&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Region 4
            345 Courtland Street, NE
            Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA 904/9-82-100
August 1982
Environmental
Impact Statement
Final
            Central Hillsborough
            County - Tampa Area,
            Florida
           Em
          Prote


EJBD
ARCHIVE
EPA
904-
9-
82-
100

-------
r -na
C J ' &
                                    US EPA
                         Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
                             EPA. West Bida Room 3340
          E                     Mailcode 3404T
          ""                 1301 Constitution Ave NW
                               Washington DC 20004
                                  202-566-0556
     o^ -
     -  _                            Final
     °i                    Environmental Impact Statement
     C '? .-
     C £ '                              for
     : ->P
                    Central  Hillsborough County-Tampa, Florida
                              Wastewater Facilities

                                   Prepared by

                       U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
                                    Region IV
                             Atlanta, Georgia  30365
Jp
       LJElxis  Final  EIS  addresses proposed wastewater facilities for the
        City  of  Tampa,  the  City of  Temple  Terrace and  portions  of
        adjacent   unincorporated   Hillsborough   County.    Wastewater
        management  alternatives  have   been  evaluated  with  particular
        attention  to the  impacts  of alternative management  systems  on
        growth  patterns  and primary and  secondary impacts on  wetlands
        and other area water resources^
        Comments or inquiries should be forwarded to:

                                E.T.  Heinen,  Chief
                         Environmental Assessment Branch
                         Office of Policy and Management
                                  EPA,  Region IV
                             345 Courtland St., N.E.
                             Atlanta, Georgia  30365
                                   404/881-7901

                                   Approved by
        Charles R. Jeter                                 Date
        Regional Administrator
                              Repository Material
                             Permanent'Coliection

-------
                      Executive Summary



                             for



               Environmental Impact Statement



                 Central Hillsborough County



                     Tampa Area, Florida



                    Wastewater Facilities



( )   Draft



(X)   Final



            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



                 345 Courtland Street, N.E.



                   Atlanta, Georgia  30365



1.   TYPE OF ACTION;  Administrative (X)  Legislative ( )



2.   DESCRIPTION OF ACTION;



A.   PURPOSE OF THE EIS AND BACKGROUND



     The Central Hillsborough County - Tampa 201 Facility



Planning Area Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared



to address the provision of wastewater management facilities



for a portion of Hillsborough County and the Cities of Tampa



and Temple Terrace, Florida.  Sewerage facilities which



currently service the Planning Area are provided through



either privately-owned franchises or through utilities owned



and operated by Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa or the

-------
City of Temple Terrace.  In general, the existing wastewater

management  system is incapable of meeting future needs

without serious degradation of the environment.

     The Central Hillsborough County - Tampa 201 Facility

Planning Area  (Planning Area) is located on the central west
                         /
coast of Florida.  The boundaries of the Planning Area were

established by the Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation.  The Planning Area was divided into the County

Service Area and the Tampa Service Area for planning purposes.

The City of Tampa was responsible for planning within the

Tampa Service Area which includes the City of Tampa, the City

of Temple Terrace, and the area defined by a 1967 agreement

between the City and County and referred to as the Original

Intergovernmental Agreement Area or OIGAA.  Planning in the

remainder of the Planning Area was the responsibility of

Hillsborough County.

     The service areas were further divided into study areas

to facilitate planning for future wastewater collection,

treatment and disposal needs, as shown on Figure   1.  Study

areas were established based on consideration of existing

wastewater facilities, topography, future land use, census

tracts and political boundaries.  Additionally, study areas

were subdivided into sewer districts to identify needs for

sewer service.

     The major population centers within the Planning Area are

the Cities of Tampa and Temple Terrace, both located within

-------
                         -3-
the Tampa Service Area (TSA).  The 1978 population estimate
for the TSA is 396,929 people.  Approximately sixty percent of
the TSA is presently sewered.  However, portions of this
system are undersized for the current wastewater flows and
others are no longer serviceable due to structural deterior-
ation.  Wastewater is treated at the City of Tampa's treatment
facilities located at Hookers Point.  This facility provides
advanced wastewater treatment with the treated effluent
discharged into Hillsborough Bay.
     The County Service Area  (CSA) is sparsely populated with
the exception of the Brandon and Riverview-Gibsonton areas.
Septic tanks and package treatment plants have been used
extensively to provide wastewater areas.  The CSA contains a
total of 80 package treatment plants.  Portions of the Brandon
area are served by a wastewater collection system and owned
and operated by Hillsborough County.  Wastewater collected by
this system is conveyed to the City of Tampa's Hookers Point
treatment facility.
     The Clean Water Act of 1977, represents the major legis-
lative action for water pollution abatement in the United
States.  Under this legislation the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has been given responsibility for the admin-
istration of the law including the funding of wastewater
facilities.
     The principal mechanism in P.L. 95-217 which provides for
the construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants is

-------
                                      C3;
CEHT&AL
201 FACILITY PLAN
ENVIftOWUCNTAI.
  A ••  CI20«3*0»
                   COUHTY-TAMM
HILLSaOMOU«H COUNTT AND CTTT Of TMIM

SERVICE  AMEAS AND STUDY ANCAS M TNC

CENTRAL HILL3MHOU8H COUNTT-TAMPA

ZO FACILITY n.ANNIM  AMCA
                                                                                          FISUMC  I

-------
                          -5-
Section 201.  This Section provides grant funds for the
planning, design and construction of wastewater facilities.
Under the provision of Section 201 any wastewater facility
which is newly proposed or under consideration for upgrading
and or expanding which will use federal funds for construction
must first proceed with a 201 Facilities Planning Study.
     In 1978, EPA granted Step 1 funding for preparation of
the Central Hillsborough County - Tampa Area 201 Facilities
Plan.  The City of Tampa and Hillsborough County have been
coordinating the 201 Facilities Plan for the study area.
Smith & Gillespie Engineers, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida and
Greeley & Hansen of Tampa, Florida were granted approval to
begin preparation of the 201 Facilities Plan in October, 1978.
     Due to the environmental complexities in the study area
and the financial and management constraints of the appli-
cants, EPA made the decision to prepare an EIS in conjunction
with the 201 Facilities Plan.  Dames & Moore was authorized to
begin preparation of the EIS in March, 1979.
     The objective of the EIS and 201 Facilities Plan process
is the selection of the most cost-effective, environmentally
sound, socially acceptable and implementable wastewater
management system for the Planning Area.  To meet this objec-
tive, certain major goals were determined to be significant:

     1.   To upgrade or replace deficient treatment and septic
          systems.

-------
                          -6-
     2.   To minimize the adverse effects of the disposal of
          large volumes of wastewater.

     3.   To maximize the benefits of wastewater reuse.

     4.   To assist land planners in determining environmental-
          ly sensitive areas which should be protected from
          future development.

     Public participation was encouraged throughout the 201

planning process through the establishment of a Citizens

Advisory Committee, public meetings, and local news coverage.

The Advisory Committee included representatives of all local

governments, environmental groups, regional regulatory and

planning agencies and private citizens.  Meetings of the

Advisory Committee were held at key intervals in the planning

process and committee members were provided with a series of

study memorandums which presented detailed information on

principal parts of the study.  Following the selection of a

recommended plan, a public meeting was held to afford

interested citizens an opportunity to comment on the plan.


B.  201 Facilities Plan Summary

     The 201 Facilities Plan was developed by Smith &

Gillespie Engineers, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida and Greeley

& Hansen of Tampa, Florida.  The final portions of the 201

Facilities Plan were completed in April, 1982.

     The purpose of the 201 Facilities Plan was to provide a

wastewater management plan for the collection, treatment and

disposal of estimated wastewater quantities from the Planning

Area through the year 2000.  Alternative projects were

-------
                         -7-

developed to satisfy the projected wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal needs.  The alternatives were compared
with respect to economic, environmental, administration and
implementation characteristics.
     During the 201 planning process, specific wastewater
management problems were identified in the Tampa and County
Service Areas.  Solution of these problems was one of the
major goals of the 201 Facility Plan.  The major problem
within the Planning Area is the quality of surface waters in
the area.  Several water quality standards violations have
been cited by regulatory agencies in the area.  Over-enrich-
ment of area surface waters from fertilizers and from human
and animal wastes have been assessed by the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council as the most significant water quality pro-
blem.  Some wastewater treatment plants, animal wastes and
various other sources have contributed to excessive quantities
of coliform bacteria found in some area waters, over-enrich-
ment of surface waters and low concentrations of dissolved
oxygen.
     Specific problems within each service area are identified
in the following sections.
Tampa Service Area (TSA)
     Over one-half of the TSA is serviced by an existing
wastewater collection and transmission system.  However, the
system requires substantial improvements to provide hydraulic
relief for overloaded sewers and to correct structural

-------
                          -8-





deterioration of sewers that are no longer serviceable or



where hydrogen sulfide attack has occurred.  Projects now



under construction or planned as part of Tampa's Fourth



Wastewater Improvement Program  (4-WIP) will provide the



hydraulic relief necessary in some existing sewers through



flow diversion.  Other existing sewers will require relief by



replacement or parallel pipelines.  Sewers with structural



deficiencies will generally require replacement.



     The hydraulic and structural deficiencies in the existing



collection system have resulted in overflows into the Hills-



borough River, streets, drainage canals and some bay waters.



Additionally, disruptions in service and some local flooding



has occurred.  These deficiencies cause the periodic release



of untreated wastewater from the collection system and,



therefore, significantly compromise the effective operation of



the system.



     Areas available for further development within the TSA



are generally unsuited for the use of septic tanks for



wastewater disposal due to soils with low permeability, high



water table or location within a floodplain.  One potential



area of future development is the Hillsborough River



floodplain upstream of the City of Tampa water supply intake.



The possible malfunctioning of septic tank systems in this



area pose a potential threat to Tampa's water supply.

-------
                          -9-
County Service Area (CSA)
     The northern and southeastern portions of the County
Service Area are sparsely populated and wastewater is disposed
through the use of septic tank and drainfield systems.
However, the central and southern portions of the CSA in the
Brandon and Riverview-Gibsonton areas are more developed.
Wastewater in these areas are treated and disposed through the
use of septic systems or package treatment plants.  Portions
of the Brandon area are served by a sewer system owned by the
County.  This system conveys wastewater to the City of Tampa
for treatment.
     The Brandon Sewer System includes an extensive system of
manifold force mains and numerous pumping stations as a result
of rapid population growth in the area.  This system is
approaching its design capacity and further expansion could
result in major operational problems.
     Package treatment plants have been used extensively for
commercial establishments, apartment complexes, schools and
some subdivisions.  Presently/ there are 80 package treatment
plants within the CSA.  The majority of these facilities
consist of extended aeration treatment plants and percolation
ponds for effluent disposal.
     The operational history of many of the package treatment
plants is not good.  This/ combined with the large number of
plants and the density of septic tanks has resulted in
scattered local contamination of ground water and surface

-------
                         -10-





water in the Brandon and Riverview-Gibsonton areas.  Analysis



of water samples from the Brandon municipal water supply well



field indicates slightly elevated nitrate concentrations which



may be attributed to septic tanks in the area, as well as



percolation ponds and non-point source runoff.  The continued



use of septic systems in the Riverview-Gibsonton area was not



considered feasible because of the unsuitability of the soils



in this area.





3.  ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED



     The following alternatives were considered to adequately



assess the different portion of the planning area and provide



for a comprehensive plan.



Alternative Wastewater Service Configurations



     The Planning Area was divided into two service areas, the



Tampa Service Area (TSA) and the County Service Area  (CSA) for



the 201 Facilities Planning process.  The service areas were



further broken down into study areas.



     Portions of the TSA are currently served by wastewater



collection and treatment facilities.  In 1951, the City of



Tampa began construction of a 36 mgd primary treatment plant



at Hookers Point.  Recently, the Hookers Point treatment plant



was upgraded to provide advanced wastewater treatment at a



rated annual average hydraulic capacity of 60 mgd.  This



capacity was considered sufficient to meet projected



wastewater needs until the late-1980's.

-------
                          -11-

     Because of the existing collection and treatment
facilities within the TSA, no other service configurations
were developed for the TSA.
     Service configurations for collection and treatment of
wastewater were developed for four of the six study areas
within the CSA.  The study areas included were the Deltona,
Thonotosassa, Brandon and Riverview-Gibsonton Study Areas.
The Northeast County and Southeast County Study Areas were not
included in the development of service configurations because
of:  existing low population density; lack of wastewater
management problems; and, projected low population density.
     Two service configurations were developed for the Deltona
and Thonotosassa Study Areas:  collect and treat wastewater
within the respective study areas; and, collect and pump
wastewater from each study area to the TSA for treatment at
the Hookers Point treatment facility.  In addition to these
two service configurations, a third configuration was
developed for the Brandon and Riverview-Gibsonton Study Areas:
treat a portion or all of the study area's wastewater within
the study area and convey the remainder to the TSA for
treatment.  A fourth configuration was developed for the
Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area which included pumping of
wastewater to treatment and disposal facilities in the
Hillsborough County South 201 Planning Area.

-------
                          -12-
Alternative Treatment and Disposal Methods
     For each of the local or joint treatment disposal schemes
identified, alternative treatment and disposal methods were
developed.  Various treatment and disposal methods identified
and developed were:
     Treatment Alternatives
     1.  Secondary Treatment
     2.  Secondary Treatment and Filtration
     3.  Secondary Treatment and Nitrification
     4.  Advanced Wastewater Treatment
     Disposal Alternatives
     1.   Discharge to the bay system or surface water
          streams, or to the Gulf of Mexico.
     2.   Discharge to the Ground Water.
     3.   Discharge by septic tank/soil absorption.
     4.   Discharge by Spray Irrigation.
     5.   Discharge by Wetland Application.
     Initial alternatives were developed by combining
wastewater service configurations and disposal and treatment
measures.  A "no-action" alternative was also considered along
with the other wastewater facilities alternatives.  A brief
summary of the alternatives for the TSA and the CSA follows
this introduction.  More detailed information can be found
within the Draft EIS or the two Technical Resource Documents.
The Alternatives chosen can be found in Section 5, Preferred
Alternatives.

-------
                          -13-
Tampa Service Area (TSA)
     Alternatives for wastewater management within the TSA are
divided into two groups:  treatment and disposal alternatives;
and, collection and transmission alternatives.
Treatment and Disposal - Due to the existence of and present
capacity expansion at the City of Tampa's Hookers Point
treatment facility, no alternate treatment facility locations
were considered.  All alternative comparisons at the Hookers
Point facility were based on wastewater treatment capacity
equal to the estimated total wastewater quantities  (113.96
mgd) from the Planning Area.  Treatment alternatives were
based on the selected disposal alternatives.  Two disposal
alternatives, the Gulf of Mexico outfall and spray irrigation,
require secondary treatment of wastewater.  Surface water
discharge to Hillsborough Bay may require the use of advanced
wastewater treatment  (AWT) depending on the results of a
wasteload allocation as required by the Wilson-Grizzle Act.
     Capacity of the existing facilities at the Hookers Point
Plant related to the potential alternatives for effluent
disposal are summarized as follows:
     1.   Secondary Effluent - The existing activated sludge
          facilities have capacity to provide secondary
          treatment for the estimated total wastewater
          quantifies  (113.96 mgd) from the Planning Area.
          Additional facilities will be required for the

-------
                          -14-





          preliminary treatment/ disinfection, by-product



          solids treatment and effluent disposal.



     2.   AWT Effluent - The  existing activated sludge



          facilities have capacity to provide either



          carbonaceous treatment or nitrification for the



          estimated total wastewater quantities (113.96 mgd)



          from the Planning Area.  The existing facilities may



          also be operated to provide 2-step nitrification for



          60 mgd.  Additional facilities will be required for



          preliminary treatment, denitrification, disinfection



          and by-product solids treatment and for other unit



          processes depending on the manner of employment of



          the existing works.



     The alternatives developed and evaluated for the



expansion of the existing facilities to meet AWT requirements



included series and several parallel arrangements and process



variations to denitrify biologically without the use of



methanol.  Details of the various process alternatives



considered are contained in the 201 Facilities Plan, Study



Memorandum No. 8, Alternative Project Studies.



     Three alternatives pertaining to treatment and disposal



were further evaluated.  These alternatives were:



          Secondary treatment with spray irrigation.



          Secondary treatment with Gulf outfall.



     -    AWT with discharge  to Hillsborough Bay.

-------
                          -15-
Collection and Transmission - The results of the study of the
adequacy of the hydraulic capacity of the existing intercept-
ing and secondary intercepting systems are described in the
201 Facilities Plan, Study Memorandum No. 6, Existing
Facilities - Tampa Service Area - Wastewater Collection
System.  These results indicate that portions of the existing
system are presently overloaded due to structural
deterioration or insufficient—hydraulicr "capacity.  As a
result, overflows of untreated wastewater into the
Hillsborough River, streets/ drainage canals and some bay
waters and, service disruptions have occurred.
     New collection and transmission facilities are needed to:'
provide relief to existing overloaded facilities; provide
service to developed and developing neighborhoods presently
serviced by individual systems; and, provide for the intercept-
ing and transmission of the anticipated large quantities of
wastewater generated in those portions of the Tampa Service
Area which will be sewered after the year 1980.
     Studies were carried out to examine the needs for collec-
tion and transmission facilities within the Tampa service area
and, as a result of these studies, two viable alternatives
were developed for further evaluation.  One alternative was  to
provide service to all of the areas shown in Figure  2   .  This
alternative results in the collection of 96 mgd of wastewater
flows by the year 2000.

-------
                          -16-
     The second alternative was to provide service to all the
areas shown in Figure  2   , except the second phase of the
Northeast Interceptor.
     A "no action" alternative was also evaluated for the
collection and transmission of wastewater within the TSA, but
was considered inappropriate.  It was considered inappropriate
because the existing system requires repair and hydraulic
relief to prevent overflows of untreated wastewater.  In
addition, most areas not  currently sewered are unsuitable for
septic tank disposal of wastewater because of periodic surface
failures. In addition, a  considerable number of interim
package plants have been  constructed which use percolation
ponds for effluent disposal.  These ponds represent potential
sources of ground and  surface water contamination.  For these
reasons, combined with the existence of a regional system, the
"no action" alternative is considered inappropriate and the
alternative assessment included only continued regionalization
of the wastewater system.
County Service Area  (CSA)
     These were the alternatives evaluated in depth for the
wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal
in the following study areas within the CSA.
Deltona Study Area - Three alternatives were considered for
the wastewater treatment  and disposal in the Deltona Study
Area:

-------
CENTRAL MILLS BO HOUGH COUMTY-TAHPA
ZOI FACILITY PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL  REPORT
EPA N«. CI20C340IO
 SOURCE•
  SMITH AND GILLESP1E
  GREELEY AND HANSEN
  ENGINEERS
          TAMPA SERVICE AREA
PROPOSED EXPANSION  OF INTERCEPTING AND
    SECONDARY INTERCEPTING SYSTEMS
                                                           FIGURE z

-------
                          -18-
     1.   Construction of a  facility within the study area to
          provide secondary  treatment of the wastewater with
          wetlands disposal  of effluent.

     2.   Collection of wastewater with transmission to the
          TSA for treatment  at the City of Tampa's Hookers
          Point  facility.

     3.   A  "no  action" alternative, where the developer,
          Deltona Corporation, would fund all of the
          construction costs for wastewater treatment and
          disposal facilities.

Thonotosassa Study Area - Three alternatives were considered

for the wastewater treatment and disposal in the Thonotosassa

Study area:

     1.   Construction of a  facility within the study area to
          provide secondary  treatment of the wastewater and
          disposal of effluent by spray irrigation.

     2.   Collection of wastewater with transmission to the
          TSA for treatment  at Tampa's Hookers Point facility.

     3.   A  "no  action" alternative resulting in wastewater
          being  treated and  disposed of using individual
          septic tank systems.

Brandon Study Area - Four alternatives were considered for the

wastewater treatment and disposal in the Brandon Study Area:

     1.   Construct a facility to treat all of the wastewater
          within the study area using secondary treatment plus
          nitrification and  discharge the effluent to the
          Alafia River.

     2.   Construct a facility in the study area to provide
          secondary treatment of wastewater with disposal of
          the effluent by spray irrigation.

     3.   Collect and convey all wastewater to the TSA for
          treatment at Tampa's Hookers Point facility.

     4.   A  "no  action" alternative which would result in the
          continued use of septic tank systems and percolation
          ponds  for the treatment and disposal of wastewater.

-------
CENTRAL MILLS80ROUGH COUNTY - TAMM
201 FACILITY  PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL  REPORT
EPA  No. CI20634OIO
  COUNTY ALTERNATIVE  8

4O JECeHOAUT -n>CATIMMT / HtT»IFICATIQ«
                                                                                                    FIGU RE 2- I 3

-------
                          -20-


     In addition to the treatment and disposal alternatives,

two alternatives were evaluated for the collection and

transmission of wastewater within the Brandon Study Area:

     1.   The first alternative was to collect and transmit
          wastewater from all of the areas of concern shown in
          Figure 3

     2.   Hillsborough County has granted approval for a
          number of proposed land developments.  These
          developments will greatly exceed the projected
          population levels for the county.  It is therefore
          difficult to forecast which of the approved
          developments will actually be constructed and where
          major population concentrations will be located by
          the year 1990.  The second alternative was developed
          to respond to these uncertainties.  The second
          alternative will not provide sewer service for areas
          currently serviced by septic tank development in the
          future.  Approval will be granted by EPA for only
          those phases scheduled for construction by the year
          1990. Review of the additional sewer needs will be
          performed after the results of the 1990 census
          becomes available.

Riverview - Gibsonton Study Area - The following five

alternatives were considered for treatment and disposal of

wastewater in the Riverview - Gibsonton Study Area:

     1.   Construction of a facility within the study area to
          provide secondary treatment plus nitrification of
          wastewater with disposal of effluent by discharge to
          the Alafia River.

     2.   Construction of a facility within the study area to
          provide secondary treatment of wastewater with
          disposal of effluent by spray irrigation.

     3.   Construction of pumping stations and transmission
          lines to convey the wastewater to the TSA for
          treatment at Tampa's Hookers Point facility.

     4.   Construction of pumping stations and transmission
          lines to convey wastewater to proposed secondary
          treatment facilities in the South Hillsborough
          County 201 Planning Area with disposal of effluent
          by spray irrigation.

-------
                         -21-
     5.   A "no action" alternative resulting in the continued
          use of septic tank systems and percolation ponds for
          treatment and disposal of future wastewater needs.

     The following two alternatives were considered for the
collection and' transmission of wastewater within the
Riverview-Gibsonton Study area:
     1.   The first alternative was to provide wastewater
          collection facilities to all of the areas shown in
          Figure  4  .
     2.   The second alternative was to wait until 1990 when
          proposed developments are established and at that
          point in time, planning approval can be granted
          based on the 1990 census.

4.0  SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
     This section summarizes the major impacts of all the
alternatives, including the no-action alternative, on the
natural and man-made environment.  A more detailed discussion
of impacts is presented in Technical Reference Document,
Volume II, Alternatives Development and Evaluation, and also
the DEIS.
A.  Impacts on the Natural Environment
     There are basically ten categories which are discussed in
the Draft EIS, in reference to the impacts on the natural
environment from increased wastewater generation and its
necessary disposal.
     It is important to note that impacts will be associated
with any extemporized construction activities at the time of
implementation of the various construction projects.  In the

-------
                                                                          v\
                                                                             \L	^. ^MgiMJ^J	«rl
CENTRAL MIU.S80ROUGM COUNTY - TAMPA
201 FACILITY PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL  REPORT
EPA No. CI206340IO
     CQUMTY  ALTERNATIVE R6I

3* + 3* itCOMOOirr

-------
                          -23-



case of wastewater facilities,  most- short-term impacts will



arise from construction activities.  Any long-term impacts



will arise from operations plus the type of effluent discharge



which is selected.



     The air quality, geology,  soils and noise of the planning



area are not expected to be significantly affected by any of



the proposed alternatives.  Localized problems due to



construction of various facilities (treatment plants,



pipelines, spray irrigation sites) may occur but these should



be short lived in nature.  If the facilities are properly



designed, installed and maintained, then long term impacts



will be negligible.



     Surface water represents the greatest potential for



environmental impact.  The following discussion gives a brief



critique of the alternatives and their potential environmental



impacts.



     The major surface water resources in the Planning Area



are the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers and portions of the



Tampa Bay System.  Lesser water bodies impacted by the 201



planning process include Bullfrog Creek and Delaney Creek.



     The major surface water pollution problem in the Planning



Area is high nutrients and, at times, bacteria concentrations.



While the majority of this problem is attributed to non-point



sources of pollution discharges, the problem has been



aggrevated by malfunctioning septic tank systems and package



treatment plants.  One area of special concern was the

-------
                          -24-



Hillsborough River which is utilized by the City of Tampa as



their major drinking water source.



     All of the alternatives proposing discharge of treated



effluent to surface waters would have increased nutrient



loading within the surface water resources.  Wasteload



allocation studies will be performed to ascertain the degree



of treatment required prior to discharge, ensuring that water



quality standards are met.



     In general, the No Action alternatives would have



resulted in the greatest impact to the Planning Area's surface



waters.  Under the No Action alternatives, wastewater



treatment needs of future development were expected to be



satisfied by the continued use of small treatment plants and



on-lot treatment systems.  Future development areas in the



Deltona Study Area, the Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area and the



northeastern portion of the Tampa Service Area were generally



unsuitable for septic tank systems.  Improper use of septic



tank systems in these areas would have resulted in further



surface failures.



     In the Thonotosassa Study Area, the preferred alternative



will be the No Action alternative.  However, soils in the



Thonotosassa Study Area were considered suitable for septic



tank usage.  For the projected population, no impacts to the



area's surface waters are anticipated.



     The preferred alternatives result in the least negative



impacts to the Planning Area's surface waters.  Even discharge



of properly treated effluent from the City of Tampa's Hookers

-------
                         -25-




Point facility to Hillsborough Bay will have no significant



impact on Bay water quality (Ross, 1977, 1978) .



     Construction activities could produce major sediment



loads to the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers and Hillsborough



Bay, especially during pipeline construction.  However, this



short-term impact would have greater implications on aquatic



organisms than water quality.



     Ground water is used extensively in the Planning Area for



domestic and agricultural supplies.  At present, ground water



contamination problems are minor and generally localized.  In



general, the preferred alternatives result in a major benefi-



cial impact to the subsurface water resources of the Planning



Area.  Spray irrigation and percolation ponds will be designed



and closely monitored to insure no significant impact will



transpire.



     In general, the surface ecosystem will undergo adverse



impact due to increased population pressures and associated



human disturbances.  These increased population pressures and



associated human disturbances will occur with or without the



implementation of the preferred alternatives.  Aquatic and



terrestrial flora and fauna will be subject to impact.  The



degree of deterioration will be determined by specific



developmental processes and land use measures implemented to



protect sensitive areas.  Increased urbanization could cause



withdrawal and mortality of some rare and endangered species.



This will be minimized with careful planning and proper



implementation of the preferred alternatives.

-------
                          -26-
B.  Impacts on the Man-Made Environment
     One of the major features of developing new or expanded
wastewater facilities are the impacts upon population growth
and land use.  Wastewater facilities serve as a stimulus to
population growth in certain areas, such as, sewering of rural
areas, which in turn impact a variety of man-made features.
Both population growth and potential land use trends were
taken into account when selecting the various alternatives.
Land use and population growth are going to occur regardless
of the alternatives selected, but the preferred alternatives
result in an orderly growth by phasing wastewater facilities
to meet needs at that point in time.  The ability to control
urban sprawl into areas which are environmentally sensitive
helps provide for an orderly, well developed community.
     Economic conditions  will benefit from any associated
construction employment,  purchase of housing, equipment, and
materials.
     In regards to the Historical, cultural and archaeological
resources and the potential impact to these resources,  spray
irrigation could cause the greatest  impact because of the
large land requirements  for such activities.  In general,
without prior recovery of the artifacts,  the proposed project
could result in loss of  currently  unknown sites.
     Recreational resources could  have  to be expanded as
population pressures increase.   Sufficient  undeveloped  land is
expected to  be available to meet the increased park  area
demand.

-------
                         -27-




     Transportation facilities and resource use could both



experience pressure due to  population growth.  With proper



planning some of the pressures can be eliminated, but a



greater strain will be put  on the existing highway system and



instable traffic flows could occur.  Resource shortage can be



avoided by proper planning.



     Community services, such as, health care, education and



libraries, fire protection, police protection, and the



administrative structure to manage those services would all



experience adverse impacts  initially, until adequate levels of



service are obtained to deal with the increased population



pressures.



     Careful planning will  control random population growth



and its associated problems.  The implementation of the



preferred alternatives for  wastewater treatment will provide a



means of controlling pollution levels associated with



population growth.  Over the long term, surface water and



ground water resources will hopefully improve through the



elimination of overloaded and deteriorating facilities and



careful planning will provide a means of dealing with



increased pressures on the  environment.





5.0.  MITIGATION MEASURES



     The purpose of this part is to discuss measures which



would reduce the severity of those environmental impacts



outlined in the DEIS.  These mitigative measures address



activities to be instituted during the design, construction

-------
                          -28-

and operational phases of the preferred alternative.  While

these mitigative measures will not eliminate the environmental

impacts, they will reduce the severity of identified adverse

impacts.  It should be noted that many of the measures identi-

fied in this part are not within the purview of EPA to imple-

ment, but are the functions of state or local governments.



A.  MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

     This section addresses the areas of impact described in

the DEIS.  In each case where an adverse impact on any natural

parameter is anticipated, potential mitigative measures are

discussed.  Generally, adverse impacts on natural resources

are the result of construction activities.  Therefore, for the

most part, mitigative measures deal with effective methods of

mitigating potential impacts during and immediately following

construction.


Air Quality

     While some impacts on air quality will be long-term in

nature, the short-term construction impacts on air quality

will be more noticeable  (but moderate in nature).  Suspended

particulates (dust) and equipment emissions are expected to

increase during construction.  These may be mitigated by the

following controls:

     1.   Utilize construction equipment which meets current
          emission standards.

     2.   Immediately revegetate all cleared areas during the
          construction process.

-------
                         -29-

     3.   Utilize scheduled and frequent dust containment
          practices such as the spraying of exposed areas.

     4.   Minimize the amount of land under active
          construction at any one time.

     5.   Minimize open burning during construction
          activities.

Odor

     Overall impact of the alternatives on odor will be

minimal.  However, minor odors may originate from the proposed

spray irrigation areas in the Brandon Study Area.  These minor

impacts can be mitigated by the following:

     1.   Control land use of areas adjacent to treatment
          sites in order to discourage residential development
          and encourage agricultural or industrial
          development.

     2.   Institute proper sludge management techniques in
          order to reduce odor production.

Noise

     The impact of noise will be noticeable only during

construction activities.  Long-term impacts to noise will be

associated with treatment plant and pump station operation but

should be minimal.  Construction impacts can be mitigated by:

     1.   Requiring sound control devices on construction
          equipment.

     2.   Limiting construction activities to normal business
          hours.

Soils

     The major soil impact will be through soil erosion during

construction.  This impact can be reduced by:

     1.   Limiting the size of the pipeline corridor to the
          minimal possible areas of disturbance.

-------
                          -30-

     2.   Prepare and strictly enforce construction plans
          which require the rapid stabilization and
          revegetation of construction areas.

     3.   Institute best management controls in order to
          reduce the amount of non-point source runoff from
          construction sites.

Surface Water Resources & Aquatic Ecology

     Impacts to the surface water resources in the Planning

Area will generally be associated with construction activities

due to erosion and sedimentation.  Measures to minimize these

impact are discussed under soils.

     Increased urbanization in the Planning Area will result

in increased non-point sources of pollution.  Management

controls for non-point sources of pollution outlined in the

208 Plan for the Tampa Bay Region should be employed to

minimize this impact.


Subsurface Water Resources

     Use of the proposed method of spray irrigation for

effluent disposal in the Brandon Study Area represents a

source of ground water pollution if sever plant malfunctions

occur.  Strict enforcement of treatment requirements and

careful design of the proposed facility are necessary measures

in ensuring maintenance of ground water quality.


B.  MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT

     This section addresses the areas of impact described in

the DEIS.  In each case where an adverse impact on any manmade

parameter is anticipated, potential mitigative measures are

briefly discussed.  These mitigative measures, for the most

-------
                         -31-





part, involve implementation of tools for effective planning



and environmental protection in the Central Hillsborough



County - Tampa 201 Planning Area.





Population and Land Use



     The population of the Planning Area is expected to



continue its rapid growth with or without the proposed



project.  There are available several planning and regulatory



tools to be employed by the municipalities and government



agencies, that will be effective in managing growth and



environmental change.  Through effective management of land



use, any potential increases in population would also be



managed effectively.  Planning and regulatory tools considered



are discussed in the following section.





Land Use and Development Controls



     In order to effectively plan and manage land resources,



there is a variety of techniques available to municipalities



in the study area.  The following specific land use and



development controls could be made available to municipalities



to help manage land use effectively.



     Comprehensive Plans - The comprehensive plan provides a



complete framework for community development.  The plan



includes goals and objectives, a land use plan, transportation



plan, community facilities plan, an evaluation of environmen-



tal considerations, and the community's relationship to the



region and to adjacent communities.  Such a comprehensive plan

-------
                          -32-




has been developed for the County  (Horizon 2000 Plan) and also



for the City of Tampa  (Tampa  2000 Comprehensive Plan).



     Zoning Ordinances - The  zoning ordinance is a strong tool for



implementing a comprehensive  plan through the municipality's



inherent power to exercise reasonable control over property and



persons under its jurisdiction.  It is especially important that



the zoning ordinance be consistently administrated for land use,



community facilities/ and other local planning to be effective.



Both the County and City of Tampa are presently undergoing compre-



hensive revision.  Proposed changes are expected to be available



for public review by the end  of 1981.



     Easements - Positive and negative easements are ways to



acquire a permanent interest  in land.  Governments, individuals,



and organizations may obtain  positive easements in order to



establish the legal right to  use part of another's private



land for certain limited and  stated purposes.  Negative



easements permanently limit the owner's use of his land, but



do not provide for public use.  For example, the purchase of



conversation easements would  limit development in critical



areas such as woodlands, rugged terrain, floodplains and open



spaces.



     The County has the ability to establish conservation



easements through community unit zoning.  A developer may set



aside sensitive areas, as identified by the Hillsborough



Environmental Protection Commission, and receive a "density



credit" for this designated area.  This density credit can



then be transferred to developable uplands.

-------
                         -33-



     Fee Simple Acquisition of Land - The outright acquisition



of land can be accomplished through purchase and lease-back



arrangements with a willing owner.   Land subjected to tax



delinquency can be purchased at certain auctions, or land can



be acquired if there is a mortgage  in default of payments.



Gifts of land are also possible from citizens, groups and



corporations to municipalities, conservancies, and other



organizations.  Scenic or conservation easements can be



purchased to protect natural resources.  Neither the County



nor the City of Tampa actively pursue this method of land



development control.



     Conservation Zoning District - There are established to



control development in areas where  physiographic problems



exist such as steep slopes, difficult access, or outstanding



natural beauty and environmental value.  These areas might be



appropriate for uses such as forestry, recreation,



agriculture, and perhaps even some  low-density residential



development.



     The County does not employ this development control



method.  The city of Tampa  is currently considering



implementation of some form of Conservation District for



"green areas" identified in the comprehensive plan.



     Transfer of Development Rights - The transfer of develop-



ment rights is a way to acquire a permanent interest in land.



Local governments may acquire an owner's right to develop his



land through purchase or other compensation.  The owner



retains title to his land but cannot develop it into, say, a

-------
                          -34-




housing subdivision.  This method can be used to protect



sensitive areas such as agricultural lands, wetlands and



floodplains.  Neither the City nor the County presently employ



this method of development control.



     Floodplain Ordinances - As more and more land is develop-



ed, it is essential that floodplains remain undeveloped and



protected in order to minimize damages resulting from flood-



ing.  Floodplain zoning districts should protect, at a mini-



mum, all lands located within the 100-year flood zones of



every stream.  In general, no structures or fill should be



allowed in these areas, and land uses should be restricted to



agriculture, recreation, and other appropriate land uses.



     The applicable County regulation establishes minimum



floor elevations but does not restrict development in flood-



plain areas.  The City of Tampa currently has an ordinance



which restricts development in the Curiosity Creek/Forest



Hills area preventing development in flood-prone areas.



     Control Of Non-Point Pollution Sources - There are a



number of administrative and regulating approaches to reducing



the impact of non-point source pollution.  These approaches



are described in the 208 Facilities Plan for the Tampa Bay



Region.



Economic Conditions



     The selected alternative is not expected to cause any



significant, long-term adverse impacts on the economy of the



study area.

-------
                          -35-






Historical Cultural and Archaeological Resources



     There is a potential that undetected archaeological



and/or historical resources could be present within areas of



planned construction.  Construction of pipelines could ruin



the value of these resources.  In order to mitigate or avoid



any adverse impacts to historic and archaeological resources,



a qualified archaeologist will perform a standard archaeolog-



ical and historic sites survey prior to construction if



mandated by the State Historic Preservation Officer and State



Archaeologist.



Recreational Resources



     Mitigative measures are not called for here, since the



proposed action will not cause any significant adverse impacts



to existing recreational resources.



Transportation



     Transportation problems caused by the projected popula-



tion growth can be alleviated -through planning and significant



financial expenditures.  Planning for growth allows local



governments to establish a network of feeder routes and



streets that both alleviate congestion and tend to organize



residential patterns.  Air and noise pollution will also be



reduced using careful transportation planning.



Resource Use



     Again, any adverse impacts to resources will be mitigated



through use of planning tools.  The implementation of soil



erosion and sedimentation control plans will help alleviate

-------
                          -36-



any sediment problems caused by removal of the protective



vegetation cover when laying interceptor lines.



Water Supply



     The potential for adverse impacts to the City of Tampa's



water supply exists if development is allowed within the



floodplain of the Hillsborough River in the Northeast Study



Area.  The potential for this impact can be mitigated by



implementing a sound floodplain protection ordinance prohibit-



ing development in this area.



     Problems associated with increased demand can be mitigat-



ed by rewriting plumbing codes to require the use of water



saving devices and by the institution of wastewater recycling.



Community Services and Facilities



     Planning recommendations should be implemented which



would make available sufficient space for facilities when the



need for additional facilities arise.  Plans for necessary



future expansion are presented in the Horizon 2000 Land Use



Plan.  It is also very important that zoning decisions support



the comprehensive planning program for that program to have a



chance to succeed.





6.0  AGENCY DECISION



     After the development and careful evaluation of project



alternatives, the preferred alternatives for the TSA and CSA



were selected which were considered to be the best combination



of being environmentally acceptable, cost-effective and

-------
                         -37-



implementable.   These alternatives are identified and summar-



ized in the following sections.



     All of the alternatives were designed to serve the needs



of the population projected for  the year 2000.  Because the



study area needs were based on projected population increases,



the design conditions used for evaluation of alternatives



should not be realized until the year 2000.  Therefore, a



phased approach to the construction of facilities was develop-



ed to meet the wastewater collection, treatment and disposal



needs of the area as the wastewater flows increase.  The



phases of the program were developed to allow maximum use of



existing sewerage facilities and greater utilization of new



facilities during their design lifetime.





A.  Wastewater Treatment and Disposal



     The preferred alternative is the discharge of treated



wastewater to Hillsborough Bay.   The exact level of treatment



required is not now fully established.  This preferred alterna-



tive, however, is the most cost  effective and environmentally



sound regardless of the level of treatment finally selected as



required to met water quality standards.  While this alterna-



tive does continue the previously established pattern of



discharge to Hillsborough Bay, it does recognize substantial



improvements in water quality given the operations of the



Hookers Point AWT plant and does not preclude future recycling



or reuse options.

-------
                          -38-
B.  Wastewater Collection and Transmission
     The preferred alternative is the provision of service to
all areas as shown in Figure  5   excluding the second phase of
the Northeast Interceptor.  This option will provide the most
cost-effective and environmentally sound system for the TSA
without encouraging development in the Hillsborough River
floodplain and above the City of Tampa's water supply intakes.
County Service Area
     Deltona Study Area - The preferred alternative for
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal in the Deltona
Study Area is the "No Action" alternative.  This alternative
avoids the use of Federal funds to encourage development in a
wetlands environment.  This alternative also is consistent
with expending grant funds to clean-up water quality problems
rather than promoting development since water quality problems
have not been demonstrated to exist in this area.
                                                       t i
     Thonotossa Study Area - The preferred alternative for
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal in the Thonoto-
sassa Study Area is the "No Action" alternative.  This alter-
native avoids the use of Federal funds to encourage develop-
ment in an area where ho water quality problems exist or are
projected to exist.  The need for provision of service in this
area should be reevaluated after the 1990 census.
     Brandon Study Area - The preferred alternative for
wastewater treatment and disposal for the Brandon Study Area
is construction of a treatment plant with secondary treatment
and disposal of effluent by spray irrigation.  This alterna-

-------
                                                               /'
                                                        N
                                                           \
                                                                      jr
                                                 3V-  '	'    \fc         ,-->V—
                                                    t-^.a*f.-,u ..-..:. fc-5__^i^»  r   ,««« w»^f
                                                     *•:*..'*• », s~~f*^"'*    <* X   *»IA SC*.«b*"r
                                                                    \
                                             	   :r"        5-1
                                                                   r
                                  Jr    f-       in
                                  J-7 o«r»^ «r/»cf or«« jrj v« r j
                                 *^  «r«*' «c»'r«-sf_i_	 . *T-
                                        lirfHT   I
          y % I
CENTRAL HILLSBOROUGM COUNTY-TAMPA
201 FACILITY PLAN
ENVIRO'-'JEMTAL REPORT
EPA No CI20634OIO
TAMPA SERVICE  AREA
 SOURCE:
  SMITH AND GILLESP1E
  GREELEY AND HANSEN
  ENGINEERS
                  PROPOSED EXPANSION  OF INTERCEPTING AND
                       SECONDARY INTERCEPTING  SYSTEMS
                                                                   DAMES B MOO
                                                                     F i G t1 r> 
-------
                          -40-
tive is the most cost-effective, provides the needed treatment
capacity and recycles wastewater.  Site specific analysis will
be needed to verify the environmental suitability of each
proposed site.
     The preferred alternative for wastewater collection and
transmission is that which provides plan approval now only to
phases scheduled for construction by 1990 and provides for
continuation of existing  and future development on septic
tanks.  Planning approval on additional phases will be delayed
until results of the 1990 census are available and a need can
be justified.  Hillsborough County has given approvals to land
developments which far exceed the projected population levels.
It is difficult to tell now which of these plans will be the
most economically viable  and where major population concentra-
tions will be in 1990.  No significant water quality problems
have been identified which would justify the expenditure of
funds for serving septic  tank areas.  The 201 consultant will
evaluate each area now on septic tanks to determine the need
for service.  Monitoring  of nitrate levels in area water
supply wells will continue to identify any future build-up
which would necessitate the need for sewer service.
     Riverview-Gibsonton  Study Area - The preferred alterna-
tive for treatment and disposal of wastewater in the
Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area is the Alternative which
involves pumping to the proposed South County facilities for
treatment and disposal by spray irrigation.  This alternative
is the most cost-effective, provides needed treatment capacity

-------
                         -41-




and provides for recycling of wastewater.   Site's specific



analysis will be needed to verify the environmental suitabil-



ity of each proposed site.



     The preferred alternative for the collection and trans-



mission of wastewater in the Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area is



that which provides for plan approval now only to phases



scheduled for construction by 1990.  Planning aproval on



additional phases will be delayed until results of the 1990



census are available and need can be justified.  Hillsborough



County has given approval to land developments which far



exceed the projected population levels.  It is difficult to



tell now which of these plans will be the most economically



viable and where major population concentrations will be



following 1990.





7.0  IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND CONCERNS



A.  Introduction



     Public participation is an important part of the EIS pro-



cess.  It provides for active public involvement in developing



and evaluating wastewater facilities.  Moreover, it is requir-



ed by federal regulations governing the preparation of environ-



mental impact statements.



     At the beginning of the Central Hillsborough County/Tampa



Area EIS and 201 Facility Planning process, a public participa-



tion program was established to provide opportunities for



interested groups, individuals and governmental agencies to



participate in the development of the EIS.  This participation

-------
                          -42-



was achieved through the use of scoping meetings, a Citizen



Advisory Committee/ public meetings and constant coordination



with local, regional, state and federal agencies.





B.  Coordination With Local, Regional, State And Federal



    Agencies



     Throughout the EIS process, it was necessary to contact



many agencies - local, regional, state and federal in order to



gather data which aided in the preparation of the various



documents produced.  Table 7-1 is a listing of the major



agencies contacted.





C.  Public Participation Program



Scoping Meeting



     A Public scoping meeting was held in Tampa on December



20, 1978.  The proposed development of the EIS and 201 Facil-



ity plan was discussed.  Representatives of the City and



County governments, the 201 consultants, the EPA, and the EIS



consultant presented the goals and objectives of the coordin-



ated 201 Facilities Plan/EIS.  Comments were solicited from



the attending public. In general, the public was concerned



with improvement of area water quality, at affordable costs,



and with maximum reuse of water to the extent possible.



Citizen * s Advisory Committee



     The establishment of a Citizen's Advisory Committee was



an important aspect of the Environmental Impact Statement



(EIS) Public Participation Program.  The committee was formed



with the express purpose of focusing the attention of local

-------
                          -43-


residents and public agencies on the EIS.   The committee

consisted of 22 members and was representative of a

cross-section of local interests.  Each member of the group

was asked to review and comment on all study materials, as

well as to offer any other input during the course of the

study.  Several committee meetings were held throughout the

study for review purposes.  The contribution of the group was

especially necessary to identify a preferred alternative.

Specific functions and duties of the group included.


     1.   Identify local planning and environmental
          objectives.

     2.   Identify study area issues and conflicts regarding
          wastewater disposal and environmental conditions.

     3.   Assist in development and evaluation of wastewater
          alternatives.

     4.   Review draft and final Environmental Impact
          Statement.

     Member of the Citizen's Advisory Committee are listed in

Table 7-2.

Advisory Committee Meetings

     Meetings of the Advisory Committee were held at various

intervals in the 201 planning process.  Minutes of these

meetings are included in the 201 Facility Plan, Appendix A,

"Public Participation Information".

     The first meeting of the Advisory Committee was held on

June 8, 1979.  The facilities planning process was explained

to the committee and the responsibilities of the committee in

developing an effective plan were discussed.  Environmental

-------
                         -44-



considerations and general alternatives for sewage collection,



treatment and disposal were also discussed.



     On August 30, 1979, the baseline environmental conditions



of the planning area and alternative plans for wastewater



collection, treatment and disposal were presented to the



Advisory Committee.  Several of the committee members and



their representative organizations submitted comments on the



information presented.  In response to these comments, a



workshop meeting was held on September 18, 1979, to discuss



the comments in detail.



     The baseline environmental conditions and alternatives



were also presented at a workshop held with representatives of



FDER and EPA on September 25, 1979, and at a meeting with the



EPA project engineer on October 11, 1979.  These meetings were



held to inform these review agencies of the progress of the



planning project and to assure that all potential alternatives



were being considered.



     On December 18, 1979, results of the cost-effectiveness



evaluation and the environmental aspects of the alternatives



were presented to the Advisory Committee.  Recommendations for



a final plan were made by the consultants and discussed with



the committee.



Public Meeting



     A public meeting on the alternative evaluation and recom-



mended plan was held on December 19, 1979.  This meeting was



well advertised to encourage interest from the general public



and received media coverage.  Minutes of this public meeting

-------
                         -45-
are also included in Appendix A of the 201 Facilities Plan.
The protection of wetland areas in the Hillsborough River
floodplain and the Deltona Study Area was a major concern
voiced by environmental groups.
Draft EIS Public Hearing
     A public hearing was assembled to receive the public's
and other agencies' comments on the wastewater management
proposal contained in the draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Tampa and central Hillsborough County, Florida in Tampa,
Florida on November 18, 1981.  All questions and comments on
the DEIS, written and verbal, are individually addressed in
section 3, Public Participation, of the final EIS.

-------
                         -46-

                          TABLE 7-1

 COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES


FEDERAL CONTACTS

U.S. EPA, Region IV
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

STATE CONTACTS

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Florida Bureau of Geology
Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Bureau of Census
Florida Department of State, Division of Archives
Florida Department of Education
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission

REGIONAL CONTACTS

Southwest Florida Water Management District
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

LOCAL CONTACTS

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
Hillsborough County Planning Commission
City of Tampa
Hillsborough County

-------
                              -47-
                                TABLE 7-2

                  CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Ron Smola
John Petzen
Soil Conservation District
700 Twiggs - Room 417
Tampa, Florida  33602
Sally Thompson
Hillsborough Environmental Coalition
P.O. Box 2800
Tampa, Florida  33601

Dr. Rick Garrity
Urban Environmental Coordinator
One City Hall Plaza
4th Floor North
Tampa, Florida  33602
Mrs. Ann Callahan
Hillsborough County League Of Women
  Voters
Route 1, Box 386 N4
Valrico, Florida 33594

William Balanzategui
Chamber of Commerce
Committee of 100
P.O. Box 420
Tampa, Florida 33601
Robert Fernandez
Director of Utilities
City of Temple Terrace
P.O. Box 16930
Temple Terrace, Florida  33687
George Karpay
Home Builders Association
8801 Ascot Court, South
Tampa, Florida  33614 •

William Cameron
Environmental Engineeringe
 Director
Mr. Robin Lewis
(Hillsborough
 Environmental
 Coalition)
Mangrove Systems, Inc.
5700 Memorial Highway
Suite 202-D
Tampa, Florida  33615

Stephen R. Lienhart
Tampa Bay Regional
 Planning Council
9455 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida

Clyde Johnson
Riverview Chamber of
 Comme rce
P.O. Box 264
Riverview, Florida 33569

J.B. Butler
John C. Rickerson
Southwest Florida Water
  Management District
5060 U.S. Highway 41,
 South
Brooksville, Florida
 33512

Robert C. Harnly
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
7601 Highway 301, North
Tampa, Florida  33610

Dr. Bernard E. Ross
University of South
Florida
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, Florida  33602

Keith Waller
Hillsborough County
Planning Commission
700 Twiggs Street -
Suite 800
Tampa, Florida  33602

-------
                              -48-

                                TABLE 7-2 (Cont'd)
Hillsborough County Health Department
1105 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida  33602
Jim Daniels, Vice President
Mechanical & Chemical Equipment Co.
P.O. Drawer 789
Brandon, Florida  3351

Perry C. Byers
CARP (Citizen Against River Pollution)
River Bend Drive
P.O. Box 436, Rt. 4)
Ruskin, Florida  33570
Richard Wilkins
Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection
Commission
1900 9th Avenue
Tampa, Florida  33605
Dr. John Sharpe
Mrs. Phyllis Sharpe
Ms. Sally Casper
Tampa Audobon Society
12137 River Hills Drive
Tampa, Florida  33617

-------
                         -49-

                         FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                       Page

  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

1.0  PREFACE	  1-1

2.0  AGENCY DECISION	  2-1

3.0  CHANGES TO THE DRAFT	  3-1



4.0  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION	  4-1

     4.1  WRITTEN COMMENTS	  4-2
     4.2  RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS	  4-31
     4.3  HEARING TRANSCRIPT	  4-36
     4.4  RESPONSES TO TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS	  4-59

5.0  COORDINATION	•	  5-1

     5.1  FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
          COORDINATION LIST	  5-1

6.0  LIST OF PREPARERS	  6-1


7.0  APPENDIX	~	  7~1

-------
                          -50-





                         FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT




                                               LIST OF TABLES
Table No.                                              Page
  6-1          PROJECT PERSONNEL	6-2



  6-2          QUALIFICATIONS OF DAMES & MOORE	6-4

-------
   -51-
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT




                     LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
5
CITY AND COUNTY 201 SERVICE AREAS
TAMPA SERVICE AREA
COUNTY ALTERNATIVE Bl
COUNTY ALTERNATIVE RG1
TAMPA SERVICE AREA
Page
4
17
IS
22
39

-------
                         1-1
                                                      1.0



                                                  PREFACE
     In August of 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency



published and distributed a Draft Environmental Impact



Statement (DEIS) on the proposed wastewater facilities for the



City of Tampa, the City of Temple Terrace and portions of



adjacent unincorporated Hillsborough County.  The DEIS was



written pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act



(NEPA) of 1969.  While the DEIS was a complete document, much



of the detailed technical information and supporting data were



presented in a two-volume Technical Reference Document.  The



DEIS was distributed to the appropriate Federal, State, and



local agencies and to interested individuals.  The Technical



Reference Document was available for review at a number of



locations and was distributed on a limited basis.



     This final Environmental Impact Statement  (FEIS) has been



prepared to conform with the Council on Environmental Quality



(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Part 6) for implementing NEPA.  The



essence of the NEPA decision process is contained in the



Executive Summary for the FEIS; it describes the existing



problem requiring a decision, summarizes alternatives—includ-



ing mitigative measure—and their associated impacts, identi-



fies major concerns and issues, and presents EPA's conclusions



and decision.

-------
                          1-2
     In an effort to avoid excessive paperwork and costly



reproduction, the DEIS text has not been reprinted in the



FEIS.  The supporting information furnished in the DEIS and



its Technical Reference Documents should be reviewed and are



incorporated herein by reference.



     Chapter 2 describes EPA's chosen alternative.  Chapter 3



describes changes made to the project since publication of the



draft EIS.  Chapter 4 contains a description of the public



participation program conducted for the EIS.  Included in this



chapter are copies of written communications submitted to EPA



in response to the DEIS, followed by EPA's responses to each



individual comment.  These are followed by a transcript of the



public hearing on the DEIS and a point by point response to



the hearing comments.



     Chapter 5 of the FEIS lists the agencies and groups to



whom the FEIS will be sent for review and comment and Chapter



6 identifies the individuals involved in its preparation.



     In accordance with CEQ regulations, there will be a



30-day review and comment period following publication of this



FEIS and its filing with the CEQ.

-------
                         2-1
                                                          2.0



                                             AGENCY DECISION
A.  Wastewater Treatment and Disposal



     The agency's decision regarding wastewater treatment and



disposal in the TSA is to discharge treated wastewater to



Hillsborough Bay.  The exact level of treatment required is



not now fully established.  It is the most cost effective and



environmentally sound decision regardless of the level of



treatment finally selected, as required to meet water quality



standards.





B.  Wastewater Collection and Transmission



     The agency's decision is the provision of service to all



areas as shown in Figure 5-1 excluding the second phase of the



Northeast Interceptor.  This option will provide the most



cost-effective and environmentally sound system for the TSA



without encouraging development in the Hillsborough River



floodplain and above the City of Tampa's water supply intakes.



County Service Area



     Deltona Study Area - The agency's decision for wastewater



collection, treatment and disposal in the Deltona Study Area



is the "No Action" alternative.  The alternative avoids the



use of Federal funds to encourage development in a wetlands



environment.  This alternative also is consistent with



expending grant funds to clean-up water quality problems



rather than promoting development since water quality problems



have not been demonstrated to exist in this area.

-------
                          2-2





     Thonotosassa Study Area - The agency's decision for



wastewater collection, treatment and disposal in the Thonoto-



sassa Study Area is the "No Action" alternative.  This alter-



native avoids the use of Federal funds to encourage develop-



ment in an area where no water quality problems exist or are



projected to exist.  The need for provision of service in this



area should be reevaluated after the 1990 census.



     Brandon Study Area - The agency's decision for wastewater



treatment and disposal for the Brandon Study Area is construc-



tion of a treatment plant with secondary treatment and dis-



posal of effluent by spray irrigation.  This alternative is



the most cost-effective, provides the needed treatment capa-



city and recycles wastewater.  Site specific analysis will be



needed to verify the environmental suitability of each propos-



ed site.



     The agency's decision for wastewater collection and



transmission is that which provides plan approval now only to



phases scheduled for construction by 1990 and provides for



continuation of existing and future development on septic



tanks.  Planning approval on additional phases will be delayed



until results of the 1990 census are available and a need can



be justified.  Hillsborough County has given approvals to land



developments which far exceed the projected population levels.



It is difficult to tell now which of these plans will be the



most economically viable and where major population concentra-



tions will be in 1990.  No significant water quality problems

-------
                          2-3





have been identified which would justify the expenditure of



funds for serving septic tank areas.  The 201 consultant will



evaluate each area now on septic tanks to determine the need



for service.  Monitoring of nitrate levels in area water



supply wells will continue to identify any future build-up



which would necessitate the need for sewer service.



     Revised design flows upon which E.P.A. eligibility is



based have been computed for the Brandon Area.  The original



flows were based on the projections of the Horizon 2000 land



use plan.  Current E.P.A. regulation changes have revised the



original estimates for eligible industrial flows.  Therefore,



the total eligible flow for the Brandon Study Area has been



reduced to 7.11 MGD from previous estimates of 9.72 MGD.  This



reduction in flow will not result in any phasing changes for



the Brandon Study Area.  Although, any difference in funding



for eligible flows will have to be made up on a local level if



future industrial expansion warrants any capacity changes.



     Riverview-Gibspnton Study Area - The agency's decision



for treatment and disposal of wastewater in the



Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area is the Alternative which



involves pumping to the proposed South County facilities for



treatment and disposal by spray irrigation.  This alternative



is the most cost-effective, provides needed treatment capacity



and provides for recycling of wastewater.  Site specific



analysis will be needed to verify the environmental suit-



ability of each proposed site.

-------
                          2-4





     Revised design flows upon which E.P.A. eligibility is



based have been computed for the Riverview-Gibsonton Study



Area.  The original flows were based on the projections of the



Horizon 2000 land use plan.  Current E.P.A. regulation changes



have revised the original estimates for eligible industrial



flows.  Therefore, the total eligible flow for the Riverview-



Gibsonton Study Area has been reduced to 2.56 MGD from pre-



vious estimates of 5.83 MGD.  This reduction in flow will not



result in any phasing changes for the Riverview-Gibsonton



Study Area.  Although/ any difference in funding for eligible



flows will have to be made up on a local level, if future



industrial expansion warrants any capacity changes.



     The agency's decision for the collection and transmission



of wastewater in the Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area is that



which provides for plan approval now only to phases scheduled



for construction by 1990.  Planning approval on additional



phases will be delayed until results of the 1990 census area



available and need can be justified.  Hillsborough County has



given approval to land developments which far exceed the



projected population levels.  It is difficult to tell now



which of these plans will be the most economically viable and



where major population concentrations will be following 1990.

-------
                         2-5





C.  Additional Studies



     1.  Site Specific Spray Irrigation Studies



     Spray Irrigation sites will be subject to the specific



rules and regulations of E.P.A. and the Department of Environ-



ment Regulation, Chapter 17-6  (.04 and .08) , Florida Adminis-



trative Code  (FAC).  Also,  any appropriate local regulatory



agencies should be contacted at the appropriate time when more



detailed plans for each site have been laid out during the



design phase.



     Biological assessment of any tract used for spray irriga-



tion will have to occur, in order that, the proper measures



are selected to both select and protect the appropriate native



communities of flora and fauna found within the proposed



sites.  This assessment will be subject to approval by E.P.A.



and D.E.R.



     Soil tests will have to be run to determine infiltration



rates and the necessary rate of application of wastewaters to



assure that the assimilating capacity of the soils are not



exceeded for any spray irrigation site selected.



     Also, any spray irrigation site selected is subject to an



archaeological investigation by the Florida Department of



State.  Any archaeological sites deemed significant by the



Florida Department of State will have to be protected or the



appropriate mitigating measures carried out before the site is



developed.

-------
                          2-6





     2.  Wasteload Allocation Studies for Hillsborough Bay.



     E.P.A. *s chosen alternative for the treatment and



disposal of wastewater is treatment at the City of Tampa's



Hookers Point facilities with disposal of effluent to



Hillsborough Bay.  The level of treatment will be determined



by a special wasteload allocation study undertaken by the



state.  The study has been approved in rough concept by



E.P.A., but the 205-J money needed for the study has not yet



been released by E.P.A.  If these funds are not received this



year by the state, then the wasteload allocation study will



have to be postponed until 1983 funds are received.



     3.   Community Septic Suitability Studies for Brandon.



     No significant water quality problems have been



identified which would justify the expenditure of funds for



serving septic tank areas.  Therefore, the 201 consultant will



evaluate each area now on septic tanks to determine the need



for service.  Monitoring of nitrate levels in area water



supply wells will continue to identify any future build-up



which would necessitate the need for sewer service.  If that



sewering is deemed necessary, then the Brandon Study Area will



at that time be eligible for federal funding.



     4.  Site specific biological and archaeological studies



will have to be carried out along interceptor lines where



necessary.  Where possible the recommendations presented in



the Draft EIS and Technical Reference Document No. 2 will be



followed in locating the interceptor lines.  Also, the

-------
                          2-7





federal funding eligibility of the various interceptor



projects will be subject to the implementation of the new



Clean Water Act Amendments.

-------
                          3-1
                                                           3.0



                                          CHANGES TO THE DRAFT
1.  Flows Eligible for Federal Funding.



     A.  Tampa Service Area



          Revised design flows upon which E.P.A. eligibility



is based has been computed for the Tampa Service Area.



Current E.P.A. regulation changes have revised the original



estimates for industrial flow eligibility.  Therefore, the



total eligible flow for Tampa Study Area has been reduced from



96 MGD to 78 MGD.  The difference in costs associated with



these changes will be assessed at a later date.



     B.   Brandon Study Area



          Revised design flows upon which E.P.A. eligibility



is based have been computed for the Brandon Study Area.  The



original flows were based on the projections of the Horizon



2000 land use plan.  Current E.P.A. regulation changes have



revised the original estimates for industrial flow



eligibility.  Therefore, the total eligible flow for the



Brandon Study Area has been reduced to 7.11 MGD from the



previous estimates of 9.72 MGD.  This reduction in flow will



not result in any phasing changes for the Brandon Study Area.



Although, any difference in funding will have to be made up on



a local level, if future industrial expansion warrants any



capacity changes.

-------
                         3-2


     The following alternative cost changes will result from

this reassessment of total eligible flow:

                         Bl                    B3
ALTERNATIVE    SEC. + NIT.     .ALAFIA     SPRAY IRRIGATION
DESCRIPTION     ORIGINAL	REVISED    ORIGINAL   REVISED

Capital Cost  62,757,580   17,864,910   69,552,430  22,748,140

Annual O.
 and M.        1,073,820      560,300      405,360      75,370

Total P.W.    71,191,960   21,925,640   69,212,360  18,861,100

C.   Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area

     Revised design flows upon which E.P.A. eligibility is

based have been computed for the Riverview-Gibsonton Study

Area.  The original flows were based on the projections of the

Horizon 2000 land use plan.  Current E.P.A. regulation changes

have revised the original estimates for eligible industrial

flow.  Therefore, the total eligible flow for the

Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area has been reduced to 2.56 MGD

from previous estimates of 5.83 MGD.  This reduction in flow

will not result in any phasing changes for the

Riverview-Gibsonton Study Area.  Although, any difference in

funding will have to be made up on a local level, if future

industrial expansion warrants any capacity changes.  The

following alternative cost changes will result from this

reassessment of total eligible flow:

-------
                             3-3

ALTERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION  CAPITAL COSTS _ ANNUAL 0. AND M.     TOTAL  P.W.
R6-1
SEC. + NIT.
Alafia
Original      38,882,800           603,500              43,093 040
Revised       27,230,090           355,090              27,398,360
R6-4
Sec  Spray
Irrigation
Original      41,805,790           200,000              40,812 940
Revised       27,991,710           183,040              25,440,090
R6-7
Sec  Spray
Irrigation
Original      42,991,860            59,640              40,031,190
Revised       29,646,710            63,920              25
      2.   Sludge process  at Hookers Point
      A more cost effective alternative was developed to meet EPA regulations
concerning sludge treatment and disposal at the Hookers Point facility.   The
new process is an anaerobic system of  sludge management.  The system will  involve
anaerobic  digestion of primary and biological step sludges.  The digested
sludge will be dewatered  by a combination of belt filters and air drying  on
open sand  beds.  Methane  produced from the anaerobic process will be used to
generate electricity for  the treatment plant.  This will enable the City  to
realize significant energy savings and decreased costs for operation and
maintenance.  Sludge is made available for sale to orange growers in the  area
for disposal in orange groves.  Past demand for the sludge has exceeded plant
production.  Future demand is expected to continue to be greater than production.
A more complete description of the new sludge management facilities is found
in the Appendix.

-------
                         4-1
                                                            4.0
                                             PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
     The establishment of a Citizen's Advisory Committee was an
important aspect of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Public
Participation Program.  They provided the information necessary to
identify a preferred alternatives specific functions and duties of
the group is found in the DEIS.
     The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published
in August 1981 and made available to the Council on Environmental
Quality and the public.  A public notice appeared in the local
newspapers.  The Federal Register dated September 25, 1981,
announced the availability of the DEIS.  The DEIS was provided to
numerous Federal, State, and local agencies as well as concerned
individuals, interest groups, and public officials.
     The public hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, November 18,
1981 and was attended by 20 participants.  The comment period on
the DEIS remained open through November 30, 1981.  In addition to
the public input afforded by the hearing  (transcript provided
herein), a number of letters were received during the comment
period and are included in this Final EIS.
     The designations in the margins of the letters  (W-l thru W-15)
identify those specific comments for which responses have been
developed.  These responses follow the letters.  Any concerns
raised in the hearing transcript were previously addressed  in

-------
                          4-2




responses to the letters so there will be no responses made



following the transcript.



4.1  WRITTEN COMMENTS

-------
                                          4-3

             FLORIDA  GAME  AND  FRESH WATER FISH  COMMISSION



THOMAS L. HIRES SR.   C. TOM RAINEY D.V.M.    CECIL C. BAILEY    R. BERNARD PARRISH JR.  WILLIAM G. BOSTICK JR.
  Chairman,Tampa       Vice Chairman, Miami       Jacksonville           Tallahassee             Winter Haven
        ROBERT M. BRANTLY. Executive Director
        F.G. BANKS, Assistant Executive Director
                                                       October 26,  1981
         Mr.  John E. Hagen,  III
         Chief,  EIS Branch
         EPA Region IV
         345 Courtland St.,  N.E.
         Atlanta, Ga.   30365
                                                 Re:  Central Hillsborough County
                                                      201 Area Environmental
                                                      Impact Statement
         Dear Mr. Hagen:
              The Office of Environmental Services of the Florida  Game and Fresh
         Fish Commission has reviewed the referenced Environmental Impact Statement
         (EIS) and offers the following comments.

              The recommendations of the EIS parallel the preferred treatment  and
         disposal alternatives described in the Central Hillsborough County  201
         Facilities Plan Study Memoranda.  We submitted comments on the  Study
         Memoranda (29 August 1980, letter enclosed) and find  that our concerns
         regarding fresh water discharges to Tampa Bay and  suitability studies of
         spray irrigation sites remain to be reviewed.  Presumably, these concerns
         will be addressed in the ongoing waste load allocation survey and  through
         preliminary review of potential spray irrigation  sites.  Both of these
         issues, however, should be included as elements of the Final Environmental
         Impact Statement.

              The County Service Areas of Deltona and Thonotosassa were  not
         addressed in the Study Memoranda; however,we have no  objection  to  the no
         action alternatives proposed in the EIS.


                                            Sincerely,
                                             Executive Director           V
                                   Colonel Robert M. Brantly    //


RMB/AG/rs

-------
                                             4-4

                 FLORIDA  GAME AND  FRESH WATER  FISH COMMISSION
H BERNARD PARHISH JR      GEORGE G. MATTHEWS     DONALD G RHODES. D D.S.    NELSON A ITALIANO     CECIL C BAD
  Chairman. Tallahassee      Vice Chairman. Palm Beach        West Eau Gallic              Tam|>a
           ROBERT M BRANTLY. Executive Due-dor
           H. E. WALLACE. Assistant Executive Director
                                                         August 29, 1980
            Mr. Ron Fahs, Director
            Intergovernmental Coordination
            Office of Planning and Budgeting
            Executive Office of the Governor
            The Capitol
            Tallahassee, Florida  32301
                                               Re:  SAI 80-0927,  Central  Hillsborough
                                               -   County,  201  Facility  Plan
            Dear Mr. Fahs:
                 By letter (enclosed) on 28 January 1980, the Office of Environmental
            Services of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Conrnission reviewed
            the study memoranda prepared for the Central Hillsborough County  201
            Facilities Plan.  At that time we were critical of the lack of  environmental
            data supporting selection of the preferred alternatives.  An impact
            analysis has since been submitted for our review, including description
            and ecological evaluation of various disposal alternatives.  Our  comments
            address the environmental consequences of the preferred alternatives.

                 The major element of the Central Hil-lsborough 201 Facilities  Plan
            involves routing the Tampa, Del tons and Thdnotosassa service areas to
            the Hookers Point sewage treatment plant.  Treatment capacity at  the
            plant would be increased from the current 60.0 MGD (million gallons per
            day), AWT (advanced waste treatment), to 98.38 MGD, AWT, with continued
            effluent discharge to Tampa Bay.  Waste load allocations were established
            via modeling analyses, and the plan is in accordance with the Wilson-
            Grizzle Act which requires that all discharges to surface waters  in the
            Tampa Bay Region require treatment'in excess of secondary processes.

                 Although we are generally opposed to surface water discharge of
            sewage effluents, the volume of wastewaters generated by the Tampa
            service areas precludes more environmentally desirable alternatives.
            Our primary concern regarding this plan is the potential impact of 100
            MGD discharges of fresh water to Tampa Bay.  Seagrasses, as noted in  the
            environmental analysis of this plan, are sensitive to lowered salinities.

-------
Mr. Ron Fahs                      ,  _
Page 2                            4'5
Thus,  while modeling analyses  indicate that nutrients, DO (dissolved
oxygen)  and BOD (biochemical  oxygen demand 5-day) would remain stable,
altered  salinity regimes  may  cause alterations in the faunal  and floral
composition of the estuary.   To evaluate this  potential,  we recommend
that salinity regimes generated by the current 60 MGD discharge be
monitored and that a modeling analysis be conducted to predict salinity
patterns for 100 MGD discharges.   If low salinity currents would pose  a
threat to seagrass beds or other elements of the Tampa Bay system,
alternate discharge locations  or effluent spreader systems should be
considered.

     The Facilities Plan  provides a 9.63 MGD treatment plant for the
Brandon  service area. Secondarily treated effluent would be discharged
to spray irrigation sites including portions of the sewage treatment
plant site,  two golf courses  and a citrus grove.   The treatment plant
site includes 40 acres of citrus grove,  cypress forest, oak hammock,
pine flatwoods, and bay head  forests.

     Our primary concern  with this alternative involves the extent to
which the plan will affect sand pine-oak scrub habitat.  These sensitive
scrub associations provide habitat necessary to the survival  of several
species  recognized by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
as threatened (T) or of special concern  (SC).   Sand pine-oak scrub
habitats within the spray irrigation sites should be surveyed to establish
the" presence of the following species:  Florida gopher frog (SC), gopher
tortoise (SC), eastern indigo snake (T), Florida scrub jay (T), Florida
burrowing owl (T), and Florida mouse (T).  Any tracts found to support
these species should be protected from alteration by spray irrigation.      w-2
Wetland  tracts may also be unsuitable as spray irrigation sites.  High
ground water tables limit nutrient removal, and stabilized water regimes
can destroy wetland communities.   Therefore, although we encourage spray
Irrigation as a desirable alternative to surface water discharge, we
recommend that spray irrigation acreages be provided and an environmental
assessment of these tracts be conducted  to determine impacts on native
communities.  A stormwater management plan which provides for adequate
retention of effluents should also be prepared for golf course spray
irrigation sites.

     To  minimize the potential for surface water degradation and to
maximize vegetative assimilation of nutrients, we strongly recommend
that the monitoring provisions and retention pond systems discussed on
pages 7-14 and 7-15 of the Environmental Assessment be formally adopted
into the Facilities Plan  for  the Brandon service area,

     The final section of the Central Hillsborough Facility Plan recommends
that the Riverview/Gibsonton  service areas be connected to the South
Hillsborough County Regional  plant currently under construction.  The
5.85 MGD generated by the Riverview/Gibsonton service areas would require
considerable expansion of the 1.5 MGD South County plant.  This plant,
without  these additional  service areas,  is scheduled to be expanded to
3.0 MGD  by 1981, and 6.3  MGD  by 1986.  The South County plant is designed
to provide secondary treatment with reuse by the Tampa Electric Company

-------
Mr. Ron Fahs                       4-6
Page 3


(TECO) generating plant at Big Bend, and spray irrigation of golf courses,
TECO right-of-ways,  and agricultural properties.  The phosphate industry
has also expressed  interest in receiving treated effluents for processing
plants.

     The South Hillsborough County  Facilities Plan is innovative in its
practical application and reuse of  wastewater effluents.  The disposal
alternatives could  conserve ground  waters and provide economic as well
as environmental benefits by recycling nutrients.  However, nutrients
contained in secondarily treated effluents can seriously degrade surface
waters without careful application  and monitoring programs.  To minimize
the risk to wetlands and sensitive  uplands we recommend that an environmental
impact analysis of  the various spray irrigation sites and effluent reuse
alternatives be prepared.  This study should take into account the
considerably larger areas necessary for spray irrigation under the         W-3
proposed plan, and  should address potential problems resulting from
industrial reuse.

     In summary, transmission and collector system construction impacts
are well documented, and mitigative measures referenced in the Environmental
Assessment should be strictly adhered to. Given existing non-point
nutrient loads to Tampa Bay, these  discharges of high quality wastewater
effluent should not appreciably accelerate eutrophication of the Bay,
although monitoring programs should be implemented to document any such
trends.  The possibility of salinity regime alteration does exist,
however, and should be evaluated.   Also, potential spray irrigation
sites for the Brandon and South Hillsborough County-Riverview/Gibsonton
service areas should be examined to determine potential impacts upon
sensitive native habitats and legally protected species.

     Please call me if we can be of further assistance.


                                        Sincerely,
                                        H. E. Wallace
                                        Assistant Executive Director
249/rs3/l-3
 AG

-------
Florida
  BOB GRAHAM

  GOVERNOR
                                       4-7
Department  of   Transportation
                                li.iyd-.il
                                         |,ng f.05 Sun.i
                                                                   r.< ,ihpn,. |9CU| 4flfl RS41
                          JACOB D.VARN
                           SECRETARY
                                                October 22,  1981
      Mr. John E.  Hagan,  III, P. E.
      Chief, EIS Branch
      Environmental Protection Agency
      Region IV
      345 Courtland Street, N. E.
      Atlanta, Georgia 30365

      Dear Mr. Hagan:

           Subject:  DEIS Review
                    Central Hillsborough County
                    Tampa Area, Wastewater Facilities

           In order for us to adequately assess the possible effects of the
      proposed project on Hillsborough County's transportation system, some
      additional information is necessary.

           Specifically,  we need to know what, if any, will the impacts to
      the transportation  system be.  Will the proposed alternatives neces-
      sitate disturbing any existing roadbeds or disruption of traffic service.
      Provisions for handling emergency vehicles need to be addressed.           w-4

           The mitigation section should include ways to resolve any potential
      problems .
           We appreciate the opportunity to comment.

                                               Sincerely,
                                                          0
                                               C. L. Irwin, Administrator
                                               Environmental Impact Review
      CLI/mnb
                                                           ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                                                    BRANCH
                                                           j!C<  OCT26 1981
                                                           \i
                                                           Li
                                                    L
                                                                REGION IV - EPA

-------
                                   4-8

                        DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                REGIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER. EASTERN REGION (HO AFESC)
                       lit TITLE BUILDING. 30 PRVOR STREET. S.W.
                              ATLANTA. GEORGIA 101O3
ROV2
                                                           26 October 1981
Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS),  Central Hillsborough County -
Tampa Area, Florida                    '   ~~ " ..... --

U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency
Region  IV
Attn:   Mr. John E. Hagan,  III,  P.  E.
Chief,  EIS Branch
3^5 Court land Street,  H. E.
Atlanta, Georgia  30365

1.  We  have reviewed the subject EIS and find that development of the
project will have no adverse impact on Air  Force operations  at MacDill AFB,
Florida.

2.  Thank you for the  opportunity  of reviewing  this  EIS.  Our point of
contact is Mr. Winfred G.  Dodson,  commercial telephone number 221-6821/6776.
  HOMAS D.  SIMS
 1hief
    Lronmental Planning Division
                                          Cy to:
USAF/LEEV
TAC/DEEV
56 CSG/DEEV
                                                                 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP«T STATEMENT
                                                                         BRANCH
                                                                      OCT 27 1981
                                                                      REGION IV - EPA

-------
                                     4-9
   November 3, 1981
                                                                        tnmpo boy
                                                                           regional
                                                                           planning
                                                                             council
                                                                     Si PetO'snurg. FL JV02
                                                                              ?4 9330
   Mr. John E. Hagan  III,  P.E.
   Chief, E1S Branch
   EPA, Region IV
   345 Courtland Street,  N.E.
   Atlanta, Georgia 30365

   Reference:  A-95 Review Central Hillsborough-Tampa
               201, Facilities Plan E1S TBRPC #49-81

   Dear Mr. Hagan:

   Enclosed are comments  regarding above  referenced project  recently received
   from the City of Tampa.   Please note that the Bureau of City  Planning now
  'finds the alternatives to be'reasonable,  appropriate and  consistent with
   local plans."

   If I may be of  further assistance, do  not hesitate to call.

   Sincerely,
   Vicki Adelson
   A-95 Coordinator
   VA/gr

   Enclosure
                              DAMES & MOORE
                                  LAKIil/SKTT
                            CFG	  r TMG
                         JH?	
                         M;L—  j-jrp A  • ,0rji  PS-M —
                         L.T.1	  UtUl'_l"bl  SEB	
                         KJ3 _
                         RFC _
                            ARM
                            FILE
BLQ_
ACCT
                                           PLM.
                                           SEB.
                                           TM.
                                                       ENVIRONMENTAL IMfACl STATEMENT
                                                                 &RANCH
                    n]IEjSE[lELf?fi
                    W  NOV05 1981
                   d UPT-TTQ "rmnr
                                                              EGiON IV -_EPA
 Chairman F'poenck Alion
Councilman Oty o' Gulloort
 Braaenion
-cc. County • Pm::r<; . S: Pf-:etsCurg B(>.i.-« « SarasoiH •  -i — ra • Torrxin Spn

-------
                              4-10
          CITY  OF  TAMPA
          Bob MHn.m-z. Mayor	Department of Revenue and Financ,
                                                                                "
                                                     Bureau of City Planning


October 27, 1981
Mr. Mike McKinley, Chief
Governmental Services Division
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
9455 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, PL  33702

Dear Mike:

Re:  A-95, 49-81, Central Hillsborough-Tampa 201 Facilities Plan EIS

As per our telephone conversation,  the  Bureau of City Planning submits  the
following comments regarding the 201  EIS:

     . The City of Tampa and the Deltona Corp. have agreed to the
       provision of Sanitary Sewerage for  the Deltona development.
       This agreement is consistent with the "No Action" alterna-
       tive, in that Federal funds  will not be utilized to encourage
       development in what may be considered wetlands.  Further,
       Federal funds will not be utilized  to provide services where
       point source water quality problems do not presently exist.
       Reference to the agreement could be made as a footnote in the
       executive summary.

     . A somewhat peripheral, but important issue, concerns the utilization
       of on-site, individual wastewater treatment and disposal systems,
       specifically, septic tanks.  Although the septic tank needs  very
       little routine maintenance,  periodic removal of sludge solids is
       essential to maintain adequate liquid detention time.  As sludge
       builds up, sludge scouring increases, treatment efficiency drops,
       and more solids escape through the  outlet.  Excessive solids
       leaving the tank result in the failure of the disposal system.

       Thus, periodic sludge removal  is necessary.  It is essential that
       environmentally secure disposal  sites for the pumped septage are
       available to the various septage haulers.  Failure to dispose  of
       septage in approved sites may  lead  to clandestine dumping, in
       areas where such activities  should  not occur.  Perhaps this  issue

-------
                               4-11
Mr. Mike McKinley, Chief
October 27,  1931
Page Two
       should also be addressed.  Generally,  the  Bureau  of  City  Planning
       has tracked and participated in the 201  planning  process.   The      W-5
       Alternatives selected are reasonable,  appropriate, and  consistent
       with local plans.

If I may be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
Kevin McConnell
Housing and Urban Development Coordinator

/gh

-------
                                                                                 COUNTY COURTHOUSE
                                                                                 P.O. SOX 1110
                                                                                 TAMPA. R. 33601
                                                                                 TB_(*13)J7W*40
HILLSBOROUGK  COUNTY  CITY-COUKTY PLANNING COMMISSION

       JOC rHILLUHA JH                                                              RONALD N. SHORT
       JC5 CrllLLURA. JH.                                                              EXECUnvt OflECTOH
       RO3ERT EDWARDS
       VICE CHAIRMAN

       DR. GORDON BRUNHILD
       MEMBER AT --APGE

       HENRY C. 3RCWN
       DR. ROBERT CATUN
       MANUEL FERNANDEZ
       WARREN JOHNSON
       BARBARA UYRES
       ?IT2 RAWLS. JR.
       WIL3ER7 WILLIAMS
                                                September 30, 1981
        Mr.  Michael R. McKinley,  Chief
        Governmental Services Division
        Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
        9455 Roger Boulevard
        St.  Petersburg, Florida   33702

        Re:   Central Hillsborough-Tampa 201 Facilities Plan  E.I.S.

        Dear Mike:

        The  Hillsborough County  City-County Planning  Commission was represented on
        technical committees for this planning activity where our input was received.
        The  Planning staff supports the Plan and  the  EIS  information.   Please phone
        me at 272-5940 if questions arise.
        KW/rh

        xc:  Pickens Talley
            Howard Curran
                                                                                          SWTEAJEW
                                                                              KEGlQN IV - £FA
              A CT^COUNTY AG£«rr SERVING X6 CJTJES OF TAMP*. ?VANT CITY. TEMPLE TESRACE AND THE COUNTY OF HILLSBOPOUGH
                                 AN ArRRMATIVt ACTON — EOUAi C*^OHTUNiTY EMPLOYER

-------
                                         4-13
        A-95'#49-81; Central Hillsborough-Tasnpa" 201  Facilities Plan EIS,  Hillsborough County
The Environmental Protection Agency has requested review and comment on a  draft  Environ-
mental Impact Statement  for proposed wastewater  facilities for the cities  of Tampa and
Temple Terrace and adjacent unincorporated  areas of Hillsborough County.

                              Local Comments  Requested From:

Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission:  See attached letter  dated  September
        30,  1981.

City of Tampa Planning Department:  Telephoned general concurrence, will submit written comment

City of"Temple Terrace:   Telephoned concurrence  October 22,  1981.

                           Council Comments  and Recommendations

The draft EIS presents several alternatives for  collection treatment and disposal of
wastewater for each service area.  Preferred  alternatives are provided representing  EPA's
consideration as the most feasible approach to providing the necessary waste treatment
services with the least  impact on the  environment and at an economical cost.  These
alternatives are consistent with the Council's Areawide Water Quality Management Plan
and the Council's adopted growth policy. Future  of the Region, which encourages  the  treat-
ment of domestic sewage  in the most cost-effective manner with maximum pollution abatement.

However, the Deltona Study Area includes the  Tampa Palms development approved last year
by Hillsborough County which is estimated to  ultimately generate 3.645 million gallons of
wastewater per day  (mgd). The preferred "no  action" alternative of the EIS states that
development in this wetland and floodplain  area  should not be encouraged and that the
developer should assume  the costs of the collection facilities and pay the incremental
cost of expanding the Hookers  Point treatment capacity for 1.3 mgd wastewater flow.  These
proposed conditions would require concurrence from the City of Tampa and the Deltona
Corporation which the study does not address.

This.  EIS is regionally  significant and no  regional concerns have been identified during
the review which would preclude its approval.  However, it is recommended that the final
EIS include concurrence  from  the City  of Tampa and the Deltona Corporation on the pro-
posed conditions for the Deltona Study Area.   Further, it is recommended that any addi-
tional comments addressing local concerns be considered prior to completion of the  final EIS.

Committee adopted October 26,  1981.
W-6
Commissioner Jan Platt,  Cha-irman
Clearinghouse Review Committee

Please note:  Unless otherwise notified, action by Clearinghouse Review Committee is final.
Append copy to application to indicate compliance with clearinghouse requirements.  Com-
ments constitute compliance with OMB Circular A-95 only.
                          tempo bay regional pfenning council
                                           .r n T "••»

-------
                                   4-14
             United States Department of the Interior

                 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW      MKS & MQORE
                            Southeast Region/Suite 1384                   l..\K "
                           Richard B. Russell Federal Building           CFG—	•
                        75 Spring Street, S.W. / Atlanta, Ga. 30303     JHP	        v	'	"  CG

                                                          ?£-  DEC lu 1981  s^I
                                                                               TM —

                                                                         BLQ	—


ER-81/2070           _                           November 17, 1981


Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
EPA, Region 4
245 Court!and Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia  30365

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental  Statement,  Wastewater Facilities,
Tampa area, and portions of Central Hillsborough  County,  Florida, and have
the following comments.

The proposed project will  not adversely affect any existing,  proposed, or
known potential units of the  National Park System.   Given the enormous scope
and size of this project,  it is difficult to determine  from  the draft environ-
mental statement if local  recreation areas of our  mandated interest or
jurisdiction will be impacted by the project.  We  encourage  continued coordi-
nation with the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County in  your future planning
efforts so as to eliminate or mitigate any possible  adverse  impacts.  Addi-
tionally, we encourage continued coordination with the  State  Historic
Preservation Officer.

We suggest that a discussion  be included on the effects  that the proposed
wastewater facilities would have on the local mineral industry; at  least
eight active phosphate mines  and two peat prospects  are within the  study
area boundaries.  Although the proposed wastewater facilities may have no       w-7
direct effect on mining, a section in the environmental  statement discussing
this mining activity, plus a  statement regarding  the possible impacts on
in-the-ground phosphate and peat resources resulting from project implementa-
tion, should be presented.

The environmental sections, for the most part, appear to  contain adequate
information regarding the  description and discussion of  fish  and wildlife
resources in the project area.   The impacts of suburban  sprawl  on wetlands
and fish and wildlife habitat have been adequately addressed.  Any  waste-
water treatment plan developed in the Central Hillsborough County area will
affect these resources to  the extent that it encourages  or promotes develop-
ment in wetlands and results  in discharge to creeks  and  lakes in the vicinity.

-------
                                   4-15

Numerous new developments are already planned and  some are currently  being
developed in this study area.  A large portion of  wetlands within  this
area is not within the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section  404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977.  Unless controlled by State or local
agencies, these areas are likely to be developed.   It is hoped that State
and local governments realize that drainage of such wetlands from  develop-
ment can result in a degradation of an area's water quality and a  reduction
of fish and wildlife habitat.

An adequate discussion of existing rare and endangered species in  the project
area is contained in Chapter IV, Part B-ll, (page  32).  However, an analysis
of the probable effect of the proposed project on  these species is completely   W-8
side-stepped in Chapter IV, Part D-l, (page 68) "Impacts on the National
Environment."

We find inconsistencies between the section entitled "Surface Ecosystems"
(page IV-73), and the section entitled "Rare and Endangered Species"
(page IV-74).  The latter section discusses all rare and endangered
species by stating that "urbanization of the study area is projected  to        w~9
occur with or without improved wastewater facilities."  The previous
section discusses adverse impacts which will occur to the environment as
a result of development pressures.

In particular, wetlands and rare and endangered species in the Deltona
region are expected to be negatively affected by sewer operations  in  the
area.  Even though development of the area may occur without federally
funded sewerage facilities, it would probably occur at a greatly reduced
density and rate.

We believe the draft environmental impact statement is deficient in  identi-
fying probable impacts to the natural resource, particularly to rare  and
endangered species, which will result from project implementation  as  opposed
to the growth scenario without the project.  Many wildlife species are
tolerant of some level of human disturbance which may depend on the  density
and extent of habitat disturbance.  Therefore, the ultimate intensity of
development has a direct relationship to the level of wildlife disruption
and elimination.  The document should more specifically identify impacts
to wildlife "with" and "without" the project.

The statement should more thoroughly evaluate the possibility of ground
water impacts from the proposed use of spray irrigation for effluent
disposal in the Brandon Study Area and discuss any appropriate mitigation.
It is stated that Brandon is located in a recharge area for the Floridian
Aquifer  (e.g.., p. IV-24, IV-72, IV-73, IV-78) and that septic tank use and
package  plants have already  resulted in some nitrate  pollution of ground
water (p.  1-5).  Thus the possibility of inadequate uptake of nitrates or     w-10
other pollutants by vegetation and the resultant contamination of ground
water should be more carefully considered.  The degree of monitoring
needed for spray irrigation  in the Brandon area should be addressed.

-------
                                   4-16

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        James H. Lee
                                        Regional Environmental Officer
                                                      ENVIRONMENTAL IWPACI STATEMENT
                                                           NOV18  1981    i
                                                            REGION IV - EPA

-------
                                     4-17
SAJPD-ES c                                                  18 November 1981
Mr. John E.  Hagan III.  P.E.
Chief,  EIS Branch
Environmental  Protection Agency,  Rsglon IV
345 Courtland  Street,  N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia   30365
Dear Mr.  Hagan:

The Corps of Engineers has reviewed the Draft Environmental  Impact Statement
on the Central  HUlsborough-Tampa,  Florida Wastewater Facilities Plan and has
no comment.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this  Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        A. J. SALEM
                                        Acting Chief
                                        Planning Division

-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH £ HUMAN SERVICES4_lg                      Public Health Service
                                                               Centers for Disease Control
                                                               Atlanta. Georgia 30333

                                                               (404) 262-6649

                                                               November 20, 1981
 Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
 Chief, EIS Branch
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Region IV
 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, Georgia  30365

 Dear Mr. Hagan:

 We have completed our review of  the Draft Environmental  Impact  Statement  (EIS)
 for Central Hillsborough County  - Tampa,  Florida, Wastewater  Facilities.   We are
 responding on behalf of the  Public Health Service.

 Alternatives that result in  the  sewering  of  rural areas  may contribute  to urban
 expansion.  However, it is noted that population growth  with  or without the
 project will be considerable. In this regard, we concur that the phasing of
 wastewater facilities to meet the needs as described  in  the preferred alternative
 is'most acceptable.

 Our greatest concern relates to  the spray irrigation  of  effluent.   In addition
 to proper site selection, installation, operation and maintenance,  the  operator
 should establish an appropriate  on-going  monitoring regimen to  ensure that these   W—11
 practices do not become significant adverse  Impacts on groundwater.  We note
 that the preferred alternative provides a beneficial  impact on  groundwater when
 compared to use of septic tanks.

 Regarding the mitigation measure of minimizing open burning during  construction
 activities, we suggest that  the  local ordinances be reviewed  and appropriate
 permits sought before any open burning occurs.

 Thank you for the opportunity to review this document.  We would appreciate
 receiving a copy of the final when it becomes available.  If  you should have any
 questions about our comments, please contact Mr. Ken  Holt of  my staff.

                                     Sincerely yours,
                                     Frank S.  Lisella,  Ph.D.
                                     Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
                                     Environmental Health Services Division
                                     Center for Environmental Health
                                                         --, —      --.nl}

-------
                                          4-19
                                      STATE OF FLORIDA
                DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
               BOB GRAHAM
                 GOVERNOR

        VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL
                SECRETARY
     November  20,  1981
     Mr. John  E.  Hagan,  III, P.E.
     Chief,  EIS  Branch
     U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
      Region IV
     345 Courtland  Street, N.E.
     Atlanta,  Georgia 30365

     Re: C120634010 (Step 1) - Hillsborough County
         Draft Environmental Impact Statement

     Dear  Mr.  Hagan:

     The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Hillsborough County-
     Tampa Area  has been reviewed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER).
     The following  comments are offered:
       1) Sludge  treatment and disposal has not been addressed.
               W-12
      2) There  appears  to  be some misunderstanding regarding wasteload allocation
         work in  Tampa  Bay and Hillsborough Bay.  There is no wasteload allocation
         study  ongoing  at  this time.  However, the impact of non-point source contri-
         butions  is  being  assessed by the DER.
                                    «
      If you  have  any questions regarding these comments, please call Ms. Cathie Cash
      at 904/488-2582.
      Sincerely,
      Richard W.  Smith,  P.E.,  Chief
      Bureau  of Vlastewater  Management and Grants
      RWS/ccm

      cc:  Walter Kolb  -  Governor's Office
          Robert Jourdan -  EPA
          David Peacock  - EPA
          John  Out!and - DER
          Gene  Sullivan  - DER/Tampa
          Howard Curren  - City of Tampa
          Joseph Clark - Hillsborough  County
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
         BRANCH
 ,vi  NOV30 1981
Jill    '
                                                                                 L/T51
                                                                        KfcGlON IV - EPA
                                Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life

-------
                                     4-20



                 _      _    BAY AREA SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION SOCIETY


Organizers
                                     Please Respond To: TAMPA BASIS
                                                    c/o  P. 0. Box 24748
E.D. Estevez                                               Tampa. FL 33623
S'K. Mahadevan                                        _ __
C.R. Goodwin
    November 23, 1981
    John E. Hagan III, P.E., Acting Chief
    Environmental Assessment Branch
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Region IV
    345 Courtland Street, N.E.
    Atlanta, Georgia 30365

    Re:  Central Hillsborough County Tampa Wastewater^Management
         Environmental ImpactjStatement

    Dear Mr. Hagan:

    I recently testified at the public hearing on  the above DEIS.

    I am very concerned, as are many scientists in the'Tampa area  who  were
    unable to attend the public hearing, with the  lack of discussion in  the
    DEIS of the historical problems of eutrophication in  Hillsborough  Bay
    (FWPCA Report 1969 - "Haoan Report"), and the  fact that these  problems
    appear to be still present even after the AWT  plant;has been in operation.

    I recently reported~to-the -City of Tampa that  we ha'd"collected an  algae
    sample near your transect T8 (FWPCA 1969) (see attached map) on 30 January
    1981 in conjunction with a manatee feeding study.  The analysis of the
    sample is listed in Table 1.  These figures work out  to over 16,000
    pounds/acre dry weight of algae, and the fact  that 95% of the  sample
    is one species of Gracilaria fits well with your report of 98% of  the
    algae in Hillsborough Bay being Gracilaria (p. 32 FWPCA, 1969).  I might
    add that these mats of algae extended for several miles parallel to  the
    coastline north of our sample site and our sample was not in an isolated
    patch.

    I think my point is obvious.  If the AWT plant is doing what is was
    designed to do, why is it that the historical  algal  populations appear
    unchanged?  Before we invest millions more in  expensive sewage technology,     w-14

-------
                                  4-21

John E.  Hagan III, P.E.,  Acting Chief
November 23, 1981
Page Two


I believe it is important to ask ourselves again why we are treating sewane
to the degree we are and is it enough?  too much?  or not enough?   I am well
aware of the City of Tampa's Primary Productivity Study (City of Tampa  1981)
and Howard Rhodes' paper discussing the "water quality" improvements appa-
rently due to the AWT plant. (Rhodes undated).  But the "water quality"
improvements don't mean anything unless the ecosystem shows signs  of
recovery from stress.  I submit that the marine ecosystem of Tampa Bay
is still under stress, particularly in Hillsborough Bay, and that  we
must determine what is going on before we throw more money at the  problem.

Paul Traina told me at the public hearing that once a "waste!oad allocation"
is determined for the bay that we might have some answers.  My experience
with "wasteload allocation" studies is that they are heavy on the  "magic"
numbers and computer simulations and very, very light on the real  physical,
chemical, and biological  characteristics of the ecosystem in question.
I sincerely hope this "waste allocation" study for Tampa Bay is better
than the rest I have seen.  There are real marine organisms in Tampa Bay
that are stressed by continuing problems of urban runoff, sewage effluent
disposal and dredging.

Your assistance in helping us solve these problems is imperative.

Sincerely yours,
Roy R. Lewis, III
Marine Biologist

cc:  Dr. Joseph Simon, USF
     Dr. William K. Fehring, TPA
     Dr. Richard Garrity, City of Tampa
     Richard G. Wilkins, HEPC
     William Hennessey,FDER
     Don Moores, FDER
     Howard L. Rhodes, FDER
     Ms. Sally Thompson, HEC
     Roger 3. Anderson, TBRPC
     Dr. Clinton Dawes, USF
     David Carpenter, City of Tampa
     Gil Klein, Tampa Tribune

Literature Cited

City of Tampa. 1981.  Final report of the Hillsborough Bay water quality
     monitory program.  No page numbers.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1969.  Problems and
     management of water quality in Hillsborough Bay, Florida.  48 pp
     and appendices.

-------
                                  4-22

John E. Hagan III, P.E., Acting Chief
November 23, 1981
Page Three
Literature Cited, Cont.
Rhodes, H.L.  undated. . Municipal treatment requirements and practices to
      maintain water quality in the Tampa and Escambia Bay areas.
      Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.  84 pp.
RRL/na

Attachments

-------
                      4-23
 H      .SBOROUGH
          BAY
                                               A L A F I A R
              SITE    OF
                MANATEE
                  OBSERVATIONS
                    AND ALGAE COLLECTION
                     (30 JAN 81)
5000   YDS

-------
                                 4-24
                 Table 1.    Mnnn Dry Weights by Species
                            of Collected Algae (N=5), Alafla
                            River mouth, Tampa Bay, Florida (30 JAN 81)

     Species                             (g) Dry weight  / m7
                                              (~x)              (sd)
Ulva lactuca Linnaeus                         88.77              48.66
Grac1lar1a verrucosa Hudson                 1714.80             264.79
Chaetomorpna Unum Muller (Kutzlng)            0.93

-------
                                    4-25
The Deltqna
Corporation
EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 3250 S.W. THIRD AVENUE • MIAMI. FLORIDA 33120


ROBERT JAMES MOTCHKAViTZ. P.E.
    Director of Environmental Services


    November 27,  1981
    Mr. John E.  Hagan,  III,  P.E., Acting Chief
    Environmental Assessment Branch                      	
    U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency                      REG'ON iV
    Region IV
    345 Courtland Street N.E.
    Atlanta, Gerogia  30365

         RE:  Central Hillsborough County/
                   Tampa Wastewater Management Plan
              Environmental  Impact Statement

    Dear Mr. Hagan:

    The following comments have been prepared in response to the draft of
    the Central Hillsborough County Tampa Wastewater Management Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS).   Notwithstanding the contents of this letter,
    The Deltona Corporation  reserves the right to submit further written
    comments, as appropriate,  and to appear and testify at any future public
    hearings held with respect to the  above referenced EIS.

    As you may be aware, The Deltona Corporation is the developer of a planned
    community in northern Hillsborough County known as Tampa Palms.  The
    development will be located north  of the present University of South
    Florida campus within the area referrred to in the EIS as the Deltona
    Service area. At completion, the Tampa Palms development will contain
    approximately 15,500 dwelling units as well as commercial and recreational
    facilities to serve the  intended population.  (See Map H enclosed.)  The
    total land area of the development will be approximately 5,400 acres.

    The area of Hillsborough County in which Tampa Palms will be located has
    been designated for suburban development according to the Hillsborough
    County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Horizon 2000).  The property was re-
    zoned from an agricultural classification to a Community Unit District
    (multi-use) designation by the County in 1980 with allowable gross density
    of  2.5 units/acre.   On October 19, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners
    approved Deltona's application for development approval pursuant to Chapter
    380, Florida Statutes.  The County's approval of  the Tampa Palms develop-
    ment followed an intensive and all-pervasive review of the potential im-
    pacts of the community conducted by both Hillsborough County and the Tampa
    Bay Regional Planning Council.  Comments were solicited and received from
    numerous state, regional and local agencies including the City of Tampa
    Public Works Department.  In excess of 30 hours of public hearings were
    held to address all issues of significant concern.  This review process

-------
Page 2
Mr*. John E. 1 lagan, 111, P.I-.
November 27, 1981                4_2g


gave special consideration to the potential impacts to the environment
of the site and the adjacent Hillsborough River Flood Plain.  It was
Hillsborough's County position supported by recommendations from Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council, based on their review, that Deltona had
adequately addressed any adverse environmental impacts, including any
potential degredation of on-site wetlands, in the plan of development
for Tampa Palms.

The Tampa Palms Development is a totally planned community to be construc-
ted over a period of twenty years.  The project is situated on 5408.5 acres
and contains a wide range of residential dwelling types totalling 13,497
units over 1,651 acres or only 50.1% of the site.  There are a full range
of community support facilities planned to meet the needs of the residents
of Tampa Palms.  These include two school sites, 20 park sites, 6 church
sites, two fire station sites, and two public facility sites, which total
300.5 acres or 5.8% of the site.  Also planned are the Hillsborough River
Golf and Country Club (one Championship Course) and Cypress Creek Golf and
Country dub (two Championship Courses) totalling 486.9 acres of 9% of the
site.  The largest percentage of the site will be maintained in Open Space
uses.  These include the Hillsborough River Conservation Area, Cypress
Creek Conservation Area, Rock Hammock Preservation Area, ponds and lakes,
drainage retention areas, Cypress Creek Levee, and the landscaped roadway
buffers totalling 2,533 acres, or 47% of the site.  The Open Space Uses
when combined with the parks and recreational facilities provide a total
Open Space of 3,238.5 acres or over 60% of the site.  The Employment Centers
consist of neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers, hotel,
business/commercial park, office, professional office park, and the research
and development industrial park, totalling 248.5 acres or 4.7% of the site.
The major arterials total 189 acres or 3.4% of the site.

Reference is made to Volume I of the Draft EIS which provided discussion
and information relative to the environmental resources of the study areas.
Included in that study, as a technical appendix, was a report by Dames and
Moore, Atlanta which addressed the environment of Tampa Palms with specific
interest devoted to wetlands and floodplains.  To our knowledge that report
was prepared in the early part of 1980 and has not been revised to reflect
the following events which took place subsequent to its preparation:

     1.   In June, 1980 Hillsborough County adopted FEMA flood maps which
     in the vicinity of Tampa Palnis, showed 100 year flood levels in no
     case greater than and in some cases  (along the Hillsborough River)
     less than those used by Dames and Moore in predicting impacts of
     and to Tampa Palms.

     2.   As a condition of Hillsborough County's approval of Tampa Palms,
     Deltona has agreed to establish a comprehensive set of monitoring
     programs to assure future protection to wetlands and water quality.
     These on. going programs include a study to measure wetland vitality
     in development areas versus control areas and an investigation to
     monitor both internal \vater quality as well as the quality of dischar-
     ges from the site.  These studies will insure that wetland conservation

-------
Page 3
Mr. John E.  Hajjan,  III, P.E.
November 27, 1981               4_27


     areas will maintain their historic functions and contributions, and
     that the water quality of receiving bodies will not be further degraded
     after development as predicted by Deltona.

     3.   Final state approval, Governor and Cabinet endorsement, is forth-
     coming by year's and for the establishment of a Community Development
     District for Tampa Palms pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes.

     Deltona's primary purpose in creating the district is to ensure that
     there will be consistent and professional management of the natural
     resource systems and other infrastructure, systems not maintained by
     Hillsborough County or other governmental agencies.  The district is
     required to employ competent professional engineers to manage these
     systems.  Also, the district is provided with the necessary taxing
     and fund raising powers to ensure that sufficient funds will be
     available for the maintenance, repair, improvement and expansion of
     these systems as becomes necessary.

In view of the above facts, The Deltona Corporation would like to make the
following comments with respect to the draft EIS.

     1.   Of the approximately 5,400 acres comprising the Tampa Palms
     development, only approximately 1900 acres will be used for the
     construction of residential dwellings and commercial structures.
     Approximately 1650 acres of wetlands, representing 84.1% of the
     total natural wetland areas, defined pursuant to the Florida Land
     Use and Cover Classification Systems, presently existing on the
     site, have been designated as conservation areas in the approved
     development plan.  With respect to the approximately 500 acres of
     existing wetlands which are proposed to be eliminated, Deltona has
     agreed to mitigate such loss with construction of equivalent acreage
     of man-made wetlands, including lakes.  Nearly 55 acres of the wetland
     areas proposed to be disturbed will be used in the construction of
     such lakes.

     The Deltona Corporation contends that the EIS's conclusion that
     federal funding of wastewater treatment facilities which may service
     the Tampa Palms development will "encourage development in wetland
     and flood plain areas," is grossly misleading.  The entire develop-
     ment plan of the Tampa Palms community is committed to the preservation
     of the great majority of existing wetlands in an area which has been
     targeted for reasonably intense development by the County's adopted
     Land Use Plan.  The functions of the relatively  small areas of wetlands
     proposed to be eliminated will be adequately replaced by man-made
     "wetlands".  Based on substantial scientific evidence, there is no
     reason to believe that the post-development wetland system will not
     adequately filter out any developmental pollutants prior to such
     pollutants reaching the Hillsborough River.  Conversely, pollutant
     load models have demonstrated that post-development pollutant  loads
     will not exceed pre-development pollutant loads.

-------
Pago 4
Mr'. John E.  Hagan, III, P.E.     4_7fi
November 27, 1981
     With regard to activities in flood prone areas, no residential develop-
     ment will take place along the Hillsborough River Flood Plain below
     the 25 year flood level.  Based on the FEMA flood maps of this area
     only 98.6 acres of residential development along the River will be
     within the 100 year flood plain.

     It is The Deltona Corporation's position that the Tampa Palms develop-
     ment will successfully insure that significant wetland degradation
     will not occur in the Hillsborough River Flood Plain area.  It has
     been widely acknowledged that the designation of such large areas of
     potentially developable property as conservation areas is only possi-
     ble where the land is developed as a major integrated community by
     an organization with Deltona's abilities.  The ultimate realization
     of such a community will depend greatly on the establishment of rea-
     sonable provisions for adequate wastewater treatment.

     2.   It is important to note that the EIS concludes that a substantial
     amount of Hillsborough County's growth will occur in the unincorpo-
     rated areas of the county.  Couple this with the fact that Hillsborough
     County has planned for much of this growth to occur in the area con-
     taining the proposed Tampa Palms development, and the fact that signi-
     ficant development has already taken place directly to the south and
     west of the Tampa Palms property, and it is evident that the provision
     of wastewater facilities for the Deltona Service Area will not in
     itself, encourage urban sprawl.  To the contrary, the provision of
     wastewater facilities will facilitate orderly growth in the area
     recognized by the County and the Regional Planning Council, most
     appropriate for such growth.

     3.   On May 20, 1980 The Deltona Corporation was granted a nation-
     wide permit (33CFR 323,4-2) for development of Tampa Palms by the
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

     The Environmental Protection Agency was an active party to the Corps
     review process and, as such, presumably advised the Corps with respect
     to this permit approval.  It is disconcerting to The Deltona Corpora-
     tion, that the EPA chose to make no objection to the Tampa Palms
     development plan at that time.  It is Deltona's contention that the
     reasoning which lead the EPA to approve the Corps' issuance of the
     nation-wide permit is no less valid in context of the EPA's review
     of the present EIS.

     The EPA has, as recently as October, 1981, taken part in several
     scoping meetings with regard to the proposed Housing and Urban Develop-
     ment EIS for Tampa Palms (Title-X Financing) and again no adverse
     position to development activities was taken.  Deltona requests that
     the EPA reconsider its apparent inconsistent positions, and reaffirm
     its stance that the proposed development of Tampa Palms will not
     result in a significant threat to the environmental resources of
     Hillsborough County.

-------
Page 5
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.     4_29
November 27, 1981


     4.   A basic premise of the EIS is that the Deltona Service Area, is
     contained within the County Service Area (CSA) as opposed to the
     Tampa Service Area (TSA).  EPA should be advised that pursuant to
     an intergovernmental agreement the City of Tampa has agreed with
     Hillsborough County to incorporate the Tampa Palms area into its
     municipal service area (see Map 1-1 enclosed).  Based on this agree-
     ment and upon Hillsborough County's approval of same, it is Deltona's
     position that the Deltona Service Area should be redesignated as a
     portion of the TSA rather than the CSA.  Such redesignation would be
     more consistent with the city's present service plan.

     5.   Studies performed by local, regional, state and federal agencies
     in receiving waters (Hillsborough River and Cypress Creek) abutting
     Tampa Palms have shown that said waters do not meet standards for
     their established classifications.

In summary, The Deltona Corporation requests that the EPA modify its recom-
mendation of "no action" with respect to the expansion of the City of Tampa's
wastewater treatment plant.  Since we support your conclusion that on-site
or wetland disposal of treated effluent upstream of the Hillsborough River
Reservoir could result in severe impacts, it is Deltona's position that the
most feasible alternative and the alternative which will best serve the
population of Hillsborough County is Alternative DE, the construction of a
pump station and force main to convey the wastewater generated by the Tampa
Palms area to the Hooker Point treatment facility.  As indicated in the EIS,
this alternative is both more cost effective and most environmentally-sound    W-15
when compared to the present perferred alternative.  It is also significant
to note, with regard to the use of federal funds, that Deltona has already
entered into an agreement with Hillsborough County to both secure all neces-
sary approvals and to design and construct a pump station and force main
to connect the Tampa Palms project to the existing City sewer system
entirely at Deltona's cost.  Detailed engineering plans for these improve-
ments have been pending City and County approvals for several months.  Fur-
ther, based on the information contained in this letter and such information
as is available in the public records, it should be evident that the adverse
aspects of this alternative, as stated in the EIS, should not be considered
as reasonable concerns.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these approvals.  We look forward
to continuing to work with all interested parties in assuring that the deve-
lopment of Tampa Palms remains consistent with the best interests of Hills-
borough County.  Should you wish to further discuss Deltona's comments, I
and other employees of The Deltona Corporation are available at your con-
venience .

Very /truly yours,
        'ames Motchkavitz,  P.E.
         it of Environmental  Services

cc:   G. Burbidge  - HUD             A. Milian  - Deltona
      J. W. Apthorp -  Deltona       R. S. Schumaker  - Deltona

-------
                                 4-30

                                STATE OF FLORIDA
BOB GRAHAM
 GOVERNOR
 cc uf tl|c (JDniiernm*
      THE CAPITOL
    TALLAHASSEE 323O1


December 2, 1981
      Mr.  John E.  Hagan III, P.E.
      Chief EIS Branch
      EPA,  Region IV
      345  Courtland Street, HE
      Atlanta,  Georgia 30365

      Dear Mr.  Hagan:

           In -reference to your Draft  Environmental Impact
      Statement for Central Hillsborough County-Tampa,  Florida
      Wastewater Facilities, please be advised that we have
      circulated these documents to the concerned state agencies
      for  their review and comment.  As of  this date,  none of our
      reviewing agencies have submitted any substantive comments.

           If we receive any comments  from  any agencies regarding
      this document, we will advise you immediately.
           Thank you very much.
                                    Sincerely,
                                   Walter O.  Kolb
                                   Sr.  Governmental Analyst
     WOK/jkc
      cc:   Mr.  John Outland
           Mr.  Art Wilde
           Mr.  Dwynal Pettengill
           Mr.  Leonard Elzie
           Tampa Bay Regional Planning  Council
           SW Florida Water Mangement District,  Mr.  Donald R. Feaster
                                                       Er.'yiROri.VENTAl IMPACT Si
                                                       £  DFC07 1981  Ijjj
                                                        M              5:M
                                                              JO*.1 JV - EPA
                      An Affirmalivp Action/Tonal Onportunitv Emplover

-------
                          4-31

4.2  RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
     Response W-l
     It is generally accepted that seagrass beds are important
components of the estuarine ecosystem and exhibit varying degrees
of sensitivity to environmental modification, such as lowered
salinity regimes.  The decline of seagrass acreage in Tampa Bay
over the last 100 years is clearly illustrated in a recent study
(Mangrove Systems, 1980).  This report provides the most recent
known seagrass distribution in the Tampa Bay area and indicates
that there are no significant populations in the vicinity of the
Hookers Point Plant.  Therefore, the low salinity currents in the
northern portion of Hillsborough Bay will not affect any seagrass
populations.
     Response W-2
     Spray Irrigation sites will be subject to the rules and
regulations of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Chapter
17-6 (.04 and .08), Florida Administrative Code  (FAC).  Also, the
appropriate local regulatory agencies will be contacted at the
appropriate time when more detailed plans have been drawn up and
the funding granted.
     Environmental Assessment of any tract used  for spray
irrigation will have to occur, in order that the proper measures
are selected to both select and protect the appropriate native
communities of flora and  fauna.
     Spray Irrigation in  wetland areas during periods of high
rainfall  (I.E. high groundwater) could use selected cut off of

-------
                         4-32

spray irrigation or irrigation runoff ditches to assure the
assimilating capacity of the wetlands is not exceeded.
     These mechanisms, as well as, a closely controlled monitoring
system designed to suit each particular area will guarantee safe
operating capabilities for the facility as required by state and
local regulatory agencies, mentioned previously.
     Response W-3
     See response W-2 addressing spray irrigation sites.
     Industrial reuse sites, if they do potentially occur, will be
subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation, Chapter 17-6, Part II, Florida Administrative
Code (FAC).  If and when industrial reuse does occur more detailed
planning will occur at both the state and local level.
     Response W-4
     The planning associated with any impacts which will occur to
the Hillsborough County transportation system, i.e. disturbance to
existing roadbeds or disruption of traffic service will be subject
to approval from local and state agencies.  More detailed planning
will occur in the future, after funding is granted, which will
address these concerns.
     Response W-5
     Sludge disposal sites will be made to follow the rules and
regulations of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Chapter
17-7, Part I,II,III, Florida Administrative Code (FAC).  A Part III
is presently being compiled to address the specific problems
associated with sludge disposal and the appropriate monitoring
programs.  This part will be in effect in January of 1983.

-------
                          4-33
     The sites will be chosen subject to these rules and regulation
in the future when more detailed plans have been assembled.
     Response W-6
     The City of Tampa and the Deltona Corporation have agreed to
the provision of sanitary sewerage for the Deltona development.
This agreement is consistent with the "No Action" alternative, in
that Federal funds will not be utilized to encourage development in
what is considered wetlands.  Since no federal funds are involved
with this alternative, the Deltona Corporation can implement any
environmentally suitable means of wastewater treatment and disposal
which they deem appropriate.
     Response W-7
     Uses of reclaimed phosphate land projected by phosphate
companies in their development of Regional Impact (DRI) studies are
varied and include residential, recreational, agricultural, and
wetlands.  For example, reclaimed phosphate lands in Polk County
adjacent to urban areas has been utilized for residential and
commercial development, while reclaimed lands further removed from
cities have been utilized primarily for recreation and agriculture.
A similar pattern is projected for the southeastern portion of the
county where major phosphate deposits are found.  Therefore, there
will be no effect upon the in-the-ground phosphate resources due to
the existing trend of development centered around urban areas and
major interstate transportation corridors which are removed from
the southeastern portions of the county held by major phosphate
mining companies.

-------
                          4-34
     Peat deposits are not going to be adversely affected by the
alternatives selected because of the rarity of occurance and their
proximity to urban areas and major interstate transportation
routes.
     Response W-8
     Expansion of the detailed losses by species and area were
included in the original drafts submitted.  The loss of important
species utilizing wetlands and Sand Pine - Oak habitat are inferred
at several phases in the document - (e.g. p. II - 120 in Vol II).
The site specific spray irrigation studies will deal with this
issue in more detail
     Response W-9
     The premise used in evaluating impacts to threatened or
endangered species in the 201 study area was that development would
occur (with associated losses of protected species) with or without
approval of a waste treatment plan.  The two sections on pages
IV-73 (Surface Ecosystem) and IV-74 (Rare and Endangered Species)
both state that urbanization will occur with or without wastewater
treatment improvements.  The details on p. IV-73 depict losses to
the ecosystem as a result of this development; thus a "with" and
"without" project assignment is irrelevant.  The recommended
alternative selected by EPA was not to fund facilities improvement
in the Deltona Region.
     Response W-10
     See response W-2 for discussion on spray irrigation of
effluent.

-------
                          4-35





     Response W-ll



     See response W-2 for discussion on spray irrigation of



effluent.



     Response W-12



     See response W-5 for discussions on sludge treatment and



disposal.  Also, see Chapter 2, Changes to the Draft.



     Response W-13



     At present the Department of Environmental Regulation  (DER) is



trying to obtain funds for a wasteload allocation study either



through the EPA or other legislative channels.  At present, no



study is taking place, but DER is hopeful that the funding will



become available in the near future, so that, a wasteload



allocation study can get underway.



     Respones W-14



     Present conditions in Hillsborough Bay possibly represent a



stabilization of eutrophication rates.  Without the AWT plant at



Hooker's Point, these eutrophication rates could be much worse.



More detailed information generated in the future will hopefully



provide a more detailed response to Mr. Lewis' questions.



     Response W-15



     The Environmental Protection Agency has not singled out the



Deltona Corporation in its assessment of the Deltona Study area,



but made its final decision based on the Deltona study area as a



whole and the future impacts associated with the entire study area.



3.3  HEARING TRANSCRIPT

-------
                           4-36
1

2

3

4

5      CENTRAL HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TAMPA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

6                   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

7

8

9
                      DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING
10                         November 18, 1981
                        City Council  Chambers
n                          Tampa City Hall
                             7:30 - 8:10
12

13


         PRESENT
15
         Bob  Cooper, EPA
16        Paul Traina, EPA
         Gene Sullivan, EPA
17        Ron  Bizzarri, Greeley & Hansen
         Harold Bridges, Smith & Gillespie
18

19

20

21
         REPORTED BY:
22
         Robert D. Cooper, CP, RPR
23        Notary Public                ,	
                                      COPY
24        Pages 1-21

25

                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA  336O2
                    <813) 223-1666 REFERENCE  MARTINDAUE-HUBBELU.

-------
                           4-37
1
2
3
 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

*-->

24

25
                   HS2.21iEDI.NGS.
          MR. TRAINA:  Hearing will  come to  order.

          I welcome you  all  to the public hearing on  the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on  proposed wastewater

facilities for the City  of Tampa  and surrounding areas  of

Hillsborough County, Florida.

          First let me begin by introducing  the panel.

          On my right is Mr. Gene Sullivan,  the Florida

Department of Environmental  Regulation.

          On my left is  Mr.  Robert Cooper, who is -the EPA

Project Officer on this  project.

          The purpose of this evening's  hearing is to receive

public and other  agencies' comments  on the wastewater manage-

ment proposal contained  in the draft Environmental Impact

Statement for Tampa and  central Hillsborough County,  Florida.

          This EIS is being  prepared on wastewater facilities

proposed in  the 201 Facilities' Plan prepared for the City

of Taiapa and Hillsborough County, Florida, by Greeley and

Hansen Engineers, Inc.,  Tampa, and Smith and Gillespie

Engineers, Inc.,  Jacksonville.

          The preparation of this EIS is authorized by the

Clean Water  Act and  the  National  Environmental Policy Act.

The Clean "Water Act  enables  EPA  to fund up to 75 percent

of the eligible costs  for the  planning,  design and con-

struction of wastewater  facilities.
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    4.1 S MADISON STREET. TAMPA. FLORIDA  336O2
                   (813) 225-1665 REFERENCE MARTINDALE - HUBBELL.

-------
                           4-38
a

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

23
separated into the Tampa and the county service area.  This

shows the county service area, which was further  subdivided

into six study areas, consisting of the Deltona,  Northeast,

Thonotosassa, Brandon, Riverview, Gibsonton and Southeast

study areas.

          The overlay on this  figure here is the  projected

land use plans for the year 2000, showing the industrial,

urban, urban transition, suburban and open rural  areas.

          Based on the projected land use plan, we  concluded

that within the 20-year planning period, up throug-h the  year

2000 , that some fona of sewage service would be required

for  the Deltona area, if the Deltona development  occurs,

or the Thonotosassa  area,  due  to the projected development

of urban and suburban, for the Brandon area and for this

portion of the Riverview/ Gibsonton  area.

          In each of these areas, alternatives- that were

considered included  either pumping  the wastewater,  or a

portion of the areas' wastewater to the  City of Tampa for

treatment, or building treatment facilities  and  disposal

facilities within the  study areas.

          In each of the  study areas,  for  those  alternatives

where they would build a  treatment  plant and dispose within

the  study area, we  considered disposal  to  surface waters,

land application  of  various types,  and deep  well  injection.

          For  the Deltona  study area,  we concluded through
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA  336O2
                   (813) 22S-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE - HUBBEUL

-------
                          4-39
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
          The planning phase of  this process  results  in  the

preparation of facilities plan.   In this  instance,  the  City

of Tampa and Hillsborough County have" been  designated as the

local agencies responsible  for facilities planning  in the

area.

          The National Environmental Policy Act  requires

federal agencies  to prepare an environmental  impact state-

ment on major federal actions significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.
                                                v
          Because of the environmental  complexities and

water quality issues involved in this project,  EPA  made the

decision to prepare an impact statement on  the  201  Facilities

Plan.

          Accordingly, in December of  1978  the  notice of

intent to prepare an EIS was issued.   Pursuant  to the guide-

lines of the President's Council on Environmental Quality

and  the rules and regulations of EPA  with regard to the

preparation  of EIS, this public  hearing is  being held to

receive comments  on the  draft EIS.

          The draft EIS  and facilities plan are being dis-

cussed in a  public forum to encourage public  participation

in the federal  decision-making  process, and to develop

improved public  understanding  of federally funded projects.

          In this regard,  the  draft EIS was made available to

the  public  and  the EPA's office of Federal Activities in
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET. TAMPA, FLORIDA  336OE
                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE - HUBBEUL

-------
                           4-40
 1  Washington  on September 17th.  1981,  and was listed in the


 2  Federal Register on September 25th,  1981.


 3            We'll keep the EIS comment period open until


 4  November  30th,  1981.  Comments received during this evening,


 5  and during  the  comment period will become part of the record.


 6            Let me ask you if you're here this evening, those


 7  of you here,  if you haven't filled out a card, we ask you to


 g  do that,  and  we have a copy of the Impact Statement, which


 9  is the blue document, and in fact also out there is an


10  executive summary section of that statement.


jj            At  this point I would like to call on Mr. Robert


12  Cooper, who will provide us with a brief summary of this


13  project.


14            Mr. Cooper.


15            MR. COOPER:  The purpose of the EIS is to select


16  the wast ewater  treatment and disposal system which is the


17  most cost effective and environmentally sound system for the


18  201 Planning  Area.


             To  meet this requirement,  alternative systems were


   developed and evaluated.  And to help briefly describe the


   systems that  were developed, I would like to call on Ron


   Bizzarri  of Greeley and Hansen and Harold Bridges of Smith


   and Gillespie to briefly describe their various areas of


   authority.


             MR. BIZZARRI:  The wastewater plan for the City of
25


                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    41 S MADISON STREET. TAMPA, FLORIDA 336O2
                   (813) 223-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE- HUB BELL

-------
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                        4-41                           Pa9*    5
Tampa comprises two principal parts.   One part  is  related to

the collection system,  and  the  facilities include  works  to

accommodate the estimated future wastewater  quantities,  to

provide relief facilities where capacity  limitations  have been

identified in the existing  system,  and to correct  structural

deficiencies with old existing  systems.

          The second part of the Tampa wastewater  plan

includes expansion of the wastewater  treatment  plant  on

Hookers Point to accommodate the estimated  future  wastewater

quantities, and the expanded plant  development  was-.arrived

at after the evaluation of  some 35  alternatives.

          The new facilities include  treatment  with a two-

stage biological treatment  process,  followed by deep  bed

filtration for nitrogen removal,anaerobic digestion of the

waste sludges.

          A principal feature of the  new  plant' expansion

includes energy recovery facilities,  which.comprise on-site

generation of electrical power  using  methane gas received

from the anaerobic digestion process.

          The digested  stabilized  sludge  will be dewatered

on open drying beds, and belt  filters, and the dewatered

sludge is disposed of off-site.

          And that about is the summary of the projects and

the plan for  the Tampa  service  area.

          MR. BRIDGES:   The total  planning area was
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA  336O2
                   (B13) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE - HUBBELL

-------
                       4-42
separated into the Tampa and  the  county service  area.   This

shows the county service area, which  was further subdivided

into six study areas, consisting  of the Deltona,  Northeast,

Thonotosassa , Brandon, Riverview,  Gibsonton and  Southeast

study areas.

          The overlay on this figure  here is the projected

land use plans for the year 2000,  showing the industrial,

urban, urban transition, suburban and open rural areas.

          Based on the projected  land use plan,  we concluded

that within  the 20-year planning  period, up through the year

2000, that some form of sewage service would be  required

for the Deltona area, if the  Deltona  development occurs,

or the Thonotosassa area,  due to  the  projected development

of urban and suburban, for the Brandon area and  for this

portion of the Riverview/ Gibsonton area.

          In each of these areas,  alternatives' that were

considered included either pumping the wastewater, or a

portion of the areas' wastewater  to  the City of  Tampa for

treatment, or building treatment  facilities and disposal

facilities within the study areas.

          In each of the study areas, for those  alternatives

where they would build a treatment plant and dispose within

the  study area, we  considered disposal to surface waters,

land application of various types, and deep well injection.

          For  the Deltona  study area, we concluded through


                INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
	4-43    	          Pag*    7
our cost effective  analysis  that  the  only  alternatives  con-

sidered to be  cost  effective would.be to either  pump  it to

Tampa or to  treat it within  service areas,  and dispose  of it

by a somewhat  new method  called wetlands disposal.

          For  the Thonotosassa area,  the cost effective

alternatives are determined  to be either pumping it  to  the

City of Tampa  or treating it within the study area and  dis-

posing of it through spray irrigation.

          For  the Brandon study area, it was determined that

cost effective alternatives  would be  to build a"treatment

plant within the study  area  to treat  all of the  wastewater
                                             (
within the study area,  and dispose of it through spray

irrigation,  or, if  feasible, to treat it to secondary treat-

ment, plus nitrification  degree of treatment and dispose

of it into the Alafia River.

          For  the Riverview/Gibsonton study area,  in addition

to the- alternatives mentioned  of  pumping to Tampa or treating

within the study area,  we looked  at another alternative

of transporting the wastewater down to the south county

area for treatment  and  disposal at the new proposed  south

county treatment plant.

          The  cost  effective alternatives  for Riverview/

Gibsonton were determined to be treatment  within the study

area, and disposal  by spray  irrigation,  treatment within  the

study area,  and disposal  by  discharge to  the Alafia  River,
                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602
                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE - HUBBEUL

-------
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                        4-44                          Page    8

and just pumping it to  the south  county  for  treatment  dis-

posal there.

          MR. COOPER:   After  the  careful evaluation  of these

alternatives, the preferred alternative  for  the  Tampa  service

area and the county service area  were  selected by  EPA,  and

published in the Draft  EIS for  the  city, the preferred

alternative is discharge  of treated waste-water into

Hillsborough Bay.

          The exact level of  treatment will  be based upon the
                                                s.
results of the waste load allocation  study that  ha's  yet to  be

completed. .

          While this alternative  does  continue the previously

established pattern of  discharge  to Hillsborough Bay,  it

recognizes substantial  improvements in water quality as a

result of the operation of the  Hookers Point Plant.

          Also, further recycling and reuse  options  are also

under additional evaluation.  The preferred  alternative

for wastewater collection and transmission in the  Tampa

service area is the provision of  service to  all  areas  as

shown in Figure 1 of your hand-out, excluding the  second

phase of the northeast  intersection.

          This option provides  a  cost effective  and

environmentally sound system  without  encouraging the develop-

ment of the Hillsborough River  flood  plain and above the

city's water  supply  intake.
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA. FLORIDA  336O2
                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINGALE - HUBBEU.

-------
1

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
	4-45	         Pag*   9

          For the  four, counties  service  areas,  first for

Deltona, the preferred alternative  is  the  No-Fed  Action

alternative.  This precludes  the use of  federal funds to

encourage development in the  wetlands  environment.

          This alternative is also  consistent with  the

expanding grant  funds to clean up existing water  quality

problems, rather than promoting  development, since  no water

quality problems have been demonstrated  to exist  in this

area.
                                                X
          For Thonotosassa, the  preferred  alternative again

is No-Fed Action.  This alternative includes the  use of

federal funds to encourage development,  where again, no need

has been demonstrated to currently  exist.

          The need for provision of service will  be re-

evaluated again  in this area  following the 1990 census.

In Brandon the preferred alternative exists of  construction

of a treatment plant for secondary  treatment, and disposal

of effluent by spray irrigation.

          Site specific studies  will be  needed  to verify the

environmental suitability  of  each proposed spray  irrigation

site.

          Site specific studies  will also  be needed in the

Brandon area to  determine  specific  areas which  are  'suitable

for septic tanks which need to be put  on the regional system.

          For Riverview/Gibsonton,  the preferred  alternative
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA. FLORIDA  336O2
                   (813) 229-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE - HUBBELL.

-------
                        4-46
consists of pumping the vastewater  to  the  proposed  south

county facility for treatment  and disposal there  by spray

irrigation.

          In both the case of  Brandon  and  Riverview/

Gibsonton, the preferred alternative for collection and

transmission of vastewater, cost approval  now  for those

phases is';scheduled^for~constructibn by:.1990.

          Planning approval of additional  phases  will  be

delayed until after the results of  the 1990 census  are

available, and the need can be further justified.

          MR. TRAINA:  Thank you, Mr.  Cooper.   Okay.

          At this point the hearing is yours.   You've  heard

the presentation of what the tentative decision of  EPA is,

and the idea of the hearing this evening is to hear from

the public.

          As I've indicated earlier, we've asked  you to fill

out the cards, and we have one individual, I see  only  one

at this point that would like  to make  a statement.

          So I would like to call on Kr ."1 Rob in. L Lewis .

          MR. LEWIS:  I would  like  to  say  that I'm speaking

as a representative of the Hillsborough Environmental

Coalition, which have been participating in the assistance

advisory committee on this project  since June  of  1979, so

we've been following it fairly carefully,  and  I've  been

submitting comments continuously throughout the project.
                INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                418 MADISON STREET. TAMPA. FLORIDA 336O2
                (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINGALE-HUBBELU

-------
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                       4-47                           Pa9»   11
          We have some letters with us tonight which were

submitted as early as September of 1979,  and  as  this project

has been going on.

          My personal experience is as a  marine  biologist,

and I have worked in Tampa Bay since  1966,  so about 15  years,

and I was involved initially with sewage  treatment problems

in Tampa Bay before there was an AWT  plant  at Hookers Point,

and, in fact, was part of the group of people who encouraged

an AWT plant to be installed here.
                                                V
          And one of the reasons that, of course, "the AWT

plant was put into operation in the first place  was because

of existing sewage treatment plant problems and  bay problems.

          And most everybody should be aware  of  this  docu-

ment.  John Hagan participated, and I know that  his name is

on the front of this.

          One of  the things  that the  coalition is  concerned

about in the Draft EIS is,  first of all,  that there's  very

little consideration given  to  the past  historical  problems

in Tampa Bay.

          I know  there was  a statement  made,  Mr. Cooper just

made  it, I  guess,  about  substantial  improvements in water

quality.  I think we have  to ask ourselves the question, why

do we treat sewage?
          We  don't treat sewage  really just  for water

quality  improvements.   What we really treat  sewage for is
                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA  336O2
                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE - HUBBELL

-------
                           4-48                            a»  12
 1   for human health problems and for biological improvement.




 2   That's what we're really after.




 3             The fish,  the birds, not too much bacteria in the




 4   water and so forth.   And those are the kind of things that




 5   if we're going to spend all this money for sewage treatment,




 6   that I think should be addressed in the Draft EIS.  I don't




 7   think they are.




 8             In fact, the Hagan Report is passed over in a very




 9   cursory fashion.  Now, as I've said, I've been involved with




10   this for quite a longer period of time, and we had- problems




H   with algae in Tampa Bay, and as a marine biologist, I've been




12   aware of these problems.




13             We had problems with algae.   It's documented well.



14   in the Hagan Report.




IS             The south treatment plant was improved in hopes of




16   improving some of those problems, and initially, all of us




17   who worked in the bay thought that there were some indica-




18   tions of improvement.




I9             The classic odor problems along Bayshore Boule-




20   vard, for example.  Within the last year or two, we've seen




..   a reoccurrence of the same algae problem.




22             I personally have been out on the bay and docu-




    mented and reported to the city values as high as 16,000
^3



24   pounds per acre, dry weight of marine algae, of the same




„   species that were reported in the Hagan Report, occurring
Zo




                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE

                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33SO2

                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE- HUBBEU.

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                       4-49                            Page   13
within the last year in Tampa Bay, in Hillsborough  Bay.

          Now, I'm not trying to  say that  I know what's

going on in Hillsborough Bay.  I'm trying  to  say that  I,

along with I think a lot of other people,  don't know what's

going on in Hillsborough Bay, and it bothers  me that we

proceed with planning for sewage  treatment facilities  without

truly understand what is going on.

          I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do it,  so  don't

anybody take me wrong on that point.  The  coalition supports

100 percent needed improvements in the sewage treatment

system, particularly things like  the overflows into Hills-

borough River.

          I mean,; that: is-;a critical, urgent  problem  that

needs as fast as possible more work done on it.  I  haven't

been involved in all the planning on it, but  I do know that

there are reoccurring overflows even as late  as last  summer

into the Hillsborough River, and  that needs to be,  whatever

engineering is necessary to improve that obviously  needs to

be done.

          But we're talking about expanding the sewage treat-

ment plant.  We're talking about  more people  in Tampa  and

the sewage going down here and more inputs into the bay,

in spite of the fact that AWT effluent when you go  from one

amount of effluent and double it  you're going to have  in-

creased flows of nutrients and other materials into Tampa
                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET. TAMPA. FLORIDA 336O2
                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE • HUBBELL.

-------
                           4-50
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
"Bay, particularly Hillsborough Bay.

          I don't: think we understand enough about what's
going on out there, and I don't think the Draft EIS  really
addresses some of these problems.
          And we have tried, the coalition, has submitted
letters and tried to suggest certain improvements in it, and
there have been improvements, and  to dip right into  these
things is very difficult; I know that.
          But we think there are still  some points that need
to be addressed here, particularly related to what.* s going  on
in the bay itself, because when you think about it,  that's
what all this money and all this concern is about.
          The river too, to be sure.  But ultimately the big
concern has been for many, many, many years about what's
going on in Hillsborough Bay, in Tampa  Bay, and we just
seem to be glossing over that.
          Now, the city has invested some substantial
amounts of money in primary productivity study.   It's on-
going now.  It's a very excellent  study that has  some pre-
liminary indications, but I don't  think that's enough.
          I really think we need to take a  --  and I  would
encourage EPA  to consider the fact that it's  the  bay that's
receiving the  ultimate effluent in most cases, and we are
concerned about that.
          Well, as I  said, we have submitted  some letters  on
                    INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET. TAMPA. FLORIDA 336O2
                   (813) 22S-I666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE- HUBBEU-

-------
                           4-51                          Pag.  15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
this, and I notice that in the document there has been
a
lot of communications by letter concerning this project.

And none of that's reflected in the EIS.

          I know it's not routine to put some of these in

there, but in addition to the comments that are submitted

directly in response to the Draft ElS, I would encourage

EPA to look at some of the communications that have been

going on for over 24 months, letters that have been sub-

mitted, suggestions and so forth.

          I think to be fair too, .atlleast somevof- these

letters should be included in the HIS, because people have

been commenting all along, and I think you could ask any of

the consultants that have worked on this project.  We have

tried to be helpful.

          They come to our offices and we try to supply them

the information.

          MR. TRAINA:  Mr. Lewis, I appreciate your coming and

making those comments.  We are not unaware of the  concerns

with regard to the water quality in the Hillsborough Bay, and

the impact statement does make reference, and the  statement

does make reference to the fact that there needs to be and

will be done a waste allocation study.

          The immediate concerns, as you've pointed out,

that thisJ-EIS addresses, is the service area question, not

only for the city but county.
                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 336O2
                   (813) 229-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE - HUBBEUL

-------
                           4-52                           a*   16
1            When  you get  into  these  things  and it gets to the



2  point  that  you  start  broadening them and  broadening them,



3  and one  thing —  as a fellow beaureaucrat I can tell -you! that



4  I  find intolerable is delay  in federal decisions,  so we made



5  a  conscious decision  to move ahead,  looking at the, albeit, a



6  more narrow question, but an important question as to what



7  the service area  is.



8            That  is the subject of the EIS.  This does not



9  mean to  preclude  the  need and the  conduct of a water quality



10  study  in the bay, which will determine ultimately  .the degree



U  of treatment that's going to be received  by the bay waters.



12            MR. LEWIS:  But I  would caution you and  anybody who



13  looks  at waste  allocation studies  -- and  I've had  some



14  experience  with these,  with  at least reading them  -- and



15  again, you  get  back to  waste allocation studies, what waste



16  allocation  study  can  you point to  me, if  you think about



17  it in  your  own  mind,  that truly addresses again the biology



18  that's going on.


19            These waste allocation studies  and the one that's



   going  on for Hillsborough Bay is going to do the same thing



   when it  comes  out and I'm going to growl  about it  when it



   comes  out the  same way.



              The  bay has a biological system, an ecological sys-
£&


   tern, and the whole concern and the whole  concern for years



   has been the biology  of the  bay.  What waste allocation study
2*)



                   INDEPENDENT  REPORTING SERVICE

                   418 MADISON STREET. TAMPA, FLORIDA 336O2

                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE  - HUBBEUU

-------
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
	    4-53 	_^^^^^ Page  17
 looks at the biology?  They generally look at it with a

 computer model, some manipulations of DO's, which are not

 zoned.   They're strata.  They're all mixed in the water and
 these things.

           And it really has no biological value at all.  So,

 when you get to that point, six months from now, a year, two

 years,  I'll be gack here, and I'll tell you what I think

 of  your waste allocation study.

           And I hope it's better than I think it's going to
 be.                                              *  ._

           MR. TRAINA:  What we should do is put you on a

 committee.   I'm sure there will be a committee here.  What

 we  need is  to get you involved in this.

           MR. LEWIS:  I've been on a lot of committees and

 I'll be happy to participate on some more committees, but

 there's almost a mechanical way of plodding along on these

 things  that tends to ignore the realities of life, and.'it
 bothers me  a lot.

           So, I just wanted to say that.

           MR. TRAINA:  Well, again, I appreciate your taking

 the  time to do that.  I want to assure you and others

 that this  EIS does not preclude,  as a matter of fact, it

 addresses  the question of water quality studies in the bay.

           We realize that those have to be done, and we

 have proceeded to those.   Let  me ask you with regards to
                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 336O2
                   (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTtNDALE - HUBBELL

-------
 6
 7
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                       4-54                          Pa9»  18
the comments.about the letters and so on, that if you have a

few of those that you feel are particularly germaine here,

I'm sure they all are, if you'll leave those, we'll assure

you that they'll be a part of the final EIS when it's

published.

          MR. LEWIS:  Thank you.

          MR. TRAINA:  I have no indications of anyone  else

liking to make a statement here, but at this point I would

like to throw it open to anyone who would like to comment,

ask a question.

          This is your hearing, your meeting.  I don't  know

if I'm encouraged or not by that.  Okay.

          Hearing no other comments, let me just conclude

by saying that the hearing, as I've indicated earlier,  will

be open until the 30th of November, and anyone who maybe has

some second thoughts or would like to send us some comments,

written comments, we'll be more than happy to receive those.

          They should be addressed to, guess who, John  E.

Hagan, of the Hagan Report.  Same individual.  I have to

tell you all that there's  a bit of pride here that I was

explaining  to John Hagan's supervisor when he made the.report

and the only mistake I made is I didn't put my name on  it.

          I thought at the time that the report was out that

it would be such a bomb-, that I would like Hagan to take all

the problems with it.  But Mr. Hagan is now the acting
                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA. FLORIDA 336O2
                   (B13) 229-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE- HUBBEU-

-------
   	     4-55	Pa9»  19

 1   chief,  and everybody in EPA is acting these days.

 2             But the Environmental Assessment Branch for EPA:is--at:

 3   345  Courtland;.Street.  That address is on part of the document

 4   here,  so  you can send any comments you want to Mr. Eagan

 5   and  I'm sure he*ll be glad to hear from you.

 6             I want to thank you all for coming this evening.

 7   Mr.  Lewis,  especially you for participating with us.

 8             As I say, the comments received this evening and

 9   during the  comment period will be reviewed, and we'll respond

10   to them in  the final EIS.                      r  -

11             And I want to make that point, that your letters,

12   we'll  put  them in. and put a response in and we'll address the

13   problem of  the waste allocation study more specifically.

1*             The final EIS will be consisting of the agency .'s."

15   final  decision, a summary of the Draft EIS and pertinent

16   similar add-in will be a, revisions, comments, received, and

17   EPA's  responses to those comments.

18             And also, I was going to say a transcript of this

19   hearing, because of budgetory problems we can't afford a

20   court  reporter any more, so we don't do transcripts.

21             Those of you who have comments in it, or are

22   submitting  comments, and if you filled out this little

23   card,  you'll receive a copy of the final EIS, and if you

24   haven't filled out the cards you're not going to get a copy

25   of the final EIS.


                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA. FLORIDA  33603
                   (813) 223-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDALE - HUBBELL

-------
                           4-56                          Pag*   10
 1   consists of pumping the wastewater to the proposed  south

 2   county facility for treatment and disposal there by spray

 3   irrigation.

 4             In both the case of Brandon and Riverview/

 5   Gibsonton,  the preferred alternative for collection and

 6   transmission of wastewater, cost approval now for those

 7   phases is:.scheduled..for:-constructibn by 1990.

 8             Planning approval of additional phases will be

 9   delayed until after the results of the  1990 census are

10   available,  and the need can be further justified. -.

11             MR.  TRAINA:  Thank you, Mr. Cooper.  Okay.

12             At this point the hearing is yours.  You've heard

13   the  presentation of what the tentative decision of EPA is,

14   and  the idea of the hearing this evening is to hear from

15   the  public.

16             As I've indicated earlier,  we've asked you to fill

17   out  the cards,  and we have one individual, I see only one

lg   at this point that would like to make a statement.

19             So I would like to call on Mr ..Rob in. L Lewis.

20             MR.  LEWIS:  I would like to say that I'm speaking

21   as a representative of the Hillsborough Environmental

22   Coalition,  which have been participating in the assistance

    advisory committee on this project since June of 1979, so

    we've been  following it fairly carefully, and I've been

    submitting comments continuously throughout the project.


                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 336OZ
                   (8131 225-1666 REFERENCE MARTINDAUE - HUBBEUL
24

-------
                                                          2°
          Again, I want to thank you all for coming.  I

alv/ays enjoy coming to Tampa.  It's a pleasure.

          Let me just say, this is off the record really,

but I had the good fortune and pleasure this afternoon of

visiting the Hookers Point Plant, and I've been involved in

this business in this area of the country for about 20 years

now, and there's no finer plant that I've seen, and run by

no finer group of professional people that I've seen than

the Hookers Point Plant of the City of Tampa.

          All of you who are from this area, you 'have my

envy, if you will, in that you are served by excellent

public officials who do just a terrific job with the waste-

water treatment and collection.

          So with that, I adjourn the hearing.

          (Proceedings concluded at 8:10 p.m.)
                INDEPENDENT REPORTING  SERVICE
                41B MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA  336O2
                (613) 223-1666 REFERENCE MARTINGALE- HUBBEU.

-------
  	4-58	

1


2                     CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

3

4   STATE OF FLORIDA        :

5   COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH  :

6
             I,   Robert D. Cooper	, Notary  Public in
    and for the State of Florida at Large,

8            DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing  deposition
    was taken before me at  the time and place therein
    designated; that before testimony was taken, the  deponent
    was by me duly sworn; that my shorthand notes  were.
10   thereafter reduced to typewriting under my supervision; •
    and that the transcript,  numbered pages  1     through  21
11   inclusive, is a true record of the testimony given by the
    witness.
12
             I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
13   employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties,  nor
    relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, nor am I
14   financially interested  in the outcome of the foregoing
    action.
15
             WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL THIS, the IQt-h  day of
16      r>opoTnf.o-r     t 198T__,  IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, COUNTY OF
    HILLSBOROUGH, STATE OF  FLORIDA.
17                                              -    X \ I'1'''•-'//
                                                    •'* \  '      /
18                                                 /.•/••->» U',,  ~\
                                                  *  ' I '       •/ " <.


                                NOTARY PUBLIC, Sta^e ,of Florida
20                               My Commission expires^'/!  4/14/84

21

22            Transcribed bys      T.nra TtnrifHe'k	

23

24

25

                    INDEPENDENT REPORTING SERVICE
                    418 MADISON STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 336O2
                    (813) 225-1666 REFERENCE MART1NDALE - HUBBELU

-------
                         4-59



4.4  RESPONSES TO TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS



     No questions at the public hearing with the exception of Mr.



R. Lewis.  Mr. Lewis' questions were addressed in response to his



letter in responenses to written comments W-14.

-------
                          5-1
                                                          5.0

                                                  COORDINATION
5.1  FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATION LIST

     The following, state and local agencies, public officials,

organizations, and interest groups have been requested to comment

on this impact statement.

     Federal Agencies

     U.S. EPA, Region IV
     U.S. Geological Survey
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
     U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
     U.S. Department of Commerce
     U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
     U.S. Department of the Air Force
     U.S. Department of the Interior
     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

     Members of Congress

     State Contacts

     Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
     Florida Bureau of Geology
     Florida Department of Transportation
     Florida Bureau of Census
     Florida Department of State, Divison of Archives
     Florida Department of Education
     Florida Department of Natural Resources
     Florida Game  & Freshwater Fish Commission
     Florida Office of the Governor

     Local and Regional

     Southwest Florida Water Management District
     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
     West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
     Hillsborough  County Environmental Protection Commission
     Hillsborough  County Planning Commission
     City of Tampa
     Hillsborough  County

-------
                    5-2

Interest Groups
Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Society
The Deltona Corporation

-------
                          6-1
                                                     6.0
                                        LIST OF PREPARERS
     The Draft EIS for the proposed wastewater facilities for
the City of Tampa, the City of Temple Terrace and portions of
adjacent unincorporated Hillsborough County was prepared for
the EPA by Dames & Moore (D&M) of Lakeland, Florida using the
third party EIS preparation method.  The names and qualifica-
tions of the D&M staff responsible for the preparation of this
EIS are presented in Table 6-1.  An independent evaluation of
all information presented in the EIS was also performed by the
following EPA officials, City of Tampa officials, and Hills-
borough County officials.

-------
                          6-2
                    TABLE 6-1 PROJECT PERSONNEL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard
Robert C. Cooper
David Peacock

Fritz Wagner
Bill Kruczynski
Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
EIS Project Officer
Chief, Florida/Mississippi Facilities
  Planning Section
201 Project Engineer
Ecological Review Branch
City of Tampa
Howard Curren
Project Manager
Hillsborough County
Warren Smith
Victor Formby
Project Manager
Project Manager
201  Facilities Plan Engineers
     Smith & Gillespie Engineers - Jacksonville, Florida
          Harold Bridges - Project Manager
     Greeley & Hansen - Tampa, Florida
          Ronald Bizzarri - Project Manager

-------
                         6-3





               TABLE 6-1 PROJECT PERSONNEL  (Cont'd)







Dames & Moore



T.M. Gurr                     Project Director



Lawrence J. Maron             Principal Investigator-Surface Water



                                Editor - DEIS



Michael A. Luckett            Principal Investigator - Geology



Mark R. Stephens              Principal Investigator - Ground Water



Thomas Simpson                Principal Investigator - Biology



W. Terry White                Principal Investigator -



                                Socioeconomics



Marvin Smith                  Principal Investigator - Land Use



James Little                  Principal Investigator - Air Quality



Robert Glassen                Associate Project Manager



                                Editor - Technical Resource



                                Documents/ Volumes I and II

-------
                   TABLE 6-2  QUALIFICATIONS OF DAMES & MOORE
T. M. Gurr
Robert C. Classen
       NAME                              QUALIFICATIONS

                   M.A., Geology; Associate, Dames & Moore
                   Consultants, 13 years experience with mul-
                   tidisciplinary studies dealing with environ-
                   mental permitting and geotechnical
                   assessments for industry and government.

                   Ph.D (pending completion of dissertation)
                   geology; Senior Geologist, Dames & Moore
                   Consultants, 11 years experience including
                   technical coordination of environmental
                   impact statements and multidisiplinary
                   studies for industry and government.

                   M.S.P.H., Air and Industrial Hygiene,
                   Dames & Moore Consultants, 9 years
                   experience with direction of air
                   quality evaluations for industry and
                   government.

Michael A. Luckett M.S., Geology; Senior Geologist, Dames &
                   Moore Consultants, 11 years of experience
                   with environmental, hydrologic, and
                   geotechnical studies for industry and
                   government.
James Little
Lawrence J. Maron
Thomas E. Simpson
                   M.S., Water Resources; Senior Engineer,
                   Dames & Moore Consultants, 8 years of
                   experience with direction of geotechni-
                   and environmental studies for industry
                   and government.

                   Ph.D., Biology; Senior Biologist, Dames &
                   Moore Consultants, 14 years of experience
                   with biological studies for environmental
                   impact statements, Nuclear power plant sit-
                   ings and other multidisciplinary studies for
                   industry and government.
                                                                          RESPONSIBILITY
Project Director
Associate Project
Manager Editor -
Technical Resource
Documents, Volume
I and II.
Principal Investi-
gator - Air
Quality
                                                                    Principal Investi-
                                                                    gator - Geology
Principal Investi-
gator - Surface
Water Editor -
DEIS
Principal Investi-
gator - Biology

-------
                     TABLE 6-2 QUALIFICATIONS OF DAMES & MOORE(Cont'd)
    NAME

Marvin Smith
Mark R. Stephens
William T. White
          QUALIFICATIONS

B.A., Business Administration and Indus-
trial Geography,Project Geographer, Dames
& Moore Consultants, 9 years of experience
with environmental analysis of land use
population, transportation, and historical
and archaeological surveys for industry and
government.

M.S., Geology and Water Resources, Senior
Hydrogeologist, Dames & Moore Consultants
7 years of experience with groundwater
investigations involving chemical waste
disposal, industrial process water impound-
ments, and subsurface hydrocarbon contamin-
ation for industry and government.

Ph.D., Sociology, Senior Sociologist, Dames
& Moore Consultants 11 years of experience
with socioeconomic impact analysis for
communities, power plant projects, Alaskan
Gas Pipeline and port development for industry
and government.
    RESPONSIBILITY

Principal Investigator
- Land Use
Principal Investigator
- Ground Water
                                                                                              en
                                                                                              1
                                                                                              tn
Principal Investigator
- Socioeconomics

-------
7-1
                              7.0




                         APPENDIX

-------
                            FfF /
                                     PLANT- &OM<*i>
     ITEM                  0£SLRIPT/OM                SHEET
        2-


        3         C4P/rfi(-COST<2oMPA-RtSOM                   2.


                                       LUD&£                  3


                             D/GESTtQv PROCESS               f


        ^>         DI&ESTZD Su/p&e-                           f


        7         &JS PRODUCTION                           b


        8         cNE&GY PRODUCTION frNb SAViM&S              1


        9         £PA PRoP&SAL- E~Ai
V.AF 87 (10 781                     ENGINEERING GRID                             28020000^0

-------
 PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------
3.


4.



5.


G.

7.

8.

9.

/o.
            3l -
            10 -
                          fvt.it.iry
          A/ev>/
-Gen "Se-r
                            O/J
                 ///VA/C//>C O f fl
                    EAC
                                             3oo
                                      E 3   200
                        Zoo
                                          — o —
                                         —  o —
                                        42^00
                                            5oo
                                          — o —
                                          — o —
                       300
                                         74 > 300
                                         43, 7oo
   >, 7OO
                                        32,3*00
3S", 3oo

  ,3"oo

    6,O£>
                                             700
                                           >, 600
                                                         4 o 2y

                                               ZOO

                                               •7 r, "
. M J • •. • -
                             ENGINFFBIfil. <1HID

-------
                                         Ill
                     x-"*
                           Co's.-r
 /.
2.
to.
7.
             //T/V//CS
lO- llob. EPA
5" - /
                  ~[Hiex(fi)f*S
        A/fW /\*IAf&OR/C

        fJfw EUG - Gen

       TOTAL £sr Cousr. Cosr

             ^fevfce r ~
                                    ,~7/8, ooo
                        2,477, ooo
                              j Ooo
                        7,£77,  ooo
                               OOO
                           — o —
                          - O  -
                           o  —
                       / 8
                        3,285^000

                              >. OOO
'4, 7/6,000

        ooo

        ooo
       , ooo


        ooo


 / 368, 000
-4,4 2 7; ooo
  987  OOQ
(8, 9 ^ 3, ooo
3 4 / 3 ; ooo
  y 37&, ooo
                                                000
                        ORIO

-------
                     Job Description
                                                                    Of
                                                          Projecl No
         BlO-STZF £ JUDGE
                e»o-S+e.p
                                   $,12.0

                         fo Aerobic.
            +
-------
                                                                   0! / 3
                      P>"-criplion
                                                        Proici.l No
                                          Ah.
                                             •
                                              .  Max. Month
        Bio-Step Sludge.
        Primary
        Sc.urn
                                    O.Oitf&D     O.o/M&D
                            To+Q/
Ex. An. Di. Vo/ume
                                            3./Z
          : Oe.t: Time,
            Lfait  out of
        Capacity Req'd-for IS Doyp&t. Time,     3.5>
        Addi tibnal Capacity K&CI 'd
            •~ poyDe.t.1?me,

               Capacity fey'd Pot-  Operation  5./5/VJ&
            w/ Largest Unit ovf of S&rv/'cn,
15 Day - Z.dblbs/Day/1000 U=

               Volume.

             a Ibs./bry
                                               5Z./
                                                  &.OMG-
                                                  8oz.
                                                        143,061
WAT 87 (10/781
                            ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                     2802000070

-------
                         !:'••!-.irtr-i-nl
             	I	
             !'""""•        | ' *h O. ?:riDlio

                                  S.  Ibs./tey
                                     ed)
                                    lbs./£&y
                Vo/Q+i/e, So//
'
                     .'uc/ge. Soli'ds tte./Day    132,172.
                   igzstec/ Sludge, fad. Ibs/Doy   85.33Q
                                                                     PrO|et I Nc
                                                           J2L
                                                                    Ma*.
WAT 87 (IQ'78)
                                  ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                                   2802000070

-------
                       .loft Description
                                                                Project No
                                                                            of /3
                                  Ibs./Day
              f?4C/u
-------
                                                                 Prefect No
                                                                                "7
                                                                            Of  /3
                ~T~ECO
                                                      * / &Z 5"
                                                                     * 124-700
                                                        /9 j
                                              ooo
                                                                           7oo
                                                           O7O

                                                           78O
                                                   HP.
             ,8
                                                           I7Z
                     ~TECO
                                          ?*•»*• *S.QO/e»)    8(^0
                                                         •A
24
TECQ
                                                             , 320
                                                          7 7  Z *? O
WAT 87 (10/78)
                                 ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                               2802000070

-------
          I
                                                              Pl.,,..rt •),,
           £> E^Cfl I f>7~'OM
                                                         /ooo
  z
  3.
   6.


   7.
   a
   9.
            b.  72" '
                         3^/32,000
                        *  800,000 x
V/o
        ofie fb*.
                                             GOO x-
                                      *2,477,000* 3.o'Zo/yx
             O.
             c. A/ew Obr.

             Cl.
             €.
             •f.
             3. Misc. .*
                            000 X  A O
                         IZo ooo x  3. 0%
           31  A/fw
         7-kess tociujy
             Q,
                                            ooo
.  Misc. 1 S*
                         re
                        425; 6/O
                                  '(.I '    2/.S37-0 y 6Z2.3
                                                   0.4
                                                   3.
-------
                                                               P» -m-i i
                                               (2,
   2.


   3.


   4.
   7.
   8.
              a. 4-
              b. 72
         S"
   ANAEROBIC
            3 1 A/ew Si.

            fl
              o.
              C.  I A/tW
              d.
H
  lSC
                               & c/ / rs
                            2ooo
                            * 3/?32,ooo x 20%
                          IO
                                                                 io

                                           C\  8
                                         ,'<*!, OOO x
                                                    < i
 3fA  X  * /O, COO
 / EA  x
'f/IOl OOO Jf

*/j 430,000 x 20%,
                                       IOTAL Esr.  CONST.

                                       IQ %
                                                    'ojecr Cosr
  8 oo


  784,


2,477
                                                               7/4
                                                                30
                                                               / / o
                                                                33
WAT 87 110 TH
                                ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                             2802000070

-------
                       *'"• r I'tmpfit
                        ' f ''pscnplion
                            C.Osr  £/!LC vt,# riOAJ
                                                                                * /
                                                                           /000
   I.
   z
   7.
   8.
  /o.
   II.
                                 Jjrgti  I ,
Misc.  i
  2


/O A/4t"i«/


HlSC. f S/Ttf U/ORC




/t///.
                                   000 X
               . His*. rS/re
   c,  f S'rc [n/
                          oiftf.
                              940,000 x  3.
                              300,000 x  /.o



                             228 OOO x  1.0
              Q.
                                          733, ooo*  /.o°Z.
                                                               /OZ.O  -



                                                                  7.9 /



                                                                74, 3 '
                                                                           43.1



                                                                            4.8
                                                               37.7
                                                               35". 8
                                                                3. a
  2.0


  Z3


94.9

 Q9


 7.4
WAT 87 110-78)
                                 ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                               ?80?000070

-------
                         1 I'nscnption
                                                                              01
                                                                               1  .'•?
          ri.,o r-f M-,-.

            Tje-sc*
                                                                            /OOO
   12.
  /s:
Q.
£>.
c.
d,
               . Abb,
              Q.
                         k/e
                             */
                            ow/eft
                                        42X0,000 x 5.0% /v*
                          * 3S,ooo * 3.0%/v*


                                   x  /. o
                                            : /a o
                                                          Or
                                            * t *o. OS"/3/o
                                                   »
                                X IZmourn » S-
                                                       NNUAL O'.
                                           /0.697?
   3.8

   /.&
   /. I
  a

28.
                                                                            77,3)
                                                           402,5"
WAT 87 (10 78|
                                 ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                                2802000070

-------
                               f
                                                   A/-- •-
                                                                     Pr	• •;••
                                                                                  |---./;
                                                                               	[vj_i =
                                C-o
                                               sr
  3.
   S.


   (a.



   7.
   a
   9.
  /o.
               w
 isc
                . *5/r£-
lO /Vf »v
               a.   ft*
                 2. Mfw Fiir£R nk
               o, 3rf?ucrt/*£ f
M
   /sc
\d>
                   ff<
               o.
                              See.
                                          See.  /re* 3t EPA
                                        //O,Ooo
                                            3o%>
                                    7 7/ cf x7.
                                          F * *7
                                                           20%,
                                                    3/7 3 2.

                                                      76 (o




                                                   2.477
                                                                  2,
                                                                       30
                                                                     2^o
                                                                                2OO
                                                                                 2Z8
                                                                     738
WAT 87MO-7BI
                                   ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                                     2802000070

-------
           -T.7-
                                                                                      S'IP.-, , 3
                                                                                      cr /3
                                                                         PTC	i
                                                                                         Ccsr
o.
A
C.
cf.
A/iF
                     w
   -(Se
                          ts
                                                   , ooo x
                                             /€A


                                            I £A A * 35.000
                                                                    7S
                                                                    60
                                                                                     47
                                             "Tor/tt,
                                                      osr
WAT 37 (10-781
                                     ENGINEERING GRID
                                                                                          2802000070

-------