-------
Industrial development in the City of Lufkin threatens the
environmental quality as in all growing communities. Timber-
oriented industries, chicken processing and meat processing
plants, dairies, foundries, and machine manufacturing plants
are located in and near Lufkin and present problems such as
odor and noise control, traffic congestion, and large volumes
of solid and liquid wastes to be disposed of. Industries in
Lufkin contribute wastewater of large volume and heavy organic
loading to the sewerage system. Industrial development must
be considered as the primary reason for overloaded sewer lines
and treatment units which have resulted in stream pollution
and subsequent health hazards within the city and downstream
from the existing treatment facilities.
Stream pollution is evident in Hurricane Creek, the receiving
stream for the existing treatment facilities. The water in
the stream above the treatment plant is odorous and murky.
Samples taken in January 1971, reflect an average BOD5 of 208
mg/1, a value far exceeding acceptable standards. Representative
samples taken in the stream below the plant prove effluent
from the existing treatment plant dilutes the BOD5 concentration
to the order of 90 mg/1. During periods of dry weather, flows
downstream from the existing plant are composed entirely of
plant effluent. The reach of the stream downstream
-------
from the plant is characterized by strong odors of hydrogen
sulfide and methane gas indicating anaerobic decomposition of
organic matter. Heavy green slimes indicate nutrient loadings
greatly exceed the assimilative capacity of the stream; low
dissolved oxygen content will prevent habitation by all higher
forms of aquatic life. The downstream waters are hazardous to
public health, unacceptable as livestock water, and will con-
tinue to discourage development adjacent to Hurricane Creek
unless pollution is abated.
The location of the existing treatment plant has evidently
failed to discourage subdivision development and commercial
development near the site. This fact is evidenced by a new
shopping center, the largest in town, recently constructed
adjacent to the site, and housing additions are developed up
to the site. However, additional overloading of the existing
plant's units could have a serious effect on surrounding
developments such as decreased property values that might
result from obnoxious odors.
The Basham Site, as selected for the new treatment plant,
is subject to flooding of undetermined frequency and duration.
-------
Reports of experienced floods vary; as documented by the
Texas Water Quality Board hearing of May 28, 1971. Experienced
flood elevations as estimated by the Texas Highway Department
were used to estimate the degree of flooding expected at the
site. Land use in the floodplain near the Basham Site is
limited to animal grazing and timber production.
The land is considered unsuitable for residential development
since the Federal Housing Administration codes prohibit loans
on homes with foundations below the 100-year flood elevation.
However, testimony at the hearing of May 28, 1971, revealed
that tracts near the existing hard-surfaced roads mighj; be
developed by property owners. A recent survey on the eight-
square mile area surrounding the proposed site substantiates
the fact that there has been very little development during
the last ten years; only 62 residences are in the surveyed
area and only one home has been constructed since 1960. The
nearest platted subdivision is approximately one and one-half
miles from the site.
It should be noted that stream characteristics associated
with advanced stages of pollution; i.e., putrescible odors,
heavy slime, lack of aquatic life, are all noticeable at the
Basham Site. These characteristics allow the conclusion that
the stream at this location has not recovered from pollutants
entering the stream within the city limits, but not necessarily
from the treatment plant effluent. Water Quality measurements
10
-------
taken in the vicinity of the Basham Site during a recent
nine month period (Exhibit No. 3) show average concentrations
of BOD5 as 90 mg/1 and Suspended Solids as 87 mg/1. The quality
of the water near the Basham tract will deteriorate further un-
less sewerage facilities are improved and a water quality man-
agement program is implemented within the watershed.
The overall objective to be accomplished by proposed improve-
ments to the City of Lufkin Wastewater Facilities is to provide
adequate and dependable service to meet present needs and to
meet anticipated demands of future development of the year 1990.
The proposed improvements are the first stage of a three stage
construction program recommended to complement the Master Plan
for the City of Lufkin. Stage I includes improvements that
require immediate attention. Stages II and III include future
improvements to be implemented as necessary to facilitate orderly
development and growth of the City.
Stage I projects are identified as follows:
1. Keltys System (Northwest Area) - Construction of approxi-
mately 17,500 LP of 12-inch and 18-inch sanitary sewer interceptors,
sewage pumping station, approximately 8,600 LF of 14-inch force
main, and related appurtenances.
11
-------
HURRICANE CREEK ANALYSIS
Average for sampling conducted between 3/24/71 and 12/29/71.
SITE A B C D
Stream Flow (gpm)1 9,450 12,940 30,400 53,200
BOD (mg/1) 208 90* 90 42j
SS (mg/1) 492 1421 872 701
1-7 Measurements - 9/10/71 to 12/29/71
2-10 Measurements - 6/10/71 to 12/29/71
Exhibit No. 3
12
-------
HURRICANE CREEK ANALYSIS, Cont'd.
Sampling Point Legend:
Site A = State Highway 59 Bridge, South, approximately
one half mile above present Sewer Plant site.
Site B = State Highway Loop 287, West, approximately 1500
yards below present Sewer Plant site.
Site C = Farm Road 324 Bridge, South, approximately two
and one tenths miles below present Sewer Plant
site.
Site D = Farm Road 2497 Bridge, South, approximately seven
and one tenths miles below present Sewer Plant
site.
Date Site B.O.D. Suspended Solids
3-24-71 A 140 mg/L
3-24-71 C 84 mg/L
4-12-71 A 540 mg/L
4-12-71 C 135 mg/L
5-24-71 A 90 mg/L
5-24-71 C 48 mg/L
6-10-71 A 400 mg/L 100 mg/L
6-10-71 C 84 mg/L 65 mg/L
7-21-71 A 66 mg/L 22 mg/L
7-21-71 C 86 mg/L 85 mg/L
8-18-71 A 53 mg/L 10 rog/L
8-18-71 C 160 mg/L 88 mg/L
12a Exhibit #3
-------
DATE
HURRICANE CREEK ANALYSIS, Cont'd.
SITE STREAM FLOW B.O.D. SUSPENDED SOLIDS
9-10-71 A 11,561 gpm 26 mg/L 22 mg/L
9-10-71 B 14,663 gpm 140 mg/L 60 mg/L
9-10-71 C 26,750 gpm 70 mg/L 92 mg/L
9-10-71 D 28,420 gpm 110 mg/L 10 mg/L
9-28-71 A 10,500 gpm 46 mg/L 18 mg/L
9-28-71 B 13,330 gpm 86 mg/L 120 mg/L
9-28-71 C 32,300 gpm 86 mg/L 32 mg/L
9-28-71 D 34,110 gpm 55 mg/L 194 mg/L
10-14-71 A 6,300 gpm 200 mg/L 22 mg/L
10-14-71 B 9,300 gpm 140 mg/L 110 mg/L
10-14-71 C 19,190 gpm 96 mg/L 52 mg/L
10-14-71 D 31,262 gpm 26 mg/L 30 mg/L
10-26-71 A 8,400 gpm 33 mg/L 5 mg/L
10-26-71 B 10,664 gpm 72 mg/L 260 mg/L
10-26-71 C 32,292 gpm 75 mg/L 42 mg/L
10-26-71 D 38,410 gpm 26 mg/L 15 mg/L
11-10-71 A 6,300 gpm 960 mg/L 38 mg/L
11-10-71 B 10,654 gpm 100 mg/L 78 mg/L
11-10-71 C 26,910 gpm 140 mg/L 52 mg/L
11-10-71 D 28,420 gpm 26 mg/L 62 mg/L
11-23-71 A 12,600 gpm 50 mg/L 238 mg/L
11-23-71 B 18,662 gpm 53 mg/L 200 mg/L
11-23-71 C 43,056 gpm 40 mg/L 338 mg/L
11-23-71 D 172,320 gpm 32 mg/L 168 mg/L
12-29-71 A 10,500 gpm 110 mg/L 20 mg/L
12-29-71 B 13,330 gpm 40 mg/L 166 mg/L
12-29-71 C 32,292 gpm 73 mg/L 32 mg/L
12-29-71 D 39,788 gpm 22 mg/L 11 mg/L
12b
-------
This construction will divert wastewater from 1712 acres in the
Northwest area of Lufkin into the Cedar Creek drainage area.
2. Herty System (Northeast Area) - Construction of approxi-
mately 27,500 LF of 12-inch, 15-inch, and 21-inch sanitary sewer
interceptor, sewage pumping station, approximately 10,500 LF of
16-inch force main, and related appurtenances.
These improvements will allow development of much-needed sewer
service in the area north of Lufkin, and will divert flows from
2715 acres into the Hurricane Creek drainage area.
3. Sanitary sewer interceptor - Approximately 5500 LF of
36-inch and 2000 LF of 42-inch outfall sewer from the existing
treatment plant to the new wastewater treatment plant.
The structure will be designed to transport projected waste-
water flows from fully developed drainage areas of both Cedar
Creek and Hurricane Creek.
4. Sanitary Sewer Interceptor along U.S. Highway 59 -
Construction of approximately 2000 LF of 15-inch interceptor
north of Loop 287, manholes and related appurtenances.
The interceptor will parallel an existing 36-inch sewer that
is overloaded.
13
-------
5. New Wastewater treatment facilities - Construction of
a complete new wastewater treatment plant utilizing activated
sludge process with effluent disinfection, 7.34 mgd capacity
based on average daily flow requirements.
The existing treatment plant will be abandoned shortly after
completion of the new treatment facilities. The site will
be reclaimed for future land use.
Treatment facilities will incorporate a modular-unit design
concept similar to the schematic diagram, given in Exhibit #4.
This concept is most effective for expansion by duplication of
units and has proved to be economical.
The plant site will be located in an area that is subject to
flooding, however, plant units will be constructed with top
of walls at least one foot above the maximum flood of record.
The required freeboard was based on experienced flood data
provided by the Texas Highway Department and on synthetic
data provided by the Geological Survey.
Plant units will be constructed on fill to allow gravity flow
between units; this will also provide flood protection since the
fill elevation will be above the elevation of the maximum flood
of record. (The maximum flood of record, elevation 227.69, has
been estimated to correspond to a frequency of occurance of
once every fifty years).
14
-------
.'. • • .'.-.-. •'» '. '.• } :' '•'• • •. : : .'
st-uooe
PROCESSING
BUILDING
SLOWER BUILOINO
Y/////////
CMLORJNE
UlAKjm ' *Jf\ 'S
A E R A T I O M
L C LAWYERS
.GRIT REN/PVAU
AERATION
V/////A
i
1
CONTACT
3ASIM
-T~l I FUTURE
1
FUTURE
i i
PUMP STATION
6k SCREENING
CM
c P
? i ^
2 •- «
> TJ
3 r
± >
> -I
ox 2 m
S w m -i o
OUTFALU S
CONTROL MM
-------
DESIGN DATA
LUFKIN, TEXAS
Population Equivalent (PE)
Industrial PE
Domestic PE
Loading (Influent)
BOD Ibs/day
SS Ibs/day
Loading Effluent
BOD Ibs/day
SS Ibs/day
Average Daily Flow MGD
(Dry Weather)
Industrial MGD
Domestic MGD
Maximum flow MGD
EXISTING STP
Current Design
48,350* 57,000*
25,160
23,190
10,637 12,500
6,762 8,000
2,660*** -
2,420*** -
3.49
1.12
2.37
4.16**
PROPOSED PLANT
At
Completion Design
53,000 86,360*
28,000 51,360
25,000 35,000
19,000
15,000
750
750
4.5
1.5
3.0
4.16**** 4.16****
1,224
1,224
7.34
18.35**
NOTE:
**
***
**** _
Based on 0.22 Ibs/cap/day BOD contribution
Maximum hydraulic capacity
Industrial Laboratories
Fort Worth, Texas
2-14-69
Flow in excess of this figure is by-passed
EXHIBIT
-------
EXHIBIT N
Design Criteria and Cost Estimate - Plan III - New 7.34 MOD activated sludge
plant at new site.
a. Control Manhole
, b. Raw sewage pump station and screening facilities (3 pumps)
c. Grit removal and aeration - 2 units
1. Length - 52 feet
2. Width - 20 feet
3. Water Depth - 15 feet
4. Detention @ Design flow - 45 minutes
d. Primary Clarifier - 4 Units Rectangular.
1. Length - 102 feet
2. Width - 20 feet
3. Loading - 900 Gals. /SF/Day
4. Mechanical sludge and scum removal.
e. Aeration Basins (Mixed Liquor) - 4 Units
1. Length - 164 feet
2. Width - 25 feet
3. Water Depth - 15 feet
4. Swing Diffusers
5. Settled Sewage Feed - Flexible
6. Return Activated Sludge Feed - Flexible
7. Loading 42# BOD per 1000 cubic feet of Basin Volume
Final Clarifier - 2 Units Circular
1. Diameter - 95 feet.
2. Dual \ irs - Overflow rate - 6,670 Gal/LF/Day
3. Surface Settling Rate - 574 Gal./SF/Day.
-------
4. Detention Time - 3 hr. 51 Min.
5. Suction type sludge removal equipment
g. Chlorine Contact Basin - 1 Unit
1. Length - 82 feet
2. Width - 25 Feet
3. Water Depth - 9.5 Feet
A. 20 Min. Detention @ Peak Hour
Dry Weather Flow (6.68 x 160% =10.6 MGD)
h. Sludge Processing
1. Sludge sterilization equipment (30 GPM Rate)
2. Sludge Holding Tank (2 day detention)
3. Vacuum filter (300 SF)
4. Flotation Thickener (160 SF)
5. Process Water Equipment
i. Administration Building including Laboratory Facilities
J. Site Work, Outside Piping, Electrical, etc.
Estimated Costs -
Construction $2,082,000
Engineering, Legal, Administration,
and Contingencies 416.400
Total Project (Plan III) $£.498.400
Operation & Maintenance Costs (Annual)*
Power $ 24,750
Labor 50,000
Chlorine 11,050
Supplies and Misc. 7,250
Sludge Processing 20.150
Operating Costs $ 123.95_Q
15c
-------
Foe Incineration Add:
Construction $ 242,000
Engineering, Legal, Administrative
and Contingencies 48.400
Project Cost Increase (Plan III) $ 290,400
* Annual costs are average for 20-year period with exception of labor costs,
Labor costs are based on estimated present labor rates.
15d
-------
The treatment facilities will remain operable during floods
except those producing extremely high water surface elevations.
The recurrence interval for such a damaging flood should be
substantially greater than once every fifty years. During
floods that do not cause overtopping of the walls, flood waters
will not cause problems that will reduce the usual degree of
treatment.
The proposed activated sludge process utilizes biological growths
for the removal of organic matter associated with stream pollu-
tants. Flocculated biological growths are mixed with waste-
water and aerated; biological growths are then separated by
settling. Activated sludge is formed by aeration of biologically
degradable waste composed of domestic and industrial wastes.
Masses of microorganisms and insoluble organic nutrients combine
to form settleable solids in the aeration basin. Aerobic micro-
organisms stabilize organic matter in the aeration basin; the
mixture then flows to the final clarifier where the activated
sludge flocculates and settles out; a portion of the settled floe
is recirculated to the aeration basin to "seed" the raw waste-
water with active aerobic microorganisms. This process has
exhibited the capability of removing over 90 percent of the
organic content in typical wastewater. Effluent from this type
process is relatively clear, low in organic content, and is
practically odorless.
16
-------
Proposed facilities include effluent disinfection by chlorination
to reduce pathogenic organisms to an acceptable level. Excess
sludge will be treated by the "Zimpro" process. This process
further oxidizes organic matter by wet combustion; that is, com-
pressed air combines with organic matter under pressure and at
elevated temperature to form carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and steam,
while ash remains in residual water. The ash will be dewatered
before ultimate disposal at the City's sanitary land fill.
Reduction of insoluble organic content in the sludge is expected
to range from 80 to 90 percent.
All of the proposed interceptors and sewage pumping stations will
be located either within or proximate to the corporate limits,
City of Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas. Approximate locations
of the construction work are shown on Exhibit No. 2.
The outfall line will extend beyond the southernmost city limits
to the selected plant site approximately one-half mile north-
east from the confluence of Hurricane Creek and Cedar Creek. The
site will hereafter be referred to as the Basham Site.
The Texas State Department of Health reviewed the preliminary
engineering report for the proposed facilities and concluded that
plans developed on the basis of the report will satisfy design
requirements. (See Exhibit 8)
17
-------
The project was endorsed on January 6, 1970, by the Deep East
Texas Development Council. The agency, a regional clearinghouse,
commented that the proposal appears to be consistent with long-
range regional goals and expressed no opposition. (See
Exhibits 9 and 10).
The Texas Water Quality Board has conducted two hearings regarding
discharge permits, one for the Gibson Site, another for the Basham
Site. In view of evidence submitted, discharge permits were issued.
(See Exhibits 11 and 12).
The Texas Water Quality Board issued a priority certification
for the project on April 14, 1971.
Plans and specifications for the entire project will be prepared
to meet criteria as established by the Texas State Department of
Health and will conform to guidelines recommended by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The unit processes will be designed to
produce a quality effluent that is compatible with water quality
standards for the Neches River Basin as established by the Texas
Water Quality Board.
II. Probable Impact of the Proposed Action on the Environment.
Completion of the proposed improvements will have significant
impact on the existing environmental setting. Enhancement of
the environment will be consummated by numerous primary and
18
-------
secondary implications consequent to completion of the improve-
ments .
The interceptors, force mains, and pumping stations will allow
the entire population within the developed drainage area to be
served by the municipal sewerage system. Approximately 85% of
the population is served presently. The City of Lufkin's
policy is to eliminate all septic tanks as sewer services become
available. The elimination of septic tanks is a big step towards
abating pollution of drainage ditches and other waterways in the
area. The offensive odors and health hazards usually attendant
to proliferation of septic tanks have historically been detrimental
to the environment. Since the existing interceptors are over-
loaded, the proposed construction is necessary before the septic
tank elimination program can be effectively implemented.
One of the objectives of the improvements to the sewerage system
is to provide relief to sanitary sewer mains that are presently
overloaded or estimated to be approaching design capacity. Over-
loaded sewers and pumping stations result in overflows of sewage
at manholes, "backing" of sewage into homes, and bypassing of
raw sewage at pumping stations. All of these conditions produce
health hazards and ecological damage. The frequency and duration
of these damaging events will rapidly increase unless the needed
improvements are made.
19
-------
One possible benefit derived from the elimination of septic
tanks is usually overlooked and might be considered a secondary
implication, but is nevertheless worthy of mention. That is,
wastewater volumes that enter septic tanks usually do not
contribute to surface water that can readily be used beneficially
and those wastewater volumes are not as susceptible to reclama-
tion. The proposed improvements will allow this wastewater to
be collected, treated, and ultimately used by downstream water
users.
The proposed treatment facilities will utilize the activated
sludge process with innovations and effluent disinfection as
described in Section 1. These facilities can produce a quality
effluent with less than 20 mg/1 BOD and less than 20 mg/1
Suspended Solids. The effluent is expected to meet all conditions
of the waste control order issued by the Texas Water Quality
Board (see Exhibit #12). The parameters of this waste control
order are designed to meet water quality standards.
The effect of the new wastewater treatment facilities on the
receiving stream is the most important consideration when
evaluating the probable impact of the proposed action on the
environment. The evaluation must consider the following facts:
20
-------
(1) The proposed plant will discharge into the same
stream as the existing plant, i.e., Hurricane Creek.
(2) The average daily flow in the reach of Hurricane
Creek from the existing treatment plant to the Basham Tract
site will be reduced by approximately the average daily volume
of effluent from the existing plant since the plant will
be abandoned.
(3) The average daily flow in Hurricane Creek below the
Basham Site will be increased when the new facilities are
completed.
(4) The Texas Water Quality Board surveillance records
indicate that the concentration of pollutants above the
existing plant discharge is greater than the concentration of
pollutants below the existing plant.
(5) The Texas Water Quality Board surveillance records
indicate that Hurricane Creek is polluted from Lufkin all the
way to its confluence with the Neches River.
(6) Hurricane Creek exhibits durations of very low flow
in the reach from the existing plant to the site of the proposed
plant. The quantity of flow increases proportionally to the
increase in drainage area with progression downstream. The
assimilative capacity of the receiving stream should increase
progressively downstream as total flows increase.
21
-------
(7) Water quality data for Hurricane Creek was obtained
over a nine month period during 1971. The data includes dis-
charge, BOD5 concentrations, and Suspended Solids concentrations
at four locations in the stream from upstream of the existing
plant to the confluence of Hurricane Creek with Zed Creek. The
anticipated effects on the receiving stream that may be extrap-
olated from the available facts includes the following:
(1) The high quality effluent from the proposed facilities
will dilute the concentrations of pollutants now present in
Hurricane Creek downstream from the Basham site.
(2) Average daily effluent discharge ranging from 4.5 cfs
at completion of the proposed treatment facilities to 11.4 cfs
at design capacity will augment low flows downstream from the
Basham site. The effluent discharge will have a negligible
increase on flood stages.
(3) The increased capacity of the new treatment facilities
will increase the total nutrient loading to Hurricane Creek.
As a prerequisite for receiving PL 660 grant funds, the City
of Lufkin was required to adopt an enforceable waste control
ordinance that would eliminate unregulated discharges of
wastes into all surface waters. Enforcement of this ordinance
will greatly improve the quality of Hurricane Creek in the
reach within and downstream of the city.
22
-------
All improvements as proposed have been thoroughly evaluated
by the Texas Water Quality Board and the Environmental
Protection Agency to insure that the project was planned and
designed for the primary purpose of abating pollution and
enhancing the water quality of the receiving stream.
No significant adverse effects on the water quality or on the
flora and fauna dependent on water in the receiving stream
-:are anticipated. Biological species that are considered to be
assets to man's environment will be stimulated by the increased
dissolved oxygen and augmented flows downstream from the
effluent discharge. Only those organisms that have an extremely
low tolerance to chlorine will be destroyed or impared. The
proposed project will in some respects enhance the quality of the
receiving stream but cannot be expected to return the stream to
an unpolluted state.
During low flows, the "pooling" of water will cause stagnant
areas of reduced oxygen content and resultant eutrophication.
Continuous discharges of plant effluent with a dissolved oxygen
content will increase the reaeration coefficient and will "flush
out" the stream. The adverse effect of increased BOD,, and
23
-------
Suspended Solids concentrations might occur infrequently but is
considered minimal and will not degrade the quality of the
receiving stream downstream from or proximate to the Basham
Site or the Gibson property.
III. Probable Adverse Effects of the Proposed Action on the
Environment.
There will be unavoidable damage to the environment during con-
struction of the proposed project. Clearing and grubbing removes
plant life; excavation produces unsightly mounds of dirt until
backfilling is accomplished; construction materials clutter the
work area. Environmental protection demands special consideration
during the construction phase of sewerage facilities. The EPA
will require that specifications include provisions for effective
clean-up and expeditious construction in order to minimize the
extent and duration of the adverse impact associated with con-
struction. Specifications will require that construction be
scheduled in a manner that will reduce or eliminate disruption
of utility services. Proper planning in the selection of rights-
of-way and sites can greatly reduce the extent of ecological
damage. Trees, shrubs, and ground covers that must be removed
during construction will be transplanted or replaced and aesthetics
restored by effective landscaping.
24
-------
The adverse impact on the environment consequent to the completion
of the interceptors, force mains, and pumping stations is very
minor. Pump stations are rather unsightly; however, they will
be constructed underground or camouflaged by shrubbery as required
by plans and specifications.
Present and future land use proximate to the location of the
interceptors, force mains, and pump stations will be restricted.
This potential adverse effect is minimized by normal selection
of right-of-way and easements through developed areas. Routes
in streets or in easements closely following property lines
will minimize long-term adverse effects.
Routes through undeveloped areas will influence comprehensive
planning and subsequent future construction. This restriction
should be outweighed by the benefits derived from the availability
of trunk lines that will stimulate the growth of a fully developed
sewerage system which historically increases land value.
Specifications will prohibit the bypassing of raw sewage during
construction of lines and pumping stations. Maximum treatment
will be maintained at the existing plant during the construction
period.
25
-------
During the public hearings concerning the project, landowners
expressed their concern that poor operation and maintenance would
produce harmful effects on the ecology and demanded assurances
that the new plant would be maintained properly and the new
plant would not be allowed to become overloaded.
As stipulated in the conditions of the PL 660 grant offer, the
Environmental Protection Agency will make no grant payments until
the City of Lufkin assures proper and efficient operation of
treatment works after completion of the construction. The City
of Lufkin agreed, by accepting the grant offer, to permit EPA
to have access to the project and all records pertaining to its
operation for the purpose of inspecting the operation and main-
tenance of the plant. The Texas Water Quality Board will monitor
the operation and maintenance of the plant and the effluent quality,
Bypassing or plant failures will have a greater impact on the
environment once the new treatment plant has been in operation
for a sufficient time to return the receiving stream more to its
natural state. That is, once biota which require a "clean"
habitat are restored, any reduction in effluent quality might
produce detrimental effects on biota that are not present in
the existing environs. Thus, the enhancement resulting from
26
-------
the new facilities will be subject to reverses by the same
facilities. This potential danger cannot be eliminated
entirely but will be reduced by "fail safe" design and assur-
ance of proper operation and maintenance.
The anticipated treated effluent might actually increase
concentrations of pollutants during periods of extreme low
flow when flow in Hurricane Creek might be comprised entirely
of plant effluent. That is, the 20 mg/1 of BOD5 and 20 mg/1
Suspended solids might be introduced into a stream with lesser
concentrations of those parameters. This potential adverse
effect cannot exist until a water quality management program is
implemented that will produce a water quality in the stream
exceeding the quality of the plant effluent.
If this water quality goal is met, the treatment facilities
must be upgraded to produce a higher quality effluent. The
proposed unit operations are amenable to advanced waste treatment
processes that can accomplish this.
In the interim, the plant effluent will dilute the concentrations
of pollutants in the receiving stream during periods of low flow.
27
-------
The total volume of plant effluent discharged to Hurricane Creek
will increase during the design life of the plant as population
and industry is increased. Likewise, the total loading of
BOD , suspended solids, nutrients, and other pollutants
discharged to the stream will increase. The same will be
true for many other treatment plants within the Neches basin
and tributary watersheds. Eventually, the pollutants enter-
ing the streams from all sources will approach the assimila-
tive capacity of those streams. At such a time it will become
necessary to upgrade the. existing effluent criteria to ensure
that stream quality is enhanced. The effluent criteria will
determine the degree of additional treatment that will be
required. Advanced waste treatment processes will probably be
necessary.
From this dicussion.- it may be concluded that the alternate
site which is furthest downstream has the advantage of greater
assimilative capacity in the receiving stream. Thus, selection
of a more downstream site might delay the necessity of upgrading
effluent quality. However, the costs of an outfall to a more
distant site would offset this advantage.
Construction of the plant at the more downstream location would
eliminate the benefits to the reach of the stream between the
upstream and downstream sites.
28
-------
Human error and mechanical malfunction are always a possibility.
Plant design will include duplication of units such as blowers
and pumps and will also include standby power sources. "Fail
safe" features coupled with expeditious corrective measures will
reduce the possibility of ecological damage incurred from
mechanical malfunction.
Excessive chlorination can result in the destruction of
beneficial organisms and algae. Lysing of algal cells will
release the cell's organic constituents/ thus increasing the
BOD of the stream. This decrease in algae population will
cause a reduction in assimilative capacity of the stream since
reaeration is dependent on photosynthesis.
This potential adverse effect becomes significant only when
poor plant operation or accidents result in large concentrations
chlorine reaching the receiving stream. Proper chlorine
residuals have little adverse effect; for this reason, dis-
infection by chlorination is widely used to decrease the number
of enteric and pathogenic organisms and greatly reduce the
potential health hazard they represent.
Since there will be no incineration of any wastes nor burning
of waste gases, potential air pollution will be restricted to
obnoxious odors that might occur from power outages or equip-
ment failure of extended duration. Duplication of units will
29
-------
reduce the frequency of occurence. Odor control techniques
utilized in modern design will further minimize odors. The
activated sludge process is normally considered a relatively
odor free operation.
Noise pollution consequential to sewage treatment will also
be reduced by the modern design practice of enclosing primary
sources of noise pollution, motors and blowers, in a blower
building.
The ultimate disposal of sludge from the treatment facilities
will be handled in a manner that should preclude solid waste
disposal problems except for the dispersion of odors during
the transportation of grit and screenings to the landfill.
The sludge will be treated by the "Zimpro" process to reduce
the insoluble organic content. The remaining ash will be
dewatered by vacuum filtration and dispersed in the city's
landfill operation. The landfill operation utilizes solid
waste management techniques.
The planning and design of the proposed improvements have
given due regard to impact on the environment. Proposed
actions have been directed to avoid undesirable consequences
for the environment. Both short-range and long-range adverse
impact will be insignificant as compared to enhancement of
the environment. The overall affect of the proposed action
30
-------
will be beneficial; therefore, the project is in conformance
with environmental goals.
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
The consulting engineers' overall objective in the engineering
report was to present a general guide for the development of
the city's wastewater collection system which would integrate
expansion with future growth. Definite recommendations were
confined to items that justified immediate attention. The
locations of interceptor lines, force mains, and pumping
stations are predicated both by economics and design standards,
which necessitate studies of alternative solutions. The con-
sequential impact of the construction of these items evolves
from location. Alternatives are evaluated to determine the
most feasible location to minimize relocations of existing
uutilities and to eliminate expected right-of-way problems.
Therefore, the ultimate plan was innately designed to produce
the least adverse impact on the ecosystem.
The decision of whether or not existing facilities should be
upgraded or expanded to meet treatment needs was directly
related to land use and anticipated impact on the ecosystem.
As stated in Section 2, the existing treatment facilities are
adversely affecting the environs because of odors and poor
quality effluent resulting from the overloaded conditions
31
-------
but development has continued near the site. That is, the
value of the land near the junction of major thoroughfares has
overidden the adverse impact on the environment proximate to
the plant. However, the construction of the new units necessary
to upgrade the effluent will require additional space at the
existing site, will commit the land resources for a time equal
to the design life of the improved plant, and will still require
a new site for facilities to meet the projected total treatment
needs. The concept of two treatment plants would increase
the extent of the ecosystem that must assimilate any adverse
impact. Therefore, the final choice of constructing complete
new treatment facilities at the selected site and abandoning
the existing treatment site is expected to have the least
detrimental effect on the environment, and is consistent with
the modern concept of non-proliferation of treatment plants.
The site selection for the treatment facilities is, as in most
projects of this nature, of utmost importance because plant
location defines the extent of the ecosystem that will be
influenced. Historically, site selection nearly always arouses
controversy. Seldom is a site agreeable to all; wastewater
treatment plants are considered by many as a threat to aesthetics
and will produce inevitable adverse economical impact on land use,
Economics dictated that the proposed plant be located in an area
that would allow gravity collection of wastewater from as much
32
-------
of the ultimate drainage area as possible. This requirement
focused attention to the area south of the city to take full
advantage of topographical features of the land. Another prere-
quisite was that the site be proximate to a receiving stream.
These considerations and engineering logic led to site invest^-
gations in the Hurricane Creek watershed which fortunately
contained large areas of undeveloped land. Land use studies
indicate that population growth and development was directed
to the southeast, a fact which further supported a location
southwest of the city.
Subsequently, a total of five parcels of land were investigated
in detail (see Exhibit #5). The sites covered approximately
two miles of Hurricane Creek from the Southern Pacific Railroad
to confluence with Zed Creek. Each site exhibited the same
general characteristics, rolling hills, moderate to heavy
timber, and were utilized for pasture land. The amount of
cleared land decreases to the south. Each of the sites is
subject to flooding from Hurricane Creek and its tributaries.
A comparison of frequency and extent of flood at each site
would have required extensive field surveys from which synthetic
hydrologic data could be derived. Experienced flood records
were very limited and their accuracy remains in doubt. Engineer-
ing logic supports the assumption that heights of walls required
33
-------
f-
V.
X
17 SEP
-------
for flood protection for a design storm would increase with
distance downstream. Typical envelope curves of backwater
effects show increased depth of water at lower elevations.
However, for cost estimates, the height of protective structures
was assumed to be the same at all sites.
The preliminary engineering report included the most upstream
site (Site No. 1) and the site farthest downstream (Site No. 2)
to be used for cost comparisons, and to provide a comparison
of the extremes of drainage area. That is, Site No. 1 was
considered to be the minimum acceptable distance from existing
developed area, whereas, Site No. 2 would allow the maximum
drainage area for gravity flow but was considered to be the
farthest site to which outfall lines could be extended.
Treatment facilities at Site No. 2 would allow gravity outfall
from the Boiler Spring Branch Watershed and the Zed Creek
Watershed. There is light development, including a small portion
of Hudson, within these watersheds. The consulting engineers
concluded that the rural homes within the watersheds could be
more economically served by lift stations and force mains to
transport wastewater into the Cedar Creek Watershed for gravity
outfall to treatment plant Site No. 1.
35
-------
The estimated costs of outfall lines beyond Site No. 1 would
become prohibitive. It should be noted that the costs of
outfall line from Site No. 1 to Site No. 2 were estimated to
be $837,500 or approximately twenty-one percent of the total
proposed project costs.
The availability of land, and the costs of site acquisition were
not considered in the preliminary engineering report. These
facets of planning are usually the responsibility of the
political entity, in this case the Mayor and Commissioners.
Financial studies by the City of Lufkin revealed that available
bonding capacity of the City of Lufkin would preclude the
selection of Site No. 2 with the inherent higher construction
costs. The city selected Site No. 1 as the most desirable
alternative. Site acquisition efforts were therefore limited
to the area of Site No. 1 near the confluence of Cedar Creek
and Hurricane Creek.
The costs of constructing new facilities in the vicinity of
Site No. 1 were estimated to cost only $44,280 more than
enlarging the existing plant to the design capacity. The
added costs were minimal and the benefits to be derived from
more favorable impact on the environment were considered well
worth the additional investment.
36
-------
Site acquisition procedures by the City of Lufkin followed the
engineer's recommendation that Site No. 1 was the most feasible
location. Two parcels of land, the Gibson site and the Basham
site, were investigated. The Gibson site was originally selected
because that land offered less development potential since it
was farther from FM Road 328 and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
However, the Gibson heirs, owners of the land, protested the use
of this land for a treatment plant and filed suit to prevent
construction. A history of the litigation which ensued is
included in the summary.
The litigation prejudiced the selection of the Gibson site and
directed attention to the Basham site. Since the Basham site
is adjacent to FM Road 328, and is generally at a higher
elevation, the land has more development potential and was
appraised at a higher value. The City of Lufkin agreed to
purchase approximately 80 acres at a cost of $1000 per acre.
The original Gibson site was to be acquired through condemnation
proceedings at an estimated cost of only $200 per acre. The
increased costs were considered to be unavoidable
In an effort to determine the most effective treatment process,
a survey report of an oxidation ditch-stabilization pond system
was prepared by the engineers. In considering this treatment
process, city representatives and members of the consulting firm
inspected such installations. As a result of the inspections and
the study, it was concluded that this process would be less
37
-------
effective in treating shock loads from industrial sources, and
was therefore given no further consideration.
The selection of the type of treatment process to be utilized
at the new facilities was simplified by the consulting engineers
recommendation that either a conventional activated sludge
process or a two-stage trickling filter process would produce a
high quality effluent as required by state and federal agencies.
The choice between the two methods was somewhat mooted by that
fact and also because the average annual costs of the two processes
are approximately the same. Estimated initial costs of the
activated sludge process were lower but operation and maintenance
costs of that process are usually higher than for trickling filter
plants. Generally, the activated sludge process produces a slightly
higher quality effluent than the trickling filters and is more
readily amenable to advanced treatment processes. The final choice
..of the conventional activated sludge process should not be subject
to undue criticism.
The alternate proposals that were evaluated were comprised of
various plans and combinations including two processes, two
site locations, and feasibility studies based on providing
entirely new facilities and/or combinations of new facilities
and utilization of the existing plant.
38
-------
The various plan concepts are summarized as follows:
Plan I - Upgrade the existing plant to provide the required
capacity for 3.0 MGD at the present site using activated sludge
process for the second stage. Construct a new 3.67 MGD activated
sludge plant, complete with solids handling facilities, at a
new site. Convey solids from the existing plant to the facilities
at the new plant for processing. Total hydraulic capacity 6.67 MGD
Plan II - Upgrade the existing plant to provide the required
capacity for 3.0 MGD at the present site using two-stage
trickling filter process. Construct new 3.67 MGD two-stage
trickling filter plant, complete with solids handling facilities,
at a new site. Convey solids from the existing plant to the
facilities at the new plant for processing. Total hydraulic
capacity 6.67 MGD.
Plan III - Construct a new 7.34 MGD activated sludge plant at
a new site. Deactivate existing treatment facilities. (This
plan was adopted.)
Plan IV - Construct new 7.34 MGD two-stage trickling filter
plant at a new site. Deactivate existing treatment facilities.
Plan V - Expand the existing treatment facilities at the present
site to 7.34 MGD using activated sludge process for second
stage.
39
-------
Plan VI - Expand the existing treatment facilities at the
present site to 7.34 MGD using two-stage trickling filter
process.
Plan VII - Upgrade the existing plant to provide the required
capacity for 1.5 MGD at the present site, by converting tbe
existing units to a two-stage trickling filter process. Contr.nue
to operate present solids handling facilities at the existing
plant site. Construct Plan III activated sludge treatment
facilities as modified or contact stabilization process, utilizing
aerobic digestion and sludge beds for drying. Plant capacity
approximately 4.41 MGD. Convert the contact stabilization
plant to Plan III, 7.34 MGD, activated sludge when the effluent
quality will not meet the required standards. Based on BOD
loadings to the contact and re-aeration basins of approximately
70 Ibs. BOD5/100 C.F. of volume and utilizing the existing plant
to its capacity, the contact stabilization plant would have to
be converted to Plan III in approximately 5 years or 1975.
This determination was derived using 0.20 Ibs. BOD5/capita/day
at an annual growth rate of 600 persons per year. This
period could foreseeably be lengthened depending upon future
sewage strength received at the plant and/or the rate of growth.
Plan VIII - Upgrade the existing plant to provide the required
effluent for 1.5 MGD at the present site by converting the
existing units to a two-stage trickling filter process. Con-
tinue to operate present solids handling facilities at the
40
-------
existing plant site. Construct new 3.67 MGD two-stage trickling
filter plant, complete with solids handling facilities, at a
new site. Total hydraulic capacity 5.17 MGD. Upgrade the
3.67 MGD two-stage trickling filter plant to Plan IV, 7.34 MGD
two-stage trickling filter process, when effluent quality will
not meet required standards. Based on 0.20 Ibs. BOD /capita/day
contribution and a population increase of 600 persons per year,
the new plant will require upgrading in approximately 5 years or
1975. This period could foreseeably be lenghtened depending
upon future sewage strength received at the plant and/or the
rate of growth.
The alternatives include various treatment capacities in order
to determine an optimum capacity with due considerations to
economics and the city's financial capability. This evaluation
was necessary to investigate the feasibility of a system to
be completed by construction phases based on a modular design
concept and to arrive at an optimum design life.
The comparative costs of each of the plans are shown in
Exhibit #6.
41
-------
>lan Number I
Capacity
Existing Site MGD 3.00
New Site MGD 3.67
Total MGD 6.67
II
type Treatment
total
Jlant Costs
A.S.
T.F.
EXHIBIT NO. 6
III
IV
3.00
3.67
6.67
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
A.S.
T.F.
A.S.
VI
7.34
7.34
T.F.
VII
VIII
1.50 1.50
4.41 3.67
5.91 5.17
C.S.
T.F.
$2,601,600 $2,560,800 $2,498,400 $2,767,200 $2,448,000 $2,280,000 $1,638,000 $2,035,20
L. No allowance for special foundations has been made should unstable soil conditions be encountered.
* Selected Alternate
10
-------
EXHIBIT NO. 7
OUTFALL AND INTERCEPTOR SEWER COST ESTIMATES
System
1. Hurricane Creek Area
Estimated
Const.Cost
a. Outfall to S.T.P. at
Site No. 1 $530,000
b. Outfall to S.T.P.
at Site No.2 1,178,000
c. U.S. Highway No.59 22,000
395,000
450,000
2. Keltys System
(Northwest Area)
3. Herty System
(Northeast Area)
Conting,
$80,000
177,000
3,000
60,000
67,500
ROW &
Esm1ts
Soil
Inv. &
Testing
Estimatec
TOTAL
$ 61,000 $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $ 678,000
149,000 7,500
2,500 -0-
47,500 11,000
55,000 10,000
4,000 1,515,500*
500 28,000
2,500
2,500
516,000
585,000
TOTAL $1,807,000
*This alternate was not selected
-------
V. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity
The design life for sanitary sewer interceptors and force mains
is determined by experienced or projected life of pipe materials
Modern pipe materials allow a design life of 50 to 75 years. A
fifty year design period was selected for the City of Lufkin's
proposed sewers. Therefore, this relatively short period
covering perhaps three generations tends to moot the argument
of which generation must bear the costs of benefits since
practically all those benefitted will share a portion of the
costs. A utility of this nature can be considered a renewable
resource since new facilities can be constructed when existing
facilities become outmoded or must be replaced due to decay
of materials.
The modular-unit design concept utilized in the planning and
design of the proposed treatment facilities allows flexible
implementation based on actual treatment needs. That is, long
design periods and resultant lengthy pay-back become unnecessary.
44
-------
VI. Description of irreversible and irretrievable committments
of resources
Irreversible committment of land usage after exploitation of the
design life of the proposed improvements will be minimal. The
interceptors and force mains will probably not be removed from
the ground. However, sufficient soil cover will allow the land
above the lines to be used for many purposes and should eventually
show little evidence that abandoned lines are below ground.
Abandoned lines may be removed if they interfere wxth future
utility construction or excavation.
In the event the treatment facilities are abandoned in the future,
the site can be restored by removing structures and landscaping
as necessary.
A high quality effluent is expected from the treatment facilities
and should produce no irreversible effects on wildlife, fish, or
other forms of life.
There are minor irretrievable committments of resources that
result from construction. Raw material used in construction
materials are usually considered expendable and will probably
not be recovered unless new reclamation techniques are developed.
45
-------
VII. A Discussion of problems and objections raised by other
federal, state and local agencies and by private organizations
and individuals in the review process.
The proposed project has been well received by all agencies and
private organizations. No objections were raised from any
organization from which comments were solicited.
Objections have been voiced only from a few downstream landowners,
especially from Mr. Joe Gibson, acting in behalf of the Gibson
Estate.
All objections involve site selection for the new treatment plant
as evidenced by the Hearing Commission Reports of the Texas Water
Quality Board and by comments offered by landowners which are
included in the appenix.
The objections that have been voiced are typical for projects where
site selection for treatment facilities is a part of the decision-
making process. Many of those objections would be heard regardless
of which site were to be selected by the City of Lufkin. Likewise,
most adverse effects created by the proposed project at the proposed
site would still exist if any other site were chosen.
46
-------
The fact is, few landowners favor construction of a wastewater
treatment facility near their land. Historically, treatment
plants have disparaged the environs — but this fact is not
inevitable. One of our national environment goals is to
eliminate this past adversity through effective planning and
design and efficient operation.
Specifically the site selected by the City of Lufkin has been
criticized on the grounds that a location further uownstream
would:
1. Allow the facility to serve a larger drainage area
by gravity flow.
2. Allow discharge into a receiving stream with greater
assimilative capacity.
3. Be more removed from development.
4. Be less susceptible to flooding
5. Be more consistent with basin wide plans,
6. Increase benefits and justify the added costs; i.e.,
increase the benefit - cost ratio.
These basic contentions have been fully developed by the
objectors (Appendix - Gibson Comments) in an effort to prove
that a more downstream site, such as Site No. 2 on the Temple
property, would be superior to the Basham site selected by the
City of Lufkin.
47
-------
The issues raised in the Gibson response were discussed in the
draft statement. Items 1, 2, and 3 as enumerated above were
mentioned in the draft statement as adverse effects that might
result from the proposed project. However, in response to
specific comments included in the Gibson response dated
January 3, 1972, the final statement has been revised to
clarify the issues raised.
Item No. 6 above is a summary of several comments rs^arding a
"qualified plan" included in the Gibson response. Again, each
comment attempts to substantiate the assumption that selection
of the Basham site does not conform to COG plans.
Planning requirements and general policies regarding site selection
are notably not delineated in EPA Guidelines - Water Quality
Management Planning, published January 1971. Effective planning
procedures recognize the fact that final site selection is not
necessary to develop and evaluate comprehensive plans. Rather,
plans must be flexible and the location of treatment facilities
must be especially flexible to allow decisions to be made after
due consideration is given to economical, ecological, and political
factors and to the actual availability of land. These decisions
can most effectively be made by local government with advice of
local planning agencies and groups.
48
-------
Comments submitted on January 3, 1971 contend that a cost-benefit
analysis shows that the Temple site is superior to the Basham site.
The simple cost-benefit analysis provided in those comments is an
excellent example of how invalid assumptions concerning the desiqn
life of two similar facilities can be used to prejudice the plan-
ning process. The analysis provided only considers construction
costs and gives no consideration to intangible benefits that are
most important to projects designed to improve the human environ-
ment. This weakness in cost-benefit analysis justifies substi-
tution of "cost effectiveness" for "benefit-cost analysis". Under
the restriction of a limited budget for construction of wastewater
treatment facilities, cost effectiveness implies that those
facilities which result in the greatest overall improvement in
water quality and/or environmental improvement will be constructed
before those which provide less environmental enhancement. Costs
are considered to be the overall, life-cycle costs including,
operation, maintenance, and amortization as well as initial capital
investment. The object is to minimize total public costs without
regard to the incremental cost to any level of government.
49
-------
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OFFERED BY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, FORT
WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Comment:
"It is unclear what effect, if any, an increase in the
total nutrient loading of Hurricane Creek will have on the
ecosystem of the Neches River."
Response:
Secondary treatment plant effluents contain a generous
amount of nutrients necessary for algal development and
eutrophication which can lead to algal and weed nuisances
and surface scum. The decomposition of these organic
materials may give rise to obnoxious odors.
Nutrient concentration is frequently used to predict the
likelihood of eutrophication and associated problems to the
ecosystem.
The Texas Water Quality Board's water quality management
plan includes a program of monitoring streams to determine
the susceptibility to eutrophication. Nutrients contributed
by the proposed Lufkin treatment facilities are not expected
to endanger the receiving waters; therefore, nutrient para-
meters were not limited by the waste control order. If
eutrophication becomes a problem in the future, unit processes
for removing nutrients can be added to the proposed facilities.
Comment:
"Specifications for temporary water pollution cont-ol
measures, especially for the siltation of Hurricane Creek
during construction of the proposed project, should be employed."
Response:
Plans and specifications must be approved prior to construc-
tion by the Environmental Protection Agency. Provisions for
water pollution control measures will be included in contract
specifications.
Comment:
"The statement on Page 15, 'the anticipated treated effluent
might actually increase concentration of pollutants during
periods of extreme low flow', is somewhat contradicted by the
50
-------
sentence on Page 16 that states, 'In the interim, the plant
effluent will dilute the concentrations of pollutants in the
receiving stream regardless of flow volume."1
Response:
Both of these statements are true when related to time,
and when used to compare existing conditions with possible
future conditions. At present, Hurricane Creek exhibits con-
centrations of pollutants during average flows and low flows
that greatly exceed the average concentration of 20 mg/1
BOD5 and 20 mg/1 S.S. that can be expected in the proposed
plant effluent. These existing high concentrations of pollu-
tants are primarily due to uncontrolled discharges in the
vicinity of Lufkin and can be remedied only by implementation
of an effective water quality management program by ^he City
of Lufkin.
Infrequently, and in the future if water quality improves
appreciably, concentrations of BOD5 and suspended solids above
the point of discharge for the new plant might be less than the
20 mg/1 concentrations in the plant effluent. This condition
is unlikely to occur but the possibility is there. Therefore,
it was mentioned as an adverse effect.
The sentence on Page 16 has been revised to read,"...in
the receiving stream during periods of low flow."
Comment:
"The last sentence on Page 15 is not well stated."
Response:
The sentence has been omitted.
Comment:
"The height of protective levees around the treatment facili-
ties should be discussed in relation to experienced flood ele-
vations."
Response:
No protective levees will be constructed. The site will be
filled to at least one foot above the maximum experienced water
surface elevation, which has been estimated to correspond to
that of a 50-year flood.
The text has been revised to clarify this point.
51
-------
Response to "Memorandum of Review" as Provided by the
Texas Water Rights Commission
Comment:
The "estimated eligible project cost of $3,962,900"
cannot be reconciled with the cost data given in
EXHIBITS 5, 6, and 7. Suggest that the estimated
costs of the entire project be clarified either in
the Summary Statement or in Paragraph 1 of Text in
order to show: (a) the estimated cost of the pro-
posed sewage treatment plant (identifying separ-
ately the costs for plant construction; plant site
acquisition, and for plant flood-proofing or flood
protection). (b) The estimated construction costs
of the new and additional sewerage system. (c)
The scope of work, estimated costs and time frame.j
for completion of the three stages of development
referred to on page 1 of the Text. (d) The
amounts of Federal grant assistance funds, and non-
Federal governmental funds or private funds involved
in the financing of the entire project and stages
thereof. (e) The estimated annual maintenance and
operation costs of the new treatment plant and new
sewerage system.
Response:
"Estimated eligible project costs" are those costs
that are eligible for Federal participation. This
figure should not be confused with the "total project
cost" which includes ineligible as well as eligible
costs. Exhibits 6 and 7 have been revised to clarify
the costs.
Comment:
Suggest that clarification be made whether the exist-
ing sewage treatment plant will be continued in
operation for a limited period after completion of
the new treatment plant as brought out in Summary of
the Evidence on an earlier plant held on August 26,
1969, (see EXHIBIT NO. 11). If the statement made
on page 3, of the text, regarding the continued use
of the existing plant is valid, then costs for under-
utilized treatment capacity should be considered.
52
-------
Response:
The Summary of Evidence shown in Exhibit No. 11 is
for the hearing of August 26, 1969. At that time
a 1.5 MGD trickling filter plant was proposed to
be used concurrently with the existing treatment
plant that was to be enlarged. The plans were
revised as evidenced in (Exhibit No. 12) the hear-
ing report of May 28, 1971.
Comment:
Suggest that brief mention be made of the relation-
ship of the Lufkin project to regional plans and
programs, i.e., Deep East Texas Development Coun-
cil's (DETDC) Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan,
October 1969, and DETDC 's First and Second
Reports on the Overall Economic Development Pro-
gram, of 1968 and 1969. This will emphasize that
the Lufkin project is a vital component of a 13-
county planning unit.
Response:
The comments and recommendations of the Deep East
Texas Development Council are included as Exhibit
No. 10. The Council has certified that the project
conforms with the comprehensive plan developed or
in the process of development for the metropolitan
area and the proposal appears to be consistent with
long-range regional goals.
Comment;
Suggest clarification of whether any of the addition-
al sewerage systems are to serve as combined sani-
tary and storm water systems or as sanitary sewerage
systems exclusively. The reference to diversion of
"wastewater from 1,712 acres in the Northwest area
of Lufkin into the Cedar Creek drainage area" and
diversion of "... flows from 2,715 acres into the
Hurricane Creek drainage area" infers interception
and/or conveyance of storm water runoff.
Response:
None of the sewerage system will be designed to carry
storm water runoff (other than allowances for infil-
tration) . The collection system and interceptors
were designed according to established criteria,
based on sanitary sewage flow contributions per acre
of drainage area.
53
-------
Comment:
Suggest that a more detailed description and justi-
fication is warranted of the flood-proofing or
flood-protection measures to be taken for this
project located in a flood plain. Does the treat-
ment plant spread over the 85-acre tract specifically
described in Amendment to Waste Control Order No.
10214, attached to the draft statement as EXHIBIT 12?
On page 7, Text/ it is noted that the Basham site
11... is subject to flooding of undetermined frequency
and duration. Reports of experienced floods vary...."
Response:
The size of the tract, approximately 85 acres, was
chosen to accommodate future enlargements. The
proposed facilities will be located on that tract
in a manner that will take advantage of topographi-
cal features. The tract is specifically described
in the Waste Control Order, Exhibit No. 12.
The text has been revised to clarify proposed flood
protection measures and design considerations.
Comment:
Suggest change in the last sentence of Section I
to reflect the fact that the production of an efflu-
ent discharge within the BODr and Suspended Solids
quality standards established in the Amended Waste
Control Order (see EXHIBIT 12) may or may not meet the
established quality standards of the existing stream.
The adequacy of new treatment plant effluent quality
is dependent upon the quantity and quality of the
natural stream flows, and the extent and quality of
non-point pollution flows.
Response:
Water quality standards for the Neches River Basin
are the prime reason for establishing the effluent
parameters. The overall water quality management
plan must include the effects from point discharges
of plant effluent as well as other quality variables
inherent to "natural" flow conditions.
In order to clarify the subject, the statement has
been revised to read "the unit processes will be
designed to produce a quality effluent that is
54
-------
compatible with water quality standards for the
Neches River Basin ..."
Comment:
Suggest that the next to last sentence on this page
be changed so as to refer to the correct EXHIBIT
(i.e., NO. 12 should be cited in lieu of NO. 8).
The cited EXHIBIT NO. 8 is the Texas State Depart-
ment of Health letter of approval of preliminary
engineering report.
Response:
The text has been revised accordingly.
Comment:
Suggest that the statements on the cited pages,
referring to the expected nutrient loading to
Hurricane Creek after construction of the sewage
treatment plant be reconciled. The first citation
indicates an expected increase in nutrient loading;
the second indicates a reduction.
Response:
The statement on page 12 referred to total nutrient
loading. Whereas, page 13 referred to nutrient
concentrations, which can be reduced by dilution
to an acceptable level that will inhibit eutro-
phication.
Comment:
The first sentence is unclear. Suggest that it be
revised to read:
"This adverse effect cannot be eliminated
until a water quality management program
is implemented that will produce a water
quality in the stream exceeding the quali-
ty of the plant effluent."
Response:
The statement as presented in the text is true.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that the potential
55
-------
adverse effect is not present under existing
conditions.
Comment:
The text refers to "Site 1" and "Site 2". These
locations are not carefully delineated or identi-
fied on the maps attached as EXHIBITS 1 and 3.
Suggest that the same terms be used in the text
and shown on the maps.
Response:
EXHIBIT NO. 3 has been revised to show "Site 1"
and "Site 2".
Comment:
Suggest that precise acreage purchased be specified
in the text. EXHIBIT 12, the Waste Control Order
Amendment, indicates 85 acres. In addition, the
cost of land acquisiton for the new treatment
plant should be included in the cost tabulations,
EXHIBITS 5 and 6.
Response:
The cost estimates included in the statement were
taken from the preliminary engineering report and
were used to evaluate the alternatives. The cost
of land acquisiton was assumed to be the same for
all sites in the study area. The costs of acquir-
ing acreage at the Gibson Site or in the area of
Site No. 2 cannot be substantiated.
The Basham Site, 79.403 acres, has been purchased by
the City of Lufkin for $79,403, as stated in Sec-
tion IV of the final statement.
56
-------
VIII Conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency
1. Hearings conducted by the Texas Water Quality Board and
those of State and Federal Courts have allowed public partici-
pation to become an integral part in the planning and decision-
making of the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, no
additional hearings are necessary. This conclusion is consis-
tent with EPA policy as established in Guidelines for the
Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for Activities
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
"When a public hearing has been held by another Federal,
State, or local agency on an Agency action, additional
hearings need not necessarily ensue."
Distribution of the draft impact statement for review and
comment has allowed further two-way communication between
the public and the EPA.
2. Objections that have been raised concerning the proposed
project all involve site selection.
Federal, State, and local agencies have evaluated and approved
the site selected by the City of Lufkin. There is no evidence
to indicate that the City of Lufkin has been irresponsible in
the site selection; due consideration was given to both econom-
ics and environmental aspects.
3. Comment from those reviewing the draft statement further
substantiate the previous environmental assessment.
57
-------
4. The project as proposed will enhance water quality and
abate pollution and is consistent with national environmental
goals.
58
-------
j&ate department of
t. PEA.VY, M.D.. M.P.H.
IONCR OF HEALTH
. 'CL *NO. W.D.
f cot.iMissioncH
AUSTIN. TEXAS
June 26, 19G9
BOARD OF HEXLTM
MMIPTOII C. ROai'lSON. V C.. CMMRulM
Roocnt o. MOSCTOH, " o . vict-C
ILHEK C. OXUV. O.O , itCntT-Rf
N. L. OAHi.ru. JR.. M.D.
U D. FLpnLS. jn.. B J. PHAB.
JOHN u. sunn. jA . H.O.
NOOLC II. PMCt. M.O
». KCKJ.L1 >. THU1HOK3. DOS.
KOYCL t. V!SEKO«.KER. M S CNG.
S-CJMc
RE: Lufkin, Texas
Preliminary Engineer a ng
Report
Sewage Facilities
WPC-Tex-G2r.,
enn?n«son, Dui'ham & Richardson
onsulting Engineers
3700 Republic Nafion.il flank Tower
alias. Tcxab 71.201
Gentlemen:
e have con-yleted our review of your Preliminary Engineering Report
covering I lie proposed facilities for the above referenced project
ncl in our opinion plans developed on the basis of lliis report v;ill
atiafy the requirements of the Texas State Department 'of Health.
ion ore reiionclecl to submit an Engineering Report covering the specific
"3 an the city adopts.
_f we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
cry truly yours,
fjandler J. McCoy, P. V.., Engineer 111
Plans and Specifications
ivision oi V.'asLowatcr TcrcJinology
a i id Sur v e i.D .1 a n c e
"JMc/ptw
Honori'ih.le Earl Nisbct, Mayor
Mr. UilliamE. Wolff, City Manager
Federal Wal^r Tollution Control Administration
ATTN: Hc-ndon Crane, P.E.
Angelina Couniy & Cities Health District
LociO Health Services
Region 331
Texas V/tiL'c-r Quality Board
A'i'TtJ.1 Kohovl. G VJfM»in«'- ? ?•
rn n» it ft
-------
$EEP EAST TEXAS DEV;:.LOPMEHT Council.
)C-E PEYTON WALTERS. LIVINGSTON
• r :cm
£K... L.EC SCOUSTCN. NACOCOOCHCS
.'0 !. C. REILY. CORRIGAN
J051AH WHEAT, V.OODVILLE
October 1, 1970
C. A. 'MLAL* PiCfiEITT. DIUOLL
Executive
ROBERT n. HILL;:. OIDOUL
Assistant Diac(« 2 Plivur
LINDA L. FONDFtrN. D130LL
Office I'aa;*; '
a
Ion
:r
Honorable Pitser Garrison
Mayor
City of Lufkin
Lufkin, Texas 75901
RE: Application for Sewage Treatment
' Facilities, City of Lufkin, Angelina
County, Lufkin, -Texas.
Dear Mayor Garrison:
On January 6, 1970, the Executive Committee of the DETDC
voted to concur in the subject application. This project
is highly endorsed by Dl'.TDC and carries an extremely high
priority within the District. Our second stage OEIJP states,
l"i'hc (DKTDC) regional strategy is to support 'all community
facilities projects." This of coujse has been a general
strategy for the District.
i
i
Lufkin has participated in the Positive Action Program
and has been designated a's part of the Growth Center
Complex (Nacogdoches-Luf kin-Diboll) .. The philosophy of
the Growth Center Complex is that the "Coipplox" will serve
as a center of economic activity and will substantially
contribute to the economic growth of the entire district,
specifically the redevelopment areas. Both our First and
Second Stage OIJDP has placed emphasis on improvement r. in
community facilities such as sewage treatment facilities.
Certainly, without a sewage treatment facility, other
basic c3e;acnts to economic growth such as housing and
industrial growth cannot occur.
We believe this project is essential to future econor.-.ic
growth for Lufkin, and ultimately the District.
// pIJ
/Kljd'^&i
C. A. "Neal" Pickett
CAP/1f
cc; j'o&inh Wheat, President DL'TDC
Mill ii r d K c p tu n c , Re. c;. I) i. i o c v.o ::
Judtjo O.J.. flubbcird, A r. g >? 3 J r. a Cc
Marvin Hagcnveicr, KDR
Harvey V.'ct.tcrholm, City Mc-y.
-------
CG-99
(Rev. 9-69)
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
STATE, REGIONAL OR METROPOLITAN CLEARINGHOUSES
DATE: January 8, 1970
Clearinghouse or planning agency:
Name Deep East Texas Development Council
Address 205 North Temple Drive, Diboll, Texas 75941
Source of Authority Cor Establishment of Agency
An application is to be made under 33 USC 466 et scq. to the Federal
V.'atcr Pollution Control Administration, Department of the Interior.
Tlie estimated date the application will be filedr 6-19-69 ___ .
Applicant's Name: City of Lufkin, Texas
Address: p. Q. Drawer 190, Lulkin, Texas 75901
Geographic Location of Project: Angelina County, Texas.
Project Description:
Additions to the existing Sanitary Sewerage System.
Clearinghouse Ccr tlf ication :
The project described above docs (XX&yiK&XMXXfcxftXC0^0™ wiLh the
comprehensive plan developed or in process of development for the.
metropolitan area in which it is located.
Comments and RcconipenJntins :
"
JLJIC ^lwpObci.L clpj/cai'o 'L^ uc UOno-i b LC.Ji L Wj.Xil j.Olij/—J ajiKc J'c:^.l. Oi icl.i.
goals, and there was no opposition expressed. The City of
Lufkin has followed the proper procedures and the Deep East
Texas Development Council will have no o'jfjrici'til Comment.
(Signature)
EXHIBIT ff]Q AulhoriKC-d Representative of Clcarint;lioiiao
-------
EXHIBIT 11
1. Hearing Commission Report, Synopsis.
2. Summary of Evidence by Robert H. Lloyd,
Hearing Examiner.
3. Mailing List for Hearing Commission Report
for City of Lufkin, Texas.
4. Exchange of letters between Jack Tucker, a
protestor, and the Board regarding sufficiency
of notice of the Board meeting, dated April 22
and April 30, 1970.
EXHIBIT #11
-------
HEARING COMMISSION REPORT
SYNOPSIS
Applicant
A. Name: City of Lufkin
B. Location: Lufkiri, Texas
Discharge
A. Volume: Average of 3,670,000 gallons per day
B. Type: Treated municipal sewage
C. Course: Discharged into Cedar Creek, thence into Hurricane
Creek, thence into Jack Creek, thence into the Neches River.
TTI. Hear 1 ng
A. Date; August 26, 1969
B. Location: Beaumont, Texas
C. Hearing Commission: James E. Wa3ker, Presiding Officer,
Clair A. Garden, Technical Services
D. Appearances :
(1) Proponents; Mr. David Walker , City Attorney, Mr.
Bobby Mott, Mr. Thomas J. Wolf, Mr. C. y. Rasor
(2) Opponents: Mr. Jack W. Tucker, Mr. B. .E. McCall,
Mr. Edd Ken ley
IV.
A. . The proposed sewage treatment plant will be capable of
producing an effluent conforming to the conditions of the
engineering summary.
B. An effluent conforming to the terms and conditions of the
engineering summary will not unreasonably affect vises of
the receiving waters.
V. Rccommpndr.ti ons
A. 'Permit Granted: Yes
B. Effective Date: April 24, 1970
C. Status; Final Approval
-------
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
'_-ic "City of Lublin, City Hall, Lufkin, Texas |25902j, has applied ''to
Vhe Texas Water {Quality Board for an amendment to its existing
31-mIt Mo. 1021'4 permitting the following:
''I) Add Page 2ito Permit No. 10214 providing for an average dis-
charge of/ 3, 670,000 gallons per day of .treated (2 stage trick -
-ling filter typ
-------
nallons per day from the existing plant. Lufkin proposes to
•onstruct another sewage treatment plaint to bo located approximately
J,000 feet v.-csjt of U. S. Highway 59 and and approximately' 8, 000
^eot south of [Loop 287 at a point near th* intersection of Cedar
'reek and Hurijicane Creek in Angelina County, Texas. The proposed
plant will be ^located in an area of farm and timber land out of
'he residential area. The plant wi.ll include one primary clarfier,
ne standard intake trickling filter, one final clarfier, ch]ori~
nation facilities and sludge processing fcicilities. Assuming a
avorable outcome of the City's bond election, one phase of the
roposcd plant will be in operation in 2-2 years.
he existing treatment plant is located approximately 1,700 feet
^st of State Highway 59 on the north bank of Hurricane Creek,
and approximately 800 feet north of Loop 287 in the City of
if kin, Angelina County, Texas. Due. to the projected increased
,.oeds of the City of Lufkin and the expansion of: the City's
v*5sidcntial area, the present plant is to be gradually phased out
/er a 10 year period. In addition, the City of Lufkin has annexed
L.ne Ilerty Community and, more recently, has annexed the Angelina
~ :m nty Fresh Water Supply District ijl, which, along with Lxifkin's
:panding poultry processing plants, have placed a heavy burden on
the existing sewage treatment plant. The present plant has 2
•iraary clarfiers, 2 trick] ing filters, one final clarfier, 2
.gcstors and a pump station. The City plans to convert this to a
2 stage filtering process with the addition of a second stage pun.-p
•-utiori.
The city of Lufkin is in the process of adopting a new City
dinancc- concerning industrial waste which, according to City
uj.fici.a3s, will be enforced. The new ordinance will require a
"•-reening process of all poxxltry plants, which presently contribute
: gnificantly to the City's need for additional improved treatment
facilities, and also wi] 1 provide for a scaling of rates in direct
< rrelation with the BOD level of the industry's effluent.
The City has submitted an 'application for federal funds in compliance
\ th PL 660 and wilD initiate a City bond election to finance the
cd improvements.
1 j Parks & Wildlife Department has reviewed this application and
h..j no objection to the City's application.
M :r.rs. Jack W. Tucker, 15. E, KcCall, and Ecld Xonloy, a]l landowners
DJI Hurricane: Creek dovm-treaiii from the proposed location, of the new
appeared at the hearing to protest the City's current discharge
-------
I
and the proposed plant location. Specifically, the protcstants
tated thnt the City's current discharge was of such quality that
he receiving jwatcrs of Hurricane Creek were no longer suitable..
for drinking by 3ivestock. The applicant'stated that with the'
ropo&ed improvements, the e.f fluent quality would be greatly improved.
ihe protcctants also objected to the odorifcrou&ncss of a sewage
treatment plant in the immediate area of their land. The City
ointod to the increased demands on the existing inadequate
jiacilities as the basis for expansion and the need to locate the
cw plant outside of existing residential areas as the reason- for
electing the proposed location. The protestants agreed to with-
draw' any protest if, with the plant improvements and additions,
he quality of the effluent were improved.
In view of this evidence and since the applicant has complied with
.he statutory and procedural requirements to obtain a discharge
permit, the Hearing Commission recommends that the Texas Water
Quality Board issue a discharge permit to the City of Lufkin in
xccordance with the terms and conditions of the summary attached
aereto.
obert II. ],loyd,
DET:h£i
-------
\ } *
r» ••«.•< — /•/••/,••/-•'• "•;.-•">./ K i ••••-•-.-» . \' > ••: ...' ''••• -•;--'•.-:(->.-•• rk. ..— '•••- :•
---, v-w- \.i/•{£':••>'•:•-'-^^M-V.-.-N /• '• '-"-r^ v ^-'^l\*/; 7^; ^K'-i *< iTV-^:
iSKIl^iPvmrT^^
ii
I
.'
-------
* > v-x:
' - 5^' rt /•
1i \. ^V I * '/ •
S &';.'. >-"
REAT.V.SNT PLANT
OSED ^ /?
'
-------
.y \. v.'imuj.t.i.j.on KCjjort - Mailing List - ror:
City of Lufkin, Texas
M Da via E. Clpacns
P. 0. Box 340
Mineral V.'ells, 'fexas 76067
'}• SOKAL
ir Gordon Ir'ulchcr
'. ). Dox GG013
itianta, Texas 75351
.r Jerry Brownlec
. 0. Box 1540
o Worth, Texas 76101
r. Jack Pi chess en
e: s Water Development Hoard
. v. )3ox 12306
urj in, Texas 78711
:. W. J. Cut-birth, Jr.
;>; ; Parks & wildlife Dcpt.
>V H. Roacjaii P.lctcj.
istin, Tcxa?j. 7C701
-. .toy JJ. Payne.
Xri<: Heiilirocicl Co:rni«sion
n tO. Thompson
cut. orfice IKiiidincj
s' -n, Tex s<, 70701
. G. R. Hcrxik, Jr. , P. E.
for
•:as Stale D;«pt. of Health
)C 708^ 49th Street
;l^.i, Texas 78756
bort Hooper
o/ncy fit Lav/
i,tin Savings JJlclcj.
t , Texas, 7P-703
1 ;/ard C. Fr.lt/,
; 1 iance Life }?,]c!y.
North Kvvay
3; , -Tc-x.is 75?01
lUircau of Sport FislicrJcc t< .^Ic
Division of. River Basin StixbVcs.
'402 \J. S. Courthouse
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Mr. Harry P. Durleigh
Area Engineer
Bureau of Kcclfai'iation
Dcpt. of the Interior
P. 0. Box 1946
Austin, Texas 70767
Office of the Attorney General'
Attn: Mr. Roger Tyler
Sxiprcmo C'ouvt building
Austin, Texas 78701
Distvict _ 6_ ___
Stale Hcttlt.h Dept.
7d.r Contro] Koard
Joe p. Toiler
Joe II. Sorrclls - Dick
Vflii. ,)3. (Uill) Burger'
Wr. jsaa Keiiley
1215 Keen
Lufkin, Texas 75900.
Mr. D. E. McCall
Route 2, Box 494
Lufkin, Texas 75901
Mr. Bobby Jtott
P. 0. Box 190
Lufkin, Toxufi 75901
Mr. C, R. Has or
3700 Rep. Bk. Tower
Dallas, Texas 75160
I'JJL. ucick iv. Tucker
1106 Southwnod Drive'
Ltifkin, Texas 75901
-------
Hailing List -2- City of Lufkin
Mr. David Walker
City Attorney
P. 0. Box 190
Lufkin, Texas ;75901
Mr. Victor F^j
Jefferson Cou'nty Health Dept.
1149 Pcarl^Strcct"
'BcaumbTitj Texas 77701
Mr. Everett Brashear
p'. 0. 13ox 1069
Beaumont, Texas 77704
Mr. K. 3. Romero, Jr.
P. 0. Box 1089
Port Arthur. Texas 77610
Angelina County & Cities Health District
R. E. Read, M. D. , Acting Director
915 ]]llis Avenue
Lufkin, Texas
Hon. 0. L. imbbarcl
County Judge, Angelina County
County Courthouse
Lufkin, Texas 75901
-------
'»«•"« TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD JAN«U«O«
'•AN J. E PEAVY MU
Kt :^»««- ..;£!r~C;- OYRONlUf.Mf.LL
'MUCH C >ANTI5. J1
STL'K CLAI.K »-.. -,,-,,-
\ Vv..V-/ : txtcurive DIRCCTCR
.Kl P. F'Jfl tIGII
HOB I AV/CAST 475-2051
AUSTIN. TEXAS 70VO1
June 7, 1971
• : Parties interested in the application of: -the City of Lufhin:
ntlemen:
G 'DC-losec! Hearing Commission report v/j.ll be-: presented to the Texas Water
ality Board in Room 305, John H. Reagan Dldg., 15th St., & Congress Ave. ,
s n, Toxas beginning cit 9:00 a. m. oji June 18, 1971
iifi^.nts on this report arc invited. If coinmo.nts received lecid to sub--
a .ial changes in this report, you will be notified of such changes pjior
• X.JJG time the report, is considered by the Board, Written exceptions to
,o Hearing Conuvisnion report may be filed. These exceptions will bo
>n .dered by the .Voord.
e loarci, in its discretion, may also permit ora] arguments on issues por-
i .ng to the application. We request thai, written exceptions and written
quests bs submitted to the Board st.eiff at least 5 days prior to the? Hoard
c ng. If thevrequests to spc-ciH or the writ-ten exception?, are in the
t...c of protests to the .issuance of a Waste Control Order, it is desira'olo,
i. of fairnesr. to the applicant, that, the applicant al.wo have 5 days prior
• ic Board meeting as outlined belov/.
e -cquest that v/ritten exceptions and written requests for time to r.yec-'h be
ib .tt.cd 5 days prior to the Hoard meeting 5s in no \n\y intende.d to limit
•C matters that corae to the attention of the Hoard. Writtc-n exceptiopf. and
•i .en request?, for time to speak which are received by the staff at any
in prior to the day of the Board meeting will bs presented to the Board
ong with the Hearing CoiPMi .c.r..ioii report. However, the weight which the-
•ci i gives evidence presented to it on matters which the staff has not hr\d
in to research ?nd the applicant has not. had the opportunity to prepare-
I. may fee J.uni'ceo according:! y.
cc: Office of the Attorney General
Stsit.c }Jonlth Department.
Air Control }.'.oard
VJdtor l)cvo.lou;nent Lonrd
-------
HEARING COMMISSION REPOJRT
SYNOPS3S
Appl i cant
"A . Niune :
/
B.' Address:
A. Volume:
B . Type ;
C. Course:
Hearing
A. Date:
B. Location:
C. Hearing
Commission:
D . Appc a ranees;
3) Proponent 5
2) Opponents:
3) Observers:
City of Lufkin
P. 0. Drawer 3.90
Lufkin, Texas 75901
An average of 1,500,000 gallons per day;
A maximum of 3,750,000 gallons per day.
Treated dosaestic sewage
Into Hurricane Creek, thence into Jack
Creek, thence into the Neches River.
May 28, 1971
Iiufkin, Texas
James Shov.'cn, Presiding Officer
Kenneth Vann
E. C. Wareing
Robert L. Plournoy
B. E. McCall
Lemuel C. Hutch .ins
Danny Shcrv/ood
K. . Dc>l ?.i 11 An tliony, Jr
ij. u.
Harvey Westcrholm
Richard R. Pholps
Bobby Glenn Mott
Jcike Ross
Joseph T,. Gibson
Thomas Mitchell Gibson
Anci.1 A. Jemcs
Ray Sa.';.«:,or
n. ')
A. The CJty of T,uf.k.in need?; ci ncv/ s-.ewacjo treatment pl.nnt in
order to provide a treated cffJucnt suitable for discharge
-------
Icaring Commission Report-Synopsis
li / of Lufkin
*i...3 7.
F3 nd ings (Cj3ntji nue d)
;
B. The sewage treatment plant proposed to be construeted by
the city will bo adequate to provide a well treated effluent.
The capacity of the plant provided will be adequate to take
care of population growth in the city anticipated for the
next 20 years.
C. The sewage treatment plant site selected by the city is
in a good location; the site js located far enough down-
stream from the presently populated area to serve the city
as it expands. It is located near the intersection of the
two creeks which drain most of the developed portions of
the city of Lufkin. Most of the future development of the
city of Lufkin is expected to occur within the watersheds of
these two creeks. A new plant site will be located within
a 8i~acre tract which is easily accessible by paved road
and which is adequately protected against flooding.
Kecomiucnda t ions
A. . Waste Control Order Granted; Yes
B. Effective Date of Board Action: June 18, 197.1.
C. • Status; Final approval
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
( April 24, 1970, the V7atcr Quality Board issued an amendment to
\ stc Contro.1 Order No. 10211 to the City of Lufkin for a new sewage
treatment plant to be located on Cedar Creek near the intersect.ion
< Cedar Ci.eek wi th Hurricane Creek. After the waste contro.1 order
^ s isyucd, the persons owning the land on which the pDant was to
be- constructed began a Kc^io.?. of. legal maneuvers to prevent the cily
. om condemn ing the proposed plant site. At the request of these
}._oporty owners, a Federal Di«trtct Court issued an injunction pro-
vrnting the C.ity of Lufkin from beginning condemnation proceedings
. d preventing the c.ity from accepting a Pc-df?ral Grant for con n true-
Ljon of the now sewage troatmrnt plant. This injunction was
tempo* ariJy set aside iuH.il. tho Court of Appeals couJ d have a hearing
-------
•aring Commission Report
Summary of the Evidence
.ty of Liufkin
igc 3
« public hearing was held on May 28, 1971 in the Angelina County
Courthouse, Lufkin, Texas, to consider moving the sewage treatment
.ant site. During the public hearing, Mr. Robert Flournoy, City
Attorney, presented the following information: The City of Lufkin
oposcd sewage treatment plant 3ocated inside the city limits of
if kin is producing a very poor quality of effluent. (Examiner 's
Note: On the afternoon of May 28, 3.971, I visited the new sewage
eatment plant site which is a little more than two miles downstream
om the existing sewage treatment plant. At that point, Hurricane
Creek was black in color and very malodorous. I was told that this
•ndition exists for several miles below the present sewage treat-
.nl. plant.)
. Flournoy said that the present population of the City of Lxifkin
..... approximately 25,000 persons and that the city anticipates the
~^pulation .in 1990 will be approximately 35,000. Much of this
; -pu.lation growth is expected to occur in the Cedar Creek Watershed
and for that reason, the new sewage treatment plant site has been
>cated at a point near the intersection of Cedar Creek and Hurricane
' cok. Most of the city can thus be served by lines having gravity
flow to the new sewage treatment plant site. A small part of town
es within the two watersheds draining to the north. Sewage from
ese areas wi31 continue to be pumped over the ridge line to the
main collection system. Mr. Flournoy said that the site? considered
this cipp.l i cation is as good, from the standpoint of having gravity
ow from both the- Ccdv-u: Creek and Hurricane Creek Watershed, as the
site by which the ]ast waste control order was granted.
'J.MC land-surrounding the new sewage treatment plant site is presently
v-cd primarily for grazing and timber product ion. The city made a
: rvcy of an B square mi.3 e area surrounding the proposed sewage treat-
ment, plant site. This survey showed only 62 residences in the 8 square
i ' le area. The report of the f.urvey said that no houses had been
i nctructod thorc since 1900; however, it was pointed out 3atcr in
'the hearing that one of the houses luid been constructed in 3962 and
i e new house is being constructed current.!y. There was also an
. dication that some tracts within the G square mile area wi.ll be
subdivided in1 the near future. The no-arcst subdivision is approxi-
1 tely 1 1/2 miles from the new sewage- treatment plant site.
Mr. Joseph I,. Gibson, Attorney, appeared on behalf of himself and his
: lalives who own undivided interest in the tract of 3and immcdiatc3y
t..v.wnutroc'iin from the point of discharge proposed by this application.
-------
ii /
..earing Commission Report
summary of the; Evidence
ity of LufkinJ:
rage 4
This is the tract, of land for which the latest wast'e control order
mcndiacnt v;as granted. Mr. Gibson said that! his objections pre-
'iouoly given .concerning "the site on his property also apply to -,
Tthe-site"~undcr consideration in this application. These objections [
• re cis follows: • f
1. Both sites arc located on low ground and may
be subject, to flooding. Flooding would inter-
fere with the sewage treatment process; not only
by inundating treatment units, but also by cut-
ting off access by operating personnel to the
sewage treatment plant. This argument, is based
in part on an assumption that construction of a
sewage treatment plant at a low site would cause
a waste of public funds because flood protection
would be an added expense.
2. "A second argument against locating the plant
either on the. Gibson property or on the new
proposed site- is that these sites are nearer,
to town than are other sites preferred by Mr.
Gibson. Generally speaking, the farther from
town the plant, is located, the longer the • ':.
usefulness of the plant site. . The tributaries
to Hurricane Creek branch out from the creek
jn Herringbone fashion. The farther downstrceim
on Hurricane Creek, the larger the area which ' •
can be served by gravity flow by sewer lines
following tributary streams. Another advantage
from locating the sewage treatment plant as
far from town as possible is that the sewage
treatment, plant can thus be more distant, from
densely populated areas. This argument, and some
of the other argument.0, relate to the project's
eligibility for a Federal grant. According to
Mr. Lcm Hutchins, an attorney representing the
Gibsons, in issuing grants for sewage treatment
tcic3j.iL.tes, flic Mi1 A muf.t consider tne collects
of the project, on land use. .' .
3. Mr. Gibson's .third argument war: that the cfity
hai. not u&ed a cor,I benefit analyr.if: of all
' r;ewago treatment plant sites in
-------
Hearing Commission Report
i inmary of the Evidence
< ty of Lufkin
Page 5
selcctling the site proposed. In this connection
Mr. Gibson feel 5; that a site downstream from
the site proposed might be more economical for
the use over a period of years. The site
might serve the city for a longer period of
time and land cost might be smaller.
i response to Mr. Gibson's suggestions that a new site is located
on low ground, Mr. Dick Phe.lps; a consulting engineer, testified to
ic following:
The lov.'ost part of the proposed plant site is above the
25-year flood elevation. An additional factor of safety
is given by pJans to construct the treatment units a few
'feet above the surface of the land. Even if a flood
occurs which causes water to rise above"the- 25-year
flood elevation, the treatment units w.i 11 . \ _ '•. be
covered with water. The new site, is cr..v!\ly ' " ies-
sible by a paved road. Mr. Earl B. KCO/J,' who'owns
property do^ACtreciro from I he new scv.vigo. treatment
plant's location, said that 3 years ago' part of thi.c;
paved road was under water, lie said that in the past
this has occurred as often as once a year. It was
well established through maps and through discxission
at the hearing that the portion of the road which has
flooded is past the sewage treatment plant site,
away from town. Tha part of the road from town to
the sewage treatment plant site would not be flooded
even under very severe flooding conditions.
•j.he City of lAifkin heir; always maintained that its choice of a sewage
' rccitmcnt plant rite isr. the best cJioice thcit can be made under the
ircumstances. Prom t)ic standpoint of present urban development, tlie
site if; in a largely rura] area. It is conceded'that tho city will
•ontinue to grow in the cl.irc-ct.ion of the sewage treatment plant.
'he growth way bo cicccloraled after tho srwago tro.atiuc-nt plant lias
been constructed because r.cv.vrage service will be ava.ilable to the
i?rea and because the nuar.eince conditions .in Murrjcanc Creek wi3 i
>e- abated. Nevertlioler.K, considering the site and the ci.ty'r. growth
rnto, the nev.> sc"./agc tronlio.cnt plant site i.y reasonably remoi.c from
•lie donsoly developed parts of J.ufhin.
-------
Hearing Commission Report
£ nmary of the.Evidence
C :y of Lufkin
Page 6
The decision of how to provide sewerage service most economically
: one which must be mac1 • by the city. For example, it would be
Iw-ss expensive to' pay cash for a sewage treatment plant than it
wnild.be to finance it through the sale of bonds. Unfortunately,
( e of the factors a city must consider is whether the city can
afford the savings. In this case, the city has testified that
t instruction of the sewage treatment plant at the proposed site
\ 11 exhaust the city's bonding capacity. Engineers for the city
have also testified that moving the sewage treatment plant site
i wnstream to the site preferred by Mr. Gibson would cost an addi-
.-_ onal million dollars for additional lines and access roads. Even
if this expenditure could be recouped by extending the useful life
i the sewage treatment plant site, the city has determined that it
< nnot afford to construct a plant two miles further downstream..
: ring the public hearing Mr. Joe Gibson said that his principal
jections to the sewage treatment plant site chosen by the city
d been that in his opinion these sites would cause ccologica.1
mage-. He elaborated on his concept of ecological damage saying
u:?.t he hei.veved possible flooding of. the'plant would .cause overflows
-c concentrated sewage which would kill plant and animal life in the
.cjnity of tho sewage treatment plant. In the opinion'of the VJatcr
yuality Board engineers, the location of this sewage treatment plant
>es not pose any hazard to plants and animals. Mr. Gibson was also
mcerncd that the plant might have a distinctive odor which would
damage the value of surrounding property. The engineers for the
>plicant assure us that the proposed plant is designed for
ffectivc odor control.
i light of the evidence, the Hearing Commission recommends that an
~..iattdment to Waste Control Orclur No. 1021/1 for the City of Lufkin
granted in accordance with the terms and conditions shown on
ic attached Proposed Waste Control Order.
s Showen, Presiding Officer
!ISh:nd '
7, 1971
-------
;: City 'p|f Lufkin
IF ?: City ,Hall,"210 East Lufkin Ave. , P. 0. Box 190
T. "Lufkin,'Texas 75902
3 ? WASTE CONTROL ORDER: Amendment to Waste Control Order No. 10234,
Page 1 and Page 2
Jf OF BUSINESS PRODUCING WASTE: Municipal Sewerage System
CF L DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OP WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:
Wastov/ater treatment facilities include screening, lift
.station, grit removal, prc-acration tank, primary clari-
fication, activated sludge units including aeration
chambers and final c.lai if i.ers, chlorine contact chamber,
'sludge processing and sludge dov;atcring facilities.
C,c rition: Inaucdiate.ly north of Hurricane Creek and West of the
Southern Pacific Railroad on an 85-acre tract in the O.A.
Longoria League, RppiOxinir.t-c.ly 132 r»ilc& S"outh of tho city
limits of the City of Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas.
OIT30NS OF THE WASTE CONTROL ORDER:
Cl. ..ractcr; Treated domestic nev;age effluent
V( ume_: Not to exceed an average of 7,500,000 gallons per day
Not to exceed a maximum of 15,000,000 gallons per day
Not to exceed a maximum of 10,400 gallons per minute
Qua 1 i ty: NpJ^_TO_EXCEED
Monthly 24-Jlr. Daily Individual
T in A very1 g e C°inp_os ite Sample
BOD 20 nig/.I 25 ing/I 30 mg/1
TI al Suspended Solids 20 mg/1 25 mg/1 30 mg/1
- « • . .. •• .,- -••, ,,• i . '*..• ' •» . ' ^ . x -it •»_..„,., : ^,1- -.,'_, ^, r\ ~~ £>-'-*•*-
e\ \^ii.i.Oj J.HC*. .•-«. ..• j.«.iii*.«. ^ \_»j_ i.~ ~ _'—._—• —,.~ '.- — i - ; •_}.• .'. .-. ' •.'. '. '. * ' - -• ••- -•-!'•
a least a 20-minuLe detention Vinie (based on peak flow) .
Into Hurricane Crock adjacent to the plant site in
Angelina County, Texas; thence into Coclar Crock;
tlicncc into the Ncchos River in the Ncchcs River
Rasin.
-------
o1 'sed Waste Control Order - Page 2
t, of Lufkin
E hi, PROVISIONS
iis order is granted subject to the poli-cy of the Board to encourcige
,e Icvelopment of area-wide waste collection, treatment and disposal
•sterns. ' The Board reserves the right to amend this order in accordance
tv appliccible procedural requirements to require the system covered
r iis order to be integrated into an area-wide system, should such
• developed; to require the delivery of the wastes authorized to be
)1" Detect in, treated by or discharged from said system, to such area-
.d system; or to amend this order in any other particular to
."fectuate the Board's policy. Such amendments may be made when, in
IG judgment of the Board, the. changes required thereby are advisable
>x 'jator quality control purposes and are feasible on the basis of
isto treatment technology, engineering, financial, and related con-
ic 'til-ions existing at the time the changes arc required, exclusive
f _.ic loss of investment in or revenues from any then existing or
cooosod waste co.1Jecti.on, treatment or. disposal system.
nt.-,-? public /icwcragc. facilities shall be operated and maintained by a
?\"vje plant operator holding a valid certificate of competency issued
nc r the direction of the Texas State Health Department as required by
scuion 20 (a) of Article 4477-1, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes.
pc at ion and maintenance of the facilities described by this waste
oin.ro! order shall, be in accordance with accepted practices for this
yp~ of waste treatment facility and shall, include related maintenance
u< as painting, proper disposal of solid waste, and weed and grass
u tting.
h. City shall co'.nply with the provisions of Board Order No. 69-1219-1
dative to monitoring and reporting data on effluent described in "Con-
ij of the Waste Control Or.dcr".
'hi", waste control order becomes effective upon the date of issuance by
h Hoard. No discharge is authorized, however, until the Board and
i3K.i.rict Office No. 6 have been notified in writing that the treatment
cl' "..i. J X. ut:l. llilvi: AJ<_:t;il t uni^O.^ L«JU (clj^i-ij. OA. iiuci i_« v-vjjii^ j v.-: l_ j vti wciuv. ^ j. j.. ^ >, •- i n >-• •.. i. -t
9 \) . The- waste control order is val id until amended or revoked by the
Jocird,
-------
posed Waste Control Order - Page 3
,y >f Lufkin
-------
'..-•'.
• . r
' ••*'*.''
• . INLAND . WATERS-
V
; • *
,'
^ ^
"o* ^
£ K
*.* »>
' o
UJ —
Q
l!
o e
.
. __
— "T3
,|i
;£ ~
•S) o
!
«/> ^
1 s i
(/> u
O 0 0
^j 75 ^ «
JO p> So
_» c: X c
-' -v C
o « d ?
1 — fclT- tC) O
c
•^
o-
£
T1
iTi
o £•
'-•> "~
0 l=
T^ *r n
' -T-- JL *
' UJ
o
-S
a
^•Ti"1
COL
>1
.=!
S
^
O
o
!,
1'
0
M
7~» T
.-M.RN.
^5 "
o
o
o
i
£
A
-
i—
g
_j
^~
«
S
-i
UJ
EMR
tn
o
UJ ^~
is
•- o
'S. g
U_" h —
-"> X
C
C
. 0
0 ^
^ £
S^
^if>
t5
<
UJ
<
~
u
« s
5 "-
% "i
15 ir,
IE is
< w| S
j'S'^ 5; !;
6 •=!;: 2'.%
0 i'jg EJ 3
•t ' fc> «I
lilsl-
^5::-: °.g |
£tii i:ss
e
«
_j
<
D S
«I H^
Jl
'.^ c
< 0-
o -3
a: o c
CO
1
'
'
i
.
* \
*y ' l'i1/'fs?'
C-'-C: CYPPISS -..REEK ,x^^'" ^^V---^,^ — \ ^
"''•2 3^ACK i..A DU J<-**\.. VvLw£^>XAW"T ^'. '.^ ].
O'-o-. FFA;^^ c? :EK (.v.CNTERr,;v LAKE) VO'''''" N-\ sVr* A "^^
C'-O'. CAOOO LA E \ \ *V~N'\ ''^A'' ^v '
O'-::- Pi\'EY DA )\J \ vX,ui«i«.!Cr"t ^psAr^-0iL-
0^0". GvLLA30 ( -iiEK x %^^C . VJv •^^ o^'ji
0407 C3C33 3A- ;u ^C^;^''1""^^^
O'.oo OTH:R \VA- :RS N-^J
.
, • •tn'wr ^V t \ _^ " ^^_
(-GOI f.ECHES R. ".'IDAL-ZOXE 1 (SA3IME PASS) ~~""\, '' V \
CC.'-'Z NECHES R. ' iOAL-ZOVE I1,: ( iNTRACOASTAL AT POPT ARTHUR! ^*\ Vfe. ,
( \ "** \
.CcC? ,\HCUES R. "lOAL-'ON'E lio (TAYLOR 3AYCU SELOV/ BARRIER) ' l,wJ^C2=?
CG01 N'EC.'-IES ?. 'ICAL-ZOXE :;i (£'J"ER ZONE AOvACSNT TO S'>~:\T LAKE) >—•«>«»--(«
C-3C5 ••ECHiS R. 'lOAL-cONE iV (ASOVE SAL-NE LAKE)
CC07 r.'ZC^'S =.• ZONE VI ( ABOVE NECHE3 CANAL)
C033 A\;ZL:.-:A ?:VE.?
.
GO 50
CO ' 50
I CO t 50
1 00 j 50
1 00 ! .50
! CO j 50
100 i 50
:
16.500 ! 2.350
!f-,5CO ! -2,350
1G.5CO j 2,350
;o,ooo ! i.coo
7.5C-D • 750 •
IC.C-CO ! 1,000
50 i 30
___ .
300 i 5.0 J5 5 6.0-0.0 X
200 i 3.0 '5.5 ! 6.0-8.0 ' X
SCO ' 3.0 5.5 : 5.0-7.0 • X
SCO : iO :5.5 -j 5.0- 7.0 j X J
300 | 3.0 ;5.0 5.0-7.0 X
300 j 3.0 ;5.0 50-7.0 ! X
SCO ! 3.0 j 5.5 i 5.0 -7.0 IX'
! C~E GENcT-tAL STATE
•
25.000 | 3.5 (4.0 70-9.O TO/lO
H5.000 5.0 '3.0 6.5-8.5 licOO/;0<
25,'3OO ' 5.0 3.0 lG.0-2.0. ICCOC/IO<
15,000 i 5.0 \Z.O 65-65 I'.OCO/IOC
10,000 : 5.0 j 3.0 :GO-65 l,OCO/iOC
20.CCO |40!5.0 '70-9.0 1 TO/iO
150 : 3O ; 5.0 i 05-85 X :
SCO i ''rO '5.0 ; G5-S^ X j •
' ! SCE GS.VERAL 1 STATS
96 X ! X I X
90 | X ! X ! X
90 ! x ; x •! x
9'3 X j X | X
95 X j X I X
26 i X ! X 1 X
96 XI .j X X
V.ENTi j j
1
D X i X j X
5 j X j X i X
3 X j X i X
1 X i X' i X
> ' X i X i X
3 i X 1 X i X
ss ! x ' ! x ! x
OG X ; I X ! X
/".NT : j: i
X : X j X
X ! X ' X
X ; X : X
x ; x i x
x : x 1 x
x i x j x
x i x ! x
i i
x 1 x ! x
X ! X ; X
X 1 X X
X j X ! X
X i X J X
x ! x ; x
x : x | x
X i X ! X
i 1
FP.OM /JAT^R QUALITY STAI-TDARD SU>2-1A^Y - T3L/.3 tfAT."R QUALITY BOARD, S^
1969
-------
PUBLIC L.M: 660 APPLICANT'S'
ENVIROX:IE::TAL ASSESSMENT
A. 1 Nome of Applying TxibJJc Body _
City of Lufkin, Texas,
2. Address p. 0. Drawe.]C_19g
T.ugkin._Texas 753.01.
'3. Location of Project
/t . r.ricf Description of Project Ke^/_iiLt.ar.ce.p.LQrj5_,_4oucip_.S_tiition.
i.j:L_vp_ js^
_ .
and Cedar Creeks. Improvement to existing plant.
G. 1. Provable impact of the project upon the cnvironmon L :
2. Frobnble nf!vers_& environmental cffectr- which cpnnot be-
avo 5.cl cd : SCP_ a L tfichcd s trit lomejijL.
3. Alternatives Lo the projcc-t \:i Lli ] e or irretrievable commitment of resources.
by t h5 E project:
6. ]'ub)ic objections to the project, if any, and their
v c f, o 3 M t i o n : &e.Q_a±i\ai;h.c:cL_f-Ltsi tcmo.nl.,.
' '^
Dote' Aulhoij'/cd Representative
rr-rv-/-
s
-•^s
-------
PUBLIC LAW 660 APPLICANT'S
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
At the present timejthe.City of Lufkin is discharging its efflu-
ent from its sewer treatment plant into the Hurricane Creek near
where Loop No. 287 crosses the Creek in-the southwest part of
Lufkin.
The present effluent far exceeds the limits allowed under its
Discharge Permit in both b.o.d. and suspended solids. The efflu-
ent is also dark, thick and highly odorous. The entire channel
of Hurricane Creek, from where the effluent is introduced to its
confluence with the Neches River, is in an odorous condition
which precludes the use of the stream as a source of livestock
water or for the propagation of fish.
The construction of a new sewer treatment plant with its dis-
charge into the Hurricane- Creek at the new site some two miles
downstream from its present site should eliminate the contami-
nation of Hurricane Creek from the present sewer treatment plant
site to the Nechcs River.
The new plant will produce a quality of effluent acceptable by
the Texr.s Water Quality Board. This will then allow the use of
the stream along its entire course for purposes of livestock
water and aquatic growth. It will also eliminate all obnoxious
odors that are now present.
2. The location of any sewer treatment plant is never considered
an ideal next door neighbor. However-, by locating the sewer
plant at this point some two miles downstream from the present-
plant, it is further from developed areas.
jtn fact, in an eight square mile area surrounding the proposed
plant at Hurricane and Cedar Creeks, only one new home has been
built within the last ten years, signifying the lack of develop-
ment.
Immediately to the west licr. :i 1200 acre tract of thickly wooded
area with no honn sitc.s. There is an adequate growth of trees
on the proposed site to effectively screen the plant site from
view by any neighbor or the traveling public along FM Road No.
320.
-------
It is felt that the new plant can be effectively operated to
minimize any odors and be so situated as-to be unseen by the
public and thereby create no adverse environmental effect.
The site and proposed type of treatment has already been
approved by the Texas Water Quality Board.
Two alternatives to this site selection have been studied.
One alternative is to remain at the present site. This would
preclude, however, the inclusion of large new outlying areas
from being served by gravity flow to the sewer treatment plant.
At the present time, the western portion of the City of Lufkin
is being served through the use of expensive lift stations.
Areas south and east of Lufkin, such as Angelina College and
the Slack Elementary School, must also be served through the
use of expensive 3ift stations. By locating the plant at" the
site some two miles below our present site, the above mentioned
areas of the City of Lufkin and its environs can in the future
be served by gravity flow.
The other alternative site proposed was the location of a sewer
treatment plant near the confluence of Hurricane' Creek with Zed
Creek. This would put the plant some four miles downstream from
its present location and approximately two miles downstream from
our proposed site. The advantage to having it at this site would
mean a larger area could possibly be served and it would be fur-
ther from developed areas. The disadvantage to this site is that
the additional cost of outfall line alone would be $648,000.00.
There would also be a great additional expense for an access road
to the site and. possibly other unknown expenses.
This additional cost would put the scope of the? sewer treatment
plant and improvements to our collection system beyond the fi-
nancial capabilities of the City of Lufkin. The City of Lufkin
has already increased its water and sewer rates to yield an
operating income sufficient to issue bonds to meet its share of
the cost for building at the proposed s-ite near Hurricane Creek
and Cedar Creek. By receiving a 50% grant on the project, the
.
jt4*^.*> *^^< c.
into consideration lhat further bonding capabilities arc also
needed for the City's water system.
-------
4. The use of. the proposed location for the new sewer treatment
plant site will so enhance the quality of Hurricane Creek that
new development is expected between the present location and
the new location. This will be due to the elimination of the
present odors along the Creek which have been objectiona.1 to
residential development.
During the actual construction of the outfall line and the
plant itself, there will be some adverse environmental effects
from the trenching work necessitated by the installation of
the outfall line.
A minimum of trees may have to be removed but the construction
easement will be repaired, regraded and seeded so as to return
the area to its natural state in a minimum of time. The.new
sewer treatment plant site will be so designed and constructed
to utilize the natural vegetation as a screen.
During construction, there will be unusual activities in the
area but upon completion, the operation of the plant can be
quietly assimiloted into the environment. The site selected
is also on the fringe area of a flood plain where no permanent
structures will likely ever be made.
It is also envisioned that a sever treatment plant as contem-
plated will not deter future development in the area. This is
evidenced by the'fact that a multi-million dollar shopping cen-
ter mall was constructed immediately adjacent to our present
plant which was emitting obnoxious odors at the time the shopp-
ing mall site MAS selected. The site purchased by the shopping
mall immediately adjacent to the present sewer treatment plant
represented Lhc largest real estate transaction in the history
of Angelina County. We therefore feel that with the type of
maintenance ?,nd operation planned for this now sewer treatment
plant, it^ location will not materially affect the future clc-
volop.nent of the area.
i. The location of the activated sludge sewer treatment- plant at
this site, will necessitate the construction cost of approximately
$2,498,400.00. This cost outlay will provide a plant adequate
to serve the needs of Lufkin and its environs for approximately
20 years based on its projected growth.
-------
APPENDIX
Comments received from interested agencies, public
groups, and individuals.
-------
c
la
F
•
rf
\9« tta £MeaAt oj the ^Pincyu/oocfs"
K! EY WESTERHOUM. City Manager
LY DURHAM. Cltx Secretary
IK "iT L. FLOURNOY. City Attorney
300 East Shepherd
Post Office Drawer 190
mm Ttxns
75901
.Telephone 634-3366
PITSEIt H. CAclKISON. Mayor
Commissioners
ROY L LEAMON M D.
J. T. HOPSOH
KENNETH R. CRAIII
EDGAR C. WAREING
W. O. RICKS. JR.
BASIL E. ATKINSON. JR.. M. D.
September 16, 1971
Environmental Protection Agency
1402 Elm Street - Third Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
Attention: Mr. Dan L. Sherwood
Air and Water Programs Division
'Dear Dan:
Thank you for your letter of September 13, 1971.
We have reviewed the draft of your Environmental Impact Statement
and would like to offer the follox^ing comments.
For Item #1, please refer to the copy of a letter addressed to me
.from City Attorney Robert Flournoy which is attached hereto. Mr.
Flournoy felt this change more clearly reflects the status of the
suit.
For the other notes that we have made, please refer to the follow-
ing pages which we have marked with a red pen, for minor changes:
3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 23 and 29
In regard to the note on the last paragraph on pace 12, please
find a copy of our new waste control ordinance attached hereto.
On page 21 we make a correction that we feel is very important in
that a large part of the most densely developed portion of the
Hudson community lies within the Cedar Creek watershed.
?c-/c-r
>•$
17 SEP 137!
-------
an Sherwood - 2 - September 16, 19'
n page 22 the substitution of Cedar Creek for Zed Creek is ver;.
important since Zed Creek represents Site #2.
he balance of the comments were mostly spelling of the Basham'i-
name and for a clearer explanation of certain issues.
f you have further questions, please call me.
Sincerely yours/
Harvey We^terholm
City Manager
HW:hl
ncls: Impact Statement
Waste Control Ordinance #236
Letter of City Attorney Robert Flournoy
-------
CITY OF LUFKIN
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
P. O. DRAWER 19O
icnr u FLOURNOY LUFKIN. TEXAS 759O1
• 634-3366
September 16, 1971
Hr. Harvey Westerholn
City Manager
City of Lufkin, Texas
Re: Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Westerholo:
In connection with the draft of the Environaental Impact
Statement prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, please call
their attention the the third paragraph under No. Tbrea, page 2 which
should read as follows:
" On January 29, 1971 Benjamin F. Gibson and others, owners
of the land subject to condemnation proceedings, brought suit against
the City of Lufkin to enjoin the condemnation proceedings and against the
EPA to enjoin it from providing federal subsidy. Suit was brought in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and
following a. prelicainary hearing, a preliminary injunction was issued on
Karch 1, 1971, pending final determination. On April 1, 1971, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ordered the preliminary
injunction stayed. Appeal to the Fifth Circuit vas perfected by the City
Of Lufkin and on August 9. 1971, the injunction enteied by the District
Court was vacated and reversed, and the cause was renanded to the Federal
District Court to allow reconsideration of the questions involved
immediately prior to construction of. the sewer plant. Application for
new bearing will have to be made by the Gibson heirs."
In my opinion, this change should be mace in the final draft
to clarify our legal position in this case.
Yours truly,
Robert L. Flournoy /
RLF:sk
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS
NQV 2 4 1S71
MEMORANDUM
TO: Director, Impact Statement Office
Office of Water Programs
THRU: Acting Director
Division of Municipal Waste Water Programs
FROM: Gary Broetzman Ofct/i>y^^tst't'tfPW^
Division of Municipal Waste Water Programs
SUBJECT: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Municipal Waste Water Project at Lufkin, Texas.
A review of subject statement reveals that it is well written and
complete. However, several items in the draft should be recon-
sidered before distribution. Because of the short time frame for
this review, the comments contained herein together with several
other lesser comments were verbally transmitted to Mr. Dan Sherwood
of the Dallas Regional Office.
The following comments are divided into general and specific
categories and are offered for consideration:
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. The statement would be more effective and easily read if more
of the background and general information were contained in
the initial section of the report. For example, parly in the
report, the reader should be provided with the magnitude and
extent of the problem including present and projected waste
loads, a full description of the project including the abandon-
ment of the existing plant, the characteristics of the receiving
stream, and the water quality standards or goals in the stream
at and downstream from the plant site.
2. Although the total waste water program for Lufkin, including
the project, will obviously improve the water quality in the
receiving stream, outside interests can certainly question
the adequacy of this project in maintaining the BOD and DO in
-------
the receiving stream within acceptable levels during periods of
low stream flow. How can the project as proposed meet the BOD
standard mentioned in the last line of page 6? Will odors
persist in the stream even after the project is in operation?
Suggest that this be resolved with the Regional Water Quality
Standards staff.
3. The discussion of alternatives centers primarily upon economic
costs with only limited environmental content. As one moves
downstream, the assimilative capacity of the stream should
improve due to the added drainage area. This may be a factor
in favoring the Gibson site over the Bashum site and should be
briefly addressed in the text.
4. In view of the implied Regional Office support for the project,
the reviewer should be entitled to tentative conclusions and
recommendations at the end of the draft. The last paragraph
on page 17 would be appropriately included in such a section.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1. Although the summary follows a good format and contains perti-
nent information, the litigation quote on page 2 adds little
and might be better condensed.
2. On page 3, 2nd paragraph, will the plant be designed to operate
during flood periods? If so, this should be mentioned.
3. The future alternate sewerage facilities to the northeast shown
on Exhibit 1 is not mentioned in the text.
4. Much of the information presented under Section Ila pertains
to existing conditions independent of any proposed actions.
Such information might be better located in an introduction
section to the statement.
5. The information contained in last paragraph on page 7 should
prompt the city to impose land-use controls in the vicinity of
the new treatment plant. Such controls would be desirable to
discourage residential development in this area not only
because of the treatment plane, but also because of the flood
threat. The Regional Office should consider land-use regulations
in the proximity of the plant as a possible recommendation in
the final statement.
-------
6. At the end of the first paragraph on page 9, suggest adding
"... and a community water quality program implemented."
7. The BOD residual on top of page 11 is well above the level
contained in the standards. Can we defend not going beyond
a level of secondary treatment, especially in the future?
8. The contents of the last sentence on page 12 will not lead to
an enhancement of the stream.
9. The 1.5 mgd required capacity for plans 7 and 8 differ from the
3.0 mgd required capacity for plans 1 and 2. Also, plans 7 and 8
do not appear comparable in total capacity to the first 6 alterna-
tive plans.
10. A discussion of the costs in Exhibit 6 is needed Lo support the
selection of plan III over the more economical plans 5 through 8.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102
SWFED-P 22 December 1971
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones:
As requested by your letter of 2 Decenber 1971, the draft environmental
statement for the proposed wastewater treatment facilities to be located
near the city of Lufkin, Texas, has been reviewed by the Fort Worth
District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
We concur with the basic text of the draft environmental statement.
However, the following comments are offered to assist you in the revision
of this environrmetal statement.
a. It is unclear what effect, if any, an increase in the total
nutrient loading of Hurricane Creek will have on the ecosystem of the
Heches River.
b. Specifications for temporary vater pollution control measures,
especially for the siltation of Hurricane Creek during construction of the
proposed project, should be employed.
c. The statement on page 15, "The anticipated treated effluent might
actually increase concentration of pollutants during periods of extreme
low flow," is somewhat contradicted by the sentence on page 16 that
states, "In the interim, the plant effluent will dilute the concentrations
of pollutants in the receiving stream regardless of flow volume."
d. The last sentence on page 15 is not well stated.
e. The height of protective levees around the treatment facilities
should be discussed in relation to experienced flood elevations.
-------
SWFED-P
Vac. Ancil A. Jones
22 December 1971
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this statement,
It is hoped these comments will "be helpful in preparing the final
environmental statement.
Sincerely yours,
V. E. WOOD
Acting Chief, Engineering Division
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Southeastern Area, Stale and Private Forestry
Atlanta, Georgia 303O9
1940
January 12, 1972
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones :
Here are our comments on the draft environmental impact
statement prepared by your office.
Project - WPC-TEX-625, Construction of Waste Water
Facilities
As foresb resources will not be affected by the proposed
construction, no comments are appropriate. Perhaps
our National Forest Supervisor's Office in Lufkin should
review the statement.
We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing this statement,
Sincerely,
R. K. SMITH''
Area Environmental Coordinator
-------
IN REPLY REFER TO
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
MID-CONTINENT REGION
BUILDING 41, DENVER FEDEKAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
DEC 2 8 1971
Mr. Anciil A. Jones, P.E.
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
proposed wastewater treatment facility to be located near the city
of Lufkin, Texas as requested in your letter of December 2, 1971.
Our comments are based entirely on the environmental impact data
that you provided without the benefit of an on-site inspection.
Mention is made in the statement that the existing treatment plant
will be abandoned shortly after completion of the new facility and
that this site will be reclaimed for future land use. It is our
recommendation that consideration be given to developing the
abandoned site for recreation purposes. Due to the expected future
growth of the area, there will undoubtedly be a need for additional
open space. With a location on Hurricane Creek, the site would appear
to have excellent potential for such a use.
On page 14 of the statement, reference is made Lo trees, shrubs, and
ground cover which may require removal during construction of the
new treatment plant. We are pleased that you plan to replace and
restore these as much as possible. However, in addition, some thought
might be given to the possibility of transplanting where feasible.
When the new plant is completed, measures should be taken to avoid the
urbanization which has surrounded the existing facility. This might
be accomplished by establishing a buffer zone between the new
structure and any areas in its vicinity which have the potential for
future residential growth.
-------
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
Page 2
An additional benefit that might accrue from the project is improved
water quality at downstream recreation areas along the Neches River,
particularly at Martin Dies, Jr. Reservoir. The increase in water
quality should result in an improvement of the quality of the recreation
experience of the individuals using this area.
Sincerely yours,
Maurice D. Arnold
Regional Director
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
REGIONAL OFFICE
1114 COMMERCE STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 75202
December 23, 1971
OFFICE OF
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Our Reference: EI# 1271-058
Mr. Ancil A. Jones, P.E.
Air & Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr.Jones:
Re : Environmental Impact Statement
Construction of Wastewater Facilities
Reg. VI Lufkin, Texas
WPC-Tex-625
dated November 3, 1971
Pursuant to your request, we have revieved the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement for the above subject project proposal
in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of P. L. 91-190, and the
attendant guidelines for the Council on Environmental Quality
of April 23, 19T1.
Environmental health program responsibilities and standards of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare include those
vested uith the United States Public Health Service and the
Facilities Engineering and Construction Agency. The U. S. Public
Health Service has those programs of the Federal Food and Drug
Administration (milk, food, interstate travel and shellfish
sanitation), and of the Health Services and Mental Health
Administration, which include the National Institute of Occu-
pational Safety and Health and the Bureau of Community Environ-
mental Management (housing, injury control, recreational health
and insect and rodent control).
Accordingly, our reviev of the Draft Environmental Statement for
the project discerns no adverse health effects that might be of
resultant significance where these program responsibilities and
standards pertain, provided that appropriate guides are folio-wed
in concert with state, county, and local environmental health
lavs and regulations.
We therefore have no objection to the authorization of this
project insofar as our interests and responsibilities ore
concerned.
cc: Dr. Cherry, Dr. Norman,
Mr. Stephens, Mr. Herzik
Mr. Joe Schock
Very truly yours,
H. D. McMahan
Regional Director
ORD-EI-1
-------
DLS
United Slates Department of the Interior
IN M.II V HrfFhK 1(1
L SlIRVKY
Ufinvnr Kpri'jrnl I'rntc-r
Uf-nvor, ("Yilor.Klo Hf)?.:i5
Water Resources Division
December 22, 1971
Mr. Ancil A, Jones
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones:
We have reviewed the environmental impact statement for construction
of wastewater facilities, Lufkin, Texas, WPC-TEX-625, enclosed with
your letter of December 2, 1971. All aspects of the proposed facility
have obviously been studied in great detail by EPA and the Texas
Water Quality Board. We have no comment to make on the water quality
of the stream involved.
Yours very truly,
Hugh H. Hudson
Staff Hydrologist
cc:
G. H. Davis, WRD, Washington, D.C.
District Chief, WRD, Austin, Texas
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 648
Temple, Texas 76501
December 8, 1971
Mr. Ancil A. Jones, P. E.
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones:
This is in reference to your letter of December 2, 1971 and request for
comments on the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed
construction of sanitary sewer interceptors, pumping stations, force
mains, waste treatment facilities, and appurtenancess to be located
within and near the City of Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas.
Considering those elements of specific interest in regard to agricultural
production, land use, soil erosion, and sedimentation, the proposed im-
provements should have no adverse effects on the environment and should
be very beneficial to the environment.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed
project.
Sincerely,
Clyde Vy Graham
State Conservationist
-------
COMMISSION
OEWIU C GREER, CHAIRMAN
JERBERT C RETRY. JR
3HARLES E SIMONS
TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
P. 0. Box 280
Lufkin, Texas 75901
November 24, 1971
J C DINGWALL
IN REPLY RCFCR TO
FILE NO
Environmental Protection Agency-
Region VI
1402 ELm Street, Third Floor
Dallas, Texas 75202
Attention: Mr. Bill V. HcFarland
Acting Regional Administrator
Dear Sir:
Reference '-Notice of Intent'1 for the construction of ;:astevater
treatment facilities in Angelina County, Texas, by the City of
Lufkin sent to the Texas Highway Department.
The plans for this project have been reviewed by the District
Staff of the Texas Hism."ay Departaent located in Lufkin, Texas.
There apparently are no adverse effects on the existing State
Highway System. This project vail not adversly effect any con-
templated expansion of the State Highway System.
Very truly yours,
11. G. Goode
District Engineer
District 11
HVH:dw
cc: Austin Office, File D-5
A. U. Cockrell, Jr., Supv.Res.Sngr.
-------
TEXAS FOREST SERVICE
File 5.129-E
College Station, Texas 778l»-3
December 17, 1971
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to your referral to this agency of the draft
environmental impac-c statement for the proposed uastewater treatment
facility to be located near Lufkin, Texas "(Angelina County).
The impact statement, as prepared, is in keeping with the
recoaijnendations of this agency.
/
Very truly yours,
j "'/ /
' - - ' I''.'/
-""^-,( * t't.-iL-
Paul R. Kramer
Director
PRK/bc
-------
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712
University Station, Box X
•ne 512-471-1534
December 17, 1971
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your draft environ-
mental impact statement for the proposed wastewater treat-
ment facility in Lufkin. After review of the statement, we
find nothing to add and feel that the statement, from our view-
point, is thorough.
I appreciate receiving this and future statements.
Best regards.
Very truly yours,
W. L. Fisher
Director
WLFrjt
-------
TEXAS STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
1018 First National Building
Ten/pie, Texas 76501
AREA CODE 817. 773-ZZ5O
December 10, 1971
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Attention: Mr. Ancil A. Jones, P.E., Air and Water Programs Division
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement for construction
of Westewater Facilities, Lufkin, Texes, WPC-TE>:-625, November 3, 1971.
We feel this is a very comprehensive &nd complete report on the effects
of this project in end around the City of Lufkin. The consideration of
a number of alternates is commendable.
We hope all possible precautions will be made to Xeep the new plant
free of flooding during periods of extreme high vater. Vie note on page
3 that five feet of freeboard will be provided for all treatment units.
Perhaps additional hydrologic and hydraulic studies will be made to
assure that the units are fully protected from flooding.
We do not have any other comments.
Sincerely,
ilip B. Grazier /
Philip
Engineer
PEG:me
-------
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1QERS
E uNSLEY CHAIRMAN
AUSTIN
n SHURBET VICE CHAIRMAN
F1SQURG
Sun i D GILMORE
DALLAS
III MCCOY
3OSTON
Lluix T POTTS
LIVINGSTON
Rl LIG
STON
P O BOX I3OB7
CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN TEXAS 78711
JAM •! 1J7?
HARRY P BURLtMGH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AREA CODE 512
475-22O1
3OI WEST 2ND STREET
IN REPLY REFER TO
TWDBP
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Attent ion:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Anci1 A. Jones, P.E.
Air & Water Program Division
Please refer to your letter of December 2, 1971 transmitting for our
review and comment the draft Environmental Impact Statement on the City of
Lufkin, Public Law 3^-660 project.
By statute, the Executive Director of this agency is a member of the
Texas Water Quality Board. The Texas Water Quality Board has considered the
application of the City of Lufkin for an amendment to its existing State
Waste Control Order No. 10214 and on June 18, 1971 unanimously approved the
City's proposed program for the construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities and improvement in the quality of treated wastewater discharged
into the waters of the State. The action of the Texas Water Quality Board
on this matter therefore represents the views of this agency on the envi-
ronmental considerations involved.
We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on your very
comprehensive analysis of the proposed project.
S In ce rely,
Harry P. Burleigh
cc: Office of the Governor
Division of Planning Coordination
Mr. Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Water Quality Board
1972
-------
0
zl VUater
22O MUNICIPAL BUILDING — p. o. DRAWER Y
PALESTINE, TEXAS 753OI
December 8, 1971
V1'
Mr. Ancil A. Jones, P. E.
Air & Water Prog-rams Division
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jonon:
RE: Environmental Impact Statement
Lufkin, Texas
We have examined, the draft of ihe Znvironnontal Impact Statement
for the proposed waste vfater treatment plant for the City of Lufkin,
Angelina County and we consider the proposed construction to have a
favorable environmental impact on the Lufkin area. The proposed con-
struction will abate pollution a.nd enhance the water quality of the
Ifeches Piver dovnstream from the r>oint of the effluent entry.
Very truly yours, ,/
RHI:jm
CC: City of Lufkin
P. 0. Dra;s'er 190
Lufkin, Texas 75901
.-^Ralph/a. Irvine, P. E,
^General Manager
-------
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL WATER
765O NORTH ELEVENTH STREET -. P. O. BOX 3OO7
1> i? A- ****v.f"/~\ v pn* T* IT* v* <* c
I? K A&m O N T. *,Er^4^.
777O4
December 15,1971
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: Environmental Impact
Statement, Lufkin,Texas
Attention: Mr. Ancil A. Jones, P.E.
Gentlemen:
The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed
wastewater treatment facility to be located near the City of Lufkin,
Angelina County, Texas, furnished with your letter of December 2,
1971, has been reviewed in accordance with your request.
We find the statement to be quite detailed and complete. It
appears that it presents adequately the current situation, the
facilities proposed for construction, and the alternatives examined
for construction. Further, these are weighed with appropriate
economic and ecological factors, for the present, and into the
future.
The Lower Neches Valley Authority has no comments that would
alter the current draft statement. We are most appreciative of
being given an opportunity to review any proposed works that may
in any way effect the quality of the waters in the Neches River
watershed.
Sincerely yours,
W. F. Weed
President
-------
TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION
SAM HOUSTON STATE OFFICE BUILDING
COMMISSIONERS LOUIS L McDANIELS
HI F DENT CHAIRMAN EXLCUTIVE DIRECTOR
5'2431 475.2452
OC D CA»TER AUDREY STRANDTMAN
•-•5-2J53
SECRETARY
475.43|4
Mr. Ed Grisharn, Director
Governor's Division of Planning Coordination
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Environmental Protection Agency --
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Construction of Wastewater
Facilities, Lufkin, Texas
Dear Ed:
In reply to your request of December 10, 1971, submitted herewith
are our staff review comments and recommendations on the referenced draft
statement. We concur in the statement, provided that our comments and
suggestions are made a part of the final version. I suggest that a copy of our
staff reviev/ memorandum be sent to the Regional Administrator, Region VI,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Also transmitted with your request \vcre copies of three EPA notices
of intent to prepare environmental impact statements for wastewater treatment
projects at the following locations and requested that any comments thereon
be sent directly to the EPA Regional Administrator:
a. City of Pittsburg, Camp County, Texas
b. City of Austin, Travis County, Texas
c. City of Red Oak, Ellis County, Texas
We will reserve our comments on the above projects until after our
receipt of the draft environmental impact statements.
Sincerely,
TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION
Attachment
As stated
Ldnls'L. McDanicls
-------
For the Executive Director January 7, 1S72
Texas Water Rights Commission
MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER
FACILITIES, LUFKIN, TEXAS
Prepared by: Dr. Alfred J. D'Arezzo, Environmental Sciences Analyst
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In letter of December 2, 1971, Re: "Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Lufkin, Texas", Mr. Ancil A. Jones, Air
and Water Programs Division of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Region VI office at Galveston, Texas, requested
that the Governor's Division of Planning Coordination sub-
mit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's draft
environmental statement for a proposed wastev/ater treatment
facility near the City of Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas.
1.2 The foregoing request was transmitted to the Chairman,
Texas Water Rights Commission, by memo of December 10, 1972,
from the Director, Governor's Division of Planning Coordi-
nation.
2. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Draft Page Comments and
No. Suggestions
2.1 p. 2 of The "estimated eligible project cost of
Summary $3,962,900" cannot be reconciled with
the cost data given in EXHIBITS 5, 6
and 7. Suggest that the estimated costs
of the entire project be clarified ei-
ther in the Summary Statement or in
Paragraph 1 of Text in order to show:
(a) the estimated cost of the proposed
-------
Draft Page
No.
Comments and
Suggestions
2.2
p. 2 of
Summary
2.3
p. 2 of
Summary
sewage treatment plant (identifying sepa-
rately the costs for plant construction;
plant site acquisition, and for plant
flood-proofing or flood protection), (b)
the estimated construction costs of the
new and additional sewerage system, (c)
the scope of work, estimated costs and
time frames for completion of the three
stages of development referred to on
page 1 of the Text, (d) The amounts of
Federal grant assistance funds, and non-
Federal governmental funds or private
funds involved in the financing of the
entire project and stages thereof, (e)
the estimated annual maintenance and
operation costs of the new treatment
plant and new sewerage system.
Suggest that clarification be made wheth-
er the existing sewage treatment plant
will be continued in operation for a lim-
ited period after completion of the new
treatment plant as brought out in Summary
of the Evidence on an. earlier plan held
on August 26, 1969, (see EXHIBIT No. 11).
If the statement made on page 3 of the
text, regarding the continued use of the
existing plant is valid, then costs for
under-utilized treatment capacity should
be considered.
Suggest that brief mention be made of the
relationship of the Lufkin project to re-
gional plans and programs, i.e., Deep
East Texas Development Council's (DETDC)
Comprehensive V7ater and Sewar Plan, Oc-
tober 1969, and DETBC's First and Second
Stage Reports on the Overall Economic
Development Program, of 1968 and 1969.
This will emphasize that the Lufkin proj-
ect is a vital component of a 13-county
planning unit.
-------
Draft Page Comments and
No. Suggestions
2.4 pp. i-2, Suggest clarification of whether any of
Text the additional sewerage systems are to
serve as combined sanitary and storm
water systems or as sanitary sewerage
systems exclusively. The reference to
diversion of "wastewater from 1,712
acres in the Northwest area of Lufkin
into the Cedar Creek drainage area" and
diversion of "... flows from 2,715 acres
into the Hurricane Creek drainage area"
infers interception and/or conveyance of
storm water runoff.
2.5 p. 3, Text Suggest that a more detailed description
and justification is warranted of the
flood-proofing or flood-protection meas-
ures to bo taken for this project located
in a flood plain. Does the treatment
plant spread over the 85-acre tract speci-
fically described in Amendment to Waste
Control Order Ko. 10214, attached to the
draft statement as EXHIBIT 12? On page
7, Text, it is noted that the Basham
site "... is subject to flooding of unde-
termined frequency and duration. Reports
of experienced floods vary...."
2.6 p. 5, Text Suggest change in the last sentence of
Section I to reflect the fact that the
production of an effluent discharge with-
in the BOD5 and Suspended Solids quality
standards established in the Amended
Waste Control Order (see EXHIBIT 12) may
or may not meet the established quality
standards of the existing stream. The
adequacy of new treatment plant effluent
quality is dependent upon the quantity
and quality of the natural stream flows,
and the extent and quality of non-point
pollution flows. Attention is invited
to item (7), page 12 of the Text which
acknowledges that:
-------
Draft Page Comments and
No. Suggestions
"There are no stream flow records
or discharge measurements avail-
able for Hurricane Creek below
Lufkin. (The City of Lufkin is
currently engaged in gathering
such information which may be
included in the final environ-
mental impact statement.)"
Further, item (2), page 12, states that
hopefully:
"Average daily effluent discharge
ranging froir 4.5 cfs at completion
of the proposed treatment facili-
ties to 11.4 cfs at design capaci-
ty will augment low flov;s down-
stream from the Basham site. "
In addition, item (3), page 12 of the
Text, notes that:
"The increased capacity of the
new treatment facilities will
increase the nutrient loading
to Hurricane Creek. "
Finally, page 15 contains the following
stipulation:
"The anticipated treated effluent
might actually increase concen-
trations of pollutants during
periods of extreme low flow. That
is, the 20 mg/1 of BOD5 and 20
mg/1 of suspended solids might
be introduced into a stream with
lesser concentrations of those
parameters."
-------
Draft Page Comments and
No. Suggestions
2.7 p. 10, Text Suggest that the next to last sentence
on this page be changed so as to refer
to the correct EXHIBIT (i.e.. No. 12
should be cited in lieu of No. 8). The
cited EXHIBIT No. 8 is the Texas State
Department of Health letter of approval
of preliminary engineering report.
2.8 p. 12, Text Suggest that the statements on the cited
p. 13, Text pages, referring to the expected nutri-
ent loading to Hurricane Creek after
construction of the sewage treatment
plant be reconciled. The first cita-
tion indicates an expected increase
in nutrient loading; the second indi-
cates a reduction.
2.9 p. 16, Text The first sentence is unclear. Suggest
that it be revised to read:
"This adverse effect cannot be
eliminated until a water quality
management program is implemented
that will produce a water quality
in the stream exceeding the quali-
ty of the plant effluent."
2.10 p. 21, Text The text refers to "Site 1" and "Site 2".
p. 22 These locations are not carefully deline-
p. 23 ated or identified on the maps attached
as EXHIBITS 1 and 3. Suggest that the
same terms be used in the text and shown
on the maps.
2.11 p. 24, Text Suggest that precise acreage purchased
be specifiad in the text. EXHIBIT 12,
the Waste Control Order Amendment, indi-
cates 85 acres. In addition, the cost
of land acquisition for the new treatment
plant should be included in the cost tabu-
lations, EXHIBITS 5 and 6.
-------
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 The statement indicates that the proposed project is
the result of regional -water quality planning.
3.2 The improved sewerage system and wastewater treatment
will enhance the quality of water in the streams through-
out the Greater Lufkin Region as indicated on EXHIBIT 1.
3.3 The proposed vastewater treatment plant involves modu-
lar design which affords flexibility in coping with the
varying quantity and changing nature of wastewater incident
to the expected economic growth and development in the re-
gion.
3.4 It appears that a proper balance was exercised in
limiting the extent of sewering to the extent dictated by
environmental considerations so as not to deny limited
funds to waste treatment works. However, siting of faci-
lities in a flood plain will require special costs for
flood-proofing of treatment facilities.
3.5 It appears that the proposed plan reflects an aware-
ness of the dangers of over-capitalization of treatment:
works, and of avoiding misallocation of funds to purposes
that have a low marginal utility. However, the continued
awareness can be assured only if an overall regional water
quantity and quality management plan—as part of a compre-
hensive, regional land-use plan--is developed and enforced.
The avoidance of high coses of idle waste-treatment plant
capacity resulting from "building for future growth" is
one of greatest problems of regional water management.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
.Recommended concurrence in the proposed draft environmental
statement provided that the comments, suggestions and conclusions
in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this review are considered in the finali-
zation of the environmental impact statement.
-------
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711
-ON SMITH
. /ERNOR •
January 17, 1972
Mr. Ancil A. Jones
Air and Water Programs Division
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson
Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Office of the Governor, Division of Planning Coordination (State
Planning and Development Clearinghouse), and affected Texas State
agencies have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for
construction of wastewater facilities, Lufkin, Texas.
No major adverse remarks were made on the draft. However, the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Water Rights Commission and the
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board made several observations
and recommendations which should be considered for incorporating into
the final environmental impact statement.
The comments of these State agencies are enclosed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft environmental impact
statement.
Sincerely
Ed Grisham
Director, Division of
Planning Coordination
EG:gtt
End. (3)
-------
PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
M' -l'°NCR9 —-— .. , CCM«,SS,0*EBS
A -JOHNSON LfJ~-l 'l\+\ *• ' ' L, U BOS BUHLESON
I HHAN AUSTIN trf ,'"S3*- .,Ls
|*l \> X^ ,'•)£/ MEMBER TEMPLE
^ JERS'G \X^V ' DEC ?8 Htl ">OE K FULTON
"" A"TON'° X^.t/ MtMBL" --UDDO«
Ufw^LS A' r MAX L THOMAS
Bbn WE Lua IA Mrc 11 r* o^»e; c^ I r'' / /"\ I- (v I
JAMCS u CROSS LMV. Of HJOr* f~- , Hc«Bcn DALLAS
EXECUTIVE DIRFCTOR ' 'u(|. L>V/ljri'7
JOHN H REAGAN BUILDING
AUSTIN. TEXAS 73701
December 27, 1971
Mr. Ed Coker
Division of Planning Coordination
Executive Department
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Coker:
We have reviewed the environmental impact statement for wastcwater facilities
for Lufkin, Texas and are in general agreement with EPA1s assessment.
We are, however, not optir.istic about a fpvorablc oxygen balance in Hurricane
Creek if any waste treatment facility, of the size proposed, discharges an
effluent with 20 mg/1 30Dr. It is noted that the plant design is such that
additional treatment can be provided, therefore, with the understanding that
additional treatment will probably be necessary to provide a salubrious en-
vironment for fish and wildlife in Hurricane Creek, we would concur with the
environmental impact sttiUenieiit.
We appreciate having had the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
it C
JAMES U. CROSS
Executive Director
-------
TEXAS STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
1018 First National Building
Temple, Texas 76501
AREA CODE 817. 773-225O
December 17, 1971
Mr. Ed Grishan, Director
Division of Planning Coordination
Office of the Governor
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas
Dear Ed:
Earlier this month we received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Construction of V.'astewater Facilities, Lufkin, Texas
directly from the Environmental Protection Agency. See attached
letter.
We are attaching a copy of our letter to the Environmental Protection
Agency, dated December 10, 1971. This letter contains our comments.
V,'c do not wish to irahe any cements on the three notices of intent
to prepare environmental impact statements referred to in your letter
dated December 10, 1971.
Regards,
Phil Grazier
Engineer
PG:jc
Attachment
-------
TEXAS STATE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
TEMPLE. TEXAS 76SO1
DcceEber 10, 1971
Environmental Protection Agency
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallnc, Texas 75201
Attention: Mr. Ancil A. Jones, P.E., Air eud Water Progrens Division
Dear Sir:
We have rcvicved the Environmental Irpast Stntcmont for construction
of V/astowater Facilities, Lufl:in, Tc:-u»of WPC-TZX-625, Koveabcr 3, 1571.
We feel thio ia a very comprehensive end cccrplcte report on the effects
of this project in cr.vl crou.ii tha City of Luriia. The conciderction of
Q nucltor of alternates is ccxr^cndablo.
VJe hope all poacible prccnutionB vill to cade to keep the new plant cite
free of flco-Hn-j durisr; pcrioda of e:rtr?r.c hi-h vater. VJe note on pane
3 that fi.'J feet of frcsbonra vill be prcr/ided for all trect^nt units.
Porliopc cc^litic-el hydvclocic ."ii liyircuiic ctulics vill be r:^de to
assure that the units are fully proto-ctcd -froa floodins.
We do not have crJy^.othar ccnr.cnts.
Sincerely.
-------
RESPONSE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL II.PACT STATEMENT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION 0? WASl'EWATER FACILITIES
LUFKIX, TEXAS
KPC-TSX-625
DATED, NOVEX3ER 3, 1971
ON BEHALF 0? BENJAMIN F. GIBSON,
JOSEPH L. G:BSO.V, :T:-IO:IAS M. GIBSON,
JETA G. GRAV AND E. 3^ KEEN
SUBMITTED: JANUARY 3, 1972
Initially, those parties want to state clearly their
position on two points:
1. The existing sewer disposal system of the City
of Lufkih is abominable and has been for at least ten
years. These parties and their property have suffered
economic loss because t~e City has maintained the exist-
ing inadequate, overloaded, poorly operated facilities.
Therefore, these parties do not and have not opposed the
proposal to construct now facilities.
2. These parties have consistently, since their
first knowledge of the City of Lufkin's plans, attempted
to direct the attention of tr.e City of Lufkin and the
Texas Water Quality Board to "the shortsightedness which
the City has evidenced in its selection of the plant site
and the resulting waste of federal and city funds, ecologi-
cal damage and improper land use. These parties have
urged that the new facility be built, but at a location
further removed fro:n the City.
-------
This Proceeding
The instant project/ to build a sewage treatment
facility on the Bashum form southwest of the City of
Lufkin, Texas, has resulted in a paper by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency dated November 3, 1971, entitled
"Environmental Impact Statement for Construction of
Wastewater Facilities" in accordance with an application
for federal subsidy KPC-TEX-625. This response is a
response to that Environmental Impact Statement.
Proceedings to Date
The instant project involving the Bashum site grows
directly from a previous proposal to construct the sewer
treatment facility for the City of Lufkin on the adjacent
Gibson farm. The two projects bear the same application
number.
In summary, as the City's sewage effluent into Hurricane
Creek and thence the Nechcs River has for years been sub-
standard, the State of Texas by the Water Quality Board
granted on April 24th , 1971,' the City's application
to discharge sewage into Cedar Creek near its confluence
with Hurricane Creek.
1
For several years, the State of Texas had demanded that
the City of Lufkin ur.orove its admittedly deficient sewage
effluent discharged into 3iurricane Creek which flows into
the Neches River. In Xay, 1969, the City's consultant
engineers reported a study, uhich roconsr.endcd a new sewage
treatment facility to be built at the juncture of Hurricane
and Zed Creeks (on acreage owned by Temple Industries) 3
miles from the City or at the juncture of Hurricane and
Cedar Creeks (or. the Gibson acreage) 1 mile iron the City.
The City applied to the State KatcV Quality Board for a
pcrnit to discharge waste into Cedar Crook near its juncture
with Hurricar.c Creek. On August 26, 1969, the Texas Ka-ocr
Quality 3oard hold, at the Jefferson County Covn-thouse in
Beaumont, Texas, a hearing or. the City's application. The
Gibson site landowners failed to receive notice and did not
appear; the hearing focused on the current deficient con-
lUtior!.- In April of 1970, the Texas v:.ti.cr Quality Board
hearing cxc.v.i.^er reported iL^ rocori.ne::Jjtipr. that the appli-
cation be giT.-t.cc!; no copy was sent to the* .Gibson site
linco:.T.crs. On .".pril 2-1, 1J70, t:\c Texas Water Cunlity
liciird ^proved the application. On XovoTbor 23rd , 1970,
• tnc Ci^./on LiU: landowner:* brought i.uit in hL.itc court
alleging iroro^cr notice. On J.'-iU.tcy ?6_, 1971, the court
found in favor of the City and the Texas Water Quality
Board, denying a rehearing.
-2-
-------
I. r.r.: iAnoN-.-sVV^ r.-OT^CTZO'-' AC::^CY r.'iOiLD MOT
A. T.IC Lav Rocuiroa a Public licannc. The Environ-
^ ^— «_ •• ™" ^ ~
mental Policy of 1970 requires that federal agencies raa/ce
an investigation of the impact of proposed projects on
the environment; that investigation is summarized in a
report, the Environmental Impact Statement. 42 U.S.C.
4332(2) (A), 1C) and (D) .
The Environmental Policy of 1970 further requires
that federal agencies develop procedures to implement
the Policy: 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (3) requires that agencies
develop procedures to insure consideration of "unquanti-
fied environmental amenities and values." Implementing
the Environment Policy of 1970,. the President on March 5,
1970, issued Executive Order .N'o. 11514 which directed
federal agencies to develop new procedures to include the
interested parties in the decision-making process:
/7r.e heads cf federal agencies shall_7 develop pro-
cedures to insure t>.o fullest practicable provision
or tirely p-u.;lic information and ur.de rstancing of
federal plans and programs with Anviror.rsr: tal ir.pict
in order to on^ain tr.e views of intx-roslcd part
T.:eso procor.^ros sl'.all ir.clu£Q( w.or.Gvcr a
provision for public ncoriric. (er.iphabic s
As se\/cge treatment facilities arc, as a general category
of projects, controversial matters upon which individuals
and organizations wish to cogent, a public hearing is
appropriate and, therefore, required- by Ex. 0. 11514. As
EPA has not conducted a noaring in tnis matter, its investigation
is inco.rplete and, therefore not sufficient to support the
decision by EPA. Such an incomplete statement is not suf-
ficient to support a decision by EPA to grant a federal
subsidy for tnis project.
3. Tnc Facts in This Instance Require a Public
jioariru;. SnouLd tr.c Environmental Policy of 1970 and
Ex.O. 115K be construed to require a public hearing, not
for all sowigo facility construction projects as a cate-
gory , but only for those pro^cct-s where an nd hoc analysis
-4-
-------
of the facts require it, then the facts in this case
require a hearing because many essential facts remain
vague and aiabiguous.
1. Tho EPA report states several vital -points
which arc contrary to the data found in the investigation.
Two salient examples will illustrate the need for a hear-
ing to clarify ambiguities:
a. The Environmental Impact Statement
(hereinafter the Statement) found at page 7,
A rcccr.t survey of the eight-square nilc
area surrounding tne proposed site substan-
tiates the fact that there has been very little
development during t.-o last ten years; only
62 residences aro in the surveyed area and
only one none lias been constructed since
1960. The nearest platted subdivision is
• approximately one anc one-half r.iles from
the site.
This findir.g is, an apparent acceptance of the City's
position as stated in its Environmental Assessment,
Exhibit 14 to the Statement. 3ut, another attachnent to
trie Statement, die report of the Texas Water Quality Board
Hearing Examiner (page 12d), finds chat or.e house is being
constructed currently in the area ar.d tr.at so:r.e tracts in
tnat area will be subdivided in the near future. Further,
testimony at the Texas '.racer Quality Board hearing shcwod
that the 8-square mile area 'which 'vas selected by t.ie City
of Lufkin is not an 8-scuare mile circle around the site,
but an irregularly drawn area, gerrymandered by the City
to exclude a nearby subdivision ar.d to include as few
houses as possible.
b. Tho Statement at page 22 states that the
extension cf the outfall lines from the 3ashur.i site to the
Temple site would cost an estimated "nearly one r.illion
dollars or nearly forty percent of its total project co->ts.'
The or.c million dollar estimate is contrary to Exhibit 1
attached to the Stai.cne.it (taken iron1, t.-.o report by the
City'c coni.ultr.nt engineer^,) which estimates the cost of th<2
-5-
-------
extension of the outfall sewage lir.es at $563,000.00.
And, the one million estimate is contrary to Exhibit 14
attached to the Statement, the Citv's Environmental
Assessment, which estimates the cost of the extension of
the outfall lines at $643,000.00. Moreover, the statement
that the added or.e million will increase the project costs
by 40% is not reconcilable with the Statement which at
page 2 states that the "estimated eligible project cost"
is or.ly $3,962,900.00.
2. Further, the EPA report states as fact several
vital points which arc not supported by the investigation.
Two salient examples will illustrate the need for a hearing
to develop data:
a. The Statement at page 23 accepts the City's
position that it cannot afford tr.e cost of the extension of
the outfall lines from the 3ashu-n site to the Temple site.
The Statement at page 22 concludes, apparently because of
the City's financial position, that the cost of the extension
of outfall lir.es "would become prohibitive." But, the City
did not presor.t data to corroborate its self-serving pica
o± poverty. And, the City's testimony to this effect at
tr.e 1571 Texcs Water Quality Soard r.eanr.g was tfade prior
to tne time that the state law was cnar.ged to permit the
state to lend a city 25% of the cost of such a project.
A.-.d, a study of sewage tax rates paid by cities of comparable
size will sho;.- that the sewage tax rates for tne City of
Lufkin are below the average and co-Id be raised.
b. The Statement at sage 16 concludes thit
the extension of the outfall lines rro.-n tht Bashuni sate to the
Terrplc site xs not economically advantageous. The Statement,
however, does not include a cost-ber.efit analysis, comparing
t.-.e jac'.-.uM site with the Tcrple site. Moreover, tho ic'.v
ficts in the Statc:..ont point to a cc.-.trary cb-.ciusion: that
the 7emplc site is more advantageous in t.-.at the cost of
-6-
-------
the extension of the outfall line is less than 20* of the
project and the extension will increase the use of the facility
from 15 years (when the area becomes urban developed) to
50 years (the design life of the facility) .
c. Moreover, the Statement raises new ques-
tions which arc vital to the assessment of the environ-
mental impact of this project and which have not been ex-
plored before. The primary example illustrating the need
for a hearing to explore new questions is the question of the
environmental impact of this facility during the extended
dry periods vhon Hurricane Creek is low or dry. The State-
ment at pages 15-16 refers to the adverse impact of the
project's effluent on the stream bed during dry periods when
the stream lacks sufficient water to dilute and assimilate
the effluent".' The Statement lacks data on the flow of
•
Hurricane, Codar and Zed Creeks or on the extent of the dry
period. This data is critical to consents on the adverse
impact of the facility. The Statement at page 16 calls for
construction of additional tertiary treatment facilities
to raise the quality of effluent to acceptable levels during
dry periods. The Statement, however, fails to cost-out
this alternative or the alternative of moving che facility
to a point where the stream has a larger flow.
d. Finally, reliance on written statements
alone does not provide an opportunity for cross-examination
or in-depth questioning. Written statements often are mis-
leading and :.rr.biguous. A pri-mary e>air.ple illustrating this need
is the Statement's conclusion at page 31.
The Statement at page 31 states that the Deep
East Texas Development Council on January 6, 1970, endorsed
the project. This conclusion is contrary to the facts:
the Deep East Texas Development Council did not examine
the site for this project and, moreover, the January 6,
1970, letter was about 18 months before the City selected
the Qashum site.
-7-
-------
C. T!io Requirement of a Public Hearing Was Not
Satisfied by the 1971 Hearing of the Texas Water Quality
Board. In response to the second application by the City
of Lufkin for a second discharge permit, i.e. on the Bashum
farm, the Texas Water Quality Board held a hearing May 28,
1971. Tr.at hearing was attended by EPA officials who did not
take part in the proceedings.
That hearing 'docs not satisfy the federal re-
quirement for a public hearing because its legal parameters
were much different and much narrower than the questions
now pending before the EPA. The Texas statute limits the
Texas Water Quality Board to consideration of the discharge
point of proposed facilities; the Texas Water Quality Board
is not concerned with the plant site and the potential adverse
effect of tne plant site on the environment. Moreover, the
Texas Water Quality Board docs'not concern itself with
the questions of propriety of federal subsidy for the
facility, or alternative solutions, or the impact of the
facility or. the economic growth of the area, or relative
land uses. Consequently, the Texas Water Quality Board
granted its initial discharge permit in August, 1969, for
the Gibson site only on a showing that the existing facili-
ties are sadly deficient and that the proposed discharge
point into Cedar Creek would lessen the ecological damage.
The Texas Water Quality Board's grant of a second discharge
permit for the Bashu.it site was similarly limited in scope.
Such a limited hearing does not satisfy the federal require-
ment of a public hearing on the application for federal
subsidy and the broader questions involved in the federal
application.
-8-
-------
i : :::cv _S"py : p ro?
_
;-.?t'.;o\ .: v'i •_! : i .\Vv.\x1:1 L;i
-------
(iv) Khcrovor proposals involve significant
cor-^itronts of ro&curcoi. :.r:J tnoic co.T.-ii.-onta arc
irreversible and irretrievable under condition:, of.
known technology ar.cl reasonable cco.-.or.ics , a f irc.ing
nusit bo r.iadc t>.at such coir.-ni tir.cnt 2 arc warrantee.
(emphasis supplied;. Sen. Rpt. 91-296, 9ist Cong.,
1st Sess., July 9, 1969.
As the Statement fails to make these findings, it does r.ot
me'et the statutory requirement.
3. The rnvironiro-.-a] iT.-^ct Statement is not Complete
BeciVJso it Faila to Include its Analysis and Conclusior.s
of the Data Found. The Stacc.T.ont is confined to a more
reporting of the raw da-a which EPA found in its investiga-
tion. The sections of the Statement do not analyze the data
to demonstrate how the agency evaluated the data or the pri-
ority and weight attributed to the competing factors.
Moreover, the Statement coes not provide conclusions or
recorr-.enda'tions . The reader is at a loss to determine
whether EPA approved the project on any or all of the five
statutory points.
Without benefit of such analysis and conclusions,
those wishing to coTjnen: on the Statement are forced to
without guidelines for shaping and directing their
C. The Enviro-.p'.eri-^.l Trar>act Stator.or.u is r.ot Co:r?Jcco
Because it Fails to .".ake n Corplete Investigation. 7he
failure of the Statement to make the statutorily required
findings or to include analysis and conclusions is not sur-
prising vhen one considers the incomplete nature of the in--
herein,
vcstic,ation. As has been shown at Section I-O/ the Statement
makes several factual statements which are contradicted by
the deta compiled in the Statement and wakes several other
factual statements which are not supported L»y data. Further,
the Statement raises new ecological questions which it fails
to explore in depth.
-9 -A-
-------
D. Conclusion: The November 3, 1971, environmental
Statement is far fror. complete. Those wishing ts
co~.T.cnt r?.ust make several assur.pt:.or.s as to vital factual
points and the direction whic.i E?.'. is taxing. Each
corrnentor should, as we do here, reserve the rieht to
revise and extend his remarks sho-ld later information
indicate that those assumptions wore incorrect.
As the \ove.->bei- 3, 1971, Stacercnt is r.ot corrplete,
it fails to racfct statutory ro.;uirencnt of a study. Trie
State.7.er.c cannot serve to support the conclusion that tr.e
instant pro]cct is eligible for federal subsidy.
Good governmental practice requires tha^ EPA treat
the November 3, 1971, Statement as a first draft circulated
for initial comments; that it revise the Statement in v.ew
of the cofr.--ner.ts received; that it circulate a revised
Statement including a recoir_-.eadat.or. for a second set of
cor.-scnts; and that after a final revision of che Staterant
in view of the second coir-T.cr.cs, i; publisn a fi.-.al Statement.
-10-
-------
in. riin_ IAV:::'.OV.!:NT.V. PSOTL-CTTC:. ; JVVCY _SI_:O_ULD XOT
.•M'l'.vJ'x.: •.•:.!. i^'^v^jO^.TfY L j;-u'i.i. '.-.1 'i'V/. -LJ
si'"t: is s"j.ji':'!a~ox^o^T^L^5'VTV.-- tT: rj.
A. The TcTplc Site is Su^cr:cr to the Basi-.u'n S; to;
Central to t:;e environmental evaluation is the conclusion
made by the Statement at page 5, thit "Aesthetics have
greatly contributed to ccvclo:;.-cr.t of the /Eufkin/ area
and ecological enhancement becomes zhe prime consideration
when construction is conteriplatod. "
The question presented by the Gibson landowners is
not whether the facility should be built. It should.
Rather, the question is whore, shoold the facility be builw?
The Gibson site landowners urge tr.at the proper lo-
cation is, not the Bashusi site near the juncture of Hurricane
and Cedar Creek, but the Ter;,ple site at the juncture of
Hurricane aY.d Zed Crooks. Tne report by the City's consul-
tant engineers in Way, 1969, first terrcd the Ba^hura site
area as "r.ini.T.al" and gave a stronger recommendation co
the irore reirote Temple site.
The Gibson landowners urge t.-.at tr.e 3asnu;n site is
unsuitable because of these facts:
1. Hurricane CrceX a^ tr.e Bashun site is for
significant periods of the year a dr. creek bed, except
for the City's sewage effluent, ^t page 6, the State.-rar.t.
states, "During periods of dry •»eather, flows downstrean from
the existing plant (on Hurricar.c Creek) are composed en-
tirely of plant effluent." The Bash>;n» site, located on
Hurricane Creek above its juncture with Cedar Crock, does
r.ot have the benefit of. the Cedar Creek flows such as they
are.
2. The Dashura site is located where Hurricane
Creek floods regularly and the 3asaur site is in the flood-
plain. The Statement at page ^ concedes t.-..->.t the oxtcr.t
of flooding has boon undctor.~ir.c.d but at page 3, states
tnat the facility will require diking oi cacn unit for fivo
fctst of .freeboard obovc flood stage.
-11-
-------
3. The Bashum site is located in an area
about to blossom with urban growth. The Bashu-ti site is
located on Farm-to-Xarkct Road 384, 1*, miles fron the nearest
subdivision (on Cedar Creek), from the recently constructed
Loo? 2S7 and from t'.ic city limits. Traditionally, the City
of Lufkin has grown along Cedar Creek and along its paved
farsi-to-roarkot roads. The Bashura site is south of the City
of Lufkir., directly in its traditional line of growth.
The City's 1964 report of projected growth showed that the
Bashum site area would be covered with elementary schools
and residences by 1984 and a second, outer highway .loop
would pass nearby. The City's population growth is already
.* 4
five years aheard or the 1964 predicted schedule.
4
To increase- the percentage of federal fur.ds whicr> tr.o
City could receive: for this project, the City on :-.jy 22,
1970, filed v-'ith the £cor.or.uc Davelop-enV. Adrrz-nis-rEtic-
(hereir.aftcr L3.\) a "Positive Action Proc-r?.:-." ; t.-.c "P.'.?"
was an application zy the City to be nared an ecor.on.ic rrowth
center for the EDA district for the scr..e 13-cour.t\' aroa, tne
Dec? East Towis Ecoro.~p.ic Development District. 42 U.5.C.
3171 (a) (2). Tne application \.zs approvuJ . As an ccor.cnc
gro./th center, tr.e City of Luikin r.ust develop plsns '.;hich are
of the overall econcnic devn eco-
nomic growth, if the program is soundly planned to produce
economic grov, tn.
(a) Adequate sewage treatment facilities to acco:r~odate
the anticipated ir.-rr.gralior oi business and population is
essc-.-.tial to tr.e City's pojicy of cccno-nic growth. 3ut,
the City's locating the proposed sewage treatment plant; at
the 3osh-j-^ SILO hill place it scjuaroiy in t.'.a projocLod path
of city cjro'.:l,n during the oxpoctcd life of Lr.e facility.
1= not s,ouni ac.ranistrnt.ion. T.-.ercfore, -the Jite
(Footnote 4 continued on page 13)
-12-
-------
Past history shows that the existing sewage treat-
ment facility inhibited urban growth in the area surround-
ing it. The area surrounding the existing plant has no
residential growth, only commercial. The commercial growtr.
is air conditioned, particularly the fully-enclosed mcll
shopping center, thereby avoiding the-foul odors of the
existing plant. (Past history sho'./s that trie City of Lufkin
has been shortsighted in its sewage planning. In 1960,
it spent a substantial sum renovating the existing plant
when it should have foreseen that the planned highway loop
would cause urban growth in that area.) The design life of
the pipe for the facility is 50-years.
By contrast, the Ginson landowners urge, the Temple
site is suitable because of several facts:
1. The Temple site is located at the juncture cf
Hurricane and Zed Creeks, where the strcans arc more
predictable. And, as Zed Creek is. a flowing stream all
year, as are several other tributaries above this juncture,
the Temple site will not emit sewage cfflucr.t into a dry
creek bed.
(Footnote 4 continued]
selected by the City does not rr.cot the 1-DA requirement of
rational economic growth.
(bj Although the City of Lufkin was designated the
economic grov,th center, tne anticipated grc. Eh will r.ot
be confined solely to the city limits of Lufkin, but
will include the three suburbs ir.r.ied lately adjacent to
Lufkin.
The City of Lufkin, therefore, should plan and admini-
ster an econo-nic progra-i which \:ill no£ hinder, but oerrit and
encourage, grot.'t.i of those suburbs. Locatir.g the sewage
trcatr.ent plant on the "oriole faite at the juncture 01
Hurricane and Zod Crocks will encourage gro..th oi the adja-
cent suburb of Hudson by minimizing difficulty and costs of
its sewage system.
-13-
-------
2. Tho Temple site is hiyh on a hillr.ido above
the floodplain and avoids the dangers of flooding.
3. The Ter.iple site is two sulcs further removed
fron the City and further to the west beyond the trr-diticnal
line of growth. And, the Temple site is not located
directly on a paved farm-to-njarkct road which would attract
growth. The City's 196-i Report did not foresee urban growth
in the area of the Temple site.
These facts lead to several basic conclusions:
1. The Bashum site is prones to dry periods which
will cause the sewage effluent to be undiluted pollution.
This problem can be minimized by additional tertiary treat-
ment facilities to refine further the effluent. This is
expensive.
The Temple site avoids the dry period problem as
the Zed Creek and other tributaries flow year-round.
2. The Bashum site is prone to flooding wr.ich
threatens ecological carnage. Tho risk of flooding can oe
minimized by expensive diking, but since the level of flood-
ing is undetermined, corrcct-ion may cause unnecessarily ex-
pensive diking.
3. The Bashun; site will impede and injure growth
of the City of Lufkin.
4. The Bashum site has a higher value and car. be
put to better land use than the Temple site.
5. Tne Bashum site nay require that the sewage
facilities be abandoned by 1984 or sooner when the area is
developed because of objections by the increasing nur.bcr
of neighbors. Such abandonment is premature in terr.s of
the 50-year life of the plant and equipment.
6. The Bachuni site will require a lesser cost of
outfall pipe; but this financial advantage will be offset by
the; reduced term of utilization of the facility and the co.it
of additional tertir.ry treatment facilities to r^riimizo the
Cry creek problem.
-14-
-------
B. The T.PA Rccuircr.ont of a P,3:>in Flan ao.yjircs That
the Lufkin Plant bo Located a I t!'..; Tcr.iplc Site nt Zed nnq
Hurricane Crot-kr.; 2PA regulation;; require a baa in plan &z
a. prerequisite for federal subsidizing. 18 C.F.R. 601.32
ff, 35 F.3. 1075G (July 2, 1970), stating
No grant shall be rcado unless the CO.-CTISSJ
doLer.-.:inos, bcif.cd on ir.for!.,.ntion the ±.uai-c . . .
iurr.isnod to him that u project 13 included in
an effective current bosinwide plan for pollution
abatement consistent v,ith applicable wacer quality
control.
1. The Area Does Not i.'avc a Sasinwidc Ple.i.
(a) In 1969, the Council of Governments (tne
Deep East. Texas Development Council) prepared a water ar.d
sewage plan (hereinafter the COG Plan) for the 13-county
geographic area, co-prchensive '.Jatcr aid Sever PI?."., Deep
East Texas Developrvo.it Council (J. F. Fontaine & Associates)
The title of the COG Plan is misleading, for it was limited
to plar,ning.>for cities of populations less tnar. 5,500. The
COG ?lan does not ir.clude Lufkin. The COG does not assert
that the COG plan is qualified to meet the EPA's require-
ment of an "effective current aasinwide plan." 31 U.S'.C.
466(e), 18 C.F.2. 601.32{a).
(b) Moreover, even if this skeletal CCG Plan
were to qualify as an "effective current basir.vide plan"
under 18 C.F.R. 601.32U), the COG Plan could not support
the site proposed by the City of Lufkin since the City of
Lufkin was not included in the COG Plan.
2. Proposed Site Soes N'ot Conforn to the COG
Plan. If the existing COG Plan were to qualify under
18 C.F.R. 601.32(a), the proposedEsshvi.-a site does not
cor.for^i to t:.e COG Plan.
(a) The Deep East Texas Development Council,
as the Council of Goverr.Tc.ita for the 13-county area, oears
responsibility to irakc the initial review of the sewage
plar.s to determine whether they confer.- to the area basin
plan. In January, 1970, the COG reported that it took no
-15-
-------
official position on the proposal-by the City of Lufkin
for a new plan: the COG failed to approve .the City1;, pro-
posal. (Sec L.xhuit 10 of the Statement.)
(b) Although the COG i'lan docs not induce a
ulan for the City of ^ufki», it coca include a plan for
the City of I.udsor.. ?he COG Plan calls for corstrucLior. cf
a sewage trea-.~.cnt facility for tne Hudson area on Jack.
Creek, which would "allow for eventual coverage of tr.e
Hudson area without the need for life scatior.s. . . 7nt
City of lufkir, should provide sewerage service for t.-.a
remainder of the area on State ;-:ignv»ay 94 oetween Hucsor. ar.d
Lufkin." Exair.inacion of a ma? of the area shows thac this
plan places or. the City of Lufkin responsibility for the
area west of the City of Lufkin up to the Jack Creek Drain-
age area: Luixin, therefore, has responsibility for the
Zed Creek Drainage area.
The City of Lvsfkin nay meet this respor.sioil-ty
by (1) locating its plar.t at the sashun sii.e and install-
ing pu^.?ir.5 stations to lift sovagc ir. the Zee Creole Cr^inc-ca
area over the ridges wcs^ of C&dar Creek to the plant, or
(2) locatir.g its plant av the Terrple site end cor.nectir.g cr.e
Zee Crock Zrainacc area .o the plant by e;ravity-flow pipe.
Ecor.o~.ic ccr.siccrations support the selection of the ?c~?le
site: Dollars spent on additional outfall pipe to placo cms
facility at the Temple site will reduce expenses of operatior.,
because operating sevage pumping stations is expensive.
Dollars s>per.t on outfall pipe will save the user's and
government's money nr.d will be a wiser use o£ the nation's
limited water ana financial resources.
-16-
-------
•3. Lack of a Qualified Pld:\ I'oantd to r.xpnr-vivc
Duplication ar.d a Proliferation of Facilities.. The lack.
of a basir.Mdo plan, qualified under 33 U.E.C. 456{c) and
18 C.F.R. 601.32(a), raises a real possibility that the
site selected sy the City of Lu:. sewage tre.it^.ent sy:-.;v_rs t.-.e
Cecar Grove co.-.-unity r.ortn of I.vikir. 7.-.o City iid :c., r.vcid-
ir.g ur.r.jcc.-.r>«try dupliCt.t..on of construction o.r.»i ouorr.tion o:
scv.'cro crc r.trer.t i<.cilii:ie:.. Viuc sare pri:'.ci;ilc si-.o-li. io
ar-pii-.c: .......1:1 -.3 chc City o£ L-.:.'}-:n to retire tr.^ City to
incorporate inca its byitcin the City of liuuson.
-17-
-------
C. The rcir.pl c_ Si to Kil] /jsir.t th? Xciqhh.onr.'j
City of Hudson. The City of Hudson is a neighboring city
west and III-T.OCIIat.oly adjacent to tlio City of Lufkir.. The
City of Hudson has applied under V.:>C-TEX-748 for subsidy
for needed sewage treatment facilities. The Statement,
at page 22, contenjlat.cs outfall linos and purap stations
to transfer the Hudson sewage 3 nilcs over three ridges
to the Bashurr. site.
The less expensive alternative for Uic City of
Hudson would be outfall lines from' the City of Hudson south
along Zed Creek to line Lufki.i sewage treatment facility
at the Te.~ple site on IXrricane and Zed Creeks. This alter-
native avoids for the City of Hudson the considerable
operating expense of ?ur.-ping stations.
This alternative is also legally compelled by the
EPA requirement of a basin plan and by the Econonic Oevelop-
ncnt Adr.inistration's requirement of regional economic
planning. Tnc City of LufKin, crgaged in litigation I'ith
6
The 1'osiwivc Action Plan \%r.ic/. the City riled or. May
22, 1070, v.ith the :;cononic Development Ad.-ir.i&tracio:-.,
resulted in naming tnc City an cccror.ic greyer, cer.ter icr
the i'.3."i district the Deep East Texas Economic novelocrro.-.t
District for tr.o 13-county area. 42 U.S.C. 3171 (a) (2).
Federal subsidies tncro^f tor rui-i be conipitible i.itr. tnc
EDA arogri.-i.
1. LacA of i:o^. r.?~rava] . .'.3 a prtcticsl r.attcr, Z2A
revic%; o; ii—.sity .!;«Jilcctior.s ^y cities is Iin-coc to the
c.jeotion i.-.otnor the -pplica'.ior. co^-pliua \.it/. 2D.- rc:.-_.rj.T.ont
of poverty for an HDA area a.-.d zhcroqu^.i.-c»nt of tr.o -^:.
proyra-i to prorote ccor.or.ic gro-:th. iiacking c^.:erti5e in
\:atcr and CC-.R^C trcat~c.it, i-DA relies reavily upon Ei-.\, as
the federal agency witr» priir.-.ry responsibility cr.d expertise
to review '.;ater use, to review -pl^rs for a iowzgc traauront
facility as to cr>vj.ror.nentfil, health or bud.-ctdry cc:.Alterations
The EDA statute requires tnis division cf labor. 42 t.S.C.
3141. i:?A, therefoie, r.ust take ir.to ito revic1*' c'.:o perti-
nent points of the .-lilA program and dccerrtino whotner the
applicant-city has selected a site ff>r its plant in accord-
ance with 1U3 ED7i ojlicjctjons.
i"A relics upon the r,DA District to rako an initial
reviow and provide a certificate cf approval for t.-.e project.
Lut, ir. this ratter, the "DA District, lackirg ccicotor.cii in
cn^incomij/ did not review tno proposal c.j to the c:".>~:.-cr-
ir.r .-.ioacti. or tnt. pror-cacd .11 to cf the p"jr.-t. lly letter of
October 1, l'J?0, tno EIJ.'i District ot;.tctl t!'.::t its opt -.-or. -was
bijcd on it:, review of tl.c proroadl 1 y t.'.o Cit^' of ^^ixi.-i
•A.-.IC-! it rii'Jo acting as the COG Jr.r.uary 6, 1SVO - a reviow
in v.iicn tnc COG :r.ade "no oi:iciul corr..-.cnt. " r'urtr.er, t;e
(TcotnoLc 6 ccntir.-jfid on page 1'J)
-16-
-------
the City of Hudson over city boundaries, is, however,
(Footnote* 6 continued)
EDA District limited its statement to a statement cf economic
need for the area and tho City: tho TD-\ District did r.ot
state fchothcr or how the proposal was ccrtaciLle with tr.fc
objectivos. of L.IC overall" oconorr.ic development proera.-..
And, tho SDA District did r.ct state .\ow tnis project •.•ouid
"enhance tho acor.o-.r.ic nrci. I.', potential" of the area or
result in new ;jo~c> . (Soe Exhibit. 9 of the Statement).
2. S] tn Fails to :'ept FDA Roc;'uiro"cncs . Plans for
tre»t...or;t facilities by u:.c City of L~uf>:in as sr.
econcnic cjrowtn cantor .-.'uat be cor.?atij]c i/itr. the "O3;ec-
tives of tne overall occnonnc ccvolop.i.cr.t proorr.r. of the
district" and "enhance the economic groi.ch potential of the
district or result in long-^ern er.plovr.-ent." 42 U.S.C.
3171 (a) (3) (A) j:-.d (B) . The City of LufKin, in its Positive
Action ?ljn, ooligatod icscli1 to act in its I-ou 1 1 a vc- Action
Plan, in the best intcz'est cf t/.o 13-county cjcc.j-ia.'/'ncal
area and its inhabitants. 7o confer- to L.-iat obligation,
the City's so'.va.-;e treatment plan must T.eet t'.'O pertinent
ma^or points: (1) cooperation with neighboring cities and
(2) rational economic g
As an 2D\ ccono.T.ic grouch center^ tho City of
Lufkin iiLsurr.cd an ooligation to "er.Iir.nce the ecor.o."iic grov:t:;
potential" in the surrounding £DA area.
(a) One means is compliance with the skeletal
area bas:s Plan for v.iter ar.cl scv^cjc facilities developed
by tnc COG. Tne skeletal COG Plan points to constructing
the plant at the Temple site.
(D) A!i,o, the City has an obiiccition to its
ir.-rcdiaLC. city-ricighbor^. 1'.:e City of Lufkin !-^s t.-.rt.e
ir.dcptr.dcrt, adjacent suoui'js: trc Cities 01 J.erty to tr.o
nort/.ct.i) L, Koltyi to the nor^;i\.esL ar.d Hudson cc i_;ie \>Ojt.
A stfiut'fi troutrxnt plant on '.iurricone Creek ca:irot je-.cfit
the Ciuico of J.erty or Kcltys i..nch are located on nort.-.era
drr.ir.a.j-c ctrc^ns. Cut u pl^nt en the southern ::umca:-.a
Creek can es&i>t the City cf ilucscn, its population ard
the population living between the Cities of Lufkin and
Hudson .
Locating the facility to rv.axiiT-.ize gravity-flow se\:ige
connections will riir.irizo operaLir.g expertbo Cor thoae us-ng
the facj-liuy. Locating t:ie facility on t:iu Sa.'.'ium site jst
the juncture of ::urricsne ;\r.d Cedar Crecka will service only
the City of Lufkin. Locating the facility or. the To.-ple site
at tno juncture of Hurricane and £cd Crooks will service the
City of Lufkin, the population between Lufkin and Hudson, and
part of t.-.o population of Hudson, and miniir.iao operating
costs of sc\:age facilities for the remainder of Iiudso.i.
-19-
-------
7
apparently not in a cooperative mood.
D. The City's Pica of Poverty IB not Sufficing
to Cvorjor.-..: ti'o '.;.va"t.-«gj.-. of the Tor pic Site. Tno yoc.ition
of the City of Lufkin succinctly, is that the advantages
of the 7enple site are irrelevant because {.he City cannot
afford the GOS.S of the extension of the outfall pipe. But,
the City's pica of poverty is unsubstantial by ccor.oruc
data. Moreover, the City did not revise its pica whan the
Texas law was changed, permitting the State to lend a city
25% of the cost, thereby facilitating the City's sale of
bonds for the rcraining 25S. Further, the City's public state-
ment poinsc to the conclusion that it is concerned, r.os shas
it could not raise capital by a bond sale; but tnat it
obtain a low interest rate by selling fewer bonds. (\nd, as
the City's sewage tax rates are less than the average for
comparable cities, raising the tax rate would permit the
City to raise irorc capital by a bond sale. Finally, she
City of Lufkin should r.ot be surprised that its up-gradi.-.g
its sewage trea-_~cnt facilities fron an abominable "lass-rate
plant to a firsi.-rate plant viill necessitate an increased
cost in terms of taxes.
7
Tnc Cisy Cc-r.-isbion in the fall of 3971 culr.i.-.asc-J .'. ::IE-
puno ith she Cisy of i.*.£son over the am3ttir.£ .-sour.dj.i-.- of
she t..o cities -y aushcrizinc; Iiticasior. \o.ic.-. is r.o\. y.er.dir.;
Ironically, for tne instant sc>/arc .T.attcr, tnc swo cities
are contcscinc ^urisuictior. over part of the Zed CrecU cirair.-
age area. Sec Exhibit "3" attached ncrcto.
In conference in 7.ugust, 1970, wish Bcroaain •'., Joscp.i
L. and Tno;?es :•!. Gibson, the nanagcricnt of the Ci-cy of Lufki.i
stated that the City Council \.r.s concerned only with t-.-.e
City, nr.6 not vish she inLcrnstf of she noighi.or:ng cisios
and population r.oaray bc.z outside the city lirr.it-j. 7ns atti
tude v«\s grounioi on {.he fact that the City of Luikin •^j^s
providing*r.onc./ for the project. T.-.c* fact oi federal /nrtici
patior. i:. fur.cir.g .-.ad no; altered this litr.iteci attitude or
broader. tr.J r.orizons. of -.he Cisy Council. Such a li:.iisod
assituie coco not. ccnforr. to s.-.c spirit or letter 01 fa
apalicr.sicn by t/t- City of l,v-fxir. so bo :t:i 1I.1A coor.o--ic c;ro-*
area or to the s-.aw.tory requirements a nil thus sa cliozola
for Jrcrctsed federal ^uj^idics. '..hilc .'tuicuJcs i* :-.<.:
grcjrt.j for cc. •:.-.! of t.:; Application,,it is su.'f iCior.t ro.\s
for .:.-.-. tc ,7.«'.c a cireiul slUv." of the .i^olicas-o.-1.. Ci. *-;=si
by t'.-.c Tc..: = V.'^tcr Cuc.l3ty "Zo:-.r
-------
L. A Cost-rvncfit: An.i lysis Shown That the Tempio
Site u Sty;jrior to L'IO rv.s-.iT Sine. El'A is required to
undertake a coit-aenefit analysm of the proponed action
and conpasre it to the alternatives. EPA has failed to
rr.eot this rccuiror.ier.t. The National Environmental Policy
of 1970 at -12 U.S.C. 4331(A) requiring a systematic,
intcrdisciplir.jry approach; and the Federal Water Quality •
Act, 33 U.S.C. .',56(c> .
1. Benefits ir. Tor:Tis of Dollars. A simple cost-
benefit analysis r.easunng tne benefits in terms of cost
por years of service, shoi.'s that the Te-?le site has a
distinct construction cost advantage.
The ite:ns of costs are identifiable but the siae
is not in all cases. The* itc-~.s of cost are construction of
the project; lar.c; diking or elevating the facility; w.-.e
access road; elevating or diking the access road; extension
of ou'.faJl lir.es; construction of tertiary treatment facili-
ties for dry periods. The costs differ with each site:
Item ir. OOOs Bashun Site Te.-ole Site
Construction
Lar.c
Di k i r.g pr o 3 i- c c
Acce-s road
Elevating road
Outfall line extension
o
Tertiary treatment facilities
Total
3,963
80
X
Y
Z
-
G50
4,694 nlv.s
(X+Y+2)
3,3£3
20
C
2Y
0
672
-
4,635 plu:
(For the purpose of this analysis, t?he unknown quantities will
be assumed to be equal for each site and the cost to be cor.i-
P'jtcd only ir. ter~is of dollar-.)
8
'.V.e co.i-^ 01 tertiary tre-itrcr.t fjcili>:ei arc cstir\.;cd ac
25 u to 30i of the cost of tne treat..•«.*.:'„ plt-.-.c. Ut: Ii.ir.j'the
ccr.Ci.rvat: vc> 25'; figure and the- coic. of tno initant pLr./.t at
?2,s; ;,CCO .CO, t^e cojt of tertiary troatrc::t f^cilitio^ is
$GJG,CCO.CO.
-21-
-------
Benefits shall be measured in tcrnt. of cos>t per
year. A roro complex cOi.t-lw>cne£it analysis, measuring the
benefits in terras of cost per persons per year of service,
would show even greater advantage in amortizing the con-
struction costs over the increasing population. Without
benefit of conputcr and projections of annual population and
industrial growth, this anlysis will be cor.finod to the cost •
per year of service.
Assuming that the City's 1964 projections are correct
and that tne Bashum site will be surrounded oy urban growtn
by 1984, the Bashum site plant life will be i5-years. And,
assuming that the Statement is correct at page 29 ir.
stating a plant life of 50-yoars, the Tcisple site planz
life will be 50-years. Therefore, the cost of bcnefi-ts in
terns of years is as follows:
Bashua site Tcrolc site
Costs- (in SOOOs) 4,6D3 4,635
Benefits (in years) 15 50
Cost-benefit (in $OOGs/l-year) 315 93
Thus the cost of construction per year amortized ever
tr.o life of the plant at the iia&hum site is 5315,000.00
end at t.:e Tcr.-.pJc sate is $93,000.00. The 3£shu.~i sire is
326% srore expensive than the Te.-ple site.
(The previous cost-benefit analysis failed to quantify
and include other pertinent factors as noted in the previous
Section III-A herein. These factors also conar.cnd the Teir.ple
site as preferable over the Bashum site as the location for
the facility.)
-22-
-------
iv.
The Environrcntal Policy of 1970 at 42 U.S.C. 4222 (2) (CJ (i)
requires that EPA examine the cnvironr.cnt.il i::.pact of the
ir.<>tr.r.t project. The necessary implication of that require-
ment is -that the study bo complete and that the conclusions
be given cor.sicor5t.ion in t:'.e Agency's determination of
whctu'.^r ro provic:^ fecoral subsidy. The legislative ..11 story,
in the Senate lioport, £^rrr., states, concerning tlsis Eectio.n:
(c) Eacn .-.cjcncy •.-.-.ich proposes any irs;or sctior.s,
such ci ;jrOjCC-; proposals . . . shall -i.i/;e a ce-
ter^ir.arac-. ^s to w.'er.'.icr zr.c propo&r.l wouJ a
have £ si.;.:; ficc.r. t e:":!oc^ uz-or. tr.c cunlii-y of
the hu-iip. er.viror.r.or. t. If t.ho proposal is
considered to .-.ave: such ar. effect, thor. the
reco.TL-ciid^cior. or report support; nr; the proposal
r.ust -r.cl.clc su=tc-c:.ts by the responsible offi-
cial of certsar. findings cs follows:
(i) A finding sr.ail be -ace that tre envircr.-
r.ental impact of c.ie proposed action hc.3 beer.
studied ?.r.cl that the results of the studies h:.ve
been giver, consideration in the decisions le;.: i.-.g
to the proposal .
A. The ?rob.-. 'la Ir.pact of f.o Insco-^t Pronoct '••. 2-1
Be to Irorova tl'.o Current Sit>.:c.ricr. Xorlnribl;'. Tr.e
Xovcr.ier 2, 1S71., Statt.Tc.it separates cr.e positive results
of tr.c- ir.star.c pro;cct fror.: the negative: Section II l..oeiod
"Probaole Impact" focuses or. positive results «-.-.d Section III
labeled "Prcboolo r.dverse Effects" focuses or. negative.
This £oparj.ticr. leaves the rcocer of Section II vith the
mistaken impression that the new facility at the 3ash^n
site '.:ill correct the current abo-.inablc situation. A
close reading of Section II, however, sho\vf, th.it the r.ew
onlv
faci)ity at the Basham site will rake /negligible improvements
in the current aboninable situation.
7hc primary ecological purpose of a sovagc treat-
-cr.t facility is "abatir-g pollution and enhancing the
water Duality of t.-.e rcccivir.g stream. " (Stato-ont, r-'?>2 13).
-23-
-------
The Sashun site will not accomplish this objective.
Because the B.TShvm site is located on Hurricane Crcuk at a
point vhore annual dry spells cause it to be eT.pty, the
Bashum site will damage thj ecology by er.'.itti^g undiluted
sewage effluent which contain unacceptable levels of
pollution. The current facility emits an effluent of 65
tng/1. See Statement, page 6. The proposed facility will. era.t
an effluent of 20 mg/1; this lovel meets tne state-ft-deral
standard for effluent emitted by sewage facilities. State-
ment., page 10. But the btate-federal standards for streams
alter they have received sewage effluent is 4 ng/1. And,
when Hurricane Crock is dry, it will be receiving undiluted
sewage effluent at 20 mg/1, 5002 greater than the state-
federal standard for such stream. This level of pollution
will damage the ecology. Sec Statement, page 11. The
Statement at page 16 refers to the possibility of up-grading
the effluent by constructing additional facilities, apparently
a tertiary treatment plant. Such a plant, however, cannot
without astronomcal operating costs reduce the effluent's
pollutants from 20 aig/1 to the required level for strca.r.3
of 4 mg/1.
The Bashurn site represents no improvement over the
current situation, where Hurricane Creek is an open ae'-ver,
emitting 65-oarts pollutants and destroying the ecology.
Placir.g this fact in context, the Bashunt site 'or new
facility will, when the strean is full, produce an accept-
able effluent conducive to restoring the ecology. But,
during the annual dry periods, the Dashun site will destroy the
ecology which it allowed to produce. This is only a marginal
improvcnont over the current situation.
The Statement confirms this analysis when at page 13
it suns up Section II witn the statement, "The proposed
project will in some respects enhance the quality of the
-24-
-------
receiving stream but cannot be exjx;ctcd to return the
stream to an unpolluted state." Vhat is, the new facility
will not reduce pollutants to an acceptable level.
B. The Xovo!.-Jjor 3, 3971. St.i tenons rails to .Vaka a
Complete and Accurate Investigation of the Probs'jlc J.-roact
Of the I".sta:H: Project. Section II of the Statement at
pages 5-S cxar.unos the "environmental setting without
the project" and at pages 8-13 examines the "anticipated
enhancement o£ the cnviron.Tcnt by the proposed action."
Section II of the Statcsr.cnt is not coTplate in that
it omits a cost-benefit analysis o£ tne project. At
several sections, the Statement identifies several factors
pertinent to a cost-benefit analysis, such as project cost,
tertiary treat-.er.t
diking and additional/ facilities. But, it fails to co-plete
the required cost-benefit analysis and reduce tne cizzs. to
terrr.s which can bo used to compare the Bashum site witn
the alternatives.
Section II of the Statement is not accurate in tnat
it ir.isstat&s several vital points:
1. Contrary to page 6 of the Statcr-.er.t, cr.c
existing sewage trcauracnt facility has advor^oly affccLad
uroan growuh: primarily by its odor, it has discouraged
subdivision residential development and has impeded commer-
cial development by necessitating air condicioniny.
2. Contrary to page 7 of the Statement, the use
of land in the floodplain of the City of Lufkin is not
lira ted to animal grazing "and timber production: Sor.\e o£
the-City's finest residential subdivisions have followed
the course of Cedar Creek and the mall shopping cantor
and com.-nercial development near the existing sewage
facility is in the Hurricane Creek floodolain.
-25-
-------
3. Contrary to p.igo 1, the CityT. bdf-scrvir.rj
survey of 8-square railos around the Lashum site is inaccurate
in that the area contains more than one hOiiic built since
1960. Texas Wator Quality Hoard hearing report, Exhiait 12,
page d. Further, tho C-cquarc mile area wnich was se-
lected by the City is not an 8-aqunre nilo circle around
the site but an irregularly drawn area, gerrymandered by
the City to exclude tnc adjacent subdivision or. Cedar
Creek to the north and to include as few homes as possible.
C. The November 3, 1971, Statcrcr.t Pails to Analyze
Properly the Data and Give it Propar Weight in its Evaluation.
Assuming that the Staterent endorses the instant project,
its endcrsCT^nt is based on faulty analysis of the data
and failure to give the data proper weight in its evalua-
tion. Section II of the Statement at page 12 concludes
that the effect of the new facilities will be to
1. dilute the concentrations of pollutants r.ov;
present in liurricar.c Croek;
2. not increase flooding;
3. increase the "total nutrient loading" in
Hurricane Creek.
Tne first conclusion is central to the deterr.inatior. of
whether the project is acceptable: the Staterant concludes
only that the concentration of pollutants will be diluted.
Tnc Statement docs not conclude thai, the diluted concentra-
tion will be acceptable levels. Moreover, the Statcr.ent
at pages 15-16 indicates that the facility as proposed will,
during dry periods, emit a substandard effluent.
The third conclusion is also central: the Statement
concludes that the facility will increase the nutrient level,
that 10 phosphates and nitrates which cause growth oi
algr.e and ether organises. Tnis effect is not a positive
-26-
-------
'but a nocativo effect in Liuit the c:ovnst.roa:n jlrpc "bloon"
is harmful, to the ecology. Also, tnc v..ul-lut:d nla.il.
effluent, cunr.fj cry periods, will kill the Algae causing
a stench harmful to downstream, riparian owners.
At page 13, tr.e Section suss u? vnth the svauorcrvt,
"The proposed project will in 50:23 respects e~.har.ce the
quality of the receiving stream, but can.-.ot be expected
to return the strotr. to an unpolluted state." T.iis
suri-.Ti3L.ior. is irrecor.cilcjle with approval of the project
for federal subsidy.
D. Cone] i't.iori: Section II of the State~er.t should
conclude tnc discussior. of positive aspects of the instar.t
project that the instant project will i.-.provc only ncgliribly
t--.e curre.-.t abor.ineble situation.
-27-
-------
v. vn.^rxvjROvrA'r-v^ iMp'ivcrjc-j .v:'-.-:cy__s!iOLin -:vr
i^^L-lJfl' " ._:5^y^L'J:\iJJP:LV:J;rikL^\Ji.'-i-.::"\^ '''-'•
L VXi.. :•'-'. -L.'.'S Y- l KoLi.i '.. .'....'.LI.. .-.. .^^.a 0.'
Tne Kational i^r.vironivcr.tal Policy of 1D70 a; 42 U.S.C.
•1332^2) (C) In) requires t^^c E?A cxar.ine the adverse cn-
viror.-.or.tr.l effects oi proposed pi-o^ects ar.o w.-. ether cr.o oro
,posea project can avoid thorn if the proposal bo i.~p ic-r.cn ted.
n. "r.c* Ir.^ta-.t P.-Q'oet V.'iJl Cajsc S..
yoricdri of Polli-z '»r t-s . As sho-.-n in tl-.e previous Section
site
IV-A, locating tne ncv; facility or. t.'.e Bas.'ar./ ,:ill causa
rhe iacility, during dry periods, to cnit. a substandard
effluent canagir.g the ecology. Co.nstruc-ior. of a tertiary
treat.tior.t ulant will not avoid this effect.
2. 7i-c 2ashu-n Site Will Cause •••--.rrf-jl Alcrao
Gro\"-i. ?.c si-own in the previous Sec~icr. 1V-E, tro r.ei.1
facility in rcisir.g the level of r.^trior.ts will cau^e
oltjsa clccTb i-.c.rriLul to the- ecolocj.-. I'J-.i s^osr.^,-.ic:rc
effluer.t. of the facility during cry spells \.ill kill the
algae causing co'.-nstres^. a stcr.ch.
3 . Ti'.o Sasruni Site Is Sub:oc> tc Flocc'i".:: . -ich
C.'.n ^-^13.^; L'~.e Ecolocr-./. The Basr.ur site, locc.-ed -~ the
Hurricane Creel-: floodplain, aubj&c-s cr.e i.-.s^r.t pro;ac-
to ••.ha threat that flood waters will carry off the raw
sewage at the facility, darr.agir.g tre ecolocy. Constrjction
of dikes or elevations will nir.nni^e this risk of this ad-
verse effect but Llus solution is coscly.
4 . Locatircj the "acilir.y i:'. a "loo:', pi a: n I-..-iceafss3b!
3uri-f Flf ogir.r '.'ill C.TOSO iJcolog-. ctl D:'a<~e '.Trou-'- Poor
Opcr^tio" . T.'.e Bashun site is in the H^rrio.-.r.e Creek flooc-
piair. whic.i historically hao rer.air.cd flaodod for several
cavb at a tine. The abutting farr-to-rr.crsc1. ;-.ir:-.^.-.y 335
(cr.d a parallel railroad iir.c) arc ^Icva-cd aLout five foot
acove the floodplain at. the liasrsur.i £.1-^0. Vlio City haa
-28-
-------
stently declined to dike or clovato t-ho accc-~i road fror
the £ai-r-to--.:irket higuvay to ti-.o now facility. 3urir.g the
flood 5t:.ges, the facility will be cut off and for lack of
personnel ar.d r.air.tenance, will function improperly. This
potential of improper operation is .-rore than t-hc chance of
h\-r-.ar. operational error alluded to an tne Szatcircnt at
pares 14-15; this is a easier, error which builcs-ir. mtlfur.e-
tions ar.:i eccJijicai dar.are. Elevating or.diking the access
road will r.ir.iraize the risk of this adverse affect, bat this.
solution is costly.
5. The Period of Cor.at-ruc'.io." n-d ~-3 Aciittod
Adverse Ersvirorrcri:?.! Kifcct '..'ill ^c ?ro]or.:-oc. Heavy con-
struction produces adverse effects on zhc enviro.-.rent.
Section III of t>.e Statement, pages 13-14.
The period of construction in the ir.stxnz pro;ect
vill 'zs prolonged. Tl'.c design of the facility eroloys a
ccduler concept, whereby additional units \:11 be added
t-o t.-.e iscility as required. The design calls for ir.ricir.ca
construction of a co~?lete facility a^ Site ".-." on one-half
of zhe plant site; thereafter as do-.ar.d increases, a second
d^piictte facility will be constructed at Site "-" or, the
re-air.ir.g r.alf of the plant site. Tncrcforc, the design
itself calls for an extensive period of construction and,
sigr.ificantly, the second r.odel ray undo previous action
to .-.ask the facility and maintain the plant site in its
natural sta^e.
Koroovcr, the Bashum site is ili-cv.osen and \.'ill
require additior.al construction to correct it: (!) to dike
the facilities; (2) to elevate the access road :"ron the
feir-.-to-r.arket Highway to the plant; and (3) more signifi-
cantly, to cons-cruet, tho c.iM: Lior.al t;rtic.ry ac ige facili-
ties, called for by tr.c Statement to puri:'-/ iurthor t/.o
cfflucr.- Before it is critted into t: e dry bed of t:-.c rc-
c--vir.;j stream.
-29-
-------
6 . The :.jn>:fill Oirration V.ill !!avo on .'.ovcrcc
is to fill the "borrow pits," excavated for construc.icr.
sand, with 5lud£e iron the r.o\v facility as landfill. Tr.is
process will place sewage residue in the floodplain -...-.ere
flood waters may carry it cvay. Although residue rc~ovcd
during the treatment, proccsj »ill ^o purified, larcjcr
particles removed prior to trcatr.cr.t will r.ot be purified
This sludge would, cr.erefcrc, be harir.ful to tl-eccolocy.
B. Tho Novcrbci" I, 1571, Statcront at Scctisr. Ill
Kill Not Support a Gr.Tr.L for -ro I:is'..-nt Pro^occ 3oca'.i3e
the St.ato-'.op.t is Ir.co-?leta a-v^ Inaccurate. Section III
of the Szater-cnt, entitled "Probaolc Adverse Effects of
the i'roooscd Action on the Environrcnt, " is incc-olctc
and inaccurate, in its assess.-. enc. of the adverse conscqi.er.ca5
of placing the no1.: facility at the Bashun site.
1. Section III is Ir.cc-olcto: it failed ^o con-
sider t.-.e folio. 'ing adverse e-.viror..-.ier.cal effects r.cccd
in Seccion V-A nerein:
(a) The extended period of cons true -icn f ro-
ll) -ho planned construe '.ion of c.-.a
socor.d -.ocular facility;
(2) the r.ecdc-c. construct-on co di'-:e •cne
access road;
(3) the needed construction of « tertiary
facility; and
(/.) the apparent plan to continue cor.str.'.c-
tional activities of lanciiil operations
for tnc "borrow pits."
(b) The apparent pia". to use "borrow -ito" for
li.iJfill i:-. t.io ficoipl-ir..
(c) Tr.u inacca.-.sibillty of the facility i.n a
Turthor, Section ~II in ir.co-.olcLc in
to prcjcr.t da->.a to support t o vital poi-
-30-
-------
aecir.r.itir.-i .it 30.30 lo, s-h.it oxtondnv; t'.ic outfall pi;-c; is
t.oo oo=;;.i\ :
J'ron L'.iid O L £'_rt.:-...:.z
osL re .-.:•. h:ii- tvc ^i'.\'c.:-.\.i.^c3 of yro^.t-ov
Scicctior. of a .-or.. d«' •::L:-CI.-' s,".:^ i.-_e, _ icity
tl'.o rocoas-.oy cf .:>jr_J^"y cf.'luont. >.i;jlil,y.
1 xn» cvoi'i _ L '••£• _c >i . •_• - _ p i .-. i jx: '>. •"_£_-_'-_ _^ «"> _f _• '•*•-'-_
(b) the rocorcs oi the fio.; of ilurntanc Crock incl-cai.ir.g-
flood stages ?.nd cry -^oriocls.
2 . Sec"-o:'. Ill of >.itc Stc-.tOTar.t is Ir.'icei.rata:
it concluded incorrectly W.D yagc 16 that the cost of tne
extension of tl.c outf = 13 pipe to the dowr.stre^-. 7cr.-.?lt;
site offsets the sdva.-'.t^ge of tr.c- c:rec-.ter sssinilativc
capacity of. hurricane Crcsk at zhe Topple sita. Ir. order for t.-.e
facility to reduce the pollutants in the effluent, it
rust pursue? one of the alternative solutions to upc-rade cne
effluent during dry periods: a tertir.ry treat-er-.t facility
or additional outfall pipe to the cowr.w'wroc.- oitc.
7r.e cos^ of u-.o tertiary treat: cr.t facility ii
estirat-cd £-_ ^S^C/OOC .00. 7r.e coat of tr.e o.car.i:or. of •
the cjtfr.ll pipe is ostir-ited to be $oo-'«,CCC .CO . T.-.o oi~i-
iirity of costs ^oir.tn to f.c conclusion >hat tr.c cc;t
of cbtc.ir.ing \.'r.& greater asair: I-tior. c:-.?acity do-j r.ot
out'.v'eicn tnis .-.eed.
C . Tht! November 3, 1971, Str.lo'-v. ~.t at Scctigj;. 1^1
i-.'ili :;ot Sii^^arc a Crr.nt for the r.nJt.nt '.TOJCC: .'.co.'1.:^^
the Sta-iT.or.t I'ai Is to Evalucto jy.t1. .kr.r.lyac ?rayjr:y ^-.s
/.cv&ru rmpact of the Ins^.i-.t ?roj)c-c_=. T'.io Sus-ercnt
wnitc'..»&r.o& the adverse ir.pact of tno inctar.t yrc;oct
wnich- locates tr.c faciJity c.t the Lr.shv.r' ai-;e. IT.e Sc^tc-
ir.er.t at pares 15-15 fir.t!3 tn^'i the insi.c.r.L project c.uri-..j
dry pence:; endi-ngero the ecology ir. tr.at cr.^ effluor.t r. i£u. t
r.ot : e.it -..arci- e;i:.ility st-r.c"...rc— . ?-c. Jtrz:-er.i .-.t Sector.
II or. ^.Jvcr.-.e effects r.t.tc:"Jt.j ^o or^.^.-. ever th_i ^I'cblc.-:
-------
vi .
l Polac/ of 1070 at ''.2 U.S.C. 4332(23
(C) (liiJ requires thtt I.PA c:%.irir.c the altcrr.nt;vo3 to the
instant project. The legislative history of u^is section
specifics that the required examination of altcrr.auivcs
will be conducted \»ith a view toward determining w.ictr.cr
alternatives to the propo&cd project i/ill avoid the adverse
offoctG winch tho proposo.'I project vill cause. See,
Senate Report, supra , stating,
(c) Each ogoncy v.hich proposes any T.ajor actions,
such as project proposals, proposals ror r.c\.' legis-
lation, regulations", policy &cp.i.cr*jrti, or expansion
or revision of ongoing pro^r'ans, sh-11 .T!a'e avoided o-_- fcllo-. me reason-
able alternatives <:hic:: will achieve t.-.e intc.-doa
purposes of the proposal. ?urthomorc, a finding
r.vjst bo rade tna^ Lha action le.-.aing =o T.he c.;.voria
cnvirorr-cr.tal effects is j^S'tifiec ^y other ccr.jidera-
tions r:uj:t-be stated in t:ie
Further, the/iinviron-^ntal Policy of 1970 at 42 U.S.C.
4332 Jd) requires trie agency to study and develop appro-
priate alternatives 'to rccorr.^cnded projects which involve
conflicts concurring alternative uses of available resources,
See Senate Report, suora, stating
(d) h'ncrevor agencies of tho Kcdcrdi Governr out
rccor.~.end couroos of action •..•hicli arc kr.evo to in-
volve unresolved conflict.-; over CTcrpcLin*J "."d i:a-
co:rpatiljle ui»et, of ln:id, wat-or, or «:ir ro3o;-.vc.ea ,
it Lh^li be the agu-.-.cy's i-v-'-i-onsibiiity to study,
develop, and describe appropriate tiiterr.ativos to
the rc-co'. -.ended course oi ac^-jo.-!. 7.-.0 r.goncy :/.-•£ 11
dcve:o;j ir. for. \-itic.n and provide ccccriptic.-.:. of tl-.e
altei-niitivcs in .iccc;c;:tc detail for £.u 'osoii'-ent re-
vi^ i.r- ~r.£ ii..ci..ion-r.a'M.-rs, both -si^.i-n tr.o o.socu-
Llv<_ Lr^.-.ch ar.tl in L.-.c Co-.-rc:.^, to- c-or.^iior -_.-.o
aluernativo- -long v^it'n tr.o principal rccor.:ven;.^.tion.
-33-
-------
A. The Alternative Location Cor tic Proposed Soi...".'-c
Tro.it "or. t 1 ac'-l'-tic.. , tNi "V" ilv Sice, .\vo.;'.^ the ;o
Kffccts of t!ii? Ti.-.ahuni Sito .ind_i& a Rojs.o".ablo /Mtcrnr. Live.
1 . Ti'.o Tosiplj^ S: te Avoids the Acvrr^e r^y_irpn-
nvnt.Jl Cr'rcct of tho IMS!', in fiito .
a. During annual dry periods, the receiving
strca.r Hurricane Crook .»t the !;ashun site it> a dry creek
bed; effJucnt o.Tittcd by the instant project will cause
ccolo.jic.:! canoge because no flowing sLrcas; will be present
to dilute anci nssinilato t^o strong effluent. The Temple
site avoids this adverse effect because the receiving
stream Zed Creek has greater flou: at tnc Ter.ple site,
two mice further do^/nstroojr., Hurricane Creek has the
benefit of other tributaries flowing into it sr.d, moreover,
Hurricane Creek joins tno flowing Zed Creek. The 'ycar-
roup.d flew of the receiving stream will dilute ar.d asiir-i-
latc the effluent.
b. The Kashum sj tfe is located in che Kurricer.e
Creek f^oodplain \vhorc irregular floocs of ur.deLerrri'.r.od
depth threaten to carry off raw sewage and s,luige fron
too dispocdl pro-cess used as> landfill, d^nagirig tne ecology.
j'urt.ier, fioociir.g which nintorically has cor.tincod for
several days will prevent, access to the facility, causir.g
suactandarc effluent emissions tn«st .T.;.y du::iagc the ecology.
2. 1'ho Tar.iplc Site m_ a Reasonable ^.ltoiTL.'\Cj.vc
xn *rar"s of Cor^t. The riaks to the environment posed i)y
the riashur.) site nay be minimi-ied, but not avoided, by
construction of (1) a tertiary trcaLn'er.t facility to further
purify the effluent during dry periods; (2) diking and/or
elevating the facility and (3) clevntar.g ar.d/or diking
tr.c aoc^^L, road. This cor.&truct.on 3J o>. pensive:: i. con-
servative cotir.ate of the ba^ic elcr-.c-nt, t'-.o tertiary t-ivat-
ror. ; faci::ty, i^ $C50,CCO.OO. vhis alti.rrnj.tivo vill :ict
-34-
-------
increase the useful life of the facility, -..-hich will --,
in all probability, torr.: rated in 15-years. (oy i!>3':j
when the area has uraan dcvclop.-r.cat.
The alternative of the Terple sitt also ir.vol' is~
additional construction costs for (1) ti»o niloc of catfail
pipo and {2) an additional one-quarter r.ilc of access
road to the norc remote plant. CostG of the basic elc-^r.-,
outfall pipe, is cdtJ.nat.cd at ?G8^,000.00. 'i'nis cost '.ill
avoid the ;i£v^xc effects. Thus, the additional costs
of each bito ;rc r.pproxinstoly ccjual. Tnc- Tcnplc site is,
therefore, a iec.3ona-lc alternative.
>k)reover, since the Ter.ple site is t'-.'o miles
further ronov^d fro.T tho City r.nd in an area not likel.1 to
have urban covalopront, t.-.c Temple site incree.ses tne -se-
ful life of t.-.e facility to the' full 50-year life ex?cc;sr.c:'
of the pipe. Tr.is will sharply reduce tho costs per •_ sar
of the consitr-ction of the facility. This factor ca solution.
3. f.':ia -.cv^-rje.- 3, 1071, i:Lr.Lc—-T.t Tails to :..-.'-; -'-
Cor-?2sr.c r.-.:': .cc-r;.tj jf- vaat'-catzon ef •.-•; .' ltor-ativ». -Q
, Tr.o Statc::.cr.'_ zz. Soc-ior. IV, p:;-3
19-2i -..-if-, several c'.-.srts, ir.akca c:i ir.cc-plote =.r.d in-
accurate c.sses3;-a.it of tr.e altcrr.ativei.
1. Che Statement at page 21 states that five
potential sites for the proposed facility were exarp.ir.oi.
The State.-cnt acr.its that the investigation was not cc: -
plete: it states,
A corparison of frequency and extent cf flood
at c_ih LI'.C \:cv.lei !'.:'-o rc..-..:i">l c-:>.c.-siv^
iicld curvoi's frcn \:r.icli s\p'_'ictic n.v".rclo»ji.-
dat£ could ~e derived. L:.po:-iorcea rocorda i u.a
very li~itcd ar.d thoir accuracy ror-.a^p.s in dc_ot.
-35-
-------
As a substitute fo- --"-a r.'.issing data, the St-te:.er.t .>rc-
ccccod to /:a'ie aJt,u"p=ior.3:
Depth o: rlOwiVacers £or »i ceGiy.i ctre.vr.
would ir -.11 .arcb^liili'-y incrc:.::o r,r:.d_ally
with yro.jroa.-ion co..'".^t.rc;;.T.. hcuovi.-r, lor
cost cat:: aLc.!, t-.-.o licirjnL of protective Icvocs
\:a3 tiss.i.-:oc; to be tno =uro at all sites.
The reliance on assumptions, instead of data, is con-
trary to the statutory instruction and congressional
intent.
Moreover, on this point, the Statement is i.'.-
accurate in its basic cor.clasion that "each site o.r.ibi =cd
the s?."o general chr.rscteriDtici." Examination of a topo-
graphical map sho-.»s that the Sites A through o are locdted
ir. the Kurncar.e Cree'<. flooc?lain but Site £, tne Tcr.pic
site, is loc.-.tec where Zed Crc^k cuts through a nic:\ r.iil,
making a -^sluff adjacent to the juncture of ]:urncanc ar.c
Zed Creeps.
2. rtlso, tr.e Statcnent is ir.co-vplete ir. tr.it
it fsils to exa~i:ie irurt.'.er sites 2, C, cr D: t:.e
State;?.snt is confined to discussion of tr.e Eas.-.u" site
(referred to oy the Str.tcr.-er.t as Site ?. £P.a Site No. 1)
ar.d trc 7c->lc Site (referred to by the St.v_e:-ont as
Site E or.c Site No. 2).
3. Tr.e Statc.-er.t is incor.plete in tnat it fails
to provide data to substantiate its declaration it ?£-;e
22 tjiit the cost of outfall -j>ipe from the 3nshi_x site -,o
the Ccr.ple site will "be nearly one Million dollars or
nearly forty percent of the total project cost=."
Moreover, the Statement is inaccurate aa i-l-.is
declaration ccr.ilict^ with tro d.T^d cor.-.pileu by the S=ate-
rer.t as to the cost of the cxi.er.sion of the outfall pipe
and the. total cost of tr.e project. See Section 1-A-l-J,
here;n.
'.V.e State-rant J£ xr.cor.ploto in t'/.a1. it ;;.l-.
to i^rovicio data to •JuJi-.a'.tir.tc its ccr.clvis ^on at paga 2^
i..-.cit "i'/ic u^f.: :.ti.u co:;;, o- outiall ljc.-yo.id Site i.'o. -
-36-
-------
/L'lc., ayo.-.rar.tiy rrea-.t Site No. I/ would JL.COV- oro-
hiiritivo." T.'.o or.ly •;•„.,3 :.«ntiat:&n of tn_o ccr.cl^ ^o.-.
IB t':e Ltatc-'or.t'to rocit;.! it v-j^o 23 of tr.o C:'-y's -ilc.-.
ofirverty. ?.".e Stato. or.L :~ili» to e::?lcro I .c cccr.cnc
cor.:-irlera Lions o." '. hctr.cr L.IO cost of outfoll >-?o .\ojli
iic offset Liy savings ir. uvoicir.£ ctnor coct& r.'.cc^L.t.ati.d
by t>.o -aar.u-11 siti, c^. L'. c coz- of a tcrzif.ry troacri.-.t
facility. 7.-.O Scit.c-~n- f.i^l.i r.o ccroiter L.-.C r.cc\.r£.cy
of the City's poverty :-lei1., parcical^rly in view of the
factors outlir.cc £•_ S^c ;ior. III-C heroin. Ar.a, the
£t£te~c;-.'.t fails to provide a cost-benciit ^r.c:lysis a.-.d
comparison to determine '..T.ctncr tno funds for outfall ?i?c
would be well-spor.t in tcrr.s of reducing; the cost ctr year
of the instant project.
Moreover, the Stc.terer.c is ir.acc-jrate in its
conclusion that the cost if outfaDl pipe '.%ould be orchi-i-
tiva. Tnorcucr. ir.vcstigatior. -..ovslo show that the outfall
pipa docs not raproaan- a cos;: increase bcca.:sc it is-
corparaoie to costs of a tertiary trcc.t~.ur.t facility re-
quired oy t.-.e 3aahu.T. size; that the City c«in afford the
cost; ar.c tha^ c.-.is co=w -..-ould rodacc the cost per year
of the :r>star.t project.
C. 7.-a Ncvo'^cr '. , 1071, Str.toror.t at fcctio" III
:.'ill :-ct £..o?or^ a Cr>--•>. for tro Ir.sta:~.t Pro:,oct jjj.-.asc-
th3 5ti-.tc~.--t Fails to ::v: luato ar.cl Ar.alyze Pro^orl" t.'.o
Alt-: rr.c.f."c-3 a:'.:l '.':"cthor 7r.c.-' i.'J 11 AVOJ c tuf- fV-vOrso
Ir.paat of t'r.o Ir.star.7 >rcject. Assuming that tne Statersr.t
endorse; t.-.e i.-.star.t project, the cncorscrer.t is baoaci cr.
faulty f.r.alysis of t.-.c alrarr.?.Lives a:-.d their potcrtiai to
avoid: t.-.o civlvcrac i. -^cts 01 t.iis project on the cnviro -.-
Nazicral
rc.-.t. I'.-.c/Lnviron-^r.tai '-'olicy of 1970 at 42 u.S.C. '.".12(2)
(C) (i-l r^.virei _>.' to "ir.clu-c ... a tctailci ..tat^ .-r.t
. . . c:-. . . . :.r.f L^v.-r^c ' "
-37-
-------
lie avoided should t/.c proposal be iiriple.iuj.ntcd" and at
£jctio:-. -'.332 (O (in) to examine "alternate ve:> to the
proposed action." The Senate Report, s,upra, cxplair.c-c.
•these section.; and their inter-relation:
L'ach .-.ye. cy i..'ic.i proposoa any r\anor action!:, au: .
na project •.•r.yjiac.l s . . . Lii.jll raku a dotcrr..ir.-.-
tior. as to •...-.ctl'er the i^icoo..al i.oul;i i-.a">_ .1 -_
-------
1. Ti'.o f-t.iU'Monl. ir. !'inJ'..-!(
of llu- :":;tr..'.z Proji'cu i-Viloc'. la Co-ifor- to .. v.- f.L.'.^i
I\\'«iv:-r>. \':*.t Vliat the i'rojoct .'.vt.ic'. t.vjrsj i::':'fc>.:. by
S^jtij.v.jlo Mr^nnt.i vo j . The £'..^tvj"cr.t, at Section III
or. r.c^.-.iive aspects of the ir.3t.or.t project, found at
laJSw cnc anticipated adverse oifcc^. Tr.c S^ator. ur.t also
foar.cl, at Section II on posii-ivc aspects, t\.o ouhcr antic
patcd tdvor^o cfiocts which i- failed to explore under
Sccbior. Ill on negative a&pcccs. 7he Statc^or.t, hovcvtr,
failed to cor.forr.i to the stai.ji.cry reyuirc:r.c.r.c that it
exa.T.ir.e alternciuivcs to the proposed project to cctcr.-ni-.e
whether tnc alternatives hill avoid the adverse effect
of the proposed project anc: h.-.et.hor the alternatives arc
reasonable.
a. The Statorent found at ?£.fje 16 tr.at tho
ir.star.t project, whicn locates the r.ev facilit.y at the
Esshur site, \-iil Cc-usc adverse enviror.r.er.ual effects
becf.ut-3 Kurricarc Creek fit tr.at poir.z had f. s^.all fio.v
ar.ci cc-pacity to asii-.iiate thi effluo-.t. T".-.e S^ato:ier.t
d-s: issec tr.is> adverse effect on cco.-.c~.:c cjrou"ds, tnat
cons wi" action co^ts for i..ia alternative '.er pie 5i~e \-orc
~ore expensive . 7nis cor.ciucicn to isvor -or-o Rr.s/.u.'t iiTi
ever -_.-.c 7e~ple site is not proper sir.ee ^he Sta-.crent
failec to cosz Cijt t!io alter- ative and deter.T.ir.e z.-.at -'.o
elterrative is in facu not rcason^ole. Ar.d , chis concl jsi
is i-prcper bccaur-e the statute docs not ? err it ocolo;;ica
d£r.-.ac;e solely for economic re.if.or.3 .
b. The Sta tenor. t at page 12 found tnat t.-.o
facility \/ill incrc£-c the level of r.utnents ir. the
rocciv.r.g stre^-. This fint_r.fj, cor.tainod in the Scati. cr
£.c £cc-_ior. II on positive efJoczs cf the ;?rciecc, '.'a.; -s'.
:'.cr.;ic.^ccl ar Scccion III on r.eroL-ve effects of t..s pi'.'^c
cvc.-. z.^.o^r-:. an inci'v.a-o in r._tricr.-j will ro^ulc in sr. i -.
cr^.-.o ir. »l-3t-L. .inc: oL/.cr .-.:.!• '.iul oi-».an: t.-^ . -'.'.e Star,-.1::
-30-
-------
ca-.not properly support the instant project at the
Caahuri site sinco it failed to analyse the altcrnit^vtji.
and dcterr.ur.e that all other alternatives arc not reason-
able .
c. Tnc S tatcr.cn t at p.'igo 12 found that tJic
Bashur.-. site is subject to flooding and that the level
of flooding hns not been determined (The Statement at
page 21 cor.fir.T.s this lack of data).. The findings are
made in the Statcr-ent at Section II OR positive effects
df the instar.t ^ro;joct; the Statement fails to nention
this point in Section Ill on adverse effects of the
instant project. C\t page 3 of the Intrciuction of the
Statement, it is declared that tr.e facility vill be pro-
tected by providing diking \Iit.i five feet of frecboarC for
all treat:r.or.t units ard that "the required freeboard v,ss
based on the :r.axiTu:n flood of record." "he royu-re^ert of
diking is not co.-.iirired by any section of the Statcront;
the fiva foot height dc.tc.-rr.inr.ticr. is arbitrary in vie:: of
the -u-ciccii.ee lack of data on flooding.)
?hc Str.tcrront fails to explore the alternative^
as to this adverse effect: rather, the Statc^c.-t at pare
21 ir. Sactior. ;v.or. .Mtorr.stivcs to the ir.str.r.t project,
Kakcs an unsubstantiated asourrption tnat cfch of the five
altcrncitivc i,itea would require protective levees and that
the heignt of the protective levees would be the sarc at
each site. V.iis assunptjon fails to consider even that
the other dir-ensions of the protective levecas at tr.e alter-
native cites i.-.icjnt vary. The Statement's aasur-pcions are
unwarranted. EPA's reliance on assumptions, instead'of
facts, flics in the face of the Environmental Act of IS70 and
the randc-tc of the agency.
-/.O-
-------
2. As ci;o Sl;Uo-.-.ont l"a_i l. As t.hoi.'n in Lcccion V-c-2 herein,
tho Str.tcr,.o:it cailcc properly Lo finJ that t-hc insi.ont
project will result in several adverse effects to tr.c
environment:
a. The period of construction will be
p~rolo:-igecl, injuring the e.ivircnncnt;
b. Flooding of the B.Jb'nu.v. site i*:.!! nake
the facility inaccessible by rosd; and
c. The planned "borrow pits" in the £lcoci-
plain filled with sewage waste sludre
threatens to <3s:;'.;go the ccolocy .
As the Stat-trTor.t failed to find these eoverse erTccts,
it failed to meet the statutory rccuii-cr.cr.t a3so thtt ;t
explore vl\et..'-,cr an aLtern.a<.ive will avoiC these adverse
effects.
The State: enu's failure to explore this stnzi:^or_ly
required i-.atter ".aXes it insufficient to support t.u.e cor.-
cluoion that EPA ir.ay properly subsidize the irorant pre-
fect..
Thorough investigation of the alternative ?crpla site
would sho./ that tne .Temple site will avoid only sonc of the
prolonged cc.-.struction: the Tenplc site wj.ll avoid the
necessity of constructing a tertiary sewage treatment
facility, of diking the plant ar.d of elevating t.io
access road. The Temple ^itc will not avoid ecological
03^050 resulting from construction of the second duplicate
facility; but since the TcrjpJe site is rcore re.-novo frc.-i the
City, the effect of this ecological darr.agr on hu~a:is \i-ll
be reduced.
-------
Tne Temple silo, located on high ground, will avoid
the ecological damage uhjc.i would rosuJt i.-.ien flooding
prevents access to the plant.
The 7c.aiilc site, located on .1 hio-- J'.ill/ cf£or
-------
vii.
Vr.o Nation.il i:nviro:incr.t-al Policy of 1070 it
42 U.S.C. 4332(C) (2) (iv) required that. ::i'A cxi.-nir.c the
instant project r.nd deLcrr.ir.u wncthcr its short-Lcrn uses
of the cnvirc.i".ont arc cor. patzolc: with lor.fj-tcrm productivity.
Sec Senate Re;>or-o, supra, i> Luting
(c) Eac.i ii-.oucy hnica proposes a-iy r^aTOr £.ctio:-3,
sue!1, as :->: OJC.CT. \?ro..»o.ii lo . . . shall pa-:e : c^cs.r.1 is co-si Jcroci co huvc
sue!*. a:i effect, Lhon tr.c rcco~s.~v.rc.'.!:ion or report
supporting the propooal .T.UM. include £.tate.- onus by
the responsible official of ccrtjin fir.cir-.gj as
folio1.. ^:
(111) !\'no rover local, shore- Lcrn-. uses of whc
resources''' of ran1 5 cnvnor.-cri-c are iicir.^ proposcc,
a f ir.dinc r.ust oe raUv1 t.iat suor. u-es ^re co-.^is^ent .
v.'ith the ro.intcna.nou and enhc:::co"ic:i;. of cho lor.rj-
tcrra uro<£ycvivity of E.IO or.viro::.-cr.t.
A. T'r.a Instp.rt Project X't'-;as Snor-c-Tcrr* Uses, of zhe
E-.viro.r-r-nt '.'-iich .'.;-j Kot Ccr?r.;ip_lc '. ." -.th Lor.g-Tsr.-!
1. '.v.e Jnstar.t Pro~oct is ^01 Co.'.'f.>i=i;?lo '"i^.i
a '.-.'atcr-L'sc ?.;^r. for the Basi- . As &hour. r.z Eectio.-. I1.-3,
he-rein, a prereruioite to feocral subsidy for a pro^o^cd
project is a waver use plan fcr the br.jin. 7he in£.tc.r.z
basin decs not have ,a plan. The instant project is r.ot
ccr-patiblo with the skeletal COG ?l£n. The lack of a
bas.r. plan Kay lead to expensive duplication of ar.ci a
detrimental proliferation of sewage facilities. And, as
public statcr-.cnt ir.cicjt.es th^it the appropriate water-v.se
plar.riinc; authority will soon develop n basin-Mdc plar. ,
chir, applicatior. naoti not bi prcccsacc now witnout oc.-.orii.
of a coordinating plan .
2 . v.-.o I'.ot.i't 1' j'o-rc-w u ::o^ Co-t>r.f.!>lo r ^,;_h
*hc "i-of"". of t'c. C'-T1-' o.T ' ^.'.'O"1 for Si\'..: •' 7r^;. t •.•».•> t.
y.^c; liti; .-. . .-.i. i.no-.o. at Section III-C I-.croin, ::^.\ I..'.-.-
-43-
-------
and EDA law require the City of Lufkin to cooperate -..-ith
its ncio.-.oors. 7ho City's ncii/i'jor to the vc^t, tr.c City
oir I.udjcn, is attempting to cor.Jtruct a sc.v.ge trcatr.er.t
system ar.d tr.e instant project does not asi-ii^t the City o^
Hudson.
3. Tnc Ir.srr.nt ?ro:oct Vill Not liili-c -he
ili-y '-'or I^s DC: it '. '..ifo. ?.s shcr..-n in Section III-;>
heroic, t'.ic trban gro.:t!i yrOjOw'tod for the Ed^^ur. fi~tc
at the Sasnun site
area will r^cuiru £ba'.idon:n
-------
is r.ioro r.cariy compatible with a b.i.Jin-1. iilc v,cVi_er ui,c
plan.
2 . T'-.e Instant Pro^cc!: Kill .ViJit.t. l'r.J
Citv of !'i>!son. The City of Kudjor. spar.:. the crair.a«jo
areas of ~od and Jack Crocks. Lccat.ircj tho facility at.
the Tor pic iitc will servo tnc Zed CreeX. dr^ir.ar;a area
with -inir.u^ operating cost.c for pur.ping.
3 . Tl-o Topolf £itc i.'-ll _Vcr."it Util-y.~^icn of
t ^.o Facility for its Do&\cr. Lifo. As jjlio-vn ir. Section III-;.,
the "errilc bite, ^.ore rcnu^c fro.- prescr.t &nc: projected
urb£n cGvcicp-ror.t, will permit the facility ;.o bt utilized
for its full 50-year decirn life.
4 . Sound LcTic: Use I'lai-.riir.g Co — or*^ t.Ve T^rplo
Site for L'se for a Sox/age Tree tin jr. t yccil-^v. Che 7cr?lo
site is rc:.ot.c fror. tnc City of LufX.in and otr.cr urbar.
ccvclopr.vr.t. Its apparent best use IE its currcr.t -..se
for tJ-ricr procuc=ior. and cattlu roisir.g. Sucr. a low
priority u&e r.r.G lo;1 voluo cor.-ancs this scrcsgt: for us^
as a scrt'agc treaw-.jr.t facility.
C. ?v.e XovvTbcr ?, 1S71, S'-ctc-^nc rjil^ Lo vd\c
a Co- TLC to a:';3. .' jc;:r:.-o Ir.ve?tif;.Tr\on o-L t..-.a Co"":."^!!: ^y
^Q'^
Vorr. l'rc;'..'c-iv'.-..y . "he State:.:cr.t cit Section V covers
in o:.e pace whe relationship of uhe 5hort-tor:,i u»^3 of
the er.viror.norit ncdo by the instant project witr. lo.-.^-cer-
procuc^j-vi zy .
7he Statonicnt is incomplete in that it fails to
co.TSicar the points raised at Section VII-.\ herein con-
ccrr.ir.g the Ba^.iun1. site and to compare the 7c.-~plo r>ite OP.
the ii.-iro points .
The Stc-.tc-cnt is inaccurate in aabur'ir.o trsut the lo-
cciuio.-. of t.-.a fc.cili'y i.ill permit utilization of tro i>.cility
for f.c full 30-yoar design life of tha piv:^ r-.atcr.il^.
-fit-
-------
O. Ccnolu'.iorir Tiio Statement, haviny -failod Lo
make tho staLutonly roouired findiny, will not support
foJiT.il subuidy of Lhc instant project. 7r.c Stc.Lcrr.cat
should find that the aiiort.-tcr.-n cnvironnvr.tal uses by
the instant project at the Daohum site arc not cornsanblc
with long-tcr:.\ productivity.
-46-
-------
viii. s"..~ '. ^vi'«-N^_,\i'M. iTirvj
",!"•'."' .Tn: :~ "•..'.. 3 -I:., -_\. •/":"•.«."".• :ci' ".c i..i
T\ v"Jv~s"v v • v v.1 .'"^i iTiii> I'-ix* • '•'•••'_~V.
'
The National iJ:-.vii-on:nonual Policy of 1070 at '.2 U.S.C.
4332 (J) (C) (v) rojjviirijd f'.at i:i'A oxa.nino the: int.t.cnc project and
dcLorsu.no whether it requires ,-ori.TiL^onLs of rcs-ourci s. \--hich
arc irrovorsiblo or.ci irrauncvable in terms of tccr.r.olorjy and
reasonable economics and whccncr those cor.v.'.i tr.cn ts arc
warrsr.lac. Soc Senate Report, i.i.-jra,
(c) E.ic.1 atrcT.ey '/rue,'-. pi-o?ocu
-------
aRor.c.*, tne'City of Lu:';-:ir., to undertake t'.e sub:, tjnri,-!
costs related to ronovr.l. '>v:t.".ou:i t:nc. v'r.t'.srL.i:-:!."1.';, ti'.u
co~-T.it rent or land is irreversible c.nd irroLricvai/lc. I'-Jrthc-r,
the car._"i t:rc:i t of land to tno plant ar.cl pipe at the Saihuni
sito is u:vvan anted in vic-w OL the probability tKit pro^cctc-d
uror.r. dovoiopr-.oi-.t; will cr.uso ^runatura cbjn/.onrar.t hitnin
15 yc^rs. Soa Section III-A herein. Locating tr.e facility
at the Tor..?le Site will jncrcaso utilization of tr.c land
r^iourcos tliorcby ^u^tifyir.g tr.c co.?.viurcr.t.
2 . I'ro lp-'.v.~'Tt rrc^wCt '•/''.os •"•. Irrt:vu-r:->:bJc
and Irrotnova'^Iu Co Tit '.IP. t of '..'.it^r c.r.o. i.'ildliio ^.'sources
tthich is L-""rr"-.iL5d. Au show.i in Soct:on III-A herein, the
instant project will pollute the water of the receiving
strca-a anc d?..Tagc the wildlife, and ecolcg.' during the annual
cry ^or^ods a.-.d less frequent periods of flooding. Trese
losses are irri_vcrsia2e and irrctricv^alcr.
Furt/.or, this conv-itront of wi.ter ana \;jiolifc
is 'jr-'Ai-rrr-.Ttei 1:1 t!*.ct it coclt oo avoic-cd by J.oc^^i:.c tr.c
3 .
r.-.ci Jrrarricvaolf. Cc-.-.i tr-ir. ; o:T rir.c.nci:.l Pcso-rcci; ..vie- is
r.. The Ir.st.vit Project will rorjire ?. cor.-.iu-
.'.-^r.t of r ore -_ha:i S! ,0-'.3,00ri ior cor.st-ructior. of -^.-.a f.icil ity
E.r.d purchz.dc of land. Xucn o:" this coriniL:.;cnt is irreversiolc
ar.d irretr-.ov£ble in t.iat or.co the funds aj:c spent, z.~cy
cannot bo regained throuyli licjuiC.ition of tho rcci'.lcing asset.
Further, tnis cor.--.iit.-ont of financial rasourcac
is u-.«.;arrantec ir. tuat the probability that the projected
urar.r. cevalcpirunt will caxi^e pro:raturc aoa:~.do:i.'ont with in 15
ycar^. £c.c Section III-A herein. Locat:.fc.;j t>.i! facility
uz f.i Tcrpla oitc '..'ill incro^so utili::.'.'!.!^:! of tr.j r'irr.ncial
--IS-
-------
b. Tlic instant project will rvquiro a
further cora-ii tr.ent of financial resources not included in the
project coats in Lhat its location in the path of anticipated
growth of tJie City ol" Luffcin will cause the City to grc1./
in unusuol -patterns and ray sty.-.uc growtn. Sec Section III-3
heroin.
Further, this co.Tjnitr.cnt of financial resources
is unwarranted in that it could be avoided by locating the
facility at fie 7e-.-ple sito.
B. a'".o Nov.:: isor 3, 3971, Scatcricnt rails to ".-.ke
a Cornlor.i' r.-'d AccL'r.-"-J Ir.v3StT.c;.'.tioi of t'-'a Irrcvorsiole
and rrrv'tncv.-blj Co— .'it~cnt ^oc-uirocl by the ZTsta-iT: Pro-ic-ct
'.'.".Gtl'.or They aro l.'arrnntod. Tr.e Statement is incomplete
in that it failed to consider the hicr. cost r.nd irpracti,Ci.lit.y
of reclc.ration to restore the lend used to its natural state.
Tnc ^tatcrront is inaccurate in its conclusion that
the treatment facilities will erit a high c.-uality effluent.
This conclusion contradicts tr.e earlier findings, in the
Statertnt at pares 15 and 16 that t.ie cffluant airirtac by
the facility during dry periods will not r-eet Scc-te-facloral
standards for mr.Miir.ura pollution in streams. TAis conclusion
ignores the u.reat of substandard effluent posed oy the
potential of flooding at tr.e Bashu.? site.
The Statement is ir.corr.Tletc in that it coas not o.ajr.ine
whether the ".-ninor irretrievable CO.TJ^.I tr on ts of resources
t-^.at result frors construction" are warranted in terns of
utilization of the facility. The Statcr-.cnt is inaccurate
in labeling raw materials in construction as "^mor" since
tnc re*- ratcrials in tne plant and pipe are a substantial
portion of tne construction costs.
C. n-.o a ova rL or 3. 1973 Statement Tails to ^.alv=i'
Properly tr*c Data a re': C.i ve It Pro.'ar '..'jic'.'.t :T Itb nvnlv.ttio:'. .
Assu.-r.-r.f; t::at the Stater-ient eneorc-ej the instant pro^oct,
-------
its endorsement is based on a faulty analy .li., of i/.u data
a:-.J faulty evaluation. Tl-.i* State .sent rv.cle a faulty analysis
in finding t/.at the coinniitr.cnt of iVi/ fflotcrir.it in con-
struction was "minor" t%-hen in fict such raw nc.tor3.als arc
a substantial part of construction costs. The Statenor.t
nade a faulty analysis ir. recognising that rocla~orion
techniques will not salvage the value of raw materials and
not zocoijni^ir.g that raclc.:fij-ion techniques arc costly and
imoractic.il in restoring land to its natural stazc.
Tho Statorcr.t rado a faulty analysis in failing Co
consider the ratifications of the aor.ittcd cororit--.er.es of
land and water and wildlife resources. And, the Ststc.Ter.t
roace a faulty analysis in failing to consider tne financial
cosu-u.tT.snt required by the instant project.
The Stater.e:-.t racle a faulty evaluation in failing to
consider for aiy of the above poinxs vr.ether tr.e cc~Jits:.c:rt
is warranted in terr.s of utilization of the pro-jeer:.
D. ' Conclusion; 7he Stcto-.ont, havir.c, iailec to
ma^e tl'.o s-atutorily required findings, will not scjpcr;
federal subsidy of the instant project. The State~on=
should fine: chat the instant pro3cct recuiros irrcvorsiole ar.d
irretrievable co.T-Ticrer.ts wnich ara not warranter..
-------
J _..<-..
'. \-.f ,\, - '. i- . ,- r • .: ••.' '. •;
; • ••> bi • •».- .' :w • , • ' ' .,-!.
!.•.- c.- 'i.;' • .1"* • !> .- • - . ;• ;i /!
&wt*\'ikip. "i^CkC , • " ".ai,*.i
'., ••.-, c \ v - 1- ,. •> • •••.-.- •:•.•>.!
>'.. T.-->I ::'j V >• V <> . . <.• '<•' > < -'u •' . -- »
!MO i>o ... .s \i,'^ :. • i k1- ' » - -' -»" - : •>
- .'j : i : - k- i .•<•'• -v. ••' " 'c ' - •< ii"1"."-
f. -.0 o ;. • ,-r-. \ .- •-- •••>• -c •••«•". '....- . :•:: I
r. '^. r » -'.i :. i 'i< or :' ' »•' '
M c r.i'."i"i i.o".f. .» t'lio ••• " \ • ' "" •' t" " '" •
fi!\- -ij k-•...-•. i, c_; ..': ^ -.'-, •'..•. : .
: vr. k. -j :"i ; o s..t .-.k.-
^,«.v* , I.I V' "
;- . . .- c.' •> . .. r. " :
a. ~ . : c : ~f
:, -k . . .• . .: .:
».• .'£ ,..:''.
.- •.! c Jj .• . j .->
k\ • . • t f. ...
i'... - .-I.,,., i 1
•. ! ' - I :,' .,V. .-V..'
I," ' . S " ' -
•1 .> v .'•: i-, . - •: ^. -
*.-.:.-. • " • Ji.c
EXHIBIT D
-------
U. L. NLLSON i ASSOCIATES, INC.
Engineer-) a:id Architects
Dallas, Texas
December 29, 1971
Rancy, nrclsiord, Flock, Dcvereux & HuLchins
Artorrevs ~t Law
P. 0. Box 629
Tyler, Texas 75701
Gcntlcrien:
The fol]o'..'ing review corir>cnts arc supplied at-t.r.e
request of yoj and Mr. Joe Gi-jsor..
On page 6 of t^e Er.vii-oprroncoi I-pact Sratoi-c-nt
it is poirted OJE tr.ac ir-r-ric.i.-e Crcox, i-hich is a ro-
ccivir.t, szrcun £or t.-.c proposetl ^.aiw^ trojL~cr.t ?j tr.c
cffiv:o.-.c, is a cry ica-_.-.Gr r.-vrc^.T, or.t. flo-.s ir. tro
strewn \*iii ^c ccrpo-c-d Puinly or ^f.-'. ;:c;c. ciflucr1:.
The Tvj..as ".."c tor Ouality ?-o_rd ar.i the ::-.vircr.--.cnt.:.I
ProwCd.io.1 Afjj.-cy .u'vo oc'-^'olis.ied a sLroj.' i;;.ality
szanci^rd fo:~ tnc Xcchc^ i\ivor .josin in c^is c-roa of
•l.G ~.c/l uoj;,. ri-*o -propojcc! trur-f.cr.: f.-.ciiicy vcul«i
r.ceL to pc-e-w"-.h;c surcar' LU£.P.C^.I-C as an cfrluor.r stsncard
r.r.d .".oc c;-« 20 rg/1 SOGj J- oro.JOhec: _:i order ~o to i-
ccr.ior.-'-.ricc >.i.i.r 3-u--c ar.d federal rc.-:uiroro.*.Ls. ?.-.e
fact tr-t \-tv;r i.uali-Lv star-dr.rca \'iil net to r-;ei. by t.-.o
jropoi^i. pi.•;--.». i& poir.rco out. c.-. pr.-o 13 of T;.-.e ro^cru.
In orocr -i_c • .^c _ - -. .C ::$/l ".G^5 o-flucr- o^ar.ficrc, -
tertiary has^c troa;:.or.t facility \»iil r.eed co oe cor.-
struc^cd. Thi:-> is r.oc Lhic urc^cnc plor..
The Xecr.cs S:ver Cor.scrv.ttion District, the Dee?
East ^'exas Coutcil of Govc:/:ir.:or.t:a ar.d t.-.c Governor's
Office cf ?Ja.nr._r.g r.r.ve irciicacod a dare r.ced lor ro-jior.r.i
cc'..er plarr.ir.r IP. the Lui .ir.-^iboll rctrcpoiitar. co.v.ale::.
7hc plar. has. oocn func.ud by the Texas '.,"ccer C-aiity Bo_rd
and i£> currently ocing ior:-ulc.'_ed zy t'.is aoove ror.tior.5:i
agcr.cies. P.ny ccwagc tr«j.it:.ier.c. co^.^tri.otio:-. prior -o t.ie
davcloj^r cr.v 01 a river c.a.-.ir. plan vculcl oc a \.ai.co of
fecc-ral, szatc c.n2 local iur.da oocauoc tr.e se..er plar.t
cor.i.-ruction nay or rr.ay r.ot conform to the proposed river
basi:i plan.
-------
.<.-"<_"•, 3rcl si"crd, rioc;-., Devoroux i I.'utchir.i.
Socor-.cr 2-J, li'71
Tl-.e idesl locr.;:i::n for t.'o prcpoacd v^r-to tree: en".:
facility i:oulc: -c cz L.IU cc.".fluiiico 'or i iirnca.-.c Creak
c.r.d the >cc.-..is :.i\vr. 1V.i-> Iccition \ould :3roviic c;ra -it./
so. er jarvico to -.-.2 Citi of L-f\i:i, t_h= Cir. oJ ^;coll,
a iocLil ;u-ior coLie{-i o.r.d the urj>-.niz:rcj ;-.rc;- oor./cor.
Diboli ard Luf:_-. IV. is -Aoula d]jo sztisi/ the rcquirc-
r.a:it of tr.o rrviror.--c-.tai ?rowctio:: Arcrcy 1.0 cl.-'ir£-.a
the prolifora-wio-. ci sci'ar;o t_-oatrer.t. plants snc -.-c.^lc
provide a regio.-i = i jya>c-i t.-iac •. o_Ic .-V.CL -w.-.e scitcir
st;:r.c3£.:-dd of t. c Jt.2-.v= a.-J fcr.oral .-ove^:.-i.r.z. "J.-.c effl_er
require: erts of 20 r^/1 -0^5 \.ould be £Ci2-:u£.ze to rc^t :-.e
Szczc -crecn £_£.-.dard j'ecsu-e of rre 1-j^a d:lu~_or. * r*z;r
tr.at i Oulcl 3e s-.'^^iajle in tr.c Nccres Xivcr r.t t.'o pci.*~
of disc:%.ajrcc .
"?
As previously poir.tsC o-o- ir. t.-.o re-o:-t, .r.r ."._..-.
nurricrw Ie\c-.li ir. tne »c- ac-e efflua.-.t •. o^li. crar.ce -r.
prcf\:s>.?Iy ?r.cl i i^lc. ci._sj urs-'j^sly c.Zr.-.c -loa"^ r.r.i_
The J03cl, st:.>v' a.".c focicr^-.l r-cv^rr.-^rz \oulc c.-.v
ror.ey «y u^i-.f; Ic.i^-rc.r.v-^ ::i ami .-..- ir. c-i^ arce ro pro
fcr a rogior.-l =e-.'o.- syi.tcr to serve, t'-iw.- roircpcl.it.?.-.
area c:s is ^eirg required ir. ot/.er £,ect_cr.-; 01 fc 3w^
a.-.i r.acicr. .
If _/oj rc:..:irc £tlaiz:c/.£l cor.r-.cr.wS, plo;.so ic-visc.
Very truly /ours,
. *"• ' «. __ ^.'i v_'/
^-' ^ '. i i ' / i-
-j^-, \.« i.\, w'. I\
K03^:s7 c. KY:.I:, >'
Consulting f.gir.oar
3CX: jdi.
i'..c:: 2- EM.2 .r? c
-------