United States Region 6 EPA 906/9-81-005
Environmental Protection 1201 Elm Street October 1981
Agency Dallas TX 75270
Water
<&EPA Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Little Rock (Adams Field),
Arkansas
-------
This report is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
12Q1 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
September 13, 1981
TO ALL INTERESTEO AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND OFFICIALS:
The city of Little Rock has received a planning grant (C-050490-1) pursuant
to Section 201 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6, to plan for the upgrading of existing wastewater
treatment facilities. EPA determined that awarding additional grants for
detailed design and construction of any facilities represented a major action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and has prepared
this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Comments on the draft EIS should be sent to Mr. Clinton B. Spotts, Regional
EIS Coordinator, EPA, Region 6, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270. Sub-
stantive comments on the draft statement will be considered in the prepara-
tion of the final statement.
It is requested that comments on the draft EIS be submitted within 45 days of
the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Availability of the
EIS by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities.
A public hearing will he held on the draft EIS at the University of Arkansas
at Little Rock on November 12, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in Conference Room 51 78
on the 5th floor of the Library, located at 33rd and University, Little Rock,
Arkansas 72204.
It should be noted that if changes to the proposed project and draft EIS are
minor, the final EIS will consist primarily of: 1) a summary; 2) pages with
modifications, additions and/or deletions as necessitated by the coordination
and review process; and 3) a new coordination section containing comment
letters received on the draft statement with EPA's responses to those comments.
Therefore, the draft EIS should be retained since it, along with the final
EIS, will provide full analysis of the environmental issues. The final state-
ment will be sent only to agencies and interested parties who request a copy
or make substantive comments on the draft.
Sincerely,
Frances E. Phillips
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
LITTLE ROCK (ADAMS FIELD), ARKANSAS
GRANT NO. C-050490-1
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
ACTION BEING CONSIDERED: Possible awarding of design and construction
funds for wastewater treatment facilities in
Little Rock, Arkansas
COOPERATING AGENCIES: None
CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Phone: Comm. (214) 767-2716
FTS 729-2716
ABSTRACT: This EIS has been prepared concurrently with the
201 facilities plan for,the Adams Field/ Little
Maumelle Facilities Planning Area. EPA's pre-
ferred alternative is to expand the Adams Field
wastewater treatment plant, to construct an addi-
tional interceptor along Fourche Creek, and use
septic tank systems on sites having suitable soils
in the Little Maumelle Valley.
DATE COMMENTS DUE:
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
3 Ho
1981
FRANCES E. PHILLIPS
ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
-------
SUMMARY
The Little Rock Wastewater Utility has applied to the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency for a Construction Grant to help expand
the treatment capacity of the Adams Field wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP). The existing Adams Field WWTP is currently overloaded, both hy-
draulically and by solids. As a result, effluent permit limits are
difficult to attain and the sludge disposal facilities are seriously
overloaded.
The City of Little Rock is presently served by a single wastewater
treatment plant at Adams Field, though a second facility known as the
Fourche Treatment Plant, will begin construction shortly. The Little
Maumelle Valley is partially served by the Adams Field WWTP and par-
tially served by individual septic tanks. This area to the northwest of
the city had been part of a previous EPA Step 1 Grant, but additional
grants were denied. Because of the controversy, the Little Maumelle
area has been added to the Adams Field WWTP service area responsibility.
A large number of alternatives have been considered, which have
been reduced to 14 major alternatives. The relative merits of each
alternative has been compared using a weighted matrix. The alter-
natives considered include:
Adams Field Alternatives
No Action: The no action alternative would utilize the existing
treatment system which is now seriously overloaded. This would result
in potential air pollution from the incinerators, odor, water quality
degradation, stress on aquatic life in the Arkansas River, poor solid
waste utilization, high energy use, and potential public health hazards.
-------
Upgrade Liquid Treatment Facilities: Under this alternative,
improvements would include additional pumps, primary settling basin,
additional aeration basins, final settling basin, and construction of a
20 million gallon retention/equalization basin to handle peak flows.
The estimated construction cost is $11,052,000. This would improve odor
conditions and water quality. User fees would need to be raised
slightly and energy consumption would continue. There would be no
secondary impacts.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives: An additional interceptor has
been proposed to increase flow capacity along the Fourche Creek inter-
ceptor route. Two alternatives were considered; gravity line and force
main. Only one route was proposed which traverses a floodplain and
wetlands area known as the Fourche Bottoms. The gravity line alter-
native would have adverse impacts on soils, terrestrial biota, en-
vironmentally sensitive areas, and user fees. The force main would have
lesser effects on terrestrial biota and sensitive areas, but would have
additional adverse impacts on odor and energy.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
No Action: The portion of the watershed currently being served by
the Adams Field WWTP would retain service under all alternatives. The
remaining areas would be allowed to grow with each homeowner responsible
for individual wastewater treatment. Under this action, it is possible
that inadequate septic tanks may be constructed in areas which are
unsuitable for such systems. This would have adverse odor, soil
erosion, and public health impacts.
-------
Alternative 1: In this alternative, all additional residents would
be served by approved septic tank-soil absorption systems and would only
be allowed in areas which are suitable for septic tanks. This would
eliminate potential odor and public health problems and would also limit
future growth in the valley.
Alternative 2: In this alternative, residents on suitable soils
would utilize standard septic tank-soil absorption systems, while
residents on unsuitable soils would utilize septic tank-mound systems.
User costs for the mound systems would be higher than that for standard
septic tanks. No secondary growth is projected to result from this
alternative.
Alternative 3: In this alternative, residents would utilize septic
tank-soil absorption systems on suitable soils, while the remainder
would utilize cluster systems with a common soil absorption system
located on suitable soils. This would have soil erosion impacts, user
fee increases and land use conversions. Slight secondary growth would
be induced which would result in a small fiscal deficit for the school
district.
Alternative 4: Under this alternative, all wastewater would be
collected by a centralized collection system which would discharge by
force main into the Arkansas River interceptor. Wastewater would be
treated at the Adams Field WWTP. This alternative would have potential
odor, soil erosion, water quality, user fee, and energy impacts. In
addition, secondary growth is projected to be significant with addi-
tional air quality, biological, fiscal, public inconvenience, and land
use impacts.
-------
Each of the alternatives has been assessed by engineering and
environmental criteria. The Facility Plan's proposed alternative is:
upgrade liquid treatment, force main for the Fourche Creek interceptor,
and Alternative 1 (septic tank-soil absorption systems) for the Little
Maumelle Valley. The environmental analysis' preferred alternative is
upgrade liquid treatment, force main for the Fourche Creek interceptor,
and Alternative 1 (septic tank-soil absorption systems) for the Little
Maumelle Valley.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. INTRODUCTION ?
II. PURPOSE AND NEED H
III. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 15
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 45
A. GEOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 45
B. HYDROLOGICAL ELEMENTS 47
C. CLIMATOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 54
D. SOUND QUALITY 61
E. BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS 65
F. SOCIOECONOMICS 70
G. ENERGY 89
H. LAND USE 91
I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 96
J. PUBLIC HEALTH 96
V. COORDINATION 99
LIST OF PREPARERS 109
REFERENCES m
-------
ADAMS FIELD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Little Rock Wastewater Utility (LRWU) has requested a grant
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to help expand the
treatment capacity of the Adams Field Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
Environmental Protection Agency has determined that the proposal re-
quires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act, and the EPA and LRWU have chosen
to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement in a "piggy-back" ap-
proach, concurrent with facility planning by the LRWU's engineering
consultants. The EPA has also determined that the EIS process will
include a full-scale public participation program.
As a part of the environmental impact statement process, a number
of interim reports, or working papers, have been prepared and dissemi-
nated to provide public information and comment. These working papers
have been prepared at the completion of each major task or at major
decision points within the environmental evaluation process. This was
to allow public review and comment prior to initiating the next task.
These working papers form an appendix to this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Construction Grants Program
Under the auspices of Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), the Environmental Protection Agency can
-------
assist in the construction of municipal sewage treatment works which are
required to meet State and Federal water quality standards. This
assistance is in the form of a grant for 75 percent of the eligible
project costs, or 85 percent for innovative or alternative technology
projects. The construction grants program is administered in a three
step approach. Step I consists of performing the preliminary planning
and engineering for the proposed treatment works. This step is commonly
called the Facility Plan. Step 2 consists of preparing detailed engi-
neering plans and specifications for the proposed facilities. Step 3
funds are for the construction of the proposed facilities.
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (PL
91-190) requires agencies to:
"include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legis-
lation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the
responsible official on -
(i) The environmental impact of the proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's en-
vironment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented."
This provision provides the basis for preparing an environmental
8
-------
impact statement on significant actions of the Federal Government.
The Council on Environmental Quality has promulgated Regulations on
Implementing National Environmental Policy Procedures (40 CFR 1500-
1508), which required each Federal agency to develop their own regu-
lations to implement the Act in accordance with CEQ regulations. The
Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on Implementation of Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act Procedures (40 CFR 6) includes criteria
for determining when to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
From the criteria, EPA determined that the potential for induced changes
in industrial, commercial, agricultural or residential land use con-
centrations or distribution existed, and therefore required that an EIS
be prepared.
-------
II. PURPOSE AND NEED
Project History
The City of Little Rock is presently served by the Adams Field
wastewater treatment plant near the Adams Field airport. A second
treatment facility (Fourche) has been proposed to serve the south and
southwest portions of the city and is to be located about 4 miles
southeast of the present plant. The design of this plant is completed
and construction has begun.
A third treatment plant was proposed to serve the residents of the
Maumelle Valley, a rapidly growing area in Northwest Little Rock. The
Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment on proposed wastewater treat-
ment faclities in the Maumelle Valley were submitted in April 1977.
Responding to local controversy in the Maumelle Valley area over the
project, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that an en-
vironmental impact statement would be prepared. The draft EIS on the
proposed Maumelle treatment plant was issued in December 1978 and
recommended that the grant for treatment facilities be denied. It was
determined that the proposal presented did not meet the requirements
necessary for federal funding. The final EIS was issued in November
1979 and concluded that pollution problems did not exist in the Maumelle
Valley and additional EPA 201 grants were denied. However, it did
recognize the long range problem of wastewater planning in the valley
and chose to add the Maumelle area to the planning area under considera-
tion for the proposed Adams Field expansion grant request.
Concurrently with the review of the draft EIS on the proposed
Maumelle facilities, the Little Rock - North Little Rock Regional
Wastewater Management Plan was being prepared by Metroplan and the
11
-------
Little Rock District of the Corps of Engineers. When it became apparent
that the Maumelle grant funds would be denied, a "Special Study" was
initiated to examine the wastewater planning needs of the Adams Field
and Little Maumelle service areas. A projection of population and
wasteloads contributing to future flows into the Adams Field treatment
plant was made and several alternative treatment plans were formulated
for the Maumelle Valley, including package plants, septic tanks, service
by a new treatment plant, and service by Adams Field. The "Special
Study", released in January 1979, concluded that service of the Maumelle
area by the Adams Field WWTP would be the most cost-effective alter-
native; however, these conclusions were not based on detailed environ-
mental and engineering analyses and the report recommended further study
as part of the Adams Field WWTP Facility Plan.
Problems
The existing Adams Field Wastewater Treatment Plant is capable of
treating an average daily flow of 27 million gallons per day (MGD) to an
effluent quality of 30 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and 30 mg/1 of total suspended solids. Peak treatment
capacity is estimated to be 44 MGD, based on the capacity of the low
lift pump station. Sludge is disposed by vacuum filtration and incin-
eration with an estimated capacity of less than 70,000 pounds per day.
During 1978 and 1979 the Adams Field Sewage Treatment Plant treated
an annual average day flow of 28.5 MGD and produced an effluent that was
discharged to the Arkansas River which contained on the average 55.5
mg/1 of suspended solids and 24 mg/1 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).
During the two years the average monthly flows varied from a low of 21.2
12
-------
MGD to a high of 38.7 MGD. On the same basis suspended solids in the
final effluent varied from a low of 19 mg/1 to a high of 150 mg/1 and
the BOD varied from a low of 10 to a high of 50 mg/1. According to the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the
final effluent should not exceed 30 mg/1 of suspended solids and 30 mg/1
of BOD. The suspended solids in the plant effluent exceeded the NPDES
permit requirements 75% of the time during 1978 and 1979, and the BOD
exceeded permit requirements 33% of the time during the years. In
addition, the plant currently produces approximately 100,000 Ibs/day of
residual solids, which is 43 percent more than the plant was designed to
handle.
There are no known health problems associated with the use of
septic tanks in the Little Maumelle Valley. The 208 plan did express
concern over potential problems which might occur if development were to
occur on unsuitable soils. A brief survey of septic tanks as part of
the facility plan indicated that approximately 40 percent of the systems
have had operational problems, but that these are a result of under-
designing rather than unsuitability. The 208 plan indicated several
pockets of population density which could constitute substantial habi-
tation under EPA regulations.
13
-------
HI. DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The EIS process is essentially a decision making tool to determine
which possible alternative would provide the "best" solution to a
specific problem or need. The Adams Field Facility Plan is being con-
ducted as a "piggy-back EIS," in which the environmental impact state-
ment is prepared in lieu of an environmental assessment, and concur-
rently with the Facility Plan. As such, the EIS is a planning tool for
making decisions.
Alternatives Considered by the Applicant
There are numerous possible alternative types and arrangements of
wastewater treatment service possible for the Adams Field and Little
Maumelle service areas. One of the purposes of the piggy-back EIS is to
environmentally screen these alternatives to a limited number of rea-
sonable alternatives for more detailed study. Working Paper No. 2,
Identification of Alternatives, outlined and described 64 alternative
components of possible sewerage and treatment systems. As part of the
discussion of these large number of alternatives, several were rejected
from further consideration because of substantial economic, engineering
or environmental problems associated with them. Of the remaining alter-
natives, 12 system alternatives were formulated for the Adams Field
service area and 17 alternatives were formulated for the Little Maumelle
area.
The 29 system alternatives were carried forward to the initial
screening, performed as part of Working Paper No. 4. During the Scoping
Process, the Citizens Advisory Committee identified 8 major issues which
were of most importance in the analysis. These 8 parameters shown in
Table 1, were used as the screening parameters against which the 29
15
-------
Table 1
Major Impacts Used in Initial Screening of Alternatives
Primary Impacts Secondary Impacts
Water Quality Terrestrial Habitats
Economic Impacts
Public Health Conformance to
Land Use Plans
Aquatic Life Resource & Energy Use
system alternatives were judged. The effect of each alternative was
rated from highly adverse (-2) to highly beneficial (+2) against each of
the screening parameters. Since all of the screening parameters were
judged to have the same weight, the scores were added and each of the
system alternatives were ranked in numerical order.
Concurrently with the Environmental Impact process, the Facility
Plan was prepared covering a number of alternatives from an engineering
and economic aspect. One alternative other than no action was con-
sidered for treatment of liquids at the Adams Field WWTP, and 17 alter-
native sludge treatment schemes were considered including an additional
4 locational configurations for the anaerobic digestor-sludge lagoon
alternative. In addition, 13 alternatives were examined for servicing
the Little Maumelle area. As part of the Facility Plan, a deficiency
was identified in one of the major trunk lines along Fourche Creek.
Therefore, two alternatives were considered to alleviate this problem.
As part of the Facility Plan, each of the alternatives were ranked
according to present worth of the construction and O&M costs.
Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft Facility Plan and
Initial Screening of Alternatives, the Little Rock Wastewater Utility
16
-------
had the opportunity to proceed with a sludge disposal alteration at a
cost considerably less than any alternative considered to date. The
Little Rock Wastewater Utility chose to implement the sludge disposal
plan at their own expense, thereby removing consideration of sludge from
the Construction Grant application and the EIS.
Following completion of the Initial Screening of Alternatives and
the Draft Facility Plan, the Little Rock Wastewater Utility narrowed the
list of alternatives to be considered further. These alternatives are
presented in Table 2.
The No-Action Alternative
In any decision making process, one alternative which is always
available is the option of doing nothing, or "no-action". In the case
of Little Rock's wastewater system, this would entail utilizing the
existing facilities and not making any improvements other than normal
operation and maintenance activities.
The existing treatment scheme is the complete mix activated sludge
process. Facilities include bar screens, raw sewage pumps, grit cham-
bers, primary clarifiers, activated sludge basins, final clarifiers, and
a chlorine contact chamber (see Table 3). Sludge is gravity thickened,
vacuum filtered, and then incinerated. In 1979, one of the activated
sludge aeration basins was converted for use as a aerobic sludge di-
gester to handle excess sludge which could not be handled by the incin-
erator.
The plant has a current design capacity of 27 million gallons per
day and is based on an influent raw sewage quality of 250 mg/1 of bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 250 mg/1 of total suspended solids
(TSS). The safe pumping capacity of the plant is 44 MGD, which can be
17
-------
Table 2
Proposed Alternatives for Little Rock EIS
No Action
Adams Field Treatment Alternatives:
1. Upgrade Liquid Treatment Facilities
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
1. Gravity
2. Force main with pumping station
Maumelle Alternatives:
No Action
1. Septic tank with limited growth
2. Half septic tanks and half mound systems
3. Half septic tanks and half cluster systems
4. Pump all of Little Maumelle wastewater to Arkansas interceptor
increased by surcharging the main interceptor sewer. The maximum hy-
draulic capacity of the plant is 55 MGD. The 1979 average daily flow to
the plant was 30.7 MGD, which exceeded its design capacity. Peak flows
in 1978 were reported to exceed the 55 MGD hydraulic capacity of the
plant. In addition, recent records indicate that the influent suspended
solids more nearly averages 300 mg/1.
The existing collection system consists of approximately 805 miles
of gravity sewers, ranging in diameters from 6 to 60 inches and 10 miles
of force main ranging in size from 4 to 30 inches. The Facility Plan
indicates five known overflow sites in the system; however, corrective
actions have been initiated already or are not required according to the
18
-------
Table 3
Summary of Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
at Adams Field WWTP
Liquid Treatment Facilities:
Bar Screens:
2 automatically cleaned bar screens
1 manually cleaned bar screen
Raw Sewage Pumps
2-6 MGD raw sewage pumps
1 - 8 MGD raw sewage pump
2-12 MGD raw sewage pumps
1-24 MGD raw sewage pump
Grit Removal
3 grit chambers
Primary Clarifiers
3 - 115 ft. diameter primary settling basin
Activated Sludge Basins
6-40 ft. by 160 ft. aeration basins
Final Clarifiers
3 - 145 ft. diameter final seetling basins
Chorine Contact Chamber
Sludge Treatment Facilities:
Gravity Thickeners
Vacuum Filters
Incinerators
19
-------
Facility Plan. Figure 1 shows the current service areas of the Adams
Field WWTP.
The Little Rock Wastewater Utility is currently constructing a new
wastewater treatment plant, known as the Fourche Plant, which will
divert a portion of the existing service area. However, the remaining
service area's wastewater flow to the Adam's Field Plant is projected to
increase to an average flow of 30.9 MGD by the year 2010. Peak flows
are projected to reach 70 MGD.
The existing facilities have been analyzed by the Facility Planning
consultant and each treatment process has been assessed for adequacy
under the 2010 flow condition. The Facility Planning consultant has
found that raw sewage pumps, primary clarifiers, aeration basins, final
clarifiers, and sludge facilities will be inadequate under the projected
flow. The Facility Planning consultant has also identified the existing
Fourche Creek interceptor to be inadequate to handle increased flows
projected by the year 2010.
Upgrade Existing Liquid Treatment Facilities: In light of the
present and projected deficiencies of the wastewater treatment facili-
ties, the Facility Planning consultant has proposed a number of improve-
ments to the existing liquid treatment facilities. These improvements
include replacing some of the raw wastewater pumps, constructing an
additional 115 foot diameter primary settling basin, adding four ad-
ditional aeration basins, constructing an additional 145 foot final
settling basin, making improvements to the internal sludge pumps, and
construction of a 20 million gallon retention/equalization basin to
avoid overloading the outfall pipe (see Figure 2). The total estimated
costs of these improvements would be $11,052,000.
20
-------
PO
ADAMS FIELD WATERSHED,
SEWERED
ADAMS FIELD WATERSHED.
NOT SEWERED
EASTERN LITTLE MAUMELLE WATERSHED,
EASTERN LITTLE MAUMELLE WATERSHED
NOT SEWERED
FOURCHE CREEK WATERSHED, SEWERED
-------
FIGURE 2
PffOPOS^D
I )
1,1
-------
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives: The existing Fourche Creek
interceptor has been determined to be inadequate to handle future flows.
Two alternatives have been proposed to increase the capacity of this
interceptor. The first is to construct a new 60-inch gravity sewer line
from near University Avenue to the Airport along the north side of
Fourche Creek (see Figure 3). The estimated construction cost would be
$4,950,000 with an annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of
$3,500.
The second alternative would be to construct a 30-inch force main
and pump station along the same route. The estimated construction cost
would be $3,160,000 and would have an annual O&M cost of $47,300.
Little Maumelle Alternatives
The Eastern Little Maumelle watershed is partially served by the
Adams Field WWTP and partially by individual septic tank systems. The
Facility Planning consultants have proposed continued service for that
portion currently served by the Taylor Loop Road interceptor and
examined four alternatives for the remaining unsewered area, plus no
action.
No Action: The No Action Alternative in the Maumelle area would
allow continued residential growth to occur anywhere in the watershed
with continued use of septic tank systems.
Maumelle Alternative 1: Approximately 45 percent of the area
within the expected growth area is comprised of soils suitable for
septic tanks, while the remaining soils are considered unsuitable
because of low percolation rates (see Figure 4). The first alternative
considered for the unsewered portion of the Little Maumelle Valley is
continued use of septic tanks soil absorption systems. Since many soils
23
-------
FIGURE 3 PROPOSED ROUTE OF FOURCHE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
24
-------
AREA OF MOUND
SYSTEMS OR
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
AREAS SUITABLE FOR
SEPTIC TANKS
EXISTING ADAMS FIELD
SERVICE AREA
FIGURE 4 LITTLE MAUMELLE INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT SERVICE AREAS
25
-------
are not suitable, growth would be limited to those soils which have been
determined to be suitable for septic tanks. This would be enforced
through zoning and building permit limitations.
Maumelle Alternative 2: The second alternative would have half of
the new growth served by conventional septic tanks in areas where soils
are suitable for such systems and half of the new growth would utilize a
mound type septic tank system. A mound system is currently acceptable
under Health Department criteria.
Maumelle Alternative 3: The third treatment alternative for the
Little Maumelle area would be for half of the area to be served by
conventional septic tanks and half would be served by cluster septic
tank systems. These cluster systems would collect effluent from several
houses and discharge the effluent to a soil absorption system located in
an area where suitable soils occur. Construction, operation, and
maintenance costs would be shared by the individual households.
Maumelle Alternative 4: The fourth alternative would collect
wastewater by a conventional collection system which would discharge
into the Arkansas River interceptor and be treated by the Adams Field
WWTP (see Figure 5). The estimated construction cost would be
$4,152,750 with an annual O&M cost of $23,978.
Evaluation of the Applicants Alternative: The environmental ef-
fects of each of the alternatives were considered (see Working Paper No.
5). Primary impacts are those which result from the construction or
direct operation of the proposed facilities. The primary impacts con-
sidered included effects on air quality, noise, odor, geologic elements,
surface water quality, terrestrial biota, aquatic biota, environmentally
sensitive areas, public inconvenience, direct employment, user fees,
26
-------
MY!>
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
POPULATED AREAS
FIGURE 5 ARKANSAS INTERCEPTER COLLECTION
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE FOR LITTLE MAUMELLE 27
-------
community services and recreation, solid wastes, energy, land uses,
archeological and historical resources, and public health. The primary
impacts of the alternatives are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6.
Secondary impacts are those which result from population growth or
land use changes induced by the project. The secondary impacts con-
sidered were effects on air quality, water resources, biota, environ-
mentally sensitive areas, the economy and fiscal balance, community
services and recreation, public inconvenience, energy and resource
usage, land use, archeological and historical resources, and public
health. The secondary impacts of the alternatives are summarized in
Tables 7 and 8.
The impact of each alternative on each environmental attribute was
assessed and given a numerical score. The ratings were:
Highly beneficial = +2
beneficial = +1
Minimal or no impact = 0
adverse = -1
Highly adverse = -2
Each of the ratings was used in a matrix to compare the relative merits
of each of the alternatives. Each of the attributes had been assigned a
weight (see Working Paper No. 1) and the weighted scores were used to
identify the environmentally preferred alternative. The weighted scores
and ranks of each of the alternatives are presented in Table 9.
28
-------
Table 4
Comparison of Primary Impacts For The Proposed Alternatives-Adams Field Watershed
No Action
Alternative
Resource
Atmosphere
a. Air Quality
b. Noise
ro
c. Odor
Geologic
a. Soils
Water Resources
a. Surface Water
Quantity
Adverse; permit violations would
most likely become significant
due to sludge incineration
No Impact; Estimated noise
levels are lower than the
ambient levels of 68 Ldn at the
plant boundary and 66 Ldn at the
nearest residence
Upgrade Existing Liquid
Treatment Facilities
Alternative
No Impact; no significant potential
sources of particulate emissions are
proposed
No impact; estimated noise levels are
lower than the ambient levels of 68 Ldn
at the plant boundary and 66 Ldn at the
nearest residence
Highly Adverse; continued opera- Very beneficial; should improve system
tion at Facility Overload level efficiency and thereby decrease odor
could represent a significant potential
source of potential odor problems
No Impact; will not affect soils
No Impact; there will be no
change in the relative volumes
of plant discharge compared to
the river flows
No Impact; no soil erosion hazard is
evident
No Impact; there will be no change
relative volume of plant discharge
compared to the river flows
-------
Table 4 (Cont'd)
No Action
Alternative
CO
o
Resource
Water Resources (Cont'd)
b. Surface Water
Quali ty
c. Drinking Water
Supplies
Biological Elements
Adverse; surface water quality
would continue to deteriorate
as progress was not made towards
compliance with the plant's
NPDES permit
No Impacts: both of the main
sources of drinking water
supplies are upstream
a. Terrestrial Biota No Impact; no additional con-
struction
c. Environmentally No Impact; no sensitive areas
Sensitive Areas affected
Socio-Economics
Public incon-
venience
b. Direct Employment
No Impact; existing conditions
would not be altered
No Impact; there will be no
change in manpower needs
Upgrade Existing Liquid
Treatment Facilities
Alternative
Beneficial; addition of new facilities
and flow equalization should improve the
quality of the effluent discharge to the
Arkansas River
No Impact; drinking water supplies are
upstream in all alternatives
No Impact; Minimal impact; discharge quality
will be improved but significant improvements
in aquatic life would be minimal
No Impact; no sensitive areas affected
No Impact; normal operating conditions
and air quality and traffic factors
would not be affected
No Impact; there will be no change in
manpower needs
-------
Table 4 (Cont'd)
Resource
c. User Fees
No Action
Alternative
No Impact; user fees would not
change
d. Community Services No Impact; will not change any
and Recreation recreational facilities nor
affect the delivery of com-
munity services
e. Solid Waste System Very Adverse; the continued use
Recycling of sludge incineration offers no
f. Energy
g. Land Use
h. Archeological
Historical
i . Public Health
Very Adverse; present vacuum
filters and incinerator are in-
efficient users of energy
No Impact; will not alter
existing land use
Impact not known
Adverse; system is not adequate-
ly treating sewage which may
adversely affect public health
Upgrade Existing Liquid
Treatment Facilities
Al ternative
Adverse; this alternative would about
increase the sewer rate by 5% (Increased
customer charge of $0.52)
No Impact; this alternative will not
create a change in the delivery or
availability of community services and
recreational facilities
No impact; this alternative does not
include any sludge disposal strategies
Adverse; uses significant amount of
power; however, is much more efficient
than the existing system
No Impact; will not alter existing land
use
Impact not known
No Impact; improvements should protect
public health
-------
Table 5
Primary Impacts of Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives
Gravity
Resource
Atmosphere
a. Air Quality
b. Noise
ro
c. Odor
Geologic
a. Soils
Water Resources
a. Surface Water
Quanti ty
b. Surface Water
Quality
Force Main &
Pumping Station
Mo imoacf no significant poten- No impact; no significant potential
t?al Turces of partlcu?ate emis- sources of particulate emissions are
sion are proposed proposed
No impact; estimated Noise No impact; nef6
levels are lower than the ambient lower than the ambient levels of 6b
68 Ldn at the plant boundary and Ldn at the plant boundary and 66 Ldn
66 Ldn at the nearest residence at the nearest residence
No impact; sewage is usually
well enough oxidized in the
sewer to prevent the formation
and release of odorous hydrogen
sulfide
Adverse; the potential exists
for significant soil erosion
problems
No impact
No impact; does not discharge
into waterways
Adverse; under anaerobic conditions
full flowing force mains, hydrogen
sulfide formation may occur
in
Adverse; The potential exists for
significant soil erosion problems
No impact
No impact, does not discharge into
waterways
-------
Table 5 - (Cont'd)
CO
co
Water Resources (Cont'd)
c. Drinking Water
Supplies
d. Groundwater Quality
Biological Elements
a. Terrestrial Biota
b. Aquatic Biota
c. Environmentally
Sensitive
Areas
Socio Economics
Gravity
No impact; drinking water
supplies are upstream of all
alternatives
No impact; involves no waste-
water application to land
Highly adverse; Would require
clearance of 14 acres of wet-
lands and 24 acres of transi-
tional and upland habitats
Minimal impact
Highly adverse; requires
clearance of 38 acres in wet-
lands scheduled for purchase by
Corps for park
a. Public Inconvenience No impact; Would not alter normal
operating conditions
Force Main &
Pumping Station
No impact; drinking water supplies are
upstream of all alternatives
No impact; involves no wastewater
application to land
Highly adverse; Requires clearance of
7 acres of wetlands and 12 acres of
transitional and upland habitats
Minimal impact
Slightly adverse; requires clearance of
19 acres in wetlands, flood plain and
Corps purchase lands
No impact; would not alter normal
operating conditions
-------
Table 5 - (Cont'd)
U)
-£»
Resource
b. Direct Employment
c. User Fees
d. Community Services
e. Solid Waste System-
Recycli ng
Gravity
Force Main &
Pumping Station
Energy
Land Use
Archeological
Historical
Resources
Public Health
No impact; there will be no
change in manpower needs
Adverse; user fees will increase
by less than 5%. (Increased
customer charge of $0.24)
No impact; this alternative will
affect existing or planned com-
munity services and recreational
facilities
No impact; interceptors not a
part of final sludge disposal
procedures
No impact; does not use energy
to operate
No impact; will not affect
existing land use
Impacts Unknown
No impact; assume will function
adequately to protect public
health
No impact; there will
in manpower needs
be minor increase
Adverse; user fees will increase by less
than 5% (Increased customer charge of
$0.23)
No impact; this alternative will not
affect existing or planned community
services and recreational facilities
No impact; interceptors not a part of
final sludge disposal procedures
Adverse; utilizes pumps to convey sludge
thus representing an additional power cost
to the treatment system
No impact; will not affect existing land
use
Impacts Unknown
No impact; assume will function adequately
to protect public health
-------
Table 6
Comparison of Primary Impacts of the Proposed Alternatives - Little Maumelle Watershed
No Action
Al ternati ve
Septic Tanks/Soil
Absorption Systems
(ST/SAS)
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Hounds
Al ternative
50% ST/SAS
50% ST/Cluster
Systems Alternative
Centralized Collection
Systems Alternative
OJ
en
Resource
Atmosphere
a. Air Qual ity
b. Noise
c. Odors
Geologic Elements
No impact; will not
involve air pollu-
tion sources
No impact; will not
involve air pollu-
tion sources
No impact; will not
involve air pollu-
tion sources
No impact; No sig-
nificant sources
of noise are as-
sociated with the
alternative
No impact; No sig-
nificant sources
of noise are as-
sociated with the
alternative
No impact; No sig-
nificant sources
of noise are as-
sociated with the
alternative
Adverse; continues
ST/SAS with inade-
quate controls on
siting of systems
therefore signifi-
cant odor problems
could occur
Adverse; proposes
constructing ST/SAS
on soils with poten-
tial soil erosion
hazards
No impact would
use soils not
classified as un-
suitable for soil
absorption systems
Adverse, proposes
constructing ST/SAS
on soils with poten-
tial soil erosion
hazards
No impact; Would use
appropriate type sys-
tems for varying soil
and water table condi-
tions
Adverse; Proposes
construction ST/SAS
on soils with poten-
tial soil erosion
hazards
No impact; will not
involve air pollu-
tion sources
No impact; No sig-
nificant sources
of noise are as-
sociated with the
alternative
No impact; Would use
appropriate type sys-
tems for varying soil
and water table condi-
tions
Adverse; proposes
constructing ST/SAS
on soils with poten-
tial soil erosion
hazards
No impact; will not
involve air pollu-
tion sources
No impact; No sig-
nificant sources
of noise are as-
sociated with the
alternative
Adverse; Full flow-
ing force mains are
potentially signifi-
cant sources of odor
problems
Highly Adverse; would
affect greater area
and be greater depth
of soils with erosion
hazard ratings
-------
Table 6 - (Cortt'd)
Ho Action
Alternative
Septic Tanks/Soil
Absorption Systems
(ST/SAS!
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Mounds
Alternative
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Cluster
Systems Alternative
Centralized Collection
Systems Alternative
CO
Water Resources
a. Surface Water
quantity
b. Surface Water
Quality
c. Drinking Water
Supplies
d. Groundwater
Quality
No Impact; will not
change flows In
Little Maumelle
River
No Impact; will not
cause significant
discharges to surface
waters
No Impact; drinking
water suppltes are
upstream of work
planned on the
alternative
Ho Impact; there is
no significant aqui-
fer 1n the Little
Maumelle Watershed
No Impact; will not
change flows in
Little Maumelle
River
Biological Elements
a. Terrestrial Biota
No Impact; will not
change flows In
Little Maumelle
River
No Impact; will not Ho Impact; will not
cause significant cause significant
discharges to surface discharges to surface
waters waters
No Impact; drinking
water supplies are
upstream of work
planned on the
alternative
No Impact; there 1s
no significant aqui-
fer 1n the Little
Maumelle Watershed
No Impact; alterna-
tive will not require
large clearance of
native habitat
No impact; drinking
water supplies are
upstream of work
planned on the
alternative
No Impact; there 1s
no significant aqui-
fer 1n the Little
Maumelle Watershed
No impact; alterna- No impact; alterna-
tive will not require tive will not require
large clearance of large clearance of
native habitat native habitat
No impact; will not
change flows 1n
Little Maumelle
River
No Impact; will not
cause significant
discharges to surface
waters
No Impact; drinking
water supplies are
upstream of work
planned on the
alternative
No Impact; there 1s
no significant aqui-
fer in the Little
Maumelle Watershed
No Impact; alterna-
tive will not require
large clearance of
native habitat
No impact; will not
change flows 1n
Little Maumelle
River
Adverse Impact; short-
term but sewer construc-
tion will cause turbidity
in River as a result of
soil erosion
Ho impact; drinking
water supplies are
upstream of work
planned on the
alternative
No impact; there 1s
no significant aqui-
fer in the Little
Maumelle Watershed
No impact; nearly all
construction will be
on existing road and
railroad right-of-ways
-------
Table 6 - (Cont'd)
No Action
Alternative
Septic Tanks/Soil
Absorption Systems
(ST/SAS)
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Mounds
Alternative
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Cluster
Systems Alternative
Centralized Collection
Systems Alternative
Co
b. Aquatic Biota
c. Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Sodo Economics
a. Public
Inconvenience
b. Direct Employment
c. User Fees
No impact; will not
change existing
water quality
No Impact; will not
effect environmental-
ly sensitive areas
No Impact
No Impact; will riot
generate any new
employment
No Impact; will not
Increase costs
d. Community Services No impact; will not
& Recreation affect existing ser-
vices or facilities
e. Solid Waste No impact; solid
System-Recycling waste collection and
disposal will not be
affected
f. Energy
No Impact; no energy
cost associated with
this alternative
No Impact; will not
change existing
water quality
No Impact; will not
change existing
water quality
No impact; will not No impact; will not
effect environmental- effect environmental-
ly sensitive areas ly sensitive areas
No impact
No Impact; will not
generate any new
empl oyment
No impact
No Impact; will not
generate any new
employment
No Impact; will not Highly Adverse; re-
increase costs quires substantial
Initial Investment
No Impact; will not No impact; will not
affect existing ser- affect existing ser-
flces or facilities vices or facilities
No Impact; solid
waste collection and
disposal will not be
affected
No Impact; no energy
cost associated with
this alternative
No impact; solid
waste collection and
disposal will not be
affected
Minimal Impact; energy
costs associated with
the pumps are insig-
nificant
No Impact; will not
change existing
water quality
No impact; will not
effect environmental-
ly sensitive areas
No impact
No impact; will not
generate any new
snpl oyment
Highly Adverse; high
initial capital invest-
ment and increased user
fees
No Impact; will not
affect existing ser-
vices or facilities
No impact; solid
waste collection and
disposal will not be
affected
Minimal impact; energy
costs associated with
the pumps are Insig-
nificant
No impact; will not
change existing
water quality
No impact; will not
effect environmental-
ly sensitive areas
No Impact
No impact; will not
generate any new
empl oyment
Adverse; Increases
user fees but requires
no Initial investment
by the user
No impact; will not
affect existing ser-
vices or facilities
No impact; solid
waste collection and
disposal will not be
affected
Adverse; would create
a significant energy
cost where none existed
-------
Table 6 - (Cont'd)
No Action
Alternative
Septic Tanks/Soil
Absorption Systems
(ST/SAS)
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Mounds
Alternative
50% ST/SAS-
. 50% ST/Cluster
Systems Alternative
Centralized Collection
Systems A1 ternative
oo
CO
q. Land Use
h. Archaeological
& Historical
Resources
1. Public Health
No impact; will not
change existing land
use
Impacts Unknown
Adverse; present
systems do not
adequately treat
sewage
No impact; win not Mo impact; win not
change existing land change existing land
use use
Impacts Unknown
No Impact; 1t 1s
assumed that systems
operate adequately
Impacts Unknown
Ho Impact; U 1s
assumed that systems
operate adequately
Adverse; requires
10 acres of land to
be used only for
septic tank absorption
fields
Impacts Unknown
No impact; it is
assumed that systems
operate adquately
Mo Impact; will not
change existing land
use
Impacts Unknown
No impact; it is
assumed that systems
operate adequately
-------
Table 7
Secondary Impacts Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives
Resource
Air Quality
Water Resources
Biological Elements
a. Biota
b. Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Socio Economics
a. Economy &
Fiscal Balance
b. Community Services
& Recreation
c. Public
Inconvenience
d. Energy & Resource
Usage
Gravity
Force Main A
Pumping Station
No impact
No impact
Adverse; induced population
growth will reduce forest
habitat
No impact
No impact
No impact
Adverse; induced population
growth will reduce forest
habitat
No impact
Beneficial; the cost of provid- Beneficia ; the cost of P™vid-
ing municipal services to the ing municipal goods and serv ces to the
induced population will be less population induced by tins alternative
r . . .1 _i_ ..JIT u.«. 1 yv** r« +-t"\ r*n v* Av/nn i lac **OPP"l\/Pn
than revenues received through
expanding the tax base
No impact
No impact
No impact
will be less than revenues received
through expanding the tax base
No impact
No impact
No impact
-------
Table 7 - (Cont'd)
Gravity Force Main &
Pumping Station
e. Land Use Beneficial; conforms to land Beneficial; conforms to land
use plan use plan
f. Archaeological * Impacts unknown Impacts unknown
Historical
g. Public Health No impact No impact
-------
Water Resources No Impact
Biological Elements
a. Biota No Impact
b. Environmentally No Impact
Sensitive Areas
Soclo Economics
a. Economy S Fiscal No impact
Table 8
Comparison of Secondary Impacts of the Proposed Alternatives
Little Maumelle Watershed
Resource
A1r Quality
No Action
Alternative
No Impact
Septic Tanks/Soil
Absorption Systems
(ST/SAS)
No Impact
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Mounds
Alternative
No Impact
50% ST/SAS
50% ST/Cluster
Systems Alternative
No Impact
Centralized Collection
Systems Alternative
Adverse; population growt
create afr quality proble
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No Impact
No impact
b. Community Services No Impact
and Recreation
No Impact
No Impact
No impact
No Impact
No Impact
Adverse; the cost of
providing municipal
goods and services to
the population induced
by this alternative
exceeds revenues to
be received through
expanding the tax base
No impact
tlon of area
No impact
No impact
No impact
Adverse; the cost of
providing municipal
goods and services to
the population induced
by this alternative
exceeds revenues to
be received through
expanding the tax base
No impact
-------
ro
Table B - (Cont'd)
c. Public
Inconvenience
No Action
No Impact
Septtc Tanks/Soil
Absorption Systems
(ST/SAS)
No Impact
50% ST/SAS-
50% ST/Hounds
Alternative
No impact
50% ST/SAS
50% ST/ Cluster
Systems Alternative
No impact
Centr;
Sys'
Adverse
lation i
in norm
d. Energy & Resource
e. Land Use
f. Archeological
& Historical
Resources
No Impact
No impact
No impact
No Impact
No Impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
No impact
g. Public Health
Ho impact
No impact
No impact
Ho impact
Centralized Collection
Systems Alternative
eased traffic volumes
No impact
Adverse; does not conform
to land use plan
Impacts Unknown
No -impact
-------
Table 9
Scores and Ranks of Major Alternatives
Alternative
Adams Field Alternatives
No Action
Upgrade Liquid Treatment
Fourche Interceptor Alternative
Fourche Creek-Gravity
Fourche Creek-Force Main
Primary Secondary Total
Score Score Score Rank
-45
+ 6
0
0
-45
+ 6
2
1
-20
-19
+ 7
+ 7
-13
-12
Little Maumelle Alternatives
Little Maumelle-No Action -10
Little Maumelle-Septic Tank Controls - 2
Little Maumelle-50% Septic Tanks, - 6
50% Mound Systems
Little Maumelle-50% Septic Tanks, - 7
50% Cluster Systems
Little Maumelle Collection System -18
0 -10
0 - 2
0 - 6
0
-20
- 7
-38
2
1
4
1
2
Alternatives Available to EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency
has three alternative courses of action available to them. One would be
to award the Step 2 and Step 3 grants to the Little Rock Wastewater
Utility for detailed design and construction of the most cost effective
and environmentally sound alternative. The second possible alternative
available for EPA would be to award additional grants for the detailed
design and construction of the most cost effective plan and require
certain conditions to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Finally,
43
-------
EPA has the option of not awarding any additional grant monies for
detailed design and construction of the treatment facilities.
Alternatives Available to Others: No other reasonable alternative
actions by federal or other agencies have been considered in this EIS.
44
-------
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES ON AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. GEOLOGICAL ELEMENTS:
The eastern portion of the Adams Field watershed lies within the
Mississippi Alluvial Plain section of the Coastal Plain Province within
the Atlantic Plains Division. This area is generally flat, being formed
by very deep alluvial sediments. The western portion of the watershed
lies within the Fourche Mountains section of the Ouachita Mountains
Province of the Interior Highlands. This area is characterized by major
ridges separated by broad valleys. The topography ranges from flat to
gentle slopes in the eastern portion near the treatment plant, to
moderately hilly areas in the central portion, to steep slopes and
mountains in the western portion. The most notable structural feature in
the western portion of the watershed is the Panther Creek Fault which is
evident in the Brodie Creek and Panther Creek stream courses. However,
this fault is located outside the service area.
The Carnasaw - Mountainburg Association is the major soil asso-
ciation found in the central and western portions of the watershed. In
the eastern section are the Amy-Rexor, Perry-Norwood, and Urban Land-
Smithdale-Leadvale Associations. The Adams Field WWTP is underlain by
the Keo-Urban Land Association (see Working Paper No. 3), while the
South Fourche Plant site is underlain by the Bruno-Crevasse Association.
The Little Maumelle watershed lies within the Fourche Mountains,
and is underlain by soils of the Carnasaw-Mountainburg, Sallisaw-
Leadvale, Perry-Norwood, and Rilla-Keo Associations. The soils of the
Carnasaw-Mountainburg Association, which almost pervade the study area,
are rated very severe for their erosion hazard. The Sallisaw-Leadvale
45
-------
Association, the second largest in the area, is also rated severe for
its erosion hazard. The remaining two associations are rated moderate
to none for soil erosion hazards, but occupy relatively minor sections
of the study area.
The erosion hazard of the soils underlying the particular alter-
native sites was used as the basis for rating the impacts of the alter-
natives. No other geologic impacts are expected.
Adams Field Alternatives
No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would have no
adverse impact on soil or geologic resources.
Upgrading Existing Liquid Treatment Facilities: No soil erosion
hazard is associated with the Keo soil type which underlies the treat-
ment plant site. No significant adverse impacts on soils would be
expected.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
The pipeline routes would be constructed through Perry and Norwood
soils with no erosion hazard, and Leadvale soils with a moderate erosion
hazard rating. The potential exists for some significant soil erosion
problems in the Leadvale soils unless adequate control measures (such as
those in EPA's Program Requirement Memorandum 78-1) are implemented.
These two alternatives are considered adverse for their potential
adverse short-term impacts on geological elements.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
No Action, Alternatives 1. 2. and 3: These alternatives all pro-
pose the construction of septic tank systems on various types in soils
that have predominantly severe to very severe erosion hazard ratings.
46
-------
The adverse impacts are likely to be moderate because of the relatively
small areas and shallow construction involved in septic tank systems.
Alternative 4: This alternative proposes the use of a central
gravity sewer collection system, and force mains and pumping stations.
Construction work would affect more extensive areas of soils with severe
to very severe erosion hazard ratings and to greater depths than for
ST-SAS. This alternative is rated highly adverse for its impact on
geological elements.
B. HYDROLOGICAL ELEMENTS
The Arkansas River is the major hydrologic feature within the study
area. The river flows from northwest to southeast through the Little
Rock area, before turning sharply to the south just downstream from the
city. The average discharge over the 51-year period prior to 1978 was
40,950 cubic feet per second (cfs), while the average discharge during
the five-year period 1971-1975 was 57,772 cfs. Since then the average
discharge has declined with the 1976-1980 average being 29,078 cfs.
The Arkansas River drains an area of 158,030 square miles at this
point, extending from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado.
The flow is regulated by numerous upstream reservoirs and locks. The
Arkansas River has been navigable to near Tulsa (Port Catoosa), Oklahoma
since December 1970. The two major man-made features on the Arkansas
River in the Study Area is Murray Lock and Dam (L&D No. 7) just upstream
from Little Rock and David D. Terry Lock and Dam (L&D No. 6) at River
navigation mile 108.1. A total of 10,214,662 tons were moved on barge
traffic on the McClelland-Kerr River Navigation System in 1978, in-
cluding bauxite, coal, lumber, steel, chemicals, grain and petroleum.
47
-------
The majority of the study area is drained by Fourche Creek and its
tributaries. Its total drainage area is approximately 170 square miles
and discharges into the Arkansas River at mile 111.6. Rock Creek is the
major tributary of Fourche Creek and drains most of the western half of
the primary study area. Brodie Creek, also a tributary of Fourche
Creek, forms the southern boundary of the primary study area in the
west, while Fourche Creek itself forms the southern boundary for the
remainder of the study area.
All of the tributaries of Fourche Creek have a median flow of less
than 5 cfs, while Fourche Creek itself has a greater flow. The tribu-
tary creeks generally have a steep slope and fast runoff while the
Fourche Creek flattens out in what is known as the Fourche Bottoms. As
a result, the tributary streams provide rapid runoff into the Fourche
Bottoms, which acts as a reservoir by retaining water before discharge
into the Arkansas River.
The other major drainage system in the study area is the Little
Maumelle River in the northwest part of the Study area. The Little
Maumelle River drains approximately 78.6 square miles in western Pulaski
County. It has steep stream slopes in its upper reaches, until it
approaches the Arkansas River. Murray Lock and Dam on the Arkansas
River results in backwaters in the Little Maumelle River.
There is little hydro!ogic data available for the Little Maumelle
River. The only known partial records are 7 discharge measurements and
two observations of no flow made during the period 1964-1967. Most of
the measurements were made at flow extremes, and do not accurately re-
flect normal conditions in the River. High water measurements ranged
from 1,350 cfs to 3,600 cfs, while low water flows ranged from 0 to 16.4
48
-------
cfs. The 7-day, 2-year low flow is estimated at less than 0.1 cfs.
Since the construction of the navigation and flood control projects
on the Arkansas River, major flooding along the river has been mod-
erated. The last major flood on the Arkansas River was in November 1973
with a peak discharge of 304,000 cfs and a flood stage of 41 feet. The
tributary streams of the Fourche Creek are also prone to flooding from
heavy precipitation and rapid runoff. In September 1978, a particularly
devestating flood occurred when up to 12.25 inches of rain fell over a
period of 6 hours in western and southwestern Little Rock. Eight lives
were lost along Rock Creek from flash flooding and numerous houses were
damaged or destroyed.
Little Rock Water Utility provides service to Little Rock and to
suburban areas. The raw water comes from two man-made lakes, Lake
Winona and Lake Maumelle, and is treated at two municipal water treat-
ment plants. Lake Winona, located 34 miles to the west in the Ouachita
National Forest in Saline County, is the primary water source providing
approximately 24 million gallons per day (MGD) to the Little Rock area
and the remainder of water requirements are pumped from Lake Maumelle,
the secondary water source located 12 miles west of Little Rock. Lake
Winona has a storage capacity of 15 billion gallons and a firm yield of
25 MGD while Lake Maumelle has a 68 billion gallon storage capacity and
a firm yield of 52 MGD. The total system has a present capacity of 73
MGD while the average daily use of water produced is 43.6 MGD.
Groundwater: Because of compaction of the geologic formations in
the Fourche Mountains area, the porosity is low and groundwater yields
are low in the interior highlands western portion of the study area.
Locally, however, fracturing may result in higher yields. In the
49
-------
Coastal Plain, however, several aquifer units are present, providing
well yields of up to 350 gpm. The alluvium along the Arkansas River is
also a good source of groundwater. Because the Little Rock Water
Utility provides water to most of the county, use of well water for
domestic use is limited. The most extensive use of groundwater is
presently for irrigation. There appears to be potential for future
development of groundwater in the Arkansas alluvium and Coastal Plain,
but to date this development has not yet occurred.
Water Quality: Through Regulation No. 2, the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology has developed and promulgated water
quality standards for surface waters within the State. As part of the
Statewide 208 Water Quality Management Plan, a review was made of the
water quality standards. However, no changes were proposed which would
affect the streams within the study area.
Water quality has been measured consistently on the main stem of
the Arkansas River for many years; however, very little data is avail-
able for the tributary streams. The Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology has classified the entire stretch of the Arkansas River from
Murray Lock and Dam to Pine Bluff as violating standards for fecal
coliforms and phosphorus, thereby precluding primary contact recreation.
It is quite apparent that the coliform contamination occurs in the
Little Rock area. The mean fecal coliform concentration at Murray Lock
and Dam (1974-1979) was 114/100 ml, while the mean concentration at
David D. Terry L&D (1976-1980) was 2,353/100 ml. The mean for the six
years prior was even higher. Major potential sources for fecal coli-
forms between these two sampling points are four municipal wastewater
treatment plants (including the Adams Field WWTP), a number of indus-
50
-------
trial discharges, discharge of Fourche Creek, and urban runoff. De-
gradation of water quality between the two stations is apparent, but the
most striking is the increase in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), sus-
pended solids, total phosphates, and fecal coliforms.
Water quality data within the Fourche Creek Basin has been limited
to intensive surveys conducted by the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology and by the University of Arkansas Little Rock as
part of the 208 Water Quality Management Plan. In general, water
quality in Fourche Creek violates phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, and
fecal coliform criteria. High phosphorus and low dissolved oxygen is
consistent with the slow sluggish nature of the Fourche Bottoms. Fecal
coliform violations, as well as high values for cadmium, manganese, oil
and grease, and pH, generally occur during high flow conditions. All of
these conditions can be attributed to urban runoff; i.e., during a
rainfall event the precipitation washes accumulation of dirt and oil and
grease from streets and other impervious surfaces into Fourche Creek.
High fecal coliforms could also be the result of sanitary sewer over-
flows.
There has apparently never been any water quality data collected
within the Little Maumelle River watershed. It can be assumed that
water quality is generally excellent in the upstream reaches of the
river. A visual inspection of the river at Highway 10 showed a slow
moving stream with considerable suspended algae.
The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology is respon-
sible for determining assimilative capacities and wasteload allocations
for streams in Arkansas. A computer model for the Arkansas River showed
that the river could assimilate all projected wasteloads. However, this
51
-------
was computed under higher flow conditions. A simplified water quality
modeling method was used on tributary streams. This analysis indicated
an assimilative capacity of 16 Ibs. of BOD per day for the Little
Maumelle River and 73 Ibs. of BOD/day for Fourche Creek. The Department
of Pollution Control & Ecology established a policy that wastewater
discharge permits would be 30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 total suspended
solids (TSS) for effluent limited streams and 10 mg/1 BOD and 15 mg/1
TSS for water quality limited streams. However, some streams of recre-
ational value were also assigned the 10/15 limitations. This limit was
assigned to the Little Maumelle River and to Fourche Creek, while dis-
charge permits on the Arkansas River have been written for 30/30.
The study area lies within the planning jurisdiction of Metroplan,
which is responsible for Areawide Water Quality Management Planning
under Section 208 of Public Law 92-500. The initial plan has been
prepared and recommends that the Little Maumelle area be served by the
Adams Field wastewater treatment plant. Other planning activities
related to water resources include participation in the National Urban
Runoff Program and the possible designation of the Little Maumelle River
as part of the Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers System. This project
is still in the feasibility study phase.
The Adams Field treatment plant currently discharges an average of
31 MGD (48 cfs) of effluent to the Arkansas River. This represents
approximately 0.08 percent of the average flow of the river.
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action: Surface water quality in the Arkansas River would
continue to deteriorate. Progress would not be made towards compliance
52
-------
with the plant's NPDES permit if this alternative is implemented.
Therefore, this alternative is rated adverse on water quality. There
would be no beneficial or adverse impact on water quantities since the
plant discharge is small compared to flow in the Arkansas River.
Continuing use of the existing wastewater disposal facilities would
have no adverse impact on groundwater quality. There would be no ad-
verse impact on drinking water supplies.
Upgrading Existing Liquid Treatment Facilities: The addition of
flow equalization to maintain flows through the existing plant below the
design capacity would improve the quality of the effluent discharged to
the Arkansas River. New settling tanks and aeration basins as well as
fine bubble diffusers should also improve the effluent quality. These
improvements should help to produce an effluent that complies with the
NPDES permit. The plant discharges are relatively small in comparison
to the flows of the Arkansas River and its assimilative capacity;
therefore, the observed water quality improvements are expected to be
slightly beneficial. No adverse or beneficial impact on water quan-
tities would result. The upgrading of the existing liquid treatment
facilities would result in no adverse impact on groundwater quality or
drinking water supplies.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
Soil eroded during construction of these interceptors could pos-
sibly be washed into Fourche Creek. The resulting adverse impact would
be short-term and insignificant in magnitude because of the existing
poor water quality of the creek. No significant direct impacts on water
quality would be expected from the operation of either of the alter-
53
-------
natives since they do not discharge into waterways. The proposed inter-
ceptors involve no wastewater application to land and would have no
adverse impact on groundwater quality.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
No Action, Alternatives 1. 2, and 3: Septic tank discharges would
have relatively little impact on the flows in the Little Maumelle River.
None of these alternatives, which are based on soil absorption systems,
would be the cause of significant discharges to surface waters. There-
fore, they would have no significant adverse impact on surface water
quality. Since both sources of drinking water are upstream, no adverse
impacts on drinking water supplies would occur.
Alternative 4: The effluent discharge of 0.4 MGD from this alter-
native represents an insignificant portion of the current and design
year discharge of the Adams Field WWTP. The effluent discharged from
the Adams Field WWTP is approximately 0.08 percent of the average flow
of the Arkansas River. This alternative would result in no significant
adverse impact on water quantity of the Arkansas River.
Implementation of this alternative with extensive sewer construc-
tion would cause localized construct!on-related turbidity in the Little
Maumelle River as a result of soil erosion (see impacts on geologic
elements). Therefore, it is considered adverse for a potentially sig-
nificant but short-term impact. No significant long-term adverse impact
from the 0.4 MGD effluent discharge to the Arkansas River would be
expected.
C. CLIMATOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
The Study Area lies within the Central Arkansas Interstate Air
54
-------
Quality Control Region. The State of Arkansas has adopted the National
Air Quality Standards for statewide air quality control. Pulaski
County, of which the Study Area is a part, is classified by the Arkansas
Plan of Implementation as meeting all pollutant criteria except particu-
lates and photochemical oxidants.
A summary of the ambient air quality data at Adams Field is pre-
sented in Table 10. These ambient levels are influenced by the airport
operations as well as emissions from nearby industries. The estimated
contributions of the airport to the ambient air quality are 0.10 ug/m
o 3
of particulates, 0.13 ug/m of sulfur dioxide, 0.77 ug/m of hydro-
^
carbons, and 1.12 ug/m of nitrogen dioxide (Burns and McDonnell Engi-
neering Co., 1980).
The sludge incinerator at the Adams Field Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) is the most critical potential source of air pollutants
from the plant. EPA standards for emissions from wastewater treatment
plant sludge incinerators (EPA, 1976) require that no air pollutant
discharge be made which is:
0 in excess of 0.030 grain (weight measure of pollutant) per
standard cubic foot of gas
0 of 10 percent opacity or greater, unless the presence of
uncombined water is the only reason for failure to meet this
requirement
The Adams Field WWTP sludge incinerator is reportedly operating well
within the limits of its permit. There are usually no visible emissions
in violation of the permit except for brief periods following the re-
start of operations when opacities of 10 percent may be experienced (by
telephone, Mr. W. Tolefree, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control &
55
-------
Table 10
01
tn
Ambient Air Quality Data at Little Rock
(
in ug/m )
Total Suspended Particulates
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Annual Geometric
Mean
61.61*
57.90
58.15
57.85
65.96*
64.50*
2nd High
116
130
129
153*
209*
145
Sulfur
Annual Mean
-
2.13
1.15
2.94
1.34
2.28
Dioxide
2nd High
-
20
13
20
14
17
Nitrogen Dioxide
Mean
-
42.22
32.68
36.71
28.22
30.98
*Exceeds Secondary standard.
Source: Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
-------
Ecology, April 2, 1981). The sludge incinerator will be abandoned under
LRWU's sludge disposal plan.
There were no data available on specific odor conditions at the
Adams Field WWTP, but Metroplan and the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology have received complaints concerning odors in the
area. The odor issue is complicated by the fact that the WWTP is lo-
cated in an industrial area with several other possible sources of odor,
including a nearby meat rendering plant. The differentiation of sources
of odor under these circumstances is difficult. The EIS consultants, on
a visit to the plant during the very hot summer of 1980, perceived only
minor odor problems within the plant site. Odor is subjective and the
sensitivity of persons to odor is highly variable.
Odors emanate from wastewater and sludge as a result of partial or
incomplete oxidation of the organic material containing sulfur and/or
nitrogen in the absence of an oxygen source. The byproducts of such
incomplete oxidation are highly odorous gases (such as hydrogen sulfide,
methylmercaptans, methylsulfides, indoles and skatoles). Hydrogen sul-
fide is the most commonly known of the malodorous gases emanating from
domestic wastewater collection and treatment systems.
The achievement and maintenance of completely aerobic oxidation of
organic matter is basic to odor prevention and control at wastewater
facilities. The potential of the various alternatives for achieving
this goal is one of the main factors used in rating the alternatives for
their odor impacts. There are some wastewater treatment facilities
which by their nature are characteristically potential sources of odor.
These include sludge beds, wastewater and sludge lagoons, and open
wastewater and sludge processing tanks. The inclusion of such facili-
57
-------
ties in an alternative is another factor used in rating the odor impact
of that alternative. Other factors include the overloading of facili-
ties with consequent potential for odor problems associated with inade-
quate treatment, use of flow equalization to prevent overloading, and
the operation of incinerators at high enough temperatures to ensure
complete oxidation.
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: Both the liquids and solids handling
facilities at the Adams Field WWTP are currently overloaded. The
activated sludge reactors, in addition to being overloaded, have been
shown to be subject to inefficient oxygen transfer with resulting lower
dissolved oxygen levels than required for satisfactory process perfor-
mance. Continued operation in this manner could represent a significant
source of potential odor problems.
Sludge handling facilities such as the gravity thickeners and
storage lagoons are also potential sources of odors. The incinerator is
another potential source of odor problems because its present operating
temperature range of 1200-1500° F (by telephone, Joe Larson, Manager,
Adams Field WWTP, March 2, 1981) may not always ensure complete oxi-
dation of organic matter. A minimum temperature of 1400° F is required
for complete oxidation and temperature controls should be set to operate
between 1550° F and 1600° F to ensure that the desired minimum of 1400°
F is achieved throughout all parts of the burning chamber (EPA, 1976).
Continued operation under the No Action Alternative, with the above
potential sources of odor is likely to result in increasingly worse
odor problems. This alternative is rated as adverse.
58
-------
Upgrading Existing Liquid Treatment Facilities: The planned
changes in the activated sludge process (additional aerators, process
modifications, better diffusers) should improve the efficiency of the
system, and thereby decreases odor potential. The additional settling
tanks and equalization tank to correct the existing overload situation
should also be beneficial in reducing odor potential. This alternative
would have a beneficial impact on air quality.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
Alternative 1: Raw sewage flowing in partially filled gravity
sewers of adequate slope is usually suitably oxidized by its contact
with air in the sewer to prevent the formation and release of odorous
hydrogen sulfide. No significant odor problems would be expected from
the gravity interceptor. No adverse impacts on air quality are expected
from this alternative.
Alternative 2: Under anaerobic conditions in full flowing force
mains (as opposed to partially filled gravity sewers), hydrogen sulfide
formation may take place. The sulfide remains dissolved until the
pressure in the force main is released at a discharge point such as a
manhole or pumping station wet well. Malodorus hydrogen sulfide is then
released to the atmosphere unless control measures are effectively
implemented. There is a significant potential for adverse odor problems
in force main/pumping stations compared with gravity sewers.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
No significant odor problems have been reported from the current
use of on-site systems, mainly septic tank-soil absorption systems
(ST-SAS). However, several population clusters have dense septic tank
59
-------
concentrations on unsuitable soils (Freese and Nichols, 1979). Failing
soil absorption systems in these clusters could be potential sources of
odors, although this has not been documented.
The potential of the various alternatives for achieving complete
oxidation of organic matter in wastewater is one of the main criteria
used in rating alternatives for their odor impacts. Where on-site soil
absorption systems are utilized, the potential for odorous septic ef-
fluent to surface at disposal sites is another important criterion.
This potential exists where soils are poorly permeable, too steep or too
thin, or water tables (seasonal or permanent) are too shallow. Soils
exhibiting these conditions are usually classified as having severe
limitations for use as soil absorption systems.
No Action Alternative: This alternative would continue the use of
septic tank-soil absorption systems (ST-SAS) with little control over-
siting of these systems on severely limited soils. Odor problems would
likely become significant under these circumstances and this alternative
is considered adverse.
Alternatives 1. 2 and 3: These alternatives would utilize soils
which are not classified as severely limited for soil absorption sys-
tems. The appropriate types of absorption systems (mounds) for varying
soil and water table conditions are also proposed. These alternatives
should have no significant increase in odor and therefore would have no
adverse impact on air quality.
Alternative 4: This alternative proposes the use of a force main
to convey sewage from the Little Maumelle watershed to the Arkansas
Interceptor and hence to the Adams Field WWTP. Characteristically, full
flowing force mains are potentially significant sources of odor problems
60
-------
because of the absence of an oxygen source (air) to oxidize hydrogen
sulfide as it is generated in the mains. Unless special odor control
measures are implemented at the discharge points of these mains, such as
man-holes and pumping station wet wells, significant direct odor prob-
lems may arise. Increased emissions of hydrocarbons from automobiles,
resulting from induced growth, is considered a slightly adverse indirect
long-term impact.
D. SOUND QUALITY
Sound quality in the vicinity of the Adams Field Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant (WWTP) is influenced primarily by aircraft operations at the
adjacent Adams Field Airport. Noise contours resulting from existing
and future aircraft operations are depicted in Figures 7 and 8, re-
spectively. Ambient noise levels at the plant site range between 65 and
75 L According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
dn
classification of noise levels, these ambient levels exceed the classi-
fication of "adverse noise impacts exist" range and actually fall in the
ranges classified as:
0 Significant adverse noise impacts exist: allowable only in
unusual cases where lower levels are clearly demonstrated not
to be possible (65-70 l_dn).
0 Levels have unacceptable public health and welfare impacts
(70-75 Ldn).
The most significant wastewater treatment plant noise emanates from
units such as exterior mechanical aerators diffused air blowers with
exposed inlets, incinerators, vacuum filters, pumps and electrical
generators.
61
-------
0 1200 240n
SC/ IN FEET
FIGURE 6 EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS AT ADAMS FIELD
62
-------
2400
^5
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE 7 1995 NOISE CONTOURS AT ADAMS FIELD.
63
-------
Using manufacturer's data on sound power and pressure levels of the
more significant plant units, estimates were made of contributory noise
pressure levels at a point 10 feet outside the center of the plant's
southern boundary and at the nearest residence located south of the
plant. These estimates were computed in accordance with EPA's method-
ology (EPA, 1976). EPA Noise Level Criteria were used for determining
the impacts of the total noise levels at the two referenced points. If
the total plant noise level is 0 to 3 dBA higher than the ambient level,
little or no impact may be expected; if 3 to 15 dBA higher, moderate
impact may be expected; if 15 dBA higher or more, severe impact may be
expected.
All Alternatives: Estimated total noise levels at the reference
points from plant operations associated with each alternative are sum-
marized in Table 11. In all cases these noise levels are lower than the
ambient levels of 68 L . at the plant boundary and 66 L^ at the nearest
residence. The same is true of construction noise levels from the plant
site. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts would be expected from
any of the alternatives.
Table 11
Estimated Noise Levels
Adams Field Wastewater Treatment Plant
Plant Noise (dBA)
Alternative Boundary Nearest
Residence
No Action 45 38
Upgrade Existing Liquid Treatment
Facilities 45 38
Construction 58 51
64
-------
E. BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
The proposed alternatives affect three different areas within the
Little Rock area. These areas are the Adams Field plant site and vicin-
ity, the Fourche Creek Bottoms along the proposed interceptor route, and
the Little Maumelle Valley.
The existing Adams Field treatment plant site is covered with turf
grasses (primarily Bermuda and St. Augustine). The lands surrounding
the plant site are covered with switchcane, Virginia wild rye, beaked
panicum, Switchgrass, bluestems, vines and forbs. To the north and
east, cottonwood, sycamore, sweetgum and various oaks can be found.
Most of this land has been severely disturbed in past years and the re-
maining vegetational communities have been altered.
The route of the proposed relief interceptor along Fourche Creek
passes through 33,000 feet of the Fourche Bottoms. The Corps of Engi-
neers plans to acquire part of this area and has done a detailed analy-
sis of the vegetation within the Fourche Bottoms. Approximately 14,100
feet of the sewer route would pass through the area known as the Lower
Fourche Creek floodplain. Vegetation in this area ranges from high
quality wetlands communities of bald cypress, willow, buttonbush, maple,
sweetgum, green ash, honey locust, and cottonwood to upland areas of
loblolly pine, upland oaks, sweetgum, willow, and upland brush and
grasses. In addition to these types are transitional areas ranging from
sweetgum, sycamore, elm, pecan, willow oak, and shumard oak to open
grasslands and barren areas.
Wildlife living in the woodlands include woodcock, thrushes, wild
turkey, vireos, deer, squirrels, and raccoon. Of particular interest as
a community are the wetland areas associated with the Fourche Creek
65
-------
Bottoms. Ducks, geese, rails, beaver, muskrat, and mink are typical
examples of wildlife found in these wetland areas.
The upland forest areas in the Little Maumelle area include pine,
mixed pine-hardwood, and hardwood associations. Specific associations
within these are the Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine (dominant species
found in this association are Loblolly Pine, Shortleaf Pine, Sweetgum,
Blackgum, Hickory, Hawthorne, Persimmon, Southern Red Oak, and Pot Oak),
and Loblolly Pine-Hardwood association (dominant species are Loblolly
Pine, Sweetgum, Southern Red Oak, Post Oak, Blackjack Oak, Water Oak,
American Elm, Green Ash, and Hickory) and the Shortleaf Pine-Oak
association (dominant species found in this association include Short-
leaf Pine, White Oak, Black Jack Oak, Black Oak, Post Oak, Southern Red
Oak, Hickory, Blackgum, and Sweetgum). Typically, the north facing
slopes are cooler and more moist, and support more upland oaks and
hickories. On the other hand, the warmer and drier south facing slopes
are dominated by Shortleaf Pine.
The Red Maple-Birch-American Elm Sycamore-Cottonwood association
occurs in the larger stream valleys of the uplands. These are rela-
tively narrow and well drained, and not subject to prolonged submer-
gence. Similar communities may be found on natural levees or other
ridges in the lowland floodplains. The major species of this type, Red
Maple, American Elm, Sycamore, River Birch, and Cottonwood often are
found in pure stands, not associated with the other major species of the
type.
The Arkansas River contains over thirty species of fish with the
greatest numbers being bluegills, channel catfish, longear sunfish,
freshwater drums, gizzard shad, brook silversides, and miscellaneous
66
-------
shiners (see Working Paper No. 3). While little data is available, the
Little Maumelle River most likely contains spotted bass, largemouth
bass, crappie, sunfishes, chain pickerel, catfish and shiners. In the
upper reaches of the river, fish would be limited to madtoms, minnows
and shiners.
Environmentally sensitive areas include floodplains, wetlands,
critical habitats for endangered species, and prime farmlands. Flood-
plains within Little Rock and Pulaski County have been mapped by the
Federal Insurance Administration. The Adams Field WWTP does not lie
within the 100-year floodplain since it is protected by levee systems.
The majority of the Fourche Creek interceptor route lies within the
100-year floodplain. Many of the low lying areas in the Little Maumelle
Valley are within the 100-year floodplain.
Wetlands have been identified in both the Fourche Creek Bottoms and
Little Maumelle areas. The Fourche Creek Bottoms wetlands are the only
ones to be affected by any of the proposed alternatives.
The Arkansas National Heritage Commission and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service were contacted to determine if any critical habitats
for threatened and endangered species would be affected by the proposed
alternatives. There were none identified.
There are a few prime farmland sites (as identified by the Soil
Conservation Service) in the Little Maumelle Valley, but none would be
affected by any of the proposed alternatives.
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: Since no construction or clearance of land
would be required, this alternative would have no adverse impact on
terrestrial habitats or environmentally sensitive lands.
67
-------
The Adams Field WWTP will continue to be overloaded and water
quality impact will be adverse. The additional biochemical oxygen
demand from the poor quality effluent will be assimilated into the
Arkansas River but will temporarily stress aquatic organisms who might
enter the discharge plume. Additional bacterial contamination would
occur also. This alternative was rated adverse on aquatic life.
Upgrade Liquid Treatment: Since all construction would be on
existing property which is presently covered with turf grasses, the
impact on terrestrial habitats is minimal. Slight improvements would
occur to aquatic life and no adverse impact would result to environ-
mentally sensitive lands.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
Alternative 1: This alternative would require the construction of
a 60" gravity sewer through 33,000 feet of the Fourche Creek Bottoms.
Excavation would be at least 14-16 feet deep requiring surface cut
openings of at least 25 feet in width. Allowing for access for areas
that will be under construction, there could be at least a 50-foot wide
strip of vegetation cleared for construction. It is estimated that
approximately 14 acres of this clearance would be in wetland habitats
and 15 acres in upland habitat areas. While 14 acres is not a large
area, its affect on the rapidly diminishing wetland resources in the
area is considered significant. This alternative was rated as having a
highly adverse direct impact on biological resources and environmentally
sensitive lands.
The increased capacity of the Fourche Creek interceptor system will
allow greater growth in the western portions of the City of Little Rock.
This growth, in turn, will result in additional conversion of mixed
68
-------
hardwood-softwood forest to residential and other urban uses. This loss
of forest resources, while not significant in light of other available
forest habitat, was still considered slightly adverse in regard to
long-term biological resources.
Alternative 2: The placement of a force main along the Fourche
Creek Bottoms would require less trench depth and more narrow surface
cuts than a gravity line. It is estimated that the surface cuts could
be as little as 6 feet in width. A construction easement clearance of
only 25 feet may be adequate. A force main is more flexible in routing
and its actual design may be able to avoid prime wetland areas. As
currently planned, this alternative would still require the clearance of
7 acres of wetland vegetation and 7 acres of upland habitat resulting in
an inretrievable loss.
An additional impact results from induced growth in the western
portions of Little Rock. Continued conversion of forest habitat to
residential uses will occur.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: All of these alternatives would involve
installation of individual system on a homeowners lot or a community
lot. The amount of clearing of existing terrestrial habitat necessary
to install these systems is minimal. There would be no adverse impact
on aquatic life.
Alternative 4: Almost all of the proposed lines occur along
existing road and railroad rights-of-way. Since little additional
clearance of vegetation and habitat would be necessary, this alternative
is considered slightly adverse. There would be no adverse impact on
aquatic life.
69
-------
F. SOCIOECONOMICS
Population: The Little Rock/North Little Rock Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Area (SMSA) is comprised of Pulaski and Saline
Counties. The SMSA includes the Cities of Little Rock, North Little
Rock, Jacksonville, Sherwood, Maumelle, Benton and Bryant. Little Rock,
the state capital and Pulaski County seat, is the largest city in the
state and the only municipality with more than 100,000 in population.
Pulaski County contains approximately 15 percent of the state's popu-
lation while the Little Rock/North Little Rock SMSA contains more than
17 percent of state population.
Population estimates by the Bureau of Census placed the City of
Little Rock's population at 141,143 in 1975, an increase of 8,660 per-
sons or 6.5 percent from the 1970 population of 132,483 (see Table 13)
(Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1978). This reflects an average
annual growth rate of 1.01 percent. The preliminary 1980 census figure
for Little Rock was 153,831, and is expected to increase to 215,575 by
the year 2000 as shown in Table 12. It should be noted that the final
1980 census figure was 158,461. Pulaski County's population rose from
287,189 in 1970 to an estimated 329,300 in 1978 (Bureau of the Census,
1979), an increase of 14.7 percent from 1970 to 1978. The 1980 pre-
liminary census of the county population was 340,693 with projections
placing the 2000 population at 452,885. The final 1980 census popu-
lation for the county is 340,613. The Little Rock/North Little Rock
SMSA grew from a 1970 population of 323,296 to 376,400 by 1978 (Bureau
of the Census, 1978), a 16.4 percent increase. The recent census places
the preliminary 1980 SMSA population at 393,781.
70
-------
Table 12
Population Trends and Projections 1950-2000
City, County and Region
Year Number
City of Little Rock
Increase
Over Previous
Decade/% Number
Pulaski County
Little Rock SMSA
Increase
Over Previous
Decade/% Number
Increase
Over Previous
Decade/%
196,685
220,501
1950 102,213
1960 107,813 5,600/5.5 242,980 46,295/23.5 271,936 51,435/23.3
1970 132,483 24,670/22.9 287,189 44,209/18.2 323,296 51,360/18.9
1980 153,831 21,348/16.1 340,693 53,504/18.6 393,781 70,485/21.8
1990 177,185 23,354/15.2 398,190 57,497/16.9 465,100 71,319/18.1
2000 215,574 38,390/21.7 452,885 54,695/13.7 532,140 67,040/14.4
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Metroplan
Little Rock 2000, Little Rock Office of Comprehensive Planning
Wortman and Mann, "Market Study for Maumelle New Community."
Extra Territorial Plan, City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Team Four, Inc.
-------
The facility planning consultant prepared an independent projection
of the population which indicated that the City of Little Rock would
reach 197,000 people by the year 2000 (AB&H, 1981). However, for
planning purposes, they have chosen to utilize the Office of Compre-
hensive Planning's projection as presented in Table 12. Projected
populations were presented by census tract in the Facility Plan, but are
summarized by service area in Table 13.
Induced Growth: Secondary growth is the population and land use
changes which occur as an indirect result of a given public investment.
In the case of sewerage facilities, secondary growth is usually related
to the laying of collection lines in areas which have not been devel-
oped. The presence of the sewers may induce development which might not
otherwise have occurred in the undeveloped land. In the case of the
Adams Field WWTP Facility Plan, two components could have secondary
growth associated with them. By increasing the capacity of the Fourche
Creek interceptor, additional growth can be accommodated in the upper
areas of the watershed, primarily along Loop 1-430 and along Rock Creek.
Second, by providing centralized sewerage collection in the Little
Maumelle Valley where none now exists, additional growth may be shifted
to this area from other areas in the Little Rock metropolitan region.
Secondary growth resulting from the Fourche Creek interceptor expansion
was not determined specifically and its impacts were estimated. How-
ever, because of the sensitivity and complexity of growth in the Little
Maumelle Valley, a computerized growth model was utilized to project
growth resulting from each alternative.
The Secondary Growth Model is a tool used to assess the distri-
bution of population growth as a result of siting new sewers. An under-
72
-------
Table 13
Population Forecast for Service Areas
Area No. Service Area 1980 1990 2000 2010
I
II
III
IV
V
Adams Field Watershed 115
Sewered
Adams Field Watershed 1
Not Sewered
Eastern Little Maumelle 5
Sewered
Eastern Little Maumelle
Drainage Area Not Sewered
Fourche Creek Watershed 21
,385
,250
,700
800
,255
120,010
4,950
7,500
1,600
0*
125,340
7,400
9,800
2,000
0*
128,860
8,150
11,800
2,700
0*
Population Served by 144,390 134,060 144,540 151,510
Adams Field WWTP
*South Fourche Plant in Service
lying assumption of the model is that a proposed sewer project will
serve as a stimulus to induce growth in the facility's service area. It
is also assumed, however, that there are competing areas which have
essentially the same characteristics as the proposed service area of the
sewer project.
Aerial photography of the City of Little Rock and its surrounding
area was used as the major source of geographic information for the
growth model. The photography was divided into a grid composed of
16-acre cells, each of which represents a separate parcel of land. All
cells which were completely developed were identified and were not
considered for additional growth. The physical attributes of the cells
in the remaining potential growth area were identified. The following
attributes were used:
73
-------
1. Areas of existing development
2. Drainage characteristics of land
3. Topographical features, wetlands and flood plain areas
4. Surface waters
5. Park land and other controlled acreage
6. Major roads and thoroughfares
The population forecasts, derived from the Facility Plan, were used
to define the anticipated growth in the region. The location of sewer
lines does not generally influence the growth rate of a city but only
the distribution of that growth (Environmental Protection Agency, 1978).
The computerized growth model allocates the projected residential growth
to the individual cells based upon a development desirability ranking.
The first step in the model was to identify and score each cell,
according to a set of criteria relating to potential desirability for
development. The criteria consisted of six variables:
1. Access to major thoroughfares
2. Proximity to Central Business District
3. Presence of steep slopes over 25 percent
4. Presence of floodplain
5. Proximity to existing development
6. Presence of sewer connections
Variables one through five were given scores based on a range of 0
to 5, with 5 as the highest or best rank. Variable six received a score
of either 0 or 4 with 0 denoting no sewer access and 4 as sewer avail-
ability. Scores relating to "access to major thoroughfares," "proximity
to existing development," and "proximity to the Central Business Dis-
trict" were determined by cell distance from each mapped factor. Scores
74
-------
for "presence of steep slopes" and "presence of flood plain" were deter-
mined through mapping by the amount of area within each cell with such
physical characteristics. The total possible desirability score of each
cell ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 29.
Multi-family units were assigned a density of 18 units per acre
based on a 2.25 persons per household occupancy rate. This allowed for
a maximum allocation of 650 persons per cell. Single-family residential
land was divided into three categories. Single family units situated on
soils unsuitable for septic tanks were assigned a density of 3 units per
acre at a ratio of 3.5 persons per household. A total of two single
family units per acre at 3.5 persons per household was assigned to cells
without sewer service and without soils suitable for septic tanks. This
allowed a maximum of 110 persons per cell. If a cell had sewer service
access then it was allocated four single family units per acre at 3.5
persons per household for a maximum cell allotment of 225 persons.
The individual cell rankings, in conjunction with the residential
density parameters, comprised the data for the Growth Model. The multi-
family designator qualifies as the "highest use" of land and, therefore,
was allocated its population first to cells with highest desirability.
It was assumed that forty percent of the forecast population growth was
to be allocated to multi-family housing units. After this forty percent
was distributed, the remainder of the population was allocated to single
family units.
These data were entered into the Growth Model to examine secondary
growth induced under several sewer service alternatives available in the
Little Maumelle area. The alternatives analyzed were: (1) the proposed
growth and distribution of the forecast population in the absence of
75
-------
additional sewer service (No Action and Alternatives 1-2), (2) the
projected growth and distribution of the population if the area con-
taining soils unsuitable for septic tanks was allowed cluster sewer
service access (Alternative 3), and (3) the provision of centralized
collection and treatment (Alternative 4). The three categories de-
scribed were computed with the inclusion of the service area of the new
Fourche Sewage Treatment Facility. The output of the Growth Model was a
listing of cells with population allocation. This resulted in a block
of cells which could be plotted to give a graphic display of how the
future population growth will be distributed.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
No Action, Alternatives 1 and 2: Figure 8 shows the population
distribution if no or little additional sewerage service were provided
to the Little Maumelle Valley. Growth would occur along Highway 10,
along Rock Creek, along Loop 430, and in southwest Little Rock. Almost
all of the growth in the Maumelle Valley would be within the existing
sewered areas. The total population growth in the Maumelle watershed
would be 7,347 people.
Alternative 3: Figure 9 shows the population distribution which
would occur if cluster systems were provided in areas where soils were
unsuitable. This makes some cells slightly more desirable and results
in additional growth along Highway 10 in the Little Maumelle Valley.
The Maumelle Valley population would increase to 7,887, indicating a
secondary growth of 540 persons.
Alternative 4: Figure 10 shows the population distribution which
would occur if sewer service were provided to the Little Maumelle
Valley. The watershed population would increase by 11,077 persons,
76
-------
FIGURE 8 NO ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 1 AND 2 SECONDARY GROWTH
-------
FIGURE 9 ALTERNATIVE 3 SECONDARY GROWTH
POPULATION INCREASES
600 - *
500 - 599
400 - 499
300 - 399
?00 - 299
100 - 199
a ' -
-------
POPULflTlOU INCPIASFS
'
500 - 599
100 - 499
100 - 399
200 - 299
100 - 199
t - 99
FIGURE 10 ALTERNATIVE 4 SECONDARY GROWTH
-------
resulting in a secondary growth of 3,730 persons. Most all of these
people would have located in the South Fourche WWTP watershed had not
service been provided in the Maumelle Valley.
Public Inconvenience:
Public inconvenience due to the presence of sewage treatment
facilities is linked to perceptions of odor, noise and traffic genera-
tion of the facility. Changes in normal operating procedures may in-
terrupt normal routine to the point that public inconvenience is
created. However, this impact is primarily a subjective judgment except
for situations or episodes that can be documented. Complaints by
households or significant measureable changes in output of any of the
three factors may be deemed to generate public inconvenience.
Employment:
Municipal service maintains a strong share of local employment.
Adams Field Sewage Treatment Plant is a municipally owned and operated
facility, and the staff of the wastewater treatment plant is a component
of municipal employment.
User Fees:
The Little Rock Wastewater Treatment system is municipally owned
and is operated by the Little Rock Sewer Commission serving the City and
suburban areas. The sewerage charge is based on water consumption and
the size of the meter furnishing water to the unit. A breakdown of
connections indicates that nearly 91 percent of the connections are
residential with 9 percent commercial. Less than one-half percent of
the connections are industrial. The Facility Plan estimates a typical
monthly charge as $5.20 per residential connection.
80
-------
Each of the proposed alternatives for the Adams Field Wastewater
Treatment facility will result in an increase to the sewerage costs with
resulting needs for increased sewerage charges. The amount of the
increase is dependent on the combination of the debt service, grant
eligibility, and O&M costs for the alternatives utilized.
An analysis of costs associated with the various alternatives was
made for the proposed interceptor and wastewater treatment facilities
and then compared to the present sewer charge. The analysis focused on
the monthly charge to be assessed each connection and the percent in-
crease over the existing sewer rate that would result from implementing
each alternative. The monthly rate was based on the existing rate with
the addition of the initial capital cost of the alternative amortized
over twenty years. The annual operation and maintenance cost, converted
to a monthly charge, was added also. The rate assessment considered
using an one hundred percent financial commitment by the City of Little
Rock and using a 25 percent participation rate based on 75 percent
federal grant.
Recreation:
The City of Little Rock has approximately 38 parks covering more
than 3,000 acres. These parks are classified according to size as
either metropolitan, community, open space or neighborhood. The outdoor
sports of hunting, horseback riding, fishing and other water related
activities provide other popular recreational entertainment in the
Little Rock area.
Two parks have been proposed for the land on the opposite side of
the levee from the Adams Field wastewater treatment plant. These pro-
81
-------
posed parks include the River Front Park and the Fourche Creek Flood
Plain Park System.
Fiscal Balance:
A measurement of the economic viability of a municipality is its
ability to balance the costs of operating the community against the
revenue generated from the community. Costs include operating expenses
and capital outlays either directly incurred or paid to others as a
result of specific development. Revenues comprise all monies a muni-
cipality receives from external sources as a result of development or
redevelopment (Burchell and Listokin, 1978).
The primary means of revenue development in a local economy is
through the tax structure. The personal and real property tax of the
City of Little Rock is an aggregate of municipal, school and special
district taxes. The revenues generated from these levies go to pay for
the delivery of municipal services and the support of the local school
district system. Increased population has two effects on the fiscal
balance of the local economy. The new population will expand the tax
base thus increasing the revenues from personal and real property taxes.
The new population results also in an increased demand for services
which the municipality is to supply. Fiscal imbalance occurs when
expenditures for goods and services exceed revenues received for the
delivery of these goods and services.
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action: The No Action Alternative would not alter existing
conditions and would not affect public inconvenience. No additional
labor requirements would be created. There would be no impact on
82
-------
community services or recreation.
This alternative would have no additional sewer service charges
since no construction would be planned. Therefore, this alternative
would have no adverse impacts on user fees.
Upgrading Existing Liquid Treatment Facilities: Normal operating
conditions and traffic would not be adversely affected by this alter-
native. The Facility Plan estimates that no additional manpower would
be required.
The estimated capital cost of this alternative is $11,052,000.
Existing operation and maintenance costs are $1,400,000 and have not
been projected by the Facility Plan to increase. At an one hundred
percent commitment by the City of Little Rock, the residential waste-
water utility customers would pay $1.72 per month in debt service. If
the municipality is able to obtain federal participation, the monthly
charge for debt service would amount to $0.43 a month per customer. The
Facility Plan estimates an increase in sewer charges of about 5 percent
under this alternative. There would be no impact on community services
or recreation.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
Gravity System: This alternative would not result in any public
inconvenience or increased manpower requirement. The gravity system
requires an investment of capital of $5,940,000. Annual O&M expenses
would be $3,500. User fees assessed residences would amount to $.93 per
month per connection under solely municipal financing and $.24 utilizing
federal assistance. A positive secondary impact would result from an
increased tax base.
83
-------
Force Main and Pumping Station: Alternative 2 would not result in
any public inconvenience or increased manpower requirements. The
capital cost of this alternative is $3,792,000 and an annual O&M of
$47,300. Residential units would be assessed $.67 a month per con-
nection at an one hundred percent financial participation by the City.
If 75 percent federal assistance is obtained then residential rates
would fall to $.23 a month per connection. A positive secondary impact
would result from an increased tax base.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
Presently, part of the population residing in the Little Maumelle
watershed relies on septic tank systems to satisfy household sewage
disposal needs. The user cost of the septic systems are the purchase
and installation price and cleaning of the systems performed approxi-
mately every three years at an average annual cost of approximately $25
a year.
No Action Alternative: This alternative suggests continuing the
present mode of using typical septic tank systems for the treatment of
waste. Population growth in the unsewered area of Maumelle would result
in an increased number of septic tank systems. However, the only cost
is that of installation and an average annual maintenance fee of $25 for
cleaning the system. This alternative would have no impact on user
fees. There would be no impact on recreation.
Alternative 1: This alternative limits the introduction of new
septic tank systems to only areas with suitable soils. Future popu-
lation growth would then be limited. However, user fees would remain
constant with each new system requiring a capital investment of $2,500
84
-------
and then an average annual O&M of $25. This alternative is rated no
impact on user fees. There would be no impact on recreation.
Alternative 2: This alternative assumes that one-half of the
anticipated new growth will use conventional septic tank/soil absorption
systems. These would be allowable where the soils are capable of ab-
sorbing the effluent thus the costs would be the $2,500 installation fee
and the $25 average annual O&M charge. The remainder of the anticipated
population would have to use mound systems to compensate for the un-
acceptable soil properties. The mound system would cost each household
$5,500 in current dollars. An annual O&M cost would consist of cleaning
the septic tank system and maintaining the dosing pumps. The annual O&M
calculated for the mound system units would result in a cost of $45, or
a monthly fee of $3.75. This alternative would have an adverse impact
on user fees due to the high initial capital investment by each home-
owner and monthly assessment for annual O&M. There would be no impact
on recreation.
Alternative 3: Septic tank systems would serve one-half of the
anticipated population growth limited to areas where soils are suitable.
This would result in an initial capital investment of $2,500 by each
homeowner for the purchase and installation of the septic tank system
and an average annual O&M of $25. This annual cost of $25 is for
cleaning the septic tank system and is equivalent to a monthly fee of
$2.00.
Cluster systems would serve the remainder of new dwelling units
built on soils that are not suitable for septic tank absorption fields.
This system requires an initial investment in current dollars of
$4,291.10 to develop a system of larger septic tanks soil absorption
85
-------
systems located remote from the area. The sewage from each unit would
be pumped to these series of common septic tank systems. The initial
cost covers the installation of these septic tanks and the pumping
units. The annual O&M costs would include the costs of transporting the
sewage by pipe and the O&M costs of the individual pumping units. This
annual cost is calculated to be $64.74 per unit or a monthly fee of
$5.40. This alternative is rated highly adverse for its impact on user
fees due to the high initial investment by each homeowner and the high
O&M costs. There would be no adverse impact on recreation.
This alternative will induce a population growth of 540 persons to
the Little Maumelle watershed. A per capita multiplier was used to
assess the effects of the population growth on the fiscal condition of
the community. The municipal expenditures for goods and services for
the additional population growth would be $81,551. The school district
expenditures for the additional student population would be $387,423.
Revenues generated from taxes and fees levied would amount to $79,629
for municipal sources and $89,265 for the school district. Municipal
expenditures, therefore, would be slightly more than the revenues
generated through the new population growth. School district expendi-
tures would far exceed the revenues generated by through the school
district tax, thus causing a deficit due to the increased population
growth. Total expenditures would be $468,974 with total revenues
reaching only $168,894 creating a gap of $300,080. Therefore, this
alternative was scored slightly adverse for its impact on the fiscal
balance of the local economy.
Alternative 4: This alternative proposes a central collection
system in the unsewered portion of the Maumelle watershed discharging to
86
-------
the Arkansas River Interceptor in the Adams Field watershed. The
capital cost of this alternative is $4,152,750 with an annual O&M cost
of $23,978. The user fees were calculated at a 100 percent financial
commitment by the City of Little Rock and on a local-federal share basis
with the City of Little Rock contributing 25%. The centralized system
results in the financial commitments being borne by all residents of the
City of Little Rock and residents in the Maumelle watershed. The 100
percent assumption by the City of Little Rock will produce an addition
to the current sewer charge for all city residents of $.64 a month for
debt service. Participating in the local-federal share programs reduces
the monthly user fee to $.16 a month per connection for construction of
the collection system. Users would be assessed normal sewerage charges.
This alternative is rated slightly adverse for its impact of increasing
existing user fees. There would be little adverse impact on recreation.
This alternative is expected to induce a population growth of 3,730
persons to the Little Maumelle watershed. It advocates using a cen-
tralized collection system transmitting the waste to the Adams Field
watershed. The induced population growth attributable to this alter-
native would cost the City of Little Rock an estimated $563,306 for the
delivery of municipal services. The return in revenues generated
through taxes and fees would amount to $550,024, resulting in a net
deficit of $13,082. School district expenditures for the induced
student population would be $2,676,091, with revenues from taxes
amounting to only $616,592 and a deficit of $2,059,499. Total expendi-
tures for goods and services from the municipality and the school dis-
trict would equal $3,239,397, with revenues from the induced population
growth amounting to $1,166,616 or a net loss of $2,072,781. Therefore,
87
-------
this alternative would create an adverse impact on the fiscal balance of
the local economy.
This alternative may also result in public inconvenience. Existing
street layouts and traffic patterns reflect a smaller population use.
The population growth induced by the implementation of this alternative
would increase traffic volumes and alter circulation patterns on the
existing transportation system. The increased loads on the system might
result in public inconvenience. Therefore, this alternative has an
adverse secondary impact on public inconvenience.
Solid Waste Recycling:
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: The present wastewater treatment operation
uses incineration for the disposal of sludge. The continuation of this
practice offers no resource recovery options. This alternative has been
rated highly adverse for its negative impact on recycling or innovative
solid waste systems.
Upgrade Existing Liquid Treatment Facilities: This alternative
provides only for liquid treatment improvements. It does not present
any alternative for sludge disposal. Therefore, it would have no impact
on residual waste recycling.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
These alternatives are used only to collect and transport raw
sewage. There is no option for recycling or conservation available with
these alternatives. Therefore, the interceptor alternatives were rated
as having no impact on recycling.
88
-------
G. ENERGY
The present plant has five blowers capable of blowing air at the
rate of 9,000 cfm, each powered with a 450 HP electric motor. Based
upon an electricity rate of 54/KWH, and the amount of air normally
blown, it is estimated that power costs will be approximately $330,000 a
year. Additional energy is consumed by the various pumps, vacuum
filters, incinerator and lighting facilities at the plant.
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: This alternative would have an adverse
impact on energy costs. The present vacuum filters and incinerators are
inefficient consumers of a significant amount of energy. The continued
use of the filters and incineration result in highly adverse energy
impact.
Upgrade Existing Treatment Facility: This alternative results in
little change in energy costs experienced by the liquid treatment
facilities. The alternative proposes to increase the efficiency of the
aeration system blowers, but the increases in energy required to treat
the additional wastewater flow will offset these savings. The treatment
facility is still a significant consumer of power and, therefore, has a
slightly adverse impact on energy usage.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
Gravity Alternative: Gravity flow would use no power for opera-
tion. Therefore, it has no impact on energy usage.
Force Main and Pumping Station Alternative: This alternative
utilizes a pump station and force main to convey sewage to the Fourche
89
-------
wastewater treatment plant. The energy demands associated with the
alternative are significant and represent an increase or addition to
present power costs of existing plant operation. Therefore, this
alternative is considered slightly adverse.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
Alternatives 1 and 2: These alternatives rely on septic tank/soil
absorption systems to satisfy sewage disposal. There are no energy
requirements for most septic tank systems. These two alternatives would
have no adverse impact on energy.
Alternative 2 and 3: These two alternatives utilize dosing pumps
for the cluster or mound systems. The pumps consume energy at the rate
of approximately 7 kilowatt hours per capita per year. Based on an
energy cost of 5
-------
There will be a energy consumption increase as a result of in-
creased population; however, it will not increase to a significant
degree.
H. LAND USE:
Land uses adjacent to the Adams Field Wastewater Treatment Plant
include public, open and agricultural uses (see Figure 11). The treat-
ment plant is bounded on the north by the levee of the Arkansas River.
On the opposite side of the levee, the land is cleared but generally
unused. A large area of open forest and agricultural land is located on
Gates Island, along the south shore of the river. Along the northern
shore of the river, land is also undeveloped but residential areas are
found along and to the north of State Highway 130. To the east and
south of the plant site, the land has been used for agricultural and
pasture with some scattered residential area along Fourche Dam Pike.
The treatment plant is bound on the west by East 9th Street which
terminates into the Airport access road and Fourche Dam Pike about 2,000
feet south of the entrance to the treatment plant. The main terminal
for the airport is located approximately 2,000 feet to the southwest of
the wastewater treatment plant. North of the treatment plant is another
residential area; however, a meat rendering plant lies on the eastern
edge of the settlement.
The low lying land along Fourche Creek and its tributaries has been
designated as flood plain. Flood plain land occupies approximately 16.9
square miles. Fourche Creek bounds an industrial district on the north.
To the east and south of Fourche Creek is Interstate 30 and Patterson
Road lies on the west.
91
-------
LEGEND
PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC
AGRICULTURAL-OPEN LAND
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULT1FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
_j WOODED LAND
INDUSTRIAL
I" * 24OO FT. >;\-;>V^V>'!v
FIGURE 11 LAND USE MAP OF ADAMS FIELD DETAILED STUDY AREA.
92
-------
Land use in the West-Northwest Little Rock (Little Maumelle) area
is dominated by forest land (see Figure 12). Some residential sub-
divisions have been constructed in the Pleasant Valley area, including
Woodland Heights, Longlea, Marlow Manor, and Pebble Beach, and the
Birchwood subdivision along West Markham and Kanis Roads. The remaining
residential development is scattered and strip development along the
more important roads in the area, particularly Highway 10, Kanis Road,
and Colonel Glenn Road. Some of the more notable communities which have
grown along these roads are Pankey, Ivesville, and the Taylor Loop Road
area along Highway 10, Shady Grove along Kanis Road, and Martindale
along Colonel Glenn Road. Some scattered areas in the valleys have been
cleared for pasture and several small lakes and ponds have been con-
structed along the creeks. North of Highway 10, the Little Maumelle
River flows in a west to east direction. To the north of the river is a
flat strip of land along the Arkansas River which has been used for
agriculture and a penal farm. There are also some boat marinas and
landings in this area for recreational and fishing activities in the
Arkansas River and the lower Little Maumelle River. To the northwest of
this area are the Maumelle Pennacles, much of which is included in the
Pinnacle Mountain State Park.
The City of Little Rock has developed a Suburban Development plan
for the surrounding area undergoing urbanization. This plan is a guide
for potential development and indicated'compatible land uses for future
development. The plan represents a move toward planned and controlled
growth.
93
-------
FIGURE 12 LAND USE MAP OF WEST-NORTHWEST LITTLE ROCK
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC
AGRICULTURAL / PASTURE
] SHORTLEAF PINE
MIXED PINE /HARDWOOC
WATER
-------
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: This alternative will not alter any ex-
isting land use; therefore, it will have no impact on land use.
Upgrade Existing Facility: This alternative should not require any
changes in surrounding land use. Therefore, this alternative will have
no direct adverse impact on land use. There will be no adverse or
beneficial secondary land use impacts.
Fourche Creek Interceptor Alternatives:
These alternatives will not affect existing land use patterns, and
therefore would have no adverse land use impact.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
Alternatives 1, & 2: These alternatives will not affect existing
land use within the area. Therefore, these alternatives have no direct
adverse impact on land use.
Alternative 3: This alternative proposes the use of cluster
systems for approximately one-half of the anticipated population growth.
These cluster systems would require 10 acres of land for absorption
fields. This land would be remote from the area of development in soils
that would be suitable for the conventional septic tank system. This
alternative would have an adverse impact by altering existing land use
patterns.
Alternative 4: The City of Little Rock Suburban Development Plan
had not designated residential land uses for the areas that would be
converted for such use in the Little Maumelle area as a result of the
implementation of this alternative. Since the population growth that
would occur as a result of the alternative and its consumption of land
95
-------
do not reflect the planned land use indicated by the Suburban Develop-
ment Plan, this alternative has been rated adverse for its secondary
impact on land use.
I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES:
The Arkansas Archaeological Survey and the Arkansas Historic Pre-
servation Program have been contacted regarding the project. Due to the
variety of potential sites, an inventory has been postponed pending
definitive alternative selection. It is anticipated that the archeo-
logical survey work will be completed and coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Officer after the detailed design of the facili-
ties is available and before construction begins. The pertinent corres-
pondence has been included in the coordination chapter.
J. PUBLIC HEALTH:
Currently, the wastewater treatment operations by the City of
Little Rock are not adequately treating the sewage. The present ca-
pacity of the treatment plant is not adequate which results in the raw
sewage not being treated properly and effluent quality problems. At
flows greater than design, the settling basin becomes less efficient
operating at or below normal efficiency levels. At present, there are
six aeration basins which have with the associated piping a hydraulic
capacity that is less than necessary to treat peak flows. Inadequately
treated sewage may pose health hazards by creating conditions which may
foster the development of diseases and infections.
The majority of the soils of the Little Maumelle watershed are
unsuitable for septic tank systems. If septic tank units were installed
in these areas, the potential for failures is heightened and public
96
-------
health endangered. The conveyance of sewage for treatment must be
conducted in a safe and sanitary manner if public health hazards are to
be avoided.
Adams Field Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: Present operating conditions have been
found to result in the discharge of inadequately treated sewage to the
Arkansas River. Therefore, this alternative fosters a situation in
which public health may be adversely endangered. This alternative is
considered to have an adverse impact on public health.
All Other Adams Field Alternatives: It is assumed that the re-
maining alternatives proposed will function properly to adequately treat
the wastewater and that proper disposal of residual waste will take
place. Therefore, these alternatives would not have an adverse direct
impact on public health.
Little Maumelle Alternatives:
No Action Alternative: This alternative would allow the continued
use of septic tank systems in the Little Maumelle area with insufficient
controls over the siting of septic tanks on unsuitable soils. The
potential for septic tank failures would be enhanced, resulting in an
adverse impact on public health.
All Other Alternatives: It is assumed that the design and control
measures proposed by each of these alternatives will function properly.
Wastewater would be adequately treated and disposed such that public
health would be protected. Therefore, these alternatives would have
little adverse impact on public health.
97
-------
V. COORDINATION:
In November 1979, the Little Rock Wastewater Utility designated a
Citizens Advisory Committee to serve as the major public interface with
the facility planning and the accompanying environmental impact state-
ment processes. In accordance with guidance and regulations of the
Environmental Protection Agency, a balanced membership of persons repre-
senting elected and appointed officials, of public interest groups,
private citizens, and economic or special interests was appointed to the
Committee. The people currently serving in each of these categories
are:
Public Interest
Paul Butt, Arkansas Ecology Center
Becky Harris, Community Action for Maumelle Preservation (CAMP)
Officials
Lottie Shackleford, Little Rock City Director
Joe Kaufman, Chairman, Pulaski County Planning Board
Private Citizens
Richard Baldauf, Museum of Science and History
Gerald Hanson, UALR Geography Department
Special or Economic Interest
William Hastings, Rector, Phillips, and Morse
Don E. Bone, Arkansas Power and Light
Nolan Fleming, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce (former member)
Wieble Alley, Arkansas Power and Light (former member)
Metroplan, the local council of governments, was contracted to
coordinate public participation on the project.
99
-------
On March 10, 1980, a public meeting was held to receive public
comment on isses pertaining to the EIS on expansion of the Adams Field
WWTP. The meeting was well attended but most of the speakers were
primarily concerned with the proposed 208 Plan for the Little Rock-North
Little Rock region rather than the specific issues pertaining to the
proposed Adams Field expansion. The concerns raised over centralized
treatment systems in low density areas, however, do have bearing on the
proposed project.
During the course of the project, the Citizens Advisory Committee
reviewed all interim documents and meetings were held at the conclusion
of major tasks. The Citizens Advisory Committee provided major input on
developing weights for each environmental parameter. The Citizens
Advisory Committee has endorsed the findings of the EIS, with the ex-
ception of preferring the gravity line alternative for the Fourche Creek
interceptor. The gravity line was favored because of its lower opera-
tion and maintenance cost and energy requirements.
Over the course of the project, numerous public and private agen-
cies were contacted for infomation and comment. These include Little
Rock Department of Comprehensive Planning, Little Rock District of the
Army Corps of Engineers, Arkansas Employment Security Division, Metro-
plan, Arkansas Department of Health, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission,
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology, Pulaski County
Health Department, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Arkansas De-
partment of Natural and Cultural Heritage, Arkansas Ecology Center, the
Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers Commission,
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Arkansas Archeo-
logical Survey, Little Rock Airport Commission, and the U.S. Fish and
100
-------
Wildlife Service. Some of the pertinent correspondence from these
contacts are included in the following pages.
101
-------
PRESEWIW
ARKANSAS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
ITHE
(FUTURE
July 10, 1980
Mr. David R. Gattis
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
811 Lamar Street
Fort Worth, TX 7&102
Re: Adam's Field EIS
Dear Mr. Gattis:
Thank you for notifying me of the future plans to expand the Adam's
Field wastewater treatment plant. I hope that the following information
will be of help in the planning process.
One archeological site (3PU55) is located south of the existing
plant site and is within the project area as designated in Attachment 2
of your June 2*» correspondence. There have been no archeological sites
recorded for the study areas shown in red on Attachment 1.
In answer to your request regarding archeological site potential,
I would designate all areas along the Arkansas River as high potential
areas. Floodplains and terraces along the many intermittent streams and
ridgetops have moderate to high potential, while steep slopes are low
potential areas for the presence of archeological sites.
Treatment plant expansion or sewer line construction should not begin
until adequate archeological work has been completed. Such work should
include a complete archeological survey of the areas to be affected,
including an assessment of the archeological sites discovered. I* con-
struction is planned that will affect site 3PU55, then that site will also
have to be assessed for archeological significance.
Please notify me when alternative plans for the plant expansion and
sewer line work are more formalized.
Si ncerely,
Hester A. Davis
State Archeolegist
HAD/1cm
cc: State Historic Preservation Officer
Skip Stewart-Abernathy
IheUmvers.tv ol Arkansas is an equal oppom.n.tv.aflirmative arl.on m
102
-------
ARKANSAS HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Suite 500, Continental Building • Markham and Mam • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Phone (501) 371-2763
August 28, 1980
Mr. David R. Gattis
Freese & Nichols, Inc.
811 Lamar Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Dear Mr. Gattis:
Re: Adams Field Wastewater Plant
Environmental Impact Statement
Little Rock, Arkansas, Pulaski Co.
Thank you for your inquiry as to historic resources in the special study
areas indicated in your correspondence of August 25, 1980. Our historic-
resources inventory lists no properties for these areas. However, the
inventory is not complete; it is possible that resources are there.
My comment does not cover archeology. If you have not already done so, you
should contact Ms. Hester Davis, the State Archeologist for comments on the
presence of archeological resources. Ms. Davis's address is P.O. Box R,
Fayetteville 72701.
I look forward to hearing from you as plans are refined further. Please
contact Jack Doss of my staff (501-371-2763) if we can assist you further.
Sincerely.
lliams Baldridge
Historic Preservation Officer
JWB/JD/kt
cc: Hester Davis
A Division of the Deporlment of Natural & Cultural Heritage
An Equal Opportunity Employer I U J
-------
ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION
SUITE 50O, CONTINENTAL BUILDING
MAIN AND MARKHAM
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 722O1
September 24, 1980
today's date
TO: Mr. David R. Gattis
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
811 Lamar Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
FROM: Bill Shepherd
name
Inventory Manager
title
initials
(for Harold K. Grimmett,
Executive Director)
A NOTE ABOUT THIS FORM: The Natural Heritage Commission receives large numbers of
environmental documents for review and requests for information. The staff that
handles these is small and carries other responsibilities as well. Pressure of
work makes it necessary that responses be rendered in a manner as time-efficient
as possible. Thus this form (instead of a letter). We hope it helps us respond
more promptly. Vour patience and understanding are solicited.
The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission acknowledges receipt of your
overall planning area for Little Rock Wastewater Utility's
j[] inquiry concerning proposed expansion of Adams Field treatment plant
environmental statement titled
and dated
The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission has
no information of the type requested
|| no specific information about the site or sites in question
(other than that given below and/or in the material attached to this form).
Your reduced copies of quad sheets returned herewith,
locations of element occurrences shown thereon.
Please address any further inquiry to Bill Shepherd
at the address above or at (501) 371-1706.
Space for additional message:
As far as we can determine, none of the element occurrences shown would be affected
by the proposed expansion of the Adams Field treatment plant.
104
-------
PRESERVING
ARKANSAS ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Office of State Archeologist p Q gox „
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: 501-575-3556
April 6, 1981
Mr. David R. Gattis
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
811 Lamar Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Re: Adams Field Wastewater Treatment Plant EIS
Dear Mr. Gattis:
Since my last correspondence with you on July 10, 1980, there have
been several archeological sites recorded in the Little Rock area, some
of which may be affected by the Adams Field wastewater project. Below
is a discussion of each project area and the archeological sites and
archeological potential.
Attachment 1: There are two sites that border or are within the project
boundary as designated. Site 3PU55 is an important protohistoric Quapaw
phase archeological site. Many artifacts have been collected from this
site in the past, mostly by local amateurs. Site 3PU182 is a historic
site which dates from approximately the midnineteenth century to the
1930s. A field investigation of the project area as shown on Attachment 1
will be necessary to determine what effects the project will have on these
sites.
Attachment 2: No known archeological sites have been recorded in this
area. There is, however, a recorded site approximately one-quarter of
a mile west. No systematic archeological investigations have been
conducted of the project area. The location along the Arkansas River
channel and the proximity to a known site make this a high potential
area for the presence of archeological resources. I recommend that a
systematic archeological investigation be conducted within the project
area.
Attachment 3: One archeological site, 3PU194, has been recorded on one
of the proposed wastewater lines. Both prehistoric and historic artifacts
have been discovered on this site. The potential for discovering other
sites along the routes as indicated in red is high, particularly where
these lines follow or cross streams. The level of archeological work for
areas included on this map is dependent on how close the lines will follow
existing roads and the railroad grade. According to the quad map, some
of the line locations do not follow existing roads. These areas should
definitely be surveyed by a professional archeologist prior to construction.
The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. -|
-------
(Gattis, D.) -2- 4-6-81
If you have any questions regarding the recommendations included
in this letter, please notify me. I would strongly recommend that
the necessary field investigations be initiated early in the planning
process.
Sincerely
Hester A. Davis
State Archeologist
HAD/1cm
cc: State Historic Preservation Officer
Skip Stewart-Abernathy
Martha Rolingson
106
-------
ARKANSAS HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Suite 500, Continental Building- Markham and Main- Little Pock, Arkansas 72201 Phone i'5CM) 371-2763
April 14, 1981
Mr. David R. Gattis
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
811 Lamar Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Re: Adams Field Wastewater Treatment
Plant EIS, Little Rock, Pulaski Co.
Dear Mr. Gattis :
This letter is written in response to your inquiry of March 24, 1981,
regarding properties of architectural and historical significance in
the area of the proposed above referenced project.
The professional staff of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has
reviewed the available material which pertains to the area in question.
The staff of the Historic Preservation Program has reported that the
proposed project will not affect any property of architectural or historic
significance.
A field survey of the affected area to locate properties of historic and/or
architectural significance will not be required. Archeological clearance
from our program must come through Ms. Hester Davis, State Archeologist,
P.O. Box R, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.
If we can be of further assistance please contact Robert Hughes of my staff
at (501) 371-2763.
Sincerely,
Joan Wil^amsBaldridge
State Historic Preservation Officer
JWB/RH/fb
cc: Hester Davis
A Division of the Department of Natural & Cultural Heritage
An Equal Opportunity Employer 107
-------
List of Preparers
Mr. Mack S. Barber was the project manager for this assignment. A math/
physics graduate from the University of South Florida, Mr. Barber has
over 10 years experience in regional planning, environemental planning,
estuary study and deep ocean study. In the past five years he has been
responsible for several environmental and regional planning project
which included multifaceted studies involving wastewater management
planning and the associated environmental assessments of these plans.
For the last three years he has led a multi-disciplinary team including
engineers, planners, technicians and draftsmen on numerous wastewater
management problems including two for the Little Rock area. His re-
sponsibilities have included extensive client coordination and re-
sponsibility for the presentation of the findings of these studies in
over twenty public participation meetings in addition his normal project
supervision responsibilities.
Senior environmental planner for the project was David R. Gattis. Mr.
Gattis studied environmental science and urban affairs at Texas
Christian University. He has seven years of professional experience in
environmental planning and the preparation of environmental impact
assessments. He has assumed major responsibility for the technical
direction of approximately 25 environmental studies, including prepara-
tion of the environmental impact statements for the operation of 23
military facilities in Texas, environmental assessments for Step 1 Fa-
cility Planning for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, and Section 208
areawide wastewater management plans. Mr. Gattis began his work in the
Little Rock area in 1977 and has participated in three major studies in
Arkansas.
Ulrich P Gibson, P.E., served as senior project engineer for the EIS.
Mr Gibson has more than 22-years experience in environemental engi-
neering work. He has 17 years management experience in environmental
planning, water resources, sanitary engineering, hydrogeplogy and ground
water development. He has 3 years of consulting experience as Project
Leader on Environmental Impact Statements and other technical studies
related to the National Environmental Policy Act and other Pertinent
acts. He has managed a staff of 1,200 engaged in carrying out e, $500
million water resources program. Mr. Gibson has a bachelor s-degree n
civil engineering from the University of Edinburgh and masters n
Public Health Engineering and doctorate in Environmental Health Engi
neering from the University of Minnesota.
Lauren Phillips served as environmental scientist for this ProJect. ^
the oast three years Miss Phillips has been involed in various disci
Sines within the environmental science field including biology, micro-
fa ilogy ecology, wastewater treatment, physical geography and environ-
mental* health.9* She has conducted biological studies .ancPrepaid jn-
vironmental impact statements and assessments for « variety of pro ects^
Miss Phillips has a bachelor's degree in environmental *"*"« Biology
from Washington and Jefferson College, prior to joing C. C. Johnson and
Associates, she was an instructor in the .Environmental Science and
Technology Department at the Pittsburgh Technical Institute.
109
-------
Karen W. Williams was the environmental planner for economics for the
EIS. Ms. Williams earned bachelor's degrees in urban affairs and eco-
nomics and a master's in economics from Texas Christian University. Her
past project experience includes population and land use projections and
municipal and industrial inventory for studies in Arkansas and Texas.
She is the planner in charge of Historical/Archeological Analysis Review
for all Freese and Nichols projects.
110
-------
REFERENCES
Alvord, Burdick, Howson, 1981, Adams Field Sewage Facility Plan, for
Little Rock Wastewater Utility in Little Rock, Arkansas, Chicago,
Illinois.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1974, Section
303(e) Basin Plan, Arkansas River Basin, Oklahoma State Line to Mouth.
Water Quality Planning Section, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Burchell, Robert W. and Listokin, David, 1978, The Fiscal Impact Hand-
book, The Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Burns and McDonnell Engineering Co., 1980, Environmental Assessment,
Adams Field, Little Rock, Arkansas, for Little Rock Airport Commission.
Corps of Engineers and Metroplan, 1979, Little Rock Metropolitan Area
Urban Study Environmental Assessment, Little Rock, Arkansas.
EPA, 1976, Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment Works, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1978, Manual for Evaluating Secondary Impacts of Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities, EPA-600/5-78-003 Washington, D.C.
Freese and Nichols, Inc., 1980, Environmental Impact Working Paper No.
3, Environmental Setting for Adams Field Wastewater Treatment Plant, for
Little Rock Wastewater Utility and U.S. EPA, Fort Worth, Texas.
Mines, Marion S. , 1975, Flow Duration and Low-Flow Frequency Determi-
nation of Selected Arkansas Streams, Water Resources Circular No. 12,
Arkansas Geologic Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Ill
-------
METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
To Convert From
To
Acre
Cubic feet per second (cfs)
Feet
Gallon
Horsepower (hp)
Inch
Kilowatt hour
Miles
Pounds (Ibs.)
Square miles
Tons
Hectare
Cubic meter per second
(cms)
Meters
Cubic meter (m )
Watts
Centimeter
Joule
Kilometers
Kilograms
Hectares
Kilograms
Multiply by
0.4046873
2.831685 x 10
3.048 x 10"
4.546092 x 10
746
2.54
3.60 x 106
1.609347
0.4535924
258.9998
907.1847
-2
-3
112
-------
INDEX
Air Quality,1,3,26,28,29,32,35,39,41,
54-61
Airport,55,61,91
Aquatic life,1,16,26,33,37,66-69
Archeology,28,31,34,38,40,42,96,102,103,
105-107
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control &
Ecology,50-52,55,57,100
Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission,
67,100,104
Arkansas Natural and Scenic Rivers
System,52,100
Arkansas River,!,12,30,47-54,66,68,91,93
interceptor,3,26,60,87,90
Centralized collection alternative,3,26,
35-43,76,85,90,95
Climatological Elements,54-61
Cluster systems alternatives,3,18,26,
35-43,76,85,90,95
Citizens Advisory Committee,15,88,100
Corps of Engineers,12,65,100
Drinking water,30,33,36,49,53,54
Employment,26,30,34,37,80-83
Endangered species,67
Energy,1-3,16,28,31,34,37,39,42,89-91
Environmental Protection Agency,1,7,
9,11,13,43,44,55,61,99
Environmentally sensitive areas,2,26,
28,30,33,37,39,41,67,68
Fiscal impacts,3,28,39,41,82,86-88
Fish and Wildlife Service,67,100
Floodplain,2,66,67,74,75,82,91
Fourche Creek,48-53,82-91
Bottoms,2,48,51,65-69
Interceptor alternatives,2,3,16,
18,23,32-34,39,40,43,46,53,59,68,
72,83,88,89,95,100
Fourche Treatment plant,!,11,20,76,80
Geologic elements,26,35,45,46
Groundwater.33,36,49,53,54
Land use,3,9,16,28,31,34,38,40,42,91-96
Little Maumelle,2,4,11,12,15,16,18,23,26,
35-38,43,45,46,48,52,59,60,65,66,69,72,
73,76,84,86,90,93,95-97
River,36,48,51,52,54,67,93
Little Rock,!,11,47,49,65,67,68,70,71,76,
81-83,87,93,96
Wastewater Utility,!,7,16,17,20,43,49,
57,99
Matrix,!,28
Metroplan.il,57,99,100
Mound system alternative,3,18,26,35-43,
60,90
National Environmental Policy Act,7,8,9
No action alternative,!,2,17,18,23,29-43,
46,52,58,60,64,67,76,82,84,88,89,95,97
Noise,26,29,32,35,61,64,80
Odor,1-3,16,26,29,32,35,57-6!,80
Population, 12,13,28,59,70-76,86
Prime farmland,67
Problems,12,13
Public health,1-3,13,16,28,31,34,38,40,42,
96,97
Public inconvenience,3,26,28,30,32,37,42,
80,82,84,88
Public participation,7,99,100
Pulaski County,48,55,67,70
Recreation, 28,31,34,37,39,4!,81-87
Scoping,15,100
Screening,15,16
Secondary growth,3,26,61,68-76,80,84,86,
87,91,95
Secondary impacts,2,28,39-42,69,91,95,96
Septic tanks,1-3,12,13,18,23,26,35-47,54,
59,75,76,84-86,90,96,97
Sludge,12,16,17,55,57-59,88
Soils,2,3,23,26,29,32,45,46,60,75,76,84,
85,96
Soil Conservation Service,67
Solid waste,28,31,34,37,88
Terrestrial biota,2,16,26,30,33,36,39,41,
65-69
Threatened species,67
Upgrade liquid treatment alternative,!,4,
18,29-31,43,46,53,59,64,68,83,89,95
User fees,2,3,26,31,34,37,80-87
Water quality,1-3,8,16,26,28,30,32,36,50-
54,68
Water resources,28,29,32,36,39,41,47
Wetlands,2,33,65-69
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981-775-513
------- |