order to ccvvply
with Section 301 of the act.
EPA RESPONSIBILITY UNDER NEPA
Section 102 (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Public Law 91-190, charges all agencies of the federal government
when funding a project, in part or in entirety, that will have a
significant effect on the environment, to prepare a detailed
-------
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^
5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action, should it
be implemented.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
This report is the Final Environmental Impact Statement, based
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the office
of Grants Coordination, EPA Region VI, attendant to:
1. Construction of an enlarged Almeda-Sims Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant with a 1990 projected capacity of 20 mgd0
2. Construction of an Almeda-Sims Regional Sludge Disposal
Plant with a 1990 projected capacity of 32 tons of dried
sludge per day.
3. Construction of an Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer
designed to carry the excess raw sewage currently discharged
into Brays Bayou from the Southwest Pump Station.
These project elements are sufficiently interrelated to merit a
unified, rather than separate Statement of Environmental Impact.
Procedures set forth by the U.S0 Environmental Protection Agency
have guided the preparation of Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statement. This report identifies the impact of the proposed action
in terms of both beneficial and adverse effects, and suggests how
the adverse effects can be avoided or minimized to restore and
enhance the quality of the environment to the fullest extent possible,
-------
CHAPTER I; BACKGROUND
A, GENERAL
B, PROPOSED ACTION
C, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
-------
HOUSTON
-------
I. BACKGROUND
A. GENERAL
1. The City of Houston, Texas;
Between 1837-1970, the City of Houston grew from a log
cabin village to the sixth largest city of the United States with
a population of 1,233,000 persons and spread itself over 506 square
miles. Large tracts of land inside the city limits are still
available for development. Continued economic growth, favorable
climate, transportation, recreation and entertainment, all signal
phenomenal future growth for Houston. It is projected to be a
corporate city of 2,300,000 persons by 1990.
Houston is the industrial, commercial and cultural capital
of the Southwest United States. To maintain its dominant position
on a continuing basis, the Houston leadership must face the challenge
of developing and maintaining those urban facilities which are essen-
tial to raise the quality of its environment. The provision of an
excellent system of public health services including sanitary sewage
must rank high in the order of development priorities for the city.
2. Wastewater Treatment in the Houston Area:
a. Present Treatment System;
The City of Houston's present sanitary sewer system
consists of 42 wastewater treatment plants, two major sludge disposal
-1-
-------
FIGURE 1-1
EXISTING TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR HOUSTON
PERMANENT PLANTS
10 mgd and over
1 to 10 mgd
1 mgd and under
TEMPORARY PLANTS
1 mgd and under
111" = 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.
-2-
-------
plants, 179 pump stations, and approximately 3,600 miles of waste-
water collection and conveyance lines. Much of the system has been
constructed by the city itself; the remainder was acquired through
purchase or annexation of water district sewer systems.
In 1973, Houston's wastewater treatment system processed
an average volume of just over 172 mgd. During the same year, the
city's two major sludge disposal plants produced approximately 120
tons of dried soil conditioner/fertilizer by-product per day.
Table 1-1 includes data for each treatment plant capacity,
quality of influent sewage and effluent in terms of bio-chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, and chlorine residual. Many of
these existing plants are beset with problems of insufficient
capacity, treatment standards that do not meet water quality criteria,
and odors associated with sludge disposal systems. A more elaborate
description of each plant in terms of system components is enclosed
in Appendix A.
b. Proposed Treatment System for Houston;
In order to improve system performance, the City of
Houston is moving toward regionalization of its wastewater treatment
system. According to the Preliminary Regional Plan, by 1980 the
wastewater system will include 19 treatment plants with a combined
design capacity of over 300 mgd. The city's Capital Improvements
Program through 1977 provides for the regionalization of the treatment
system by enlarging these plants and calling for the rest of the
small treatment sites to be abandoned in favor of the regional system.
The proposed system includes the development of three sludge-
-3-
-------
TABLE 1-1
INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT QUALITY OF HOUSTON'S EXISTING TREATMENT PLANTS
Sewage Treatment
Plant
Norths ide
Sims Bayou
Almeda Sims
Chadwick Manor
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
CIWA
Eastex Oaks
Easthaven
Fontaine Place
FWSD 17
FWSD 23
FWSD 34
Gulf Meadows
Gulf Palms
Gulfway Terrace
Homestead
Intercontinental
Airport
Longwoods
Mayfair Park
Northeast
Northwest
Red Gulley
Suspended Solids
mg/1
Raw
385
243
232
156
134
-
197
211
118
107
133
194
446
161
188
407
Effluent
141
61
27
24
100
80
-
49
48
45
35
45
18
8
49
39
55
42
25
38
18
24
34
5-Day BOD
mg/1
Raw
304
181
118
124
145
-
1 75
136
99
166
113
96
267
148
122
136
Efflu-
ent
79
23
9
6
36
35
-
24
25
39
15
12
13
3
25
25
16
23
17
15
7
7
9
Residual
Chlorine
mg/1
Effluent
007
006
1.3
200
1.2
1 = 9
-
2.0
1.3
1.9
Io9
1.4
1.7
2.1
1.3
Io3
1 = 7
Io6
1 = 7
1.7
2.0
1 = 5
2.0
Treated
Flow
Yearly
Average
mgd
89o69
39064
0.819
Oo040
3.305
Oo754
-
0.183
Oo476
0.275
007
2.154
0.631
0.999
0.283
0.231
1.435
0 = 311
Oo075
0.39
1.567
6.135
0.367
Dry
Weather
Flow*
mgd
100.5
43.3
0,42
(E)
2.67
0.31
-
0.16
0.25
(E)
(E)
1.48
Oo62
Oo75
Oo23
Ool4
1 = 13
(E)
0.18
Oo87
0013
-4-
-------
TABLE 1-1
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 Solids
mg/1
Raw
227
-
121
188
169
158
125
250
140
213
171
Effluent
8
-
53
8
81
116
77
38
49
78
85
48
8
14
64
41
34
66
26
51
53
66
55
36
5-Day BOD
mg/1
Raw
166
-
41
147
146
161
136
222
155
209
170
Efflu-
ent
4
-
10
4
20
52
26
25
43
55
52
35
6
8
58
35
7
20
4
16
19
78
16
18
Residual
Chlorine
mg/1
Effluent
401
-
205
Io7
Io6
2.0
2.0
108
Io9
Io9
104
1.4
Io5
103
201
203
2,1
201
5-0
106
Io3
105
106
202
Treated
Flow
Yearly
Average
mgd
1.548
-
0.134
25.37
0.263
0.244
0.880
0.300
00500
0.645
Oo444
00606
10660
20441
00449
0.196
0.254
0.240
Oo034
0.372
11.4
0.250
0.235
00180
Dry
Weather
Flow*
mgd
1.60
-
Ool9
20o9
Ool4
0.097
0.69
(E)
(E)
0033
0.91
(E)lo65
1 = 05
0040
lloO
(E) 3 moo
(E)8 mo.
(E) 3 moo
-------
treatment facilities. Figure 1-2 shows the proposed preliminary
regionalization plan for the City of Houston through the year
1980. The grouping of the various sewage treatment plants under
each regional sludge disposal plant; current status of all tre;^.-
ment plants; and proposed expansion schedule, capacity and related
data are shown in Appendix B0
B. PROPOSED ACTION
1. Project Description;
The proposed project has been designed to meet present and
projected wastewater facilities needs of the 18,585-acre Almeda-
Sims Service Area and an adjacent 7,000-acre Diversion Area. Much
of the sewage currently generated in the service and diversion areas
receives inadequate treatment without meeting existing discharge
requirements. An estimated 7,500 persons are currently served by
septic tanks for this part of Houston.
a. Project Elements;
To address the problem outlined above, the City of Houston
proposes to construct the following project elements:
(i)- Almeda-Sims Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WPC-TEX-1009):
The proposed plant will provide secondary biological
treatment by the activated sludge process to ensure adequate
treatment of influent sewage. The 1990 design capacity of 20 mgd
-------
FIGURE 1-2
PROPOSED REGIONALIZATION PLAN FOR HOUSTON'S
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
CAPACITY OVER 40 MGD AND MULTI-REGZONAL
SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITIES
CAPACITY UNDER 40 MGD
-------
will meet the sewage treatment need of the primary service area plus
the overflow sewage of the diversion area, which is currently dis-
charged to Brays Bayou without treatment. The construction of the
proposed project will result in the abandonment of two existing
plants, WCID 44-1 and WCID 44-30
(ii). Almeda-Sims Regional Sludge Disposal Plant
(WPC-TEX-1074):
The proposed plant is designed to process the
sludge from the Almeda-Sims Plant and the District No. 51 Plant
initially. Ultimately, the facility will be expanded to accomodate
the sludge treatment need from the Southwest Plant. The proposed
plant has been designed to meet the 1990 demand of 32 tons of dried
sludge per day. The plant can be expanded to satisfy the treatment
needs through the year 2020.
(iii). Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Diversion Trunk Sewer
(WPC-TEX-1060);
The proposed 18,280 feet trunk sewer will eliminate
overflow of raw sewage into Brays Bayou from the Southwest Pump
Station and relieve certain trunk and main sewers in the Almeda-
Sims Service Area. Construction of this sewer will directly
alleviate the water pollution, odor and related problems in Brays
Bayou now caused by the raw sewage overflow.
b. Financial Requirements:
The total costs of the three projects covered by grant
-8-
-------
FIGURE 1-3
PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION AND SERVICE AREAS
.'.| BRAYS BAYOU |
ILOOP 610
L-^
+ + + -|SIMS BAYOU
+ + + -.1
Fz^Z-X-I-l-i-i-i-zI-I1^ + JPROPOSED PROJECT |-t-
SLUDGE PRODUCING AREA
-------
applications are estimated at $29,585,818 as shown in Table 1-2.
The funds required to finance the local share of the projects have
been acquired by the City of Houston through the sale of bonds by
the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority in November 1973, under
the terms of a contract between the City of Houston and that
Authority. A copy of this contract is enclosed in Appendix C. In
April 1972, the City of Houston received a permit from the Texas
Water Quality Board for the construction of a 20 mgd treatment plant
at the proposed location. A copy of this permit is enclosed in
Appendix D.
C. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Physical Characteristics of the Service Area;
a. Topography;
The service area of the proposed project lies in the Texas
Coastal Prairies, which extend westward along the Gulf Coast reach-
ing inland 30 to 60 miles. The topography of the service area is
one of very low relief. Elevation varies from 85 feet to the west
of Houston to 20 feet in southeast Houston. An average elevation
is between 50' to 60' above the mean sea level. Slopes in the area
are generally less than 1%, with the exception of the banks of the
various bayous where, along the channels, the slopes exceed 25%.
The topographic maps included as Figure 1-4 show the topographic
relief of the area. Low relief and slopes make runoff and internal
drainage difficult and expensive„
-10-
-------
Project
Expansion
Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Almeda-Sims Sludge
Disposal Plant
Construction
$ 6,336,986
7,003,350
TABLE 1-2
Estimated Cost of Improvements
Almeda-Sims Regional Wastewater Facilities
City of Houston
Engineering Land, Eligible
and Structures, Project Project
Contingencies -Right-of-Hay Total Grant Amount
Non-Recoverable
Grant Matching Expenditures
Amount Share (private Soutcesj
,576,747
1,720,805
$ 7,913,733 .$ 7,913,733 $ 5,935,300 $1,978,433
8,724,155 8,724,155 6,543,116 2,181,039
Almeda-Knight-Cambridge
Trunk and Diversion System
Public Sources
Private Sources
TOTAL
$ 9,335,800
1,346,450
-------
TOPOGRAPHY OF PROJECT VICINITY
FIG.I-4
PROPOSED PROJECT
MILES
-------
bo Geology;
Most of the service area in underlain by the Beaumont
Group. The Geologic Atlas of Texas, Houston Sheet (1908), mapped
the Beaumont as a single formation and made no attempt to subdivide
the unito Doering (1935) described the Beaumont as overlapping
the underlying Lissie Formation (Montgomery of the G.A0T. Houston
Sheet). Then, in 1956, he subdivided the Beaumont into the older
(lower) Oberlin Formation and the younger (upper) Eunice Formation0
Doering interpreted the Oberlin as being predominately a clay unit
overlapping the older Lissie, and the Eunice as representing a
period of deltaic progradation0 The Eunice of the study area is
somewhat sandier than the older Oberlin, with the sands representing
elongate, sinuous, and abandoned deltaic distributary channels that
usually appear on the surface as elongate distributary meander ridges,
The Areal Geologic Map of Doering Showing the various
Pleistocene and Recent or Holocene deposits is included as
Figure 1-5 of this study. The service area consists of geologic
and soils substrata common to the coastal uplands.
bb. Land-Surface Subsidence and Surface Faulting;
(i) Houston-Galveston Area;
The problems of land-surface subsidence and surface
faulting characterize, in varying degrees, much of the Texas coastal
zone but are greatest in the Houston-Galveston Area0 The geological
factors associated with these occurances sometimes damage man-made
activities on the surface and in occasions can injure and even kill
people. Land-surface subsidence which is primarily a consequence
of the ground-water pumping and withdrawal that began in the early
-13-
-------
FIGURE 1-5= AREAL GEOLOGY OF THE SOUTHEAST TEXAS COASTAL AREA
IBUFFALO BAYOU
i-JBRs^fi^<>-S
SIMS BAYOUj;.\)/VQ:;^
SCALE IN MILES
-------
part of this century, affects most of the eastern half of Harris
County, and most of the mainland part of Galveston County. A range
of subsidence on the order of 2 to 4 feet during the past 25 years
has been recorded by the City of Houston. More pronounced subsidence
of up to 6 feet has been experienced in the Pasadena-Houston Ship
Channel area in Baytown, and in Texas City. (See Figure 1-5A0)
Subsidence leads to a decline in artesian pressure that
causes clay beds to compact and dehydrate. These clay beds undergo
a volume reduction that gives rise to the subsidence of the overlying
land surface. At Goose Creek Oil Field, production of oil prior to
1924 resulted in a withdrawal of large volumes of water and sand along
with the oil, which led to a subsidence of as much as 3 feet. Frasch
or solution mining of sulfur from cap rocks of certain salt domes
has also resulted in surface land subsidence. As much as 10 feet
of subsidence over Hoskins Mound, a shallow salt dome in Brazoria
County has been attributed to such activity,, Solution mining of
salt has also caused local land subsidence over salt domes0
Land subsidence already experienced in the area is
irreversible. Prediction of the amount of further subsidence depends
upon a number of assumptions but will be related chiefly to the
thickness and compaction characteristics of the subsurface clay beds0
The impact of subsidence and surface faults on land use development
could be engineered provided these are recognized prior to the design
and construction of the man-made activities0 A more elaborate des-
cription of the subsidence problem in the Houston area as defined in
the Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal Zone, Bureau
-ISA-
-------
FIGURE I-5A: LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN THE HOUSTON AREAQ964)
GULF OF MEXICO
Contour intervot, amount of subsidence
^] 1-2 Feet |i| 4-5 Feet
2-3 Feet '5 Feet
3-4 Feet
10
MILES
-13B-
-------
of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, is presented in
Appendix EE, Part I. More up to date data on land surface subsi-
dence compiled in the work of U0 So Geological Survey and Texas
Water Development Board is given in the same Appendix, Part II0
(ii) Environmental Geologic Problems for the Service
Area;
Environmental Geologic problems in the service area
fall in three general catagories:
1) Salt Domes
2) Surface Subsidence
3) Active surface faulting
Salt Domes
The proposed route of the Diversion Trunk Sewer crosses
directly over the Pierce Junction Salt Dome and through the oil
field associated with it. Highly soluable salt extends up to 1000
feet of land surface over the dome, and numerous faults offset the
strata around the salt stock. The proposed treatment facilities
are to be located about 1.5 miles south of this dome (See Figure
1-5B). Then 6 miles southwest of the proposed plants is Blue Ridge
Salt Dome, from which several faults that are offsetting the earth's
surface extend northeast toward Pierce Junction. The area of the
dome is likely to be unstable because of:
• Surface subsidence due to fluid withdrawal and subsequent
rise of the dome.
« Collapse due to salt production.
Pierce Junction dome has been producing oil since 1921 and also salt
for a long time. The combined effect of salt production and with-
drawal of water can lead to a serious potential problem, intensifying
the problem of subsidence. In addition, the continued extraction of
-13C-
-------
FIGURE I-5B
MAJOR FAULT LINES AND SALT DOMES IN THE HOUSTON AREA
PIERCE JUNCTION
[BUFFALO BAYOU)
"""•^ *
LOCATION \''%..lftg
» r*
[HOUSTON SHIP CHANNELPQ
BLUE RIDGE
SALT DOME
| HOBBY AIRPORT]
LOOP 610|
/ |ALMEDA ROADI
ICLEAR CREEK
Legend
Fault Lines
Salt Domes
IGALVESTON BAY
Scale - 1 : 250,000
1 inch = 4 miles
-------
salt will create inside the dome a cavity of such dimension that may
result in a collapse of the land.
Extreme cautions will be necessary before any man-made
structures, including the proposed diversion sewer, can be constructed
in the area0 While the proposed project is not anticipated to cause
any adverse effect on the present state of the dome, it is imperative
that the City of Houston take immediate action to preserve the present
balance of the dome if it were to avoid a major potential problem in
the future. The prevention of the dome from a future collapse is part
of a larger issue of environmental protection for the city. At the
present time it is not known as to the size of the cavity inside the
dome. For many years salts are being taken out. The same is true on
the subsidence caused by pumping of underground water. Those acti-
vities must be brought to a halt if a potential disaster is to be
avoided in the future. A more elaborate discussion on how these
potential problems can be addressed is presented in pages 88A through
88G of this report where effect of the proposed project on the geo-
logy of the Pierce Junction Salt Dome is discussed.
Surface Subsidence and Uplift
Surveys made over the years show that the Houston area is
subsiding. The center of the bowl of general subsidence is in the
vicinity of the Houston Ship Channel industrial complex0 This sub-
sidence is due principally to excessive fresh water production.
While detailed data are not available on the exact amount of subsi-
dence for the service area, a Bureau of Economic Geology study reveals
a subsidence level of 1 to 2 feet for the service area0 The U0 S.
-13E-
-------
FIGURE I-5C: SUBSIDENCE OF THE LAND SURFACE, 1964-73
v
\ [PLANT LOCATION
V r—; Y
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND TEXAS WATER DEPT. BOARD,APR,197-
-13F-
-------
Geological Survey and Texas Water Development Board estimated that
the subsidence has been approximately one foot for the service area
during the 1964-73 period (See Figure 1-5C0) The aggregate subsidence
to date is approximately 2.5 feet.
Land subsidence already experienced in the area is irrevis-
ible. Projections compiled by McClelland Engineers, Inc., as reported
in the Bureau of Economic Geology's 1972 work on the Coastal Geology
indicate the following:
"Ultimate subsidence in the Pasadena area will be 1005 feet,
assuming a total decline in the piezometric level of 425 feet.
Nearly all the subsidence predicted will occur as a result of
declines already produced by present rates of the withdrawal.
Other projections indicated subsidence on the order of 6 feet
in the City of Houston, of 8 feet in the Ellington Field Area,
and 4.5 feet in the area adjacent to Western Galveston Bay.
Present-day ground water level declines will produce future
subsidence equal to 005 to 105 times the present amount of
subsidence 0"
Based on the above data it can be generally concluded that
the service area of the project and the route of the proposed trunk
sewer will undergo a subsidence level of approximately another 2 feet.
This subsidence however may not take place uniformly. The subsi-
dence that occurs differentially is critical. Due consideration must
be given to this differential subsidence which should be incorporated
in the structual design of the proposed facilities so that the project
elements will not be affected by the valuable subsidence levels at
different points of the trunk sewer route0
Surface Faulting
Numerous faults are recognized in the subsurface formations
on the flanks of Pierce Junction Salt Dome, and each of these is
a potential surface fault. (See Figure VI-2, Page 88D0) This dome
-13G-
-------
and Blue Ridge Dome a few miles to the southwest together with the
area in between, comprise the Pierce Junction zone of surface fault-
ing in which at least two surface faults are known to be actively
displacing West Fuqua Road0 See Figure 1-5B for major fault lines
identified by the Bureau of Economic Geology's study in 1972.
The proposed treatment facilities and Trunk Sewer are both
located in this zone of potential faulting. Man-made structures
including the proposed project elements could be seriously disrupted
where they are intersected by active surface faults. To avoid such
problems the structures should be designed to accomodate for the
expected fault movement.
c. Soils;
There are two detailed soils maps available for Harris
County. The oldest of these was prepared by the U. S0 Department
of Agriculture in 1922. A copy of the detailed soils map of the
service area survey, along with the soils distributions as abstracted
from the 1922 soils map, is included in Appendix E.
The Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture is now completing a new soils map for Harris County0
-14-
-------
A portion of this map, taken from the aerial photos used to delineate
the various soils series, is included as Figure 1-6 of this report.
It covers the service area and shows seven of the soils series that
are found in Harris County. A brief summary of the characteristics
of these seven soil series is presented in Appendix F. The character-
istic soil of the proposed treatment plant service area has low
permeability, which eliminates septic tanks as a method of waste-
water treatment since the soil cannot satisfactorily absorb waste-
water effluent.
d. Hydrology;
(i). 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 produce the major part of the water for residents of
the Houston area. Detailed information on the aquifer system for
Harris County could 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. Exhibit A is a
-15-
-------
>_^^. fr „.' 'r" ;^%ft JDW, \l ~ b T a I ' •"— -|J -i
»°'
J$m^m&:-**::-.-.:>.
WW$&*&!-^i^
V^V/.' . '. .' 7^ J ^ ' ' -"r11-
r.:.<-.rl ', ! I ! ' '. ' '. .' ' .' I , I '. v
^1 SIMS BAYOU|g
(ALLISON
ADDICKS
BEAUMONT
BERNARD
BERNARD-EDNA
LAKE CHARLES
MIDLAND
MILES
0 .75 2.25
DETAILED SOILS MAP FOR S.C. HARRIS COUNTY 1974
-------
contour map showing the depth to the base of the fresh to slightly
saline water sands in the Harris County area. Exhibit C is an
Isopach (thickness) map of the fresh water sands in the same area.
Exhibit B shows the location of water wells in Harris County.
(ii). Surface Water:
Figure 1-7, 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 two bodies of water most directly affected
by the proposed project are Sims Bayou and Brays Bayou, neither of
which supply water to residents of the service area or Houston. The
treated surface water supply to the area originates from the
reservoirs at Lake Houston and Lake Conroe.
The proposed project will affect the water level
and quality of water in Sims Bayou and Brays Bayou. It will reduce
the water discharge of Brays Bayou by diverting untreated sev:age
to the project site for treatment thus improving the quality of
Brays Bayou. This will result in the increase of water flow in
Sims Bayou and will improve its water quality also.
Since both these bayous are discharging into the
Houston Ship Channel, the impact of the proposed project on the
water quality of the Ship Channel will be beneficial. The regional-
ization plan for Houston calls for the expansion and modernization
of a number of treatment plants over the next several years0 The
City of Houston intends to take full advantage of the opportunity
-17-
-------
FIGURE 1-7
HATER COURSES AND RESERVOIRS
-18-
-------
presented by the implementation of the regional system to address
the problem of water pollution of the Houston Ship Channel. As the
effluent from all treatment plants will be discharged to the various
area water courses, all emptying into the Ship Channel, the improve-
ment of water quality in these water courses through sophisticated
treatment systems will place the city in a position to reduce the
pollutants in the Channel and even stimulate the ^ater quality of
Galveston Bay. The objective of the city's wastewater management
program is therefore to improve and enhance the overall water
quality of the entire Houston area. The proposed project represents
a major step in that direction.
Water flow and quality data collected at several
points along the Sims and Brays Bayous is presented in Appendix G
of this report. (See page G-l in the appendix for the exact
location of these points0) The samples of water flow and quality
taken at different 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 cov-
erage since data was collected from four different sections encom-
passing both the up and downstream characteristics of these bayous.
(iii) . Flood-Prone Areas_;
The U.S. Geological Purvey, in cooperation with
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, has published
a series of 7-1/2 minute topographic maps showing the 100-year flood-
prone areas for most water courses in the Houston area. There are
numerous flood-prone areas along the various creeks, rivers, and
bayous of Harris County. Special attention is called to the area
-19-
-------
immediately surrounding the proposed location (Figure 1-8).
The proposed site is well within the Sims Bayou flood-
prone area. Close attention, however, is being given to the federal
and state regulations governing flood-plain site design and develop-
ment. The City's intent for either elevated construction or build-
ing levees around the site appears sufficient to protect plant and
equipment from flood waters. The detail engineering plan for the
site now at the final stages of preparation is being patterned to
meet the Executive Order No. 11296 and the requirements of Sections
11.458, 57.100, et seq, Texas Water Code, regarding locating treat-
ment plants on flood-plain areas. The previous highest flood level
recorded for the adjoining section of Sims Bayou was 52.5 feet above
the mean sea level. Preliminary studies by the Galveston District
Corps of Engineers indicate that elevation of 100 year flood waters
will be approximately 54 feet at this location. The elevation of
the plant site varies from 48.1 feet to 52.7 feet, the average ele-
vation being 50.34 feet above the mean sea level.
2. 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 shown in Table 1-3, averag-
ing 4.12 inches per month. Houston experiences high intensity
showers 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
42°F, and the mean July temperature is 93°F. Below freezing
-20-
-------
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
FIG. 1-8
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
PLANT LOCATION
MILES
-------
TABLE 1-3
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (MEASURED IN INCHES)
CITY OF HOUSTON 1965-1973
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
TOTAL YEAR
1965
1087
3.27
0.81
0095
6o53
3o06
Io57
2029
3o46
3o09
4.82
6ol5
37.97
1966
4046
7075
2020
7098
11.21
4042
1045
7oll
4o01
5045
1056
Io53
59013
Average 1965-1973: 49047 inches
Source: United States Department
1967
2.14
2047
1083
4042
2054
Ool7
7.77
1.60
4084
3ol8
0.50
5002
36045
1968
8o02
1.99
2092
3002
13o24
llolS
6.49
2.90
3o87
3091
2071
1.99
61o44
1969
2074
5031
3018
3034
4.73
Io51
3o89
2o67
6.08
3e30
2.13
4^38
43026
1970
1093
2.52
5008
2.21
14039
0026
2.28
2o03
6022
9009
1054
Oo64
48019
1971
Oo36
2oll
1021
2014
3041
2.42
1042
6o95
5017
3o49
1082
7.33
36o83
1972
3030
Io20
8052
1085
6099
3002
2076
3o90
6o23
3034
6049
2.20
50.80
1973
5000
3.40
3.18
7.15
4022
13o46
6066
3.73
9.38
9.31
1.59
2o47
70ol6
of Interior, Weather Bureau
-------
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 surface wind direction and hurricane
tracks, are shown in Figure 1-9.
Hurricane flooding is a potential problem in any coastal
zone, although 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 north-
west of Galena Park.
3. Ecological Elements:
a. Botanical:
Exhibits D and E show the distribution of various plant
assemblages within areas in and around the City of Houston. Exhibit
D from Proctor and Hall (1974) shows the typical vegetation of the
area to the north and west of the city. Exhibit E, the Environments
and Biologic Assemblage, shows both subaqueous environments with
assemblages and subaerial environments with assemblages. Exhibit F
lists the common macrobiologic assemblages, both botanical and
zoological, for the various environments on the maps0
Vegetation in the service area of the proposed project
is typical of the gulf prairie and coastal plains0 The primary
-23-
-------
CLIMATE CONDITIONS
FIG 1-9
Annual average isohyets,
inches (1931-1960)
H2 -8
k_i Annual average rainfall
~!6 (based on 1931-1960)
-20 -overage potential
evapotranspiration
(Thornthwaite method)
r-24
c
-28
Points of entry of tropical cyclones.
Tropical storms (winds >39mph and
* 74mph) are indicated by dashed
arrows; hurricanes (winds >74mph)
are shown by solid arrows
Numbers indicate year storm
occurred.
Annual average mean
isotherm, m°F(l93l-
1960)
B
Percentage frequency of surface
wind direction (annual) (1951-1960)
INDEX MAP
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).
-------
service area is generally barren of major vegetation except for
scattered grasses, weeds and small amounts of scrub timber. The
major woody plants in the area are oak, acacia, mesquite and elm.
The grasses in the area are tall bunchgrasses, including the big
bluestem, little bluestem, seacoast bluestem, Indiangrass, eastern
gamagrass, switchgrass and gulf cordgrass. Other grasses are
panicums, gulf muhly, bermuda and carpet. Vegetation in the built-
up residential sections of the service area is characterized by the
planting of shade and fruit trees, shrubs and grasses.
b. Zoological;
In addition to the zoological elements shown in Exhibit F,
major marine and wildlife habitats in the Greater Houston area are
shown in Exhibits G, H and I. This data was taken from the Regional
Atlas, 1972, prepared by the Houston-Galveston Area Council. Avail-
able studies indicate no significant evidence of the existence of
any rare and endangered species within the project's service area or
the City of Houston0 Possible rare and endangered species which might
be in the Texas Coastal Zone, include the Attwater's prairie chicken,
red wolf, peregrine falcon, Eskimo curlew, bald eagle, ocelot,
American alligator and Houston toad.
(i). Wildlife Habitats;
Wildlife in the area consits of small furbearing 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 Harris County outside the
City of Houston. Game species in the Houston region include bobwhite
quail, mourning doves, species of snipe., ducks, and geese, woodcock.
and white tailed deer.
-25-
-------
(ii). Aquatic Fauna;
The variety and abundance of aquatic fauna to
be found in Sims Bayou are limited by the low flow and the poor
water quality of the stream. Species of turtles, frogs, reptiles,
mollusks, and rough 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.
(iii). 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 winter. Seed-eating birds such as meadow larks,
mourning doves, redwinged blackbirds, grackles and short-eared
owls are found in the weedy fields„ Savannah sparrows, goldfinch,
sparrow hawks, marsh hawks and other species of hawks are often
seen. Such migratory birds as orioles and kingbirds are also
occasionally seen in the area.
4. Paleontological, Archaeological, Historical and Cultural
Elements;
a. Paleontology;
According to Dr. DeWitt van Siclen of the Department
of Geology, University of Houston, there are no known paleontological
sites in the service area of the proposed project. The low relief
-26-
-------
of the area, humid climatic conditions, and deep acid soil development
would tend to destroy most fossil evidence at or near the surface.
The mudstones of the Oberlin Formation are deeply weathered and
probably contained only limited fauna at the time of deposition.
The non-marine deltaic sediments of the Eunice Formation would
not be conducive to fossil accumulation or preservation.
Significant paleontological finds are 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.
b. Archaeological, Historical and Cultural Elements:
There are two items listed in the National Register of
Historic Places located in the Houston area. Both are outside the
service area of the project. The Cotton Exchange Building is
located in downtown Houston and the San Jacinto Battleground,
where Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836, is located
northeast of Houston.
According to the Texas Historical Commission, most recent
archaeological surveys were confined to one area in Houston. These
surveys have recorded ten sites along White Oak Bayou in northwest
Houston. Areas south of the city were surveyed prior to construction
of 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 proposed project including the
installation of the Almeda-Knight Diversion Trunk Sewer, the
proposed site and the pipeline easements and right-of-way should
-27-
-------
be subjected to a thorough archaeological survey. Such sites as
recognized during the survey should be recorded and their significance
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 Astrodome, Astrohall and Astroworld are located
on the northern boundary of the service area. The Texas Medical
Center, a $155 million complex of medical institutions for research,
training and treatment is located in the diversion area.
Several other key cultural facilities, such as the
recently expanded Museum of Fine Arts; Contemporary Arts Museum;
Rice University and Hermann Park; the Burke-Baker Planetarium and
the Museum of Natural Science, are also located in the diversion
area. Hermann Park includes a 42-acre zoological garden. A more
detailed description of historical, cultural and archaeological
elements in Houston is included in Appendix H of this report.
5. Social and Economic Conditions;
The demand for public facilities 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
character and intensity of growth in population, employment and
land use.
a. Economic Development;
Houston, during the 1960 decade, has been one of the
fastest growing major cities in the United States. Major factors
-28-
-------
accounting for this growth have been the continued expansion of
manufacturing, petrochemical and chemical production, educational
facilities, the aerospace industry and medical research. During the
1960 to 1969 period, 118 new industrial plants were located in the
Houston area and another 272 existing plants underwent major
expansions. In 1970, Houston had almost 150,000 workers employed
in manufacturing categories alone. Table 1-4 shows the past,
current and projected employment for the City of Houston, Harris
County and the Houston-Galveston Planning Region.
TABLE 1-4
HOUSTON'S EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK - 1960 THROUGH 1990
City of
Houston*
Harris
County**
Houston-
Galveston
Region***
Number
1960
363,636
470,452
587,698
1970
515,599
711,749
797,421
Employment
Per Cent
Change
1960-1970
42%
51%
33%
Projections Through
1980
667,000
1,064,050
1,186,501
1990
1,000,000
1,400,000
1,575,600
*Employment projection for the City of Houston is based on the
continuation of its 1970 share of Harris County total employment.
**Volume 2, "Houston-Harris County Population Projection," Table 5,
page 15, Texas Highway Department, 1967.
***Projections by University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M
University for Economic Base Studies and projections of the
HGAC Region, page 9, "A Summary Projection, Land Use and
Population, " December 1969.
-29-
-------
These projections are expected to have a far-reaching
impact on Houston in the planning and provision of adequate
municipal facilities. With Houston continuing to grow at its
present rate through the year 1990, its goal of an orderly physical
development will be greatly dependent on the provision of an adequate
Infra-structure system, including transportation and utilities. How
much of this additional growth could be allocated to various communi-
ties within the Houston area will be largely dictated by the quality
and quantity of public services provided to those areas. The city's
proposal for the expansion of the Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant is a
clear indication that future development is desired in the service
area of the proposed project.
b. Economic Growth for the Service Area:
Economic activity of the city and the service area of
the proposed plant is growing in type and intensity. Table 1-5
summarizes the employment change of the service area during the
1960-70 period.
The data presented in Table 1-5 indicates that
during the last decade, the total service area has gained more than
19,000 employed residents or an increase of 4302%. This rate of
growth equals that of the city as a whole during the same period
of time.
With the rapid urbanization of the southwest, west,
and northwestern parts of Houston, large tracts of vacant lands
«
available in the service area will be ripe for urban development.
Favorable land values, suitable topography, construction of two
-30-
-------
PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FIG.MO
15
12
10
o
x
§ 7
~" 5
H
Z 4
O 2
yj
HOUSTON-GALVESTON
PLANNING REGION
1 ,--"
CITY OF HOUSTON
1970
1990
-------
major cross-town arteries, and close proximity to such major
attractions as Astroworld, the medical complex, Rice University,
and so forth, will virtually assure the future growth of the project
area. The demand for water usage for both domestic and commercial
activities will steadily increase in the area, further pressing the
need for the construction of additional waste treatment facilities.
TABLE 1-5
TRENDS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES FOR THE SERVICE AREA, 1960-70
Primary Service
Area
Diversion Area
Sludge Produc-
ing Area
(Plant No0 51)
TOTAL AREA
AFFECTED BY
THE PLANT
Employ
1960
9,089
32,104
3,530
44,723
/ment
1970
13,875
41,620
8,560
64,055
Change 1960-1970
Number
+4,786
+9,516
+5,030
+19,332
Per Cent
+52.65%
+29oOO%
+142.00%
+43.20%
Source: 1960 and 1970 U.S. Censuses of Population
and Housing, Houston, Texas, Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area0
c. Population Characteristics, Trends and Projections;
As of April, 1970, the primary service area of the
proposed project had a population of 36,834 persons. This is a
gain of 46% since 1960. The diversion area, which is heavily built-
up, has grown only 10% during the past decade. The area presently
served by Plant No0 51, from which sludge will be brought for
treatment to the proposed site, almost doubled in population,
-32-
-------
NET EMPLOYMENT GAINS
FOR THE SERVICE AREA :1960-70
FIG. 1-11
o
PRIMARY SERVICE AREA
DIVERSION AREA
SLUDGE PRODUCING AREA
-33-
-------
increasing from 9,521 persons in 1960 to 18,390 by 1970. Comparable
population growth rates and projections for the City of Houston,
Harris County and the Gulf Coast Planning Region are shown in
Table 1-6.
In 1980, the proposed project will be serving an
estimated 158,000 persons. By 1990, 208,000 people will require
service-, an increase of 70,000 more people than are being served
today. The City of Houston must not only improve sewer and other
services to meet existing needs and standards, but must also plan
facilities that will serve the increasing population of the city.
The population trends and projections for the areas affected by
the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant are graphically
illustrated in Figure 1-12.
The population of both the primary service area and
the sludge producing area will continue to grow over the next 20
years, but the resident population of the diversion area is not
expected to grow much beyond its present level. Yet, the diversion
area will place increased demands on sewer and treatment facilities
as non-residential activities expand in the area. More wastewater
is now generated from this area than the Sims Bayou Plant can
handle. This problem must be corrected if the quality of the water
in Brays Bayou is to improve. Although the resident population
of the diversion area is not likely to increase, employment and
service activities are increasing. This brings more and more people
into the area who are not part of the resident population but who,
nevertheless, place an increasing strain on the sewer and other
utility systems.
-34-
-------
TABLE 1-6
POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE PROJECT AREA, CITY OF HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY
AND GULF-COAST PLANNING REGION - 1960 THROUGH 1990.
Area
Primary
Area
Diversion
Area
Sludge Producing
Area (Plant No.
51)
TOTAL AREA AFFEC-
TED BY ALMEDA-
SIMS PROJECT
City of Houston
Harris County
Gulf Coast
Planning Region
(13-county)
Past and Present** Future Projection*
1960
25,175
75,875
9,521
110,571
938,219
1,243,158
1,698,748
1970
36,834
83,714
18,390
138,938
1,232,802
1,741,912
2,305,106
Change 1960-70
Number
+11,659
+ 7,839
+ 8,869
+28,367
+294,583
+498,754
+606,358
Percent
46.3%
10033%
93.15%
25.65%
31.39%
40.11%
35.69%
1980
50,460
82,400
25,000
157,860
1,600,000
2,311,600
3,293,500
1990
81,710
84,600
41,225
207,535
2,300,000
3,300,000
5,157,100
Change 1970-90
Number
+44,876
+ 886
+22,835
+68,597
+1,067,198
+1,558,088
+2,851,994
Percent
121o83%
1.05%
124.17%
49.37%
86a5%
89.4%
123.7%
**1960 and 1970 Censuses of Population and Housing for the Houston, Texas, Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area
*Projections by HGAC, "A Special Report on Population Projection, 1970-2020,"
November, 1972.
l
CO
Ul
I
-------
PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED
POPULATION FIG. 112
20
18
16
2 14
z
12
10
8
O
<
C 4
o
Q.
TOTAL AREA TO BE AFFECTED
,"•'
DIVERSION AREA
L
(PRIMARY SERVICE AREA|
-k •
SLUDGE PRODUCING AREA
1960
1970
1980
1990
-36-
-------
The nearness of the service area to downtown Houston
and the presence of such major activities as Rice University, the
medical complex, and related activities will continue to increase
its daytime population. The concentration of non-residential
activities in the diversion area will certainly demand more waste-
water treatment facilities, though population trends may indicate
otherwise.
Figures 1-13 and 1-14 show the 1970 and 1990 geographic
distribution of population for Harris County. Presently, the
population is heavily confined within the Loop 610 and its immediate
outer zone. But continuing dispersion of Houston's population
appears almost inevitable. The projected distribution of net
population change as shown in Figure 1-14 indicates that there will
be little or no population increase inside the Loop 610 between now
and 1990. A close examination of the data presented in this map
confirms a sizeable population increase expected for the service
area of the proposed project through the year 1990.
6. Transportation Elements:
The service area's road system consists mostly of all-
weather surfaced roads that are passable all year round. The south
portion of Interstate Loop 610 crosses the northern section of the
primary service area, serving well both the primary service area
and the diversion area. Southwest Freeway bisects the diversion
area in an east-westerly direction. The major east-west transpor-
tation artery for the primary service area is Holmes Road, which
runs parallel to the Southern Pacific Railroad. Almeda Road, or
-37-
-------
00
I
L
1970 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION HARRIS COUNTY, FIG. 1-13
/x /\ \
1 100 PERSONS
'' "•' /?:*•• ^T.;i^**iir -'"- :~.'i*~r**3 <*•''*»-•, • *$*t ;**^*'T"
^•^^^m^v /•-"
*-V. .:^Li'^R* 4
-------
1970-90 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION INCREMENT HARRIS COUNTY,FIG.I-14
i
U)
N \ \
» *•»..
\
V-^M^M-;-
•to •--,:-„ .-_•;/! ••v-^vft-<-;- ;
?J^?;F';!"'5 >' :.C.'? ;^::K^'
LOCATTOMl ,. !
Miles
-------
State Highway 288, is the major north-south artery for the project
area. The construction of South Freeway, when completed, will
facilitate accelerated development of the area.
Figure 1-15 shows the existing and proposed transportation
network for the project area and surrounding vicinities. Figure 1-16
shows the proposal on a rapid transit system recently prepared by
the City of Houston. The transit system will have a far-reaching
impact on all of the diversion area and northern section of the
primary service area. The transit corridors radiating from the
Central Business District along the Southwest and South Freeways
will drastically alter the growth pattern of the project 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 possibility. The actual 1990 population and employment
will then far exceed the projections presented in this report.
The need for an expanded system of wastewater treatment facilities
will increase proportionately. The City of Houston should be
prepared to respond to this situation.
7. Needs of the Service Area;
If a stimulating living and working environment is to be
created in an area, then the most pressing needs are usually public
services, i.e., water, sewer, solid-waste, parks, streets, schools,
public safety and so forth. In the case of the project area, the
need for an adequate waste treatment system is very urgent. The
proposed project will improve water quality in Sims and Brays
-40-
-------
FIGURE I- 15 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
MAJOR THOROUGHFARES
....... TO BE ACQUIRED
-__—TO BE WIDENED
-SUFFICIENT WIDTH
FREEWAYS
<*•«««• PROPOSED
TO BE WIDENED
SUFFICIENT WIDTH
0 \ILEJ?
41
-------
Bayous, the Houston Ship Channel, and help the city to provide a
clean and safe environment for the citizens of the project area.
As noted earlier, this area is subject to substantial growth,
and it is obvious that adequate sewage treatment is mandatory
if critical health problems are to be avoided.
An estimated 10 mgd of wastewater is currently generated
by the diversion area, which is served by the Sims Bayou Plant.
This is 6.6 mgd beyond its design capacity and the excess raw
sewage is discharged into Brays Bayou near Hermann Park. Increased
non-residential activities in the area will cause even more sewage
generation in the future. By 1990, it is entirely possible that
10 mgd raw sewage will be discharged into this bayou unless the
proposed project is implemented. The projected population of
82,000 persons for the primary service area will generate another
10 mgd of wastewater, establishing a plant capacity'of 20 mgd by the
year 1990.
On the facility need for sludge disposal, the 20 mgd sewage
will create a 1990 need of 22.4 tons of dried sludge per day. Another
9.4 tons of sludge produced by the area served by Plant No. 51
will be brought to the project site for disposal. This will create
the need for an estimated 31.8 ton sludge treatment facility at the
Almeda-Sims Plant site. The construction of a 32 ton sludge disposal
facility at the proposed site is therefore necessary. Finally,
since the diversion area has to be served by the proposed project,
the construction of a diversion sewer trunk becomes a necessity.
All three elements of the proposed project, therefore, represent a
pressing and urgent need for the City of Houston.
-42-
-------
8. Other Major Projects Affecting the Service Area:
A number of public and private projects are currently either
under construction or in the final stages of planning and design.
a. Loop 610;
While the portion currently at the final phase of
improvement is outside the service area, the completion of Loop 610
near Interstate 45 and the Gulf Freeway will improve the accessibilities
to the project area from the east, northeast and southeast of
the Houston Metropolitan Area.
b. South Freeway:
First stage construction of a minimum usuable facility for
South Freeway between Clear Creek and Loop 610 has been scheduled for
completion in 1977 or 1978, and the portion between Loop 610 and
downtown Houston will be completed by 1979. This facility passing
through the eastern boundary of the service area will spur additional
residential, commercial and industrial development.
c. Plaza del Pro;
This massive multi-purpose private development
currently under construction is located immediately to the north
of the primary service area. The complete development of the
multi-million dollar project depends heavily on the construction
of the proposed project. Recognizing the need and urgency of
the project, the Plaza del Oro Development Company has committed a
private fund of $1,492,450.00 to help defray a portion of the
-43-
-------
engineering and construction costs of the proposed diversion sewer.
d. Proposed Sludge Line from Plant. No. 51 to the Proposed
Project Site;
This 36-inch sludge force line has been designed to
carry sludge from Plant No. 51 to the proposed Sludge Disposal
Plant at the Almeda-Sims project site. The construction and
utilization of this line depends on the construction and
operation of the proposed project. The funding for this line has
been appropriated in the city's 1974-78 Capital Improvement Programc
e. Proposed Trunk Sewer Between the Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Treatment Plant and the WCID 44-1 and 44-3 Sewage
Treatment Plants;.
This is another project which is directly related
with the proposed Almeda-Sims project. Funded by the city's
Capital Improvement Program for 1974-78, the construction of this
48 inch trunk sewer will result in the abandonment of WCID 44-1
and 44-3 Plants.
9. Land Use Trends and Future Activities in the Service Area:
Current land use for the primary service area reveals that
as much as three-fourths of all land in the area is vacant or
used for agricultural purposes. A portion of the land.for this
area is currently used for light and light-to-heavy manufacturing
activities.
-44-
-------
The central portion of the service area is a producing
oil-field which is being rapidly depleted. No new wells are
being drilled, and land now under the oil field lease is gradually
being converted to residential development.
Residential development constitutes the second largest
use of land in the primary service area. Almost all of the
residential housing of the area is single-family dwelling units.
Housing conditions in the project area range from good to fair.
As the City of Houston continues to expand, the service
area of the proposed Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant will
certainly be subject to urbanization. Low density housing is
expected to dominate the future land use structure of the
service area. Industrial and related developments are
also expected to be substantial for this area. The citywide
general plan proposed by the City of Houston's City Planning
Department is shown in Figure 1-16.
10. Other Elements of the Environment: 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, liquids and gases
in amounts that are injurious and detrimental to man, animals,
plants and properties. This seriously interferes with the comfortable
enjoyment of life and the environment. The principal sources of
air pollution in Houston, as in other urban areas, are airplanes,
automobiles, burning of fuels in industries, and waste materials.
-45-
-------
The table below indicates the extent of the problem of air pollution
that currently exists in the Houston and Harris County area.
Pollutants
Particulate
Matter
Carbon Monoxides
' (CO)
Sulphur Dioxides
(S02)
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%
25.20%
100.00%
The air quality problem as it exists is highly critical.
Houston already tops the list of air pollution in the state of
Texas. The continued growth of the city and its environs will
intensify this problem further if appropriate programs are not
initiated to address the issue of air pollution. Over 50% of the
total air contaminants in the city result from carbon monoxide,
the major source of which is the automobile. Unless Houston explores
alternative modes of transportation, the problem will continue
indefinitely, affecting the public health and the environment almost
to the point of no return.
In view of the seriousness of this problem, the City of Houston
must be careful in implementing projects that will further aggravate
this problem. In selecting alternatives for wastewater treatment
process and sludge disposal, this issue must be taken into full
consideration.
-45a-
-------
FIGURE 1-16
CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSTON
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
£ INDUSTRIAL
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
AIRPORT
S.T.O.L. FACILITY
FREEWAYS
RAPID TRANSIT
N
nn i FNH
REPRODUCED FROM HOUSTON'S GENERAL
PLAN STUDY FOR 199"0, HOUSTON CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION, JUEY 1972
inch = 3.55 miles
-------
CHAPTER II; ALTERNATIVES TQ THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, GENERAL
B, MAJOR OBJECTIVES
C, CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS
D, STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
E. TREATMENT SUBSYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES
F, TREATMENT SYSTEM (SINGLE ALTERNATIVE
REFLECTING SUBSYSTEM CHOICE)
G, NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
-------
II. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. GENERAL
This section surveys various non-structural, structural, and
treatment-system alternatives 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 EPA regulations call for secondary treatment of sewage
-47-
-------
capable of producing a satisfactory level of effluent quality.
The regulatory standards specified in the National Pollutants
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) determine the issuance of
permits for construction of wastewater treatment facilities.
Effluent quality in terms of average monthly and weekly five-
day biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and fecal
coliform content as specified for the Houston area must be
satisfied by the chosen alternative.
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
or less, an average monthly TSS of 20 mg/1 or less, and a chlorine
residual 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
raw sewage into Brays Bayou adjacent to MacGregor Park.
Texas Water Quality Board Waste Control Order No. 10495
specifies the effluent standards imposed upon discharges from
all sewage treatment plants in Houston, including the Almeda-Sims
Sewage Treatment Plant. The TWQB standards require effluent
having the following quality:
-48-
-------
Average monthly BOD5 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
3. Scope of the Proposed Project;
The existing Almeda-Sims Sewage Treatment Plant was designed
in 1963 to have an average capacity of 1.0 mgd and a peak capacity
of 3.0 mgd. This plant, and its sludge handling facilities, will
continue in use until such time as the new plant is ready to be
placed in service. At that time, incoming sewage will be diverted
to the new enlarged plant for treatment and the existing plant will
be modified to serve as a chlorination basin for the enlarged plant.
All older, non-integrated facilities at the site will be demolished.
The new sewage treatment plant will receive the overflow
from the Southside Sewer*via the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk
Sewer. The construction of the proposed project will result in
the phasing out of the existing WCID 44-1 and WCID 44-3 plants.
a. Physical Considerations:
The area to be served by the proposed project lies
within the south-southwest portion of the City of Houston. It is
generally flat in terrain. The area is intersected by two natural
watercourses, Brays Bayou and Sims Bayou. The effluent from the
*This trunk sewer currently carries 22.9 mgd of sewage from the South-
West Pump Station to the Sims Bayou Plant which is approximately 14
miles northeast of the proposed projecto
-49-
-------
plant will be discharged into the Sims Bayou.
b. 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 minimize capital costs
and subsequent operation and maintenance costs.
D. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
1. Non-Structural Alternatives:
These include policy options available to the City of Houston
for collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and pollution
control. 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:
a. Use of its authority to approve subdivision plats
b. Issuing and enforcing building permits
c. 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.
The city's statutory policy as included in the Code of
Ordinances imposes the following limits on the sanitary sewer
system:
-50-
-------
a. Limitation of total wastewater quantity discharged into
the sanitary sewer system.
b. Limitation of wastewater quality discharged into the
sanitary sewer system.
c. Imposition of rates charged as a function of quantity.
d. Imposition of rates charged as a function of quality.
e. Prohibition of certain types of discharges into the
system.
f. Restriction on excessive discharges caused by storm or
overflow conditions into the system.
The city has proceeded to investigate those structural
alternatives for the design of the wastewater treatment facilities,
process selection and unit component sizing which are required to
transport and treat all wastewater discharged into the system within
the parameters of these non-structural alternatives.
It appears that the structural and non-structural alternatives
must exist in a state of economic balance that can be best achieved
by the implementation of the non-structural alternatives listed
herein, combined with such structural alternatives as are consequently
necessary.
2. Structural Alternatives;
Alternative structural approaches to the project were
examined with the understanding that if adopted, they would be
applied in conjunction with the non-structural policies previously
outlined. In devising non-structural alternatives, it was necessary
to determine:
•Whether the service system should be centralized or de-
centralized.
•Where plant sites should be located.
-51-
-------
•Where sewers should be routed.
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.
•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 equip-
ment compatible with other regional plants.
Policies pursued by the Gulf Coast Waste Disposal
Authority, the Houston-Galveston A±ea 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
constraints imposed by system design; land cost and availability;
and the nature of surrounding development, both existing and planned.
-52-
-------
Plant location should also be sensitive 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 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 Almeda-Sims 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 producing areas 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 20 mgd will be located at the Southwest
Pump Station.
Location 2; WCID 44-1 or WCID 44-3 will be expanded to handle
an additional volume of 20 mgd.
-53-
-------
Location 3: Plant Station 51 will be expanded to handle an
additional volume of 20 ragd.
Location 4: The location at Almeda-Sims as proposed in this
report.
Location 5; Southwest Plant will be expanded to 50 mgd from
its present capacity of 30 mgd.
Location 6: The proposed location (Almeda-Sims) will be expanded
by 10 mgd and another 10 mgd new plant will be built at the
Southwest Pump Station (two plants under this alternative).
Location 7: The proposed location (Almeda-Sims) will be
expanded by 10 mgd and WCID 44-1 or WCID 44-3 will be expanded
to handle another 10 mgd (two plants under this alternative).
A more elaborate description of the above alternatives is presented
in Appendix I, explaining the relationship of diversion trunk sewer
and sludge disposal plant associated with each location. 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 Sims Bayou and Almeda Road
at the fringe of an industrial rather than residential section of
the service area. Appendix I further indicates that the proposed
location of the Almeda-Sims site is by far the best location among
the seven alternatives considered. This determination has been
based on the evaluation of a total of 16 location factors,
encompassing the objective of regionalization of the citywide
treatment system to the aesthetic consideration for plant construction
(see Table 1-1 in Appendix I).
c. Routing of Sewers;
The primary purpose of the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk
-54-
-------
Sewer is to convey the wastewater overflow from the overloaded
Southwest Pump Station to the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment
Plant. Its secondary purpose is to intercept a number of small
sewer mains along its route to convey wastewater from those mains
to the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The routing of the trunk sewer has been designed to:
•Allow wastewater flow by gravity where possible.
•Minimize the total length of the sewer.
•Utilize existing utility easements held by the City
of Houston.
E. TREATMENT SUBSYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES
A wastewater collection, treatment and sludge disposal system,
such as the proposed Almeda-Sims project, consists of component
subsystems. A variety of options are available for wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal for each subsystem. These alter-
natives are discussed below and an optimal alternative designated
for each subsystem, based on considerations of technology, cost,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Water Quality Board
effluent requirements, and the nature of the city's existing sanitary
sewer system.
1. Collection System;
During the design process, several alternatives were studied
for the south portion of the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sanitary
Sewer. Only those alternatives which could meet present and projected
future needs of the area were considered. The two alternatives that
-55-
-------
were given further consideration were:
a. Force Main-Gravity Main Combination.
b. Gravity-Main Only. (Chosen)
Cost estimates and economic comparisons of the two alternatives are
presented in a preliminary engineering report prepared by the
Turney and Binkley, Inc. (Consulting Engineers) for the City of
Houston. A summary description of these two alternatives is
presented in Appendix J.
2. 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:
a. Septic tanks
b. Primary treatment only
c. Secondary treatment:
(i) Oxidation Pond
(ii) Trickling Filter
(iii) Activated Sludge (chosen)
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 II-l. 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
* 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 developed this methodology.
Similar ratings were used for the evaluation of alternatives considered
for sludge disposal systems.
-56-
-------
TABLE II-l
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS EVALUATION
Treatment Process
Options
Septic Tanks
Primary Treatment
Only
Secondary Treatment:
Oxidation Pond
Sedimentation &
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
Advanced Waste
Treatment
cu
u
-P G
d >i fd
CU 4-> -H
d -rl H
,-1 t-l Qj
4-1 fd g
4-1 P O
w au
BOD
U
U
U
Q
S
S
SS
U
U
U
Q
s
S
fd ^
o a) ^
0 X! O
a £ en s-i u
g CU CU 0) G
H g i
O -P
CU 4-1 U 'd CU
4-> O -H C 4-1
U
s
Q
Q
s
s
^1
4-1
•H
i-l
•H
ft
fd
•H
"m
rt
Q
S
9
S
S
S
m
O CU £
•H H Cn O
4-1 H X! C -H
fd 0) fd -H 4->
CU fi J-1 fd T3
a 3 fd o G
u
u
u
u
s
s
S
fi w
O co G
4-1 -H CU O
O W O -H
fl 0 4J
CU fd ^ -H
W Oi ft "d
fd X nd
PL] W >-| rij
O
U
s
u
Q
S
S
w
o
•H
g
O
O
O
s
S
S
S
S
U
Total
Rating
S
1
7
1
4
10
9
Q
3
0
3
6
0
0
U
6
3
6
0
0
1
Remarks
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Selected
Rejected
KEY:
S = Satisfactory
Q = Questionable
U = Unsatisfactory
-------
system. The activated sludge process ranks highest and has been
selected for proposed action.
3. Disinfection;
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 wastewaters, thereby
avoiding hazards to public health. Disinfection is generally
accomplished by (a) ozonation or (b) chlorination with gaseous
chlorine or hypochlorite solution. Table II-2 provides a summary
of disinfection alternatives evaluation.
4. Effluent Disposal;
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 detail discussion
of these options is included in Appendix J.
a. Ocean outfill
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)
-58-
-------
TABLE II-2
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND SELECTION
Alternatives
Description
Remarks
Ozonation
Ozonation involves bubbling
gaseous ozone (03) through the
effluento Although ozone pos-
sesses high disinfective power,
it has high cost of generation
and associated hardware, and
does not maintain a residual
concentration.
Rejected
Chlorination
Compared to ozonation, chlorin-
ation 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 disinfection0
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
undesirable.
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 make
it a desirable chemical for
disinfection.
Rejected
Chosen
-59-
-------
5. Sludge Handling and Disposal Options;
Sludge handling and disposal may involve a number of
unit process options. Each unit process may involve the use
of one or more alternatives from the following:
a. Sludge Digestion or Stabilization
(i) Aerobic Digestion
(ii) Anaerobic Digestion
(iii) Wet Oxidation
b. Sludge Conditioning (chosen)
c. Sludge Dewatering
(i)Land processes and Sludge Lagoons
(ii) Centrifugation
(iii) Filtration
-Vacuum Filtration (Chosen)
-Pressure Filtration
d. Ultimate Sludge Disposal
(i) Incineration and Disposal
(ii) Wet Oxidation
(iii) Land Filling of Dewatered Sludge
(iv) Conversion into Soil Conditioner/Fertilizer (chosen)
The options available for sludge treatment and disposal are discussed
in detail in Appendix J. A critical evaluation of these processes
is given in Table II-3. In order to evaluate the system, similar
ratings as used for treatment process evaluation were employed0
The scores S, Q, and U are added together to obtain the most desired
system. The options on sludge digestion or stabilization, chemical
conditioning (ferric chloride), vacuum filtering (for dewatering)
and conversion into soil conditioner/fertilizer (for disposal)
score the highest points and have been selected for the proposed
project. A summary of various competing wastewater collection,
treatment, disinfection, effluent disposal, and sludge handling and
disposal systems is given in Figure II-l.
-60-
-------
SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS EVALUATION
Subprocesses
No Stabilization
Stabilization:
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Wet Oxidation
Sludge Conditioning
(Ferric chloride)
Sludge Dewatering:
Land Processes
(drying bed &
lagooning)
Centrifugation
Vacuum filter
Pressure filter &
filter pressing
Ultimate Disposal:
Incineration &
landf illing
Wet oxidation &
landf illing
Conversion to soi
conditioner/
fertilizer
-P
0) C
> U-t 0)
•H o e
-P Ci
td -P -H
rH CO 3
CD O tJ1
Pi U W
S
Q
U
U
Q
S
Q
Q
Q
U
U
U
tn en
Pi rH
•H t^5 fd
-P 0
(d H -H
H O S
CD ^2 CD
p; frt r]
O J U
S
s
Q
Q
Q
S
U
S
U
u
u
u
1
CD
M
i-l -H CO
0) 3 -P
5 C1 S
O 0) CD
PM Pi 6
S
u
s
u
s
s
u
s
s
Q
u
Q
>i
-P
•H
S CD
CD rH
-P di
cn £
>• 0
cn u
S
Q
U
U
S
S
U
S
Q
Q
U
Q
rd -P
•H -H
rH rH
CD -H
Pi •E|
S
S
Q
Q
S
U
Q
S
Q
S
S
S
CD
S-l
•H
S O1
o
u
s
S
S
S
U
S
S
S
Q
S
S
>i
u
cn CD
cn -H
CD O
O -H
O M-l
M m
Pn W
Q
S
S
S
S
U
Q
S
S
S
S
S
-P
o
m •§
o o
H
CD di
rH 1
rd t>i
CO P3
U
U
S
Q
S
U
S
S
S
u
u
s
Total Subsystem
Rating
s
6
5
5
3
7
4
3
8
5
3
4
5
O
Vi
1
2
2
3
2
0
3
1
3
3
0
2
u
2
2
2
3
0
5
3
0
1
3
5
2
Remarks
Selected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Selected
Rejected
Rejected
Selected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Selected
KEY:
S = Satisfactory
Q = Questionable
U = Unsatisfactory
-------
SUBS'-: f
ALTE.V..-.'
FIGURE II-l
TREATMENT SUBSYSTEM AND SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES FOR
PROPOSED ALMEDA-SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
OPTIMUM
LOCATION
n c
3. SECONDARY T
2. OXIDATION
b. TRICKLING
c. ACTIVATED
REATMENT
AD
1. OZC.\AT:GN
2. CHLORINATiON
a. GASEOUS CHLORINE
b. SODIU:.- HYFCCHLORITE
EFFLUEMT DISPOSAL
1. INLAND SURFACE WATERS
2. OCEAN OUTFALL
3. WASTEWATER REUSE
4. EVAPORATION
a. NATURAL
b. ARTIFICIAL
5. IRRIGATION
6. GROUNTV.'.ATE^ RECHAP.G
SLUDGE Dl
2. CONDITIONING
3. DEV.'ATrRING
4. ULTIMATE DI23C?-L
SECONDARY TREATMENT BY.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
CHLORiNATION BY
SODiJ.'.; HYFOCHLCRITt
DISCHARGE TO INLAND
SURFACE 'WATERS
(SIMS BAYOU)
OPTIMUM
ALTERWATIV:
,MK SE'.VER
1 NUMECR c.- LIFI STAMGN
2. TYPE CF LIN =5
3. SIZE OF LINES
4. LOCATION OF LINES
ATOENT PROCESSES
1. SEPTIC TANKS
^
1. ONE L;FT STATiCN
Sc'.V-:tt CC' '3' \ -\TICN
11. ~/S i S-'- INCH
4. IN R!GMTS-OF-'.VAY
OF MAJQn STREETS
SINGLE TRUNK SEWER
TO REGIONAL PLANT
O)K*
*
REGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT AT EXISTING SITE
AT REGIONAL PLANT
COMBINE OPTIMUM
SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATlVr
INTO SYSTEM ALTEPN7
-SB-
CENTRALIZED DISCHARGE
AT REGIONAL PLANT
1. CHEMICAL CONDITIONING
2. VACUUM FILTRATION DEWATERING
3. FLASH DRYING
4. SALE AS SOIL CONDITION = R/FEFiT! LIZER
REGIONAL SLUDGE DISPOSAL
PLANT AT REGIONAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT SITE
-------
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 Sims Bayou at a point
adjacent to the plant site. The sludge will be processed by
chemical conditioning (ferric chloride), dewatered by vacuum
filtration, flash dried, and sold as a soil conditioner/fertilizer.
The treatment system chosen for this project has been judged
to be the most cost-effective method for wastewater treatment
and disposal within the service area. The system would conform to
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 other 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
-63-
-------
modes depending on the influent flows and concentrations. Duplica-
tion 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 untreated
wastewater (approximately 7 mgd) at the Southwest Pump Station
will continue to be bypassed into Brays Bayou adjacent to the
pump station. Also, wastewater in excess of 3.0 mgd will be by-
passed at the existing Almeda Plaza Wastewater Treatment Plant
into the Sims Bayou. The following adverse effects would result:
1. Continuation of inadequate treatment and disposal of
wastewater in the service area of the projecto
2. Intensification of water pollution in Brays and Sims Bayous.
3. Aggravation of public health hazards to residents of the
service area.
4. Loss of opportunities for orderly development and economic
growth of the areas to be served.
5. 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
problems of inadequate sewage treatment facilities in this area
of the city.
-64-
-------
CHAPTER III: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A, GENERAL
B, DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
C, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TREATMENT
FACILITY
D, PROPOSED ALMEDA-KNIGHT-CAMBRIDGE
TRUNK SEWER
E, TOTAL AREA TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS
PROJECT
F, RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PROJECT WITH OTHER
HOUSTON SEWAGE SYSTEMS
G, STATUS OF PROJECT, APRIL 1974
-------
PROPOSED
PROJECT
AREA, 20acres
FUTURE
EXPANSION
AREA 104acres
Allison Road
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTTfiN
A. GENERAL
The proposed Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant will affect three
existing treatment plants, one existing pump station, and one
existing trunk sewer. One of the wastewater treatment plants
(Almeda-Sims) will be enlarged. Two treatment plants (WCID 44-1
and WCID 44-3) will be replaced by a lift station that will direct
their sewage flows to the enlarged plant. The existing Southwest
Pump Station will be modified, and the flow presently discharged
into Brays Bayou without treatment will be diverted into a new
trunk sewer (Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer) and pumped to
the enlarged plant.
The proposed Almeda-Sims Sludge Disposal Plant will handle
sludge generated at the enlarged Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant and
will also treat sludge from two additional plants (initially from
Plant No. 51 and ultimately from the Southwest Plant). The sludge
disposal systems of these plants will be modified to convey sludge
to the proposed sludge disposal system at the Almeda-Sims Plant site,
B. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
1. Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant;
Table III-l summarizes the basic features of the existing
Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant.
-66-
-------
TABLE III-l
ALMEDA-SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Item Description
Plant Details
Year completed
1963
Existing capacity:
Average
Peak
1.0 mgd
3.0 mgd
Treatment Process
Flow meter, bar screen, aerated
grit chamber, contact stabili-
zation, final clarifier, chlorine
disinfection, anerobic sludge
digesti on
Treatment Efficiency;
BODC
influent = 164 mg/1
Effluent = 17 mg/1
Efficiency = 90%
Suspended solids
Influent = 220 mg/1
Effluent = 30 mg/1
Efficiency = 88%
Future plans
The existing plant will continue
in service until enlarged plant
is in operation. Existing
aeration basin will be modified
to be used as chlorine contact
basin for the proposed 20 mgd
facility.
2. Treatment Plants to be Abandoned:
The plants to be abandoned and replaced by a lift station
are WCID No. 44-1 and WCID No. 44-3. Their flows will be diverted
to the enlarged Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant0 Table III-2
summarizes the basic features of these two plants0
-67-
-------
TABLE III-2
BASIC FEATURES OF WCID NO. 44-1 AND WCID NO. 44-3
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Item
Description
Year designed
Average plant
capacity
Treatment
Process
Effluent
Quality*
Future Plans
Plant Details
WCID No. 44-1
1953
0.5 mgd
Flow meter, bar
screen, primary clari-
fication, anaerobic
sludge digestion,
chlorine disinfection
BOD5 =56 mg/1
SS = 71 mg/1
WCID NOo 44-3
1953
0.7 mgd
Flow recorder, bar
screen, primary clari-
fication, two stage
trickling filter, final
clarification, anaerobic
sludge digestion, chlor-
ine disinfection
BOD5 =39 mg/1
SS = 45 mg/1
Both plants to be abandoned, flows diverted to the
enlarged Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant.
*Influent quality data not available.
3. Sojuthwest Pump Station and Southside Trunk Sewer;
The Southwest Pump Station has a rated capacity of 29P5 mgd.
It pumps sewage through the 60-inch Southside Trunk Sewer to the
Sims Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant. A portion of the flow into
the Southwest Pump Station is bypassed into adjacent Brays Bayou
without treatment. The discharge of this overflow is estimated at
6.6 mgd. The Southwest Pump Station will be modified and the existing
and projected overflow will be pumped to the proposed enlarged
Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant via the proposed Almeda-
Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer0
-68-
-------
The Southside Trunk Line will continue to convey a 22.9 mgd
flow to Sims Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has a design
capacity of 48 mgd.
C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITY
1. Proposed Plant Capacity;
The first phase of the enlarged Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Treatment Plant has been designed to accomodate wastewater flows
projected for the year 1990. The 1990 and ultimate plant capacities
(year 2020) are indicated in Table III-3.
TABLE III-3
EXPANDED ALMEDA-SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT CAPACITY IN MGD
Design
Capacity
Average
daily
Peak
1990
20.0
60.0
2020
30.0
90.0
Proposed Method of Treatment:
a. Design Criteria and Conditions:
The following design criteria have been used and are
in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Texas State
Department of Health:
Aeration tanks 6-hour detention time
Air requirements 1000 eft per Ib. of applied 6005
-69-
-------
Final settling
tank
Chlorination
800 gallons per sq. ft. per day
surface loading and 8850 gallons
per linear foot per day weir loading
20 minutes detention time at peak
flow
Standby equipment will be provided for all items of
equipment as required by Texas State Department of Health. The
proposed plant will have the following design conditions:
Primary treatment*
Total aeration tank volume
No. of aeration tanks
Theoretical aeration time
Return sludge
Operational mode
Final clarifiers
Theoretical detention time
at average raw sewage flow
Theoretical detention time
at average raw flow with
25% recirculation
Surface loading rate at
average flow condition
(considering no return)
None
835,000 eft
4
6 hours
25%
The plant can operate as extended
aeration, conventional activated
sludge and contact stabilization
by proper setting of the flow
regulating valves.
Four 100 ft. diameter sedimentation
basinSo
3.4 hours
2.7 hours
640 gpd per sq. ft.
*Although primary treatment is considered by many designers as an
integral part of an activated sludge treatment planti the use of this
has been excluded from the proposed scheme because of two factors:
anaerobic sewage will cause significant odor problems at the plant site
and secondly, operation costs can be economized by not providing
primary treatment.
-70-
-------
Sludge return system
Chlorine contact time at
20 mgd flow
Chlorine contact time at
anticipated ultimate
flow of 30 mgd
Capable of returning 100% of
forward flow through the basin
at an average design flow of 20.0 mgc
32 minutes
21.5 minutes
The chlorination facility for the proposed plant will
be constructed by modifying the aeration basins of the existing
1.0 mgd Almeda-Sims activated sludge plant. The interior walls,
piping, appurtenances, and floor in the final settling tank will
be removed and the basin extended to provide the desired contact
times specified above„
The overall treatment facility has been so designed
that any particular basin can be removed from service for repair
and maintenance without affecting the plant operation.
b. Expected Effluent Quality;
The effluent quality of the proposed project will meet
the criteria established by the Texas Water Quality Board and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as shown below0
TABLE III-4
EXPECTED EFFLUENT QUALITY FROM THE
PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANT
Total BOD5
Total SS
Influent
mg/1
225
225
Effluent
mg/1
12
20
Removal
%
95
91
-71-
-------
FIGURE III-l
PROPOSED PROJECT ELEMENTS
PUMP STATION
.^.i^tr&cr
PROPOSED ALMEDA-KNIGHT
DIVERSION TRUNK SEWER
WCID 44-1 AND 44-3 SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANTS
(TO BE ABANDONED)
ALMEDA-SIMS
WASTEWATER AND
SLUDGE TREATMENT
PLANT
s 'J^uS-i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigin
PROPOSED SLUDGE FORCE LINE
ILlllilfliiiiiiiiiiiiiii
DISTRICT 51 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN1
-72-
-------
c. Outfall Sewer;
The outfall sewer for the proposed project is designed
to accomodate a maximum flow of 90 mgd, or three times the ultimate
average flow. The structure will minimize discharge velocities to
reduce foaming and back scour nuisances in the receiving stream.
It will be of the expanding apron diffuser type, discharging
directly into the Sims Bayou.
3. Almeda-Sims Sludge Disposal Plant;
Initially, the sludge solids to be processed at the sludge
disposal plant will be those generated at the Almeda-Sims Plant
site and Plant Station 51 Sewage Treatment Plant. Ultimately, the
sludge from the Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant will also be
brought to this regional facility for disposal.
a. Projected Sludge Generation at the Almeda-Sims Sludge
Disposal Plant:
The amount of dry solids to be processed at the proposed
plant is summarized in Table III-5.
TABLE III-5
PROJECTED SLUDGE DISPOSAL CAPACITY OF ALMEDA-SIMS
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment
Plant including Southwest Pump
Station diversion
Plant Station 51
SUBTOTAL TONS/DAY
Southwest Plant Diversion
TOTAL TONS/DAY
Sludge Dry Solids
Tons/Day
1990
22.4
9.4
31.8
50.7
82.5
2020
78.8
19.5
98.3
64.1
162.4
-73-
-------
b. Proposed Method of Treatment;
The proposed sludge treatment process will consist of
chemical conditioning where ferric chloride will be used to condition
the raw sludge prior to dewatering. Vacuum filters are proposed
for dewatering the sludge, followed by flash-drying and conversion
into soil conditioner/fertilizer. Physically, the plant will be
contained in two enclosed structures: a filter building containing
six drum-type vacuum filters, sludge conditioning equipment, cake
conveyors, vacuum pumps, and incidental equipment; and a dryer
building, equipped with two flash dryers having afterburners and heat
exchangers.
The vacuum filter building will be designed to allow for
ozone treatment for odor control. The air from the building will be
exhausted through a chamber located on the top of the roof where
Oo will be mixed. After the required contact time, the air will
be subjected to afterburners before it is exhausted into the atmosphere,
The six drum-type vacuum filters are typical of those
used in the other sludge disposal plants in the city and are designed
to handle a total of 32 tons of solids per day. Two dryer units will
evaporate 24,000 pounds of water per hour, permitting a total sludge
drying rate of 40 tons of dry solids per day.
D. PROPOSED ALMEDA-KNIGHT-CAMBRIDGE TRUNK SEWER
The proposed Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer project involves
the construction of 18,280 linear feet of sewer line, varying in
diameter from 48-inches at the Southwest Pump to 84-inches at the
Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant. The proposed trunk sewer will intercept
-74-
-------
FIGURE III-2
SIMPLIFIED PROCESS DIAGRAM
PROPOSED ALMEDA-SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1980 DESIGN CONDITION
ALMEDA-SIMS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
INFLUENT
RAW SEWAGE
AND
SLUDGE
LIFT
STATION
AIR
HYPO.CHLORITE
SOTUTtON
A._
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
AERATION
BASINS
TREATED EFFLUENT
TO SIMS BAYOU
CHEMICAL
CONDITIONING
FACILITY
VACUUM
FILTER
DEWATERING
FACILITY
FLASH
DRYER
FACILITY
VACUUM FILTER FILTRATE TO LIFT STATION
' ___________ ________________ J
ALMEDA-SIMS SLUDGE DISPOSAL PLANT
DRIED SLUDGE
TO MARKET
-------
several existing collectors and thus provide relief to several
existing downstream trunk sewers. At the proposed Almeda-Sims
Wastewater Treatment Facility, a lift station will be provided with
standby pumps, should one of the service pumps require repair or
maintenance.
E. TOTAL AREA TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT
The area affected by this project is described in Chapter I
and shown in Figure 1-3.
F. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS PROJECT WITH OTHER HOUSTON SEWAGE SYSTEMS
The construction of this treatment system is consistent with the
City of Houston's Master Plan for Sanitary Sewage Disposal, currently
at the final stages of preparation. The plan designates the Almeda-
Sims Plant as one of the several regional wastewater treatment
facilities being planned for the City of Houston.
G. STATUS OF PROJECT, APRIL 1974
1. Preliminary Engineering Reports;
The following preliminary engineering reports have been
prepared for the various elements of the proposed project:
a. Expansion and Improvement of Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Treatment Plant, completed in September, 1971.
b. Construction of Almeda-Sims Sludge Disposal Plant,
completed in September, 19710
-76-
-------
c. Construction of Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer,
completed in May, 1973.
2. Plans and Specifications:
a. Expansion and Improvement of Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Treatment Plant, completed March, 1974.
b. Construction of Almeda-Sims Sludge Disposal Plant,
completed January, 1974.
c. Construction of Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer,
completed in May, 1974.
3. Financing;
The total costs of the overall project have been estimated
at $29,585,818.00. Bonds covering the City of Houston's share
($7,023,342) have been sold under contract by the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority. A private fund of $1,492,480 has been committed
by the Plaza del Oro Development Co. to help defray design and
construction costs of the proposed Almeda-Knight Trunk Sewer. A
request for federal funding has been made in the amount of $21,070,026, ,
4. Time Frame:
Construction of the entire project has been scheduled for
completion by June 1977.
-77-
-------
CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD THE
PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
B, SECONDARY IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
-------
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
1. Construction Impact (Short Term);
Construction activity associated with this project consists
of tunneling for the trunk sewer installation and excavation at the
plant site for the sewage treatment and sludge disposal plants.
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.
b. Erosion Control Measures;
Because of the flat character of the area where construc-
tion will occur, erosion is not anticipated to present a major
problem. In those areas where erosion might occur, it will be
controlled through 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
-78-
-------
sedimentation and turbidity will occur in the receiving waters of
Sims Bayou during the construction period. Every precaution,
however, will be taken to minimize such effects on the receiving
waters by preventing as much as possible the 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 right-of-way as is necessary for the
construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of the project
elements.
e. Clearing With Herbicides, Etc.;
No clearance involving the use of such methods is
anticipated.
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.
g. Relocation;
The proposed project will require no relocation.
-79-
-------
h. Method of Land Acquisition;
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.
i. Adjacent Land Values;
Since most of the adjacent lands are suitable for
industrial development, land values are expected to ri--e in response
to the availability of improved sewer service as a result of the
project development.
j. Dredging, Tunneling and Trenching;
Construction will not require dredging. Trenching and
tunneling will be required during the installation of the Almeda-
Knight Trunk Sewer within the existing right-of-way and within
the confines of a large development by Plaza del Oro Development
Company. The proposed trunk sewer will cross Interstate Loop 610
at Almeda Road. Required permits will be obtained from the Texas
Highway Department for necessary highway crossings. Construction
will be correlated with established Highway Department policies
affecting utility alignments.
k. Bypassing and Its Impact;
Construction will require no bypassing of sewage at any
time.
-80-
-------
1. Dust Control Measures:
Dust control measures, where necessary, will consist
of frequent sprinkling with water.
m. 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 (approximately 1500 feet from the nearest
residence) so that construction noise will not be a problem in the
immediate vicinity. Some portions of the interceptor work will be
close to residences and some noise may be heard. However, this
should present no more than a temporary inconvenience to affected
residences.
Construction of the proposed facility will require use
of machinery and equipment that increases ambient noise levels anc?
produces high temporary noise levels. Equipment to be used will
include backhoes, power shovels, heavy 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 of equipment noise 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 construction crew will be generally limited
to daylight hours. Noise impact on wildlife, including birds and
insects, will be temporary.
-81-
-------
n. Areas Affected by Blasting and Precautions:
Due to the nature of the soils in the area, blasting
will not be necessary. No precaution will therefore be required.
o. Measures to Minimize Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic
Disruption;
The contractor is required by state law to provide and
maintain detours, barricades, signs, flags and traffic cones
necessary for traffic control. City ordinances require the contractor
to keep city streets clean and clear. These traffic control
regulations will be outlined in the contract specifications. The
City Engineer's office will oversee the implementation of these
regulations during the project construction. The contractor will
keep traveled surfaces clean and free of dirt or other materials
used for construction purposes. Most, line work for the trunk
sewer will be performed by tunneling and, as such, traffic flow
obstruction will be minimum.
p. 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 to take advantage of 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.
-82-
-------
q. Protection Against Construction Hazards;
Most construction will be isolated from the public
except for line work across and along roads. The public will be
protected in such cases by measures such as barricades, lights
and flagmen required of the contractor. Provisions governing
public safety during construction will be included in contract
specifications to insure public protection against construction
hazards.
2. Long Term Impact:
a. Land Affected by Construction;
The proposed expansion will be accomodated on vacant
portions of the existing Almeda-Sims Plant site. No additional
land purchase will be necessary. Although the proposed site
lies within the 100-year flood plain, all improvements will be
constructed and protected to successfully resist any flooding
by constructing levees if necessary. The previous highest level
of flood recorded for the adjoining section of Sims Bayou was 52.50 feet.
The elevation of the plant site varies from 48.10 feet to 52.70 feet,
the average elevation being 50.34 feet. The area around the plant
is predominantly open, and there are no parks and open space areas
of recognized aesthetic value within the immediate vicinity.
The proposed trunk sewer will be placed beneath existing
right-of-way. All three project elements will be built on lands
currently owned by the City of Houston0
-83-
-------
b. Beneficial Use of Land in the PlanL 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 are likely to be urbanized as a
result of the proposed project. It will therefore have a beneficial
impact on the surrounding area in terms of raising land values and
subjecting lands to productive use in urban development.
c. Interference with Na.tural 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 plant site is 1,500 feet removed
from the nearest street. The placing of the trunk sewer underground
will eliminate any possible interference with natural views.
d. Architectural Techniques and Landscaping;
Architecturally, the site will be designed to allow 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
within the designated plant site to provide a buffer between the
prci-ct and the adjoining land use activities.
-84-
-------
e. The Relationship of the Project with the Residences
and Business, and Prevailing Wind Patterns:
The wastewater treatment plant will be situated some
distance from existing activities in the surrounding area. Prevailing
winds, for most of the year, originate from the south and since there
is no residential area to the immediate north of the proposed site,
little possibility exists of occasional odor problems affecting
the resident population in the surrounding area.
f. Incineration;
Plans for the proposed project do not include any sludge
incineration.
g. Possible Odor Sources and Their Effects:
The selection of the proposed treatment process was
carefully made to avoid odor sources and their effects as much as
possible. Since the plant will utilize the activated sludge
process, odor emanating 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 plant site.
h. Assessment of Potential Odor Problems:
All three project elements have been designed to minimize
odors. The trunk sewer line is completely enclosed. As such, the
confined wastewater should present no odor problem, except on rare
occasions when possible variations in flow may produce manhole
"breathing" near pump stations.
-85-
-------
The wastewater treatment plant has been designed to
require 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 the vacuum filters will be completely enclosed and the
air from the building will be given ozone treatment prior to its
release into the atmosphere. This method (ozone treatment) will
virtually assure the elimination of any odors in the surrounding
area0 Also, after-burners will be utilized to combust the volatile
gases released during flash-drying of the sludge prior to its
conversion into soil conditioner/fertilizer0 This process has been
successfully used for the past 23 years by the City of Houston in
its other sludge disposal plants„
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 machin-
ery., Data on the ambient air quality is not available for the area
within 4 miles radius. The project effect on ambient air quality will
however be temporary. For further discussion see items "1" and "m"
on construction impacts (page 81). The other source will include
the operation of the plant itself and possible odor sources from the
treatment and sludge drying processes. The effects of these have
-86-
-------
already been discussed in items "g" and "h" in this section (page 85).
It is estimated that when the proposed plant becomes
fully operational, only 3.2 tons/day of volatile gases will be
incinerated by the after-burners in the sludge drying process.
The effect of the project on the quality of ambient air will therefore
be minor compared to other sources of air pollution in Houston.
A study by the World Health Organization supports this conclusion.
Their comparative analysis of pollutants caused by the automobile
and municipal incineration reveals the following results 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
200
2.00
1.20
Based on the above data, it is estimated that the
quantities of air contaminants to be released from the after-burners
of the proposed project per day will be equivalent to the air
contaminants generated from the combustion of approximately 450
gallons of automobile fuels per day. Considering contaminants
from the ozone treatment for sludge drying and the treatment of the sewage
the cumulative effect of the operation of.the plant on air pollution
is estimated to be equivalent to the combustion of 875 gallons of
-87-
-------
automobile fuel per day. That level of air pollution is only 15%
of the air pollution that would be caused per day from the use of
automobiles by the number of families that could be accomodated
on the project site if it were devoted to single family residential
use instead of a wastewater treatment plant. (The total project
site = 124.51 acres, density assumed is 7 swelling units per acre.)
j. Effects on Present Water Quality;
The proposed action will comply with the effluent
discharge 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 agencies0 The final effluent
from the proposed plant will contain a BODs and TSS levels of
12 mg/1 and 20 mg/1 respectively.
At present, the low flow of Sims Bayou is mostly the
sewage effluent from the upstream sewers. The increased quantity
of effluent to be discharged into Sims Bayou from this project should
change the stream's condition from one of periodic low torpid flow
to one of steady flow, eliminating the stagnation which often arises
during periods of low flow. The quality of water in this bayou should
be further improved as a result of this project. For instance, its
water quality immediately below the existing plant is fairly good
with a BOD value of 19 mg/1 during the low flow period„ As a result
of the discharge of the additional 19 mgd of effluent, the resultant
BOD for the same point has been calculated to have a value of 15 mg/1.
This means that the proposed project will cause a BOD reduction of
21% or the water quality will improve approximately by 27%.
-88-
-------
The proposed diversion will contribute to improvement
of water quality in Brays Bayou by terminating the overflow of raw
sewage into that stream. Since both these bayous are emptying into
the Houston Ship Channel, the proposed project will have a beneficial
impact on the Ship Channel's water quality. The quality of water in
Brays Bayou during the period of low flow immediately below the
location of the Southwest pump station location is estimated at a
BOD value of 56 mg/1. The reason for this high level of BOD is
the discharge of 606 mgd of sewage into this Bayou from the South-
west pump station without treatment. As a result of the diversion
of this wastewater to Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant, the BOD value of
the Bayou under most flow conditions has been calculated at 25
mg/1. This will represent BOD reduction of 56.4% or the existing
water quality will improve approximately by 124%.
k. Effect on Mineral Resources;
Although Harris County and the Houston area is an
important producer of petroleum, natural gas liquids, cement, brine,
salt, sand and gravel, and clays, the impact of the proposed waste-
water facilities will not adversely affect existing mineral extrac-
tion operations or commit significant quantities of mineral resources.
-88-1-
-------
JJo Interrelationships of Land Subsidence, Surface Faulting, and
Construction of the Project Elements
One of the major environmental problems currently facing the
City of Houston, as discussed in detail in Chapter I and Appendix EE,
Part I and Part II, is the continuing subsidence of the Houston area
caused by the pumping of underground water for domestic and commercial
supplies. This subsidence and the companion surface faulting along
with their serious consequences on the environment, can create a major
problem for the underground utility lines0 The city's expanding pro-
gram for sewer extension should be carefully implemented so that the
uneven settlement of lands will not cause sudd'.^r> failures of the
water, sewer or other utility lines. The breakdown of these systems
would be a hazard to public health and the environment0 A monitoring
program should be instituted to identify areas where the problem is
serious now and where it may occur in the future. This effort should
be supplemented by undertaking rehabilitation programs to correct
breakdowns when they happen. All future utility lines should be
carefully planned and aligned to avoid this problem for the service
of the proposed project or other parts of Houston.
Effect of the Project on the Geology of the Pierce
Junction Sal~ Dome
The Pierce Junction Salt Dome is a shallow piercement type of
salt dome. The depth to the cap rock is 630 feet and the depth to
the top of the salt is 860 feet. The dome is oval in shape, being
elongated in a general N-S direction0 In E-W direction, at about
1,000 feet of depth, the top of the salt is approximately one mile
across. (See Figure IV-1, cross-section taken from Charles Glass,
Gulf Oil Corporation, 1953, Guidebook„)
-88A-
-------
FIGURE IV-1: CROSS-SECTION OF PIERCE JUNCTION SALT DONE
w-
McCarthy
Gulf 0.0 ftldiran
Stntpnt Hmlek Slttignl
Nal HxZ 3-SttHgo.l »A 2>A 16-B
SALT
««lf Oil Car*
WEST-EAST CROSS-SECTION
PIERCE JUNCTION SALT DOME
HARRIS CO..TEXAS
mooo
•fftcttof
INi ictiumKk trctlon to or*r to «m0mm I'll
and ntoth* i**lt «l/oan» to KM ntt.
•88B-
-------
Numerous radial faults occur around the flanks of the dome0
These are gravity type, normal faults, with displacements of 50 to
300 feet. (See Figure IV-2 taken from the same reporto)
The proposed Diversion Sewer will cross the Pierce Junction
Dome along its eastern margin. There are several possible geologic
hazards involved in this location of the trunk line.
(i) Land Subsidence; In all probability, the salt
core is relatively stable. However, the surrounding area
is subject to further subsidence due to continuing ground-
water withdrawal, and unless this possibility is considered
in trunk line design, rupture can occur where the line
crosses over the dome. This would be caused by a stress
differential, when the area overlying the salt may not
subside at the same rate as the area around the salt plug.
(ii) Active Faults; There are numerous potential faults
radiating out from the Pierce Junction Salt Dome. Any of these
faults could be partially reactivated by differential land
subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. Movement along
any of the faults underlying the trunk line could cause
rupture0
(iii) Salt Cavity Collapse: The Pierce Junction Salt Dome
is presently being used for Brine production and LPG storage.
The removal of salt in a brine solution will leave a cavity
in the dome. Depending on the size and location, this cavity
could collapse, causing many problems other than just the
rupture of the trunk sewer line if it happened to be located
in the collapse zone.
-88C-
-------
FIGURE IV-2
PIERCE JUNCTION CONTOURS OF TOP "HETEROSTEGINA ZONE"
GULF OIL CORR
PIERCE JUNCTION FIELD
HARRIS CO., TEXAS.
CONTOURS'-TOP "HETEROSTEGINA ZONE"
-88D-
-------
In view of the geologic characteristics of the salt
dome area and associated environmental problems, extreme cautions
must be taken to avoid the adverse consequences resulting from
the construction of the project, particularly the trunk sewer line.
The heart of the problem should be attacked because piece-meal
efforts will not cure the problem of the Salt Dome or other geo-
logic elements of this type. The root of the problem can be traced
to a much larger context of the environmental problems of the
entire City of Houston: the problem of subsidence and its causes.
As to the proposed project, it will have little or no
effect on the geologic processes of the area. It has been estimated
that the weight of the trunk line during the wet weather period
will be 4.65 tons per linear foot. Since the trunk line will be
placed underground by trenching and tunnelling, certain amount of
soil will have to be replacedo The weight of this soil per linear
foot has been calculated to be 10 tons0 Obviously, the placement
of the sewer will cause no adverse effect in terms of transmitting
pressure on the soil and geologic formations. It may be noted that
the Almeda Road, a major traffic carrying artery in Houston and the
Missouri-Pacific Railroad which runs parallel to this road, pass
through the eastern edge of the dome0 No cracks or damage has been
reported for these facilities which together represent a much greater
impact on the subsurface conditions than the proposed trunk sewer is
expected to cause. The subsidence problem will not cause any adverse
-88E-
-------
effect on the pipe line either, since the adverse conditions could
be eliminated through appropriate engineering design0 The projected
subsidence for the area, as indicated in page 13-F, is not expected
to be more than two (2) feet for the service area. However, it is
mandatory that this factor is taken into account for final engineering
design and layout of the trunk line. This is quite feasible, and
it is reported that the consultants which the City of Houston has
engaged for the project have taken this factor into consideration.
The issue then centers around the possible collapse of the
salt dome, not as a result of the construction of the proposed project
but as a result of extraction of the salt which is creating a cavity
inside the dome. As stated earlier, this is not a mere possibility
but a likelihood if the present cause is not eliminated. A spect-
acular case of this nature occurred over Blue Ridge Salt Dome in
1949. Blue Ridge of course was a much shallower dome than the one
at Pierce Junction. The former had a top cap to a depth of only 143
feet from the surface and the top salt had a depth of 230 feet.
(Halbouty, Salt Domes, Gulf Region U.S0 and Mexico, 1967.) Salt
dome at the Pierce Junction is almost 5 times deeper from the ground
level. Also, the cavity in the Blue Ridge was probably much shallower
which might have been a factor for the collapse.
One of the crucial factors that dictates the stability or
instability of the dome is the size and location of the cavity in the
dome0 Data on its size and depth is not available from known sources.
Despite the fact that the proposed project will have no effect on
the dome, the future of the dome will continue to remain uncertain
-88F-
-------
unless all activities causing the enlargement of the cavity are
brought to a halt immediately. It is recommended that the City of
Houston explore all avenues to persuade, the owners and if necessary,
control their production of the salt" so that the pumping of brine
will cease immediately0 This effort should be an integral part of
the City's overall approach to the citywide problem of Houston's
environment: to address the problem of land surface subsidence
and surface faulting. A comprehensive program of replacing ground
water by surface sources must be implemented over a period of time0
In the mean time, the city of Houston must initiate a comprehensive
land use policy under which private activities should be restricted
from areas of potential subsidence and surface faulting. The city
need not resort to a zoning program for this purpose0 Through
subdivision regulation and building permit controls, this objective
could be met if these regulatory powers are properly applied and
enforced.
It is further recommended that before the project construc-
tion begins, a local oil field geologist who is very familiar with
the problems associated with surface faults and salt dome activities
be engaged as a consultant to conduct a thorough geological survey
of the proposed trunk sewer route and identify in detail the follow-
ing :
• Determine and identify the existing level of subsidence
and identify ultimate subsidence level for the general
area.
• Determine if the salt masses are subsiding and if so,
are they subsiding at the same rate as the surrounding
areas„
-88G-
-------
0 Determine if there has been differential movement on
any of the faults radiating out from the dome as a
result of reactivation due to subsidence.
• Determine the exact location, depth, and size of the
cavity in the salt mass due to brine solution removal0
The findings of the survey should be used to verify and
confirm the conclusions tentatively reached in this report and if
necessary, should be incorporated in the final engineering design
for the project elements. Further, the geologist should be retained
through the excavation phase of the project construction so that he
can detect the possible subsurface faults0 If any such faults are
detected during excavation for the trunk sewer installations, appro-
priate measures should be taken to avoid or mitigate the effects
of such problems.
-88H-
-------
k. Effects on Aquatic Life;
Construction of the proposed project should have a
beneficial effect on the aquatic biota in Sims and Brays 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. Further, increased quantity
of improved effluent discharged into the bayous will maintain
uniform flow conditions even under low flow periods, thus
eliminating stagnant pools which may cause odor problems. These
new conditions of water flow will have a beneficial effect upon
the aquatic life in the bayous.
1. Effects of Chlorine Residuals on Aquatic Life;
The adverse effects of the chlorine residual on
normal aquatic life in the receiving streams will be only local.
This is because the 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 Sims Bayou is not utilized for drinking,
industrial, irrigation, or recreational purposes. The effluent
disposal is expected to have no effect upon groundwater due to two
-89-
-------
factors: 1) impermeable soil conditions and 2) groundwater flows
into the bayous; therefore, the effluent discharged will not
cause any groundwater infiltration0 Surface water supplies start
over 40 miles north of the proposed project and therefore will not
be affected. Recreation potentials for the areas along the Sims
and Brays Bayous will be greatly increased as a result of the
improved water quality of these bayous.
o. Wastewater Re-Use:
Though potentials exist for wastewater reuse by industries,
there is no market for such a recycling in the near future. This
is due to the fact that an ample and relatively inexpensive supply
of water is available in Houston. Projections for water supply
indicate that available sources will not be exhausted for the
Houston Metropolitan Area before the year 2000. However, should
the need arise in the distant future, the effluent quality can be
improved by additional treatment units to conform to the industrial
water quality requirements and recycled for use by nearby industries.
p. Effects of Re-Use on Receiving Water Quality;
There will be no such effects since wastewater will
not be re-used.
q. Groundwater Recharge;
There is no need, nor is it economically feasible to
recharge aquifers with treated wastewater through the foreseeable
future. The Houston municipal water supply was formerly derived in
-90-
-------
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 ground water recharge from treated wastewater. Further,
the projected demand for water supply in Houston can be met by
sources without wastewater recharge.
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. Present and Potential Market for Reclaimed Water in
the Area;
There is no market for reclaimed water at the present
time, nor will there be any in the immediate future. Existing
sources of supply are adequate to meet the area's water demand
through the year 2000.
t. Diversion of Flows Between Basins;
There will be no such diversion under the proposed action.
u. Ultimate Disposal Methods for Grit, Ash, and Sludge;
Sludge generated by the wastewater treatment plant
will be processed into soil conditioner/fertilizer. The fertilizer
will be sold wholesale under the brand name of Hou-Actinite to a
market in Florida. This market currently consumes all fertilizer
produced from the present sludge disposal plants of the City of Houston,
-91-
-------
v. Solids Re-Use:
See Item "u".
w. Effects on Historic Sites, Recreation Uses, or Natural
Preserves;
None of the project elements will adversely effect any
existing historic sites, areas, or preserves. Depending on the
goals and policies of the City of Houston, the beneficial impact
of the proposed project on the parks and open space development
could be far reaching. Implementation of the regionalized sewage
system can aid the city in improving the water quality not only
in Sims and Brays Bayous but for other waterways in the city as well.
The cumulative effect of this integrated effort to increase water
quality in the area can enhance the recreation potentials in the
flood plain areas of the water courses in Houston. Pursuing an
aggressive flood plain development policy, the city can restrict
private development in flood plains and utilize them for recreation
and open space purposes as well as to serve the cause of environmental
conservation and beautification.
Viewed in this manner, great potentials exist for the
service area of the proposed project for development of linear
parks and open space corridors along both Brays and Sims Bayous.
Scattered parks and open space spots along Brays Bayou can be
connected in a linear fashion to form an integrated system. Flood
plain areas along Sims Bayou in the service area are predominantly
vacant, presenting a unique opportunity for recreation corridor
development. The improved water flow and quality in these bayous
will aid in the achievement of such goals.
-92-
-------
x. 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 impact of the proposed project on recreational areas
has been discussed in item "w".
y- Potential Noise Levels and Protective Measures;
Potential noise from the operation of pump motors, com-
pressors, 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 as such will to
some extent inconvenience the plant employees. This is not,
however, considered a significant problem.
z. Control of Access to Facilities;
The entranceway to the plant site will be an extension
of West Orem Drive, east of Almeda Road. It will provide sole
access to the plant. Sims Bayou and the flood preventive levees
will bound the project site on the other three sides.
aa. Effect on Insect Populations;
The proposed project will have no detectable effect on
the insect populations of the service area. The mosquito population
-93-
-------
of the Sims and Brays Bayous will however be affected which can be
considered a beneficial effect since these insects carry germs
affecting public health.
bb. Insect Control Programs and Use of Insecticides:
None will be required.
cc. 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 proposed 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
effect of the project on aquatic habitats, see items "k" and "1".
The construction of the project will improve aquatic habitats in Sims
and Brays Bayous.
dd. Project Relation to Flood Plains;
The plant structures are to be built above the highest
anticipated level of flood in the area or to be protected against
flood by building levees around the site. Sims Bayou, 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
-94-
-------
development and design, see Chapter I (Background), Section C,
Subsection d. Hydrology, (iii) Flood-prone areas, page 19 and 20.
ee. Operational Reliability;
All aspects of 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 large size of the plant.
Safety controls contained in the engineering design
of the system will be adequate to prevent operational failures.
The City of Houston operates 16 other wastewater treatment plants
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 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
The term "secondary impact" often implies effects of secondary
significance. Such a notion is erroneous for an Environmental
Impact Statement study, particularly for a project which involves
the construction of infra-structure investments stimulating effects
-95-
-------
in the form of associated investments and corresponding changes in
the pattern of social and economic activities for the service area.
Such secondary effects, by their abilities to induce new facilities
and activities, can 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 Aliaeda-Sims Treatment Plant
is highly significant for its service area. This is an area in
the city where growth has bypassed in the past, and where growth
is needed to form a balanced urban structure for the City of Houston.
1. The Degree to Which this Action will Ultimately Affect
Residential or Industrial Development:
The addition of sewer service to an area represents without
doubt one of the key factors responsible for bringing about residential
or industrial development in that area. This element together with
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 the type of growth desired for an area. In
these terms, save for sewer service, the project area offers a
favorable climate for development. The provision of sewer service
in collaboration with other elements of the infra-structure system
should result in an accelerated rate of development which would
-96-
-------
probably cause most of the open land in the area to be developed
within the next 20-year period.
Despite the fact that the effect of the proposed project on
the development of the service area cannot be completely quantified,
under certain assumptions its possible secondary net impact on the
residential, industrial and related developments through 1990 is
included in Appendix K of this report. A summary of the net
numerical impact of the project on the area development activities
is shown in Table IV-1.
TABLE IV-1
SECONDARY NET IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Net Impact On:
Population
Employment
Residential
Development
Industrial
Development
Commercial
Development
Parks and
Recreation
Schools
TOTAL
Magnitude of Net Impact
Number
57,180 persons
24,945 jobs
23,550 housing units
-
-
13
12
-
Acres
-
-
3,140
520
285
572
345
4,862 acres
The Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant, when built to its ultimate
capacity, will occupy less than 125 acres of land, or approximately
-97-
-------
one-fifth of a square mile. This is a small amount of land when
compared with the geographic area it is designed to serve. As
Table IV-1 indicates, almost 5,000 acres of land could be brought
under urbanization to accomodate the social and economic activities
within its service area as a secondary impact of the project. That
much land is about eight square miles in area.
The environmental implications associated with this urbanization
are enormous. The ecology of the service area is likely to be
vulnerable as a result of this impact, unless precaution is taken
to insure that the natural characteristics both physiographic and
wildlife, are protected from destruction as developments take place.
The economic implications of the secondary growth are also
substantial. Thousands of jobs can be created 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 an area which lacks its
share of Houston's growth. On the other hand, it could be a
significant liability to the area if the quality of development is
not insured through a set of consistent policies for 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 200 tons
per day. This service has also to be provided by the City of Houston
along with the provision of water and sewer services.
-98-
-------
In the past, the development in the service area has been
characterized by the lack of coordinated provision of public
service facilities which have created a 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 invest-
ment in the proposed project are to be realized.
2. Ultimate Effect of the Project on the Character of the Area;
As noted previously, portions of Houston's growth and
population expansion will take place in the service area of the
project. The construction of the project will aid in the acceleration
of that growth. Light industrial development along Almeda Road
is expected to further intensify. The rest of the service area,
with the exception of commercial strips along the South Loop 610,
is likely to develop predominantly as low density residential use.
Completion of this project will aid the development of a
sector of Houston that urban growth has 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 an adverse direction. The low density character of the
area is expected to persist.
3. Extent to Which Undeveloped Areas will Ultimately be Sewered;
Service will be provided to presently underserviced areas to
comply with ''reserve capacity" requirements of the Federal Water
-99-
-------
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 failures
on the part 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
to sewer the area currently served by septic tanks. An estimated
7,500 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 appears
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 available to the citizens to reflect their goals on the type
of growth desired.
Recently the City of Houston Planning Department has initiated
a citizen participation planning program under which the city has
been divided into a number of communities and neighborhoods for
planning purposes. The program calls for active citizen involvement
in the planning process. The development of neighborhood plans
by utilizing inputs from those who live, work, own property or do
business in a neighborhood is the major intent of this program.
-100-
-------
It offers the residents of the various parts of the city opportunities
on a continuing basis to voice their opinions on the type and
intensity of growth they desire for their particular area. A
detail description of this program is included in Appendix L.
The residents of the Almeda-Sims project area 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 and public facilities for their area. Through this
program, the citizens can prevent the type of growth they do not
want for their area. 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 across the country, the
City of Houston does not have a zoning ordinance to regulate and
control land use in the city. It has, therefore, 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
-101-
-------
systems, and so forth.
In view of the quality of environment achieved through
regulatory practices by the pro-zoning cities, Houston appears
to have done relatively well without any zoning regulations0
"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 determin-
ation of landuse is working well indeed for the
Space City."
-Urban Dynamics of Non-zoning
Joseph W. Santamaria, AIA
AIA Journal, April 1972
The American Institute of Architects
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.
-102-
-------
\DVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOi
SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
A, GENERAL
B, SUMMARY OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
-------
V. 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 impacts
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:
(i) Occasional odor associated with the wastewater treatment
plant and the sludge processing plant.
(ii) Minimal levels of machine and engine noise.
(iii) Construction noises.
(iv) Limited disruption of traffic flows during construction.
(v) Minimal levels of air contaminants and particulate matter
in the air due to construction activities.
(vi) Some amount of thermal emissions into ambient air due to
the plant operation.
(vii) Some disruption of natural earth within the plant site
during the construction period.
1. Disruption and Inconvenience During Construction;
The construction of this project will cause temporary incon-
veniences to the users of some thoroughfares in the service area.
-103-
-------
This will include blocked driveways and sidewalks, reduced speeds in
the construction area and soft shoulder surfaces following install-
ation of sewer lines. With careful planning and proper scheduling,
the inconveniences associated with project construction will be kept
to a minimum. All contracting documents, plans, and specifications
will include provisions for minimizing construction impacts. Ground
surfaces will be restored as quickly as possible after construction.
2. Noise;
The construction process will require the use of machinery
which will create a moderate and 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 primarily
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
-104-
-------
from fuel combustion in construction equipment will be emitted in
the construction area but they will not significantly affect air
quality.
Within the plant site, some odors and heat will be unavoid-
able 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 minimizing odor
problems associated with the treatment process.
Sludge drying will occur at a temperature of approximately
700°F. The organic matter will undergo partial oxidation and the
exhaust gases will be heated to about 1350°F for odor destruction
from the sludge-drying process.
5. Aesthetic Considerations;
All equipment, with the exception of the plant site equip-
ment, will be located below ground level. At the plant site,
buildings will be erected in low profile and the site will be
landscaped well. Since the plant site is 1500 feet from the nearest
street, there is little possibility that anyone will see the plant
other than plant employees and those employed in the industrial
plants to the north and northeast.
-105-
-------
CHAPTER VI: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM
USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
-------
VI. RFI'AT'TQNSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT UF LONG-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,
overloaded treatment plants, and the discharge of raw sewage into
Brays Bayou and partially treated sewage into Sims Bayou. 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.
No harmful cumulative effect and long-term alterations are
imposed on the environment of the service area or surrounding
community by the proposal. 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 sewage
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.
-106-
-------
CHAPTER VII; 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
B, ALTERNATIVES
-------
VII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION. SHOULD IT BE
IMPLEMENTED
Certain irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
will be required for the construction, operation and maintenance of
the proposed project. Resources such as steel, concrete and fuels
are essentially nonrenewable, but benefits to be gained by their
short-term depletion will more than offset the costs associated
with the project development and operation.
A. RESOURCES WHICH WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY COMMITTED TO THE PROJECT
ARE AS FOLLOWS;
1. Energy;
Estimated energy consumption when the proposed facilities
reach design capacity is projected to be approximately 19,421,500 BTU
per million gallons of influent wastewater. Of the total energy
used, 9,900,000 BTU per million gallons will be derived from natural
gas. The remaining 9,521,500 BTU, equivalent to 2,740 kilowatt-hours
per million gallons treated, will be in the form of electricity.
The approximate cost of energy consumption is $48.05 per million
gallons of treated sewage. 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,
-107-
-------
should attempt to use anaerobic sludge digestion for methane gener-
ation from the residual sludge. The power generated from the methane
gas will provide an additional source of energy.
2. Chemicals:
The following chemicals will be used for the treatment
operation of the plant:
a. Chlorine for disinfection.
b. Lime for sludge dewatering, clarification.
c. Ferric chloride for sludge conditioning and dewatering,
clarification and phosphorus removal.
d. Organic polymer for sludge dewatering.
e. Ozone for odor control.
a. Chlorine:
Chlorine is the least expensive disinfection agent
available. It will be used in hypo-chlorite 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. Among all
chemicals to be used for the treatment purposes, chlorine will
represent the major use in terms of quantity and costs. An
estimated 650 Ibs. of free chlorine per day will be used by the plant,
Should the nationwide shortage of chlorine supply
become a limiting factor for the operation of the proposed plant
and other plants in Houston, alternative methods should be explored
to replace demand for chlorine. For instance, given economic
feasibilities, the City of Houston in collaboration with other major
-108-
-------
users of chlorine in the Houston area should consider chlorine
production from the saline water available nearby.
b. Lime;
Lime is one of the most economical coagulants available
to meet the needs of the plant. It is readily available and has a
history of effectiveness and past success though the use of lime can
increase the alkalinity and hardness in the water removed from the
sludge. The use of lime in sludge conditioning will be limited
to pH control only, resulting in its limited use for the operation
of the proposed project.
c. Ferric chloride:
Ferric chloride is another economical coagulant available
which suits the needs of the proposed process for sludge conditioning.
Ferric chloride is also readily available and has a history of
effectiveness and past success. It is currently in use at the other
Houston sludge disposal plants. An estimated 960 Ibs. of ferric
chloride will be used per day. In the event the supply of this
chemical falls short in the future, then alternative chemicals
such as aluminum sulphate (alum) could be used to obtain the same
results.
d. Organic Polymers;
Polymers are flexible and do not increase sludge volume
and weight significantly but do increase the efficiency of dewatering,
-109-
-------
Polymers have a low order of toxicity and present no unusual health
hazards in ordinary handling and use. Since they are manufactured
products, they are expensive and cannot be recovered for reuse.
However, their use will be only on a limited basis under conditions
when incoming sludge has poor filtering characteristics.
e. Ozone:
Ozone is a powerful and effective oxidizing agent. It
is very effective in treating odorous gases in the atmosphere
but is toxic in excessive concentrations. Caution in its application
is therefore critical. For reasons of safety and efficiency, the
odorous gases are often drawn into a confined space for ozone
treatment. Using air, ozone can be generated at the plant site.
3. Manpower;
The following manhours will be necessary to properly
operate and maintain the proposed plant and equipment:
Sludge Plant: 2.79 manhours per million gallons of wastewater
processed at an estimated cost of $9.69 per manhour.
Wastewater Treatment Plant: 3.38 manhours per million
gallons treated at an estimated cost of $10.99 per
manhour.
An estimated $1,275.00 of manpower will be needed per day to
operate the proposed plant.
4. Money;
Funds committed to this project will be retrieved through
customer service charges. However, the opportunity to commit the
-110-
-------
same funds to some alternative endeavor for the duration of the
bonded indebtedness must be described as irretrievable. Compensation
for this irretrievability is reflected in the interest rendered.
The estimated cost of this proposed project is $29,585,818.00.
5. Land;
During the lifetime of these facilities, land designated for
their use will be in effect unavailable for other uses. It is not
anticipated that these facilities will be abandoned. However,
should they be, then the land will be returned to its former
condition and made available for other use. A portion of the land
used for the proposed project is now used for the existing Almeda-
Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant. No additional land purchase will
be required for this project.
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 (page 47).
-Ill-
-------
CHAPTER VIII; COMMENTS. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A, SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING,
21j JUNE 1973, CONCERNING
PROPOSED ALMEDA-SIMS WASTE-
WATER FACILITY
B, NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MEDIA
ACCOUNTS
-------
VIII. COMMENTS'.' PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
A. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING, 21 JUNE 1973, CONCERNING PROPOSED
ALMEDA-SIMS 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 Chambers—-9:00 a.m., 21 June 1973, including:
1. Expansion of the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WPC-TEX-1009).
2. Construction of Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk and Diversion
Sanitary Sewer (WPC-TEX-1074).
3. Construction of the Almeda-Sims Sludge Disposal Plant
(WPC-TEX-1060).
Plans 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 three 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 above 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.
Several service area property owners objected to paying ad valorem
taxes while receiving inadequate sanitary sewer service. Questions
were asked about the need for depending on federal funding when the
city had already sold sanitary sewer bonds for extending sewer lines
-112-
-------
and making improvements to treatment and disposal facilities.
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 projects, are included in Appendix M.
C. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The Draft EIS for the proposed project prepared in June 1974
was distributed in July 1974 for comments and review by 25 federal
agencies, 23 state agencies and 10 local agencies and individuals
in the Houston area. The comments received from these agencies
are enclosed at the end of next chapter, before the Bibliography.
Comments made or questions raised are answered at the end of the
"Comments and Review Section" of this report.
A public hearing was held on the proposed project by the U0 S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI on September 12, 1974.
The hearing took place in Rice Hotel in downtown Houston. Regional
Hearing Officer, Mr. Jim Collins presided the hearing,, A com-
plete record of this hearing is included in Appendix N.
-113-
-------
COMMENTS"RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACt STATEMENT
1, FEDERAL AGENCIES
2, STATE AGENCIES
3, LOCAL AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 303
8420
r
i_
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agen
Region VI
Dallas, Texas 75201
19, 1974
Dear Mr. Busch:
Here are U.S. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Southeastern
Area comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Construction
of Wastewater Facilities, City of Houston.
As the proposed expansion will be accomodated on the existing Almeda-Sims
Plant site and the proposed trunk sewer will be placed beneath existing
right-of-way, the impact of this project on forest lands and resources
will be negligible.
We concur in the existing potential for development of linear parks and
open space corridors along Brays and Sims Bayous and recommend that this
land use be made a part of this project proposal.
Advice and council on tree species which are desirable for aesthetic,
wildlife and pollution abatement purposes and are suitable for planting
in the linear parks, open space corridors and around the wastewater
processing facilities are available from the Texas Forest Service,
College Station.
Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on this good environmental
impact statement.
Sincerely,
PAUL E. BUFFAM
Area Environmental Coordinator
6200 1 Ib ( 4/74]
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
NATIONAL PROGRAM STAFF
Em. 240, Bldg. 005, BARC-W
Beltsville, Maryland 20705
August 26, 1974
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
Your request for comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for
City of Houston's Almedia - Sims Wastewater Facility has been
received. No adverse effects on agricultural operations are noted.
Indeed, the Department would commend the concept of salvaging the
plant nutrient value of the sludges such as are proposed by the
system. _ _____ __
^. •
,\
Sincerely,
Robert G. Yeck
Staff Scientist
Soil, Water and Air Sciences
cc :
C. W. Carlson
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION *1X
FORT WORTH, TEXA1 761O2
819 Taylor Street
September 5, 1974
IN REPLY REFER TO 06-00 . 8
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement
dated June 197M-, for construction of additional wastewater
facilities by the city of Houston at its Almeda - Sims
Wastewater Treatment Facility Site. This statement was
transmitted to us by letter dated July 31, 197M-.
A review of the statement at regional and division levels
indicates no significant impacts of the project on highways,
traffic flow, or traffic safety.
Sincerely yours,
^
J. W."White (/
Regional Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Po 0. BOX 6U8
Temple, Texas 76501
September 12, 197k
'Mr. Arthur Busch
Regional Administrator
U. s.Mvlronmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Pallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
We have reviewed the draft environmental atatement^for construction of
wastewater facilities in Houston, Texas.
The statement generally describes the impact of the proposed project on
the environment and contains measures to minimize adverse effects.
However, we offer the following comments for your consideration:
1. We believe these facilities should be built above the elevation
of the run-off from the 100-year storm. This would set an example
for development that will follow as a result of this proposed
project. It would be impractical to put a levee around each residence.
2. You stated these treatment facilities will enable this part of the
city to achieve a growth rate comparable to other areas in the
city. You should also state very emphatically these facilities
will encourage growth in a flood prone area which will be highly
susceptible to damage from excess water,,
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft and offer appropriate
comments.
Sincerely,
:A-v^—-
Edward E. Thomas
State Conservationist
cc:
Fred H. Tschirley, Office of the Secretary, USDA, Washington, B.C.
Kenneth E. Grant, SCS, Washington, D.C. - _
,/x-
/••••
/-, • 'iv,
-------
-.f^Nf o*- THE
t:'('!::-TR'c~r CORPS Ol- ENGINEERS
P. O ROX 1229
' VFSTON. TE-.XAS 7755O
SWGED-E 11 September 197^
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
This is in response to your letter dated 31 July 197^? requesting comments
on the draft environmental statement for "Construction of Wastewater
Facilities, City of Houston."
Review of the draft indicates that the project will have no significant
bearing on existing projects or other activities of the Corps of Engineers.
Section I, paragraphs C-l (iii) and Section IV, paragraph A-2 (a) present
data indicating ground elevations to be about 48 to 53 feet above mean sea
level at the site location. Our preliminary studies on Sims Bayou indicate
flood levels resulting from the 25 and 100-year floods would be about 53
and 5^ feet (MSL), respectively, at this location. It is expected that
the Corps of Engineers will resume flood control studies for Sims Bayou in
the fall of 1975- Such studies will consider the effects of the wastewater
discharges during flood stages, and flood control improvements will be
designed accordingly.
In order to expedite review, future draft environmental statements for
projects in the Galveston District should be submitted for review directly
to:
District Engineer
Galveston District, Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1229
Galveston, Texas 77550
Sincerely yours,
MARTIN W. TEAGUE " • * \ ^
LIEUTENANT COLONEL, CE
DEPUTY DISTRICT
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGIONAL OFFICE
1114 COMMERCE STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 OFFICE OF
September 5, 1974 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Our Reference: EI# 0874-388
V-r I I 1~Z\ \ ^ .
Mr. George J. Putnicki "~--i, _!:"-'--•
Asst. Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency RE: Construction of Wastewater Facilities
Region VI City of Houston
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Putnicki:
Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the Environmental Impact
Statement for the ab<$f^ 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.
.1
Very truly yours,
William F. Crawfoi
Environmental Impact Coordinator
ORD El 1
-------
JAMES E. PEAVY. M.D.. M.P.H.
COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH
FRATIS L. DUFF, M.D., Dr. P.H.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
jifark JJqjarfment of
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78756
August 9, 1974-
BOARD OF HEALTH
HAMPTON C. ROBINSON, M.D., CHAIRMAN
ROBERT D. MORETON, M.D., VICE-CHAIRMAN
RO Y C E E. WISENBAKER, M.S. EN G. , SECRETARY
N.L. BARKER JR.. M.O.
CHARLESMAX COLE. M.D.
MICKIE G. HOLCOMB, D.O.
JOHN M. SMITH JR., M.D.
W. KENNETH THURMOND, LJ. D.S.
JESS WAYNE WEST. R. PH.
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 of the Environmental Impact Statement for construc-
tion of the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant (WPC-Tex-1009/107M-/1060)
and have no objections to the proposed construction.
Very truly yours,
P.E., Director
DivisiorT^bf Wastewater Technology
and Surveillance
THROUGH:
G. R. Herzik, Jr>> P. E./
Deputy Commissioner
Environmental and Consumer
Health Protection
WRD/slm
1974
BMW
-------
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
CULLEN BOULEVARD
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77004
GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT AugUSt 19, 1974
Office of Grants Coordination, Region VI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson Street
Dallas, Texas 75201
Gentlemen:
Geological problems of a potentially serious nature which may arise
in the construction and operation of Houston's proposed Almeda-Sims
Treatment and Sludge Disposal Plants, and the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge
Trunk Sewer (Described in your 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Construction of Wastewater Facilities, City of Houston, June 1974)
seem to have been given no consideration whatsoever. The Environmental
Impact Statement shows instead a strange preoccupation with "soils,"
coupled with unwarranted exclusion of all underlying geological factors!
Not only does man sometimes damage the earth, but we must keep in mind
that geological phenomena sometimes damage man's structures and occasion-
ally injure and even kill people.
The geologic problems begin with the Trunk Sewer along Almeda Road,
a route that goes right across the Pierce Junction Salt Dome (and through
the oil fields associated with it). Highly soluble salt (the mineral
halite, NaCl) extends up to within 1,000 feet of the land surface over
the dome, and numerous faults offset the strata around the salt stock.
The Treatment and Sludge Disposal plants themselves are to be located
about 1.5 miles south of this salt dome. Then 6 miles southwest of the
proposed plants is Blue Ridge Salt Dome, from which several faults that
are actively offsetting the earth's surface extend northeast toward
Pierce Junction. Two of these obviously have been displacing the pave-
ment of West Fuqua Road for many years, and the orientation of one of
these is such that it may well extend through the Proposed Project Area
on which the two plants are to be built.
I would strongly urge that the likelihood (not mere "possibility")
of active and potentially active faults crossing the route of the Trunk
Sewer and the site of the Treatment Plant be properly investigated, and
the results be taken into account in the design and construction of these
structures. Consideration should be given also to possible collapse of
the surface due to underground solution of the salt, a spectacular case
of which occurred over Blue Ridge Salt Dome in 1949 (as described in
1953 by Dr. Marcus A. Hanna, who's still here in Houston). Another geol-
ogical question that needs to be looked into is that of abrupt differen-
tial subsidence over the edge of the Salt Dome because of the great
-------
Office of Grants Coordination, Region VI - 2 - August 19, 1974
contrast in susceptibility of halite and clay to compaction (consolida-
tion) . Careful thought needs to be given to whether it might be preferable
to avoid constructing the Trunk Sewer over the Salt Dome in the first place
In any event, geological conditions along its proposed route are so criti-
cal that they should be closely monitored by qualified geologists familiar
with such problems in this area during the excavation phase of the work,
as well as prior to the final design phase.
Your Draft Environmental Impact Statement leaves much to be desired
in numerous matters besides its treatment of the geology, but I will not
go into these. However, I cannot refrain from commenting on Figure 1-5
"Areal Geology of S.E. Texas Coastal Area" (page 14). The "artist" appears
to have tried unsuccessfully to make a surrealistic picture out of John
Doering's areal geologic map, and made a horrible mess instead. Besides
omitting all culture by which one might locate points on his "map," he has
placed a big black circle presumed to represent the proposed site (though
it's not indicated in any legend) on the wrong geologic formation!
Please enter these remarks in the record of the public hearing to be
held in Houston on September 12th, which I will not be able to attend
because of other commitments.
Very truly yours,
DeWitt C. Van Siclen
DWCVS:dls Professor of Geology
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:
EGS ; TOCE1V&U y-\ np-r
ER-74/1009 ^X Ubl
Dear Mr. Busch:
This Department has received and reviewed the draft environmental
statement for the City of Houston's Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Facility. We offer the following comments for your consideration.
On page 96, it is stated that "secondary effects, by their abilities
to induce new facilities and activities, can be more significant
than the primary impact of a project." We agree with this assess-
ment and wish to address it in greater detail with respect to the
interests of the Department of the Interior.
It is indicated that "there are no parks and open space areas of
recognized aesthetic value within the immediate vicinity" at this
time (p. 83), that the proposed sewer service will open the door to
extensive urbanization of Harris County (p. 99), that there are
"enormous real-estate investments anticipated as an impact of the
project" (p. 98), and that Houston uses "marketplace determination
of land use" (p. 102). We are concerned that the increasing
recreational needs of Harris County may not be adequately met in
the near future.
The completion of a sewer service system will attract more people and
more development to the area, bringing it under the influence of
urbanization in a relatively short time. Increase in population
will increase the demand for recreation facilities, while more
development will work in the other direction by decreasing the
amount of available land that can be used for these purposes.
Without some provision to assure the protection of appropriate land
for recreation purposes, there is a strong likelihood that sites
having recreation potential may be purchased by developers who
are willing to pay the higher market price. For example, oh
pages 89-90, it is stated that "the water of the Sims Bayou is
not utilized for drinking, industrial, irrigation, or recreational
purposes .... Recreation potentials for the areas along the
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Dallas, Texas
Sims and Brays Bayous will be greatly increased as a result of the
improved water quality of these bayous." However, on page 80 it is
stated that "most of the adjacent lands are suitable for industrial
development." It is not clear to what extent industrial develop-
ment will occur along this water channel. Such development along
the Sims Bayou could offset the aforementioned improvements to the
quality of the water throughout its course, in addition to pre-
cluding development of recreational opportunities. This matter
should be addressed in the environmental statement.
Since Houston relies on marketplace determination of land use rather
than central zoning regulations, the prospects of freeing quality
land for recreational uses become less likely as the demand for land
increases. Traditionally, zoning has served to protect the market
from the imperfections inherent in a supply-demand situation; in its
absence, the rule of "highest and best" use of the land (from a strictly
economic point of view) generally takes over. When this situation
occurs, residential and industrial developers who are willing to
meet the demand with dollars can purchase much of the land, while
low-profile land uses such as parks and recreational facilities are
not allocated in sufficient amounts. Therefore, we suggest that,
in the environmental statement, recreation potential be considered
equally with other forms of development in this area.
We feel that reliance on ad hoc citizen groups as the primary safety
valve, "should plans for future development prove incompatible with
such wishes" of residents and property owners (p. 100), is too
optimistic. Advocacy planning is reactive planning that usually
involves late decisions to change planning proposals which already
represent a great deal of time, effort, and money. To alter a
development scheme after a preliminary draft has been drawn up is
not always the best solution from the point of view of either the
developer or the concerned citizens. The developer is saddled with
added expenditures and delays which might have been avoided initially,
while the citizens discover that it becomes more difficult to over-
turn a proposal that has advanced well into the planning stage. We
believe that anticipatory policies—"before the fact" rather than
"after the fact"—are preferable wherever possible.
Citizen participation in the planning process also suffers from
occasional stalemates that occur because different interest groups
present conflicting planning goals. The result is "adversary"
planning that is counterproductive to the interests of all the parties
involved. Thus, it would appear that some evidence of a plan or a
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Dallas, Texas
commitment to meet the expected recreation needs of Harris County
would enhance this portion of the statement. One possibility would
be to examine the potential of using the buffer zone around the
plant to support various recreational activities. Another possi-
bility would be to earmark, through land acquisition or public
easement, certain land along the Bayou for recreation purposes
without going through the process of zoning that general area. We
believe a discussion of the available options should be included
in the final environmental statement.
We suggest that more explicit and detailed maps be used in the final
environmental statement to replace the present figures 1-13 and 1-14
(p. 38, 39), which were of little assistance in understanding the
1970 populations distribution and the 1970-1990 population distri-
bution increment for Harris County.
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. With reference to "Archeological,
Historical and Cultural Elements," (p. 27-28) we suggest the state-
ment be more definite and indicate that the pipeline easements and
rights-of-way will be subjected to a thorough archeological survey.
Information from this survey should be inserted in the final
statement and should include the name of the professional archeologist
conducting the survey and the institution he represents, the number
and types of sites encountered and their significance. Also, there
should be information on the effects of the project on any archeo-
logical sites which may be discovered and on actions to be taken
to mitigate any adverse effects.
Should archeological resources that would be damaged or destroyed
be located in the project area, there would be irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of such resources, a matter which should
be addressed in Section VII of the statement.
We note that the effect of flood waters on the plant, which will be
constructed on the flood plain of Sims Bayou, has been briefly
evaluated, and it has been concluded that "the City of Houston's
proposal for elevated construction appears sufficient to protect
plant and equipment from flood waters" (p. 20). However, the
effect of proposed construction on the flood waters, and indirectly
on other structures along the flood plain, is of equal concern. Any
effect of the construction of levees in constricting the flood
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Dallas, Texas
plain should also be evaluated. It would be helpful to include a map
in the statement showing the relation between the proposed facilities
and the extent of the Sims Bayou flood plain. It would also be
helpful to include, along with figure III-2 (p. 75), a more detailed
diagram presenting information on the structural characteristics of
the proposed facilities.
Although Harris County is an important producer of petroleum, natural
gas, natural gas liquids, cement, lime, salt, sand and gravel, and
clays, the primary impact of proposed facilities will not adversely
affect existing mineral extraction operations or commit significant
quantities of mineral resources. We suggest that a statement to this
effect be included in Sections I.e. and IV.A. of the statement.
Table II-l on page 57 indicating that ozonation is not economically
competitive with proposed processes is contrary to cost estimates for
other modern plants. The use of ozone in Europe as a disinfectant
has a well-documented history of success. Ozone has no residual
concentration and is a nonpolluting agent. We suggest additional
emphasis on this alternative in the statement.
Pages 58 and 59 contain a discussion of sewage-plant effluent disin-
fection. Use of hypochlorite is preferred in the statement to
treatment with gaseous chlorine because of the potential hazards posed
by the gas. The discussion does not acknowledge the prevailing use
of gaseous chlorine in water sewage treatment facilities throughout
the United States, nor does it mention the significantly higher cost
of hypochlorite treatment and the hazards associated with the storage
and use of this strong oxidizing agent. In addition, hypochlorite
treatment would require daily application of more than 3,000 pounds
of chemical to the effluent, thereby increasing the hardness and
salinity of the plant's discharge. Disinfection may represent sub-
stantial portion of plant operating expenses, and the selection of a
specific treatment method should balance disinfection effectiveness,
chemical and equipment costs, chemical availability, inherent hazards,
and the environmental consequences of each treatment method. Such an
analysis is lacking in this statement. An objective evaluation of
various treatment methods should be made and incorporated in the
statement. In addition, such an evaluation should more adequately
reflect the impacts of the various methods, including chlorination,
on the aquatic resources of these waters.
In particular, the discussion on page 89 (paragraph 2) of the effects
of chlorinated sewage plant effluent on aquatic life should be
expanded. Although residual chlorine is short-lived in most aquatic
systems, combinations of chlorine with typical sewage constituents,
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch, Dallas, Texas
ammonia and organic matter, may produce chloramines or other chlorine
residuals which are highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Extensive fish kills have been documented in areas with increased
pollutional loads of residual chlorine.
The statement that chlorination provides complete disinfection (p. 59,
Table II-2) is misleading and is not a valid assumption in the
selection of chlorine as the disinfecting agent. Many bacteria,
viruses, spores, etc., are capable of enduring the chlorination
process. Additionally, the mere fact that ozone does not maintain
a residual concentration should not disqualify it as a disinfecting
agent. As far as aquatic organisms are concerned, a low chlorine
residual is highly desirable.
The statement in paragraph 2, page 88, that water quality in Sims
Bayou will be greatly improved by addition of effluent from the
Almeda-Sims plant should be clarified. This improvement could be
documented by comparing present waste loads of Sims Bayou to pro-
jected waste loads once the plant is in operation, thus providing
specific data to show that water quality could be improved through
addition of the effluent.
Technically, the proposed discharge will add and not reduce pollutants
to Sims Bayou (p. 89, paragraph 1). While it may be true that
pollutants will be reduced in Brays Bayou by elimination of raw
sewage overflow, the statement should be revised to indicate that
improved water quality in Sims Bayou will result from increased
dilution of the introduced pollutants.
With further reference to water quality, the sentence in paragraph 2,
page G-2, "Water quality data for the period of October 1970-
September 1971 for Sims Bayou at Hiram Clarke Street are presented
in Table G-6, indicating a BOD range of 4.1 mg/1 to 18 mg/1," should
be revised to indicate the correct BOD ranges of 2.3 mg/1 to
19 mg/1 encountered during this period. The values presently
indicated were BOD ranges noted at State Highway 35.
-------
DOLPH BRISCOE
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF PLANNING COORDINATION
October 16, 1974
JAMES M. ROSE
DIRECTOR
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Busch:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for construction of waste-
water facilities in the City of Houston, as prepared by your office, has
been reviewed by the Governor's Division of Planning Coordination and by
other interested State agencies.
Review participants have submitted the following comments and recommendations
that warrant your consideration and attention:
1. A detailed Staff Analysis Report submitted by the Texas Water
Rights Commission has recommended that the cited EIS include a
more detailed discussion of the hydrologic and hydraulic aspects
of locating the proposed facility within the floodplain of the
Sims Bayou. This Report also noted the applicability of the
Texas Water Code pertaining to construction of levees.
2. The Texas Department of Agriculture has submitted comments related
to projected population growth rates, and processes and methods
designed to minimize or lessen the consumptive use of water, and
recommended that these items be further addressed in subsequent
publications.
3. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has indicated that several
game species should be included in the listing of zoological
resources, and that a list of rare and endangered species which
might inhabit the region be included in the document.
4. The Texas Highway Department has submitted a list of several
recommended editorial changes of how the proposed project might
impact on transportation facilities and planning in the region.
P. O. BOX 12428, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
Phone 512/475-2427 Offices Located in Sam Houston State Office Building
-------
Mr. Arthur W. Busch
Page 2
5. Comments from the Texas Water Quality Board indicated that a Waste
Control Order has been granted for the proposed expansion, and that
no opposition to the project was expressed in public hearings.
Other State agencies, including the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas
Water Development Board, have commented on the EIS, indicating that the
project is in conformance with the overall objectives of the State
Implementation Plan, and that the quality of treated wastewater entering
Sims Bayou will be improved.
Enclosed are the comments from review participants; these comments are sub-
mitted with the constructive intention of aiding your planning activities,
and should be reviewed in their entirety. If we can be of further assistance,
please let us know.
Sincerely,
JMR/wsb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. A. E. Richardson, Texas Water Rights Commission
The Honorable John C. White, Texas Department of Agriculture
Mr. Clayton T. Garrison, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Mr. Charles R. Barden, Texas Air Control Board
Mr. Harry P. Burleigh, Texas Water Development Board
Mr. Harvey Davis, Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
Dr. Fratis Duff, Texas State Department of Health
Mr. B. L. DeBerry, Texas Highway Department
Mr. Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., Texas Water Quality Board
-------
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD
PHONE 512/451-5711
8520 SHOAL CREEK BOULEVARD
CHARLES R. BARDEN, P. E.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JOHN L. BLAIR
Cha'irman
HERBERT W.WHITNEY, P.E.
Vice-Chairman
AUSTIN, TEXAS - 78V58
ALBERT W. HARTMAN, JR., M.D.
E.W. ROBINSON, P.E.
CHARLES R.JAYNES
JAMES D. ABRAMS, P.E.
FRED HARTMAN
WILLIE L. ULICH, Ph.D.,P.E.
JOE C. BRIDGEFARMER, P.E.
September 6, 1974
Mr. Wayne N. Brown, Chief
State Planning and Development
Office of the Governor
Division of Planning Coordination
P. 0. Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Brown:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
City of Houston's Almeda-Sims Wastewater Facility and have the
following comments.
The additional sewage treatment will probably upgrade the air
quality by reducing odors from Brays Bayou. The Trunk sewer
line completely encloses the sewage, thus reducing potential
odors. After-burners are utilized to combust the volatile gases
released during flash-drying of the sludge prior to its conver-
sion into soil conditioner/fertilizer. Ozone from air is utilized
as treatment in the building housing the sludge disposal plant.
With the use of this technology there should be minimum adverse
odorous effects on the ambient air. We, therefore, believe this
project is in conformance with the overall objectives of the
State Implementation Plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
can be of further assistance, please contact me.
If we
S±T\cerely yours
.1 Stewa'rl
Director
Control and Prevention
ccs: Mr. Lloyd Stewart, Regional Supervisor, Houston
Albert G. Randall, M.D., Director, Houston City Health
Department
-------
WATERQUALITY BOARD
™C.LANGDON
J. E. PEAVY, MD
FRANK LEWIS
VICE CHAIRMAN
HUGH C. YANTIS, JR.
CLYDE JOHNSON /i/j-^T : EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
HARRY P. BURLEIGH
CLAYTON T. GARRISON '"-••/ PH' (512) 475'2651
1700 NORTH CONGRESS AVE. 78701
P.O. BOX 13246 CAPITOL STATION 78711
AUSTIN, TEXAS
September 16, 1974
Re: Draft Environmental Statement -
City of Houston's Almeda-Sims
Wastewater Facility
General James M. Rose, Director
Division of Planning Coordination
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428, Cap. Sta.
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear General Rose:
The staff of the Texas Water Quality Board has reviewed the draft
environment impact statement on the City of Houston's Almeda-Sims
wastewater Facility and offer the following comments on this pro-
ject.
The Texas Water Quality Board granted approval of the Waste Control
Order for the expansion of the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment
Facility to a capacity of 20 MGD on April 26, 1972. This action
was taken following a Public Hearing on April 26, 1972 at Houston,
Texas. There was no opposition expressed, and on both of these
occasions full opportunity was given for any opposition or adverse
criticism to be expressed concerning the treatment facility. Follow-
ing the Public Hearing the Hearing Commission recommended that the
Waste Control Order be granted based on the findings that; (1) the
proposed Waste Control Order requires an effluent of such 'quality
that it will not significantly alter the uses of the receiving
waters; and (2) the applicant is seeking to meet present demands
for sewerage service and is preparing for anticipated future develop-
ment needs.
-------
General James M. Rose
Page 2
September 16, 1974
The approval granted by the Texas Water Quality Board on the
Waste Control Order provides for treatment "to the level set
forth in the following parameters: (1) 20 mg/1 of BOD; (2)
20 mg/1 of TSS; and (3) a chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/1 after
a contact period of 20 minute detention time (based on peak
flow) .
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on this project.
Very truly yours.
Emory G. Long, Director
Administrative Operations Division
cc: City of Houston
District 7
-------
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MEMBERS
HARRY P. BURLEIGH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
JOHN H McCOY. CHAIRMAN
NEW BOSTON
ROBERT B GILMORE. VICE CHAIRMAN
DALLAS
W E. TINSLEY
AUSTIN
MILTON T. POTTS
LIVINGSTON
CARL ILLIG
HOUSTON
A L. BLACK
FRIONA
P.O. BOX 13O87
CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
September 16, 1974
AREA CODE 512
475-3571
17OO NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE
IN REPLY REFER TO
TWDBP-0
General James M. Rose, Director
Division of Planning Coordination
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Re
Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Construction
of Wastewater Facilities'
City of Houston
(WPC-TEX 1009/1074/1060)
Dear Jim:
Our staff has reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed
expansion of the Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant and
the associated construction of the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge
Trunk Sewer. The proposed project will provide for marked
improvement in the quality of treated wastewater discharged
into Sims Bayou. We hope that the project will be completed
with great expediency.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIS.
Sincerely,
arry P. Burleigh
-------
State Department of Health
AUSTIN TEXAS
INTER-OFFICE
G. R. Herzik, Jr., P.E.
Deputy Commissioner Fratis L. Duff, M.D.
:ROM Environmental and Consumer TQ Deputy Commissioner
Health Protection ATTN: A. M. Donnell, Jr., M.D., Director
IUBJECT Draft Environmental Statement Program Planning and Evaluation
for the City of Houston's
Almeda - Sims Wastewater Facility
Staff members of the Division of Wastewater Technology and Surveillance have
completed a review of the draft environmental statement for the proposed expan-
sion of the Almeda -Sims Wastewater Treatment Facility. We have no objection
to the statement as written.
DMC/dec
SIGNED
August 21, 1974
-------
Office of the Governor
Division of Planning Coordination
State Clearinghouse
BRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOR CITY OF HOUSTON"5
ALMEDA-SIMS WA5TEWATER FACILITY
COMMENTS
Staff members of the Division of Wastewate'r Technology and Surveillance
have completed a review of the draft environmental statement for the
proposed expansion of the Almeda - Sims Wastewater Treatment Facility.
We have no objection to the statement as written.
Person Conducting Review (Signature)
Agency Texas State Department of Health
-------
TEXAS STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
1018 First National Building
Temple, Texas 76501
AREA CODE 317, 773-225O
August 23, 1974
Mr. Wayne N. Brown, Chief
State Planning and Development
Division of Planning Coordination
P.O. Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Facility Environmental
Statement
Dear Mr. Brown:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above-referenced draft environ-
mental statement prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The statement appears quite comprehensive, fully disclosing the impacts of
the proposed construction of additional wastewater facilities. We offer no
comments for additions or changes to the statement.
/i
/
/
Sincerely yours, ______
Harvey Davis
Executive'Director
HD/lc
-------
TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE OFFICE BUILDING
COMM.SS.ONERS September 10, 1974
A. t. MIUMAHUSUN
JOED CARTER,CHAIRMAN EXECUTIVE Dl RECTOR
475-2453 475-2452
DORSEY B. HARDEMAN AUDREY STRANDTMAN
475-4325 SECRETARY
475-4*51 d
BURKEHOLMAN
475-2451
Brigadier General James M. Rose
Director, Division of Planning Coordination
Office of the Governor
P. 0. Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Attention: Mr. Wayne N. Brown
Re: Environmental Protection Agency
— Draft Environmental impact
Statement for Construction of
Wastewater Facilities, City of
Houston (Almeda-Sims Wastewater
Treatment Facility), July 1, 1974.
Dear General Rose:
In reply to your letter of August 12, the staff has reviewed
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed, feder-
ally-funded $29.6 million, 20 mgd Almeda-Sims Regional Wastewater
and Sludge Treatment Facility project on Sims Bayou, Houston,
Texas. Attached is a copy of our Staff Analysis Report.
It is emphasized that this Report does not obviate the
probable future need for the Commission staff to make a detailed
review of project plans, and for the Texas Water Rights Commis-
sion to take necessary authorizing actions, if in the ensuing
project development, it is found that major water rights impacts
are involved.
The staff finds that the captioned document is in sub-
stantial compliance with Federal Executive Order 11296 regarding
the location of treatment plants on flood-plain areas, and with
the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 6 rela-
tive to the preparation of environmental statements by the
Environmental Protection Agency. However, the staff finds that
P.O. BOX 13207 AREA CODE 512 AUSTIN, TEXAS 787"
-------
General James M. Rose
September 10, 1974
Page 2
if construction in the flood prone area is in fact the most
feasible alternative, and if the operational reliability of
this facility is as critical as indicated, then a more rigor-
ous hydrologic and hydraulic analysis should be made of the
project area. Clear evidence should be furnished to show that
the vital facility will not be built in the high-velocity flow
areas of the Sims Bayou flood plain, and that floodproofed,
leveed facilities will not constrict the natural floodway
causing river stages to exceed the 100-year flood stage by
more than 1 foot. In addition, cognizance should be taken of
the requirements of Sections 11.458, 57.100, et seq., Texas
Water Code, regarding the approval for construction of levees
by appropriate State agencies. In summary, evidence should be
presented that the proposed facilities and future extensions
will be located in the shallower, low-velocity, backwater areas
of the flood plain. Analysis shows that the improved channel-
ization of Sims Bayou for floodwater routing, the increased
runoff due to urbanization, and the increased flow due to the
effluent discharge of 20 mgd compels a very rigorous hydrologic
and hydraulic analysis of the project area, especially for back-
water effects during periods of heavy rainfall.
We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing the captioned
document. If you have any questions on the attached Report,
please notify Dr. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Environmental Sciences
Analyst, Texas Water Rights Commission, telephone (512)475-2678,
Sincerely yours,
f -"^
A
•'4',
|roe D. Carter
Chairman
s
JDC-AJDrll
Attachment
As stated.
-------
To: The Chairman September 9, 1974
Texas Water Rights Commission
•STAFF ANALYSIS REPORT
ON
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES,
CITY OF HOUSTON (ALMEDA-SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY)
JULY 1, 1974.
By: Dr. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Environmental Sciences Analyst
Texas Water Rights Commission
1. BASIS FOR REVIEW
1.1 Correspondence.
a. By letter of July 31, 1974, the Regional Adminis-
trator, United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA), Region VI, transmitted to the
Governor's Division of Planning Coordination the
captioned document requesting comments by Sep-
tember 26, 1974.
b. By letter of August 12, 1974, the Governor's
Division of Planning Coordination transmitted
the captioned document requesting comments by
September 16, 1974.
1.2 Special Conditions and Limitations Regarding This
Review.
a. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
No. A-95: This review analysis is made pursuant
to the Commission's duties as a member agency of
-------
the Interagency Council on Natural Resources"and
the Environment to participate in the technical
review and analysis of proposed federally-funded
projects governed by the provisions of OMB
Circular No. A-95.
b. Technical Staff Review: The comments in this
review should not be misconstrued as advance
approval or approval in principle by the Com-
missioners of the Texas Water Rights Commission
of project details, costs, or water rights
impacts. This review is a technical, field-
level analysis prepared for the benefit of the
project planners concerned to aid in the im-
provement of project formulation and clarification.
2. ELEMENTS OF PROJECT
2.1 Facility Construction.
a. Expand the existing 1 million gallons per day (gpd)
Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Plant to the year
1990 projected capacity of 20 mgd.
b. Construct new sludge disposal plant for the year
1990 projected capacity of 32 tons per day.
c. Construct 18,280 feet of new trunk sewer for the
diversion of wastewater from plant sites WCID
44-1 and WCID 44-3 (plants which will be closed),
and 6.6 million gpd excess sewage from the Southwest
Pump Station (now being discharged into Brays
Bayou without treatment).
2.2 Treatment Process.
Secondary treatment using the activated sludge process,
followed by disinfection of effluent by chlorination
with sodium hypochlorite, and discharged into Sims
Bayou. Sludge handling and disposal system includes
chemical sludge conditioning, vacuum filtration, flash-
drying, and conversion into fertilizer/soil conditioner
for marketing.
-------
2.3 Costs.
The total estimated construction cost of the above
facilities is $29.6 million. The City of Houston
has applied for a Federal grant of $21,070,000. The
funds needed to finance the local share of the pro-
ject have been acquired by the City of Houston
through the sale of bonds by the Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority in November 1973, pursuant to
a contract between the City and the Authority.
Also, the Plaza del Oro Development Company, which
is planning the massive multi-purpose private de-
velopment, located north of the project, has com-
mitted a private fund of $1,492,450 to help defray
a portion of the engineering and construction costs
of the proposed diversion trunk line.
2.4 Permits Already Acquired.
On April 26, 1972, the City of Houston received a
permit from the Texas Water Quality Board to con-
struct the Almeda-Sims Sewage Treatment Plant. The
following conditions were stipulated in the waste
control order regarding the volume of effluent
discharge:
a. Not to exceed an average of 20,000,000 gpd;
b. Not to exceed a maximum of 60,000,000 gpd;
and,
c. Not to exceed a maximum of 42,000 gallons
per minute.
3 . COMMENTS
3.1 Location of Project in Flood Plain.
The staff believes that a more detailed discussion
should be included regarding the hydrologic and
hydraulic feasibility of locating "...wall within
the Sims Bayou flood-prone area...." (Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS), p. 20.) this vital
regional wastewater and sludge treatment facility
servicing waste from a primary area of 28.46 sq.mi.;
-------
a diversionary area of 11.70 sq.mi.; and, a sludge-
producing area of 9.25 sg.mi.
The following statements in the DEIS should be
reconciled. The first implies that unleveed flood-
proofing of structures will be adequate. The second
statement indicates that leveed protection will be
adopted:
-"Close attention has, however, been given
to the various federal and local regulations
governing flood-plain site design and
development. The City' of Houston '-s proposal
for elevated construction appears sufficient
to protect plant and equipment from fIpod
waters. The detail engineering plan for the
site now at the final stages of preparation is
being patterned to meet the Executive Order
No. 11296 regarding locating treatment plants
on flood-plain areas. The previous highest
flood level recorded for the adjoining section
of Sims Bayou was 52.5 feet above the mean
sea level."" (DEIS, p. 20; emphasis added.)
In contrast to the foregoing, attention is invited
to the following statement:
"The plant structures are to be built above
the highest anticipated level of flood in the
area or to be protected against flood by
building levees around the site. Sims Bayou,
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
soil to absorb rainwater." (DEIS), p. 94;
emphasis added.)
The staff believes that implementation of Federal
Executive Order 11296, and Section 6.304 of 40 Code
of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 6, requires evidence
of careful consideration of the following relevant
-------
hydrologic and hydraulic factors, to insure that pro-
posed facilities constructed in the flood plain
are not located in high-velocity flow areas of the_.
natural floodway, nor result in constricting the
floodway causing a rise in the river stage exceeding
1-foot above the 100-year flood stage:
a. The main stream and, in certain cases, secondary
channels and swales which become effective only
during flood periods, normally carry a large
portion of the flow flow. Such secondary flood
channels should be identified and the expected
frequency of their utilization discussed.
Finally, attention should be invited to possible
high-velocity problem areas. Shallow overflow
areas and backwater areas, which may form the
greater portion of the flood plain, are rela-
tively less effective in their flood-carrying
capacity. The main channel portion of the
natural floodway, and frequently the effective
secondary flood channels, are usually the most
economical locations for designated floodways.
b. Due to the importance of the floodway for the
passage of floods, either with or without flood
protective works, it is well to define the
limits of a designated floodway and take all
reasonable, practical actions to guarantee that
improvements either subject to flood damage,
or having a detrimental effect on the channel
hydrau_l>i<: capacity are not permitted in such
areas. Width of flood plains and elevations
of normal overflow areas may vary considerably
along the stream. The narrow sections normally
control elevations. Wide flood plains upstream
from naturally restricted sections act as pond-
ing areas in which elevations are greater,
developing a head and producing higher velocities
through the restricted sections. in these
areas, the entire broad plain is not required
for flow, and therefore, portions of it can
be occupied without affecting hydraulic flow
conditions except for the relatively small
loss of storage. The impacts of protective
-------
levees around facilities constructed in the
shallow encroachment zones must be carefully
analyzed.
c. If levee construction is contemplated, con-
sideration must be given to the requirements
of Sections 11.458 and 57.100, et seq., Texas
Water Code, relative to approval of levee
plan design and construction, and related
hydrologic and hydraulic computations by ap-
propriate State agencies.
d. Flood velocities and depths are vital data in
the structural design of facilities in the flood
plain. Pressure and buoyancy effects on
structures should be carefully computed if
the velocities are great. High velocities
erode confining banks with a resultant loss
of lands and improvements thereon, and wash-
out adjacent, unpaved levees and highway fills.
In urban areas, high velocities even with
shallow depths of overflow can be hazardous
to life and structures. Information on damaging
velocities is limited in current technical
literature; however, the U.S. Geological Survey
Report, "Hydraulic and Hydrologic Aspects of
Flood-Plain Planning," June 1958, states:
"Average and maximum velocities of 1 and
4 feet per second, respectively, for an
overflow section would not be conducive
to serious scour in an unobstructed cross
section....Where the passage of overflows
is more seriously restricted, joint
velocities in the order of 7 to 10 feet
per second could reasonably be expected.
Velocities of this magnitude could defi-
nitely cause scour leading to failure of
building foundations."
e. The U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report Number 3-73, entitled
"Effects of Urbanization on Floods in the
Houston Area, Texas, Metropolitan Area,"
April 1973, presents the following relevant
data:
- 6 -
-------
(1) "Because of the relatively flat land-
surface slopes (3 to 8 feet per mile),
few basin divides are accurately de-
fined by natural features. Basin ex-
changes, which is runoff flowing to
or from an adjacent basin, often
results from heavy rainfall. Inter-
connection of adjacent basins by
ditches is used to relieve poorly-
drained areas, and in instances of
unevenly distributed rainfall, the
exchange can move in either di-
rection, depending on which drainage
system is more loaded."
Turner and Collie —/discussing the
matter of insufficient channel ca-
pacity, stated that the maximum effect
on peak discharge may occur prior to
full residential or commercial develop-
ment. After a certain point of de-
velopment, the peak discharge at a
given point will not increase, al-
though the peak runoff rate will be
maintained longer. In addition, the
Turner and Collie Report _2/ stated
that to provide adequate drainage,
the water surface should be kept
below the top of the channel bank
so that the lateral slope from the
water surface to the edge of the basin
will not be less than 0.05 percent and
in most cases not less than 0.1 percent.
_!/ Turner and Collie Consulting Engineers, Inc., "Preliminary
Engineering Study of Drainage for Harris County," 1961,
p. 34.
2/ Id., p. 36.
- 7 -
-------
(2) Street storage is also used to control
floodwaters in Houston, and is some-
time designated as a part of the drain-
age system.
(3) Definition .of flood-frequency charac-
teristics a.t a site is usually based
on records for 20 or more years. But,
this approach is not feasible in urban
studies because:
" (1) An answer is needed in a
short time, and (2) Basin con-
ditions in an urban area rarely
remain stable for more than a
few years." (U.S.G.S. Report
3-73, p. 7.)
(4) Experience in the Houston metropolitan
area has shown that changing a rural
basin to a fully developed urban basin
will increase the flood peak at the
2-year recurrence interval by about
9 times, and the flood peak at the
50-year recurrence interval, by
about 5 times.
In summary, the staff believes that the assurances
of operational reliability given on p. 95 of the
DEIS depend heavily upon the proper design and con-
struction of facilities in a very critical and complex
flood-prone area. Even if special efforts are made to
construct the extensive waste treatment complex in the
shallow, low-velocity, backwater areas of encroachment,
based on flood-proofed, leveed protection, it is
essential that the residual flood potential be calcu-
lated and fully appreciated to assure that the develop-
ment is not undertaken with a false sense of security.
In this regard, the Standard Project Flood (SPF) will
serve as a guide for defining the extent of the upper
or extreme flood hazard area. The SPF should be used
to evaluate the residual flood damage potential, and
to warn developers in the area of the risk involved.
- 8 -
-------
3 . 2 Compliance With Special Statutes and Regulations.
The staff finds that the captioned document is in
reasonable compliance with the requirements of:
a. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) , implemented by Federal Executive Order
11514 of March 5, 1970, and the Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) Guidelines of
August 1, 1973.
b. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 6
(proposed Environmental Protection Agency
Regulations on Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements) in 39 Federal Register (FR)
26254, July 17, 1974. However, the comments
presented in subparagraph 3.1, above, suggesting
more details and/or clarification of hydrologic
and hydraulic data, and its impacts on siting
of the proposed facilities are believed justi-
fied in the light of Sections 6.208(b) (2) (iv). (d) ;
6.304(b); and, 6 . 5 12 (a) ( 2) ( v) relative to
analysis of alternatives and siting of
facilities .
4.
CLOSING REMARKS
The comments in this report are furnished with constructive
intent, pursuant to Section 6.208(b) (2) (iv) (d) of proposed
40 CFR Part 6 to assist in the State clearinghouse review
of the captioned document. Advise Dr. Alfred j, D'Arezzo,
Environmental Sciences Analyst, Texas Water Rights Commission
telephone (512)475-2678 if there are any questions on matters
contained in this report.
AJD:11
NOTED:
Alfred
/
D'Arezzo
Joe D. Carter, Chairman
_ 9 _
-------
EDMUND L. NICHOLS
Assistant Commissioner
August 26, 1974
Mr. Wayne N. Brown, Chief
State Planning and Development
Division of Planning Coordination
P.O. Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Brown,
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Construction of Wastewater Facilities
City of Houston. This is a well written and gene-
rally well prepared statement.
We have three comments on this Impact Statement:
1. Several parts of Section 1, particularly those
on the economic and population growth, read like promo-
tional material prepared by the Chamber of Commerce.
The project growth rate of an unrestricted experimental
nature seem unrealistic in light of current air pollu-
tion problems, fuel shortages and declining national
population growth rates. Further, these questionable
projections are not needed to justify the project as it
is needed now.
2. Section II on alternatives fails to include any
consideration of methods of reducing the production of
liquid wastes. A 170 mgd for a population of less than
2 million gives about 100 gallons per day per person,
which seems high. In addition, as the fuel shortage
becomes more critical and leads to changes in industrial
processes, commercial practices, and domestic habits,
revisions, particularly with guidance, are likely to be
in the direction of increased efficiency. Under these
conditions the liquid sewage per day per capita could go
down. This item should be studied and reported in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
3. Section II in the discussion of alternatives,
page 54, states that proposed location 1 is the optimum
as indicated by the detailed study summarized and tabu-
THIS PAPER Is MADE FROM CO I I ON A PRINCIPAL CROP OF TEXAS
, John C. White, Commissioner, P.O. Box 12847, Austin, Texas 78711
-------
Mr. Wayne N. Brown
August 26, 1974
Page two
lated in Appendix I. A review of Appendix I, parti-
cularly Table 1-1, fails to confirm the assertion that
location 1 is the optimum. Indeed, the favorable/un-
favorable ratings tabulated in Table 1-1 show that
alternatives 2,3,4 and 5 have a higher favorable to
unfavorable ratio.than the recommended choice. This
inconsistency must be resolved prior to approval of
this project.
ELN/pcf
-------
TEXAS
PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
f^i * ^^X
;OMMISSION6RS Xy^*lF"^&V\ COMMISSIONERS
ACK R. STONE ("ffe^C"^]*! BOB BURLESON
Chairman, Wells Y Y\£i^>#y7 Temple
OE K.FULTON \S^S^/ JOHN M. GREEN
Vice-Chairman, Lubbock ^**i-*<^ Beaumont
EARCE JOHNSON CLAYTON T. GARRISON LOUIS H. STUMBERG
Austin EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR San Antonio '
JOHN H. REAGAN BUILDING
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
Mr. Wayne N, Brown, Chief
State Planning and Development
Officer of the Governor
P. 0, Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Attention: Mr. Brice H, Barnes
Dear Mr. Brown:
This Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for
City of Houston's Almeda-Sims Wastewater Facility and we offer the
following comments.
In mentioning wildlife species (Pages 25-26), the Statement does not
include game species or rare and endangered species which may be present
in the region. Game species which should be listed include bobwhite quail,
mourning doves, species of snipe, ducks and geese, woodcock and white-
tailed deer. Rare and endangered species which might be in the region
include the Attwater's prairie chicken, red wolf, peregrine falcon,
Eskimo curlew, bald eagle, ocelot, American alligator and Houston toad.
Page 104, Paragraph No, 3: The type of habitat referred to in this
paragraph should be stated.
Page 107: This section should list among the irreversible and irretriev-
able commitments of resources, natural areas which serve to support
native biota.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document,
Executive Directo
CTG-MJS/. jbb
-------
COMMISSION
REAGAN HOUSTON. CHAIRMAN
D'EWITT c GREER
CHARLES E. SIMONS
TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
I1TH AND BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 787OI
September 18, 1974
STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER
B. L. DEBERRY
IN REPLY REFER TO
FILE NO
D8-P 454
Environmental Protection Agency
Draft Environmental Statement
Harris County
Construction of Wastewater Facilities
City of Houston
Mr. Wayne N. Brown, Chief
State Planning and Development
Division of Planning Coordination
Office of the Governor
P. 0. Box 12428, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to your memorandum dated August 12, 1974, requesting
comments on the above captioned project.
The Department has reviewed the statement and has the following comments:
1. Page 40 - The first paragraph referring to Figure I 15 should also
refer to Figure 1-16 since Houston's proposed transit
system is not shown on Figure 1-15.
2. Figure 1-15 should show the proposed South Freeway right of way
from IH 610 southward to be "sufficient width".
3. Page 43-8b - The portion of the South Freeway between Clear Creek
and Loop 610 is not scheduled for completion by 1976.
First stage construction of a minimum useable facility
within these limits should be completed in 1977 or 1978.
4. Appendix K - The discussion of secondary impacts could be expanded
to include probable effects on transportation.
-------
Mr. Wayne N. Brown, Chief -2- September 18, 1974
We are pleased to have had the opportunity to review this statement received from the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Sincerely yours
B. L. DeBerry
State Highway^ Engineer
By: /<*?^L
R. L. Lewis, Chief Engineer
of Highway Design
cc: Federal Highway Administration
-------
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Of the agencies and individuals who responded to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement by returning formal responses,
only eight agencies and individuals made comments and suggestions
which call for additional clarifications. The rest of the agencies
were satisfied with the Draft EIS0 The comments made by these
agencies are discussed below. Responses are made to each comment
separately.
1) U0 S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
COMMENTS; The comments made by this agency are essentially a
two-part suggestion.
That the wastewater facilities should be built above
the elevation of the run-off from the 100 year storm. „ 0 0
It would be impractical to put a levee around each resi-
dence. The second comment is concerned with the secondary
impact of the project. The construction of the project
would cause additional growth in the service area, so
care should be taken to prevent growth from occurring in
the flood prone areas.
RESPONSE; Reference is made to pages 19 and 20, Flood Prone Areas,
and page 94, Project Relation to Flood Plains, of this report. The
treatment facilities will be protected from flood waters and the
requirements of the Executive Order No0 11296 will be meto Nowhere
in the Draft EIS was it suggested or implied that levees would be
built along the Sims Bayou to protect the residences0 To the
contrary, it was strongly recommmended that flood plain areas along
-------
both Brays and Sims Bayous be used for linear corridor parks and
open space development (page 92) so that private development
cannot take place in these areas. Flood waters would indeed
inflict heavy damage to these developments, should they take
place in the flood plain areas0
2) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GALVESTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
COMMENTS: This agency made comments in the form of furnishing
data on the elevation of 100 year flood waters near the
plant site and described projected schedule of the Corps'
activity with regard to flood control studies for Sims
Bayou which will be resumed in Fall 1975. Such studies
will consider effects of the effluent discharge on Sims
Bayou and that flood control improvements will be
designed accordingly0
RESPONSE; Data on 100 year flood elevation was not available at
the time the Draft EIS was prepared. This information now received
has been incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement0
See page 20, paragraph 2.
3) DR0 DEWITT C. VAN SICLEN
PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON, TEXAS
COMMENTS; Dr. Van Siclen's comments are essentially the same as
the statements made by Messrs0 Martin Sheets and Sabin
Marshall during the public hearing held in Houston on
September 12, 1974„ That is, the Geology Section of the
Draft did not consider some unique characteristics assoc-
iated with the geologic processes of the project area
and that findings from an additional investigation be
incorporated in the final design and layout of the project
elements.
-------
RESPONSE: Dr0 Van Siclen's comments were well taken. An
investigation has been made to examine the geologic processes
of the project area. Reference is made to the following which
have been added to this Final Draft in response to the comments
and suggestions of Dr. Van Siclen, Mr. Martin Sheets, and the
Houston Geological Society,,
1) Chapter I, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,
Section bb, Land-Surface Subsidence and Surface
Faulting, pages 13 through 13H.
2) Chapter IV , IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION,
Section jj, Interrelationships of Land Subsidence,
Surface Faulting and Construction of the Proposed
Project, pages 88A through 88G0
3) APPENDIX EE: LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE AND SURFACE
FAULTING IN THE HOUSTON-CALVESTON AREA, Part I and
Part II, pages EE-1 through EE-230
4) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
COMMENTS; The comments from the Department of the Interior focus
on the following areas:
The secondary impact of the project will cause addition-
al urbanization for the project area, reducing available
lands for parks and open space purposes particularly in the
flood plain areas.
Citizen participation in planning programs (advocacy
planning) is slow, time-consuming, and reactive planning.
It is adversary to the benefits of the citizens, the dev-
elopors and the governmental agencies. Citizen participa-
tion, if needed, should be sought "before the facts" rather
than "after the facts."
-------
Projected improvement in water quality in Sims and Brays Bayou
as a result of the construction of proposed wastewater facilities should
be elaborated and stated in quantitative terms.
The need for an archaeologist to survey and identify potential sites
of archaeological significance during excavation phase of project con-
struction should be more strongly stated in the Impact Statement Report.
RESPONSE: The need for protecting the flood plain areas from encroachment by
urban development has been strongly and repeatedly emphasized in the draft and
EIS. Paragraphs 1 and 2, page 92.
Under the concept of participatory democracy as a way of life,
citizen participation in decision-making processes is indeed somewhat slow and
expensive and certainly cannot be equated to reactive planning. Houston's
Neighborhood Improvement Planning Program is not organized by private interest
groups in opposition to city plans prepared by city staff. Rather, the program
is initiated by the City of Houston Planning Department staff working closely
with the neighborhood citizens in preparing concensus plans for neighborhood
improvement. This is a program which involves the people early in the process
"before the fact" and not late in the process "after the fact." See paragraph 2,
page 100, and paragraph 1, page 101, as well as Appendix L (Citizen Participation,
Houston's Neighborhood Improvement Planning Program). It is agreed that citizen
participation can cause different interest groups presenting conflicting planning
goals. It is not understood how this could be adversary to the interests of all
concerned. The future of the urban environment is very much dependent on public
understanding, education and participation in addressing the environmental problems
Data on predicted water quality in Brays and Sims Bayous as a result of
project construction has been added to the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
See paragraph 1, page 88-1.
The need for an archaeological survey prior to project construction
was emphasized in the Draft Statement. Paragraph 3, page 27, and 28.
Other comments made on the Draft EIS are responded to as follows:
-------
See the aerial map, page 65, which shows that industrial plants are
to the north of the proposed site. As to the extent of future industrial develop-
ment in the area, it was implied in the Draft EIS that lands are suitable for
industrial use because of favorable topography (industries do require relatively
low-sloped, level topography) but they were certainly not encouraoed to take olace
in flood-plain areas of Sims Bayou. On the need for a buffer zone around the plant
site, it is stated rather emphatically in page 84, paragraph 3.
Figure 1-8, page 21, showing the project's relation with flood plains,
is believed to be adequate for the present purpose. Figure III-2, which shows the
structural characteristics of the proposed facilities, are also adequate.
Impact of the proposed project on mineral resources, as suggested, has
been included in the Final report. See page 88-1, paragraph 2. The use of ozone
in destroying odors from sewage treatment plants has a long history of success, and
has been accordingly recommended for use in minimizing odors from sludge treatment
prior to their release into the atmosphere. Ozonation of effluent for disinfection
is not recommended for several reasons: excessive costs, it is toxic in excessive
concentrations, unsafe in application, and is not compatible with the rest of the
treatment plant system in Houston which uses hypochlorite solution as disinfecting
agent for effluent prior to its discharge into the adjoining inland waters.
Chlorination of effluent will not adversely affect the aquatic life of Sims Bayou
and has been so state in page 89, paragraph 2. Water quality data for Sims Bayou
at Hiram Clarke Street has been revised to indicate the correct BOD ranges. This
was a typographical error.
5) TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE OFFICE BUILDING
AUSTIN, TEXAS
COMMENTS: The staff of the Texas Water Rights Commission has submitted comments
expressing concern on the effect of the project location (in 100 year flood
plains) on flow of flood water during heavy rainfall and recommends the
undertaking of a more rigorous hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the
project area to provide evidence that the facility will not be built in the
high-velocity flow areas of the Sims Bayou flood plain. It also states that
the requirements of Sections 11.458, 57.100, et seq, Texas Water Code
-------
governing development in flood plains, must be met.
RESPONSE: We agree that the requirements of the Sections 11.458, 57.100,
et seq, Texas Water Code governing project construction in flood plain areas
must be met and has been so indicated in page 20, paragraph 2.
With regard to the comment on the effect of the proposed wastewater
facilities on flood, it is believed that the project site will not cause any
adverse effect on the flow of floods and that the plant will not be built in the
high-velocity areas. The velocity of the water is not expected to increase
whether the plant site is protected by levee construction or it is an elevated
construction. Either measure appears to be feasible from the standpoint of
environmental considerations. The present plant structures at this location are
elevated. Since the project expansion to accommodate the 1990 need will require
approximately a 20-acre area, the levee* construction will not cause any abrupt
rise in the velocity of floods when they approach the plant site.
Further, the requirements of Executive Order No. 11296 and Sections 11.458
and 57.100, et seq, Texas Water Code, are inclusive of any potential hydraulic
or hydrologic problems encountered by project construction. The requirements of
these federal and state regulations will not be met unless the concern expressed
by the Texas Water Rights Commission is statisfactorily addressed. The City of
Houston will therefore be required to work closely With tfte U.S. Corps of Engi-
eers, Galveston District, on a hydraulic study to be completed prior to the
project construction and present evidence that the project will not adversely
affect the flow of floods during heavy rainfall. It is reported that the
* Mr. Joe Johnson, Assistant Director of Public Works, Sanitary Division,
City of Houston, informed the EPA study team on October 29, 1974, that the final
engineering design plan for the proposed facilities is being prepared to make the
structures elevated. As such there will be no levees around the plant site.
-------
U.S'.'.Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, will resume flood control studies
for Sims Bayou in Fall, 1975. Such studies will consider the effect of the
proposed project on Sims Bayou and that flood control improvements will be
designed accordingly. It is believed that the concern of the Water Rights
Commission will be effectively met by improvement measures to be made by the
Corps of Engineers. See the Comments by that agency enclosed in this section,
dated September 11, 1974, signed by Lieutinent Colonel Martin W. league, Deputy
District Engineer.
6) TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
P.O. BOX 12847
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
COMMENTS: This agency makes a three-part comment on the Draft with regard to
projected population growth rates, processes and methods designed to
minimize or lessen per-capita consumption of water, and on the evaluation
of alternative locations for the proposed project.
RESPONSE: The study group at the EPA finds these comments mostly unfounded,
based on opinions rather than facts. Population projections used for Draft
preparation were taken from the work of the Houston-Galveston Council of Governments
and the City of Houston Planning Department. These projections are not promot-
ional materials. They are basically conservative estimates compared to several
other projections consulted for the study. Increased air pollution, and fuel
shortages will have a significant impact on the type of transprotation and other
urban functions in the future but not on the population numbers per se.
Declining birth rates nationwide are, of course, having a decreasing effect on
population growth but Houston's growth is projected to occur promarily from the
migration component of population change and not from natural increase. Effect
of migration on the U.S. population change is, for all practical purposes, zero.
It should also be noted that infra-structure project construction involving
extensive investment of public funds, should be based on long-term projections
(10-20 years) rather than short-term projections (up to 5 years] to serve the
-------
long-term public needs. The present study has used moderate projections for
the period 1970-1990 which are reasonable in light of expected growth conditions.
The use of a standard of 100 gallons of water consumption per person per
day is not high. While the fuel shortages may lead to possible changes in
industrial processes, commerci'al practices and domestic habits resulting in more
efficient use of water, it does not appear to have a significant impact on the
adopted standard through 1990. This becomes particularly apparent a heavy
concentration of petro-chemical activities requiring a higher consumption of
water.
As to the comment on the optimality of plant location, the EPA study
team failed to see the validity of the comment. Nowhere in page 54 or in
Appendix I, or in Table 1-1 of the Draft EIS, was it stated that "location 1"
was found to be the optimum location. In fact, "location 1" is not the proposed
location. Rather, the proposed location as shown in the Draft EIS was location
4. The proposed location, upon a comparative evaluation against other
alternatives, was tabulated to have received a net positive score of 29. The
second best location was location 7 with a net plus score of 7.
7) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
JOHN H. REAGAN BUILDING
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
COMMENTS: This comment is a suggestion to include a list of game species,
and rare and endangered species, which may be present in the Greater
Houston-Galveston region.
RESPONSE: Data on game species were not previously available for the region.
There is no significant evidence of any rare and endangered species in the service
area or the city of Houston and was so indicated in the Draft report (pages 25-26)
-------
However, there might be some rare and endangered species in the Greater Houston
area. A list of the species, including game species, has been included in this
Final EIS. Reference is made to page 25, paragraphs 2 and 3.
This agency also suggested to include a statement in the EIS that there
would be some loss of natural areas supporting native biota, which should be made
a part of the list on the "Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.1
The primary impact of the project construction will not entail the loss of any
natural areas but secondary impact may result in such losses.
8) TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
llth AND BRAZOS
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
COMMENTS: The comments from this agency are essentially three suggesstions on
making minor changes in the status of freeway construction schedule and
right of way, and a possible expansion of the discussion of secondary
impacts on transportation.
RESPONSE: Figure 1-16 has been referred to in paragraph 2, page 40 as
suggested. Figure 1-15, page 41, which shows the South Freeway from Loop 610
southward is a proposed facility and has been so indicated in Figure 1-15.
"Sufficient width" applies to existing facilities and therefore is not applicable
to the South Freeway. The suggested change in the construction schedule for
South Freeway between Clear Creek and Loop 610 has been made to indicate new dates.
See page 43, paragraph 3.
The secondary impacts of the project will require adequate transportation
facilities as a result of the additional 57,000 persons projected to live in the
service ares by 1990 and their 175,000 passenger trips per day.
-------
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 Sewerage,
Section II, 1964.
City of Houston, Sanitary Sewer Tivision, Department of Public Works,
1972-1990 City of Houston Sanitary Sewer System Wastewater
Treatment Needs and Master Plan Projections, 1972.
-------
Turner, Collie & Braden,, Five-Year Capital Improvements Program and
Fiscal Study for the Sanitary Sewer System, City of Houston,
Parts I and II, 1.974.
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^ T9~74.
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:
Part 1, Surface Water Records, and Part 2, Water Quality Records,
Geologic Survey, 1971, 1972.
Texas Water Quality Board Waste Control Order No. 10495.
Turney & Binkley, Preliminary Report, Almeda Plaza Sewage Treatment and
Sludge Disposal Facilities, 1971.
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.
Turney & Binkley, Inc., Preliminary Report, Almeda Plaza Sewage
Treatment and Sludge Disposal Facilities, 1971.
H. Platt Thompson, Co., Inc., A Preliminary Report for the Relief of
the Southwest Lift Station and a Force Main to OST and Cambridge
Street, a Gravity Trunk Sewer from OST and Cambridge Street to
Almeda Road and Knight Road, a Lift Station at Aimeda Road and
Knight Road, 1972.
LA & N, Inc., Preliminary Report for Almeda Trunk Sanitary Sewer and
the Almeda Plaza Pump Station, 1972.
Binkley & Holmes, Contract Documents and Technical Specifications for
Almeda-Sims Sewage Treatment and Sludge Disposal Facilities,
anticipated completion, 1974.
-------
H. Platt Thompson, Contract Documents and Technical Specifications
for Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer (North), anticipated
completion, 1974.
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.
-------
EXHIBITS ON HYDROLOGY (AQUIFER SYSTEM)
A: BASE OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE WATER SANDS
IN SUBREGION II OF THE GULF COAST REGION
B! LOCATION OF WATER WELLS IN HOUSTON AND VICINITY
C! ISOPACHOUS MAP OF THE FRESH TO SLIGHTLY SALINE
WATER SANDS IN SUBREGION II OF THE GULF COAST
REGION
EXHIBITS ON BOTANICAL AND ZOOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
D! PLANT ASSEMBLAGES FOR THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA
E: ENVIRONMENTS AND BIOLOGIC ASSEMBLAGES
F: COMMON MACRO-BIOLOGIC ASSEMBLAGES WITHIN TEXAS
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS
G: MAJOR MARINE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS (SQUIRREL/
MAJOR SHRIMP AREAS/ FLOUNDERING AREAS/ DEAD
OYSTER REEFS/ WILDLIFE AREAS)
H: MAJOR MARINE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS (QUAIL, PRAIRIE
CHICKEN, DUCKS AND GEESE)
I: MAJOR MARINE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS (WOLF OR COYOTE
FOX. DEER)
DATA SOURCES
1) BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY
2) HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
REGIONAL ATLAS
-------
EXHIBIT A
Base of the Fresh to Slightly Saline Water Sands
in Subregion n of the Gulf Coast Region
U S Geological Survey in cooperation with the Texas Water Commission
. , . .
PLANT LOCATION
T2 Si^-Vj.
^=^&
EXPLANATION^
*^~ lt5O O
Contour indicates depth below sea level of
the base of the fresh to slightly saline water
Contour interval 200 feet
Datum is sea level
0 Miles 5
,.nui.:i.,,11,1),.mi.in1 L
Boundary of area where intermediate sands
contain moderately saline to saline water
~~lu~l
Q Q1 Boundary of river basin or of o major Im/f
subdivision where it is the boundary of
Line showing location of section the Gu|( Coast reg|0n
*'!
I/2°M^
-------
-
-
»
5
^
tX til! BIT B Locations of Wells in Houston
o -"15- -
- .. -:.;
7 P 9
> 02
a Bpi
03 I
4
O5 ^04
7
•04
03
If 1 07
03
*0€ »0l
O3
, O2 t
e
7
Ol
19 i
45'
^
2 '
: .03
N.---""'
5 05'
04
8 .0,
02 -
5
*02
.04
e ....
.01
2 ;
6 8
r
•Dj
* . -03
09 ,» "| -
« 13- 6
' oe
"05
•10
/
3 M
02
6 -• 02,".
I
101 06 23
» 02|,-
3
O5
/r~
" ! :
4
' " ".05 " "
04 I
.01
0*,
a
09 03
' 07."
.02 .13 l«
06* 05
-^X
06,09. 1
12 1 °£*
4
07 ,20
^°Vtf2*.97'7
"Vl2
Ifr...
.0*
20 r 02
I* _ Oi
17 i°
•-•^ 10,1?.
4 - OS 0
^e'.oe
»O7 0?
7 , 06
95°37'30"
.01 5 \ 6 ^
! 02
1 °'.«
e j9 |7^y
01« "°;
09 '" 'H.-e4°^"
'.n* ' -" *o -*0' °2
•°7 - . .Ob ' /' 05
06. ' »e 05
05 «
BO1
5(2 /' f6 4
,- ^ 05* * „«
>1o ] 10 -
: -OT^- ^-, " «°'
6 "~^B ^ .04 7 |;)
I06 05d^^ 20
Jo2 - , (^7°6
t .05 . .°6 0" ,„
^04 E "^ j.S 025 '13 l 16
0 ; * f 20*
05* ' ! ." MS 12
! °6 n :o r
5 ;'*• 6 j, V j Z! 4
09; |" " 'Z5 ]
io, ra ' gj ^^ J
"**'' " 1^5 OT'e04l*^"1°*e
^V6-'^' 3 ,7 2' '«S
~^~ ' 221 -fl OS "V
06. "0 5 16 «.'S« Qe. 4 is" Q,
9"0S ^ 7
1 o: i ••*
1 .M
! 01,07
""i! 5LI °* ' 29 i "
2io*
2Z
M
C
*I5
20
* 01
y^
5T-
•?
J" "3. ,16
°!f -,G
oe-
09,IOa
.,09
.08
BIT, -»is
- :--V - C9
02 J,! •
"' w 12°
*€*" 3b
2
"ft
%.«'^06
16
*3I .32 6
2E
28
.,
•°l,o ;
e
2
(.
06.
O9<
M 6 .09
^ •
S
ot"
",03
06 '• 2'
*
.137-
HI
3 19
• IS
9
O56 17
06* * |6
21 *
9 M
" -5
«. -X.
3 e(3 I3j£
02, 04 6 ""*
OS • ' 21
IEO
El 9
" 17
4
a 02
05 , * 9
03
* OB,
1
1 e
Ol
2
*09 OS/ IB
715 13, 8. 21 2°* «?l
20* 18 •"".13 «,o
09** OS, j6.i9
OB
4 «37
"19 34
»20
,.»3?
7
inset
4 IB, 2?
re
20,
21 M
25**
.12 4
15
*
,-
', 02.
IO
*
8 . *w
8
19
to
,10,11,12
27 •°T
*01
.07
,2
oe oOT 10.|
• ' •
30 i
01
*03 2
'
& vicinity
|63 4
.D*
19 1? °06
3 Oi* «
r?
1 ..
1 10* e
«07
, 0^ flOB
607 %
9
05
3 K>.
O9
J4 OT *
* 15
,0€ ^
,2-2,' -
22 - 3
r
20»
Z5*
6 cf?
«
3 M.°5
PLANT LOCATION 1 ,
+ .--i^r
07 1
05,06
J
is i :
' 09
04. OE.
^
*OI
.IT y
7
23 1 37, 19
-35"' f"
358 MB^
06 4 "•
O7 ^^
oe
24
'*. 1
23
31 Od '
Q7.
"»08
09
• .06
-5
6
2
5
8
2
5
e
35 *
h',2%?'
"5«i ~% , ^58
4 4 --£""»
V'* 35, 36,37
-B.I6 52*
20,31 -
B
O6 .10
.* K 2
«'5
O9 o
6
-3
6
OE"
.^'- \
3 - 0*
6
O&B II
1B 3
P
25
0 6
06 1
9 °5%
oz'/
03
3
4 5
CM
SCJ - - ^rrv; *O4
12 ' J
•. n - •
08 i
4
7
07 e04
16
4
«04
07 06
* *05 .
a. ^7t/"
•^ w 19'
09 .08
•2< 5:»^
02 " 07' "°^
806
2 1
02 <
5|
2
y
8 /
„/.
2 06
"r' . 04*
oe
e 03 ••
• 02
*09 £ O6«
03
5 V - - -" "
O6
fl.o2 '"
OS
09*
• O6
.04 2 ^)i; .-tJ
Ol •
* O5
EXPLANATION
i Well tor wh,ch dr iliar's
log IE tncluded m text
•-%B
j/^
/^
-3- - j; - - "
', °2
5
35 " 1
oe ^ ^ja
9-
1 12
e •
24 3 'Z-'; •
10. l> ,•
V" "'"
6 .03 6
.09
"
i
-------
l$;>pachous Map of the Fresh to Slightly Saline
Water Sands in Subregion n of the
Gulf Coast Region
LJ-S. Geological Survey m cooperation with the Texas Water Commission
BaytpwrK.5" ~vx *
^Z~r--"^ I I
Boundary of river basin or of a major
subdivision where it is the boundary of
the Gulf Coast region
Line showing thickness of fresh to slightly
saline water sands
Interval Is 200 feet with supplementary
100 foot line near coast
. D' 0 Miles 5
D-
Line showing location of section
-------
PLANT ASSEMBLAGES FOR THE GREATPR ;-.••. . ' > /^.uA
UPLAND FOREST AND SAVANNA ASSEMBLAGES
11 PINE HARDWOOD FOREST I5
I2 HARDWOOD PINE FOREST !6
I3 ISOLATED PINE HARDWOOD GROVE 17
I4 POST OAK SAVANNA
COASTAL PLAIN ASSEMBLAGES
HI COASTAL SHORT-GRASS PRAIRIE
BOTTOMLAND ENVI RON ME NTS
HI I FRESH MARSH
in 2 SWAMP
III3 FLUVIAL WOODLAND
HI 4 GRASS-COVERED FLOODPLAIN
UPLAND TALL-GFi./? ' !-
HARDWOOD FORES I
ISOLATED PRAIRIC v/n |ij
FOREST
ms GRASS- AND Ti-TT
DIS3ECTED, STtEP
m6 GRASS-COVER TC:-'
DEPOSIT
-------
ENVIRONMENTS AND BIOLOGICAL ASSEMBLAGES
EXHIBIT E
[PROPOSED SITE]
HOBBY FIELD
ELLINGTON A.F. BASE
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY
W. L. FISHER. DIRECTOR
OPach low ,,de to 5 feet above sea level, swash zone.h.gh energy, sand
shoil debns. .n.auna. back-beach sea-oats and halophytes. dunes, ghos,
Enclosed bay with reel, sim.lar to enclosed bay.wuh scattered clumps of
oyster reols. dcpih 3 to 8 feol
Prone grasslands, flat to gently rolling upland, pra.ne grasses mud and
s-,nd subs-nto much ol area culuva.od. bluestem. .nd.angrass. sparse
m^u,t h.clburry. hu,s.,cno. chaparral, caccus. to*l and small mammals
Small prJ^os ,n forced uplands, coarso grass w.th scattered p.nos'and
n irr<..,.-inris mud mammals 3nH lowl
Enclosed b.v. awo, from t.dal or nver .nlluence. monlecI mud. s.m.lar to
on*n b.-v but redurr.d SPec,os d.vors.ty. clams, depth 3 to B feat
IrJand Iresh-water marsh, sand and mud rushes, builrjsh. cattail, slough-
n'ass mammals, fowl
-------
COMMON MACRO-BIOLOGIC ASSEMBLAGES WITHIN TEXAS COASTAL ENVIRONMENTS j;
SUBAQUEOUS,
PRINCIPALLY BENTHONIC ASSEMBLAGES
SHELF (INNER) AND LOWER SHOREFACE:
Atrina, Dmocardium, Dosinia, Spistu/a, Tellina, Varicorbula, Nuculana, Pitar
(darns); Architectonics, Busycon, Oliva, Phalium, Terebra, Anachis, Nassarius
(snails); Luidia (starfish); Mellita (urchin)
UPPER SHOREFACE:
Dinocardium, Dosinia, Tellina, Anadara, Mercenaria, Anomia (clams); Terebra,
Po/inices, Oliva, Olive/la (snails);Mellita {urcr\\n);Lu/dia, Astropecten (starfish)
INLET AN DTI DAL DELTA:
Inlet includes Crassinella, Lucina, Te/lidora (clams); Anachis, Po/inices, Crepi-
• dula, Thais (snails); Dentalium (scaphopod); Astrangea (coral); bryozoans;
clionid sponges; Luidia (starfish); Mellita (urchin); Ophiolepis (brittle star);
tidal delta and marsh includes Littorina, Neritina, Bulls, Po/inices, Busycon,
Thais (snails); Uca (fiddler crab); Paqurus (hermit crab); Mellita (urchin);
Spartina, Salicornia (marsh plants); Crassostrea virginica (oyster)
BAY MARGIN:
Dip/anthera wn'ghtii and minor amounts of related plants (marine grass);
Aequipecten, Trachycardium, Mercenaria, Cyrtopleura, Macoma, Mulinia,
Chione, Ensis, Tagelus (clams); Thais, Busycon, Nassarius, Me/ampus, Cerithium
and related forms (snails); Cal/inectes sapidus (blue crab)
GRASSFLATS:
Diplanthera wrightii, Ftuppia maritima, Thalassia testudinum (marine grass);
Anomalocardia, Amygdalum, Tellina, Phacoides, Laevicardwm (clams); Cerithi-
um, Cerithidea, Melampus, Neritina, Vermicularia, Modulus (snails); Pogonias
cromis (black drum), other fish
OPEN BAY WITH TIDAL INFLUENCE:
Nuculana, Mulinia, Corbula, Abra, Pandora (clams); Nassarius, Fietusa,
Cantharus (snails)
OPEN BAY WITH REEFS:
Similar to open bay, with Crassostrea spp. (oyster) and other reef-associated
forms (see reef)
ENCLOSED BAY:
Nuculana, Mulinia common with Abra, Corpula (clams); Nassarius, Retusa
(snails)
ENCLOSED BAY WITH REEF:
Similar to enclosed bay, with scattered clumps of Crassostrea virginica and other
reef-associated forms (see reef)
REEF:
Abundant Crassostrea virginica (oyster); Anomia, Brachidontes, Diplothyra
(clams); Anachis, Mitrella, Thais, Crepidula (snails); Cliona (sponge); Balanus
(barnacle); bryozoans; Crangon (crustacean)
REEF FLANK AND MARGIN:
Clumps of Crassostrea virginica, broken shell, Callinectes sapidus (blue crab)
SAY WITH RIVER INFLUENCE:
Hang/a, Macoma, Crassostrea, Petricola (clams); Littoridina (snail); Callinectes,
Macrobrachium (crustaceans)
SUBAQUEOUS SPOIL:
Variable assemblage
FRESH TO BRACKISH-WATER BODIES:
Marsh plants (see marsh); Littorina, Neritina (snails); Uca, Cambarus
(crustaceans)
•This table supplements legend description on the Environments and /!i<>-
loRic Assemblage* Map. Genenc rather than specific names are used for
most subaqueous invertebrate organisms. Common names have been
placed in parentheses. The list does not include an inventory of land and
marine vertebrates nor plant and animal micro-organisms. Plants and
animals listed are common, environmentally diagnostic organisms that are
predominantly bottom-dwelling Invertebrates in subaqueous environments,
j nnrt also luehor order plant! In »ubnerial environmpntii.
SUBAERIAL,
PRINCIPALLY FLORAL ASSEMBLAGES
BEACH:
Donax (clam); Terebra, Oliva, Olivella, Polmices (snails); Ocypode (qhost crab)
VEGETATED BARRIER FLAT, FOREDUNE RIDGE, BEACH RIDGE,
AND VEGETATED FLAT: [
Andropogon littoralis (bluestem); Un/ola paniculate (sea-oats), Paspalum mono-1
stachyum (Gulf-dune pasnalum), Cenchrus incertus (coastal sandbur), Galaclia \i
sp. (milkpea), Senecio spp. (groundsel), Iva ciliata vat. annua (sumpweed); ]|
marsh plants such asSalicornia bigelovu (glasswort), Spartina alterniflora (corr>
grass); Ocypode (ghost crab); rodents, snakes, fowl
SAND FLATS:
Uca (fiddler crab); Salicornia perpnnir, (glasswort), Batis maritima (maritime
saltwort); shore birds
SALT-WATER MARSH:
Spartina alterniflora (cordqrass), Soticorfifi perennis, S. bigelovii (glasswort),
Suaeda spp. (seepweed), Batis want/ma (maritime saltwort), Borrichia fru-
tescens (sea-oxeye); water fowl
BRACKISH TO FRESH-WATER MARSH'
Spartina spartinae (coastal sacahuista), Spartina patens (marsh hay cordgrass),
Spartina cynosuroides (big eordqrav.;), tare Spartina alterniflora (cordgross),
Scirpus spp. (bullrush), Typha latifolia (cauail), Juncus spp, (rushes); nutria,
muskrat, rare mink, snakes, water fowl
BRACKISH-WATER MARSH (CLOSED)
Spartina patens (marsh hay cordgrass), Spartina cynosuroides (big cordgrass),
Distich/is spicata (saltgrass), Juncus spp. (rushes); nutria, muskrat, rare mink,
water fowl
INLAND FRESH-WATER MARSH: j
Juncus spp. (rushes), Scirpus spp, (butlrush), Typha latifo/ia (cattail), Spartina I
pectinata (sloughgrass); nutria, muskrar, snakes, water fowl
PRAIRIE GRASSLAND:
Andropogon spp. (bluestem), Sorqhasfum spp. (indtangrass), Paspalum spp,,
Prosopis spp. (mesquite), Sorghum ha/cpensc (Johnson grass), Celtis spp, (hack-
berry). Acacia farnesiana (huisache), chaparral, cactus; prairie chicken, quail, |<
some water fowl, rabbits, rodents |,
SWAMP:
Sabal minor (dwarf palmetto), Taxodium cJistichum (cypress), Ulmus spp.
(elm), bay, Morus spp. (mulberry), Oucrrus nigra (water oak), Nyssa biflora
(gum), Vitis spp. (grape), I/ex i(ni«j (yaupon); raccoon, opossum, rare I
mink, squirrel, fowl, snakes
FREQUENTLY FLOODED FLUVIAL «REAC-
Juncus spp. (rushes), Scirpus ^pp. (buM'ush), Typha spp, (cattail), Salix spp.
(willow); mammals and fowl similar to swamp
FLUVIAL WOODLAND:
Carya illinoensis (pecan), Car\a •uip. (hickory), Quercus virginiana (live-oak),
O, nigra (water oak), Q. m^iril,indict (blnckjack oak), Ulmus spp. (elm), Celtis
spp. (hackberry), Magnolia spp. (magnolia), Liquidambar styraciflua (sweet-
gum), Crataegus viburnifolm (rorj haw), Fraxinus spp. (ash), Pinus echinata
(shortleaf pine), Pinus tanrla (lohlollv PIOP), Axonopus spp. (carpetgrass), |'
Cynodon dactylon (bermudaqrnss), Snu/ax spp, (greenbriar). Ilex vomitoria
(yaupon), Vitis spp. (grape); squirrp!, raccoon, opossum, rabbit, rodents,
quail, other fowl, snakes
MIXED PINE AND HARDWOOD FOREST:
Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), P. palustris (longleaf pine), P. echinata (shortleol
pine), Quercus spp. (oak), Carya spp. (hickory); rodents, rabbit, raccoon,
opossum, quail, other fowl, snakes
SMALL PRAIRIES IN FORESTED UPLANDS:
Small clumps of mixed pine and hardwood with prairie grasses [see prairie
grassland and mixed pine and hardwood)
OAK MOTTES AND GROVES:
Quurcus virginiana (live-oak); srnsM .-orients and snokos
-------
EXHIBIT G MAJOR MARilME
WILDLJFE HABITATSfH
FUR BEARERS ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT T
SUCH ANIMALS A3 RACCOONS, OPPOSSUMS
SC3UIRREL
MAJOR SHRIMP AREAS
SHRIMP NURSERIES
«"« MAJOR FLOUrJDERIIVJO AREAS
DEAD OYSTER BEEFS
LIVE
OYSTER REEFS
l"'%ix -. *
LIVE PRODUCING OYSTER REEFS?! * ^ ^ V
-------
EXHIBIT H
MAJOR MARINE AIXJD WiLDLiFS HABITATS
-------
rvuiDiT i (T^XAsy^^Mf^\ -a. i i- .•/ ,^i
LAnlDll I MAJOR MARINE ANO WILDLIFE HABITATS
mmt~,M ^s&i -iv>; .a wt..-xrtL'^^\,
\A/OLP OR COYOTE
DEER
SOUKCE OF DATA: TEMS »APKS AND WILDLIFE DEPART^!!! SnlL
CONSERVATIOIt SERVICE, USITED STATES KPART^EM
Of AGRICULTURE; A.1D CCMTY AGENTS r,F VAPinus COU1TIES
-------
APPENDICES
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND
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 1, 1974
BY:
TURNER, COLLIE & BRADEN, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HOUSTON PORT ARTHUR
PAGES 7-10
-------
TABLE A-l
Preliminary Inventory
City of Houston
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Treatment Plant Name
Almeda-Sims
Chadwick Manor
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
Eastex Oaks
Easthaven
Fontaine Place
FWSD No. 17
FWSD No. 23
FWSD No. 34
Gulf Meadows
Gulf Palms
Gulfway Terrace
Homestead
Intercontinental Airport
Longwoods
Mayfair Park
Northeast
Northside
Northwest
Red Gulley
Sagemont
Sherwood Oaks
Sims Bayou
Southeast (Existing)
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
48.00
3.00
Treatment Unit Components
Primary
Treatment
S^ucocoouo
XX X
XX X
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
Sediment-
ation
tH U U
H CO CM
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
PM CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
Activ.
Sludge
PQ m PQ
o co <|
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
Q Q PQ ffi
< 3 Q B
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Disinfection
u u Q Q
g u u o
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
XXX
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X X
>
I
-------
TABLE A-l (Cont'd.)
Preliminary Inventory
City of Houston
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Treatment Plant Name
Southwest
Turkey Creek
WCID No. 20
WCID No. 32
WCID No. 34
WCID No. 39
WCID No. 42
WCID No. 44-1
WCID No. 44-3
WCID No. 47
WCID No. 51
WCID No. 53
WC ID No . 62
WCID No. 73
WCID No. 81
WCID No. 82
WCID No. 95
West District
Stated
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
30.00
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
14.00
Treatment Unit Components
Primary
Treatment
Igjptjcjtocoouu
hhAMSUO^
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
Sediment-
ation
EH U U
H en PL,
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
Trick.
Filters
pq Pq
CM CO
X
X
X X
X
X
Activ.
Sludge
m m CQ
U en <;
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Sludge
Handling
Q Q m ffi
<; S Q EH
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Disinfection
u u Q Q
S u u o
X X
X X
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
I
NJ
-------
Inventory Codes
Primary Treatment; Code
Flow Measurement: Flow Meter FM
Flow Meter/Recorde* FR
Screenings 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
'Judge Handling;
Aerobic Digester AD
Anao.robic Digester ND
Dryi"R Brds DB
Other:(Incineration, Vacuum N OTH
Filtration)
Disinfection; Mixing Chamber Mp
Contact Chamber Xp
Chlorine Disinfection pi->
Other Disinfection Process QD
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND
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 IF 1974
BY:
TURNER, COLLIE & BRADEN- INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HOUSTON PORT ARTHUR
PAGES 46-50
-------
TABLE B-l
City of Houston
Wastewater Management Plan
Expansion Summary
(Revised 3-15-74)
Plant Name
Almeda-Sims
Chocolate Bayou
Clinton Park
Easthaven
Homestead
Intercontinental Airport
Northeast
Northside
Northwest
Red Gulley
WCO Number
10495-03
10495-09
10495-10
10495-65
10495-23
10495-77
10495-01
10495-76
10495-71
Existing Capacity
1.00 MGD
1.55 MGD
0.75 MGD
0.51 MGD
0.80 MGD
0.33 MGD
2.00 MGD
55.00 MGD
4.00 MGD
0.30 MGD
Expansion Date
1975-1977
1984-1985
1974-1976
1977-1979
1975-1977
1977-1979
1974
1976-1978
1975-1977
1975-1977
1980-1981
1974-1975
Nature of Expansion
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)
Expansion proposed to
5 MGD (1)
Expansion under construc-
tion to 0.60
Expansion proposed to
8 MGD (2)
Expansion proposed to
12 MGD (1)
Expansion under design
to 155 MGD (2)
Expansion under design
to 12 MGD (2)
Expansion proposed to
16.0 MGD
Expansion proposed to
0.90 MGD (3)
-------
TABLE B-l (Cont'd.)
City of Houston
Wastewater Management Plan
Expansion Summary
(Revised 3-15-74)
Plant Name WCO Number
Sagemont
Sherwood Oaks -- —
Southeast 10495-79
Turkey Creek 10495-85
WCID 47 10495-50
West District 10495-30
FWSD 17 10495-15
Gulf Meadows 10495-20
Existing Capacity
2.00 MGD
1.50 MGD
3.00 MGD*
0.75 MGD
3.00 MGD
14.00 MGD
0.75 MGD
1.00 MGD
Expansion Date
1975-1976
1974-1975
1977-1978
1988
1977-1979
1988
1975-1976
1977-1979
Nature of Expansion
Expansion proposed to
5 MGD (2)
(1)
Expansion proposed to
6 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to
2 MGD (interim) (2)
Expansion proposed to
6 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to
12 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to
6 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to
22 MGD (1)
Expansion proposed to
1.50 (3)
Expansion proposed
* Enlargement completed 1974.
(1) Preliminary engineering in progress,
(2) Engineering plans being prepared.
(3) Engineering plans complete.
(4) Construction in progress.
-------
TABLE B-2
CITY OF HOUSTON
WASTEVATZR MANAGEMENT PLAN
DIVERSION SUMMARY
(REVISED 3-15-74)
Plant Name
Chadwick Manor
Eastex Oaks
Fontaine Placa
F.s'SD 34
Gulf Palms
Gulf way Terr=ca
Longwoods
Kayfair Park
Sims Bayou
WC ID 20
WCID 32
WCID 34
WCID 39
Plant Flow Data
Design
Capacity
(msd)
0.08
0.05
0.33
1.30
0.20
0.13
0.02
0.40
48.00
0.25
1.00
0.16
0.60
Existing
Load
(mgd)
0.04
0.20
0.23
0.57
r\ " f
J.JO
3.23
0.03
0.28
38.00
0.20
0.86
0.30
0.50
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)
(2)
1976(3)
1976(3)
July 1977(2)
June 1977
1977
1985
1990
(2)
(2)
(2)
June 1975(4)
Plant Receivin Diversion
Plant Name
Southwest
Prop . GCWDA STP
FWSD 23
WCID 51
WCID 47
WCID 47
Northside
WCID 51
Almeda-Sims (5)
Almeda-Sims
Almeda-Sims
Northeast
Northeast
Southwest
FWSD 23
Design Treatment
Capacity (mgd)
30.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
90.00
5.00
20.00
20.00
40.00
2.00
2.00
30.00
5.00
03
I
U)
-------
Plant l\Same
WC ID 42
WC ID 44-1
WCID 44-3
WCID 53
WCID 62
WCID 73
WCID 81
WCID 82
WCID 95
'
Plant Flov.7 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
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 Receiving Diversion
Plant Name
FWSD 23
Almeda-Sims
Almeda-Sims
Southeast
Southeast
Prop. Cedar Bayou
Southeast
Prop. Cedar Bayou
West District
Design Treatment
Capacity (mgd) J-
5.00 1
20.00
20.00
3.00
3.00
0.26
3.00
0.26
14.00
At time of diversion
(1) Preliminary Engineering in Progress
(2) Engineering Plans Being Prepared
(3) Engineering Plans Complete
(4) Construction in Progress
(5) Diversion from Brays Bayou Watershed
-------
TABLE 3-3
City of Houston
Wastewarer Management Plan
(Revised 3-15-74)
lant Name
Ihadwick Manor
lastex Oaks
"ontaine Place
"WSD 34
ulf Palms
jlfway Terrace
ingwoods
ay fair Park
~CID 20
GID 32
3ID 34
:ID 39
•:ID 42
IID 44-1
JID 44-3
,"CID 53
VCID 62
7CID 73
••v'CID 81
WC ID 82
WC ID 95
WCO Mo.
10495-07
10336-01
10495-14
10495-69
10495-21
10495-22
10495-29
10495-31
10495-41
10495-43
10495-14
10^S5--3
10495-15
1 Q4.O 5__ 7
i m: =;_ ~ ~
1C495-53
lC4c'5-32
1C495-33
1C495-77
10495-34
Existing Desian
Ca-oacitv fmad)
0.08
0.05
0.33
1.30
0.20
0.18
0.02
0.40
0.25
1.00
0.16
0.50
C . 25
O.fO
0 . 10
C'.. JO
O.-'-O
0.^0
3. -5
0.05
0,^0
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
\J • _^ V
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)
Timp 1 974 (&}
vJ LU.lt: i. .2 1 -t \^~ J
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 Norths ide
Diversion to WCID 51
Diversion to Northeast
Diversion to Northeast
Diversion to Southwest
Diversion to FWSD 23
Diversion to FWSD 23
Diversion to Alraeda-Sims
Diversion to Almeda-Sirns
P. . . . p ,1 .
ULversion co ooucneasc
Diversion to Southeast
Diversion to Prop. Cedar Ba;
Diversion to Southeast
Diversion to Prop. Cedar Bay
Diversion to West District
(1) Preliminary engineering in progress.
(2) Engineering plans being prepared.
'3) Engineering plans complete.
.4) Construction in progress.
tu
I
-------
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
-------
TLXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND
APPENDIX C: IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS FOR ALMEDA-SIMS REGIONAL
SEWAGb TREATMENT PLANT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
HOUSTON AND 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 able, 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 1109J, 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
WPC-TEX-1009
WPC-TEX-1010
WPC-TEX-1008
WPC-TEX-1060
WPC-TEX-1074
WPC-TEX-1047
WPC-TEX-1020
Job Number
3304-DT
3372
3249
Description
3292 and 3378
3348
3304-DS
3405
Enlargement of Almeda-
Sims Sewage Treatment
Plant
Enlargement of North
Side Sludge Plant
Trunk Sewer for
Diversion of Gulf Palms
and Gulfway Terrace
Sewage Treatment Plants
Almeda, Knight, Cam-
bridge Trunk Sewer and
Pump Station
Enlargement of East
Haven Sewage Treat-
ment Plant
Almeda-Sims Sewage
Sludge Disposal Plant
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
-------
the Project through the issuance of its Bonds to provide the money for such payment,
all in the manner hereinafter described; and the Authority, by such payment, will
thus acquire any Component or all of the Project for the benefit of the City.
B. RIGHT OF CITY TO ACQUIRE. It is contemplated that the City will
receive up to 75% of the eligible costs of the Project from federal grants
for the Project, and from such federal grants and other sources available to
the City, the City will acquire up to 100% of the Project and the Components
from time to time by purchasing the Project as hereinafter described.
Section 3. AUTHORITY'S BOND RESOLUTIONS. Each Bond Resolution will
provide that the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds authorized thereby will
be used for the payment of all of the Authority's expenses and costs in connection
with the' Bonds and the Project or the Components being financed by such Bond
Resolution, including, without limitation, all financing, legal, printing,
and other expenses and costs incurred in issuing its Bonds, plus an admini-
strative and overhead charge to be retained by the Authority equal to 20% of
such expenses and costs incurred in issuing its bonds, and all engineering,
legal, construction, and other expenses and costs incurred by the Authority in
acquiring, by purchase and construction, any Component and the Project, including
all out-of-pocket expenses of the Authority's employees directly attributable
and chargeable to any Component and the Project and the proportionate part of
any Authority employees' salaries attributable and chargeable to the acquisition
of any Component and the Project. In addition to such administrative and over-
head charge the Authority will retain a sum equal to any of such out-of-pocket
expenses of the Authority's employees and the proportionate part of Authority
employees' salaries attributable and chargeable to the Project. Such Bonds will
be issued in a mutually agreeable amount sufficient to cover the estimated
amount of all of the aforesaid expenses, costs, and charges. A substantial
draft of each Bond Resolution, showing the principal amount of the Bonds, the
Components being financed, maturities of the Bonds, and other pertinent features,
excepting the name of the purchaser and the interest rates, must be delivered to
and be approved by the City prior to the delivery of any Bonds authorized by
such Bond Resolution to the purchaser constitute agreement by the City that all
provisions of such Bond Resolution are in compliance with this Contract in all
respects.
Section 4. SUPERVISING ENGINEER. The Authority and the City agree that
E. B. Cape, a registered professional engineer, in his capacity as Director of
the Department of Public Works of the City, shall be the "Supervising Engineer"
for each Component and Project; that the Project and each Component will be
acquired, by purchase and construction, in accordance with the "Engineering
Report" for each Component which has been prepared under the direction and
supervision of the Supervising Engineer and which is on file with the parties
hereto and has been or will be filed with Environmental Protection Agency, and
in accordance with plans and specifications prepared under the direction and
supervision of the Supervising Engineer. The Authority and the City further
agree that the person named Supervising Engineer may be changed from time to
time but only with the written consent of both parties hereto.
Section 5. ACQUISITION CONTRACTS. For the convenience of the Authority
and the City, the City will enter into such contracts as are necessary to provide
for acquiring, by purchase and construction, each Component and the entire
C-3
-------
Project for the Authority, and said contracts shall be advertised for and executed
as required by the laws applicable to the City, and also as required by any
grant offers from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Authority shall
deposit the proceeds from the sale of each series of Bonds into a special
Project Acquisition Fund, at the City's depository bank, to the credit of the
City, an amount of money which shall be specified in the Bond Resolution. The
City shall draw on and use said Project Acquisition Fund to pay the costs of
acquiring, by purchase and construction, the Project and each Component financed
for the Authority; provided that the City agrees that each expenditure from the
Project Acquisition Fund must be approved by the Supervising Engineer prior to
the making of such expenditure. Any amounts remaining in the Project Acquisition
Fund after completion of the Project shall be deposited in the Interest and
Sinking Fund established pursuant to the Bond Resolution, and thus reduce to
that extent the payments required to be made by the City under this Contract.
Section 6. PAYMENTS BY CITY, (a) The Authority will provide, make
available, and render to and for the benefit of the City and its inhabitants, the
sanitary sewer system and sanitary sewage service of the Project or any Component
paid for and acquired by the Authority pursuant to this Contract. It is agreed
that the City shall have the exclusive use of the entire Project or any Component
for the term of this Contract. In consideration for the Authority assisting the
City in the acquisition of Federal grants for a portion of the estimated reasonable
costs of constructing the Project and each Component thereof, and in considera-
tion for the Authority's acquiring, making available, and rendering to and for the
benefit of the City and its inhabitants, the sanitary sewer system and sanitary
sewage service of the Project or any Component, the City agrees to make the
payments herein-after specified. As further consideration, it is agreed that
the City will operate and maintain, and have the sole responsibility for operating
and maintaining, the entire Project or any Component for the term of this
Contract; and the City agrees to indemnify and to save and hold harmless the
Authority from any and all claims, damages, losses, costs, fines, and expenses,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising at any time from the acquisition,
existence, ownership, operation, and/or maintenance of the entire Project and
any Component thereof. It is further agreed that the City's obligation to make
any and all payments under Section 6(b) and (c) of this Contract will terminate
when all of the Bonds issued in connection with the entire Project, or any Bonds
issued to refund same, have been paid in full and retired and are no longer outstanding
It is hereby provided that in further consideration of the payments made by
the City under this Section, the City shall become the owner of each Component
when all of the Bonds issued to finance such Component, or any Bonds issued to
refund same, have been paid in full and retired, and the City shall become the
owner of the entire Project when all Bonds have been paid in full and retired.
The payments made by the City under this Section shall constitute the necessary
periodic payments required to purchase each Component and the Project;
and all payments to be made by the City under this Section shall be payable from
and secured by the levying of a tax therefor, all as permitted by Article 1109J,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes, as amended, and in the manner hereinafter provided.
It is further understood and agreed that the Authority's only source of funds to
pay the principal of and interest on its Bonds, and to pay its expenses in
connection with its Bonds, any Component, and the Project, is from the payments to
be made by the City to the Authority under this Contract.
C-4
-------
(b) The City agrees to make the following payments to the Authority
while any of the Bonds issued in connection with any Component or the Project,
or any Bonds issued to refund same, are outstanding:
1. Such amounts, payable semi annually on or before the
10th day preceding each interest payment date on the
Bonds, as are necessary to pay (a) the principal and/or
interest coming due on the Bonds on the next suc-
ceeding interest payment date plus the fees and
charges of the Paying Agent for paying or redeeming
the Bonds and/or the interest coupons appertaining
thereto coming due on such date, and (b) a fixed
semiannual charge to cover and reimburse the
Authority for its administrative overhead expenses
directly attributable and chargeable to its Bonds,
each Component, and the Project in an amount com-
puted as follows:
1/8 of 1% of the first $1,000,000 in principal
amount of Bonds outstanding on such date, plus
1/20 of 1% of the excess of $1,000,000 but not
more than $5,000,000 in principal amount of Bonds
^outstanding on such date, plus
1/50 of 1% of the excess of $5,000,000 principal
amount of Bonds outstanding on such date.
2. Such amounts, payable upon receipt of a statement
therefor, as are necessary to pay, or reimburse the
Authority for, and extraordinary or unexpected expenses
or costs reasonable and necessarily incurred by the
Authority in connection with its Bonds, any Component,
and the Project (exclusive of routine administrative
expenses and costs) such as expenses of litigation,
if any, and costs of special studies, professional
services, and all accounting reports if and when
required.
(c) If, in addition to the amount initially issued, the Authority
finds it necessary to issue Bonds for the purpose of completing any Component or
the Project to the extent contemplated by the initial Bonds and the Engineering
Report, all of the amounts to be paid to or retained by the Authority under all
Sections of this Contract shall be increased proportionately, and such amounts
shall at all times be sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on all such
Bonds. It is understood and agreed that the only source of funds for the Authority
to acquire and construct any Component and the Project is from the issuance and
sale of its Bonds (including additional Bonds) pursuant to this Contract.'
C-5
-------
(d) During the current year and during each year thereafter, while any of
the Bonds or interest coupons appertaining thereto are outstanding and unpaid, the
governing body of the City shall compute and ascertain a rate and amount of ad
valorem tax which will be sufficient to raise and produce the money necessary to
make the payments, including indemnities, required to be made by the City under this
Contract and to create a sinking fund of at least 2 % as required by Article 11,
Section 5 of the Texas Constitution; and said tax shall be based on the latest
approved tax rolls of the City, with full allowance being made for tax delinquencies
and the cost of tax collection. Said rate and amount of ad valorem tax shall be
levied against all taxable property in the City for such year; and said tax shall
be assessed and collected each such year and used for making the aforesaid payments.
Said ad valorem taxes sufficient to provide for making the aforesaid payments are
hereby pledged irrevocably for such payment, within the limit prescribed by law.
Reference is hereby made to the Ordinance passed by the governing body of the City
which authorizes the execution of this Contract by the City, and also levies the
tax, and orders the levying of the tax, as required by this Section.
(e) Recognizing the fact that the City urgently requires the facilities
and services covered by this Contract, and that such facilities and services are
necessary for actual use and for stand-by purposes; and further recognizing that the
Authority will use the payments received from the City hereunder to pay, secure,
and finance the issuance of the Bonds, it is hereby agreed that if and when any
Bonds are delivered, the City shall be obligated to make the payments required by
this Contract, regardless of whether or not the Authority actually provides such
facilities and services, or whether or not the City actually receives or uses such
facilities and services, and the holders of the Bonds shall be entitled to rely on
the foregoing agreement and representation, regardless of any other agreement
between the Authority and the City.
Section 7. COMPLIANCE WITH GRANT OFFERS. The City agrees that with respect
to the entire Project and each Component it will fulfill and comply with all assurances
made by the City in any grant offer received from the Environmental Protection
Agency and accepted by the City; and that with respect to the entire Project
and each Component the City will discharge all of its responsibilities and
comply with all of its agreements with the Environmental Protection Agency in
connection with such grant offer and the Federal grant made pursuant thereto.
The Authority agrees that it will join with and assist the City in complying
with the foregoing commitments to the Environmental Protection Agency, subject
to the provisions of this Contract.
Section 8. METERING. It is understood and agreed that neither the
Authority nor the City shall be under obligation to furnish, operate, or
maintain metering equipment for measuring waste discharged into the Project
under this Contract.
Section 9. ACQUISITION. The Authority and the City agree to proceed
promptly with the acquisition, by purchase and construction, of the Project
and each Component thereof. The Authority and City hereby covenant that they
will make a diligent effort to commence such acquisition as soon as practicable.
The Authority and the City do not anticipate any delays in commencing or
completing the acquisition of the Project, but the Authority and the City
shall not be liable to each other for any damages occasioned by the acquisition
or completion of the Project, or any delays in completion of the Project.
C-6
-------
Section 10. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. The obligation on the part of the
Authority to acquire and construct any Component and the Project shall be
conditioned upon the following:
(a) sale of Bonds in an amount sufficient to
assure the acquisition and construction
of each Component and the Project and the
deposit of the proceeds of such Bonds into the
account prescribed in the applicable Bond
Resolution; and
(b) the Authority's and the City's ability, or
the ability of the contractors, to obtain
all material, labor, and equipment necessary
for the acquisition of any Component and
the Project.
Section 11. USE OF CITY'S PUBLIC PROPERTY. By these presents, the City
authorizes use by the Authority of any and all real property, streets, alleys,
public ways and places, and general utility or sewer easements of the City
for acquiring, by purchase and construction, each Component and the Project,
as provided in this Contract.
Section 12. FORCE MAJEURE. If, by reason of Force Majeure, either party
hereto shall be rendered unable wholly or in part to carry out its obligations
under this Contract then such party shall give notice and full particulars of
such Force Majeure in writing to the other party within a reasonable time
after occurrence of the event or cause relied upon, and the obligation of the
party giving such notice, so far as it is affected by such Force Majeure, shall
be suspended during the continuance of the inability then claimed, except as
hereinafter provided, but for no longer period, and such party shall endeavor
to remove or overcome such inability with all reasonable dispatch. The term
Force Majeure as employed herein, shall mean acts of God; strikes, lockouts,
or other industrial disturbances; acts of public enemy; orders of any kind of
the Government of the United States or the State of Texas or any civil or
military authority; insurrections; riots; epidemics; landslides; lightning;
earthquakes; fires; hurricanes; storms; floods; washouts; droughts; arrests;
restraints of government and people; civil disturbances; explosions; breakage
or accidents to machinery, pipelines, or canals; or other causes not reasonably
within the control of the party claiming such inability. It is understood and
agreed that the settlement of strikes and lockouts shall be entirely within the
discretion of the party having the difficulty, and that the above requirement
that any Force Majeure shall be remedied with all reasonable dispatch shall
not require the settlement of strikes and lockouts by acceding to the demands
of the opposing party or parties when such settlement is unfavorable to it in
the judgment of the party having the difficulty. It is specifically excepted
and provided, however, that in no event shall any Force Majeure relieve the
City of its obligation to make payments to the Authority as required under
Section 6 of this Contract.
Section 13. REGULATORY BODIES. This Contract, each, Component, and the
Project shall be subject to all valid rules, regulations, and laws applicable
thereto passed or promulgated by the United States of America, the State of
Texas, or any governmental body or agency having lawful jurisdiction or any
authorized representative or agency or any of them.
-------
Section 14. TERM OF CONTRACT. The term of this Contract shall be for
the period during which any of the Bonds, or any Bonds issued to refund same,
are outstanding and unpaid.
Section 15. SALE OF BONDS. The Authority agrees that it will use its
best efforts to sell and deliver its Bonds to finance any Component, group
of Components, or the entire Project as requested by the City through commercial
municipal bond marketing channels, and that the Authority will use its best
efforts to sell and deliver all or any series of the Bonds to be subject to
redemption prior to maturity as provided in the applicable Bond Resolution.
Section 16. REDEMPTION OF BONDS AND PURCHASE BY CITY. The Authority, upon
the request of the City and provided that the Bonds or any series of Bonds
are then callable, shall forthwith take all steps that may be necessary under
the provisions of the applicable Bond Resolution to effect redemption, using
funds then on deposit in the Interest and Sinking Fund which are in excess of
current requirements or other funds made available by the City, of all or any
part of the then outstanding Bonds, as may be specified by the City, on the
earliest redemption date on which such redemption may be made under such applicable
provisions; provided that the redemption of less than all of the outstanding
Bond prior to maturity at any time shall not relieve the City of its unconditional
obligation to pay any other payments specified by this Contract or any Bond
Resolution. The City shall notify the Authority in writing of each said
request, and shall furnish the Authority with a certified copy of the Ordinance
or Resolution of the governing body of the City evidencing each of said
requests; provided, however, that the date set for consummation of each
transaction shall be fixed so as to allow the Authority and the City sufficient
time to perform the acts hereinafter described. Upon receipt of any of the
foregoing notices in writing, the Authority shall fix a date, which shall be
as soon as practicable or possible under the applicable Bond Resolution for
the redemption of the applicable Bonds, and shall duly call said Bonds for
redemption on said date. Prior to said date, the City shall make the necessary
redemption price available to the Authority, and the Authority shall deposit
the required funds with the paying agent for such Bonds so that such funds will
be available for immediate use in redeeming the Bonds to be redeemed on said
date. After any series of Bonds have been redeemed as provided in this Section
or after all of the Bonds have been retired by any means, other than use of the
proceeds of refunding bonds, the Authority shall be deemed to have executed a
conveyance, conveying its right, title, and interest in and to any Component,
group of Components, or the Project acquired with the proceeds of such
redeemed Bonds, as the case may be, to the City. After any such redemption
and automatic conveyance, the Authority will have no interest in the applicable
Component or the Project, as the case may be, except for any claims arising
prior to such conveyance.
Section 17. FINANCIAL RECORDS. The City agrees to keep proper financial
and operating records and books of account, pursuant to law and in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, pertaining to the City's
performance of its obligations under this Contract, and such records and books
of account shall be open to audit by the Authority at all reasonable times. The
Authority may inspect such books and records at its own expense at any
reasonable time.
08
-------
Section 18. CASUALTY LOSS. If the Project, any Component, or any portion
thereof shall be damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, the City
shall be solely responsible for the restoration of the damaged portion of
the Component or the Project and shall continue to make payments required by
Section 6 of this Contract.
Section 19. CONDEMNATION. If any portion of any Component or the
Project shall be taken by condemnation, the City shall be responsible to either
(1) repair any damage to the remaining portion of the Component or the Project,
as the case may be, resulting from such condemnation so as to restore the
portion of the Component or the Project remaining after such condemnation as
nearly as practicable to the condition thereof immediately prior to such
condemnation so that on completion of such repair and restoration the
Component or the Project, as the case may be, may be used for the purposes of
this Contract, or (2) to construct or install or otherwise add to the remaining
portion of the Component or the Project improvements substantially equal in
value to the portion of the Component or the Project which was taken in
condemnation, and of a usefulness comparable to that of the condemned improve-
ments in carrying out the purposes of this Contract. The application of the
condemnation award proceeds, if any, remaining after the application to repair
or construction as above provided shall be in the discretion of the City;
provided, however, that no payments described in Section 6 of this Contract
shall be affected by such action.
Section 20. MISCELLANEOUS, (a) All headings of the Sections of this
Contract have been inserted as a reference only and are not to be considered as
a part of this Contract and in no way shall they affect the interpretation of
any of the provisions of this Contract.
(b) Neither party may assign this Contract or any of its rights or
obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party
hereto.
(c) This Contract shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
(d) The rights and remedies of the parties set forth in this Contract
shall not be exclusive and are in addition to all other rights and remedies
of the parties hereto. This Contract is made for the exclusive benefit of
the Authority and the City and the holder of any of the Bonds and their
respective successors and assigns herein permitted and are not intended to
confer upon any party or parties, other than the Authority, the City, and the
holders of the Bonds, their respective successors and assigns, any rights or
remedies under or by reason of this Contract.
(e) No change, addition to, or waiver of any of the provisions of
this Contract shall be binding upon any party unless in writing signed by the
Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Mayor of the City, after approval of
the respective governing body.
(f) No waiver by either party or any breach by either party of any
of the .provisions of this Contract shall be construed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach, whether of the same or of a different provision of this
Contract.
c-9
-------
(g) This Contract shall be cumulative of and in addition to any other
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 other 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
By
ATTEST:
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
010
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND
APPENDIX D:
PERMIT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALT1EDA-SIMS SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT,' DATED 4/26/1974
LEGAL CONTRACTS PLACED HERE HAVE BEEN RETYPED
TO CONFORM TO STANDARD SIZE
-------
WASTE CONTROL ORDER
10495 PAGE NO. 3
Except as specified in the Special
Provisions herein, this amendment
supersedes and replaces Page 3
(issued August 11, 1966) of Waste
Control Order No. 10495
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
P. 0. Box 13246, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
PERMIT to dispose of wastes under
provisions of Article 7621d-l , Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes
I. Name of Permittee
1. Name
2. Address
3. City
II. Type of Permit: Regular_
City of Houston (Almeda Plaza Plant)
900 Brazos
Houston, Texas 77002
Amended
xxx
III. Nature of Business Producing Waste
Municipal Sewage System
IV. General Description and Location of Waste Disposal System
Description: The sewage treatment plant utilizes the activated sludge
process without primary sedimentation. The trash and grit is allowed
to pass through the plant and is processed in the on-site sludge
disposal facility. Total aeration tank volume is in excess of 6,000,000
gallons yielding a retention time of 6 hours. Final settling is provided
by using 4-100 ft. diameter settling tanks. Chlorination of the effluent
is accomplished by injecting sodium hypochlorite into the stream ahead
of the chlorine contact chamber.
Sludqe is disposed of by producing a fertilizer/soil conditioner and its
subsequent sale.
Location: 2,000 feet east of State Highway 288 near the southern limits
of the City of Houston, Texas, at 12319 1/2 Almeda Road.
V. CONDITIONS OF THE WASTE CONTROL ORDER
Character: Treated domestic sewage effluent.
Volume: Not to exceed an average of 20,000,000 gallons per day;
Not to exceed a maximum of 60,000,000 gallons per day;
Not to exceed a maximum of 42,000 gallons per minute.
D-l
-------
Quality: NOT TO EXCEED
Monthly 24 Hr. Daily Individual
Item Average Composite Sample
B.O.D. 20 mg/1 25 mg/1 30 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids 20 mg/1 25 mg/1 30 mg/1
A Chlorine residual of not less than 1.0 mg/1 shall be maintained after at
least a 20-minute detention time (based on peak flow).
CONTINUTED ON CONTINUATION SHEET I AND II
APPROVED this 26th day of April , 1972.
Executive Director For the Board
WQB-7 (Rev. 1/72)
D-2
-------
Standard Provisions
(a) This permit is granted in accordance with the Texas Water Quality Act
of 1967 (Article 7621d-l , V.T.C.S.) and the rules adopted by the Board, and
is granted subject to the rules of the Board, the laws of the State of Texas,
and further orders of the Board issued in accordance with said rules and
laws.
(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 of the Board,
the laws of the State of Texas, and further orders of the Board. Such
agreement is a condition precedent to the granting of this permit.
(d) This permit cannot be transferred without prior notification to the
Board.
(e) This permit is issued subject to the terms of Section 11(f),
Article 7621d-l, V.T.C.S., which reads in part as follows:
"The permittee may be required, for good cause, from time to
time, after notice to the permittee and after public hearing
initiated by the Board, to conform to new or additional
conditions and terms imposed by the Board following such
hearing. The Board shall allow the permittee a reasonable time
to conform to such new or additional terms and conditions;
provided, however, that upon application of the permittee,
the Board, in its discretion, may grant the permittee an
additional period of time within which to conform to such new
or additional terms and conditions. Such permit or
amended permit shall never become a vested right in the
permittee, and it may be revoked or suspended for good cause shown
after notice to the permittee and after public hearing
initiated by the Board, in the event of the permittee's
failure to comply with the terms and conditions of such
permit as issued or as amended."
(f) The application pursuant to which the 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) (The provisions of this paragraph (g) of the Standard Provisions of
this permit apply only to drinking water' supply systems and sewage disposal
systems designed for public use as contemplated in Section 12, Article 4477-1,
V.T.C.S.) 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.
D-3
-------
WASTE CONTROL ORDER
NO. 10495 PAGE NO.
NAME: City of Houston
(Almeda Plaza Plant)
CONTINUATION SHEET I
APPROVED: April 26, 1972
Point of Discharge:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
Sims Bayou near the plant site in Harris County,
Texas, thence into the Houston Ship Channel, thence into
Galveston Bay in the San Jacinto River Basin.
This order is granted subject to the policy of the Board to encourage the development
of area-wide waste collection, treatment and disposal systems. The Board reserves
the right to amend this order in accordance with applicable procedural requirements
to require the system covered by this order to be integrated into an area-wide
system, 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 order 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 feasible on the basis of waste treatment technology,
engineering, financial, and related considerations existing at the time the
changes are required, exclusive of the loss of investment in or revenues
from any of then existing or proposed waste collection, treatment or
disposal system.
These public sewerage 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.
Operation and maintenance of the facilities described by this waste control
order shall be in accordance with accepted practices for this type of
waste treatment facility and shall include related maintenance such as painting,
proper disposal of solid waste, and weed and grass cutting.
It shall be the responsibility of the order holder to provide by contract
or otherwise, for the proper disposal of any excess sludge resulting from
the operation of the subject facility. The disposal shall be accomplished so
as to prevent the sludge from entering or otherwise affecting the waters of the
State. In cases where the order holder contracts for the disposal of the
sludge, the order holder shall inform the contractor of the requirement
concerning the proper disposal of the sludge and shall exercise prudent care
in providing for compliance with this requirement.
The order holder shall comply with the provisions of Board Order No. 69-1219-1
relative to monitoring and reporting data on effluent described in "Conditions
of the Waste Control Order".
D-4
-------
WASTE CONTROL ORDER
NO. 10495 PAGE NO. 3 CONTINUATION SHEET II
NAME: City of Houston APPROVED: April 26, 1972
(Almeda Plaza Plant)
SPECIAL PROVISIONS (continued)
No discharge from the treatment facilities described in this waste control
order shall be authorized until the Austin office and the District office of
the Board have been notified in writing that the proposed improvements to
the treatment plant facilities have been completed.
The waste control order holder shall comply with the following:
1. The conditions of Waste Control Order No. 10495, Page 3 (issued
August 11, 1966), allowing an interim monthly volume discharge of
2,000,000 gallons per day;
2. Construct interim drying beds by July 1, 1972;
until such time as the proposed improvements described by this waste control
order are operative.
Plans and specifications for the proposed improvements shall be approved
by the appropriate state agency.
This waste control order becomes effective upon date of Board approval and
is valid until amended, cancelled or revoked by the Board.
D-5
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS)
APPENDIX EE: LAND SURFACE SUBSIDENCE AND SURFACE FAULTING
IN THE HOUSTQN-GALVESTQN AREA
PART I
EXTRACTED FROM ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE TEXAS
COASTAL ZONE - GALVESTON-HOUSTON AREA, BUREAU OF ECONOMIC
GEOLOGY, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, W, L. FISHER,
DIRECTOR, 1972
-------
LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE AND SURFACE FAULTING
The problems of land-surface subsidence and surface faulting
characterize, in varying degrees, much of the Texas Coastal Zone
but are greatest in the Galveston-Texas area. Detailed discussion
and analysis of surface subsidence and faulting in the Houston area
are given by Turner et al. (1966), who in addition to their own
study, summarized extensive published and unpublished data perti-
nent to these problems. The following discussion of surface sub-
sidence and faulting is largely drawn from Turner et al. (1966).
LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
Land-surface subsidence, primarily a consequence of the
ground-water pumping and withdrawal that began in the early part
of this century, affects most of the eastern half of Harris County,
parts of adjacent Brazoria and Fort Bend counties, and most of the
mainland part of Galveston County. A range of subsidence on the
order of 2 to 4 feet during the past 25 years has been recorded by
the City of Houston. More pronounced subsidence of up to 6 feet
has been experienced in the Pasadena-Houston Ship Channel area, in
Baytown, and in Texas City.
Subsidence results from extensive ground-water withdrawal,
which in turn leads to a decline in artesian pressure and a decline
-------
in the piezometric surface. When this situation occurs, water-
saturated clay beds separating the sand beds of the aquifers are
compressible. As the clay beds are compacted and dehydrated, they
undergo a volume reduction that gives rise to the subsidence of
the overlying land surface. Although correlation between piezo-
metric decline and areas of subsidence is conclusive, local sub-
sidence is also attributable to other activities. At Goose Creek
oil field, for example, production of oil prior to 1924 resulted
in withdrawal of large volumes of water and sand along with the
oil, which led to a subsidence of as much as 3 feet. Frasch or
solution mining of sulfur from cap rocks of certain salt domes
has also resulted in surface land subsidence. Sheets (1947)
attributed as much as 10 feet of subsidence over Hoskins Mound,
a shallow salt dome in Brazoria County, to such activity. Solution
mining of salt has also caused local land subsidence over salt
domes.
Land subsidence already experienced in the area is irreversible,
Prediction of the amount of further subsidence depends upon a
number of assumptions but will be related chiefly to a decline in
the piezometric level and to the thickness and compaction charact-
eristics of the subsurface clay beds. Projections compiled by
McClelland Engineers, Inc., as Exhibit No. 20 in Turner et al.
(1966) indicate ultimate subsidence in the Pasadena area will be
about 10.5 feet, assuming a total decline in the piezometric level
EE-2
-------
of 425 feet. Nearly all the subsidence predicted will occur
as a result of declines already produced by present rates of
withdrawal. Ninety percent of the ultimate subsidence of 10.5
feet will occur even if there is no increase in the current level
of ground-water withdrawal. Other projections indicate ultimate
subsidence on the order of 6 feet in the City of Houston, of 8
feet in the Ellington Field area, and of 4.5 feet in the area
adjacent to western Galveston Bay. Present-day ground-water level
declines will produce future subsidence equal to 0.5 to 1.5 times
the present amount of subsidence.
Subsidence as a function of ground-water withdrawal is
regional, and as a result there have been few problems from diff-
erential settlement of the ground surface. Locally, as in Texas
City, clogging of sewer and drainage lines, along with other types
of misalignments, has occurred. More problems of this type will
certainly arise with further subsidence.
Depending upon the original topography, subsidence may also
result in some regional changes in land slope, affecting drainage
patterns either by increasing or by decreasing slope and stream
gradients. The most serious effect of subsidence is, of course,
loss of land elevation. Each incremental loss of elevation through
subsidence subjects more land to flooding, especially flooding
from hurricane surges in the low-lying coastal areas. Extensive
-------
areas of low-lying land within the larger areas of subsidence
include those bordering the Houston Ship Channel; the areas
adjacent to Clear Lake, Dickinson Bay, Moses Lake, and Dollar
Bay, and south of Texas City along the mainland part of Galveston
County. Examination of the topography indicates that with a
surge comparable to that of Hurricane Carla, the projected ulti-
mate subsidence will effectively double the amount of land subject
to hurricane-surge flooding.
SURFACE FAULTING
Within the Houston area, as well as in other areas throughout
the Coastal Zone, are numerous active and potentially active
surface faults. A number of these faults are currently active
and have resulted in breakage of pavements, structural foundations,
pipelines, and other types of surface or buried structures.
Four main types of evidence indicate active and potentially
active faults: (1) pavement and foundation breaks, involving
vertical displacement with cross fracture in street pavements,
foundations, highways, and airport runways; (2) topographic scarps
as shown by an abrupt steepening of land slope along a more or less
continuous zone; (3) anomalies in such natural patterns as drainage,
vegetation, and geologic facies as shown by extraordinarily straight
segments and sharp right-angle bends; and (4) linears and trends
EE-4
-------
shown on aerial photographs.
Of the several lines of evidence, breaks in pavements or
foundations, especially if aligned along a trend, are conclusive
evidence of active fault movement. For example. Turner et al.
(1966) reported 160 observed pavement breaks at fault intersections
with streets and highways. Other lines of evidence, the utili-
zation of which requires considerable geologic experience, define
either active or potentially active faults. Sheets (1971) reported
more than 50 known active surface faults with an aggregate length
of more than 130 miles in the Houston area. Extensive mapping
by the Bureau of Economic Geology utilizing photographic linears,
topographic scarps, and anomalies in natural patterns, showed
approximately 1,160 linear miles of active or potentially active
faults within the 2,903 square miles, excluding offshore areas,
covered by the Galveston-Houston map.
Comparison of mapped surface and fault traces with subsurface
fault maps indicates strong parallelism. In some cases where well
control is adequate, subsurface faults can be extended directly to
surface-expressed faults. Such has been documented by Van Siclen
(1967) for the Addicks fault in the Fairbanks Field northwest of
Houston. Although few surface and subsurface faults have been
tied directly, the strong parallelism in trend of surface and sub-
surface faults indicates that most surface faults are located in
-------
close relationship either with numerous long-trending coastwise
faults extending upwards from several thousands of feet below
surface and/or with the numerous salt domes of the area. These
associations point to the long geologic existence of these faults
and to the fact that they are products of natural geologic
processes.
The amount of surface displacement ranges from zero for
inactive faults to as much as 12 feet for the more active faults.
Amount of observed vertical displacement of active faults, as
shown by the displacement of pavements, ranges up to 3.4 feet.
Observation of the movement rate of active faults at 33 stations
showed an average displacement of 0.43 inch per year, with a range
of 0.14 to 1.05 inches per year (Turner et al. , 1966).
Although faults of the Texas Coastal Zone are the product
of natural geologic processes, occur throughout the Zone, and
existed long before man, there is clear indication that certain
of man's activities cause increased frequency and activity of
surface fault movement. For example, most of the known currently
active faults are located in areas of heavy withdrawal of ground-
water, oil, and gas the areas of greatest surface subsidence.
The coastal faults are the product of (1) loading by deposition
of sediments, (2) upward movement of salt masses, (3) gulfward
creep of the coastal land mass, and (4) bending of the coastal
-------
land mass due to regional tectonic subsidence. Loading or
sediment accumulation is perhaps the dominant cause of the
geologic development of Coastal Zone faults. The existing land
surface and sediment mass of the Texas Coast accumulated earlier,
mainly as thick delta deposits. Although loading from sediment
accumulation is not an important factor in the present-day Texas
Coastal Zone, an effect of load is accomplished by reducing the
degree to which the weight of the sediment mass is supported through
buoyancy by pore-space water or fluids. This, of course, takes
place when subsurface sediments are depressured by withdrawal of
interstitial materials water, gas, or oil. Fluid withdrawal can
activate movement along faults. Accordingly, the areas of most
frequent and active surface faults are coincident with areas of
high ground-water withdrawal. Most of the faults shown in the
work of the Bureau of Economic Geology are inactive at present,
but they may become active if triggered by significant ground-
water withdrawal.
Surface faults, particularly in the Houston area, have caused
numerous pavement breaks and foundation failures. They pose the
serious possibility of breaks in buried transmission lines (pipe-
lines and water mains). Sheets (1971) has indicated several cases
of structural damage in the Houston area due to fault movement.
Surface faults, either active or potentially active, in the Coastal
-------
Zone need cause no real hazard provided they are recognized.
Figure 1-5, page 14, shows the location and distribution of many
of the major fault trends in the area. Shown are both active
as well as dormant but potentially active faults. Future con-
struction should either be planned to avoid active or potentially
active faults or be engineered to accommodate movement and dis-
placement.
-------
TEXT REFERFNCF.
CHAPTER I: SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (SURFACE AND
SUBSURFACE SETTING)
APPENDIX EE: LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE IN THE HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA
PART II
BY:
R-,- K, GABRYSCH AND C, W- BONNET
U,S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, OPEN-FILE REPORT
PREPARED BY THE U,S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN COOPERATION WITH
THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND THE CITIES OF HOUSTON
AND GALVESTON, 1974
-------
LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE • IN THE
HOUSTON - G ALVESTON REG ION , TEXAS
ft. K. Gabrysch and C.' W.. Bonnet . "
•• , U.S.. Geological Survey
. ABSTRACT '
The pumping of largo amounts- of ground water in the IIouston-Galveston
region, Texas, has resulted in water-level declines of as much as 200 feet
(61 metres) in wells completed in the Chicot aquifer and as much as 325
feet (99 metres) in wells' completed in the Evangel ine aquifer during 1943-
73. The maximum annual rates of decline for 1943-73 were 6.7 feet (2.0
metres) in the Chicot aquifer :and 10.8 feet (3.3 metres) in the Evangel ine
aquifer. During 1964— 73,'- the1 maximum rates were 10 feet (3.0 metres)
in the Chicot and' 17. 8 feet (5.4 'metres) in the Evangeline. 'The declines
in artesian pressures 'have resulted in pronounced regional subsidence of
the land surface. '
The center of subsidence is at Pasadena, where as much as 7.5 feet
(2.3 metres) of 'subsidence occurred .between 1943 and 1973. More than 1.0
foot (0.3 metro). of subsidence occurred at Pasadena between 1906 and 1943.
Tine maximum amount of ' subsidence during 1964-73 was about 3.5 feet (1.1
metres) .
In the southern part of Harris -County, about 55 percent of the subsid-
ence is a result of compaction in the Chicot aquifer. The area 'in which
subsidence is 1 foot (0.3 metre) or more has .increased from about 350
.square miles (906 square kilometres) in 1954 to about 2,500 square miles
(6,475 square kilometres) in 1973.
Estimates of subsidence arc; based on the amount of water-level decline,
'I he thickness of the Clciy, and the compressibility of the clay. At Seabrook,
it i.s estimated that for each .1 foot (0.3 metre) of average water-level
decline, 1 foot: (0;3 metre) of clay would compact 0.000031 foot (0.00094
centimetre). At Seabrook, for 1 foot (0.3 metre) of water-level decline,
0.0248 foot.. (0. 756 centimetre) of .subsidence would occur.
Planned use of surface w;i.;:.f. r i a;-.tc;i.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Land-surface subsidence' has become critical in.parts o£ the Houston-
Galveston region of Texas. Some low-lying areas along Galveston Bay are
subject to inundation by normal tides,, and an even larger part of the
region.may be subject to catastrophic flooding by hurricane tides. .The
Houston-Galveston region, as described in this report, includes all of
Harris and Galveston Counties and parts of Erazoria, Fort Bend, Waller,
Montgomery, Liberty, and Chambers Counties. Figure 1 shows the principal
areas of ground-water .withdrawals in the region and the average rate of
pumping in 1972.
Several reports have described land-surface subsidence as a result of
compaction of fine-grained material in the subsurface (Winslow and Doyel,
1954; Winslow and Wood, 1959; and Gabrysch, 1969). The compaction is
caused.by loading due to pressure declines associated with the removal of
subsurface fluids, principally water, oil, and gas. These reports and
other reports listed in the references describe the geologic and hydrologic
conditions resulting in land-surface subsidence. A generalized cross
section of the hydrologic system is shown on figure 2. The Chicot and
Evangeline aquifers furnish all of the ground water pumped in the Ilouston-
Galveston region.
For those readers interested in using the metric system, metric
equivalents of English units of measurements are given in parentheses.
The English units used in this report may be converted to metric units
by the following conversion factors:
From
Unit
acre
foot
million gallons
per day
square mile
Abbrevi-
ation
„
ft
mgd
mi2
Multiply by
0.004047
0.3048
30.48
0.04381
1.609
To obtain
Unit
square kilometre
metre
centimetre
cubic metre
per second
square kilometre
Abbrevi-
ation
km2
m
cm
m3/s
km2
-------
FiGURS l.-Locclions of prir.cloa! sress of ground-water v.'ithdrav/sls and averase rates of pumping in 1S72
-------
td
H
I
I--
to
4CC
h 3600
400-0
-zoo
-IOO
S€3
lev:!
-100
-ZOO
-3CO
-400
-500
-600
-700
-eoo
-soo
-iOOO
-IKX)
-!2OO
I^'iR^ 2 -G*':trs!:t;i- hyc'.-c!cc;c 3sct;:n in ths Koustcn-Gr.ivss'on ri^ic
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF GROUND WATER IN THE
, ' HOUSTON-GALVESTON REGION
Houston Area
In 1887, when the pity of Houston purchased a private water-supply •
company,'the demand for water for municipal'supply was 1 to 2 mgd (0.04
to 0.09 m3/s). The demand grew steadily, and in 1972, the Houston Water
Department used 164 mgd (7.2 m3/s) of ground water'and about 58 mgd (2.5 .
m3/s) of treated surface water.
In 1973, the water department increased the use of surface water to
63 mgd (2.8 m3/s) and decreased the. use of ground water to 156 mgd (6.8
m3/s). Prior to 1954, at which time the ground-water supply was supple-
mented by surface water from Lake Houston, the total public supply was
obtained from the ground-water reservoirs. Public supply is the largest
use of ground water in the Houston area; in 1972, only 11 mgd (0.5 m3/s)
of a total of 195 mg'd (8.5 m3/s) pumped in the Houston area was used for
purposes other than public supply.
Pasadena Area
Pumping of ground water for industrial use in the Pasadena area began
near the end of World War I and grew steadily until 1936, when annual
pumpagc was about 15 mgd (0.5 m3/s). In 1937, the construction of a paper
mill increased the pumping rate to 30 mgd (1.3 m3/s). Production increased
rapidly during and following World War II.
Surface water from Lake Sheldon and the San Jacinto River was brought
into the area in 1942, but the amount of surface water used was less than
20 mgd (0.9 m3/s) until Lake Houston was completed in 1954. In 1953, 87
mgd (3.8 m3/s)'of ground water was used in the area. In 1972, 120 mgd
(5.3 m3/s) of ground water and 82 mgd (3.6 m3/s) of surface water was used.
In 1972, about 104 mgd (4.6 m3/s) of ground water was pumped for indus-
trial use.
-------
Texas City Area
Ground-water pumping in the Texas. City area increased from less than
2 mgd (0.09 m3/s) in 1930 to about 12 mgd (0.5 m3/s) in 1940, then increased
to about 24 mgd.(1.1 m3/s) in 1944 and 1945. Withdrawals decreased slightly
at the end of World War II, then decreased rapidly after 1948 when surface
water from the Brazos. River was brought into the area. Ground-water with-
drawals averaged about' 10 mgd (0.4 mVs) from 1950 to 1960, then gradually '
increased to 14 mgd' (0.6 m3/s.) in 1972. About 53 percent of the water
pumped in 1972 was for industrial use.
DECLINES IN WATER LEVELS
As a result of largc: amounts of water having been pumped from the
ground, the pressure in the artesian aquifers has declined. This decline
in pressure, reflected by lower water levels in wells, is the principal
cause of regioiial land-surface subsidence. Figures 3 and 4 show the
declines in water levels for 1964-73 and 1943-73 in wells tapping the
Chicot aquifer, and figures 5 and 6 show the declines in water levels
for the same periods in wells tapping the Evangeline aquifer. These1
periods correspond to' periods of releveling of lines of bench marks by
the National Geodetic 'Survey. • .
In the Pasadena and Baytown-LaPorte areas, where ground-water with-
drawals are heavily concentrated, the decline of water levels in wells
completed in the Chicot aquifer was about 200 feet (61 metres) during
1943-73. The maximum average rate of decline during 1943-73 was about
6.7 feet (2.0 metres) per year. During 1964-73, the center of the area
of maximum decline shifted eastward into the Baytown-LaPorte area, where
as much as 90 feet (27 metres) of water-level decline occurred. The max-
imum average rate of decline for the Chicot aquifer during 1964-73 was
10 feet (3.0 metres) per year.
Water levels in wells completed in the Evangeline aquifer declined
as much as 160 feet (48.8 metres) between 1964 and 1973, and as much as
325 feet (99 metres) between 1943 anu 1975. The maximum average rate of
decline during 196,4-73 was about 17.8 feet (5.4 metres) per year; the
maximum average rate/during 1943-73 was about 10.8 feet (3.3 metres) per
year.
• ' *
The maps showing water-li;vc 1 J^e !,,.os in the Evangel Jne aquifer were
constructed from water-level meusurciueui.s -in mult i screened wells. The
maps showing water-level decline:-, in the ClUcot aquifer are based on meas-
urements in multiscrecncd well;; in truj i;or-;-hwost half of the region and
on measurements in wells complotou in the basal sand of the Chicot aquifer
in tiie southeast half of the region.
EE-14
-------
\
\
EXPLANATION
4O LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE. Int.rmli 10 end 20 f«ot
(303ond S.IOmB.-.)
FIGURE 3.-.p.pproximste dsclinss of \vcter love's in v.'e'ls completed in tlis C'nicot aquifer, 1854-73
-------
.3 -.,-=
EXPLANATION
-tOO LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE. Interval 25 feet [7.62 mefors
\
FIGURE 4.-Approxirnate declines of water levels in v;s!!3 completed in t'ne Chicot aquifer, 19A3-73
-------
EXPLANATION
'O LINE OF EQUAL WATER-LEVEL
DECLINE. Interval] 10 and 20 liel
-' W ,.£' / "---../"G*"'-
,. Ji-f I /
FIGURE 5 -Approximate declines of water levels in v.-e'Is completed in the Evangeline aquifer, 1S64-73
-------
\
^
\
EXPLANATION
• tOO LINE OF EQUAL waTER-LEVEL
OECLINE. Intorvot 25 ltd (7 62 i
iGUHc 6.-Approximate declines of v/ater levels in wells comphted in t!ie Evan^elins aquifer, 1943-73
-------
The water-level declines shown on the map are composite average
declines in artesian pressure. Not every sand at a particular location
exhibits the same amount of pressure decline; therefore, not every clay
layer has the same amount of loading. Figure 7 shows the potentiometric
profile and depth to water in wells completed at different depths at
Baytown. The water level for the depth interval 390-500 feet (119-152
metres) was used in determination of the declines shown on figures 3 and
4.
COMPACTION AND LAND-SURFACE SUBSIDENCE
The withdrawal of water from an artesian aquifer results in an imme-
diate decrease in hydraulic pressure. With a reduction in pressure, an
additional load, equal to the reduction in pressure, is transferred to
the skeleton of the aquifer. The pressure difference between the sands
and clays causes water to move from the clays to the sands, and this in
turn results in compaction of the clays. Because the clays are mostly
inelastic, most of the compaction is permanent. Less than 10 percent
rebound can be expected from a total recovery of artesian pressure.
Figures 8 and 9 show the amount of subsidence in the Houston-
Galveston region for 1964-73 and 1943-73. These maps were constructed
from data obtained from the National Geodetic Survey leveling program,
supplemented by data from local industries. Some subsidence occurred
before 1943, but the amount is difficult to determine. Winslow and
Doyel (1954, p. 18) stated:
"The United States Coast and Geodetic Survey has established exten-
sive nets of first- and second-order level lines covering most of the
region. The first leveling in the region was the first-order line from
Smithville to Galveston, which was run in 1905 and 1906. The next was in
1918 when a first-order line was run from Sinton, Texas, to New Orleans,
Louisiana. During that period between 1932 and 1936 several other first-
and second-order lines were run and the two original lines were relcveled.
"In 1942 and 1943 a large number of second-order lines were estab-
lished in the region and most of the old lines were rcleveled. At this
time subsidence in the Houston area was noted from the results of leveling,
although the actual amount of subsidence was not determined because of
changes in datum."
-------
tc"Jh1v ^ ^ iX-
^--X_/-V M'W«- r' - --^V^ HftHHlii
tXPl.AMATION
FIGUfi£ &-SuUi(ienc«i o( the land turfaco, i913-73
EE-20
-------
An approximation of the amount and extent of the subsidence that
occurred between 1906 and 1943 is shown on ..figure 10. The maximum amount
of subsidence 'shown on figure 10'occurred in the Goose Creek oil field.
Pratt and Johnson '[1926) concluded that the withdrawal of oil and gas: from
the Goose Creek field, had caused 3.25 feet ,(1.0 metre) of subsidence
between 1918 and ,1925. Data .to determine subsidence since 1925 are not
available. Pratt 'and Johnson observed that subsidence was restricted to
the area of production..
Land-surface subsidence resulting from the pumping of ground water
first occurred in the Texas City area, where minor discrepancies in alti-
tude data were noticed between '1938: and 19-10 (American Oil Company, 1958).
Before subsidence was definitely known, the search for an outside source
of water was begun. After recognition of the subsidence problem, efforts
were made to obtain water for industrial use from outside the area, and
the delivery of surface water from the Brazos River began in 1948. Ground-
water pumping., for all uses decreased from about 24 mgd (Ivl m3/s) in 1948
to about 10 mgd (0.4.m3/s): in 1952.
The decrease .in ground-water withdrawals resulted in partial recovery
of artesian pressures in the--aquifers and in a greatly decreased rate of
subsidence. Only about 0.2 foot. (6.1 centimetres) of subsidence occurred
at Texas City in each of the two ,5-year periods 1954-59 and 1959-64. The
indicated rate of subsidence during those two periods was about 0.04 foot
(1.2 centimetres) per year compared to a reported rate of as much as 0.366
foot (11.2'centimetres) 'per year between 1940 and 1952.
Since 1964, a gradual increase in ground-water pumping in the Texas
City area and the effects of pumping outside the area have caused water
levels to decline to below their 1948 levels. An accelerated- rate of
land-surface subsidence is now occurring. Figure 8 shows that about .1.0
foot (0.5 metre) of subsidence occurred between 1964 and 1973, which is a
rate of about 0.11 foot (3.4 centimetres) per year.
The center of the largest subsidence "bowl" in the region is in tin;
vicinity of the Houston Ship Cahnnci at Pasadena. As much as 7.5 feet
(2.3 metres) .of subsidence occurred between 1943 and .1.973 (fig. 9.) . The
water-level declines due to pumping before .1937 and between 1937 ami UM3
caused subsidence in excess of J.O fool:. (0.3 metre) between 11)06 and H)43,
The maximum amount' of subsidence between 'ilJ6<1 and 1973 was about. 3.5 ieet
(1.1 metres); the average max'imuia rate of subsidence was about 0.4 foot.
(12.2'centimetres) per year-
The area of active subsidence :i s expand i ng. Between 1943 and 19T.4,
about 350 square miles (906 square kilometres) had subsided 1 foot. (0.3
metre) or more; by 1961, 1,350 square miles (3,497 square kilometres) had
subsided.! foot (0.3 metre) or more. By 1973, 2,500 square- miles (6,47(,
square kilometres) had subsided 1 .foot. (0.3 metro) or more. About: 4,700
square miles (12,173 square kilometres) subsided 0.5 foot (0.15 rnet:re) or
more between 1943 and 1973.
EE-21
-------
FIGURE 9 ^Approximate subsidence of the land surface, 1906-43
EE-22
-------
Except at low altitudes near the waterfront, subsidence is not gener-
ally recognized because it is regional in nature. The changes in altitudes
are not abrupt, and subsidence has npt caused-widespread structural damage.
Under the- several ground-water investigation programs in the Ilouslon-
Galveston region, borehole .cxtcnsonicters (compaction recorders) h;ivo boon
installed to monitor compaction. To date (1974), seven such monitors have
been installed at five Sites, and two additional monitors at two other
sites are planned. The first monitor was installed on the cast side of
Houston in 1958 in an abandoned well. The well failed in 1962 arid the
monitor was destroyed., The second monitor was installed in 1962 at the
Johnson Space Center and has been maintained since then. The compaction
monitored at this site and the subsidence are shown on figure 1.1. l-'ive
monitors were installed in 1973^-four sites: cast of Houston; west of
Baytown; at Seabrook; and.-at..'Texas City. The compaction recorded at these
sites is shown on-figure 12. ' . >,
At the Johnson.Space Center in southern Harris County, the land sur-
face subsided about '2.12 feet (0.65 metre) between 1964 and 1973 (fig. 11).
Compaction of the material between the land surface and a depth of 750.
feet (229 metres) was measured as.. 1.17 feet (0.357. metre) during the same
period. Therefore, 55 percent 'of the subsidence resulted from compaction
of the upper 750 feet (229 metres) of material. The monitor at this site
is recording all compaction in the Chicot aquifer.
Figure 12b shows the amount of compaction measured at two depth inter-
vals at Baytown. The upper curve shows that 0.038 foot (1.16 centimetres)
of compaction, from land surface to a depth of 431 feet (131 metres),
occurred from July 24, 1973, until April 5, 1974. The lower curve shows
that 0.088 foot (2.68 centimetres) of compaction, from land surface to a
depth of 1,475 feet (450 metres), occurred during the same period. The
estimated rate of subsidence at the site during 1964-73 was 0.19 foot
(5.79 centimetres) per year.
On the basis of this short period of record (8'i months) at Baytown,
about 28 percent of the'Subsidence is due .to compaction between the land
surface and a depth of 431 feet (131 metres), 37 percent is due to compac-
tion from 431 to 1,475 feet (131 to 450 metres), and 35 percent is due to
compaction below l,475>feot (450 metres).
Dctailed''analysis of subsidence, artesian-pressure declines, total
clay-bed thickness, individual clay-bod tii ickucss, clay properties, and
pressure profiles at sites at Baytown, Texas City, and Seabrook indicates
the following:
1. The change in pressure in bol.'h sand ami clay layers varies from
one depth to-another; measurement of a single well does not necessarily
define the changes in pressure in the entire aquifer.
EE-23
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND (SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING)
APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF SOILS ABSTRACTED FROM THE 1922
SOILS SURVEY. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
-------
SOILS SURVEY OF HARRIS COUNTY 1922 FIG. E-l
•* V:| PROPOSED PROJECT] k
LAKE CHARLES VERY FINE
SANDY LOAM
LAKE CHARLES SHALLOW PHASE
Ev EDNA VERY FINE SANDY LOAM
tc1 LAKE CHARLES CLAY
1.5 MILES
-------
SOIL SURVEY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
(J. S. D A. - 1922
Acreage and- proportionate extent of each type of soil in Harris County
Type of soil
Lafte Charles clay
Lake Charles very fine sandy
loam
Lake Charles fine sandy loam,
shallow phase
Tffltv finft sntidy loam
Poorly drained ohase
Hocklev fine sandy loam
Rolling phasp. __
Hockley fine sand. _
Acadia fine sandy loam
Acadia very fine sandy loam.
Acadia clay loam
Acadia clav
Morse clay
Acres
270, 912
6,784
100, 352
89,536
19, 776
6,OSfl
111,372
12 416
85, 504
30,656
1, 9S4
30, 144
S3, 5E4
81,472
58.432
2.363
13,056
5,568
Per I
cent 1
} 24. 6 ,
]• in. 8 ,
1.7
.5
} 11.0
} 10.2
.2
2.6
7.4
7.2
5.2
.2
1.2
.5
Type of soil
Erirm vp.ry firm snnriy Inam
Ora^ppbnr[T firm sandy Irmm
Kahnia sand __ . _
Kalmia fine sandy loam.
SusquPhanna fine sandy loam
Pus'juphanna clay loam
Lnfkin rl.Ty In^m
Tnnitv clav
Ochlockonco sand
Ochlockonee fine sand
Ochlnckonee clay
Harris fine sand - -
Harris clay . .
Tidal marsh •...
Made land _-
Total
Acres
36,603
2,048
7,104
7,488
8,128
0,461
9,210
3,072
1,024
2,024
3,204
570
5,376
13,184
2,112
3,072
4,800
2,944
1,129,600
Per
cent
3.2
.2
.6
.7
.7
.6
.8
.3
.1
.2
.3
.1
.5
1.2
.2
.3
.4
.3
, \ t •' — ~\
LAKE CHARLES CLAY (__ L C J [ ' |
The surface soil of Lake Charles clay consists of dark ashy-gray
or black clay, in many places showing some very faint rusi-bro\vii
mottling, changing at depths from 18 to 26 inches into ashy-gray,
bluish-gray, or dark-gray heavy clay, with brown or yellowish-
brown mottlings. The lower subsoil is light ashy-gray or light
bluish-gray clay, mottled or streaked with some brownish yellow.
Although the dark color of the surface usually penetrates to a
'k'pth of about 2 feet. t^eve are plares where a^hy-gray olny occurs-
at depths from 12 to 1^ indie;. In a very lew places the dark-
color of the surface continues to a depth of 3 or more feet. The
subsoil in some places tends toward a yellowish-brown color.
because of yellow and brown mottling, whereas in borings taken
only a few rods distant, the brownish and yellowish mottlings are
absent. In rare instances a faint-reddish mottling is encountered
at a depth of about 3 feet. Dark-brown iron concretions are pres-
ent in the subsoil, usually below 24 inches, a few occurring in places
close to the surface. Occasional lime concretions are present in
the lower subsoil, and the underlying substratum contains lime
concretions in quantities varying from scattered concretions to
abundant beds. This substratum is encountered at depths varying
from 42 inches to 8 or more feet.
The soil is very sticky when wet, but when dry that from culti-
vated fields crumbles like the black limy soils of the State, whereas
that from uncultivated areas does not crumble but cracks deeply
on drying. The wet subsoil is very plastic.
Mapped areas of this soil include small patches of Lake Charles
clay, shallow phase, and of Lake Charles clay loam, which are too
small to indicate on the map.
Although this is a prairie soil, some forest growth is present on
it where it is adjacent to other forested soils. Trees seem to be
advancing steadily out upon the prairies in nearly all parts of the
county. (PI. LIV, fig. 2.)
Late Charles clay is the most extensive and most important soil,
and it occurs particularly in the southeastern half of the countv.
E-2
-------
Areas of the Lake Charles clay are nearly flat, the -virgin ureas
having a slightly hummocky surface. A few small bare alkali or
slick spots occur in areas of'this soil, but they are less common than
on the lighter-textured soils. Drainage is poor.
Probably over half of this soil is under cultivation and the re-
mainder i's utilized as pasture. These pastures in the original
unbroken condition are heavily covered with carpet grass, broom
sedge, and other wild prairie grasses. Bushes and clumps of wax
myrtle are present and are abundant in some places. Where culti-
vated land has been allowed to revert to pasture, many weeds have
appeared, thereby greatly decreasing the grazing value of the land.
The most common weeds are ragweed, broomweed, goatweed, bitter-
weed, and crab grass.
The principal crops grown on Lake Charles clay are corn, cotton,
and rice. Considerable hay is cut from the pastures, and small quan-
tities of other crops, such as sweet potatoes, potatoes, _ and garden
vegetables are grown for home use and markets. A little fruit is
grown, but it seems to do belter on lighter soils. Pears and plums
succeed fairly well where the land is sloping and has good drainage.
Blackberries and dewberries give good returns. Corn yields from
15 to 45 bushels an acre, cotton from one-fifth to three-fourths bale,
and rice from 20 to 85 bushels, depending on the season, tillage, and
control of weeds. Both sorgo and sugar cane are grown to some
extent. Bermuda grass has been introduced into some of the pas-
tures to advantage, but some farmers object to it because of the diffi-
culty of keeping it out. of cu.h'valL-cl tields. Sudan grass does very
well'. Legume^., .such as ccnvpidi, /rosvn in rotat'.i;-ji with oi;>..r crop-",
with a green crop occasionally plowed under would increase the
supply of organic matter in the soil, 111:11'irg it Busier u> worK and
giving it a greater drought-resisting capacity.
Less fertilizer is used on this soil th•"••.! on the more sandv soils.
Phosphate is needed mainly on the heavy roils, and a light application
of nitrogen fertilizer proves beueiicial in mony puices.
Owing to the poor drainage conditions on mu"h of this land, plant-
ing is sometimes retarded by excessive rains driving the spring, the
heavy clay soil wanning more slowly fhrin the more s:mdy soils.
Good drainage would improve Li'.ke Chnilcs cl^y. (PI. LV, fig. 1.)
This land sells for $30 to SlOO an acre, dependiv.g on the acreage in
cultivation, drainage, closeness to roadf and towns, and improve-
ments. (LmJdD
Lake -Charles clay, shallow phase.—The surface, soil of the shallow
phase of Lake Charles clay consists of black, dark-gray, or dark
brownish-gray clay 8 or 10 inches deep cverlyijv; brownish-gray clay,
slightly lighter in color than the surface soil and usually more plas-
tic. Below a depth of 20 inches the sub. -iil becomes light gray and
contains a quantity of lime parades aid concretions, and at a depth
of about 3 feet the material is light-gr^y or graj. ish-yellow clay, con-
taining rrii.iiy whitHi Y\cw p-uUcies ar^ ~or;v^>nis. The surface
soil in many places is calcareous, and li:ne in considerable quantities
is usually encountered at a depth of about tM inches. However, there
are spots where neither the surface soil nor (ho nibsoil react to tests
for lime.
This _ shallow soil closely resembles I/ike Chorles clay, differing
chiefly in the lighter color and more calc.:rcou* nature of'the subsoil.
In some included patches the soils are light gray in color, and in
places lime concretions are plentiful on the srrface, notably on the
small hummocks where yellow clay subsoil COM:'?, near Ihe, surface.
The subsoil is rarely mottled like'Lake Ohar>.; clay. The soil is
sticky and plastic when wet but has a tendency to crumble when dry.
A few small areas of Lake Charles clay loam i;nd some patches of
fine sand, too small to map separately, havo been included with this
phase as mapped. A few slick spots occur. At Lynchburg, on a
slight ridge above the area of Harris clay, there is a very dark-
brown or black calcareous clay soil which hr;;s yellow or greenish-
yellow calcareous clay below the surface. Oyster shells occur over
the surface of this ridge, undoubtedly scattered bv man. This phase
is of small extent, occurring chiefly in the southern part of the county,
m small areas usually surrounded by Lake Charles clay. It is a
prairie soil and in its original state is heavily covered with carpet
-------
grass, sedge grass, and other grasses common to the Lake Charles
soils. Some wax myrtle and partridge pea grow on the soil.
_ Less than half of this land is cultivated. With the exception of
rice, which is rarely grown, the same crops are grown as on the Lake
Charles clay, and the same farming practices followed. On account
of its nature, this soil is suited to the growing of legumes, especially
cowpeas. Alfalfa probably could not be grown except in some
poping areas alonsr rtreams where drainage is good. This ?oil would
"je greatly benefited by improved drainage, rind the heavy surface
fcoil would be made more friable by plowiKg luuL-r vegetable matter.
Land values range from $55 to $85 an acre.
T.AKTl CHARLES VERY FINE SANDY LOAM/ [_ V
Lake Charles very fine sandy loam is a dark-brown loamy very fine
sand or very fine sandy loam, underlain at depths ranging from 12
to 30 inches by brown sandy clay loam material which grades down-
ward abruptly into brown or mottled brown and yellowish-brown
tough clay, the yellow color increasing with depth, and usually pre-
dominating in the lower subsoil, where some gray mottling' occa-
sionally is present. On high mounds the brown sandy material is
deeper, and in the depressions the color of the soil is darker, and clay
is ordinarily reached nearer the surface. Some depressions contain
black very fine sandy loam, fine sandy loam, and fine sandy clay loam
overlying dark-brown, mottled dark-brown, or yellowish-brown clay
with some red mottling. Other depressions include material of the
same texture, but not so dark in color.
Neither the surface soil nor subsoil are calcareous, and if there is a
deep lime-bearing stratum below this soil it lies at depths below 8 or
10 feet.
Sandy mounds, similar to those on areas of Lake Charles clay loam
but more numerous, and ranging in height from about 6 to 18 inches,
and in diameter from 15 to 25 feet, are common on this land. A few
alkali or slick snots occur.
Mapped areas of this soil include patches of Edna soils, and some
soils that are darker brown at the surface and resemble Hockley fine
sandy loam. In a few places the texture of the first 3 or 4 inches of
surface soil approaches fine sandy loam, fine sand, or very fine sand.
The subsoil in some localities is clay loam material of brownish or
yellowish-brown color, and in these areas clay occurs at a depth of
42 inches. In other localities the lower subsoil is gray or yellow with
mottlings of brown, dark bluish gray, and some red. Some iron con-
cretions occur, particularly in the lower subsoil.
Lake Charles very fine sandy loam occurs as level areas or as the
numerous small mounds and water-holding depressions of the Lake
Charles prairies. The drainage is usually poor, except on slopes
which border streams.
This tj'pe of soil is small in extent and of minor importance from
an agricultural point of view. It is a prairie soil, occurring chiefly
in the north-central part of the county, and the virgin areas support
a fairly good growth of native grasses. Most of it is utilized for
pasture and hay land, with perhaps 25 per cent of it in cultivation
at the present time. Vv'here once cultivated and then allowed io lie
idle, a dense growth of weeds spreads over the land, greatly reduc-
ing its value as pasture land. Corn is the principal crop, yielding
from 8 to 20 bushels an acre. A little cotton is grown but the yield
is light. Considerable sorgo is grown on this land, and potatoes,
peanuts, and truck crops do well when fertilized. In a few localities
where drainage conditions are better than the average, strawberries,
blackberries, "and raspberries are grown successfully. This land
ranges in price from $10 to $35 an acre.
Most of the Lake Charles very fine sandy loam would be benefited
by drainage. Its greatest need is organic matter, which may be
added in the form of barnyard manure or by growing and occasion-
ally turning under a green-manure crop, such as cowpeas. Sudan
grass could probably bo grown successfully on this soil. Bermuda
grass is grown to some extent and increases the value of the pasture,
and also produces hay of good quality.
-------
EDNA VERY FTNB SANDT LOAM
The surface soil of Edna very fine sandy loam is brownish-gray
or ashy-gray very fine sandy loam with faint mottlings of rust-brown
and gray, underlain at a depth of G or 8 inches by gray very fine
sandy loam with yellowish-brown or pale-yellow and bluish-gray
mottlings, the gray color increasing with depth. The subsoil, con-
sisting of rather tough bluish-gray fine sandy clay mottled in varying
degrees with yellowish brown and containing some pockets of light-
gray very fine sandy loam, occurs at about 20 inches. Some lime
nodules are brought up by ants from the substratum, but other cal-
careous material is not present. The lower subsoil is usually stiff
plastic clay ranging in color from light gray with brown mottlings
to bluish gray with yellowish-brown and light-gray mottlings. The
subsoil is noncalcareous, although an occasional lime concretion is
present below a depth of 30 inches. Iron concretions occur in places
in the lower part of the subsoil.
Drainage is imperfect and many crawfish holes have been formed.
The areas are flat or billowy, similar to the areas of other prairie
soils, and have numerous mounds and depressions. These depres-
sions are from 6 inches to 2 feet below the general level of the sur-
rounding plain and the soil in them is usually ashy gray at the
surface and of clay loam texture. Many of these depressed areas
are partially surrounded by low ridges of sandy material, probably
of wind-blown origin, which range from 6 to 12 inches in height and
from 10 to 20 feet in width.
On the larger level areas this type of soil includes patches of Lake
Charles very fine sandy loam, Edna clay loam, and Edna fine sandy
loam. In some places areas of this soil grade into areas of Katy and
Hockley soils so gradually that it is difficult to differentiate between
them. Small bodies of these soils have therefore been included in
mapped areas -of Edna very fine sandy loam. Here and there low
sandy mounds are very numerous.
This type of soil, although rather extensive, is of little agricultural
importance. The numerous small areas occur through the central
part of the county. Practically none of the land is tilled. The
grasses are coarse and of low nutritive value, though some hay is cut.
A few small areas of Edna very fine sandy loam occur in asso-
ciation with the forested Acadia soils, which have a scrubby scat-
tered growth of cypress, elm, and other trees, and usually an abund-
ance of wild coffee bean. Some areas where water stands for long
periods are practically bare of vegetation. If drained, this soil
might produce a good quality of hay if Bermuda and other grasses
were introduced.
The current selling price of this land ranges from $5 to $12 an
acre.
There are some patches of Edna clay loam where the topsoil con-
sists of light ashy-gray clay loam, 6 or 8 inches deep, with faint
mottlings of light gray or brownish gray. This ashy-gray clay loam
may continue below 3 feet, but usually below a depth of 6 or 8 inches
the material is light bluish-gray clay loam with whitish mottlincs,
which at a depth of about 2-i inches grades into ashy-gray or light
bluish-gray stiff impervious clay, mottled with brown and yellowish
brown. The surface soil is brownish gray in some localities and
approaches loam or very fine sandy loam in texture. In some areas
the heavy clay subsoil is encountered at a depth of 15 or 20 inches
and is a bluish-gray, iticky, plastic clay. A few scattered iron con-
cretions are present below 21 inches. Both surface soil and subsoil
are noncalcareous. although here and there a lime nodule occurs in
the lower subsoil, but the material surrounding it does not react to
the lime test. Small dome-shaped sandy mounds and alkali spots are
numerous on areas of this soil, the mounds giving a billowy appear-
ance to the surface.
The fiat surface of Edna clay loam land results in poorer drainage
as compared with other prairie soils. The smaller areas usually occur
in slight depressions from 6 inches to 2 feet below the general level of
the surrounding prairies, in which water often stands for long
periods.
-------
TEXT REFERENCF:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND (SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING)
APPENDIX F: SUMMARY OF SEVEN SOILS TYPES CHARACTERISTICS FOR
HARRIS COUNTY (SOUTH-SOUTHEAST)
BY:
DR, CHARLES F, DODGE, CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON
-------
SUMMARY OF SEVEN SOILS TYPES CHARACTERISTICS FOR
HARRIS COUNTY (SOUTH-SOUTHEAST) 1974
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 potential.
The Beaumont (Ba) Soil Series covers several areas to the east,
west, and northwest of the Dome Stadium. Beaumont soils are up to
100 inches thick and, with a Plasticity Index ranging from 35 to 65,
have a high Shrink-Swell potential. These poorly drained, very
slowly permeable soils have a slope range of up to 1%. A pH
range of 4.5 to 7.8 makes them highly corrosive to steel and
moderately so to concrete.
The Bernard (Bd) Soil Series is extensively developed in the
service area and over much of southcentral Harris County. Bernard
soils are up to 78 inches thick. They have a Plasticity Index range
of 12 to 45, with moderate to high Shrink-Swell potential. Soil
pH ranges from 6.1 to 8.4 and varies with depth; corrosivity is
high to steel and low to concrete. The Bernard is a somewhat
poorly drained, very slowly permeable upland soil, with slopes
of usually less than 1%.
F-l
-------
The Edna (Ed) Soil Series does not occur in the service area;
however, it is found in combination with the Bernard soils and is
shown on the map as Bernard-Edna (Be). Soil depth is up to 65 feet.
It is a poorly drained, very slowly permeable upland soil, with
slopes ranging from 0% to 5%. The Plasticity Index ranges from
4 to 46, and the Shrink-Swell potential ranges from low to high,
with depth. The pH ranges from 5.6 to 8.4, with depth; the corrosivity
to steel is high, but low to concrete. The Bernard-Edna soils are
found extensively in the service area and over much of southcentral
Harris County.
The Gessner (Ge) Soil Series has a limited extent in the service
area, being restricted to the southcentral 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.
The Lake Charles (Lc) Soil Series covers a major part of both
the service area and of southcentral Harris County. It occurs in
depths up to 100 inches and is a somewhat poorly drained, very
slowly permeable, upland soil with slopes of mainly less than 1%.
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
F-2
-------
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.
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 Indices. 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 classification. Septic tank absorption fields, sanitary
landfills and cover, shallow excavations, dwellings with or without
basements, small commercial buildings, and local streets and roads
are all rated as severe on the Soils Survey Interpretations range.
F-3
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND (SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING)
STREAM FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA FOR BRAYS AND
SIRS.BAYOUS AT;
1) MAIN STREET BRIDGE
2) HIRAM CLARKE STREET
3) STATE HIGHWAY 35
4) SCOTT STREET
-------
LOCATION FOR WATER FLOW & QUALITY DATA
FIG.G-1
SCOTT ST
BRAYS BAYOU &
MAIN ST. BRIDGE
SIMS BAYOU &
STATE HWY0 35
SIMS BAYOU &
HIRAM CLARKE
-Gl,-
-------
STREAM FLOW FOR SIMS AND BRAYS BAYOU:
Water discharge data for Brays Bayou presented in Table G-l
were recorded at the Main Street bridge, which lies north of the
service area. During the period October 1971-September 1972, the
mean discharge was 146 cubic feet per second (cfs) ranging on a
monthly basis from a minimum of 33 cfs to a maximum of 11,700 cfs.
Similar data on the water discharge of Sims Bayou recorded at Hiram
Clarke Street to the west of the service area are presented in
Table G-2, During the same period of time, the mean discharge at
this location was 22.2 cfs, the monthly variation of which fluctuated
to a maximum of 2,020 cfs. Data on the stream flow of Sims Bayou
recorded at State Highway 35, which lies east of the service area,
are presented in Table G-3. The mean discharge during October 1971-
September 1972 was 76.2 cfs, varying monthly from a minimum of 18 cfs
to a maximum of 3,930 cfs.
WATER QUALITY FOR SIMS AND BRAYS BAYOU;
Table G-4 presents water quality data for Brays Bayou t^o:; at
the Main Street bridge, during the period October 1970-September 1971.
The BOD at this location ranged from 2 mg/1 to 31 mg/1. Table G-5
presents water quality data for Brays Bayou at the Scott Street
location, a point north of the service area and closer to the junction
of the bayou and the Houston Ship Channel than the Main Street
bridge. The BOD ranged from 1.6 mg/1 to 12 mg/1 during the same
period of time. Water quality data for the period of October 1970-
September 1971 for Sims Bayou at Hiram Clarke Street are presented
in Table G-6, indicating a BOD range of 2.3 mg/1 to 19 mg/1.
G-2
-------
TABLE G-J.
Water Discharge Data: Brays Bayou at Main Street Bridge
SA.M JACINTO RIVER BASIN
C807SOOO Brays Bayou at Houston, Tei.
lOCATIOM.--l.at 29**1M9", long 95*24'43", Harris County, near right bank at do»nstrea.Ti side of pile bent of Main Street Bridge
In scuthnest section of Houston, 1.6 miles upstream frcvv Harris Gully, and 11.6 miles upstream from Buffalo Bayou.
DRAINAGE AaEA.'--83.4 sq m).
PERIOD OF RECCRO.--rViy 1936 to current year.
GAGE.--Vit5r-stage recorder. Datun of gage is 3.90 ft below r»an sea level; unadjusted for land-surface subsidence. Prior to
June ZO, 1935, r.onrecordlng gage and .June 20, 1935, to Nov. 25, 1959, water-stage recorder at site 0.8 mile downstream at sane
0
3,^.516
53.565
D!SOJU>SE
cisch/vcE
6,430
5.0:0
34
505
172
64
1.930
1.380
524
310
253
230
127
219
117
74
106
76
253
93
55
52
51
49
51'
50
44
40
43
46
46
71
r I
7,121
230
1.930
34
14,120
MEAN
"£AS
: OASE,
i DATE
5-12
6-10
67
49
49
56
49
47
45
44
46
47
48
44
42
42
41
40
' 41
87
117
94
45
42
41
44
«' *°
40
44
44
56
3y t fi
• £. \ V
7 1 e
• 13
5,416
175
3.210
40
10,740
106 WAX
146 Hit
4. SCO CFS)
TIME G.
C33C 40
1215 35
Water Resources Data
United States
364 68
219 53
145 56
87 52
67 46
134 49
72 48
61 50
SS 49
62 50
1.590 49
751 50
273 49
166 43
114 92
75 63
61 46
54 45
49 43
48 876
49 1.230
• 50 609
'50 -26$
49 140
43 75
46 56
46 54
49 56
128 52
4,970 4,582
171 14Q
1,590 l.?30
44 43
9,860 9,090
3.610 H!N 24
t.460 MIN 33
HT. DISCHARGE
.'.6 11.7CO
.82 7,470
for Texas .
Department of the
42
41
44
46
44
46
47
46
45
48
47 Z
46 4
45 1
44
45
42
45
46
49
'48
233
87.
43
43
44
46
512
199
54
i -1
^ J
2.207 12
73.6
512 4
41
4,330 24
AC-FT 76.400
AC-Ff 106.200
Part 1:
Interior,
42
103
42
33
38
38
802
194
72
535
.010
,460
,650
320
417
240
142
107
167
73
52
30 /-
60'
50
45
45
42
• 44
49
41
,592
406
,460
38
.980
42
75
60
55
55
59
59
53
59
2.050
302
93
65
78
S2
265
153
151
33
55
30
in
65
50
45
47
47
46
45
60
4,463
149
2,050
42
8,850
50
45
46
111
153
80
60
SO
50
110
60
50
73
140
102
70
119
70
50
50
50
112
65
50
43
45
80
150
100
Trt
f 0
2.449
79.0
153
45
4,360
60
50
ao
60
SO
so
50
45
45
45
50
SO
60
50
50
50
45
45
45
300
100
70
100
80
60
50
60
50
50
50
45
1.995
64.4
300
45
3.960
Surface Water Records
Geological
Survey
. P-
45
45
45
45
45
CO
60
50
52
207
92
5S
55
241
120
46
43
44
45
44
42
61
41,
331
227
424
250
93
81
630
3,642
121
630
42
7.220
1972
263.
G-3
-------
TABLE G-2
Water Discharge Data; Sims Bayou at Hiram Clarke Street
SAW JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075400 S1ns Bayou at Htrii Clarke Street. Houston. Tei.
ICC'TION.— Lit 29'37'07', Icrg 9S'2S'«5", Harris County, on right bank at dwnstrean side of bridge en Hlra.n Clarke Street In southwest
section at Hcn-stcn. 12.7 riles upstream fron gage, Sins Bayou it fasten, and \ of 192°9, adjustment of 1959; unadjusted for land-surface
subsidence.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE. --8 years. 22.2 cfs (16.080 acre-ft per year).
EXTPEPES. --Current ye>r: Paii.-./! discharge, 2,020 cfs I'jy 12 (elevation, 51.30 ft); ninimm dally. 4.0 cfs July 7, 9.
Period of record: .Hiji-.jr discharge, 2,320 cfs Hay 21, 19?C; ca«ir.uo elevation, 52.77 ft Oct. 11, 1970; mlninun dally discharge*
1.5 cfs July 26. 1365.
REKV.KS. --Records fair. So krown diversion 'above station. Lew f ! ?* rartly sustained by sewace effluent fron Houston suburbs.
Records furnisrel by 1-:.s'.:". Li;-ti-g and ?o-?r Ccrpany snow tra: cl-rin^ t*e water year 19/2. 439 acre-ft of ground water was
used for coollnj purscses anj released to taycu about 300 ft a=c»e gage. Recording rain gage located «t station.
!•* C'JRIC FEtT v-F.rf SECOND.
TEAS OCFOHP.W 1971 TO SEPrf*afH H72
OCT
DEC
JAN
FEH
APR
HAT
JUN
JX DISCKA-X (3ASE. ECO CFS)
GATE TIrC EUV. C'.SOV.;.?
13
IS
23
17
10
7.B '
•,.8
7..i
7.0
6.1
6.1
6.6
11
21
17
12
la
17
11
8.8
a. 3
7.-)
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.7
9y
• <
9-t
• C
322.2
10. *
23
5.2
619
2.71
1971 TOT
1972 TOT
9.2
9.2
4.6
7.7
ft. 4
a. 2
7. a
6.*
7. a
7.8
7.3
0.0
9.1
7.5
3.2
9.4
•».3
23
12
a.o
7.0
6.0
IS
7.J
6.1)
5.5
5.5
S.-,
6.4
75
. C
253.3 li
3.i4
29
5.4
514
1.29
AL 6,537.3
AL 3, 116.9
•J.S
55
4.)
It
3
-------
TABLE G-3
Water Discharge Data: Sims Bayou at State Highway 35
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
03075500 Sins Bayou 4t Houston, Tex.
LOCATION.—Lat 29'40'27", long 95'17'Zl'. Harris County, on left bank at downstream side of bridge on State Highway 35 1n southeast
section of Houston and 7.0 miles upstream from routh.
DRAINAGE AREA.-64.0 sq nl. *
PERIOD OF RECORD.—October 1952 to current year.
CAGE.—Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage Is 0.61 ft below mean sea level, datum of 1929, adjustment of 1957; unadjusted for
land-surface subsidence.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.—20 years, 62.3 cfs (45,140 icre-ft per year).
EXTREMES.—Current year: Ma*1r.um discharge, 3,930 cfs May 12 (gage height, 23.38 ft); mlniimn (iiily, 18 cfs Nov. 15, Aug. 13,
19. 30. 31.
Period of record: Maximum discharge. 8,800 cfs May 21, 1970 (gage height. 30.22 ft); riin.-um dally, 0.9 cfs Aug. 7, 1955.
REMARKS.--Records fair. Low flow 1s largely sustained by sewage effluent from Houston suburbs Td Industrial wastes.
REVISIONS (WATER YEARS).—USP 1922: 1960.
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. WATER TEAR OCTOBER 1971 TO SEPTEMBER 1972
OAT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
HAY
JUN
JUL
AUS
SEP
I 22
Z 22
3 24
4 77
s aa
6 47
7 38
a 29
9 24
10 24
11 24
12 23
13 23
14 22
15 21
16 30
17 64
18 50
19 30
20 58
21 56
22 29
23 24
24 22
25 22
26 26
27 24
28 25
29 25 .
•11 £
TOTAL 1.042
MEAN 33.6
MAX 83
KIN 21
AC-FT 2.070
C»L YR 1971 TOTAL
*TR YR 1972 TOTAL
fEAX DISCHARGE (BASE,
26
25
24
23
23
24
24
23
25
24
22
20
19
19
18
19
19
122
38
21
19
20
84
32
24
21
21
22
22
^2
345
23.2
122
18
1.630
17,740
27,394
1 ,6CO CFS)
22
258
146
44
1,450
1,270
397
146
129
108
55
157
105
52
88
52
48
36
32
29
27
24
23
23
22
21
21
24
t "
23
4.873
157
1.450
21
9.680
•TAN 48
*tAN 76
.--Dec. 5
SOURCE: Water Resources
37
47
26
45
33
31
25
23
24
23
23
23
23
22
21
21
22
31
165
136
39
31
28
26
22
21
23
25
27
flT
2.168
69.9
722
21
4,300
.6 M4J
158
80
47
31
26
46
39
23
27
28
754
612
217
65
61
47
37
33
30
2->
2'>
3)
3}
30
28
28
28
23
51 '
2,697
93.0
754
26
5.350
< 1.450
.2 MAX 2.390
(1SCO) 2,
Data
840 cfs (21
51
30
27
25
24
24
26
26
28
29
28
27
25
25
65
265
70
36
26
37
172
66
39
32
28
26
25
26
27
y 7
c t
1,389
44.8
265
24
.2,760
MIN 15
HIN 18
22
21
21
22
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
21
21
22
21
20
19
20
19
20
33
43
20
20
20
19
406
252
41
'
1,297
43.2
406
19
2,570
AC-FT 35.
AC-FT S5i
.33 ft); Hay 12 (1600)
for Texas .
Part I
21
250
100
40
25
20
250
100
43
211
1.530
2.390
1.090
313
140
59
51
37
32
30
27
27
26
25
25
26
24
23
24.
y *
cc
7.005
226
2,390
20
13,390
190
310
3.930 Cfs
24
23
35
23
21
20
21
21
20
641
534
104
49
35
23
467
239
56
34
26
24
24
25
24
23
22
23
22
23
"
•2.453
83.6
641
20
5,270
(23.33 ft).
24
21
20
41
47
23
20
21
22
44
42
22
29
43
40
21
25
26
72
45
67
52
32
21
21
19
21
34
34
• • -4 T "
* J
1,054
34.0
72
19
2,090
24
21
23
24
21
20
19
20
19
27
25
23
21
30
44
22
19
18
18
38
93
25
74
66
51
41
33
22
21
1 A
1 O
938
30.3
93
18
1,860
: Surface Water Records,
21
24
23
26
24
33
33
29
25
23
25
32
27
40
37
29
20
19
19
19
21
21
38
153
170
237
224
133
54
•»i q
JO7
1.915
63.3
369
19
3.800
1972
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, p. 265.
G-5
-------
TABLE G-4
Water Quality Data: Brays Bayou at Main Street Bridge
SAM JAC1NTO RIVER BASIN
08075000 BRATS BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.
LOCATION.--Lat 29°41'49", long 95°24'43", Harris County, at gaging station on Main Street bridge in southwest
section of Houston, 1.6 miles upstrean from Harris Gully, and 11.6 miles upstrean fron Buffalo Bayou.
DRAINAGE AREA.--88.4 sq mi.
PERIOD OF RECORD Chemical and blochenical analyses: October 1968 to September 1971.
Pesticide analyses: October 1968 to September 1971.
REMARKS.--See Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flows.
WATER QUALITY DATA, XATER TEAR OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1971
DATE
DEC.
02...
FEB.
12...
WAR.
18...
ie...
19...
MAY
10...
24...
JULY
21...
AUG.
03...
« 06. «.
30...
TIME
1115
1135
1520
1925
0900
1130
1015
1030
1150
1300
1115
DIS-
CHARGE
CCFS)
43
37
750
625
112
32
380
155
235
710
80
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(MG/L)
24
22
4.5
7.0
12
40
6.9
14
12
8.9
16
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
(CA)
-------
TABLE G-4(Cont'd)
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075000 BRAYS BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.--Continued
WATER OUALITr DATA, WATER YEAS OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1971
DATE
DEC.
02...
FEB.
12...
MAR.
18...
18...
19...
MAY
10...
24...
JULY
21...
AUG.
03...
06.. •
30...
IMME-
DIATE
COLI-
FOHM
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
22000
170
700000
7HOOOO
?0000
--
180000
2100
71000
--
~
FECAL
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
100 HL)
270
100
54000
50000
250
--
20000
1100
*>00
--
--
STREP-
TOCOCCI
(COL-
ONIES
PER
100 ML)
—
--
—
--
«
--
22000
1
76
--
--
PHENOLS
(UG/L)
--
--
--
--
—
0
4
_-
4
10
IIS
MF.THY-
LENE
BLUE
ACTIVE
SUB-
STANCE
(MG/L)
.00
.05
.00
.00
.00
.05
.00
.00
.00
.01
• .42
OIL
AND
GREASE
(MG/L)
—
__
._
.-
--
-.
10
10
__
.-
—
DIS-
SOLVED
ALUM-
INUM
(AL)
(UG/L)
«
.-
_.
40
-.-
—
—
—
«
--
--
DIS-
SOLVED
ARSENIC
OS)
(UG/LI
--
--
._
0
—
«
--
10
--
-.
—
DIS-
SOLVED
CAD-
MIUM
(CO)
(UG/L)
--
--
__
0
~
--
--
1
--
«
--
DIS-
SOLVED
CHRO-
MIUM
(CR)
(UG/L)
—
—
_
_
~
—
--
0
--
—
—
DATE
DEC.
02...
FER.
12...
MAR.
18...
18...
19...
MAY
10...
24...
JULY
21...
AUG.
03...
06...
30...
DIS-
SOLVED
COBALT
(COI
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
COPPER
(Cu)
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
IRON
(TE)
(UG/L)
nis-
SOLVED
LEAD
IPS)
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
LITHIUM
(LI)
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
MAN-
GANESE
(MNI
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
MERCURY
(HG)
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
NICKEL
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
STRON-
TIUM
(SR)
(UG/L)
DIS-
SOLVED
ZINC
(ZN)
(UG/L)
IS
13
10
30
11
2.2
7.6
110
50
DATE
MAR.
18...
19...
MAY
10...
24...
JULY
21...
AUG.
03...
04...
DATE
MAR.
18...
19...
MAY
10...
24...
JULY
21...
AUG.
03...
06...
TIME
1520
0900
1130
1015
1030
1150
1300
HEPTA-
01- HEPTA- CHLOR
OIS- ALORIN 0"D ODE DDT ELORIN ENORIN CHLOR EPOXIOE
CHARGE
(CFS) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L)
750
112
32
380
155
235
710
LINOANE CHLOR-
OANC
(UG/L) (UG/Li
.00 15
.05 .4
.04 .7
.00 .1
.00 .2
.00 .9
.00 .00 .00 1.0 .43 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00 .00 .04 .05 .00 .00 .00
.00 .06 .00 .25 .11 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .00 .00 .00
.00 .02 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00 .00 .22 .11 .00 .00 .00
Di- METHYL
AZINON MALA- - PARA- " »-D 2«4.5-T SILVEX
THION ThiON ThlON
-------
TABLE G-4(Cont'd)
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08C75000 BRAYS BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEt..--Continued
WATER QUALITY DATA
SUS-
n»T<;
K-OX. , 1969
J«... I3?0
oer.
06... \ ?'i^
"»Y 1970
Is.. 131"
IS.. 13^0
IS.. 1*3?
IS.. 154«.
IS.. 1730
16.. (>01S
!*>.. IP4S
17.. I'.'.''
•'a*., 1971
1 4 ! ! ! 1 9?^
li... unn
?t... 101S
.KILT"
?1... 1030
«UG.
01... IIS"
VJS-
PENOFO
•IIS- STOI-
(MG/L)
?." Sfr
1? fc74
47? SS?
?T70 3S*»
?^io 13?=;
>SOO 1340
isno 7??
•^S'-O 54<<
1750 P34
400 A*
6?S 3?0
11? ?-1?
<»3fl 170
1SS 107
-------
TABLE G-5
Water Quality Data: Brays Bayou at Scott Street
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075100 BRAYS BAYOU AT SCOTT STRICT, AT HOUSTON, TEX.
LOCATION.--Lat 29°42'35", long 95'21'23", Harris County, at bridge on Scott Street In Houston.
PERIOD OF RECORD.--Chemical and biochemical analyses: May to September 1971.
__ Pesticide analyses:, May to September 1971.
DATE
HAY
10...
IB...
24...
JUNE
Oft...
22...
JULY
IS...
21...
AUG.
03...
24...
SEP.
10...
DATE
MAY
10...
18...
2<>...
JUNE
08...
22...
JULY
IS...
21...
»UG.
03...
24...
SEP.
10...
D»TE
MAY
10...
19...
24...
JUNE
03...
2?...
JULY
15...
21...
AUG.
03...
24...
SEP.
10...
TIME
1010
0910
1140
0900
0945
0745
0915
0845
1315
1245
TOT»L
NITRITE
(N)
(MG/L)
.90
.28
.18
.22
.61
.30
.10
.060
.46
.020
COLOR
(PLAT-
INUM-
COBALT
UNITS)
30
20
30
40
50
20
80
50
55
140
i-
t
\
DIS-
CHARGE
(CFS)
36
36
1070
33
40
44
245
623
115
8510
•XMONIA
NITRO-
GEN
(N)
(MG/L)
3.8
5.0
2.1
5.8
4.<*
3.4
1.0
.71
5.8
.27
TUR-
FUO-
ITY
(JTU)
7
9
30
15
20
10
85
50
20
120
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(HG/L)
26
25
7.1
18
22
24
9.8
6.5
16
5.9
TOTAL
NITRATE
(N)
(MG/L)
.4
.2
1.8
.1
.2
.4
.6
.3
.7
.6
DIS-
SOLVED
OXYGEN
• (MG/L)
7.2
6.4
7.2
5.7
6.8
4.2
6.1
6.6
6.7
8.0
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
(CA)
(MG/L)
46
45
30
60
70
32
30
24
51
20
TOTAL
PHOS-
PHORUS
(PI
(MG/L)
4.6
5.6
2.4
2.8
'5.7
4.2
•1.9
1.2
2.9
.62
PER-
CENT
SATUR-
ATION
88
101
83
70
B6
53
76
79
39
87
DIS-
SOLVED
MAG-
NE-
SIUM
IMG)
(MG/L)
19
11
6.1
12
13
9.2
4.6
2.2
13
2.2
DIS-
SOLVED
SOLIDS
(Sl)M OF
CONSTI-
TUENTS)
(MG/L)
2180
828
523
5110
9500
440
753
1180
2030
95
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(LOW
LEVEL)
(HG/L)
12
37
140
66
42
18
30
58
32
32
DIS-
SOLVED
SODIUM
PLUS
POTAS-
SIUM
(MG/L)
770
250
160
1900
3600
120
250
• 430
710
11
TOTAL
NON-
FILT-
RABLE
RESIDUE
(MG/L)
1
«
--
__
16
.-
--
132
38-
—
BIO-
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(MG/L)
8.4
7.5
S.9
4.2
3.1
7.0
6.3
4.<;
12
1 .£
BICAR-
BONATE
(HC03)
(MG/L)
308
286
130
310
263
280
132
90
244
68
HARD-
NESS
(CA.MG)
(MG/L)
190
160
100
200
230
120
94
69
180
59
IMME-
DIATE
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
loo ML)
100000
3200000
380000
220000
600000
3600000
260000
540000
«>700000
1600000
CAR-
BONATE
(C03)
(MG/L)
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
NON-
CAR-
BONATE
HARD-
NESS
(MG/L)
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
2
FECAL
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
5900
44000
13000
6300
11000
18000
25000
I'.OOO
190uu
8300
DIS-
SOLVED
SULFATE
(S04)
(MG/L)
40
45
13
37
75
31
23
19
45
11
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
RATIO
24
8.7
7.0
59
104
4.8
--
23 •
:23
.6
STPEP-
TOCOCCI
(COL-
ONIES
PER
100 ML)
12000
2700
140000
310
920
480
1200
22000
65000
120000
DIS-
SOLVED
CHLO-
RIDE
(CD
(HG/L)
1100
300
240
2900
5600
82
360
650
1100
8.5
SPECI-
FIC
COND-
UCTANCE
(MICRO-
MHOS)
3910
1600
1060
9140
16700
683
1390
2040
3680 '
149
PHENOLS
(UG/L)
0
8
8
0
1
4
2
11
16
11
DIS-
SOLVED—ORGANIC
FLUO-
RIDE
(F)
(MG/L)
.7
1.0
.2
.6
.5
.8
.4
.2
.5
.2
PH
(UNITS)
7.1
7.5
6.9
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.3
8.0
6.4
METHY-
LENE
BLUE
ACTIVE
SUP-
STANCE
(MG/L)
.01
.03
.00
.02
.01
.00
.00
.15
.36
.00
NITRO-
GEN
(N)
(HG/L)
.*3
.00
.67
.4*
.30
.24
.30
.28
.57
.75
TEMP-
ERATURE
(DEG C)
26.0
25.5
23.0
27.0
28.0
28.0
27.5
25.0
'31.0
20.0
OIL
AND
GREASE
(MG/L)
60
--
10
—
20
—
10
80
--
30
G-9
-------
TABLE G-5 (Cont'd)
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
_ BRAYS BAYOU AT_ SCOTT_ STREET, AT _HOU STON^TEX. --Continued
QUALITY DAT*. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1971
_ - OIS- DIS- _•
DIS- SOLVED SOLVED OIS- DIS-
SOLVED CAD- CHRO- SOLVED SOLVED
ARSENIC MIUM MIUH COB4LT COPPEH
(AS) (CO) (CR) (CO) (CU)
DATE (UG/D IUG/D IUG/L) IUG/D (UG/D
MAY
10... 10 0 3-4 0 10
18... — •
24... 10 0 4 0 13
JUNE
no M> •• «« w »..»
uo « « > ^* ™"™ **™ ™ ^^™
22... 0 0 25 0 12
JULY
15... -- — — •— •—
21... 10 0 10 1 7
AUG.
03... 00708
2** « • • ™"— "*™ ~™ ™"~* ~™
SEP.
10... 10 0 0 0 14
DIS- ALDRIN ODD DOE
TIME CHARGE
DIS-
SOLVED
IRON
(FE)
(UG/L)
33
—
71
——
40
«
30
50
»
240
DDT
DIS-
OIS- SOLVED DIS- " OIS- DIS-
SOLVED M4N- SOLVED SOLVED SOLVED
LE«0 GANESE MERCURY NICKEL ZINC
(PB) (MM) (HG) (NI) (ZN)
(UG/L) (UG/D (UG/L) (UG/D (UG/D
3 80 *.5 0~ 30
__ -_ _~ -_ ..
22 60 «.5 0 90
_ » __ ._ .».
4 60 <.5 0 50
~ -— *. «- ..
6 6 .9 4 30
16 20 *.5 1 40
» « _-. *— ..
* 3 .5 3 40
HEPTA-
01- MEPTA- CHLOR
ELDRIN ENORIN CHLOR EPOXIDE
DATE (CfS) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/D (UG/D (UG/L) (UG/L)
HAY
10... 1010 36 .00 .00
24... 1140 1070 .00 .11
JUNE
22... 0945 40 .00 .00
JULY
21... 0915 245 .00 .00
AUG.
03... 0845 623 .00 .00
SEP.
10... 1245 8510 ..00 .00
01-
LINDANE CHLOR- AZINOS MSL*-
DANE . THIOS.
DATE (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (.UG/L)
MAY
10... .00 .1 .46 .00
24... .00 1.1 .83 2.9
JUNE
22... .00 .0 .00 .00
JULY
21... .00 .1 .64 .33
AUG.
03... .00 .2 .10 .00
SEP.
10... .00 .4 .13 .00
SOURCE: Water Resources Data for TV
Tl-n •! f- dr\ C t- ^ *- ,-N .* T\ j ^ _ r
00
00
00
00
00
01
METHYL
P4RA-
THION
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
'•Xi^S .
. 1 —
00 .04 .00 .00 .00
30 .15 .00 .00 .00
00 .00 .00 .00 .00
04 .04 .00 .00 .00
04 .02 .00 .00 .00
08 ,\Z .00 .00 .00
PARA- 2.4-0 2.4.5-T SILVEX
IHION
(UG/D "(UG/D (UG/L)" (UG/L)
-•
.00 .00 .02 .01
.00 .00 .34 .00
.00 .00 .27 .00
.00 .00 .00 .00
.00 .10 .31 .00
.00 .00 .34 .00
Part 2: Water Quality Records, 1971
and
382
G-10
-------
TABLE G-6
Water Quality Data: Sims Bayou at Hiram Clarke Street
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075400 SIMS BAYOU AT HIRAM CLARKE STREET, AT HOUSTON, TEX.
LOCATION Lat 29°37'07", long 95°26'4S", Harris County, at gaging station at bridge on Htrara Clarke Street in
southwest section of Houston, 12.7 miles upstream from gage, Sims Bayou at Houston, and 19.7 miles upstream
from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA.--20.2 sq ml.
PERIOD OF RECORD.--Chemical and biochemical analyses: October 1970 to September 1971.
Pesticide analyses: October 1970 to September 1971.
RIHAKKS.--See Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flows.
WATER QUALITY DATA, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1971
DATE
DEC.
01...
FEB.
08...
MAY
06...
JULY
21...
AUG.
30...
TIME
0920
1130
1200
1000
0910
DIS-
CHARGE
(CFS)
6.9
8.0
9.4
13
200
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(MG/L)
24
20
30
29
7.5
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
. (CA)
(MG/L)
31
36
38
40
21
DIS-
SOLVED
MAG-
NE-
SIUM
(MG)
(MG/L)
25
18
21
13
4.3
DIS-
SOLVED
SODIUM
PLUS
POTAS-
SIUM
(MG/L)
110
130
120
120
120
BICAR-
BONATE
(HC03)
(MG/L)
340
252
368
362
74
CAR-
BONATE
(C03)
(MG/L)
0
0
0
0
0
DIS-
SOLVED
SULFATE
(504)
(HG/L)
32
33
41
32
15
DIS-
SOLVED
CHLO-
RIDE
(CD
(MG/L)
73
140
86
77
180
DIS-
SOLVED
FLUO-
RIDE
(F)
(MG/L)
.6
.4
.6
.9
.2
ORGANIC
NITRO-
GEN
(N)
(MG/L)
__
—
.62
.76
.41
D»TE
DEC.
01...
FE3.
08...
MAY
06. ..
JULY
21...
AUG.
30...
DATE
DEC.
01...
FEB.
on...
MAY
06...
JULY
21...
AUG.
30...
TOTAL
NITRITE
IN)
(MG/L)
.17
.34
.45
.060
.060
TEMP-
ERATURE
(OEG C)
22.5
13.0
24.5
29.0
24.5
AMMONIA
NITRO-
GEN
(N)
(MG/L)
1.2
1.1
6.3
5.5
.98
COLOR
t^LAT-
INUM-
COSALT
UNITS)
—
--
10
so
220
TOTAL
MT9ATE
(N)
(MG/L)
2.7
3.7
. «*
.00
.8
TUR-
BID-
ITY
(JTU)
--
—
30
55
150
TOTAL
PnOS-
PHO^US
(P)
(MG/L)
6.5
».6
6.5
5.9
.75
1
OIS-
50LVEO
OXYGEN
(MG/L)
4.8
8.6
2.1
2.0
2."
DIS-
SOLVED
BO°ON
IP)
(UG/L)
300
270
—
--
— —
PER-
CENT
SATUR-
ATION
55
81
25
26
29
DIS-
SOLVED
soLins
(SUM OF
CONSTI-
TUENTS)
(MG/L)
478
525
531
500
395
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(LOrf
LEVEL)
(MG/L)
~
27
11
81
39
TOTAL
NON-
FILT-
SABLE
RESIDUE
(MG/L)
—
—
130
--
96
BIO-
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(MG/L)
Id
3.2
9.9
19
2.3
HARD-
NESS
(CA.MG)
(MG/L)
180
160
180
150
70
IMME-
DIATE
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
200000
--
620000
16000000
1500000
NON-
CAR-
BONATE
HARD-
NESS
(MG/L)
0
0
0
0
10
FECAL
COLI-
FOPM
(COL.'
DER
100 ML)
4000
—
420000
740000
12000
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
RATIO
3.6
4.4
—
4.2
*. 6.2.
ST3EP-
TOCOCCI
(COL-
ONIES
PER
100 ML)
"
—
1700
20000
33000
SPECI-
FIC
COND-
UCTANCE
(MICPO-
MHOS)
869
949
1000
935
747
PHENOLS
(UG/L)
--
—
21
—
9
PH
(UNITS)
7.3
7.8
7.0
7.9
7.2
METHY-
LENE
BLUE
ACTIVE
SUB-
STANCE
(MG/L)
.00
.02
.00
.00
.00
n*rt
MAY
06. • .
Water
OIS-
TIME CHARGE
(CFS)
1200 9.4
Resources
DI-
AZINON
(UG/L)
•
Data
38
for
MALA-
THION
(UG/L)
.00
Texas
METHYL
TH;ON
(UG/L)
.00
PARA-
THION
(UG/L)
.00
. Part 2:
'-'.-0
(UG/L)
.00
Water
2.4,5-T
(UG/L)
.00
siLvrx
(UG/L)
Quality
.00
Records ,
1971
SOURCE: _
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, p. 384.
G-ll
-------
G-7
Water Quality Data: Sims Bayou at State Highway 35
SAN JACINTO RIVER BASIN
08075500 SIMS BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.
LOCATION. --La t 29°40'27", long 95°17'21", Harris County, at gaging station at bridge on State Highway 35 In southeast
section of Houston, and 7.0 talles upstream from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA. --64. 0 sq mi.
PEKIOD OF RECORD. --Chemical and biochemical analyses: October 1968 to September 1971.
Pesticide analyses: October 1963 to September 1971'.
REMARKS. --See Part 1 of this report for remarks on diversions and return flows.
WATER DUALITY DATA. WATER YEAH OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1971
DATE
DEC.
01...
FEB.
oa...
MAY
06.. .
10...
JUNE
09...
22...
JULY
15...
21...
AUG.
03...
26...
SEP.
10...
DATE
DEC.
01...
FEB.
oa...
MAY
06...
l?...
JUNE
09...
22...
JULY
15...
21...
AUG.
03...
26...
SEP.
10...
DATE
DEC.
01...
FEB.
08...
MAY
06...
18...
JUNE
09...
22...
JULY
15...
21...
AUG.
03...
26,.,
SEP.
10...
TIME
1025
1300
1020
0800
1110
1120
1020
1100
1400
1400
1010
TOTAL
NITRITE
(N)
(MG/L)
.000
.18
.000
.010
.010
.020
.020
.020
.020
.16
.010
TEMP-
ERATURE
(DEG C)
22.1
il.O
24.0
23.5
28.0
29.0
29.5
29.0
26.0
28.5
25.0
DIS-
CHARGE
(CFS)
19
22
17
18
22
19
18
46
53
110
1650
AMMONIA
NITRO-
GEN
(N)
(MG/L)
11
6.4
10.
17
8.6
10
9.3
6.2
10
5.0
.85
COLOR
(PLAT-
INUM-
COBALT
UNITS)
—
—
30
20
20
40
25
40
40
90
140
DIS-
SOLVED
SILICA
(SI02)
(MG/L)
15
12
21
21
17
19
21
14
23
11
5.9
TOTAL
NITRITE
(N)
(MG/L'
.00
. .8
'
.00
.00
.1
.00
.00
.00
.1
.4
.4
TUR-
BID-
ITY
(JTU)
—
—
2
5
20
20
30
35
20
100
180
DIS-
SOLVED
CAL-
CIUM
(CA)
(MG/L)
62
42
50
49
39
43
56
46
37
42
28
TOTAL
PHOS-
PHORUS
IP)
(MG/L)
3.5
3.2
7.0
6.0
21
5.1
4.8
3.7
3.2
1.4
1.2
DIS-
SOLVED
OXYGEN
(MG/L)
1.8
5.6
1.6
.3
-.0
4.2
1.2
2.3
3.7
.6
4.3
DIS-
SOLVED
MAG-
NE-
SIUM
(MG)
(HG/L)
22
16
18
13
17
14
19
9.0
11
9.5
4.9
DIS-
SOLVED
BORON
(B)
(UG/L)
470
••2TO
I "
—
--
—
—
—
— •
— —
PER-
CENT
SATUR-
ATION
20
50
19
*
38
54
16
29
45
a
51
DIS-
SOLVED
SODIUM
PLUS
POTAS-
SIUM
(MG/L)
360
330
560
220
220
380
410
210
140
280
62
DIS-
SOLVED
SOLIDS
(SUM OF
CONSTI-
TUENTS)
(HG/L1
1230
1050
1660
811.
757
1180
1400
730
560
903
313
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(LOW
LEVEL)
(MG/L)
—
29
18
42
37
47
33
26
3*
63
56
B ICA3-
BON4 TE
(HC03)
(HG/LI
262
182
326
316
306
270
236
148
174
122
72
TOTAL
NON-
FILT-
HJS9LE
RESIDUE
(HG/L)
—
• —
10
—
—
32
—
--
32
78
— —
BIO-
CHEM-
ICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(MG/L)
11
IB
8.7
8.1
7.8
6.8
7.2
9.3
4.4
8.7
4.1
CAR-
BONATE
(C03)
(HG/L)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HARD-
NESS
(CAtMG)
(HG/L)
240
170
200
ISO
170
170
220
150
140
140
90
IMME-
DIATE
COLI-
FORM,
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
320000
48000
2000000
ISCjOlO
1900000
460000
2300000
420000
930000
1700000
2100000
DIS-
SOLVED
SULFATE
(S04)
(MG/L)
140
52
36
52
48
46
220
74
56
27
24
NON-
CAR-
BONATE
HARD-
NESS
(MG/L)
26
2J
0
0
0
0
22
30
0
44
31
FECAL
COLI-
FORM
(COL.
PER
100 ML)
32000
4600
6700
25000
78000
9000
29000
19000
7700
79000
20000
DIS-
SOLVED
CHLO-
RIDE
(CD
(HG/L)
490
SOO
800
280
260
540
SOO
300
190
460
130
SODIUM
AD-
SORP-
TION
RATIO
10
**.
11
17
7.2
7.4
13
12
7.4
5.2
10
3.8
STREP-
TOCOCCI
(COL-
ONIES
PER
100 ML)
__
4900
1800
14000
2700
5800
6600
16000
6700
33000
DIS-
SOLVED
FLUO-
RIDE
(F)
(HG/L)
.4
.4
.7
.9
.6
.4
.7
.5
.4
.4
2.2
SPECI-
FIC
COND-
UCTANCE
(MICRO-
MHOS)
2210
1930
3000
1510
1440
2120
2360
1390
1040
1670
532
PHENCLS
(UG/L)
^_
21
7
7
3
1
6
a
10
ORG4NIC
NITRO-
GEN
(N)
(MG/L)
—
--
.66
.41
.41
.43
.48
.23
.36
.58
.51
PH
(UNITS)
6.7
7.7
7.0
6.9
7.4
7.4
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.3
4.7
METHY-
LENE
BLUE
ACTIVE
SUB-
STANCE
(MG/LI
.01
.09
.00
.09
.0*
.02
.00
.10
.11
.03
.09
G-12
-------
TABLE G-7 (Cont'd)
SAM JACINTO HIVER BASIN
08075500 SIM3 BAYOU AT HOUSTON, TEX.--Continued
WATER QUALITY DATA. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1970 TO SEPTEMBER 1971
OIL
OIS- 01S-
OIS- SOLVED SOLVED
OIS-
SOLVED CAO- CHRO- SOLVED
«NO ARSENIC MIUM MIUM COBALT
DATE
DEC.
01...
FEB.
08...
MAY
06...
18...
JUNE
09...
22...
JULY
IS...
21...
AUG.
03...
26...
SEP.
10...
*
.
GREASE
(MG/L)
•*»
—
90
—
A*»
20
_.
10
50
™
90
DATE
MAY
06...
JUNE
22...
JULY
21...
AUG.
03...
SEP.
10...
•
.
DATE
MAY
06..
JUNE
22..
JULY
21..
AUG.
03..
SFP.
to..
(AS) (CD) (CR)
(CO)
(UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L)
•» •— ..»
« _. «
000
_. — —
»~ «» »—
10 0 0
__ „ „„
<— — —
000
«.- « -«
10 0 0
OIS- ALORIN
TIME CHARGE
«M»
—
0
—
•»«
0
—
»»
1
—
0
ODD
(CFS) (UG/L) (UG/L)
1020 17 .00
1120 19 .00
1100 46 .00
1400 S3 .00
1010 1650 .00
* -01-
LINOANE CHLOR- AZINON
DANE
(UG/L) (UG/L) IUG/L)
.00 .1 .48
. .02 .0
.00 .0 .47
.00 .0 .14
.00 .3 .03
SOURCE: Water Resources Data
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
DIS-
SOLVED
COPPER
(CU)
(UG/L)
*»
«—
9
—
— «
4
—
—
4
™
11
ODE
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
• .00
DIS-
SOLVED
IRON
(FE)
(UG/L)
.»
—
450
—
•••
130
~
—
120
~
70
DOT
(UG/L)
.01
.00
.00
.01
.02
OIS-
DIS- SOLVED
SOLVED MAN-
LEAD GANESE
(PB> (MN)
(UG/L) (UG/L)
«» w.
— --.
S !70
.. -=
«»« — «
0 . 120
__ _
.. --
6 100
— ™
0 24
01-
ELORIN ENDRIN
(UG/L) (UG/L)
.06 .00
.00 .00
.04 .00
.05 .00
.11 .00
DIS-
SOLVED
MERCURY
(HG)
(UG/L)
.-
«
.6
~
— —
<«5
«
— -
i.5
~—
2.8
MEPTA-
CMLOR
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
DIS-
SOLVED
NICKEL
(NI)
(UG/L)
— •
—
>
10
~
»•
0
™
—
1
•"•
10
HEPTA-
CHLOR
EPOXIDE
(UG/L)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
DIS-
SOLVED
ZINC
(ZN)
(UG/L)
«»
—
160
—
— •
50
—
—
170
"
30
* • .
, METHYL . • .
MALA- PARA- PARA- 2.4-0 2.4,5-T SILVEX
TMION THION CHION
(UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L)
—
for
.00
~
.08
.00
.00
Texas .
.00
«
.00
.00
.00
Part
.00 .00
.00
.00 .00
.00 .26
.00 .00
.00
.24
,17
.28
.18
2: Water Quality
.60
.00
.00
.00
.03
Records
, 1971
United States Department of tb" Interior, Geological Survey, pp. 385
and 386.
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER I: BACKGROUND (SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING)
APPENDIX H; HISTORICAL. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS
DATA BY:
THE TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
VOLUME II, HOUSTON-HARRIS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN
-------
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 furnishinqs.
The recent construction of Allen's Landing Memorial Park,
located at the foot of Main Street: and Buffalo Bayou, is intended
ho create a fitting memorial to the founders of Houston and to
serve as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the city's original
busi ness area.
H-l
-------
CULTURAL ELEMENTS;
Education. There are 14 institutions of higher learning within
Harris County: (1) University of Houston—a State school, the
largest in Houston, and second largest in the State, (2) Rice
University—a privately endowed school of extra high standards,
(3) Texas Southern University—a State school catering mainly to
Black students, (4) South Texas College—a junior college and law
school, (5) Baylor University of Medicine—a Baptist supported
college, (6) University of Texas Dental Branch—a 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 Academy—Catholic supported college, (10) Sacred
Heart Dominican College—a Catholic school, (11) Saint Mary's
Seminary—a Catholic school, (12) San Jacinto Junior College—a
State supported technological school located southeast of Pasadena,
(13) Lee Junior College—a State supported technological school in
Baytown, and (14) Houston Baptist College—a new college located in
southwest Houston. Numbers (5), (6), (7) and (8) are located in
thn 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 Jife is the Houston Public Library—an 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 entertainment0 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 i
Recreational facilities in the Houston area consist of parks,
swimming pools, golf courses, botanical gardens, horse trails,
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 Jacinto
River. Nearby Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico have 260 miles
of salt water shoreline within seventy miles of the City of Houston,
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 REFERFNCF:
CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX I: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SERVING
COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST HOUSTON
-------
LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of optimizing location for a sewage treatment plant
is many-fold. An optimum location will be that which will minimize
cost of collection, treatment and disposal, and at the same time,
will cause minimum disruption of the environment both in the immediate
vicinity of the plant and its service area. In addition, a treatment
plant including a sludge disposal facility should be located with
respect to the sludge producing areas in such a manner that the
sludge conveyance costs will be minimum.
Keeping the above objectives in mind, the following alternative
locations were analyzed and evaluated before the selection of the
proposed location was made.
Location 1; A 20 mgd treatment plant is to be built at the site
of the Southwest Pump Station. Sewage will be brought from the Almeda-
Sims plant site by constructing a trunk sewer of capacity 10 mgd. A
sludge conveyance line will be built to bring sludge from the Plant
Station 51. Plants WCID 44-1 and WCID 44-3 will be phased out. A
large pump station of appropriate capacity will be installed at the
Almeda-Sims Plant site to phase out the existing treatment plant
operation at this site0
Location 2; Plant site WCID 44-1 or WCID 44-3 is to be improved to
an expanded capacity of 20 mgd. A trunk line capable of carrying 20 mgd
sewage will be constructed to bring sewage from the Almeda-Sims Plant
site. The latter will continue to receive the diversion sewage from
the Southwest Pump Station via the diversion trunk sewer. The proposed
sludge conveyance line from Plant Station 51 to Almeda-Sims Plant will
1-1
-------
be extended to Plant site WCID 44-1 or WCID 44-3 to bring sludge
for disposal at this location.
Location 3; Plant Station 51 will be expanded to handle an
additional sewage volume of 20 mgd. A 10 mgd trunk sewer will be
constructed to bring sewage from the Almeda-Sims plant site. The
diversion trunk sewer from the Southwest Pump Station will be installed
to bring overflow sewage to this location. Plant operations at WCID
44-1, WCID 44-3, and Almeda-Sims will be phased out.
Location 4; The Almeda-Sims Plant site as proposed in this report.
Location 5; The Southwest Plant will be expanded by an additional
20 mgd capacity. All necessary trunk sewers and sludge lines will be
constructed to serve the Almeda-Sims service area, the diversion area
and the sludge producing area of Plant Station 51. The existing
Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant and those at WCID 44-1 and WCID 44-3
will be phased out.
Location 6: The proposed location (Almeda-Sims) will be expanded
by 10 mgd and another 10 mgd new plant will be constructed at the
Southwest Pump Station site. The proposal of phasing out WCID 44-1
and WCID 44-3 will remain unchanged. This arrangement will eliminate
the need for the construction of the diversion trunk sewer.
Location 7; The Almeda site location will be expanded by 10 mgd,
and either WCID 44-1 or WCID 44-3 will be expanded to handle an
additional volume of 10 mgd.
It is assumed that the treatment process and disposal methods
1-2
-------
will remain the same at each of these alternative locations as
proposed for the Almeda-Sims Regional Sewage Treatment site.
Further, each location will include both sewage treatment and
sludge treatment facilities. 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 Almeda-Sims Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant is by far the best location among the seven
alternatives considered. The evaluation is based on a total of
16 location factors, encompassing the objective of regionalization
of the citywide treatment system to the aesthetic consideration for
plant construction.
Column 21 of the evaluation table indicates that the least
optimum location is the site of the Southwest Pump Station
at Hermann Park. This means that a new treatment plant cannot be
located here to serve the diversion area. As such, the additional
sewage beyond what is treated by the Sims Bayou Plant (the portion
which is discharged into Brays Bayou without treatment) must be
diverted elsewhere in the city, where a treatment plant can treat
this volume in the most efficient, economic and effective manner.
The proposal for the construction of the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge
Trunk Sewer therefore appears reasonable.
Aggregate of all factors results in Almeda-Sims to be the optimum
location. The 20 mgd facility therefore can best meet the sewer
needs of the project area if it is located at the existing Almeda-
Sims Plant site which is proposed in this study. A summary discussion
of overriding factors which resulted in the rejection of other alter-
natives is presented in Table 1-2.
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-1
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANT LOCATIONS AND SELECTION OF OPTIMUM LOCATION
Alternative
Locations
ONE: New plant of 20
mgd at Southwest Pump
TWO: Expansion of WCID
44-1 or 44-3 to 20 mgd
THREE: Plant Station
51 to 20 mgd
FOUR: Proposed loca-
tion
FIVE: Southwest Plant
to 50 mgd from
present 30 mgd
capacity
SIX: Expand Almeda-
Sims by 10 mgd, add
10 mgd new plant at
Southwest Pump
SEVEN: Expand Almeda-
Sims by 10 mgd and
WCID 44-1 or 44-3 by
10 mgd
i 1
i >i —
«5 -p e
N -H CD
•H O -P
H CO
(0 M-l >i
G o en
o
•H a a)
tn o T3
0) -H -H
CtJ -P 5
++
++
++
++
+++
«_
_ «
m Jd a) 2
o -p o —
•iH -H
>i & 0 >
-P -P M
•H C Q)
r-l O -P CO
(0 -H O
M -P CD t — 1 CO
-P fd £4 ft 03
C O CO -P (D
0) O
-------
TABLE 1-
(Continued)
Alternative
Locations
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
1
Future
expansion
possibility]}^
-
-
+++
—
+
++
Impact on
Water Quality
Sims
Bayou
I2.
0
+
+++
++
0
+
++
Brays
Bayou
13_
+++
0
0
0
4-++
—
0
Effect on the immediate
vicinity: compatibility
with land use
Existing
11
+++
0
-
Proposed
15_
+++
0
0
Aesthetic
consider-
ations
16_
0
0
++
0
0
+
Total
Score
+
il
8
7
11
33
13
13
16
0
18
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
ii
29
22
18
4
17
8
9
2£
4J
OJ CU
-u c:
Aggrega
score (
-21
-15
-7
+29
-4
+5
+ 7
Rank in order
of optimality
|M
1 1— "
7
6
5
1
4
3
2
Remarks
!i
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Selected
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
-------
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF OVERRIDING FACTORS IN DETERMING OPTIMUM PLANT LOCATION
ALTERNATIVE
LOCATIONS
SUMMARY EVALUATION
REMARKS
DNE: NEW 20 MGD
PLANT AT SOUTHWEST
PUMP STATION
While this location can serve the diversion area well,
the cost of bringing sewage from the Almeda Sims area
will be excessive since the diversion sewer will have to
be a fore main0 This location will not improve the water
quality of Sims Bayou0 The Brays Bayou which has a
greater flow rate at the present time, may be flooded
near Herman Park as a result of the discharge of 20 mgd
effluent in the design year. Also this location will be
expensive in serving the sludge treatment need of the
Plant Station 51„ Since a new sludge line will have to
be built0 The pump station is located at the edge of an
existing large park0 There is no room for accommodating
a 20 mgd facility without taking lands from the existing
park. The area around the park is heavily residential
and will be adversely affected by a regional treatment
plant at this location. The aesthetic values currently
associated with Herman Park will be adversely affected.
A new plant at this location is not feasible.
REJECTED
'WO; EXPANSION
iF WCID 44-1 OR
7CID 44-3 TO A
0 MGD FACILITY
Geographically, these plants are located at the edge of the
overall service area to be served by the proposed projecto
Collection costs will be very high for bringing the waste-
water and sludge from other parts of the service area.
Acquisition of land for expansion will be a difficult task
since the city does not own any land beyond what is used
by these small plants. The surrounding areas are residenti-
ally builto Extensive relocations may have to be necessary
if the proposed project were built at this location. Also,
the surrounding areas will be affected by the plant operation
The only positive aspect of this alternative is it will great
improve the water quality of Sims Bayou.
REJECTED
-------
ALTERNATIVE
LOCATIONS
TABLE 1-2
(CONTINUED)
SUMMARY EVALUATION
REMARKS
THREE: EXPANSION
OF PLANT STATION
51 TO A 20 MGD
FACILITY
This location is also at the edge of the overall area to
be served by the proposed project, making collection of
sewage and sludge an expensive task. The location is
very close to a fault line detected several years ago in
a subsidence study for Houston which makes any new
construction of this magnitude virtually prohibitive„
In addition, land availability is a major problem since the
area around it is heavily developed as residential, and,
the city does not own any land beyond the existing plant
site. A regional plant at this location will be highly
incompatible with the surrounding land uses and will
adversely affect the quality of the neighborhood. The
project will also be aesthetically incompatible with the
surrounding area»
REJECTED
FOUR; PROPOSED
LOCATION
See Page 51 and Page 1-3 of this report where a detailed
evaluation of this alternative has been presented,, This
alternative has been identified as the best location.
CHOSEN
EXPANSION
OF SOUTHWEST PLANT
TO 50 MGD FROM
XISTING 30 MGD
While this alternative best meets the objective of the
regionalization of the city wide treatment system, it
cannot effectively meet the requirements of the service
area since the plant is located several miles away from
the primary, diversion and sludge producing area0 The
construction of the conveyance system will be enormous0
Also, topographically this location is about 20' higher
than the average elevation of the primary service area,
making the use of gravity sewer virtually impossible.
This alternative cannot be considered as a feasible loca-
cation for the proposed projects
REJECTED
-------
TABLE 1-2
(CONTINUED)
ALTERNATIVE
LOCATIONS
SUMMARY EVALUATION
REMARKS
SIX: EXPANSION
OF ALMEDA-SIMS BY
10 MGD AND A 10 MGD
NEW PLANT AT SOUTH-
WEST PUMP SITE
This alternative does not meet the objective of regional-
ization to the extent achieved by other locations. A
new 10 mgd plant at the southwest pump site cannot be built
for the same overriding factors as discussed under alternative
One0 Also, two plants at two different locations will re-
quire excessive operations and maintenance costs0
REJECTED
SEVEN: EXPANSION
OF ALMEDA-SIMS
BY 10 MGD AND
WCID 44-1 OR
WCID 44-3 BY
10 MGD
This alternative also does not effectively meet the
objective of the regionalization of the city wide treat-
ment system0 The overriding factors stated under
Alternative Two make it prohibitive for construction of
a 10 mgd facility at the WCID 44-1 or 44-3 plant sites.
Also operation and maintenance costs under this alterna-
tive will be excessiveo
REJECTED
i
CO
-------
I£XLJEE£fi£N££:
CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX J; TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON THE DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
-------
1. COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Two alternatives for the routing of the Almeda-Knight-Cambridge
Trunk Sewer are described as follows:
a. Force Main-Gravity Main Combination (Rejected):
Plans would call for construction of the north portion of
Almeda-Knight-Cambridge Trunk Sewer along with a pumping station
to be built at the intersection of Knight and Almeda Roads. The
pumping station would discharge through 5,650 feet of 60-inch force
main along Almeda Road to the Almeda Sims Wastewater Treatment
Plant site. At the plant site, another pumping station would be
required to lift the sewage into the treatment plant. This system
has the advantage of lowest initial cost but the disadvantages of
continuous operation and maintenance of two extremely large permanent
pumping stations.
b. Gravity-Main Only (Chosen);
Plans would avoid construction of a pumping station at the
intersection of Knight and Almeda Roads and continue an existing
78-inch gravity trunk sewer along Almeda Road using tunnel construc-
tion (due to the depth required and the traffic problems involved).
The 78-inch gravity sewer would increase in size to an 84-inch
gravity sewer approximately 3,500 feet south of the Knight Road
intersection and continue along Almeda Road at a depth of 22 feet
or greater to the proposed Almeda-Sims pumping station.
This alternative would reduce pumping station operation and
maintenance costs since only one pumping station would be required,
J-l
-------
saving the city an estimated $577,000 over the 30-year bond life of
the project. This alternative is not anticipated to have a signifi-
cant adverse impact on the environment. Minor adverse impacts such
as noise, dust, and traffic disruption will be temporary and localized
by-products of the construction process. The only adverse impact
would involve limitations on above-ground land utilization caused
by construction of structures related to the pumping stations and
manhole entrances.
2. TREATMENT PROCESS OPTIONS
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 unsuited
for wastewater absorption. Septic tank treatment in the project
area would lead to inadequate waste treatment and generation of
nuisances and public health hazards.
b. Primary Treatment Only:
Primary treatment employs physical operations such as screening
and sedimentation to remove floating and setteable solids present
in wastewater. Such processes seldom remove more than 35% to 65%
of contaminants present in the wastewater. Primary treatment alone
would not be a viable alternative, since it would not produce an
effluent of acceptable quality.
J-2
-------
c. Secondary Treatment;
Secondary treatment is used in conjunction with primary
treatment and employs various biological processes to remove
most organic contaminants present in wastewater followed by a
physical separation in which solids and biological floe present in
wastewater are separated from the liquid fraction. Such processes
usually remove 65% to 95% of contaminants present in wastewater.
These removal efficiencies are capable of satisfying effluent
quality standards prescribed for the proposed project.
i. Oxidation Pond;
One form of secondary treatment involves the use of
oxidation ponds or lagoons. The biological processes in this form
of treatment proceed at natural rates. This alternative is not
considered viable because of the slowness of the degradation process
involved and the large amounts of land area required to provide
the desired holding time.
ii. Trickling Filter;
Another form of secondary treatment involves the use of
sedimentation basins followed by use of one or a series of trickling
filters. The trickling filter process concentrates contaminating
biological organisms on a fixed media by exposing wastewater to such
media. This process has limitations and, generally, produces an
effluent 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.
J-3
-------
iii. Activated Sludge:
A third form of secondary treatment involves the use
of activated-sludge process. In the activated-sludge process, the
flocculated 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: conventional, extended aeration, oxidation-ditch Kraus process,
high rate aeration and 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 acceptable quality and requires less land area than other processes,
d. Advanced Treatment;
Advanced wastewater treatment is used in conjunction with
primary and secondary treatment processes and employs various chemical
and physical unit operations and processes to remove nutrients and
dissolved 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
J-4
-------
is not required at this time nor is it economically justifiable.
However, the treatment processes and facilities proposed for this
project are designed in such a manner that advanced wastewater
treatment facilities can be added in the future.
3. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
A number of options for effluent disposal were investigated.
A summary is given in Table J-l.
4. DISINFECTION
See text pages 52 and 54.
5. SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The following sludge handling and disposal options were reviewed:
a. Sludge Digestion or Stabilization:
Stabilization is the unit process whereby volatile organic
solids are oxidized to a non-putrescible, relatively inert state.
The most common methods of sludge stabilization include aerobic
and anaerobic digestion processes functioning as parts of a biological
secondary treatment system or wet oxidation. The objective of the
digestion process is the production of a non-putrescible, relatively
inert residue suitable for ultimate disposal after dewatering.
(i). Aerobic Digestion;
Aerobic sludge digestion is similar to the activated
sludge process. As the supply of available food is depleted,
J-5-
-------
TABLE J-1
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
Reuse
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-6
-------
TABLEj-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 (2) 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-7
-------
the micro-organisms begin to consume their own protoplasm. About
75% to 80% of the cell tissues are actually oxidized. The process
is capable of producing stable sludge without odor and lower capital
cost. However, the major disadvantage is higher power cost associa-
ted with supplying the required oxygen and mixing. Also, methane
gas is not produced.
(ii). Anaerobic Digestion:
The anaerobic sludge digestion process utilizes oxygen-
free covered tanks. Methane and carbon dioxide are produced as
bound organic carbon is stabilized. The process requires highly
controlled operating conditions. The process also requires costly
installation equipment with gas collection, sludge mixing and tank
heating systems.
(iii). Wet Oxidation;
Sludge stabilization by the heat and pressure method
is a variation of wet air oxidation. Three processes commonly
used are the "Zimpro", "Porteous", and the "Farrer" methods. Each
process produces similar results but requires equipment of varying
cost. Essentially, each method uses oxygen in air at high temper-
atures and pressures to oxidize and solubilize volatile solids
present in sludge. Each method produces a non-putrescible sludge
capable of rapid filtration and drying without additional chemical
treatment. The process is associated with costly installation
and controlled operating conditions.
J-8
-------
b. Sludge Conditioning;
Conditioning of sludge is performed for the purpose of
improving the dewatering characteristics of sludge. The most
commonly used method is addition of chemicals. Chemical conditioning
results in coagulation of the solids and release of the absorbed
water. Conditioning is used in advance of vacuum filtration and
centrifugation. Chemicals used include ferric chloride, lime,
alum and/or organic polymers.
For sludge conditioning, excess lime (6-8 per cent by weight
of dry solids) is required. Excess lime increases the sludge
quantity and also creates scaling problems. Ferric chloride is
required in moderate concentrations (1 to 2 per cent by weight
of dry solids). If sludge is to be used as a soil conditioner,
iron salts are preferred over alum. The choice of chemicals
to be used is generally based upon economies, availability of
chemical, conditioning efficiency, and finally the method of ultimate
sludge disposal. For sludge conditioning, ferric chloride has been
proved to be the chemical of choice.
c. Sludge Dewatering;
Dewatering of sludge is used to reduce the moisture content
of sludge so that it can be handled and processed as a semi-solid
material. The most common methods are land processes, centrifugation
and filtration.
(i). Land Processes;
Land processes involve slow separation of solids and
J-9
-------
liquids by evaporation and percolation. Among land processes,
specific methods are sludge drying beds and sludge lagoons. Land
methods are not deemed feasible for this project because of
aesthetic considerations, odor problems, large amounts of land
required, and adverse climatological conditions in the study area
(high humidity and rainfall, and low evaporation rates).
(ii). Centrifugation;
Sludge centrifugation is achieved by feeding sludge
into a rotating bowl where it separates into cake containing solids
and a dilute stream called centrate. Centrifugation is generally
associated with low cake solids content, high content of low density
solids in centrate, and high maintenance and power costs.
(iii). Filtration;
Filtration of sludges may be accomplished by any of
three main methods: vacuum filtration, pressure filtration, or
filter pressing.
•Vacuum Filtration; Vacuum filtration is the most
common type used in the United States. It has advantages of
continuous easy operation, compatibility with a wide variety of
sludges, and high filtration efficiencies and low capital costs
compared to other methods of filtration.
Pressure Filtration, Filter Pressing; Pressure
filtration and filter pressing are less commonly used and differ
from vacuum filtration in the manner in which the pressure is
applied. In pressure filtration, pressure is applied hydraulically
J-10
-------
while in filter pressing, pressure is applied mechanically- With
proper sludge conditioning, both systems can produce a drier sludge
cake in less space than a vacuum filter system, but both systems
have disadvantages associated with high cost of chemical conditioning
and maintenance and replacement of filter cloth or filter media.
d. Ultimate Sludge Disposal:
The solids removed as sludge are further reduced in volume
for final disposal. The method of final disposal determines the
type of stabilization and the amount of volume reduction that is
needed. The most common practice of sludge disposal is in landfill.
(i). Incineration and Disposal;
Incineration involves thermal oxidation of organic
materials in sludge at high temperatures and normal pressures.
The resultant residue is an inert ash which may be disposed of
by landfill methods. Several types of incinerators are capable
of burning sewage sludges, including multiple hearth furnaces and
fluidized bed incinerators. Each type of incinerator has unique
characteristics but all offer the»same basic results. The
primary disadvantages of incineration are the high capital,
operation and maintenance costs, air pollution, and the requirement
for ash disposal.
(ii). Wet Oxidation:
The process is similar to that discussed under sludge
stabilization, except that higher pressure and temperatures are
J-ll
-------
required to oxidize the organic matter completely. The residue
is disposed of by landfilling.
(iii). Landfilling of Dewatered Sludge:
Landfilling of dewatered sludge involves burial on
site or offsite. The primary disadvantage of landfilling is the
amount of land required and leaching of landfill that may cause
serious groundwater pollution.
(iv). Conversion into Soil Conditioner/Fertilizer:
Sludge spreading in farm land has been successfully
used in many European countries. The humus in the sludge conditions
the soil, improving its moisture retentiveness. The sludge must be
heat dried (to remove moisture, kill pathogens, and reduce organic
content), ground in a mill, and fortified with nitrogen to give it
some fertilizer value. Sludge drying occurs at temperatures of
approximately 700°F whereas 1200 to 1400°F is required for complete
incineration. At 700°F, organic matter undergoes partial oxidation.
The exhaust gases must be heated to about 1350°F for odor destruction.
The primary advantages of this process include production
of a useable or marketable residue, absence of a residue requiring
disposal, and the opportunity to dispose of excess sludge by
continuing the drying process through complete combustion. Major
disadvantages include its complexity and relatively high cost of
operation. However, the City of Houston already produces dried
sludge for bulk sale as a soil conditioner/fertilizer and has a
ready-made market for additional product. The revenue from fertilizer
sale reduces the cost of sludge handling„
J-12
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX J. SECONDARY IMPACT OF PROPOSED ACTION
THE DEGREE TO WHICH THIS ACTION WILL AFFECT
RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, 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 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 development and as such 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 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
is not enough to bring about the desired growth. A balanced,
complete policy of providing all elements of the infra-structure
system for an area is therefore vital.
In the context of the proposed Almeda-Sims Sewage Treatment
Plant, most other public facilities are adequate for the service
area except the sewer system. The proposed project is, therefore,
to fill the vacuum that 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.
K-l
-------
The secondary impact of the project is stimulating conditions
for attracting population, employment, housing and land use growth
as identified in this section, reflects the integrated impact of all
infra-structure elements as a system. But since a large void exists
in the area of sewer service, the full impact of the rest of the service
elements has not been felt in the pact. The present level of
population and land use for the project's primary service area is
testimony to that.
B. EFFECTIVE 1990 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT LEVELS FOR THE TOTAL
AREA TO BE SERVICED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
As noted elsewhere in this report, the project affects, in varying
degrees, the areas which together make up the total service area for
the proposed facility. The population and employment figures for each
of these areas for 1970 and 1990 are as follows:
Areas to be
Served
Primary
Service Area
Diversion
Area
Sludge
Producing
Area (Plant
51)
TOTAL
1970
Population
36,834
83,714
18,390
138,938
Employment
13,875
41,620
8,560
64,055
1990
Population
81,710
84,600
41,225
207,535
Employment
31,500
43,600
19,200
94,300
1. Diversion Area:
As the situation stands now, a small portion of the sewage
treatment need for the diversion area is presently met by the Sims
K-2
-------
Bayou Plant. An estimated 9 mgd of sewage is currently generated
by the population and employment of this area. Since the estimated
overflow of raw sewage at the Southwest Pump Station is 6.6 mgd, the
balance of 2.4 mgd is considered to be treated by the Sims Bayou
Plant. Considering the 1990 projection, a total of 10 mgd of sewage
will be brought to the proposed plant for treatment from the Southwest
Pump Station, That volume will be equal to the amount to be
generated by the diversion area by 1990. Thus, it can be assumed
that all of the diversion area will be served by the proposed project
by 1990. This will relieve the Sims Bayou Treatment Plant from
handling the portion it is treating at the present time. All of
the diversion area population and employment, therefore, is considered
the 1990 "effective" population and employment to be serviced by the
proposed Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant.
2. Primary Service Area;
The "effective" population and employment of the primary
service area is the same as the figures projected for 1990 since
no plant other than the proposed project will serve the primary
service area.
3. Sludge Producing Area:
This area is currently served by the Plant Station 51.
Though this plant will not be phased out under the regionalization
plan, the sludge to be generated from this area will be treated by
the Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant. The "effective" population and
employment for this area is, therefore, considered half of the total
projected for the year 1990.
K-3
-------
The aggregate effective population and employment to be served
by the proposed project is summarized as follows:
Primary Service
Area (100%)
Diversion
Area (100%)
Sludge Produc-
ing Area (50%)
TOTAL (Ef ~ec-: J.ve)
1970
Population
36,834
83,714
9,195
129,743
Employment
13,875
41,620
4,280
59,775
1990
Population
81,710
84,600
20,613
186,923
Employment
31,500
43,600
9,600
84,700
C. IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
GAIN BETWEEN 1970 AND 1990
1970
1990
Net Change
1970-1990
Population
Employment
129,743 186,923 57,180
59,775 84,700 24,925
It could be approximately concluded that the construction and
operation of the proposed project will cause a population gain of
57,000 persons and an employment gain of 25,000 workers 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.
K-4
-------
D. NET IMPACT ON HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
1. Additional population increase by 1990 = 57,180 persons
2. Persons per household = Total Population
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
population of 57,180 persons = 57,180
2.90
= 19,800 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)
1990 (Projected) = 7.8% (Source: University of
Texas at Arlington)
5. Total Housing Units = Occupied Housing Units + Vacant Housing
Units
H = 19,800 + .08 H
or 0.92 H = 19,800 units
H = 19,800 = 21,400 units
.92
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 43,000
= 2,150
K-5
-------
7. Total additional dwelling units required through 1990:
= 21,400 + 2,150
= 23,550 units
8. Land Requirement: at a projected net density of 7.5 dwelling
units/acre,
Residential land requirements through 1990 = 23,550
7.5
The construction of a regional sewage treatment plant at the
proposed Almeda-Sims location will, in conjunction with other infra-
structure elements, attract by 1990 a population of 57,180 persons
to its service areas, which will create the demand for 23,550
new housing units. At an average density of 7.5 dwelling units per
acre, a total of 3,140 acres of vacant lands 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
24,945 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 suitable for more
intensive industrial development than most other communities in
the City of Houston. As such, the proportion of manufacturing
workers for the area is expected to be greater than the corresponding
K-6
-------
city average. Further, the supply of suitable lands for industrial
development is more abundant in the effective service area than
other parts of the city. Considering these factors, a 1990
projected figure of 25% for industrial workers as a percent of total
area employment for the service area appears reasonable.
1990 manufacturing employment = 24,945 X .25
= 6,235 workers
At a projected industrial density of 12 workers per acre of gross
land, net industrial land demand is: 6,235 = 520 acres.
~T2
F. NET IMPACT ON RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
These will include commercial retail, office and service activities;
parks and recreation; and schools and related activities.
Following is an estimate of lands to be brought under use for each
of these categories:
1. Commercial Development:
Total effective population = 57,180
At the rate of 5 acres of commercial land per 1,000 population,
Total commercial land demand = 5 X 57,180
1000
= 285 acres.
Th:s may include the development of one new regional shopping center
(100 acres), 3 community shopping centers (each 30 to 40 acres),
and 6 neighborhood shopping centers (each 10 to 15 acres).
K-7
-------
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
increase of population = 57,180 X 10 = 572 acres.
1,000
These park acreages could be allocated to various types of parks
as follows:
One citywide park = 150 acres
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
Sims and Brays Bayous (particularly Sims Bayou) offer a tremendous
opportunity for the development of these parks and open space
facilities.
3. Schools:
Total Population = 57,180 persons
Seven elementary schools, each serving a population of 7,000
to 10,000 persons.
Three junior high schools, each serving a population of 18,000
to 25,000 persons.
Two senior high schools, each serving a population of 25,000
to 35,000 persons.
The corresponding land area need is:
7 elementary schools @ 15 acres each = 105 acres
3 junior high schools @ 40 acres each = 120 acres
2 senior high schools @ 60 acres each = 120 acres
TOTAL = 345 acres
G. SUMMARY CONCLUSION OF SECONDARY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following table summarizes the net impact (secondary) of the
K-8
-------
proposed Almeda-Sims Sewage Treatment Project on the development of
various land use activities under the assumptions stated earlier in
this section.
NET IMPACT ON:
Population
Employment
Residential
Development
Industrial
Development
Commercial
Development
Parks and
Recreation
Schools
TOTAL
MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT
NUMBER
57,180 persons
24,945 jobs
23,550 housing units
-
-
13
12
-
ACRES
-
-
3,140
520
285
572
345
4, .8 62 acres
K-9
-------
TEXT REFERENCE:
CHAPTER IV: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
APPENDIX I; 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.
L-l
-------
HOUSTON'S
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PLANNING PROGRAM
FIRST TEN STUDY AREAS
1. Moody Park
2. Sunnyside
3. Settegast
4. Acres Homes
5. Magnolia Park
6. .Dodson - Oak Park.
7. Near North Side
8. Not Named
9. Washington
10. Navigation
HOUSTON CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
March 1974
-------
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING METHOD
FIRST
NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION GATHERING
Working Base
In-House Info
Other Dept. Info
Working Maps
Presentation of Info
INFORMATION
GATHER NG
SECOND
| | NEIGHBORHOOD
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
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
k^ONTACT/
FIELD
INFORMATION
zi d
SKETCH
PLAN
ZI d
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
INFORMATION
GATHERING
ZI CZ
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
THIRD
NEIGHBORHOOD
V
Sketch Plan \REVIEW S
Revisions of Plan >^ /
APPROVED PLAN
Final Presentation
Final Layout,
Writing and Printing
PLAN ACTION
Implementation
APPROVED
PLAN
ZI d
PLAN
iPTinu
FIELD
INFORMATION
ZI d
SKETCH
PLAN
ZJ CZ
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
11 \i v V
INFORMATION
GATHERING
ZJ CZ
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
\CON
FOURTH
NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION
FACT/^ GATHERING
f
~1 — ] C—
FIELD
INFORMATION
ZI CZ
SKETCH
PLAN
Continuing Action l»».— - j ^*
to Achieve Plan N. / >•
NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
\CONTACT/
_J L,
FIELD
INFORMATION
7
s
^
J7
FIFTH
NEIGHBORHOOD
INFORMATION
GATHERING
ZI d
NEIGHBOR-
Hnnn
n uu u
\CONTACT/
L-3
-------
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 II DATA GATHERING 10
CITY WIDE DATA SOURCES AND FILING 1O
SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD DATA SOURCES AND 11
FILING
CHAPTER ill 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? 30
SERVICE FOLLOW-UP 31
RELATION OF RESIDENTS TO CITY SERVICES 31
INITIATE PERSONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 31
APPROACHES
TRAIN LEADERSHIP FOR CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT 32
ACTIONS
L-4
-------
TEXT REFERENCE;
CHAPTER VIII: COMMENTS, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND
INFORMATION DISSEMENATION
APPENDIX M; NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS
-------
II
raw
'.I
f-t
- riiL'inrPTS -avs
. i i -i . r
treatment plants will be
closed with three new plants
built. The 23 remaining plants
will be enlarged and im- •
proved to increase "oyer-all
capacity by five times, the
report said. -Right now, the
treatment plants handle about *
200 million gallons of sewage ;
a day.
The target date for Im-
provements is 1977, but de-
lays in federal funding could
push back completion to 1979,
Williams said.
If delays occur, the city
will have to decide if it wants
to go forward without feeler-.
al grants and pay for improv-
ing some of the plants alone.
"We h;ive Indications at Ihl.s.
Unto 'hero won't hr> unusual
fir-lays." .Toh'isrm s;iiil
the Chocolate Bayou plant
with $2 million In city money
without a federal grant be-
cause of delays, Johnson said.
''It.was a timfj element. That
plant was one of our most
critical problems and we had
to £o ahead," he said. ' . '• ".''
The construction could-cost-
as much as $200 million with
federal grants matching 75
per cent of the city's money..
New sewer rates passed by
the mayor and the City Coun-
cil in February are forecast
.to bring in $25 million a year
• and will allow new bonds to
be issued for sewers and
plants.
If (he June 1 report Is ac-
cpptrd by the stale board,
i'"":Mn i!":i|i: i"onl|ni';;
construction will be placed on
the city.
The 12 points at which raw
sewage is dumped either
directly from the pipes or
treatment plants under
"chronic conditions" are:
f
• Northside Treatment
_ - Plant, into Buffalo Bayou.
O Hermann Park at Outer
Belt Drive, into Brays Bayou. -
O 301 North Adams, from a
pumping station Into Buffalo
Bayou.
O 5702 South Pirk Blvd.
into Kuhlman Gullcy.
J 6 '^Y-1"^" "'; ™ — "\
• 4 1 3 G Broadway,
Sims Bayou.
e 3701 North MacGregor
Drive, from a manhole over-
flow Into Brays Bayou.
» 43<0 Souih MacGregor
Way, into Brays Bayou.
O 4900 Aryilla at. Belve-
dere, into Biays Bayou.
. >u
e 4.vlO OST Drive
from a pumping statiort-ir.Jo
Hunting Bayou. ' \
^S
»v-99r>2 Rowlett from a
pumping staiion into Clear
Cicek.
O 10000 Brillmore nt Bar-
r ...... 'I I.j --- Jnirt *•-• mnl
CN
-------
to
10
I
O
-a
o
By IIAKOLD SCARLETT
Post Environment Writer
AUSTIN — The Houston
sewage system may have as
many as COO points over-
flowing raw sewage, including
some that are "a significant
threat to public health."
So the Texas Water Quality
Board was told Wednesday by
its field operations director,
John Latchford.
Latchford was summarizing
an interim report from the
city itself, required under a
January order of the water
board. The order directed the
city by June 1 to pinpoint its
present problems, work out
solutions, and chart -a long-
range plan to keep the sew-
age system abreast of future
city growth.
The city, in an interim re-
port due March 1, said it had
not yet completed a field in-
vestigation of overflow points.
But Latchford said a check of
records showed "some 2CO
historic overflow sites,"
He said a number of these
undoubtedly had been cor-
reeled, but the field in-
vestigation was also finding
some new ones.
' Lntchford said some of the
ewage system
(_j j
as
overflow points were in sew-
age plants and could be eas-
ily corrected.
"Other overflow points may
not appear to be major pollu-
tion threats to natural wa-
ters," he continued, "but are
Snvage hearing/page 4A
in fac; a significant threat to
public health."
Latchford said the water
board staff therefore had cau-
tioned the city that public
health "must be a major con-
sideration in any priority sys-
tem (for corrections), and
priorities based on receiving
stream impact alone will not
be acceptable."
The field operations direc-
tor, formerly stationed in
Houston, later told a reporter
that one thin? disturbing him
was the possibility of children
catching diseases while play-
ing in some parks and along
sewage-contaminated drain-
age ditches.
Latchford said one of the
overflows he had in mind is
in MacGregor Park. There,
he said, raw sewage is by-
passed into Brays Bayou dur-
ing overload periods.
The city report also listed
two overflow points in tha
Hermann Park zoo.
Latchford also to 1 d the <
board that most of the ovet-
flows are "correctable w'fth
the city's own resources" and
"we expect prompt and vigor-
ous activity" to correct them.
The water board issued Its
January cleanup order as An
alternative to a water poDii-
tion suit against the city, re-
peatedly urged by Atty. GCJT.
John Hill. ' :
The order in effect gave.ths
city a five-month grace peri-
sec Sewage/page 23
-------
limits
peri
ovei
sewers
C From page 1
requiring landowners to file a
letter with the City Public
Works Department stating the
number of units to be built
for what use is likely to stay
in effect.
The "letter only" quali-
fication will hopefully stop in-
rlances where building has
started without getting per-
mission first for sewer hook-
ups, a problem which has pla-
gued city officials in the past,
even from major building
construction.
"This method should give
us all belter planning, and
further development by help-
ing us get improvements built
without overloading the sys-
tem In another area," said
Williams.
Sewer problems in Houston
include:
• Lack of Compliance with
state laus regulating the
amount of sewage coming in
and going out of each plant;
• Treatment plants 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 point.1;
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 where
h i g h-risos and apartments
have been built on sewer
lines put in for single-family
residences;
* Abandonment of old wa-
ter district plants and re-
placement of lines put in be-
fore city specifications were
enforced, as In the case of
Sharpstown;
O Deterioration of sewer
lines because of hydrogen sul-
fide (that "rotten egg" smell)
buildup in inadequate lines
and treatment plants;
• Shifting guidelines for
federal grants and standards
pit put out by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency
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 b«
presented to the TWQB June
1 will lay out a $175 million
program, to be spent over
'five years to build some 15
new sewage treatment plants
and upgrade or enlarge oth-
ers, as well as plans for trunk
and relief lines.
Of that sum, $100 million
will come from the new sew-
er rates, boosted by 390 per
cent, the first increase in 10
years.
The other $73 million is ex-
pected in federal grants. The
total program will pump
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 hns been somewhat
off due to tighter money con-
ditions, builders say.
"Its been more of an eco-
nomic trend," said Allen Kar-
more, president of the Hous-
ton Apartment Builders Asso-
ciation. "In 1972, there ucre
54,000 apartment units under
construction and some 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
January1 by 6fi.4 per cent over
the previous year, permits
were also down in Harris
County—not afflicted by sew-
er problems —some 65..1 per
cent from the samp month in
1973, the Houston Chamber of
Commerce reported.
M-3
THE HOUSTON POST
March 12, 1974
-------
^ove 10 sue ji
over pollution lalleci
By IIAIiOLD SCAKLLTT
Post Environment Writer
. AUSTLNT —A lone member
of the Texas Water Quality
Board broke ranks Tuesdav
and took a stand in support of
the effort by Any. Gen. John
Hill to sue the Ciry of Hous-
ton for sewage pollution.
But a motion TO SUP by Rob-
ert J. Kemp Jr., uho repre-
sents the Texas Parks or.rl
Wildlife Department on the
water board, died for lack of
a second.
Later ;i staff-proposed
board order, requiring Hous-
ton to report by Jan? 1 on
how it plans to deal with
overloaded sewage plants,
died for lack of a if.c'ion.
Acting Eoaid Chairman
Frank Lewis cf F;'V City
asked lor a morion to approve
or disapprove the order, but
he got neither. Boarl Chair-
man J. Douglas Tocle of
Houston was absent.
."he board then postponed
KTitil its January ni'.'Cting any
.irther ac'.ion 0:1 what HC1
, .-.is described as mj---ive and
continuing polluMon violations
by Houston sewace plants.
Previously, related
requests by Hill for author.iy
to take Ho'jsion to court have
evoked no board support at
all.
In moving to sue Houston,
Kemp saifl:
"There is no question the
attorney general's office is
not satisfied with the situation
theie: Harris County is not
satisfied; Parks and VA'ildlii'e
is not satisfied and if I were
one of the people living iii
Houston, I wouldn't be satis-
fied."
Hush C. Yantis Jr.. water
board executive director, ac-
claimed the proposed order
for Houston as a line in-
novation that should be ex-
tended statewide to all other
major cities.
Komp, however, objected
that ihe order ''has virtually
no iceth — all we've done is
offer them an opportunity to
report."
Tin; order would have re-
quired1 a report from Houston
by Fob. 1 identifying its over-
Joaclcd sewage plants, lir^s
and lift stations. The r,. by
June 1. the ciry would have to
report its plans for dealing
with actual and developing
overionJs — either with nev.'
fctcilities or restrictions and
bans if necessary on new de-
velopments.
Dialling of a Houston order
was voted at ihe Ocrcijer
board meeting after A,;y.
Gen. Hill made a surprise ap-
psarance and personally le-
quested board authority to sue
Houston.
As originally conceived, tho
order would iiave prohibit!
any now sewaae hookups in
overloaded areas.
But Yantis explained Tues-
day that after discussions
with chairman Toole, it was
deckled to draw up a "posi-
tive" order rather than a
r.c-eative or "thou shalt not'1
order.
"Instead of telling Houston
what not to do. we have told
Houston what it should do,"
Yantis said.
Lewii asked Allison Peirce,
deputy Harris County pollu-
tion chief, his opinion on
v.'h'ch type of order was be;t.
Peirce said Houston has
three or four large, badly
overloaded, poorly operated
sewage plar,ts.
"You can't just shut them
down," Peirce said, "but it
seems plauvb'e t> .t4: them
no; to increase 'heir ioadin?.
"When you are really under
ihe gun. when a iud2e ham-
mers th.Vi ghvel down, you
S'rt a lot o? superhuman efiort
t ii a i >o:i don't get when
people are.told just to do the
be*t they can."
In ;ir,
-------
.. ..OIL,
By HAROLD SCARLETT
Tost Environment Writer
AUSTIN — The Texas Wa-
ter Quality Board put off for
a month Wednesday a deci-
sion on whether to pive Atty.
Gen. John Hill the so-ahead
for a sewage pollution suit
against the City of Houston.
Board members made haste
slowly on Houston's waste al-
though Asst. Atty. Gen. Mike
Willatt told them the city is
in "longstanding,. Continuous,
massive violation" of board
permits.
Willatt said Houston had
more plants in violation last
month than it did in 1970 be-
fore starting a big improve-
ment program.
Board members, however,
said they had little advance
notice of Hill's proposal to
sue, and they wanted a month
to think it over.
Willatt said the attorney
general's office had no objec-
tion to a month's delay.
Asked later what would
happen if the board continues
t o delay from month to •
month, as it sometimes does
on tough decisions, Willatt re-
plied:
"I'll jump off that bridge
when I come to it."
Willatt, head of the attorney
general's environmental divi-
sion, said his office cannot
file a permit violation suit ex-
cept on request of the water
board.
Hill has said he can file a
common-law suit without wa-
ter board participation if pub-
lic health i
declined td
will do sq
Involved, but has
say whether he
in the Houston
case.
The attoijney general, in an
unusual anjl perhaps unprece-
dented action, had asked the
.board to ask him to file suit.
He did so in a Sept. 14 letter
to Board Chairman J. Doug-
'lass Toole of Houston.
Before Hill's time, the at-
torney general's office did not
Please see Action/page 25A
fFrom pagajJ
go out looking for pollution
suits.
At Wednesday's somewhat
historic meeting, everyone ac-
knowledged that Houston sew-
1 age plants are polluting.
But, speaking for the water
board staff, Executive Dircc-
\ tor Hugh C. Yantis, Jr., and
Deputy Director Dick Whit-
tington defended Houston's
cleanup efforts and recom-
mended against a suit.
Whittington said he has
been told Houston has more
sewage plants than the Slate
of New Mexico, and getting
them all cleaned up is a
"very complicated" effort.
Willatt, who is from Hous-
ton, presented figures sug-
gesting Houston actually may
be losing ground in sewage
treatment.
Press reports in 1970, he^
noted, said 36 of the city's 42
plants were violating water
board standards. But he said
the city's
-------
APPENDIX"N:" RECORDS OF PUBLIC HEARING
SEPTEMBER 12. 1974
RICE HOTEL, HOUSTON
-------
I ^52^7 * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%-^wlu^^ REGION VI
1 6OO PATTERSON
DALLAS. TEXAS 752O1
HEARING RECORD SUMMARY
City of Houston, Texas Public Hearing
on
Houston Almeda-Sims Expansion Project
September 12, 1974
I. Administrative
This public hearing was convened by the presiding officer at 9:00 a.m.
with approximately 18 persons in the audience. Panel members were Mr. Greg
Edwards, staff environmental scientist, and Mr. Kahn Husain, consulting
engineer. Testimony was taken from three members of the audience. The
hearing was adjourned at 9:35 a.m., September 12, 1974.
II. Issues Raised
Two of the three persons testifying were geologists representing them-
selves personally as well as the Society of Independent Professional Earth
Scientists and the Houston Geological Society. Both testified as to the
need for additional study as to the Houston Gulf Coast geology. Although
the Draft Impact Statement was praised generally, both individuals pointed
out the need for additional investigation geologically since the main trunk
sewer line was planned to run directly across the top of the Pierce Junction
salt dome. Inasmuch as the area is subject to surface faulting and land
subsidence associated with subsurface fluid and salt withdrawal, the speakers
felt the geology section extremely inadequate. They felt a Gulf Coast salt
dome expert should look at the planned construction.
III. Conflicts Resolved or Unresolved
At the conclusion of the testimony by the three participants, EPA's
consulting engineer, Mr. Kahn Husain, advised that he felt the speakers'
comments to be well taken and that/it would be a worthwhile effort on EPA's
part to investigate into the IqpeT geology, incorporating the results into
the final Impact Statement. Mr. Husain advised that this could be done
without delaying the project.
-------
IV. Presiding Officer's Recommendation
After full consideration of the views, arguments and questions expressed
at the hearing, it is the recommendation of the presiding officer that
consulting engineer Husain's suggestion as to additional geological investiga-
tion be accomplished, with the result considered in the writing of the final
Impact Statement.
t
James L.
Regional
Collins
Hearing Officer
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGION VI
1GOO Pstterson, Suite 11 30
Dallas, Texas 75201
***
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
HOUSTON ALMEDA-SIMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
***
Thursday, 12 September 1974
Rice Hotel
Houston, Texas
MR. Jj'i COLLINS, Pre-ldi
R eg i o n a 1 _M a a rj n q Of f 1 c e r_
m. SREG EDFARDS
Envlronnental Scientist
MR. KHAN HUSA IN
Consultinn Enqineer
LINDA SCIIMANKE
Certified Shorthand Reporter
-------
INDEX
;4R. JIM COLLINS, Opening Statement
MR. OREO EDWARDS, Environmental Scientist 11
MR. MARTIN SHEETS, Independent Environmental
Geologist, Houston, Texas I"1
MR. SABIN W. MARSHALL, Geologist 1-i
MR. JOE JOHNSON, Assistant Directorv Departnent of
Public tforks, City of Houston .1"
MR. KHAJ HUSAIN, Director, University of Texas at
Arlington Planning Center 17
Renorter's Certificate 1")
EXHIBITS Marked
I Mr- Martin Sheets,
Statement
? « Letter P/ll/71*, Society
of Indeoendent Professional
Earth Scientist I'l 27
-------
ilCAitlHG OFFICER: Good morninr.;, lauK-r, -m T
•>: untie men, and welcome to this public hearirv; o." the
Jru.ft Environmental Impact Statement re-ardin^ tho Houston
Alne la-Sins Wastewater Treatment Facility, which I now
call to order.
My name Is Jin Collins, I I;:, a llcinsc.l
attorney and the Regional Hearing Officer Tor r-te~ion VI
of the Jnvironr.iental Protection A.rency :-Lr. Art.iur '/.
i;u';cn, the Regional Adniinidtrator, to w;io."i I llreotT; rep .p1
iiMs iesi;^nated rue as tne Presiding Of 'icor of to.i.av'r
noariritj.
Also oar'tlcipatin;- in to lay'"- •-,r'j.-v-.-••,!-
in- is :lr. Grer Edwards., on nv ri^ht, vho is an Environ-
..lentil Scientist fron tne Office of Grants f'Joor'lination
of iie^ion VI. On nls ri^ht 13 'Ac- Khan ;-!u3ai:i froj.-t the
University of Texas at Arlington.
For the record, this hearing in ijeirv;;
convened on oept.jraber 12, J97''t in the !"lce 'Hotel, Houston,
Texas.
Now, I would like to :_:lve you a briof
•£:-?:planation of wtiat this hearln.-' is about an.I the rules
!;:i?.t vrill apply. This is a Public Ad'rdnistrative -earing,
hold by and through the authority of the : invironnental
Trotection Agency under Public Law Tl-l'.K'). ocction 1H11
of the National Environmental Policy Act which is Public
-------
i
-------
resources which would be involved in the propose! ?.ct Lr v.ltle ,'
of the U. 3. Coi-3, anl shall accompany the ^reposal thro.i./n
the existing agency review proc«o3e3.
To comply with the Act. t.ie Office of
Grants Coordination, Region VI in Dallas has orepared a
Draft Environmental Impact Ctatenent for tiie proposed
expansion of the Houston Almeda-Sins VJaatewatsr Vreatinent
Facility. This Draft F.nvironraental Innact Statement v-as
nade available to federal, state and local agencies, nrlvate
organisations and certain individuals on July U, 197'-'.
T aja certain that vaany of you have received a cony of that
.locument. If not, there are a limited numb or available
at the registration table.
The Council on Environmental '>ualitv
-------
nes, promulgated to Implement HEPA,
the follow-in-" policy:
''Federal Agencies will, In connultatlo-j
•with otner appropriate federal, state and local ac-.oncies,
annsss In detail the potential environmental impact In o-.ir-r
taat i.lvorse effects are avoided, and environmental '•,ial.ltv
li- restored or enhanced, to the fullest extent prac^ le»^le,
In particular, alternative actions that "will Tilnl;-i1 <>'• rid-
vc-r3o 1/iDact should be explored and tooth tne lonr, ari'.l
.^hort -r3:r-e Implications to nan, his physical and social.
,3, trrou;idi:T's, anu to nature, shoul.i be ev.glm.to^cj in order
to avoid to the fullest; extent practicable undesirable
consequence;: for the environment.''1
1::PA policy is directed to fully conply
-,'lth tiif* National .^nvironnicntal Policy Act and Council
on T.nviron;.lental Q.uality Oulvl ."-lines . Public participation
In .-n ic]'cei-:ral part of the agency planning and decision-
t:ak.in^ process. Tne agency Intends to keep the public
fully informed about the status and progress of the studies
and fIndini/js, and to actively solicit co;nments from all
concerned groups and individuals. Approval of the nro
v>oseT] oroject nere, the subject of this hearing., cannot
be :-::iven 'intll the Environmental Impaict Statement Process
Is completed and until the project meets all state and
al requirements.
-------
Although this is not, ri court of ia?:,
-•/hat we are engaged upon here today Is a verv serious ousl
nc-S3. In an effort to assure the fullorst ac-'.rec of public
participation possible In all of Its en-^rorrr^^t^l nro^rar..* ,,
the environmental Protection Agency, in addition to Kolic.it-
!.:.?• written coirune.its, holds public hc^.ri."v-"~ on those i.-"U33
whore significant action is about to be t-i>fvi, or Hd^-n
nubile interest in indicated. tie encoura-vo the- cttl r--,f>n.--
rrom all y PC tors of t:ie public to make ti^oir vli?;,;" 'rnovn.
•Av - Artnur '.r. Burich, "'.-:• r:ional Adnini'*--
trator . has determined that the proroso-1 fc lor;*.! ^ctio^
here will have a significant irap^ct on t.ic cnvi rcnr.er.t.,
and tnat a public hearing jnipiht identify environnental i:3r.;;es
tnat !ui.jht otherwise be overlooked. This is why we Cre-
dere today.
This hearing proviJos 'ill interestr-J
nersoris an 'ipportunlty to express their opinions which will
oe pertinent to tne proposed project ani the Draft Imnact
-'tateraent. Please Dear in nina tnat the dr'Aft statement
serves only as a meana of aasesainr the environmental
i"in.act of proposed agency actions and Is not to be construed
i« .lufitification for decisions already :'^,i^. ,\n relevant
te^ti'Tiony presented today will be conaiclered by dPA In
^rrivinp; at a final decision and Irmact r-tatevaent. rb^t
"tntoraent,. in turn, will relate to the question of whether
-------
or not, or under what conditions, federal funds will be
granted to further the project.
Since today's hearing is not a rule-
making hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act,
nor a court of law, no formal procedures or rules of evi-
dence will apply. Because this hearing is for the sole
purpose of gathering all pertinent facts relating to the
environmental issues involved, our rules of evidence will
be rather liberal; however, they will be kept as consistent
as possible with orderly proceedings. Participants may
present any information which they feel should be brought
to the attention of the planning agencies. Also, partici-
pants in this hearing may question or discuss any issue or
point which is brought up by any speaker, but only after
the close of his or her presentation.
I do require that all formal testimony
submitted today be under oath, that all testimony be
relevant to the draft Impact Statement we are considering,
and that it not be repetitive of previous testimony.
I may limit oral presentation if not
pertinent or material to the relevant issues surrounding
the draft Impact Statement, and I may ask that redundant
or corroborative material be submitted rather than read.
I also ask that all statements by any one individual
in excess of twenty minutes be summarized.
-------
The procedure for today's hearing will
be as follows. After my opening remarks, we will hear from
Gre
-------
Monday through Friday, In the Office of the Pe.rional Hoirirv
Clerk in Dallas, Texas. That's on the llth floor. 1^10
Patterson Street. I am also in the habit of nenrtin^ n
copy to those localities concerned. In this case. WG will
send a cony to the Houston Chamber of Commerce, nrobahly
to Mr. Welch's office.
The hearing record today will remiin
open for ten calendar days after adjournment of this hearing.
If anyone has any additional comments, or if you wish to
modify any of the testimony you presented at this hearinrr,
please send them to my attention at Region VI in Dallas,
and it will become a part of the record.
In addition to the testimony at this
hearing, written materials which have been submitted directly
here or to the Regional Administrator of Region VI. previously
or within the extension oeriod that I announced will also
be considered in reaching a final decision.
If there is anyone who wishes to testify
but who has not filled out a registration card, I ur^e you
to io so as soon as possible in order that appropriate
scheduling: can be arranged.
If you have written material to be
entered into the record as exhibits, make certain that you
anpear before me and have your exhibit marked prior to
reiving testimony. Also, if your oral presentation has
-------
10
been reduced to writing, I would appreciate copies being
~iven to the Chair and to the staff as an aid in transcribing
today's proceeding.
Before anyone gives testimony in this
proceeding, they must be sworn in. At this time, in order
to expedite that aspect of the hearing, I would like to have
the oath administered to everyone at one time. If those of
you v;ho feel you may participate by presenting formal testi-
mony would please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you and each of you solemnly affirm
that the testimony you are about to present represents the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Answer,
I do.
(Whereupon, all witnesses
were sworn.)
Please be seated.
As you come forward to testify, please
Identify yourself by name, title if with an organisation,
the actual organization and location, and if you are repre-
senting someone, the name of the person or organization you
are representing. Also, please indicate at that time whether
or not you have taken the oath.
Does anyone in the audience have any
question now as to how the hearing is to be conducted?
Mo one so indicating, I will now call on Mr. Greg Edwards,
-------
of the Office of Grants Coordination, Region VI.
MR. EDWARDS; Thank you, Mr- Co]lins.
The Draft Environmentil Imnact r-ta-cc--
ment on Houston's Almeda-Sims Wastewater Treatment Paci lit, I---,;
has been prepared and distributed in accordance with the
Environmental Protection Agency Interim Rerulafcionr, or
Impact Statements, dated January 17, 1973, Council on
Environmental Quality Guidelines, dated August 1, 1^73
and the EPA Preliminary Draft Manual \'or ""reparln,^ Impact
Statements, dated March 2, 1073.
This statement is intended to oresent
F.PA's analysis of the environmental impact of the ^ronose^
project. In complying with this objective,, Chapter IV of
the statement, entitled, ''Environmental Effects of the
Proposed lotion", is organized to contain a discussion on
short term impacts, normally construction impacts such as
noise and erosion, long term impacts such as water duality
and land use, and secondary impacts such as those resulting
fron additional growth.
Discussions of short and Ion:* term
impacts cover areas of environmental concern which are ob-
vious, related to the project, and which for the noat cart
.an be measured or understood.
Secondary or indirect impacts of the
proposed oroject are not as easily understood or quantifiable
-------
This Is a draft statement and no r-j.nal
conclusions or recommendations have been prepared.
The Information presented in this dr.nft
statement together with all pertinent Information presented
at this hearing, will lay the groundwork for our continued
review as the final impact statement Is prepared. Follow-
ing completion of our research, final conclusions and recom
mendations will be prepared and Included as a senarat0
section in the final lnr>acj statement.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Gre?>;. He Ml turn
now to the first registration card that I have, Mr. Martin
Sheets. Will you come forward to the speaker's podium,
please?
:1R. SHEETS: Mr. Chairman, ladles and rentlenen,
I'm an independent environmental geologist located here In
Houston and I am under oath.
I have statements here that I will
present In writing.
I'm representing myself and another
'i-roup. too. I'm representing SIPR5-- organization, The
Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists.
This related Impact statement, in my
opinion. Is very rood generally, but the section on ,^eolo
-------
under discussion, geologic problems generally fall in
three types: first, salt domes; second, surface subsidence-
third, active surface faulting.
In my written statement here, I diacus-i
these problems in considerable detail and recommend solutions
The biggest problem is—besides the fact that it ann^ars to
have no local input—that the main trunk sewer line ir;
planned to run directly across the top of Pierce Junction
piercement salt dome and that area is subject to uplift
by salt, subsidence due to oroduction of oil on the planks,
and collapse due to production of salt which is Pcoins on
there—besides the active surface faults in the are*.
The most Important thin??; I would like
to suggest is getting input by a person, a geologist, who is
strictly a Gulf Coast, Houston, salt done type man.
One other thing I would like to bring
up regarding our bayous: In the introduction it points out
the thins that nany people in Houston know; in drourht
periods, dry weather, our bayous are virtually open sewers
full of sewage effluent and sewage—actually raw sewage.
What they need very badly is a larger volume of some kind of
purification and clarification or clearing up of the vege-
tation in there. In my opinion—and I'm sure this is a
controversial subject—the introduction of readily available,
oil field, salt water would help to solve all three of those
-------
problems. A?ain, I have some details in this written
thin-;. I'm sure that the residents that live down-wind
of the bayous would much prefer salt water running through
then than sewer-
Thank you very much.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you,, I1r. Sheets.
MR. SHEETS: For the SIPES Orgainsation, I have
a letter from the president. Actually, about all he rices
is ar.ree with me, concur in my conclusions.
HEARING OFFICER: All rlfjht. If you will rive
ne a cony, I'll najcs your statement Exhibit No. .1 and the
SIPES statement Exhibit No. 2.
(•-/hereupon3 Exhibits Ho. 1
and
-------
We feel that improvement of water
quality in the Bayous, the Ship Channel, and. subsequently
Galveston Bay is a prime environmental consideration. We
are in favor of the construction of additional wastewater
facilities for the Citv of Houston to insure a better water
environment.
The proposed wastewater facilities
nay be adversely affected by active geologic nrocesses in
the Almeda-Sins area. These processes include ry>sslble
surface faulting and land subsidence associated with sub
surface fluid and salt withdrawal. 2ecause these r^eolo'/ic
problems mav be quite serious, and because we do not want
to see the project delayed, we recommend that an immediate
geologic surface and subsurface study be made in the area
of the proposed wastewater facilities.'"
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Joe Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON: I am Joe Johnson, Assistant Director3
Department of Public Works, City of Houston. Tiy statement
is not in written form. The purpose—I would merely like
to describe the proposed project and give the necessity or
Justification for the proposed project.
The Almeda-Sims Project is divided
into three separate projects: The existing A line da-Sims
-------
Waste Water Treatment Plant is a one million ml Ion ner
day facility, an inadequate facility, presently s-rrvirr- a
very snail service area—the nronosed project here is the
construction of a twenty nr-i waste uat^r f-e^t^ent niant
tiie construction of a nludge disposal ola-t nroduclnr re
saleable fertilizer material and th<= construction of a
diversion sewer 1/icreas 1 n" the s^rvic0 an "a ^f " lornpda-
Si'is Plant to aDnroxiriate.V' 1° "nn acres. Aim th^ di-
version oevrer will ,!iv>r4' a^ T ^IPCH". " "'1/! ->r-r°s i/->t-A o"°
the existing "ins "'avon 'Jar,!.^ '^iter TreatT-^rt Plant an"3
revert it to this I^cation.
The arrti or^R^r.'t ly is verv sparsely
developed. ^e construction of ti'.is facility will allow
the development of this area, a>n 1 further allow the City of
Houston to abandon two additional very sinall and inadequate
3ewar-;e treatment plants, TV. will illcw the ^ity to provi^ie
waste water treatment servic^a to presentIv seotic tank
areas that are inadequat0 and nre.Tentlv c'-nstltute a nossible
health hazard because- the lentic tanVri do not work nro^erlv.
The proposed p,ludp-n riant will allow
the production nf resale^^le **>*r*-11 l-rer -iPterial fron the
flow to this Alemeda-Cirr5 '-rant^ "•'^'-er Tr^at i^nt Plant. Ft
vr.il] also receive 4~'--* "^ -r^^^^ n-^ ^f nlud1",^- oroduced at dis-
trict SI Plant and «v«>ntunll7 fro''i fie "out /iwest Waste Water
Treatment Plant. It will allow the City of Houston to--
-------
17
at this location—meet the State's water quality standards,
discharge permits and the federal permits as well.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Those are the only three cards that
I have. Is there anyone else who wishes to nake a formal
statement? Is there anyone in the audience who would like
to ask a question of the EPA panel here or any of those
who participated here today? If not, I will —
We're ready now to hear a statement
from Mr. K'-ian Husain.
MR. KU3AIH: Thank you very much, Mr. Collins.
In reference to the statements made
by Mr. Marshall and Mr. Sheets, I would li;.;e to say this:
Your comments are well taken. At the time this draft
statement was prepared, we utilized the best possible data
and information that was available at that time. How,
since this thing has cone UP—and this Is the purpose of
the public hearing as I1r- Collins pointed out.
Based on the input that you have Riven,
it would be perhaps a worthwhile effort on our part to
investigate into the situation and incorporate the results
of the Investigation in the final impact statement report.
We received a letter from Dr. Van-
Siclea of the University of Houston. He raised a similar
-------
1?.
point. And the firm of Turner, Collie & Braden, the con-
sultant firm in Houston, we did have some discussion with
them as well as the City of Houston Public Works Department.
I want to assure that this thing vrill
be given attention immediately, quickly, so that the project
will not be delayed. By the same time, the necessary
adverse Impact that may be generated and possible the rami-
fications could be avoided.
I appreciate the comments you made.
Thank you.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr- Husiin.
Is there anyone who has any comment
at all from the audience at this tine? If not, I will
remind you that the Hearing Record will remain open, the
transcript itself, for ten calendar days from today. If
you want to send anything in after today's proceeding, you
can still get it included as an exhibit.
Hearing no further comments, I call
this ..earing to a close.
-------
19
STATE OP TEXAS )
)
COUNTY OF DALLAS )
I, LINDA SCHMANKE, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, do hereby certify that the facts as stated by
me in the caption hereto are true;
that the foregoing proceedings were made
before me by the indicated speakers hereinbefore named
and were thereafter reduced to typewriting by me.
Given under my hand this 23rd day of
September, 197*1 •
-------
STATEMENT
Presented by
MARTIN M. SHEETS
at
PUBLIC HEARING, SEPTEMBER 12, 1974
in
HOUSTON, TEXAS
-------
MARTIN M. SHEETS
1973 W. GRAY, RM. 4
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77019
TELEPHONE: 523-1975
G EOLO GIST
PETROLEUM CONSULTANT
ENVIRONMENTALIST
ACTIVE SURFACE FAULTING
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Construction of Waste Water Facilities; City of Houston.
W.P.C. - Texas - 1009
W.P.C. - Texas - 1074
W.P.C. - Texas - 1060
Almeda-Sims Treatment Plant-
Almeda Knight-Cambridge. Trunk Sewer
In general the draft is impressive. However the section on "Geology"
Page 13 (2/3 page) is extremely inadequate. It appears to be the product
of a person who is completely lacking in familiarity with geology of the
Houston Gulf Coast, Salt Dome province. It fails totally to consider
local geologic conditions which have profound effect on the enviroment
and structures of the proposed type. There can be no doubt that consider-
able imput by local geologists would be very advantageous.
The areal geologic map figure 1-5 leaves very much to be desired regarding
attention to detail, land control etc. and pays little attention to the local
site geology.
Environmental Geologic problems in the site area fall in three general
catagories:
1) Salt Domes
2) Surface Subsidence
3) Active surface faulting
-------
SALT DOMES
The draft seems to completely ignore the very important fact that the
proposed route of the trunk sewer crosses directly over the Pierce
Junction piercement salt dome and through the oil field associated with
it. The area of the dome ( see plat enclosed ) is very unstable, being
subject to 1) surface subsidence due to fluid withdrawal 2) uplift due
to movement of the salt and 3) collapse due to salt production.
Pierce Junction dome has been producing oil since 1921 and salt also far
a long period. These two activities cause serious hazard to any man
made structure crossing the dome. Such hazards should be avoided by
moving the line of the trunk sewer off the salt dome as suggested on the
plat attached.
»
SURFACE SUBSIDENCE AND UPLIFT
Surveys made over the years by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey show
that the general Houston area is subsiding. The center of the bowl of
general subsidence is in the vicinity of the Houston ship channel industrial
complex but the bowl includes the site area. This subsidence is due
principally to excessive fresh water production. While good detailed data
are not available in the exact location of the trunk sewer it can be estimated
that over the years the vicinity of the north ( originating) end of the trunk
sewer line has subsided approximately one foot. The data further indicates
that the rate of this subsidence is accelerating. I would think it essential
to 1) determine exactly how much subsidence has taken place, 2) make
an estimate of future subsidence and 3) consider these figures in the
-------
design of the proposed facilities.
Fuild withdrawal is reported to have caused significant ( 3 1/2 ft )
subsidence 1916-25 at Goose Creek oil field reported by Pratt and
Johnson in 1926. Collapse at Blue Ridge Salt Dome was described by
Hanna in 1953. In the Blue Ridge case a sizable crater developed and the
mine buildings and equipment fell in the hole caused by collapse of the
dome after salt production. Since Pierce Junction dome shows local surface
elevation, as do many other domes the salt must be uplifting the surface
faster than it is being eroded down. Ail these factors demand careful
consideration.
ACTIVE SURFACE FAULTING
Numerous faults are recognized in the subsurface formations on the flanks
of Pierce Junction Salt dome, and each of these is a potential surface fault.
This dome and Blue Ridge Dome a few miles to the southwest together with
the area between comprise the Pierce Junction zone of active surface
faulting in which at least two surface faults are known to be actively dis-
placing West Fuqua Road. Other such active surface faults should be
expected. The Sims Bayou Plant and Trunk sewer are both located in this
zone of active faulting. Both these structures could be very badly disrupted
where they are intersected by active surface faults. To avoid such problems
a thorough investigation for active surface faults should be made and if they
cannot be avoided the structures should be designed to accomodate for the
expected fault movement.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that a thorough investigation of the site geology be made
by a thoroughly experienced Houston, Gulf Coast geologist. It is recommed-
ed that the proposed route of the trunk sewer be moved, off of the Pierce
Junction salt dome to some location such as that suggested on the enclosed
plat. It is recommended that if possible the Sims Bayou treatment plant be
moved out of the zone of active surface faulting. It is recommended that a
precise survey be made to determine what changes in elevation have taken
place in the site area, in the past and that an attempt be made to estimate
the extent of future changes and that these figures be incorporated in the
design plans.
It is further recommeded that all the excavations for the trunk sewer and
Sims Bayou plant be carefully studied by a thoroughly experienced geologist
during the course of counstruction at what ever location, to investigate for
active surface faults.
REGARDING OUR BAYOUS
As suggested in paragraph three on page one of the introduction to this draft
during dry weather our bayous became virtually open sewers. They are full
of disease germs and viruses, they polute the air and promote the growth of
vegetation which impedes flood drainage. All of these bad features could
be improved by the introduction of controled amounts of readily available oil
field saltwater. I anticipate that this statement will illicit a storm of protest
but all of you thinking people please hear me out.
-------
The idea could be very easily proven in any good labratory, but It is my
firm opinion that the salt water would help in all ways. First , during
dry spells it would provide additional volume of flow and thus dilute
the sewage and reduce air polution. At the same time the salt water
would kill disease germs and promote public health. Most important the
salt water would reduce the proliferation of vegetation which now impedes
the flow of flood water.
If our bayous ever cease to be open disease sewers and get clear and
clean so that the saltwater was hurting instead of helping it would be a
very simple matter stop its introduction.
THANK YOU
Martin M. Sheets
-------
PROPOSED SYSTEM DESCRfPTION MAP
FIGURE Ill-l
o
EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
;:::::: PROPOSED TRUNK SEWER
-------
SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL EARTH SCIENTISTS
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77061
September 11, 1974
OFFICERS 1974-75
PRESIDENT
Orville G. Lundstrom
VICE PRESIDENT
Eugene L. Maxwell
SECRETARY
Jock P. Martin
TREASURER
Putnam K. Raiter
Mr. Arthur W. Buseh, Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
1600 Patterson
Dallas, Texas 75201
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Charles C. Bankhead,
William C. Bednar
Clinton O. Engstrand
Leroy Gatlin
Clem E. Gsorge
Robert J. Gutru
Martin C. Kelsoy
Orville G. Lundstrom
Jack P. Martin
Eugene L. Maxwell
Thomai H. Phil pott
Putnam K. Reiter
Woyne E. Walcher
Re: Houston's Almeda-Sims
Jr Wastewater Facility Hearing,
September 12, 1974, at
Rice Hotel, Houston, Texas
Dear Sir:
It has come to my attention that the plans for the above project
do not consider a most important point -- active surface faults and
surface subsidence. The plans show the proposed trunk sewer line
to cross a salt dome oil field in which both problems undoubtedly
occur.
The enormous expense of repairing ruptures in this line
might be avoided by employing one of the Houston geologists who
is experienced and expert in this field to make a ground survey
at once, before the route plans are solidified.
On behalf of the Houston Chapter of the Society of Professional
Earth Scientists, I recommend that such a survey be made imme-
diately.
Respectfully yours,
Cr*D. Cantrell, Jr.
Chairman, S.I. P. E.S.
508 C & I Building
Houston, Texas 77002
Houston
CDC:mfc
-------
RESPONSE
TO THE GEOLOGICAL ISSUES RAISED DURING THE
PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR ALMEDA-SIMS REGIONAL TREATMENT
PLANT HELD IN HOUSTON SEPTEMBER 12, 1974.
Pursuant to the concerns expressed by Mr. Martin M.
Sheets of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
and Mr. Sabin W. Marshall of the Houston Geological Society and
subsequent recommendation by the EPA Regional Hearing Officer
Mr. Jim Collins, an additional investigation has been made to
identify the impact of the proposed project on the subsurface
geologic processes of the project area0 The results of this
investigation have been incorporated into the final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Almeda-Sims Regional Treatment Plant0
The investigation has been divided into two parts:
1) The nature of the geological problem and its dimension.
2) Impact of the proposed project on the geological
processes of the project area.
The first part consists of research analysis and interpret-
ation of data which has been presented in an entirely new section
added to this Final Draft in CHAPTER I; SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING, Section bb, Land-Surface Subsidence and Surface Faulting,
(Houston-Calveston Area, and Geologic Problems for the Service
Area). See pages 13 through 13H0 The section is 8 pages long
-------
supported by three graphic illustrations. The detailed tech-
nical materials relevant to this section have been documented
as two new Appendices added to this report. These appendices
are Appendix EE, Part I and Part II. The appendices are 23
pages long accompanied by several charts and illustrations0
The findings of this portion of the investigation confirm the
issues raised by Mr. Sheets, MrP Marshall and Dr. Van Siclen
of the University of Houston0
The second part of the investigation deals with the
"Interrelationships Between Land Subsidence, Surface Faulting,
and the Construction of the Proposed Project." The impact of
the project on the geologic processes has been documented in this
section added new to this Final Draft (Chapter IV , Impact of the
Proposed Action, Section jj, pages 88A through 88H). This section
is also 8 pages long and includes 2 graphic illustrations0 It
focuses specifically on the effect of the proposed project on
the geology of the Pierce Junction Salt Dome and presents an
analysis of the project's effect of Land Subsidence, Active
Faults and Salt Cavity Collapse.
The examination of available data indicates the proposed
project would cause no significant effect on the geologic processes
associated with the project area. The possibilities of the
collapse of the salt dome appear to be remote and in the event
it does happen in the distant future, it will be for different
reasons with which the proposed project seems to have little or
no relationshipso Methods to maintain stable condition of the
-------
dome have been outlined in the study0 The study concludes with
the recommendation that the city of Houston retain the services
of a local oil field geologist to conduct a field survey of the
project area both before and during the construction phase of
the project elements and cross-verify the findings of this
investigation
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1 600 PATTERSON
DALLAS. TEXAS 752O1
December 12, 1974
Re: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT NUMBER 7412
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 DECEMBER 13, 1974.
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.
Arthur W. Busch
Regional Administrator
Enclosures
------- |