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

-------