United States Region 6 EPA 906/9-82-009
Environmental Protection 1201 Elm Street August 1982
Agency Dallas TX 75270
Water
vvEPA Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Tulsa (Northside),
Oklahoma
-------
This report is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, US Department
of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
Chapter 1
-------
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) administers Federal funds directed at meeting and
maintaining a "fishable-swimmable" level of water quality in the nation's
waterways by 1983. In the pursuit of this goal, EPA provides financial
assistance to municipalities through the Construction Grants Program.
Public Law 97-117 amended the CWA in December 1981, changing the funding
process of the grants program. Prior to that amendment, EPA grants were
given in three steps: (1) planning; (2) design; and (3) construction, and
usually consisted of up to 75 percent of eligible project cost. As a result
of PL 97-117, grants wll be provided in one step and only 55 percent
funding will be available for eligible, portions of project cost after
October 1, 1984. Design and construction for this project should be within
the October 1984 timeline for 75 percent funding. Funding of 75 percent of
planning costs for this Tulsa 201 Facilities Plan/EIS have been provided by
EPA under grant No. C -40- 1001-01.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The City of Tulsa has been actively involved in EPA's program since the
original enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments PL
92-500 of 1972, with the first 201 Facilities Planning being authorized by
EPA for the Tulsa area in 1973. Subsequent studies including a 208 Area-
wide Water Quality Management Plan have been completed and the results have
led to the development of the Tulsa 201 Facilities Plan/EIS work plan.
EPA approved the fjhas-t phase of this project whem the City of PTulsa
initiated 201 Facilities Planning to consider the addition of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT) to meet wasteload allocations and to study the
possible enlargement of the Northside Facility capacity to accommodate
future growth in the Northside Service Area. I In addition, [the project will
1-1
-------
develop an Area-wide Sludge Management Plan for all of Tulsa's municipal
wastewater plants.
Under the direction of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
Federal agencies must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
all Federal actions which will significantly affect the quality of the
environment. EPA determined the need to produce an EIS for this project and
that in order to expedite the planning process, the EIS would be
"piggybacked" or prepared concurrently with the Facilities Plan.
Final application for funding was made to EPA in July 1980, with final
approval and the commencement of work beginning on October 14, 1980.
ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EIS
The EIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The major issues addressed within this document are as
fol1ows:
Project Alternatives
All feasible project alternatives developed through the Facilities Planning
and piggyback EIS process have been addressed to ensure environmental
soundness. Specific areas of evaluation include:
(1) Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) location and capacity
(2) Wastewater treatment process
(3) Effluent disposal method
(4) Sludge disposal method
(5) Levels of effluent quality that could be achieved through phased
implementation
Primary and Secondary Impacts
All primary and secondary impacts, both beneficial and adverse, that could
result from the proposed action were evaluated as follows:
1-2
-------
Water Resources. The main concerns were surface water, groundwater, and
flood hazards.
Physical Resources. Areas assessed were geology and soils with particular
attention to environmentally significant or prime agricultural lands, and to
air quality and the impacts of meteorological conditions.
Biological Resources. The focus of study was on terrestrial flora and
fauna, and the aquatic flora and fauna, with specific attention to habitat
requirements. Where significant areas such as unusual biological
communities were found, they were noted.
Socloeconomlcs. Areas addressed include population and land use,
transportation,- institutional constraints, and economics.
Cultural Factors. Cultural factors include recreation, aesthetics, noise,
odors and insects, public health and safety, and archaeological and
historical resources.
Other areas of study and issues of specific concern addressed throughout the
preparation of the EIS are identified below:
(1). Impacts on water quality in Bird Creek and the Verdigris River with
respect to their beneficial use designations as warm water
fisheries and potable water supplies as a result of municipal
discharge. Specific attention was given to changes in stream water
quality with phased implementation.
(2) Impacts of industrial wastes on treatment facilities, including
problems with sludge management because of toxic substances and the
passing of toxic pollutants through the treatment facilities and
subsequent discharge to the receiving stream were addressed.
(3) Population projections and disaggregation of those populations by
drainage basin were evaluated with respect* to the appropriate
Federal requirements. In addition, the effects of growth on land
use, employment, and personal income and area economy were also
addressed.
1-3
-------
1.2 PROJECT PLANNING AREA
As discussed previously, this 201 Facilities Plan/EIS project is made up of
two separate but parallel studies for the City of Tulsa. The first entails
an assessment of the Northside WWTP Service Area (located on Figure 1-1) to
determine the potential for future growth and the need for expansion, and to
address the effects of treating the Northside flows to a level of AWT. The
second is to develop an area-wide sludge management plan for Tulsa's three
wastewater treatment plants; Northside, Southside and Haikey Creek (Figure
1-1). This includes the assessment of possible disposal and/or reuse
options for the combined sludges from all three plants, along with the
screening of potential sites within a 30-mi radius of Tulsa.
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
This project is part of an ongoing effort to improve the water quality and
the potential beneficial uses of Bird Creek.
EXISTING CONDITIONS 1981
Presently, there are several municipal effluents being discharged to Bird
Creek. The most significant contributions result from the City of Tulsa's
Flat Rock, Coal Creek, and Northside WWTPs. Previous planning studies have
indicated that the two upstream plants, Flat Rock and Coal Creek, are
outdated and should be closed, and the flow should be diverted to the
Northside Facility. Concurrently with the planning portion of this project,
designs are being developed for expansion of the Northside Facility to
accommodate the flows from these two plants when they are closed in 1985.
This will increase the Northside plant's capacity from 19 MGD to a total of
30 MGD.
NO ACTION 1985
The wastewater management portion of this project would not be implemented
until 1985. By that time the flows to the Northside plant are projected to
match its available capacity of 30 MGD. The purpose of this portion of the
1-4
-------
.- > / - t,-L -f '-w**
xjg&^^'f. ;; .&-' r J ' ^ iCr; r WLSA
:-'"';V-- ' ~: *^ - - - ' - 1;S
^V'-v . Ill;.;-
.^^T-1 --*>' ซf*< , ; ^_ik. .v
J
ฃ 1 ,.. V*- vT-- '?'-- ,-ซซ-i- ' "-v-r-'i..'-. :'
> i "\^i_ :- r " '
|-^--i'. *V,^-| - ^-^"\ -v - .- "rsT^v.
"t;^: T^:t,,uv^j,^^ A\ , ).- Y-;
--s^: ^- v\\,-'^-^ %--- v... -j^w^^
'"x -v-j,- -">v ^: I ^u- -^v-r-^i-
F-'?*"> " ' -:A 'Vr' - - ''~-~" ''C-^f 'V' ""iJ'f
i - |^' ^:'>,fc-.;.'^^" ^T^*^-:.y'Jl^^>lซ
k -|lf^ >%Hซ^ *- -4-^-L~^-^l r-.-yV^f^^s
!. -Ip'^ Tv^ - fe^zl^S^S
* - W*^ ' - - ("^ ' l -~* '".'"-':,! ' S3 ' 5C_-" ' *ซf -j^ff -
C ot? ->' -'-ป-<-ซ.- -*'/--*.&&
TV . "^:-;.,_. ^_ -y;'. '^"^' * rJ^fฃzdgSฃ
SOUTHSIDE
WWTP
- 3>V^SU;S
-<*
:44
;x
HAIKEY CREEKJJV^ ,
WWTP'l _V_
\Kt4mta*
OillFiffld
r f
cT"
Iri
Figure 1-1 Project Planning Area.
1-5
-------
201 Facilities Plan/EIS is to evaluate the potential for future growth in
the Northside service area during the 20-year planning period from 1985 to
2005 and assess the level of expansion required to accommodate this growth.
In addition, the effects of AWT are to be addressed.
Therefore, the No Action alternative would provide for no expansion of the
Northside plant beyond the 1985 projected capacity of 30 MGD, and would
continue the discharge of a secondarily treated effluent. This would not
enable the Northside plant to comply with State Stream Standards or the
Administrative Order. For these reasons, No Action is not considered a
viable option. It is provided only as a point of reference from which the
developed alternatives can be assessed and to establish the net change in
Bird Creek that would occur as a result of the closure of the Flat Rock and
Coal Creek plants.
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the wastewater management plan was to develop alternatives
that would provide the necessary level of expansion of the plant and to
ensure compliance with State Stream Standards.
Because all of the alternatives would provide for the same level of
expansion, the methods of protecting the receiving stream became an
important factor in the alternatives' development. Initially the proposed
alternatives came under two approaches; the first would completely remove
the effluent from the stream returning it to a pre-Northside condition, and
the second would treat the flow to a high degree (advanced wastewater
treatment) prior to discharge. A total of 17 alternatives were developed
and are broken down as follows: two alternatives would transfer the
effluent to the Arkansas River, which maintains a greater assimilative
capacity than Bird Creek; two alternatives would remove the effluent using
it for agricultural land application; three alternatives would remove the
effluent for industrial reuse; and the remaining ten alternatives consist of
various process trains designed to achieve AWT.
1-6
-------
The initial screening process was conducted on the basis of engineering and
environmental criteria. The purpose was to narrow and select the four most
viable alternatives for more detailed evaluation.
The four alternatives included: (1) Out-of-Basin Transfer, with discharge
to the Arkansas River, (2) the modification of the existing plant with
continued use of trickling filters to achieve AWT, (3) the construction of
an activated sludge train employing breakpoint chlorination to provide
seasonal ammonia removal (AWT), and (4) the construction of an activated
sludge train, including biological filtration (AWT). A detailed
environmental evaluation of each of the alternatives is provided in
Chapter 5.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on detailed engineering and environmental analysis followed by review
and comment from City Staff and the Public Advisory Committee (PAC), the AWT
process train employing biological filtration with activated sludge was
selected as the most cost-effective alternative. This alternative was
chosen over the alternative with the least present worth (AWT with
breakpoint chlorination) because of environmental and health concerns
associated with the use of highly reactive chemicals in the latter.
Phased Implementation
Due to funding constraints associated with a project of this size, a method
of phasing or staged construction of the preferred alternative was proposed
and recommended by the City and adopted by the PAC during the June 1, 1982
PAC meeting. This approach would allow for funds, as they become available,
to be applied to the more critical areas of the wastewater and sludge
management portions of the project. In addition, tbe phasing plan would
allow the existing plant to be operated in such a way that progressive
levels of improvement in water quality can be maintained and continued with
subsequent expansions and additions of AWT unit processes.
1-7
-------
RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN
The purpose of the Residuals Solids Management portion of the Facility Plan
and EIS is to address the overall area-wide sludge processing, handling, and
disposal or reuse. The three regional wastewater treatment plants are the
Northside, Southside, and Haikey Creek plants shown on Figure 1-1. The
alternative development, selection, and elimination are summarized below.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Currently, sludge from the three treatment plants is stored separately at
each plant. A No Action alternative would mean a continuation of the
present stockpiling of sewage sludge. This is not considered a viable
alternative since both Federal and State laws require permitted disposal of
solid waste.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT
There were a number of variables or components involved in the development
of Residuals Solids Management alternatives. These included processing,
transportation, and disposal/reuse methods and sites for disposal. The
different types of processing, transportation and disposal were put together
in various combinations and reduced in number through the use of engineering
factors such as reliability and cost (see Facilities Plan). Site
evaluations were also conducted because most of the alternatives required a
disposal or reuse site except for the agricultural reuse and marketing/
giveaway alternatives.
Beneficial reuse alternatives were heavily favored by the Public Advisory
Committee (PAC). Some form of beneficial reuse such as agricultural
utilization, marketing, giveaway/sale or active strip*mine reclamation was
considered to be the primary alternative. However, the inherent
fluctuations of market conditions was also recognized, so backup options
were developed. The sites for backup alternatives were identified through
the screening of areas within a 30-mi radius of Tulsa based on engineering
and environmental factors. As the components and sites were eliminated,
1-8
-------
revised, and refined, more detailed information was collected. Finally, the
method and disposal/reuse sites that had survived the engineering and
environmental evaluations were combined and assessed as residuals solids
management alternatives. Again, these plans all included beneficial reuse
or marketing in some form, with the main variable being the type and site
for a "fail-safe" or backup disposal/reuse option.
The seven resulting alternatives were then screened environmentally based on
water resources and physical resources factors. Subsequently, two
alternatives were eliminated and one was revised. These changes were due to
potential nitrate contamination of potable water supplies at one particular
site involved in all three alternatives.
The five remaining alternatives were those that were carried through for
more detailed assessment and comparison to determine the preferred
alternative. These combined the various disposal/reuse methods of
landfill ing, dedicated land disposal, abandoned mine land reclamation, and
marketing options with a number of sites and transportation methods. These
five alternatives were analyzed in three main phases.
The first was a comparison of sludge to commercial fertilizer to determine
any differences in potential environmental impacts. This was the primary
assessment of the marketing alternative, in that sludge would essentially be
replacing commercial fertilizer in any of the marketing options. The second
phase was a generic evaluation of the other methods; landfill ing, dedicated
land disposal and abandoned strip mine reclamation. Finally, the sites were
assessed in terms of all the environmental parameters of water resources,
physical resources, socioeconomics and cultural factors. The generic and
site assessments were then combined to determine the most suitable
alternative(s).
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative was selected by the applicant based on input from
the Public Advisory Committee (PAC), Federal, State, and local agencies. It
is a combination of two primary alternatives. Marketing, with no specified
1-9
-------
type, is the long-term preferred method of residuals solids reuse. It may
be agricultural or active strip mine utilization, or give away/sale. Any of
the methods would follow appropriate precautions and regulations, but the
method would depend primarily on local market availability.
Because marketing is not considered "fail-safe", a backup alternative was
selected for the initial stages of the sludge management program and for use
in the event that the market for the sludge is not steady or reliable. The
backup alternative selected was reclamation of an area of abandoned strip
mines northeast of Tulsa. The combined alternative is considered the most
cost-effective alternative because it is the least present worth cost with
no major environmental problems.
The site is a large area of orphaned strip mines about 4 mi northeast of the
town of Claremore. Out of approximately 10,000 acres, about 130 acres plus
a buffer would be required for the reclamation operation. The shaley (clay)
spoil material would be worked and layered in the bottoms of the trenches to
provide a sealer similar to a commercial liner. Sludge would then be
layered alternately with the spoil material, with 2 ft of dried (40 percent)
sludge to 1 ft of spoil material until the land is relatively level.
Another layer of spoil material could be layered on top of this to provide a
cap. Finally, a cover of mixed spoil and sludge at around 50 tons per acre
dry sludge would be placed on top, followed by final grading and reseeding.
The final layer provides nutrients for revegetation in a one-time
application adjusted so that site life cadmium limitations for food chain
crops are not exceeded.
The abandoned strip mines at R-3 would be used as a backup to a marketing
plan. If for some reason the above site cannot be utilized, other strip
mine sites would be examined. Should all reclamation sites be
unimplementable, codisposal at a privately-owned mtmicipal solid waste
landfill would be considered next, followed by potential landfill sites not
on prime farmland in Tulsa County. As a last resort, the landfill site on
Class 1 Mason soils in Okmulgee County would be considered.
1-10
-------
1.3 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, EPA maintains three available
options in its execution of the Construction Grants Program. These options
are detailed in Chapter 5, but in general include: the award of grant funds
for the design and construction of the grantee's preferred alternative; the
awarding of funds based on a modified alternative or approach to the
project's implementation; or denial of all grant funds for the project.
1.4 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHERS
The State of Oklahoma maintains a funding program for public works projects.
Grants are awarded based on a priority system established by the State. The
availability of these funds has been taken into account through the phasing
approach to implementation.
Presently, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board is in the process of reviewing
the State's Water Quality Standards. Regulations under evaluation include
stream classification for beneficial uses, numerical limitations on water
quality parameters, and assessments of stream classifications as
intermittent or perennial. In addition, the State Department of Health has
just revised its solid waste regulations and, as of July 1982, will require
permitting of any disposal facilities.
1-11
-------
Chapter 2
-------
CHAPTER 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.2 PROJECT PLANNING AREA 1-4
1.3 ALTERNATIVES TO EPA 1-11
1.4 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHERS 1-11
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2-1
LIST OF FIGURES 2-5
LIST OF TABLES 2-7
3 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND NEED 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND RESULTING IN THE PROPOSED ACTION 3-1
Wastewater Management Plan 3-1
Residuals Solids Management 3-5
3.2 EPA LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY 3-6
Administrative Order 3-6
Permit Status 3-6
Compliance Schedule 3-7
Clean Water Act (CWA) 3-8
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3-9
3.3 EXISTING FACILITIES 3-10
Wastewater Treatment at the Northside Plant 3-10
Closure of the Flat Rock and Coal Creek
PI ants 3-10
Interim Expansion of Northside 3-10
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Evaluation 3-12
Residuals Management Plan 3-12
Northside WWTP Sludge 3-12
Southside WWTP Sludge 3-13
Haikey Creek WWTP Sludge 3-13
Industrial Pretreatment Program 3-14
3.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT AND EIS 3-14
Development of a Wastewater Management .Plan 3-14
Development of an Area-wide Sludge Management
PI an 3-15
2-1
-------
CHAPTER 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER PAGE
4 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT 4-1
Wastewater Management Plan 4-1
Existing Conditions 1981 4-2
No Action 1985.... 4-2
Development of Preliminary Management
Al ternati ves 4-4
Screening of Preliminary Alternatives 4-5
Selection of Alternatives for Further
Eval uation 4-12
Presentation of the Selected Alternatives 4-13
Description of the Preferred Alternative 4-13
Residuals Solids Management Plan 4-29
Existing Conditions and No Action
Al ternative 4-29
Development of Preliminary Alternatives 4-31
Screening of Preliminary Alternatives 4-33
Selection of Alternatives for Further
Eval uation 4-40
Presentation of the Selected Alternatives 4-41
Description of the Preferred Alternative 4-42
4.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA 4-47
Grant Funding 4-47
Provide Step 3 Grant Funding 4-47
Provide Funds for Modified Plan 4-48
Deny Grant Funds 4-48
5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
BY THE APPLICANT 5-1
Water Resources 5-2
Existing Conditions 5-2
No Action 5-17
Out-of-Basin Transfer MA-1 5-21
AWT Alternative MA-10 5-23
AWT Al ternative MA-13 5-25
AWT Alternative MA-16 5-27
Physical Resources 5-28
Existing Conditions and No Action 5-28
Out-of-Basin Transfer MA-1 5-36
AWT Alternatives MA-10, MA-13, MA-16 5-39
2-2
-------
CHAPTER 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER PAGE
Biological Resources 5-40
Existing Conditions 5-40
No Action 5-46
Out-of-Basin Transfer MA-1 5-47
AWT Alternatives MA-10, MA-13, MA-16 5-48
Soci ฉeconomics 5-48
Existing Conditions 5-49
No Action 5-55
Alternatives MA-1, MA-10, MA-13, MA-16 5-61
Cultural Factors 5-65
Existing Conditions 5-65
No Action 5-68
Alternatives MA-1, MA-10, MA-13, MA-16 5-69
Summary Evaluation 5-72
5.2 RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT 5-79
Regul atory Update 5-79
No Action Alternative 5-81
Alternative RA-1 5-83
Water Resources 5-88
Physical Resources 5-90
Biological Resources 5-94
Socioeconomics 5-95
Cultural Factors 5-97
Alternative RA-3 5-100
Water Resources 5-103
Physical Resources 5-104
Biological Resources 5-105
Socioeconomics 5-106
Cul tural Factors 5-107
Alternative RA-5 5-109
Water Resources 5-112
Physical Resources 5-112
Socioeconomics 5-112
Alternative RA-6 5-113
Water Resources 5-118
Physical Resources 5-119
Biological Resources 5-121
Socioeconomics 5-122
Cul tural Factors 5-123
Alternative RA-7 5-124
Water Resources 5-125
Physical Resources 5-129
Biological Resources 5-130
2-3
-------
CHAPTER 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (concluded)
CHAPTER PAGE
Socioeconomics 5-131
Cultural Factors 5-133
5.3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 5-134
5.4 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 5-135
5.5 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA 5-139
5.6 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHERS 5-139
6 COORDINATION (Including EIS Mailing List) 6-1
6.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES 6-1
Information Distribution 6-1
Publ ic Input 6-4
Issues and Comments 6-7
Responses by the Water and Sewer Department 6-9
Recommended Final Alternatives 6-10
7 LIST OF PREPARERS.... 7-1
8 LITERATURE CITED AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 8-1
8.1 LITERATURE CITED 8-1
8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY 8-3
9 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 9-1
CONVERSION TABLE
APPENDIX
INDEX
2-4
-------
Chapter 3
-------
CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED
3.1 BACKGROUND RESULTING IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section provides a brief history of the water quality and facilities
planning for the City of Tulsa which has led to the current project. This
planning process, the Northside Facilities Plan and the Piggyback EIS, are
made up of two separate but parallel studies. These studies are designed to
develop, evaluate, and select a preferred alternative for wastewater
treatment and residuals solids management for the Tulsa area (see Regional
Location Map, Figure 3-1).
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
This assessment and previous studies are part of an ongoing process, the
goals of which are to meet and maintain a level of water quality in
receiving streams described as "fishable-swimmable", by 1983, as mandated by
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500.
Since the initiation of PL 92-500, the City of Tulsa has been actively
involved in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs to reach
this goal. During the initial 201 Facilities Planning studies, efforts were
directed toward updating municipal wastewater treatment plants to meet Water
Quality Standards and to obtain effluent limitations as described in the
State of Oklahoma 303e Plan. As the program grew and states developed more
specific standards, Section 208 planning activities were initiated to
provide area-wide water quality management plans. The history of Tulsa's
involvement in this program and those events that took place leading to the
present project are outlined below.
In 1973, EPA authorized the Regional Metropolitan Utility Authority (RMUA)
to conduct 201 Facility Planning in the Tulsa area. The final report was
published in December 1975, with three primary recommendations regarding the
Northslope service area: (1) expand the Northside Facility by 11 M6D and
treat to a secondary level; (2) close the two old wastewater treatment
3-1
-------
=S
^ * \^jf -J -ซ ~' ^ ปป 'If <-JF 7^>i 1 ff.
ฃ&/{.:*% n rป^3^T^
'Mฑl^ -<-^'. i ?*- S- ^.'-7i -V-
-."^^ ..'".-.! '': ^ :
. OSAGC '. - TaDWN RESERVATION j
-\ c. "
HOafM* co \' ' .
m-v/--1
u't- / T !
OH4-rVv;: --^*^/ ^ <^-/-V-^J v.-^ - - J T t-ปJJ? ปis;;- \' ป -
L-v~^:;^ 2^ฃ:'?rnr
Miles
30 MILE RADIUS
Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map.
3-2
-------
plants (Flat Rock and Coal Creek) upstream of the Northside facility; and
(3) divert the wastewater flow from Flat Rock and Coal Creek plants to the
Northside plant and provide another expansion at Northside to accommodate
this flow and treat it to a secondary level.
The first recommendation was implemented and finally completed in 1979,
bringing the Northside capacity to 19 MGD. The remaining two RMUA 201 Plan
recommendations for the Northslope were carried through for further study
under a new grant.
The Indian Nations Council of Governments was designated as the 208 planning
agency. The 208 study proceeded for two years with the INGOG 208 Area-wide
Water Quality Management Plan being completed in May 1978 and granted
conditional approval by EPA in November 1978.
Concurrently, the 1976 Oklahoma Water Quality Standards were in review and
were finally promulgated and published in 1979. EPA Region 6 approved the
1979 standards in September 1980 with the understanding that the next
version would consider several points. Specifically, they should consider
the Intermittent Stream Policy with respect to the results of Advanced
Secondary Treatment/Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AST/AWT) studies, and
should incorporate additional numerical criteria for toxic pollutants based
on 208 studies and other program outputs which could become available.
Results of the 208 study supported the original RMUA 201 recommendation for
the abandonment of the two old plants and the expansion of Northside (to 30
MGD) to treat these flows. In addition, the 20R Basin Plan provided
waste!oad allocations and effluent limitations for the City of Tulsa
wastewater treatment plants discharging to Bird Creek. EPA approved this
first phase with the stipulation that the City initiate an update of the
previous 201 Facilities Planning which would consider the addition of AWT to
meet these wasteload allocations and study the possible enlargement of the
Northside Facility capacity to accommodate future growth in the Northside
service area (Figure 3-2). EPA also required that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) be prepared to assess the impacts of expansion and addition
of AWT before future projects would be approved.
3-3
-------
r->
.. /
^:S^ta
Jkv^lpK
> ^~^~-~f'f-, - ..'ซr'- \^,
- t- v* f~ ^
~^T"':-- ป-*-- *'.-
-: - ซ&-, ป ซ
r
i\
% - %;--
.." *ฃ-".-- ' '- - ./"" - '-"' :ป, S^ .A.HI^T
Cemetery-?
RtSฃRvซI,ON
ซ.--U.. -r : 7
I ' '. ' " ^- '
<1> *
^v.
:l >-.
J--,'
.1,.. :> -:,:L
X-
i|3 - " '-
i 8:5 .
NORTH3IDE
(WWTP +--
^
^
^
iCoal^r^
Cc
i SERVICE
:z"vTฃ~K
f
-S^4ri7-^is-,.- '--: ^-^L^HtV~M^oj
s^-.-^^.iv:-/-V^ .', .^i ^rJ-1- - , - --' '
^V-VrT xalW-ป.- 1' V-S~*v' - >--- '*>
tBJJi^y*:-:' 4 I rVJVTT-Tj/V-ir**^ ~L_^.^
TS^n'i \ ' S ' ^ ' * -^- ^i ^Z^^fr
,_-.." >
r-' \ i ..
fc-isfK-fc",:
^*-
t-_
TtSi --
^
,^--
S
i
s
-r^_-3
:* - H
_j^T.i rj
_ป
v>^
AREA 'L^
BOUNDARY
:''".'?"'-.. ^ :'r
- :lฃr
_ .ซ- -. e '! -
T-
5^
- *"^Sfl
Tut;v_ซxซซ'>ซซi5<'..
.^2-
/^v^
ONWULOfC GO -
^-^'
f' "i^
SCALE
0 5 10
Miles
Figure 3-2 Tulsa Northside Service Area.
3-4
-------
In August 1979, the 201/EIS Public Advisory Committee was established in
accordance with the new public participation regulations to participate in
the 201 Facilities Planning process. To expedite the process the EIS would
be "piggybacked" or performed concurrently with the Facility Planning.
Final application for funding was made to EPA in July 1980, with final
approval on this project's scope of services and the commencement of work
beginning on October 14, 1980.
RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT
The Residuals Solids Management Plan is a parallel but separate part of this
project and was also under development during the same relative timeframe as
the wastewater management plan.
Based on recommendations made by the 208 Plan, the Tulsa City-County Health
Department in a letter of September 1978, to the City of Tulsa expressed
concern over the practice of give away of municipal sludges when the end use
is unknown. This was directed specifically at the Northside Facility due to
the high level of cadmium in its sludge. At that time no specific
regulations existed which would prohibit this practice, but because of the
public health issues involved the City suspended such actions at the
Northside Facility, as well as the Southside and Haikey Creek plants. Since
these events left the City without an approved sludge disposal plan, the
development of a Area-wide Sludge Management Plan was made a part of the
present facilities planning and piggyback EIS process.
EPA developed preproposal draft regulations on the distribution and
marketing of sewage sludge products which were to be published in late 1981
in the Federal Register. Based on communications with the EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, in Washington, D.C., these regulations have been indefinitely
postponed. However, they were used as guidelines through the course of this
study.
3-5
-------
3.2 EPA LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
The initiation of this project as well as prior studies that led to the
development of this EIS are partially dependent upon the laws, regulations,
and grant programs of the Federal government. More specific to this project
are the congressional mandates known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
As a result of the events discussed above, permits were issued for the
Northside, Flat Rock, and Coal Creek Plants, with interim effluent
limitations and a schedule of compliance for specific activities.
PERMIT STATUS
The interim National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
limitations for Northside, Flat Rock and Coal Creek wastewater treatment
plants are as follows:
Interim Permit Limitations
Plant Permit
Effluent Characteristic
Northside Plant Biochemical Oxygen
(OK0026221)
Demand (5-day BOD)
Suspended Solids (SS)
Fecal Coliform
(Number/100 ml)
Coal Creek Plant BODt
(OK0026204)
Flat Rock Plant
(OK0026212)
SS
Fecal Coliform
BOD5
SS
Fecal Coliform
30-day Avg.
20 mg/1
30 mg/1
200
50 mg/1
7-day Avg.
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
400
75 mg/1
50 mg/1
1 x 106
60 mg/1
80 mg/1
1 A u 1 f\ฎ
75 mg/l
1 x 106
90 mg/1
100 mg/1
1 f\ 1 ft
3-6
-------
The most current wasteload allocations for the Tulsa Northside Wastewater
Treatment Plant are those contained in the INCOG 208 Area-wide Water Quality
Management Plan as updated, and are the focal point of this project.
Current wasteload allocations/effluent limitations for the Northside Plant
discharge to Bird Creek are:
Interim Effluent Limitation
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.): 5 mg/1
BOD5: 5 mg/1
TSS: 5 mg/1
Total NH3: 3 mg/1
Fecal Coliform Bacteria: 200 #/100 ml
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
The schedule of compliance provided for in the original Administrative Order
specified December 1, 1980 for the completion of the new Facilities Plan.
EPA has amended the original Administrative Order. On November 26, 1982,
the City requested a revised Administrative Order, the recommended dates,
which reflect the present project schedule, are as follows:
1. Submit plans and specifications to the State (Step 2 of Grant
number C-400784-20, expansion of the Northside Plant) by September
30, 1981.
2. Submit Pre-draft EIS to EPA for review by June 3, 1982.
3. Submit Draft EIS for publication and the Federal Register (Step 1
of Grant Number C-40-1001-01) by July 2, 1982.
4. Submit complete Facilities Plan to the State and allow public
access to EIS (Step 1 of Grant Number C-401001-01) by July 21,
1982.
5. Submit final Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) report to the State (Step 1
of Grant Number C-40-1001-01 and study of the alternative for
Advanced Waste Water Treatment, AWT, at the Northside Plant) by
July 22, 1982.
3-7
-------
6. Facilities Plan and EIS Public Hearing (Step 1 of Grant Number
C-40-1001-01) on September 22, 1982.
7. Submit Response to Review Comments to EPA Pre-final EIS by October
12, 1982.
8. Submit Response to Review Comments Final EIS for Printing (Step 1
of Grant Number C-40-1001-01) by November 10, 1982.
9. Submit Final Facilities Plan Response to Review Comments to the
State (Step 1 of Grant Number C-40-1001-01) by December 1, 1982.
10. Submit Step 3 application to the State (Grant Number C-401001-10)
by February 1, 1983.
11. Submit progress reports to the Water Division and Enforcement
Division of the EPA by March 1, 1981; June 1, 1981; September 1,
1981; December 1, 1981; March 1,ป1982; and June 1, 1982.
The request for revision of the Administrative Order to reflect the current
project schedule is still pending. The effluent limitations and the
schedule set forth in the Administrative Order were issued under the
authority granted in Section 309 of the Clean Water Act.
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
In 1972 Congress enacted Public Law 92-500, which was revised in 1977 under
Public Law 95-217. The purpose of this law was to correct the nation's
greatest source of water pollution, i.e., municipal sewage. Public Law
92-500 provided a Federal assistance program under the direction of EPA,
which made as much as 75 percent of funding available to state and local
governments in order to clean up the nation's waterways. Grants were
generally provided in three steps; planning, design and construction. A
permitting system was developed as a part of this action which specified the
level of water quality for wastewater dischargers and provided a compliance
requirement for facilities that underwent this planning process. This
regulatory requirement comes under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) which is referred to as the facilities' NPDES
permit.
3-8
-------
Public Law 95-217 encouraged the use of innovative technologies for
wastewater reuse, energy conservation and achievements of high levels of
treatment, and provided greater Federal assistance for doing so.
More recently (1981), Congress revised the CWA with Public Law 97-117 which
provides for a one-step construction grant process and, after October 1,
1984, reduces the current 75 percent level of Federal financial support to
55 percent.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
NEPA is Public Law 91-190, which was enacted in 1969. As set forth in
Section 101(b) of NEPA for Federally funded action there are specific
environmental objectives which direct the approach to an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). These are the study of water, physical and
biological resources, socioeconomics, and cultural factors.
NEPA also provides that an EIS be prepared by Federal agencies proposing a
major action that might significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. The EIS must provide information to be used in Federal
decision-making. Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA requires that the EIS consider:
t "the environmental impact of the proposed action;
any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented;
alternatives to the proposed action;
the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment
and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and
any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which
would be involved due to the implementation of the proposed action."
This EIS was prepared under the "piggyback" method as defined in EPA Program
Requirements Memorandum, PRM 75-31 (September 1975). Utilizing this
approach, EIS preparation has paralleled the development of the Facilities
Plans for both the wastewater management alternatives and the residuals
3-9
-------
solids management alternatives to ensure that the overall plan and its
selected alternatives will be both cost-effective and environmentally sound.
3.3 EXISTING FACILITIES
This 201 Facilities Plan and EIS are made up of two separate but parallel
studies (Figure 3-3) that entail an abandonment, the combination, and joint
operation of several facilities in the Tulsa area as described below.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT THE NORTHSIDE PLANT
As discussed previously there have been a series of 208 and Water Quality
Management studies conducted in the Tulsa area over the past several years.
The conclusions and recommendations made during those evaluations led to the
development of the work plan for this project. Those facilities that are
involved in this portion of the project are discussed below.
CLOSURE OF THE FLAT ROCK AND COAL CREEK PLANTS
Other than the Northside Plant the two largest municipal dischargers to Bird
Creek are the Tulsa Flat Rock Plant, which is a 6 MGD bio-sorption modified
activated sludge plant, and the Coal Creek Plant, which is a 5 MGD trickling
filter plant. Based on the evaluations of both the 201 RMUA and 208 INCOG
studies, these two plants are outdated and cannot be upgraded cost-
effectively. Therefore, these two plants are to be abandoned and the flows
treated to a secondary level at an 11 MGD expansion at the Northside
Facility specifically designed for this purpose. This expansion is about to
begin construction and is expected to be on-line by 1985.
INTERIM EXPANSION OF NORTHSIDE
The Northside Plant was originally designed as an 11 MGD two-stage trickling
filter plant. As Tulsa grew so did the flow to the Northside Plant. In
1979, the first 11 MGD activated sludge expansion came on-line and the
trickling filter plant was aerated to 8 MGD by the Oklahoma State Department
of Health (OSDH). This included the addition of disinfection processes.
3-10
-------
TULSA 201
FACILITY PLAN/EIS
I
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Northside WWTP
I
AREA-WIDE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Northaide WWTP
Southside WWTP
Haikey Creek
DEVELOPf
SCREEN AL'
\
i
EVALI
ALTERN
i
i
4ENT AND
FERNATIVES
JATE
ATIVES
i
EVALUATE UNIT
PROCESSES
^
DEVELOP 17
TREATMENT TRAINS
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
PROCESS
il
t
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
eOut-of-Basin Transfer
e Advanced Wastewater
Treatment
SITE
SUITABILITY
STUDIES
..J-^
I
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
OPTIONS
Marketing
e Reclamation
e Landfill
e Dedicated Land
Disposal
I |
i
1
ENGINEERING & COST
EFFECTIVENESS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATIONS
I
SELECTION OF
ALTERNATIVE
PREFERRED WASTEWATER
AND RESIDUALS
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Figure 3-3 Overview: Project Flow Chart.
3-11
-------
This brought the Northside Plant up to a secondary municipal wastewater
treatment plant designed for 19 MGD. In this study this is considered as
the 1981 existing conditions. In 1985, the expanded 30 MGD Northside
Facility will be the base conditions from which this project is conducted.
INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I) EVALUATION
As a part of an ongoing effort to improve the service area collection system
and wastewater treatment process in Tulsa, an Infi"1 tration/Inflow (I/I)
evaluation of the Northside Plant's collection system is being conducted to
determine the degree and effect of storm water and groundwater intrusion.
The next step is the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) which will verify
the cost-effectiveness of I/I reductions, followed by sewer system
rehabilitation where necessary. The information fron this study will be
available in portions of the amended Facilities Plan document.
RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN
While the wastewater treatment alternatives involve only Tulsa's Northside
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the residuals solids portion of the EIS includes
area-wide residuals solids disposal for sludge from the Northside,
Southside, and Haikey Creek wastewater treatment plants (WWTP's). Sludges
from each of the plants have quantities and qualities that are based on the
plant's specific treatment processes and service area characteristics.
Current disposal methods are also separate and different for each of the
three plants. These are described briefly below.
NORTHSIDE WWTP SLUDGE
Currently, primary and trickling filter sludges are pumped to two gravity
thickeners prior to anaerobic digestion. Waste activated sludge is
aerobically digested; however, it will be thickened in a dissolved-air
flotation (DAF) thickener and pumped to two new anaerobic digesters for
stabilization when the expansion presently under design is complete.
3-12
-------
The digested sludge is then pumped to four onsite storage lagoons, where it
is allowed to thicken. The supernatant is decanted back to the treatment
works, while the sludge solids are periodically removed from the lagoons and
disposed of by surface spreading and plowing into the City-owned land north
of the treatment plant (see Facilities Plan).
Presently, about 5-10 dry tons per day (tpd) of digested sludge are produced
at the Northside WWTP. This will increase to 11.1 dry tpd after the
expansion. The current sludge quality at Northside is heavily influenced by
industrial wastes, particularly the heavy metal cadmium (Cd). Sludge
characteristics are discussed further in later sections.
SOUTHSIDE WWTP SLUDGE
At the Southside plant, primary sludge is gravity thickened and then
anaerobically digested. The waste activated sludge is aerobically digested.
The sludges are then pumped to storage lagoons about 2 mi from the plant.
These lagoons allow sufficient storage for several years, so no final
disposal method presently exists (see Facilities Plan).
Currently, 5-20 dry tpd of sludge are produced at the Southside WWTP. The
sludge quality, while better than Northside's, is mainly degraded by
industrial discharges and is moderately high in cadmium.
HAIKEY CREEK WWTP SLUDGE
The Haikey Creek plant is a high-purity oxygen activated sludge plant, and
does not currently have grit removal or primary clarification. The waste
sludge (about 3-5 tpd) is aerobically digested ir. high purity oxygen
digesters and then dewatered on sand drying beds or stored in a lagoon. The
dried sludge from the sand drying beds is spread on the surface of the
ground at the treatment plant site. The liquid sludge from the lagoons is
removed and injected on the plant site (see Facilities Plan). The Haikey
Creek WWTP produces a very good quality sludge, with low contaminant levels.
3-13
-------
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
The purpose of this program is to conduct qualitative evaluations of
pollutants that enter the municipal system through industrial sources.
Ultimately, the intent is to conduct a joint effort between the City and
industry through pretreatment to improve the quality of the municipal
sludges for enhancement of their reuse potential.
3.4 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT AND EIS
As a part of the ongoing process started by the Clean Water Act, EPA
initiated this 201 (Phase II, Step I) Facilities Planning/EIS project. The
course of action is presented below.
DEVELOPMENT OF A WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The 1976 Oklahoma Water Quality Standards have been revised and adopted by
the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, February 1979. Because Bird Creek is
classified as a perennial stream, it is required to meet the numerical water
quality limits as designated by its classification, except when the flow is
less than the 7-day, 2-year low flow value. In addition, when a perennial
stream receives loadings of oxygen demanding substances, such as a municipal
wastewater, allowable limits for these discharges are set based on attaining
an in-stream dissolved oxygen (D.O.) of 5 mg/1.
In order to meet this numerical limitation and beneficial use designation
for Bird Creek, the 208 Planning Agency recommended stringent waste!oad
allocations for the Northside Facility based on available information. To
achieve these limitations the Northside Facility is to employ a method of
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) capable of producing an effluent quality
of 5 mg/1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5 mg/1 suspended solids and 3 mg/1
ammonia-nitrogen.
It was based on the above recommendation that EPA issued the original
Administrative Order directed at the assessment of capacity requirements for
Northside and the implementation of AWT. This project was developed to
3-14
-------
evaluate the potential future growth in the Northside service area and
population projections through the planning period 1985-2005. In addition,
several methods designed to meet State Stream Standards were to be
developed, including such methods as agricultural land application and
out-of-basin transfer as well as AWT.
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA-WIDE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PLAN
As a result of 208 recommendations, the Tulsa City-County Health Department
and the City of Tulsa stopped the practice of sludge give away. No cohesive
sludge management plan was developed subsequently. Presently, the sludge is
stockpiled, rather than being disposed of or reused, until the results of
this study are completed.
By 1985, the total projected quantity of sludge from Tulsa's three treatment
plants will be about 35 dry tpd. By the end of the planning period in 2005,
with the expansion of Northside, production would reach about 45 dry tpd.
The purpose of the area-wide sludge management plan is to develop options
for the disposal and/or reuse of the sludge. It must be compatible with all
three plants and take into account their differences as well as the
potential changes that will result from the ongoing industrial pretreatment
program.
3-15
-------
Chapter 4
-------
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The text of this section provides a description and evaluation of
alternatives for both the Tulsa Northside Wastewater Management Plan and the
Area-wide Residuals Solids Management Plan. These plans represent separate
but parallel studies designed to produce a series of alternatives for each
Management Plan that could be screened down to a smaller group of compatible
alternatives. The No Action alternative is discussed as a point of
reference from which the alternatives for each plan are evaluated. This
section also considers the development of the alternatives, including an
evaluation and presentation of those that are eliminated from further study
and the reasons for which they are eliminated. The remaining alternatives
are carried through more detailed evaluation in the subsequent sections of
this document. Also discussed are the options available to EPA,
particularly with respect to pro.iect funding, and the impacts these could
have on the Grantee.
General construction impacts are summarized at the end of Chapter 5. These
impacts are rather generic in that they may apply to nearly any of the
construction related activities involved in wastewater or residuals
management.
4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
This section of the EIS summarizes the development, screening and assessment
of alternatives for wastewater management. Section 5.1, "Environmental
Consequences of the Wastewater Management Plan Alternatives", provides a
detailed environmental assessment of the four final alternatives, which are
only summarized here. The alternative development, selection and
elimination is described in the following sequence in this section:
o Existing Conditions 1981
o No Action 1985
4-1
-------
o Development of Preliminary Alternatives
o Screening of Alternatives
o Selection of Alternatives for Further Evaluation
o Presentation of Selected Alternatives
o Description of the Preferred Alternative
This Facilities Plan and EIS are a part of an ongoing effort to upgrade and
improve the quality of effluent being discharged from the Northside WWTP
(see Figure 4-1) to the receiving stream, Bird Creek. This portion of the
project will not be implemented until 1985. The stream is in a state of
progressive improvement and the data base for the project will change as
outlined below.
EXISTING CONDITIONS 1981
Since the original 208 sampling survey of 1976, the Northside Plant has
undergone an 11 MGD expansion along with the inclusion of disinfection
(1979). In addition to the Northside Plant discharge, several other
municipal point source contributions are located along the portion of the
stream under evaluation. The most significant discharges are from the Tulsa
Flat Rock and Coal Creek plants, which are located above the Northside Plant
and contribute approximately 11 MGD of treated municipal wastewater to Bird
Creek. Because of the expansion and disinfection at Northside and the
operational improvements at all three plants, a new -sampling survey was
conducted in 1981 by INCOG. The new data indicated a substantial
improvement in the stream's water quality since the original study and it is
this data that provides the basis from which the water quality impact
evaluations were assessed. In terms of the socioeconomics, or the
assessment of the effects on the service area, historical trends from 1970
through 1981 are established and used as a guide for future projections.
NO ACTION 1985
The No Action evaluation for this project is not considered a viable
alternative. As discussed previously, the City of Tulsa is under an
4-2
-------
NORTHSIDE WWTP
. - -,
**Z ' V .--'X _T '-..'- c'kZx^i55*9'.<***J;Tl* J^ \
- K ll^CS^P^::^
Figure 4-1 Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant Location.
4-3
-------
Administrative Order to achieve a specified effluent limitation that enables
Bird Creek to meet the present State Stream Standards of 5 mg/1 Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) for streams classified as warm water fisheries. No Action, or
no project, would result in the discharge of secondarily treated effluent
which would prevent the receiving stream from meeting these limitations.
In this study, No Action will represent the conditions expected to occur in
1985, when the project is expected to be implemented. The most significant
change in terms of water quality will be the closure of the two upstream
plants, Flat Rock and Coal Creek. Their flows (11 MGD) will be conveyed to
the Northside Plant where they will be treated to a secondary level in an
additional 11 MGD expansion that is to be on-line by 1985. The net result
will be the return of the approximately 7 mi of Bird Creek upstream of the
Northside Plant to a more natural condition. From a socioeconomic
standpoint, however, no new capacity will be provided at the plant to
accommodate future growth in the service area. This will br^ng the total
plant flow to 30 MGD.
DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
The Wastewater Management Alternatives developed by the Facilities Plan
Engineer, CH2M Hill, are divided into two distinctly separate approaches.
They are designed to ensure compliance with the beneficial use criteria and
State Stream Standards designated for Bird Creek.
The first approach is to remove the flow contributed by the Northside
Facility and either transport it out of the Bird Creek watershed to a river
with greater flow and assimilative capacity, such as the Arkansas River, or
to make the effluent available for industrial reuse or land application.
The second approach calls for a high degree of treatment of the wastewater
prior to discharge to Bird and Mingo creeks. The level of effluent quality
as required by the Administration Order is 5 mg/1 BOD, 5 mg/1 SS, and 3 mg/1
NH3-N, which is accomplished through a system of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment (AWT).
4-4
-------
Under these two approaches, a total of 17 Wastewater Management Alternatives
were developed for the initial screening process. Seven of these would
remove the flow from Bird and Mingo creeks, and ten would treat the flow to
a high degree prior to discharge.
SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
A detailed environmental evaluation of the proposed wastewater management
alternatives is not practical at this level because a total of 17
alternatives are under consideration. In this initial screening process,
the evaluation is limited to available data and the inherent impacts of
operating the overall process trains. Because of the two approaches, many
of the potential impacts as well as mitigation measures would be similar for
each of the alternatives under that approach. For this reason, a general
discussion of these common impacts is provided in the introduction for each
approach followed by a narrative description for each of the alternatives
outlining its strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation is followed by a
summary matrix, provided to present a relative comparison by environmental
indicator. The Wastewater Management Alternatives are prefixed MA and
numbered 1-17.
\
Approach I: Effluent Removal
As discussed previously, the options under this approach would maintain
stream standards by removing the effluent that is presently being discharged
to Bird Creek. Several points of consideration are common to all the
alternatives in this approach and are presented below. Each alternative
includes the construction of a pipeline to convey the effluent from its
existing discharge at Bird and Mingo creeks to an alternate point for either
discharge and/or reuse. The routing of' the transmission line would vary as
presented below; however, each line would produce some noise and dust
impacts from construction as well as crossing county lines. Additionally,
the length or the retention time of the effluent in these lines may result
in septic conditions and potential odor problems. The common, and probably
most significant, change that would result from the transfer of effluent is
the sizable decrease in flow to Bird Creek. The overall effect would be a
4-5
-------
return of the stream to "pre-Northside" conditions with flows becoming more
dependent on storm water-runoff and groundwater seepage.
Out-of-Basin Transfer. Two alternatives call for the conveyance of
secondarily treated effluent to the Arkansas River.
o MA-1; parallel activated sludqe and trickling filter trains
o MA-2; complete activated sludge trains
The only difference in these two alternatives is whether the existing
plant trickling filter trains are maintained or abandoned and replaced
with new activated sludge trains. From an environmental standpoint, the
differences between the unit processes used in the alternatives to reach
a level of secondary treatment are negligible. Therefore, the
alternatives are discussed jointly.
These alternatives would discontinue the existing practice of
discharging treated wastewater to Bird and Mingo creeks, and a new
transmission line would be built for the conveyance of the effluent to
the Arkansas River.
According to a waste!oad allocation analysis performed during the 208
Study, the Arkansas River should maintain sufficient assimilative
capacity to accommodate a secondary effluent. The implementation of
either of these alternatives woulc: require further evaluation by the
planning agency, however.
The major environmental considerations involve the actual physical
construction of an off-site transmission line, the acquisition of
rights-of-way and the crossing of political boundaries. The pipeline
would begin at the Northside Plant following Bird Creek generally
southeast and crossing into Rogers County. At Round Mountain, the route
proceeds south, crossing the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad lines
and passing between Indian Hills and the town of Catoosa. Major highway
crossings include U.S. 66 and State Highway 33 before crossing into
Wagoner County. The line crosses Spunky Creek at approximately the
intersection of State Highway 33 and Spunky Creek. At this point, the
route continues alongside a narrow band of strip mines south-southwest
for about 10 mi to the Wagoner - Tulsa County border. It then turns due
south for the remaining 3 mi to the Arkansas River, entering just
downstream of Broken Arrow Creek.
Industrial Reuse. Two alternatives call for the transport of secondary
effluent to the Black Fox Power Station for reuse as cooling water.
o MA-3; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains
o MA-4; complete activated sludge trains
4-6
-------
Again, the differences among the unit processes utilized by the two
alternatives are not significant. The outstanding feature would be the
beneficial reuse of a municipal effluent. Currently, the City of Tulsa
is under contract to sell 44.6 MGD of either raw water or treated
wastewater to Public Service Company for use at Black Fox Power Station.
The reuse of effluent could reduce the projected demand on the City's
potable water supply, create revenue, and postpone the need to develop
new raw water supplies.
These alternatives would require that a transmission line of
approximately 26 mi in length be built, which would be accompanied by
construction, rights-of-way, and jurisdictional considerations.
The route to Black Fox generally follows Bird Creek to the Verdigris
River. It then follows the Verdigris River southeast across the St.
Louis and San Francisco Railroad Lines, Spunky Creek, U.S. 66, and the
Will Rogers Turnpike. Continuing south, the route crosses State Highway
33 and the Rogers - Wagoner County line. Heading east, it crosses the
Verdigris River at about the Rogers - Wagoner County line and then
crosses Commodore Creek about 4 mi before reaching the Black Fox site.
Land Application. These two alternatives are the same except for the unit
processes involved. The secondary effluent would be transported to an
agricultural land application site for beneficial reuse.
o MA-5; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains
o MA-6; complete activated sludge trains
Basically, these alternatives would replace normal irrigation water with
treated effluent. The primary advantage is in the beneficial reuse of
both the water and the nutrient value in the effluent for crop growth.
The two greatest concerns with land application are associated with site
selection and the method of operation. Site screening is based
specifically on characteristics for depth to bedrock and seasonal high
groundwater, topography, and soil permeability. The method of land
application would provide agricultural reuse by slow rate infiltration
(Tech. Memo. III-4). In wastewater land application, the concern is for
potential contamination of surface and groundwater with nitrates. Heavy
metals, which are often the limiting factor in sludge land application,
are not as important here due to the lower concentrations associated
with wastewater. The nutrient values of wastewater, particularly
nitrogen, are higher. Therefore, the loading rates are set so that the
appropriate amount of nitrogen is supplied to meet the uptake
requirements of the crops grown. Excessive loading rates could result
in groundwater contamination by nitrates, so areas over potable water
supplies should be avoided. Surface water contamination should also be
prevented by utilizing sites which have closed drainage or soils with
low runoff potential, and application during wet weather should be
avoided.
4-7
-------
Another concern in agricultural reuse of wastewater is pathogens and
parasites. Much of the risk is eliminated during treatment prior to
application, however, some harmful organisms may be carried by aerosols
from sprinkler irrigation and on plants and soil. The risk of exposure
to humans and the surroundinq areas may be reduced or eliminated by
disinfection, buffer zones, and/or access controls such as fencing.
The route of the transmission line to the land application or
agricultural reuse site crosses Bird Creek from the Northside WWTP and
travels northeasterly into Rogers County. It crosses State Highway 20
about 2 mi northwest of Keetonville and then crosses the Verdigris River
just below the mouth of Caney River. The transmission line would go to
one of the potential land application sites in the area.
Approach II: Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT)
Based on the 208 wasteload allocations, the Beneficial Use Designation for
Bird Creek and the State Water Quality Standards for an instream dissolved
oxygen level of 5 mg/1, the Northside Facility must maintain an effluent
quality of 5 mg/1 BOD, 5 mg/1 SS and 3 mg/1 NH,-N. To accomplish this high
degree of treatment, all of the alternatives under this approach are
dependent primarily on the biological assimilation of the organic material
(BOD) as well as the biological or chemical conversion of ammonia (NH^).
AWT Alternative Evaluation. From an environmental standpoint the
differences among the methods of biological treatment are not significant.
However, in some cases additional processing is required. To ensure
consistency in the evaluation, all the alternatives will be discussed
generally and where environmental or system reliability concerns occur they
will be stated.
o MA-7; expanded parallel activated sludqe and trickling filter trains.
Except for the operational difficulties in the joint operation of
seoarate and differing facilities, the alternative should sustain high
levels of treatment. As stated in Tech. Memo. III-4, the inherent
problem of fixed growth media biological treatment systems is their
susceptibility to low temperatures. The temperature constraint is of
particular importance in the nitrification phase of treatment during the
winter months.
This alternative, as in all the AWT processes, employs the use of
granular media filtration. The advantage of this is a high degree of
suspended material removal from the flow prior to disinfection. This
removes particles that harbor pathogens, thus reducing the chlorine
requirement.
4-8
-------
o MA-8; trickling filter trains in series with activated sludge trains.
MA-16; biological filters followed by activated sludge trains.
These two alternatives are comparable and have been combined by the
Facilities Plan Engineer, CH2M Hill, for evaluation purposes. Both
utilize fixed growth unit processes, trickling filters and biological
filters, respectively, followed by an activated sludge process. The
advantage is that the nitrification phase of treatment occurs in the
activated sludge process, making nitrification less susceptible to cold
weather. In addition, the fixed growth processes come first, buffering
the more sensitive nitrification phase from potential toxic shocks by
industrial spills. The benefits from granular media filtration, as
discussed previously, are also 'provided in these alternatives.
o MA-9; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains followed by
rotating biological contactors.
MA-10; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains followed by
biological filters.
MA-9 and MA-10 are comparable, using the same biological process trains
for initial treatment, followed by fixed growth units for nitrification.
They have been combined for evaluation purposes. These latter units are
rotating biological contactors (ftBC's) and biological filters,
respectively. As discussed, fixed growth units, particularly when used
for nitrification, are more susceptible to cold weather. As with the
other alternatives, granular media filters will be provided.
o MA-11; complete activated sludge trains.
This alternative would utilize an activated sludge process train for all
modes of treatment, with the advantages of a single facility's operation
and flexibility. In addition, biological nitrification would occur in
the suspended growth activated sludge process which is less susceptible
to cold weather. Granular media filtration is also provided.
o MA-12; activated carbon sludge trains.
This alternative is comparable to MA-11 in that a complete activated
sludge process train is utilized. In this case, however, the size of
the aeration capacity has been reduced due to the addition of powdered
activated carbon. The activated carbon would be added during cold
weather. This provides a suspended growth media to support a higher
population of microorganisms which enhances the nitrification process.
Granular media filtration is also a part of this alternative.
o MA-13; activated sludge trains followed by breakpoint chlorination.
This alternative utilizes a single process train of activated sludge as
the primary method of treatment and nitrification, followed by granular
media filtration.
The distinct difference in this alternative is that a series of
non-biological chemical reactions are used to remove ammonia. This
method of treatment is called breakpoint chlorination. The process
4-9
-------
would be employed during those times of the year when the operating
temperatures are too low (winter) to sustain biological nitrification.
The process requires large dosages of chlorine to oxidize (convert) the
ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) to nitrogen gas (No). In theory, a dosage
ratio of approximately 7.6 parts chlorine ta 1 part ammonia would be
required to bring about this conversion, but in practice the ratio is
closer to 9:1. Many factors govern the NH3 to N~ conversion, including
dosage, pH, contact time, and temperature. the pH would probably
decrease (acid) with chlorine addition, requiring some buffering. If
the pH drops below 6.5 (7.0 is neutral), the chemical reactions would
favor the formation of malodorous nitrogen trichloride, NCI,' Other
chemical reactions could occur between chlorine and organic precursors
found in wastewater and potentially lead to the formation of
trihalomethane (THM). In addition, depending on the dosage, the
combined or residual chlorine would be high, exerting its own toxicity
on the aquatic biota. The mitigation for this problem is
dechlorination, which has been included as a part of the design.
MA-14; activated sludge followed by rotating biological contactors.
MA-15; activated sludge followed by biological filters.
These two alternatives utilize the activated sludge processes for
initial treatment followed by a fixed growth media unit process to
provide nitrification. As discussed, the fixed growth system is
susceptible to cold weather, particularly when it is used to nitrify.
Granular media filters are also provided.
MA-17; parallel activated sludge and trickling filters followed by
granular media filtration.
This alternative would treat the wastewater beyond the secondary level,
making it reusable by industries along its route to a discharge point
along the Arkansas River (route would be dependent on demand). The
major advantages are the reuse of effluent which would reduce the
current demand on the City's potable water supply, develop revenue, and
postpone the need to develop the raw water supplies. Dependent on the
industrial users' needs, additional chlorine could be required, due to
extended pipeline retention time. The purpose would be to ensure a
chlorine residual (disinfection) for the protection of public health.
Summary of Preliminary Alternative Screening
All of the alternatives that have been presented were developed with the
purpose of achieving the level of water quality in Bird Creek specified by
the Oklahoma State Water Quality Standards. To accomplish this task, two
approaches were developed; one to remove the effluent from the stream, and
the other to treat the flow to a high degree prior to discharge. Table 4-1
summarizes the environmental effects of these alternatives.
4-10
-------
Table 4-1 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
-p.
i
Water
Resources
Surface Ground-
Alternatives Water water
MA-1 +aj
MA-Z +a''
MA- 3 +a
MA-4 +a
MA-5 +8
MA-6 +a
MA- 7 +b
MA-8 +b
MA-9 +b
MA-10 +b
MA- 11 +b
MA-12 +b
MA- 13 +b
MA- 14 +b f
MA- 15 +b
MA-16 +b
MA- 17 +aj
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fl ood
Hazards
Oc
Oc '
oc
oc
oc
oc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oc
Physical Resources
Geol ogy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Return Bird Creek to a more natural state of water quality
absent of Northslde discharge.
D Provides the discharge of a high quality effluent.
j Removes consistent instream flow.
a Agricultural reuse Is highly dependent on available soils.
* Beneficial reuse of effluent
All alternatives provide for
growth.
for
the
agriculture.
expansion of the
plant to
a
Soils
0
0
0
0
od
od
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
and flow,
accommodate
Air
Quality
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Aquatic
Flora/Fauna Flora/Fauna
0
0
0
0
Oe
Oe
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Key: ++ major beneficial
+ minor beneficial
0 no Impact
- minor adverse
-- major adverse
Oa
Oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
b
0D
K
0ฐ
h
0D
h
IT
b
0
b
0D
b
0ฐ
b
0ฐ
b
0
K
0ฐ
h
0
9 Transmission line is required, potentially adverse.
. mitigation.
1 Potential for public access to-appl ication sites, buffer zones required
. to limit aerosols.
J Study of Arkansas River assimilative capacity is required.
-------
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FURTHER EVALUATION
All of the aforementioned alternatives were evaluated based on both
engineering and environmental criteria. Several operational concerns
relating to wintertime nitrification and environmental problems were
identified during this initial screening process. However, because of
available mitigation measures none were considered to be of great enough
significance to remove any of the proposed options from further evaluation.
In the initial screening to select the four alternatives for more detailed
evaluation, the comparative present worths were used. In assessing all of
the alternatives, a significant qap in cost occurs between the five most
costly alternatives and the next group. Those alternatives in excess of
this break are ruled out from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Those
eliminated on this basis were MA-5, MA-6, MA-9, MA-11, and MA-14. The
average present worth for the remaining alternatives was approximately 65
million dollars, with a range of 59 to 76 million dollars in total cost.
Several of the alternatives were very similar, such as MA-1 and 2, MA-3 and
4, MA-8 and 16, and MA-10 and 15. The only difference between each pair is
the abandonment or incorporation of the existing trickling filter train. To
prevent two very, similar alternatives from being selected for more detailed
consideration, one of each of the aforementioned pairs was eliminated.
Because of a higher comparative present worth, MA-2, MA-4, MA-8, and MA-15
were eliminated (Tech. Memo. II1-5).
The remaining eight alternatives are ranked by cost from the least to the
most comparative present worth as follows:
o MA-3; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains/industrial
reuse at Black Fox Power Station ($46.49 million).
o MA-16; biological filters followed by activated sludge trains/discharge
to Bird and Mingo Creeks ($58.70 million).
o MA-10; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains followed by
biological filters/discharge to Bird and Mingo Creeks ($63.36 million).
4-12
-------
Table 4-1 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE HASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES (continued)
Socioeconomics
Cultural Factors
Aesthetics
Personal Odors 4 Public Archaeological
Alternatives Population' Employment* Income* Land Use Recreation Noise Health Historical
MA-1
MA-2
MA- 3
MA-4
MA- 5
MA-6
MA- 7
MA-8
MA-9
MA- 10
MA- 11
MA- 12
MA- 13
MA-14
MA- 15
MA- 16
MA- 17
a Return
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bird Creek to a more natural state
. absent of Northside discharge.
Provides the discharge of a high
5 Removes consistent instream flow.
quality
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of water
effluent.
.9 +a
-9 +a
.9 +a
-9 +a
.9 +a
.9 ta
0 *b
0 +b
0 +b
0 +b
0 +b
0 +b
0' +b
0 +b
0 +b
0 +b
+a
quality and flow,
_h
_h
_h
_h
.h
_h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_h
Key: <
0
0
0
0
_1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n- major beneficial
+ minor beneficial
0 no Impact
- minor adverse
09
09
09
09
U9
O9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
09
Agricultural reuse is highly dependent on available soils.
? Beneficial reuse of effluent for agriculture.
All alternatives provide for the expansion of the plant to accommodate
growth.
9 Transmission line is required, potentially adverse.
Long pipeline retention time could produce septic conditions, requires
. mitigation.
Potential for public access to application sites, buffer zones required
. to limit aerosols.
* Study of Arkansas River assimilative capacity is required.
major adverse
-------
o MA-1; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains/out-of-
basin transport to the Arkansas River ($67.55 million).
o MA-13; activated sludge trains followed by breakpoint chlorination/
discharge to Bird and Mingo Creeks ($68.75 million).
o MA-7; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains/discharge to
Bird and Mingo Creeks ($72.02 million).
o MA-12; activated carbon sludge trains/discharge to Bird and Mingo Creeks
($72.08 million).
o MA-17; parallel activated sludge and trickling filter trains/reuse and
out-of-basin transport combination ($76.61 million).
Based on concern expressed during Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings
and the more qualitative factors surrounding the implementability of
Alternative MA-3 as well as the uncertainty of construction of the Black Fox
Power Station, MA-3 was eliminated from further consideration. The next
four least-cost alternatives of the remaining seven were selected for
further evaluation. Therefore, the four alternatives which were chosen for
more detailed evaluation are MA-1, MA-10, MA-13 and MA-16.
PRESENTATION OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
The four selected alternatives, MA-1, MA-10, MA-13, and MA-16, were
subjected to detailed evaluation. The information and the environmental
concerns for each alternative developed durinq this evaluation are presented
in Section 6 and will not be repeated here. At the end of Section 5.1 there
is a summary evaluation and a detailed matrix of significant impacts for
each of the alternatives providing an overall comparison of the
alternatives. This is summarized on Table 4-2, followed by Table 4-3 which
provides the alternatives' major advantages and disadvantages. In addition
to these environmental issues, the capital, operation and maintenance,
energy consumption, and total alternative costs are provided on Table 4-4.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Upon completion of the detailed evaluations of the alternatives, two
remained as the least costly and most implementable plans. These were;
4-13
-------
Table 4-2 SUMMARY MATRIX OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Environmental
Parameters
WATER RESOURCES
Surface Water
Groundwater
Flood Hazards
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Geol ogy
Soils
Air Quality
WASTEWATER
Out-of-Basin
No Action MA-1
0 0
0
ป
0 0
0
0
MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Advanced Wastewater
MA- 10
0
0
0
0
MA- 13
0
0
0
0
Treatment
MA-16
0
0
0
0
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
SOCIOECONOM1CS
Population
Employment
Personal Income
Land Use
CULTURAL FACTORS
Recreation
Aesthetics, Odors and Noise
Tublic Health
Archaeological /Historical
_
0
.
0
+
_a
0.
D
+
0
0
0
+
a
0
0
f
0
0
0
? Dependent on operation
Dependent on pipeline route
EVALUATION KEY:
++ major beneficial
+ minor beneficial
0 no impact
- minor adverse
major adverse
4-14
-------
Table 4-3 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF HASTEWATER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Advantages
Disadvantages
No Action
Out-of-Basin
Transfer
Would not meet Admin. Order or NPDES permit
Effluent limits exceed stream's assimilative capacity
High levels of ammonia are toxic to aquatic life
Llirits recreational reuse
Potential for future reuse of effluent
depending on routing
Complete removal of effluent NH, and Cl?
toxicities to aquatic life from
Bird Creek
Returns stream to a more natural state
Potential for impacts from pipeline construction
Archaeological and historical clearances are
recuired for pipeline route
Potential for loss of aquatic habitat during
lot-flow and seasonal warm weather D.O. sags
-In-line chlorine addition or reaeration may be
required to prevent septic conditions and
Oder problems
MA-10
MA-13
MA-16
Provides the advantages of advanced
treatment
o good quality effluent
o low NHj concentration
o constant downstream flow
All biological treatment
1 Same benefits of AWT
I
I Seasonal use with the potential for
| off-season backup in the event of
! a toxic shock to the biological
I nitrification process
| Not susceptible to weather
. AWT
1 All biological treatment
i
! Nitrification occurs in the activated
! sludge process, not as susceptible to
I cold weather
Biofliters buffer the primary mode of
treatment and nitrification
(activated sludge process) from
potential shock loadings year round
Nitrification process is susceptible to cold
weather-the addition of covers may offset
this problem
The use of highly reactive chemicals for treatment
Probable THM formation, but at low levels
High level of system monitoring to prevent
chlorine toxicity or D.O. sags from excess
dechlorination
Effluent pH buffering is required
Potential for nitrogen trichloride (NC13), a noxious
gas, production at a pH less than 6.5
Requires energy for flow pumpage through biological
filters.
This alternative, as with the other plans, could
exert a financial burden on the City.
4-15
-------
Table 4-4 SUMMARY OF COST INFORMATION FOR THE SELECTED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Energy
Capital (Annual .
Alternative ($ Million)9 kwh (10b))D
MA-1; Out-of-Basin $64.41 25.3
Transfer
MA-10; Activated Sludge with $68.17 17.9
Trickling & Biological
Filters
MA-13; Activated Sludge and $34.75 16.5
Breakpoint Chi ori nation
MA-16; Biological Filters and $37.62 19.8
^ Activated Sludge
en
0 & M Present
(Annual Worth
$ Million)0 ($ Million)3
$2.10 $86.10
$2.56 $95.77
$2.48 $68.68
$2.43 $65.39
? January, 1982 dollars at full capacity in 2005.
Values are kilowatt-hour (10 ). Energy costs are equal to 3.23 cents/kwh in 1982, escalated at
2.893 percent/year from 1982 to 1990, and at 0.679 percent/year from 1990 to 2005.
c EPA wastewater treatment plant 0 & M cost index of 3.32.
SOURCE: Tech. Memo. 111-7
-------
MA-13 using activated sludge and breakpoint chlorination with a present
worth of $65.385 million; and MA-16 using activated sludge with biological
filters at a total cost of $68.684 million. The basic difference between
the alternatives was the method in which wintertime nitrification would be
provided; MA-13 requires chemical addition, and MA-16 utilizes biological
processes.
Based on the concerns expressed by both the Public Advisory Committee and
City staff regarding the use of the highly reactive chemicals required in
breakpoint chlorination, Alternative MA-16 was recommended over MA-13
because the potential environmental hazards and the concern for operator
safety outweigh the slightly higher costs. MA-16 was therefore determined
to be the most cost-effective alternative because it is the least costly
with no major environmental effects.
Phased Implementation
Due to the financial burden that may be placed on the City as a result of
the funding requirements for a project of this size, phasing or a method of
staged construction of the two preferred alternatives (one for wastewater
and one for residuals) was recommended by the City. This is particularly
true in light of the many urgent needs of the separate wastewater and
residuals portions of the project, each with its specific priorities. A
detailed evaluation of various options for phased implementation, the
financial impacts, and the environmental analysis of the changes in water
quality were presented in Tech. Memo. III-8, IV-9, V-4, and Report XII.
Because phasing more directly affects wastewater management and the time
frame in which AWT is implemented at the Northside Plant, a general summary
of the environmental effects presented in Report XII along with input
provided during the June 1, 1982 PAC are given below.
Effluent Quality vs. Plant Capacity. A new facility's NPDES permit is
usually based on the plant's rated capacity and its ability to consistently
achieve specific effluent limitations for that flow. As a result, many
factors must be taken into account when the plant is designed; for instance,
infiltration and inflow (I/I), and seasonal flow and load fluctuations.
4-17
-------
Generally, when a plant designed to produce a secondary effluent of 20 mg/1
BOD and 30 mg/1 SS at its rated capacity is underloaded or below flow
capacity, better than the original design effluent qualities are achievable.
The following data shows the recent quality of the Northside Plant effluent,
from the activated sludge process train for a range of flows from about
74 to 101 percent of the 11 MGD rated capacity.
Northside Plant Effluent Quality
Month
April 1981
May 1981
June 1981
July 1981
August 1981
September 1981
October 1981
*Novenber 1981
*December 1981
*January 1982
*February 1982
*March 1982
Flow
MGD
8.1
9.2
9.4
8.8
9.5
9.3
10.3
11.1
9.7
9.8
11.7
9.8
(11 MGD Activated
Percent of
Capacity
74
84
86
80
86
85
94
101
88
89
106
89
Sludge)
BOD
mg/1
Avg
7
6
10
5
5
5
6
4
5
5
5
3
BOD
mg/1
Max
8
8
12
8
7
6
8
7
8
6
5
6
TSS
mg/1
Avq
10
11
11
12
7
11
10
8
10
11
7
6
TSS
mg/1
Max
11
17
16
26
12
15
12
11
11
15
7
7
* During these months the plant was operated to provide for complete
nitrification, (oxidation of ammonia NHj to nitrate N03).
As indicated, the Northside activated sludge plant has demonstrated ability
to provide for complete nitrification during colder weather at or near
design flow. Based on this demonstrated capability, it was decided to make
a careful assessment of phasing.
To project the plant's ability to continue to produce this level of effluent
quality in the future, the relationship between flow to the plant and the
4-18
-------
addition of capacity by phasing was evaluated throughout the 20-yr planning
period using these projected flows.
Projected Future Wastewater Flows MGD*
Year
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
30.8 33.4 37.1 40.4 42.6
*Tech. Memo. III-2, including Lord Cemetery flows of 0.8 MGD in 1985,
increasing to 4.5 MGD by 2005
Starting in 1985 it can be seen that the Northside Facility could be
receiving approximately 30.8 MGD of flow to the plant when it would have a
rated capacity of 30 MGD.
If the plant (30 MGD) is operated at only a secondary level (20 rog/1 BOD,
30 mg/1 SS) with no nitrification, the resultant instream dissolved oxygen
(D.O.) sag would resemble the lower profile which is illustrated on Figure
4-2. However, if the same plant is operated more efficiently by providing
higher levels of 02 in the activated sludge system it will run in a
nitrification mode as has been exhibited in the recent past. In this
situation, an effluent quality of 15 mg/1 BOD and 3 mg/1 NH3 could be
achieved, and the D.O. profile instream could improve to the level shown by
the dashed line on Figure 4-2. In addition, if nitrification is carried
beyond the NPDES requirement of 3 mg/1 NH3, the dashed-line D.O. profile
would be at an even higher level. In either case, with this improved level
of operation, the water quality downstream of the Northside discharge should
improve beyond that which presently exists. (Note: the profiles are based
on Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Ammonia (NH3) loadings. Suspended
solids (SS) will be comparable to the levels shown for BOD as exhibited by
previous plant data).
Phased Construction. Shown on Figure 4-3 is the flow chart for phasing.
This assessment is based on the phasing approach selected by the City,
4-19
-------
i
no
O
8.01
7.0
o
**
UJ
O
s
o
w
w
5
NltrHled __ __
i Municipal Discharge
Figure 4-2 Effects of Plant Operational Improvements on Water Quality.
-------
PHASING FLOW CHART
1981
1985
1987
V
1989
1992
1995
EXISTING NORTHSIDE PLANT 19MGD
11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
8MGD TRICKLING FILTER
NORTHSIDE PLANT 30MGD
11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NEW 11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
8MGD TRICKLING FILTER
NORTHSIDE PLANT
11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NEW 11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TO REPLACE OLD TRICKLING FILTER
THREE 11MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TRAINS 42.6 MOD TOTAL CAPACITY
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT ABANDONED
NEW FOURTH ACTIVATED SLUDGE
BRINGS TOTAL CAPACITY TO 42.6MGD
NORTHSIDE PLANT AWT
42.6MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
GRANULAR MEDIA FILTERS ADDED
NORTHSIDE PLANT AWT
42.6MGD ACTIVATED SLUDGE
REMAINING GRANULAR MEDIA FILTER
AND BIO-FILTERS ADDED TO MATCH
FLOW
Figure 4-3
4-21
-------
referred to as Alternative 1 in the Facilities Plan, the dates used here
are the proposed implementation dates for this approach.
As the project is phased in, the first improvement to wastewater treatment
would be the addition of an 11 MGD activated sludge train. This could be
around 1987-1988 as funds become available. This was presented by the City
during the June 1, 1982 meeting as one of the possible approaches to phasing
which was approved by the PAC. The purpose of this first expansion is to
provide for additional capacity so that the older trickling filter plant
could be abandoned. The result would be a plant with a total of 41 MGD of
capacity prior to the trickling filter plant being removed from operation.
This would ensure excess capacity beyond the higher flow projections for
1990 of 33.4 MGD. Therefore, the larger plant would only be operating at 81
percent of capacity and would be expected to produce an effluent quality
similar to that presently achieved at Northside (the plant is presently
operating at about 89 percent of capacity). Because of the improvements in
effluent quality that can be attributed to the underloading of a plant, the
trickling filter plant should remain on-line until the last activated sludge
process train is brought into operation. This latter expansion is projected
to follow a few years later in 1989 and would provide a total caoacity of
42.6 MGD when all four activated sludge process trains are in operation and
the trickling filter plant (8 MGD) has been abandoned.
Moreover, as the flows to the plant continue to increase, the hydraulic flow
rates through the secondary clarifiers would reach a point where some
suspended material could be carried over the weirs into the effluent. These
suspended solids (SS) are associated with a level of BOD that would exert an
oxygen demand on the receiving stream, however, polymer feed to the
secondary clarifiers would cause the lighter suspended material to combine
into larger particles. Settling would occur more readily because of the
increased particle size, resulting in a greater degree of removal and
reducing the SS to the 12-15 mg/1 range providing for even lower levels of
BOD. In addition to the improvements in the effluent quality that result
from complete nitrification and polymer feed, the inclusion of post-aeration
would further limit the initial impact of the effluent at the point of
discharge. Post-aeration would mean that the effluent discharged to the
4-22
-------
stream would have a high D.O. content and thus would have less adverse
effect on aquatic life.
The Improvements in the downstream D.O. profile as a result of complete
nitrification, polymer feed and post-aeration (12 mg/1 BOD, 1 mg/1 NH3,
6 mg/1 D.O.) are illustrated on Figure 4-4, with the D.O. profile from an
AWT effluent (5 mg/1 BOD 3 mg/1 NHj) provided as a point of reference.
Ultimately, this level of advanced wastewater treatment would be achieved
when the granular medif filters are brought on-line in approximately 1992 to
reduce the BOD and SS loadings to 5 mg/1.
As flows increase, the ability of the plant to nitrify in cold weather will
decrease. At this point, bioloqical filters would be brought on-line
(approximately 1995) to reduce the carbonaceous BOD loadings to the
activated sludge train, ensuring that the nitrifiers remain active during
the winter months. This would maintain a level of 3 mg/1 ammonia in the
plant effluent year round. However, based on available data (see Report
XII), a wintertime effluent ammonia level of 3 mg/1 may not be required to
maintain the designated instream levels of D.O. or to prevent ammonia
toxicity to aquatic life. This results from the effects of colder
temperatures on sustaining high levels of dissolved oxygen and maintaining
ammonia in the less toxic ionized (NH^O form. For information purposes,
the D.O. profiles for both the summer conditions with nitrification and
winter conditions without nitrification are provided in Figure 4-5. Summer
conditions include a 12 mg/1 BOD effluent with nitrification to a level of 1
mg/1 NH3 discharging to Bird Creek at a temperature of 28ฐC, and winter
conditions include the same 12 mg/1 BOD effluent with no nitrification and
an NH, level of 20 mg/1 discharging to a stream at 11ฐC (see Report XII).
The indication is a sizable drop in the instream metabolic activity with
colo weather and that colde- water holds more oxygen. Further evaluation
and the applicability of a seasonal permit or a split-year summer and winter
ammonia limit should be considered.
Summary and Conclusions. During the June 1, 1982 PAC, concern was expressed
over the potential for phased implementation to result in a gradual loss of
4-23
-------
8.0 n
r.o
ฃ e.o
z
ui
O
>
x
o
a
ui
O
(0
2
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
BOD 5/NH33
BOD 12/NH31
Post-Aeration O.O.6
1.0-
Municipal Discharge
14
13
o ซ
O o
w
O
CD
O
12 11
O
oo
O
10 9 B 7
ซ RIVER MILES
O
6
O
00
0
10
o rt
0.0
Figure 4-4 Potential Improvements from Polymer Feed and Post-Aeration.
-------
i
ro
ui
10.0 n
0.0
8.0-
7.0
9
5 e.o
1U
O
X
O
a
ui
o
v>
CO
5
5-0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
14
Municipal Discharge
13
o ซ
m -o
m ป
0 c
* r
o 5
z
12
O
CO
O
11
CM
O
CO
o
10
CM
m
O
I r-
8 7
RIVER MILES
O
ffl
(8
oS
O (0
Q-O
Figure 4-5 Effects of Seasonal Temperature Change on D.O.
-------
those improvements that have already occurred in Bird Creek's water quality.
However, as can be seen on Figure 4-6, this is not the case. Provided that
the plant is operated efficiently, consistant improvements in plant effluent
and stream quality can be achieved with phasing. Figure 4-6 depicts the
different D.O. profiles that could be expected as a result of phased
construction, assuming that the operational techniques presented earlier are
employed.
o Level I: Existing Conditions (1981) - This profile is based on the
data collected during the INCOG stream sampling survey of September
9, 1981. The profile illustrates the present water quality of Bird
Creek receiving flows from the Flat Rock, Coal Creek, and Northside
plants.
o Level II: Nitrification (1985) - This profile illustrates the D.O.
levels of Bird Creek in 1985 when Flat Rock and Coal Creek will be
closed and the combined flows are being treated at the expanded 30
MGD Northside Facility, with a continuation of the present practices
of operational efficiency and nitrification. This profile is based
on 15 mg/1 BOD and 3 mg/1 NHj.
o Level III: Polymer Feed and Post-aeration (1987-1989) - With the
implementation of the first expansion, of this project in 1987 the
water quality would begin to improve still further and may reach
Level III provided that the trickling filter plant remains on-line.
Level III would be reached with the implementation of the last
expansion in 1989 if complete nitrification, polymer feed and
Dost-aeration are employed. This profile is based on a 12 mg/1 BOD,
1 mg/1 NH3 and 6 mg/1 D.O. effluent.
o Level IV: AWT (1992) - This level would be obtained when the
granular media filters are brought on-line to produce an effluent BOD
and SS of 5 mg/1 with 3 mg/1 NH.,. Additional granular media filter
and biological filters will be added to maintain quality as flow to
the plant increases, projected for 1995.
These D.O. profiles or levels are based on the computer model "RIVER" and
its interpretation of Bird Creek's response to specific effluent qualities.
These effluent qualities are not specific to the Northside plant, but are
projections of what could be achieved at a properly designed and operated
plant employing these techniques.
Based on available plant records, if the proposed phasing schedule and the
aforementioned operational jritigation measures are employed, a continued and
progressive improvement in the level of water quality in Bird Creek may be
4-26
-------
8.0 i
7.0
o
5 e.o
z
Ul
o
X 5.0
O
D
Ul
>
rv> CO
-~J W
5
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
LEVEL III: Poly. Post-Aeration
LEVEL It: Nitrification
14
.13 12
O
-------
achieved. Phasing would provide a balance between the socioeconomic impacts
of project funding and the goal of obtaining improvements in water quality
as well as maintain project flexibility through the implementation of AWT.
To ensure that these improvements continue, e monitoring program should be
conducted in conjunction with phasing by the appropriate agency. This would
provide a data base from which improvements to the plant and the resulting
changes in the stream could be evaluated. In addition, monitoring would
ensure a more accurate assessment of these levels of phasing and indicate
points or specific times at which subsequent AWT unit processes should be
brought on line.
Because of the probable changes in water quality between now and the time
the project is implemented, updated information is needed. The computer
model "RIVER" was originally used to develop the 5/5/3 effluent limitation.
It was also used to provide the D.O. profiles presented in this assessment
of phasing. The model was calibrated based on 1976 data; however, changes
occurred which required collection of new data. This new data was collected
in 1981 by INCOG and showed a dramatic improvement in the stream as a result
of the changes. Additional improvements are expected in the future,
specifically as a result of the closure of the upstream discharges, Flat
Rock and Coal Creek. After the closure of the upstream discharges, the
model should be updated to reflect these specific changes and rerun. Points
that should be assessed are as follows:
o the effect that removing the upstream loadings would have on the
downstream benthic demand coefficients;
o the effect, if any, these chanqes would have on the selected BOD and
nitrogenous decay rates originally used in the model;
o the possible effect of the presence of instream structures in the
stream and their possible impacts on this specific segment's
assimilative rate;
o the stream's response to a single treatment plant discharge as
opposed to the three presently existing.
Evaluations of the summertime low-flow or worst-case conditions indicate
that nitrification to a level of 3 mg/1 NH3 is required to limit the
4-28
-------
nitrogenous oxygen demand on the stream and to meet standards. However,
wintertime nitrification to this level may not be required from an
environmental standpoint to limit toxicity to aquatic life, or to meet
standards. A more detailed evaluation and an assessment of a seasonal NPDES
permit should be made.
RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT PLAN
The purpose of the Residuals Solids Management portion of the Facilities
Plan and EIS is to address the overall area-wide sludge processing,
handling, and disposal/reuse. This section of the EIS summarizes the
development, screening, and assessment of alternatives for area-wide sludge
management. Section 5.2, "Environmental Consequences of the Residuals
Solids Management Alternatives", provides a detailed environmental
assessment of the five final alternatives, which are only summarized here.
The alternative development, selection, and elimination is described in the
following sequence in this section:
o Existing Conditions and No Action Alternative
o Development of Preliminary Alternatives
o Screening of Alternatives
o Selection of Alternatives for Further Evaluation
o Presentation of Selected Alternatives
o Description of the Preferred Alternative
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The three wastewater treatment plants in the area are the Northside,
Southside, and Haikey Creek plants shown on Figure 4-7. Currently, sludge
from the three treatment plants is handled separately. Sludge from the
Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant is digested, thickened, and disposed.
The sewage sludge from the Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is
stored in lagoons, and Haikey Creek WWTP sludge is spread or injected on the
4-29
-------
V-' ซ^afc
.s- : j^~-* '..- .---.
- -u.,.- / , -
VLS-4 'R-3 \
\ >
T
I~ "" ^
h:--ฃ^^c' ~-~
HAIKEY CREEK ^ '
30 MILE RADIUS
Miles
Figure 4-7 Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Locations and Disposal/Reuse
Site Locations.
4-30
-------
ground at the plant site. None of these current methods provide for
long-term disposal of the sewage sludge.
The No Action alternative in terms of residuals management is not considered
a viable alternative due to the fact that sludge will continue to be
produced in any event, and both Federal and State law require permitted
disposal of solid wastes, which include sewage sludge. Basically, the No
Action alternative would mean a continuation of the current unpermitted
stockpiling and disposal of sewage sludge.
DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
A number of variables are involved in the development of a Residuals
Management Plan. These include the sludge processing alternatives, modes of
transportation, disposal methods and site selection. The development of the
Residuals Solids Management Alternatives from processing, transportation,
and disposal alternatives is documented in Tech. Memo. IV-2. The resulting
alternatives for evaluation are shown on Table 4-5.
The site selection resulted from a series of engineering and environmental
evaluations* briefly listed below:
1. Definition of environmental criteria to be utilized in the site
selection for a landfill or land application operation (Report III).
2. Screening of areas within a 30-mi radius of Tulsa for general
suitability for landfill ing and for agricultural land application
(Tech. Memo. IV-3).
3. Examination of the above areas for environmental suitability.
Agricultural land application as an alternative is revised to a
non-site-specific "marketing" alternative due to extremely large
site requirements (Report V).
4. Secondary identification of sites or areas for landfilling,
dedicated land disposal, and reclamation (Tech. Memo. IV-6).
*The engineering evaluations were presented in Tech. Memo.s referenced in
the Facilities Plan. Environmental evaluations were similarly presented in
Reports 1-12, and the Residuals Solids Management evaluations may be found
in Volume 3 of this EIS. Report and Tech. Memo, numbers may not be
consecutive due to working papers on wastewater issues only and vice versa.
4-31
-------
Table 4-5 SCREENING FOR RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Sludge Processing Alternatives
Thickening
Gravity
thickening
Flotation
thickening
Centrifugal
thickening
Stabilization
Anaerobic
digestion
Aerobic
digestion
Chemical
stabilization
Disinfection
Gamma ray
Irradiation
Electron beam
Irradiation
Heat processes
Composting
Dewaterlng Drying Reduction
Vacuum Drying beds Incineration
filtration
Pressure Heat drying Pyrolysls
filtration
Belt filter Oil Immersion Het-alr
press dehydration oxidation
Centrifugal
dewateMng
Sludge Transportation and
Disposal Alternatives
Transportation Disposal
Pipeline Landfill
Truck Agr1 cul tural
use
Rail Dedicated land
disposal
Barge Strip mine
reclamation
Product
marketing
or give away
SOURCE: Tech. Memo. IV-2
-------
5. Ranking of sites identified above based on environmental factors
(Report VIII).
The marketing alternative was developed and refined throughout the studies,
but was specifically assessed in Report VI. Essentially it includes three
main components. One is agricultural reuse with the City applying it;
another is marketing or give away/sale from the plant site(s) with an
unknown end use, and the third is use in reclamation of active strip nines.
The Public Advisory Committee heavily favored some form of marketing or
beneficial reuse and requested that it be the primary alternative and be
combined with all of the backup alternatives.
SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES
At each point in the process where alternatives were eliminated or revised,
more detailed information was collected on the remaining alternatives.
Following detailed evaluations of each of the components, including the
processing, transportation, disposal/reuse and site options, those that had
survived the engineering and environmental evaluations were combined as
residuals management plan alternatives (Tech. Memo. IV-7). These were then
assessed for engineering and environmental factors.
This included a cost analysis of the most practical and apparently feasible
alternatives combined with the best sites, resulting in a final list of
seven alternatives that were evaluated environmentally (Report X).
Components of each of the seven plan alternatives are shown on Table 4-6.
As mentioned, beneficial reuse is a part of all of the backup alternatives
(RA-1 through 6). RA-7 was developed for comparison purposes in that it
combines a form of marketing through the resale of sludge and one of the
backup alternatives. Sites utilized for the seven alternative plans are
shown on Figure 4-7. Each of the seven alternatives was then screened
again.
This environmental screening reduced the seven alternatives to five and
revised one of the alternatives. The screening was based on water resources
4-33
-------
Table 4-6 SLUDGE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Alternative
Number
RA-1
RA-2
RA-3
RA-4
RA-S
RA-6
RA-7
Plants
N
S
H
N
S
H
N
S
H
N
S
H
N
S
H
N
S
H
N
S
H
Truck Pipeline Lagoon
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
Drying
Bed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dedicated Land Disposal
Surface Spread
Landfill Injection and Incorporate
X LS-4
X LF-1
X LF-1
X LS-2
X LS-2
X LS-2
X LF-1
X LF-1
X LF-1
X LS-2
X LS-2
X LS-2
X LS-4
X LF-1
X LF-1
(Reclamation R-3)
(Failsafe system Included)
X LS-2
Marketing
X
X
X
N * NorthsIde WWTP
S -- Souths Ide WWTP
H * Hat Key Creek WWTP
SOURCE: Report X
-------
factors and physical factors. Water resources include surface water,
groundwater and flood hazards. Physical factors include geology, soils and
air quality/meteorology. The results of this impact analysis and screening
are summarized on Table 4-7 and discussed below.
Alternative RA-1
This alternative involves pipeline transport of Northside sludge to
dedicated land disposal at Site LS-4 and drying bed dewatering and trucking
of Southside and Haikey Creek sludges to landfill at Site LF-1 (see Figure
4-7). The impacts of this alternative with respect to water resources and
physical factors relate mainly to Site LS-4.
There would be only minor impacts on surface waters at LS-4, if the
Verdigris soils on the western portion of the site are avoided. On the
Verdigris soils, nitrates might enter alluvial aquifers which may
interconnect with surface waters. No impact would be expected at LF-1 as
long as runoff is controlled.
There may be a major adverse impact on groundwater even if Verdigris soils
are avoided at LS-4. This is because the high rate application is likely to
cause severe localized nitrate contamination. Careful site monitoring would
be required to ensure that contaminants do not travel beyond the solid waste
boundary. There should be no impact at LF-1 since a liner is included in
the landfill design. While there should be no impact on flood hazards as
long as flood prone Verdigris soils are avoided, there may be adverse
impacts on geology and soils. According to Oklahoma Geological Survey maps,
parts of Site LS-4 may be in Zone 3 areas, which are not likely to contain
suitable geologic formations. If the disposal area were sited where the
geology is unsuitable, indirect contamination of other resources could
occur.
With respect to soils, two problems are evident. At LS-4, the Newtonia
soils are likely to clog at the high rates of application proposed.
Indirectly, there would be a temporary loss of production in the prime
farmlands of LF-1, which involves approximately 100 acres plus a buffer of
4-35
-------
Table 4-7 SUMMARY MATRIX OF FINAL RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE SCREENING
Residuals Management
Alternative
RA-1
RA-2
RA-3
RA-4
RA-S
RA-6
RA-7
M/LS-2
RA-7
H/0 LS-2
Surface Ground-
Water water
; "
..
0 0
--
0
0
_-
0 0
Environmental Parameter
Flood
Hazards Geology
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0
Air Quality/
Soils Meteorology
--
._
0
--
-
++ 0
V _ "
++ 0
EVALUATION KEY:
++ major beneficial
+ minor beneficial
0 no Impact
- minor adverse
major adverse
-------
Class 1 Mason soils. These would be expected to return to production,
however, after closure of the landfill. The use of Newtom'a and Verdigris
soils at LS-4 for dedicated land application, however, may result in their
permanent removal from food-chain crop production, and these are prime
farmlands also. Since dedicated land disposal does not involve excavation,
soil would not be readily available to cap or cover the site. Since prime
farmlands are based on specific soil characteristics and structure, this use
at LS-4 would probably constitute an irreversible and irretrievable loss of
130 acres of prime farmlands.
Injection of liquid slurtqe would not normally be expected to cause any air
quality impacts. However, the very high application rates at LS-4 may
damage or kill vegetation, resulting in indirect air quality impacts from
blowing dust.
<*
Alternative RA-2
This alternative involves pipeline transport of Northside and Southside
sludges to dedicated land disposal at Site LS-2 (see Figure 4-7), and drying
bed dewatering and trucking of Haikey Creek sludges to dedicated land
disposal at Site LS-2.
As shown on Table 4-7, there are several adverse impacts with respect to
RA-2. These are principally due to the soils of the site. The soil is
Riverton Gravelly Loam, and is likely to have pockets" of gravel (Personal
communication, SCS 1982). The site is adjacent to the Verdigris River and
is, in fact, very close to a drinking water intake. Because of the pockets
of gravel, nitrates may leach into the alluvial groundwater aquifers
adjacent to the site and these are likely to interconnect with the surface
water. The impacts on groundwater and surface water are therefore
considered major adverse.
There would be no impact on flood hazards since the site is not in a flood
prone area. As in RA-1, some of the geologic formations may not be capable
of containing the wastes, and careful siting would be required based on
bedrock characteristics.
4-37
-------
The impact on soils would probably be major, since these soils are
classified as prime farmlands and the high loading rates would likely remove
about 360 acres from production permanently. Air quality may also suffer
major negative impacts from vegetation die-off leading to blowing dust, and,
because part of the sludge would be dry, incorporation (discing or plowing
in) may result in more disturbance and blowing material.
Alternative RA-3
This alternative includes the drying bed dewatering of all sludges with
truck transportation to landfill at Site LF-1. This alternative, because of
the built-in safeguards of landfill ing, has little potential for negative
impacts on water resources or physical factors. As shown on Table 4-7,
there should be few significant impacts if the landfill is designed,
constructed and operated correctly. The only exception is a minor adverse
effect on soils, due to their classification as prime farmland. As
mentioned in RA-1, about 150 acres plus a buffer would be taken temporarily
out of production. However, their possible return to agricultural
production could occur with a final cap, cover, and reseeding efforts.
Possible subsidence problems would prevent most urban land uses.
Alternative RA-4
This alternative utilizes drying bed dewatering of all sludges and truck
transport to dedicated land disposal at Site LS-2. This alternative is
almost identical to RA-2, except that sludge from Northside is dried and
trucked rather than pipelined as a liquid. Differences in the magnitude of
impacts may not be significant, however, they may be slightly less in this
alternative since all of the sludge is dried.
Alternative RA-5
This alternative entails drying bed dewatering and trucking of Northside
sludge to dedicated land disposal at Site LS-4, and the drying bed
dewatering and trucking of Southside and Haikey Creek sludges to landfill at
4-38
-------
Site LF-1. This alternative is essentially the same as RA-1 except that
dried sludge would be used instead of liquid at LS-4.
The use of dried sludge may reduce minor impacts on surface water and
geological effects to an insignificant level, and reduce those on
groundwater and soils to minor. The primary difference would be less
potential to clog the Newtonia soils than in RA-1. Air quality impacts may
be worse due to constant disturbance and resulting blowing dust.
Alternative RA-6
Alternative RA-6 involves drying bed dewatering and trucking of all sludges
for strip mine reclamation at Site R-3. This alternative could have minor
adverse impacts on groundwater; however, worked sooil (shaley) material may
provide a good liner.
This alternative may have highly beneficial impacts on soils for two
reasons:
1. Spoil materials are unlikely to contain enough organic materials to
support plant growth in the early stages of mine abandonment. The
sludge (dried to 40* and mixed with spoil in the final cover) would
provide organic material and nutrients, decrease the bulk density of
the spoil and generally improve tilth.
2. These orphan or abandoned strip mines are classified as wasteland by
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Their use would not remove any
prime farmlands from production as do Alternatives RA-1 through 5.
Alternative RA-7
This last alternative involves drying bed dewatering and trucking of all
sludge to Site R-l, and sale of sludge to strip mine operators for use in
mine reclamation at Site R-l, with a backup system similar to RA-4.
This alternative basically represents one of the backup alternatives,
specifically RA-4, in combination with marketing of the sludge, specifically
sale to active strip mine operations for use in reclamation. The backup
would have impacts the same as RA-4 as shown on Table 4-7 (RA-7 with LS-2).
4-39
-------
Site LS-2 is used and most of the negative impacts are associated with this
site. As shown in Table 4-7, RA-7 without using a backup of Site LS-2
(Alternative RA-4) would have no significant negative impacts and would have
major beneficial impacts on soils, as did RA-6. This is due to the soil
improvements orovided by dried sludge and the fact that no prime
agricultural lands are lost or taken out of production.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR FURTHER EVALUATION
Based on the assessment presented above, it appears that there are wide
differences in the potential for environmental damage from the seven
alternatives. Although not all of the environmental parameters had been
assessed at this point, it was apparent that some alternatives could be
eliminated or revised before the final assessment.
The alternatives that utilize Site LS-2 for the disposal of the sludge by
the land application of either a liquid or dried sludge are RA-2 and RA-4,
respectively, and the backup for RA-7. Site LS-2 is located on Riverton
gravelly loam soil, which has pockets of gravel through which contaminants
might leach (SCS 1982). Site LS-2 is also very near the Verdigris River,
which is likely to have associated alluvial groundwater aquifers. Althouqh
the quality and quantity of groundwater in alluvial aquifers near LS-2 is
unknown, they are likely to interconnect with the Verdigris River, which is
a source of drinking water.
The potential for the contamination of groundwater is highly dependent on
the rates at which the sludge is applied and type of the soils onsite. In
dedicated land disposal the loading rate, particularly with respect to
nitrogen, would be in excess of w,hat the area crop requirements would be.
Taking the total annual application rates for RA-2 and RA-4 and subtracting
the expected crop requirements based on available site acreage, the total
excess available nitrogen from RA-2 applied to the land would be about
2,430 Ibs/acre or 873,700 Ibs for the entire site; and 4,080 Ibs/acre or
489,400 Ibs for the entire site for Alternative RA-4.
4-40
-------
The site is bisected by Commodore Creek, a tributary of the Verdigris River
which is used as a potable water source. Since ammonia-nitrogen can readily
convert to soluble nitrates and because the soils for LS-2 are Riverton
gravelly loam which has pockets of gravel, there may be no water retention
capacity for the site. Therefore, uncontrolled leachate of nitrates may
occur. Even though the potential for public health problems would be
limited due to the large dilution capability of the Verdigris, the factors
controlling this problem are variable with no available mitigation measures
for the worst- case condition. For this reason any alternative with Site
LS-2 for dedicated land disposal should not be utilized, and these
alternatives were not further evaluated. Because RA-7 only uses LS-2 as a
backup, this alternative was not eliminated but was revised to assume
utilization of the preferred backup alternative when selected. In addition,
the marketing may be in the form of give away/sale, agricultural land
application, or active strip mine reclamation (Report VI).
s
The alternatives that remain, RA-1, RA-3, RA-5, RA-6, and RA-7, were those
that were environmentally assessed and compared to determine the preferred
alternative. Again, RA-7 is basically used for comparison since the concept
of marketing is included in all of the alternatives. Each of the
alternatives is basically a backup for beneficial reuse in some form.
PRESENTATION OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
The five remaining alternatives, RA-1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 underwent one final
environmental assessment. This assessment included three main phases. The
first was a comparison of sludge and commercial fertilizer to determine any
differences in potential environmental impacts (Report VI). This was the
primary assessment of the marketing alternative, in that sludge would
essentially be replacing commercial fertilizer in any of the marketing
options. The results of this assessment are non-site-specific and are
represented by the evaluation under Alternative RA-7 on the Summary Matrix
on Table 4-7.
The second was a generic evaluation of the other methods involved; namely
landfilling, dedicated land disposal, and abandoned mine land reclamation.
4-41
-------
Finally, the sites were assessed in terms of all of the environmental
parameters, and the generic and site assessments were combined to determine
the most suitable alternative(s). The overall comparison of all five
alternatives is shown on Table 4-8. This is followed by Table 4-9 which
provides the alternatives major advantages and disadvantages. In addition,
Table 4-10 provides a comparison of the alternatives capital, operation and
maintenance, energy consumption, and total present worth. The detailed
evaluations on which the results are based may be found in Chapter 5.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative was selected by the applicant based on input fron
the Public Advisory Committee (PAC), Federal, State and local agencies. It
is a combination of two primary alternatives. Beneficial reuse or
marketing, with no specified type, is the long-term preferred method of
residuals solids reuse. It may be agricultural or active strip nine
utilization, or give away/sale. Any of the methods would follow appropriate
precautions and regulations, but the method would depend primarily on local
market availability.
The beneficial reuse concept essentially uses sewage sludge to supplement
commercial fertilizer, and by adding organic matter, adds the benefits of a
soil conditioner. With respect to environmental impacts, the use of sewage
sludge would be very similar to commercial fertilizers, thus producing few
effects that would not occur under normal agricultural practices.
Because marketing is not considered "fail-safe", a backup alternative was
selected for the initial stages of the sludge management program and for use
in the event that the market for the sludge is not steady or reliable. The
fail-safe alternative selected was RA-6, reclamation of abandoned strip
mines at Site R-3. A photograph of a portion of Site R-3 is shown on Figure
4-8. As shown on Table 4-8, Alternative RA-6 has not only the least
negative impacts, but because it is a beneficial reuse, it has the most
positive or beneficial impacts.
4-42
-------
Table 4-8 SUMMARY MATRIX OF RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Environmental Parameter
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
RA-1
RA-3
RA-5
RA-6
RA-7
WATER RESOURCES
Surface Water
Groundwater
Flood Hazards
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Geol ogy
Soils
Air Quality
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
SOCIOECONOMICS
Population and Land Use
Transportation
Institutional Factors
Economics
CULTURAL FACTORS
Recreation
Odors and Insects
Aesthetics and Noise
Public Health and Safety
Archaeol ogi cal /Hi storical
0 0
0 -
000
0 0
* _ _
0
000
-
0
-
_ _ _
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
++ ++
0 0
+ 0
0 0
+ 0
-
+ 0
++ 0
+ 0
0 0
+ 0
0 0
+ +
EVALUATION KEY:
++ major beneficial
+ minor beneficial
0 no impact
- minor adverse
major adverse
4-43
-------
Table 4-9 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Alternative
Advantages
Disadvantages
No Action
Not a permitted disposal operation.
Lack of storage and disposal capacity would
prevent this method.
Alternative RA-1
I
Localized contamination of groundwater at LS-4.
Operational problems with Newtonia soils and loss
of prime farmlands ป'- LS-4.
Difficult implementation due to site locations
In 3 counties other than Tulsa and crossing
political boundaries with a pipeline.
Construction impacts at 2 sites and fron
pipeline.
Alternative RA-3
I Safe, controlled disposal
of sludge.
Provides no beneficial reuse.
LF-1 1s not in Tulsa County.
Alternative RA-5
Air quality Impacts due to continuous disturbance
of soil.
Loss of prime farmlands at LS-4.
Difficult implementation due to 3 counties other
than Tulsa.
Alternative RA-7
Alternative RA-6 { Beneficial reuse provided.
i
No prime farmlands removed.
Increase in value of land.
No new land is disturbed.
Land Is returned to productivity,
spoil material improved with
sludge organic natter and
nutrients.
R-3 is not 1n Tulsa County.
No construction impacts.
Improvement in soils, without
removal of prime farmlands
from production.
No sites opened or disturbed.
Market conditions variable.
4-44
-------
Table 4-10 SUMMARY OF COST INFORMATION FOR THE SELECTED RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
i
4>
01
RA-1;
RA-3;
RA-5;
RA-6;
RA-7;
Alternative
Landspreadlng (I1q LS-4)
and Landfill (LF-1)
Landfill (LF-1)
Landspreadlng (dry LS-4)
Landfilling (LF-1)
Reclamation (R-3)
Example of Marketing
Revenues
Capital
($ Million)3
$37.57
$41.01
$42.95
$42.54
$40.43
Energy
(Annual K
kwh HO6))*
15.34
15.21
15.21
15.21
15.21
Consumption
Fuel
gal/yr
120,700
76,700
92,500
109,400
48,900
0 ซ M
(Annual
$ MilHonr
$2.49
$2.77
$2.71
$2.58
$2.18
Present
Worth
{$ Million)3
$64.03
$69.33
$71.06
$69.87
$61.59
3 January 1982 Dollars.
Based on average energy requirements over the 20-yr planning period 1995 4.2 cents/kwh and $l.42/ga1 of diesel
fuel.
c EPA wastewater treatment plant 0 8 M cost Index of 3.32.
SOURCE: Tech. Memo. 111-7
-------
i-
i
-
Figure 4-8 Backup Site for Preferred Alternative (Reclamation Sfte No.3, R-3).
-------
Site R-3 is a large area of orphaned strip mines about 4 mi northeast of the
town of Claremore. Out of approximately 10,000 acres, about 130 acres plus
a buffer would be required for the reclamation operation. The shaley (clay)
spoil material would be worked and layered in the bottoms of the trenches to
provide a sealer similar to a commercial liner. Sludge would then be
layered alternately with the spoil material, with 2 ft of dried (40 percent)
sludge to 1 ft of spoil material until the land is relatively level.
Another layer of shaley material could be added on top of this to provide a
cap. Finally, a cover of mixed spoil and sludge at around 50 tons per acre
would be placed on top, followed by final grading and reseeding. The final
layer provides nutrients for revegetation in a one-time application adjusted
so that site-life cadmium limitations for food chain crops are not exceeded.
The abandoned strip mines would be used as a backup to a marketing plan. If
for some reason Site R-3 cannot be utilized, other strip mine sites would be
examined. Should all reclamation sites be unimplementable, codisposal at a
privately-owned municipal solid waste landfill would be considered next,
followed by potential landfill sites in Tulsa County. As a last resort,
Site LF-1 would be considered.
4.2 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
EPA has several options available to it based on final review and approval
of this Step 1, 201 Facilities Plan and EIS portion of the Construction
Grants Program. These include (1) appropriating funds for the remaining
Step 3 portions of the Grants Program for the preferred alternative as
presented, (2) awarding funds based on a modified alternative or approach to
the project's implementation, or (3) denying further grant funds.
GRANT FUNDING
PROVIDE STEP 3 GRANT FUNDING
At present, if EPA awards funds for the remainder of the project, as
stipulated under Public Law 92-500, grants for 75 percent of eligible
project costs can be given. However, based on Public Law 97-117, if no
4-47
-------
funds have been awarded by October 1, 1984, then only 55 percent of eligible
project cost would be available.
For the typical residential customer, effects of funding are as follows. A
monthly sewer service bill of 58.71, projected for 1987, is used as a point
of reference. The implementation of alternatives with a combined present
worth similar to that of the preferred plan would raise the monthly sewer
service bill by approximately AQ percent. This assumes that the ad valorem
tax support for sewer utility debt payments continues and the 75 percent
EPA/OSDH funding is made available (Tech. Memo. II1-8, IV-9, V-4).
PROVIDE FUNDS FOR MODIFIED PLAN
EPA may choose to fund the preferred plan or to modify the plan's selected
wastewater and residuals alternatives.
DENY GRANT FUNDS
Ultimately, EPA could deny funcing for the project in total, either due to a
shift in priorities or based on a lack of funds. If the project were still
implemented without EPA/OSDH funding and no ad valorem tax supports were
provided, the monthly rates could increase by approximately 114 percent
(Tech. Memo. III-R, IV-9, V-4). The City of Tulsa would still be required
to comply with current regulations but the financial strain could result in
the postponement of the project.
4-48
-------
Chapter 5
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The environmental consequences of the alternatives for both the wastewater
and residuals management plans that were selected through the screening
process presented in Chapter 4 are described below. Because this project is
made up of two separate but parallel studies, the information in this
chapter will be provided in several sections; Section 5.1 covers the
wastewater management alternatives; Section 5.2 presents the alternatives
for residuals solids management; Section 5.3 summarizes construction
impacts; Section 5.4 includes rare, threatened, and endangered species;
Section 5.5 discusses alternatives available to EPA; and Section 5.6
presents the options available to other agencies.
5.1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT
Because changes are expected to occur from the present to the time of
implementation, the current 1981 or Existing Conditions are provided as a
data base. The first change would occur in 1985 when the two upstream
plants, Flat Rock and Coal Creek, are projected to be closed and the flows
treated at the Northside Plant.
The 1985 conditions or No Action are the conditions that are projected to be
in effect at the time the Facilities Plan is implemented (1985), through the
planning period to 2005. These conditions are represented by a 30 MGD
Northside Plant operating at capacity to produce a secondary effluent
quality of only 20 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 SS with no nitrification.
The evaluation will be based on five primary areas: water, physical and
biological resources, socioeconomics, and cultural factors. Under each of
these evaluation parameters the Existing Conditions and No Action
Alternative will be followed by an evaluation of each of the alternatives in
operation and the effects that are expected at the time of implementation,
through the 20 year planning period of 1985 to 2005.
5-1
-------
WATER RESOURCES
This environmental parameter is made up of several more detailed indicators
that were examined through the course of this evaluation. These include
surface water, groundwater, and flood hazards.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
In this evaluation, the area of study or the affected environment entails
Bird Creek and its watershed. The watershed is essentially split into two
relatively separate basins. The Upper Bird Creek Basin encompasses
approximately 905 sq mi of the Bird Creek watershed. The upper basin of the
watershed ends at the confluence of the two predominant streams, Bird Creek
and Hominy Creek, which joins Bird Creek from the west (River Mile 27.4, see
Figure 5-1). The channel width in this area ranges from 100-200 ft, with an
average gradient of 6.4 ft per mile. This portion of the watershed is
sparsely populated, with much of the basin devoted to grazing, woodlands,
cultivation, and scattered points of oil production. The Lower Bird Creek
Basin from R.M. 27.4 to the confluence with the Verdigris River (the primary
area of study) adds roughly an additional 240 sq mi to the watershed. The
southern portion of the basin is largely urbanized, with significant
residential and industrial development occurring in the adjacent lands.
Many smaller tributaries feed into this reach of Bird Creek; Delaware Creek
(R.M. 23.3), Flat Rock Creek (R.M. 20.1), Coal Creek (R.M. 15.4), Ranch
Creek (R.M. 13.8), Mingo Creek (R.M. 12.7), and Elm Creek (R.M. 11.8).
Surface Water
The majority of the flow in Bird Creek is contributed by rainfall and the
resultant runoff from the watershed. U.S. Geological Survey has been
operating a flow gauge (#1775) since 1938, just downstream of the Hominy
Creek confluence. This gauge provides information on the flow contribution
from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and project area. The average
annual rainfall from the area is about 37 in/yr, with the peak occurring
from March through June and a secondary peak occurring in late fall.
5-2
-------
RM - RIVER MILE
T TREATMENT PLANT
TULSA INT'L
AIRPORT
Figure 5-1 Treatment Plant Locations and River Miles.
5-3
-------
Table 5-1 provides the average daily flows in the stream by month, based on
USGS #1775 ten year period of record 1972-1981.
Bird Creek also receives flow from many other sources, most of which are
man-made. Some of the contributions include oil production waste (i.e.
brine) that enters the stream throughout the basin, and industrial
discharges which primarily occur in the lower segments. More significant
and relatively continuous flows originate from the six municipal wastewater
treatment facilities located along Bird Creek, Figure 5-1.
Municipal Discharges. The type and capacity for each of these facilities is
presented as follows:
Skiatook - the town of Skiatook utilizes lagoons as the primary
method of treatment, discharging at a rate of approximately 508,000
gal/day (0.786 cfs) and is the furthest upstream point source
considered in this study, (located at River Mile 37.1).
Sperry - the next discharge comes from the town of Sperry (River Mile
27.4) which uses an Imholf Tank to treat 100,000 gal/day (0.16 cfs).
Flat Rock - the Flat Rock plant is one of Tulsa's older treatment
facilities and is scheduled to be closed (see No Action). Bio-
absorption is used to treat approximately 4.87 MGD (7.54 cfs) of flow
that discharges to Flat Rock Creek which is a tributary of Bird Creek
(River Mile 19.9).
t Co?! Creek - the Coal Creek facility is a 3.58 MGD (5.54 cfs)
trickling filter plant which discharges by pipeline (River Mile 18.9)
directly to Bird Creek, and is also scheduled to be closed (see No
Action).
Owasso - the town of Owasso treats 880,000 gal/day (1.36 cfs) of
municipal wastewater by an aerated lagoon prior to discharge to Bird
Creek (River Mile 13.2).
t Northside - the Northside plant, upon which this assessment is based,
initially came on-line as a trickling filter plant. An eleven MGD
(17 cfs) activated sludge expansion, plifs the inclusion of
disinfection was added to the plant in 1979. This increased the
design capacity to a total of 19 MGD (29 cfs), however, the plant is
presently operating below capacity at approximately 16 MGD (25 cfs).
In comparing the stream flows presented in Table 5-1 to the combined
discharges of the larger municipal wastewater plants, the point source
5-4
-------
en
en
Table 5-1 AVERAGE DAILY FLOW IN BIRD CREEK
USGS #1775; MATER YEARS 1972 - 1981
(cubic feet per second)
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Mean
Oct
1304
738
517
1850
53
21
46
5
6
9
455
Nov
130
1866
1940
5419
41
9
328
28
484
6
1025
Dec
1782
437
1178
998
89
9
30
12
32
10
458
Jan
186
1702
225
990
45
11
20
383
94
7
366
Feb
68
581
601
2089
47
42
879
120
226
12
467
Mar
45
4491
3565
1918
369
136
933
811
632
15
1292
April
221
3503
255
522
990
27
816
655
1439
15,
844
May
168
681
1699
2509
513
1449
2395
553
812
260
1104
June
17
942
1341
1300
118
141
1097
742
900
302
690
July
514
95
22
74
695
101
46
99
25
122
179
Aug.
19
44
821
126
8
366
17
52
29
124
161
Sept.
137
427
2169
82
8
552
5
29
24
25
402
Average Minimum Flows (cfs) for Comparison
Mlnlnum 19.2 55.2 74.6 67.3 83.3 108.5 118.1 83.4 42.1 16.7 8.9 13.3
-------
contributions to the stream may meet or exceed base flow. The response of
the strean to these loadings and the effect on water quality under the
existing conditions is presented below.
Many constituents can be perceived as pollutants, however, in light of Bird
Creek's beneficial use designations for the protection of aquatic life and
availability as an emergency raw water source, two constituents become more
important. These are heavy metals, specifically cadmium and chromium, and
those that deplete the level of instream dissolved oxygen (D.O.) such as
organic material referred to as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and ammonia
(NH.J. In general, ammonia is considered to be toxic to most aquatic
species.
Heavy Metals. Heavy metals can enter the stream through both point
(municipal discharges) and non-point (storm water runoff) source
contributions. To indicate the stream's relative background quality and
areas of contribution, a 40 mi reach of Bird Creek from Skiatook to its
confluence with the Verdigris River was evaluated. Figure 5-2 illustrates
the study area and Table 5-2 details sampling station locations. Table 5-3
is an average of accumulated data taken along Bird Creek, for points that
represent a tributary's contribution as well as discharges of the existing
municipal plants (INCOG 208 stream sampling data and CH2M Hill industrial
pretreatment studies).
Table 5-3 provides the instream concentrations of cadmium, the point and
quality of flow contributions of both tributaries and municipal discharges,
and the concentrations at consecutive stream sampling stations. Based on
the available cadmium data, it appears that the tributaries that drain the
Tulsa metropolitan area may make a significant heavy metal contribution to
Bird Creek. This data represents the existing conditions or the quality of
Bird Creek in terms of heavy metals. An assessment of the specific sources
and their significance is not a part of this 201, but further study is
required.
Oxygen Demand. The level of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) in a stream is highly
dependent on its organic content or pollutant loads, particularly with
5-6
-------
O STATION NUMBE
V PLANT(PROCESS)
OB11
SKIATOOK
(LAGOON)
SPERRY
(IMHOLF TANK)
aซe
NORTHSIDE
PLANT
OBO5
FLATROCK
CBIO-SORPTION)
COAL CREEK
(TRICKLE FILTER)
TULSA INT'L
AIRPORT
Figure 5-2 Bird Craek Treatment Plants and Station Locations.
5-7
-------
Table 5-2 STREAM MAP REFERENCE POINTS
River Miles
Sampling Station
Numbers
Station Description
40
37.3
37.1
35
34.3
30 -
29.8
27.4
27.3
25
23.4
20.3 '
20
19.9
18.9
16.0
15.5
15
14.1
13.2
13.0
12.5
10.9
10
9.5
5
2.9
OB11
Skiatook
OB10
OB09
Sperry
Hominy
OB08
USGS # 1775
OB07
Delaware Cr.
OB06
Flat Rock
Coal Creek
OB05
Coal Creek
USGS # 1780.5
OB04
Owasso
Northsi de
OB03
OB02
OB021
4B01
State Hwy. 20, 0.5 miles East of
Skiatook Wastewater Lagoon
136th St. North, 2 miles East of
106th Street North
Sperry Imholf Tank discharges to
Hominy Cr.
Hominy Creek confluence
96th Street North
U.S.G.S. gauging station
86th Street North
Delaware Creek confluence
56th St. North, West of Yale
Flat Rock Wastewater Plant
Coal Creek Wastewater Plant
56th St. North at Memorial
Coal Creek (Stream confluence)
U.S.G.S. Sampling Station
North Mingo Road
Owasso Wastewater Lagoon
Northsi de Wastewater Plant
U.S. Highway 169
56th St. North, East of U.S. Hwy
U.S. Highway 266
State Hwy. 167
Skiatook
Peori a
169
Verdigris R. Verdigris River confluence
5-8
-------
Table 5-3 AVAILABLE HEAVY METALS SAMPLING DATA (mg/1)
en
i
River
Miles
40
37.3
37.1
35.0
34.3
30.0
29.8
27.4
27.3
25.0
23.4
21.3
20.0
19.9
18.9
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.1
13.2
13.0
12.5
10.9
10.0
9.5
5.0
2.9
0
Station
OB11
OB10
OB09
OH01
OB08
uses
OB07
0001
OB06
OF02
OJ01
OB05
OY01
OB04
0101
OB03
OB02
OB21
4B01
Instream Sampling Station
1 Cd Cr
0.211
0.115
0.068
0.039
#1775
0.14
0.024
0.053
0.064
0.123
0.077
0.07
0.057
0.055
0.053
0.063
0.04
0.064
0.058
0.066
0.055
0.058
0.063
0.061
0.055
Data
Zn
0.13
0.023
0.018
..
0.045
0.025
0.035
0.09
0.07
0.117
0.103
0.215
Pb
0.069
0.068
0.088
0.058
0.149
0.09
0.089
0.073
0.083
0.102
0.088
0.089
WWTP2 and
Tributaries
Ski a took WWTP
Hominy Creek
Sperry WWTP
Delaware Cr.
Flat Rock Cr.
Dirty Butter
Flat Rock WWTP
Coal Creek WWTP
Coal Creek
Owasso WWTP
Northslde WWTP
M1ngo Creek
Point Source
Cd
N/A
0.055
N/A
0.050
0.108
0.152
0.004
0.015
0.136
N/A
0.009
0.027
Sampl 1 ng
Cr
N/A
0.043
N/A
0.119
0.034
0.026
0.016
0.035
0.021
N/A
0.02
0.026
Data
Zn
N/A
0.023
N/A
0.009
0.023
0.054
0.026
0.038
0.029
N/A
0.036
0.023
Pb
N/A
0.051
N/A
0.021
0.048
0.03
0.018
0.023
0.038
N/A
0.021
0.032
INCOG Sampling Data 5/12/76 - 5/31/77
CH2M H111 "Technical Information" Jan 1980 - April 1981
-------
respect to municipal discharges. As stated previously, most of the point
source contributions occur in the lower half of the study segment, from Flat
Rock Creek (R.M. 19.1) to the confluence of Bird Creek with the Verdigris
River (R.M. 0.0), (see Table 5-2). An extensive amount of water quality
data has been collected in this segment, with the original stream survey
occurring on August 19, 1976.
It was this data that provided calibration for the Hydroscience computer
model "RIVER" that was used to develop the present wasteload allocations.
The model has been shown to be an effective tool in illustrating the impacts
on Bird Creek as a result of these point source contributions. Figure 5-3
presents the modelling results for the stream's dissolved oxygen (D.O.)
level at various points along its reach. Changes in this D.O. profile
illustrate the stream's response to organic loading and its rate of
assimilation. The dotted line on Figure 5-3 represents the D.O. profile and
the general condition of the stream in 1976 (ultimate BOD was 32,100 Ibs of
02 per day) when the model was originally developed. The data used for that
profile is presented below.
Effluent Characteristics 8/19/76
Flow
Plant River Mile MGD/cfs BOD (mg/1) NH3(mg/l) UBOD Ibs/day
Flat Rock
Coal Creek
Northside
19.9
19.1
13.0
4.87/7.54
3.58/5.54
11.63/18.00
34.7
38.0
46.9
28.00
28.00
28.00
7,356
5,522
19,235
As discussed earlier, since the time of this original sampling and model
calibration, several changes have occurred which could affect the stream's
water quality. These include the expansion and additfon of disinfection at
Northside along with improvements in operations at both the Flat Rock and
Coal Creek plants.
Because of these changes a new water quality sampling program was conducted
on September 9, 1981 by INCOG to update the overall modeling data base.
5-10
-------
IU
O
X
O
O
IU
O
9)
CO
8.0
7.0
e.o
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
A Municipal' Discharge
22
, /
21 20
to j,,
O u
5!
ซ
u.
A '(
19
j<
o
0
"5
o
U
/
18 17 16
10
0
CO
O
16 14
0
CD
0
AA
Owasso
Northaide 3
OBO3
\
V
12 11 10
M
O
m
O
RIVER MILES
(
9
T-
CM
m
O
i i ' i
878643
O
m
210
9
"o o
t 2
ฃฃ
Figure 5-3 Model Dissolved Oxygen Profiles Based on 1981 and 1976 Data.
-------
These improvements reduced the total BOD contribution from these point
sources to 16,500 pounds of oxygen required for assimilation, as indicated
below.
Effluent Characteristics 9/8/81
Plant
Flat Rock
Coal Creek
Northside
River Mile
19.9
19.1
13.0
Flow
MGD/cfs
4.9/7.58
4.39/6.8
15.7/24.3
BOD (mq/1)
32.7
26.6
12.0
NH,(pig/1)
13.8
6.0
12.1
UBOD Ibs/day
4,582
2,464
9,530
This new data (1981) was plugged into the same model (Hydroscience, 1978;
"RIVER") that was used in the original modelling runs. The solid line
provided in Figure 5-3 illustrates the stream's responses, with the overall
rise in the level of the dissolved oxygen profile indicating a relative
improvement as a result of the expansion of the Northside plant and
improvements in effluent quality at Flat Rock and Coal Creek.
The most important characteristic of the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) profile is
the extent and degree of the D.O. sag. This is the area of the stream in
which the organic matter from a discharge depletes the D.O. level of the
stream. The assimilative capacity of the stream regulates the rate (slope
of the profile) at which the instream D.O. level recovers.
The new D.O. profile (solid line, Figure 5-3) based on the 1981 data
exhibits two D.O. sags. The first sag is downstream of Flat Rock and Coal
Creek's discharges (R.M. 19.0) and the second is below the Northside plant
(R.M. 13.0). The profile below Northside exhibits an uncharacteristic
double sag with the second and more severe D.O. depletion occurring between
River Mile 11 and 9. In this segment (R.M. 11-9) the stream channel is both
deeper and wider than the upstream segment. This means that the velocity,
and the reaeration rate have been reduced, and it follows that the rate of
assimilation would be reduced. The net effect is a long, deep pool,
especially during low flow conditions.
5-12
-------
Evaluation of the channel indicates two possible obstructions; one results
from dikes or obstructions placed in the stream by a gravel company to
provide a platform for wash water pumps, the other and most likely cause is
a rock outcropping and diversion structure used in the mid-30's as an
irrigation pool. This is located at about RM 10.6. The actual physical
extent of the obstruction and its effect on water quality is not known at
this time, but the model's D.O. profile response to the segment's
cross-sectional area, which may be at least in part caused by this structure
is clearly illustrated on Figure 5-3.
In summary, the point of the D.O. sag relates to a specific stream segment
with a particularly low rate of reaeration. It appears that the channel
configuration, enhanced by the presence of an instream obstruction which
affects flow velocity is an important factor affecting the D.O. levels in
this section of the stream.
Groundwater
Groundwater resources in Tulsa County are generally of limited extent,
however, some rural residents presently have irrigation and private drinking
water wells in the downstream area that should be addressed.
The Oklahoma Geological Survey has developed maps for the state, showing
generalized aquifers and their relative quality (OGS, 1955 and 1971).
According to these maps, Tulsa County has primarily localized groundwater
reservoirs of limited extent, fair to poor quality and yields of usually
less than 50 gallons per minute. Two local areas, however, have more
substantial resources. These are the terrace deposits and alluvium along
the Arkansas and the Verdigris, and on parts of Bird Creek. The chemical
quality is listed as fair to good, but with generally low yields. The water
from alluvium along the Verdigris and Bird Creek is listed as usually hard
with high dissolved solids.
There are scattered records of drinking water wells with the Tulsa
City/County Health Department. These usually provide only the results of
coliform counts on water samples, however, and are only done at the owner's
5-13
-------
request. An examination of the records for the last two years did not show
any new wells in the Bird Creek area, but since well locations were not
always listed, some may have been overlooked.
The U.S. Geological Survey keeps records of wells in most areas, but their
information in the study area is limited, USGS lists several areas on Bird
Creek as favorable for development of groundwater supplies based on
geological structure (Figure 5-4).
In addition, some USGS well records exist. These are numbered on Figure 5-4
and described on Table 5-4. Because of the lack of recorded information,
local residents were contacted in an attempt to delineate any other wells.
The lettered wells on Figure 5-4 resulted. Information on those wells is
also given in Table 5-4. Most residents abandoned their wells when City
water became available, although several residents reported that their wells
had become too salty for drinking.
Flood Hazards
The effects of a project on flood hazards generally relate directly to the
facility's location in a floodplain and indirectly to the facility's effect
on development in a floodplain, increasing a stream's flood stage or area of
inundation. However, institutional constraints outlined as follows limit
such development (see Report IV for more detail).
The Floodway Zoning Ordinance created a new zoning district classification,
FD, to control development in the floodway portion of the floodplain, i.e.,
the area required to convey the 100-year frequency flood. The ordinance
prohibits development in the floodway which may increase flood hazards to
other property owners; thus, so-called "open air" uses are virtually the
only allowable type of development in floodway districts.
Development in the floodplain is also regulated under the Earth Change and
Stormwater Drainage Control Ordinance and Floodplain Development Ordinance.
The former regulation requires that the developer prepare and submit to the
City Engineer a drainage plan (in conjunction with the subdivision
5-14
-------
WELLS:
USGS RECORDS
X LOCAL REPORTS
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
POTENTIALLY FAVORABLI
FOR DEVELOPMENT
./ OF GROUNDWATER
Lake
Yahola
TULSA INT'L
AIRPORT
Figure 5-4 Groundwater Resources and Well Locations on Bird Creek.
S-15
-------
Table 5-4 DATA FOR WELLS SHOWN ON BIRD CREEK
Well No.
Well Depth
(in ft)
Depth to
Groundwater
(in ft)
Current
Usage
Comments
(USGS Records)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(Local Reports)
A
B
C
D
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
69
28
39
37
16
28
83
21
21
25
18
5
20
27
Home*
Home*
Stock*
1948 Record
1948 Record
1948 Record
30
20
60-70
30
30
80
40
102
60
50
50
50
Unused
(destroyed)
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
Unused
High col i form
Salty-now lies
under Port Ro
"Sulfur water"
Salty
Reported good
qua! i ty
Dry
Salty
Salty
Salty
*
This was the reported usage in 1948, present use unknown.
5-16
-------
application) and obtain an Earth Change Permit prior to any grading,
excavation, or landfill ing. The latter regulation established mapped
floodplain locations and required review by the City Engineer of all planned
alterations to the natural environment within the floodplain.
NO ACTION
As presented earlier, the conditions that will be in effect at the time the
selected alternative would be implemented (1985) will have changed
dramatically in relation to the existing conditions (1981). The primary
change will occur as a result of the closure of Tulsa's Coal Creek and Flat
Rock wastewater treatment plants located six and seven miles upstream of the
Northside Plant, respectively.
These plants are outdated and scheduled to be closed by 1985 with the flow
conveyed to the Northside Plant for treatment at the planned 11 MGD
secondary expansion. This condition will be represented by the Northside
Plant operating at capacity (30 MGD) and producing a 20 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1
SS, with no nitrification for the planning period from 1985 through 2005.
Surface Water
The treatment of these combined flows at the Northside Plant would increase
its total capacity to 30 mgd. The flow would be treated to a secondary
level with the following effluent quality.
Effluent Characteristics 1985
Flow
Plant River Mile M6D/cfs BOD (mg/1) NH3(mg/l) UBOD Ibs/day
Northside 13.0 30/46.4 20 12 21,300
As indicated, this will increase the ultimate organic loading to the stream
from the 1981 level of 16,500 pounds of oxygen for assimilation. The No
Action (1985) effluent characteristics would be 20 mg/1 BOD, 30 mg/1 SS and
5-17
-------
the NH3 would be approximately 12 mg/1, producing a UBOD of 21,300 Ibs of
oxygen. The Northside plant would reach capacity at 30 MGD (46 cfs). It is
assumed that any additional population growth (i.e., increased municipal
flow) would require onsite treatment. The downstream project area is shown
on Figure 5-5. The No Action D.O. profile that will be used in the
alternative evaluation is shown on Figure 5-6.
In assessing this profile, it can be seen that the 20 mg/1 carbonaceous BOD
loading from a secondary plant would have a detrimental impact on Bird Creek
during low flow conditions. The slope of the profile from River Mile 13
(Northside) to R.M. 9 illustrates a high D.O. reouirement from this organic
loading. From R.M. 9 to the mouth (R.M. 0), the stream exhibits a gradual
recovery. The slope of the recovery profile is dependent on the stream
channel characteristics and the rate of ammonia conversion (NH^-NO,). In
addition, because of the minimal degree of in-plant nitrification, the level
of ammonia at the mouth of Bird Creek would be in excess of 7 mg/1 (NH3)
which can be toxic to most fish species.
It is anticipated that the section upstream of Northside which had received
loadings from Flat Rock and Coal Creek will improve with time. Once the
point sources are removed, it is the nature of the watershed and the
physical characteristics of the channel that become the controlling factors
in a stream's water quality as well as the types and species of aouatic
organisms that will inhabit it (see Biological Resources).
Groundwater
The effects on the area groundwater would not be significantly different
than what was presented under existing conditions. The higher rate of
solids loading may further seal the stream channel's bottom limiting
recharge to alluvial aquifers.
Flood Hazards
Because No Action would not involve the construction of any new facilities,
the potential for site development in the floodplain would not be presented.
5-18
-------
i&rfmm*
> V..M*Ui>
, ..- (\.;^^;iW.^^
Figure 5-5 Downstream Project Area and River Mile Location Map.
-------
in
i
ro
O
O.\J-
7.0
8.0
O
o
E
ซ
ui 5.0
>
X
>
O
0 4.0
UI
>
O
m
! 3-0
^q
X
2.0
1.0
State Standard
i Municipal Discharge
14
i
13
o
s!
o I
12
O
CO
O
-r4-
11
en
O
0
O
10
N
o
CD
O
8 7
RIVER MILES
0
ฐl
ฃ3
Figure 5-6 Model Dissolved Oxygen Profile Based on No Action
-------
However, No Action would result in the lack of available sewer service for
new housing development, requiring the employment of onsite disposal
systems. Since these systems require suitable soils and larger lot sizes,
pressures for development into floodprone areas could result (see
Socioeconomic evaluation).
OUT-OF-BASIN TRANSFER MA-1
In contrast to the other wastewater management alternatives presented in
this section where the flow is treated to a high degree and discharged to
Bird Creek, this alternative would transport secondarily treated effluent by
pipeline to the Arkansas River for discharge.
Surface Water
According to the 208 study, the Arkansas River should possess sufficient
assimilative capacity to accommodate the additional organic loading* In
terms of Bird Creek, the net result would be the return of the stream to a
pre-Northside condition. The removal of the Northside discharge would make
the entire downstream reach more susceptible to fluctuations in flow. Based
on a 10 year period of record (USGS #1775, 1972-1981), the mean flow was 643
cfs with average peaks as high as 19,290 cfs, average low flows of 4.5 cfs
and with minimum flows dropping as low as 0.20 cfs. Because the majority of
the stream's flow would result from storm water runoff, its water quality
would be controlled by the pollutant loading from non-point sources (see
Report XII for more detail).
As the Bird Creek channel is influenced by the floodplain of the Verdigris
River, the channel becomes wider and shallower. This is further shown by
the backwater effects of the Port of Catoosa turning basin into the last
three miles of Bird Creek. The result is a reduction *in flow velocities and
instream reaeration. This indicates that the downstream area would probably
be affected by warm weather low-flow conditions that could result in
depressed levels of dissolved oxygen.
5-21
-------
Seasonal fluctuations 1n stream D.O. levels may also occur. "Instream decay
of accumulated organic materials resulting from the die off of summer
vegetation which is washed into receiving streams by rainfall as well as the
decay of large quantities of leaves resulting from autumn leaf falls in
forested areas has resulted in significant oxygen depressions and
occasionally, in fish kills in small streams in the Tulsa area," (INCOG,
February 1978).
This naturally occurring instream oxygen demand could be more pronounced
during times of warmer temperatures and low flows. The reason is that water
holds less oxygen at wanner temperatures. For example, at 20ฐC the
saturation level of water is 9.17 mg/1 of oxygen, whereas at 30ฐC that level
is only 7.63 mg/1. Adding to the problem, the flow in most streams is
diminished during warmer weather. A loss in flow and velocity may be
accompanied by stagnant pools and a reduction in reaeration.
To illustrate this effect on Bird Creek's water quality, the available
sampling data taken during warm weather low flow periods around the USGS
sampling station #1775, located on Figure 5-2 was evaluated. A regression
analysis was used to produce a linear best fit for the data points (a more
detailed discussion of this data is presented in Report IX; Volume 3). The
available data indicates that during summer low flow conditions of less than
11 cfs, the dissolved oxygen content of the stream could fall below the
designated level of 5.0 mg/1 used in the State Stream Standards.
It would be expected that despite the extreme fluctuations in flow and the
possible seasonal drops in D.O. due to the low flow conditions, the water
quality of this downstream area would improve greatly over that resulting
from No Action. This would primarily be due to the elimination of the large
D.O. sag and the removal of the ammonia toxicity associated with municipal
effluents.
5-22
-------
Groundwater
The removal of this flow would limit groundwater recharge of the adjacent
alluvial aquifers to storm water runoff and periods of seasonally higher
f1ows.
Flood Hazards
This wastewater management alternative as well as the following options
under evaluation will provide for additional capacity to accomodate future
growth. This would control growth patterns further limitina the potential
of floodplain encroachment by development (see Socioeconomic Evaluation).
AWT ALTERNATIVE MA-10
ป
This alternative along with the remaining two alternatives (MA-13 and MA-16)
under evaluation are directed at the expansion of the Northside Plant to
accommodate an average daily flow of 42.6 mgd, employing a method of
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT). Since all these alternatives are
designed to achieve the same level of effluent quality the impacts on the
stream will be summarized jointly below. Because each alternative utilizes
a different approach to treat the wastewater, an assessment of the
alternative's process trains and operation will be presented separately.
Surface Water
This level of treatment would produce an effluent with a quality of 5 mg/1
BOD, 5 mg/1 SS and 3 mg/1 NH3, which would exert a UBOD of 7,500 Ibs of
oxyaen.
The major advantages of these alternatives is the combined reduction of both
the carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand exerted on the stream, and
the continued contribution of a constant flow (57 cfs). Figure 5-7 presents
the stream's D.O. profile in response to these loadings.
5-23
-------
8.0 i
01
rs>
S ซ-o
Ul
O
X
O
O
UJ
O
m
2
5
4.0-
AWT
9.0
9.0
1.0
Municipal Discharge
-U-
14
13
oo ซ
n T3 O
2 'ป m
5 f o
o 5
12
11
CM
o
m
o
10
CM
CO
O
8 7
RIVER MILES
O
o
Flqure 6-7 Modol Dissolved Oxygon Profile Bnsod on Advnncod Wnslownlor Tronlmont.
C
ป-
o ซ
ao
-------
Aside from the reduction in the organic loading and the elevated levels of
dissolved oxygen, probably the most significant change, in comparison to the
No Action alternative, is the reduction in ammonia toxicity. It would be
expected that the ammonia concentration would be less than 2 mg/1 at the
mouth of Bird Creek, providing a major beneficial impact to water quality.
This AWT alternative, MA-10, would utilize the existing trickling filter
process in combination with an expanded activated sludge system to provide a
secondary level of treatment, as discussed in the Facilities Plan.
Biological filtration would follow utilizing a fixed growth media to support
bacterial cultures of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter to acheive nitrification.
Any biological nitrification process is susceptible to cold weather, because
the organisms are roesophilic and their peak growth curve occurs between
20-30ฐC. This is followed by a gradual reduction in metabolic activity as
the temperature varies to either side of that range. The concern with this
alternative (MA-10) is that the fixed growth process is much more
susceptible to cold weather and this could affect its reliability. Covers
for the biological filters ma> reduce this susceptibility.
Groundwater
The AWT alternatives would continue the discharge of a good quality effluent
that could produce some recharge.
Flood Hazards
As discussed previously, the plant would be expanded to accommodate growth,
limiting the potential for floodplain encroachment by development.
AWT ALTERNATIVE MA-13
This alternative provides the same improvements in water quality as the
other AWT options. The primary difference, however, is that ammonia removal
would be accomplished through chemical means, at least during the coldest
times of the year. The activated sludge process would be designed with
5-25
-------
sufficient retention time to provide biological nitrification during most of
the year.
Surface Water
The removal of ammonia is an important factor in water quality. Because of
'the influence of colder temperatures on ammonia removal by nitrification as
discussed earlier, a process referred to as breakpoint chlorination was
added as a part of this alternative to offset this potential during the six
coldest weeks of the year.
The breakpoint process removes ammonia from wastewater by converting ammonia
(NH.,) to nitrogen gas (Np) through a series of chemical reactions employing
the oxidizing agent chlorine. To carry out this reaction a greater amount
of chlorine in relation to ammonia must be added. At the normal chlorine
dosage of 25 mg/1 for disinfection, a combined residual chlorine level of
0.5 mg/1 would be expected. However, in breakpoint chlorination with design
levels of 200 mg/1, the residual chlorine levels would be higher.
Because even low levels of chlorine are toxic to fish a process of
dechlorination would be required. The accepted method is the addition of
sulfur dioxide at a ratio of 1:1. Since sulfur dioxide is a strong reducing
agent it will exert an oxygen demand of its own if added at levels higher
than what is required for dechlorination. Therefore, precise metering of
the chlorine residual and sulfur dioxide is required. In addition,
post-aereation should be considered as a safeguard, similar to the cascade
structures provided at the present Northside Plant.
Independent of the concern over the use of highly reactive chemicals, an
advantage of this process is its year-round availability. In case of an
industrial shock loading or some other unexpected die-off or decline in the
summertime population of nitrifiers, the breakpoint process could be put
into operation. This would provide a backup until the biological process
recovered. This alternative would provide a major beneficial impact to
water quality.
5-26
-------
Groundwater
The potential benefits are the same for all AWT options.
Flood Hazards
A more detailed discussion is provided under the socioeconomic evaluation.
AWT ALTERNATIVE MA-16
This (AWT) alternative would utilize biological filters and activated sludge
for treatment.
Surface Water
In this AWT alternative, the primary mode of treatment would be the
activated sludge process, plus biological filters. The bio-filters would be
placed in front of the activated sludge train providing two advantages.
First, the biological filters are less sensitive to potential toxic shocks
from industrial spills and would act as a buffer for the primary system of
treatment. Second, the purpose would be to reduce the carbonaceous BOD
loading to the activated sludge process. This would allow for nitrification
to take place in the activated sludge process which is a suspended growth
system that is less susceptible to cold weather. This alternative would
provide a major beneficial impact to water quality.
Groundwater
All AWT options are comparable.
Flood Hazards
All AWT options are comparable.
5-27
-------
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
For the purposes of this evaluation, discussion of the physical environment
and the effects of the alternatives will be restricted to geology, soils and
air quality/meteorology.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NO ACTION
Because there are no anticipated changes between the existing physical
environment (1981) and that which will occur in 1985, Existing Conditions
and No Action will be presented jointly.
Geology
An assessment of geology provides the necessary data base from which the
planning of future structures or modifications can be made.
Tulsa County is underlain entirely by Pennsylvanian rocks, but with local
surface deposits of Pleistocene river sediments and wind blown sands.
Pennsylvanian age rocks are divided into several species of rocks. Of
these, the Missourian and Desmoinesian Series are the "Foundation of Tulsa
County". These series are further divided into groups and then formations.
They are outlined below:
DESMOINESIAN SERIES MISSOURIAN SERIES
Marmaton Group Ochelata Group
Holdenville Shale Barnsdall Formation
Nowata Formation Wann Formation
Oologah Limestone lola Limestone
Labette Formation Chanute Formation
Fort Scott Limestone Dewey4 Limestone
Cabaniss Group Ski atook Group
Senora Formation Nellie Bly Formation
Krebs Group Hogshooter Limestone
Coffeyville Formation
Checkerboard Limestone
Semino!e Formation
SOURCE: From A.P. Bennison, "Tulsa's Physical Environment", 1972.
5-28
-------
The area that lies within a one mile radius of the Northside is predominated
by Modern Floodplain Alluvium of the Bird and Mingo Creek floodplains.
Oologah Limestone Formation lies to the southeast of the Bird/Mingo
confluence. The Nowata Shale Formation and undifferentiated terrace
deposits lie to the west. The general location of these formations are
shown on Figure 5-8, taken from Tulsa's Physical Environment, 1972. The
formation of particular interest is the Nowata Shale Formation located
adjacent to the Northside plant site. This shale is potentially in the area
of construction and consists of soft, plastic clay shale. Formations of
this type tend to be mechanically weak for large structures.
Soils
The 1977 Soil Survey described three groups of soils and nine soil
associations within them. These are listed on Table 5-2, with the
percentage make-up of each group and association for Tulsa County. These
associations are mapped in the Soil Survey for reference in "broad land use
planning". The general soil map shows the Northside Wastewater Treatment
Plant and a one mile radius contain the Dennis-Bates Association, the
Okenah-Parsons Association and the Osaqe-Wyona Association. Each of these
associations is made up of soils having similar properties.
For smaller-scale planning, detailed soils maps have been compiled. These
are based on soil "mapping units", which may be soil series, phases,
complexes or other miscellaneous units.
These mapping units have been reproduced for the area of the Northside
Wastewater Treatment Plant on Figure 5-9. Table 5-5 corresponds to that
figure and describes each of the mapping units in terms of a few of their
characteristic problems. The problems listed for each soil relate to
properties of the soil which affect land use. The meaning of the terms and
their importance are described below;
Permeability. The Apperson, Dennis, Okemah A Osage soils have low
permeability (0.6 - 0.20 inches per hour). This is important in that the
5-29
-------
11
I
to
' I
FA - Modern floodplain alluvium
NS - Nowata shale formation
OL - Oologah limestone formation
UT - Undifferentiated terrace deposits
Figure 5-8 Geologic Formations - Northside Treatment Plant Area.
-------
KEY
A - Apperson sllty clay loam
CA - Catoosa silt loam
CL - Cleora fine sandy loam
D - Dennis silt loam
N - New tonia silt loam
OK - Okay loam
OKE - Okemah silt loam
OS - Osage silty clay
P - Pits
R - Radley soils
SR - Shider-Rock outcrop complex
W - Wyona sllty clay loam
Figure 5-9 Soils Map - Northside Treatment Plant Area.
-------
Table 5-5 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS MAPPING UNITS
Map Symbol
Soil Mapping Unit
Characteristic Problems
A -
Apperson silty clay loam
CA -
CL -
D -
L -
N -
OK -
OKE -
OS -
R
SR
W -
Catoosa silt loam
Cleora fine sandy loam
Dennis silt loam
Lula silt loam
Newtonia silt loam
Okay loam
Okemah silt loam
Osage silty clay
Radley soils
Shidler - Rock outcrop
complex
Wynona silty clay loan
Slow permeability
Shallow depth to bedrock
Clayey texture
High Shrink-swell potential
Low strength
Shallow depth to bedrock
Clayey texture & acidity
Moderate shrink-swell potential
Low strength
Flooding
Slow permeability
Clayey texture & acidity
High shrink-swell potential
Shallow depth to bedrock
Moderate shrink-swell potential
Clayey texture & acidity
Low strength
High shrink-swell potential
Clayey texture; acidity
Soil acidity
Slow permeability
High shrink-swell potential
Clayey texture and acidity
Flooding
Slow permeability
High shrink-swell potential
Clayey texture
Flooding
Shallow depth to bedrock
Moderate shrink-swell potential
Cl ayey .texture
Low strength
Slope
Rock outcrops
Floodi ng
Wetness
Low strength
Source: SCS Soil Survey of Tulsa County, OK.
5-32
-------
soil may not drain well and will remain wet. The wetness of the soil can
make it difficult to handle in any earth moving operation.
Depth to Bedrock. The Apperson, Catoosa, Lula and Shidler-Rock Complex
soils all have bedrock at a shallow depth, which hampers any kind of
excavation. The depth to bedrock in these soils ranges from 4-20 in. for
the Shidler-Rock Complex to 20-40 in. for the Catoosa silt loam to 40-60 in.
for the Apperson silty clay loam and Lula silt loam. The rest of the soils
listed have bedrock at greater than 60 in.
Texture and pH. Several of the soils have clayey textures and some are
acidic as well. Acidic (pH <7) and clayey soils tend to corrode uncoated
steel and concrete. Nearly all the local soils have this problem.
Shrink-swel1 Potential. The Apperson, Dennis, Newtonia, Okemah and Osage
soils have high shrink-swell potential. This refers to the potential of the
soil to shrink when dry and swell when wet, which can damage any type of
structure as well as plant roots. The Catoosa, Lula and Shidler-Rock soils
have moderate shrink-swell potentials.
Flooding. Soils which are subject to flooding have the least potential for
development. The Cleora, Osage, Radley and Wyona soils are flooded
occasionally for brief periods, and offer some restraint to management.
Air Quality/Meteorology
Meteorological changes are an important consideration in the assessment of
potential impacts on air quality. The National Weather Service has operated
a recording station in Tulsa for the past 73 seasons. The data indicates
an average annual temperature of 60.2ฐF (1.57ฐC), with the first and last
killing frosts generally occurring on November 2 and March 25 respectively.
The result is an average growing season of 220 days, (U.S. Army Corps, 1977;
Report IV).
Over 60 percent of the average annual precipitation (36.9 in.) for the area
falls during the growing season. In general, the summer rains are in the
5-33
-------
form of thunderstorms which are of short duration and high intensity,
covering a limited area. In contrast, the winter rains tend to be
widespread, low-intensity, and of longer duration. The prevailing surface
winds are southerly during most of the year, averaging about 5-7 mph
(Table 5-6).
A national program to protect air quality was designated under the Clean Air
Act Amendment of 1970. Under this law, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for those pollutants of major health significance. The standards are
divided into two areas; the primary standards are designed to protect public
health, while the more stringent secondary standards are designed to protect
a broader array of environmental concerns. The NAAQS have been adopted by
the State of Oklahoma.
An air quality impact is determined by the rate of pollutant emissions, the
subsequent dispersion and chemical reaction of the pollutants in the
atmosphere. A pollution episode results not so much from an increase in the
production of specific pollutants, but rather from limitations in the
dispersion process, such as area stability and meteorological changes. The
most common cause of excessive atmospheric stability and the subsequent
pollution episodes are temperature inversions. An inversion restricts the
upward movement of air, limiting the total air volume available for mixing.
Pollutants released at the ground are thus concentrated. The frequency of
inversions by season is not available for Tulsa specifically, however, the
inversion characteristics can be expected to be similar to those of Oklahoma
City as indicated below.
Frequency of Ground Level Inversions
Season Percent of Total Hours
Winter -37
Spring 32
Summer 37
Fall 46
SOURCE: Oklahoma City - County Health Department
5-34
-------
Table 5-6 MONTHLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION,
AND WIND FOR TULSA, OKLAHOMA*
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Rainfall
Inches (cm)
(1940-1971)
1.43 (3.63)
1.72 (4.37)
2.52 (6.40)
4.17 (10.59)
5.11 (12.98)
4.69 (11.91)
3.51 (8.92)
2.95 (7.49)
4.07 (10.34)
3.22 (8.18)
1.87 (4.75)
1.64 (4.16)
36.90 (93.73)
Temperature
Degrees F (ฐC)
(1940-1971)
36.6 (2.6)
41.2 (5.1)
48.3 (9.1)
60.8 (16.0)
68.6 (20.4)
77.3 (25.2)
82.1 (27.8)
81.4 (27.4)
73.3 (22.9)
62.9 (17.2)
49.4 (9.7)
39.8 (4.3)
60.2 (15.7)
Wind
Mean Speed
mph (cm/ sec)
10.8 (482.8)
11.3 (505.2)
12.5 (558.8)
12.4 (554.3)
10.9 (487.3)
10.3 (460.4)
9.4 (420.2)
9.0 (402.3)
9.4 (420.2)
10.0 (447.0)
10.6 (473.9)
10.5 (469.4)
10.6 (473.9)
Wind
Prevailing
Direction
N
N
SSE
S
S
S
S
SSE
SSE
SSE
S
S
S
Data from National Weather Service records.
5-35
-------
Aside from air pollution episodes than can occur from certain meteorologic
conditions (i.e. inversions), specific regions are designated as
non-attainment areas. These are areas in which the ambient air contains
certain pollutants that exceed clean air standards. For Tulsa, the
constituents of concern are carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended
particulates (TSP) and ozone (03) (ozone and raw atmospheric hydrocarbon
(HC) are believed to be related). These specific non-attainment areas are
shown in Figure 5-10; which are based on the state standards presented in
Table 5-7.
OUT-OF-BASIN TRANSFER MA-1
The primary concern of this alternative relates to the requirements for a
26 mi pipeline.
Geology
A detailed layout of the pipeline route is not practical until the potential
for enroute reuse is determined. However, the use of existing rights-of-way
and easements are expected wherever possible. Seismic activity in the Tulsa
area does not appear to be a major problem, but the location and avoidance
of fault lines should be considered.
Soils
Again, the location of the pipeline with respect to soil types should also
be taken into account. The Tulsa area contains several soil types that are
classified as prime agricultural lands. The crossing of these areas is not
prohibited but care should be given to minimize disturbance and to restore
the original soil horizons of the land along the route. Proper regradinq
and reseeding should be provided to limit erosion.
Ai r Qua!1ty/Meteorology
As with all of the expansion alternatives the local area population density
will increase as a result of available sewer service and along with this
5-36.
-------
'
V" -I-.A
r-, v. . s,j*
: 4 ;1
'
Oiซ : - .:ป
,ฃ!f__,: ^ -..I.
- '
^;s:
1;/ "1 "'?S^s>-
fULSA tOONTTF
AIR QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS
SOURCE: OKLAHOMA STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Figure 5-10 Non-Attainment Areas.
5-37
-------
Table 5-7 OKLAHOMA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Sulfur Oxides
(Sulfur Dioxide)
Particulate
Matter
Carbon
Monoxide
Photochemical
Oxidants
1 Hour 3 Hour 8 Hour
Annual Max. Max. Max.
Primary Standards
(1) ,
80 ug/nr
(3)
75 ug/m
(2) , (2) .
40 ug/nr 10 mg/nr
(35 ppm) (9 ppm)
(2) -
160 ug/m0
(0.08 ppm)
24 Hour
Max.
(2)
365 ug/m0
(2) ,
260 ug/nr
Non-Methane
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
(Nitrogen Dioxide)
Sulfur Oxides
(Sulphur Dioxide)
Particulate
Matter
Carbon
Monoxide
Photochemical
Oxidants
Non-Methane
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
(Nitrogen Dioxide)
160 ug/nr
(0.24 ppm)
100 ug/nT
(0.05 ppm)
Secondary Standards
1300 ug/m"
(0.5 ppm)
(3) ,
60 ug/mw
(2)
150 ug/m'
(2)
40 ug/nr
(35 ppm)
(2) 3
235 ug/nT
(0.12 ppm)
(2) ,
10 mg/nr
(9 ppm)
160 ug/m
(0.24 ppm)
(1) 3
100 ug/nr
(0.05 ppm)
(1) Annual Arithmetic Mean
(2) Not to be Exceeded More than Once per Year
(3) Annual Geometric Mean
(4) 6 to 9 A.M.
5-38
-------
higher density there will be an increase in localized vehicular traffic.
Based on INCOG's 1979 Tulsa Metropolitan Area statistics of 1.8 autos per
household and 8.5 trips per household per day, a total of 54,000 more cars
would be located in the service area as a result of the expansion (see
Socioeconomic evaluation), providing 255,000 more trips per day. The Tulsa
metropolitan area is classified as a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide
(CO). This is not expected to be improved under the expansion alternative,
providing a minor adverse impact to local air quality.
AWT ALTERNATIVES MA-10, MA-13, MA-16
Because of the similar area and types of construction, and because the level
of expansion would remain unchanged, the AWT alternatives will be discussed
jointly with respect to the physical environment.
Geology
Consideration should be given to the precise location of the Nowata Shale
Formation because of its soft plastic clay shale consistency, which lies
just west of the existing plant site.
Soils
Erosion protection on the plant site and adjacent areas should be provided.
Ai r Quali ty/Meteorology
As discussed earlier, all of the expansion alternatives would provide for
increased localized growth accompanied by higher volumes of vehicular
traffic. The Tulsa metropolitan area is classified as a non-attainment area
for CO and this is not expected to improve, providing a minor adverse impact
to air quality.
5-39
-------
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The biological studies entailed an assessment of the area ecological
structure in relation to the terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna, with
greater emphasis directed at the changes in the aquatic ecosystem. More
baseline information is presented in Report IV with a discussion of rare,
threatened and endangered species provided in Section 5.4.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Both the terrestrial and aquatic habitats of the area will be presented to
provide a basis of evaluation.
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
The vegetation patterns around the Northside Treatment Plant may be
categorized into five general associations; 1) riparian woodland; 2)
bottomland forest; 3) upland forest; 4) upland mix grass savannah; and 5)
agricultural land. These associations are common to the Tulsa area. For
the purposes of this study, the associations are shown in a vegetative
cross-section of Figure 5-11.
The vegetative cross-section depicts the soil and vegetative gradients that
characterize lower Bird Creek. It is a hypothetical transect, extending
from the bottomlands to the uplands. It is not drawn to scale but is
presented to enhance perception.
One notable feature of the transect is the thin soils of the uplands,
supporting mix grass savannah and hillside forests, with a transition to
deep alluvial soils of the floodplain that support bottomland forest,
riparian woodland and agriculture. The profile is enhanced by periodic
flooding which deposits nutrients and silt throughout the floodplain, and by
the activities of agriculture.
The vegetation map Figure 5-12 displays the broad patterns that may be found
along lower Mingo and Bird Creeks. These patterns occur within a band
5-40
-------
u i
i
Mr^, ,**'.'.'.'-T;TV^J(. ' jp
< J
iป'' ''"'
'(
'?ฃ&
'ฃ&
j^-x
f$L
x^A
mft I*-lฃปi^ll*
.r^*ซfcr:'": *':;!:''
Figure 5-11 A Typical Vegetation Cross Section - Lower Bird Creek.
-------
\
LEGEND
HI
UP
MS
AGRICULTURAL AREAS
BOTTOMLAND FOREST
UPLAND FOREST
MIX GRASS SAVANNA
RIPARIAN WOODLAND
. I _~
Figure 5-12 Vegetation Map - Downstream Study Area.
-------
approximately 2 mi wide, extending 1 mi upstream from the confluence of Bird
and Mingo Creeks and continuing along Bird Creek to its confluence with the
Verdigris River. Mapping zones are keyed to the five vegetative
associations and reflect native soil types and modifications made by local
land use practices.
As in most river systems, Bird Creek has a system of benches that correspond
to periodic flood events. Generally, the lower benches contain the
previously mentioned species while upper benches contain those species
commonly found in bottomland forests. The species in the upper benches are
undergoing succession towards the bottomland forest community. Prominent
members in this category include American elm, southern hackberry, green
ash, black walnut, honey locust, coffeetree, pecan, and bitternut hickory.
This riparian woodland is primarily of value to wildlife, since the majority
of the habitat is not grazed by livestock and the flooding is too frequent
for cultivated crops. The wildlife habitat is of high quality, owing to the
streamside's elongate slopes and the association's irregular borders. This
habitat is a transition zone, where the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
meet. It is a classic example of the "edge effect", containing more
wildlife species than found in either of the two adjoining ecosystems. It
is also characterized by large energy, nutrient and biotic exchanges, and
provides a convenient linear pathway for animal movements (Odum, 1971).
The terrestrial animals of the Bird Creek area may be divided into several
areas, namely mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians. A presentation of
area "indicator species" is detailed in Report IV to provide more specific
descriptions and assessment of characteristic plant and animal species of
the area.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
The aquatic plants of lower Bird Creek consist primarily of periphyton, or
microscropic plants that live on the surfaces of submerged rocks, mud, logs,
and debris. This mass of biological organisms accounts for most of the
organic material that is produced within the creek proper. It also provides
5-43
-------
for a net input of dissolved oxygen and a food source for higher forms of
life.
In addition to the periphyton, lesser concentrations of phytoplankton are
also present. They too, are considered producers. Like the periphyton they
are single-celled organisms, or colonies of single-celled organisms, and
they contain chlorophyll. Unlike the periphyton, though, they are usually
suspended, instead of being attached or clumped.
Taken together, the periphyton and phytoplankton constitute essentially all
the aquatic plant life found in Bird Creek between Mingo Creek and the
Verdigris River. Rooted aquatic plants, or macrophytes, may also be found
but to a lesser degree.
As presented earlier a broad reach of Bird Creek was studied due to the
numerous influences on its quality, both natural and man-made. Figure 5-1
illustrates the original area of study, with respect to the discussion of
existing conditions, only that area just above the three major municipal
discharges (Flat Rock, Coal Creek and Northside) to the confluence with the
Verdigris needs to be detailed. The USGS Station #1775 located upstream
(River Mile 25) of the Flat Rock municipal discharge was selected as
representative of Bird Creek's natural condition. This station does receive
some small municipal discharges upstream, as indicated, but appears to be
the most representative of the stations studied.
Despite the above influences on the water quality at this station in
comparison to the other stations, the species diversity of aquatic organisms
was found to be relatively high by Cox, 1977 (Report IX). Based on a
species diversity index for benthic macroinvertebrates, Cox found the Sperry
station to support good populations, having a .standardized distance (SD)
value of 19.978. The SD is a combined measure of D (diversity per
individual) and R (redundancy). Essentially, a high SD value indicates a
large variety of species with a small number of each.
The SD value of 19.978 at the Sperry station may be compared to the best
station on Bird Creek which had an SD value of 28.083 (1B13; 10 mi upstream
5-44
-------
of Skiatook). The worst station was 4B01 at the confluence of Bird Creek
and the Verdigris with an SD value of 2.111. The Sperry station was
accordingly classified as Group C, "Clean" to "Slightly Enriched".
The quality of water in the creek at this station supports several
intolerant (withstand little or no pollution) and faculative (withstand
moderate amounts of pollution) species of roacroinvertebrates. Some tolerant
species are also present. The presence of intolerant species indicates
relatively good water quality, and there appears to be a healthy balance of
organisms.
The fish found at the Sperry station exhibited good diversity (Report IX;
Cox, 1977). They included:
GARS TOPMINNOWS
Spotted gar Black stripe topminnow
Longnose gar
Shortnose'gar LIVEBEARERS
Mosquitofish
HERRINGS
Gizzard shad SILVERSIDES
Brook silverside
MINNOWS
Golden shiner SUNFISHES
Ghost shiner Green sunfish
Red shiner Bluegill
Sand shiner Longear sunfish
Redfin shiner Spotted bass
Suckermouth minnow Largemouth bass
Fathead minnow White crappie
Slim minnow
Bullhead minnow PERCHES
Orangethroat
SUCKERS Redfin darter
River carpsucker Logperch
Channel darter
CATFISHES Slenderhead darter
Channel catfish Logperch
Freckled madtom
The total number of fish species present was 31. This is the largest number
of species found at any of the Bird Creek stations. It is particularly
notable since it ranked third in terms of water quality. There were a total
of nine stations sampled.
5-45
-------
Many of the species found here are indicative of good water quality, and the
balance of fish species is also good. The presence of all five species of
darters and the largemouth and spotted bass at the Sperry station is a good
indication that organic pollution is not the major limiting factor since
these are relatively sensitive or intolerant species (Report IX; Cox, 1977).
Other sensitive fish species found at the Sperry station include the
minnows, sunfish and the freckled madtom (catfish). Most of these species
are not found in downstream portions of Bird Creek.
In comparison to the 31 species collected at the Sperry station, below
Northside to the mouth of Bird Creek, only 10 to 11 species of fish
respectively were collected from stations OB21 and 4B01 below Northside and
at the mouth of Bird Creek. Here the carp, red shiner, suckermouth minnow,
channel catfish, mosquitofish and gizzard shad were the most abundant
species. Most of these fish tend to be more tolerant of organic pollution.
NO ACTION
The effects of removing the Flat Rock and Coal Creek discharges on the
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem in this area of Bird Creek are discussed
below.
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
There are no significant effects expected from the closure of Flat Rock and
Coal Creek on the area's terrestrial flora and fauna.
Aquatic Flora and Fauna
As discussed under water quality, the Northside plant would be at capacity
(30 mgd) discharging an unnitrified secondary effluefit. Therefore, because
of the high carbonaceous BOD loadings and higher levels of ammonia the
downstream 0.0. sag could be extensive (Figure 5-6). As a result only
relatively tolerant species of fish that are less sensitive to ammonia
toxicity, like gizzard shad, carp and channel catfish would be likely to
inhabitat these lower reaches of Bird Creek under No Action.
5-45
-------
It is anticipated that the section upstream of Northside which had received
loadings from Flat Rock and Coal Creek will improve with time. Once the
point sources are removed, it is the nature of the watershed and the
physical characteristics of the channel that become the controlling factors
in a stream's water quality as well as the types and species of aquatic
organisms that will inhabit it. Since this segment of stream has similar
cross-sectional areas and flow velocities to the section outlined for
Sperry, it may be expected that the same types and diversity of organisms
found at the Sperry station may also be able to survive in the area above
the Northside outfall.
OUT-OF-BASIN TRANSFER MA-1
The net result would be the return of this downstream segment of Bird Creek
to pre-Northside conditions.
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
The removal of the Northside discharge would make the entire downstream
reach more susceptible to fluctuations in flow. Because there are no
primary tributaries contributing flow in this area the baseflow in this
reach of the stream would be reduced.
Dependent on the extent of these low flow conditions, encroachment into the
stream channel by vegetation may occur restricting flow -capacities.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
It would be expected that despite the extreme fluctuations in flow and the
possible seasonal drops in D.O. due to the low flow conditions, the quality
of this downstream area would improve greatly over fhat resulting from No
Action. This would primarily be due to the elimination of the large D.O.
sag and the removal of the ammonia toxicity associated with municipal
effluents.
5-47
-------
The quality of the water in the lower reaches should closely resemble that
which was presented for the Sperry station. The main differences between
the Sperry station and the downstream area would result from differences in
the stream channel characteristics.
All of the fish species found at the Sperry station may not migrate into
this area because of the lower velocities and the potential for stagnant
pools. It would be expected, however, that the quality of the aquatic
habitat and the diversity of the organisms in this area would be greatly
increased from the 10 to 11 species of fish presently found there.
AWT ALTERNATIVES MA-10, MA-13, MA-16
Because all of the AWT Alternatives are designed to achieve the same level
of effluent quality, they will be discussed jointly.
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
Because of the continued discharge of relatively high constant flows, no
significant change is expected.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
With the aforementioned changes in both flow and water quality, it is
anticipated that the aquatic habitat as well as the numbers and
diversification of organisms would increase providing a beneficial impact to
aquatic life. Because of the differences in'stream channel characteristics,
all of the aquatic species found at the Sperry station may not migrate into
the area. However, a substantial improvement in the diversity and stability
of organisms inhabiting the area may be expected. This assumes that the
effluent chlorine residual is held to 0.5 mg/1.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Except for differences in construction costs and operation and maintenance
costs among the several expansion alternatives, the expected socioeconomic
5-48
-------
impacts of various alternatives to expand the capacity of the Northside
Treatment Plant are judged to be virtually identical. Because of this,
expansion is treated as a single alternative, and its socioeconomic impacts
are analyzed on that basis.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A discussion of the socioeconomic environment as it presently exists is
provided below.
Population
The population of the City of Tulsa and Tulsa County has demonstrated
continued growth since 1930 (Table 5-8). The population of the City
increased from 141,258 in 1930 to 360,919 in 1980, while during the same
period the county's population grew from 187,574 to 470,593. Population in
both areas grew at an average rate of approximately 1.9 percent per year.
Moreover, the rate of population growth in Tulsa and the county exceeded
that of the state by a considerable margin until 1970. During the two
decades after 1930, the state as a whole experienced population loss because
of economic depression and dust bowl conditions in the 1930's and in the
general shift of population from rural areas in the south and midwest to
urban areas of the north and west. The latter condition continued during
the 1950's but at a lower rate than before.
During the 1970's population growth in the state exceeded that of the Tulsa
area because of the reverse flow of population from the northern states to
the Sun Belt states. Because the focus of development had shifted from the
City of Tulsa to the area south and east of the city, the city's rate of
population growth fell relative to the county's and tqualled approximately
50 percent of the county's rate during the 1970's.
5-49
-------
Table 5-8 SELECTED POPULATION TRENDS, 1930 - 1980
Year
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
Oklahoma
2,396,040
2,336,434
2,233,351
2,328,284
2,559,253
3,025,266
Percent
Change
(2.4)
(4.4)
4.3
9.9
18.2
Tulsa
County
187,574
193,363
251,686
346,038
399,982
470,593
Percent
Change
~
3.1
30.2
37.5
15.6
17.7
City of
Tulsa
141,258
142,157
182,740
261,685
330,350
360,919
Percent
Change
--
0.6
28.5
43.2
26.2
9.3
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
5-50
-------
Empl oytnent
Total nonaqricultural employment in Tulsa Increased by 61.6 percent between
1970 and 1980, exceeding the state-wide increase in employment of 48.9
percent (Table 5-9). Trade, manufacturing, and services were the major
sources of employment in Tulsa in 1980. Services and construction
experienced the greatest increase in employment between 1970 and 1980 in
Tulsa, while employment in trade and mining also exceeded the rate of growth
in total employment. Mining employment exhibited the greatest increase in
the state during the 1970's with services, trade, and finance-insurance-real
estate also growing faster than total employment.
Manufacturing, transportation and public utilities, and government
employment increased the least in Tulsa, while in the state as a whole,
government, transportation and public utilities, and manufacturing were the
sectors with the smallest increments in employment growth.
Personal Income
Personal income in the Tulsa SMSA totalled $6 billion in 1979 (Table 5-10),
an increase of 90 percent since 1974. The rate of growth of personal income
in Tulsa exceeded that of the United States by almost one third but was
slightly less than the increase for the Southwest Region. The ratio of
labor and proprietors' income to total personal income (including dividends,
interest, rent, and transfer payments) in Tulsa is higher than in either the
region or the U.S. indicating that Tulsa's economy is supported more by wage
and salary employment than by financial income.
Manufacturing was the largest single source of income comprising nearly 23
percent of labor and proprietors' income (Table 5-11). The manufacture of
durable goods was by far the major source of income from manufacturing.
Wholesale and retail trade was the second major source of income (18.3
percent) followed closely by government (16.8 percent). Mining was the only
other industry to contribute more than 10 percent of personal income which
reflects Tulsa's role as a center for the oil and gas industry.
5-51
-------
Table 5-9 NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, 1970 AND 1980 (thousands)
Oklahoma
Tulsa SMSA
Percent Change
Industry
Total Employment
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation A
Public Utilities
Trade
Finance, Insurance
A Real Estate
en
^ Services
ro
Government
1970
762.6
38.9
38.9
134.1
52.4
168.7
37.0
115.9
176.7
Percent
100.1
5.1
5.1
17.6
6.9
22.1
4.9
15.2
23.2
1980
1,135.5
71.5
57.6
190.1
68.0
268.6
56.4
198.7
224.6
Percent
100.1
' 6.3
5.1
16.7
6.0
23.7
5.0
17.5
19.8
1970-1980
48.9
83.8
48.1
41.8
29.8
59.2
52.4
71.4
27.1
1970
188.8
13.2
9.5
44.0
16.2
42.5
9.8
32.3
21.3
Percent
100.2
7.0
5.0
23.4
8.6
22.5
5.2
17.2
11.3
1980
305.1
21.4
17.6
62.5
24.1
70.9
15.5
60.3
32.8
Percent
Percent
99.5
7.0
5.6
20.5
7.9
23.2
4.9
19.8
10.6
Change
1970-1980
61
62
85
42
48
66
58
86
54
.6
.1
3
.0
.8
.8
.2
.7
.0
Source: Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Handbook of Oklahoma Employment Statistics, Volume II, April, 1981.
-------
Table 5-10 PERSONAL INCOME BY TYPE, 1974 AND 1979 (Millions of Current Dollars)
tn
i
tn
(A)
Total Personal
Income
United States
1974
1979
Percent Change
Southwest Region*
1974
1979
Percent Change
Tulsa SMSA
1974
1979
Percent Change
Amount
1,147,257
1,927,005
68.0
89,319
171,689
92.2
3,145
6,000
90.8
Percent3
of Total
78.3
68.6
77.1
77.2
--
80.9
80.7
--
Wage and Salary
Payments
Amount
758,415
1,234,660
62.8
57,204
109,158
90.8
2,132
4,026
88.8
Percent
of Total
66.1
64.1
--
64.0
63.6
67.8
67.1
--
Other Labor
Income
Amount
55,572
122,682
120.8
4,363
10,849
148.7
182
435
139.0
Percent
of Total
4.8
6.4
--
4.9
6.3
--
5.8
7.3
--
Proprietors
Income
Amount
84,715
127,499
50.5
7,328
12,471
70.2
230
383
66.5
Percent
of Total
7.4
6.6
8.2
7.3
7.3
6.4
--
Per Capita
Income
5,428
8,757
61.3
4,968
8,600
73.1
5,473
9,436
72.4
Total personal Income Is by place of residence and Includes dividends, Interest, rent and transfer payments.
- Labor and proprietors Income 1s by place of work.
, The Southwest Region consists of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.
Total labor and proprietors Income as a percent of total personal Income.
Source: Local Area Personal Income, 1974-1979.
-------
Table 5-11 PERSONAL INCOME BY INDUSTRY, TULSA SMSA, 1979
(Millions of Dollars)
Industry
Total
Farm
Agriculture Services-
Forestry-Fisheries
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Nondurable Goods
Durable Goods
Transportation and
Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance-Insurance-
Real Estate
Services
Government
Labor and
Proprietors' Income
4,844
38
6
499
327
1,104
213
890
526
407
481
253
814
391
Percent
100.0
0.8
0.1
10.3
6.8
22.8
4.4
18.4
10.9
8.4
9.9
5.2
16.8
8.1
SOURCE: Local Area Personal Income, 1974-1979.
5-54
-------
Per capita income in 1979 was $9,436 in Tulsa compared to $8,757 for the
U.S. and $8,600 for the southwestern region. This value increased somewhat
more rapidly between 1974 and 1979 in Tulsa than it did in the county as a
whole, and it increased nearly as much as that of the region.
Land Use
There are more than 78,500 acres of land in the Northside service area, of
which about 40,300 acres were devoted to a specific uses by 1980. The
remaining 38,300 acres, were left vacant (Table 5-12). Of the latter,
nearly 26,900 acres are available for development from 1981 through the end
of the planning period in 2005, while 11,400 acres were deemed unsuitable
for development. In this context, land unsuitable for development includes
significant water features, vacant land in 100-year floodplains and derelict
land (e.g., abandoned strip mines and landfill sites).
Of the land in use, 15,200 acres or 19.4 percent of the total land area was
devoted to employment purposes commercial and industrial uses. Roughly
6,400 acres or 8.2 percent of this land was used for "basic" employment or
by those industries which are engaged primarily in exporting goods and
services from the Tulsa area, while 11.2 percent or 8,700 acres are utilized
by firms who primarily provide goods and services for consumption within the
community (non-basic employment). An additional 20 percent of the land in
the service area was used for residential purposes, and 9,600 acres or 12.2
percent of the total surface area was devoted to rights-of-way of various
types.
NO ACTION
A presentation of the socioeconomic conditions as they would occur in 19B5
and beyond without the project is presented below.
Population
The population of Tulsa County is expected to continue to grow throughout
the study period. Population in the county is projected to increase to
5-55
-------
Table 5-1? SUMMARY OF LAND IN USE AND VACANT LAND NORTHSIDE SERVICE
AREA, 1980 AND 2000 (Acres)
Category
Total Area
Land in Use
Employment Land
Basic
Nonbasic
Residential Land
Rights of Way
Vacant Land
Available
Unavailable
1980
78,579
40,302
15,208
6,439
8,769
15,543
9,551
38,277
26,883
11,394
Percent
51.3
19.4
8.2
11.2
19.8
12.2
48.7
34.2
14.5
2000
78,579
51,874
20,651
9,481
11,170
18,921
12,302
26,705
15,311
11,394
Percent
66.0
26.3
12.1
14.2
24.1
15.7
34.0
19.5
14.5
Percent
Change
28.7
35.8
47.2
27.4
21.7
28.8
(30.2)
(43.0)
SOURCE: Erling Hell and Associates.
5-56
-------
approximately 598,500 by 2005 (Table 5-13). This represents an increase of
about 108,000 persons, or about 22 percent. An average rate of growth of 1
percent per year is anticipated during the planning period.
Similarly, the population of the Northside service area is expected to
increase by about 12.8 percent or 26,100 people during the planning period.
Population in the service area would increase at an average rate of 0.6
percent under the No Action alternative.
Employment
Total employment in the Tulsa SMSA is projected to more than double in size
by 2005 in the absence of Northside capacity expansion, while manufacturing
is expected to increase by 74 percent during the same period (Table 5-14).
Historical trends of development and the existing mix of industries are
expected to be maintained throughout the projection period, so services and
construction are expected to increase their relative shares of employment at
the expense of slower growing industries. Within manufacturing, machinery,
metals manufacture and transportation equipment should continue as the
largest employment sectors.
The sharp reduction in growth rates for manufacturing employment and to a
lesser degree total employment after 1995 reflect a constraint on further
industrial growth caused by a lack of vacant industrial land in Tulsa that
is suitable for development. More than two-thirds of all such land in Tulsa
lies within the Northside Treatment Plant service area. Lack of adequate
treatment capacity would deter development of this land since many companies
seek development sites that are served by all public services including
public sewers. Development of other industrial land outside of the
Northside service area would allow industrial development to continue at its
normal, unconstrained level until around 1995.
Subsequent growth could be significantly reduced, however, after that time.
The slowing of growth in total employment includes the direct constraint on
5-57
-------
Table 5-13 POPULATION PROJECTIONS, THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE, 1985-2005
Northside Treatment
Tulsa County Plant Service Area
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Population
490,400
518,100
568,000
593,500
599,300
Percent
Change Population
6.01 203,300
5.6
9.6
4.5
1.0 229,400
Percent
Change
3.31
--
--
--
12.8
Table 5-14 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT EXPANSION,
TULSA SMSA, 1985 - 2005 (thousands)
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Total Empl oyment
409.2
505.4
601.6
674.1
763.0
Percent
Change
34. 11
23.5
19.0
12.1
13.2
Manufacturing
Employment
76.2
89.2
102.3
105.6
108.8
Percent
Change
21. 91
17.1
14.7
3.2
3.0
Percent change from 1980.
SOURCE: Report XI.
5-58
-------
manufacturing employment and a smaller increase in employment in other
sectors, the indirect and induced change in employment.
Personal Income
Personal income in the Tulsa area under the no action alternative is
expected to continue to increase at a rate equal to the historical trend
until about 1995 (Table 5-15). With no expansion of capacity of the
Northside plant, personal income based on historical trends should increase
to about $40,180 million dollars in 1995 and $126,936 million in 2005. The
rate of growth after 1995 is lower than that experienced previously
reflecting the constraint on the rate of growth of industrial development,
manufacturing employment, and income derived from this source.
Land Use
With no expansion of capacity of the Northside Treatment Plant, land use
patterns would continue to develop in a manner similar to historical
patterns. There would be alterations in this development, however. While
the amount of land in the service area expected to be devoted to residential
uses could remain constant, development of such lands would be characterized
as low density use rather than the high density development that would be
anticipated from historical trends.
With no additional treatment capacity at the Northside- Plant, residential
development could occur only in available areas with suitable soils for
on-site wastewater disposal systems (i.e., septic tanks or sewage lagoons).
Residential development, therefore, would be limited to single family homes,
and multi-family units would be precluded. Because of the existence of
extensive areas of soils unsuitable for development with on-site disposal
systems and zoning ordinances governing the use of such systems, development
densities would be limited to a range from 0.2 to 0.7 lots per acre.
Approximately 10,300 additional residential lots could be developed within
the service area under these conditions compared to 45,600 lots if low
density zoning is assumed or 87,000 lots with high density zoning.
5-59
-------
Table 5-15 PERSONAL INCOME TULSA SMSA, 1985-2005, NO ACTION AND
EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES (Millions of Current Dollars)
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Personal Income
Without Expansion
$ 12,209
22,149
40,180
71,018
126,936
Personal Income
With Expansion
$ 12,209
22,149
40,180
72,892
132,236
SOURCE: Report XI.
Table 5-16 POPULATION PROJECTIONS, THE EXPANSION ALTERNATIVE, 1985-2005
Tulsa County
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Population
490,400
518,100
568,000
606,200
620,900
Percent
Change
6.01
5.6
9.6
6.7
2.4
Northside Treatment
Plant Service Area
Population
210,428
222,227
243,550
259,904
266,217
Percent
Change
3.31
5.6
9.6
6.7
2.4
Change from 1980 population.
SOURCE: Erling Holland Associates, revised.
5-60
-------
Similarly, industrial development would be limited under this alternative.
Of the 17,300 acres of vacant industrial land in the City that is suitable
for development, nearly 10,900 acres or 63 percent lie within the service
area. Lack of public sewers and adequate treatment capacity would deter
development of this land and shift industrial development to similar lands
outside the service area that possess such facilities.
It is difficult to project the amount and type of development likely to be
undertaken under these conditions. Some land may be developed for
industrial purposes by firms willing to treat and dispose of their own
wastewater onsite or by firms who generate low volumes of wastewater. Some
land (e.g., in the Cherokee Industrial District) may be converted to
residential use because of the large demand for residential property under
this alternative and some land quite likely would remain vacant.
ALTERNATIVES MA-1, MA-10, MA-13, MA-16
Generally, in terms of socioeconomics the major effects or changes will
result from the substantial increase in plant capacity and sewer line
connections. Therefore, these alternatives will be discussed together for
both no action and expansion alternatives.
Population
Population under the expansion alternative is projected to increase to
approximately 620,900 by 2005 (Table 5-16). This is an increase of about
3.6 percent over the expected population under the no action alternative.
Population is expected to grow at the same rate under either alternative
until 1995. In subsequent years it is projected to grow at a slightly
faster rate under the expansion alternative during the remainder of the
planning period. The difference in population growth rates after 1995
results from slightly larger projected total employment after that year.
Population under the expansion alternative is expected to continue to grow
at a faster rate than under the no expansion alternative in the years after
2005. Under the expansion alternative population in the service area is
5-61
-------
projected to increase to 266,217 by 2005. This exceeds the expected
population under the other alternative by 27,800 or 12.1 percent. Greater
population in the service area is anticipated under this alternative because
of the higher density of development allowed by public sewering and
treatment of domestic wastewater.
Under the no expansion alternative, development of vacant residential land
in the service area would be accomplished through the use of onsite disposal
systems such as septic tanks or sewage lagoons. The existence of a high
proportion of soils in the service area that are unsuitable for this purpose
and zoning restrictions on the density of use of these systems would greatly
restrict potential residential development in the service area under the no
expansion alternative.
Because of the predicted strong continued demand for housing, however,
residential development that would have occurred in the service area would
be displaced to other locations in the Tulsa area. Projected total
population in Tulsa County, therefore, would not be significantly affected
under the No Action alternative as noted earlier.
Employment
Total employment in the Tulsa SMSA under the expansion alternative is
expected to increase to more than 791,000 by 2005 (Table 5-17). This is
greater by 28,400 or 3.7 percent than total employment if the No Action
alternative were selected.
Employment in manufacturing would be greater by 19,500 workers or 17.9
percent under the expansion alternative. The remaining increase in
employment, 8,900 jobs, would be distributed among other sectors of the
local economy with relatively greater concentrations in the trade and
service sectors.
Projected growth in both categories of employment is the same under either
alternative through 1995. Under the expansion alternative, however,
manufacturing employment and total employment both increase at a faster rate
5-62
-------
Table 5-17 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT EXPANSION,
TULSA SMSA, 1985 - 2005 (thousands)
Year
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Total Employment
409.2
505.4
601.6
688.3
791.4
Percent
Change
34. 11
23.5
19.0
14.4
15.0
Manufacturing
Empl oyment
76.2
89.2
102.3
115.3
128.3
Percent
Change
21. 91
17.1
14.7
12.7
11.3
Percent change from 1980.
SOURCE: Report XI.
5-63
-------
after 1995 than they would if the No Action alternative is chosen. Growth
in employment is expected to be greater under this alternative after 1995
because with increased treatment capacity at the Northside Plant
manufacturing firms would be more willing to locate on vacant industrial
land within the service area.
Personal Income
If expansion of the capacity of the Northside Treatment Plant is undertaken,
personal income in the Tulsa area is expected to increase at the same rate
as under the No Action alternative until 1995. In subsequent years, the
rate of growth of personal income is expected to be greater under the
expansion alternative resulting in a projected value of personal income of
$132,236 million in 2005. Under the expansion alternative, therefore,
personal income is approximately 4 percent greater at the end of the
planning period and reflects the higher level of employment and wage and
salary payments implicit in the expansion alternative.
Land Use
The pattern of land use in the service area, if expansion is implemented, is
also projected in Table 5-12. Land in use is expected to increase by 29
percent to nearly 52,000 acres. Land devoted to basic employment purposes
is projected to experience the greatest percentage increase, more than 47
percent or roughly 3,000 additional acres. Land to be"used for rights-of-
way and for non-basic employment are expected to increase at about the same
rate, 29 percent or 2,750 acres for the former and 27 percent or 2,400 acres
for the latter.
Residential land use is expected to increase to 24 percent of total land in
the service area absorbing nearly 19,000 acres of land. Vacant land
available for development is projected to decline by about 30 percent.
The Out-of-Basin Transfer Alternative does have potential impacts from the
placement for the 24 mile long pipeline required to reach the Arkansas
River. Presently, existing rights-of-way and easements will be used to the
5-64
-------
extent possible for the transmission line; however, several jurisdictional
boundaries will have to be crossed. At the time a more specific route is
proposed, a more detailed evaluation will be required.
CULTURAL FACTORS
Cultural factors relate to those elements of the surrounding environment
that would directly affect people or their quality of life. These include
factors of recreation, aesthetics, noise and odors, public health and
safety, and archeological/historical resources.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The cultural factors under consideration are discussed below.
Recreation
The amount and locations of public, semi-public, and private open space have
been inventoried by the TMAPC in two recent documents; The Tulsa Park and
Recreation Plan. Technical Supplement (1979), and The Tulsa Open Space Plan,
Phase I (1980). According to these reports, public open space consists
mainly of public parks and public school land. Detailed location maps and
tabulations of land devoted to open space or recreational uses are presented
in the TMAPC reports.
Aesthetics, Noise, and Odors
With regard to adjacent properties and the aesthetic impact of the three
plants under study, Flat Rock, Coal Creek, and Northside, their present
remote location reduces most potential problems. The closure of Flat Rock
and Coal Creek will prevent such problems from future development in the
area, however, the conversion of farmlands around Northside to residential
uses could create problems if zoning restrictions change.
5-65
-------
This lack of nearby residential land uses and the rural nature of the
surrounding area also contributes to the lack of serious noise problems. A
data base has been collected (Report IV) in the event further evaluation is
required.
Despite the general isolation of the facilities, some odor production at a
wastewater treatment plant could be expected. The magnitude of the problem
does not appear to be very large. Less than five complaints per year have
been recorded by the Tulsa City-County Health Department (TCCHD) staff from
residents in the vicinity of other plants (Haikey Creek and Southside) but
no complaints were received relative to the Northside facility. Moreover,
the staff suggested that at least some of these complaints may have been
caused by gases vented into the atmosphere by nearby lift stations rather
than the treatment plants directly.
Public Health and Safety
One of the major concerns of wastewater management is the protection of
public health. This is because of the large variety and number of disease-
producing organisms (pathogens) in domestic and commercial wastewater. In
addition, industrial wastewaters contain numerous toxic substances.
A bacterial examination of water is most commonly done by a quantitative
estimation of total organisms of the coliform group, which are indicative of
fecal contamination.
In 1980, the only treatment facility that specifically disinfected was the
Northside Plant, which adds the oxidizing agent chlorine to destroy the
organisms. The average daily concentration of fecal coliform in the
effluent from the six study area municipal treatment plants (see Figure 5-1
for location) is as follows:
5-66
-------
August 1980 Monthly Average
River Mile Treatment Plant Discharge No. per 100 ml
13.0 Northside Plant* 8
13.2 Owasso Lagoon 4595
18.9 Coal Creek 0.4 X 106
19.9 Flat Rock 1.08 X 106
27.4 Sperry 5.2 X 106
37.1 Ski atook 776
* Disinfection
Source: INCOG Sampling Data
As a matter of reference, the Northside Facility did not have disinfection
capabilities until the first expansion in the Fall of 1979. The 1977 August
average was 0.6 x 1
figure of 8/100 ml.
average was 0.6 x 10 organisms per 100 ml, as compared to the August 1980
Other water related public health problems have also been studied. Two
points of special concern are the high levels of lead and pesticides in some
fish tissue samples, and the chemical contaminants which exceed EPA criteria
and drinking water standards. While these are not based on extensive
sampling data, they do indicate areas of concern. This is particularly true
in light of the fact that fishing for consumption occurs on the creek. None
of these concerns for heavy metals or pesticides are specific to Bird Creek,
however. Similar levels have been found in Mingo Creek, the Verdigris and
the Arkansas River.
Archaeological/Historical
Archaeological and historical resources refer to sites or areas of
significance which contain artifacts or other tangible evidence of human
occupation or events within a historic time period. A proposed site for use
in a federally funded project would require evaluation by the Oklahoma
Archaeological Society and the State Historic Preservation Officer.
5-67
-------
NO ACTION
The change in the cultural factors and their status in 1985 is presented
below.
Recreation
The No Action alternative may result in less new development in areas with
poor soil conditions, due to the unsuitability of these areas for onsite
sewaqe disposal facilities, as compared to the expansion alternative. These
areas may be.avail able for recreational uses either through public
acquisition or public easements, or through private recreational
development. Additional open space and recreational lands are needed in
various parts of the service area (TMAPC, 1980).
A part of the Facilities Plan and EIS process is the assessment of other or
beneficial uses for municipal facilities such as for recreation. Under No
Action the Northside plant would remain in operation limiting other uses to
those related .to education. The Coal Creek trickling filter plant, however,
would be closed. The plant is located upgrade of the Tulsa Zoological
Gardens along Coal Creek which meanders through the park. The mechanical
equipment should be salvaged and the plant buildings could be used as a
staging area for park vehicles with the tanks becoming water storage
facilities. The Flat Rock bio-adsorption plant would also be closed. The
plant is well concealed from view by adjacent land uses. These land uses
include trailer parks and some housing. The plant could be turned over to
the residents or renovated with City involvement for public use such as
pools or other uses. These are some of the options that are available to
the City. The Parks Department would be the responsible agency in under-
taking such projects.
Aesthetics, Noise, and Odors
Because of the lack of available sewer service, the type of development
would be affected. Low density residential development would characterize
most of the new construction, with some commercial and industrial uses on
5-68
-------
large parcels. Vacant land areas would be much in evidence, due to the
generally poor soils, especially in industrial zones, and an increased
incidence of sewage lagoons in new residential and commercial areas which
may be visible from adjoining properties.
Except for the closure of the outdated plants coupled with improved
treatment and a single discharge, no change in either noise or odors from
that which was presented for Existing Conditions is expected.
Public Health and Safety
The primary advantage under No Action is that the two upstream municipal
discharges, Flat Rock and Coal Creek will be removed from Bird Creek. These
flows will be conveyed to the Northside plant where a greater level of
treatment will be provided along with disinfection by chlorine. The smaller
remaining three plants (1.5 MGD) may not have disinfection by 1985. In
relation to the flow from the Northside plant (30 MGD), even during low flow
conditions the potential for water borne diseases will be greatly reduced.
Archaeological/Historical
Because No Action represents no physical change to the Northside plant as a
result of this project, no impact is expected.
ALTERNATIVES MA-1, MA-10, MA-13, MA-16
The potential effects on the cultural factors as a result of implementing an
alternative are discussed jointly and provided below. Where differences
occur or impacts are considered alternative specific, they will be noted.
Recreation
All of the presented alternatives provide for the expansion of the plant
resulting in additional capacity. This will enable areas with unsuitable
soils for onsite disposal systems to be developed as a result of expanded
sewer service. In addition, pressure to develop areas with good soils, many
5-69
-------
of which are in flood prone areas, would be reduced making them available
for use as greebelts or parklands by th2 City in the future. The AWT
Alternatives (MA-10, MA-13, MA-16) would greatly improve the recreational
uses, such as fishing, boating, and swimnrng in this downstream segment of
Bird Creek.
Aesthetics, Noise, and Odors
Aesthetic impacts of the expansion alternatives include the development of
larger buildings for offices, apartments, and industrial uses in currently
vacant areas, as well as higher density housing developments. The rolling
hills topographic characteristics in the southeast and ridge!ines and other
high elevation features in northeast and northwest corners of the service
area create a high degree of visibility for new buildings. The aesthetic
impacts of development in such areas, whether positive or negative, are more
relevant to the expansion approach because larger buildings would be
anticipated.
In terms of noise, the expansion would increase the density of development
in the Tulsa area, resulting in a higher population, greater traffic and
eventually more noise.
The Out-of-Basin Transfer Alternative does have problems associated with the
use of a 24-mile long pipeline. The potential for odor and septic problems
due to the long detention time of the effluent were dis~cussed in the first
environmental evaluation of the alternatives. The actual degree of the
problems could not be determined until after the pipeline was constructed
and in operation. If at that time any one of the aforementioned problems
did result, the employment of in-line chlorination (oxidizing agent) or
reaeration at lift stations could be used to mitigate the problem at its
point of occurrence.
In general, the AWT alternatives would reduce odors because of the higher
levels of treatment. However, AWT Alternative MA-13 employs a method of
breakpoint chlorination. Chlorine is a strong oxidizing agent requiring
precise dosage control. Chlorination beyond the breakpoint promotes the
5-70
-------
formation of nitrate ion (HN03) rather than nitrogen gas, plus additional
chloride ion (HC1) which can suppress the pH. Another potential side
reaction occurs when the pH drops below 6.5, which encourages the production
of nitrogen trichloride (NC13), a noxious gas. Because of the high degree
of control required for this process the potential for adverse effects as a
result of operational or mechanical labor does exist. However, the
operational time period for this unit process is limited to 6-8 weeks per
year during the winter.
Public Health and Safety
The Out-of-Basin Transfer Alternative does provide the potential for the
reuse of the effluent by industries as it is conveyed to the Arkansas River.
If this option were employed, disinfection at the outlet point should be
provided. The AWT alternative would carry the benefits presented under No
Action even further by providing for a high level of treatment of a greater
flow, as well as disinfection. Those benefits include the removal of
undisinfected effluents of Flat Rock and Coal Creek from Bird Creek.
AWT Alternative MA-13 employs a method of breakpoint chlorination. As a
result of the high chlorine dosages required, the potential for the
formation of Trihalomethane (THM) was evaluated. Because the reaction rates
between chlorine and ammonia occur so quickly limiting the production of THM
and because the period of operation was only 6-8 weeks per year, this
problem was not considered significant but has been noted for operational
considerations (more detail provided in Report IX).
Archaeological/Historical
Since construction relative to the Northside treatment facility project is
on City-owned sites currently used for wastewater treatment operations, each
of the existing plant sites were submitted to the Oklahoma Archaeological
Society for their evaluation in March, 1981. The results of this survey
indicate that one previously recorded site, 34 Tu-21, is located near the
Northside plant. However, past construction activities have destroyed the
site. The results of the survey are in Appendix A, clearing further use of
5-71
-------
the plant site. A similar survey would be required once a detailed pipeline
route for Out-of-Basin Transfer is selected.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
The previous text provides a detailed environmental evaluation of those
Wastewater Management Alternatives that were considered by the applicant.
The "No Action" provided the conditions as they would exist in 1985 when the
plan would be implemented. In addition, it serves as a point of reference
from which the four alternatives MA-1, MA-10, MA-13 and MA-16 could be
evaluated. Because of the length and complexities of the alternative
evaluations, a summary matrix for each, including No Action, is provided in
Tables 5-18 through 5-22. Following Table 5-22 is a key or evaluation guide
for use with these tables.
These materials provide for easy comparison of each alternative; major
impacts (either beneficial or adverse), the projected length of the impact,
its type, whether or not it is compounding, and if it is permanent. General
summaries discussing the impact and mitigation measures are supplied where
possible.
5-72
-------
Table 5-18 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF 'NO ACTION".
^S. EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL-^
PARAMETERS \
/ATER
OURCES
ป OT
UJ
K
PHYSICAL
RESOURCES
:'.'.' -''" ' ., '-.' ,' - : ' " "'.' '.''.': '''' ' '
Secondarily treated effluent discharged to the stream restricts
its recreational uses.
Effluent quality would not meet current NPDES permit
limitations of 200 col i form per 100 ml.
MITIGATION MEASURES
. . -. * ' ' . "" /. ' .* - ;
. .- ' ,'. - .:. . t . - . - ."
- '. ' -:'-*.'..;"'
.--".'' """* .'"'" '*, "';
.-'..' '' : .':>: ' ^: " ;> -. v V-
-" . - ' " . "" *' . ' "-..
-------
Table 5-19 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MA-1.
^v EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAlX.
PARAMETERS \
WATER
RESOURCES
PHYSICAL
RESOURCES
SOCIOECONOMICS
O ซ
= "
a c
=';:.
CULTURAL FACTORS
SURFACE WATER
QROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
' ' ','' i
OEOLOQY
SOILS
AIR OUALITV/
METEOROLOGY
'' .". '.'':-
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
PERSONAL
INCOME
LAND USE
i '.*''?- ''. '
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA i FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA 1 FAUNA
' ' '..' '".'
RECREATION
AESTHETICS,
NOISE, * ODOR
PUBLIC HEALTH
ARCHAEOLOGY
t HISIOniCAL
BENEFICIAL j
mfn._
;,' -
-
-'..
mln.
mln.
mln.
. r '
mln.
mln.
ADVERSE
':
note*
notec
mln.
1 "'
noted
>-.;..'.;
V
mi n.
noted
CC
Ul
O
0
.- "
'', ..,'',
X
..'',.'
X
X
x
0
0
_ q
SHORT-TERM]
^ ;
-/.'
vv '
-
DIRECT '
-*-
; '' ''
X
. .
INDIRECT
. .'
X
X
X
X
;':.'
x
CUMULATIVE
,ฃ
CONST.
X
',.',..
.___. .
IRREVERS.
IRRETRIEV.
.. ...
-
-' '
..
SUMMARY EVALUATION
Removal of the effluent from Bird Creek would return the stream
to a more natural condition, however flows become more sus-
ceptable to storm water runoff.
Assimilative capacity of the Arkansas River may require more
evaluation.
Adjacent waterways to pipeline construction should be protected
from runoff siltatlon.
W'M^i^&!\^^^^^
Requires pi pel Ine, faul t areas should be avoided
If pipeline bisects areas of good soils, these soils would be
stock piled and replace In the original horizons.
Increases local growth and traffic densities Tulsa Is a CO
non-attainment area.
"'.'; '.'>' '-..'''' '' . / '! . * ''''Q'eil ":"!.- " *.'-.'
Provides treatment capacity for new industrial and housing
developments, improves local economy
Provides for more controlled Inward growth and best use of
available land.
Project Is high in cost could be a financial burden on the city.
Existing right-of-ways and easements should be used for pipeline
route.
..i';"'.--' v- '':'i '':..-'. --.'i '".. " ..': .'"; ; ;:'V':"A iSV'' "" j':>*$'f?'.-
Complete removal of effluent NH, and CU toxicltles to aquatic
life, however there Is a potential for Toss of aquatic habitat
during low-flow and seasonal warm weather D.O. sags.
-r " --f '''') l-- . . '.: . r'-;^-.-%V^,V
Improvements in stream quality
Lonq retention times In pipeline may cause septic conditions
*nd odor problems ol lift station.
Archaeological and historical clearance* are required for
Pป pel i ne route .
MITIGATION MEASURES
;-, i *" ,.l, ;- " ;"_ < r f
-.'"' .'.'- "'..''*'. '" . -*''"*
'WMฃ':#S"&
'' ':' ' '',''" ** /' '
In-l Ine chlorine addl-
t Ion or t-eaerat ion
may be required to
prevent septic con-
di tions.
-------
Table 5-20 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MA-10.
^v EFFECTS
E N VmONMENTAt\
PARAMETERS \
m
UJ
(E t\
WATE
RESOUm
PHYSICAL
RESOURCES
CO
0
O
O
O
111
o
5
o
CO
' ; :
6 m
= ซ"
0 a
I -;:.
CULTURAL FACTORS
SURFACE WATER
GROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
OEOLOOY
SOUS
AIR QUALITY/
METEOROLOOY
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
PERSONAL
INCOME
LAND USE
Vv"Y'. '.'-
' v.-*
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA ซ FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA FAUNA
RECREATION
AESTHETICS,
NOISE. * OOOfl
PUBLIC HEALTH
ARCHAEOLOGY
1 HISTORICAL
BENEFICIAL
"aj.:
min.
mln.
mln.
mtn.
' ,'":-:i'
mln.
mi n .
ADVERSE
mln
" i :.
-
S
a
UJ
K
0
O
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
SHORT-TERM
'':- >
."ฃ
- -
--
DIRECT
X
''-;
X
INDIRECT
.'.;;..
X
; .'
X
X
X
X
X
CUMULATIVE
>y
/
CONST.
IRREVERS.
IRRETRIEV.
-
'.--,
SUMMARY EVALUATION
Provides the advantages of advanced treatment
o good quality effluent
o low NH, concentrations
o constant downstream flow
All biological treatment
'"'? '''. A-:'-.: '''""'''.;'.'':.';'. ':' ;' '-': ''" / ...- ' . .- ..''.' :. A1 "'"
Increases local growth and traffic densities Tulsa is a CO
non-attainment area.
" ' ; " .:. '.'',' -''' ' 'f ' . '.-'','. ' ,''
Provides trentmpne capacity for new industrial and housing
developments, improves local economy
Develops more controlled Inward growth and best uses of
aval table land
Project Is high in cost could be a financial burden on the city.
'."'-'. i: V'V "',''*' " V'. s
Improves effluent quality
' , ' *: ' '."'. ' .' . " ' ' ' ' . ' . V ' ' .
ConOstant flow of pood guality effluent.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Biological nitrifi-
cation process Is sus-
ceptible to cold
weatner-the addition
of covers may offset
this problem.
:'.'- ..-/jV ':' ' ..i'Xj^^Ki'-
. ' . . ': : .." '. :' "
''':.' - ' S "
i'''-. '.-''.- '.*:' .'i';"5';'
! '"".' : 'V,r >.:'':^ ,
-------
Table 5-21 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MA-13.
^s. EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAbs.
PARAMETERS \
WATER
RESOURCES
PHYSICAL
RESOURCES
SOCIOECONOMICS
i
d ฐ>
= ซu
0 it
CULTURAL FACTORS
SURFACE WATER
GROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
1 " . "",'. "
OEOIOOY
SOILS
AIR QUALITY/
METEOROLOQV
' -", '" '.' '
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
PERSONAL
INCOME
LAND USE
;* '-:"^r ^^
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA A FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA 1 FAUNA
RECREATION
AESTHETICS.
NOISE, a ooon
PUBLIC HEALTH
ARCHAEOLOGY
1 HISTORICAL
BENEFICIAL
maj.
'*
nuru_
mi n .
mi n .
mi n.
':'/ >';'.
n) i n .
mi n .
ADVERSE
ntin.
'<-;
noted
notet
notet
LONG-TERM
0
'-.. ' -
X
X
X
X
X
0
0
SHORT-TERM
0
0
-- -
DIRECT
X
X
INDIRECT
X
X
X
X
X
X
CUMULATIVE
CONST.
'iv;
---
IRREVERS.
IRRETRIEV.
';!>.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
Advanced treatment
o good quality effluent
o low NH. concentrations
o consistent flow
'.; -i:V- :'^;'." ": ''.S'--'S ',-.':: '',- '".' ' ^ '';'' /'-''.- /^ ".
Increases tocat growth and traffic densities Tulsa is a CO
non-attainment area.
.'':"..;':'.''..'. ; ,: '''-(*- '":.''''. . ' ' .;-" ,'/ ;.;'V-; '''' : - :
Provides treatment capacity for new industrial and housing
development, improved local economy
Project has a high cost could be a financial burden on the city.
Develops more controlled Inward growth and best use of
avai (able land.
; .Y'l4 -J| -' : fJ ' '".?-'"'-!-' $',''*":. f,,: ."-'.'-"'"'' ; ' " ."-.^ 'i:i ';'. ^ .".'' .'.;WVV- ,
Good quality effluent
High level of system monitorinq to prevent chlorine toxiclty
or D.O. sags from excess dechlor i nat ion .
" r ';.";" .' .' ' " ' ' :.''....' " .'..
-.. : .. - ' " . ;- - -
Improves stream quality
Potential for nitrooen trichloride (MCI,), a noxious qas ,
production at a pH less than 6.5.
The u^e of highly reacrive chemicals for treatment
MITIGATION MEASURES
. ' - . \ ; 1 . . ' - .- . --"*."'-
i,:; :' '^^ '-' ''"- - " ":
High chlorine residual
require? dechlorin-
a t i on .
Post-aerat ion.
'' "'.' ' ' ' . . ซ'
Effluent pH buffering
i s requ i red .
.
I
-~l
(Tl
-------
^V EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENT At\
PARAMETERS ^^
WATER
RESOURCES
PHYSICAL
RESOURCES
SOCIOECONOMICS
0 "
= "
CD K
::.
CULTURAL FACTORS
SURFACE WATE
GROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
OEOLOOV
SOUS
AIR QUALITY/
METEOROLOGY
POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
PERSONAL
INCOME
LAND USE
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA 8 FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA ซ FAUNA
RECREATION
AESTHETICS.
NOISE. ซ ODOR
PUBLIC HEALTH
ARCHAEOLOGY
t HISTORICAL
BENEFICIAL
maj .
mi n .
min .
m i n .
min.
min.
min.
._.
ADVERSE
min.
-
Table 5 -22 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MA 16
LONG-TERM
0
X
X
X
X
X
0
o
SHORT-TERM
-
DIRECT
X
0
-
INDIRECT
....
X
X
X
X
X
'. /!
X
....
CUMULATIVE
CONST.
---
--
IRREVERS.
IRHETRIEV.
--
SUMMARY EVALUATION
ซll biological treatment. AtfT
Nitrification occurs In the activated sludge process, not as
susceptible to cold weather.
Biofilters buffer the primary mode of treatment and nitrlflcatl
(activated sludqe process) from potential shock loadings year
round .
' ' '"--,' ' ... : ; ....,'''.',.
ซ-...' ..--.': ' - , - ..." '.' '. . ' . -,
Increases local growth and traffic density Tulsa Is a CO non-
a t ta i nmen t area .
, ' :V .-.;" -'''''' - . -'. ': '" ""-"v ">. . ' . -
Provides treatment capacity for new industrial and housing
<1e ve 1 opnten t , improves local econon'y
Project has a high cost could be a financial burden on the citv.
Develops more controlled inward growth and best use of
avai (able land .
.; - !' ' '"' . : ;; ' ' . ; ": --"-'.'-: -' , '"'-.-""-
.*-.;''. .. '- ' i- - : .'."
Improves effluent quality
' ' .'.'- '''.: ' ' ''.' -"' ..." - ' '.''. ':'.'..
Improves stream quality.
MITIGATION MEASURES
i
: . i _..,' -..'-. ;_5; ' ' * '; '
"'';':. ~ J;
. . . ' '\%,'''"^.;SX:'i-
. " * / '*' ,"" ป' .. ' -'-.
-------
SUMMARY EVALUATION KEY FOR TABLES 5-18 THROUGH 5-2Z
Environmental Effects
Definition
en
t
>j
00
BENEFICIAL
( ) no Impact
(mln.) minor
(maj.) major
ADVERSE
( ) no Impact
(noted) noted
(m1n.) minor
(maj.) major
LONG-TERM
( I none
(o) operational
(x) present
SHORT-TERM
( ) none
(o) operational
DIRECT
( ) none
jx) present
INDIRECT
( ) none
(x) present
CUMULATIVE
( ) none
(x) present
CONSTRUCTION
( ) none
(x) present
IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE
( ) none
(x) present
Impact 1s positive.
Impact, If any, Is not large enough to be significant and/or dlscernable.
Impact Is small but dlscernable, or for comparison purposes may Indicate the lack of a
negative Impact.
Impact Is highly significant and adds positive factors to the alternative.
Impact Is negative.
Impact, If any, Is not large enough to be significant an/or dlscernable.
The potential for an Impact exist but Is highly unlikely and could be prevented.
Impact Is small but dlscernable. In most cases mitigation measures could be provided,
limiting the negative aspects of the alternatives.
Impact Is significant and could affect the alternative. The adverse Impact may not be
mltlgatlble or may require extremely costly measures.
Duration of the impact Is permanent or Indefinite.
No long-term Impact or no Impact.
Length of the impact stays in effect as long as that portion of the alternative is In
operation.
Impact Is long-term In duration.
Duration of Impact Is short-term or temporary.
Not short-term or no Impact.
Short-term operational Impact.
Impact occurs In direct response to an action.
Not a direct Impact.
A direct Impact results from an action. Example: effluent quality affects surface water
qual1ty.
Impact occurs Indirectly or as a result of a direct Impact.
Not an Indirect Impact.
Indirect Impact Is secondary. Example: effluent quality affects stream quality and Its
recreational uses.
Additive Impacts, may be significant when combined with other Impacts.
Not a cumulative Impact.
Impacts may compound with other Impacts.
Construction-related.
Not construction-related.
Construction-related.
Irreversible and Irretrievable commitment of resources caused by the action.
None.
A permanent impact.
-------
5.2 RESIDUALS SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BY THE APPLICANT
Chapter 4 described the major environmental impacts of both the wastewater
and residuals solids management alternatives. Section 5.1 and this section
of Chapter 5 provide the supporting information for the impact analysis of
wastewater and residuals solids management alternatives, respectively.
Section 5.2 is organized slightly differently than Section 5.1, due to the
fact that each alternative has a different project area(s). Because of the
different project areas it is necessary to treat each alternative as a
separate entity so that they may be compared with each other.
Under each of the five alternative headings, the impact analysis is divided
into five major environmental headings; water resources, physical resources,
biological resources, socioeconomics, and cultural factors. For each of
these, the existing conditions or baseline and the alternative evaluation
are described. The alternative evaluations include discussions of direct
and indirect and cumulative impacts and short and long-term impacts where
found. Any irreversible and/or irretrievable impacts are also described.
There is also an evaluation table for each alternative. A full summary
table is given in Chapter 4. Construction impacts are noted with a "C" in
the individual evaluation tables in this section. These are also summarized
in Section 5.3. It should be noted that while RA-7 is the "marketing"
alternative, each of the others represents a backuo disposal/reuse method
for marketing.
REGULATORY UPDATE
It should be noted that the Oklahoma State Department of Health distributed
new regulations on solid waste management in June, after this alternative
evaluation. These regulations, titled "Solid Waste Management Rules and
Regulations Including Sludge Management Rules and Regulations" were adopted
by the Oklahoma State Board of Health on March 27, 1982 and are effective
July 1, 1982.
5-79
-------
These regulations are somewhat more stringent than the Federal regulations
"Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices", published in the Federal Register September 13, 1979. There are
two primary effects that the new regulations have on this portion of the
project.
One is the fact that dedicated land disposal would come under Section 7.0
"Sludge Landfills" of the new regulations, and a three (3) foot layer of
earthen cover material would be required for a final cover. This provision
was not required under Federal regulations and so no cost for the
importation of a three foot cap was included during the Facility Planning
process. Also, the environmental evaluation did not consider either the
effects of including a three foot cap or where the soil would come from and
the effects on that area.
This provision in the State Regulations would affect Alternative RA-1 and
RA-5 significantly, and in fact would probably eliminate them completely.
This is due to the excessive cost and difficulty of finding, buying and
importing a three foot layer of soil for 130 and 50 acres of land
respectively for RA-1 and RA-5. Dedicated land disposal requires no
excavation, so no soil cover would be available onsite. The environmental
impacts of those alternatives would be reduced, but it is doubtful if they
would remain viable.
The second effect of the new State regulations is on the Preferred
Alternative, which is beneficial reuse with a backup of abandoned strip mine
reclamation at R-3 (RA-6). The regulations do not affect the backup
alternative differently than anticipated, but they may slightly affect both
marketing and agriculture reuse.
Marketing or giveaway is not currently regulated on the Federal level.
EPA's Preproposal Draft Regulations on the Distribution and Marketing of
Sewage Sludge Products were to be published in the Federal Register in late
1980, but they have been indefinitely postponed (personal communication,
U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington D.C.). The EPA Preproposal
5-80
-------
regulations were used as a guideline in this analysis, however, and their
requirements were similar to the new State regulations.
Essentially, a special permit will be required based on the specifics of the
plan, and the sludge will have to be treated to a "Process to Further Reduce
Pathogens" (PFRP) such as composting. Since the alternative was developed
assuming these would be required, there should be no effect on marketing/
giveaway.
For agricultural land application, the new regulations require a "Sludge
Management Plan" with specific requirements and limits similar to the
existing Federal regulations. The main difference is that the state
requires that "Annual sludge application shall not exceed nitrogen and
phosphorous fertilization rates for the crop grown..." The phosphorous
limitation will hinder the use ,of low cadmium sludges such as Southsides1
and Haikey Creeks', but will probably not affect agricultural reuse of
Northside sludge. -This is because sewage sludge has generally high levels
of phosphorous and if the application rate is limited to the level actually
required by crops, not enough nitrogen will be provided for crop needs. A
special permit will be required by the State if the phosphorous levels are
to be exceeded.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No Action alternative, as discussed in Chapter 4, would involve a
continuation of present trends and practices. Currently, sludge from the
three treatment plants is handled separately. The Northside WWTP sewage
sludge is digested and stored in lagoons. The thickened sludge is then
disposed of by spreading on the ground on City-owned land near the treatment
plant. The sewage sludge from the Southside WWTP is stored in lagoons after
digestion and no disposal method exists. Haikey Creek sludge is dried on
drying beds and then spread on the ground at the plant site or stored in
lagoons and later injected as liquid.
5-81
-------
Approximately 26-27 dry tons per day (tpd) total is currently produced from
all three treatment plants. By 1985 there is projected to be 34.5 dry tpd
which would represent the No Action wastewater management alternative. The
increase is primarily due to the closure of the Flat Rock and Coal Creek
WWTP's and diversion of their flow to Northside, involving an 11 MGD
expansion there. If the preferred wastewater management alternative is
implemented, 44.8 dry tpd would be produced from all three plants by the
year 2005.
The No Action condition or alternative is not considered to be a viable or
useable alternative because it is not a permitted disposal operation and
because a lack of disposal capacity would prevent the method in any event.
Federal law under the "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part 257) requires that solid waste
disposal facilities and practices comply with minimum criteria designed to
prevent adverse effects on health or the environment. Essentially, any
solid waste disposal facility or practice that is not conducted in a
sanitary facility is classified as an open dump. While the current disposal
of sludge may not come under the open dump classification, permanent storage
as such probably would.
Oklahoma State Solid Waste Rules and Regulations (effective July 1, 1982)
also require the disposal and/or storage of solid waste in a permitted
facility, with specific requirements more stringent than those under Part
257.
In addition to the above regulatory constraints, the No Action alternative
would not be physically possible due to a lack of disposal area at any of
the treatment plants. For these reasons, the No Action alternative is not
utilized for comparison with other alternatives, *but rather the five
alternatives are compared against each other.
5-82
-------
ALTERNATIVE RA-1
This alternative involves pipeline transport of Northside sludge to
dedicated land disposal at Site LS-4; and the drying bed dewatering and
trucking of Southside and Haikey Creek sludges to landfill at Site LF-1 (see
Figure 5-13). A general description of the two methods and two sites
involved is given in the following paragraphs, and then the existing site
conditions and impacts on environmental factors from the alternative are
given. An evaluation matrix of Alternative RA-1 is given on Table 5-23.
The tern dedicated land disposal refers to a method of high rate land
application of sludge by either the spreading of dried sludge followed by
incorporation or the injection of liquid digested sludge. This alternative
involves liquid sludge. The pipeline construction would cause short-term
impacts such as those discussed in Section 5.3 (pq. 5-133) of this chapter.
The term dedicated refers to the fact that the land is used for that purpose
only, i.e., it is dedicated to waste disposal. The oroposed land disposal
site, LS-4, is approximately 24 miles northeast of the center of Tulsa.
Figure 4-1 shows the regional location of the site. It is in Rogers County,
lying just south of Oologah Lake. The site contains approximately 5,400
acres of which 110-320 acres would be utilized. Figure 5-14 outlines the
potential area of the site. The actual site (110-320 acres) would be
located somewhere within the boundaries shown on Figure 5-14.
The landfilling method in this alternative is a standard- trench type method,
where sludge would be layered in cells along trenches. Landfilling would
produce construction impacts such as those discussed in Section 5.3 of this
chapter. The proposed landfill site, LF-1, is approximately 21 miles south
of the center of Tulsa. It is in both Okmulgee and Creek counties, lying
just to the southwest of the town of Mounds. The site contains
approximately 1,500 acres; 130 to 210 acres will be Vequired. Figure 5-15
outlines the potential area of the site. Environmental factors are
discussed below.
5-83
-------
j^rn^r "-A/:
IV4fcv-i^^
'-v^..:iS, vV.J;. v^- ;. ' NC
L-^t.-'-ป* CV..'.- -.-"-:?- ---.. . ;- LI
i^^ " ;~ j, ~^
?
-------
Table 5-23 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE RA-1.
^X. EFFECTS'1
ENVIRONMENTALS.
PARAMETERS .
WATER
RESOURCES
i"
0 tt
5> =
> o
X 0)
au.
SOCIOECONOMICS
: '>.'-
6 ฐ>
= "ป
tO tฃ
''''.'.
CULTURAL FACTORS
SURFACE WATER
OROUNOWATER
LOOD HAZARDS
,;; ::". " ;/",:'
OEOLOOV
SOILS
AIR QUALITY/
METEOROLOGY
POPULATION
1 LAND USE
TRANS
INSTITUTIONAL
FACTORS
ECONOMICS
''.'' ;''' ''
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA 1 FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA t FAUNA
' -- ' ;,'../'
RECREATION
ODOR I
INSECTS
AESTHETICS
* NOISE
PUBLIC HEALTH
t SAFETY
ARCHAEOLOGY
t HISTORICAL
BENEFICIAL
'':''''
'.. '
'^ '
'-
ADVERSE
mln.
maj .
' ' '!
ml n.
ma i .
mln.
i ;_
maj .
min.
.maj^
'.'''- ''
mi n.
,. '.
ml n .
min.
min.
min.
min.
Jt
K
Ul
1-
o
z
o
X
K
;'>'' :
K
X
K
?
X.
X...
K
;.:?
K
.'
X
X
K
X
H
TO
c
o.c
c
' '
c
c_
c
c
c
c
c
DIRECT
X
K
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
INDIRECT
X
X
X
X
X
'".:
CUMULATIVE
X
CONST.
X
X
X
X
X
_JL
X
X
X
X
X
IRREVERS.
IRRETRIEV.
X
*
poss.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
Impacts minor If Verdiqris soils at LS-I| avoided and run-off
controlled. Long term, indirect slltationon Newtonia soils
Localized contamination groundwater may be severe but may not
reach beyond" site.
No Impact if flood prone Verdiqris soils on LS-lt avoided.
: '^ ฃ''''/'}:. ':-' .:' ';'*' ':>Vvv'r"i4;':- r" .''.'?-' ': -ซ-; ''' /'''" .'''''
lome geology at LS-1) may not be suitable. Long-term
umulative contam. of other res. indirectly.
Direct clogging of Newtonia soils; Indirect, permanent loss of
prime farmlands at LS-I|. Temp, loss of production at LF-I. May
be erosion on Newtonia soils.
High rate injection at LS-1! may kl 1 1 vegetal ion resulting in
wind erosion indirectly.
"'...' ; ; . '' . '.'-' ''.' . -' . '.''.'.'":'.' '..'"''. -
Land use at LS-1| may be changed to waste disposal permanently,
affecting both onsite and adjacent lands.
Small increase in local and area traffic especially at LF-1 .
Implemenat ion could be difficult. Three different counties.
Pipeline crossing difficult. If a final cover is required for L!
regulations, cost of >ui 1 importation could be prohibitive.
Reduced land value of adjacent lands at both sites long-term.
'' ~'^', * ,ป A
On-site veg. removal at both sites. May be permanent loss of
veg. due to hl-rate loading of soils at LS-1!.
No effect expected if runoff controlled at both sites and
Verdigris soils not used.
' ' :::. ..-".' ', ': "'-.. - ''.'.:.. ''...'"\*s-::"'. *;'''''
L5-1! close to recreation areas.
On-site lagoon at LS-1! may create odors. Landfill may have
odors and insects problems.
Housing overlooks site
Dedicated land disposal does not contain the wastes as securely
as Inndf i 1 1 inq.
Known arch, sites near IS-'* may inhibit const. LF-I has a high
pnte filial for sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Avoid Verdigris soils
Reduce application
rate on Newtonia soils
Careful G.W. monitoring
Use onlye. portion of
sin..
*' ' i ' ' ' -'. ' V V
Careful siting; test
>orlngs
teduce appl . rates at
LS-1!. Replace horizons
; topsoll when closing
leduce rate to assure
stable vegetation
;.'..'. ''.'.:'-' '; :;.
-1! by State
Buffers
i .'.(''
t -.--.
Reduce loading rate at
LS-1* to assure veg.
stabi 1 i ty.
Avoid Verdigris soils
=:- ;>/</' .;<",
Buffers
ftvold septic condi-
tions in lagoon. Daily
:over at landf III'.
Suffer wel 1
tonitor carefully.
Vvoid Verdiqris soils.
\void local wells.
Flexibi 1 i ty in siting.
'A iiimmary kepp nviy ho found at the end of the ซ,rction.
-------
' ป:'"^*,"<*
.-' f /
r-v
s x.._.
.'' I
i
. i 4-_ป. *-__
i*
f
X-
\
_" . '
1,
_..,...._ป - ^i_
1 jf-^lvV * "... '
V^r . -v-^1
;..-ฃ*
* w {_ v ""'v
_I4*. ...
X- x
'A "
^S '. 0 (1 ป A L A
''i
(
'i .. ~'\ r. . - ':"1 '
hr i ,^, - - -;j
V ? !
J V 1
- \ 5
, ^ ^ v L
' ^ :V-r- ^ 1
\ ^
\
,J L._.^_ ._.^, ^ ~ } ...
ป ' '
~f . j
\-
Q u * A U A
V ' j "
' \ 1
r | t_._ t .
\
\ -^ . !>
._ i ~ 1
1. M ป
:- " .' r -
'^^^-.____
, i
* i
' * . * . *
i
i
I" , '
-. ^i--
' , !
V>^r ' ; 1
S
-" . _ r ^. ^fc* ^
- '-* r -
' .'? ~"*"f "'* '"
'_!' . _t-. -J .. ' - 1 ;.
1 1
**ฃ*
>-- -/S.
"*"" V
! ' .-\H ' .
"!-l ,';"/
1 --/
/T;^ .
:- - -
L --
V
^J'
*
' ^-"li
il-:.-.
Jtr^
X
^r
j/
/ .. ' :
SCALE: 1" = 6200'
Figure 5-14 Proposed Landspreading Site (LS-4).
5-86
-------
,
U-^-VK '^tฃฃ-ฃ
'' I '
yi
, j
'2.i
^4
i
J
i
^ฃL.
^-1 !!ฃ IV
;^:
3*"J
-" 1
J-
fi
SCALE: 1" = 4200'
Figure 5-15 Proposed Landfill Site (LF-1).
5-87
-------
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources Include surface water and groundwater. These are described
in terms of existing conditions first, followed by the alternative
evaluation.
Existing Conditions
Surface Water. Site LS-4 is located adjacent to the winding channel of the
Verdigris River as it leaves Oologah Dam. The entire site appears to drain
into the Verdigris, which is a drinking water source downstream. Ooloqah
Lake to the north (maximum capacity 1,020,000 acre feet) is also a municipal
drinking water source.
Site LF-1 (Figure 5-15) is located near the headwaters of Duck Creek (South
Duck and Middle Duck creeks), which is a tributary of Snake Creek. Snake
Creek eventually drains into the Arkansas River. Middle and South Duck
creeks are intermittent, receiving runoff primarily from the hills to the
west of the site.
Lake Boren lies near the site in the hills to the west. Although not
currently being used for public water supply, the town of Mounds does at
times use the lake for a potable water supply along with Lake Jackson to the
northwest.
Groundwater. The depth to water in wells near Site LS-4 ranges from 2 to
17 ft below the land surface. Most wells, however, have only fair to poor
quality. This area is underlain by Pennsylvanian shale, siltstone, and
sandstone, and by Mississippi an limestone and shale above Boone Chert. Most
groundwater in this area is hard or very hard and the yield is usually less
than 25 gallons per minute. None of the towns in Rogers County are listed
as using groundwater for municipal supplies.
The depth to the base of fresh water in the general area of LF-1 is listed
as 200-500 ft; however, most wells in the area have had water of only fair
5-88
-------
to poor quality. The yield is generally less than 25 qallons per minute.
Surrounding towns utilize surface water for municipal supplies.
Flood Hazards. The western portion of Site LS-4 is in a flood prone area.
The flood prone area generally follows the Verdigris soils. Only the
northeast portion of the site (Newtonia soils) is not flood prone.
Tributaries of Duck Creek (Middle Duck and South Duck) fringe into the
general area to the east of Site LF-1. These are in a flood prone area
according to the USGS Map of Flood Prone Areas, Lake Boren Quadrangle, 1980.
These are not actually part of the site, however, since LF-1 is on Mason
soils, which are above the floodplain.
Alternative Evaluation
/
Surface Water. Impacts on surface water from this alternative would be
minor, as long as disposal and/or storage at LS-4 does not take place on the
Verdigris soils which are in a flood prone area. At the high loading rates
proposed, injection on permeable Verdigris soils would be likely to result
in contamination of alluvial aquifers along the Verdigris, and subsequently
indirect contamination of the Verdigris River which is a drinking water
source. Also, storage lagoons should not be placed in the flood prone area
as they could wash out. Disposal at LF-1 should not cause any surface water
impacts as long as the groundwater is protected and runoff is controlled.
Groundwater. The impact of RA-1 on groundwater could be major adverse, even
if the Verdigris soils are not utilized at Site LS-4. High rate application
of sludge on the Verdigris soils would very likely pollute the alluvial
aquifer below. On Newtonia soils, severe localized nitrate contamination of
the groundwater is likely to occur. However, high rate application would
probably clog the soils, preventing some of the pollution, but causing
severe operational problems (see Soils).
Disposal of sludge from Southside and Haikey Creek plants at LF-1 would not
be expected to cause any adverse effects on groundwater, since the landfill
would be lined and waste contained.
5-89
-------
Flood Hazards. As long as the flood prone western portion of LS-4
(primarily Verdigris soilsjis not used, there should be no increase in flood
hazards at either site.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
This heading covers geology, soils, and air quality/meteorology.
Existing Conditions
Geology. Site LS-4 slopes toward the west, ranging from 570-580 ft above
MSL near the Verdigris to 700 ft above MSL in the east side with several
pronounced hills including Brushy Mound at 750 ft above MSL, Claremore Mound
at 770 ft above MSL, and Lipe Mound at 830 ft above MSL.
The area is listed as Zone 2 by OGS, which means that it may locally contain
bedrock units suitable for surface disposal of industrial wastes. There is
an area of Zone 3, however, shown in the QGS map as just east of the site.
Zone 3 is not likely to contain suitable units and because of the scale of
the map, the actual site may or may not have suitable bedrock
characteristics. The Zone 3 here is likely to be associated with alluvium
along the Verdigris River. Alluvium consists of gravel, sand, silt, and
clay, and along the Verdigris, yields small to moderate amounts of fair to
good quality water locally. No geologic faults are noted in available maps.
Site LS-4 may be mostly located on Fort Scott Limestone to the east of the
Verdigris. Fort Scott Limestone is limestone and shale and yields only
small amounts of fair to poor quality water.
Very near to the east is the Senora Formation. This is a shale with thin
and lenticular sandstone, minor limestone, and coal. This yields only small
amounts of fair to poor quality water.
Site LF-1 is basically level, at approximately 725-750 ft above mean sea
level (MSL). The hills to the west and northwest range in elevation from
930-1,003 feet above MSL.
5-90
-------
The area is listed as Zone 1 by OGS, which means that it is likely to
contain bedrock units suitable for surface disposal of wastes. The site
lies in the Coffeyville Formation and Checkerboard Limestone. The
Coffeyville Formation is 150 to 470 feet thick and is mainly shale
interbedded with fine to medium-grained sandstone locally containing chert
and limestone conglomerate and thin coal seams. Checkerboard Limestone, a
crystalline limestone, is 2.5 to 5 feet thick. No faults have been noted.
Soils. Site LS-4 is on Verdigris clay loam and Newtonia silt loam.
Verdigris clay loam is a nearly level soil in bottomlands that are flooded
during wet seasons. Verdigris soils are formed in recent alluvium along
major streams. Verdigris clay loam is used mostly for cultivated crops, and
is suited to corn, small grain, sorghum, soybeans, tame pasture and pecan
trees.
Newtonia silt loam is a level to gently sloping soil formed from limestone
in upland prairies. Newtonia soils are generally susceptible to water
erosion. Newtonia silt loam (0 to 1 percent and 1 to 3 percent slopes) is
used mainly for cultivated crops although a few are used for native grass
pasture or hay. The soil is well suited to soybeans, small grain, sorghun,
alfalfa, corn, and tame and native grasses.
Both the Verdigris clay loam and Newtonia silt loam are listed as prime
farmland by the Rogers County Soil Conservation Service.
Site LF-1 is on Mason Loam soils which are deep, nearly level soils that are
on low terraces 5-30 feet above the floodplains of larger creeks. Mason
loam is associated with Verdigris soils, which are on slightly lower
terraces and are flooded occasionally. This soil is firm and compact when
moist and very hard when dry. Mason series soils are used for cultivated
crops, bermuda grass pasture and native grass pasture. Mason Loam is listed
by Okmulgee County SCS as prime farmland.
Air Qua!ity/Meteorology. Site LS-4 receives approximately 39 inches of
precipitation annually, with the greatest amount occurring in May. The
average annual temperature is 60.2ฐF with the first and last killing frosts
5-91
-------
generally on November 2nd and March 25th. The growing season is 220 days.
prevailing surface winds in the general area are southerly during most of
the year, averaging 5-7 mph, although it is not known how the lake affects
this.
Site LF-1 also receives approximately 38-39 inches of precipitation
annually, with 5-6 inches of runoff. The largest amount of moisture is
received in the spring and fall, with May the wettest month (OGS, 1975).
The meteorology in the area of LF-1 is similar to that of LS-4 with the
exception of the added influence of the hills.
Alternative Evaluation
Geology. The effects of dedicated land disposal at LS-4 with respect to
geologic factors are considered to be major adverse. It is questionable
whether formations in this area are capable of containing the wastes. If
not, contamination of other resources, such as groundwater, will be a
concern. Part of the site to the west is Zone 3, considered least suitable
for waste disposal by OGS. The eastern portion is more likely to have
suitable bedrock units, but there may be operational problems with the
Newtonia soils. No adverse impact would be expected from disposal at Site
LF-1 since it is Zone 1 (probably suitable geological formations).
Soils. There also may be major adverse effects on soils. At Site LS-4, the
soil associations are Newtonia-Sogn-Sumnrit Association and Verdigris-Osage
Association. The Verdigris silt loam (Vd) is probably marginally suitable,
but is in the floodplain. Open areas of Newtonia silt loam (NaB) may be
slightly more suitable but are subject to water erosion. The Newtonia
series description, however, points to a silty clay loam substratum that may
be prone to clogging. If the soil were to clog, ponding may occur and it
could become physically difficult to apply the sludge*. Newtonia soils are
more alkaline and may be better suited for retaining heavy metals than the
Verdigris soils, if high rates do not don the soil and prevent application.
No adverse effect on soils is expected from landfill disposal at Site LF-1
because the soil is relatively suitable.
5-92
-------
The impact on prime farmland would be major adverse with the implementation
of RA-1. At LF-1, about 100 acres plus a buffer at 55 percent would be
temporarily taken out of agricultural production. These Class 1 prime
farmlands (Mason Loam soils) would be removed from production for the 20
year site life. Proper closing of the site would allow its return to
production, probably even for food chain crops. Care should be taken to
segregate and retain the topsoil and soil horizons for later replacement.
Because of subsidence problems after closure, the land is likely to return
to agricultural use.
At LS-4, however, about 130 acres plus a buffer at 45 percent of prime
farmlands (Newtonia series or Verdigris silt loam) would be temporarily
removed and about 130 acres may be permanently removed from food chain crop
production and possibly from any agricultural production. By definition,
final cover is not normally placed on dedicated land disposal site as it is
on a landfill, since there is no excavation and no topsoil to replace on
top. The high rates will overload the site with cadmium and nutrients, so
the growth of food chain crops would be prohibited by Federal law. Also,
the proposed rate of application could potentially result in stunted or even
lost plant growth, which could further result in wind and water erosion and
siltation, dust blowing, etc.
Since the soils under consideration at LS-4 are prime farmlands, Federal
policy may affect the use of this site. (See also Report V, July, 1981,
Appendix A for Definition of Important Farmlands and -Appendix B for EPA
Policy on Prime Farmlands.)
Air Quality/Meteorology. Impacts on air quality for this alternative would
be related to the sludge loading rate at Site LS-4. Normally, injection
would not cause any adverse effect on air quality, however, the rates are
high enough here that vegetation may be damaged by* burning from ammonia
nitrogen or compaction from numerous trips across the field. If a good
cover of vegetation cannot be maintained on the injection site, wind erosion
may cause locally adverse effects on air quality.
5-93
-------
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological resources are discussed in terms of terrestrial flora and fauna
and aquatic flora and fauna.
Existing Conditions
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna. Site LS-4 is mostly farmlands, upland prairie, and
bottomland woodlands. Farmlands include pasture and cultivated crops and
native grasses. Wildlife likely to be found includes bobwhite quail,
mourning doves, fox and gray squirrels, cottontail and swamp rabbits,
opossums, coyotes, foxes, and numerous types of birds including waterfowl.
Much of site LF-1 is also in farmlands, with some woodlands. Farmlands
include cultivated crops, rangeland, pasture and native meadow. Wildlife
likely to be found include bobwhite quail, mourning dove, squirrel, deer,
cottontail, racoon, mink, opossum, skunk, fox, coyote, hawks, and owls and
many kinds of songbirds.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. Aquatic habitat on the Verdigris River is good where
the river has not been channelized, such as near LS-4. The quality of
fishing is good, with largemouth bass, catfish, white bass, sunfish, crappie
and others occurring.
The main drainageway near Site LF-1 is Middle Duck Creek, which probably
exhibits a negligible aquatic habitat due to intermittency. Farm ponds,
including Lake Boren, and Snake Creek, which Duck Creek feeds, may contain
sunfish, channel catfish, bullheads, flatheads, carp, buffalofish and bass.
Duck Creek itself is listed as containing sunfish and catfish.
Alternative Evaluation
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna. As at all sites, onsite vegetation such as
farmlands and/or woodlands will be removed by construction at both LS-4 and
LF-1. Local fauna will be displaced and some small animals may be killed
constituting a minor adverse impact. While LF-1 (100 acres) may be returned
5-94
-------
to its original state shortly after closure, LS-4 (130 acres) may be
severely damaged by the loading of nitrogen and heavy metals. This may
delay the revegetation of LS-4. The major significance of this is the loss
of prime farmlands (see Soils).
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. No effect would be expected if runoff is prevented
from both sites, and as long as Verdigris soils are not used at LS-4. Use
of these soils could result in alluvial groundwater contamination, resultant
surface water contamination with nutrients, and finally eutrophication.
SOCIOECONOMICS
A number of environmental parameters are discussed here. They are
population and land use, transportation, institutional factors, and
economics.
Existing Conditions
Population and Land Use. Much of the LS-4 area is lightly populated.
Rogers County has a total population of about 44,000. The largest city is
Claremore with 12,000. Oologah, just northwest of the site has a population
of 458. Sageeyah, in the southern portion of LS-4, does not list any
unified population. Around the site area, land use is predominantly
agricultural, light residential and some quarry and oil related activity.
Strip mining occurs to the east.
The general area of LF-1 is also very lightly populated. Okmulgee County
has a total population of about 39,000 with the largest city being Okmulgee
to the south of LF-1.
The town of Mounds to the north in Creek County has a population of
approximately 1,200. Around the Site LF-1 area, land use is predominantly
pasture, woods, and oil related activities. Scattered farms are found in
the valley portion with fringe suburban housing located in the hills to the
west and north.
5-95
-------
Transportation. Sludge trucked from the Northside Plant to LS-4 would
utilize Highway 169. A portion of this route between Collinsville and
Oologah has size and load restrictions for some vehicles.
The route to LF-1 would utilize 1-75 south until it crosses into Okmulgee
County. At that point, the trucks would travel due west along the first
section line road to the site area (see Figure 5-13).
Institutional Factors. There are no county regulations or guidelines on
landfilling or land application in Rogers County (Site LS-4). The Rogers
County Planning Department in Claremore indicates that Site LS-4, or parts
of it, may be subject to zoning restrictions. A special permit would
probably be required.
According to the Okmulgee County Health Department, there are no county
landfill regulations or guidelines with respect to LF-1. The State
regulations are used. There is no county planner or planning agency and no
zoning plans. Ownership would assist in determining a specific location
within LF-1.
Economics. The LS-4 area is primarily agriculturally based, although the
river area also has high recreation potential. A number of gravel pits
occur in the area as well as some petroleum related activity. Strip mining
for coal occurs to the east.
The LF-1 area is also based primarily on the agricultural economy, with some
petroleum industry.
Alternative Evaluation
Population and Land Use. There would be little effect from LF-1, which is
in an agricultural area and would probably return to that use after closure.
LS-4 may permanently change the land use from agricultural to waste disposal
and because the area is more populated, may somewhat change future land use
patterns. This portion of RA-1 could have both direct and indirect major
adverse impacts on onsite and adjacent land use patterns.
5-96
-------
Transportation. The hauling would be from the Southside and Haikey Creek
plants to site LF-1. Oklahoma size and weight requirements limit a truck's
gross weight to 20,000 IDS per axle. Due to the rural roads to the landfill
site the truck capacity may be limited to 15 cubic yards, or a special
permit may be required if 30 cubic yard trucks are used. This will provide
approximately 25 truck trips (30 cubic yards) per week. The Residual Solids
Management Plan discusses the need to upgrade county roads so that load
limitations will not apply. If so, there would be five trips per day. In
either case, the increased traffic may cause a minor adverse impact.
Institutional Factors. The greatest problem is that both sites are in
counties other than Tulsa. LS-4 is in Rogers County, which may restrict
this use by way of zoning provisions. Citizens in Okmulgee County and the
town of Mounds in Creek County may object to the siting of LF-1. In
addition, it may be very difficult to cross county lines with a pipeline
such as that proposed to deliver the sludge to LS-4. Overall, there may be
major negative impacts on institutional factors.
Economics. Both the operation at LS-4 and at LF-1 may have a slight
negative impact on local business or its establishment and the value of the
onsite and adjacent land. This will occur in two places rather than one,
however, for Alternative RA-1.
CULTURAL FACTORS
This heading includes those factors which affect people and the quality of
the environment in which they live, such as recreation, odor and insects,
aesthetics and noise, public health and safety and archaeological and
historical.
Existing Conditions
Recreation. LS-4 has high recreational value due to both the Verdigris
River and the proximity of Oologah Dam. Fishing value of the river is
considered high, and areas near the lake, including the public use area to
the north, have high recreational value.
5-97
-------
Recreational values of Site LF-1 are probably limited to small game hunting
and fishing on small lakes and ponds throughout the area. There may be some
farm related recreation. No specific recreation sites such as baseball
fields or gun clubs were noted; however, any recreation potential will be
noted when ownership factors are determined and a specific location is
selected.
Odors and Insects. Prevailing winds at both sites are southerly. LS-4 has
residential areas both to the north and south, while LF-1 contains
residential areas to the northwest and the town of Mounds lies to the north.
Most of the land use is agriculture.
Aesthetics and Noise. Most of Site LS-4 is overlooked by a residential area
to the north and by some in the south as well as Claremore, Brushy, and Lipe
Mounds. There is also a public use area to the north but a hill lies
between the site and this public use area. The town of Sageeyah lies in the
southern portion of the area, and other residential groupings lie in both
the southeast and northern parts of the area. Other sensitive features
include a public use area near the dam in the northwest.
Mason Loam soils on which LF-1 is located is on upper terraces of the
valley. Hills overlook the site to the west and northwest and contain some
fringe suburban housing.
Public Health and Safety. While groundwater resources are limited in the
LS-4 area, some private wells do occur. Oologah Lake is a municipal
drinking water source. The Verdigris River drains the site and is a
drinking water source downstream. There are no airports in the vicinity of
the site.
Groundwater resources are also listed as limited irt the LF-1 area, some
private drinking water or irrigation water wells may exist, however. Lake
Boren lies northwest and uphill of the site and is sometimes used as a
drinking water source for the town of Mounds in Creek County. The nearest
private airport is about 3 miles southeast of the ara.
5-98
-------
Archaeological/Historical. A copy of the LS-4 site map was sent to both the
Oklahoma Historical Society and Archaeological Survey. A number
archaeological sites and one historic site, Claremore Mounds, are located on
or near the site. The archaeological sites range from 3000 B.C. up to as
late as the 1930's (see Appendix A). There are at least five known historic
period sites representing homesteads or locations identified with specific
Native American groups. There are also at least ten prehistoric habitation
and temporary camps.
A copy of the LF-1 site map was also sent to both the Oklahoma
Archaeological Survey and the Oklahoma Historical Society. No known
archaeological or historical sites are listed for the area (Appendix A) but
the Archaeological Survey notes that few surveys have been done and there is
a good potential for sites.
Alternative Evaluation
Recreation. As long as the sites are buffered, surface water pollution is
prevented and odors are kept to a minimum, most impacts on recreation will
be minimal, especially at LF-1, where no major recreational values now
exist. However, at LS-4, there probably will be some minor adverse impact
in that it is so close to recreation areas and prevailing winds are toward
the major recreation areas of Oologah Lake.
Odors and Insects. As in noise below, impacts are minor adverse due to two
sites rather than one. While injection of liquid sludge has little odor
causing potential, onsite lagoons may cause .odor problems and mosquito
breeding. Landfill ing always has the potential for causing both odor and
insect problems, but these should be minimal with proper precautions.
Aesthetics and Noise. A minor adverse impact may res\ilt from the siting of
LF-1 and LS-4 due to residential housing overlooking the sites, and fron
LS-4 because of a nearby public use area.
5-99
-------
Alternative RA-1 may result in a minor adverse impact because there are two
disposal sites rather than one, and localized transportation and
construction impacts would be found in two areas.
Public Health and Safety. There may be a minor negative effect on public
health and safety from the dedicated land disposal operation at LS-4. This
is because the wastes are not contained or controlled as well as at a
sanitary landfill site. In other words, the potential is greater for
contaminants to enter the environment. Public access and grazing would have
to be controlled for one year and one month respectively after closure.
Archaeological/Historical. There are a number of known archaeological/
historical sites on and near LS-4. Because the site is near a major river,
more sites may yet be found. There is a good potential that sites may be
found on LF-1, primarily because few surveys have ever been conducted in
that area (refer to Appendix A). Because of the high potential for
archaeological/historical sites at two places, this alternative may have a
minor adverse impact.
ALTERNATIVE RA-3
This alternative" entails the drying bed dewatering of all the sludge,
followed by truck transport to landfill at Site LF-1 (see Figure 5-15 and
5-16). As discussed under RA-1, Site LF-1 is located about 21 miles south
of the center of Tulsa. It lies in both Okmulgee and Creek counties, just
to the southwest of the town of Mounds. While the site contains
approximately 1,500 acres, only 130 to 210 acres will be reauired.
Short-term impacts would be felt from the construction of the landfill (see
Section 5.3 of this chapter, pg. 5-133).
The existing conditions or site factors at LF-1 were discussed under RA-1,
however, they will be repeated here for continuity. An evaluation matrix of
Alternative RA-3 is given on Table 5-24. The alternative evaluation for
each type of resource follows existing conditions.
5-100
-------
/5ฑ*V? --:.
.v. . . _
ฃ ' ^^' ^ 1 '-'Ji
~T -- -V'- s*--
fP^JUi-:
Mites
30 MILE RADIUS
NORTHSIDE, SOUTHSIDE and HAIKEY CREEK: Trucking. |pndfill. Site LF-1.
Figure 5-16 Alternative RA-3 Sites and Transportation Routes.
5-101
-------
Table 5-24 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE RA-3.
s.
^v EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAlX.
PARAMETERS ^X,
CO
UJ
? 0
5 OT
UJ
E
-.2
32
>?>
i S
E
CO
O
0
U
UJ
o
o
o
CO
d >
CD a;
' V
CO
ff
o
o
u.
E
-J
O
SURFACE WATER
GROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
OEOLOOY
SOILS
AIR QUALITY/
METEOROLOGY
' .'...
POPULATION
LAND USE
TRANS
INSTITUTIONAL
FACTORS
ECONOMICS
' ' '''*.':.
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA t FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA t FAUNA
RECREATION
. . .....
ODOR t
INSECTS
AESTHETICS
* NOISE
PUBLIC HEALTH
t SAFETY
ARCHAEOLOGY
t HISTORICAL
_j
0
BENEFI
_ .
'.' ".
_
Ul
CO
AOVER
ml n .
. ..;
min.
ml n .
rnln.
*
min.
m i h .
2
E
Ul
0
o
.
X
''. .'.
. .
X
z
S
SHORT-
C
o,c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c .
r
o
Ul
E
o
'
X
X
X
.
X
t-
UJ
E
O
X
Ul
p
CUMUU
CONST
X
- -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
K
X
*
E \a
UJ a
> I--
UJ UJ
E E
E E
SUMMARY EVALUATION
No significant impact expected; landfill lined and runoff con-
trol led.
No significant Impact expected; landfill lined and capped
No significant impact; not in a flood-prone area.
''' *'';: ;" ' '. ._"'. ': "/ ''- -'.-''.': . ^. '.'[' r ; '.!>:.-/
No significant impact expected; Zone 1 bedrock suitable.
Temporary, Indirect loss of ag. production; should be put back
into unrestricted use after closure.
No significant impact expected.
. ;' :'' ' ' . ' ~ ' :','''.-' ' '
No significant impact. May be temporary change in onsttp
land use.
Smalt long-term increase In local and area traffic from plants.
LF-I Is outside Tulsa County. Difficulty in implementation
possible. Landfill regulations are well established, however.
Land value may be slightly reduced.
:-:':^'-:-:"'l
On-site veg. destroyed. Should be returned after closure.
No significant Impact expected.
';.' ' . '.' ' .: ' . " .. ' :; "'" ": ;-
No significant impact expectod.
No significant impact expected as lung as appropriate pre-
cautions, such as d-iily cover, are utilised.
Site may be overlooked hy some houiinq, causing somp lonq-term
d i rrct ef lee t .
NCI significant impact expected as lonq as water wells are
avdirlrH and landfill oppral^d rorrrrtly.
r.o(>d likelihood of sites in area. M,iy dpl.iy construction
1
MITIGATION MEASURES,
-r;--^,:^V^.'
Segregate and retain
top so! I and sol 1
... ' .. ''.; '.'"*'
'' ' ; - , ' - '. :-' '^. --' ' .' ^
' ' ' ' ''. '..'" .'' '.
Buffer site.
C71
I
O
ro
-------
WATER RESOURCES
As in RA-1, this heading represents the environmental parameters of surface
water, groundwater and flood hazards.
Existing Conditions
Surface Water. The site is located near the headwaters of Duck Creek (South
Duck and Middle Duck creeks), which is a tributary of Snake Creek. Snake
Creek eventually drains into the Arkansas River. Middle and South Duck
creeks are intermittent, receiving runoff primarily from the hills to the
west of the site.
Lake Boren lies near the site in the hills to the west. Although not
currently being used for public water supply, the town of Mounds does at
times use the lake for a potable water supoly along with Lake Jackson to the
northwest.
Groundwater. The depth to the base of fresh water in the general area is
listed as 200-500 feet; however, most wells in the area have had water of
only fair or poor quality. The yield is generally less than 25 gallons per
minute. Surrounding towns utilize surface water for municipal supplies.
Flood Hazards. Tributaries of Duck Creek (Middle Duck and South Duck)
fringe into the general area to the east. These are in a flood prone area
according to the USGS Map of Flood Prone Areas, Lake Boren Quadrangle, 1980.
These are not actually part of the site, however, since LF-1 is on Mason
soils, which are above the floodplain.
Alternative Evaluation
Surface Water. Impacts should be negligible since the landfill would be
lined and runoff would be controlled.
Groundwater. Because the landfill is lined and capped, no impact should
occur. Monitoring wells are included in the design as an extra precaution.
5-103
-------
Flood Hazards. There should be no impact since LF-1 is not in a flood prone
area.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
These include parameters of geology, soils and air quality/meteorology.
Existing Conditions
Geology. The site is basically level, at approximately 725-750 ft above
mean sea level (MSL). The hills to the west and northwest range in
elevation from 930-1,003 ft above MSL.
The area is listed as Zone 1 by OGS, which means that it is likely to
contain bedrock units suitable for surface disposal of wastes. The site
lies in the Coffeyville Formation and Checkboard Limestone. The Coffeyville
Formation is 150 to 470 ft thick locally containing chert and limestone, is
2.5 to 5 ft thick. No faults have been noted.
Soils. The site is on Mason Loam soils which are deep, nearly level soils
that are on low terraces 5r-30 ft above the floodplains of larger creeks.
Mason loam is associated with Verdigris soils, which are on slightly lower
terraces and are flooded occasionally. This soil is firm and compact when
moist and very hard when dry. Mason series soils are used for cultivated
crops, bermudagrass pasture and native grass pasture. Mason loan is listed
by the Okmulgee County SCS as prime farmland.
Air Quality/Meteorology. The site receives approximately 38-39 in. of
precipitation annually, with 5-6 in. of runoff. The largest amount of
moisture is received in the spring and fall, with May the wettest month
(OGS, 1975).
The average annual temperature is 60.2ฐF (15.7ฐC) with the first and last
killing frosts generally occurring on November 2nd and March 25th. The
growing season is 220 days. Prevailing surface winds are southerly during
5-104
-------
most of the year, averaging 5-7 mph, although it is not known how the hills
affect this.
Alternative Evaluation
Geology. OGS has designated this area as Zone 1, meaning that bedrock units
are likely to be suitable. For this reason, no impact is expected.
Soils. The Mason loam soils are relatively suitable for landfills, with
adequate depth to bedrock and no seasonally high water table close to the
surface. Approximately 200 acres of prime farmland would be removed from
production temporarily. These may be put back into production following
capping and final cover. Proper closure would allow the site to return to
unrestricted agricultural production, including food chain crops. The
instability and potential for subsidence may limit the type of structures
that can be built onsite, however, to small buildings.
Air Qua!ity/Meteorology. There should he no measurable impact with proper
operation of the landfill.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This heading includes the environmental parameters of terrestrial flora and
fauna and aquatic flora and fauna.
Existing Conditions
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna. Much of the site is in farmlands, with some
woodlands. Farmlands include cultivated crops, rangeland, pasture and
native meadow. Wildlife likely to be found include bobwhite quail, mourning
dove, squirrel, deer, cottontail, racoon, mink, opossum, skunk, fox, coyote,
hawks, and owls and many kinds of songbirds.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. The main drainageway near the site is Middle Duck
Creek, which probably exhibits a negligible aquatic habitat due to
intermittency. Farm ponds, including Lake Boren, and Snake Creek, which
5-105
-------
Duck Creek feeds, may contain sunfish, channel catfish, bullheads,
flatheads, carp, buffalofish, and bass. Duck Creek itself is listed as
containing sunfish and catfish.
Alternative Evaluation
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna. Existing onsite vegetation would be destroyed by
construction of the landfill, resulting in a minor adverse impact. It may
be returned to its original state after closure, however. Local fauna will
be displaced and some small animals may be killed. This would constitute a
minor adverse impact.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. No effect would be anticipated as long as runoff is
prevented and the landfill is properly graded and reseeded after closure.
SOCIOECONOMICS
This heading includes the parameters of population and land use,
transportation, institutional factors, and economics.
Existing Conditions
Population and Land Use. Most of the general area is very lightly
populated. Okmulgee County has a total population of about 39,000 with the
largest city being Okmulgee to the south of LF-1.
The town of Mounds to the north in Creek County has a population of
approximately 1,200. Around the site area, land use is predominantly
pasture, woods, and oil related activities. Scattered farms are found in
the valley portion with fringe suburban housing located in the hills to the
west and north.
Transportation. All three plants would carry the sludge south down 1-75
until it crosses into Okmulgee County. At that point, the trucks would
travel due west along the first section line road to the site area.
5-106
-------
Institutional Factors. According to the Okmulgee County Health Department,
there are no county landfill regulations or guidelines. The State
regulations are used. There is no county planner or planning agency and no
zoning plans.
Economics. The area is based primarily on an agricultural economy, with
some petroleum industry.
Alternative Evaluation
Population and Land Use. There should be no significant impact except for
the temporary change in onsite land use, from agriculture to waste disposal.
This would involve 150 acres plus a buffer at 45 percent. A well-operated,
well-buffered landfill should have little negative impact on adjacent
agricultural lands.
Transportation. For this alternative, all three plants would be hauling a
total of 46 tons per day of dried material. Utilizing 15 cubic yard
capacity vehicles, twice the total number of truck trips per week would be
required. If the roads are improved so that 30 cubic yard trucks can be
used, 35 trips per week would be required. Since all of the sludge would be
going to one site, traffic impacts may be heaviest near the site. Increased
damage to roads and heavier traffic would constitute a minor adverse impact.
Institutional Factors. There may be a minor adverse impact due to the fact
that LF-1 is not in Tulsa County. Citizens in Okmulqee County and the town
of Mounds in Creek County may object to the siting of LF-1.
Economics. While there may be reduction in the value of onsite land, the
impact should be relatively minor.
CULTURAL FACTORS
This section includes recreation, odor and insects, aesthetics and noise,
public health and safety, and archaeological and historical factors.
5-107
-------
Existing Conditions
Recreation. Recreational values of the site are probably limited to small
game hunting and fishing on small lakes and ponds throughout the area.
There may be some farm-related recreation. No specific recreation sites
such as baseball fields or gun clubs were noted; however, any recreational
potential should be noted when a specific location is selected.
Odors and Insects. Prevailing winds are southerly, with sensitive areas
such as the town of Mounds and houses in the hills to the north and west.
Aesthetics and Noise. Mason loam on which the site would be located is on
upper terraces of the valley. Hills overlook the site to the west and
northwest and contain some fringe suburban housing.
Public Health and Safety. Although groundwater resources are listed as
limited in the area, some private drinking water or irrigation water wells
may exist. These should be noted when a location is selected by contacting
nearby residents. Lake Boren lies northwest and uphill of the site and is
sometimes used as a drinking water source for the town of Mounds in Creek
County. The nearest private airport is about 3 miles southeast of the area.
Archeological/Historical. A copy of the site map was sent to both the
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey and the Oklahoma Historical Society. No
known archaeological or historical sites are listed for the area (Appendix
A) but the Archaeological Survey notes that few surveys have been done and
there is a good potential for sites.
Alternative Evaluation
Recreation. Impacts should be negligible.
Odors and Insects. There should be no significant problems with appropriate
precautionary measures.
5-108
-------
Aesthetics and Noise. There may be a minor adverse impact on residents
whose homes overlook the site. This would be minimal if the site is well
buffered. No significant impact would be expected to occur relative to
other alternatives. There may be some localized operational noise but
buffers should prevent most problems.
Public Health and Safety. A properly constructed and operated sanitary
landfill should not produce any public health or safety impacts.
Archaeological/Historical. Impacts could be minor due to the lack of
previous surveys in the area. There is a good likelihood of
archaeological/historical sites being found.
ALTERNATIVE RA-5
This alternative involves the dryinq bed dewatering and trucking of
Northside sludge to dedicated land diposal at Site LS-4 and the drying bed
dewatering and trucking of Southside and Haikey Crppk sludges to landfill at
Site LF-1 (see Figure 5-17). The only difference between RA-1 and this
alternative is that the dedicated land disposal utilizes dried sludge rather
than liquid. Thus, there would be no short-term construction impacts of a
pipeline, although there would still be short-term construction type impacts
from opening both the land disposal and landfill operations (see Section 5.3
of this chapter). An evaluation matrix of Alternative RA-5 is given on
Table 5-25.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions for both LS-4 (Figure 5-14) and LF-1 (Figure 5-15)
have been given under RA-1 (LS-4 and LF-1) and RA-3 (LF-1), and will not be
repeated here. For the environmental evaluation, only the parameters of
groundwater, soils, air quality, transportation, and institutional factors
are different than in RA-1. These differences are described below.
5-109
-------
\ '- -V--
V , -.:-- -- ^^-" ป
~f~ ^o ซ*ซoo*ซ >^'oioF!j UUUUTD .IN.^j - -?-\
v^**;- ^^ %C !.-, - =r{// ijii %-*% ^feN . 7 ^
Miles
30 MILE RADIUS
NORTHSIDE: Trucking, dedicated land disposal. Site LS-4.
8OUTHSIDE and HAIKEY CREEK: Trucking, landfill. Site LF-1.
Figure 5-17 Alternative RA-5 Sites and Transportation Routes.
5-110
-------
Table 5-25 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE RA-5.
^\. EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL^
PARAMETERS \
at
Ul
is
Ul
IT
< O
0 of
rn 3
>- o
r w
m
u
2
O
z
o
0
Ul
0
u
o
V)
O' .'""'.':'. ''-,
As in RA-I, Table 5-23
Less impact than RA-I because sludge Is dry and less likely
to cloq the soil. Prime farmland still may be lost.
Greater impact on air quality due to continuous disturbance
for dried sludqe incorporation.
As in RA-1, Table 5-23
May be qreater than RA-I due to more trucks (no pipeline)
Implementajt ion might be slightly easier than RA-I since there
is no p i pe 1 i ne .
As In RA-I , Table 5-23
' \ '' ' ':-- i < .; ' * ^ . * ".;."'-"' '" ' ' ' ' ' . ' - ' '
As in RA-I , Table 5-23
As in RA-I , Table 5-23
... . ' ;' ; .'..'
As in RA-I, Table 5-23
As in RA-I , Tali IP 5-23
As in RA-I , Table 5-?3
As in RA-I , Tab IP 5-73
As in RA-I , Table 5-?)
MITIGATION MEASURES
'ซ'-'.. ' - ' '
'.;.'.; ' . ; ;'t..Vv;'-r-'.;J V'.'' '.--.
, ' --' ;' ' :
tn
i
-------
HATER RESOURCES
Only the impacts on groundwater are different than in RA-1.
Alternative Evaluation
Groundwater. Impacts on the groundwater of LS-4 should be less significant
1n RA-5 because less nitrogen is added in the sludge with the lower loading
rate and the sludge is dry rather than liquid.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The impacts on both soils and air quality are different than for RA-1.
Alternative Evaluation
Soils. There should be less impact on soils due to the fact that the sludge
is dry and less likely to clog the soils. The dried sludge would provide
organic matter and may decrease the bulk density of the soils (see also
discussion of Prime Farmland under RA-1 "Soils").
Air Quality. The impact on air quality may be worse in RA-5 since dried
sludge would always require incorporation into the soil. Because of the
continuous disturbance of much of the site, wind erosion could be a
significant factor.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Only the parameters of transportation and institutional factors might be
expected to be different than under RA-1.
Alternative Evaluation
Transportation. Northside sludge would be hauled to land disposal site LS-4
by an average of 14 trips per week. A portion of Route 169 between
Claremore and Oologah may require special permits if the larger 30 cubic
5-112
-------
yard trucks are used. This impact is not present for RA-1. Southside and
Haikey Creek will require 25 trips per week to LF-1.
Institutional Factors. While RA-5 still involves two sites and three
counties as does RA-1, it does not have a pipeline. It can be especially
difficult to cross county and other political boundaries with pipelines.
The impact in this case would be minor adverse.
ALTERNATIVE RA-6
This alternative involves the drying bed dewatering and trucking of all
sludges to strip mine reclamation at Site R-3 (see Figure 5-18 and 5-19).
An evaluation matrix of Alternative RA-6 is given on Table 5-26.
This method would closely resemble landfilling, and there would be
construction impacts from opening the site. These may be minor, and there
would be no pipeline construction impacts. The sludge, dried to 40 percent
solids, would be layered into the bottom of the abandoned trenches left from
old strip mining operations. Alternating layers of sludge and spoil
material would be built up until the area between the ridges is level.
A final cover of spoil material mixed with dried sludge would be added at a
one time application rate of 50 tons per acre. This would help provide a
substrate with a slow release organic nitrogen and phosphorous content to
support vegetative growth.
Like any operation where the land would be disturbed, runoff and erosion
problems could result. Because of the nature of the abandoned mines, any
regrading and revegetation could be viewed as a benefit. However, during
operation proper drainage and sediment collection should be provided.
Control of erosion would be especially important sfnce this is a common
problem at strip mines.
Because of the disturbed nature of the site the potential for groundwater
contamination was examined closely. The disposal of sludge in a landfill
would be considered a more controlled operation due to the availability of
5-113
-------
->'-T -f-^:-pr xป
ปX-V :^ S ',: V -i -;
^V. ..iiV.W
^>x - KX^" -\
-------
SCALE: 1"=5500'
Figure 5-19 Proposed Reclamation Site (R-3).
5-115
-------
Table 5-26 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE RA-6.
^s. EFFECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL^
PARAMETERS \
WATER
RESOURCES
PHYSICAL
RESOURCES
SOCIOECONOMICS
;. ':
dป
Ul
0 K
; ;
CULTURAL FACTORS
SURFACE WATER
QROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
..y;-V '.-.-'.>...
OEOLOOY
BOILS
AIM QUALITY/
METEOROLOGY
.-.'" :. '
POPULATION
1 LAND USE
TRANS
INSTITUTIONAL
FACTORS
ECONOMICS
'*'& '(
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA ป FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA S FAUNA
RECREATION
ODOR a
INSECTS
AESTHETICS
t NOISE
PUBLIC HEALTH
SAFETY
ARCHAEOLOGY
a HISTORICAL
BENEFICIAL
._.
'v--
ma].
'^
mln.
mln.
maj.
<'"
mln.
min.
min.
min.
ADVERSE
min.
min.
LONG-TERM
X
5?;-
X
i .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X...
SHORT-TERM
C
j^ ..
C
C
'.-;.;
c
C
c
c
c
... c.
c
c
DIRECT
X
X
\
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
INDIRECT
y.;
X
X
CUMULATIVE
X
X
CONST.
X
X
X
X
X
X
';..
X
X
X
X
X
IRREVERS.
IRRETRIEV.
SUMMARY EVALUATION
No impact with controlled runoff and drainage, groundwater
protect ion.
Minimal potential with lining and capping - also monitoring
wells Included.
Not in the floodplaln
;i !> v\;Vo S;.:::-; ;^
No significant effect expected.
Direct .long-term Improvement .In spoil material's physical
properties. Indl reel cumulat i ve benefit of Not removing any prl
farmlands from production.
No significant impact expected.
'.'' ' ' ''... .-',v '.'," '' '':."('''. ,:'',*': .'. '
Possible future land uses of site expanded.
Increased local and area traffic from plants to site.
Abandoned mines easier to utilize for reclamation than active
agricultural lands, etc.
Direct Increase In value of onslte land; Indirect enhancement
of adjacent land value.
V;^^.^^:^:'K?>^:'?::-':V'V;^^l''!--'; ''-':'
Abandoned mines restored to productivity.
No significant impact expected.
Dependent on end use of site, may be beneficial.
No significant effect assuming layers are covered dally.
Grading and reveqetation should provide aesthetic improvement.
Any sites already destroyed by strip mining. No now Inmls
would be disturbed.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Line trenches with
crushedspoll material
-..'' :>,:, ;///. '''ฃ V.t'K'C
ie
' _ ', ; .; '::-,^. '^
^^-,V;,/ฃ$^:x
1 .' .-, t*' ' '. '.'. ' '- ~'.
' '' -Z. -" *'. ' !'-; -i
"'' ''".-''. v-. > ''-.'':
en
i
-------
mitigation measures such as liners. In reclamation, however, the physical
nature of the geology and spoil material and the methods of operation may
assist in controlling contaminants.
In any disposal operation the potential for leachate production and
subsequent groundwater pollution is dependent on the moisture content of the
waste material, rainfall percolation, storm water runoff intrusion, and
drainage. Sites with little standing water were considered better because
it is not known whether the water in the mine trenches was runoff water or
groundwater, and groundwater would be difficult to drain off. Ponding,
however, may very well indicate a high level of impervious material and the
site's suitability for water (leachate) retention and control. To evaluate
this potential, the available data on subsurface geology was assessed with
the results provided below.
The reclamation process would utilize dried sludge which provides two
advantages; 1) the removal of moisture from the disposal material that could
produce leachate, and 2) the removal of the liquid fraction eliminates most
of the ammonia-nitrogen which readily converts to nitrate. The remaining
nitrogen is in the organic form and because of the probable anaerobic
condition of the layered material, it would not convert as easily to
nitrate.
The other potential for leachate comes from heavy metals, however, mine
spoils in the area are reported to be alkaline, and a high pH would assist
in immobilizing these contaminants. The proposed strip mine reclamation
site is approximately 25 mi northeast of Tulsa's center. It is in Rogers
County, just southeast of Oologah Lake and adjacent and overlapping with
Site LS-4. The whole potential area occupies about 10,000 acres, of which
only 130 acres would be required. The environmental, features of the site
are described below.
5-117
-------
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources include surface water, groundwater and flood hazards.
Existing Conditions
Surface Water. Site R-3 has a number of both active and abandoned strip
mines in a rather large area. The drainage of the site is complex.
Beginning in the northeast portion of abandoned mines, drainage is both west
to Oologah Lake and east to Dog Creek since the mines are essentially on a
ridge. In the middle of the site, drainage is both west to the Verdigris
via Sweetwater Creek and east to Dog Creek. In the south, drainage is
southward along Cat Creek which goes around the west side of Claremore to
Dog Creek. Some drainage in the southern portion goes directly to Lake
Claremore. The most important feature is that almost all the mines drain
outward rather than being catch basins or drainage paths. Both Oologah Lake
and Lake Claremore are municipal drinking water sources, as is the Verdigris
River. Surface water occurs in the trenches of many mines. It may be
either groundwater or runoff water. Because the mines are highly
susceptible to erosion, the water quality may not be optimal. R-3 has very
few water-filled trenches, however, because of the drainage patterns.
Groundwater. The depth to water in wells in the vicinity ranges from
2-19 ft below the land surface. Because the wells are at lower elevations,
however, these depths do not necessarily represent the depth to water below
the mines, which is probably much greater.
Most wells in the area have only fair to poor quality. This area is
underlain by Pennsylvanian shale, siltstone and sandstone, and by
Mississippi an limestone and shale above the Boone chert. Most groundwater
in this area is hard or very hard. Water from shale, particularly shale
such as this containing coal beds, is often highly mineralized (OGS, 1971).
The quality of the groundwater near the mines is not known, but it may be
degraded due to leachate from spoil piles.
Flood Hazards. None of R-3 is within a flood prone area.
5-118
-------
Alternative Evaluation
Surface Water. As in landfill ing, runoff would be controlled to protect
surface water. Since the last trench of abandoned mines often contains
water, this might require drainage. Concern has been expressed over the
contamination of surface water via polluted groundwater; however, this is
not likely (see groundwater below).
Groundwater. The potential for leachate production and groundwater
pollution is probably negligible depending on the exact location of the
disposal area. Most of the coal-bearing formations have relatively
impermeable layers below the coal. Drilling logs show a very deep ( 50
foot) layer of shale underneath the pits in most of the area. Depending on
the particular underlying strata, there are several steps that can prevent
any problems. One mitigation measure that may prevent problems is the
provision for lining trenches with worked spoil material (shale).
/>
Flood Hazards. The site is not in or near any floodplain.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
This heading includes the parameters of geology, soils and air
qua!i ty/meteorology.
Existing Conditions
Geology. Orphan mines in Oklahoma usually consist of alternating ridges and
troughs. Fifty feet usually separates the 25 ft high ridqes. Site R-3
consists of a long (5-6 mi) series of orphaned mines along a ridge, so the
mines are generally at a higher elevation than the surrounding country.
This area is listed as Zone 2 by OGS, which means that it may locally
contain bedrock units suitable for surface disposal of industrial wastes.
No geologic faults are noted on available maps. Site R-3 appears to be
located mostly on the Senora Formation. This formation consists of shale
with thin and lenticular sandstone, minor limestone and coal. The coal seam
5-119
-------
is Crowberg or Broken Arrow Coal. This yields only small amounts of fair to
poor quality water.
Soils. Because of the strip mining activities, there is no defined soil
type. The spoil piles are probably composed of well-mixed shale, sandstone
and the original mantle of soil stripped from coal beds. Runoff is rapid and
the areas are susceptible to water erosion (SCS, 1966).
Most abandoned mines are idle, although a few older mines support native
grasses where a source of seed was near. These steep, irregularly sloping
dumps of spoil are listed as wasteland by SCS in their Prime Farmland
Inventory.
Air Quality/Meteorology. The site receives approximately 39 in. of
precipitation annually, with the greatest amount occurring in May. The
average annual temperature is 60.2ฐF with the first and last killing frosts
generally occurring on November 2nd and March 25th. The growing season is
220 days. Prevailing surface winds in the general area are southerly during
most of the year, averaging 5-7 mph.
Alternative Evaluation
Geology. There should be no effect on geologic factors.
Soils. There should be a positive effect on soils, in.that the spoil is a
mixture of materials that are not generally conducive to water retention, do
not have a real soil-like structure, and are deficient in nutrients. The
dried sludge mixed with spoil in the final cover should significantly
improve its physical properties.
Unlike other alternatives, RA-6 does not remove any land from agricultural
productivity providing an indirect and cumulative beneficial effect. Most
orphan mines are idle and are listed as wasteland in SCS's Prime Farmlands
Inventory.
5-120
-------
A1 r Quality/Meteorology. There should be no measurable impact with proper
operation of the site.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
These include both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.
Existing Conditions
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna. Most abandoned strip mines were left without any
effort at revegetation or regrading. For that reason, many have severely
eroded before gradually becoming revegetated over the years. Early
vegetation is generally of the invasive type, such as weeds, pioneer trees
and native grasses where seed is available. If left long enough (several
decades) the mine may eventually return to a semi-natural state.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. Where mine trenches -are water filled, that water may
be either runoff or groundwater. While some value has been reported for
these ponds, those are probably the oldest ponds. Due to the highly
erodable spoil piles, younger mines are unlikely to have good quality water
in their trenches. Most of Site R-3 has very little water in any of the
trenches, however.
Alternative Evaluation
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna. There should be a beneficial impact in that
wastelands can be restored to productivity.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. Some water filled mine trenches may be drained and
filled. There should be no significant impact, however, since aquatic
habitat in the mine trenches is likely to be minimal In addition, there
are few water filled trenches on Site R-3.
5-121
-------
SOCIOECONOMICS
Included here are population and land use, transportation, institutional
factors and economics.
Existing Conditions
Population and Land Use. The mines are often used for light pasture. The
area surrounding R-3 Is extremely lightly populated and used mainly for
agriculture and strip mining.
Transportation. As discussed under LS-4, the transport of Northside sludge
up Route 169 may require special weight permitting. Southside and Haikey
Creek sludge would travel up unrestricted Route 66.
Institutional Factors. Because the mines under consideration 'are abandoned,
there are probably few institutional constraints, especially since
reclamation is a positive and beneficial land use.
Economics. The current value of the site and adjacent lands is depressed
due to the abandoned condition of the mines. Around the mines, there is
very little activity that is not related to either agriculture or strip
mining.
Alternative Evaluation
Population and Land Use. This alternative may have a slightly beneficial
effect from the reclamation of abandoned strip mines in that the mines may
be returned to some productive use rather than their current idle state.
Transportation. Because of the concern for rural roads and the load
limitations on Route 169, a special permit may be required if the larger 30
cubic yard trucks are used. Presently, approximately 40 truck trips per
week are expected.
5-122
-------
Institutional Factors, Relative to the disposal methods in other
alternatives, RA-6 may have a beneficial effect on institutional factors in
that the City of Tulsa would be benefitting another county by its
reclamation activities.
Economics. The impact on economics should be highly beneficial in that the
land value of the mine and adjacent areas could be significantly increased
by a good reclamation program.
CULTURAL FACTORS
Includes recreation, odors and insects, aesthetics and noise, public health
and safety, and archaeological and historical.
Existing Conditions
Recreation. Recreational value is probably limited to small game hunting
and fishing in area ponds.
Odors and Insects. The mines are generally isolated and at a higher
elevation than surrounding lands at this site.
Aesthetics and Noise. The site is at a higher elevation than surrounding
areas, so activity would not be obvious. In addition the aesthetic value of
the abandoned mines is poor at present. Most of R-3 fs isolated from any
residential development. The major activity occurring near the site is
active strip mining.
Public Health and Safety. The groundwater resources are limited and
possibly highly mineralized. However, there may be groundwater connections
with Oologah Lake and/or Lake Claremore. There are no airports in the
vicinity of the site.
Archaeological/Historical. Any archaeological/historical sites have already
been destroyed by previous strip mining.
5-123
-------
Alternative Evaluation
Recreation. Dependent on the end use of the reclaimed area, any Impacts
rfould probably be beneficial. Reseeding to a recreational use such as
parklands would be especially beneficial.
Ddors and Insects. There should be no significant impact assuming layers of
sludge are covered daily.
Aesthetics and Noise. There would be a highly beneficial effect on
aesthetics in the long-te-m, since the reclaimed area would be revegetated
and possibly turned into parkland or some other recreational area. There
should be no significant impact with respect to noise. Most activities in
the area of R-3 involve strip mining.
Public Health and Safety. There should be no impact on public health and
safety as long as appropriate measures are utilized. Public access would
have to be controlled for a year after closure and grazing for one month.
The annual cadmium limitation for food chain crops would be exceeded, but
the cumulative amount would not.
Archaeological/Historical. With respect to other alternatives, RA-6 should
have a beneficial impact on archaeological/historical resources in that any
artifacts on R-3 have already been destroyed by strip mining and no new
lands would be disturbed. No survey would be required.
ALTERNATIVE RA-7
This alternative involves drying bed dewatering of all sludge with sale to
strip mine operators for use in mine reclamation, for agricultural land
application, or as a soil conditioner/fertilizer product for giveaway/sale.
The evaluation below applies to any agricultural or reclamation reuse where
the end use is known, and rates are controlled by cadmium and/or nitrogen
loadings. This discussion does not utilize a specific marketing site, since
this type of reuse is not necessarily sits specific. There would be no
construction impacts from the marketing portion of the alternative. It may
5-124
-------
be used practically anywhere within certain limitations and as long as rates
are adjusted to site conditions. Also included is a backup method of
disposal which could be any of the other four alternatives. An evaluation
matrix of Alternative RA-7 is shown on Table 5-27.
The alternatives developed for sludge marketing (Tech. Memo. IV-5) focused
on the beneficial reuse of sludge as a soil builder and fertilizer.
However, without knowledge of specific product recipients, points or methods
of distribution it is not possible to determine localized environmental
impacts. Therefore, an evaluation based on a product by product comparison
of a commercial fertilizer with the sludge products is a more practical
approach. It provides a useful comparison of conditions which exist now,
and the conditions which will occur if sludge replaced part of the
commercial fertilizer market.
The Tulsa wastewater sludges in a stabilized Viquid or dewatered form will
have approximately 6.3 percent organic nitrogen, 0.6 percent phosphorus
(as P) and 0.6 percent potassium (as K). These nutrients, along with the
high organic content of sludge, make it a useful agricultural product. The
comparison with a typical commercial product is provided below for the
alternative evaluation. Since this type of reuse is not site specific, no
existing conditions are given.
WATER RESOURCES
This includes surface water, groundwater and flood hazards.
Alternative Evaluation
Surface Water. The improper application of either product could cause
contamination of adjacent surface waters through 'extensive loading of
nutrients. There may be less potential for runoff contamination with sludge
since the sludge tends to improve the soils aggregation characteristics and
permeability, thus reducing runoff potential. Slope should ideally be less
than 6 percent, although for injection of sludge, it may be up to 12 percent
without creating excessive runoff. Drainage and permeability of the soil
5-125
-------
Table 5-27 SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE RA-7.
sr
\- EFFECTS
^x^
NVIRONMENTAlS.
PARAMETERS \
M
_ Ul
M
sS
Ul
E
_l |U
HYSICA
SOURC
0. UJ
CO
y
o
O
u
Ul
o
o
o
n
' ..
', ,- .'''';
0 ซ
5 i
' ;:'-.
m
E
U
u.
-I
flC
H
u
SURFACE WATER
QROUNDWATER
FLOOD HAZARDS
"" '''^" V
QEOLOOY
SOILS
AIR QUALITY/
METEOROLOGY
POPULATION
a LAND USE
TdปN"3
INSTITUTIONAL
FACTORS
ECONOMICS
'. ' .''. '. r '"' ' ' "
TERRESTRIAL
FLORA a FAUNA
AQUATIC
FLORA a FAUNA
'"',;
RECREATION
ODOR a
INSECTS
AESTHETICS
a NOISE
PUBLIC HEALTH
a SAFETY
ARCHAEOLOGY
a HISTORICAL
-J
<
ui
Ul
Ul
CO
:'."
maj.
' ' '
.'.';
' . :
.
ml n .
Ul
K
Ul
O
*
" i
min.
...--, ......
2
E
Ul
O
O
J
'":.' '
H
:.''
_-
2
ui
E
ง
CO
0
c
u
III
K
O
n.
'':'':
""
K
t-
u
Ul
E
0
K
Ul
p
<
3
2
U
_
i: ;/-
J(
( '.
' .
CO
O
Hr
at ^
Ul E
Ul Ul
E OC
E OC
~
. . . _
SUMMARY EVALUATION
No Impact as long as rates controlled and nitrogen is never
applied In excess of crop requirements .
As above.
Low rate agricultural reuse is allowed to occur In the flood-
plain sinct it poses no hazard
'^t^:.:^^!:;,:^\,'-^ .'-. ..' v.;'"'^ ;;.'.:;" v-v/C ','!';":-: "
No effect.
Organic matter Improves soil texture, etc. As long as cadmium
limitations are not exceeded, impact may be major beneficial.
No prime farmlands removed from production.
No effect since the sludae Is replacing commercial products.
". '' . ".'"'.'' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' . ... ' ''. "''. ' . '. .
No impact.
Minor adverse effert since sludge has a greater volume to trans
port than commercial products.
Mn eff--' 3- long as all regul it ions fol lowed.
No significant Impact expected.
v';'4-i^ :!', . :J .--:;.'_ "'/'.... ,v':';;. '"f"'^''
:. ! :. '.'^", "'- . . :....-....ป'. .. . .-.
No significant effect.
No effect; rates controlled so that nutrients do not enter
surface water.
Y,;';;' Y ':'; ' ' ... ' ". ';'"./..'.:; vvv V;"
No impact expected.
A well-digested dried sludge has little odor or insect
attractant value.
No significant effect expected.
No impact expected as long as regulations are followed.
Existing agricultural and reclamation operations usod so no new
sites opened or disturbed.
MITIGATION MEASURES
'ffl-^^i^'S-
'. ' '' '.'"'' '"' ; '.
' '?''':* ''';,.''', i?"/v''i!'''iV';iV-
* - ป .. . *
'' r '.''.'' J ''' ; : '"'
cn
i
ro
-------
SUMMARY EVALUTIOM KEY FOR TABLES 5-23 THROUGH 5-27
Impact
Meaning
I
I
INS
BENEFICIAL
( ) no Impact
(min.) minor
(maj.) major
ADVERSE
( ) no Impact
(mln.) minor
(maj.) major
LONG-TERM
( ) none
(x) present
SHORT-TERM
{ ) none
(C) construction
(0) operation
DIRECT
( ) none
(x) present
INDIRECT
( ) none
(x) presenj
CUMULATIVE
( ) none
(x) present
CONST.
( ) none
(x) present
IRREVERS/IRRESTR1EV.
( ) none
(x) present
(poss.) possible
Impact 1s positive.
Impact, 1f any, 1s not large enough to be significant and/or dlscernable.
Impact Is small but discernable. In some cases, it may be the lack of a common negative Impact.
Impact Is highly significant, adds positive factors to the alternative.
Impact Is negative.
Impact, if any, is not large enough to be significant and/or dlscernable.
A small but dlscernable Impact, probably mHlgatable, that should be noted but 1s unlikely to affect
the alternative significantly.
An impact which 1s significant enough that it could affect the alternative. In some cases, 1t may be
an unmltlgatable adverse Impact or it may be one which is mitigatable only by drastic changes in the
alternative.
Duration of Impact is permanent or Indefinite.
Not long-term or no impact.
Impact is long-term in duration.
Duration of Impact short-term and temporary.
Not short-term or no impact.
Short-term Impacts may be either construction or operation related. Construction related impacts
occur for the short-term and are described at the end of this section.
Operation related impacts occur in some alternatives where construction-like activities may cause
short-term effects.
Impact occurs in direct response to action.
Not a direct Impact.
Impact occurs as a direct result of the attion. Example: groundwater pollution which occurs below a
waste disposal site.
\
Impact occurs indirectly, but In response to an action.
Not an indirect impact.
Impact occurs as an Indirect result of the action. Example: surface water pollution which occurs
because the surface water was Interconnected with groundwater which become polluted directly.
Additive Impacts. May only be signflcant when In combination with another Impact.
Not a cumulative impact.
Impact is additive with another impact.
Construction related impacts such as noise, dust, etc.
Construction does not affect parameter.
Construction activities do affect parameter. Impacts are described at the end of the section under
"Construction Impacts".
Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources caused by the action.
There are irreversible/irretrievable committments.
There is a possibility that source irreversible/irretrievable committment of resources may occur.
-------
should be moderate also. If it is assumed that good agronomic practices
will be followed with either fertilizer, there should be no significant
impact.
Groundwater. Both nutrient products are applied to the land at rates
compatible with the required crop nutrient uptake fate. The general
limiting factor is the nitrogen content. In sludge, the majority of the
nitrogen is organic with the remainder in the ammonium phase. An advantage
of sludge is that it acts like a slow release fertilizer, with the ammonium
nitrogen providing an initial input of nutrient at the- time of application
while the organic nitrogen remains bound in the soil providing a long term
release.
A commercial product, such as anh/drous ammonia, does not have the residual
organic nitrogen found in sludge. In the event of 3, long rainfall, the
converted ammonium-nitrogen (nitrate) in the commercial product could be
carried through the soil to the groundwater. The sludge organic nitrogen is
more likely to remain in the soil, where it is usable by the plants. This
would be more pronounced in sandy soils.
In addition, EPA's regulations on land application are designed to prevent
the contamination of groundwater by heavy metals by utilizing the soil's
capacity to retain them. There should be no impact as long as rates are
controlled so that nitrogen and/or cadmium do not exceed set limits or crop
needs.
Flood Hazards. The only stipulations for the reuse of sludge in a
floodplain involves the physical restriction of a stream or river's flow
capacity to handle a 100 year storm. This is the same for both commercial
fertilizer and sludge and is not expected to have any* significant impact on
flood hazards. Since the sludge is to be incorporated into the soil, there
will probably be negligible effects of sludge application on floodplain
soils.
5-128
-------
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
These include geology, soils and air quality/ meteorology.
Alternative Evaluation
Geology and Soils. With respect to soils, there are several major
differences between the use of sludge and commercial fertilizers. First,
sludge provides a number of micronutrients required for plant growth and/or
desirable from the standpoint of consumers of the crop. These are not
generally contained in rommercial products. Sludge also contains heavy
metals which are not contained in commer:ial fertilizer. The application
rate limits for sludge w>?re established by EPA to take into account the soil
characteristics and their relation to heavy metals. For example, the soil
pH, if not naturally hicn, must be maintained at 6.5 or higher since heavy
metals tend to be held in the soil at a higher pH. Another factor is the
soil depth, which should be at least 2 feet to bedrock and to seasonal hiqh
qroundwater in order to provide enough soil interface to retain the heavy
metals.
The soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) is related to the soil's capacity to
retain metals, so the cumulative loading rates for sludge, at a soil pH of
6.5 or greater, are dependent on the CEC of the soils at a specific s'ite.
This must be determined prior to application.
Because EPA's regulatiors are designed to use the soil's binding capacity to
prevent the excessive uptake of heavy metals by crops, there should be no
significant difference between the use of sludge and commercial fertilizer,
provided good agronomic practices, proper site conditions and proper sludge
loading rates are followed. The primary difference will be that sludge will
improve the physical characteristics of the soil and provide micronutrients
in which the soil might be deficient. There may be a highly beneficial
impact on soils as long as food chain cadmium limits are followed for prime
farmland soils and pasture crop cadmium limits for strip mines and non prime
soils. This is due to the organic matter in the sludge which can improve
soil tilth and productivity. Cadmium limitations for food chain crops
5-129
-------
should not be excetded for prime farmlands. As long as the most stringent
regulations are fo'lowed when applying sludge on prime farmlands, no effect
should occur.
Air Quality/Meteorology. The potential effect on air quality from sludge or
commercial fertiliser is related to dust from the application of either
product and is dependent on dryness of the soil. For a liquid or dewatered
sludge with incorporation into the soil, this effect should be negligible.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
These include terrestrial flora/fauna and aquatic flora/fauna.
Alternative Evaluation
Terrestrial Flora/fauna. As discussed under groundwater, the application of
either a commercial or sludge derived fertilizer will depend on the nitrogen
loading requirements for the specific crop to be grown. Both products
contain other nutrients important to plant growth specifically phosphorus
and potassium, whereas sludge also has a relatively high organic content and
introduces micronutrients not generally found in commercial fertilizer. The
organic or carbon portion of sludge is highly beneficial particularly in
poorer sandy or clay soils, because it improves the soil's texture and water
retention capabilities. The micronutrients found in sludge, such as zinc
and copper are essential since crons grown on soils that are depleted of
these micronutrients exhibit a decreased crop yield.
Some restrictions exist regarding tre access to lands upon which sludge has
been applied. Sludge for land appliration must be treated to the level of a
"Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens" (PSRP), as stipulated under 40
CFR 257.3-6. At this level, public access to the site must be controlled
for 12 months, and grazing by animals whose products are consumed by humans
are restricted for one month. Commercial fertilizers are not subject to
this restriction.
5-130
-------
It should be noted that game animals cannot be restricted for the required
period. However, it is unlikely ttat these animals will obtain their entire
diet from sludge amended fields, or that they will contribute a significant
portion to the human diet.
If it became necessary to avoid any access restrictions, a "Process to
Further Reduce Pathogens" (PFRP) can be used, producing a sludge derived
fertilizer comparable with a commercial product in terms of pathogens. In
terms of prime and unique farmland;, classifications, this evaluation assumes
the most restrictive application "ates for sludge, so there should be no
significant impact on the classification of these lands.
Aquatic Flora/Fauna. Because of the influx of excessive nutrients, the
improper application of either type of fertilizer can cause contamination of
adjacent waters by runoff. Sludge, because of its organic content, can
reduce the water's dissolved oxygen level to a greater extent than a
commercial fertilizer. There should be no discernable effect, however,
since rates would be carefully controlled and nutrients would not enter
surface waters.
SOCIOECONOMICS
This includes the factors of population and land use, transportation,
institutional factors and economics.
Alternative Eva!uation
Population and Land Use. Since the most restrictive rate for application of
sludge is assumed throughout the evaluation, no land use impacts are
expected. Further, tne Southsi-le and Haikey Creek^ sludges are nitrogen
limited for most types of crops, so the total cadmium application will be
less than the allowable rates. Because of this, it is unlikely that any
adverse effects on lane use will iccur due to the use of the sludge.
Transportation. Specific transpjrtation routes cannot be evaluated until
specific users have been determired. In general, a larger number of trucks
5-131
-------
would be used to transport sludge than would be used for commercial
fertilizer, based on the sludges' greater volume. In addition there is the
potential for accidental spills in transporting either one.
Most of the travel can be expected to occur on a seasonal basis and is
dependent on weather, the type of crop, and cultivation schedules. It may
be desirable for application trucks to use high flotation tires to prevent
soil compaction of fields. These tires do not travel well for long
distances on roads, however. For this reason, it is desirable to keep
application sites as close as possible to the origin of the sludge.
No haulinq restrictions pertaining specifically to sludge transportation are
contained in the State of Oklahoma's "Siz; and Weight Statutory Requirements
and Department of Safety Rules and Regulations", July 1981.
Institutional Factors. County and local ordinances such as zoning laws may
affect the sale of sludge for land application in some counties. Osage and
Rogers counties, for instance, have zoning and solid waste plans affecting
sludge use. The practical effect of local and county land use regulations
should be evaluated for specific sites. Local nuisance laws would probably
apply only if the sludge application caused odor or noise problems for
nearby homes or businesses, howe/er, such problems would be unlikely in a
rural, commercial agriculture area.
Economics. The total tonnage of available nitrogen generated by the Tulsa
area wastewater treatment plants, (266 to 472 dry tons per year) will only
comprise 1.0 to 2.0 percent of the present nitrogen market in the area
(Tech. Memo. IV-5). Because of this, the economic impacts in the sales of
commercial fertilizer and associated labor market from a sludge reuse
program will be minimal.
While the aoolication of the sludge requires more energy than does
commercial fertilizer, the commercial product consumes greater amounts of
energy during production. In addition, the sludge is sold in close
proximity to its point of origin, while the commercial products generally
are distributed nationally and are more energy intensive in that respect.
5-132
-------
CULTURAL FACTORS
This includes recreation, odor and insects, aesthetics and noise, public
health and safety, and archaeological and historical factors.
Alternative Evaluation
Recreation. Based on the Marketing Survey (Tech. Memo. IV-5), parks, golf
courses etc. had a low level of interest in a sludge derived soil additive.
Odors and Insects. One of the advantages of sludge over a commercial
product for agricultural use is organic content of the sludge. However, the
organic content can also cause an odor problem if the sludge is left
uncovered and decomposition continues. To alleviate this problem, the
sludge product, whether in a liquid or dewatered state, must go through a
process of stabilization. Stabilization converts the volatile organics
reducing the odor potential of the sludge, as well as reducing the
pathogens.
The major limiting factor to odors produced by land applying sludge results
from incorporating the product into the soil. A primary purpose of this
procedure, however, is to prevent the loss of nitogen. When sludge is
applied to the land surface, approximately 50 percent of the
ammonium-nitrogen is lo?.t to the atmosphere through volatilization. This
reduces the sludge's available nitrogen from 3.2 percent to 2.4 percent
(Tech. Memo. IV-5). Incorporation of the sludge into the soil alleviates
both the odor problem and the potential loss of nutrient value.
Aesthetics and Noise. The aesthetic effects are site specific in nature,
and cannot be evaluated here. The concern of odor production from the use
of sludge is discussed separately (see above). Essentially, aesthetics
impacts from sludge should be no different than those from commercial
fertilizer.
A specific evaluation relating to the effects of noise on adjacent land is
not possible at this time. However, the expected areas of use and methods
5-133
-------
of application for a sludge derived soil additive will be comparable to a
commercial product.
Public Health and Safety. Prior to application, the sludge must undergo "A
Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens" (PSRP) such as aerobic or
anaerobic digestion. Some of the pathogenic organisms may still be viable
after stabilization, however, so the access to the site must be restricted
as discussed previously. Using either this method or "A Process to Further
Reduce Pathogens" (PFRP) such as heat drying, composting, etc., there should
be no more impact from sludge than from the use of commercial fertilizers.
As an extra measure of precaution, the sludge should not be applied on
growing vegetables or other crops which are consumed directly without
processing because sludge particles may adhere to the crop and might be
directly ingested. The sludqe should instead by applied prior to or at the
time of planting and should be injected or incorporated into the soil.
5.3 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Most of the alternatives for both wastewater and residuals management
involve some types of construction impacts. Usual types of impacts include
siltation of local surface waters as a result of erosion from disturbed and
denuded areas and settling of fugitive dust. Soils may be compacted and
disturbed during excavations and general construction and operations, mixing
the topsoil and soil horizons. Air quality may be affected by fugitive dust
and increased truck and machinery traffic.
Onsite vegetation is generally destroyed, and dust may settle on nearby
vegetation, reducing photosynthesis. Terrestrial organisms may be displaced
or killed directly, while aquatic organisms may be jndirectly affected by
siltation of surface waters.
Construction impacts generally also include temporary effects on
transportation due to increased local truck traffic and occasionally some
negative effects on local population and land use. The increased traffic
5-134
-------
may result in higher noise levels and a qreater possibility of accidents.
These impacts are summarized on Table 5-28.
5.4 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Bird Creek
No Federally endangered species are known to inhabit the immediate vicinity
of Northside or along Bird Creek below Northside. It is possible, however,
that endangered bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) could occasionally
visit the local riparian communities. If this does occur, they are
protected by Federal law, making it unlawful to harass, harm, capture or
kill them. The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is also
listed as endangered and could pass over the area. Neither bird inhabits
the area at this time, however.
The Eskimo curlew (Numenius boreal is) was at one time very common in fields
and pastures in Oklahoma, but is now listed as endangered. It is unlikely
to be sighted.
Another bird of interest is the greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus
cupido), which occurs in the remnant tall grass prairie, located southeast
of the Northside Treatment Plant. This bird is rare in Tulsa County but
abundant in neighboring Osage County, where limited hunting is allowed.
Several other birds are not Federally listed but are considered to be rare
in Oklahoma. These are the prairie falcon, white-faced ibis and the
ferruginous hawk (Department of Wildlife Conservation). These may
infrequently be seen in the area.
Of the endangered mammals, only the Indiana bat (Myotis soda!is) could
potentially occur in this area. It is not likely, however, since its range
is primarily to the east of Oklahoma.
A rare mammal in the Tulsa area is the swamp rabbit (Sylvilaqus aquaticus),
although it is not necessarPy rare elsewhere. Its habitat has been reduced
5-135
-------
Table 5-?8 SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
cn
l
U>
CT>
Parameter
MATER RESOURCES
Surface Hater
Potential
Impacts
minor
negative
(localized)
Comments
Runoff from disturbed lands
sediment and could Increase
of adjacent waterways.
Is high in
the turbidity
Mitigation Measures
Provide diversion berms along site
periphery. Onslte drainage collection
1n slltatlon basins Is required.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
Air Quality
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
SOCIOECONOMICS
^Transportation
Population and
Land Use
CULTURAL
Aesthetics and Noise
Public Health and
Safety
Archaeological/
Historical
minor Localized compaction, disturbance and
negative mixing of topsoll and soil horizons
(localized) In excavation.
minor Localized fugitive dust Impacts from
negative Increased truck and machinery traffic
(local & locally and 1n the general area.
areawlde)
minor
negative
(localized)
minor
negative
(localized)
minor
negative
(local *
areawide)
minor
negative
minor
negative
(local &
areawlde)
minor
negative
(local S
areawide)
possible
negative
Destruction of onslte vegetation and
loss of soil stability would increase
dust and runoff problems. Displacement
of fauna.
Slltatlon may adversely affect aquatic
life.
Temporary increase in local truck traffic.
Nearby residents * other sensitive land
uses may be adversely affected by
onstruction nolsp, rtu<;t, traffic, etc.
As above.
May be increased possibility of
accidents both from Increased
traffic * construction activities.
Clearance must be obtained; presence
of sites may delay construction.
On prime agricultural lands, disturbance
should be minimized as much as possible.
Where appropriate, segregate and retain
topsoll and soil horizons.
Hold disturbed lands to a minimum.
Utilize water trucks to keep fugitive
dust down.
Regrade and reseed site as soon as
possible. Protect soils as above.
Reduce fugitive dust by water spraying.
As in surface water.
Off peak hours should be used.
Truck size should match legal
street load limitations.
Buffer zone around sites. Existing
Hghts-of-way and easements should
be used for pipelines.
Buffer zone.
Prior check for existing sites;
flexibility In specific site.
-------
through channelization, flood control projects and agricultural projects
impinging on the riparian habitat.
Two reptiles are also considered rare in the Tulsa area: the map turtle
(Graptemys geographica), found in aquatic habitats; and the scarlet snake
(Cemophora coccinea) (Couch, 1977).
Several plants are considered to be rare in the study area, esoecially some
of those found in ihe Red Bud Valley Preserve and along the limestone bluffs
of lower Bird CreeK However, none of these are listed as endangered in the
U.S. Federal Register.
It is not expected that any of the terrestrial species will be affected by
either the No Action, Out-of-Basin Transfer, or AWT alternatives. Only
semi-aquatic species or species that utilize the stream might be affected.
Species such as the bald eagle, the white-faced ibis, and the map turtle
would probably not be significantly affected by No Action but might be
slightly benefitted by the improved water quality from Out-of-Basin Transfer
and AWT alternatives. This would be indirect; through an improvement in the
fish population numbers and diversity.
Sensitive or Unusual Areas. Several sensitive or unusual areas exist within
an approximately two-mile wide area the t follows the last mile of Mingo
Creek and the last 13 miles of Bird Creek. Their special nature is
explained in the text that follows, focusing on the remnant tall grass
prairie, the Red Bud Valley Nature Preserve, and the local limestone cliffs.
Additional areas of interest are also mentioned due to their regional
proximity.
Remnant Tall Grass Prairie - A stand of tall gsass prairie is located
immediately north of Interstate 244, between Garnett Road and 149th
Street East. It provides habitat for the greater prairie chicken, a
bird whose population numbers have severely declined in the last 50
years. It also provides a glimpse of a plant association that was
once dominant in the greater Tulsa area.
5-137
-------
Red Bud Valley Nature Preserve - The Red Bud Valley Nature Preserve
is located along lower Bird Creek 1n the SW 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of
Section 10 and the east 1/2 of Section 15, T20N, R14E. It covers
approximately 80 acres and contains a unique array of habitats,
including cliffs, caves, and springs. A particularly important
habitat is the north-facing limestone bluff, which borders the Bird
Creek floodplain. This area supports a disjunct community that is
normally found in the Ozark region of northeast Oklahoma. The
vegetation in this community includes walking ferm (Camptosarus
rhizophyllus), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema atrorubens), Dutchman's
britchesfDicentra cucullaria), Americansmoketree (Cotinus
oboyatus), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), blue ash (Fraxinus
quadrangulata) and American columbine (Aquilegia canadensis).
The preserve is owned by the Nature Conservancy and entrusted to the
University of Tulsa. It is located 12 miles from downtown Tulsa and
is frequently used as an outdoor laboratory by youth groups and
students.
Limestone Bluffs - Most of the limestone bluffs along the lower Bird
Creekfloodplain are considered unique. They provide valuable
habitat for disjunct populations of upland forest deciduous forests
that are not typically found further west. They also provide
excellent wildlife habitat due to their quality as an ecotone, or
ecological transition area.
ง Other Areas of Interest - Additional sensitive areas are located in
Mohawk Park,the Arkansas River below Keystone Dam, and the bald
eagle wintering area near Keystone Lake. All of these areas have
been studied and are protected to varying degrees. While there are
likely to be some wetlands in northeastern Oklahoma, the State has
not completed a survey or inventory, so identification must be on an
individual, site-specific basis. No wetlands were noted in the Bird
Creek study area.
It is not expected that any of the above areas would be measurably affected
by the No Action, Out-of-Basin Transfer or AWT alternatives.
Residuals Solids Disposal Sites
As discussed above, several species of both Federally^and State listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species may potentially occur in northeast
Oklahoma. None of these have been specifically recorded from the vicinity
of LF-1, LS-4, or R-3, but in general the same species may be potentially
present. Although not officially listed, one unique and rare species of
fish, the Kiamichi Shiner, may be present in the Verdigris River near
Oologah Dam.
5-138
-------
In general, none of the alternatives, RA-1, 3, 5, 6 & 7, should affect any
aquatic species if appropriate measures are utilized to prevent water
pollution, siltation, etc.
With respect to terrestrial species, none of the sites are well enough
defined so that specific sections of critical habitat can be defined. When
a definite site is selected, the U.S. FWS, the Department of Wildlife
Conservation, and the Office of Endangered Species should be contacted, so
that any critical habitat, wetlands, etc. can be avoided.
5.5 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Based on final review and approval of the 201 Facilities Plan and EIS, EPA
has several available options. These options are discussed below along with
the impacts they might be expected to have.
1) Appropriate funds for the remaining Step 3 portions of the Grants
Program for the preferred management alternatives.
This option would provide the Grantee with the necessary funding to
meet the Administrative Order as well as the State Water Quality
Standards and permit requirements.
2) Award funds based on a modified alternative or approach to the
project's implementation.
3) Denial of further grant funds.
This could postpone the implementation of improvements to wastewater
treatment at the Northside plant, but the Grantee would still be
responsible for implementation.
This would postpone the implementation of an area-wide residuals
solids management plan. Sludge would continue to be disposed and
stored until the point where no more space is available. Some form
of permitted disposal would be required.
5.6 ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO OTHERS
The State of Oklahoma maintains a funding program for public works projects.
Grants are awarded based on a priority system. In that system, secondary
treatment plant projects are given priority over AWT projects. How is
5-139
-------
funding relates to the Residuals Management Plan has not been established,
but the availability of these funds has been taken into account through the
phasing approach to implementation.
In June of 1982, the Oklahoma State Department of Health sent out revised
solid waste regulations. These regulations control the handling, disposal,
and reuse of sewage sludge, and will require permitting of any facilities.
The Oklahoma Water Resources Board is presently reviewing the State's Water
Quality Standards. Changes in the regulations that result in
reclassification of Bird Creek could affect its water quality and beneficial
use designations. This review prccess has not been completed at the time of
this writing, however.
The Army Corps of Engineers is presently in the process of constructing a
reservoir on Hominy Creek, a tributary of Bird Creek. One potential use of
excess available water stored in this reservoir is for flow augmentation to
maintain good water quality during low-flow conditions, however, this is not
expected to be allowed by the State. The reservoir has not been completed
and no completion date or schedule has been set at this time.
5-140
-------
Chapter 6
-------
CHAPTER 6
COORDINATION
(Including EIS Mailing List)
6.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
The purpose of this section is to summarize the public participation program
that was conducted as a part of the Facilities Planning process and EIS.
The program included general public involvement as well as participation
through a citizens' group or Public Advisory Committee (PAC).
Public information activities included the development of a mailing list,
mailing materials, preparing a fact sheet, obtaining media coverage,
conducting workshops, publishing briefing papers, presenting slide shows,
and preparing and distributing meeting notices, holding public meetings, and
maintaining a depository for project documents. .
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
A mailing list including the names of approximately 100 persons and 90
organizations was developed and used during the project. This list includes
the names of the project's Public Advisory Committee (PAC) members, and may
be found at the end of this Chapter. Notices of the first and third public
meetings were mailed to persons and organizations on the mailing list. The
notice of the second public meeting was distributed with City utility bills.
A letter of invitation was sent with the notice of the third public meeting
to groups who had viewed the slide show. Utility bills were also used in
mailing a questionnaire requesting information on infiltration/inflow.
Monthly and sometimes semi-monthly mailings have been made regularly through
the project for all PAC members and have contained the minutes of the
previous meeting, announcements and agenda of the next meeting, as well as
any other notices. Information and notices of meetings have also been
mailed to agencies directly concerned with the project's planning process,
including EPA; the Oklahoma State Health Department; the Indian Nations
6-1
-------
Council of Governments (INCOG); the Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District; and
the Tulsa City-County Health Department.
Early in the process fact sheet describing the project was prepared for use
by the media. The Tulsa World and the Tulsa Tribune have provided
continuing newspaper coverage, including news stories, editorials, public
notices, and one letter to the editor about the project. Generally, the
news stories and notices have appeared before and after a public meeting or
at critical points in the plan's development, e.g., the identification,
screening, and selection of alternatives and project cost estimates.
Several stories and an editorial were written about the impact of the
Cherokee Industrial District on the capacity of the Northside Plant. A news
story, including a map, was published in July 1981 about alternative sludge
disposal sites. News stc
-------
discharging industrial wastes into ~:he public sewer system. This workshop
was attended by 180 persons. A second workshop, on financing of Tulsa's
industrial waste program, was held en November 3, 1981. It was attended by
15 persons.
Four briefing papers have been published to date for the purpose of aiding
the public's understanding of the need for improvements at the Northside
Plant and for management of residuals SDlids. These papers provided
background information on the project, described the data and the criteria
used in developing and evaluating the alternatives, and provided cost
information on the alternatives selected fcr final consideration. A fifth
briefing paper describes the plan. These papers have been distributed at
public meetings, mailed to persons and g-oups on the mailing list, and
delivered to the media and interested officials.
A slide show was produced for the project identifying needs and discussing
alternatives to encourage public participation in the decision-making
process. Ninety organizations were telephoned requesting program time for
the project's public participation coordinator to present the show at one of
their meetings. Twenty-three presentations were scheduled from mid-December
1981 through April 1982.
A total of 760 persons viewed the slide show at the meetings.
Questionnaires were utilized at each of the showings as a means of
collecting public opinion data regarding wastewater and sludge disposal
management alternatives. The slide show presentations, therefore, served to
provide information to the public and also is a means for consulting members
of the public regarding their opinion of the alternatives.
Notices of all project public meetings have appeared in both Tulsa
newspapers. In addition to news stories about the meetings, one-page
notices of each meeting containing project information have been widely
distributed. Public service announcements of each public meeting were sent
to all radio stations.
6-3
-------
PUBLIC INPUT
Methods utilized to obtain information from the public include question-
naires, the Public Advisory Committee, oublic meetings, meetings with
officials, agency representatives, and a put lie hearing.
Questionnaires were used to obtain industrial waste discharge data,
information on the location of overloaded sewers, and public opinion
regarding the proposed wastewater and sludge management alternatives, as
well as to evaluate the first and second public meetings.
In the summer of 1980, a questionnaire was sent to 1800 industries
requesting information on types and amounts of industrial waste directly
discharged into the public sewer system, responses were received from over
60 percent of those contacted. This data was then used in developing
Tulsa's industrial waste pretreatment program.
In March 1981, a questionnaire briefly outlining the Facilities Planning
process was distributed with the City's utility bills to 125,000 customers
requesting information on backed-up sanitary and storm sewers. The
Department received 5,000 completed questionnaires. This information was
used in identifying places where groundwater or rain seeps into the sewer
system, causing overloading of the system. These data were used in
projecting flows and determining sewer sizing.
Questionnaires on wastewater and sludge disposal alternatives were
distributed at slide show presentations and were completed by 107 members of
a variety of organizations at which the slide show was presented.
Initially, four categories of wastewater alternatives were listed in the
evaluation questionnaire. As alternatives were screened by the consultants,
two of these categories were dropped and the evaluation questionnaire was
revised accordingly. The two wastewater alternatives were (1) advanced
treatment with continued discharge into Bird Creek, and (2) secondary
treatment with discharge into the Arkansas River at a point in the vicinity
of the Haikey Creek treatment plant. Twice as many people (86) were of the
opinion that continued discharge into Bird Creek was acceptable or very
6-4
-------
acceptable as compared with 43 persons who regarded discharge into the
Arkansas River as acceptable or very acceptable.
Regarding the four sludge disposal alternatives, 90 of the 107 persons
regarded agricultural reuse as acceptable or very acceptable, followed
closely by 88 persons who so regarded sludge use for site reclamation.
However, a greater number of persons (68) regarded agricultural reuse as
very acceptable as compared with 52 persons who believed site reclamation
was very acceptable.
Opinion was evenly divided regarding dedicated land disposal and landfill,
with 65 and 67 persons, respectively, regarding these alternatives as
acceptable or very acceotable. However, with respect to both of these
alternatives, more people regarded them as acceptable rather than very
acceptable.
Of the 39 persons attending the first public meeting, 3 completed
questionnaires. Of the 36 persons attending the second public meeting, 16
completed questionnaires. The evaluation obtained from these is
incorporated in the response summary for these meetings, included in the
Department's public participation documentation report.
A Public Advisory Committee (PAC) for this project was officially appointed
in 1979, it consisted of 40 persons equally representing four categories of
the public public officials, public interest groups, private citizens, and
economic interest groups. The purpose of the PAC is to review, comment, and
recommend to the City's Water and Sewer Department's staff on the plan and
its development, to help keep the public informed on the plan, and to bring
community concerns and opinions to the Department's attention.
Since its first meeting on August 21, 1979, 33 months ago, the PAC has met
33 times through April 1982 and it will meet several more times before the
project is completed. Almost half of the original members are still serving
on the Committee; the others were replaced as vacancies occurred to maintain
the balance of public representation.
6-5
-------
Frior to the execution of the contract for the project, the PAC was involved
In finalizing the scope of work, particularly with respect to the
environmental impact statement. Also during this time, subcommittees were
established, and available data (population and physical characteristics)
were reviewed and reporte 1 in Committee.
Since October 21, 1980, when work on the project started, the PAC has
reviewed and commented on all reports, programs, and schedules that have
been produced for this project. To date (April 1982), this includes 33
published technical reports of varying degrees of complexity. Copies of the
eports were distributed at tre PAC meetings and were mailed upon request.
Reports were summarized by the consultants at the meeting at which the
Deports were distributed. Sometimes several reports were presented in one
neeting. Reports were assigned by the PAC chairman to subcommittees or the
Committee as a whole for review and recommendation, to be reported upon at
the following meeting. Questions resulting from review of reports were
generally resolved by staff or the consultants during the meeting.
Questions that were not readily resolved have been identified as issues.
They are described in a later subsection of this report. Comments obtained
rfere generally noted in subsequent technical reports prepared throughout the
course of the project.
Four public meetings on this project have been held. The first held prior
to contract negotiation on May 15, 1980, was called by EPA for the purpose
of finalizing the scope of the "piggyback" environmental-impact statement.
After work started on the project, three public meetings were held as
follows: (1) April 7, 1981 to introduce the project and discuss its
financial impacts, 39 persons attended; (2) November 18, 1981 to describe
the alternatives, 39 persons attended; and (3) April 2, 1981 to describe and
discuss the selected alternatives, 37 persons attended.
Meetings with the Utility Board and the City Commission were held on April
9, 1981, November 18, 1981, and April 7, 1982 for the purpose of informing
these decision makers of the plan's progress and development and to seek
their opinions. A separate meeting was held with the City Commission on
6-6
-------
April 13, 1982 to describe the small array of alternatives prior to the
selection of the final alternatives. In addition, two work sessions were
also held with PAC representatives and decision makers to explain the PAC's
concern that the Northside Plant's planned treatment capacity did not
adequately allow for potential growth in the Cherokee Industrial District
and the impact on the Grantee's finances, if expansion at the plant must be
made without benefit of Federal funds. As a result of these meetings, an
agreement was reached to increase the Northside's projected flows on the
basis of an assumed level of development of the Cherokee Industrial District
during the planning period.
A public hearing will be held in September 1982 on the final Facilities Plan
and the sludge management plan.
ISSUES AND COMMENTS
Identified by the PAC
Questions and comments (as differentiated from issues) made by the PAC
focused on (1) sampling procedures for dry-weather I/I and for sludge
quality and (2) the scope of the downstream baseline environmental
assessment. Some PAC members said they believed that (1) the original
screening brainstorming sessions should have involved the PAC together with
the technicians and professionals, and (2) evaluation of the alternatives
reflects too much emphasis on present worth estimated cost and not enough on
environmental issues.
Issues identified by the PAC are summarized as follows:
Impact of development in the Cherokee Industrial District on the
plant's treatment capacity.
Adverse impact on prime agricultural land (Mason soils) with
respect to:
- using past growth trends in facility planning, thus perpetuating
southerly and southeasterly development and its encroachment on
prime agricultural land
6-7
-------
- its use for sludge disposal sites
t Difficulty in obtaining sludge disposal sites within Tulsa County
(most the alternative sites are located outside Tulsa County).
t Possible adverse impact of sludge disposal failsafe alternatives on
water supplies.
The desirability of agriculture reuse of sludge in spite of
unstable market conditions.
Concern for environmental impacts of breakpoint chlorination.
t Implementation priorities at the Northside Plant. Should plant
capacity be constructed before wastewater treatment improvements
are made or vice versa?
Comments From Civic Organizations
Comments received from persons attending slide show presentations as to what
the City should do are summarized as follows:
t Provide for more information, particularly cost and financing
information, including amortization of costs and the effect of
these costs on mi 11 age rates.
t Stop industry from discharging untreated industrial wastes directly
into the public sewer system.
Sale or give away of sludge should be considered. Utilize methane
gas for fuel for pumps, compressors, etc.
t Make printed brochures available explaining alternatives in
laymen's language.
Expensive delay should be avoided.
Comments with respect to how the slide show could be improved indicated that
it was well received and regarded. Several wanted more time for discussion.
A few complained that it was hard to hear the tape and speaker. Many said
more information was needed.
6-8
-------
Comments and Questions From Public Meetings
Comments made and questions asked at public meetings are included in the
Department's public participation documentation report.
Comments from the Utility Board and City Commission
With respect to both the selected wastewater and residual solids management
alternatives, the Utility Board voiced concern about the financial impact on
the City of a project of this magnitude and agreed that implementation
should be phased in order to spread the financial burden over as long a time
period as practice!. The Board was also concerned that nothing be built in
the early stages of the project's implementation that might have to be
abandoned at a later time because of possible changes in Federal or State
requirements for the Northside Plant (April 21, 1982 meeting). At its
meeting of April 23, 1982, the City Commission also expressed concern
regarding the project's financial impact on the City and the need for
phasing project implementation over a period of time.
RESPONSES BY THE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
The Department responded to comments received from persons seeing the slide
show by referring the comments to the consultants ~or their consideration
during the development and selection of the alternatives.
Comments from the Utility Board and City Commission were reflected in the
recommendations officially adopted by each and are contained in Tech. Memo.
III-8, pages 20 through 22.
Responses by the Water and Sewer Department to issues raised by the PAC have
resulted in the following actions:
Impact of the Cherokee District issue. Projected flows were
increased assuminga certainlevel of development at Cherokee
Industrial District.
6-9
-------
Prime agricultural land Issue. EPA has mandated the procedure for
projecting population for facility olanning purposes, and Tulsa is
obliged to use this method, in spite of its effect on the
perpetuation of growth to south and southeast Tulsa. With regard to
the use of Class 1 soils for sludge disposal sites, sites containing
these soils are to be considered only if no other alternative is
possible.
t Out-of-county sludge disposal sites. The political problems are
recognized by Tulsa City and County officials, and efforts are being
made to make a more intensive search for sites in Tulsa County, to
develop other disposal alternatives, and to work with officials in
other counties in an effort to find mutually satisfactory solutions.
Agricultural reuse. Because of strong public support for this
alternative,sludge drying methods were changed from mechanical,
which was first recommended, to the use of drying beds which results
in a product easier to handle. Also, a "failsafe" alternative has
been selected as a backup for such time when the market cannot absorb
all the sludge produced.
t Breakpoint chlorinatipn. Because o- the PAC's strong concern over
this alternative, the next most cost-effective alternative was
selected using biological filtration as the AWT process.
Scheduling of construction at the Ncrthside plant. The final plan
will include scheduling recommendat"3ns.
RECOMMENDED FINAL ALTERNATIVES
The process by which the final alternative was recommended for both
wastewater and residual solids management is generally described as follows:
t preparation by CH2M Hill of reports describing their detailed
analysis and generalized cost estimates of each of the small array of
alternatives
preparation of reports by COM describing their assessment of the
environmental impact of each of the small array alternatives
t review and discussion of this analysis and assessment by the PAC as a
whole at its March and April meetings
review by the Utility Board at its April 7, 1982 meeting
o formulation by the TWSD staff at c April 15, 1982 meeting of its
recommendations to the Utility Board and the City Commission to adopt
MA-16 and RA-6 as the final alternatives
6-10
-------
review by the PAC at its April 20, 1982 meeting of the staff's
recommendations
adoption by the PAC at the above meeting of motions that the PAC
recommend MA-16 and RA-6 as well as of a motion that landfill ing on
Class 1 so'Is be used as a last resort after the City has exhausted
all other cptions
t adoption by the Utility Board at its April 21, 1982 meeting of the
staff's recommendations with the following stipulations:
- landfill ing of sludge in areas containing Class 1 soils should be
considered only as a last resort, as recommended by the PAC
- when implementation and scheduling details of the selected
alternatives are developed, the Utility Board will review them for
approval
t approval by the City Commission on April 23, 1982 of the selection of
MA-16 and RA-6 as the final alternatives as recommended by the
Utility Board
In addition to the above recommendations, both the Utility Board and the
City Commission requested that project implementation be phased over a
reasonable period of time to (1) reduce the financial impact on the City,
and (2) avoid building facilities that mignt be abandoned at a later date
because of possible Federal or State changes in the requirements for the
Northside Plant.
6-11
-------
6.2 201/EIS PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAILING LIST
Committee Members and Alternates
Heher Archer
Phil tower Bldg., Room 1505
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
583-6333 (Business)
Tom Baines
616 South Boston
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
585-1201 (Business)
Floyd M. Bartlett
6032 East 57th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
622-3013 (Business)
494-9820 (Residence)
Susan Berry
2830 East 90th Street #1704
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136
743-4836 (Residence)
Susan Birch
2687 S. Utica Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114
743-4836 (Residence)
Fredi Boone
403 East Latimer Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74106
583-4486 (Residence)
Janet Bradley (HAP)
3355 South Braden
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
743-5283 (Residence)
Jeanie Butler
Route 5, Box 506
Claremore, Oklahoma 74017
581-7877 'Business)
1-342-2092 (Residence)
Francis Campbell
City Auditor
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
581-5131 (Business)
Dave Carlson
1742 East 61st Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136
743-9138 (Residence)
560-4085 (Business)
Iris Chandler
2205 East 66th Place
No. 610
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136
494-7086 (Residence)
599-2513 (Business)
Harry M. Crowe, Jr.
1714 First Nat'l Bank Bldg.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
587-1128 (Business
Kenneth DeCou
2112 East 52nd Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105
583-3611 (Business)
John Elder, Sr.
P.O. Box 50277
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74150
583-9149 (Business)
747-3941 (Residence)
Sylvester Gibson
325 West 56th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74126
425-6535 (Residence)
749-0901 (Business)
James Gillespie
P.O. Box 300
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
561-3123 (Business)
Milton Goodwin
528 East 48th Streot
Tulsa, Oklahoma
428-4670 (Residence)
425-2443 (Business)
Donna Griffen
840 No. Gary Place
Tulsa, Ok'ahoma 74110
834-9198 (Residence)
581-7927 (Business)
(Alternate for David
McNee5yl2
Jacci Hamilton
500 South Denver
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
584-0471 est 3502 (Business)
(Alternate County
Commissioners Terry Young &
Mel Rice)
Susan Harris
8286 East 34th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145
627-6445 (Residence)
Bob Hensley
9811 East 46th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145
663-9690 (Residence)
Honorable James M. Inhofe
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
581-5101 (Business)
(Alternate Dick Soudriette)
Georgina Landman
324 Main Mall, Suite 600
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
583-1338 (Business)
Abby Langenheim
2446 East 4th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104
588-3081 (Business)
Steve Leaver
Armco Construction Prod.
Div.
3726 S. Peoria No. 5
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105
742-2441
Frank Lindner
Getty Oil Company
P.O. Box 1650
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
560-6725 (Business)
Clarence Love
725 E. Seminole
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74106
582-1372 (Residence)
587-0392 (Business)
-------
Judy Moody
2241 East 32nd Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105
747-2112 (Residence)
Gil Nadeau
440 S. Houston
602 State Capital Complex
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
581-7785 (Business)
I.E. (Ed Now!in)
Dover Corp/Norris Division
P.O. Box 2070
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101
584-4241 (Business)
Conn. Mel Rice
500 South Denver
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
584-0471 (Business)
(Alternate Jacci Hamilton)
Phil Smith
5157 East 51st Street
Suite 100
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
627-5861 (Business)
Richard Soudriette
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
581-5101 (Business)
(Alternate Mayer Inhofe)
Honorable Boyd Spencer
207 South Cedar
Owasso, Oklahoma 74055
272-3269 (Residence)
272-2251 (Business)
(Alternate Mil Williams)
Allen West
Drawer Three Ten
Catoosa, Oklahoma 74015
266-2136 (Residence)
John Wheat
5238 S. Marion Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
742-2570 (Residence)
Bill Williams
207 South Cedar
Owasso, Oklahoma 74055
272-2251 (Business)
(Alternate Boyd Spencer)
Carol Williams
8509 East 33rd Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma V4145
628-1374 (Residence)
Carl H. Young, III
Helmerich & Payne
1579 E. 21st Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma "'4114
742-5531 (Business)
Comm. Terry Young
500 South Denver
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
584-0471 (Business)
(Alternate Jacci Hamilton)
Floyd look
2406 West Oklahoma
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
582-4826 (Residence)
(Alternate Susan Harris)
Public Officials, Agency
Representatives, $
Interested"
Ci ti zens
Sandy Berenson
Route 5 Box 231
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
74012
Dr. Paul Buck
Natural Sciences
University of Tulsa
600 South College
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104
Robert Caldwell
17701 East llth Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74108
Howard Chalker
General Planning
P.O. Box 61
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74121
Local Documents Librarian
Tulsa City-County Library
400 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
581-5211 (Business)
Comm. Patty Eaton
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
581-5121 (Business)
Judith Finn
8310 South Toledo
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136
481-0393 (Residence)
Sandra Gillian
616 South Boston
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
Hettie Green
City Comm. Secretary
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Rosemary Henderson, EPA
Water Quality Division
1201 Elm Street
First International Bldg.
Dallas, Texas 75270
Rita J. Henze
2408 S. 137th E. Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74134
INCOG
Lynette Beavers
707 W. 7th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
Margaret Johnanning
Al C. Young & Associates
808 So. Peoria
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120
Mrs. Fred Loving
432 South 51st W. Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
583-4018 (Residence)
6-13
-------
Dane Matthews, Program Mgr.
General & Physical Planning
TMAPC
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Dennis Murphey
Agrico
P.O. Box 456
Catoosa, Oklahoma 74015
Oklahoma State Dept. of
Health
Charles D. Newton, Chief
Water Quality Service
N.E. 10th & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
74105
Janet Pearson
Tulsa World
P.O. Box 1770
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102
Dr. Richard Reeder
Natural Sciences
University of Tulsa
600 South College
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104
Robert Rorschach
230 South Boston
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Clinton Spotts, EPA
1201 Elm Street
First International Bldg.
Dallas, Texas 75270
Bill Tabler
P.O. Box 1183
Tulsa, Oklahoma
74101
Tulsa City-County Health
Dept.
Attn: Jerry Cleveland
4616 East 15th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
Hazel Vamrnen
3820 S. Florence Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74105
Dr. James Vial
Natural Sciences
University of Tulsa
600 South College
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104
Dave West, Programmer
Policy, Planning & Research
Department of City
Development
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Jim Whitlock
P.O. Box 610
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
74012
Susan Young
INCOG
707 West 7th Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
584-7526
Jonathan York, EPA
Construction Grants Division
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
Hendon Crane 6W-MO
Water Quality Division
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
First International Bldg.
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Consultants
Bill Buchholz
Camp Dresser & McKee
6060 North Central Expwy
Suite 770
Dallas, Texas 75206
Richard Cote
Camp Dresser & McKee
11455 W. 48th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Murry Fleming
CH2M Hill Central, Inc.
P.O. Box 22508
Denver, Colorado 80222
583-3057 {Tulsa office)
Erling & Thordis Hell and
Erling Hell and Associates
222 W. Woodrow Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74106
Norman Lovejoy
Kellogg Corporation
Suite 400
5601 South Broadway
Littleton, Colorado 80121
Clinton Spotts, Chief
EIS Division 6SA-F
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VI
First International Bldg.
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
George Strella
Mansur-Daubert-Wi11i ams
1648 South Boston
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119
Utility Board & Board
of City Commissioners
John P. Hammond
f.0. Box 2902
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101
E.A. Schermerhorn
2227 East Skelly Drive
Suite 101
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101
Phil Smith
* 5157 East 51st Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135
Jay R. Thomas
P.O. Box 52304
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74152
Virgil S. Tilly
4030 First Nat'l Tower Bldg.
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
6-14
-------
Gary Swansen
CH2M Hill
P.O. Box 22508
Denver, Colorado 80222
Francis Campbell
City Auditor
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Comm. Patty Eaton
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Comm. Roy Gardner
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Comm. James Hewgley
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Mayor James M. Inhofe
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Comm. Ronald Young
200 Civic Center
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
6-15
-------
Chapter 7
-------
CHAPTER 7
LIST OF PREPARERS
AGENCY OR FIRM
Name
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC,
Richard C. Cote'
Eileen Pannetier
William R. Swanson
William F. Buchholz
Jerry P. O'Brien
David F. Doyle
ERLING HELLAND ASSOC.
Erling Helland
Thordls Hell and
ECOS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
Lee Megli
Ron Pifer
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Title
Environmental Engineer
Planner/Biologist
Associate - Env. Engineer
Associate - Regional Mgr.
Planner/AICP
Vice President
Senior Planner
Planner
Economist
Biologist
Responsibility
Wastewater Management
Assessment and
Engineering Evaluations
-Residuals Management
Assessment
Technical Coordinator
Public Participation
Socioeconomics
Officer-in-Charge
Population Projections
Public Participation
Growth Impacts
Biology
7-1
-------
Chapter 8
-------
CHAPTER 8
LITERATURE CITED AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
8.1 LITERATURE CITED
Report I;
Report II;
Report III;
Report IV;
Report V;
Report VI;
Report VII;
Report VIII;
Report IX;
Report X;
Report XI;
Report XII;
"Public Participation Work Plan", COM November, 1980.
"Environmental Assessnent Methodology", COM January, 1981.
"Residuals Management Sludge Disposal/Application
Environmental Criteria", COM January, 1981.
"Environmental Baseline Conditions", COM April, 1981.
"Residuals Management Plan Sludge Land Application/Disposal
Area Evaluation", COM July, 1981.
"Residuals Management Plan Sludge Marketing Environmental
Evaluation", COM August, 1981.
"Environmental Evaluation of Wastewater Management
Alternatives", COM November, 1981.
"Residuals Management Plan Sludge Disposal/Reuse Site Ranking
Study", COM March, 1982.
"Environmental Evaluation of Selected Alternatives for
Wastewater Management", COM March, 1982.
"Residuals Management Alternative Assessment", COM April 1982,
"Growth Impacts Study1, CDM/ECOS April, 1982.
"Water Quality Evaluation and the Assessment of Phasing",
June, 1982.
8-1
-------
8.1 LITERATURE CITED (continued)
Tech. Memo. III-2; "Projected Northside Wastewater Flows and Organic
Loadings", CH2M Hill, September, 1981.
Tech. Memo. III-3; "Identification and Screening of Wastewater Treatment
Processes", CH2M Hill, June, 1981.
Tech. Memo. III-4; "Development and Evaluation of Wastewater Management
Alternatives", CH2M Hill, October, 1981.
Tech. Memo. II1-5; "Detailed Evaluation of Wastewater Management
Alternatives", CH2M Hill, January, 1982.
Tech. Memo. III-6; "Alternative Cost Effectiveness Analysis", CH2M Hill,
April, 1982.
Tech. Memo. IV-2; "Alternative Development", CH2M Hill, June, 1981.
Tech. Memo. IV-3; "Preliminary Site Identification", CH2M Hill,
June, 1981.
Tech. Memo. IV-4; "Preliminary Screening of Alternatives", CH2M Hill,
September, 1981.
Tech. Memo. IV-5; "Marketing Survey", CH2M Hill, July, 1981.
Tech. Memo. IV-6; "Site Identification", CH2M Hill, January, 1982.
Tech. Memo. IV-7; "Evaluation of Alternatives", CH2M Hill,
February, 1982.
Tech. Memo. IV-8, "Imolementation and Financial Impacts of Selected
IV-9, V-4; Alternatives", CH2M Hill, May, 1982.
Northside 201 Facilities Plan, EPA Project
No. C-40-1001-01. July 1982. Draft.
Area-wide Residuals Solids Management Program,
CH2M Hill, July 1982. Draft.
8-2
-------
8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Behler, J.L.; King, F.W. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.
Black Fox Environmental Impact Statement. 1977. Refer to reference under
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Buck, P. 1979. Fleeting Facility Assessment. Rocky Point and Commerce
Landing Areas on the McClellan-Kerr Waterway.
Unpublished. Red Bud Valley Plant Species List. University of
Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Burt, W.H.; Grossenheider, R.P. 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals. The
Peterson Field Guide Series, 2nd ed. Houghton Miff!in Company, Boston.
Camp Dresser & McKee. January 1981. Residuals Management, Sludge Disposal/
Application Environmental Criteria.
July 1981. Residuals Management Plan, Sludge Land
Application/Disposal Area Evaluation.
Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 1.
Iowa State University Pr-?ss.
CH2MHill. June 1981. Preliminary Site Identification.
January 1982. Site Identification.
March 1982. sludge Management Plan (scheduled distribution).
City of Tulsa. 1975. Facilities Plan for Regional Metropolitan Utility
Authority: Complex Areas 1-B and 1-C, WPC-OKLA-596.
August 1976-1380. Coal Creek Sewage Treatment Plant Monthly
Report.Tulsa, Oklahoma.
August 1976-1980. Flat Rock Sewage Treatment Plant Monthly
Report. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
August 1976-1980. Northside Sewage Treatment Plant Monthly
Report.Tulsa, Oklahoma.
*
1979. Survey of Manufacturers* Tulsa, Oklahoma.
June 1980. Long Range Capital Improvements Financial Plan:
iyซl-1985 (Draft). Tulsa, Oklahoma.
October 1980. Overall Economic Development Program (Draft).
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
8-3
-------
8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Couch, R. 1977. Environmental Profile of the Tulsa Urban Study Area. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Cox, W.R.; Zima, J.J., Jr. 1977. Biological Water Quality Study. Prepared
for Indian Nations Council of Governments, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tulsa City -
County Health Department.
Duncan, K.C. 1977. Cultural Resources in the Tulsa Urban Study Area.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Elias, T.S. 1980. The Complete Trees of North America. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. February 1966. Preliminary
Studies - Arkansas River and its Tributaries, Tulsa to Muskogee, Oklahoma.
Ada, Oklahoma.
Finnel, J.E. et al. February 1957. The Fishery Resources in the Verdigris
River in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Fishery Research Laboratory. Norman, Oklahoma.
Hitchcock, A.S. 1950. Manual of the Grasses of the United States. USDA
Miscellaneous Publication No. 20C.
Hydroscience. March 1978. Documentation Package for Program "RIVER", EPA
Interim Output 6 and 7, INCOG Work Element IV-B5.
March 1978. Modelling Analysis of Water Quality for the INCOG
Planning Area.
Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG). September 1977. Management
Agencies: An Analysis of Existing Agencies with Water Quality Management
Related Functions (Interim Report #15). Tulsa, Oklahoma.
September 14, 1977 and October 2, 1978. Selected Water Quality
Parameter~"Val ues. Computer Report RWQ011.
1978. Existing Environmental Data Base. Working Paper No. E-2
Prepared by C-E Maquire, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Janua-y 1979. Water Quality Monitoring Program for the INCOG 208
Wastewater Management Study, Task 3.51.
July 1979. Areawide Water Quality Management Plan: 208 Annual
Update.
August 1979. Analysis of New Water Quality Data for the INCOG
208 Study Area, Task 3.53.
8-4
-------
8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Leithead, H.L. et al. 1971. 100 Native Forage Grasses in 11 Southern
States. Agricultural Handbook No. 389.
Martin, A.C.; Zim, H.S.; Nelson, A.L. 1951. American Wildlife and Plants:
A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. McGraw Hill, New York.
McReynolds, E.G.; Marriott, A.; Fankoner, E. 1967. Oklahoma: The Study of
its Past and Present. Rev. ed. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
Oklahoma.
Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce. Undated. Tulsa! Economic Trends,
Conditions, Projections. Latest ed. Economic Development Division, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
Muskogee Co. Undated. Important Farmlands Inventory, Soil Survey Legend.
Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd ed. W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia.
Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS). 1955. Map Showing Groundwater Reservoirs
in Oklahoma. S.L. Schoff. Map 72-2.
1971. Reconnaissance of the Water Resources of the Tulsa
Quadrangle, Northeastern Oklahoma. M.V. Marcher and R.H. Bingham. Map
HA-2.
1975. Reconnaissance of the Water Resources of the Oklahoma City
Quadrangle, Central Oklahoma. R.H. Bingham and R.L. Moore.
Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH). 1974. Sanitary Landfills
Standards, Guideline #5.
1977. Data Summary and Water Quality Statistics Computer
Print-out.
1979. Rules and Regulations for Industrial Waste Management,
S-467, 1281:0541.
^_^_^^^^ 1979. Surface Impoundment Assessment. Prepared by the
industrial & Solid Waste Service.
1980. Oklahoma Solid Waste Acts, Statutes, Title 63 S-523,
1281:0101.
November 1, 1981. Proposed Solid Waste Management Rules and
Regulations Including Sludge Management Rules and Regulations.
Undated. Oklahoma Ambient Air Quality Standards.
8-5
-------
8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Oklahoma State Department of Transportation. November 1980. Final
Environmental Impact Statement: Osage Rout< .
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1976. Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards.
1979. Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards.
Okmulgee Co. - Important Farmlands Inventory, Soil Survey Legend; Important
Farmland Map. 19ฃ0.
Personal Communication. March 1981. J. Janick, University of Nevada.
March 4, 1981. R. Gomez; D. Martinez, State Wildlife
Conservation Department, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
April 1981. C. Scott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa,
Ok T anoma.
' July 1981. Muskogee Co. Health Department.
July 1981. Okmulgee Co. Health Department.
July 1981. OSDH, Solid Waste Division.
July 1981. Rogers Co. Health Department.
July 1981. Rogers Co. Planning Commission.
July 1981. Tulsa City/County Health Department (TCCHD).
July 1981. Washington Co. Health Department.
August 1981. OSDH, Solid Waste Division, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
August 1981. USEPA Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C.
Robbins, C.S.; Bruun, B.; Zim, H.S. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification:
Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York.
Rogers Co. - Important Farmlands Inventory, Soil Survey Legend. Undated.
Salvato, J.A. 1972. Environmental Engineering & Sanitation. 2nd ed. Wiley
- Interscience, New York.
Shaeffer & Roland. March 1981. Feasibility of Land Treatment for the
Village Creek Plant for the City of Arlington, Texas.
ij
Stiller et al. 1980. Application oV Geomorphic Principles to Surface Mine
Reclamation in the Semiarid West. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
35(6).
8-6
-------
812 BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Town of Owasso. August 1977-1980. Operational Report of Water Pollution
Control Facility. Owasso, Oklahoma.
Town of Skiatook. August 1977-1980. Operational Report of Water Pollution
Control Facility. Skiatook, Oklahoma.
Town of Sperry. August 1977-1980. Operational Report of Water Pollution
Control Facility. Sperry, Oklahoma.
Tulsa Audubon Society. 1979. The Tulsa Scissortail. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Tulsa City/County Health Department. May 1976. The Influence of Sanitary
Sewer Services on Urban Growth & Development.
Tulsa Geological Society. 1972. Tulsa's Physical Environment. Vol. 37.
Ed. A.P. Bennison. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC). July 1976. Level II
Major Update of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan. Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
August 1978. Subdivision Regulations for the Tulsa Metropolitan
Area.TuTsa, Oklahoma.
1979. The Tulsa Park & Recreation Plan, Technical Supplement.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
August 1979. The Tulsa Industrial Plan 1980-2000: Phase I.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.
September 1979. Current Planning Capacity: Phase I. Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
November 1979. Residential Land Use Plan 1980-2000: Phase I.
TuIsa, Oklahoma.
February 1980. The Tulsa Open Space Plan: Phase I. Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
May 1980. Current Planning Capacity: Phase II. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
September 1980. Open Space Plan: Phase II IDraft). Tulsa,
Ukiahoma.
Tulsa Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (TMATS). 1979. Annual Report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. September 1977. Institutional Background for
the Tulsa Urban Study. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
8-7
-------
8.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May 1979. liter-mediate Institutional
Analysis for the Tulsa Urban Study. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. Tulsa Urban Study: Social &
Economic Background Information. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970. Census of Population and Housing.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Weather Service. Undated.
Meteorological Data.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). January 1976. Direct
Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works.
EPA-430/9-76-003; MCO-20.
November 1976. Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland:
Appraisal of the Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and
Animals. MCD-33.
March 1978. Application of Sludges and Wastewater on
Agricultural Land: A Planning and Educational Guide. MCD-35.
September 13, 1979. Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices; 40 CFR Part 257; Final Interim Final and
Proposed Regulations. 44 Federal Register 53460.
September 1979. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and
Disposal. Technology Transfer. EPA-625/1-79-011.
October 1978. Process Design Manual for Municipal Sludge
Landfills. Technology Transfer. EPA-625/1-78-010, SW-705.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1:250,000 maps: Enid, 1955-65; Fort Smith,
1946; Oklahoma City, 1957-68; Tulsa, 1958-73.
1968-1978. Gauging Station #1775 Records.
7.5 minute (1:24,000) topographic maps: Bartlesville SE, 1970
(76-1); Collinville NE, 1959; Concharty MTN, 1971; Foyil, 1970 - (78-1);
Haskell, 1971; Kiefer SW, 1973; Lake Boren, 1973; Oologah, 1970; Ramona,
1972 (76-1); Spanish Peak, 1971; Talala, 1970; Vera, 1959.
1974. Map of Floodprone Areas, Claremore Quadrangle.
1976-1978. Sampling Station #1780.5 Records.
March 1976. Groundwater Records for Northeastern Oklahoma, Part
1 - Records of Wells, Test-holes, and Springs. Open File Report. Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.
8-8
-------
3.2 BIBLIOGRAPHY (concluded)
J.S. Geological Survey (USGS). November 1979. Selected Water-level Records
for Oklahoma, 1976-78. Open-File Report 79-1580. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
. 1980. Map of Flood-prone Areas, Lake Boren Quadrangle.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Februar/ 1977. Final Environmental
Statement. Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2 and the Environmental Report,
Construction Permit Stage, Vol. II. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS). August 1966. Soil Survey, Rogers
County, Oklahoma.
May 1968. Soil Survey, Okmulgee County, Oklahoma.
1977. Soil Survey, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
January 1982. Personal communication, Rogers Co. office.
Unpublished. Soil Survey, Muskogee County, Oklahoma.
Vaughan, T.A. 1972. Mammalogy. W.E. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.
Washington Co. Undated. Important Farmland Inventory, Soil Survey Legend.
Wardell, M.L. 1938. A Political History of the Cherokee Nation, 1838-1907.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Waterfall, U.T. 1972. Keys to the Flora of Oklahoma. Oklahoma State
University, Still water, Oklahoma.
Welty, J.C. 1975. The Life of Birds. 2nd ed. W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia.
Wilkerson, S.H. March 1979. Fish and Wildlife Aspects of the Mingo Creek
Interim Feasibility Study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, Oklahoma;
Letter Report.
8-9
-------
Chapter 9
-------
CHAPTER 9
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Activated Sludge - A process that removes organic matter from sewage by
saturating it with air and adding biologically active sludge.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment; AWT - A method of providing high levels of
water quality. In this study it refers to achieving 5 mg/1 BOD, 5 mg/1 SS
and 3 mg/1 NHg effluent limitations.
Aerobic Digestion - A method of stabilizing sludge by reducing its organic
content using aerobic microorganisms and extended aeration.
Aerosols - Mists or water droplets that become airborne and may contain
pathogens or other infectious agents.
Algal - Referring to algae; aquatic nonvascular plants.
Alluvial Aquifer - Water bearing substrate containing material such as sand,
silt, or clay deposited along streams.
Anaerobic Digestion - A method of stabilizing sludge by reducing its organic
content using anaerobic microorganisms in an environment devoid of oxygen.
Aquatic - Consisting of or pertaining to water.
Assimilative Capacity - Generally relates to stream flow vs. wastewater
loadings, or the ability of a stream to accept pollution without serious
degradation.
Association, soil - A group of soils geographically associated in
characteristics repeating patterns and defined and delineated as a single
map unit.
Ammonia - A compound of nitrogen found in wastewater, predominately in two
forms; ionized (NH3) and un-ionized (NH3).
Benthic Organisms - Organisms that live on the bottoms of water bodies.
Biotic Community - An assemblage of populations (plant and animal) occupying
a particular area or physical habitat.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - The amount of dissolved oxygen required
for the decomposition of organic matter in water. BOD is used as a measure
to determine the efficiency of a sewage treatment plant or to determine the
potential of an effluent to degrade a stream. The lower the BOD
measurement, the cleaner the effluent. Termed as 5-day BOD (BODg) or the
amount of oxygen required during a 5-day test.
Breakpoint Chlorination - A method of removing ammonia from wastewater by
converting it to nitrogen gas, involving a series of chemical reactions as
chlorine is added at a ratio of 7.6 parts C12 to 1 part NH3.
-------
Cadmium - A heavy metal often found in sewage sludge as a result of
industrial discharges to the system. Levels of cadmium are used to
determine the uses of sludge.
Carbonaceous BOD - The level of oxygen demanded by the organic material.
CFS (cubic feet per second) - A unit of measure used to describe volume of
stream flow, equal to 1 cubic foot in 1 second (also called "second-foot").
DAF Thickener - Dissolved air flotation thickener, a process by which air
bubbles are attached to particles causing them to float, where they are
scraped off the surface.
Dedicated Land Disposal - A method of disposing of municipal sludge on the
land surface, by either liquid injection or incorporation, at such high
rates that the levels of potential toxic substances precludes the use of
that land for other purposes.
Density - Demographic term referring to the number of people in a specified
area.
Depletion - The measure of the amount of water removed from the water supply
system for a use; synonymous with "consumptive use."
Dissolved Oxygen - Gaseous oxygen in an aqueous solution.
D.O. Sag - The point of drop in the downstream dissolved oxygen profile as a
result of higher organic loadings.
Ecology - The relationships of organisms and their environment.
Ecosystem - A system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms
with its environment.
Effluent - The liquid that comes out of a wastewater treatment plant after
completion of the treatment process.
Effluent Disinfection - The process of killing the larger portion of the
microorganisms in the effluent, with the probability that all disease-
causing bacteria are killed by the agent used.
Environment - "Everything else but me." This all-embracing term generally
includes natural (physical and biological) elements and human (socioeconomic
and cultural) elements.
Environmental Assessment - A study to determine harmful or beneficial
changes to the human and natural environmental system resulting directly or
indirectly from changes imposed on that system.
Environmental Impact - Effect of an action upon the physical, biological and
socioeconomic characteristics of an area.
Evaporation - The process of converting a liquid to a vapor.
-------
Fauna - Animals or animal life of a region.
Fecal Coliform - A group of generally enteric organisms that are used as a
standard indicator of fecal contamination of water.
Floodplain - A land area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse that has
been or may be covered by floodwater.
Floodway - The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land
areas required to carry and discharge a flood of a given magnitude.
Flora - Plants of a given region.
Fugitive Dust - Dust particles that become airborne as a result of wind or
construction-related activities, usually occuring on land without sufficient
vegetative cover.
Granular Media Filtration - A method of removing particulates from water by
filtering it through a sand or multi-media filter. In this project the
process is required to achieve an effluent level of suspended solids of
5 mg/1.
Gravity Thickeners - A method of concentrating sludge to remove excess water
before further treatment.
Groundwater - The body of water beneath the surface of the ground, found in
aquifers. It is made up primarily of water that has seeped down from the
surface.
Habitat - The environment in which the life needs of a plant or animal are
supplied.
Heavy Metal - A group of elements of the periodic table that for the
purposes of this study are used to indicate contamination primarily from
industries.
Impoundment - A basin or other area surrounded by physical structure(s) in
which water is contained.
Indicator Species - Either terrestrial or aquatic flora and fauna that may
be utilized to indicate effects on the ecosystem as a whole, because of
habitat, food or other requirements.
Infiltration/Inflow - The intrusion of percolated storm water and/or
groundwater into sewage collector systems, resulting in higher flows to the
plant.
Influent - Sewage flowing into a treatment plant.
Intermittent - Streams that may stop flowing at sometimes of the year or
produce flows of less than 1 cfs.
Inversion - An increase in air temperature with an increase in altitude. An
event associated with air pollution.
-------
Irreversible or Irretrievable Impact - An impact which could not be changed
or "undone", the effects of which will be lasting upon the environment.
Land Application (Sludge) - A method of reusing sludge for agricultural
purposes by applying the sludge to the land at rates that supply sufficient
nutrients, for crops and limits the build-up of toxics, allowing for annual
application to take place.
Leach - An action which separates soluble components, such as salts, out of
a medium, such as soil, by the action of percolating water.
Leachate - The liquid, including chemical components, which is a product of
the leaching process.
Linear Best Fit - A mathematical technique which takes a series of data
points and provides an average or best straight line through those points
that would be used to indicate where additional data points would most
like!/ fall.
Macro invertebrates - Organisms without spinal columns, generally found along
strean channels, used in this case to indicate water quality. Generally,
containing a group of organisms collected with a Surber sampler.
Mesophilic - A group of organisms that grow best in a 20-40ฐC temperature
range.
Microorganism - Minute organism, either plant or animal; invisible or barely
visible to the naked eye.
Mitigate - To alleviate or modify adverse or negative impacts resulting from
a specific action.
Mitigative Measure - A step taken to moderate the severity of the effects of
a proposed action.
Nitrates - A compound of nitrogen (NOg) sampled in potable waters, that can
cause metahemoglobanemia at levels in excess of 10 mg/1.
Nitrification - A biological process of converting ammonia (NH3) to nitrate
(NOo) in the presence of oxygen.
Nitrifiers - Nitrosomas and nitrobacter bacteria that conduct nitrification.
Nitrogenous BOD - Refers to the amount of oxygen required to nitrify
ammonia, 4.6 parts Qฃ per 1 part NH^.
Non-attainment Areas - Areas selected for their level of air quality based
on specific pollutants designed to prevent new source pollution.
Non-point Source - Generalized discharge of waste into a water system which
cannot be located as ,to a specific source. Examples are street runoff,
agricultural irrigation return flow, etc.
-------
NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) - An environmental
program, administered by EPA, in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (PL 92-500), as amended, to control discharge of wastes into
waters of the United States.
Organic - Pertaining to or derived from living organisms, or compounds of
carbon and hydrogen.
Organic Loading - The level of organic material discharged to a system such
as a stream.
Oxidation - Addition of bxygen which breaks down organic wastes or chemicals
in sewage by bacterial and chemical means.
Oxygen Transfer - The rate at which oxygen forced into an aeration vessel is
converted from vapor (gas) to the dissolved state.
Particulate - Of or pertaining to particles occurring as minute particles.
Percolation - Movement of water through subsurface soil layers, usually
continuing downward to the groundwater table.
Periphyton - Aquatic plants such as algae that grow attached to surfaces.
Perennial - A stream that flows continuously with a minimum classified as
the 7-day, 2-year low flow value.
Piggyback - An approach to conducting an EIS concurrently with the
Facilities Plan.
pH - A value ranging from 1 to 14, where 1 is acid, 7 is neutral, and 14 is
basic.
PL 92-500 - Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. An act passed
by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President, to control
pollution of the nation's waters and improve their quality.
Point-source Discharge - A man-made structure such as a pipe or spillway
that discharges to a natural waterway.
Potable Water - Drinkable water.
Point Source - A stationary, readily identifiable source of pollution.
PPM - Parts per million.
Preliminary Treatment - In the treatment process, unit operations, such as
screening and comminution, that prepare the liquor for subsequent major
operations.
Prime Farmland - Specific soil types classified by the Soil Conservation
Service as the best available soils for agriculture.
-------
Primary Clarifier - The first tank in the process train, in which material
heavier than water is settled and removed.
Process Train - The order in which sewage is treated as it flows through a
treatment plant.
Regression Analysis - a mathematical technique used to develop a linear best
fit.
Residuals - The solids by-product from wastewater treatment processes.
Secondary Treatment - A level of effluent water quality, in this project it
is 20 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 SS with no nitrification.
Septic - A condition of sewage or sludge where it is devoid of oxygen,
usually resulting in the production of the gases methane (CH^) and hydrogen
sulfide (H,,S), which causes "rotten-egg" smell.
Sewage - Wastewater that flows to sewers from residential, commercial, and
industrial establishments and is carried in the sewers to wastewater
treatment plants.
Sewer - Pipe, conduit, or other physical facility used to carry wastewater.
Sewerage - System of sewers, and physical facilities employed to transport,
treat, and discharge sewage.
Site-specific - Pertaining only to indivicual areas; in this report-the term
refers to impacts.
Sludge - Solid matter in sewage that settles to the bottom, floats, or
becomes suspended in sedimentation tanks during wastewater treatment.
Sludge must be disposed of by filtration and incineration or by transport to
appropriate disposal sites.
Standardized Distance - A numerical ranking of species diversification in a
stream segment, used to indicate water quality.
Stream Bed - Channel that contains the stream's waters; all the space
ordinarily covered by water and lying between the lands on each side of the
stream.
Subsidence - Settling of the surface of the ground to a new level.
Terrestrial - Consisting of or pertaining to the land.
Trihalomethane - A chlorinated-hydrocarbon that results from the addition of
chlorine for the purposes of disinfection in the presence of organic
precursors; a suspected carcinogen.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - The level of suspended particulate matter in
effluent.
-------
208 Plan - An area-wide waste treatment management plan developed under
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500).
201 Plan - A plan developed under Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) for constructing and operating
wastewater treatment facilities.
Ultimate BOD - The total oxygen demand exerted by the carbonaceous and
nitrogenous BOD over a 20-30 day time period.
Waste Activated Sludge - The portion of the sludge from the secondary
clarifier which is removed from the liquid stream for solids treatment.
Waste Load Allocations - The allowable loadings to a stream that do not
exceed its assimilative capacity.
Wastewater - Any water derived from one or more previous uses.
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) - A facility consisting of a series of
tanks, screens, filters, and other components that process wastewater so
that pollutants are removed.
Watershed - The drainage area of the stream that accomodates storm water
runoff.
Water Rights - Legally defined ownership of the water in a specific area.
Water Supply - A volume of water that is ready for use, either in its
natural state or through treatment.
Water Table - The upper limit of the portion of the ground wholly saturated
with water.
-------
ENGLISH UNIT/METRIC UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply (English Units)
English Unit
acre
acre - feet
British Thermal Unit
British Thermal Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute
cubic feet/second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
gallon
gallon/minute
horsepower
inches
inches of mercury
pounds
million gallons/day
mile
pound/square inch (gauge)
square feet
square inches
tons (short)
yard
Abbreviation
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
F
ft
gal
gpm
hp
in
in Hg
Ib
mgd
mi
psig
sq ft
sq in
t
y
by To obtain (Metric Unjts)
Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555 (ฐF-32)*
0.3040
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig + D*
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal /kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
ฐC
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree centigrade
meters
1 i ters
liters/ second
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons (1000
kilograms)
meters
*
Actual conversion, not a multiplier
Source: McCandless, Lee C., and Robert B. Shaver. 1978. Assessment of coal cleaning technology: first annual report,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park NC, EPA-600/7-78-150, 153 p.
-------
Appendix A
-------
APPENDIX A
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
-------
The
''University^of Oklahoma at G
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
March 20, 1981
Jeremiah P. O'Brien, ACIP
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
6060 North Central Expressway
Suite 770
Dallas, Texas 75206
Re: Environmental impacts of Tulsa sewage disposal plant operation and possible
expansion; Cultural Resources of the affected area.
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
As per your request, the sewage disposal plant locations you sent us have been
reviewed against our files of recorded sites in Tulsa County, and cultural
resource surveys have been conducted on these areas on March 17 and 18, 1981.
One of the plant locations, the Northside Sewage Treatment Plant, contained a
previously recorded site, 34Tu-21. This site was found by archeological survey
for the City of Tulsa and the Corps of Engineers along Mingo Creek about four
years back. It has subsequently been destroyed by construction of two new
clarifiers. No other archeological or historical resources were located in this
extensively disturbed area by my survey.
The Coal Creek Sewage Plant had no previously recorded sites. At the time I
arrived for the survey, a fresh coat of sludge had been spread over the high
terrace areas that would have been most likely to have relatively undisturbed
cultural resources. I did not conduct a survey of this area. The land to the
west and north of the plant is currently usea as a dump and is extensively dis-
turbed.
The Flat Rock Plant did not contain previously recorded archeological resources.
Survey of this extensively disturbed area, and the land in the immediate vicinity
on each side of the creek proved negative.
The Southside sewage treatment plant in the vicinity of Jenks had no undisturbed
areas left to survey for archeological remains.
1335 South Asp Avenue. Norman. Oklahoma 73019 (405i 325-1028
-------
The South Arkansas Regional Waste Water Facility (Haikey Creek Plant) contained
no previously recorded archeological sites. From a standpoint of physiographic
location, the 620 ft. contour the main part of the plant is on looked favorable
to contain archeological remains. The plant manager, Doug Stevens, reported
none of his employees nor any locals he knew of had ever found any "arrowheads"
or other artifacts. He reported that plans to expand the plant to the west were
in the works, and I walked out this area. Some slight indications of a historic
period, and post 1915 occupation, were present, but severe disturbance by sludge
injection was evident. The other part of the 300 acres not currently occupied
by the plant was undergoing sludge injection at the time of my survey. Since
the earth was freshly turned, and there has been soil accretion for several years,
I did not conduct any work in this area, nor do I perceive any need for such.
In summary, the operation and maintenance of the various plants have, in one case,
destroyed one recorded site, and have extensively disturbed other areas that had
a good probability of containing archeological remains. It would appear that
the damage has been done, however, and that as long as operations remain in the
current areas of disturbance there should be no further effect on Oklahoma's cul-
tural resources.
Your understanding of the general procedure followed in review of projects re-
quiring a no-effect determination is correct as far as it goes; however, the
State Historic Preservation Officer also reviews the project for its effects on
historic remains (standing structures and state owned or leased property) as
well.
Most filea surveys are carried out on private property or property under lease
or easement. We prefer your people have such access cleared; however, we do
make initial contact ourselves. In the cases where there are no occupants at
home on a piece of property, we leave a card and carry out the survey. An
attempt at least is usually made to contact the land owner. If the land owner
does not want the survey done on his property, it will not be done and will be
so noted on the report.
As to your request for a list of sites within 30 miles of Tulsa, I believe a
refinement might be in order. First, such a list would include the very large
number of sites contained in Lakes Keystone, Skiatook, Birch, Oologah, and part
of the Arkansas River Navigation System. All these are Corps of Engineers pro-
meets, and I am not sure they would be of use to you in your planning as they
are numerous and localized.
Secondly, the list can only be a list of site names and numbers. The location
information of sites are kept confidential due to the need to protect the sites
from vandalism. Legal locations are released to planners only when a project
area or alternate location might affect a recorded site.
-------
In view of the foregoing, I would recommend that you modify your planning to
delete all Corps of Engineers project locations within your study area. This
should drop the number of sites to a more manageable 40 - 60 in number, and
possibly less. However, the best legal location we would be able to give you
on such a general scale would be by Township/Range, or within six square miles,
Please let me know what you decide.
Thank you for contacting us on these projects.
of further help to you in your planning.
Sincerely,
Please let me know if I can be
^
teaf
Assistant State Archeologist
cc: State Historic Preservation Officer
-------
The
^University ~ of Oklahoma at \orman
Oklahoma Archaeological Survey
July 15, 1981
Eileen Pannetier
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
6060 N. Central Expressway
Suite 770
Dallas, TX 75206
Re: Site file search for potential sludge landfill and land spreading areas;
Okmulgee, Muskogee, Rogers, and Washington Counties.
Dear Ms. Pannetier:
A site file search has been completed for the areas, submitted in your letter of
8 July 1981. The bulk of the areas falls within Okmulgee County, a county which
has had very few cultural resource surveys to date. The site file search results
by specific areas are:
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Fill *l -
Fill ฃ2 -
Fill f3 -
Fill *4 -
No sites recorded
No sites recorded
No sites recorded
Site Og-15
(Prehistoric Indian)
Fill ?5 - No sites recorded
Fill #6 - No sites recorded
Land Fill ?7 - No sites recorded
Land Fill *8 - No sites recorded
Land Spread #1 - No sites recorded
Land Spread #2 - No sites recorded
Land Spread *3 - No sites recorded
Land Spread ฑ4 - Sites Ro-34 and Ro-35
(Historic homesteads)
Enclosed are xerox copies of maps showing some of the proposed areas. When specific
site areas are. determined please indicate on the enclosed maps and return to this
office. I would also suggest that each specific site area selected be accompanied
with an alternate location. The preferred and alternate locations can then be sur-
veyed for cultural resources simultaneously thereby speeding our review process.
If any further information is needed, please call on me at any time.
Charles Neel
Staff Archaeologist
CDN/rw
P.S. Locational information of archaeological sites is confidential.
necessary in order to prevent vandalism.
Attachments - Maps (9)
1335 South Asp Avenue, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 (405! 325-1028
This is
-------
KIiRHOmR
HISTORICffli
SOGIETy
Historical Building
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
July 17, 1981
Ms. Eileen Pannetier
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
6060 North Central Expressway, Suite 770
Dallas, Texas 75206
Re: Potential sludge landf-'ll and landspreading sites, 30 mile radius
Dear Ms. Pannetier:
There are no sites on either the National Register of Historic Places
or the Oklahoma Landmarks Inventory within the referenced project area,
Pending compliance with recommendations of the Oklahoma Archeological
Survey, the State Historic Preservation Office has no objections to
completion of the referenced project.
Sincerely,
C. Earle'Metcalf
State Historic Preservation Officer
CEM:kt
-------
University of Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1608 Newion Drive
Norman Okiahorria 73019
(405; 325-7211
February 2, 1982
Eileen Pannetier
Camp Dresser & McKee,Inc.
11455 West 48th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Re: Landfill/land disposal sites for Tulsa's sewage sludge - locations LF-1
in Creek and Okmulgee counties and LS-4 in Rogers County, Oklahoma.
Dear Ms. Pannetier:
I have received and reviewed the maps depicting the referenced project areas,
comparing them against the locations of recorded sites in the area. I have also
marked the locations of sites listed in your study areas on the maps which I am
returning for your reference. These locations are for planning only and are not
to be published. Some are on government property and some are on private land.
There are no recorded sites in the LF-1 study area, but there is some potential
for archeological resources. One cursory survey of roadsides for a rural water
line was conducted, but this cannot be considered an adequate survey for the
amount of land in the study area.
There are a number of sites in the LS-4 location. Many of these are the result
of surveys on Oologah Lake caused by the Corps of Engineers.- To aid in your
interpretation, those sites with an "H" following the number are historic period
sites and represent homesteads or locations identified with specific Native American
groups. Several have question marks and even alternate locations. These problems
come from very early site reports that were lacking sufficient information to
accurately relocate them. A case in point is Ro-20 which has a probable and two
alternate locations.
The sites in LS-4 range in time from 3,000 B.C. up to as late as the 1930s.
Those without the "H" are prehistoric habitation and temporary camps. Very few
were excavated and all have some research potential remaining.
If you need information other than what I have given you, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Larry Neal
Staff Archeologist II
LN:ng
Enclosure: Maps
-------
OKLAHOMA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Historical Building
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73105-4997
February 22, 1982
Eileen Pannetier
Camp Dresser ง McKee Inc.
11455 West 48th Ave
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Re: Site LF-1 in Creek and Okmulgee Co. and Ls-4 in Rogers
Dear Ms. Pannetier:
This letter is to inform you that there is indeed a site of historical
signifiance in the referenced areas, that being the Claremore Mounds.
There are other archeological sites in the area and any activities
should be cleared with the Oklahoma Archaeological Survey. When a more
exact location is decided on, please inform both this office and the
Oklahoma Archeological Survey for a opinion on the cultural resources.
Sincerely,
Earle Melcalf f
State Historic Preservation Officer
CEM:kt
-------
Index
-------
INDEX
Aesthetics (See Cultural Factors)
Air Quality (See Physical Resources)
Ai r Qua! i ty Standards 5-28
Agricultural Lands (See Prime Farm Lands)
Alternatives
EPA 1-11
No Action
Other Agencies 1-11
Residual Sol ids 5-79
Wastewater 5-1
Aquatic Flora/Fauna (See Biological Resources)
Archaeological Resources (See Cultural Factors)
Bibl iography 8-3
Biological Resources
Aquatic Flora/Fauna
Wastewater Management 5-40
Residuals Management 5-94, 5-105, 5-121, 5-130
Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species 5-135
Terrestrial Flora/Fauna
Wastewater Management 5-40
Residuals Management 5-94, 5-105, 5-121, 5-130
Clean Water Act (CWA) 3-8
Consequences, Envi ronmental 5-1
Construction 5-134
Coordination 6-1
Cultural Resources
Aesthetics
Wastewater Management 5-65
Residuals Management 5-97, 5-107, 5-123, 5-133
Archaeologi cal/Hi stori cal
Wastewater Management 5~65
Residuals Management 5-97, 5-107, 5-123, 5-133
-------
INDEX
(Continued)
Public Health and Safety
Vlastewater Management 5-65
Residuals Management 5-97, 5-107, 5-123, 5-133
Recreation
Wastewater Management 5-65
Residuals Management 5-97, 5-107, 5-123, 5-133
Dedicated Land Disposal 5-83, 5-109
Economics (See Socioeconomics)
Eff1uent Di scharges 3-10
Employment (See Socioeconomics)
Endangered Speci es 5-135
Facil i ties PI an 3-1
Flood Hazards (See Water Resources)
Fundi ng 1-1, 3-6
Geology (See Physical Resources)
Gl ossary 9-1
Groundwater (See Water Resources)
Heavy Metals. 3-14
Historic Resources (See Cultural Factors)
Inf il tration/Inflow 3-12
Issues to be Addressed 1-10
Land Application 5-83, 5-109
Land Use (See Socioeconomics)
Landspreading (See Land Application)
Meteorology (See Air Quality; Physical Factors)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3-9
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 3-6
Noise (See Cultural Factors)
Odors (See Cultural Factors)
Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) 1-11
-------
INDEX
(Continued)
Physical Resources
Geology
Wastewater Management 5_28
Residuals Management 5-90, 5-104, 5-112, 5-119, 5-129
Soils
Wastewater Management 5_28
Residuals Management 5-90, 5-104, 5-112, 5-119, 5-129
Air Quality
Was tewater Management 5_28
Residuals Management 5-90, 5-104, 5-112, 5-119, 5-129
Project Planning Area 1_4
Public Health (See Cultural Factors)
Public Participation 6_1
Publ ic Heari ng 6-1
Purpose of and Need for EIS 3-1
Recreation (See Cultural Factors)
Sensitive Areas 5-135
Socioeconomics
Economics
Wastewater Management 5-148
Residuals Management 5-95, 5-106, 5-112, 5-122, 5-131
Employment
Wastewater Management 5-148
Residuals Management 5-95, 5-106, 5-112, 5-122, 5-131
Institutional Factors
Wastewater Management 5-148
Residuals Management 5-95, 5-106, 5-112, 5-122, 5-131
Personal Income
Wastewater Management 5-148
Residuals Management 5-95, 5-106, 5-112, 5-122, 5-131
-------
INDEX
(Continued)
Population
Wastewater Management 5-148
Residuals Management 5-95, 5-106, 5-112, 5-122, 5-131
Transportation
Wastewater Management 5-148
Residuals Management 5-95, 5-106, 5-112, 5-122, 5-131
Soils (See Physical Factors)
Sound Quality (See Noise; Cultural Factors)
Summary 1-1
Phased Implementation 4-13
Population (See Socioeconomics)
Preferred Alternatives 4-13, 4-42
Preparers, List of 7-1
Prime Agricultural Lands 5-90, 5-104, 5-112, 5-119, 5-129
Residual s Sol ids Management 5-79
Surface Water (See Water Resources)
Table of Contents 2-1
Terrestrial (See Biological Resoures)
Transportation (See Socioeconomics)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1-11, 3-6, 4-47, 5-139
Vegetation (See Biological Resources)
Wastewater Management 5-1
Water Resources
Surface Water
Wastewater Management 5-2
Residuals Management 5-88, 5-103, 5-112, 5-118, 5-125
Ground Water
Wastewater Management 5-2
Residuals Management 5-88, 5-103, 5-112, 5-118, 5-125
Flood Hazards
Wastewater Management 5-2
Residuals Management 5-88, 5-103, 5-112, 5-118, 5-125
Wet! ands 5-135
------- |