Alaska
United States Region 10 Idaho
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue Oregon
Agency Seattle WA 98101 Washington
Office of Water February 2001
vvEPA
Categorical Exclusion
Handbook:
A Source Book on Preparing Categorical
Exclusion Application Materials for EPA
Special
1 **maor ¦' » . j*mr jkt~ " ¦»
-------
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Handbook:
A Source Book on Preparing
Categorical Exclusion Application Materials
for EPA Special Appropriation Act
Grant Projects
Prepared By:
John Matthew Harrington
NEPA Compliance Coordinator
Office of Water
For:
U.S. EPA Region 10
-------
Table of Contents
Categorical Exclusion (CE) Introduction
Section 1. Office of General Counsel EPA Memorandum
Addressing the Applicability of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) to EPA Special Appropriation Act Project
Section 2. Office of Federal Activities Memorandum on NEPA
Guidance for Special Appropriation Act Wastewater
Treatment Projects
Section 3. Categorical Exclusion Background Information and Criteria
Section 4. Categorical Exclusion Application
Section 5. Specific Questions of the CE Application that Require
Coordination and Consultation with Other State and Federal
Agencies
Section 6. Example Coordination Documentation From Other State and
Federal Agencies
Section 7. Example of a Categorical Exclusion Application
Section 8. Example of an EPA Categorical Exclusion Determination
Letter and Public Notice of CE for Grantee's Publication
in Local Newspaper
Section 9, Example Public Notice Affidavit of Publication in Local
Newspaper from Grantee
Section 10. Step by Step Process Grantees, EPA PO, and EPA NEPA
Compliance Coordinators Should Follow to Prepare a CE
Request Application
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Categorical Exclusion Handbook is intended for use by the EPA Project Officers in
ensuring that the Special Act Appropriation grant projects are in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Handbook delineates how minor rehabilitation and
improvement projects may be eligible for exclusion from detailed environmental reviews under
NEPA (i.e., Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement).
The Handbook discusses the following topics:
• categorical exclusion background information and criteria;
• categorical exclusion application;
• coordination and consultation requirements with other State and Federal Agencies;
• how the EPA Project Officers are to work with grantees to ensure that categorical
exclusion application requests are appropriate for the particular proposed action to be
funded and to ensure that the categorical exclusion request applications are adequately
prepared and documented.
• the responsibilities of the EPA Project Officer and the EPA NEPA Compliance Officer
-------
Section 1
Office of General Counsel for EPA Memorandum
Addressing the Applicability of NEPA to EPA
Special Appropriation Act Projects
-------
(H O< 9 5
L 4 : .19
©202 260 18 27
EPA <>W (HVKC
@002/004
sj <* fv H
-------
** Privileged and Confidential •*
Analvaig of NEPA applicability to special grant* authorised fry wv
1995 Appropriations Act
The following are some general guidelines re: the
application of NEPA to the special grants authorized by the FY
1995 Appropriations Act.
o For many water-related actions, EPA is exempt from NEPA
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) 5 511(e). Thus, NEPA does
not apply to demonstration projects funded under S 104(b)(3)
of CWA (three projects on the special grafts chart are
denoted as demonstration) . However, VEPA does apply to
projects funded uader the authority of the Appropriations
Aet. In addition, other cross-cutting Federal statutes,
such as the ESA, also apply to these projects.
o Where state NEPA-like processes have already occurred, ZPA
may be able to make use of the work done by the states to
limit the amount of work EPA must do in its own analysis.
NEPA regulations require agencies to "cooperate with State
and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce
duplication between NEPA and State and local requirements
. . 40 C.F.R. S "1506.2. In cases where states have
performed environmental reviews under NEP,.-iifce statutes or
pursuant to the SW regulations, EPA officials can
incorporate the state analysis into the Federal NEPA
-------
** Privileged and Confidential **
appropriate. The EPA document, on its own, must be
sufficient to "fully inform decisionmakers and the public of
the environmental effects of the proposal and those of the
reasonable alternatives." CEQ 40 Qs # 21. EPA Bust than
allow for a minimum comment period of 45 days. EPA nay then
issue a Final EZS. According to the CEQ regulations, EPA
must wait 45 additional days before issuing a ROD. 40
C.F.R. § 1506.10(b) (a total of 90 days). Again, EPA must
independently evaluate the state work and will be
responsible for the accuracy of the documentation and
adequacy of the process.
Where construction of projects is completed or nearly
completed, EPA will not have to do NEPA analyses. Such
analyses would be wasteful. In addition, if EPA were
challenged under NEPA, it is likely that such a legal action
would be found moot.
Where construction has started, and the project is not
nearly completed, EPA will have to do a NEPA analysis.
Until a NEPA analysis has been performed, EPA cannot take an
"action concerning the proposal . . . which would: 1) have
an adverse environmental impact; or 2) limit the choice of
reasonable alternatives." 40 C.F.R. S 1506.1(a). several
factors may ameliorate this situation. First, if the
project is well under way, other alternatives may become
less reasonable. Reasonable alternatives include those that
are "practicable or feasible from the technical and economic
standpoint and using common sense. ..." CEQ 40 Qs #2(a).
Courts will use a rule of reason in evaluating our
alternatives analysis, second, OFA, upon compelling reasons
of national policy may reduce the prescribed time periods
for review. 40 C.F.R. § 6.401(d).
In cases where projects to be funded have been ongoing for
several years, EPA already may have, done Federal NEPA work
regarding all or a portion of the project to be funded. In
such cases, EPA must comply .with the supplementation
requirement contained in the CEQ regulations and EPA's Part
6 regulations. Sfifl <0 C.F.R. 5 1502.9(c); 40 C.F.R.
S 6.404. The CEQ regulations require agencies to prepare
supplements to draft or final EISs if: "1) the agency makes
substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant
to environmental concerns, or 2) there are significant new
circumstances or information relevant to environaental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts."
40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c).
The regulations applicable to the special project grants at
issue are the CEQ regulations (40 C.F.R. Pts. 15,00-1508) and
EPA's general NEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. Pt. 6, Subpts. A-
D) . While they do not apply to the special project grants
at issue, EPA's regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 6, Subpart E
may be looked to for guidance.
-------
Section 2
Office of Federal Activities Memorandum on NEPA
Guidance for Special Appropriation Act Wastewater
Treatment Projects
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 20 1295
OFFICE Of
ENFORCEMENT ANO
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO: NEPA Coordinators
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on the
requirements for compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) for special projects authorized for EPA grant
funding by the FY95 Appropriations Act (Act) . The Act
appropriated "no-year" money to fund special wastewater treatment
rojects identified by Congress. Each region has projects on
nis list. The list is included in the attached copy of the
guidance memorandum prepared by the Office of Water Management
(OWM).
The OWM memorandum indicates that NEPA applies to all of
these projects except the three to be funded as Clean Water Act
(CWA) section 104(b)(3) demonstration projects. These three are
exempted from NEPA under the CWA section 511(c). The Office of
General Counsel (OGC) has prepared an "Analysis of NEPA
applicability to special grants authorized by FY 1995
Appropriations Act." This analysis is also attached.
OFA Guidance to Regional NEPA Coordinators
An independent EPA NEPA analysis for the non-demonstration
projects is required. In addition, other cross-cutting federal
statutes, such as the Endangered Species Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act, also apply to these projects. The
Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA regulations do not
allow EPA to adopt a state analysis. However, the NEPA
regulations do require agencies to "cooperate with State and
local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce
s:*rt
A>
PBOft0
NEPA Guidance for Special Wastewater Treatment Projects
in the FY95 Appropriation Bill..
/ 1 /
Richard E. Sanderson ^
Director ' '
Office of Federal Activities (2252)
Rtcycltd'ftecydab)*
Pnit»o w«a Sof.-Cjno < r* an
eofnant m Mast 75% iocyc«e
-------
duplication between NEPA and State and local requirements ...»
(40 CFR 1506.2). There are several ways the regions can use the
existing information and assessments for these projects as
summarized below and as discussed in greater detail m the
attached OGC analysis. In all cases, EPA must independently
evaluate the state documentation and review process and is
responsible for the accuracy of the NEPA documentation and the
adequacy of the process (40 CFR 1506.5).
• Where states have performed environmental reviews under
NEPA—like statutes or pursuant to State Revolving Fund
regulations, EPA can incorporate, but not simply adopt, the
state analysis into the Agency's NEPA analysis.
• Where state reviews have found no significant impacts and
EPA approves of that finding and the state process, EPA may
issue an environmental assessment (EA) summarizing and
referencing the state analysis and an accompanying Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
• Where state reviews have found significant impacts or EPA
independently determines that there are significant impacts,
EPA must issue a notice of intent and proceed with an
environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision
(ROD) in accordance with the Agency's regulations at 40 CFR
Part 6.
• Where construction of projects is complete or nearly
completed, a NEPA analysis will not have to be done.
• Where construction has started and the project is not
nearly completed, a NEPA analysis is required and a
notification of intent to pursue an independent analysis
must be sent to the grantee.
• Where projects to be funded have been ongoing for several
years, additional assessment may not be required if prior
federal NEPA documentation has addressed the portions of the
project to be funded by the FY95 grant. The region will
need to assure that since the previous assessment: 1) there
are no substantial changes in the proposed action relevant
to environmental concerns, or 2) there are no significant
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
If the NEPA analysis was carried out under an earlier
construction grant action and is no longer adequate or the
nroiect has not previously been assessed by EPA, it will be
necessary to issue either an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD. The
reflations applicable to these special project grants are the
ceo regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). and EPA's NEPA
regulations (40 CFR Part 6, Subparts A-D). EPA's regulations at
4 0 CFR Part 6, Subpart E, while they do not apply to these
special project grants, may provide additional guidance.
-------
We anticipate that additional issues or sub-issues may arise
which are not fully treated in this general guidance memorandum.
These should be brought to our attention as soon as possible. In
addition, we have scheduled a teleconference on Tuesday, January
24, 1995 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon eastern standard time to
discuss this guidance and additional issues or concerns with the
process. The call in number is (202) 260-4257. We look forward
to your participation. Please inform John Gerba (202/260-5910)
if you or your staff will not be on the call.
Attachments
cc: Jim Havard, OGC
Ed Gross, OWM
-------
Section 3
Categorical Exclusion Background Information and
Criteria
-------
January '7, 19 8 3
Categorical Exclusions from EPA Procedures Implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act
Background
1
Since its inception, the Environmental Protection Agency's
procedures implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) have included a thorough environmental review of all
publicly owned projects in which Federal funds will be used for
construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Experience has
shown that many projects have not required an environmental impact
statement (EIS) to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act (40 CFR, Part 6). These have been projects that were routine
or small scale actions that have not had a significant effect upon
the human environment. The Environmental Protection Agency,
therefore, wishes to reduce the regulatory requirements burden
upon municipalities receiving Environmental Protection Agency
grant monies for minor construction activities. An Interim-Final
Rule providing for categorical exclusions was published in the
Federal Register on March 8, 1982, to be effectively immediately.
Revisions to the Interim-Final Rules also were published in the
Federal Register on January 7, 1983. While the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, intends to maintain the integrity of
its environmental review responsibilities, it also intends to
provide assistance through the following guidance to grantees who
may be eligible for a categorical exclusion.
Definition
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines categorical
exclusion as "a category of actions which does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment
and which has been found to have no such effect in procedures
adopted by a Federal agency...and for which, therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.'"
Policy
In amending its regulations to include categorical exclusions, the
Environmental Protection Agency has determined that small scale,
minor or routine actions, such as (1) minor rehabilitations, (2)
minor expansions or replacement, and (3) minor upgrading of
wastewater treatment facilities that do not increase the overall
treatment capacity, (4) minor interceptor or¦collection sewer
projects, would meet the requirements for a categorical exclusion.
(See Criteria for Actions Eligible for Exclusion). To meet the
following criteria, proposed projects cannot result in new
development beyond incidental infilling of built-up areas. Some
new development unrelated to the wastewater treatment project may
occur, and such incidental development should not disqualify the
proposed action for exclusion. New community development actions,
-------
however, will not receive categorical exclusions, and
Environmental Protection Agency regulations will continue to
require that such projects be subject to comprehensive
environmental reviews.
2
Categorical exclusions are the responsibility of the Environmental
Protection Agency, which shall approve, finalize and issue a
letter of determination of categorical exclusion, signed by the
Environmental Protection Agency's Water Division Director. A
categorical exclusion may be revoked by the Water Division
Director when (1) the proposed action no longer qualifies for
exclusion due to changes in the project; (2) significant local or
environmental issues are identified; or (3) violation of local,
state or Federal laws is likely to occur. In the event of revoca-
tion, a full environmental review of the proposed action must be
completed as soon as practicable prior to Step 3 funding.
Criteria for Actions Eligible for Exclusion
1
Proposed actions or projects which would qualify for Federal
funding and which fit the following categories are eligible for
consideration for exclusion:
(1) Minor rehabilitation of existing facilities; replacement of
equipment; construction of new ancillary facilities which do
not affect the degree of treatment or capacity of the existing
facility; sewer system rehabilitation; replacement of existing
mechanical equipment or structures; a-nd the construction of
new, small, on-site structures.
(2)
Actions in sewered communities of less than 10,000 persons for
minor upgrading or expansion of existing treatment facilities, not
including extension of new collection systems funded with Federal
or other sources of funds.
(3) Actions where facilities would provide capacity to serve a
population increase of less than 30- over a 20-year period.
(4) Other categories of exclusion may be proposed. However, no
categorical exclusions can be granted for any project-which
would:
(a) result in new discharges to surface or ground waters or large
increases in volume of discharges or loadings of pollutants to
any receiving waters;
(b) have potentially significant environmental impacts;
(c) directly or indirectly affect areas such as floodplains,
wetlands, prime or unique agricultural lands, aquifer recharge
-------
zones, archaeological and historic sites, endangered or
threatened species;
(d) are known or expected not to be cost effective;
(e) cause significant public controversy; or
3
Procedures for Categorical Exclusion Determination
Although a categorical exclusion determination may be made at any
time prior to award of Step 3 funding, the Environmental
Protection Agency recommends early action by the grantee who is
eligible for a categorical exclusion. During the early stages of
facilities planning, the grantee should evaluate the project for
potential exclusion eligibility and prepare a letter of
application for exclusion. Existing information, or information
generated during the facilities planning process, should be used
to support the application. If pertinent supporting information is
not available or is not generated during the facilities planning,
however, no exclusion can be considered.
The grantee's request for categorical exclusion should be made to
the Environmental Protection Agency, or if facilities planning
review has been delegated to the state, to the state project
manager. The request should include:
1
(1) a letter of application describing likely project alternatives
and identifying environmentally sensitive areas in the
planning area; and
(2) a description of the elements which meet the criteria for
categorical exclusion.
The Environmental Protection Agency's review of the application
for exclusion will be brief and concise, drawing upon existing
information, data provided by state agencies, regional planning
agencies, water quality management agencies, and grantees. Upon
completion of the review, and having the state's recommendation
where review has been delegated, the Region 10 Water Division
Director will determine the project's eligibility for exclusion
from the substantive environmental review requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
If a categorical exclusion is granted, the Step 3 grantee will not
be required to prepare a formal Environmental Information
Document. A copy of the letter of determination of categorical
exclusion should be included, however, within the facilities plan.
The Environmental Protection Agency will document its decision to
issue or deny an exclusion. The documentation will include the
-------
letter of application, a brief description of the proposed action,
and a brief statement of how the action meets the criteria for a
categorical exclusion. This documentation will be made available
to the public and will be filed with the Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Federal Activities.
-------
Section 4
Categorical Exclusion Application
-------
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS
Application letters for Categorical Exclusions (CEs) should
include a map, a very brief project description, and a brief
statement of whether the action meets the criteria for a CE [Sections
6.107(d) and 6.505(b)] without violating the criteria for not
granting a CE [Sections 6.107(e) and 6.505 (c) ] .
The documentation should be able to answer the first questions and
one of the following questions (2, 3, or 4) in the affirmative:
(1) Will the action only involve minor rehabilitation of
existing facilities, functional replacement of equipment, or
construction of new ancillary facilities adjacent or appurtenant to
existing facilities? [6.107(d)(1)]
(2) Is the action consistent with (1) above and will the action
take place in a community of any size but have no effect on the
degree of treatment or capacity of the existing facility?
[6.505(b)(1)] This could include, but is not limited to, infiltration
and inflow corrections, replacement of existing mechanical equipment
or structures, and the construction of small structures on existing
sites. [6.505(b)(1)]
(3) Will the action take place in a sewered community of less
than 10,000 persons and involve no more than minor upgrading and
minor expansion of existing wastewater treatment works? [6.505(b)(2)]
(4) Will the action take place in an unsewered community of less
than 10,000 persons and consist of a proposal for on-site
technologies? [6.505(b)(3)]
(Basically, the difference between the categories in (2) and (3)
is that no upgrade in treatment or expansion in capacity is allowed
for a CE in most communities, but minor upgrade and expansion are
potentially allowed for communities of less than 10,000 persons.)
The documentation should be able to answer all of the following
questions in the negative:
(1) Is the action known or expected to have a significant effect
on the human environment, either individually, cumulatively over
time, or in conjunction with other federal, state, local, tribal, or
private actions? [6.107(e)(1)(i)]
(2) Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly
affect cultural resource areas, such as archaeological or historic
sites listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places? L6.107(e) (1 ) (ii)]
-------
2
(3) Will the action cause irreparable loss or destruction of
significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archaeologic data,
as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)?
[6.107(e)(1)(ii)]
(4) is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly
affect endangered or threatened species and their critical habitats
as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service, or state fish and wildlife agencies?
[6.107(e)(1)(ii)]
(5) Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly
affect environmentally important natural resource areas such as
floodplains, wetlands, important farmlands, or aquifer recharge
zones? [6.107(e) (1) (ii> J
Examples would be floodplains identified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers; wetlands identified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; farmlands classified as prime, unique, or of state
or local importance by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service; and
aquifer recharge areas identified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or state environmental or water resources agencies.
(6) Is the action known or expected not to be cost-effective?
[6.107 (e) (1) (iii) ]
(7) Will the action cause significant public controversy?
[6.107 (e) (1) (iii)]
(~) Will the action create a new discharge to surface or ground
waters L6.505 (c) (1) (i)]?
(9) Will the action relocate an existing discharge to surface or
groundwaters? [6.505(c)(1)(i)]
(10) Will the action result in substantial increases in the
volume of discharge (from an existing source or new facilities) to
receiving waters? [~.505(c)(1)(ii),
(11) Will the action result in substantial increases in the
loading of pollutants (from an existing source or new facilities) to
receiving waters? [ 6 . 505(c) (1) (ii)]
(12) Will the facilities provide capacity to serve a population
30% greater than the existing population? [6.505(c)(1)(iii)]
Revised march 1989
-------
Section 5
Specific Questions of the CE Application
that Require Coordination and
Consultation with Other State and
FederalAgencies
-------
Coordination with other State or Federal Agencies and Documentation for
Categorical Exclusion Applications
As part of the CE application request process, the grantee will need to contact several
different state and/or federal agencies to be able to provide adequate responses to the questions
denoted in the CE application. Please refer to the CE application when reading this section of the
guidebook.
Below are a list of the questions that EPA requires the grantee to provide adeqaute
documentation on from other state and/or federal agencies. A list of possible sources for the
information are denoted with the question to assist the grantee when preparing the CE
application. All correspondence with other state/federal agecnies should be attached with to the
CE application.
Questions requiring the erantee to contact and provide documentation of coordination:
Will the action take place in a sewered community of less than 10,000 persons and involve
no more than minor upgrading and minor expansion of exisitng wastewater treatment
works?
The grantee should contact any local,city, county, or state community officies for information on
population size of the City and provide documentation with the CE on how the information was
obtained or who was contacted and when. If the size of the community is larger than 10,000,
then EPA CE crtieria preclude the grantee from receving a CE. Grantees with community
populations larger than 10,000 will he subject to a a full environmental review of the project and
will have to prepare a draft Environmental Assessment for EPA.
Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly affect cultural resource areas, such
as archaeological or historic sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places?
The grantee will need to contact the State Department of History and Archaeology and request
that the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) provide a response in writing on the
presence or absence of cultural/historic properties in the project area. If the grantee is unable to
find the appropriate contact, then the grantee should contact the EPA grant Officer for
assistance.
Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly affect endangered or threatened
species and their criticl habitats as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S.
National Marine Fisheries Service, or state fish and wildlife agencies?
-------
The grantee will need to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service
and State Fish and Game to obtain a list of threatened or endangered species or state listed
species of concern. The grantee should provide the written documentation from these agencies
with the CE application along with the grantees determination of effect.
Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly affect environmentally important
natural resource areas such as floodplains, wetlands, important farmlands, or aquifer
recharge zones?
The grantee will need to conatct the following agecniesfor written or phone documented
conversations on the information about the presence/absence of these environmental resources
in the project area:
Floodplain information can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Wetlands information can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Farmland infromation can be obtained by contacting the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
Acquifer recharge zone information can be obtained by contacting the EPA.
-------
Section 6
Example Coordination Documentation From Other
State and Federal Agencies
-------
F.ID HANOBOOK
EPA REGION 6
EXAMPLES OF COORDINATION LETTERS
-------
EID HANDBOOK EPA RECTON f
Example 1. Request: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
The attached example:
1) locates the facilities using township and range Coordin.ifcs and a
USGS topographic map;
2) describes the basic aspects of the project;
3) provides baseline information that may assist the Fw's j.n
case a biological survey (and in other cases, records of past;
coordination at or near the site);
4) notes that a similar request is being sent to the State biologi 1
o ^ ^ X.
resources contact, effectively anticipating that one FWS response
would be that such a State request be made.
Example 1- \
-------
K1D HANDBOOK
Example 1
LI:H WILSON & ASSOCIATES
HYl MU c XiY • ENVIRONMENT
RESOURCES
May J1 . iV9l
US M sh and Ul 1 .11 i I . S.-i .• w «
K( (i I ngi ; rt I S« I vli »• s
Alt n John ( PcU'iMm
tpos«'d sepia^e disposal facilities lu f lutdlcd on the Pueblo
ol i\i)o.n|we in [in t ( Ik in N«-w Mexico (SW )/•'•. Sec I ion Iti, Township 1 VN, Range
VK, set' a t I .iv ii«'I 11 111^, I n i «-.¦(< lit d OI irndaugc I i'd bpecl«_b oi [lie l I l.ubl l Ol Ml. 1 .A »jt IU t ! f . 1-../.., 'JMI, vi-J I. 1 J?U I.AIU I'.i t 'j
HO BCt* *JI Swill JUKj U
iANUII UtftMl >inm".u * i lit
-------
KID HANDBOOK
Example 1, continued
memorandum
JUL 18 1990
I. Wt'iio He^niie. Nilu* jJ
F.th. WildMt ar>d Vegetal.on turkey cl the HoioaQo* icctage Facility Propel Area Aepcrt
to PoioaQut Septage FatMy File
On Jul* \ 7 , y 990, C^rsoi SaUiAt and i com tie te tf.e Sutied survey of the 1 0 acre proiecUied
located ai Tcv.n^-»sp 1 9 Nonr. Range y E ji.i Lections «V 1/2 18 and £ \ / 2 \ 3 The re-suii* of
tr.e on the ground survey a/e ai> folic«¦»!
VtOy_fcTlOM
\ Gauti&.Wm*
1 \na,in RictciiiS. Cryiopv^rntr.D-ac^
3 Sandhill Tiuhiy. M^njenber^ia £^_r'Sff
4 S,jeo3\i grarr.3, Borneo/A£un,£?"•J-tU
fTJ 5 Needle anj tr.read. SfipJ ccjmjfa
g 6 Suuet-rush squirrerrj.i V.l^r,','nr.''rl:
^ 7 AJhan sacacon Spcrcccls aer^dei
& S'ue^arr-a. Bcuteiou* graces
& Fc^rwing sailb'oih. Ai££[e« ca.HesL.er_i
1 0 \iitf c^ieaf yucca. >'uct a an^ysi¦¦* a
l 0 Cottonwood. Pcou'us SPP
\ 2 One Seed Jumper, Ju=vp«ius. mono^perma
5 3 a.™»m Xar.moctchilum linMl
« a Ratt>ivt>rus.h. Chrytothamu* nau*eosus
IS Covanta rr>encana
O
WtLDL ife
\ Coyote. Ca.n>> .arans
2 Lepua americanus
3 Ot»f Qdocodus hemionua
4 Stuped SkunK, Spiln^ate eutoriy*
$ Badger, Tande«_15.1^2
6 FotjlOo--ilic Oogj. Cjq^i£
OTTlOMi TO*** MO
»»rv »-mt
*%*rrnAis n-e»j f- e J*: ui dese^.coia
3 Western Rartie Ina^t Ci oiaiu^ viriflts
BsRQS
1 Meado** Larfc. S^mntiu ne^'ecia
2 House Spaief dorT'ej-hcus
3 House Ftncn, Caiy-od-V-u*, nje»icar.._.s
A Pa*er>. Corvus coras
6 Spanow Hawfc , f-aico sparver us
6. Rec - Tailed Hawk. Bujeo ^egaj;s
7 [)owe , 7 er s*uft>eo. t^en abandoned and no icnge» uveo sr-icuij
De reseeded »vtth ihe following seed
Plant Species L8S/AC/pi S
Indian Rtcegrass 2
Oa11 eta 2
Fouru-mg Sailbush 2
Burnet B
Purity X Germination - % Pure Live St>ed
Seeding should be done w.th a diac -type <3nll capable 01 handling *anous seeosi2es. T>ed/i l
'owj should De 6-8 inches apart and the seed should be d/ Jiea io a dec-th of $ tc 7 5 T.cr.ea
deep. Oram drill should be flowed Cy a drag or pacf cd to mwe unirc-rm co»era^e cf ir.e seed
and adequate compaction.
Moicttmq »s also lecymmendeO 'o cor 'rol erosion, p/cmoie je/n mat-on o'seedi
-------
F.TO HAN n BOOK
EP^_REGION6
Example 2. Request: State cultural resources contact
The attached example provides the same kinds of information as Example 1
1) clear location;
2) project description;
3) baseline information;
4) related coordination.
Example 2- 1
-------
EI I) HANDBOOK
Example 2
MIN€ S€RVIC€S , INC
• I6PO N Sioji
• Ckofcmotc Ok 7401?
• ( 916 ) 14U 9771
• ( 916 > 9//4
November lb, 1091
Ik» v i il l.. Sa 1 ay
jl.iti' lli^Lui ic Proscrvat ion OIIjiti
Ok ) .ihom.i Historical Society
i>:.\ lUnih Uobumon, Suite W_>
Ok I .»!:¦ City. OK 7 J 1 02
m II 11 Koi y Cod ) Co i p. , per m i t « *5 2 3 0 , Holers County
f if.i j Mr. t'> 1 ay :
llnkuiy Cool Corporation, i'.O. ISux 1H8, Cldremoi c, OK 74U1H, lb
rr..ikintj plans to conduct, surldcc miniiuj activities on lands located
p] in the S/2 of Section 9 and the N/2 of Section 16, T24N, R17E,
X ki.-ji-ri. County, Oklahoma (see attached location map). We are
g requesting clearance from your office for the proposed project.
-£j Also please provide any available information on the cultural or
t— histi-ric- resources listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places located within or adjacent to the
ro pro j eet area.
^ We h.ive contacted the Oklahoma Archeo 1 og i ca 1 Survey concerning
k-liMi,tiice t i om their office. They responded by stating that an on-
site survey would not be necessary (see attached letter).
Thcie is one residential structure and other structures located in
Section lo in the southern part ol the permit area, however none of
them will bo disturbed by the operation, nor have there been any
structures removed in the recent past. Therefore the Historic
l'i eservat i on Resource Identification Form will not be required for
the referenced project.
rie.isc ca J 1 or write if we can provide any additional information.
Vciy tru)y yours,
Kobe J t H. Col 1 1 MS
Mine Services, Inc.
enc .
cc. fiusseJl. K. Wjcnecke, Hickory
KPA REGION 6
-------
EID HANDBOOK
EPA REGION 6
Examples 3a and 3b. Response: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The attached example (3a) for a swine farm:
1) indicates no Fede ra L I y - 1 i a r ^ d threatened or endangered sDt'ci.'s or
habitats will be impacted;
2) indicates other concerns such as potential downstream impacts, and
suggests mitigation measures.
Often as not, some species will be in the area, and the Service will
either indicate no effect is expected or will ask the applicant to provide
more information, such as a field survey. The field survey will either
show no effect or the applicant will be asked to mitigate impacts (for
example, locate and move American Burying Beetles).
The attached example (3b) for a mine:
1) provides a list of endangered species;
2) requests a field survey;
3) contains maps of area wetlands;
4) says to coordinate with the Corps of Engineers.
Example 3- 1
-------
KID HANDBOOK
Example 3a
i ,.i .i < • ki.111.¦ 111,i T-i i
January 6. 199-1
2 U i 168
Mr Paul Mansion
Tyson Foods. inc
Dept CP 521
P O Box 2000
Spnngdaie Arkansas 72765 2020
Dear Mr Hairston
•t-j
X This responds to your !cnc?r dalcd November 9. 1903. regarding e*punsion of the Gcr.jid Sni.th
^ swinu Idfir, irt Suctions 26 and 27 . T 4 N . R 9 E . hughes County. Oklahoma Tf.i ^opa^cd
¦q proiect would not affect federally hsied threatened or endangered species cr their habitats Our
r-' main concent is trie potential effect of the project on water quality of the Muddy Boggy H.vcr and
^ its tributaries
According to the soil Survey map bottomland sods (alluvial and Verdigris silt loams) occupy the
^ western halt of tt.e project area (SE;4 SE/4 St.'4 Section 27), within the historic tlooapia.n oi Big
Sandy CreeK. a tributary 10 trie Muddy Bogg; River. To protect these aquatic resources we
recommend no intentional discharges of animal wastes, other chemicals, or till material into Big
Sandy Creek Precautions should De taken to ensure thai digging activities Qo noi utteci the
ground water table Hold.ng ponds should safely store animal waste* without leaching into the
ground water A contingency plan for safely storing waste due to unforeseen repair jobs or otr.ei
emergencies is desirable Precautions also should be taken to eliminate or minimize chances thai
floods would flush the contenu, of m* waste holding ponds or drying tields into the creek It these
protective measures are incorporated into the project design, the Fish and Wildlife Service would
have no objections to the aclon Pit-ase keep us advised of how our recommendations were
implemented
We appreciate the opportunity to review this project dunng the early planning stage Please call
I aura Mill (Sib 561 7458) it you have questions
Sincerufy.
¦ 'l-2'.L ?/Z
Charles M Scolt
Acting Field Supervisor
EPA REGION f.
Example 3b
Um.cd Si.itcs I )q>;iriiiK'iit ol the Innnoi
FISH AND NX'll Ol II i. SI HVic I
m S Ho-..on. S«... A
Tyln 74li*
December 29 1991
S 2-14-9'. I 1 ljej
Mi Robeit Collins
1330 McFarland Place
CUien.orc, Oklahoma 74107
Dlw Mr Collm^
1 i*.i, i<-t!oi iesf>onds to yoi ' request dated December 4. 1994. and Dcci JuLet lJ VJ94 lor information on
haled >pec»es and/or wefl.nds thai uould occur on two proposed surface coal mmc Sites 1 ho proposed
rniiH,-1 are lo be operated by Phot "ix Mineral Company and are located m Rogers and Craig counties.
Oklahoma The Rogers Jounty ( luposnl was evaluated by this office fui effects on listed spcues in
January 1994
We have provided updated county lists of federafly-tisted species, including candidate species, lor the
subject counties Candidate species rcccrve no legal protection under the Endangered Spcoes Act and
they arc included in this document for planning purposes only Responsible planning could help reverse
the declining population trends exh.oited by candidate species and delay or prevent the need to Irst ther.e
speocs m the future
The only Federally-listed species lively to be affeclec by the proposed Craig County surface mine is the
threatened western prainc fringed orchid This orcf.id is found on (afigrass praines where the native
vegetation has been mairtained in relatively good condition If tracts of good quality, tallgras'- praise
remam on the site of the proposed mine, they should be surveyed for western praine fnnged orchids
At pc your request, we have enclosed copies of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Natonal Wetlands
Inventory maps for both proposed mne sites For your convenience, we l ave roughfy outlined the project
areas in red and highlighted the wclland areas in green
The Rogers County siteccntains portions of two seasonally flooded, intermittent streambeds and several
small, artificial impoundments. The Craig County site supports temporanfy Hooded, palustnne. forested
wetlands along the headwaters of Thompson Creek and Hs thbutanes If the forested wetlands aloitg
Thompson Creek and its tributaries still remain intact they could provide high quality habitat and a
movement corndor for wildlife. We recommend that these forested wetlands be protected from mining
activity Maintenance of these forested corridors woukJ buffer the streams Irom runoff from the mine site
The Tulsa Office of the L S. Arm> Corps of Engineers or the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(formerly the Soil Conservation Se vice) should be contacted to determine if jurisdictional wetlands exist
on ihe proposed mine sites
-------
EID HANDBOOK
Example 3b, continued
Wc appreciate the opporumty to -evicw the project plans and provide these comments. If you have
question* or nee J further issistjr. c. please contact Virginia Brubeck of this office at 918/581-7458
Sincerely.
h
Jerry J Brabander
Field Supervisor
Lnclosures
MVG vj TBf'MOENIX MIN
m
x
Ui
B
T3
f—•
Dwector. Oklahoma Depar:ment 01 Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City. OK
Attn Natural Resource-. Section
Director. Office of Surface Mining, Denver. CO
Director. Tulsa Field Office. Office of Surface Mining. Tulsa. OK
Director, Oklahoma Department of Mines. Oklahoma City. OK
Director. Oklahoma Department of Eenvironmental Quality, Oklahoma City, OK
Attn Wayne Craney. Water Quality Programs Division 0207
District Engineer. U S. A/ny Corp', of Engineers, Tulsa. OK
Attn: Regulatory Functons Branch
EPA REGION 6
OKLAHOMA'S FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED
AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(including Candidate Species)
COUNTTY LIST
County
Craig
Species
ClaS5lflC3tu
Rogers
0; id eagk
Ptregrmc ^ct
Pi. Jdlefish
Pr line mo ? cnckel
Tc xas hor ed lizard
Br d eagle
Interior k*est tern
Peregnne Dicon
Wnoopmg :rane
Piping plo\e-'
Western p « r»e Inngcd orchid
Arkansas cotter
All gator snapping turtle
rd's sparrow
Cc ajlean v arbler
Tfruginoos hawk
LojgerhejJ shnke
Nc rthem goshawk
Pr.urie mo e cricket
Texas hort &d luord
Western si owy plover
W' ute*face 1 ibis
O. .irk chif ;.j:ipin
Endangered*
End angered
Threatened
Threatened
Calegci/ 1 Candidate
Category ? Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Endangered*
Endjngered
Endangered
Endanger- d
"Threatened
1 hreatencd
Category 1 Candidate
Category ? Candidate
Category 2 Candidal^
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Cat-gory 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
Category 2 Candidate
CjN Quiy 7 Candidate
The bald eagle has bee> propo: i.-j for d'j*nlisting to threatened status
-------
EiD HANDBOOK
Example 3b, continued
EPA RF.GION 6
-------
F.ID HANDBOOK
EPA REGION 6
Example 4. Response: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The attached example:
1) indicates no wetlands will be impacted;
2) shows on a flood hazard map that the project is partially in a
100-year flood plain, and requires that no hazard result from the
project (basically, no construction in the flood zone).
When wetlands may be affected, a common outcome is for the Corps to allow
the impacts under a Nationwide permit (and attach the permit
requirements); or require specific mitigation, such as avoidance; or
require a project-specific individual permit.
Example U- 1
-------
FID HANDBOOK
Example 4
beucmla-t 7 , 1993
Opcj Jl iwtiti Division
H*.-«.)vi\ at ot y bionch
Mr . I'au 1 lid l rston
Ty^on rooJs( Inc.
Dept. CP 521
Post Otfice Box 2020
Sprin.jdalc, A R /2765-2020
Dear Mr. Hairston:
This is in reference to ycur letter cl Novec^bsr 9, 1092, regard -
inq tt.o expansion of the Gerald Sro>t.h swine growing operation in
p-j Hughes County, Oklahoma. You requested information on wetlands and
X flood plains.
^ y^lliiflds: The identified property does not appear to contain
^ wetlands subject to Section <04 at the Clean Water Act. There are
CD areas adjacent to the property which may contain wetlands in shallow
depressions that pond water. Section A OA of the Clean Water Act
requires prior authorization froa the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers
for the placement of fill material into or the excavation of material
ro from wetlands, creeks, rivers, and lakes.
F)ood PI a)ns: A portion of the property is in the 100-year
flood plain (Zone A) for Sandy Creek (map enclosed). The proposed
construction of facilities for the expansion of the swine growing
operation should Le completed so that there is no increase in flood
hdzaiJ and must -onply with all local, state, and Federal flood plain
oi dinances.
So that our response will be most meaningful to you, we ask
that you please include in any future requests, any Known specific
features or construction actions involved in the proposed expansions.
This project has been assigned Identification No. 04455. Please
relerence this number in any future correspondence. If you have any
questions, contact Mr. Ar 1rew conuter at 918-669-7401.
Sincerely,
David a. Manning
chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
El'A R KG TON 6
11OOD HkJARD BOUftOART WAP
HUGHES COUNTY,
OKLAHOMA
IJNINCORPORAUD AM A
PAGE 9 OF 10
|ji t MAP INDE * I OH PAGf i Nut MllNJ t D
mtCTIVf DATE I J - l-f1
MjCtiSf-Sr-Htt-
COMMUNITY PANEL NO
400467 0009 / B
U S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
MD<*A1 tiiuHMCl AOMMUrilArOM
LEGEND
ZONL A
> Sf«< * f Krfki H*«a
CO*SUI 1 »«fl» MAV'C'NC COM'>N1 QH lOCAk
OA l«0»£A to CI 0
P*0P1*Tl(l tta tH.i COMWumn AMI luCifttt »0»
flOOO iMvXSCI
K>30
iZ^Zizh
-------
KID HANDBOOK
Example 4, continued
EPA REGION 6
-------
EPA REGION 6
ptn handbook,.
11 s Natural Resource Conservation
EXAMPLE 5. ~/;S0IL C0NSERVATI0N SERVICE)
The example below:
• . nr.'me soils will be affected (often as not Che
l 1 indicates wnicn pr-rae
U . r msc receives a list and map, and must figure i. out
Applicant just recti
directly);
lndicates that no adverse impact -ill occur Lf a waste n.anag.n.enc
plan is EolLowed (in thU case, the SCS prepared the waste
management plan).
Un iUM 5tat
-------
EID HANDBOOK
EPA REGION 6
Example 6. Response: State cultural resources contact
The attached example is from Oklahoma, which has two agencies that need to
be contacted concerning historical and archeo log i.c a 1 resouces (some states
have just one). This example.
1) indicates an archeological survey is necessarv;
2) indicates that the area contains no s:'tes on the National Register
of Historic Places;
3) indicates that the survey was acceptable.
Note that the survey reports are often well done, with good descriptions
of site landforms, vegetation, etc. which may be useful to an EID in
general.
Example 6- 1
-------
KID HANDBOOK
Example 6
Oklahoma Ai't'hri>!nj]iiii! Survey
Ni >v i rubc t } 2 , 1 'j 'J J
J '.i u i II .1 1 ] I on
1 y :,on h ood, Inc.
. C}> 'jJ 1
P.O. Box 2 0 2 0
Spf ir.gJulc, Arkansas 7 2 7 6'., - 202 u
He: Tyson Foodu proposed cxp.injion ol Lwino growing facility.
lv;:l r: :;A!cn: SKI/4 L'Wl/i ? , Sect i or. 26 av.d SE1/4 Sill/*
LI.J. 4, Sc. ! ion 27 T4N Hughes County, Oklahoma.
re a r Mi. liaiibt on :
3
T3
The above referenced project has been reviewed by the Community
Assistance I'roqraia stall of this agency to identify potential areas
that may contain prehistoric or historic: archaeo] og ica 1 materials.
The location of your project lias boon cross-checked with the state
sitt tiles containing approximately 14,000 archaeological sites
which die currently recorded for the state of Oklahoma. No sites
are listed as occurring within your project area, but based on th<.
lopogi «jphic and hydrologic setting of your project, a rchaeol og i ca 1
materials are likely to be encountered. An archaeological field
inspection is considered necessary prior to project construction in
order to identify significant archaeological resources that may
exist in the project area. Please contact this office at (405)325-
7211 if you require additional information on this project.
This environmental review and evaluation is performed in order to
locate, record, and preserve Oklahoma's prehistoric and historic
cultural heritage in cooperation with the State Historic
Preservation Office, Oklahoma Historical Society. Thank you for
your cooperation.
•/
Sineeie 1 y,
/>' ,/
. ILl. A xil'j/. _ _ii
Heather York/
Slat! Al chuecl og 1st
Hoboit Brooks
State Archaeologist
: 1 w
cc: SHPO
'•'I « C*i«/4 tJO'f 05/J '"I'M i«05f J.'} tin * l*Q%iXii-i0*
* iit"t i Umutt
El',-\ RF.CION 6
*
Oklahoma Archcoloaical Snr
[ n I '< -11*1 H . J (. , 1 VM
I'.lU 1 11,1 1 r I d;i
T> :.jii Fo.,«:is
U*pl Ci' 2 1
1 ') box 2 0 2 0
Sj i i j i^vi j 1 u* , A i i iiou.'i 7 , i, , . u .
bropwsed swine liiushinj j>l ,mi , vj i.jcility
r i pi i on . SK1/-1, SKI./ -1, Sl-,-1 loll 2/, T4i; k^L, liu^bv-..
County, Oklahoma
P«'a r Mi. iia i t s ton
A cultural resources repot t of i nvysi igutions h.is been received by
this agency on the above referenced project. This agency conlim.s
the recommendations contained in the xeport Thw review was
conducted in cooperation with the SLate Historic Preservation
Of tice, Oklahoma Historical Society.
Please contact this oftice at (40b) 32^-7211 if buried
m cnaeolo^ical materials such as chipped stone tool;., potter-
bone , historic cr oc kery, gleiss, rnc tal items, oi Ijui lii mij niou i i j] 5
die- expostrd dui inj construction activities
Hobert L lirooks
Stall Archaeologist Stou- Aicluculcjiai
RLU.lw
rc Slibu
Hit C^v4|**»« toffun *•>*»,! J.'< /.'i 1 ' «. ,.v fUi4
* O I'll or AH IAttfj H H ( 'j i, I Mn>« . r»,» ,*> r»,»„.W4
-------
KID HANDBOOK
Example 6, continued
vn
X
i
'f;
Oklahoma Historical Society
I -1\ ' I liV'A I Ji >N (JUKI
•I H K 'PINM>U i ;lll t/S . c >KI AHUM A CUV OK 7 4102 * HUMI b_M'>
Urrcn.lM J / , I'j'JJ
Mi . I'.iu 1 Ma l riton
Ty.on I ) nc .
I'.U. Jiux / 2 0 2 0
Sf>t i (u)v.J•) 1 e , Ai kdiisau 7276b
K* ; Mlv. Tyson foods Expansion of Gerald Smith Farm
Do.it Mi . Hai rston:
We Ij.iv.- received and reviewed the documentation submitted concerning
th«- rcii'iciu-'cd project l n Hughes County.
txjniiiut ion of historic tcsource files in this office finds no prop-
el l n.'^ documented within the project area that meet the criteria for
1 i ;>t imj un the National Register o! Historic Places. Our research
^ l tul lcates that there is little likelihood such historic properties
*0 wj 1 1 occur .
i—•
® In addition to review by this office, a review focusing on prehistoric
ve vindei lined tile number must be releienced. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. Marshall Cettys, Historical Archaeolo-
gist. at 405/521-6249. Thank you.
i) I fir«:i e 1 y ,
. • D t
Me 1 vena He 1 s c*h
Deputy State Hi-turiv
Pi e set vat l on OM 1 ci
MM : put
EPA REGION 6
-------
EID HANDBOOK
Example 7.
EPA REGTON A
Response: State biological resources contact
This example is from Oklahoma. As with cultural resources, Oklahoma has
two biological resource agencies that should be contacted. This example-
1) indicates that there are no state-listed threatened or endangered
species in the area of the project;
2) identfies other concerns such as potential downstream impacts, and
suggests mitigation measures;
3) lists rare species and significant ecological communities in the
vicinity of the project.
Example 7- 1
-------
EID HANDBOOK
Example 7
«h Dl 01 <
I IM VI <1
P>11 I AM CHAffrf llllU
C H A tf IM AM
ooh n.ntn
VICt ChAlMMAN
JAC«ff<>SUU
VtCRlItin
MlyfetM! I HUICixNS
Ml Mill «
L> MONl 0»
bMtO o cur
Hi UO»l'"«OH
T DI'lLiOH
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
f O 6>. 4i«ii
November 18, 199 3
Mi . I'ju) Huirston
Tyson luodi., Inc..
Dept. CI' 521
P.O. box 2020
Lipi 1 ngda 1 a , AI< 72765-2020
injli joct. : Cciuld Smith Farm
Dear Mi. Hairston:
This responds to your letter of November 9, 1993 requesting
pj in*ornution on sensitive species with regard to the following:
3
TJ Fro^ect: Expanded Swine Crowinf Operation
a>
Location: Sections 26 and 27, viN, R9E, Hughes County
Uased upon our current rccoi s, we have no inforaation that
threatened or endangered spe< es occur at. the proposed site;
however, please note that this ( partaent has not conducted a field
survey of this specific location. He do have records for one
federal candidate species, the A ligator Snapping Turtle, at sites
dewnstrean froo these two sections. Our ^riaary concern in this
case is the potential iapact run-off water froa the swine operation
nay have on water quality and t: e downstream aquatic community in
Sanay and Huddy Boggy Creeks. Problems of this nature can be
avoided through the construct, jn of a dike or bern around the
facility to contain and direct run-off water into an adequate-sized
retention pond(s).
For additional information on sensitive species, we recomaend that
you contact the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, 2001 Priestly
Avenue, building 605, Norman, Oklahoma 73019. For information on
federally listed threatened or endangered species, contact the U.S.
Kish and Wildlite Service, Ecological Services, 222 South Houston,
Suite A. Tulsa,-OK 74127.
KPA REGION ft
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this piojoct. Ii we
can be of further assistance, please contact our Natural kc-souiccs
Section at 405/521-4610.
y> i nccre) y,
7Hull J). 7'/—^
Mark L). lluwery
Natural l^osoutcc- Uj .1
-------
EID HANDBOOK
Example 7, continued
m
*
g
-v
Oklahoma
Natural He mage Inventory
OKLAHOMA eiOlOGlCAL SURVtv
?OQ1 PneiUy A«*riu«. SuJd-nj 60t>
NO'mjri O.MrKKi>* 7>Oi9 054 J Lti*
t«lSS 32S 1%6S
* Ax H05/ 3«S "0?
Robert ColluiJi January I"
U«tb Coll.rii Coimiltmg
13V) MkFarJand Place
(JljrcniofC. Oklahoma 7401?
I >ear Mi < oJijni.
Ihi* knee •> ui icipomc lo y»:ur ic^ucii lof uifoiniaUun on pouiUe chJj leered species Of oiher cicincrtis vi bu^o^u
.si^ciTiv^ncc it ibe Mining m;i
tl) T24N SeclJon 9 of 1M. Rogers Co -nrj, Oklahoma
(2 1V4.N' Ki7K Srilum l(» of I\t, K*n;cr> O unlj, Okljlionu
1 ( Uf jh.jiu I Njt UI jI H«.r II.i. . Ill' • ni- . m jint jni\ jJ.iUtuu on ih*. v .. .inJ lucji'<'n v( uii; ^jj*.; and .• :j;hj!.t.i-
unlo^.t jl (.immuiiiliLi .n < > I I . K ¦ ¦'< ¦.. ^ l.-.ie »c-..c v.LJ (l.c :;»Iur in j! i.:. . u: rL r.i ly i n !! . I lcr.l.j-c Invxniu: v d.ii jIv.m
Jnj iuuoJ SITK ft2 Also, clctncnl *Cfc lau^J »iit.n> j fi.e nuic radius mIc
4 ft
J Ik- Itenure InvcntOf) dji is ii;- mu^i tufrcni cutuprchcnsi<.<. oi . J^JiIjLpIc OD Ihc i-au lno;j ul {'•
However juih a dai-jljavc »i ff-K J* ton-;-"lcic « ihc mfoimaliun lhal h*\ b cn collected Fot ihii u.i^ •», w t^rn
lui a r i j t n w. t.,_ i}>^> of noi J g'^n m c j« I n_u i (iic spciid oi sigfiific-inl £ ir.;injiiihcj We sugpes; you j I « coi>: :
Lnvii unmcni j1 Division u-f liic t 'll.iliuu Uj' il.c 0'»fKjiiujiii» i j Uij-lu-i iu yo*»» rebuilt
7
inct/lfy. ^
b' ¦'
I jn iriiui i»( ^
I.'jI J ( u.,1 JlildUlf
sv Cfjj/lic SlxU. U $ Fish A U'lMM..
it Hi sJl
EPA REGION 6
OKLAMuriA NATUHAL HtKlTAot
TAliLL OK I'hOXiKAL L'LtHENT OCrilKRLNOu
KZO: i.STtO Bt : Bob Collma C<. . h ^ 1 t , n»j
UA . C. OK KfcOULST: JamjJiy 1 . 1 *i-'j 4
^ITL STATUS utiH, bhUK IXiT Set.
SJ'LClLb NAKt K E D SlATt OlOti.i
SITU N^.C. KtU ijcuon >
Cry 1 lotnpd fnaioi « <;4- 352 c?
(Prairie Mole CcicKet: insect)
tMfnpoqon qc-rardll- • roue none G<
nyruf tcopjr 1 Jin
(TaDgrats PralriC: carmunityi
SITE
SPEen.i. r:,'MK
STATUS
FtD STATE
ONIU KANK
uloo .l :;tatl
LAST SEEN
MIL NAM} r:-iM Hi7f iL-CIion It.
And rot k;
-------
Section 7
Example of a Categorical Exclusion
Application
-------
Sarah II. Palin
Mayor
City of Wasilla
290 E. Horning Ave.
Wjsilla, All ska 9965-4-7091
Phone: (907'i 373-9055
F;l\: (907) 373-9096
oil
r—\
Matthew Harrington
EPA- Region 10
Office of Water - OW
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
130
7I998
---J
Re: Request for Categorical Exclusion
Wasilla Septage Facility Construction
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The City respectfully submits this request for a Categorical Exclusion. Supporting
documentation is included.
The City's sewer system was constructed in the mid-1980's as an
"innovative/alternative" technology. The City's STEP (septic tank effluent pumping)
system is truly unique. Each property has an on-site septic tank and lift station with
extensive control and alarm systems. Wastewater from each structure enters the septic
tanks and primary settlement occurs, just like a conventional septic system. The settled
effluent is then pumped into force mains and is transported to the treatment plant. The
system's Operation & Maintenance documents require periodic septic tank pumping for
all customers.
There are multiple purposes for this project:
• The project will provide a sanitary method for City sewer workers to empty the
City's pumper truck into the digester and considerably lessen workers' direct
exposure to raw septage during digester cleaning, maintenance, and repairs.
• Frequent septage spills onto the ground surface will be eliminated.
• The project will result in lower operating costs.
• Lastly, the septage treatment will be improved through steady rate feeding into
the digester instead of the current practice of periodic "slug" loading, possibly
resulting in lowering nitrate impacts to ground water.
Matt Harrington, EPA
Page l of 5
City of Wasilla
Categorical Exclusion Request
Septage Facility
-------
This septage receiving and pre-treatment project will be constructed in two phases at
the existing sewer treatment plant site. Phase A consists of site improvements and
constructing a new structure with sanitary dumping facilities within the existing sewer
plant footprint. Phase B will provide the pretreatment equipment, controls, and backup
generation. A detailed project narrative is attached.
This project meets the Categorical Exclusion criteria:
1. Will the action only involve minor rehabilitation of existing facilities, functional
replacement of equipment, or construction of new, ancillary facilities adjacent or
appurtenant to existing facilities?
YES
The project will only involve minor rehabilitation of existing facilities (less than 1%) and
constructing new ancillary facilities adjacent to existing facilities.
There will be minor modifications made to the existing digester in order to receive
septage from the new septage receiving building. The new septage receiving and
pretreatment building will be built adjacent to the existing digester within the existing
paved parking lot area (located within the existing fence line).
2. Is the action consistent with 1) above, and will the action take place in a community
of any size but have no effect on the degree of treatment or capacity of the existing
facilities?
YES
There will be no additional septage received due to this project. There will be no
additional wastewater to be treated, except for wash water generated within the
structure. There will be no detrimental effect on either wastewater treatment or septage
treatment. (There should be an incremental improvement in the digester's septage
treatment and in wastewater treatment due to better scheduling of septic tank pumping.)
3. Will the action take place in a sewered community of less than 10,000 persons and
involve no more than minor upgrading and minor expansion of the existing wastewater
treatment works?
YES
The City of Wasilla's 1999 population was approximately 5,200 according to the official
State of Alaska documents, and remains significantly under 10,000 persons.
The existing treatment works will have minor upgrading only. That minor upgrade will
be done to the digester to receive septage from the new structure and to remove some
mechanical equipment currently located inside the digester. The project includes a
minor expansion of existing treatment works in that the septage receiving building will
include pretreatment aeration.
Matt Harrington, EPA
Page 2 of 5
City of Wasilla
Categorical Exclusion Request
Septage Facility
-------
This project meets the following additional Categorical Exclusion criteria:
1. Is the action known or expected to have a significant effect on the human
environment, either individually, cumulatively over time, or in conjunction with other
federal, state, local, tribal or other private actions?
NO
There will be no detrimental impacts on the human environment in the short- and long-
term. (In fact, City sewer plant workers will have lessened exposure to raw septage.)
This project will have no effect on other federal, state, city, borough, tribal or private
actions.
2. Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly affect cultural resource
areas, such as archaeological or historic sites listed on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places?
NO
This project will be constructed within the existing facility boundaries. All improvements
will be done within the existing fence line, with the exception of clearing and grubbing
for a new short driveway entrance. All excavation for the structure will be done adjacent
to and within 75 feet of the existing digester (bottom of existing digester is
approximately 30 feet below ground surface), with the minor exception of upsizing an
existing well water line. That narrow trench excavation will be done along the same
route where the existing waterline was installed during plant construction.
There are no known archaeological or cultural sites in the vicinity of the project. There
were no archaeological or historic places evidence encountered during original plant
construction in the mid-1980's. The sewer plant site is not within any historic site and
there are no sites on or eligible for the National Register.
3. Will the action cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific,
prehistoric, historic, or archaeological data as identified by the State Historic
Preservation Officer?
NO
This project is being constructed in a small area at the treatment plant that was cleared,
excavated, and backfilled during original plant construction in 1985. This area has not
been identified by any organization, including the State Historic Preservation Officer, as
having any scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archaeological status.
4. Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly affect endangered or
threatened species and their critical habitats as listed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service,
the US National Marine Fisheries Service, or state fish and wildlife agencies?
NO
This project consists of a structure that will be built where a parking lot currently exists.
The new driveway will be located in an area that received gravel fill during original plant
construction. There will be no discharges to surface water and no indirect activities that
Matt Harrington, EPA
Page 3 of 5
City of Wasilla
Categorical Exclusion Request
Septage Facility
-------
would affect any fish, waterfowl, or other animals. No habitat or endangered species will
be directly or indirectly affected.
5. Is the action known or expected to directly or indirectly affect environmentally
important natural areas such as floodplains, wetlands, important farmlands, or aquifer
recharqe areas?
NO
This project consists of a structure that will be built where a parking lot currently exists
The new driveway will be located in an area that received gravel fill during original plant
construction. No environmentally sensitive areas will be directly or indirectly affected.
6. Is the action known or expected to not be cost-effective?
NO
The City expects that maintenance costs will be significantly lessened for septic tank
pumping and digester operations. Digester cleaning will be reduced due to the grit and
debris removal pretreatment. This lessens the considerable cost of confined space
entry to hand shovel rocks and debris and to remove rags, etc by hand. Digester
inspections will not need to be done as frequently due to removing much of the
mechanically operated equipment inside the digester.
7. Will the action cause significant public controversy?
NO
Funding of this project has been the subject of public City Council meetings, has been
included in the City's Capital Improvement program (discussed in Planning
Commission) voted by the City Council, and included in the State Capital Improvements
budgets for Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001). No public comments have been received
concerning this project even with the extensive public processes.
It is hoped that improved digester operations and treatment will result in lessened odors
when the treated sludge is placed onto the existing drying beds, resulting in increased
public satisfaction with plant operations.
8. Will the action create a new discharge to surface or ground waters?
NO
No new discharge volume will be created, with the minor exception of the dump station
wash down water (discharging into the digester). No new sewage is created. The
treated sludge will still be discharged to the existing drying beds, used for 15 years.
9. Will the action relocate an existing discharge to surface or ground waters?
NO
Matt Harrington, EPA
Page 4 of 5
City of Wasiila
Categorical Exclusion Request
Septage Facility
-------
The treated sludge will still be discharged to the existing drying beds, used for 15 years.
There will be no relocation of the treated sludge discharge.
10. Will the action result in substantial increases in the volume of discharge (from an
existing source or new facilities) to receiving waters?
NO
No additional wastewater will be created or discharged to receiving waters.
11. Will the action result in substantial increases in the loading of pollutants (from an
existing source or new facilities) to receiving waters?
No additional wastewater will be created or discharged to receiving waters, therefore,
there will not be additional pollutants. The treated sludge will still be discharged to the
existing drying beds, used for 15 years. It is hoped that there will be an incremental
improvement in treated digester sludge resulting in a slight lowering of nitrate impacts to
the ground water. It is also hoped that better septic tank pumping will result in fewer
pollutants entering the wastewater stream and therefore, fewer pollutant entering the
ground water after discharge to the drain fields.
12. Will the facilities provide capacity to serve a population 30% greater than the
existing population?
NO
The septage receiving facility is being sized to match the existing plant. There is no
plant capacity expansion capability wittT this project.
This septage facility will be constructed abutting existing sewer treatment works (a site
drawing from the construction plans is attached) and there will be no archaeological,
scientific, or environmental impacts due to this project. The City believes that this
project meets the Categorical Exclusion from NEPA criteria. We respectfully request
your concurrence.
If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Mr. Don Shiesl,
Public Works Director, at 907-373-9095.
NO
Summary
Sincer°K/
Sarah Palin
Mayor
Matt Harrington, EPA
Page 5 of 5
City of Wasilla
Categorical Exclusion Request
Septage Facility
-------
Alaska Community Database - Query Results
Page I of
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development
Alaska Community Database
Detailed Query Results
Wasiila
For Photos of Wasiila click here
Population and Housing
The following Population and Housing data is from the 1990 U.S. Census.
This is the only available source of detailed community-level
information available on a statewide basis.
Wasiila is located in the Mat-Su Census Area.
The figures are estimates, subject to sample variability.
The percent of all households sampled in Wasiila was: 14.1%.
Note: Current socio-economic measures could differ significantly.
Population and Ethnicity
Total Population (1990)*:
4, 028
American Indian
80
Ma 1 e:
2, 045
Eskimo
71
Female:
1, 983
Aleut
61
Native:
212
Caucasian
3, 728
% Native:
5 . 3%
African American
24
Non-Native:
3,816
Asian/Pac Islands
36
Other Ethnic
28
~Current Population, 5,213 (certified December, 1999, by DC ED)
Population History
1880
0
1940
96
1890
0
1950
97
1900
0
1960
112
1910
0
1970
300
1920
0
1980
1,559
1930
5 1
1990
4, 028
Housing Characteristics
Total Housing Units
Occupied Housing
Vacant Housing
Persons
Owned Uni
72 3 Owner Occupied
410 Median Value Owned Homes
313 Renter Occupied
Median Rene Payed
$ 81
732
, 500
678
$443
httD://ww\v.deed.state.ak.us/mrn/CF RT OPk' ,-fm
i / < >c\r\
-------
Alaska community uatuoase - (jucrv Results
Page 2 of 2
Persons in Rented Units
1,788
Persons in Institutions
0
Persons in Group Quarters
19
Structure types:
Single Family
870
10 to 19
Single Family Attached
46
'Jr. Its:
¦; ;
Duplex
155
20 plus
Units:
3 or 4 Units
385
Trailers/Mobile
Homes:
9 9
5 to 9 Units
103
Boats/Other
Types:
• .;
Household types:
Occupied Households
1, 410
Family Hous
enolds:
1,031
Avg. Persons per House
2 .80
Non-Related Households:
3 79
Housing: Plumbing/Water/Sewer/Heating/Phones
Plumbing, Percent of Households That do not Have:
Complete Plumbing: 1.1% (lack sink, bath/shower, or flush toile
Complete Kitchen: 0.4% (lack stove, fridge, or running water)
Water, Percent of Households Using:
Public Water System: 37.1%
Individual Well
Other
62 .1%
0.8% (River, Cistern, etc
Sewer, Percent of Households Using:
Public Sewer System
Septic Tank/Cesspool
Other Disposal
28 . 8%
70.7%
0 . 4%
Heating Methods, Percent of Households Using:
Electricity: 11.2% Piped Gas (utility)
8.7% Coal or Coke
6.3% Solar Energy
1.4% Other Fuel
No Fuel Used
Fuel Oil, Kerosene
Wood
Bottled, Tank, LP Gas
Phones, Percent of Households That do not Have:
Phone: 24.6%
72 .3%
0 . 0%
0 .0%
0 . 0%
0 . 0%
BackiglMay^
Back to^iMkaCommjjju^^t^^Home Pnw
Department of Community & Economic Development
Research & Analysis Section
Phone: 907-465-4750 Fax: (907) 465-5085
e-mail: MichaeLQushin5qdc_e(istate ak us
httnV/www deed state iik iis/mrn/rF RT r^m
4/4/nn
-------
City of Wasilla
Septage Facility
Project Narrative
EPA Grant Application
April 5, 2000
PROJECT NARRATIVE
The City of Wasilla's sewer system was constructed in 1985-1987, jointly funded
by the EPA, the State of Alaska, Farmer's Home Administration (now the Rural
Development Administration) and the City. The project received 85% funding
from EPA because of the "Innovative/Alternative" design classification.
The City's STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) system is truly unique. Each
property has an on-site septic tank and lift station with extensive control and
alarm systems. Wastewater from each structure enters the septic tanks and
primary settlement occurs, just like a conventional septic system. The settled
effluent is then pumped into force mains and is transported to the treatment
plant. (The initially constructed "treatment plant" consisted of multiple drain fields
and a digester for septage. The City has since added a two aerated lagoons
attempting to solve ground water contamination violations of the ADEC discharge
permit, which remains unresolved.)
This "Innovative/Alternative" system has high maintenance requirements.
Extensive electrical and float controls problems in our cold climate and corrosive
conditions result in high City operating costs.
Septic Tank Pumping
One of the most time-consuming, high cost aspects is the tank pumping
maintenance requirement. Large commercial customers are pumped yearly,
small commercial every two years and residential customers are pumped every
three years. The pumped septage is then placed into the digester at the
treatment plant.
Digester
The digester remains the same as when the system was constructed, as do its
problems:
• There is no sanitary method to discharge septage into the digester. In
fact, the discharge point would be in violation of the Uniform Plumbing
Code for a small RV dump station. There is no spillway. Sewage is
frequently spilled onto the ground and there is no wash down hose.
Combining a lack of sanitary facilities with freezing conditions results in
unacceptable health risks to City employees.
• Every two years, the digester is emptied into drying beds and taken off line
for inspection and repairs. Extensive volumes of rock and other debris
need to be hand shoveled (in order for surface suction pumps to carry
debris to the surface from the 20-foot plus deep digester). Weeks of
-------
City of Wasilla
Septage Facility
Project Narrative
EPA Grant Application
April 5, 2000
OSHA confined space entry procedures, with their inherently high costs,
are required. The grit and debris foul pump pulling chairs and gear, and
cause hardware damage.
• Maintenance manpower is limited. Fewer than 500 customers are on the
system, supporting minimal employees. Tank pumping is difficult to
schedule during winter months. Digester maintenance needs to be done
in warmer months. However, the conflict is the need to do both during the
short summer. Therefore, the result is pumping and digester maintenance
can not be done according to the O&M manual, the system continues to
deteriorate, and ground water contamination remains.
• The digester was designed to receive up to 4,200 gallons/day of sludge,
based on a 7-day average. With the limited time to perform tank pumping
during summer months, the digester receives "slugs" of septage, instead
of the steady design feed rate, especially when a large commercial tank
(up to 20,000 gallons) is pumped. The digester can not be operated as
designed.
The initial proposed solution was to construct a second digester. (The ADEC
and State Legislature approved a $420,000 matching grant.) The second
digester would provide the City with sufficient flexibility to pump tanks as
scheduled or on an emergency basis, and would provide a dumping point for
tanks when a digester would be off-line for maintenance. However, that solution
would not provide three key requirements:
1. Improve worker health and safety, and minimize potential
environmental impacts due to septage spills.
2. Decrease maintenance expenses by eliminating extensive manpower
to clean and repair the digester by removing grit and debris, and by
eliminating hardware within the digester.
3. Increase the level of septage treatment by having a steady rate feed
instead of batch, "slug" loads (resulting in a higher treated sludge being
applied to the drying beds, decreasing nitrate impacts to shallow
ground water and odor complaints).
For additional technical background, please review the attached March 16,1998
City memorandum by William Harvey, RE:_P'flester Construction Project FY 98.
-------
City of Wasilla
Septage Facility
Project Narrative
EPA Grant Application
April 5, 2000
Septaqe Facility
In 1998 and early 1999, the City reevaluated the proposed second digester in
conjunction with the design engineering firm of CH2MHill. The December 10,
1998 CH2MHiil technical memorandum entitled, City of Wasilla Septaqe
Handling Improvements Alternative Description, is attached.
The reevaluation resulted in a decision to construct a septage receiving and
pretreatment facility. A structure will be built that will contain septage receiving
equipment (pumper truck connection, screening and grit removal equipment)
aerated pretreatment/holding basin, truck wash down and wastewater collection,
worker hygiene facilities, digester improvements, and backup electrical
generation upgrade (for entire plant). Also included in the project is a potable
water well, drain field discharge piping reconfiguration, gravel access drive and
gate, and paving adjacent to treatment works.
ADEC and the State Legislature concurred with the revised project and
reappropriated the $420,000 grant to a Septage Facility for state fiscal year 2000.
The ADE C continues to support this project by recommending an additional
$430,000 for State FY 2001. This $430,000 grant is included in the Governor's
proposed budget and the Legislature is expected to approve the appropriation by
early May, 2000.
Septage Facility Phased Construction
The City intends on constructing this facility in two phases. This is due to the
ADEC grant not becoming available until July, well into Alaska's short
construction season.
Phase A is "structure and site construction." Phase B is the equipment works.
Phase A: Phase A consists of the site improvements and constructing the
structure. The structure includes a subsurface 30,000-gallon aerated holding
tank and other construction features (such as conduit and piping) that will
facilitate Phase B construction.
The construction plans have been approved by ADEC. Plans and specifications
are included in the bid documents that have been provided to EPA.
Phase A is currently out to bid, with the bid opening scheduled for April 29. The
schedule calls for the bid to be awarded by Council on May 22, 2000.
Substantial completion of the structure and site work is September 1, 2000.
Phase A is to be completed by October 31, 2000.
-------
City of Wasilla
Septage Facility
Project Narrative
EPA Grant Application
April 5, 2000
Phase B: This phase includes the mechanical equipment, electrical controls,
and backup generation, among other miscellaneous items. Phase B has been
designed but not put out to bid, pending award of the $430,000 ADEC grant. The
City intends on advertising for bids starting in mid-October, 2000. Bid award is
anticipated for late November 2000. Completion of construction is scheduled for
April 2000.
If this project is not funded, several problems result:
• Raw sewage will continue to be spilled onto the ground during pump truck
emptying directly into the digester, subjecting City employees to raw
septage exposure.
• The new facility will provide septic truck wash down equipment, which can
not be done in a sanitary manner with the current treatment works, again
exposing the equipment operators to raw septage.
• Personal hygiene of sewer plant workers will continue to be at risk.
• Pretreating raw septage will not be done.
• No standby storage will be available when the digester needs to be taken
down for maintenance.
• No screening of rags, rocks, grit and other materials undesired in the
digester will be done, leading to further maintenance problems such as
level sensor fouling, slide gate jamming, etc.
• Digester feeding will continue to be in batches instead of continuous
feeding, contrary to optimum treatment.
• Backup electrical generation for the existing treatment works will remain
inadequate.
-------
12/10/98 THU 1J: -18 F\I 907 277 9736 CH2M HILL ANCH - (g|00'
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 CH2IVIHILL
City of Wasilla Septage Handling Improvements
Alternative Description
prepared fcr: Mike Krieber/Gty of Wasilla
Bill Harvey/Gty of Wasilla
Mike Becwar/ Gty of Wasilla
prepared BY: Chris Arts
copies: Mike Guthrie/SFO
Jim Wodrich/ANC
BATE; December 10,1998
This memo presents a basic description of the alternative recommended by CH2M HILL to
enable the City of Wasilla to more effectively process septage at their existing wastewater
treatment plant.
Problem Description
Currently, a single aerobic digester at Wasilla's wastewater treatment plant is used for
processing septage hauled in from domestic and commercial sources. Problems with the
current septage handling, or holding, system include the following:
• There is no receiving, holding or treatment system for septage when the digester is
down for maintenance.
• Plastics, rags, grit and other undesirable materials are not removed prior to discharge
into the aerobic digester. These materials accumulate within the digester and require
that the digester be taken off-line periodically for maintenance. The stringy materials
clog pumps, and the accumulated grit must be shoveled out manually.
• Additional maintenance issues with internal components of the digester include: level
sensor fouling; slide gate jamming; and corrosion of header floor mounts, pump guide
rails and other internal equipment.
• After maintenance and removal of materials from the digester, the digester requires a
'seed' source, (activated sludge) to initiate the biological digestion process in the
digester. Feed sludge is typically removed from the WWTP aeration lagoons and
represents additional labor during these maintenance periods.
• Septage haul trucks need a wash down area pnor to leaving the WWTP site.
• Septage material is fed to the digester in batches during short periods. When material is
held over the weekend, the digester is not fed. The preferred operational mode for a
digester, and when the best performance is obtained, is by continuous feeding.
ANCPqeFSAHED ALT, SUMMAAY.DOC
14MSITI.ZZ
-------
«003
^TY Of vvtSllXA 3E=>TAGE ha.voling improvements alternative n^raon,,..
Alternative Description and Features
The basic design philosophy for the alternative recommended by CH2M HILL inclucipc *-K
following criteria:
• Minimize exposure of mechanical equipment to inaccessible and dama
-------
12/10/98 THl' 10-19 F.VI 907 277 9736
CH2M HILL AiVCH
CITY OF WASHU 3EPT4GE -IANOUnG IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
@004
Alternative Process Description
This section provides a basic description of the process. The system is designed to minimize
operations ar.d maintenance requirements, and the PLC based system will provide
automated operation of rhe septage receiving and treatment operations
A septage tank truck vvill drive into the extreme end of the buiidmg through a 12-foot wide
bv 12-foot high roll-up door. The driver would connect discharge hosing from the truck to
one of the two dump station connections. The dump stations discharge into 3300-gallon
receiving tanks located in the basement of the building. Having two dump stations allows
the City to test a tank load if it is suspected of being unacceptable, as well as allows for rapid
off-loading during high volume periods. The receiving tanks are equipped with an internal
pressure transmitter which signals the operation of shut-orf valves and transfer pumps at a
pre-set liquid level. The tanks and pumps will be in the basement area of the building.
The transfer pumps convey the septage through the \4-inch opening septic screen where
rags, plastics etc. are removed. The rags and plastics are continuously dewatered and
extruded to a dumpster, located in the truck receiving bay for landfill disposal. The
screened septage is discharged directly to the septage holding tank. Removing trash and
large rocks from the septage offers several advantages: 1) it minimizes wear on
downstream pumps and equipment, 2) eliminates the need to clean the aerobic digester and
3) allows for a cleaner final sludge product that can be more used beneficially.
The septage holding tank is a 30,000-gallon concrete tank located in the basement of the
building. If 5 primary purpose is to allow for equalization of the incoming septage loads
and to provide sufficient storage capacity of septage to feed the digester at a steady,
controlled rate. The septage holding tank will be connected by piping and pumps, to both
the existing aerobic digester and the new grit removal system. A separate pumping system
will keep the solids in the holding tank mixed. Its other purpose is to provide storage of
digested sludge if the aerobic digester is out of service. Air from the existing blower system
will be routed to the septage holding tank to keep the solids aerobic when the aerobic
digester is off-line for maintenance.
Grit removal is accomplished by pumping the holding tank contents through the Teacup,
which removes grit through a combination of centrifugal and gravitational forces. The
vortex created separates high density, inorganic solids (grit) from organic solids and water.
The grit removed is collected in a decanter hopper. This device allows drainage of excess
liquid through a wedgewire underdxain screen. Dewatered solids are typically in excess of
90%. The decanter is portable, allowing it to be towed to a disposal site. The degritted
septage is pumped back to the septage holding tank.
The sizing of the septage holding tank was based on providing seven days of storage at the
maximum seven-day average conditions. The existing aerobic digester will undergo the
following modifications:
« Existing submersible pumps, rail system and associated 4-inch piping will be removed.
• All sluice gates will be removed.
• The sloped floor of the digester will be back-filled with concrete.
AWCPREFERRED ALT SUMMAHY.0CC
-------
141005
crrr of w«hl» seftace hahcunc improvemen rs alternative oescmpncx
• A 12-indi piping connection to the septage holding tank will be core-drilled into the
digester tank wail.
• Connections for decant piping will be core-drilled
The digester will be fed on a daily basis and a v-ball flow control valve will accomplish flow
control. Decanting of the digester is through the operation of automatic valves.
Sludge will be removed from the digester after an automatic decant cycle, using the digester
feed pump. The sludge will be discharged to the existing drying beds.
Future Capabilities
Sufficient room is provided for a gravity belt thickener or belt filter press equipment and
required support systems (i.e. polymer systems). Additional area in the electrical panels
will be provided for future electrical loads.
ANCPAErEaREO ALT. SUMUAHYOOC
-------
CITY OF WASILLA
190 E. HERN1NC AVE.
WASILLA. ALASKA 99454-709J
PHONE: (907) 373-9050
FAX: (907) 373-90J5
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
The current number of sewer customers is 470 as provided by Utility Billing. Installation
records show there are 225 residential tanks, 154 small or light commercial tanks, and 47
heavy commercial tanks. Tank size can range from 1000 gallons to 20,000 gallons.
Residential tanks are normally in the range of 1000 gallons to 2000 gallons. Light
commercial are in the range of 1500 gallons to 3000 gallons. Heavy commercial range
from 5000 gallons to 20,000 gallons.
Wasilla Municipal Code states that residential tanks are to be pumped once every three
years, commercial tanks with less than 60,000 gallons of flow per month every two years
and commercial that exceeds 60,000 gallons per month, each year. Residential systems
are pumped during warm weather to eliminate layered freezing if done during the winter
months. The two types of commercial systems are pumped during the winter months due
to the volume of water entering the system as it eliminates freezing that is encountered in
residential systems with low flow.
The current digester is 35 feet in diameter and has a 20 foot high side wall. The
operational height of the digester is 19 feet. A minimum level of 11.5 feet must be
maintained in the digester at all times in order to provide the necessary back pressure for
the blowers. The actual working capacity as to gallonage. fill is 7.5 feet or a total of 52,500
gallons. This was calculated as one foot of height is 7000 gallons. The above information
was obtained from the Operation and Maintenance manual. The O and M manual also
says that the total gallonage dumped is 4200 gallons per day on a seven day average.
Cindy Roberts
Director of Public Works
William W. Harvey
Deputy Director of Public Works
March 16,1998
Digester Construction Project FY98
OOOO^i
-------
The function of the digester is to treat the solids from the septic tanks through aerobic
microbial bacteria, essentially eating the solids. The loading capacity of the digester is
based on the ability of the aerobic bacteria to handle the gallonage of septage dumped
each day. The strength of the septage (BOD) also effects the number of gallons per day
that can be dumped.
The digester is usually cleaned every 12 to 18 months. This is the removal of the solids
from digester to drying beds and inspection of system components and repair as needed.
The Operation and Maintenance manual says that the digester has to run for 30 days from
last dumping of septage until it is ready to be placed on the drying beds. It is possible, if
repairs are needed, that the digester would be out of service for up to 60 days.
Problems arising from single digester:
1. Lack of ability to pump tanks on a scheduled basis due to gallonage of wastewater
and strength of wastewater.
2. Not able to meet Wasilla Municipal Code requirements.
3. Odor - Increased potential due to shock loading system. This means unbalancing
the delicate relationship of PH, dissolved oxygen and microorganisms during the
treatment process.
4. Emergency septic pumper cost when digester cannot be utilized by City pumper.
5. Lack of power to run plant during an extended power outage.
6. Ineffective use of time as to collection personnel.
The installation of a second digester will eliminate the above problems as well as lower
personnel costs over the life cycle of the treatment plant.
The City Council has appropriated $600,000 for the FY98 CIP to construct this project.
Through the efforts of Public Works staff, the City of Wasilla is on the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation grant list to be funded for $420,000 for FY99. As part of
the digester project, a dump and wash building was included along with an electrical
upgrade for the entire plant to provide emergency power in case of an extended power
outage by Matanuska Electric Association. It is felt that the cost of the design of these
areas could be reduced through sole sourcing of professional services as provided for by
the Wasilla Municipal Code. Attached is a proposal from CH2MHili and ADEC.
00002Z
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Section 8
Example of an EPA Categorical Exclusion
Determination Letter and Public Notice of CE for
Grantee's Publication in a Local Newspaper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
¦ i.m
Reply To
Attn Of: OW-13 0
City of Wasilla
Mayor Sarah PaJin
290 E. Herning Ave.
Wasilla, Alaska 99654-7091
Dear Mayor Palin:
The following is written in regards to the categorical exclusion application material
submitted by the City of Wasilla on April 3, 2000 to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Upon review of the application material, EPA has decided that the Wasilla Septage
Facility Construction Project does fulfill the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) criteria
at 6.107 (d) and (e) and 6.605 for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review. A categorical
exclusion determination letter is provided as an enclosure to this letter for your records.
As a condition for receiving the categorical exclusion, the NEPA regulations at 40 CFR
Part 6.400 (f) require the applicant to "publish a notice indicating the determination of eligibility
(for categorical exclusion) or recession in a local newspaper of conmranity-wide circulation and
indicate the availability of the supporting documentation for public inspection." A draft public
notice of eligibility for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review has been included for
your use or modification. The timing for publication of the notice should be coordinated with
Matt Harrington. In further compliance with 40 CFR Part 6.400 (f), Mr. Harrington will be
responsible for making available to the public and distributing to known interested parties a copy
of the determination notice.
Please feel free to contact Matt Harrington, NEPA Compliance Coordinator, at
(206) 553-0246 with any questions regarding this issue.
Sincerely, /j?
Randall F. Smith
Director
Office of Water
Enclosure
-------
Categorical Exclusion Determination
for
Wasilla Septage Facility Construction Project
Project Description-
The project action is for the development and construction of a sepatge receiving and
pretreatment facility. The project is divided into two phases. Phase A consists of minor site
improvements and constructing the sepatge facility. The structure includes a subsurface 30,000-
gallon aerated holding tank and other construction features (conduit and piping) that will
facilitate Phase B construction. Phase B includes the mechanical equipment, electrical controls,
and backup generation, among other miscellaneous items.
The City of Wasilla's sewer system was constructed in 1985-1987, jointly funded by the EPA,
the State of Alaska, Farmer's Home Administration (now the Rural Development
Administration) and the City. The project received 85% funding from EPA because of the
"Innovative/Alternative" design classification.
The City's STEP (septic tank effluent pumping) system is truly unique. Each property has an on-site
septic tank and lift station with extensive control and alarm systems. Wastewater from each
structure enters the septic tanks and primary settlement occurs, just like a conventional septic system.
The settled effluent is then pumped into force mains and is transported to the treatment plant. (The
initially constructed "treatment plant" consisted of multiple drain fields and a digester for septage.
The City has since added a two aerated lagoons attempting to solve ground water contamination
violations of the ADEC discharge permit, which remains unresolved.)
This "Innovative/Alternative" system has high maintenance requirements. Extensive electrical and
float controls problems in our cold climate and corrosive conditions result in high City operating
costs.
Septic Tank Pumping
One of the most time-consuming, high cost aspects is the tank pumping maintenance requirement.
Large commercial customers are pumped yearly, small commercial every two years and residential
customers are pumped every three years. The pumped septage is then placed into the digester at the
treatment plant.
Digester
The digester remains the same as when the system was constructed, as do its problems:
-------
There is no sanitary method to discharge septage into the digester. In tact,
the discharge point would be in violation of the Uniform Ptambmg Code tor a small RV
dump station. There is no spillway. Swage is frequently spilled onto the ground and there
is no wash down hose Combining a lack of sanitary facilities w,th freezing conditions
results in unacceptable health risks to City employees.
Every two years, the digester is emptied into drying beds and taken off line
for inspection and repairs. Extensive volumes of rock and other debris need to be hand
shoveled (in order for surface suction pumps to carry debris to the surface from the 20-foot
plus deep digester). Weeks of
OSHA confined space entry procedures, with their inherently high costs, are required. The
grit and debris foul pump pulling chairs and gear, and cause hardware damage.
Maintenance manpower is limited. Fewer than 500 customers are on the
system, supporting minimal employees. Tank pumping is difficult to schedule during winter
months. Digester maintenance needs to be done in warmer months. However, the conflict
is the need to do both during the short summer. Therefore, the result is pumping and digester
maintenance can not be done according to the O&M manual, the system continues to
deteriorate, and ground water contamination remains.
The digester was designed to receive up to 4,200 gallons/day of sludge, based
on a 7-day average. With the limited time to perform tank pumping during summer months,
the digester receives "slugs" of septage, instead of the steady design feed rate, especially
when a large commercial tank (up to 20,000 gallons) is pumped. The digester can not be
operated as designed.
The initial proposed solution was to construct a second digester. (The ADEC and State Legislature
approved a $420,000 matching grant.) The second digester would provide the City with sufficient
flexibility to pump tanks as scheduled or on an emergency basis, and would provide a dumping point
for tanks when a digester would be ofif-line for maintenance. However, that solution would not
provide three key requirements:
1. Improve worker health and safety, and minimize potential environmental
impacts due to septage spills.
2. Decrease maintenance expenses by eliminating extensive manpower to clean
and repair the digester by removing grit and debris, and by eliminating hardware within
the digester.
3. Increase the level of septage treatment by having a steady rate feed instead of
batch, "slug" loads (resulting in a higher treated sludge being applied to the drying beds,
decreasing nitrate impacts to shallow ground water and odor complaints).
-------
Septage Facility
In 1998 and early 1999, the City reevaluated the proposed second digester in conjunction with the
design engineering firm of CH2MHU1. The December 10, 1998 CH2MHill technical memorandum
entitled, Citv of Waxiila Sentage Handling Improvements Alternative Description, is attached.
The reevaluation resulted in a decision to construct a septage receiving and pretreatment facility.
A structure will be built that will contain septage receiving equipment (pumper truck connection,
screening and grit removal equipment) aerated pretreatment/holding basin, truck wash down and
wastewater collection, worker hygiene facilities, digester improvements, and backup electrical
generation upgrade (for entire plant). Also included in the project is a potable water well, drain field
discharge piping reconfiguration, gravel access drive and gate, and paving adjacent to treatment
works.
ADEC and the State Legislature concurred with the revised project and reappropnated the $420,000
grant to a Septage Facility for state fiscal year 2000. The ADEC C continues to support this project
by recommending an additional $430,000 for State FY 2001. This $430,000 grant is included in the
Governor's proposed budget and the Legislature is expected to approve the appropriation by early
May, 2000.
Septage Facility Phased Construction
The City intends on constructing this facility in two phases. This is due to the ADEC grant not
becoming available until July, well into Alaska's short construction season.
Phase A is "structure and site construction." Phase B is the equipment works.
Phase A: Phase A consists of the site improvements and constructing the structure. The structure
includes a subsurface 30,000-gallon aerated holding tank and other construction features (such as
conduit and piping) that will facilitate Phase B construction.
The construction plans have been approved by ADEC, Plans and specifications are included in the
bid documents that have been provided to EPA.
Phase A is currently out to bid, with the bid opening scheduled for April 29. The schedule calls for
the bid to be awarded by Council on May 22,2000. Substantial completion of the structure and site
work is September 1, 2000. Phase A is to be completed by October 31, 2000.
Phase B: This phase includes the mechanical equipment, electrical controls, and backup generation.
-------
among other miscellaneous items. Phase B has been designed but not put out to bid, pending award
of the $430,000 ADEC grant. The City intends on advertising for bids starting in mid-October,
2000. Bid award is anticipated for late November 2000. Completion of construction is scheduled
for April 2000
Categorical Exclusion Criteria-
The Wasilla Sepatge Facility Construction Project will not only rehabilitate existing facilities,
but also will involve construction of new ancillary facilities adjacent to or appurtenant to existing
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project does meet the general criteria for a categorical exclusion
delineated at 40 CFR 6.107 (d) (1). ,
The proposed project meets the criteria of specialized categories of actions eligible for
categorical exclusion by being a project that takes place in an unsewered community of less than
10,000 people (40 CFR 6.605 (b». .
In addition to meeting the general requirements for a categoricalexcluston, construction grant
wastewater treatment projects must also not violate the criteria for granting a categorical exclusion
which are delineated at 40 CFR 6.107 (e) and 6.605 (c). For the proposed Wasilla Septage
Construction Facility Project, die criteria have not been violated, A detailed explanation by the City
of Wasilla for how the project does not violate the CE criteria is provided as an addendum to this
Upon review of the application material and NEPA regulations pertaining to the granting of
a categorical exclusion determination, it is the finding of the undersigned that the Wasilla Septage
Facility Construction Project has met the criteria to be categorically excluded from further NEPA
finding.
Finding-
review.
Matt
NEPA Compliance Coordinator
-------
Public Notice
City of YVasilla
Wasilla, Alaska
Wasilla Septage Facility Construction Project
The City of Wasilla is planning to undertake minor rehabilitation activities at the existing
Wasilla Sepatge Facility and to construct a septage receiving and pretreatment facility.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the proposed project is
consistent with the criteria found in 40 CFR 6.107 (d) and 40 CFR 6.6505 (b) and is eligible for
exclusion from further environmental review.
The categorical exclusion and supporting documentation are available for public
inspection by contacting Matt Harrington. EPA Seattle Office, at 206-553-0246.
-------
Section 9
Example Public Notice Affidavit of Publication in
Local Newspaper from Grantee
-------
Frontiftrsman/Vallftv Sim ^nwspapcrs
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ALASKA
THIRD DIVISION.
BEFORE ME. THE UNDERSIGNED, A NOTARY PUBLIC THIS DAY
PERSONALLY APPEARED KARI SLEIGHT, WHO, BEING F.RST
DULY SWORN, ACCORDING TO LAW, SAYS THAT SHE IS THE
PUBLISHER OF THE FRONTIERSMAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED AT
Alaska's Best Small Town Newspaper
5751 E Mayflower Court
(907) 376-5225
Wasiila. A5C 9%54
(907) 352-2277 Fax
AFFIDAVIT t)~F PUBLICATION
WASILLA IN SAID DIVISION THREE AND STATE OF ALASKA AND
pubuc Nonce
cmr OF WASILLA
WASILLA, ALASKA
SEPTAG6 FACILITY
THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT. OF WHICH THE ANNEXED IS A TRUE
< o
COPY. WAS PUBLISHED ON THE 1 Q
2000, AND THEREAFTER FOR
n
Tha City of Waailfa is plan-
nhg la uneteftaw minof f*h»-
Wratlon activities at ttie flxist-
*19 WasBa Savwr Plant and id
cwwouci a sapage mc«/f>-?
.SKA i
/aoA
-------
Section 10
Step bv Step Process Grantees. EPA PO. and EPA
NEPA Compliance Coordinators Should Follow to
Prepare a CE Request Application
-------
Roles and Responsibilities of Grantees, EPA Project Officers,
and EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator
- Step 1.) Grantee Contacts EPA Project Officer (PO) to discuss project
and schedule for proposed project.
- Step 2.) Grantee and EPA PO determine other potential state and federal
agencies with permits or SEPA/NEPA responsibilities.
* Step 3.) Grantee coordinates with other State and Federal Agencies for
documentation of response for EPA CE application.
¦ Step 4.) Grantee prepares CE application.
¦ Step 5.) Grantee submits CE application to EPA PO.
» Step 6.) EPA PO reviews the CE application for consistency with EPA CE
criteria.
-------
Roles and Responsibilities of Grantees, EPA Project Officers,
and EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator (continued)
" Step 7.) EPA PO either determines that the Grantee's CE application
needs to be revised to include missing information, etc. or the
EPA PO sends the CE application to the NEPA Compliance
Coordinator for final approval.
* Step 8.) EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator prepares CE approval
documentation and public notice.
« Step 9.) EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator obtains the Director of the
Office of Water's signature on the CE approval documentation.
¦ Step 10.) EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator provides a copy of the CE
approval documentation and public notice to the Grantee and
the EPA PO.
-------
Roles and Responsibilities of Grantees, EPA Project Officers,
and EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator (continued)
* Step 11.) Grantee publishes the EPA CE approval public notice in a local
newspaper.
« Step 12.) Grantee provides a public review copy of the Grantee's CE
application and EPA CE approval documentation in one public
location as specified in the public notice. (The documents must
be accessible to the public for review. City Hall is a typical place
utilized for display of these materials).
- Step 13.) There is a mandatory thirty day public review period for the CE
documents prior to EPA being able to proceed with Grant award.
The thirty day public review timeframe starts from the date of the
CE approval documents from EPA. The public notice should be
timed closely with the date of the CE approval by EPA.
-------
Roles and Responsibilities of Grantees, EPA Project Officers,
and EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator (continued)
* Step 14.) Grantee is required to provide an affidavit of publication of the
CE public notice to the EPA NEPA Compliance Coordinator and
EPA PO.
- Step 15.) If there are no comments received by EPA on the CE within the
thirty day public comment period, then the EPA NEPA
Compliance Coordinator will notify the EPA PO that the PO can
proceed with grant fund release.
- Step 16.) EPA PO will notify the Grantee that grant fund release can
proceed.
------- |