vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
November, 1983
Environmental
Impact Statement
Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area,
Ohio
Draft
-------
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:
5WFI
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND CITIZENS:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cleveland Southwest
Planning Area, Ohio, is provided for your information and review. This
EIS has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 and the subsequent regulations prepared by the Council on
Environmental Quality and this Agency.
Upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register on December 2, 1983, a
45-day comment period will begin. Please send written comments to the attention
of Harlan D. Hirt, Chief, Environmental Impact Section, 5WFI, at the above
address. A formal public hearing will be held during this period, for which you
will be sent a separate notice. You may submit comments either in writing or
at the public hearing, within the comment period.
Responses to the comments received on the Draft EIS will be included in the
Final EIS, which will be sent to all commentors and others who request it.
I welcome your participation in the EIS process for the Cleveland Southwest
Plannyng Area.
Sincerely yours
Valdas V. Adamkjs
Regional Administrator
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cleveland Southwest Suburban
Facilities Planning Area
Prepared by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Chicago, II 1 inois
with assistance from
ESEI, Inc.
South Bend, Indiana
November 1983
Valda^V. AdJmkus
Regional Administrator
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District (NEORSD) has
selected a regional interceptor as its cost-effective wastewater
treatment alternative to be constructed in the southwestern sub-
urbs of Cleveland, Ohio. The Facilities Plan expanded upon
recommendations in about a dozen earlier planning reports dating
back to 1966. Detailed alternatives and issues have been ana-
lyzed in a recent series of reports, culminating in the Final
Facilities Planning Report of October 1982. This Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS) focuses on this collection of
facilities planning reports and issues cited in the Notice of
Intent to prepare the EIS of July 23, 1976. Each issue was des-
cribed as follows in the Notice of Intent:
(a) Interbasin transfer and resultant low streamflow.
Treatment at Cleveland Southerly would divert stream-
flow from the Rocky River to the Cuyahoga River. This
may have an adverse impact during low flow periods.
Public water supply comes from Lake Erie, so present
streamflow has been augmented by lake water.
(b) Population figures plus water use. Inflow, infiltra-
tion, project phasing, sizing, and routing considera-
tions must be examined thoroughly to develop a cost-
effective project.
(c) Secondary impacts. Sewering areas presently on septic
tanks and other on-lot systems will result in an in-
creased growth potential for the area, with possible
impacts on natural resources and community services.
(d) Impacts on parklands. Part of the project routing has
been proposed through the existing Cleveland Metropol-
itan Park.
Since the Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS, EPA has worked
concurrenty with NEORSD and Ohio EPA to develop the EIS.
Planning Area
The Cleveland Southwest Facilities Planning Area (also known as
the Southwest Interceptor Planning Area) is located in Cuyahoga,
Lorain, Medina, and Summit Counties, Ohio. The planning area is
located west of the Cuyahoga River, in the Rocky River Basin and
contains approximately 195 square miles and encompasses 25 jur-
isdictions. The greatest portion of the planning area is
located in southwestern Cuyahoga County.
The project is a smaller part of the facilities planning area
and is composed of two subareas. The facilities planning area
was divided into subareas in order to improve analyses . Six
-------
specific subareas were identified for wastewater treatment, al-
ternatives. They are the Main Leg Area, West Leg Area, East Leg
Option Area, Medina "300" Option Area, Columbia Township Option
Area, and North Olmstead Option Area. The Main Leg and West Leg
Areas create the proposed project area. The option areas are
designated for future detailed wastewater facilities planning
after the year 2000 and are considered only in general in this
planning period.
Households and businesses in the Main Leg Area are serviced by
the overloaded Big Creek Interceptor. The West Leg Area has
major wastewater treatment plants, at Berea, Brook Park, Middle-
burg Heights and Strongsville "A"; several smaller plants and
on-site treatment systems in communities (predominantly Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Township) are not served by central sewerage
systems. The daily average flow at each major plant varies
between 1.0 million gallons a day (mgd) and 2.7 mgd. The EIS
primarily examines the alternatives for the Main Leg and West
Leg Areas . Alternatives for the option areas were reviewed and
evaluated as future possibilities.
Need for Project
The Draft Els evaluated the need for water quality improvements
in the service area. The Main Leg Area has inadequate sewer
capacity as reflected in the overloading of the Big Creek Inter-
ceptor. Major plants in the West Leg Area cannot meet their
final discharge permits for advanced (tertiary) treatment with-
out expansion and upgrading. Many smaller plants have similar
problems, and on-site treatment systems suffer from general
problems of design inadequacies and poor maintenance.
Population rapidly accelerated in the project area between 1950
and 1970. In these two decades project area population increased
130 percent and 80 percent respectively. The City of Cleveland
lost population during this period. Recent population data con-
tained in the Final Facilities Planning Report indicates that
the 1980 service area population was 162,613 for the Main Leg
Area and 72,993 for the West Leg Area for a total of 235,626.
Projected year 2000 population is about 284,000 residents. The
EIS concurs with the need for a wastewater treatment project due
to the overloadings and resultant bypasses from the Big Creek
Interceptor, the numerous problems in the West Leg Area caused
by the population increase and the inability of most West Leg
plants to meet their final discharge permits. The basis of the
discharge permit limits will be examined in Ohio EPA's forth-
coming Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
Alternatives Examined
Alternatives examined in this Draft EIS are identical to those
examined in the facilities plan:
-------
1) No Action -- continue use of about 30 treatment plants
and numerous on-lot treatment systems at present treat-
ment levels with no Federal funding for improvements.
2) Regional Interceptor — treat wastewater from the
southwest suburbs of Cleveland and remove the over-
load from the Big Creek Interceptor to treatmlent at
the existing Cleveland Southerly Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant (WWTP). This Southwest Interceptor would
consist of an 11 mile Main Leg, from Cleveland South-
erly west to the Hopkins Airport area and a six mile
West Leg basin to Strongsville "A". This alternative
would eliminate the four major plants, most minor
package plants and the Grayton Road pump station. The
Facilities Plan selects this alternative as being cost-
effective and proposes a maximum sewer size of 114-
inches to convey a peak flow of 527 mgd• Detailed
routing alternatives were evaluated for this alterna-
tive. Much of the project can be implemented with
tunneled construction techniques. The Main Leg would
cross the Cuyahoga River Valley with an aerial cross-
ing structure near existing railroad and sewer struc-
tures .
3) Two plants plus relief interceptor — treat wastewater
for the Rocky River portion of the project area at an
expanded and upgraded North Olmsted WWTP and for the
remaining project area use a smaller Main Leg Inter-
ceptor relief sewer to remove the overload from the Big
Creek Interceptor with continued treatment at the Cleve-
land Southerly WWTP.
4) Multi-plant plus relief interceptor -- treat wastewater
within the Rocky River project area at the upgraded and
expanded four major plants. The Big Creek Basin would
continue to be served at Cleveland Southerly, with a
smaller version of the Main Leg Interceptor relieving
the Big Creek Interceptor and treatment at the Cleve-
land Southerly WWTP.
5) Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township - Columbia Township --
Alternatives considered by detailed planning zones
include combinations of improved operation and mainte-
nance, upgrading or replacing on-site systems, cluster
systems, upgrading small package plants and centralized
collection and treatment. The preferred combinations
includes new sewers for Olmsted Falls and most adjacent
package plants, while improving on-site systems in the
outlying areas of Olmsted Township. If incorporated
into the Multi-Plant alternative, a new treatment facil-
ity would be built to serve this area. If included in
the Regional Interceptor alternative, wastewater would
be conveyed to the Southwest Interceptor.
111
-------
The EIS concurs with the facilities plan analysis that the no-
action alternative is not feasible since it presents no change
or alterations to remedy the water quality problems resulting
from existing conditions. Both the major and minor treatment
plants will not be able to achieve their final discharge permit
standards and will likely continue to violate interim dis-
charge permits during wet weather. Bypasses from the sewer
systems in the Big Creek tributary will continue to degrade
water quality. Local population growth will aggravate the
problem in the future.
Evaluation of Issues for the Regional Interceptor Alternative
The issue of interbasin transfer and resultant low streamflow
stems from the potential removal of wastewater from the project
area to the Southerly WWTP. Rapid development during the 1950's
and 1960's resulted in a proportionate increase in potable water
transported to the Planning Area from Lake Erie. The water was
locally discharged to the Rocky River. This situation of dis-
charging Lake Erie water into the Planning Area as wastewater
has increased flows in the Rocky River and resulted in the
Cleveland Water System indirectly augmenting the historical low
stream flow.
However, one municipality, the City of Berea, uses the East
Branch Rocky River as its source of potable water. Average daily
flow for the Berea Water Service is 2.5 mgd. In September 1981,
residents of Berea voted to retain and upgrade their water ser-
vice to 3.6 mgd. Construction is underway and completion of the
drinking water treatment facility is scheduled for late 1984.
Berea is upstream from most of the proposed project area. The
following chart presents the summary statistics on the before
project and after project flow effects on the Rocky River
assuming upstream development in 1990. Low flow is identified
as the least flow which occurs for seven days, once in ten
years, (Q? 10) and is expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Location
Rocky River Main Branch
Below Abram Creek &
North Olmsted WWTP
East Branch (mouth)
West Branch (mouth)
Without Project With Project
(cfs) (cfs)
50.49
9.46
17.46
34.33
5.69
11.67
Reduced flow impacts from the West Leg Interceptor in the Re-
gional alternative would be most noticeable in the 4.4 mile seg-
ment of the East Branch of the Rocky River between the Berea
WWTP and the confluence with the Main Branch of the Rocky River.
Conditions would be comparable to those in the 2 mile segment
between the Berea water supply and the Berea WWTP. The Berea
water supply and downstream portion of the East Branch of the
IV
-------
Rocky River may be severely affected if the East Leg option area
alternative is implemented. Detailed analyses will be necessary
if future facilities planning is initiated for an East Leg ser-
vice area.
In addition it was expected that low flow conditions could cause
aesthetic changes affecting real estate values and attractions
to waterbased activities in the Rocky River Reservation. Aes-
thetically, streams now entirely or partially composed of efflu-
ent due to the rise in residential development will revert to
their pre-1950 condition. Streams like Abram Creek, composed
almost entirely of effluent, are expected to become intermittent
streams. Changes of stream flows would be acceptable. Stream
water quality will improve, while stream depth will not be
noticeably affected.
The second issue involves sizing and cost-effectiveness of the
alternatives. Population is one critical sizing variable and
adjustments were made in the planning process to reflect the
1980 Census.
Population projections have not yet been completed by the 208
Agency, Northeast Ohio Area Coordinating Agency (NOACA). On the
basis of 1980 Census data, it is anticipated that updated and
approved NOACA projections will present lowest population pro-
jections for, and beyond, the year 2000.
Another variable is the removal of clearwater from the sewage
system. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) "have been extensively
studied in the facilities plan. Removal of 15 percent of the
I/I is cost-effective. A Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
is underway to plan detailed repairs to the sewer system. Some
of its results have been included in the development of this
EIS.
The most feasible non-selected alternative is the Multi-Plant
Alternative, with a total present worth cost of $338,001,600
(see Itemized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Present Worth Costs
below). This is about 15% higher ($43.8 million) than the total
present worth cost for the Southwest Interceptor Regional Alter-
native which is $294,165,600.ft The basic user charges for all
suburban planning area residents will be approximately the same,
based on metered water usages. Each community will have addi-
tional costs to rehabilitate and maintain the local sewers, pay
back existing debt, etc. Costs will be highest in Olmsted Falls
because of the need to construct a new sewer system to replace
on-site treatment units. Assuming 75% Federal funding, the user
charges are expected to range from 0.63% to 1.27% of the median
household income. The exception is the Olmsted Falls user
charge which is anticipated to be 1.92% of the median household
income because of the costs of new sewers. This user charge is
considered marginally high cost by EPA criteria.
* The Multi^plant Alternative would be less costly ($311.2 million) if tertiary
filtration is not required, however, the Southwest Interceptor is still the
cost-effective alternative for the 20-year planning period.
-------
ITEMIZED COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
Multi-Plant
Item Alternative SWI Alternative
CAPITAL COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 55,588,800
Main Leg Interceptor 76,159,500 $ 83,998,200
West Leg Interceptor 36,673,400
Connector Interceptors 3,212,800
Major Relief Sewers 28,000,000 28,000,000
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance 61,424,000 61,424,000
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement 11,788,000 11,788,000
Proposed Collector Sewers 7,677,900 7,677,900
Individual Home Systems 5,936,200 5,936,200
Sewer Rehabilitation 3,992,000 3,992,000
Decommissioning Local WWTP's ITI_-_ 600,000
Total $250,566,400 $243,302,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 42,870,200
Southerly WWTP 32,768,900 $ 40,937,500
Main Leg & Major Relief Sewers 2,991,100 2,991,100
West Leg and Connectors 1,878,300
Existing Sewers 29,414,700 29,414,700
Proposed Collector Sewers 214,000 214,000
Individual Home Systems 1,008,900 1,008,900
Local Debt Retirement 2,155,100 2,155,100
Total $111,422,900 $ 78,599,600
SALVAGE VALUE
Local WWTP's ($ 2,375,000) ($ 75,000)
Main Leg Interceptor ( 8,730,400) ( 9,624,900)
West Leg Interceptor ( 4,239,800)
Connector Interceptors ( 389,500)
Major Relief Sewers ( 3,175,400) ( 3,175,400)
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance ( 7,005,400) ( 7,005,400)
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement ( 1,333,100) ( 1,333,100)
Proposed Collector Sewers ( 1,155,800) ( 1,155,800)
Individual Home Systems ( 212,600) ( 212,600)
Local WWTP Modified Use -~^ J 525,000)
Total ($ 23,987,700) ($ 27,736,500)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $338,001,600 $294,165,600
DIFFERENCE +$ 43,836,000
-------
ITEMIZED COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
WITHOUT TERTIARY FILTRATION
Multi-Plant
Item Alternative SWI Alternative
CAPITAL COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 36,650,000
Main Leg Interceptor 76,159,500 $ 83,998,200
West Leg Interceptor 36,673,400
Connector Interceptors 3,212,800
Major Relief Sewers 28,000,000 28,000,000
Relief Sewers for I/T. Conveyance 61,424,000 61,424,000
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement 11,788,000 11,788,000
Proposed Collector Sewers 7,677,900 7,677,900
Individual Home Systems 5,936,200 5,936,200
Sewer Rehabilitation 3,992,000 3,992,000
Decommissioning Local WWTP's 600,000
Total $231,627,600 $243,302,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 34,320,000
Southerly WWTP 32,768,900 $ 40,937,500
Main Leg & Major Relief Sewers 2,991,100 2,991,100
West Leg and Connectors 1,878,300
Existing Sewers 29,414,700 29,414,700
Proposed Collector Sewers 214,000 214,000
Individual Home Systems 1,008,900 1,008,900
Local Debt Retirement 2,155,100 2,155,100
Total $102,872,000 $ 78,599,600
SALVAGE VALUE
Local WWTP's ($ 1,640,000) <$ 75,000)
Main Leg Interceptor ( 8,730,400) ( 9,624,900)
West Leg Interceptor ( 4,239,800)
Connector Interceptors ( 389,500)
Major Relief Sewers { 3,175,400) ( 3,175,400)
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance ( 7,005,400) ( 7,005,400)
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement ( 1,333,100) ( 1,333,100)
Proposed Collector Sewers ( 1,155,800) ( 1,155,800)
Individual Home Systems ( 212,600) ( 212,600)
Local WWTP Modified Use ( 525,000)
Total ($ 23,252,700) <$ 27,736,500)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $311,247,600 $294,165,600
DIFFERENCE +$ 17,082,000
VII
-------
Secondary impacts is the next concern listed in the Notice of
Intent. This concern has decreased in importance due to the
efforts undertaken during development of the facilities plan.
The reduction of the project scope from all communities in the
planning area to those municipalities in the Main Leg and West
Leg subareas has been determined to be reasonable as a result of
the EIS analysis. Secondary impacts in unsewered communities is
now focused primarily on households and businesses in the Olm-
sted Falls area and are not anticipated to be significant.
Impacts on area parklands is the final issue examined in the
EIS. This issue represented a concern for the continued attrac-
tiveness of the Cleveland Metropolitan Park System. The route
of the West Leg interceptor traverses the Rocky River Reserva-
tion at Berea and the East Branch of the Rocky River must be
crossed by open cut techniques. Tunneling is infeasible because
of the shallow depth necessary and the presence of unstable
materials. The connector sewer from the old Berea WWTP must
also traverse parkland. Mitigative measures are described in
the EIS and involve continued cooperation and discussion with
Metropark officials.
Conclusions
The Southwest Interceptor is the cost-effective environmentally
sound alternative for the Southwest Planning Area. It should be
combined with on-site system improvements and management in Olm-
sted Township and local sewer improvements to remove about 15
percent of I/I and to construct necessary local relief sewers.
Olmsted Falls should construct a sanitary sewer system.
The first portion of the Main Leg Interceptor is number 34 on
the Ohio priority list. The project is likely to receive 75%
Federal funding for construction, but Ohio EPA limits the amount
of funds which a grantee may receive each year. On-site systems
are eligible to receive a greater percentage of Federal funding
if public access and management are established. Prior to Octo-
ber 1, 1984, U.S. EPA may fund sewers sized for growth in the
next 20 years. After that date, funding will be available only
to accommodate the existing population.
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.
II.
Ill
IV.
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Appendices
INTRODUCTION
A. Planning Area
B. Purpose & Need for Project
C. Project History
D. EIS Issues
E. Public Participation
F. Draft EIS Distribution
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Climate
B. Topography & Drainage
C. Geology
D. Soils
E. Land Use
F. Groudwater
G. Surface Water
H. Potable Water
I. Biology
J. Cultural Resources
K. Regional Growth
EXISTING FACILITIES
A. Southerly Treatment Plant
B. Main Leg Area
C. West Leg Area
D. East Leg & Option Areas
E. Sewer System Evaluation (I/I, SSES)
F. Water Quality Impacts
G. Conclusions on the Need for Wastewater
Treatment Improvements
ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction
B. No Action
C. Treatment Process Alternatives
D. Treatment Plant Alternatives
E. System Collection & Treatment Alternatives
F. Conclusions
1-1
1-1
1-7
1-10
1-12
1-14
II-l
II-l
II-l
II-4
II-7
11-20
11-20
11-39
11-41
11-48
11-50
III-l
III-l
III-8
111-29
111-29
111-33
111-35
IV-1
1V-1
IV-1
IV-4
IV-5
IV-33
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
V. ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction V-l
B. Sizing V-1
C. Detailed Development of Southwest V-2
Interceptor Alternatives
D. Detailed Development of Multi-Plant
Alternative V-6
E. Monetary Comparison of Alternatives V-7
F. Non-Monetary Comparison of Alternatives V-14
G. Considerations Beyond the 20-Year
Planning Period V-45
H. Conclusions on Alternatives V-50
VI. IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
A. Recommended Alternative VI-1
B. Costs & Household Income VI-1
C. Environmental Conseguences VI-4
D. Implementation VI-11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Northeast Ohio Major Drainage Basins and
Political Units
1-2 Planning Area in the Rocky River Watershed
1-3 Sub-planning Areas Within Planning Areas
II-l Drainage Network
II-2 Steep Slopes
II-3 Soil Associations
II-4A Present Land Use
II-4B Present Land Use
II-4C Present Land Use
II-4D Present Land Use
II-5A Projected Land Use
II-5B Projected Land Use
II-5C Projected Land Use
II-5D Projected Land Use
II-6 Groundwater Availability
II-7 Floodplains
II-8 Water Quality Sampling Areas
II-9 Recreational Activity Areas
11-10 Water Districts
11-11 Prime Agricultural Areas & Wetlands
11-12 Natural Areas & Forestland
11-13 Biological Sampling Areas
11-14 SMSA Population 1910-1980
Page
1-3
1-4
1-6
II-2
II-3
II-5
II-8
II-9
11-10
11-11
11-16
11-17
11-18
11-19
11-22
11-31
11-32
11-38
11-40
11-42
11-43
11-45
11-55
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Figure Page
III-l Existing Treatment Facilities III-2
III-2 Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Diagram III-6
III-3 Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Existing Facilities III-7
III-4 Brook Park Wastewater Treatment Plant Exist-
ing Flow Diagram 111-12
III-5 Brook Park Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-13
III-6 Middleburg Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant
Existing Flow Diagram 111-15
III-7 Middleburg Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-16
III-8 Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant Existing
Flow Diagram 111-17
III-9 Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-18
111-10 Strongsville "A" WWTP Existing Flow Diagram 111-20
III-ll Strongsville "A" Wastewater Treatment Plant 111-21
IV-1 Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township Planning
Zones IV-6
IV-2 Gravity Collection to East WWTP Site Olmsted
Falls IV-9
IV-3 Gravity Collection to South WWTP Site Olmsted
Falls IV-10
IV-4 Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan
Multi-plant Alternative IV-16
IV-5 Berea WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-19
IV-6 Brook Park WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-21
IV-7 Middleburg Heights WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-22
xn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Figure Page
IV-8 Strongsville "A" WWTP Proposed Flow Diagram IV-24
IV-9 Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan Two
Plant Alternative IV-28
IV-10A East End Alignments of the Main Leg IV-30
IV-10B Main Leg Alignment IV-31
IV-10C West Leg Alignments IV-32
V-l Generalization of Flow Data V-3
V-3 Yearly Instantaneous Minimum Stream Flows
East/West Branch Confluence Rocky River V-21
V-3 Mean Daily Stream Flow East/West Branch
Confluence Rocky River V-22
VI-1 Southwest Interceptor Alternative VI-3
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Political Jurisdictions in Planning Area 1-2
1-2 Elevations & Stream Reach Distance for the
Rocky River Watershed 1-5
1-3 Public Advisory Group 1-13
1-4 Draft EIS Distribution List 1-15
II-l Tributary Acreage of Municipalities 11-12
II-2 Types of Land Use 11-12
II-3 List of Cleveland Metroparks 11-14
II-4 NOACA Projected Land Required for the Year
2000 Development 11-21
II-5 Average Stream Flow in Specific Reaches of
the Rocky River 11-24
II-6 Total Wastewater Effluent Discharge & Percentage
Contribution Made by West & East Leg Wastewater
Dischargers to Major Stream Reaches 11-25
I1-7 Effluent Loading to Rocky River by Medina
County Wastewater Treatment Plants 11-26
II-8 Total Effluent Discharge Within the Southwest
Interceptor Study Area 11-26
II-9 Percentage Occurrence of Specific Minimum
Flows from 1924-1964 in Rocky River 11-28
11-10 Percentage Occurrence of Specific Minimum
Flows from 1965-1980 in Rocky River 11-28
11-11 Duration of Low Flow Within the Rocky River
Based on 1924-1975 USGS Data 11-29
11-12 Correlation of Precipitation to Flow in the
Rocky River 11-30
11-13 Locations of Stream Sampling Stations & Major
Treatment Plant Sampling Stations 11-33
11-14 Generalized List of Analysis Requirements 11-34
11-15 Water Quality Data for the Cuyahoga River at
Independence, Ohio 11-36
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table Page
11-16 Diversity & Equitability Indices for Rocky
River Benthic Communities Sampled on October
28-29, 1981 11-46
11-17 National Register of Historic Places 11-49
11-18 County Populations with 1985-2000 Projections
& Growth Rates (NOACA 208) 11-51
11-19 Projected Community Population 11-53
11-20 Employment Trends in Five Non-agricultural
Industries 1960-1980 11-57
III-l Final Effluent Limitations III-3
III-2 Interim Effluent Limitations III-5
III-3 Point Source Wastewater Dischargers Within
the Planning Area - West Leg III-9
III-4 Dry Weather WWTP Discharges to Rocky River 111-10
III-5 Existing Sewer Service Areas 111-26
III-6 East Leg/Option Area Treatment Plants 111-30
IV-1 Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Townshiip Summary of
Preliminary Screening of Alternatives IV-7
IV-2 Present Worth Comparison of Sub-Regional
Collection & Treatment Alternatives IV-11
IV-3 Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township Alternatives
Summary by Zone IV-14
IV-4 Berea WWTP Estimated Construction Cost IV-17
IV-5 Berea WWTP Estimated Annual O&M Costs IV-17
IV-6 Brook Park WWTP Estimated Construction Cost IV-20
IV-7 Brook Park WWTP Estimated Annual O&M Costs IV-20
IV-8 Middleburg Heights WWTP Estimated Construc-
tion Cost IV-23
IV-9 Middleburg Heights WWTP Estimated Annual O&M
Costs IV-23
XV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table Page
IV-10 Strongsville "A" WWTP Estimated Construction
Cost IV-25
IV-11 Strongsville "A" WWTP Estimated Annual O&M
Costs IV-25
IV-12 Revised Construction Operation & Maintenance
Costs IV-26
IV-13 Total Present Worth Costs for the Multi-Plant
Alternative IV-27
V-l Itemized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis - Present
Worth Costs V-8
V-2 User Charge Rate Comparison - No Federal Funding V-10
V-3 User Charge Rate Comparison - 55% Federal Funding V-ll
V-4 User Charge Rate Comparison - 75% Federal Funding V-12
V-5 User Charge Rate Comparison - NEORSD @75% Federal
Funding & Local WWTP's @ No Federal Funding V-13
V-6 1980 Median Household Income V-15
V-7 Financial Capability Analysis V-16
V-8 Dry Weather WWTP Discharges to Rocky River V-24
V-9 Impact of SWI West Leg on Q7,10 Stream Flow in
the East & West Branches, Rocky River V-26
V-10 Impact of SWI West Leg on Q7,10 Stream Flow in
Main Branch, Rocky River V-27
V-ll Water Depth at the Benthic Sampling Stations
Investigated on October 28-29, 1981 V-30
V-12 Relationship Between Discharge & Water Depth at
the USGS Gauge (East/West Branch Confluence)
During Low Flow Periods V-30
V-13 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-No Action Alternative-Existing Waste-
water Flows V-31
XVI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table Page
V-14 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-No Action Alternative-Year 2005 Waste-
Water Flows V-31
V-15 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-Upgraded/Expanded Local WWTP's-Year
2005 Wastewater Flows V-32
V-16 Pollutant Loadings to Rocky River from SWI
Area-SWI West Leg-Year 2005 Wastewater Flows V-32
V-17 SWI Summary of Pollutant Loadings to Rocky
River West Leg Alternatives V-34
V-18 Energy Use V-45
V-19 Incremental Costs Southwest Interceptor
Option Areas V-46
V-20 Option Area Overview Stream Flow Impacts V-48
VI-1 Communities Serviced by Southwest Interceptor VI-2
VI-2 Projected Annual Charges - Southwest Intercep-
tor Alternative VI-4
XVll
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Summary of Water Quality Data for RocXy River Basin
B Alternative Treatment Process Specifications
C Index
xvi 11
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
-------
I . INTRODUCTION
I.A. Planning Area
The Cleveland Southwest facilities planning area (also called the
Southwest planning area) is located in Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina
and Summit Counties, Ohio. The greatest portion of the planning
area is located in southwestern Cuyahoga County. The planning
area contains approximately 195 square miles and encompasses the
political jurisdictions identified in Table 1-1. The planning
area, in relation to the surrounding area is shown in Figure 1-1.
The planning area is drained by the Rocky and Cuyahoga Rivers,
with the Rocky River draining the largest portion of the area
(Figure 1-2). The Rocky River Basin drains an area of 294 square
miles. Its river system consists of two major branches, East
Branch and West Branch, and several smaller tributaries. The
confluence of these two branches is located in North Olmsted.
From the confluence, the river continues in a northeasterly
direction for 12.4 miles until it discharges into Lake Erie. The
East Branch drains the northeast section of Medina County, the
northwest section of Summit County and the southwest section of
Cuyahoga County. The West Branch drains the north central sec-
tion of Medina County, the extreme eastern section of Lorain
County and the western section of Cuyahoga County. Data pertain-
ing to the branches and tributaries of Rocky River are listed on
Table 1-2. The eastern portion of the planning area is drained
by Big Creek which flows into the Cuyahoga River.
The facilities planning area was divided into sub-planning areas
in order to improve analyses. Six specific sub-areas were iden-
tified and wastewater treatment alternatives were developed for
each. The six are; Main Leg Area, West Leg Area, East Leg Option
Area, Medina "300" Option Area, Columbia Township Option Area,
and North Olmsted Option Area. (Figure 1-3). The Southwest Area
Final Facilities Planning Report cross references these sub-areas
with six slightly different subareas described in the earlier
Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities
Plan.
I.E. Purpose and Need for Project
There is inadequate sewer capacity in the northern part of the
facilities planning area. This area is serviced by the Big Creek
Interceptor and the Grayton Road Pump Station. Combined sewers
throughout the Big Creek area lead to particularly acute problems
during wet weather. The Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea and
Strongsville "A" plants cannot meet their final discharge permits
for advanced treatment ("tertiary") without expansion and upgrad-
ing (see Section III.C.I). Many of the smaller treatment plants
have similar problems. On-site treatment systems frequently
suffer from inadequate design, constrained locations, or poor
maintenance. Sewers in the area have a general problem with in-
filtration and inflow. Infiltration is defined as clear water
leaking into the sewers through cracks or joints. Inflow is
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS IN PLANNING AREA
Political Entity
Cuyahoga County
Berea
Brecksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brook Park
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Heights
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Olmsted
Olmsted Township
Fairview Park
Parma
Parma Heights
Riveredge
Seven Hills
Strongsville
Medina County
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills
Granger Township
Hinckley Township
Existing Treatment Facility
City Treatment Plant
Septic Tanks
Septic Tanks
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly & City Plant
NEORSD Southerly & City Plant
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly & City Plant
City Plant
NEORSD Southerly, City Plant "A"
and "B" & Septic Tanks
Private Plants, Septic Tanks
Private Systems, Septic Tanks &
North Olmsted
North Olmsted
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
NEORSD Southerly
City Plant "B" & "C", NEORSD
Plant "A"
Medina Co. #300
Medina Co. #300 & Septic Tanks
Private Systems & Septic Tanks
Private Systems & Septic Tanks
Lorain County
Columbia Township
Private Systems & Septic Tanks
Summit County
Richfield Township
Septic Tanks
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues:
Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River,
NEORSD, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
1-2
-------
NORTHEAST OHIO MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND POLITICAL UNITS
County Boundary
Drainage Basin Boundary
Political Units Boundary
Township Boundary
GRAND RIVER BASIN;
BLACK RIVER BASIN
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
PLANNING AREA IN THE ROCKY RIVER WATERSHED
City of Cleveland
Planning Area
Watershed
Boundary
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Report On WWTP Effluent Impact On Streams
Figure 1-2
-------
Table 1-2
ELEVATIONS AND STREAM REACH DISTANCES FOR THE ROCKY RIVER WATERSHED
Stream Name
Rocky River
Abrara Creek
East Branch
Baldwin Creek
West Branch
Plum Creek
Baker Creek
Length
(Miles)
48.0
7.4
34.5
9.2
36.2
14.8
8.2
Elev. at
Source
1,230
860
1,221
1,250
1,230
950
1,120
Elev. at
Mouth
573
642
650
755
650
707
738
Aver. Fall
Ft/Mile
13.7
29.4
16.5
53.8
16.0
16.4
45.7
Drainage
Square Miles
294.0
10.06
80.4
11.94
188.3
18.9
5.81
*Elevations in feet above mean sea level.
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues; Report on Flow Distribution Inpact on
Rocky River, NEORSD, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
-------
PLANNING AREA
01
PLANNING
AREA BOUNDARY
-n
=5'
c
*i
CD
CO
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
MA
-------
defined as clear water entering the sanitary sewers through roof
drains or other sources, generally during rainfall periods. In-
filtration/inflow compounds the treatment problem during rainy
periods by causing hydraulic overloads at the treatment plants.
These problems will be explained in detail in Chapter III.
These and other water pollution problems require the identifica-
tion and examination of treatment and collection alternatives to
improve conditions. This will be followed by the implementation
of the most cost effective alternative. Funding for this project
is anticipated to be available under Section 201 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) as amended by the Clean
Water Act (PL 95-217). Additional discussions on funding are
presented in Chapter VI.
I.e. Project History
The concept of regional sewer service for the southwest suburbs
of Cleveland was developed in the Preliminary Survey of Water
Pollution for the City of Cleveland, published in 1966.
Havens & Emerson, Ltd., included this survey in their investiga-
tion of water pollution problems in the Greater Cleveland area
and published their analysis in 1968 as the City of Cleveland
Water Improvement Master Plan. The Master Plan identified two
significant problems. These were the inefficiency of wastewater
treatment in the Southwest Cleveland area, and heavy overloading
of the Big Creek Interceptor. The City of Cleveland then com-
missioned the Preliminary Design Report - Southwest Suburban
Sanitary Interceptor Sewer study to determine the most cost-
effective solution to the water quality problem. Two other
design documents addressed specific portions of the proposed
interceptor. They were:
0 Preliminary Design Report, Southwest Suburban Sanitary
Interceptor System, West Leg, City of Cleveland, 1972
0 Preliminary Design Report, Southwest Suburban Sanitary
Interceptor System, East Leg, City of Cleveland, 1972.
The original scope of the Southwest Suburban Sanitary Interceptor
report did not pertain to dischargers in the Rocky River area.
The Northeast Ohio Water Development Plan of 1972 recommended
that the Central Rocky River Basin be included in the Southwest
Interceptor service area. This recommendation was based on econ-
omic and environmental factors. The Three Rivers Watershed Dis-
trict commissioned the Wastewater Management in the Rocky River
Basin Report (1974) which studied the inclusion of the Rocky
River Basin in the Southwest Interceptor plan. Also, in 1972,
the Cleveland Regional Sewer District (CRSD), now known as the
Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District (NEORSD), was created
by order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. CRSD
assumed responsibility for wastewater management planning in the
1-7
-------
Southwest Planning Area. Shortly thereafter, CRSD obtained a
Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant for the project under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public
Law 92-500), later amended by the Clean Water Act. As a result,
the following documents were produced:
° Draft Environmental Assessment for the Southwest Suburban
Sanitary Interceptor System, Cleveland Regional Sewer
District, 1974, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
0 Southwest Suburban Interceptor, Cleveland, Ohio, I/I
Analysis Flow-Monitoring Report/ Cleveland Regional Sewer
District and Alden E. Stilson & Associates, 1978, Ameri-
can Digital Systems, Inc.
0 Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the Southwest Interceptor
Phase I Service Area (Draft Copy), Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan/Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Chapters 1 and 2, Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan/Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Chapter 3, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan/Environmental Im-
pact Statement, Chapters 4 and 5, Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1979, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/
Facilities Plan (3 Volumes, plus Maps),Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates.
Reviews of the documents by Ohio EPA and USEPA resulted in num-
erous comments and subsequent requests for clarification. This
suggested that additional planning efforts were necessary in
order to resolve the remaining issues raised by the reviewers
and to provide the technical basis for the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Consequently, NEORSD retained Havens and Emer-
son to evaluate the existing planning documents, review the Ohio
EPA and USEPA comments, and define the additional tasks needed
to complete the project. This resulted in a report entitled
Overview of Current Status, Southwest Interceptor, February,
1981. NEORSD used this report as the basis for developing a
plan of study, procuring professional engineering services, and
obtaining an amendment to its Step 1 Facilities Planning Grant.
Additional documents produced by NEORSD include the following:
Water Quality Issues Investigation
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues: Waste-
water Treatment Plant Evaluation Report, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
1-8
-------
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues; Report
on WWTP Effluent Impact on Streams, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
° Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues: Report
on Septic Tank Effluent Impact on Streams, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Water Quality Issues; Report
on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Polytech, Inc.
These products have been consolidated into a Final Water Quality
Report containing refinements resulting from reviews by Ohio
EPA, USEPA, and local interests.
Cost-Effective Analysis
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning
Report, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982,
John David Jones & Associates, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Population Update Report,
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, John David
Jones & Associates, Inc.
0 Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis; Local
Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls,
Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township,
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, John David
Jones & Associates, Inc.
Advanced facilities planning for the Main Leg of the Southwest
Interceptor will soon end and a Final Summary Report will be
produced. This report will show those preliminary design activ-
ities which can be accomplished without knowing the final size
of the interceptor, i.e., field surveying, subsurface investiga-
tions, site plans, etc. The Final Summary has generated the
following products:
0 Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement -
Facilities Plan - Infiltration/Inflow Analysis,North-
east Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson
& Associates. (A final composite printing of information
previously prepared.)
0 Visual Inspection of Big Creek Interceptor Sewer; Cuyahoga
Valley Crossing and Trestle^Jo. 2, Northeast Ohio Region-
al Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
0 Southwest Interceptor; Preliminary Contract Selection
and Shaft Site Study Report, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, 1982, Jenny Engineering Corporation.
1-9
-------
0 Southwest Interceptor; East End Trade-Off Studies,
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District/ 1982, Jenny
Engineering Corporation.
0 Southwest Interceptor; Preliminary Subsurface Investi-
gation for West Leg Interceptor, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, 1982, Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
0 Southwest Interceptor Subsurface Investigation for Main
Leg Preliminary Alignment, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District,1982,Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
° Southwest Interceptor; Main Leg Alternate Design Input
to Cost-Effective Analysis, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Advanced Facilities Planning for the Southwest Intercep-
tor West Leg, Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District,
1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates.
° Southwest Interceptor; Preliminary Research Report on
Hydraulics for Drop Structures, Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson & Associates,
Jenny Engineering Corporation.
° Advanced Facilities Planning for the Southwest Intercep-
tor Crossing the Cuyahoga River Valley, Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates .
0 Southwest Interceptor; Final Alignment Report, Northeast
Ohio Regional Sewer District, 1982, Alden E. Stilson &
Associates .
NEORSD has provided additional explanations and analyses in
response to U.S. EPA, Ohio EPA, and Public Advisory Group
questions and comments on water quality, cost-effectiveness and
other issue areas.
I.D. EIS Issues
On July 23, 1976, the USEPA announced its decision to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Southwest Suburban
Cleveland project. EPA identified four major issues with its
decision. These were:
I.D.I. Interbasin Transfer
Presently, effluent from wastewater treatment plants in the Rocky
River basin is discharged to the Rocky River. If an interceptor
is constructed in the Rocky River Basin to convey wastewater to
the Southerly Wastewater Treatment plant (on the Cuyahoga River)
stream flows may be affected. The interbasin transfer of water
may have an impact on the quantity and quality of the water of
the river. This may be particularly troublesome during low stream
flow. An additional consideration for interbasin transfer is the
impact on the City of Berea's water supply. Presently, the City
derives its drinking water from the Rocky River.
1-10
-------
I .D.2. Population, Sizing and Cost-Effectiveness
Any alternative must be adequately sized in order to serve exist-
ing population and expected population increases over the plan-
ning period. Similarly an alternative should not be over
designed. Population, water use, sewer inflow and infiltration
and project phasing all contribute to the final size of the al-
ternative. Therefore, it is critical that the chosen alternative
is a cost-effective alternative; one that achieves the greatest
environmental objectives for the least cost (construction,
operation, maintenance and component replacement costs), without
creating significant environmental problems.
I.D.3. Secondary Impacts
Primary impacts occur as a direct result of construction activ-
ities. Secondary impacts however, are a direct result of growth
induced by another activity, for example residential development
due to newly constructed sewers. If a previously unsewered area
is sewered, development pressures usually follow. As more growth
occurs, natural resources may be destroyed, stressed or depleted,
community services can be strained and other detrimental impacts
could result. Potential secondary impacts on the unsewered
communities in the planning area will be considered.
I.D.4. Parkland Impacts
If the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant is enlarged or if a large
interceptor is constructed, expansion into existing Cleveland
Metroparks parkland may occur. This could severely impact the
amount and character of the parkland.
While general understanding of these four issues has increased
since 1976, USEPA remains concerned. Areas of community public
interest in these years have included the interbasin transfer,
Berea water supply issue, degraded Rocky River conditions, and
the economic issues of unemployment among treatment plant workers
if a regional treatment system is implemented. Project afford-
ability is of concern throughout the study area. Political
automony implications may be of concern in communities which are
not presently a part of NEORSD.
This EIS has been prepared in a format which emphasizes the
issues identified above more than standard facilities planning
concerns. Because of this, not all topics are discussed
uniformly and there are many references to the larger effort of
facilities planning. To avoid unnecessary delay, USEPA pre-
pared this EIS concurrent with the Facilities Plan. Since 1976,
both USEPA and Ohio EPA have been involved in a continuing series
of facilities planning/EIS meetings with the Northeast Ohio
Regional Sewer District (Cleveland Regional Sewer District).
A Federal agency is required to prepare an EIS when proposed
actions may significantly affect the qualiity of the human envi-
ronment. In this case, the EPA proposed action would be approv-
ing the Facilities Plan for the Southwest Planning Area and pro-
1-11
-------
viding a funding grant for the construction of wastewater treat-
ment improvements.
I.E. Public Participation
I.E.I. Facilities Planning
Public meetings have been held during the course of the facili-
ties planning in 1978 and 1982. NEORSD holds regular meetings
with the mayors of communities in the Southwest Planning Area to
discuss topics of common concern and wastewater treatment needs.
The formal public hearing on the Facilities Plan was held on
January 26, 1983.
I.E.2. Public Advisory Group
A Public Advisory Group (PAG) was established early in 1982 as
part of the facilities planning and EIS process. The PAG is com-
posed of members representing public officials, public interest
groups, economic interests and private citizens from the planning
area. Table 1-3 presents the roster of members. The group had
monthly sessions to familiarize itself with the facilities plan-
ning effort and to identify and discuss project related issues
and concerns. Many members have also served on sub-committees to
explore economic, environmental and public participation matters
in detail. We greatly appreciate the members' hard work and good
ideas .
The PAG acknowledged their acceptance of the project at the
general meeting on January 19, 1983 and again at the Public Hear-
ing on January 26, 1983. However, some concerns remained. Though
the environmental issues were acceptable to the Environmental
Committee, they presented four concerns relating to costs. These
concerns dealt with:
1) the need to have sewer charges as the basis for cost-
effectiveness analysis to develop real end-user costs
2) a desire for future employment considerations for those
employees in the WWTPs that would be abandoned
3) a buy-off of existing bonds on WWTPs that might be
abandoned, and
4) the impact on the PAG's acceptability of economic
choices should changes occur in water-quality standards
After the Public Hearing, these concerns were addressed or clari-
fied along with other comments voiced at this hearing. Responses
to written comments subsequent to the Public Hearing were also
completed. All responses were developed by NEORSD and presented
to the PAG on June 1, 1983 in conjunction with a revised cost-
effectiveness analysis and a low-stream flow impact analysis. No
opposition was voiced. The PAG voiced that the issues are complex
and conveying them to the general public is necessary though
difficult. The data were forwarded to USEPA and are incorporated
into this Draft EIS, where applicable.
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-3
PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP
Public Officials
John J. Garner, Cuyahoga County
Robert Stackhouse, Olmsted Township
Paul McCumbers, Berea
Mayor Walter Ehrnfelt, Strongsville
Dean Hitchens, Columbia Township
Tony Smajdek, Brook Park
Mayor Williams Mahoney, Jr., Olmsted Falls
Mayor Gary Starr, Middleburg Heights
Public Interest Groups
Dennis Svozil, Cleveland Jaycees
Roger Mintz, Sierra Club
Jeannie Evans, Southwest League of Women Voters
Terry Ries, Cleveland Metroparks
David Brose, Cleveland Museum of Natural History
Dave Miano, Keelhaulers Canoe Club
Economic Interests
Elmer Synek, Cleveland Area Board of Realtors
Darwin Lindsley, J.I. Holcomb Manufacturing
Tom Butler, Ohio Contractors Association
Minor George, Building Industry Association
Alex Bene, Ford Motor Company
Dan Larson, NASA Research Center
Carol Doskocil, National Association of Women in Construction
Thomas Gagen, Park Industries
Private Citizens
John Talmage, Parma Heights
Tony Dattilo, Berea
James Slough, Parma Heights
Richard Holden, Olmsted Township
Sue Adams, Berea
Michael McManus, Brook Park
Steven Pressman, Cleveland
Source: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
1-13
-------
I.E.3. EIS Hearing and Comment Period
The Public Hearing on this Draft EIS will be held 30 days after
this document becomes available as announced in the Federal
Register. Refer to the front of this volume for details. The
minimum comment period on an EIS is 45 days, running concurrently
with the 30-day period prior to the Public Hearing. Your written
comments to EPA Region V on the EIS are encouraged, as is your
attendance at the hearing.
I.E.4. Future EIS Events
After the close of the Draft EIS comment period, the Final EIS
will be prepared. The Final EIS will consider the comments
received on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS will be circulated to
those who express interest in receiving it or who have submitted
comments on the Draft EIS.
When the Final EIS is issued, there will be a 30-day minimum
waiting period before USEPA can approve the Facilities Plan or
award a project grant. Once USEPA determines its action, a
Record of Decision describing this action will be circulated to
those who received the Final EIS. At that point, the EIS process
is concluded.
I.F. Draft EIS Distribution
Table 1-4 presents the distribution list for the Draft EIS.
1-14
-------
TABLE 1-4
DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST: PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND OFFICES
H
I
Honorable John H. Glenn, Jr.
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Edward Feighan
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Ohio Department of Health
246 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio Department of Agriculture
65 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43218
State of Ohio
Office of Budget & Management
30 East Broad Street
(39th & 40th Firs.)
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Department HUD
New Federal Building
200 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Waste Management &
Engineering
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Honorable Howard M. Metzenbaum
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Ohio Dept. of Economical
& Commercial Development
30 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Eastern District Office
Westlake, Ohio 44145
Mr. Wesley King, Chief
EPA Construction Division
Corps of Engineers
502 - 8th Street
Huntington, WV 25701
Chief Div. of Parks S Rec.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio 43224
Great Lakes Water Quality Board
of the International Joint Comm.
1717 H. Street N.W. Room 203
Washington, D.C. 20440
Thomas Gilmartin, Chairman
Committee on Energy & Environment
State House
Columbus, OH 43216
Honorable Louis Stokes
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Mary Rose Oakar
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Honorable Richard Celeste
Office of the Governor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Planning
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Ohio Department of Transportation
25 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio Attorney General
Environmental Law Section
30 East Broad Street
Attn. Anthony J. Celebrezze
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Fountain Square
Attn: Chief, Div. of Planning
Columbus, OH 43224
Eugene Branstool, Chairman
Committee on Resources, Energy &
Environment - State House
Columbus, Ohio 43216
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.A. Climate
Average annual precipitation, as measured at the Cleveland Hop-
kins Airport, is approximately 35 inches per year. This includes
a 50.5 inch average snow accumulation. The average precipitation
for the Cleveland area is comparable to other metropolitan areas
in states immediately south of the Great Lakes . October through
April are usually the months of lowest precipitation. May through
September generally receive the highest precipitation. Of the
mean annual precipitation, about one third runs off to streams.
Thus evaporation, transpiration and infiltration account for
about two thirds of the precipitation value. Further climate
information is presented in Section II of the Southwest Inter-
ceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I and in the Report on Flow Distri-
bution Impact on Rocky River, Section IV.
II.B. Topography and Drainage
The planning area lies within the Rocky River and Cuyahoga River
basins. Both basins are part of the Southern Lake Erie Water-
shed. The rivers drain directly to Lake Erie. The East and West
branches of the Rocky River and their tributaries are shown in
Figure II-l. As seen in Figure II-2, the branches of the Rocky
River lie in steep, narrow gorges.
II.C. Geology
The study area lies within the Till Plain physiographic province
of Ohio. This is an area where bedrock has been overlain by a
relatively smooth veneer of glacial till. The till is dissected
by a number of watercourses.
Bedrock in the region consists of rock from the Devonian, Missis-
sippian and Pennsylvanian geologic periods. Major outcroppings
of these three systems occur along river valleys. Devonian rocks
are of marine origin and include dolomites, limestones, shales
and sandstone in beds ranging from 700-800 feet in thickness.
Oil and gas deposits as well as fossiliferous units are common.
Mississippian rocks include shales, sandstones and inter-combina-
tions of shales and sandstones. Bedford shale, Cleveland shale,
Berea sandstone and Cussewago sandstone materials compose a bed
approximately 1,000 feet thick. This bed is rich in fossils and
is an effective reservoir for oil and gas. Several fresh water
aquifers, which vary in capacity are found in this bed material.
The Pennsylvanian system is about 1,100 feet thick and contains
shales, sandstones, siltstones, coals, clays and limestones.
The entire region has been covered by at least two glaciers .
Drift from the Illinoian and Wisconsin glaciers occurs in various
areas . Glacial relics from the older Kansan and Nebraskan periods
have not been located. Except for limited deposits of recent
alluvium bordering the East Branch of the Rocky River, the over-
burden is ground moraine composed of a Wisconsin till unit known
II-l
-------
DRAINAGE NETWORK
Chagrin
River Basin
Cuyahoga
River
Basin
Rocky
River Basin
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
II-'
Figure II-1
-------
STEEP SLOPES
I
I VEIGH* GARFIELO
HEIGHTS
I
MEDINA
COUNTY
j :
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
as Hiram Till. Hiram Till consists of generally cohesive soils
containing a significant granular fraction and also lenses of
sand and gravel.
The planning area has a relatively deep buried valley believed to
have been a part of the Teays drainage system which predated the
Illinoian glaciation. This buried valley enters Cuyahoga County
near a point where Ridge Road and the Rocky River intersect the
Cuyahoga-Medina County line. From this point the buried valley
extends in a northwest direction curving northward along the east
side of the City of Berea. The floor of the buried valley is
estimated to be 300-600 feet below the existing ground surface.
The Cleveland area has experienced six earthquakes of IV-VI
intensity on the 12-point Modified Mercalli Scale between 1906
and 1965. The area is in line with a projection of the fault
line running from the St. Lawrence River southwest to Missouri.
Other portions of this line, near Anna, Ohio, are more seismolog-
ically active (Edward A. Bradley and Theron J. Bennett. 1965.
Earthquake History of Ohio. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America. 55 (4): 745-752).
II.D. Soils
The parent material of the study area soils is predominantly low
lime glacial till of the Wisconsin age. Portions of the soils
near Lake Erie are composed of low lime marine material. Soils
developed on glacial till are classified as members of the
Mahoning-Trumbull or Mahoning-Ellsworth Associations. These soils
are generally light in color, poorly drained, low in fertility
and organic matter and highly acidic. They are cohesive soils
with a significant fraction of granular material and contain some
glacial outwash deposits of sand and gravel.
High water table conditions occur in late winter and early spring
on these associations due to the presence of fragipan or other
impermeable layers in the subsoil. Low permeability and low
water storage capacity are characteristics of much of the subsoil
in this area.
Soils developed in the glacial lake sediments of the Lake Plain
and the Rocky River and Cuyahoga River Valleys are underlain with
water bearing sands and silts. These soils are very unstable
when saturated and exposed. Soils in this locality are included
in the Mahoning-Haskins-Allis Associations.
The six basic soil units found within the study area are des-
cribed below. These are mapped in Figure II-3.
II.D.I. Mahoning Soil
The Mahoning soils are primarily located in the nearly level to
gently sloping areas of Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and Col-
umbia Township. Portions of this area have been developed for
residential, business and industrial use.
II-4
-------
SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
AVON
EOONIA
LEGEND:
Mahoning Soil
Ellsworth Soil
Ellsworth
(Steep Phase)
Chili Soil
Caneadea Soil
Lobdell Soil
Scale in Miles
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
The Mahoning soils are severely limited for most urban purposes
because of seasonally high groundwater table and very low permea-
bility. Basements built below grade are subject to wetness.
Storm sewers, footer drains, surface drains and tile drainage
help to lower the high groundwater table and reduce ponding of
water. Bare areas produce high amounts of runoff and sediment.
Fill and drainage are required for roads constructed on these
soils.
II.D.2. Ellsworth Soil
The Ellsworth soils dominate the study area occurring in Strongs-
ville, North Royalton, Parma, Parma Heights, Seven Hills, Bruns-
wick and Hinckley. Most of the area is classified as urban land
complex.
The soils have moderate limitations for most urban purposes
because of seasonal high groundwater table, very slow permeabil-
ity and erosion hazard. Basements are subject to wetness. Storm
sewers and footer drains help alleviate seasonal high groundwater
table. Bare areas produce high amounts of runoff and sediment.
Adequate drainage improves road construction.
II.D.3. Ellsworth (Steep Phase)
These soils are mainly located along the Cuyahoga River and its
tributaries which flow in deeply trenched valleys . Differences
in elevation of 150 to 250 feet generate slopes from 35 to 70
percent. Many of these areas are unstable and subject to slip-
page. Slip scars and leaning trees are evidence of the land-
slides, which occur mostly in the winter and spring when the
soils are saturated.
II.D.4. Chili Soils
These soils are primarily located along the Rocky River and
Cuyahoga River terraces and outwash plains. Permeability is
moderately rapid to rapid in the subsoil and rapid in the
underlying material. Moisture capacity is low to very low.
Chili soils are generally droughty during late summer months.
Chili soils generally are suitable for crops, pasture land and
trees. This unit has fair potential for engineering uses but
slopes may restrict some uses.
II.D.5. Caneadea Soils
Located in the northwest corner of the study area, these soils
consist of level to gently sloping, somewhat drained areas formed
in lacustrine sediment. Permeability is very slow. The available
moisture capacity is medium. Runoff occurs at a medium rate and
a perched water table near the surface occurs during late winter
and spring.
Most areas of this soil were once farmed but have since been
abandoned. Because of the wetness and poor bearing strength when
II-6
-------
wet, this soil has poor potential for most engineering uses.
Drainage systems help relieve the soil of excess moisture. Drain-
age around footers with gravel back-fill helps alleviate wet
basements. On-site disposal systems are not adaptable because of
very slow permeability. Because of low bearing strength when wet,
roads constructed on Caneadea soils are difficult to maintain.
II.D.6. Lobdell Soil
This series consists of nearly level, moderately well drained
soils. These soils are formed in alluvium. The Lobdell series
is found along flood plains, mainly along the West Branch and
East Branch of the Rocky River. Lobdell Soils have moderate
permeability. The available water capacity is high. These soils
have a deep rooting zone. They are susceptible to flooding and
have an apparent high water table for short periods late in
winter and in spring. Runoff is slow.
Soils are an important consideration in the design and successful
operation of certain types of on-site wastewater treatment sys-
tems. Nearly all the soils occurring in the Olmsted Falls-Olmsted
Township area are classified as being severely limited for con-
ventional septic tank soil absorption systems- Water moves slowly
through these soils, with problems of wetness and ponding. Shal-
low bedrock in some places intensifies this problem.
II.E. Land Use
II.E.I. Overview
There are 121,885 acres in the planning area. This is approxi-
mately 14 square miles and incorporates the southwest fringe of
the Cleveland Metropolitan Area and extends south and west to
include undeveloped and rural lands. The land uses in the plan-
ning area are shown in Figures II-4A-D. The base map was
prepared by overlaying NOACA's inventory of existing land use
onto United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps.
Use categories defined by the map are 1) residential, 2) commer-
cial, 3) industrial, 4) public and institutional, 5) agricultural
and 6) vacant.
Land use surveys were conducted during the preparation of the
Facilities Plan. Land uses were categorized by municipal acreage
and type in these surveys. Table II-l shows total acreage for
each municipality within the planning area. Table II-2 shows the
type of land use by acreage, percent of total area and percent
developed. In Table II-2 areas designated as commercial and
industrial include both developed and undeveloped areas previous-
ly allocated for these land uses.
II.E.2. Existing Land Use
II.E.2.a. Residential, Commercial and Industrial
The existing land use map (Figures II-4A-D) shows that growth is
radiating from the central city to the suburbs in a series of
II-7
-------
fr-i Jr<:>
i , '. .-->••-
13.
y gHUL
L »-4 r^; .* "-" fa*1
.«ia 11
t-«
. ^
#* •.. ,
-------
& III 1 - V
f - XV*--
V - , %HIII. 11:
i c
. *.- -
J j«*-; - . ^-4i(1i^41W^
; / ' >C«V
•-: ,"^£
LEGEND - See Figure I1-4U
IT-/C'
-------
LEGEND - See Figure II-4D p
&%«•»%*&
Figure IT-4B
IT-9
-------
/>'-«SPftVi*;'. .TJrt£.7rv»r• ^.-jf^^.friflM^co^^r — 1
.o^v^- V r ^i ife-5^'": °"'^''J) 5^*W!V.- • <
*« ,",-fcc"^f-7t»'' ,ip-1-^-
!&!*«"?< f •
;
4
r
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONAL
AGRICULTURAL
L I VACANT
PRESENT LAND USE
Figure 11-4A through II-4D
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
TABLE II-1
TRIBUTARY ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALITIES
Location
Berea
Brecksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brookpark
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills
Cleveland
Columbia Township
Cuyahoga Heights
Granger Township
Hinckley Township
Middleburg Heights
Acreage
2,958
274
1,700
886
1,109
5,005
1,700
2,125
3,483
16,411
536
663
11,891
5,069
Location Acreage
North Olmsted 7,296
North Royalton 12,790
Olmsted Falls 2,230
Olmsted Township 7,201
Fairview Park 685
Parma 12,659
Parma Heights 2,648
Richfield Township 3,530
Riveredge Township 58
Seven Hills 3, 110
Strongsville 15,866
Total Acreage 121,885
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, Volume 1, 1982.
TABLE II-2
TYPES OF LAND USE
Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Undeveloped & Rural
Total
Acres
35,000
4,314
10,808
12,584
59,179
121,885
% of Total Area
28.7
3.5
8.9
10.3
48.6
100.0
% of Developed
55.8
6.9
17.2
20.1
100.0
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, Volume 1, 1982.
11-12
-------
concentric rings. Commercial and industrial development is
located along the main roads (such as Brookpark, Broadview,
State, Pearl, Ridge) with residential areas located between areas
of commercial development.
The residential areas immediately adjacent and to the south of
Brookpark Road are almost fully developed. Further south, unde-
veloped land is present in Parma, Seven Hills, Brook Park and
Middleburg Heights.
Principal industrial development in the study area occurs along
Brookpark Road and adjacent to the three railroads bisecting the
area. Ford Motor Company and General Motors occupy sizeable
tracts south of Brookpark Road. Generally, the area has a well
established pattern of growth and development.
Less development is present in the vicinity of Strongsville Sewer
Districts "B" and "C" and North Royalton. The southwestern por-
tion of the study area contains scattered subdivisions and larger
tracts of undeveloped and rural lands. North Olmsted is more
fully developed with a wide diversity of land uses.
Existing land use regulations and zoning maps were obtained for
each of the municipalities in the study area. Aerial photographs
and Real Property Inventory assessments were used to determine
developed lot counts and unit occupancy. From these data an
existing land use survey was prepared and patterns of develop-
ment, distribution and density of population, and commercial and
industrial potential for the study area were determined. A tabu-
lation of land use totals resulting from this survey was pre-
sented in the tables above.
Approximately 56% of the developed land is residential. The
areas designated for industrial and commercial use include both
developed and undeveloped areas already allocated for these land
uses. Industrial land concentrations are located primarily along
the railroad and interstate highways. Large tracts of undeveloped
land designated for non-residential usage are located in Strongs-
ville Sewer District "A" and Olmsted Township.
II.E.2.b. Recreational and Institutional
Public and semi-public land in the area is operated and main-
tained by the Cleveland Metropark system which manages large
tracts in and along the Rocky River. This area is part of a park
system known as the "Emerald Necklace" which almost completely
encircles Cleveland.
Numerous reserved lands or recreation parks lie within the plan-
ning area. The primary Cleveland Metropark reservations within
the planning area are Bradley Woods; Rocky River North, South and
Central; Mill Stream Run; Hinckley; and Big Creek. Table II-3
lists the Cleveland Metroparks within the study area.
11-13
-------
TABLE I1-3
LIST OF CLEVELAND METROPARKS
Name
Rocky River North
Rocky River Central
Bradley Woods
Mill Stream Run
Hinckley
Big Creek
Brookside Park
Brecksville
Bedford
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, Volume 1, 1982
11-14
-------
Other recreation areas within the study area include many public
and private golf courses, municipal parks, a model airplane fly-
ing field, and the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds, located in Berea.
II.E.2.C. Transportation
Transportation rights-of-way such as highways, expressways,
streets, and railroads were not tabulated separately. However,
it is estimated that between 15-20% of the total area is devel-
oped for this purpose.
The study area is served by an extensive transportation network
that includes several state highways and numerous county roads.
Interstate 71 is the major north-south highway, while the Ohio
Turnpike and Interstate 480 are the major east-west routes.
ConRail Short Line, located just north of Brookpark Road, forms
the northern border of the Main Leg service area from Broadview
Road to State Route 237. Two additional railroad lines cross the
study area from northeast to southwest. The Regional Transit
Authority operates rail service from downtown to Cleveland
Hopkins International Airport. The airport is located southwest
of the State Road 237 - Brookpark Road intersection. It is the
major commercial airport for Metropolitan Cleveland.
II.E.2.d. Agricultural
The extent of agricultural land use has been declining as urban-
ization increases . This trend is most apparent in Brunswick and
Strongsville. Areas of Cuyahoga County still supporting some
type of primary agriculture are located in Olmsted Township.
Outside the county, Columbia Township is largely rural with
numerous areas used for general farming and dairy cattle. Large
greenhouse development in both Columbia Township and Olmsted
Township specialize in the production of fruit and vegetables.
II.E.2.e. Land Use Planning
In a general evaluation of types and kinds of land use, NOACA
concluded, few communities have planning commissions or planning
staff and rely on the Regional Planning Commission to provide
this service. A majority of communities do have zoning ordinances
and boards. A significant number of communities still employ
referendum zoning. Very few have capital improvement programs or
housing plans. NOACA concluded from their investigation that land
use dynamics are largely instituted by private land developers.
During this preparation of two reports dealing with the East and
West Leg planning areas, a comprehensive series of land use pro-
jections were prepared from available ordinances and planning
maps. Utilizing the methods described in detail in the 208 In-
terim Water Quality Report, NOACA projected land use to the year
2000 as determined by changes in the population and employment
projections. Figures II-5A-D shows the five year incremental
increases in acreages required to support these projections .
Major residential development occurs in Strongsville, Sewer Dis-
11-15
-------
LECBEND - SeeH
i/• S\
-------
LEGEND - See Figure
Mill 1
jr./-?
-------
/ . -V -We
.-*• 7L_r • ; ;- -4-— • -' >-.A
,
' '
LEGEND - See Figure II-5D
-------
^4*^
PROJECTED LAND USE
Figure 11-5A through II-5D
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Inerceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
Figure II-5D
-------
trict "A" and Olmsted Township south of the Ohio Turnpike. The
Strongsville "A" projection in land area is approximately 1,630
acres and Olmsted Township is 552 acres.
Light industrial development is projected primarily in Strongs-
ville "A" and Middleburg Heights. Commercial and office develop-
ment is projected in Strongsville "A" and Olmsted Falls.
Overall increases in total acreage (by type use) within the Main
Leg and West Leg service area through 2000 are summarized as
follows: Residential - 3,881 acres; Industrial - 690 acres; Com-
mercial - 598 acres. Strongsville Sewer District "A" is project-
ed to be 2,208 acres. This represents 43% of the total increase
projected for the study area. Projected land requirements for
the year 2000 development are tabulated in Table II-4.
Approximately 75% (approximately 3,880 acres) of the additional
land required is projected to be used for residential purposes.
Additional industrial and commercial land comprise the remaining
25%. Rural and undeveloped land remaining in the Phase 1 sewer
district by 2020 is expected to drop to less than 20% of the
total area. Principal undeveloped areas in 2020 will likely be
located in Olmsted Township (440 acres), Strongsville "A" (1,805
acres) and Olmsted Falls (1,020 acres).
II.F. Groundwater
Wells located in the sandstone aquifers in the Rocky River Valley
are found from 45 to 169 feet and produce at rates up to 100 gal-
lons per minute (gpm). Rock types include the Sharon Sandstone
(Pennsylvanian) and the Cuyahoga Group (Mississippian). Shale
deposits are less effective aquifers than sandstone. Glacial
moraine deposits and lenses of sand and gravel within glacial
clay deposits may produce well yields of 5-25 gpm. A generalized
map of groundwater availability is shown in Figure II-6.
Groundwater quality is hard to very hard. Iron content ranges
from low to very high. Dissolved solids and chlorides may be
high. USGS and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources monitor
local groundwater quality.
Because of quantity and sometimes quality limitations, ground-
water is not used extensively in the planning area for municipal,
industrial or commercial use. Additional information on ground-
water is provided in Section 2 of the Southwest Interceptor EIS/
Facilities Plan V.I.
II.G. Surface Water
II.G.I. Water Bodies
Principal water bodies are shown in Figure II-l. Approximately
75% of the planning area lies within the Rocky River Basin, while
the remaining lies within the Big Creek (Cuyahoga) basin. Water
quality standards are presented in Section 2 of the Southwest In-
11-20
-------
TABLE I1-4
MAIN LEG - WEST LEG AREA
NOACA PROJECTED LAND REQUIRED FOR THE YEAR 2000 DEVELOPMENT
ACRES
Land Use
Rural Res.
Low Dens. Res.
High Dens. Res
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Commercial
Office
Totals
Ul
4J
rC
tr>
•H
0)
X
(0
O"1
o
&
(C
^,
p
o
46
in
•P
f.
cn
•rH
O
1 1 ;
[5
(U
•H
j>
^
(0
0
>H
PQ
23
23
23
23
en
i — i
rH
•H
I
C
Q)
J>
Q)
C/)
207
46
253
(0
£]
rO
552
69
23
644
c
o
,__{
n)
o
a
fj
4j
SH
0
161
161
c
r- 1
V|
O
o
^
PQ
46
23
69
V
J_j
(0
a.
v^
o
o
J_J
PQ
23
23
46
en
X
CP
•H
O
ffi
Cn
D
Q
cu
r-H
T3
T3
•H
S
368
23
161
23
92
667
(C
Q)
^
0)
CQ
46
23
69
C/l
, — 1
1 — 1
tO
""O
Q)
4J
tn
g
i-H
O
46
92
69
23
230
P(
•H
^:
w
o
EH
TD
0)
cn
g
rH
O
69
552
46
46
46
759
=
-
Q)
rH 4J
•H U
t> rH
U) -P
cr> in
C -rH
O Q
^i
•P rH
W (U
U
0)
CO
1633
46
276
23
230
2208
to
, ~)
^
EH
O
EH
69
3634
184
621
69
575
23
5175
Grand Total - 5,175 Acres
Parma Heights- 0
Cleveland - 0
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP - Volume 1, 1982.
11-21
-------
GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY
fcj
1
So
500 1000 GPM1
53 25-100 GPM
50 GPM
5-25 GPM
5-25 GPM
""'"'* 5-25 GPM
0-5 GPM
Gallons per minute
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
terceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I. Wastewater treatment require-
ments for discharge to area streams will be discussed in Chapter
III.
II.G.2. Water Quantity
II.G.2.a. Cuyahoga Basin
The USGS maintains a stream gauge on Big Creek, 2.5 miles above
its confluence with the Cuyahoga River. The gauging station/
established in 1972, has recorded an average discharge of 50.7
cubic feet per second (cfs). The maximum discharge of 9,100 cfs
was recorded in 1975 and the minimum discharge of 2.3 cfs was
recorded in 1973, as reported by the USGS in Water Resources for
Ohio for the water year 1981.
Flow in the Cuyahoga River is measured at the USGS gauging sta-
tion at Independence, Ohio two miles above the Southerly Waste-
water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Detailed records have been main-
tained since 1921, with some interruptions prior to 1940. The
average discharge is 809 cfs. The maximum discharge of 24,800
cfs was recorded in 1959 and the minimum discharge of 21 cfs in
1933, as reported by the USGS.
II.G.2.b. Rocky River Basin
The USGS maintains a gauging station on the Rocky River below the
confluence of the East and West Branches of the Rocky River and
approximately 12 miles upstream from Lake Erie. Flow records are
available from October 1923 to the present, with the exception of
October 1933 - August 1943. The average discharge is 263 cfs. The
maximum discharge of 21,400 cfs was recorded in 1959 and the min-
imum discharge 0-2 cfs was recorded in 1932 and again in 1933.
The West Branch (including Plum Creek) contributes approximately
63% of the total flow in the Rocky River. The East Branch (in-
cluding Baldwin Creek) contributes the remaining 37%. Table II-5
shows average flows for specific reaches of the Rocky River. The
general stream flow pattern is one of high peak discharges during
flooded conditions and lower sustained streamflow at other times.
Because of stream slope, surrounding bedrock and the general
absence of lakes or wetlands along the stream, water storage is
poor. This lack of storage results in pronounced flow extremes.
Wastewater contributions to the stream flow are shown in Tables
II-6 through II-8. Table II-6 shows dischargers, by stream
branch, within the year 2000 planning area. Figure III-l in
Chapter III shows the location of these treatment plants and the
areas served by on-site systems. Table II-7 provides information
regarding Wastewater dischargers from Medina County (upstream of
the planning area) into the Rocky River. (The plants in Medina
County will continue discharging into the Rocky River regardless
of the alternative selected for the planning area). Table II-8
summarizes the previous two tables, with the addition of the
North Olmsted and Abram Creek flow. Many of the on-site systems
have surface discharges rather than soil absorption systems which
also contribute to stream flow.
11-23
-------
TABLE II-5
AVERAGE STREAM FLOW IN SPECIFIC REACHES OF THE ROCKY RIVER
H
I
N)
Stream
Rocky River
(at gauge)
West Branch
Plum Creek
Baker Creek
East Branch
Baldwin Creek
Abram Creek*
Drainage Area (mi .2)
267.00
188.30
18.90
5.81
80.40
11.94
10.06
Percent of
Total Area
100
70
7
2
30
5
Aver. Flow
(cf s/mgd)
261.0/168.7
184.1/118.9
18.5/11.9
5.7/3.7
76.8/49.6
11.7/7.6
9.9/6.3
*Abram Creek lies below the East/West Branch confluence and thus is not
actually in the gauged drainage area. For the purpose of establishing
flow values, however, the average flow for Rocky River has been utilized.
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982.
-------
TABLE II-6
TOTAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENT DISCHARGE AND PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY
WEST AND EAST LEG WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS TO MAJOR STREAM REACHES
Stream Reach
Discharge
MGD CFS
Percentage of Total Wastewater Discharge
for West and East Leg Dischargers
above East/West Branch Confluence
East Branch and
Baldwin Creek
East Branch1
Baldwin Creek
4.81
3.87
0.94
7.43
5.98
1.45
59
47
12
West Branch and
Plum Creek
West Branch
Plum Creek
Abram Creek2
Main Branch^
Total Wastewater Dis-
charge for Study Area
3.39
2.83
0.56
3.09
5.75
8.18
5.24 41
4.38 34
0.86 7
4.78
8.90
12.65
^2.38 MGD (3.7 CFS) of this discharge is contributed by the four minor WWTPs in
the East Leg Study Area.
2Abram Creek lies below the USGS gauging station at the East/West Branch confluence
and thus the contribution to wastewater flow by the Brook Park and Middleburg Heights
WWTPs is not measured at the gauge.
3North Olmsted WWTP discharges to the Main Branch Rocky River just below the East/
West Branch confluence. Thus its flow augmentation is also not recorded at the
gauge.
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982.
11-25
-------
TABLE II-7
EFFLUENT LOADING TO ROCKY RIVER BY MEDINA COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
WWTP Discharge
MGD CFS
SD 300 WWTP
(East Branch) 1.4 2.2
SD 500 WWTP
(West Branch) 6.2 9.6
Total 7.6 11.8
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982.
TABLE II-8
TOTAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST
INTERCEPTOR STUDY AREA
Discharge
Stream Reach and WWTPs MGD CFS
East Branch (including Baldwin Creek) 4.81 7.43
East Branch (including Baldwin Creek)
and Medina SD 300 6.21 9.63
West Branch (including Plum Creek) 3.39 5.24
West Branch (including Plum Creek)
and Medina SD 500 9.59 14.84
Total Effluent Discharge above East/West
Branch confluence 15.80 24.47
Main Branch (Abram Creek and North
Olmsted WWTP) 8.84 13.68
Total Effluent Discharge for SWI Study
Area 24.64 38.15
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982,
11-26
-------
The stream flow in the Rocky River was studied in detail in
Section 2 of the Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I.
Minimum stream flows received an extensive analysis and showed
how treated wastewater augmented low stream flows. In Tables
II-9 and 11-10 it can be seen that flow augmentation resulted in
a dramatic decrease of occurrence of minimum flows in the Rocky
River. Additional information on stream flow is in the Report on
Flow Distribution-Impact on Rocky River and the Revised Impact
Analysis of Interbasin Transfer of Stream Flow.
Low flow duration values for the Rocky River are shown in Table
11-11. This table indicates that on an annual basis the Rocky
River flow is equal to or less than 7.8 cfs ten percent of the
time and that it is equal to or less than 2.7 cfs two percent of
the time. September - November is the quarter of lowest flow,
where ten percent of the time flows were below 4.6 cfs.
The correlation between stream flow and rainfall is summarized in
Table 11-12. Flows are high during the March/April snow melt
period. Frozen ground at this time reduces infiltration thus
increasing runoff. Low flows in the late summer/early fall are
associated with higher temperatures and vegetation demands. Many
factors influence the relationship between rainfall and runoff,
so there is no direct correlation betw'een the two factors.
II.G.2.C. Floodplains
The 100-year floodplains in the planning area are shown in Figure
II-7 and have a one percent annual chance of flooding in 100
years. All communities as well as counties in the planning area
in the Federal flood insurance program incorporated areas are
directly insured. Townships or unincorporated lands are part of
county programs.
II.G.3. Water Quality
II.G.3.a. Rocky River
The water quality of the Rocky River has been studied extensive-
ly. Major past reports include: Water Quality Assessment and
Modeling for Rocky River and Timbers Creek and Water Quality
Studies of the Rocky River, - August- October 1977. Ohio EPA
conducted water quality modeling on the Rocky River from 1975 to
1977 . The 208 Water Quality Management Plan inventoried water
quality monitoring efforts in its Technical Appendix A04.
Figure II-8 and Table 11-13 identify the sampling points used in
the 1981 facilities planning water quality survey. Table 11-14
shows the sampling program, conducted on five "dry" days and five
"wet" days. Sampling data are summarized in Appendix A. Specific
data values are reported in the Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facili-
ties Plan.
Additional water quality information and analysis will be in-
cluded in Chapter III as part of the discussion of the impacts of
on-site wastewater treatment systems.
11-27
-------
TABLE II-9
PERCENTAGE OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MINIMUM FLOWS FROM
1924 - 1964 IN ROCKY RIVER
Percentage of Time
Minimum Flow (cfs Occurring
less than 2.0 29
2.0 to 3.0 35
3.1 to 4.0 6
4.1 to 6.0 15
greater than 6.0 15
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on
Rocky River, 1982.
TABLE 11-10
PERCENTAGE OCCURRENCE OF SPECIFIC MINIMUM STREAM FLOWS
FROM 1965 - 1980 IN ROCKY RIVER
Percentage of Time
Minimum Flow (cfs) Occurring
less than 8.0 25
8.1 to 10.0 25
10.1 to 15.0 19
15.1 to 20.0 19
greater than 20.0 12
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on
Rocky River, 1982.
11-28
-------
TABLE 11-11
DURATION OF LOW FLOW WITHIN THE ROCKY RIVER
BASED ON 1924-1975 USGS DATA
Discharge (cfs) Which Was
Less Than or Equaled
Period
Apr-Mar
May-Nov
Jun-Aug
Sept-Nov
Dec-Feb
Mar-May
Months
12
6
3
3
3
3
2.7
1.9
1.7
1.5
12.9
22.9
4.9
3.4
3.4
2.9
17.9
32.9
10
7.8
5.5
5.4
4.6
24.9
48.9
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982
11-29
-------
TABLE H-12
CORRELATION OF PRECIPITATION TO FLOW IN THE ROCKY RIVER
(USGS GAGE DATA AND NATIONNAL WEATHER SERVICE)
1924-65 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1965-81 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1924-65 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1965-81 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1924-65 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
1965-81 Flow (cfs)
Yearly Ranking
Normal Monthly Mean Inches
Yearly Ranking
M In (mum Monthly Mean Inches
Yearly Ranking
Maximum Monthly Mean Inches
Yearly Ranking
1965-74 Degrees (C)
Yearly Ranking
OCT
81.0
9
74.1
12
11.4
9
23.0
10
617.1
11
462.4
12
2.58
9
0.61
8
9.50
1
53
6
NOV
132.0
8
217.0
7
21.7
7
43.6
7
787.0
9
1248.7
7
2.67
8
0.80
4
7.19
5
42
8
DEC
253.0
5
399.0
4
38.4
5
91.4
2
1989.2
6
2544.6
4
2.47
11
0.71
7
5.60
11
33
10
JAN
419.0
4
350.0
5*
57.7
4
60.8
5
3430.7
2
2763.6
2
FEB
449.0
3
441.0
3
63.9
3
70.4
4
3358.2
3
2740.5
3
MAR
APR
Flow Data
MAY
Normal Monthly Means
586.0
1
628.0
1
Mln Imum
93.7
1
139.2
1
507.0
2
436.0
2
241.0
6
350.0
6*
Monthly Means
89.4
2
88.1
3
37.1
6
50.5
6
Maximum Monthly Means
3673.8
1
3056.9
1
3104.3
4
2005.6
6
Precipitation for Record Period
2.49
10
0.36
12
7.01
6
26
12
2.29
12
0.48
11
4.64
12
2.79
6
0.78
5
6.07
8
2.78
7
1.13
3
5.90
10
TEMPERATURE
27
11
37
9
48
7
1732.3
7
2494.4
5
JUN
141.0
7
183.0
8
15.3
8
28.4
8
1357.8
8
892.7
9
(1924-1980)
2.98
4
0.58
9
6.04
9
57
5
3.29
2
1.17
2
9.06
, 3
68
3
JUL
73.0
10
115.0
10
8.0
10
23.4
9
692.8
10
906.7
8
3.48
1
1.23
1
6.94
7
71
1
AUG
54.0
12
85.5
11
5.7
12
16.5
12
2369.3
5
513.4
11
2.91
5
0.53
10
8.96
4
70
2
SEP
72.5
11
124.0
9
5.9
11
18.1
11
455.2
12
884.1
10
3.26
3
0.74
6
9.10
2
64
4
M
M
I
(jO
O
•Equal Values
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River
-------
FLOOD PLAINS
XI
MEDINA
COUNTY
~~ I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
-------
WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AREAS
CLEVELAND
.
<-,MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS
\ Xf
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Report on Flow Distribution on Rocky River
Figure 11-8
-------
TABLE 11-13
LOCATIONS OF STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS AND MAJOR
TREATMENT PLANT SAMPLING STATIONS
STATION*
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
SS-9
SS-11
BP-3-
BP-4
BR-3
BR-4
SA-3
SA-4
MH-3
MH-4
LOCATION
Valley Parkway @ Puritas Hill Road Bridge, S.W. area.
Lewis Road, @ West Branch Rocky River Crossing, S.E.
corner.
Water Street and West Branch Rocky River Crossing.
300 ft. N.W.
Bagley Road and West Branch Rocky River Crossing. 400
ft. North of Bagley Road.
Usher Road and Plum Creek Crossing, S.E. corner.
Sprague Road and Plum Creek Crossing, 200 ft. downstream
of bridge.
Columbia Road and Plum Creek Crossing, S.W. corner.
Eastland Road and Baldwin Creek Crossing, S.W. corner.
West Access Road and East Branch Rocky River Crossing,
S.E. corner.
West 130th Street and East Branch Crossing.
19400 Plant Lane. 75 ft. upstream from plant outfall.
0.70 mile downstream of plant outfall
400 Barrett Road. 400 ft. upstream from plant outfall.
0.40 miles downstream of plant outfall.
22707 Sprague Road. 100 ft. upstream of plant outfall.
500 ft. downstream of plant outfall.
18828 Sheldon Road. 100 ft. upstream of plant outfall.
Approximately 0.55 mile downstream of plant outfall.
*SS - Stream Station
BP - Brook Park WWTP
BR - Berea WWTP
SA - Strongsville "A" WWTP
MH - Middleburg Heights WWTP
3 - Upstream
4 - Downstream
+ - Same station as MH-4
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams, 1982.
11-33
-------
TABLE II-14
GENERALIZED LIST OF ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
ANALYSIS
ALKALINITY
PO -P-T
-s
TKN-T
-s
NH -N
NO -N
NO -N
BOD -T
-s
COD-T
-S
TDS
SO
CL
Q ( FLOW }
SS
STREPTOCOCCI
FECAL COL
PH
TEMP.
DO
CHLOR RESIDUE
FE
COMPOSITE
MAJOR
PLANTS
GRAB
MINOR
PLANTS
GRAB
PACKAGE
PLANTS
COMPOSITE GRAB
STREAMS SEPTIC
TANKS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams, 1982.
11-34
-------
II.G.S.b. Cuyahoga River
Water quality data in the Cuyahoga River is monitored just above
the Southerly WWTP. Table 11-15 presents recent sampling values.
II.G.4. Water Uses
II.G.4.a. East Branch of the Rocky River, Baldwin & Wallace Lakes
The East Branch of the Rocky River is used for recreational
activities, public water supply and drainage purposes. It pro-
vides drainage for 80 square miles of land. In addition to the
natural drainage, many municipalities and private subdivisions
discharge treated wastewater into the stream.
The stream corridor of the East Branch of the Rocky River lies
primarily within the Rocky River Reservation, Hinckley Reserva-
tion and semi-rural settings. The stream source and corridor
have remained largely unchanged from their original natural
setting. The natural and semi-natural state of the East Branch
stream corridor has encouraged the recreational use of the stream
with such activities as wading, fishing, rafting and canoeing.
Swimming and wading are permitted in Baldwin Lake.
The City of Berea uses Baldwin Lake as a public water supply.
Wallace Lake is also used but generally in emergency situations.
Additional discussion on the use of Baldwin and Wallace Lakes as
a water supply is found in Section H (Potable Water).
II.G.4.b. West Branch of the Rocky River
The West Branch of the Rocky River is used primarily for drainage
with some limited recreational purposes. The West Branch stream
corridor is situated in semi-rural, rural, and woodland settings
throughout the western portion of the facilities planning area.
The West Branch has remained largely unchanged from its original
natural state. The headwaters of the West Branch are character-
ized by a broad meandering floodplain traversing intermittent
woodlot and semi-marsh areas. Residential development in the
upper reaches is sparse. The lower reaches of the West Branch
are characterized by sharp, steep exposed rock valleys traversing
woodlands. The natural setting encourages some recreational
activities such as rafting and wading. The absence of open
parkland along the stream course has discouraged abundant
recreational use of the streams. Figure II-9 shows recreational
areas along the West Branch.
The West Branch drains approximately 188 square miles of land.
Additionally, the West Branch receives wastewater effluent from
municipal and semi-private dischargers, thus contributing to the
flow of the stream.
II.G.4.C. Abram Creek
Abram Creek provides drainage for 10.2 square miles of urban
land and several wastewater dischargers. Urban and suburban
development have significantly changed the stream corridor from
11-35
-------
TABLE 11-15
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE
CUYAHOGA RIVER AT INDEPENDENCE, OHIO
WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1980 TO SEPTEMBER 1981
Date
Oct
15...
Dec
02...
Jan
06...
Feb
10...
Mar
10...
Apr
01...
May
05...
Jun
03...
Jul
02...
Aug
12...
Sep
01...
Time
1030
1430
1100
1130
1130
1500
1015
1030
1 130
1030
1130
Stream-
Flow,
i nstan-
taneous
(CFS)
342
732
240
472
679
1080
920
488
444
595
295
Speci f ic
Conduct-
ance
(UMHOS)
930
970
1110
955
820
765
800
900
1010
630
820
PH
(Units)
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
Temper-
ature
(Deg C)
11.5
7.0
.5
2.5
6.5
13.5
17.0
21.0
24.0
24.0
23.0
Turbid- Oxygen
ity Dissolved
(NTU) (MG/L)
2.1 8.2
3.8 10.8
.90 11.9
8.0 12.6
.30 10.6
20 9.7
14 7.5
4.3 7.4
7.5 7.3
25 7.2
.90 7.0
Oxygen
Dissolved
Percent
Saturation
74
89
83
92
86
92
77
82
86
85
80
Oxygen
Demand,
Chemica 1
(High Level )
(MG/L)
33
51
41
31
58
38
38
<10
53
32
39
Col t form.
Fecal ,0.7
UM-MF
(Cols./
100 ML)
11000
10000
14000
3200
21000
4200
17000
1600
5200
4600
4400
Source: Mater Resources Data tor Ohio Water Year. 1981.
11-36
-------
Table I 1-15 (Cont'd)
Date
Oct
15...
Dec
02...
Jan
06...
Feb
10...
Mar
10...
Apr
01...
May
05...
Jun
03...
Jul
02...
Auq
12...
Sep
01...
Date
Oct
15...
Dec
02...
Jan
06...
Feb
10...
Mar
10...
Apr
01...
May
05...
Jun
03...
Jul
02...
Aug
12...
Sep
01...
Strepto-
cocci
Fecal, KF
AGAR (Cols.
Per 100 ML)
620
1900
2500
750
2900
330
2600
93
540
950
150
S 1 1 i ca ,
D issol ved
(MG/L
AS
SI 03)
9.2
7.8
9.2
9.1
7.7
4.8
3.9
7.3
9.1
8.9
8.3
Hard-
Ness
(MG/L
as
CAC03)
240
230
250
240
180
180
180
220
240
200
250
Sol ids Res-
idue At 180
Deg C
Dissolved
(MG/L )
557
552
662
560
469
443
443
533
626
384
524
Hardness
Noncarbon-
ate (MG/L
CAC03)
110
96
110
120
60
84
79
87
110
83
110
Sol i ds Sum
of Consti-
tuents,
Dissolved
MG/L)
492
530
628
520
431
407
438
506
571
373
480
Calcium
Di ssol ved
(MG/L
AS CA)
71
64
74
67
54
53
52
64
70
60
74
Mi trogen
Organ ic
Total
(MG/L
AS N)
.76
.91
.00
.30
1.3
.00
1.0
.75
1.0
.64
.85
Magne-
s lum.
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS MG)
14
16
17
17
11
12
12
14
15
13
17
N i trogen ,
Ammon la*
Organ ic
Total (MG/L
AS N)
1.70
1.20
2.40
2.80
3.70
1.30
1.60
.87
1.10
.76
1.10
Sodium,
Di ssol ved
(MG/L
AS NA)
80
98
130
100
73
74
95
87
120
52
68
Ni trogen
Total
(MG/L
AS N)
4.8
3.3
4.4
4.1
4.6
2.1
2.7
3.5
3.3
2.3
4.8
Potass ium,
Dissolved
CMG/L
AS NA)
5.5
5.1
6.1
5.0
4.2
4.2
3.6
4.9
5.6
4.9
5.3
Nitrogen
Total
(MG/L
AS N03)
21
15
19
18
20
9.1
12
15
15
10
21
Sulfate
Dissolved
(MG/L
(AS S04)
79
91
88
84
84
66
66
79
82
75
86
Phosphorus
Total
(MG/L
AS P)
.440
.070
.450
.330
.620
.270
.240
.340
.330
.310
.040
Chloride,
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS CD
140
160
210
160
120
130
140
160
180
80
120
Carbon
Organ ic
Total
(MG/L
AS C)
—
8.1
—
6.9
7.3
—
9.0
10
—
7.4
7.0
Florlde,
Dissolved
(MG/L
AS F)
.4
.3
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.3
.4
.4
.4
Phyto
Plankton,
Total Cel Is
Per ML)
--
—
—
—
2500
--
9000
1 1000
20000
8100
7000
11-37
-------
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY AREAS
AVON
r.C>
MEDINA
COUNTY
U.S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Intercept Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
Recreational Activity Areas
In Rocky River
Reservation
COUNTY
i i
SCALE IN MILES
-------
its natural state. Poor water quality has resulted from urban
runoff and wastewater effluent discharges. This has discouraged
using Abram Creek for recreational purposes.
II.G.4.d. Big Creek
Big Creek has been significantly altered by urbanization. The
stream corridor has been channelized, enclosed, re-routed or
otherwise altered for most of its length. The water quality has
been severely degraded rendering Big Creek unusable for any pur-
pose except drainage. Big Creek receives wastewater discharges
from several industries in addition to urban runoff and dis-
charges from combined sewer overflows.
A portion of Big Creek flows through Metropark's Big Creek Park-
way recreational area. However, the severely degraded water qual-
ity discourages water-based recreational uses of this park area.
II.G.4.6. Hinckley Lake and Hinckley Reservation
Hinckley Lake and Hinckley Reservation provide a high quality and
unique natural area for hiking, wading, swimming, fishing and
numerous outdoor activities. This area remains largely unchanged
from its original natural state. This area is characterized by
steep forested slopes, excellent water quality and generally
aesthetically pleasing appearance.
II.G.4.f. Cuyahoga River
The remaining streams within the area, including Quarry Creek,
generally provide only drainage. The lower section of the
Cuyahoga River is classified for secondary body contact recrea-
tion uses.
II.H. Potable Water
Existing and projected year 2000 water district limits have been
established in the planning area and are presented in Figure
11-10.
Most municipalities within the planning area rely primarily on
surface water provided either by streams or by Lake Erie. From
1960 to the present, the communities in the lower Rocky River
Basin experienced rapid growth. Utilities were upgraded to serve
the increasing population and the City of Cleveland became the
principal supplier of water for most of the communities within
the study area.
Potable water is supplied by the City of Cleveland to the com-
munities of Brook Park, Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, Brecksville,
Cuyahoga Heights, Fairview Park, Middleburg Heights, North Olm-
sted, North Royalton, Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Parma,
Parma Heights, Riveredge Township, Seven Hills, and Strongsville.
Cleveland obtains its water from Lake Erie, processes it through
various treatment techniques, and transports it to customers.
11-39
-------
WATER DISTRICTS
L-»raj-I.X.^^--^J^;J
CITY OF
CLEVELAND
WATER SERVICE
AREA- 1972
CITY OF
CLEVELAND
WATER SERVICE
AREA — 2000
CITY OF BEREA
WATER SERVICE
AREA
1972 & 2000
i
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
- Q_
SCALE IN MILES
-------
Other communities in the study area use Ohio lakes and stream
surface waters or groundwater for drinking. The City of Berea
gets its drinking water from Baldwin, Wallace, and Coe Lakes on
the East Branch of the Rocky River. Residents in Broadview
Heights, Columbia Township, Medina County and other rural areas
use groundwater for their water supply.
The Berea Water Treatment Plant is the only other major supplier
of drinking water in the planning area. As mentioned earlier,
the City maintains water intakes on several lakes, served by the
East Branch Rocky River. Stream flow available to the Berea Water
Treatment Plant varies considerably during periods of the year.
Of particular concern is the extreme low flow period which
generally occurs during the summer. At this time, water
withdrawal at the primary intake of the plant consumes much of
the total flow of the East Branch Rocky River. The pond which is
maintained by the small dam below the Baldwin Lake dam is drawn
down to just a few inches above the intake. This requires
utilization of the alternate intake on Baldwin Creek just above
its confluences with the East Branch. To maintain this intake
during low flow, water must be released from Coe Lake into
Baldwin Creek.
The Berea Water Treatment Plant was constructed in 1898. Much of
the equipment in the plant is old and renovation has been mini-
mal . In September, 1981, the residents of Berea voted to retain
their present treatment system and not tie into Cleveland's water
system. Construction of a new facility on the present site of
the water plant is underway. The new plant will incorporate some
of the structural framework of the existing plant and is antici-
pated to be fully operational in September 1984.
Total capacity of the new plant will be 3.6 MGD. Ozone treatment
will be utilized rather than current chlorination procedures and
water softening processes will be employed. No effluent will be
discharged from the plant into the East Branch.
In order to understand future water supply, it is necessary to
consider the survey of groundwater and surface waters. As dis-
cussed in Section F and G above, the average yield from wells
within the planning area is suitable for residential and minor
industrial/commercial establishments. Most of the aquifers
cannot provide sufficient water for large consumers, i.e. indus-
try and municipalities. Future water demand is expected to be
supported with expanding operations of the Cleveland public water
service.
II.I. Biology
II.I.I. Terrestrial
Prime agricultural lands are mapped in Figure 11-11. Natural
areas and forest land are shown in Figure 11-12. Species lists of
insects, mammals and birds are shown in Section 2 of the South-
west Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I.
11-41
-------
PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND WETLANDS
.'ROCKY i
IRIVER ~r~f
WESTLAKE I f1,J S X
Prime Agricultural Areas
Wetlands
J_
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities
I COUNTY ^
i i
SCALE IN MILES
Plan
-------
NATURAL AREAS & FORESTLAND
'ROCKY
(RIVER
WESTLAKE
Natural Areas &
Forest land
LIVERPOOL
xA
TWP
MEDINA
COUNTY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
SCALE IN MILES
COUNTY
i I
-------
II.1.2. Wetlands
Area wetlands are mapped in Figure 11-11. Lake Abram and its
surrounding wetlands, totalling approximately 70 acres, lies
adjacent to Abram Creek and to the Middleburg Heights wastewater
treatment plant. It is owned by Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea,
and has been subject to urban encroachment and land use changes
in the past.
II.1.3. Aquatic
The facilities plan includes species lists for fish and benthic
organisms of the Rocky River. These lists are found in Appendix
2 of the Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plans. Benthic
species from the Big Creek tributary of the Cuyahoga River are
also discussed.
A detailed baseline investigation of the benthic organisms of the
Rocky River was conducted during the preparation of the facili-
ties plan. Sampling stations of the benthic sampling program are
presented in Figure 11-13. Based on the data collected, two
ecological indices, species diversity and equitability, were
calculated to determine water quality conditions from the aquatic
life present in stream. The results are summarized in Table
11-16.
The numerical values generated to express diversity (c3) and
equitability (e) are related to habitat quality using the follow-
ing rating system:
d_ Value e; Value Classification
<1 <0.3 High Stress (poor quality)
1.0-2.2 <0.3 Moderate Stress
2.3-2.7 0.3-0.5 Light Stress
>2.7 0.6-1.0 Low or No Stress
Classification was based upon consideration of relative values in
cases where A and ($ values conflicted.
Diversity (<3) is a measure of the variety of species present,
while equitability (^) is a measure of the eveness of the numbers
of species present. A stream segment which supports many differ-
ent plants and animals with relatively even distribution of those
species' populations is considered healthier than a segment where
pollution tolerant species predominate and only a few are repre-
sented in small numbers.
An overall interpretation of benthic results generally reflect
water quality conditions associated with lightly or moderately
stressed environments. The general trend indicates decreasing
habitat quality from the headwaters of the branches and tributar-
ies to the confluence of the East/West Branches. That portion of
the West Branch located in the southernmost extent of the plan-
ning area showed good habitat quality. A progressive decrease in
11-44
-------
BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING AREAS
Sampling Stations
Surface Watercourses
Surface Water Bodies
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report
-•• v
Figure 11-13
-------
TABLE 11-16
DIVERSITY AND EQUITABILITY INDICES FOR ROCKY RIVER BENTHIC COMMUNITIES
SAMPLED ON OCTOBER 28-29, 1981
Sampling Station Total Number Total Number Diversity Equitability
Stream Segment of Taxa of Organisms Value Rank Value Rank
1 (E4) 19 3,863 2.48 6 0.42 10
2 (E3) 19 1,041 3.23 1 0.71 5
3 (B) 7 21,386 1.62 10 0.54 9
4 (E2) 11 426 2.81 4 0,89 2
5 (W4) 14 581 3.09 2 0.86 3
6 (P2) 12 389 2.96 3 0.92 1
£ 7 (W2) 8 1,274 2.33 7 0.85 4
' 8 (W1) 10 773 2.10 9 0.59 8
cn 9 (E1) 13 515 2.54 5 0.62 7
10 (M1) 11 885 1.11 11 0.26 11
11 (A) 1 41 0.00 12 0.00 12
12 (M2) 10 370 2.29 8 0.65 6
Source: Report on Flow Distribution Impact on Rocky River, 1982.
-------
d and e_ values occurred downstream. Effluent discharge by the
numerous dischargers in the area, particularly Strongsville "A"
WWTP, is reflected in the drop in diversity in locations BS-5 and
BS- 7. This affect is further magnified by those small plants
dis- charging to the West Branch and Plum Creek in the Olmsted
Falls area. Therefore, by the time the West Branch joins the
East Branch, benthic communities indicate moderate stress levels.
Benthic communities in Plum Creek suggest a high quality habitat
upstream of the study area. Discharges within the SWI Area, the
most significant of which are the Western Ohio Public Utilities
and Brentwood Development, apparently degrade river conditions.
These discharges result in poorer water quality at the confluence
with the West Branch.
A slightly different situation exists at the East Branch in
comparison to the West. Diversity at location BS-1 upstream on
the East Branch was considerably lower than at BS-2, indicating
an improvement in water quality in a downstream direction. This
may be the result of the impact on the Medina "300" WWTP upstream
of Station BS-1. Natural stream recovery occurs between BS-1 and
BS-2, however, due to the lack of dischargers in this area.
Sample station BS-4, located upstream of the Berea Wastewater
Treatment Plant in the vicinity of the ConRail Bridges, indicates
low stress, good quality aquatic environment; although diversity
and equitability values are lower than those found at sample sta-
tion BS-2. This likely is due to the Strongsville "B" and North
Royalton "A" WWTP discharges to Baldwin Creek which flows into
the East Branch between stations BS-2 and BS-4. Sample station
BS-3, located on Baldwin Creek indicates a moderate stress envi-
ronment.
Sample stations BS-4a, located just upstream of the Berea WWTP
indicates a high quality benthic habitat. Sample station BS-4
through 4e located downstream discharge of the Berea WWTP how-
ever, indicates a high stress aquatic environment. Visual
observation of the stream in the vicinity of sample stations and
water quality sampling data further illustrate the impact of this
discharge on the aquatic habitat.
Natural recovery of the East Branch is illustrated by sample
results at station BS-9 which show increasing diversity and
equitability values as the East Branch reaches the confluence.
Impacts of the Berea WWTP, however, are clearly evident in
benthic communities throughout the 4.4 mile stream segment from
the discharge to the confluence of the East and West Branches.
Sample station BS-10, located on the main branch of the Rocky
River, indicates a moderate to high stress aquatic environment.
The low diversity and equitability values at this location cannot
be attributed to water quality conditions in either branch. Con-
sequently, it appears that the discharge of the North Olmsted
WWTP, located upstream, significantly affects aquatic habitat in
this stream segment.
11-47
-------
Resulting from the combined discharge of the Brook Park and Mid-
dleburg Heights WWTP's, stress to the aquatic habitat is most
severe in Abram Creek. Diversity and equitability values at
sample station BS-11 were 0.00.
Sample station BS-12, demonstrates the natural recovery of the
Main Branch and lack of additional wastewater discharges in this
segment.
In addition to diversity and equitability values, a biotic index
value was calculated for selected sites during the September,
1982 benthic sampling program. The classification system is as
follows:
Biotic Index (BI) Value Classification
1.75 Excellent Quality
1.75 - 2.25 Good Quality
2.25 - 3.00 Fair Quality
3.00 - 3.75 Poor Quality
3.75 Very Poor Quality
Site BS-4b is severely affected as measured by all three indices.
The stream demonstrates partial recovery at sites BS-C through
BS-4e.
Field observations indicate that available habitat is poor at
stations BS-4 and BS-9, poorest at BS-9. This could account for
the drop in diversity. Further, station BS-4b has the greatest
diversity in physical habitat (substrate, flow characteristics,
etc.) and thus should exhibit a diversity higher than either site
BS-4 or BS-4a.
Also, it appears that data concerning station BS-9 is compatable
from both the 1981 and 1982 years, both for d_ and the biotic in-
dex. Data indicates that the stream biota is affected by waste-
water input at site BS-4b and is recovering through sites BS-4c
through BS-4e. The apparent degradation of the biota at site
B£-9 in both years most likely is due to changes in available
physical habitat.
II.I.4. Endangered Species
State endangered and threatened species are reported and mapped
in Section 2 of Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I.
State endangered species found in the planning area include the
four-toed salamander, the blue-spotted salamander, the bigmouth
shiner (fish) and the upland sandpiper (bird).
II.J. Cultural Resources
Historical and archaeological sites found within the study area
were inventoried. Some of these sites are eligible for or in-
cluded in the National Register of Historic Places. (See Table
11-17.) Many of these sites were mapped in Section 2 of the
Southwest Interceptor EIS/Facilities Plan V.I , Figures 15-18.
11-48
-------
TABLE 11-17
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Berea District 7 School
Berea Union Depot
Buehl House
Lyceum Village Square
Wheller House
Whitney House
Donalds House
Old District 10 Schoolhouse
First Universalist Church
Fort Hill
North Olmsted Town Hall
Adams House
Grand Pacific Hotel
Lay House
Northrop House
Stearns Farm
Henry House
Froelich House
Gabel House
Pomeroy House
Stone House
Strong House
Strongsville Activity Center
Berea
Berea
Berea
Berea
Berea
Berea
Brookpark
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Olmsted
North Olmsted
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Falls
Parma
Parma Heights
Seven Hills
Seven Hills
Strongsville
Strongsville
Strongsville
Strongsville*
*Eligible to become a National Register Site
11-49
-------
An archaeological survey on the proposed Southwest Interceptor
route was conducted as part of facilities planning. No archaeo-
logical remains were encountered.
U.K. Regional Growth
II.K.I. Population Projections
Population totals were derived from a summary of various sources.
These included the 1970 and 1980 censuses, 1975 estimated census,
RPI Housing Occupancy Reports, NOACA Interim 208 Outputs, North-
east Ohio Water Development Plan, Three Rivers Waste Water
Management in the Rocky River Basin, projections furnished by
USEPA and previous preliminary design reports.
County-wide population was first projected using the cohort-
survival projection model. This model projected births and
deaths within the county and the net migration into the county.
The changes were combined over a given period of time, yielding
the new population levels. Community census populations were
incorporated into the program using 1960 and 1970 counts as basic
input for all incorporated areas with population greater than
1,000. 1980 census data were added when the information became
available. The City of Cleveland's population is projected to
decline through the remainder of the century. Inner ring suburban
areas like Parma, Parma Heights, and Brook Park are expected to
decrease also over the next thirty years with gradual increases
projected through 2020. Middle ring suburban areas such as
Strongsville and North Royalton are projected to develop rapidly
with population doubling by 2020. Outer ring areas such as
Hinckley, Brunswick, and Columbia Township are presently rural in
nature and are projected to have moderate to high increases. The
recent facilities planning analysis shows increased populations
in the Brunswick/Brunswick-Hills area immediately adjacent to
Cuyahoga County. This will likely be stimulated by generally
lower construction costs and lower property taxes. The construc-
tion of Medina 300 WWTP is said to be a direct result of this
trend which is reflected in the 1980 census.
NOACA utilized county planning commission's expertise to deter-
mine local growth trends. Concurrently, NOACA developed area-wide
projections to provide a prospective of aggregate growth trends.
NOACA reviewed OBERS Series E projections, Battelle's DEMOS Mode
1, and three other district cohort-survival models. The NEFCO
model (for Summit and Portage Counties) and the Cuyahoga County
Regional Planning Commission model (for the remaining five coun-
ties) were selected. Projections by five year increments for
each of the seven counties were calculated and their rates of
growth were compared (Table 11-18). The table shows a slight
overall decline in the seven county region from 1975 through
1980. A growth rate of .7% is projected from 1980 to 2000. The
disaggregation of populations within the Cuyahoga County area was
based on recent growth trends and availability of land, local
restrictions, and other factors as detailed in the NOACA 208
Water Quality Report.
11-50
-------
TABLE 11-18
NOACA 208
COUNTY POPULATIONS WITH 1985 - 2000 PROJECTIONS AND GROWTH RATES*
M
H
1
-------
The baseline allocation procedure utilized by NOACA to disaggre-
gate county level projections consisted of five steps . These
steps are summarized as follows:
Step 1 - Determination of land available for development and an
allocation of the order in which the development will occur.
Step 2 - Preliminary allocation in five (5) year increments.
Step 3 - Adjustment of allocations to fit RPC and local plans.
Step 4 - Summated land allocations, population, and employment
in five (5) year increments.
Step 5 - Final map preparation.
Population derived from the procedures above were tabulated for
civil divisions within the SWI study area (Table 11-19). Between
1980 and 2000, Cleveland is expected to decline by 235,879 per-
sons or 1.9%. The SWI consultant reviewed each community sepa-
rately considering such factors as present zoning, available land
suitable for development, local attitudes toward growth, trans-
portation activities, land ownership patterns, utilities, land
use mix, and housing types. A summary of the projections
reviewed for each of the municipalities within the study area has
been compiled and is shown in the Southwest Interceptor EIS/
Facilities Plan Section 2.
As a result of this review, low, medium, and high population
figures were selected for design year 2000 and 2020. Generally,
the figures supplied by NOACA formed the basis for the low pro-
jection. NOACA's projections were chosen and were broken down
into drainage districts determined by sewer service area. The
extrapolation of municipal projections into the sub-districts
considered various factors to make the disaggregation such as
developable land, topography, present distribution, and existing
trends.
U.K.2. Economic Conditions of SWI Study Area
The SWI study area lies primarily in the Cleveland Standard Met-
ropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) with Option B (Columbia Town-
ship) and a small portion of Option A (Medina 300) in the Lorain-
Elyria and Akron SMSA's, respectively. All three of these SMSA's
constitute the Akron/Cleveland/Lorain Standard Consolidated
Statistical Area (SCSA).
The largest corporate employers in the Cleveland SMSA are Ford,
General Motors, Ohio Bell Telephone, Republic Steel and General
Electric. The largest employers in the City of Cleveland are the
U.S. Government, the Cleveland Board of Education, the City of
Cleveland, Republic Steel and Ohio Bell Telephone.
Population data for the period 1910-1980 comparing the U.S., the
Cleveland SMSA, the City of Cleveland and the suburbs were
compiled (Figure 11-14). The compilation shows: 1) that the SMSA
11-52
-------
TABLE 11-19
PROJECTED COMMUNITY POPULATION
Berea
Brecksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brook Park
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills Twp.
Cleveland
Columbia Township
Cuyahoga Heights
Fairview Park
Granger Township
Hinckley Township
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Township
Parma
Parma Heights
Richfield Township
Riveredge Township
Seven Hills
Strongsville
TOTAL
% of
Community
in SWI
Study Area
100.0
2.3
20.5
33.0
46.0
100.0
25.3
22.4
2. 1
100.0
28.6
23.3
4.3
69.8
100.0
100.0
93.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.9
100.0
89.2
100.0
1970
Census
22,465
9,137
11,463
13,142
1,527
30,774
15,852
2,293
750,879
5,738
866
21,699
2, 142
4,210
12,367
34,861
12,807
5,027
6,318
100,216
27, 192
4,943
632
12,700
15, 182
1980
Census
19,567
10,132
10,920
12,342
1,653
26,195
27,689
3,739
573,822
6,494
739
19,311
2,660
5,174
16,218
36,486
17,671
5,868
6,976
92,548
23,112
4,941
477
13,650
28,577
1985
21,200
11,000
11,600
12,300
1,700
26,600
35,100
4,900
560,000
7,300
800
20,500
3,300
6,200
17,000
42,200
22,300
6,500
8,000
102,500
25,300
5,600
500
15,000
33,000
1990
21,000
13,000
13,200
12,300
1,700
27, 100
39,900
5,700
540,000
8,200
800
21,000
3,900
7,000
18,000
44,000
27,000
7,000
9,700
105,000
26,000
6,600
500
16,000
40,000
1,124,432
966,961 1,000,300 1,014,600
11-53
-------
TABLE 11-19 (Cont)
PROJECTED COMMUNITY POPULATION
Berea
Brecksville
Broadview Heights
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Heights
Brook Park
Brunswick
Brunswick Hills Twp
Cleveland
Columbia Township
Cuyahoga Heights
Fairview Park
Granger Township
Hinckley Township
Middleburg Heights
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Township
Parma
Parma Heights
Richfield Township
Riveredge Township
Seven Hills
Strongsville
TOTAL
1995
21,000
15,000
14,900
12,300
1,700
27,500
44,700
6,600
525,000
8,900
800
21,500
4,500
7,900
19,000
45,000
31,700
7,300
11,000
106,000
26,000
7,700
500
16,500
46,000
2000
21,000
17,000
16,500
12,300
1,700
28,000
49,500
7,400
515,000
9,600
800
21,700
5,100
8,700
20,000
45,000
32,900
7,500
12,000
107,000
26,000
8,600
500
17,000
48,000
2005
21,000
18,900
17, 100
12,300
1,700
28,500
51, 100
8,200
511,300
10,300
800
21,800
5,700
9,500
20,800
45,000
33,200
7,800
12,300
107,400
26,000
9,000
500
17,300
49,500
2010
21,000
20,800
17,600
12,300
1,700
28,900
52,600
9,200
507,500
11, 100
800
21,800
6,300
10,400
21,500
45,000
33,500
8,000
12,500
107,800
26,000
9,400
500
17,500
51,000
2015
21,000
22,600
18, 100
12,300
1,700
29,400
53,900
10,200
503,800
11,800
800
21,900
7,100
11,200
22,300
45,000
33,800
8,300
12,800
108,100
26,000
9,800
500
17,800
52,500
2020
21,000
24,500
18,700
12,300
1,700
29,900
55,200
11,400
500,000
12,500
800
22,000
7,900
12,000
23,000
45,000
34,100
8,500
13,000
108,500
26,000
10,300
500
18,000
54,000
2025
21,000
26,600
19,300
12,300
1,700
30,400
56,400
12,600
496,200
13,200
800
22,100
8,800
12,900
23,700
45,000
34,400
8,700
13,200
108,900
26,000
10,700
500
18,200
55,500
1,029,000 1,038,800 1,047,000 1,054,700 1,062,700 1,070,800 1,079,100
11-54
-------
240
220
200
ISO
160
140
120
100
80
2.400
2.200
2.000
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
.800
.600
.400
.200
POPULATION 1910-1980
(in millions)
i (226.5)
— United States
(92)
1.899)
(1.325)
(.574)
Cleveland Suburbs
I
I
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
'Cleveland SMSA includes the counties of Cuyahoga, Geauga, and Lake.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP
1970
1980
Figure 11-14
-------
has declined as a percent of U.S. population since 1970; 2) that
the rank of Cleveland among cities has declined since 1950; and
3) that between 1950 and 1960 suburbs overtook the City in popu-
lation.
Other documents show that between 1970 and 1974 Cleveland fell
from 14th to 17th among SMSA's. In this four-year period the
Cleveland SMSA consistently lost population. Suburban growth
leveled at about 1.33 million in 1974-1975.
Data on projected city and suburban employment by place of work
are not available, but has been estimated for projection pur-
poses . Non-agricultural employment by place of work spanning
1960-1980 for the Cleveland SMSA has been compiled (Table 11-20).
The table also presents the total U.S. employment during this
time frame.
U.K.3. Economic Projections
Projected employment by industry was calculated by NOACA for the
seven counties in their planning area. These county-wide projec-
tions are listed .through the year 2000 for the Cleveland SMSA
(Cuyahoga, Medina, Lake and Geauga Counties), the Lorain-Elyria
SMSA, and Akron SMSA (Summit and Portage Counties). Tabulated
seven county totals are compared to projected employment total
through 2000 utilizing various projection processes forecasting
employment levels.
The employment projections developed for the NOACA 208 Program
are the result of two separate models. The 1980 and 1985 pro-
jections by NOACA are the output of a Shift-Share projection
model, while the 1990, 1995, and 2000 employment were projected
by the SWI consultant using a regression model.
At a fundamental planning level, the Shift-Share methodology was
used to explain local employment change. Two main attributes
affecting employment in a given area were analyzed; industrial
mix (i.e., whether the area has a large concentration of indus-
tries whose markets are expanding rapidly) and regional share
(i.e., whether the area has certain attributes which give it a
competitive advantage over other areas in the country). Specif-
ically, the Shift-Share model extrapolates past national employ-
ment change ratios into future time periods. The change ratios
in historical periods were projected by relating them to a sepa-
rate projection of national employment. The source of the
national projection is The Structure of the U.S. Economy in 1980
and 1985, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor.
There are three major categories of assumptions implicit in this
type of modeling. The first is that the ratio of local to nation-
al employment change, as defined in the historical period, will
hold in the projection period. Second, the national projections
must be assumed to be accurate since inaccuracies in the local
projection will obviously result if the national projection is
not realized. Third, it is necessary to consider the set of
11-56
-------
H
I
(Jl
TABLE 11-20
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN FIVE NON-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES 1960-1980 (000)
Mining
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Durables
Non-Durables
on
Real Estate
ted Services
1980
1,169
5,766
21,798
(13,459)
( 8,339)
5,822
19,782
U.S.
19/0
623
3,381
19,349
( 8,854)
(10,495)
3,688
11,612
Cleveland SMS A
1960
712
2,885
16,796
( 7,264)
( 9,532)
2,669
7,423
1980
1.4
33.5
255.9
(188.9)
( 66.9)
50.6
166.8
1970
1.5
32.2
296. 1
(198.4)
( 97.7)
42.0
137.4
i960
0.5
32.9
282.8
(196.8)
( 86.2)
31.9
87.9
Source: Southwest Interceptor EIS/FP, 1979.
Provisional Estimates of Social, Economic & Housing Characteristics,
1980 Bureau of the Census
-------
assumptions utilized in the national projection. The major
assumptions in the national projections are as follows: 1) a
four (4) percent national unemployment rate through the
projection period; 2) a major reliance on oil imports; 3) a
national population projection based upon the Census Bureau's
Series E fertility rates; and 4) increasing female labor force
participation rates. The major assumptions implied in the
regression model are: 1) the 1980 and 1985 local employment
projections will be realized and 2) future growth will follow the
patterns expressed in the 1960 and 1975 employment trends.
The OBERS-Series E has projected population, employment, personal
income, and earnings by industry for the U.S., states, regions,
and SMSA's to 2020. Its national projections were control totals
for the state, regional, and SMSA projections. The national
assumptions were based on: an economy in approximate equilibrium,
a fertility rate of 2,100 births per 1,000 women by 2005, an
unemployment rate of four percent, and an increase in the private
sector of 2.9 percent in output per man-hour per year. For its
regional projections OBERS assumed a continuation of past trends
modified with the help of locally knowledgeable people. The basic
past trends projected include a regional convergence toward the
national average in employment/population ratios, earnings per
worker and per capita income, employees shifting from low-to-high
growth areas, and no sharp breaks with past trends in the loca-
tion of basic industries.
In a recent report the BEA compared the OBERS-Series E projec-
tions (interpolated) for the states with the following actual
levels of economic activity in the states in 1973, non-farm
earnings, total earnings, total personal income, and population.
For each variable Ohio's level had been overestimated, the devia-
tions ranging from 1.1 to 2.7 percent. Earnings were overesti-
mated because of substantial overestimates of the non-manufactur-
ing sectors {except mining and construction which were substan-
tially underestimated). For the region including Ohio nearly
every major industry was projected to expand at below-average
rates in the next two decades. Exceptions noted are the
non-automotive transportation equipment and government sectors.
BEA projections showed a lower 1980 figure for both population
(11,141,955) and employment (4,694,145) than the OBERS-Series E
(11,650,600 and 5,025,100 respectively). Consequently, judge-
ment was extensively used in interpreting economic projections
for this project area.
11-58
-------
CHAPTER III
EXISTING CONDITIONS
-------
III. EXISTING FACILITIES
III.A. Southerly Treatment Plant
The Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located in
Cuyahoga Heights, Ohio, adjacent to the Cuyahoga River (see
Figure III-l). The Southerly plant serves portions of Cleveland
and 17 suburban communities and is owned and operated by NEORSD.
It has been expanded and upgraded since it began operation in
1927. Flow currently enters Southerly through three conduits.
These are the Southerly Interceptor (8"6" diameter), the Big
Creek Interceptor (6'3" diameter), and the Mill Creek Intercep-
tor (4'3" diameter). Phase I of the Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor
(7'6" diameter), is scheduled to be completed and in service by
early 1984.
In 1972 the State of Ohio placed the Southerly WWTP under orders
to expand and upgrade its treatment process. Since 1974 the
plant has been expanded from 115 (million gallons per day) mgd
average daily flow to 200 mgd. Peak flow is 400 mgd. Presently
the plant must meet the NPDES permit effluent limitations of 7
mg/1 BOD5, 7 mg/1 SS, 1.5 mg/1 TKN and 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus.
The final and interim NPDES permit limitations for Southerly are
shown in Table III-l and Table III-2. The permit expired in 1980
and has not been formally reissued. Ohio EPA is contemplating a
modification of the permit from a TKN nitrogen limit to an
ammonia nitrogen limit.
These stringent permit limits will be achieved by a two-stage
activated sludge process and sand filters. Figure III-2 shows a
diagram of the treatment process at Southerly and Figure III-3
shows the layout of the treatment units on the 200 acre site.
Phosphorus removal is accomplished by adding the chemical ferric
chloride. Ammonia is converted to nitrate in the two stage acti-
vated sludge process. Sludge is digested anaerobically and then
incinerated. The effluent is disinfected with chlorine prior to
discharge to the Cuyahoga River. All of these improvements have
been completed with the exception of the rehabilitation of the
original 115 mgd secondary treatment plant, which is an ongoing
effort.
The present average flow to Southerly is 92.9 mgd. The comple-
tion of Phase I of the Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor will increase
this flow to 102.9 mgd. Since the plant was designed for 200
mgd, there is ample capacity to treat the additional flows.
III.B. Main Leg Area
Much of the Main Leg area is presently served by the Big Creek
Interceptor which conveys flow to the Southerly WWTP. Communi-
ties discharging to the Big Creek Interceptor include portions
of Cleveland, Brooklyn, Brook Park, Parma, Parma Heights and
Cuyahoga Heights. The area north of Brook Park Road which dis-
charges to the Big Creek Interceptor is served by combined
sewers conveying both sanitary and storm flow. The southern
III-l
-------
I
JJ
EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
I r
r yGRAYTON ROAD PUMP STATION
CLEVELAND
NORTH NORTH
OLMSTED OLMSTEO
WWTP
wr, CAEEK IMTERCCrrW UIWKe «MJ
SEVE^
PARMA N I HILI-S
J __ Q EAST L« OfllWi MCA
r/; •
" 77 ;B.E*"TE5r
> |
IB) WOTttOOO AMRTMC1T4 w*TP
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY " \ |
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternati\
-------
TABLE III-1
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
PARAMETER
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Suspended Solid (mg/1)+
BODS (mg/1)+
Fecal Coliforms+
(Number/100 ml)
Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/l)+
Total Phosphorus (mg/l)+
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
pH ( standard units )
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Cadmium (ug/1)
Chromium (ug/1 )
Copper (ug/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Mercury (ug/1)
Nickel (ug/1)
Zinc (ug/1)
Phenols (ug/1)
BEREA
D807*BD
9/30/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1.5/2.25++
1.0/1 .5
M
6.0 to 9.0
0.5 max.
5.0 min.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
BROOK PARK
D812*CD
12/28/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1.5/2.25
1.0/1.55
5.0
6.0 to 9.0
0.5 max.
5.0 min.
M
5
100
20
30
0.2
M
95
10
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS
K806*CD
12/28/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1.5/2.25
1.0/1.5
5.0
6.0 to 9.0
0.5 max.
5.0 min.
M
5
100
20
30
0.2
M
95
10
30-Day Average/7-Day Average
Summer Only
M=Monitor Only
+++ Effluent limitations do not reflect forthcoming Water Quality Report by Ohio EPA
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982
III-3
-------
TABLE III-1 (Cont.)
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS"*"*"1"
PARAMETER
STRONGSVILLE
COLUMBIA TWP.SUB.
(WESTVIEW PARK)
NEORSD SOUTHERLY
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Suspended Solid (mg/1 )+
BODS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(Number/100 ml)
Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/l)+
Total Phosphorus (mg/l)+
Oil & Grease (mg/l)+
pH (standard units)
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(mg/1)
Cadmium (ug/1)
Chromium (ug/1)
Copper (ug/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Mercury (ug/1)
Nickel (ug/1)
Zinc (ug/1)
Phenols (ug/1)
D821*BD
9/22/77
8/12
8/12
200/400
1.5/2.25 ++
1.0/1.5
M
6.0 to 9.0
0.5 max.
5.0 min.
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
—
H822*BD P802*CD
4/01/77 09/20/77
12/18 7/12
10/15 7/12
200/400 200/400
—
1.0/1.5
5.0
6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
0.2 to 0.7 0.5 max.
— 5.0 min.
1.5/2.25
5
300
20
40
0.5
—
200
10
+ 30-Day Average/7-Day Average
Summer Only
M=Monitor Only
++"*T3ffluent limitations do not reflect forthcoming Water Quality Report by Ohio EPA
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982.
III-4
-------
TABLE III-2
INTERIM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
H
H
H
1
l/l
PARAMETER
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Suspended Solid (mg/1 )
BODS (mg/1)
Fecal Coliforms
(Number/100 ml)
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
Chlorine Residual (mg/1)
BEREA
D807*BD
9/30/77
24/36
21/30
1000/2000
—
0.5 max.
BROOKPARK
D812*CD
12/28/77
20/30
17/26
1000/2000
—
0.5 max.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY
BRENTWOOD SUB.
H82 0 *AD
05/05/75
25/45
15/23
200/400
—
0.5 max.
MIDDLEBURG
HEIGHTS
K806*CD
12/28/77
35/65
18/27
1000/2000
1.0/1.5
0.5 max.
STRONGSVILLE "A"
D82 1 *BD
09/22/77
30/45
30/45
1000/2000
1.0/1.5
0 . 5 max .
30-Day Average/7-Day Average
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982.
-------
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Flow Diagram
CHEMICAL
j. ADDITION
CHEMICALS1' for
P0« REMOVAL
WASTE FILTER CHLORINE
LIQUORS BACKWASH
LJQUORS "EC CLE CHEMICALS* CHEMICALS*
RECYCLE | CHEMICALS*
i -• ^ i
^^ BAR ^W GRIT jt PRIMARY ^
•••* SCREENS •••* CHANNELS ••• TANKS '
CHLORINE^^
1 ' 1 '
TO TO ' '
DISPOSAL DISPOSAL T0
SOLIDS
HANDLING
1
EXC
OVER
T
RIV
C
5
NO
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
Source: Southerly Wastewater Treatment Cen
1
AERATION '*' A w AERATION z nd X w CHLORINE w JQ
^ TANKS B^ STAGE H^ J^H fV1 TANKS "^ STAGE ••^ EFILLTERST "^ CONTACT •^•OUTFALL
TT Irt STAGE ^^CLARIFIERS ^^ STATION ^^ ^ ^^ ^ CLARIFIERS ^ ^ TANK ^
y
1 1
t n \ \
BACKWASH X
PLANT
WATER
RETURN SLUDGE "ETURN SLUOGE
FILTER
BACKWASH
T TO
EXCESS EQUALIZATION
ACTIVATED and
, , SLUDGE RETURN TO
cv.^c, TO 2nd STAGE
. .^,.,.^n SOLIDS AERATION
^ESS "sI^Gl0 HANDL'NG SYSTEM
FLOW TO
0 SOLIDS
ER HANDLING
*NOT£: OPTIONAL CHEMICAL FEED LOCATIONS
Y
ter Basis of Design - Malcom Pernie, Inc. - 1973
-------
SOUTHERLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Existing Facilities
Jl
<5'
c = =
-^ rt 8'-6' (>LANT
n|| / INTERCEPTOR
iiit«=_i
^g*~A|g.__
/jr CONCENTRATION BlDSu'
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southerly Wastewater Treatment Center Basis of Design - Malcom Pernie, Inc. - 1973
-------
portion has separate storm and sanitary sewer systems. Thus,
only sanitary sewer flow is conveyed to Big Creek Interceptor
from south of Brook Park Road. Because of problems of excessive
stormwater flow entering the combined sewers, the Big Creek
Interceptor is inadequate to convey all the wastewater from its
present service area. This results in overflows of untreated
sewage to Big Creek and its tributaries. Overflows occur with
even the median 1/2 inch rainfall, so pollution is frequent.
The Grayton Road Pump Station is located north of the Cleveland
Hopkins Airport, at Grayton Road and Hillside Drive. Tributary
areas are shown in Figure III-l as part of the Main Leg area.
The service area includes the airport, some surrounding indus-
trial facilities, a small part of Cleveland and a trailer park.
Flow from this area is conveyed to the pump system where it is
pumped to the Big Creek Interceptor. During rainfall periods,
the amount of water directed to the Grayton Road Pump Station
exceeds its pumping capacity. Thus, bypassing of untreated
sewage occurs at the pump station.
III.C. West Leg Area
III.C.I. Wastewater Treatment Plants - Description
Table III-3 presents a listing of the plants serving the study
area. They are grouped according to size and service area. As
this table demonstrates, the West Leg Area is served by four
major plants and approximately 35 small wastewater treatment
plants. Ninety percent of the discharge from the West Leg Area
is contributed by the four major plants. Tables III-l and III-2
show the effluent limitations for these plants. Existing water
quality in the West Leg Area is heavily determined by the capa-
bilities and performances of the four major plants.
Ohio EPA is presently completing a detailed analysis of the
Rocky River which will include consideration of the final efflu-
ent requirements for all treatment plants. This Rocky River
Comprehensive Water Quality Report will analyze the chemical and
biological water quality as well as economic factors which es-
tablish discharge permit limits.
A brief description and performance evaluation of each major
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is presented below. Projected
dry weather flows are shown in Table III-4. A descriptive analy-
sis of some of the smaller plants and unsewered conditions in
the West Leg Area completes this section. Detailed descriptions
and evaluations are presented in Southwest Interceptor Area
Cost-Effective Analysis: Local Wastewater Treatment Alterna-
tives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, and Strongs-
ville ("A") and in Southwest Interceptor Area Cost Effective
Analysis; Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township and Columbia Township.
III-8
-------
TABLE III-3
POINT SOURCE WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
WEST LEG
MAJOR PLANTS
Brook Park
Berea (3)
(1)'
Middleburg Heights (2)
Strongsville A (4)
SMALL PLANTS
Group I (over 0.1 MGD)
OLMSTED FALLS
Versailles (Westwood Apts.) (12)
Western Ohio Pub. Util. (11)
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
Columbia Trailer Park (9)
COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP
Westview Park (Columbia Subdiv.)(13)
Group II (under 0.1 MGD)
OLMSTED FALLS
Elementary School (15)
Lennox Elementary School
Middle School (17)
High School (18)
Olmsted Mobile Homes (14)
Champion International (23)
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
Falls Subdiv. (19)
(16)
Group III (small WWTP)
STRONGSVILLE
Care Service Center
Commerce Construction Co.
Schruk Industries
OLMSTED FALLS
Falls Tackle & Taxidermy
Whitey's Coffee Shop
Gastown Gas Station
Ohio Bell Service Building
Conrad's Barber Shop
OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
American Wire & Cable
Weekley's Mailing Service
V.R.C. Inc.
Dairy Queen
Shaker's IGA
Huge Heating & Cooling
Society of Danube Swabians
Assoc. for Systems Mgmt.
Dairy Tee
The Corral
Medical Data Services
Taylor Rental Center
Golden Tee Golf Range
Westview Electric Service
Costanzo's Restaurant
*Numbers in parentheses refer to size as ranked in the Southwest Planning Area.
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report, 1982
III-9
-------
H
H
H
I
TABLE III-4
DRY WEATHER WWTP DISCHARGES TO ROCKY RIVER (cfs)
WWTP
Berea
N. Royalton "B"
Strongsville "C"
Albion Jr. High
N. Royalton "A"
Strongsville "B"
Small WWTP's
Medina "300"
Strongsville "A"
Small WWTP's
Small WWTP's
Medina "500"
N. Olmsted
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Receiving
Stream
EB
BC/EB
BC/EB
BC/EB
EB
EB
EB
EB
WB
PC/WB
WB
WB
MB
MB
MB
SWI
Service Area
WL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
MO
WL
WL
WL
—
NOO
WL
WL
PROJECTED DISCHARGE
1980
3.60
.66
.55
.01
1.85
.53
.05
1.87
3.08
.73
.75
8.73
7.57
.93
2.79
1990
3.77
.94
1.44
.01
2.45
1.61
.05
3.34
4.31
.73
.75
10.84
9.21
1.11
3.36
2000
3.94
1.22
2.33
.01
3.05
2.69
.05
4.81
5.54
.73
.75
12.95
10.84
1.28
3.92
2005
4.03
1.36
2.77
.01
3.36
3.23
.05
5.54
6.16
.73
.75
14.00
11.66
1.37
4.20
Source
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
5
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
Sources: 1) Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan, John David Jones & Assoc., Inc., 1982
2) North Royalton Wastewater Facilities Plan, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Ltd., (Ongoing)
3) Strongsville "B" and "C^ Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981
4) North Olmsted Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981
5) Medina "300" Wastewater Facilities Plan S Preliminary Engineering Report, Project 1601,
Medina Co. Sanitary Eng., 1981
6) Medina "500" Wastewater Facilities Plan, Halishak & Associates, Inc.
-------
111 . C.1.a. Brook Park WWTP
The Brook Park plant is located in the southern section of Brook
Park at the end of Plant Lane, approximately 0.25 miles south-
west of the intersection of Holland Road and Sylvia Drive. The
plant site occupies approximately 11 . 5 acres . The site is
bounded on the south by Abram Creek, on the east by the resi-
dences along Leslie Drive, and on the northwest side by railroad
tracks. The wastewater treatment plant currently uses about 4.2
acres of the total site. The plant is owned and operated by the
City of Brook Park and provides service to the south-central
section of the City.
The original Brook Park Plant was placed in operation in 1959.
The plant was an activated sludge plant designed to treat an
average flow of 0.35 mgd. Expansion of the chlorine contact
chamber and primary settling facilities, and addition of a
centrifuge and administration building occurred in 1975. Flow
during 1981 averaged 1.6 mgd.
The treatment units include an aerated grit removal chamber;
screening and shredding facilities; a raw sewage pump station;
primary settling tanks; aerated contact tanks; return sludge
reaeration tank; secondary settling tanks; a chlorine contact
chamber, and a Parshall Flume. Sludge handling is accomplished
with a two-stage anaerobic digestion system; a centrifuge;
sludge drying beds; and contract hauling or residential pick-up.
The treatment process and unit layout are depicted in Figures
II1-4 and III-5.
Effluent is discharged into Abram Creek, which is a tributary of
the Main Branch of the Rocky River. Since dry weather flows in
Abram Creek consists almost entirely of discharged wastewater,
effluent quality must be high and treatment must be reliable to
meet Ohio's Water Quality Standards.
Ill.C.l.b. Middleburg Heights WWTP
The Middleburg Heights WWTP began operating in 1970 and serves
all sewered sections of the City. The plant site consists of
approximately 15 acres located in the northeast corner of Mid-
dleburg Heights, near the intersection of Sheldon and Eastland
Roads. The WWTP currently utilizes about nine acres of the
total site. The plant is operated and maintained by Cuyahoga
County.
The plant is an activated sludge plant operating in the step
aeration mode. The plant has a design capacity of 2.0 mgd.
Flow during 1981 averaged 2.06 mgd.
Treatment plant components include the following: trash rack;
aeration grit removal chamber; comminutors; raw sewage lift
station; ferrous chloride feed for phosphorus removal; aeration
tanks; secondary settling tanks; chlorine contact chamber;
Parshall Flume; and tertiary aeration lagoon. Sludge handling
III-ll
-------
BROOK PARK WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Existing Flow Diagram
ABRAMS
CREEK
<$'
i
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A"
-------
BROOK PARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) SEWAGE FLOW REGULATOR
2.) PREAERATION DEGRIT TANK
3.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
4.) AERATION TANKS
5.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
6.) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7.) CHLORINATION FACILITIES
8.) ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
9.; CONTROL HOUSE
10.) COVERED SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
ii.) OPEN SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
12.) OFFICE 8 LABORATORY BUILDING (NEW)
13.) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (OLD)
14.) GARAGE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives For Brook Park Middleburg Heights Berea Strongsville |"A")
-------
facilities consist of the following unit processes: aerobic
digestion; dissolved air flotation thickening; and contract
hauling of liquid sludge. During wet weather, excess flow is
discharged directly to the lagoon. Figures III-6 and III-7 show
the treatment process and plant schematic, respectively.
Effluent is discharged into Abram Creek, which is a tributary of
the Main Branch of the Rocky River. Dry weather flow in Abram
Creek is low. This requires a high quality effluent discharge
from the plant in order to meet water quality standards.
III.C.I.e. Berea WWTP
The plant is located north of the City of Berea near the inter-
section of Barrett and Nobottom Roads. This site occupies ap-
proximately 22.3 acres of which seven acres are in actual use.
The site is bounded on the south and east by land owned by the
Cleveland Metroparks District. The plant provides service to
the City of Berea and small sections of Brook Park and Olmsted
Falls. The plant is owned and operated by the City.
The original Berea WWTP began operating in 1937. The plant
included an activated sludge process designed to treat an aver-
age flow of 1.0 mgd. The capacity was increased to 2.0 mgd in
1951-52 and again expanded to 3.0 mgd in 1967-1968. The plant's
sludge handling facilities were upgraded and a vacuum filter was
installed in 1964. Flow during 1981 averaged 2.65 mgd.
Treatment units include screening and shredding facilities; an
aerated grit removal and preaeration chamber; primary settling
tanks; an aerated contact tank; return sludge reaeration tanks;
secondary settling tanks; chlorination facilities; and a Par-
shall Flume. Sludge handling is accomplished with a two-stage
anaerobic digestion system; a vacuum filter; sludge drying beds;
and on-site landfilling. Figures III-8 and III-9 show the
treatment process and plant schematic.
Effluent is discharged into the East Branch of the Rocky River.
Low stream flow conditions in the East Branch require a high
quality discharge from the Berea plant. The low flow conditions
result from upstream withdrawals by the Berea water treatment
plant which are discussed in Chapter V.
Ill.C.l.d. Strongsville "A" WWTP
The City of Strongsville is served by three wastewater treatment
plants. The Sewer District "A" plant is the largest plant and
it serves the entire western section of the City. The plant site
occupies 15.8 acres and is located in the northwest corner of
the City near the intersection of Marks and Sprague Roads. The
site is divided by Blodgett Creek, with the plant utilizing
about 2.7 acres on the north side of the creek.
The original plant, which began operating in 1967, was designed
as an extended aeration facility to treat an average flow of 1.0
mgd. The first phase of an improvement program was completed in
111-14
-------
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Existing Flow Diagram
RAW SEWAGE BY-RIVSS
I
v/\
INFLUENT
AERATED
GRIT
REMOVAL
CHAMBER
SCREENING
COMMINU-
TION
RAW
SEWAGE
LIFT
STATION
1
*
AERATION
TANKS
SECONDARY
SETTLING
TANKS
9
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANKS
PARSHALL
FLUME
-
]
I
TERTIARY
LAGOON
ABRAMS
"CREEK
RETURN ]
SLUDGE '--
| WASTE
SLUDGE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
-------
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
>1
c
5
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) GRIT CHAMBER
2.) INFLUENT PUMP STATION
3.) AERATION TANK
4.) BLOWER BUILDING
5.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
6.) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7) CHLORINE BUILDING
8.) TERTIARY LAGOON
9) FLOATING AERATORS
10) AEROBIC DIGESTOR
II) SLUDGE PUMP STATION
12.) SLUDGE HOLDING TANK
13) FILTER BUILDING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middlebury Heights, Beroa, Strongsville ("A")
-------
BEREA WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Existing Flow Diagram
INFLUENT.
i?
*
SCREENING
COMMINUTION
AERATED
GRIT
REMOVAL
CHAMBER
f
m '
I
3
in
_WASTE_SLi!DQE_J
* RETURN"
SLUDGE
<$'
CD
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
-------
BEREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) OVERFLOW CHAMBER
2.) SCREENING CHAMBER
3.) GRIT CHAMBER (STORM ONLY)
4.) DEGRITTING 8 PREAERATION TANK
5.) DIVERSION CHAMBER
6.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
7) AERATION TANKS
8.) DIVERSION CHAMBER
9.) FINAL CLARIFIERS
10) BLOWER BUILDING
II.) FINAL CLARIFIERS SLUDGE BOX
12.) CONTROL BUILDING
13) PRIMARY DIGESTER
14) SECONDARY DIGESTER
15.) DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING
16) SLUDGE DEWATERING BUILDING
17.) SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
18.) SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
19.) CHLORINE HOUSE
20.) GARAGE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park Middleburg Heights Berea Strongsville ("A"
-------
1981. This phase included aerated sludge holding facilities;
new return sludge pumps; two new secondary clarifiers; two new
blowers; an additional chlorine contact tank; chemical feed
facilities for phosphorus removal; and a gravity sludge thick-
ener. Figures 111-10 and III-ll show the treatment process and
flow schematic. Existing tank capacity from the original plant
was utilized during the first phase of the improvement program
to provide the sludge holding, chlorine contact, and gravity
sludge thickening units. The pending, or second phase, of the
improvement program will include a belt filter press and sludge
chemical conditioning facilities. Also, the ultimate destination
of the sludge will be changed from the Westerly Wastewater
Treatment Plant to the Southerly WWTP. The Strongsville "A"
plant is operated and maintained by NEORSD.
The plant is currently operated as an activated sludge plant,
with no prior primary treatment and sludge stabilization. The
plant's theoretical design capacity is 2.5 mgd. Flow during
1981 averaged 2.16 mgd.
Effluent is discharged into Blodgett Creek which is tributary to
the West Branch of the Rocky River. The physical characteristics
of Blodgett Creek requires a consistent, high quality effluent
to insure maintaining Ohio's Water Quality Standards.
III.C.2. Performance Analysis - Facilities Plan
A detailed evaluation and treatment capability analysis was con-
ducted on the four major plants as part of the facilities
planning effort. The evaluation considered plant influent,
interim and final NPDES permit effluent limitations, and stream
sampling. A less detailed summary survey was made of the small
plants.
The evaluation of the four major wastewater treatment plants
consisted of the following steps:
0 Field inspection of each plant.
0 Interviews with plant personnel.
0 Evaluation of equipment and facilities according to
accepted design standards (Ten States Standards).
0 Review of the past six years of plant performance
data from the Ohio EPA data base.
0 Review of effluent and stream sampling results obtained
during the evaluation of wastewater treatment plant
effluent impact on streams.
The four major plants, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea,
and Strongsville "A" were all found to be well operated and
maintained. The one major problem common to all four plants is
the occurrence of high wet weather flows. The flows exceed
plant capacity and result in the discharge of untreated waste-
water and subsequent stream pollution. With the exception of
Brook Park, none of the plants can be considered to be over-
loaded during dry weather.
111-19
-------
STRONGSVILLE 'A' WWTP EXISTING FLOW DIAGRAM
o
BLODGETT
CREEK
TANK TRUCK «-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGECNY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives For Brook Park Middleburg Heights Berea Strongsville ("A")
-------
STRONGSVILLE 'A' WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) RAW SEWAGE BASIN
2.) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
3.) DISTRIBUTION BASIN
4.) AERATION TANKS
5.) FINAL CLARIFIERS
6.) NEW CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7.) CHLORINATOR BUILDING
8.) STORAGE BUILDING
9.) RETURN SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
IQ) SLUDGE BASIN
II.) SLUDGE THICKENING TANK
12.) FILTER PRESS BUILDING
13.) SLUDGE WELL
14.) EXISTING CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
15.) CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK
16.) AERATED SLUDGE STORAGE TANKS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A'
-------
Final clarifiers at the Brook Park plant are hydraulically over-
loaded and heavy solids deposits were observed in the chlorine
contact tank. Visual observation and comments from plant opera-
tors indicate that the plant's influent is contaminated by oily
industrial wastes. Because of this, it will be extremely diffi-
cult for the Brook Park plant to consistently meet interim
effluent limitations.
No major operational problems were identified at the Middleburg
Heights plant. Similarly, no operational problems were identi-
fied in the wet stream units at the Berea plant. However, solids
processing and solids disposal at this plant were inadequate.
Both the Middleburg Heights and the Berea plants should consis-
tently meet interim effluent limits for BOD5 and suspended
solids.
The Strongsville "A" plant is undergoing a prolonged and diffi-
cult rebuilding and expansion program. New wet stream units
began operating in September, 1981 and the solids processing
belt filter began operating early in 1982. The capability anal-
ysis indicates that adequate secondary treatment is available.
However, considerable time will be required to debug the plant
and to train personnel to properly operate the new equipment.
Since the Strongsville "A" plant upgrading program is in its
early stages, representative analytical data pertaining to the
performance of the plant under these improved conditions are not
available.
The Middleburg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A" plants will
meet some or all of their interim effluent standards. However,
the treatment capability analysis showed that none of the plants
will consistently meet final limits without expansion and addi-
tion of tertiary treatment and phosphorus removal components.
III.C.3. Performance Analysis - EIS
On August 5-6, 1980, USEPA's Eastern District Office conducted a
compliance sampling inspection of the four major wastewater
treatment plants in the study area. Weather conditions were
fair. The purpose of the inspection was to determine the
reliability of the discharge monitoring data reported by each
facility for compliance with their interim discharge permits and
to make suggestions for improvements. Following are the major
problems noted at each facility.
III.C.3.a. Brook Park
EPA test results indicated excessive levels of residual chlorine
and high levels of phosphorus, although there are presently no
permit limits for phosphorus.
Self-monitoring has also indicated high levels of chlorine and
periodic problems with fecal coliform bacteria, suspended solids
and grease and oil.
111-22
-------
Flow accuracy may be a problem and an improvised metal sampling
can may contaminate samples. Record keeping at the laboratory
is poor.
Laboratory procedures are incorrect for 6005; ammonia and
phosphorus. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) was not being tested,
despite a permit requirement.
The treatment plant values were frequently higher than EPA re-
sults for the same sample.
The laboratory has no quality control program.
III.C.3.b. Middleburg Heights
Phosphorus levels exceeded the required limits; iron concentra-
tions (while not specified in the permit) violate Ohio Water
Quality Standards.
Self-monitoring has indicated periodic problems with 8005,
phosphorus, suspended solids and fecal coliform bacteria. Al-
though the effluent quality is acceptable, in-stream concentra-
tions of ammonia are high because of the small size of the
stream.
The laboratory is outdated and poorly maintained. Improper
procedures are used to measure the chlorine residual. Agreement
between the treatment plant lab results and EPA results was fair
to poor for 6005 and suspended solids. Some tests for this
are done at the Rocky River Treatment Plant.
The laboratory has no quality control program.
At the time of the visit, the grit removal unit was not working.
Ill.C.3.c. Berea
EPA test results showed compliance with interim permit limits;
ammonia values were high, but were not a parameter included in
the permit.
Incorrect laboratory techniques were used for residual chlorine,
BOD5, suspended solids, ammonia, phosphorus and fecal coliform
bacteria.
The treatment plant values were frequently lower than EPA re-
sults for ammonia, phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and 6005
The flow meter was not calibrated, sludge was poorly stored, and
the bar screen was under repair.
The laboratory has no quality control program.
111-23
-------
III.G.S.d. Strongsville "A"
Both EPA and the self-monitoring results noted that the levels
of 6005, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria and phos-
phorus exceed permit limits. The plant records also indicate
problems with high levels of ammonia. Since the time of the
1980 survey, some treatment plant improvements have been made
which should reduce BOD5 and suspended solids.
Some problems were noted with laboratory procedures for COD
(chemical oxygen demand), low level of metals and lead. Grab
samples, rather than the required composite samples were used.
Flow bypassed at the treatment plant is not metered.
III.C.4. Small Wastewater Treatment Plants
Thirty-eight small wastewater treatment plants in the West Leg
Area were surveyed during facilities planning. The plants were
rated as satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory according to
the following criteria:
0 Quality of effluent
0 Operation of aeration and return sludge facilities
0 Presence or absence of scum and septic sludge
0 Maintenance of plant facilities
The plants, located within Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and
Strongsville, were surveyed in early October 1981 during a per-
iod of cool, damp weather. Different weather conditions during
the time of the survey may alter some observations.
During the survey there was little or no evidence of sewage odor
or other signs of nuisance or unsanitary conditions adjacent to
the small plants. Effluent was discharged to the soil adjacent
to a number of plants. This resulted in abundant growth of weeds
but odors or deposits were not detected.
Package plants serving sewered subdivisions within the area gen-
erally are properly operated and maintained. Even with optimal
operation and maintenance, however, most are unable to meet
final treatment levels due to the lack of tertiary facilities
and/or hydraulic overloading caused by high rates of infiltra-
tion and inflow.
Seven package wastewater treatment plants serve subdivisions
within the study area. Package plants and sewer service areas
are identified in Figure III-l and Table III-3 and discussed
below.
Columbia Trailer Park
The Columbia Trailer Park Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of
the following components:
111-24
-------
0 Comminutor
0 17,000 gallon septic tank converted to grit chamber
° Two 125,000 extended aeration units
0 Free cell rapid sand filter
0 Chlorination facilities
0 4,550 square foot sludge drying bed
The privately owned and operated plant currently services ap-
proximately 700 mobile homes. Existing average and peak waste-
water flows are presented in Table III-5. An additional 395
trailer lots ultimately are proposed for development. The Ohio
EPA has approved development of 80 additional lots, contingent
on I/I rehabilitation to reduce peak flows.
Review of Ohio EPA records indicates the following design and
O&M deficiencies:
0 Excessive infiltration/inflow in the sewer system
0 Aeration units frequently overflow during peak flows
0 Rapid sand filter is bypassed approximately 50% of
the time due to high flows
0 Solids are wasted infrequently
Brentwood Subdivision
Brentwood Subdivision is served by a 150,000 gallon/day county-
owned extended aeration plant consisting of:
0 Two 68,040 gallon aeration units
0 Two settling basins
0 Chlorination facilities
0 Enclosed aerated sludge holding basin
According to field observations made in October 1981, the plant
is operated satisfactorily. Table III-5 shows that existing
average flows substantially exceed the plant's design capacity.
Western Ohio Public Utilities
This subdivision is served by a 400,000 gallon/day extended aera-
tion plant consisting of the following components:
0 Four 100,000 gallon extended aeration units
° Chlorination facilities
0 40,000 gallon sludge holding tank
0 Sludge drying beds
Plans developed in 1976 to add tertiary treatment (rapid sand
filters) have not been implemented in anticipation of construc-
tion of an interceptor to Southerly WWTP.
Field observations indicated that existing facilities are ade-
quately operated and maintained. Significant deficiencies of the
system include:
0 Excessive infiltration/inflow in the collection system
(see existing peak flow in Table III-5)
111-25
-------
TABLE III-5
EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS
REFERENCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DESIGN
SERVICE AREA FLOW(MGD)
Columbia Trailer Park
Brentwood Subdivision
W.Ohio Pub. Utilities
Falls Subdivision
Versailles
Westview Park
Brookside Drive
.25
. 15
.40
.03
.10
. 14
Unk.
AVERAGE PEAK
FLOW(MGD) FLOW(MGD)
.136
.218
.311
.012
.038
.093
.022
.825
1.696
2.012
.094
.275
.637
.063
TYPE OF
PLANT
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
PS
RECEIVING
SYSTEM
WB
PC
PC
WB
WB
WB
PC
PS - Primary Settling
EA - Extended Aeration
PC - Plum Creek
WB - West Branch Rocky River
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective Analysis, Local Wastewater
Management Alternatives; 1982.
111-26
-------
0 Lack of tertiary treatment facililties and resultant
inability to meet final NPDES permit effluent
limitations.
Falls Subdivision
Falls Subdivision is served by a 30,000 gallon/day extended aer-
ation plant owned by the Village of Olmsted Falls. The plant was
constructed in 1980 as a temporary facility to be abandoned upon
completion of the Southwest Interceptor West Leg. The plant
consists of:
0 Trash trap
0 One 30,000 gallon extended aeration unit
0 Surface sand filters
0 Chlorination facilities
0 Sludge holding tank
0 Two sludge drying beds with a total area of
2,739 square feet
Field observations indicated that the plant is operated satis-
factorily. The plant has sufficient capacity for the 20 year
planning period, assuming infiltration and inflow does not be-
come a major concern.
Versailles Subdivision
Versailles Subdivision is served by a 100,000 gallon/day extend-
ed aeration plant owned by the Village of Olmsted Falls. The
plant consists of the following components:
0 Comminutor
0 Two 50,000 gallon extended aeration units
0 One 200,000 gallon rapid sand filter and one
300,000 rapid sand filter
0 5,000 gallon aerobic sludge digester and 1,000
square foot sludge drying bed
0 Chlorination facilities
Field observations and recent Ohio EPA inspection reports indi-
cate that the plant is operated satisfactorily.
Operation and maintenance problems reported by Ohio EPA include:
0 Excessive foam and spray
0 Maintenance of the sludge drying beds
0 Minor infiltration and hydraulic overloads
Westview Park
Westview Park is served by a 140,000 gallon/day extended aera-
tion plant owned and operated by Lorain County. The plant con-
sists of:
0 Comminutor/bar screen
0 Aeration tanks
0 Settling basins
0 Rapid sand filter
111-27
-------
0 Chlorination facilities
0 Aerobic sludge digester and sludge drying beds
Field observations in Ocbober, 1981, indicate that the plant is
operated satisfactorily. Major infiltration/inflow problems in
the collection system, however, result in severe hydraulic over-
loads .
Brookside Drive Settling Tank
The Brookside Drive communal settling tank provides primary
wastewater treatment to approximately 65 homes on Mapleway, Lyn-
way and Olmway Avenue. Constructed in the early 1940's, the
plant is overloaded and outdated according to modern wastewater
treatment standards.
III.C.5. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
Individual sewage disposal systems serving homes in Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Township (Figure III-l) can be grouped into
three general categories.
Category Number
Septic Tanks with Subsurface Filters 1,443
Aeration Units 174
Septic Tanks with Leach Fields 121
Total 1,738
The first two categories consist of systems which discharge
effluent to surface waters (streams and drainage ditches). It
should be noted that the subsurface filter systems found in the
area are not modern subsurface sand filters. These systems are
very old and utilize gravel rather than sand for the filter
media. The third category consists of systems which rely on
effluent percolation through the soil. Soil geologic and hydro-
logic conditions in the area pose severe limitations for the
effective use of conventional leach fields.
The three primary causes of individual system malfunction in the
Olmsted Falls/Olmsted Township area are:
0 Age of existing systems and lack of proper maintenance;
° Antiquated design in comparison with present standards
(such as the frequent use of gravel filters);
0 Poor soil conditions and insufficient lot sizes for
effective on-lot treatment.
The character of wastewater management problems, and consequent-
ly, needs, varies from area to area within Olmsted Falls and
Olmsted Township according to:
0 Population density;
0 Type and condition of existing facilities;
0 Topographic, soils and hydrogeologic conditions;
0 Natural and man-made boundaries.
111-28
-------
A total of 106 commercial systems are located in the Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Townhip area. Most consist of septic tanks
with on-lot or off-lot discharges, although several businesses
are served by small aeration package wastewater treatment
plants.
The combined total effluent discharge from individual residen-
tial and commercial sewage disposal systems in Olmsted Falls and
Olmsted Township is estimated to be one million gallons per day.
Further information on existing home sewage disposal systems is
presented in the Southwest Interceptor Area Final Water Quality
Report and in the Southwest Interceptor Area Cost-Effective
Analysis; Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township, and Northeastern Columbia Township.
III.D. East Leg Area and Option Areas
The East Leg Area includes Strongsville Sewer District "B" and
"C" and North Royalton Sewer Districts "A" and "B". There are
four minor and several small wastewater treatment plants in this
area. The Option Areas; Medina "300", North Olmsted and Columbia
Township, each have one major treatment plant. These plants,
grouped according to size and service area, are presented in
Table III-6. Projected dry weather flows were presented in
Table III-4. Figure III-l shows their location. Much of
Columbia Township and the area surrounding the Medina "300"
plant are unsewered and rely on individual on-site treatment
systems.
Anticipated growth in the East Leg and Option Areas over the
next 20 years indicates that both wastewater discharges and
resultant stream flows will increase. However, the growth is
expected to be slower than that projected for the West Leg Area.
USEPA and Ohio EPA have decided that local service should be
retained in these areas for the present 20-year facilities plan-
ning period. Separate facilities plans are underway to improve
many of these facilities to meet current effluent limitations
and project flows until the year 2000. The relationship of the
East Leg and Option Areas beyond the 20-year planning period
will be studied in the development of alternatives in Chapters
IV and V. USEPA will only be able to fund capacity for a 20-
year planning period until October 1, 1984. After that date,
reserve capacity will not be funded by USEPA, although its
incremental cost may be paid for locally.
III.E. Sewer System Evaluation (I/I, SSES)
III.E.I. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis (I/I)
The I/I analysis for the Southwest Interceptor Planning Area was
performed as a part of the facilities planning effort for the
project. The planning area includes all or part of the follow-
ing municipalities: Broadview Heights, Brooklyn Heights, Brook
Park, Cleveland, Cuyahoga Heights, Middleburg Heights, North
111-29
-------
TABLE II1-6
EAST LEG/OPTION AREA TREATMENT PLANTS
MINOR PLANTS
North Royalton A (7)* Strongsville B (8)
North Royalton B (6) Strongsville C (5)
SMALL PLANTS
Group II - Strongsville
Metroparks Camp Cheerfull (21) Albion Jr. High School (20)
Howard Chapman Elem. School (22)
MEDINA "300" Option
MAJOR PLANTS
Medina SD 300
NORTH OLMSTED OPTION
MAJOR PLANTS
North Olmsted (24)
COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP OPTION
MAJOR PLANTS
Medina SD 500
(lies just south of Columbia Twp.)
*Numbers in parentheses refer to size as ranked in the
Southwest Planning Area.
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities
Planning Report, 1982.
111-30
-------
Royalton, Parma, Parma Heights, and Seven Hills in the Big Creek
Basin; and Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Olmsted Town-
ship, Columbia Township and Strongsville in the Rocky River
Basin.
The purpose of an I/I analysis is to study the condition of the
existing collector sewer system and identify sources of ground-
water and surface water leaking into the sewer system. The
groundwater portion of I/I is called infiltration, while inflow
comes from surface sources, such as downspout connections to the
sanitary sewers and leaky manholes. Removing this "clear water"
by rehabilitating the sewers may or may not be less costly than
continuing to treat it. The report entitled Southwest Intercep-
tor Environmental Impact Statement-Facilities Plan - Infiltra-
tion/Inflow Analysiscontainsdetailedinformationrelativeto
thisI/I Analysis.its conclusions were:
The existing sewer system includes approximately 1,215 miles of
sewer lines; 55,627 house connections, and 11,385 manholes. The
analysis provided the following approximate flow data: total low
groundwater infiltration is 26.5 mgd; total sanitary flow is 20.9
mgd; high groundwater infiltratration contributes an additional
29.5 mgd, for a total maximum infiltration flow rate equal to
56.0 mgd; peak inflow calculated for a one year storm equals
351.3 mgd; and the total maximum peak flow from all sources equal
469.6 mgd.
Nearly all of the mini-systems and catchment areas exceed the
rate generally considered to be non-excessive (1,500 gallons per
inch diameter per mile of sewer).
Catchment areas having the highest ranking of infiltration/inflow
rates are in areas of older construction with sanitary sewers and
storm sewers in a single trench; sanitary below and storm above.
More than 50% of the infiltration/inflow is attributed to these
areas.
Approximately 50% of the low and high groundwater infiltration
was attributed to house laterals. Calculations determined that
removal of this flow was not cost effective.
The Southerly WWTP improvements presently under construction will
increase average daily treatment capacity to 200 mgd Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT), 400 mgd AWT peak flow capacity, and
735 mgd primary treatment with disinfection for stormwater flow.
Cost estimates comparing transport and treatment of infiltration/
inflow versus correction of infiltration/inflow problems at their
source were developed. The facility planning period used was
twenty (20) years (1980-2000). The analysis assumed treatment at
Southerly WWTP. The comparison of the two other facility plan-
ning alternatives, the multi-plant and the two plant alterna-
tives, consider the cost of handling excessive infiltration/in-
flow as an added cost item in the facilities plan cost-effective-
ness analysis. This was done since it was obvious that a reduc-
111-31
-------
tion in infiltration/inflow in these areas would allow existing
trunk sewers to carry the flow and no additional relief sewer
capacity was recommended. Added cost for these plans would be
additional treatment capacity or storage required at the plant
site.
An analysis of relief sewers needed to transport excess infiltra-
tion/inflow within the existing Big Creek sewer network was made.
The two types of sewers required are for supplemental capacity
(located parallel and adjacent to an existing installation) and
for relief capacity (located to divert flow within the system and
provide additional capacity to the remaining downstream trunk
sewer). The relief sewers that would be required to transport
100% of the calculated infiltration/inflow were identified as:
Broadview Road Relief Sewer; State Road Relief Sewer (supple-
mental capacity); Pearl Road Relief Sewer; Ridge Road Relief
Sewer (supplemental capacity) and Smith Relief Sewer. The relief
sewers would be paid for by the local communities.
All of the relief sewers as well as the existing trunk sewers
would discharge flows into the Southwest Interceptor. The flow
from the Southwest service area is transported to the Southerly
WWTP for treatment. Various sewer sizes and costs were developed
to compare the cost of transporting 0% to 100% of the calculated
infiltration/inflow. Adequate capacity is available at Southerly
to treat 100% of the calculated flow.
Operation and maintenance costs at Southerly were developed to
reflect the cost of treating 0% to 100% of the infiltration/in-
flow at Southerly.
The existing sewer system (1,215 miles in length) includes
675.3 miles of 6" house laterals. It was assumed that approxi-
mately 50% of the total infiltration is contributed through
leaky joints in the house laterals. It was determined that due
to age and type of construction, house laterals would have to
be replaced in order to significantly reduce or eliminate
infiltration. A cost comparison of replacing house laterals
versus transport and treatment of 50% of the total infiltration
indicated that it was cost-effective to transport and treat
this flow.
The rehabilitation of each of the catchment areas was evaluated
based on calculated values and probable sources of 50% of the
infiltration and 100% of the inflow. Cost estimates to rehabil-
itate each catchment area sewer system were developed.
The cost of rehabilitating the existing sewer system in each
catchment area was reduced to an average cost per 1,000 gallons
of infiltration and inflow removed. These costs were summed
for the entire system and used to calculate the cost of remov-
ing various percentages of infiltration/inflow. The previously
calculated cost of transporting and treating the remainder of
the infiltration/inflow was then summarized and the equivalent
annual costs computed.
111-32
-------
The peak carrying capacity of the existing trunk sewers serving
the area was calculated and compared to both the total peak
flow and peak flow minus percentage of infiltration/inflow.
The construction of storage basins within the sewer system was
examined and compared to the transportation and treatment of
more than half of the total infiltation/inflow. Although the
cost of off-line storage was nearly equal to the cost of trans-
porting and treating the flow, it was felt that the complexity
of such a system, the inherent problems with operation and
maintenance, and the increased use of energy for treatment and
flow pumping were sufficient reasons to preclude this alterna-
tive from further consideration.
III.E.2. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
As a result of the I/I Analysis, a System Evaluation Survey
(SSES) has been recommended. The purpose of this task is to
determine the infiltration component that will be used in pre-
liminary design and to develop for each political entity, a
recommended rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program
will include estimated costs and implementation schedules. The
SSES is ongoing, and will be applied to the design of the se-
lected alternative for the Southwest area. Some preliminary
results of the SSES have been used to confirm the sizing planned
for sewer alternatives.
III.F. Water Quality Impacts
Background water quality data were presented in Chapter II and
Appendix A. A detailed analysis of the relationship of waste-
water discharges, from treatment plants and on-site systems, was
developed in detail as part of the Facilities Plan, in Report on
WWTP Effluent Impact on Streams, Locaj. Wastewater Management
Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and Northeastern
Columbia Township, and Report on Flow Distribution Impact on
Rocky River(the latter includes use of benthic organisms as
biological indicators of water quality).
Water quality is not significantly different between the East and
West Branches of the Rocky River, but differs from area to area
along the length of the stream. Rainfall stresses the existing
capacity of the treatment plants producing a lesser quality
effluent, which in turn adversely affects the quality of the
stream. Abram Creek is the most polluted stream because of its
small size and because it receives comparatively large discharges
from the Brook Park and Middleburg Heights plants. Ammonia-nitro-
gen is a particular problem in Abram Creek.
Plum Creek also shows considerable pollution, notably high bac-
terial populations, which are correlated to on-site treatment
systems. Overall, the Rocky River is polluted by wastewater
discharged from the major, minor and small wastewater treatment
plants and individual disposal systems. The severity of pollution
varies from area to area according to the type and quantity of
111-33
-------
wastewater discharged and the physical characteristics of the
stream. Stream segments receiving large amounts of wastewater
have high pollution levels in the vicinity of the discharges.
Water quality improves downstream from the discharges, except for
bacteria levels and ammonia-nitrogen, which remain continually
high.
Of the parameters investigated in the Southwest Interceptor EIS/
Facilities Plan, those which appear most significant in terms of
indicating sewage contamination in the Rocky River are fecal
coliform and fecal streptococci. These bacterial populations of
the Rocky River consistently exceed Ohio EPA standards for pri-
mary contact criteria and the majority of the time do not meet
standards for secondary contact criteria. The high fecal bacteria
populations within the Rocky River are due to a combination of
numerous treatment plant discharges and septic tank effluent
discharges from unsewered areas located mostly on the West
Branch. The BOD5 values are relatively high, indicating moder-
ate to severe degradation of water quality. In contrast, the
dissolved oxygen content recorded throughout the river during the
entire analysis is relatively high which is desirable for aquatic
life. This is due to the effect of steep slopes and falls which
reaerate the entire river as it flows to Lake Erie.
Both fecal coliform and ammonia-nitrogen show similar patterns in
regard to wet and dry weather samplings in the East Branch.
Coliform levels in this area consistently increase from dry to
wet conditions, and exceed Ohio EPA standards during both. Dis-
charges to the East Branch are mostly from the minor wastewater
treatment plants along the river, and the Berea WWTP. Increasing
fecal coliform counts associated with increasing precipitation
indicates that bypassing of sewage to the river is occurring at
associated treatment plants. Such bypass flow is not treated and
generally not chlorinated, and thus bacterial populations are not
diminished. Ammonia-nitrogen levels in the East Branch exceeded
daily maximums on many samplings and showed greater values during
wet periods than dry. This is also due to treatment plant by-
passes and surface runoff which results in an elevation of
aerobic decomposition of nitrogenous organic matter.
East Branch wet and dry weather BOD5 and dissolved oxygen val-
ues contrast with those for coliform and ammonia-nitrogen. In-
stead, BOD5 levels decrease with increasing precipitation,
apparently as a result of dilution. Average 8005 values indi-
cate moderate levels of pollution in the East Branch. Dissolved
oxygen values remain relatively high between wet and dry sampling
periods. This is not unexpected considering the wet sampling
decrease in BOD5 values and the effects of reaeration which
occurs in the Rocky River.
The West Branch does not show as great an increase in fecal coli-
form counts from dry to wet weather. However, data show an in-
crease in number of coliforms in the downstream portions of Plum
Creek and the West Branch. In addition, average values generally
exceed Ohio EPA limits. Discharge to these areas comes from many
111-34
-------
smaller plants in addition to the Strongsville "A" WWTP and sep-
tic tank areas. The ammonia-nitrogen concentration in the West
Branch maintain the same consistency of increase from dry to wet
weather as in the East Branch. Average wet weather values are
often above the established standard. These high concentrations
could be very harmful to aquatic life despite the high dissolved
oxygen concentration. Dissolved oxygen concentrations on the
West Branch are high.
Other physical-chemical parameters sampled reflected acceptable
water quality conditions. Temperature values are within those
established by Ohio EPA for warmwater habitat, as is pH (a
measure of acidity or alkalinity). Suspended solids fluctuate
widely from station to station. No standards have been establish-
ed for this parameter.
Results of the water quality sampling compare closely to the
results of the survey of benthic organisms. One advantage of
using benthic organisms to assess the condition of a stream is
that they are relatively long living and permanent inhabitants of
a given area, reflecting both short and long term stresses or
alterations within their environment. Water chemistry values, in
contrast, reflect the condition of a stream only at the time the
sample is collected. In the Rocky River, benthic communities show
a greater degree of healthy diversity in the upstream reaches and
are more stressed (lower diversity) downstream, especially below
treatment facilities. In some stream segments, there is evidence
of stream recovery between wastewater discharges.
Many of the ammonia values in Appendix A are high. Additional clarification
based on Ohio EPA*s stream sampling for the Rocky River Canprehengive Water
Quality Report will be included in the Final EIS.
III.G. Conclusions on the Need for Wastewater Treatment
Improvements
There is a definite need for wastewater treatment improvements in
the Southwest planning area. The Big Creek Interceptor and Gray-
ton Road Pump Station have inadequate capacity to treat the
existing high flows which develop during wet weather. This prob-
lem is aggravated by the older combined storm and sanitary sewer
system in the City of Cleveland. The Brook Park, Middleburg
Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A" plants cannot meet their
final effluent limits for advanced treatment ("tertiary") without
being expanded and upgraded. The smaller treatment facilities of
the West Branch of the Rocky River are working reasonably well
now, but have the same problems as their larger counterparts in
meeting the stringent final effluent limits. Existing local
collector sewers have some potential for being repaired, as
defined by the I/I and SSES studies. On-site systems in Olmsted
Falls and Olmsted Township have variable treatment success
depending on their design, location and maintenance. The imme-
diate problems of the West Leg and Option areas are being ad-
dressed in separate facilities plans and construction projects.
Finally, recent improvements at the Southerly WWTP will provide
ample capacity for sophisticated advanced treatment.
111-35
-------
CHAPTER IV
ALTERNATIVES
-------
IV. ALTERNATIVES
IV.A. Introduction
Many factors have been examined in developing the various alter-
natives for the Cleveland Southwest Planning Area. The range of
wastewater treatment processes available were analyzed. The
feasible processes were applied to the different treatment plants
in the area. Various arrangements of service areas among treat-
ment alternatives were considered. This chapter focuses on the
latter concept of analyzing different service or planning areas
with different treatment alternatives. Within each major alter-
native a number of treatment processes have been considered and
detailed explanations provided in the documents cited in Chapter
I. Consequently, the results summarized in this chapter provide
an issue-oriented presentation of alternatives.
IV.B. No Action
The No Action alternative would involve no Federal funding of
wastewater treatment improvements in the Southwest Planning Area.
Existing wastewater treatment practices would continue. Any
improvements made under No Action would involve local funding
only.
Under No Action, the existing major and most minor treatment
plants will not be able to achieve their final discharge permit
standards and will likely violate their interim discharge per-
mits, particularly during wet weather. The present degraded
stream conditions, as described in Chapter III, will remain.
Problems will be aggravated as local population increases place
more demand on the conveyance and treatment systems. Many on-
site systems will not function properly due to obsolete design,
poor location and variable maintenance.
Under the No Action alternative, bypasses from the sewer systems
in the Big Creek tributary will continue. Water quality of the
Cuyahoga River (where the Big Creek discharges) will not be ex-
pected to improve. As population increases, further degradation
of the water quality is anticipated. Impacts to the Rocky River
will be more severe. Biological, recreational and water supply
uses of the Rocky River will be unfavorably affected. Adverse
water quality impacts to all of these streams will ultimately
affect Lake Erie. Improvement of the water will not occur with-
out wastewater treatment improvements.
IV.C. Treatment Process Alternatives
IV.C.I. Flow and Waste Reduction
IV.C.I.a. Infiltration/Inflow
As described in Chapter III, the volumes of infiltration and/or
inflow in the existing sewer system are under study. Chapter V
cost figures are developed and alternatives analyzed considering
removing 0%, 20%, and 40% of the excess infiltration/inflow.
IV-1
-------
Other types of flow and waste reduction are associated with water
conservation.
IV.C.l.b. Water Reuse
Water reuse is a form of water conservation where highly treated
effluent is recycled for additional use. Potential uses include
agricultural irrigation/ industrial processes and aquifer
recharge. The extremely high costs of treating and transporting
recycled water can be a practical solution but the existing ample
water supply in the Great Lakes region makes water reuse in this
instance, impractical.
IV.C.I.e. Water Conservation
Water conservation measures can be encouraged by the rates
charged for metered water supply/sewer service and by public
education. The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District charges
customers for wastewater treatment based on tic. . .^e of water
supplied by the City of Cleveland. Public education stresses
awareness of water use and the installation of simple water
conservation devices, such as flow restrictor showerheads and
water reducing toilet dams. More efficient water conserving
appliances and plumbing fixtures are also available, for both
retrofit and new installments. New plumbing codes can further
encourage water conservation. In addition to reducing wastewater
treatment demands in sewered areas, water conservation has great
potential for improving the performance of on-site treatment
systems. Water conservation in the Southwest planning area
should be implemented at the local level but cannot significant-
ly improve the water quality nor singly relieve the problems in
the study area.
IV.C.2. On-Site Treatment Process Alternatives
There are numerous individual treatment facilities (servicing
homes or commercial establishments) in the unsewered portions of
the study area. Analysis of on-site systems requires a comprehen-
sive review of alternatives in this category including No Action.
The facilities plan identified and analyzed treatment processes
for on-site treatment. These were:
IV.C.2.a. No Action
This alternative, as explained in Section B, would result in the
continued use of existing on-site systems. A number of these
systems are inadequately designed and are often not well main-
tained. Use of these existing facilities would continue in areas
where the Cuyahoga County Health Department has documented inade-
quately treated wastewater in neighborhood ditches. The need to
vigorously control mosquitoes can be expected to continue along
with the concerns of widespread health problems and litigation.
IV-2
-------
IV.C.2.b. Improved Operation and Maintenance
Currently, improper design and construction practices of many
subsurface filter bed systems produce water quality violations in
streams due to surface discharges. This alternative would require
improved operation and maintenance practices for existing indi-
vidual septic tanks, soil absorption systems, and subsurface
filter bed systems (Appendix B). These systems would be designed
to perform satisfactorily even though an anticipated seasonably
high water table, slow soil permeability, and shallow bedrock in
some areas limit the effectiveness of standard soil absorption
systems.
IV.C.2.C. Upgrade and/or Replace Existing Systems
This alternative evaluated combinations of land use and other
factors to determine the viability of the upgrade alternative.
Important categories considered were lot size, soil types and
population density. This alternative may prove attractive. How-
ever, in areas with small lots, seasonally wet soils or high pop-
ulation density, this alternative would not be practical.
IV.C.2.d. Cluster Systems
Cluster systems refer to treatment of wastewater from a group or
cluster of houses (or other structures) served by a common sewage
collection and treatment system. Typically, cluster systems
serve from two to thirty structures. Clusters are used to serve
small pockets of development where on-lot systems are not feasi-
ble due to topography, soils, hydrogeology, or existing develop-
ment patterns and density (See Appendix B). Installation of
collection and treatment systems for a cluster is not an
economical approach for providing wastewater facilities in the
study area at the present time.
IV.C.3. Treatment Process Alternatives
These feasible treatment process alternatives were studied for
the major treatment facilities:
Secondary Processes
0 rotating biological contactors
0 activated sludge
0 physical-chemical
0 oxidation ditch
Advanced Processes (necessary to achieve final NPDES permit
limits)
0 chemical coagulation (for phosphorus removal)
0 nitrification
0 filtration
IV-3
-------
Sludge Management Processes
0 sludge treatment and dewatering
0 sludge disposal
Land Application
0 irrigation
° infiltration-percolation
0 overland flow
Appendix B and Section 3 of the Southwest Interceptor Environ-
mental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan, V.I discusses the
details of process consideration.
IV. D. Treatment Plant Alternatives
IV. D.I. Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township
Three process alternatives were examined for a possible new
treatment plant to serve Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and a
small portion of Columbia Township. They include: rotating bio-
logical contactors, conventional activated sludge, and the oxida-
tion ditch. Sludge options included land application in either a
liquid or solid form. Appendix B and Section 3 of the Southwest
Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan, V.I
present more information on the selection of these alternatives .
IV. D. 2. Major Plants
It was necessary to examine advanced as well as secondary im-
provements for the four major plants, Brook Park, Berea, Middle-
burg Heights and Strongsville "A". Processes included all of
these mentioned in Section IV. C. 3.
Unit processes which would have to be added to each plant to meet
final permit limitations as they now stand are: stormwater stor-
age basins; second stage plastic media trickling filter towers
for nitrification; tertiary filtration; sulfur dioxide facilities
for dechlorination ; post aeration; and dissolved air flotation
sludge thickening. Other significant unit process additions
which would have to be made are: phosphorus removal facilities
at the Berea, Brook Park and Middleburg Heights plants; standby
power at the Berea and Strongsville "A" plants; primary settling
tanks at the Middleburg Heights and Strongsville "A" plants; and
sludge digestion facilities at the Strongsville "A" plant.
Existing unit processes which require major expansion include the
following; raw sewage pumping at the Brook Park, Middleburg
Heights and Strongsville "A" plants; primary settling at the
Berea and Brook Park plants; sludge digestion at the Berea and
Middleburg Heights plants; and aeration equipment, final set-
tling, sludge storage and sludge dewatering at all four plants.
IV-4
-------
IV.D.3. Cleveland Southerly Plant
As reported in Chapter 3, treatment process upgrading efforts are
being concluded at the Southerly Treatment Plant.
IV.E. System Collection and Treatment Alternatives
IV.E.I. Olmsted Falls - Olmsted Township
IV.E.I.a. Alternatives
This area is depicted in Figure IV-1 and includes a small portion
of Columbia Township in Lorain County. Alternatives for collec-
tion and treatment have been studied in detail in the Facilities
Plan and Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township. These documents may
be consulted for additional information.
There are five alternatives for the unsewered areas of Olmsted
Falls-Olmsted Township:
0 No action;
0 Improved operation and maintenance of existing home
sewage disposal systems;
0 Upgrading/replacement of existing home sewage disposal
systems, either individually or by cluster systems;
0 Centralized collection and treatment facilities located
within this service area;
0 Centralized collection, with the treatment facilities
located outside this service area.
Other portions of Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township presently
have sewers and small treatment plants . There are five alterna-
tives for these sewered areas:
0 No action;
0 Improved operation and maintenance of the existing
treatment plants;
0 Upgrade existing treatment facilities to meet tertiary
wastewater treatment standards;
0 Centralization (interception) of the treatment facilities
within this service area;
0 Centralization with the treatment facilities located
outside this service area.
The different alternatives have been examined for the different
zones depicted in Figure IV-1, producing a detailed range of
alternatives.
IV.E.1.b. Preliminary Alternative Selection Olmsted Falls -
Olmsted Township
Table IV-1 shows the preliminary conclusions of alternatives
suitable for the different planning zones. For all zones except
I and K, the no action alternative is not feasible for reasons
IV-5
-------
OLMSTED FALLS-OLMSTED TOWNSHIP PLANNING ZONE
C
ft
. BROOK
PARK
~"^'' !r -^-'!^-v.,:^;.v'u«r=^rJL.... {^3
--"' ,«rites^*
j • . '"' :: : ... • jl( *>. .•
r"<' y iiim.t^ f»n« * ;(;•. •
V;.! :)5 o_ _L_..M;|; s T E D .'•"•
.1
•i ..West View IK <
;LSS x/* ^
rv\'/ i • s.-
"•3iy5evil""i
c,- :::.V.:: ;:•;.-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
TABLE IV-1
OLMSTED FALLS - OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
UNSEWERED NO IMPROVED OPERATION UPGRADE/REPLACE CENTRALIZED COLLECTION
ZONES ACTION AND MAINTENANCE EXISTING SYSTEMS* AND TREATMENT
A
B Retain**
C Retain
D Retain
SEWERED NO IMPROVED OPERATION AND MAIN UPGRADE WASTEWATER
ZONES ACTION TENANCE OF EXISTING FACILITIES TREATMENT FACILITIES*
E Retain
F Retain
G Retain
H Retain
I Retain
J Retain
K Retain
Retain
Retain
SUB-REGIONAL
CENTRALIZATION/INTERCEPTION
OF TREATMENT FACILITIES
Retain
Retain
Retain
Retain
* - Improved operation and maintenance practices are included with this alternative category.
** - Retain - Alternative category for cost-effective analysis.
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternative for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township, 1982,
-------
discussed in Section B at the beginning of this chapter. In zone
I, the existing Falls Subdivision treatment plant is operating
below design capacity and is providing satisfactory tertiary
treatment. Zone K is served by North Olmsted, which is under-
going an independent facilities plan.
Because of the inadequate design of many of the older plants,
improved operation and maintenance alone will not solve the iden-
tified problems. However, improved O&M is a component of upgrad-
ing or replacing existing treatment facilities. The upgrade
alternative is retained for most zones, except I and K and A.
Zone A is the urbanized part of Olmsted Falls, where small lot
sizes restrict the continued feasibility of the on-site and
cluster system alternatives.
Centralized collection and treatment is retained for most alter-
natives in the zones which are urbanized, (A and C) or are served
by small treatment plants (F, G, H and I). A central system to
serve Olmsted Falls will be discussed in the multi-plant alter-
native .
IV.E.I.e. Alternatives - Local Plant for Olmsted Falls
Comparisons of three sub-regional collection and treatment alter-
natives have been completed for Olmsted Falls. Two local treat-
ment plant sites have been examined for a new facility; the East
Site, east of Olmsted Falls and the Rocky River, and the South
Site, south of Olmsted Falls and west of the Rocky River. A
similar sewer collection system would be used for either alterna-
tive, except for the final segments leading to the treatment
plant sites. These alternatives are depicted in Figures IV-2 and
IV-3. The East Site alternative would require an aerial sewer
crossing of the Rocky River. This would not be required for the
South Site alternative. In addition, treatment at an upgraded
North Olmsted treatment plant was considered, but ruled out
because of cost considerations, see Table IV-1.
Treatment processes for a local Olmsted Falls plant include an
oxidation ditch, rotating biological contactors and activated
sludge. The sludge generated at the treatment plant would be con-
ditioned by a two-stage anaerobic digestion process and then
either land applied as a liquid, dried in beds and applied to the
land, or dewatered by a filter press and applied to farmland. The
liquid sludge process is the most economical process, and is
included in the economic comparison of the treatment processes in
Table IV-2.
Construction of a treatment plant at the South Site, utilizing an
oxidation ditch for treatment, is the least costly alternative.
This would eliminate the aerial sewer crossing of the Rocky
River. Also this site is more isolated from residential areas
and will avoid disruption of an archaeological site and a sensi-
tive unstable slope area. A systematic discussion of environ-
mental impacts has been presented in the facilities planning
document, Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted
IV-8
-------
OLMSTED FALLS — EAST SITE
•Ill ^B"1*"" .: :l ': No"h Olmsled • . ii^tti^^^^^^^^^MMBB«™«^^^^^^^^^^^\
^lix!l\ '**. /^"^ .
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
* PROPOSED PUMP STATION
• PROPOSED WWTP
.-. EXISTING PUMP STATION
Figure IV-2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
OLMSTED FALLS — SOUTH SITE
. BROOK
| PARK
.\Vfst View > .-V I ' ••»«'
•'-« ^ > -
PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
* PROPOSED PUMP STATION
• PROPOSED WWTP
EXISTING PUMP STATION
Figure IV-3
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
IF- /o
-------
TABLE IV-2
PRESENT WORTH COMPARISON OF
SUB-REGIONAL COLLECTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
COLLECTION
ALTERNATIVES
East STP Site
South STP Site
North Olmsted STP
OXIDATION
DITCH*
$13,928,300
$13,719,700
N/A
TREATMENT
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL
CONTACTOR*
$15,
$15,
783,600
575,000
N/A
ALTERNATIVES
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE*
$14,233,800
$14,025,200
N/A
UPGRADE EXISTING
NORTH OLMSTED WWTP
N/A
N/A
$18,254,600
M
<
*Includes present worth costs attributable to local sewers and land application of
liquid digested sludge.
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township,
Columbia Township, 1982.
-------
Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township. The analysis showed
that the environmental impacts associated with the Olmsted sub-
alternatives (the South, East, and current sites) were comparable
for many of the parameters identified. Impacts will be greatest
at the East Site. Construction at this site may cause disruption
to archaeological and environmentally sensitive areas. Also, this
area is close to residences. The least significant environmental
impacts will occur at the current site because this area has been
disturbed. Local streamflow would be slightly decreased with
construction at the current site. The impacts of the South Site
alternative are intermediate. Impacts would be due primarily to
construction activities and would be short term in nature.
Stream flow would be slightly enhanced.
IV.E.l.d. Alternative Selection by Zone
Zone A, Olmsted Falls, is highly developed and experiences numer-
ous problems with on-site treatment. For these reasons, Olmsted
Falls is an ideal candidate for sewering. The present worth of
sewering Zone A is $9,237,900. Short term adverse construction
impacts would be offset by long-term improvement in water quality
and an enhanced community character.
Zone B, western Olmsted Township is best served by a program of
upgrading or replacing on-site sewage disposal systems. The
present worth cost is $4,053,500. Impacts would be due to con-
struction activities and would be short term. There will be a
long term improvement of water quality and reduction of residen-
tial nuisance conditions.
Zone C, northern Olmsted Township, could either upgrade its on-
site systems or be included in the sub-regional wastewater col-
lection and treatment system. Present worth costs are $825,700
and $1,032,700, respectively. Both alternatives would improve
present environmental conditions, with on-site systems providing
slightly less water quality improvement and regionalization
having greater construction impacts. Of the two alternatives,
the on-site alternative is the more cost-effective.
Zone D, eastern Olmsted Township, is best served by upgrading
existing on-site systems. The present worth cost is $1,411,100.
Environmental impacts will be short term construction related
impacts. This will result in long-term water quality benefits.
Zone E, the Versailles area, could be served either by upgrading
the Versailles treatment plant and existing on-site systems or by
connecting to a new sub-regional treatment system. Present worth
costs are $1,286,600 and $1,327,600, respectively. Environmental
factors are virtually identical for both alternatives. The cost-
effective alternative is to upgrade the Versailles plant by add-
ing flow equalization and upgrade existing on-site systems.
Zone F, the Columbia Trailer Park, could either upgrade its
treatment plant to the tertiary level or participate in the sub-
regional treatment alternative. Present worth costs are
$1,317,100 and $925,500 respectively. Environmental impacts are
IV-12
-------
comparable, but the sub-regional plant will result in long term
water quality improvement. It is more cost-effective to region-
alize Zone F.
Zone G, Brentwood treatment plant service area, could either up-
grade its local plant or be included in the sub-regional treat-
ment alternative. Present worth costs are $1,465,400 and
$863,600 respectively. Environmental impacts would be similar
with a slight loss of water quantity occurring with the regional
alternative. It is more cost effective to regionalize Zone G.
Zone H is the area in the vicinity of the West Ohio Public Utili-
ties Treatment Plant. The existing treatment plant may be up-
graded to tertiary treatment or the area could be connected to
the sub-regional plant. Present worth costs are $1,568,700 and
$1,512,500. Environmental considerations are similar with
greater improvements in water quality through regionalization.
Regionalization will result in a slight decrease in water quanti-
ty. It is more cost-effective to regionalize at Zone H.
Zone I is the Falls Subdivision. It can continue operation inde-
pendently, for a present worth cost of $151,500 or be included in
the sub-regional alternative, at a cost of $141,500. Some water
quality benefit would be gained in regionalization, the cost-
effective alternative.
Zone J, the Westview Park area in Columbia Township, can best be
served by adding flow equalization units to the existing tertiary
plant. The present worth cost is $772,300. The gains in water
quality and residential amenities would offset the construction
impacts.
Zone K. No action is appropriate for Zone K which should continue
to be served by the City of North Olmsted's central sewer system.
The alternatives for all zones in Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township
are summarized in Table IV-3.
IV.E.I.e. Conclusions - Local Alternatives for Olmsted Falls
The preferred local alternative for the Olmsted Falls-Olmsted
Township is to construct a sub-regional collection and treatment
system at the South Site. This would serve Zones A (Olmsted
Falls), F (Columbia Trailer Park), G (Brentwood), H (West Ohio
Public Utilities area) and I (Falls Subdivision). This alterna-
tive will be compared to the advantages or disadvantages of
regionalization in following sections.
Malfunctioning on-site systems would be upgraded through the
replacement of septic tanks and establishment of a management
system to ensure proper maintenance of septic systems. This
would be incorporated in the sparsely populated areas including
zones B (western Olmsted Township), C (northern Olmsted Town-
ship), D (eastern Olmsted Township), and parts of E (Versailles
area) .
IV-13
-------
TABLE IV-3
OLMSTED FALLS-OLMSTED TOWNSHIP
ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY BY ZONE
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
Alternatives*
1,5
2,5
1,2,5
2,5
1,3,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
1,4,5
5
Selected*
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
5
Adverse
Impacts
A
A
A
A
A
A
A,B
A,B
A
A
—
Beneficial
Impacts
X
X,Y
X
X,Y
X
X
X
X
X
X,Y
—
Present
Worth
$9,237,900
4,053, 500
825,700
1,411,100
1,286,600
925,500
863,600
1,512,500
141,500
772,300
0
*Alternatives Key
1. Sewer Installation - Connection to Sub-Regional Plant
2. Upgrade/Replace Existing On-site Treatment Systems
3. Upgrade Local Treatment Plant & On-Site Treatment Systems
4. Upgrade Local Treatment Plant
5. No Action
Impacts Key
A. Short-term Construction Related
B. Reduction in Water Quantity
X. Long Term Water Quality Improvement
Y. Lessening of Local Nuisance/Health Problems
IV-14
-------
The Versailles and Westview Park wastewater treatment plants
would be upgraded through addition of flow equalization facili-
ties. This would serve Zones E (Versailles) and J (Westview
Park). No action is appropriate for Zone K.
In areas where development is sparse or without identified waste-
water management problems (parts of Zone C and Zone J; all of
Zone K), no action will occur.
Table IV-3 summarizes the alternatives identified and selected by
zones in the Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township area.
IV.E.2. Multi-Plant Alternatives
IV.E.2.a. Definition
The Multi-Plant Alternative has two components - installation of
a new sewer to serve the Big Creek Basin with treatment at South-
erly, and improvement of existing local plants within the Rocky
River Basin. The sewer in the Big Creek Basin is comparable,
except in size, to the Main Leg Interceptor in the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative. The Southwest Interceptor Alternative
will be discussed in Section IV.E.4.
In component one, the North Olmsted plant would be retained and
an additional sewer would be constructed to link the plant to the
Big Creek Basin and the Southerly treatment plant. This inter-
ceptor would augment the capacity of the existing Big Creek In-
terceptor. North Olmsted has a separate Federal grant to upgrade
and expand its treatment plant, independent of the Southwest
Planning Area project. In component two, seven wastewater treat-
ment plants are retained in the Main Leg and West Leg of the
Rocky River Basin: Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights,
Strongsville "A", Columbia Township and the small Versailles and
Westview Park plants. Figure IV-4 depicts this alternative.
Two detailed facilities planning reports examine this alterna-
tive, Local Wastewater Management Alternative for Olmsted Falls,
Olmsted Township, Columbia Township and Local Wastewater Treat-
ment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea,
Strongsville "A".
The assumed local treatment plant alternative for Olmsted Falls,
for the remainder of this EIS, will be an oxidation ditch with
land application of liquid digested sludge. This will be located
at the South Site.
IV.E.2.b. Subalternative - Berea
The existing treatment facilities at Berea and their inability to
meet future NPDES discharge permit requirements were described in
Chapter III. The changes to the Berea plant to meet the more
stringent treatment levels are summarized in Table IV-4; prelim-
inary operation and maintenance costs are shown in Table IV-5.
The existing treatment process would be augmented with a storm-
IV-15
-------
MULTI-PLANT ALTERNATIVE
Subareas For Alternative Analysis
-L
OGA,
I
.TSt
+\s
r
_J
MEDINA
COUNTY
COUNTY
i I
Legend
© PUMPING STATION
LD/WASTEWATER
E3( TREATMENT PLANTS
——• SEWERS
aEVELAND SOUTHERLY
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS
STRONGSVILLE "A"
STRONGSVILLE "B"
STRONGSVILLE "C"
OLMSTED FALLS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
mflj BROOK PARK
VTA BEREA
MEDINA 300
GRAYTON RO. R S.
N. OLMSTED
I N. ROYALTON "A"
I N. ROYALTON 'feT
[COLUMBIA TWR
Figure IV-4
-------
TABLE IV-4
BEREAWWJP
ESTIMATED LJUNSI kUC I I ON COST
TABLE IV-5
BEREA WWTP
<
I
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett I ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary Filtration
Chlorination
Dechlorlnation
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Sludge DewaterIng
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (28?)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED
COSTS
$ 2,500
0
889,100
0
442,000
90,000
861,900
126,700
1,571,000
2,723,200
208,200
68,000
170,000
272,800
425,000
50,000
357,000
254,000
0
210,000
$8,721,700
2.442,100
$11,163,800
ESTIMATED ANNUAL OSM COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal /PreAir
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett 1 ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary Filtration
Chlor Ination
Dech lori nation
Post Aerat Ion
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
Dewater Ing
S ludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
LABOR
6,440
14,490
16,100
19,320
25,760
13,520
41,060
25,760
40,250
12,080
12,080
15,300
19,320
14,440
2,700
61,200
3,780
640
POWER
400
6,060
11,920
2,530
40,400
10,500
2,220
15,150
18,180
400
400
6,060
11,510
8,210
33,900
4,200
4,040
MATERIALS
880
5,280
3,700
15,840
17,600
30,800
3,520
5,980
107,360
6,690
1,060
180
1,060
4,930
11,400
26,400
2,020
880
CHEMICALS DISPOSAL TOTAL
1,660 9,380
4,150 29,980
31,720
0
37,690
83,760
54,820
87,230 134,030
46,890
165,790
15,730 34,900
6,760 20,300
21,540
16,510 48,400
27,580
48,000
33,900 125,700
9,840
172,560 172,560
1,520
TOTAL ESTIMATED OSM COSTS
$1,104,400
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
water storage basin for flow equalization, additional units for
increased process to contact stabilization, chemical addition,
nitrification towers, tertiary filters and dechlorination , plus
land application of sludge. The proposed treatment process is
shown in Figure IV-5.
IV.E.2.C. £>ubalternative - Brook Park
The upgrading requirements for the Brook Park plant and their
associated preliminary costs are summarized in Table IV-6 and
IV-7 . Improvements comparable to those of the Berea plant would
be required at the Brook Park plant. Figure IV-6 shows the pro-
posed treatment process.
IV.E.2.d. Subalternative - Middleburg Heights
Treatment process improvements would be comparable to those for
Brook Park and Berea. These are shown in Figure IV-7. Tables
IV-8 and IV-9 itemize the preliminary cost for the Middleburg
Heights plant.
IV.E.2.e. Subalternative - Strongsville "A"
The treatment processes as required to upgrade Strongsville "A"
are comparable to those for Berea, Brook Park and Middleburg
Heights. The Strongsville "A" plant, however, would require
treatment of stormwater overflows using rotating drum screens
followed by disinfection. This is shown in Figure IV-8 and the
preliminary costs itemized in Tables IV-10 and IV-11.
IV.E.2.f. Summary Costs - Multi-Plant Alternative
Table IV-12 shows the refined costs of the local alternatives,
based on additional facilities planning work and the sewer system
evaluation survey. Costs have decreased overall by nearly 11%.
O&M costs were developed on a cost basis of $3.00 per thousand
cubic feet of water use. Table IV-13 includes calculations of
the total present worth costs for each of the local treatment
plants in the Multi-Plant Alternative.
IV . E . 3 . Two Plant Alternative
The two-plant alternative would convey the Big Creek Basin's
flows to the Southerly treatment plant by an augmented Main Leg
interceptor system. This would overcome the limited capacity of
the existing Big Creek Interceptor. The Southerly plant has
ample capacity for advanced treatment for these flows. The Rocky
River Basin's flows would be conveyed by a new interceptor to an
expanded (from 9 MGD to 28 MGD) and upgraded North Olmsted treat-
ment facility. This plant would be constructed on Metropolitan
Park property adjacent to the existing treatment site. Connector
sewers would be constructed to link the flows from the existing
Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, and Strongsville "A" plant
to the interceptor. These four plants would then be decommission-
ed. This alternative is shown in Figure IV-9. It assumes that
IV-18
-------
-1
\^
>o
BEREA WWTP PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
ccBBir POLYMER
CHLOR.DE *NO£ CHL°R1NE
V it - !f
crocirwiiur rRITATE° PRIMARY CONTACT SECONDARY K11TplFir.TinN TFRTIARY CHLORINE
INFLUENT-^SCREENNG ^ GRIT _j PREAERATION ^ SETTLING -+ STABILIZATION* SETTLING ^TOWERS * FILTERS * CONTACT
I , COMMINUTION *E*f°ntk TANKS TANKS TANKS TOWERS FILTERS TANKS
CHAMBER
f 1 *
1 RETURN 1 WASTE
| SLUDGE 1 SLUDGE
V 1
STORMWATER I 1
STORAGE 1 L 1
BASIN j
.. I
1
I SUPERNATANT I
i 1
VACUUM - ANAEROBIC TufrKFMiMr
I FILTER ^DIGESTERS TANK
1
t J^ '
J ~\ — "1
\— 1 1
i ; 4 i *
CONTRACT . ncv?wr « SLUDGE - AEROBIC
HAULING * 8EDS STORAGE * DIGESTER
* i
T! t i
(^- i _l
C
5
61
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
1 i
DECHLORINA- Bn«T EAST
^TION MIXING/ .» AflATinN ^BRANCH
* CONTACT ^ j^ ' 'UN * ROCKY
TANK TANK RIVER
-------
TABLE IV-6
TABLE IV-7
BROOK PARK WWTP
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
BROOK PARK WWTP
I
N)
O
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett I ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary FlItration
Chlorlnatlon
DechlorinatIon
Post Aeration
OAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Sludge Dewatering
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (28$)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
$
ESTIMATED
COSTS
10,000
1,500
25,000
1,099,500
0
154,700
57,800
323,000
82,000
627,000
1,317,500
1,700
39,100
85,000
215,900
0
255,000
146,400
6,000
35,000
4,482,100
1,255.000
$5,737,100
ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett I Ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary Fi Itration
Chlori nation
Dech lorinat ion
Post Aeration
OAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Dewater Ing
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
LABOR
4,830
9,660
11,270
10,870
7,250
12,880
4,990
29,300
15,620
20,930
6,440
6,440
10,470
13,520
14,170
1,770
4,830
640
POWER
400
2,020
1,820
3,430
850
12,120
3,230
1,010
4,440
6,060
400
400
1,820
4,750
4,650
11,440
1,320
530
MATERIALS CHEMICALS
880
3,520
2,640
1,940
7,040
7,920
12,320
2,150 26,730
2,640
52,800
3,870 6,500
610 2,600
180
790 8,450
4,400
11,410 11,410
1,320
530
DISPOSAL TOTAL
6,110
1,200 16,400
15,730
16,240
0
15,140
32,920
20,540
59, 190
22,700
79,790
17,210
10,050
12,470
27,510
23,220
56,940
6,950
38,630 38,630
1,170
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$478,910
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
BROOK PARK WWTP PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
NITRIFICATION
TOWERS
.ABRAMS
CREEK
»c
c
01
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park. Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A"
-------
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WWTP PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
INFLUENT^
ABRAMS
CREEK
1
XI
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
TABLE IV-8
TABLE IV-9
MIDDLEBUR6 HEIGHTS WWTP
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS WWTP
M
<
I
to
UJ
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Sett I ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary Filtration
Chlori nation
Oechlorinatlon
Post Aeration
OAF Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Sludge Dewatering
S ludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (28$)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ESTIMATED
_COSTS_.
$ 11,500
141,100
47,500
824,800
663,000
456,000
915,000
60,500
2,085,000
3,187,500
87,700
76,500
195,500
323,000
510,000
229,500
286,500
195,000
$10,315,600
2,888,400
$13,204,000
ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 4 M COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Settl Ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary Filtration
Chlori nation
Oechlorinat ion
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Dewatering
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
LABOR
8,000
16,000
12,000
17,280
-
22,400
28,800
17,600
44,000
26,720
44,800
13,920
13,600
15,680
24,000
4,800
26,400
3,520
640
POWER
1,520
2,020
7,680
15,760
-
2,830
52,520
13,740
2,530
17,170
24,240
5,050
400
7,680
19,090
76,560
7,470
3,230
MATERIALS
2,460
4,220
6,510
4,220
-
17,250
22,880
38,720
4,050
6,340
123,200
350
1,UO
260
1,500
21,120
1,410
1,940
1,760
CHEMICALS DISPOSAL TOTAL
11,980
5,200 27,440
26, 190
37,260
-
42,480
104,200
70,060
117,000 167,580
50,230
192,240
19,500 38,820
7,800 22,940
23,620
37,050 81,640
102,480
20,800 56,080
8,690
345,730 345,730
2,400
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$1,412,060
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
STRONGSVILLE "A" WWTP PROPOSED FLOW DIAGRAM
RETURN i | WASTE
SLUDGED x" " i SLUDGE
INFLUENT-
oo
CONTRACT
HAULING
1-
BELT
FILTER
PRESS
I
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
I
CO
Ul
TABLE IV-10
STRONGSVILLE "A" WWTP
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
TABLE IV-11
STRONGSVILLE "A" WWTP
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Settling
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tert I ary F I I trat I on
Chlorinatlon
Dechlorlnatlon
Post Aeration
DAF Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Sludge Oewatering
Sludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
Subtotal
Non-Component Cost (28$)
TOTAL ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
ESTIMATED
COSTS
$ 15,000
170,000
82,000
1,085,000
976,000
697,000
120,000
765,000
54,200
2,010,000
3,264,000
144,500
81,600
204,000
323,000
850,000
138,900
331,500
0
338.900
$11,650,600
3,262,200
$14,912,800
ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Grit Removal
Raw Sewage Pumping
Stormwater Storage
Stormwater Treatment
Primary Settl Ing
Aeration Tanks
Secondary Settling
Phosphorus Removal
Nitrification
Tertiary Fi Itratlon
Chlor 1 nation
Dech lor (nation
Post Aerat Ion
DAF Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Gravity Th Ickener
Dewateri ng
S ludge Storage
Contract Sludge Hauling
Standby Power
LABOR
8,050
16,100
12,880
18,100
3,100
24,150
30,590
19,320
46,690
30,590
46,690
14,490
14,490
16,100
27,370
6,440
7,890
22,740
4,030
600
POWER
1,820
2,420
16,560
16,970
100
3,030
60,600
15,350
2,730
20,730
24,240
450
450
8,080
22,320
93,320
240
3,030
3,430
MATERIALS
2,640
4,400
7,040
4,300
800
17,600
24,600
44,000
4,400
6,690
132,000
7,920
1,140
260
1,940
24,640
700
2,990
2,110
1,800
CHEMICALS DISPOSAL TOTAL
12,510
5,640 28,560
36,480
39,370
3,000 7,000
44,780
115,790
78,670
127,140 180,960
58,010
202, 930
19,500 42,360
8,450 24,530
24,440
45,500 97,130
124,400
8,830
28,600 57,360
9,570
162,250 162,250
2,400
TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL 0 & M COSTS
$1,358,330
Note: Costs are preliminary; see Table IV-12 for refined costs.
-------
TABLE IV-12
REVISED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Secondary Facilities
Tertiary Facilities
Nitrification Facilities
Sludge Handling
Facilities
Flow Equalization
Facilities
TOTAL COSTS
Berea
($) O&M
Brook ParX
($) O&M
2
3
1
1
1
10
,397,
,451,
,874,
,621,
,040,
,384,
100
600
200
400
200
500
352,
174,
43,
402,
29,
1,003,
400
600
700
700
700
100
1,005,500
1,920,900
859,
853,
1,822,
6,456,
000
700
500
600
193,500
98,700
24,
164,
28,
509,
300
000
500
000
Secondary Facilities
Tertiary Facilities
Nitrification Facilities
Sludge Handling
Facilties
FLow Equalization
Facilities
Middleburg Heights
(?) O&M
2,794,800 411,500
3,650,700 181,400
2,043,000 44,100
1,323,400 455,100
815,700
27,000
Strongsville "A"
($). O&M
2,875,000
4,039,500
2,341,200
1,914,200
1,274,400
485,600
206,900
52,800
418,200
32,400
TOTAL COSTS
10,627,600 1,119,100
12,444,300 1,195,900
Note: Treatment plant costs will be slightly less if tertiary filtration is not
required to meet the discharge permit requirements.
IV-26
-------
TABLE IV-13
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COSTS FOR THE MULTI-PLANT ALTERNATIVE
Berea WWTP
Construction Cost $10,384,500
Non-Construction Cost (29.36%) 3,048,900
Capital Cost $13,433,400
Annual O&M Costs = $1,003,100
Present Worth of O&M 10,129,600
Salvage Value = $2,076,900
Present Worth of Salvage Value (477,700)
Total Present Worth $23,085,300
* $16,280,000
Brook Park WWTP
Construction Cost $ 6,456,600
Non-Construction Cost (29.60%) 1,911,200
Capital Cost 8,367,800
Annual O&M Costs = $ 509,000
Present Worth of O&M 5,140,000
Salvage Value = $1,291,300
Present Worth of Salvage Value (297,000 )
Total Present Worth $13,210,800
* $ 9,430,000
Middleburq Heights WWTP
Construction Cost $10,627,600
Non-Construction Cost (29.39%) 3,123,500
Capital Cost 13,751,100
Annual O&M Costs = $1,119,100
Present Worth of O&M 11,301,000
Salvage Value = $2,125,500
Present Worth of Salvage Value (488,900 )
Total Present Worth $24,563,200
*$17,380,000
Strongsville "A" WWTP
Construction Cost $12,444,300
Non-Construction Cost (29.26%) 3,641,200
Capital Cost 16,085,500
Annual O&M Costs = $1,195,900
Present Worth of O&M 12,076,600
Salvage Value = $2,488,900
Present Worth of Salvage Value (572,400)
Total Present Worth $27,589,700
*$19,450,000
Note: This is the Total Present Worth cost if tertiary filtration is
not required to meet the discharge permit requirements.
IV-27
-------
TWO PLANT ALTERNATIVE
/L
_^__
x\ NNN.N I, s. xxKx \ w vvs f
\\VNN\\
Legend
(P) PUMPING STATION
D ( WASTEWATER
g[[ TREATMENT PLANTS
-*—. SEWERS
PHASE I BIG CREEK
PHASE I ROCKY RIVER
PHASE H
OPTION A
OPTION B
OPTION c
OPTION D
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan
Figure IV-9
-------
Olmsted Falls will be sewered and connected to the North Olmsted
Treatment Plant with no new local plant constructed. The two-
plant alternative is discussed further in Section 3 of the South-
west Interceptor Environmental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan.
Environmental impacts of the two-plant alternative were also
examined in the Facilities Plan. This alternative has a total
present worth cost (excluding the Main Leg Interceptor) of
$152,568,000.
IV.E.4. Regional Alternative - Southwest Interceptor
The Southwest Interceptor alternative would provide for a single
interceptor sewer to serve the planning area's Rocky River and
Big Creek Basins. The Southwest Interceptor would convey the
flows to the Southerly Treatment Plant on the Cuyahoga River for
treatment. Adequate treatment capacity and level of treatment
will exist at Southerly to accommodate this additional flow.
Conceptually, this Southwest Interceptor is divided into three
major segments: a Main Leg, a West Leg, and an East Leg. The
Main and West legs are being considered in the present 20-year
planning period; the East Leg and other service option areas will
be discussed in the next section on post 20-year alternatives.
As shown in Figures IV-10A-10B, the Main Leg would extend from
the Southerly plant to the vicinity of the Cleveland Hopkins
Airport. It would convey flows presently conveyed by the Big
Creek Interceptor and the Grayton Road pump station. The South-
west Interceptor would also convey flows from: Brooklyn, Brook
Park, Parma, Parma Heights, Seven Hills, North Royalton, Broad-
view Heights, Brooklyn Heights and Cuyahoga Heights. All of
these areas are within the Big Creek Basin.
The Southwest Interceptor Main Leg would be constructed in the
Interstate Route 480 right-of-way to the extent possible. The
West Leg alignment shown in Figure IV-10C, extends in a south-
westerly direction from the S.R. 237 - Brook Park Road intersec-
tion, paralleling the S.R. 237 and ConRail rights-of-way to the
Olmsted Falls area. The West Leg then turns southward along a
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company easement. Wastewater
flows would be intercepted from the Berea, Brook Park, Middleburg
Heights and Strongsville "A" plants, plus some smaller plants
listed in Table III-3. Those portions of Olmsted Falls-Olmsted
Township to be sewered (as previously discussed) would be in-
cluded in the Southwest Interceptor. This would eliminate the
need for the sub-regional treatment plant at the South Site. The
West Leg of the Southwest Interceptor would cross the Rocky River
to service these communities. The four major treatment plants
(Middleburg Heights, Berea, Brook Park, Strongsville "A") would
be abandoned under this alternative.
Capital costs for the Southwest Interceptor are $83,998,200 for
the Main Leg and $36,673,400 for the West Leg. O&M calculations
are based on actual O&M records at the Southerly Treatment Plant
plus projected improvements. For the West Leg alone, O&M costs
are anticipated to be $994,900 per year.
IV-29
-------
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
/ «
•v
,
« "'
•1
\ '' ^
&
1 ' -'
r,
Sewer Route
AS • Access Shaft
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Report
Figure fV-Wa
-------
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
*-vi J
**/:•
i'
* v" _« .^, !nt i^. .<^.. i_r'
I'll 'ft.
-y, *•
••
--i -
••;.. -I ,!' - . - ,
» . . '^ •
* '• /
}*IW
<',
I'Qtrv
-------
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
CLEVELAND HOPKINS • / ,
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
FM Force Main
AS Access Shaft
MH M.I nl ii. I,.
• — SWI West Ley
• 2 Connect'it
SWI
««jo*;: PARK
WJVTP' ,_.,
COLUMBIA TRAILER
PARK WWTP
OLMSTED TWP -
OLMSTED FALLS
SaooKStoC W»|ve ^-POMP STATION
3E TT LING
KMHlf 2W-A
3W-A
'* COLUMBIA TWP
.-'/ SUB. WWTP
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Report
Figure IV-We
-------
Chapter V will consider in detail various subalternatives for the
Main Leg and West Leg of the Southwest Interceptor. Considera-
tions will include sizing, alignment, construction techniques,
stream crossings and connector sewers to the existing treatment
plants. Chapter V will also discuss the facilities planning
documents explaining the Southwest Interceptor in more detail.
IV.E.5. Post 20-Year Alternatives
Following the 20-year facilities planning period other areas may
be added to the Southwest Interceptor service area, (if the
Southwest Interceptor alternative is implemented). As mentioned
in Chapter III, most of these communities are conducting their
own facilities planning for the present 20-year period. They
may, however, be open to new planning options in the post 20-
year period. Option areas to be potentially included in that
future Southwest service area are shown in Figure 1-3. These are
the East Leg area on the Rocky River, Medina "300", Columbia
Township and North Olmsted. Table 1-1 indicates what the sub-
areas were called in various facilities planning reports. The
detailed evaluation of the Southwest Interceptor Alternative in
Chapter V will consider the advisability of allowing capacity in
the Main Leg and West Leg of the sewer for these potential future
service areas. Federal funding of this future capacity for the
Southwest Interceptor is not an allowable cost.
IV.F. Conclusions
IV.F.I. Alternatives to be Eliminated
IV.F.I.a. No Action
Except for portions of Olmsted Township, Zone K, No Action is
abandoned as a feasible alternative because existing treatment
plants will not meet the final permit requirements, no improve-
ment in water quality will result, on-site systems will have
variable treatment effectiveness and bypasses of untreated sewage
will continue to streams.
IV.F.l.b. Flow and Waste Reduction
Flow and waste reductions alone will not achieve treatment and
water quality improvements in the planning area. Infiltration/
inflow removal will be considered in greater detail in Chapter V.
However, as a part of treatment process alternatives, voluntary
water conservation would be described in the planning area, but
will not be considered as part of the EIS alternatives.
IV.F.l.c. Treatment Plant Processes and Disposal
Because of the volume of wastewater, the degree of urbanization
and local soil conditions, land application of municipal effluent
is infeasible for the Southwest Planning Area. Treatment
processes have been described for the treatment plants, and this
discussion will not continue further into the EIS.
IV-33
-------
IV.F.l.d. Two-Plant Alternative
The principal environmental benefit of the Two-plant alternative
would be the retention of flow in the Rocky River, but at a mone-
tary cost substantially higher than the Multi-plant alternative.
Since the Multi-plant is more cost-effective than the Two-plant
alternative, the Two-plant alternative will not be continued
further in the EIS analysis.
IV.F.2. Alternatives to be Retained
From the above discussions the following alternatives will be
retained for further consideration in Chapter V:
0 Multi Plant (including Olmsted Falls)
° Southwest Interceptor
0 On-site improvements for portions of Olmsted Township
0 Post 20-year Alternatives
IV-34
-------
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
V. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
V.A. Introduction
Chapter V develops the details of the leading alternatives for
the Southwest Planning Area and then compares the monetary and
non-monetary impacts of these alternatives. The alternative of
on-site system improvements and management in Olmsted Township
may be implemented with either of the two major approaches for
sewered areas - the Multi-Plant Alternative and the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative. Its impacts will also be discussed in
this Chapter.
V.B. Sizing
V.B.I. Infiltration-Inflow
Section III.E described the Infiltration-Inflow (I/I) Analysis
and the Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) work conducted as
part of the Facilities Plan. The I/I Analysis concluded that it
would be cost-effective to remove 40% of the infiltration-inflow
from the existing sewer system. This corresponds to removing 11
mgd of infiltration and 152 mgd of inflow. The remaining 244 mgd
would be conveyed to the wastewater treatment plants under the
various alternatives. However, even 40% removal would not elimi-
nate the need for relief sewers in the planning area. The SSES
will pinpoint those areas where I/I can most effectively be re-
moved and will describe the approach for achieving this removal.
After completion of the I/I report, the facilities planners
further analyzed the data and questioned the feasibility of
implementing 40% I/I removal. They indicated that 20% removal
would be more realistic to implement, while still being
cost-effective. The 20% removal was used in the planning of
interceptor sizing.
The I/I problem is most acute in the older suburban and city
areas tributary to the lower portion of the Main Leg Interceptor.
The Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) data indicate that
10-15% I/I removal may be a practical rehabilitation range for
these parts of the system. The location of these tributary areas
greatly affects the sizing of the Main Leg Interceptor.
V.B.2 Water Use
Facilities planning work for the Southwest area has examined
actual water use records for each community. These flows and the
population projections were considered in the sizing of intercep-
tors. Industrial flows were added to this flow and the peak nor-
mal wastewater flow was calculated according to the recommended
Cuyahoga County formula. Flows are comparable for all alterna-
tives. Water conservation was discussed in Chapter IV.
V-l
-------
V.B.3 Flow Equalization
Rainfall periods place great stress on the existing sewers and
wastewater treatment facilities of the Southwest plannning area.
This has been documented in detail in the I/I and SSES studies.
Figure V-l illustrates the generalized curves of normal waste-
water and peak flows from inflow leaks during rainfall events.
It is extremely expensive to build treatment plants in which each
treatment unit is large enough to accommodate storm flows. For
this reason, retention basins are planned to store excess storm
water until it can be directed through the treatment plant.
This process, called flow equalization, enables all of the waste-
water collected during wet periods to be sufficiently treated to
meet discharge permit limitations that protect stream quality.
Flow equalization capability is comparable for all alternatives.
It exists in the sizing of the Southerly Treatment Plant and
would be added to local facilities in the Multi-plant Alterna-
tive.
V.C. Detailed Development of Southwest Interceptor Alternatives
V.C.I. Main Leg Alignment
V.C.I.a. General Main Leg Alignment
Early in the facilities planning, the Draft Environmental Assess-
ment for the Southwest Suburban Sanitary Interceptor System, pre-
pared in 1969, considered two route locations for the Main Leg
Interceptor from Hopkins Airport to the Southerly Plant. The
first Main Leg alignment was along the proposed Interstate 480 in
a common or contiguous right-of-way to Schaaf Road. East of
Schaff Road, the interceptor was routed north of the ConRail
tracks and included in the realignment of the Big Creek Intercep-
tor. The second Main Leg alignment was along Brook Park Road.
East of Schaaf Road, this alignment was located south of and
parallel to the railroad tracks across the Cuyahoga River Valley
and then followed the existing Big Creek Interceptor alignment
into the Southerly Treatment plant.
The 1-480 alignment is preferable to the Brook Park Road route.
The interstate route has an undeloped right-of-way while Brook
Park Road is a busy commercial street, with numerous stores and
industries which would be disrupted at construction areas. The
project would be further complicated by having to acquire right-
of-way easements from more than 500 property owners along Brook
Park Road.
V.C.l.b. East End of Main Leg Alignment
The Final Facilities Planning Report considers two east end
alignments. These are refinements of earlier facilities planning
work which reflect existing land use conditions on the west side
V-2
-------
GENERALIZATION OF FLOW DATA
Inflow
WWTP Design
Peak Flow
Normal Wastewater
Rainfall Induced Infiltration
Future Infiltration
Dry-Weather Infiltration
TIME
Flow to Equalization Basin
Figure V-1
O
z
ui
Z
O
u
UI
O
E
a.
LU
5
Z
O
cc
>
2
w
w
uj
<
U)
a
UJ
Z
3
V-3
-------
of the Cuyahoga River which has undergone recent light industrial
development. Both the North and South alternative alignments
assume tunneled sewer construction and were illustrated in Figure
IV-10A.
Geotechnical studies were conducted in developing the routes and
estimating their costs. In comparing the soil conditions between
the North and South alignments, it does not appear that there are
significant differences in the types of soil and rock conditions.
The preliminary subsurface profiles show that the primary differ-
ence between the two alternatives is that the North alternative
has more lineal footage of soft ground tunneling than the South
alternative. In addition, a portion of the North alternative is
located beneath a heavily developed area. Based on the available
information, it is likely that the tunnel would be constructed in
soil beneath the developed area. If ground instability is en-
countered, the zone of surface disturbance could extend into the
existing building areas. Thus, the probability of damage to
surface structures is lower along the South route than the North
Route because of more rock underlying the buildings. Another
difference between the alternatives could occur at the portals.
Both portals on the South alternative could be constructed in a
loose silty sand formation whereas both of the North alternative
portals would be constructed in stiff silty clay. This could
result in some increased cost and construction difficulty along
the South alternative.
Construction costs are $14,543,232 for the North alignment and
$11,894,696 for the South alignment. The South alignment is
preferable because of costs and construction stability, and will
be retained as part of the Main Leg alternative.
V.C.l.c. Cuyahoga River Valley Crossing
The Final Facilities Planning Report details two alternatives for
crossing the Cuyahoga River from the East End of the Main Leg to
the Southerly treatment plant, a siphon sewer or an aerial
gravity sewer. The siphon would be built under the river bed and
adjacent Ohio Canal, while the aerial sewer would cross the
Cuyahoga Valley parallel to an existing railroad bridge and the
Big Creek Interceptor. The Facilities Plan reflects the extensive
series of studies examining the technical advantages and disad-
vantages of these alternatives. The siphon has aesthetic advan-
tages of being underground, but would have to be constructed
across the river and canal by disrputive open-cut techniques.
Trees and vegetation would be disturbed alont the construction
route as would the aquatic habitat. Siphons can encounter sub-
stantial reliability problems, with the deposition of grit and
sludge reducing the flow-carrying capacity of the siphon. The
high velocities planned for this alternative, however, would
improve reliability. Maintenance costs are high with yearly
draining and cleaning anticipated. Construction costs are esti-
mated to be $2,827,980 (assuming 20% I/I removal) and 20-year
operation and maintenance costs of $300,000.
V-4
-------
The aerial crossing could utilize different structural support;
truss, arch or cable-stayed girder. The truss is preferable for
both costs and acceptable aesthetics. Geotechnical studies have
contributed to understanding the local conditions to be
accommodated in building the aerial crossing.
Early facilities planning studies considered including both the
Big Creek Interceptor and the Main Leg Interceptor in the same
river crossing aerial structure. This concept has been abandoned,
since the present Big Creek Interceptor does not need to be
replaced. The aerial crossing would be visable in the Cuyahoga
Valley, spanning both the Cuyahoga River and the Ohio Canal, but
would blend in with the existing man-made structures. Although
the siphon is aesthetically superior, the truss bridge type is
aesthetically acceptable. Visual vantage points of this part of
the Cuyahoga River Valley are from industrial areas, and the view
is limited because of the lack of access points.
Construction impacts will be limited predominantly to the sites
of the pier structures which support the pipe. Sixty foot spans
would be used. This construction work would be primarily outside
the banks of both waterways, minimizing the impacts on stream
bottoms and banks. Ample clearance will be included for potential
Corps of Engineers channel maintenance of the Cuyahoga River.
Crossing lengths under consideration are 180 ft. and 250 ft.
which will be finalized during project design. Construction costs
are estimated to be $1,395,000 to 2,449,000 for the respective
sizes, with operation and maintenance costs about $18,000
$28,000 for the 20-year period. The shorter 180 ft. length is
more likely to be employed.
V.C.2. West Leg Alignment
Figure IV-10C illustrated the West Leg alignment alternatives.
The sewer segment from the Main Leg connection to the Berea
Connector is common to all alternatives. The Final Facilities
Planning Report examined eight sub-alternatives for the end of
the West Leg and associated connector sewers. The eight alter-
natives are based upon three alternate alignments for the West
Leg, i.e., the West Alignment, the East Alignment - Low Profile,
and the East Alignment - High Profile; two connector alternates
for Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township, i.e., gravity sewer or pump
station-force main; and two connector alternates for the Ver-
sailles and Columbia Township Subdivision WWTP's, i.e., gravity
sewer or pump station-force main. A listing of the alternatives
and their costs are presented below:
Alternative West Alignment $53,031,000
No. 1 Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
Alternative West Alignment $48,203,000
No. 2 Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
V-5
-------
Alternative East Alignment - Low Profile $49,406,000
No. 3 Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
Alternative East Alignment - Low Profile $46,413,000
No. 4 Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
Alternative East Alignment - Low Profile $44,578,000
No. 5 Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Gravity Connector
Alternative East Alignment - Low Profile $41,586,000
No. 6 Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
Alternative East Alignment - High Profile $37,926,000
No. 7 Olmsted Gravity Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
Alternative East Alignment - High Profile $33,099,000
No. 8 Olmsted Force Main Connector
Versailles-Columbia Force Main Connector
The engineering advantages and disadvantages of these sub-alter-
natives is covered in the Facilities Plan. Alternative No. 8 is
preferred as having the lowest construction costs, $33,099,000.
It will be assumed that this sub-alternative is the West Leg por-
tion of the Southwest Interceptor Alternative.
V.C.3. Construction Technique and Cost Assumptions
Costs for tunnels, liners, shafts and structures are developed in
the Final Facilities Planning Report. Cost estimates do not in-
clude the potential costs for dewatering sewers during construc-
tion, which can add $85-$170 per linear foot of tunnel; $350-$800
per foot if compressed air is required. This is anticipated to
be a problem only near the crossing of the East Branch of the
Rocky River where the Berea sandstone formation is encountered.
An additional variable is the geologic material to be encountered
in the final sewer route. The exact mix of materials will affect
construction techniques, rates, and costs. These variables will
be better resolved during the project design.
V.D. Detailed Development of Multi-Plant Alternative
The four major treatment plants in the Rocky River Basin vary in
types of equipment used for treatment. Proposed improvements
consequently differ in cost and number. One of the initial prob-
lems facing these plants were the dissimilar treatment processes.
As a result, a cost effective solution involving consolidated
management was not possible.
Schematics are provided in Appendix B to accompany Tables IV-5
through IV-13 dealing with construction costs, annual O&M costs,
V-6
-------
and present worth analyses for these four plants. Each shows the
location of existing facilities and the location of proposed im-
provements. These schematics and tables allow comparison or
analysis of the detailed changes and costs. The facilities plan-
ning document, Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook
Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, and Strongsville "A" should be
consulted for additional details.
Generally, Strongsville "A" accounts for the greatest number of
changes and highest costs, followed by Middleburg Heights WWTP,
then Berea's WWTP. These three plants almost uniformly account
for 85 percent of costs of improvements, calculated in the
present worth analysis. Brook Park's WWTP accounts for about 15
percent of total costs.*
The Multi-Plant Alternative also includes construction of the
Main Leg Interceptor to serve the Big Creek Basin. Thus, the
Main Leg Interceptor is a part of all alternatives.
V.E. Monetary Comparison of Alternatives
This section is a summary of the economic portion of the Final
Cost-Effective Analysis Report for the Southwest Interceptor
Area. Predecessor documents to that report are: the Cost-
Effective Analysis of Local Wastewater Management Alternatives
for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, and Columbia Township, and
the Cost-Effective Analysis of Local Wastewater Treatment Alter-
natives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, and Strongs-
ville "A". NEORSD has provided cost updates for portions of
these reports, based on additional SSES work and revised O&M
costs. Additional data and analyses have been incorporated by
EPA to address the financial capability of the project recip-
ients . These data come from population characteristics published
in U.S. Bureau of the Census Reports, NOACA's population and
employment projections, facilities planning reports and other
sources of pertinent socioeconomic data. Following the presen-
tation of capital, operation and maintenance costs of Southwest
Interceptor Alternative versus improvement needs of the Multi-
Plant Alternative, a discussion is presented on the impacts of
the selected alternative on the community.
V.E.I. Cost Comparison
USEPA makes its final cost comparisons based on the present worth
costs of alternatives. Present worth costs consider not only
capital (construction) costs but 20 years of operation and main-
tenance, the salvage value of land and structures at the end of
20 years, an interest rate established by the Water Resources
Council, and associated project costs. Present worth compares
all of the cost factors for 20 years.
Table V-laprovides a detailed break down of all of the costs for
the Multi-Plant Alternative and the Southwest Interceptor Alter-
native. Some items are the same for both alternatives while
others differ. The present worth cost of the Multi-Plant Alter-
* If tertiary filtration is net required, costs for the Multi-Plant Alternative
will be slightly less. The Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report is
analyzing the need for filtration V-7 and this issue will be included in the
Final EIS,
-------
TABLE V-1-a
ITEMIZED COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
Multi-Plant
Item Alternative SWI Alternative
CAPITAL COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 55,588,800
Main Leg Interceptor 76,159,500 $ 83,998,200
West Leg Interceptor 36,673,400
Connector Interceptors 3,212,800
Major Relief Sewers 28,000,000 28,000,000
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance 61,424,000 61,424,000
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement 11,788,000 11,788,000
Proposed Collector Sewers 7,677,900 7,677,900
Individual Home Systems 5,936,200 5,936,200
Sewer Rehabilitation 3,992,000 3,992,000
Decommissioning Local WWTP's 600, OOP
Total $250,566,400 $243,302,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Local WWTP's $ 42,870,200
Southerly WWTP 32,768,900 $ 40,937,500
Main Leg & Major Relief Sewers 2,991,100 2,991,100
West Leg and Connectors 1,878,300
Existing Sewers 29,414,700 29,414,700
Proposed Collector Sewers 214,000 214,000
Individual Home Systems 1,008,900 1,008,900
Local Debt Retirement 2,155,10Q 2,155,100
Total $111,422,900 $ 78,599,600
SALVAGE VALUE
Local WWTP's ($ 2,375,000) ($ 75,000)
Main Leg Interceptor ( 8,730,400) ( 9,624,900)
West Leg Interceptor ( 4,239,800)
Connector Interceptors ( 389,500)
Major Relief Sewers ( 3,175,400) ( 3,175,400)
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance ( 7,005,400) ( 7,005,400)
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement ( 1,333,100) ( 1,333,100)
Proposed Collector Sewers ( 1,155,800) ( 1,155,800)
Individual Home Systems ( 212,600) ( 212,600)
Local WWTP Modified Use (_ 525,000)
Total ($ 23,987,700) ($ 27,736,500)
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $338,001,600 $294,165,600
DIFFERENCE +$ 43,836,000
V-8
-------
Item
CAPITAL COSTS
TABLE V-l-b
ITEMIZED COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
PRESENT WORTH COSTS
WITHOUT TERTIARY FILTRATION
Multi-Plant
Alternative
SWI Alternative
Local WWTP's
Main Leg Interceptor
West Leg Interceptor
Connector Interceptors
Major Relief Sewers
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement
Proposed Collector Sewers
Individual Home Systems
Sewer Rehabilitation
Decommissioning Local WWTP's
Total
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Local WWTP's
Southerly WWTP
Main Leg & Major Relief Sewers
West Leg and Connectors
Existing Sewers
Proposed Collector Sewers
Individual Home Systems
Local Debt Retirement
Total
SALVAGE VALUE
Local WWTP's
Main Leg Interceptor
West Leg Interceptor
Connector Interceptors
Major Relief Sewers
Relief Sewers for I/I Conveyance
Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement
Proposed Collector Sewers
Individual Home Systems
Local WWTP Modified Use
Total
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
DIFFERENCE
$ 36,650,000
76,159,500
28,000,000
61,424,000
11,788,000
7,677,900
5,936,200
3,992,000
$231,627,600
$ 34,320,000
32,768,900
2,991,100
29,414,700
214,000
1,008,900
2,155,100
$102,872,000
($ 23,252,700)
$311,247,600
+$ 17,082,000
$ 83,998,200
36,673,400
3,212,800
28,000,000
61,424,000
11,788,000
7,677,900
5,936,200
3,992,000
600,000
$243,302,500
$ 40,937,500
2,991,100
1,878,300
29,414,700
214,000
1,008,900
2,155,100
$ 78,599,600
($
(
(
(
(
(
(
1,640,000)
8,730,400)
3,175,400)
7,005,400)
1,333,100)
1,155,800)
212,600)
($ 75,000)
( 9,624,900)
( 4,239,800)
( 389,500)
( 3,175,400)
( 7,005,400)
( 1,333,100)
( 1,155,800)
( 212,600)
( 525,000)
($ 27,736,500)
$294,165,600
V-8-a
-------
native is $43 million greater than the Southwest Interceptor Al-
ternative for the 20-year planning period. This difference of
approximately 15 percent suggests that the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative is economically preferable. The principal area of
cost difference is in the operation and maintenance of the facil-
ities. (See insert on following page.)
V.E.2. User Charge Comparison
Customer charges are affected in part by the capital (construc-
tion) costs of a project, operation-maintenance-replacement
costs, the sewer improvement costs of individual communities and
by the percentage of Federal funding available.
In the Southwest Planning Area customers pay for the construction
and upkeep of local sewers at the community level but sewage
treatment costs are paid to the entity which provides it, either
the community or NEORSD. NEORSD charges its suburban customers
according to the volume of water use, not according to which
service area they reside in. The current rate charged by NEORSD
is $11.76 per 1000 cubic feet of water used. The average house-
hold uses 12,000 cubic feet per year. NEORSD has calculated that
this charge will increase over the years to reflect labor and
energy costs, as well as physical improvements in wastewater
treatment systems.
Federal funding in recent years has covered 75% of eligible
costs, with 85% of innovative and alternative system costs being
funded, such as the on-site system improvements. These levels may
change after October 1, 1984, to 55%, which will be discussed
further in Chapter 6. Communities have the option of preceding
with no Federal funding for wastewater treatment facilities.
There is no State level funding in Ohio for sewage treatment pro-
jects. A step 3 segment must be granted by September 30, 1984 to
ensure 75% Federal funding for the entire project.
Estimated user charges per 1000 cubic feet of water are presented
in Table V-2 assuming no Federal funding, in Table V-3 assuming
55% Federal funding, and in Table V-4 at 75% Federal funding.
User charges for the on-site system improvements would be addi-
tional but eligible for up to 85% Federal funding. Table V-5
indicates user charges if the local communities pursued local
improvements with no Federal funding and NEORSD received 75%
Federal funding. This situation may arise if the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative is not agreed upon locally for implemen-
tation. Certain capital and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs contained in the concept of each alternative are not in-
cluded in the NEORSD user charge system, since they cover items
that would not be implemented by NEORSD but rather by the local
communities. On-site improvements, already mentioned, are one of
these costs. Other costs not included are the relief sewers,
collector sewers and sewer rehabilitation work.
Impacts of a selected alternative on a community's financial
capability can be estimated. One technique used by USEPA is the
V-9
-------
(Insert from page V-9)
Table V-l-b depicts the cost comparison without tertiary filtration for the Multi-
Plant Alternative. The need for filters to meet final permit limits is being
evaluated in the Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report, now under review
by USEPA. Although the costs of the two alternatives become closer ($311 vs. $294
million) the Southwest Interceptor remains the lower cost (5.8% less) alternative
over the 20-year planning period.
V-9-a
-------
TABLE V-2
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
NO FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET METERED WATER CONSUMPTION
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A"
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
22.28
79.38
52.09
49.10
39.13
68.67
46.26
44.34
1988
30.87
81.43
53.49
50.26
40.78
70.44
48.85
47.30
1989
31.93
82.89
54.87
51.57
42.59
72.19
51.88
50.55
1990
39.18
84.73
56.33
52.87
44.60
74.05
55.34
54.10
1991
39.76
86.70
57.87
54.26
46.80
76.04
59.01
57.94
1992
43.09
88.80
59.56
55.74
49.23
78.37
63.12
62.08
1993
42.55
91.05
61.34
57.31
51.88
80.44
67.44
66.81
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Revised Cost-Effective Analysis NEORSD, June, 1983
-------
TABLE V-3
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
55% FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A"
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
NA
49
34
31
26
44
35
35
NA = Projected NEORSD rates
Source: Southwest
.10
.08
.58
.70
.23
.88
.77
are not
Interceptor Area
1988
NA
51.16
35.49
32.74
28.35
46.00
38.48
38.73
1989
52
36
34
30
47
41
41
available at
Revised
NA
.61
.86
.04
.16
.74
.50
.98
this
1990
NA
54.45
38.32
35.34
32.17
49.61
44.96
45.53
time for
Cost-Ef f ectiveness
1991
56
39
36
43
51
48
49
the 55%
Analysis
NA
.42
.89
.73
.37
.60
.85
.37
federal
NEORSD,
1992
NA
58.53
41.55
38.21
36.80
53.93
52.75
53.51
funding
June,
1993
60
43
39
39
56
57
58
level .
1982.
NA
.78
.33
.79
.45
.00
.07
.24
-------
TABLE V-4
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
75% FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
1
I-1
to
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A"
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
21.61
38.10
27.53
25.21
22.20
35.34
32.42
32.81
1988
22.08
40.15
28.94
26.37
23.86
37.11
35.02
35.77
1989
23.17
41.60
30.31
27.67
25.67
38.86
38.05
39.02
1990
21.64
43.44
31.78
28.97
27.67
40.72
41.50
42.57
1991
22.76
45.41
33.34
30.36
29.87
42.71
45.40
46.41
1992
23.92
47.52
35.01
31 .84
32.30
45.04
49.29
50.55
1993
24.05
49.77
36.78
33.42
34.95
47.12
53.61
55.28
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Revised Cost-Effectiveness Analysis NEORSD, June, 1982.
-------
TABLE V-5
USER CHARGE RATE COMPARISON
NEORSD @ 75% FEDERAL FUNDING
LOCAL WWTP'S @ NO FEDERAL FUNDING
DOLLARS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
OJ
Entity
NEORSD
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Berea
Olmsted Falls
Strongsville "A"
Versailles
Columbia Sub.
1987
21
79
52
49
39
68
46
44
.61
.38
.09
.10
.13
.67
.26
.34
1988
22.08
81.43
53.49
50.26
40.78
70.44
48.85
47.30
1989
23
82
54
51
42
72
51
50
.17
.89
.87
.57
.59
.19
.88
.55
1990
21
84
56
52
44
74
55
54
.64
.73
.33
.87
.60
.05
.34
.10
1991
22.76
86.70
57.87
54.26
46.80
76.04
59.01
57.94
1992
23
88
59
55
49
78
63
62
.92
.80
.56
.74
.23
.37
.12
.08
1993
24.05
91.05
61 .34
57.31
51.88
80.44
67.44
66.81
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Revised Cost-Effectiveness Analysis NEORSD, June, 1982.
-------
percent of median household income attributed to user charges.
Stability of the community in terms of population and labor force
is also examined.
Table V-6 provides the median household income for each community
based on 1980 census data. Using USEPA guidelines, a project is
not considered high cost unless the selected alternative exceeds
1.75 percent of the median household income when that median
income is greater than $17,000. Table V-7 presents a financial
capability analysis based on the assumption that household
incomes will increase 5% a year and NEORSD user charges will
increase about 2% a year. Projected cost comparisons can be
evaluated for the time that each sewer segment is implemented in
the Southwest Interceptor Alternative. This analysis also
assumes 12,000 cubic feet of water used per household per year.
Community-specific costs for relief sewers, local sewer O&M and
existing debt retirement have been factored into the costs.
The projected charges range from 0.63% to 1.27% of the projected
median household income for all communities except Olmsted Falls/
where it is 1.92%, exceeding the EPA high cost guideline of
1.75%. The expense of new local sewers accounts for this differ-
ence. Sewers are needed to correct the problems of using on-site
systems in the Village. The local burden for Olmsted Falls could
be eased by phased construction and alternative methods of cost
recovery at the local level.
V.E.3. Additional Economic Impacts
While construction of new wastewater treatment facilities will
generate jobs during the construction phase, the Southwest Inter-
ceptor Alternative will phase out jobs at local treatment plants.
As discussed by NEORSD with the Public Advisory Group, some of
these positions may be able to be absorbed by NEORSD.
Two of the local treatment plants, Berea and Middleburg Heights,
have existing debts to retire. As of March, 1982, the outstand-
ing balance for the Berea WWTP is $203,832 with semiannual pay-
ments of $11,679 through 1994. The Middleburg Heights facilities
have annual payments of $262,500 through 2002. These obligations
remain with any wastewater treatment alternative selected, and
have been factored into the present worth analysis (Table V-l)
and the financial capability analysis (Table V-7).
V.F. Non-Monetary Comparison of Alternatives
V.F.l. Interbasin Transfer of Effluent & Water Quality Issues
V.F.I.a. Multi-Plant Alternative
Implementing the Multi-Plant Alternative would retain streamflow
within the Rocky River Basin. These flows are relatively new to
this basin and are the result of population increases in the area
and the transporting of Lake Erie water to these residents. (See
Population Data, Figure 11-14) . The result is an increase in
V-14
-------
TABLE V-6
1980 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Community
Brooklyn Heights
Seven Hills
Parma
Parma Heights
Brooklyn
North Royal ton
Brook Park
Middleburg Height
Berea
Strongsville
Olmsted Falls
AVERAGES
*Median Household
People Per
Household
2.9
3.2
2.7
2.4
2.4
2.7
3.3
s 2.6
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.8
Income for the State of Ohio
Sources: Southwest Interceptor Area Financial
NEORSD,
June, 1981.
Median
Household
Income
$23,750.00
$29,032.00
$21,798.00
$20,667.00
$20, 139.00
$24,393.00
$24,432.00
$24,627.00
$21,646.00
$28,541 .00
$25,036.00
$24,005.55*
is $17,755.
Capability Analysi;
U.S. Census, 1980.
V-15
-------
TABLE V-7
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
*Median Houshold Income
BROOKLYN HEIGHTS (1990)
1980 MHI = $23,750.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $38,686.00
Component.
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local 0 & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$21.64
-0-
-0-
3.00
$24.64
$259.68
-0-
-0-
36.00
$295.68
0.67%
-0-
-0-
0.09%
0.76%
SEVEN HILLS (1990)
1980 MHI = $29,032.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $47,290.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge
$24.64
8.07
-0-
3.00
$32.71
$259.68
96.84
-0-
36.00
$392.52
%MHI*
0.55%
0.20%
-0-
0.08%
0.83%
# A detailed financial capability analysis will be performed prior to an
EPA grant award for project construction
V-16
-------
TABLE V-7 (Cont'd)
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
*Median Houshold Income
PARMA (1990)
1980 MHI = $21,798.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $35,507.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$21.64
8.07
3.13
3.00
$259.68
96.84
37.56
36.00
0.73%
0.27%
0. 11%
0.10%
$35.84
$430.08
1.21%
PARMA HEIGHTS (1990)
1980 MHI = $20,667.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $33,664.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$21.64
8.07
2.86
3.00
$259.68
96.84
34.32
36.00
0.77%
0.29%
0.10%
0.11%
$35.57
$426.84
1.27%
BROOKLYN (1990)
1980 MHI = $20,139.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $32,804.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$21.64
-0-
-0-
3.00
$24.64
$259.68
-0-
-0-
36.00
$295.68
0.79%
-0-
-0-
0.11%
0.90%
V-17
-------
TABLE V-7 (Cont'd)
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
*Median Houshold Income
NORTH ROYALTON (1990)
1980 MHI = $24,393.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $39,734.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge
$32.71
$392.52
%MHI'
$21.64
8.07
-0-
3.00
$259.68
96.84
-0-
36.00
0.65%
0.24%
-0-
0.09%
0.98%
BROOK PARK (1992)
1980 MHI = $24,432.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $43,876.00
Component
NEO Rate
Major Relief Sewers
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$23.92
8.07
2.58
3.00
$287.04
96.84
30.96
36.00
0.65%
0.23%
0.07%
0.08%
$37.57
$450.84
1.03%
MIDDLEBURG HEIGHTS (1992)
1980 MHI = $24,627.00
Projected 1990 MHI = $44,227.00
Component
NEO Rate
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local- O & M
Existing Debt
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$23.92
-0-
3.00
3.12
$30.04
$287.04
-0-
36.00
37.44
$360.48
0.65%
-0-
0.08%
0.09%
0.82%
V-18
-------
TABLE V-7 (Cont'd)
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
*Median Houshold Income
BEREA (1992)
1980 MHI = $21,646.00
Projected 1992 MHI = $38,873.00
Component
NEO Rate
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Existing Debt
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$23.92
8.40
3.00
0.28
$35.60
$287.04
100.80
36.00
3.36
$427.20
0.74%
0.26%
0.09%
0.01%
1.10%
STRQNGSVILLE (1992)
1980 MHI = $28,541.00
Projected 1992 MHI = $51,256.00
Component
NEO Rate
Overflow Relief Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$23 .92
-0-
3.00
$287.04
-0-
36.00
0.56%
-0-
0.07%
$26.92
$323.04
0.63%
OLMSTED FALLS (1992)
1980 MHI = $25,036.00
Projected 1992 MHI = $44,961.00
Component
NEO Rate
Local Sewers
Local O & M
Totals
Monthly Charge Annual Charge %MHI*
$23 .92
45.00
3.00
$71 .92
$287.04
540.00
36.00
$863.04
0.64%
1.20%
0.08%
1.92%
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Financial Capability Analysis
NEORSD, June, 1983.
V-19
-------
wastewater flows due to the rise in population. Some flow changes
can be expected in the Olmsted Falls area because on-lot systems
will be replaced by a new treatment facility on the West Branch
of the Rocky River, South Site. Flows will be slightly decreased
in Plum Creek with anticipated water quality improvements in Plum
Creek and the West Branch of the Rocky River.
Water quality would improve with the Multi-Plant Alternative
because all of the treatment plants would be upgraded, as
necessary, to achieve water quality standards. Reductions in
streamflow would not be as pronounced as with the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative because discharges would remain within
the Rocky River Basin.
V.F.l.b. Southwest Interceptor Alternative
V.F.l.b.i. Water Quantity
In contrast to the Multi-Plant Alternative, the regional South-
west Interceptor-West Leg Alternative would convey wastewater
from the 4 major and numerous minor treatment plants in the Rocky
River Basin to the Cuyahoga River Basin, the discharge location
of the Southerly plant. In the West Leg area, only the City of
Berea's water originates from the Rocky River. All other commu-
nities get their water from Lake Erie.
The present augmentation of streamflow in the Rocky River with
Lake Erie water is more apparent during dry weather periods than
under average flow conditions. This is illustrated in Figures
V-2 and V-3. Mean flows have exhibited a wide range of variation
since 1925, with effluent discharges from the major treatment
plants comprising about 8% of the 1980 mean flow. The minimum
flow increased sharply in the 1960's and 1970's. This increase
in minimum flow parallels local suburban growth (see Figure
11-14). Because the water supply is obtained from Lake Erie and
not from the Rocky River, a higher level minimum flow has been
apparent in the Rocky River. This increase is not strongly corre-
lated to rainfall records.
Because of development-induced flow increases, the existing low
flow conditions in the Rocky River do not reflect long-standing
hydrologic trends. Because of this, the impacts of interbasin
transfer on low flow will be analyzed on the basis of the 7-day,
once in 10 year (Q7,10) low flow value as being the most repre-
sentative of present conditions.
The Q7,10 represents the mininum seven consecutive day average
flow that has a recurrence interval of once in ten years.
Stated another way, average stream flows would be as low as the
Q7,10 value for only one week in 520 weeks. This extreme low
flow condition is utilized by Ohio EPA as the basis for deter-
mining NPDES permit effluent limits, which in turn are intended
to achieve instream water quality standards necessary to support
designated stream uses.
V-20
-------
YEARLY INSTANTANEOUS MINIMUM STREAM FLOWS
EAST/WEST BRANCH CONFLUENCE
ROCKY RIVER
O
Li.
1925
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975 1980
YEAR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Final Facilities Planning Report
-------
MEAN DAILY STREAM FLOW
EAST/WEST BRANCH CONFLUENCE
ROCKY RIVER
CO
O
u.
1925
I I
1935
1945
1955
YEAR
1965
1975 1980
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Final Facilities Planning Report
-------
Determination of the Q7,10 from from historical stream flow data
for the Rocky River is made difficult by the radical increase in
low flow values over recent years. The Ohio EPA, however, in
September, 1982, completed a five month study of the Rocky River
for the purpose of establishing reasonable Q7,10 values. In an
effort to establish "natural" Q7,10 flow value, Ohio EPA under-
took a statistical analysis of pre-1965 stream flow records. In
a 1983 draft document, entitled Rocky River - Q.7,10 At East/West
Confluence, Ohio EPA concludes the "natural" Q7,10 flow at the
East Branch/West Branch confluence is in the range of 1.18 to
2.26 cubic feet per second (cfs). For purposes of this analysis,
the more conservative estimate of 1.18 cfs will be used.
Because specific gauging data are unavailable for the East and
West Branches of the Rocky River, it is necessary to apportion
flows recorded at the confluence gauge to each branch. Flows are
distributed on the basis of drainage area; seventy percent to the
West Branch (0.826 cfs) and thirty percent to the East Branch
(0.354 cfs).
This pre-1965 "natural" Q7,10 is adjusted to reflect current
Q7,10 flow conditions by adding current dry weather wastewater
discharges and subtracting current water intakes on each branch
(Refer to Table V-8 for 1980 values). Resulting current Q7,10
conditions are as follows:
East Branch 5.164 cfs
West Branch 14.116 cfs
Confluence 19.28 cfs
Several large wastewater treatment plants discharge to the Rocky
River downstream of the confluence of the East and West. Branches .
North Olmsted discharges directly to the Main Branch above Abram
Creek. Brook Park and Middleburg Heights discharge to Abram
Creek, a small tributary to the Main Branch.
Current Q7,10 conditions for the Main Branch at Abram Creek were
developed by adding the dry weather wastewater discharges from
these plants to the current Q7,10 estimate at the East/West
Branch confluence. No "natural" increase was assumed to occur.
Hence a current Q7,10 flow of 30.57 cfs was determined for the
Main Branch at the Abram Creek confluence.
Because phased construction is typical in large regional sewer
projects, an assessment of stream flow impacts requires phased or
straight line projections on future stream flows. Because low
stream flows in the Rocky River consist primarily of wastewater
discharges, future Q7,10 conditions can be based upon projected
wastewater flows.
Table V-8 presents projected dry weather discharges of all sig-
nificant wastewater treatment plants tributary to the Southwest
planning area. This assumes that projected growth and wastewater
treatment plant capacity are achieved in the upstream areas of
the Rocky River Basin. Projections are based upon average daily
V-23
-------
TABLE V-8
DRY WEATHER WWTP DISCHARGES TO ROCKY RIVER (cfs)
WWTP
Stream
Service Area
1980
1990
PROJECTED DISCHARGE
2000
2005
Source
"B"
"C"
Berea
N. Royalton
Strongsville
Albion Jr. High
N. Royalton "A"
Strongsville "B"
Small WWTP's
Medina "300"
Strongsville "A"
Small WWTP's
Small WWTP's
Medina "500"
N. Olmsted
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
SB
BC/EB
BC/EB
BC/EB
EB
EB
EB
EB
WB
PC/WB
WB
WB
MB
MB
MB
WL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
MO
WL
WL
WL
NOO
WL
WL
3.60
.66
.55
.01
1.85
.53
.05
1.87
3.08
.73
.75
8.73
7.57
.93
2.79
3.77
.94
1.44
.01
2.45
1.61
.05
3.34
4.31
.73
.75
10.84
9.21
1.11
3.36
3.94
1.22
2.33
.01
3.05
2.69
.05
4.81
5.54
.73
.75
12.95
10.84
1.28
3.92
4.03
1.36
2.77
.01
3.36
3.23
.05
5.54
6.16
.73
.75
14.00
11.66
1.37
4.20
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
5
1
1
1
6
4
1
1
Sources: 1) Southwest Interceptor Facilities Plan, John David Jones & Assoc., Inc. 1982.
2) North Royalton Wastewater Facilities Plan, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Ltd., (Ongoing)
3) Strongsville "B" and "C" Wastewater_Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981.
4) North Olmsted Wastewater Facilities Plan, Dalton-Dalton-Newport, Inc., 1981.
5) Medina "300" Wastewater Facilities Plan & Preliminary Engineering Report, Project 1601,
Medina Co. Sanitary Eng., 1981.
6) Medina "500" Wastewater Facilities Plan, Halishak & Associates, Inc.
BC - Big Creek
EB - East Branch (Rocky River)
MB - Main Branch (Rocky River)
PC - Plum Creek
WB - West Branch Rocky River
WL - West Leg
EL - East Leg
MO - Medina Option
NOO - North Olmsted Option
-------
base flow (normal sewage) plus low groundwater infiltration.
Sources for year 2005 projections are referenced as appropriate,
interim year projections (1990 and 2000) were developed in most
cases through interpolation between known 1980 discharge rates
and projected year 2005 discharges. Adjustments were made as
necessary based upon projected population growth rates.
The Main Leg Interceptor will have no effect on low streamflow
conditions in Big Creek since this service area is presently sew-
ered, with flows conveyed via the Big Creek Interceptor to the
Southerly Plant on the Cuyahoga River. Water quality in Big
Creek and the Cuyahoga will improve in wet weather with the elim-
ination of overflows from the undersized Big Creek Interceptor.
The Southwest Interceptor alternative would include connecting
the Grayton Road Pump Station to the Main Leg Interceptor. This
will improve water quality in the Rocky River by eliminating
overflows at the pump station which enter the Main Branch of the
Rocky River. The Grayton Road Pump Station presently discharges
to the Big Creek Interceptor. Therefore, interbasin transfer is
not a consideration here.
The West Leg portion of the Southwest Interceptor will affect the
East Branch, West Branch and Main Branch of the Rocky River. Dry
weather discharges of existing plants to be phased out by the
West Leg are shown in Table V-8. Tables V-9 and V-10 present
projected Q7,10 stream flows in the Rocky River for 1990, 2000,
and 2005 - both with and without the West Leg. For purposes of
comparison, the pre-1965 and estimated existing Q7,10 flows also
are presented.
The only East Branch wastewater discharge to be eliminated by the
West Leg Interceptor is the City of Berea Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The plant is located within the Metroparks Rocky River
Reservation approximately 4.4 stream miles below the East/West
Branch Confluence and 2 stream miles below the Berea water in-
takes. The Berea Water Plant currently is being expanded to 3.6
MGD (5.7 cfs) based upon local projections of water demand for
the year 2020. Because this plant withdraws water directly from
the East Branch Rocky River, the projected increase in water de-
mand must also be considered in the stream flow impact assess-
ment. As with the projection of wastewater flows, interim year
projections were developed through interpolations between current
and design water intake. Projected Berea water demands are:
1980 1990 2000 2005
Water
Demand (cfs) 4.31 4.50 4.80 .4.90
Wastewater discharged from the Berea plant currently returns 80-
90 percent of the flow removed from the East Branch by the Berea
water supply. Elimination of the Berea wastewater discharge
would result in stream flow conditions in the 4.4 mile reach be-
tween the discharge point and the East/West Branch confluence
that would be comparable to existing flow conditions in the 2
mile reach between the water intakes and the wastewater plant.
V-25
-------
TABLE V-9
IMPACT OF SWI WEST LEG ON Q7,10
STREAM FLOW IN THE EAST AND
WEST BRANCHES OF ROCKY RIVER
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7, 10
With West Leg
East Branch
Q.7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
Pre-1965
0.35
N/A
1980
5.16
N/A
1990
5.69
2000
9.46 13.65
9.71
2005
15.80
11.77
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7,10
With West Leg
West Branch
Q7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
Pre-1965
0.82
1980 1990 2000
14.12 17.46 20.80
2005
22.47
N/A
N/A
11.67 13.78
14.83
V-26
-------
TABLE V-10
IMPACT OF SWI WEST LEG ON Q7,10
STREAM FLOW IN THE MAIN
BRANCH OF ROCKY RIVER
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7,10
With West Leg
Main Branch at East/West Branch Confluence
Pre-1965
1. 18
N/A
Q7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
_1980
19.28
N/A
1990
26.92
2000
17.36 23.49
2005
34.45 38.27
26.60
Projected Q7,10
Without West Leg
Projected Q7,10
With West Leg
Main Branch at Abram Creek Confluence
Q7,10 Stream Flow (cfs)
1980
30.57
N/A
1990
40.59
2000
26.57 34.33
2005
50.49 55.50
38.26
V-27
-------
As Table V-9 illustrates, construction of the West Leg in 1990
should result in Q7,10 flows at the mouth of the East Branch of
the Rocky River which equal or exceed 1980 Q7,10 flows. Projected
increases in upstream wastewater discharges more than offset
elimination of the Berea discharge. By the Year 2000, Q7,10
flows substantially will exceed current levels. The dry weather
flow downstream of the water intakes will depend upon the amount
of water released from Baldwin Lake and Coe Lake by the City of
Berea. Table V-9 demonstrates, however, that tributary Q7,10
flows will be sufficient to meet Berea's water supply needs plus
maintain significant dry weather flow in downstream portions of
the East Branch. As noted previously, flows above the Berea
Wastewater Treatment Plant would be unaffected by the West Leg.
Constructing the West Leg also would eliminate the Strongsville
"A" Wastewater Treatment Plant and numerous smaller discharges.
Referring to Table V-8, a total of approximately 5.79 cfs of flow
would be removed from the West Branch upon completion of the West
Leg (approximately 1990).
Resulting effects upon West Branch Q7,10 flows were presented on
Table V-9. A 1990 Q7,10 flow of 11.67 cfs would be maintained in
the West Branch at its mouth. Low flow conditions in the West
Branch would be altered for the 5.4 stream mile reach from the
Strongsville "A" pliant to the confluence. By the year 2000,
Q7,10 flows would again approach 1980 Q.7,10 values, because of
anticipated upstream development.
Low flow values in the Main Branch at the East/West Branch Con-
fluence reflect the Q7,10 flows of the individual branches.
Existing and projected Q7,10 flows at the confluence were pre-
sented in Table V-10. The 1990 Q7,10 flow resulting from con-
struction of the West Leg is below the current Q7,10 which is
estimated at 19.28 cfs. By the year 2000, the Q7,10 flow is
projected to exceed the current Q7,10 value even with construc-
tion of the West Leg.
The West Leg Interceptor also would eliminate the Brook Park and
Middleburg Heights wastewater treatment plants, both of which
discharge to Abram Creek. As discussed earlier, baseline or
"existing condition" low flow values were developed by adding the
wastewater discharge of the North Olmsted Plant, located on the
Main Branch between the East/West Branch Confluence and Abram
Creek, and the wastewater discharges of the Brook Park and Mid-
dleburg Heights Plants to the low flows recorded at the USGS
guage. No "natural" increase in stream flow was assumed to
occur. Low flow values reflecting construction of the West Leg
were calculated by subtracting the discharges of Brook Park and
Middleburg Heights from the projected Q7,10 flow values. Table
V-10 presented Q7,10 flow values for the Main Branch/Abram Creek
Confluence. The North Olmsted discharge would not be eliminated
by the Southwest Interceptor project.
As Table V-10 illustrated, 1990 Q7,10 flows resulting from con-
struction of the West Leg would be approximately 1.92 cfs below
current Q7,10 flows at the East/West Branch confluence and 4 cfs
V-28
-------
below current Q7,10 flows at the Main Branch/Abram Creek conflu-
ence. By the year 2000, Q7,10 flows should exceed current values
due to increased tributary wastewater flows.
Associated with a decrease in water volume would be a decrease in
water depth. This decrease would be noticeable only during
extreme low flow periods. Water depths were recorded during
October 1982; see Table V-ll. USGS gauge records for the
sampling dates reflect flow conditions of approximately 100 cfs
at the East/West Branch confluence. These particular flow values
and, hence, water depths are equaled or exceeded approximately
55% of the time.
It would appear that major portions of Abram Creek would be
virtually dry during extreme low flow conditions. Low flows in
this stream presently consist almost entirely of wastewater
discharges . Flow was observed in the headwater area of Plum
Creek, which receives no wastewater discharge, and thus water
may be continuously present in this creek even after removal of
dischargers. Baldwin Creek showed even greater water depth than
Plum Creek, indicating that some flow is likely to continue.
Both the East and West Branches show depths of 0.5 to 1.5 feet in
the southern portions of the study area, with depth generally
increasing in a downstream direction as a result of wastewater
input. Removal of effluent would delete this augmentation effect
and reduce water levels in those stream segments receiving
significant discharge. No dry conditions would occur in either
branch as a result of effluent removal.
To aid further in defining the relationship between flow volume
and water depth, correlation factors for flow and depth at the
USGS gauge at the East/West Branch confluence are presented in
Table V-12. As indicated, to maintain a water depth of .5 feet
at the gauge, a flow of 5.0 cfs must be maintained. The relation-
ship between flow and depth is not linear, however, as indicated
by the column showing the effluent flows which result in a 0.1
foot change in water depth. Thus, in comparison to the 5 cfs/.5
foot relationship, 59.4 cfs are required to attain a 1.0 foot
depth at the gauge. Under the extreme Q7,10 flow condition,
construction of the West Leg would lower water depth at the gauge
by approximately 0.1 feet from 0.78 feet to 0.68 feet, based on
projected flows. Current water depth at the gauge during Q7,10
flow conditions is approximately 0.7 feet. In other words, con-
struction of the West Leg in 1990 should result in water depths
approximating existing levels.
V.F.l.b.ii. Water Quality
Estimated existing and future pollutant loading to the Rocky
River from the West Leg Area are presented in Tables V-13 through
V-16, developed as part of facilities planning. Pollutant load-
ings have been developed for three alternatives during wet
weather and dry weather stream flow conditions. Included in the
wet weather loading calculations are an estimate of non-point
urban and rural runoff contributions within the West Leg Area.
V-29
-------
TABLE V-ll
WATER DEPTH AT THE BENTHIC SAMPLING STATIONS
INVESTIGATED ON OCTOBER 28-29, 1982
Sampling Station Stream Segment Depth (ft)
1 E. Branch 0.5 - 1.5
2 E. Branch 0.5 - 1.5
4 E. Branch 0.5 - 1.0
9 E. Branch 1.0 - 1.5
3 Baldwin Cr. 1.0-2.0
5 W. Branch 0.5 - 1.0
7 W. Branch 0.5 - 4.0
8 W. Branch 1.0 - 3.5
6 Plum Cr. 0.5 - 0.75
11 Abram Cr. 0.5
12 Main Branch 1.0
10 Main Branch 1.0 - 1.5
TABLE V-12
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISCHARGE AND WATER DEPTH AT THE USGS GAUGE
(EAST/WEST BRANCH CONFLUENCE) DURING LOW FLOW PERIODS (USGS DATA)
Discharge (Q) Gauge Height Difference in Q
in CFS (GH) in ft. per 0.1 ft. GH
5.0 0.5
11.0 0.6 6.0
19.0 0.7 8.0
29.0 0.8 10.0
42.5 0.9 13.5
59.4 1.0 16.9
80.1 1.1 20.7
104.9 1.2 24.8
134.1 1.3 29.2
156.6 1.4 33.5
206.1 1.5 38.5
249.9 1.6 43.8
299.1 1.7 49.2
V-30
-------
TABLE V-13
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
NO
FROM
ACTION ALTERNATIVE -
SWI AREA
EXISTING WASTEWATER FLOWS
Loading Lbs/Day
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 2,770
East Leg Area 196
North Olmsted 235
Medina 300 26
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution —
TOTAL 3,227
DRY WEATHER
SS NH2-N P
2,861 801 446
164 59 72
178 154 43
72 8 3
—
3,275 1,022 584
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 17,582
East Leg Area 1,223
North Olmsted 2,256
Medina 300 242
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution 22,434
TOTAL 43,737
WET WEATHER
SS NH2-N
23,212 1,936
912 300
8,250 646
920 50
469,492 3,481
502,786 6,413
P
1,856
253
302
19
685
3,115
TABLE V-14
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
NO
FROM
ACTION ALTERNATIVE -
SWI AREA
YEAR 2005 WASTEWATER FLOWS
Loading Lbs/Day
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 6,569
East Leg Area 984
North Olmsted 467
Medina 300 114
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution —
DRY WEATHER
SS NH2-N P
8,200 1,807 1,067
837 405 342
354 307 87
318 36 12
—
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 87,715
East Leg Area 2,298
North Olmsted 1,868
Medina 300 320
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution 19,945
WET WEATHER
SS NH2-N
136,259 22,857
1,962 1,009
1,416 1,228
892 101
417,167 3,095
P
13,940
806
348
34
608
TOTAL
8,134 9,709 2,555 1,508
TOTAL
112,146 557,696 28,290 15,736
V-31
-------
TABLE V-15
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
FROM SWI AREA
UPGRADED /EXPANDED LOCAL WWTP ' S YEAR 2005 WASTEWATER FLOWS
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 1,072
East Leg Area 518
North Olmsted 390
Medina 300 240
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
TOTAL 2,220
WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES BOD
West Leg Area 78
East Leg Area 518
North Olmsted 390
Medina 300 240
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution
TOTAL 1 , 226
Loading Lbs/Day
DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER
SS NH2-N P DISCHARGES BOD
1,072 201 247 West Leg Area 4,019
518 95 139 East Leg Area 1,222
390 73 49 North Olmsted 1,475
240 45 30 Medina 300 674
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution 19,945
2,220 424 465 TOTAL 27,335
TABLE V-16
POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
FROM SWI AREA
SWI WEST LEG - YEAR 2005 WASTEWATER FLOWS
Loading Lbs/Day
DRY WEATHER WASTEWATER
SS NH2-N P DISCHARGES BOD
78 15 98 West Leg Area 78
518 95 139 East Leg Area 1,222
390 73 49 North Olmsted 1,475
240 45 30 Medina 300 674
SWI Area Non-Point
Contribution 19,945
1,226 228 316 TOTAL 23,394
WET WEATHER
SS NH2-N P
4,019 753 704
1,222 228 354
1,475 276 184
674 126 84
417,167 3,095 608
424,557 4,478 1,934
WET WEATHER
SS NH2-N P
78 15 98
1,222 228 354
1,475 276 184
674 126 84
417,167 3,095 608
420,616 3,740 1,328
V-32
-------
Table V-17 presents a summary of the pollutant loadings to the
Rocky River resulting from the various West Leg Area Alternatives,
Existing and projected WWTP pollutant loadings were obtained from
the LEAPS 1980 annual average of Self-Monitoring Monthly Operat-
ing Reports and wastewater flow data presented in The Final Water
Quality Report, Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook
Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A", Local
Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted
Township and Columbia Township.
Estimates of non-point source pollutant contributions for the
West Leg area were based upon the following assumptions:
Storm Event: 0.055 inches/hr.
Urban Runoff Coefficient: 0.25
Rural Runoff Coefficient: 0.04
Urban Acreage: (existing) 10,263; (year 2005) 13,279
Rural Acreage: (existing) 17,765; (year 2005) 14,749
Urban Pollutant Concentrations:
TSS = 415 mg/1
BOD = 20 mg/1
Total -N = 3.1 mg/1
PO4-P =0.1 mg/1
Rural Pollutant Concentrations:
TSS = 415 mg/1
BOD = 20 mg/1
Total -N = 0.25 mg/1
P04-P = 0.6 mg/1
Urban pollutant concentrations were obtained from PEMSO Urban
Stormwater Analysis, A Computer Based Methodology, Ohio EPA,
1982. Rural pollutant concentrations were obtained from Soil and
Water Conservation Engineering, G.O. Schwab, 1966.
As shown by the summary of pollutant loadings in Table V-13, the
Southwest Interceptor-West Leg would result in a significant
reduction in treatment plant pollutant loadings to the Rocky
River. A comparison of the No-Action and West Leg alternatives
for the year 2005 shows that the dry and wet weather BOD loadings
would be reduced by 85 percent and 79 percent respectively. Dry
and wet weather ammonia loading would be reduced by 91 percent
and 87 percent respectively. The phosphorus loading would be
reduced by 79 percent and 92 percent for dry and wet weather
flows. The suspended solids loading on the Rocky River would be
decreased by 87 percent during dry weather stream conditions. The
non-point contribution has an impact on the solids loading on the
Rocky River during wet weather conditions. However, the West Leg
would still reduce the projected "no-action" solids loading on
the Rocky River by 25 percent.
V.F.l.b.iii. Stream Use Impacts
The Rocky River represents a valuable recreational resource for
the Cleveland Metropolitan area providing potential opportunities
for a wide variety of water based recreational activities. Espe-
V-33
-------
TABLE V-17
SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR AREA
SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS TO ROCKY RIVER
WEST LEG AREA ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER
FLOWS
STREAM
CONDITIONS
BOD
TOTAL LOADING LBS/DAY
SS AMMONIA
PHOSPHORUS
No Action
Existing
Dry Weather
Wet Weather
3,227
43,737
3,275
502,786
1,022
6,413
584
3,115
2005 Dry Weather 8,134 9,709 2,555
Wet Weather 112,146 557,696 28,290
1,508
15,736
Upgrade WWTP's 2005
Dry Weather
Wet Weather
2,220
27,335
2,220
424,557
414
4,478
465
1,934
SWI-WL
2005 Dry Weather 1,226 1,226
Wet Weather 23,394 420,616
228
3,740
316
1,328
V-34
-------
cially important are the Main Branch and East Branch, which are
bordered throughout the planning area by Cleveland Metroparks'
Rocky River Reservation. Alterations to stream flow resulting
from construction of the West Leg, even during the extreme Q7,10
flow conditions, would not be of sufficient magnitude to percept-
ably impact recreational opportunities. Water depth at the East/
West Branch confluence would be reduced by slightly more than one
inch during low flow periods and by approximately one-third of an
inch during average conditions. The flow effect of removal of the
Berea and Middleburg Heights discharges, which enter the stream
approximately 1.5 miles below the confluence and 0.6 mile below
the North Olmsted discharge, similarly would be negligible.
Eliminating the flow to the East Branch from the Berea Wastewater
Treatment Plant will remove approximately 3.77 cfs of the pro-
jected 1990 Q7,10 flow of 9.4 cfs. The resulting flow of 5.69
cfs would exceed the existing Q7,10 flow of the stream, if pro-
jected upstream development is realized.
As in the case with other stream uses within the Rocky River,
water quality, rather than flow, is the principal determinant of
existing conditions and potential Southwest Interceptor West Leg
impacts. Of all of the parameters investigated in the facilities
planning water quality sampling program, those which appear most
significant in terms of indicating organic pollution in Rocky
River are fecal coliform and fecal streptococci. These bacterial
populations in the Rocky River consistently exceeded Ohio stand-
ards for primary contact recreation and the majority of the time
did not meet standards for secondary contact recreation. High
fecal bacteria populations within the Rocky River are due to a
combination of septic tank effluent discharged directly from
unsewered areas of Olmsted Falls and Olmsted Township and the
numerous small and large treatment plants that discharge into
Rocky River. Elimination of wastewater discharges through con-
struction of the Southwest Interceptor West Leg should result in
sufficient reduction in fecal coliform levels to safely support
primary and secondary contact recreation throughout the West Leg
area. Consequently, a significant beneficial impact is antici-
pated, expanding recreational opportunities within the Metroparks
Rocky River Reservation and the Rocky River Basin.
The City of Berea uses the East Branch of the Rocky River for its
municipal water supply. Construction of the Main Leg and West
Leg Interceptor will have no effect on the Berea Water supply.
The East Leg Sewer Option, under consideration for the post 20-
year planning period, could impact the Berea water supply. This
will be considered near the end of this chapter.
The quality of stream habitat is determined by a variety of
factors, including velocity and depth of flow, stream bottom
characteristics and water quality. From benthic sampling results,
water quality sampling results and field observation of stream
reaches, it is apparent that habitat quality within the planning
area ranges from good to poor. A general decrease in quality
occurs from upstream to downstream portions of the area, reflect-
ing the impact of the various wastewater discharges. Presently,
V-35
-------
water quality conditions appear to be a major determination of
habitat quality in the area. Construction of the West Leg will
significantly reduce organic loadings to each branch and the Main
Branch. The removal of dissolved and suspended solids will
result in greater light penetration through the water, favoring
colonization by phytoplankton. The associated reduction in
nutrients resulting from termination of effluent input will limit
available food to phytoplankton and thus tend to keep populations
from attaining undesirable "bloom" conditions, with resultant
oxygen sag. Availability of oxygen and sunlight will favor those
algal species more indicative of clean water conditions, and
therefore, more preferable from an aesthetic, recreational and
economic viewpoint. The establishment of this "healthy" plankton
community will enhance and stabilize the aquatic food chain.
Reduction of organic material in the Rocky River will decrease
BOD levels. At present, the breakdown of organic matter by
bacteria results in generally high demands for oxygen. A decrease
in the amount of these compounds will reduce the required oxygen
levels and the available food supply for decomposers (bacteria).
Thus, bacterial levels will be diminished. Increased levels of
dissolved oxygen, resulting from less consumption by decomposi-
tion, will maintain relatively consistent high levels of instream
oxygen. This will provide a necessary element for the survival
of the more favored aquatic communities. Additionally, organic
loading which may occur throughout the stream will be more easily
assimilated and its impacts on aquatic habitat mitigated.
The deposition of sediment or silt on river bottoms can bury and
suffocate benthic organisms, or render their habitat unsuitable.
Due to the relatively high stream velocity, very little sediment
presently is deposited on the bottom substrate of most reaches of
the Rocky River. The removal of organics contained in the efflu-
ent presently discharged to the stream will only enhance condi-
tions .
The relationship between water depth and the benthic organisms
which inhabit a stream has yet to be thoroughly investigated by
aquatic biologists. There appears to be little correlation,
however, between the water depth parameter and the populations
present. The exception to this is when such changes result in
exposure of the river bottom or reduction in water levels to only
a few inches. Dry conditions obviously exterminate many of the
benthic populations in a given area. The development of resting
stages by certain organisms, and the phenomenon and rapidity of
benthic drift from upstream, however, generally render this a
temporary situation, with repopulation of an area usually assured
soon after the return of flow.
More important than water depth is the velocity of flow which
exists in a stream body. Many benthic organisms are adapted
through morphologic structures for inhabiting areas of rapid
flow. These are generally those organisms with high oxygen
requirements, and as such classified as "clean water" forms.
Elimination of West Leg Area wastewater discharges in the Rocky
V-36
-------
River is not anticipated to affect the velocity of the stream to
any significant extent. The fairly steep gradient throughout the
watershed should maintain velocities near or equal to their cur-
rent levels. Concurrently, aeration rates in the river, as a
result of water turbulence, should not be negatively impacted by
any slight reduction in water level occurring during extreme low
flow conditions.
One important environmental factor which might be impacted by
significant reduction of water depth is temperature. Both in-
creases and decreases of temperature tend to be more rapid and
extreme. This can affect the metabolism, availability of oxygen
and impact of pollutants on aquatic organisms. Construction of
the West Leg and the resulting minor reduction in stream depth
are not anticipated to have a significant impact on water temper-
ature because of the geologic setting of the Rocky River. The
relatively deep valley through which the river flows, often
bordered by steep cliffs and vegetation, generally shelters the
stream from direct sunlight and prevailing winds, thus moderating
the impact of these factors.
V.F.l.c. Effect of Stream Flow and Water Quality Changes on
Habitat in Specific Reaches of the Rocky River
East Branch. As demonstrated by the water quality and benthic
sampling results discussed earlier, as well as field observations
of the stream, the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge has
a profound effect upon the lower reach of the East Branch. The
sphere of influence of this discharge appears to include much of
the 4.4 mile stream section from the plant to the East/West
Branch confluence; although the one mile reach immediately below
the plant is the most severely impacted. In comparison, water
quality sampling results, benthic sampling results and field ob-
servations indicate a better quality habitat immediately upstream
of the Berea discharge.
Elimination of the Berea Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge
would reduce both flow and pollutant loading contributions to the
East Branch. Essentially, resulting 1990 stream flows and water
depths for the 4.4 mile stream reach below the existing discharge
should equal or exceed existing flow and depth values. Benthic
results for sample stations BS-4 and BS-4a, located upstream of
the Berea discharge, suggest a healthy aquatic environment,
suggesting that aquatic life is not dependent upon Berea's waste-
water flow contribution.
Benthic sampling results for stations BS-4a, BS-4b and BS-4c,
however, suggest that removal of pollutant loadings to the stream
would have a significant beneficial impact on habitat quality
downstream of the existing discharge. Elimination of the dis-
charge would permit this stream reach to support benthic communi-
ties and other aquatic life comparable to that found immediately
upstream of the existing discharge and near the mouth of the East
Branch.
V-37
-------
West Branch. As demonstrated by benthic sampling results, up-
stream reaches of the West Branch within the study area (south of
the Strongsville "A" Plant) provide a good quality habitat. A
progressive decrease in species number and diversity, however,
occurs from the Strongsville "A" discharge to the East/West
Branch Confluence; reflecting not only the impact of Strongsville
"A" but also that of the numerous smaller wastewater treatment
plants tributary to the West Branch. Benthic indicators demon-
strate habitat quality at the mouth of the West Branch to the
slightly poorer than habitat quality at the mouth of the East
Branch.
Because current stream flows are attributable to increased dis-
charges of wastewater effluent, it is unlikely that the quality
of the aquatic habitat has improved over recent years. In fact,
water quality and benthic sampling results, as well as the
present inability of most dischargers to meet final NPDES limits,
suggest that the net impact on aquatic habitat has been negative.
Consequently, present aquatic habitat conditions within the West
Branch are neither long standing nor of high quality. Return of
the West Branch to a somewhat more natural state, in terms of
quality, would be a significant step toward restoration of
species diversity.
Main Branch. Aquatic habitat in the Main Branch presently is
affected by the North Olmsted Wastewater Treatment Plant dis-
charge, occurring 0.9 mile downstream of the East/West Conflu-
ence, and the Brook Park and Middleburg Heights discharges to
Abram Creek, a tributary of the Main Branch. As suggested by
benthic and water quality analyses, the Main Branch also is
impacted to a degree by effluent discharges to the East and West
Branches.
The North Olmsted Plant currently is being upgraded to meet final
NPDES limits and would not be eliminated by the SWI West Leg.
Consequently, flow contribution from the plant will continue al-
though pollutant loadings will be reduced significantly. This
should result in a substantial improvement to the aquatic habitat
for the 0.6 mile reach from the plant discharge to the confluence
with Abram Creek.
Organic pollution to Abram Creek, resulting from discharge of the
Middleburg Heights and Brook Park WWTPs, is the most severe in
the area, and has resulted in very poor water quality in the
creek. During extreme low flow periods/ stream flow in Abram
Creek consists entirely of wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Only one taxa of benthic organisms was collected near the mouth
of Abram Creek, indicating a very poor quality aquatic habitat.
V.F.l.d. Upgrade/Management of On-Site Systems
Upgrading and managing on-site systems will result in water qual-
ity improvements in streams and in local drainage ditches. A
slight reduction of streamflow will occur, by eliminating the
V-38
-------
direct dischargers to streams. Improvements should be most no-
ticeable in Plum Creek and the West Branch of the Rocky River.
V.F.2. Population and Sizing
Population projections have been discussed previously in Chapter
II. At the onset of this EIS in 1976, neither the 208 region-
wide population projections nor 1980 census figures were avail-
able. The population projections developed in recent facilities
planning work and used in this EIS have had the advantage of both
data sources. The result is that population growth is forecasted
to be more moderate than was originally predicted.
Water use is another factor in sizing a wastewater treatment
project. The Facilities Plan utilizes current domestic consump-
tion rates or 70 gallons per person per day and an EPA approved
technique to develop industrial flows. Water also enters sewers
from infiltration-inflow (I/I), a topic which has been extensive-
ly studied in facilities planning. As discussed in Section V-B,
about 15% I/I removal is cost-effective for any alternative in
the Southwest planning area. Reasonable allowance is planned for
future infiltration into new sewers planned in any alternative.
Peak flow values have been calculated, in addition to standard
design flows. Project phasing has been considered throughout
facilities planning, and will be covered at the end of this
chapter.
Average design flows for the upgraded major treatment plants
(20-year) in the Multi-Plant Alternative would be:
Berea 4.42 mgd
Brook Park 1.28 mgd
Middleburg Heights 5.54 mgd
Strongsville "A" 5.96 mgd
The regional Southwest Interceptor Alternative should be no more
than 114 inches in diameter (nine and one half feet) to carry
414.8 MGD. The upper end of the Main Leg would be 90 inches, the
lower end 114 inches. The West Leg would be 48 inches at the
upper end and 84 inches at the lower end. This sizing would
accommodate the year 2025 peak flow for the Main Leg and certain
option areas, assuming 15% I/I removal.
V.F.3. Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts arise when new growth is induced by sewering
previously unsewered areas. The added development may impact
both natural resources and community services. The only portion
of the 20-year proposed service area which is now unsewered is in
Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township. As discussed in Chapter IV, the
only part of this unsewerd area proposed for sewering is subarea
A, the urban portion of Olmsted Falls. Other subareas are either
subdivisions which have sewer service or are outlying areas,
which are proposed to remain on on-site treatment systems.
V-39
-------
Population growth within Olmsted Falls is now projected to be
moderate especially when compared to those projections developed
early in facilities planning. New development allowed with
sewering would be a predominantly infill pattern. The Facilities
Plan estimates that the 20-year population increase of 1,186
could be accommodated on 143 acres of infill development vs. 572
acres required for larger lot sizes presently needed.
Concentrated development patterns combined with the moderate
growth rates should not place excessive demands on municipal
services and water supply. Local traffic is anticipated to
increase about ten percent.
Moderate soil loss will occur with new construction, due to the
soil types and the limited number of acres anticipated to be
developed. Local water quality will improve with the elimination
of old and inadequate on-site and cluster systems. Dry weather
BOD and suspended solids loadings will be sharply reduced com-
pared to "No Action", from 1,273 to 126 pounds per day of BOD and
from 974 to 126 pounds per day of suspended solids. Wet weather
loadings will be slightly reduced, due to the continued influence
of urban and rural non-point runoff. Wet weather BOD would be
6,543 pounds per day, rather than 8,358 pounds per day with No
Action. Corresponding suspended solids values are expected to be
126,889 vs. 128,431 pounds per day.
V.F.4. Parkland Impacts
The Cleveland Metroparks' Rocky River Reservation lies along the
East and Main branches of the Rocky River in the heart of the
planning area. Either the Multi-plant Alternative or the South-
west Interceptor Alternative would have some direct construction
impacts on the park. With the Multi-plant Alternative, the Berea
wastewater treatment plant would have to be expanded to meet its
final effluent limits. The existing treatment plant site is
located within the Metropark and expansion may encroach on the
park property. Park users would be inconvenienced by construc-
tion-related traffic, although a detour route is available.
The West Leg Interceptor would traverse a narrow portion of the
Rocky River Reservation, by Rocky River Drive and Depot Street.
The interceptor would be tunneled on either side of the Rocky
River, with access shafts 5W and 6W adjacent to the stream. One
acre of parkland would be used for constructing 5W and about 3/4
acre of residential property, presently occupied by a duplex
home, would be needed for constructing 6W. The vegetation at 5W
is predominantly secondary regrowth of small diameter trees. The
area is not presently used for active recreational activities.
The park boundary by 6W is delineated by nearly vertical valley
walls, which isolate the parkland from the 5W area. An active
construction period of about three months is estimated for tun-
neling and installing the concrete tunnel liners, with resulting
truck traffic impacts.
V-40
-------
Either an aerial gravity crossing, below-ground gravity sewer or
below-ground siphon could be used to cross the Rocky River. The
aerial crossing is aesthetically unacceptable for use in a park
setting and the siphon has higher maintenance costs than a
gravity sewer. Detailed soil survey work was included in the
Facilities Plan to determine construction options for a gravity
sewer. Jacking and boring (driving a sewer through soft mater-
ial) is incompatible with the local sandstone layer. Tunneling
appears unworkable because of the shallow depth (about four feet)
and relatively unstable surface material which could lead to
tunnel collapse. An open cut method of constructing the sewer
trench is the most technically feasible alternative, although it
has the disadvantage of having the most temporary adverse impacts
on the stream. Any construction technique may encounter ground-
water and it is anticipated that the work area will have to be
pumped dry during construction. The technical feasibility of
tunneling the stream crossing will be further examined during the
project design phase, but it is likely that the open cut techni-
que must be used.
The open cut stream crossing would be accomplished during low
flow periods, one half at a time. A cofferdam would be installed
half way across the stream bed, the trench dug, sewer line
installed, and then a protective encasement of concrete added.
This would be repeated on the other half. Total duration of
instream construction would be about ten days. The short term
construction disturbance will affect the bottom dwelling stream
life, but these plants and animals will repopulate the area from
upstream when construction is concluded. Construction work will
generate some siltation downstream, again, of short duration.
The sewer will be tunneled in the sharply rising banks on either
side of the stream.
Sewer construction across the Rocky River Reservation will be a
temporary scenic and noise intrusion to park use. By the time
sewer construction begins, Metroparks will have a new scenic
overlook about 200 feet east of the site. Noise levels are
anticipated to be 70-80 decibels at the overlook during the 1-2
weeks of construction. Close coordination with park officials
will be essential in minimizing impacts to the Metropark and to
plan revegetation. Preconstruction planning sessions should
consider the potential for retaining vegetative buffers at con-
struction locations which would visually impact the park.
The connector sewer to the Berea treatment plant would run south
through about 1,200 feet of the Rocky River Reservation to access
shaft 7 W, on the west side of the river. With the exception of
its crossing under the ConRail tracks, . the connector would
require open cut construction. Traffic noise and dust during the
construction period would inconvenience park users, although the
construction corridor is not in an active recreation area.
Vegetation and trees will be removed in the 1,200 foot corridor;
replacement will be done in consultation with park authorities.
The park will aesthetically benefit from the overall water qual-
ity improvement of the project, as discussed previously.
V-41
-------
V.F.5. Construction Impacts
V.F.B.a. Multi-Plant Alternative
Each of the four major treatment plants would have to be expanded
and upgraded to meet its final discharge limits. In the case of
Olmsted Falls, and especially Brook Park, this would encroach
further on residential areas. The implications of the Berea
expansion has been discussed under park impacts. The Middleburg
Heights plant lies adjacent to Abram Bog. Expanding that facility
would have the dual disadvantage of filling in a wetland and
being a relatively unstable site for new construction.
Treatment plant construction generates traffic, noise, dust and
soil erosion, which can be reduced by specified construction
techniques. Revegetation and water quality improvements after
completion of construction offset these disadvantages.
V.F.S.b. Southwest Interceptor
Sewer construction techniques vary with soil and geologic condi-
tions, depth of cut and environmental objectives. Most of the
Southwest Interceptor would be tunneled, which involves surface
disturbance only at the 25 access shaft sites. Following excava-
tion of the tunnel, a cast-in-place interceptor pipe would be
installed. The connector sewers, for linking in the Brook Park-
Middleburg Heights plants and the Berea treatment plant, would be
open cut. The upper end of the West Leg Interceptor would use
open cut construction. Boring and jacking (driving sewers
through soft materials) would be used to connect the Grayton Road
Pump Station and to cross under railroad tracks, power lines and
the Ohio Turnpike.
Detailed alignment, access shaft information and construction
duration has been provided in the Southwest Interceptor Environ-
mental Impact Statement/Facilities Plan v.l and the Final
Facilities Planning Report. Construction duration varies with
the type of material encountered. Tunneling speeds range from
10-70 feet per day, while 100 feet of sewer can be lined with
interceptor pipe per day. Access shaft sites occupy 1/2 - 1 acre
and will generally include storage facilities, a work shop, field
offices and a steel lift for removal of excavated materials. The
work area is fenced off for public safety.
Truck traffic is generated to serve the access sites or open cut
construction zones and to remove excavated material. This gener-
ates noise and dust during construction. Moist soils and rock
from subsurface excavation will limit dust generation. Access
shaft 1-W would impact airport traffic, necessitating a 30-week
traffic recirculation plan.
Most access shafts and sewer corridors are located adjacent to
major roads or in industrial areas away from residential areas.
The distance of the access shafts range from 100 to 3,300 feet
away from existing houses. Nearly all of the nine shafts closest
V-42
-------
to homes (less than 500 feet) are in the older suburbs, which
have little vacant land and no ideal location to isolate con-
struction activities. Some residential area construction will
occur in Berea between Lindbergh Boulevard and the Ohio Turnpike.
Construction duration would be about two days per residential
lot. Vegetation would be removed and then replaced after con-
struction. Construction periods will range from a few weeks to
about six months.
Construction noise (at a peak of 80-90 decibels) and dust can be
minimized by certain practices, described in Chapter VI. Any rock
blasting will be controlled to a maximum of four, one second
times per day. Intensity will be below the level which would
affect structures or plaster cracking. Potentially sensitive
structures and machinery will be identified prior to blasting.
Tunneling generates slight vibration in rock, comparable to truck
traffic. Sensitive industries and land uses will be identified
prior to construction. Gravel will be applied at the access
sites to reduce soil erosion. Chemical stabilization will be
used in sandy areas. The location for the disposal of 48,000
cubic yards of soil and rock from tunneling has not been
determined. Specifications for proper disposal will be included
in the construction contracts.
The impacts of the aerial crossing of the Cuyahoga River have
been discussed in Section V.C.l.c., the open cut crossing of the
Rocky River in Section V.F.4.
V.F.S.c. On-Site Treatment Facilities
Upgrading and replacement of on-site systems is indicated for
portions of Olmsted Township. This would be done after a detailed
evaluation of the existing system, in consultation with the
property owner. Construction impacts would be limited to each
site - truck traffic, noise, dust, soil erosion and vegetation
disturbance. Revegetation and water quality improvements, plus
the loss of a back yard nuisance situation, help compensate for
the construction impacts.
V.F.6. Additional Environmental Impacts
V.F.6.a. Land Use
Most parts of the Southwest planning area are already sewered, so
making wastewater treatment improvements will not alter existing
land use patterns to a great degree. Past "building bans" have
affected the ownership more than the construction of sewer util-
ities in the area.
V.F.6.b. Groundwater
Some sewer construction areas may be subject to groundwater in-
filtration resulting in the need for dewatering during construc-
tion. Since groundwater is not widely used as a local water
supply, impacts other than higher construction costs should be
V-43
-------
minimal. Sewers will be of water tight construction to minimize
potential infiltration to groundwater aquifers.
V.F.6.C. Wetlands and Floodplains
The Multi-plant Alternative has the potential for encroaching on
Abram Bog. The Southwest Interceptor alternative will not affect
wetlands.
Floodplains will not be affected by any project alternative.
V.F.6.d. Endangered Species
No sensitive or unique plant communities have been identified in
the sewer corridors areas.
V.F.6.e. Cultural Resources
No known archaeological or historic sites will be affected by the
alternatives. The portion of the Ohio Canal to be crossed by the
Southwest Interceptor is not included in the National Register of
Historic Places.
V.F.6.f. Energy
Energy use has been considered in facilities planning, as summar-
ized in Table V-18.
V.F.6.g. Geology
Detailed geotechnical studies will be performed as part of the
design of the major interceptors, to ensure their compatability
with local conditions. Rock materials excavated during sewer
construction will be disposed of by the contractor under any
local requirements and permits. Contract specifications will
require disposal procedures.
V-44
-------
TABLE V-18
ENERGY USE
1982 Energy Costs
West Leg of South-
Multi-Plant West Interceptor
$
$
176,
80,
259,
295,
42,
5,
5,
865,
080
520
490
870
089
567
688
304
$ 548,614
5,740
3,767
$ 558,121
Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Berea
Brook Park
Middleburg Heights
Strongsville "A"
Olmsted Falls/Olmsted Twp.
Versailles
Columbia Township
Cleveland Southerly
Olmsted Falls/Olmsted
Twp. Pump Station
Columbia Twp. Subdivision/
Versailles Pump Station
TOTALS
(1) Local WWTP and WL pump station power costs based on
$0.0404/kwh (USEPA 1982 updated power costs for Cleve-
land, Ohio).
V.G. Considerations Beyond the 20-Year Planning Period
V.G.I. Introduction
Figure 1-3 shows the potential option areas for the Southwest
service area - the East Leg of the Rocky River, the present
Medina "300" service area, part of Columbia Township and the
present North Olmsted service area. The incremental costs and
major environmental impacts of including these additional option
areas in the Southwest service area have been examined.
V.G.2. Costs
Table V-19 shows the incremental capital costs for including
capacity for the various option areas in the Southwest Intercep-
tor. The costs although high in dollars, are a small percentage
of the $106 million construction cost for the Main Leg and West
Leg Interceptors. USEPA may not fund the incremental costs of
this future capacity, since it is for service beyond the 20-year
planning period.
V.G.3. Construction Impacts
Several alternative routes for the potential East Leg were
identified in the Southwest Interceptor Environmental Impact
Statement-Facilities Plan. The nature of potential short term
V-45
-------
TABLE V-19
INCREMENTAL COSTS SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR OPTION AREAS
Construe- Cost Dif-
Option Area Main Leg Pipe West Leg Pipe tion Cost erential
Diameter (In.) Diameter (In.) (S) ($)
No Option Areas
(baseline)
Columbia Township
East Leg Area
East Leg &
Medina "300"
North Olmsted
All Option Areas
90 - 114
90 - 108
96 - 114
96 - 114
96 - 108
102 - 114
48 - 84
48 - 84
48 - 90
48 - 96
48 - 84
48-96
106,627,000
106,627,000
108,399,000 1,772,000
110,206,000 3,579,000
107,261,000
634,000
110,908,000 4,281,000
V-46
-------
construction impacts will be heavily dependent upon the route
ultimately selected and available construction technologies.
Given present cost preferences and construction technology, how-
ever, the interceptor would be tunneled along the East Branch
Valley from Berea to the North Royalton "A" Plant. Access shafts
generally would be located in or adjacent to Park Drive. No known
sensitive environmental areas would be disrupted by construction,
although recreational activities in the immediate vicinity of
shaft sites temporarily would be affected.
Extension of service to the Medina "300" Option Area would
involve further extension of the East Leg beneath the East Branch
Valley. Again, tunnel construction would be anticipated. North
Olmsted is tributary to the Main Leg and would require only con-
struction of an adequate connector sewer to the location of the
existing Grayton Road Pump Station. Any significant, and present-
ly unanticipated, development within Columbia Township would be
served by local connector sewers to the proposed Columbia Town-
ship Subdivision Connector or directly to the southern terminus
of the West Leg Interceptor at Sprague Road. Due to the profile
of the upsystem portion of the West Leg, future local connector
sewers likely would be open cut force mains. Consequently,
construction impacts would be localized and of short duration.
V.G.4. Stream Flow Impacts
Table V-20 demonstrates the impacts of the Option Areas on stream
flows at various locations within the Rocky River Basin during
Q7,10 low flow conditions. Impacts will be more severe at the
East Branch/mouth location with the peak daily flow on future
capacity usage levels at the Berea Water Supply plant. It must
be emphasized however, that anticipated growth in the East Leg
Option Areas over the next 20 years suggest that both wastewater
discharges and stream flow will increase from the Cleveland water
supply. Hence, actual flow values may differ significantly from
those assumed today.
A potentially substantial environmental problem is that all East
Leg and Medina "300" discharges are located upstream of the Berea
water supply intakes. Of the total 5.1 cfs (dry weather) efflu-
ent which would be removed by the East Leg and the Medina 300
Option areas, approximately 3.9 cfs is tributary to Berea's pri-
mary intake on the East Branch and 1.2 cfs is tributary to the
secondary (back-up) intake on Baldwin Creek.
Berea's year 2020 peak water supply demand is not expected to
exceed approximately 5.5 cfs and will average 3.8 cfs. Existing
stream flow tributary to Berea's water intake, however, is esti-
mated to be approximately 8.9 cfs during extreme dry weather
conditions (Q7,10). Removal of 3.2 cfs of flow by extension of
service to the East Leg Option Area (excluding Medina 300) theo-
retically would not impact Berea' s Water Supply under Q.7,10 con-
ditions . Stream impacts though will be most pronounced below the
Berea water treatment plant in the 6.4 mile stream segment of the
East Branch. Consequently, a detailed re-evaluation of this issue
V-47
-------
TABLE V-20
OPTION AREA OVERVIEW STREAM FLOW IMPACTS
Stream
Location
E. Branch/
Berea WTP
E. Branch/
Mouth
W. Branch/
Mouth
Existing
Flow
8.95
8.95
14.05
West Leg
Only
8.95
5.35
9.49
(cfs)
West Leg
East Leg
5.79
2.19
9.49
West Leg
East Leg &
Medina 300
3.92
0.32
9.49
West Leg
East Leg
Medina 300 &
N. Olmsted
3.92
0.32
9.49
E. W. Branch/ 23.0
Confluence
14.84
11.68
9.81
9.81
Main Branch/ 34.29
Abram Creek
Confluence
22.41
19.25
17.38
9.81
V-48
-------
must be undertaken prior to actual approval of the Southwest
Interceptor East Leg, based on stream flow data, water supply
options, and wastewater disposal alternatives in existence at
that time. Under existing flow conditions, it would appear that
elimination of the Medina "300" WWTP would reduce Q7,10 flow
values below Berea's projected pealc water demand of 5.5 cfs.
Further discussion of this issue and water supply options
currently available to Berea is presented in the Final Water
Quality Report of the Facilities Plan.
V.G.5. Population and Sizing - Secondary Impacts
Population projections to include the East Leg Option Area are
presented in the Population Update Report of the Facilities Plan.
Population in this Option Area is expected to increase from
25,979 to 41,015 in 2005, a growth of approximately 63%. Then,
growth is expected to slow substantially with an increase of only
6% for the twenty year period 2005 to 2025. Consequently, because
construction of an East Leg Interceptor would not be a possibil-
ity until sometime after 2005, it would be in "response to"
rather than the "cause of" substantial population growth. For
purposes of the sizing sensitivity analyses on the West Leg and
Main Leg, future East Leg Option Area flows were based upon the
projected year 2025 population of 43,424. These flows were con-
sidered in the selected alternative because they offer negligible
difference in the cost-effectiveness of the planning area alter-
native.
Population projections for Columbia Township, presented in the
Population Update Report, are 108% lower for the year 2000 and
234% lower for the year 2020 than those utilized in earlier
planning efforts. Sizing sensitivity analyses for the Columbia
Township Option Area, consequently, are based upon significantly
lower wastewater flow projections than those conducted in pre-
vious studies.
Population for the Medina "300" Option Area is projected to
increase from 15,640 in 1980 to 28,896 by 2005. The growth
rate is anticipated to slow after 2005, with a projected popula-
tion increase of only about 4200 people between 2005 and 2025.
Hence, absolute population levels upon which normal wastewater
flow projections are based do not suggest intensive, widespread
development.
V.G.6. Option Areas to be Retained
It is appropriate to retain the concept capacity in the Main Leg-
West Leg portion of the Southwest Interceptor for potential ser-
vice to the East Leg Option and portions of Columbia Township.
The incremental cost of this capacity is $1,772,000, which must
be paid for without Federal funds. Planning growth rates and
streamflow impacts appear reasonable at this time. Actually,
constructing the East Leg may or may not be advisable, depending
on detailed future cost and environmental studies.
V-49
-------
Allowing capacity in the Main Leg - East Leg for the Medina " 300 " Option
and the North Olmsted Option is not recommended. Removing the Medina "300"
flow frcm the Rocky River could adversely affect the Berea water supply.
Removing the North Olmsted flow would sharply reduce the flow in the Main
Branch of the Rocky River, impacting the uses of the stream.
V.H. Conclusions on Alternatives
A cost-effective alternative is one which has the lowest present worth dollar
costs and acceptable environmental costs. The Southwest Interceptor combined
with on-site system improvements in Olmsted Township is the cost-effective
approach for the Southwest Planning Area.
Present worth costs are $43.8 million, or 15 percent less, for the Southwest
Interceptor Alternative than for the Multi-Plant Alternative. If tertiary
filtration is eliminated frcm the Multi-Plant Alternative (to be discussed in
detail in the Final EIS) then the Southwest Interceptor will cost $17.1 million,
or 5.8 percent less than the Multi-Plant Alternative, so it is still the cost-
effective choice for the 20-year planning period. Note that these figures are
the differences between the alternatives, not the total present worth costs.
No major environmental problems will result from the Southwest Interceptor project,
while it will contribute to achieving water quality standards. Although the
potential exists for expanding the Southewst Interceptor after about 20 years,
the environmental and economic consequences of building a connecting interceptor
with the East Leg Option Area should be carefully evaluated before, proceeding
with such a plan.
V-50
-------
CHAPTER VI
IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
-------
VI . IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
VI.A. Recommended Alternative
The service area of the Southwest Interceptor would include the
proposed West Leg Area and portions of the existing Big Creek
Interceptor which are tributary to the Main Leg of the Southwest
Interceptor. Table VI-1 identifies communities which, in whole or
part, would be served by the Southwest Interceptor Main Leg and
West Leg. Figure VI-1 presents the Southwest Interceptor Alter-
native.
The Southwest Interceptor West Leg will eliminate four major
wastewater treatment plants along with numerous smaller plants.
All of these plants currently discharge to the Rocky River. Major
treatment facilities to be eliminated are the Brook Park, Middle-
burg Heights, Berea and Strongsville "A" plants. Small dis-
chargers to be eliminated are located within unsewered and
partially sewered portions of Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township and
northeastern Columbia Township. Olmsted Falls will have sewers
built to link it to the Southwest Interceptor. Portions of Olm-
sted Township remaining on on-site systems will undergo individ-
ual improvements combined with a management program.
The Southwest Interceptor will convey flows across the Cuyahoga
River Valley on a truss-supported aerial structure to the Cleve-
land Southerly Treatment Plant, an advanced treatment ("terti-
ary") facility. Ample capacity is available at Southerly for
these new flows.
The maximum size of the Southwest Interceptor will be 114 inches
in diameter. This interceptor is capable of conveying wastewater
flows of up to 414.8 MGD. The size of the Southwest Interceptor
Main Leg is determined by the need to convey large amounts of
infiltration/inflow (I/I) from the older city and suburban areas
during wet weather periods. This situation creates a massive
demand for flow capacity. At the same time, travel times are
longer for flows originating from the West Leg area. This helps
to spread out the peak flows from the entire Southwest Intercep-
tor system and makes the West Leg or any potential option areas
less significant in sewer sizing.
In future years, but not as part of the proposed project, the
Southwest Interceptor may be extended with an East Leg along the
East Branch of the Rocky River. Because of sewer slope and flow
characteristics, this would not affect the sizing of the present
project. Implementation of the East Leg would require extremely
careful environmental analyses, especially in the areas of
streamflow and water supply. East Leg communities are presently
making their own plans for wastewater treatment improvements for
the next 20 years.
VI.B. Costs and Percentages of Median Household Income
The total present worth cost of the Southwest Interceptor Alter-
native is $294,165,600, which is approximately 15% less than the
VI-1
-------
TABLE VI-1
COMMUNITIES SERVICED BY SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR
Main Leg
Service Area
Broadview Hts
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Hts.
Brook Park
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Hts.
N. Royalton
Parma
Parma Hts.
Riveredge Twp
Seven Hills
Subtotal
West Leg
Service Area
Berea
Brook Park
Columbia Twp.
Middleburg Hts
Olmsted Falls
Olmsted Twp.
Strongsville
Subtotal
Total
Existing
1980
359
2,931
1,041
17,031
9,467
150
2, 598
92, 548
23, 112
477
12,926
162,613
Existing
1980
19,567
9,164
908
16,218
5,868
5,016
16,252
72,993
235,606
and Projected Service
1985
381
2,931
1,014
17,283
9,239
150
3,525
102, 500
25,300
500
14,204
177,027
2005
563
2,981
1,014
18, 517
8,436
150
5,410
107,400
26,000
500
16,381
187,302
and Projected Service
1985
21,100
9,309
1,005
17,000
6,500
5,790
19,259
79,963
256,990
2005
21,000
9,982
1,243
20,800
7,800
9,044
30,653
100,522
287,824
Population
2025
635
2,931
1,014
19,751
8,186
150
5,530
108,900
26,000
500
17,233
190,830
Population
2025
21,000
10,647
1,243
23,700
8, 700
9,724
34,696
109,983
300,813
VI-2
-------
SELECTED PLAN
- /. - - tj- 0»N€CTOR 14&" IJS Q161W. _
<-?rS'- ^llF 7"' •"
• /y *^ - uifcitMk «tc«rs i / ,
W 's-*, i
FM Force Main
AS Access Shaft
MH Manholes
Sewer Routes
A Pump Station
WWTP
•$
c
5
—A
Q)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report
-VERSAILLES 5IHOIBSV1LLE
COLUMBIA '»"W»«
PUMP STATION
-------
SELECTED PLAN
f--.
^ S-
1>S • >. i" • i
S
5
—*
Cr
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Southwest Interceptor Area Final Facilities Planning Report
-------
Multi-Plant Alternative.* With 75% EPA funding of eligible costs,
the annual user costs (based on monthly household water consump-
tion of 1,000 cubic feet) vary with the local sewer needs in each
community and the year the Southwest Interceptor reaches the
community:
TABLE VI-2
PROJECTED ANNUAL CHARGES SOUTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE
% Median Household
Community Year Charge Income (Projected)
Brooklyn Heights 1990 $295.68 0.76%
Seven Hills 1990 $392.52 0.83%
Parma 1990 $430.08 1.21%
Parma Heights 1990 $426.84 1.27%
Brooklyn 1990 $295.68 0.90%
North Royalton 1990 $392.52 0.98%
Brook Park 1992 $450.84 1.03%
Middleburg Heights 1992 $360.48 0.82%
Berea 1992 $427.20 1.10%
Strongsville 1992 $323.04 0.63%
Olmsted Falls 1992 $863.04 1.92%
Based on EPA criteria, the project is considered inexpensive to
all communities except Olmsted Falls, where suggestions should be
made for lowering costs, if possible. Though the project is
potentially affordable to Olmsted Falls residents, the costs of
the project exceeds 1.75% of the median household income, signal-
ing high cost concerns. A variety of alternatives have been
examined for Olmsted Falls, which presently is served by unsat-
isfactory on-site treatment systems. The sewering alternative
presented in this analysis proved to be the least cost for a
satisfactory environmental solution.
Federal funds will not be applied to any portions of the project
sized beyond the 20-year planning period. For grants awarded
after October 1, 1984 only capacity for the existing population
will be grant eligible.
VI.C. Environmental Consequences
VI.C.I. Interbasin Transfer of Effluent and Water Quality
The West Leg Southwest Interceptor will convey wastewater from
the Rocky River Basin to the Cuyahoga Basin. The Main Leg
service area's flow is currently discharged to the Cuyahoga River
after treatment at Cleveland Southerly WWTP.
Current dry weather treatment plant discharges in the West Leg
Service Area are:
* If tertiary filtration is eliminated fron the Multi-Plant concept, the South-
west Interceptor will wtill cost 5.8% less and remain cost-effective for the
planning period.
VI-4
-------
Berea 3.60 cfs
Brook Park 0.93 cfs
Middleburg Heights 2.79 cfs
Strongsville "A" 3.08 cfs
Small Plants 1.48 cfs
The only facility whose flow originates from water withdrawn from
the Rocky River is the Berea WWTP. All other communities are
served by Lake Erie water.
Streamflow in the East Branch of the Rocky River will be reduced
below the Berea WWTP's outfall for 4.4 miles to the Main Branch
confluence, comparable to the existing streamflow between the
water supply intakes and the WWTP. Under extreme low flow con-
ditions, the Q7/10, flow in the East Branch will be reduced from
9.46 cfs to 5.69 cfs at the water treatment plant in 1990. The
Berea water supply will not be affected by the immediate project
but the amount of water used for the municipal supply will
affect downstream flows. Careful study will need to be done
prior to extending the Southwest Interceptor to serve the East
Leg. Future water use projected by the City of Berea suggests
potentially severe low flow impacts if upstream flows are elimi-
nated due to an East Leg Interceptor.
Streamflow in the West Branch of the Rocky River under the pro-
posed alternative will be reduced from 17.46 cfs to 11.67 cfs
under Q7,10 low flow conditions in 1990. The effect would occur
in the 5.4 mile stream reach from the Strongsville "A" plant to
the Main Branch confluence.
The Main Branch of the Rocky River below Abram Creek will experi-
ence a stream flow decrease from 50.49 cfs to 34.33 cfs under
Q7/10 conditions in 1990. It would be undesirable to include the
North Olmsted Treatment Plant in the Southwest Interceptor be-
cause of flow impacts to the Rocky River and because of ongoing
improvements there. Any stream flow changes in the Rocky River
are long term impacts that will be offset as increased develop-
ment increases the upstream flow.
Abram Creek will be virtually dry during low flow conditions,
with the loss of effluent discharges. Other creeks will be less
affected. Water depth in all streams will not be sharply changed.
Water quality will improve with the removal of wastewater efflu-
ent from treatment plants and inadequate on-site treatment
systems. Aquatic life and recreational uses of the stream will
be enhanced. Treatment capacity and levels are adequate at the
Southerly Plant to protect the Cuyahoga River.
VI.C.2. Population and Sizing
Population projections developed in facilities planning are rea-
sonable, being slightly less than the earlier 208 region-wide
population projections. The projections reflect the 1980 census
and the slowing of suburban growth. Population projections have
been approved by NOACA.
VI-5
-------
Interceptor sizing has been based on the cost-effective removal
of about 15% infiltration/inflow. Water use, peaking factors,
and preliminary sewer sizing have been refined in the facilities
planning analyses. The size of the interceptor should be no more
than 114 inches in diameter to reflect the infiltration/inflow
removal and time of travel patterns.
VI.C.3. Secondary Impacts
Induced growth from the Southwest Interceptor will be minimal. A
very small area is proposed for new sewering, focusing on Olmsted
Falls, an existing village.
VI.C.4. Parkland Impacts
The Southwest Interceptor will cross a small portion of the
Metropark's Rocky River Reservation, and the Berea Connector
sewer must be open cut through parkland within an existing east-
ment. The Metropark crossing, at Rocky River Drive and Depot
Street, includes a stream crossing of the East Branch of the
Rocky River. For geologic reasons the sewer crossing cannot be
tunneled but must be open cut. Constructing the stream crossing
would take about ten days under low flow conditions. Construction
noise, dust, traffic and visual intrusion will affect park use
for a short time.
VI.C.5. Construction Impacts
Most of the Southwest Interceptor will be tunneled, a technique
which minimizes surface impacts. Twenty five 1/2 - 1 acre access
shafts will be the construction sites for the tunneled portion.
The upper end of the West Leg will be open cut, as will the Berea
and Brook Park - Middleburg Heights connector sewer segments.
Boring and jacking (driving sewers through soft materials) will
be used to connect the Grayton Road Pump Station and to cross
under railroad tracks, major power lines and the Ohio Turnpike.
Construction activities will generate noise (80-90 decibels
peak), dust, truck traffic, some vibration, vegetation loss and
some erosion. Any blasting will be controlled to specified
limits. Most access shafts and sewer corridors are away from
residential areas, with the exception of an area between Lind-
bergh Boulevard and the Ohio Turnpike in Berea and eight shafts
in the highly developed Main Leg corridor. One duplex home will
have to be relocated to allow for construction of an access
shaft. Construction intervals will range from a few weeks to
several months at a given location. The disposal of soil and
rock from tunneling will be specified in construction contracts.
Upgrading on-site treatment systems causes temporary disruption
in yards, but will eliminate nuisance conditions.
VI.C.6. Cuyahoga River Impacts
The Southerly Plant will have adequate capacity and advanced
treatment levels to accept the additional flow from the Southwest
VI-6
-------
Interceptor. Impacts to the Cuyahoga River will be slight because
of the large size of the river and the high degree of treatment
required. Improving treatment will also contribute to improved
conditions downstream in Lake Erie.
The aerial crossing of the Cuyahoga River will occur in an indus-
trial area, adjacent to an existing sewer crossing and railroad
bridge.
VI.C.7. Other Environmental Impacts
Making wastewater treatment improvements should not alter local
land use patterns. Dewatering may affect project costs, but
potential infiltration to the aquifer must be understood in con-
junction with geologic testings during both sewer design and con-
struction.
Wetlands, floodplains, endangered species and historic and arch-
aeological sites will not be affected by the Southwest Intercep-
tor. Energy use is less than the Multi-Plant Alternative.
VI.C.8. Mitigative Measures
Vl.C.S.a. Erosion/Sediment/Dust Control Practices
The construction areas subject to continual erosion after con-
struction will be maintained by reseeding, replanting, or struc-
tural methods until a stable condition is maintained.
Waste material will be disposed of by the contractor after prior
approval of the responsible authority (State or Federal) and sub-
mission of site and approval documentation to NEORSD.
Dust will be limited in unpaved construction areas by wetting,
graveling, spraying and/or chemical application techniques.
Open burning of trees, stumps and brush will not be permitted.
Vl.C.S.b. Hydraulic/Soil/Vegetation Conservation Practices
Construction bid specifications will require saving, replacement
or replanting of all ornamental trees and shrubs on developed
land during construction to the extent practical. All trees two
inches in diameter and larger will be marked for approval by
NEORSD before removal from developed properties, parklands, and
other designated areas.
Existing top soil will be stockpiled and replaced upon final
grading.
Final grading will be consistent with pre-construction topography
for drainage and aesthetics.
Final grading, reseeding and mulching will occur as soon as prac-
tical, but allowing sufficient time for settling as necessary.
VI-7
-------
Construction storage yards and areas compacted during construc-
tion will be plowed, returned to original grade and seeded.
Water courses will be maintained and returned to the original
condition as soon as practical. Extreme care will be required to
protect the streams from adverse construction impacts.
Revegetation within the Rocky River Reservation will be planned
in consultation with Metroparks. Preconstruction planning ses-
sions will consider the feasibility of retaining vegetative
screening at construction sites.
If necessary, residents in housing acquired for the completion of
this project will be relocated in accordance with Federal and
local requirements.
VI.C.S.c. Public Convenience/Aesthetic/Safety Control Practices
Traffic will be maintained on all roadways and to all property
adjacent to the construction.
Traffic routes used by construction vehicles will be limited and
controlled to minimize inconvenience, disruption and hazardous
conditions to residents and businesses.
Parking of the contractor's and other project personnel's person-
al vehicles will be controlled.
All above ground structures such as pavement, fencing, culverts
and mail boxes will be replaced when appropriate.
The existing sanitary and storm sewers will be maintained with
temporary connections to insure uninterrupted service.
The contractor will notify utilities and airport authorities of
the work schedules to protect existing utilities and minimize
disruptions.
Fire and comparable emergency services will be notified of route
changes so that no unnecessary delays are encountered.
Vl.C.S.d. Transportation Safety Practices
The contractor must comply with all legal load restrictions in
hauling of material to protect public roads.
Traffic will be diverted around construction areas with barri-
cades, signs and, where feasible, alternate route designations.
Safety requirements will include watchmen, barricades, fences,
lights and/or danger signals to protect persons and property.
Hazardous construction materials and idle equipment will be
appropriately stored to protect persons and property. Excavation
areas will be clearly marked with lights, reflectors, oil lan-
terns, or smudge pots.
VI-8
-------
Unpaved berms will be wet down to minimize dust and poor visibil-
ity due to dust.
Site access roads will be marked and properly maintained.
Pavement replacement will be comparable to existing pavement
structure.
Boring and jacking construction methods will be used to cross un-
der the Ohio Turnpike and railroad tracks, to avoid interruptions
in service.
The sewer will be tunneled under the existing subway tunnel near
the airport, to avoid disruption of rapid transit service.
Vl.C.S.e. Archaeological/Historic Preservation
Proposed construction sites/corridors will be submitted to the
Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) for review.
OHPO will be notified immediately should artifacts be uncovered
during construction.
Vl.C.S.f. Noise Control Practices
Open cut construction will be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. to minimize noise and the noise level will be regulated as
specified by OSHA and local ordinances.
Construction equipment will be provided with intake silencers and
mufflers as required by safety standards.
Stationary noise generating sources will be enclosed and/or
equipped with noise silencing devices.
Vl.C.S.g. Odor Control Practices
Sewer tunnel ventilation shafts will be designed to minimize odor
problems.
Regular inspection and maintenance of access shafts and tunnels
will minimize the potential for odors during operation.
Construction machinery and materials will be properly outfitted
or stored to minimize odors.
Vl.C.S.h. Access and Work Shafts
The requirements of the Federal Uniform Relocation Act will be
followed in relocating one duplex house at Shaft 6-W.
Terracing, contouring and permanent erosion control structures
will be incorporated/ as necessary, in site design.
Drainage diversion channels will be constructed around shaft
areas where required.
VI-9
-------
Construction areas at access and work shafts will be maintained
on grass as much as possible with a minimum storage of erodible
materials.
Above ground construction activities within residential areas
will be limited to daytime hours to minimize noise and other
construction related disturbances.
Site maintenance practices will include reseeding, fertilizing
and watering to achieve and maintain a firm root pattern.
Vl.C.S.i. Open Cut Sewers
Final sewer alignments will be selected to minimize destruction
of trees and shrubs.
Excavated materials will be stockpiled according to best con-
struction practices to minimize erosion of spoil materials from
the trench.
Trenches will be filled and regraded according to best construc-
tion practices. Once all settling has occurred, construction
areas will be reseeded, mulched/ and watered as necessary to
reestablish vegetation.
Reseeding, fertilizing and watering will be included routine site
maintenance when applicable.
Boring and jacking construction methods will be used according to
best construction practices near existing electric power trans-
mission towers to minimize the risk of disturbing tower founda-
tions .
Open cut sewers have been offset from transmission towers to
avoid foundation disturbance.
VI.C.8.J. Rocky River Crossing
Open cut construction will be used to avoid potentially hazardous
tunnel construction.
Construction will be completed for only one-half the crossing at
a time to maintain continuous stream flow.
Construction will be accomplished at low flow to minimize risk
and cofferdam erosion.
The river bed will be returned as nearly as possible to existing
conditions to maintain river gradient and habitat.
Vl.C.S.k. Tunnel Construction
An extensive soil boring program has been undertaken to select
preliminary alignment and develop cost estimates.
VI-10
-------
Alignment changes on the Main Leg have been made to avoid poten-
tial disturbance of commercial structures and trading.
Industrial and commercial establishments bordering the corridor
will be surveyed to determine presence and location of precision
equipment potentially sensitive to minor vibrations.
Contract specifications will require proper disposal of waste
rock and soil material.
VI.C.8.1. Cuyahoga River Crossing
The bridge crossing will parallel an existing railroad bridge to
avoid creating new crossing corridors.
VI.D. Implementation
VI.D.I. Entities
The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) will be re-
sponsible for implementing the Main Leg and West Leg of the
Southwest Interceptor and will continue to own and operate the
Southerly Treatment Plant. The Southwest Interceptor is within
the funding range of the Ohio EPA priority list.
Implementation of the Main Leg will not require any intergovern-
mental arrangements because all of the political entities to be
served are currently members of the Regional Sewer District.
Implementation of the West Leg will require intergovernmental
arrangements with all of the political entities to be served
(Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Olmsted Falls, and Cuya-
hoga County on behalf of Olmsted Township) with the exception of
Strongsville. Intergovernmental arrangements will not be neces-
sary with Strongsville because NEORSD has taken over operation
and maintenance of the treatment plant service in Sewer District
"A". That portion of the City is, therefore, currently a member
of the Regional Sewer District. The intergovernmental arrange-
ments required for the West Leg Area consist of the affected
entities becoming members of the Regional Sewer District and
agreeing to decommission their respective treatment plants.
Communities within the Southwest Interceptor service area will
continue to own and maintain their municipal sewer systems. Sewer
rehabilitation work will remove 15% infiltration/inflow which is
cost effective. Relief sewers will be constructed at the local
initiative, as an integral part of this project, as discussed be-
low. Olmsted Falls will retain a comparable priority number to
the Southwest Interceptor project for implementing new local
collector sewers.
To implement on-site system improvements in Olmsted Township, it
will be necessary to establish a management authority if on-site
upgrading of septic systems and 85% Federal funding is sought.
Cuyahoga County or the Township could invoke such an authority.
Detailed site-by-site planning will be necessary to implement
this portion of the alternative.
VI-11
-------
VI.D. 2. Related Facilities
A system of relief sewers is part of the Southwest Interceptor
Alternative. The relief sewers would serve to alleviate "bottle-
necks" and overflows in the existing system. Four of the relief
sewers serve more than one community; the Broadview Road, State
Road, Pearl Road-Ridge Road and Smith Road sewers ("Major Relief
Sewers").
Plans for some sort of joint implementation must be made for
these four. Relief sewers for pollution abatement would also
need to be constructed within Parma, Parma Heights, Brook Park
and Berea ("Relief Sewers for Pollution Abatement"). Additional
relief sewers would serve to remove I/I.
VI.D.3. Implementation Steps
When the EIS process is concluded with the Record of Decision and
the final Facilities Plan is approved by Ohio EPA and USEPA, the
planning phase of the project will be complete.
Ongoing advanced Facilities Planning is providing critical geo-
technical information for the project. This will contribute to
the development of precise routing and the detailed plans and
specifications for the sewers by NEORSD which will take about two
years. The corresponding phase for management of unsewered areas
involves invoking the municipal management authority and conduct-
ing a lot-by-lot survey of needed improvements.
Construction of the Southwest Interceptor will be divided into
segments to facilitate construction contracts and financing.
Easements will be acquired prior to construction. Main Leg con-
struction is estimated to conclude in 1988; the West Leg in 1991.
VI.D.4. Funding
Federal funding for Construction Grants projects has been at 75%
of eligible costs in recent years. The latest amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, however, will reduce the
funding level to 55% as of October 1, 1984. Because of its
association with past Federal grants for the Cleveland Southerly
Treatment Plant, the Southwest Interceptor is likely to be
eligible for 75% funding beyond October 1, 1984. However, the
State of Ohio has the option of reducing this percentage in order
to allocate funds to other water pollution control projects with-
in the State. There is no funding from State sources in Ohio.
NEORSD will receive 75% Federal funding only if a segment of the
project gets a Step 3 grant award prior to October I, 1984. If
the grant award is made after that date, Federal funding will
apply only for existing capacity at the 55% level. Reserve
capacity would have to be funded by NEORSD.
On-site system improvements are eligible for 85% Federal funding
(75% as of October 1, 1984) if public access and management are
established.
VI-12
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY
DATA FOR ROCKY RIVER BASIN
Note: Many ammonia-nitrogen values are unusually high. Additional
clarification will be presented in the Final EIS, based on
data from the Rocky River Comprehensive Water Quality Report.
-------
TABLE A-l
PLUM CREEK WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
STATION SS-5
STATION SS-7
>
I
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
SEGMENT P2
MAX
11
MIN
6.5
9 . 5| 5.9
8.l| 7.6
15
5700
40000
7
4.6
6
900
1300
2
0.1
AVG
9.2
7.8
7.8
9
1580
4845
5
1.4
SEGMENT PI
MAX
11.5
8.8
7.9
16
189000
66000
10
10.2
MIN
8
5.3
7.8
4
15200
2500
4
0.2
AVG
9.3
7.1
7.8
8
50760|
18855
7
4.2
STATION SS-5 STATION SS-7
SEGMENT P2
MAX
11.5
MIN
3.5
10. 0| 4.7
7 . 8| 7.6
5
3
AVG
8.3
6.8
7.7
SEGMENT PI
MAX
12.2
5.6
7.9
15
MIN
5.0
3.8
7.5
7
AVG
8.9
8.9
7.6
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
38000
18000
11
19.5
2000
1000
3
0.1
7850
3260
6
5.6
103000
15000
13
23.3
2600
2800
3
1.7
2051
5770
7
8.0
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means.
-------
TABLE A-2
AREA UPSTREAM OF PLUM CREEK CONFLUENCE
STATION SS-6
STATION SA-4
STATION SS-4
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
SEGMENT W4
MAX
11
9.7
7.9
46
3300
7300
12
MIN
8
6.8
7.4
8
400
400
5
AVG
10
8.2
7.7
22
1160
1450
8
STRONGSVILLE A WWTP
MAX
17
7.1
7.8
54
35000
39000
74
MIN
7
5.4
7.6
34
2200
900
20
AVG
13.8
6.2
7.7
45.2
10570
4090
46.2
SEGMENT W3
MAX
11
9.8
7.8
36
108000
1300
18
MIN
7
6.4
7.3
8
1200
400
5
AVG
8.7
8.0
7.6
15
10315
850
11
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
11
0.5
5.1
11.9
0.1
7.5
43
0.3
16.3
CO
STATION SS-6
STATION SA-4
STATION SS-4
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT W4
MAX
12.5
7.8
8.1
11
MIN
5
5.8
7.4
9
4000[ 400
1100
23
57.0
400
11
8
AVG
9.6
7.1
7.7
1070
790
15
29.2
STRONGSVILLE A WWTP
MAX
15.5
8
7.8
53
311000
NOD
83
13
MIN
4
4.6
7.2
43
1900
ATA
14
5.0
AVG
11.8
6.5
7.4
28200
33
9.9
SEGMENT W3
MAX
12.5
7.6
8
21
110000
27000
32
170
MIN
5.5
6.5
7.6
14
4000
200
14
6.8
AVG
9.6
7.3
7.8
15500
3400
21
53.7
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means.
-------
TABLE A-3
WEST BRANCH WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
AREA DOWNSTREAM OF PLUM CREEK CONFLUENCE
STATION SS-3
STATION SS-2
>
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (rag/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT W2
MAX
11
9.7
8.1
76
15000
MIN
8
7.7
7.1
5
1200
6000J 1000
13
15
5
0.6
AVG
9.3
8.7
7.6
21
3235
2420
9
6.5
SEGMENT Wl
MAX
11.5
10
8.3
19000
2400
12
8.4
MIN
7
8.5
7.9
3900
200
4
0.1
AVG
9
9.3
8.1
6670
770
8
3.5
STATION SS-3 STATION SS-2
SEGMENT W2
SEGMENT Wl
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
MAX^
12
9.4
MIN
4
8.4
8 . 0| 7.8
AVG
8.9
9.1
8.0
MAX
12.5
10.8
7.9
MIN
4.5
8.3
7.8
AVG
9
9.2
7.8
| SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1) | 58 | 14 |
I 11
8
1 FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
129000
24000
22
42
1600 | 16690
800 | 4290
15 | 17
7 | 23.1
26000
6400
1200
700
22 | 12
23.3
2.6
6200
2170
15
11.1
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means.
-------
TABLE A-4
EAST BRANCH WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
AREA UPSTREAM OF BALDWIN CREEK CONFLUENCE
STATION SS-10
STATION SS-9
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT E4
MAX
10
10
8.2
13
MIN
9
8.3
8.0
4
32000J 300
1800| 300
9
5
3
0.2
AVG
9.6
9.3
8.1
8
4100
495
6
1.7
SEGMENT E3
MAX
10
9.1
8.2
14
9000
8000
12
8.4
MIN
8
7.4
7.7
2
1200
1000
5
0.1
AVG
9.2
8.4
7.9
8
3270)
2315
8
3.8
STATION SS-10 STATION SS-9
SEGMENT E4
SEGMENT E3
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
MAX
12
11
8.1
23
96000
MIN
4
9.8
7.6
2
100
AVG
9.4
10.3
7,9
11
4100
MAX
12
9.7
8.0
13
75000
MIN
4
8.4
7.7
5
400
AVG
9
8.9
7.9
8.2
6470
I FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml) | 210p| 300 | 600 | 5600 | 30Q | 1050J
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
11
3
2 1 . OJ 2.5
8
7.6
12
6.4
1
1.2
7
2.7
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means.
-------
TABLE A-5
EAST BRANCH WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
AREA DOWNSTREAM OF BALDWIN CREEK CONFLUENCE
STATION BR-3
STATION BR-4
I
Ul
SEGMENT E2
SEGMENT El
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
MAX
20
9.8
8.2
MIN
10
8.6
7.8
AVG
12.7
9.1
8.0
MAX
20
9.1
7.9
MIN
10
7.9
7.5
AVG
13.8
8.4
7.6
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1) | 29 | 7.0 | 17.0 | 36 | 4.0 | 20.4 |
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml) |
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml) |
BOD (mg/1) |
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1) |
63000|
8000|
10 I
2-1 1
300 |
500 |
1 1
0.1 |
1910
1650
19000
30000
6 | 19
0.6
4.5
2600 | 5220
600
9
1.4
4640|
16
2.7
STATION BR-3
STATION BR-4
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT E2
MAX
12
10
8.1
24
MIN
8
9.3
7.5
20
82000J 900
1.4
7
4
1.5
AVG
10
9.6
7.8
18
8300
6
3.7
SEGMENT El
MAX
18
10.3
8.2
28
103000
10
13.0
MIN
9
9.2
7.7
20
1800
5
4.5
AVG
12
9.5
7.8
15
27300]
7
8.2
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means. Fecal Strep, were not
monitored during wet period.
-------
TABLE A-6
BALDWIN CREEK WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
STATION SS-8
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT B
MAX
11
8.0
8.0
28
MIN
9
6.0
7.5
6
81000| 6500
22200
8
6.2
310
3
0.1
AVG
10
7.0
7.8
12
34950
5055
6
2.5
STATION SS-8
SEGMENT B
MAX
12
8.2
7.9
21
MIN
4
7.4
7.4
2
55000| 1400
32000| 500
10
8.4
2
1.7
AVG
9.3
7.8
7.8
11.2
13960
3560
7
3.1
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means.
-------
TABLE A-7
ABRAM CREEK WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
STATION BP-3
STATION BP-4
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
DRY WEATHER DATA
MAX
MIN
AVG
MAX
MIN
AVG
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
20
7.2
8.1
33
11
6.2
7.6
9
15
6.5
7.8
23
20
6.9
12
5.9
7.9 | 7.5
59
14
15.2
6.2
7.9
32
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml) | 780QQ| 900 | 8150 | 51000
900
742QJ
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
7100
47
9.0
4000| 5220
17
1.3
25
4.3
3100
24
14.0
200
13
0.9
1390
19
5.5
STATION BP-3
STATION BP-4
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
UPSTREAM
MAX
14
7.2
7.7
28
68000
53
20
MIN
7
5.8
7.4
25
4000
8
6
AVG
10
6.5
7.5
37
12880
21
11.7
DOWNSTREAM
MAX
15
7.4
7.6
91
91000
12
68
MIN
8
5.4
7.4
36
2000
7
2.2
AVG
11.2
6.4
7.5
57
13200
28
18.9
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep values are
expressed as geometric means. Fecal Strep, were not
monitored during wet period.
-------
TABLE A-8
ROCKY RIVER (MAIN) WATER QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
STATION SS-2
STATION SS-1
DRY WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (8C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
pH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT Wl
MAX
11.5
10
8.3
61
19000
MIN
7
8.5
7.9
10
3900
2400) 400
12
8.4
4
0.1
AVG
9
9.3
8.1
26
6670
770
8
3.5
SEGMENT M2
MAX
11.5
11.5
8.3
16
10100
1700
12
10.8
MIN
8.5
9.0
7.6
3
200
200
3
0.1
AVG
10
10.1
7.9
8
1660|
730
7
3.2
I
00
STATION SS-2
STATION SS-1
WET WEATHER DATA
TEMPERATURE (°C)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/1)
PH
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FECAL COLI. (mpn/100 ml)
FECAL STREP (mpn/100 ml)
BOD (mg/1)
AMMONIA-NITROGEN (mg/1)
SEGMENT Wl
MAX
12.5
10.8
8.0
29
MIN
4.5
8.3
7.8
6.0
26000| 1200
6400J 700
22
23.3
12
2.6
AVG
9
9.2
8.0
12.6
6200
2170
15
11.1
SEGMENT M2
MAX
13
11.8
8.2
22
49000
3500
16
17.0
MIN
7
8.5
7.6
7
3900
300
8
1.7
AVG
10
9.7
7.7
10.4
14410
1380
10
10.0
Source: Report on WWTP Effluent Impacts on Streams
NOTE: Average Fecal Coliform and Fecal Strep are expressed
as geometric means.
-------
APPENDIX B
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESS
SPECIFICATIONS
-------
The Cuyahoga County Health Department is responsible for regu-
lating individual and private sewage disposal systems within
Olmsted Falls and Township. Installation and modification records
are maintained for all systems. Figure B-l provides illustra-
tions of on-site systems serving residents in the Planning Area.
Figure B-2 illustrates an off-lot system.
The Department instituted a permit system to improve operation
and maintenance of home sewage disposal systems within the
County. Septic tanks must be maintained every three years with
verification cards completed by the contractor and returned to
the Health Department.
Prior to implementing the on-site system alternative, however, a
site-by-site examination of the existing system must take place.
Two determinations must be made. These are: 1) is the existing
system(s) properly operated and maintained, 2) should the exist-
ing system(s) be replaced/upgraded followed by the implementation
of an operation and management program. An independent analysis
of each system would be required to make the specific determina-
tion.
Since home ownership will change over time, an area-wide septic
management system will be needed to ensure the community's
freedom from inadequately treated wastewater discharges to lawns,
ditches, rivers or water recreational areas. This management
system should stress the proper operation and maintenance of all
on-site wastewater treatment systems. The importance of such a
management system cannot be stressed strongly enough. USEPA can
provide publications which outline considerations for establish-
ing management systems.
When conditions (such as soil types, population density) prohibit
use of on-site or cluster systems, construction of centralized
wastewater collection and treatment facilities is generally
feasible. This section will examine various wastewater collection
and treatment processes that will satisfy National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES) and water quality stand-
ards . The alternatives equated with those alternatives that are
sound and use energy and resources efficiently will be screened
further.
Prior to the evaluation of alternatives, a preliminary screening
was performed to eliminate those alternatives which were unsuit-
able for further consideration. This screening reduced the
number of alternatives to a selection of the most feasible few.
The alternatives for further consideration are: rotating biologi-
cal contactors, activated sludge, physical-chemical treatment,
and advanced wastewater treatment processes. These alternatives
have been extended to include land application of effluent.
B-l
-------
ON —SITE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Septic Tank & Soil Absorption
Field (Trench)
Sewage bacteria break up some solids in tank. Heavy solids
sink to bottom as sludge. Grease & light particles float to top
as scum. Liquid flows from tank through closed pipe and
distribution box to perforated pipes in trenches; flows through
surrounding crushed rocks Or gravel and soil to ground water
(underground water). Bacteria &• oxygen in soil help purify
liquid. Tank sludge ft scum are pumped out periodically. Most
common onsite system. Level ground or moderate slope.
Septic Tank with Alternating
Absorption Fields
One field rests while other is in use. Allows field to renew
itself. Extends life of field. Provides standby if one field fails.
Valve directs sewage liquid to proper field. Fields usually
switched every 6-12 months.
Unex
Gravel o/ Crushed Rock
Septic Tank & Soil Absorption
Field (Bed)
Similar to sketch above but smaller field Total field
excavated Used where space limited Nearly level ground
Dislnbulion Box
Septic Tank, Sand Filter,
Disinfection & Discharge
Filter is ground-level or buried sand pit. Liquid enters per-
forated pipe at top &• filters through sand £t gravel to bottom
pipe. Bottom pipe conducts liquid to disinfection tank. Liquid
discharges to stream or ditch. Variations are intermittent sand
filter & recirculating sand filter. Used where soil absorption
field not possible.
Absorption Field (Bed]
Sand Filter
Septic Tank
Gravel or Crushed Rock
Aerobic System & Soil
Absorption Field
Air and wastewater are mixed in tank. Oxygen-using (aerobic)
bacteria grow, digest sewage, liquefy most solids. Liquid
discharges to absorption field where treatment continues. Can
use same treatment & disposal methods as septic tank.
Maintenance essential. Uses energy.
Absorption Field (Trench)
Mound System
(Used with Septic or Aerobic Tank)
Liquid is pumped from storage tank to perforated plastic
pipe in sand mound that covers plowed ground. Liquid
flows through rocks or gravel, sand, and natural soil
Mound vegetation helps evaporate liquid Rocky or tight
soil or high water table
Perforated Pipe Absorption Field
Cross
Sect.c
Diagra
Intel Pipe From Septic of Aerobic
Plowed Surface. Original Grade
Tank & Siphon or Pump
Rorky or T ighi Soil or High Ground Water
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Figure B-l
-------
OFF-LOT TREATMENT SYSYTEM
Cluster System
(Two or More Users on One Alternative
System)
Several houses are served by common treatment &
disposal system. Houses could also have onsite septic or
aerobic tanks with liquid conducted to common
absorption field. Clusters of houses can also use other
alternative systems, such as pressure & vacumn sewers.
sewage treatment lagoons, and mounds.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Figure 8-2
-------
Blank Page
-------
1. Secondary Treatment Processes
a. Rotating Biological Contactors
This process (also referred to as biodiscs or rotating biological
surfaces) consists of a series of closely spaced discs (10-12
feet in diameter), mounted on a horizontal shaft and rotated like
steamboat paddles. The discs are constructed of lightweight
plastic and rotate in and out of the wastewater. Microbes attach
to the disc and break down the pollutants in the wastewater. This
process is similar to a trickling filter except that the microbes
are passed through the wastewater rather than the wastewater
passed over the microbes in a trickling filter. By placing sev-
eral sets of discs in series, it is possible to achieve secondary
effluent quality or better.
Advantages:
no sludge or effluent recycle streams required;
uses low speed mechanical equipment;
higher degree of treatment than trickling filter;
95% of the microbes attach to discs, making them less suscept-
ible to washout and upset;
fewer process decisions than activated sludge process;
additional sets of discs may be added to improve performance
without the need to add pumping facilities.
Disadvantages:
must be covered for protection against freezing, precipitation
and wind and to control odors;
efficiency is reduced in cold temperatures unless the treatment
building is heated;
large capital expenditures are required for redesign and plant
modifications when rotating biological contactors are substi-
tuted for existing extended aeration or activated sludge sys-
tems 7
capital costs are generally higher than both trickling filters
and activated sludge processes
b. Activated Sludge
In activated sludge processes, a mixture of primary settled
wastewater and microorganisms are introduced into a basin. This
wastewater is then agitated and aerated. The activated sludge
(containing the micro-organisms) is subsequently separated from
the wastewater (mixed liquor) in a sedimentation basin. The act-
ivated sludge is reintroduced into the aeration basin. The clari-
fied effluent is decanted for further treatment or discharge.
Advantages:
capable of fulfilling the effluent limitation standards;
versatile and compatable with existing treatment facilities;
usually lower in capital costs than a trickling filter plant.
Disadvantages:
requires careful control and monitoring;
B-5
-------
more susceptible to plant upsets as a result of shock
hydraulic loadings;
high energy requirements.
Note: All of the study area's existing plants use activated
sludge or a modification thereof. Alternatives for
expansion or upgrading of these plants relate directly
to activated sludge processes.
c. Physical-Chemical Treatment
Physical-chemical treatment encompasses chemical coagulation,
filtration, activated carbon adsorption, breakpoint chlorination
and post-aeration to achieve effluent limitation standards.
Physical-chemical processes circumvent the need for biological
processes. Chemical coagulation and filtration are used in the
removal of suspended organics and phosphates. Activated carbon
adsorption is used in the removal of dissolved or soluble organic
material. Breakpoint chlorination and dechlorination are required
for ammonia removal. Post aeration is required to re-establish
dissolved oxygen prior to discharge of the effluent. Disinfection
occurs concurrently with breakpoint chlorination.
Advantages:
Capable of complying with effluent limitation standards;
Not susceptible to excessive hydraulic or toxic loadings;
Requires less land than most forms of wastewater treatment;
Capital construction costs are generally comparable for
physical-chemical plants and biological plants.
Disadvantages:
Extensive plant redesign and modification would be required if
substituted for biological processes;
Stabilization of physical-chemical sludge presents greater
problems than the present disposal of biological sludge;
Physical-chemical plant operation and maintenance costs are
greater than a corresponding biological treatment plant;
Large quantities of natural resources such as chemicals and
fuels are required for physical-chemical treatment.
d. Oxidation Ditch WWTP.
This alternative consists of utilizing an oxidation ditch,
extended aeration facility and rapid sand filters to provide
secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment. A schematic of the
treatment process is presented in Figure B-3. Sludge handling and
disposal facilities consist of an aerobic digester and land ap-
plication of the digested liquid sludge. A general description
of the treatment components is presented below.
Preliminary Treatment Facilities
Mechanical bar screen
Grit chamber - design velocity 0.55 ft/sec., 1 minute
detention time at peak flow, mechanical grit handling
equipment
Parshall flume and flow recording equipment.
B-6
-------
OXIDATION DITCH EXTENDED AERATION PLANT
ALUM
ADDITION
D
PUMP
STATION
RAW
FLOW
MEASUREMENT/
-CX}
OXIDATION
DITCH
FINAL
SETTLING
RAPID
SAND
FILTER
CHLORINE
CONTACT
OUTFALL
SCREENING
TO LANDFILL
LANDFILL
RETURNED SLUDGE jWASTE SLUDGE
f^\ AEROBIC
I ) DIGESTOR
LAND APPLICATION
Co
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
Oxidation Ditch Facilities
Extended aeration mode, 1 day detention
BOD5 loading 9-15 Ibs. BOD5/1,000 ft3
Sludge age 10-33 days
Final Settling
Surface loading rate 600 gpd/sq. ft.
Recirculation pumps 600 gpm at 10 ft. total dynamic head (TDK)
Rapid Sand Filters
Designed for peak flow of 6.2 mgd
Loading rate 5 gpm/sq. ft. with one unit out of operation
Backwash rate - minimum of 20 gpm/sq.ft. for 10 min.
Disinfection Facilities
Includes gas chlorinator, educator, contactor tank
Contact time - 15 min. at peak daily flow
Dosage 10 mg/1
Aerobic Digestion
Floating mechanical aerators
Detention time of 20 minutes
Oxygen requirement 1.6 Ibs. 02/lb. Volatile Suspended
Solids (VSS)
2. Advanced Treatment
The NPDES Standards for the Rocky River basin requires treatment
plants on the river to discharge effluent exceeding secondary
standards. In order to meet these stricter standards, the plants
would be required to incorporate additional treatment.
Suspended solids and phosphates may be removed by chemical coagu-
lation. Lime and alum or ferric sulphate are added and the waste
is flocculated prior to settling.
Ammonia may be removed by biological nitrification using suspend-
ed growth systems or attached growth systems. Suspended growth
systems use several modifications of the activated sludge
process. Attached growth systems use trickling filters or rotat-
ing biological contactors. Suspended growth reactors will be
used in the upgrading and expansion of the existing activated
sludge plants.
Organic particulate matter which remains in the secondary efflu-
ent can be removed by filtration. The filtration is accomplished
using microscreens or rapid sand filters. Granular media, rapid
sand filters produce effluent of 10 mg/1 (or less) suspended
solids. Rapid sand filtration will be used for upgrading or
expansion of existing facilities.
B-8
-------
a. Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
In order to achieve tertiary levels of treatment in the Olmsted
Falls, Olmsted Township, northeastern Columbia Township subareas,
previously mentioned secondary treatment processes were utilized
and expanded. These processes included rotating biological
contactors and conventional activated sludge. Also, an oxidation
ditch process (a variation of the activated sludge process) was
analyzed.
1. Rotating Biological Contactor WWTP.
Secondary treatment is provided by rotating biological contactors
(RBC). Tertiary treatment standards are achieved by the use of
rapid sand filters following the RBC units. Figure B-4 shows a
flow diagram of this treatment process. Sludge is conditioned by
a two stage anaerobic digestion prior to direct land application.
A description of the treatment components is presented below.
Preliminary Treatment Facility
Mechanical bar screen
Grit chamber - design velocity 0.55 ft/sec, 1 minute
detention time at peak flow, mechanical grit handling
facilities
Parshall flume and flow recording equipment
Primary Settling
Surface overflow rate of 800 gpd/sq ft at average daily flow,
primary sludge pumps design to handle sludge at 4 percent
solids
RBC units
Reinforced concrete basins and molded fiberglass covers
Maximum of 100,000 sq. ft. of media per shaft
Loading ratio of 1.0 gpd/sq. ft.
Final Settling
Surface loading ratio of 600 gpd/sq. ft. Recirculation pumps
600 gpm at 10 ft. Total Dynamic Head (TDK)
Rapid Sand Filters
Designed for peak flow of 6.2
Loading rate 5 gpm/sq ft. with one unit out of operation
Backwash rate - minimum of 20 gpm/sq. ft. for 10 min.
Disinfection Facilities
Includes gas chlorinator, educator, contact tank
Contact time - 15 minutes at peak daily flow
Dosage 10 mg/1
Two Stage Anaerobic Digestion
Includes two vessels, heat exchanger, gas collection
equipment and control building
Feed to digesters is combined primary and secondary sludge
Operating temperature 85°F. to 110°F.
B-9
-------
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTRACTOR PLANT
ALUM
ADDITION
FLOW ROTATING
PUMP GRIT MEASURE- PRIMARY BIOLOGICAL
STATION CHAMBER MENT SETTLING CONTACTORS
RAW
FINAL
SETTLING
RAPID
SAND CHLORINE
FILTERS CONTACT
t
•^
r-.
OUTFALL
SCREENINGS
TO LANDFILL
LANDFILL
LAND—
APPLICATION
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTOR
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTOR
CD
CD
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewatar Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
2. Conventional Activated Sludge WWTP.
This alternative includes conventional activated sludge facili-
ties and rapid sand filters to provide secondary and tertiary
wastewater treatment. Two stage anaerobic digestion is provided
for sludge conditioning prior to direct land application. A flow
diagram of this alternative is presented in Figure B-4. A des-
cription of the individual treatment processes is presented
below.
Preliminary Treatment Facility
Mechanical bar screen
Grit chamber - design velocity 0.55 ft/sec, 1 minute deten-
tion time at peak flow, mechanical grit handling facilities
Parshall flume and flow recording equipment
Primary Settling
Surface overflow rate of 800 gpd/sq.ft. at average daily
flow, primary sludge pumps design to handle sludge at 4
percent solids
Aeration Facilities
Diffused aeration 1.1 Ibs. oxygen/lb. BOD removed
Detention time 6 hours
Volumetric loading 32 Ibs. BOD5/day/1000 cu.ft.
Final Settling
Surface loading ratio of 600 gpd/sq.ft.
Recirculating pumps 600 gpm at 10 ft. TDH
Rapid Sand Filters
Designed for peak flow of 6.2 mgd
Loading rate 5 gpm/sq.ft with one unit out of operation
Backwash rate - minimum of 20 gpm/sq.ft. for 10 min.
Disinfection Facilities
Includes gas chlorinator, educator, contact tank
Contact time - 15 minutes at peak daily flow
Dosage 10 mg/1
Two State Anaerobic Digestion
Includes two vessels, heat exchanger, gas collection
equipment and control building
Feed to digesters is combined primary and secondary sludge
Operating Temperature 80° F. to 110°F.
b. Brook Park
The Brook Park plant improvement program to attain desired water
quality standards will include the following. Figures B-5 and
B-6 depict a flow diagram of the unit process and a layout of the
structure.
B-ll
-------
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
ALUM
ADDITION
PUMP
STATION
GRIT FLOW
CHAMBER MEASUREMENT
RAW
SEWAGE
PRIMARY
SETTLING
AERATION
RAPID
FINAL SAND
SETTLING FILTERS
CHLORINE
CONTACT
OUTFALL
LAND
APPLICATION
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTOR
ANAEROBIC
DIGESTOR
I
CO
6,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
BROOK PARK WWTP PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) SEWAGE FLOW REGULATOR
2.) PREAERATION DEGRIT TANK
3.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
4.) AERATION TANKS
5.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
6.) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7.) CHLORINATION FACILITIES
8.) ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
9.) CONTROL HOUSE
10.) COVERED SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
II.) OPEN SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
12.) OFFICE 8 LABORATORY BUILDING (NEW)
13.) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (OLD)
14.) GARAGE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I.) STORMWATER STORAGE BASIN
2 ) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
3.) SECONDARY SETTLING TANKS
4.) NITRIFICATION TOWERS
5.) TERTIARY FILTER BUILDING
6.) DECHLORINATION TANK
^ 7.) POST AERATION TANK
8.) DAF SLUDGE THICKENING BUILDING
9.) SLUDGE STORAGE BASIN
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Waste water Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park, Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
CD
CO
-------
Raw Sewage Pumps
Provide new motors and drive shafts for the nonoperational
existing pumps or add two new pumps with capacities of 1.26
mgd each. These pumps, in parallel with the three existing
1,250 gpm pumps, will be able to move the maximum flow of
3.84 mgd, with one pump out of service
Add a telemetered pumping station alarm system
Primary Settling
Add two primary settling tanks in parallel with the four
existing tanks. The new tanks will have a minimum total
surface area of 880 sq.ft. and a total weir length of 88
linear ft. A possible size for the tanks is 30 ft. x 15 ft.
x 8.25 ft. side wall depth.
Add a minimum of 112 liner feet of overflow weir to the
existing tanks
Contact Stabilization - Aeration Tanks
Modify the existing piping and channels in order to use two
of the three tanks as stabilization tanks
Aeration equipment for the system is addressed under
"Diffused Aeration Equipment"
Contact Stabilization - Secondary Settling Tanks
In order to provide a minimum surface area of 3,200 sq. ft.,
add two rectangular secondary settling tanks, with a minimum
total surface area of 1,724 sq. ft., in parallel with the
three existing units. A possible size for the tanks is 41
ft. x 21 ft. x 8.25 ft. side wall depth (SWD).
Add two 270 gpm return sludge pumps to supplement the three
existing 400 gpm units
Add two variable speed sludge pumps with a range of 4 through
222 gpm, each
Phosphorus Removal
Add ferric chloride and polymer storage and feed facilities
for obtaining phosphorus removal
Add lime storage and feed facilities for pH control
Nitrification Facilities
The estimated component installed construction costs for
alternative systems are as follows:
a) Suspended Growth System - $1,040,000
b) Rotating Biological Contactor System - $1,027,750 (no
clarifiers)
c) Plastic Media Trickling Filter System - $627,000 (no
clarifiers)
Add two 44 ft. diameter x 22 ft. high plastic media trickling
filters complete with recirculation and dosing facilities
B-14
-------
Tertiary Filtration
Add a gravity tertiary filter with four beds, 13 ft. x 13 ft.
each, complete with backwash storage tank, backwash surge
control tank and associated pumps
Disinfection
Add a 100 Ib/day chlorinator to supplement the two existing
100 Ib/day units
The existing chlorine contact tank has sufficient capacity to
provide adequate detention time at maximum flows
Dechlorination
Add sulfur dioxide storage and feed facilities for average
and peak feeding rates of 23.5 Ib/day and 70.5 Ib/day,
respectively
Add a 2,670 gallon capacity sulfur dioxide mixing and contact
tank
Post Aeration
Add a 17,800 gallon capacity post aeration tank, complete
with diffused aeration facilities. Possible dimensions for
the tank are 20 ft x 10 ft x 12 ft SWD.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Thickening
Add a dissolved air flotation thickener, with a flotation
chamber minimum surface area of 70 sq. ft. and a minimum
volume of 2,130 gal. The unit will be complete with recycle
facilities and pressure tanks.
Add piping to bring air from the blower building and polymer
from the central polymer feed facilities to the unit.
Anaerobic Digestion
Although the existing completely mixed, two-stage anaerobic
digestion system has numerous mechanical components and will
have organic and hydraulic loading rates slightly higher than
the recommended design parameters, construction improvements
do not appear to be necessary.
Digested Sludge Dewatering
The existing sludge drying beds provide about 50% of the
projected required capacity. They will be retained as
standby facilities.
Assuming the existing centrifuge is capable of dewatering
160 Ibs. dry SS per hour, add a solid bowl centrifuge capable
of dewatering 160 Ibs. dry SS hour. At average design flow
it is estimated the centrifuge will have to process 320 Ibs.
dry SS per hour about 10 hours at an 80% capture rate.
Add piping from the central polymer storage and feed area.
Add the piping and equipment necessary to make the centrifuge
dewatering facilities a functional and permanent unit process.
B-15
-------
Sludge Storage and Disposal
Add a 0.31 million gallon sludge storage lagoon complete with
pumping and aeration facilities to supplement the storage
provided by the two-stage anaerobic digesters and the sludge
drying beds.
Add a 2,025 gallon (10 cu.yd.) elevated loading storage
tank for gravity loading of sludge containing 20% solids.
Diffused Aeration Equipment
Air for the grit removal unit, the contact stabilization
process, backwashing the tertiary filters, and the post
aeration tank will be provided from a central blower area.
Assuming the existing generator is capable of providing 117
Kw, add engine driven generating equipment rated at 117 Kw to
supplement the existing unit.
c. Berea WWTP
The Berea WWTP improvement program to attain desired water
quality standards will include the following. Figures IV-5 (in
Chapter IV) and B-7 depict a flow diagram of the unit processes
and a layout of the structures.
Preliminary Treatment
Add an influent meter.
Optional expansion and rehabilitation of the barminutor
facilities.
Stormwater Storage Basin
The Berea Sanitary Sewer System contains about 18 overflows,
which function depending on the intensity, duration and
location of rainfall events. During the storm of August 4,
1982, 9 overflows functioned. The total flow measured at the
overflows and the plant during this storm, minus 40% of the
inflow, indicated that the design maximum plant flow would
not be exceeded. Projecting flows to a one year storm, via
direct proportioning of rainfall to inflow, indicated that a
0.723 mg storage basin would be required. Based on the
number of overflows on the sewer system, the fact that higher
flows were measured at the plant during a comparable storm,
and because the storm occurred during a dry summer period, it
was concluded that the system's inflow was not totally devel-
oped during this rainfall event. Consequently, a basin with a
capacity comparable to the projected design average flow
(4.42 mgd) was used in the plant analysis.
Grj.t Removal and Preaeration
The existing aerated grit removal and pre-aeration facilities
have adequate capacity to treat the peak flow. Rehabilitation
of the grit collection equipment at this time is optional.
Primary Settling
Add primary settling tanks in parallel with the six existing
tanks. The new tanks will have a minimum surface area of
B-16
-------
BEREA WWTP PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
"n
<$'
c
5
CO
XI
EXISTING
SLUDGE
DUMP
AREA
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) OVERFLOW CHAMBER
2.) SCREENING CHAMBER
3.) GRIT CHAMBER (STORM ONLY)
4.) DEGRITTING 8 PREAERATION TANK
5.) DIVERSION CHAMBER
6) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
7.) AERATION TANKS
8.) DIVERSION CHAMBER
9.) FINAL CLARIF1ERS
IQ) BLOWER BUILDING
II.) FINAL CLARIFIERS SLUDGE BOX
12.) CONTROL BUILDING
13.) PRIMARY DIGESTER
14.) SECONDARY DIGESTER
15.) DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING
16) SLUDGE DEWATERING BUILDING
17.) SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
18.) SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
19.) CHLORINE HOUSE
20.) GARAGE
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I.) STORMWATER STORAGE BASIN
2.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
3.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
4) NITRIFICATION TOWERS
5.) TERTIARY FILTER BUILDING
6) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
DECHLORINAT10N TANK
7.) POST AERATION TANK
8.)DAF SLUDGE THICKENING AND
9) BLOWER BUILDING EXPANSION
10) AEROBIC DIGESTION
11.) SLUDGE STORAGE BASIN
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Brook Park. Middleburg Heights, Berea, Strongsville ("A")
I
-------
5,744 sq. ft. If the new tanks are 86 ft. x 33 ft. x 10.5
ft., four new tanks would be required.
Add a minimum of 206 linear feet overflow weir to the exist-
ing tanks, to increase the weir length to 52 linear feet per
tank.
Contact Stabilization - Aeration Tanks
The existing tanks are adequately sized to properly treat the
projected design flow.
Aeration equipment for the system is addressed under
"Diffused Aeration Equipment".
Contact Stabilization - Secondary Settling Tanks
In order to provide a minimum surface area of 11,050 sq. ft.,
add three circular secondary settling tanks, with a minimum
total surface area of 7,282 sq. ft. in parallel with the
three existing tanks. A possible size for the tanks is 56
ft. diameter x 11 ft. side wall depth.
Add three 1,800 gpm return sludge pumps to supplement the
three existing 350 gpm units.
Add two variable speed sludge pumps with a maximum capacity
of 350 gpm each, to supplement the two existing 75 gpm units.
Phosphorus Removal
Add ferric chloride and polymer storage and feed facilities
for obtaining phosphorus removal. It may be possible to
integrate these facilities into existing sludge conditioning
facilities.
Add lime storage and feed facilities for pH control.
Nitrification Facilities
The estimated component installed construction costs for
alternative systems were as follows:
a) Suspended Growth System - $2,040,000;
b) Rotating Biological Contactor System - $2,550,000 (no
clarifiers); and
c) Plastic Media Trickling Filter System - $1,571,000
(no clarifiers).
The plastic media trickling filter system also had the
lowest annual O&M cost.
Add two 72 ft. diameter x 22 ft. high plastic media trickling
filters complete with recirculation and dosing facilities.
Tertiary Filtration
Add a gravity tertiary filter with six beds, 19 ft. x 19 ft.
each, complete with backwash storage tank, backwash source
control tank and associated pumps.
B-18
-------
Disinfection
Add two 300 Ib/day chlorinators to supplement the two exist-
ing 200 Ib/day units.
Add two chlorine contact tanks in parallel with a total
volume of 0.138 million gallons. Possible dimensions for the
tanks are 46 ft. x 20 ft. x 10 ft. each.
Dechlorination
Add sulphur dioxide storage and feed facilities for average
and peak feeding rates of 81 and 243 Ib/day, respectively.
Add a 9,200 gallon capacity sulfur dioxide mixing and contact
tank.
Add a 61,400 gallon capacity post aeration tank, complete
with diffused aeration facilities. Possible dimensions fo:
the tank are 34 ft. x 20 ft. x 12 ft.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Thickening
Add a dissolved air flotation thickener, with a flotation
chamber minimum surface area of 207 sq. ft. and a minimum
volume of 6,000 gallons to thicken secondary sludges. The
unit will be complete with recycle facilities and pressure
tanks.
Add piping to bring air from the blower building and polymer
to the units.
Anaerobic Sludge Digestion
The existing two-stage system has insufficient capacity to
stabilize projected total sludge loadings; however, if the
primary digester can be returned to a completely mixed unit,
the system is large enough to digest projected primary sludge
volumes. Therefore, the system will be rehabilitated to treat
primary sludge only.
Rehabilitate the gas recirculation system and the cover on
the secondary digester.
Replace the system's heat exchanger.
Aerobic Digestion
Add two 58 ft. x 25 ft. x 15 ft. SWD aerobic digestion tanks
complete with decanting facilities to stabilize secondary
sludges. The two tanks will provide an average sludge reten-
tion time (SRT) of 13.9 days.
Digested Sludge Dewatering
The existing sludge drying beds provide about 10% and 60% of
the capacity required to be the primary or standby sludge
dewatering system. Therefore, the beds will be used primar-
ily as sludge storage facilities, and standby dewatering
units for anaerobic digested sludge.
B-19
-------
Add two vacuum filters, with surface areas of 151 sq.ft. and
88 sq. ft., respectively, to supplement the existing unit.
Sludge dewatering will require about 12 hours per day.
Continue to use the existing polymer sludge conditioning
facilities.
Sludge Storage and Disposal
Add a 1.59 million gallon sludge storage lagoon complete with
pumping and aeration facilities, to supplement the storage
provided by the two-stage anaerobic digesters, the aerobic
digesters, and the sludge drying beds.
Add a 6,075 gallon (30 cu.yd) elevated loading storage tank
for gravity loading of sludge containing 15% solids.
Diffused Aeration Equipment
Air for the grit removal unit, the contact stabilization
process, backwashing the tertiary filters, the DAF unit,
and the post aeration tank will be provided from a central
blower area.
In order to provide a maximum air requirement of 16,129 cfm
plus standby capacity, three 5,000 cfm blowers will be added
to supplement the three existing blowers.
Standby Power
Standby power will be provided to run the chlorination and
dechlorination equipment; the nitrification tower pump
station; one filter backwash pump; and blowers capable of
aerating the grit removal/preaeration chamber, the contact
stabilization tanks, and the post aeration tank.
An engine driven generating equipment rated at 700 Kw.
d. Middleburg Heights WWTP
The Middleburg Heights WWTP improvement program to attain the
desired water quality standards will include the following.
Figures IV-7 in Chapter IV and B-8 depict a flow diagram of the
unit processes and a layout of the structures.
Preliminary Treatment
Add additional comminutors or replace existing units with two
comminutors capable of treating a maximum flow of 16.6 mgd.
Add a lift for removing screenings from the by-pass bar
screen area to ground level.
Add raw sewage flow meters (probably to the force mains).
Stormwater Storage Basin
A hydrograph of the flow reaching the plant during and imme-
diately after the rainfall of March 31, 1982, minus 40% of
the inflow superimposed on peak non-rainfall conditions,
B-20
-------
MIDDLETOWN HEIGHTS WWTP PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
EXISTING FACILITIES
I.) GRIT CHAMBER
2.) INFLUENT PUMP STATION
3.) AERATION TANK
4.) BLOWER BUILDING
5.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
6.) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
7) CHLORINE BUILDING
8.) TERTIARY LAGOON
9) FLOATING AERATORS
10.) AEROBIC DIGESTOR
1I) SLUDGE PUMP STATION
12.) SLUDGE HOLDING TANK
13.) FILTER BUILDING
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I.) GRIT CHAMBER
2.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
3.) AERATION TANKS
4.) FINAL SETTLING TANKS
5.) NITRIFICATION TOWERS
6) TERTIARY FILTER BUILDING
7) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
8.) DECHLORINATION TANK
9 ) POST AERATION TANK
10.) AEROBIC DIGESTER
II.) DA.F SLUDGE THICKENING
BUILDING
12.) STORMWATER STORAGE BASIN
13) SLUDGE STORAGE BASIN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Olmsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
disclosed that with three times the design average flow
(16.62 mgd) receiving complete treatment, the remaining flow
would cause a side-line storage basin of 2.73 gallons capa-
city to be filled. Projecting flows to a one-year storm, via
direct proportioning of rainfall to inflow, a storage basin
of about 8.97 mg would be required. A basin of 5.54 mg capa-
city will be used in the plant analysis.
Add a 6-inch concrete lined stormwater storage basin of 1.54
million gallons in series with the existing 4.0 million gal-
lon lagoon. Both basins shall be aerated by floating, low
speed mechanical surface aerators. The new basin will contain
two 25 Hp units and one 15 Hp unit. The existing basin will
have six 25 Hp units, and one 15 Hp unit. The existing basin
will have six 25 Hp units, plus the two existing 5 Hp units.
Both basins shall contain a manual wash system. The exist-
ing basin shall be connected to a pumping station for return-
ing flow to the treatment plant.
Grit Removal
In order to increase the aerated grit removal chamber's capa-
city to 4,616 cu.ft., add a 35 ft. x 10 ft. x 10 ft. SWD
(plus grit storage) aerated chamber in parallel with the
existing chamber.
Modify or replace the existing grit elevator.
Raw Sewage Pumps
Add two 4,600 gpm pumps in parallel with the two existing
3,500 gpm pumps in order to pump 16.62 mgd, with a standby
pump.
Add a telemetered pumping station alarm system.
Primary Settling
Add two primary settling tanks with a minimum total surface
of 11,080 sq. ft. and a minimum weir length of 1.108 lin.
ft. A possible size for the tanks is 50 ft. x 110 ft. x 8.33
ft. SWD, each.
Step Aeration - Aeration Tanks
In order to meet an average design loading of 40 Ibs. 6005
per 1,000 cu.ft. of tank, add a 110 ft. x 31 ft. x 15 ft.
SWD aeration tank in parallel with the two existing tanks.
Aeration equipment for the system is addressed under
"Diffused Aeration Equipment."
Step Aeration - Secondary Settling Tanks
In order to provide a minimum total surface area of 13, 850
sq.ft./ add three rectangular secondary settling tanks, each
possibly 95 ft. x 36 ft. x 8 ft. SWD.
Add one 1,800 gpm return sludge pump, as a standby to the two
existing 1,800 gpm pumps.
B-22
-------
Add one variable speed piston pump with the same capabilities
as the two existing pumps.
Phosphorus Removal
Add and expand equipment in conjunction with the disconnected
polymer mixing equipment to render the system functional.
Add lime storage and feed facilities for pH control. It may
be economical to modify the vacuum filter's lime application
facilities to meet this need.
Nitrification Facilities
The estimated component installed construction costs for
alternative systems were as follows.
a) Suspended Growth System - $2,550,000;
b) Rotating Biological Contactor System - $3,700,000 (no
clarifiers); and
c) Plastic Media Trickling Filter System - $2,085,000 (no
clarifiers).
The plastic media trickling filter system also had the lowest
annual O&M cost.
Add two 84 ft. diameter x 22 ft. high plastic media trickling
filters complete with recirculation facilities and dosing
pumps.
Tertiary Filtration
Add a gravity tertiary sand filter with six beds, 21.25 ft. x
21.25 ft. each, complete with backwash storage tank, backwash
surge control tank and associated pumps.
Disinfection
Convert existing small chlorinator back to a 1,000 Ib/day
unit.
Add a chlorine contact chamber of 120,600 gallon capacity in
parallel with the existing 52,500 gallon chamber. Possible
dimensions for the baffled tank are 53 ft. x 28 ft. x 11 ft.
Dechlorination
Add sulfur dioxide storage and feed facilities for average
and peak feeding rates of 102 and 306 Ib/day, respectively.
Add a 11,600 gallon capacity sulfur dioxide mixing and con-
tact tank.
Post Aeration
Add a 76,900 gallon capacity post aeration tank, complete
with diffused aeration facilities. Possible dimensions for
the tank are 43 ft. x 20 ft. x 12 ft.
DAF Thickening
Add a dissolved air flotation thickener, with a flotation
chamber minimum surface area of 291 sq. ft. and a minimum
B-23
-------
depth of 4.1 feet, complete with recycle facilities and
pressure tanks.
Add piping to bring air and polymer to the unit.
Aerobic Digestion
Add one 110 ft. x 30 ft. x 15 ft. SWD aerobic digestion tank
complete with decanting facilities to supplement the existing
tank of the same dimensions. The two tanks will provide a SRT
of 19.6 days.
Digested Sludge Dewatering and Disposal
An economic comparison of hauling the digested sludge at 6%
solids vs. 20% solids was performed.
With liquid sludge hauling, the sludge would be thickened to
6% solids with the existing DAF thickener and a duplicate
unit at a surface loading rate of 2.3 Ibs/sq.ft./hr. Polymer
would be added at a rate of five pounds per ton of dry
solids.
Based on a hauling cost of $0.045/gal. the present worth is
as follows:
Component Installed Construction Cost - $229,500
Total Capital Cost @ 158% - 362,610
O&M - $ 55,966/yr.
Hauling - $345,730/yr.
Total O&M @ 10.0983 4,049,418
Present Worth $4,412,028
In order to obtain 20% solids, the existing and proposed DAF
thickeners would precede the existing vacuum filter (113 sq.
ft. filter surface area), and two new similar units. Chemical
preconditioning would be with ferric chloride and lime.
Based on a hauling cost of $16.50 per ton the present worth
is as follows:
Component Installed Construction Cost - $ 688,500
Total Capital Cost @ 158% 1,087,830
O&M - $179,186/yr.
Hauling - $166,515/yr.
Total O&M @ 10.0983 3,491,000
Present Worth $4,578,830
Based on the present worth analysis sludge will be hauled at
6% solids content.
Sludge Storage
Add a 1.47 million gallon sludge storage lagoon complete with
pumping and aeration facilities to add 70.4 days storage to
the sludge storage capacity in the aerobic digesters.
Diffused Aeration Equipment
Air for the grit removal unit, the activated sludge process,
backwashing the tertiary filters, the post aeration tank, and
B-24
-------
the aerobic digesters will be provided from a central blower
building.
In order to provide a total air requirement of 20,394 cfm
plus standby capacity, four 3700 cfm and one 2,340 cfm blow-
ers will be added to supplement the existing three 2,340 cfm
units.
Standby Power
Standby power will be provided to run the comminutors; three
raw sewage pumps; the chlorination and dechlorination equip-
ment; the nitrification tower pump station; one filter back-
wash pump; and blowers capable of aerating the grit removal
chamber, the aeration tanks, and the post aeration chamber.
Add engine driven generating equipment rated at 650 kw to
supplement the existing unit.
e. Strongsville .Sewer District "A" WWTP
The Strongsville "A" WWTP improvement program to attain the
desired water quality standards will include the following.
Figures IV-8 in Chapter IV and B-9 depict a flow diagram of the
unit processes and a flow layout of the structures.
Preliminary Treatment
Add additional comminutors or replace existing units with two
comminutors capable of treatment 18 MGD.
Add a lift for moving screenings from the bar screen chamber
to ground level.
Add raw sewage flow meters (probably to the force mains).
Stormwater Storage Basin and Overflow Treatment
A hydrograph of the flows reaching the plant during and
immediately after the rainfall of March 31, 1982, minus 40%
of the inflow, superimposed on peak nonrainfall conditions,
disclosed that with three times the design average flow (18
MGD) receiving complete treatment the remaining flow would
cause a side-line storage basin of 6 million gallons capacity
to fill and overflow at a maximum rate of 22 MGD. Although
the volume of rainfall only was 55% of a one-year storm, the
resulting flows were considered representative and were used
in the plant analysis.
Add a 6-inch concrete lined stormwater storage basin of 6
million gallons capacity. The basin will be aerated by five
50 Hp floating surface aerators. The basins will contain a
manual wash system and a pumping station for returning flow
to the treatment plant.
Overflow from the storage basin will be treated by six 6-foot
diameter x 6-foot wide rotating drum screens, and chlorina-
tion in a 230,000 gallon capacity contact tank.
B-25
-------
STRONGSVILLE "A" WWTP PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I.) RAW SEWAGE BASIN
2.) ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
3.) DISTRIBUTION BASIN
4.) AERATION TANKS
3.) FINAL CLARIFIERS
a) NEW CHUDRINE CONTACT TANK
7) CHLORINATOR BUILDING
a) STORAGE BUILDING
9) RETURN SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
10) SLUDGE BASIN
II.) SLUDGE THICKENING TANK
12.) FILTER PRESS BUILDING
13.) SLUDGE WELL
14.) EXISTING CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
15.) CHEMICAL STORAGE TANK
16.) AERATED SLUDGE STORAGE TANKS
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I ) STORMWATER STORAGE BASIN
2) STORMWATER SCREENING AND
CHLORINATION
3.) AERATED GRIT CHAMBERS
4.) PRIMARY SETTLING TANKS
5) SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
6.) NITRIFICATION TOWERS
7) TERTIARY FILTER BUILDING
8) CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
9) DECHLORINATION TANK
10.) POST AERATION TANK
II.) AEROBIC DIGESTERS
12.) FILTER PRESS BUILDING ADDITION
13) SLUDGE STORAGE LAGOON
14) FERRIC CHLORIDE STORAGE TANK
Figure B-9
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Source: Local Wastewater Management Alternatives for Oimsted Falls, Olmsted Township, Columbia Township
-------
Raw Sewage Pump Station
Add three 2,500 gpm pumps and associated piping in parallel
with the three existing 2,500 gpm pumps.
Add a new pump control system complete with telemetered alarm
system.
Add a stairway to the dry well with rest landings at vertical
intervals not to exceed 12 feet.
Grit Removal
Add two 26 ft. x 8 ft. x 12 ft. side wall depth aerated grit
removal chambers in parallel with a common divider wall
Primary Settling
Add two 50 ft. x 120 ft. x 8.33 ft. side wall depth primary
settling tanks
Contact Stabilization - Aeration Tanks
Convert existing aerated sludge storage tanks to aerated
return sludge stabilization tanks
Modify piping for one existing aeration tank to be a contact
tank and the other aeration tank to be a return sludge
stabilization tank in conjunction with the converted sludge
storage tanks
Diffused Aeration Equipment - Aeration Equipment
A central blower will provide air for the following; grit
removal chamber; contact-stabilization aeration tanks; ter-
tiary filter's air scour backwash system; post-aeration tank;
DAF thickener and the aerobic digester.
The four existing blowers will be supplemented by five 5,000
cfm blowers to provide a maximum air requirement of 24,528
cfm plus standby capacity
Contact Stabilization - Secondary Settling Tanks
Add two 70 ft. diameter x 8 ft. SWD secondary settling tanks
in parallel with the existing units
Modify weirs on existing tanks so that they will not become
submerged at peak flows
Add one additional 600 gpm variable speed waste sludge pump
Add three 1,800 gpm return sludge pumps
Phosphorus Removal
Add a 4,000 gallon ferric chloride storage tank as a supple-
ment to existing storage.
Add lime storage and feed facilities for pH control.
B-27
-------
It is assumed the polymer storage, feeding and mixing equip-
ment in the dewatering building will be used for meeting the
phosphorus removal and DAF thickening polymer equipment
needs.
Nitrification Facilities
The estimated component installed construction costs for
alternative systems were as follows:
Suspended Growth System - $2,635,000
Rotating Biological Contactor System - $3,570,000 (no
clarifiers); and
Plastic Media Trickling Filter System - $2,010,000 (no
clarifiers).
Plastic Media Trickling Filter System also had the lowest
annual O&M cost.
Add two 814 ft. diameter x 22 ft. high plastic media trick-
ling filters with recirculation capabilities and dosing
pumps.
Tertiary Filtration
Add a gravity tertiary filter with six beds, 22 ft, x 22 ft.
each, complete with backwash storage tank, backwash surge
control tank, and associated pumps.
Disinfection
Add one 500 Ib/day chlorinator for normal use and a 2,000
Ib/day chlorinator for stormwater treatment to supplement the
now existing 400 Ib/day units.
Add a chlorine contact tank of 123,200 gallons capacity to
use in series with the existing largest chlorine contact
chamber.
Dechlorination
Add sulfur dioxide storage and feed facilities for average
and peak feeding rates of 110 and 330 Ib/day, respectively.
Increase capacity of small existing chlorine contact tank to
12,500 gallons by increasing the tank's depth and convert to
a dechlorination mixing and contact tank.
Post Aeration
Add a 46.25 ft. x 20 ft. x 12 ft. SWD post aeration tank,
complete with diffused aeration facilities.
Sludge Thickening
Add one dissolved air flotation thickener with a flotation
chamber minimum surface area of 355 sq. ft. and a minimum
depth of 4 ft., complete with recycle facilities and pressure
tanks.
Add piping to bring air from the blower building and polymer
from the sludge dewatering building to the unit.
B-28
-------
Aerobic Digestion
Add two 50 ft. x 102.5 ft. x 12 ft. SWD aerobic digestion
tanks complete with decanting facilities.
Digested Sludge Thickening
Retain the existing gravity sludge thickening tank.
Sludge Dewatering
Add an additional belt filter press capable of handling
13,500 Ib. dry solids per day.
Sludge Storage
Add a 1.71 million gallon sludge lagoon complete with pumping
and aeration facilities to supplement the storage provided by
the aerobic digesters.
Standby Power
Standby power will be provided to run the comminutors; five
raw sewage pumps; the chlorinators; the chlorine dioxide
equipment; the nitrification tower pump station; one filter
backwash pump; and blowers capable of aerating the grit
removal chamber, the contact stabilization tanks and the
post-aeration chamber.
Add engine driven generating equipment rated at 1125 Kw.
Table IV-10 lists the estimated construction costs for the addi-
tions and improvements identified in this section. Table IV-11
itemizes the estimated annual operation and maintenance costs for
the improved and expanded plant's unit processes. . Table IV-12
contains the present worth calculations for this plant equipment
alternative.
E. Land Application
In addition to the treatment processes mentioned above, stringent
effluent limitations can be achieved with extensions to land
application processes. Partially treated effluent is deposited
on the land which then acts as an extension of the treatment
process. This process dates back 400 years and is considered the
oldest urban method used for treatment and disposal of wastes.
Generally land application is feasible in instances where where
extremely stringent effluent limitation standards are imposed or
where water shortages for crop irrigation occur.
There are three basic methods of land application; irrigation,
infiltration-percolation, and overland flow. Each method can
produce water of high quality, can be adapted to different site
conditions, and can satisfy different overall objectives.
1. Irrigation
In irrigation, wastewater is applied to the land by sprinkling or
by surface spreading. Sprinkling systems may be either fixed or
moving. Fixed sprinkling systems may be either on the surface or
B-29
-------
buried. Both types usually consist of impact sprinklers on
risers that are spaced along lateral pipelines which in turn are
connected to main pipelines. Flooding is one of the main types of
surface application systems. A second type is ridge-and-furrow.
Ridge-and-furrow irrigation is accomplished by gravity flow of
effluent through furrows which allows the effluent to percolate
through the ground.
2. Infiltration-Percolation
This technique involves placing secondary treated wastewater in
spreading basins. Wastewater percolates through the soil thereby
recharging the groundwater. The distinction between treatment
and disposal for this process is quite fine. Wastewater applied
to the land for the purpose of disposal is also undergoing treat-
ment by infiltration and percolation. Infiltration-percolation
serves primarily to recharge groundwater and does not attempt to
recycle the nutrients through crops.
3. Overland Flow
In an overland flow system, the wastewater is sprayed over the
upper edges of sloping terraces and flows slowly down hill
through vegetation. Although the soil is not the primary filter,
treatment efficiencies can be high in well-run systems. As the
effluent flows through the vegetation, the suspended solids are
filtered out and the organic matter is oxidized by the bacteria
living in the vegetative litter. Overland flow treatment is
generally associated with treating high-strength wastewater such
as that from canneries.
A report of the potential land application of secondary waste-
water effluent was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
in conjunction with USEPA for the entire Three Rivers Watershed.
A draft of this report was published in May of 1973.
F. Sludge Management Alternatives
In the process of purifying wastewater, solids are separated from
liquid. These solids, when extracted from wastewater, create
sludge.
Sludge also consists of materials generated in wastewater treat-
ment. These may include polymers and other chemicals added to
the treatment processes.
The basic processes of sludge treatment are:
Conditioning - treatment of the sludge with chemicals or
heat so that the water can be removed
Thickening - separation of as much water as possible by
gravity or flotation process
Dewatering - further separation of water by subjecting the
sludge to vacuum pressure, or drying processes
Stabilization - stabilization of the organic solids so that
they may be handled or used as soil conditioners without
B-30
-------
causing a nuisance or health hazard through processes
referred to as "digestion"
Reduction - reduction of the solids to a stable form by wet
oxidation processes or incineration
Sludge treatment extends to its disposal either on land or incin-
eration. Both land application of sludge and land infill or
buried sludge requires transportion, available land and adherence
to groundwater regulations . Incineration requires additional
technology and adherence to air pollution regulations. But dis-
posal of sludge is greatly controlled by its volume.
The higher the degree of wastewater treatment, the larger the
residue of sludge. Thus, AWT process generally produces a larger
amount of sludge than secondary processes. In primary treatment,
2,500-3,500 gallons of sludge may be generated per million gal-
lons of wastewater treated. When treatment is upgraded to acti-
vated sludge, the quantities increase by 15,000 - 20,000 gallons
per million gallons of wastewater treated. Use of chemicals for
phosphorus removal can add another 10,000 gallons. Sludge treat-
ment processes are generally concerned with separating large
amounts of water from solid residues.
Satisfactory treatment and disposal of the sludge can be the
single most complex and costly operation in a wastewater treat-
ment system. Biological advanced waste treatment increases the
sludge volume for disposal. The volume of sludge to be disposed
of can become a major task. But whatever the final solution,
sludge disposal is a major item in the capital operation and
maintenance costs in the expansion of existing facilities or in
the planning of new treatment facilities.
G . Sludge Disposal
Three alternatives were evaluated for the handling and disposal
of the sludge generated at the central wastewater treatment
facilities. For the purpose of evaluation, alternatives deal with
sludges conditioned by either anaerobic or aerobic digestion. In
both digestion processes a volatile suspended solids (VSS) reduc-
tion of forty percent (40%) was utilized. The sludge handling
and disposal alternatives presented below are (1) land applica-
tion of liquid digested sludge, (2) land application of digested
sludge dewatered by sludge drying beds, and (3) land application
of digested sludge by a filter press. A description of each
alternative is presented below:
1. Land Application of Liquid Sludge
Stabilized sludge would be directly applied to land via a tank
truck following two stage anaerobic digestion. Application would
be by surface spreading or sub-surface injection. Sludge pumps
would be needed to transfer the digested sludge to the spreader
truck. A concrete pad would be constructed at the loading site
to reduce problems created by any overflow or spillage.
B-31
-------
The volume of stabilized sludge to be disposed of following
digestion was calculated to be 4,800 gallons per day at five
percent (5%) solids.
B-32
-------
APPENDIX C
INDEX
-------
APPENDIX C INDEX
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Page
Draft EIS Distribution 1-14
EIS Issues
"Interbasin Transfer 1-10
"Parkland Impacts 1-11
"Population, Sizing & Cost-Effectiveness 1-11
"Secondary Impacts 1-11
Planning Area 1-1
Project History 1-7
Public Participation
°EIS Hearing/Comment Period 1-14
"Facilities Planning 1-12
"Future EIS Events 1-14
"Public Advisory Group (PAG) 1-13
CHAPTER II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Abram Creek, Water Uses 11-35
Big Creek, Water Uses 11-39
Biology
"Aquatic 11-44
"Endangered Species 11-48
"Terrestrial 11-41
Climate II-l
Cultural Resources 11-48
Cuyahoga River Basin
"Water Quality 11-35
°Water Quantity 11-23
"Water Uses 11-39
Economic Conditions 11-52
Economic Projections 11-56
Floodplains 11-27
Geology II-l
Groundwater 11-20
Hinckley Lake & Hinckley Reservation, Water Uses 11-39
Land Use
"Agricultural 11-15
"Planning 11-15
"Recreational & Institutional 11-13
"Residential, Commercial & Industrial II-7
"Transportation 11-15
Population Projections 11-50
Potable Water 11-59
Rocky River Basin
"Water Quality 11-27
"Water Quantity 11-23
"Water Uses, East Branch/West Branch 11-35
C-l
-------
Soils
"Caneada II-6
"Chili II-6
"Ellsworth II-6
"Lobdell II-7
"Mahoning II-4
Topography II-l
Wetlands 11-44
CHAPTER III EXISTING CONDITIONS
East Leg & Option Areas 111-29
Individual (On-Site) Sewage Disposal Systems 111-28
Main Leg III-l
Performance Analysis - EIS
"Berea WWTP 111-23
"Brook Park WWTP 111-22
"Middleburg Heights WWTP 111-23
"Strongsville "A" WWTP 111-24
Performance Analysis - Facilities Plan 111-19
Sewer System Evaluation
"Infiltration/Inflow 111-29
"Sewer System Evaluation Survey 111-33
Small Treatment Plants
"Brentwood Subdivision 111-25
"Brookside Subdivision 111-28
"Columbia Trailer Park 111-24
"Falls Subdivision 111-27
"Western Ohio Public Utilities 111-25
"Westview Park 111-27
"Versailles 111-27
Southerly Treatment Plant III-l
Water Quality Impacts 111-33
West Leg
"Berea WWTP 111-14
"Brookpark WWTP III-11
"Middleburg Heights WWTP III-ll
"Strongsville "A" WWTP 111-14
CHAPTER IV ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Selection, Olmsted Falls IV-5,13
Collection & Treatment Alternatives, Olmsted
Falls-Olmsted Township IV-5
Multi-Plant Alternative
"Berea WWTP IV-15
"Brook Park WWTP IV-18
"Middleburg Heights WWTP IV-18
"Strongsville "A" WWTP IV-18
No Action Alternative IV-1
C-2
-------
Present Worth Costs IV-18
Process Alternatives
°Flow Reduction IV-1
"Individual (On-Site) Treatment IV-2
"Secondary Treatment IV-3
"Advanced Treatment IV-3
Southwest Interceptor IV-29
Treatment Plant Alternatives
"Olmsted Falls-Olmsted Township IV-4
"Cleveland Southerly WWTP IV-5
Two-Plant Alternative IV-18
CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Cuyahoga River Crossing V-4
Economic Impacts V-14
Endangered Species Impacts V-44
Impacts, Other
"Construction V-42
"Cultural Resources V-42
"Energy V-42
"Groundwater V-43
"Land Use V-43
"Parklands V-40
"Secondary V-39
"Stream Use V-33
"Stream Flow V-37
"Wetlands V-44
Infiltration/Inflow V-l
Interbasin Transfer V-14
Multi-Plant Alternative V-6
Southwest Interceptor
"East Leg V-2
"Main Leg V-2
User Charges V-9
Water Quality V-29
Water Quantity V-20
CHAPTER VI IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
Costs & Percent of Median Family Income VI-1
Impacts
"Construction VI-6
"Cuyahoga River VI-6
"Interbasin Transfer VI-4
"Parklands VI-6
"Secondary VI-6
"Water Quality VI-4
Mitigating Measures
"Erosion VI-8
"Hydraulic VI-8
"Soils VI-8
Recommended Alternative VI-1
C—3 * U-S- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983—754—458
-------
United States Region V
Environmental Protection 5WFI-12
Agency 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
------- |