Ui,.ted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V July 1984
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Environmental
Impact Statement
Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area, Ohio
Final
IF*v
South
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGIONS
23° SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:
5WFI
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area, Ohio, is provided for your information and review. This EIS
has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 and the subsequent regulations prepared by the Council on Environmental
Quality and this Agency.
Upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register on July 20, 1984, a
30-day comment period will begin. Please send written comments to the atten-
tion of Harlan D. Hirt, Chief, Environmental Impact Section, 5WFI, at the
above address. After the close of the comment period, a Record of Decision
will be provided to all who received the Final EIS.
I welcome your participation in the EIS process for the Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area.
Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Acramkus
Regional Administrator
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cleveland Southwest Suburban
Facilities Planning Area
Prepared by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Regi on V
Chicago, Illinois
with assistance from
ESEI, Inc.
South Bend, Indiana
July 1984
Approved by:
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) has selected
a regional interceptor as its cost-effective wastewater
treatment alternative to be constructed in the southwestern
suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio. The Facilities Plan expanded upon
recommendations in about a dozen earlier planning reports dating
back to 1966. Detailed alternatives and issues have been
analyzed in a recent series of reports, culminating in the Final
Facilities Planning Report of October 1982. Both the Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) focus on this
collection of facilities planning reports and issues cited in
the Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS of July 23, 1976. Each
issue was described as follows in the Notice of Intent:
(a) Interbasin transfer and resultant low streamflow.
Treatment at Cleveland Southerly would divert stream-
flow from the Rocky River to the Cuyahoga River. This
may have an adverse impact during low flow periods.
Public water supply comes from Lake Erie, so present
streamflow has been augmented by lake water.
(b) Population figures plus water use. Inflow, infiltra-
tion, project phasing, sizing, and routing considera-
tions must be examined thoroughly to develop a cost-
effective project.
(c) Secondary impacts. Sewering areas presently on septic
tanks and other on-lot systems will result in an in-
creased growth potential for the area, with possible
impacts on natural resources and community services.
Impacts on parklands. Part of the project routing has
been proposed through the existing Cleveland Metropol-
T +• a v» Da v"L«-
(d)
itan Park.
Since the Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS, EPA has worked
concurrently with NEORSD and Ohio EPA to develop the EIS. The
Draft EIS was issued in November, 1983, and its public hearing
was held on January 12, 1984.
Planning Area
The Cleveland Southwest Facilities Planning Area (also known as
the Southwest Interceptor Planning Area) is located in Cuyahoga,
Lorain, Medina, and Summit Counties, Ohio. The planning area is
located west of the Cuyahoga River, in the Rocky River Basin and
contains approximately 195 square miles and encompasses 25 jur-
isdictions. The greatest portion of the planning area is
located in southwestern Cuyahoga County.
The project is a smaller part of the facilities planning area
and is composed of two subareas. The facilities planning area
was divided into subareas in order to improve analyses. Six
-------
specific subareas were identified for wastewater treatment al
ternatives. They are the Main Leg Area, West Leg Area, East Leg
Option Area, Medina "300" Option Area, Columbia Township Option
Area, and North Olmsted Option Area. The Main Leg and West Leg
Areas create the proposed project area. The option areas are
designated for future detailed wastewater facilities planning
after the year 2000 and are considered only in general in this
planning period.
Households and businesses in the Main Leg Area are serviced by
the overloaded Big Creek Interceptor. The West Leg Area has
major wastewater treatment plants, at Berea, Brook Park, Middle-
burg Heights and Strongsville "A"; several smaller plants and
on-site treatment systems in communities (predominantly Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Township) are not served by central sewerage
systems. The daily average flow at each major plant varies
between 1.0 million gallons a day (mgd) and 2.7 mgd. The EIS
primarily examines the alternatives for the Main Leg and West
Leg Areas. Alternatives for the option areas were reviewed and
evaluated as future possibilities.
Need for Project
The Draft EIS evaluated the need for water quality improvements-
in the service area. The Main Leg Area has inadequate sewer
capacity as reflected in the overloading of the Big Creek Inter-
ceptor. Major plants in the West Leg Area cannot meet their
final discharge permits for advanced (tertiary) treatment with-
out expansion and upgrading. Many smaller plants have similar
problems, and on-site treatment systems suffer from general
problems of design inadequacies and poor maintenance.
Population rapidly accelerated in the project area between 1950
and 1970. In these two decades project area population increased
130 percent and 80 percent respectively. The City of Cleveland
lost population during this period. Recent population data con-
tained in the Final Facilities Planning Report indicates that
the 1980 service area population was 162,613 for the Main Leg
Area and 72,993 for the West Leg Area for a total of 235,626.
Projected year 2000 population is about 284,000 residents. The
EIS concurs with the need for a wastewater treatment project due
to the overloadings and resultant bypasses from the Big Creek
Interceptor, the numerous problems in the West Leg Area caused
by the population increase and the inability of most West Leg
plants to meet their final discharge permits. The basis of the
discharge permit limits is examined in Ohio EPA's Draft Rocky
River Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
Alternatives Examined
Alternatives examined in this Final EIS are identical to those
examined in the facilities plan:
11
-------
1) No Action -- continue use of about 30 treatment plants
and numerous on-lot treatment systems at present treat-
ment levels with no Federal funding for improvements.
2) Regional Interceptor -- treat wastewater from the
southwest suburbs of Cleveland and remove the over-
load from the Big Creek Interceptor to treatment at
the existing Cleveland Southerly Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP). This Southwest Interceptor would consist
of an 11 mile Main Leg, from Cleveland Southerly west to
the Hopkins Airport area and a six mile West Leg basin
to Strongsvilie "A". This alternative would eliminate
the four major plants, most minor package plants and the
Grayton Road pump station. The Facilities Plan selects
this alternative as being costeffective and proposes a
maximum sewer size of 114-
inches to convey a peak flow of 527 mgd. Detailed
routing alternatives were evaluated for this alterna-
tive. Much of the project can be implemented with
tunneled construction techniques. The Main Leg would
cross the Cuyahoga River Valley with an aerial cross-
ing structure near existing railroad and sewer struc-
tures .
3) Two plants plus relief interceptor -- treat wastewater
for the Rocky River portion of the project area at an
expanded and upgraded North Olmsted WWTP and for the
remaining project area use a smaller Main Leg Inter-
ceptor relief sewer to remove the overload from the Big
Creek Interceptor with continued treatment at the Cleve-
land Southerly WWTP.
4) Multi-plant plus relief interceptor -- treat wastewater
within the Rocky River project area at the upgraded and
expanded four major plants. The Big Creek Basin would
continue to be served at Cleveland Southerly, with a
smaller version of the Main Leg Interceptor relieving
the Big Creek Interceptor and treatment at the Cleve-
land Southerly WWTP-
5) Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township - Columbia Township --
Alternatives considered by detailed planning zones
include combinations of improved operation and mainte-
nance, upgrading or replacing on-site systems, cluster
systems, upgrading small package plants and centralized
collection and treatment. The preferred combinations
include new sewers for Olmsted Falls"and most adjacent
package plants, while improving on-site systems in the
outlying areas of Olmsted Township. If incorporated
into the Multi-Plant alternative, a new treatment
facility would be built to serve this area. If included
in the Regional Interceptor alternative, wastewater
would be conveyed to the Southwest Interceptor.
111
-------
The EIS concurs with the facilities plan analysis that the no-
action alternative is not feasible since it presents no change
or alterations to remedy the water quality problems resulting
from existing conditions . Both the major and minor treatment
plants will not be able to achieve their final discharge permit
standards and will likely to continue to violate interim dis-
charge permits during wet weather. Bypasses from the sewer
systems in the Big Creek tributary will continue to degrade
water quality. Local population growth will aggravate the
problem in the future.
Evaluation of Issues for the Regional Interceptor Alternative
The issue of interbasin transfer and resultant low streamflow
stems from the potential removal of wastewater from the project
area to the Southerly WWTP. Rapid development during the 1950's
and 1960's resulted in a proportionate increase in potable water
transported to the Planning Area from Lake Erie. The water was
locally discharged to the Rocky River. This situation of dis-
charging Lake Erie water into the Planning Area as wastewater
has increased flows in the Rocky River and resulted in the
Cleveland Water System indirectly augmenting the historical low
stream flow.
However, one municipality, the City of Berea, uses the East
Branch Rocky River as its source of potable water. Average daily
flow for the Berea Water Service is 2.5 mgd. In September 1981,
residents of Berea voted to retain and upgrade their water ser-
vice to 3.6 mgd. Construction is underway and completion of the
drinking water treatment facility is scheduled for late 1984.
Berea is upstream from most of the proposed project area. The
following chart presents the summary statistics on the before
project and after project flow effects on the Rocky River
assuming upstream development in 1990- Low flow is identified
as the least flow which occurs for seven days, once in ten
years, (Q7 10) and is expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Location
Rocky River Main Branch
Below Abram Creek &
North Olmsted WWTP
East Branch (mouth)
West Branch (mouth)
Without Project
(cfs)
50.49
9.46
17.46
With Project
(cfs)
34.33
5.69
11.67
Reduced flow impacts from the West Leg Interceptor in the Re-
gional alternative would be most noticeable in the 4.4 mile seg-
ment of the East Branch of the Rocky River between the Berea
WWTP and the confluence with the Main Branch of the Rocky River.
Conditions would be comparable to those in the 2 mile segment
between the Berea water supply and the Berea WWTP. The Berea
water supply and downstream portion of the East Branch of the
IV
-------
Rocky River may be severely affected if the East Leg option area
alternative is implemented. Detailed analyses will be necessary
if future facilities planning is initiated for an East Leg ser-
vice area.
In addition it was expected that low flow conditions could cause
aesthetic changes affecting real estate values and attractions
to waterbased activities in the Rocky River Reservation. Aes-
thetically, streams now entirely or partially composed of efflu-
ent due to the rise in residential Development will revert to
their pre-1950 condition. Streams like Abram Creek, composed
almost entirely of effluent, are expected to become intermittent
streams. Changes of stream flows ^rould be acceptable. Stream
water quality will improve, while stream depth will not be
noticeably affected.
The second issue involves sizing and cost-effectiveness of the
alternatives. Population is one critical seizing variable and
adjustments were made in the planning process to reflect the
1980 Census.
Population projections have not yet been completed by the 208
Agency, Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency (NOACA). On the
basis of 1980 Census data, it is anticipated that updated and
approved NOACA projections will present lowest population pro-
jections for, and beyond, the year 2000.
Another variable is the removal of clearwater from the sewage
system. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) have been extensively
studied in the facilities plan. Removal of 15 percent of the
I/I is cost-effective. A Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
is underway to plan detailed repairs to the sewer system. Some
of its results have been included in the development of this
EIS.
The most feasible non-selected alternative is the Multi-Plant
Alternative, with a total present worth cost of $312,737,400
(see Itemized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Present Worth Costs
below). This is about 6% higher ($17 million) than the total
present worth cost for the Southwest Interceptor Regional
Alternative which is $295,656,100. The basic user charges for
all suburban planning area residents will be approximately the
same, based on metered water usages. Each community will have
additional costs to rehabilitate and maintain the local sewers,
pay back existing debt, etc. Costs will be highest in Olmsted
Falls because of the need to construct a new sewer system to
replace on-site treatment units. Assuming 75% Federal funding,
the user charges are expected to range from 0.60% to 1.20% of
the median household income. The exception is the Olmsted Falls
user charge which is anticipated to be 1.83% of the median
household income because of the costs of new sewers. This user
charge is considered marginally high cost by EPA criteria.
Local planning suggestions are made to potentially reduce the
cost to the Olmsted Falls areas.
v
-------
ITEMIZED COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
Multi-Plant SWI
Item Alternative Alternative
CAPITAL COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 36,650,000
Main Leg Interceptor 76,159,500 $ 83,998,200
West Leg Interceptor 36,673,400
Connector Interceptors 3,212,800
Major Relief Sewers 27,943,600 27,943,'eOO
Other Relief Sewers 75,594,200 75,594,200
Proposed Collector Sewers 7,677,900 7,677,900
Individual Home Systems 5,936,200 5,936^200
Sewer Rehabilitation 3,156,700 3,156,700
Decommissioning Local WWTP's 600,000
Total $233,118,100 $244,793,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 34,320,000
Southerly WWTP 32,768,900 $ 40,937,500
Main Leg & Major Relief Sewers 2,991,100 2 991,100
West Leg and Connectors ' l'878'300
Existing Sewers 29,414,700 29!414'700
Proposed Collector Sewers 214,000 214 000
Individual Home Systems 1,008,900 1,008*900
Local Debt Retirement 2,155,100 2,155,100
Total $102,872,000 $ 78,599,600
SALVAGE VALUE
Local WWTP's (? 1,640,000) ($ 75,000)
Main Leg Interceptor ( 8,730,400) ( 9,624,900)
West Leg Interceptor ( 4,239,800)
Connector Interceptors ( 389 5QO
Major Relief Sewers ( 3,175,400) ( 3,175^00)
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance ( 7,005,400) ( 7,005,400)
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement ( 1 333,100) ( 1 333 100)
Proposed Collector Sewers ( lilSsisOO) ( l.'lSsisOO)
Individual Home Systems ( 212,600) ( 212,600)
Local WWTP Modified Use ( 525^000)
T°tal ($ 23,252,700) ($ 27,736,500)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $312,737,400 $295,656,100
DIFFERENCE +$ 17,082/000
VI
-------
Secondary impacts is the next concern listed in the Notice of
Intent. This concern has decreased in importance due to the
efforts undertaken during development of the facilities plan.
The reduction of the project scope from all communities in the
planning area to those municipalities in the Main Leg and West
Leg subareas has been determined to be reasonable as a result of
the EIS analysis. Secondary impacts in unsewered communities is
now focused primarily on households and businesses in the Olm-
sted Falls area and are not anticipated to be significant.
Impacts on area parklands is the final issue examined in the
EIS. This issue represented a concern for the continued attrac-
tiveness of the Cleveland Metropolitan Park System. The route
of the West Leg interceptor traverses the Rocky River Reserva-
tion at Berea and the East Branch of the Rocky River must be
crossed by open cut techniques. Tunneling is infeasible because
of the shallow depth necessary and the presence of unstable
materials. The connector sewer from the old Berea WWTP must
also traverse parkland. Mitigative measures are described in
the EIS and involve continued cooperation and discussion with
Metropark officials.
Principal changes from the Draft EIS are the elimination of
tertiary filtration from local treatment plants, clarification
of project costs and response to comment letters and the public
hearing. Chapter VII includes the letters and a summary of the
public hearing. A number of small changes and clarification
occur throughout the text.
Conclusions
The Southwest Interceptor is the cost-effective environmentally
sound alternative for the Southwest Planning Area. It should be
combined with on-site system improvements and management in Olm-
sted Township and local sewer improvements to remove about 15
percent of I/I and to construct necessary local relief sewers.
Olmsted Falls should pursue planning to construct a sanitary
sewer system.
The first portion of the Main Leg Interceptor is number 3 on the
Ohio priority list. The project is likely to receive 75%
Federal funding for construction, but Ohio EPA limits the amount
of funds which a grantee may receive each year. On-site systems
are eligible to receive a greater percentage of Federal funding
if public access and management are established. Prior to
October 1, 1984, U.S. EPA may fund sewers sized for growth in
the next 20 years. After that date, funding will be available
only to accommodate the existing population.
This EIS pertains only to the .Main Leg and West Leg projects. Any
future expansion of the Southwest Interceptor, such as the East
Leg or option Areas will be subject to an independent NEPA analysis
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
Executive Summary 1;
Table of Contents viii.
List of Figures xlYl
List of Tables xvii.
List of Appendices XX1•
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Planning Area I-l
B. Purpose and Need for Project 1-1
C. Project History I~7
D. EIS Issues 1-10
1. Interbasin Transfer 1-11
2. Population, Sizing and Cost-Effectiveness
3. Secondary Impacts
4. Parkland Impacts
E. Public Participation 1-12
1. Facilities Planning
2. Public Advisory Group
3. EIS Hearing and Comment Period 1-14
4. Completing the EIS Process
F. Final EIS Distribution
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Climate II-l
B. Topography and Drainage
C. Geology
D. Soils II-4
E. Land Use II-6
1. Overview
2 . Existing Land Use 11-11
a. Residential, Commerical and Industrial
b. Recreational and Institutional 11-13
c. Transporation
d. Agricultural
e. Land Use Planning 11-15
F. Groundwater 11-21
G. Surface Water
1. Water Bodies
2. Water Quantity
a. Cuyahoga Basin
b. Rocky River Basin 11-23
c. Floodplains 11-28
viii .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Chapter Page
3. Water Quality
a. Rocky River
b. Cuyahoga River 11-35
4. Water Uses
a. East Branch of the Rocky River,
Baldwin and Wallace Lakes
b. West Branch of the Rocky River
c. Abram Creek 11-37
d. Big Creek
e. Hinckley Lake and Hinckley Reservation
f. Cuyahoga River
H. Potable Water
I. Biology 11-41
1. Terrestrial
2. Wetlands
3. Aquatic
4. Endangered Species 11-48
J. Cultural Resources 11-49
K. Regional Growth
1. Population Projections
2. Economic Conditions of SWI Study Area 11-55
3. Economic Projections
III. EXISTING FACILITIES
A. Southerly Treatment Plant III-l
B. Main Leg Area
C. West Leg Area III-7
1. Wastewater Treatment Plants-Description
a. Brook Park WWTP 111-10
b. Middleburg Heights WWTP 111-12
c. Berea WWTP
d. Strongsville "A" WWTP 111-17
2. Performance Analysis-Facilities Plan 111-22
3. Performance Analysis-EIS 111-23
a. Brook Park
b. Middleburg Heights 111-24
c. Berea
d. Strongsville "A"
4. Small Wastewater Treatment Plants II1-25
5. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems 111-29
IX.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Chapter eage
D. East Leg Area and Option Areas 111-30
E. Sewer System Evaluation (I/I, SSES) 111-31
1. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis (I/I)
2. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) 111-35
F. Water Quality Impacts
G. Conclusions on the Need for Wastewater 111-38
Treatment Improvements
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction IV-1
B. No Action
C. Treatment Process Alternatives
1. Flow and Waste Reduction
a. Infiltration/Inflow IV-2
b. Water Reuse
c. Water Conservation
2. On-Site Treatment Process Alternatives
a. No Action IV-3
b. Improved Operation and Maintenance
c. Upgrade and/or Replace Existing Systems
d. Cluster Systems
3. Treatment Process Alternatives
D. Treatment Plant Alternatives IV-4
1. Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township
2. Major Plants
3. Cleveland Southerly Plant IV-5
E. System Collection and Treatment Alternatives
1. Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township
a. Alternatives
b. Preliminary Alternative Selection IV-7
Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township
c. Alternatives - Local Plant for Olmsted
Falls
d. Alternative Selection by Zone IV-9
e. Conclusions-Local Alternatives for IV-14
Olmsted Falls
2. Multi-Plant Alternatives IV-16
a. Definition
b. Subalternative-Berea
c. Subalternative-Brook Park IV-18
d. Subalternative-Middleburg Heights
e. Subalternative-Strongsville "A"
x.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Chapter Page
f. Summary Costs-Multi-Plant Alternative
3. Two Plant Alternative
4. Regional Alternative-Southwest Interceptor IV-29
5. Post 20-year Alternatives IV-34
F. Conclusions
1. Alternatives to be Eliminated IV-35
a. No Action
b. Flow and Waste Reduction
c. Treatment Plant Processes and Disposal
d. Two-Plant Alternative
2. Alternatives to be Retained
V. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction V-l
B. Sizing
1. Infiltration/Inflow
2. Water Use
3. Flow Equalization V-2
C. Detailed Development of Southwest Interceptor
Alternatives
1. Main Leg Alignment
a. General Main Leg Alignment
b. East End of Main Leg Alignment V-4
c. Cuyahoga River Valley Crossing
2. West Leg Alignment V-5
3. Construction Technique and Cost
Assumptions V-7
D. Detailed Development of Multi-Plant
Alternative
E. Monetary Comparison of Alternatives
1. Cost Comparison V-8
2. Comparison of Projected User Charges V-10
3. Additional Economic Impacts V-17
F. Non-Monetary Comparison of Alternatives V-22
1. Interbasin Transfer of Effluent & Water
Quality Issues
a. Multi-Plant Alternative
b. Southwest Interceptor Alternative
c. Effect of Stream Flow and Water
Quality Changes on Habitat in Specific
Reaches of the Rocky River V-41
d. Upgrade/Management of On-Site Systems V-42
xi.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Chapter Pa9e
2. Population and Sizing
3 . Secondary Impacts V-43
4. Parkland Impacts V-44
5. Construction Impacts V-46
a. Multi-Plant Alternative
b. Southwest Interceptor
c. On-Site Treatment Facilities V-47
6. Additional Environmental Impacts V-48
a. Land Use
b. Groundwater
c. Wetlands and Floodplains
d. Endangered Species
e. Cultural Resources
f. Energy V-49
g. Geology
G. Considerations Beyond the 2-year Planning
Period
1. Introduction
2. Costs V-50
3. Construction Impacts
4. Stream Flow Impacts
5. Population and Sizing-Secondary Impacts V-53
6. Option Areas to be Retained V-54
H. Conclusions on Alternatives
VI. IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
A. Recommended Alternative VI-1
B. Costs and Percentages of Median Household
Income VI-5
C. Environmental Consequences
1. Interbasin Transfer of Effluent and Water VI-6
Quality
2. Population and Sizing VT-7
3. Secondary Impacts
4. Parkland Impacts
5. Construction Impacts
6. Cuyahoga River Impacts VI-8
7. Other Environmental Impacts
8. Mitigative Measures VI-9
a. Erosion/Sediment/Dust Control
Practices
b. Hydraulic/Soil/Vegetation Conservation
Practices
xn .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Chapter Page
c. Public Convenience/Aesthetic/Safety
Control Practices VI-10
d. Transporation Safety Practices
e. Archaeological/Historic Preservation VI-11
f. Noise Control Practices
g. Odor Control Practices
h. Access and Work Shafts
i. Open Cut Sewers VI-12
j. Rocky River Crossing
k. Tunnel Construction VI-13
1. Cuyahoga River Crossing
D. Implementation
1. Entities
2. Related Facilities VI-14
3. Implementation Steps
4. Funding VI-15
VII. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS
A. Introduction to Draft EIS Comments VII-1
1. Comment Letters
2. U.S. EPA Responses to Comment Letters VII-35
B. Public Hearing Comments VII-44
1. Public Hearing Afternoon Session
2. Public Hearing Evening Session VII-49
xni.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Northeast Ohio Major Drainage Basins and Political
Units I~3
1-2 Planning Area in the Rocky River Watershed 1-4
1-3 Sub-planning Areas Within Planning Areas 1-6
II-l Drainage Network II-2
II-2 Steep Slopes II-3
II-3 Soil Associations II-5
II-4A Present Land Use H-7
II-4B Present Land Use II-8
II-4C Present Land'Use II-9
II-4D Present Land Use 11-10
II-5A Projected Land Use 11-16
II-5B Projected Land Use 11-17
II-5C Projected Land Use 11-18
II-5D Projected Land Use 11-19
II-6 Groundwater Availability 11-22
II-7 Floodplains 11-31
II-8 Water Quality Sampling Areas 11-32
II-9 Recreational Activity Areas 11-38
11-10 Water Districts 11-40
II-ll Prime Agricultural Areas and Wetlands 11-42
11-12 Natural Areas & Forestland 11-43
11-13 Biological Sampling Areas 11-44
11-14 SMSA Population 1910-1980 11-56
xiv.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Page
III-l Existing Treatment Facilities III-2
III-2 Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Diagram III-5
III-3 Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Existing Facilities III-6
III-4 Brook Park Wastewater Treatment Plant Existing
Flow Diagram 111-13
III-5 Brook Park Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-14
III-6 Middleburg Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant
Existing Flow Diagram 111-15
III-7 Middleburg Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-16
III-8 Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant Existing Flow
Diagram 111-18
III-9 Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-19
111-10 Strongsville "A" WWTP Existing Flow Diagram 111-20
III-ll Strongsville "A" Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-21
IV-1 Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township Planning Zones IV-6
IV-2 Gravity Collection to East WWTP Site Olmsted Falls IV-10
IV-3 Gravity Collection to South WWTP Site Olmsted Falls IV-11
IV-4 Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan Multi-plant
Alternative IV-17
IV-5 Berea WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-20
IV-6 Brook Park WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-22
IV-7 Middleburg Heights WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-23
IV-8 Strongsville "A" WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-25
xv -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Page
IV-9 Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan Two Plant
Alternative IV-30
IV-10A East End Alignments of the Main Leg IV-31
IV-10B Main Leg Alignments IV-32
IV-10C West Leg Alignments IV-33
V-l Generalization of Flow Data V-3
V-3 Yearly Instantaneous Minimum Stream Flows East/West
Branch Confluence Rocky River V-23
V-3 Mean Daily Stream Flow East/West Branch Confluence
Rocky River V-24
VI-1A Selected Plan - Southwest Interceptor Alternative VI-3
VI-1B Selected Plan - Southwest Interceptor Alternative VI-4
xvi.
-------
LIST OF .TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Political Jurisdictions in Planning Area 1-2
1-2 Elevations & Stream Reach Distance for the
Rocky River Watershed i-5
1-3 Public Advisory Group 1-13
1-4 Draft EIS Distribution List 1-15
II-l Tirbutary Acreage of Municipalities 11-12
II-2 Types of Land Use 11-12
II-3 List of Cleveland Metroparks 11-14
I1-4 NOACA Projected Land Required for the Year
2000 Development 11-20
II-5 Average Stream Flow in Specific Reaches of
Rocky River 11-24
II-6 Total Wastewater Effluent Discharge &
Percentage Contribution Made by West & East
Leg Wastewater Discharges to Major Stream
Reaches 11-25
II-7 Effluent Loading to Rocky River by Medina
County Wastewater Treatment Plants 11-26
II-8 Total Effluent Discharge Within the Southwest
Interceptor Study Area 11-26
II-9 Percentage Occurrance of Specific Minimum
Flows from 1924-1964 in Rocky River 11-27
11-10 Percentage Occurrence of Specific Minimum
Flows from 1965-1980 in Rocky River 11-27
11-11 Duration of Low Flow Within the Rocky River
Based on 1924-1975 USGS Data 11-29
11-12 Correlation of Precipitation to Flow in the
Rocky River 11-30
11-13 Locations of Stream Sampling Stations & Major
Treatment Plant Sampling Stations 11-33
xvii.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
11-14 Generalized List of Analysis Requirements 11-34
11-15 Water Quality Data for the Cuyahoga River
at Independence, Ohio 11-36
11-16 Diversity & Equitability Indices for Rocky
River Benthic Communities Sampled on October
28-29, 1981 11-46
11-17 National Register of Historic Places 11-50
11-18 County Populations with 1985-2000 Projections
& Growth Rates (NOACA 208) 11-52
11-19 Projected Community Population 11-53
11-20 Employment Trends in Five Non-agricultural
Industries 1960-1980 11-57
III-l Final Effluent Limitations III-3
III-2 Interim Effluent Limitations III-8
III-3 Point Source Wastewater Dischargers Within
the Planning Area - West Leg TII-9
III-4 Dry Weather WWTP Discharges to Rocky River III-ll
III-5 Existing Sewer Service Areas 111-27
III-6 East Leg/Option Area Treatment Plants 111-32
IV-1 Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township Summary of
Preliminary Screening of Alternatives IV-8
IV-2 Present Worth Comparison of Sub-Regional
Collection & Treatment Alternatives IV- 12
IV-3 Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township Alternatives
Summary by Zone IV- 15
IV-4 Berea WWTP Estimated Construction Cost IV-19
XVlll.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
IV-5 Berea WWTP Estimated Annual O&M Costs IV-19
IV-6 Brook Park WWTP Estimated Construction Cost IV-21
IV-7 Brook Park WWTP Estimated Annual O&M Costs IV-21
IV-8 Middleburg Heights WWTP Estimated Construction
Cost IV-24
IV-9 Middleburg Heights WWTP Estimated Annual O&M
Costs IV-24
IV-10 Strongsville "A" WWTP Estimated Construction
Cost IV-26
IV-11 Strongsville "A" WWTP Estimated Annual O&M
Costs IV-26
IV-12 Revised Construction Operation & Maintenance
Costs IV-27
IV-13 Total Present Worth Costs for the Multi-Plant
Alternative IV-28
V-l Itemized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis - Present
Worth Costs V-9
V-2 User Charge Rate Comparison - No Federal
Funding V-12
V-3 User Charge Rate Comparison - 55% Federal
Funding V-13
V-4 User Charge Rate Comparison - 75% Federal
Funding V-14
V-5 User Charge Rate Comparison - NEORSD @ 75%
Federal Funding & Local WWTP's @ No Federal
Funding V-15
V-6 Median Annual Household Income V-16
V-7 Projected Household Costs V-18
xix.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
Page
V-8 Dry Weather WWTP Discharges to Rocky River V-26
V-9 Impact of SWI West Leg on Q7,10 Stream Flow
in the East & West Branches, Rocky River V-29
V-10 Impact of SWI West Leg on Q7,10 Stream Flow
in Main Branch, Rocky River V-31
V-ll Water Depth at the Benthic Sampling Stations
Investigated on October 28-29, 1981 V-33
V-12 Relationship Between Discharge & Water Depth
at the USGS Gauge (East/West Branch Confluence)
During Low Flow Periods V-33
V-13 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-No Action Alternative-Existing Waste-
water Flows V-34
V-14 Pollutant Loading to Rocky River from SWI
Area-No Action Alternative-Year 2005 Waste-
Water Flows V-34
V-15 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-Upgraded/Expanded Local WWTP's-Year
2005 Wastewater Flows V-35
V-16 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-SWI West Leg-Year 2005 Wastewater Flows V-35
V-17 SWI Summary of Pollutant Loadings to Rocky
River West Leg Alternatives V-37
V-18 Energy Use V-49
V-19 Incremental Costs Southwest Interceptor
Option Areas V-51
V-20 Option Area Overview Stream Flow Impacts V-52
VI-1 Communities Serviced by Southwest Interceptor VI-2
VI-2 Projected Annual Charges - Southwest Inter-
ceptor Alternative VI-5
xx .
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Summary of Water Quality Data for Rocky River Basin
(See Draft EIS)
B Alternative Treatment Process Specifications
(See Draft EIS)
C Index
D Draft Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report
1981 Ammonia Data
E Approval Letters in Response to Draft EIS Comments
xxi.
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
I.A. Planning Area
The Cleveland Southwest facilities planning area (also called the
Southwest planning area) is located in Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina
and Summit Counties, Ohio. The greatest portion of the planning
area is located in southwestern Cuyahoga County. The planning
area contains approximately 195 square miles and encompasses the
political jurisdictions identified in Table 1-1. The planning
area, in relation to the surrounding area is shown in Figure 1-1.
The planning area is drained by the Rocky and Cuyahoga Rivers,
with the Rocky River draining the largest portion of the area
(Figure 1-2). The Rocky River Basin drains an area of 294 square
miles. Its river system consists of two major branches, East
Branch and West Branch, and several smaller tributaries. The
confluence of these two branches is located in North Olmsted.
From the confluence, the river continues in a northeasterly
direction for 12.4 miles until it discharges into Lake Erie. The
East Branch drains the northeast section of Medina County, the
northwest section of Summit County and the southwest section of
Cuyahoga County. The West Branch drains the north central sec-
tion of Medina County, the extreme eastern section of Lorain
County and the western section of Cuyahoga County. Data pertain-
ing to the branches and tributaries of Rocky River are listed on
Table 1-2. The eastern portion of the planning area is drained
by Big Creek which flows into the Cuyahoga River.
The facilities planning area was divided into sub-planning areas
in order to improve analyses. Six specific sub-areas were iden-
tified and wastewater treatment alternatives were developed for
each. The six are; Main Leg Area, West Leg Area, East Leg Option
Area, Medina "300" Option Area, Columbia Township Option Area,
and North Olmsted Option Area. (Figure 1-3). The Southwest Area
Final Facilities Planning Report cross references these sub-areas
with six slightly different subareas described in the earlier
Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities
Plan.
I.E. Purpose and Need for Project
There is inadequate sewer capacity in the northern part of the
facilities planning area. This area is serviced by the Big Creek
Interceptor and the Grayton Road Pump Station. Combined sewers
throughout the Big Creek area lead to particularly acute problems
during wet weather. The Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea and
Strongsville "A" plants cannot meet their final discharge permits
for advanced treatment ("tertiary") without expansion and upgrad-
ing (see Section III.C.I). Many of the smaller treatment plants
have similar problems. On-site treatment systems frequently
suffer from inadequate design, constrained locations, or poor
maintenance. Sewers in the area have a general problem with in-
filtration and inflow. Infiltration is defined as clear water
leaking into the sewers through cracks or joints. Inflow is
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS IN PLANNING AREA
Political Entity Existing Treatment Facility
Cuyahoga County
Berea
Brecksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brook Park
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Heights
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Olmsted
Olmsted Township
Fairview Park
Parma
Parma Heights
Riveredge
Seven Hills
Strongsvil.le
Medina County
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills
Granger Township
Hinckley Township
City Treatment Plant
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly & City Plant
NEORSD Southerly & City Plant
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly & City Plant
City Plant
NEORSD Southerly, City Plant "A1
and "B" & Septic Tanks
Private Plants, Septic Tanks
Private Systems, Septic Tanks &
North Olmsted
North Olmsted
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
City Plant "B" & "C", NEORSD
Plant "A"
Medina Co. #300
Medina Co. #300 & Septic Tanks
Private Systems & Septic Tanks
Private Systems & Septic Tanks
Lorain County
Columbia Township
Private Systems & Septic Tanks
Summit County
Richfield Township
Septic Tanks
Source:
Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues;
Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River,
NEORSD, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
1-2
-------
NORTHEAST OHIO MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND POLITICAL UNITS
I
County Boundary
1 Drainage Basin Boundary
Political Units Boundary
Township Boundary
GRAND RIVEF BASIN
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
PLANNING AREA IN THE ROCKY RIVER WATERSHED
City of Cleveland
Planning Area
Watershed
Boundary
E^ v,R.jr.-'1EI\TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source Report On WWTP Effluent Impact On Streams
1-4
Figure 1-2
-------
I
Ul
Table 1-2
ELEVATIONS AND STREAM REACH DISTANCES FOR THE ROCKY RIVER WATERSHED
Stream Name
Rocky River
Abram Creek
East Branch
Baldwin Creek
West Branch
Plum Creek
Baker Creek
*Elevations in feet above mean sea level.
Length
(Miles)
48.0
7.4
34.5
9.2
36.2
14.8
8.2
Elev. at
Source
1,230
860
1,221
1,250
1,230
950
1,120
Elev. at
Mouth
573
642
650
755
650
707
738
Aver .Fall
Ft/Mile
13.7
29.4
16.5
53.8
16.0
16.4
45.7
Drainage
Square Miles
294.0
10.06
80.4
11.94
188.3
18.9
5.81
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues; Report on Flow Distribution Impact on
Rocky River, NEORSD, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
-------
PLANNING AREA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
-------
defined as clear water entering the sanitary sewers through roof
drains or other sources, generally during rainfall periods. In-
filtration/inflow compounds the treatment problem during rainy
periods by causing hydraulic overloads at the treatment plants.
These problems will be explained in detail in Chapter III.
These and other water pollution problems require the identifica-
tion and examination of treatment and collection alternatives to
improve conditions. This will be followed by the implementation
of the most cost effective alternative. Funding for this project
is anticipated to be available under Section 201 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) as amended by the Clean
Water Act (PL 95-217). Additional discussions on funding are
presented in Chapter VI.
I.C. Project History
The concept of regional sewer service for the southwest suburbs
of Cleveland was developed in the Preliminary Survey of Water
Pollution for the City of Cleveland, published in 1966.
Havens & Emerson, Ltd., included this survey in their investiga-
tion of water pollution problems in the Greater Cleveland area
and published their analysis in 1968 as the City of Cleveland
Water Improvement Master Plan. The Master Plan, identified two
significant problems. These were the inefficiency of wastewater
treatment in the Southwest Cleveland area, and heavy overloading
of the Big Creek Interceptor. The City of Cleveland then com-
missioned the Preliminary Design Report - Southwest Suburban
Sanitary Interceptor Sewer study to determine the most cost-
effective solution to the water quality problem. Two other
design documents addressed specific portions of the proposed
interceptor. They were:
0 Preliminary Design Report, Southwest Suburban Sanitary
Interceptor System, West Leg, City of Cleveland, 1972
0 Preliminary Design Report, Southwest Suburban Sanitary
Interceptor System, East Leg, City of Cleveland, 1972.
The original scope of the Southwest Suburban Sanitary Interceptor
report did not pertain to dischargers in the Rocky River area.
The Northeast Ohio Water Development Plan of 1972 recommended
that the Central Rocky River Basin be included in the Southwest
Interceptor service area. This recommendation was based on econ-
omic and environmental factors. The Three Rivers Watershed Dis-
trict commissioned the Wastewater Management in the Rocky River
Basin Report (1974) which studied the inclusion of the Rocky
River Basin in the Southwest Interceptor plan. Also, in 1972,
the Cleveland Regional Sewer District (CRSD), now known as the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD), was created by
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. CRSD
assumed responsibility for wastewater management planning in the
1-7
-------
Southwest Planning Area. Shortly thereafter, CRSD obtained a
Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant for the project under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public
Law 92-500), later amended by the Clean Water Act. As a result,
the following documents were produced:
0 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Southwest Suburban
Sanitary Interceptor System,Cleveland Regional Sewer
District, 1974, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
Southwest Suburban Interceptor, Cleveland, Ohio, I/I
Analysis Flow-Monitoring Report, Cleveland Regional Sewer
District and Alden E. Stilson & Associates, 1978, Ameri-
can Digital Systems, Inc.
° Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the Southwest Interceptor
Phase I Service Area (Draft Copy), Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan/Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Chapters 1 and 2, Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
0 Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan/Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Chapter 3, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
0 Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan/Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Chapters 4 and 5, Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/
Facilities Plan (3 Volumes, plus Maps). Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates.
Reviews of the documents by Ohio EPA and USEPA resulted in num-
erous comments and subsequent requests for clarification. This
suggested that additional planning efforts were necessary in
order to resolve the remaining issues raised by the reviewers
and to provide the technical basis for the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Consequently, NEORSD retained Havens and Emer-
son to evaluate the existing planning documents, review the Ohio
EPA and USEPA comments, and define the additional tasks needed
to complete the project. This resulted in a report entitled
Overview of Current Status, Southwest Interceptor, February,
1981 . NEORSD used this report as the basis for developing a
plan of study, procuring professional engineering services, and
obtaining an amendment to its Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant.
Additional documents produced by NEORSD include the following:
Water Quality Issues Investigation
Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues; Waste-
water Treatment Plant Evaluation Report, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
1-8
-------
Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues: Report
on WWTP Effluent Impact on Streams, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues; Report
on Septic Tank Effluent Impact on Streams, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues: Report
on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
These four products have been consolidated into: Southwest
Interceptor Area; Final Water Quality Report, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1983, Polytech, Inc. This document
reflects the reviews of Ohio EPA., USEPA, and local interests.
NEORSD has provided additional explanations and analyses in
response to U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, and Public Advisory Group,
questions and comments on water quality, cost-effectiveness and
other issue areas.
Cost-Effective Analysis
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning
Report, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982,
John David Jones & Associates, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Population Update Report,
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, John David
Jones & Associates, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis: Local
Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls,
Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township,
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, John David
Jones & Associates, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis: Local
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middle-
burg Heights, Berea, and Strongville "A". Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, John David Jones &
Associates, Inc.
Advanced facilities planning for the Main Leg of the Southwest
Interceptor will soon end and a Final Summary Report will be
produced- This report will show those preliminary design activ-
ities which can be accomplished without knowing the final size
of the interceptor, i.e., field surveying, subsurface investiga-
tions, site plans, etc. The Final Summary has generated the
following products:
0 Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement -
Facilities Plan - Infiltration/Inflow Analysis,North-
east Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson
& Associates. (A final composite printing of information
previously prepared.)
1-9
-------
° Visual Inspection of Big Creek Interceptor Sewer; Cuyahog
Valley Crossing and Trestle No. 2, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates.
Southwest Interceptor; Preliminary Contract Selection
and Shaft Site Study Report, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, 1982, Jenny Engineering Corporation.
Southwest Interceptor; East End Trade-off Studies,
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Jenny
Engineering Corporation.
0 Southwest Interceptor: Preliminary Subsurface Investi-
gation for West Leg Interceptor, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, 1982, Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
0 Southwest Interceptor Subsurface Investigation for Main
Leg Preliminary Alignment, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, 1982, Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
0 Southwest Interceptor; Main Leg Alternate Design Input
to Cost-Effective Analysis, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
Advanced Facilities Planning for the Southwest Intercep-
tor West Leg, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District,
1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
Hydraulics for Drop Structures, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates,
Jenny Engineering Corporation.
Advanced Facilities Planning for the Southwest Intercep-
tor Crossing the Cuyahoga River Valley, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates.
Southwest Interceptor; Final Alignment Report, Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates.
NEORSD has provided additional explanations and analyses in
response to U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, and Public Advisory Group
questions and comments on water quality, cost-effectiveness and
other issues.
I.D. EIS Issues
On July 23, 1976, the USEPA announced its decision to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Southwest Suburban
Cleveland project. EPA identified four major issues with its
decision. These were:
1-10
-------
I.D.I. Interbasin Tranfer
Presently, effluent from wastewater treatment plants in the Rocky
River basin is discharged to the Rocky River. If an interceptor
is constructed in the Rocky River Basin to convey wastewater to
the Southerly Wastewater Treatment plant (on the Cuyahoga River)
stream flows may be affected. The interbasin transfer of water
may have an impact on the quantity and quality of the water of
the river. This may be particularly troublesome during low
stream flow. An additional consideration for interbasin transfer
is the impact on the City of Berea's water supply- Presently,
the City derives its drinking water from the Rocky River.
I.D.2. Population, Sizing and Cost-Effectiveness
Any alternative must be adequately sized in order to serve exist-
ing population and expected population increases over the plan-
ning period. Similarly an alternative should not be over
designed. Population, water use, sewer inflow and infiltration
and project phasing all contribute to the final size of the al-
ternative. Therefore, it is critical that the chosen alternative
is a cost-effective alternative; one that achieves the greatest
environmental objectives for the least cost (construction,
operation, maintenance and component replacement costs), without
creating significant environmental problems.
I.D.3. Secondary Impacts
Primary impacts occur as a direct result of construction activ-
ities. Secondary impacts however, are a direct result of growth
induced by another activity, for example residential development
due to newly constructed sewers. If a previously unsewered area
is sewered, development pressures usually follow. As more growth
occurs, natural resources may be destroyed, stressed or depleted,
community services can be strained and other detrimental impacts
could result. Potential secondary impacts on the unsewered
communities in the planning area will be considered.
I.D.4. Parkland Impacts
If the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant is enlarged or if a large
interceptor is constructed, expansion into existing Cleveland
Metroparks parkland may occur. This could severely impact the
amount and character of the parkland.
While general understanding of these four issues has increased
since 1976, USEPA remains concerned. Areas of community public
interest in these years have included the interbasin transfer,
Berea water supply issue, degraded Rocky River conditions, and
the economic issues of unemployment among treatment plant workers
1-11
-------
if a regional treatment system is implemented. Project
affordability is of concern throughout the study area. Political
automony implications may be of concern in communities which are
not presently a part of NEORSD.
This EIS has been prepared in a format which_ emphasizes the
issues identified above more than standard facilities planning
concerns. Because of this, not all topics are discussed
uniformly and there are many references to the larger effort of
facilities planning. To avoid unnecessary delay, USEPA pre-
pared this EIS concurrent with the Facilities Plan. Since 1976,
both USEPA and Ohio EPA have been involved in a continuing series
of facilities planning/EIS meetings with the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer "District (Cleveland Regional Sewer District).
A Federal agency is required to prepare an EIS when proposed
actions may significantly affect the quality of the human envi-
ronment. In this case, the EPA proposed action would be approv-
ing the Facilities Plan for the Southwest Planning Area and pro-
viding a funding grant for the construction of wastewater
treatment improvements.
I.E. Public Participation
I.E.I. Facilities Planning
Public meetings have been held during the course of the facili-
ties planning in 1978 and 1982. NEORSD holds regular meetings
with the mayors of communities in the Southwest Planning Area to
discuss topics of common concern and wastewater treatment needs.
The formal public hearing on the Facilities Plan was held on
January 26, 1983.
I.E.2. Public Advisory Group
A Public Advisory Group (PAG) was established early in 1982 as
part of the facilities planning and EIS process. The PAG is com-
posed of members representing public officials, public interest
groups, economic interests and private citizens from the planning
area. Table 1-3 presents the roster of members. The group had
monthly sessions to familiarize itself with the facilities plan-
ning effort and to identify and discuss project related issues
and concerns. Many members have also served on sub-committees to
explore economic, environmental and public participation matters
in detail. We greatly appreciate the members' hard work and good
ideas.
The PAG acknowledged their acceptance of the project at the
general meeting on January 19, 1983 and again at the Public Hear-
ing on January 26, 1983. However, some concerns remained. Though
the environmental issues were acceptable to the Environmental
Committee, they presented four concerns relating to costs. These
concerns dealt with:
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-3
PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP
Public Officials
Mark Elsesser, P.E., Strongsville City Engineer
John J. Garner, P.E., Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer
Karl H. Krettler, Columbia Township Trustee
Paul McCumbers, Berea Service Director
Charles J. Neff, P-.E., Middleburg Heights City Engineer
Anthony Smajdek, Brook Park Assistant General Foreman
Robert Stackhouse, Olmsted Township Trustee
Terry Zawistowski, Olmsted Falls
Public Interest Groups
David Brose, Ph.D., Cleveland Museum of Natural History
Jeanne Evans, Southwest League of Women Voters
David Miano, Keelhaulers Canoe Club
Roger Mintz, Sierra Club
Terry Ries, Cleveland Metroparks
Dennis Svozil, Cleveland Jaycees
Economic Interests
Alex Bene, Ford Motor Company
Thomas Butler, Ohio Contractors Association
Carol Doskocil, National Association of Women in Construction
Minor George, Building Industry Association
Daniel Larson, NASA Research Center
Darwin Lindsley, J.I. Holcorrib Manufacturing
Elmer Synek, Cleveland Area Board of Realtors
Private Citizens
Susan Adams, Berea
Michael McManus, Brook Park
Steven Pressman, Cleveland
James Slough, Parma Heights
Laurie Snyder, Olmsted Township
John Talmage, Parma Heights
Source: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
1-13
-------
1) the need to have sewer charges as the basis for cost-
effectiveness analysis to develop real end-user costs
2) a desire for future employment considerations for those
employees in the WWTPs that would be abandoned
3) a buy-off of existing bonds on WWTPs that might be
abandoned, and
4) the impact on the PAG's acceptability of economic
choices should changes occur in water-quality standards
After the Public Hearing, these concerns were addressed or clari-
fied along with other comments voiced at this hearing. Responses
to written comments subsequent to the Public Hearing were also
completed. All responses were developed by NEORSD and presented
to the PAG on June 1, 1983 in conjunction with a revised cost-
effectiveness analysis and a low-stream flow impact analysis. No
opposition was voiced. The PAG voiced that the issues are complex
and conveying them to the general public was necessary though
difficult. The data were forwarded to USEPA and were
incorporated into this Final EIS, where applicable.
The PAG continued to meet to study and comment on the Draft EIS.
A group statement and individual comments were submitted and are
included in Chapter VII on Draft EIS comments.
I.E.3. EIS Hearing and Comment Period
The Draft EIS became available on December 2, 1983, as announced
in the Federal Register. Shortly afterward, notices of the
public hearing were distributed to interested agencies, public
groups and citizens. Planning area news broadcasting companies
were also notified.
The public hearing was held on January 12, 1984. Afternoon and
evening sessions were held in order to better accommodate the
time schedules of residents, particularly those who had to
commute through the geographically large planning area. Both
sessions created one official public hearing record.
The comment period was extended beyond the minimum 45 days to
January 26, 1984, due to the intervening holiday season. During
the comment period, written letters, telephone calls and
statements presented at the public hearing created the comments
on the Draft EIS. Each comment has been addressed and the
results are presented in Chapter VII of this Final EIS document.
I.E.4. Completing the EIS Process
The Record of Decision (ROD) will be mailed 30 days after the
date of this Final EIS. It will be mailed to those who received
the EIS and to others who request it. The ROD completes the EIS
process.
I -F. Final EIS Distribution
Table 1-4 presents the distribution list for the Final EIS.
1-14
-------
TABLE 1-4
EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST TO PUBLIC
GROUPS AND OFFICES
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Defense,
Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Transporation
Coast Guard
Federal Highway Administration
Ohio Congressional Delegation,
U.S. Senators
Representatives of Districts 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16
State of Ohio
Office of the Governor
Ohio Office of Management and Budget
State Clearinghouse
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Ohio Department of Public Health
Ohio Department of Transportation
Ohio Department of Justice
Ohio Department of Economic and Commercial Development
Ohio Department of Energy
Ohio Water Development Authority
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Ohio Historic Preservation Office
1-15
-------
TABLE 1-4
(Continued)
Local
Northeast Ohio Area Coordination Agency
Cuyahoga County
City of Berea
Cleveland Metroparks
Suburban Council of Mayors
Village of Cuyahoga Heights
City of Parma
City of Parma Heights
City of Brooklyn Heights
City of North Royalton
City of Strongsville
City of Seven Hills
City of Brooklyn
City of Cleveland
City of Brook Park
City of Middleburg Heights
City of North Royalton
City of Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Township
Columbia Township
City of North Olmsted
Great Lakes Commission
City of Broadview Heights
Riveredge Township
Public Interest Groups
American Association of University Women Great Lakes Basin
Task Force
Ohio Natural Areas Council College of Biological Sciences
Ohio State University
Better Environment for Everyone
Environmental Studies Center
Environmental Clearinghouse, Inc.
Ohio Sierra Club
Citizens for Land, Air and Water Use
NEORSD Trustees
Greater Cleveland Growth Association
Ohio Public Interest Campaign
Audubon Society of Ohio
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Water Resources Center
Ohio Environmental Health Association
1-16
-------
TABLE 1-4
(Continued)
Ohio Academy of Sciences
Archaeological Society of Ohio
Nature Conservancy of Ohio
Ohio Biological Survey
Ohio Lung Association
League of Women Voters of Ohio
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Ohio Electric Utility Institute
Ohio Municipal League
Ohio Natural Heritage Program
Wildlife Legislative Fund
Ohio Water Pollution Control Conference
Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission
League of Ohio Sportsmen
Ohio Conservation Fund
Ohio Conservation Congress
Izaak Walton League
Ohio League of Conservation Voters
Interested Citizens
Complete list available upon request.
1-17
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.A. Climate
Average annual precipitation, as measured at the Cleveland Hop-
kins Airport, is approximately 35 inches per year. This includes
a 50.5 inch average snow accumulation. The average precipitation
for the Cleveland area is comparable to other metropolitan areas
in states immediately south of the Great Lakes. October through
April are usually the months of lowest precipitation. May through
September generally receive the highest precipitation. Of the
mean annual precipitation, about one third runs off to streams.
Thus evaporation, transpiration and infiltration account for
about two thirds of the precipitation value. Further climate
information is presented in Section II of the Southwest Inter-
ceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I and in the Report on Flow Distri-
bution Impact on Rocky River, Section IV.
II.B. Topography and Drainage
The planning area lies within the Rocky River and Cuyahoga River
basins. Both basins are part of the Southern Lake Erie Water-
shed. The rivers drain directly to Lake Erie. The East and West
branches of the Rocky River and their tributaries are shown in
Figure II-l. As seen in Figure II-2, the branches of the Rocky
River lie in steep, narrow gorges.
II .C. Geology
The study area lies within the Till Plain physiographic province
of Ohio. This is an area where bedrock has been overlain by a
relatively smooth veneer of glacial till. The till is dissected
by a number of watercourses.
Bedrock in the region consists of rock from the Devonian, Missis-
sippian and Pennsylvanian geologic periods. Major outcroppings
of these three systems occur along river valleys. Devonian rocks
are of marine origin and include dolomites, limestones, shales
and sandstone in beds ranging from 700-800 feet in thickness.
Oil and gas deposits as well as fossiliferous units are common.
Mississippian rocks include shales, sandstones and inter-combina-
tions of shales and sandstones. Bedford shale, Cleveland shale,
Berea sandstone and Cussewago sandstone materials compose a bed
approximately 1,000 feet thick. This bed is rich in fossils and
is an effective reservoir for oil and gas. Several fresh water
aquifers, which vary in capacity are found in this bed material.
The Pennsylvanian system is about 1,100 feet thick and contains
shales, sandstones, siltstones, coals, clays and limestones.
II-l
-------
DRAINAGE NETWORK
Chagrin
River Basin
Cuyahoga
River
Basin
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
II-?
Figure II-1
-------
STEEP SLOPES
;ROCKY
(RIVER
WESTLAKE
c
5
MEDINA
COUNTY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
The entire region has been covered by at least two glaciers.
Drift from the illinoian and Wisconsin glaciers occurs in various
areas. Glacial relics from the older Kansan and Nebraskan periods
have not been located. Except for limited deposits of recent
alluvium bordering the East Branch of the Rocky River, the over-
burden is ground moraine composed of a Wisconsin till unit known
as Hiram Till. Hiram Till consists of generally cohesive soils
containing a significant granular fraction and also lenses of
sand and gravel.
The planning area has a relatively deep buried valley believed to
have been a part of the Teays drainage system which predated the
Illinoian glaciation. This buried valley enters Cuyahoga County
near a point where Ridge Road and the Rocky River intersect the
Cuyahoga-Medina County line. From this point the buried valley
extends in a northwest direction curving northward along the east
side of the City of Berea. The floor of the buried valley is
estimated to be 300-600 feet below the existing ground surface.
The Cleveland area has experienced six earthquakes of IV-VI in-
tensity on the 12-point Modified Mercalli Scale between 1906 and
1965. The area is in line with a projection of the fault line
running from the St. Lawrence River southwest to Missouri. Other
portions of this line, near Anna, Ohio, are more seismologically
active (Edward A. Bradley and Theron J. Bennett. 1965. Earth-
quake History of Ohio. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America. 55 (4): 745-752).
II.D. Soils
Most of the soils in the study area are deep soils formed in
glacial till uplands and the higher parts of the lake plains.
The topography ranges from broad flats to dissected areas along
drainageways. These somewhat poorly drained to moderately well
drained soils include: Urban Land-Mahoning association,
Mahoning-Ellsworth association and Wadsworth-Rittman association.
Each of the soil associations are mapped in Figure II-3. For all
of these soil associations, the land use limitations are seasonal
wetness and slow to very slow permeability.
A smaller portion of the study area, primarily in the east, is
covered by moderately deep soils that were formed in glacial till
and the residuum of bedrock. The topography of these soils ran-
ges from nearly level to very steep and includes lake plains,
ridgetops and knolls in dissected areas of uplands. These poorly
drained to well drained soils include these associations in the
study area: Urban Land-Mitiwanga association and Brecksville-
Hornell association. The limitations of the first association
are seasonal wetness and hard bedrock at a depth of 20-40 inches.
The Brecksville soils are limited by steep to very steep slopes.
II-4
-------
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
AVON
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS LEGEND
ftSSSS*
Urban Land-Mahoning
Mahoning-Ellsworth
Wadsworth-Rittman
Urban Land-Mitiwanga
Brecksville-Hornell
Oshtemo-Urban Land-Chili
Urban Land-Elnora-Jimtown
Chagrin-Tioga-Euclid
Urban Land
MEDINA
COUNTY
U.S.ENV1RONMENTAT PROTECTION AGE
Source: Soil Survey of Cuyahoga County USDA SCS, 1980
-------
The Hornell soils are limited by seasonal wetness and slow or
very slow permeability. Bedrock is also found between 20-40
inches in the Brecksville-Hornell association.
Deep soils in the north and west portions of the study area were
formed in glacial outwash, lacustrine sediments and loamy and
sandy, water-deposited materials. They are found by broad flats
on beach ridges, lake terraces and lake plains. These well
drained to somewhat poorly drained soils include the following
associations in the study area: Oshtemo-Urban Land-Chili asso-
ciation and Urban Land-Elnoro-Jimtown association. Because of
their moderate to rapid permeability, the main land use limita-
tion is the possible contamination of groundwater supplies.
A very small part of the study area is covered by soils formed in
alluvium on floodplains and in stratified deposits on low stream
terraces. The landscape is characterized by narrow to relatively
broad, flat valley floors that are bounded by sharp breaks to the
uplands. These well drained and somewhat poorly drained, nearly
level soils comprise the Chagrin-Tioga-Euclid association. Thib
association is found on the floodplains of the Rocky River and
its branches. Because these soils are located on river valley
floors, they are subject to flooding, ranging from rare (Euclid
soils) to frequent (Tioga soils). Soil permeability also ranges
from moderately slow (Euclid soils) to moderate (Chagrin soils)
to moderately rapid (Tioga soils). Limitations for the use of
these soils includes the wetness and moderately slow permeability
of the Euclid soils and the flooding potential of all three
soils.
One small part of the study area has soils exclusively cate-
gorized as Urban Land. These soils have been altered for con-
struction of streets, parking lots and buildings in such a way
that identification is not possible. This category characterizes
the developed corridor of land on either side of the Cuyahoga
River in Cuyahoga Heights. On-site investigations would be
needed to determine the potential and limitations of this area.
II.E. Land Use
II-E.I. Overview
There are 121,885 acres in the planning area. This is approxi-
mately 14 square miles and incorporates the southwest fringe of
the Cleveland Metropolitan Area and extends south and west to
include undeveloped and rural lands. The land uses in the plan-
ning area are shown in Figures II-4A-D. The base map was pre-
pared by overlaying NOACA's inventory of existing land use onto
United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Use
categories defined by the map are 1) residential, 2) commercial,
II-6
-------
. ._ LEGEND-See Figure 11-4
r- Hi" -..
II-7
-------
- See FiguelT^D
-------
/;f'-"*-vi \VX3
- r#\
-------
"
,X1'
Iftilltl^-
&
ti«M-
,JU :,
^«*
!?3:v^^^^» »- :<; '
•>?^^^^^V^40 A^J.' •'
;:B^^ ^^fe^w^)- ••}?&.
^',:^..jfM?', t^^L.l iju
fr^i
p ,-^->i.
LEGEND
PRESENT LAND USE
Figure II-4A through II-4D
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
11-10
Illllllilil SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Uillllllll MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
BB9 INDUSTRIAL
E'"-'3 PUBLIC
K"a^ INSTITUTIONAL
L I AGRICULTURAL
I I VACANT
X
Figure 1I-4D
-------
3) industrial, 4) public and institutional, 5) agricultural and
6) vacant.
Land use surveys were conducted during the preparation of the
Facilities Plan. Land uses were categorized by municipal acreage
and type in these surveys. Table II-l shows total acreage for
each municipality within the planning area. Table II-2 shows the
type of land use by acreage, percent of total area and percent
developed. In Table II-2 areas designated as commercial and in-
dustrial include both developed and undeveloped areas previously
allocated for these land- uses.
II.E.2. Existing Land Use
II.E.2.a. Residential, Commercial and Industrial
The existing land use map (Figures II-4A-D) shows that growth is
radiating from the central city to the suburbs in a series of
concentric rings. Commercial and industrial development is
located along the main roads (such as Brookpark, Broadview,
State, Pearl, Ridge) with residential areas located between areas
of commercial development.
The residential areas immediately adjacent and to the south of
Brookpark Road are almost fully developed. Further south, unde-
veloped land is present in Parma, Seven Hills, Brook Park and
Middleburg Heights.
Principal industrial development in the study area occurs along
Brookpark Road and adjacent to the three railroads bisecting the
area. Ford Motor Company and General Motors occupy sizeable
tracts south of Brookpark Road. Generally, the area has a well
established pattern of growth and development.
Less development is present in the vicinity of Strongsville Sewer
Districts "B" and "C" and North Royalton. The southwestern
portion of the study area contains scattered subdivisions and
larger tracts of undeveloped and rural lands. North Olmsted is
more fully developed with a wide diversity of land uses.
Existing land use regulations and zoning maps were obtained for
each of the municipalities in the study area. Aerial photographs
and Real Property Inventory assessments were used to determine
developed lot counts and unit occupancy. From these data an
existing land use survey was prepared and patterns of
development, distribution and density of population, and
commercial and industrial potential for the study area were
determined. A tabulation of land use totals resulting from this
survey was presented in the tables above.
11-11
-------
TABLE II-1
TRIBUTARY ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALITIES
Location
Berea
Brecksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brookpark
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills
Cleveland
Columbia Township
Cuyahoga Heights
Granger Township
Hinckley Township
Middleburg Heights
Acreage
1
1
5
1
2
3
16
1 1
2,958
274
700
886
109
005
700
125
483
41 1
536
663
891
5,069
Location Acreage
North Olmsted 7,296
North Royalton 12,790
Olmsted Falls 2,230
Olmsted Township 7,201
Fairview Park 685
Parma 12,659
Parma Heights 2,648
Richfield Township 3,530
Riveredge Township 58
Seven Hills 3,110
Strongsville 15,866
Total Acreage 121,885
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, Volume 1, 1982.
TABLE II-2
Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Undeveloped & Rural
Total
TYPES
Acres
35,000
4,314
10,808
12,584
59, 179
121 ,885
OF LAND USE
% of Total Area
28.7
3.5
8.9
10.3
48.6
100.0
of Developed
55.8
6.9
17.2
20.1
100.0
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, Volume 1, 1982.
11-12
-------
Approximately 56% of the developed land is residential. The
areas designated for industrial and commercial use include both
developed and undeveloped areas already allocated for these land
uses. Industrial land concentrations are located primarily along
the railroad and interstate highways. Large tracts of undeveloped
land designated for non-residential usage are located in
Strongsville Sewer District "A" and Olmsted Township.
II.E.2.b. Recreational and Institutional
Public and semi-public land in the area is operated and
maintained by the Cleveland Metropark system which manages large
tracts in and along the Rocky River. This area is part of a park
system known as the "Emerald Necklace" which almost completely
encircles Cleveland.
Numerous reserved lands or recreation parks lie within the
planning area. The primary Cleveland Metropark reservations
within the planning area are Bradley Woods; Rocky River North,
South and Central; Mill Stream Run; Hinckley; and Big Creek.
Table II-3 lists the Cleveland Metroparks within the study area.
Other recreation areas within the study area include many public
and private golf courses, municipal parks, a model airplane fly-
ing field, and the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds, located in Berea.
II.E.2.C. Transportation
Transportation rights-of-way such as highways, expressways,
streets, and railroads were not tabulated separately. However,
it is estimated that between 15-20% of the total area is devel-
oped for this purpose.
The study area is served by an extensive transportation network
that includes several state highways and numerous county roads.
Interstate 71 is the major north-south highway, while the Ohio
Turnpike and Interstate 480 are the major east-west routes.
ConRail Short Line, located just north of Brookpark Road, forms
the northern border of the Main Leg service area from Broadview
Road to State Route 237. Two additional railroad lines cross the
study area from northeast to southwest. The Regional Transit
Authority operates rail service from downtown to Cleveland
Hopkins International Airport. The airport is located southwest
of the State Road 237 - Brookpark Road intersection. It is the
major commercial airport for Metropolitan Cleveland.
II.E.2.d. Agricultural
11-13
-------
TABLE II-3
LIST OF CLEVELAND METROPARKS
Name
Rocky River North
Rocky River Central
Bradley Woods
Mill Stream Run
Hinckley
Big Creek
Brookside Park
Brecksville
Bedford
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, Volume 1, 1982
11-14
-------
The extent of agricultural land use has been declining as urban-
ization increases. This trend is most apparent in Brunswick and
Strongsville. Areas of Cuyahoga County still supporting some
type of primary agriculture are located in Olmsted Township.
Outside the county, Columbia Township is largely rural with
numerous areas used for general farming and dairy cattle. Large
greenhouse development in both Columbia Township and Olmsted
Township specialize in the production of fruit and vegetables.
II.E.2.e. Land Use Planning
In a general evaluation of types and kinds of land use, NOACA
concluded, few communities have planning commissions or planning
staff and rely on the Regional Planning Commission to provide
this service. A majority of communities do have zoning ordinances
and boards. A significant number of communities still employ
referendum zoning. Very few have capital improvement programs or
housing plans. NOACA concluded from their investigation that land
use dynamics are largely instituted by private land developers.
During this preparation of two reports dealing with the East and
West Leg planning areas, a comprehensive series of land use pro-
jections were prepared from available ordinances and planning
maps. Utilizing the methods described in detail in the 208 In-
terim Water Quality Report, NOACA projected land use to the year
2000 as determined by changes in the population and employment
projections. Figures II-5A-D shows the five year incremental
increases in acreages required to support these projections.
Major residential development occurs in Strongsville, Sewer Dis-
trict "A" and Olmsted Township south of the Ohio Turnpike. The
Strongsville "A" projection in land area is approximately 1,630
acres and Olmsted Township is 552 acres.
Light industrial development is projected primarily in Strongs-
ville "A" and Middleburg Heights. Commercial and office develop-
ment is projected in Strongsville "A" and Olmsted Falls.
Overall increases in total acreage (by type use) within the Main
Leg and West Leg service area through 2000 are summarized as
follows: Residential - 3,887 acres; Industrial - 690 acres; Com-
mercial - 598 acres. Strongsville Sewer District "A" is project-
ed to be 2,208 acres. This represents 43% of the total increase
projected for the study area. Projected land requirements for
the year 2000 development are tabulated in Table II-4.
Approximately 75% (approximately 3,880 acres) of the additional
land required is projected to be used for residential purposes.
Additional industrial and commercial land comprise the remaining
25%. Rural and undeveloped land remaining in the Phase 1 sewer
district by 2020 is expected to drop to less than 20% of the
11-15
-------
DDjLEGEN'D "See Figure
-------
LEGEND See Figure
-------
LEGEND See Figure II-5D
Figure II-5C
II-18
-------
PROJECTED LAND USE
Figure 11-5A through II-5D
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
U.S. ENVIRONMFIVTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Inerceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
TABLE II-4
MAIN LEG - WEST LEG AREA
NOACA PROJECTED LAND REQUIRED FOR THE YEAR 2000 DEVELOPMENT
ACRES
Land Use
Rural Res.
Low Dens. Res.
High Dens. Res
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Commercial
Office
Totals
10
4J
f,
tn
-H
0)
K
i
3
U
46
co
4J
f,
tn
• H
Q)
E
|3
Q)
•rH
>
•6
rd
o
M
«
23
23
23
23
co
r— 1
rH
•iH
E
C
0)
>
0)
CO
207
46
253
1
O
rt
j2
4-)
!H
o
•z
161
161
c
>i
H
,y
o
o
S-l
ffl
46
23
69
Ai
!H
n3
PM
X
0
o
h
ffl
23
23
46
U)
4J
^
en
•H
0)
ffi
DI
M
3
^2
0)
iH
•d
•n
•H
s
368
23
161
23
92
667
rd
0)
in
0)
PQ
46
23
69
CO
rH
rH
(d
P-l
•d
0)
-p
CO
g
rH
O
46
92
69
23
230
ft
-rH
,C
M
C
[5
0
H
•d
0)
-P
CO
e
rH
O
69
552
46
46
46
759
_
'<
13
rH 4-1
rH U
•H -rH
> ^
10 4J
tjl CO
C -H
O Q
M
4-> M
cn
-------
total area. Principal undeveloped areas in 2020 will likely be
located in Olmsted Township (440 acres), Strongsville "A" (1,805
acres) and Olmsted Falls (1,020 acres).
II.F. Groundwater
Wells located in the sandstone aquifers in the Rocky River Valley
are found from 45 to 169 feet and produce at rates up to 100
gallons per minute (gpm). Rock types include the Sharon
Sandstone (Pennsylvanian) and the Cuyahoga Group (Mississippian).
Shale deposits are less effective aquifers than sandstone.
Glacial moraine deposits and lenses of sand and gravel within
glacial clay deposits may produce well yields of 5-25 gpm. A
generalized map of groundwater availability is shown in Figure
II-6.
Groundwater quality is hard to very hard. Iron content ranges
from low to very high. Dissolved solids and chlorides may be
high. USGS and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources monitor
local groundwater quality.
Because of quantity and sometimes quality limitations,
groundwater is not used extensively in the planning area for
municipal, industrial or commercial use. Additional information
on groundwater is provided in Section 2 of the Southwest
Interceptor EIS/ Facilities Plan V.I.
II.G. Surface Water
II.G.I. Water Bodies
Principal water bodies are shown in Figure II-l. Approximately
75% of the planning area lies within the Rocky River Basin, while
the remaining lies within the Big Creek (Cuyahoga) basin. Water
quality standards are presented in Section 2 of the Southwest
Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I. Wastewater treatment
requirements for discharge to area streams will be discussed in
Chapter III.
II.G.2. Water Quantity
II.G.2.a. Cuyahoga Basin
The USGS maintains a stream gauge on Big Creek, 2.5 miles above
its confluence with the Cuyahoga River. The gauging station,
established in 1972, has recorded an average discharge of 50.7
cubic feet per second (cfs). The maximum discharge of 9,100 cfs
was recorded in 1975 and the minimum discharge of 2.3 cfs was
recorded in 1973, as reported by the USGS in Water Resources for
Ohio for the water year 1981.
11-21
-------
GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY
CLEVELANC
HOPKINS
500-1000 GPM
25-100 GPM
50 GPM
5-25 GPM
5-25 GPM
5-25 GPM
0-5 GPM
Gallons per minut
O I 2
J S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/ Facilities
-------
Flow in the Cuyahoga River is measured at the USGS gauging sta-
tion at Independence, Ohio two miles above the Southerly Waste-
water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Detailed records have been main-
tained since 1921, with some interruptions prior to 1940. The
average discharge is 809 cfs. The maximum discharge of 24,800
cfs was recorded in 1959 and the minimum discharge of 21 cfs in
1933, as reported by the USGS.
II.G.2.b. Rocky River Basin
The USGS maintains a gauging station on the Rocky River below the
confluence of the East and West Branches of the Rocky River and
approximately 12 miles upstream from Lake Erie. Flow records are
available from October 1923 to the present, with the exception of
October 1933 - August 1943. The average discharge is 263 cfs. The
maximum discharge of 21,400 cfs was recorded in 1959 and the min-
imum discharge 0.2 cfs was recorded in 1932 and again in 1933.
The West Branch (including Plum Creek) contributes approximately
63% of the total flow in the Rocky River. The East Branch (in-
cluding Baldwin Creek) contributes the remaining 37%. These per-
centages include contributions from wastewater treatment plant
effluents to the stream flow. Natural stream flow ratios, with-
out this augmentation, are about 70%/30% for the two branches.
Table I1-5 shows average flows for specific reaches of the Rocky
River. The general stream flow pattern is one of high peak dis-
charges during flooded conditions and lower sustained streamflow
at other times. Because of stream slope, surrounding bedrock and
the general absence of lakes or wetlands along the stream, water
storage is poor. This lack of storage results in pronounced flow
extremes.
Wastewater contributions to the stream flow are shown in Tables
II-6 through II-8. Table II-6 shows dischargers, by stream
branch, within the year 2000 planning area. Figure III-l in
Chapter III shows the location of these treatment plants and the
areas served by on-site systems. Table II-7 provides information
regarding wastewater dischargers from Medina County (upstream of
the planning area) into the Rocky River. (The plants in Medina
County will continue discharging into the Rocky River regardless
of the alternative selected for the planning area). Table II-8
summarizes the previous two tables, with the addition of the
North Olmsted and Abram Creek flow. Many of the on-site systems
have surface discharges rather than soil absorption systems which
also contribute to stream flow.
The stream flow in the Rocky River was studied in detail in
Section 2 of the Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I.
Minimum stream flows received an extensive analysis and showed
how treated wastewater augmented low stream flows. In Tables
II-9 and 11-10 it can be seen that flow augmentation resulted in
11-23
-------
TABLE II-5
AVERAGE STREAM FLOW IN SPECIFIC REACHES OF THE ROCKY RIVER
M
I
Stream
Rocky River
(at gauge)
West Branch
Plum Creek
Baker Creek
East Branch
Baldwin Creek
Abram Creek*
Drainage Area (mi.^)
267.00
188.30
18.90
5.81
80.40
11 .94
10.06
Percent of
Total Area
100
70
7
2
30
5
Aver. Flow
(cf s/mgd)
261 .0/168.7
184.1/1 18.9
18.5/11 .9
5.7/3.7
76.8/49.6
11 .7/7.6
9.9/6.3
*Abram Creek lies below the East/West Branch confluence and thus is not
actually in the gauged drainage area. For the purpose of establishing
flow values, however, the average flow for Rocky River has been utilized.
-------
TABLE II-6
TOTAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISCHARGE AND PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY
WEST AND EAST LEG WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS TO MAJOR STREAM REACHES
Stream Reach
Discharge
MGD CFS
Percentage of Total Wastewater Discharge
for West and East Leg Dischargers
above East/West Branch Confluence
East Branch and
Baldwin Creek
East Branch1
Baldwin Creek
4.81
3.87
0.94
7.43
5.98
1.45
59
47
12
West Branch and
Plum Creek
West Branch
Plum Creek
Abram Creek2
Main Branch3
Total Wastewater Dis-
charge for Study Area
3.39
2.83
0.56
3.09
5.75
8.18
5.24 41
4.38 34
0.86 7
4.78
8.90
12.65
12.38 MGD (3.7 CFS) of this discharge is contributed by the four minor WWTPs in
the East Leg Study Area.
Abram Creek lies below the USGS gauging station at the East/West Branch confluence
and thus the contribution to Wastewater flow by the Brook Park and Middleburg Heights
WWTPs is not measured at the gauge.
3North Olmsted WWTP discharges to the Main Branch Rocky River just below the East/
West Branch confluence. Thus its flow augmentation is also not recorded at the
gauge.
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982,
11-25
-------
TABLE II-7
EFFLUENT LOADING TO ROCKY RIVER BY MEDINA COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS*
Discharge
MGD CFS
SD 300 WWTP
(East Branch) 1-4 2.2
SD 500 WWTP
(West Branch) 6.2 9.6
Total 7.6 11.8
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982
TABLE I1-8
TOTAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST
INTERCEPTOR STUDY AREA
Discharge
Stream Reach and WWTPs MGD CFS
East Branch (including Baldwin Creek) 4.81 7.43
East Branch (including Baldwin Creek)
and Medina SD 300 6.21 9.63
West Branch (including Plum Creek) 3.39 5.24
West Branch (including Plum Creek)
and Medina SD 500 9.59 14.84
Total Effluent Discharge above East/West
Branch confluence 15.80 24.47
Main Branch (Abram Creek and North
Olmsted WWTP) 8.84 13.68
Total Effluent Discharge for SWI Study
Area 24.64 38.15
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982,
11-26
-------
TABLE II-9
PERCENTAGE OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MINIMUM FLOWS FROM
1924 - 1964 IN ROCKY RIVER
Percentage of Time
Minimum Flow (cfs Occurring
less than 2.0 29
2.0 to 3.0 35
3.1 to 4.0 6
4.1 to 6.0 15
greater than 6.0 15
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on
Rocky River, 1982.
TABLE 11-10
PERCENTAGE OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MINIMUM STREAM FLOWS
FROM 1965 - 1980 IN ROCKY RIVER
Percentage of Time
Minimum Flow (cfs) Occurring
less than 8.0 25
8.1 to 10.0 25
10.1 to 15.0 19
15.1 to 20.0 19
greater than 20.0 12
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on
Rocky River, 1982.
11-27
-------
a dramatic decrease of occurrence of minimum flows in the Rocky
River. Additional information on stream flow is in the Report cm
Flow Distribution-Impact on Rocky River and the Revised Impact.
Analysis of Interbasin Transfer of Stream Flow.
Low flow duration values for the Rocky River are shown in Table
11-11. This table indicates that on an annual basis the Rocky
River flow is equal to or less than 7.8 cfs ten percent of the
time and that it is equal to or less than 2.7 cfs two percent of
the time. September - November is the quarter of lowest flow,
where ten percent of the time flows were below 4.6 cfs.
The correlation between stream flow and rainfall is summarized in
Table 11-12. Flows are high during the March/April snow melt
period. Frozen ground at this time reduces infiltration thus
increasing runoff. Low flows in the late summer/early fall are
associated with higher temperatures and vegetation demands. Many
factors influence the relationship between rainfall and runoff,
so there is no direct correlation between the two factors.
II.G.2.C. Floodplains
The 100-year floodplains in the planning area are shown in Figure
II-7 and have a one percent annual chance of flooding in 100
years. All communities as well as counties in the planning area
in the Federal flood insurance program incorporated areas are
directly insured. Townships or unincorporated lands are part of
county programs. Columbia Township in Lorain County is not a
participant in the Federal flood insurance program.
II.G.3. Water Quality
II.G.S.a. Rocky River
The water quality of the Rocky River has been studied extensive-
ly. Major past reports include: Water Quality Assessment and
Modeling for Rocky River and Timbers Creek and Water Quality
Studies of the Rocky River, - August- October 1977. Ohio EPA
conducted water quality modeling on the Rocky River from 1975 to
1977. The 208 Water Quality Management Plan inventoried water
quality monitoring efforts in its Technical Appendix A04.
Figure II-8 and Table 11-13 identify the sampling points used in
the 1981 facilities planning water quality survey. Table 11-14
shows the sampling program, conducted on five "dry" days and five
"wet" days. Sampling data are summarized in Appendix A. Speci-
fic data values are reported in the Southwest Interceptor Area
Final Water Quality Report. Ammonia data collected by the Ohio
EPA as part of their 1981 Rocky River watershed sampling program
are presented in Appendix D. These data supercede ammonia data
in Appendix A.
11-28
-------
TABLE 11-11
DURATION OF LOW FLOW WITHIN THE ROCKY RIVER
BASED ON 1924-1975 USGS DATA
Period
Apr-Mar
May-Nov
Jun-Aug
Sept-Nov
Dec-Feb
Mar-May
Months
12
6
3
3
3
3
Discharge (cfs) Which Was
Less Than or Equaled
2.7
1.9
1.7
1.5
12.9
22.9
4.9
3.4
3.4
2.9
17.9
32.9
10 %
7.8
5.5
5.4
4.6
24.9
48.9
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982
11-29
-------
TABLE fl-12
CORRELATION OF PRECIPITATION TO FLOW IN THE ROCKY RIVER
(USGS GAGE DATA AND NATIONNAL WEATHER SERVICE)
H
H
1
to
<_>
1924-65 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1965-81 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1924-65 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1965-81 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1924-65 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1965-81 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
Normal Monthly Mean Inches
Yearly Ranking
Minimum Monthly Mean Inches
Yearly Ranking
Maximum Monthly Mean Inches
Yearly Ranking
1965-74 Degrees (C)
Yearly Ranking
OCT
81.0
9
74.1
12
11.4
9
23.0
10
617.1
11
462.4
12
2.58
9
0.61
8
9.50
1
53
6
NOV
132.0
8
217.0
7
21.7
7
43.6
7
787.0
9
1248.7
7
2.67
8
0.80
4
7.19
5
42
8
DEC
253.0
5
399.0
4
38.4
5
91.4
2
1989.2
6
2544.6
4
2.47
11
0.71
7
5.60
11
33
10
JAN
419.0
4
350.0
5*
57.7
4
60.8
5
3430.7
2
2763.6
2
FEB
449.0
3
441.0
3
63.9
3
70.4
4
3358.2
3
2740.5
3
Precipitation
2.49
10
0.36
12
7.01
6
26
12
2.29
12
0.48
11
4.64
12
27
11
MAR
Flo
APR
w Data
MAY
Normal Monthly Means
586.0
1
628.0
1
M In I mum
93.7
1
139.2
1
507.0
2
436.0
2
241.0
6
350.0
6*
^onth ly Means
89.4
2
88. 1
3
37.1
6
50.5
6
Maximum Monthly Means
3673.8
1
3056.9
1
3104.3
4
2005.6
6
1732.3
7
2494.4
5
JUN
141.0
7
183.0
8
15.3
8
28.4
8
1357.8
8
892.7
9
JUL
73.0
10
115.0
10
8.0
10
23.4
9
692.8
10
906.7
8
AUG
54.0
12
85.5
1 1
5.7
12
16.5
12
2369.3
5
513.4
11
SEP
72.5
1 1
124.0
9
5.9
11
18.1
11
455.2
12
884.1
10
for Record Period (1924-1980)
2.79
6
0.78
5
6.07
8
2.78
7
1.13
3
5.90
10
TEMPERATURE
37
9
48
7
2.98
4
0.58
9
6.04
9
57
5
3.29
2
1.17
2
9.06
3
68
3
3.48
1
1.23
1
6.94
7
71
1
2.91
5
0.53
10
8.96
4
70
2
3.26
3
0.74
6
9.10
2
64
4
•Equal Values
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982.
-------
FLOOD PLAINS
M
I
u>
c 4\0
OPKINS /
IHPOPT
CUYAHOGA
COUNTY
7 "I \
OLMSTEtji-'V/ I
L.JHL
oAiDwiN ICK:, I CJ
Flood Plains
MEDINA
COUNTY
I xj 4 -1
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY !
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
SCALE IN MILES
-------
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AREAS
CLEVELAND
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Report on Flow Distribution on Rocky River
Figure 11-8
11-32
-------
TABLE 11-13
LOCATIONS OF STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS AND MAJOR
TREATMENT PLANT SAMPLING STATIONS**
STATION* LOCATION
ss-1 Valley Parkway @ Puritas Hill Road Bridge, S.W. area.
SS-2 Lewis Road, @ West Branch Rocky River Crossing, S.E.
corner.
SS-3 Water Street and West Branch Rocky River Crossing.
300 ft. N.W.
SS-4 Bagley Road and West Branch Rocky River Crossing. 400
ft. North of Bagley Road.
SS-5 Usher Road and Plum Creek Crossing, S.E. corner.
SS-6 Sprague Road and Plum Creek Crossing, 200 ft. downstream
of bridge.
SS-7 Columbia Road and Plum Creek Crossing, S.W. corner.
SS-8 Eastland Road and Baldwin Creek Crossing, S.W. corner.
SS-9 West Access Road and East Branch Rocky River Crossing,
S.E. corner.
SS-10 West 130th Street and East Branch Crossing.
BP-3+ 19400 Plant Lane. 75 ft. upstream from plant outfall.
BP-4 0.70 mile downstream of plant outfall
BR-3 400 Barrett Road. 400 ft. upstream from plant outfall.
BR-4 0.40 miles downstream of plant outfall.
SA-3 22707 Sprague Road. 100 ft. upstream of plant outfall.
SA-4 500 ft. downstream of plant outfall.
MH-3 18828 Sheldon Road. 100 ft. upstream of plant outfall.
MH-4 Approximately 0.55 mile downstream of plant outfall.
*SS - Stream Station
BP - Brook Park WWTP
BR - Berea WWTP
SA - Strongsville "A" WWTP
MH - Middleburg Heights WWTP
3 - Upstream
4 - Downstream
+ - Same station as MH-4
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams, 1982.
** See Appendix D for updated ammonia values and Ohio EPA sampling stations that
correspond with facilities planning water quality sampling stations.
11-33
-------
TABLE 11-14
GENERALIZED LIST OF ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
ANALYSIS
ALKALINITY
PO 4-P-T
-S
TKN-T
-S
NH 3-N
NO 3-N
NO 2~N
BOD 5-T
-S
COD-T
-S
TDS
SO
CL
Q (FLOW)
SS
STREPTOCOCCI
FECAL COL
pH
TEMP.
DO
CHLOR RESIDUE
FE
COMPOSITE GRAB
MAJOR MINOR
PLANTS PLANTS
GRAB COMPOSITE GRAB
PACKAGE STREAMS SEPTIC
PLANTS TANKS
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
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X
X
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams, 1982.
11-34
-------
Additional water quality information and analysis will be
included in Chapter III as part of the discussion of the impacts
of on-site wastewater treatment systems.
II.G.3.b. Cuyahoga River
Water quality data in the Cuyahoga River is monitored just above
the Southerly WWTP- Table 11-15 presents recent sampling values.
II.G.4. Water Uses
II.G.4.a. East Branch of the Rocky River,
Baldwin & Wallace Lakes
The East Branch of the Rocky River is used for recreational
activities, public water supply and drainage purposes. It pro
vides drainage for 80 square miles of land. In addition to the
natural drainage, many municipalities and private subdivisions
discharge treated wastewater into the stream.
The stream corridor of the East Branch of the Rocky River lies
primarily within the Rocky River Reservation, Hinckley Reserva-
tion and semi-rural settings. The stream source and corridor
have remained largely unchanged from their original natural
setting. The natural and semi-natural state of the East Branch
stream corridor has encouraged the recreational use of the stream
with such activities as wading, fishing, rafting and canoeing.
Swimming and wading are permitted in Baldwin Lake.
The City of Berea uses Baldwin Lake as a public water supply.
Wallace Lake is also used but generally in emergency situations.
Additional discussion on the use of Baldwin and Wallace Lakes as
a water supply is found in Section H (Potable Water).
II.G.4.b. West Branch of the Rocky River
The West Branch of the Rocky River is used primarily for drainage
with some limited recreational purposes. The West Branch stream
corridor is situated in semi-rural, rural, and woodland settings
throughout the western portion of the facilities planning area.
The West Branch has remained largely unchanged from its original
natural state. The headwaters of the West Branch are character-
ized by a broad meandering floodplain traversing intermittent
woodlot and semi-marsh areas. Residential development in the
upper reaches is sparse. The lower reaches of the West Branch
are characterized by sharp, steep exposed rock valleys traversing
woodlands. The natural setting encourages some recreational
activities such as rafting and wading. The absence of open
parkland along the stream course has discouraged abundant
11-35
-------
TABLE (1-15
WATER QUALIT* DATA FOR THE
CUYAHOGA RIVER AT INDEPENDENCE, OHIO
WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1981 TO SEPTEMBER 1982
Date
Oct
28...
Dec
01...
Mar
02...
May
04...
Jun
15...
Aug
17...
Date
Oct
28...
Dec
01...
Mar
02...
May
04...
Jun
15...
Aug
17...
Date
Oct
28...
Dec
01...
Mar
02...
May
04...
Jun
15...
Aug
17...
Source:
Time
1430
1130
1100
1100
1130
1100
Strepto-
cocci
Fecal, KF
A6AR (Col
Stream-
Flow,
Instan-
taneous
(CFS)
542
1500
1080
334
423
216
Hard-
Ness
(MG/L
s. as
Per 100 ML) CAC03)
2200
5800
8000
260
110
80 •
S 1 1 1 ca ,
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS
SI02)
7.8
6.7
6.6
3.0
6.5
7.5
210
170
180
250
220
250
Sol Ids Res-
idue At 180
Deg C
Dissolved
(MG/L )
406
369
397
533
437
522
Water Resources Data
Specific
Conduct-
ance
(UMHOS)
715
640
670
870
690
930
Calcium
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS CA)
60
51
51
70
62
73
Sol Id Sum
of Consti-
tuents,
Dissolved
(MG/L)
387
330
351
481
387
498
Tern pel —
PH ature
(Units) (Deg C)
7.5 14.0
7.5 5.0
7.6 3.5
8.2 16.0
8.0 21.0
8.0 23.0
Turbid-
ity
(NTU)
3.4
37.0
16.0
1.4
3.0
2.9
Magne-
sium, Sodium, Potassium
Dissolved Dissolved Dissolved
(MG/L (MG/L
(MG/L
AS MG) AS NA) AS NA)
14 54
11 41
12 53
18 80
15 57
17 82
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS N)
.490
.560
1.5
.240
.090
3.10
4.6
3.9
3.6
4.7
3.7
5.5
Nitrogen
Ammon 1 a+
Organic
Total (MG/L
AS N)
1.80
1.40
. 2.10
.74
.70
-4.90
Oxygen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Dissolved
Percent
(MG/L) Saturation
8.5
11.6
13.4
10.1
9.5
8.0
, Sulfate
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS S04)
130
67
68
110
80
94
Nitrogen
N02+N03
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS N)
2.4
2.0
1.1
4.2
2.4
3.1
82
91
100
100-
100
92
Oxygen
Demand,
Chemical
(High LevelJ)
(MG/L)
—
22
8
--
—
Chloride, Florida.
Dissolved Dissolved
(MG/L
AS CD
38
83
96
110
82
130
Nitrogen
Total
(MG/L
AS N)
4.2
3.4
3.2
12.0
15.0
10.0
(MG/L
AS F)
.4
.3
.2
.4
.3
.6
Phosphorus
Total
(MG/L
AS P)
.390
.520
.220
.350
.370
.410
for Ohio Water Year, 1982.
11-36
-------
recreational use of the streams. Figure H-9 shows recreational
areas along the West Branch.
The West Branch drains approximately 188 square miles of land.
Additionally, the West Branch receives wastewater effluent from
municipal and semi-private dischargers, thus contributing to the
flow of the stream.
II.G.4.C. Abram Creek
Abram Creek provides drainage for 10.2 square miles of urban
land and several wastewater dischargers. Urban and suburban
development have significantly changed the stream corridor from
its natural state. Poor water quality has resulted from urban
runoff and wastewater effluent discharges. This has discouraged
using Abram Creek for recreational purposes.
II.G.4.d. Big Creek
Big Creek has been significantly altered by urbanization. The
stream corridor has been channelized, enclosed, re-routed or
otherwise altered for most of its length. The water quality has
been severely degraded rendering Big Creek unusable for any pur-
pose except drainage. Big Creek receives wastewater discharges
from several industries in addition to urban runoff and dis-
charges from combined sewer overflows.
A portion of Big Creek flows through Metropark's Big Creek Park-
way recreational area. However, the severely degraded water qual-
ity discourages water-based recreational uses of this park area.
II.G.4.e. Hinckley Lake and Hinckley Reservation
Hinckley Lake and Hinckley Reservation provide a high quality and
unique natural area for hiking, wading, swimming, fishing and
numerous outdoor activities. This area remains largely unchanged
from its original natural state. This area is characterized by
steep forested slopes, excellent water quality and generally
aesthetically pleasing appearance.
II.G.4.f. Cuyahoga River
The remaining streams within the area, including Quarry Creek,
generally provide only drainage. The lower section of the
Cuyahoga River is classified for secondary body contact recrea-
tion uses.
II.H. Potable Water
11-37
-------
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY AREAS
AVON
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Recreational Activity Areas
In Rocky River
Reservation
SCALE IN MILES
-------
Existing and projected year 2000 water district limits have been
established in the planning area and are presented in Figure
11-10.
Most municipalities within the planning area rely primarily on
surface water provided either by streams or by Lake Erie. From
1960 to the present, the communities in the lower Rocky River
Basin experienced rapid growth. Utilities were upgraded to serve
the increasing population and the City of Cleveland became the
principal supplier of water for most of the communities within
the study area.
Potable water is supplied by the City of Cleveland to the com-
munities of Brook Park, Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, Brecksville,
Cuyahoga Heights, Fairview Park, Middleburg Heights, North Olm-
sted, North Royalton, Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Parma,
Parma Heights, Riveredge Township, Seven Hills, and Strongsville.
Cleveland obtains its water from Lake Erie, processes it through
various treatment techniques, and transports it to customers.
Other communities in the study area use Ohio lakes and stream
surface waters or groundwater for drinking. The City of Berea
gets its drinking water from Baldwin, Wallace, and Coe Lakes on
the East Branch of the Rocky River- Residents in Broadview
Heights, parts of Columbia Township, Medina County and other
rural areas use groundwater for their water supply. The Rural
Lorain County Water Authority distributes Lake Erie water to
approximately 60% of the residents of Columbia Township.
The Berea Water Treatment Plant is the only other major supplier
of drinking water in the planning area. As mentioned earlier,
the City maintains water intakes on several lakes, served by the
East Branch Rocky River. Stream flow available to the Berea Water
Treatment Plant varies considerably during periods of the year.
Of particular concern is the extreme low flow period which
generally occurs during the summer. At this time, water
withdrawal at the primary intake of the plant consumes much of
the total flow of the East Branch Rocky River. The pond which is
maintained by the small dam below the Baldwin Lake dam is drawn
down to just a few inches above the intake. This requires
utilization of the alternate intake on Baldwin Creek just above
its confluences with the East Branch. To maintain this intake
during low flow, water must be released from Coe Lake into
Baldwin Creek.
The Berea Water Treatment Plant was constructed in 1898. Much of
the equipment in the plant is old and renovation has been
minimal. In September, 1981, the residents of Berea voted to
retain their present treatment system and not tie into
Cleveland's water system. Construction of a new facility on the
present site of the water plant is underway. The new plant will
incorporate some of the structural framework of the existing
11-39
-------
OLMSTEO//
H/
7* I1
,
NORTHFIELD I
J
MACEDONIA
-»• BRUNSWICK
GRAFTON TWP
MEDINA
COUNTY
CLEVELAND
WATER SERVICE
AREA — 1972
CITY OF
CLEVELAND
WATER SERVICE
AREA — 2000
CITY OF BEREA
WATER SERVICE
AREA
1972 & 2000
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southvtf«»t Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
SCALE IN MILES
-------
plant and is anticipated to be fully operational in September
1984.
Total capacity of the new plant will be 3.6 MGD. Ozone treatment
will be utilized rather than current chlorination procedures and
water softening processes will be employed. No effluent will be
discharged from the plant into the East Branch.
In order to understand future water supply, it is necessary to
consider the survey of groundwater and surface waters. As dis-
cussed in Section F and G above, the average yield from wells
within the planning area is suitable for residential and minor
industrial/commercial establishments. Most of the aquifers
cannot provide sufficient water for large consumers, i.e. indus-
try and municipalities. Future water demand is expected to be
supported with expanding operations of the Cleveland public water
service.
II .1. Biology
11 .1.1. Terrestrial
Prime agricultural lands are mapped in Figure 11-11. Natural
areas and forest land are shown in Figure 11-12. Species lists
of insects, mammals and birds are shown in Section 2 of the
Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I.
II .1.2. Wetlands
Area wetlands are mapped in Figure 11-11. Lake Abram and its
surrounding wetlands, totalling approximately 70 acres, lies
adjacent to Abram Creek and to the Middleburg Heights wastewater
treatment plant. It is owned by Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea,
and has been subject to urban encroachment and land use changes
in the past.
II .1 .3 . Aquatic
The facilities plan includes species lists for fish and benthic
organisms of the Rocky River. These lists are found in Appendix
2 of the Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plans. Benthic
species from the Big Creek tributary of the Cuyahoga River are
also discussed.
A detailed baseline investigation of the benthic organisms of the
Rocky River was conducted during the preparation of the facili-
ties plan. Sampling stations of the benthic sampling program are
presented in Figure 11-13. Based on the data collected, two
ecological indices, species diversity and equitability, were
calculated to determine water quality conditions from the aquatic
11-41
-------
PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND WETLANDS
; ROCKY ;
IRIVER '>—-^
WFS1LAKE
~l
Prime Agricultural Areas
Wetlands
MEDINA
COUNTY
__; j xJ2^iq_
I I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
COUNTY
i i
-------
NATURAL AREAS & FORESTLAND
I
.&.
co
MEDINA
COUNTY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
^ Natural Areas &
Forestland
^^ 3
SCALE IN MILES
COUNTY
I
-------
BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING AREAS
"'•^"BALDWIN CREEK
Sampling Stations
Surface Watercourses
Surface Water Bodies
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report
Figure 11-13
II-44
-------
life present in stream. The results are summarized in Table
11-16.
The numerical values generated to express diversity (d) and
equitability (e_) are related to habitat quality using the follow-
ing rating system:
d Value e Value Classification
<1 <0.3 High Stress (poor quality)
1.0-2.2 <0.3 Moderate Stress
2.3-2.7 0.3-0.5 Light Stress
>2.7 0.6-1.0 Low or No Stress
Classification was based upon consideration of relative values in
cases where d^ and e_ values conflicted.
Diversity (d) is a measure of the variety of species present,
while equitability (e) is a measure of the eveness of the numbers
of species present. A stream segment which supports many differ-
ent plants and animals with relatively even distribution of those
species' populations is considered healthier than a segment where
pollution tolerant species predominate and only a few are repre-
sented in small numbers.
An overall interpretation of benthic results generally reflect
water quality conditions associated with lightly or moderately
stressed environments. The general trend indicates decreasing
habitat quality from the headwaters of the branches and tributar-
ies to the confluence of the East/West Branches. That portion of
the West Branch located in the southernmost extent of the plan-
ning area showed good habitat quality. A progressive decrease in
d and e_ values occurred downstream. Effluent discharge by the
numerous dischargers in the area, particularly Strongsville "A"
WWTP, is reflected in the drop in diversity in locations BS-5 and
BS-7. This affect is further magnified by those small plants
discharging to the West Branch and Plum Creek in the Olmsted
Falls area. Therefore, by the time the West Branch joins the
East Branch, benthic communities indicate moderate stress levels.
Benthic communities in Plum Creek suggest a high quality habitat
upstream of the study area. Discharges within the SWI Area, the
most significant of which are the Western Ohio Public Utilities
and Brentwood Development, apparently degrade river conditions.
These discharges result in poorer water quality at the confluence
with the West Branch.
A slightly different situation exists at the East Branch in
comparison to the West. Diversity at location BS-1 upstream on
the East Branch was considerably lower than at BS-2, indicating
11-45
-------
TABLE 11-16
DIVERSITY AND EQUITABILITY INDICES FOR ROCKY RIVER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
SAMPLED ON OCTOBER 28-29, 1981
Sampling Station Total Number Total Number Diversity Equitability
Stream Segment of Taxa of Organisms Value Rank Value Rank
1 (E4) 19 3,863 2.48 6 0.42 10
2 (E3) 19 1,041 3.23 1 0.71 5
3 (B) 7 21,386 1.62 10 0.54 9
4 (E2) 11 426 2.81 4 0.89 2
5 (W4) 14 581 3.09 2 0.86 3
6 (P2) 12 389 2.96 3 0.92 1
H 7 (W2) 8 1,274 2.33 7 0.85 4
^ 8 (W1) 10 773 2.10 9 0.59 8
^ 9 (E1) 13 515 2.54 5 0.62 7
°^ 10 (M1 ) 11 885 1.11 11 0.26 11
11 (A) 1 41 0.00 12 0.00 12
12 (M2) 10 370 2.29 8 0.65 6
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982.
-------
an improvement in water quality in a downstream direction. This
may be the result of the impact on the Medina "300" WWTP upstream
of Station BS-1. Natural stream recovery occurs between BS-1 and
BS-2, however, due to the lack of dischargers in this area.
Sample station BS-4, located upstream of the Berea Wastewater
Treatment Plant in the vicinity of the ConRail Bridges, indicates
low stress, good quality aquatic environment; although diversity
and equitability values are lower than those found at sample sta-
tion BS-2. This likely is due to the Strongsville "B" and North
Royalton "A" WWTP discharges to Baldwin Creek which flows into
the East Branch between stations BS-2 and BS-4. Sample station
BS-3, located on Baldwin Creek indicates a moderate stress envi-
ronment .
Sample stations BS-4a, located just upstream of the Berea WWTP
indicates a high quality benthic habitat. Sample station BS-4
through 4e located downstream discharge of the Berea WWTP how-
ever, indicates a high stress aquatic environment. Visual
observation of the stream in the vicinity of sample stations and
water quality sampling data further illustrate the impact of this
discharge on the aquatic habitat.
Natural recovery of the East Branch is illustrated by sample
results at station BS-9 which show increasing diversity and
equitability values as the East Branch reaches the confluence.
Impacts of the Berea WWTP, however, are clearly evident in
benthic communities throughout the 4.4 mile stream segment from
the discharge to the confluence of the East and West Branches.
Sample station BS-10, located on the main branch of the Rocky
River, indicates a moderate to high stress aquatic environment.
The low diversity and equitability values at this location cannot
be attributed to water quality conditions in either branch. Con-
seqently, it appears that the discharge of the North Olmsted
WWTP, located upstream, significantly affects aquatic habitat in
this stream segment.
Resulting from the combined discharge of the Brook Park and Mid-
dleburg Heights WWTP's, stress to the aquatic habitat is most
severe in Abram Creek. Diversity and equitability values at sam-
ple station BS-11 were 0.00.
Sample station BS-12, demonstrates the natural recovery of the
Main Branch and lack of additional wastewater discharges in this
segment.
In addition to diversity and equitability values, a biotic index
value was calculated for selected sites during the September,
11-47
-------
1982 benthic sampling program. The classification system is as
follows:
Biotic Index (Bl) Value Classification
1.75 Excellent Quality
1.75 - 2.25 Good Quality
2.25 - 3.00 Fair Quality
3.00 - 3.75 Poor Quality
3.75 Very Poor Quality
Site BS-4b is severely affected as measured by all three indices.
The stream demonstrates partial recovery at sites BS-C through
BS-4e.
Field observations indicate that available habitat is poor at
stations BS-4 and BS-9, poorest at BS-9. This could account for
the drop in diversity. Further, station BS-4b has the greatest
diversity in physical habitat (substrate, flow characteristics,
etc.) and thus should exhibit a diversity higher than either site
BS-4 or BS-4a.
Also, it appears that data concerning station BS-9 is compatible
from both the 1981 and 1982 years, both for d and the biotic in-
dex. Data indicates that the stream biota is affected by waste-
water input at site BS-4b and is recovering through sites BS-4c
through BS-4e. The apparent degradation of the biota at site
BS-9 in both years most likely is due to changes in available
physical habitat.
11 . I . 4. Endangered Species
Two Federal endangered and threatened species may occur in the
planning area. The Northern monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense,
threatened) has been found in adjacent areas.This plant has an
extremely specialized habitat on sandstone-shale rock outcrops
and is unlikely to be found in the project construction area
according to records of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
The planning area is also within the range of the Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis, endangered) and suitable habitat for summer
roosting may occur within the Rocky River Reservation. It is
difficult to ascertain the presence of this species, although
there have been no recorded observations from the planning area.
Habitat protection measures will be discussed in Chapter VI.
State endangered and threatened species are reported and mapped
in Section 2 of Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I.
State endangered species found in the planning area include the
four-toed salamander, the blue-spotted salamander, the bigmouth
shiner (fish) and the upland sandpiper (bird).
11-48
-------
II.J. Cultural Resources
Historical and archaeological sites found within the study area
were inventoried. Some of these sites are eligible for or in-
cluded in the National Register of Historic Places. (See Table
11-17.) Many of these sites were mapped in Section 2 of the
Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I , Figures 15-18.
An archaeological survey on the proposed Southwest Interceptor
route was conducted as part of facilities planning. No archaeo-
logical remains were encountered.
U.K. Regional Growth
II.K.I. Population Projections
Population totals were derived from a summary of various sources.
These included the 1970 and 1980 censuses, 1975 estimated census,
RPI Housing Occupancy Reports, NOACA Interim 208 Outputs, North-
east Ohio Water Development Plan, Three Rivers Waste Water
Management in the Rocky River Basin, projections furnished by
USEPA and previous preliminary design reports.
County-wide population was first projected using the cohort-
survival projection model. This model projected births and
deaths within the county and the net migration into the county.
The changes were combined over a given period of time, yielding
the new population levels. Community census populations were
incorporated into the program using 1960 and 1970 counts as basic
input for all incorporated areas with population greater than
1,000. 1980 census data were added when the information became
available. The City of Cleveland's population is projected to
decline through the remainder of the century. Inner ring suburban
areas like Parma, Parma Heights, and Brook Park are expected to
decrease also over the next thirty years with gradual increases
projected through 2020. Middle ring suburban areas such as
Strongsville and North Royalton are projected to develop rapidly
with population doubling by 2020. Outer ring areas such as
Hinckley, Brunswick, and Columbia Township are presently rural in
nature and are projected to have moderate to high increases. The
recent facilities planning analysis shows increased populations
in the Brunswick/Brunswick-Hills area immediately adjacent to
Cuyahoga County. This will likely be stimulated by generally
lower construction costs and lower property taxes. The
construction of Medina 300 WWTP is said to be a direct result of
this trend which is reflected in the 1980 census.
NOACA utilized county planning commission's expertise to deter-
mine local growth trends. Concurrently, NOACA developed area-wide
11-49
-------
TABLE 11-17
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Berea District 7 School
Berea Union Depot
Buehl House
Lyceum Village Square
Wheller House
Whitney House
Donalds House
Old District 10 Schoolhouse
First Universalist Church
Fort Hill
Morth Olmsted Town Hall
Adams House
Grand Pacific Hotel
Lay House
Northrop House
Stearns Farm
Henry House
Froelich House
Gabel House
Pomeroy House
Stone House
Strong House
Strongsville Activity Center
Berea
Berea
Berea
Berea
Berea
Berea
Brookpark
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Olmsted
North Olmsted
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Falls
Parma
Parma Heights
Seven Hills
Seven Hills
Strongsville
Strongsville
Strongsville
Strongsville*
:Eligible to become a National Register Site
11-50
-------
projections to provide a prospective of aggregate growth trends.
NOACA reviewed OBERS Series E projections, Battelle's DEMOS Mode
1, and three other district cohort-survival models. The NEFCO
model (for Summit and Portage Counties) and the Cuyahoga County
Regional Planning Commission model (for the remaining five coun-
ties) were selected. Projections by five year increments for
each of the seven counties were calculated and their rates of
growth were compared (Table 11-18). The table shows a slight
overall decline in the seven county region from 1975 through
1980. A growth rate of. .7% is projected from 1980 to 2000. The
disaggregation of populations within the Cuyahoga County area was
based on recent growth trends and availability of land, local
restrictions, and other factors as detailed in the NOACA 208
Water Quality Report.
The baseline allocation procedure utilized by NOACA to disaggre-
gate county level projections consisted of five steps. These
steps are summarized as follows:
Step 1 - Determination of land available for development and an
allocation of the order in which the development will occur.
Step 2 - Preliminary allocation in five (5) year increments.
Step 3 - Adjustment of allocations to fit RPC and local plans.
Step 4 - Summated land allocations, population, and employment
in five (5) year increments.
Step 5 - Final map preparation.
Population derived from the procedures above were tabulated for
civil divisions within the SWI study area (Table 11-19). Between
1980 and 2000, Cleveland is expected to decline by 235,879 per-
sons or 1-9%. The SWI consultant reviewed each community sepa-
rately considering such factors as present zoning, available land
suitable for development, local attitudes toward growth, trans-
portation activities, land ownership patterns, utilities, land
use mix, and housing types. A summary of the projections
reviewed for each of the municipalities within the study area has
been compiled and is shown in the Southwest Interceptor EIS/
Facilities Plan Section 2.
As a result of this review, low, medium, and high population
figures were selected for design year 2000 and 2020. Generally,
the figures supplied by NOACA formed the basis for the low pro-
jection. NOACA1s projections were chosen and were broken down
into drainage districts determined by sewer service area. The
extrapolation of municipal projections into the sub-districts
considered various factors to make the disaggregation such as
11-51
-------
TABLE II-18
NOACA 208
COUNTY POPULATIONS WITH 1985 - 2000 PROJECTIONS AND GROWTH RATES*
County
Cuyahoga
Geauga
Lake
Med 1 na
Lora 1 n
Portage
Summit
7 County
Total
Popu lat Ion
1970
1,721,300
62,977
197,200
82,717
256,843
125,868
553,371
3,000,276
Popu lat Ion
1975
1,604,300
70,000
208,400
98,700
278,600
131,000
535,000
2,926,000
% Change
70-75
- 6.8
11.2
5.7
19.3
8.5
4.1
- 3.3
- 2.5
Popu lat Ion
1980
1,498,400
74,474
212,80)
113,150
274,909
135,856
524,472
2t834,062
% Change
75-80
- 6.6
6.4
2.1
14.6
- 1.3
3.7
- 2.0
- 3.1
Popu lat Ion
1985
1,511,886
81,624
224,718
124,465
303,224
133,139
557,514
2,936,570
% Change
880-85
0.9
9.6
5.6
10.0
10.3
- 2.0
6.3
4.0
Popu lat ion
1990
1,536,076
88,807
237,077
143,010
332,030
146,586
571,452
3,055,038
% Change
85-90
1.6
8.8
5.5
14.9
9.5
10.1
2.5
4.0
Popu lat Ion
1995
1,554,509
95,468
247,983
162,030
359,588
157,873
594,882
3,172,333
% Change
90-95
1.2
7.5
4.6
13.3
8.3
7.7
4.1
4.0
Popu lat Ion
2000
1,563,836
101,578
256,662
182, 122
385,478
171,292
610,349
3,271,317
% Change
95-00
0.6
6.4
3.5
12.4
7.2
8.5
2.6
3.1
I
U1
to
Source: Bureau of the Census
Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, 1982.
*NOACA Growth rates from 1975-2000 have been retained, except this table reflects actual 1980 Census data rather than NOACA 1980 projections.
-------
TABLE 11-19
PROJECTED COMMUNITY POPULATION*
Berea
Bracksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brook Park
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills Twp.
Cleveland
Columbia Township
Cuyahoga Heights
Fairview Park
Granger Township
Hinekley Township
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Township
Parma
Parma Heights
Richfield Township
Riveredge Township
Seven Hills
Strongsvilie
TOTAL
% of
Comma nity
in SWI
Study Area
100.0
2.3
20.5
33.0
46.0
100.0
25.3
22.4
2.1
100.0
28.6
23.3
4.3
69.8
100.0
100.0
93.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.9
100.0
89.2
100.0
1970
Census
22,465
9,137
11 ,463
13,142
1 ,527
30,774
15,852
2,293
750,879
5,738
866
21 ,699
2,142
4,210
12,367
34,861
12,807
5,027
6,318
100,216
27,192
4,943
632
12,700
15,182
1980
Census
19,567
10,132
10,920
12,342
1 ,653
26,195
27,689
3,739
573,822
6,494
739
19,311
2,660
5,174
16,218
36,486
17,671
5,868
6,976
92,548
23,112
4,941
477
13,650
28,577
1985
21 ,200
1 1 ,000
11 ,600
12,300
1 ,700
26,600
35,1^0
4,900
560,000
7,300
800
20,500
3,300
6,200
17,000
42,200
22,300
6,500
8,000
102,500
25,300
5,600
500
15,000
33,000
1990
21 ,000
13,000
13,200
12,300
1 ,700
27,100
39,900
5,700
540,000
8,200
800
21 ,000
3,900
7,000
18,000
44,000
27,000
7,000
9,700
105,000
26,000
6,600
500
16,000
40,000
1 ,124,432
(continued)
966,961 1,000,300 1,014,600
11-53
-------
TABLE 11-19 (Continued)
PROJECTED COMMUNITY POPULATION*
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Berea
Breaksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brook Park
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills Twp
Cleveland
Columbia Township
Cuyahoga Heights
Fairview Park
Granger Township
Hinek ley Township
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Township
Parma
Parma Heights
Richfield Township
Riveredge Township
Seven Hills
Strongsville
TOTAL
21 ,000
15,000
14,900
12,300
1 ,700
27,500
44,700
>. 6,600
525,000
8,900
800
21 ,500
4,500
7,900
19,000
45,000
31 ,700
7,300
11 ,000
106,000
26,000
7,700
500
16,500
46,000
21 ,000
17,000
16,500
12,300
1,700
28,000
49,500
7,400
515,000
9,600
800
21 ,700
5, 100
8,700
20,000
45,000
32,900
7,500
12,000
107,000
26,000
8,600
500
17,000
48,000
21 ,000
18,900
17,100
12,300
1 ,700
28,500
51 ,100
8,200
51 1 ,300
10,300
800
21 ,800
5,700
9,500
20,800
45,000
33,200
7,800
12,300
107,400
26,000
9,000
500
17,300
49,500
21 ,000
20,800
17,600
12,300
1 ,700
28,900
52,600
9,200
507,500
11 ,100
800
21 ,800
6,300
10,400
21 ,500
45,000
33,500
8,000
12,500
107,800
26,000
9,400
500
17,500
51,000
21 ,000
22,600
18,100
12,300
1 ,700
29,400
53,900
10,200
503,800
11 ,800
800
21 ,900
7,100
11,200
22,300
45,000
33,800
8,300
12,800
108,100
26,000
9,800
500
17,800
52,500
21 ,000
24,500
18,700
12,300
1 ,700
29,900
55,200
11,400
500,000
12,500
800
22,000
7,900
12,000
23,000
45,000
34,100
8,500
13,000
108,500
26,000
10,300
500
18,000
54,000
21,000
26,600
19,300
12,300
1,700
30,400
56,400
12,600
496,200
13,200
800
22,100
8,800
12,900
23,700
45,000
34,400
8,700
13,200
108,900
26,000
10,700
500
18,200
55,500
1,029,000 1,038,800 1,047,000 1,054,700 1,062,700 1,070,800 1,079,1
Source: Population Update, Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan, John David Jones &
Associates, Inc. - March, 1982.
*Although updating NOACA's previous projections to reflect 1980 census data is warranted, the
population update methodology relies heavily upon NOACA's initial projections and underlyi"?
assumptions. This is done because Construction Grants Program regulations require consis-
tency between EPA approved "208" Water Quality Management Plan population projections and
"201" facilities planning population projections (40 CFR 35, Appendix A).
11-54
-------
developable land, topography, present distribution, and existing
trends.
U.K.2. Economic Conditions of SWI Study Area
The SWI study area lies primarily in the Cleveland Standard Met-
ropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) with Option B (Columbia Town-
ship) and a small portion of Option A (Medina 300) in the Lorain-
Elyria and Akron SMSA's, respectively- All three of these SMSA's
constitute the Akron/Cleveland/Lorain Standard Consolidated
Statistical Area (SCSA).
The largest corporate employers in the Cleveland SMSA are Ford,
General Motors, Ohio Bell Telephone, Republic Steel and General
Electric. The largest employers in the City of Cleveland are the
U.S. Government, the Cleveland Board of Education, the City of
Cleveland, Republic Steel and Ohio Bell Telephone.
Population data for the period 1910-1980 comparing the U.S., the
Cleveland SMSA, the City of Cleveland and the suburbs were
compiled (Figure 11-14). The compilation shows: 1) that the SMSA
has declined as a percent of U.S. population since 1970; 2) that
the rank of Cleveland among cities has declined since 1950; and
3) that between 1950 and 1960 suburbs overtook the City in popu-
lation.
Other documents show that between 1970 and 1974 Cleveland fell
from 14th to 17th among SMSA's. In this four-year period the
Cleveland SMSA consistently lost population. Suburban growth
leveled at about 1.33 million in 1974-1975.
Data on projected city and suburban employment by place of work
are not available, but has been estimated for projection pur-
poses . Non-agricultural employment by place of work spanning
1960-1980 for the Cleveland SMSA has been compiled (Table 11-20).
The table also presents the total U.S. employment during this
time frame.
U.K.3. Economic Projections
Projected employment by industry was calculated by NOACA for the
seven counties in their planning area. These county-wide projec-
tions are listed through the year 2000 for the Cleveland SMSA
(Cuyahoga, Medina, Lake and Geauga Counties), the Lorain-Elyria
SMSA, and Akron SMSA (Summit and Portage Counties). Tabulated
seven county totals are compared to projected employment total
through 2000 utilizing various projection processes forecasting
employment levels.
11-55
-------
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
/
/
2.400
2.200
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
.800
.600
.400
.200
POPULATION 1910-1980
(in millions)
(226.5)
**>
— United States
(92)
-——•*-.„
899)
Cleveland SMSA*
^nil * (1.325)
' (.574)
Cleveland Suburbs
I
_L
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
•Cleveland SMSA includes the counties of Cuyahoga. Geauga, and Lake.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP
11-56
1970
1980
Figure 11-14
-------
I
Ul
-J
TABLE 11-20
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN FIVE NON-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES 1960-1980 (000)
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Durables
Non-Du rabies
on
Real Estate
tted Services
lyau
1, 169
5,766
21,798
(13,459)
( 8,339)
5,822
19,782
U.S.
1 y /U
623
3,381
19,349
( 8,854)
(10,495)
3,688
11,612
Cleveland SMSA
1 ybU
712
2,885
16,796
( 7,264)
( 9,532)
2,669
7,423
1980
1.4
33.5
255.9
(188.9)
( 66.9)
50.6
166.8
19/0
1.5
32.2
296.1
(198.4)
( 97.7)
42.0
137.4
I960
0.5
32.9
282.8
(196.8)
( 86.2)
31 .9
87.9
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, 1979.
Provisional Estimates of Social, Economic & Housing Characteristics,
1980 Bureau of the Census
-------
The employment projections developed for the NOACA 208 Program
are the result of two separate models. The 1980 and 1985 pro-
jections by NOACA are the output of a Shift-Share projection
model, while the 1990, 1995, and 2000 employment were projected
by the SWI consultant using a regression model.
At a fundamental planning level, the Shift-Share methodology was
used to explain local employment change. Two main attributes
affecting employment in a given area were analyzed; industrial
mix (i.e., whether the area has a large concentration of indus-
tries whose markets are expanding rapidly) and regional share
(i.e., whether the area has certain attributes which give it a
competitive advantage over other areas in the country) . Specif-
ically, the Shift-Share model extrapolates past national employ-
ment change ratios into future time periods. The change ratios
in historical periods were projected by relating them to a sepa-
rate projection of national employment. The source of the
national projection is The Structure of the U.S. Economy in 198()
and 1985, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor.
There are three major categories of assumptions implicit in this
type of modeling. The first is that the ratio of local to nation-
al employment change, as defined in the historical period, will
hold in the projection period. Second, the national projections
must be assumed to be accurate since inaccuracies in the local
projection will obviously result if the national projection is
not realized. Third, it is necessary to consider the set of
assumptions utilized in the national projection. The major
assumptions in the national projections are as follows: 1) a
four (4) percent national unemployment rate through the
projection period; 2) a major reliance on oil imports; 3) a
national population projection based upon the Census Bureau's
Series E fertility rates; and 4) increasing female labor force
participation rates. The major assumptions implied in the
regression model are: 1) the 1980 and 1985 local employment
projections will be realized and 2) future growth will follow the
patterns expressed in the 1960 and 1975 employment trends.
The OBERS-Series E has projected population, employment, personal
income, and earnings by industry for the U.S., states, regions,
and SMSA's to 2020. Its national projections were control totals
for the state, regional, and SMSA projections. The national
assumptions were based on: an economy in approximate equilibrium,
a fertility rate of 2,100 births per 1,000 women by 2005, an
unemployment rate of four percent, and an increase in the private
sector of 2-9 percent in output per man-hour per year. For its
regional projections OBERS assumed a continuation of past trends
modified with the help of locally knowledgeable people. The basic
past trends projected include a regional convergence toward the
11-58
-------
national average in employment/population ratios, earnings per
worker and per capita income, employees shifting from low-to-high
growth areas, and no sharp breaks with past trends in the loca-
tion of basic industries.
In a recent report the BEA compared the OBERS-Series E projec-
tions (interpolated) for the states with the following actual
levels of economic activity in the states in 1973, non-farm
earnings, total earnings, total personal income, and population.
For each variable Ohio's level had been overestimated, the devia-
tions ranging from 1.1 to 2.7 percent. Earnings were overesti-
mated because of substantial overestimates of the non-manufactur-
ing sectors (except mining and construction which were substan-
tially underestimated). For the region including Ohio nearly
every major industry was projected to expand at below-average
rates in the next two decades . Exceptions noted are the
non-automotive transportation equipment and government sectors .
BEA projections showed a lower 1980 figure for both population
(11,141,955) and employment (4,694,145) than the OBERS-Series E
(11,650,600 and 5,025,100 respectively). Consequently, judge-
ment was extensively used in interpreting economic projections
for this project area.
11-59
-------
CHAPTER III
EXISTING FACILITIES
-------
III. EXISTING FACILITIES
III.A. Southerly Treatment Plant
The Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located in
Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio, adjacent to the Cuyahoga River (see
Figure III-l). The Southerly plant serves portions of Cleveland
and 17 suburban communities and is owned and operated by NEORSD.
It has been expanded and upgraded since it began operation in
1927. Flow currently enters Southerly through three conduits.
These are the Southerly Interceptor (8'6" diameter), the Big
Creek Interceptor (6'3" diameter), and the Mill Creek Intercep-
tor (4'3" diameter). Phase I of the Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor
(7'6" diameter), is scheduled to be completed and in service by
mid-1984.
In 1972 the State of Ohio placed the Southerly WWTP under orders
to expand and upgrade its treatment process. Since 1974, the
plant has been expanded from 115 million gallons per day (mdg)
average daily flow to 200 mgd. Peak flow is 400 mgd. Present-
ly, the plant must meet the NPDES permit effluent limitations of
7 mg/1 8005, 7 mg/1 SS, 1.5 mg/1 TKN and 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus.
The final NPDES permit limitations for Southerly are shown in
Table III-l. The permit expired in 1980, and has not been
formally reissued. Ohio EPA is contemplating a modification of
the permit from a TKN nitrogen limit to an ammonia nitrogen
limit.
These stringent permit limits will be achieved by a two-stage
activated sludge process and sand filters. Figure III-2 shows a
diagram of the treatment process at Southerly and Figure III-3
shows the layout of the treatment units on the 200 acre site.
Phosphorus removal is accomplished by adding the chemical ferric
chloride. Ammonia is converted to nitrate in the two stage
activated sludge process. Sludge is digested anaerobically and
then incinerated. The effluent is disinfected with chlorine
prior to discharge to the Cuyahoga River- All of these improve-
ments have been completed with the exception of the rehabilita-
tion of the original 115 mgd secondary treatment plant, which is
an ongoing effort.
The present average flow to Southerly is 92.9 mgd. The comple-
tion of Phase I of the Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor will increase
this flow to 102.9 mgd. Since the plant was designed for 200
mgd, average flow, when the program improvements in progress are
completed, there will be ample capacity to treat the additional
flows.
III.B. Main Leg Area
III-l
-------
EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
3y, _ BROOK
^^-XBwWTP
/•MIDC'TtSU
q *WIP
I <_ _L _
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Cocal Wa»tewater Treatment Alternatives
-------
TABLE II1-1
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS***
PARAMETER
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Suspended Solid (mg/1)*
BODS (mg/1 )*
Fecal Coliforms*
(Number/100 ml)
Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/1)*
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)*
Oil & Grease (mg/1)*
pH (standard units)
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Cadmium (ug/1)
Chromium (ug/1)
Copper (ug/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Mercury (ug/1)
Nickel (ug/1)
Zinc (ug/1)
Phenols (ug/1)
BEREA
D807*BD
9/30/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1 .5/2.25**
1 .0/1 .5
M
6.0 to 9.0
0. 5 max.
5.0 min.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
BROOK PARK
D81 2*CD
12/28/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1 .5/2.25
1 .0/1 .55
5.0
6.0 to 9.0
0. 5 max.
5.0 min.
M
5
100
20
30
0.2
M
95
10
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS
K806*CD
12/28/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1 .5/2.25
1.0/1.5
5.0
6.0 to 9.0
0. 5 max.
5.0 min.
M
5
100
20
30
0.2
M
95
10
*30-Day Average/7-Day Average
**Summer Only
M=Monitor Only
***Effluent limitations do not reflect the results of the Draft Rocky River
Comprehensive Water Quality Report by Ohio EPA
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982
III-3
-------
TABLE II1-1 (Cont.)
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS***
COLUMBIA TWP.SUB.
STRONGSVILLE "A" (WESTVIEW PARK)
NEORSD SOUTHERLY
IT rt.XvTU.llJ _L l_il\
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Suspended Solid (mg/1)*
BODS (mg/1 )*
Fecal Coliforms*
(Number/100 ml)
Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/1)*
Total Phosphorus (mg/D*
Oil & Grease (mg/1)*
pH (standard units)
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Cadmium (ug/1)
Chromium (ug/1)
Copper (ug/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Mercury (ug/1)
Nickel (ug/1)
Zinc (ug/1)
Phenols (ug/1)
D821*BD
9/22/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1 .5/2.25*
1 .0/1 .5
M
6.0 to 9.0
0. 5 max.
5.0 min.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
—
H822*BD P802*CD
4/01/77 09/20/77
12/18 7/12
10/15 7/12
200/400 200/400
—
1.0/1.5
5.0
6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
0. 2 to 0.7 0.5 max.
5.0 min.
1.5/2.25
5
300
20
40
0.5
—
200
10
* 30-Day Average/7-Day Average
**Summer Only
M=Monitor Only
***Effluent limitations do not reflect the results of the Draft Rocky River
Comprehensive Water Quality Report by Ohio EPA
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982
III-4
-------
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Flow Diagram
CHEMICALS
CHEMICAL
ADDITION
for
PO, REMOVAL
WASTE
LIQUORS
RECYCLE
TO TO
DISPOSAL DISPOSAL
FILTER
BACKWASH
CHLORINE
CHEMICALS* CHEMICALS^
I CHEMICALS*
RETURN SLUDGE
TO
OUTFALL
Fvr e
EXCESS
OVERFLOW
TO
RIVER
EXCESS
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
TO
SOLIDS
HANDLING
FILTER
BACKWASH
TO
EQUALIZATION
and
RETURN TO
2nd STAGE
AERATION
SYSTEM
TO
SOLIDS
HANDLING
*NOTE: OPTIONAL CHEMICAL FEED LOCATIONS
K)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center Basis of Design - Malcom Pernie, Inc. - 1973
-------
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Existing Facilities
I f\. 8'-6° PLANT
| / INTERCEPTOR
\Jt
COMMINUTOR( fa pETRITOR BLOG
' X.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center Basis of Design - Malcom Pernie, Inc. - 1973
-------
Much of the Main Leg area is presently served by the Big Creek
Interceptor which conveys flow to the Southerly WWTP- Commun-
ities discharging to the Big Creek Interceptor include portions
of Cleveland, Brooklyn, Brook Park, Parma, Parma Heights and
Cuyahoga Heights . The area north of Brook Park Road which
discharges to the Big Creek Interceptor is served by combined
sewers conveying both sanitary and storm flow. The southern
portion has separate storm and sanitary sewer systems. Thus,
only sanitary sewer flow is conveyed to Big Creek Interceptor
from south of Brook Park Road. Because of problems of excessive
stormwater flow entering the combined sewers, the Big Creek
Interceptor is inadequate to convey all the wastewater from its
present service area. This results in overflows of untreated
sewage to Big Creek and its tributaries. Overflows occur with
even the median 1/2 inch rainfall, so pollution is frequent.
The Grayton Road Pump Station is located north of the Cleveland
Hopkins Airport, at Grayton Road and Hillside Drive. Tributary
areas are shown in Figure III-l as part of the Main Leg area.
The service area includes the airport, some surrounding indus-
trial facilities, a small part of Cleveland and a trailer park.
Flow from this area is conveyed to the pump system where it is
pumped to the Big Creek Interceptor. During rainfall periods,
the amount of water directed to the Grayton Road Pump Station
exceeds its pumping capacity. Thus, bypassing of untreated
sewage occurs at the pump station.
III.C. West Leg Area
III.C.1. Wastewater Treatment Plants - Description
Table III-3 presents a listing of the plants serving the study
area. They are grouped according to size and service area. As
this table demonstrates, the West Leg Area is served by four
major plants and approximately 35 small wastewater treatment
plants. Ninety percent of the discharge from the West Leg Area
is contributed by the four major plants. Tables III-l and III-2
show the effluent limitations for these plants. Existing water
quality in the West Leg Area is heavily determined by the capa-
bilities and performances of the four major plants.
Ohio EPA has performed a detailed analysis of the Rocky River
which considered final effluent requirements for all treatment
plants. This Draft Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality
Report analyzed the chemical and biological water quality as
wellas economic factors which establish discharge permit lim-
its. Ohio EPA developed a detailed waste load allocation for
treatment facilities. It is most likely that the final permit
values would be revised for the following parameters:
III-7
-------
CD
TABLE III-2
INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
PARAMETER
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Suspended Solid (mg/1 )
BODS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(Number/100 ml) 1
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
*30-Day Average/7-Day Average
Source: Southwest Interceptor
BEREA
D807*BD
9/30/77
24/36*
21/30
000/2000
—
0.5 max.
Area Final
BROOKPARK
D81 2*CD
1 2/28/77
20/30
17/26
1000/2000
—
0.5 max.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
BRENTWOOD SUB.
H820*AD
05/05/75
25/45
15/23
200/400
—
0,5 max.
MIDDLES URG
HEIGHTS
K806*CD
1 2/28/77
35/65
18/27
1000/2000
1.0/1.5
0. 5 max.
STRONGSVILLE "A"
D821 *BD
09/22/77
30/45
30/45
1000/2000
1.0/1.5
0.5 max.
Facilities Planning Report, 1982
-------
TABLE III-3
POINT SOURCE WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
WEST LEG
MAJOR PLANTS
Brook Park (1)*
Berea (3)
Middleburg Heights (2)
Strongsville A (4)
SMALL PLANTS
Group I (over 0.1 MGD)
OLMSTED FALLS
Versailles (Westwood Apts.) (12)
Western Ohio Pub. Util. (11)
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
Columbia Trailer Park (9)
COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP
Westview Park (Columbia Subdiv,)(13)
Group II (under 0.1 MGD)
OLMSTED FALLS
Elementary School (15)
Lennox Elementary School (16)
Middle School (17)
High School (18)
Olmsted Mobile Homes (14)
Champion International (23)
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
Falls Subdiv. (19)
Group III (small WWTP)
STRONGSVILLE
Care Service Center
Commerce Construction Co.
Schruk Industries
OLMSTED FALLS
Falls Tackle & Taxidermy
Whitey's Coffee Shop
Gastown Gas Station
Ohio Bell Service Building
Conrad's Barber Shop
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
American Wire & Cable
Weekley's Mailing Service
V.R.C. Inc.
Dairy Queen
Shaker's IGA
Huge Heating & Cooling
Society of Danube Swabians
Assoc. for Systems Mgmt.
Dairy Tee
The Corral
Medical Data Services
Taylor Rental Center
Golden Tee Golf Range
Westview Electric Service
Costanzo's Restaurant
*Numbers in parentheses refer to size as ranked in the Southwest Planning Area,
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982
III-9
-------
Middleburg Strong-
Berea Brook Pk. Heights ville "A"
BOD5 15 15 15 15
(mg/1)
NH3-N 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5
(mg/1)
D.O. 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0
(mg/1)
A brief description and performance evaluation of each major
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is presented below. Projected
dry weather flows are shown in Table III-4. A descriptive analy-
sis of some of the smaller plants and unsewered conditions in
the West Leg Area completes this section. Detailed descriptions
and evaluations are presented in Southwest Interceptor Area
Cost-Effective Analysis: Local Wastewater Treatment Alterna-
tives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, and Strongs-
ville ("A") and in Southwest Interceptor Area Cost Effective
Analysis: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township and Columbia Township.
III.C.I.a. Brook Park WWTP
The Brook Park plant is located in the southern section of Brook
Park at the end of Plant Lane, approximately 0.25 miles south-
west of the intersection of Holland Road and Sylvia Drive. The
plant site occupies approximately 11.5 acres. The site is
bounded on the south by Abram Creek, on the east by the resi-
dences along Leslie Drive, and on the northwest side by railroad
tracks. The wastewater treatment plant currently uses about 4.2
acres of the total site. The plant is owned and operated by the
City of Brook Park and provides service to the south-central
section of the City.
The original Brook Park Plant was placed in operation in 1959.
The plant was an activated sludge plant designed to treat an
average flow of 0.35 mgd. Expansion of the chlorine contact
chamber and primary settling facilities, and addition of a
centrifuge and administration building occurred in 1975. Flow
during 1981 averaged 1.6 mgd.
The treatment units include an aerated grit removal chamber;
screening and shredding facilities; a raw sewage pump station;
primary settling tanks; aerated contact tanks; return sludge
reaeration tank; secondary settling tanks; a chlorine contact
chamber, and a Parshall Flume. Sludge handling is accomplished
with a two-stage anaerobic digestion system; a centrifuge;
111-10
-------
H
M
I
TABLE III-4
DRY WEATHER WWTP DISCHARGES TO ROCKY RIVER (cfs)
WWTP
Berea
N. Royalton "B"
Strongsville "C"
Albion Jr. High
N. Royalton "A"
Strongsville "B"
Small WWTP's
Medina "300"
Strongsville "A"
Small WWTP's
Small WWTP's
Medina "500"
N. Olmsted
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Receiving
Stream
EB
BC/EB
BC/EB
BC/EB
EB
EB
EB
EB
WB
PC/WB
WB
WB
MB
MB
MB
SWI
Service Area
WL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
MO
WL
WL
WL
—
NOO
WL
WL
PROJECTED DISCHARGE
1980
3.60
.66
.55
.01
1 .85
.53
.05
1 .87
3.08
.73
.75
8.73
7.57
.93
2.79
1990
3.77
.94
1 .44
.01
2.45
1 .61
.05
3.34
4.31
.73
.75
10.84
9.21
1 .11
3.36
2000
3.94
1 .22
2.33
.01
3.05
2.69
.05
4.81
5.54
.73
.75
12.95
10.84
1 .28
3.92
2005
4.03
1.36
2.77
.01
3.36
3.23
.05
5.54
6.16
.73
.75
14.00
11 .66
1 .37
4.20
Source
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
5
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
Sources: 1) Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan, John David Jones & Assoc., Inc., 1982
2) North Royalton Wastewater Facilities Plan, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Ltd., (Ongoing)
3) Strongsville "B" and "C" Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981
4) North Olmsted Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981
5) Medina "300" Wastewater Facilities Plan s Preliminary Engineering Report, Project 1601,
Medina Co. Sanitary Eng., 1981
6) Medina "500" Wastewater Facilities Plan, Halishak & Associates, Inc.
-------
sludge drying beds; and contract hauling or residential pick-up.
The treatment process and unit layout are depicted in Figures
III-4 and III-5.
Effluent is discharged into Abram Creek, which is a tributary of
the Main Branch of the Rocky River. Since dry weather flows in
Abram Creek consists almost entirely of discharged wastewater,
effluent quality must be high and treatment must be reliable to
meet Ohio's Water Quality Standards.
IH.C.l.b. Middleburg Heights WWTP
The Middleburg Heights WWTP began operating in 1970 and serves
all sewered sections of the City. The plant site consists of
approximately 15 acres located in the northeast corner of Mid-
dleburg Heights, near the intersection of Sheldon and Eastland
Roads. The WWTP currently utilizes about nine acres of the
total site. The plant is operated and maintained by Cuyahoga
County.
The plant is an activated sludge plant operating in the step
aeration mode. The plant has a design capacity of 2.0 mgd.
Flow during 1981 averaged 2.06 mgd.
Treatment plant components include the following: trash rack;
aeration grit removal chamber; comminutors; raw sewage lift
station; ferrous chloride feed for phosphorus removal; aeration
tanks; secondary settling tanks; chlorine contact chamber;
Parshall Flume; and tertiary aeration lagoon. Sludge handling
facilities consist of the following unit processes: aerobic
digestion; dissolved air flotation thickening; and contract
hauling of liquid sludge. During wet weather, excess flow is
discharged directly to the lagoon. Figures III-6 and III-7 show
the treatment process and plant schematic, respectively.
Effluent is discharged into Abram Creek, which is a tributary of
the Main Branch of the Rocky River. Dry weather flow in Abram
Creek is low. This requires a high quality effluent discharge
from the plant in order to meet water quality standards.
III.C.I.e. Berea WWTP
The plant is located north of the City of Berea near the inter-
section of Barrett and Nobottom Roads. This site occupies ap-
proximately 22.3 acres of which seven acres are in actual use.
The site is bounded on the south and east by land owned by the
Cleveland Metroparks District. The plant provides service to
the City of Berea and small sections of Brook Park and Olmsted
Falls. The plant is owned and operated by the City.
111-12
-------
BROOK PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Existing Flow Diagram
ABRAMS
CREEK
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ',
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
-------
BROOK PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING FACILITIES
I .) SEWAGE FLOW REGULATOR
2.) PREAERATION DEGRIT TANK
3.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
4.) AERATION TANKS
5.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
6.) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7.) CHLORINATION FACILITIES
8.) ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
9.) CONTROL HOUSE
10.) COVERED SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
II.) OPEN SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
12.) OFFICE 8 LABORATORY BUILDING (NEW)
13.) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (OLD)
14.) GARAGE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Sour CM: l_ocal Wa«tewater Treatment Alternatives For Brook Park Middleburg Heights I
erea Strongsville ("A")
-------
MIODLEBURG HEIGHTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Existing Flow Diagram
RAW SEWAGE BY-PASS
I
M
U1
INFLUENT
AERATED
GRIT
REMOVAL
CHAMBER
SCREENING
COMMINU-
TION
RAW
SEWAGE
LIFT
STATION
I
*
AERATION
TANKS
— •
SECONDARY
SETTLING
TANKS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
PARSHALL
FLUME
-
J
TER1
LAG(
ABRAMS
RETURN
WASTE
SLUDGE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A"
-------
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
c
—1
n>
d>
r=W
••
^1 T
©
(5)
®
CD
(D
EXISTIMG FACILITIES
I.) GRIT CHAMBER
2.) INFLUENT PUMP STATION
3.) AERATION TANK
4.) BLOWER BUILDING
5.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
6.) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7.) CHLORINE BUILDING
8.) TERTIARY LAGOON
9.) FLOATING AERATORS
10.) AEROBIC DIGESTOR
I I.) SLUDGE PUMP STATION
12.) SLUDGE HOLDING TANK
13.) FILTER BUILDING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ngsville I"A")
-------
The original Berea WWTP began operating in 1937. The plant
included an activated sludge process designed to treat an aver-
age flow of 1.0 mgd. The capacity was increased to 2.0 mgd in
1951-52 and again expanded to 3.0 mgd in 1967-1968. The plant's
sludge handling facilities were upgraded and a vacuum filter was
installed in 1964. Flow during 1981 averaged 2.65 mgd.
Treatment units include screening and shredding facilities; an
aerated grit removal and preaeration chamber; primary settling
tanks; an aerated contact tank; return sludge reaeration tanks;
secondary settling tanks; chlorination facilities; and a Par-
shall Flume. Sludge handling is accomplished with a two-stage
anaerobic digestion system; a vacuum filter; sludge drying beds;
and on-site landfilling. Figures III-8 and III-9 show the
treatment process and plant schematic.
Effluent is discharged into the East Branch of the Rocky River.
Low stream flow conditions in the East Branch require a high
quality discharge from the Berea plant. The low flow conditions
result from upstream withdrawals by the Berea water treatment
plant which are discussed in Chapter V.
III.G.l.d. Strongsville "A" WWTP
The City of Strongsville is served by three wastewater treatment
plants. The Sewer District "A" plant is the largest plant and
it serves the entire western section of the City. The plant site
occupies 15.8 acres and is located in the northwest corner of
the City near the intersection of Marks and Sprague Roads. The
site is divided by Blodgett Creek, with the plant utilizing
about 2.7 acres on the north side of the creek.
The original plant, which began operating in 1967, was designed
as an extended aeration facility to treat an average flow of 1.0
mgd. The first phase of an improvement program was completed in
1981. This phase included aerated sludge holding facilities;
new return sludge pumps; two new secondary clarifiers; two new
blowers; an additional chlorine contact tank; chemical feed
facilities for phosphorus removal; and a gravity sludge thick-
ener. Figures 111-10 and III-ll show the treatment process and
flow schematic. Existing tank capacity from the original plant
was utilized during the first phase of the improvement program
to provide the sludge holding, chlorine contact, and gravity
sludge thickening units. The pending, or second phase, of the
improvement program will include a belt filter press and sludge
chemical conditioning facilities. Also, the ultimate destination
of the sludge will be changed from the Westerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant to the Southerly WWTP. The Strongsville "A"
plant is operated and maintained by NEORSD.
111-17
-------
BEREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Existing Flow Diagram
i
M
oo
c
c?
CD
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastevtrater Treatment Alternative
rook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
-------
BEREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CO
c
EXISTING FACILITIES
1.) OVERFLOW CHAMBER
2.) SCREENING CHAMBER
3.) GRIT CHAMBER (STORM ONLY)
4.) DEGRITTING 9 PREAERATION TANK
5.) DIVERSION CHAMBER
6.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
7) AERATION TANKS
8.) DIVERSION CHAMBER
9.) FINAL CLARIFIERS
IQ) BLOWER BUILDING
II.) FINAL CLARIFIERS SLUDGE BOX
12.) CONTROL BUILDING
13) PRIMARY DIGESTER
14.) SECONDARY DIGESTER
15.) DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING
IS) SLUDGE DEWATERING BUILDING
17.) SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
18.) SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
19.) CHLORINE HOUSE
20.) GARAGE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives For Brook Park Middleburg Heights Berea Strongsville ("A")
-------
STRONGSVILLE 'A' WWTP EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
M
I
to
o
BLODGETT
CREEK
TANK TRUCK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGECNY
iot l-ocal VWas^ewa^er Trea^men* AIYOmativos For
Brook Park IVIicldlaburg I
Berea STrongsville ("A")
-------
STRONGSVILLE 'A* WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
H
I
NJ
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) RAW SEWAGE BASIN
2.) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
3.) DISTRIBUTION BASIN
4.) AERATION TANKS
5.) FINAL CLARIFIERS
6.) NEW CHIDRINE CONTACT TANK
7.) CHLORINATOR BUILDING
8.) STORAGE BUILDING
9.) RETURN SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
IQ) SLUDGE BASIN
II.) SLUDGE THICKENING TANK
12.) FILTER PRESS BUILDING
13.) SLUDGE WELL
14.) EXISTING CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
15.) CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK
16.) AERATED SLUDGE STORAGE TANKS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
-------
The plant is currently operated as an activated sludge plant,
with no prior primary treatment and sludge stabilization. The
plant's theoretical design capacity is 2.5 mgd. Flow averaged
2.16 mgd in 1981, and 1.76 mgd in 1983.
Effluent is discharged into Blodgett Creek which is tributary to
the West Branch of the Rocky River. The physical characteristics
of Blodgett Creek requires a consistent, high quality effluent
to insure maintaining Ohio's Water Quality Standards.
III.C.2. Performance Analysis - Facilities Plan
A detailed evaluation and treatment capability analysis was con-
ducted on the four major plants as part of the facilities
planning effort. The evaluation considered plant influent,
interim and final NPDES permit effluent limitations, and stream
sampling. A less detailed summary survey was made of the small
plants.
The evaluation of the four major wastewater treatment plants
consisted of the following steps:
0 Field inspection of each plant.
0 Interviews with plant personnel.
0 Evaluation of equipment and facilities according to
accepted design standards (Ten States Standards).
° Review of the past six years of plant performance
data from the Ohio EPA data base.
° Review of effluent and stream sampling results obtained
during the evaluation of wastewater treatment plant
effluent impact on streams.
The four major plants, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea,
and Strongsville "A" were all found to be well operated and
maintained. The one major problem common to all four plants is
the occurrence of high wet weather flows. The flows exceed
plant capacity and result in the discharge of untreated waste-
water and subsequent stream pollution. With the exception of
Brook Park, none of the plants can be considered to be over-
loaded during dry weather.
Final clarifiers at the Brook Park plant are hydraulically over-
loaded and heavy solids deposits were observed in the chlorine
contact tank. Visual observation and comments from plant opera-
tors indicate that the plant's influent is contaminated by oily
industrial wastes. Because of this, it will be extremely diffi-
cult for the Brook Park plant to consistently meet interim
effluent limitations.
111-22
-------
No major operational problems were identified at the Middleburg
Heights plant. Similarly, no operational problems were identi-
fied in the wet stream units at the Berea plant. However, solids
processing and solids disposal at this plant were inadequate.
Both the Middleburg Heights and the Berea plants should consis-
tently meet interim effluent limits for BOD5 and suspended
solids.
The Strongsville "A" plant is undergoing a prolonged and diffi-
cult rebuilding and expansion program. New wet stream units
began operating in September, 1981 and the solids processing
belt filter began operating early in 1982.
The Middleburg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A" plants will
meet some or all of their interim effluent standards. However,
the treatment capability analysis showed that none of the plants
will consistently meet final limits without expansion and addi-
tion of tertiary treatment and phosphorus removal components.
III.C.3. Performance Analysis - EIS
On August 5-6, 1980, USEPA's Eastern District Office conducted a
compliance sampling inspection of the four major wastewater
treatment plants in the study area. Weather conditions were
fair. The purpose of the inspection was to determine the
reliability of the dishcarge monitoring data reported by each
facility for compliance with their interim discharge permits and
to make suggestions for improvements. Following are the major
problems noted at each facility.
III.C.3.a. Brook Park
EPA test results indicated excessive levels of residual chlorine
and high levels of phosphorus, although there are presently no
permit limits for phosphorus.
Self-monitoring has also indicated high levels of chlorine and
periodic problems with fecal coliform bacteria, suspended solids
and grease and oil.
Flow accuracy may be a problem and an improvised metal sampling
can may contaminate samples. Record keeping at the laboratory
is poor.
Laboratory procedures are incorrect for 8005; ammonia and
phosphorus. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was not being tested,
despite a permit requirement.
The treatment plant values were frequently higher than EPA re-
sults for the same sample.
111-23
-------
The laboratory has no quality control program.
III.C.3.b. Middleburg Heights
Phosphorus levels exceeded the required limits; iron concentra-
tions (while not specified in the permit) violate Ohio Water
Quality Standards.
Self-monitoring has indicated periodic problems with 8005,
phosphorus, suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria. Al-
though the effluent quality is acceptable, in-stream concentra-
tions of ammonia are high because of the small size of the
stream.
The laboratory is outdated and poorly maintained. Improper
procedures are used to measure the chlorine residual. Agreement
between the treatment plant lab results and EPA results was fair
to poor for BOD5 and suspended solids. Some tests for this
are done at the Rocky River Treatment Plant.
The laboratory has no quality control program.
At the time of the visit, the grit removal unit was not working.
Ill .C.3.c. Berea
EPA test results showed compliance with interim permit limits;
ammonia values were high, but were not a parameter included in
the permit.
Incorrect laboratory techniques were used for residual chlorine,
8005, suspended solids, ammonia, phosphorus and fecal coliform
bacteria.
The treatment plant values were frequently lower than EPA re-
sults for ammonia, phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and 6005
The flow meter was not calibrated, sludge was poorly stored, and
the bar screen was under repair.
The laboratory has no quality control program.
III.G.S.d. Strongsville "A"
111-24
-------
Both EPA and the self-monitoring results noted that the levels
of 3005, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria and phos-
phorus exceed permit limits. The plant records also indicate
problems with high levels of ammonia. Results of the self-
monitoring show that the average effluent quality for all of
1983 was 22mg/l BOD5, 26 mg/1 SS, 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus and 7.3
mg/1 ammonia nitrogen (NH3~N) . Since the time of the 1980
survey, some treatment plant improvements have been made which
should reduce BOD5 and suspended solids.
Same problems were noted with laboratory procedures for COD
(chemical oxygen demand), low level of metals and lead. Grab
samples, rather than the required composite samples were used.
Flow bypassed at the treatment plant is not metered.
III.C.4. Small Wastewater Treatment Plants
Thirty-eight small wastewater treatment plants in the West Leg
Area were surveyed during facilities planning. The plants were
rated as satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory according to
the following criteria:
0 Quality of effluent
0 Operation of aeration and return sludge facilities
0 Presence or absence of scum and septic sludge
0 Maintenance of plant facilities
The plants, located within Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and
Strongsville, were surveyed in early October 1981 during a per-
iod of cool, damp weather. Different weather conditions during
the time of the survey may alter some observations.
During the survey there was little or no evidence of sewage odor
or other signs of nuisance or unsanitary conditions adjacent to
the small plants. Effluent was discharged to the soil adjacent
to a number of plants. This resulted in abundant growth of weeds
but odors or deposits were not detected.
Package plants serving sewered subdivisions within the area gen-
erally are properly operated and maintained. Even with optimal
operation and maintenance, however, most are unable to meet
final treatment levels due to the lack of tertiary facilities
and/or hydraulic overloading caused by high rates of infiltra-
tion and inflow.
Seven package wastewater treatment plants serve subdivisions
within the study area. Package plants and sewer service areas
are identified in Figure III-l and Table III-3 and discussed
below.
111-25
-------
Columbia Trailer Park
The Columbia Trailer Park Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of
the following components:
0 Comminutor
0 17,000 gallon septic tank converted to grit chamber
0 Two 125,000 extended aeration units
0 Three cell rapid sand filter
0 Chlorination facilities
0 4,550 square foot sludge drying bed
The privately owned and operated plant currently services ap-
proximately 700 mobile homes. Existing average and peak waste-
water flows are presented in Table III-5. An additional 395
trailer lots ultimately are proposed for development. The Ohio
EPA has approved development of 80 additional lots, contingent
on I/I rehabilitation to reduce peak flows.
Review of Ohio EPA records indicates the following design and
O&M deficiencies:
0 Excessive infiltration/inflow in the sewer system
0 Aeration units frequently overflow during peak flows
0 Rapid sand filter is bypassed approximately 50% of
the time due to high flows
0 Solids are wasted infrequently
Brentwood Subdivision
Brentwood Subdivision is served by a 150,000 gallon/day county-
owned extended aeration plant consisting of:
0 Two 68,040 gallon aeration units
0 Two settling basins
0 Chlorination facilities
0 Enclosed aerated sludge holding basin
According to field observations made in October 1981, the plant
is operated satisfactorily. Table III-5 shows that existing
average flows substantially exceed the plant's design capacity.
Western Ohio Public Utilities
This subdivision is served by a 400,000 gallon/day extended
aeration plant consisting of the following components:
Four 100,000 gallon extended aeration units
0 Chlorination facilities
40,000 gallon sludge holding tank
111-26
-------
TABLE III-5
EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS
REFERENCE SERVICE AREA
1 Columbia Trailer Park
2 Brentwood Subdivision
3 W.Ohio Pub. Utilities
4 Falls Subdivision
5 Versailles
6 Westview Park
7 Brookside Drive
DESIGN
FLOW ( MGD )
.25
.15
.40
.03
.10
.14
Unk.
AVERAGE
FLOW ( MGD )
.1 36
.218
.311
.012
.038
.093
.022
PEAK
FLOW ( MGD )
.825
1 .696
2.012
.094
.275
.637
.063
TYPE OF
PLANT
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
PS
RECEIVING
SYSTEM
WB
PC
PC
WB
WB
WB
PC
PS - Primary Settling
EA - Extended Aeration
PC - Plum Creek
WB - West Branch Rocky River
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis, Local Wastewater
Management Alternatives, for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, and
Northeastern Columbia Township, 1982.
111-27
-------
Sludge drying beds
Plans developed in 1976 to add tertiary treatment (rapid sand
filters) have not been implemented in anticipation of construc-
tion of an interceptor to Southerly WWTP-
Field observations indicated that existing facilities are ade-
quately operated and maintained. Significant deficiencies of
the system include:
Excessive infiltration/inflow in the collection system
(see existing peak flow in Table III-5)
0 Lack of tertiary treatment facililties and resultant
inability to meet final NPDES permit effluent
limitations.
Falls Subdivision
Falls Subdivision is served by a 30,000 gallon/day extended
aeration plant owned by the Village of Olmsted Falls. The plant
was constructed in 1980 as a temporary facility to be abandoned
upon completion of the Southwest Interceptor West Leg. The
plant consists of:
0 Trash trap
0 One 30,000 gallon extended aeration unit
0 Surface sand filters
0 Chlorination facilities
0 Sludge holding tank
0 Two sludge drying beds with a total area of
2,739 square feet
Field observations indicated that the plant is operated
satisfactorily- The plant has sufficient capacity for the 20
year planning period, assuming infiltration and inflow does not
become a major concern.
Versailles Subdivision
Versailles Subdivision is served by a 100,000 gallon/day
extended aeration plant owned by the Village of Olmsted Falls.
The plant consists of the following components:
0 Comminutor
Two 50,000 gallon extended aeration units
One 200,000 gallon rapid sand filter and one
300,000 gallon rapid sand filter
0 5,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and 1,000
square foot sludge drying bed
111-28
-------
0 Chlorination facilities
Field observations and recent Ohio EPA. inspection reports
indicate that the plant is operated satisfactorily.
Operation and maintenance problems reported by Ohio EPA.
include:
0 Excessive foam and spray
° Maintenance of the sludge drying beds
0 Minor infiltration and hydraulic overloads
Westview Park
Westview Park is served by a 140,000 gallon/day extended aera-
tion plant owned and operated by Lorain County. The plant
consists of:
0 Comminutor/bar screen
0 Aeration tanks
0 Settling basins
0 Rapid sand filter
0 Chlorination facilities
0 Aerobic sludge digester and sludge drying beds
Field observations in October, 1981, indicate that the plant is
operated satisfactorily- Major infiltration/inflow problems in
the collection system, however, result in severe hydraulic over-
loads .
Brookside Drive Settling Tank
The Brookside Drive communal settling tank provides primary
wastewater treatment to approximately 65 homes on Mapleway, Lyn-
way and Olmway Avenue. Constructed in the early 1940's, the
plant is overloaded and outdated according to modern wastewater
treatment standards.
III.C.5. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
Individual sewage disposal systems serving homes in Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Township (Figure III-l) can be grouped into
three general categories.
Category Number
Septic Tanks with Subsurface Filters 1,443
Aeration Units 174
Septic Tanks with Leach Fields 121
TOTAL 1,738
111-29
-------
The first two categories consist of systems which discharge
effluent to surface waters (streams and drainage ditches). It
should be noted that the subsurface filter systems found in the
area are not modern subsurface sand filters. These systems are
very old and utilize gravel rather than sand for the filter
media. The third category consists of systems which rely on
effluent percolation through the soil. Soil geologic and hydro-
logic conditions in the area pose severe limitations for the
effective use of conventional leach fields.
The three primary causes of individual system malfunction in the
Olmsted Falls/Olmsted Township area are:
° Age of existing systems and lack of proper maintenance;
Antiquated design in comparison with present standards
(such as the frequent use of gravel filters);
Poor soil conditions and insufficient lot sizes for
effective on-lot treatment.
The character of wastewater management problems, and consequent-
ly, needs, varies from area to area within Olmsted Falls and
Olmsted Township according to:
0 Population density;
0 Type and condition of existing facilities;
0 Topographic, soils and hydrogeologic conditions;
0 Natural and man-made boundaries.
A total of 106 commercial systems are located in the Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Townhip area. Most consist of septic tanks
with on-lot or off-lot discharges, although several businesses
are served by small aeration package wastewater treatment
plants.
The combined total effluent discharge from individual residen-
tial and commercial sewage disposal systems in Olmsted Falls and
Olmsted Township is estimated to be one million gallons per day-
Further information on existing home sewage disposal systems is
presented in the Southwest Interceptor Area Final Water Quality
Report and in the Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective
Analysis; Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township.
III.D. East Leg Area and Option Areas
The East Leg Area includes Strongsville Sewer District "B" and
"C" and North Royalton Sewer Districts "A" and "B". There are
four minor and several small wastewater treatment plants in this
area. The Option Areas; Medina "300", North Olmsted and Columbia
111-30
-------
Township, each have one major treatment plant. These plants,
grouped according to size and service area, are presented in
Table III-6. Projected dry weather flows were presented in
Table III-4. Figure III-l shows their location. Much of
Columbia Township and the area surrounding the Medina "300"
plant are unsewered and rely on individual on-site treatment
systems.
Anticipated growth in the East Leg and Option Areas over the
next 20 years indicates that both wastewater discharges and
resultant stream flows will increase. However, the growth is
expected to be slower than that projected for the West Leg Area.
USEPA and Ohio EPA have decided that local service should be
retained in these areas for the present 20-year facilities plan-
ning period. Separate facilities plans are underway to improve
many of these facilities to meet current effluent limitations
and project flows until the year 2000- The relationship of the
East Leg and Option Areas beyond the 20-year planning period
will be studied in the development of alternatives in Chapters
IV and V. USEPA will only be able to fund capacity for a 20-
year planning period until October 1, 1984. After that date,
reserve capacity will not be funded by USEPA, although its
incremental cost may be paid for locally.
III.E. Sewer System Evaluation (I/I, SSES)
III.E.I. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis (I/I)
The I/I analysis for the Southwest Interceptor Planning Area was
performed as a part of the facilities planning effort for the
project. The planning area includes all or part of the follow-
ing municipalities: Broadview Heights, Brooklyn Heights, Brook
Park, Cleveland, Cuyahoga Heights, Middleburg Heights, North
Royalton, Parma, Parma Heights, and Seven Hills in the Big Creek
Basin; and Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Olmsted Town-
ship, Columbia Township and Strongsville in the Rocky River
Basin.
The purpose of an I/I analysis is to study the condition of the
existing collector sewer system and identify sources of ground-
water and surface water leaking into the sewer system. The
groundwater portion of I/I is called infiltration, while inflow
comes from surface sources, such as downspout connections to the
sanitary sewers and leaky manholes. Removing this "clear water"
by rehabilitating the sewers may or may not be less costly than
continuing to treat it. The report entitled Southwest Inter-
ceptor Environmental Impact Statement-Facilities Plan - Infil-
tration/Inflow Analysis containsdetailedinformationrelative
to this I/I Analysis.Its conclusions were:
111-31
-------
TABLE III-6
EAST LEG/OPTION AREA TREATMENT PLANTS
MINOR PLANTS
North Royalton A (7)* Strongsville B (8)
North Royalton B (6) Strongsville C (5)
SMALL PLANTS
Group II - Strongsville
Metroparks Camp Cheerfull (21) Albion Jr. High School (20)
Howard Chapman Elem. School (22)
MEDINA "300" Option
MAJOR PLANTS
Medina SD 300
NORTH OLMSTED OPTION
MAJOR PLANTS
North Olmsted (24)
COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP OPTION
MAJOR PLANTS
Medina SD 500
(lies just south of Columbia Twp.)
*Numbers in parentheses refer to size as ranked in the
Southwest Planning Area.
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities
Planning Report, 1982.
111-32
-------
The existing sewer system includes approximately 1,215 miles of
sewer lines; 55,627 house connections, and 11,385 manholes. The
analysis provided the following approximate flow data: total
low groundwater infiltration is 26.5 mgd; total sanitary flow is
20.9 mgd; high groundwater infiltration contributes an
additional 29.5 mgd, for a total maximum infiltration flow rate
equal to 56.0 mgd; peak inflow calculated for a one year storm
equals 351.3 mgd; and the total maximum peak flow from all
sources equals 469.6 mgd.
Nearly all of the mini-systems and catchment areas exceed the
rate generally considered to be non-excessive (1,500 gallons per
inch diameter per mile of sewer).
Catchment areas having the highest ranking of infiltration/-
inflow rates are in areas of older construction with sanitary
sewers and storm sewers in a single trench; sanitary below and
storm above. More than 50% of the infiltration/inflow is attri-
buted to these areas.
Approximately 50% of the low and high groundwater infiltration
was attributed to house laterals. Calculations determined that
removal of this flow was not cost effective.
The Southerly WWTP improvements presently under construction
will increase average daily treatment capacity to 200 mgd
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT), 400 mgd AWT peak flow capa-
city, and 735 mgd primary treatment with disinfection for storm-
water flow.
Cost estimates comparing transport and treatment of infiltra-
tion/inflow versus correction of infiltration/inflow problems at
their source were developed. The facility planning period used
was twenty (20) years (1980-2000). The analysis assumed
treatment at Southerly WWTP. The comparison of the two other
facility planning alternatives, the multi-plant and the two
plant alternatives, consider the cost of handling excessive
infiltration/inflow as an added cost item in the facilities plan
cost-effectiveness analysis. This was done since it was obvious
that a reduction in infiltration/inflow in these areas would
allow existing trunk sewers to carry the flow and no additional
relief sewer capacity was recommended. Added cost for these
plans would be additional treatment capacity or storage required
at the plant site.
An analysis of relief sewers needed to transport excess infil-
tration/inflow within the existing Big Creek sewer network was
made. The two types of sewers required are for supplemental
capacity (located parallel and adjacent to an existing instal-
lation) and for relief capacity (located to divert flow within
111-33
-------
the system and provide additional capacity to the remaining
downstream trunk sewer). The relief sewers that would be re-
quired to transport 100% of the calculated infiltration/inflow
were identified as: Broadview Road Relief Sewer; State Road
Relief Sewer (supplemental capacity); Pearl Road Relief Sewer;
Ridge Road Relief Sewer (supplemental capacity) and Smith Relief
Sewer. The relief sewers would be paid for by the local commun-
ities .
All of the relief sewers as well as the existing trunk sewers
would discharge flows into the Southwest Interceptor. The flow
from the Southwest service area is transported to the Southerly
WWTP for treatment. Various sewer sizes and costs were devel-
oped to compare the cost of transporting 0% to 100% of the cal-
culated infiltration/inflow. Adequate capacity is available at
Southerly to treat 100% of the calculated flow.
Operation and maintenance costs at Southerly were developed to
reflect the cost of treating 0% to 100% of the infiltration/-
inflow at Southerly.
The existing sewer system (1,215 miles in length) includes 675.3
miles of 6" house laterals. It was assumed that approximately
50% of the total infiltration is contributed through leaky
joints in the house laterals. It was determined that due to age
and type of construction, house laterals would have to be
replaced in order to significantly reduce or eliminate infiltra-
tion. A cost comparison of replacing house laterals versus
transport and treatment of 50% of the total infiltration indi-
cated that it was cost-effective to transport and treat this
flow.
The rehabilitation of each of the catchment areas was evaluated
based on calculated values and probable sources of 50% of the
infiltration and 100% of the inflow. Cost estimates to rehabil-
itate each catchment area sewer system were developed.
The cost of rehabilitating the existing sewer system in each
catchment area was reduced to an average cost per 1,000 gallons
of infiltration and inflow removed. These costs were summed for
the entire system and used to calculate the cost of removing
various percentages of infiltration/inflow. The previously cal-
culated cost of transporting and treating the remainder of the
infiltration/inflow was then summarized and the equivalent an-
nual costs computed.
The peak carrying capacity of the existing trunk sewers serving
the area was calculated and compared to both the total peak flow
and peak flow minus percentage of infiltration/inflow.
111-34
-------
The construction of storage basins within the sewer system was
examined and compared to the transportation and treatment of
more than half of the total infiltation/inflow. Although the
cost of off-line storage was nearly equal to the cost of trans-
porting and treating the flow, it was felt that the complexity
of such a system, the inherent problems with operation and main-
tenance, and the increased use of energy for treatment and flow
pumping were sufficient reasons to preclude this alternative
from further consideration.
III.E.2. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
As a result of the I/I Analysis, a System Evaluation Survey
(SSES) has been recommended. The purpose of this task is to
determine the infiltration component that will be used in pre-
liminary design and to develop for each political entity, a
recommended rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program
will include estimated costs and implementation schedules. The
SSES is ongoing, and will be applied to the design of the
selected alternative for the Southwest area. Some preliminary
results of the SSES have been used to confirm the sizing planned
for sewer alternatives.
III.F. Water Quality Impacts
Background water quality data were presented in Chapter II and
Appendix A of the Draft EIS. Appendix D of this Final EIS pre-
sents additional ammonia data that supplants the ammonia data in
Appendix A. A detailed analysis of the relationship of waste-
water discharges, from treatment plants and on-site systems, was
developed in detail as part of the Facilities Plan, in Report on
WWTP Effluent Impact on Streams, Local Wastewater Management
Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and North-
eastern Columbia Township, and Report on Flow Distribution
Impact on Rocky River (the latter includes use of benthic
organisms as biological indicators of water quality). The
additional ammonia data have been developed from the Draft Rocky
River Comprehensive Water Quality Report done by the Ohio EPA in
1981.
Water quality is not significantly different between the East
and West Branches of the Rocky River, but differs from area to
area along the length of the stream. Rainfall stresses the
existing capacity of the treatment plants producing a lesser
quality effluent, which in turn adversely affects the quality of
the stream. Abram Creek is the most polluted stream because of
its small size and because it receives comparatively large dis-
charges from the Brook Park and Middleburg Heights plants.
Ammonia-nitrogen is a particular problem in Abram Creek. Almost
111-35
-------
all ammonia samples taken along Abram Creek violate the State
standard (See Appendix D).
Plum Creek also shows considerable pollution, notably high bac-
terial populations, which are correlated to on-site treatment
systems. Overall, the Rocky River is polluted by wastewater
discharged from the major, minor and small wastewater treatment
plants and individual disposal systems. The severity of pollu-
tion varies from area to area according to the type and quantity
of wastewater discharged and the physical charactereristics of
the stream. Stream segments receiving large amounts of waste-
water have high pollution levels in the vicinity of the dis-
charges. Water quality improves downstream from the discharges,
except for bacteria levels and ammonia-nitrogen, which remain
continually high.
Of the parameters investigated in the Southwest Interceptor Area
Final Water Quality Report, those which appear most significant
in terms of indicating sewage contamination in the Rocky River
are fecal coliform and fecal streptococci. These bacterial popu-
lations of the Rocky River consistently exceed Ohio EPA stan-
dards for primary contact criteria and the majority of the time
do not meet standards for secondary contact criteria . The high
fecal bacteria populations within the Rocky River are due to a
combination of numerous treatment plant discharges and septic
tank effluent discharges from unsewered areas located mostly on
the West Branch. The 6005 values are relatively high, indi-
cating moderate to severe degradation of water quality- In con-
trast, the dissolved oxygen content recorded throughout the
river during the entire analysis is relatively high which is
desirable for aquatic life. This is due to the effect of steep
slopes and falls which reaerate the entire river as it flows to
Lake Erie.
Fecal coliform levels in the East Branch consistently increase
from dry to wet conditions, and exceed Ohio EPA standards during
both. Discharges to the East Branch are mostly from the minor
wastewater treatment plants along the river, and the Berea WWTP.
Increasing fecal coliform counts associated with increasing pre-
cipitation indicates that bypassing of sewage to the river is
occurring at associated treatment plants. Such bypass flow is
not treated and generally not chlorinated, and thus bacterial
populations are not diminished.
East Branch wet and dry weather 6005 and dissolved oxygen
values behave conversely to those for coliform. 6005 levels
decrease with increasing precipitation apparently as a result of
dilution. Average BOD5 values indicate moderate levels of
pollution in the East Branch. Dissolved oxygen values remain
relatively high between wet and dry sampling periods. This is
111-36
-------
not unexpected considering the wet sampling decrease in BOD5
values and the effects of reaeration which occurs in the Rocky
River.
Ammonia-nitrogen values in the East Branch increase significant-
ly downstream of the Berea WWTP (RM 1.3) and in the downstream
vicinity of several package plants around RM 10.7. On several
sampling occasions, values exceeded the state standard, but gen-
erally values averaged less than 1.0 mg/1 total ammonia-
nitrogen.
The West Branch does not show as great an increase in fecal col-
iform counts from dry to wet weather. However, data show an in-
crease in number of coliforms in the downstream portions of Plum
Creek and the West Branch. In addition, average values general-
ly exceed Ohio EPA limits. Discharge to these areas comes from
many smaller plants in addition to the Strongville "A" WWTP and
septic tank areas.
The average ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the West Branch is
generally higher than that in the East Branch. Violations of
the state ammonia standard are more numerous, particularly, in
the vicinity of sampling stations at RM 5.4 and 3.5. These high
concentrations could be very harmful to aquatic life despite the
high dissolved oxygen concentration. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the West Branch are high.
Other physical-chemical parameters sampled reflected acceptable
water quality conditions. Temperature values are within those
established by Ohio EPA for warmwater habitat, as is pH (a
measure of acidity or alkalinity). Suspended solids fluctuate
widely from station to station. No standards have been
established for this parameter.
Results of the water quality sampling compare closely to the
results of the survey of benthic organisms. One advantage of
using benthic organisms to assess the condition of a stream is
that they are relatively long living and permanent inhabitants
of a given area, reflecting both short and long term stresses or
alterations within their environment. Water chemistry values,
in contrast, reflect the condition of a stream only at the time
the sample is collected. In the Rocky River, benthic communities
show a greater degree of healthy diversity in the upstream
reaches and are more stressed (lower diversity) downstream,
especially below treatment facilities. In some stream segments,
there is evidence of stream recovery between wastewater
discharges.
111-37
-------
The facilities planning documents cited at the beginning of this
discussion present detailed data and localized evaluation of
stream quality.
III.G. Conclusions on the Need for Wastewater Treatment
Improvements
There is a definite need for wastewater treatment improvements
in the Southwest planning area. The Big Creek Interceptor and
Grayton Road Pump Station have inadequate capacity to treat the
existing high flows which develop during wet weather. This
problem is aggravated by the older combined storm and sanitary
sewer system in the City of Cleveland. The Brook Park,
Middleburg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A" plants cannot
meet their final effluent limits for advanced treatment
("tertiary") without being expanded and upgraded. The smaller
treatment facilities of the West Branch of the Rocky River are
working reasonably well now, but have the same problems as their
larger counterparts in meeting the stringent final effluent
limits. Existing local collector sewers have some potential for
being repaired, as defined by the I/I and SSES studies. On-site
systems in Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township have variable
treatment success depending on their design, location and
maintenance. The immediate problems of the East Leg and Option
areas are being addressed in separate facilities plans and
construction projects. Finally, recent improvements at the
Southerly WWTP will provide ample capacity for sophisticated
advanced treatment.
111-38
-------
CHAPTER IV
ALTERNATIVES
-------
IV- ALTERNATIVES
IV.A. Introduction
Many factors have been examined in developing the various alter-
natives for the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area. The range of
wastewater treatment processes available were analyzed. The
feasible processes were applied to the different treatment plants
in the area. Various arrangements of service areas among treat-
ment alternatives were considered. This chapter focuses on the
latter concept of analyzing different service or planning areas
with different treatment alternatives. Within each major alter-
native a number of treatment processes have been considered and
detailed explanations provided in the documents cited in Chapter
I. Consequently, the results summarized in this chapter provide
an issue-oriented presentation of alternatives.
IV.B. No Action
The No Action alternative would involve no Federal funding of
wastewater treatment improvements in the Southwest Planning Area.
Existing wastewater treatment practices would continue. Any im-
provements made under No Action would involve local funding only-
Under No Action, the existing major and most minor treatment
plants will not be able to achieve their final discharge permit
standards and will likely violate their interim discharge per-
mits, particularly during wet weather. The present degraded
stream conditions, as described in Chapter III, will remain.
Problems will be aggravated as local population increases place
more demand on the conveyance and treatment systems. Many on-
site systems will not function properly due to obsolete design,
poor location and variable maintenance.
Under the No Action alternative, bypasses from the sewer systems
in the Big Creek tributary will continue. Water quality of the
Cuyahoga River (where the Big Creek discharges) will not be ex-
pected to improve. As population increases and present systems
get older, further degradation of the water quality is antici-
pated. Impacts to the Rocky River will be more severe. Biologi-
cal, recreational and water supply uses of the Rocky River will
be unfavorably affected. Adverse water quality impacts to all of
these streams will ultimately affect Lake Erie. Improvement of
the water will not occur without wastewater treatment improve-
ments .
IV.C. Treatment Process Alternatives
IV.C.I. Flow and Waste Reduction
IV-1
-------
IV.C.I.a. Infiltration/Inflow
As described in Chapter III, the volumes of infiltration and/or
inflow in the existing sewer system are under study. Chapter V
cost figures are developed and alternatives analyzed considering
removing 0%, 20%, and 40% of the excess infiltration/inflow.
Other types of flow and waste reduction are associated with water
conservation.
IV.C.l.b. Water Reuse
Water reuse is a form of water conservation where highly treated
effluent is recycled for additional use. Potential uses include
agricultural irrigation, industrial processes and aquifer
recharge. The extremely high costs of treating and transporting
recycled water can be a practical solution but the existing ample
water supply in the Great Lakes region makes water reuse, in this
instance, impractical.
IV.C.I.e. Water Conservation
Water conservation measures can be encouraged by the rates
charged for metered water supply/sewer service and by public
education. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District charges
customers for wastewater treatment based on the rate of water
supplied by the City of Cleveland. Public education stresses
awareness of water use and the installation of simple water
conservation devices, such as flow restrictor showerheads and
water reducing toilet dams. More efficient water conserving
appliances and plumbing fixtures are also available, for both
retrofit and new installments. New plumbing codes can further
encourage water conservation. In addition to reducing wastewater
treatment demands in sewered areas, water conservation has great
potential for improving the performance of on-site treatment
systems. Water conservation in the Southwest planning area
should be implemented at the local level but cannot significant-
ly improve the water quality nor singly relieve the problems in
the study area.
IV.C.2. On-Site Treatment Process Alternatives
There are numerous individual treatment facilities (servicing
homes or commercial establishments) in the unsewered portions of
the study area. Analysis of on-site systems requires a comprehen-
sive review of alternatives in this category including No Action.
The facilities plan identified and analyzed treatment processes
for on-site treatment. These were:
IV-2
-------
IV.C.2.a. No Action
This alternative, as explained in Section B, would result in the
continued use of existing on-site systems. A number of these
systems are inadequately designed and are often not well main-
tained. Use of these existing facilities would continue in areas
where the Cuyahoga County Health Department has documented inade-
quately treated wastewater in neighborhood ditches. The need to
vigorously control mosquitoes can be expected to continue along
with the concerns of widespread health problems and litigation.
IV.C.2.b. Improved Operation and Maintenance
Currently, improper design and construction practices of many
subsurface filter bed systems produce water quality violations in
streams due to surface discharges. This alternative would require
improved operation and maintenance practices for existing indi-
vidual septic tanks, soil absorption systems, and subsurface
filter bed systems (Appendix B). These systems would be designed
to perform satisfactorily even though an anticipated seasonably
high water table, slow soil permeability, and shallow bedrock in
some areas limit the effectiveness of standard soil absorption
systems.
IV.C.2.C. Upgrade and/or Replace Existing Systems
This alternative evaluated combinations of land use and other
factors to determine the viability of the upgrade alternative.
Important categories considered were lot size, soil types and
population density. This alternative may prove attractive. How-
ever, in areas with small lots, seasonally wet soils or high pop-
ulation density, this alternative would not be practical.
IV.C.2.d. Cluster Systems
Cluster systems refer to treatment of wastewater from a group or
cluster of houses (or other structures) served by a common sewage
collection and treatment system. Typically, cluster systems
serve from two to thirty structures. Clusters are used to serve
small pockets of development where on-lot systems are not feasi-
ble due to topography, soils, hydrogeology, or existing develop-
ment patterns and density (See Appendix B). Installation of
collection and treatment systems for a cluster is not an
economical approach for providing wastewater facilities in the
study area at the present time.
IV.C.3. Treatment Process Alternatives
These feasible treatment process alternatives were studied for
the major treatment facilities:
IV-3
-------
Secondary Processes
0 rotating biological contactors
0 activated sludge
0 physical-chemical
0 oxidation ditch
Advanced Processes (necessary to achieve final NPDES permit
limits)
0 chemical coagulation (for phosphorus removal)
0 nitrification
filtration
Sludge Management Processes
0 sludge treatment and dewatering
0 sludge disposal
Land Application
0 irrigation
0 infiltration-percolation
0 overland flow
Appendix B and Section 3 of the Southwest Interceptor Environ-
mental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan, V.I discusses the
details of process consideration.
IV.D. Treatment Plant Alternatives
IV.D.I. Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township
Three process alternatives were examined for a possible new
treatment plant to serve Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and a
small portion of Columbia Township. They include: rotating bio-
logical contactors, conventional activated sludge, and the oxida-
tion ditch. Sludge options included land application in either a
liquid or solid form. For more information on the selection of
these alternatives, see Appendix B and Section 3 of the Southwest
Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan, V._l
and Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis; Local
Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted
Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township.
IV.D.2. Major Plants
It was necessary to examine advanced as well as secondary im-
provements for the four major plants. Brook Park, Berea, Middle-
IV-4
-------
burg Heights and Strongsville "A". Processes included all of
these mentioned in Section IV.C.3.
Unit processes which would have to be added to each plant to meet
final permit limitations as they now stand are: stormwater stor-
age basins; second stage plastic media trickling filter towers
for nitrification; sulfur dioxide facilities for dechlorination;
post aeration; and dissolved air flotation sludge thickening.
Other significant unit process additions which would have to be
made are: phosphorus removal facilities at the Berea and Brook
Park plants; standby power at the Berea and Strongsville "A"
plants; primary settling tanks at the Middleburg Heights and
Strongsville "A" plants; and sludge digestion facilities at the
Strongsville "A" plant.
Existing unit processes which require major expansion include the
following; raw sewage pumping at the Brook Park, Middleburg
Heights and Strongsville "A" plants; primary settling at the
Berea and Brook Park plants; sludge digestion at the Berea and
Middleburg Heights plants; and aeration equipment, final set-
tling, sludge storage and sludge dewatering at all four plants.
IV.D.3. Cleveland Southerly Plant
As reported in Chapter 3, treatment process upgrading efforts are
being concluded at the Southerly Treatment Plant.
IV.E. System Collection and Treatment Alternatives
IV.E.I. Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township
IV.E.I.a. Alternatives
This area is depicted in Figure IV-1 and includes a small portion
of Columbia Township in Lorain County- Alternatives for collec-
tion and treatment have been studied in detail in the Facilities
Plan and Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township, Northeastern Columbia Township. These
documents may be consulted for additional information.
There are five alternatives for the unsewered areas of Olmsted
Falls-Olmsted Township:
0 No action;
0 Improved operation and maintenance of existing home
sewage disposal systems;
0 Upgrading/replacement of existing home sewage disposal
systems, either individually or by cluster systems;
0 Centralized collection and treatment facilities located
within this service area;
IV-5
-------
OLMSTED FALLS-OLMSTED TOWNSHIP PLANNING ZONE
H
t
-»
(t)
BROOK
PARK
_i«L_ o L ...n\: s T E D
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wa»tev«atar Managamant Altarnatiwas for Olmsted Falls. Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
0 Centralized collection, with the treatment facilities
located outside this service area.
Other portions of Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township presently
have sewers and small treatment plants. There are five alterna-
tives for these sewered areas:
0 No action;
0 Improved operation and maintenance of the existing
treatment plants;
0 Upgrade existing "treatment facilities to meet tertiary
wastewater treatment standards;
0 Centralization (interception) of the treatment facilities
within this service area;
0 Centralization with the treatment facilities located
outside this service area.
The different alternatives have been examined for the different
zones depicted in Figure IV-1, producing a detailed range of
alternatives.
IV.E.l.b. Preliminary Alternative Selection Olmsted Falls -
Olmsted Township
Table IV-1 shows the preliminary conclusions of alternatives
suitable for the different planning zones. For all zones except
I and K, the no action alternative is not feasible for reasons
discussed in Section B at the beginning of this chapter. In zone
I, the existing Falls Subdivision treatment plant is operating
below design capacity and is providing satisfactory tertiary
treatment. Zone K is served by North Olmsted, which is under-
going an independent facilities plan.
Because of the inadequate design of many of the older plants,
improved operation and maintenance alone will not solve the iden-
tified problems. However, improved O&M is a component of upgrad-
ing or replacing existing treatment facilities. The upgrade
alternative is retained for most zones, except I and K and A.
Zone A is the urbanized part of Olmsted Falls, where small lot
sizes restrict the continued feasibility of the on-site and
cluster system alternatives.
Centralized collection and treatment is retained for most alter-
natives in the zones which are urbanized, (A and C) or are served
by small treatment plants (F, G, H and I). A central system to
serve Olmsted Falls will be discussed in the Multi-Plant Alter-
native. A slightly different analysis is used for centralization
via the Southwest Interceptor, in Section IV.E.4.
IV.E.I.e. Alternatives - Local Plant for Olmsted Falls
IV-7
-------
TABLE IV-1
OLMSTED FALLS - OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
UNSEWERED NO IMPROVED OPERATION UPGRADE/REPLACE CENTRALIZED COLLECTION
ZONES ACTION AND MAINTENANCE EXISTING SYSTEMS* AND TREATMENT
A
B Retain**
C Retain
D Retain
E Retain
SEWERED NO IMPROVED OPERATION AND MAIN UPGRADE WASTEWATER
ZONES ACTION TENANCE OF EXISTING FACILITIES TREATMENT FACILITIES*
E Retain
F Retain
G Retain
H Retain
I Retain
j Retain
K Retain
Retain
Retai n
SUB-REGIONAL
CENTRALIZATION/INTERCEPTION
OF TREATMENT FACILITIES
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
* - Improved operation and maintenance practices are included with this alternative category.
** - Retain - Alternative category for cost-effective analysis.
Source: Adopted from Local Wastewater Management Alternative for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia
Township, 1982.
-------
Comparisons of three sub-regional collection and treatment alter-
natives have been completed for Olmsted Falls. Two local treat-
ment plant sites have been examined for a new facility; the East
Site, east of Olmsted Falls and the Rocky River, and the South
Site, south of Olmsted Falls and west of the Rocky River. A
similar sewer collection system would be used for either alterna-
tive, except for the final segments leading to the treatment
plant sites. These alternatives are depicted in Figures IV-2 and
IV-3. The East Site alternative would require an aerial sewer
crossing of the Rocky River. This would not be required for the
South Site alternative. In addition, treatment at an upgraded
North Olmsted treatment plant was considered, but ruled out
because of cost considerations, see Table IV-1.
Treatment processes for a local Olmsted Falls plant include an
oxidation ditch, rotating biological contactors and activated
sludge. The sludge generated at the treatment plant would be con-
ditioned by a two-stage anaerobic digestion process and then
either land applied as a liquid, dried in beds and applied to the
land, or dewatered by a filter press and applied to farmland. The
liquid sludge process is the most economical process, and is
included in the economic comparison of the treatment processes in
Table IV-2.
Construction of a treatment plant at the South Site, utilizing an
oxidation ditch for treatment, is the least costly alternative.
This would eliminate the aerial sewer crossing of the Rocky
River. Also this site is more isolated from residential areas
and will avoid disruption of an archaeological site and a sensi-
tive unstable slope area. A systematic discussion of environ-
mental impacts has been presented in the facilities planning
document, Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township. The
analysis showed that the environmental impacts associated with
the Olmsted sub- alternatives (the South, East, and current
sites) were comparable for many of the parameters identified.
Impacts will be greatest at the East Site. Construction at this
site may cause disruption to archaeological and environmentally
sensitive areas. Also, this area is close to residences. The
least significant environmental impacts will occur at the current
site because this area has been disturbed. Local streamflow
would be slightly decreased with construction at the current
site. The impacts of the South Site alternative are
intermediate. Impacts would be due primarily to construction
activities and would be short term in nature. Stream flow would
be slightly enhanced.
IV.E.l.d. Alternative Selection by Zone
IV-9
-------
OLMSTED FALLS - EAST SITE
I- 0 L M
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
* PROPOSED PUMP STATION
• PROPOSED WWTP
EXISTING PUMP STATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Loca, Wastewater Mana9ement Alternatjves f<}r
Figure IV-2
IV-10
-------
OLMSTED FALLS - SOUTH SITE
. BROOK
PARK
.../:'
/•'•"
•Pr1"
& ii
i
CUYv
1A CO
••/'•~=tf.: :
-'•ii
, vM»s« H'"*T;
[.'••'
••' _^--'<,1d
^•-7^RC#* :i
," '"'- "'•• -"•
,\. ••'.•• • =' = \=, 8!M
".",*.".*.*-. ^™
' '784 '
LORAIN CO
is"
*
i
LEGEND
- PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
Riverside Goll Club
^
.0 .1,,
•F
A PROPOSED PUMP STATION
• PROPOSED WWTP
EXISTING PUMP STATION
Figure IV-3
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
iv- 11
-------
TABLE IV-2
PRESENT WORTH COMPARISON OF
SUB-REGIONAL COLLECTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
COLLECTION
ALTERNATIVES
East STP Site
South STP Site
North Olmsted STP
OXIDATION
DITCH*
$13,928,300
$13,719,700
N/A
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
CONTACTOR*
$15,783,600
$15,575,000
N/A
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE*
$14,233,800
$14,025,200
N/A
UPGRADE EXISTING
NORTH OLMSTED WWTP
N/A
N/A
$18,254,600
*Includes present worth costs attributable to local sewers and land application of
liquid digested sludge.
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township,
Columbia Township, 1982.
-------
Zone A, Olmsted Falls, is highly developed and experiences numer-
ous problems with on-site treatment. For these reasons, Olmsted
Falls is an ideal candidate for sewering. The present worth of
sewering Zone A is $9,237,900. Short term adverse construction
impacts would be offset by long-term improvement in water quality
and an enhanced community character.
Zone B, western Olmsted Township is best served by a program of
upgrading or replacing on-site sewage disposal systems. The
present worth cost is $4,053,500. Impacts would be due to con-
struction activities and would be short term. There will be a
long term improvement of water quality and reduction of residen-
tial nuisance conditions.
Zone C, northern Olmsted Township, could either upgrade its on-
site systems or be included in the sub-regional wastewater col-
lection and treatment system. Present worth costs are $825,700
and $1,032,700, respectively. Both alternatives would improve
present environmental conditions, with on-site systems providing
slightly less water quality improvement and regionalization
having greater construction impacts. Of the two alternatives,
the on-site alternative is the more cost-effective.
Zone D, eastern Olmsted Township, is best served by upgrading
existing on-site systems. The present worth cost is $1,411,100.
Environmental impacts will be short term construction related
impacts. This will result in long-term water quality benefits.
Zone E, the Versailles area, could be served either by upgrading
the Versailles treatment plant and existing on-site systems or by
connecting to a new sub-regional treatment system. Present worth
costs are $1,286,600 and $1,327,600, respectively. Environmental
factors are virtually identical for both alternatives. The cost-
effective alternative is to upgrade the Versailles plant by add-
ing flow equalization and upgrade existing on-site systems.
Zone F, the Columbia Trailer Park, could either upgrade its
treatment plant to the tertiary level or participate in the sub-
regional treatment alternative. Present worth costs are
$1,317,100 and $925,500 respectively- Environmental impacts are
comparable, but the sub-regional plant will result in long term
water quality improvement. It is more cost-effective to region-
alize Zone F.
Zone G, Brentwood treatment plant service area, could either up-
grade its local plant or be included in the sub-regional treat-
ment alternative. Present worth costs are $1,465,400 and
$863,600 respectively. Environmental impacts would be similar
with a slight loss of water quantity occurring with the regional
IV-13
-------
alternative. It is more cost effective to regionalize Zone G.
Zone H is the area in the vicinity of the West Ohio Public Utili-
ties Treatment Plant. The existing treatment plant may be up-
graded to tertiary treatment or the area could be connected to
the sub-regional plant. Present worth costs are $1,568,700 and
$1,512,500. Environmental considerations are similar with
greater improvements in water quality through regionalization.
Regionalization will result in a slight decrease in water quanti-
ty. It is more cost-effective to regionalize at Zone H.
Zone I is the Falls Subdivision. It can continue operation inde-
pendently, for a present worth cost of $151,500 or be included in
the sub-regional alternative, at a cost of $141,500. Some water
quality benefit would be gained in regionalization, the cost-
effective alternative.
Zone J, the Westview Park area (Columbia Township Subdivision),
can best be served by adding flow equalization units to the
existing tertiary plant. The present worth cost is $772,300.
The gains in water quality and residential amenities would offset
the construction impacts.
Zone K. No action is appropriate for Zone K which should continue
to be served by the City of North Olmsted's central sewer system.
The alternatives for all zones in Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township
are summarized in Table IV-3.
IV.E.l.e. Conclusions - Local Alternatives for Olmsted Falls
The preferred local alternative for the Olmsted Falls-Olmsted
Township is to construct a sub-regional collection and treatment
system at the South Site. This would serve Zones A (Olmsted
Falls), F (Columbia Trailer Park), G (Brentwood), H (West Ohio
Public Utilities area) and I (Falls Subdivision). This alterna-
tive will be compared to the advantages or disadvantages of
regionalization in following sections.
Malfunctioning on-site systems would be upgraded through the
replacement of septic tanks and establishment of a management
system to ensure proper maintenance of septic systems. This
would be incorporated in the sparsely populated areas including
zones B (western Olmsted Township), C (northern Olmsted Town-
ship), D (eastern Olmsted Township), and parts of E (Versailles
area) .
Under the local alternative, the Versailles and Westview Park
wastewater treatment plants would be upgraded through addition of
flow equalization facilities. This would serve Zones E
IV-14
-------
TABLE IV-3
OLMSTED FALLS-OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY BY ZONE
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Alternatives*
1,5
2,5
1,2,5
2,5
1,3,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
5
Selected*
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
5
Adverse
Impacts
A
A
A
A
A
A
A,B
A,B
A
A
—
Beneficial
Impacts
X
X,Y
X
X,Y
X
X
X
X
X
X,Y
—
Present
Worth
$9,237,900
4,053,500
825,700
1,411, 100
1,286,600
925,500
863,600
1,512,500
141,500
772,300
0
*Alternatives Key
1. Sewer Installation - Connection to Sub-Regional Plant
2. Upgrade/Replace Existing On-site Treatment Systems
3. Upgrade Local Treatment Plant & On-Site Treatment Systems
4. Upgrade Local Treatment Plant
5. No Action
Impacts Key
A. Short-term Construction Related
B. Reduction in Water Quantity
X. Long Term Water Quality Improvement
Y. Lessening of Local Nuisance/Health Problems
IV-15
-------
(Versailles) and J (Westview Park). No action is appropriate for
Zone K.
In areas where development is sparse or without identified waste-
water management problems (parts of Zone C and Zone J; all of
Zone K), no action will occur.
Table IV-3 summarizes the alternatives identified and selected by
zones in the Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township area.
IV.E.2. Multi-Plant Alternatives
IV.E.2.a. Definition
The Multi-Plant Alternative has two components - installation of
a new sewer to serve the Big Creek Basin with treatment at South-
erly, and improvement of existing local plants within the Rocky
River Basin. The sewer in the Big Creek Basin is comparable,
except in size, to the Main Leg Interceptor in the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative. The Southwest Interceptor Alternative
will be discussed in Section IV.E.4.
In component one, the North Olmsted plant would be retained and
an additional sewer would be constructed to link the plant to the
Big Creek Basin and the Southerly treatment plant. This inter-
ceptor would augment the capacity of the existing Big Creek In-
terceptor. North Olmsted has a separate Federal grant to upgrade
and expand its treatment plant, independent of the Southwest
Planning Area project. In component two, seven wastewater treat-
ment plants are retained in the Main Leg and West Leg of the
Rocky River Basin: Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights,
Strongsville "A", Columbia Township and the small Versailles and
Westview Park plants. Figure IV-4 depicts this alternative.
Two detailed facilities planning reports examine this alterna-
tive. Local Wastewater Management Alternative for Olmsted Falls,
Olmsted Township, Columbia Township and Local Wastewater Treat-
ment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea,
Strongsville "A".
The assumed local treatment plant alternative for Olmsted Falls,
for the remainder of this EIS, will be an oxidation ditch with
land application of liquid digested sludge. This will be located
at the South Site.
IV.E.2.b. Subalternative - Berea
The existing treatment facilities at Berea and their inability to
meet future NPDES discharge permit requirements were described in
Chapter Hi. The changes to the Berea plant to meet the more
IV-16
-------
MULTI-PLANT ALTERNATIVE
Subareas For Alternative Analysis
'ROCKY
(RIVER
J
xx^j*^£xxx]rx/^xxxxx/x7>»7/?x>
xx^^^XJxxxxvx^xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MEDINA
COUNTY
COUNTY
i I
Legend
© PUMPING STATION
D/WASTEWATER
^[TREATMENT PLANTS
-^-. SEWERS
CLEVELAND SOUTHERLY
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS
STRONGSVILLE "A"
STRONGSVILLE "B"
STRONGSVILLE "C"
OLMSTED FALLS
U.8. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
BROOK PARK
BEREA
MEDINA 300
GRAYTON RD. R S.
N. OLMSTED
N. ROYALTON "A"
N. ROYALTON 'B"
COLUMBIA TWR
Figure IV-4
IV-17
-------
stringent treatment levels are summarized in Table IV-4; prelim-
inary operation and maintenance costs are shown in Table IV-5 .
The existing treatment process would be augmented with a storm-
water storage basin for flow equalization, additional units for
increased process to contact stabilization, chemical addition,
nitrification towers, and dechlorination , plus land application
of sludge. The proposed treatment process is shown in Figure
IV-5.
IV.E.2.C. Subalternative - Brook Park
The upgrading requirements for the Brook Park plant and their
associated preliminary costs are summarized in Table IV-6 and
IV-7. Improvements comparable to those of the Berea plant would
be required at the Brook Park plant. Figure IV-6 shows the pro-
posed treatment process .
IV.E.2.d. Subalternative - Middleburg Heights
Treatment process improvements would be comparable to those for
Brook Park and Berea. These are shown in Figure IV-7. Tables
IV-8 and IV-9 itemize the preliminary cost for the Middleburg
Heights plant.
IV.E.2.e. Subalternative - Strongsville "A"
The treatment processes as required to upgrade Strongsville "A"
are comparable to those for Berea, Brook Park and Middleburg
Heights. The Strongsville "A" plant, however, would require
treatment of stormwater overflows using rotating drum screens
followed by disinfection. This is shown in Figure IV-8 and the
preliminary costs itemized in Tables IV-10 and IV-11.
IV.E.2.f. Summary Costs - Multi-Plant Alternative
Table IV-12 shows the refined costs of the local alternatives,
based on additional facilities planning work, the sewer system
evaluation survey and the assumption that tertiary filtration
will not be required. Costs have decreased overall by nearly
11%. O&M costs were developed on a cost basis of $3.00 per
thousand cubic feet of water use. Table IV-13 includes
calculations of the total present worth costs for each of the
local treatment plants in the Multi-Plant Alternative.
IV. E. 3. Two Plant Alternative
The two-plant alternative would convey the Big Creek Basin's
flows to the Southerly treatment plant by an augmented Main Leg
interceptor system. This would overcome the limited capacity of
the existing Big Creek Interceptor. The Southerly plant has
IV-18
-------
TABLE IV-4
BEREA WWTP
ESTIMATED IXJNblHUCTION COST
TABLE IV-5
BEREA WWTP
M
<
I
M
VD
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett I Ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Chlorlnatlon
DechI or I nation
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Sludge Dewaterlng
Sludge Storage
Contract SIudge Hau 11ng
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (28?)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED
COSTS
$ 2,500
0
889,100
0
442,000
90,000
861,900
126,700
1,571,000
208,200
68,000
170,000
272,800
425,000
50,000
357,000
254,000
0
210,000
$5,998,500
1,679,580
$ 7,678,080
ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0«M COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal /PreAIr
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett 1 Ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Chlorl nation
Dechlorlnat Ion
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Dewaterl ng
Sludge Storage
Contract S 1 udge Hau 1 1 ng
Standby Power
LABOR
6,440
14,490
16,100
19,320
25,760
13,520
41,060
25,760
12,080
12,080
15,300
19,320
14,440
2,700
61,200
3,780
640
POWER
400
6,060
11,920
2,530
40,400
10,500
2,220
15, 150
400
400
6,060
11,510
8,210
33,900
4,200
4,040
MATERIALS
880
5,280
3,700
15,840
17,600
30,800
3,520
5,980
6,690
1,060
180
1,060
4,930
11,400
26,400
2,020
880
CHEMICALS DISPOSAL TOTAL
1,660 9,380
4,150 29,980
31,720
0
37,690
83,760
54,820
87,230 134,030
46,890
15,730 34,900
6,760 20,300
21,540
16,510 48,400
27,580
48,000
33,900 125,700
9,840
172,560 172,560
1,520
TOTAL ESTIMATED O&M COSTS
$ 938,610
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
BEREA WWTP PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT-
AERATED
GRIT
REMOVAL
CHAMBER
-»
PREAERATION
t
1
1
1
SLUDGE
I
to
o
NITRIFICATION
TOWERS
1
t
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source; Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea., Strongsvi-lle "A1
-------
I
to
TABLE IV-6
BROOK PARK WWTP
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
TABLE IV-7
BROOK PARK WWTP
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary SettlIng
Aeration Tanks
Secondary SettlIng
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
ChI or I nation
Dechlorlnation
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Sludge Dewaterlng
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (2B%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED
COSTS
$ 10,000
1,500
25,000
1,099,500
0
154,700
57,800
323,000
82,000
627,000
1,700
39,100
85,000
215,900
0
255,000
146,400
6,000
35,000
3,164,600
886,088
$4,050,688
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Settl Ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Chlorlnat Ion
Dech lorl nation
Post Aerat Ion
OAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Dewaterl ng
Sludge Storage
Contract S 1 udge Hau 1 1 ng
Standby Power
ESTIMATED
LABOR
4,830
9,660
11 , 270
10,870
7,250
ANNUAL
POWER
400
2,020
1,820
3,430
850
12,880 12,120
4,990
29,300
15,620
6,440
6,440
10,470
13,520
14, 170
1,770 1
4,830
640
3,230
1,010
4,440
400
400
1,820
4,750
4,650
1,440
1,320
530
0 i M COSTS
MATERIALS CHEMICALS
880
3,520
2,640
1,940
7,040
7,920
12,320
2,150 26,730
2,640
3,870 6,500
610 2,600
180
790 8,450
4,400
11,410 11,410
1,320
530
D 1 SPOSAL TOTAL
6,110
1,200 16,400
15,730
16,240
0
15,140
32,920
20,540
59, 190
22,700
17,210
10,050
12,470
27,510
23,220
56,940
6,950
38,630 38,630
1,170
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$399,120
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
BROOK PARK WWTP PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
i
to
to
1
r
CONTACT
STABILIZATION
TANKS
NITRIFICATION
TOWERS
1
r
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
.ABRAM
CREEK
C6
<
61
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source- Local Waste-water Management Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strong-sville
"A1
-------
INF1
STORMWATER
STORAGE
BASIN
LUEMT^
AERATED
L GRIT
* REMOVAL
CHAMBER
-t
SCREENING
COMMINUTION
-*
RAW
SEWAGE
LIFT
STATION
-9
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
-»
FERROUS
CHLORIDE
i
r
AERATION
TANKS
-»
POLYMER
AND
LIME
1
r
SECONDARY
SETTLING
TANKS
-»
NITRIFICATION
TOWERS
£
CHLORINE
i
i
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
-»
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
i
t
DECHLORINA-
TK3N MIXING/
CONTACT
TANK
-t
POST
AERATION
TANK
ABRAM
9 CREEK
RETURN, | | WASTE
<
I
to
CONTRACT
HAULING
«-
SLUDGE
STORAGE
-
D.A.F
THICKENER
-
AEROBIC
DIGESTERS
^
ct>
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville "A"
-------
TABLE IV-8
TABLE IV-9
M
<
I
NJ
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WWTP
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED
UNIT PROCESS COSTS
Preliminary Treatment $ 11,500
Grit Removal 14 t, 100
Raw Sewage Pumping 47,500
Stormwater Storage 824,800
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett I Ing 663,000
Aeration Tanks 456,000
Secondary SettlIng 915,000
Phosphorus Removal 60,500
Nitrification 2,085,000
Chlorlnatlon 87,700
Dechlorlnation 76,500
Post Aeration 195,500
DAF Thickening 323,000
Aerobic Digestion 510,000
S ludge Dewaterlng 229,500
Sludge Storage 286,500
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power 195,000
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WWTP
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(28$)
$ 7,128,100
1,995,868
$ 9,123,968
ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Settl Ing
Aerat Ion Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Chlorlnat Ion
Dech lorl nation
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Dewaterl ng
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
LABOR
8,000
16,000
12,000
17,280
-
22,400
28,800
17,600
44,000
26,720
13,920
13,600
15,680
24,000
4,800
26,400
3,520
640
POWER
1,520
2,020
7,680
15,760
-
2,830
52,520
13,740
2,530
17, 170
5,050
400
7,680
19,090
76,560
7,470
3,230
MATERIALS CHEMICALS DISPOSAL
2,460
4,220 5,200
6,510
4,220
-
17,250
22,880
38,720
4,050 117,000
6,340
350 19,500
1,140 7,800
260
1,500 37,050
21,120
1,410 20,800
1,940
345,730
1,760
TOTAL
1 1,980
27,440
26, 190
37,260
-
42,480
104,200
70,060
167,580
50,230
38,820
22,940
23,620
81,640
102,480
56,080
8,690
345,730
2,400
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$1,219,820
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
CREEK
POLYMER
AND
LIME
1
I
to
en
t
00
INFLUENT-1-*
NITRIFICATION
TOWERS
1
f
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville "A"
-------
I
NJ
TABLE IV-10
STRONGSVILLE "A" WWTP
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
TABLE IV-11
STRONGSVILLE "A" WWTP
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grl t Remova I
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Prlmary SettlIng
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
ChlorlnatIon
Dechlorlnation
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Sludge Dewaterlng
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (28$)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED
COSTS
$ 15,000
170,000
82,000
1,085,000
976,000
697,000
120,000
765,000
54,200
2,010,000
144,500
81,600
204,000
323,000
850,000
138,900
331,500
0
358,900
$ 8,386,600
2,348,248
$10,734,848
ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 4 M COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Settl 1 ng
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nltrlf 1 cation
Ch lorlnat Ion
Dech lorl nat Ion
Post Aerat Ion
DAF Thicken! ng
Aerobic Dl gest Ion
Gravity Thickener
Dewaterl ng
S 1 udge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
LABOR
8,050
16,100
12,880
18,100
3, 100
24,150
30,590
19,320
46,690
30,590
14,490
14,490
16,100
27,370
6,440
7,890
22,740
4,030
600
POWER
1,820
2,420
16,560
16,970
100
3,030
60,600
15,350
2,730
20,730
450
450
8,080
22,320
93,320
240
3,030
3,430
MATERIALS CHEMICALS DISPOSAL
2,640
4,400 5,640
7,040
4,300
800 3,000
17,600
24,600
44,000
4,400 127,140
6,690
7,920 19,500
1,140 8,450
260
1,940 45,500
24,640
700
2,990 28,600
2,1 10
162,250
1,800
TOTAL
12,510
28,560
36,480
39,370
7,000
44,780
1 15,790
78,670
180,960
58,010
42,360
24,530
24,440
97,130
124,400
8,830
57,360
9,570
162,250
2,400
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$1,155,400
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
TABLE IV-12
REVISED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Secondary Facilities
Nitrification Facilities
Sludge Handling
Facilities
Flow Equalization
Facilities
TOTAL COSTS
Berea
($) O&M
Brook Park
($) O&M
2,397,100
1 ,874,200
1 ,621 ,400
1 ,040,200
6,932,900
352,400
43,700
402,700
29,700
828,500
1 ,005,500
859,000
853,700
1 ,822,500
4,535,700
193,500
24,300
164,000
28,500
410,300
Secondary Facilities
Nitrification Facilities
Sludge Handling
Facilties
FLow Equalization
Facilities
Middleburg Heights
($) 0&M
2,794,800 411,500
2,043,000 44,100
1,323,400 455,100
815,700 27,000
Strongsville "A"
($) 0&M
2,875,000 485,600
2,341,200 52,800
1,914,200 418,200
1,274,400
32,400
TOTAL COSTS
6,976,900 937,700
8,404,800 989,000
IV-2 7
-------
TABLE IV-13
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR THE MULTI-PLANT ALTERNATIVE - MAJOR PLANTS
Berea WWTP
Construction Cost $ 6,932,900
Non-Construction Cost (29.36%) 2,035,500
Capital Cost $ 8,968,400
Annual O&M Costs = $ 828,500
Present Worth of O&M 8,366,400
Salvage Value = $2,076,900
Present Worth of Salvage Value (477,700)
Total Present Worth $16,857,100
Brook Park WWTP
Construction Cost $ 4,535,700
Non-Construction Cost (29.60%) 1 ,342,600
Capital Cost 5,878,300
Annual O&M Costs = $ 410,300
Present Worth of O&M 4,143,300
Salvage Value = $1,291,300
Present Worth of Salvage Value (297,000)
Total Present Worth $ 9,724,600
Middleburg Heights WWTP
Construction Cost $ 6,976,900
Non-Construction Cost (29.39%) 2,050,500
Capital Cost 9,027,400
Annual O&M Costs = $ 937,700
Present Worth of O&M 9,469,200
Salvage Value = $2,125,500
Present Worth of Salvage Value (488,900)
Total Present Worth $18,007,700
Strongsville "A" WWTP
Construction Cost $ 8,404,800
Non-Construction Cost (29.26%) 2,459,200
Capital Cost 10,864,000
Annual O&M Costs = $ 989,000
Present Worth of O&M 9 937 200
Salvage Value = $2,488,900
Present Worth of Salvage Value (572 400)
Total Present Worth $20,278^800
IV-28
-------
ample capacity for advanced treatment for these flows. The Rocky
River Basin's flows would be conveyed by a new interceptor to an
expanded (from 9 MGD to 28 MGD) and upgraded North Olmsted treat-
ment facility. This plant would be constructed on Metropolitan
Park property adjacent to the existing treatment site. Connector
sewers would be constructed to link the flows from the existing
Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, and Strongsville "A" plant
to the interceptor. These four plants would then be decommission-
ed. This alternative is shown in Figure IV-9. It assumes that
Olmsted Falls will be sewered and connected to the North Olmsted
Treatment Plant with no new local plant constructed. The two-
plant alternative is discussed further in Section 3 of the
Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities
Plan. Environmental impacts of the two-plant alternative were
also examined in the Facilities Plan. This alternative has a
total present worth cost (excluding the Main Leg Interceptor) of
$152,568,000.
IV.E.4. Regional Alternative - Southwest Interceptor
The Southwest Interceptor alternative would provide for a single
interceptor sewer to serve the planning area's Rocky River and
Big Creek Basins. The Southwest Interceptor would convey the
flows to the Southerly Treatment Plant on the Cuyahoga River for
treatment. Adequate treatment capacity and level of treatment
will exist at Southerly to accommodate this additional flow.
Conceptually, this Southwest Interceptor is divided into three
major segments: a Main Leg, a West Leg, and an East Leg. The
Main and West legs are being considered in the present 20-year
planning period; the East Leg and other service option areas will
be discussed in the next section on post 20-year alternatives.
As shown in Figures IV-lOa-lOb, the Main Leg would extend from
the Southerly plant to the vicinity of the Cleveland Hopkins
Airport. It would convey flows presently conveyed by the Big
Creek Interceptor and the Grayton Road pump station. The South-
west Interceptor would also convey flows from: Brooklyn, Brook
Park, Parma, Parma Heights, Seven Hills, North Royalton, Broad-
view Heights, Brooklyn Heights and Cuyahoga Heights. All of
these areas are within the Big Creek Basin.
The Southwest Interceptor Main Leg would be constructed in the
Interstate Route 480 right-of-way to the extent possible. The
West Leg alignment shown in Figure IV-lOc, extends in a south-
westerly direction from the S.R. 237 - Brook Park Road intersec-
IV-29
-------
TWO PLANT ALTERNATIVE
MEDINA
COUNTY
I A I
Legend
(P) PUMPING STATION
DfwASTEWATER
^[TREATMENT PLANTS ™
-»—. SEWERS
PHASE I BIG CREEK
PHASE I ROCKY RIVER
PHASE D
OPTION A
(=3 OPTION B
nnu OPTION c
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
f/yure
IV-30
-------
Sewer Route
AS,* Access Shaft
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Report
Figure IV-Wa
-------
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
Sewer Route
AS* Access Shaft
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
Figure /V-1Ob
-------
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
I . „ ,6«ST/N6 GBAYTON ROAD. ' .
J S' ROMP | STATION
X
FM Force Main
AS Access Shaft
MH Manhole
—— SWI West Leg
\ \ Connectors
SWI Main Leg
• Access Shaft (All Alternatives)
• Access Shaft (Low Profile Alternatives Only)
^ Existing WWTP
COLUMBIA TRAILER
PARK WWTP
£1
Olmsted Falls
..»
' i Olmsted Falls
'•'-"*>k »<"
BRENTWOOO SUB f
WWTP
" ^\ ~P/* CLEVELAND HOPKINS • I •;
s.^T / INTERNA TIONAL AIRPORT -iff -
..^•'.A. * •*. I f
-S CONNECTOR
(33"<8>
OLMSTED TWP -
OLMSTED FALLS
PUMP STATION
••. . J "™ 'I
~' "- '-'-'-
. T, PTOTO9ED «J*ST€l>-«tt.lS-
' OLMST6D TWR WWTP
*WA
COLUMBIA TWP-;. -
.7 SUfl. WWTP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Report
-------
tion, paralleling the S.R. 237 and ConRail rights-of-way to the
Olmsted Falls area. The West Leg then turns southward along a
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company easement. Wastewater
flows would be intercepted from the Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg
Heights and Strongsville "A" plants, plus some smaller plants
listed in Table III-3. Those portions of Olmsted Falls-Olmsted
Township to be sewered (as previously discussed) would be in-
cluded in the Southwest Interceptor. This would eliminate the
need for the sub-regional treatment plant at the South Site. The
West Leg of the Southwest Interceptor would cross the Rocky River
to service these communities. The four major treatment plants
(Middleburg Heights, Berea, Brook Park, Strongsville "A") would
be abandoned under this alternative, as well as several smaller
treatment facilities at Versailles, Columbia Township
Subdivision (Westview Park), Falls Subdivision, Brentwood
Subdivision, and the Western Ohio Utility Company.
Capital costs for the Southwest Interceptor are $83,998,200 for
the Main Leg and $36,673,400 for the West Leg. O&M calculations
are based on actual O&M records at the Southerly Treatment Plant
plus projected improvements. For the West Leg alone, O&M costs
are anticipated to be $994,900 per year.
Chapter V will consider in detail various subalternatives for the
Main Leg and West Leg of the Southwest Interceptor. Considera-
tions will include sizing, alignment, construction techniques,
stream crossings and connector sewers to the existing treatment
plants. Chapter V will also discuss the facilities planning
documents explaining the Southwest Interceptor in more detail.
IV.E.5. Post 20-Year Alternatives
Following the 20-year facilities planning period other areas may
be added to the Southwest Interceptor service area, (if the
Southwest Interceptor alternative is implemented). As mentioned
in Chapter III, most of these communities are conducting their
own facilities planning for the present 20-year period. They
may, however, be open to new planning options in the post 20-
year period. Option areas to be potentially included in that
future Southwest service area are shown in Figure 1-3. These are
the East Leg area on the Rocky River, Medina "300", most of
Columbia Township and North Olmsted. Table 1-1 indicates what
the sub- areas were called in various facilities planning
reports. The detailed evaluation of the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative in Chapter V will consider the advisability of
allowing capacity in the Main Leg and West Leg of the sewer for
these potential future service areas. Federal funding of this
future capacity for the Southwest Interceptor is not an allowable
cost.
IV-34
-------
IV.F. Conclusions
IV.F.I. Alternatives to be Eliminated
IV.F.I.a. No Action
Except for portions of Olmsted Township, Zone K, No Action is
abandoned as a feasible alternative because existing treatment
plants will not meet the final permit requirements, no improve-
ment in water quality will result, on-site systems will .have
variable treatment effectiveness and bypasses of untreated sewage
will continue to streams '.
IV.F.l.b. Flow and Waste Reduction
Flow and waste reductions alone will not achieve treatment and
water quality improvements in the planning area. Infiltration/
inflow removal will be considered in greater detail in Chapter V.
However, as a part of treatment process alternatives, voluntary
water conservation would be described in the planning area, but
will not be considered as part of the EIS alternatives.
IV.F.I.e. Treatment Plant Processes and Disposal
Because of the volume of wastewater, the degree of urbanization
and local soil conditions, land application of municipal effluent
is infeasible for the Southwest Planning Area. Treatment
processes have been described for the treatment plants, and this
discussion will not continue further into the EIS.
IV.F.l.d. Two-Plant Alternative
The principal environmental benefit of the Two-plant alternative
would be the retention of flow in the Rocky River, but at a mone-
tary cost substantially higher than the Multi-plant alternative.
Since the Multi-plant is more cost-effective than the Two-plant
alternative, the Two-plant alternative will not be continued
further in the EIS analysis.
IV.F.2. Alternatives to be Retained
From the above discussions the following alternatives will be
retained for further consideration in Chapter V:
0 Multi Plant (including Olmsted Falls)
0 Southwest Interceptor
0 On-site improvements for portions of Olmsted Township
0 Post 20-year Alternatives
IV-35
-------
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
V- ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
V.A. Introduction
Chapter V develops the details of the leading alternatives for
the Southwest Planning Area and then compares the monetary and
non-monetary impacts of these alternatives. The alternative of
on-site system improvements and management in Olmsted Township
may be implemented with either of the two major approaches for
sewered areas - the Multi-Plant Alternative and the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative. Its impacts will also be discussed in
this Chapter.
V.B. Sizing
V.B.I. Infiltration-Inflow
Section III.E described the Infiltration-Inflow (I/I) Analysis
and the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) work conducted as
part of the Facilities Plan. The I/I Analysis concluded that it
would be cost-effective to remove 40% of the infiltration-inflow
from the existing sewer system. This corresponds to removing 11
mgd of infiltration and 152 mgd of inflow. The remaining 244 mgd
would be conveyed to the wastewater treatment plants under the
various alternatives. However, even 40% removal would not elimi-
nate the need for relief sewers in the planning area. The SSES
will pinpoint those areas where I/I can most effectively be re-
moved and will describe the approach for achieving this removal.
After completion of the I/I report, the facilities planners
further analyzed the data and questioned the feasibility of
implementing 40% I/I removal. They indicated that 20% removal
would be more realistic to implement, while still being
cost-effective. The 20% removal was used in the planning of
interceptor sizing.
The I/I problem is most acute in the older suburban and city
areas tributary to the lower portion of the Main Leg Interceptor.
The Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) data indicate that
10-15% I/I removal may be a practical rehabilitation range for
these parts of the system. The location of these tributary areas
greatly affects the sizing of the Main Leg Interceptor.
V.B.2 Water Use
Facilities planning work for the Southwest area has examined
actual water use records for each community. These flows and the
population projections were considered in the sizing of intercep-
tors. Industrial flows were added to this flow and the peak nor-
mal wastewater flow was calculated according to the recommended
V-l
-------
Cuyahoga County formula. Flows are comparable for all alterna-
tives. Water conservation was discussed in Chapter IV.
V .B.3 Flow Equalization
Rainfall periods place great stress on the existing sewers and
wastewater treatment facilities of the Southwest plannning area.
This has been documented in detail in the I/I and SSES studies.
Figure V-l illustrates the generalized curves of normal waste-
water and peak flows from inflow leaks during rainfall events.
It is extremely expensive to build treatment plants in which each
treatment unit is large enough to accommodate storm flows. For
this reason, retention basins are planned to store excess storm
water until it can be directed through the treatment plant.
This process, called flow equalization, enables all of the waste-
water collected during wet periods to be sufficiently treated to
meet discharge permit limitations that protect stream quality.
Flow equalization capability is comparable for all alternatives.
It exists in the sizing of the Southerly Treatment Plant and
would be added to local facilities in the Multi-plant Alterna-
tive.
V.C. Detailed Development of Southwest Interceptor Alternatives
V.C.I. Main Leg Alignment
V.C.1.a. General Main Leg Alignment
Early in the facilities planning, the Draft Environmental Assess-
ment for the Southwest Suburban Sanitary Interceptor System, pre-
pared in 1969, considered two route locations for the Main Leg
Interceptor from Hopkins Airport to the Southerly Plant. The
first Main Leg alignment was along the proposed Interstate 480 in
a common or contiguous right-of-way to Schaaf Road. East of
Schaff Road, the interceptor was routed north of the ConRail
tracks and included in the realignment of the Big Creek Intercep-
tor. The second Main Leg alignment was along Brook Park Road.
East of Schaaf Road, this alignment was located south of and
parallel to the railroad tracks across the Cuyahoga River Valley
and then followed the existing Big Creek Interceptor alignment
into the Southerly Treatment plant.
The 1-480 alignment is preferable to the Brook Park Road route.
The interstate route has an undeveloped right-of-way while Brook
Park Road is a busy commercial street, with numerous stores and
industries which would be disrupted at construction areas. The
project would be further complicated by having to acquire right-
V-2
-------
GENERALIZATION OF FLOW DATA
Inflow
WWTP Design
Peak Flow
Normal Wastewater
Rainfall Induced Infiltration
Future Infiltration
Dry-Weather Infiltration
TIME
Flow to Equalization Basin
o
z
UJ
U
<
Z
o
K
U
UJ
o
c
0.
z
UJ
£
Z
o
cc
>
Z
UJ
(A
UJ
(A
Q
UJ
Figure V-l
V-3
-------
of-way easements from more than 500 property owners along Brook
Park Road. All of the Main Leg can be built by tunneled con-
struction except for the crossing of the Cuyahoga River.
V.C.l.b. East End of Main Leg Alignment
The Final Facilities Planning Report considers two east end
alignments. These are refinements of earlier facilities planning
work which reflect existing land use conditions on the west side
of the Cuyahoga River which has undergone recent light industrial
development. Both the North and South alternative alignments
assume tunneled sewer construction and were illustrated in Figure
IV-10A.
Geotechnical studies were conducted in developing the routes and
estimating their costs. In comparing the soil conditions between
the North and South alignments, it does not appear that there are
significant differences in the types of soil and rock conditions.
The preliminary subsurface profiles show that the primary differ-
ence between the two alternatives is that the North alternative
has more lineal footage of soft ground tunneling than the South
alternative. In addition, a portion of the North alternative is
located beneath a heavily developed area. Based on the available
information, it is likely that the tunnel would be constructed in
soil beneath the developed area. If ground instability is en-
countered, the zone of surface disturbance could extend into the
existing building areas. Thus, the probability of damage to
surface structures is lower along the South route than the North
Route because of more rock underlying the buildings. Another
difference between the alternatives could occur at the portals.
Both portals on the South alternative could be constructed in a
loose silty sand formation whereas both of the North alternative
portals would be constructed in stiff silty clay. This could
result in some increased cost and construction difficulty along
the South alternative.
Construction costs are $14,543,232 for the North alignment and
$11,894,696 for the South alignment. The South alignment is
preferable because of costs and construction stability, and will
be retained as part of the Main Leg alternative.
V.C.l.c. Cuyahoga River Valley Crossing
The Final Facilities Planning Report details two alternatives for
crossing the Cuyahoga River from the East End of the Main Leg to
the Southerly treatment plant, a siphon sewer or an aerial
gravity sewer. The siphon would be built under the river bed and
adjacent Ohio Canal, while the aerial sewer would cross the
Cuyahoga Valley parallel to an existing railroad bridge and the
Big Creek Interceptor. The Facilities Plan reflects the extensive
V-4
-------
series of studies examining the technical advantages and disad-
vantages of these alternatives. The siphon has aesthetic advan-
tages of being underground, but would have to be constructed
across the river and canal by disruptive open-cut techniques.
Trees and vegetation would be disturbed along the construction
route as would the aquatic habitat. Siphons can encounter sub-
stantial reliability problems, with the deposition of grit and
sludge reducing the flow-carrying capacity of the siphon. The
high velocities planned for this alternative, however, would
improve reliability- Maintenance costs are high with yearly
draining and cleaning anticipated. Construction costs are esti-
mated to be $2,827,980 (assuming 20% I/I removal) and 20-year
operation and maintenance costs of $300,000.
The aerial crossing could utilize different structural support;
truss, arch or cable-stayed girder. The truss is preferable for
both costs and acceptable aesthetics. Geotechnical studies have
contributed to understanding the local conditions to be
accommodated in building the aerial crossing.
Early facilities planning studies considered including both the
Big Creek Interceptor and the Main Leg Interceptor in the same
river crossing aerial structure. This concept has been abandoned,
since the present Big Creek Interceptor does not need to be
replaced. The aerial crossing would be visable in the Cuyahoga
Valley, spanning both the Cuyahoga River and the Ohio Canal, but
would blend in with the existing man-made structures. Although
the siphon is aesthetically superior, the truss bridge type is
aesthetically acceptable. Visual vantage points of this part of
the Cuyahoga River Valley are from industrial areas, and the view
is limited because of the lack of access points.
Construction impacts will be limited predominantly to the sites
of the pier structures which support the pipe. Sixty foot spans
would be used. This construction work would be primarily outside
the banks of both waterways, minimizing the impacts on stream
bottoms and banks. Ample clearance will be included for potential
Corps of Engineers channel maintenance of the Cuyahoga River.
Crossing lengths under consideration are 180 ft. and 250 ft.
which will be finalized during project design. Construction costs
are estimated to be $1,395,000 to 2,449,000 for the respective
sizes, with operation and maintenance costs about $18,000 -
$28,000 for the 20-year period. The shorter 180 ft. length is
more likely to be employed.
V.C.2. West Leg Alignment
Figure IV-10C illustrated the West Leg alignment alternatives.
The sewer segment from the Main Leg connection to the Berea
Connector is common to all alternatives. The Final Facilities
V-5
-------
Planning Report examined eight sub-alternatives for the end of
the West Leg and associated connector sewers. The eight alter-
natives are based upon three alternate alignments for the West
Leg, i.e., the West Alignment, the East Alignment - Low Profile,
and the East Alignment - High Profile; two connector alternates
for Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township, i.e., gravity sewer or pump
station-force main; and two connector alternates for the Ver-
sailles and Columbia Township Subdivision WWTP's, i.e., gravity
sewer or pump station-force main. A listing of the alternatives
and their costs are presented below:
Alternative
No. 1
Alternative
No. 2
Alternative
No. 3
Alternative
No. 4
Alternative
No. 5
Alternative
No. 6
Alternative
No. 7
Alternative
No. 8
West Alignment
Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
West Alignment
Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
East Alignment - Low Profile
Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
$53,031,000
$48,203,000
$49,406,000
East Alignment - Low Profile
Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
$46,413,000
East Alignment - Low Profile
Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
$44,578,000
East Alignment - Low Profile
Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
$41,586,000
East Alignment - High Profile
Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
$37,926,000
East Alignment - High Profile
Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
$33,099,000
The engineering advantages and disadvantages of these sub-alter-
natives is covered in the Facilities Plan. Alternative No. 8 is
preferred as having the lowest construction costs, $33,099,000.
It will be assumed that this sub-alternative is the West Leg por-
tion of the Southwest Interceptor Alternative. Most of the West
Leg can be tunneled except for the Rocky River crossing and the
segment upstream of manhole 9w (See Figure IV-10-C).
V-6
-------
V.C.3. Construction Technique and Cost Assumptions
Costs for tunnels, liners, shafts and structures are developed in
the Final Facilities Planning Report. Cost estimates do not in-
clude the potential costs for dewatering sewers during construc-
tion, which can add $85-$170 per linear foot of tunnel; $350-$800
per foot if compressed air is required. This is anticipated to
be a problem only near the crossing of the East Branch of the
Rocky River where the Berea sandstone formation is encountered.
An additional variable is the geologic material to be encountered
in the final sewer route. The exact mix of materials will affect
construction techniques, rates, and costs. These variables will
be better resolved during the project design.
V.D. Detailed Development of Multi-Plant Alternative
The four major treatment plants in the Rocky River Basin vary in
types of equipment used for treatment. Proposed improvements
consequently differ in cost and number. One of the initial prob-
lems facing these plants were the dissimilar treatment processes.
As a result, a cost effective solution involving consolidated
management was not possible.
Schematics are provided in Appendix B to accompany Tables IV-5
through IV-13 dealing with construction costs, annual O&M costs,
and present worth analyses for these four plants. Each shows the
location of existing facilities and the location of proposed im-
provements . These schematics and tables allow comparison or
analysis of the detailed changes and costs. The facilities plan-
ning document, Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook
Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, and Strongsville "A" should be
consulted for additional details.
Generally, Strongsville "A" accounts for the greatest number of
changes and highest costs, followed by Middleburg Heights WWTP,
then Berea1s WWTP. These three plants almost uniformly account
for 85 percent of costs of improvements, calculated in the pre-
sent worth analysis. Brook Park's WWTP accounts for about 15
percent of total costs.
The Multi-Plant Alternative also includes construction of the
Main Leg Interceptor to serve the Big Creek Basin. Thus, the
Main Leg Interceptor is a part of all alternatives.
V.E. Monetary Comparison of Alternatives
This EIS compares and contrasts cost data for various wastewater
treatment proposals. A distinction between non-systemwide and
systemwide data exists. Non-systemwide data include specific
users of individually priced wastewater treatment proposals or
V-7
-------
components. That is, costs per community or type of treatment
per locale is one way to view the data. Systemwide costs, given
as rates, are attributable only to NEORSD. These rates are such
that costs of a regional sewer system in any of the various
NEORSD planning areas is absorbed into the purview (total juris-
diction) of NEORSD and not limited to any one planning area.
This section is a summary of the economic portion of the Final
Cost-Effective Analysis Report for the Southwest Interceptor
Area. Predecessor documents to that report are: the Cost-
Ef fective Analysis of Local Wastewater Management Alternatives
for Olmsted" Falls, Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia
Township, and the Cost-Effective Analysis of Local Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea,
and Strongsville "A". NEORSD has provided cost updates for por-
tions of these reports, based on additional SSES work and revised
O&M costs. Costs have been revised to eliminate unnecessary
tertiary filtration. Additional data and analyses have been
incorporated by EPA to address the household costs. These data
come from population characteristics published in U.S. Bureau of
the Census Reports, NOACA's population and employment projec-
tions, facilities planning reports and other sources of pertinent
socioeconomic data. Following the presentation of capital, oper-
ation and maintenance costs of the Southwest Interceptor Alterna-
tive versus improvement needs of the Multi-Plant Alternative, a
discussion is presented on the impacts of the selected alterna-
tive on the community.
V.E.I. Cost Comparison
USEPA makes its final cost comparisons based on the present worth
costs of alternatives. Present worth costs consider not only
capital (construction) costs but 20 years of operation and main-
tenance, the salvage value of land and structures at the end of
20 years, an interest rate established by the Water Resources
Council, and associated project costs. The choice of a discount
rate can affect cost conclusions. Present worth compares all of
the cost factors for 20 years.
Table V-l provides a detailed break down of all of the costs for
the Multi-Plant Alternative and the Southwest Interceptor Alter-
native. Some items are the same for both alternatives while
others differ. The present worth cost of the Multi-Plant Alter-
native is $17 million greater than the Southwest Interceptor Al-
ternative for the 20-year planning period. This difference of
approximately +6 percent suggests that the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative is economically preferable. The principal area of
cost difference is in the operation and maintenance of the facil-
V-8
-------
TABLE V-l
ITEMIZED COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
Multi-Plant SWI
Item Alternative Alternative
CAPITAL COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 36,650,000
Main Leg Interceptor 76,159,500 $ 83,998,200
West Leg Interceptor 36,673,400
Connector Interceptors 3,212,800
Major Relief Sewers 27,943,600 27,943,600
Other Relief Sewers 75,594,200 75,594,200
Proposed Collector Sewers 7,677,900 7,677,900
Individual Home Systems 5,936,200 5,936,200
Sewer Rehabilitation 3,156,700 3,156,700
Decommissioning Local WWTP's 600,000
Total $233,118,100 $244,793,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 34,320,000
Southerly WWTP 32,768,900 $ 40,937,500
Main Leg & Major Relief Sewers 2,991,100 2,991,100
West Leg and Connectors 1,878,300
Existing Sewers 29,414,700 29,414,700
Proposed Collector Sewers 214,000 214,000
Individual Home Systems 1,008,900 1,008,900
Local Debt Retirement 2,155,100 2,155,100
Total $102,872,000 $ 78,599,600
SALVAGE VALUE
Local WWTP's ($ 1,640,000) ($ 75,000)
Main Leg Interceptor ( 8,730,400) ( 9,624,900)
West Leg Interceptor ( 4,239,800)
Connector Interceptors ( 389,500)
Major Relief Sewers ( 3,175,400) ( 3,175,400)
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance ( 7.005,400) ( 7,005,400)
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement ( 1,333,100) ( 1,333,100)
Proposed Collector Sewers ( 1,155,800) ( 1,155,800)
Individual Home Systems ( 212,600) ( 212,600)
Local WWTP Modified Use ( 525,000)
Total ($ 23,252,700) ($ 27,736,500)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $312,737,400 $295,656,100
DIFFERENCE +$ 17,082,000
V-9
-------
Table V-l depicts the cost comparison without tertiary filtration
for the Multi-Plant Alternative. The need for filters to meet
final permit limits has been evaluated in the Draft Rocky River
Comprehensive Water Quality Report. This report was reviewed
after issuance of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS presented cost
comparisons with and without tertiary filtration components
yielding Multi-Plant Alternative total present worth costs of
$338 million and $311 million respectively. The total present
worth costs for the SWI Alternative, at $295 million, could in-
crease due to potential costs for dewatering sewers during con-
struction, the choice of discount rate and/or estimation error.
In this Final EIS, capital costs for relief sewers have been re-
vised based on information from the Sewer System Evaluation Sur-
vey. Based upon existing cost data, the SWI Alternative remains
the lower cost.
V.E.2. Comparison of Projected User Charges
Customer charges are affected in part by the capital (construc-
tion) costs of a project, operation-maintenance-replacement
costs, the sewer improvement costs of individual communities and
by the percentage of Federal funding available.
In the Southwest Planning Area customers pay for the construction
and upkeep of local sewers at the community level but sewage
treatment costs are paid to the entity which provides it, either
the community or NEORSD. NEORSD charges its suburban customers
uniformly according to the volume of water use, not according to
the service area in which they reside. The current rate charged
by NEORSD is $11.76 per 1000 cubic feet of water used. The aver-
age household uses 12,000 cubic feet per year. NEORSD has calcu-
lated that this charge will increase over the years to reflect
labor and energy costs, as well as physical improvements in
wastewater treatment systems, including those proposed for the
Southwest Planning Area. The NEORSD user charge system spreads
the cost of treatment plant and interceptor improvements over a
group of users larger than that of the Southwest Planning Area.
This provides an economy of scale for all users.
Federal funding in recent years has covered 75% of eligible
costs, with 85% of innovative and alternative system costs being
funded, such as the on-site system improvements. These levels may
change after October 1, 1984, to 55%, which will be discussed
further in Chapter VI. After Fiscal Year 1984, in general, there
will be no Federal grant money available to fund collector sew-
ers. However, the governor of each state will have some funding
discretion to fund essential projects involving collector sewers.
No Federal funding is assumed here for the local collector
sewers. Communities have the option of proceding independently
wltn no Federal funding for wastewater treatment facilities.
v-io
-------
There is no state level funding in Ohio for sewage treatment
projects. A step 3 segment must be granted by September 30,
1984, to ensure 75% Federal funding for the project.
Estimated user charges per 1000 cubic feet of water are presented
in Table V-2 assuming no Federal funding, in Table V-3 assuming
55% Federal funding, and in Table V-4 at 75% Federal funding.
User charges for the on-site system improvements would be addi-
tional but eligible for up to 85% Federal funding. Table V-5 in-
dicates user charges if the local communities pursued local im-
provements with no Federal funding and NEORSD received 75% Fed-
eral funding. This situation may arise if the Southwest Inter-
ceptor Alternative is not agreed upon locally for implementation.
There is a distinct advantage in user charges by including the
Versailles and Columbia Subdivision treatment plants in the West
Leg of the Southwest Interceptor, rather than including flow
equalization improvements and plant operation entirely at the
local level. Because of this advantage in costs to the users,
the two plants have been included in the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative. Certain capital and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs contained in the concept of each alternative are not in-
cluded in the NEORSD user charge system, since they cover items
that would not be implemented by NEORSD but rather by the local
communities. On-site improvements, already mentioned, are one of
these costs. Other costs not included are the relief sewers,
collector sewers, sewer rehabilitation work and the sunk costs of
past sewer and treatment plant improvements.
Impacts of a selected alternative on a community's household
costs can be estimated. One technique used by USEPA is the
percent of median household income attributed to user charges.
Stability of the community in terms of population and labor force
is also examined.
Table V-6 provides the median annual household income for project
area communities based on 1980 census data. A rate of annual
increase is also provided using national data.
0 The average rate of annual increase over the past decade
has been about seven percent.
0 Note that the 1979 U.S. median household income is lower
than that attained by the State of Ohio.
0 Using U.S. EPA guidelines, a project is not considered
high cost unless the selected alternative exceeds 1.75
percent of the median household income when that median
income is greater than $17,000.
V-ll
-------
TABLE V-2
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
NO FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET METERED WATER CONSUMPTION
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A"
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
22
79
52
49
39
68
46
44
. 28
.38
.09
.10
.13
.67
.26
.34
1988
30.
81 .
53.
50.
40.
70.
48.
47.
87
43
49
26
78
44
85
30
1989
31
82
54
51
42
72
51
50
.93
.89
.87
.57
.59
.19
.88
.55
1990
39
84
56
52
44
74
55
54
. 18
.73
.33
.87
.60
.05
.34
.10
1991
39.
86.
57.
54.
46.
76.
59.
57.
76
70
87
26
80
04
01
94
1992
43
88
59
55
49
78
63
62
.09
.80
.56
.74
.23
.37
.12
.08
1993
42.
91 .
61.
57.
51.
80.
67.
66.
55
05
34
31
88
44
44
81
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Revised Cost-Effective Analysis NEORSD, June, 1983
-------
TABLE V-3
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
55% FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
< Berea
i
to Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A1
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
NA
49
34
31
26
44
35
35
NA = Projected NEORSD rates
Source: Southwest
.10
.08
.58
.70
.23
.88
.77
are not
Interceptor Area
1988
NA
51
35
32
28
46
38
38
.16
.49
.74
.35
.00
.48
.73
available
1989
NA
52.61
36.86
34.04
30.16
47.74
41.50
41 .98
at this
1990
NA
54.45
38.32
35.34
32.17
49.61
44.96
45.53
time for
Revised Cost-Effectiveness
1991
56
39
36
43
51
48
49
the 55%
Analysis
NA
.42
.89
.73
.37
.60
.85
.37
federal
NEORSD,
1992
NA
58.53
41.55
38.21
36.80
53.93
52.75
53.51
funding
June ,
1993
NA
60
43
39
39
56
57
58
level .
1982.
.78
.33
.79
.45
.00
.07
.24
-------
TABLE V-4
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
75% FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
21
38
27
25
22
35
32
32
.61
.10
.53
.21
.20
.34
.42
.81
1988
22
40
28
26
23
37
35
35
.08
.15
.94
.37
.86
.11
.02
.77
1989
23
41
30
27
25
38
38
39
.17
.60
.31
.67
.67
.86
.05
.02
1990
21
43
31
28
27
40
41
42
.64
.44
.78
.97
.67
.72
.50
.57
1991
22
45
33
30
29
42
45
46
.76
.41
. 34
.36
.87
.71
.40
.41
1992
23
47
35
31
32
45
49
50
.92
.52
.01
.84
.30
.04
.29
.55
1993
24
49
36
33
34
47
53
55
.05
.77
.78
.42
.95
.12
.61
.28
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Revised Cost-Effectiveness Analysis NEORSD, June, 1982.
-------
TABLE V-5
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
NEORSD @ 75% FEDERAL FUNDING
LOCAL WWTP'S @ NO FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
I
Ul
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A'1
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
21
79
52
49
39
68
46
44
.61
.38
.09
.10
.13
.67
.26
.34
1988
22
81
53
50
40
70
48
47
.08
.43
.49
.26
.78
.44
.85
.30
1989
23
82
54
51
42
72
51
50
.17
.89
.87
.57
.59
.19
.88
.55
1990
21 .64
84.73
56.33
52.87
44.60
74.05
55.34
54.10
1991
22
86
57
54
46
76
59
57
.76
.70
.87
.26
.80
.04
.01
.94
1992
23
88
59
55
49
78
63
62
.92
.80
.56
.74
.23
.37
.12
.08
1993
24.05
91.05
61.34
57.31
51 .88
80.44
67.44
66.81
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Revised Cost-Effectiveness Analysis NEORSD, June, 1982.
-------
TABLE V-6
MEDIAN ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (MAHl)
en
PROJECT AREA INCOMES FOR 1979
U.S.
RATE
CHANGES
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD
People
Community
Brooklyn Heights
Seven Hills
Parma
Parma Heights
Brooklyn
North Royalton
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Strongsville
Olmsted Falls
AVERAGE
Per
IN MEDIAN
INCOMES
Percent
Household MAHI
2.
3.
2.
2 .
2.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
9
2
7
4
4
7
3
6
8
9
9
8
*Median Annual Household Income
is $17,755.
Sources: Southwest
Capability
Interceptor
Analysis
,
$23,
29,
21,
20,
20,
24,
24,
24,
21,
28,
25,
24,
750
032
798
667
139
393
432
627
646
541
036
005
for the State
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.55*
of Ohio
Year
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
Area Financial
NEORSD, June
MAHI
$20,
19,
17,
16,
15,
13,
12,
11,
11,
10,
9,
9,
8,
8,
171
074
710
461
064
572
682
800
197
512
697
028
734
389
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
AVERAGE:
, 1983.
Source :
U.S.
Census ,
Change
5
7
7
9
10
7
7
5
6
8
7
3
4
6
1983.
.75
.70
.58
.27
.99
.01
.47
.38
.51
.40
.41
.36
. 11
.99
-------
0 In addition, since the rates of increase during the past
few years have ranged from about three percent to about
eleven percent, any income gain was considered reasonable
at the lower end of the range.
0 NEORSD's user charges are based upon their analysis of
systemwide costs so all JSTEORSD user charges are projected
based upon all users and projected users of NEORSD ser-
vices .
Table V-7 presents projected household costs based on the assump-
tion that household incomes will increase 5% a year and NEORSD
user charges will increase about 2% a year. Projected cost com-
parisons can be evaluated for the time that each sewer segment is
implemented in the Southwest Interceptor Alternative. This
analysis also assumes 12,000 cubic feet of water used per house-
hold per year. Community-specific costs for relief sewers, local
sewer O&M and existing debt retirement have been factored into
the costs. *
The projected charges range from 0.60% to 1.20% of the projected
median household income for all communities except Olmsted Falls,
where it is 1.83%, exceeding the EPA high cost guideline of
1.75%. The expense of new local sewers accounts for this differ-
ence. Sewers are needed to correct the problems of using on-site
systems in the Village. While constructing a new sewer system is
always a comparatively expensive operation, compared to upgrading
treatment plants, sewers are needed to correct the problems of
using on-site systems in the Village and adjacent built-up areas.
Detailed local planning and design work will need to be under-
taken before the sewer system can be built. A new technology,
which offers reduced costs in some applications, is small dia-
meter sewers. This technology utilizes existing septic tanks for
"pretreatment", allowing a smaller, less costly collection system
to be built. More is understood about this technology now than
when the original facilities planning was performed for the
Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township area. Other possibilities for re-
ducing the local cost burden are phased construction and alterna-
tive methods of cost recovery at the local level.
V.E.3. Additional Economic Impacts
While construction of new wastewater treatment facilities will
generate jobs during the construction phase, the Southwest Inter-
ceptor Alternative will phase out jobs at local treatment plants.
As discussed by NEORSD with the Public Advisory Group, some of
these positions may be able to be absorbed by NEORSD.
Two of the local treatment plants, Berea and Middleburg Heights,
have existing debts to retire. As of March, 1982, the outstand-
* Some relief sewer costs have increased slightly, as a result of
the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES).
V-17
-------
TABLE V-7
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS*
Median Annual Household Income (MAHI)
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS (1990)
1979 MAHI = $23,750.00
Projected 1990 MAHI = $40,621.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge
$21.64
-0-
-0-
3.00
$24.64
$259.68
-0-
-0-
36.00
$295.68
%MAHI
0.64%
-0-
-0-
0.09%
0.73%
SEVEN HILLS (1990)
1979 MAHI = $29,032.00
Projected 1990 MAHI = $49,655.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge
$24.64
8.07
-0-
3.00
$32.71
$259.68
96.84
-0-
36.00
$392.52
%MAHI
0.52%
0.20%
-0-
0.07%
0.79%
A detailed financial capability analysis will be performed
prior to the award of a construction grant.
V-18
-------
TABLE V-7 (Cont'd)
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS
Median Annual Household Income (MAHI)
PARMA (1990)
1979 MAHI = $21,798.00
Projected 1990 MAHI = $347,282.00
Component Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
NEO Rate $21.64 $259.68 0.70%
Major Relief Sewers 8.07 96.84 0.26%
Overflow Relief Sewers 3.13 37.56 0.10%
Local 0 & M 3.00 36.00 0.10%
Totals* $35.84 $430.08 1.16%
* This is anticipated to increase by about $.46 per month, as a result
of sewer rehabilitation analysis in the SSES.
PARMA HEIGHTS (1990)
1979 MAHI = $20,667.00
Projected 1990 MAHI = $35,348.00
Component Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
NEO Rate $21.64 $259.68 0.73%
Major Relief Sewers 8.07 96.84 0.27%
Overflow Relief Sewers 2.86 34.32 0.10%
Local 0 & M 3.00 36.00 0.10%
Totals * $35.57 $426.84 1.20%
* This is anticipated to increase by about $.59 per month, as a result
of the sewer rehabilitation analysis in the SSES.
BROOKLYN (1990)
1979 MAHI = $20,139.00
Projected 1990 MAHI = $34,445.00
Component Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
NEO Rate $21.64 $259.68 0.75%
Major Relief Sewers -0- -0- -0-
Overflow Relief Sewers -0- -0- -0-
Local O & M 3.00 36.00 0.10%
Totals $24.64 $295.68 0.85%
V-19
-------
TABLE V-7 (Cont'd)
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS
Median Annual Household Income (MAHI)
NORTH ROYALTON (1990)
1979 MAHI = $24,393.00
Projected 1990 MAHI = $41,720.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge
$32.71
$392.52
%MAHI
$21.64
3.07
-0-
3.00
$259.68
96.84
-0-
36.00
0.62%
0.23%
-0-
0.09%
0.94%
BROOK PARK (1992)
1979 MAHI = $24,432.00
Projected 1992 MAHI = $46,070.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge
$37.57
$450.84
%MAHI
$23 .92
8.07
2.58
3.00
$287.04
96.84
30.96
36.00
0.62%
0.21%
0.07%
0.08%
1.98%
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS (1992)
1979 MAHI = $24,627.00
Projected 1992 MAHI = $46,438.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals *
*
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
$23.92
-0-
3.00
3.12
$287.04
-0-
36.00
37.44
$30.04 $360.48 0.78%
anticipated to increase bv about $.64 per month as a result
- rehabilitation analysis ,n in the
-------
TABLE V-7 (Cont'd)
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD COSTS
Median Annual Household Income (MAHl)
BEREA (1992)
1979 MAHl = $21,646.00
Projected 1992 MAHl = $40,817.00
Component Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
NEO Rate $23.92 $287.04 0.70%
Major Relief Sewers 8.40 100.80 0.25%
Overflow Relief Sewers 3.00 36.00 0.09%
Local 0 & M 0.28 3.36 0.01%
Totals* $35.60 $427.20 1.05%
This is anticipated to increase by about $3.00 per month (FSES analysis)
STRONGSVILLE (1992)
1979 MAHl = $28,541.00
Projected 1992 MAHl = $53,818.00
Component Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
NEO Rate $23.92 $287.04 0.53%
Overflow Relief Sewers -0- -0- -0-
Local 0 & M 3.00 36.00 0.07%
Totals* $26.92 $323.04 0.60%
*This is anticipated to increase by about $.67 per month (SSES analysis).
OLMSTED FALLS (1992)
1979 MAHl = $25,036.00
Projected 1992 MAHl = $47,209.00
Component Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MAHI
NEO Rate $23.92 $287.04 0.61%
Local Sewers 45.00 540.00 1.14%
Local 0 & M 3.00 36.00 0.08%
Totals $71.92 $863.04 1.83%
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Financial Capability Analysis
NEORSD, June, 1983.
V-21
-------
ing balance for the Berea WWTP is $203,832 with semiannual pay-
ments of $11,679 through 1994. The Middleburg Heights facilities
have annual payments of $262,500 through 2002. These obligations
remain with any wastewater treatment alternative selected, and
have been factored into the present worth analysis (Table V-l)
and the financial capability analysis (Table V-7).
V.F. Non-Monetary Comparison of Alternatives
V.F.I. Interbasin Transfer of Effluent & Water Quality Issues
V.F.1.a. Multi-Plant Alternative
Implementing the Multi-Plant Alternative would retain streamflow
within the Rocky River Basin. These flows are relatively new to
this basin and are the result of population increases in the area
and the transporting of Lake Erie water to these residents. (See
Population Data, Figure 11-14). The result is an increase in
wastewater flows due to the rise in population. Some flow changes
can be expected in the Olmsted Falls area because on-lot systems
will be replaced by a new treatment facility on the West Branch
of the Rocky River, South Site. Flows will be slightly decreased
in Plum Creek with anticipated water quality improvements in Plum
Creek and the West Branch of the Rocky River.
Water quality would improve with the Multi-Plant Alternative be-
cause all of the treatment plants would be upgraded, as neces-
sary, to achieve water quality standards. Reductions in stream-
flow would not be as pronounced as with the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative because discharges would remain within the Rocky
River Basin.
V.F.l.b. Southwest Interceptor Alternative
V.F.1.b.i. Water Quantity
In contrast to the Multi-Plant Alternative, the regional South-
west Interceptor-West Leg Alternative would convey wastewater
from the 4 major and numerous minor treatment plants in the Rocky
River Basin to the Cuyahoga River Basin, the discharge location
of the Southerly plant. In the West Leg area, only the City of
Berea's water originates from the Rocky River. All other commu-
nities get their water from Lake Erie.
The present augmentation of streamflow in the Rocky River with
Lake Erie water is more apparent during dry weather periods than
under average flow conditions. This is illustrated in Figures
V-2 and v-3. Mean flows have exhibited a wide range of variation
since 1925, with effluent discharges from the major treatment
plants comprising about 8% of the 1980 mean flow. The minimum
V-22
-------
YEARLY INSTANTANEOUS MINIMUM STREAM FLOWS
EAST/WEST BRANCH CONFLUENCE
ROCKY RIVER
CO
u.
o
O
i
to
co
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
1925
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975 1980
YEAR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Final Facilities Planning Report
-------
MEAN DAILY STREAM FLOW
EAST/WEST BRANCH CONFLUENCE
ROCKY RIVER
CO
U-
o
1925
1935
1945
o
1955
YEAR
1965
1975 1980
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SourGa; Ftrtal Facilities Planning Report
-------
flow increased sharply in the 1960's and 1970's. This increase
in minimum flow parallels local suburban growth (see Figure
11-14). Because the water supply is obtained from Lake Erie and
not from the Rocky River, a higher level minimum flow has been
apparent in the Rocky River. This increase is not strongly corre-
lated to rainfall records.
Because of development-induced flow increases, the existing low
flow conditions in the Rocky River do not reflect long-standing
hydrologic trends. Because of this, the impacts of interbasin
transfer on low flow will be analyzed on the basis of the 7-day,
once in 10 year (Q7,10) low flow value as being the most repre-
sentative of present conditions.
The Q7,10 represents the mininum seven consecutive day average
flow that has a recurrence interval of once in ten years. Stated
another way, average stream flows would be as low as the Q7,10
value for only one week in 520 weeks. This extreme low flow con-
dition is utilized by Ohio EPA as the basis for determining NPDES
permit effluent limits, which in turn are intended to achieve in-
stream water quality standards necessary to support designated
stream uses.
Determination of the Q7,10 from from historical stream flow data
for the Rocky River is made difficult by the radical increase in
low flow values over recent years. The Ohio EPA, however, in
September, 1982, completed a five month study of the Rocky River
for the purpose of establishing reasonable Q7,10 values. In an
effort to establish "natural" Q7,10 flow value, Ohio EPA under-
took a statistical analysis of pre-1965 stream flow records. In
a 1983 draft document, entitled Rocky River - Q7,10 At East/West
Confluence, Ohio EPA concludes the "natural" Q7,10 flow at the
East Branch/West Branch confluence is in the range of 1.18 to
2.26 cubic feet per second (cfs). For purposes of this analysis,
the more conservative estimate of 1.18 cfs will be used. This is
closer, also, to the 0.9 cfs flow estimated by staff of the U.S.
Geological Survey.
Because specific gauging data are unavailable for the East and
West Branches of the Rocky River, it is necessary to apportion
flows recorded at the confluence gauge to each branch. Flows are
distributed on the basis of drainage area; seventy percent to the
West Branch (0.826 cfs) and thirty percent to the East Branch
(0.354 cfs).
This pre-1965 "natural" Q7,10 is adjusted to reflect current
Q7,10 flow conditions by adding current dry weather wastewater
discharges and subtracting current water intakes on each branch
(Refer to Table V-8 for 1980 values). Resulting current Q7,10
conditions are as follows:
V-25
-------
TABLE V-8
DRY WEATHER WWTP DISCHARGES TO ROCKY RIVER (cfs)
WWTP
Stream
Service Area
1980
1990
PROJECTED DISCHARGE
2000
2005
Source
I
M
Berea EB
N. Royalton "B" BC/EB
Strongsville "C" BC/EB
Albion Jr. High BC/EB
N. Royalton "A" EB
Strongsville "B" EB
Small WWTP's EB
Medina "300" EB
Strongsville "A" WB
Small WWTP's PC/WB
Small WWTP's WB
Medina "500" WB
N. Olmsted MB
Brook Park MB
Middleburg Heights MB
WL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
MO
WL
WL
WL
NOO
WL
WL
3.60
.66
.55
.01
1 .85
.53
.05
1 .87
3.08
.73
.75
8.73
7.57
.93
2.79
3.77
.94
1 .44
.01
2.45
1.61
.05
3.34
4.31
.73
.75
10.84
9.21
1.11
3.36
3.94
1.22
2.33
.01
3.05
2.69
.05
4.81
5.54
.73
.75
12.95
10.84
1.28
3.92
4.03
1.36
2.77
.01
3.36
3.23
.05
5.54
6. 16
.73
.75
14.00
11.66
1.37
4.20
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
5
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
Sources:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan, John David Jones & Assoc., Inc. 1982.
North Royalton Wastewater Facilities Plan, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Ltd., (Ongoing)
Strongsville "B" and "C" Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981.
North Olmsted Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981.
Medina "300" Wastewater Facilities Plan & Preliminary Engineering Report, Project 1601,
Medina Co. Sanitary Eng., 1981.
Medina "500" Wastewater Facilities Plan, Halishak & Associates, Inc.
BC - Big Creek
EB - East Branch (Rocky River)
MB - Main Branch (Rocky River)
PC - Plum Creek
WB - West Branch Rocky River
WL - West Leg
EL - East Leg
MO - Medina Option
NOO - North Olmsted Option
-------
East Branch 5.164 cfs
West Branch 14.116 cfs
Confluence 19.28 cfs
Several large wastewater treatment plants discharge to the Rocky
River downstream of the confluence of the East and West Branches.
North Olmsted discharges directly to the Main Branch above Abram
Creek. Brook Park and Middleburg Heights discharge to Abram
Creek, a small tributary to the Main Branch.
Current Q7,10 conditions for the Main Branch at Abram Creek were
developed by adding the dry weather wastewater discharges from
these plants to the current Q7,10 estimate at the East/West
Branch confluence. No "natural" increase was assumed to occur.
Hence a current Q7,10 flow of 30.57 cfs was determined for the
Main Branch at the Abram Creek confluence.
Because phased construction is typical in large regional sewer
projects, an assessment of stream flow impacts requires phased or
straight line projections on future stream flows. Because low
stream flows in the Rocky River consist primarily of wastewater
discharges, future Q7,10 conditions can be based upon projected
wastewater flows.
Table V-8 presents projected dry weather discharges of all sig-
nificant wastewater treatment plants tributary to the Southwest
planning area. This assumes that projected growth and wastewater
treatment plant capacity are achieved in the upstream areas of
the Rocky River Basin. Projections are based upon average daily
base flow (normal sewage) plus low groundwater infiltration.
Sources for year 2005 projections are referenced as appropriate,
interim year projections (1990 and 2000) were developed in most
cases through interpolation between known 1980 discharge rates
and projected year 2005 discharges. Adjustments were made as
necessary based upon projected population growth rates.
The Main Leg Interceptor will have no effect on low streamflow
conditions in Big Creek since this service area is presently sew-
ered, with flows conveyed via the Big Creek Interceptor to the
Southerly Plant on the Cuyahoga River. Water quality in Big
Creek and the Cuyahoga will improve in wet weather with the elim-
ination of overflows from the undersized Big Creek Interceptor.
The Southwest Interceptor alternative would include connecting
the Grayton Road Pump Station to the Main Leg Interceptor. This
will improve water quality in the Rocky River by eliminating
overflows at the pump station which enter the Main Branch of the
Rocky River. The Grayton Road Pump Station presently discharges
V-27
-------
to the Big Creek Interceptor. Therefore, interbasin transfer is
not a consideration here-
The West Leg portion of the Southwest Interceptor will affect the
East Branch, West Branch and Main Branch of the Rocky River. Dry
weather discharges of existing plants to be phased out by the
West Leg are shown in Table V-8. Tables V-9 and V-10 present
projected Q7,10 stream flows in the Rocky River for 1990, 2000,
and 2005 - both with and without the West Leg. For purposes of
comparison, the pre-1965 and estimated existing Q7,10 flows also
are presented.
The only East Branch wastewater discharge to be eliminated by the
West Leg Interceptor is the City of Berea Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The plant is located within the Metroparks Rocky River
Reservation approximately 4.4 stream miles below the East/West
Branch Confluence and 2 stream miles below the Berea water in-
takes. The Berea Water Plant currently is being expanded to 3.6
MGD (5.7 cfs) based upon local projections of water demand for
the year 2020. Because this plant withdraws water directly from
the East Branch Rocky River, the projected increase in water de-
mand must also be considered in the stream flow impact assess-
ment. As with the projection of wastewater flows, interim year
projections were developed through interpolations between current
and design water intake. Projected Berea water demands are:
1980 1990 2000 2005 2020
Water
Demand (cfs) 4.31 4.50 4.80 4.90 4.90
Wastewater discharged from the Berea plant currently returns 80-
90 percent of the flow removed from the East Branch by the Berea
water supply. Elimination of the Berea wastewater discharge
would result in stream flow conditions in the 4.4 mile reach be-
tween the discharge point and the East/West Branch confluence
that would be comparable to existing flow conditions in the 2
mile reach between the water intakes and the wastewater plant.
Observed conditions below the Berea water supply intake indicate
that periodic low flows occur under the present flow regime.
As Table V-9 illustrates, construction of the West Leg in 1990
should result in Q7,10 flows at the mouth of the East Branch of
the Rocky River which equal or exceed 1980 Q7,10 flows. Projected
increases in upstream wastewater discharges more than offset
elimination of the Berea discharge. By the Year 2000, Q7,10
flows substantially will exceed current levels. The dry weather
flow downstream of the water intakes will depend upon the amount
of water released from Baldwin Lake and Coe Lake by the City of
Berea. ^ Table V-9 demonstrates, however, that tributary Q7,10
flows will be sufficient to meet Berea's water supply needs plus
maintain significant dry weather flow in downstream portions of
V-28
-------
TABLE V-9
IMPACT OF SWI WEST LEG ON Q7,10
STREAM FLOW IN THE EAST AND
WEST BRANCHES OF ROCKY RIVER
East Branch
Projected Q7, 10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7, 10
With West Leg
Pre-1965
0.35
N/A
Q7,10 Stream Flow (cfs
1980
5. 16
N/A
1990
5.69
2000
9.46 13.65
9.71
2005
15.80
11.77
West Branch
P.7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
Pre-1965
1980
1990
2000
2005
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7,10
With West Leg
0.82 14.12 17.46 20.80 22.47
N/A N/A 11.67 13.78 14.83
V-29
-------
the East Branch. As noted previously, flows above the Berea
Wastewater Treatment Plant would be unaffected by the West Leg.
Constructing the West Leg also would eliminate the Strongsville
"A" Wastewater Treatment Plant and numerous smaller discharges.
Referring to Table V-8, a total of approximately 5.79 cfs of flow
would be removed from the West Branch upon completion of the West
Leg (approximately 1990).
Resulting effects upon West Branch Q7,10 flows were presented on
Table V-9- A 1990 Q7,10 flow of 11.67 cfs would be maintained in
the West Branch at its mouth. Low flow conditions in the West
Branch would be altered for the 5.4 stream mile reach from the
Strongsville "A" plant to the confluence. By the year 2000,
Q7,10 flows would again approach 1980 Q7,10 values, because of
anticipated upstream development.
Low flow values in the Main Branch at the East/West Branch Con-
fluence reflect the Q7,10 flows of the individual branches.
Existing and projected Q7,10 flows at the confluence were pre-
sented in Table V-10. The 1990 Q7,10 flow resulting from con-
struction of the West Leg is below the current Q7,10 which is
estimated at 19.28 cfs. By the year 2000, the Q7,10 flow is
projected to exceed the current Q7,10 value even with construc-
tion of the West Leg.
The West Leg Interceptor also would eliminate the Brook Park and
Middleburg Heights wastewater treatment plants, both of which
discharge to Abram Creek. As discussed earlier, baseline or
"existing condition" low flow values were developed by adding the
wastewater discharge of the North Olmsted Plant, located on the
Main Branch between the East/West Branch Confluence and Abram
Creek, and the wastewater discharges of the Brook Park and Mid-
dleburg Heights Plants to the low flows recorded at the USGS
guage. No "natural" increase in stream flow was assumed to
occur. Low flow values reflecting construction of the West Leg
were calculated by subtracting the discharges of Brook Park and
Middleburg Heights from the projected Q7,10 flow values. Table
V-10 presented Q7,10 flow values for the Main Branch/Abram Creek
Confluence. The North Olmsted discharge would not be eliminated
by the Southwest Interceptor project.
As Table V-10 illustrated, 1990 Q7,10 flows resulting from con-
struction of the West Leg would be approximately 1.92 cfs below
current Q7,10 flows at the East/West Branch confluence and 4 cfs
below current Q7,10 flows at the Main Branch/Abram Creek conflu-
ence. By the year 2000, Q7,10 flows should exceed current values
due to increased tributary wastewater flows.
V-30
-------
TABLE V-10
IMPACT OF SWI WEST LEG ON Q7,10
STREAM FLOW IN THE MAIN
BRANCH OF ROCKY RIVER
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7,10
With West Leg
Main Branch at East/West Branch Confluence
Q7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
Pre-1965
1. 18
N/A
1980
19.28
N/A
1990
2000
26.92 34.45
2005
38.27
17.36 23.49 26.60
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7,10
With West Leg
Main Branch at Abram Creek Confluence
Q7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
1980
30.57
N/A
1990
2000
40.59 50.49
2005
55.50
26.57 34.33 38.26
V-31
-------
Associated with a decrease in water volume would be a decrease in
water depth. This decrease would be noticeable only during ex-
treme low flow periods. Water depths were recorded during Octo-
ber 1982; see Table V-ll. USGS gauge records for the sampling
dates reflect flow conditions of approximately 100 cfs at the
East/West Branch confluence. These particular flow values and,
hence, water depths are equaled or exceeded approximately 55% of
the time.
It would appear that major portions of Abram Creek would be vir-
tually dry during extreme low flow conditions. Low flows in this
stream presently consist almost entirely of wastewater dis-
charges. Flow was observed in the headwater area of Plum Creek,
which receives no wastewater discharge, and thus water may be
continuously present in this creek even after removal of dis-
chargers . Baldwin Creek showed even greater water depth than
Plum Creek, indicating that some flow is likely to continue.
Both the East and West Branches show depths of 0.5 to 1.5 feet in
the southern portions of the study area, with depth generally in-
creasing in a downstream direction as a result of wastewater in-
put. Removal of effluent would delete this augmentation effect
and reduce water levels in those stream segments receiving signi-
ficant discharge. No dry conditions would occur in either branch
as a result of effluent removal, although low flows are not ob-
served to be large.
To aid further in defining the relationship between flow volume
and water depth, correlation factors for flow and depth at the
USGS gauge at the East/West Branch confluence are presented in
Table V-12. As indicated, to maintain a water depth of .5 feet
at the gauge, a flow of 5.0 cfs must be maintained. The relation-
ship between flow and depth is not linear, however, as indicated
by the column showing the effluent flows which result in a 0.1
foot change in water depth. Thus, in comparison to the 5 cfs/.5
foot relationship, 59.4 cfs are required to attain a 1.0 foot
depth at the gauge. Under the extreme Q7,10 flow condition, con-
struction of the West Leg would lower water depth at the gauge by
approximately 0.1 feet from 0.78 feet to 0.68 feet, based on pro-
jected flows. Current water depth at the gauge during Q7,10 flow
conditions is approximately 0.7 feet. In other words, construc-
tion of the West Leg in 1990 should result in water depths ap-
proximating existing levels.
V.F.l.b.ii. Water Quality
Estimated existing and future pollutant loading to the Rocky
River from the West Leg Area are presented in Tables V-13 through
V-16, developed as part of facilities planning. Pollutant load-
ings have been developed for three alternatives during wet
V-32
-------
TABLE V-ll
WATER DEPTH AT THE BENTHIC SAMPLING STATIONS
INVESTIGATED ON OCTOBER 28-29, 1982
Sampling Station Stream Segment Depth (ft)
1 E. Branch 0.5 - 1.5
2 E. Branch 0.5 - 1.5
4 E. Branch 0.5 - 1.0
9 E. Branch 1.0 - 1.5
3 Baldwin Cr. 1.0-2.0
5 W. Branch 0.5 - 1.0
7 W. Branch 0.5 - 4.0
8 W. Branch 1.0 - 3.5
6 Plum Cr. 0.5 - 0.75
11 Abram Cr. 0.5
12 Main Branch 1.0
10 Main Branch 1.0 - 1.5
TABLE V-12
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCHARGE AND WATER DEPTH AT THE USGS GAUGE
(EAST/WEST BRANCH CONFLUENCE) DURING LOW FLOW PERIODS (USGS DATA)
Discharge (Q) Gauge Height Difference in Q
in CFS (GH) in ft. per 0.1 ft. GH
5.0 0.5
11.0 0.6 6.0
19.0 0.7 8.0
29.0 0.8 10.0
42.5 0.9 13.5
59.4 1.0 16.9
80.1 1.1 20.7
104.9 1.2 24.8
134.1 1.3 29.2
156.6 1.4 33.5
206.1 1.5 38.5
249.9 1.6 43.8
299.1 1.7 49.2
V-33
-------
TABLE V-13
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
FROM SWI AREA
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE - EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS
Loading Lbs/Day
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES
BOD
DRY WEATHER
SS NH2-N
West Leg Area
East Leg Area
North Olmsted
Medina 300
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
2,770
196
235
26
—
2,861
164
178
72
—
801
59
154
8
—
446
72
43
3
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES
BOD
WET WEATHER
SS NH2-N
West Leg Area
East Leg Area
North Olmsted
Medina 300
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
17,582
1,223
2,256
242
23,212
912
8,250
920
1,936 1,856
300
646
50
253
302
19
22,434 469,492 3,481 685
TOTAL
3,227 3,275 1,022 584
TOTAL
43,737 502,786 6,413 3,115
TABLE V-14
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
FROM SWI AREA
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE - YEAR 2005 WASTEWATER FLOWS
Loading Lbs/Day
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES
BOD
DRY WEATHER
SS NH2-N
West Leg Area
East Leg Area
North Olmsted
Medina 300
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
6,569
984
467
114
—
8,200
837
354
318
—
1,807
405
307
36
—
1,067
342
87
12
—
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES
BOD
WET WEATHER
SS NH2-N
West Leg Area
East Leg Area
North Olmsted
Medina 300
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
87,715
2,298
1,868
320
136,259 22,857 13,940
1,962 1,009
1,416 1,228
892
101
19,945 417,167 3,095
806
348
34
608
TOTAL
8,134 9,709 2,555 1,508
TOTAL
112,146 557,696 28,290 15,736
V-34
-------
TABLE V-15
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
m
FROM SWI AREA
UPGRADED /EXPANDED LOCAL WWTP ' S YEAR 2005 WASTEWATER FLOWS
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 1 , 072
East Leg Area 518
North Olmsted 390
Medina 300 240
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution --
TOTAL 2,220
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 78
East Leg Area 518
North Olmsted 390
Medina 300 240
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
DRY
SS
1,072
518
390
240
2,220
SWI
DRY
SS
78
518
390
240
—
Loading Lbs/Day
WEATHER WASTEWATER
NH2-N P DISCHARGES
201 247 West Leg Area
95 139 East Leg Area
73 49 North Olmsted
45 30 Medina 300
SWI Area Non-Point
-- — Contribution
424 465 TOTAL
TABLE V-16
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
FROM SWI AREA
BOD
4,019
1,222
1,475
674
19,945
27,335
WET
SS
4,019
1,222
1,475
674
417,167
424,557
WEATHER
NH2-N
753
228
276
126
3,095
4,478
P
704
354
184
84
608
1,934
WEST LEG - YEAR 2005 WASTEWATER FLOWS
Loading Lbs/Day
WEATHER WASTEWATER
NH2-N P DISCHARGES
15 98 West Leg Area
95 139 East Leg Area
73 49 North Olmsted
45 30 Medina 300
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
BOD
78
1,222
1,475
674
19,945
WET
SS
78
1,222
1,475
674
417,167
WEATHER
NH2-N
15
228
276
126
3,095
P
98
354
184
84
608
TOTAL
1,226 1,226 228
316
TOTAL
23,394 420,616 3,740 1,328
V-35
-------
weather and dry weather stream flow conditions. Included in the
wet weather loading calculations are an estimate of non-point
urban and rural runoff contributions within the West Leg Area.
Table V-17 presents a summary of the pollutant loadings to the
Rocky River resulting from the various West Leg Area Alternatives.
Existing and projected WWTP pollutant loadings were obtained from
the LEAPS 1980 annual average of Self-Monitoring Monthly Operat-
ing Reports and wastewater flow data presented in The Final Water
Quality Report, Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook
Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A",Local
Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted
Township and Columbia Township.
Estimates of non-point source pollutant contributions for the
West Leg area were based upon the following assumptions:
Storm Event: 0.055 inches/hr.
Urban Runoff Coefficient: 0.25
Rural Runoff Coefficient: 0.04
Urban Acreage: (existing) 10,263; (year 2005) 13,279
Rural Acreage: (existing) 17,765; (year 2005) 14,749
Urban Pollutant Concentrations:
TSS = 415 mg/1
BOD = 20 mg/1
Total -N = 3.1 mg/1
PO4-P =0.1 mg/1
Rural Pollutant Concentrations:
TSS = 415 mg/1
BOD = 20 mg/1
Total -N = 0.25 mg/1
P04-P = 0.6 mg/1
Urban pollutant concentrations were obtained from PEMSO Urban
Stormwater Analysis, A Computer Based Methodology, Ohio EPA,
1982. Rural pollutant concentrations were obtained from Roil and
Water Conservation Engineering, G.O. Schwab, 1966.
As shown by the summary of pollutant loadings in Table V-13, the
Southwest Interceptor-West Leg would result in a significant
reduction in treatment plant pollutant loadings to the Rocky
River. A comparison of the No-Action and West Leg alternatives
for the year 2005 shows that the dry and wet weather BOD loadings
would be reduced by 85 percent and 79 percent respectively. Dry
and wet weather ammonia loading would be reduced by 91 percent
and 87 percent respectively. The phosphorus loading would be
reduced by 79 percent and 92 percent for dry and wet weather
flows. The suspended solids loading on the Rocky River would be
decreased by 87 percent during dry weather stream conditions. The
V-36
-------
TABLE V-17
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR AREA
SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
WEST LEG AREA ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER
FLOWS
STREAM
CONDITIONS
BOD
TOTAL LOADING LBS/DAY
SS AMMONIA
PHOSPHORUS
No Action
Existing
Dry Weather
Wet Weather
3,227
43,737
3,275
502,786
1,022
6,413
584
3,115
2005 Dry Weather 8,134 9,709 2,555
Wet Weather 112,146 557,696 28,290
1,508
15,736
Upgrade WWTP's 2005
Dry Weather
Wet Weather
2,220
27,335
2,220
424,557
414
4,478
465
1,934
SWI-WL
2005 Dry Weather 1,226 1,226
Wet Weather 23,394 420,616
228
3,740
316
1,328
V-37
-------
non-point contribution has an impact on the solids loading on the
Rocky River during wet weather conditions. However, the West Leg
would still reduce the projected "no-action" solids loading on
the Rocky River by 25 percent.
V.F.l.b.iii. Stream Use Impacts
The Rocky River represents a valuable recreational resource for
the Cleveland Metropolitan area providing potential opportunities
for a wide variety of water based recreational activities . Espe-
cially important are the Main Branch and East Branch, which are
bordered throughout the planning area by Cleveland Metroparks'
Rocky River Reservation. Alterations to stream flow resulting
from construction of the West Leg, even during the extreme Q7,10
flow conditions, would not be of sufficient magnitude to percept-
ably impact recreational opportunities. Water depth at the East/
West Branch confluence would be reduced by slightly more than one
inch during low flow periods and by approximately one-third of an
inch during average conditions. The flow effect of removal of the
Berea and Middleburg Heights discharges, which enter the stream
approximately 1.5 miles below the confluence and 0.6 mile below
the North Olmsted discharge, similarly would be negligible.
Eliminating the flow to the East Branch from the Berea Wastewater
Treatment Plant will remove approximately 3.77 cfs of the pro-
jected 1990 Q7,10 flow of 9.4 cfs. The resulting flow of 5.69
cfs would exceed the existing Q7,10 flow of the stream, if pro-
jected upstream development is realized.
As in the case with other stream uses within the Rocky River,
water quality, rather than flow, is the principal determinant of
existing conditions and potential Southwest Interceptor West Leg
impacts. Of all of the parameters investigated in the facilities
planning water quality sampling program, those which appear most
significant in terms of indicating organic pollution in Rocky
River are fecal coliform and fecal streptococci. These bacterial
populations in the Rocky River consistently exceeded Ohio stand-
ards for primary contact recreation and the majority of the time
did not meet standards for secondary contact recreation. High
fecal bacteria populations within the Rocky River are due to a
combination of septic tank effluent discharged directly from
unsewered areas of Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township and the
numerous small and large treatment plants that discharge into
Rocky River. Elimination of wastewater discharges through con-
struction of the Southwest Interceptor West Leg should result in
sufficient reduction in fecal coliform levels to safely support
primary and secondary contact recreation throughout the West Leg
area. Consequently, a significant beneficial impact is antici-
pated, expanding recreational opportunities within the Metroparks
Rocky River Reservation and the Rocky River Basin.
V-38
-------
The City of Berea uses the East Branch of the Rocky River for its
municipal water supply. Construction of the Main Leg and West
Leg Interceptor will have no effect on the Berea Water supply.
The East Leg Sewer Option, under consideration for the post 20-
year planning period, could impact the Berea water supply. This
will be considered near the end of this chapter.
The quality of stream habitat is determined by a variety of
factors, including velocity and depth of flow, stream bottom
characteristics and water quality. From benthic sampling results,
water quality sampling results and field observation of stream
reaches, it is apparent that habitat quality within the planning
area ranges from good to poor. A general decrease in quality
occurs from upstream to downstream portions of the area, reflect-
ing the impact of the various wastewater discharges. Presently,
water quality conditions appear to be a major determination of
habitat quality in the area. Construction of the West Leg will
significantly reduce organic loadings to each branch and the Main
Branch. The removal of dissolved and suspended solids will
result in greater light penetration through the water, favoring
colonization by phytoplankton. The associated reduction in
nutrients resulting from termination of effluent input will limit
available food to phytoplankton and thus tend to keep populations
from attaining undesirable "bloom" conditions, with resultant
oxygen sag. Availability of oxygen and sunlight will favor those
algal species more indicative of clean water conditions, and
therefore, more preferable from an aesthetic, recreational and
economic viewpoint. The establishment of this "healthy" plankton
community will enhance and stabilize the aquatic food chain.
Reduction of organic material in the Rocky River will decrease
BOD levels. At present, the breakdown of organic matter by
bacteria results in generally high demands for oxygen. A decrease
in the amount of these compounds will reduce the required oxygen
levels and the available food supply for decomposers (bacteria).
Thus, bacterial Levels will be diminished. Increased levels of
dissolved oxygen, resulting from less consumption by decomposi-
tion, will maintain relatively consistent high levels of instream
oxygen. This will provide a necessary element for the survival
of the more favored aquatic communities. Additionally, organic
loading which may occur throughout the stream will be more easily
assimilated and its impacts on aquatic habitat mitigated.
The deposition of sediment or silt on river bottoms can bury and
suffocate benthic organisms, or render their habitat unsuitable.
Due to the relatively high stream velocity, very little sediment
presently is deposited on the bottom substrate of most reaches of
the Rocky River. The removal of organics contained in the efflu-
ent presently discharged to the stream will only enhance condi-
tions .
V-39
-------
The relationship between water depth and the benthic organisms
which inhabit a stream has yet to be thoroughly investigated by
aquatic biologists. There appears to be little correlation,
however, between the water depth parameter and the populations
present. The exception to this is when such changes result in
exposure of the river bottom or reduction in water levels to only
a few inches. Dry conditions obviously exterminate many of the
benthic populations in a given area. The development of resting
stages by certain organisms, and the phenomenon and rapidity of
benthic drift from upstream, however, generally render this a
temporary situation, with repopulation of an area usually assured
soon after the return of flow.
More important than water depth is the velocity of flow which
exists in a stream body. Many benthic organisms are adapted
through morphologic structures for inhabiting areas of rapid
flow. These are generally those organisms with high oxygen
requirements, and as such classified as "clean water" forms.
Elimination of West Leg Area wastewater discharges in the Rocky
River is not anticipated to affect the velocity of the stream to
any significant extent. The fairly steep gradient throughout the
watershed should maintain velocities near or equal to their cur-
rent levels. Concurrently, aeration rates in the river, as a re-
sult of water turbulence, should not be negatively impacted by
any slight reduction in water level occurring during extreme low
flow conditions.
One important environmental factor which might be impacted by
significant reduction of water depth is temperature. Both in-
creases and decreases of temperature tend to be more rapid and
extreme. This can affect the metabolism, availability of oxygen
and impact of pollutants on aquatic organisms. Construction of
the West Leg and the resulting minor reduction in stream depth
are not anticipated to have a significant impact on water temper-
ature because of the geologic setting of the Rocky River. The
relatively deep valley through which the river flows, often bor-
dered by steep cliffs and vegetation, generally shelters the
stream from direct sunlight and prevailing winds, thus moderating
the impact of these factors.
If changes in river flow promote isolated pockets of water or the
like, the Cuyahoga County Department of Public Health will map
these locations and include them in their monitoring program on
mosquitoes or other vector populations. This type of monitoring
has taken place for the past eight years. In late summer, tribu-
taries in the county are monitored for vector control every two
weeks. Communities with their own health services, but without
vector control programs, should establish intergovernmental
health programs with the county if necessary.
V-40
-------
V.F.l.c. Effect of Stream Flow and Water Quality Changes on
Habitat in Specific Reaches of the Rocky River
East Branch. As demonstrated by the water quality and benthic
sampling results discussed earlier, as well as field observations
of the stream, the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge has
a profound effect upon the lower reach of the East Branch. The
sphere of influence of this discharge appears to include much of
the 4.4 mile stream section from the plant to the East/West
Branch confluence; although the one mile reach immediately below
the plant is the most severely impacted. In comparison, water
quality sampling results, benthic sampling results and field ob-
servations indicate a better quality habitat immediately upstream
of the Berea discharge.
Elimination of the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge
would reduce both flow and pollutant loading contributions to the
East Branch. Essentially, resulting 1990 stream flows and water
depths for the 4.4 mile stream reach below the existing discharge
should equal or exceed existing flow and depth values. The
riffle-pool structure of this portion of the Rocky River allows
both a diversity of habitat and preservation of individuals in
pool areas during periods of reduced stream flow. After the
water level rises, individuals may migrate from the pools to
inhabit the entire stream. Benthic results for sample stations
BS-4 and BS-4a, located upstream of the Berea discharge, suggest
a healthy aquatic environment, suggesting that aquatic life is
not dependent upon Berea's waste- water flow contribution.
Benthic sampling results for stations BS-4a, BS-4b and BS-4c,
however, suggest that removal of pollutant loadings to the stream
would have a significant beneficial impact on habitat quality
downstream of the existing discharge. Elimination of the dis-
charge would permit this stream reach to support benthic communi-
ties and other aquatic life comparable to that found immediately
upstream of the existing discharge and near the mouth of the East
Branch.
West Branch. As demonstrated by benthic sampling results, up-
stream reaches of the West Branch within the study area (south of
the Strongsville "A" Plant) provide a good quality habitat. A
progressive decrease in species number and diversity, however,
occurs from the Strongsville "A" discharge to the East/West
Branch Confluence; reflecting not only the impact of Strongsville
"A" but also that of the numerous smaller wastewater treatment
plants tributary to the West Branch. Benthic indicators demon-
strate habitat quality at the mouth of the West Branch to the
slightly poorer than habitat quality at the mouth of the East
Branch.
V-41
-------
Because current stream flows are attributable to increased dis-
charges of wastewater effluent, it is unlikely that the quality
of the aquatic habitat has improved over recent years. In fact,
water quality and benthic sampling results, as well as ^the
present inability of most dischargers to meet final NPDES limits,
suggest that the net impact on aquatic habitat has been negative.
Consequently, present aquatic habitat conditions within the West
Branch are neither long standing nor of high quality._ Return of
the West Branch to a somewhat more natural state, in terms of
quality, would be a significant step toward restoration of
species diversity.
Main Branch. Aquatic habitat in the Main Branch presently is
aTffected by the North Olmsted Wastewater Treatment Plant dis-
charge, occurring 0.9 mile downstream of the East/West Conflu-
ence, and the Brook Park and Middleburg Heights discharges to
Abram Creek, a tributary of the Main Branch. As suggested by
benthic and water quality analyses, the Main Branch also is
impacted to a degree by effluent discharges to the East and West
Branches.
The North Olmsted Plant currently is being upgraded to meet final
NPDES limits and would not be eliminated by the SWI West Leg.
Consequently, flow contribution from the plant will continue al-
though pollutant loadings will be reduced significantly. This
should result in a substantial improvement to the aquatic habitat
for the 0.6 mile reach from the plant discharge to the confluence
with Abram Creek.
Organic pollution to Abram Creek, resulting from discharge of the
Middleburg Heights and Brook Park WWTPs, is the most severe in
the area, and has resulted in very poor water quality in the
creek. During extreme low flow periods, stream flow in Abram
Creek consists entirely of wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Only one taxa of benthic organisms was collected near the mouth
of Abram Creek, indicating a very poor quality aquatic habitat.
V.F.l.d. Upgrade/Management of On-Site Systems
Upgrading and managing on-site systems will result in water qual-
ity improvements in streams and in local drainage ditches. A
slight reduction of streamflow will occur, by eliminating the
direct dischargers to streams. Improvements should be most no-
ticeable in Plum Creek and the West Branch of the Rocky River.
V.F.2. Population and Sizing
Population projections have been discussed previously in Chapter
II. At the onset of this EIS in 1976, neither the 208 region-
V-42
-------
wide population projections nor 1980 census figures were avail-
able. The population projections developed in recent facilities
planning work and used in this EIS have had the advantage of both
data sources. The result is that population growth is forecasted
to be more moderate than was originally predicted.
Water use is another factor in sizing a wastewater treatment
project. The Facilities Plan utilizes current domestic consump-
tion rates or 70 gallons per person per day and an EPA approved
technique to develop industrial flows. Water also enters sewers
from infiltration-inflow (I/I), a topic which has been extensive-
ly studied in facilities planning. As discussed in Section V-B,
about 15% I/I removal is cost-effective for any alternative in
the Southwest planning area. Reasonable allowance is planned for
future infiltration into new sewers planned in any alternative.
Peak flow values have been calculated, in addition to standard
design flows. Project phasing has been considered throughout
facilities planning, and will be covered at the end of this
chapter.
Average design flows for the upgraded major treatment plants
(20-year) in the Multi-Plant Alternative would be:
Berea 4.12 mgd
Brook Park 1.37 mgd
Middleburg Heights 4.24 mgd
Strongsville "A" 5.28 mgd
The regional Southwest Interceptor Alternative should be no more
than 1.14 inches in diameter (nine and one half feet) to carry
414.8 MGD. The upper end of the Main Leg would be 90 inches, the
lower end 114 inches. The West Leg would be 48 inches at the
upper end and 84 inches at the lower end. This sizing would
accommodate the year 2025 peak flow for the Main Leg and certain
option areas, assuming 15% I/I removal.
V.F.3. Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts arise when new growth is induced by sewering
previously unsewered areas. The added development may impact
both natural resources and community services . The only portion
of the 20-year proposed service area which is now unsewered is in
Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township. As discussed in Chapter IV, the
only part of this unsewerd area proposed for sewering is subarea
A, the urban portion of Olmsted Falls. Other subareas are either
subdivisions which have sewer service or are outlying areas,
which are proposed to remain on on-site treatment systems.
Population growth within Olmsted Falls is now projected to be
moderate especially when compared to those projections developed
V-43
-------
early in facilities planning. New development allowed with
sewering would be a predominantly infill pattern. The Facilities
Plan estimates that the 20-year population increase of 1,186
could be accommodated on 143 acres of infill development vs. 572
acres required for larger lot sizes presently needed.
Concentrated development patterns combined with the moderate
growth rates should not place excessive demands on municipal
services and water supply. Local traffic is anticipated to
increase about ten percent.
Moderate soil loss will occur with new construction, due to the
soil types and the limited number of acres anticipated to be
developed. Local water quality will improve with the elimination
of old and inadequate on-site and cluster systems. Dry weather
BOD and suspended solids loadings will be sharply reduced com-
pared to "No Action", from 1,273 to 126 pounds per day of BOD and
from 974 to 126 pounds per day of suspended solids. Wet weather
loadings will be slightly reduced, due to the continued influence
of urban and rural non-point runoff. Wet weather BOD would be
6,543 pounds per day, rather than 8,358 pounds per day with No
Action. Corresponding suspended solids values are expected to be
126,889 vs. 128,431 pounds per day.
V.F.4. Parkland Impacts
The Cleveland Metroparks' Rocky River Reservation lies along the
East and Main branches of the Rocky River in the heart of the
planning area. Either the Multi-plant Alternative or the South-
west Interceptor Alternative would have some direct construction
impacts on the park. With the Multi-plant Alternative, the Berea
wastewater treatment plant would have to be expanded to meet its
final effluent limits. The existing treatment plant site is
located within the Metropark and expansion may encroach on the
park property. Park users would be inconvenienced by construc-
tion-related traffic, although a detour route is available.
The West Leg Interceptor would traverse a narrow portion of the
Rocky River Reservation, by Rocky River Drive and Depot Street.
The interceptor would be tunneled on either side of the Rocky
River, with access shafts 5W and 6W adjacent to the stream. One
acre of parkland would be used for constructing 5W and about 3/4
acre of residential property, presently occupied by a duplex
home, would be needed for constructing 6W. The vegetation at 5W
is predominantly secondary regrowth of small diameter trees. The
area is not presently used for active recreational activities.
The park boundary by 6W is delineated by nearly vertical valley
walls, which isolate the parkland from the 5W area. An active
construction period of about three months is estimated for tun-
V-44
-------
neling and installing the concrete tunnel liners, with resulting
truck traffic impacts.
Either an aerial gravity crossing, below-ground gravity sewer or
below-ground siphon could be used to cross the Rocky River. The
aerial crossing is aesthetically unacceptable for use in a park
setting and the siphon has higher maintenance costs than a
gravity sewer. Detailed soil survey work was included in the
Facilities Plan to determine construction options for a gravity
sewer. Jacking and boring (driving a sewer through soft mater-
ial) is incompatible with the local sandstone layer. Tunneling
appears unworkable because of the shallow depth (about four feet)
and relatively unstable surface material which could lead to
tunnel collapse. An open cut method of constructing the sewer
trench is the most technically feasible alternative, although it
has the disadvantage of having the most temporary adverse impacts
on the stream. Any construction technique may encounter ground-
water and it is anticipated that the work area will have to be
pumped dry during construction. The technical feasibility of
tunneling the stream crossing will be further examined during the
project design phase, but it is likely that the open cut techni-
que must be used.
The open cut stream crossing would be accomplished during low
flow periods, one half at a time. A cofferdam would be installed
half way across the stream bed, the trench dug, sewer line
installed, and then a protective encasement of concrete added.
This would be repeated on the other half. Total duration of
instream construction would be about ten days. The short term
construction disturbance will affect the bottom dwelling stream
life, but these plants and animals will repopulate the area from
upstream when construction is concluded. Construction work will
generate some siltation downstream, again, of short duration.
The sewer will be tunneled in the sharply rising banks on either
side of the stream.
Sewer construction across the Rocky River Reservation will be a
temporary scenic and noise intrusion to park use. By the time
sewer construction begins, Metroparks will have a new scenic
overlook about 200 feet east of the site. Noise levels are
anticipated to be 70-80 decibels at the overlook during the 1-2
weeks of construction. Close coordination with park officials
will be essential in minimizing impacts to the Metropark and to
site revegetation. Preconstruction planning sessions should
consider the potential for retaining vegetative buffers at con-
struction locations which would visually impact the park.
The connector sewer to the Berea treatment plant would run south
through about 1,200 feet of the Rocky River Reservation to access
shaft 7 W, on the west side of the river. With the exception of
V-45
-------
its crossing under the ConRail tracks, the connector would
require open cut construction. Traffic noise and dust during the
construction period would inconvenience park users, although the
construction corridor is not in an active recreation area.
construction corridor j.^> n^*- j_n ~** ^_.—,~ — —.
Vegetation and trees will be removed in the 1,200 foot corridor;
replacement will be done in consultation with park authorities.
The park will aesthetically benefit from the overall water qual-
ity improvement of the project, as discussed previously-
V.F.5. Construction Impacts
V.F.S.a. Multi-Plant Alternative
Each of the four major treatment plants would have to be expanded
and upgraded to meet its final discharge limits. In the case of
Olmsted Falls, and especially Brook Park, this would encroach
further on residential areas. The implications of the Berea
expansion has been discussed under park impacts. The Middleburg
Heights plant lies adjacent to Abram Bog. Expanding that facility
would have the dual disadvantage of filling in a wetland and
being a relatively unstable site for new construction.
Treatment plant construction generates traffic, noise, dust and
soil erosion, which can be reduced by specified construction
techniques. Revegetation and water quality improvements after
completion of construction offset these disadvantages.
V.F.S.b. Southwest Interceptor
Sewer construction techniques vary with soil and geologic condi-
tions, depth of cut and environmental objectives. Most of the
Southwest Interceptor would be tunneled, which involves surface
disturbance only at the 25 access shaft sites. Following excava-
tion of the tunnel, a cast-in-place interceptor pipe would be
installed. The connector sewers, for linking in the Brook Park-
Middleburg Heights plants and the Berea treatment plant, would be
open cut. The upper end of the West Leg Interceptor would use
open cut construction. Boring and jacking (driving sewers
through soft materials) would be used to connect the Grayton Road
Pump Station and to cross under railroad tracks, power lines and
the Ohio Turnpike.
Detailed alignment, access shaft information and construction
duration has been provided in the Southwest Interceptor Environ-
mental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan v.l and the Final
Facilities Planning Report.Construction "durationvaries with
the type of material encountered. Tunneling speeds range from
10-70 feet per day, while 100 feet of sewer can be lined with
interceptor pipe per day. Access shaft sites occupy 1/2 - 1 acre
V-46
-------
and will generally include storage facilities, a work shop, field
offices and a steel lift for removal of excavated materials. The
work area is fenced off for public safety.
Truck traffic is generated to serve the access sites or open cut
construction zones and to remove excavated material. This gener-
ates noise and dust during construction. Moist soils and rock
from subsurface excavation will limit dust generation. Access
shaft 1-W would impact airport traffic, necessitating a 30-week
traffic recirculation plan.
Most access shafts and sewer corridors are located adjacent to
major roads or in industrial areas away from residential areas.
The distance of the access shafts range from 100 to 3,300 feet
away from existing houses. Nearly all of the nine shafts closest
to homes (less than 500 feet) are in the older suburbs, which
have little vacant land and no ideal location to isolate con-
struction activities. Some residential area construction will
occur in Berea between Lindbergh Boulevard and the Ohio Turnpike.
Construction duration would be about two days per residential
lot. Vegetation would be removed and then replaced after con-
struction. Construction periods will range from a few weeks to
about six months.
Construction noise (at a peak of 80-90 decibels) and dust can be
minimized by certain practices, described in Chapter VI. Any rock
blasting will be controlled to a maximum of four, one second
times per day. Intensity will be below the level which would
affect structures or plaster cracking. Notification procedures
are documented in Appendix E. Potentially sensitive structures
and machinery will be identified prior to blasting. Tunneling
generates slight vibration in rock, comparable to truck traffic.
Sensitive industries and land uses will be identified prior to
construction. Gravel will be applied at the access sites to re-
duce soil erosion. Chemical stabilization will be used in sandy
areas. The location for the disposal of 48,000 cubic yards of
soil and rock from tunneling has not been determined. Specifica-
tions for proper disposal will be included in the construction
contracts.
The impacts of the aerial crossing of the Cuyahoga River have
been discussed in Section V.C.l.c., the open cut crossing of the
Rocky River in Section V.F.4.
V.F.S.c. On-Site Treatment Facilities
Upgrading and replacement of on-site systems is indicated for
portions of Olmsted Township. This would be done after a detailed
evaluation of the existing system, in consultation with the pro-
perty owner. Construction impacts would be limited to each site
V-47
-------
-truck traffic, noise, dust, soil erosion and vegetation
disturbance. Revegetation and water quality improvements, plus
the loss of a back yard nuisance situation, help compensate for
the construction impacts.
V.F-6. Additional Environmental Impacts
V.F-6.a. Land Use
Most parts of the Southwest planning area are already sewered, so
making wastewater treatment improvements will not alter existing
land use patterns to a great degree. Past "building bans" have
affected the ownership more than the construction of sewer util-
ities in the area.
V.F.6.b. Groundwater
Some sewer construction areas may be subject to groundwater in-
filtration resulting in the need for dewatering during construc-
tion. Since groundwater is not widely used as a local water sup-
ply, impacts other than higher construction costs should be min-
imal. Sewers will be of water tight construction to minimize
potential infiltration to groundwater aquifers.
V.F.6.C. Wetlands and Floodplains
The Multi-plant Alternative has the potential for encroaching on
Abram Bog. The Southwest Interceptor alternative will not affect
wetlands.
Floodplains will not be affected by any project alternative.
V.F.6.d. Endangered Species
No sensitive or unique plant communities have been identified in
the sewer corridors areas.
As discussed in Section II.1.4., the Rocky River sewer crossing
area will be evaluated for potential habitat of the Indiana bat,
Myotis sodalis, prior to construction. Dead trees and living
trees with large cavities provide summer roosts for this species
and these habitats must be protected during construction.
V.F.6.6. Cultural Resources
No known archaeological or historic sites will be affected by the
alternatives. The portion of the Ohio Canal to be crossed by the
Southwest Interceptor is not included in the National Register of
Historic Places. Appendix E includes documentation of this "no
effect determination.
V-48
-------
V.F.6.f. Energy
Energy use has been considered in facilities planning, as summar-
ized in Table V-18.
V.F.6.g. Geology
Detailed geotechnical studies will be performed as part of the
design of the major interceptors, to ensure their compatability
with local conditions. Rock materials excavated during sewer
construction will be disposed of by the contractor under any
local requirements and permits. Contract specifications will
require disposal procedures.
TABLE V-18
ENERGY USE
Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Berea
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Strongsville "A"
Olmsted Falls/Olmsted Twp.
Versailles
Columbia Township
Cleveland Southerly
Olmsted Falls/Olmsted
Twp. Pump Station
Columbia Twp. Subdivision/
Versailles Pump Station
TOTALS
1982 Energy Costs d>
West Leg of South-
Multi-Plant West Interceptor
$ 176,080
80,520
259,490
295,870
42,089
5,567
5,688
$ 548,614
5,740
3,767
$ 865,304
$ 558,121
(1) Local WWTP and WL pump station power costs based on
$0.0404/kwh (USEPA 1982 updated power costs for Cleve-
land, Ohio) .
V.G. Considerations Beyond the 20-Year Planning Period
V.G.I. Introduction
Figure 1-3 shows the potential option areas for the Southwest
service area - the East Leg of the Rocky River, the present
V-49
-------
Medina "300" service area, part of Columbia Township and the
present North Olmsted service area. The incremental costs and
major environmental impacts of including these additional option
areas in the Southwest service area have been examined.
V.G.2. Costs
Table V-19 shows the incremental capital costs for including
capacity for the various option areas in the Southwest Intercep-
tor. The costs although high in dollars, are a small percentage
of the $106 million construction cost for the Main Leg and West
Leg Interceptors. USEPA may not fund the incremental costs of
this future capacity, since it is for service beyond the 20-year
planning period.
V.G.3. Construction Impacts
Several alternative routes for the potential East Leg were
identified in the Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact
Statement-Facilities Plan. The nature of potential short terra
construction impacts will be heavily dependent upon the route
ultimately selected and available construction technologies.
Given present cost preferences and construction technology, how-
ever, the interceptor would be tunneled along the East Branch
Valley from Berea to the North Royalton "A" Plant. Access shafts
generally would be located in or adjacent to Park Drive. No known
sensitive environmental areas would be disrupted by construction,
although recreational activities in the immediate vicinity of
shaft sites temporarily would be affected.
Extension of service to the Medina "300" Option Area would
involve further extension of the East Leg beneath the East Branch
Valley. Again, tunnel construction would be anticipated. North
Olmsted is tributary to the Main Leg and would require only con-
struction of an adequate connector sewer to the location of the
existing Grayton Road Pump Station. Any significant, and present-
ly unanticipated, development within Columbia Township would be
served by local connector sewers to the proposed Columbia Town-
ship Subdivision Connector or directly to the southern terminus
of the West Leg Interceptor at Sprague Road. Due to the profile
of the upsystem portion of the West Leg, future local connector
sewers likely would be open cut force mains. Consequently,
construction impacts would be localized and of short duration.
V.G.4. Stream Flow Impacts
Table V-20 demonstrates the impacts of the Option Areas on stream
flows at various locations within the Rocky River Basin during
Q7,10 low flow conditions. Impacts will be more severe at the
East Branch/mouth location with the peak daily flow on future
V-50
-------
TABLE V-19
INCREMENTAL COSTS SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR OPTION AREAS
Option Area
Main Leg Pipe
Diameter (In.)
West Leg Pipe
Diameter (In.)
Construc-
tion Cost
($)
Cost Dif-
erential
($)
No Option- Areas
(baseline)
90 - 114
48 - 84
106,627,000
Columbia Township
East Leg Area
East Leg &
Medina "300"
North O 1ms ted
All Option Areas
90 -
96 -
96 -
96 -
102 -
11
11
11
11
1 1
4
4
4
4
4
48 -
48 -
48 -
48 -
48 -
84
90
96
84
96
106,627,000
108,399,000 1,772,000
110,206,000 3,579,000
107,261,000
634,000
110,908,000 4,281,000
V-51
-------
TABLE V-20
OPTION AREA OVERVIEW STREAM FLOW IMPACTS
(cfs)
West Leg
West Leg East Leg
Stream Existing West Leg West Leg East Leg & Medina 300 &
Location Flow Only East Leg Medina 300 N. Olmsted
E. Branch/ 8.95 8.95 5.79 3.92 3.92
Berea WTP
E. Branch/ 8.95 5.35 2.19 0.32 0.32
Mouth
W. Branch/ 14.05 9.49 9.49 9.49 9.49
Mouth
E. W. Branch/ 23.0 14.84 11.68 9.81 9.81
Confluence
Main Branch/ 34.29 22.41 19.25 17.38 9.81
Abram Creek
Confluence
V-52
-------
capacity usage levels at the Berea Water Supply plant. It must
be emphasized however, that anticipated growth in the East Leg
Option Areas over the next 20 years suggest that both wastewater
discharges and stream flow will increase from the Cleveland water
supply. Hence, actual flow values may differ significantly from
those assumed today.
A potentially substantial environmental problem is that all East
Leg and Medina "300" discharges are located upstream of the Berea
water supply intakes. Of the total 5.1 cfs (dry weather) efflu-
ent which would be removed by the East Leg and the Medina 300
Option areas, approximately 3-9 cfs is tributary to Berea's pri-
mary intake on the East Branch and 1.2 cfs is tributary to the
secondary (back-up) intake on Baldwin Creek.
Berea's year 2020 peak water supply demand is not expected to
exceed approximately 5.5 cfs and will average 3.8 cfs. Existing
stream flow tributary to Berea's water intake, however, is esti-
mated to be approximately 8.9 cfs during extreme dry weather
conditions (Q7,10). Removal of 3.2 cfs of flow by extension of
service to the East Leg Option Area (excluding Medina 300) theo-
retically would not impact Berea's Water Supply under Q7,10 con-
ditions. Stream impacts though will be most pronounced below the
Berea water treatment plant in the 6.4 mile stream segment of the
East Branch. Consequently, a detailed re-evaluation of this issue
must be undertaken prior to actual approval of the Southwest
Interceptor East Leg, based on stream flow data, water supply
options, and wastewater disposal alternatives in existence at
that time. Under existing flow conditions, it would appear that
elimination of the Medina "300" WWTP would reduce Q7,10 flow
values below Berea's projected peak water demand of 5.5 cfs.
Further discussion of this issue and water supply options
currently available to Berea is presented in the Final Water
Quality Report of the Facilities Plan.
V.G.5. Population and Sizing - Secondary Impacts
Population projections to include the East Leg Option Area are
presented in the Population Update Report of the Facilities Plan.
Population in this Option Area is expected to increase from
25,979 to 41,015 in 2005, a growth of approximately 63%. Then,
growth is expected to slow substantially with an increase of only
6% for the twenty year period 2005 to 2025 . Consequently, because
construction of an East Leg Interceptor would not be a possibil-
ity until sometime after 2005, it would be in "response to"
rather than the "cause of" substantial population growth. For
purposes of the sizing sensitivity analyses on the West Leg and
Main Leg, future East Leg Option Area flows were based upon the
projected year 2025 population of 43,424. These flows were con-
sidered in the selected alternative because they offer negligible
V-53
-------
difference in the cost-effectiveness of the planning area alter-
native .
Population projections for Columbia Township, presented in the
Population Update Report, are 108% lower for the year 2000 and
234% lower for the year 2020 than those utilized in earlier
planning efforts. Sizing sensitivity analyses for the Columbia
Township Option Area, consequently, are based upon significantly
lower wastewater flow projections than those conducted in pre-
vious studies.
Population for the Medina "300" Option Area is projected to
increase from 15,640 in 1980 to 28,896 by 2005. The growth
rate is anticipated to slow after 2005, with a projected popula-
tion increase of only about 4200 people between 2005 and 2025.
Hence, absolute population levels upon which normal wastewater
flow projections are based do not suggest intensive, widespread
development.
V.G.6. Option Areas to be Retained
It is appropriate to retain the concept capacity in the Main Leg-
West Leg portion of the Southwest Interceptor for potential ser-
vice to the East Leg Option and portions of Columbia Township.
The incremental cost of this capacity is $1,772,000, which must
be paid for without Federal funds. Planning growth rates and
streamflow impacts appear reasonable at this time. Actually,
constructing the East Leg may or may not be advisable, depending
on detailed future cost and environmental studies.
Allowing capacity in the Main Leg - East Leg for the Medina "300"
Option and the North Olmsted Option is not recommended. Removing
the Medina "300" flow from the Rocky River could adversely affect
the Berea water supply. Removing the North Olmsted flow would
sharply reduce the flow in the Main Branch of the Rocky River,
impacting the uses of the stream.
V.H. Conclusions on Alternatives
A cost-effective alternative is one which has the lowest present
worth dollar costs and acceptable environmental costs. The South-
west Interceptor combined with on-site system improvements in
Olmsted Township is the cost-effective approach for the Southwest
Planning Area.
Present worth costs are $17.1 million, or about six percent less,
for the Southwest Interceptor Alternative than for the
Multi-Plant Alternative. No major environmental problems will
result from the project, while it will contribute to achieving
water quality standards. Although the potential exists for
V-54
-------
expanding the Southwest Interceptor after about 20 years, the
environmental and economic consequences of building a connecting
interceptor with the East Leg Option Area should be carefully
evaluated before proceeding with such a plan.
V-55
-------
CHAPTER VI
IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
-------
VI. IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
VI .A. Recommended Alternative
The service area of the Southwest Interceptor would include the
proposed West Leg Area and portions of the existing Big Creek
Interceptor which are tributary to the Main Leg of the Southwest
Interceptor. Table VI-1 identifies communities which, in whole or
part, would be served by the Southwest Interceptor Main Leg and
West Leg. Figure Vl-la and Vl-lb presents the Southwest Inter-
ceptor Alternative.
The Southwest Interceptor West Leg will eliminate four major
wastewater treatment plants along with numerous smaller plants.
All of these plants currently discharge to the Rocky River. Major
treatment facilities to be eliminated are the Brook Park, Middle-
burg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A" plants. Small dis-
chargers to be eliminated are located within unsewered and par-
tially sewered portions of Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and
northeastern Columbia Township. Olmsted Falls and part of adja-
cent Olmsted Township will have sewers built to link it to the
Southwest Interceptor. Portions of Olmsted Township remaining on
on-site systems will undergo individual improvements combined
with a management program.
The Southwest Interceptor will convey flows across the Cuyahoga
River Valley on a truss-supported aerial structure to the Cleve-
land Southerly Treatment Plant, an advanced treatment ("terti-
ary") facility- Ample capacity will be available at Southerly
for these new flows.
The maximum size of the Southwest Interceptor will be 114 inches
in diameter. This interceptor is capable of conveying wastewater
flows of up to 414.8 MGD. The size of the Southwest Interceptor
Main Leg is determined by the need to convey large amounts of
infiltration/inflow (I/I) from the older city and suburban areas
during wet weather periods. This situation creates a massive
demand for flow capacity. At the same time, travel times are
longer for flows originating from the West Leg area. This helps
to spread out the peak flows from the entire Southwest Intercep-
tor system and makes the West Leg or any potential option areas
less significant in sewer sizing.
In future years, but not as part of the proposed project, the
Southwest Interceptor may be extended with an East Leg along the
East Branch of the Rocky River. Because of sewer slope and flow
characteristics, this would not affect the sizing of the present
project. Implementation of the East Leg would require extremely
careful environmental analyses, especially in the areas of
streamflow and water supply. East Leg communities are presently
VI-1
-------
TABLE VI-1
COMMUNITIES SERVICED BY SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR
Main Leg
Service Area
Broadview Hts
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Hts.
Brook Park
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Hts.
N. Royalton
Parma
Parma Hts.
Riveredge Twp.
Seven Hills
Subtotal
Existing and
1980
2,
1,
17,
9
2,
92,
23,
12,
359
931
041
031
467
150
598
548
112
477
926
Projected Service
1985
2,
1,
17,
9,
3,
102,
25,
14,
381
931
014
283
239
150
525
500
300
500
204
2005
2,
1,
18,
8,
5,
107,
26,
16,
563
981
014
517
436
150
410
400
000
500
381
Population
2025
2,
1,
19,
8,
5,
108,
26,
17,
635
931
014
751
186
150
530
900
000
500
233
162,613
177,027
187,302
190,830
West Leg
Service Area
Berea
Brook Park
Columbia Twp.
Middleburg Hts
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Twp.
Strongsville
Subtotal
Total
Existing and Projected Service Population
1980
19,
9,
16,
5,
5,
16,
72,
235,
567
164
908
218
868
016
252
993
606
1985
21,
9,
1,
17,
6,
5,
19,
79,
256,
100
309
005
000
500
790
259
963
990
2005
21,
9,
1,
20,
7,
9,
30,
100,
287,
000
982
243
800
800
044
653
522
824
2025
21,
10,
1,
23,
8,
9,
34,
109,
300,
000
647
243
700
700
724
696
983
813
VI-2
-------
i
'AS. Access Shaft
MH Manholes
• Sewer Routes
Pump Station
WWTP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Sourc*: Southwest Interceptor Area Final .Facilities Planning Report
-------
SELECTED PLAN
<
M
•5
AS
-• Sewer Route
Access Shaft
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ftourc*: SouthwMt lnt*rc*ptor Ar*a Final Facilities Planning Report
-------
making their own plans for wastewater treatment improvements for
the next 20 years.*
VI.B. Costs and Percentages of Median Household Income
The total present worth cost of the Southwest Interceptor Alter-
native is $295,656,100, which is approximately 6% less than the
Multi-Plant Alternative. With 75% EPA funding of eligible costs,
the annual user costs (based on monthly household water consump-
tion of 1,000 cubic feet) vary with the local sewer needs in each
community and the year the Southwest Interceptor reaches the com-
munity:
TABLE VI-2
PROJECTED ANNUAL CHARGES SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
% Median Household
Community Year Charge Income (Projected)
Brooklyn Heights 1990 $295.68 0.73%
Seven Hills 1990 $392.52 0.79%
Parma 1990 $430.08* 1.61%
Parma Heights 1990 $426.84 * 1.20%
Brooklyn 1990 $295.68 0.85%
North Royalton 1990 $392.52 0.94%
Brook Park 1992 $450.84 0.98%
Middleburg Heights 1992 $360.48 * 0.78%
Berea 1992 $427.20 * 1.05%
Strongsville 1992 $323.04 * 0.60%
Olmsted Falls 1992 $863.04 1.83%
* These costs will increase $5.50-$36.00/year, based on SSES (Chapter 5)
Based on EPA criteria, the project is considered inexpensive to
all communities except Olmsted Falls, where suggestions have been
made for lowering costs, if possible. A variety of alternatives
have been examined for Olmsted Falls, which presently is served
by unsatisfactory on-site treatment systems. The sewering alter-
native presented in this analysis proved to be the least cost for
a satisfactory environmental solution, but additional local plan-
ning analyses of small diameter sewers may reduce project costs
further.
Federal funds will not be applied to any portions of the project
sized beyond the 20-year planning period. For grants awarded
after October 1, 1984 only capacity for the existing population
will be grant eligible.
VI.C. Environmental Consequences
* This EIS pertains only to the Main Leg and West Leg projects. Any
further extensions of the Southwest Interceptor, such as the East Leg or
option areas will be subject to an independent NEPA analysis.
VI-5
-------
VI. C.I. Interbasin Transfer of Effluent and Water Quality
The West Leg Southwest Interceptor will convey wastewater from
the Rocky River Basin to the Cuyahoga Basin. The Main Leg ser-
vice area ' s flow is currently discharged to the Cuyahoga River
after treatment at Cleveland Southerly WWTP .
Current dry weather treatment plant discharges in the West Leg
Service Area are:
Berea 3.60 cfs
Brook Park 0.93 cfs
Middleburg Heights 2.79 cfs
Strongsville "A" 3.08 cfs
Small Plants 1.48 cfs
The only facility whose flow originates from water withdrawn from
the Rocky River is the Berea WWTP. All other communities are
served by Lake Erie water.
Streamflow in the East Branch of the Rocky River will be reduced
below the Berea WWTP's outfall for 4.4 miles to the Main Branch
confluence, comparable to the existing streamflow between the
water supply intakes and the WWTP. Under extreme low flow con-
ditions, the Q7,10, flow in the East Branch will be reduced from
9.46 cfs to 5.69 cfs at the water treatment plant in 1990. The
Berea water supply will not be affected by the immediate project
but the amount of water used for the municipal supply will af-
fect downstream flows. Careful study will need to be done prior
to extending the Southwest Interceptor to serve the East Leg.
Future water use projected by the City of Berea suggests poten-
tially severe low flow impacts if upstream flows are eliminated
due to an East Leg Interceptor.
Streamflow in the West Branch of the Rocky River under the pro-
posed alternative will be reduced from 17.46 cfs to 11.67 cfs
under Q7,10 low flow conditions in 1990. The effect would occur
in the 5.4 mile stream reach from the Strongsville "A" plant to
the Main Branch confluence.
The Main Branch of the Rocky River below Abram Creek will experi-
ence a stream flow decrease from 50.49 cfs to 34.33 cfs under
NoriS 0°lm^ ,°nT ^ '"^ ^ W°Uld be ^desirable to include the
cause of f?o Treatment Plant in the Southwest Interceptor be-
m R°C*Y River and Because of ongoing
increases th upstream flow ** lncreased Develop-
VI-6
-------
Abram Creek will be virtually dry during low flow conditions,
with the loss of effluent discharges. Other creeks will be less
affected. Water depth in all streams will not be sharply changed.
Water quality will improve with the removal of wastewater efflu-
ent from treatment plants and inadequate on-site treatment sys-
tems. Aquatic life and recreational uses of the stream will be
enhanced. Treatment capacity and levels are adequate at the
Southerly Plant to protect the Cuyahoga River.
VI.C.2. Population and Sizing
Population projections developed in facilities planning are rea-
sonable, being slightly less than the earlier 208 region-wide
population projections. The projections reflect the 1980 census
and the slowing of suburban growth. Population projections have
been approved by NOACA.
Interceptor sizing has been based on the cost-effective removal
of about 15% infiltration/inflow. Water use, peaking factors,
and preliminary sewer sizing have been refined in the facilities
planning analyses. The size of the interceptor should be no more
than 114 inches in diameter to reflect the infiltration/inflow
removal and time of travel patterns.
VI.C.3. Secondary Impacts
Induced growth from the Southwest Interceptor will be minimal. A
very small area is proposed for new sewering, focusing on Olmsted
Falls, an existing village.
VI.C.4. Parkland Impacts
The Southwest Interceptor will cross a small portion of the
Metropark's Rocky River Reservation, and the Berea Connector
sewer must be open cut through parkland within an existing east-
ment. The Metropark crossing, at Rocky River Drive and Depot
Street, includes a stream crossing of the East Branch of the
Rocky River. For geologic reasons the sewer crossing cannot be
tunneled but must be open cut. Constructing the stream crossing
would take about ten days under low flow conditions. Construction
noise, dust, traffic and visual intrusion will affect park use
for a short time.
VI.C.5. Construction Impacts
Most of the Southwest Interceptor will be tunneled, a technique
which minimizes surface impacts. Twenty five 1/2 - 1 acre access
shafts will be the construction sites for the tunneled portion.
The upper end of the West Leg will be open cut, as will the Berea
VI-7
-------
and Brook Park - Middleburg Heights connector sewer segments.
Boring and jacking (driving sewers through soft materials) will
be used to connect the Grayton Road Pump Station and to cross
under railroad tracks, major power lines and the Ohio Turnpike.
Construction activities will generate noise (80-90 decibels
peak), dust, truck traffic, some vibration, vegetation loss and
some erosion. Any blasting will be controlled to specified lim-
its. Most access shafts and sewer corridors are away from resi-
dential areas, with the exception of an area between Lindbergh
Boulevard and the Ohio Turnpike in Berea and eight shafts in the
highly developed Main Leg corridor. One duplex home will have to
be relocated to allow for construction of an access shaft. Con-
struction intervals will range from a few weeks to several months
at a given location. The disposal of soil and rock from tunnel-
ing will be specified in construction contracts. Upgrading on-
site treatment systems causes temporary disruption in yards, but
will eliminate nuisance conditions.
VI.C.6. Cuyahoga River Impacts
The Southerly Plant will have adequate capacity and advanced
treatment levels to accept the additional flow from the Southwest
Interceptor- Impacts to the Cuyahoga River will be slight be-
cause of the large size of the river and the high degree of
treatment required. Improving treatment will also contribute to
improved conditions downstream in Lake Erie.
The aerial crossing of the Cuyahoga River will occur in an indus-
trial area, adjacent to an existing sewer crossing and railroad
bridge.
VI.C.7. Other Environmental Impacts
Making wastewater treatment improvements should not alter local
land use patterns. Dewatering may affect project costs, but
potential infiltration to the aquifer must be understood in con-
junction with geologic testings during both sewer design and con-
struction .
Vector control as it could relate to land application of sludge
is not a concern because land application of sludge is not plan-
ned as part of this project. Southerly WWTP will incinerate any
sludge that it produces. The resultant ash will be stored at the
WWTP to be periodically collected by a private contractor for
distribution to State approved landfill sites.
Wetlands, floodplains, endangered species and historic and arch-
aeological sites will not be affected by the Southwest Intercep-
tor. Energy use is less than the Multi-Plant Alternative.
Vl-i
-------
VI.C.8. Mitigative Measures
Vl.C.S.a. Erosion/Sediment/Dust Control Practices
The construction areas subject to continual erosion after con-
struction will be maintained by reseeding, replanting, or struc-
tural methods until a stable condition is maintained.
Waste material will be disposed of by the contractor after prior
approval of the responsible authority (State or Federal) and sub-
mission of site and approval documentation to NEORSD.
Dust will be limited in unpaved construction areas by wetting,
graveling, spraying and/or chemical application techniques.
Open burning of trees, stumps and brush will not be permitted.
Vl.C.S.b. Hydraulic/Soil/Vegetation Conservation Practices
Construction bid specifications will require saving, replacement
or replanting of all ornamental trees and shrubs on developed
land during construction to the extent practical. All trees two
inches in diameter and larger will be marked for approval by
NEORSD before removal from developed properties, parklands, and
other designated areas.
Existing top soil will be stockpiled and replaced upon final
grading.
Final grading will be consistent with pre-construction topography
for drainage and aesthetics.
Final grading, reseeding and mulching will occur as soon as prac-
tical, but allowing sufficient time for settling as necessary.
Construction storage yards and areas compacted during construc-
tion will be plowed, returned to original grade and seeded.
Water courses will be maintained and returned to the original
condition as soon as practical. Extreme care will be required to
protect the streams from adverse construction impacts.
Revegetation within the Rocky River Reservation will be planned
in consultation with Metroparks. Preconstruction planning ses-
sions will consider the feasibility of retaining vegetative
screening at construction sites.
VI-9
-------
If necessary, residents in housing acquired for the completion of
this project will be relocated in accordance with Federal and
local requirements.
VI.C.8.c.
Public Convenience/Aesthetic/Safety Control Practices
Traffic will be maintained on all roadways and to all property
adjacent to the construction.
Traffic routes used by construction vehicles will be limited and
controlled to minimize inconvenience, disruption and hazardous
conditions to residents and businesses.
Parking of the contractor's and other project personnel's person-
al vehicles will be controlled.
All above ground structures such as pavement, fencing, culverts
and mail boxes will be replaced when appropriate.
The existing sanitary and storm sewers will be maintained with
temporary connections to insure uninterrupted service.
The contractor will notify utilities and airport authorities of
the work schedules to protect existing utilities and minimize
disruptions.
Fire and comparable emergency services will be notified of route
changes so that no unnecessary delays are encountered.
When rock blasting is required, NEORSD will give prior notifica-
tion to community residents. (See Appendix E.)
Vl.C.S.d. Transportation Safety Practices
The contractor must comply with all legal load restrictions in
hauling of material to protect public roads.
Traffic will be diverted around construction areas with barri-
cades, signs and, where feasible, alternate route designations.
Safety requirements will include watchmen, barricades, fences,
lights and/or danger signals to protect persons and property.
Hazardous construction materials and idle equipment will be
appropriately stored to protect persons and property. Excavation
areas will foe clearly marked with lights, reflectors, oil lan-
terns, or smudge pots.
Unpaved berms will he wet down to minimize dust and poor visibil-
ity due to dust.
VI-10
-------
Site access roads will be marked and properly maintained.
Pavement replacement will be comparable to existing pavement
structure.
Boring and jacking construction methods will be used to cross un-
der the Ohio Turnpike and railroad tracks, to avoid interruptions
in service.
The sewer will be tunneled under the existing subway tunnel near
the airport, to avoid disruption of rapid transit service.
VI.C.8.6. Archaeological/Historic Preservation
Proposed construction sites/corridors will be submitted to the
Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) for review.
OHPO will be notified immediately should artifacts be uncovered
during construction.
Vl.C.S.f. Noise Control Practices
Open cut construction will be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. to minimize noise and the noise level will be regulated as
specified by OSHA and local ordinances.
Construction equipment will be provided with intake silencers and
mufflers as required by safety standards.
Stationary noise generating sources will be enclosed and/or
equipped with noise silencing devices.
Vl.C.S.g. Odor Control Practices
Sewer tunnel ventilation shafts will be designed to minimize odor
problems.
Regular inspection and maintenance of access shafts and tunnels
will minimize the potential for odors during operation.
Construction machinery and materials will be properly outfitted
or stored to minimize odors.
Vl.C.S.h. Access and Work Shafts
The requirements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Act will be
followed in relocating one duplex house at Shaft 6-W.
Terracing, contouring and permanent erosion control structures
will be incorporated, as necessary, in site design.
VI-11
-------
Drainage diversion channels will be constructed around shaft
areas where required.
Construction areas at access and work shafts will be maintained
on grass as much as possible with a minimum storage of erodible
materials .
Above ground construction activities within residential areas
will be limited to daytime hours to minimize noise and other con-
struction related disturbances.
Site maintenance practices will include reseeding, fertilizing
and watering to achieve and maintain a firm root pattern.
Vl.C.S.i. Open Cut Sewers
Final sewer alignments will be selected to minimize destruction
of trees and shrubs.
Excavated materials will be stockpiled according to best con-
struction practices to minimize erosion of spoil materials from
the trench.
Trenches will he filled and regraded according to best construc-
tion practices. Once all settling has occurred, construction
areas will be reseeded, mulched, and watered as necessary to re-
establish vegetation.
Reseeding, fertilizing and watering will be included routine site
maintenance when applicable.
Boring and jacking construction methods will be used according to
best construction practices near existing electric power trans-
mission towers to minimize the risk of disturbing tower founda-
tions .
Open cut sewers have been offset from transmission towers to
avoid foundation disturbance.
VI.C.S.j. Rocky River Crossing
Open cut construction will be used to avoid potentially hazardous
tunnel construction.
Construction will be completed for only one-half the crossing at
a time to maintain continuous stream flow.
Wil1 be accomplished at low flow to minimize risk
cofferdam erosion.
VI-12
-------
The river bed will be returned as nearly as possible to existing
conditions to maintain river gradient and habitat.
Vl.C.S.k. Tunnel Construction
An extensive soil boring program has been undertaken to select
preliminary alignment and develop cost estimates.
Alignment changes on the Main Leg have been made to avoid poten-
tial disturbance of commercial structures and trading.
Industrial and commercial establishments bordering the corridor
will be surveyed to determine presence and location of precision
equipment potentially sensitive to minor vibrations.
Contract specifications will require proper disposal of waste
rock and soil material.
VI.C.8.1. Cuyahoga River Crossing
The bridge crossing will parallel an existing railroad bridge to
avoid creating new crossing corridors.
VI.D. Implementation
VI.D.I. Entities
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) will be re-
sponsible for implementing the Main Leg and West Leg of the
Southwest Interceptor and will continue to own and operate the
Southerly Treatment Plant. The Southwest Interceptor is within
the funding range of the 1984 Ohio EPA priority list, as number
three.
Implementation of the Main Leg will not require any intergovern-
mental arrangements because all of the political entities to be
served are currently members of the Regional Sewer District.
Implementation of the West Leg will require intergovernmental
arrangements with all of the political entities to be served
(Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Olmsted Falls, and Cuya-
hoga County on behalf of Olmsted Township) with the exception of
Strongsville. Intergovernmental arrangements will not be neces-
sary with Strongsville because NEORSD has taken over operation
and maintenance of the treatment plant service in Sewer District
"A". That portion of the City is, therefore, currently a member
of the Regional Sewer District. The intergovernmental arrange-
ments required for the West Leg Area consist of the affected
entities becoming members of the Regional Sewer District and
agreeing to decommission their respective treatment plants, prior
to implementing the Southwest Interceptor alternative.
VI-13
-------
Communities within the Southwest Interceptor service area will
continue to own and maintain their municipal sewer systems. Sewer
rehabilitation wort will remove 15% infiltration/inflow which is
cost effective. Relief sewers will be constructed at the local
initiative, as an integral part of this project, as discussed be-
low. Because of amendments to the Clean Water Act it is unlikely
that Federal funding will be available for new collector sewers
in Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township.
To implement on-site system improvements in Olmsted Township, ^ it
will be necessary to establish a management authority if on-site
upgrading of septic systems and 85% Federal funding is sought.
Cuyahoga County or the Township could invoke such an authority.
Detailed site-by-site planning will be necessary to implement
this portion of the alternative.
VI.D.2. Related Facilities
A system of relief sewers is part of the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative. The relief sewers would serve to alleviate "bottle-
necks" and overflows in the existing system. Four of the relief
sewers serve more than one community; the Broadview Road, State
Road, Pearl Road-Ridge Road and Smith Road sewers. Plans for
some sort of joint implementation must be made for these four.
Relief sewers for pollution abatement would also need to be con-
structed within Parma, Parma Heights, Brook Park and Berea.
These relief sewers are an essential aspect of the water pollu-
tion control objectives of this project. Additional relief
sewers would serve to remove I/I.
VI.D.3. Implementation Steps
When the EIS process is concluded with the Record of Decision and
the final Facilities Plan is approved by Ohio EPA and USEPA, the
planning phase of the project will be complete, except for local
sewer planning initiatives in Olmsted Falls.
Ongoing advanced Facilities Planning is providing critical geo-
technical information for the project. This will contribute to
the development of precise routing and the detailed plans and
specifications for the sewers by NEORSD which will take about two
years. The corresponding phase for management of unsewered areas
involves invoking the municipal management authority and conduct-
ing a lot-by-lot survey of needed improvements.
Construction of the Southwest Interceptor will be divided into
segments to facilitate construction contracts and financing.
asements will be acquired prior to construction. Main Leg con-
VI-14
-------
struction is estimated to conclude in 1988; the West Leg in 1991.
VI.D.4. Funding
Federal funding for Construction Grants projects has been at 75%
of eligible costs in recent years. The latest amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, however, will reduce the
funding level to 55% as of October 1, 1984. Because of its asso-
ciation with past Federal grants for the Cleveland Southerly
Treatment Plant, the Southwest Interceptor is likely to be elig-
ible for 75% funding beyond October 1, 1984. However, the State
of Ohio has the option of reducing this percentage in order to
allocate funds to other water pollution control projects within
the State. There is no funding from State sources in Ohio.
NEORSD will receive 75% Federal funding only if a segment of the
project gets a Step 3 grant award prior to October 1, 1984. If
the grant award is made after that date, Federal funding will
apply only for existing capacity at the 55% level. Reserve capa-
city would have to be funded by NEORSD.
On-site system improvements are eligible for 85% Federal funding
(75% as of October 1, 1984) if public access and management are
established. Local collector sewers are unlikely to be eligable
for Federal funding.
VI-15
-------
CHAPTER VII
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
-------
VII. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
VII.A. Introduction to Draft EIS Comments
Comments were received on the Draft EIS by correspondence and at
the January 12, 1984, public hearing sessions. Section VII.A.I.
presents the comment letters, followed by an outline and discus-
sion of their major points. Section VII.B. summarizes and dis-
cusses points raised at the public hearing. Complete copies of
the public hearing transcript may be consulted at the following
locations:
U.S. EPA, Region V
Environmental Impact Section 5WFI
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)
1127 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Ohio EPA
Division of Construction Grants
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Middleburg Heights Library
15600 East Bagley Road
Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130
VII.A.I. Comment Letters
Beginning on the next page, each piece of correspondence received
by U.S. EPA is presented. U.S. EPA responses to these letters
follow in section VII.A.2.
VII-1
-------
SLABE & MACKAY
Engineering & Surveying Consultants
243-6366
7616 PEARL ROAD
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44130
December 21, 1983
<
H
M
I
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago Illinois 60604
Attention: Harlan D. Hirt
Chief Environmental Impact Section SWFI
Re: EIS
Cleveland South
West Interceptor
Dear Sir:
The itemized cost effective analysis present worth costs prepared
for the south west interceptor use incremental treatment costs for
sewage treated at the Cleveland Southerly Treatment Plant.
That procedure skews the analysis in favor of the South West
Interceptor alternative.
Rules and regulations (35.917-1(1) provides that the monthly
charge to typical residential customer is to be used in the comparison
of alternatives.
The treatment charge used in the submitted proposal is $1.91/MCF.
The charge to customers Is closer to $11.00/MCF.
The statements submitted In the EIS do not properly represent the
true conditions.
I believe that the EIS should be reevaluated on the basis of true
user charges.
Please send me a copy of the final EIS.
Sincerely,
,M
Richard Mackay
RM/gl
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
M FAST BROAD STREET • 39TH FLOOR • COLUMBUS OHIO 43215
84-01-09
08 P
Marian 0. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Protection Section, SWFI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
RE: Review of Environmental Impact Statement/Assessment
Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cleveland
Southwest Suburban Facilities Planning Area, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
SAI Number: 36-552-0012
Dear Mr. H1rt:
The State Clearinghouse coordinated the review of the above referenced
environmental Impact statement/assessment.
This environmental report was reviewed by all Interested State agencies.
The comments received 1n our office have Indicated there are no concerns
relating to this proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement/assessment.
Sincerely,
Leonard E. Roberts
Deputy Director
Office of Budget & Management
LER:alf
cc: OONR, Hike Colvln
OEPA, Barb Wooldrldge
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
M
M
I
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta GA 30333
January 9, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
SWFI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hire:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Cleveland
Southwest Planning Area, Ohio. We are responding on behalf of the U.S. Public
Health Service and are offering the following comments for your consideration
in preparing the Final EIS.
No mention was made of the environmental impact of this project on mosquito or
other vector populations. The lower stream flow and reduced water depth In
the Rocky River as a result of this project may create additional mosquito
breeding. The disposal and handling of sludge generated at the central
wastewater treatment facilities may also create conditions that would impact
vector control in the area. The Final EIS should discuss the effects of this
project on mosquito populations and provide information concerning local
response capabilities If vectorborne diseases or nuisance problems should
occur.
Have provisions been made to notify community residents during rock blasting
activities? These provisions should be discussed In this Final EIS.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. Please send us one
copy of the final document when It becomes available. Should you have any
questions about our comments, please contact Mrs. Gallya Walter of our staff
at FTS 236-4161.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Llsella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health
MAYOR
THOMAS J. COYNE, JR.
CITY OF BROOK PARK
6161 ENGLE ROAD
BROOK PARK, OHIO 44142
433-1300
January 10, 198*
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
SWFI, USEPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The City of Brook Park, Ohio has reviewed the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District's proposed Southwest
Interceptor project.
The City of Brook Park has over the past few years expended considerable
funds in constructing and maintaining a pumping station on Smith Road just south
of our north corporation line, to minimize flooding primarily caused by the lack of
the necessary capacity in the Big Creek Interceptor. We are also beginning a $5
million sanitary sewer program to improve the ability of the Smith Road Sewer to
handle wet weather flows. Construction of the main leg of the Southwest
Interceptor is considered vital to elimination of basement flooding in the City of
Brook Park and we urge the EPA to authorize proceeding with the project at the
earliest practicable time.
omay3. Coyn/e,:
Mayor
TJC:in
cc: Mr. Erwin 3. Odeal
-------
GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNE AFFAJRS DIVISION
IHE GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSOCIATION
January 11, 1984
Region V, USEPA
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Gentlemen:
This letter comprises comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for
the Southwest Interceptor Project of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, and should be added to comments from the public hearing held on
January 12, 1984, in Middleburg Heights, Ohio. Please include them in the
minutes of the hearing.
These comments are offered on behalf of Greater Cleveland Community Capital
Investment Strategy program. This program is a cooperative venture with
the objectives of planning and implementing a workable financing strategy
for rehabilitating or replacing the highways, bridges, transit, water, and
sewer systems in the Cleveland area in the 1980s.
Since the beginning of the program in late 1981, I have been privileged to
chair the Policy Committee, the directing and decision-making body. It
includes a U.S. Congressman, a Senator and a Representative from the Ohio
General Assembly; the Mayor, Cabinet members for finance and public
utilities, the President and the majority leader of Council of the City of
Cleveland; two of three Cuyahoga County Commissioners; the County Sanitary
Engineer; the County Engineer; the Assistant Director of Ohio's Department
of Transportation for District 12; the President and two members of the
Mayors and City Managers Association for 56 suburban cities and villages;
the Executive Director of the Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency; the
Board Chairmen and chief executives of the Regional Sewer District and
the Regional Transit Authority; and attorneys, and corporate and banking
executives. Additional pro bono legal and financial help is volunteered.
The program is funded by the five key public entities involved, the
Cleveland Foundation, and the George Gund Foundation.
The results of the planning effort were (1) identification of a list of
about $1.6 billion most critical needs over the next half-dozen years,
with inflation, and (2) a financing strategy for funding the part of the
$1.6 billion that foreseeable local, state, and federal funds will not
cover, - about half of it. The list of most critical needs resulted from
months of detailed study of an initial list of hundreds of projects by
staffs of the CCIS program's contractor, the Urban Institute, and the
local governments.
690 HUNTINGTON BUILDING • CLEVELAND. OHIO 44115 • (216) 621 -3300 • TLX 980356
Region V. USEPA
-2
January II, 1984
A common set of guidelines, or criteria, - health and safety, essen-
tiality to system, cost effectiveness and maintenance, legal mandates,
project readiness and sequencing, relation to economical development area-
wide - were adapted to each infrastructure area and applied to each project
therein for this reassessment. Findings and recommendations were shaped
for Policy Committee by Task Forces of that committee.
Initial investment requirements for area sewer systems totaled $547
million for a five-year period from 1982. In reassessment, these require-
ments were scaled back to a present $280 million, mostly by postponement
beyond the five-year program of CCIS; $251 million is NEORSD program.
These projects and figures were included in the plan adopted without dissent
at the January, 1983 meeting of the Policy Committee. That plan is the
result of 18 months of careful study by responsible community leadership;
we are just a year into its implementation.
Overriding considerations in recommendations for sewer system investments
were pollution abatement and economic utilization of facilities. The
latter was exceptionally important because NEORSD's treatment facilities
are essentially complete and currently under utilized. Consequently,
interceptor projects, including the Southwest Interceptor, placed high on
the CCIS priority list; they will eliminate existing overloaded treatment
plants and thereby improve area water quality. Cost effectiveness of
interceptors was also appealing, because need for duplicative investment
could be eliminated, especially in the area to be served by the West Leg.
The Environmental Impact Statement (Nov. 1983 draft) makes these same
points independently. We are in agreement.
The important point to be suimarized for this hearing is that, in terms
of total infrastructure needs for Greater Cleveland, the NEORSD's South-
west Interceptor ranks as a critical investment need within all criterions
used. It is a solid element in the total community plan; it has been
established as the most cost effective approach for the community;
planning has been thorough; its construction should proceed.
-
CarltoM B. Schnell
Chairman, Policy Committee
Community Capital
Investment Strategy (and)
Partner, Arter and Madden
CBS/
-------
GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSOCIATION
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR GREATER CLEVELAND
January 12, 1984
M
I
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
5WFI, USEPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Greater Cleveland Growth Association is pleased to comment on the South-
west Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement. We are taking an active
interest in our area's deteriorating infrastructure. Through the adminis-
tration of the Community Capital Investment Strategy, we have developed and
are overseeing implementation of a workable financing plan to meet the needs
of the public capital plant. Our efforts have made us aware of the regional
sewer district's responsibilities for wastewater transport and treatment.
The Greater Cleveland area recognizes its dependence on clean water. Our
location on the Great Lakes is one of our greatest assets and we recognize
our responsibility to protect our natural resource. Accordingly, we are
proud of the accomplishments made in the area of pollution abatement. In
the past ten years, we have expanded and improved our three regional waste-
water treatment plants: Westerly, Easterly and Southerly. We are proud of
the efficiency embodied in these facilities. We recognize these improve-
ments as an investment in basic services which will continue to support
community development and result in a high quality environment for all.
Although the majority of our wastewater treatment plant improvement program
is completed, a considerable amount of work remains on our sewer systems
which transport sewage to these expanded plants. The Southwest Interceptor
is one of the prime examples.
While planning improvements to the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant,
this community perceived the environmental and economic benefits of a
regional plan. During design, the Southerly plant was sized to handle
future sewage from the Southwest Cleveland suburbs. The sewer which would
transport wastewater from this area is known as the Southwest Interceptor
sewer. It was planned in conjunction with the Southerly Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant since 1968. The Southwest Interceptor is one of several key
projects listed among the most critically needed capital investments in
the area by our Community Capital Investment Strategy program.
690 UNION COMMERCE BUILDING • CLEVELAND. OHIO 44115 • (216) 621-3300
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
-2-
January 12, 1984
The Environmental Impact Statement for the Southwest Interceptor project is
the final step in the planning phase. A decade of planning has shown the
Southwest Interceptor, with its West Leg, is the cost-effective and environ-
mentally sound solution to provide wastewater treatment service to this area.
While the estimated cost of construction for the project is substantial,
approximately $132,000,000, it is the most cost-effective and most feasible
solution to the current problem of sewage overflows into streets and base-
ments and the persisting problem of limited capacity in the many small plants
in the area. Benefits will be substantial. This project by providing
adequate transportation of sewage from the area, will significantly cleanup
the Big Creek, which runs through the Cleveland Metropark Zoo and portions of
Cleveland, and will restore a fitting high water quality level to the Rocky
River as it runs through our prized Rocky River Reservation Metropark. This
facility receives over 7,000,000 visits each year.
In summary, the Southwest Interceptor project represents another step in
protecting the natural resources which have helped to make this community
great. We are proud of the positive economic and environmental impact of an
interceptor sewer from the Southwest suburbs to the Southerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant. We are pleased to see the planning process coming to an end
and we eagerly anticipate beginning construction of this project during 1985.
Very truly yours,
William H. Bryant
President
Greater Cleveland Groi
WHB/
h Association
-------
H
M
I
Untied Slates
Department ol
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
200 North High Street
Room 522
Columbus, Ohio 43215
January 13, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief
Environmental Impact Section, 5WFI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area, was sent to the USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Columbus,
Ohio, for review and comment.
The soil names listed on Figure II-3 are outdated and need to be revised.
Modern soil surveys for Cuyahoga, Lorain and Medina Counties are available
from the local soil and water conservation district. Their addresses are
attached for your information. Also listed are the names and telephone
numbers of the district conservationist for each county.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
Sincerely,
Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District
Room 210
28080 Chardon Road
Wickliffe, Ohio 44092
James D. Storer, District Conservationist
216-585-5010
Lorain Soil and Water Conservation District
1575 Lowell Street
Elyria, Ohio 44035
Karl P. Schneider, District Conservationist
216-322-1228
Medina Soil and Water Conservation District
143 West Liberty Street
Medina, Ohio 44256
John E. Hocker, District Conservationist
216-722-2605
Robert R. Shaw
State Conservationist
Attachment
YV .1 in ag.nci ol ma
-------
I
~J
WHEtUER & MEUtrMA, INC. / Conaulnng Engineers and Surveyora
S9O7 Brookpark Road / Cleveland, Ohio 441S9 / (216) 741-3315
January 16, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
5WFI, USEPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Gentlemen:
Re: Public Hearing Southwest Interceptor
Project
Brooklyn Hts. , Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Brooklyn Heights recognizes the need for and endorses the construction of
the Southwest Interceptor main leg from the Southerly Sewage Treatment Facility
to the Grayton Road lift station because this facility will eliminate much of the
overflow sewage entering our streams during periods of high flow. Brooklyn
Heights renews its objection to incorporating new service areas from the Rocky
River Basin into the Southerly Treatment Facility District, which discharges near
our Community to the Cuyahoga River.
Such transfer will have a special effect on the East Branch of the Rocky
River by extending the summer dry weather no-flow condition further downstream
If the Berea Sewage Treatment Plant effluent is removed from the Rocky River and
Is transported to the Southerly Facility. This condition now occurs from the
Berea Water Treatment Plant Intake to their Sewage Treatment Plant discharge.
Franklin R. Melena
Brooklyn Hts. Village Engineer
FRM:cjs
c .
.
t*
tmlOMewOKTN
tSMIMTMNTMtnifT
CUVUAMD.QM044I
HM11-4MJ
Congress of the United $tates
fcoust of RtprutntatiDu
Washington, B.C. 20j)j
January 16, 1983
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Bwironnental Impact Section
5WFI, USEPA, REGION V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
near Mr. Hirt:
I am writing in support of construction by the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) of a regional sanitary sewer to
transport sewage from Cleveland's southwest suburbs to the Southerly
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Bus facility, once constructed, would
serve approximately 284,000 residents.
As you may already know, the USEPA's draft Bwironnental Impact
Statement (EIS) and NEOKD's Planning Study indicate that the most
cost effective and impleraentable solution to the problem is to build
the Main and Nest Legs of the Southwest Interceptor. The Main Leg
would remove the overload from the Big Creek Interceptor. Construc-
tion of the West Leg would eliminate most of the area's major and minor
package plants. A program of cannunity relief sewers will also be
needed.
Cost estimate for the Main Leg is $90,125,000; for the West Leg
it is $41,831,000. The Southwest Interceptor is currently number 34
on Ohio EPA's project priority list for funding in 1984. If funding
is received before September 30, 1984, the project will receive 75%
federal money. If, however, funding is not received by that date, the
federal share may be reduced to 55%.
Construction of the West Leg of the Southwest Interceptor is
considerably more cost effective than reconstruction of the wastewater
treatment plants in that area. Implementation of the SWI alternative
would result in user charges of approximatley half those that would
be necessary to upgrade the existing plants.
I have written Governor Richard Celeste and the Ohio EPA urging
that this project be funded. I also support continuation of the
Founded 1 S55
-------
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Page 2
January 16, 1984
present level of 75% federal funding. I request your support for
this badly needed project.
Thank you for your favorable consideration of this petition.
Sir
Edward F. Fei
EFFzgtc
cc: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
H
H
I
00
of ©Imatefc
January 17, 1981
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief Environmental Impact Section
230 South Dearborne STreet
5 WFI-13
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Dear Mr Hirt:
Enclosed you will find a certified copy of Resolution 12-81, objecting
to the draft environmental impact statement for the Cleveland-Southwest Planning
Area. This resolution was unanimously passed by theCouncil of the City of Olmated
Falls at their regular meeting held on January 9, 1981. Said copy la being forward-
ed prior to the January 26, 1981 deadline for submitting comments.
It Is the desire of the City of Olmsted Falls that the objection will be given
serious consideration.
Thank you.
Ceraldine U. Gelst,
Clerk of Council/
Director of Finance
Enclosure.
-------
RESOLUTION NO. 12-84
RESOLUTION BY: COUNCIL AS A WHOLE
A RESOLUTION OBJECTING TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE CLEVELAND-SOUTHWEST PLANNING AREA.
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V,
has completed and published the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement
For The Cleveland-Southwest Planning Area, Ohio"; and
WHEREAS, the project proposes the construction of a regional Inter-
ceptor, local sanitary and storm sewers, and improvements and management
of certain on-site sanitary systems; and
WHEREAS, the City of Olmsted Falls, Cuyahoga County, Ohio has
recently received copies of the Statement and has reviewed the Statement
in light of the needs and potential obligations to the City of Olmsted
Falls.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Council of the City of
Olmsted Falls of Ohio that:
Section 1. Council hereby declares its objection to the "Draft
Environmental Impact Statement For The Cleveland-Southwest Planning
Area, Ohio" for the reason that the financial burdens that will be
imposed upon the City of Olmsted Falls in order to comply with all legal
requirements of the City to meet the financial obligations of the project
would be overwhelming and would place an almost impossible financial
burden upon the City. For this reason, the City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio,
by and through its Council objects to the implementation of this Plan.
Section 2. The Clerk of Council is hereby directed to forward a
duly certified copy of this Resolution to Harlan D. Hirt, Chief Environmental
Impact Section, 230 South Dearborne Street, 5 WFI-12, Chicago, Illinois
60604 prior to the January 26, 1984 deadline for submitting comments.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect at the earliest
time allowed by law.
PASSED:
fom Perin, President of Council
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director
David Fortier, Mayor
ATTEST:
'-Geraldine U. Geist
Clerk of Council
/. GERALDINE U. GEIST. CLER* OF COUNCIL
OF OLMSTED FALLS. K TV OF
CUYAHOGA. STATE OF OHIO DO HFASBY
CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING OXD. OR
RESO. NOil2&LjtlAS DULY AND REGU-
LARLY ADOPKD BY miS COUNCIL ATA
MEETlNtLHElDON JJ1, , 1SL&L
^,&ts^£<
ci .
City of O
Palls, Ohio
VII-9
-------
SLABE & MACKAY
Engineering & Surveying Consultants
243-5356
7616 PEARL ROAD
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44130
H
M
I
I—i
o
January 17, 1984
United States EPA
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attn: Harlan D. Hirt
Chief Environmental Impact Section SWFI
Re: EIS
Cleveland Southwest Interceptor
Dear Sir:
As a citizen, former city engineer and city councilman, I am
concerned about the validity of the cost effective analysis presented
in the draft EIS.
The capital cost shown on Page V-8 does not reflect the de-
creased required capacity for the Middleburg Heights plant. The size
was reduced to 4.24 MGD from the first projection of 5.54 MGD.
The Operation and Maintenance Costs portion of the analysis
shows that the sewage treated in the multiplane alternative at .a cost of
$42,870,200 can be treated at Southerly for $8,168,600 ($40,937,500 -
32,768,900). These figures suggest that the Southerly Sewage Treatment
Plant can treat sewage at 19% of the coat at the local plants. Those
costs exclude capital recovery. That conclusion is not supported nor is
that conclusion reflected in the proposed rate schedules.
Middleburg Heights is at the end of a connector sewer therefor
its non participation In the use of the SWI should not (except for in-
creased costs) affect the other municipalities.
I think that the cost effective analysis presents a distortion
of data,
Before the City of Middleburg Heights can make an effective
evaluation I feel that both the capital cost and the 0 & M cost for the
multi plant alternative be reevaluated in terms of reduced plant size
and realistic 0 & M charges.
Sincerely ,
RM/gl
Richard Mackay , P.E.
0f
January 18, 1984
llarlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, SWFI
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
I am taking this opportunity to comment on USEPA's Environmental Impact
Statement for the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area.
As Mayor of the City of Cleveland, I am very concerned about the problems
caused by inadequate sewer capacity in the Cleveland Hopkins International
Airport/Grayton Road Area. There is no question, in my mind, that there
is great need for a sewer to serve this area.
I am in favor of the construction of the Southwest Interceptor as the
solution to the overloadings and by-passes of the Big Creek Interceptor
and the Grayton Road Pump Station. Further, I believe that the SWI should
be funded by OEPA as a high priority project.
With construction of the SWI, wastewater would be transported out of the
area to the Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant where it could be effi-
ciently and effectively treated by a facility with sufficient capacity.
-------
Harlan D. Hirt
January 18, 1984
Page Two
Studies identified the significant problems of this area prior to 1968 and
proposed the Southwest Interceptor. More than a. decade of planning has
shown the Southwest Interceptor is both environmentally sound and economi-
cally sensible. It is now time to close the planning process and begin
construction.
Sincerely,
GeorgaVV. Voinovich
Mayoit/
GW:ji
US Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Admlnlstrotlon
Region 5
Illinois Indiana Michigan
Mmneaola Onto Wisconsn
ewood. Illinois 60430
January 20, 1984
Mr. Marian D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, 5WFI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The draft environmental impact statement for the Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area has been reviewed and we have no comments to offer on the
document.
Sincerely,
John 0. Hibbs
Regional Administrator
By: E. V. Heathcock, Director
Office of Planning and Program Development
HEV-10
P-30
Sec.Rep.
EPA, Washington Office - 5 copies
D/0 - Ohio
-------
COUNTY OF
CUYAHOGA
COUNTY OF
CUVMOCA
Commissioners
Virgil E. Brown
Vincent C. Campanella
Timothy F. Hagan
January 23, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact
Section, 5WH, USEPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
We are pleased to comment to the Lhited States Environmental Protection
Agency on the November 1983 Draft of the Environmental Impact Statement for
the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area, Ohio. Please make these comments a
part of the hearings that were held on January 12, 1984, in Middleburg Heights,
with Harlan D. Hirt of USEPA Region V as hearing officer.
The problems addressed; namely, the need for water quality improvements
in the area because of overloading of the Big Creek Interceptor, insufficient
capability in existing large treatment plants, and overloading, design inad-
equacies, and poor maintenance in many smaller plants, have been obvious for
many years. The Southwest Interceptor is described in the draft EIS as the
cost-effective, environmentally sound alternative for the Southwest Planning
Area. We agree. The Southwest Interceptor was recommended in the Cleveland
tester Plan for Pollution Abatement in 1968; analyses and surveys since then,
including the November 1983 draft EIS by USEPA Region V, show that the South-
west Interceptor will abate serious water quality problems, will help to
utilize the large investment already made in major testing treatment plants,
will avoid duplicative capital investment, and will result in the lowest user
charges among alternatives.
The Southwest Interceptor has been listed as one of the high priority
items in Greater Cleveland's Community Capital Investment Strategy, a cooper-
ative program among local governments responsible for infrastructure to plan
the financing for rehabilitation or replacement of the roads, bridges, transit,
water, and sewer systems in Cuyahoga County in the 1980's. The County Commis-
sioners, and the County Engineer participate in this program. We are advised
that the Chairman and the Director of this program are commenting.
County AdminiMrilnn Building 1219 Ontario StrMt Cl«v.l«nd. Ohio 44113
216/443-7178
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Environmental Impact
Section, 5WFI, USEPA, Region V
Page Two
January 23, 1984
We understand from the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District that de-
tailed design for the first segment of the Southwest Interceptor is complete
and that local money to match a federal construction grant is in hand.
We endorse the findings of the draft EIS in general and recommend that
the Southwest Interceptor project proceed.
Sincerely yours,
BOARD OF COUNTY CONWISSIONERS
~Xvir'gil E. Brown
/mj
-------
I
(—•
U)
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
175 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
ER-83/1517
January 23, 1984
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adankus:
ENVIRONMENTAL I1EVIIW BRANCH
PLANNING u MANAGEMENT OIV.
The Departnent of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental Impact
statement (DEIS) for the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area, Ohio.
Consolidated Departmental review comments are provided for your
consideration during further project planning stages.
Personnel of the Bureau of Mines have reviewed the subject document to
determine whether mineral resources and mining operations are considered
adequately.
The proposed project would consist of about 16 miles of large-diameter pipe
Installed under the southwest suburbs of Cleveland to alleviate existing
sewage problems and to prepare for future development In the area. The
proposed project should not have a significant Impact on mineral resources
or mining operations, and the Bureau of Mines has no objection to the
subject document as written.
It is noted In the draft environmental statement that the preferred project
alternative will have direct construction impacts on the Rocky River
Reservation, an outdoor recreation area acquired and developed with Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) assistance (LWCF Project NOB. 39-00526,
39-00753, and 39-00944).
The project sponsor should consult with the State official who administers
the LWCF program to determine potential conflicts with Section 6(f)(3) of
the LWCF Act (Public Law 88-578, as amended) and to determine if any such
conflicts can be mitigated. This official in Ohio is the Honorable Myrl
Shoemaker, Director, Department of Natural Resources, Fountain Square,
Columbus, Ohio 43224. The final statement should evidence the results of
this consultation and subsequent action to resolve any Section 6(f)(3)
conflicts.
Section 6(f)(3) provides that no property acquired or developed with
assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary
of the Interior, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uaes.
It also requires the substitution of converted lands with other recreation
-2-
properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent
usefulness and location. The National Park Service is designated by the
Secretary of the Interior to consider approval of Section 6(£) converalon
requests upon submission through the appropriate State official, who Is
referenced In the previous paragraph.
The final statement should evidence the approval of the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) of compliance by the Environmental Protection
Agency with all mandates pertaining to the Identification and protection of
cultural resources. The SHPO for the State of Ohio is Dr. W. Ray Luce, The
Ohio Historical Society, Interstate 71 and 17th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio
43211.
For technical assistance concerning cultural, park, and recreation
resources, please contact the Regional Director, Midwest Region, National
Park Service, 1709 Jackson Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 (telephone: FTS
864-3431 or commercial 402/221-3431).
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the document and finds
that, except for federally endangered species, It adequately describes the
existing fish and wildlife resources and the project's Impacts upon these
resources. On page 11-48, paragraph II.I.4, Endangered Species, State
endangered and threatened species are mentioned. However, there is no
mention of federally endangered species.
To facilitate compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, Federal agencies sre required to obtain information from
the Fish and Wildlife Service concerning any species, listed or proposed to
be listed, which may be present In the area of a proposed action.
Therefore, we are providing you the following list of endangered (E) or
threatened (I) species which may be present In the area:
Same/Status
Indiana bat (E)
Myotia sodallB
Northern monkshood (T)
Aconitum noveboracense
Habitat
Caves and
riparian
Talus slopes
Distribution
Statewide, except Athens, Belmont,
Carroll, Coahocton, Gallla,
Guernsey, Harrison, Jackson,
Jefferson, Lawrence, Melgs,
Monroe, Morgan, Musklngum, Noble,
Tuscsrawas, Vlnton, and Washington
Counties.
Portage & Summit Counties
In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as
amended, the Federal agency responsible for actions authorized, funded, or
carried out In furtherance of a construction project that significantly
affects the quality of the human environment, is required to conduct a
biological assessment. The purpose of the assessment Is to identify listed
or proposed species likely to be affected adversely by their action and to
-------
-3-
asslst the Federal agency in making a decision as to whether they should
Initiate consultation. Mr. Dennis Case, the non-game biologist with the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, may have
Information on Indiana bat sltlnga in the area or specific locations of the
northern monkshood which may be In the project area.
Subject to a biological assessment of the project's Impacts upon federally
endangered species, the Flah and Wildlife Service supports the selection of
the Southwest Interceptor as the preferred alternative. It would have less
adverse environmental impacts and would not impact Abrams Lake which Is a
highly diverse and valuable wetland area.
Sincerely yours,
4f"
Sheila Minor Huff IQ
Regional Environmental Officer
<
H
H
1
BOAUD OF TBUSTIES
Karl H. Krenlor. Choir
K«nn«ih W RotS
Own J Hitcheni
CU»K
Rob«fta R, Dukllg
COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP
25496 ROYALTON ROAD
COLUMBIA STATION, OHIO 44028
LORAIN COUNTY
January 21, 1984
RECEIVEl
J»foW W. 6 1 low, Hi* Chl*
ZMlna Irup^tor
Chortw H HiKfccodi
CwiMt-ry Cl«rh A OHk*
Lynda E Hitchcock
JAN
t
ftuth M Brotchk. S^cratary
Zwilnfl App.aU feard
WIHIam T Br««ba, &*cr*ary
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
USEPA - Region V °^ nM^"' T "^ - "
230 South Dearborn Street *
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Adamkus:
Attached for your perusal Is a position statement of Columbia Township,
Lorain County, Ohio relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area and the Southwest Sewer Inter-
ceptor. Attached to that statement is a partial listing of some comments
we have made addressing some of the data and statements aa they relate to
Columbia Township.
Columbia Township, Lorain County respectfully requests Chat the TQwnsh_iP.
be removed from any consideration to participate or be a party to the West
leg of the Southwest Interceptor. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
indicates the purpose and need for the project is due to the inadequate
sewer capacity as well as several west side planta inability to meet their
final discharge permits for tertiary treatment. Since the Westview treat-
ment plant in Columbia Township was designed and built and is successfully
operating as a tertiary plant, we do not ccmcur that this plant should be
abandoned and served by a forced main. Our position statement and the
accompanying comments further clarifies our concern.
We would like to commend the Director and staff of the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District for an excellent job in their participation during
the development of the planning. We would also call your attention to the
excellent participation by the Public Advisory Group that furnished viable
and informative input to the planning process.
Sincerely yours,
BY DIRECTION OF THE COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
DJH:rrd
Roberta R. Duktig, Township Clerk
-------
January 23, 1984
ATTACHMENT "A"
January 24, 1984
POSITION STATEMENT: COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP. LORAIN COUNTY. OHIO
RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
OF THE CLEVELAND SOUTHWEST PLANNING AREA.
PARTIAL LISTING OF COMMENTS AND COUNTER-COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT-CLEVELAND SOUTHWEST PLANNING AREA (Including the Southwest Interceptor
Sewer).
[Note: All comments made by the Township apply to Columbia Township only and
do not relate to any adjoining political subdivisions.]
I
M
Ul
The Board of Trustees of Columbia Township, Lorain County, Ohio, would like to
express its support for the construction of the main leg of the Southwest Inter-
ceptor. In addition we do not object to the construction of the West leg if the
beneflttlng and participating political subdivisions deem it in their best Interest.
In the overall plan, it is proposed that some part or all of Columbia Township be
Included as a beneflttlng participant of the West leg. The Board of Trustees of
Columbia Township, Lorain County would like to go on record as objecting to being
included in the planning at this point in time. Based on the many questionable
statements, possibly Inaccurate data as well as the fact that the northeast part
of the Township is served by a tertiary plant built in 1969-1970, we do not concur
that it would be cost effective CO eliminate this plant and have the area served
by a projection from the West leg.
As a point of background information, Columbia Township developed a Master Plan
approximately 20 years ago. The resulting Zoning Resolution from this Master Plan
has been challenged in the Ohio Court system several times and has on all occasions
prevailed. The point of this comment Is that the Township has a viable Zoning
Resolution that follows the outline of the Master Plan. While recognizing the need
and potential for growth, it does not allow for rampant and uncontrolled develop-
ment. The Board of Trustees do concur that possibly in 30 to 35 years from now,
the Township may need to become an active participant in the future development of
sanitary sewers in the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area. However, we currently
do not see our participation at this time as being cost effective. We actually
view any participation at this time as being counter-productive to our existing
tertiary waste water treatment plant.
Attached is a partial listing of some of the questionable statements and data
points as well as our thoughts on those statements and data points.
ATTESTED TO AND ADOPTED BY THE COLUMBIA
TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES, LORAIN COUNTY,
OHIO.
Roberta R. Duktig, Township Clerk
SECTION AND PAGE
II - 27
11-39, 40, 41
II - 53. 54
EIS COMMENT FOLLOWED BY TOWNSHIP COMMENT
II.G.2.C. Floodplains.
(Second Sentence) All communities as well as counties
in the planning area in the Federal flood insurance
program incorporated areas are directly Insured. Town-
ships or unincorporated lands are part of county programs.
(Township Comment): Columbia Township, Lorain County is
not a participant in the Federal flood insurance program.
TOTther the Township or the County qualify at this time
for the program.
II.H. Potable Water.
The narrative discusses potable water for the area and
a map (figure 11-10) on page 11-40 indicate that Columbia
Township and several eastern Lorain County communities
will be in the City of Cleveland Wster Service Ares by
yesr 2000. (Last sentence, 1st paragraph, page 11-41)
Residents in Broadview Heights, Columbia Township. Medina
County and other rural areas use groundwater for their
water supply.
(Township Comment); It is true that since the first
settlers in Columbia Township In 1804, the Township has
relied on dug and drilled wells for its water supply.
However, in 1975 the Rural Lorain County Water Authority
waa founded to serve the southern half of Lorain County.
Today (year-end 1983) there are 1212 or 60Z of the 2010
residences in Columbia Township served by the Rural
Lorain County Water Authority. The 1980 census credited
Columbia with 1996 residences and we had added a net of
14 by the end of 1983. The Water Authority was funded
by the Farmers Home Administration and governed by a board
of elected officials. We sincerely doubt that Columbia
Township will ever be served by the City of Cleveland
Water System and if any overtures were ever made to
attempt this, we would make every effort to avoid that
fruition. In the entire EIS, no mention is made of the
Rural Lorain County Water Authority. The authority does
wholesale to several large bulk customers.
Table II - 19. Projected Community Population
Table indicates population projections for Columbia
Township as follows: 1980 census - 6494; 1985 - 7300;
1990 - 8200; 1995 - 8900; 2000 • 9600; 2010 • 11100;
-------
Ill - 4
IV - 13
H
I
V - 10, 11
ATTACHMENT "A" Page 2
2020 • 12500; and 2025 - 13200.
^Township Comment): Based OD township records of births
and deaths etc., we estimate our current population at
approximately 6600. Population estimates for Columbia
Township as noted In the "1984 WQM Plan Update for the
Northeast Ohio Lake Erie Basin" are: 1985 - 6749; 1990 -
7027; 1995 - 7273; 2000 - 7509 and 2025 - 7722. While
these estimates are probably nore realistic, even they
are too high. The current unemployment has caused many
area people to go south seeking employment and to date
few have returned.
Table III - 1. Final Effluent Limitations
(Township Comment): We appreciate that the apparent
intent of listing of all of the involved sewer treatment
plants Is not to compare each other but to list the data
relative to the various criteria. However, on page 4 the
Strongsvllle "A" plant and the Columbia Township Westvlew
plant are listed side by side and the data shown is almost
identical. We cannot accept the premise that the Columbla-
Westvlev Plant - a tertiary plant la almost identical In
effluent performance to the rather badly performing Strongs-
ville "A" plant. The "A" plant is continually cited by
the Ohio EPA for its poor effluent performance (Ohio EPA
Weekly Review). The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
has done a good job in improving the perforaance of the"A"
plant, but it still has a long way to go to attain the
perforaance of the Columbia Westvlew tertiary plant
operated very adequately by the Lorain County Sanitary
Engineer.
Zone J| the Westvlew Park area in Columbia Township, can
beat be served by adding flow equalization unlta to the
existing tertiary plant. The present worth cost is $772300.
The gains In water quality and residential amenities would
offset the construction Impacts.
(Township Comment): This is the only place in the entire
EIS where this plant is recognized and addressed as a ter-
tiary system. The plant does suffer from some intrusion
during extremely heavy rains. The Lorain County Sanitary
Engineer has not been able to locate the Intrusion to date,
but rest assured, he will find and correct the problem.
When this is corrected, the need for flow equalization will
be negated. The statement comparing gains from flow
equalization to construction impacts, appears to circum-
vent the real issue, cost and need. Aa a result we
certainly object to this stateaent.
Table V - 2, V - 3. User charge rate comparison - No
Federal Funds and with 551 Federal Funds.
(Township Comment): As mentioned previously, approxi-
mately 601 of the 2000+ homes are served by the Rural
Lorain County Water Authority whose unit of sale is
gallons and not cubic feet. No mention la made whether
this conversion was made or not.
V - 35
V - 49
VI - 5
ATTACHMENT "A" Potto 3
2nd paragraph addresses Che organic pollution In the
Rocky River. Identified as significant pollutants are
fecal collform and fecal streptococci.
(Township Comment): The paragraph obviously la correct
in what is stated, however, it does not identify one of
the most significant polluters contributing to the prob-
lem and that la the Strongaville "A" plant and the effluent
It contributes to the west branch of the Rocky River. A
quick review of the past few yeara of the OEPA weekly
review will verify this.
Populations projections for Columbia Township and Option
Areas to be retained.
(Township Comment)': The Board of Trustees do not accept
or agree with any of the population projections contained
in the EIS. The statement relating to sizing the Main
leg and the West leg to accommodate Columbia Township is
probably factual. However, we strongly recommend that
this cost be spared and that Columbia not be included in
any plans. It would be a bit difficult to assess Township
residents for this accommodation that may never be required.
VI.C.2. Population and Sizing.
Bottom of page reads, "Population projections have been
approved by NOACA."
(Township Comment): We content this statement as being
questionable at beat.
-------
MARY ROSE OAKAR
•0« Dwnuer. OMM
DISTRICT OFFICCt
ttS FKDIIUU. Couirr BWILMM
CUVKLAMI, OHM 44114
(ii«) iaa-4M7
WASHINGTON OFFIC«I
• MATMM Houac Omo Su
WMMMTOM. D-C. JOttf
t
FOST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
Congress of rtje ® m'teo States «.*. s^m^u.e.»&,„,»».««»
and Employee Benefit*
\ 3&tprtJftntHtibCJf SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGING
Chair, T
-------
Mi . ILirlan I). Hirt
.liinujry 25, 1984
Cdge Two
of this report supports the basis upon which the EIS has been pre-
pared, and the EIS itself illustrates the Southwest Interceptor
to be cost-effective even if lesser levels of treatment are required
for the local option.
The draft EIS document includes on page 1-12 many of the concerns
raised by the Public Advisory Group. In a resolution passed by the PAG on
January 18, 1984, the remaining issues were characterized as being re-
solvable by the affected parties. We strongly agree with this assessment
and would add the following comments:
1.) USER CHARGES: We have prepared estimated user charges for the
alternatives considered as requested. The proposed
Southwest Interceptor will result in dramatically
lower user costs.
2.) FUTURE EMPLOYMENT OF LOCAL TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS:
^
/I We believe that most of the personnel displaced by the abandonment
I i
I of local plants will be given the opportunity to be employed elsewhere
l-j
00 within their municipality. Certainly there is more than ample
lead time for municipalities to do this type of manpower planning.
However, where this is not the case, NEORSD would grant priority
consideration to displaced employees for positions they would be
qualified to fill. NEORSD typically hires approximately 30 operational
personnel yearly, thus, we see no problem in absorbing the small
number of personnel that may be displaced over a five-year period.
3.) BUY-OFF OF EXISTING BONDS: NEORSD believes that the appropriate forum
Mr. Marian D. Hirt
January 25, 1984
Page Three
3.) BUY-OFF EXISTING BONDS (cont.j: for resolution of this issue is during
negotiation between MEORSD and individ-
ual municipalities regarding abandonment
of the plants. There are many specifics
of this issue which can only be resolved
as a package during detailed negotiations.
Central to EIS concerns is the fact that
the bonded indebtedness issue is not of
a magnitude that could possibly affect the
financial capability of municipalities to
implement the cost effective plan.
4.) CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS: The itemized cost effective analysis
contained in the Environmental Impact
Statement shows that the Southwest
Interceptor with its West Leg is the
cost effective solution for the full
range of water quality standards
which are under consideration.
SWI EAST LEG
On page V-49, the Draft EIS concludes as follows:
"It is appropriate to retain the concept of capacity in the Main Leg-West
Leg portion of the Southwest Interceptor for potential service to the East
Leg Option and portions of Columbia Township. The incremental cost of this
capacity is $1,772,000, which must be paid for without Federal funds.
We would like to make four comments on this statement.
-------
<
H
M
I
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
January 25, 1984
Page Four
First, it was stated at the January 12, 1984 Public Hearing that the EIS
is not a grant-funding decision document. That being the case, it
may be appropriate to add some qualifing language to that effect to
the above quotation.
Second, it should be noted that due to the comparatively small amount of
flow projected to be generated from the Columbia Township Option Area,
as well as from the Olmsted Township Option Area, pipe size and incremental
cost changes in the Main Leg-West Leg portion of the Southwest Interceptor
would not be required. Thus, the incremental cost quoted above is associated
with the East Leg Option Area only.
Third, the source of the incremental cost quoted above was the "Option
Area Sensitivity Analysis" contained in the Final Facilities Planning Report.
This number was determined by adding the projected peak design flow from
the East Leg Area to all downstream segments of the West Leg and Main Leg,
calculating new sizes for each segment, estimating new construction costs
associated with the new sizes, and subtracting the orginal construction cost
estimate from the new construction cost estimate in order to arrive at the
incremental cost. This methodology resulted in the diameter of each downstream
segment of the West Leg and Main Leg being increased in size by 6", with
the exception of the portion of the Main Leg from Access Shaft *13
(Summer Lane)to Access Shaft »10 (Pearl Road), which did not require revision.
Subsequent to the "Option Area Sensitivity Analysis", as part of the Sewer
System Evaluation Survey a SWAM computer modeling analysis was conducted on
the Southwest Interceptor and its major existing and proposed connecting
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
January 25, 1984
Page Five
sewers. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the effects of
times-of-travel within the system, and to determine the existence or non-
existence of overlapping peak flows, under design conditions. The effort
showed that due to the tijnes-of-travel within the system there is no
significant overlapping of peak flows. The effort also established the sphere
of influence of the various existing and proposed service areas. Most
notable with respect to this discussion is that the analysis illustrated
that the sphere of influence of the East Leg is limited to its point of
connection to the West Leg at Access Shaft *5W downstream to the point of
connection of the Brook Park - Middleburg Heights Connector at Access Shaft
»3W, a distance of approximately 8,000 lineal feet. The analysis further
illustrated that the extent of the influence of the East Leg within this
sphere is a 6" increase in pipe diameter. The incremental cost of this influence
is $341,600 , as opposed to the $1,772,000 generated by the "Option Area
Sensitivity Analysis. Details of this more recent and sophisticated
analysis are contained in the Southwest Interceptor Area SWMM Modeling
Report, to be submitted shortly along with the various other Sewer System
Evaluation Survey documents prepared as part of the project.
Finally, the Draft EIS states that the reason the incremental cost of
the East Leg must be paid for without Federal funds is because it would
be an activity ocoiring beyond the 20-year facilities planning period.
It should be noted that the additional 6" in pipe diameter for the affected
portion of the West Leg provides capacity for flow which is projected to be
generated from the East Leg Option Area within the 20-year facilities
planning period, as well as that which is projected to be generated beyond
-------
I
NJ
O
Mr. llarlan I). Mirt
.January 25, 1
-------
EIS Refinements
Executive Summary
1). On page i, NEORSD is referred to as the Northeast Ohio Regional
Sanitary District.
2). On page ii, "Olmstead" is spelled incorrectly.
Chanter I - Introduction
1).
2).
3).
On page 1-7, NEORSD is once again referred to as the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sanitary District.
On page 1-9, the listing of cost-effective analysis documents omits
Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis: Local Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park. Middleburg Heights, Berea,
District,
ana Strongsville "A".Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
John David Jones and Associates, Inc.
T982,
The Public Advisory Group membership roster presented in Table 1-3
on page 1-13 is not current. A current roster has recently been
transmitted to U.S. EPA Region V.
<
M
M
I
Chapter II - Environmental Setting
1). Regarding the water quality sampling program, it is stated on page
11-27 that "specific data values are reported in the Southwest Inter-
ceptor ElS/racilities Plan." The correct citation for these data
values is the Southwest Interceptor Area Final Water Quality Report.
2). A discussion of population projection methodology is contained on
page 11-52 and projected community populations are presented in Table
11-19 on pages 11-53 and 11-54. First, the table should indicate that
the source of the information is the Southwest Interceptor Area Popula-
tion Update Report. Second, the text on page 11 -bZ should he augmented
by the intormation contained in Section 3.3 of the Population Update
Report in order to present a more accurate representation ot the
population projection methodology.
Chapter III - Existing Conditions
1). The list of components of the Columbia Trailer Park WWTP on page 111-25
refers to a "free" cell rapid sand filter. This should be "three" cell
rapid sand filter.
EIS Refinements
Page 2
2). The source of the information presented in Table 1II-5 on page 111-26
is incomplete. The complete citation is: Southwest Interceptor Area
Cost-Effective Analysis: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives
tor Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township,
198Z.
3). On page 111-34, the statement is made that "of the parameters in-
vestigated in the Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan, those
which appear most significant in terms of indicating sewage contam-
ination in the Rocky River are fecal coliform and fecal streptococci.'
The current citation should be Southwest Interceptor Area Final Water
Quality Report.
4). On page 111-35 the statement is made that "the immediate problems of
the West Leg and Option areas are being addressed in separate facilities
plans and construction projects." This should be East Leg rather than
West Leg.
Chapter IV - Alternatives
1). On page IV-4, Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis: Local
Wastewater Management Alternatives tor Ulmsted Falls, Olmsted Township,
and Northern Columbia Township should be added to the citations which
present more Intormation on selection of the alternatives for the Olmsted
Falls-Olmsted Township area.
2). Also on page IV-4, the Middleburg Heights WWTP should not be included in
the list of plants requiring the addition of phosphorus removal facilities.
3). On page IV-18 the statement is made that "0 6 M costs were developed on
a cost basis of $3.00 per thousand cubic feet of water use." This is
incorrect with respect to WWTP 0 5 M costs, accordingly, it should be
omitted from Section IV. E.2.f. That cost basis was used to estimate
local 0 5 M costs for existing sewers in 1990.
4). The source cited on Figure IV-5 (page IV-19), Figure IV-7 (page IV-22),
and Figure IV-8 (page TV-24) is incorrect. It should be: Local Waste-
water Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea,
Strongsville ("A'TI
S). Table IV-12 (page IV-26) and Table IV-13 (page IV-27) have omitted costs
for the Versailles, Westview Park, and Olmsted Falls WWTP's which are
components of the Milti-Plant Alternative.
Chapter V - Analysis of Alternatives
1). The date of the source of the information contained in Tables V-3, V-4,
V-5, and V-6 (on pages V-ll, V-12. V-13, and V-15, respectively) should
be June, 1983.
-------
I IS Hi-1 int-mcnts
FMge 3
2). The stream flow axes on Figures V-2 and V-3 (pages V-21 and V-22J
should contain units in cfs.
3J. Page V-39 lists average design flows for the upgraded major treatment
plants in the rtilti-Plant Alternative. The flows listed are those
developed prior to revision in the Revised Cost-Effective Analysis.
The correct values are as follows:
Berea 4.12 mgd.
Brook Park 1.37 mgd.
Middleburg Heights 4.24 mgd.
Strongsville "A" 5.28 mgd.
Appendix B - Alternative Treatment Process Specifications
1). This appendix is somewhat confusing in that it erroneously intermingles
data from the two local cost-effective analysis reports. We recommend
that it be reworked accordingly, and will work with U.S. EPA Region V
to that end if desired.
I
[SJ
January ?S,
Mr. Harlan D Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborne Street
Chicago, Illinois 6060^
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Independent Citizens Advisory Committee of Olmsted TDwnshlp
has carefully studied all of the infDrmatlon provided by the l>L~
-------
January
1981
Page 3
M
I
to
Co
To clarify our position, we refer to the PAG minutes of
November 17, 198?, when-'Mrs. Snyder (our representative) asked,
if the PAG was expected to vote on the whole proposal. Mr. Lester
Stumpe of NEO and Mr. Robert Monsarrat of Ohio EPA stated that
voting was not going to be requested, but rather that comments and
final views should be submitted to EPA (see enclosed copy of
Nov. 17, 1982 minutes). On January 12, 198^, a letter from NEO was
received Informing PAG members of aneetlng on January 18, 1981), stating
that "The primary purpose of the meeting Is to formulate a Group
Statement for Inclusion In the EIS". (Emphasis added)With the
past understanding that voting was not expected, the notice of the
above-mentioned meeting did not Indicate that a vote would be taken.
While unable to attend the January 18 meeting; Mrs. Snyder and ICAC
felt confident that a prepared statement by the January 26 deadline
on the EIS was all that was expected. Contrary to this understanding,
a motion was made at the January l8th meeting to Include the statement
In the EIS, creating the need for a vote. After lengthy discussion
on voting procedures end whether a quorum was present, a vote was
taken for approval, resulting In ten PAG members out of a total of
27, being present to vote, with 6 yeahs, 2 nays, 1 abstention and
1 did not vote. It Is unfortunaTe that tKree eomiriltier
"out of the seven communities Involved In the pro.lect area were denied
a voice in this proposal.
ICAC Questions the validity of such actions by the PAG and
refers to the voting procedures originally approved on July 21, 1Q82.
by the Advisory Group, (see enclosed copy)
1. A voting procedure wns not Indicated on any xgends for
the January l8th meeting; therefore, point #1 does not
apply-
2. It is our understanding that during the meeting, t request
-was made to delay the vote until another meeting could be
called due to poor attendance. No urgency was indicated
Point #2 should apply
3. We do not agree that six affirmative votes out of ten
constitutes a 2/3 vote for passage of this motion.
We find ourselves in a precarious situation, since as a
township, we come under the Jurisdiction of Cuyahoga County services,
including the Sanitary Engineers department. Since NEO and the
county Jointly own and operate certain sanitary aewer facilities, we
find it alarming that we, as a community, have very little to say In
the outcome of this Batter. We question whether a conflict of Interest
exists, alnca tne Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer is the Chairman
of the PAG.
One le led to believe that this entire fiasco has been a
charade to simply facilitate NEC's desperate need for federal
funds to Justify their existence.
Respectfully submitted,
THE INDEPENDENT CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
cc: Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District
Erwln J. O'Daal
Lester A. Stumpe
John David Jones b Assoc.
Thomas R. Pagel
Ohio EPA
Laurie C. Snyder
President - ICAC
Cltleena Rep.-PAG
Roberta E. Schaedel
Vice Pres. /Coordlnator-ICAC
. 4.V1".,conelU8lon' »• h«T* not been eatlsfied with the performance
•f the PAG and the information provided by TOO and John.David Jones
•na Associates. Vague answers, poor excuses, and evasive word games
have not provided ua Kith the grounds to aakt Intelligent decisions
The atnoaphere created et ?AQ nestings has left ua with doubts end
frustrations and • feeling of nothing more than beaucratlc red tepe
Such la typical of federal projects that ere limply going through
the Motions for the benefit of a provision as a result of a federal
court.order.
-------
F1EFF
fc- H//OCIHTE/, IOC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AND SURVEYORS
CLEVELAND OFFICE
6415 STUMPH ROAD
CLEVELAND, OHIO 44130
(216)8643100
ELYHIA OFFICE
708 EST BUILDING
ELYHIA, OHIO 44035
(216) 323-3797
REFF
lr fl//OCIRTE/, IOC.
January 25, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hire, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
RE:
EIS for the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area
for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District
Dear Mr. Hirt,
As a resident of the City of Middleburg Heights, Ohio and as a Professional
Engineer and as the Mayor's representative on the Citizens Advisory Committee
I wish to object to the inclusion of Middleburg Heights in the Southwest
Interceptor area by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. I object
to their wishes to abandon the existing Waste Water Treatment Plant of the
City and have the City be serviced by the proposed Southwest Interceptor.
I find fault with the conclusions of the EIS that were presented to our
City. As far as Middleburg Heights is concerned I have strong reasons to
believe that the District began the Southwest Interceptor study with the
conclusions fixed and worked the numbers toward them. The cost factors
used appear to be inflated and adjusted for the results they desired.
It is a known fact that the recent expansion of Clevelands Southerly Waste
Water Treatment Plant was over designed. Improper and faulty population
projections were used for sizing. The desire of the consultants to design
big and the Government's not questioning the wisdom of big designs added to
the error. As a consequence the Region has the Southerly Waste Water
Treatment Plant, a plant of 200 mgd. capacity, with a daily volume flow of
90 mgd. To operate a plant at a fraction of its capacity is very ineffecient
and the cost of treatment per gallon is extremely high. Being oversized
"Southerly" is in dire need of customers to operate effeciently. This I
Believe is the reason why the Regional District included Middleburg Heights
In their planning district.
In 1977 the former Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer attempted to make an
application through OEPA for a grant for upgrading and expanding the
Middleburg Heights Waste Water Treatment Plant.
The County Sanitary Engineer felt that the AdminlBtratorn of the City of
Middleburg Heights and its citizens had the strongest feeling of wanting
to solve their sewage problems and that they have a treatment plant that
would be ideal for this program. The application waa refused at OEPA
without consideration and the local community was denied the ability to
decide for themselves their own destiny. They were forced to go along
with what I consider to be bad decisions. They were never given a fair
hearing. The City does have a right to solve theIr problems without
interference from a higher level of Government.
The City was told by the District that if they agreed to connect to the
Southwest Interceptor when it becomes available (1990-951) that the City
would only be required to meet interum permit standards. If the City
decided not to connect and go on their own then the City would be compelled
to meet final permit standards now. This would add tertiary treatment,
phosphorus removal and nitrification. The City is desirous to upgrade
their plant but the City also was told that if they desired to continue
operating their Waste Water Treatment Plant and did riot connect to the
Regional Interceptor that the City would not be eligible for any Federal
Funds. This appears extremely unfair. Cost comparisons of const ruction,
operation and management between the District with Federal Funding and the
City with private funding Is unfair. 1 do not believe that the District is
thinking In terms of the community. Given the same percentage of grant
monies as the District I believe the City would be more cost effective In
the treatment of their sewage waste than would be the Regional District.
My desire is that the City of Middleburg Heights retains the operation of
their Waste Water Treatment Plant, that they be eligible for Federal Grants
and that they be allowed to enlarge and Improve their plant without inter-
ference or harassment from the District of OEPA. Treat the City of Middleburg
Heights as you would treat the Regional District.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles J, NeffVj'.E., P.s".
President Neff & Associates, Inc.
Engineer for the City of Middleburg Heights
-------
Ctonland Matroparka Syalam
4101 Fullon Partway
Clavaland. Ohio 44144
(21O351-UOO
Metroparks
January 25, 1984
I
NJ
Ul
Harlan D. Hire, Chief-Environmental
Impact Sect loo, 5WFI - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Subject: Cleveland Southwell Planning Area E.I.S.
Dear Mr. Hlrt:
Thank you for thla opportunity to comment for the public
record In review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Cleveland
Southwest Planning Area, Ohio.
We support efforts to achieve the water quality Improvement
objectives which are the focus of the Final Facilities Planning Report.
Our review of the Environmental Impact Statement centers on the parkland
Impact and low streamflow Issues and our comments are predicated upon
achlvement of these water quality Improvement objectives.
1.
2.
These comments are as follows:
Improved water quality In the East Branch on Main Stem of the
Rocky River will Increase public enjoyment of these resources.
Parkland Impacts due to construction of a project such
as the Southwest Interceptor West Leg Alternative are
mostly of a temporary nature and must be mitigated
through careful design, construction, restoration and
coordination with the sponsoring agency. We would expect
to have significant Involvement in this process for any
proposed construction within parklands.
later basin transfer and resultant low streamflow Im-
pacts cannot be Ignored. Flow reductions caused by
transfer of Lake Erie water and elimination of Berea
wastewater discharges, If found to be detrimental
to water quality and recreation resources, must be
mitigated by low flow augmentation measures.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
s—-\
llncerely,
Terry
Director
Engineering
inning, Design,
Natural Resources
TAR:bew
Board ol Park Commlaslonera
Q. Stanlay Mottarahaad, Praaldanl Elaanora Kapal, Vlca Pralldanl Joaaph P. Hadialonka, Vlca Praaldanl
Lou E. Talpla, Exacutlva DlraclorfSacratary
(fflmsted
1 1 ownship
"A Community of Friendly People"
Founded in 1114
26900 Cook Road
CLERK
Joan M. wmmi
Olmsted Township, Ohio 44138
Cuymhoga County
SOAHD OF TRUSTEES
Donna M Houses**
flooart J. StKUmm
Robert A. Ventlrt
January 25, 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
230 South Dearborne Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
As a result of a vote taken at the January 18, 1984 Public
Advisory Group meeting of the Southwest Interceptor in regards
to the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft EIS, the following
objections need to come to the attention of EPA.
According to statements made at a PAG meeting on November 17,
1982 in response to the question of voting on this project, we
have held the idea that voting would not become a part of the group
Project. (See minutes 11/17/82 attached)
It is unfortunate that poor timing in the release of the Draft
EIS, scheduling of the PAG meeting on December 21, 1983, timing of
the public hearing on January 12, 1984, and timing of the comment
period on the same, during the holiday period has resulted in
low attendance and a subsequent minority vote of the PAG.
In reviewing voting procedures approved by the Advisory Group
In July 1982 (see copy attached), a strong conviction is held that
no prior notice was given to members of the PAG that a vote in
regards to approval or dissapproval of the Draft EIS would be taken
at the January 18, 1984 meeting. (See copy of notice of 1/18/84
meeting) We, thus, maintain that point #2 of the PAG voting
procedures applies and that the request by Mr. Robert Stackhouse,
Olmsted Township ffustee, at the January 18, 1984 meeting to
postpone any vote should have been honored. If an emergency
situation existed as described in point #3 of the voting procedures,
the situation was created by poor timing. If Indeed an emergency
existed, a 2/3 vote was not obtained in the resulting vote (See
copy of resolution and voting result).
We, therefore, object to the acknowledgement of a consensus
vote on the Draft EIS without following the guidelines of the
voting procedures adopted by the PAG, for the Southwest Interceptor
project. We respectfully request, if a true picture is desired,
-------
Page 2
1/25/84
November 17, 1982
PAG Meeting Minutes Cont.
PACE 9
that approval be given for the acknowledgement of a proper vote to
°e taken of the PAG members with prior notice of intention and
recognized by EPA regardless of the comment period deadline.
In view of the aforementioned items, we the Climated Township
representatiTes, are aggrieved, that you, in the spirit of fair
play and Justice that the motion be rescinded.
Sincerely,
Robert J(.' Stackhouse
Trustee
Olmsted Township
v o
Laurie C. Snyder
Citizen Representative
Southwest Interceptor Area
Public Advisory Group
Erwin J. O'Deal
Lester A. Stumpe
Thomas H. Pagel
John J. Garner
<
H
H
I
Mr. Talmage: What are EPA'3 feelings are en this project?
Response ty Mr. Januaka and Mr. Monsarrati It would not be in the agency's
best interest to take a position. I could only take a personal atand en the
issue. Mr. Monsarrat suggested that the facilities plan reflects personal
opinions through the ability to comment and have revisions made based on
these comments. There is not the time or resources to second-guess
consultants. That is why consultants were hired, and a decision will be
made on the facilities plan's contents.
~Mr. Garner suggested that the group is at the point in time to conment on
the facilities plan's contents and make opinions known to EPA. Mrs. Snyder
\ suggested that we continue discussion in January because of holidays.
Questions Mrs. Snyder hadi Are we going to be asked to vote on thia whole
program, or are we going to be expressing our views on whole package deal,
I or what?
/ Response by Mr. Stumpe: The Regional Sewer District is not suggesting that
the Group vote for or against the plan. We would rather suggest that it is
appropriate for the oamtLttee to comnent either collectively or individually
on contents and findings.
Further response by Mr. Monsarrat: We would rather not see a vote, because
it doesn't give much information about why people may feel the way they do.
What we would like to see is opinions on the process overall, and what final
views are on the facilities plan, further concerns, etc. Also, EPA would
like comments on the flow situation - it is an important issue and a
complicated one.
Mr. Synek suggested that the next meeting be held in January to give the
ccmmittees time to digest information and prepare comments, etc. He made
this a motion, seconded by Mr. Stackhouse. Mrs. Snyder suggested that we
also include with this a letter to the ccmunities emphasing representation
to this meeting by officials, and Mr. Pagel indicated that would be
emphasized more in the transmittal letters that go out.
Ms. Garra: Would PAG meeting be held before or after the public hearing?
Response by Mr. Gamer and Mr. Stumpe i PAG meeting would be held before the
public hearing.
The motion was accepted, and the next meeting of the PAG will be the third
Wednesday in January (19th).
Mr. Garner: Are there alternative plans, interim improvement plans that
might be available for federal funding assuming the interceptor is the
recommended alternative?
Response by Mr. Monsarrat: Fran a grants standpoint, EPA would not fund any
interim ijiprovements if the Southwest Interceptor is the approved plan. The
facilities plan could make a recontnendation that interim improvements should
-------
[fjlmsted
A
(township
"A Community of Friendly People"
Founded in 1814
26900 Cook Road Olmsted Township, Ohio 44138
Jam M. w**ns
Donna M HaJuscsak
Robert J. Slactfhouse
Robtrt A. Vmtln
January 25, 1984
H
I
N)
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
The Board ot Trustees of Olmsted Township would like to
submit the following position statement in regards to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cleveland South-
west Planning Area and the Southwest Sewer Interceptor:
I. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, has completed and published
the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area, Ohio".
II. The project proposes the construction of a
regional interceptor, local sanitary and store
sewers, and Improvements and management of
certain on-slte sewer systems.
III. The Township of Olmsted, Cuyahoga County, Ohio
has recently received copies of the Statement
and reviewed the statement In light of the needs
and potential obligations to the Township of
Olmsted1s citizens, and has, therefore, determined:
Section A — that Olmsted Township respectfully
requests that the Township be removed from any
consideration to participate or be a party to
the West Leg of the Southwest Interceptor;
Section B — that the EIS report indicates the
construction of the West Leg would eliminate most
of the area's major and minor package plants. It
is our opinion that the package treatment plants
that serve part of our community is satisfactory
at the present time and for the future, as recent
inspections have shown;
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 ot 2
January 25, 1984
IV. Section C — that future consideration will be
given to the alternatives as listed in the EIS
report in Section IV-Page 5, that; (unsewered
areas)
Improved operation and maintenance of
existing home sewage disposal systems.
Upgrading and replacement of existing
home sewage disposal systems, either
individually or by cluster systems.
V. Furthermore, the cost of this project to the
citizens of the Township would be a hardship
and difficult financial burden to bear.
Sincerely yours,
BY DIRECTION OP THE
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
BOARD OP TRUSTEES
Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District
Erwin J. O'Deal
Lester A. Stumpe
John David Jones & Assoc.
Thomas R. Fagel
Cuyahoga County Sanitary Eng.
John J. Garner
RjTbert ,£/ Stackhouee, Trustee
Southwest Interceptor Area
Public Advisory Group-
Olmsted Township Representa-
tive
-------
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL 3BffiB DISTRICT
SOUTHWEST DfEEECEPTOR AREA
PUBLIC ADVISOR! GSOOP
SPECIAL NOTICE Of
PROPOSH) VOTING PROCSDORB3
The following voting procedures were proposed at the June 16, 1982
Public Advisory Group meeting by Mr. John J. Garner, Chairman, for
group's consideration, to be voted upon at the July 21, 1982 meeting.
* If an item is included in the agenda that was mailed out previously, a
vote of a majority of those present would be a majority vote of the
group.
* Any formal actions not an the agenda should be carried over to the
next meeting unless there la some urgency.
* In an emergency voting situation, there should be a 2/3 vote of those
present to pass the recommended action.
I
M
00
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT
1127 EUCLID AVENUE-5TH FLOOR • CLEVELAND. OHIO 44115* 216-7B1-66OO
January 10, 1984
Ms. Laurie Snyder
Independent Citizens Advisory Committee
26935 Southwood Lane
Olmsted Township, Ohio 44138
RE: Southwest Interceptor Area Public Advisory Group
Dear Ms. Snyder:
The next meeting of the Southwest Interceptor Area Public
Advisory Croup will be held on January 18, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. in
a meeting room of the Harley Hotel, 1-71 and Bagley Road, Middleburg
Heights.
^ The primary purpose of the meeting is to formulate a Group
Statement for inclusion in the EIS Public Record, the comment period
for which ends on January 26, 1984. Also to be discussed is the
Draft EIS, the EIS Public Hearing, the Rocky River Comprehensive
Water Quality Report, and the EPA Draft Municipal Strategy.
Enclosed please find the minutes of the previous meeting, the
agenda for the upcoming meeting, an update to the "Index of Notebook
Materials", and a copy of the EPA Draft National Municipal Strategy.
We look forward to seeing you on the 18th. If you have any
questions or conroents between now and then please contact Mr. Lester
A. Stumpe of the Regional Sewer District staff at 781-6600, or Mr.
Thomas R. Pagel of John David Jones and Associates, Inc. at 241-3771.
Very truly yours.
Erwin J. Odeal, Director
EJO/ag
-------
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT
1127 EUCLID AVENUE-5TH FLOOR • CLEVELAND. OHIO -44115 • Sie-7B1-66OO
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL. SEWER DISTRICT
11S7 EUCLID AVENUE-STH FLOOR• CLEVELAND. OHIO 44115* S16-7B1-66OO
January 25, 1984
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR AREA
PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP MEETING
JANUARY 18. 1984
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. EPA Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cleveland Southwest Planning Area
Dear Mr. Hirt:
At the request of the Southwest Interceptor Area Public Advisory Group,
we are transmitting herewith a copy of the minutes of a discussion held at
the January 18, 1984 meeting of the Group, as well as a copy of the notice
of the action taken by the Group with respect to the Southwest Interceptor
Project.
Please include both of these items in the Public Hearing Record of the
Draft EIS.
Very truly yours,
I
NJ
VO
±
Erwin J. Odeal, Director
EJO
End.
cc: PAG Members
These are the minutes of the discussion held on the motion which Mas
passed at the January 18, 1984 meeting of the Southwest Interceptor Area
Public Advisory Group. The following were In attendance at the oeetlng:
PAG Members
Public Officials:
Public Interest Groups:
Economic Interests:
Private Citizens:
Others
John J. Garner, Cuyahoga County
Hark Elsesser, Strongsv1 lie
Paul HcCumbers, Berea
Jerry Zawlstowskl, Olmsted Falls
Robert Stockhouse, Olmsted Township
Dave H1ano, Keelhaulers Canoe Club
Alfred Lee, Cleveland Museum of
History
Darwin Llndsley, J.I. Holcomb Mfg.
James Slough, Parma Heights
Susan Adams, Berea
Natural
Robert Esslg, Berea City Councilman
John Januska. Ohio EPA
Robert Monsarrat. Ohio EPA
Maan Osman, Ohio EPA
John Albrecht, Ohio EPA
Ken Rlcker. Ohio EPA
Paul Alsenas, Cuyahoga County
Mike Kalstrom, Cuyahoga County
Erwin Odeal, NEORSD
Kenneth Pew, NEORSO
Lester Stumpe, NEORSD
John Graves, NEORSD
Thomas Pagel, John David Jones and Associates
James Greener, John David Jones and Associates
Clyde Gaston, John David Jones and Associates
-1-
-------
I
(jj
o
Mr. Garner:
I will open up the meeting for discussion at this point in time.
This Group has gone through several months of deliberations, having
absorbed and perhaps repelled a great deal of information that has been
disseminated to the Group 1n a variety of ways. We certainly have had an
Interesting set of discussions. As Chairman, I have appreciated the
attention of all of the Public Advisory Group members, particularly those
who are non-technical In nature because there obviously was a great deal
of transmission of technical data. I would also like to compliment the
District and the District's consultants on their attempts to try to make
the Information as readily explainable as possible to a spectrum of
members of the Public Advisory Group with this wide range of technical
knowledge, background, comprehension, and so on. It was a difficult task
and I think they did It very well considering all of the other potential
ways it could have been handled. I recognize that not all of the members
of the Public Advisory Group probably understood all of the terminology
that was being tossed around, and the significance of all of the numbers
that were being tossed around, but my feeling is that the Group survived
the discussions and the presentations very well. I would like to
compliment the Public Advisory Group on that.
So here we are at the last decision point pertaining to the
opportunity to make a comment. We have had the opportunity to make
comments when the facilities plan was going through its own Public
Hearing, and now we have the U.S. EPA who prepared the Draft E1S and had
their Public Hearing, with a written comment deadline of January 26th. I
will open the meeting for consideration of this matter.
Mr. Lindsley:
I would like to make a few remarks that will probably result In a
recommendation that the Public Advisory Group make 4 concluding statement
recommending Immediate approval of the Southwest Interceptor Project,
Including the West Leg portion. However, I would like to make some
additional comments bfore I get Into that.
This Group has been meeting for two years. It doesn't seem that
long, but that is how long we have been at It. I echo your comments. I
have been very impressed with the seriousness and the considerateness of
this Group and how well they have fulfilled their responsibilities. That
not only goes for the Group, but the staff which has supported the Group,
both NEORSD and John David Jones and Associates. We have reviewed over
the last two years a mountain of material; a great deal of material. I
think we have reviewed it tn great detail, much more detail than was
anticipated 1n the beginning.
I think this Group has already gone on record that the Southwest
Interceptor Project 1s the most cost-effective way to go and a long
overdue solution to a serious set of alternatives that we are faced with.
Not only for today's needs but for the future known needs and possibly
the future unknown dynamics that will unravel that we just can't project
ten full years in advance. Also, we noted that we had some minor
concerns and I emphasize that these are minor concerns because 1 have had
an opportunity to reflect on these concerns that we noted tn our final
recommendations. These concerns are really minor to the overall findings
and conclusions because they are all resolvable. None of these concerns
or sensitivities are major objections or blocks to the final solution.
They may be major to the various affected principals but none of these
concerns cannot be resolved. They are all resolvable and do not need to
be resolved totally before the issue is approved or disapproved, but can
be worked out. They are standard operational problems or issues that are
faced in any venture. They are day-to-day things we all face tn our
business or professional responsibilities. When you look at the overall
plan, none of these issues should get in the way because they all are
resolvable. I think we ought to leave that detail to the affected
parties. I don't think this Group can address those in the depth and
detail and be knowledgeable enough to solve them before the fact.
Therefore, I would propose that this Group issue a final statement
fully supporting and recommending that the Southwest Interceptor Project,
Including the West Leg, as the most cost-effective solution and that
funding it be given the highest priority and that construction begin as
soon as possible. I think it Is a long overdue project and believe that
this Group should look at the future needs with respect to this type of
project and that the pipe should be constructed of a size to meet future
real and assumed needs. I don't think we should short-cut overselves in
the planning process for the size of the pipe. We know certain things
within ten years that are ninety percent sure. What happens after that
when the thing really gets Into use I don't think this Group or anyone
here can project. But I know If we ever had to upgrade that facility ten
or twenty years from now it would cost us ten to twenty times more than
It Is going to cost us today. I think it is our responsibility to plan
for the needs of the future. It is a major construction job.
Mr. Garner:
Is that in the way of a motion?
Mr. Lindsley:
Yes 1t is.
Mr. Garner:
There has been a motion made that the Public Advisory Group make a
concluding statement.
Mr. Zawistowskt:
I second the motion.
-2-
-3-
-------
Mr. Garner:
Any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Stockhouse:
In the Township, we don't know If we will ever be Involved, if the
Interceptor will ever get to the Township. There has been a question
raised by the President of the Olmsted Falls Council. You have said you
are going to meet with them and I will be surprised If anyone from the
Township will be there. Nobody has ever said 1f It will ever reach the
Township. Because of the Investment In it and of us being found In It,
the other two Trustees are reluctant to say go ahead. I can see the Main
Leg, but the West Leg Is something else and no one has ever said that it
really will be built. I'm expressing the views of the Trustees of the
Township.
Mr. Odeal:
The problem that happens with the high cost in Olmsted Falls Is they
don't have local sewers. So the problem 1s not the Southwest. No matter
what alternative you go with, the local sewers cost a lot of money. What
we have said Is that Southwest is geared initially for the West Leg to
abandon the four existing plants. The pace of sewering the other areas
Is totally In the hands of the local communities. You can use It or not
use it. The question 1s it will be there should anyone want to use it.
That Is the point. Whether you can afford to put local sewers In 1s
another whole issue which you have to face anyway. What the study has
shown is that if you put local sewers 1n plus a plant 1t will be more
expensive than local sewers plus the Southwest. That Is the issue that
Olmsted Falls faces.
H
M
I
Mr. Llndsley:
Another Important factor In the future Is to have that pipe in place
because there are going to be some things that pop up later that we
haven't even considered that may not even affect the communities that are
represented here. There are also other communities that have their own
programs that are within reach of this project that we haven't even
talked about. To have this whole program In place Is so key to the
future of this area. For anyone to sit here and say that twenty years
down the road they know what 1s going to happen population-wise. Ten
years ago you didn't know what was going to happen to this community
population-wise.
Mr. Zawlstowskl:
I think the thing we have to realize 1s that population Is not going
to stay the same. It's going out to the suburbs.
-4-
Mr. McCumbers:
We look at the matter of water quality today In one light and I'm
not sure that that's not going to change drastically In the next several
months or at least In the next few years. We are 1n a position here that
we are talking about a project that has been on the drawing boards for
fifteen years. Unfortunately, we all sit here with a feeling of urgency
this evening because the seventy-five percent federal funding Is winding
down. We have a policy statement from U.S. EPA that everyone In the
United States is going to be brought into compliance by 1988 and that
there Is going to be no change or drastic change In the discharge
standards for existing treatment plants throughout the United States. It
Is unfortunate that we have to be in the position of making a decision on
a project that has lagged for fifteen years under the assumption that If
we don't make the decision to support the building of this facility that
there is going to be no federal funding available. We are put 1n a
position where If we don't suppport It we may have to go on our own at
totally local cost or we just will have nothing left. I have a question
for the Sewer District. If this project does not go with seventy-five
percent federal funding, will you build it at fifty-five percent?
Mr. Odeal;
The project will go with seventy-five percent federal funding.
Again we are asking academic questions.
Mr. McCumbers:
If the project Is not funded this year, will It be scrapped by the
Sewer District?
Mr. Odeal:
We are not going to scrap about eight million dollars.
guarantee that.
I can
Mr. McCumbers:
It will be built at the fifty-five percent federal funding level?
Mr. Odeal:
The project will be built at the fifty-five percent level. The
thing that may change Is the pace of the project. We have developed a
Financial Plan which will allow us to build the project without federal
funding. But I think this 1s what the Municipal Compliance Plan Is
getting at, the reasonablltty Issue. If this Southwest Interceptor Sewer
becomes a project for this area, as I see 1t the Municipal Compliance
Plan becomes the responsibility of the Regional Sewer District. We sign
on the dotted line if the project gets built and the cities are off the
-5-
-------
hook. If this project goes ahead and you tell EPA that you signed on to
the project, the ball Is In our court and we are signing the Municipal
Compliance Plan alth U.S. EPA. The easiest way to get the feds off your
back 1s to sign on with the Southwest Interceptor and then you don't have
to worry about It anymore.
Mr. HcCumbers:
I saw a presentation by Ohio EPA this evening that Indicated to me
that In the East Branch of the Rocky River the only thing I am going to
be able to do once that flow 1s taken out 1s a little more fishing that I
can do today. And I don't know that the residents of the City of Berea
and other areas that are serviced by this particular sewer project, or
the nation as a whole, can afford the luxury of Increasing their
wastewater rates by several times the existing level to be able to have a
little more sports fishing 1n the rivers than we have today. I realize
that there are problems. I realize that corrections need to be made 1n
not only our treatment facility, but In several treatment facilities. I
wonder If we are looking at projects that are realistic and that If the
plan 1s Implemented to bring everyone Into compliance on a federal basis
that we are not going to see people that say wait a minute, let's look
and see what we are receiving for our dollars. The Clean Water Act
exists. At the time the Clean Water Act was passed we were operating
under one set of stndards and a booming economy. The federal dollars
were there. Today we are 1n a different position. I wonder 1f everyone
1s going to sit by and let these standards be Implemented.
M
I
OJ
Mr. Odeal:
All I can say 1s that the Sewer District has Invested $500 million
dollars tn meeting those standards and we will do everything within our
power to see that nobody else gets off with meeting anything else less
than us. I will also say In response to what was said, whether the
population Is staying or shifting, we definitely want population 1n the
Inner city. We have plant capacity and we need those customers and we
are going to go get them. We are going to build the Southwest Sewer and
we are going to get those customers because we have to have those
customers. The only thing I see happening with the shrinking of the
federal dollars Is the extension of the time to meet the standards. I
don't see us taking a resource like the East Branch through the
Metropolitan Parks and saying we can get away, because we can't afford
It, with discharging poorly treated wastewater Into the streams. The
other Issue that has never been addressed tonight that needs to be
addressed Is that there are flows perhaps higher than the ten-year
seven-day low flows that are more severe on the water quality Impact.
The Southwest 1s going to be picking up very large flows. It will
eliminate the wet-weather bypasses Into the streams. It Is going to
elralnate all wastewater discharges. Not just dry-weather, but also
wet-weather. Get them totally out of the streams. It 1s a good project.
The only thing that changes If the federal dollars get less or dry up 1s
the tine schedule. Again I emphasize, as I see 1t, 1f you sign on with
this project, It puts the ball In our court. From an enforcement
standpoint, the communities are off the hook and the Regional Sewer
District Is on the hook.
-6-
Mr. Pagel:
I would concur with Mr. McCumbers that most of you probably feel a
sense of urgency. We certainly do. I don't think this sense of urgency
however, Is with respect to the seventy-five versus fifty-five percent
funding. I think the sense of urgency Is that 1n 1976 U.S. EPA Issued a
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and no
grant at any level could be awarded for the project until that
Environmental Impact Statement process concluded. We now have a Draft
EIS that has been published. We have an EIS Public Hearing that has been
held. And we have a fairly firm schedule on the production of a Final
EIS and Record of Decision. That Is the sense of urgency; that that
particular Item Is concluded and the project can proceed. Had 1t not
been for that particular Item; had 1t not been for the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, this project would be under
construction. The timing, the circumstances from all areas, the City of
Cleveland, the lawsuits, the creation of the Regional Sewer District, the
passage of the 1972 Act Amendments, the Issuance of the Notice of Intent
to prepare an EIS have all come Into play 1n this fifteen year delay. I
think had those things not occurred, this project would be under
construction and proceeding toward completion.
Mr. McCumbers:
I can't over-emphasize the delay and the problems 1t has caused the
citizens of the City of Berea. This project not only has resulted 1n the
very strong potential that we are going to have a drastic Increase 1n our
wastewater treatment rates 1n the next ten years several times what they
are today, but there Is also the additional fact that this project and
the planning for this project held up approval of construction of our
water treatment plant from 1972 dollars of 2.2 million to 1980 dollars of
6.7 million. The reason for the hold-up of that water treatment facility
was primarily based on the extension of, at that time, the Cleveland
Regional Sewer District. So we certainly have been Impacted by the
delays of this project. We are well aware of the project. The only
problem that I have as a citizen of Berea and In representing the
citizens of Berea 1s that we are not going to be locked Into a level of
treatment that is going to additionally Inpact the citizens of Berea when
the national policy 1s taken back. I don't necessarily agree with your
cost-effective analysis. I'm not sure how far the standards that were
brought out tonight are from us being a tertiary or secondary plant. I'm
sure that I can go out and find an engineering firm that will tell me
that I can do It for two-thirds of what your cost analysis shows. I have
no doubt that that Is possible and that there is probably a happy median
somewhere in the middle. My main concern Is that the citizens of Berea
are looking at some very substantial dollar Increases and 1t seems like
1992 Is a long way down the road. We can sit tonight and say why worry
about tt, It's ten years away or It's nine years away, but the decision
that is going to be made on this Environmental Impact Statement and the
decision by EPA is one that Is going to lock us 1n to that type of
treatment and the types of rates that we are talking about. I have some
very real concerns based on the flow In the East Branch of the Rocky
-7-
-------
River. We have waited fifteen years for somebody to tell us either we
are In the water business, out of the water business, 1n the wastewater
business, or out of the wastewater business, and I don't think that fact
has been established.
Mr. Odeal:
I would like to sit down with the City. We do not feel that we
should take blame for the delays In the water plant. This study was
never designed to look at your water plant. The Regional Sewer District
went on record with the City of Strongsvllle many years ago when they got
their grant that we had no plans for Implementing the East Leg. I don't
think we should have the record show that the Regional Sewer District
delayed the Berea Water Plant resulting In a threefold Increase In cost.
There were many factors that entered Into that. I would not want to
mislead this Group Into thinking that we were responsible for that
decision.
Nr. NcCurters:
Let me clarify. I am not saying that the Regional Sewer District
was the cause of the delay. The fact that the City of Berea was a part
of the Regional Sewer District planning area, as well as Strongsvllle In
1972, would not allow EPA to acknowledge the fact that there was enough
flow In the East Branch of the Rocky River for us to be able to stay 1n
the water business. We were therefore Instructed by EPA to enter Into
discussions with the City of Cleveland for our water supply. As Mr.
Odeal said, several years ago, I think about 1976, they talked to the
City of Strongsvllle and began the Idea of abandoning the East Leg of the
Southwest Interceptor at least at this point In time.
M
H
I
CO
Co
A lengthy discussion was then held on voting procedures, meeting
attendance, notification, and the E1S schedule, with the following
results:
1). A majority vote of those members present would be considered a
majority vote of the Group 1n accordance with procedures
established at the July 21, 19S2 meeting of the Group.
2). A notice of the outcome of the vote would be mailed on January
20. 1984 to all Group members not In attendance at the meeting,
with a reminder that Individual comments could be made directly
to U.S. EPA until the close of the comment period on January
27. 1984.
3). Follow-up telephone calls would be made on January 23, 1984 and
January 24, 1984 to make certain that the January 20, 1984
•ailing had been received.
-8-
4). The minutes of the discussion held on the motion would be
attached to the notice of the outcome of the vote, and both
would be transmitted to U.S. EPA for Inclusion In the EIS
Public Hearing Record In order for U.S. EPA to receive the
benefits of the various Individual concerns expressed.
Thereafter, the voting process was completed, the results of which
are embodied In the special notice attached to these minutes.
-9-
-------
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT
1iy7 L LJCLID AVENUt-5TH FLOOH • CLEVLLANQ, OHIO -44115 • S16-7B1-t56OQ
NOTICE
H
I
to
At the January 18, 1984 meeting of the Southwest Interceptor Area
Public Advisory Group, the following motion was made by Mr. Darwin Lindsley
and seconded by Mr. Jerry Zawistowski:
That the Public Advisory Group make a concluding statement,
for insertion in the U.S. EPA EIS Public Hearing Record,
reconmending ijimediate approval and implementation of the
Southwest Interceptor Project, including the West Leg
portion, as the cost-effective and long overdue solution
to the area's existing, known future, and possibly unknown
future wastewater treatment needs, notwithstanding the fact
that the Public Advisory Group is on record as having certain
remaining concerns, because these concerns are minor in
relation to the overall benefits of the project, are not
unresolvable, and as such, should be left for resolution
by the affected parties while the project moves forward.
Following a lengthy discussion, a voice vote was conducted resulting
in yeahs as well as nays. Thereafter, a show of hands was held with the
following results:
For the motion: Mr. Darwin Lindsley
Mr. Jerry Zawistowski
Mr. Mark Elsesser
Mr. James Slough
Mr. David Miano
Mr. Alfred Lee (on behalf of Dr. David Brose)
Against the motion: Mr. Paul McCumbers
Ms. Sue Adams
Abstention:
Mr. Robert Stackhouse
In accordance with the voting procedures adopted by the Public Advisory
Group at its meeting of July 21, 1982, since the motion was passed by a
majority of those members present, it was an official action of the Public
Advisory Group.
(Mr. Jack Garner, Chairman, did not vote but subsequently indicated
his support for the motion.)
-------
VII.A.2. U.S. EPA Responses to Comment Letters
1. Richard Mackay (12/21/83)
a. Development of costs and user charges.
The estimated charge to the typical user is not the same
as the cost-effective analysis, although both are
presented in the EIS, in Sections V.E.I and V.E.2. User
charges are affected by the NEORSD user rate system,
established by the Court of Common Pleas and the NEORSD
trustees. Under this system, the rates are uniform for
all suburban customers and, on a separate scale for all
Cleveland customers, varying with water use volume. This
rate system reflects the total expenditures of the
District rather than the detailed costs of each service
area's project.
2. Ohio State Clearinghouse (1/9/84)
a. No specific comments.
Comment noted.
3. Center for Disease Control, Public Health Service (1/9/84)
a. Mosquito vectors.
This is discussed in Section VI.C.7.
b. Rock blasting notification.
Current NEORSD procedures are included in Appendix E.
4. Thomas J. Coyne, Jr., Mayor of Brook Park (1/10/84)
a. Need Main Leg Interceptor to relieve wet weather flows.
Comment noted.
5. City of Cleveland, Government and Community Affairs Division
(1/11/84)
a. Southwest Interceptor important to meet infrastructure
needs of Greater Cleveland and is consistant with local
planning.
Comment noted.
6. Greater Cleveland Growth Association (1/12/84)
a. Need Southwest Interceptor to improve water quality;
cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative.
Comment noted.
VII-35
-------
7. Soil Conservation Service (1/13/84)
a. Need to use modern soil names.
Revised Section II.D. and Figure II-3 update soil
information.
8. Franklin Helena, Brooklyn Heights Village Engineer (1/16/84)
a. Need Main Leg to eliminate existing overflows.
Comment noted.
b. Low flow below the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Sections V.F.l.b, V.F.l.c., and VI.C.1 discuss this
streamflow issue, as well as related biological and
stream use impacts.
9. U.S. Representative Edward F. Feighan (1/16/84)
a. Priority list and funding status.
Section VI.D. discusses these implementation factors.
b. Need for project.
Comment noted.
10. Olmsted Falls City Council (1/17/84)
a. Proposed alternative for Olmsted Falls imposes a great
financial burden.
Section V.E.2 addresses this concern.
11. Richard Mackay (1/17/84)
a. Reduce projected size of Middleburg Heights local plant;
affects capital costs.
The capital costs used in the Draft and Final EIS do
reflect the smaller size (4.24 mgd) for the Middleburg
Heights plant.
b. Local O&M charges appear high.
Operation and maintenance values were developed
consistent with the regulations in 40 CFR 35, Appendix A
6.C.(1) and (2), which do not include capital recovery
for the existing treatment plants. Treatment costs are
lower at Southerly because of its economy of scale.
Major areas of cost increase at Southerly, with the
addition of the Southwest Interceptor, are materials and
Vli-36
-------
supplies and contractual services. Other O & M costs
would not be substantially affected.
c. Participation of Middleburg Heights in Southwest
Interceptor.
Section VI.D.1.describes the necessary agreements for
Middleburg Heights to participate in the Southwest
Interceptor.
12. George V. Voinovich, Mayor of Cleveland (1/18/84)
a. Need Main Leg Interceptor to correct existing problems.
Comment noted.
13. Federal Highway Administration (1/20/84)
a. No special comments.
Comment noted.
14. Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners (1/23/84)
a. Southwest Interceptor necessary to abate existing
problems; consistent with local planning.
Comment noted.
15. Department of the Interior (1/23/84)
a. Mineral and mining impacts adequately considered.
Comment noted.
b. Park impact; Land and Water Conseration Fund
coordination.
Formal coordination has been concluded with no apparent
conflict. Appendix E includes this correspondence.
c. Archaeological and historic preservation compliance.
Appendix E includes the SHPO's concurrence of no effect
to National Register of Historic Places resources.
d. Federal endangered species.
Sections II.I.4., V.F.G.d. and VI.C.7. address these
concerns and consultation.
16. Columbia Township (1/23/84)
a. Westview tertiary treatment plant does not need to be
abandoned.
VII-37
-------
The Westview plant is subject to hydraulic
overloading in wet weather, reducing its treatment
effectiveness. Facilities planning focuses on the needs
for the next 20 years as well as the immediate need. By
the time the Southwest Interceptor is implemented, this
facility will be nearing the end of its useful life.
b. Does not want to be part of the present planning area;
perhaps in 30-35 years.
The Westview plant service area has been included in the
immediate 20-year planning area. The remainder of
Columbia Township is an option area for the post 20-year
planning period.
c. Floodplain clarification.
This correction has been noted in Section II.G.2.C.
d. Potable water clarification.
The Rural Lorain County Water Authority distributes Lake
Erie water to its customers. The hydrologic impacts to
local streams are comparable to the water service
provided by Cleveland.
e. Population projection clarifications.
Table 11-19 reflects these same rates of change based
upon NOACA projections. For facilities planning, EPA
regulations require that the approved population pro-
jections of the 208 agency be used, in this case, NOACA.
f. Effluent limitations.
The information in question, in Table III-l, presents
final effluent limitations and not current plant per-
formance. If the Multi-Plant Alternative were imple-
mented, both facilities would have to achieve the limit-
ations of their respective discharge permits, as deter-
mined by Ohio EPA.
g. Westview Park (Columbia Township) Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
A cost advantage of lower user charges exists for this
small plant to become part of the regionalized SWI
Alternative, see Section V.E.2. Section IV.E.4 lists
those WWTP flows that would be intercepted. However,
detailed local planning as well as negotiation with
VII-38
-------
NEORSD is still necessary before any plans are imple-
mented.
h. User charges.
Actual billing to NEORDS customers is based on water
use. These tables represent an "average" monthly user
bill. A conversion factor would be employed to convert
gallons into cubic feet in order to determine the
actual bill for these customers.
i. Impact of Strongsville "A" on West Branch.
Comment noted.
j. Assessing Township residents for sewer project.
Residents will not pay for the Southwest Interceptor
until they become NEORSD customers and existing waste-
water treatment facilities are decommissioned.
k. Population Projections.
Population projections used in the Draft and Final EIS
were developed by NOACA and approved by them as the 208
agency for facilities planning use.
17. U.S. Representative Mary Rose Oakar (1/24/84)
a. Southwest Interceptor is needed.
Comment noted.
b. Need to implement funding.
Ohio EPA establishes the project priority list for
funding wastewater treatment projects throughout the
State of Ohio. Presently, this project is number three
on this list and it is likely that a grant would be
awarded in Fiscal Year 1984.
18. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (1/25/84)
a. Need to move ahead for maximum possible funding.
Comment noted; see Section VI.D. for a full discussion
of project priority and funding.
b. User charges.
User charge comparisons are presented in Section V.E.2.
VII-39
-------
c. Employment of local treatment plant operators.
Comment noted.
d. Buy off existing bonds.
Comment noted.
e. Changes in water quality standards.
Comment noted.
f. Incremental costs of East Leg and sizing.
The East Leg Option Area capacity within the West Leg
interceptor remains post-20-year capacity. This is
reinforced by the fact that several East Leg Area
treatment facilities are receiving EPA Step 3 grants
(Strongsville Bond C) for improvements in the present
20-year planning period.
g. Environmental benefits of Southwest Interceptor.
Comments noted.
h. EIS refinements.
We have considered these items in the development of the
Final EIS.
19. Independent Citizens Advisory Committee of Olmsted Township
(1/25/84)
a. Details and costs of Olmsted Township alternatives;
potential of bias.
The EIS discusses customer costs, in addition to the
NEORSD user charges, in Section V.E.2. Specific costs
and project details will depend on the results of an
in-depth local analysis of sanitary service alternatives
As indicated in Section V.E.2, small diameter sewers
may offer some cost savings. Costs for a management
program for outlying, on-site system areas will depend
on the local decision for the scope of services to be
included in the management program.
b. Need for local EIS hearing for each community with
up-to-date costs.
The Draft EIS public hearing was held in a centrally
located place in afternoon and evening sessions to
VII-40
-------
facilitate attendance, with more than the minimum
advertising required for public hearings. In addition,
the Citizen's Advisory Committee has held regular
meetings to keep communities and their representatives
up-to-date on facilities planning issues and details.
The Draft EIS, with detailed cost presentations, was sent
to whomever we were aware was interested in receiving it
as well as local public libraries.
Holding a separate public hearing for each community
involves considerable time and expense for EPA. This
approach is not considered unless there is substantial
public interest. Ample time was available at the Draft
EIS public hearing for all participants to speak.
c. Poor timing of Draft EIS and public hearing for full
participation.
We recognize that the Draft EIS was issued at a busy time
of year for most people. For this reason, the comment
period was extended from the minimum requirement of 45
days to 55 days. Fortunately, the hearing date was not
hampered by severe weather conditions. Both an afternoon
and evening session were held to try to make it possible
for more people to attend. The Draft EIS was issued as
soon as possible after all technical information was
gathered. This was done to enable the potential for 75%
Fiscal Year 1984 funding after the EIS process is
concluded, for whatever alternative is preferred.
d. Validity of the Public Advisory Group vote.
It was the responsibility of the PAG to establish its own
operating procedures. The PAG is one avenue of partici-
pation for communities, individuals and groups. We
welcome and have received separate comments from PAG
participants, as reflected in these letters and the
public hearing.
20. Charles J. Neff, City Engineer, Middleburg Heights (1/25/84)
a. Southerly treatment plant overdesigned and needs
customers from Southwest Planning Area.
The Southerly plant was built with the long-range concept
that the Southwest Interceptor, Cuyahoga Valley
Interceptor, Phases I and II, and the Mill Creek
Interceptor would be implemented requiring 200 mgd of
treatment capacity.
VII-41
-------
b. Middleburg Heights refused independent facilities
planning capability by Ohio EPA.
Ohio EPA developed the planning area in connection with
the 208 planning agency. The area includes Middleburg
Heights and the objective is not to use Federal funds to
pay for duplicative planning work.
c. Interim permit standards until Southwest Interceptor;
if proceeding independently, would have to meet final
standards now.
Until permit issues are resolved by Ohio EPA, the
interim permit needs cannot be identified.
d. Local sewage treatment more cost-effective than regional.
Table V-l compares the cost-effectiveness of proceeding
independently with a Multi-Plant Alternative, including
improvements at Middleburg Heights, to the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative. The regional interceptor has
the lower total present worth cost ($295,656,100 versus
$312,737,400). The greatest area of cost difference
between the alternatives is in O&M costs, where a greater
economy of scale exists at the Southerly WWTP. Since
O&M costs are not eligible for Federal funding, costs
to the users would be substantially higher, as shown in
Table V-7.
21. Cleveland Metroparks 1/25/84
a. Improved water quality will enhance parkland resources;
construction impacts will be temporary-
Comment noted.
b. Need to be involved in planning within parkland.
Agreed; see Section V.F.4.
c. Low flow impacts from interbasin transfer should be
mitigated by low flow augmentation, if detrimental.
Based on the analyses by Ohio EPA for the Draft Rocky
River Comprehensive Water Quality Report, observed
biological conditions below the Berea water supply
intake, and work developed in the Draft EIS, it appears
that the stream has the capability to maintain its flow
and its quality despite low flow events. Stream flows
in the East Branch will increase with additional up-
stream development, which is based on inputs of Lake
VII-42
-------
Erie water. A. voluntary water conservation program
within Berea would assist in guaranteeing its own muni-
cipal resource and in enhancing local stream flows.
A formal stream flow augmentation program would require
an extensive feasibility study, a source of water and a
legal entity to implement the flow augmentation. While
it is the conclusion of the EIS that this is not neces-
sary, it may be a future option or one which could be
locally initiated.
22. Robert Stackhouse and Laurie Snyder, Olmsted Township
(1/25/84)
a. Procedural problems in Public Advisory Group.
It is the responsibility of the PAG to establish its own
procedures; these are not set forth by U.S. EPA.
b. Poor timing for public participation with Draft EIS and
public hearing.
This has been discussed in letter 19.
23. Olmsted Township Trustees (1/25/84)
a. Does not want to participate in the Southwest Interceptor
plan.
Action is necessary to address sanitary problems in
Olmsted Township, especially in the more densely
developed areas. The Southwest Interceptor is the most
cost-effective solution to solve these problems. The
Township must consent to join NEORSD prior to imple-
mentation of the Southwest Interceptor in their com-
munity. Any community is free, however, to pursue their
own course of action without Federal funding.
b. Treatment at local package plants is adequate as recent
inspections have shown.
Local package plants will need additional improvements
and flow equalization to meet the requirements for
effective treatment in the 20-year planning period, see
parts of Section III.C.
c. Stress on-site upgrade alternatives.
We encourage local initiative in establishing a manage-
ment program for on-site systems for most of the Town-
ship.
VII-43
-------
d. Costs would be a financial hardship.
The Final EIS addresses detailed planning needs in
Section V.E.2 and the possibility of a small diameter
collection system to reduce project costs.
24. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District/Public Advisory Group
(1/25/84)
a. Minutes of 1/18/84 meeting.
Comments noted.
b. Voting results.
Results noted.
VII.B. Public Hearing Comments
VII.B.I. Public Hearing Afternoon Session
1. Erwin Odeal, Director, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
a. Reviewed proposed project and its history; the cost-
effective alternative and also lowest cost for users.
Comment noted.
b. Discharge standards should be comparable both for the
local major treatment plants and Cleveland Southerly,
because of need to protect Rocky River -
Discharge standards will be established by Ohio EPA based
on the detailed stream studies of the Draft Rocky River
Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
c. Incremental cost concept for East Leg is not compatable
with present sizing calculations.
This has been modified for the Final EIS in Section
V.G.2. and Table V-19.
2. Gary Starr, Mayor, City of Middleburg Heights
a. Who will pay off City treatment plant's bond indebtedness
of $2.5 million to the year 2002?
This sunk cost remains the responsibility of the commun-
ity. Each community will also be responsible for the
costs of maintaining and upgrading its local sewer
system.
VII-44
-------
b. Must Middleburg Heights meet interim or final permit
requirements before the Southwest Interceptor is
operational?
Ohio EPA. will determine this requirement as part of
their permit responsibilities.
c. Representation of Middleburg Heights in the Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District, especially with regard to
user charges, capital improvements and operation of
facilities?
Prior to implementing the Southwest Interceptor, each
new community to be served becomes a member of the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. Recently, there
has been a greater shift to suburban representation on
the NEORSD Board of Trustees because of population
shifts within the metropolitan region.
d. Three alternatives for City:
1. Southwest Interceptor
2. Upgrade City wastewater treatment plant
3. Negotiate with NEORSD for transfer of treatment plant
ownership.
Comment noted.
Fred Pizzedaz, Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
(NOACA), speaking for Northeast Ohio Lake Erie Basin Water
Quality Management Program (NEOLEB)(208Plan)
a. Draft EIS complies with issues raised by NEOLEB in 1976,
(development of alternatives, water supply and stream
flow, compensation of communities absorbed into a larger
system, project phasing and public participation).
Comment noted.
b. Side stream pools in Rocky River help to mitigate impacts
of low stream flow.
Comment noted. This relates to the
discussion of Sections V.F.l.b. and V.F.l.c.
c. Southwest Interceptor concept is consistant with NEOLEB
Water Quality Management Plan.
Comment noted.
VII-45
-------
d. Importance of proceeding promptly to receive 75% funding.
This consideration is discussed in Section VI.D.
Tom Perin, Council President of Olmsted Falls
a. Concern for project costs and affordability for those
below the median income.
As discussed in Section V.E.2., additional detailed
planning and design work will have to be done prior
to implementing the alternative for Olmsted Falls.
One possibility for lowering project costs may be a
small diameter collection system.
Walter Olson, Program Director for Community Capital
Investment Strategy
a. Group is a council of five groups responsible for
Cleveland area infrastuctures coordinated planning for
community physical renewal. Interceptors are very high
on their list of local needs, based on coordinated
planning.
Comment noted.
b. Treatment plants are under-utilized without interceptors;
urge adoption of Southwest Interceptor plan.
Comment noted.
Jack Garner, Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer, Public
Advisory Group participant
a. Main Leg should be built immediately with capacity for
West Leg area. Delays affect projection costs.
Comment noted.
b. Need to examine in detail low flow situation below Berea
treatment plant.
See Section V.F.l.b. and c. for a more detailed
discussion.
c. Need comprehensive extreme flow management program for
East Branch of Rocky River as mitigation or else keep
and improve Berea plant.
See response to comment letter 21, item C, in Section
VII.A.I.
d. NOACA should confirm population projections.
See Section II.K.I. for a discussion of population
VII-46
-------
projections.
e. Technical concerns on Multi-Plant Alternative and
planning values for wastewater flow monitoring accuracy,
O&M costs and design costs.
No specific concerns were raised at the public hearing.
We believe that any concerns have been resolved through
discussions with NEORSD.
f. Question need for advanced treatment during wet weather
flows.
Permit conditions must be achieved in both wet and dry
weather.
g. Any interim plant improvements should be included in the
cost-effectiveness analysis.
Until permit issues are resolved by Ohio EPA, the
interim needs cannot be identified.
h. Importance of managing and upgrading on-site systems;
need for extensive local study and development of full
costs.
Comment noted.
i. Need for Ohio EPA Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality
Report.
This information has been available for the preparation
of the Final EIS, see Section III.F. and Appendix D.
j. Need to correct average flow value for the Brentwood
plant.
This facility is proposed for connection to the
Southwest Interceptor.
k. Middleburg Heights alternative is oversized, therefore,
also high O&M costs.
Sizing for the Middleburg Heights plant has been
corrected.
1. Also, four additional discharges to Abram Creek.
These are not municipal discharges and are not a part
of this Federal planning.
VII-47
-------
7. Paul McCumbers, Public Advisory Group member
a. Will plants be required to meet 1987 discharge limits?
If so"", costs should be factored in; need formal
clarification.
As indicated previously, this is the responsibility of
Ohio EPA.
b. Low flow observed now at Berea.
Section V.F.l.b.l. on Water Quantity (p. V-28)
acknowledges observed low flow.
c. Specific recreation improvements to be achieved in the
East Branch of the Rocky River.
Recreation and park use would be maintained by achieving
water quality standards. Stream habitat may improve.
d. Flow and sizing values used for Berea.
Sections V.B. and V.E. refer to the SSES and facilities
planning documents that have been revised to reflect new
flow and sizing information.
e. O&M cost values used.
See Section V.E. for a reference to revised costs in the
facilities planning reports and a summary of O&M values
in Table V-l.
8. Robert Falardeau, Cuyahoga Heights
a. Additional new discharges from Southerly WWTP would
impact Cuyahoga Heights, downstream.
Required treatment levels for the Cleveland Southerly
WWTP have been designed to achieve water quality stan-
dards and to not significantly impact downstream commun-
ities .
b. Recognize need for improved service in Main Leg area.
Comment noted.
c. Low flow impacts at Berea.
See response to item 7. a. above, as well as impact
sections in Chapters V and VI.
VII-48
-------
VII.B.2. Public Hearing, Evening Session
1. Erwin Odeal, Director, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District.
See afternoon session for same comments and response.
2. David Fortier, Mayor, Olmsted Falls
a. Concerned about financial impacts.
Section V.E.2. discusses possibilities for reducing
sewering costs by using small diameter sewers.
b. Concerned about secondary development impacts.
Development is most effectively controlled at the local
level by local zoning and land use controls. The areas
proposed for sewering are already largely developed.
Local sewer planning can further contribute to sewer
sizing and layout.
3. Doris Linge
a. Likelihood of obtaining 75% funding.
The project's current number three position on the Ohio
priority list indicates a high likelihood of achieving
75% funding in Fiscal Year 1984.
4. Mr. Fortier
a. Position on project priority list.
See response above.
VII-49
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY
DATA FOR ROCKY RIVER BASIN
(See Draft EIS)
-------
APPENDIX B
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESS
SPECIFICATIONS
(See Draft EIS)
-------
APPENDIX C
INDEX
-------
INDEX
IV-29, V-2
IV-18, V-7, V-22,
Alternatives, IV-1
alternative selection by zone
(Olmsted Falls/Township), IV-9
analysis of, IV-35, V-1, V-7, V-22, V-32
collection and treatment, IV-5
East Leg area, see SWI alternative
local alternatives for Olmsted Falls/
Township, IV-14
Main Leg alignment,
Multi-Plant, IV-16,
V-46
no action, IV-1
recommended alternative, VI-1
selection of, IV-7, IV-9, IV-14
Southwest Interceptor (SWI), IV-29, V-22,
V-46, VI-1
treatment plant, IV-4
treatment process, IV-1, IV-3
Two-Plant, IV-18
West Leg area/alignment, see SWI
alternative, IV-29, V-5, V-28, VI-1
Berea Water Treatment Plant
see Water uses, drinking water
Berea WWTP
existing facilities and discharge, 111-12
performance analyses, 111-24
recommended plan for, VI-1
treatment process improvements for
Multi-Plant alternative, IV-16
Big Creek Basin
see Drainage, Cuyahoga River Basin
Biological resources
aquatic, 11-41, V-39, V-41
benthic sampling program, 11-41
endangered species, 11-48, V-48, VI-8
terrestrial, 11-41
wetlands, 11-41, V-48, VI-8
Brook Park WWTP
existing facilities and discharge, 111-10
performance analyses, 111-23
recommended plan for, VI-1
treatment process improvements for Multi-
Plant alternative, IV-18
Cleveland Southerly WWTP
existing facilities and flow, III-1
role in recommended plan, VI-1
Climate, II-1
Construction of project
Cuyahoga River crossing, V-4,
VI-1, VI-8
future planning and construction
impacts, V-50
impacts, V-44, V-46, VI-7
mitigating measures, VI-9
Rocky River crossing, VI-1 2
techniques, V-7
Costs
assumptions, V-7
comparison of alternatives, V-7
cost-effectiveness analysis,
summary, V-9
future planning and, V-50
North and South alignments of
Main Leg, V-4
percent of median annual house-
hold income and, V-11, VI-5
present worth costs, IV-9,
IV-18, V-8, VI-5
projected user charges, V-10,
V-ll, VI-5
Cultural resources
data, 11-49
impacts, V-48, VI-8, VI-11
Drainage
see Topography
Cuyahoga River (Big Creek) Basin
II-1, 11-21
Rocky River Basin, II-1, 11-21
Economics
existing conditions, 11-55
impacts, V-1 7
projections, 11-55
Effluent (wastewater)
see Water quantity, wastewater
contributions
permit limitations, III-1, III-7
volume of discharge (flow),
III-1, 111-11
EIS process
Draft EIS and public hearing,
1-14, VII-1
Draft EIS comments, VII-1
EIS issues, 1-10
C-1
-------
EIS process (continued)
Final EIS, 1-14
responses to Draft EIS comments,
VII-35
Employment
see Economic conditions
Energy, V-49, VI-8
Environmental impacts
see Biological resources, Construction,
Cultural resources, Economics, Ground-
water, Land use, Population, Soils,
Water quality. Water quantity, Water
use
other impacts, V-48, VI-8
Floodplains, 11-28, V-48, VI-8
Funding
see Implementation of project
Geology, II-1, V-49
Groundwater
data, 11-21
impacts, V-48
Historical/Archaeological resources
see Cultural resources
Implementation of project, VI-13
funding, VI-5, VI-15
Individual (on-site) sewage disposal
systems, 111-29
impacts, V-47
on-site treatment process alternatives,
IV-2
recommended plan for, VI-1
water quality impacts and, V-42
Land use, II-6
existing, II-11
impacts, V-48
parkland impacts, 1-11, V-44, VI-7
prime agricultural lands, 11-41
projected, 11-15
Middleburg Heights WWTP
existing facilities, III-12
performance analyses, 111-24
recommended plan for, VI-1
treatment process improvements
for Multi-Plant alternative,
IV-18
Mitigating measures
see Construction of project,
Soils
Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township
see Planning area, Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Township, Small
treatment plants
collection and treatment alter-
natives, IV-5
planning zones in, IV-7
recommended plan for, VI-1
treatment plant alternatives,
IV-4, IV-7
Planning area, 1-1
East Leg, 111-30, VI-1
Main Leg, III-1, VI-1
Medina "300" Option, see Option
areas
North Olmsted Option, see Option
areas
northeastern Columbia Township
Option, see Option areas, VI-1
Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township
III-7
Option areas, 111-30, V-54
West Leg, III-7, VI-1
Population
future planning and, V-53
projected growth, 11-49
secondary impacts, 1-11, V-43,
VI-7
sizing/cost-effectiveness and,
1-11, V-42, VI-7
Proj ect
future planning (20-year),
IV-34, V-49
C-2
-------
Project (continued)
history, 1-7
need, 1-1
Public participation
Draft EIS comment letters, VII-1
Public Advisory Group (PAG), 1-12
public hearing comments on EIS, VII-1,
VII-44
role in EIS, 1-14
role in facilities planning, 1-12
Septic tanks
see Individual sewage disposal systems
Service area
see Planning area
Sewage treatment plants
dry weather discharges, V-27
facilities, see Berea WWTP, Brook Park
WWTP, Cleveland Southerly WWTP,
Middleburg Heights WWTP, Planning area
West Leg, Small treatment plants,
Strongsville "A" WWTP
performance analyses, see individual
WWTP's, 111-22, 111-23
Sewer system
flow equalization, V-2
infiltration/inflow survey (I/I), 111-31,
IV-2, V-1
rehabilitiation, see I/I and SSES
relief sewers, 111-33, VI-14
sewer system evaluation survey (SSES),
111-35
Small treatment plants, III-7, 111-25, IV-14,
VI-1
Brentwood Subdivision (Zone G), 111-26
Brookside Subdivision, 111-29
Columbia Trailer Park (Zone F), 111-26
Falls Subdivision (Zone I), 111-28
Versailles Subdivision (Zone E), 111-28
Western Ohio Public Utilities (Zone H),
111-26
Westview Park (Columbia Township Sub-
division, Zone J), III-29
Soils
data, II-4
erosion, VI-9
mitigating measures, VI-9
Southerly treatment plant
see Cleveland Southerly WWTP
Strongsville "A" WWTP
existing facilities and dis-
charge, III-17
performance analyses, 111-24
recommended plan for, VI-1
treatment process improvements
for Multi-Plant alternative,
I V-1 8
Topography, II-1
Water quality
Abram Creek, 111-35, V-42
ammonia data, Appendix D
Cuyahoga River, 11-35, VI-8
East Branch Rocky River, 111-35
V-41
future planning and stream flow
impacts, V-50
on-site systems and, V-42
Plum Creek, 111-36
pollutant loadings for alter-
natives, V-32
Rocky River, 111-37, V-38,
V-42
water quality surveys, 11-28
West Branch Rocky River, 111-35,
V-41
Water quantity (flow)
Abram Creek, V-32, VI-7
Cuyahoga River Basin, 11-21
East Branch Rocky River, V-28,
VI-6
interbasin transfer, 1-11,
V-22, VI-6
minimum stream flow, 11-23,
VI-6
Rocky River Basin, 11-23
Rocky River Main Branch, V-30,
VI-6
C-3
-------
Water quantity (flow)(continued)
wastewater contributions and, 11-23
water depth, V-32
West Branch Rocky River, V-28, VI-6
Water uses, V-1
Cuyahoga River, 11-37
drinking water (potable), 11-37
impacts, V-38
Rocky River Basin, 11-35
sizing and, V-43
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
DRAFT ROCKY RIVER COMPREHENSIVE
WATER QUALITY REPORT-
1981 AMMONIA DATA
-------
Draft Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report
"1981 Ammonia Data
These ammonia data represent a portion of the water quality mon-
itoring done by the Ohio EPA in their 1981 survey of the Rocky
River watershed. This information and other chemical/physical
sampling are reported in their entirety in the Draft Rocky River
Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
These ammonia values supercede those presented in Appendix A.
In the following chart, sampling stations used in the Ohio EPA
water quality survey were matched by location with sampling sta-
tions from the facilities planning water quality survey- Ohio
EPA stations are identified by river mile (RM) and an appropriate
identifying cross road, e.g., West Branch RM 5.4, Sprague Road.
Locations of the facilities planning stations were provided in
Figure II-8 and Table 11-13 (pages 11-32, 33) of the EIS.
Ohio EPA Sampling Stations
Corresponds to Facilities
Planning Sampling Stations
WB
WB
WB/PC
WB
EB
EB
EB
RM 5.4
RM 3.5
RM 3.1
RM 0.4
RM 12.2
RM 10.7
RM 6.4
EB/BC
EB
EB
RR
RM
RM
RM
RM
4.9
3.4
1.3
12.0
RR RM 11.1
RR/AC RM 10.4
RR/AC RM 10.4
RR/AC RM 10.4
RR RM 9 .8
Sprague Road
Bagley Road
(RM 0.3 on Plum Creek,
Columbia Road
Lewis Road
Mill Stream Run Road
Mill Run Wildlife Area
Upstream from Baldwin
Lake
(RM 4.7 on Baldwin
Creek), Bagley Road
Upstream from Berea
WWTP
Park Blvd. downstream
from Berea WWTP
Near Berea
Downstream from
North Olmsted WWTP
(RM 3.9 on Abram Cr.),
Sheldon Road
(RM 3.3 on Abram Cr.),
Eastland Road
(RM 0.8 on Abram Cr.),
Cedar Point Road
Brook Park Road
SS-6 (Segment W4)
SS-4 (W3)
SS-7 (PI)
SS-2 (Wl)
SS-10 (E4)
SS-10 (E4)
SS-9 (E3)
SS-8 (B)
BR-3 (E2)
BR-4 (El)
Segment from
EB/WB confluence
to RR/Abram Cr.
confluence (Ml)
same as above (Ml)
BP-3 (A)
BP-4 (A)
BP-4 (A)
SS-1 (M2)
WB = West Branch, Rocky River
WB/PC = Plum Creek, tributary of West Branch
EB = East Branch, Rocky River
EB/BC = Baldwin Creek, tributary of East Branch
RR = Rocky River mainstem
RR/AC = Abram Creek, tributary of Rocky River
D-l
-------
Sampling stations from the facilities planning survey that do not
have a corresponding station sampled by Ohio EPA are:
River Station
WB SS-3 (segment W2)
WB/PC SS-5 (segment P2)
WB SA-3 (between W3
and W4)
WB SA-4 (between W3
and W4)
RR/AC MH-3 (segment A)
Location
Water Street and West Branch
Rocky River Crossing
300 feet N.W.
Usher Road and Plum Creek
Crossing, S.E. corner.
Sprague Road 100 feet upstream
of Strongsville "A" WWTP
outfall.
500 feet downstream of Strongs-
ville "A" WWTP outfall.
Sheldon Road 100 feet upstream
of Middleburg Heights WWTP
outfall.
Ammonia concentrations are presented in Table 1 as total ammonia-
nitrogen (mg/1 NH3~N) as were the ammonia values in Appendix A.
The Ohio water quality standard for ammonia in warm water habi-
tats is 0.05 mg/1 NH3~N as un-ionized ammonia, which represents
the toxic component of ammonia solutions. These un-ionized
values were then translated to total ammonia-nitrogen
(incorporating the ammonium ions) based on water pH and
temperature. Violations of the state standard are noted within
the table and were measured against the 0.05 mg/1 un-ionzed
NH3-N standard.
D-2
-------
TABLE 1. TOTAL AMMONIA NITROGEN VALUES FDR
SELECTED STATIONS IN THE ROCKY RIVER WATERSHED, 1981
West
Branch: RM 5.4
Sprague Road (ss-6)
Date
81/7/01
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/05
8/11
8/25
9/03
9/10
9/14
9/29
Minimum
Maximum
Average
West
Plum
Date
81/7/01
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/05
8/11
8/25
9/03
9/10
9/14
9/29
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Total NH3-N (mq/1)
0.53
6.80*
2.63
2.64
1.98
3.48*
1.25*
0.11
0.10
0.93
5.60*
0.10
6.80
2.37
Branch: RM 3.1, 0.3
Creek at Columbia Road (SS-7)
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
1.03
1.16
0.32
0.64
1.05
0.51
3.21*
0.20
0.28
1.29
1.89
0.20
3.21
1.05
West Branch: EM 3
Bagley Road (SS-4)
Date Total
81/7/01
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/05
8/11
8/25
9/03
9/10
9/14
9/29
Minimum
Maximum
Average
.5
NH3-N (mg/1)
1.87*
5.04
2.49
1.54
1.51
0.73
1.79*
0.21
0.46
1.07
4.55*
0.21
5.04
1.93
West Branch: EM 0.4
Lewis Road (SS-2)
Date Total
81/7/01
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/05
8/11
8/25
9/03
9/10
9/14
9/29
Minimum
Maximum
Average
NH3-N (mg/1)
2.44
3.77
5.50
1.00
0.03
0.87
0.02
0.18
0.23
0.07
1.01
0.02
5.50
1.37
Indiates violations of Ohio water quality standard (0.5 mg/1 un-ionzied NH3)
corrected to total ammonia nitrogen.
- Results below detection limits. Values below 0.09 mg/1 were analyzed by a
method sensitive to very low concentrations of ammonia.
Ohio EPA Draft Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
D-3
-------
TABLE 1 - Continued
East Branch:
Mill Stream
Date
81/6/23
6/30
7/07
7/13
7/22
7/28
8/04
8/13
8/26
9/03
9/10
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
East Branch:
RM 12.2
Run Road (SS-10)
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.25
0.08
0.34
0.30
0.08
0.57
0.09k
0.19
0.09
0.89
0.03
0.89
0.24
RM 6.4
Upstream from Baldwin Lake (SS-9)
Date
81/6/23
6/30
7/07
7/13
7/22
7/28
8/04
8/13
8/26
9/03
9/10
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.31
0.09
0.30
0.18
0.12
0.25
0.10
0.18
0.26
0.60
0.08
0.60
0.21
East
Mill
Date
81/6/23
6/30
7/07
7/13
7/22
7/28
8/04
8/13
8/26
9/03
9/10
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
East
Branch: RM 10.7
Run Wildlife Area (also SS-10)
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
0.36
0.64
0.36
0.65
0.13
0.49
0.86
0.26
1.92*
0.09k
0.47
0.83
2.47*
0.13
2.47
0.73
Branch: RM 4.9, 4.7 on
Baldwin Creek at Bagley Road (SS-8)
Date
81/6/24
6/30
7/07
7/13
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
0.15
0.07
0.12
0.67
0.28
1.07
0.20
0.16
0.94
0.07
0.09k
0.19
0.14
0.17
0.07
1.07
0.31
D-4
-------
TABLE 1 - Continued
East Branch: RM 3.4
Upstream from Berea WWTP (BR-3)
~~ Date Total NH3-N (mg/1)
81/6/24 0.03
7/09 0.08
7/14 0.21
7/21 0.45
7/27 0.20
8/03 0.05
8/10 0.10
8/17 0.12
8/24 0.00
8/31 0.15
9/08 0.45
9/14 0.60
9/29 0.07
Minimum 0 . 00
Maximum 0.60
Average 0 . 19
Mainstem: RM 12.0
Near Berea (M-l segment from East/West
Br. confluence to Mainstem/Abram Cr.
confluence)
Date Total NH3-N (mg/1)
81/6/24
7/01 0.85
7/09 0.40
7/15 3.62*
7/21 3.07*
7/27 0.24
7/30 0.62
8/03 0.92
8/10 0.56
8/17 0.19
8/24 0.96*
8/31 0.30
9/08 0.52
9/15 0.41
9/28 1.77
10/14 0.53
Minimum 0.19
Maximum 3.62
Average 0.94
East
Park
Branch: PM 1.3
Boulevard (BR-4)
Downstream from Berea WTP
Date
81/6/24
7/09
7/14
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/14
9/29
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
0.68
1.60
0.25
0.38
0.58
0.95
0.55
0.53
2.15*
0.59
1.21
0.93
2.34
0.25
2.34
0.98
Mainstem: RM 11.1
Downstream from North Olmsted WWTP
(also
Date
81/6/24
7/01
7/09
7/15
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
in M-l segment)
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
0.34
0.62
0.44
2.08
2.41
0.85
0.76
0.84
0.18
1.75*
0.43
0.09k
0.97
2.15*
0.18
2.15
0.99
D-5
-------
TABLE 1 - Continued
Mainstem:
Abram Creek
Date
81/6/24
7/01
7/09
7/15
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
RM 10.4, 3.9 on
at Sheldon Road (BP-3)
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
7.60*
11.15*
8.60*
4.36
3.54
9.15*
8.95*
5.17*
4.61*
11.35*
7.70
5.95*
4.25
11.00*
3.54
11.35
7.38
Mainstem: RM 10.4, 0.8 on
Abram Creek
(also BP-4)
Date
81/6/24
7/01
7/09
7/15
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
at Cedar Point Road
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
4.93*
2.45*
4.91*
4.60*
1.38*
4.88*
8.95*
2.66*
1.45*
4.93*
3.51*
1.67*
0.92
7.15*
0.92
7.15
3.89
Mainstem:
FM 10.4, 3.3
Abram Creek at Eastland
Date
81/6/24
7/01
7/09
7/15
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Mainstem:
Brookpark
Date
81/6/24
7/01
7/09
7/15
7/21
7/27
8/03
8/10
8/17
8/24
8/31
9/08
9/15
9/28
Minimum
Maximum
Average
on
Road (BP-4
Total NH3-N (mg/1)
5.15*
4.42*
7.80*
5.23
2.27
5.65*
7.00*
3.15
2.85
7.80*
4.70*
2.85*
4.25*
7.45*
2.27
7.80
5.04
RM 9.8
Road (SS-1)
Total NH3-N
0.44
0.45
0.27
2.10*
1.42
0.21
0.84
0.80
0.37
0.76
0.77
0.58
0.66
1.37
0.21
2.10
0.79
(mg/1)
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E
APPROVAL LETTERS IN RESPONSE
TO DRAFT EIS COMMENTS
-------
ODNl
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio 43224
March 15, 1984
Harlan D. Hirt, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Re: 5WFI
Dear Mr. Hirt:
This is in reply to your letter of March 1, 1984 to Lt. Gov.
Myrl H. Shoemaker, Director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Cleveland Southwest Interceptor project. The sewage line crosses
Rocky River and the metropark at a point between Land and Water Con-
servation Fund projects 39-00526 and 39-00944. Both projects consist
of trails which end before they reach the crossing point. It there-
fore appears that there would be no potential Section 6(f) conflict.
However, if it is determined that the crossover area is under
Section 6(f) protection, we do not believe that a conflict would occur
as long as title or rights to the land do not change and there is no
effect on the surface of the ground of the sewer's presence.
We do not oppose the sewer's crossing Rocky River Reservation
provided that any Section 6(f) conflict is resolved and that there are
no adverse environmental effects.
Sincerely,
^^J^^L LXTrr-T*-^
David Michael Cook
Grants Administration
Office of Outdoor Recreation
Services
(614) 265-6395
DMC/dmh/jas
Richard F. Celeste, Governor • Lt. Gov. Myrl H. Shoemaker, Director
E_ 1
-------
Ohio Hutoric Preservation Office
1985 Venn a Avenue
CuiunnLKiS Ono 43211
f,14 J6'"-1iOU
OHIO
> 1984 HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
SI NCI 1K8S
Mr. Erwln J. Odeal
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
1127 Euclid Avenue-5th Floor
Cleveland,Ohio 441 15
Dear Mr. Odeal:
I have received your letter of May 2. 1984 regarding the proposed
Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan transmitting the Southwest
Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan, the Southwest
Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report and the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. I have reviewed these these documents. In
particular the report "Archaeological Investigations of the Southwestern
Suburban Sanitary Interceptor Sewer: Documentation, and Field
Reconnaissance, and Testing" prepared by Dr. David Brose and others In
1977. I have reviewed this report and evaluated the modifications of
the Southwest Interceptor plan made since 1977 and I have the following
comments.
Although the archaeological report Is relatively old and not written to
contemporary guidelines. It Is evident that no sites are located within the
Main Leg and West Leg portions of the project area as defined In 1977.
Therefore, no further archaeological evaluation will be necessary In these
areas as no sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places will be effected. The only areas which will need a Phase I and
Phase II archaeological evaluation are portions of the Berea Connector and
segments of the West Leg Extension which were not evaluated by Dr. Brose
and his staff. These areas are specified In previous correspondence with
the firm of John David Jones and Associates, Inc. Enclosed Is a photocopy
of a portion of Exhibit 8-A from the Final Facilities Planning Report
Indicates the general location of these areas. The segments associated
with the Olmsted and Versailles pass through previously disturbed areas, as
defined by Dr. Brose, and will not require an archaeological survey. The
Brook Park and Mlddelesburg Heights connector has been surveyed and will
will require no further Investigations as no sites were found.
My staff has discussed this project In some detail with representatives of
John David Jones and Associates In order to determine the exact extent of
the disturbed areas within the general areas for which survey has been
E-2
-------
recommended. In so far as the final design has not been developed. It may
occur that portions of the sewer with the areas selected for archaeological
survey will be placed In previously disturbed areas. Should this be the
case, then adequate documentation of this fact will be sufficient to remove
the need for a survey.
If you need any additional Information or clarification, please contact Mr.
Richard Bolsvert at the number listed above.
Sine
W. Ray Luc<
State Historic Preservation Office
x.c. Mike BolIn, OEPA
Tom Page I, John David Jones 4 Associates
David Brose, Cleveland Museum of Natural History
E-3
-------
CQNNECTOR
0.12%)^
X
X \
•%,
OLMSTED TWP -
OLMSTED FALLS
PUMP STATION
18" FM.
E DR|V€
TANK
T, PROPOSED OLMSTED FAtLS
' OLMSTEO TWR. WWTP
• BEKKA
V-EJS.3AILLES
WWTP"" ~
MH#2W-A
3.W-A
PONNEQTOR
STfRONGSVILLE
N-VERSAILLES f
' COLUMBIA *
PUMP STATION
-------
BLASTING NOTIFICATION
The following is a prototype specification for inclusion in Section 02950 -
General Tunnel Requirements, 1.8 - Drilling and Blasting, which follows:
NOTIFICATION
1. Prior to starting blasting, the CONTRACTOR shall notify the appropriate
local municipal officials, and the general public reasonably expected to
be potentially affected thereby, of his intent to do so.
2. Notification of the appropriate local municipal officials shall be in
writing, shall be at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of
such blasting or sooner if so required by any applicable local law or
regulation, and shall indicate the anticipated duration of such blasting.
3. Notification of the general public reasonably expected to be potentially
affected by such blasting shall be by means of written "door-hanger" -
type notices approved in advance by the ENGINEER, and shall be effected
at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of such blasting or
sooner if so required by any applicable local law or regulation.
4. The CONTRACTOR shall furnish the ENGINEER with a list of those parties
notified in accordance herewith prior to the start of such blasting.
It should be noted that this final specification may vary somewhat from the
above following complete review by the design consultants and the NEORSD
Engineering Department, however, the intent and goal shall remain intact.
E-5
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
SECTION 02950
GENERAL TUNNEL REQUIREMENTS
PART 1 - GENERAL
1 .1 SCOPE OF WORK
A. This section specifies the general requirements for portal,
shaft and tunnel construction work specified in Sections
02950 through 02993.
B. Work under this section includes drilling exploratory
holes.
1.2 WORK SPECIFIED IN OTHER SECTIONS
A. Safety; Section 01545
B. Shafts; Section 02953
C. Portals; Section 02957
D. Soft Ground Tunneling; Section 02960
E. Rock Tunneling; Section 02963
F. Ground Support and Protection; Section 02967
G. Monitoring Systems; Section 02970
H. Concrete in Tunnels; Section 02973
I. Segmental Tunnel Lining; Section 02977
J. Compressed Air Tunneling; Section 02983
K. BCI Protection and Restoration; Section 02987
L. Tunnel Grouting; Section 02990
M. Shotcrete; Section 02993
1.3 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Reference Codes and Specifications
1. Applicable codes, ordinances-, statutes and governing
rules and regulations of the governing municipalities
and counties, the State of Ohio, and the Federal
Government.
2. Occupational Safety and Health Regulations and Stan-
dards (29 CFR 1926/1910).
B. Blasting Consultant
1. Engage the services of a qualified, independent, pro-
fessional blasting consultant satisfactory to the
Engineer to design, review, evaluate and modify the
blasting operations.
2. Have the blasting consultant design the initial blasts,
supervise and conduct test blasts until regular produc-
tion controlled blasts patterns are developed that
minimize damage to rock and meet the requirement for
vibration and air blast control.
02950 - 1
E-6
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
c. Drawings and computations for any modifications
shall be prepared and certified by a professional
engineer experienced in tunneling and registered in
the State of Ohio.
D. Blasting Data and Reports
T~. Not less than 30 days prior to starting work or a new
phase of the work, submit in accordance with the
Section 01300 the following data concerning proposed
blasting operations:
a. Location/ depth, area, anticipated neat lines and
relationship to adjacent excavations and
structures.
b. Diameter, spacing, burden, depth, pattern and
inclination of blast holes.
c. Type, strength, amount in terms of weight and
cartridges of explosives to be used in each hole,
for each delay and the total for the blast,
including powder factor for each blast.
d. The distribution of the charge in the holes and the
priming of each hole.
e. Type, sequence and number of delays, delay pattern;
wiring diagram for blast; size and type of hookup
lines, and lead lines; type and capacity of firing
source; type, size and location of safety switches
and lighting gaps.
f. Scaled range or distance used to calculate the
scaled range if the blast will exceed vibration
limits.
g. Stemming of holes and matting or covering of blast
area.
h. Qualifications of the person or persons who will be
directly responsible for supervising the loading
and firing the shot.
2. Complete, maintain and submit in accordance with the
Section 01300 permanent blast reports including a log
of each blast containing the following information:
a. Date, time, and limits of blast by station, includ-
ing vibrations and air blast overpressure levels
data.
b. Amount of explosives used by weight and number of
cartridges.
c. Total number of delays used and number of holes
used for each delay period.
d. On a diagram of the approved blast pattern indicate
any holes not drilled, drilled but not loaded,
changes in spacing or in pattern of delays or in
loading of holes.
e. Submit an evaluation of the blast indicating
tights, areas of significant overbreak and any
recommended adjustments for blast.
02950 - 3
E-7
-------
SWI - Cent. 1
Final Lining; Lining installed and grouted, following and
independent of excavation to ensure permanent support of
the tunnel or shaft opening. Final lining will not be
required at certain locations as indicated on the Drawings.
K. 'A1 Lines;
1 . Tunnel Types A & B
The 'A' line is the line within which no unexcavated
material shall be permitted to remain.
2. Tunnel Types C, D and E
The 'A' line is the line within which no unexcavated
material shall be permitted to remain. Blocking placed
outside the rib may extend within the 'A' line only to
a maximum depth of four inches.
3. The actual excavation outline will depend upon the
ground conditions encountered at any point as well as
the contractor's method of excavation.
1.8 DRILLING AND BLASTING
A. Use of Explosives - General
Explosives shall be stored, handled, and used as provided
in the Labor Law of the State of Ohio and in the Industrial
Code Rules promulgated there under by the Board of Stan-
dards and Appeals of the Ohio Department of Labor relating
to the types of work to be performed under this Contract,
Chapter ( ), Article ( ) of the Municipal Code of the
City of ( ) with all amendments and all other laws,
regulations, ordinances, and the like, as may apply.
B. Responsibility
The CONTRACTOR shall be held responsible to the OWNER for
all claims for damage caused by blasting. The CONTRACTOR
shall satisfactorily cover all shots in shaft and open cut
excavations. The CONTRACTOR shall blast with such number,
length, placing, and direction of holes, with such loading
of holes, and with explosives of such power as will not
make the excavations unduly large or irregular, nor unduly
shake up the gound or make it unstable, nor shatter the
rock upon or against which masonry is to be built, not
injure masonry already built or existing structures and
other installations at the site or in the vicinity thereof.
Whenever the CONTRACTOR'S operations are liable to make the
excavations unduly large or ground unstable, or to injure
the rock, masonry, or structures, the CONTRACTOR shall
drill shorter holes and use lighter charges. He shall, if
so ordered by the ENGINEER, cease blasting and continue to
excavate the rock by barring, wedging, or other approved
methods. Blasting operations are to be limited as speci-
fied herein.
C. Controlled Blasting; Excavation of rock in which the
various elements of the blast (hole size, depth, spacing,
02950 - 5
E-8
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
c. All gasoline or diesel operated equipment shall be
equipped with silencers or mufflers on intake and
exhaust lines.
3. Storage bins and hoppers shall be lined with materials
that deaden sound.
4. Conduct all surface operations such that noise and dust
will be kept to minimum specified limits.
5. Spoil shall not be transported on public streets
between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
d. Hazardous Areas
1. In the event combustible gas is encountered, the area
will be deemed hazardous and all work shall be stopped
until the CONTRACTOR has taken all necessary precau-
tions and corrective measures to eliminate the hazard.
2. Provide a ventilation system, with an exhaust system
venting directly to the outside air.
3. All electric circuits shall be divided into hazardous
and non-hazardous.
4. All electric lighting work and such circuits as the
CONTRACTOR desires shall be classified as hazardous and
shall comply to applicable provisions for work in
hazardous areas of the National Electric Code and all
other applicable codes.
5. The combustible gas analyzers shall be set to have a
second alarm point at 50% of the lower explosive limit.
The wiring shall be arranged and interconnected so as
to provide an automatic shut-down of all electric
circuits not wired for hazardous conditions.
6. All necessary safety tools, lamps, and respiratory
equipment shall be provided and used.
7. All applicable regulations of OSHA, the Ohio State
Department of Labor and all applicable recommendations
of the U.S. Bureau of Mines for the conditions
encountered shall be followed.
8. No employee will be allowed to work in areas where
concentrations of airborne contaminants exceed Federal
threshold limits. Respirators shall not be substituted
for environmental control measures and shall be used
only as prescribed by OSHA.
3.3 VIBRATION CONTROL
A. Conduct all work without causing damage to existing struc-
tures from ground vibrations caused by blasting or other
operations.
B. Monitor and record vibrations, air blast over pressures for
each blast detonation. Adjust blasting procedures accord-
ingly, not to exceed allowable levels.
02950 - 8
E-9
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
C. Vibrations and Blasting
1. Design and conduct all blasting and construction opera-
tions to result in peak particle velocities less than
one inch per second at existing structures, and to
prevent instability of excavations.
2. Peak particle velocity is equal to the vector, sum of
the particle velocities in three mutually perpendicular
planes of motion at any one instant of time.
3. In the vicinity of Conrail facilities, peak particle
velocities shall not exceed 1/2 inch per second in any
direction.
4. Blasting will not be allowed in areas where indicated
on the Contract Drawings.
5. Smooth wall blasting techniques shall be used where
blasting is performed.
6. Blasting is not permitted between the night hours of 7
p.m. and 7 a.m., except in an emergency.
3.4 ADVANCED DRILLING
A. Alignment Holes
1. Drill and case alignment holes to intersect the tunnel
alignment at locations shown on the Drawings or as
approved by the Engineer, prior to start of tunnel
excavation.
2. The cased holes shall be a minimum of 6 inches- in
diameter and drilled plumb enough to freely suspend a
plumb bob to tunnel grade.
3. After the alignment at the tunnel has been established
to the satisfaction of the Engineer, the Contractor
shall seal the holes at tunnel level, remove the
casing, fill the hole with cement grout and restore the
surface.
B. Heading Probe Holes; In all rock and free air tunnel
headings maintain heading probe holes at least 15 feet in
advance of the excavated face, to determine the presence of
gas, water and ground characteristics.
C. Exploratory Drill Holes
1. Drill exploratory holes to determine the presence of
gas, waterbearing seams and nature of the soil or rock
where directed or approved by the Engineer.
2. Holes may be horizontal, vertical or at an angle.
3.5 DRILL AND BLAST OPERATIONS
A. Storage
1. Above Ground
Explosives may only be stored above ground during
working hours when work is underway in the shafts or
tunnel. Only sufficient explosives may be stored for
that particular day's work. Guards shall be employed
02950 - 9
E-10
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
at times when explosives are stored above ground for
the prime purpose of maintaining a constant watch on
such explosives. Precautions other than guards may be
taken after review of such alternate precautions by the
ENGINEER.
2. Explosives required for advancing the tunnel headings
and other subsurface excavations may be stored in
magazines excavated in rock at tunnel level. Magazines
shall be located nof nearer than 250 feet from any
shaft.
3. Detonators
Explosive detonators shall be stored in separate maga-
zines segregated from the main explosive storage areas.
Detonator magazines shall be sufficiently isolated and
designed so that accidental detonation of their con-
tents will have no effect on the main explosives stor-
age areas.
B. Blasting Operations
1. Operations During Electrical Storms
a. All transportation of explosives on the surface or
underground, and any handling incidental thereto
shall be stopped immediately upon the approach of
an electrical storm, and all persons shall imme-
diately retire to a place of safety. Persons
underground shall be notified of the approach and
cessation (all clear) of an electrical storm, each
by means of different signals. In shafts, tunnels
or other excavations handling explosives, loading
of holes, connecting up or firing of charges shall
not be performed during an electrical storm and all
persons shall withdraw to a safe distance from a
partially or total loaded face.
b. The foregoing notwithstanding, explosives shall not
be left at the top of the shaft during such storm
but shall be removed to the magazines.
c. The contractor shall purchase and have in use at
all times, during blasting operations, a suitable
storm monitoring device.
2. Electric Circuits Within Blasting Area
a. All light and power circuits except the circuit
used for firing the charges shall be disconnected
and/or removed to a point not less than 100 feet
from the face while explosives are being trans-
ported into the area and while the loading opera-
tions are taking place.
b. During the loading operations only an approved type
of loading light may be used.
3. Loading During Other Operations
Holes shall not be loaded in any face at the same time
that drilling or other operations are being performed
in the heading.
02950 - 10
E-ll
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
Covering of Blasts
All blasts in shaft and open cut excavations shall be
covered with a sufficient number of steel cable mats in
order to prevent injury to persons and property,
including the structure and equipment used in connec-
tion with shaft or tunnel operation, from flying rock
or other material.
3.6 MONITORING GASES
A. Installation
1. Install and maintain a continuous combustible and toxic
gas analyzer monitoring unit in each tunnel, shaft and
structure, and at other locations as directed by the
Safety Engineer.
2. Install warning plate on both sides of the bulkhead
indicating "WARNING, check for gas before removal."
B. Alarms
1. Analyzer alarms shall be set for combustible gas
concentrations of 20 percent and 50 percent of the
lower explosive limits.
2. Analyzers shall have both audible and visual alarms.
3. Toxic gas analyzers shall be set for 20 percent of
maximum allowable limits for each gas expected to be
encountered.
C. When combustible or toxic gas is encountered all work shall
stop until all necessary precautions and corrective
measures to eliminate the hazard have been taken and the
situation corrected.
3.7 STORAGE OF MATERIALS
A. Conform to Section 01630.
3.8 DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS
A. General; Haul surplus excavated materials from the work
site to approved disposal locations during the hours per-
mitted by noise control requirements.
B. Surplus excavated materials may be stockpiled temporarily
at approved locations on the work site.
C. Excavated material, approved for use later as backfill, may
be stockpiled on the work site at approved locations away
from temporary surplus material stockpiles.
END OF SECTION
02950 - 11
E-12
-------
SWI - Cont. 1
B. Supply uti." ities in conformance with Section 02950.
3.2 EXCAVATION
A. Drill and Blast
1. Use controlled blasting techniques and modify blasting
rounds as necessary to achieve the best obtainable
results and to keep the vibrations and noise within the
limits specified in Section 02950.
2. Protect concrete work and structures in the vicinity of
blasting by limiting the size of blasts, by covering
blasts and by other means until it is certain that
there is no danger of damage by shock waves or flying
rock.
B. Dispose of excavated materials as specified in Section
02950.
3.3 INITIAL SUPPORTS
A. General; Conform to Section 02967.
B. Installation: Conform to approved shop drawings.
C. Inspection; Check supports in previously excavated
sections every 48 hours.
D. Maintenance; Retighten and block as necessary.
E. Instrumentation; Conform to Section 02970.
3.4 FINAL LINING FOR TYPE C SUPPORT;
A. Conform to Section 02973.
END OF SECTION
02963 - 3
E-1 3 •& U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984—758—349
------- |