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

-------