&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
------- |