EPA 910/9-83-107
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
October, 1983
Water
EPA-10-OR-Eugene/Springfield-LANE-WWTW-83
oEPA Environmental
Impact Statement
Draft
Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission
Sludge Management Plan
Eugene-Springfield, Oregon
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
.«eosr4;. REGION X
vV^ O**\
, 1 200 SIXTH AVENUE
| SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
r
October 28, 1983
REPLY K> M/S 443
TO: All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) on the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC) Sludge Management Plan. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has given MWMC a grant for the planning phase of this project under
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. This Draft EIS has been prepared to
fulfill the requirements of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing Agency regulations.
The availability of this EIS will be announced in the Federal Register on
Friday, November 4, 1983, which will begin a 45-day review period.IT
you have any comments on the Draft EIS or wish to provide additional
information for inclusion in the Final EIS, we would appreciate hearing
from you before the close of the comment period on December 19, 1983.
All comments received will be used by EPA in evaluating the effects of
funding the proposed project.
Please send your comments to:
Norma Young M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on December 6, 1983 at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 225 North 5th, Springfield,
Oregon. All interested persons are invited to attend and will have an
opportunity to be heard.
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
on the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Sludge Management Plan
EPA Project No. C-410624
Prepared by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
With technical assistance from:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
Responsible Official:
Vx. V O \*>3UVJ^N
Ernesta B. Barnes
Regional Administrator
Date: SEP 3 0 1983
-------
ABSTRACT
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) has received a
grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare a 20-year
Sludge Management Plan for the treatment and disposal of sludge generated
at a new regional sewage treatment plant. The regional plant is under
construction and will begin operation in 1984. It will serve both the
Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, metropolitan areas. MWMC proposed an
interim plan, Phase I, that would provide five years of sludge handling
capability on the treatment plant site because startup of the new plant
depended upon immediate handling facilities for increased sludge
volumes. During Phase I sludge would be applied to agricultural lands in
summer and hauled to Short Mountain landfill for disposal in winter. EPA
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on Phase I of the plan in June,
1983. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluates Phase II of
the MWMC Sludge Management Plan. MWMC's preferred alternative for Phase
II is to move the sludge handling facilities off site. Treatment and
storage lagoons would store sludge in winter; sludge would be applied to
farmlands in summer. This document evaluates four alternatives and three
sites, including MWMC's preferred alternative. It identifies and eval-
uates potential impacts of the alternatives to geology, soils, public
health, surface and groundwater quality, land use, vegetation and crops,
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic life. Recommended mitigation measures
are also discussed.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Purpose and Need for Project 1
Role of the Environmental Impact Statement 2
Description of Alternatives 2
Background 2
Interim Sludge Management Plan 2
Long-Term Sludge Management Alternatives 4
Alternatives Available to EPA 5
Impacts of Individual Alternatives 6
Summary Comparison of Alternatives 6
Public Acceptance 19
Coordination 20
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 23
The MWMC Sludge Management Plan 23
Purpose and Need for the Plan 23
Development of the Plan 23
The Environmental Impact Statement 24
Environmental Impact Statement Requirements 24
Environmental Impact Statement Chronology 25
Alternatives Considered in the EIS 25
Legal, Policy, and Institutional Considerations 26
Existing Sludge Management Practices 26
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 29
Overview of Sludge Management Concepts 29
Sludge Management Principles 29
Sludge Management Approaches of United States 31
Cities
MWMC Alternatives Development and Screening Process 33
Development of an Initial Array of Alternatives 33
Alternatives Given Final Analysis 36
The MWMC Preferred Sludge Management Program 37
The Phase I Project 37
The Phase II Program 42
Alternatives Considered in the EIS 47
Alternative 1 47
Alternative 2 47
Alternative 3 53
Alternative 4 53
Other Reuse/Disposal Options 54
Alternatives Investigated and Rejected 56
Project Costs 57
Project Service Costs 57
Comparative Costs of Alternatives 58
User Costs 58
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS OF THE PHASE 61
II ALTERNATIVES
Introduction 61
Groundwater Quality 61
Description of Existing Conditions 61
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4) 83
Impacts of Alternative 1 83
Impacts of Alternative 2 92
Impacts of Alternative 3 93
Mitigation Measures 94
Surface Water Quality Changes 95
Description of Existing Conditions 95
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4) 105
Impacts of Alternatives 106
Mitigation Measures 115
Influence on Soil Character and Use 117
Description of Existing Conditions 117
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4) 120
Impacts of Alternatives 120
Mitigation Measures 124
Public Health Risks 124
Introduction 124
Existing Conditions 125
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4) 130
Impacts of Alternatives 131
Mitigation Measures 135
Vector Control 136
Influence on Local Biological Resources 140
Description of Existing Conditions 141
Implications of No Project 146
Impacts of Alternatives 146
Mitigation Measures 156
Land Use 157
Existing and Planned Land Uses 157
Impacts of Alternatives 162
Mitigation Measures 165
Cultural Resource Implications 165
Introduction 165
Research and Field Surveys 166
Survey Findings 166
Recommendations 167
Energy Use 168
Description of Existing Conditions 168
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4) 168
Impacts of Alternatives 169
Mitigation Measures 170
Aesthetics and Odors 170
Visual Effects 170
Odors 174
Property Value Impacts 181
Mitigation Measures 182
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
Page
Indirect Impacts of Alternatives 182
Introduction 182
Influence of the Project Alternatives on 183
Growth Patterns
Impacts of Secondary Reuse Alternatives 183
Introduction 183
Forest Application 184
Composting and Soil Amendment 187
Topsoil Amendment 189
Dedicated Land Disposal 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY 193
References Cited 193
Personal Communications 202
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 205
APPENDIX A - LEGAL AND REGULATORY INFLUENCES ON THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
APPENDIX B - PROJECT DESIGN AND OPERATING DATA, ALTER-
NATIVE SCREENING
APPENDIX C - PUBLIC HEALTH BACKGROUND DATA
APPENDIX D - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS BACKGROUND
DATA
APPENDIX E - LAND USE ANALYSIS BACKGROUND DATA AND
REGULATIONS
APPENDIX F - STATE OF OREGON SLUDGE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
APPENDIX G - ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMICS OF SLUDGE REUSE
APPENDIX H - OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE OREGON STATE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
APPENDIX I - LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS
APPENDIX J - DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
S-l Location of Project Study Area
2-1 The Distribution of Sludge According to the 32
Method of Disposal
2-2 Initial Array of Base System Alternatives 34
Analyzed in the MWMC Sludge Management
Program
2-3 Preliminary Layout for the Interim Dewatering 39
Facility at the Eugene RWTP Site
2-4 Location of Sludge, Transport, Storage, and 43
Drying Facilities Proposed by MWMC
2-5 MWMC Proposed Project (Alternative 2) Facili- 45
ties Layout at Site C
2-6 Site C and Prairie Road Site Locations and 48
Topography
2-7 Coburg Hills Site Location and Topography 49
2-8 Alternative 1 Facilities Layout at Site C 50
2-9 Alternative 2 Facilities Layout at Prairie 51
Road Site
2-10 Alternative 2 Facilities Layout at Coburg 52
Hills Site
3-1 Soil Groups in the Project Area 62
3-2 Geologic Cross-Section of the Willamette 67
Valley
3-3 Location of Residences and General Direction 73
of Groundwater Movement in the Vicinity of
Short Mountain Landfill
3-4 Geohydrologic Cross-Section of Site C 76
3-5 Location of Some Wells in the Vicinity of 78
Site C and Prairie Road
3-6 Existing and Predicted Nitrate Levels in 79
Groundwater South of Site C and Prairie Road
3-7 Location of Some Wells and General Direction 82
of Groundwater Flow in the Vicinity of the
Coburg Hills Site
3-8 Nitrogen Transformations in Soil Under 89
Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions
3-9 Relationship Between Nitrogen Production, 91
Uptake and Leaching Through a Typical Year
3-10 Surface Water Features of the Eugene/Spring- 96
field Area
3-11 Surface Drainage Features at Short Mountain 102
Landfill
3-12 Relative Dispersion of Sludge Lagoon or Drying 178
Bed Emissions During Low Level Temperature
Inversion Conditions
G-l Two-Year Value Increase From Sludge Applica- G-13
tion to a 50-Year-Old Douglas-Fir Forest
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 7
(Alternative 2)
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 11
(Alternative 1)
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 13
(Alternative 3)
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 15
(Alternative 4 - No Project)
2-1 Estimated Digested Sludge Production 38
2-2 Anticipated Constituent Concentrations in 38
Eugene/Springfield Sludge
2-3 Capital Costs of Alternatives 59
2-4 Present Worth Costs of Alternatives 59
2-5 Estimated Local Costs of Phase II Sludge 60
Management Alternatives
3-1 Selected Physical Characteristics of Exten- 64
sive Soils in the Eugene/Springfield Study
Area
3-2 Selected Chemical Characteristics of Some 66
Extensive Soils in the Euguene/Springfield
Study Area
3-3 Selected Groundwater Analyses 69
3-4 Groundwater Quality Monitoring: Short 74
Mountain Landfill
3-5 Groundwater Quality: Agripac Site 80
3-6 Phase I FNSI Groundwater Quality Findings 87
3-7 Mean Monthly Flow for Streams of the Central 98
Willamette Valley
3-8 Water Quality Data for Streams of the Central 99
Willamette Valley
3-9 Surface Water Quality Data: Short Mountain 104
Landfill Area
3-10 Annual and Total Sludge Metal Loadings Allowed 109
on Agricultural Land
3-11 Lane County Agricultural Land Use for 1981 118
3-12 Maximum Contaminant Levels for Metals in 127
Drinking Water
3-13 History of Bird Strikes at Mahlon Sweet Field 153
3-14 Estimated Energy Consumption of Project 169
Alternatives
-------
LIST OF TABLES CONTINUED
Table
A-l National Primary Drinking Water Standards
B-l Present Digested Sludge Constituent
Concentrations
B-2 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Existing B-4
Eugene and Springfield Sludges
B-3 Initial Screening Matrix for Base Sludge B-5
Utilization/Disposal Options
B-4 Compatible Options for Sludge Processing B-6
and Utilization/Disposal
B-5 Summary of Alternative Evaluation B-6
C-l Human Enteric Pathogens Occurring in Waste- C-3
water and Sludge and the Diseases Associated
with the Pathogens
G-l Nitrogen Requirements of Selected Crops G-8
G-2 Acreage Requirements for Agricultural G-9
Reuse of Sludge
G-3 Procedures and Costs for Sludge-Treated G-14
Seedling Plantations at the Pack Forest
in Washington
VI
-------
Executive Summary
mmmm
•
iiuu«"
i I M
I II I II I
I II III I
I Mill •
III *
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(X) Draft Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Final Environmental Impact Statement
•Type of Action: Administrative
Purpose and Need for Project
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
has received funds from the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to plan a long-term sludge management system for
the Eugene/Springfield, Oregon Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant (RWTP). These funds are administered by EPA under Section
201 6f the Clean Water Act. In the future, MWMC will be apply-
ing for additional federal funds to design and construct the
permanent sludge management facilities that are selected for
implementation. EPA must approve the facilities plan and the
grant request before design and construction of the new facili-
ties can proceed.
The RWTP is being constructed to bring the area's waste-
water discharge into compliance with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act. The activated sludge treatment process de-
signed to meet these requirements will generate nearly four
times the Wastewater solids produced at the existing Eugene
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WTP). This volume will exceed the
capacity of the existing sludge storage and disposal facilities.
The RWTP is scheduled to begin full-time operation in the fall
of 1984; therefore, MWMC must complete planning, design, and
construction of additional sludge handling facilities in the
near future.
MWMC has proposed an interim project to provide 5 years of
sludge handling capacity on the RWTP site since permanent
facilities cannot be completed by 1984. The EPA has conducted
an environmental review of the interim plan and issued a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FNSI) on July 27, 1983. The Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has placed the long-
term MWMC project on its 1985 priority list for funding under
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. A grant request for design
and construction of the permanent sludge handling facilities will
be applied for as early as possible; therefore, EPA has
initiated preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to aid in future actions on grant requests and facilities
plan approval.
-------
Role of the Environmental Impact Statement
EPA determined that granting of funds to this project would
be a major federal action significantly affecting the environ-
ment. Therefore, before additional Section 201 funds for design
and construction of a long-term sludge management system can be
awarded to MWMC, EPA must complete an environmental review of
potential impacts of the proposed project. This review must
meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). EPA has prepared this EIS to meet these NEPA require-
ments by evaluating the consequences of constructing and operat-
ing MWMC's proposed long-term sludge management plan.
Description of Alternatives
BACKGROUND
The cities of Eugene and Springfield, Oregon are located
astride the Willamette River in the upper Willamette River
Valley of west-central Oregon (Figure S-l). The Eugene/-
Springfield area has a current population of over 188,000 and is
a center for both agricultural and timber production in western
Oregon.
There are currently two wastewater treatment plants serving
the metropolitan area. Both the Eugene and Springfield WTPs are
operated by the City of Eugene and both discharge secondary
treated wastewater to the Willamette River. The design capacity
of the Eugene plant is 17.1 million gallons per day (mgd); the
Springfield plant has a 6.9 mgd capacity. The areawide water
quality management plan (208 Plan) for this region has recom-
mended combining the flows for treatment at a new RWTP at the
site of the existing Eugene plant. Sludge generated at the
Springfield plant is currently air-dried in both asphalt and
earth-lined beds on-site; the dried sludge is used by local
residents in garden and horticultural activities. The Eugene
WTP sludge is stored in an on-site lagoon in the winter; in
summer months, the sludge is transported to area farms for use
as a crop fertilizer and soil conditioner, or sprayed on the
Short Mountain Landfill to encourage cover crop growth. Current
raw sludge generation rates average 40,000 gallons per month at
Eugene and 13,000 gallons per month at Springfield.
INTERIM SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Because MWMC must have expanded sludge handling facilities
in place by 1984 when the RWTP is scheduled to start up, and
since federal grant funds will not be available in time to
construct a long-term system to meet that deadline, a phased
program is being implemented. The interim plan (Phase I) that
is already in progress involves purchase of mechanical
dewatering equipment (centrifuges) to be used on the site of the
RWTP, and additional sludge hauling equipment. Digested sludge
-------
LANE COUNTY
JUNCTIONC
CITY f.,
LINN COUNTY
LANE COUNTY
PRAIRIE
Meodowview TRd.\ROAD
SPRINGFIELD WTP_./--'~~"i, j
PLEASANT
HILL
FIGURE S-1. LOCATION OF PROJECT
STUDY AREA
-LE6END-
CITY LIMITS
SHORT MOUNTAIN
LANDFILL SITE
0 I 2 3 4
v_
SCALE IN MILES
SLUDGE FACILITIES SITE ALTERNATIVES
LANDFILL DISPOSAL SITE
-------
from the RWTP will be centrifuged year-round; in the wet months
of the year, the dewatered sludge will be hauled to the Short
Mountain Landfill for disposal with other solid waste. In the
dry months, both liquid and dewatered sludge will be hauled by
trucks to agricultural land for reuse. All of the reuse sites
have not been specifically identified, but they will generally
be in the low-lying alluvial valley areas within 15 to 20 miles
of the RWTP. It is expected that 20 percent of the dry weather
volume will be applied in a liquid form and 80 percent will be
mechanically dewatered or thickened before reuse. The Phase I
plan is expected to handle all sludge from 1984 to 1989.
LONG-TERM SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The MWMC originally considered 13 base alternatives for
sludge handling and disposal and a number of secondary reuse
options. These were described and analyzed in the 1980 Sludge
Management Program (Brown and Caldwell 1980). After several
years of review and assessment, MWMC has selected a preferred
long-term management plan. This EIS analyzes the preferred plan
and three alternatives.
MWMC Preferred Plan (Alternative 2)
The Phase II preferred plan includes construction of
facultative sludge lagoons (FSLs) and air-drying beds at an
off-site location north of the city of Eugene. The preferred
site has been labeled Site C (see Figure S-l) . Beginning in
1990, digested sludge would be piped from the RWTP to Site C for
storage in the winter and air-drying in the summer. The centri-
fuges purchased in Phase I would be moved to the off-site
location and would provide partial mechanical dewatering before
transfer to 33 acres of air-drying beds. During the dry months
of the year, 20 percent of the sludge volume would be condi-
tioned in the centrifuges and transferred directly to agricul-
tural reuse sites. The other 80 percent would be air-dried
before reuse on agricultural land. Landfill disposal would act
as a back-up.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would be similar to the preferred plan, but
the Phase I centrifuges would be abandoned in 1990 in favor of
air-drying of all sludge. The sludge storage and drying would
occur at an off-site location. Without the centrifuges, the
air-drying bed capacity would need to be approximately 50
percent greater than Alternative 2 (a total of 50 acres).
Sludge would be reused on agricultural land.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would retain all sludge handling and dewater-
ing facilities on the site of the RWTP for the full 20-year
-------
planning period. By 1990 the mechanical dewatering capacity
would be increased and the centrifuges would be placed in a
permanent structure. Because the liquid waste stream coming
from the sludge dewatering process would flow on a daily rather
than an intermittent basis at selected times under this option,
the RWTP wastewater treatment, sludge thickening, and sludge
digestion capacity would also have to be expanded. During the
winter months, dewatered sludge would go to Short Mountain
Landfill; in the summer, it would go to agricultural land for
reuse.
Alternative 4 (No Project)
NEPA implementation guidelines require that all EISs
consider the impacts of not implementing the proposed project.
In this case, No Project has been described as a failure to
implement a Phase II project. After construction of the Phase I
facilities, no additional sludge, handling capacity would be
provided for the RWTP. This implies that once sludge generation
rates at the RWTP reached the capacity of the Phase I facil-
ities, some action would have to be taken to either 1) halt
increases in wastewater flows to the RWTP, or 2) initiate some
acceptable means of disposing of the excess liquid sludge gene-
rated beyond 1989.
Alternative Off-Site Locations
In addition to analyzing the off-site location for sludge
management facilities preferred by MWMC (Site C), this EIS
considers the impacts of two alternative sites. The Prairie
Road site is located immediately east of Site C, across a
Southern Pacific Railroad line. The Coburg Hills site is
located about 6 miles east of Site C and 3 miles north of
Eugene, adjacent to Interstate 5 (Figure S-l).
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
EPA's principal roles in this project are to provide an
environmental review and to administer design and construction
funds available through Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. EPA
has a number of options available in acting on the grant appli-
cant's (MWMC) request for federal funding of its sludge manage-
ment project. In terms of the structural configuration of
processing and reuse/disposal processes, EPA could offer funds
for the MWMC preferred program or some combination of processing
and reuse/ disposal methods not considered in a single alterna-
tive described in the EIS or Sludge Management Program. Al-
though this is unlikely, it could be done for environmental or
economic reasons. In terms of administrative actions, after
review of the facilities plan and the environmental impacts of
construction of the proposed project, EPA could: 1) fund the
project as described and recommended by MWMC, 2) not fund the
project, 3) fund the project in stages, or 4) fund the project
only after attaching certain conditions to the grant award.
-------
These administrative actions would be in response to regulatory
requirements, funding availability, environmental concerns, or
some combination of all three.
If EPA determines that the project selected by MWMC is
excessive in cost or would result in adverse environmental
impacts which could be mitigated, it may wish to remedy these
problems by placing conditions on the award of subsequent grants
rather than supporting a different alternative or modifying the
funding. EPA administrative procedures allow this mitigation
approach and place the burden of action on the grant applicant.
Grant conditions can include specific monitoring requirements,
requests for supporting ordinances, or a variety of other
controls on the construction and operation of sludge management
facilities.
Impacts of Individual Alternatives
The environmental impacts for each project alternative are
summarized in the following tables. Only the more significant
impacts have been summarized. Potential mitigation measures for
impacts are also listed. The mitigation measures listed are
possible methods of avoiding or reducing the severity of adverse
impacts. Mitigations are not necessarily those that will be
implemented should a project be constructed. EPA will not be
responsible for implementing all mitigations required. Local,
regional, and state agencies will be called upon to initiate
those mitigations that are within their respective functional
capacities.
Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Four alternatives to provide long-term sludge handling and
disposal for Eugene/Springfield have been investigated. Two of
the options would move sludge storage and drying facilities to a
location outside of the urban area and one would leave all
facilities at the site of the RWTP. The fourth option would
continue the present course of using an interim on-site system
and would not provide a long-term sludge management solution.
Three specific locations for off-site facilities have been
analyzed.
Phase I of each of the four alternatives would solve the
immediate need for equipment to process and dispose of the
sludge that will be generated when the new Eugene/Springfield
RWTP begins operation in 1984. The 5-year plan for equipment
purchase and construction is identical in all four alternatives.
The No Project option, however, would provide no plan beyond
this first phase. The MWMC and the cities of Eugene and Spring-
field would be faced with a compelling need, after 1989, for an
acceptable method of handling the liquid sludge generated at the
-------
Table S-l. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures - MWMC Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2)
(Centrifuges moved to off-site area; sludge stored in off-site FSLs and air-dried or mechanically dewatered)
AREA OF IMPACT
Groundwater Quality
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Force main
Surface Water Quality
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
IMPACT
o No significant increase in groundwater
pollutant levels if lagoons are clay
lined and surface runoff controlled.
Risk of pollutant transfer greater at
Prairie Road than Site C; subsurface
conditions at Coburg Hills relatively
unknown.
o No significant effect.
o No significant increase in groundwater
pollutant levels unless surface runoff
or leachate lagoon discharge allowed to
reach Camas Swale Creek.
o Negligible-to-slight increase in nitrate
levels if sludge applied at agronomic
rates on Group 2 and 3 soils; negligible
increases in heavy metal and organic
compound concentrations; slight increases
in sodium concentrations.
o Potential for nitrate contamination of
drinking water if low-level, undetected
leaks occur north of Enid Station Road
area on route to Site C/Prairie Road, or
north of McKenzie River/I-5 junction
on Coburg Hills route.
o Chance of minor increases in surface-
water contaminants (Flat Creek tributary)
at Site C during heavy rain or high
groundwater periods; chances of contam-
ination slightly greater at Prairie Road
due to greater flooding threat, coarser
soils; highest risk at Coburg Hills site
due to presence of Muddy Creek flood-
plain.
o No significant effect.
o No significant increase in surface water
contamination unless surface runoff from
active fill area or leachate irrigation
area allowed to enter Camas Swale Creek,
or leachate control lagoon allowed to
overflow directly to Camas Swale Creek.
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Line FSLs with clay or similar impermeable
material.
o Establish groundwater monitoring network on
site perimeter.
o Carefully maintain and inspect FSL levels
and air-drying beds.
o Conduct soil explorations and permeability
tests prior to construction.
o Expand groundwater quality monitoring system
below landfill to include testing for heavy
metals, pathogens, and organic toxins.
o Comply with all DEQ landfill permit con-
ditions regarding leachate collection and
irrigation.
o Follow the Oregon DEQ guidelines for land
application of wastewater and sludge, par-
ticularly as they relate to sludge applica-
tion rates.
o Continue to implement the Eugene/Springfield
pretreatment program to reduce heavy metals
and organics at the source.
o Continue to select sites with suitable soil,
groundwater, and geographic features through
the DEQ approval process.
o Maintain a groundwater quality monitoring
program at representative sludge application
sites to ensure that gradual groundwater
quality degradation does not occur.
o Carefully select pipe used for force main.
o Use special care in backfilling over pipe.
o Pressure-test pipe after construction and at
regular intervals to detect leaks.
o Design perimeter ditches to accommodate flows
from major storm events.
o Clean air-drying beds as soon as emptied in
the fall.
o Visually inspect lagoons and drying beds for
cracks or leaks.
o Retain sufficient freeboard in drying beds to
handle summer storm input.
o Avoid damage to drying beds from heavy equip-
ment operation.
o Expand surface and groundwater monitoring
systems around landfill.
-------
Table S-l Continued
AREA OF IMPACT
Agricultural reuse sites
IMPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES
Force main
Soil Character/Use
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Force main
Agricultural reuse sites
Public Health
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
o Decreases in the rate and level of tur- o Follow DEQ guidelines for selecting application
bidity in surface runoff from reuse sites. sites and applying sludge.
o Slight increases in nutrients and sodium o Identify surface flooding or ponding areas on
contained in surface runoff from reuse reuse sites during winter and avoid these areas
sites; larger increases in nutrient, heavy during sunmer sludge application.
metal and organic cotpound concentrations o Apply sludge only during dry periods.
could occur if reuse areas flooded or o Monitor quality of surface water flows adjacent
eroded. to sludge application sites.
o Potential for contamination of Willamette o Design route to avoid unstable cut/fill areas.
Main Stem or McKenzie River from low-
level, undetected leak or major break
in pipeline to Coburg Hills site; less
chance of surface water contamination
along route to Site C/Prairie Road.
o Would remove 125 (Site C, Coburg Hills)
to 145 (Prairie Road) acres of agricul-
tural land fron use for minimum of 15
years; future use for food chain crops
may be restricted.
o No significant effect.
o No significant effect.
o No effect unless major spill occurred;
future crop options could be restricted
in areas of major spill.
o Increase in nutrient content of soils,
increasing yield of most crops.
o Restrictions placed on timing of growing
food chain crops, grazing of livestock.
o Possible long-term restrictions on grow-
ing food chain crops if sludge applied at
rates in excess of DEQ guidelines.
o Place pipe above 100-year flood mark at stream
crossings.
o Clearly mark pipeline route to avoid accidental
breakage.
o Periodically pressure test the force mains
to detect leaks.
o Develop spill response plan.
o Also, see mitigations in Groundwater Quality
section.
o Implement mitigations suggested in Ground and
Surface Water sections to reduce contamination
of soils with heavy metals, organics.
o Implement pipe construction and surveillance
mitigations contained in Surface Water Quality
section.
o Apply sludge at agronomic rates suggested by
DEQ; follow DEQ sludge application timing
restrictions.
o Decrease in pathogen concentrations of
sludge through storage, drying.
o Eliminates need for winter disposal of
sludge.
o Potential for contamination of domestic o
water supplies, primarily by nitrates,
if lagoon leakage occurs; risk smallest
at Coburg Hills site.
o Lagoons and air-drying beds may increase o
vector (mosquito) breeding habitat; chance
of affecting humans smallest at Coburg o
Hills site. o
Implement mitigations suggested in Surface and
Groundwater Quality sections.
Skim standing water fron air-drying beds at
regular intervals.
Treat standing water with mosquito oil.
Discourage growth of aquatic vegetation in
lagoons.
o No significant effect.
o Slight risk of infection due to direct
human contact by landfill users.
o For risk of surface or groundwater
contamination, refer to those sections
above.
o Restrict public access to sludge application
areas; maintain buffer strip.
-------
Table S-l Continued
AREA OF IMPACT
Agricultural reuse sites
Force main
Biological Resources
Aesthetics
Visual effects
Odors
Economics of Reuse
Project Costs
IMPACT
o Hazard due to groundwater contamination
minimal if coarse soil areas avoided,
sludge applied at agronomic rates.
o Risk of food chain uptake of contaminants
eliminated if sludge applied only to non-
food chain crops.
o Potential health risk from direct human
contact at reuse sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Follow DEQ guidelines for reuse site selection.
o Regularly monitor heavy metal and toxic sub-
stance content of the sludge prior to agri-
cultural reuse.
o Restrict public access at reuse sites.
o Maintain buffer strips around reuse sites as
required by DEQ.
o No health hazard created unless low-level o Implement pipeline construction and surveil-
leaks or major ruptures occur; see Sur- lance mitigations recommended in Surface and
face and Groundwater Quality discussions Groundwater Quality sections.
for the impacts of leaks.
o No significant loss of or damage to vege-
tation or wildlife resources, including
threatened or endangered species.
o Construction of FSLs and air-drying beds
will alter bird-use patterns at off-site
locations, increasing fall and winter use
by waterfowl and decreasing year-round
use by passerine species.
o Change in bird-use patterns at Site C or
Prairie Road not expected to significant-
ly increase probability of bird strikes
to aircraft using Mahlon Sweet Field; use
of Coburg Hills site would eliminate any
chance of increase in bird strike hazard.
o Restrict growth of aquatic vegetation in FSLs
o Operate FSL aerators during daylight hours to
discourage waterfowl use of lagoons.
o Monitor bird use of FSLs and drying beds after
construction; screen ponds if significant water-
fowl use occurs.
o Keep on-site vegetation mowed.
o Design drying beds to allow complete drainage
when not in use.
o Change from open agricultural appearance o Plant dense vegetation screen around perimeter
to series of berms, ponds, and low struc- of off-site facilities.
tures at off-site facilities locations;
Coburg Hills facilities highly visible
from 1-5; Prairie Road site highly visible
from Prairie Road; Site C would have
lowest visibility.
o Detectable odors likely to occur within
1,000 feet of FSLs/air-drying beds 10-15
days per year; detectable odor conditions
may occur twice as frequently within 500
feet. Coburg Hills site would affect
least population.
o Maintain and utilize FSL aeration system year-
round.
o Operate sludge digestion, storage, and air-
drying facilities in a manner that minimizes
odor generation.
o If frequent odor problems occur, implement
additional odor control procedures as des-
cribed in EIS.
o Economic feasibililty of agricultural re-
use appears good in the near term; long-
term economics also appear good, but
could be affected by change in DEQ and
EPA regulations and competition from other
sludge reuse markets.
o Total present worth cost:
Site C/Prairie Road - $7,891,000
Coburg Hills - $8,292,000
o Local share of capital cost:
Site C/Prairie Road - $1,770,000
o Local user costs:
Site C/Prairie Road
property tax/year - $2.89 in 1990
service fee/year - $5.44 in 1990
o No decrease in current market value of
properties adjacent to new facilities
expected; future market value unlikely
to be affected unless sludge facilities
improperly operated and maintained.
-------
Table S-l Continued
AREft OF IMPACT
Land Resources
Land use planning and zoning
consistency
Land use conversion
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Energy Use
IMPACT
o Consistency of off-site facilities pro-
posals uncertain due to current state of
flux in Lane County Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Code and uncertainty as to
whether proposed project fits within
state solid waste management facilities
definition.
o Use of Site C or Prairie Road would con-
vert 80-100 acres of prime farmland to
nonfarm use; Coburg Hills site not con-
sidered prime farmland.
o Lane County has placed conditions on
disposal of dewatered sludge in Short
Mountain Landfill during winter.
o No significant effect.
o Potential impact to archeological re-
sources from construction activity at
Site C and along force main route to
Coburg Hills site; presence of material
on Prairie Road site unknown due to
access denial.
o Electrical energy consumption:
9,998,000 Kwh from 1990-2004
o Diesel fuel consumption:
6,961 gal/yr in 2004
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Coordinate NHMC and Lane County planning
efforts in off-site facilities locations.
o Obtain permission to survey Prairie Road site.
o Reassess potential impacts when field surveys
complete and affected areas have been more
accurately delineated.
o Field test archeological sites along Coburg
Hills interceptor to establish site boundaries.
o Coordinate further with Oregon State Historic
Preservation Office prior to project design.
o Utilize sludge air-drying to maximm extent
possible.
o Utilize sludge reuse sites as close as possible
to drying site.
o Purchase fuel-efficient sludge hauling equip-
ment.
10
-------
Table S-2. Sunmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures - (Alternative 1)
(Centrifuges abandoned, sludge stored in off-site FSLs and air-dried)
AREA. OF IMPACT
Groundwater Quality
Off-site storage/
drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Force main
Surface Water Quality
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Force main
Soil Character/Use
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP sites
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Force main
Public Health
Off-site storage/drying site
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Force main
Biological Resources
IMPACT
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
(see Table S-l).
o No significant effect
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Threat of surface water contamination
greater than that of Alternative 2 at
all three off-site locations due to
greater likelihood of surface runoff
and flooding of site, larger acreages
of air-drying beds.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to Alternative 2 except
larger acreage of soil affected
(150-170 acres).
o No significant effect.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impacts similar to those of Alternative 2
except larger acreage of drying beds
increases potential vector breeding
habitat; Site C drying beds further
removed from residences along Awbrey Lane.
o No significant effect.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to Alternative 2 except
larger area of drying beds may pose
slightly greater bird attraction potential.
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Mitigations similar to those in
Surface Water Quality section of
Table S-l.
o Reroute surface drainage around
sites.
o Mitigations similar to those in
Soil Character/Use section of
Table S-l.
o Mitigation measures similar to
those in Biological Resources
section of Table S-l.
11
-------
Table S-2. Continued
AREA OF IMPACT
Aesthetics
Visual effects
Odors
Economics of Reuse
Project Costs
Land Resources
Land use planning and
zoning consistency
Land use conversion
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Energy Use
IMPACT
o Impacts similar to those of Alternative 2
except off-site acreage slightly larger;
Site C location further removed from ad-
jacent roads than in Alternative 2.
o Slightly greater potential for odor problems
compared to Alternative 2 due to greater
acreage of air-drying beds; Coburg Hills
site least likely to create odor problems.
o Impacts similar to those of Alternative 2.
(See Table S-l).
o Total present worth cost:
Site C/Prairie Road - $8,044,000
Coburg Hills - 8,445,000
o Local share of capital cost:
Site C/Prairie Road - $1,965,000.
o Local user costs:
Site C/Prairie Road:
Property tax/year - $3.21 in 1990.
Service fee/year - 5.10 in 1990.
o Property value impact similar to that of
Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
except prime farmland loss at Site C/
Prairie Road would be 100-120 acres.
o No significant effect.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Electrical energy consumption:
4,496,000 Kwh from 1990-2004.
o Diesel fuel consumption:
8,669 gal/yr in 2004.
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Mitigation measures similar to
those in Aesthetics section of
Table S-l.
o Mitigation measures similar to
those in Odors section of
Table S-l.
o Mitigation measures similar to
those in Energy Use section of
Table S-l.
12
-------
Table S-3. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures - (Alternative 3)
(Retain all sludge handling facilities on Regional Treatment Plant Site)
AREA OF IMPACT
IMPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES
Groundwater Quality
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
o No significant effect.
o Leachate volume and leachate concentra- o Mitigations similar to those in Groundwater
tions of NH.+, heavy metals, and organics Quality section of Table S-l.
would increase, posing increased risk of
groundwater contamination.
Agricultural reuse sites o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
(see Table S-l) except smaller acreage
of agricultural land involved; slightly
lower chance of heavy metal contamination
because lower per acre application rates
needed to provide desired nitrogen loads.
o Mitigations similar to those in Groundwater
Quality section of Table S-l.
Surface Water Quality
RWTP site o No significant effect.
o Mitigations similar to those in Surface Water
Quality section of Table S-l.
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse
o Continued disposal of sludge in landfill
during winter would increase risk of con-
taminating Camas Swale Creek compared to
Alternative 2, but overall risks still
low.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
except smaller acreage of agricultural
land required; slightly lower chance of
heavy metal contamination because lower
per acre application rates needed to pro-
vide desired nitrogen loads.
o Mitigations similar to those in Surface Water
Quality section of Table S-l.
Soil Character/Use
RWTP site o No significant effect.
Short Mountain Landfill o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
Agricultural reuse sites o Impact similar to Alternative 2 except
smaller acreage affected; slower build-
up of heavy metals at reuse sites be-
cause of higher nitrogen content compared
to preferred alternative; this would
extend useful life but increase acreage
of reuse areas.
o Mitigations similar to those in Soil Character/
Use section of Table S-l.
Public Health
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
o No significant effect.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2 o Mitigations similar to those in Public Health
except long-term winter disposal of section of Table S-l.
sludge in landfill could increase chances
of contaminating Camas Swale Creek.
Agricultural reuse sites o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
except smaller acreage affected.
Biological Resources
Aesthetics
Visual effects
Odors
o No significant effect.
o No significant effect.
o Likely increase in odor complaints in
the vicinity of the Eugene RWTP.
o Install effective odor control equipment on
sludge centrifuge structure.
o Maintain adequate retention time in sludge
digesters.
13
-------
Table S-3 Continued
IMPACT
Economics of reuse
Project Costs
Land Resources
Land use planning and
zoning consistency
Land use conversion
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Energy Use
AREA OF IMPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Impacts similar to those of Alternative 2
(see Table S-l).
o Total present worth cost: $16,366,000
o Local share of capital cost: $3,510,000
o Local user costs:
property tax/year - $5.73 in 1990
service fee/year - $8.34 in 1990
o No ijrpact on property values adjacent to
facilities.
o No apparent planning or zoning conflicts.
o No prime agricultural land loss; con-
ditions placed on winter use of Short
Mountain Landfill for sludge disposal.
o No significant effect.
o No significant effect.
o Electrical energy consumption:
63,362,000 Kwh from 1990-2004
o Diesel fuel consumption:
11,166 gal/yr in 2004
o Mitigations similar to those in Energy Use
section of Table S-l.
14
-------
Table S-4. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures -
(Alternative 4 - No Project)
(No Facilities Provided Beyond Phase I Sludge Disposal System)
AREA OF IMPACT
Groundwater Quality
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Surface Water Quality
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Soil Character/Use
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse
Public Health
RWTP site
Short Mountain Landfill
Agricultural reuse sites
Biological Resources
Aesthetics
Visual effects
Odors
IMPACT
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
during Phase I; if liquid sludge applied
at landfill as Phase II remedy, significant
increase in risk of groundwater contamin-
nation along Camas Swale Creek.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
during Phase I; impact unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
during Phase I; if liquid sludge applied
to landfill as Phase II remedy, signifi-
cant increase in risk of contaminating
Camas Swale Creek.
o Impact similar to Alternative 2 in Phase I;
impact unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
in Phase I; impact unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
in Phase I; risk of surface and ground-
water contamination could greatly increase
if liquid sludge applied to landfill in
winter after 1989.
o Impact similar to that of Alternative 2
during Phase I; impact unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; impact
unknown beyond 1989.
MITIGATION MEASURES
o Construct lagoons at landfill
for winter storage of liquid
sludge during Phase II.
o Construct lagoons at landfill
for winter storage of liquid
sludge during Phase II.
o Construct lagoons at landfill
for winter storage of liquid
sludge during Phase II.
15
-------
Table S-4. Continued
AREA OF IMPACT
Economics of Reuse
Project Costs
Land Resources
Land use planning and
zoning consistency
Land use conversion
Air CXiality
Cultural Resources
Energy Use
IMPACT
o Sjjrular to those of Alternative 2
(see Table S-l).
o Total present worth cost not calculated.
o Local share of capital cost: $632,000 for
Phase I.
o Local user costs:
property tax/year - $1.03 in 1989
service fee/year - 6.08 in 1989
o No inpact on property values adjacent to
facilities.
o No apparent planning and zoning conflicts in
Phase I; consistency beyond 1989 unknown.
o No prime agricultural land loss in Phase I;
conditions would be placed on winter use
of Short Mountain Landfill for sludge
disposal; Phase II impacts unknown.
o No significant effect in Phase I; inpact
unknown beyond 1989.
o No significant effect in Phase I; inpact
unknown beyond 1989.
o Electrical and diesel fuel consumption
identical to other alternatives in Phase I;
consumption beyond 1989 unknown.
MITIGATION MEASURES
16
-------
RWTP in excess of the Phase I facilities capacity. What this
solution might include is unknown.
In addition, there would not be sufficient space on the
RWTP site for winter storage of increased quantities of sludge
for summer agricultural application, and some off-site solution
would have to be found. This might include disposal or storage
at Short Mountain Landfill, or development of a separate
dedicated sludge storage or disposal site. Lane County has
indicated that continued winter disposal of liquid sludge would
not be desirable at the landfill. With this uncertainty
surrounding the mechanism for sludge disposal, it has not been
possible to assess the environmental impact of Alternative 4 (No
Project beyond 1989) . The risks of creating public health and
nuisance conditions from sludge disposal increase, however, when
comprehensive planning has not been completed in advance of the
need for facilities.
The other three project options provide a clear contrast in
environmental effect. Construction and operation of long-term
mechanical dewatering facilities at the RWTP site (Alternative
3) would create no significant land resource, aesthetic, biolog-
ical, or cultural resource impacts over the 20-year project time
frame. The potential for off-site public health and water
quality impacts would be limited to those at the agricultural
reuse sites and the Short Mountain Landfill. With winter
disposal of dewatered sludge at the landfill, extra leachate and
surface water control measures may be necessary to avoid public
health, surface, and groundwater quality impacts downslope in
Camas Swale Creek and the Coast Fork Willamette River.
Approximately one-half of the sludge volumes available for reuse
with Alternatives 1 and 2 would be available with Alternative 3;
this would restrict the acreage that would benefit from the
nutrient and soil conditioning value of the sludge. It would
also limit, however, the acreage that would be placed under
runoff control, access, and use restrictions by DEQ sludge
management guidelines.
The land resource, aesthetic, public health, and biological
resource impacts avoided by implementing Alternative 3 would be
offset by considerably higher project costs and energy consump-
tion rates. The present worth cost of Alternative 3 is more
than $8 million higher than the MWMC preferred plan (Alternative
2, using Site C). The local share of capital costs would be
$1.6 million dollars greater than Alternative 2. Annual elec-
trical energy consumption for Alternative 3 would average
4,224,000 Kwh between 1990 and 2004, while Alternative 2 would
require only 666,500 Kwh annually during the same time period.
Diesel fuel use would be nearly twice as high annually with
Alternative 3.
The two off-site facilities options (Alternatives 1 and 2)
are relatively similar. Both would require purchase of agricul-
tural land and would locate sludge storage lagoons and drying
facilities in a rural setting, away from the general urban
17
-------
population. Because Alternative 2 would retain use of mechan-
ical dewatering capabilities beyond the initial phase, a smaller
parcel of land would be removed from agricultural use.
Conditioning sludge with centrifuges would also increase the
flexibility of reuse options, while decreasing the number of
truck trips needed to haul a comparable portion of the sludge
in a liquid form. The present worth costs and local capital
costs of the two options are very similar; the local share of
Alternative 2 would be about $195,000 lower than Alternative 1
because the 20-year value of the centrifuges would be grant
fundable, rather than for just the initial 5 years, as would be
the case with Alternative 1.
In contrast to the on-site option (Alternative 3), the two
off-site facilities alternatives would create a number of
impacts associated with construction and operation of FSLs and
drying beds in rural farming areas. The impacts of the three
site options analyzed in the EIS - Site C, Prairie Road site,
and Coburg Hills site - vary somewhat, but the general
implications are similar. Use of the MWMC preferred site, Site
C, would remove 80-100 acres of prime agricultural land from
production. It is also possible that archeological resources
could be damaged or lost. With proper construction and
operation of the facilities and adequate control of site
drainage, there should be no significant increase in public
health hazards in the area. The consistency of this land use
change with state and local land use planning laws and policies,
however, is uncertain due to the current state of flux in Lane
County's planning for the area and differing interpretations of
state solid waste management law. The proximity of the FSLs to
Mahlon Sweet Field has raised concern over the threat of
increased bird strike risks to airplanes using the airport.
Use of the Prairie Road site would have impacts similar to
those of Site C. The facilities would be placed nearer a
frequently traveled county road, however, and a larger number of
property owners and residences would be affected by the facil-
ities. The public health and bird strike risks would not be
significantly different, although the periodic flooding threat
would be slightly higher at Prairie Road. The chances of
affecting archeological resources on the Prairie Road site are
unknown.
Use of the Coburg Hills site for off-site facilities would
reduce the land resource, bird strike hazard, and land use
conflict effects of Alternatives 1 and 2. The site is more
remote from residences and is not close to a frequently used
airport. The agricultural value of the land is rated lower than
either Site C or the Prairie Road site. This site, however, is
more susceptible to local flooding and subsurface geologic
conditions are not as well known. This could increase the risk
of affecting surface and groundwater quality, but there are
fewer domestic wells in the area. The chances of affecting
archeological resources are greater along the Coburg Hills force
main route than along the Site C/Prairie Road route. Costs and
18
-------
energy consumption rates would be higher if the Coburg site is
used. Present worth cost estimates are $400,000 higher than
Prairie Road/Site C because of the extra length of transport
pipeline. The extra pumping distance would also escalate
electrical energy consumption.
Public Acceptance
The MWMC sludge management planning process has been in
progress since October 1977. In the 6 years that have elapsed
since that beginning, there have been numerous occasions and
avenues whereby public input on the course of planning has been
received. While public acceptance of the evolving plan does not
constitute an environmental impact of the project itself, EPA
feels it is valuable to briefly describe the general reaction
the public has exhibited toward the processing and reuse of
sludge in the Eugene/Springfield area.
The principal avenues of public opinion on the MWMC sludge
management plan have been a series of public workshops and hear-
ings conducted in July and August 1979 on the plan environmental
assessment (Brown and Caldwell 1979) and in March and June of
1983 on the interim project report (Brown and Caldwell 1982) .
Several citizens' advisory committees also have met throughout
the planning process. Citizen committees have included the
Citizens' Participation Committee, the Industrial Advisory
Committee, the Sludge Advisory Committee, and finally the MWMC
Advisory Committee. The MWMC Advisory Committee is an 11-member
group that is still active and holds monthly open meetings. It
is the citizen's forum for MWMC actions regarding sludge manage-
ment planning.
EPA solicited additional public input to the project by
conducting a public scoping meeting at the outset of the EIS
preparation process in November 1982. The results of these
numerous meetings have been published in public hearing tran-
scripts, responsiveness summaries, meeting minutes, newspaper
articles, and the MWMC newsletter. EPA has reviewed this
material and a large number of letters from public agencies and
local residents in order to assess public response to the
project.
The public has expressed considerable concern in the
majority of the letters and meeting minutes reviewed. Most of
this concern has come from residents of the suburban and rural
area between Junction City and the northern limits of the City
of Eugene, as this is the area under primary consideration for
off-site sludge handling facilities. Recently, a large number
of residents in the Short Mountain Landfill area have also
voiced their concern over sludge disposal at the landfill.
19
-------
In contrast to the notes of concern or outright opposition,
MWMC has received positive interest in the agricultural reuse
aspects of its proposal from members of the farming community
and from the timber industry. In response to an informational
letter distributed by the Lane County Cooperative Extension
Service, 22 farmland owners contacted MWMC for additional
information on the availability of sludge for agricultural
application. Also, in February 1981, MWMC sponsored a workshop
on Sludge Utilization Opportunities in Forestry. This meeting
was attended by approximately 200 representatives of both large
and small timber interests in the area. As a result of the
positive response, MWMC is considering a forest application
demonstration project.
In summary, the MWMC sludge management proposal has met
with mixed reviews from the public; strong opposition to both
the location of facilities and method of reuse has been voiced
by a number of residents and groups from the area immediately
north of Eugene. The data and analyses presented in this EIS
may answer some of the public concerns raised to date, and it is
hoped that public acceptance will improve substantially through
continuing public involvement in the planning, design, and
implementation process.
MWMC, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane County
should continue to encourage public involvement in the develop-
ment of the area's sludge management program to ensure that the
resultant plan receives the widest public acceptance possible.
Coordination
Section 6.203 of the EPA procedures for implementation of
the National Environmental Policy Act (Federal Register,
Vol. 44, No. 216, November 6, 1979) requires that all EISs
discuss the extent and results of coordination activities
conducted prior to publication of EISs. This section describes
the involvement of government agencies, special interest groups,
and the public in general in determining the scope and content
of this EIS. It also describes how, when, and where coordina-
tion efforts will continue.
Coordination efforts on the MWMC Sludge Management Program
EIS began in August 1982 with publication in the Federal Regis-
ter of a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS. This was followed
by an EIS scoping meeting held in Springfield, Oregon on
November 17, 1982. At that meeting, approximately 60 agency
personnel and interested local residents discussed the MWMC
sludge management proposal and the environmental issues it was
likely to raise. EPA sought guidance for the subsequent en-
vironmental investigations that it would undertake. Some of the
major concerns expressed at the meeting were as follows:
20
-------
o Potential groundwater contamination and related health
hazard from storage, drying, and agricultural reuse of
sludge.
o Potential health threats from leaks or breaks in the
sludge pipeline.
o Potential surface water contamination and related health
hazard from sludge reuse site runoff or flooding of
storage and drying sites.
o Odor generation at the sludge storage and drying site.
o Airborne vector health hazard at sludge storage, air-
drying, and reuse sites.
o Risk of increasing bird strike hazard in the vicinity of
Mahlon Sweet Field.
o Accumulation of pathogens or toxic materials in food
chain crops grown on sludge reuse sites.
o Increase in vector populations at sludge storage and
drying site.
o Loss or degradation of valuable agricultural land.
Since the scoping meeting, EPA has contacted a wide variety
of individuals and agencies to collect background data and
define project-related environmental issues. These contacts
have been made in person, by phone, and by letter. In addition,
EPA has participated in several MWMC Advisory Committee meetings
and two public hearings on the MWMC Phase I program.
As a result of these coordination efforts, EPA focused its
environmental analysis on the alternatives described in
Chapter 2 and the impact areas addressed in Chapter 3. While
there was no significant shift in the range of issues identified
prior to the official coordination efforts, one alternative site
was dropped from consideration (Four Corners) and one was added
(Coburg Hills). The Four Corners site was dropped because it
was learned that the City of Eugene was considering development
of a portion of the site for park use. The Coburg Hills site
was added because it appeared to be a feasible site that had
been screened out early in facilities planning before an
environmental evaluation and cost comparison analysis had been
completed. In addition, its location was sufficiently isolated
to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses.
This Draft EIS has been forwarded to numerous federal,
state, and local agencies; special interest groups; and private
citizens to act both as an informational document and as an
avenue to comment on the proposed sludge management project.
The distribution list is included as Appendix J. The document
21
-------
has been forwarded to public libraries in the Eugene/Springfield
area so that all interested residents can review the potential
impacts of the project.
Individuals or groups that wish to comment on the EIS may
forward written comments to:
Ms. Norma Young M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
A public hearing to solicit oral comments on the Draft EIS
will be held by EPA on Tuesday, December 6, 1983 at 7:30 p.m.
at:
City Council Chambers
City Hall
Springfield, Oregon
All oral and written comments received on the Draft EIS will be
recorded and responded to in a Final EIS, which will be made
available to interested individuals, groups, and agencies
approximately 3 months after the public hearing.
22
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The MWMC Sludge Management Plan
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
In order to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act of
1977 (PL 95-217), the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Lane
County, Oregon completed an areawide water quality management
plan in 1976. This plan, developed under Section 208 of PL
92-500, recommended wastewater treatment facilities that would
bring the Eugene and Springfield wastewater discharges into
compliance with the water quality objectives of PL 95-217. The
cities' treatment plants discharge to surface waters of the
United States and were not expected to be able to meet waste
discharge requirements beyond 1982. The water quality manage-
ment plan (208 plan) recommended construction of a single
regional wastewater treatment facility for both cities at the
site of the present Eugene wastewater treatment plant (WTP)
(Figure S-l).
In February 1977, an agreement was signed by Eugene,
Springfield, and Lane County forming the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC) and authorizing the MWMC to design,
construct, and operate the new regional wastewater treatment
plant (RWTP). Construction of the new plant began in May 1979
and is scheduled for completion early in 1984. The MWMC also
has responsibility for planning and implementing a permanent
wastewater solids disposal program. In the fall of 1984, when
the new RWTP is expected to go into full operation, the solids
volume at the plant is expected to increase four-fold with the
addition of flows from Springfield and use of an activated
sludge treatment process that improves solids removal. The
existing solids handling facilities at the site are not capable
of accommodating this increase.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN
In October 1977, the MWMC authorized Brown and Caldwell, a
consulting engineering firm, to initiate a study of long-term
sludge management options for Eugene and Springfield. Brown and
Caldwell's study was guided by input from MWMC and a 29-member
Citizens' Participation Committee on Sludge Management. After
one and one-half years of plan development, MWMC issued an
23
-------
environmental assessment of the early plan results (Brown and
Caldwell 1979) . This document was reviewed at public hearings
in Junction City and Eugene in July 1979. Subsequent to this
public input, further planning was undertaken. The results of
over 3 years of planning were finally published in the Sludge
Management Plan for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (Brown and Caldwell 1980) . This plan recommended
construction of a sludge force main, FSLs and air-drying beds at
a location 3 miles north of Eugene between U. S. Highway 99 and
the Southern Pacific Railroad line. All sludge was to be reused
on agricultural land in the area. The MWMC adopted this
recommended plan in early 1981.
Since the cities' adoption of the plan recommendations,
implementation of the plan has been slowed by several factors.
First, federal funding of the sludge management facilities was
given a relatively low priority by the State of Oregon. Full
funding of the long-term plan was originally scheduled in Fiscal
Year 1987; this has since been moved up to 1985. Second, the
EPA determined that potential impacts of the proposed project
warranted a thorough environmental evaluation and disclosure to
interested area residents in the form of an EIS. In response to
these delays, MWMC authorized Brown and Caldwell to investigate
interim sludge management measures that could be implemented in
time to be available when the RWTP begins full-time operation in
1984.
After investigating a series of alternatives, Brown and
Caldwell published a predesign report for a Phase I sludge
management plan in December 1982 (Brown and Caldwell 1982).
EPA has evaluated the proposed Phase I plan and on July 27, 1983
issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) on the plan.
Implementation of the interim Phase I plan includes purchase of
mechanical dewatering equipment and sludge hauling equipment
that would allow sludge to be dewatered at the RWTP site from
1984-1989. This Phase I plan is described in detail in Chapter
2.
The Environmental Impact Statement
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENT
The MWMC will request Clean Water Act grant funds from EPA
to implement its long-term sludge management plan. Before EPA
approves the proposed plan and takes action on funding requests
for design and construction of the long-term project, it must
comply with the environmental review requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EIS addresses
the significant environmental issues associated with the
proposed plan, including:
24
-------
o Potential groundwater contamination at the proposed
sludge processing and reuse sites.
o Potential surface water degradation from runoff at the
sludge processing and reuse sites.
o Attraction of birds to the sludge processing site and
subsequent hazard to aircraft using Mahlon Sweet Air-
port.
o Public health hazards created by application of sludge
to Eugene area cropland.
o Odor and vector nuisances created at the sludge process-
ing site.
o Adverse effects on local property values.
o Conversion of valuable agricultural land.
o Degradation of local aesthetics near the sludge process-
ing site.
These issues and others are addressed in Chapter 3 of this EIS.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CHRONOLOGY
The EIS was initiated in August 1982 when the Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS was listed in the Federal Register. On
November 17, 1982, a public scoping meeting was conducted in
Springfield, Oregon by the EIS preparation team. This was
attended by both government agency personnel and interested
public, and a number of issues were identified for review in the
EIS. Notice of Completion of this Draft EIS, which assesses the
MWMC long-range sludge management plan, was published in the
Federal Register on November 4, 1983, initiating a 45-day public
review of its contents and findings. A public hearing on the
Draft EIS is also scheduled (see the enclosed cover letter for
details). All written and oral comments received during the
review period will be responded to in a Final EIS. Once the
Final EIS has been completed and all environmental issues have
been addressed, EPA will issue a Record of Decision on the
action it will take on the MWMC Sludge Management Program and
grant fund request.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE EIS
In the early stages of EIS preparation, the full array of
alternatives considered in the Sludge Management Program (Brown
and Caldwell 1980) was reviewed. Modifications to the proposed
project contained in the Predesign Report on Phase I (Brown and
25
-------
Caldwell 1982) were also considered. As a result, three feasi-
ble, comprehensive sludge management options were selected for
analysis of Phase II potential environmental impacts. The
No-Project option (Alternative 4), which is a continuation of
the Phase I sludge management system until the facilities'
capacity is exhausted, is also included in this EIS.
Legal, Policy, and Institutional Considerations
EPA is required to: integrate EIS preparation with the
requirements of other environmental laws and executive orders
(40 CFR S1502.25; 40 CFR S6.300); identify federal permits,
licenses and entitlements which must be obtained to implement an
action (40 CFR 1502.25); and identify inconsistencies of an
action with state and local plans and laws (40 CFR S1506.2).
The federal and state environmental requirements which are
relevant to either the MWMC sludge management plan or to this
EIS can be found in Appendix A.
The MWMC sludge management plan must also comply with a
variety of local requirements, including health department
regulations, local solid waste management plans, and local land
use plans. Compliance with these requirements is discussed in
the text of the environmental evaluations in Chapter 3.
Existing Sludge Management Practices
The Eugene WTP is a 17.1 million gallon per day (MGD)
trickling filter plant (average dry weather flow). It is
operated by the City of Eugene Department of Public Works,
Wastewater Management Section. Primary and secondary solids
generated at the plant are thickened by either gravity or
flotation thickeners prior to transfer to digesters. Solids are
transferred to primary digesters which are mixed and heated.
The primary sludge is then pumped to an unheated secondary
digester that facilitates solids concentration (Brown and
Caldwell 1980).
During the initial phase of RWTP construction on the Eugene
plant site, the original sludge storage lagoon and air-drying
beds were removed and a new 25 acre-foot lagoon was added.
Sludge is pumped from the digesters at 2-4 percent solids and
placed in this on-site lagoon. It was expected to hold all
sludge generated prior to implementation of a long-term sludge
management facility, but delays in that project have necessitat-
ed development of an interim sludge disposal program. Current-
ly, sludge is pumped from the lagoon and either disposed of at
the Short Mountain Landfill or spread on agricultural land
(Brown and Caldwell 1980). The MWMC agricultural reuse demon-
stration project surface-applied approximately 4,100,000 gallons
of sludge on 493 acres of cropland in 1982; 1,200,000 gallons of
26
-------
sludge were also surface-applied to grow cover crops at Short
Mountain Landfill in 1982 (Cooper pers. comm. a).
The Springfield WTP is currently operated by the City of
Eugene. It is a 6.9 MGD (average dry weather flow) trickling
filter plant with primary and secondary sludge digestion. All
digested sludge from the Springfield plant is air-dried on-site.
Two sets of air-drying beds are available. Approximately 28,800
square feet of asphalt beds are located adjacent to the diges-
ters and 33,000 square feet of dirt-bottom beds are located
outside the fenced plant site. Minimal amounts of sludge are
placed in these beds during the winter; the major drying periods
are late spring and early summer. When the sludge has dried, it
is removed and stockpiled by a front-end loader. The entire
volume of dried sludge is hauled from the plant by local resi-
dents for lawn and garden use (Brown and Caldwell 1980).
Sludge generation rates at the two plants vary throughout
the year, with an extreme peak at the Eugene plant in late
summer and fall due to waste flows from the Agripac vegetable
processing plant. Average raw sludge volumes at the Eugene
plant are around 40,000 gallons per month, with a peak often
four times larger in the September canning season. Raw sludge
volumes at the Springfield plant average just over 13,000
gallons per month with peaks in the spring and summer months
(Vader pers. comm.). Agripac currently has its own wastewater
treatment and land disposal project under construction. Once
this system is completed, the extreme peaks in waste flows to
the Eugene plant will be eliminated. The Agripac project is
expected to be completed in 1983.
Brown and Caldwell (1980) compiled sludge quality data from
1978 for both the Eugene and Springfield treatment facilities.
These data are reported in Tables B-l and B-2 in Appendix B.
27
-------
Chapter 2
Description of Sludge
Management Alternatives
-------
Chapter 2
DESCRIPTION OF SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents an overvi.ew of sludge management
methods, briefly describes the MWMC alternatives development and
screening process, discusses the development of a two-phase
plan, and describes other sludge management alternatives that
are analyzed in the EIS.
Overview of Sludge Management Concepts
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Sewage sludge is the semi-solid material formed during the
wastewater treatment process. It consists of organic and inor-
ganic solids removed during primary treatment and organic solids
removed during secondary treatment. Sewage sludge typically
undergoes treatment prior to disposal or reuse to achieve volume
reduction and disinfection. Following treatment, it is typical-
ly transported to a disposal or reuse site.
The sludge treatment process is designed to transform raw
sludge into a more manageable form. Depending on the final
usage, sludge may be thickened, digested, conditioned, dewa-
tered, composted, dried, disinfected, and/or incinerated.
Thickening increases the solids concentration, reducing the
volume. Digestion stabilizes the sludge, reduces its volatile
solids content, and provides some disinfection. Also, energy in
the form of methane gas can be recovered using the anaerobic
method of digestion. Conditioning serves to improve the sludge
dewatering and may be a chemical or physical technique. Dewa-
tering increases sludge solids content and volume, and removes a
significant portion of the water contained in sludge and any
dissolved constituents such as ammonium nitrate, ammonia, and
potassium. Composting oxidizes part of the organic matter in
sludge and can result in a drier, less odorous, and more disin-
fected product. Sludge disinfection removes pathogens and
prevents the spread of diseases. Drying further reduces sludge
moisture content and volume. Incineration greatly reduces
sludge mass and volume and results in a sterile ash for disposal
(EPA 1979a).
After treatment, sludge must be transported from the treat-
ment plant to a disposal or reuse site. Transportation also may
be required between the raw sludge collection point and the
29
-------
sludge treatment site. Common modes of transport are via truck,
pipeline, barge, and train.
The final disposition of sewage sludge can include disposal
or some beneficial usage. Landfilling (a disposal method) has
been commonly used in the United States. Marine disposal has
been essentially eliminated as a disposal system by action of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Soil
reclamation, urban marketing, agricultural land application
(food chain and nonfood chain crops), and forestland application
are examples of beneficial reuse of sludge.
Numerous programs have been pursued to utilize the resource
value of sludge. In recent years, land application programs
have been operated successfully in Salem and Corvallis. Other
cities such as Milwaukee and Houston have marketed successfully
a dried sludge product. Although sludge products have many
potential uses, opportunities for reuse are limited by certain
economic factors. A brief analysis of the economics of sludge
reuse in the Eugene/Springfield area is contained in Appendix G.
Sludge contains valuable nutrients and organic matter which
substitute for a variety of fertilizer and soil amendment
products. The form and quality of sludge, however, must meet
the unique requirements of the various product markets in order
to be competitive.
The nutrient requirements of agricultural markets are
extensive, requiring application of large quantities of fertil-
izer. The relatively low nutrient concentration and slow-
release nature of sludge, however, requires the application of
large volumes of material to meet nutrient needs. Liquid sludge
must be delivered and applied by the sewerage agency, while
dewatered sludge provides some potential to share delivery and
application costs. Because of public health concerns, sludge
application on agricultural lands is best suited for crops not
directly consumed by humans.
Forestry markets also have significant nutrient require-
ments. Application of sludge in all types of forest environ-
ments has increased biomass production. Established plantations
show particular promise because additional management practices
are minimized. Sludge use in forestlands characterized by poor
soils also has demonstrated significant results. The forestry
and agricultural markets provide significant opportunities for
growers to reduce fertilizer costs.
The large quantity of Douglas-fir and Christmas tree sites
within 25 miles of the Eugene/Springfield RWTP provides signifi-
cant opportunities, not only for reuse of sludge, but also for
recouping some of the costs for delivery and application. The
relatively high concentration of organic matter in dewatered
sludge would provide additional benefits to many forestlands
with poor-textured soils.
30
-------
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT APPROACHES OF UNITED STATES CITIES
The main methods for sludge disposal throughout the United
States in 1982 were:
o Incineration
o Landfill disposal
o Land spreading (food chain or nonfood chain cropland)
o Distribution and marketing as fertilizer and soil amend-
ment
o Ocean dumping (which is being phased out)
A survey of 350 large publicly-owned treatment works (ac-
counting for about 40 percent of the sludge produced in the
United States) provided the disposal distribution shown in
Figure 2-1 (Peter in Bledsoe 1981). With phasing out of ocean
dumping, those percentages will change as alternative methods
are employed. Some examples of sludge management programs used
by cities throughout the United States are discussed below.
Chicago, Illinois
During the last 10 years, the Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary
District sludge management program has consisted of reusing
heat-dried, air-dried, and liquid sludge to reclaim approximate-
ly 40,000 acres of strip-mined land as compost, and as a top
dressing for landfill sites. The District produces 450 dry tons
of sludge per day, and presently almost all is used as a top
dressing for the City of Chicago landfill or for horticultural
application (Gschwin pers. comm.). Future plans include using
sludge for growing nursery stock on a City-owned site north of
Chicago. The soil reclamation program has been phased out for
economic reasons, and the composting (NuEarth soil supplement)
program has been phased out because of concerns related to heavy
metals concentrations in the sludge (Gschwin pers. comm.).
Denver, Colorado
Denver uses a land application method as its primary means
of disposal; landfilling is used as a backup during cold weather
(EPA 1978a). Land application, employed since 1969, consists of
sludge application to the land, plowing, and sowing with a
forage crop 2 months following application. Cattle then graze
the area. During cold weather this process cannot occur and a
landfilling procedure is implemented. Sewage sludge is mixed
with about 5 or 6 parts of soil and then layered on top of low
areas in a landfill.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee has recycled its sewage sludge as a soil condi-
tioner since 1926. Approximately 190 dry tons per day are
31
-------
Distribution
Non-\ and
Food-\ Marketing
Chain \ 12%
3%
Food - Chain
Application
16%
Incineration
21%
Ocean
Dumping
18%
THIS DIAGRAM IS COMPILED FROM DATA FROM ABOUT 350 LARGER PUBLICLY
OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTWs) ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
SOURCE: PETER IN BLEDSOE. 1981
FIGURE 2-1
The Distribution of Sludge
According to the Method of Disposal
32
-------
heat-dried and packaged for marketing under the trade name of
Milorganite.
Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California
Sludge management for this metropolitan area is shared by
three agencies: the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts, and Orange County Sanitation District. A
joint management plan has been developed which calls for a
combination of thermal processing with energy recovery, compost-
ing for use as a soil amendment, and landfilling. Currently,
the City of Los Angeles discharges sludge to the Pacific Ocean;
in 1978, it disposed of approximately 164 dry tons per day via
the outfall. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
windrow-composts about 1,000 wet tons per day, about half of
which is used as a soil amendment. The remaining compost is
landfilled. Orange County Sanitation District currently dis-
poses of its sludge at a landfill.
Tacoma, Washington
Sludge from the City of Tacoma's three primary treatment
plants is anaerobically digested and then landspread. Total
sludge volume is approximately 85,000 gallons per day, with the
main treatment plant contributing 45,000-50,000 gallons, having
a solids content of 5-6 percent. Landspreading projects have
included sod farming, a topsoil product, and fertilization on
local lands. Future projects planned include forest fertili-
zation for harvest of trees as firewood, and digester gas
recycling as fuel for city vehicles (Price pers. comm.).
MWMC Alternatives Development and Screening Process
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INITIAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES
In developing alternatives for the MWMC project, the
general handling and disposition of sludges from the liquid
processing steps of wastewater treatment were divided into four
components by Brown and Caldwell: processing; storage; trans-
port; and utilization/disposal. The ultimate disposition of the
sludge was determined to be the controlling factor in developing
any workable combination of the four steps.
A total of 13 processing and disposal "base" alternatives
were initially considered in the alternative screening process
(see Figure 2-2). A base alternative was defined as a reliable
sludge management system which could utilize or dispose of all
of the sludge produced at the RWTP on a continuous basis.
Criteria used to screen utilization/disposal options for base
alternative acceptability included feasibility, reliability,
environmental hazard, site availability, and cost. If an option
failed to meet any one of these criteria, it was eliminated from
33
-------
PIPC i
Y
SlUOGC
lACOONS
i «i«o«r
tHICUWO 7
5!COM)A«r /
•AW /
UUOCt /
=
1 0
Ml
ces
(MA
UDC
! DICES! |
COMBIW 1
1 SlUOCCS j
1 1
RY
(
1 01
Si OK
{ SlU
'
IS1
WARY
oot
] MfCHANICA
DOtAIBI
I
FACIA tAMVf
SlUDCE
IACOONS
MfCHAAMCAUV |
I
~T^
I nucKj
JL
LAW) / LAW
X LAW \ > L»W •, / LAW ~ / LAW ,' LAW) / LAW '\ /
APPIICAIIWI ) I APPIICAIIO* ) I «PPtlCAriO» ) ( AfniCAIIOtlJ ( APfllCAIIOK ) I Af(MCAIIO« ) (^ LAMKILL I
la Ib Ha
He ITd De
IS? ¥a ¥b Vc "21
FIGURE 2-2. INITIAL ARRAY OF BASE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE
MWMC SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM BROWN AND CALDWELL 1980.
-------
further consideration. Table B-3 in Appendix B presents a
matrix used for elimination of specific utilization/disposal
options. The five acceptable options that resulted from the
screening were dedicated land disposal (DLD), agricultural reuse
on public land, landfill disposal, incineration, and pyrolysis.
After screening out processing options which were unac-
ceptable from a technological standpoint, it was necessary to
match feasible sludge stabilization options with feasible dewa-
tering options. Five stabilization options were matched with
four dewatering options. This comparison resulted in seven
suitable sludge processing combinations including four digested
sludge options (digest, digest/dewater, digest/air dry, and
digest/dewater/compost) and three raw sludge options (dewater/-
compost, dewater, and lime stabilize/dewater).
The seven acceptable sludge processing options were then
matched with the five acceptable base utilization/disposal
options (see Table B-4 in Appendix B). Sludge handling con-
straints defined which combinations were suitable. For example,
simple dewatering of raw sludge was unacceptable for dedicated
land disposal, agricultural reuse, or landfill disposal because
of noxious odor problems.
Storage and transport needs were then considered as final
components to the development of sludge management alternatives.
Because winter rainfall places seasonal limits on accessibility
to farmland in the Willamette Valley, and because of run-off
hazards during wet winter conditions, it was determined that
sludge storage would be required for all alternatives requiring
land application.
Available sludge transport methods included pipeline,
truck, and rail. For transport of dewatered or dried sludge,
truck transport was determined to be the only feasible option
since pipeline transport was not considered technically suitable
and because rail transport was not considered cost-effective.
For transport of liquid sludge, pipeline transport was found to
be more reliable, flexible and cost-effective when compared with
rail transport, and was found to have significant cost advan-
tages over truck transport. As a result, truck transport was
selected as the most suitable mode for dewatered sludge, and
pipeline transport was selected as the most suitable mode for
liquid sludge.
This summarizes the process in which the initial array of
13 base system alternatives were developed. No alternatives
were considered that include long-term storage of sludge at the
plant because the plant site has limited area. Long-term liquid
sludge storage on the plant site would reduce the expansion
capabilities of the plant and provide little or no buffer zone
between the plant and heavily urbanized areas. Without a buffer
area there wou.ld be a greater potential for odor complaints. In
addition, a large amount of fill would be required to lift the
35
-------
FSLs above flood stage, at the risk of seriously altering the
Willamette River's flood pattern on its opposite bank.
ALTERNATIVES GIVEN FINAL ANALYSIS
The evaluation of the 13 base alternatives that had been
developed resulted in the consideration of three suitable base
alternatives. Ha, He, and III, for final analysis. These
three alternatives were then combined with viable secondary
reuse alternatives and the most suitable sites to develop
comprehensive sludge management alternatives. Agricultural use
of sludge was determined to be the best secondary reuse alterna-
tive because of the uncertainty over regulations, markets, and
sludge spreading techniques associated with the other secondary
alternatives (i.e., citizen giveaway, commercial topsoil amend-
ment, and forest application). The three comprehensive sludge
management alternatives selected for final analysis were:
o Alternative Ha - Lagoon storage and air drying at Site
C or the Prairie Road location; agricultural use of air-
dried sludge with landfill disposal as backup.
o Alternative He - Lagoon storage and mechanical dewater-
ing at the Four Corners location; agricultural use of
sludge, using half in the dewatered state and half in
the liquid state; landfill disposal of mechanically
dewatered sludge as backup.
o Alternative III - Mechanical dewatering at the treatment
plant with landfill disposal.
For the final analysis, these three alternatives were
compared in terms of cost, environmental impact, reliability,
flexibility, and program implementation. This evaluation in-
volved rating the three alternatives within each category (de-
tails of this comparison of alternatives by evaluation category
can be found in Appendix B, Table B-5).
Results of the rating showed that Alternative Ila was first
in all evaluation categories with the exception of environmental
impact. In that category, Alternative He had a higher rating
because of the potential for archeological artifacts at Site C
(one of the lagoon storage and air drying sites for Alternative
Ha). Alternative III rated last in all categories.
Alternative Ha was eventually selected as the preferred
plan by MWMC, on the recommendation of Brown and Caldwell.
Alternative III had a much higher cost and was rated inferior in
flexibility, reliability, implementability, and environmental
impact. Alternative He was judged a close second to Ha, but
had a higher total and local cost, would probably exhibit more
severe truck traffic-related air quality and aesthetic problems,
and would offer more difficulty in site acquisition. Since
36
-------
selection of the preferred plan, the implementation schedule has
been divided into Phases I and II. Alternative Ila has been
relabeled Alternative 2 in the following impact analyses. A
description of the Phase I and Phase II portions of Alterna-
tive 2 follows.
The MWMC Preferred Sludge Management Program
THE PHASE I PROJECT
The MWMC is implementing its sludge management program in
two phases. The facilities plan (Brown and Caldwell 1980)
recommended a single phase implementation schedule, but because
the full program is not scheduled for federal funding assistance
until 1985, MWMC has proposed separate interim (Phase I) and
long-term (Phase II) implementation steps.
A near-term Phase I project is deemed necessary because the
Eugene/Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWTP) is
scheduled to be placed in full operation in 1984; at that time,
the sludge volume produced at the treatment facility will in-
crease from the present 28,500 gallons per day to approximately
124,000 gallons per day. Current sludge handling facilities at
the site are not capable of treating, storing, and disposing of
this volume. Because it is no longer possible to approve and
initiate the 20-year management plan by the 1984 treatment plant
start-up date, a 5-year Phase I plan (1984-1989) has been under-
taken. This project is described in detail in the Predesign
Report - Phase I Sludge Management System (Brown and Caldwell
1982); an abbreviated description of the Phase I project is
presented below.
Sludge Generation
Wastewater will undergo activated sludge secondary treat-
ment at the new Eugene/Springfield RWTP. The raw primary and
secondary sludge by-products of this treatment will be anaero-
bically digested on-site. Brown and Caldwell (1982) has es-
timated the digested sludge production rates for 1989 (end of
Phase I) and ultimate plant operation (2004); these rates are
included in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 provides estimates of the
concentrations of various waste constituents that are expected
to be present in the sludge.
Sludge Treatment and Handling On-site
The Phase I project will include installation of two
centrifuges, a sludge holding/equalization tank, polymer feed
equipment, pumping facilities, and dry sludge storage hoppers
adjacent to the existing sludge storage lagoon on the RWTP site
(see Figure 2-3). This equipment will be used to mechanically
dewater and/or condition sludge coming from the Wastewater
37
-------
Table 2-1. Estimated Digested Sludge Production (Phase I and Phase II)
PHASE I SLUDGE LOADS - 1989
SLUDGE LOAD
PARAMETER
Average
Peak month
Peak week
Peak day
LB/DAY
32,000
40,000
42,000
45,000
GAL/DAY
132,000
192,000
252,000
300,000
PERCENT
SOLIDS
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.8
ULTIMATE SLUDGE LOADS - 2004
PERCENT
LB/DAY SOLIDS
(SOLIDS) GAL/DAY (BY WT)
49,000
61,000
70,000
75,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
2.9
2.4
2.1
1.8
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1982.
Table 2-2. Anticipated Constituent Concentrations in Eugene/Springfield Sludge
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION, MG/KG ,,
CONSTITUENT
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Potassium
Total phosphorous (%)
Total nitrogen (%)
Ammonia nitrogen (%)
FUTURE EUGENE/
SPRINGFIELD
SLUDGE
7
21
7
530
140
7
8
240
1
1,700
2,150
1.3
5'9
TYPICAL DIGESTED MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
MEDIAN OF PLANTS SAMPLED RANGE OF PLANTS SAMPLED
116
36
16
1,000
540
5
30
85
no data
1,890
3,000
3.0
4.2
1.6
10-230
12-760
3-3,410
85-10,100
58-19,730
0.5-10,600
24-30
2-3,520
-
108-27,800
200-26,400
0.5-14.3
0.5-17.6
0.01-6.8
2 Milligrams per kilogram dry weight basis unless otherwise stated.
3 Based on weighted average of 72 percent Eugene sludge and 28 percent Springfield sludge.
. Based on pilot plant data of Eugene/Springfield wastewaters.
USEPA, "Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors", EPA 430/9-77-004, October
1977.
NOTE: Projected metal data are based on present concentrations. Storage in a sludge lagoon
will tend to concentrate these metals. This concentration, however, is assumed to
be counterbalanced by the fact that the sludge from the new treatment plant will have
a much higher ratio of secondary to primary sludge than at present. Secondary sludge
has a much lower metal concentration than primary sludge.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
38
-------
EXISTING ROAD
SCALEi l"«20'
U)
VD
DEWATERINC BLDG.
TRANSFORMER•
~\
| ICENTRIFUCES cz>
ucc
CONVEYOR•
POLYMER
STORAGE
i FEED
/ SLUOCE EO. \
I TANK 1
LIQUID •
POLYMER
LIQUID
LOADING
HOPPERS• • •
TOE OF EXISTING
SLUDGE LAGOON
FIGURE 2-3. PRELIMINARY LAYOUT FOR THE INTERIM DEWATERING
FACILITY AT THE EUGENE RWTP SITE
SOURCE: BROWN AND CALDWELL 1982
-------
treatment process. The new equipment will be capable of operat-
ing in four distinct modes, depending upon the dewatering and
conditioning needs of the plant operation at the time. A
description of these four modes, taken from the Brown and
Caldwell (1982) Phase I report, is presented below:
"DEWATERING DIGESTED SLUDGE. Digested sludge is fed to the
centrifuge through the sludge storage tank. Alternatively, the
centrifuges can be fed directly from the digesters by a digested
sludge pump. As with all of the operating modes, either liquid
or dry polymer can be used.
"Centrate from the process can drain by gravity to the
secondary control building from where it can be pumped either to
the headworks or aeration basins. The centrate can also be
diverted to the sludge transfer sump and pumped either to the
lagoon or to the waste-activated sludge (WAS) line from where it
will flow by gravity to the dissolved air flotation (DAF) thick-
ener.
"THICKENING DIGESTED SLUDGE. Under this mode of operation,
the centrifuges are fed directly by the digested-sludge pumps
with the sludge feed pumps remaining inactive. Thickened sludge
flows to the transfer pump and is pumped into the thickened-
sludge tank. From the storage tank, the sludge can be fed to
the transport trucks either by gravity or by the sludge-loading
pump. Centrate from this process flows by gravity to the
secondary control building for pumping to the headworks or
aeration basins.
"THICKENING WASTE-ACTIVATED SLUDGE. The sludge-dewatering
facility has the capability to thicken WAS during emergency
conditions when the DAF thickeners are out of service. . . .
the WAS flows by gravity to the sludge feed pumps. The thick-
ened WAS is pumped back to the digesters through the digested-
sludge force main. Under this mode of operation, digested
sludge can be trucked to the lagoons. Alternatively, the
thickened WAS can be pumped to the storage tank and then trucked
to the digesters while digested sludge is pumped to the lagoons.
Centrate will flow by gravity to the secondary control complex
and be pumped to the aeration basins or headworks.
"DEWATERING LAGOON-HARVESTED SLUDGE. Under this mode of
operation, sludge is dredged from the lagoon to the thickened-
sludge storage tank. The sludge feed pumps then feed the
centrifuges. Dewatered sludge is conveyed to the hopper, while
centrate can flow by gravity to the secondary control complex
for pumping to the headworks or the aeration basins. The
centrate can also be pumped from the sludge transfer sump to the
lagoon or into the WAS line from where it will flow by gravity
to the DAF thickener" (Brown and Caldwell 1982).
The end-product of these operational modes will be either a
dewatered or a conditioned sludge. The thickened sludge solids
40
-------
concentration is expected to be about 9 percent and can be
transferred directly to liquid hauling tanker trucks. Dewatered
sludge coming from the centrifuge and into the dried sludge
hoppers is expected to be about 20 percent solids. This
material could be fed from the hoppers into dry sludge transfer
trailers.
Sludge Transport
MWMC intends to purchase additional sludge hauling equip-
ment during Phase I. This includes one front end loader for use
on the RWTP site, four dry solids transport trailers (25-cubic-
yard capacity each), one liquid transport trailer (5,800-gallon
capacity), and three transport truck tractors. This equipment,
combined with transport facilities already owned by MWMC, will
allow hauling of conditioned sludge to agricultural reuse sites
and transfer of dewatered sludge to the Short Mountain Landfill
or to agricultural reuse sites.
During the months of heavy precipitation, normally October
through March, sludge will be mechanically dewatered and hauled
to Short Mountain Landfill (see Figure S-l). Assuming a peak
day production of 45,000 pounds of solids in 1989 (133 cubic
yards), there will be a maximum of 6 truckloads of sludge hauled
daily from the RWTP to the landfill. Average daily generation
and truck traffic will be 32,000 pounds and 4 trucks, respec-
tively. For the remainder of the year, normally April through
September, sludge will be either mechanically dewatered or
conditioned and hauled to agricultural reuse areas. The split
between liquid and dried sludge hauling during this period will
vary with demand for the two forms of sludge, so the exact
number of truck trips will also vary. If all sludge were hauled
in a dewatered state, as in the wet months, peak day truck
traffic would be six trips. If all sludge were transported in a
liquid form at 9 percent solids, 16 or 17 truck trips would be
needed to handle a peak day volume in 1989.
Sludge Reuse or Disposal
In the wet months of the year, dewatered sludge from the
RWTP will be hauled to the Short Mountain Landfill for disposal.
The trucks will deposit the dried material (20 percent solids)
in the active landfill area to be mixed into the working face of
the fill with other solid waste. In the Phase I design year
(1989), approximately 17,300 cubic yards of dried sludge will go
to the landfill. For the remainder of the year, all sludge will
be hauled to agricultural reuse sites for application as a soil
conditioner and fertilizer. The sludge may be hauled in a
liquid or dewatered state, depending upon the crop type and the
operational requirements of farmers.
Several farms are currently receiving liquid sludge from
the Eugene WTP as a pilot project. Additional acreage will be
added to the agricultural reuse operation when more sludge
41
-------
becomes available. While specific parcels have not been iden-
tified, land supporting nonfood crop production will be used as
the additional reuse sites. These lands are found throughout
the area, primarily on alluvial soils of the Willamette Valley
and the narrower river valleys of the Coast Fork of the Wllla-
mette and McKenzie Rivers east and south of Eugene/Springfield.
It is estimated that by 1989, 1,500 acres of agricultural
land will be needed to receive the dry season sludge volume
generated at the RWTP (Brown and Caldwell 1980) . There is an
estimated 41,000 acres of nonfood cropland in Lane County, most
of it within 20 miles of the RWTP. This includes seed produc-
tion land and alfalfa and hay cropland (Oregon State University
Extension Service 1982) . Nonfood cropland in Linn County to the
north may also receive Eugene/Springfield dewatered sludge.
Before any new reuse site receives sludge, the Oregon DEQ will
inspect it to determine its suitability under DEQ sludge reuse
regulations, and a written agreement will be established between
MWMC and the landowner outlining controls on application rates
and farming operation procedures.
While the MWMC recommended plan for Phase I calls for
agricultural reuse of the dry season sludge production, MWMC is
also pursuing several other beneficial reuse options. Forest-
land application and use as a topsoil additive may be pursued
through small-scale pilot programs in the next year (Pye pers.
comm.).
THE PHASE II PROGRAM
The long-term solution to sludge management for the Eugene/-
Springfield RWTP is described in the Sludge Management Program
for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (Brown and
Caldwell 1980) . The proposal includes piping digested sludge
off-site for storage in facultative sludge lagoons, air drying,
and agricultural reuse of the harvested sludge. The recommended
off-site location is Site C (see Figure 2-4). Since publication
of the 1980 facilities plan, several modifications have been
recommended for the proposed plan. Initiation of Phase I,
described above, is a significant departure from the original
plan in that it includes mechanical dewatering of sludge from
1984-1989. The MWMC preferred program now being considered for
the 1990-2004 planning period, labeled Alternative 2 in
subsequent environmental impact analyses, is described briefly
below.
Sludge Generation
There will be no significant changes in the wastewater
treatment process at the RWTP between the Phase I and Phase II
planning periods. Sludge will continue to be anaerobically
42
-------
SCALED 1=1500
.59
.
* "5
-
27
SLUDGE
STORAGE
AND DRYING '•»
FACILITIES SITE "
A
3 _i '__ ! '
"•
« • .'>!''•. ft '
--• • ii
V
^.-. .. l •, ••" •*"• * . :' •-jf •
•» T—iV^Mrm hii •••^N^j'i «t ,.i j . . y_.i.i, ii' i
"' * "A W* •.*:">.'*".• . • -iL-.^-r-.-t
. 56 ?
DUAL 8"
FORCE MAINS
•
\\EnHi
n
5" .r'N'Cf •, 5r*riow
'*>
57
'
.
».is*^ ._• i -•A--*V!;^:^v—- •^^fc«fiL^JMa^--^v'-:--,., Ji._J
v-%-! r $IJt ^^top£i=S^'v;M' -a^: • •"
.»°""N?V '—f—•^'•-•-r^ :»\ ? Vs^T—gH-H^ ^vSSr\i:
\U. . ...W \ .,., |«AHWH H *«-: - "sJi-Sft fcr"v;V
IB- a. ,- ;:• _
.^^rftif^'
BASE MAP FROM JUNCTION CITY, COBURG, EUGENE EAST AND EUGENE WEST USGS 71/2' QUADS
FIGURE 2-4. LOCATION OF SLUDGE, TRANSPORT, STORAGE AND
DRYING FACILITIES PROPOSED BY MWMC
43
-------
digested on-site; therefore, sludge generation will increase
proportionally to the increases in wastewater flows received at
the plant. Table 2-1 lists the anticipated digested sludge
production rates at the end of Phase I (1989) and the end of the
Phase II design period (2004) . Average daily sludge production
is expected to increase 52 percent over the 15-year Phase II
time period.
Sludge Transport
Digested sludge will be transported through dual 5.5-mile-
long, 8-inch-diameter force mains from the RWTP to storage
lagoons at a remote site in Phase II. This pipeline will follow
the Beltline Highway, Northwest Expressway and Awbrey Lane (see
Figure 2-4). Sludge from the digesters will be ground and then
pumped at intervals to the FSLs for storage and additional
treatment.
Sludge Storage and Drying
The MWMC preferred off-site storage and drying site is Site
C, located immediately north of Awbrey Lane and west of the
Southern Pacific Railroad line to the north of Eugene (Figure
2-4). This site has been relocated south of the position
proposed in the 1980 Brown and Caldwell facilities plan to place
it under a Bonneville Power Administration electrical trans-
mission line. A proposed layout for the 125-acre site is shown
in Figure 2-5.
The site will consist of four FSLs, each 6.25 acres in
surface area, 33 acres of sludge drying beds, an operations
building, a centrifuge building, and a supernatant pump station.
Sludge will flow from the force mains into the FSLs for storage
and settling. The 15-foot-deep FSLs will include aerators and
will be sealed with a clay layer to restrict movement of leach-
ate into local groundwater. During the winter months, all
sludge received from the RWTP will be stored in the lagoons. In
the drier months, normally from April to September, sludge will
be pumped from the lagoons into the two centrifuges, which will
be relocated from the RWTP to Site C. The centrifuges will
partially dewater the sludge before it is spread onto the
air-drying beds for final dewatering.
The air-drying beds will be asphalt lined and will hold the
sludge at 8- to 12-inch depths to allow liquid to evaporate.
The sludge will be held in these beds for 3-6 weeks depending on
weather conditions. During that time, sludge water standing on
the surface will be skimmed off and pumped back to the RWTP for
additional treatment with supernatant from the FSLs. The sludge
also will be mixed once or twice during the drying cycle to
increase the drying rate.
Brown and Caldwell (1980) predicted that up to 20 percent
of the sludge coming from FSLs would be loaded directly into
44
-------
I
N
1
~SCALE:
SITE
BOUNDARY
100 BUFFER
SLUDGE
LAGOONS
25 ACRES
TOTAL
LAGOON
SUPERNATANT
PUMP STATION
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
33 ACRES TOTAL
DUAL 8
FORCE MAIN
EXISTING
BPA TOWER
OPERATIONS !
BLDG.
POWER LINE
L..4X. J-
nsi
AWBREY
7
EXISTING
HOUSE
LANE
EXISTING
HOUSE
TOTAL SITE APPROXIMATELY 125 ACRES
FIGURE 2-5. MWMC PROPOSED PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 2)
FACILITIES LAYOUT AT SITE C
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM BROWN AND CALDWELL PERS. COMM. A.
45
-------
liquid transport trailers for hauling to agricultural lands
rather than undergoing an air-drying step. Liquid applications
are preferred for certain crops; in addition, this will allow
reuse of sludge earlier in the spring than would be possible if
all of the sludge were air dried. Because the plan now includes
centrifuges at the off-site location, lagoon-harvested sludge
with a 5 or 6 percent solids content can be conditioned to 9
percent solids in the centrifuges prior to hauling in a liquid
form.
Sludge Reuse
Construction of the Phase II facilities will allow MWMC to
store all sludge generated during the winter months for eventual
reuse during drier months. Beginning in late spring, sludge
will be removed from the FSLs, conditioned in the centrifuges,
and either spread onto the air-drying beds or loaded into liquid
transport trucks for hauling to agricultural lands. Liquid
sludge will be applied to nonfood chain cropland either by
injection or spraying on the surface as is the current practice
with Eugene sludge. The bulk of the sludge (80 percent) is
expected to be hauled in a dried form at about 40 percent solids
for stockpiling at reuse sites and spreading with a dried sludge
applicator.
Brown and Caldwell (1980) has estimated that 2,050 acres of
cropland will be needed to accomplish a total reuse of the
sludge load anticipated by the year 2000. While specific
locations for this reuse have not been identified, MWMC had 490
acres of agricultural land in its reuse program in 1982, and
MWMC/DEQ efforts have identified an additional 4,500 acres that
meet the DEQ requirements for sludge reuse (Cooper pers.
comm. b). These acreages all support crops that are not in the
direct human food chain and are located on terrace and alluvial
plain soils from the Creswell area on the south to the
Harrisburg area on the north.
MWMC intends to purchase four front-end loaders, three
transport truck tractors, four dry sludge trailers, one liquid
sludge trailer, three flotation-tired dry sludge applicators,
and one flotation-tired liquid sludge applicator to augment the
transport and spreading equipment acquired during Phase I. RWTP
personnel will haul and apply the sludge at agricultural reuse
sites using this equipment. Application rates will be geared to
meet crop fertilizer requirements and DEQ regulations; estimates
range from 2-6 tons of dry solids per acre per year (Brown and
Caldwell 1980).
Although equipment costs and designs for the proposed
project have assumed a total agricultural reuse of the RWTP
sludge, MWMC is continuing to investigate the feasibility of
other reuse options. This includes forestland application and
use as a topsoil additive. In addition, landfill disposal of
46
-------
dried sludge will be used as a backup if sufficient agricultural
land is not available.
Alternatives Considered in the EIS
ALTERNATIVE 1
This alternative (the 1990 to 2004 project) would include
construction of dual liquid sludge force mains, FSLs and
air-drying beds at a rural, remote site. The centrifuges in use
on the RWTP during Phase I would not be moved to the remote
site. Sludge would be transferred directly from the FSLs to the
air-drying beds without an intermediate conditioning step. The
centrifuges would no longer be used. As a result, the acreage
of air-drying beds would increase from the 33 acres required for
the MWMC preferred plan to 50 acres.
Three possible sites for the remote facilities have been
considered in this EIS. Two of the sites (Site C and Prairie
Road) were considered in detail by MWMC. A third site, Coburg
Hills, was considered and rejected in the Sludge Management
Program; it was reinstated for environmental analysis, however,
after review of the original criteria used for rejection. The
remoteness of the site and its apparent lack of major land use
conflicts warranted a full environmental evaluation in the EIS.
The locations and boundaries of these sites are shown in Figures
2-6 and 2-7 . A preliminary layout of facilities at Site C is
shown in Figure 2-8.
The reuse of sludge proposed for Phase II of Alternative 1
is a continuation of the MWMC Phase I program. Sludge would be
stored over the winter and air-dried during the summer, with the
dried product being reused on agricultural land. Up to 20 per-
cent of the sludge would be taken directly from the FSLs and
applied to agricultural land in a liquid form. Without the
mechanical dewatering capabilities, liquid sludge would contain
approximately 6 percent solids rather than the 9 percent achiev-
ed through conditioning. Landfilling of dried sludge would act
as a backup to the agricultural reuse scheme.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 is the option now preferred by the MWMC. It
has been described in detail on preceding pages. The EIS has
expanded the off-site locations considered, however, to include
the Prairie Road and Coburg Hills sites. Potential site layouts
for these locations are shown in Figures 2-9 and 2-10. The
areas required for air-drying beds are slightly smaller than in
Alternative 1, so the site boundaries would be altered somewhat
(see Figures 2-6 and 2-7).
47
-------
FIGURE 2-6. SITE C AND PRAIRIE ROAD SITE LOCATIONS
AND TOPOGRAPHY
— V-X _ V,
AREA TO BE USED
FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
AREA TO BE USED
FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
SCALE: j":2000'
I
•_ •._„. \
LANE.' Jfj
l> PRAIRIE
ROAD
BASE FROM JUNCTION CITY US6S 7 1/2' QUAD
48
-------
FIGURE 2-7. COBURG HILLS SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY
-LEGEND-
I ('"•^Centennial
^ V_yButte^ V. ii •
\ "
/ "
I ' »
AREA TO BE USED
FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
AREA TO BE USED
FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
,f r
— -•••*—P"
r 1—•/>—
-------
.SITE ACCESS TO
MEADOWVIEW ROAD
SITE DRAINAGE
TO FLAT CREEK
FACULTATIVE SLUDGE LAGOONS
OPERATIONS —J~|
LAGOON SUPERNATANT
PUMP STATION
SCALE IN FEET
-LEGEND-
N DRAINAGE
PROPOSED SLUDGE FORCE MAIN ROUTE
PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY
TOTAL SITE APPROXIMATELY 170 ACRES
FIGURE 2-8. ALTERATIVE 1 FACILITIES LAYOUT AT SITE C
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM BROWN AND CALDWELL 1980.
50
-------
EXISTING
HOUSE
EXISTING BPA
POWER LINE
OPERATIONS
BLDG.
SUPERNATANT
PUMP STATION
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
33 ACRES
TOTAL
EXISTING
BPA
TOWER
EXISTING
HOUSE
-SCALE:! =400
TOTAL SITE APPROXIMATELY 125 ACRES
FIGURE 2-9. ALTERNATIVE 2 FACILITIES LAYOUT AT
PRAIRIE ROAD SITE
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM BROWN AND CALDWELL PERS. COMM. A.
51
-------
N
rv
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
y
^
-7\
i
SLUDGE LAGOONS
*7 25 ACRES TOTAL
\
V LJ,
y
NEW
PROPERTY ^^
LINE ^>
SUPERNATANT
PUMP STATION
CK
"'
• SCALE: 1=400
TOTAL SITE APPROXIMATELY 125 ACRES
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
33 ACRES
TOTAL
^"U
0
i"
\
\
FIGURE 2-10. ALTERNATIVE 2 FACILITIES LAYOUT AT
COBURG HILLS SITE
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM BROWN AND CALDWELL PERS. COMM. A.
52
-------
ALTERNATIVE 3
Under this option, the Phase I program of mechanical dewa-
tering at the RWTP would continue into Phase II. Once the Phase
I dewatering facilities had reached their capacity, additional
mechanical dewatering facilities and appurtenances would be
added on-site.
Brown and Caldwell (1980) has indicated that one sludge
digester and one DAF thickener would have to be added to the
RWTP during Phase II of this option to supply stabilization
backup in the absence of FSLs. Also, two more centrifuges, a
permanent dewatering building, chemical feed equipment, and
appurtenances would be needed on-site. No site layout has been
developed for these facilities. Stabilized sludge would be
pumped directly from the digesters to the dewatering building
where it would be centrifuged to approximately 20 percent
solids. The sludge would then be conveyed to small storage
hoppers for transfer to trucks.
During the winter months, all sludge would be dewatered and
hauled to the Short Mountain Landfill for disposal. During peak
day flows in the Phase II design year (2004), as much as 190
cubic yards of sludge would be hauled from the RWTP. This would
require approximately eight truck trips. Assuming 50 percent of
the total design year sludge was hauled to the landfill, this
would be 44,800 cubic yards of material. In the summer months,
the entire sludge volume would be transported by truck to agri-
cultural reuse sites as proposed for the other project alterna-
tives. The majority would be transported in a dewatered form
(20 percent solids), but some fraction would be taken in a
liquid form (3-6 percent solids). The acreage required to reuse
all of the sludge would be only half of that needed for Alterna-
tives 1 or 2. As with the other options, landfilling would act
as a backup to the summer period agricultural reuse of dewatered
sludge.
ALTERNATIVE 4
—• • • «•
Alternative 4 is the no-project option. It represents a
continuation of the Phase I sludge management practices
previously described. The interim (Phase I) project has
received federal grant funds and is being implemented by MWMC;
the long-term (Phase II) project, however, would not proceed at
the end of the 5-year plan. The Eugene/Springfield RWTP would
continue to rely on Phase I sludge facilities indefinitely. In
the absence of a planned Phase II project, MWMC would have to
develop additional interim sludge handling procedures to
accommodate sludge volumes in excess of the Phase I facilities'
capacity, or sludge generation would have to be curtailed after
1989. A specific interim solution beyond 1989 has not been
developed for this alternative.
53
-------
OTHER REUSE/DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Several reuse/disposal options considered but rejected in
the Sludge Management Program as base alternatives (Brown and
Caldwell 1980) have been given a generic environmental analysis
in this EIS. These options could replace the agricultural reuse
or landfilling proposals included in the MWMC preferred program
if these two options were found to be economically or
environmentally less desirable.
Forest Application
The application of sludge to forestlands is a relatively
new concept. Most available information derives from studies
conducted in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Washington. The
greatest amount of sludge forestland application research has
been accomplished at the University of Washington's Pack Forest.
Research studies have shown that sludge is suitable for
application on Douglas-fir, cottonwood, poplar, and Sitka
spruce, but that western hemlock, red cedar, and red alder do
not respond well to sludge-amended conditions. Sludge can be
applied to: 1) recently logged forestlands, 2) recently estab-
lished plantations, or 3) well established forests using either
spreading or spray application methods. Studies have shown that
sludge must be allowed to dry for at least 6 months prior to
planting seedlings on recently logged sites, but that sludge can
be spray-applied over young established plantations (seedling
age 5 years or older) (Washington Department of Ecology 1982) .
Application of sludge to established forests has been studied
more than other forestland options. The methods of applying
sludge proven to be the most effective to date include use of a
spray application vehicle mounted with a sludge storage tank and
cannon-type spray nozzle for distributing sludge up to 150 feet
from the vehicle. Access roads spaced 250 feet apart allow for
proper sludge coverage of each site.
The MWMC has been working with the Oregon State University
Department of Forestry, the OSU Extension Service, and DEQ to
develop a pilot program for forest applications of Eugene/-
Springfield sludge. There is an estimated 589,000 acres of
privately-owned timber within 30 miles of Eugene (Cooper pers.
comm. b). This includes Christmas tree farms and commercial
timberland.
Composting
Sludge composting involves the aerobic decomposition of
organic constituents to a relatively stable humus-like material.
While sludge is not rendered totally inert by composting,
in-vessel or static aerated pile composting is considered by EPA
to be a process to further reduce pathogens.
54
-------
Composting can be accomplished in several ways: windrow
method, aerated static pile method (individual or extended
piles) or within enclosed containers (tanks). Although each
technique is unique, the fundamental process is similar.
Requirements include: bulking agents (such as wood chips or
sawdust); internal temperature ranging from 130°F-150°F
(55°C-65°C) to ensure destruction of pathogens; extended-term
storage of compost; and final separation of bulking agent and
compost (U. S. EPA 1979a). The composting procedure involves
mixing raw or digested sludge with the bulking agent and piling
the mixture in a windrow or pile or storing in an enclosed
container. As the organic material decomposes, heat generated
by the microorganisms will raise the temperatures in the compost
pile.
Composting is common throughout much of western Europe and
to a more limited extent in the United States. The compost
product is normally used as a mulch, soil conditioner, or
bedding material for landscaping and nursery stock.
Topsoil Amendment
The use of sludge to improve soils deficient in nutrients
and organic material has received more recognition in recent
years. Surface-mined land has been reclaimed using sludge in
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Washington, Minnesota, and West Virginia
(Sopper and Kerr 1979; Frank in Sludge Magazine 1978). In the
Eugene area, MWMC has considered selling sludge to local com-
panies that market topsoil. Most of the topsoil is a gravel
mining by-product and is sold to local building contractors and
landscapers (Brown and Caldwell 1980) . This soil material could
be increased in volume and enriched with nutrients by mixing in
digested sludge prior to sale.
During the dry season, sludge would be hauled in either a
liquid or dried form to the soil excavation sites and spread
over the surface. The application could be accomplished by
spraying, direct dumping, broadcast spreading or injection. The
soil would be subsequently disced to incorporate the sludge and
then hauled to its reuse site.
Dedicated Land Disposal
Dedicated land disposal (OLD) involves direct application
of liquid sludge to land set aside for this sole purpose.
Sludge is hauled in tanker trucks or piped directly to the OLD
site where it is injected into the soil or surface-applied.
Surface-applied material must be disced into the soil. Typical-
ly, a cover crop is grown on the OLD site to reduce the threat
of erosion and to take advantage of the available nutrients.
Sludge application rates are higher on OLD sites than in
agricultural reuse areas. This reduces the acreage requirements
but creates more concern for health problems. For this reason,
55
-------
food chain crops are not normally grown on OLD sites. Because
the cropping operation is not a major concern, the sludge appli-
cation season can be extended beyond that acceptable at most
agricultural reuse sites.
ALTERNATIVES INVESTIGATED AND REJECTED
A major effort in the early stages of EIS preparation was
directed at investigating alternatives to the 'proposed Eugene/-
Springfield sludge management program. The alternatives dis-
cussions prepared by Brown and Caldwell (1980, 1982) were re-
viewed to determine if feasible alternatives had been over-
looked, and whether alternatives recommended in public meetings
and hearings were investigated. As a result of this process,
the above-described alternatives were selected for environmental
evaluation. A brief discussion of the rationale for not includ-
ing other alternatives in the EIS analysis follows.
Base Alternatives Rejected in the Sludge Management Program
EPA has reviewed and concurs with the rationale for reject-
ing the following base alternatives described in the Brown and
Caldwell Sludge Management Program (1980) :
o Alternative la - single-site sludge processing and land
disposal.
o Alternatives lib, lie, and lid - remote site lagoon
storage and land disposal of liquid sludge at a separate
site.
o Alternatives Va and Vb - on-site mechanical dewatering
and incineration or pyrolysis at a remote site, with
landfill disposal of ash.
o Alternative Vc - on-site mechanical dewatering, on-site
incineration, and landfill disposal of ash.
o Alternative IV - lime stabilization, mechanical dewater-
ing, and landfill disposal.
All of these alternatives were evaluated and eliminated for any
one of a number of reasons, including inordinately high costs,
higher energy consumption, lack of reliability for continuous
sludge service to the RWTP, increased traffic and transport
costs, management coordination problems, or potentially in-
creased odor nuisances.
Alternatives Described During Public Participation
DELTA PITS. This option would include pumping digested
liquid sludge from the RWTP to a gravel quarry across Beltline
Road, adjacent to the Willamette River. A detailed description
56
-------
of this plan has not been developed, but the proposal includes
lining the gravel pits to restrict off-site migration of sludge
leachate and use of the site as a permanent sludge repository.
The apparent hydraulic continuity of this site with usable
groundwater and its close proximity to the Willamette River make
it undesirable for permanent sludge storage. It would be ex-
tremely difficult to effectively line the deep gravel pits, and
repair of any leaks or cracks would also be extremely difficult.
Because of the high potential for surface and groundwater con-
tamination and subsequent public health risks, and the lack of
any engineering analysis of its structural feasibility, this
alternative is not considered acceptable by EPA.
SOLAR AQUACELL. The solar aquacell system is a wastewater
treatment process rather than a sludge processing and disposal
system. Wastewater is placed in a series of earthen lagoons
with greenhouse-type covers and floating aquatic plants. The
solar heating encourages year round growth of aquatic plants and
invertebrates which metabolize and decompose the waste products
entering the pond. The system provides for recycling of both
the liquid and solid components of domestic wastewater. The
solid by-products of this treatment process are normally compost-
ed; this includes the sludge and harvested aquatic plants
(Serfling and Mendola n.d.). Because the proposed project is £0
process and dispose of waste solids only, and since a new
wastewater treatment plant is already under construction, the
solar aquacell system does not qualify as an alternative to the
proposed action.
Alternative Locations for Off-Site Facilities
EPA reviewed all off-site facilities locations considered
in Brown and Caldwell (1979, 1980). The rationale for rejection
was reviewed and all sites were field inspected. As a result,
the following sites were dropped from consideration in the EIS:
Cone-Breeden, Green Hill, Valley River, Beacon, North McKenzie,
Delta, Airport, Industrial West, Ayres, Al, A2, and B. The Four
Corners site was being considered as an alternative for the EIS
until it was learned that the City of Eugene parks master plan
proposed that the site be purchased as a regional park. This
site was also subsequently dropped. The Site C, Prairie Road,
and Coburg Hill sites were retained for detailed environmental
evaluation.
Project Costs
PROJECT SERVICE COSTS
Wastewater service is provided to the residents of the City
of Eugene and the City of Springfield by the Lane County Metro-
politan Wastewater Service District (LCMWSD). Its boundaries
are similar to the city limits of the two cities. The current
57
-------
LCMWSD charge for wastewater service, which includes sludge
management, is $6.30 per household per month. This monthly
service cost, which was recently increased from $2.30, will be
used to finance the operation and maintenance of the new RWTP
and sludge management facilities. The new monthly service cost
will be in effect for approximately 2 years (Racette pers.
comm.). The cities of Eugene and Springfield charge each
household an additional $4.20 per month for wastewater service
to cover their operating expenses.
To finance the new Eugene/Springfield regional wastewater
treatment system, general obligation bonds were issued by the
District. The local share of capital costs was estimated to be
$29.5 million. All bonds have been sold, including the portion
($632,000) estimated to finance the sludge management facil-
ities .
Bond debt service for the local share of capital costs is
financed from property taxes at a rate of approximately $0.63
per $1,000 true cash value. Based on 1980 estimates of $57,150
for a median value owner-occupied home in the service district,
the total annual tax burden is estimated at $36.00 per house-
hold.
COMPARATIVE COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES
The Phase II capital and annual operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs are presented in Table 2-3. Alternative 2 has the
lowest capital and annual O&M costs and Alternative 3 has the
highest. The higher capital costs associated with Alternative 3
reflect the need for significant on-site improvements for items
such as dissolved air flotation ($1.4 million), digesters ($2.72
million), centrifuge building ($2.08 million), and recycle
charge ($2.5 million). Locating facilities at the Coburg Hills
site increases capital and annual O&M costs for both Alternative
1 and Alternative 2.
The present worth costs of the three alternatives are shown
in Table 2-4. Present worth costs of Alternative 2 are slightly
lower than Alternative 1, regardless of which off-site facil-
ities location is chosen. Alternative 3, the on-site option, is
considerably more expensive than the other two alternatives.
USER COSTS
As previously stated, monthly service costs for LCMWSD
wastewater service is currently $6.30 per household and will be
in effect for approximately 2 years. Approximately $0.50 per
month of this amount is attributable to the sludge facilities
(Racette pers. comm.). After the new regional wastewater
treatment and sludge management facilities have been operated
for the 2 years, some adjustment in the monthly service costs is
58
-------
Table 2-3. Capital
ALTERNATIVE
1 - Site C/Prairie
1 - Coburg Hills
2 - Site C/Prairie
2 - Coburg Hills
Road
Road
3 - On-site Dewatering
4 - No Project
SOURCE: Modified
Table 2-4.
ALTERNATIVE
1
1
2
2
3
- Site C/Prairie Road
- Coburg Hills
- Site C/Prairie Road
- Coburg Hills
- On-site Dewatering
from Brown
Costs of Alternatives
PHASE II
OPERATION AND
CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
$ 7,858,000 $483,000
8,525,000 495,000
7,079,000 515,000
7,746,000 527,000
14,038,000 790,000
Unknown Unknown
and Caldwell pers. conn.
Present Worth Costs of Alternatives
PHASE II
CAPITAL
$4,976,000
5,291,000
4,527,000
4,842,000
9,100,000
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
$3,068,000
3,154,000
3,364,000
3,450,000
7,266,000
TOTAL
$ 8,044,000
8,445,000
7,891,000
8,292,000
16,366,000
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell pers. comm.
59
-------
likely. Although the exact nature of future user costs is
uncertain, the cost impact from implementation of Phase II
facilities has been estimated and is shown in Table 2-5.
Because annual O&M costs are not grant fundable, projected user
costs are equivalent with and without outside funding.
The impact on property taxes from implementation of a
sludge management plan also is shown in Table 2-5. Implementa-
tion of Phase II facilities is estimated to increase annual
property taxes between $2.89 (Alternative 2) and $5.73 (Alterna-
tive 3) for an average priced ($57,150) home within the service
district. No local share costs have been estimated for Phase II
without funding because it is not known what type of project
would be implemented or how much revenue could be raised locally
if state and federal funding were not available.
Table 2-5. Estimated Local Costs of Phase II
Sludge Management Alternatives
USER COSTS PER YEAR
LOCAL SHARE OF OPERATION AND
ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COSTS PROPERTY TAX MAINTENANCE
1 1,965,000 3.21 5.10
2 1,770,000 2.89 5.44
3 3,510,000 5.73 8.34
SOURCE: Modified from Gould pers. comm.
60
-------
Chapter 3
Affected Environment and
Impacts of the Phase II
Alternatives
-------
Chapter 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS OF THE
PHASE II ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
This chapter discusses major environmental issues associ-
ated with the MWMC Phase II sludge management alternatives. The
issues have been identified through the planning process and by
discussing the project with government agency personnel, local
residents, and other concerned individuals. Each subsection
deals with an individual issue. The issue is identified,
pertinent environmental setting data are presented or cited, the
relationship of each facilities plan alternative to the issue is
discussed, and mitigation measures are suggested where poten-
tially significant adverse environmental impacts have been
identified.
Groundwater Quality
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting
SOILS. The soils in the study area are derived from
volcanic and sedimentary rock in the Coast and Cascade Mountain
Ranges, and from alluvial sediments in the Willamette Valley and
its tributaries. Soil distribution in the valley follows the
north-south pattern of alluvial deposition; in the foothills,
the distribution follows bedrock exposure patterns.
Soils in the study area have been classified into four
major groups on the basis of parent material and drainage
characteristics. The distribution of the groups is shown in
Figure 3-1. The first group includes soils forming on recent
alluvium on the floodplains of the Willamette River and its
tributaries. The second and third groups include terrace soils
forming on the floor of the Willamette Valley outside the
floodplain. These two groups are distinguished on the basis of
topographic position and drainage; Group 2 occupies the higher
positions and Group 3 the lower. The last group, Group 4,
includes soils forming from volcanic and sedimentary bedrock in
the foothills of the Cascade Mountains and Coast Ranges.
For this study, 27 soil types comprising the largest land
area were identified within the four groups (USDA SCS 1975,
61
-------
FIGURE 3-1. SOIL GROUPS IN
THE PROJECT AREA
SOIL GROUP NO. I
MAINLY COARSE-TEXTURED SOILS IN THE
FLOODPLAINS OF THE WILLAMETTE RIVER
AND ITS MAJOR TRIBUTARIES.
SOIL GROUP NO.'S 283
MAINLY FINE AND VERY FINE TEXTURED
SOILS ON ABANDONED WILLAMETTE RIVER
TERRACES-DRAINAGE DEPENDENT ON
MICROTOPOGRAPHY.
SOIL GROUP NO. 4
MAINLY FINE AND VERY FINE TEXTURED
SOILS ON FOOTHILLS OF THE CASCADE
AND COAST RANGES.
COUNTY
COUNTY
COBUR6 HILLS
SITE
FERN
RIDGE
RES.
SHORT MOUNTAIN
LANDFILL SI
01234
u
SCALE IN MILES
62
-------
1983). Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list selected physical and chemical
characteristics, respectively, of these soils.
GEOHYDROLOGY. Geologic units in the southern Willamette
Valley can be subdivided into two major groups: bedrock for-
mations and valley alluvium (Baldwin 1981; Frank 1976). The
bedrock units form both the Coast Ranges and Cascade Mountains,
and they extend beneath the alluvial deposits in the Willamette
Valley as shown on Figure 3-2.
Bedrock formations beneath and west of the Willamette
Valley are of sedimentary and volcanic origin and consist
primarily of marine sandstone, siltstone, shale, and volcanic
tuff and conglomerate. To the east, these formations interfin-
ger with nonmarine volcanic tuffs, flows, and breccias of the
Western Cascades (Beaulieu et al. 1974; Baldwin 1981; Wells and
Peck 1961) . Localized bodies of basalt intrude bedrock
throughout the area.
The alluvial deposits can also be divided into two units:
Younger and Older Alluvium (Frank 1973, 1976). The Younger
Alluvium coincides with the Willamette and McKenzie River flood-
plains and is underlain by the more extensive Older Alluvium.
Both units originated through fluvial deposition and are com-
posed of interconnected lenses of sand and gravel interspersed
with fine sand, silt, and clay. The two units are distinguished
chiefly by the fact that Younger Alluvium contains less silt and
is not as weathered. Below a depth of 100 feet, the Older
Alluvium becomes significantly more fine grained with abundant
silts and clays.
Groundwater can be found in virtually all parts of the
greater Eugene-Springfield area within both bedrock units and
the valley alluvium. The bedrock units generally yield only
small quantities of water; valley alluvium, by contrast, yields
abundant quantities from a large, essentially continuous body of
groundwater.
Aquifer recharge occurs principally by direct rainfall
infiltration during the late fall and winter months. In the
foothills and mountains, infiltration is reduced by rapid runoff
on steep slopes and by relatively impermeable bedrock. The
lowland valleys receive much greater infiltration by virtue of
their more permeable soils and flatter slopes. The Willamette
Valley is also the groundwater discharge area for adjacent
highlands and thus is recharged from intermediate and deep-
seated groundwater flow systems (Sweet, Edwards & Associates
1980) .
A true water table condition does not generally exist in
the foothill and mountain areas. Most groundwater occurs in
discontinuous perched aquifers or within bedrock fractures. The
distribution of groundwater is difficult to predict, although
63
-------
•Cable 3-1. Selected Physical Characteristics of Extensive Soils in the Eugene/Springfield Study Area
Soil Series
CAMAS
CHEHALIS
CLOQUATO
NEWBERG
ABIQUA
COBURG
MALABON
MsALPIN
McBEE
SALEM
SALKUM
VENETA
AMITY
AWBRIG
BASHAW
CONSER
Average S
Surface
and
Subsoil
Gravelly
sandy loam
Silty clay
loam
Silt loam
Fine sandy
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Gravelly
silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Loam
Silt loam
Clay
Clay
Silty clay
toil Texture1
Substratum
Very gravelly
coarse sand
Silt loam over
sand and gravel
Silt loam over
coarse sand
Stratified sandy
loam and loamy
sand
Gravelly clay
loam
Fine sandy loam
Clay loam over
sand and gravel
Silty clay
Silt loam
Very gravelly
sand
Clay with
weathered
gravels
Clay over
stratified clay
and sand
Silty clay loam
Silty clay loam
Clay to sandy
loam
Clay over loam
Slope
(Percent)
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3/
3-5
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
2-8/
8-16
0-7
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
Rooting
Depth
(Inches)
12-20
>60
40-60
24-40
without
irrigation
>60
>60
>60
>60
24-36
20-40
30-50
40-50
12-24
6-12
6-12
12-24
Drainage
Excessively
drained
Well drained
Well drained
Somewhat
excessively
drained
Well drained
Moderately
well drained
Well drained
Moderately
well drained
Moderately
well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Moderately
well drained
Somewhat
poorly drained
Poorly
drained
Poorly
drained
Poorly
drained
Average
Depth to
High Water
Table
(Inches)
>722
>722
>722
>722
>72
18-30
>72
24-36
24-36
>72
>72
30-50
Perched
12-24
Perched
0-12
Perched
0-6
Perched
0-18
Permeability
Very rapid
Moderate over
very rapid
Moderate over
very rapid
Moderately
rapid
Moderately slow
Moderately slow
Moderately slow
Moderately slow
Moderate
Moderate
Moderately slow
to slow
Slow
Moderately slow
Very slow
Very slow
Slow
Erosion
Hazard
Slight3
Slight3
Slight
Slight3
Slight/
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Moderate
Slight
Slight/
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Runoff
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow/
Medium
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow/
Medium
Slow
Slow
Very slow to
ponded
Slow to ponded
Slow to ponded
Restrictive
Layer
(Type)
Gravelly
Gravelly
Gravelly
Gravelly
None
None
None
None
None
Gravelly
Dense clay
Dense clay
Dense clay
Dense clay
Dense clay
Dense clay
-------
Table 3-1. Continued
U1
Average Soil Texture1
Soil Series
DAYTON
NATROY
WALDO
BELLPINE
HAZELAIR
HONEYGROVE
NEKIA
PEAVINE
PHILOMATH
RITNER
WITZEL
Surface
and
Subsoil
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Silty clay
loam
Cobbly silty
clay
Cobbly silty
clay loam
Very cobbly
loam
Substratum
Clay
Clay over
gravelly clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty clay and
clay
Cobbly clay
Very cobbly
silty clay loam
Very cobbly
clay loam
Slope
(Percent)
0-3
0-3
0-3
3-12/
12-20
2-7 /
7-20
3-25
2-20 /
20-50
3-30/
30-60
3-12/
12-45
2-12/
12-30
3-30
Effective
Rooting
Depth
(Inches)
12-24
12-24
6-12
20-40
12-24
>60
20-40
20-40
12-20
20-40
12-20
Drainage
Poorly
drained
Poorly
drained
Poorly
drained
Well drained
Moderately
well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Well drained
Average
Depth to
Seasonal
High Water
Table
(Inches)
Perched
0-12
Perched
0-12
Perched
0-6
Perched
20-40
Perched
12-24
>60
Perched
20-40
Perched
20-40
Perched
12-20
Perched
20-40
Perched
12-20
Permeability
Very slow
Very slow
Slow
Slow
Very slow
Moderately slow
Moderately slow
Moderately slow
Slow
Moderately slow
Moderately slow
Erosion
Hazard
Slight
Slight
Slight3
Moderate/
High
Moderate/
High
Moderate
to high
Moderate/
High
Moderate/
High
Moderate/
High
Slight/
Moderate
Moderate
to high
Runoff
Very slow to
ponded
Slow to ponded
Slow to ponded
Medium/
Rapid
Medium/
Rapid
Medium to rapid
Medium/
Rapid
Slow to medium/
Rapid
Medium/
Rapid
Slow/
Medium
Medium to rapid
Restrictive
Layer
(Type)
Dense clay
Dense clay
Dense clay
Bedrock
Bedrock
None
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
NOTES: 1Surface and subsoil refers generally to A and B
2During flooding events water table may be at or
3Erosion hazard primarily due to flooding.
SOURCE: USDA Soil Conservation Service 1975; 1983.
horizons, respectively. Substratum refers to C horizon.
near surface.
-------
Table 3-2. Selected Chemical Characteristics of Some Extensive Soils in the Eugene/Springfield Study Area
o\
PH
Soil Series
Group 1
CAMAS
CHEHALIS
OJOOUATO
NEHBERG
Group 2
ABIQUA
OOBURG
MALABON
SALKLM
VENETA
Group 3
AMITY
AWBRIG
BASHAW
DAYTON
Group 4
BELLPINE
HAZELAIR
HONEYGHOVE
NEKIA
PEAVINE
RITNER
WTTZEL
Surface1
5.6
6.2
5.9
5.9
7.1
5.9
6.4
5.5
4.9
5.6
5.8
5.7
5.3
5.4
5.2
4.8
5.5
5.3
—
—
Subsoil1
6.0
6.4
6.4
—
5.5
6.0
6.2
—
5.2
6.0
6.7
6.9
6.3
5.0
4.7
4.7
5.4
4.6
—
—
Cation Exchange
Capacity
(meq/lOOg)
Surface
22
28
—
18
30
25
24
16
10
20
19
41
16
26
„ —
58
24
—
39
40
Subsoil
8
29
—
—
40
33
28
—
17
30
42
44
32
24
—
41
26
—
35
39
Organic Carbon
(Percent)
Surface
1.6
2.6
1.6
1.8
—
2.4
1.8
5.6
1.8
2.2
1.8
2.5
1.8
3.5
2.2
—
2.5
3.6
2.7
3.8
Subsoil
.1
1.0
.73
—
—
.2
.5
—
.4
.2
.3
.7
.2
.9
.5
—
.7
.4
1.2
1.9
Nitrogen
(Percent)
Surface
.15
.2
.12
.1
—
.10
Trace
—
—
.18
.13
—
.15
.22
1.1
—
.20
.25
—
.19
Subsoil
Trace
.07
.07
—
—
Trace
Trace
—
—
.03
.08
—
.06
.07
.05
—
.08
.05
—
.13
Organic Matter
(Percent)
Surface
3.7
4.2
—
—
2.1
—
2.9
—
3.1
3.5
2.8
4.2
4.0
6.2
—
—
—
5.4
4.6
5.2
Subsoil
—
1.8
—
—
1.6
—
.6
—
.5
.2
.3
.6
.9
1.3
—
—
—
1.4
1.9
2.9
Base Saturation
(Percent)
Surface
88
82
76
74
65
76
77
48
8
38
95
64
53
40
70
15
36
45
78
71
Subsoil
85
91
82
—
40
89
91
—
42
80
85
75
84
12
73
9
25
38
81
78
NOTE: 1Surface and subsoil generally refer to A and B horizons, respectively.
SOURCES: Huddleston 1982; data for Salkura and Nevtourg soils from Brown and Caldwell
1980.
-------
COAST
RANGE
WILLAMETTE
VALLEY
CASCADE
MOUNTAINS
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
(NO SCALE)
-LEGEND-
ALLUVIUM: — RIVER SANDS AND GRAVELS WITH SILTY AND CLAYEY INTERBEDS,
PLIESTOCENE AGE TO RECENT.
LITTLE BUTTE
VOLCANICS:
EUGENE FM:
FISHER FM:
SPENCER FM:
FLOURNOY FM:
SILETZ RIVER
VOLCANICS:
VOLCANIC FLOWS AND TUFFS OF THE WESTERN CASCADES,
OLIGOCENE AND EARLY MIOCENE AGE.
MASSIVE TUFFACEOUS SANDSTONE AND SHALE.EOCENE AGE.
INTERBEDDED VOLCANIC TUFFS AND CONGLOMERATES,EOCENE AGE.
MASSIVE BASALTIC TO ARKOSIC SANDSTONE, EOCENE AGE.
GRADED SANDSTONE AND MUDSTONE,EOCENE AGE.
PILLOW BASALTS WITH INTERBEDDED TUFFS,OLIGOCENE AGE.
NOTE:
THIS CROSS-SECTION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD BE USED
ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING TEXT.
FIGURE 3-2. GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION OF THE
WILLAMETTE VALLEY
67
-------
some water can be found in most areas within 300 feet of the
surface (Frank 1973).
Throughout the lowland valley areas, groundwater occurs in
the Older and Younger Alluvium within 20 feet of the ground
surface under unconfined (water table) conditions. The water
table rises to near the ground surface during winter months and
locally rises above it. Deeper portions of the Older Alluvium
aquifer are under semiconfined conditions.
Regional groundwater flow in the alluvium is generally to
the north and down-valley with a small component toward the
Willamette River. The direction of local shallow flow can vary
as much as 180 degrees from the regional flow direction due to
variations in surface topography and subsurface sediment dis-
tribution patterns (Sweet, Edwards & Associates 1980). Ground-
water in the deeper alluvium can also vary in flow direction
and, in addition, has a net upward component to its flow except
at the edge of the valley where recharge is occurring. The
local shallow flow system is generally hydraulically isolated
from the deeper flow system. Aquifer permeability and
groundwater flow rates generally decrease with depth and vary
between and within the Older and Younger Alluvium.
The alluvial aquifers and lowland streams are in hydraulic
connection and thus have a complex dynamic relationship. In
general, the aquifers are replenished by leakage from streams
during periods of high river flow and depleted by the reverse
process during low flow. However, this can vary locally, and
Frank (1973) notes that along some stretches of the Willamette
River aquifer leakage to the river occurs year-round.
A broad groundwater divide occurs along the line of the
Southern Pacific Railroad from Junction City to Eugene. East of
the rail line, groundwater flows northward and slightly eastward
toward the Younger Alluvium and the Willamette River. West of
the rail line, groundwater flows generally to the northwest and
toward the Amazon Creek drainage. The depression in groundwater
levels along this drainage reflects a zone of higher permeabil-
ity within the Older Alluvium (Frank 1973) .
GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY. Groundwater supplies most of
the water used for domestic and agricultural purposes in the
study area. Although the City of Eugene obtains its water from
impoundment of surface water, almost all other municipalities
and water supply systems in the area use groundwater (Lane
Council of Governments [LCOG] 1975). This includes the Cities
of Coburg, Springfield, and Junction City-
Groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifers is distinctly
different from that in the bedrock aquifers. The former is of
relatively good quality whereas the latter is more highly
mineralized. This difference is illustrated in Table 3-3, which
shows selected groundwater quality data for six aquifer types.
68
-------
Table 3-3. Selected Groundwater Analyses
CTv
Groundwater
Location
township/
Source range /section
SHALLOW
ALLUVIAL
AQUIFER -
WILLAMETTE
VALLEY
ALLUVIAL
AQUIFER -
RIVER ROAD -
SANTA CIARA
DEEP ALLUVIAL
AQUIFER -
WILLAMETTE
VALLEY
FOOTHILLS OF
THE WESTERN
CASCADES
MARINE
SEDIMENTARY
AND VOLCANIC
ROCK
MIXED ALLUVIAL
AND BEDROCK
AQUIFERS
17S/2W-
26 cca2
16S/4W-
25 cccl
17S/4W-
13 ccd
16S/4W-
27 cbd
General
15S/4W-
32 cab4
17S/3W-
5 aab
Coburg
Deep Well
16S/2W-
23 abd
14S/2W-
31 aca
18S/4W-
3 cad
15S/3W-
9 cba
14S/5W-
23 bcbl
13S/3W-
32 ccc2
14S/3W-
7 ddc
15S/3W-
6 bdd
Data*
EC
umhos/on
Source Date pH @ 25°C TDS1" Si
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3-69 7.2 — — 42
7-69 7.2 — — 21.9
6-18-69 — — — 39
9-25-69 7.5 265
_ 158.67 —
8-27-68 8.0 — — 25.5
8-13-69 7.2 — — 25
7-76 7.5 181 139 38.7
8-02-69 8.2 231 177 41
12-05-73 8.3 — — 42
3-27-63 8.1 672 — 25
12-04-73 7.4 2,730 1,400 37
12-03-73 7.3 2,220 1,100 23
6-58 7.0 — 3,400 54
9-13-73 7.4 1,520 780 32
12-04-73 7.7 156 120 39
h
Fe Mn Ca Mg Na K He>3 Co3 SO4 Cl No3 B Al As
.22 <.02 19 13.8 10 2.3 122 0 1.8 8.4 .05 — .15 —
.12 .15 — — — — — — 2.5 — — — — —
23 13 9.4 1.3 99 0 21 8.5 22 — — .00
— — 24 13 — — 99 0 — — 26 — — —
_ _ _ — — . 10.94 8.98 4.2 — — —
.10 — 35.3 10.2 64 2.0 105 0 0.0 114 .01 — .01 —
.65 — 11 4.6 11 1.0 73 0 5.2 1-5 3.8 — — —
14.4 5.5 6.8 1.3 100 0 1.4 3.5 1.0 — — .005
.08 — 13 4.2 38 .8 161 0 .2 1-0 .0 — — .00
.04 .008 11 1.1 61 .7 163 0 26 6.9 -00 '2° ~ '0
.16 .0 12 5.0 136 1.6 281 0 67 36 .8 1.3 .1 .09
.17 .12 220 97 150 4.6 195 0 .7 790 .00 -01 — .001
1.00 .083 250 9.1 160 .9 105 0 8.5 630 .03 -40 — 0
5.8 0 470 47 350 2.0 150 0 2.6 1,400 .07 — — —
.04 .37 150 28 89 2.4 235 0 1.8 360 1.1 0 — 0
.13 .033 16 5.7 9.5 1.0 77 0 4.7 7.3 .64 .007 — .002
NOTE: All constituents in milligrams per liter (mg/1) unless otherwise noted.
SOURCES: al: Frank 1973; 2: Frank 1976; 3: Sweet, Edwards & Associates/1980 Final Tech. Report, 9/ III-2; 4: Brown & Caldwell 1980.
fcAll values are nitrate + nitrite (as N) except those from Data Source 1 wnicft are nitrate oniy.
CTotal Dissolved Solids, calculated.
^Values for this listing are mean values used in the groundwater modeling study of Sweet, Edwards & Associates (Data Source 3).
-------
Groundwater in the alluvial aquifers is generally of good
quality with total dissolved solids in the range of 24 to
382 milligrams per liter (mg/1) (Frank 1973). The highest
quality water occurs in the Young Alluvium. Locally, nitrate
concentrations exceed background levels due principally to
aquifer contamination from agricultural fertilization, feedlot
runoff, or septic tank drainage. Contamination has been
greatest in the Santa Clara-River Road area where average
nitrate concentrations are 3-12 mg/1 (Sweet, Edwards &
Associates 1980). The highest value recorded in this area was
70 mg/1 (Brown and Caldwell 1980) . Elsewhere in the study area,
the maximum reported concentration was 26 mg/1 (Frank 1973) .
Groundwater from the sedimentary and volcanic bedrock
typically contains a higher proportion of dissolved solids than
does alluvial groundwater, but is still generally suitable for
most uses. However, groundwater obtained from marine sedimenta-
ry rock below the valley floor is often unusable as it is highly
mineralized with concentrations of sodium, calcium, and chlor-
ide. Significant concentrations of naturally occurring arsenic
have also been reported for wells completed in the Fisher
formation (Frank 1973; LCOG 1974, 1975).
The frequency of bacterial contamination in the alluvial
and bedrock aquifers is generally low. Only a few incidents
have been reported, mainly near metropolitan areas. Bacterial
contamination can occur if well casings are not properly sealed
against surface water infiltration or if groundwater is shallow
and in close proximity to sources of bacterial contamination,
such as septic systems.
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
SOILS. The soils on this site are composed of Newberg
soils with a small area of Camas soils near the river. Newberg
soils are moderately fine textured to a depth of approximately
24 inches. Below this depth, and extending below 5 feet, they
are coarse textured sands and gravels. The permeability of the
upper portion of the soil is moderately rapid; the lower portion
is very rapid. Few plant roots penetrate below 24 inches and
there is probably insufficient carbon to maintain vigorous
microbial populations below the surface few inches. The soil pH
in the rooting zone is between 5.5 and 6.0. The capacity of the
soil to adsorb heavy metals is low to very low. Camas soils are
similar to Newberg soils but are coarser textured throughout and
have a shallower rooting depth.
GEOHYDROLOGY. The site is underlain by Younger Alluvium
(Frank 1973) which consists of a surficial layer of silty sand
overlying sandy gravel (CH2M Hill 1978). The silty sand unit
ranges from clean fine sand to silty or clayey sand and is
generally less than 15 feet thick. Groundwater levels at the
site are controlled by the adjacent river level. During times
of peak river flow, the groundwater table may reach the ground
70
-------
surface. At other times, the groundwater table is probably
never deeper than about 20 feet below the surface. Groundwater
flows to the north and toward the river.
GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY. Water for domestic and
industrial use in the area is provided by the Santa Clara or
River Road Water Districts, which obtain their water from
surface impoundments. As a consequence, groundwater is not used
to any great extent, although some private wells may exist.
Relatively high levels of nitrate and coliform bacteria exist in
the shallow aquifer in the area (LCOG 1980). Chloride and
sulfate are also present at moderately high levels (Sweet,
Edwards & Associates 1980).
Short Mountain Landfill Site
SOILS. The soils on this site are primarily Natroy,
Bashaw, Nekia, and Witzel soils. The Natroy and Bashaw soils
are very fine textured with over 90 percent silt and clay to a
depth of 5 feet or more. They occur on the lower elevations of
the landfill site. These soils have a high cation exchange
capacity (CEC) and a very high capacity to adsorb heavy metals.
The fine texture also hinders water movement into and through
the soil, and water will stand in depressions for long periods
of time during the winter.
The Nekia and Witzel soils occur on higher portions of the
site; they are fine to very fine textured (silty clay to clay)
and exhibit a moderately slow to slow permeability. Both soils
also have a high CEC.
GEOHYDROLOGY. The Short Mountain Landfill site is under-
lain by the Eugene Formation, which consists of interbedded
mudstone, sandstone, and volcanic rock. The volcanic rocks
appear to be intrusive into the Eugene Formation and they
underlie the high ground on-site (Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates
1976) .
Clayey soils mantle the site, as described previously.
These soils are thinnest (1-2 feet) on the slopes of Short
Mountain and are thickest (4-8 feet) on the flat portion of the
site near Camas Swale Creek.
Groundwater occurrence and movement is controlled in the
upper portion of the site by volcanic rock and on the lower
portion by the Eugene Formation and associated clayey soils. In
both areas, surface water infiltration is restricted. On the
lower part of the site, however, surface water can move downward
to the groundwater table. The movement will be very slow
because of low soil permeability. When the infiltrating water
reaches the water table it will migrate laterally down-gradient
toward the nearest groundwater discharge location. For this
site, it appears that discharge occurs to either Camas Swale
Creek or the Coast Fork of the Willamette River based on surface
topographic conditions. These two bodies of water act as
71
-------
barriers to further groundwater migration. Short Mountain also
acts as a barrier, since groundwater tends to move from topogra-
phically high to topographically low areas. Figure 3-3 shows
the anticipated direction of shallow groundwater flow in the
vicinity of the site. Groundwater movement to the northwest is
also possible but unlikely -
Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates (1976) conclude that the
groundwater table is probably 10-15 feet below the surface in
the vicinity of the landfill. This depth appears likely for low
areas adjacent to Camas Swale Creek but may be too shallow in
other areas. Water level monitoring in test borings 1, 3, and 4
over a 2-year period (see Table 3-4) indicate that the water
table is 2-10 feet below the ground surface. These values are
suspect since surface water may be entering the wells.
GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY. There are no groundwater
wells on the landfill site currently in use, nor are there any
wells located between the landfill and the surrounding ground-
water boundaries (Camas Swale Creek and Willamette River) with
the possible exception of abandoned wells (see Figure 3-3) .
Data on existing groundwater quality at the site is limited
and shows no apparent trend. Lane County sampled and tested
three shallow wells (Wells 1, 3, and 4) for some water quality
parameters, excluding bacterial counts, over a period of 2 years
(Table 3-4). The first samples were taken just prior to com-
mencement of the landfilling operation; the last were taken in
December 1978. Well 3 shows the highest average levels of
chloride, conductance, hardness, and turbidity. The total
dissolved solids (TDS) range is between 770 and 1,120 parts per
million (ppm). This is well above the recommended 550 ppm limit
for drinking water (Oregon, State of 1982a). The average
chloride level of 200-300 ppm also extends beyond the
recommended limit of 250 ppm (Oregon, State of 1982a). Both
wells 1 and 4 show much lower levels of chloride, hardness, and
conductance than well 3, indicating that TDS is less. With the
exception of the initial reading and that on September 9 in well
1, chloride concentrations are all less than 58 ppm.
Although the chloride levels in wells 1 and 4 are higher
than would be expected for surface waters or alluvial aquifers,
they are reasonable for groundwater in marine sedimentary rock.
The much higher chloride level in well 3 is more difficult to
explain, but could indicate surface water contamination. It is
unclear whether runoff from the landfill has affected the water
quality in well 3 since baseline conditions were not estab-
lished.
In summary, the existing data suggest that groundwater at
the site may be naturally high in chlorides and TDS. However,
the data are insufficient to establish whether there has been
any impact to groundwater quality due to the landfill.
72
-------
APPROXIMATE
SCALE
LEGEND-
0 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HOME
PRESUMED TO HAVE A WELL
ANTICIPATED DIRECTION OF SHALLOW
GROUNDWATER FLOW
HIGHLAND AREAS
AREA SERVED BY WILLAMETTE
WATER COMPANY
FIGURE 3-3. LOCATION OF RESIDENCES AND GENERAL
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT IN THE VICINITY
OF SHORT MOUNTAIN LANDFILL
73
-------
Table 3-4. Groundwater Quality Monitoring: Short Mountain Landfill1
Well 1
8-24-76
6-20-77
9-12-77
1-10-78
3-27-78
7-10-78
12-04-78
Well 3
8-24-76
6-20-77
9-12-77
1-10-78
3-27-78
7-10-78
12-04-78
Well 4
8-24-76
6-20-77
9-12-77
1-10-78
3-27-78
7-10-78
12-04-78
Conductance
jmno/cm at 25°C
4,430
650
1,320
270
530
660
258
1,920
1,220
1,700
970
1,110*
1,470
1,550
630
510
100
210
260
133
Chloride
mg/1 Cl~
1,496
58
266
5.2
16
46
6.1
540
200
322
147
175
225
276
46
5
--
10
5.0
26
2.6
EH
6.9
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.2
7. 2
7.6
7.2
7.1
7.4
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.4
6.8
Alkalinity
mg/1 CaCo.
174
240
247
146
266
295
106
299
376
367
371
414
309
376
298
224
48
114
139
42
Hardness
mg/1 CaCo,
1,884
211
414
124
240
271
87
477
272
337
243
277
339
342
283
186
45
108
124
43
COD
mg/1
58
12
12
13
16
13
38
23
17
17
18
14
16
17
9.6
4.7
12
9.4
8.5
20
Turbidity
JTU
22
2.6
--
18
4.3
8
6.4
62
5.2
—
36
12
16
2.8
22
2.2
__
94
26
14
3.1
Depth to Water2
ft
4.8
4.1
7.3
2.3
1.8
5.3
4.5
6.8
8.1
4.3
4.5
6.6
— -
9.2
10.2
___
2.1
6.8
10.7
— • — "-
NOTES: 1Lane County Department of Public Works 1976-1981; note that the data are reproduced here as provided
by the above-referenced source. There is some question as to whether the data reflect actual groundwater
conditions or whether surface-water contamination has occurred.
2Distance in feet between top of plastic casing and water.
-------
Site C/Prairie Road Site
SOILS. The soils on these sites are mainly Malabon,
Coburg, and Awbrig silty clay loams. Small areas of Salem
gravelly silt loam are also present. Malabon and Coburg soils
are fine textured to depths of 5 feet or more and are underlain
by alluvial sands and gravels. The proportion of combined silt
and clay in the soil averages more than 80 percent, making
permeability moderately slow to slow. Water will stand in
depressions for short periods during heavy rainfall and will
perch on the clayey horizon present at a depth of 15-20 inches.
The Salem soils, present in the eastern portion of the
Prairie Road site, are fine textured to a depth of about 24
inches. Below this depth the soil consists of very gravelly
sand to 5 feet or more. The upper and lower portions of the
soil profile have a moderate permeability and a rapid (high) to
very rapid (very high) permeability, respectively. In some
areas, sand and gravel occurs at the surface.
GEOHYDROLOGY. Considerable information is available on
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at Site C and the
immediate vicinity. Eight groundwater monitoring wells were
installed at Site C (Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 1982) and a
groundwater study was recently conducted at a property immedi-
ately east of the Prairie Road site (known as the Agripac site)
by Sweet, Edwards & Associates (1982). Also, test pits were dug
at Site C as part of a soil survey (Brown and Caldwell 1979) and
a shallow piezometer was installed by Ted Dietz (Sweet 1978) .
The Geotechnical Consultants report (1982) indicates that
Site C is underlain by 4-18 feet of silty clay soil. There is
no discernible pattern to the variation in thickness as shown
schematically in Figure 3-4. Sand and gravel alluvium occurs
beneath the surficial soils. The alluvium is part of the Older
Alluvium unit, as defined by Frank (1973), and is more than
250 feet thick at the Agripac site. It is likely to have a
similar thickness at Site C and the Prairie Road site.
The water table at Site C is shallow, ranging from 15-22
feet below the surface in October to at or near the ground
surface in late winter and early spring (Sweet 1978; Geo-
technical Consultants 1982) . When near the surface, groundwater
discharges to drainage swales and road ditches.
Information concerning groundwater flow is not yet avail-
able specifically for the site. However, Frank (1973) and
Sweet, Edwards & Associates (1982) conclude that shallow ground-
water flow in the area is to the north or northwest. Local
variations in flow direction of up to 180° can occur. The zones
of highest groundwater velocities (up to 300 feet per year) are
expected to occur along lines of gravel deposition. Deep
groundwater flow is also to the north, but has an additional
upward component as a consequence of its semiconfined nature.
75
-------
DEPTH
(FT)
0 —
SITE C
25 —
50 —
WATER TABLE
OCTOBER 1982
SANDY GRAVEL
NORTH
M
SOUTH
NOTE:
BASED ON WELL INSTALLATION DATA (GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS,
INC. 1982) NO HORIZONTAL SCALE
FIGURE 3-4. 6EOHYDROLOGIC CROSS-SECTION OF SITE C
76
-------
The confinement acts to hydraulically isolate deeper portions of
the aquifer from the shallow portion; this in turn helps re-
strict groundwater contaminants to the shallow flow system.
GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY. A large number of private
wells exist in the immediate vicinity of the two sites. Figure
3-5 shows some that are known. Many others probably exist,
particularly in the area between Site C and Highway 99.
Groundwater is used in the area primarily for domestic and
irrigation purposes. Although the Santa Clara Water District
services the nearby River Road area, it does not extend to the
proposed sludge management sites, as shown on Figure 3-5. The
local population therefore depends exclusively on individual
wells. A majority of the wells are completed in Older Alluvium
and are less than 100 feet deep; yields range from 100 to
thousands of gallons per minute (gpm). Most yields are greater
than 100 gpm.
Results from groundwater monitoring at Site C are just now
becoming available; however, a great deal of information is
available concerning groundwater quality at the Agripac site and
in the area south of Awbrey Lane and West Beacon Drive. These
roads mark the northern boundary of a groundwater study done for
LCOG in the River Road/Santa Clara (RRSC) area (Sweet, Edwards &
Associates 1980).
The RRSC study showed that nitrate levels are elevated over
background levels in the shallow aquifer. Average nitrate
concentrations exceed 5 mg/1 (as N) but are less than the EPA
Primary Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/1. The area of highest
nitrate contamination, as shown in Figure 3-6, was within about
0.50 mile of Site C in 1980.
Data from the Agripac site corroborate the RRSC study
findings but suggest that contamination extends further north.
Sampling of five wells at the site (Sweet, Edwards & Associates
1982) found nitrate concentrations ranging from 2.5-9.3 mg/1 (as
N) with most values over 6 mg/1 (see Table 3-5).
77
-------
JUNCTION CITY
2 MILES
WEST BEACON DR.
LANE
1
N
1
-LEGEND-
• LOCATION OF WELLS
DENOTES GENERAL DIRECTION OF
SHALLOW 6ROUNDWATER FLOW
APPROXIMATE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF
RIVER ROAD a EWEB WATER DISTRICTS
FIGURE 3-5. LOCATION OF SOME WELLS IN THE VICINITY
OF SITE C AND PRAIRIE ROAD
SOURCES-' FRANK a JOHNSON 1970, SWEET EDWARDS 8 ASSOC., 1982; SWEET, 1978
78
-------
-LEGEND-
1960
2030
BOUNDARY OF AREA WHERE NITRATES
WERE >5mg/l IN 1980
PREDICTED BOUNDARY IN 2030 BASED
ON EXISTING LOADING RATES
AREA WITH AVERAGE NITRATE
CONCENTRATION > 5 mg/l IN 1982
FIGURE 3-6. EXISTING AND PREDICTED NITRATE LEVELS IN
GROUNDWATER SOUTH OF SITE C AND PRAIRIE ROAD
SOURCE: SWEET, EDWARDS 8 ASSOC., 1980 8 1982
-------
Table 3-5. Groundwater Quality: Agripac Site1
WELL
NUMBER
2
6B
11B
13
BIV
SPECIFIC
CONDUCTIVITY
y/CM
160
255
760
270
230
NITRATE
(AS N)
(MG/L)
2.5
6.1
6.0
4.3
9.3
PH
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
TOTAL
COLIFORM
BACTERIA
(MPN/100 ML)
610
0
0
64
Sweet, Edwards & Associates 1982.
Several sources for the nitrate are suspected including septic
drain fields, livestock wastes, and inadequate well seals
(Sweet, Edwards & Associates 1980) .
Based on the above data, it is reasonable to believe that
the shallow groundwater at Both Site C and the Prairie Road site
is also contaminated with nitrate to some degree. Other parame-
ters, such as chloride and sulfate, were found to be elevated in
the RRSC study. A similar situation probably exists at Site C
and the Prairie Road site.
Coliform and fecal coliform levels in the RRSC study area
are high. Fully 97 percent of the wells tested exceeded bacte-
rial limits for drinking water on at least one test (Sweet,
Edwards & Associates 1980) . Laboratory analysis of three
groundwater samples from the Agripac site (see Table 3-5) also
showed high levels of coliform bacteria. Based on these data,
it is likely that bacterial contamination is also present in the
shallow aquifer at Site C and the Prairie Road site.
Coburg Hills site
SOILS. The soils at this site are composed predominantly
of silt and clay and have been mapped as Bashaw soils. These
soils were described previously in the section of the report
regarding the Short Mountain Landfill.
GEOHYDROLOGY. Information concerning subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions at the site is limited. Geologic and
soils maps of the area and drillers logs (Frank 1973; Frank and
Johnson 1970), indicate that there are 5 or more feet of clayey
soil overlying Older Alluvium, which in turn overlies the Eugene
Formation (bedrock). The Older Alluvium beneath the site is
80
-------
probably finer grained and more silty than in other areas of the
valley because of its close proximity to the highlands. The
Eugene Formation may also be partially weathered to clay. This
formation is exposed at the surface in the surrounding Cascade
foothills along with the volcanic rock of the Little Butte
Volcanics. The depth to bedrock at the site is not known.
However, near Coburg it is greater than 85 feet and at the base
of the foothills is essentially zero.
Groundwater recharge occurs through direct precipitation
and through runoff and groundwater discharge from the adjacent
highlands (see Figure 3-7). The latter is probably more signif-
icant, considering that the site is surrounded on three sides by
highland areas. Groundwater is likely to occur beneath the
surficial soils in discontinuous bodies of perched water within
the alluvium. These bodies are likely to be confined and under
artesian pressure.
Frank (1973) showed water table contours for September 1969
and January 1970 that slope downwards to the northwest, indicat-
ing that regional groundwater flow is in that direction (see
Figure 3-7). Local groundwater flow at the site probably trends
more to the west, toward the City of Coburg. Groundwater flow
rates in the Older Alluvium, if present, would likely be slower
than in other areas of the valley, although some layers or
lenses of clean sand and gravel with higher groundwater veloc-
ities may be present. Groundwater flow in the Eugene Formation
at the Coburg Hills site would likely be very slow unless
fracturing exists.
GROUNDWATER USE AND QUALITY. All water for domestic,
irrigation, and livestock purposes in the Coburg area is ob-
tained from wells. This includes the City of Coburg. Figure
3-7 shows some known wells near the Coburg Hills site; others
may exist. West of Interstate 5, a majority of wells are
completed in Older and Younger Alluvium. Some wells are deep,
in excess of 200 feet, but most are less than 100 feet with many
shallow wells 50 feet deep or less. In areas adjacent to or in
the foothills, wells are completed in the Eugene Formation or
Little Butte Volcanics.
Groundwater quality data are not readily available for the
Coburg area. One analysis from a well south of Coburg (Frank &
Johnson 1970) showed relatively low total dissolved solids and a
normal concentration for the major ionic constituents except
nitrate. The nitrate concentration was 3.8 mg/1, which is
somewhat elevated compared to background concentrations.
Information concerning bacterial quality is also scarce.
Bacterial levels are expected to be generally low, with isolated
cases of contamination, due to the relatively low density of
development in the area.
81
-------
HIGHLANDS
LEGEND-
• LOCATION OF KNOWN WELLS
REGIONAL DIRECTION OF
GROUNDWATER FLOW (FRANK, 1973)
PROBABLE DIRECTION OF
GROUNDWATER FLOW ON SITE
FIGURE 3-7. LOCATION OF SOME WELLS AND GENERAL
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW IN THE VICINITY
OF THE COBURG HILLS SITE
SOURCE: FRANK 8 JOHNSON,1970 AND STATE OF OREGON WATER WELL REPORTS
THROUGH 1982
82
-------
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4)
If the No Project Alternative were implemented, sludge
management after 1989 would continue to rely on the Phase I
interim facilities and practices. Sludge would continue to be
mechanically dewatered at the RWTP and spread on agricultural
land in the dry months. During the wet months, dewatered sludge
would go to the Short Mountain Landfill. The groundwater
quality implications of this action cannot be accurately as-
sessed, because it is not known what would be done with the
liquid sludge eventually generated in excess of the capacity of
Phase I dewatering facilities. If this material were placed in
the landfill or spread on agricultural land in the winter
months, the chances of affecting groundwater quality would be
greatly increased over the proposed project.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1
This alternative involves construction of a force main and
facultative sludge lagoons (FSLs) and air-drying beds at one of
three possible sludge management sites. During the winter
months sludge will be stored, and in the summer it will be dried
and distributed to agricultural lands. Some distribution of
liquid sludge is also planned, and landfill disposal of dried
sludge would serve as a back-up.
Facultative storage and air-drying would have a signifi-
cantly different effect on the chemical nature of the dried
sludge than the mechanical dewatering which will soon be
undertaken at the RWTP- During storage, organic nitrogen in the
digested sludge continues to undergo anaerobic mineralization to
soluble ammonium ions (U. S. EPA 1979). Some of this ammonia is
lost through return of supernatant to the RWTP. After the
sludge is harvested and spread to dry, the change to aerobic
conditions facilitates rapid volatilization of NH.+ to NH_ (gas)
(King 1976) . Up to 100 percent of the NH4+ can be lost through
this process, although it is generally lower. As a result, the
air-dried sludge contains a much lower percentage of available
ammonia or nitrate than does mechanically dewatered sludge, and
the application rates for agricultural use must be correspond-
ingly higher to maintain the same benefits to crop production.
Another consequence of sludge stabilization in lagoons is
that approximately 25 percent less sludge is produced than would
be produced from the mechanical dewatering process (Brown and
Caldwell 1979) . This smaller volume results in a higher
concentration of heavy metals and, consequently, a higher annual
loading rate in agricultural reuse areas.
The following sections describe specific potential ground-
water impacts along the force main routes and at the proposed
disposal and air-drying sites.
83
-------
Site C
Site C is located above a major, shallow water supply
aquifer. Potential contamination of this aquifer with nitrogen,
heavy metals, or other sludge constituents is therefore a key
issue. There are three potential paths of infiltration routes
as follows:
1. The base of the storage lagoons.
2. The base of the air-drying beds.
3. Infiltration of contaminated runoff.
Brown and Caldwell (1979) note that storage basins have
historically been self-sealing and cite experience at the Sacra-
mento sewage treatment facilities. The sealing occurs after
only 2 or 3 months by plugging of soil pores with suspended and
colloidal material, and by the formation of a mucous-like
membrane at the soil-sludge interface. Prior to this self-
sealing, the underlying soil conditions determine the rate of
movement of sludge constituents into the groundwater table.
The lagoon floor will be composed of 6 inches of compacted
clay placed over native silt and clay-rich soil. The fine
textured soils in this area are from 4 to 18 feet thick, with
much coarser Older Alluvium as a substrate. Because the lagoon
bottom will be excavated approximately 5 feet below grade, it is
possible that some portions of the lagoon bottoms will be in
direct contact with the coarser subsoils rather than clay-rich
layers. Where this occurs, the 6 inches of compacted clay will
control the leaching of materials into the groundwater. The
exact depths of natural clay material below lagoon sites will
not be known until further design and soil testing is
undertaken. Where 5 to 10 feet of clay-rich material underlies
the lined lagoons, leachate movement would be extremely slow
even if the clay liner were to crack or in some other way fail.
If sludge constituents were to escape through the bottom of
the lagoons through some failure in the lining (a low
probability occurrence), the rate and direction of movement
would vary with the seasons. During the summer, when the
groundwater table is lowest, any leachate would move vertically
downward. Later, during the fall and winter, leaching would
virtually cease due to a rise in the water table and subsequent
decrease in down-migration of water from the surface. The most
significant leaching or "washing" would occur if a liner failed
in the late spring or early summer as the water table lowered.
Sludge constituents of concern, should a liner failure
occur, are heavy metals, nitrogen, and organic compounds
(quantities expected in Eugene sludge are listed in Table 2-2).
Heavy metals are relatively insoluble, and would remain fixed in
the sludge or in near-surface soils rather than percolate great
distances with leachate. Consequently, they would have little
or no impact on groundwater. NH.+ (ammonia nitrogen) and
water-soluble pesticides could have some impact as they move
essentially at the same rate as migrating soil water. In areas
84
-------
where a thick clay-rich subsoil exists, leachate movement would
be slow and the dilution in the aquifer high, so groundwater
would experience little increase in ammonia or pesticide levels.
If the lagoon excavation intersects thin clay layers or
underlying sand or gravel layers, however, considerable nitrogen
and some pesticides could leach or be washed into the
groundwater in the event of a liner failure. It would be
useful, therefore, to avoid coarse subsurface layers when
lagoons are specifically sited.
The second route for groundwater contamination is leaching
through the drying beds. The possibility for this is slight,
considering that the beds are planned to be floored with
asphaltic concrete on a bed of gravel. Sludge leaching could
occur during summer rainstorms but would not reach the soil
unless the asphalt was cracked or punctured. Any leachate that
did get through would be captured in the gravel and transported
laterally to the perimeter ditches. The only likely
circumstance in which leachate would enter the soil rather than
be collected in the perimeter ditch would be if the soil
immediately below the drying beds were composed of permeable
sand and gravel. Since this is not the case at Site C, there is
virtually no possibility of groundwater contamination from the
drying beds.
The third route for impacts to groundwater is through
runoff infiltration. This last category embraces a large number
of potential spill and subsequent runoff events associated with
the maintenance and operation of the facility. These events
range from minor sludge spills to major potential leaching
following a major structural or equipment failure. Major
failures are only likely as a result of some catastrophic event
(e.g., earthquake).
Some or all of these events could occur, but a major spill
is extremely unlikely. If a small spill does occr, the more
soluble sludge components, notably nitrogen as nitrate, sodium,
and some pesticides, would enter runoff during rainstorms.
Depending on the time of year, some of the runoff could
infiltrate the ground and the rest would move off-site as
surface water.
The quantity of material which infiltrates should be minor
because of low soil permeability. Nitrogen which does infil-
trate will be further diluted in the aquifer. Significant
groundwater impacts would only be likely if a major spill
occurred in an area of thin clay soil or of sandy soil; these
conditions are not present on Site C.
Prairie Road Site
Soil and groundwater conditions at the Prairie Road site
are essentially the same as those at Site C; potential impacts
85
-------
to groundwater would therefore be similar. However, sand and
gravel occur at the surface on a portion of the site. These
permeable soils could result in considerably greater impact to
groundwater through leaching of ammonia-nitrogen and other water
soluble components. Also, contaminated runoff crossing the
permeable soils would infiltrate and reach groundwater at a much
higher rate.
Coburg Hills Site
Plans for air-drying facilities at the Coburg Hills site
are similar to those for the other two sites. However, there
are important differences: 1) cuts of up to 7 feet will be
required to provide level areas, and 2) subsurface soil con-
ditions have not been explored. The importance of these two
items lies in the possibility of encountering adverse soil
conditions, such as a permeable sand and gravel aquifer at
shallow depths. Although a highly permeable and extensive
deposit of sand and gravel is unlikely, individual lenses or
layers of sand or gravel under artesian pressure could be
present. These layers could create construction difficulties,
but would have a net upward pressure and thus serve to protect
lower portions of the aquifer from contamination.
Available information suggests that the site is underlain
by 5 feet or more of clay-rich soil. This soil will provide an
effective barrier for infiltration and would help to prevent
contamination of an underlying aquifer. The same general infil-
tration routes discussed previously for Site C would apply at
this site.
Force Main Routes
Significant contamination of groundwater could result if
leakage occurred from the force main in areas where highly
permeable soils occur near the surface. Although Brown and
Caldwell (1979, pg. 4-3) estimate that "even the most severe
pipe break could be located and repaired within 2 days;" it
could take considerably longer to locate small to moderate leaks
where sludge loss is inconspicuous. Leaks of this type in
sewage lines have been known to go on for months or years before
being discovered. This is unlikely with the dual force main, as
MWMC proposes periodic pressure testing to detect small leaks.
Contamination of groundwater would pose a threat chiefly in
areas where groundwater is used for domestic supplies. The
proposed pipeline route to the Coburg site passes initially
through an area where water is supplied from outside sources
before reaching groundwater use areas at the McKenzie
River/Interstate 5 junction. From there on, there is a
potential for contamination of groundwater supplies. Similarly,
the proposed pipeline route to Site C or the Prairie Road site
86
-------
passes for the most part through areas supplied by the River
Road or Santa Clara Water District. Groundwater use begins only
near the end of the route at about Enid Station Road (see
Figure 3-5).
In addition to contamination from leakage in groundwater
use areas, contamination might also occur from leaks outside the
area. This could happen if, for example, a major leak occurred
south of and upgradient from Site C, and the northward-moving
groundwater brought contaminated water into the area of ground-
water use. This possibility should be considered since nitrate
levels in the aquifer are currently at or near the EPA and
Oregon state drinking water limits.
The constituents of most concern are nitrogen, pesticides,
and heavy metals. The movement of heavy metals in an aquifer is
not well documented but is presumed to be negligible in keeping
with their low solubility. However, any metals in solution
would likely remain in solution if leaked material entered a
gravel unit; this would be offset, however, by more rapid
dispersion. Pesticides and other organic compounds should pose
little problem because of their low concentrations. Nitrogen
would, however, be present in sufficient quantities, and is
sufficiently soluble, to have an impact on groundwater quality.
Agricultural Land
The EPA FNSI (U. S. EPA 1983) for the MWMC Phase I sludge
management project considered the groundwater quality impacts of
agricultural reuse of mechanically dewatered sludge. The FNSI
found that there would not be a significant threat of ground-
water contamination from agricultural reuse of sludge as long as
DEQ sludge reuse guidelines were followed. The FNSI cited the
following in coming to this conclusion (Table 3-6):
•
Table 3-6. Phase I FNSI Groundwater Quality Findings
o All reuse sites would be subject to review and approval
by DEQ prior to use.
o Strict DEQ monitoring requirements would be imposed on
all reuse sites.
o Eugene sludge contains low concentrations of toxic
organic components.
o Nitrogen application rates will be closely controlled
and will not exceed commercial fertilizer application
rates.
o Nitrogen concentrations in leachate will be controlled
by plant uptake and will be thoroughly diluted in
groundwater.
87
-------
o Pathogenic organisms will be filtered from the leachate
by surface soils.
Alternative 1 would continue the agricultural reuse, but the
sludge would be air-dried rather than mechanically dewatered.
This change in dewatering would result in:
1. A slightly greater amount of N03 - available in the
sludge, along with much less NH;J+. This would require a
much greater application rate to provide the same
quantity of available nitrogen.
2. A higher concentration of heavy metals.
3. A slightly higher concentration of sodium.
A brief discussion of the long-term groundwater quality implica-
tions of this continued agricultural application is presented
below.
NITROGEN. Nitrogen as nitrate (NO-) is potentially the
most mobile chemical constituent in land applied sewage sludge,
and therefore represents a significant potential impact to
groundwater. When sludge is applied to land, the nitrogen
undergoes a number of complex transformations in the soil.
Figure 3-8 illustrates these transformations. It should be
noted that although nitrogen transformations have been studied
by several investigators (Epstein et al., 1978; Kelling et al.
1977; King 1976), there has been little attempt to quantitative-
ly model these processes, except for work done by Hsieh et al.
(1981). In the normal pH range of soils for this area
(5.5-7.5), nitrogen is converted primarily to nitrate (NO-),
nitrogen gas (N_), or to nitrous oxide (N-O) depending on oxygen
availability.
Under aerobic or oxidizing conditions, nitrogen in the
sludge is converted to nitrate (nitrification) which can then
either be immobilized by soils microbes, be taken up by plants,
or enter the soil pore water (Page and Pratt 1975) . The nitrate
ion is highly mobile as a result of its negative charge and
great solubility in water.
Under anaerobic or reducing conditions, organic nitrogen
mineralizes to NH4+. Since NH.+ is readily held on CEC sites or
immobilized by microbes, it is considerably less mobile than
N03- and will tend to remain in the soil rather than leach. It
is also available for plant uptake. Any NO,- formed under
oxidizing conditions will also tend to be denitrified to N_ or
N20 gas under anaerobic conditions.
The nitrification process is most vigorous in the late
spring and summer as oxidizing conditions improve and soil
temperatures increase. Since these conditions coincide with the
period of maximum plant growth, available nitrate is efficiently
88
-------
AEROBIC CONDITIONS
APPLIED
SLUDGE
RUNOFF
PLANT
UPTAKE
ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS
GASEOUS
PLANT LOSS
UPTAKE
FIXED IN
SOIL OR
MICROBES
LEACHING
LEACHING
NOTE:
ARROWS SHOW DIRECTION OF TRANSFORMATION. LARGE
ARROWS ARE PRIMARY PATHWAYS. NOTE THAT NO*' IS
SHOWN ON RIGHT SIDE OF DIAGRAM, ALTHOUGH
IT DOES NOT FORM UNDER ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT
HAPPENS TO THE NITRATE FOLLOWING CONVERSION
FROM AN OXIDIZING TO A REDUCING ENVIRONMENT.
FIGURE 3-8. NITROGEN TRANSFORMATIONS IN SOIL UNDER
AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS
89
-------
utilized. During the fall and winter months, nitrate production
is significantly reduced at the same time that plants are reduc-
ing their uptake. These anticipated relationships are illus-
trated in Figure 3-9.
Although it is difficult to predict exactly how much
nitrate will leach, it is safe to assume that it will be a small
proportion of the total nitrate, on the order of 25 percent or
less, since sludge application rates are geared specifically to
crop nitrogen requirements. The nitrate that will leach will be
that portion in excess of plant uptake and microbiological
assimilation. During the summer, most of the excess nitrogen
will remain near the surface because of the net upward movement
of soil water (see Figure 3-9). This net upward movement is a
result of high rates of evapotranspiration. Partial leaching
could occur during rainy periods or through excessive irriga-
tion. Beginning in the fall, active leaching should commence as
the soil water movement reverses.
Although it seems logical to assume that leaching would
occur throughout the winter months, the high groundwater table
produces nearly saturated soil conditions near the surface, thus
limiting the downward migration of water. The relationship is
illustrated in Figure 3-9. As can be seen, the greatest leach-
ing should occur in the short interval between the time the net
downward movement of water commences and the point at which
groundwater reaches its high winter level. When the groundwater
lowers in the spring, it will take some of the nitrate with it.
This "washing" effect may actually account for more nitrate loss
than actual leaching.
The effect of nitrogen leachate of groundwater is dependent
on the rate at which water can move to the groundwater (soil
permeability) and the rate of dilution in the aquifer. Soil
permeability is an important control since nitrate-nitrogen
moves essentially at the same velocity as migrating water. The
slower the migration, the longer it takes nitrogen to reach and
be released into the groundwater. Group 2 and 3 soil types,
which support most of the nonfood chain crops in the Willamette
Valley, have relatively low permeabilities.
Where provisions of the Oregon DEQ regulations are main-
tained, most available nitrogen will be utilized by crop uptake
and the remainder will be leached slowly to the groundwater and
then diluted. The impact on groundwater should be one of a
negligible to a very slight increase in nitrate concentrations.
HEAVY METALS. Heavy metals in sludge constitute one of the
greatest potential impacts to ground and surface water quality.
Soluble fractions of the metals, which include lead, cadmium,
zinc, copper, nickel, mercury, and others, can enter groundwater
and ultimately be captured by water wells or be discharged to
surface water bodies. In either case, the concentration of
metals is critical to the risk they pose.
90
-------
t
CO
-------
Studies by a number of workers have suggested that metal
concentrations in the soil pore water are very low and that
soils have a high capacity to "fix" heavy metals. Page (1974)
found no movement of heavy metals below 45 cm in a field which
had been irrigated with raw sewage for 70 years. Lund (1976)
noted deeper migrations to 10 feet below a sewage pond. How-
ever, the pond had been in operation for 20 years and the soils
were sandy. In a controlled experiment on a silt loam soil,
Hinesly and Jones (1976) found that cadmium and nickel concen-
trations in drainage water from sewage-treated plots were no
greater than background concentrations. Other investigations
have obtained similar results showing low concentrations of
metals in solution and little migration through the soil
(Schauer, et al. 1980; Robertson et al. 1982; Emmerich et al.
1982; Sommers et al. 1979; Chang and Broadbent 1980).
Group 2 and 3 soils are well suited to the treatment
(removal) of heavy metals. Although pH values are somewhat low
(5.0-6.5), CEC and organic contents are high enough to readily
adsorb heavy metals. For these reasons, heavy metals applied in
sludge at the concentrations anticipated, should remain fixed
within the sludge itself or in the near surface soils. Very low
concentrations of heavy metals will migrate to the groundwater
in leachate where they will be further diluted.
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. As previously mentioned, the soil in
groups 2 and 3 have high CEC and organic matter contents. These
properties enable the soils to adsorb or microbiologically
assimilate many complex organic compounds. For this reason, and
because the sludge contains extremely low concentrations of the
organic compounds tested, there should generally be insignifi-
cant impacts to groundwater under sludge application sites. Of
the organic parameters tested in the Eugene/Springfield sludge,
only two were detected: chlordane and 1254 PCB. Both were
present in extremely low concentrations: .05 mg/kg for chlor-
dane and .15 mg/kg for the PCB. Although the recommended EPA
limit for PCB in drinking water is very low,- .001 mg/1 (U. S.
EPA 1976c), PCB is relatively insoluble, particularly when
associated with organic material. It should therefore cause
little or no impact to groundwater.
Short Mountain Landfill
Landfill disposal will be utilized only as a back-up under
Phase II. The volumes of sludge disposal should therefore be
smaller than under the proposed interim sludge management plan,
which EPA found to have no significant impact on local ground-
water quality (U. S. EPA 1983).
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2
This alternative is essentially the same as Alternative 1
except that air-drying and mechanical centrifuging would be used
to dewater the sludge.
92
-------
Potential impacts to groundwater at the three proposed
sludge management sites would be essentially identical to those
described earlier, although Alternative 2 would have a smaller
acreage of drying beds and therefore less chance of a sludge
leak or spill. Potential impacts along the force main route
would also remain the same.
Landfill back-up under this proposal would include disposal
of both air-dried and mechanically dewatered sludge. Because of
the small volumes anticipated, impacts should be less than
during Phase I. If agricultural application were suspended for
a long time, then impacts at the landfill would be greater by
virtue of greater volume. This possibility is discussed in the
next section, Alternative 3.
Impacts at agricultural areas under this alternative are
also similar to those described earlier. Essentially, only
minor concentrations of nitrates, heavy metals, or organic
compounds are expected to enter groundwater unless sludge is
applied over an area with highly permeable soils or where runoff
can enter well casings.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 3
Under this alternative, permanent mechanical dewatering
facilities would be constructed at the RWTP and dewatered
sludges disposed of at the Short Mountain Landfill during the
winter and on agricultural lands during the summer. This
alternative is essentially a redesign and expansion of the
interim plan now being implemented by MWMC.
Agricultural Lands
Impacts to groundwater with this alternative would essen-
tially be the same as those described under Alternative 1.
Short Mountain Landfill
Potential groundwater impacts at the Short Mountain Land-
fill would be similar to those of the proposed interim plan
(U. S. EPA 1983). However, as a consequence of the greater
volume of disposed sludge, there would be increased nitrogen
available for leaching. This greater quantity of nitrogen would
be diluted in a greater volume of leachate, leaving the absolute
concentration of NH.+ in the leachate nearly the same, or only
slightly greater, tnan from the interim plan. This also applies
to the heavy metals and organic compounds in sludge.
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
The potential for any sludge or supernatant reaching
groundwater in sufficient quantities to degrade groundwater
quality at the RWTP is small, and is commensurate with the risk
from any other operations of the plant.
93
-------
MITIGATION MEASURES
Agricultural Lands
Potential adverse impacts to groundwater identified at
agricultural utilization sites include nitrate and heavy metal
contamination. Steps which can be taken to avoid contamination
or major long-term problems include the following:
1. Follow the Oregon DEQ guidelines for land application of
wastewater and sludge, particularly as they relate to
sludge application rates.
2. Continue to implement the Eugene/Springfield pretreat-
ment program to reduce heavy metals and organics at the
source.
3. Continue to select sites with suitable soil, groundwater
and geographic features through the DEQ approval pro-
cess.
4. Maintain a groundwater quality monitoring program at
representative sludge application sites to ensure that
gradual groundwater quality degradation does not occur.
Short Mountain Landfill
At the Short Mountain Landfill, the most significant
potential adverse effects would be "short circuiting" of leach-
ate to Camas Swale Creek. The following mitigation measures
have been recently adopted to reduce this possibility:
1. The groundwater quality monitoring network is being
expanded downgradient from the landfill; this should
include testing for heavy metals, pathogens and organic
toxins.
2. Landfill surface drainage is being improved to restrict
discharges to surface waters.
3. Leachate lagoon capacity is being expanded to collect
all leachate during winter months for eventual
irrigation on adjacent lands during the dry season.
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Impacts to groundwater can occur at the treatment plant
through sludge spills or pipe leaks. Mitigation measures
available to reduce possible impacts include rapid cleanup of
spilled material, instituting a thorough maintenance program to
reduce the incidence of leaks, control of surface water on-site
so that it moves to collector drains, and construction of
impermeable concrete or asphalt pads with drains in areas where
spill potential is highest.
94
-------
Sludge Management Sites
Potential impacts to groundwater include contamination with
nitrate, heavy metals, or organic compounds. Mitigation mea-
sures available for preventing or reducing infiltration include
careful inspection and maintenance of the drying beds, proper
construction of storage lagoon embankments, prompt cleanup of
spilled sludge, careful placement and compaction of the
clay-rich lagoon floors, and installation of groundwater
monitoring wells to provide the warning of contamination. Also,
soil explorations and soil permeability tests prior to
construction can delineate areas of adverse soil conditions.
This last item is particularly important for the Prairie Road
site, where sand and gravel occurs at the surface, and for the
Coburg site, where current knowledge of subsurface conditions is
conjectural.
If contamination did occur, then other mitigation measures
would be available, depending on the severity of the
contamination. The first step would be to block the contaminant
source, either by removing it or by repairing the malfunctioning
element. Movement of contaminated groundwater could then be
blocked by cut-off walls or by capture in drawdown zones
generated by well pumps. If the volume of contaminated water
were sufficiently small, it could be removed by pumping.
Otherwise, it might be necessary to allow the contaminated water
to simply disperse within the aquifer.
Force Main Routes
Groundwater which has been contaminated from pipe leakage
can be rehabilitated with the same mitigative measures described
in the previous section. Prevention of leaks is more difficult.
Good engineering design and pipe material selection is impor-
tant. Proper backfilling of trenches and inspection of pipes is
helpful, especially pressure testing following construction.
Pressure tests run on a periodic basis could allow for detection
of leaks, but would not identify their location.
Surface Water Quality Changes
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting
The central Willamette Valley contains an extensive network
of lakes, creeks, sloughs, and rivers (Figure 3-10). Major
rivers in the area include the Willamette main stem, Coast and
Middle Forks, McKenzie, Long Tom, and Mohawk. Smaller creeks
include the Amazon, Muddy, Flat, and Camas Swale. Except for
the Mohawk and Mckenzie Rivers, and Camas Swale Creek, most
rivers and creeks drain to the north.
95
-------
SHORT MOUNTAIN
LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE 3-10.
SURFACE WATER FEATURES OF
THE EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD AREA
96
-------
Water flow of the major rivers originates primarily in the
lower mountains and is influenced by precipitation and snowmelt
patterns. Mean monthly flow data are presented in Table 3-7.
Smaller creeks drain the alluvial bottom land between the Coast
and Cascade Mountains. Flows consist of surface runoff and are
augmented by high groundwater levels during the winter.
The quality of water in the area is highly variable, and
has received an overall rating of acceptable to marginal by the
EPA (U. S. EPA 1980). Of the major rivers, the Coast Fork
Willamette has the greatest water quality problems, while the
McKenzie appears to be fairly pure (Table 3-8). Point sources
contribute significant quantities of pollutants to rivers.
These sources include municipal sewage discharges and wood
products operations. Less information is available for smaller
creeks, which often receive pollutants from nonpoint sources.
Agricultural runoff, septic tank failures, and channel erosion
are the agents responsible for much of the pollution in creeks.
Agricultural Sites
Agricultural sites in the Eugene area are generally flat,
with slopes under three percent. Drainage channels usually
consist of small peripheral ditches which flow into intermittent
or permanent creeks. During the summer months most of the
peripheral ditches and intermittent creeks are dry, as are the
agricultural fields themselves. Rare, intense summer storms may
produce some surface ponding and a limited amount of runoff from
the steeper sites.
During the late fall, rainfall frequencies increase and
many of the fields become saturated. This occurs first on those
fields which have poor drainage and no slope, such as fields
underlain by Soil Group 3 (see Table 3-1). Eventually, most of
the fields in the area have some water ponded on the surface.
Depending on slope, soil conditions and climate, this water may
work its way to a drainage ditch. In many areas, winter ground-
water levels rise to or above the soil surface, increasing the
quantity of surface water available for runoff. Winter flooding
of low-lying areas is a common occurrence.
Little water quality information is available for runoff
from agricultural sites in the Eugene area. General problems
include high turbidities, bacterial contamination, and nutrient
enrichment. Extensive water quality information is available
for the rivers that receive runoff from agricultural sites.
Some of this information is summarized in Table 3-8.
Site C/Prairie Road
Site C and the Prairie Road site are located on flat land
in the upper part of the Flat Creek drainage (Figure 3-10).
Drainage from Site C is handled by a small graded ditch which
flows west-northwest through the site. This intermittent ditch
97
-------
Table 3-7. Mean Monthly Flow for Streams of the Central Willamette Valley, 1975-1980
00
Stream
Main Stem Willamette
at Harrisburg
Coast Fork Willamette
at Coburg
Middle Fork Willamette
at Jaspar
McKenzie
at Vida
Mohawk
at Springfield
Long Tom
at Monroe
Amazon Creek
above diversion1
Coyote Creek
near Fern Ridge
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
8,119 12,107 21,722 19,167 10,354 9,609 9,810
961 1,391 2,911 2,832 1,810 1,354 1,622
4,078 5,127 7,735 6,364 2,223 2,364 2,587
2,758 4,258 6,676 5,316 3,518 3,450 3,706
75 412 1,009 946 783 675 516
806 687 1,412 1,532 717 515 323
16 28 57 81 29 48 30
6 68 300 349 240 194 145
May June July Aug Sept
8,450 5,412 4,454 4,989 7,209
935 406 207 217 772
2,408 1,826 1,710 2,168 3,810
3,963 2,864 2,546 2,646 2,493
366 160 63 39 47
189 60 38 64 63
54311
61 12 2 4 2
NOTE: All values in cubic feet per second.
JData for 1980 only
SOURCE: U. S. Geological Survey
-------
Table 3-8. Water Quality Data for Streams of the Central Willamette Valley
vo
Willamette at
Springfield
Mean Range
pH
Temperature (C°)
Turbidity
DO (mg/l)/(% saturation)
BOD (5 day)
NH-3 + NH. (mg/1)
N0~ + N0~ (mg/1)
Phosphorus, total (mg/1)
Arsenic (yg/1)
Barium (yg/1)
Cadmium (yg/1)
Chromium (yg/1)
Copper (yg/1)
Lead (yg/1)
Zinc (yg/1)
Selenium (yg/1)
Mercury (yg/1)
Total Coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml)
7.1
11.0
7.5
10. 9/
(92.7)
0.9
0.03
0.07
0.044
<5
<100
<2
753
149
6.5-7.6
5.0-15.0
2.0-62.0
9. 0-13. O/
(88-108)
0.2-2.2
<.02-.06
<.02-.34
.019-. 188
<5
<100
11,000
<30-2,400
Willamette
Coast Fork
at Highway 58
Mean
7.0
11.1
10.0
10. 4/
(88.9)
1.1
0.04
0.12
0.052
1,043
384
Range
6.4-7.6
4.5-17
2.0-78.8
8. 1-12. 2/
(84-103)
0.5-2.4
0.02-0.11
.02-0.37
.021-. 101
<5
<100
<1
<2-<50
<2-<50
<10
<10
<5
<0.5-<1.0
36-11,000
<30-4,600
Willamette
Middle Fork
at Jaspar «.
Mean
7.1
9.5
6.6
13. 87
(98.4)
0.9
0.03
0.04
0.041
156
96
Range
6.4-7.6
4.5-15
2.0-32.0
9.2-12.7/
(90-110)
<0. 1-2.1
<0. 02-0. 05
<0.2-.18
.024-. 093
<5
<100-120
-------
flows into Flat Creek near Meadow View. The northern half of
the Prairie Road site drains north to another tributary ditch of
Flat Creek which flows east of the site. The southern half of
the site drains into the ditch which passes through Site C.
During the summer, there is little or no flow in ditches
draining either site and surface runoff is negligible. During
the winter, all ditches usually have flow. Ponding of water is
common on both sites. A severe ponding problem exists at the
southern end of the Prairie Road site where water flowing north-
west under the railroad tracks backs up and floods the area.
Both sites are above the 100-year floodplain of the Willamette
River, but may experience local flooding from tributaries of
Flat Creek. No water quality data exist for drainage channels
in the area. Turbidity and nutrient enrichment may be a prob-
lem.
FLAT CREEK. Flat Creek is a small Willamette River tribu-
tary that drains approximately 30 square miles of flat and
gently sloping land northwest of Eugene. Flow in the creek
results primarily from precipitation runoff and elevated ground-
water. Although no flow records are available, flow varies
between a summer low of zero and an estimated 1,250 cubic feet
per second (cfs) during a 10-year flood (USDA Soil Conservation
Service 1965).
The basin contains mainly agricultural land, with some
residential areas in the upper watershed. Nearly all of the
creek has been widened and deepened, and there are at least
eight diversion and check dams to control creek flow.
Although no water quality data exist for Flat Creek, LCOG
(1982) identified water quality as a potential problem. Pol-
lution sources include a number of wood products operations,
poultry farms, agricultural runoff, and failing septic tanks.
Coburg Hills Site
The Coburg Hills site is located near the confluence of
Daniels and Muddy Creeks. The site drains to the west and is
bounded on the south and west by drainage channels. The south-
ern channel, as well as one that cuts across the northwest
corner of the site, is fairly small and flows only during the
winter. The drainage channel west of the site, Muddy Creek, may
flow year-round. Ponding of water is common throughout the
winter and is extensive at the west edge of the site where a bog
has formed. Minor flooding of Muddy and Daniels Creeks may
inundate the west edge of the site.
100
-------
No flow or water quality data exist for Muddy Creek,
Daniels Creek, or the small drainage channels near the site.
Based on land use patterns and similar local watersheds, it
would be expected that water quality problems may include
turbidity and bacterial contamination from agricultural runoff.
No industrial discharges occur in the Muddy or Daniels Creek
basins.
Short Mountain Landfill
The Short Mountain Landfill is located near the confluence
of Camas Swale Creek and the Coast Fork Willamette. Surface
drainage within the landfill property consists of flow from
adjacent property and that generated on the site by pre-
cipitation. Water flowing onto the site is diverted away from
active fill areas by two diversion channels (Figure 3-11).
These channels are designed to contain a 50-year flood and
intercept runoff from areas north and west of the site. Water
from these ditches flows into Camas Swale Creek.
Water generated on the site is routed through a series of
permanent and temporary ditches. Permanent ditches include one
draining the western and one draining the southern portion of
the landfill. These two channels discharge untreated water into
Camas Swale Creek about 0.2 mile above the confluence with the
Coast Fork.
A series of temporary ditches are maintained around the
edge of the active fill areas. These ditches are designed to
contain a 2-year flood and discharge into the leachate lagoon.
The leachate lagoon is equipped with an overflow spillway at the
east end of the lagoon. The landfill's solid waste disposal
permit prohibits discharge via this spillway except when the
stability of the lagoon is threatened (Oregon DEQ 1982a). Local
residents, however, report that the lagoon does overflow in
extremely wet periods. Lane County is expanding the size of the
leachate lagoon to ensure that no surface discharge occurs. A
stagnant meander of Camas Swale Creek known as the natural
lagoon is located below the leachate lagoon's overflow spillway.
Water from the leachate lagoon is sprayed on the completed
and stabilized portion of the fill during summer months.
Irrigation is suspended if ponding or surface runoff occurs.
Any runoff from these areas would enter Camas Swale Creek via
the permanent ditches. A recent revision to Short Mountain's
solid waste disposal permit (#290) requires that all leachate
and contaminated rain and surface water must be stored without
discharge from November 1 to May 1 of each year. Lagoon walls
are also sprayed with leachate to prevent drying and cracking.
101
-------
COAST FORK
WILLAMETTE RIVER
FIGURE 3-11. SURFACE DRAINAGE FEATURES AT SHORT
MOUNTAIN LANDFILL
102
-------
The lagoon and landfill areas are above the 500-year flood-
plain of Camas Swale Creek and the Coast Fork. Areas surround-
ing the lagoon between the landfill and Camas Swale Creek are
within the 500-year floodplain.
Water quality data are available for the leachate lagoon,
natural lagoon, and surface runoff from stabilized portions of
the landfill (Table 3-9). The limited data for the natural
lagoon suggest that turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels present potentially
severe problems. The quality of the natural lagoon appears to
have been affected by the leachate lagoon. Runoff from the
stabilized landfill was very turbid and contained large numbers
of coliform bacteria.
Quality of water in the leachate lagoon is poor. Problems
include ammonia toxicity, high BOD and coliform levels, and
occasional low oxygen levels. A single testing for metals and
herbicides indicated that levels of chromium, selenium, and
mercury in the lagoon were above DEQ standards for the Willa-
mette River (Oregon DEQ 1982b).
CAMAS SWALE CREEK. Camas Swale Creek drains approximately
35 square miles, south of Eugene. Flow is restricted by passage
under Interstate 5, Highway 99, and the Southern Pacific Rail-
road bridges. Limited flow data are available for Camas Swale
Creek.
Sporadic monitoring of the creek's quality has identified
the following problems: high bacteria, turbidity and nutrient
levels, high temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen concen-
trations (Table 3-9). Results of a single sampling for union-
ized ammonia (NH.J indicated levels well above those recommended
for waters used By fish (U. S. EPA 1976a). Major pollution
sources include the discharge of sewage effluent by the City of,
Creswell (October-April only), agricultural runoff, and septic
tank failures. No obvious trends exist between data collected
above and below the Short Mountain Landfill.
COAST FORK WILLAMETTE. The Coast Fork and its major
tributary, the Row River, originate in the Calapooya Mountains
and drain approximately 665 square miles. Both rivers are
regulated by flow control structures.
The Coast Fork has the most severe water quality problems
of any major river in the area (Table 3-8). Indications of poor
quality include high bacterial loadings, high turbidity levels,
nutrient enrichment, and occasional low dissolved oxygen levels.
The recorded three-year mean for total coliform levels is 1,043
MPN/100 ml, which is above the 1,000 MPN/100 ml mark recommended
as a state standard for recreational use (LCOG 1974). Bacteria
levels increase dramatically as the river passes through Cottage
Grove.
103
-------
Table 3-9. Surface Hater Quality Data: Short Mountain Tandfm Area
Camas - Swale Creek
Above Landfill
No. of
Samples Mean Range
PH
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity
DO (mg/l)/(% saturation)
BOD_ (mg/1)
NH3-N (mg/1)
N03-N (mg/1)
Arsenic (pg/1)
Barium (mg/1)
Cadmium (mg/ 1 )
Chromium (pg/l)
Lead (ug/1)
Zinc 6.9
0.16
0.98
<30.0
<25.0
< 0.1
11.0
8.0
0.1
-\-10.0
< 0.5
<50.0
826.0 170-2,800
185.0 <10-600
Natural
Below Landfill Lagoon
No. of
Samples Mean Range Mean
12
11
9
8
8
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
9
9
7.0 6.7-7.4 7.4
10.8 2.5-15.0 3.0
18.2 2.0-45.0 33.0
9.5/ 7. 0-11. 8/ 5.0
(91) (83-100)
4.1 2.0-6.8 13.1
0.28 <.05-.50 2.5
0.62 .42-. 82
<30.0
<25.0
< 0.1
58.0
4.0
0.06 <.02-.l
•\,10
< 0.5
<50.0
887.0 180-2,200
110.0 10-360
Landfill
Runoff Leachate Lagoon
No. of
Mean Samples Mean
7.2 10
1.0 7
45.0 8
11.9 5
3.4 8
0.1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3,100 9
100 9
7.5
10.4
20.1
4.2
20.3
19.5
<30.0
<25.0
< 0.1
600.0
12.0
8.0
< 0.5
150.0
1,570
195
Range
6.7-8.3
4.5-21.0
3.0-54.0
0-7.6
2.9->52
5-35
180-4,300
<20-800
NOTES: Samples taken between 9-12-77 and 5-24-82.
SOURCE: Unpublished DEQ and LCOG data.
-------
Turbidity levels increase linearly with movement down-
stream. This is due to the transition from gravel to clay soil,
the higher concentration of point sources, and increases in
urban and agricultural runoff. Slow flows, high summer tempera-
tures, and effluent discharges combine to produce occasional low
dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Nutrient enrichment has caused undesirable aesthetic con-
ditions and algal blooms. Five wood products facilities, agri-
cultural operations, and three sewage facilities discharge into
the Coast Fork and Row Rivers (LCOG 1974) .
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
The RWTP lies immediately west of the Willamette River in
north Eugene. No major drainages are present on the site, but
surface runoff from the sites readily enters the main stem of
the Willamette.
Although no water quality data are available for site
runoff, it is likely to be of poor quality. Runoff may encoun-
ter small sludge spills or other contaminants. The treatment
plant site is on the edge of the 100-year floodplain of the
Willamette River but all facilities are bermed or above the
flood mark (U. S. Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]
1981) .
MAIN STEM WILLAMETTE. The Main Stem Willamette forms near
Goshen where the Coast and Middle Forks converge. Below this
confluence, the Main Stem flows through Eugene, Springfield, and
the rural land to the north.
Water in the Main Stem is of moderate quality. The most
serious problems are high bacterial loads and turbidity levels
(Table 3-8). Total coliform bacteria counts often exceed the
1,000 MPN/100 ml level. Contamination results from the waters
of the Coast Fork as well as numerous small outfalls and septic
tank failures. High turbidity results from agricultural and
urban runoff, riverbank gravel operations, and the Coast Fork.
Main Stem water quality improves significantly when the rela-
tively pure waters of the McKenzie dilute the flow.
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4)
The surface water quality impact of Alternative 4 would be
determined by the action MWMC took to reuse or dispose of sludge
generated in excess of the sludge handling facilities being
constructed in Phase I. It is likely that a greater threat to
surface water quality would occur under this option than the
other three project alternatives because liquid sludge would
probably be applied to agricultural land or the landfill for a
greater portion of the year, including the wetter winter months.
This is an undesirable sludge reuse/disposal approach. If
105
-------
wastewater volumes were allowed to increase to the point that
sludge generation exceeded the capacity of the Phase I sludge
facilities, it is also likely that wastewater effluent quality
would gradually degrade, adversely affecting the quality of the
Willamette River downstream from the RWTP.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
AGRICULTURAL APPLICATION SITES. Agricultural sludge
application presents the opportunity for reuse of a valuable
resource. Application to agricultural sites would have minimal
impact on surface water quality if DEQ application guidelines
were followed. Sludge constituents which could adversely affect
the quality of surface waters, however, include:
o sediment
o nitrogen
o other nutrients
o heavy metals
o organic toxins
o bacterial pathogens
The likelihood that some or all of these constituents might
enter surface waters from agricultural application sites would
vary with drainage patterns, sludge characteristics, soil and
crop conditions, and climatic variations. Contaminants could
enter surface waters through runoff, erosion of contaminated
particles, movement of elevated groundwater from the site, or
from flooding.
The potential for surface water contamination during the
summer application months is very low because of the lack of
surface water near most agricultural sites. The ubiquitous
nature of surface water during the winter increases the pos-
sibility of contamination. By winter, however, sludge decompo-
sition has lowered the concentration of many potential contami-
nants. Because surface runoff is the most likely mechanism for
transporting contaminants to surface waters, the impacts of
sludge application on surface runoff are presented prior to a
discussion of the above contaminants.
No detailed studies involving the effect of sludge applica-
tion on runoff in the Eugene area are available. Investigators
in areas with soils similar to those in the Willamette Valley
have concluded that sludge decreases the quantity of water
running off agricultural land (Kladivko and Nelson 1979; Kelling
et al. 1977b). In heavy clay soils, sludge alleviates unfavor-
able structural conditions by improving pore spacing and thus
increasing the water-holding capability of the soil (Kirkham
1974). Therefore, application of sludge to the agricultural
land around Eugene should decrease the potential for transfer-
ring pollutants from the land to adjacent surface waters.
106
-------
Erosion of sludge increases the sediment load carried by
streams, which is of concern because of the existing turbidity
problems in the area. However, research has shown that sludge
also acts as a soil binder, increasing a soil's resistance to
transport (Kirkham 1974; Kladivko and Nelson 1979). Significant
reductions have been noted in both the concentration and total
amount of sediment leaving a site following sludge application.
Kladivko and Nelson (1979) found that surface sludge applica-
tions decreased total erosion by 95 percent compared to control
fields. Erosion reduction was not quite as dramatic when sludge
was incorporated into the soil. Sludge application is likely to
decrease the erosion and sediment production of all soils. If
an application site is flooded, sludge may reduce the total
quantity of sediment leaving the site due to its binding action
within the soil.
Sludge is applied to agricultural land at rates commensur-
ate with crop nitrogen needs. Because in Alternative 1 the
sludge is air-dried, it would contain less nitrogen per pound
(dry weight) than mechanically dewatered sludge. The sludge
would have to be applied at a greater rate, therefore, than
dewatered sludge to achieve the same soil fertilization
benefits. Applying a larger amount of sludge per acre would
result in increased loadings of metals and organic toxins
because these constituents are not removed by air-drying. Fewer
acres would be needed, however, to dispose of the entire sludge
volume. Although some chemical degradation of toxins may occur,
and the greater amount of organic matter applied with the
increased sludge loads may be able to "fix" many of the metals
in the soils, the maximum sludge application rates for metals,
established by DEQ, will be followed. This will probably limit
soil amendment benefits of Alternative 1 somewhat.
The potential for nitrogen enrichment of surface waters
during the summer is very small. This is due primarily to high
nitrate uptake by plants and the small volume of surface runoff.
During the fall, plant uptake decreases at a faster rate than
nitrate production. This excess nitrate is available for
leaching or surface runoff. If intense rains occurred during
the fall, nitrates may be transported by runoff to adjacent
surface waters.
During the winter, nitrate production decreases due to the
anaerobic conditions brought on by surface ponding. Under these
conditions, nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas, leaving only a
small portion available for runoff. Surface runoff may remove
organic nitrogen via erosion.
Sludge application would add phosphorus, potassium, sodium,
calcium, magnesium, chlorine, and sulfur to the soil, but only
small quantities of these constituents would be expected to
reach surface waters. Chlorine and sulfur would be present in
low concentrations in the sludge and are not expected to affect
surface water quality. Sodium is highly soluble and could be
107
-------
expected in any surface runoff leaving application sites; first
fall season rains would generate the highest concentration.
Calcium and magnesium may also dissolve in runoff water or may
be bound by organic polymers. Although little research has been
done regarding the fate of added potassium, plant uptake would
be an important factor.
Phosphorus is usually bound tightly by the organic fraction
of the soil. Phosphorus losses from sludge application sites,
therefore, are chiefly associated with sediment in runoff
(Kladivko and Nelson 1979). Phosphorus levels in waters drain-
ing sludge sites are usually less than one part per million
(Kirkham 1974). The phosphorus concentration in sediment eroded
from sludge sites is significantly greater than that from
control sites (Kelling et al. 1977b). This increase, however,
is offset by the small amount of sediment lost from sludge sites
compared to control sites. Phosphorus losses may be slightly
greater from Group 2 than Group 3 soils due to their coarser
texture and increased vulnerability to erosion.
The heavy metal content of Eugene sludge (see Tables B-l
and B-2 in Appendix B) is low compared to many municipal
sludges. Nonetheless, EPA and DEQ have established maximum
sludge application rates for lead, zinc, copper, nickel and
cadmium in order to protect public health (see Table 3-10). If
these application rates are not exceeded, there is little chance
that the sludge reuse operation proposed by MWMC will
significantly affect surface water quality.
Erosion of sediment from sludge application sites is the
major pathway for metals to move from application areas to
surface waters. Metals tend to bind to organic matter, clay,
and iron and aluminum oxides (Williams et al. 1980) . Therefore,
metals contained in sludge become attached to these materials,
increasing the sediment metal concentrations. At the same time,
however, sludge application tends to reduce the volume of
sediment leaving an agricultural site, balancing any change in
the movement of heavy metals off of the site. Only a signifi-
cant amount of erosion related to prolonged winter rains or
flooding would be likely to contaminate surface waters with
heavy metals.
The potential for surface water contamination increases if
sludge is applied to a site for a number of years in succession.
Leaching, plant uptake, and runoff normally remove only a small
portion of the metals added to soil by sludge application. Most
metals remain in the top few centimeters of soil. Because the
capacity of a soil to "fix" metals may be limited (U. S. EPA
1976b), metals accumulated over a number of years may be more
vulnerable to leaching or runoff loss.
108
-------
Table 3-10. Annual and Total Sludge Metal Loadings Allowed
on Agricultural Land
Time Period Annual Cadmium Application Rate (kg/ha)
Present - 6/30/84 2.0
7/1/84 - 12/31/86 1.25
Beginning 1/1/87 0.5
Annual cadmium application must not exceed 0.5 kiloarams ber
hectore (kg/ha) on land used for production of tobacco, leafy
vegetables or root crops grown for human consumption.
Total Sludge Metal Loadings
Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (meg/100 g)
Metal 0-5 5-15 >15
Maximum Amount of Metal (kg/ha)
Lead 500 1,000 2,000
Zinc 250 500 1,000
Copper 125 250 500
Nickel 50 100 200
Cadmium 5 10 20
SOURCE: U. S. EPA 1977; 1978.
109
-------
Sludge may contain trace amounts of a number of herbicides
and pesticides. Sampling of Eugene and Springfield sludges
during 1978 revealed the presence of two organic toxins:
chlordane and 1254 PCB (Brown and Caldwell 1979). Chlordane is
a persistent insecticide that is water soluble (Sittig 1980),
while 1254 PCB is a relatively insoluble biphenyl. Both
compounds are slow to decompose. Because these organic toxins
are strongly adsorbed to organic matter, clay and metal oxides
(Lichtenstein 1971) , and are present in very small concentra-
tions, they are unlikely to affect surface water quality
adjacent to sludge application sites unless a significant amount
of soil erosion or flooding occurs. Of the two compounds,
chlordane is more likely to enter surface waters during flooding
because it is relatively soluble.
Microbial pathogens in sludge include bacteria, viruses,
and parasites. No data are available on the concentrations of
these pathogens in Eugene sludge. Most pathogenic bacteria are
destroyed or their populations greatly reduced by the anaerobic
digestion process. The fate of viruses and parasites is less
certain.
Most pathogens are readily adsorbed by soils with high clay
or organic matter contents and are relatively immobile (Kirkham
1974). Mobility and longevity of pathogens are dependent on
soil pH, temperature, moisture, and texture. Zenz et al. (1976)
monitored virus concentrations in surface waters draining a
sludge disposal site and were unable to detect levels different
from control sites.
In summary, most pathogenic organisms die during digestion
or immediately following land application. Like many other
potential pollutants, increased quantities of pathogens in
surface waters would only occur during periods of excessive
erosion (Kirkham 1974). Therefore, the risk of contamination is
greatest when flooding occurs. The rapid dilution by flood
waters would minimize impacts.
SHORT MOUNTAIN LANDFILL. Sludge would be transported to
the landfill only as a back-up under Alternative 1. Sludge
volumes taken to this facility therefore would be considerably
less than those proposed for the MWMC interim sludge management
plan. As indicated in the interim plan FNSI (U. S. EPA 1983a),
sludge disposal at the landfill is not expected to significantly
affect surface water quality over the next 5 years. Back-up
disposal at the landfill under Alternative 1, therefore, should
also have no significant effect on surface waters.
FORCE MAIN ROUTES. Rupture or leakage of the sludge supply
or supernatant return pipes could result in a significant impact
on surface water quality. The severity of the impact would
depend on the location and size of the leak, the time of year,
and the quality of material spilled. While the probability of a
major force main rupture or leak may be small, the potential
exists and is therefore discussed briefly.
110
-------
Although large leaks or ruptures could cause significant
short-term problems, these leaks would probably be located
quickly. Long-term problems could result from smaller leaks
which remain undetected for a long period of time. Proposed
periodic pressure testing of the project's two force mains would
greatly reduce the chance of having a small leak remain
undetected for a long period.
Although nearly all of the constituents found in sludge
could cause adverse water quality impacts, nitrogen as ammonia
or nitrate is most likely to cause a problem due to its mobility
and high concentration. Nitrogen leaked from the force main
would be discharged into the soil, where it could move into
surface or groundwaters. Due to the complex relationship
between local surface and groundwaters, it is likely that
nitrogen leaked from the force main would eventually be dis-
charged into a surface water body.
Other sludge constituents such as heavy metals, organic
toxins, and microbial pathogens are less likely to enter surface
waters. The majority of these potential pollutants would be
bound by soil particles in the area of the leak. These constit-
uents would enter surface waters in large quantities only if the
leak was very large or occurred immediately adjacent to a water
body or an area with porous soils.
The potential for surface water degradation from a leak or
break in the supernatant return line (see Figure 2-4) would be
greatest in the winter when the line would receive its greatest
use. The flow in the line would average about 625 gallons per
minute (assuming 8 hours of pumping per day), with a high BOD,
large suspended solid content, and an ammonia concentration of
approximately 300 mg/1 (Brown and Caldwell 1980). Heavy metals
and other pollutants which would not be on the lagoon's surface
would not be present in great quantities in the supernatant
return.
The proposed force main route to Site C and the Prairie
Road site does not cross any major rivers or creeks. Runoff
from areas crossed by the force main flows into Spring or Flat
Creeks. Therefore, pollutants leaked from the force main would
be mostly adsorbed in the soil before reaching surface waters.
The force main route to the Coburg Hills site crosses the
Willamette Main Stem, the McKenzie River, and the upper portion
of Muddy Creek. Due to the McKenzie's high water quality and
use, any large spill that entered the river would significantly
alter water quality.
SITE C. There are four major pathways for surface water
contamination at Site C:
o Runoff from drying beds.
o Runoff from other areas within the site.
o Elevated levels of contaminated groundwater.
o Flooding.
Ill
-------
Surface waters draining onto the site, such as the tribu-
tary to Flat Creek, would be routed around the project site
(Gould pers. coiran.j. Water generated on the site that may come
in contact with sludge or sludge residues would be collected and
pumped back to the storage lagoons. Site runoff that is not
likely to encounter sludge would flow untreated from the site
(Gould pers. comm.).
During the summer, the asphalt drying beds would be covered
with 8-12 inches of sludge. Sludge water and rainfall would be
skimmed from the surface and pumped to the storage lagoons
(Brown and Caldwell 1980). Overtopping of drying beds would
cause sludge water to enter perimeter ditches. These ditches
would surround the drying beds at an elevation below the gravel
layer underlying the asphalt base of the beds. Water in these
ditches would be pumped to the storage lagoons.
During the fall, the drying beds would be cleaned, with
cleaning water pumped to the storage lagoons. During the
winter, there would be no sludge on the drying beds and all
precipitation falling on the asphalt beds would become runoff.
Winter runoff could contain trace amounts of sludge constitu-
ents. This water would be monitored and released to Flat Creek
drainage channels only when levels are comparable to natural
stream channels (Brown and Caldwell 1980). Water that is not of
comparable quality would be pumped to the lagoons.
Runoff from parking areas, work areas, and the lagoon berms
would be discharged via ditches to Flat Creek tributaries. The
quantity and quality of this runoff would depend on the type of
surface coverage, site maintenance, and precipitation patterns.
Runoff would contain lead, zinc, hydrocarbons, and other poten-
tial pollutants derived from autos and trucks. Runoff may also
contain nitrates, nutrients, metals, and organics picked up as
runoff encounters sludge spilled in the transfer and loading
phases of the operation. Spills could also result from pipe
ruptures. Contamination of surface waters from on-site sludge
spills would be negligible during the summer due to the lack of
surface runoff. During the winter, the likelihood of sludge
spillage would be decreased because sludge would not be
transferred from the lagoons to the drying beds.
Probably the greatest potential for surface water
contamination at Site C would be from surfacing of contaminated
groundwater. This could occur in two ways:
o Discharge of contaminated groundwater into Flat Creek
tributaries or other drainages.
o "Recently surfaced" groundwater picking up pollutants
from the project site.
The Groundwater section of this EIS, however, concludes that,
barring a major spill, the project would have a negligible
impact on groundwater quality. Therefore, discharge of polluted
groundwater to surface waters is unlikely.
112
-------
There is little risk of flooding. According to FEMA flood
maps (1981) , Site C is above the 100-year floodplain of the
Willamette River. These maps identify a 200-foot-wide, 100-year
floodplain on either side of the Flat Creek tributary that
traverses the site. If this channel is diverted south of the
site as planned, flooding impacts would be minimal. Berms
around the lagoons and drying beds should also prevent flooding
of site facilities. In summary, the normal operation of the
facility at Site C would have a minor impact on the quality of
surface waters in the area.
PRAIRIE ROAD SITE. Runoff from much of this site drains
into the same Flat Creek tributary that drains Site C. On the
Prairie Road site, however, this tributary is slow-flowing and
more prone to overtopping its banks. This condition seems to be
caused by the inadequate passage provided under the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks. Extensive diversion of this drainage
channel would be necessary to keep surface water off the site.
The potential for contamination of surface waters is
similar to the first two pathways outlined in the Site C dis-
cussion. Due to the presence of coarser surface soils, a
greater percentage of water may infiltrate at the Prairie Road
site than at Site C. This would result in less runoff and
decrease the possibility of direct surface water contamination.
The coarser surface soils would make the Prairie Road site
more vulnerable than Site C to surface water contamination from
elevated groundwater. Groundwater would be most likely to move
over the surface at the southern portion of the site. Given
current conditions, the Prairie Road site is more prone to
flooding than Site C. Rerouting of drainage ways and construc-
tion of berms would minimize flood impacts.
In summary, the Prairie Road site may be slightly more
likely to produce adverse water quality impacts than Site C, but
impacts would still be minimal.
COBURG HILLS SITE. Site facilities and contamination
routes are similar to those described for Site C. Water leaving
the site flows northwest into a small bog. Suspended solids,
metals and other pollutants may settle out here, lessening the
impact to waters downstream. Because of the uncertainty regard-
ing subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, less is known
about the impacts from elevated groundwater on this site.
The potential for flooding on this site is greater than on
the other two sites. FEMA maps (1981) place the western one-
third of the site within the 100-year floodplain of Muddy Creek.
Extensive rerouting of drainage channels and possibly the swamp
west of the site may be necessary to avoid water quality damage.
113
-------
Alternative 2
Under this alternative, sludge would be mechanically
dewatered and air-dried. The mechanical dewatering would allow
a decrease in the number of air-drying beds.
Surface water quality impacts at Site C would be similar to
those described for Alternative 1. A slight decrease in the
potential for water quality degradation may result from fewer
drying beds. As proposed, this alternative would not require
the relocation of the Flat Creek tributary which bisects the
Alternative 1 site. The increases in turbidity associated with
stream relocation would therefore be eliminated.
If the Prairie Road site is chosen, the southern portion of
the site would not be developed. By not developing this area,
water quality impacts could be lessened significantly because
extensive stream relocation would not be necessary. The area
developed under this alternative is also less prone to surface
ponding and flooding.
Similar reasoning applies to development of the Coburg
Hills site. Alternative 2 would eliminate development of
approximately 45 acres of land located at the west end of the
site that would be utilized under Alternative 1. This would
eliminate the rerouting of two streams necessary under the first
alternative.
In summary, the surface water quality impacts at the sludge
management sites of Alternative 2 would be negligible and less
than those of Alternative 1. Impacts to surface waters along
the force main route would be identical to those described for
Alternative 1.
Impacts at the agricultural reuse sites would be similar to
those described for Alternative 1. If significant quantities of
mechanically dewatered rather than air-dried sludge are applied
to agricultural land, the loading of heavy metals (per acre) and
potential for their movement in runoff would be less than those
of Alternative 1. The potential for organic toxin and pathogen
contamination of surface waters would also be similar to that
described for Alternative 1, but would vary, depending on the
ratio of mechanically dewatered to air-dried sludge used.
Water quality impacts at the landfill would be essentially
the same as those described for Alternative 1.
Alternative 3
This is essentially a continuation and expansion of the
MWMC interim plan. Permanent mechanical dewatering facilities
would be constructed at the RWTP and sludge would be hauled to
the Short Mountain Landfill for winter disposal and to agricul-
tural land for summer reuse.
114
-------
The increased sludge volume compared to Phase I may in-
crease the potential for spillage at the RWTP. It is doubtful,
however, that enough spillage would occur to result in measur-
able decreases in the quality of the Willamette River. Surface
water quality impacts at the agricultural reuse sites would be
similar to those described for Alternative 1. Impacts at the
Short Mountain Landfill would also be similar to those of the
interim plan described in the EPA FNSI (U. S. EPA 1983a). The
larger sludge volumes would result in increased loadings of
heavy metals, nitrogen, organic toxins, and pathogens. This may
increase the potential for water quality degradation, but
widespread pollution is unlikely due to the leachate control
measures utilized at the landfill.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Agricultural Application Sites
Potential agricultural reuse sites should be visited during
the winter prior to summer application. This would allow
identification of those areas where surface waters are present.
Buffer zones could then be established and the necessity of
rerouting of drainage ways could be investigated.
Summer application of sludge should take place only during
dry periods. If possible, application should also occur when
continued dry weather is expected, thus allowing maximum photo-
chemical degradation of organic toxins and biological pathogens.
A surface water quality monitoring program should be estab-
lished prior to sludge application. Monitoring of heavy metals,
ammonia, nitrates, and coliform bacteria should receive top
priority- If funds allow, levels of toxic organics and other
biological pathogens should be monitored. Monitoring of surface
water and sediment should occur due to the association of many
contaminants with eroded soil or sludge particles. Monitoring
should be particularly intense during the first fall rains when
surface water degradation is most likely to occur.
Sludge application guidelines outlined by the DEQ (1981)
should be followed.
Short Mountain Landfill
The potential for surface water degradation could be
decreased by implementing the following:
o Expand the surface water monitoring program in Camas
Swale Creek to include testing for heavy metals,
pathogens and, if possible, organic toxins.
o Expand the groundwater monitoring program to determine
if pollutants are moving in the groundwater from the
115
-------
landfill to Camas Swale Creek. This program should be
designed to determine the type and quantity of any
pollutants moving through the groundwater, and to allow
identification of contamination sources (i.e., lagoon,
lagoon sump, landfill itself).
Force Main Routes (Alternatives 1 and 2)
Mitigation measures should be tailored to prevent leakage
and could include:
o Properly design and locate the force main routes to
avoid unstable areas such as cuts and fills.
o At river and stream crossings, place pipe well above the
100-year flood mark to allow passage of debris.
o Carefully place backfill over the pipe to avoid pipe
damage.
o Clearly identify the pipeline route to avoid accidental
rupture of the pipe by construction or utility crews.
o Periodically pressure test the force mains to detect
leaks.
o Develop a spill response plan to ensure prompt and
effective action in the event of a leak.
Sludge Management Sites
Of the four major pathways for surface water contamination,
the first pathway, runoff from the drying beds, should provide
little risk for contamination, providing perimeter ditches are
operated correctly. Ditches should be lined with an erosion-
resistant material and maintained regularly- Ditches should be
designed to contain runoff from the drying beds even during a
large storm event. Following sludge removal in the fall, the
beds should be cleaned promptly and thoroughly. Cleaning should
be followed by visual inspection to check for cracks. During
the summer, sludge should be placed on the beds at a depth which
would allow the addition of rainfall without overtopping.
Machinery used for mixing and removing sludge should operate in
a manner which would not harm the asphalt.
The second pathway, which is runoff from other areas within
the site, provides the opportunity for a number of water quality
impacts. A concrete pad equipped with a drain should be con-
structed adjacent to the air-drying beds where sludge handling
equipment would be working. Washdown facilities should also be
provided at this site to minimize spillage at other areas on the
site and during transport. Water from this facility should be
routed back to the storage lagoons. Lagoon walls and floors
should contain a compacted clay or synthetic seal.
116
-------
The third pathway for surface water contamination is via
elevated groundwater levels. Contamination could be minimized
by scheduling an annual site clean-up each fall following sludge
removal from the drying beds. This clean-up would involve the
drying beds, perimeter ditches, lagoon berms, and other areas
within the site.
Mitigation measures to control the fourth pathway, flood-
ing, would also help minimize impacts from elevated groundwater.
These could include berm construction adequate to protect drying
beds, perimeter ditches, transfer points, and storage lagoons.
Influence on Soil Character and Use
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Regional Setting and Agricultural Sites
Soils in the region are derived from volcanic and sedimen-
tary bedrock and from alluvial (river deposited) sediments.
Soil textures range from gravelly sands to heavy clays.
Soil use in the area is highly variable, with agricultural
and urban land occupying the majority of the region. In 1979,
approximately 60 percent of the region's lands were devoted to
agricultural use (Brown and Caldwell 1979). Table 3-11 presents
acreages for the major crops grown within Lane County. In
general, grass seed, pasture, and hay crops occupy the most land
with peppermint, beans, corn, and wheat occupying lesser
amounts. Crop selection is often dictated by site drainage.
Grass seed is an important crop in Lane and Linn Counties.
Rye-grass is grown for seed on clayey, river bottom sites which
are often partially flooded. Few other crops can be grown on
these poorly drained sites. Annual rye-grass is usually grown
on slightly drier sites than perennial rye-grass because the wet
sites may be damaged by the increased traffic necessary for
annual cropping. Blue grass, orchard grass, and tall fescue are
cultivated on soils which are slightly better drained. Many
grass fields are used for grazing of sheep in the fall. Pasture
and hay crops are grown on a rotation and permanent basis on a
variety of moderately well drained sites.
Peppermint, corn, beans, and wheat are grown on the moder-
ately well drained soils of alluvial bottomlands and terraces.
Peppermint, corn, and beans are the primary irrigated crops.
The Groundwater Quality section of this EIS has identified
four local soil groups based on parent material and drainage
characteristics. The major use of each soil group is as fol-
lows:
117
-------
Table 3-11. Lane County Agricultural Land
Use for 1981
CROP ACREAGE
Wheat 21,000
Barley 400
Oats 2,900
Alfalfa 1,500
Clover and grass hay 20,000
Corn (silage) 1,800
Sweet corn 4,300
Beans 3,370
Peppermint 5,000
Bentgrass 600
Tall fescue 2,000
Annual rye-grass 4,800
Perennial rye-grass 5,500
Kentucky bluegrass 100
Orchard grass 2,400
Filberts 2,810
Walnuts 150
Apples 50
Sweet cherries 325
Sour cherries 240
Peaches 60
SOURCE: Oregon State University Extension
Service 1982.
118
-------
Soil Group Land Use
Group 1 Mainly agricultural, beans, corn, wheat,
pasture
Group 2 Agriculture and urban, pasture, grass seed,
corn, beans, peppermint
Group 3 Agriculture, pasture and rye-grass, very
poorly drained
Group 4 Agriculture, timber, pasture, some row crops
on flat areas
Site C/Prairie Road
Soils on these sites belong to soil Groups 2 and 3. Site C
contains Malabon, Coburg (Group 2) and Awbrig (Group 3) soils,
while Prairie Road contains Malabon, Coburg, Awbrig, and Salem
(Group 2) soils.
Coburg soils are moderately well drained and suitable for a
wide variety of crops. Low lying areas, however, may be subject
to flooding and have slower drainage. Malabon soils are similar
to Coburg soils but have a coarser substratum. Awbrig soils are
poorly drained and experience high winter groundwater levels.
The wet conditions and dense clay subsoil limits crop production
to pasture and rye-grass seed. Salem soils are well drained and
have a coarser surface and substrate texture than the other
soils on the two sites (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1981).
Currently, these sites are used for rye-grass seed
production with some pasture. No row crops are cultivated on
these sites.
Coburg Hills Site
The Coburg Hills site is underlain by Group 3 soils of the
Bashaw series. These soils are nearly identical to the Awbrig ,
series described previously (USDA Soil Conservation Service
1981) . Bashaw soils can support only pasture grasses and
rye-grass due to the poor drainage, high winter groundwater
levels, and dense clay subsoil.
Short Mountain Landfill
The Short Mountain Landfill is underlain by Group 3 and
Group 4 soils of the Natroy, Bashaw, Nekia, and Witzel series.
Soils on the site are heavy textured and possess high cation
exchange capacities and clay contents. Soils on the lower,
southern portion of the site are deep and poorly drained. The
higher, northern portion of the site is underlain by the Group 4
soils. Although these soils are also heavy textured, they are
slightly better drained than the Group 3 soils. Basaltic bedrock
underlies these soils at depths of 1-3 feet and often creates
perched water tables.
119
-------
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
Soils underlying the treatment plant are within soil Group 1
and consist of the Newberg and Camas series. These soils possess
sandy loam surface textures and are underlain by somewhat exces-
sively drained sands and gravels.
Soil productivity and use is limited by the coarse substra-
tum. Excessive leaching has removed much of the nitrogen and
carbon (organic matter) from surface and lower soil horizons.
The cation exchange capacity (ability to retain positively
charged nutrients and metals) is low for both soils. Leaching
has also resulted in low soil pH and a shallow rooting depth.
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4)
The effect of Alternative 4 on soil character and use cannot
be assessed without knowing the specific approach MWMC would take
in the absence of adequate sludge handling facilities beyond
1989. If increasing volumes of liquid sludge were trucked from
the RWTP to the landfill or agricultural lands, some eventual
soil degradation would be expected. It is likely that the impact
of this action would be greater than those of the other three
project alternatives.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
AGRICULTURAL APPLICATION SITES. Future use of sludge
application sites is unlikely to change if sludge is applied at
agronomic rates. Application of sludge to agricultural lands at
the rates proposed would not have a major impact on soil texture,
structure or pH. Slight improvements of soil stability and
infiltration rate could be expected, and an increase in soil
cation exchange capacity (CEC) may occur, especially if the
antecedent value was low.
Long-term soil use is more likely to be altered through
increases in the nutrient, heavy metal, organic toxin, and
biological pathogen content of the soil. In general, significant
increases in nearly all plant nutrients could be expected. The
concern for nitrogen overloading and possible leaching have
spawned criteria for sludge application rates based on the
nitrogen requirement of the receiving crop. The EPA has estab-
lished maximum food chain crop nitrogen additions based on crop
requirement, residual soil nitrogen, and sludge nitrogen content.
The Oregon DEQ has adopted these guidelines and applies them to
all agricultural land.
Annual nitrogen additions based on these criteria are
unlikely to affect the species grown or the long-term use of the
120
-------
soil. The additional nitrogen may even allow a wider variety of
crops to be grown. Sludge is likely to increase the yield of
most crops (Kirkham 1974). Increases in the yield of corn from
sludge-treated fields in the Willamette Valley, for example, were
nearly proportional to the sludge ammonia content in a study by
Hemphill et al. (1982) .
The presence of biological pathogens, organic toxins, and
heavy metals in sludge has the greatest influence on future use
of soils amended with sludge. DEQ (1981) has established a
number of guidelines to regulate use of sludge application sites
so that pathogens do not create a public health hazard. These
include:
o Crops grown for direct human consumption should not be
planted until 18 months after sludge application. If the
edible parts will not be in contact with the sludge
amended soil, or if the crop is to be treated or pro-
cessed prior to marketing such that pathogen contamina-
tion is not a concern, this requirement may be waived.
o Grazing animals should not come in contact with digested
sludge or effluent-treated pasture or forage until 30
days after application.
o Controlled access to sludge application sites for 12
months following a surface application is required.
Access control is assumed on rural private land.
Application of sludge is unlikely to cause long-term soil use
changes due to the accumulation of biological pathogens. Sur-
vival of most pathogens is greatly reduced when they are exposed
to the atmosphere and competition from native microorganisms.
Organic toxins applied with the sludge are unlikely to cause
a change in soil use due to their low concentration in local
sludges. There are no state or federal guidelines relating to
organic toxins in sludges if the concentrations of PCBs in the
sludge is less than 10 mg/kg. Eugene/Springfield sludge con-
tained 0.14 mg/kg PCB in 1978 (Brown and Caldwell 1979).
Heavy metals, therefore, present the greatest risk for
potential alteration of soil use. As part of the DEQ sludge
application permit, the heavy metal loading associated with
sludge application is calculated. Based on this figure and the
maximum allowable metal loadings (Table 3-10), the total number
of years sludge can be safely applied is calculated.
Although sludge application based on these calculations
would allow the production of food chain crops, it is generally
recognized that certain crops are at a greater risk to metal
uptake than others. In general, leafy vegetables such as spin-
ach, chard, tobacco, and root crops take up the greatest quantity
of metals. The EPA has recognized this and issued special
recommendations for these crops (Table 3-10).
121
-------
Of the crops grown in the Willamette Valley, the most
research has been done with corn. Hemphill et al. (1982) found
that corn leaf tissue zinc and cadmium content was greater for
plants grown on sludge-amended soil than on control soil.
Commercial fertilizers were also found to increase the tissue
concentration of these metals. These authors found only slight
increases in the kernel metal content. These results are consis-
tent with other reports that cadmium increases in fruits, grain,
and that other storage tissues are less than those in leaf
tissues. Researchers have found that increased uptake of
cadmium by beans, corn, lettuce, and chard may continue for up
to 8 years after application.
Only a limited amount of research has been done with grass
crops. Chaney et al. (1974) reported increases in the foliar
zinc concentration of pasture grasses grown on a 24-year-old
sludge disposal site. No increases in cadmium concentrations
were noted. Similarly, Johnson et al. (1974) reported only
increases in the zinc content of perennial grasses. Preliminary
results indicate that fescue may take up slight to moderate
amounts of heavy metals, including cadmium (Jackson pers. comm.).
Group 1 soils are unlikely to witness a soil use change as a
result of sludge application. These soils are used primarily for
food chain crops which are not planned to receive sludge. The
low organic matter and clay content of these soils would not
favor the retention of heavy metals or organic toxins.
Group 2 soils would be most vulnerable to soil use changes
resulting from sludge application. This is due to the soils high
metal retention capabilities and the wide variety of crops grown
on these soils. If a change in soil characteristics such as pH
or zinc content accompanied a crop change on a sludge-amended
field, undesirable metal uptake could occur in some plant spe-
cies .
The use of Group 3 soils is not likely to be changed by
sludge application. These soils are too wet and heavy-textured
to support vegetation other than pasture and rye-grass. Group 4
soils are unlikely to receive sludge due to their steep slopes
and shallow depth.
FORCE MAIN ROUTES. Soil use along the force main routes
would only be affected by a large leak in the sludge delivery
line. The possibility of a large leak, however, is small. It is
unlikely that future soil use would be affected by leaks from the
supernatant return pipe. This pipe would not carry significant
quantities of metals and organic toxins, which are the primary
constituents which would alter soil use.
If the sludge delivery line developed a large leak, loadings
of heavy metals and nitrogen could accumulate in soils above
those recommended for food chain crops. Contaminants leaked from
the pipe could disperse more rapidly than those surface-applied
122
-------
because of the lesser amounts of organic matter at the depths
the pipe would be buried. Pipe burial would also limit
photochemical degradation of organic toxins leaked.
SITE C. Future use of the soils at Site C would be affected
primarily at the sludge lagoons and air-drying beds. The surface
soils in these areas would be excavated or covered with asphalt.
Long-term storage of sludge in the lagoons could also lead to
some build-up of heavy metals in the surrounding soil. This
would likely eliminate the possibility of growing food chain
crops in this area if it were to eventually return to an agricul-
tural use.
Soil on other portions of the site would only be affected by
major sludge spillages or chronic leakage of sludge. Proper
operation and maintenance of the facilities would avoid this type
of contamination.
PRAIRIE ROAD SITE. Impacts to the future use of this site's
soils are essentially the same as those described for Site C.
The presence of coarser soil layers on this site, however, may
allow contaminants to move into the groundwater and not be as
readily bound by soils. The Prairie Road site, therefore, may
contain fewer contaminants than Site C for the same amount of
sludge spilled. This may result in fewer land use limitations in
the future.
COBURG HILLS SITE. Impacts to the future use of soils on
this site are essentially the same as those described for Site C.
SHORT MOUNTAIN LANDFILL. Future use of the soils at the
Short Mountain Landfill would not be significantly affected by
back-up disposal of sludge under this alternative, unless the
sludge was applied on the surface of completed fill areas.
Future use of the site will be restricted because of the long-
term use of the site as a sanitary landfill. Current plans
indicate that sludge going to the landfill site would be mixed
with other solid waste and incorporated into the fill; it would
not be applied to the surface.
Alternative 2
The soil use impacts of this alternative would be essential-
ly the same as those described for Alternative 1, except that a
smaller area of soil would be affected by construction and
operation of sludge drying beds. Only 33 acres of drying beds
are needed for Alternative 2; this is 17 acres less than Alterna-
tive 1.
Alternative 3
This alternative is essentially a continuation of the MWMC
interim project, with no construction o,f off-site facilities.
Impacts to the agricultural reuse sites would be similar to those
123
-------
described for Alternative 1. Increases in sludge volume over
Phase I would result in heavier loadings of metals and toxins at
the landfill. The sludge volume increase would also facilitate
an increase in the quantity of land utilized for agricultural
reuse of sludge.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Alternatives 1 and 2
Mitigation of soil impacts would be essentially the same for
these two alternatives. At the treatment and storage sites, and
along the force main route, procedures should be developed to
minimize spillage or leakage of sludge onto the surface. Plans
for rapid clean-up of any spills that do occur should be devel-
oped and implemented by operations staff.
At agricultural reuse sites, sludge should be applied only
at the rates considered acceptable by DEQ. Application should
occur at rates which maximize plant uptake of nutrients and limit
the total amount of heavy metals or organic toxins which might
accumulate in the surface layers of the soil. Application timing
should also be geared to compliance with DEQ restrictions on
grazing, public access, and growth of food chain crops.
Alternative 3
Control of sludge application rates on agricultural reuse
sites would be needed for Alternative 3, as described for Alter-
natives 1 and 2.
Public Health Risks
INTRODUCTION
Health risks associated with municipal sewage sludge treat-
ment, disposal, and reuse can be generally classified into two
major categories: exposure to microbial pathogens and exposure
to toxic chemicals. Potentially, the public could be exposed to
these agents through drinking water contamination, the food
chain, direct human contact, inhalation of contaminated aerosols
or dust, or animal or insect vectors as carriers of contamination
and disease.
Prior to treatment, municipal sewage has high concen-
trations of both pathogenic and nonpathogenic organisms, as well
as varying concentrations of heavy metals and other toxic sub-
stances. The wastewater treatment process tends to concentrate
microorganisms and other organic and inorganic particulate matter
in the sludge. Heavy metals and many organic chemicals form
precipitates or bind with the particulate organic matter in the
waste stream. They also tend to concentrate in the sludge.
124
-------
Most pathogenic microorganisms in the sludge are of human
enteric origin from infected individuals served by the waste-
water collection system (see Appendix C for a list of pathogens
occurring in wastewater and sludge and their associated dis-
eases) . Sources of toxic substances in the sludge include
industrial and commercial wastes as well as improper disposal of
household pesticides, solvents, and other chemicals.
The first part of this section discusses water contamina-
tion, food chain, direct contact, and aerosol health risks.
Vector-related risks are discussed separately at the end of the
section.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sludge Treatment
Sludge produced at the Eugene and Springfield WTPs is
anaerobically digested, which accomplishes several public
health-related improvements including mineralization and stabi-
lization of putrescible organic material, and destruction of many
of the pathogenic organisms present in the sludge. Not all
pathogens, however, are destroyed in the process (Burge & Marsh
1978; Clark et al. 1981; Miller 1973). Many toxic organic
substances are also made less toxic in the process, either
through volatilization or degradation. Persistent organics such
as PCBs, chlorinated hydrocarbons and certain pesticides, if
present, are commonly not affected by digestion and are passed
through the process. Heavy metals and metal compounds are
commonly converted from an oxidized to a reduced state, but are
not destroyed. A portion of the organic nitrogen in the sludge
is mineralized in the digester. Tables B-l and B-2 in Appendix B
indicate the concentrations of some of the more common consti-
tuents of concern found in treated sludge from the Eugene and
Springfield WTPs.
There is currently no indication that sludge treatment at
either the Eugene or Springfield WTPs is creating a public health
hazard. Treatment plant workers are the most at risk, but plant
safety measures are invoked to keep risk to a minimum.
Sludge Disposal
Eugene/Springfield sludge is currently disposed of by
spreading on the land (agricultural reuse or local horticultural
use) or trucking to the Short Mountain Landfill. Agricultural
application is restricted to the summer months. The digested
sludge is trucked to and spread on selected agricultural land in
liquid form.
In the Willamette Valley around the Eugene/Springfield area
there are areas of coarse, gravelly/sandy soils with very high
permeability that could be potential conduits of bacterial and
125
-------
viral pollution to groundwater or adjacent surface waters. At
the present time, a comprehensive screening procedure for se-
lection of agricultural and forest sludge reuse sites has been
adopted by MWMC which includes consideration of land constraints
and soil characteristics (MWMC 1982). If these characteristics
are unsuitable for protecting surface and groundwaters from
microbial contamination, the site is rejected as a sludge reuse
site, thus reducing the risk of microbial pathogen contamination.
In addition to potential microbial contamination of drinking
water supplies, agricultural reuse may also present certain
health risks from microbial contamination of food crops. The
MWMC and DEQ guidelines specifically state that only nonfood
chain crops should be grown on sludge-amended soils during the
sludge application period, and that there should be a waiting
period of at least 18 months after the last sludge application
before crops for direct human consumption can be planted (MWMC
1982; Oregon DEQ 1981). If these guidelines are adhered to, the
risk of infection from foodstuffs grown on sludge reuse sites is
expected to be minimal.
Risk of infection from direct public contact with sludge
reuse sites is also minimized by operational requirements spec-
ified in the MWMC and DEQ guidelines. "Controlled access to
municipal sludge . . . application sites for 12 months following
surface application is required" (Oregon DEQ 1981). Farmers and
workers who will be in the fields applying the sludge should be
aware of the potential risks of contamination and take appropri-
ate measures to avoid infection.
The public health risk of exposure to aerosols or contam-
inated dust from agricultural reuse sites is minimal. DEQ
guidelines, as well as the actual permit conditions for sludge
application, establish buffer zones for sludge application and
prohibit spray irrigation "when wind conditions exist that will
allow aerosols to drift offsite," which should keep the risk of
public exposure to aerosols during sludge application to a
minimum. Obviously, direct land application of dewatered sludge
or injection of liquid sludge would eliminate this risk almost
entirely. Some risks of inhalation exposure may also exist
during dry, dusty conditions, but these types of conditions are
also very detrimental to bacterial and viral survival.
Heavy metals which have been reported in sludge from the
Eugene wastewater treatment plant include lead, zinc, copper,
chromium, nickel, cadmium, boron, mercury, molybdenum, selenium,
aluminum, antimony, iron, and manganese (Brown and Caldwell
1980). Metals of concern to public health in drinking water sup-
plies include arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
selenium, and silver. Maximum allowable contaminant levels for
drinking water have been established for each of these metals by
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations as shown
in Tables 3-12 and A-l (U. S. EPA 1977a). From an aesthetic
point of view, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc are also
126
-------
important (secondary standards exist for these constituents)
These last four metals may affect taste and color, or cause
staining problems in laundry if they occur at excessive
concentrations in domestic water supplies (40 CFR 143).
Table 3-12. Maximum Contaminant Levels for
Metals in Drinking Water
Modified from: U. S. EPA 1977a
CONTAMINANT LEVEL, MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.
Cadmium 0.010
Chromium 0.05
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
The heavy metals in the sludge applied to agricultural
lands may accumulate in the soils, be assimilated by the plants
and crops, and/or leach from the soil into the groundwater or
adjacent surface waters. However, the soils in the Eugene/
Springfield area used for agricultural application of sludge are
well suited for holding and precipitating heavy metals from
solution, thus making them largely unavailable for leaching into
the water supplies or being assimilated by the plants. This is
especially true during the summer months when the soils are well
aerated and the net soil moisture flow is toward the surface.
A greater risk of water contamination occurs during the wet
weather months when the land may be flooded. This, coupled with
the natural acidity of the Willamette Valley soils, may cause
the metals to become more mobile and pose a potential risk of
contaminating groundwater and adjacent surface waters. Fortu-
nately, the metal concentrations in Eugene/Springfield sludge
are relatively low and sludge application rates to agricultural
lands, in terms of metal loading, are also low. In addition,
the period of potential metal leaching occurs when water levels,
groundwater flow and recharge rates are high, resulting in
substantial dilution of any metals that might leach. The two
factors of low application rates and a high dilution factor will
reduce the risk of ground or surface water pollution by heavy
metals. MWMC guidelines call for monitoring water supply wells
near sludge reuse sites to ensure safe drinking water (MWMC
1982).
Public health risks from heavy metal exposure through the
food chain are very small. The DEQ Guidelines for Land
127
-------
Application of Wastewater and Sludge (Oregon DEQ 1981) , as
adopted by the MWMC (1982) provide very stringent controls on
loading rates for heavy metals on agricultural land to protect
the crops as well as livestock and people who might consume the
crops. In addition, MWMC only permits application of sludge to
nonfood chain crops. The sludge application rates are limited
by nitrate concentration rather than heavy metals, thus
providing a 100-1,000 fold safety factor in the loading of
metals on agricultural land for any given year. Since metals
tend to accumulate in the soil and nitrates do not, each site
will also have a specific "lifespan" for reusing sludge, at
which time the metals concentration in the soil will be
approaching the maximum safe limit. For existing reuse sites,
this lifespan varies from 65-167 years, assuming maximum
allowable annual applications of sludge as determined by the DEQ
guidelines (Lowenkron pers. comm.).
Build-up of either cadmium or zinc is generally the limit-
ing factor for determination of the useful lifespan of the land
for sludge applications. Excess levels of zinc in the soil can
be toxic to plants, whereas excess levels of cadmium are assim-
ilated by leafy plants and can be toxic to animals or people
consuming the plants. The natural acidity of the soils in the
Willamette Valley may result in metal phytotoxicity to certain
sensitive plant species if metal accumulations approaching the
DEQ guideline limits are permitted. The degree of phytotoxicity
will depend on the total metal loading in the soils and on the
acidity of the soils (Sommers 1980). Due to the much higher
concentrations of zinc, as compared to cadmium in the sludge, it
is unlikely that cadmium could accumulate to levels in foods
considered hazardous to animals and humans. The plants would be
killed by the zinc before cadmium accumulated by the plants
would reach hazardous levels. Cadmium to zinc ratios of less
than 0.015 will provide this safety factor (42 FR 57426 [Novem-
ber 2, 1977]). The cadmium/zinc ratio for Eugene sludge, as
calculated from sludge application permits (Lowenkron pers.
comm.) and data from Brown and Caldwell (1980), range from 0.008
to 0.002 with an average of about 0.005. This should provide
adequate protection of the food chain from cadmium accumulation.
As mentioned, the application rate of sludge to agricul-
tural land is currently limited by the nitrogen content of the
sludge. The inorganic and, to some extent, the organic nitrogen
in the sludge is a nutrient for plant growth. If nitrogen is
applied to the land in excess of the crop requirements, nitrate
nitrogen may move with water through the soil, potentially
polluting groundwater or adjacent surface waters (Page and Pratt
1975). Application of sewage sludge to agricultural lands in
accordance with MWMC and DEQ guidelines limits the loading of
available nitrogen to that which can be utilized by the crop
being grown.
EPA has established a standard of 10 mg/1 for nitrate-
nitrogen in drinking water (40 CFR 141). Currently, groundwater
in several locations in the Eugene/Springfield area is close to
128
-------
or exceeds this nitrate standard. Sources of nitrate pollution
other than sewage sludge include septic systems, leaky sewer
systems, livestock wastes, and agricultural fertilizers. It
appears that one or more of these sources is already polluting
groundwater aquifers in the area.
Low concentrations of toxic organic residues have also been
found in Eugene sewage sludge. These include chlordane (.05-
.07 ppm) and 1254 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) (.14-.15 ppm)
(Brown and Caldwell 1980) . These substances, as well as other
toxic organic residues that may be present generally, have a
very low solubility in water and are not readily mobile in the
soil (Dacre 1980) . This combination of low solubility and low
concentration results in a very low public health risk to water
supplies from toxic organics on agricultural lands.
Although there may be a slight risk of food chain con-
tamination with toxic organics after sludge application has
stopped (food chain crops are not permitted during the period of
sludge application), based on the evidence available, this risk
would be minimal. Chlordane has a half life in soils of 2-4
years and PCBs have a half life substantially longer, resulting
in a marked potential for accumulation of chlordane and PCBs in
the soils over several consecutive years of sludge application
(Dacre 1980) . Webber et al. (1983) assessed PCB uptake by
various plants at 10 different sludge treatment and application
sites. For PCB concentrations and application rates similar to
or higher than those reported for Eugene/Springfield, Webber
found no significant difference in PCB concentrations in crops
grown on sludge application sites as compared to controls.
Braude et al. (1975) reported plant uptake levels for persistent
organics of 5-20 percent of the levels in the soil. Occasional
monitoring of crops grown on reuse sites would be prudent to
ensure that levels of toxic substances do not accumulate to
dangerous levels.
Landfill Disposal
The disposal of liquid sludge by spray irrigation on closed
portions of the landfill has similar health risks to agricul-
tural application except for the^following:
o The risk of drinking water contamination by either
microorganisms, metals, or toxic chemicals from the
sludge is reduced due to the hydrologic isolation of the
landfill from drinking water supplies.
o The risk of food chain contamination is virtually elim-
inated due to the improbability of ever using the land-
fill as a source of food chain crops.
o The risk of direct human contact to sludge is slightly
higher due to the increased numbers of individuals that
visit and use the landfill as compared to agricultural
reuse areas. Strict adherence to MWMC and DEQ
129
-------
guidelines for sludge application, buffer zones, and
controlled access and application during windy
conditions is required in order to minimize this risk.
o The risk of exposure by inhalation of aerosols during
spray irrigation of sludge on the landfill is slightly
higher for the same reasons given for direct contact
exposure.
Landfill disposal of dewatered sludge poses some special
health risks. Pathogens and certain heavy metals contained in
leachate may pass through the landfill more readily than through
soils. Lofy et al. (1977) reported iron and lead contamination
of groundwater from eight landfills receiving various quantities
of sewage sludge. Landfills receiving sewage sludge only, as
well as those receiving a combination of sewage sludge and
refuse, were included in the study. Liquid associated with the
sludge contributes to leachate from the landfill. This will
increase the peak volumes of leachate, since sludge is generally
landfilled during the wettest months of the year; however, the
total volume of leachate from the landfill is large compared to
the volume contributed by the sludge over any given period. As
part of the landfill design, the leachate is collected and
treated in a lagoon; it is then sprayed back over the landfill
surface to encourage evaporation. Water quality in the Coast
Fork Willamette River is carefully monitored to detect any
degradation caused by the landfill operations. No significant
effects have been reported. There are no known domestic water
supplies (either wells or surface water) hydraulically linked to
the landfill area, so risk to public health through drinking
water contamination at the landfill is minimal.
By burying the dewatered sludge in the landfill, the risks
to the public associated with microbial contamination either
through contact, foodstuffs, or inhalation of aerosols is vir-
tually nonexistent. In wet weather conditions, handling and
covering the sludge may be difficult, and reasonable care should
be taken to protect landfill personnel from infection due to
direct exposure to the sludge.
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4)
The public health risks of the No Project Alternative are
discussed in detail in the previous section on existing con-
ditions. These conditions will be in effect for the near
future. At some time in the future, however, the capacity of
the Phase I centrifuges to adequately dewater the sludge prior
to landfill disposal will be exceeded. This will result in
excess liquid sludge being disposed of either in the landfill or
in some other as yet to be determined manner.
If excess liquid sludge were disposed of in the landfill,
this would increase the volume of leachate being generated.
130
-------
This could, in turn, cause deterioration of water quality in the
receiving streams and rivers. Deterioration of stream and river
water quality could indirectly impact health through both
recreational and commercial use of the waters, including
fishing, swimming, and irrigation.
So far, suitable methods for disposing of liquid sludge in
the Eugene/Springfield area during the wet winter months, other
than those discussed as alternatives in this report, have not
been identified. If the No Project Alternative were pursued,
MWMC would have to address this problem some time in the future
to ensure disposal of the sludge in a manner that would not
contaminate drinking water supplies or otherwise adversely
impact the health of the citizens of Eugene/Springfield and
surrounding areas.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 involves the construction of storage lagoons
at one,of three alternative off-site locations, pumping and
storage of all sludge in the lagoons in the winter with air
drying, and agricultural reuse of the sludge in the summer. The
Short Mountain Landfill will serve as a back-up for disposal of
air-dried sludge if agricultural land is not available. The use
of the centrifuges at the treatment plant will be discontinued.
STORAGE LAGOONS.
The public health impacts of the storage lagoons include:
o Additional reduction of microbial pathogens during
lagoon storage.
o Reduction or elimination of the need for sludge disposal
during the winter.
o Potential of drinking water contamination from leaky
lagoon.
o Potential for animal vector transmission of contamina-
tion.
Dotson (1973), in a review of the literature, reported that
storage for long periods is one of the simplest methods of
reducing pathogen levels in domestic sewage sludge. One study
cited by Dotson (1973) reported a 99.9 percent reduction in
fecal coliforms following a 30-day storage period. Gerba (1983)
cited a number of studies reporting virus, bacteria, and para-
site inactivation in sludge lagoons ranging from 50-100 percent.
Brown and Caldwell (1980) also cited literature reporting
98-99.99 percent 'reduction of various bacteria in FSLs. It is
safe to say that prolonged lagoon storage will significantly
reduce the total number of pathogens present in the sludge. The
131
-------
degree of reduction is proportional to the length of retention
in storage, which will vary depending on the time of year.
During the summer, sludge will be removed from the lagoons
faster than it is added, and during the winter no sludge will be
removed.
Another beneficial impact of the sludge storage lagoons
will be the elimination or reduction of the need for sludge
disposal during the winter months. The health risks associated
with landfilling of sludge will be reduced by summer disposal of
dewatered sludge.
The sludge storage lagoons will increase the risk of
groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the lagoons if the
lagoons develop leaks. If properly constructed and maintained,
the risk of leaks to the ground or surface waters can be greatly
reduced. If leaks develop, the public health impacts could
include pollution of nearby downgradient domestic water wells
with microbial pathogens, heavy metals, nitrate, ammonia, and/or
toxic organic chemicals. The migration of pathogens, heavy
metals, ammonia, and organic chemicals will be restricted by the
filtering and attenuating properties of the soils between the
lagoons and the water wells. Areas with coarse gravel and sand
deposits will provide less protection against migration of these
contaminants than those with fine-textured soils. Nitrates are
not readily attenuated and will move freely through the soils in
the direction of local groundwater flow.
As pointed out in the Groundwater Quality section of this
report, areas near Site C and the Prairie Road site have report-
ed elevated nitrate concentrations and bacterial contamination
in the groundwater. All reasonable attempts should be made to
avoid any additional nitrate and bacterial contamination of the
groundwater and to control existing sources of contamination if
groundwater is going to be a continuing source of drinking water
for residents in this area.
There are fewer water supply wells close to the Coburg
Hills site than to Site C and Prairie Road. Existing
groundwater quality information near the Coburg Hills site is
limited. It is reasonable to expect continued development and
use of groundwater as the primary source of water for both
domestic and agricultural use in the Coburg Hills area. Due to
the lower density of development in this area than at Prairie
Road and Site C, the immediate public health risks from drinking
water contamination at the Coburg Hills site will be less.
Contamination of surface water from the storage lagoons is
unlikely except in the improbable event of a breach of the
lagoon berm or indirectly via groundwater flow. All three sites
are located far enough from bodies of water used for recreation-
al purposes that the risk of exposure from recreational use is
minimal, except in the case of a major breach of a lagoon berm.
Surface contamination of drinking water wells is unlikely unless
132
-------
severe flooding of the lagoons were to occur. Even then,
properly sealed and constructed wells should not be affected.
Improperly constructed wells will be subject to contamination
from a wide variety of sources, of which the storage lagoons are
only one. More serious health threats to these water supply
wells would come from flooded septic systems and leaky sewers
that contain raw sewage.
AIR-DRYING BEDS. Air-drying of the sludge will further
reduce the number of pathogens in the sludge. The degree of
reduction will depend on the environmental conditions existing
during the air-drying process and the length of the drying
period. Most microbial pathogens are sensitive to dessication
and direct sunlight. The thickness of the sludge layer in the
drying beds will therefore affect the degree of pathogen re-
duction. This pathogen reduction during drying further reduces
the public health risks of microbial infection and disease from
exposure to the treated sludge.
Air-drying will also reduce the amount of inorganic nitro-
gen in the sludge by volatilization of ammonia. The drying
process tends to concentrate nonvolatile substances in a given
volume of sludge, including heavy metals and some toxic
organics. Although some chlordane and PCBs may volatilize
during the air-drying process, if present, most would remain
with the solids portion of the sludge, thus increasing their
concentration in the sludge.
Since the air-drying beds are proposed to be used only in
the summer, and since runoff will be recycled to the lagoons or
treatment plant, the risk of surface and/or groundwater con-
tamination and the health risks associated with such contamina-
tion are minimal. There could be a marginal health risk associ-
ated with insect or animal vectors transmitting contamination
from the drying beds. The degree of risk from this mode of
exposure is greatly reduced due to the reduction of pathogens
throughout the treatment process. For the same reasons, the
health risks to workers spreading and harvesting the sludge on
the drying beds are also less than are found in handling liquid
or dewatered sludge.
The health impacts from the operation of the air-drying
beds at the three alternate locations are all substantially the
same. The proximity of Site C and the Prairie Road sites to
developed areas will result in some additional risk to exposure
via insect or animal vectors as compared to the Coburg Hills
site.
FORCE MAIN. The force main will transfer sludge under
pressurefrom the wastewater treatment facility to the sludge
storage and treatment site. The force main should have little
or no effect on the viability or concentration of any of the
sludge constituents.
133
-------
Health risks associated with the force main are almost
entirely associated with the possibility of leaks or breaks in
the pipe or at pumping stations. This could result in con-
tamination of drinking water supplies or direct exposure of the
public to digested sludge. Leaks or breaks in properly designed
and constructed force mains are rare, so the risk of adverse
health effects from this source is small.
Health risks of primary concern to drinking water supplies
would include microbial pathogens, heavy metals, and toxic
organics. The degree of risk would depend on the nature of the
leak, its proximity to water wells, and the nature of the soil
where the leak occurs. Fine-textured soils will assimilate and
precipitate most pollutants within the first few meters.
Long-term leaks and leaks within coarse, gravelly formations may
migrate further and may pose a greater threat to domestic water
wells.
The force mains to the Coburg Hills site would be above
ground at river crossings. The pipelines to Site C/Prairie Road
would be buried along their entire length. Leaks at the river
crossings could result in direct public exposure to sludge at
the bridges, or even in the waterways. The primary health risk
of a direct exposure of this nature is infection by pathogenic
microorganisms. The risks are not nearly as great as from
exposure to raw sewage or sludge due to the reduction of
pathogens by the wastewater treatment and anaerobic digestion
processes. Leaks in sections of the force main above ground
will be easily detected. Measures for control and repair should
be rapidly implemented.
AGRICULTURAL REUSE OF AIR-DRIED SLUDGE. The health impacts
of agricultural use of air-dried sludge are essentially the same
as those for the use of liquid or mechanically dewatered sludge.
Air-dried sludge will probably have a lower available nitrogen
content due to volatilization of ammonia, which means heavier
loading of sludge on fields will be possible before reaching the
agronomic limit for nitrogen. This may result in heavier
loadings of metals and toxic organics per acre of agricultural
land. It also means, however, that a smaller number of acres
would receive sludge. Although metals and toxic organics are
not a serious health threat, the higher loading rates will tend
to reduce the useful lifespan of the agricultural reuse sites
due to more rapid accumulation of metals.
The higher loading rates will probably have little effect
on health risks from exposure to microbial pathogens. The
increased loading will be more than offset by additional
pathogen attenuation during the drying process. The dried
sludge will also have to be mechanically spread on the reuse
sites. This will eliminate the risk of exposure to pathogens
through inhalation of aerosols from spray application of sludge.
134
-------
LANDFILL OF AIR-DRIED SLUDGE. Under Alternative 1, land-
filling of the air-dried sludge will be used as a back-up for
sludge disposal if agricultural reuse sites are not available.
Landfilling the air-dried sludge will have fewer health risks
than landfilling mechanically dewatered sludge. The air-dried
sludge will only be landfilled during the summer months and will
have a lower total liquid content, reducing the likelihood of
contributing to leachate from the landfill. These factors will
also facilitate handling and covering of the sludge at the
landfill, thus reducing risk of accidental exposure of workers
to sludge pathogens. Metal contamination in leachate will be
about the same as existing conditions for similar loading, but
this is not seen as a health risk due to the leachate collection
and treatment system already in place at the landfill.
Alternative 2
The health impacts of Alternative 2 will be very similar to
those described above for Alternative 1. The major difference
will depend on the mix of air-dried vs. mechanically dewatered
sludge and the amount that the drying beds will be reduced in
size. Reduction in the size of the drying beds will not provide
any significant additional health benefit or risk over the
larger drying beds, except for possibly a slight reduction in
risk of contamination by insect or animal vectors.
Alternative 3
Health effects for Alternative 3 would be a continuation of
those that currently exist from landfilling of digested sludge.
Long-term (20-year) winter disposal of mechanically dewatered
sludge in the landfill may increase the metals concentration in
the landfill leachate. This is not viewed as a significant
health risk due to the proposed improvements in the leachate
control and treatment system at the landfill.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation of health risks associated with sewage sludge
treatment, disposal, and reuse can be accomplished by control-
ling the source of the risk and the level of exposure. The
greatest control over pathogens is achieved in the wastewater
and sludge treatment processes used at the RWTP- Risks from
exposure to other sludge constituents are controlled by the
careful design and operation of storage and reuse/disposal
operations. In addition to the treatment, storage, and
reuse/disposal techniques being proposed for the project, the
following actions could further reduce the public health risks
of the sludge management project:
o The groundwater and surface water quality protection
measures suggested for use at the off-site storage and
135
-------
drying sites would also reduce health risks at these
sites.
o Strictly adhere to DEQ sludge reuse guidelines.
o Regularly monitor the heavy metal and toxic substance
content of the sludge prior to agricultural reuse.
o Restrict public access and provide adequate buffer zones
around sludge reuse sites.
o Develop contingency plans for accidental sludge spills
along roads or breaks in the sludge force mains.
VECTOR CONTROL
In any discussion of vector control, it is important to
distinguish between a true vector and a nuisance organism. A
vector is any organism that transmits a pathogen. In the Eugene
area, mosquitoes and r
-------
ditches in agricultural areas if aquatic plants are available
nearby for feeding. Opossum, which are often confused with
nutria, also inhabit agricultural areas and areas along streams.
Rats also are found on Site C (Dickey pers. comm.). Rats,
which can act as vectors, are common inhabitants of agricultural
areas. They are not present in large enough concentrations,
however, to cause a public health concern.
Drainage ditches and standing water on-site provide suit-
able mosquito breeding habitat. The Lane County Public Health
Department applies mosquito oils to drainage ditches and other
areas containing standing water if mosquitoes become overabun-
dant. The oils effectively kill the larvae and disperse after
several hours. If the mosquito hatch is average (at an accept-
able nuisance level) no control methods are used.
PRAIRIE ROAD. The Prairie Road site is immediately west of
the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, which separate it from
Site C. Part of the Prairie Road site supports grass seed crops
and part is being grazed by cattle. Wildlife, including vec-
tors, found on this site would be virtually identical to that
found on Site C.
COBURG HILLS. The Coburg Hills site is predominantly
grassland with patches of trees and currently is used for
grazing. Vectors which occur here would be similar to those at
Site C and Prairie Road. Shallow drainage ditches traversing
the Coburg Hills site provide suitable breeding habitat for mos-
quitoes.
There are problems with mosquito populations along the 1-5
freeway west of the Coburg Hills site. Due to the flood irriga-
tion system used by local farmers, there are large areas of
standing water which provide ideal habitat for mosquito repro-
duction. The Lane County Public Health Department uses mosquito
oils as a control method; no spraying is done in this area.
EUGENE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. According to the Lane
County Public Health Department, the Eugene WTP has never caused
a vector-related health problem. In the past, when evidence of
rats or other rodents has been discovered, city staff has in-
stigated control measures on its own or has hired a local
private contractor to deal with the problem. Rats have posed a
minor problem at times. They usually burrow under buildings or
lumber piles. Traps or poisons have been used as control
methods and have proven effective.
Mosquitoes have not created health problems or nuisance
conditions on or around the treatment plant; there is little
suitable breeding habitat on the site. Several years ago,
shallow sludge drying beds were used as part of Eugene's treat-
ment process. In the spring, when there was rainwater in the
beds and temperatures were beginning to increase, black gnats
137
-------
hatched in these beds. The gnats, which are a nonbiting insect,
remained close to the surface of the drying beds and concentrat-
ed in damp grass, mud, and other moist areas. The gnats were
not considered a public health concern (Callicrate pers. comm.),
but at times may have been a nuisance.
SHORT MOUNTAIN LANDFILL. Two vector organisms, mosquitoes
and rats, have posed minor problems at the Short Mountain Land-
fill in the past but both are controllable. Mosquitoes are the
main problem due to standing water which provides ideal breeding
habitat. Sources of standing water include the lagoon, road
edges, and a depression between the lagoon and the landfill.
Water leaks through the dikes and causes ponding in the latter
case. Control of the local mosquito population is accomplished
by the planting of mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.) by the Lane
County Public Health Department.
Rats are a periodic problem at the landfill but the problem
is usually of short duration. When excessive numbers are dis-
covered, control methods are implemented. Rats have not posed a
problem during the last two years and are not considered a
public health threat (Callicrate pers. comm.). When rats are
discovered at the landfill, they are controlled by mechanical
methods such as earth-moving or grading; no rodenticides are
used. Because the landfill is active, solid waste material is
continually being brought in, compacted, ground, and covered.
The active nature of the landfill aids in the control of unde-
sirable inhabitants such as rats.
Flies have never been a problem at the Short Mountain
Landfill. Before material is brought to the landfill, it has
been compacted and its moisture content reduced. Covering is
also a factor in the absence of a fly problem since organic
material is concealed each day.
Even though the landfill has had problems with rats and
mosquitoes in the past, its remote location (away from residen-
tial areas) and current operating procedures have resulted in a
lack of public health concerns. There are currently no problems
with vectors at the landfill due to sludge application. During
the first year of the program there was some ponding of the
liquid sludge due to the application method, but a new method
has been in effect for the last 2 years which has solved the
problem. Ponding of liquid sludge results in standing water
which may become suitable habitat for mosquitoes.
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4)
Alternative 4 would probably not alter current vector
populations. No FSLs or air drying beds would be constructed.
The method of sludge reuse or disposal beyond Phase I has not
been identified, but it is unlikely to result in increases in
vector populations.
138
-------
Impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2
The FSLs required for Alternatives 1 and 2 are not expected
to cause an increase in local mosquito populations, but the air
drying beds could become a mosquito breeding area if standing
water is held for more than a few days. The drying beds would
be operational for about 5 months a year (approximately May-
September) , which coincides with the mosquito breeding cycle.
In Lane County, the period of major mosquito activity occurs
from April-October (Callicrate pers. comm.). Since the mosquito
hatching cycle can be completed in as few as 5 days (under
optimal conditions), standing water in the beds for any length
of time will be conducive to mosquito breeding.
The size, design, and contents of the FSLs are not expected
to cause increases in the local mosquito population. The upper
layer (approximately 3 feet) of water in the lagoons would be
aerated, thus eliminating the possibility of stable surface
water conditions. Two aerators of about 3 horsepower each would
be operated on each FSL (Brown and Caldwell 1980) . Due to the
15-foot depth, steeply sloped sides and the impervious lining,
aquatic vegetation which might serve as an egg-laying substrate
should not occur.
Other insects, including flies, should not be attracted to
the proposed facilities if the digestion and storage facilities
function properly. Before sludge is pumped into the FSLs, it
has been treated and digested, which decomposes most of the
organic material. The FSLs function essentially as secondary
digesters. No raw sewage (which would be high in organics)
would be pumped into the lagoons.
There is already a resident population of domestic rats on
and around the three potential sites for Alternatives 1 and 2
facilities, but their numbers are not extraordinary. If rats
are attracted to the proposed sludge storage and drying facil-
ities, they can be controlled with existing manpower and method-
ology. There is no reason, however, that rats should increase
beyond existing levels at any of the off-site locations as a
result of the project. The facilities will not provide improved
cover or an additional food source for rats.
Although nutria are not vectors, they are discussed here
due to the concerns of local residents. Nutria may be attracted
to the FSLs because of the aquatic habitat. The concern over
this attraction is that nutria might burrow into FSL levees and
cause seepage of sludge leachate into underlying groundwater.
Since this is a remote possibility, it is not considered a
significant concern. The FSLs will not present a new food
source to the nutria and there will be no cover vegetation on
FSL perimeters. The Eugene WTP has not attracted nutria to its
on-site sludge lagoons, which contain digested sludge similar to
that which would be pumped into the FSLs.
139
-------
Sludge from the Eugene WTP is currently applied in a liquid
form to agricultural fields in the Eugene area. Alternatives 1
and 2 propose similar disposal of dried sludge during the summer
months. Experience at the presently-used sites indicates that
no vector-related problems are generated by this reuse method.
The continuation of agricultural reuse is not expected to
generate new vector problems.
Impacts of Alternative 3
Alternative 3 should not result in increases in local
vector populations for two reasons: 1) mechanical dewatering
techniques such as centrifuges would not be an attractant to
vectors; and 2) landfill disposal of sludge and sludge reuse on
agricultural land are already being used in the Eugene area with
no apparent increase in vector populations.
Mitigation Measures
In order to minimize the chances of encouraging vector
populations at the proposed sludge facilities sites, the follow-
ing mitigation measures are suggested:
o The FSLs should be lined with a sufficient thickness of
clay or vinyl to discourage animals from burrowing into
the sides.
o Some type of ground cover, such as grass, should be
planted on the tops of FSL dikes to prevent soil erosion
and the deposition of organic material in the lagoons.
o Vegetation on the top and sides of the FSL dikes should
be mowed on a regular basis to limit food or cover
sources for wildlife.
o Regular checks of the FSLs should be conducted to deter-
mine whether rodents have been burrowing in or around
the facilities. If any sign of activity is discovered,
appropriate control methods should be implemented.
o No aquatic vegetation should be permitted to grow in the
FSLs, as it could act as a substrate for egg-laying
insects.
o The amount of standing water present on the air-drying
beds should be minimized by whatever means available to
reduce mosquito breeding habitat (draining-off of excess
water is planned as part of the project); standing water
should be treated with mosquito oil as often as
necessary to control mosquito hatching.
Influence on Local Biological Resources
This section of the report describes the possible impacts
that project construction and operation could have on vegetation
140
-------
and wildlife resources in the Eugene/Springfield area. The
focus of the analysis is the bird strike hazard and threatened
or endangered species.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Site C
VEGETATION. Site C currently supports annual and perennial
grass seed crops (rye-grass). Annual grass seed production also
adjoins the site to the west and south with pastureland to the
north. A variety of weeds and grasses underlie the fences
surrounding the property.
According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Bottorff
pers. coiran.), there are no listed or proposed threatened or
endangered plant species occurring within the area of the
proposed project. Two candidate species, Nelson's checker-
mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) and Cusick's checker-mallow (S_.
cusickii), occurred historically along the Oregon Electric
Railroad, west of Site C. Due to habitat conversions to agri-
culture and grazing, however, they are no longer found there
(Soper pers. comm.).
WILDLIFE. The grassland vegetation of Site C supports a
limited variety of animal life. Wildlife likely to be found on
the site includes mammals such as the California ground squirrel
(Spermophilus beecheyi), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus),
opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis)"^ as well as pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.), voles
(Microtus spp.) and feral cats. Occasionally, black-tailed deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), and red or gray
foxes (Vulpes fulva, Urocyon cinereoargenteus) may be observed
on-site.
Birds utilizing Site C, primarily for foraging, include
northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), ring-necked
pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), California quail (Callipepla
californica), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), European star-
lings (Sturnus vulgaris), and scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerul-
escens)"Several species of gulls may use the site during the
winter months when the ground is wet. Great blue herons (Ardea
herodias), great egrets (Casmerodius albus), and snowy egrets
(Egretta thula) can be observed foraging along the drainage
ditches and in areas where water has ponded.
Reptiles and amphibians which may be found on-site include
the northwestern fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis occiden-
talis), Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus catenifer),
western toad (Bufo boreas), and Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla).
141
-------
No federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered
animal species are known to use this site. Bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which are considered by the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to be threatened in Oregon may
occasionally be observed flying over or perched near Site C.
One immature bald eagle was observed perched in a tree on the
north side of Meadowview Road during a February 7, 1983 site
visit. There are several bald eagle nest sites at higher
elevations in the Coburg Hills area (Ferry pers. comm.).
The site topography varies from flat to gradually sloping
to the northwest. Water can be found on the surface of Site C
during the winter months due to high groundwater and ponding.
Runoff leaves the site principally by a drainage ditch running
diagonally across the site toward the northwest. This ditch,
improved by farmers, is the remnant of an old intermittent
stream channel. The ditch continues in a northwesterly direc-
tion after leaving the site, collects runoff from a large
agricultural area, discharges to Flat Creek, and finally enters
the Willamette River north of Harrisburg. There is no anadrom-
ous fishery in Flat Creek.
Prairie Road site
The vegetation and wildlife found on the Prairie Road site
are similar to that of Site C. Blackberry bushes line the
eastern boundary of the site (along Prairie Road), and part of
the site currently is being grazed by cattle. Drainage of the
southern half of the site is by the drainage ditch at the
southwestern corner, which continues northwest through Site C
and into Flat Creek. The northern portion of the Prairie Road
site drains into the ditch along the east side of Prairie Road.
Coburg Hills site
The Coburg Hills site consists mainly of grassland which is
grazed by sheep and cattle. There are a few trees on-site,
mainly ash and oak. According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Bottorff pers. comm.), there are no listed, proposed,
or candidate threatened or endangered plant species occurring
within the area of the proposed project.
Wildlife likely to be found on-site is similar to that of
Site C and Prairie Road. On a February 6, 1983 site visit, a
large flock of European starlings mixed with killdeer was
observed on the ground. Great blue herons were observed along
the drainage ditches. Scrub jays, dark-eyed juncos (Junco
hyemalis), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), red-winged
blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), and western meadowlarks
(Sturnella neglecta) were seen in the trees both on-site and
along the gravel road bordering the site. Bald eagles are
observed occasionally in the vicinity since there are several
nest sites in the foothills east of the Coburg Hills site (Ferry
pers. comm.).
142
-------
Drainage ditches traverse the site and eventually carry
water into Muddy Creek northwest of the site. There is no
anadromous fishery in Muddy Creek.
Surrounding Area
Bird use of the area around Site C and the Prairie Road
site is discussed in the following section. Bird distribution
during the winter months is strongly influenced by the habitat
requirements of the individual species. Bird populations, as
well as weather conditions and food supplies, vary from year-to-
year and even within a given season, causing continual changes
in the winter bird distribution of an area. Information pre-
sented in this document is of a general nature, based on Christ-
mas bird counts, discussions with Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife staff, local Audubon Society members, and other knowl-
edgeable persons.
The surrounding area, for purposes of this discussion, is
bounded by Fern Ridge Reservoir on the west, Highway 126 on the
south, the Willamette River on the east, and Junction City on
the north. Included in this region are several small ponds,
Amazon Creek, several intermittent streams, and Mahlon Sweet
Field.
FERN RIDGE RESERVOIR. Fern Ridge Reservoir, completed in
1941, attracts thousands of birds, primarily waterfowl, each
winter. Although there are other reservoirs in the Willamette
Valley, Fern Ridge is actively managed for waterfowl by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is a waterfowl
management area adjacent to the reservoir where such food crops
as corn, sudan grass, millet, and buckwheat are planted. In the
winter of 1980, a peak of approximately 19,000 birds wintered on
the reservoir; approximately 15,000 birds were tallied during
the winter of 1983 (Ferry pers. comm.). The reservoir covers
approximately 9,000 surface acres when full; during the winter,
when it is drawn down, it covers only a few hundred acres
(Cleary pers. comm.).
The most common waterfowl species wintering on Fern Ridge
Reservoir and in the Eugene area are mallards (Anas
platyrhynchos), green-winged teal (A. crecca), northern pintail
(A. acuta), northern shovelers (A. clypeata), and American
wTgeon (A. americana) (Gordon pers. comm.; Eugene Audubon
Society 1981, 1982, and 1983). Other species that use the area,
but in few numbers, include the ring-necked duck (Aythya
collaris), canvasback (A. valisineria), American coot (Fulica
americana), Tundra swan (Olor columbianus), and Canada goose
(Branta canadensis). Some waterfowl, including geese, swans,
and the American wigeon, spend the night on the reservoir but
leave in the morning to feed in the management area or in
agricultural fields north and northeast of Fern Ridge Reservoir
(Gordon pers. comm.).
143
-------
Waterfowl are most abundant in the Eugene area during the
winter months, although some species such as the wood duck (Aix
sponsa), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), common
merganser (Mergus merganser), and mallard are year-round resi-
dents. Other avian species such as the European starling,
Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and red-winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) flock together in the winter
months often concentrating in agricultural fields in groups of
more than 1,000 individuals. During the summer months, these
species disperse; blackbirds are found predominantly along the
Willamette River and at Fern Ridge Reservoir.
PONDS. There are several small ponds in the vicinity of
Site C, the Prairie Road site, and Mahlon Sweet Field that
provide additional habitat for waterfowl and other water-
associated species. There are two medium-sized ponds immediate-
ly north and south of the airport as well as four sewage dis-
posal ponds just inside the clear zone of the secondary runway.
Clear Lake, a long, narrow lake which lies immediately west of
Merryman Road and the airport, is bordered by dense riparian
vegetation (Oregon white ash, cottonwood, scrub oak, alder). It
is dammed at the north end. Locations of other ponds in the
area include the Oregon Electric Railroad south of Meadow View
Road, Airport Road east of Green Hill Road, Meadow View Road
west of Purkerson Road, and several small farm ponds scattered
throughout the area.
Most of the small ponds receive some waterfowl use during
the winter months, but more than about a dozen birds at any one
time on any one pond would be unusual. A few resident waterfowl
may nest at the more secluded and heavier vegetated ponds, such
as at the two-pond complex on airport property. Species ob-
served utilizing ponds in the study area on a February 5-7, 1983
site visit included mallards, ring-necked ducks, wood ducks,
American coots, northern shovelers, and green-winged teal.
Amazon Creek, the Amazon Creek Diversion Channel, and
intermittent streams in the project area may receive occasional
use by waterfowl during the winter months when water levels are
high. Herons and egrets use these areas for foraging with
heaviest use occurring during the winter months.
MAHLON SWEET FIELD. Many species of birds use airport
environments for feeding, resting and occasionally nesting.
Raptors (birds of prey), gulls, blackbirds, starlings, and other
ground-feeding birds are seen frequently at airports. In
general, a few individual birds feeding on the grass at an
airport does not pose a hazard to aircraft, but a large concen-
tration of birds can pose a serious strike threat. Bird use of
Mahlon Sweet Field is discussed in this section with an emphasis
on the potential strike threat of each species.
Raptors such as northern harriers and American kestrels
often can be seen foraging over the wide expanse of grassy
144
-------
fields separating the runways. If there is an abundant rodent
population raptors might be numerous, but at most airports
rodents are strictly controlled, minimizing the number of birds
of prey in the airport vicinity. There is no problem with
raptors at Mahlon Sweet Field; they usually occur as single
individuals and do not interfere with airport operations.
Other birds, such as gulls, use the airport for resting and
occasional feeding. Factors attracting gulls to airports
include earthworms, which after a rain frequently attract large
flocks of ring-billed (Larus delawarensis) or California (L.
californicus) gulls, and the runways themselves, which may be
utilized by several gull species for resting during daylight
hours (Bystrak 1974) . The warmth of the pavement also may be a
factor in the attraction of the runways.
Large numbers of gulls often concentrate at airports, and
can pose hazards to incoming and outgoing aircraft. When there
are a large number of gulls on the runways at Mahlon Sweet
Field, and they pose a potential strike hazard to aircraft,
firecracker shells are used to disperse them. According to the
airport manager at Mahlon Sweet, gulls do not represent a severe
problem at Mahlon Sweet Airport and can be easily dispersed to
ensure safety of aircraft upon takeoff and landing (Shelby pers.
comm.) .
Several years ago (1975-1976), when the Belt Line Landfill
was in operation on Belt Line Road between the Southern Pacific
Railroad tracks and West llth Avenue, there was a gull problem
at Mahlon Sweet Field. Large concentrations of gulls were
attracted to the airport and more intense dispersal methods were
used, including a propane cannon (Shelby pers. comm.). Since
the closure of the Belt Line Landfill and the opening of the
Short Mountain Landfill, however, the gull problem at Mahlon
Sweet has subsided.
Blackbirds and starlings have been a problem at Mahlon
Sweet in the past. They can pose a potential strike hazard
during the winter months when they gather in large flocks.
Although the largest flocks usually remain in the vicinity of
the Willamette River, they occasionally congregate on airport
fields. During the last 2 years, however, blackbirds and
starlings have not been a major problem at the airport (Shelby
pers. comm.).
Although swans do not use the airport property itself, they
are mentioned here because of their importance to bird strike
hazards. Because of their large size and tendency to travel in
flocks, swan migration flights and daily flights to feeding
areas pose a danger to aircraft. A flock of between 300 and 600
swans regularly winters in the Eugene area (Gordon pers. comm.).
These birds spend the night at Fern Ridge Reservoir but leave in
the early morning to feed in agricultural fields north and
northeast of Junction City and Harrisburg. If a group of swans
145
-------
passes over Mahlon Sweet Field, all aircraft are held until they
pass (Shelby pers. conun.).
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT
If the No Project alternative (Alternative 4) is chosen,
existing vegetation and wildlife use at Site C, Prairie Road,
and Coburg Hills would not be disturbed. The continued use of
centrifuges at the RWTP site would have a minimal effect on
natural resources since the site is already in a "disturbed"
condition. The disposal of dried sludge at Short Mountain
Landfill during the winter and the reuse of sludge on agricul-
tural lands during the summer are already being done in Eugene
with no adverse impact on the local biological resources. The
reuse of sludge on agricultural land may even improve the
habitat for ground-feeding birds. Sludge conditions the soil
and helps to aerate it; this improves the habitat for earthworms
and other invertebrates which, in turn, serve as a food source
for many species of birds.
After 1989 under this option (Phase II), liquid sludge may
have to be disposed of year-round by landfilling, reuse, or
dedicated land disposal. The exact method to be used is un-
known. If liquid sludge disposal continued through the winter
months, the potential for sludge reaching surface waters and
thereby adversely affecting aquatic habitats would greatly
increase.
No endangered, threatened, or candidate species would
likely be affected by the No Project alternative. In addition,
no bird attraction problem would be created near Mahlon Sweet
Field.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
This alternative includes the construction of approximately
25 acres of FSLs and 50 acres of air drying beds at one of three
off-site locations - Site C, the Prairie Road site, or the
Coburg Hills site. In addition to the impacts on vegetation and
resident wildlife, there is the concern that the bird strike
hazard at Mahlon Sweet Field might increase if the FSLs serve to
attract waterfowl, and if Site C or the Prairie Road site were
selected. The following impact discussion is divided into four
parts; the first part discusses the effects of the project on
the existing vegetation and wildlife, the second part is a
discussion of the change in bird use patterns of the area due to
construction of the facilities, the third part discusses the
guidelines set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and EPA regarding the siting of solid waste disposal
facilities, and the fourth part includes a discussion of the
146
-------
bird attraction impact as it relates to potential hazards to
aircraft.
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE. The construction of the FSLs and
air drying beds as well as accompanying support facilities would
result in the loss of about 170 ± acres of grassland habitat
(annual and perennial grass seed crops at Site C and Prairie
Road; grazing land at Coburg Hills). These areas currently are
used by several wildlife species, both area residents and
nonresidents. Construction activities including earth-moving,
grading, increased human activity, and noise would disturb
resident wildlife causing them to vacate the construction area
at least temporarily. Animals that utilize the sites for
foraging activities, such as northern harriers, American kes-
trels, and blackbirds, would have to move to other similar
habitat. Some species may be able to utilize portions of the
site (e.g., buffer zones) once construction is completed,
depending on the amount of vegetation remaining or planted. The
impacts of the project on local vegetation and wildlife would be
similar for all three sites; therefore, a separate discussion is
not included for each site.
No endangered, threatened, or candidate plants or wildlife
would be affected by Alternative 1 (see letter from U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in Appendix D).
CHANGE IN BIRD USE PATTERNS. The construction of the FSLs
and air drying beds would alter the current bird use patterns on
any of the three sites in question. Species that are attracted
to the sites because of the rye-grass or grazing use may no
longer use the site once the FSLs and air drying beds are
installed. Other species, however, which currently do not use
the sites may be attracted to the facilities (e.g., waterfowl).
The construction of four FSLs, each covering approximately
6.25 acres, may attract waterfowl, especially ducks, and other
bird species such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and black-
birds around the edges. The FSLs could serve three functions:
1) as a resting or loafing area for waterfowl, 2) as a source of
drinking water, and 3) as a sanctuary from wind and human
disturbances. There should not be a food source in the lagoons
because of their impervious lining and depth (15 feet), and
because the sludge would have been digested at the RWTP, de-
composing most of the organic material. There would be algae in
the surface layers that would utilize many of the liquid and
gaseous anaerobic decomposition products, but they would not
provide a significant food source. If more complex vegetation
were permitted to grow in or around the FSLs, it would likely
serve as an attractant to many birds, for both food and cover.
Several other wastewater treatment facilities including
Sacramento, California, and Corvallis and Salem, Oregon, have
sludge storage lagoons similar to those being proposed at
Eugene. None of these facilities has attracted large
147
-------
concentrations of waterfowl (Rose, Clark, Druery pers. comm.).
Ducks often use the lagoons but only a small number of
individuals is present at any one time. Both Sacramento and
Corvallis treatment plants are adjacent to major rivers which
receive significant waterfowl use. This may contribute to the
low use of the ponds by comparison.
Even though the proposed FSLs may not attract large numbers
of birds, more species of birds are likely to be attracted to
the FSLs than currently use the rye-grass fields on Site C and
Prairie Road or the grassland at the Coburg Hills site. During
a one-week study of comparative bird use between the Corvallis
sludge lagoons (which are identical in design to those proposed
for Eugene) and two rye-grass fields in the vicinity of Prairie
Road and Beacon Drive, Talent and Jarvis (1979) found consider-
able differences between the number and species of birds utiliz-
ing the rye-grass fields compared to the sludge lagoons.
Species observed regularly at the Corvallis sludge lagoons
during the 10 observation periods included Brewer's and red-
winged blackbirds, killdeer, starlings, and sandpipers. Large
flocks of Brewer's and red-winged blackbirds usually were
perched on the banks of the sludge lagoons or actively feeding
or drinking among the rocks near the water's edge. Shorebirds
also fed at the water's edge. Other species observed infre-
quently and in small numbers included barn swallows, brown-
headed cowbirds, cinnamon and green-winged teal, common crows,
rock doves, and common snipe. Teal were observed in the lagoons
while all other species utilized the edge habitat.
Species observed in or over the rye-grass fields included
sparrows, starlings, barn swallows, northern harriers, black-
birds, killdeer, and ring-necked pheasants. Most birds observed
in the fields were single individuals using the borders of the
fields near shrubs.
Two conclusions were reached from the study by Talent and
Jarvis (1979): 1) Significantly more birds use sludge lagoons
than rye-grass fields, and 2) significantly more species of
birds use sludge lagoons than rye-grass fields. However, these
conclusions are based on data collected during a one-week period
(September 24-October 1, 1979) and may not accurately reflect
the year-round use of either habitat.
It is likely that the FSLs would attract a greater diversi-
ty of species, especially during the winter months, but if only
a few individuals of several species used the FSLs, the total
number of birds would be less than that in the grass fields at
certain times of the year. For example, large flocks of gulls,
starlings, blackbirds, and occasionally geese, use the fields
during the winter months. Based on the use of other lagoons and
small ponds in the area, it is unlikely that the FSLs would
support similar numbers of birds. In addition, the sides of the
148
-------
FSLs would be steeply sloped so there should not be a usable
edge for feeding.
Grass fields are attractive to birds at other times of the
year too. Large numbers of birds can be observed in the fields
during and after harvest since many seeds are lost and fall to
the ground, providing a food source. Freshly plowed fields also
are attractive to birds since many invertebrates are exposed,
providing a temporary food source.
Although sludge lagoons may be used by certain species of
birds (i.e., ducks, killdeer), the proposed facilities are not
likely to cause a major change in bird use of the local area.
Waterfowl are most abundant in the Eugene area during the winter
months, which coincides with the greatest amount of habitat
available in the area. Aside from Fern Ridge Reservoir, which
is the major attractor of waterfowl, there are many small ponds
and flooded fields throughout the valley as well as the Willa-
mette River. All provide resting and loafing habitat for
waterfowl, which is predominantly what would be provided by the
FSLs.
There is scattered use of other ponds in the Eugene area by
waterfowl and other birds associated to some extent with water.
It is likely that the FSLs would receive similar usage. Once
every few years there is an extremely cold winter in the Willa-
mette Valley which causes many of the smaller bodies of water to
freeze, thereby reducing the habitat available for waterfowl.
Because the FSLs would never freeze, waterfowl use during these
periods probably would be higher than in nonfreezing years.
Each of the four or five FSL cells would have two brush
aerators to agitate and maintain aerobic conditions on the
surface of the lagoons (Brown and Caldwell 1980). Although
studies have not been conducted on the effectiveness of these
aerators for scaring off waterfowl, they may help to diminish
the attractiveness of the lagoons to birds. Sacramento current-
ly operates aerators in its lagoons but Corvallis no longer uses
them (D. Clark pers. comm.). Neither city has had problems with
large influxes of waterfowl or other birds.
Gulls should not be attracted to the FSLs since there would
be no organic food source. Gulls currently are attracted to the
primary clarifier at the wastewater treatment plant where there
is scum and incoming raw sewage. They do not use the lagoons at
the airport or the treatment plant. In a 6-month study at the
Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ermel 1979), gulls often
were observed flying over the study area but only rarely were
they sighted on the ground near the sludge lagoons.
The air-drying beds may be used by ducks at certain times
of the year depending upon their design and drainage pattern.
The drying beds would not be used during the winter; if they
were allowed to collect water from winter rains, ducks and other
149
-------
birds might be attracted to them. Several years ago, when the
City of Eugene had shallow drying beds, ducks would attempt to
nest there in the spring. Water collected in the beds during
the winter months and would be from 6-18 inches deep by spring.
Birds also were attracted to the vegetation which grew along the
sides and on top of the banks.
Some ground feeding species such as killdeer, sparrows, and
blackbirds may be attracted to drying beds filled with sludge
that is firm enough for birds to alight. If there are insects
or other food organisms in the drying beds, some foraging
activity could take place. Freshly filled beds and fairly dry
beds probably would attract fewer birds since food organisms may
be limited (Talent and Jarvis 1979) .
Due to the lack of suitable habitat, shorebirds are uncom-
mon in the Eugene area. Most observations are of migrating
birds or casual winter visitors. The air drying beds may
provide suitable habitat for small concentrations of shorebirds
during migration. The majority of shorebirds, however, follow
the coast during migration; fewer numbers migrate through
eastern Oregon following the shallow playa lakes (Jarvis pers.
comm.).
The preceding discussion on the change in bird use patterns
and the attraction of waterfowl to the FSLs is applicable to the
three potential off-site facilities locations. Since they are
located in the same general area of the Willamette Valley and
are composed of similar habitat, the proposed facilities would
have similar impacts on bird use patterns at each of the three
sites.
FAA AND EPA REGULATIONS. Two federal agencies, the FAA and
EPA, are concerned with the siting of facilities which may pose
potential bird strike hazards to aircraft. Concern has been
expressed regarding the location of the FSLs and air drying beds
at Site C or the Prairie Road site due to their proximity to
Mahlon Sweet Field.
The FAA issued Order No. 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning
Sanitary Landfills on or Near Airports (October 16, 1974) which
states that solid waste disposal facilities have been found by
study and observation to be artificial attractants of birds and,
therefore, "may be incompatible with safe flight operations"
when located in the vicinity of an airport. This order is
included in Appendix D. Order No. 5200.5 classifies sanitary
landfills as incompatible with airport operations if: 1)
landfills are located within 10,000 feet of any runway used or
planned to be used by turbojet aircraft; 2) landfills are
located within 5,000 feet of any runway used only by piston-type
aircraft; or 3) a landfill is located such that it places the
runways and/or approach and departure patterns of an airport
between bird feeding, water, or roosting areas. Although the
150
-------
proposed FSLs and air drying beds do not constitute a sanitary
landfill, the FAA and EPA include sludge as a solid waste.
Although the FAA is authorized to control airport opera-
tions to reduce bird hazards to aircraft, its authority does not
extend to disposal facilities outside airport boundaries which
may pose such hazards. The selection of the distances specified
in Order No. 5200.5 do, however, represents a reasonable deter-
mination of the danger zone around an airport. Although the
disposal of solid waste within the specified distance is not
prohibited, particular care must be taken to assure that no bird
hazard arises.
EPA's policy on solid waste disposal facilities is stated
in the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices, published in Volume 44, No. 179 of the
Federal Register dated September 13, 1979. These regulations
are included in Appendix D. Paragraph 257.3-8(c), entitled Bird
Hazards to Aircraft, states: "A facility or practice disposing
of putrescible wastes that may attract birds and which occurs
within 10,000 feet (3,048 m) of any airport runway used by
turbojet aircraft or within 5,000 feet (1,524 m) of any aircraft
runway used by only piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird
hazard to aircraft." These criteria are based directly on FAA
Order 5200.5, which addresses that agency's policy toward
sanitary landfills located near airports.
EPA defines putrescible wastes as "solid waste which
contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by microor-
ganisms and of such a character and proportion as to be capable
of attracting or providing food for birds." Raw municipal
sludge is considered putrescible under this definition. Sludge
transported to Site C or the Prairie Road site would be anaero-
bically digested at the RWTP; on the site it would be stored in
FSLs under clear water. Approximately 60-80 percent of the
volatile solids in raw sludge are readily biodegradable. In
anaerobic digestion, 60-65 percent of these putrescible solids
are destroyed. Long-term storage in FSLs will stabilize about
40-50 percent of volatile solids remaining after digestion.
According to Brown and Caldwell (1980), the resultant sludge
will be well stabilized and composed primarily of fixed inorgan-
ic solids which are not degradable by microorganisms. EPA
concurs with this contention; therefore, sludge spread on the
drying beds should not be considered putrescible as defined for
purposes of assessing bird attraction under 40 CFR Part 257
(Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices).
POTENTIAL HAZARDS TO AIRCRAFT DUE TO BIRD ATTRACTION.
Collisions between birds and aircraft, known as bird strikes,
have occurred since the earliest days of aviation. The first
recorded fatality due to a bird strike occurred in 1912, when a
gull became entangled in the exposed control cables of an
aircraft. During the first few decades of aviation, however,
151
-------
bird strikes happened infrequently, did relatively little
damage, were rarely reported, and were not considered serious.
In more recent times, with the introduction of new high
speed aircraft powered by vulnerable turbine engines, and with
the phenomenal increase in air traffic, bird strikes have
evolved from a minor nuisance into a serious and costly problem
(Blokpoel 1976).
Concern has been expressed by the FAA and local citizens of
the Eugene area that the siting of FSLs at Site C or the Prairie
Road site may pose a hazard to aircraft flying into and out of
Mahlon Sweet Field. This concern is examined in the following
discussion which describes, 1) the existing layout and flight
patterns at Mahlon Sweet Field, 2) its bird strike history, 3)
other airports in the area, 4) flight patterns of birds at
similar facilities near airports, and 5) the likelihood of the
proposed FSLs creating a bird hazard to aircraft.
There are two runways at Mahlon Sweet Field. Runway 16-34
is the main runway and is approximately 6,200 feet in length
(Shelby pers. comm.). It is lighted with high-intensity runway
lighting and has instrument runway markings. This runway
handles nearly all of the turbojet aircraft for the metropolitan
area.
Runway 3-21, the crosswind runway, is approximately 5,200
feet long (Shelby pers. comm.). It is lighted with medium-
intensity runway lighting; it has no approach lights and no
instrument landing system; therefore, its use is governed by
visual flight rules. The visual approach slope indicator (VASI)
lights for the crosswind runway are set at 2.5 to 3.5 degrees,
which aids the pilot in determining the proper glide slope
before landing. Approaching aircraft over Site C would be at an
altitude of approximately 600-700 feet above Site C (Jost pers.
comm.); this altitude would decrease the closer the aircraft
came to the runway. Runway 3-21 is primarily used by small
aircraft; it handles less than one percent of the turbojet air
traffic annually and only when the major runway requires repair
or when there is a strong crosswind.
If Site C were chosen, the FSLs would be located between
9,000 and 10,000 feet from the crosswind runway (3-21). The
lagoons would not lie within 10,000 feet of the main runway
(16-34) at Mahlon Sweet Field.
Bird strike data for Mahlon Sweet Field were acquired from
the FAA office in Washington D. C. (Table 3-13) .
152
-------
Table 3-13. History of Bird Strikes at Mahlon Sweet Field.
9/10/78 A B-737 struck a gull on takeoff, the bird striking
the aircraft nose; no damage resulted.
1/18/80 A B-737 hit a flock of gulls on takeoff; no damage.
5/15/80 A Piper Navajo encountered a flock of waterfowl at
2,500 feet at night on approach to Runway 16; minor
dents to airframe.
8/17/80 A DC-9 hit a flock of starlings on landing roll; no
damage.
8/21/80 A DC-9 sustained a windshield strike on takeoff; air-
craft continued to LAX (Los Angeles) where windshield
was changed due to stress cracking near windshield
frame.
1/26/82 A B-737 hit a flock of gulls on takeoff; flight con-
tinued to PDX (Portland) where flap damage was dis-
covered.
SOURCE: Harrison pers. comm.
These data may be incomplete because information was reconstruct-
ed from control tower reports through the FAA regional office,
instead of directly from the pilots (Harrison pers. comm.).
There were 6 strikes reported from 1978 through 1982; no strikes
occurred in 1979 and 1981. According to the FAA (Harrison pers.
comm.), however, many bird strikes are not reported, although
major airlines and military pilots have mandatory reporting
requirements.
There are no other airports in the vicinity of Site C or the
Prairie Road site but there is a heliport (Henderson Aviation
Company) located on the south side of Meadow View Road, northwest
of Site C. This facility is FAA-approved and occupies approxi-
mately 3 acres. It has been in operation at that location for
more than 3 years and has never had problems with birds posing a
threat to its operation, although there are many small ponds in
the area and, on occasion, large numbers of gulls or blackbirds
in the surrounding agricultural fields.
Helicopters seldom fly at altitudes over 500 feet and
usually fly much lower (about 200 feet), depending on their load
(Henderson pers. comm.). When a helicopter flies south out of
the heliport, its typical path is to fly east and then follow the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks south to avoid flying directly
153
-------
over existing housing. This railroad line separates Site C from
the Prairie Road site. A helicopter would be at a minimum
altitude of approximately 200 feet as it passed over either site.
Facilities (FSLs and air-drying beds) at either site should not
interfere with helicopter flights. Most birds that would be
attracted to the FSLs are low flying species, and incoming and
outgoing waterfowl are expected to avoid confrontation with
helicopters.
The Coburg Hills site is not within a critical distance of
any airport or heliport. Daniel's Field, owned by Western Aerial
Contractors, is a small airport located approximately 9 miles
north of Coburg. The Valley Flying Club operates out of Daniel's
Field. Briggs Landing strip is approximately 12 miles north of
Coburg and is for private use only. Neither airport is within
the 5,000-foot zone specified by the FAA. There are also several
small privately-owned air strips approximately 3,500-7,000 feet
from the Coburg site, but these are used infrequently and only by
light propeller-driven planes. Therefore, birds attracted to the
FSLs or drying beds at the Coburg Hills site should not
significantly interfere with local air traffic.
There have been relatively few studies to determine the
flight patterns of birds around wastewater treatment facilities
located near airports. A study is going to be undertaken at the
Grand Forks WTP in North Dakota to monitor bird use of the
lagoons, which are within 10,000 feet of a main runway and a
proposed parallel utility runway at the Grand Forks International
Airport (Kruger, Hormberg pers. comm.). A similar study (Ermel
1979) was conducted in Sacramento, California at the Sacramento
RWTP. In this study, which lasted from July through September,
bird activity was observed at 40 acres of solid storage basins
(SSBs), which are similar to FSLs, and at a 30-acre water-filled
borrow pit located about 2,000 feet from the SSBs. Many of the
birds most frequently associated with the Sacramento SSBs were
the species observed at Corvallis by Talent and Jarvis (1979) .
In addition to determining bird use of the area, observations
were made to determine whether the bird species presented
potential hazards to local aircraft.
Several observations and conclusions drawn from the Sacra-
mento study can be used to assess the Eugene situation, since
many of the bird species are identical. Most of the birds
observed in the Sacramento study flew at low altitudes, rarely
ascending any higher than the level of the treetops. Killdeer,
sparrows, blackbirds, mourning doves, and cowbirds were always
observed flying below 200 feet, often remaining close to the
ground or water surface. Groups of swallows occasionally were
observed at altitudes of 200 to 400 feet but generally flew low
to the ground. Birds of prey (northern harriers, American
kestrels, red-tailed hawks) occasionally were observed soaring at
altitudes as high as 500 feet but usually flew at about 100 to
250 feet. Shorebirds generally were observed near or in the
154
-------
water and, when flushed, flew at relatively low levels not
exceeding 500 feet.
Waterfowl observed during the study generally were on the
water surface of the borrow pit. Although nearly 400 individual
waterfowl (7 species) were observed at the borrow pit, only one
snow goose was observed at the SSBs. When waterfowl were flushed
from the water, they remained at low altitudes until they deter-
mined a flight direction. Once established, they ascended
gradually to a higher altitude (between 500 and 700 feet).
Groups of migrating waterfowl occasionally were observed flying
over the study area at altitudes of 1,000 feet or higher.
Gulls were observed at the SSBs and borrow pit; however,
most were sighted in flight as they passed over the study area.
Over the 6-month study, 23 gulls were observed; only occasionally
was a gull sighted on the ground near the water's edge.
It was concluded from the Sacramento study that the small
birds using the SSBs and borrow pit did not present a hazard to
air traffic due mainly to their size and low flight characteris-
tics. The majority of ducks and geese observed during the study
were on the water surface or in low flight around the borrow pit.
These birds were not considered a hazard to local air traffic,
although migrating waterfowl flying at altitudes of 1,000 + feet
might present a hazard to low-flying aircraft.
Based on evidence obtained in the Sacramento study and a
general knowledge of bird species and habitat in the Eugene area,
it appears that the only birds that might pose a potential threat
to aircraft in the vicinity of Site C and the Prairie Road site
are waterfowl. Observations at other lagoons indicate that
waterfowl usually stay on the water surface; however, they must
also arrive and depart. It is during this flight phase that
birds would be most susceptible to collisions with low-flying
aircraft. Small aircraft approaching the crosswind runway at
Mahlon Sweet Field would be at an altitude of approximately
600-700 feet above Site C (Jost pers. comm.). If a duck or group
of ducks were ascending from the FSLs at the same time and in the
same direction as a descending plane, there would be the pos-
sibility of a strike. This potential exists now due to the
presence of other open water areas surrounding Mahlon Sweet
Field. There is some waterfowl use of the sewage lagoons in the
clear zone of the crosswind runway and there have been no prob-
lems with bird strikes. These small ponds are approximately
1,000 feet from the end of the runway; the proposed FSLs at Site
C would be nearly 2 miles from the end of the runway.
In summary, there is no question that the FSLs and air-
drying beds will receive some use by several species of birds,
including waterfowl. The seasonality of use, bird numbers and
bird species on the site will be different than at present. Only
the change in waterfowl use, however, appears to be of any
significance to the bird strike issue. While the incidence of
155
-------
waterfowl use on Site C or Prairie Road would increase slightly,
the regional pattern of waterfowl activity should not be altered,
except possibly during rare periods of extreme freezing when the
FSLs might be the only open water in the immediate area. There-
fore, it is concluded that the proposed sludge facilities at Site
C or Prairie Road should not significantly increase the probabil-
ity of a bird strike occurring in the vicinity of Mahlon Sweet
Field, and therefore should not be considered a bird hazard to
aircraft.
Alternative 2
The impacts of Alternative 2 on local biological resources
would be identical to those of Alternative 1 except that a
smaller acreage would be converted from grassland habitat to
treatment facilities. Approximately 125 acres (145 acres in the
case of the Prairie Road site) would be used and the acreage
needed for the air-drying beds would be reduced from about 50
acres to 33 acres at all three sites. Since the FSLs would total
25 acres in both Alternatives 1 and 2, potential attraction of
birds to the lagoons would be the same in either case. The
reduction in size of the air-drying beds is not expected to have
any effect.
Alternative 3
The addition of mechanical dewatering facilities at the RWTP
would not have an impact on local biological resources due to the
"disturbed" nature of the site. Disposal of sludge during the
winter at the Short Mountain Landfill and during the summer on
agricultural land is not expected to have an adverse impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES
In order to minimize the attraction of birds to the off-site
sludge facilities proposed in Alternatives 1 and 2, the following
mitigation measures are suggested:
o Keep weeds and grass mowed on the top and sides of FSLs
to minimize their attraction to waterfowl.
o Do not allow aquatic vegetation to grow in FSLs.
o Operate aerators during daylight hours to discourage
waterfowl from landing on FSLs.
o If large numbers of birds are attracted to the FSLs after
construction, some type of screening, wire grid system,
or netting could be installed to discourage bird use of
the lagoons. This could, however, be very expensive.
o If FSLs are constructed, bird use patterns should be
closely monitored. Other studies have determined that
156
-------
waterfowl are attracted to wastewater oxidation ponds and
stabilization lagoons (Dornbush and Anderson 1964;
Willson 1975; Maxson 1978; Jarvis, Gordon, Harrison,
Jones, Fountain pers. comm.) where an abundant supply of
nutrients are available; few studies have been conducted
at sludge lagoons where organic material has been thor-
oughly digested.
Air-drying beds should be designed to allow complete
draining during periods of nonuse, especially in late
winter and spring. This would discourage ducks from
nesting in the beds.
Land Use
This section discusses land use impacts of the various
sludge management alternatives. A description and history of
local land use planning activities and the State of Oregon
Revised Statutes 215.203-215.273, which address agricultural land
use, can be found in Appendix E. Although the issues related to
land use are presented here, no definitive conclusion is made
regarding conformance with local and state land use law and
policy. This is because the Lane County Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code are in a state of flux, and there are varying legal
interpretations to the compatibility of sludge management
facilities in agricultural land use zones.
EXISTING AND PLANNED LAND USES
All three new sites (Site C, Prairie Road and Coburg Hills)
under consideration for sludge storage and handling support
annual or perennial grass and are surrounded by seed crops or
pastureland. Any one of them would need to comply with state
planning goals and county zoning designations if selected as the
preferred site for handling and processing sludge. Under the
Lane County Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR) process, all are
proposed for an "Agri-cultural" general plan designation and EFU
zoning designation (Hudzikiewicz pers. comm.). Another possible
zoning designation which may be considered is a Public Facilities
(PF) zone designation (Delk pers. comm.). The draft PF zone is
defined as "intended to provide land for those public and
semipublic functions that provide service and are by nature an
intensive or unusual use not normally associated with other
zoning districts."
The proposed draft Comprehensive Plan diagrams and draft
zoning maps have been in the process of review by the County
Planning Commission and the public (Lane County Department of
Environmental Management 1982b). These maps, together with the
revised plan, are expected to be adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners by January of 1984. At that time, the revised plan
will be submitted to the Oregon Land Conservation and Development
157
-------
Commission (LCDC) for request of approval (Hudzikiewicz pers.
comm.).
Site C
Site C is located in northern Lane County, north of the City
of Eugene. Site C/Alternative 1, which occupies approximately
1701 acres, is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad line on
the east; Meadow View Road is located approximately 2,700 feet to
the north; Awbrey Lane is located approximately 2,700 feet to the
south; and the Burlington Northern Railroad line is located
approximately 2,900 feet to the west. Site C/Alternative 2,
which occupies 125 acres, is located just south of Site
C/Alternative 1 and extends to Awbrey Lane. Its western boundary
is about 1,000 feet east of a dirt road. Site C/Alternative 2 is
traversed by an overhead powerline (see Figure 2-4) .
Several scattered residences are in the vicinity; one is
located 200 feet north of Site C/Alternative 1; several line the
dirt road west of Site C/Alternative 2; and a few are located
south of Awbrey Lane. Both sites are owned by a consortium of
owners and are part of a larger parcel containing 600 contiguous
acres (Gould pers. comm.).
According to Lane County's soil map, Site C is classified as
prime farmland, intermixed with areas of unique farmland. The
following types of soils found on Site C and their associated SCS
Land Capability Class (Lane County Department of Environmental
Management 1981a) are listed below:
Prime:
o Coburg silty clay loam Class II
o Malabon silty clay loam Class I
Unique:
o Awbrig silty clay loam Class IV
As defined by the SCS Land Capability System, it is likely that
much of Site C would be considered prime farmland. Although the
SCS has not published a Land County soil map based on the Land
Inventorying and Monitoring Memorandum (LIM) criteria, it is
likely that much of Site C would be considered prime farmland
since land rated as prime under the Land Capability System
generally falls within the prime category under the LIM criteria.
Site C is located in an area known as the Industrial Trian-
gle. This 1,800-acre area, which is bounded by the Burlington
Railroad line to the west, the Southern Pacific Railroad line to
the east, the Junction City urban growth boundary to the north,
and Awbrey Lane to the south, is a controversial area with a long
history of land use designations. This history is summarized
below (Hudzikiewicz pers. comm.):
158
-------
o Zoned Heavy Industrial (M-3) and Light Industrial (M-2)
in 1966.
o Designated "Agricultural" in the Eugene/Springfield Area
1990 General Plan (predecessor to the Metro Area General
Plan).
o Area transferred to the Willamette-Long Tom Subarea Plan
and designated "Agriculture/Industrial Reserve", defined
as "land which is presently farmed but with industrial
development potential in the foreseeable future" (Lane
County Department of Environmental Management 1976).
This designation was intended to indicate the potential
for future plan designation as "industrial" (Hudzikiewicz
pers. comm.).
o Rezone recommended by County Planning Commission from M-2
and M-3 to EFU in 1977.
o Redesignated "Special Industrial" in 1980 by Board of
County Commissioners through amendment of Willamette-Long
Tom Subarea Plan (Lane County Ordinance No. 763). An
exception to LCDC Goal 3 was adopted based on the need
for additional large, light industrial parcels in the
metropolitan area. Lane County asserted that: "many
high technology, light industrial firms have been
interested in locating in Lane County and the Eugene/-
Springfield metropolitan area, but with the exception of
Spectra-Physics, these firms have decided not to locate
in this area, primarily because there were no suitable
sites available in the metropolitan area" (Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Commission 1981b).
o County plan amendment appealed to Oregon Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) by City of Eugene.
o LCDC decided to postpone review of that portion of the
Lane County Comprehensive Plan which dealt with the
Industrial Triangle, due to the pending LUBA action and
also since the exception to Goal 3, which had been taken
for the area, relied primarily on information contained
in the Metro Area General Plan, which had not yet been
reviewed by LCDC.
o Rezone to Special Industrial proposed by County; action
on proposal postponed pending outcome of appeal to LUBA.
o LCDC, in taking action on LUBA case (City of Eugene vs.
Lane County), determined that the County's plan amendment
lacked sufficient justification and remanded it to the
Board of County Commissioners in 1981.
o County appealed to State Court of Appeals.
-------
o State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of City of Eugene.
o In acknowledgement of the request on the Metro Area
General Plan, LCDC stated that "Lane County must amend
Willamette-Long Tom Subarea Plan to designate the area
known as the Industrial Triangle "Agricultural", and zone
it consistent with Goal 3 and ORS Chapter 215 (Oregon
Land Conservation and Development Commission 1981b).
The outcome of these actions is that Site C has an inconsis-
tent General Plan and zoning designation. The Willamette-Long
Tom Subarea Plan designates the area as Agricultural/Industrial
Reserve, and the County zoning map shows the site to be zoned
M-3.
Prairie Road Site
Prairie Road site is located just east of Site C. Prairie
Road site/Alternative 1, which occupies approximately 170± acres,
is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the west and
Prairie Road to the east; Meadow View is located approximately
2,700 feet to the north; and Awbrey Lane is located approximately
1,700 feet to the south. Prairie Road Site/Alternative 2 is a
slightly smaller site which occupies approximately 145 acres (see
Figure 2-6) (Gould pers. comm.).
Both sites contain two or three existing homes and are at
least partially traversed by overhead powerlines. Several
scattered homes also are located north and east of the sites. A
trailer and boat storage operation is located south of the sites.
Both sites have several individual owners (Gould pers. comm.).
According to Lane County's soil map, the Prairie Road site
is classified as predominantly prime farmland intermixed with
small areas of unique farmland. This site contains the same
soils as does Site C, with the addition of Salem gravelly silt
loam. This site would likely be classified primarily as prime
farmland under SCS's LIM criteria due to reasons discussed
previously.
The Prairie Road site is adjacent to the approved site for
spray irrigation of Agripac Cannery wastewater, to be located
north of West Beacon Drive. Crops will be grown on the site for
uptake of nutrients. During the rainy season, the wastewater
will be stored in on-site aerated lagoons (Peroutka pers. comm.).
The Prairie Road site is designated "Agriculture" in the
Willamette-Long Tom Subarea Plan. The site is currently zoned
EFU (Hudzikiewicz pers. comm.).
Coburg Hills Site
The Coburg Hills site is located in northern Lane County,
northeast of the City of Coburg. The Coburg Hills
160
-------
site/Alternative 1, which occupies approximately 170+ acres, is
shown in Figure 2-7. The Coburg Hills site/Alternative 2 is
smaller in size, occupying approximately 125 acres.
A group of mature trees is situated on the western portion
of the Alternative 1 site. A private dirt road leads up to the
southeastern edge of the sites. A few scattered homes are
located in the surrounding area.
According to Lane County's soil map, the Coburg Hills site
can be classified as unique farmland. The site contains Bashaw
clay soils, which are classified as Class IV in SCS's Land
Capability System. These soils are unlikely to be classified as
prime farmland, according to SCS, for reasons discussed previ-
ously (see Site C description).
The Coburg Hills site is designated "Agriculture" in the
Willamette-Long Tom Subarea Plan. The site is currently zoned
EFU.
Regional Treatment Plant Site
The Eugene/Springfield RWTP was formerly the site of the
City of Eugene treatment plant. The plant is located in the City
of Eugene on River Road, just west of the Willamette River (see
Figure S-l). The area in the vicinity of the plant is developed,
with an apartment complex to the west, a trailer park to the
south, and residences and various commercial businesses to the
north along River Road. The plant is currently operated by the
City of Eugene Department of Public Works.
Short Mountain Landfill Site
The 584-acre Short Mountain Landfill site is located in an
unincorporated area of Lane County approximately 2.3 miles south
of the Goshen interchange of 1-5 and Highway 58. The landfill
site is generally located in an open area bordered by 1-5 on the
west and Camas Swale Creek on the south. Portions of the
landfill site are being considered for ultimate use as a special
events park where target shooting, motor vehicle races, and
similar activities could be conducted (Lane County 1980b). The
landfill is operated by the Lane County Department of Public
Works under a Conditional Use Permit.
Agricultural Reuse Areas
MWMC operates its sludge reuse program within a 25-mile
radius, 2-hour cycle time (round trip) of the RWTP. Much of the
suitable agricultural land is located in the "seedgrass belt", a
10-mile-wide strip of land located along 1-5 between Harrisburg
and Creswell. Since the program's inception in May 1980, MWMC
has applied sludge to fescue cover on the Short Mountain Landfill
and oh farms raising sugar beets, mixed grass, fescue, and
rye-grass in Creswell, Eugene, Junction City, and Harrisburg. In
161
-------
1983, MWMC hopes to expand its agricultural reuse program by
involving interested parties in Junction City and the City of
Eugene (Cooper pers. comm.).
A formal procedure for selecting agricultural reuse areas
was developed by MWMC staff and a DEQ representative in 1980-
1981, and approved by the MWMC Commission in June 1982. A brief
summary of this procedure is described below (Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission 1982) :
1. Lane County Extension Service mails MWMC's sludge infor-
mation letter to a select group of potential users based
on considerations such as farm size, crops grown, and
distance from the RWTP.
2. Respondents contacted.
3. Initial site screening including considerations such as
site access, physical constraints of land, adjacent
development, crops grown, land size, distance from RWTP,
and reaction of respondent to program. MWMC public
information screens site.
4. Initial site observation by DEQ, Extension Service
representative, and Lane County hydrogeologist.
5. Complete background research work, including completion
of DEQ written work and soil and water sampling. The
sludge application must comply with DEQ Guidelines for
Land Application of Wastewater and Sludge (Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality 1981) (see Appendix
F) .
6. Program implementation.
7. Postapplication water and soil sampling on repetitive use
sites. Crop testing if appropriate.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Consistency With Land Use Designations
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4). If sludge
management facilities were not expanded beyond the interim
facilities of Phase I, there would be no immediate project-
related change in land use and therefore no inconsistency with
current land use designations. It is possible that additional
short-term modifications to the MWMC sludge management system
would eventually be made to handle increasing sludge volumes
beyond 1989. Because the form of these changes is unknown,
however, it is not possible to speculate on their consistency
with land use planning in the area.
162
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1. Concerning reuse of sludge on agricultural
lands, no land use designation inconsistency is expected to
occur, assuming DEQ guidelines for the land application of
wastewater and sludge are followed. Compliance with these
guidelines is expected to occur since MWMC's formal procedures
for implementing the sludge reuse program incorporates the DEQ
guidelines.
For the long-range project, sludge storage lagoons and air-
drying beds would be established at one of three sites, Site C,
Prairie Road, or Coburg Hills. In assessing the potential
impacts of developing these sites, this discussion will primarily
focus on the consistency of this action with local plans and
zoning codes. In terms of showing consistency with the County
Zoning Code, there are a few possible approaches which could be
taken (Delk pers. comm.):
Site C:
o The current M-3 zoning of Site C could be maintained.
Under the existing County Zoning Code, a "sewage treat-
ment facility" is a conditional use in the M-3 zone.
o The site could be rezoned to EFU. Under the current
Zoning Code, a solid waste disposal site approved by the
governing body of a City or County or both, for which a
permit has been granted by the DEQ, is a special use
subject to the approval of the planning director.
Compliance with ORS 459.245, which allows DEQ to issue
solid waste site permits, would have to be determined
before the planning director could approve the special
use.
Prairie Road and Coburg Hills Sites:
o The current EFU zoning could be maintained. Compliance
with ORS 459.245 would have to be determined as discussed
above.
There are two possible use designations that could be
applied to the sludge facilities site if consistency with the
amended zoning code EFU zone were considered. Both uses are
listed as special uses, subject to the approval of a hearings
official:
o Solid waste disposal, as approved by the County and
permitted by DEQ.
o Sewage treatment facility, including sewage treatment
plants, sewage sludge drying beds, and sewage pressure
control stations (Delk pers. comm.). Presumably, the
proposed project would fit under this definition.
163
-------
State law (ORS 215.213[1][d]) lists "utility facilities
necessary for public service" as an additional nonfarm use that
may be permitted in EFU zones. "Utility facilities" have been
interpreted to include sewage treatment plants in Menges vs.
Board of County Commissioners of Jackson County (44 or App
603[1980]).
The draft version of the PF Zone which the County has been
considering includes "utilities" as a permitted use. This term
includes sewage treatment plants, sewage sludge drying beds, and
sewage pressure control stations (Delk pers. comm.). The
proposed project would presumably fit under this definition. It
would be necessary to determine whether the proposed project
complies with ORS Chapter 215 solid waste goals and definitions
(see Appendix E).
With selection of any one of the three alternative sites
(Site C, Prairie Road, or Coburg Hills), the proposed project is
expected to be in conformance with County land use policies. The
County maintains a policy that some agricultural land may be
needed to accommodate nonfarm uses. This includes nonfarm uses
defined in ORS 215.213 (see Appendix E) (Lane County 1980a).
ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3. The land use consistency implications
of Alternative 2 would be similar to those of Alternative 1 in
terms of agricultural reuse of sludge and location of sludge
storage facilities at the three potential off-site locations.
Alternative 3 would not require an off-site sludge storage
facility, but would rely on the use of agricultural land for
sludge disposal.
Land Use Impacts
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4). Because
Alternative 4 does not involve construction of new facilities or
significant modification of existing facilities, it would have no
immediate land use impacts. It is likely that some land use
change would occur after 1989, however, as MWMC would need to
provide some means of handling and disposing of the sludge volume
produced in excess of the capacity of the Phase I facilities.
The nature and significance of these changes are unknown.
ALTERNATIVE 1. Concerning use of Short Mountain Landfill as
a back-up measure for summer disposal of dewatered sludge, Lane
County would want to be assured, through implementation of a
formal mechanism, that long-term use of the landfill would truly
only be a "back-up" measure, and that MWMC would vigorously
pursue their agricultural reuse program. Mechanisms, including
innovative use of a fee structure, should be considered (Starr
pers. comm.b.).
Establishment of off-site locations for sludge storage will
require fee-title acquisition of one of the selected sites and
acquisition of an easement along the force main route (see Figure
164
-------
2-4). Legislation was recently introduced in Oregon which would
give public condemners, such as MWMC, the right of immediate
possession of property upon depositing into court the estimated
just compensation for the property. Such a provision would
obviate the need for public condemners to appear in a show cause
hearing (Pye pers. comm.).
Conversion of one of the alternative sites to sludge storage
areas will result in the loss of agricultural lands. In the case
of Site C and the Prairie Road site, prime and unique agricul-
tural lands will be lost. Assuming that Lane County currently
consists of 160,000 acres of prime farmland (Lane County
Department of Environmental Management 1981a), less than one
percent of all County prime farmland would be lost should Site C
or the Prairie Road site be developed. Development of the Coburg
Hills site would not result in the loss of prime farmland.
ALTERNATIVE 2. The potential direct land use impacts of
Alternative 2 are similar to those for Alternative 1, as dis-
cussed above. The land area affected, however, would be slightly
smaller under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3. Based on comments received from Lane County,
it is likely that the County would be opposed to long-term
disposal of dewatered sludge at Short Mountain Landfill. The
County has stated that measures should be taken to ensure that
disposal at the landfill is an interim measure only. The impacts
related to agricultural reuse of sludge would be similar to those
for Alternative 1, discussed above.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The project applicant (MWMC) should work closely with DEQ
and LCDC legal staffs, and with Lane County on revision of the
County's Comprehensive Plan in order to gain a clear interpreta-
tion of permitted uses within the proposed zoning for each of the
alternative sites. In addition, the Lane County Public Works
Department should be consulted prior to plan implementation to
ensure that any approach which involves sludge disposal at Short
Mountain Landfill addresses all of the County's concerns.
Cultural Resource Implications
INTRODUCTION
A cultural resources evaluation of the proposed Eugene/
Springfield sludge management plan and its alternatives has been
prepared by the Oregon State University Department of Anthro-
pology. This evaluation is intended to comply with the require-
ments of the National Historic Preservation Act. The entire OSU
report is included in Appendix H; a brief summary of the findings
follows.
165
-------
RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEYS
J. A. Follansbee conducted a preliminary survey for the
Eugene/Springfield sludge management project in 1978 for the
MWMC. Project design has since been changed, however, requiring
examination of new areas. In 1969 and 1970 the Kurd site near
Coburg was excavated (White 1970), and more recent surveying and
testing has been done by University of Oregon archeologists in
the project vicinity (though not in the areas to be directly
impacted).
For this EIS, literature investigations were conducted at
Oregon State University and University of Oregon libraries. The
research library at Lane County Museum was also searched for
pertinent information. Materials sought were newspaper arti-
cles, photographs, diaries, journals, and other historically-
oriented materials. Limited interviewing was also conducted with
long-time residents of the project area. A title search of
property was conducted at the Lane County Courthouse. The Oregon
State Office of Historic Preservation was also contacted to
determine if earlier recorded archeological sites or historic
structures in the area had been listed on the National Register
of Historic Places.
In March 1983, field surveys of Site C, the Coburg Hills
site, and pipeline routes to these sites were conducted by "pro-
fessional archeologists" from Oregon State University. The
Prairie Road site was not surveyed because several landowners
refused access to the property.
SURVEY FINDINGS
The proposed force main route to Site C and the Prairie Road
site was surveyed and no cultural material was located. The
pipeline to the Coburg Hills site, which could be constructed
with implementation of either Alternatives 1 or 2, was surveyed
on March 10, 1983. Two archeological sites were located along
this route. One was discovered north of the McKenzie River and
Armitage Park. The site, identified by fire-cracked rock and
flakes, is bordered on the east by a shallow ditch and the
rip-rapped 1-5 bank, and on the west by the abandoned railroad
embankment. It extends for several hundred meters northward and
is characterized by higher density of flakes at its northern
extent. The second site was found farther north on the pipeline
route. This site is located between the newly constructed
Roberts Street to the west and 1-5 to the east. It was not
determined whether the Roberts Street construction had impacted
the site, but keeping pipeline work to the west in this area
might avoid impacts. The site's boundaries and extent would have
to be determined by subsurface testing before a more specific
determination of impact could be made.
166
-------
The field survey of Site C was conducted on March 10; where
bare ground was exposed (along edges of the field and along the
drainage ditch that bisects ,the field), a light scatter of flakes
was found. This indicates past use of the area by the Willamette
Valley native population. A possible historic site was also
discovered in the northeast corner of the site, but subsequent
research indicates that it has no apparent historical
significance. A field survey of the Coburg Hills site located no
cultural material, though ground visibility the day of the survey
was poor and artifacts have been found elsewhere on the
landowner's property. It is the opinion of the archeologists
that the absence of cultural material was not due to the poor
visibility conditions, however, because a knowledgeable field
foreman in the area has found no artifacts on or near the site.
In summary, the potential for encountering and adversely
affecting cultural or historic materials appears greater on the
Site C off-site facilities location than the Coburg Hills site.
The chances of encountering materials on the Prairie Road site
are probably similar to that at Site C, but this cannot be
verified without an actual field survey. Conversely, there
appears to be a much greater chance of encountering cultural
material along the pipeline route to the Coburg Hills s-ite than
the route to Prairie Road/Site C. Only project Alternatives 1 or
2 would be likely to affect these or other cultural materials.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The OSU archeological report made the following recommenda-
tions for protection of cultural resources:
o Prior to construction, all pipeline routes and con-
struction zones should be flagged or otherwise delineated
to provide a more specific determination of the potential
for affecting discovered archeological sites.
o Permission to survey the Prairie Road locale should be
obtained if that area remains an alternative.
o After surveying of the Prairie Road site, the three
off-site locations should be ranked for cultural resource
sensitivity; the potential for uncovering cultural
materials should be considered in site selection.
o In order to avoid archeological sites along the pipeline
route to Coburg Hills, the pipeline should be kept to the
east; coring should also be undertaken to establish site
limits.
Before EPA approves the Phase II project design, the MWMC
must provide assurance that archeological resources will be
protected. If the Coburg Hills site is selected, it will be
necessary to assess the pipeline route when surveyed to ensure
that cultural impacts are mitigated. This assessment should be
167
-------
conducted in cooperation with the Oregon State Historic
Preservation Officer and EPA, Region 10 in Seattle, Washington,
Energy Use
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Currently, all digested sludge at both the Eugene and
Springfield WTPs is transferred directly from sludge digesters to
on-site storage or air-drying beds. There is not a significant
consumption of energy that occurs prior to transport of the
sludge to its ultimate reuse or disposal site. The major energy
use, therefore, occurs when liquid sludge from the Eugene WTP is
removed from the sludge lagoon and hauled either to Short Moun-
tain Landfill or an agricultural reuse site.
In 1981, MWMC transported approximately 4,930,000 gallons
from the Eugene WTP to off-site locations; 900,000 gallons went
to Short. Mountain Landfill and 4,030,000 went to three agricul-
tural reuse sites. Based on a tanker truck capacity of 5,800
gallons and round trip haul distances of 30 miles to the landfill
and 36-40 miles to the reuse sites, approximately 32,000 vehicle
miles were traveled in transporting the sludge. At a fuel
consumption rate of 6 miles per gallon, a total of 5,333 gallons
of diesel fuel was consumed in the process.
During the next 5 years, the increase in energy consumption
from sludge handling will be identical regardless of which
long-term alternative is selected. Sludge coming from the
digesters at the RWTP will be mechanically dewatered in the
winter and the dried sludge will be transported to the Short
Mountain Landfill. In the summer, it is expected that about 80
percent of the sludge volume will be mechanically dewatered and
transported to agricultural reuse areas; the remainder will go to
agricultural areas in a liquid form.
The electrical energy consumed in this 5-year period is
estimated to be 6,314,000 kilowatt hours (Kwh) (Gould pers.
comm.). This will be consumed primarily in the mechanical
dewatering process. Diesel fuel consumption related to hauling
the sludge off-site for reuse or disposal will jump to approxi-
mately 11,500 gallons per year by 1989. The large increase over
1981 conditions is related to the increased volume of material
that must be transported.
IMPLICATIONS OF NO PROJECT (ALTERNATIVE 4)
The energy implications of No Project are unknown. If the
County adds no more sludge handling facilities beyond those of
Phase I, energy use should continue at a fairly constant rate
until the Phase I facilities reach their capacity after 1989.
Energy consumption beyond that point would depend on what sludge
168
-------
management action MWMC takes to accommodate increased sludge
generation. If the excess liquid sludge is hauled to a reuse or
disposal site, diesel fuel consumption would show some increase.
Electrical energy consumption would remain fairly constant.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Energy consumption in Phase II (1990-2004) is extremely
variable among the alternatives. Electrical energy consumption
estimates prepared by Brown and Caldwell are presented in Table
3-14. Alternative 3 would consume considerably more electrical
energy because all sludge would be mechanically dewatered in
centrifuges. Alternative 2 would have a slightly higher energy
demand than Alternative 1 for the same general reason; all sludge
would be partially dewatered in the centrifuges prior to
discharge to the air-drying beds.
Table 3-14. Estimated Energy Consumption of
Project Alternatives
ELECTRICAL ENERGY (KWH) DIESEL FUEL (GAL)
1990-20041 19892 2004;
Alternative
Alternative
1 4,496,000 11,500 8,669
Axrernative 2 9,998,000 11,500 6,961
Alternative 3 63,362,000 11,500 11,166
Alternative 4 Unknown 11,500 Unknown
1 Total consumption for the entire phase assuming off^-site faci-
lities at Site C or Prairie Road (Source: Gould pers. comm.).
2 One-year consumption rate.
Diesel fuel consumption would also be highest for Alterna-
tive 3. All sludge would be hauled to reuse or disposal points
at a relatively low solids content, ranging from 9 percent to 20
percent. This requires more truck trips. The RWTP is also a
greater distance from the most likely area of reuse, north of
Eugene. Therefore, haul distances are greater. Alternative 2
would require slightly less diesel fuel consumption than Alter-
native 1 because the 20 percent of the total annual sludge
volume hauled in a liquid form would be conditioned to 9 percent
solids in the centrifuge prior to hauling rather than being
hauled at 6 percent solids directly from the FSLs as in Alterna-
tive 1. This reduces the number of truck trips required.
The above comparisons assume off-site facilities for
Alternatives 1 and 2 would be constructed at either Site C or
169
-------
the Prairie Road site. If the Coburg Hills site were used,
electrical energy consumption would likely increase somewhat
because sludge would have to be pumped a greater distance from
the RWTP. The haul distances to agricultural reuse sites could
be greater or smaller, depending upon what sites are finally
selected. It is likely that the overall haul distance would be
greater from Coburg Hills because it is not centrally located to
the grass seed growing areas of the upper Willamette Valley.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The MWMC preferred alternative (Alternative 2) does not
exhibit the lowest energy demand of the alternatives considered.
Total reliance on air-drying, as proposed in Alternative 1, has
a much lower electrical energy consumption rate. The most
effective way to reduce both electrical consumption and diesel
fuel consumption is to air-dry the greatest volume of sludge
possible. Energy savings achieved in this manner can be aug-
mented by locating sludge reuse sites as close as possible to
the sludge drying site. In purchasing sludge hauling equipment,
MWMC should carefully review the energy efficiency of all vehi-
cles.
Aesthetics and Odors
This section of the impact analysis discusses the two key
aesthetic implications of the proposed sludge management facili-
ties: visual changes are related to construction, and odor
generation is related to operation.
VISUAL EFFECTS
Existing Conditions, Site C
Site C is flat agricultural land, currently under produc-
tion for grass seed. There are no structures on the site.
Flowing northwest through the site is an intermittent tributary
of Flat Creek. A Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) trans-
mission line transverses the southern portion of the site. Site
C is easily visible from Awbrey Lane and the residential units
north of the site. It is slightly visible from Prairie Road and
from Link Drive.
Existing Conditions, Prairie Road Site
The Prairie Road Site, located between Prairie Road and the
Southern Pacific Railroad line just east of Site C, is also flat
agricultural land. This land is used for cattle grazing and
grass seed production. There are two residences on the eastern
site boundary along Prairie Road. Lowland areas on-site have
surface ponded water in the wet season. Flowing northwest
170
-------
through the lower portion of the site is an intermittent tribu-
tary of Flat Creek. The BPA transmission line transverses the
middle portion of the site from northeast to southwest. Resi-
dents of scattered farms and homes along Prairie Road and at the
intersection of Prairie Road and West Beacon have a clear view
of the site; persons driving along Prairie Road also can easily
view the site.
Existing Conditions, Coburg Hills Site
The Coburg Hills site, located east of Interstate 5, north
of Van Duyn Road and south of Lenon Hill, is flat agricultural
land. The land is used for cattle grazing and grass seed
production. Daniels and Muddy Creeks flow south and west of the
site. These two creeks are intermittent. Two smaller intermit-
tent drainages pass through the site. Small clusters of oak and
ash trees are located throughout the area. The Coburg Hills
site is easily visible from Interstate 5, Van Duyn Road and the
first gravel road left off of Van Duyn Road. Residents living
along the gravel road and the upland area to the north can
easily view the site.
Existing Conditions, Short Mountain Landfill
Short Mountain Landfill is located east of Interstate 5 and
west of the Coast Fork of the Willamette River between Goshen
and Creswell. When viewed from Interstate 5, the site resembles
a low plateau approximately 25 feet above surrounding terrain.
The sides and top of the western end of the landfill are covered
with grassy vegetation. The working face of the landfill is
currently at the eastern end. Between Interstate 5 and the
landfill is approximately 1,500 feet of low-growing and wetland
vegetation. Camas Swale Creek flows eastward along the southern
boundary of the landfill. Dense bushes and trees grow along the
banks of the creek. The working face of the landfill is not
currently visible from either Interstate 5 or the houses located
south of the site. The vegetation along Camas Swale Creek
blocks site visibility from the south.
Existing Conditions, Eugene WTP Site
The Eugene WTP is visible from River Avenue, and slightly
visible from the Beltline, both located north of the plant.
Between the plant and the Willamette River is a greenbelt area.
Only the eastern end of the plant is visible from the river.
Along the southern border, trees screen the plant from residen-
tial units. Residents living in the second floor apartments
west of the plant can see the site. People living in the first
floor apartments cannot see the site because of buffering
vegetation. There is currently very little landscaping on-site
because of the ongoing construction.
Implications of No Project (Alternative 4)
If no long-term sludge handling facilities are constructed
for the RWTP, Phase I facilities would eventually be taxed
171
-------
beyond their capacity. As digested sludge generation began to
exceed the plant's mechanical dewatering capacity, some reuse or
disposal site for the excess sludge would have to be found. The
visual implications of disposing of this liquid sludge cannot be
determined without identification of the disposal site.
Impacts of Alternative 1
Construction of FSLs, drying beds, access roads, and
operational buildings at Site C, the Prairie Road site, or the
Coburg Hills site would significantly change the appearance of
each of these sites. The flat agricultural land would be
covered with a network of roadways, rectangular air-drying beds,
and FSLs of various sizes. Drying beds are flat with a small
1 to 3-foot-high berm surrounding the asphalt bed. The FSLs
would be surrounded by high earthen berms which prevent
visibility of the lagoon and the surface mixing equipment.
The proposed layout of Site C is shown in Figure 2-5. The
FSLs adjacent to the railroad would cover about 25 acres, and
the drying beds west of the lagoons would cover about 50 acres.
The earthen berm around the exterior of the FSL complex would
extend at least 10 feet above grade.
When viewing Site C from either Awbrey Lane or the residen-
tial units north of the site, initially one would be able to see
the FSL earthen berms, the operations buildings, and the super-
natant pump station. The air-drying beds and the roadways would
blend into the flat landscape. The entire site would be visible
from the Southern Pacific Railroad line. The interior of the
FSLs would be visible to people on passing trains. Plans for
the site call for extensive landscaping along the perimeter.
The intent is to develop a dense vegetation screen around the
entire site that would eventually screen it from all ground
level off-site views.
The location of the Prairie Road site is shown in Figure
2-6. The FSLs would cover approximately 25 acres and the drying
beds would cover approximately 50 acres as at Site C. People
traveling along Prairie Road would be able to easily view the
drying beds, operations buildings, supernatant pump station, and
the FSL earthen berms. Prairie Road is not sufficiently elevat-
ed to allow travelers to view the interior of the FSLs. Resi-
dents living along Prairie Road north and south of the site
would be able to see various parts of the site depending upon
their location. The entire site would be visible from the
Southern Pacific Railroad line. All facilities would eventually
be screened from view of passersby by a perimeter vegetation
screen.
Figure 2-7 indicates the location of the Coburg Hills site.
The FSLs would cover 25 acres and the drying beds would cover
50 acres. The entire site would be visible from Interstate 5.
172
-------
Interstate 5 is at a higher elevation than the site, thus
permitting views of the interior of the FSLs. Residents living
along the gravel road and north of the site would be able to
view various parts of the site depending upon their location.
Generally, residents north of the site would not be able to see
the majority of drying beds, because of their location behind
the earthen berms surrounding the FSLs. Persons traveling along
Van Duyn Road would be able to see the FSL earthen berms, the
operations building, and the supernatant pump house. The drying
beds and roadways would blend into the land's flat topography.
Views of the site would eventually be altered as the vegetation
planted along the site perimeter matured.
Discontinuing the use of centrifuges at the RWTP would not
change the appearance of the site significantly unless the
buildings which housed the centrifuges were removed. Their
removal would lessen the density of buildings on-site.
The visual effects of applying sludge to the landfill, if
this were to occur as a back-up measure, would be minimal. The
sludge would be spread over the working face of the landfill
with other solid waste and eventually would be covered with
soil. This would not significantly change the appearance of the
landfill.
Impacts of Alternative 2
The visual impacts of Alternative 2 would be somewhat
different than Alternative 1 because smaller off-site acreages
would be needed, compared to Alternative 1, and mechanical
dewatering equipment would be relocated to the off-site
location. The land area required for air-drying beds would be
reduced by 17 acres (from 50 acres to 33 acres).
The proposed layout for Site C is shown in Figure 2-5. The
smaller acreage requirement allows the site to be moved south of
the position proposed for Alternative 1. This places the
facility under a BPA electrical transmission line and immediate-
ly adjacent to Awbrey Lane. Initially, residents living across
Awbrey Lane and persons driving along Awbrey Lane would be able
to see the entire site except for the interior of the FSLs. The
drying beds and the operations building would not be visible
from residential units north of the site, because of their
location behind the FSL earthen berms. The entire site would
also be visible from the Southern Pacific Railroad line. As the
vegetation screen along the site perimeter matured, the interior
of the site would become less visible.
Figure 2-9 shows the proposed layout at the Prairie Road
site. Views of this site would not change significantly from
those described for Alternative 1, except that the facilities
would be slightly farther from the residences located on Prairie
Road at the corners of West Beacon Drive and Awbrey Lane.
173
-------
The Coburg Hills site layout for Alternative 2 is shown in
Figure 2-10. The acreage requirement is slightly smaller than
that of Alternative 1 (by approximately 17 acres), but the
visual effect would be very similar. One additional structure
would be constructed on-site to house the centrifuges. The FSL
berms and perimeter landscaping would provide a visual screen
similar to that of Alternative 1.
Impacts of Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would have no significant visual impact.
Construction would be limited to the RWTP site. A site layout
for the necessary sludge thickeners, digester, and mechanical
dewatering equipment has not been developed, so their locations
and size are unknown. The RWTP site is already heavily devel-
oped, however, and the additional structures would not signifi-
cantly alter the site's appearance. The visual effects of
sludge disposal at the Short Mountain Landfill would be similar
to existing conditions.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation of visual impacts would be necessary only at the
off-site locations of sludge management facilities, which are
proposed for Alternatives 1 and 2. The principal mitigation,
which has been recommended in the project planning documents
(Brown and Caldwell 1979, 1980), is planting of a dense vege-
tation screen on the perimeter of the off-site facilities. This
would reduce the visibility of the sludge handling facilities
and retain more of the rural agricultural nature of the present
setting.
If off-site facilities are placed on Site C, use of the
northernmost acreage (as proposed for Alternative 1) would
reduce the visual impact on residents and travelers along Awbrey
Lane. This northern parcel is the least visible of the off-site
locations currently being considered.
ODORS
Existing Conditions
Wastewater treatment processes have an inherent potential
for generating various types of odors. These odors can at times
be of such a character and intensity as to represent a serious
nuisance in the area surrounding the treatment facilities. Both
the Eugene and the Springfield wastewater treatment plants have
at times created odor problems in their neighborhoods. The
Short Mountain Landfill (used for disposal of some of the sludge
from the Eugene wastewater treatment plant) also experiences
occasional odor problems.
Most of the compounds producing odor problems at wastewater
treatment facilities result from microbial decomposition of
174
-------
organic compounds. A large number of factors can alter the
types of microorganisms involved and the types of decomposition
products released. Sludge handling and treatment facilities are
a common source of odors at wastewater treatment facilities.
Settling basins, lagoons, and oxidation ponds can become odor
sources, particularly if blue-green algae or actinomycete (a
major group of bacteria) populations reach high levels.
Compounds associated with odor problems from wastewater
treatment facilities usually involve volatile sulfur, nitrogen,
or organic compounds. Sulfur compounds associated with odor
problems include hydrogen sulfide, organic sulfides, and mercap-
tans. Nitrogen compounds associated with odor problems include
ammonia, organic amines, and a wide variety of other organic
nitrogen compounds. Volatile organic compounds associated with
odor problems include organic acids, aldehydes, ketones, and
alcohols.
As stated above, odor problems at landfill sites result
from microbial decomposition of organic matter. Odor problems
can occur if waste material is left uncovered for excessive
periods or if gases produced by decomposition in completed
landfill sections are vented to the atmosphere. Odor problems
can also develop in leachate collection ponds. Odor problems at
Short Mountain Landfill appear to be due primarily to the
venting of landfill gases, with the leachate pond being a less
frequent source of odor problems.
Odor concentrations are often reported in odor units. One
odor unit represents the odor threshold of a compound. Thus,
odor concentrations in odor units identify the extent of di-
lution needed to reduce odor intensities to the odor threshold.
Impacts of No Project (Alternative 4)
The no-project alternative is likely to result in an
increased frequency and severity of odor problems at the Eugene
treatment plant as wastewater and sludge facilities become
overloaded. Odor problems might also increase at the Short
Mountain Landfill if disposal of inadequately digested or
dewatered sludge occurs as Phase I sludge handling facilities
are overtaxed. Inadequate dewatering of sludge could also
increase leachate production at the landfill. It is uncertain
whether increased leachate production would increase the fre-
quency of odor problems from the leachate ponds. Odor problems
could also develop at sites where sludge is used as a soil
amendment.
Impacts of the Proposed Project (Alternative 2)
The proposed project (Alternative 2) involves construction
of 25 acres of facultative sludge lagoons, 33 acres of sludge
drying beds, and agricultural use of liquid and dried sludge.
175
-------
Centrifuges would be used to dewater some of the sludge. Short
Mountain Landfill would be a back-up sludge disposal location.
The facultative lagoons, drying beds, centrifuges, and
agricultural use sites represent potential odor sources. The
frequency and severity of odor problems at these facilities is
difficult to predict with any certainty. With proper operation
of the wastewater treatment and sludge management facilities,
serious odor problems should be an infrequent occurrence. Odor
problems will develop when two processes occur simultaneously:
significant quantities of odorous compounds are released into
the air, and weather conditions result in reduced dispersion of
odorous compounds as they are carried downwind of the odor
source.
EMISSIONS OF ODOROUS COMPOUNDS. There have not been many
quantitative studies of odorous compound emissions from sludge
storage and drying facilities. Detailed odor studies have been
performed at a wastewater treatment plant in Sacramento,
California. Odors from digested sludge storage basins at that
facility were attributed primarily to hydrogen sulfide and
organic mercaptans (Huang et al. 1978). Odor emissions from
digested sludge storage basins were measured daily over a
6-month period. Odorous compound emission rates were
characterized in terms of odor units per square foot per minute.
Odor emissions measured by Huang et al. (1978) spanned a range
of 1.1-56.2 odor units per minute per square foot, with half the
odor measurements being less than 3.8 odor units per minute per
square foot.
Odor emissions from the sludge drying beds will probably be
comparable to emissions from the facultative lagoons. Sludge
spread on the drying beds will be more completely stabilized
than the digested sludge entering the lagoons. The drying beds,
however, will provide greater direct air exposure of sludge
solids, especially during mixing of the drying sludge.
The centrifuge equipment will probably include odor control
devices to avoid concentrated odor emissions in air ventilated
from the centrifuge buildings. No specific odor control
equipment has been selected yet.
Agricultural application sites should not pose a serious
odor problem as long as application rates are controlled.
Sludge application by injection has a lower odor potential than
spray application. Tilling of surface-applied sludge into the
soil will also minimize potential odor problems.
FREQUENCY OF POOR DISPERSION CONDITIONS. Dispersion of
odorous emissions will be greatest during periods of strong
winds or during sunny summer afternoons when there is strong
solar heating of the ground (i.e., visible heat shimmers). The
greatest potential for odor problems will occur during periods
of light winds and low level temperature inversions. Pollutant
176
-------
dispersion rates under such inversion conditions are illustrated
in Figure 3-12.
The U. S. Weather Service has not developed any summaries
of surface temperature inversion frequency for the Eugene or
Salem areas. Low level temperature inversions are, however,
expected to be common during much of the year. The typical
occurrence of heavy fog (visibilities less than 0.25 mile) on
50-70 days during the October-March period (National Climatic
Center 1981) indicates frequent winter surface inversions
lasting much of the day. Nighttime and early morning surface
inversions are expected during the summer whenever skies are
clear and winds are calm or light. Brown and Caldwell (1979)
present data indicating nighttime surface inversions form 90
percent of the time during the fall and winter periods. Night-
time surface inversions probably occur at least 50 percent of
the time during the summer.
EXPECTED FREQUENCY OF ODOR PROBLEMS. Emissions of odorous
compounds will occur throughout the year, with the highest
emission rates occurring when digested sludge is being pumped
into the lagoons. High emission rates may also occur during
addition of sludge to the drying beds. Odor problems are most
likely to occur during periods of light winds and surface
temperature inversions. Such weather conditions are common
during nighttime and early morning hours throughout the year,
and may persist all day during the fall and winter.
Odors often generate complaints when the odor concentration
exceeds 5 odor units. Brown and Caldwell (1979) estimated that
detectable odors would typically occur 10-15 times a year at
locations 2,000 feet from the facultative sludge lagoons or
drying beds. These estimates are consistent with the odor
emission rates presented by Huang et al. (1978), the dispersion
factors presented previously in Figure 3-12, and the expected
frequency of moderately strong surface inversions. Odor prob-
lems would be about twice as frequent at locations 500 feet from
the odor source. It is also possible that odors from the sludge
lagoons or drying beds will be noticeable at distances exceeding
1 mile on some occasions.
There are several homes within 0.50 mile of the south,
east, and west sides of Site C, with the closest home about 550
feet from the drying beds. Prevailing winds from the north
during spring and summer months enhance the potential for odor
problems at this site. Site C appears to have more homes within
0.50 mile of the site than either of the alternative sites.
Consequently, Site C appears to have a greater potential for
generating odor complaints than the other sites.
The Prairie Road site is just northwest of Site C. Homes
along Awbrey Lane are more than 2,700 feet south or southwest of
the site. Homes along Prairie Road are both north and south of
the site, about 500 feet from the sludge lagoons or drying beds,
respectively. Several other homes occur along Prairie Road
177
-------
MODELING
PARAMETERS
WIND SPEED (MPH)
STABILITY CLASS
MIXING LIMIT (FEET)
EMISSION SOURCE
AREA: LENGTH (FEET)
WIDTH (FEET)
UPPER
CURVE
2.2
INVERSION (F)
656
1280
850
LOWER
CURVE
2.2
NEUTRAL (D)
656
1280
850
TYPICAL RANGE OF RELATIVE
DISPERSION FACTORS
500
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF LAGOONS OR DRYING BEDS (FEET)
4500
5000
FIGURE 3-12. RELATIVE DISPERSION OF SLUDGE LAGOON OR DRYING BED
EMISSIONS DURING LOW LEVEL TEMPERATURE INVERSION CONDITIONS
-------
within 0.50 mile of the site. There are, however, fewer homes
within 0.50 mile of the Prairie Road site than of Site C.
There are no homes within 1,000 feet of the Coburg Hills
site, and only a few within 3,000 feet. The Town of Coburg is
1-1.50 miles south-southwest of the site. The potential for
odor complaints is lower at the Coburg Hills site than at either
of the alternative sites.
Impacts of Alternative 1
Alternative 1 differs from the MWMC preferred Alternative 2
by not using the Phase I centrifuges for dewatering some of the
sludge. Consequently, this alternative requires about 50 acres
of sludge drying beds. Facilities would be located about
2,700-3,100 feet north of Awbrey Lane at Site C, resulting in a
lower potential for odor problems from this site as compared to
Alternative 2 at Site C. There would still be several homes
within 0.50 mile of the site.
The increased acreage of drying beds would somewhat in-
crease the potential for odor problems at the Prairie Road and
Coburg Hills sites under Alternative 1 as compared to
Alternative 2. Under Alternative 1, the potential for odor
complaints would probably be greatest at the Prairie Road site,
slightly less at Site C, and the least at the Coburg Hills site.
Impacts of Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would involve additional sludge thickeners,
digesters, and centrifuges at the RWTP site, with no off-site
sludge storage or drying facilities. The lack of sufficient
sludge storage lagoon capacity would require sludge disposal at
the Short Mountain Landfill during the winter.
The added sludge handling and processing facilities would
probably result in an increased frequency of odor complaints
from areas around the RWTP site. Over the long term, sludge
disposal at Short Mountain Landfill would contributed incre-
mentally to the odor problems currently experienced at that
facility.
Mitigation Measures
A number of different techniques have been used with
varying success to deal with odor problems at wastewater treat-
ment facilities and sanitary landfills. Remedial action to
reduce odor problems is most successful when the nature and
underlying cause of odor problems can be identified. If the
odor control techniques designed into the proposed project are
ineffective, some of the following control techniques should be
considered to minimize off-site odor impacts.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION. Increased sludge
retention times from anaerobic digestion (added digester
179
-------
capacity or other operational changes) can reduce the frequency
of odor problems from storage or disposal of digested sludge if
the odor problems stem from inadequately stabilized sludge.
Digested sludge can also be treated to reduce odor emis-
sions (i.e., by vacum stripping) prior to transport to sludge
storage or disposal facilities. Appropriate odor controls
(adsorption columns, wet scrubbers, combustion systems, etc.)
are required for the odor removal facilities.
ADDED LAGOON AERATION. Aeration systems are used for odor
control in two ways: preventing the development of anaerobic
conditions under which odorous compounds are formed; and promot-
ing the oxidation of soluble, odorous compounds to less objec-
tionable compounds. The sludge loading and depth of the pro-
posed facultative sludge lagoons make it infeasible to maintain
aerobic conditions throughout the lagoons. The lagoons are
designed to provide aerobic conditions near the surface of the
lagoons, primarily by photosynthetic oxygen production by algae.
Mechanical aeration can help maintain aerobic conditions,
particularly at night when algal respiration will deplete
dissolved oxygen levels.
Aeration systems may not be effective for odor control if
the odorous compounds are insoluble or difficult to oxidize.
CHEMICAL OXIDATION. Hydrogen peroxide, potassium perman-
ganate, and ozone have been used to oxidize odorous compounds to
less odorous forms. Such treatments have generally been used
for facilities of limited size, and may not be economically
feasible for large lagoon systems. Chemical oxidation would not
be effective for odor control if the problem is due to insoluble
compounds or compounds which are difficult to oxidize.
SOURCE ENCLOSURE PLUS ODOR REMOVAL. Wastewater treatment
facilities which become frequent sources of odor problems (i.e.,
sludge thickeners) are sometimes provided with covers and
mechanical ventilation systems for odor control. Odorous gases
are collected and transferred to odor removal facilities. Odor
removal is usually accomplished by adsorption (usually on
activated carbon), wet scrubbing (alkaline solutions, chemical
oxidizers, etc.), or combustion. Odor problems from venting of
landfill gas are often controlled by combustion (flare) systems.
The large acreage of facultative sludge lagoons and sludge
drying beds will make enclosure systems economically infeasible.
Enclosure of the leachate lagoon at Short Mountain Landfill is
also likely to be infeasible.
MICROBIAL GROWTH CONTROL. Digested sludge could be chemi-
cally treated to inhibit subsequent microbial growth and decom-
position, thus reducing subsequent odor production. Such
treatments would normally involve high doses of lime (to alter
sludge pH) or chlorination. Chlorination could impair
180
-------
agricultural use of the sludge, but lime would be beneficial to
most soils in the area.
CHANGES IN MICROBIAL POPULATIONS. Lagoon odors may at
times be due primarily to metabolic or decomposition products of
algae or bacteria growing in lagoon waters, rather than decompo-
sition of sludge solids. In such cases, aeration, pH adjust-
ment, or other measures may be helpful to alter the balance of
microbial populations so as to minimize odor generation.
When odors are due to hydrogen sulfide and/or mercaptans
released by decomposition of sludge solids, additions of nitrate
compounds will sometimes alter microbial metabolism by sub-
stituting nitrate reduction reactions for sulfur reduction.
Nitrate reduction generally yields nitrous oxide and nitrogen
gas as major products, neither of which pose any odor problems.
Property Value Impacts
Sludge management facilities and operations are potential
sources of noise, odor, and visual impacts. To evaluate the
potential effect these factors might have on property values,
two important factors must be considered.
The first factor is the type of sludge management facil-
ities to be operated; the second is adjacent land uses. Typi-
cally, residential uses are more affected by sludge management
operations than other uses.
The proposed sludge management alternatives for Eugene/
Springfield include on-site and off-site sludge treatment with
land application of the finished sludge product. Because
leaving long-term sludge handling facilities on-site (Alterna-
tive 3) would involve no further encroachment on neighborhoods
surrounding the RWTP other than increased truck traffic, no
impact on property values is likely. Furthermore, land
application of sludge associated with this alternative, as well
as with other alternatives, is unlikely to have any impact on
property value. The remoteness of lands receiving sludge and
the infrequency of application reduces the likelihood of
potential effects on property value even in the event that
objectionable odors from land application of sludge were to
occur.
Some potential exists for an adverse impact on property
values of residences in the vicinity of the three alternate
sites proposed for off-site dewatering facilities (i.e., Site C,
Prairie Road, and Coburg Hills). The proximity of residences to
the dewatering facilities will result in some residents being
subject to a general increase in heavy truck traffic during the
summer months, an undesirable view of the facilities, and an
occasional exposure to objectionable odors. Certain factors,
however, suggest that a potential impact on property values is
unlikely. The proposed facilities would be visually buffered by
181
-------
a vegetative screen, thereby minimizing potential visual im-
pacts. With respect to noise generation from truck traffic, the
proposed routes for sludge transport are presently used by
agriculturally-related and commercial truck traffic. The
increased noise from the proposed project is not expected to be
a significant new source.
Based on conversations with staff at the local county
assessors office (Cook pers. comm.), occasional odor generation,
although objectionable, is not likely to affect the market
values of rural properties used primarily for agricultural
purposes. An investigation of the siting of sludge facilities
in nearby Salem indicated no reported adverse effect on adjacent
property values (Dailey pers. comm.).
It should be recognized, however, that determining the
effect on the market value of properties adjacent to sludge
management facilities is difficult; although it is very unlikely
that the market value of adjacent property will decrease, it is
possible that the value of some adjacent properties may not
increase at the rate they would in the absence of sludge storage
and drying facilities. Because of the variety of factors,
however, which influence property values, in particular values
of agricultural lands, estimating the impact of any one factor
is highly speculative.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Thorough landscaping, proper operation, and regular mainte-
nance of the proposed sludge management facilities should be
undertaken to minimize the potential for visual and odor impacts
on adjacent properties. This effort will decrease the likeli-
hood that the sludge handling facilities will affect adjacent
property values.
Indirect Impacts of Alternatives
INTRODUCTION
Construction of public service facilities and utilities can
result in indirect as well as direct impacts on the environment.
Direct effects are those that result from the physical processes
of construction and operation of facilities. This can include
land clearing, land use modification, construction or demolition
of structures, daily operation and maintenance of facilities,
and reuse or disposal of products or waste streams. The preced-
ing sections of this chapter have discussed the potential direct
effects of the project. Indirect effects are the outcome of
changes in population or economic growth rates, changes in land
use patterns, or changes in the patterns of natural resource
consumption that are stimulated by a proposed project.
182
-------
The concern in an environmental assessment of a federally-
funded project is the burden on the environment imposed by
additional development induced by the project. The critical
decision in addressing this concern is whether the proposed
project will, in itself, induce changes in economic or
population growth patterns, or land use patterns.
INFLUENCE OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ON GROWTH PATTERNS
The MWMC sludge management options described as Alterna-
tives 1, 2, and 3 should not directly alter the rate or pattern
of population growth in the Eugene/Springfield area. The
regional wastewater treatment facilities now under construction
have been sized to service the population growth rate and
pattern presently envisioned in local land use plans. The
sludge management facilities proposed in these three alterna-
tives will simply allow the wastewater treatment facilities to
provide the service as planned. Any stimulus to growth in the
Eugene/Springfield area will come from economic factors rather
than improvements in sludge management facilities.
If a long-term solution to sludge handling and disposal is
not implemented by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, as is
described in the No Project alternative, the provision of this
service could have an indirect influence on local growth pat-
terns. Without sufficient sludge processing and disposal
capacity beyond 1989, it is possible that restrictions could be
placed on the number of new hookups to the sewer system. This
is one method of ensuring that sludge production at the RWTP
does not exceed sludge handling capacity. Moratoriums of this
sort would influence the rate of growth in the area, and could
also affect the location of growth. Commercial and industrial
development could be affected along with residential develop-
ment.
In summary, it is unlikely that implementation of any of
the three "action" alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) would
alter growth rates or land use patterns in the area, causing
indirect impacts to the natural or socioeconomic environment.
In contrast, if the No Project (Alternative 4) course of action
is followed, it is possible that there would be a slowing of
population and economic growth in the Eugene/Springfield area as
sludge handling capacity is reached. This would not have an
adverse indirect effect on the natural environment, but it could
adversely affect the local economy.
Impacts of Secondary Reuse Alternatives
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 describes four sludge reuse/disposal options that
were considered in Brown and Caldwell (1980) but were rejected
as preferred base options for a number of reasons, including
183
-------
reliability and regulatory uncertainty. EPA felt that a generic
impact analysis of these options was valuable because their
potential as secondary or back-up systems to the MWMC-preferred
plan appeared quite good. Since selection of its preferred plan
MWMC has, in fact, continued to pursue two of these reuse
options — forest application and topsoil amendment. Brown and
Caldwell (1980) recommended that these two reuse methods be
pursued as supplemental to agricultural reuse.
The following pages identify some of the key areas of
environmental concern that exist regarding these reuse/disposal
options. Because specific use locations for these options have
not been identified, the discussions are general in nature.
FOREST APPLICATION
Application of sludge to forestland in the Eugene/
Springfield area would be subject to the same DEQ permit and
sludge management guidelines as agricultural land application
(see Appendix F). Restrictions on slope, runoff, soil depth,
buffer width, public access, and grazing use would be especially
applicable to most forest application situations.
As indicated in Chapter 2, there is a large acreage of
timberland in Lane County, much of it within an acceptable
hauling distance from the RWTP. Some of the key limitations to
this use, however, are that most large timber acreages in the
area are on slopes greater than 10 percent, and agricultural
reuse areas are available closer to the RWTP (Brown and Caldwell
1980). DEQ guidelines discourage surface application of liquid
sludge on slopes greater than 12 percent. If the sludge is
dewatered prior to application, a much larger area becomes
available for application (slopes up to 20 percent); the haul
distance differential could also be overcome if the sludge users
would help defray the hauling costs. More specific environ-
mental considerations relating to forestland reuse are presented
below.
Water Quality
The impacts of forest application on surface water quality
would vary considerably, depending on application rates and site
parameters. Sludge constituents could enter surface waters via
the following routes:
o Sludge is accidentally spilled or sprayed into streams.
o Contaminated surface water flows from the site to a
stream.
o Sludge is carried into streams via soil erosion.
o Groundwater contamination leads to surface water con-
tamination.
184
-------
Contamination via the first route is unlikely if adequate
markers designate the application site.
Considering the relatively high runoff rate of many of the
forest soils in the region, it is possible that sludge could
contaminate surface runoff. Sludge has been shown, however, to
decrease the quantity of water flowing from a site (Kladivko and
Nelson 1979; Kelling et al. 1977b). Sludge may improve both the
infiltration rate and water-holding capacity of coarse soils,
thus reducing runoff and the potential for water quality damage
(Kirkham 1974).
Sludge constituents may enter surface waters as a result of
erosion. When present in land applied sludge, heavy metals,
PCBs, and biological pathogens are often adsorbed onto soil
particles which are subject to erosion. The steep slopes and
relatively noncohesive soils of forested regions in the area
increase the possibility of erosion. Sludge may act as a soil
binder, however, increasing the soil's erosion resistance.
Erosion of sludge itself is unlikely. Henry and Cole (1983)
found that up to 1.5 inches of dewatered sludge was stable on a
forest floor at slopes up to 42 percent.
The last route of surface water contamination, via ground-
water contamination, is possible due to the shallow soils in
many local forest areas. Soils in the hills surrounding Eugene
often have perched water tables at depths of 1-2 feet (U. S.
Soil Conservation Service 1981). Groundwater at such shallow
depths could easily surface along ravines and at the bottom of
steep slopes. Nitrate is the contaminant most likely to reach
surface waters in this manner due to its high solubility and
mobility within the soil.
The mechanisms and pathways to groundwater contamination
would be much the same as those in agricultural areas, especial-
ly in forested areas on relatively mild slopes near the valley
floor. In steeper, mountainous areas, the shallow soil depth
and occasional perched water tables could increase the likeli-
hood of affecting groundwater. If sludge applications are
limited to those rates recommended by the Oregon State Extension
Service, however, nitrogen uptake by the trees can be maximized
and leaching of nitrates and other sludge constituents can be
minimized.
Public Health
Health risks of sludge application on forestland may
include contamination of drinking water supplies, exposure by
direct human contact through work or recreation, and exposure
through animal or insect vectors.
Steep slopes and poor soils usually associated with forest-
lands near Eugene/Springfield will require careful selection of
forest disposal sites and close attention to application re-
strictions to avoid inadvertent contamination of groundwater and
185
-------
surface drinking water supplies. Sludge is difficult to incor-
porate into forest soils and therefore may be more susceptible
to surface water runoff. During all periods of the year,
especially hunting season, precautions must be taken to avoid
direct exposure of recreational forest users to sludge within 12
months after application. Forest use must be considered before
a forest sludge disposal site is approved. The potential for
infection or contamination of game and other wild animals by
sewage sludge has been reported in the literature (Prestwood
1980; Love et al. 1975). This could include accumulation of
metals and other toxic substances through the forest food chain
and transmission of diseases, such as Giardiasis and Salmonel-
losis, by game animals. The actual risk of human exposure
through game or other wild animals is probably very small for
the general public.
Land Use Compatibility
The application of sludge on forestland in the Eugene/
Springfield area would not create significant land use com-
patibility problems unless public forest was used. Nonforest
uses are closely regulated on private timberland. If public
access is allowed, however, or livestock grazing is a secondary
use, the potential for public health problems related to direct
contact with sludge becomes a concern. It is likely that MWMC
would restrict its forest application agreements to private
timber owners to avoid conflicts with nontimberland uses. On
those private lands where public access or grazing was allowed,
the DEQ access restrictions would have to be followed by the
landowner.
It is unlikely that long-term land use restrictions would
be necessary on forest application sites unless excessive
application rates were used. Even with repeated applications,
only those tree-growing areas that might eventually be used to
grow human food chain crops would be of concern.
Soil Character and Use
Forest application of digested sludge is unlikely to alter
future soil use. Forest soils are generally too thin, steep,
and contain too few nutrients to support any other vegetation
type. Sludge would increase the organic matter content, nitro-
gen content, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and water holding
capacity of most forest soils. These improvements would prob-
ably increase tree growth and shorten the rotation cycle. This
would allow a more intensive management effort and an increase
in the site's fiber production value.
It is highly unlikely that sludge application would de-
crease the site's value as a timber producer. Researchers have
reported that even massive applications of sludge (24,000
gallons per acre) have not caused negative impacts on Douglas-
fir growth (Zasoski et al. 1977). In summary, soil character
186
-------
and use of forestlands would not be changed by sludge applica-
tion.
COMPOSTING AND SOIL AMENDMENT
The impacts of sludge composting and subsequent use as a
soil amendment are difficult to assess in the absence of a
specific composting technique, site, and by product market. As
described in Chapter 2, there are both enclosed and open air
techniques for composting. In open air operations, the chances
of off-site impacts are greatly increased compared to in-vessel
composting. The land use compatibility and surface and ground-
water quality issues are closely related to the site chosen.
Finally, off-site impacts created by use of the sludge product
depend upon the type of product developed and the type of reuse
market that receives the material. This could range from use as
a commercial soil amendment to free distribution in the local
home and garden market. In the absence of a specific composting
proposal, a general discussion of potential impacts follows.
Water Quality
Composting and reuse as a soil amendment could have adverse
water quality impacts at the composting site and at the site of
final destination. The quantity and quality of runoff from the
compost site would depend on the type of composting as well as
site characteristics. Tank or enclosed composting would have
the least impact on surface water quality while pile or windrow
compostirg would have the greatest impact.
The quantity of runoff from compost piles is usually small
if they are covered because high temperatures generated result
in significant evaporation. Leachate flowing from sludge
compost piles has been found not to adversely affect the quality
of nearby streams in a Metropolitan Seattle sludge management
project (Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, no date).
Water quality impacts at the final reuse site could occur
because application rates and site selection may be uncon-
trolled. The composting process would destroy most of the
biological pathogens and release most of the nitrogen, leaving
only heavy metals and organic toxins, if present, to affect
water quality. These contaminants would probably be bound to
large organic molecules and could enter surface waters only
through erosion.
Public Health
Composting is very effective at reducing or eliminating
most pathogenic microorganisms from the sludge. Epstein and
Willson (1975) reported temperatures exceeding 60°C throughout
the compost pile for 9 days during 26 days of forced aeration
composting. This was reported to have reduced Salmonella, fecal
coliforms, and total coliforms to undetectable levels in the
187
-------
composted sludge. Forced aeration composting is preferred to
windrow or other composting methods, especially with raw sludge,
for purposes of odor control and additional pathogen destruction
(Epstein & Willson 1975). The windrow method of composting
digested sludge has been used satisfactorily; however, low
temperature in the outer layers of the windrow may result in
less efficient pathogen reduction (Epstein 1976). Burge and
Millner (1980) reviewed the literature on the health aspects of
composting sewage sludge. They concluded that risks of in-
fection to normal healthy populations, including compost site
workers, communities near compost sites, and people utilizing
the compost, are low. The thermophilic fungus (Aspergillus
fumigatus) and allergens from certain bacterial endotoxins may
be a health threat through inhalation of dust from compost
operations to individuals in a weakened, compromised or sen-
sitized condition (Burge and Millner 1980). Workers at compost
sites would be at the greatest risk to this type of exposure.
Health risks from using composted sludge as a soil amend-
ment would be less than using dried, dewatered or liquid sludge
due to the greater reduction of microbial pathogens. Risks from
metals or toxic organics in the composted sludge should be
similar to that of air dried sludge. As with air dried sludge,
this does not present a significant risk to health.
Land Use Compatibility
Land use compatibility impacts would be tied closely to the
site of the composting operation and whether or not it was an
outdoor operation. Composting operations would typically be
most compatible with industrial or agricultural land uses. If
residential or commercial uses were located adjacent to the
site, there could be complaints of noise, odor, or light and
glare. Public health risks would also increase in residential
neighborhoods. The Eugene/Springfield area includes enough
industrial and agricultural land that there should be an accept-
able site from a land use perspective for a composting opera-
tion.
Soil Character and Use
Under this alternative, impacts could occur at the compost-
ing site and at the final destination of the compost product.
Impacts at the composting site would vary, depending on the type
of composting and measures implemented to prevent movement of
contaminants into underlying soil.
Enclosed tank composting would have the least impact, while
pile or windrowing may allow contamination of underlying soil.
Clay or asphalt beds below compost piles should prevent movement
of contaminants to the soil. Movement of heavy metals, toxic
organics, and nitrogen into the soil may also be limited by the
small amount of leachate often generated by composting (Munic-
ipality of Metropolitan Seattle no date).
188
-------
Soil use impacts at the final destination site would depend
on the quantity of compost product added, exact nature of the
product, and the existing soil conditions. Impacts from patho-
gens and nitrogen would be limited due to the removal of these
constituents during composting. As with any public distribution
scheme, application rates and methods would be uncontrolled. It
is unlikely, however, that the product would be applied in quan-
tities that would exceed EPA metal loading rates.
TOPSOIL AMENDMENT
The use of uncomposted sludge as a topsoil amendment is
likely to be limited in scope in the Eugene area. The local
market identified by MWMC is centered around the gravel ex-
traction industry. Topsoil removed at gravel mining sites would
be enriched with liquid or dewatered sludge prior to use in
commercial or individual landscaping efforts. The two areas of
impact would be the soil/sludge mixing site and the topsoil
application site. Specific locations for these two operations
have not been identified to date, although MWMC is investigating
this sludge reuse option at the present time (Pye pers. comm.).
Water Quality
Significant water quality impacts could occur under this
alternative due to the possibility of uncontrolled use. Impacts
would vary considerably due to the wide variety of land types
that may be considered for reuse. Lands needing a topsoil
additive are usually low in organic matter and contain little
clay. Topsoil reuse areas may be located in areas with coarse
surface soils. This would increase the possibility of water
quality impacts because metals, organic toxins, and biological
pathogens may not have sufficient quantities of bonding agents,
allowing them to move freely from the site. Thorough disking of
the sludge into the soil may reduce the possibility of contact
between surface waters and sludge, but may lead to groundwater
contamination. Contaminated groundwater may be subsequently
discharged into surface waters.
The likely reuse areas for sludge-enriched topsoil would
include new residential and commercial development sites. These
areas would normally be served by a piped water supply system
rather than on-site wells, so leaching of sludge constituents
into local groundwater would not be likely to result in a public
health hazard.
Public Health
Use of sludge as an amendment to commercial topsoil would
have certain health risks not associated with agricultural reuse
or landfill disposal. The primary health concern would be the
potential for uncontrolled use of the topsoil/sludge mixture.
Although the level of pathogens in dried sludge is generally
very low, risk of infection, especially to sensitive or weakened
189
-------
individuals, is still present. If liquid sludge were mixed with
topsoil, the risk would be much greater. Use of the sludge-
amended topsoil in heavy public use areas around hospitals,
nursing homes, or even for residential lawns and gardens,
without additional disinfection, could be considered an unac-
ceptable level of risk. Use of the topsoil-amended sludge for
growing food chain crops should have restrictions similar to
those imposed on agricultural reuse sites in order to protect
the public from heavy metal accumulations. The ability to
control the final use and distribution of the topsoil which has
been amended with sludge is important in the prevention of
unacceptable health risks. An alternative to reduce the risk
would be further reduction of pathogens in the sludge prior to
use as a topsoil amendment by pasteurization, irradiation, or
other acceptable methods as specified by EPA (40 CFR 257).
Land Use Compatibility
The acceptability of using a sludge/topsoil mix in urban
areas would depend upon the degree of pathogen and odor re-
duction achieved prior to final use. A thoroughly dried,
thoroughly mixed soil/sludge product would be compatible with
most land uses, except perhaps hospitals and nursing homes as
mentioned above. Residential and parkland uses would be accept-
able as long as some drying and mixing control could be guaran-
teed. Use in cropland areas would be restricted to nonfood
chain crop production sites by the DEQ sludge management regu-
lations .
Soil Character and Use
Impacts to future soil use under this alternative could be
significant if use is uncontrolled. Application of sludge at
rates greater than those recommended by state and federal
agencies could prevent use of the site for production of food
chain crops or, in extreme cases, could place restrictions on
public uses such as parks or residential development.
It is assumed that the sludge would be disked into the soil
prior to relocation of the mixed product. This would reduce the
photochemical degradation of organic toxins and allow these
materials to accumulate. If mixed in moderate amounts, sludge
would improve soil texture and nutrient content and may allow a
wider range of crops or ornamental plantings to be grown, espe-
cially if the site were of poor quality initially.
DEDICATED LAND DISPOSAL
Dedicated land disposal (OLD) is not a sludge reuse alter-
native. It represents a substitute for both the processing and
reuse or disposal of sludge beyond the initial digestion stage.
Liquid sludge is transported and applied to a site permanently
dedicated to sludge disposal. Because the sludge does not
undergo processing beyond digestion, pathogen levels are often
190
-------
high and the solids content is very low. The large volumes of
liquid involved create both transport and containment problems.
Water Quality
Although this alternative would result in the concentration
of sludge in a relatively small area, water quality impacts
could be minimized through careful site selection, disposal, and
monitoring. Water quality impacts would vary depending on site
parameters, sludge characteristics, and disposal rates.
Although it is not typically practiced for OLD sites,
disposal of air-dried sludge would be preferred because of the
low quantity of water available for runoff or percolation and
the relatively low concentrations of potential pollutants.
Direct surface runoff contamination could be minimized if sludge
were injected into the soil at the DLD site. However, this
would increase the possibility of groundwater contamination.
Photochemical degradation of organic toxins would be decreased
by injection. Injection, however, would expose sludge
constituents to a greater quantity of bonding agents such as
clay and organic matter. The risk of eventually leaching sludge
constituents into underlying groundwater at DLD sites is a major
limitation.
Public Health
By definition, a DLD site must be isolated hydrogeologic-
ally from any potentially useful groundwater aquifers and be
designed to prevent any possibility of contamination of surface
water. Site selection and design to achieve these safeguards is
essential.
The primary health risk of an improperly located and de-
signed DLD site would be potential contamination of groundwater
and adjacent surface waters. Selection of a DLD site with fine
textured clay-rich soils adjusted to a pH of 6.5 or above could
prevent significant migration of pathogens, metals, and toxic
organics to the groundwater.
Nitrate contamination is usually the primary health con-
cern. Application rates of 38-48 dry tons per acre per year, as
proposed by Brown and Caldwell (1980) , are over 10 times the
application rate proposed for existing agricultural reuse of
sludge with surface application (Lowenkron pers. comm.). Since
injection of sludge is proposed, rather than surface applica-
tion, no volatilization of ammonia nitrogen would occur during
application, resulting in sludge applications over 20 times the
recommended agronomic loading rate for nitrogen (Oregon DEQ
1981) . Much of this excess nitrogen will be nitrified and could
migrate to the groundwater beneath the DLD site, resulting in
unsafe levels of nitrate in downgradient drinking water sup-
plies. This must be prevented by locating the site where the
191
-------
leachate cannot travel to potentially useful groundwater aqui-
fers because of hydrogeologic barriers.
Beneficial health considerations of OLD include elimination
of health risks from food chain contamination and better control
over risks from direct contact, when compared to agricultural
reuse, by reducing the total amount of land used and ensuring
better control of site access.
Land Use Compatibility
OLD would be compatible primarily with open space and
agricultural land uses. Because of the frequent and heavy
applications of liquid sludge at these sites, limited public
access is desirable. This is best achieved in a rural setting.
Care also has to be taken in rural settings, however, to ensure
that domestic water supplies and recreational surface waters are
not adversely affected. Buffer strips between residential
areas, surface waterways, and public use areas would be desir-
able to lower the risk of adversely affecting these uses.
Soil Character and Use
Dedicated land disposal of sludge would limit the future
use of the site soils. Site leaching and runoff would be
controlled so that a minimum of potential pollutants would leave
the site.
Brown and Caldwell (1980) estimated an average sludge
loading rate of 43 dry tons per acre per year for the initial
and design years of a DLD site. Assuming a cadmium concen-
tration of 7 mg/kg (Brown and Caldwell 1979) , the cadmium
loading rate would be 0.7 kg/ha, which is over the 0.5 kg/ha
level set by the EPA for soils supporting leafy vegetable crops
grown for human consumption. This loading rate would result in
exceedence of the maximum cumulative cadmium standards for
agricultural land within 8-33 years, depending on soil pH and
CEC. Annual nitrogen additions to the site would exceed those
recommended to control leaching. In summary, DLD of sludge
would limit future agricultural use of the soils to nonfood
chain crops on the site.
192
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References Cited
Anderson, R. K. 1977. Costs of landspreading and hauling
sludge from municipal wastewater treatment plans - case
studies. EPA 530/SW619. Prepared for: U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Baldwin, E. M. 1981. Geology of Oregon. 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt
Publish. Co., Dubuque, IA. 170 pp.
Beaulieu, J. D., P. W. Hughes, and R. K. Mathiot. 1974.
Environmental geology of western Linn County, Oregon.
Bulletin 84. Oregon Dept. of Geol. and Min. Industries 117
pp.
Blokpoel, H. 1976. Bird hazards to aircraft. Clarke, Irwin &
Company Limited, Toronto, Canada. 235 pp.
Braude, G. L., C. F. Jelinek, and P. Corneliussen. 1975. FDA's
overview of the potential health hazards associated with the
land application of municipal wastewater sludges. Pp.
214-217 in Proceedings of the 1975 National Conference on
Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal. Information
Transfer Inc., Rockville, MD.
Brown and Caldwell. 1979. Environmental assessment sludge
management program for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission. Prepared for: Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission. Eugene, OR. Ca. 110 pp.
. 1980. Sludge management program for the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, Eugene
Springfield and Lane County, Oregon. Prepared for:
Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission. Eugene, OR. Ca 300 pp.
. 1982. Predesign report-phase I sludge management
system. Prepared for: Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission. Eugene, OR. 50 pp.
Burge, Wylie D., and Paul B. Marsh. 1978. Infectious disease
hazards of landspreading sewage wastes. Journal of
environmental quality. 7(l):l-9.
Burge, W. D., and P- D. Millner. 1980. Health aspects of
composting: primary and secondary pathogens. Pp. 245-264 in
G. Bitton, et al. eds., Sludge-health risks of land
application. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
193
-------
Bystrak, D., ed. 1974. Wintering areas of bird species
potentially hazardous to aircraft. Prepared by: National
Audubon Society and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National
Audubon Socity, Inc. 156 pp.
CH~M Hill. 1978. Geotechnical report, Eugene/Springfield
metropolitan wastewater treatment plant. Unpublished report
for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, Eugene,
Oregon.
Chaney, R. L. , J. C. Baxter, D. S. Fanning, and P. W. Simon.
1974. Heavy metal relationships on a sewage sludge
utilization farm at Hagerstown, Maryland. Agronomy Abstracts,
Pp. 24-25.
Clark, C. S., H. S. Bjornson, J. W. Holland, V. J. Elia, V. A.
Majeti, C. R. Meyer, W. F. Balistreri, G. L. Van Meer, P. S.
Gartside, B. L. Specker, C. C. Linnemann Jr., R. Jaffa, P. V.
Scarpino, K. Brenner, W. S. Davis-Hoover, G. W. Barrett, T. S.
Anderson, and D. L. Alexander. 1981. Evaluation of the
health risks associated with the treatment and disposal of
municipal wastewater and sludge. EPA-600/1-80-030. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effect Research Lab,
Cinncinati, Ohio. 228 pp.
Chong, F., and F. E. Broadbent. 1980. Effect of nitrification
on movement of trace metals in soil columns. J. Environ.
Qual. 9:587-592.
Cole, Dale W. 1981. An overview of sludge and wastewater
research programs at the College of Forest Resources. Pp.
39-44 in Caroline S. Bledsoe, ed. , Municipal sludge
application to Pacific Northwest forest lands. College of
Forest Resources, University of Washington.
. 1982a. Growth response and economics return from
forest sites receiving sludge. Pp. 34-37 iri Sludge
utilization opportunities in forestry. Prepared for
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, Eugene, OR.
1982b. Application of sludge to forest
environments: management and engineering considerations. Pp.
2-3 in Sludge utilization opportunities in forestry. Prepared
for: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, Eugene,
OR.
Dacre, Jack C. 1980. Potential health hazards of toxic organic
residues in sludge. Pp. 85-102 in G. Bitton, et al., eds.,
Sludge-health risks of land application. Ann Arbor Science,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Dotson, G. K. 1973. Some constraints of spreading sewage
sludge on cropland. Compost Science 14(6):12-15.
194
-------
Emmerich, W. E., L. J. Lund, A. L. Page, and A. C. Chong. 1982.
Movement of heavy metals in sewage sludge-treated soils. J.
Environ. Quality VII:174-178.
Epstein, E. 1976. Composting sewage sludge at Beltsville,
Maryland. Pp. 39-46 in Land Application of Residual Materials
Engineering Foundation Conference, Sept. 26-Oct. 1, 1976,
Easton, MD. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York,
NY.
Epstein, E. A., and G. B. Willson. 1975. Composting raw
sludge. Pp. 245-248 in Proceedings of the 1975 National
Conference on Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal.
Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, MD.
Epstein, F., D. B. Keane, J. J. Meisinger, and J. 0. Legg.
1978. Mineralization of nitrogen from sewage sludge and
sludge compost. J. Environmental Quality 7:217-221.
Ermel, W. 1979. Bird field study: Sacramento regional
wastewater treatment plant. Unpublished report. 33 pp.
Frank, Allen. 1978. Mining waste mine reclamation and
municipal sludge. Sludge Magazine, July-August: 23-27,
1978.
Frank, F. J. 1973. Groundwater in the Eugene/Springfield area,
southern Willamette Valley, Oregon. U. S. Geol. Survey Water
Supply Paper 2018. 65 pp.
. 1976. Groundwater in the Harrisburg-Halsey area,
southern Willamette Valley, Oregon. U. S. Geol. Survey Water
Supply Paper 2040. 45 pp.
Frank, J. F. and N. A. Johnson. 1970. Selected ground water
data in the Eugene/Springfield area, southern Willamette
Valley, Oregon. Oregon State Engineer Groundwater Report
no. 14. Salem, OR. 70 pp.
Geothechnical Consultants, Inc. 1982. Summary of operations,
monitoring well installations, at MWMC sludge management site,
Eugene, Oregon. Unpublished letter. 6 pp.
Gerba, C. P. 1983. Pathogens. Presented at the Workshop on
Utilization of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge on Land,
Denver, Colorado, February 23, 1983. Unpublished report.
Gruen Gruen & Associates. 1977. San Francisco Bay region
wastewater solids study: marketing report phase I. 44 pp.
. 1978. The marketability of heat-dried sewage
sludge in Portland. Jones & Stokes Associates, Sacramento,
CA. 46 pp.
195
-------
Hemphill, D. D., T. I. Jackson, L. W. Martin, G. L. Kiemnec, A.
Hanson, and V. V. Volk. 1982. Sweet corn response to
application of three sewage sludges. Journal of Environmental
Quality 11(2):191-196.
Henry, C., and D. W. Cole. 1983. Use of dewatered sludge as an
amendment for forest growth. V. 4. Center for Ecosystem
Studies, University of Washington, Seattle.
Hinesly, T. D., and R. L. Jones. 1976. Heavy metal content in
runoff and drainage waters from sludge-treated field lysimeter
plots. Pp. 27-44 in Disposal of residues on land.
Proceedings National Conference on Disposal of Residues on
Land. St. Louis, MO.
Huang, Jerry C., George E. Wilson, and Terry W. Schroepfer.
1978. Evaluation of sludge odor control alternatives.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE.
104(EE6):1135-1148.
Huddleston, J. H. 1982. Soils of Oregon: summaries of
physical and chemical data. Oregon State University Ext.
Serv. Special Report 662. Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR. 459 pp.
Johnson, R. D., R. L. Jones, T. D. Hinesly, and D. J. David.
1974. Selected chemical characteristics of soils, forages,
and drainage water from the sewerage farm serving Melbourne,
Australia. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers,
Seattle, WA.
Kelling, K. A., L. M. Walsh, D. R. Keeney, J. A. Ryan, and A. E.
Peterson. 1977a. A field study of the agricultural use of
sewage sludge. II. Effect on soil N and P. J. Environ.
Quality 6:345-352.
Kelling, K. A., A. E. Peterson, and L. M. Walsh. 1977b. Effect
of wastewater sludge on soil moisture relationships and
surface runoff. Water Pollution Control Federation Journal
49:1698-1703.
King, Larry D. 1976. Fate of nitrogen from municipal sludges
in Disposal of residues on land. Proc. of Nat. Conf. on
DTsposal of Residues on Land. St. Louis, MO. 216 pp.
Kirkham, M. B. 1974. Disposal of sludge on land: effect on
soils, plants, and groundwater. Compost science 15(2):6-11.
Kladivko, E. J., and D. W. Nelson. 1979. Surface runoff from
sludge amended soils. Water Pollution Control Federation
Journal 51 (1):100-110.
Lane Council of Governments. 1974. Preliminary Lane County
general plan water quality report. LCOG, Eugene, OR.
Unpublished report. 138 pp.
196
-------
1975. LCOG Lane County atlas. Unpublished report.
. 1980a. River Road/Santa Clara groundwater study,
Draft final summary report. Unpublished. 74 pp.
. 1980b. Metro area general plan. Prepared for:
Eugene/Springfield and Lane County, Oregon. LCOG, Eugene, OR.
Ca. 75 pp.
. 1982. Nationwide urban runoff program study for
Eugene and Springfield, Oregon final report. LCOG, Eugene,
OR.
Lane County, Oregon. 1980a. Goals and policies. Lane County,
Eugene, OR. 6 pp.
. 1980b. Solid waste management plan update 79-80.
Lane County, Eugene, OR.
Lane County Department of Environmental Management, Division of
Planning. 1976. Summary Willamette-Long Tom subarea plan.
Lane County, Eugene, OR. 42 pp.
198la. Draft working paper, comprehensive plan
revision: agricultural lands. Lane County, Eugene, OR.
. 1981b. Comprehensive plan revision update,
number 1. Lane County, Eugene, OR.
. 1982a. Comprehensive plan revision update,
number 2. Lane County, Eugene, OR.
. 1982b. Comprehensive plan revision update
number 3. Lane County, Eugene, OR.
1982c. Lane County general plan policies, adopted
by ord.870. Lane County, Eugene, OR.
Lane County Department of Public Works. 1976-1981. Water
quality monitoring at the Short Mountain landfill. Public
Services Division. Unpublished data.
Lichtensein, E. P. 1971. Environmental factors affecting fate
of pesticides. Pp. 190-203 in Degradation of synthetic
organic molecules in the biosphere. National Academy of
Sciences.
Lofy, R. J.f H. T. Phung, R. P. Stearns, and J. J. Walsh. 1977.
Investigation of groundwater contamination from subsurface
sewage sludge disposal. Volume 1: Project description and
findings. Contract 68-01-4166. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, System Management Division Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, D. C. 360 pp.
197
-------
Love, Gory J., E. Tompkins, and W. A. Galke. 1975. Potential
health impacts of sludge disposal on land. Pp. 204-213 in
Proceedings of the 1975 National Converence on Municipal
Sludge Management and Disposal. Information Transfer Inc.,
Rockville, MD.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. 1982. Formal
procedure for agricultural or forest solids reuse selection
for major and multiyear sites. MWMC, Springfield, OR.
Unpublished report.
Miller, R. H. 1973. Soil microbiological aspects of recycling
sewage sludges and waste effluents on land. Pp. 79-90 in
Recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land, Proceedings
of the Joint Conferences, July 9-13, 1973. Natn'l. Assoc. of
State Universities and Landgrant Colleges, Washington, D. C.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. n.d. Composting of
municipal sewage sludge. 41 pp.
National Climatic Center. 1981. Local climatological data,
Eugene, Oregon, annual summary with comparative data.
National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC. 4 pp.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1981. Guidelines
for land application of wastewater and sludge. State of
Oregon, Salem, OR. 24 pp.
. 1982a. Solid waste disposal permit for the Short
Mountain sanitary landfill. State of Oregon, Salem, OR. 6
pp.
. 1982b. State of Oregon - regulations relating to
water quality control in Oregon - sections from Oregon
Administrative Rules, chapter 340. State of Oregon, Salem,
OR.
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1980.
Statewide planning goals and guidelines. Oregon LCDC, Salem,
OR. 24 pp.
. 1981a. Land conservation and development
commission acknowledgment of compliance Eugene/Springfield
metropolitan area. Oregon LCDC, Salem, OR.
i___. 1981b. Land Conservation and Development
Commission acknowledgement of compliance, Lane County. Oregon
LCDC, Salem, OR.
Oregon, State of. 1982a. Oregon Administrative Rules, chapter
333, Public Water Systems.
1982b. Oregon Administrative Rule 664-04-000,
Division 4, Goal 2 Exception Process.
198
-------
Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 1977.
Projecting farm income effects of sewage sludge utilization in
the Tualatin Basin of Oregon. Special report 498. 65 pp.
Oregon State University, Extension Service. 1982. Lane
County agriculture - 1981 estimated cash receipts from farm
marketing. Oregon State University Extension Service, Eugene,
OR. 2 pp.
Page, A. L. 1974. Fate and effects of trace elements in sewage
sludge when applied to agricultural lands. Environ. Protec.
Tech. Series. EPA 670/2-74-005. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Page, A. L. , and P. F. Pratt. 1975. Effects of sewage sludge
or effluent application to soil on the movement of nitrogen,
phosphorus, soluble salts and trace elements to groundwaters.
Pp. 179-187 in Proceedings of the 1975 National Conference on
Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal. Information
Transfer Inc., Rockville, MD.
Peter, Albert, Jr. 1981. Sludge regulations: EPA's new
comprehensive approach. Pp. 1-7 in C. S. Bledsoe, ed. ,
Municipal sludge application to Pacific Northwest Forestlands.
College of Forest Resources, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Prestwood, A. K. 1980. Disease transmission by wild animals
from sludge amended lands. Pp. 201-212 in I. G. Bitton, et
al. eds. Sludge health risks of land application. Ann Arbor
Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates. 1976. Soils and groundwater
study. Short Mountain sanitary landfill site, Lane County,
Oregon. Report in Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc., 1976.
Design report, Short Mountain landfill. Prepared for:
Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division,
Lane County.
Robertson, K. W. , M. C. Lutvick, and T. L. Yuon. 1982. Heavy
applications of liquid digested sludge on three ultisols. I:
Effects on soil chemistry. J. Environ. Quality 11:278-287.
Schauer, P- S., W. R. Wright, and J. Pelchat. 1980.
Sludge-borne heavy metal availability and uptake by vegetable
crops under field conditions. J. Environ. Quality 9:69-73.
Serfling, Steven A., and Dominick Menclora. n.d. The Solar
Aquacell AWT lagoonn system for the City of Hercules, CA.
Prepared for: City of Hercules, CA. Solar Aqua Systems,
Encinitas, CA. 11 pp.
Sittig, M., ed. 1980. Priority toxic pollutants, health
impacts and allowable limits. Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge,
NJ.
Sommers, L. E. 1980. Toxic metals in agricultural crops. Pp.
105-140 in G. Bitton, et al., eds. Sludge health risks of
i ^r,/q =>^r^TT7-=.-i-ir.n Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
199
-------
Soiraners, L. E., D. W. Nelson, and D. J. Silvicra. 1979.
Transformation of carbon, nitrogen, and metals in soils
treated with waste materials. J. Enviorn. Quality
8(3) :287-294.
Sopper, W. E., and S. N. Kerr. 1979. Renovation of municipal
wastewater in eastern forest ecosystems. Pp. 61-76 in W. E.
Sopper and S. H. Kerr, eds., Utilization of municipal sewage
effluent and sludge on forest and disturbed land.
Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, University Park, PA.
Sweet, H. Randy. 1978. Sludge management sites evaluation,
report for Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission.
Springfield, OR. 32 pp.
Sweet, Edwards & Associates. 1980. River Road/Santa Clara
groundwater study, final technical report. Unpublished report
for the Lane Council of Governments, Eugene, OR.
. 1982. Agripac irrigation site groundwater study.
Unpublished report for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission, Springfield, OR.
Talent, L. G. , and R. L. Jarvis. 1979. Comparative use of
sewage sludge lagoons and rye-grass fields by birds. Prepared
for: Brown and Caldwell. Unpublished report. 8 pp.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1965. Watershed work plan Lower Amazon and Flat Creek.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C. 85 pp.
1975. Soil survey of Banton County area, OR.
U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C. 119 pp. + plates.
. 1981. Soil interpretation records. U.S.D.A.,
Washington, D. C. Unpublished data.
. 1983. Unpublished data for Lane County soil survey
area, Eugene, OR. U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976a. Ammonia
toxicity. EPA-908/3-76-001. EPA Region VIII, Denver, CO.
. 1976b. Application of sewage sludge to cropland:
appraisal of potential hazards of the heavy metals to plants
and animals. EPA-130/9-76-013. EPA, Washington, D. C.
1976c. Quality criteria for water. 256
pp,
j_. 1977a. National interim primary drinking water
regulations. EPA-570/9-76-003, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D. C.
200
-------
1977b. Municipal sludge management: environmental
factors. EPA-430/9-77-004. EPA, Washington, D. C.
. 1978a. Applications of sludges and wastewaters on
agricultural land: a planning and educational guide. MCD-35.
EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, D. C.
1978b. Sludge treatment and disposal. EPA
625/4-78-012. 2 volumes.
. 1979a. Process design manual - sludge treatment
and disposal. EPA 625/1-79-011.
. 1979b. Final environmental impact statement -
sewage sludge disposal for the city of Portalnd, Oregon. EPA
Region 10, Seattle, WA. 314 pp.
. 1980. Pacific Northwest region, environmental
quality profile. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.
. 1983a. MWMC phase I sludge management system,
finding of no significant impact. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.
12 pp.
. 1983b. Draft environmental impact statement
municipality of metropolitan Seattle sludge management plan.
EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA.
U. S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1981. Flood hazard
boundary map, Lane County, Oregon. U. S. Federal Insurance
Administration.
Washington Department of Ecology- 1982. Best management
practices for use of municipal sewage sludge. WDOE 82-12.
Washington DOE, Olympia, WA. 92 pp. + appendices.
Webber, M. D., H. D. Monteith, and D. G. M. Corneau. 1983.
Assessment of heavy metals and PCB's at sludge application
sites. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
55(2):187-195.
Wells, F. G., and D. L. Peck. 1961. Geologic map of Oregon
west of the 121st meridian. U. S. Geolog. survey map 1-325.
2 sheets.
White, John. 1970. The hurd site. In Melvin Akins, ed. ,
Archeological studies in the Willamette Valley, Oregon.
Anthropology Papers #8. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
Williams, D. E., J. Ulamis, A. H. Pukite, and J. E. Corey.
1980. Trace element accumulation, movement and distribution
in the soil profile from massive applications of sewage
sludge. Soil Science 129 (2):119-132.
201
-------
Zasoski, R. L., S. G. Archie, W. C. Swain, and J. D. Stednick.
1977. The impacts of sewage sludge on douglas-fir stands near
Port Gamble, WA. College of Forest Resources, Univ. of
Wsahington, Seattle, WA. 42 pp.
Zenz, D. R. , J. R. Peterson, D. L. Brooman, and C. Lue-Hing.
1976. Environmental impacts of land application of sludge.
Water Pollution Control Federal Journal 48(10):2332-2342.
Personal Communications
Bottorff, James A. February 3, 1983; February 24, 1983.
Endangered Species Team Leader, U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Endangered Species Office, Olympia, WA. Letter;
telephone conversation.
Brown and Caldwell Engineers.
Memorandum.
February 18, 1983. Eugene, OR.
Callicrate, John. February 9, and March 7, 1983. Sanitarian,
Vector Management, Lane County Public Health Department,
Eugene, OR. Telephone conversations.
Dickey, Donald C. January 28, 1983. Private citizen, member of
Homeowners Protecting the Environment, Eugene, OR. Letter to
U. S. EPA, November 17, 1982. Telephone conversation.
Clark, Mike. February 10, 1983. Acting Operations Supervisor,
Corvallis Wastewater Treatment Plant, Ccrvallis, OR.
Telephone conversation.
Clark, Dell. January 18, 1983. Department of Food and
Agriculture, Pest Detection, Sacramento, CA. Telephone
conversation.
Cleary, Bert. November 15, 1982. Biologist, Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, OR. Telephone conversation.
Cook, Alan. January 26, 1983. Appraiser, Lane County Assessors
Office. Meeting.
Cooper, Steve(a). January 17, 1983. Solids Reuse Program
Manager, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission,
Eugene, OR. Letter to Jones & Stokes Associates; 2 pp. +
attachments.
Cooper, Steve(b). January 1983. Solids Reuse Program Manager,
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission." Open file
data and meeting.
Dailey, Elaine. February 3, 1983. Assessor II, Marion County,
Oregon Assessor's Office. Telephone conversation.
Delk, Vern(a). February 1983. Senior Planner, Lane County
Planning Division. Telephone conversation.
202
-------
Delk, Vern(b). September 9, 1982. Senior Planner, Lane County
Planning Division. Letter to Greg Winterowd, Department of
Land Conservation and Development.
Druery, Dixie. January 26, 1983. Field Representative, Biogrow
Program, Willow Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant, Salem, OR.
Telephone conversation.
Ferry, Brian. February 6, and 8, 1983; November 16, 1982.
Assistant District Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife. Personal interviews; telephone
conversation.
Gordon, Steve. January 20, 1983; February 7, 1983. Planner,
Lane Council of Governments, Eugene, OR. Telephone
conversation; personal interview.
Gould, Terry. November 1982 to March 1983. Brown and Caldwell.
Telephone conversations and letters.
Gschwin, J. January 1983. Greater Chicago Metropolitan
Sanitation District. Memorandum.
Harrison, Michael J. December 28, 1982, and January 18, 1983;
January 28, 1983. Bird Hazard Specialist, Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Airport Standards, Washington, D. C.
Telephone conversations; letter.
Henderson, Herb. February 8, 1983. Owner, Henderson Aviation
Company, Eugene, OR. Personal interview. Hormberg, Harvey.
December 30, 1982. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8, Denver, CO. Telephone conversation.
Hudzikiewicz, Joe. February 1983. Planner, Lane County
Planning Division. Meeting.
Jackson, Thomas. March 2, 1983. Soil Scientist, Oregon State
University, Agricultural Extension Service. Telephone
conversation.
Jarvis, Dr. Robert. February 10, 1983. Professor, Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR. Telephone conversation.
Jost, Tom. March 23, 1983. Tower Chief, Mahlon Sweet Field,
Eugene OR. Telephone conversation.
Krueger, Francis E. December 30, 1982. Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports District Office, Minneapolis, MN.
Telephone conversation.
Lane County Department of Planning and Community Development.
December 6, 1982. Memorandum to interested parties re: CPR
Project Hearings.
203
-------
Lowenkron, Larry. July 13, and August 6, 1982. Regional
Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality- Authorizations
for agricultural resue of sludge with attached agricultural
application site approval requests. Letters and attached
documentation for approval and authorization of four
agricultural reuse sites recipients: William Pye, MWMC, and
William Guenzler, Public Works Department, Eugene, OR.
Peroutka, Al. March 1983. Environmental Engineer, Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission. Telephone conversation.
Price, J. March 1982. City of Tacoma, WA. Telephone
conversation.
Pye, William. November 1982 and March 1983. Manager,
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Telephone
conversations and in-person interviews.
Racette, Susan. February 1983. Fiscal Program Coordinator,
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Telephone
conversation.
Rexius, Alan. February 4, 1983. President, Rexius Fuel
Company. Telephone conversation.
Rexius Forest By-Products. January 27, 1983. Salesperson.
Telephone conversation.
Rose, David. January 26, 1983. Head of Security, Sacramento
Regional Wastewater Treatement Plant. Meeting.
Shelby, Robert. December 29, 1982; February 8, 1983. Manager,
Mahlon Sweet Field, Eugene, OR. Telephone conversation;
personal interview.
Spooner, Charles. January 17, 1983. Consultant, Sludge Task
Force, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Telephone
conversation.
Starr, G. Craig. March 1983b. Superintendent, Lane County
Public Services Division. Telephone conversation.
Vader, Candy. March 21, 1983. City of Eugene, Department of
Public Works, Wastewater Management Section, Eugene, OR.
Telephone conversation.
204
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand
BPA - Bonneville Power Administration
Ca - calcium
CAA - Federal Clean Air Act
CEC - cation exchange capacity
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality
CFR - code of federal regulations
cfs - cubic feet per second
CPR - comprehensive plan revision
DAF - dissolved air flotation
DEQ - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
OLD - dedicated land disposal
DO - dissolved oxygen
EFU - exclusion farm use zone
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA - Federal Endangered Species Act
FAA - U. S. Federal Aviation Administration
Fe - iron
FEMA - U. S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
FSL - facultative sludge lagoon
gal - gallon
gpd - gallons per day
gpm - gallons per minute
kg/ha - kilograms per hectare
Kwh - kilowatt hour
LIM - land inventorying and management memorandum
LCDC - Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
LCOG - Lane Council of Governments
LUBA - Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
meq - milli-equivalent
MGD - million gallons per day
mg/kg - micrograms per kilogram
mg/1 - milligrams per liter
MPN - most probable number
MWMC - Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
M-2 - light industrial zoning
M-3 - heavy industrial zoning
N - nitrogen
N9 - nitrogen gas
N~0 - nitrous oxide
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
- un-ionized form of ammonia
- ionized form of ammonia
NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act
NO., - nitrate
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M - operation and maintenance
ORS - Oregon Revised Statutes
205
-------
PCB
PF
PL 92-500
PL 95-217
RCRA
RRSC
RWTP
SCS
SHPO
SIP
SSB
TDS
TSCA
UGB
USFWS
WAS
WDP
polychlorinated biphenyl
public facility zoning
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Federal Clean Water Act
Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
River Road/Santa Clara
regional wastewater treatment plant
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
Oregon State Implementation Plan
solids storage basin
total dissolved solids
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act
urban growth boundary
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
waste activated sludge
waste discharge permit
microgram
equal to or greater than
206
-------
Appendix A
Legal and Regulatory
Influences on the Proposed
Project
-------
LEGAL AND REGULATORY INFLUENCES ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Federal Requirements Relevant to Sludge Management
CLEAN WATER ACT (42 USC SI857 ET SEQ.)
The goals of the Act are to achieve "fishable, swimmable"
surface waters throughout the nation by 1983, and to achieve no
discharge of pollutants by 1985. Section 201 of the Clean Water
Act establishes a construction grants program for municipal
wastewater facilities, wherein federal grants are offered for
the planning, design, and construction of publicly-owned treat-
ment works. This funding is 75 percent (85 percent for innova-
tive and alternative technology projects) of the eligible costs
of municipal wastewater treatment plants and sludge management
facilities. The MWMC sludge management plan has been funded
with a Step 1 construction grant.
Section 208 of the Act establishes an areawide waste treat-
ment management planning process; Section 208 plans must develop
controls for both point and nonpoint sources of water pollution.
Under Section 303 of the Act, states are required to prepare and
enforce ambient water quality standards and to prepare basin
plans showing how these standards will be met. The MWMC sludge
management plan must be consistent with areawide and state water
quality management plans.
Under Sections 401 and 402 of the Act, EPA or the states
are required to issue NPDES permits for all point sources of
pollution. NPDES permits for wastewater treatment plants
include sludge disposal conditions where possible, thus reducing
the need for separate sludge disposal permits.
Several portions of the Act relate specifically to sewage
sludge management. Section 405(d) requires EPA to promulgate
guidelines and regulations for sewage sludge disposal. Pursuant
to both this section and requirements of the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA has issued Criteria for the
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices
(Criteria) (40 CFR Part 257). The Criteria set forth specific
requirements for protection of floodplains, endangered species,
surface water, groundwater, sludge application to land used for
production of food chain crops, disease vectors, air emissions,
and safety. They regulate all land-based alternatives for
sewage sludge disposal, including landfilling, nonagricultural
land application, and agricultural land application. Sludge
management projects implemented pursuant to the MWMC sludge
management plan must be consistent with the Criteria.
Under authority of Section 405(d), EPA is also currently
developing regulations (40 CFR Part 258) for the public dis-
tribution and marketing of sewage sludge-derived fertilizer
A-3
-------
products. Other portions of the Act related to sludge manage-
ment include Section 307, which encourages the utilization of
sludge by requiring pretreatment of industrial wastes entering
publicly-owned treatment works. MWMC has implemented a pretreat-
ment program pursuant to the Act.
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (42 CFR 3251 ET SEQ.)
RCRA establishes national policies and programs for solid
waste management, in general, and for hazardous waste manage-
ment, in particular. With respect to solid waste management,
the Act prohibits new open dumping sites, requires that all open
dumping sites be converted to sanitary landfills or closed by
1983, and authorizes the preparation of the Criteria described
above (40 CFR Part 257). The Act further provides financial
assistance for the development and implementation of comprehen-
sive state solid waste management plans, which are to include
environmentally-sound disposal methods and resource recovery
programs.
Subtitle C of RCRA establishes a program for comprehensive
"cradle-to-grave" regulation of hazardous wastes. Municipal
sludge is not listed as a hazardous waste in RCRA, but it is
also not exempted from consideration as a hazardous waste. A
process has been developed whereby the generators of municipal
sludge can provide an analysis of sludge constituents to EPA or
a designated state agency so that a determination on RCRA
applicability can be reached if this is deemed necessary. To
date, no municipal sludge has been designated as hazardous
within EPA Region 10's jurisdiction (Oregon, Washington, Idaho,
and Alaska). In Oregon, the state DEQ has been delegated
authority to make these determinations. There has been no
request for a RCRA applicability determination on Eugene/Spring-
field sludge because chemical analyses have not indicated there
are unacceptably high levels of hazardous materials in the
sludge. Therefore, it is not anticipated that RCRA Subtitle C
regulations will affect the MWMC sludge management plan.
THE CLEAN AIR ACT (42 USC 1857 ET SEQ.)
The Clean Air Act (CAA) sets the basic framework for
federal, state, and local air quality management programs. The
major implementation provision of the CAA requires each state to
establish and implement a plan to achieve federal ambient air
quality standards within specified time frames. The resulting
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) provide the regulatory pro-
grams for controlling pollutant emissions from existing and
future sources. EPA procedures require the agency to consult
with appropriate state and local agencies when a proposed action
may have a significant effect on air quality to determine the
A-4
-------
conformity of the action with the applicable SIP (40 CFR
S6.303) .
The Act provides for two sets of national ambient air
quality standards, primary standards (for the protection of
human health) and secondary standards (for the protection of
other values such as crops and materials). The Act also pro-
vides for national emissions standards for hazardous pollutants,
and for new source performance standards for certain industrial
categories.
Areas which exceed any federal primary air quality standard
(nonattainment areas) are required by the Act to control both
existing and new emission sources so as to achieve annual incre-
mental reductions in pollutant emissions until the federal
standards are met. The Act requires states to establish new
source review programs for major new stationary sources and to
establish a program for prevention of significant deterioration
in areas that currently meet national ambient standards.
Incineration and thermal reduction of sludge must meet a
number of CAA requirements. Most importantly, these alterna-
tives must comply with SIP emission limitations, with national
emissions standards for hazardous pollutants, and with new
source performance standards.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (42 USC 300f ET SEQ.)
This law establishes the national program for protecting
drinking water supplied by municipal and industrial water
suppliers. Pursuant to the Act, EPA has issued national primary
drinking water standards to protect human health (40 CFR Part
143, see Table A-l). These standards are minimums to be adopted
by the states and applied to municipal and industrial water
suppliers. Under the Act, states with approved programs have
the primary implementation and enforcement authority.
Section 1412 of the Act establishes national secondary
drinking water regulations which control contaminants in drink-
ing waters that primarily affect aesthetics. These regulations
are not federally enforceable, but are intended to act as
guidelines to the states. Maximum contaminant levels are
identified for chloride, color, copper, corrosivity, foaming
agents, iron, manganese, odor, pH, sulfate, total dissolved
solids, and zinc. Excess levels of these contaminants can
affect public acceptance of drinking water, and in higher
concentrations, can have public health effects.
Section 1421 of the Act authorizes state underground in-
jection control programs. The state program would apply if
sludge is injected into the ground or abandoned wells or mines.
A-5
-------
Table A-l. National Primary Drinking Water Standards
TYPE OF CONTAMINANT NAME OF CONTAMINANT TYPE OF MATER SYSTEM MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
Inorganic Chemicals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
Community
0.05 mg/1
1.
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05
33.7°F & below
53.8 - 58.3
58.4 - 63.8
63.9 - 70.6
70.7 - 79.2
79.3 - 90.5
Nitrate (as N)
ContiLinity
Community & non-
cxiuiiunity
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
10.
Organic Chemicals
Endrin Community
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2, 4-D
2, 4, 5-TP Silvex Community-
0.002 rog/1
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
Total trihalonethanes (the sum of the 0.10 mg/1 concentrations of bronodicnloromethane, dibronochloranethane, tribro-
momethane [bromoform] and trichloromethane [chloroform]) 1, 2
Turbidity
Turbidity at repre-
sentative entry
point to distribu-
tion system
Community & non-
community
1 TO monthly average and
5 TO average of twD consecutive days
(5 TO monthly average may apply at state option)
1. Proposed MCL (Maximum contaminant level)
2. The maximum contaminant level for total trihalomethanes applies only to cotrunity water systems which serve a
population of greater than 75,000 individuals and which add a disinfectant to the water in any part of the drink-
ing water treatment process.
Microbiological
Coliform
Bacteria
Connunity & non-
community
Membrane Filter*
Coliforms shall not exceed: 1 per 100 ml, mean of
all samples per month, 4 per 100 ml in more than one
sample if less than 20 sanples collected per month,
or, 4 per 100 ml in more than 5 percent of sanples
if 20 or more samples are examined per month.
Fermentation Tube - 10 ml Portion*
Coliforms shall not be present in more than 10 per-
cent of portions per month, not more than 1 sample
may have 3 or more portions positive when less than
20 sanples are examined per month, or not more than
5 percent of samples may have 3 or more portions
positive when 20 or more samples are examined per
month.
A-6
-------
Table A-l Continued
TYPE OF CONTAMINANT NAME OF CONTAMINANT TYPE OF WATER SYSTEM
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
Fermentation Tube - 100 c Portion*
Coliforms shall not be present in more than 60 per-
cent of the portions per month, not more than 1
sample may have all 5 portions positive when less than
5 samples are examined per month, or not more than
20 percent of samples may have all 5 portions positive
when 5 or more samples are examined per month.
* If sampling rate is less than 4 per month, compliance shall be based on 3-month period unless state determines that
a 1-month period shall apply.
Microbiological
Optional
Chlorine
Residual
Community &
community
Minimum free chlorine residual throughout distribution
system 0.2 mg/1. (At state option and based on sani-
tary survey, chlorine residual monitoring may be sub-
stituted for not more than 75 percent of microbiolo-
gical samples.)
Radionuclides
Natural
Community
Gross Alpha
Activity
Radium 226 +
Radium 228
15 pCi/1
5 pCi/1
Screening level: 1) test for Gross Alpha; 2) if
Gross Alpha exceeds 5 pCi/1, test for Radium 226; 3)
if Radium 226 exceeds 3 pCi/1, test for Radium 228.
Man-made
Beta particle and Community
photon radioactivity
4 millirem/year for total body or any internal organ.
Screening level: Gross Beta Activity 50 pCi/1, tri-
tium 20,000 pCi/1, Strontium 90 8 pCi/1. If Gross
Beta exceeds 50 pCi/1, sample must be analyzed to de-
termine major radioactive constituents present; and
the appropriate organ and total body doses shall be
calculated to determine compliance with the 4 milli-
rem/year level.
A-7
-------
THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (15 USC 2601 ET SEQ.)
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) empowers EPA to
control production and use of toxic substances. Under the Act,
EPA is empowered to regulate any aspect of chemical use likely
to result in an unreasonable risk of serious or widespread
injury to public health or the environment. The Act prohibits
the production of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) after January
1979 and the distribution of PCBs in commerce after July 1979,
resulting in an expected long-term decline in the PCB content of
municipal sludge.
The Act also requires coordination with the CAA and Clean
Water Act to restrict disposal of hazardous wastes. High
concentrations of PCBs in sewage sludge would cause it to be
considered a hazardous waste regulated by TSCA.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (42 USC 4321 ET SEQ.)
NEPA and regulations issued pursuant to NEPA establish
policies and procedures for assuring that federal actions are
consistent with the nation's environmental quality objectives.
NEPA directs that, to the fullest extent possible, federal
agencies are to carry out their programs in accordance with NEPA
policies and procedures. NEPA's "action-forcing mechanism"
requires that federal agencies prepare EISs, using a "systemat-
ic, interdisciplinary approach" to assess the impacts of "major
federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment."
Regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
(40 CFR Sections 1500-1508) and EPA (40 CFR Part 6) provide
detailed requirements for implementing NEPA. Preparation of
this EIS satisfies EPA's environmental impact review respon-
sibilities under NEPA.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (16 USC 1536 ET SEQ.)
Federal policies and procedures for protecting endangered
and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants are estab-
lished by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and regulations
issued pursuant to the Act. The purposes of the Act are to
provide mechanisms for conservation of endangered and threatened
species and the habitats upon which they depend, and to achieve
the goals of international treaties and conventions related to
endangered species. Under the Act, the Secretary of the Inter-
ior is required to determine which species are endangered or
threatened, and to issue regulations for protection of those
species.
Section 7 of the Act requires federal agencies to consult
with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in order to
A-8
-------
ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species
or result in the adverse modification or destruction of their
critical habitat. Upon determination that an endangered or
threatened species may be present in the area of a proposed
action, the responsible agency must conduct a biological assess-
ment to identify how the listed species might be affected. The
biological assessment may be performed as part of an environ-
mental assessment or EIS pursuant to NEPA. EPA has undertaken
Section 7 consultation for the MWMC project.
CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
A number of federal laws and regulations have been pro-
mulgated to protect the nation's historical, cultural, and
prehistoric resources. These include the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Archeological and Historic Preservation
Act, the Archeological Resources Protection Act, and the Ameri-
can Indian Religious Freedom Act.
Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
(16 USC 470 et seq.), the effects of any federal or federally-
assisted undertaking on historical, cultural, or archeological
resources must be evaluated. An "effect" is defined as any
change in the quality of the characteristics that qualify the
resource for protection under the law (36 CFR 800). For prop-
erties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the responsible federal agency must consult with the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding any poten-
tial adverse effects on resources of historic, architectural,
archeological, or cultural significance.
The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (88 Stat.,
174) and the Archeological Resources Protection Act (93 Stat.
721) safeguard historical and archeological resources from
damage or loss to federally-sponsored or permitted projects, and
from excavation or removal from federal and Indian lands,
respectively. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC
1776) assures that federal activities do not impair access to
religious sites and will not affect ceremonial rites of American
Indians.
Cultural resource protection laws have been complied with
in preparing this EIS.
PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
On September 8, 1978, EPA issued its policy to protect
environmentally significant agricultural lands. Under this
policy, EPA is required to identify the direct and indirect
impacts of its actions on environmentally significant
A-9
-------
agricultural lands and to avoid or mitigate, to the extent
possible, identified adverse impacts.
The CEQ issued a memorandum in 1980 emphasizing the need
for determining the effects of proposed federal agency actions
on prime or unique agricultural lands (45 FR 59189, September 8,
1980). Prime farmlands are to be considered a "depletable
resource" and impacts to them must be evaluated in the environ-
mental assessment process. Impacts to be evaluated include
reduction in farmland productivity and conversion of farmlands
to other uses.
FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies, in carry-
ing out their responsibilities, to take action to reduce the
risk of flood loss; to minimize flood impacts on human safety,
health, and welfare; and to restore and preserve the natural and
beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 11990
requires federal agencies, in carrying out their responsibil-
ities, to take action to minimize the loss or degradation of
wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial
values of wetlands. Each agency is required to avoid undertak-
ing or providing assistance for construction in wetlands unless
the agency finds there is no practicable alternative and the
proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize
harm to wetlands.
EPA has developed procedures implementing these Executive
Orders on floodplain management and wetlands protection (40 CFR
6, Appendix A). Under these procedures, EPA is required to
assess floodplains and wetlands impacts of its actions, and to
either avoid adverse impacts or minimize them if no practicable
alternative to the action exists.
State Requirements
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SLUDGE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The Oregon DEQ has prepared Guidelines for Handling,
Disposal, and Use of Sewage Sludge to regulate sewage sludge
reuse and disposal within the state. These guidelines place
restrictions on the location of sludge, reuse or disposal,
provide site selection and approval criteria, establish monitor-
ing and reporting requirements, and propose limitations on the
build-up of certain sludge constituents in the soil. MWMC plans
for agricultural reuse or landfilling of sludge must comply with
the requirements of these guidelines (see Appendix F).
A-10
-------
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 340-61 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 61,
contains special rules pertaining to sludge disposal sites
(340-61-055). The rules require a permit for all sewage sludge
disposal sites unless the wastewater treatment facility which is
the source of the sludge has a Waste Discharge Permit (WDP) that
specifies conditions for sludge disposal.
Other state regulations, plans, and policies that have some
influence on the MWMC sludge management plan are discussed in
the text of the environmental evaluation in Chapter 3.
A-1.1
-------
Appendix B
Project Design and
Operating Data,
Alternative Screening
-------
Table B-l. Present Digested Sludge Constituent Concentrations
Sludge constituent
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Aluminum
Antimony
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Potassium
Total phosphorous
Total nitrogen (percent)
Ammonia nitrogen (percent)
Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride0
Sulfate0
Total dissolved solids (mg/1)
Total solids (percent)
Volatile matter (percent)
PH
Fecal conforms (organisms
per ml)
Total coliforms (organisms
per ml)
Mean concentration
(mg/kg)a
Eugene
7.4
23.9
7.7
474
139
7.5
7.2
304
0.6
1,852
23,923
104
215
19,252
374
2,105
13,019
3.4
1.1
1,195
20,590
4,528
16
9.9
773
7.5
46.3
7.1
13
829
Springfield
5.1
12.8
6.1
,680.
131
7.0
9.2
79
0.8
1,294
18,975
156
72
19,745
334
2,278
12,163
4.9
1.8
6,780
38,980
4,576
16
9.1
1,688
5.5
52.3
7.3
2,000
6,040
Range of concentration
(mgAg)a
Eugene
5.5-10.0
1.1-57.0
6.0-9.6
348-600
95-208
6.1-9.0
4.1-12.0
236-450
0.1-2.1
1,300-2,400
19,020-28,825
66-141
44-386
17,854-20,650
337-410J
1,900-2,390
9,970-14,610
1.7-4.4
0.9-1.3
-
-.
-
-
-
602-944
6.4-9.2
40.1-47.7
7.0-7.7
10-20
100-2,800
Springfield
4.4-5.7
1.7-36.0
4.2-8.2
538-880
82-256
5.3-9.5
4.6-14.0
52-110
0.1-2.9
924-1,700
16,950-21,000
99-218
61-82
18,490-21,000
303-364
2,053-2,800
10,450-14,339
4.2-5.9
1.2-2.3
-
-
-
-
-
1,240-2,564
4.6-6.3
48.1-54.3
7.1-7.8
500-3,500
600-10,500
Number of
samples
eachcltyb
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
5
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
12
5
26
26
7
5
aDry weight basis, milligrams per kilogram unless otherwise stated.
''All metal samples were monthly composited during the months of April through August, 1978.. All
other samples were grab samples during the months of April and May, 1978.
°Determined on supernatant, milligrams per liter.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
B-3
-------
Table B-2. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Existing
Eugene and Springfield Sludges
Chlorinated hydrocarbon
Aldrln
BHC Isomers (Includes Llndane)
Technical Chlordane
Dacthal
DDE
DDD (IDE)
DDT
Dleldrln
Dloxln
Endrln
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxlde
Hexachlorobenzene
Metaoxychlor
PCNB
Pentachlorophenol
Polychlorlnated Blphenyls
1242
1254
1260
Toxaphene
Thlodan
TOK
Detection limit
mgAg8
0.01
0.01
O.OS
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.0
0.05
0.05
mg/lb
0.0006
0.0006
0.003
0.0006
0.0006
0.003
0.003
0.0006
0.003
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.006
0.0006
0.003
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.06
0.003
0.003
Concentration In
sludge mgAgc
Eugene
sludge
NDd
ND
0.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.14
ND
ND
ND
ND
Springfield
sludge
ND
ND
0.05
ND
TDC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.15
ND
ND
ND
ND
Drinking water
standard mg/1
g
0.004
0.003
9
9
g
9
9
9
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
9
0.1
9
9
9
9
9
0.005
9
9
'Detection limit of analytical methods used for this sludge analysis. Dry weight basis.
Concentration limit In sludge of 6 percent solids, milligrams per liter.
°Composlte samples from September, 1978. Three samples per week composited for entire month.
dND - None detected above limits of this analysis.
^D - Trace detected.
fPubllc Law 92523.
9No drinking water standard proposed as yet.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
B-4
-------
Table B-3. Initial Screening Matrix for Base Sludge
Utilization/Disposal Options
Utilization/
disposal
options
Incineration
Pyrolysis
Bag-market as
fertilizer
Agricultural
land "(private)
Agricultural
land (public)
Forested land
(private)
Forested land
(public)
Give to citizens
horticulture
Combine with
commercial
topsoil
Landfill
Dedicated land
disposal
Feasibility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reliability
X
X
o
o
X
0
X
0
0
X
X
Environ-
mental
hazard
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site
availability
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
X
X
X
X
Cost
X
X
X
X
X
o
0
X
X
X
X
Acceptable
> for base
alternative
X
X
O
o
X
0
0
0
o
X
X
X - Acceptable as a base alternative component.
O - Unacceptable as a base alternative component.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
B-5
-------
Table B-4. Compatible Options for Sludge Processing and
Utilization/Disposal
Base8
utilization /disposal
options
Dedicated land
Agricultural land
Landfill
Incineration
Pyrolysis
Sludge processing options
Digested sludge options
Digest
X
X
0
0
0
Digest
dewater
X
X
X
0
o
Digest
air dry
X
X,
X
0
0
Digest
dewater
compost
0
X
O
0
0
Raw sludge options
Dewater
compost
O
X
0
0
o
Dewater
0
O
O
X
X
Lime
stabilize
dewater
O
O
X
O
o
X - Suitable combination.
0 - Unsuitable combination.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
Table B-5. Summary of Alternative Evaluation
Evaluation category
Cost
Environmental impacts
Reliability
Flexibility
Program Implementation
Overall rating
Alternative
Ila
1
2
1
1
1
1
lie
2
1
2
2
1
2
III
3
3
3
3
2
3
Note: 1"Lowest or best condition.
3-Highest or worst condition.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
B-6
-------
Appendix C
Public Health Background
Data
-------
Table C-l. Human Enteric Pathogens Occurring in Wastewater
and Sludge and the Diseases Associated With the Pathogens
From: Love et al. 1975
PATHOGENS
Bacteria
Vibrio cholerae
Salmonella typhi
Shigella species
Proteus species
Coliform species
Clostridium species
Pseudomonas species
Viruses
Infectious hepatitis virus
Echoviruses
Coxsackie virus
Poliovirus
Epidemic gastroenteritis virus
Parasites
Entamoeba histolytical
Balantidium coli
lospora hominis & others
Giardia lamblia
Pinworms (eggs)
Tapeworms
Liver & intestinal flukes
DISEASES
Cholera
Typhoid and other enteric fevers
Bacterial dysentery
Diarrhea
Diarrhea
Botulism
Local infection
Hepatitis
Enteric and other diseases
Enteric and other diseases
Poliomyelitus
Gastroenteritis
Amoebic dysentery
Balantidial dysentery
Coccidiosis
Diarrhea
Ascariasis
Tapeworm infestation
Liver or intestinal infestation
C-3
-------
Appendix D
Biological Resources
Analysis Background Data
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Endangered Species
2625 Parkmont Lane S.W., B-2
Olympia, WA 98502
February 24, 1983
Ms. Minty Green
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 98516
Refer to: 1-3-83-SP-153
Dear Ms. Green:
This is in response to your letter, dated January 28, 1983, for infor-
mation on listed and proposed endangered and threatened species which
may be present within the area of the proposed wast>ewater treatment
sites near Eugene in Lane County, Oregon. Your request and this response
are made pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.
To the best of our present knowledge there are no listed or proposed
species occurring within the area of the subject project. (See
attachments) Should a species become officially listed or proposed
before completion of your project, you will be required to reevaluate
your agency's responsibilities under the Act. We appreciate your
concern for endangered species and look forward to continued coordina-
tion with your company.
Sincerely,
Jim A. Bottorfl
Endangered Species Team Leader
Attachments
cc: RO (AFA-SE)
ES, Olympia
ODFW - Non-Game Program
D-3
-------
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND
CANDIDATE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SITES NEAR EUGENE,
LANE COUNTY, OREGON
1-3-83-SP-153
LISTED:
None
PROPOSED;
None
CANDIDATE:
None
Attachment A
D-4
-------
ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
5200. 5
10/16/74
SUBJ: FAA GUIDANCE CONCERNING SANITARY LANDFILLS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS
1. PURPOSE. This order provides guidance concerning the elimination or
monitoring of open dumps, waste disposal sites, and sanitary landfills
on or in the vicinity of airports.
2. DISTRIBUTION. This order is distributed to Washington headquarters and
Regional Airports, Flight Standards and Air Traffic offices to division
level; all Airports District Offices; and Flight Standards and Air
Traffic field facilities.
3. BACKGROUND. Garbage dumps, sanitary landfills or whatever title is
used for this type of operation attract rodents and birds, erodes
the airport environment, and where the dump is ignited, creates smoke -
all which are undesirable and are potential hazards to aviation.
While the chance of an unforeseeable, random bird strike in flight will
always exist, it is nevertheless possible to define the high-risk
conditions within fairly narrow limits. Those high-risk conditions
exist in the take-off, climb-out, approach and landing areas on and in
the vicinity of airports. The increasing number of bird strikes reported
on aircraft has become a matter of concern to the FAA and to airport
management. Various studies and observations have resulted in the
conclusion that sanitary landfills are artificial attractants to birds.
Accordingly, landfills located in the vicinity of an airport may be
incompatible with safe flight operations. Those conditions that are not
compatible must be eliminated, to the extent practicable. Airport
owners need guidance in making this decision, and the FAA must be in
a position to assist. Some airports axe not under the jurisdiction
of the community or local governing body having control of land usage
in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases, the airport owner should
use its influence and best efforts to close or control landfill opera-
tions within the general vicinity of the airport.
4. ACTION.
a. Sanitary landfills located within the areas established for an
airport by these guidelines as set forth in paragraph 5 of this
order should be closed. If a sanitary landfill is determined as
Distribution: WRAS/AT/FS-2; FFS-0, FAT-0, Initiated By: AAS-680
FAS-1 (Normal)
D-5
-------
5200. 5 10/16/74
incompatible land uae under guidelines of paragraph 5 and cannot be
closed within a reasonable time, it should be designed and operated
in accordance with the criteria and instructions issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, and other such regulatory bodies that may have applica-
ble requirements. FAA should advise airport owners against locating,
permitting or concurring in the location of a landfill on or in
the vicinity of airports.
b. The operation of a sanitary landfill located beyond the areas
described in paragraph 5 and designed in accordance with the guide-
lines identified in the foregoing paragraph must be properly super-
vised to insure compatibility with the airport. If at any time the
landfill, by virtue of its operation, presents a potential hazard
to aircraft operations, the owner shall take action to correct the
situation or terminate operation of the landfill. Failure to take
corrective action could place the airport owner in noncoropliance
with the .commitments under a grant agreement.
c. An inspection of current operations at existing landfill sites which
have a reported potential bird hazard problem will periodically be
cnade and evaluated. A Bird Hazard Group formed under Order 5200.4
-------
10/16/74 5200. 5
g. Additional information on solid waste disposal, bird hazard and
related problems may be obtained from the following agencies:
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
U.S. Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs (HM-562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1835 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20406
U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
5. CRITERIA. Sanitary landfills will be considered as an incompatible
use if located within areas established for the airport through the
application of the following criteria:
a. Landfills located within 10,000 feet of any runway used or planned
to be used by turbojet aircraft.
b. Landfills located within 5,000 feet of any runway used only by
piston type aircraft.
c. Landfills outside of the above perimeters but within the conical
surfaces described by FAR Part 77 and applied to an airport will
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
d. Any landfill located -such that it places the runways and/or
approach and departure patterns of an airport between bird
feeding, water, or roosting areas.
WILLIAM V. VITALE, Acting Director
Airports Service, AAS-1
Page 3
D-7
-------
40 CFR Part 257
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 179 / Thursday. September 13. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 53463
consumption, and animal feed for
animals whose products are consumed
by humans.
(5) "Incorporated into the soil" means
the injection of solid waste beneath the
surface of the soil or the mixing of solid
waste with the surface soil.
(6) "Pasture crops" means crops such
as legumes, grasses, grain stubble and
stover which are consumed by animals
while grazing.
(7) "pH" means the logarithm of the
reciprocal of hydrogen ion
concentration.
(8) "Root crops" means plants whose
edible parts are grown below the
surface of the soil.
(9) "Soil pH" is the value obtained by
sampling the soil to the depth of
cultivation or solid waste placement
whichever is greater, and analyzing by
the electrometric method. ("Methods of
Soil Analysis, Agronomy Monograph
No. 9," C.A. Black, ed., American
Society of Agronomy. Madison,
Wisconsin, pp. 914-926.1965.)
} 257.2-6 Disease.
(a) Disease Vectors. The facility or
practice shall not exist or occur unless
the on-site population of disease vectors
is minimized through the periodic
application of cover material or other
techniques as appropriate so as to
protect public health.
(b) Sewage sludge and septic tank
pumpings {Interim Final). A facility or
practice involving disposal of sewage
sludge or septic tank pumpings shall not
exist or occur unless in compliance with
paragraphs (b) (1). (2) or (3) of this
section.
(1) Sewage sludge that is applied to
the land surface or is incorporated into
the soil is treated by a Process to
Significantly Reduce Pathogens prior to
application or incorporation. Public
access to the facility is controlled for at
least 12 months, and grazing by animals
whose products are consumed by
humans is prevented for at least one
month. Processes to Significantly
Reduce Pathogens are listed in
Appendix II, Section A. (These
provisions do not apply to sewage
sludge disposed of by a trenching or
burial operation.)
(2) Septic tank pumpings that arc
applied to the land surface or
Incorporated into the soil are treated by
a Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (as listed in Appendix II.
Section A), prior to application or
incorporation, unless public access to
the facility is controlled for at least 12
months and unless grazing by animals
whose products are consumed by
humans is prevented for at least one
month. (These provisions do not apply
to septic tank pumpings disposed of by a
trenching or burial operation.)
(3) Sewage sludge or septic tank
pumpings that are applied to the land
surface or are incorporated into the soil
are treated by a Process to Further
Reduce Pathogens, prior to application
or incorporation, if crops for direct
human consumption are grown within 18
months subsequent to application or
incorporation. Such treatment is not
required if there is no contact between
the solid waste and the edible portion of
the crop: however, in this case the solid
waste is treated by a Process to
Significantly Reduce Pathogens, prior to
application: public access to the facility
is controlled for at least 12 months; and
grazing by animals whose products are
consumed by humans is prevented for at
least one month. If crops for direct
human consumption are not grown
within 18 months of application or
incorporation, the requirements of
paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section
apply. Processes to Further Reduce
Pathogens are listed in Appendix II.
Section B.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Crops for direct human
consumption" means crops that are
consumed by humans without
processing to minimize pathogens prior
to distribution to the consumer.
(2) "Disease vector" means rodents.
flies, and mosquitoes capable of
transmitting disease to humans.
(3) "Incorporated into the soil" means
the injection of solid waste beneath the
surface of the soil or the mixing of solid
waste with the surface soil.
(4) "Periodic application of cover
material" means the application and
compaction of soil or other suitable
material over disposed solid waste at
the end of each operating day or at such
frequencies and in such a manner as to
reduce the risk of fire and to impede
vectors' access to the waste.
(5) "Trenching or burial operation"
means the placement of sewage sludge
or septic tank pumpings in a trench or
other natural or man-made depression
and the covering with soil or other
suitable material at the end of each
operating day such that the wastes do
not migrate to the surface.
§257.3-7 AJr.
(a) The facility or practice shall not •
engage in open burning of residential,
commercial, institutional or industrial
solid waste. This requirement does not
apply to infrequent burning of
agricultural wastes in the field.
silvicultural wastes for forest
management purposes, land-clearing
debris, diseased trees, debris from
D-8
emergency clean-up operations, and
ordnance.
(b) The facility or practice shall not
violate applicable requirements
developed under a Slate implementation
plan approved or promulgated by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 110 of
the Clean Air Act.
(c) As used in this section "open
burning" means the combustion of solid
waste without (1) control of combustion
air to maintain adequate temperature for
efficient combustion, (2) containment of
the combustion reaction in an enclosed
device to provide sufficient residence
time and mixing for complete
combustion, and (3) control of the
emission of the combustion products.
$ 257.3-8 Safety.
(a) Explosive gases. The
concentration of explosive gases
generated by the facility or practice
shall not exceed:
(1) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the
lower explosive limit for the gases in
facility structures (excluding gas control
or recovery system components): and
(2) The lower explosive limit for the
gases at the property boundary.
(b) Fires. A facility or practice shall
• not pose a hazard to the safety of
persons or property from fires. This may
be accomplished through compliance
with § 257.3-7 and through the periodic
application of cover material or other
techniques as appropriate.
(c) Bird hazards to aircraft. A facility
or practice disposing of putrcscible
wastes that may attract birds and which
occurs within 10.000 feet (3.048 meters)
of any airport runway used by turbojet
aircraft or within 5,000 feel (1.524
meters) of any airport runway used by
only piston-type aircraft shall not pose a
bird hazard to aircraft.
(d) Access. A facility or practice shall
not allow uncontrolled public access so
as to expose the public to potential
health and safety hazards at the
disposal site.
(e) As used in this section:
(1) "Airport" means public-use airport
open to the public without prior
permission and without restrictions
within the physical capacities of
available facilities.
(2) "Bird hazard" means an increase
in the likelihood of bird/aircraft
collisions that may cause damage to the
aircraft or injury to its occupants.
(3) "Explosive gas" means methane
(4) "Facility structures" means any
buildings and sheds or utility or
drainage lines on the facility.
(5) "Lower explosive limit" means the
lowest percent by volume of a mixture
of explosive gases which will propasate
-------
Appendix E
Land Use Analysis
Background Data and
Regulations
-------
Land Use Planning Framework
Land use planning for the alternative sites is guided by
statewide planning goals and guidelines set forth by the Oregon
Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), as well as
by numerous local plans and policies.
STATE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS
The LCDC is the statewide planning agency whose purpose is
to promote coordinated land conservation and development
throughout the State of Oregon. LCDC accomplishes its purpose
by prescribing planning goals and objectives which state agen-
cies, cities, counties, and special districts throughout Oregon
must apply in developing comprehensive plans for their respec-
tive jurisdictions. The Commission consists of seven members
appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the
State Senate (Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 197).
Statewide land use goals are set forth in LCDC's Statewide
Planning Goals and Guidelines (Oregon LCDC 1980) . This tabloid
contains 19 goals which must be adhered to in all local
government comprehensive plans. This tabloid also contains
guidelines for implementing each of the 19 goals. Unlike the
goals, however, these guidelines do not have the force of law.
They are simply suggested directions for action which local
governments can consider in developing comprehensive plans.
Compliance with state land use goals is ensured by LCDC
review of local government comprehensive plans. Once a plan is
certified by LCDC to be in conformance with state goals, the
plan is said to be "acknowledged". If a plan is not acknowl-
edged, LCDC issues an order requiring the local government to
bring its plan into conformity with state goals. In the inter-
im, LCDC may prohibit the nonconforming local government from
approving subdivisions or building permits if such activities
would aggravate the goal violation (Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197) . Once a local comprehensive plan is acknowledged,
that plan is considered the controlling factor in land use
decisions.
The goals which are most relevant to the potential land use
impacts of the proposed project are Goal 2 (Land Use Planning),
Goal 3 (Agriculture), and Goal 6 (Air, Water, and Land Resources
Quality). Other goals have less relevance, but, should also be
considered. These include Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 7
(Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards), Goal 11
(Public Facilities and Services), and Goal 14 (Urbanization).
Several of the LCDC goals call for the protection of state
resource lands, such as agricultural or forestlands. In adopt-
ing these goals, LCDC recognized that it would not be possible
E-3
-------
for local jurisdictions to apply these goals in all cases.
Therefore, LCDC's Goal 2 incorporates an exception process,
which allows a city or county to conclude, after careful study,
that it is not possible to apply a particular goal to certain
situations or properties. This conclusion must be supported by
compelling reasons and facts, including (Oregon Administrative
Rule 660-04-020):
1. Why these other uses should be provided for;
2. What alternative locations within the area could be used
for the proposed uses;
3. What are the long-term environmental, economic, social,
and energy consequences to the locality, the region or
the state from not applying the goal or permitting the
alternative use; and
4. A finding that the proposed uses will be compatible with
other adjacent uses.
An exception may also be supported by compelling reasons
and facts that land has been physically developed or irrevocably
committed to uses not allowed by the applicable goal. In such a
case, adjacent uses, public facilities and services, parcel size
and ownership patterns, neighborhood and regional characteris-
tics, natural boundaries, and other relevant factors must be
considered (Oregon Administrative Rule 660-04-025).
An exception takes effect upon adoption of the associated
comprehensive plan. LCDC then reviews and approves the excep-
tion as a part of their plan review for compliance with state
land use goals. Prior to acknowledgement of a comprehensive
plan by LCDC, an exception may be appealed to Oregon's Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA) (Oregon Administrative Rule 664-04-030
and 035). LUBA is an appellate body created by the Oregon State
Legislature. Since LUBA operates under LCDC, it must present
all of its findings to LCDC for adoption (Delk pers. comm.a).
Goal 3 calls for the preservation and maintenance of agri-
cultural lands. Agricultural land has been defined to include:
1) lands classified by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
as predominately Class I-IV soils in western Oregon and I-VI
soils in eastern Oregon; b) other lands in different soil
classes which are suitable for farm use as defined by ORS
215.203(2)(a), taking into consideration soil fertility; suit-
ability for grazing; climatic conditions; existing and future
availability of water for farm irrigation purposes; existing
land use patterns; technological and energy inputs required; and
accepted farming practices; and c) land which is necessary to
permit farm practices to be undertaken on adjacent or nearby
agricultural lands (Oregon Administrative Rule 660-05-005) .
E-4
-------
Goal 3 requires that all agricultural lands be inventoried
and preserved by the adoption of exclusive farm use (EFU) zones,
pursuant to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215. ORS
215.203 defines permitted farm uses in EFU zones. ORS 215.213
defines permitted nonfarm uses in such zones.
Goal 6 provides for the maintenance and improvement of the
quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. The
goal states that with respect to the air, water, and land
resources included in state statutes, rules, standards, and
implementation plans, such discharges shall not exceed the
carrying capacity of such resources considering long-range
needs, degrade such resources, or threaten the availability of
such resources.
LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS
A number of local plans and policies affect the future land
use of the alternative sites and their vicinities. The compre-
hensive plan for Lane County consists of several main components
including the Metro Area General Plan, the Lane County General
Plan, and numerous countywide elements.
The Metro Area Plan, with amendments adopted by the Cities
of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County in February-March
1982, contains policies and land use designations which apply to
metropolitan Lane County and the Cities of Eugene and Spring-
field. The plan was acknowledged by LCDC in August 1982. As
required by LCDC Goal 14, the Metro Area Plan designates the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB separates the projected
urban service area designated to accommodate planned urban
development through the year 2000 from urban reserve, agricul-
tural, and rural designations in the outlying areas. A major
objective of the plan is to effectively control the potential
for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization by requiring compact
development within the projected urban service area. This means
filling in vacant and underutilized lands, as well as redevelop-
ment, within the limits of the urban growth boundary (Lane
Council of Governments 1980b).
The Lane County General Plan covers the unincorporated
portions of Lane County beyond the UGB of incorporated cities
and the Metro Area General Plan. These lands are primarily
rural. The Lane County General Plan consists of two major
components: a goals and policies document and 14 subarea plans
which evaluate in detail land use issues pertinent to specific
geographic subareas. The goals and policies of this plan
promote the coordinated growth concept. This concept encourages
growth to be concentrated in and around existing communities
where urban services can be economically provided. Within the
rural areas, this concept envisions some fill-in of existing
development, but a reduction of the pressure for new
E-5
-------
development. Rural development would be excluded from agricul-
ture, open space, forest, and hazardous areas. Where rural
development does occur, it must be compatible with maintaining
rural environmental values (Lane County 1980a).
The alternative sludge handling sites are located within
the Willamette-Long Tom Subarea Plan adopted in July 1976. This
subarea plan was developed with the knowledge that there were
strong suburbanizing trends in the Eugene/Springfield metro-
politan area. The plan states, however, that growth should be
guided in an orderly manner in order to retain the rural atmo-
sphere of the subarea, to protect agricultural land, and to
prevent urban sprawl (Lane County Department of Environmental
Management 1976).
One of the General Plan policies calls for prime and
locally important lands to be differentiated from other
agricultural lands (Lane County 1980a). As noted earlier,
LCDC's Goal 3 also requires local governments to inventory
agricultural lands based on the SCS's classification system.
The SCS's Land Capability System and the Storie Index are two
soil classification systems which have been widely used in
United States soil surveys. Both systems express a soil's
suitability for agricultural use by assigning a "grade" or
"class" ranking based on a combination of factors such as soil
depth, texture, drainage, permeability, slope, pH, and the
presence or absence of salinity or alkalinity. Based on these
systems, prime farmlands (i.e., lands best suited to producing
food, feed, forage fiber, and oil seed crops) are usually
considered to be soils within Classes I or II or with a Storie
Index rating of 60 or higher. The SCS has also developed
criteria for defining prime farmland in a policy statement known
as the "Land Inventory and Monitoring Memorandum (LIM)". Unlike
the Land Capability System or the Storie Index, LIM's criteria
for prime lands include considerations of water availability and
climatic factors. LIM also provides more generalized
definitions of unique farmlands and additional farmlands of
statewide or local importance. Unique farmland is land which
does not meet all of the criteria for prime farmland, but which
economically produces high quality and/or high yields of
specific high-value food or fiber crops. The specific
definition and the identification of additional farmlands of
statewide or local importance is referred to the appropriate
state or local agencies. These lands fail to qualify as prime,
but nevertheless either produce yields comparable to prime lands
or produce certain crops of special importance to the region in
which they are located. Soils classified as prime by the Storie
Index or Land Capability System generally fall within the prime
category as defined by LIM.
Completion of Lane County's SCS soil survey is not expected
for several years. However, the Lane County Planning Division
in close coordination with the local SCS office, has produced
preliminary soil maps at a scale of 1 inch = 3,000 feet. These
maps identify three categories of farmlands: prime farmlands,
unique farmlands, and other farmlands (Hudzikiewicz pers.
E-6
-------
comm.). According to an unpublished SCS report, about 160,000
acres, or less than 6 percent of Lane County, meets the soil
requirements for prime farmland. These lands are located mostly
in and adjacent to the Willamette Valley in the central portion
of the County. Crops grown on this land (mainly corn, snap-
beans, wheat, peppermint, and filberts) accounted for an esti-
mated 50 percent of Lane County's total agricultural income for
1980 (Lane County Department of Environmental Management 1981a).
Lane County's Comprehensive Plan also incorporates several
countywide elements, including a Solid Waste Management Plan.
This plan contains information regarding solid waste activities
in Lane County, addresses problems related to solid waste
operations, and suggests ways to minimize adverse environmental
impacts and maximize resource recovery (Lane County 1980b).
In February 1981, the Lane County Comprehensive Plan was
reviewed by LCDC. The plan was not acknowledged due to the
Commission's finding that the plan and its implementing measures
did not comply with statewide Goals 2-7, 9, 11-13, and 15-18. A
list of tasks has been forwarded to Lane County which must be
completed in order to gain acknowledgement. However, LCDC has
not restricted or prohibited County review of development appli-
cations in the interim with the understanding that the County
make a good faith effort at correcting all noncomplying plan
provisions (Lane County Department of Environmental Management
1981b).
LCDC's acknowledgement denial was based on many findings,
which are summarized in LCDC's Acknowledgement of Compliance
(Oregon LCDC 198Ic). The findings which are most relevant to
this evaluation include:
o Lane County has not defined the word "policy" to reflect
the County's "ultimate policy choices". Most policy
statements include nonmandatory "should" language and
are not binding on the County.
o The County has not developed an inventory or map of
agricultural lands as defined by Goal 3.
o None of the County's farm zones is qualified as
exclusive farm use zones pursuant to ORS Chapter 215.
The County's Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-20), Farm-Forestry
(LFF-20), Agricultural Lands (A-l), and Agricultural,
Grazing, and Timber Raising (AG-7) zones permit uses not
authorized by ORS Chapter 215, and some conditional uses
have been permitted as outright uses.
In response to LCDC's acknowledgement denial, Lane County
has decided to develop a new, completely revised Comprehensive
Plan which will address LCDC's directives. The revised Compre-
hensive Plan will include two major components: the County's
"General Plan policies" and the plan diagrams, one each for the
coastal region and the inland region. The subarea plans will no
E-7
-------
longer be a part of the Comprehensive Plan (Lane County
Department of Environmental Management 1982a). Amendments to
Lane County's zoning code will also be made a part of the
Comprehensive Plan Revision (CPR). These amendments will
consist of either changes to existing zones or will permit
creation of new zones. Eighteen zones are being proposed, five
of which are existing zones (Lane County Department of Planning
and Community Development pers. comm.).
The "General Plan policies" document was adopted in Novem-
ber 1982. For each LCDC goal, this document contains one or
more policies to be applied by the County toward various land
use issues. These policies are classified as: advisory pol-
icies which describe the County's position on a particular type;
commitment policies which describe a future action which the
County plans to undertake; or a plan conformity policy which is
intended to guide land use designations on both plan diagrams
and zoning maps (Lane County Department of Environmental
Management 1982c).
E-8
-------
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
215.203 Adoption of zoning ordi-
nances establishing farm use zones; defin-
itions for ordinances. (1) Zoning ordinances
may be adopted to zone designated areas of
land within the county as exclusive farm use
zones. Land within such zones shall be used
exclusively for farm use except as otherwise
provided in ORS 215.213. Farm use zones
shall be established only when such zoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(2)(a) As used in this section, "farm use"
means the current employment of land for the
primary purpose of obtaining a profit in mon-
ey by raising, harvesting and selling crops or
by the feeding, breeding, management and
sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry,
fur-bearing animals or honeybees or for dairy-
ing and the sale of dairy products or any other
agricultural or horticultural use or animal
husbandry or any combination thereof. "Farm
use" includes the preparation and storage of
the products raised on such land for human
use and animal use and disposal by marketing
or otherwise. It does not include the use of
land subject to the provisions of ORS chapter
321, except land used exclusively for growing
cultured Christmas trees as defined in subsec-
tion (3) of this section.
(b) "Current employment" of land for farm
use includes (A) land subject to the soil-bank
provisions of the Federal Agricultural Act of
1956, as amended (P. L. 84-540, 70 Stat. 188);
(B) land lying fallow for one year as 5 normal
and regular requirement of good agricultural
husbandry; (C) land planted in orchards or
other perennials prior to maturity; (D) nny
land constituting a woodlot of less than 20
acres contiguous to and owned by the owner of
land specially valued at true cash value for
farm use even if the land constituting the
woodlot is not utilized in conjunction with
E-9
-------
COUNTY PLANNING; ZONING; HOUSE CODES
215.213
farm uso; (E) wasteland, in an exclusive farm
use zone, dry or covered with water, lying in
or adjacent to and in common ownership with
a farm use"land and which is not currently
being used for any economic farm use; (F)
land under dwellings customarily provided in
conjunction with the farm use in an exclusive
farm use zone; and (G) land under buildings
supporting accepted farm practices.
(c) As used in this subsection, "accepted
farming practice" means a mode of operation
that is common to farms of a similar nature,
necessary for the operation of such farms to
obtain a profit in money, and customarily
utilized in conjunction with farm use.
(3) "Cultured Christmas trees" means
trees:
(a) Grown on lands used exclusively for
thnt purpose, capable of preparation by inten-
sive cultivation methods such as plowing or
turning over the soil;
(b) Of a species for which the Department
of Revenue requires a "Report of Christmas
Trees Harvested" for purposes of ad valorem
taxation;
(c) Managed to produce trees meeting U.S.
No. 2 or better standards for Christmas trees
as specified by the Agriculture Marketing
Services of the United States Department of
Agriculture; and
(d) Evidencing periodic maintenance prac-
tices of shearing for Douglas fir and pine
species, weed and brush control and one or
more of the following practices: Basal prun-
ing, fertilizing, insect and disease control,
stump culture, soil cultivation, irrigation.
[1963 c.577 §2; 1963 c.619 §1(2), (3); 1967 c.386 §1; 1973
c.503 §3; 1975 c.210 §1; 1977 c.766 §7; 1977 c.893 §17a;
1979C.480 SI; 1981 c.804 §73|
215.205 [1957 a.s. c.ll S2; renumbered 215.295)
215.210 [Amended by 1955 c.652 §6; renumbered
215.3051
215.213 Nonfnrm uses pcnnittcd
within farm use zones. (1) The following
uses may be established in any area zoned for
exclusive farm use:
(a) Public or private schools.
(b) Churches.
Ic) The propagation or harvesting of a
forest product.
(d) Utility facilities necessary for public
service, except commercial facilities for the
purpose of generating power for public use by
sale.
(e) A dwelling on real property used for
farm use if the dwelling is:
(A) Located on the same lot or parcel, as
those terms are defined in ORS 92.010, as the
dwelling of the farm operator; and
(B) Occupied by a relative, which means
grandparent, grandchild, parent, child, broth-
er or sister of the farm operator or the farm
operator's spouse, whose assistance in the
management of the farm use is or will be
required by the farm operator.
(f) The dwellings and other buildings
customarily provided in conjunction with farm
use.
(g) Operations for the exploration of gec-
thermal resources as defined by ORS 522.005.
(h) A site for the disposal of solid waste
that has been ordered to be established by the
Environmental Quality Commission under
QRS 459.049, together with equipment, facili-
ties or buildings necessary for its operation.
(2) The following nonfarm uses may be
established, subject to the approval of the
governing body or its designate in any area
zoned for exclusive farm use:
(a) Commercial activities that are in con-
junction with farm use.
(b) Operations conducted for the mining
and processing of geothermal resources as
defined by ORS 522.005 or exploration, min-
ing and processing of aggregate and other
mineral resources or other subsurface re-
sources.
(c) Private parks, playgrounds, hunting
and fishing preserves and campgrounds.
(d) Parks, playgrounds or community
centers owned and operated by a governmen-
tal agency or a nonprofit community organiza-
tion.
(e) Golf courses.
(f) Commercial utility facilities for the
purpose of generating power for public use by
sale.
(g) Personal-use airports for airplanes and
helicopter pads, including associated hangar,
maintenance and service facilities. A
personal-use airport as used in this section
means an airstrip restricted, except for air-
craft emergencies, to uso by the owner, and,
on an infrequent and occasional basis, by
invited guests, and by commercial aviation
activities in connection with agricultural
operations. No aircraft may be based on a
personal-use airport other than those owned
E-10
-------
215.2*14
COUNTIES AND COUNTY OFFICERS
or controlled by the 'owner of the airstrip.
Exceptions to the activities permitted under
this definition may be granted through waiver
action by the Aeronautics Division in specific
instances. A personal-use airport lawfully
existing as of September 13, 1975, shall con-
tinue to be permitted subject to any applicable
regulations of the Aeronautics Division.
(h) Home occupations carried on by the
resident as an accessory use within dwellings
or other buildings referred to in ORS 215.203
(2)(b)(F) or (G).
(i) A facility for the primary processing of
forest products, provided that such facility is
found to not seriously interfere with accepted
fanning practices and is compatible with farm
uses described in ORS 215.203 (2). Such a
facility may be approved for a one-year period
which is renewable. These facilities are in-
tended to be only portable or temporary in
nature. The primary processing of a forest
product, as used in this section, means the use
of a portable chipper or stud mill or other
similar methods of initial treatment of a for-
est product in order to enable its shipment to
market. Forest products, as used in this sec-
tion, means timber grown upon a parcel of
land or contiguous land where the primary
processing facility is located.
(j) The boarding of horses for profit.
(k) A site for the disposal of solid waste
approved by the governing body of a city or
county or both and for which a permit has
been granted under ORS 459.245 by the De-
partment of Environmental Quality together
with equipment, facilities or buildings neces-
sary for its operation.
(3) Single-family residential dwellings,
not provided in conjunction with farm use,
may be established, subject to approval of the
governing body or its designate in any area
zoned for exclusive farm use upon a finding
that each such proposed dwelling:
(a) Is compatible with farm uses described
in ORS 215.203 (2) and is consistent with the
intent and purposes set forth in ORS 215.243;
(b) Does not interfere seriously with ac-
cepted farming practices, as defined in ORS
215.203 (2)(c), on adjacent lands devoted to
farm use;
(f) Does not materially alter the stability
of the overall l&nd use pattern of the area;
(d) Is situated upon generally unsuitable
land for the production of farm crops and
livcfitock, considering the terrain, ndvorac Moil
or land conditions, drainage and flooding,
vegetation, location and size of the tract; and
(e) Complies with such other conditions as
the governing body or its designate considers
necessary. [1963 c.577 §3; 1963 c.619 §la; 1969 c.258
§1; 1973 c.503 §4; 1975 c. 551 §1; 1975 c.552 §32; 1977
c.766 §8; 1977 c.788 §2; 1979 c.480 §6; 1979 c.773 §10;
1981 c 748 §44]
215.214 Effect of solid waste disposal
site classification on compliance with
agricultural land goals. The Land Conserva-
tion and Development Commission shall not
consider the provisions of ORS 215.213 (2)(k)
as being consistent with any state-wide plan-
ning goal relating to the preservation of agri-
cultural lands for the purpose of exempting a
unit of local government from applying thai
goal to agricultural lands. [1979 c.773 §11]
215.215 Reestablishment of nonfarm
use. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 215.130 (4), if a
nonfarm use exists in an exclusive farm .use
zone and is unintentionally destroyed by fire,
other casualty or natural disaster, the county
may allow by its zoning regulations such use
to be reestablished to its previous nature and
extent, but the reestablishment shall meet all
other building, plumbing, sanitation and other
codes, ordinances and permit requirements.
(2) Consistent with ORS 215.243, the
county governing body may zone for the ap-
propriate nonfarm use one or more lots or
parcels in the interior of an exclusive farm
use zone if the lots or parcels were physically
developed for the nonfarm use prior to the
establishment of the exclusive farm use zone.
[1977 c.664 §41]
215.220 [Repealed by 1963 c.619 §16]
215.223 Procedure for adopting zon-
ing ordinances; notice. (1) No zoning ordi-
nance enacted by the county governing body
may have legal effect unless prior to its enact-
ment the governing body or the planning
commission conducts one or more public hear-
ings on the ordinance and unless 10 days'
advance public notice of each hearing is pub-
lished in a newspaper of general circulation in
the county or, in case the ordinance applies to
only a part of the county, is so published in
that part of the county.
(2) The notice provisions of this section
shall not restrict the giving of notice by other
means, including mail, radio and television.
(3) In effecting a zone change the proceed-
ings for which nrc eommunc-ed ut thu request
E-ll
-------
COUNTY PLANNING; ZONING; HOUSE CODES
215.236
of a property owner, the governing body shall
in addition to other notice give individual
notice of the request by mail to the record
owners of property within 250 feet of the
property for which a zone change has been
requested. The failure of the property owner
to receive the notice described shall not invali-
date any zone change. [1963 c.6iO 58; 1967 c.589
$3]
215.230 [Repealed by 1963 c 619 $161
215.233 Validity of ordinances and
development patterns adopted before
September 2. 1963. Nothing in ORS 215.010,
215.030, 215.050, 215.060 and 215.110 to
215.213, 215.223 and this section shall impair
the validity of ordinances enacted prior to
September 2, 1963. All development patterns
made and adopted prior to that time shall be
deemed to meet the requirements of ORS
215.010, 215.030, 215.050, 215.060 and
215.110 to 215.213, 215.223 and this section
concerning comprehensive plans. (1963 c.619 §14;
1971c.l3§3]
215.236 Establishment of dwelling
not provided for form use; disqualification
of lot or purccl for furm use valuation;
issuance of building permit; conditions. (1)
As used in this section:
(a) "Dwelling" means a single-family
residential dwelling not provided in conjunc-
tion with farm use.
(b) "Lot" and "parcel" have the meaning
given those terms in ORS 92.010.
(2) The governing body or its designate
shall not grant final approval of an applica-
tion made under ORS 215.213 (3) for the es-
tablishment of a dwelling on land in an exclu-
sive farm use zone that is valued at true cash
value for farm use under OltS 308.370 with-
out evidence that the lot or parcel upon which
the dwelling is proposed has been disqualified
for valuation at true cash value for farm use
under ORS 308.370.
(3) The governing body or its designate
may grant tentative approval of an applica-
tion made under ORS 215.213 (3) for the es-
tablishment of a dwelling on land in un exclu-
sive farm use zone that is valued at true cash
value for farm use under ORS 308.370 upon
making the findings required by ORS 215.213
(3). An application for the establishment of a
dwelling that has been tentatively approved
shall be given final approval by the governing
body or its designate upon receipt of evidence
that the lot or parcel upon which establish-
ment of the dwelling is proposed has been
disqualified for valuation at true cash value
for farm use under ORS 308.370.
(4) The owner of a lot or parcel upon
which the establishment of a dwelling has
been tentatively approved as provided by
subsection (3) of this section shall within 60
days after the date tentative approval was
granted, simultaneously:
(a) Notify the county assessor that the lot
or parcel is no longer being used as farmland;
and
(b) Request that the county assessor dis-
qualify the lot or parcel for valuation at true
cash value for farm use under ORS 308.370.
(5) When the owner of a lot or parcel upon
which the establishment of a dwelling has
been tentatively approved notifies the county
assessor that the lot or parcel is no longer
being used as farmland and requests disquali-
fication of the land for valuation at true cash
value for farm use, the county assessor shall:
(a) Disqualify the lot or parcel for valua-
tion at true cash value for farm use under
ORS 308.370 by removing the special assess-
ment for farm use as provided by ORS 303.397
(1) or 308.390 (l)(a), whichever is applicable;
(b) Provide the owner of the lot or parcel
with written notice of the disqualification for
valuation at true cash value for farm use
under ORS 308.370; and
(c) Impose the additional tax or penalty, if
any, provided by ORS 308.395, 308.399 or
321.960, whichever is applicable.
(6) The Department of Commerce, a build-
ing official, as defined in ORS 456.805 (1), or
any other agency or official responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the state
building code, as defined in ORS -156.750,
shall not issue a building permit for the con-
struction of a dwelling on land in an exclusive
farm use zone without evidence that the own-
er of the lot or parcel upon which the dwelling
is proposed to be constructed has paid the
additional tax or penalty, if any, imposed by
the county assessor under paragraph (c) of
subsection (5) of this section.
(7)(a) A lot or parcel described in subsec-
tion (2) of this section that has been disquali-
fied for valuation at true cash value for farm
use under ORS 308.370 is not eligible on or
after the date of disqualification for valuation
at true cash value for farm use under OKS
308.370 (1) or (2) except as provided in para-
graph (b) of this subsection.
E-12
-------
215.243
COUNTIES AND COUNTY OFFICERS
(b) Land described in paragraph (a) of this
subsection may become eligible for valuation
at true cash value for farm use under ORS
308.370 if the land becomes part of a larger
unit of land, in single ownership, the remain-
der of which is valued at true cash value for
farm use. [1981 c.748 §46]
215.240 [Repealed by 1963 c.619 §16]
215.243 Agricultural land use policy.
The Legislative Assembly finds and declares
that:
(1) Open land used for agricultural use is
an efficient means of conserving natural
resources that constitute an important physi-
cal, social, aesthetic and economic asset to all
of the people of this state, whether living in
rural, urban or metropolitan areas of the
state.
(2) The preservation of a maximum
amount of the limited supply of agricultural
land is necessary to the conservation of the
state's economic resources and the preserva- •
tion of such land in large blocks is necessary
in maintaining the agricultural economy of
the state and for the assurance of adequate,
healthful and nutritious food for the people of
this state and nation.
(3) Expansion of urban development into
rural areas is a matter of public concern be-
cause of the unnecessary increases in costs of
community services, conflicts between farm
and urban activities and the loss of open space
and natural beauty around urban centers
occurring as the result of such expansion.
(4) Exclusive farm use zoning as provided
by law, substantially limits alternatives to the
use of rural land and, with the importance of
rural lands to the public, justifies incentives
and privileges offered to encourage owners of
rural lands to hold such lands in exclusive
farm use zones. [1973 c.503 §1]
. 215.250 [Repealed by 1973 c.619 §16J
215.253 Prohibition against restric-
tive local ordinances affecting farm use
zones; exemption for exercise of govern-
mental power to protect public health,
safety and welfare. (1) No state agency, city,
county or political subdivision of this state
may exercise any of its powers to enact local
laws or ordinances or impose restrictions or
regulations affecting any farm use land situ-
ated within an exclusive farm use zone estab-
lished under ORS 215.203 in a manner thut
would unreasonably restrict or regulate farm
structures or that would unreasonably restrict
or regulate accepted farming practices be-
cause of noise, dust, odor or other materials
carried in the air or other conditions arising
therefrom if such conditions do not extend
beyond the boundaries of the exclusive farm
use zone within which they are created in
such manner as to interfere with the use of
adjacent lands. "Accepted farming practice" as
used in this subsection shall have the mean-
ing set out in ORS 215.203.
(2) Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or restrict the lawful exercise by any
state agency, city, county or political subdivi-
sion of its power to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens of this state. [1973
c.503 §8]
215.200 [Amended by 1955 c.652 §3; repealed by
1957 B.S. c.ll §4 (215.261 enacted in lieu of 215.260)1
215.261 [1957 s.s. c.ll §5 (enacted in lieu of 215.260);
repealed by 1963 c.619 §16]
215.263 Review of land divisions in
exclusive farm use zones; criteria for ap-
proval; exemptions. (1) Any proposed divi-
sion of land included within an exclusive farm
use zone resulting in the creation of one or
more parcels of land shall be reviewed and
approved or disapproved by the governing
body of the county in which such land is situ-
ated. The governing body of a county by ordi-
nance shall require such prior review and
approval for such divisions of land within
exclusive farm use zones established within
the county.
(2) If the governing body of a county initi-
ates a review as provided in subsection (1) of
this section, it shall not approve any proposed
division of land unless it finds that the pro-
posed division of land is in conformity with
the legislative intent set forth in ORS
215.243.
(3) This section shall not apply to the
creation or sale of cemetery lots, if a cemetery
is within the boundaries designated for a. farm
use zone at the time the zone is established.
(4) This section shall not apply to divisions
of land resulting from lien foreclosures or
divisions of land resulting from foreclosure of
recorded contracts for the sale of real proper-
ty.
(5) The governing body of a county shall
not approve any proposed subdivision or parti-
tion of a lot or parcel described in ORS
215.213 (l)(o). [1973 c.003 §9; 1977 c.7GO 89; 1979
c.46 §2; 1981 c.748 §48]
215.270 [Repealed by 1963 c.619 §16]
E-13
-------
215.273 Applicability to nuclear and
thermal energy council power plant siting
determinations. Nothing in ORS 118.155,
215.130, 215.203, 215.213, 215.243 to 215.273,
308.395 to 308.401 and 316.081 is intended to
affect the authority of the Nuclear and Ther-
mal Energy Council in determining suitable
sites for the issuance of site certificates for
thermal power plants, as authorized under
ORS 469.300 to 469.570. [1973 c.503 t!6]
215.280 (Repealed by 1963 c.619 }16J
215.285 [Formerly 215.200; repealed by 1971 c.13 91]
215.290 [Repealed by 1963 c.619 {16]
215.295 [Formerly 215.205; repealed by 1971 c.13 §1]
215.300 [Repealed by 1963 c.619 S16]
215.305 [Formerly 215.210; repealed by 1971 c.13 SI]
215.310 [Repealed by 1971 c.13 51]
215.320 [Repealed by 1971 C.1C §1]
215.325 [1953 c.662 §6; 1963 c.9 §4; repealed by 1971
C.13§1]
215.330 [Repealed by 1971 c.13 SI]
215.340 [Repealed by 1971 c.13 §1)
215.350 [Amended by 1953 c.662 17; repealed by
1971 c.13 §1}
215.360 [Amended by 1953 c.662 87; subsection (2)
enacted as 1953 c.662 SI; repealed by 1971 c.13 31]
215.370 (Repealed by 1971 c.13 S1J
215.380 [Amended by 1955 c.652 84; repealed by
1971 c.13 §1]
215.390 [Repealed by 1971 c.13 SI]
215.395 [1953 c.662 S3; 1955 c.652 §5; repealed by
1971 c.13 §1]
215.398 [1955 c.652 52; repealed by 1971 c.13 51]
215.400 [Repealed by 1971 c.13 SI]
E-14
-------
Appendix F
State of Oregon Sludge
Management Guidelines
-------
OREGON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
GUIDELINES FOR LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER AND SLUDGE
May 18, 1981
A. Purpose
The following guidelines are recommendations for the handling,
disposal and beneficial use of wastewater and sludge on land. They
are meant to provide assistance in the development of environmentally
acceptable long range programs for sludge and wastewater use. The use
of new technology, public acceptance and the conservation of energy
through recycling should be assessed for each proposed program. If
proposals deviate from these guidelines they should be justified.
B. Definitions
"Accumulator" crops means swiss chard, lettuce, spinach carrots
and other crops that have been shown to readily accumulate
cadmium.
"Agronomic Application Rate" means a rate of sludge, septage, or
wastewater application which matches nutrient requirements for a
specific crop on an annual basis.
"Beneficial Use Site" means any approved site for application of
a regulated amount of sludge, septage, or wastewater used for
crop or livestock production, sand dune stabilization, or soil
improvement.
GF56 (1) - 1 - 5/18/81
F-3
-------
"Cation Exchange Capacity" (CEC) means the sum total of
exchangeable cations that a soil can absorb. Expressed in
railli-equivalents per 100 grams of soil.
"Chemical Treatment" means the process of mixing lime or other
chemicals with municipal sludge to reduce the number of bacterial
pathogens and putrescible matter.
"Composting" means a process by which sludge or septage is aerated and
mixed with carbonaceous material to promote rapid decomposition
and ultimate stabilization as well as pathogen reduction.
Complete composting is carried out at temperatures above 55
degrees C and followed by curing in a stockpile for at least 30
days.
"Controlled Access" means that public entry or traffic is
unlikely; for example rural agricultural land that is privately
owned. Parks or other public land may require fencing to insure
controlled access.
"Dewatered Sludge" means that sludge with solids concentration of
ten (10) to twenty (20) percent.
"Digested Sludge" means sludge resulting from a process which
significantly reduces volatile solids and pathogens. Suggested
criteria for complete digestion are as follows:
Anaerobic digestion: The process is conducted in the
absence of air at residence times ranging from 60 days at
20° C to 15 days at 35° to 55° C, with a volatile solids
reduction of at least 38 percent.
GF56 U> - 2 - 5/18/81
F-4
-------
Aerobic digestion: The process is conducted by agitating
sludge with air or oxygen to maintain aerobic conditions at
residence times ranging from 60 days at 15° C to 40 days at
20° with a volatile solids reduction of at least 38 percent.
"Disposal Site" means an approved site used for disposal of
sludge, septage or wastewater in excess of agronomic loading
rates, so long as surface and/or groundwater are not contaminated
and nuisance conditions are avoided.
"Dried Sludge" means that sludge with a solids concentration of
greater than twenty (20) percent.
"Effluent" means wastewater which has been treated to remove or
neutralize undesirable constituents including solids, organic
material (sludge) fecal organisms, metals, and pH.
"Heat Drying" means a process of applying heat as a means of
removing excess water from sludge as well as destroying pathogens
in municipal sewage sludge.
"Heat Treated" means a process of subjecting sludge to high
pressure and/or temperature such that all organisms are
destroyed.
"Liquid Sludge" means that sludge with a solids concentration of
less than ten (10) percent.
"Non-digested Sludge" means the sludge that has accumulated in a
digester not operating efficiently or a septic tank process whose
function is confinement and/or separation of liquids and solids.
GF56 (1) - 3 - 5/18/81
F-5
-------
"NPDES Permit" means a waste dischargae permit issued in
accordance with requirements and procedures of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System authorized by the Federal
Act and of OAR 340-45-005 through 065.
"Person" means the United States and agencies thereof, and state,
any individual, public or private corporation, political
subdivision, governmental agency, municipality, co-partnership,
association, firm, trust, estate or any other legal entity
whatever.
"Raw Sewage Sludge" means non-decomposed or nonoxidized sewage
sludge.
"Septage" means septic tank pumpings, cesspool pumpings or other
non-digested domestic sewage wastes.
"Sewage" or "Domestic Waste Water" means the water-carried human
or animal wastes from residences, buildings, industrial
establishments or other places, together with such groundwater
infiltration and surface water as many be present that flow to
wastewater treatment plants.
"Sewage Sludge" or "Sludge" means the accumulated suspended and
settleable solids of sewage or wastewater, respectively,
deposited in tanks or basins mixed with water to forra a
semi-liquid mass.
"Treatment" or "Waste Treatment" means the alteration of the
quality of waste waters by physical, chemical or biological means
or a combination thereof such that the tendency of said wastes to
cause any degradation in water quality or other environmental
conditions is reduced.
GF56 (1) - 4 - 5/18/81
F-6
-------
"Wastewater" means untreated liquid waste collected from
municipal sewers and industrial or commercial facilities.
"WPCF Permit" means a water pollution control facility permit
issued by the Department in accordance with the procedures of OAR
340-14-005 and which is not an NPDES permit.
C. Permits
Any person owning or operating sewage treatment works where sludge is
produced and subsequently disposed of, must have in their possession
either a valid NPDES or WPCF permit obtained for the purpose set forth
in OAR 340-45-005 through 065, or a solid waste disposal permit
obtained for a specific site as provided by ORS 459.205.
D. Responsibility
It is the responsibility of the sewage treatment works permittee to
insure the proper handling and disposal of all sludge generated at
the plant. Transportation of the sludge from the treatment plant to
the disposal or application site will be made in such a manner as to
prevent leaking or spilling the sludge onto highways, streets, roads,
or waterways.
E. Limitations & Restricted Uses
1. Raw and/or non-digested sludge or septage should not be disposed
of on land surfaces without specific authorization. Prior to
burial, containment or direct incorporation into the soil,
authorization must first be obtained from DEQ. Surface
GF56 (1) - 5 - 5/18/81
F-7
-------
application of septage or non-digested sludge will be permitted
only on remote sites where there is little likelihood of creating
a public nuisance.
2. Controlled access to municipal sludge or sewage effluent
application sites for 12 months following a surface application
is required. Access control is assumed on rural private land.
3. Sludge should not be given or sold to the public without their
knowledge as to its origin. Sludge analysis should be available
on request from the treatment plant.
4. Sludge and wastewater application to agricultural or forest land
should not exceed the nitrogen loading required for maximum crop
yield. Nitrogen requirements for particular crops can be
obtained from the Oregon Cooperative Extension Service. Surface
applications may be doubled on some perennial crops since NH-j
volatilization may account for up to a 50% loss of available N.
5. As a general guideline, crops grown for direct hurcan consumption
(fresh market fruits and vegetables) should not be planted until
18 months after municipal sludge application. If the edible
parts will not be in contact with the sludge amended soil, or if
the crop is to be treated or processed prior to marketing such
that pathogen contamination is not a concern, this requirement
may be waived.
6. Grazing animals should not come in contact with digested
municipal sludge or effluent treated pasture or forage until
thirty (30) days after application. Chlorinated municipal
GF56 (1) - 6 - 5/18/81
F-8
-------
effluent irrigation is exempt from this requirement. Grazing
restrictions may be extended to 6 months where non-digested
municipal sludges are applied.
p. Site Selection and Approval
1. Prior approval must be obtained in writing from the Department of
Environmental Quality for the application of sludge, septage,
wastewater, and effluent on beneficial use sites or disposal
sites.
2. New sites for sludge application or wastewater and effluent
irrigation and the expansion of existing sites must be proposed
to the Department of Environmental Quality and written approval
received prior to use of such sites.
3. Plans for sludge impoundment ponds or reservoirs proposed for
temporary storage to facilitate the application of sludge must
be proposed to the Department of Environmental Quality and
written approval received prior to the use of such ponds or
reservoirs.
4. Where appropriate, a management plan should be submitted with
the application for site approval.
5. Site approval or denial must be consistent with local land use
plans. If a proposed site is not approved, the reasons for
denial must accompany the response.
6. The following criteria should be considered in making site
selections:
GF56 (1) - 7 - 5/18/81
F-9
-------
a. Sites should be on a stable geologic formation not subject
flooding or runoff from adjacent land. If periodic flooding
cannot be avoided, the period of application should be
restricted and soil incorporation is recommended.
b. At the time of application the minimum depth to permanent
groundwater should be four (4) feet. Sites approved for
year-round application should be evaluated carefully to
insure that groundwater separation distances conform with
this requirement.
c. Topography of the site should be suitable to allow normal
agricultural operations and where needed, the construction
of runoff and erosion control measures. In general, liquid
sludge should not be surface applied on bare soils where the
ground slope exceeds 12 percent. Slopes up to 20 percent
may be used for dewatered or dried sludge, for direct
incorporation of liquid sludge into the soil, or for liquid
sludge application with appropriate management to eliminate
runoff. Where soil incorporation on sloping ground is not
feasible, sludge applications should be restricted to the
dry seasons in Western Oregon.
d. Soil should have a minimum rooting depth of 24 inches.
The underlying substratum should not be rapidly draining
so that leachate will not be short circuited into
groundwater.
GF56 (1) - 8 - 5/18/81
P-10
-------
e. Where heavy metal "accumulator" crops are grown, the soil
should have a pH of 6.5 to 8.2. If the pH is below 6.5
at sites where sludge is applied above agronomic rates on
an annual basis, or where sludges contain unusually high
concentrations of heavy metals, the soil should be limed
to raise and maintain the pH at this level. Saline and/or
alkali soils should be avoided.
f. Discretion should be used in- approving application of sludge
or wastewater on land that is in close proximity to
residential areas. A buffer strip large enough to prevent
nuisance odors or wind drift problems is needed. Size of
the buffer strip will depend upon the method of application
used, for example:
1. direct injection: no limit required
2. truck spreading: 50 feet or more
3. spray irrigation: 300 to 500 feet
g. Buffer strips should be provided along well traveled
highways. The size of the buffer strip will vary with local
conditions and should be left to the discretion of the DEQ
field representative. No sludge or wastewater should be
spread at the site closer than fifty (50) feet to any ditch,
channel, pond or waterway or within two-hundred (200) feet
of a domestic water source or well.
GF56 (1) - 9 - 5/18/81
F-ll
-------
and returned to the DEQ. In service areas where industrial
processes are likely to create hoavy metal concentrations higher
than those found in domestic sludge, pre-treatment should be
required by the permittee to reduce the concentration of heavy
metals and extend the useful life of the application site.
H. Application of Municipal Sludge and Septage
The applicati9n of sludge on agricultural land should be managed to
utilize the fertilizer value to the maximum extent possible. The
recommended rate of sludge application is based on the nitrogen
requirement of the crop grown and will vary depending on the nitrogen
content of the sludge. Calculations to determine the amount of heavy
metals being applied to land in sludge are also necessary to insure
long term conformance with loading limits specified by EPA
regulations.
Sludge analyses offer a guide to determine the rate of application for
a particular crop. Crop nitrogen requirements are used routinely to
determine application rates for commercial fertilizer and these
figures are readily available from state or county Extension Service
offices. Applying sludge within these limits insures that sludge
nitrogen will bo utilized for plant growth and that cxccsa nitrogen
which could leach into groundwater will not be of concern. Exceeding
crop nitrogen requirements may occasionally be justified in order to
achieve rapid soil improvement or to prolong beneficial effects. See
appendix A for a sample calculation to determine nitrogen loading.
GF56 (1) ..
' U - 5/18/81
F-12
-------
Municipal sludge contains trace amounts of potentially toxic
substances including: zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) and cadmium
(Cd). Many agricultural chemicals including commercial fertilizers
and pesticides are also potentially toxic; however, with safe and
appropriate management, these products are used with proven success
and cause little if any environmental degradation.
Zn, Cu, and Ni can be toxic to plants when present in soils in
excessive amounts. These metals, however, constitute little hazard
to the food chain through plant accumulation. The total amount of
these metals which may be applied to soil can be limited to prevent
toxicity problems (Table 2). The concentration of metals in Oregon
sludges is generally low so that sludge may be applied annually to a
given site for many years before loading limits would be reached (see
appendix 3). EPA regulations currently address only Cd in terms of
cumulative loading. Where background soil pH is less than 6.5,
cumulative Cd applications are not to exceed 5 kg/ha (4.5 Ib/acre).
Cumulative loading rates of other metals should be considered where
concentrations exceed those listed in Table 1, or where metal
containing industrial sludges are land applied.
Cd may accumulate in plant tissue and enter the food chain. EPA
regulations specify maximum annual Cd application rates as follows:4
GF56 (1) - 12 - 5/18/31
F-.13
-------
Annual Cd
Application Rate
Time Period . (kg/ha)
Present to June 30, 1984 2.0
July 1, 1984 to December 31, 1986 1.25
Beginning January 1, 1987 0.5
Oregon municipal sludges will present no problem in complying with
this regulation. For example, a sludge with 25 rag Cd/kg could be
applied at up to 8.9 dry tons/acre and still meet the projected 1937
loading limit. This is approximately three times the agronomic rate
of application for a sludge with an average total nitrogen content of
4.5 percent.
Long term Cd loading is also addressed in EPA regulations (Table 3).
For soils with a background pH less than 6.5 (western Oregon),
maximum applications of Cd may not exceed 5.0 kg/ha. Using the
example above, sludge can be applied for 300 years before this lirnt
would be reached. In eastern Oregon where background soil pH is
greater than or equal to 6.5, applications may bo greater depending
on soil cation exchange capacity.
Soil pH has been shown to affect Cd uptake for leafy green vegetables
and some root crops. Lime should be applied to raise soil pll to 6.5
or greater where these metal 'accumulator" crops are grown to minimize
Cd uptake. Soil pH adjustment may be warranted on other fruit or
vegetable crops grown for processing to satisfy liability concerns.
GF56 (1) - 13 - 5/18/81
F-14
-------
For most crops grown in Oregon (grasses, forage crops, grains, and
fruits) field studies indicate that there is no correlation between
soil pH.and Cd uptake.
Sewage sludge and septic tank pumpings contain microorganisms which
may be pathogenic to man. Treatment plant digestion processes and
septic tank residence times greatly reduce the number of disease
causing organisms which will be found in the final product. Those
which survive the treatment process die off rapidly when subjected
to sunlight, soil incorporation, and competition with other
micro-organisms.
Crops grown for direct human consumption (fresh market) have the
potential of contamination by low numbers of intestinal worm eggs
and pathogenic organisms. Root crops and leafy vegetables which are
grown in direct contact with sludge amended soil require an 18 month
waiting period between sludge application and planting to insure
sanitation. When concern exists regarding possible indirect
contamination of fresh marketed crops such as green beans, cole crops,
sweet corn, fruit and nuts, the same waiting period restriction
applies. Management practices such as soil incorporation or injection
in advance of planting or fruit sot greatly alleviates concern in
this area. There is no restriction on planting time for crops not
grown for direct human consumption.
GF56 (1) - 14 - 5/10/81
F-15
-------
Application of digested municipal sludge is also of little concern
with pasture and forage crops. However, EPA regulations require that
"animals whose products are consumed by humans" be prevented from
grazing for at least one month following sludge application. This is
particularly true for dairies, where animal contact or direct
ingestion of sludge could result in milk contamination. Where
non-digested municipal sludges are applied to pasture, restrictions on
grazing should be extended to 6 months.
I. Wastewater Irrigation
Sewage effluents as well as various industrial and food processing
wastewaters can be utilized beneficially to prcnote crop growth.
Concentrations of constituents such as nutrients, fiOD, and metals in
treated effluents are normally so dilute that hydraulic loading of
soils is the primary limiting factor. However, some wastewaters such
as those generated in the food processing industry may be high in
nutrients and BOD. If loading rates for nitrogen will exceed crop
requirements, such a proposal should be justified from the standpoint
of groundwater protection. Site selection criteria listed in
Section F should be used when evaluating all proposed irrigation sites
for suitability.
To prevent runoff, ponding, or rapid percolation and possible
contamination of groundwater, wastewater should be managed according
to conventional irrigation practices. This requires matching the
GF56 (1) - 15 - 5/18/81
F-16
-------
wastewater application rate to the infiltration rate and storage
capacity of a particular soil. The Oregon Irrigation Guide" provides
the necessary information for developing appropriate wastewater
irrigation application rates and scheduling. Net liquid loading may
be doubled in some cases as long as application can be managed to
prevent runoff and ponding.
Considerations for developing an irrigation program must be developed
according to the specific character of an individual wastewater. An
analyses of the wastewater will provide a basis to determine special
management requirements. For example, municipal effluents are
relatively low in nitrogen. Yet if application rates are high enough,
nitrogen loading may approach or exceed the crop requirement. The
equation: Ib/acre/year = mg/1 x ft/year x 2.7 may be used to determine
whether nitrogen and other components applied as effluent or
wastewater will approximate crop needs or how much supplemental N, P,
or K fertilizer must be applied to meet a fertilizer recommendation
specified by the Cooperative Extension Service.
Other wastewaters such as those produced by the food processing
industry may be high in BOD, nitrogen, or salts. In eastern Oregon
-where salts may not leach out of soil with natural rainfall, high
concentrations of boron, sodium, chloride and total dissolved solids
may damage plants (Table 4). High levels of sodium can disperse soil
aggregates and reduce soil permeability. Wastewater analyses for
GF56 (1) - 16 - 5/18/81
F-17
-------
dissolved solids, electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio
should be carefully considered in these situations. Special
management practices such as gypsum amendments may be needed to
correct soil infiltration problems.
BOD applications should never exceed 35 tons/acre/year. Where high
BOD loading rates are anticipated it is a good idea to includa annual
tillage in the management plan to avoid surface buildup of organic
material.
All of the above limitations should be considered when evaluating
wastewater or effluent irrigation proposals. In addition, use of
municipal effluent should reflect treatment levels or effluent quality
to alleviate public health concerns. Suggested uses of municipal
effluents are listed in Appendix D. Setbacks from adjacent public or
private land should be sufficient to prevent aerosol drift.
GF56 U) - 17 - 5/18/81
F-18
-------
Table 1
Metal Content of a Sludge Appropriate for General Application
to Agricultural Land 1
Element Concentration (mg/kq)
Zn 2000
Pb 1000
Cu 800
Ni 100
Cd2 25
Table 2
Maximum Recommended Sludge Metal Applications
For Privately Owned Farmland ^
Maximum Metal Addition (kg/ha) with a
Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (meq/lOOg)
Metal Less than 5 5-15 Greater than 15
Pb
Zn
Cu
Ni
Cd
500
250
125
50
5
1,000
500
250
100
10
2,000
1,000
500
200
20
(1) - 18 - 5/18/81
F-19
-------
Table 3
Maximum Cd applications allowed by current EPA regulations
Soil cation
exchange capacity
(raeq/lOOg)
Maximum cumulative application (kq/haL
Background soil pH/Background soil pH
<6.5 >6.5
<5 ..
5-15.
5
5
5
5
10
20
Table 4
Classification of Irrigation Waters as to Salinity Hazard
Total
Dissolved
Solids (mg/1)
Electrical
Conductivity
(mmhos/cm)
Water for which no detrimental
effects will usually be noticed
Water that can detrimentally
affect sensitive crops
Water that may adversely affect
many crops and requires care-
ful management practices
Water that can be used Cor
tolerant plants on permeable
soils with careful
management practices
500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
0.75
0.75-1.50
1.50-3.00
2,000-5,000
3.00-7.50
GF56 (1)
- 19 -
5/18/81
F-20
-------
References:
Chaney, R. L. 1973. Crop and food chain effects of toxic elements in
sludges and effluents, p 129-141. In Proc. Joint Conf. on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, USEPA, USDA, University
Workshops, Champaign, 111., 9-13 July 1973. Library of Congress Cat.
No. 73-88570.
USEPA, USFDA, USDA. 1981. Land application of municipal sewage
sludge for the production of fruits and vegetables; a Statement of
Federal Policy and Guidance.
Dowdy, R.H./R.E. Larsen, and E.Epstein. 1976. Sewage sludge and
effluent use in agriculture, p.138-153. In Land Application of Waste
Materials. Soil Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa.
Libr. Congr. Cat. No. 76-45727
USEPA. 1979. 40CFR Part 257, Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices; Final, Interim Final, and
Proposed Regulations. Federal Register vol. 44 No. 179
Gardner, E. H., D. D. Hemphill, Jr., V. V. Volk, J. A. Moore,
T. L. Jackson, and S. A. Wilson. 1981. Fertilizing with Sewage
Sludge. Oregon State University Extension Service Fertilizer
Guide 64.
SCS Staff. 1973, Oregon Irrigation Guide. USDA Soil Conservation
Service. Portland, OR.
GF56 (1) - 20 - 5/18/81
F-21
-------
Appendix A: Sludge Nitrogen loading* 5
Example
- Sludge contains 4% solids, 2% mineral N (NH4-N plus NO3-N), 5%
total N
- Crop N requirement * 150 IDS available N/acre
where:
G = gallons of liquid sludge/acre
N » amount of N required by crop = 150 Ibs/acre
S = % solids in wet sludge • 4%
M » « mineral N in dry sludge (NH4-N plus N03-N) = 2%
T = % total N in dry sludge = 5%
G =• 120,000 N
S(85M + 1ST)
= (120,000)(ISO)
4((85)(2) + (15) (5)]
= 18,000,000
(4)(245)
=• 18,400 gallons sludge/acre
* for complete information on sludge fertilizer value see "Fertilizing
with Sewage Sludge." OSU Extension Service Fertilizer Guide 164.
May, 1981.
GF56 (1) . 21 . 5/18/81
F-22
-------
Appendix B: Maximum recommended cumulative sludge applications based
heavy metal content.
Example: Sludge metal concentration (dry wt. mg/kg basis)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cone.
Maximum in
Metal Amount Sludge
Ib/acre ppm
Pb 2,000 5,000
Zn 1,000 10,000
Cu 500 1,000
Hi 200 50
Cd* 20 10
The lowest amount is from equation 2.
limited by Zn at 50 tons/acre.
Tons of
Sludge/Acre Calculation
200 » 2000 Ib. Pb/acre
5000 ppm Pb x .002
50 = 1000 Ib. Zn/acre
10000 ppm Zn x .002
250 = 500 Ib. Cu/acre
1000 ppm Cu x .002
2,000 = 200 Ib. Ni/acre
50 ppm Ni x .002
1,000 » 20 Ib. Cd/acre
10 ppm Cd x .002
Thus, sludge application is
Note: at 50 tons/acre, sludge could be applied for 16 years at a 3
ton/acre/year agronomic rate.
* maximum cumulative Cd loading rate for soils of CEC greater than
15 and background soil pH less than 6.5 should not exceed 5 kg/ha
(4.5 Ibs/acre).
GF56 (1)
- 22 -
5/18/81
F-23
-------
24
22
20
18
16
Appendix C: Gallons of sludge/dry ton
10
1.0
2-0 3.0 4.0
?, s 1 udge sol ids
5.0
6-0
F-24
-------
Appendix D: Acceptable Uses for Municipal Effluent
-Treatment Level-
Less than
Secondary or
Secondary without
Disinfection
Secondary plus
Disinfection
Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plus
Disinfection
Bacteriological
Quality (3 org/100 ml)
Total coliforra
< 1000
Fecal coliforra
< 200
Total coliform
< 100
Fecal coliform
< 10
Uses
Forest, range, Pasture, hay,
unimproved land food crops with
no contact (i.e.,
off season)
Golf courses,
parks, food
crops except
fresh market
Public Access
"prevented"
(fences, gates,
locks)
"controlled"
(signs, rural or
non-public lands)
No direct public
contact during
irrigation cycle
GF56 (1)
- 24 -
5/18/81
F-25
-------
Appendix G
Analysis of the Economics
of Sludge Reuse
-------
Introduction
The important economic parameters to sludge reuse are
examined in this study. The study is organized into two parts.
The first part discusses key reuse factors including the identi-
fication of potential uses, product characteristics important to
those uses, and the regulations affecting the reuse of sludge
products. The second part examines four potential markets for
sludge reuse.
Reuse Factors
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL USES
Sludge provides a source of nutrients and organic matter
important to plant growth. Nutrients in sludge include nitro-
gen, phosphorus, potassium and certain trace elements, such as
copper, zinc, and molybdenum. Although all of these nutrients
are important to plant growth, nitrogen is the key nutrient.
For nutrient-deficient soils, fertilizers are used to
provide one or more of the needed nutrients. Fertilizers are
used in a wide variety of activities including crop growing,
tree growing, reclamation of mined areas, and other plant
propagation uses. For each use, nutrient requirements vary.
Sludge also is a source of organic matter that is used to
improve soil conditions. The organic matter in sludge can be
used as a mulch and topdressing material or as an organic
ingredient in soil builders, soil mixes, and a variety of soil
conditioning products. One important use of organic material is
to break up tightly-bound soil particles in clay soils and to
provide aeration so that the soils do not repack. In addition,
organic matter improves the moisture holding and nutrient
capacity of soils.
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
Based on levels of treatment, sludge products can be
classified generally as liquid sludge, dewatered sludge, and
dried sludge. As sludge undergoes additional treatment, the
chemical and physical characteristics of the sludge change,
thereby influencing its suitability for particular uses. In the
following section, important characteristics of sludge products
are examined.
Liquid Sludge
Liquid sludge is the sludge product removed from either
aerobic or anaerobic digesters. The solids content of liquid
G-3
-------
sludge is typically between 1 and 6 percent, resulting in large
volumes of sludge in need of handling. Because of minimal
treatment, liquid sludge is characterized by a relatively high
occurrence of pathogens and odor.
The nutrients in liquid sludge have important fertilizer
value. Because of the higher moisture content, however, uti-
lization of the nutrient content in liquid sludge requires
application of large volumes of product to a given area to
achieve the desired fertilizing effect. Because of vola-
tilization of nutrients, the type of application technique used
is important in determining the amount of nutrients made avail-
able for plant growth. Land application methods include spread-
ing, sprinkling, and injection.
Dewatered Sludge
Dewatered sludge has a solids concentration in the range of
20-40 percent and is produced either by air-drying or by mechan-
ical dewatering. Air-drying, which produces a dewatered sludge
with a 30-40 percent solids content, requires considerable land,
not only for air-drying beds but also for storage of digested
sludge.
Mechanical dewatering of sludge can be achieved by several
methods, including centrifuges and filter processes. Cen-
trifuges and inexpensive belt filters produce a sludge product
with a lower solids content (approximately 20 percent), whereas
filter presses produce a sludge product with a solids content of
approximately 30 percent. Important advantages to dewatering
sludge with mechanical facilities as compared with air-drying
include fewer land requirements and year-round dewatering capa-
city.
Once sludge has been dewatered, it can be further treated
by composting, which results in a more stable product (i.e.,
less subsequent decomposition). Techniques for composting
include unconfined processes such as static pile, windrowing,
and confined processes. To date, only unconfined processes have
been used in the United States to treat sludge. The City of
Portland's recent decision to construct an in-vessel composting
system, however, has stirred considerable interest in confined
systems.
In general, composted sludge products have a solids content
of approximately 40 percent. Composted sludge has some distinct
advantages and disadvantages compared to air-dried or mechan-
ically dewatered sludge. An important advantage is that com-
posting is an effective method to further reduce pathogens under
certain operating conditions. Potential disadvantages of
composting include the reduction in concentration of volatile
sludge components, such as nitrogen, and the increase in concen-
tration of nonvolatile components, such as heavy metals (Brown
and Caldwell 1980).
G-4
-------
Because of the reduced moisture content, dewatered sludge
products have relatively high concentrations of organic matter.
This organic content provides reuse opportunities as a soil
amendment.
Thermally Dried Sludge
Dried sludge products generally have a solids content of
between 95 percent and 100 percent. The method typically used
to produce dried sludge products is thermal evaporation (e.g.,
rotary kilns and "pulse jet" engines). The additional drying
required to produce a dried sludge product not only reduces the
moisture content but also reduces pathogens and nutrients in the
sludge. Because of the relatively low nutrient content, dried
sludge products are valued primarily for the organic content.
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS
Because of public health and environmental concerns, the
reuse of sludge is regulated at the state and federal level.
Regulatory constraints can be classified generally as: regu-
lations and guidelines on sludge land application programs and
regulations on the commercial distribution of sludge products.
For regulation of land application programs, the Oregon DEQ
administers a permit program which approves sites for applica-
tion of sludge from wastewater treatment facilities. Criteria
used to determine acceptibility of a site include slope, soil
groundwater conditions, and crop types.
Once a site has been approved for sludge application,
appropriate sludge application rates are determined. Two basic
criteria used to determine application rates are: 1) maximum
loading rate considered safe for elements which accumulate in
the soil (e.g., heavy metals); and 2) assimilative capacity of
soil crop combinations for a particular element of concern,
generally nitrogen. Because of the relatively small quantities
of heavy metals in Oregon sludges in general and Eugene's sludge
in particular, heavy metal accumulation is not generally con-
sidered a major limiting factor for application of sludge on
most crops.
Regulation of the commercial distribution of sludge prod-
ucts is the other major area of regulatory activity. The Oregon
State Department of Agriculture administers a registration
program for all commercial fertilizers, agricultural minerals,
limes, and agricultural amendments. As embodied in the so-
called "labeling law" (ORS 633.310-633.500), "each brand and
grade of fertilizer, agricultural minerals, lime or agricultural
amendments, whether in package or in bulk, shall be registered
G-5
-------
with the department (Department of Agriculture) by the manufac-
turer of such product or his agent. No person shall sell, offer
or expose for sale or deliver to a user fertilizer, agricultural
minerals, lime or agricultural amendments except under a regis-
tered brand and grade."
The main thrust of the labeling law is to require that
manufacturers of commercial sludge products provide a "guaran-
teed analysis" of the name and percent, by weight, of each
active ingredient in the product. For fertilizer products (5
percent or more of available nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or
potash singly, collectively or in combination), only the minimum
percentages of these ingredients need to be stated.
At present, the distribution and marketing of sludge
products is unregulated at the federal level. Draft regulations
were developed by EPA and circulated for public comment in 1980.
Because of considerable response, the proposed regulations are
currently being revised. It is expected that EPA will issue new
guidelines by fall 1983 for states to follow in regulating the
commercial distribution of sludge products (Spooner pers.
comm.). The focus of these new guidelines likely will be on
allowable concentrations of heavy metals.
It should be noted that in addition to the regulatory
conditions described above, some specific uses of sludge also
are regulated. For example, sludge used for public park mainte-
nance is required to be sterilized. Also, conditions of sludge
give-away programs require that all recipients of the sludge
product be registered and that they be informed as to the origin
of the sludge.
Sludge Reuse Markets
Markets for sludge reuse include the agricultural market,
the forestry market, the home and garden market, and the spe-
cialty market. Within each market, both soil amendments and
fertilizer products are used. Some markets, however, are
relatively homogeneous. The agricultural market, for example,
uses primarily fertilizers. The specialty markets, in contrast,
are more mixed markets, using a wide variety of soil amendments
and fertilizers.
In the following section, important characteristics of
products currently used in each of the markets are examined.
The potential for sludge use is evaluated by assessing the
substitution value of sludge products to potential users.
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET
Agricultural Lands and Nutrient Demands
Agriculture is practiced extensively through the three-
county area in proximity to the Eugene/Springfield RWTP. A
G-6
-------
diversity in crop types typifies agricultural activity in Lane
County, Benton County, and Linn County. Although acreage
figures by crop vary from year to year because of crop rotation
practices, grass seed, pasture, and hay crops generally predomi-
nate. Grain and field crops also are important throughout the
three-county area.
Agriculture consumes large volumes of fertilizers as
nutrients for plant growth. Although nutrients, such as phos-
phorus, potassium, and certain trace elements are important to
plant growth, nitrogen is the key nutrient. Nitrogen require-
ments of major crop types are presented in Table G-l. As shown,
nitrogen requirements vary considerably.
Opportunities for Sludge Use
SUITABILITY OF AVAILABLE LAND. Because of the extent of
agriculture and the need for fertilizer in Lane, Benton, and
Linn Counties, considerable opportunity exists for agricultural
use of sludge. Based on a survey of agricultural lands within a
reasonable transport distance (approximately 25 miles) of the
Eugene/Springfield treatment plant, it has been estimated that
about 77,000 acres have no or only minor limitations for sludge
application. Of this total, 50,000 acres are located within
Lane County. Limitations include flooding potential, seasonal
high water tables, shallow depth to bedrock, and undesirable
soil characteristics such as high erosion hazard, high runoff,
excessive slope, and coarse texture. Even agricultural lands
with identifiable limitations are not necessarily unsuitable for
sludge application but may require special management practices.
Based on average applications to supply 100 pounds of
available nitrogen per acre per year, the acreage requirements
to apply all future sludge produced is presented in Table G-2.
As shown, acreage requirements for surface applied liquid sludge
and mechanically dewatered sludge exceed acreage requirements
for air-dried sludge. The volatilization of nitrogen during
air-drying results in the need for higher application rates of
air-dried sludge. The increase in acreage requirements over
time is needed for all sludge products due to higher initial
application rates and lower sludge production.
BENEFITS AND COSTS TO GROWERS. Substituting sludge for
other fertilizers can provide considerable benefits to growers.
The most important benefit is the potential reduction in fertil-
izer costs. One recent study estimated that annual expenditures
for chemical fertilizers ranged from about $10 per acre for
leguminous pasture to $100 or more per acre for intensively-
managed cash crops such as peppermint (Brown and Caldwell 1980).
In addition, the cost of applying the fertilizer may add between
$1 and $5 per acre, depending upon whether the fertilizer is
spread, sprinkled, or injected.
G-7
-------
Table G-l. Nitrogen Requirements of Selected Crops
ANNUAL NITROGEN REQUIREMENTS
CROP (LB/ACRE) 1
Grass seed 70-160
Grains 40-150
Pasture grasses 60-100
Processing vegetables 100-150
Orchards 40-75
Peppermint 150-200
1 Often split into two or more applications during season.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
G-8
-------
Table G-2. Acreage Requirements for Agricultural Reuse of Sludge
SURFACE-APPLIED LIQUID OR
SLUDGE PRODUCTION (TONS/YEAR) MECHANICALLY-DEWATERED SLUDGE AIR-DRIED SLUDGE
AVERAGE
APPLICATION RATE
(TONS/ACRE/YEAR)1 ACRES REQUIRED
6.0 850
3.9 1,550
3.5 2,050
1 Based on average applications calculated to supply 100 Ibs of available nitrogen/acre/year.
NOTES: Estimates based on assumed start-up date of 1982 for regional plan.
SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell 1980.
YEAR
1982
1990
2000
DIGESTED
6,771
7,983
9,380
FSL HARVESTED
5,164
6,088
7,155
AVERAGE
APPLICATION RATE
(TONS/ACRE/YEAR) 1
2.8
2.2
1.9
ACRES REQUIRED
1,850
2,750
3,750
Q
-------
To a grower, application of sludge can result in signifi-
cant dollar savings. Assuming all nutrient requirements are met
through free delivery and application of sludge, a farmer could
save up to $100 per acre in fertilizer costs. In addition to
savings in fertilizer costs, the organic matter in sludge may
benefit many soils by improving texture and increasing moisture
retention capability. Because of the slow-release nature of
nutrients in sludge, a relatively consistent supply of nutrients
is provided over 3 or 4 years. This slow-release quality can
benefit some crops which efficiently utilize nutrients released
at a slow rate.
Certain disadvantages associated with application of sludge
on agricultural lands also are noteworthy. New or additional
management practices required with sludge application can
increase production costs. These costs are most likely to occur
where liquid sludge is applied. Changes in management practices
include additional tillage to eliminate runoff, additional lime
required to maintain soil pH at 6.5, and additional field work
in the spring because of accelerated weed growth (Oregon State
University 1977).
Other drawbacks to sludge application include potential
restrictions on crop selection. For example, crops grown for
direct human consumption usually require a waiting period of 18
months between sludge application and planting. Although the
waiting period may be waived if the sludge has been heat-treated
or subjected to other pathogen-destruction processes (e.g.,
composting), the costs associated with additional treatment make
this option unlikely.
The net value of sludge to growers is the savings in
fertilizer costs (plus any incidental benefits) less any in-
creases in production costs. One study (Oregon State University
1977) of sludge utilization economic impact in the Tualatin
Basin of Oregon estimated a return ranging from $-6 to $+15 per
acre at liquid sludge application rates averaging 1.8 tons per
acre. This is equivalent to about $-3.30 to $+8.30 per ton of
sludge. In that study, it was assumed that the liquid sludge
would be delivered and applied free of charge. Benefits occur
from fertilizer savings after subtracting costs for new produc-
tion practices; negative savings (losses) occur where production
costs exceed savings in fertilizer costs. The greatest benefits
occurred on the less productive soils.
CONCLUSIONS. Although the potential benefits to fanners
from sludge utilization can only be estimated on a case-by-case
basis, it appears that many farmers could benefit from use of
sludge as a fertilizer source. Potential increases in produc-
tion costs, however, need to be weighed against savings in
fertilizer costs.
Both liquid sludge and dewatered sludge could be applied as
a source of fertilizer on agricultural land. Although neither
G-10
-------
product currently has any commercial or purchase value, dewa-
tered sludge provides some potential to reduce delivery and
application costs if made available for free pick-up. This
assumes, however, that the value of the product to farmers can
be demonstrated clearly.
According to one survey of land application programs
conducted by EPA in 1977, liquid sludge delivered and applied by
the sewerage district was found generally to be more acceptable
to farmers than dewatered sludge, which was stockpiled for
pick-up and application by the farmer (Anderson 1977). Because
of farmers' sensitivity to price, this preference may be over-
come if application of dewatered sludge results in greater net
benefits (i.e., less production costs).
THE FORESTRY MARKET
Resource Conditions
Approximately 85 percent of Lane County is under timber
production. Privately-owned forest lands in Lane County cover
785,000 acres, 75 percent of which is within 30 miles of Eugene.
Private owners of forestlands include small woodland owners,
Christmas tree farmers, and large timber companies such as
Weyerhaeuser. Significant acreages of publicly-owned forest-
lands in Lane County are managed by the U. S. Forest Service.
Many of the forest areas in western Oregon are nutrient
deficient (Cole 1981) . In addition, poor soil texture in these
forestlands limits tree growth. To increase biomass production,
application of nutrients and organics to soils in the Pacific
Northwest is needed.
Opportunities for Sludge Use
SUITABILITY OF AVAILABLE LAND. The abundance of nutrient-
deficient, poor-textured soils on forestlands throughout western
Oregon provide considerable opportunities for reuse of sludge.
Although the exact amount of forestlands without environmental
or economic constraints is not known, MWMC estimates that
between 10,000 and 20,000 acres of suitable forestland could be
available for sludge application upon completion of a successful
forestry demonstration project (Cooper pers. comm.). At an
estimated application rate of 200-250 pounds of nitrogen per
acre per year for established plantations, approximately 1,500-
2,000 acres would be required for application of all sludge
produced in the year 2000. Suitable forestland and Christmas
tree sites have been identified near Marcola, Pleasant Hill,
Jasper, Dexter, Bellfountain, Junction City, Crow, Cheshire,
Noti, and Veneta.
BENEFITS AND COSTS TO HARVESTERS. In recent years, consid-
erable research on the effects of sludge on tree growth has been
G-ll
-------
conducted by the College of Forest Resources at the University
of Washington. Most experiments have occurred at the Pack
Forest site in southern Washington. The growth response from
sludge use on recently cleared forest areas, newly established
tree plantations, and existing forests have all been studied.
Most efforts, however, have focused on the latter two forest
environments.
Although growth response in the Pack Forest varied consid-
erably by species, age, and density of the stand, sludge appli-
cation increased tree growth almost without exception. The
2-year response of sludge-amended seedlings showed a height
change of between -2 and 64 percent and a diameter increase of
between 21 and 101 percent. The negative growth response
occurred in the height of western red cedar. Seedlings of
western hemlock and western red cedar also showed high rates of
mortality. For 25 to 50-year-old Douglas-fir forests, the
2-year percentage increase in basal area ranged from 11-60
percent, with higher growth responses corresponding to lower
site classifications. Although the longevity of increases in
growth rate is not known, Harvey and Cole (1982) have found the
response to last at least 4 years.
The economic benefit of increased tree growth results from
trees reaching their harvest size sooner. Based on observed
growth rates for 50-year-old Douglas-firs in the Pack Forest,
and on assumptions regarding the longevity of these growth
rates, the dollar value of the increased growth can be estimat-
ed.
As shown in Figure G-l, the value increase from applying
sludge to a 50-year-old Douglas-fir forest for 2 years ranges
from $142 per acre for a thinned site to $277 per acre for a
high density site. Although the longevity of these growth rates
is uncertain, a 10-year period would provide between $710 per
acre and $1,385 per acre in increased timber value.
Even though application of sludge on forestlands is likely
to increase tree growth, resulting in earlier tree harvest,
sludge use also can result in additional management costs.
Estimates of these costs vary according to the forest environ-
ment. In newly-established plantations, management costs are
typically high because of problems with weed control. The weeds
also provide an excellent habitat for field mice, which can
decimate an entire plantation by girdling the seedlings (Brown
and Caldwell 1980). An additional problem with sludge-treated
plantations has been the extensive and selective browsing by
deer; the higher protein value of sludge-amended seedlings
attracts the deer. Fencing is the only reliable method to
control deer browsing.
As shown on Table G-3, management costs necessary for
increased seedling productivity can be significant. In general,
costs experienced by the University of Washington to establish a
G-12
-------
Figure G-l. Two-Year Value Increase from Sludge
Application to a 50-Year-Old
Douglas-Fir Forest1
b
«
a
a
•••
k
U
VI
o
>
J46J.
2404,
216J+— —
1640
1SOO
JJ77/.
1244/Acre
/
7"
'/.»'
JH2/tcre
__L_
$719
,$649
$584
t.80
J40S.OO
Hlfh
Doniity
Low
Denslty
Thinned
Site
NOTE: ''Assumed standing timber value of $270/1,000 board feet.
SOURCE: Cole 1982a.
G-13
-------
Table G-3. Procedures and Costs for Sludge-Treated Seedling Plantations at the Pack
Forest in Washington
ACTIVITY TIMING COST
Establishing Plantations:
Site preparation Sunmer (Year 1) $800 per acre
Sludge application Spring/sunitier (Year 2)
Grain sowing Fall (Year 2) $25 per acre
Sludge/grain incorporation Spring (Year 4) $80 per acre
Fencing Before planting $1.40 per linear foot
Seedling purchase and planting Spring (Year 4) $165 per acre
Maintain Plantations:
Interplanting February/March $0.55 per tree (annual)
Aisle discing April, June, July, October $150 per acre (annual)
Spot herbicide spraying April/May, September/October $50 per acre (annual)
SOURCE: Cole 1982b.
G-14
-------
forest plantation treated with sludge at the Pack Forest site
approximated $1,200 per acre, exclusive of the cost of applying
sludge (Cole 1981). Additional costs of $200 per acre have been
experienced for weed and browse control for at least three
additional years following plantation establishment.
It should be noted that the management costs experienced at
the Pack Forest are unlikely to reflect costs for a commercial
forestry operation utilizing sludge. Furthermore, sludge
utilization in existing forests would minimize management
requirements. In one recent study (U. S. EPA 1983b) of proposed
sludge application to a Douglas-fir forest in western Washing-
ton, no change in management practices from sludge application
was expected. MWMC indicates that sludge application is its
biggest concern in Oregon. Equipment capable of effectively
spreading sludge in older forests is not readily available and
is expensive to operate.
CONCLUSION. Application of sludge can provide an important
source of nutrient and organic matter to forest environments,
resulting in increased tree growth. Because sludge application
requires changes in management practices in some environments,
in particular newly-established seedling plantations, the value
of increased growth rates should be evaluated carefully against
additional management costs. Since application of sludge to
older stands minimizes most of the problems associated with
younger stands, except ease of application, it appears that the
best use of sludge in forest environments (based on existing
knowledge) would be in older stands (between 10 and 50 years) on
lower site classifications (Site IV).
THE HOME AND GARDEN MARKET
The home and garden market consists of all indoor and
outdoor residential uses. Products used in this market include
soil amendments, organically-based fertilizers, and potting
soils. Characteristics of these product markets and oppor-
tunities for sludge use in these markets are described below.
Product Market
SOIL AMENDMENTS. Materials most commonly used as soil
amendments in the home and garden market are bark and sawdust.
In a recent study of soil amendments in the Portland area (Gruen
Gruen + Associates 1978), bark was the most commonly used soil
amendment. Although bark is used primarily for decorative
purposes (i.e., ground cover), the vast quantities and low price
of bark also make it the most commonly used soil amendment.
In recent years, bark has been substituted for fuel oil to
generate steam in lumber and paper mills. Although shortages of
bark have not occurred to date, continuation of this trend could
increase the demand for other products in the home and garden
market. Bark for soil amendment use is currently selling at
$12.00-$13.50 per cubic yard in bulk. Bagged bark is currently
selling at $1.75 for a 2-cubic-foot bag or about $0.90 per cubic
G-15
-------
foot vs. approximately $0.45 per cubic foot in bulk (Rexius
Forest By-Products pers. comm.).
ORGANIC FERTILIZERS. Organic fertilizers manufactured in
the Northwest use an organic compound (e.g., cottonseed meal,
blood meal, leather tankage) as a base material which is for-
tified to achieve a desired nutrient content. Organically-based
fertilizers are used on lawns and as a general plant food.
Certain qualities limit the widespread use of organically-
based fertilizers in the home and garden market. Organic
fertilizers typically contain less nutrient content than chemi-
cal fertilizers, thereby requiring that larger volumes be
applied to achieve the same nutrient effect. Organic fertiliz-
ers are typically more expensive per unit of nutrients than
chemical fertilizers. Also, the slow-release quality of organic
fertilizers seldom produces the dramatic results of chemical
fertilizers (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1978) .
An advantage of organic fertilizers over the more popular
chemical fertilizers is that organic fertilizers leach less
during heavy rainfall. This occurs because organic fertilizers
are typically water insoluble as opposed to mostly water soluble
chemical products. An additional benefit associated with
organic fertilizers is the mulching capacity of the organic
matter.
POTTING SOILS. The resurgence of house plants in recent
years has increased considerably the demand for potting soils.
Potting soil is found in almost every drug, grocery, and variety
store. Most potting soil products are a combination of sand or
soil and one or more types of organic materials (such as bark-
dust, peat moss, or composted steer manure). Some brands of
potting soils include pumice or vermiculite to achieve a loamy
texture.
The market for locally-produced potting soils appears to
include at least the three northwest states of Oregon, Washing-
ton, and Idaho (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1978). Although tradi-
tionally this market has been supplied primarily by a potting
soil produced in southern California (Black Magic), locally-
produced products have captured a sizeable share of the market
in recent years. This market was estimated at 40,000 cubic
yards of bagged potting soil in 1978 (Gruen Gruen + Associates
1978) .
Opportunities for Sludge Use
The potential for sludge use in the home and garden market
includes opportunities for commercial distribution and the
potential for free distribution of sludge products.
COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION. For sludge to compete commer-
cial ly~Tn~Tn^Tiome~~and~~garden market, sludge products must be
G-16
-------
pathogen-free and price-competitive. In addition, recent
marketing studies (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1977, 1978), indi-
cate that other key factors which influence the purchase of
products in the home and garden market include packaging and
labeling, texture, degree of odor, and visual effects. Minimal
water content (less than 25-30 percent) also is important.
Because of pathogen occurrence, liquid sludge and most
dewatered sludge products could not substitute for established
products in this market. Composted sludge and dried sludge
products are not pathogenic and do have potential for commercial
distribution in the home and garden market.
The existing home and garden market for soil amendments
would appear to be primarily a bulk market for bark. The
significant price advantage to bulk purchases (approximately
50 percent less) is considered a primary reason for this type of
distribution potential. Although data on the volume of soils in
this market are not known, bulk markets are typically local
because of the significance of transport costs. Consequently,
the market for sludge products as a soil amendment in the home
and garden market is limited most likely to the Eugene area.
Although some portion (perhaps 50 percent) of the market could
be captured with a product competitive with bark in terms of
both price and quality, reuse of a significant share of future
sludge production is unlikely.
Opportunities for sludge use as an organic fertilizer in
the home and garden market are limited, primarily because the
existing market is small. Although organically-based fertiliz-
ers (including a sludge-based product) do offer some qualities
(i.e., slow-release of nutrients and organic content) which are
desirable for certain users, the lower nutrient content per unit
of cost considerably limits the potential market.
The potential for sludge use as a potting soil is as a
substitute for organic materials, such as barkdust and peat
moss. Recent estimates (40,000 cubic yards annually) of the
regional market for bagged potting soil suggest significant
opportunities for sludge products if the product does not
contain objectionable odors and unacceptable levels of heavy
metals. The City of Portland's recent decision to dewater and
compost its sludge is likely to stiffen competition considerably
for a share of the potting soil market.
FREE DISTRIBUTION. Free distribution of sludge products
from a central point to the home and garden market has several
advantages over commercial distribution. Existing regulatory
controls on a free distribution program only require that the
recipient have knowledge as to the origin of the sludge and that
a log be kept on those receiving sludge. Because regulations
are less restrictive, treatment requirements and costs are
reduced. For a giveaway program, additional treatment, such as
composting or thermal evaporation to further reduce pathogens
G-17
-------
would not be required, resulting in substantial reductions in
treatment costs. Whether this reduction in treatment costs,
however, would offset potential revenues from commercial dis-
tribution of additionally-treated sludge products cannot be
estimated without a detailed market study.
Some insight into the potential for free distribution of
sludge can be developed by examining recent giveaway programs at
the Eugene and Springfield treatment plants. Approximately
1,250 cubic yards and 200 cubic yards of air-dried sludge
(approximately 30 percent solids) were removed from the Eugene
and Springfield treatment plants, respectively, in 1977 (Brown
and Caldwell 1980). These quantities represent all sludge
produced at the Springfield plant in 1977 and approximately 25
percent of sludge produced at the Eugene plant.
Of these total quantities of sludge, approximately 35
percent, or 70 cubic yards, removed from the Springfield plant
and approximately 70 percent, or about 875 cubic yards, removed
from the Eugene plant were used for home and garden use (e.g.,
lawns flower gardens, and shrubbery). Because sludge production
is expected to increase approximately threefold as a result of
treatment at the new plant, it has been estimated (Brown and
Caldwell 1980) that between 10 and 15 percent of future sludge
production could be disposed of through free distribution.
THE SPECIALTY MARKETS
Specialty markets are characterized by a diversity of users
and product requirements. In this market, soil amendments and
fertilizers are used by professionals for a variety of landscap-
ing and plant propagation purposes. The market is comprised of
commercial and institutional users, both public and private.
Although functional similarities exist between the specialty
markets and the home and garden market, the specialty markets
typically require a higher degree of product specialization.
Landscapers
Landscaping services include landscaping for new construc-
tion and landscape maintenance. For new construction, land-
scapers use significant quantities of soil amendments. A wide
range of organic products are used by landscapers as soil
amendments. A recent study (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1978) of
products used by landscape contractors in the Portland area
indicated that bark, used primarily as a topdressing, comprised
over 50 percent of the market. Other products used in signifi-
cant volumes were sawdust, manure, and mushroom compost.
Because of the decline in new home construction in recent
years, demand for organic amendments in new landscaping has been
reduced sharply (Rexius Forest By-Products pers. comm.).
Product use for landscape maintenance services, however, has
G-18
-------
remained strong. Fertilizers are the primary product used for
landscape maintenance. Because of lower costs per unit of
nutrient and fewer labor requirements for application, chemical
fertilizers have been adopted almost universally for landscape
maintenance purposes (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1978).
Landscape maintenance markets include both private and
public uses. In the Portland area, the only significant private
use is for golf courses. Golf course maintenance typically
requires high nutrient-content fertilizers to achieve the
desired color and grass conditions. Minor use of organic
products occurs to improve green conditions.
Public landscape maintenance services include school
districts, highway departments, and parks and public works
departments. Of these, parks and public works departments
likely comprise the most significant market. In attempts to
minimize labor costs, however, most public maintenance depart-
ments use high nutrient-content fertilizers (e.g., nitrogen-
phosphorus-potash ratio of 30-3-10) .
Nurseries
Wholesale nurseries in Oregon consist of container nur-
series and field nurseries. Container nurseries, which are a
large industry in Oregon, cultivate flowers, foliage plants,
shrubs, and some trees in greenhouses; field nurseries, which
plant in open land, cultivate primarily shade, fruit, and
flowering trees.
For container nurseries, there is considerable variety in
the types and ratios of materials used by nurserypersons in
blending potting mix (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1978). Although
exact formulas are considered trade secrets, soils are typically
some combination of organic materials and sand. Common organic
ingredients include shredded Douglas-fir bark, composted saw-
dust, and steer manure. Other important ingredients include
lime or gypsum, trace elements, and both fast and slow release
chemical fertilizers. Fortification with chemical fertilizer is
needed to increase the nitrogen consumed by decomposing organic
matter.
In a recent survey (Gruen Gruen + Associates 1978) of field
nurseries in Oregon, it was shown that approximately 4,000 acres
were devoted to production, most of which is in the Portland
region. The primary products of this industry are trees and
rhododendrons, both of which require heavy nitrogen application
(200-400 pounds per acre).
Opportunities for Sludge Use
COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION. Similar to the home and garden
market, sludge products must be pathogen-free and price-
competitive to compete in the specialty markets. Other
G-19
-------
important qualities influencing product selection in the spe-
cialty market include uniform particle size, sterility, salt
content, heavy metal content, texture, quality, consistency, and
ready availability at a project site (Gruen Gruen + Associates
1977).
Of the potential sludge products, only dried sludge and
composted sludge could meet the product specifications in the
specialty markets. The limited nutrient content of these
products, however, makes them less desirable for most landscape
maintenance uses unless they are fortified with chemical nutri-
ents. Even though the organic matter or organically-based
fertilizers would be desirable for some uses (e.g., landscape
maintenance associated with clay soils), the market is small.
High labor costs associated with the use of low nutrient fertil-
izers also discourages their use.
Some potential exists for marketing sludge products as a
soil amendment. Landscaping services for new construction use
significant amounts of organic materials as soil amendment and
as topdressing. Although sludge products are generally con-
sidered inappropriate as a topdressing (because there is no need
for nutrients) , opportunities exist for substituting a sludge
product for organic materials (e.g., sawdust, bark, manure, and
mushroom compost) currently used as soil amendments. Sludge use
in this market, however, is dependent upon two important con-
ditions: 1) the resurgence of new home building; and 2) the
continued diversion of bark supplies as a source of fuel.
Recent declines in fuel oil prices are likely to slow the
reallocation of bark as a fuel source.
The relative importance of the wholesale nursery industry
in Oregon provides significant market opportunities for sludge
use. The specificity of product ingredients, however, is an
important constraint on sludge use. In general, product speci-
fications of container nurseries are more stringent than those
of landscapers since potting soils are especially sensitive to
salt and heavy metal content. The availability of composted
sludge from the approved composting plant of the City of Port-
land will likely increase competition significantly for a share
of the wholesale potting soil market.
FREE DISTRIBUTION. The same quality specifications that
limit the potential for commercial distribution of sludge
products in the specialty markets also limit the potential for
free distribution. Although some minor substitution of products
may occur if only slight deviations in quality existed, the
treatment costs necessary to achieve even this minimum quality
standard likely would be prohibitive without some revenue
generation.
The potential for free distribution of a sludge product as
a fertilizer also is severely limited. The high labor cost
associated with the use of a low nutrient-content fertilizer
such as sludge-based fertilizer is likely to exceed the savings
in product costs.
G-20
-------
Appendix H
Oregon State University
Archeological Survey
Reports and
Correspondence with the
Oregon State Historic
Preservation Office
-------
Department of
Anthropology
Oregon
. .State .
University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331 (503) 7r,4-45is
March 22, 1983
Dr. Le Gilsen
State Historic Preservation Office
525 Trade Street
Salem, OR 97301
Dear Le,
Enclosed is a copy of a cultural resource survey conducted near
Eugene, Oregon. The study was prepared as part of an E.I.S. for
Jones and Stokes Associates, Sacramento, California.
Mr. Michael Rushton of Jones and Stokes needs a latter of
acceptance from your office to be enclosed in the final E.I.S.
If the report meets the standards of your office, please advise
him as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
William D. Honey
Research Associate
Encl.
cc: Michael Rushton
Jones and Stokes Associates
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
H-3
-------
VICTOR ATIYEH
OOVCKNOK
Department of Transportation
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Parks and Recreation Division
525 TRADE STREET S.E.. SALEM. OREGON 97310
September 19, 1983
Mike Rushton
Jones and Stokes Associates
2321 "P" Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Dear Mr. Rushton:
Re: Cultural Resource Survey Report-Sewer Line Route
Coburg/Junction City
Lane County
Our office has reviewed the additional materials supplied to our
office for the archaeological survey performed by^Oregon State
University. Our office concurs that before construction the
specific route of the pipeline should be established and flagged and
then the impact of the proposed sites on the archaeological sites be
determined. Our check of our record indicates site 35LA354 also
lies along the pipeline at the McKenzie River. This site is
eligible.
The compliance process first requires that a site be determined
eligible. If it is not eligible, then the agency and the SHPO keep
the documentation and the project can proceed. If the site is
eligible, then the next step is to determine whether or not there is
going to be an impact. If there is no impact, the agency and the
SHPO keep the documentation and the project can proceed. If there
is an impact, then we have to determine whether or not it is of "no
adverse" or an "adverse" impact. This generally involves some kind
of a mitigation plan.
Such mitigation plans are described in the Advisory Council's
Handbook, called "The Treatment of Archaeological Properties." The
size and scope of mitigation should take into consideration the
relative impacts of the proposed project and the importance of the
project in terms of the property's research potential. Any
environmental reports should take into consideration these comments.
Form 734-3122
H-4
-------
Mike Rushton
Page 2
September 19, 1983
If you haye\any questions, you can contact Dr. Lei and Gil sen at
378
rs, III
Deputy 3HPO
1
DWP:LG:tla
H-5
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
IN THE COBURG AND JUNCTION CITY VICINITY
LANE COUNTY, OREGON
REPORT TO JONES AND STOKES, SACRAMENTO
18 MARCH 1983
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331
C. BENSON, ARCHAEOLOGY
W. HONEY, ETHNOHISTORY
D. GRIFFIN, FIELD ASSISTANT
H-6
-------
SUMMARY
In March of 1983 a sewer line route and alternate treatment areas
were surveyed for cultural resources.
Archaeological material was located in one area of the line route,
and in one of the fields surveyed. No cultural material was found in the
Coburg Hills site, and two landowners denied the survey crew access to
their property.
We recommend further investigation of the first site to determine
its extent and depth, so that more specific recommendations for avoiding
adverse impacts may be made.
The lithic scatter in area C reflects the native use of the valley
floor, but appears to be so diffuse that further investigations are not
recommended. It is designated a sensitive area, and project people should
be alerted to the potential for encountering cultural material if ground
disturbing work is done.
Its sensitivity relative to other locations may affect selection
of alternates.
PURPOSE
The preliminary survey was sponsored by Jones and Stokes, as part
of their evaluation of sewerage project areas in compliance with federal
regulations concerning cultural resources.
H-7
-------
PROJECT LOCATION
Alternative areas for project location were chosen by Jones and Stokes
Associates, Inc. and its consultant, Brown and Caldwell of Eugene. The areas'
sites vary around 200 acres. Project areas are located near Coburg and
Junction City (see attached maps).
Current use of the proposed project areas is agricultural; the fields
were in pasture land at the time of the survey. The areas lie at an elevation
of about 350 feet, and have little relief. The areas have been changed since
the time of Native American use by natural floodplain activity and by
agricultural use. The sewer line corridors follow the road and rail lines,
and cross areas of industrial use.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK
J.A. Follansbee conducted a preliminary survey for this project in
1978 for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission of Eugene. Project
design has since been changed, requiring examination of new areas.
In 1969 and 1970 the Kurd site near Coburg was excavated (White 1970),
and more recent survey and testing has been done by University of Oregon
archaeologists in the project vicinity (though not in the study areas) .
CULTURAL BACKGROUND
The survey area had been inhabited at the time of European settlement
by the Willamette Valley natives called Kalapuya. Kalapuya populations were
*
decimated by epidemic diseases resulting from initial European contact, and
H-8
-------
- ^ r ./.-' -r
IEUGENE £ASTI
1372 II if
SCALE 1:24000
o
1 MILE
1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
TED LINES REPRESENT 5-FOOT CONTOURS
TIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
-AL SURVEY, DENVER. COLORADO 80225, OR RESTON, VIRGINIA 22092
'JG TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
• OREGON
A3?*'.3LE LCC»T-;N
1 340000 FEET (NORTH) «99«»m f
ROAD CLASSIFICAT
Heavy duty -——— Lir'it •:
Med-um di/y _ — — U" " :
K.V-.'.J:- -
GOBI
—MAP i—•
H-9
-------
'.}^- -f.
+
V
2'30"
«84
, (EUGENE WEST)
1372 II SW
SCALE 124000
•86
10'
•87
1 MIUE
1000
3000 4000 5000 6000
7000 FEET
I KILOMttER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
OREGON
THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS
OR SALE BY U. S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. DENVER. COLORADO 80225. OR WASHINGTON, DC. 20242
A IOIOFH oescAmiNG TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS is AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
H-IO xwrwff.
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
—MAP 2—
-------
their aboriginal lifeways were undocumented. Their culture history can
only be written through archaeological means.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The historical background presents broad and general statements
concerning the project area and adjacent areas. The purpose of this approach
is to not only establish a chronology framework, but to also identify any
significant trends operating through time. Included, therefore, is
information on the settlement and development of the Willamette Valley and
some nearby small communities such as Coburg and Meadow View.
The first systematic effort to colonize the Willamette Valley began
with the interior fur traders. In 1811, Robert Stuart of the Pacific Fur
Company journeyed upstream on the Willamette River to explore for fur
resources and to determine the feasibility of constructing a trading post.
A year later, Astorian Donald McKensie explored the upper Willamette Valley
in more detail. By the end of the year 1812, a trading post was established
near present-day Salem. After the Pacific Fur Company trappers came others
associated with the Northwest Company and then the Hudson Bay Company. In
1821, Hudson Bay Company was without competition and began to promote
settlement (Clark 1927) .
During the 1840s, the Willamette Valley begin receiving a heavy
influx of permanent settlers. This settlement preceded the Donation Land
Law. Robert Clark (1927:362) notes that the upper Willamette Valley began
receiving settlers JLater than the areas to the north because the "supply of
desirable land began decreasing." Eugene Skinner migrated to the upper area
in 1846. He filed a claim on which the city of Eugene, Oregon, now stands.
H-ll
-------
Further stimulation for settlement in the upper Willamette Valley
came after 1846 with the opening of the Southern Oregon Immigration Route
(Clark 1927),and its subsequent improvement, known as the Applegate Trail.
These early routes influenced the distribution of settlement in western
Oregon.
As population in the Willamette Valley grew, the need for transporta-
tion became clear. Water-based transport, or steamboats, represented
early transportation development in the valley. In 1856, the first steamer
penetrated the upper Willamette to serve the area around Eugene. Settlers
were provided with an expeditious means of transporting crops and other
products to market centers such as Portland (Clark 1927).
Roads were also needed, especially to encourag« additional immigra-
tion. Early legislative bodies chartered many road companies in western
Oregon. By the early 1900s an elaborate road system began to emerge in
the Willamette Valley.
Clearly, the largest "boom" to the valley came with the railroad.
In 1871, the railroad reached Eugene and the upper Willamette Valley. In
1890, plans were begun for a less expensive "narrow gauge" railroad through
the valley, with the community of Coburg as terminus (Scott 1919).
The early economy of the upper Willamette Valley was diverse, yet
primarily agriculturally based. Cattle, sheep, lumber, and mining were
other important activities (Minor and Pecor 1977) .
As economics and population diversified, a fuller potential was
realized for the Willamette Valley. The Oregon Electric Railroad was
one such effort during the early 1900s (Mills 1943). This line eventually
ran near Junction City, Meadow View, and Eugene. By the late 1930s the
Oregon Electric, or interurban, could not remain economically viable.
H-12
-------
The communities of Coburg and Meadow View are adjacent to or within
the project area. A brief historical sketch is given of each community.
Information on Meadow View is sparse.
Coburg
Initial settlement of the Coburg area began in 1847 through the
efforts of Jacob Spores and John Diamond. Spores filed a claim on the
north bank of the McKenzie River, while Diamond filed near the now central
part of the community. Subsequently, Diamond sold to Issac Van Duyn, whose
name is familiar in the early history of the area (Hurd 1966).
In 1851 a post office was established. Early economic activities
were grain crops and cattle raising. By 1861 the lumber potential of the
area was realized and logs were rafted to a sawmill located near the river.
Through the efforts of Van Duyn, Coburg was platted in 1881. A
train depot, grain elevator, and other features were constructed in
anticipation of the arrival of the "narrow gauge" railroad. The years
1898-1915 were the period of Coburg's florescence (Hurd 1966). In 1907,
attempts were made to establish a glass factory (Nelson 1956); yet the
glass products proved to be inferior.
Coburg's decline coincided with the closure of the Booth Kelly
Sawmill in 1914. From that time to the present, Coburg served a wide area
of farms and small support industries. More currently, it is beginning
to feel encroachment from the northern expansion of the city of Eugene.
Meadow View
The community of Meadow View was conceived as a rural farming
community, and is less than that today. The sum total of structures is
an old warehouse built for the Oregon Electric Railroad. Meadow View
H-13
-------
was first.referred to as Grand Prairie (McArthur 1974), and was first
settled in June 1854 by several individuals.
Early promotion was done by J.M. Hanslmair and B.N. Moore. In a
promotional pamphlet, Hanslmair and Moore advertised Meadow View as an
area of 11 acres in 5-acre parcels and fully described the climate, soil,
and general quality of life. The farming potential and variety emphasized
truck farming, Irish potatoes, red clover and vetch, dairying, poultry,
ducks, bees, and other profitable commodities.
Clearly their effort was not successful. Today Meadow View is an
agricultural community more closely associated to Junction City and
Eugene.
METHODOLOGY
The field reconnaissance portion of this research conformed to that
already described in the archaeological methodology. In addition, literature
investigations were conducted at Oregon State University and University of
Oregon libraries. The research library at Lane County Museum was also
searched for pertinent information. Materials sought were newspaper articles,
photographs, diaries, journals, and other historically oriented materials.
Limited interviewing was also conducted with long-time residents of
the project area. A title search of property was conducted at the Lane
County Courthouse.
FINDINGS
The title search revealed that a major portion of lands within the
project area were originally Donation Land Claim properties. Land within
H-14
-------
the Coburg Hills site were once owned by Issac Van Duyn. There are no
remaining features nor are there significant historical events associated
with the property.
The Prairie Road Site and Site C have not been owned by persons
important in the history of the area as revealed by interviews and
literature and title searches.
The field reconnaissance revealed the location of a probable
historic site in the northeast corner of Alternative 1, site C.
Research is ongoing to determine the nature of this site.
Contact with the Oregon State Office of Historic Preservation
determined that there were no earlier recorded sites or structures
within the project boundaries that are listed on the National Register
of Historic Places.
SURVEY
1. The proposed pipeline route to the Coburg Hills site (Eugene
East Quad) was walked 10 March 1983 by W. Honey and C. Benson. An
archaeological site was located north of the McKenzie River and Armitage
Park, and west of Spores Point (Map 1). The site, identified by fire-
cracked rock and flakes, is bordered on the east by a shallow ditch and
the riprapped 1-5 bank, and on the west by the abandoned railroad
embankment. The site extends for several hundred meters northward and
is characterized by higher density of flakes at its northern extent.
Recommendations It may be possible to avoid the site by keeping
*
the pipeline to the east (near the freeway embankment), but this should
be determined by coring to establish site limits.
H-15
-------
Another site, or higher density area of Site 1, was found farther
north on the pipeline route (Eugene East Quad and Coburg Quad). This
site is located between the newly constructed Roberts Street to the
west and 1-5 to the east. It was not determined whether the Roberts
Street construction had impacted the site, but keeping pipeline work to
the west in this area might avoid impacts. Again, the site's boundaries
and extent should be determined by subsurface testing before more specific
siting of the line is done.
2. Project area C, north of Irving (Junction City Quad), was
surveyed on 10 March 1983 by C. Benson, W. Honey, and D. Griffin. Alterna-
tive areas 1 and 2 (west of the Southern Pacific Railroad) were examined.
The fields were in fescue primarily, and visibility varied. Current use
is sheep grazing. Where bare ground was exposed (along edges of the
field and along a small drainage that bisects the field) a light scatter
of flakes was found.
Recommendations We recommend that alternative areas 1 and 2
be ranked on a sensitivity scale with the other alternatives when the
others have been surveyed. The potential for uncovering cultural materials
should be considered in site selection. No further archaeological work is
required on these two parcels at present.
Pipeline
The pipeline route between Belt Line Road and Irving (west side of
the Northwest Expressway—"Prairie Road") was walked by w. Honey and C.
Benson. No cultural material were located, though obsidian appears in the
road gravel.
H-16
-------
3. ~On 14 March 1983, W. Honey and D. Griffin surveyed the Coburg
Hills area south of Lenon Hill. The survey area was pasture land with
deep grass and standing water. It rained during the survey, and visibility
was poor. No cultural material was located, though artifacts have been
found elsewhere on this landowner's property.
We think the absence of cultural material on Coburg Alternatives
1 and 2 is not due to the poor visibility, but reflects reality since
a knowledgeable field foreman has not found any artifacts in this location.
4. The surveyors were denied access to the Prairie Road Site (east
of Site C, Junction City Quad) by two landowners. No recommendations can
be made for this parcel until it can be examined.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. More specific definition of project routes and boundaries is
necessary for specific determinations of avoidance potential and recommenda-
tions .
2. The pipeline routes should be flagged, and boundaries of construc-
tion areas delineated. Since the project vicinity is culturally sensitive,
further specification will help identify and lessen impacts to cultural
resources.
3. Permission to survey the Prairie Road locale should be obtained
if that area remains an alternative.
More detailed project specifications will help the archaeologists make
mor«e efficient recommendations.
H-17
-------
REFERENCES
Clark, Robert
1927 History of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. S.J. Clarke Publishing
Company, Chicago.
Follansbee, J.A.
1978 Report to W.V. Pye, Manager, Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission, Eugene, Dec. 7 (Mimeo).
Friends of Irving Christian Church
1982 History of the Irving Christian Church, 1853-1981. Dark Room
and Printing Specialties, Eugene.
Hanslmair, J., and N. Moore
n.d. Meadow View, Lane County, Oregon. Promotional Pamphlet. Abington
Building, Portland.
Hurd, Stuart
1966 The Coburg Story, in Lane County Historian ll{4):66-76,
Lane County Historical Society, Eugene.
McArthur, Lewis
1974 Oregon Geographical Names, 4th Edition. Edward Brothers,
Ann Arbor.
Mills, Randall
1943 Early Electric Interurban in Oregon, Part II, in Oregon
Historical Quarterly 44(4):386-410, Salem.
Minor, R., and A.F. Pecor
1977 Cultural Resource Overview of Willamette National Forest, in
University of Oregon Anthropological Papers, no.12, Eugene.
Nelson, Lee
1956 Coburg Glass Factory, 1907-1908, in Lane County Historian
1(3):11-13, Lane County Historical Society, Eugene.
Scott, Leslie
1919 History of the Narrow Gauge Railroad in the Willamette Valley,
in Oregon Historical Quarterly 20(2):141-158, The Ivy
Press, Portland.
H-18
-------
Department of
Anthropology
Oregon
. .State ..
University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331 (soa) 754-4515
April 6, 1983
Michael D. Rushton
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
Dear Mike:
Enclosed you will find a copy of the final report prepared by
Charlotte Benson and me. As I mentioned earlier, we have addressed
only project recommendations for the Metropolitan Wastewater Manage-
ment Commission.
Attached to the report is an informal budget for core testing the
proposed Coburg Hills and Site C areas. You might mention to MWMC
that they would be able to save considerable expense if testing
procedures were accomplished this spring. Please bear in mind,
this informal budget does not obligate the University to perform
the work. In addition, the core testing process will not disturb
existing crops to any significant degree.
All questions or comments concerning the enclosed material may be
directed to Charlotte or me. lhank you.
Sincerely,
William Honey
Research Associate
End.
H-19
-------
SUMMARY
1. Cultural significance of the sites usually cannot be determined frccn
surface indications alone. To assess significance (and even defining site
size and depth), subsurface testing is required.
From surface observations alone, the Egge site (Coburg Hills pipeline
route) appears to have irore potential significance than the Area C lithic
scatter.
2. It is not clear whether the pipeline can be rerouted to avoid archaeological
site #1 because no alternatives were given.
The sensitivity of Area C can be evaluated through subsurface sampling,
and the necessity for relocation then addressed.
3. The most expedient and cost effective method for subsurface testing these
areas is systematic coring of the pipeline site(s) (Egge and Roberts Road)
and sample coring of the lithic scatter in Area C. Goring will provide
subsurface information on site size and depth without the time and cost of
pit or trench excavation. Site boundaries can be mapped on this basis, and
sensitive areas delineated.
4. The coring program can be accomplished effectively by Oregon State
University Archaeological Methods students under the direction of project
investigators.
If this evaluation is undertaken during Spring Term, it can be done
at significantly lower cost and less time than if done later (see attached
budget)
H-20
-------
REXXWMEIxlDATIQNS
A. Coburg Hills
1. Pipeline Route
Before construction, the specific route of the pipeline should be
established and flagged. The archaeological site west of Spores Point and
north of the McKenzie River at Armitage Park is approximately 100 x 80 meters
in size. Core testing of this area will determine the impact of pipeline
construction on cultural material and reveal more information regarding site
significance. Fire cracked rocks, obsidian, jasper and other chert (crypto-
crystalline) flakes were observed in a backhoe trench nearly 0.5 meter in
depth (Figure 1). This indicates the likelihood of a considerable period of
human occupation. Fire cracked rock suggests seasonal or even permanent
encampment, which heightens the potential significance of the sites. No
diagnostic artifacts were located.
A few meters to the north of the backhoe trench, an area of the field
had been plowed (Figure 2). Cultural materials (flakes and chips) were
observed within the disturbed area. Some bone material was located, but fire
cracked rock was not observed. Rodent burrows revealed the presence of
additional cultural material, primarily flakes. Further north, another
archaeological site (or extension of same) was located between Roberts Road
and Interstate 5 (Figure 3). The boundaries of this site were not determined;
however, lithic material was widely scattered. Again, site parameters and
significance can be more accurately established by core testing.
2. Area for Alternatives 1 and 2
These areas are pasture lands in deep grass and standing water (Figure 4)
Cultural materials were not located during the survey. The landowner has
H-21
-------
Figure 1. Backhoe trench, Coburg Hills pipeline route.
Figure 2. Plowed field, Coburg Hills pipeline route.
H-22
-------
Figure 3. Archaeological site between Roberts Road and
Interstate 5, Coburg Hills pipeline route.
Figure 4. Pasture lands, Alternatives 1 and 2, Coburg Hills.
H-23
-------
recovered artifacts (mortar and pestles, projectiles) along Daniels Creek
and in other locales on the property. During construction, crews should be
aware there is a good likelihood of encountering cultural material. If
cultural materials are located during construction, work should be halted
immediately and archaeologists at Oregon State University or the State
Historic Preservation Office should be consulted.
B. Site C
1. Pipeline Route
Cultural materials were not located along this proposed route.
2. Alternatives 1 and 2
The area west of Southern Pacific Railroad revealed nearly 20 flakes.
This scatter is composed of obsidian and cryptocrystalline flakes (Figure 5).
Several possible cores were also observed. Although these fields were in
grass, exposed areas revealed lithic materials. There is an extremely high
likelihood that cultural materials will be uncovered during construction.
Diagnostic artifacts and fire cracked rocks were not observed.
The historic site located during the survey is still being researched.
We recornnend core testing at this site.
H-24
-------
'
• 4 «
*
Figure 5. Flakes recovered frcm Site C, Alternatives 1 and 2.
H-25
-------
Charlotte Benson is teaching an upper division class in Archaeological
Method and Theory during Spring Term 1983. She is willing to formulate a
systematic core testing scheme for MWMC in Eugene. Under her supervision,
students can accomplish testing as a class project. Financial costs would be
limited to travel, minimal field expenses such as food, equipment, and salary
only for the principal investigators. Substantial savings would occur in
terms of field crew wages because time would be donated by students.
The coring of the Ooburg pipeline site and the field at Area C can be
done by the class on two field days (one day for each site) in two separate
day trips. A budget for the proposed work is attached.
H-26
-------
Appendix I
List of Report Preparers
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Richard Thiel - Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch; Seattle,
Washington.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Supervises EIS functions;
coordinates EPA Region 10 environmental activities.
Daniel I. Steinborn - EIS and Energy Review Team Leader, Environ-
mental Evaluation Branch; Seattle, Washington.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Supervises EIS preparation and
review efforts for EPA Region 10.
Norma Young - Project Monitor, Environmental Evaluation Branch;
Seattle, Washington.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Principal monitor and reviewer
of Eugene/Springfield Sludge Management Program EIS.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Sacramento, California
Charles R. Hazel - B.S., M.S., and PhD., Fisheries Biology.
Formerly with California Department of Fish and Game as
Director of Water Pollution Control Laboratory. As Presi-
dent of Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., has managed numer-
ous environmental studies and reports and served as expert
consultant in fisheries and water quality ecology.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Program management.
Michael D. Rushton - B.A. and M.A., Physical Geography. As
staff Environmental Scientist, responsibilities are project
management, coordination of EIS preparation team work
efforts, and compilation of EIS. With Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc., for past 10% years preparing and managing
preparation of environmental impact analyses.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Project manager; project and
alternatives description, energy consumption, public accep-
tance, indirect impacts, summary.
Robert D. Sculley - B.S., Zoology; M.S., Ecology. Staff ecolo-
gist with special expertise in air quality analysis,
including modeling, development of emission inventories,
and projection of air quality changes. With Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc., for 11 years, with varying project
management, and resource planning and environmental impact
analysis experience.
1-3
-------
Area of EIS Responsibility- Air quality, odors.
Thomas C. Wegge - B.A., Urban Studies; M.S., Environmental
Economics. Environmental economist specializing in socio-
economic impacts of land use changes, cost-benefit and risk
analysis, and energy impact assessment.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Sludge reuse economics,
project costs, alternatives screening process.
Debra Loh - B.A., Geography; M.A., Urban Planning. Urban and
environmental planner specializing in land use, transporta-
tion, and air quality analysis.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Land resources.
Miriam Green - B.S., Wildlife Biology. Staff biologist with
experience in raptor and passerine bird censusing and
habitat evaluation; also experience in EIS production.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Biological resources.
Pat Osfeld - Staff librarian responsible for acquisition and
organization of reference documents. Conducts literature
studies and compiles bibliographies.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Preparation of reference
listing, literature research.
Jack Whelehan - Staff technical editor with 7 years experience
at Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Technical editing of EIS.
Lorna Russell - Staff technician responsible for operation of
word processing equipment.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Compilation and typing of EIS.
Tony Rypich - Staff graphics artist.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Report graphics.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Bellevue, Washington
Robert Penman - B.S., Forest Management; M.S., Forest Hydrology.
Environmental hydrologist specializing in forest and stream
hydrology, sediment transport, and soil science. Formerly
with University of Washington as a research assistant and
Weyerhaeuser Company as a forestry aide.
1-4
-------
Area of EIS Responsibility. Surface water quality, soil
character, and use.
Patricia Gibbon - B.S., Agriculture Economics and Soil Science;
M.S., Urban and Regional Planning. Environmental planner
specializing in land use and outdoor recreation planning,
soil science, and natural resource economics. Formerly
with Town of Tiburon, California; Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources; and City of Minneapolis.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Visual aesthetics.
Harding Lawson Associates,
Bellevue, Washington
John Newby - B.S. and M.S., Civil Engineering. Civil engineer
with 8 years experience in geotechnical engineering and
project management.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Management of groundwater
quality analysis.
Mark Adams - B.S. and M.S., Geology. Geologist with 5 years of
experience in groundwater contamination analysis, hydrolo-
gy, drainage control, and geologic hazards analysis.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Groundwater quality analysis.
Jeffrey Sherwood - B.S., Natural Resource Studies; M.S., Plant
and Soil Science. Soil scientist with 6 years experience
in soil and water management and conservation, land dis-
posal of sewage.
Area of EIS Responsibility.
metals, and toxics in soil
Fate of nutrients, heavy
column.
SCS Engineers,
Bellevue, Washington
David Roberson - B.S., Bacteriology and Public Health; M.S.,
Environmental Science. Staff scientist with 5 years
experience in the environmental and public health aspects
of wastewater and sewage sludge management, and disposal of
hazardous wastes.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Public health risks.
1-5
-------
SCS Engineers,
Long Beach, California
Curtis J. Schmidt - B.S., Sanitary Engineering. Principal with
SCS Engineers; Civil and Sanitary Engineer with over
23 years experience in the areas of wastewater and sludge
management, process equipment evaluation/selection, and
cost estimating.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Management of public health
analysis; technical review of MWMC sludge management plans
and cost estimates; technical review of EIS alternatives
chapter.
Oregon State University Department of Anthropology
Corvallis, Oregon
William D. Honey, Jr. - B.S., Anthropology; M.A., Interdisci-
plinary Studies. Anthropologist with 10 years experience
in conducting archeological, historic, and ethnographic re-
search in the Pacific Northwest, with emphasis on the
Willamette, Umpqua, and Rogue River Basins.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Management of cultural re-
sources investigation; cultural resources field surveying.
Charlotte L. Benson - B.A., M.A., PhD., Anthropology- Anthro-
pologist with 17 years experience in conducting archeo-
logical field surveys and research throughout the Pacific
Northwest.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Cultural resources field
surveying and literature review.
Dennis Griffin - B.A., Archeology. Graduate student in archeo-
logy with over 3 years of experience in conducting archeo-
logical field surveys in Oregon.
Area of EIS Responsibility. Cultural resources field
surveying.
1-6
-------
Appendix J
Draft EIS Distribution List
-------
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST
CONGRESSMEN
FEDERAL AGENCIES
STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS AND
AGENCIES
LIBRARIES
Senator Mark Hatfield
Senator Bob Packwood
Representative Jim Weaver
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries
U.S. Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers, Portland District
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Governor of Oregon
Mayor of Eugene
Mayor Springfield
Mayor of Coburg
Mayor of Junction City
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Department of Water Resources
Oregon Health Planning and Development Agency
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
Oregon State Clearinghouse
Lane Council of Governments
Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
Lane County Health Department
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Eugene and Springfield Planning Departments
Eugene and Springfield Public Works Departments
Eugene Department of Planning and Community Development
Eugene Public Library
Springfield Public Library
Junction City Public Library
A list of residents receiving the Draft EIS follows:
J-3
-------
AREA RESIDENTS
Paul Adams
Agripac
Claude Allen
Steven J. Allen
Mr. & Mrs. Allison
Arl Altman
Mr. & Mrs. Bud Andrews
Mr. & Mrs. Andrews
Mr. & Mrs. John Ankeny
Mr. & Mrs. Atkinson
Peter V. Baehr
Jerry & Nancy Balding
Melva Barnes
Gary Beck
Doral G. Bell
Ral Berfory
Glen Berkshire
Richard Beverly
Charles Y. Blaine
Steve & Debra Blexseth
Arnold Bodtker
Bohemia, Inc.
Richard Borgmeier
Katherina E. Bowder
Mr. & Mrs. Darrell Bowes
Kerry Brough
Mr. & Mrs. Fred Brougher
Ms. Dee Brown
Kathleen Bruton
Jay H. Bugbee
Mabel Bugbee
Tim A. Brush
Edith Carr
Dennis Cartier
Cascade Fiber
Cascade Plating Co., Inc.
Joseph Cersovski
Mr. & Mrs. P. S. Chambers
Ralph Cleveland
Bob Coller
James L. Conner
Doug Cook
Steve Cooper
Christina Corelli
J. Covington
Clark W. Cox, Jr.
L. B. Crayton
Gary Cruzan
Ronald Curtright
Dairy Technology
Lynn & Jeffrey Davi s
Ruth I. Davis
Eddie De La Vega
Ernie Dennis
Jeno De Piero
Mr. & Mrs. Detato
Donald C. Dickey
George M. Dipprey
Betty Donaldson
Robert Dooley
Gerald Edwards
D. W. Eisele
Gordon Elliott
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Ellis
Joyce Engels
Larry Engels
Emmet Engeman
Dianna M. Ersinger
Esther R. Everson
Melody Faber
C. C. Fairbanks
Michael Farthing
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Farver
Eric Fischer
Mrs. Lyman Fisk
Jack Flint
Jeanette Flynn
I. Forneel
Mr. & Mrs. Herbert Fortner
Faye Foster
Marl in Fransen
F. E. Gallaher
Ernest J. Garrett
Howard Gay
Earl Gingerich
Kinly Good
Terry C. Gould
Marie Gray
Gerald Grimes
Mr. & Mrs. J. E. Grove
Helen & Bob Gwozdz
Mr. & Mrs. David Haag
Mr. & Mrs. K. G. Hagdahl
Rick Hammond
J-4
-------
Tim Hanley
Beverly Harper
Warren Harper
Ray Harrison
Mr. & Mrs. Harrold
H. Harrold
Geneva Harwood
Rhonda Harwood
Jon Hateri us
Tom & Vora Heintz
Lynn & Ron Heitz
L. Hellwege
David Henderson
Dean Hennigan
Charles Hepner
Rita Hepner
P. Sydney Herbert
Paul Hillwege
Pat Hocken
Edward Hoffman
John Holroyd
H. L. Hostick
Wesley Houston
Howard Humphrey, Jr.
Howard Humphrey, Sr.
Elmer C. Ingle
J. R. Ireland
Mr. & Mrs. Warren Jacquenod
Derek & Diane Jaros
Richard Jenson
Miriam Jeswine
Donald L. Johnson
Kimber Johnson
Marcia Johnson
Robert & Bessie Johnson
Coy Jones
Robin Jones
John Jurgens
Jon Kahananui
Donna Kane
Ann & Douglas Kelsey
Donovan Kendall
Lorrayen Kent
Kelly Ketchum
A. J. Ketel
Mr. & Mrs. Clemens Kilwien
Maurice King
Phil L. King
Ed Kinser
Marl a Kinser
William Kittridge
Ann Klemp
Dan Knapp
Bernice Koon
Tim Koon
James Kovack
Steven Krugel
Kathleen Kruse
Mr. & Mrs. J. Kulick
Robert Lacoss
Sharyl LaFleur
Sandra L. Land
Mr. & Mrs. William Land
Christine Larson
W. D. Larson
Larry R. Lee
Sandra & Gary Lee
James M. Lemert
Donald & Margaret Lewis
Jim Long
K. Loreman
Darrell Lowery
John Lund
Bill & Nancy MacDowell
Mark Madison
Amanda Marker
Mr. & Mrs. Jack Martilla
Stanley Martin
Ben Masengil
Nick Maskal
Mr. & Mrs. W. C. Mateson
Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Mayer
Alton McCully
Jenny McDole
Melvin McNeill
John Mehringer
Mr. & Mrs. Dave Mills
Michael & Michelle Mishler
Douglas Melevin
Cheryl Meng
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph S. Metz
James M. Montgomery, Consulting
J. W. Morgan
Jim & Gladys Murray
J-5
-------
John C. Neely, Jr.
Garry Neil
Nola Nelson
Eleanor Newlan
W. L. Nichols
Mr. & Mrs. W. W. Nightingale
Kay Nordlund
Debbie Odell
Larry Odell
Pat Odermann
John C. Ohm
David 01 and
0. L Olson
Michael J. Oths
Allen Outland
Dr. Robert Packwood
Greg Page
A. B. Palmitessa
Wallace C. Parker
Garry Patterson
Dan & Joan Payne
L. Peterson
Rick D. Pieper
Lanny E. Pierce
Tom & Mary Ann Potter
F. Printz
Ruth Pritchard
Paul & Jonnie Randall
Cheryl Reedy
Rich Reiling
Wes Reimer
Eleanor Reynolds
E. R. Reynolds
Mr. & Mrs. R. Richard
Mr. & Mrs. Herman Ricketts
Rebecca Ricksler
Mr. & Mrs. Ridgley
Michael Rife
Milton W. Root
Gerald H. Rust
Everett G. Sanders
Herman & Helen Sanders
Sam Saunders
Barbie Schmidt
Larry Schoelerman
John G. Scott
Ken E. Scoville
Linda Seals
Jerry Shanbeck
James M. Shiffer
John Siekert
Wanda Simmons
Ben Simpson
Mr. & Mrs. Elroy Smith
Betty Smith
W. H. Smith
El wood Soasey
Mr. M. Solwold
Ted Soptelean
Scott Spearman
N. W. Spurgeon
Jack Stepp
William Stevenson
Mike Stoltz
Ruby Stone
Mr. & Mrs. Chester Stoner
John C. Stoner
Dave & Jocelyn Stram
Ken & Sylvia Stursa
Beryl Sunderman
Survival Center, U of Oregon
Russell E. Svingen
William Swan
Chester Swenson
Vern Swenson
Randy Sweet
Jack Thomas
Carol Thompson
Charles W. Thompson
Lawrence Thorp
Barbara Tooley
Daniel Tucker
Myra Tucker
Mary Tull
Steve A. Tyler
Gene Vaillancourt
Agnes Van Devender
Mark Van Valkenburgh
Mr. & Mrs. Guy Virgin
Edward & Ethel Vogt
Van Volk
Jim Wade
Rod Wagner
Dave Walker
J-6
-------
Don Walker
Judy Wallenwaber
Keith Walton
Page & Dave Walton
Robert D. Warner
H. H. Waechter
D. Michael Wells
Steven Wells
W. Wernicke
Mark Nestling
Mr. & Mrs. Mike Westrope
Darin & Monte Wilson
Don Wobbe
John Wofford
Curtis Woodruff
Bill Wooten
Gary Wri ght
W. R. Yates
Harold Youngquist
Don Ziegler
J-7
ft U.S. GOVERNI^NT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983 - 793-301
------- |