United States Region 4 EPA 904/9 78-009
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE JUNE 1978
Agency Atlanta, GA 30308
-------
J, !>/¦¦
review of Preliminary Draft IIIS and Appendices, Cahaba
W;ste»'a<:»-r facilities, Jefforaon, Shelby and St. Clair
Howard A, True
A;;:/ient. l.'otutoiring Section
Uncer Survaillance branch
Ronald J. Mikulak
£[S Lranch
SUaiiAR'*
A very ,_;ood effort was put into thia EIS to make it comprehensive
vithin the limits of the statement of work. The EIS document is
bulky due to excessive repetition—this siiould be refined. The
miracle ws hoped for as a good solution to the Cahaba River problems
did not materialize. The EIS makes it quite clear that tvassive watei
uupply withdrawals from and massive discharges of effluent to this
little river will always leave only a s;nall branch between highways
260 and 21. This problem is now well documented for the first tir&e.
The Elo should encourage the full execution of the 20'3 Planning and
Continuing Planning Program associated with this basin to promote
eventual resolution of the withdrawal and discharge conflict.
Coniii>entb concerning specific items:
IV. 4 Last sentence - Working Paper 234 from the "Lake Eutrophicatioi
Study" could supply information on nutrient loadings to Lake Purdy.
p£» 11-10 - Second sentence under "soil suitabilities" - This sentern
should be rewritten.
first sentence - Highway 250 trends Northwestward or South'
easterly but not Southwesfcward (see Figure II-5).
P«. AII-23 Second paragraph, third sentence - This is probably an
erroneous opinion especially in the reach of the Cahaba River batwee;
highways 230 and 31. A small package plant discharge in the l>olly
Brook (i. ) drainage killed a herd of cattle during the late sixties
and the Catiaba River was affected during low flow conditions*
Pg. <»-II-27-34 - This appears to be the only place where nonpoint
(incremental) runoff is mentioned in the modeling process. A que&ti
is raised concerning translation of runoff loads in pounds from sect
1 into concentrations, this should be explained.
Pa. AI1-67-71 - Land application in the upper basin appears to have
considerable Eierit and should be emphasized.
Pff. All 155-181 Non-point analysis - This section contains a good
analysis and should be summarized into about two pages for placement
in the rain EIS.
River
Counties, Ali
-------
ihe sparse fii&cuusions of septic tanks in tue ar«« could start'l .1
¦."tore elaborate treatment since this disposal v.uithod is feeing,
frc>r,ofced by the Jcirferson County Coiiwisuioa in lieu of increase
of SIP capacity. Septic tanks have a poor history in s; AC
1. Visit by Contractor for tv»o days duriug initial phase.
2. Vour request dated 2/27/78.
H.True:ca:SAD:3/3/78:3139
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CAHABA RIVER WASTEWATER FACILITIES
JEFFERSON, SHELBY AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ALABAMA
EPA PROJECT NO. C010269-0I
$
$
Environmental Protection Agency
P Region IV
O A B- /« 1 Mi
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Approved:
June 1978
-------
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cahaba River Wastewater Facilities
Jefferson, Shelby, and St* Clair Counties, Alabama
Project No. C010269-01
Draft (X)
Final ( )
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
!• Type of Action: Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Action ( )
2. Brief Description of Proposed Action:
This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared in response to the
action of awarding grant funds to the Jefferson County Commission for the
purpose of expanding and upgrading a wastewater treatment system to serve
portions of Jefferson, Shelby, and St. Clai* Counties, Alabama. The pro-
posed project consists of the necessary facilities to collect and treat ap-
proximately 14 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater in 1980, with expan-
sion to accept wastewater flows expected to exceed 18 MGD by the year 2000.
The proposed structural action involves modifications to four wastewater
treatment facilities. The existing Patton Creek Treatment Plant would be
converted into a pumping station with wastewater conveyed for treatment at
the Cahaba Plant. The Cahaba Plant Is to be upgraded and expended from its
present 4 MGD capacity to 16 MGD around 1990. Discharge from the Cahaba
Plant would be continued directly Into the Cahaba River. The existing
Trussville Plant would be expanded from the present 1 MGD capacity to 1.25
MGD in the vicinity of 1985, with discharge continued to the Cahaba River.
The existing Leeds Plant would be expended from a present capacity of 1 MGD
to 1.5 MOD at around 1985.
The proposed action also envisions the extension of interceptor end
collector sewer systems to provide needed service to Cahaba Heights, Mountein
Brook, Overton, Roebuck Plaza, end Moody end other nlscelleneous areas in
the Cahaba River Basin. In all, the propoeed action would result In eventual
construction of over 200,000 feet of 8-inch collector sewer, nearly 50,000
feet of 12-inch trunk sewer, 13,000 feet of 4- and 8-inch force main, and
several pumping stations.
A number of potential mitigative measures have been identified through
the E1S process to reduce the severity of impacts associated with the proposed
-------
action. As an adjunct to the structural components of the proposed system
certain requirements, included as grant conditions or pre-conditions, and
recommendations have been included to minimize identified adverse impacts.
These measures are not totally within the purview of EPA. Many of the mitigative
measures require implementation by local governments.
3. Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
The proposed action will have a number of direct consequences caused by
the construction and operation of the proposed facilities. These will include
the improvements in present and future water quality that are the basic purpose
of the proposed action. However, there will also be adverse impacts such as
losses of vegetation and commitments of land to construction and expansion
of facilities.
Environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action will be of both a
short term and long term basis. Short term impacts will relate to those involved
in construction. These will include impacts upon air quality resulting from
increases in dust and smoke, increased noise levels, removal of vegetation, loss
of wildlife and semi-aquatic life. However, many of these adverse impacts can
and will be mitigated through a variety of measures. The proposed action will improve
water quality in the basin and will meet State of Alabama water quality criteria.
The Goldline Darter and Cahaba Shiner reside in the Cahaba River and have been proposed
for rare and endangered species status. If chlorine were used for disinfection
these fish may be adversely affected. The increase in concentration of nutrients
is not expected to result in significant impacts on these fish. Widespread
long tsrm environmental changes will occur in the basin due to future development.
The proposed system will support this development. This population growth will
result in environmental impacts which may be mitigated significantly through
measures implemented locally.
4. Summary of Alternatives Considered
The EIS process has evaluated a range of structural and nonstructural alternatives,
including a no action alternative. The proposed action calls for considerable
structural activities which are quite different in several ways from the action
recommended by the 201 facilities planning document. The 201 facilities plan
recommended a two-plant system; with an expanded and upgraded Cahaba Plant and a
new plant near Overton. The action proposed by the EIS is a three-plant system as
discussed above.
A total of nine structural alternatives for wastewater management were considered
during the EIS process. These include the following treatment plant configurations:
o Overton - Cahaba
o Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
o Leeds via Little Cahaba River - Trussville - Cahaba
o Trussville - Cahaba
o Leeds via Cahaba River - Trussville - Cahaba
o Cahaba
o Patton Creek - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
-------
Patton Creek via Cahaba River - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
Patton Creek Pretreatment - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
The proposed Leeds via Little Cahaba River - Trussville - Cahaba
Alternative, as well as the other eight configurations were also examined
with regard to land application of treated wastewater and tradeoffs between
treatment levels and flow augmentation from an expanded Lake Purdy reservoir
or from new impoundments in the Black Creek basin.
Nonstructural techniques considered included:
Optimum use of existing facilities
Flow and waste reduction measures
Use of individual disposal systems
Land use and development controls
5. Comments on the Draft Statement have been requested from the following:
Federal Agencies
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U.S. Coast Guard
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Economic Development Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Fisheries and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Energy Administration
Federal Power Commission
Members of Congress
Honorable James B. Allen
Honorable John Sparkman
Honorable John M. Buchanan
U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
State
George C. Wallace, Governor
Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Alabama Department of Archives and History
Alabama Development Office
Alabama Forestry Commission
Alabama Soil and Water Conservation
Alabama State Highway Department
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
-------
Local
County Commission of Jefferson County
County Commission of Shelby County
County Commission of St. Clair County
Mayor, City of Vestavia Hills
Major, City of Hoover
Mayor, City of Mountain Brook
Mayor, City s?f Trussville
Mayor, City of Leeds
Mayor, City of Birmingham
Chairman, Birmingham Regional Planning Commission
Chairman, Cahaba Commission
Interested Groups
Alabama Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club, Cahaba Group
The Alabama Conservancy
League of Women Voters of Greater Birmingham
University of Alabama in Birmingham
Concerned Citizens Coalition, Inc.
Birmingham Water Works Board
Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
Birmingham Association of Builders
Birmingham Industrial Water Board
Metropolitan Development Board
Cahaba Basin Land Development and Owners Association
Associated Industries of Alabama
Birmingham Area Board of Realtors
Birmingham Audubon Society
Birmingham Canoe Club
Citizens for Land Use Betterment
Alabama Ornithological Society
Birmingham Urban League
Community Service Council, Inc.
Citizens for Responsive Government
Izaak Walton League
6. Date made available to OFA and the Public
The Draft Statement was made available to OFA and the Public in June 1978.
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CAHABA RIVER WASTEWATER FACILITIES
JEFFERSON, SHELBY, AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES, ALABAMA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND OF THE E1S
CHAPTER II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
2. CLIMATE
3. AIR QUALITY
4. ODOR
5. NOISE
6. TOPOGRAPHY
7. GEOLOGY
8. SOILS
9. GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
10. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
11. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
13. AQUATIC ECOLOGY
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
1. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Page
1
1-1
1-1
PURPOSE OF THE EIS
201 PLAN SUMMARY ^
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
II-l
II-l
II-l
II-l
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-5
II-6
II-9
11-11
12. WATER QUALITY IX-15
n AfiTTAii.T« „„„„ „„„ ^ ^
11-31
11-31
11-35
2. LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS 11-40
3. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS t_
4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, HISTORICAL AND ll-hl
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 11-42
5. TRANSPORTATION 11-43
6. RESOURCE USE 11-43
7. WASTEWATER PROGRAMS 11-57
8. WATER SUPPLY 11-64
9. WATER RIGHTS 11-66
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES n-67
11. TAXES AND BUDGETING 11-70
12. OTHER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.')
Page
CHAPTER III. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
PART A. INTRODUCTION Ill-l
PART B. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES III-2
1. STRUCTURAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS III-2
2. NON-STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES III-9
3. PROJECTED SEWERED POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS III-16
4. TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITIES 111-19
5. TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 111-19
6. SELECTION OF TREATMENT PROCESSES 111-28
7. COST EVALUATION 111-28
8. OPERABILITY EVALUATION 111-40
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARISON 111-43
10. IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION 111-56
11. COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTION III-59
PART C. EVALUATION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 111-62
1. INTRODUCTION 111-62
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 111-62
3. NO-ACTION POPULATION AND LAND-USE 111-63
4. COST EVALUATION 111-64
5. OPERABILITY EVALUATION 111-67
CHAPTER IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1. INTRODUCTION IV-1
2. POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS IV-2
3. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FACILITIES IV-2
4. NON-STRUCTURAL ACTIONS IV-18
5. COST OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IV-21
6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IV-21
CHAPTER V, IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
INTRODUCTION V-l
PART A. IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT v_2
1. ATMOSPHERE V-2
2. NOISE LEVELS V-4
3. ODORS v_6
4. TOPOGRAPHY v_7
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
CHAPTER V. (Cont'd.)
PART A. (Cont'd.)
5. GEOLOGY
6. SOILS
7. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
8. WATER QUALITY
9. IMPACTS OF OPTIONS FOR EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FROM LEEDS
10. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
11. AQUATIC ECOLOGY
12. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Page
V-8
V-8
V-9
V-ll
V-17
V-21
V-24
V-25
13. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES V~26
PART B. IMPACTS ON THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT V_27
INTRODUCTION V~27
1. POPULATION V"27
2. LAND USE V~30
3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS V~32
4. HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES V-35
5. TRANSPORTATION V"^
6. RESOURCE USE V-3°
7. WATER SUPPLY V~3^
8. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS V~
9. WATER RIGHTS V~44
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
11. TAXES AND BUDGETING V"45
12. OTHER PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND EFFORTS V"49
CHAPTER VI. POTENTIAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND REQUIREMENTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION VI-1
PART A. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. AIR QUALITY
2. NOISE
3. ODOR
4. TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGY
5. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
6. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
7. AQUATIC ECOLOGY
VI-1
VI-1
VI-2
VI-2
VI-3
VI-4
VI-7
VI-10
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Page
CHAPTER VI. (Cont'd.)
PART B. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT VI-11
1. POPULATION AND LAND USE VI-11
2. WATER SUPPLY VI-1$
3. MITIGATION OF OTHER AREAS OF IMPACT THROUGH PLANNING VI-17
PART C. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VI"17
1. REQUIREMENTS VI-17
2. RECOMMENDATIONS VI-21
CHAPTER VII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VII-1
COORDINATION VII-4
iv
-------
Table
II-l
11-2
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-6
II-7
II-8
II-9
11-10
11-11
11-12
H-13
H-14
LIST OF TABLES
Page
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
Jefferson County Health Department Air Pollution II-3
Episode Action Plan
Exhaust Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles II-'
Cahaba River Basin Soil Characteristics TI-7
Cahaba River Basin - Degree and Kind of Soil TI-8
Limitations for Wastewater Management
Alternatives
Approximate Acreage Estimates for the Cahaba River 11-10
Basin Study Area
Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Nutrient Enrich- II-l. and
ment of Surface Waters on Aquatic Life Tl-lb
AWIC Water Quality Standards for Classification of £1-19 and
Stream Segments 1I-2j
Estimated Eutrophication in Lake Purdy Comparing II-' +
Mean Depth (m)/Mean Hydraulic Retention Time
(years) to Total Phosphorus Loading Rate
(g/m2/year)
Population Trends and Comparisons: Region, State, 11-32
and Nation
Comparison of Regional Population Projections, 11-34
1970-2000 (Year 2000 Projections)
Unconstrained Population Projections by Subwater- 11-36 and
sheds of the Cahaba Basin Study Region, 11-37
1975-2000
Mineral Resource Production - Jefferson, Shelby, 11-44
and St. Clair Counties, Fiscal, 1976 (Tons)
Coal Production and Reserves (Tons) 1976 11-45
Study Area Sewage Treatment Plant Service Areas, 11-47
Size and Population
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.')
Table
11-15
11-16
11-17
11-18
1-19
11-20
11-21
11-22
TI-23
11-24
11-25
11-26
11-27
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
III-6
PaSe
CHAPTER II (Cont'd.)
Patton Creek Plant Performance Data 11-48
Infiltration/Inflow Data for the Patton Creek System 1I~49
Cahaba River Plant Performance Data II-51
Infiltration/Inflow Data for the Cahaba River Plant 11-53
Leeds Plant Performance Data 11-54
Infiltration/Inflow Data for the Leeds Plant 11-55
Trussville Plant Performance Data 11-58
Infiltration/Inflow Data for the Trussville Plant 11-59
Municipal Groundwater Supplies 11-61
Birmingham Water Works Board Water Treatment 11-62
Facilities
Estimated Future Water Demands 11-63
Jefferson County Sewer System Revenues and Expenses 11-68 and
11-69
Operation and Maintenance Costs for Study Area 11-70
Wastewater Treatment Plants
CHAPTER III
Sewered Population and Wastewater Flows 111-17
Unremovable Infiltration/Inflow From Existing Systems, 111-18
in MGD
Industrial Wastewater Flows, in MGD 111-20
Total Wastewater Flows, in MGD 111-21
Recommended Treatment Capacities, in MGD 111-22
Treatment Levels for Structural Alternatives Under 111-25 and
Different Flow Regimes - Year 2000 111-26
vi
-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
CHAPTER III (Cont'd.)
Page
111-34
111-35
III-7 Treatment Process Selection Ill-29 and
111-30
III-8 Total Project Costs for Alternative Wastewater 111-32
Conveyance and Treatment Systems
Hl-9 1985 Operation and Maintenance Costs - Alternative
Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Systems
111-10 Total Project Costs and Annual Operation and
Maintenance Costs for Alternative Stream Flow
Augmentation and Water Supply Facilities
Total Present Worth of Capital and Operation Costs 111-36
for Alternative Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment Systems
III 12 Total Present Worths and Local Annual Costs for IH-38
Alternative Stream Flow Augmentation and Water
Supply Facilities
III-13 Total Present Worths of Capital and Operation 111-39
Costs for Alternative Wastewater Management
Systems
^ Total Annual Local Costs for Alternative Wastewater 111-41
Conveyance and Treatment Systems
III 15 ^nnua^ Local Costs for Alternative Wastewater 111-42
Management Systems
16 Operability Evaluation Comparison of Alternative 111-44
astewater Conveyance and Treatment Facilities
Operability Evaluation Comparison of Alternative 111-45
Wastewater Management Systems
^ Scoring of Total Impacts on the Environment of the 111-47
Cahaba EIS
Hi-19 Scoring of Impacts on the Terrestrial Environment 111-48
by Alternatives of the Cahaba EIS
^ ^cor*-ng of Impacts on the Aquatic Environment by 111-49
Alternatives of the Cahaba EIS
vii
-------
Table
111-21
111-22
111-23
111-24
111-25
III-26
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
IV-5
IV-6
IV-7
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
CHAPTER III (Cont'd.)
Page
Scoring of Impacts on the Man-Made Environment of 111-50
the Cahaba EIS
Implementability Evaluation Comparison 111-58
Cahaba River Basin EIS Cost Effectiveness Rating 111-61
of Alternatives
Population Projections by Subwatersheds, Cahaba 111-65 and
River Basin Study Area 111-66
No Action Alternative Cost Analysis-Comparative 111-68
Cost Components of Action Versus No Action
No Action Alternative Cost Analysis-Summary of 111-69
Comparative Costs for Action Versus No Action
CHAPTER IV
Population and Wastewater Flow Projections for IV-3
Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-
Cahaba Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
Alternative
Recommended Treatment Capacities in Million Gallons IV-5
Per Day for Leeds via Little Cahaba River-
Trussville-Cahaba Wastewater Treatment System
Treatment Plant Effluent Requirements for the IV-6
Proposed Action
Summary of the Proposed Leeds via Little Cahaba- IV-15
Trussville-Cahaba Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment System
Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants IV-16 and
IV-17
Collection System Summary for Leeds via Little IV-9
Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba Wastewater
Program
Construction Costs for Leeds via Little Cahaba River- IV-22
Trussville-Cahaba Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment System
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
Table Page
CHAPTER IV (Cont'd.)
IV-8 Project, Grant, and Local Costs for Leeds via Little IV-23
Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba Wastewater
Conveyance and Treatment System
IV-9 Construction and Project Cost Estimates for Local IV-24
Collection Systems
CHAPTER V
V~1 Estimated Emissions or Air Pollutants from Mobile V-3
Sources
^ ^ Typical Peak Noise Levels Associated with Various V-5
Types of Construction Equipment
^ ^ Projected Nutrient Loadings Under the Proposed V-13
Action - Year 2000
V-4
V-5
V-6
V-7
V-8
V-9
Sub-Basins with High Potential for ®ign^^Snt
Hydrologic Impacts Due to Land Use Typ
Population Projections by Subwateraheds, Cahaba River V-28
Basin Study Area
Estimated Population in the Vicinity
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Following Pafte
1 Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba Alternative 6
CHAPTER I
I-1 201 Plan Recommended Facilities - Overton-Cahaba 1-2
CHAPTER II
II-O Drainage Basins 11-37
II-l 1975 Population Density 11-37*
II-2 2000 Population Density 11-37*
II-3 Existing Land Use (Year 1975) 11-38*
II-4 Future Land Use (Year 2000) 11-38*
II-5 Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Existing Service 11-45
Areas
II-6 Water Supply Systems 11-61
CHAPTER III
III-l Overton-Cahaba Alternative III-2
III-2 Upper Cahaba-Cahaba Alternative III-3
III-3 Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba Alternative III-4
III-4 Trussvllle-Cahaba Alternative III-A
III-5 Leeds via Cahaba River-Trussville Cahaba Alternative III-5
III-6 Cahaba Alternative III-5
IH-7 Patton Creek-Upper Cahaba-Cahaba Alternative III-6
III-8 Patton Creek via Cahaba River-Upper Cahaba-Cahaba III-6
Alternative
~Figures II-l, II-2, II-3, and II-4 are contained in pockets inside the back cover.
x
-------
Figure
III-9
111-10
III-ll
III-12
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
V-l
V-2
V-3
V-A
V-5
V-6
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd.)
CHAPTER III (Cont'd.)
Following Page
Patton Creek Pretreatment-Upper Cahaba-Cahaba III-6
Alternative
Leeds Spray Irrigation-Trussville-Cahaba Alternative III-8
Upper Cahaba Spray Irrigation - Cahaba Alternative III-8
Drainage Basins 111-66
CHAPTER IV
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba Alternative IV-3
Schematic Flow Diagram of the Leeds Wastewater IV-7
Treatment Plant
Schematic Flow Diagram of the Trussville Wastewater IV-8
Treatment Plant
Schematic Flow Diagram of the Cahaba Wastewater IV-11
Treatment Plant
CHAPTER V
Vegetation Impacts V-9
Existing Dissolved Oxygen Profile During 7-Day, V-ll
10-Year Low Flows
Dissolved Oxygen Profile During 7-Day, 10-Year V-ll
Low Flows - Proposed Action, Year 2000
Dissolved Oxygen Content of Streams Below Treat- V-ll
ment Plant Discharges - Year 2000
Drainage Basins with Significant Potential for V-22
Adverse Hydrologic Impact
Impact on Archeological, Historical, and V-35
Recreational Resources
xi
-------
SUMMARY
This Cahaba River Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared in
response to the legal requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. The EIS was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV and addresses the issues and concerns for potential environmental
impacts resulting from a major federal action in the Cahaba River Basin.
Chapter I
Background of the EIS
Chapter I discusses the circumstances that led to the decision to
prepare the Cahaba River EIS.
The Environmental Impact Statement for Cahaba River Wastewater Facili-
ties is in direct response to the requirements of Public Law 91-190, the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This act requires the prepara-
tion of an EIS for any major Federal action that will significantly affect
the quality of the human environment.
The major Federal action regarding wastewater facilities in the Cahaba
River Basin is represented by the Section 201 Facilities Plan for Jefferson
County. This plan was prepared in response to P.L. 92-500, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendment. Under this Act, a 201 Facilities Plan is
required as the first step toward the design and construction of wastewater
facilities. The Birmingham Area Wastewater Facilities Plan was completed in
August, 1975. The plan recommended a wastewater management alternative that
would eventually divert flows from the Leeds and Trussville wastewater treat-
ment plants to a new plant at Overton. Relocation of the Birmingham water
supply would also be necessary in order to withdraw water from an expanded
Lake Purdy. In addition, the Patton Creek treatment plant would be abandoned
with its flow being pumped to an expanded Cahaba treatment plant.
The recommended alternative met with stiff opposition by many groups
and organizations. The proposed alternative was seen as a threat to the
natural and scenic beauty of the basin. In addition, there was the continu-
ing conflict of utilizing the Cahaba River as both a major source of water
supply and for wastewater disposal.
Following considerable debate and controversy over the need for an EIS,
the EPA Regional Administrator ordered the preparation of an EIS on February 6,
1976. A Notice of Intent for the EIS was prepared on March 4, 1976.
Chapter II
.Environmental Setting
Chapter II is divided into discussion of the natural environment and the
an ma e environment. Each section describes the existing setting of the
a aba River Basin as it is pertinent to the EIS.
1
-------
Natural Envircmment
The Upper Cahaba River Basin covers approximately 255 square miles
southeast of the City of Birmingham. The study area includes 54 miles of
the Cahaba River in portions of Jefferson, St. Clair,and Shelby Counties.
The Upper Cahaba River Basin is a source of water supply, wastewater disposal,
and recreation.
The study area lies in the valley ridge province. These valleys and
ridges trend to the northeast and are generally underlain by limestone and
shale. The basin has some suburban development and areas of high population
density, but many portions remain in a natural setting. In addition, most of
the development is of a residential or commercial nature with little industrial
activity except in Leeds and Trussville. Consequently, the re is little air
or noise pollution in the study area except in those areas adjacent to major
transportation facilities.
The terrestrial ecology of the study area includes a large variety of
plant and animal species. Much of the basin remains forested with both pine
and hardwood species. There are also a number of rare and endangered plant
species, birds, and mammals in the study area, including the red-cockaded
woodpecker in the Lake Purdy area. There are no reptiles or amphibians which
are presently rare or endangered in the study area.
The Cahaba River is an important water resource for water supply, waste-
water disposal, and recreation. The Cahaba River flows entirely within
Alabama in a southwesterly direction, draining 1,870 square miles of watershed.
The river has its headwaters in the Cahaba Mountain and is a spring-fed stream
until it nears Trussville where it flows into the coastal plain and becomes
a slow, winding stream punctuated with gravel bars. It is one of the few
rivers in Alabama which is not heavily dammed.
Water quality in the study area has been collected at different locations
since 1.964. Water quality criteria have been assigned by the Alabama Water
Improvement Commission (AWIC) to the Cahaba River Basin and particularly to
the portions of the basin covered by the EIS study. AWIC water quality criteria
include pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliforms, and turbidity.
Water quality data for the basin indicate that total inorganic nitrogen
lies above the desired level of 0.3 mg/1. High levels of total inorganic
nitrogen are found at several locations throughout the basin. Total phosphorus
follows the same trends as inorganic nitrogen, increasing in concentrations
below the wastewater treatment plant discharge and the Gold-Kist Plant (formerly
the Ralston Purina Plant). Lake Purdy and Paradise Lake also receive nutrients
from upstream wastewater treatment plants at Leeds and Patton Creek respectively.
Nonpoint sources of pollution may also be a source of nutrient loadings, but
there is little data in the basin to support or reject this concept.
Recent studies in the EIS study area have found indications of much algal
biomass, increased production, high diurnal oxygen fluctuations, and decreased
oxygen at lower water depths. Algal blooms were also observed in the entrapped
2
-------
waters resulting from the low-head dams in the basin. In addition, nuisance
bacterial slime communities and decreased diversity of benthic invertebrates
have been observed throughout the study area as a result of wastewater dis-
charges. The goldline darter and Cahaba shiner proposed for rare and endan-
gered species status may presently be impacted as a result of upstream water
quality. The critical habitat for the Cahaba shiner is downstream of the
study area and includes the main channel of the Cahaba River from the U.S.
Highway 82 crossing at Centreville, Bibb County to Shelby County Highway 52
west of Helena. The critical habitat for the goldline darter is located in
the main channel of the Cahaba River from the U.S. Highway 82 crossing at
Centreville, Bibb County upstream to the U.S. Highway 31 crossing in Shelby
County.
Man-Made Environment
The study area includes portions of Jefferson, Shelby, and St. Clair
Counties. In 1975, an estimated 92,780 people lived within the study area
boundaries. A forecast of future basin population growth, developed from
projections adopted by the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, estimates
a population of 138,300 in the year 2000.
At present, most of the basin's land area is not populated. Residential
areas are concentrated along major radial highways adjacent to Birmingham or
in smaller, separate communities such as Leeds and Trussville. Due to the
basin's physical geography, development is to follow the northeast-southwest
pattern of ridgelines. The study area has been developed slowly in the past
due to the availability of more suitable land in other parts of the region,
relatively poor accessibility, and the isolation of outlying communities.
Transportation improvements (1-65 and 1-459, for example) and overall
regional growth will bring continued development pressure to the basin. If
recent trends of suburban growth continue, residential areas will spread along
major access routes in the southern portion of the study area, as well as in
the areas surrounding the basin's independent communities.
Urban development has necessitated the placement of four municipal waste-
water plants within the boundaries of the EIS study area. The Patton Creek
plant, serving 13,400 people over a 4,250 acre area, is a two-stage trickling
filter facility located on the west bank of Patton Creek, approximately 2
miles upstream from its confluence with the Cahaba River. Treated effluent is
discharged just upstream of Paradise Lake. Insufficient treatment capacity to
handle present flows is adversely affecting the environment. Recent U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency regulations have placed this plant under
strict operating limitations effective until November 3, 1978.
The Cahaba River Treatment Plant, serving 8,890 persons over a 4,000
acre area, utilizes a 4-mgd activated sludge process. It is located on the
north shore of the Cahaba River approximately 2 miles upstream from Highway 31.
Beginning operation in March 1972, this is the newest of the four plants and
has ample room to accommodate future expansion needs. However, present
upstream withdrawals of water by the Birmingham Water Works Board greatly
limit the assimilative capacity of the Cahaba River at the existing discharge
point. A moratorium was established by Jefferson County on February 10, 1976
3
-------
on connections to both the Patton Creek and Cahaba Wastewater Treatment
plants. The moratorium on the Patton Creek plant bans any now connect ions
unless a special exception is granted by the county. The Cahaba plant has
a modified moratorium which has allocated an additional 698,000 gallons of
wastewater over a three-year period. This wastewater treatment capacity has
been allocated to developers throughout the Cahaba service area. The mora-
torium remains in effect. In addition, stricter operating limitations have
been imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, effective until
November 3, 1978.
The Leeds Treatment Plant, serving 3,700 persons over an area of 1,150
acres, is a trickling filter plant located just north of Moore Creek and east
of the Little Cahaba River, near their junction. Past plant performance has
resulted in degraded water quality from effluent being discharged in the Little
Cahaba River and Lake Purdy. Recent upgrading and the potential for phosphorus
and ammonia-nitrogen removal should help alleviate this problem.
The Trussville plant, serving 2,090 persons over an area of 600 acres, is
located one thousand feet west of the Cahaba River near Alabama State Highway 11,
Upgrading completed in June 1976 includes a trickling filter, a 1.0 mgd oxida-
tion ditch and new chlorination facilities. Treated effluent is discharged
directly into the Cahaba River.
There are also 13 privately-owned and operated wastewater collection
and treatment systems within the study area.
Discharge of treated sewage effluent from the above plants into the Cahaba
River and its tributaries requires sufficient flow to assimilate nutrients,
potential pathogens, and other harmful materials that may be contained within
the discharge. This is potentially in conflict with the need for potable water
by basin residents. The Birmingham Municipal Water Works Board is presently
withdrawing water from the Cahaba River at a maximum rate. Future needs must
be met by other sources. Additional water sources in the Coosa and Black
Warrior River Basins are being considered. Other possibilities include maintain-^
ing withdrawals from the Cahaba River system with flow augmentation and addi-
tional water for supply purposes being provided by a Black Creek Reservoir
system or an enlarged Lake Purdy.
Chapter III
Identification and Evaluation of Alternatives
The following nine structural alternatives for wastewater management in
the study area were identified:
Overton - Cahaba - Convert the existing Patton Creek treatment plant to
a pumping station; expand the existing treatment Cahaba plant; operate the
Leeds and Trussville plants until they reach capacity, then abandon these
plants; construct a new regional wastewater treatment facility near Overton;
extend the existing Cahaba River interceptor beyond Fullerton Creek; construct
pumping stations at Trussville, Little Cahaba Creek, Mt. Hebron, and Overton.
4
-------
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba - Convert the existing Patton Creek plant to a
pumping station; expand the existing Cahaba plant; operate the Leeds and
Trussville plants until they reach capacity, then abandon these plants; con-
struct a new regional wastewater treatment facility near 1-20; extend the
existing Cahaba River interceptor to Overton; construct a pumping station at
Leeds.
Leeds - Trussville - Cahaba - Convert the existing Patton Creek treatment
plant to a pumping station; expand the existing Cahaba plant; expand the
existing Leeds and Trussville plants; extend the existing Cahaba River inter-
ceptor to Overton.
Trussville - Cahaba - Convert the existing Patton Creek treatment plant
to a pumping station; expand the existing Cahaba and Trussville plants; operate
the Leeds plant until it reaches capacity, then abandon it; extend the existing
Cahaba River interceptor to Overton; construct a pumping station at Leeds.
Leeds via Cahaba River - Trussville - Cahaba - Same as the Leeds-Trussville-
Cahaba alternative, except the Leeds effluent would be discharged to Cahaba
River via an extended outfall; construction of a pumping station at Leeds also
required.
Cahaba - Convert the existing Patton Creek treatment plant to a pumping
station; expand the existing Cahaba treatment plant; operate the Leeds and
Trussville plants until they reach capacity, then abandon these plants; extend
the existing Cahaba River interceptor to Trussville; construct a pumping sta-
tion at Leeds.
Patton Creek - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba - Same as the Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
alternative, except that the Patton Creek treatment plant would be retained
and upgraded .
Patton Creek via Cahaba River - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba - Same as the
Patton Creek - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba alternative except that an outfall would
be constructed to convey the Patton Creek treatment plant effluent to the
Cahaba River.
Patton Creek Pretreatment - Upper Cahaba - Cahaba - Same as the Upper
Cahaba - Cahaba alternative, except that the Patton Creek treatment plant
will be retained and upgraded sufficiently to provide at least primary treat-
ment for all influent wastewater; treated effluent from Patton Creek would then
be pumped to the Cahaba plant for additional treatment.
Land application of treated wastewater was considered as an effluent
disposal technique for the Leeds and proposed Upper Cahaba treatment plants.
To date, insufficient information exists to allow for a final determination
regarding land disposal of wastewater in the Upper Cahaba Basin. Streamflow
augmentation from an expanded Lake Purdy reservoir or from new impoundments
in the Big Black Creek drainage area was also evaluated as a water quality
improvement measure.
The following non-structural techniques were evaluated as means for
lessening the extent of structural facilities required for attainment and
maintenance of water-quality standards; 1) optimum use of existing facilities;
2) flow and waste reduction measures; 3) use of individual disposal systems;
4) land use and development controls.
5
-------
Each structural alternative was evaluated using the criteria of cost,
environmental impacts, operability, and imp1emc»ntabi1ity. These evaluations
were combined into a single cost-effectiveness evaluation which showed the
Leeds - Trussville - Cahaba alternative with no streamflow augmentation to
be the best proposed alternative for implementation.
The no-action alternative was developed and compared with the most cost-
effective structural alternative with respect to cost, operability, and imple-
mentab ility.
Chapter_IV
scription of the Proposed Action
The proposed action for wastewater management in the EIS study area is
the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative with no streamflow augmentation. The
Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba configuration was selected as
the most cost-effective resolution to the wastewater demands of the project
area, although land application merits further consideration as part of a
follow-up study.
This configuration involves the phasing out of the Patton Creek Waste-
water Treatment Plant and the construction of conveyance facilities to divert
this flow to the Cahaba Plant. The Cahaba Plant would be upgraded to an
advanced level of treatment to meet water quality standards and would also
be initially expanded from the current design capacity of four million gallons
per day (mgd) to a capacity of twelve mgd. Ultimately the Cahaba plant's
capacity is to be 16 mgd. The existing Leeds and Trussville plants would also
remain in operation with expanded capacity provided to meet future needs.
The proposed action does not require the construction of any new waste-
water treatment plants. Instead, the existing Leeds, Trussville, and Cahaba
plants will be expanded to provide capacity to meet projected needs and will
be upgraded to provide for the maintenance of water quality standards. The
existing Patton Creek plant will be taken out of operation and its wastewater
flows diverted to the Cahaba plant for treatment.
The following pages present a summary of the wastewater program proposed under
the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative. Elements of
construction for 1982, 1984, and 1989 that constitute the proposed action are
given. In addition, required and recommended tasks dictated by the U.S. EPA
that emphasize specific aspects of environmental issues in the EIS study area
are presented.
Chapter V
Impacts of the Proposed Action
Impacts on the Natural Environment
Construction associated with the proposed action will cause short-term
6
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
SUMMARY OF THE EIS PROPOSED ACTION,
REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSTRUCTION ELEMENTS
Phase 1 Construction Element
(1982)
Cahaba treatment plant expansion
from 4 mgd to 12 mgd
Cahaba River interceptor
extension from present terminus
to vicinity of the junction
with the Little Cahaba River
consisting of 21,875 feet of
42-inch diameter sewer
Abandonment of Patton Creek
plant. Construction of Patton
Creek conveyance facilities to
Cahaba plant, consisting of
6,225 feet of 21 to 30-inch
diameter gravity sewer, 8.6
mgd pumping station, and
8,375 feet of 30-inch diameter
force main
Phase 2 Construction Element
(1984)
Trussville treatment plant expansion
to 1.25 mgd
Construction of Little Cahaba Creek
conveyance facilities to Trussville
plant, consisting of 0.38 mgd
pumping station, 4,150 feet of 8-
inch diameter force main, and
7,000 feet of 8 and 10-inch diameter
gravity sewer
Leeds treatment plant expansion to
1,5 mgd
Construction of the interceptor to
Moody
Construction of the interceptor to
Roebuck Plaza
Phase 3 Construction Element
(1989)
Cahaba treatment plant expansion
from 12 mgd to 16 mgd
Cahaba River interceptor
extension from vicinity of the
junction with the Little Cahaba
River to Overton, consisting
of 32,950 feet of 21 and 27-
inch diameter sewer
REQUIREMENTS
1. A detailed investigation of land application in the Upper
Cahaba Basin must be completed as a pre-condition for Step
2 funding for the facilities proposed for 1984 (including
expansion of the Leeds and Trussville Plants),
2. Studies of sludge disposal and sludge monitoring must be
completed and the program initiated prior to Step 3 fund-
ing of the facilities proposed for 1982,
3. The development of an erosion and sedimentation control
plan for the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities will be included as a grant condition.
4. The development of an operation and maintenance plan for
proposed facilities will be a grant condition.
5. The maintenance of a 30-foot vegetative buffer between
the edge of construction right-of-ways and stream banks
will be required where feasible.
6. The immediate re-vegetation of interceptor right-of-ways
will be required.
7. Archaeological, Vegetative and Geological surveys will be
required to be performed during the initial phases of step
2 design.
8. Emergency or stand-by power generating facilities will be
required.
9. The development of a sewer use ordinance will be required.
10. The identification of the 100-year floodplain and the
implementation of appropriate protection measures will
be required,
11. The efficient use of energy and resources must be considered
during the design of proposed facilities.
7
-------
12
1
2
3
A,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9,
10.
II.
REQUIREMENTS (con tinue d)
Potential recreation or open space opportunities must be
analyzed during facilities planning and a report sub-
mitted to the U.S. EPA demonstrating the evaluation of
all potential recreational opportunities and the investi-
gation of implementation methods prior to Step 3 funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Birmingham 208 Plan should be reviewed and commented
on by local governments and approved by the 208 Policy
Committee.
An areawide erosion and sedimentation control program
should be developed, adopted* and implemented locally,
Stormwater and runoff control programs should be further
evaluated and appropriate measures taken.
Comprehensive plans should be developed and adopted locally.
An areawide floodplain ordinance should be developed,
adopted and implemented for the Cahaba Basin,
An in-stream water quality monitoring program should be
implemented.
Alternatives to increase the available water resources of
the Cahaba Basin should be further evaluated,
Measures to mitigate impacts of the proposed action on air
quality should be taken.
Measures to mitigate noise and odor impacts should be
taken.
Measures to mitigate the impact on topography and soils
should be taken.
Measures should be taken to avoid or minimize the impact
of chlorine residual on aquatic organisms.
8
-------
increases in dust and exhaust emissions in the study area, but it is not
expected that the proposed action will have any direct, long-term impacts
on air quality. Increased development in the basin will result in air
pollutants from increased automobile travel and from home heating and cooling.
With the exception of increased erosion resulting from construction
required by the proposed action, no significant impacts on the topography,
geology, and soils of the study area are expected.
Approximately 100 to 150 acres of forested lands are expected to be lost
due to the construction of interceptor sewers required by the proposed action.
Animals such as wild turkey, deer, quail, rabbit, and fox that require open
areas with an edge-and-clearing effect should increase in the vicinity of the
right-of-ways of new interceptors. However, the loss of approximately 16,000
acres of forested wildlife habitat due to residential development during the
planning period will have a much more significant impact on the natural envi-
ronment than interceptor construction. Approximately 10% of the population of
deer, wild turkey, and quail and many other birds and mammals may be permanently
lost to the study area as a result ol this development.
The proposed action is expected to meet the minimum dissolved oxygen cri-
terion of 5.0 mg/1 established by the Alabama Water Improvement Commission for
the streams of the study area. Increased nutrient loadings from the treatment
plants of the proposed action may stimulate nuisance growths of aquatic plants
in pooled areas of the Cahaba River. The existing biological and chemical
characteristics of the moderately-eutrophic Lake Purdy are not expected to
change significantly.
The discharge of the Cahaba treatment plant will be greatly increased by
the year 2000 and will significantly augment low flows of the Cahaba River
downstream of the treatment plant. An expected hydrologic impact resulting
from increased development in the study area is the alternation of rainfall-
runoff patterns. Increased impervious acreage and improved surface runoff
flow networks will cause increased runoff, decreased infiltration and base
flow, and higher peak flows during storms, particularly in the downstream
portions of the study area.
Increased dissolved oxygen levels in the Cahaba River should prove bene-
ficial to fish life and benthic communities, although nutrient enrichment and
the associated oxygen problems may prove to be detrimental on a localized
basis. Increases in suspended solids due to erosion from construction and re-
sidential development associated with the proposed action may somewhat stress
aquatic life.
The southeastern shrew, a rare animal that prefers bottomland habitat,
may be affected by interceptor construction along the Cahaba River. The
red-cockaded woodpecker, a rare bird reported to exist around Lake Purdy,
should not be affected by the proposed action or by increased development in
the study area, since no major construction is envisioned in the vicinity of
its habitat .
9
-------
The goldline darter and Cahaba shiner are two fish that inhabit the
Cahaba River and are proposed for endangered species status. The habitat
ut the Cahaba shiner ls located downstream from the study area. However,
the habit.it of the goldline darter ranges from downstream of the study area
up into the study area at the U.S. Highway 31 crossing in Shelby County.
I.l is possible that these fish may be adversely affected by residual chlorine
and nutrient enrichment from the Cahaba treatment plant.
1 m[)acts._on the Man-Made Environment
The population of the study area is projected to increase from a 1975
total of about 93,000 to approximately 138,000 in the year 2000. The primary
land use changes during the planning period should include increases in the
size and number of residential acreages to accommodate the population growth
and some increases in associated commercial and light industrial development.
The considerable costs for construction and operation of the facilities
required by the proposed action will be borne in part by the Federal government
and in part by the local economy. The Federal funds transferred to the local
economy will create a temporary increase in regional demands for goods and
services. Construction will create some temporary employment, while operation
of the wastewater treatment facilities will create about 20 permanent jobs.
The increased population of the study area will create a demand for additional
public services, the costs of which must be borne by the local economy.
The proposed action will have little direct impact on transportation in
the study area. Increased development could result in as much as a 40%
increase in vehicle miles traveled by residents of the area and a 25% increase
in through travel on major roadways, regardless as to whether the proposed
action is implemented.
The proposed action will use a number of local and manufactured materials
for construction as well as operation. The indirect impact of future growth
on the resources of the study area will be felt in the residential and commer-
cial development of approximately 16,000 acres that otherwise would have po-
tential for mineral extraction, agriculture, or silviculture.
The proposed action will affect Birmingham's water supply by increasing
the amount of effluent dischargered from the Leeds and Trussville treatment
plants located upstream of the water supply intake. Persistent parameters
such as heavy metals, synthetic organic compounds, and viruses may reach the
water supply in slightly greater concentrations than at present, although
treated wastewater will continue to make up only a small percentage of the
water withdrawn. Increased commercial and industrial development in the upper
portions of the basin may also contribute to the increased leveLs of these
contaminants. Nitrate levels at the water supply intake should continue to be
sufficiently low to meet public health standards. These trends do not create
insurmountable obstacles to continued use of the Cahaba River as a water supply
but they do emphasize the inherent problem in using a stream with small and
variable flows as both a water supply and a waste-receiving stream. The eval-
uation of alternative water supplies to replace part or all of the flow presently
withdrawn from the Cahaba River is advisable.
10
-------
The proposed action will have two direct impacts on the fiscal affairs
of communities in the study area: 1) the possible need for increased operat-
ing or non-operating revenues of the sewer system to cover increased treatment
costs; and 2) the loss of approximately 100 acres of potentially tax ratable
land to public right-of-ways for future interceptor construction, expanded
treatment plant sites, and future pumping stations. Indirect impacts will
include increased demand for public services to accommodate the population
growth of the basin, requiring increased public budgets.
Chapter VI
Potential Mitigative Measures and Requirements and Recommendations
The long-term impacts of increased vehicular traffic on air quality may
be lessened by the institution of feeder and express bus routes along the
major radial corridors in the study area and by the use of development con-
trols to encourage cluster development and development along major mass transit
routes.
Long-term impacts of development on the terrestrial ecology of the study
area may be reduced somewhat by the following: 1) comprehensive development
planning to maintain environmentally sensitive areas; 2) zoning regulations
requiring developed areas to include open recreational areas and peripheral
buffer zones; 3) purchase by private or governmental groups of environmentally
sensitive habitat areas to preserve their undeveloped status; 4) floodplain
zoning regulations. Immediate revegation of interceptor rights-of-way is
recommended to decrease erosion potential and to provide proper game habitat.
A buffer zone of natural vegetation should be preserved between all streams
and interceptor right-of-ways.
The impact of increased pollutant loadings from non-point sources can be
reduced by development of a comprehensive stormwater management plan and im-
plementing both structural and nonstructural runoff control techniques. Imple-
mentation of such a plan would also serve to mitigate hydrologic problems
associated with development, such as higher peak streamflows. A long-term stream
quality monitoring program should be implemented to further evaluate the need for
additional non-point source pollution controls, for increased treatment levels
at wastewater treatment plants, or for augmentation of streamflow in the future.
If dissolved oxygen problems are caused in pooled areas of the Cahaba
River by increased nutrient loadings from wastewater treatment plants, the
addition of nutrient removal processes at the plants should be considered.
Dechlorination of treatment plant effluent or use of an effluent disinfection
process other than chlorination can be implemented, if aquatic life downstream
of the treatment plants in the study area is affected by residual chlorine.
Implementation of land use and development controls, such as comprehen-
sive plans, zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, and floodplain ordinances,
can lessen undesirable aspects of population growth and increased commercial and
industrial development.
11
-------
A number of actions can be taken to reduce undesirable impacts on water
supply: 1) use spray irrigation as an option to stream discharge of effluent
from the Leeds and Trussville treatment plants to avoid discharging treated
wastewater directly to streams upstream from the raw water source; 2) monitor
raw and finished water carefully at the Shades Mountain filter plant to have
early warning of unsuitable conditions; 3) if necessary, develop a new water
source outside the Cahaba Basin following careful planning.
Required and recommended actions from this study are described in
chapter 6 in detail.
Chapter VII
Public Participation and Coordination
A public participation program was developed at the outset of the EIS to
involve concerned, interested members of the community in the preparation of
the EIS. The focal point of this effort was the development of the Cahaba
Advisory Committee. This committee included a variety of groups, organizations,
and individuals who were interested in the Cahaba River basin and also repre-
sented a cross-section of the community. The committee included members re-
presenting local regional government, state government, business, industry,
and interested citizens. During the development of the EIS there have been
seven meetings with the CAC.
During the development of the EIS there has also been considerable coor-
dination with a variety of public and private agencies at the federal, state,
regional, and local levels. This coordination has largely been in the form of
data collection, discussions,and meetings in order to provide the necessary
data for the preparation of the EIS.
12
-------
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND OF THE EIS
-------
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND OF THE EIS
PURPOSE OF THE EIS
Concerns wiLhin the past decade for preservation of the integrity of
the environment led to the adoption of Public Law 91-190, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Within this Act are the
national environmental policies and goals intended to mitigate mistakes
of the past through careful and coordinated planning efforts. As stated
in the law the following declaration was issued: "a national policy shall
be established which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health
and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological system
and natural resources important to the Nation..."
In striving to meet these above stated goals P.L. 91-190 stipulates:
"...include in every recommendation a report on proposals for legislation
and other ma jor Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on the
environmental impact of the proposed action; and adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; and
alternatives to the proposed actions..." From this legislation arises
the basic framework for the use of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) within the Executive Office
of the President was also established by P.L. 91-190. It is this Council
of three appointed members who are responsible for the implementation and
review of the policies set forth within NEPA. The role of CEQ has been
principally that of coordinating environmental related policies and
studies within the Executive Branch. In this role all draft and final
EIS's were filed with CEQ. However all draft and final EIS's are now
filed with the U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities.
201 PLAN SUMMARY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public
Law 92-500, represents the major legislative action for water pollution
abatement in the United States. Under this legislation the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency has been given responsibility for the administra-
tion of the law including the funding of wastewater facilities.
The principle mechanism in P.L. 92-500 which provides for the
construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants is Section 201.
This Section provides grant funds for the planning, design and construc-
tion of wastewater facilities. Under the provision of Section 201 any
wastewater facility which is newly proposed or under consideration for
upgrading and or expanding which will use federal funds for construction
must first proceed with a 201 Facilities Planning Study.
1-1
-------
In March, 1974 work commenced on the Birmingham Area Wastewater
Facilities Plan by the firm of Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. This study
included all of Jefferson County, and the portions of St. Clair and
Shelby Counties that lie within the Cahaba River Basin. The study was
completed in August, 1975 and submitted to the County Commission of
Jefferson County. The following recommendations for wastewater manage-
ment in the Cahaba River Basin were presented within the study:
(a) Operate the upgraded Leeds and Trussville plants until they
reach their capacities. At that time (1980-1985) these flows will be
conveyed to a new Overton treatment plant on the Cahaba. Relocation of
the Birmingham water supply will at this time be necessary so as to draw
all of the water from an expanded Lake Purdy.
(b) The Patton Creek plant will be abandoned with its flow then being
pumped to the expanded Lower Cahaba plant (Figure 1-1 exhibits the 201
Plan's recommended alternative).
Following completion of the 201 study it is reviewed by EPA to
determine the extent of environmental effects from the proposed plan.
EPA at this juncture will either issue a "negative declaration" or a
"notice of intent" concerning the submitted planning study.
The "negative declaration" conveys EPA's approval of the study's
quality of and concurrence with its environmental assessment evaluation.
A "notice of intent" is issued when EPA's environmental review indicates
a significant impact may occur and an EIS is required.
In the case of the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Management
Plan the EPA Regional Administrator on February 6, 1976 ordered the prepara-
tion of an environmental impact statement for the Cahaba River Basin portion
of the wastewater management plan. The Regional Administrator ordered the
EIS because of requests by groups and individuals who were concerned about
the future of the Cahaba River and the Cahaba Basin. The Regional Adminis-
trator indicated that, "assurance of suitable water quality for multiple
water use of the Cahaba Basin will be the principal concern of the EIS".
On March 4, 1976 a Notice of Intent was issued by EPA for the preparation
of the EIS.
BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
The upper Cahaba River Basin is an area in conflict. It is an area
of water supply and a scenic and natural resource. It is also highly
attractive for suburban development. Because of the basin's scenic nature
and its relative location to Birmingham it has become a major target for
development. A number of sizeable residential developments are under way
or complete. However the area's full value as a development resource will
be constrained by the limited capacity for additional wastewater collection
and treatment.
1-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The provision of additional treatment facilities for the expected
growth is complicated by the heavy use and reservoir regulation of the Cahaba
and Little Cahaba Rivers for water supply. The Cahaba River is a source
of nearly all of the water supply in the Cahaba River Basin. Large water
supply withdrawals are in conflict with the maintenance of flow to provide
adequate dilution of treated effluent. As a result of these withdrawals,
dry weather flows are often inadequate to effectively assimilate treated
effluent from the Basin's treatment facilities. In addition the effluents
from treatment plants in Trussville and Leeds pose a potential public
health hazard, since the water supply withdrawals are downstream from
these plants.
The Cahaba River Basin is also an ecological, scenic and recreational
resource. These values are threatened by continued suburban development
in the basin. Not only is development altering the face of the land by
removing and reducing the value of terrestrial and aquatic habitat; it is
also increasing basin-wide wastewater loads that in turn threaten the
quality of receiving streams.
Following completion of the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater
Facilities Plan many environmental and outdoor oriented organizations
began to lobby for the preparation of an environmental impact statement
on that portion of the plan dealing with the Cahaba River Basin. This
effort culminated in a letter sent to the Regional Administrator on October
8, 1975 requesting preparation of an EIS. Organizations which signed
this request include:
Alabama Wildlife Federation
Birmingham Branch, American Association of University Women
Birmingham Audubon Society
Birmingham Canoe Club
Citizens for Land Use Betterment
Concerned Citizens Coalition
League of Women Voters of Greater Birmingham
Sierra Club, Chattahoochee Chapter, Cahaba Group
The Alabama Conservancy
The groups based their request for an EIS on the following aspects
of the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan:
- The plan contemplates a threefold increase in the discharge of
sewage and other wastes into the Cahaba River.
- The Phase I proposed expansion of the Cahaba plant may not provide
sufficient capacity to handle the sewage being treated there, the
sewage from the area undergoing development below the plant,
sewage from the Patton Creek plant (which is proposed to be
abandoned) and other commitments for sewage treatment to develop-
ments already in the Cahaba River Basin.
1-3
-------
- The plan contemplates discontinuing the use of the Cahaba River
and eventually the Little Cahaba River as sources of water supply,
a proposal that according to the Birmingham Water Works Board
would be extremely expensive for the residents of the Birmingham
metropolitan area.
The plan contemplates construction of a large reservoir system in
the Big Black Creek area of St. Clair County in an effort to pro-
vide low-flow augmentation for the Cahaba River during the portion
of the year when the river flow would be insufficient to carry
the proposed sewage discharges. The reservoir system would be
constructed in land that is presently strip mined and would be
located in another county which would make demands on the use of
the reservoir.
- The area below the Cahaba sewage plant has a present 10-year 7-
day low-flow of zero and even before water from the Cahaba River
and the Little Cahaba River were diverted by the Birmingham Water
Works Board, the low-flow was only approximately 9 million gallons
per day.
The plan contemplates the building of trunk sewer lines in and
across sensitive stream corridors of the Cahaba Basin.
Additonal investigation of methods of land disposal of sewage
sludges should be made.
This coalition of organizations felt that these issues were sub-
stantial and unresolved, and would affect the total environment of the
Birmingham area. Therefore they requested that the Regional Administrator
of EPA order the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Both preceding and following this request for an environmental
impact statement there was also considerable opposition to the need
for an environmental impact statement. This opposition felt that the
recommendations in the Birmingham Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Plan were sufficient and would not have a significant environmental impact.
Furthermore opponents of the EIS felt that such a study would disrupt the
continued growth in Jefferson County and cause irreparable damage to the
economy of the area.
Following considerable debate and controversy over the conduct of
the EIS the Regional Administrator decided to authorize an EIS because of
the possible significant environmental impacts resulting from a major
federal action.
The Regional Administrator ordered the preparation of an environmental
impact statement on February 6, 1976 and a Notice of Intent was published
on March 4, 1976. The consulting firm of Gannett Fleming Corddry and
Carpenter, Inc. was selected by EPA to prepare the EIS. Work on the pro-
ject commenced on September 14, 1976.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PART A. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The Upper Cahaba River Basin covers approximately 255 square miles south-
east of the City of Birmingham. The study area includes a 53.90 mile stretch
from the river miles 184.5 to 130.6. The basin lies predominantly within
Jefferson County, with portions falling within the counties of St. Clair and
Shelby. The Upper Cahaba River Basin is a resource of complex value to the
Birmingham area - as a source of water supply, a source of wastewater dis-
posal and as a source of recreation. Major tributaries include Dry Creek,
Pinchgut Creek, Little Cahaba Creek, Black Creek, Little Cahaba River and
Patton Creek.
2. CLIMATE
The Birmingham region has a temperate climate, (Table AI-1, Appendix I)
with precipitation distributed throughout the year. Average annual precipi-
tation exceeds 50 inches, monthly totals ranging from 3 to 6 inches. Evapo-
transpiration losses are high, approximating 60% of the annual precipitation.
The wind in Birmingham averages 7.9 mph and is calm 15.2% of the time.
Wind direction is uniformly distributed around the compass, with a slight
preference for the north and south (Figure AI-1, Appendix I). A concern of
environmental sensitivity are the large stagnant air masses which entrap the
City of Birmingham during late and early autumn months. This increases the
frequency of contamination by air-borne pollutants. Total stagnation days
average 13 days a year in Birmingham (Korshover 1960) .
3. AIR QUALITY
Since 1970 the Jefferson County Department of Health has monitored am-
bient Air Quality Standards of Alabama (Table AI-2, Appendix I). This moni-
toring program shows progress is being made toward reducing ambient concen-
trations of air pollutants. (Jefferson County 201 Study, 1975). Table AI-3,
Appendix I indicates the status of each criteria pollutant during 1975.
During 1975, suspended particulate concentrations values exceeded the
Standard at Leeds, probably due to point sources. The suspended particulate
concentrations at Mountain Brook are probably more indicative of the concen-
trations in the Cahaba Basin. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide concentra-
tions within the study area are well within the standards. Though not moni-
tored, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon concentrations within the study area
are likely to be less than those measured in Birmingham because of lower
II-l
-------
traffic, population and industrial densities in the study area. Ozone would
be expected to be near those levels found in Birmingham.
Emission Sources
The major air pollution emission sources affecting the study area include
industrial, transportation, commercial and domestic services. Industrial and
transportation sources are the major contributors representing 50% and 48%
respectively of the total air pollutants, while commercial and domestic
sources each account for 1% of the total. Industrial sources contribute 96%
of the sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions. Transportation sources con-
tribute 65% of the carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide emissions,
industry contributing another 33% of these constituents.
The bulk of the point source emissions are within the metropolitan Birm-
ingham area. The few point sources within the EIS study area are concentrated
in Leeds and Vestavia Hills, as indicated below. Significant reductions in
particulate emissions from these sources are expected by 1977 (Powell, 1976)'
Point Sources Particulate Emissions (tons/year)
1975 1976 1977
Five industrial sources in Leeds 6,631 3,728 122
Three commercial sources in
Vestavia Hills 0.81 0.81 0.81
The mobile transportation sources within the study area are along the
streets and highways, principally Routes 31, 280 and Interstate 20, all of
which carry traffic to and from Birmingham. These point sources and major
contributing highways are shown on Figure AI-2, Appendix I.
Air Quality Control Programs
The project study area Is within the Metropolitan Birmingham Intrastate
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR). Priority classifications for the achieve-
ment of the ambient air quality standards established in the region give first
priority to particulate matter, carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants
(hydrocarbons); second priority to sulfur oxides; and third priority to nitro&
dioxide (Code of Federal Regulations). n
The primary air quality control program is an emission permit system
which involves the registration of all existing and new emission sources
according to the limits adopted by the Jefferson County Board of Health (Tabl
IJ.-1). Emissions from incinerators are covered under a separate program. Ae
Mobile source emissions are controlled at the source by the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emission Control Program (FMVECP) (Code of Federal Regulations). The
total effect of the FMVECP, Table II-2, will be to reduce vehicle emissions
90% from their pre-1968 levels.
II-2
-------
Environmental Sensitivities
The present good air quality within the study area is sensitive to any
increase in emissions.
TABLE II-l
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
AIR POLLUTION EPISODE ACTION PLAN
Designated Stage
Alert
Warning
Emergency
Suspended Particulate
Concentration
(ug/m3)
375 to 625
625 to 875
Greater than 875
Plant Operation
Cutback
(Percent)
30
60
100
TABLE II-2
EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide (gm/mi)
Exhaust Hydrocarbons (gm/mi)
Nitrogen Oxides (gm/mi)
Pre-1968
87.0
8.8
3.6
1976
15.0
1.5
3.1
1978
3.4
0.41
0.4
4. ODOR
The Jefferson County Department of Health has not received any recent
odor complaints from within the study area (Personal Communication, Charles B.
Robinson, Assistant Director, Jefferson County Department of Health, October
27, 1976). There are indications that a sulphur odor is on occasion released
from discharge below Lake Purdy. The source of the problem is the decomposi-
tion of organic material in the thermally stratified lower waters within the
reservoir. Odors possibly attributed to nuisance algal blooms have been re-
ported by local residents around Paradise Lake, (Frey 1976) and in Lake Purdy
(•Letter fr°m Louise G. Smith to John E. Hagan, USEPA, Atlanta, 1-4-78).
II-3
-------
Environmental Sensitivities
Noxious odors from algae have been reported at Paradise Lake and Lake
Purdy. High nutrient and organic loading along with thermal stratification
continues to produce noxious "rotten egg" odors from H2S in the bottom waters
of Lake Purdy. Residential areas will be sensitive to location of any poten-
tial odor sources such as treatment plants and pump stations.
5. NOISE
The outdoor noise of the study area varies with land use and time of day,
Figure AI-3, Appendix I. Overall, the study area is relatively undeveloped
and except for isolated areas, is quiet. A more specific approach to describ-
ing the noise environment of the study area is to identify the primary sources
of noise:
Noise Generator
Description
Birmingham Municipal Airport
This airport is located outside of the
study area to the northwest. Flight
paths are relatively high over the
study area; thus flyovers do not re-
sult in intrusive noise levels.
Railroad corridors
Originating from the Ernest Norris
Rail Yard (not in study area), there
are two railway corridors that tra-
verse the study area: (1) through
Trussville and (2) through Leeds.
Interstate 20
Interstate 20 travels east-west across
the study area, passing to the north
of Leeds.
U.S. Route 280
The heavily traveled Route 280 passes
south of Cahaba Hills, then across the
study area in a south-east direction.
U.S. Route 31
Route 31 passes through Vestavia Hills,
then south through the Chapel Hill -
Hoover are^. Almost the entire length
of this highway is commercially devel-
oped, and it is a major noise generator
in the study area.
Interstate 459
Interstate 459, currently under con-
struction, will traverse a large part
of the study area. This highway is
located parallel with Shades Mountain
in the western part of the study area.
When complete, this highway will
greatly influence the noise environ-
ment of the study area.
II-4
-------
Environmental Sensitivities
Sound levels within the basin are low and sensitive to any noise
associated with increased traffic or traffic network changes.
6. TOPOGRAPHY
The study area lies in the valley ridge province. These valleys
and ridges trend to the northeast with resistant sandstones and chert
forming most of the ridges. The valleys generally are underlain by
limestone and shale.
The area is bounded by Shades Mountain and Red Mountain on the
Northwest side and New Hope Mountain and Oak Mountain on the Southeast,
The relief ranges from 400 to 600 feet in the high ridge areas. Areas
with steep slopes of over 25 percent are shown on Figure AI-4, Appendix I.
The many parallel ridges have produced a trellis drainage pattern
throughout most of the basin. Major drainage flow is to the southwest
from the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers and their tributaries. Lake
Purdy, which is a man-made impoundment on the Little Cahaba River, is
the largest water body in the area. Flood prone areas that exist in
the study area are displayed on Figure AI-4, Appendix I.
Environmental Sensitivities
Extensive steep slope areas in the basin are highly sensitive to
disturbances and development that may lead to erosion and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Low lands along the Cahaba, Little Cahaba and
major tributaries are flood prone.
7. GEOLOGY
The bedrock of the study area consists of sedimentary rocks ranging
in age from Cambrian to Pennsylvanian. These rocks have been altered
by folding, faulting and erosion to produce existing topography. A
generalized section of geologic formations is presented in Table AI-4,
Appendix I. The areal extent of these formations is displayed in Figure
AI-5, Appendix I. The general engineering characteristics of the rocks
in the area are presented in Table AI-5, Appendix I.
Environmental Sensitivities
The shallow bedrock throughout most of the Cahaba Valley will
necessitate extensive rock excavation and blasting for the placement of
sewer lines. Limestone areas in the Little Cahaba Valley are prone to
sinkhole development under changes in land use or water withdrawal.
Potential cut slope stability problems may result in the placement of
interceptors and force mains on unstable shale bedrock resulting in
crushing of lines as has occurred near Altadena. These characteristics
should be considered an overview, with actual construction sites invest-
igated where appropriate during the design phase of the wastewater treat-
ment facilities planning process.
II-5
-------
8. SOILS
Soils are a significant factor in the location and design of sewage
facilities and in the limitations they may place upon certain land uses .
The analysis of soil provides data on the suitability of certain locations
for on-lot disposal of sewage or the potential of specific sites for
spray irrigation of treated sewage effluent.
Physical Characteristics
Fourteen soil groups and associations have been identified in the
Birmingham region (Figure AI-6, Appendix I). These soil groups and
associations consist of one or more major soils from which the name is
derived and often contain one or more minor soils. Individual soils
in an association are called soil series. The grouping of soils series
does not imply that these characteristics are necessarily identical
since the soils may vary considerably in depth, amount of rocks, drainage
slope and other characteristics. In the absence of uniform data for
the Cahaba Basin, the soils shown represent a composite of soil informa-
tion covering the study area in four separate reports. A general narra-
tive of soils within each group or association is presented in Appendix X.
A detailed table of physical characteristics of each soil group or
association is depicted in Table II-3.
Soil Suitabilities
Soils found on slopes exceeding 25 percent are generally not suitable
for on-lot disposal except on a low density basis. Soils within the flood
plain are suitable for moderate placement of on-lot disposal systems be-
cause of the potential for flooding and seasonably high water tables.
Soils with shallow depth to bedrock or water table and those with poor
drainage or slow permeability are also unsuitable for on-lot disposal.
Ground water contamination may occur in limestone and dolomite bedrock
regions in the northern Cahaba River Basin and Little Cahaba River Valley
Soils with these characteristics are extensive throughout the basin (Figu^
AI-6, Appendix I). Land sites proposed for on-lot disposal should be
analyzed for soil conditions and classified based on guidelines set
down by the Soil Conservation Service, (Table II-4):
Slight; percolation rate good, water table and depth to bed-
rock greater than 72", slope slight, no flooding, suitable
for on-lot disposal.
Moderate; percolation may exceed 45 minutes/inch, water table
and depth to bedrock at 48", slopes 8-15%, flooding rare,
some limitations exist for placement of on-lot disposal.
Severe; Red Flag - caution on use for on-lot disposal, per-
colation rate exceeds 60 minutes/inch, water table and depth
to bedrock less than 48", slopes greater than 15%.
II-6
-------
TABLE H-3
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil Groiy
Range
Slope (t) Geology
Decatur-Fullert on1*^ *1-40
Hartsells-Linker
Townely-Enders- 2-1S
Albertsville*» ®»*
Colbert -Talbott - 0-6
Dowcllton1*2*'> 5
Hector-Monteval lo
1,2,»,5
2-60
Bodioe-Fullerton1',,s 5-60
Q»ert §
Limestone
Depth
to
Bedrock
Deep
Topographic Infiltration
Location
Uplands
Sandstone Moderately Uplands
Deep
Shale Moderately Uplands
Deep
Sandstone Shallow
& Shale
Chert,
Sandstone
& Lime-
stone
Deep
Uplands
Uplands
Rate
Moderate
Moderate
Slow
Limestone Moderately Bottomlands Slow to
Deep
Vexy Slow
Very Slow
Moderate
Permeability Drainage Hazards Hazard
Moderate Hell Drained None
Water
Flooding Table Erodibility Factors
Moderate
Slow
Slow to
Very Slow
Moderate
to Rapid
Moderate
to Rapid
Well Drained None
Slow None
Slow High
Well Drained None
Well to None
Excessively
Well Drained
.28-.32 4.5
.37-.43 2-3
.21-.37 1-2
.28 5
Chewarla-Congaree- 0-4
LobelYi lie-Locust-
Leuhrale'.5
Lenhrale1*2''** 0-15
Cbewxla2 ¦s 0-2
Fullerton-Decatur- 1-40
Colbert*'5
Bodine-Hector3'* 2-60
NixnrAle-Bodine- 2-60
Hector-Rockland 2-60
Limestone-Allen3 5
Townely-Enders
Sandstone Deep
I Shale
Deep
Sandstone Deep
£ Shale
Limestone Deep
Sandstone Shallow
to Deep
Limestone Deep
Sandstone Shallow
8 Lime- Exposed BR
stone to Deep
Shale
Bottomlands Moderate
Wet Uplands to Slow
Toe Slopes Slow
% Terraces
Bottomlands Slow
Moderate
to Slow
Moderate
to Slow
High Fragipans 0-.37
Uplands
Uplands
Uplands
Uplands
Shallow to Uplands
Moderately
Deep
Moderate
to Very Slow
Moderate
to Very Slow
Rapid
Moderate
to Rapid
Very Slow Rapid
Slow to
Very Slow
Moderately None Seasonally .43
Well Drained High Water
Table
Perched W.T.
2' - 3'
Slow
High Seasonally 0
High Water
Table
Well to None
Moderately
Well Drained
Well to None
Excessively
Well
Well to None
Excessively
Well Drained
Well Drained None
Moderate to None
Well Drained
,28-.43 2-5
,21-.28 1-5
.28-.32 4-5
None ,20
Sources:
^Land Suitability Plan, Jefferson County, Alabama, Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, Birmingham, Alabama, June, 1975.
Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facility Plan, Black Crow aod Eidsness, Inc., August, 1975 (Appendix C, Details on Spray Irrigation Evaluation).
^General Soils Map, Jefferson County, Alabama, Birmingham Field Office Technical Guide Section I-B.42, USQA Soil Conservation Service, July 1975.
^General Soils Maps, State of Alabama, USQA Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama, January 1974.
-'Soil Brodibility Factors (k) and Soil Loss Tolerances (t) Used In The Universal Erosion Equation, USDA Soil Conservation Services, January 1972.
-------
TABLE II-4
CABABA RIVER BASIN
DEGREE AND KIND OF SOIL LIMITATIONS
FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Soil Group
Decatur-Fullerton
Hartsells-Linker
Townley-Enders-
Albertsville
Colbert-Talbott-
Dowellton
Hec t o r-Montevallo
BodIne-Fullerton
Chewarla-Cougaree-
Lobelville-Locust-
Leadvale
Oil-Lot Disposal
System Limitations
Effluent Disposal
Limitations
Slight to Severe (Slope) Slight to Severe (Slope)
Landfill L
-------
Extensive engineering with careful planning of large lots (acre or more)
will be necessary to develop areas which are severely limiting. Septic
tanks and fields should not be placed in the water table, or on slopes
over 25 percent, in rock where soil does not absorb water, or where flood-
ing occurs. An on-site analysis will be necessary to determine sewage
treatment suitabilities.
Soil properties for spray irrigation of treated wastewater effluent,
land fills and sludge disposal are nearly the same as for on-lot dis-
posal (Table II-4). Depth to bedrock and high water table should be at
least five feet. Permeability at spray irrigation sites should range
from 0.60 - 2.0 inches/hour.
9. GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The ground-water quantity and quality is variable in the study area
with the limestones and dolomites generally being the best aquifers.
Ground-water yields and depths to the zone of greatest water yield are
highly variable across the study area and within a single aquifer. For
example, the zone of largest yield in the limestone and dolomite aquifers
is determined by the location of secondary porosity formed along fractures,
bedding planes, and solution channels. Development of secondary porosity
follows no particular depth and high yields are based on the chance inter-
section of the well and zones of developed secondary porosity. Data on
current ground-water yield on a well by well basis is contained in Knight
(1976), Causey (1963) and Johnson (1933). Groundwater yield and quality
characteristics are described in Table AI-6, Appendix I. The limestone
and dolomite aquifers offer the best source of good quality ground-water.
Generally, the only water quality limitation is high hardness. Major
ground-water supplies for municipalities are pumped from these aquifers
which underlie approximately 25 percent of the study area. This limits
the area where large ground-water supplies are available. Where these
aquifers are overpumped sinkholes may open as the water table is lowered.
Sandstones and shales underlie approximately 75 percent of the
study area. These aquifers are adequate for small domestic supplies,
but are generally not well suited for development of large quantities
of water. Water quality problems are usually limited to high iron and
hardness.
Ground-Water Recharge
Recharge is the process by which water is absorbed and is added to
the ground-water reservoir. The major source of recharge water is
precipitation and runoff.
Major factors involved in recharge are the topography and the
permeability of the soil and bedrock. Where the soil or bedrock is
impermeable, or slightly permeable, recharge to the ground-water
reservoir will occur at a reduced rate. Topographic depressions and
slower runoff areas generally provide good ground-water recharge.
II-9
-------
TABLE II-5
APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ESTIMATES FOR THE CAHABA RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
Land Use Acreage
Urban 27,181
Agricultural 11,226
Forested
Pine 29,830
Pine-Hardwood 87,437
Hardwood 10,534
Silviculture (forest management) has had an effect on forest
distribution. There is an accelerated demand for pine pulpwood of all
mercantile classes of Loblolly, Shortleaf, Virginia and Longleaf Pines.
In recent years there has been a growing pulpwood demand for hardwood
species as White Oak., Chestnut, Yellow Poplar and Sweetgum. At present
the pines are the only managed species within the study area.
Presently, the majority of the forest within the study area is
second or third growth succession pine and pine-hardwood forest. The
future widespread distribution of long-leaf pine, a fire sub-climax
species, is probably limited in the study area because of Increasing
urbanization and stricter air pollution control which will preclude
controlled burning as a management practice. This species will be re-
placed by shortleaf, Virginia or Loblolly Pines. A description of cover
types based on the Society of American Foresters system is found in
Figure AI-7, Appendix I.
Rare and Endangered Species (Vegetation) - Environmental Sensitivitigc.
There are a number of rare and endangered species within the study
area that may be Impacted upon by increasing development of the study
area. A list of these species based upon the Department of Interior
(1976) and the Alabama Museum of Natural History (1976) includes:
Department of the Interior - Proposed National List, July 1976:
Endangered: Hymenocallis coronaria Little Cahaba River below
Lake Purdy. Spider lily.
State List - Alabama Museum of Natural History, October, 1976 -
Endangered: Hymenocallis coronaria - Spider Lily
Trichomanes boschianum
Trichomanes petersil
Gentlana saponaria - Soapwort Gentian
Gentiana vlllosa
Threatened:
Special
Concern:
Cypripedium calceolus var. pubescens - Yellow Lady's
Slipper
Trillium, decumbens - Trillium
Corallorhiza wisterlana - Wister's Corabroot
11-10
-------
Aside from precipitation, ground-water bodies may also receive
recharge from water in streams and lakes and from man-made sources such
as excess irrigation water, leakage from reservoirs, and liquid waste
from disposal systems and injection wells. Recharge from streams and
lakes is common in the upland regions of the study area, where the level
of the water table is below the level of the stream or lake.
Recharge and aquifer yield are closely related because properties
of bedrock, such as permeability, allow the rock to readily receive
infiltration, as well as yield water to wells. Therefore, bedrock with
a high recharge potential will have a high potential yield. On the basis
of this relationship the aquifers in the study area have been placed in
categories of low, medium, or high potential ground-water recharge.
Ground-water recharge areas are shown on Figure AI-5 and Table AI-6,
Appendix I.
In the study area the limestone and dolomite bedrock areas have
the highest potential ground-water recharge. Shale bedrock areas have
the lowest potential ground-water recharge and sandstone areas have
both low and medium potential recharge. The City of Trussville has six
wells which are pumping ground-water from the Mississippian age Bangor
limestone. The Bangor limestone is a high potential ground-water
recharge formation. The City of Leeds derives its ground-water from
three springs in the Chickamauga limestone, which is also a high poten-
tial ground-water recharge area. The recharge area adjacent to both of
these ground—water withdrawal areas should be considered envi-
ronmentally sensitive. These recharge areas should be protected from
existing and potential sources of surface and subsurface pollution.
10. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Vegetation
The geology of the study area has a dynamic influence on the
forest and plant communities within the Cahaba River Basin, Figure AI-7,
Appendix I. Soil type, soil depth, steepness, slopes and area-wide
topography are influenced by bedrock geology and in turn influence
vegetation. A discussion of bedrock-vegetational relationships is found
in Appendix I. Climatic factors such as rainfall, temperature, length
of growing season and storm destruction also affect forest plant com-
munities.
Past land use has been a primary factor in determining the present
distribution and stages of successful development in the study area
(Table II-5). Encroachment of urban areas into once forested land has
and will continue to reduce the total acreage of forest in the future.
The most rapid change in vegetational loss from urban development is pre-
sently occuring around Birmingham, Cahaba Heights, Trussville, and Leeds.
11-11
-------
Lonlcera flava - Yellow Honeysuckle
Sllene wherryi - Catchfly
Stewartia malacodendron - Silky Camellia
Wild Life
Sport hunting and trapping are important recreational pursuits in
the Cahaba Basin. A list of the legally hunted species and time of
scheduled harvest is in Appendix I. Man-days of recreational deer hunt-
ing at the Cahaba Wildlife Management area have increased from 476 in
1959, to 1,713 in 1976. It can be expected with increasing urbanization
that hunting pressure will increase while available hunting land will
decrease within the study area.
Rare and Endangered Species (Wildlife) - Environmental Sensitivities
Terrestrial vertebrates which are of special significance because
of their lack of abundance and which occur in the project area include
the following:
Mammals
Myotis gnisescens - Gray Myotls - Endangered
Sorex longirostis longirostis - Southeastern shrew-Rare 1*
Lasiurus cinearous cinearous - Hoary bat - Rare 2**
Birds
Thryomanes berwicki - Berwick's Wren - Rare 2
Dendrocopos borealls borealis - Red-cockaded Woodpecker -
Endangered
FaIcq peregrinus aratum - American Peregrine Falcon -
Endangered
Accipiter striatus - Sharp-shinned Hawk - Rare 2
Accipiter cooperi - Cooper's Hawk - Threatened
Pandion haliaetus - Osprey - Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus - Bald Eagle - Endangered
Tn addition to the above species which positively occur in the project
area, che Indiana Myotis - Myotis sodalis, an endangered species, may
also occur.
*Rare 1 - A species which, although not presently threatened with
extinction, is in such small numbers that it may be
endangered if its environment worsens.
**Rare 2 - A species that may be quite abundant where it does occur
but is known in only a few localities.
11-12
-------
The habitats which are important to the rare or endangered mammals
include forested small stream bottoms which are important to the south-
eastern shrew; and caves, hollow trees, culverts, attics and cave-like
habitats which are important to the Hoary Bar, Indiana Myotis. and Gray
Myotis.
Historically Berwick's Wren hred uncommonly in the Tennessee Valley
and Mountain Region and rarely and locally in the Piedmont and Upper
Coastal Region. In winter ir was uncommon to fairly common in most of
Alabama, but rare to uncommon on the Gulf Coast. About 1960 this species
suffered a sharp decline so that now it is rare and local as a breeder
only in the Tennessee Valley. However, ir was found in 1976 during the
breeding season at localities further s,.uth including Lake Purdy (one of
these birds showing marks of juvenile plumage). In winter it is rare in
most of Alabama. Preferred habitat is dilapidated out-buildings, wood-
piles, hedgerows, and brush piles. The House Wren, which does not breed
in Alabama, is a major competitor of Berwick's Wren (Irnhof, 1976).
The Red-cockaded Woodpecker is a local, permanent resident in pine
woods in most of Alabama south of the Tennessee River. It usually lives
in forested areas in which the species composition is at least 1/4 pine.
This species is endangered because of its very specialized habitat re-
quirements. The Retl-Cockaded Woodpecker requires mature pine with a dead
heart for nesting. The primary area in which this species is currently
found is the peninsula at the south of Lake Purdy. It also occurs
immediately to the south of the project area.
The remaining rare and endangered avifauna are all raptors and have
declined in numbers as a result of excessive use of pesticides such as
DDT. The Peregrine Falcon no longer nests in the U.S. except in Alaska.
It passes through Alabama on its migration.
The Cooper's Hawk is a rare, breeding, permanent resident throughout
Alabama. Although not numerous, it is widespread and wide-ranging,
especially in moderately wooded areas. In many places it is more common
in winter. Since 1955 this species has been greatly reduced. Nests are
usually constructed in pine-secluded woods, but hardwoods may also be
utilized (Imhof, 1976).
The Sharp-shinned Hawk is a permanent, but uncommon, resident in the
northern half of Alabama. In winter and on migration it is rare throughout
the state. It occurs in almost any habitat, but in breeding season usu-
ally frequents hilly, wooded districts, and on migration is most often
found along ridges or coastally along outer islands and peninsulas. This
species usually nests in conifer forests (Imhof, 1976).
The Bald Eagle was a locally common, breeding, winter resident on
the Gulf Coast and in the Tennessee Valley. It was uncommon to rare in
winter throughout the rest of Alabama. About 1960 the breeding population
began to dwindle, so that at present no birds are known to breed in Ala-
bama and the species is a rare to uncommon .winter vistor and migrant,
occasional in summer. The eagle nests atop a tall, live tree close to
water.
11-13
-------
Amphibians and Reptiles
According to Dr. Robert Mount, Professor of Zoology, Auburn University,
there are no reptiles or amphibians which are presently rare or endangered
in the project area (Table AI-7 and Discussion, Appendix I). There is a
discrepancy between authorities, Frey et al (1976) indicating that there
is an endangered salamander, Desmognathus aenens, in the area. Several
other herpetiles are reported as being rare or status undetermined in
this same report Table AI-8, Appendix I.
11. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
The Cahaba River and its tributaries are important as a source of
recreation for sports fishermen, canoers and naturalists. It is one of
only two rivers in the State of Alabama which is not largely impounded.
The need to preserve the scenic basin for its beauty and recreational
potential will become increasingly important as the expanding urban
populace demands easily accessible lands for its leisure pursuits.
Physical Characteristics
The Cahaba River flows entirely within Alabama in a southwesterly
direction, draining 4,843 Km^ (1,870 square miles) of water shed. The
total drainage of the study area is 255 square miles. Topographic and
geologic features of the upper reaches of the basin causes rapid run-off
resulting in wide fluctuations in stream flow. The lower, flatter
stretches of the river exhibit smaller flow variations.
The Cahaba River has its headwater in the Cahaba Mountains and is
a typical spring-fed stream until it nears Trussville, Alabama. From
its origin to Centerville, the Cahaba passes through picturesque bluffs
and is composed of rocky rapids and shoals. At Centerville, it flows
into the coastal plain and becomes a slow, winding stream with gravel
bars replacing the rocks of its upper reaches. The Cahaba from its origin
to the County 52 bridge is low in the summer. Below this area there is
water, even in the driest years. Frey (1976) provides a detailed de-
scription of the physical characteristics of the Upper Cahaba River, in
the Upper Cahaba River Report.
Hydrologic Regime
Only two U.S.G.S. stream gauging stations within the Cahaba River
Basin are seen to be currently operating and neither of these are located
in the portion of the basin being addressed by the EIS. Because of
the limited streamflow records within the basin, 7-day 10-year low flow
estimates were developed by a regional procedure. Median and 10-year
7-day low flows are published in Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin
87, Part A. The values are based on streamflow records through the 1962
climatic year. Also unpublished values based on streamflow records through
the 1973 climatic year were obtained from the United States Geological
Survey. Ratios of the median and 10-year 7-day flows were computed for
each gauging station. The ratios were used along with median 7-day low
flow values obtained from Plate 3, Bulletin 27 to obtain cubic feet per
second per square mile (cfsm) 7-day 10-year low flow values for the
11-14
-------
basin. The values thus derived as follows:
Little Cahaba River 0.25 cfsm
Cahaba River 0.06 cfsm
At any point the 7-day 10-year low flow values can be developed
by multiplying the drainage area by the above ratio. When considering
the Cahaba River below the diversion dam, only the drainage area below
the dam should be used since water is not released from the diversion
dam during low flow periods.
Flood areas in the study area on Figure AI-4, Appendix I, entitled
"Topographic Features", have been delineated by the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey in a series of "Flood Prone Areas" maps prepared on 7 1/2 quad-
rangle sheets. These flood-prone areas show a flood return frequency
of 100 years. Flood levels in these areas were estimated from regional
stage frequency relationship by the U.S.G.S. using stage heights from
gauging stations located throughout the area.
12. WATER QUALITY
Water Quality Data Sources
Since 1964, water quality has been collected at 48 different lo-
cations within the Cahaba River Basin, however, the record is not
continuous. Water quality data represents the efforts of four agencies,
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey,
Alabama Water Improvement Commission and the Birmingham Regional Plan-
ning Commission (208 Agency), whose data has been compiled in the
USEPA - STORET computerized retrieval system (Table AI-9, Appendix I).
Water Quality Characteristics
Water quality of surface water evolves from a complex interaction
of physical, chemical and biological processes which bring about bene-
ficial or detremental effects to aquatic life and man. These factors
affecting water quality Include:
1) Geology and Hydrology
2) Climate
3) Soils and Minerals (Edaphic Factors)
4) Land Use
5) Point Source Inputs
These factors ultimately control the concentrations and availability
of nutrients in the aquatic environment; primarily carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus.
Eutrophicatlon refers to natural or artificial addition of in-
organic nutrients to bodies of water and to the effects of added nutrients.
These effects can be beneficial or detrimental depending upon the level
at which these nutrients are added (measured by concentrations or
11-15
-------
loadings (and their interaction with the different factors affecting
production.
The various water uses, recreational, domestic, agricultural,
industrial, aquatic and wildlife have different quality requirements.
Existing water quality standards have been set to meet public health
regulations. Criteria have been established on nutrient levels and
their effects on aquatic life. These criteria are elucidated upon in
the National Technical Advirsory Committee Report (1968), the Water
Quality Criteria Report of the National Academy of Science (1972) , and
Quality Criteria for Water (USEPA July 1976). The following criteria
have been recommended for aquatic life; primarily to prevent nuisance
algal blooms and aquatic plant inundation which might further degrade
surface water for use by other aquatic organisms:
1) Inorganic Nitrogen (N) not to exceed 0.3 mg/1 (Sawyer 1947).
2) Total Phosphorous (P) a) not to exceed 0.1 mg/1 at any point
in a flowing stream, b) not to exceed 0,05 mg/1 where a
stream enters a lake. (USEPA July 1976, Mackenthun 1973,
FWQCA 1968); c) in a lake or reservoir not to exceed 0.025
mg/1.
Table (II-6) indicates the benefits and harms to aquatic life from
nutrient enrichment that may occur or is occurring in the Cahaba River.
Specific water use classifications corresponding to AWIC criteria have
been assigned to the Cahaba River Basin, and particularly to the portion
of the basin covered by the EIS study (Table AI-10, Appendix I). AWIC
criteria are contained in Table II-7. Water quality limited segments
according to the Draft Cahaba River Basin Plan of July 14, 1976 by AWIC
are:
Stream
Cahaba
River
Cahaba
River
Little
Cahaba River
Patton
Creek
River Mile
163.2 - 173.7
123.9 - 136.0
12.3 - 15.1
0.24
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved Oxygen
Recorded
Violation
3.7 mg/1
3,000 MPN
2.6 mg/1
0 mg/1
Riverine Hydrology
The decrease or increase in slope, over distance, of a flowing
body of water can effect detention time and oxygen concentrations.
Tsivoglou and Wallace (1972) and Foree (1974) found reaeration directly
11-16
-------
TABLE II-6
BENEFICIAL AND HARMFUL EFFECTS OF NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
OF SURFACE WATERS ON AQUATIC LIFE
Trophic Level of
Food Chain
Beneficial Enrichment
Harmful Enrichment
Algae
Increase in Photosynthesis
(O2 Production).
Shading caused by algae
may control aquatic
weed beds.
Food for aquatic life.
Algal Blooms resulting
in 1) high diurnal
oxygen fluctuations,
2) Respiration (O2
consumption) > Produc-
tion of Oxygen.
Decreased use of waters
for: swimming, drinking;
potentially toxic to
wildlife and man.
Heterotrophs:
Bacteria,
Fungi and
Viruses
Macrophytes
(Higher
Aquatic
Plants)
Increase in population
for decomposition of
organic material and
nutrient turnover.
Increased food source
for higher levels
of food chain.
Food for different
levels of the
aquatic food chain.
Food for game and
non-game animals
and birds.
Habitat and pro-
tection for aquatic
life.
Decomposition may
require more oxygen
than produced resulting
in lowered oxygen
concentrations.
Possible increase in
pathogens.
Odor production, color
change in water and
degraded aquatic life
from over stimulation
of slimes (Sphaerotilus
S£.).
Choke streams.
Decrease stream flow.
Shading may reduce
production.
Consume more oxygen
than produce.
Harbor nuisance
organisms or disease
vectors.
Production of
oxygen
11-17
-------
TABLE II-6 (continued)
BENEFICIAL AND HARMFUL EFFECTS OF NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
OF SURFACE WATERS ON AQUATIC LIFE
Trophic Level of
Food Chain
Beneficial Enrichment
Harmful Enrichment
Macrophytes
(Higher
Aquatic
Plants) (cont'd)
Algae control
Attraction and con-
centration of fish
from Thigmotrophic
response.
Hazardous to recreation-
al fishing, swimming,
and boating.
Retain suspended solids
and affect local
flooding.
Benthos
Provide food for filter
and detrital feeders.
Provide variety of niches
through plant pro-
duction, increasing
diversity.
Decrease diversity.
Limit habitation to
highly mobile species
or those able to survive
under low partial
pressures of oxygen.
Fish Life
Provide food by increasing
algae, zooplankton and
aquatic plant blomass.
Increase oxygen necessary
for life.
Affect breeding.
Decrease in oxygen
necessary for life.
Unbalance fish
population.
Increase diversity by
increasing niches.
Decrease in harvestable
sized fish for sport arm
commercial fishing.
Produce off-taste in
fish.
Force certain species
out of an area or caus^
fish kill during low
of high diurnal oxygen
fluctuation.
Loss of nesting sites
fish eggs in areas of
high oxygen fluctuation
11-18
-------
TABLE II-7
AWIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASSIFICATION
OF STREAM SEGMENTS
Designated Use
Fish and Wildlife
Criteria
- £H - 6.0 - 8.5
Temperature - not more than 5° above normal
maximum of 90° except designated parts of
Cahaha River 86°F.
Swimming
Water Supply
Agricultural/
Industrial
Classification
Dissolved Oxygen - Daily DO not less than 5.0
mg/1 at all times, except under extreme
conditions due to natural cause - range from
5.0 - 4.0 mg/1 where all other water quality
parameters are favorable.
Fecal Collform - maximum of 2000/100 nil
Turbidity - not more than 50 JTU above normal
~ Fecal Coliform - maximum of 200/100 ml
(geometric mean)
Other parameters same as above
- Fecal Coliform - maximum of 4000/100 ml
Other parameters same as above
- Industrial Waste - None which are not
effectively treated or controlled in accordance
with Section V of these criteria.
pH - Shall not cause the pH to deviate more than
one unit from the normal or natural pH nor be
less than 6.0 nor greater than 8.5.
Temperature - not more than 5° above normal
maximum of 90° except designated parts of
Cahaba River 86°F.
Dissolved Oxygen - Shall not cause DO to fall
below 3.0 mg/1 at a depth of 5 feet, or at mid-
depth in waters less than 10 feet in depth.
11-19
-------
TABLE II-7 (Continued)
AWIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR CLASSIFICATION
OF STREAM SEGMENTS
Designated Use
Agricultural/
Indus trial
Classification
(Continued)
Criteria
Color, odor and taste producing substances,
toxic substances, and other deleterious sub-
stances, including chemical compounds attribut-
able to sewage, industrial wastes and other
wastes - Only such amounts as will render the
waters suitable for agricultural and industrial
purposes, and assure survival of fish life.
Radioactivity - Not to exceed the requirements
of the State Department of Public Health.
Turbidity - not more than 50 JTU above normal
11-20
-------
proportional to the slope of the stream. Rickert et. al. (1977) found
detention time critical in limiting primary production and biomass
accumulation of algae. Pooled areas within the Cahaba River Basin have
increased detention time and very likely increased light penetration from
the settling out of particulate matter, and entrapment of nutrients. Frey
(1976) found indications of high algal biomass, increased production,
high diurnal oxygen fluctuations and decreased oxygen in the lower depths
in two pools lying near U.S. Highway 78 in the Cahaba River. With the
exception of decreased oxygen with depth, these same characteristics were
observed by Frey (1976) between the U.S. Highway 280 and Old Montgomery
Road. Algal blooms were observed in the entrapped waters of the five low
head dams found within the stretch of water (Personal communication with
Rob Hunter of Claude Terry and Associates). Riffle areas, on the other
hand, have an excellent exchange of oxygen and CO2 across the air-water
interface and less likelihood of developing eutrophic characteristics
relative to pooled or impounded waters. As the area becomes increasingly
urbanized these problem areas can be expected to persist or increase in
the future if present STP's are not upgraded.
Lake Morphology
The morphology and surrounding watershed of lakes and impounded
bodies of water can play an important part in determining the quality of
surface water. Impounded bodies of water provide quiescent conditions
ideal for phytoplankton reproduction if sufficient nutrient loading
occurs from runoff and input from tributaries. The topography and re-
sulting land use of the surrounding watershed can affect the release and
availability of nutrients to bodies of water within the basin. In deeper
lakes, as Lake Purdy, thermal stratification is common and may result in
anoxic conditions in the lower waters of the lake. This allows nutrients
to be released from the bottom muds and redistributed to the surface
waters at fall over-turn. Lake Purdy presently stratifies at a depth of
approximately 20 feet, 25 percent of its total volume of 17,444 acre feet
becoming limiting to aquatic life from late spring to early fall.
Shallower bodies of water as Paradise Lake are normally well mixed, the
upper layers of water being in constant contact with nutrient rich water
masses whose bottom muds are often redistributed by wind-aided mixing
through the water column. Stratification may occur but is normally a
temporary diurnal phenomena. As a result lower waters are normally rich
in oxygen on a year round basis and not limiting to aquatic life
(Gebhart et. al. 1976). The residence or mean hydraulic retention time
of water in a lake is of major importance to the rate of nutrient enrich-
ment. The retention time is the time in which there is a complete
exchange of the entire volume of lake water. This has been calculated
to occur once every 1.6 years (Table II-8) in Lake Purdy. This parameter
along with other data may be used to determine the potential for
eutrophication in lakes and other impounded bodies of water (See Discus-
sion Under Point Sources Of Pollution). In both Lakes Purdy and Paradise
high production and resulting diurnal oxygen fluctuation from over-
enrichment with nutrients may presently be limiting to certain forms of
aquatic life and can be expected to persist or worsen in the future if no
action is taken in upgrading existing STP's.
11-21
-------
Climate
Climate can play an important role in determining surface water
quality and primary production. Temperature, duration of growing season,
solar radiation, precipitation and wind are parameters of climate which
may affect production and ultimately water quality. Climate in the area
can be considered temperate. Total annual precipitation around Birmingham
averages 53.57 inches (Black et. al. 1975, Chapter 8). The wettest
seasons of the year are winter, early spring and July. It is during these
periods that nutrient loadings from runoff might be the highest.
Air temperature can also affect surface water quality. Cooling air
temperatures bring about a gradual cooling of the surface waters. Cooler
surface waters result in increased oxygen saturation values and a likeli-
hood of higher oxygen concentrations, everything else being equal. Cooler
surface waters result in decreased metabolic activity of primary producers
(algae) and primary consumers (heteretrophic bacteria). As a result of
decreased metabolic activities there is less 1 ikelihooci for extreme diurnal
fluctuation of oxygen concentrations, often found during warmer months of
the year, making a more stable environment for aquatic life. Cooler
temperature also results in a fall overturn in Lake Purdy which occurs when
the upper layers of water, as the result of cooling and wind-aided mixing
reach the same density as the stratified bottom waters. Lake Purdy can be
classified as a warm monomictic lake, circulating once a year in the fall.
Ice cover never forms to any degree sufficient to prevent circulation in
the winter. This fall circulation brings about a complete mixing of the
winter column and a redistribution of nutrients to the surface. Though
these nutrients may be in sufficient concentration, maximal production
may not reach its peak until the following spring when increased air
temperatures bring about increased surface water temperatures and increased
metabolic rates of the algae. As warmer weather continues and surface
waters increase in temperature oxygen saturation values decrease and
oxygen is more easily lost across the air water interface. There is a
decreased ability to store oxygen reserves even though saturation or
super-saturated oxygenated water may exist by late afternoon due to pri-
nary production during peak periods of solar radiation. This is offset
by increased community respiration which at night without off-setting
photosynthesis, may drop oxygen concentrations to levels inhibitory to
certain levels of aquatic life. It is in cases such as this that mobile
aquatic life may be forced out of such an area or that permanent
habitation may be limited to certain oxygen tolerant organisms. Such
conditions may presently exist in certain areas of the Cahaba Basin where
nutrient enrichment has occurred. Teledyne Brown Engineering (1965) has
already recorded such conditions in Lake Purdy.
Point_ Sources of Pollution
Nutrient Levels. From Barton Laboratory data (Jefferson County
Commission 1977) it is apparent that total inorganic nitrogen lies above
the desired level of 0.3 mg/1. High levels are found below outfalls of
the Trussville STP, Gold Kist Plant , just below the entrance of the
Little Cahaba River, below the Cahaba STP outfall and below the confluence
with Buck Creek. AWIC data (Black et. al. 1975) indicates similar nutrient
11-22
-------
concentrations which surpass designated water quality criteria. It is
interesting to note from Barton Laboratory data that while, sewage treatment
plants are discharging nitrogen in the form of NO2-NO3, the Gold Kist Plant
apparently lacking in nitrification processes is discharging waters high in
ammonia. Total phosphorous follows the same trends as inorganic nitrogen,
increasing in concentration directly below the sewage treatment plants and
Gold Kist Plant and the dam at the Cahaba Pumping Station. Nutrient
concentrations decrease substantially from the dilutional effects of tributaries
confluence and possibly from aquatic weed beds, observed in these stretches
withdrawing nutrients for production.
Presently Lakes Purdy and Paradise are receiving nutrients as the result
of sewage effluents from the upstream Leeds Sewage Treatment Plant and the
Patton Creek Sewage Treatment Plant respectively. Utilizing Vollenweider's
(1968) relationship of comparing total phosphorous loading in g/m^ lake
surface area/year to mean depth (m)/mean hydraulic retention time (years),
phosphorous was analyzed from both Barton Laboratory and STORET data. This
same methodology was used by the USEPA-National Eutrophication Survey pro-
gram (Gakstatter 1975). Results indicated loads that were considered c I'i-
cal in bringing about eutrophication. The mean hydraulic retention 'ime las
been estimated as 1.6 years. During the low water years when heavy drawdowns
occur the retention time may be even less, possibly as low as a year. Iven
with this short retention time, present phosphorous loadings based r.pon
Vollenweider's relations indicate eutrophying conditions. This data comp.
favorably with the same evaluation of Lake Purdy in Chapter 10 of B.lac; et .
al. (1975) (Table II-8). This is in further agreement with significant al^a'
and other vegetative growth observed in Lake Purdy (Black et. al. ll>75 and
Frey 1976) and dissolved oxygen values which periodically fall below the fivi
mg/1 standard set by AWIC even in the upper strata of the lake. Nutriems
are being introduced into Lake Purdy allowing the production of srfficien
organic matter which upon its decay produces anoxic or near anoxic conditions
in the thermally stratified lower depths. Although data is limited, nut. Lent
concentrations in Lake Purdy fall within or do not greatly exceed present
criteria for aquatic life. In most cases phosphorous is limiting in the
upper depths where production takes place. In the one profile that covers
depth from 0-45 feet (STORET Data, Table AI-9, Appendix I of Cahaba E1S)
there is a trend for both phosphorous and total nitrogen concentrations to
increase with depth going from a phosphorous limited N/P ratio in the surface
waters to a tendency for nitrogen limitation in the lower depths. It would
appear from the low concentrations of phosphorous in the upper strata of the
lake that it is being rapidly tied up in the biological food chain and
lost in the bottom muds and then reintroduced in small quantities from the
mud into the anoxic lower depth where redistribution throughout the water
column eventually occurs. Additionally, drawdowns, (as occurred on a large
scale in Lake Purdy during the summer of 1978), expose bottom muds allowing
aeration and decay of bottom deposits. Upon reinundation, nutrients are recircu-
lated throughout the water column (Jester 1971). In essence, the reinundation
acts as a fall overturn increasing productivity.
Very little data is available on Paradise Lake. From descriptions in
Appendix I of the Cahaba EIS, Whittle (1974) and Chapter 7 (Black et. al.
1975) heavy nutrient loads are being discharged from the Patton Creek
Sewage Treatment Plant. It would appear that DO may drop to 0 mg/1 during
certain times in the channel between the upper and lower lakes. This is
very likely the result of biological oxygen demands from benthal deposits
11-23
-------
TABLE II-8
ESTIMATED EUTROPHICATION IN LAKE PURDY
COMPARING MEAN DEPTH ( m) /MEAN HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME (years)
TO TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS LOADING RATE (g/m2/year)
Site/Data Mean Depth Mean Hydraulic Total Phos-
(m) Retention Time phorous
(years) loading
g/m2/year
Vollenweider
Total Phosphorous
Loading
g/m2/year
Permissable Critical
(Eutrophic)
Lake Purdy
Black
et. al 1975)
17
1.93
0.1
Lake Purdy
Barton Lab
17
1.6 years
0.41
0.18
0.36
Lake Purdy
STORET
Chapter 2
ELS
17
1.6
1.47
0.18
0.36
Sources:
1) Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. Birmingman Metropolitan Area Wastewater
Facilities Plan For The County Commission Of Jefferson County,
Birmingham, Alabama, 1975.
2) Barton Laboratory, Jefferson, Alabama, 1977
3) STORET, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11-24
-------
of suspended solids caused by flow restrictions at that point (Whittle
1975). Fish have been observed in this vicinity in respiratory difficulty.
Fishing in the lower lake appears to be excellent. Certain stretches,
especially the upper lake and channel between lakes, are often clogged
with aquatic weeds and nuisance algal blooms. The dissolved oxygen
quite often falls below the 5 mg/1 criteria for aquatic life. It would
appear that at present, Paradise Lake is suffering much more from water
quality degradation than Lake Purdy due to nutrient enrichment from up-
stream sewage treatment plant effluents. This problem is magnified by
the shallowness of the lake which allows continual recirculation of
nutrients from the bottom muds by winded*»aided mixing.
Present studies conducted by Auburn University on Corps of Engineers
reservoirs in Alabama have shown that nutrient loadings considered to
bring about degraded aquatic conditions in northern lakes may not always
stimulate nuisance algal blooms that result in severe degradation (Personal
Communication, 11-2-77, Dr. David R. Bayne, Dept. of Fisheries, Auburn
University, report forthcoming). There may be other factors more important
in limiting algal production. In fact fish life may be enhanced in certain
reservoirs by nutrient enrichment and the resulting algal blooms. Once
again to a degree nutrient enrichment can be beneficial providing life-
giving oxygen, and food for animals of the higher trophic levels.
If no action is initiated in the upgrading of sewage treatment plants
within the study area, eutrophication from nutrient and carbon enrichments
in the Cahaba River and surrounding waters can expect to increase due to
increased user pressure from the expanding urban populace. Once these
nutrients are combined within the aquatic ecosystem their removal is tedious
and expensive if at all feasible (Mackenthun 1976). If the need eventually
arises to limit nutrient levels within the Cahaba River Basin the most
likely nutrient to limit is phosphorous. Elimination of nitrogen in the
form of NO3, N(>2, or NH3 will not completely eliminate the opportunity for
algal blooms because of the ability of certain species of blue-green algae
to fix atmospheric nitrogen (USEPA Working Paper No. 22, Cole 1975,
Hutchinson, 1957). Many authors conclude that as nitrogen is mainly
transported to lakes from diffuse sources, wastewater treatment aiming at
the reduction of nitrogen in effluents will have a very limited effect in
counteracting eutrophication (Landner 1977).
Hazardous and Toxic Substances from Industrial Wastewater Dischargers
Industries discharging wastewater into municipal collection systems
must meet standards under Federal Regulation 40 CFR 128. Pollutants
contained in these wastewaters which are limited by the municipal NPDES
permit need not be removed by industrial pretreatment. These pollutants
are referred to as compatible pollutants, under the assumption that they
will be removed by municipal treatment processes and will be within re-
quired limits in the effluent discharged to surface water. Compatible
pollutants may include biological oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, pH, sus-
pended solids, fecal coliform, total phosphorous, ammonia and flow.
Industries discharging wastewater into municipal collection systems
which contain incompatible pollutants, (defined as any pollutant which is
not compatible), are required to achieve Best Practicable Technology
Currently Available, (BPTCA), effluent limitations established by the
11-25
-------
USEPA for the appropriate industrial category or sub category.
Incompatible pollutants may include heavy metals, chlorinated hydro-
carbons and other toxic and hazardous substances. Their removal
assures environmental quality and in the case of biological treatment
of wastes a functional municipal plant. The Trussville wastewater treat-
ment plant is reported to receive industrial wastes that may contain
chromium. Leeds wastewater treatment plant is reported to receive
industrial wastes that may contain the heavy metals of cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, nickel, zinc, and rhodium sulfate (Personal communication,
Ron MiiculaR, TJSEPA, Region IV, Atlanta).
Industries which discharge directly into surface waters must secure
c. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, (NPDES), permit.
Pollutant levels set forth under these permits are based upon BPTCA;
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable, (BATEA); or New Point
Source, (NPS), limitations established by the USEPA for the appropriate
category or sub category. Additionally, effluent limitations may be
promulgated based upon water quality criteria for streams set forth by the
AWIC (Table 11—7). Industries discharging directly into Cahaba Surface
waters may contain conc.entration of oil and grease in their effluents
(Water Quality Management Plan For The Cahaba River, 303e, 1974).
Non-Point Sources of Pollution
Soil and Mineral Factors (Edaphic Factors). Soils of an area can
affect the availability of nutrients. Solids of low pH retain ammonia
as NH4 + while soils high in pH allow volatilization of NH4 + to NH3 and
its release into the atmosphere. This nitrogen is returned to streams
and lakes in rainwater and the resulting runoff in the form of NH3 (Landnet
1977 and Omernik 1976). The low pH soils of the Cahaba watershed ranging
between a pH of 4-5.5 indicates little contribution of nitrogen from
rainwater (Black et. al., Appendix I, 1975).
The mineral make-up of the watershed can also affect phosphorous
concentrations and loadings. Certain sedimentary rocks can contribute
phosphorous to the watershed. Igneous rock rich in apatite is also a
phosphorous contributor (Omernik 1976). The Cahaba River Basin appears
to have none of these minerals. Alkalinity is an index to the nature of
rocks within a drainage area and the degree to which they are weathered.
Concentrations of total alkalinity less than 40-44 mg/1 CaC03 can limit
the production of algae (Cole 1975). This is not the case in the Cahaba
River Basin where concentrations are well above this criteria.
Land Use and Surface Water Quality. Land use, which to a large
extend is determined by the topographical make-up of a watershed, is an
important factor in determining nutrient levels and resulting water
quality of surface water within a stream. Omernik (1976,1977) found that
in forested and mostly forested watersheds, (typical of the study area),
total nitrogen to total phosphorous ratio to be between 60/1 and 25/1 re«.
spectively. From the Barton Laboratory Data, the average N/P ratio in t^e
Cahaba River averaged 11.6/1 and in many cases was substantially lower.
Bodies of water falling between ratios of 10
-------
Omernik (1976, 1977) and Gakstatter (1975) developed empirical
regression equations from 473 drainage areas sampled during the USEPA
National Eutrophication Survey. Based on the percentage of land in
agriculture, (5.2 ) and urban development (12.5 ), it is expected that
present background nutrient levels fall within acceptable criteria for
the maintenance of surface water quality for aquatic life. It might then
be expected that nutrient concentrations over and above the expected
background concentrations arise from direct point sources of pollution
as wastewater effluent or industrial discharges.
Environmental Sensitivities
Because of the heavy demand on the Cahaba River by the Birmingham
Waterworks Board and the need of water to maintain the assimilative
capacity of the river for wastewaters, conflicts may arise between these
two factors, especially during low flow periods. Though data is scarce,
toxic and hazardous substances may be contaminating surface waters by
direct discharge from industrial wastewaters, or indirectly by industrial
pretreated waters into municipal treatment plants. The control of
sufficient surface flow for assimilation of wastes, the control of toxic
and hazardous substances and pathogenic organisms, are necessary to
assure water quality which meets public health standards in the areas
of taste, toxicity and disease control.
13. AQUATIC ECOLOGY
Algae
Algal growths within the study area are predominated by epiphytic
growths (attached algae) of Spirogyra and RhizocIonium becoming reduced
in the lower stretches of the river as turbidity increases. Planktonic
green and blue green algae has been observed to tinge the Cahaba River
green or brownish green. Filamentous blue-green algae has been observed
in isolated areas. These species are indicative of nutrient enriched
waters (Frey 1976). Similar algal enriched conditions have been observed
in Lake Purdy (Taylor et. al. 1976). A list of algae found within the
basin (Frey 1976), (Taylor 1976) is found in Appendix I. High diurnal
fluctuations of oxygen and decreased oxygen with depth as a result of
algal activity have been noted in pooled areas within the Cahaba River
and in the Little Cahaba River below the Leeds STP and Lake Purdy, (Whittle
1976), (Frey 1976). These conditions can expect to worsen as future urban
development places increased stresses on the aquatic environment. Odor
from nuisance algal blooms in Paradise Lake (Frey 1976) and Lake Purdy
would indicate similar oxygen fluctuations in the environment.
Bacteria, Fungus
Slime communities have been reported in Dry Creek, the Little Cahaba
River and Patton Creek below the outfalls of the Leeds and Patton Creek
STP's, respectively (Black et. al. 1976). These communities consist of a
mat formed primarily by iron bacteria Sphaerotilus sp. They typically
occur below sewage outfalls rich in nitrogen and other nutritive materials.
They cause a visual and odor nuisance, ruining the recreational potential
11-27
-------
of an area by destroying bottom organisms and fish eggs. Black et. al.
(1975) found the Little Cahaba required five miles of assimilation before
fish and aquatic life began to recover and Sphaerotilus disappeared.
Measurements of fecal coliform were taken during the sampling effort
of the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission 208 Agency during 1976 at
various locations throughout the basin. At most locations the level
was below the most stringent criteria of 200/100 ml required for swimming.
Exceptions to this were at locations on Patton Creek, Little Shades Creek,
and Buck Creek where levels ranged from 240/100 ml to 1250/100 ml. Con-
sidering that there is no designated swimming use in the streams in the
study area and that even the highest recorded levels are within the limits
of the fish and wildlife classification level of 2000/100 ml, no violations
of the fecal coliform criteria are evident. The higher levels of fecal
coliform at these locations does, however, indicate an external source of
bacteria and possibly virus from poorly disinfected wastewaters.
Higher Aquatic Plants
Numerous vascular plants can be found along various reaches of the
river. Waterwillow is present on sand bars and silt deposits. Patches
of water cress, spider lily and alligator weed have been observed along
the Cahaba River. Massive beds of vascular plants primarily Elodea as
the result of nutrient enrichment by Lake Purdy have been observed on the
Little Cahaba River (Frey 1976). A list of observed algae and vascular
plants presently found in the Cahaba River is contained in Table AI-11,
Appendix I.
Aquatic Invertebrates
The community of macroinvertebrates in an aquatic ecosystem is very
sensitive to stress and this serves as a useful tool in detecting degraded
conditions resulting from pollution. Black et. al. (1975), Frey (1976)
and Claude Terry Associates (1977) have reported on the conditions of the
environment in the Cahaba Basin based upon the distributions of jbenthic
invertebrates. There is general agreement among all studies that benthic
communities on the Little Cahaba have been arrected by discharge from the
Leeds sewage treatment plant. Claude Terry & Associates, Inc., (1977)
indicate degraded conditions below Lake Purdy on the Little Cahaba River.
The numerous leaches, midges, sow bugs and Physa found by Frey (1976)
below Lake Purdy also are indicative of moderately polluted conditions.
Claude Terry & Associates, Inc., (1977) found benthic communities on
the Cahaba River to be affected by impoundment with low head dams
resulting in sluggish water conditions. This affects diversity by limitl^.
invertebrates with specialized respiratory and feeding mechanisms
adapted to the settling out of suspended solids as a result of decreased
flow. Frey (1976) found an increase in sediment load to affect the
number of taxa of benthic invertebrates in certain stretches of the rive*.
Stoneflies (very oxygen sensitive) were not found in the river below the
Trussville STP discharge (Frey 1975). Pollution from the Trussville STP
domestic sewage from Pinchgut Creek, siltation from construction and rurioff
from old strip mines in Big Black Creek was found to decrease the number
of benthic taxa in that stretch of the Cahaba River. The Barton Laborat0ry
11-28
-------
(Black et. al. 1975) report benthic samples too numerable to count in Lake
Purdy. It is likely that the samples collected from lower depths were
chironomids or some other form of invertebrate able to take up oxygen
under extremely low partial pressures (low concentration). A list of
invertebrate collected by Frey (1976) is found in Tables AI-12 and AI-13,
Appendix I - U.S. Dept. of the Interior (1967) Tables AI-14, AI-15, AI-16,
Appendix I.
Fish Life
The Cahaba River is known for its diversity of fish life. Frey (1976)
indicates 123 of the 148 species reported in Alabama water to occur in the
Cahaba River (Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan). A
survey of fish life by Frey (1976) is contained in Table AI-17, Appendix
I. A summary of Cahaba River fish kills are recorded in Table AI-18» Appendix I.
Frey (1976) encountered no conditions during the study which might
eliminate species or restrict their movement and distribution. There is
a likelihood that fish distribution is prevented by the Cahaba Pumping
station dam and the 5 low head dams down stream, especially during low
flow periods. Although fish species may be present an important considera-
tion is the balance of the population. Forage/carnivore (F/C) ratios,
percent of harvestible sized fish and pounds of fish per acre, may be
drastically altered by nutrient and organic enrichment in the future as the
expanding urban populace places a demand on the Cahaba River as a source
for wastewater discharge. Studies conducted by Swingle (1953) on the near-
by Coosa and Black Warrior Rivers indicates unbalanced fish populations
as the result of man-made pollutants introduced into these rivers. The
disruption of a population may result in the loss of the fishery for
recreational and commercial persuits.
Rare and Endangered Species
Two lists indicating rare and endangered fish, amphibians and
reptiles of the Cahaba, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (1972) and Frey (1976) are contained in Table AI-8, Appendix I.
The Cahaba River may be the last refuge of the endangered goldline darter
and Cahaba Shiner proposed for inclusion on the Federal list of Endangered
and Threatened Species. The rare Stargazing Shiner ranges between Helena
and Harell. These species though downstream from the study site are
subject to elimination by direct pollution or secondarily by the un-
balancing of fish population as the result of man-made activities occurring
upstream.
Water-Land Interface Communities
The primary communities occupying the water-land interface are bottom-
land hardwoods. These represent valuable wildlife areas. Mr. Thomas
Imhof, author of Alabama Birds, suggests that 100 feet of vegetation along
any stream which is at least one foot wide is critical habitat for many
bird species. The soil holding effects and the effects of shade on water
temperature and dissolved oxygen content of the water have been well
documented.
11-29
-------
The vegetation surrounding the man-made lakes in the project area
such as Lake Purdy is normally composed of woody vegetation. When water
levels in the lakes are lowered for extended periods, terrestrial
grasses, sedges and other herbaceous plants may invade the shoreline.
Upon reflooding, these die and may add to the productivity of the lakes
as a result of decomposition increasing the level of eutrophication.
Environmental Sensitivities
Unless nutrient enrichment is brought under control, the secondary
effects of algal blooms, aquatic plant inundation, oxygen depletion, high
diurnal oxygen levels, possible fish kills and hastened eutrophication can
be expected to continue, if not compounded as development occurs within the
Cahaba River Basin. Removal of shade trees along stream banks may also
enhance this degradation. Proper control of these nutrients can be
expected to improve the aquatic environment by providing for balanced fish
populations, and by providing for self-regulating streams and impoundment
of high water quality suitable for use as recreational waters.
Heavy metals and other hazardous and toxic materials from industrial
and municipal plants may be affecting the quality of life of aquatic
organisms within the study area. Because the goldline darter and Cahaba
Shiner are slated for possible inclusion on the Federal Endangered and
Threatening Species List the potential toxic effects of residual chlorine
a byproduct of wastewater disinfection, must be considered. This is
especially true downstream from the Cahaba STP where these two fish are
found. During low flow the effluent waters of the Cahaba STP make up the
bulk of the Cahaba River flow for quite some distance downstream of the
treatment plant.
11-30
-------
PART B. MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
1. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
The Cahaba Basin Study area contains approximately 255 square miles
of land. Parts of three counties, Jefferson, Shelby and St. Clair are
included within it. In turn, the entire study region is incorporated
within the Birmingham Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) which
currently includes these three counties and Walker County. At the time
of the United States Census of 1970, however, St. Clair County was not
yet included within the SMSA.
Regional Population Characteristics
Since 1960, the rate of growth of the Birmingham SMSA has accelerated
annually. Table II-9 indicates that the SMSA population (excluding St.
Clair County) in 1960 was 721,000. During the ensuing ten years an
additional 2.5% population gain was recorded, and during 1970-76, an
additional 4.7% gain was registered within the area. At the same time
the City of Birmingham was losing population, though the annual rate of
loss was slowing. The phenomenal growth of the portion of the SMSA
located outside the central city of Birmingham was just sufficient during
1960-1970 to offset central city losses. During 1970-76, though the
central city lost an additional 3.7%, the remainder of the SMSA gained
9.4%, yielding an overall SMSA growth rate during 1970-76 of 4.7%. Thus,
while the respective rates of central city loss and suburban gain have
both been slowing, the overall rate of SMSA increase has actually been
increasing. Table II-9 also indicates the area's changing share of
national population. In 1960, the SMSA's share of national population
was 0.004, which is the equivalent of barely 0.4%. By 1970, the SMSA
had slipped to 0.36% of the national population, a level maintained in
1976.
At the county level, Table II-9 indicates very low growth rates for
Jefferson County, whereas the outlying counties, Shelby and St. Clair,
have experienced rapidly accelerating rates of growth. St. Clair County,
the smallest of the three counties grew somewhat less rapidly than Shelby
owing primarily to the latter's greater accessibility to the center
city. Comparable growth rates are presented in Table II-9 for Alabama and
the nation. Indicative of an overall national population shift, Alabama
has grown slightly more rapidly than the nation (6.4% versus 6.3%) in the
current decade. Most interesting is the failure of the SMSA to maintain
pace with the State at any time since 1960.
Cahaba Basin Population Characteristics
The Cahaba Basin Study Region, itself, is composed of varying
portions of 16 census tracts most of which lie in either Jefferson or
Shelby County. The remaining four tracts are located in St. Clair County
which was not included in the Birmingham SMSA in 1970. It proved necessary
therefore to apply generalized county level data to the tracts within St.
11-31
-------
TABLE II-9
POPULATION TRENDS AND COMPARISONS: REGION, STATE AND NATION
1960
POPULATION1'2
(Thousands)
1970
1976
PERCENT CHANGE
1960-70
1970-76
1960
AREA'S SHARE OF
U.S. POPULATION
1970
1976
A. Regional
Birmingham SMSA* 721
Birmingham City 341
SMSA Outside City 380
Jefferson County 635
St. Clair County 25
Shelby County 32
Three—County Total 692
Cahaba Basin - Study Area 44
B. Alabama (State) 3,267
C. United States 179,326
739
301
438
645
28
38
711
70
3,444
203,210
769
290**
479**
653
34
52
739
95**
3,665
216,022
2.5
11.7
22.6
1.6
12.0
13.8
2.7
59.1
5.4
13.3
4.7
-3.7
9.4
1.2
21.4
36.8
3.9
35.7
6.4
6.4
.0040
.0019
.0021
.0035
.0001
.0002
.0039
.0002
.0182
1.0000
.0036
.0015
.0022
.0032
.0001
.0002
.0035
.0003
.0169
1.0000
.0036
.0013
.0022
.0030
.0002
.0002
.0034
.0004
.0170
1.0000
* All SI-ISA tabulations in this Table refer to the SMSA as defined in 1970: Jefferson, Walker and Shelby Counties. St. Clair County,
however, is included in the SMSA today.
** Estimated by the Environmental Assessment Council, Inc., 8/77.
Source:
1. Populations for 1960 and 1970 appear in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Vol. 1, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
POPULATION, Part 2, Alabama.
2. Estimates of 1976 populations are provided in Current Population Reports, Population Estimates and Projections, Series P-25,
No. 706, issued September, 1977, and Series P-26, No. 76-1, issued September, 1977. Both are published by the U.S. Bureau of
the Census.
-------
Clair County on occasion. It is not possible to determine the 1960
characteristics of population within the Basin because far fewer tracts
were then reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, and certain of these were
redrawn so that the data are not comparable from one decennial census
to the next.
The Basin population profile which emerges from these data provides
an extremely useful insight into the 70,412 people who lived within the
bounds of the Study Region in 1970. Approximately 38.6% of these people
were nineteen years of age or younger, and an additional 7.6% were sixty-
five years old or over, leaving 53.8% between the ages of nineteen and
sixty-five. Similar proportions characterize all tracts within the Study
Region.
Forecasting Population in the Study Area
This section establishes population projections within the Cahaba
Basin. The population projections are based upon a set of projections
developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Ultimately, all county
Battelle projections were elevated by 4.7% by the Birmingham Regional
Planning Commission (BRPC). The final outcome has become known as the
"Battelle Plus 4.7%" projections.
Table 11-10 summarizes the major alternative projections undertaken
in recent years for the Birmingham metropolitan region. Since all of
these do not relate precisely to the same region, various sub-totals are
provided to aid in comparing the results. Each independent projection
series is reported for the year 2000. The Southern Research Institute
projections differ substantially from all others and presume levels of
natural increase and net migration which are not justified in light of
current trends and national forecasts. Of the three reported Battelle
projections, the scenario which assumes a level of growth in the Birmingham
region commensurate with that projected for the southern states as a whole
is the one designated by the BRPC as the base for the "Battelle plus
4.7%" series. This "official" series is reported in the adjacent column.
It is less than the "local OBERS* series produced for the EPA by the
State Social Sciences Advisory Committee utilizing the "OBE Economic
Area" controls provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis (formerly OBE), from work performed by the "OBERS"
team mder the direction of the U.S. Water Resources Council.
Subsequently, these modified Battelle county level projections were
further disaggregated into census tracts within each county by the BRPC.
The Environmental Assessment Council, Inc. subsequently converted these
tract projections into projections for each sub-watershed (sub-basin)
within the Cahaba Basin Study Region. When summed together, these
projections express the population outlook for the entire Study Region.
Ultimately, the wastewater flows eligible for "201" funding are the
Cahaba Basin Study Region projections produced in the manner described
above. These are "unconstrained" projections. That is, the projections
were at no point in the forecasting methodology limited according to the
capacity of the region to process its wastes. The unconstrained projections
provide an essential perspective in identifying regional alternatives,
serving as a baseline against which other plans and forecasts can be
compared.
11-33
-------
TABLE 11-10
COMPARISON OF REGIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS, 1970-2000,
(YEAR 2000 PROJECTIONS)
County
19 701
Low U.S.
Growth
(Battelle) ^
Baseline
(Battelle) ^
Southern
Growth
(Battelle)
Battelle
(+4.7%)
"Local"
OBERS
OBERS
Series C^
OBERS
Series E^
Southern
Research
Ins titute^
Jefferson
644,991
663,574
666,109
670,550
702,066
807,000
925,442
Shelby
38,037
78,064
78,581
81,369
85,193
88,400
140,312
Walker
56,246
88,290
88,664
91,279
95,569
60,900
132,345
Sub-Total
739,274
829,928
833,354
843,198
882,828
956,300
975,200
915,700
1,198,099
Blount
26,853
40,815
41,054
41,371
43,315
32,700
103,772
Chilton
25,180
35,731
35,880
36,290
37,996
28,600
49,373
St."Clair
27,956
43,135
43,426
44,550
46,644
45,400
73, 756
Six-County Total
819,263
949,609
953,715
965,409
1,010,783
1,063,000
NA
NA
1,425,000
Cahaba Basin Study Area
67,686
NA
115,072
NA
138,209
NA
NA
164,570
NA
SOURCES:
1. U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1970.
2. Battelle Memorial Inst., Columbus Laboratories, Economic Base Analysis of the Birmingham Six-County Planning Area (Columbus,
Ohio:Battelle, 1970), Final Report, Vol. II, Table V-I.
3. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, "Population by County, Historic (1940-1970) and Projected (1970 - 2020),
Region IV," (Atlanta, Georgia, July, 1972).
4. Environmental Protection Agency, "Population & Economic Activities in the U.S. and SMSA's, Historical & Projected 1950-2020",
(Washington, D.C., July,- 1972). Series C Projections.
5. U.S. Water Resources Council, "OBERS Projections: Economic Activity in the U.S.", (Wash., D.C., U.S. Water Resources Council,
April, 1974), Series E Projections.
6. Southern Research Institute, "Implementation of a Regional Information System," (Birmingham, Alabama:S.R.I., June, 1974),
Appendix Table 12.
*These may differ marginally from other published estimates.
-------
Within the larger perspective of the Environmental Impact State-
ment, population projections serve a critical role. The focus of this
analysis is the impact upon the Cahaba Basin Study Region of proposed
wastewater treatment facilities. These include the immediate consequences
for the natural environments they occupy or influence, and the activities
which the physical facilities themselves displace. Of perhaps even
greater importance are the secondary consequences of these facilities.
Among these secondary impacts are the additional regional growth in
population and employment which they serve. Wastewater treatment faci-
lities and other forms of physical infrastructures such as roads are
"permissive" factors within the developmental process. They are es-
sential if growth is to occur, but they are, in themselves, not suf-
ficient to bring growth to the region.
The disaggregated, unconstrained population projections for the
Cahaba Basin are reported by subwatershed in Table 11-11, and depicted
in Figure II-O. This Table also indicates population densities (persons
per square mile) in each of the subwatersheds in 1975 and again in 2000.
There is considerable variation among subwatersheds regarding their re-
ceptivity to new development. Furthermore, rates of increase bear no
simple relationship to the populations of subwatersheds in 1975, Gene-
rally, these population counts and forecasts foresee continued growth
within the Cahaba Basin. The magnitudes of these growth increments must
be read as approximations having increasing margins of potential error,
approaching perhaps ten percent by the year 2000. Consequently, even
the subwatersheds exhibiting no growth such as R, U, Y and Z, (Table
II-ll), may actually experience a marginal level of new growth. The
above population projections are also the basis for Figures II-l and
II-2, (contained inside pockets in the back of this report); which
respectively indicate current (year 1975) and future (year 2000)
population densities within the Cahaba Basin Study area.
2. LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
The forecasting of population and land use are closely connected.
Population translates into households which occupy residential space.
How much and what kind of residential space is preferred by households
and supplied by the area's developers will determine the pattern of
residential land use. Most land within the Cahaba Basin Study Region
is currently vacant. Within the more developed places, however, the
majority of land is in active residential use. Knowledge of the resi-
dential patterns is valuable in assessing the region's prospects and
also because residential patterns influence non-residential patterns of
land usage. Not only do households displace other "less competitive"
users of land — primarily less intensive users such as agriculture —,
but they also create demands for accessible public services and facili-
ties (roads, schools, parks, government buildings, utilities and the like),
and for commercial facilities. In addition, most households consider
the "journey-to-work" among other factors in selecting places of resi-
dence, and employers frequently seek new business locations which mini-
mize prospective commuting distances.
11-35
-------
TABLE II- 11
UNCONSTRAINED POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY SUBWATERSHEDS
OF THE CAHABA BASIN STUDY REGION, 1975-2000
Subwatershed
A
B„
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
1975
653
2401
3765
5130
2149
1907
791
512
753
2955
2124
519
315
7637
484
1315
449
12
1613
1980
741
2548
3840
7698
2268
1913
806
723
783
3031
2178
525
340
7769
530
1430
524
13
1641
1985
804
2656
3939
9979
2394
1924
822
918
819
3131
2253
531
366
7995
591
1524
629
15
1681
1990
883
2796
4047
11840
2552
1947
842
1094
852
3233
2323
537
386
8328
655
1622
713
16
1723
1995
954
2896
4205
12769
2806
1964
860
1306
933
3460
2566
556
437
8691
837
1758
849
18
1842
2000
1061
3062
4340
13557
3079
1990
886
1579
1009
3607
2660
575
485
9134
1037
1937
1002
20
2005
Area
(Square Miles)
3.86
18.88*
15.56
21.65
6.96
12.19
2.86
7.04
10.59
1.46
2.96
25.65
1.87
5.01
1.54
5.93
2.24
Density
1975
169.2
598.3*
Density
2000
274.9
1,110.1*
138.1
88.1
113.6
42.0
263.3
419.7
200.6
355.5
106.4
297.7
258.8
262.5
291.6
2.0
720.1
197.9
91.9
127.3
129.5
352.8
512 .4
251.2
393.8
163.9
356.1
554.5
386.6
650.6
10.0
895.1
Percent Change
in Population
and Density
(1975-2000)
62.5
27.5
15.3
64.3
43.3
4.4
12.0
8.4
34.0
22.1
25.2
10.8
54.0
19.6
14.3
47.3
23.2
66.7
24.3
*lncludes B^, and Bg.
-------
TABLE II- 11 (continued)
UNCONSTRAINED POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY SUBWATERSHEDS
OF THE CAHABA BASIN STUDY REGION, 1975-2000
I
w
Subwatershed
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
II
JJ
TOTAL
1975
0
5
5896
0
0
16506
2474
0
0
374
0
236
27606
1193
121
2008
517
302
12
92734
1980
0
6
6053
0
0
17437
2592
0
0
379
4
495
28133
2869
2288
3887
595
1354
80
105473
1985
0
7
6178
0
134
18042
2614
0
0
390
15
1188
28983
3013
2812
5948
659
1839
142
114935
1990
6322
0
268
18806
2636
0
0
400
24
1488
30844
3065
2995
6780
785
2036
200
123046
1995
0
9
6393
0
402
19749
2770
0
0
408
30
1782
31415
3260
3230
7660
911
2235
200
130161
2000
0
11
6584
0
535
20847
2908
0
0
436
54
1983
33256
3462
3361
8164
1038
2345
200
138209
Area
(Square Miles)
2.12
2.34
2.29
1.63
1.12
10.81
2.28
1.30
4.12
1.68
3.22
3.00
18.70
1.58
2.27
5.38
3.74
1.89
1.44
Density
1975
0.0
2.1
2574.7
0.0
0.0
1526.9
1085.1
0.0
0.0
222.6
0.0
78.7
1476.3
755.1
53.3
373.2
138.2
159.8
8.3
Density
2000
0.0
4.7
2875.1
0.0
477 .7
1928.5
1275.4
0.0
0.0
259.5
16.8
661.0
1778.4
2191.1
1480.6
1517.5
277.5
1240.7
138.9
Percent Change
in Population
and Density
(1975-2000)
0.0
120.0
11.7
0.0
26.3
17.5
0.0
0.0
16.6
40.3
20.5
90.2
2677.7
6.6
100.8
776.5
1666.7
** Infinite increase.
SOURCE: Environmental Assessment Council, Inc., August, 1977
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Description of Future Land Use Patterns
Existing (1975) and projected (2000) land use patterns are pre-
sented respectively in Figures II—3 and II—A, (Contained inside pockets
in the back cover of this report). Within the six-county region served
by the BRPC the historical development pattern trends from northeast to
southwest. The predominant determinant of this elongated pattern is
the underlying physical geography of Appalachian foothills which form
parallel ridges and valleys along the southeastern boundary of Jefferson
County while presenting a more broken and irregular topography within
the northwestern half of the six-county region. The City of Birmingham,
itself, is located primarily within a topographic depression where slopes
are moderate and space is sufficient. Today urban development has near-
ly filled this central area of prime developable land and highways
radiate through its four quadrants connecting it to its larger setting.
These radial routes now define new peripheral development opportunities
in every direction.
The Cahaba Basin Study Region is located to the east of Birmingham
and is separated by several striations of the Appalachian system includ-
ing Shades Mountain. The Cahaba tributary system drains this extensive
region paralleling the predominant ridge and valley configuration. To
the east beyond the region, drainage is through the Coosa tributary sys-
tem. The Coosa River defines the eastern edge of St. Clair and Shelby
Counties.
Within the Cahaba Basin major roads trend eastward (1-20, U.S. 78),
southeastward (U.S. 280), and southward (U.S. 31, 1-65). These traverse
the ridges and valleys against their grain. Only A1.119 passes along
the topographic grain to the east of Lake Purdy, though 1-459 will
eventually constitute a major circumferential artery linking the radial
routes while providing an easterly by-pass of the central city of
Birmingham for traffic entering the metropolitan region from the north-
east (U.S. 78, 1-20, U.S. 11, & 1-59) or the southwest (U.S. 11, 1-20,
1-59) .
Development has been slow to seek out opportunities in the Cahaba
Basin for several reasons. First, there have been abundant supplies of
relatively flat, developable land within the central city, itself.
Once these lands began to develop, later development naturally sought
out accessible locations to tie into the evolving transportation net-
work. Second, only with changes in transportation technologies and the
development of adequate corridors could households and firms begin to
occupy the basin while sharing the advantages of the central city. Third,
the more remote communities of the Basin have remained relatively small
and unable to undertake some of the essential developmental decisions
which would draw new growth to them.
The outlook of the Basin has changed drastically in recent years,
Today the Basin is cut by several major radial arteries providing access
to the central city. Desirable locations for new homes and businesses
in the central city are fewer following a half century of sustained
11-38
-------
growth. In addition many firms today are less bound to the central
city, and many seem to seek suburban and exurban amenities to bolster
corporate images and improve operating efficiency while avoiding the
disamenities of more congested locations. The trend is prevalent though
not inevitable. The Basin also seems destined to draw to it increasing
numbers of new households, many of whose workers derive substantial in-
comes from the relatively flourishing trade and service sectors of the
metropolitan economy.
In 1977, the land use pattern of the Basin can be characterized in
terms of two primary dimensions. The first is the pattern of more or
less contiguous growth southeast of Birmingham within the area in or
adjacent Homewood, Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook. Of these, only
Vestavia Hills is predominantly within the Basin. Nearby communities
such as Overton, Cahaba Heights, Rocky Ridge, Chapel Hill, Shades Cliff,
Bluff Park and others have been magnets for recent growth. Farther
into the periphery, primarily within the quadrant bounded by Routes 280
and 31, are major planned developments such as Inverness, River Chase
and others which have already been platted and are partially developed.
These substantial outlying communities constitute distinct residential
nodes separated from contiguous urban developments by the Cahaba River
and several miles of less intensely developed land. In the more
northern reaches of the Basin reside several older communities includ-
ing Trussville and Leeds, both of which have evolved somewhat iso-
lated from Birmingham. These communities are now in the process of a
slow transformation which will bring to them growth and a closer func-
tional relationship with the larger metropolitan economy.
The unconstrained population projections foresee substantial new
growth in the entire region by the year 2000. If present trends were to
continue, much of this growth will gravitate to the southern portion of
the Basin. Sign of further commercial and industrial growth are already
to be found in the intensive commercial and industrial development
bordering Route 31 south of Vestavia Hills. The current "leapfrog" pat-
tern of residential development in this area would eventually give way
to a more contiguous patterning of residential lands as undeveloped lands
are filled to accomodate new residential demands. Cahaba Heights would
also be expected to gain some new development, while other scattered
development nodes in the north will also gain significant growth in
fairly concentrated development centers.
These future patterns of land use, it is stressed, represent un-
constrained projections which represent a continuation of the current
growth patterns. These are neither inevitable nor necessarily preferred
There is, however, considerable force behind thes trendlines, and there
would appear to be at least a moderate probability, and perhaps a strong
probability that only with an intensive effort by the communities involvej
can these forces be deflected into alternate patterns. The possible
impact of the development of the Interstate 459, of course, is to be
reckoned with. In the least it will tend to draw some growth away from
the southern portion of the Basin. It may also create new commercial
and industrial opportunities particularly at the intersection of Routes
280 and 1-459. It is quite probable, however, that its major impact wi^^
11-39
-------
not occur until after the year 2000, since the total magnitude of new
regional development is finite, and alternate developmental patterns are
already evolving.
3. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Birmingham has become a major regional manufacturing and trade cen-
ter, with particular influence upon the southeastern region of the
United States. Until the last decade Birmingham's economy has been largely
shaped by the iron and steel industry. As both a major employer and land
owner in the Birmingham area, this industry has exerted considerable
influence upon the entire region. During the decade from 1960 to 1970
the Birmingham area experienced significant reductions in employment in
the iron and steel industry. This decade also witnessed considerable
diversification in the area's economy. Although manufacturing continues
to be a major employer, the services sector of the economy has made major
advances and is now the area's major employer.
Employment
The level of employment and its distribution represent a funda-
mental measure of the economic climate in a given region. A comparison
of employment characteristics in the U.S., Alabama and the Birmingham
Region is provided in Table AI-19, Appendix I. An analysis of this
information indicates the Birmingham Region has experienced employment
changes during the decade from 1960 to 1970 closely paralleling national
employment trends.
The Birmingham Region has had significant decreases in manufactur-
ing from 1960 to 1970. Although there was a net increase in manufactur-
ing employment of 3,086, the percentage of the region's total employment
decreased from 27.1 to 25.4 percent.
Tables AI-20 and AI-21, Appendix I present employment characteristics
for the three counties which are located within the Cahaba River EIS study
area. Jefferson County is the most significant with a 1970 total employ-
ment of 232,844. Shelby County had a 1970 employment total of only
13,324 followed by St. Clair County with the smallest 1970 total employ-
ment of 9,150. An in depth discussion of employment profiles by county
and municipality is contained in Appendix I.
Income
Total personal income, per capita income and median family income
are good indicators of the economic health of a region. Aggregate
personal income, per capita income and median family income for the
United States, Alabama, the BRPC Region and each of the counties in the
study area is presented in Table AI-22, Appendix I. An analysis of this
information indicates that per capita income in the region and each of
the counties is below the national level of per capita income. The BRPC
Region's per capita income of $2,651 is higher than Alabama's per capita
income of $2,317. Jefferson County has the region's highest per capita
income of $2,821. Although per capita income for the region is below
national levels, trends from 1960-1970 indicate that the region is
11-40
-------
experiencing an average annual growth rate of 5.7 percent, which is
ahead of the nation's average annual rate of 5,4 percent, This would
seem to indicate that the counties in the study area are closing the
gap on the per capita income differential. In 1970 Jefferson County had
the highest per capita income in the study area. However, its average
annual growth rate from 1960 to 1970 was the lowest of the three counties
in the study area.
Similar trends are also evident in median family income, Each of
the three counties in the study area have a 1970 median income that is
below the national average. Shelby and St. Clair County each have
average annual growth rates considerably above the national average
growth rate. Table AI-2 3, Appendix I presents income data for the
various municipalities within the study area.
Labor Force
An analysis of the labor force in the study area provides some
insights into the education, occupation, age and sex characteristics
of the labor force in the study area. Tables AI-24, Tables AI-25,
Appendix I present labor force characteristics. A discussion of
establishments by employment category for Alabama is contained in Table
AI-26, Appendix I.
4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
An inventory of available published and unpublished information on
historical, archaeological and recreational resources has been under-
taken and the results presented herein. This information is of a gen-
eral nature and will be supplemented by site specific survey efforts in
the design phase of wastewater facilities before construction is ini-
tiated.
Historical Resources
According to information received from the Alabama Historical
Commission, which maintains "The Alabama Inventory of Landmarks,"
there are no official historical sites located within the boundaries
of the study area. This information is further confirmed by the
Birmingham Regional Planning Commission for Shelby and St. Clair
counties in a BPRC report entitled "Historical Sites, Blount - Chilton -
Shelby - St. Clair - Walker". However, Mr. Floyd of the Alabama Historical
Commission has indicated to the engineers who prepared the 201
Facilities Plan the presence of several significant sites in the lower
Cahaba River Basin south of Route 280. The sites referred to include a
battleground of the War Between the States, numerous Indian sites and
a Civil War charcoal furnace.
Archaeological Resources
Mr. Carey B. Oakley, Director of the University of Alabama Museum
of Natural History indicates sixteen known sites in the study area
(Figure AI-13, Appendix I). Most of these sites are related to the
11-41
-------
Woodland/Mississippian occupation (ca AD 500 to AD 1200). He also
estimates several hundred sites will be encountered in the valleys of
the study area. It is believed that these deposits could date from
Paleo-Indian Cca 10,000 BC) to the historical Indian occupation of
the area. An archeological survey of specific project areas will be
necessary for a comprehensive evaluation of the cultural resources.
Recreational Areas
The Jefferson and St. Clair County Land Suitability Plans, and
the Regional Parks and Open Space Plan identify several existing and pro-
posed recreational areas within the study area. These areas include the
neighborhood, city, county and regional parks; public and private golf
courses; and other recreational areas (Figure AI-13, Appendix I).
5- TRANSPORTATION
The study area is served by several Interstate and Major U.S.
routes, including 1-59 and U.S. 11 to the north; 1-20, and U.S. 78 to
the east; and 1-65, U.S. 31 and U.S. 280 to the south. The outlying
centers in the basin, Leeds and Trussville, are linked with Birmingham
by the way of 1-20 and 1-59 respectively. These major radial highways
in conjunction with similar high-volume routes west of Birmingham
provide the Cahaba Basin with connections to the Southeast and the U.S.
Traffic volumes on a number of these roadways are substantial,
particularly at peak weekday travel hours. In spite of these periods
of congestion, movements to and from Birmingham are relatively easy
from many points in the basin. The following data represents the range
of average daily traffic counts on major highways in the study area.
The range represents the high and low average daily traffic for each
highway as it passes through the study area. This data was based upon
1974 traffic counts from the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission.
Route Average Dally Vehicle Movement
1-65:
30,620 - 25,310
1-59:
7,210 - 5,900
1-20:
23,960 - 12,410
U.S. 31:
26,150 - 27,660
U.S. 280:
31,410 - 7,480
U.S. 11:
9,980 - 1,630
U.S. 411:
8,990 - 3,620
S-119:
2,320 - 4,650
Accessibility will be substantially improved by the completion of
several Interstate highway projects presently under construction, 1-459
will traverse almost the entire length of the basin from Bessemer north-
east almost to Trussville. In addition, the remaining segments of 1-20
and 1-65 in the basin are under development or construction. These pro-
jects are due for completion in the early 1980's. A number of improve-
ments are also underway or planned for existing highways in the study
area.
11-42
-------
The: area is also served by rail, with yard facilities located in
Irondale. Air service is available nearby at the Birmingham Municipal
Airport. Further discussion is contained in Appendix I.
6. RESOURCE USE
Mineral resources in the EIS study area include coal, iron ore,
limestone, dolomite, lime, chert, clay and shale. Table 11-12 indi-
cates mineral resources production in the three county area for fiscal
year 1976. Coal resources are found in the Pottsville Formation form-
ing the Cahaba coal field. The coal in the Cahaba Field ranks as "high-
volatile A bituminous." Coal mining and reserves are found in the struct-
ural basins where the upper coal beds have been protected from erosion.
Table AI-27, Appendix I provides a comparative analysis of the coal found
in the various coal seams in the Cahaba Coal Field.
Coal is currently the major mineral resource which is mined in
Alabama. During the 1976 fiscal year coal production in Alabama
was 21,063,154 tons. The coal industry in the state is also a major
employer in the state. During 1976 over 11,000 persons were employed
in coal production. Bituminous coal is mined in each of the study area
counties. Jefferson County produces 7,104,301 tons of coal in 19 76,
or one-third of the states entire production. Shelby County produced
477,438 tons and St. Clair County produced 100,682 tons. There is no
precise data on the amounts of coal produced in the study area, Pre-
sently there is little active mining in the basin, with most mining
operations located in the portions of Jefferson County outside of the
Cahaba Basin. Past coal mining areas are shown in Figure AI-14, Appendix
1. Table 11-13 provides further data on coal production and reserves in
the three county area. No iron ore mines are presently in operation in
the basin, but reserves are available when economic considerations make
mining feasible. Flooding in the mines has been a continual problem.
The basins forest products also represent a valuable renewable
resource. At present there is no large scale cutting underway. Timber
operations are carried out on a smaller scale by individual property owner-
s
7. WASTEWATER PROGRAMS
There are presently four municipal wastewater treatment plants ope-
rated within the boundaries of the EIS study area, (Figure II-5). The
Sanitation Department of Jefferson County is responsible for the waste-
water treatment plants, major trunk lines, and pumping stations owned
by the county. The Sanitation Department is a subdivision of the
Jefferson County Public Works Department, which is under the direction
of a county commissioner.
In addition to the responsibilities of the Jefferson County Sani-
tary Department described ahove, various portions of the sewer systems
are controlled by other municipalities within the county. Leeds and
Trussville, for example, administer the sewer systems within their cor-
porate limits and each has its own maintenance program.
11-43
-------
TABLE II-]2
MINERAL RESOURCE PRODUCTION
JEFFERSON, SHELBY AND ST. CLAIR COUNTIES
FISCAL, 1976 (TONS)
Jefferson Shelby St. Clair
County County County
Limestone 5,496,454 S,026,032 526,713
Dolomite 558,475
Shale 454,826 218,736 81,076
Clay 100,280 26,000 103,966
Sand 7,952
Source: Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Safety and Inspection, Annual
Statistical Report, Fiscal Year 1975-1976.
-------
TABLE 11-13
COAL PRODUCTION
AND RESERVES (TONS)
1976
Commercial
Mines
Captive Mines
(Utilities)
Captive Mines
(Iron § Steel Production)
Truck Mines -
Underground
Strip Mining
Total Production
Coal Reserves
Jefferson
County
701,975
1,928,166
2,045,905
14,261
2,413,994
7,104,301
757.9 million
tons
Shelby
County
St. Clair
County
477,438
477,438
3.80 million
tons
100,682
100,682
.57 million
tons
Sources: Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Safety and Inspection, Annual
Statistical Report, Fiscal Year 1975-1976.
U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8655, The Reserve Base of Bituminous Coal and
Anthracite for Underground Mines in the Eastern United States, 1974.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Patton Creek Treatment Plant
The Patton Creek plant is a two-stage trickling filter facility
located on the west bank of Patton Creek, approximately 2 miles up-
stream from its confluence with the Cahaba River, Treated effluent is
discharged a short distance upstream of Paradise Lake which was con—
structed after the plant came on-line and essentially serves as a po-
lishing pond. A major fishkill occurred during the summer of 1975 in
the lake due to dissolved oxygen depletion caused by algal decomposi-
tion during a period of reduced solar intensity. Jefferson County has
since placed three 10-hp floating aerators in the lake.
Service Area. The Patton Creek plant treats wastewater from
approximately 13,400 persons within a service area of about 4,260 acres.
There are approximately 20.5 miles of trunk lines and 80 miles of
laterals within the Patton Creek system. Service to the area is pro-
vided by the Patton outfall (18 to 30 inches in diameter), the Hurricane
Branch trunk sewer (24 inches) and the Byrd Branch trunk sewer (12
inches). The Patton Creek service area consists of four sub-drainage
areas (Figure II-5). Table 11-14 provides an outline of the four
service areas, size and population served. It was originally designed
for an average flow of 3 mgd. Figure AI-15, Appendix I depicts the
structure of the Patton Creek Plant.
Plant Performance. Until recently the Patton Creek plant operated
under NPDES Permit No. AL 0022942. As of Novenuber 4, 1977 and conti-
nuing until November 3, 1978 the Patton Creek plant has been placed
under structurual operating limitations as modified by the Enforcement
Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia, Historical plant performances data are compared to
old and current permit limits in Table 11-15.
Sludge Disposal. The Patton Creek plant is provided with a gravity
sludge thickener, anaerobic digesters and sludge drying beds. At pre-
sent, due to limited digestion capacity, some raw sludge is being
trucked to the County's Village Creek plant where it is flash dried and
baked as fertilizer for sale to the public or for use by county agencies.
Infiltration/Inflow. The magnitude of infiltration/inflow within
the Patton Creek system was addressed on the 201 planning effort (Table
11-16). There Is ample evidence that excessive infiltration/inflow
exists within the Patton Creek system. It is estimated 40-50% of the
infiltration/inflow in the Patton Creek system will be eliminated from
rehabilitation of the existing collection system.
Adequacy of Wastewater Management Program. Although adequately
operated and maintained, the Patton Creek plant, as it now exists, will
continue to adversely impact downstream water quality due primarily to
the physical constraints imposed by Lake Paradise. There is insuf-
ficient treatment capacity to handle present flows, especially those
occurring during wet-weather conditions. As a result, the county has
imposed a moratorium on further commitments for connection to the
plant which has been in effect since February 10, 1976. However, there
11-46
-------
TABLE 11-14
STUDY AREA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SERVICE AREAS, SIZE AM) POPULATION
Treatment Plant
Service Area
Size (Acres)
Population 1975
Patton Creek
i
-t-
Cahaba River
Trussville
Leeds
Study Area Total
PCI
PC2
PC 3
PC 4 -
Total
Hurricane Branch
Byrd Branch
Camp Branch
Sanders Branch
Huckleberry Branch
Berry School
(Unnamed
Patton Creek Outfall
CI - Cahaba River Outfall
C2 - Little Shades Creek
C3 - Little Shades Creek
C4 - Cahaba River Outfall
Total
TR1 - Railroad Street
TR2 - Meadow Land
Total
390
690
175
615
438
405
641
1,546
(4,900)
2,000
300
300
600
1,150
8,009
481
1,317
825
1,618
1,704
3,5 38
1,976)
3,946
(15,405)
647
8,243
3,243
S, 890
795
1,295
2,090
3,703
28,112
Source: Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan Prepared by Black,
Crow and Eidsness, Inc., August 1975.
-------
TABLE 11-15
PATTON CREEK PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
MONTHLY AVERAGES3
Flow(mgd) BOD^(mg/l) Susp. Solids(mg/1) BOD5(lbs/day) Susp, Solids(lbs/day)
Old Permit
*2
35
35
1700
1700
Month
New Permit^
ip-
10
30
250
750
September 1975
3.2
44
46
1,174
1,228
October
4.1
17
26
581
889
November
3.0
38
38
951
951
December
3.6
34
22
1,021
661
January 1976
5.8
30
24
1,451
1,161
February
4.7
34
18
1,333
706
March
6.1
27
21
1,374
1,068
April
4.7
34
20
1,333
784
May
5.8
26
21
1,258
1,016
June
4.1
37
22
1,265
752
July
3.3
19
14
523
385
August
3.0
11
40
275
1,001
September
3.4
18
24
510
681
Average
4.2
28
26
980
910
1. New Permit: Final NPDES Permit Issued For One Year From November 4, 1977 To November 4, 1978-
2. Design Capacity is 3 mgd.
3. Source: Jefferson County Public Works Department, Monthly Operating Reports.
-------
TABLE 11-16
INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA
FOR THE
PATTON CREEK SYSTEM
Area
Served, Measured Estimated Infiltration, Measured Wet
Sub Drainage Basin Acres Flow, MGD Flow, MGD
MGD
Weather Flow, MGD Inflow, MGD
PC-1
390
0.45
0.08
0.37
0.76
0.31
PC-2
690
0.19
0.05
0.14
0.62
0.43
i
.t-
VO
PC-3
PC-4
Plant
2,270
1,550
4,900
1.28
1.66
3.58
0.28
0.51
0.92
1.00
0.51
2.66
2.62
2.03
6.03
1.34
0. 37
2.45
Source: Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared by Black, Crow and
Eidsness, Inc., August 1975.
-------
have been some connections to the sewer system since the imposition of
the moratorium on the basis that sewer plans for various developments
were approved prior to the moratorium. There is an immediate need to
address these circumstances through the formulation and evaluation of
an alternative, as opposed to the continued operation of the plant,
Cahaba River Treatment Plant
The Cahaba River plant consists of a 4 mgd activated sludge pro-
cess (Figure AI-11, Appendix I) located on the north shore of the Cahaba
River approximately 2 miles upstream from Highway 31. The plant, which
went into operation in March 1972, is the newest of the county plants
in the basin and has ample room to accommodate future expansion needs.
The upstream withdrawals of water by the Birmingham Water Works greatly
limits the assimilative capacity of the river at the existing Cahaba
plant discharge point.
Service Area. The natural drainage tributary to the plant covers
approximately 4,000 acres, of which 2,000 acres of residential develop-
ment are currently served. Approximately 8,890 persons are served by
the Cahaba River plant. Table 11-13 provides an outline of the four ser-
vice areas, size and population served.
The service area of the Cahaba plant is one of the fastest growing
areas of Jefferson County. Although flows to the Cahaba plant averaged
only 1.91 mgd for the period of September, 1975 through September, 19 76,
commitments to proposed residential and commercial development had made
it necessary for the county to impose a moratorium on new connections
to the plant. This ban became effective on February 10, 1976 and extended
to all new commitments.
Plant Performance. Although the Cahaba plant was designed for a
flow of 4 mgd, permit limits for allowable poundages of BOD5 and sus-
pended solids that can be discharged are based upon a flow of 3.2 mgd
due to water quality considerations. Until recently the Cahaba plant
operated under NPDES Permit No. AL 0023027. As of November 4, 1977
and continuing until November 3, 1978 the Cahaba plant has been placed
under stricter operating limitations as modified by the Enforcement
Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia. Historical plant performances data are compared to
old and current permit limits on Table 11-17, In addition to the data
displayed, a high degree of nitrification (low effluent ammonia-nitrogen
levels) is reportedly being achieved at present plant loadings. The
plant is well-operated and maintained and, as evidenced by effluent
data, has a history of excellent performance.
Sludge Disposal. The Cahaba plant is equipped with aerobic diges-
tion, gravity sludge thickening, sludge drying beds and a 40 acre
sludge storage lagoon. Disposal occurs through sale to the public, from
fertilization of plant grounds or from use of the on-site sludge lagoon.
11-50
-------
TABLE 11-17
CAHABA RIVER PLANT PERFORMANCE DATA
3
MONTHLY AVERAGES
Flow(mgd) BOD^(mg/l) Susp. Solids(mg/1) BOD^(lbs/day) Susp. Solids(lbs/day)
Old Permit
*
30
30
800*
800"
Mon th
New Permit"*"
*
5
30
167
1000
September 19 75
1.37
4.3
7
49
80
October
1.79
3.6
5.5
54
82
November
1.78
4
9
59
134
December
1.90
3.9
6.7
62
82
January 1976
2.49
3.1
5.2
64
108
February
2.06
3.9
6.4
67
110
March
2.54
4
3
85
64
April
2.09
5
6.2
87
108
May
3.14
3.9
5.7
102
149
June
1.64
4.3
5.5
59
75
July
1.40
3.1
8.6
36
100
August
1.23
4.4
8.2
45
84
September
1.45
3.2
5.8
39
70
Average
1.91
3.9
6.4
62
102
1. New Permit: Final NPDES Permit Issued For One Year From November 4, 1977 To November 4, 1978.
2. *Based upon flow of 3.2 mgd. (Design Capacity is 4 ragd.)
3. Source: Jefferson County Public Works Department, Monthly Operating Reports.
-------
Infiltration/Inflow. The magnitude of infiltration/inflow within
the Cahaba system was discussed in the 201 Planning effort (Table 11-18).
As suggested by the flow data there is ample evidence that excessive
infiltration/inflow exists within the Cahaba system. The country has
already initiated an infiltration/inflow abatement program.
Adequacy of Wastewater Management Program. Although the Cahaba
River plant is now producing an effluent of excellent quality, the
ability of the Cahaba River to accept the discharge of future increased
pollutant loadings resulting from additional flows to the plant is of
special concern. Inasmuch as upstream water withdrawals for drinking
purposes greatly limit the assimilative capacity of the Cahaba River,
the future role of the Cahaba plant as an expanded regional facility is
dependent upon the course of future actions.
Leeds Treatment Plant
The Leeds plant is a trickling filter plant located just north of
Moore Creek and east of the Little Cahaba River, near their junction.
The plant has recently undergone upgrading and expansion to provide for
improved treatment efficiency including phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen
removal. Treated effluent is discharged into the Little Cahaba River
upstream of Lake Purdy. Past eutrophic problems in the lake have been
attributed, in part, to the Leeds discharge.
Service Area. At present, the Leeds plant serves about 3,700 per-
sons within a service area of approximately 1,150 acres. There are about
1.5 miles of trunk lines and 1.25 miles of laterals in the Leeds system
(Figure II-5). Table 11-14 provides an outline of the Leeds plant ser-
vice area, size and population served.
Treatment Process. The trickling filter plant, which was built in
1935 was designed for an average daily flow of 0.3 mgd. Estimated daily
flow to the plant in 1973 was 0.7 mgd. Because of the hydraulic load-
ing and resultant deterioration in effluent quality, the county undertook
an expansion and upgrading program at the plant. This program provided
for phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen removal and has recently been com-
pleted (Figure AI-12, Appendix I).
Plant Performance. The Leeds plant currently operates under NPDES
Permit No. AL 0022977. Historical plant performance data are shown in
Table 11-19 along with current permit limits, which became effective
November 1, 1976. Upon inspection of the data it is evident that
plant performance has markedly improved during the time frame shown.
This can be explained by the advanced use of some of the new plant units
prior to final completion of the entire upgrading/expansion program.
Future performance of the Leeds plant, especially with regard to phos-
phorus removal, will be dependent upon optimization of the chemical (alum
and polymer) addition program. The county has recognized the need to
provide necessary labware to effect this.
11-52
-------
TABLE 11-18
INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA
FOR THE
CAHABA RIVER PLANT
Area
Served, Measured Estimated Infiltration, Measured Wet
Sub Drainage Basin Acres Flow, MGD Flow, MGD MGD
Weather Flow, MGD Inflow, MGD
C-l
0.19
0.05
0.14
C-2
0.55
0.45
0.10
1.13
0.58
C-3
0.23
0.11
0.12
0.69
0.46
i
U1
u>
C-4
0. 30
0.0
0.30
2.28
1.98
Plant
1.27
0.61
0.66
3.42-
2.15-
^"Adjusted to include allowable infiltration rates within sewerage system although the 201 Study
identified this area as subject to exfiltration.
^Reflects adjustment to C-2.
^Plant flow records do not reflect the true peak inflow rate due to limited capacity of the upstream
pumping station.
Source: Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared by Black, Crow and
Eidsness, Inc., August 1975.
-------
TABLE LL-lt
LEEDS PLANT
PERFORMANCE DATA
Monthly Average
Flow, mgd
BODc,mg/1
Susp. Solids
BODc,lbs/day
Susp. Solids
PERMIT LIMITS*
1.0
20
30
167
250
September 1975
0.3**
85
82
213
205
October
0.3**
47
44
118
110
November
0.8**
58
107
387
714
December
0.74
92
57
568
352
January 1976
0.86
28
32
201
230
February
0.83
33
47
228
325
March
0.86**
67
18
481
129
April
0.78
58
40
377
260
May
0.77
65
68
417
437
June
0.75**
37
32
231
200
July
0.8**
56
65
374
434
August
0.8**
16
4
108
27
September
0.8**
5
14
33
93
Average
0.72
50
47
300
282
10
1.2** 6.2***
* Became effective November 1, 1976
** Estimated
***Based upon preliminary data. Plant operation not yet optimized.
Source: Jefferson County Public Works Department, Monthly Operating Reoorts.
-------
TABLE 11-20
INFILTRATION/INFLO™ *MTA
FOR THE
LEEDS PLANT
Area
Served, Measured Estimated Imiltration, Measured Wet
Sub Drainage Basin Acres Flow, MGD Flow, MGD MGD Weather Flow, MGD Inflow, MGD
M
I
Ui
Ui
Plant 1,140 0.7 0.41 0.29 * **
* Estimated. No flow records available.
** Not available due to flooded manholes and upstream bypasses.
Source: Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared by Black, Crow and
Eidsness, Inc., August 1975.
-------
Sludge Disposal. Sludge is aerobieally digested, thickened,
dewatered 011 sand beds, dried and sold to the public or spread >n
plant grounds.
Infiltration/In flow. As concluded in the 201 Plan, there i;. amp' :
evidence that excessive infiltration/inflow exists within the Let:;1';
System (Table II- 20). It is expected that any rehabilitation wor- w i i
result in a 50% elimination of infiltration/inflow problems wj'-h. i. .lie,
system.
Adequacy of the Leeds Wastewater Manage men t 1' rograni. The ieee.il
renovation of the Leeds plant should do much to improve effluent quil i /,
although there is, as yet, insufficient data upon which to asse,;:: ,! e
ability of the plant to continually meet its new permit limit . Ti - . n.
will be decreased loadings to the Little Caliaba River and nil uiafeJ> to
Lake Purdy; however, the degree to which this will relieve eui.ro; i
problems in the lake remains to be seen.
The need for infiltration/inflow abatement still exists, Ih .igh,
and a comprehensive program should be initiated in accordance with in-,
ings of the ongoing evaluation survey without delay.
Formulation and evaluation of alternatives Tor future wastewau r
programs will primarily be dependent upon the need to provde for f irf ei
protection of Lake Purdy with consideration given to the cor. t-effr i i ve
ness of a more regional system based upon potential growth.
Trussville Treatment Plant
The Trussville plant is located approximately 1,000 feet: west of
the Cahaba River near Alabama State Highway 11. Treated effluent: is
discharged directly into the Cahaba approximately 31 miles upstream of
the existing Birmingham waterworks raw water intake. The original
Trussville plant was built in 1936 as a 0.27 mgd trickling filter faci-
lity. The plant has since undergone an expansion and upgrading program
which was fully completed in April 1976.
Service Area. Presently the Trussville plant serves approximately
2,090 persons within the city (Table 11-14 . There are about 0.4 miles
of trunk line and 13 miles of laterals in the system. The service area
consists of approximately 600 acres and is comprised of 2 sub-drainage
areas, as shown by Figure II-5.
Treatment Process. As previously noted, the Trussville plant has
recently undergone an expansion and upgrading program (Figure AI-13,
Appendix I). Additional capacity has been provided by the construction
of a 1.0 mgd oxidation ditch, a new clarifier and new chlorination faci-
lities. These units operate in parallel to the existing trickling
filter plant. It is understood that as much of the influent flow as
possible is directed through the new facilities.
11-56
-------
Plant Performance. The plant presently operates under NPDES Permit
No. AL 0022934. Based upon available data (Table 11-21 , it appears
that the upgraded Trussville plant is capable of producing an excellent
effluent quality with a very high degree of nitrification. In addition
the expanded capacity, together with improvements at the upstream pump~
ing station in sub-drainage area TR-1, has eliminated the occur-
rences of bypasses which prior to expansion averaged 400,000 gallons dailt
Sludge Disposal. Sludge is broken down by a 1 mgd oxidation ditch
a new secondary clarifier and new chlorination facilities. Wasted sludge
is dewatered on sand bods, sold to the public or spread over plant
grounds.
Infiltration/Inflow. As suggested by flow data (Table 11-22), and
concluded in the 201 Plan, excessive infiltration/inflow exists within
the Trussville system. The evaluation survey indicates elimination of
as much as 50% in.flitration/inflow, additional abatement pending results
of the survey.
Adequacy of the Trussville Wastewater Management Program. Based
upon the performance of the oxidation ditch system, it is evident the
Ti assville facility is capable of producing an effluent of excellent
quality. Continued operation of the plant at its existing location is
dependent upon future needs to implement more regional alternatives,
based upon future growth patterns.
Private Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems
There are currently 13 privately owned and operated wastewater col^
lection and treatment systems located within the study area. These sya_
terns are all currently operating and are permitted by the Alabama Water
Improvement Commission (AWIC). Most of these systems service subdivi-
sions with the remainder servicing either industry or institutions. Cvir_
rently, there are private systems for eight residential sub-division,
three schools, one industry, and one country club.
AWIC has also received requests for three additional privately
owned wastewater systems within the study area. They are currently u^dp
consideration.
Table AI-28, Appendix I provides additional information on the
privately owned wastewater systems located within the study area.
8. WATER SUPPLY
The Cahaba River Basin is both a source of domestic water supply
for the Birmingham area and the recipient of wastewater disposal from
four municipal wastewater treatment plants. In view of increasing detij^ j.
upon the basin for both water supply and wastewater disposal, it is
essential that alternatives be developed which will accommodate the
ture demands in the Cahaba Basin. The following is a description of tl^e
existing water supply system in the Cahaba River Basin and the project^
-------
TABLE 11-21
TRUSSVILLE PLANT
PERFORMANCE DATA
Flow, MGD BOD5 mg/1 Susp. Solids
NPDES LIMITS 1.220 30
April 1976
1.0
1.9
10
May
1.02
4.4
7.5
June
0.84
1.3
13
July
0.75
2.2
13
August
0.95
2.6
13
September
1.0
1.4
7.6
Average
0.9
2.3
10.7
*Based upon recent sampling data from the oxidation ditch plant.
Source: Jefferson County Public Works Department,
Monthly Operating Reports.
BOD,-, lbs/day
200
Susp. Solids NH3-N, mg/1
300 2
16 83
37 64
9 91
14 81
21 103
12 63
17 80 less than 0.1*
-------
FABLE H-2 2
INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA
FOR THE
TRUSSVILLE PLANT
Area
Served, Measured Estimated Infiltration, Measured Wet
Sub Drainage Basin Acres Flow, MGD Flow, MGD MGD Weather Flow, MGD Inflow, MGD
TR-1 300 0.35 "* 0.10 0.25 * *
TR-2 300 0.41 ** 0.09 0.32 0.51 0.10
1
Ul
vo
Plant 600 0.76 0.19 0.57
Measurement not obtained due to flooded manhole.
~ +
Flows from manhole measurements adjusted to balance with 1973 plant flow.
.«
Source: Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared by Black, Crow and
Eidsness, Inc., August 1975.
-------
Sources of Water Supply
The primary source of domestic water supply for the residents of
the Cahaba River Basin is the Cahaba River watershed. Potable water is
provided by the Birmingham Municipal Water Works Board through a system
that includes Lake Purdy, a low head diversion dam below the confluence
of the Little Cahaba River, and a pumping station that transports raw
water for treatment. The diversion dam is located just below U.S. Route
280 and below the confluence of the Little Cahaba River and the Cahaba
River. The pumping station pumps water from the pool formed behind the
diversion dam to Shades Mountain filter plant. During periods of low
flow, water is released from Lake Purdy to maintain the pool level.
Past estimates of the safe yield of the Cahaba River including the
use of water impounded by Lake Purdy range from 50 to 55 mgd. Calcula-
tions performed as part of the EIS study show a safe yield of 46 mgd.
This figure is based on the assumptions that 25 percent of the storage
in Lake Purdy would be held in reserve and that the critical period of
analysis is based on the driest period of record in the area which
occurred during the 1945 through 1975 water years. Because there are
no unregulated streamflow gages on the Cahaba River watershed, historical
monthly streamflow records from the U.S. Geological Survey gauge on
Turkey Creek at Morris, Alabama were transported for the analysis.
A separate analyses of the portion of the Little Cahaba River
watershed impounded by Lake Purdy alone indicates a safe yield of
21 mgd. If water were to be taken from below Lake Purdy directly this
is the level of supply that could be safely anticipated. Again, this
estimate is based on the transposed historical record from the hydro-
logically similar Turkey Creek watershed. To supplement this analysis,
ten 50-year periods of monthly streamflow were generated by a statistical
method. These synthetic streamflows, which have a statistical possibi-
lity of occurring, indicate a safe yield ranging between 22 and 25 mgd.
None of the above estimates include any allowance for downstream
release requirements or for the minimum leakage that was observed
through the Cahaba River diversion dam during site inspections. Con-
versely, the above calculations do include an allowance for evaporation
losses that tend to reduce the yield because of increased evaporation
from the extensive surface area of Lake Purdy.
The Birmingham Water Works Board currently purchases water from
the Industrial Water Board, which was established to provide raw water
to industrial users in the Birmingham area. The Industrial Water Board
obtains raw water supplies from Inland Lake and Lewis Smith Lake on
Sipsey Fork. The Industrial Water Board reports the safe yield of the
Inland Lake system to be 50 mgd and the safe yield of the Sipsey System
to be 70 mgd. The Corps of Engineers has alloted 150 mgd from the War-
rior River system to the Industrial Water Board. All raw water pur-
chased from the Industrial Water Board is treated at the Western,Putnam
and Carson Filter Plants. The BWWB has increased its purchases of raw
water from an average of approximately 11.7 mgd prior to 1960 to 30.2
in 1975 and 32.1 in 1977. During the summer of 1977 a severe drought
11-60
-------
was experienced paralleled by the highest temperature in recorded
history (personal communication with J. W. Roberts of the BWWB). On
one July day a maximum of 132.9 ragd water was supplied of which
56.5 mgd was purchased from the IWB.
There is very limited use of groundwater supplies in the EIS study-
area. Currently Leeds and Trussville in Jefferson County and Margaret
and Moody in St. Clair depend upon groundwater as a source of municipal
supply. Table 11-23 provides further information on municipal ground-^
water supplies in the study area.
TABLE 11-23
MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES
Pumping
County Municipality Source (yields in gpm) Capacity Aquifer
Jefferson Leeds 3 springs 1.48 mgd Oc, 01m
Trussville 6 wells (150, 200, 250,
300, 800, 1200) 2.78 ragd Mb
St. Clair Margaret 2 wells (30, 10) 0.038 mgd Ppv
Moody 1 well (150) 0.144 mgd Ool, 01m
Existing Water Treatment and Distribution System
The Birmingham Water Works Board currently operates four filtra-
tion plants, (Table 11-24). These include the Shades Mountain, Westej^
Putnam and Carson Filter Plants. The Western, Putnam and Carson Filthy*
Plants receive all of their raw water supplies from the Industrial Wat®
Board. The Shades Mountain Treatment Plant receives all of its raw w«f
supply from the Cahaba River. The Shades Mountain Filter Plant is the *
only filter plant located in the study area and supplies water to most:
of the study area. Table AI-29 and AI-30, Appendix I, indicate the
quality of both raw and finished water that is being treated at the
Shades Mountain Filter Plant and the production of finished water froj^
the plant during the past 10 years. Although their maximum capacity a
rated at 80 mgd and 10 mgd respectively, the Shades and Western Plants
have sucoess fully treated 100 and 24 mgd.
11-61
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 11-24
BIRMINGHAM WATER WORKS BOARD
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Name of
Facility
Shades Mountain
Filter Plant
Western Filter
Plant
Putnam Filter
Plant
Carson Filter
Plant
Source of
Supply
Cahaba
River
Industrial
Water Board —
Lewis Smith Lake
Industrial
Water Board —
Inland Lake
Indus trial
Water Board -
Inland Lake
Treatment Capacity
Average Maximum
56 mgd
10 mgd
12 mgd
12 mgd
80 mgd
15 mgd
18 mgd
20 mgd
Source: Water Supply Study for the water Works Board of the City of
Birmingham, Alabama. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., April, 1977.
The Birmingham Water Works Board has an extensive service area
(Figure II-6). Included within the service area are the City of
Birmingham and parts of Jefferson, Shelby, Blount, St. Clair and
Walker counties. The Board serves nearly all municipalities in Jefferson
County. In addition, the Board supplies water to the northwest portion
of Shelby County, the western portion of St. Clair County, the southern
portion of Blout County and a small area in the eastern portion of
Walker County. During 1977 an average total of 88.739 mgd was supplied
to the Birmingham area of which an average of 56.6 mgd was supplied by
the BWWB from the Cahaba River Basin. During the drought ridden summer
much of this was supplied from storage contained in Lake Purdy, the
Cahaba River supplying only an average of 6 mgd (personal communication
with J. W. Roberts, BWWB, 4-27-78).
Within the study area there are four service areas which receive
water supply from the Birmingham Water Works Board. They include:
Shades Mountain Intermediate Service Area - This service area
includes the lower areas south of Shades Mountain, including a por-
tion of the City of Mountain Brook. Supply to this area is accomplished
by pumping directly from the Shades Mountain Filter Plant through a 24-
inch main on Rocky Ridge and a 16-inch main on Route 280,
Shades Mountain High Service Area - This serves the area along the
top of Shades Mountain including the City of Vestavia Hills. This area
is supplied with water at two points, at the easterly end by the Shades
Mountain Filter Plant and at the center by the Berry Road Pumping Station.
11-62
-------
Red Mountain High Service Area - This area serves the eastern and
northeastern portions of the city, most of Mountain Brook and the Center
Point-Pinson area. Water is pumped into the system at four locations;
from the Shades Mountain Filter Plant; at the Rosedale Pump Station; and
at the Roebuck and Higdon Pump Stations which are supplied by the Putnam
Filter Plant.
Rocky Ridge Service - This area serves the Rocky Ridge - Patton
Chapel area. Supply is accomplished through pressure reduction from the
Shades Mountain Intermediate Service Area,
Clay Service Area - This area is located north of Trussville and
is served by the Carson Filter Plant.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. the engineer for the Birmingham Water Works
Board has estimated that approximately 50,000 persons are served by the
Water Works Board within the EIS study area. Malcolm Pirnie has also
estimated that the existing per capita water demand in the study area
is approximately 127 gallons per day. Consequently, the average daily
water demand within the study area is estimated to be 6.4 million
gallons per day.
Projected Water Demand, Facilities and Sources
The Birmingham Water Works Board through its independent engineer,
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. has recently completed a study on water supply
(April, 1977). The study indicates the latest thinking on projected
water demand in the Birmingham area, alternative sources of water
supply and projected pumping and treatment facilities.
Water Demand. The Water Works Board has estimated that the popula-
tion served by the Board has increased from 450,000 persons in 1955 to
610,000 in 1970, an average increase of 20 percent per decade. During
the period from 1955 to 1975, average day demands for water increased
from 50.7 mgd in 1955 to 82.8 mgd in 1975, an increase of 6 3 percent.
Based upon population projection from the Birmingham Regional Planning
Commission, the Water Works Board has made the following estimates of
future water demand (Table 11-25).
TABLE 11-25
ESTIMATED FUTURE WATER DEMANDS
Year
Estimated
Population Served
Consumption
gped
Avg. Day
(mgd)
Max. Day
(mgd)
1980
640,000
130
83
121
1990
670,000
135
91
131
2000
700,000
140
98
142
2010
725,000
145
105
152
2020
747,000
150
112
163
2025
757,000
152.5
115
167
11-63
-------
Source: Water Supply Study for the Water Works Board of the City of
Birmingham, Alabama. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., April, 1977.
Projected water supply facilities and capacities is contained
in Table AI-31, AI-32 in Appendix I.
Projected Sources. There have been several alternatives set forth
for maintaining adequate sources of water for the Water Works Board.
All of the previous discussion concerning projected facilities has been
based upon continued usage of the Cahaba River as a source of water supply.
The report on the 201 Study included a recommended project which
would require the Board to abandon the Cahaba River as a source of
supply in order to provide higher stream flows during dry-weather for
the dilution of effluent from wastewater treatment plants. Under this
plan, the Water Works Board would be required to relocate its intake
to Lake Purdy and augment the supply by obtaining water from another
source. This would be achieved by the construction of one of three pro-
posed reservoir systems on the Big, Middle and Little Black Creeks. The
purpose of the reservoirs would be to store water for dry-weather low
flow augmentation in the Cahaba River and to divert water to the Little
Cahaba River upstream of Lake Purdy for water supply proposes.
In the "Water Supply Study" prepared for the Birmingham Water Works
Board by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. there are several alternatives pre-
sented which propose a new source of supply to replace the Cahaba River
or the entire Cahaba River system including Lake Purdy. However, in
all alternatives the supply would be delivered to the Shades Mountain
Filter Plant. Brief descriptions of each alternative developed in the
Malcolm Pirnie study are included in Appendix I.
9. WATER RIGHTS
Possibly the major concern in the Cahaba River Basin is the use of
the river for both water supply and wastewater disposal. These conflict-
ing uses have substantial impacts upon future planning for both waste-
water facilities on the Cahaba River and the continued use of the Cahaba
River as a source of water supply.
These conflicts have caused substantial concerns for both the
Jefferson County Commissioners and the Birmingham Water Works Board. The
Jefferson County Commissioners are concerned over their ability to pro-
vide adequate wastewater treatment. The conflict with water supply, the
location of wastewater treatment plants and the level of treatment re-
quired at each plant are issues which will need to be resolved. The
Birmingham Water Works Board also has significant interest in the Cahaba
River. As a source of water supply for the Shades Mountain Filter Plant
the Water Works Board is vitally interested in the water quality of
the Cahaba River. If the Cahaba River fails to adequately meet the de-
mands as a source of water supply the Water Works Board will need to ex-
plore new sources of water supply. This of course, would involve sub-
11-64
-------
stantial costs which would be reflected in higher water rates to customers
of the Water Works Board.
There have been an array of alternatives suggested that would
alleviate these conflicts. These have involved a variety of schemes for
locating wastewater treatment plants, relocating the water supply intake,
increasing flow augmentation capabilities or abandoning the Cahaba River
as a serious source of water supply.
Much of this conflict revolves around the water rights of property
owners who abut the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers. Alabama, like most
states in the Eastern U.S., is a so-called "Riparian" state. Under this
water rights doctrine, the riparian property owner (the owner of property
which abuts a surface watercourse) is generally entitled to enjoy the
natural flow of watercourses which traverse his property, undiminished in
quality and quantity apart from losses necessarily resulting from reason-
able use by other riparian owners. Origins of the riparian doctrine date
back to English common law and it traditionally pertains to those areas o
the U.S. where water is relatively abundant.
The dominant characteristic of the riparian doctrine is the vagueness
of its fundamental precepts. Thus, each riparian state has developed a
body of case law consisting of previous court decisions which provide a
certain amount of additional guidance. In Alabama several typical deci-
sions may be cited. In 1906, the Alabama Supreme Court defined the
riparian owner's right to enjoy natural flow subject to reasonable use in
the terms expressed above (Mobile Docks Co. v. Mobile, 146 Alabama 198,
40 So. 2d 674).
Other court decisions have dealt with prescriptive rights, which may
be established by the uniform and uninterrupted use for 20 years of water
from a running stream (Stein v. Burden, 24 Ala. 130 (1854)). Further,
consistent, uniform use by a riparian owner for 10 years "with the
knowledge of the lower riparian proprietor and without interruption,
raises a presumption of titles as against a right of the lower proprietor,
if the lower right was not asserted during the ten year period of use
(Alabama Consol. Col & Iron Co. v. Turner, 145 Ala. 639, 39 So. 603
(1905)).
In March, 1977 the EPA Regional Administrator for Region IV
requested an opinion from the Alabama Attorney General on the prescriptive
rights of the Birmingham Water Works Board to withdraw water from the
Cahaba River. In the original opinion of April 14, 1977 the Alabama
Attorney General ruled that the Birmingham Water Works Board did not have
a prescriptive right to withdraw water from the Cahaba River. However
the Alabama Attorney General was requested to reconsider this opinion.
On August 9, 1977 the Alabama Attorney General withdrew the April
14, 1977 opinion and set forth a new opinion. In setting forth both
opinions the Attorney General was reacting to the following series of
questions from the EPA Regional Administrator:
11-65
-------
(1) To what extent, if any, does the Waterworks Board of the City
of Birmingham (Board) have a prescriptive right to withdraw water
from the Cahaba River system to supply drinking water to the
inhabitats of Birmingham?
(2) If the Board has a prescriptive right to withdraw water from the
Cahaba River system, is that right limited in quantity?
(3) If the Board has a limited prescriptive right to withdraw water
from the Cahaba River system, what factors determine such limit?
(4) If the Board has a prescriptive right to withdraw water from the
Cahaba River system, is it required to return the water to the system
without material diminution in quantity or alteration in quality?
(5) To what extent, if any, does the County have a right to use the
water resources in the Cahaba River system?
In the new opinion the Attorney General has ruled that the Birmingham
Water Works Board has a prescriptive right to divert water from the Cahaba
River in the manner and extent that it has been diverting such water for
the past twenty years. Since the Water Works Board has been pumping
water from the Cahaba River since 1891, the Board does indeed possess a
prescriptive right to utilize the water of the Cahaba River. The opinion
answers questions (2), (3), and (4) by indicating that the Water Works
Board's prescriptive right to withdraw water from the Cahaba is limited
to the extent to which the Board has diverted water during the past twenty
years, but that such a prescriptive right necessarily includes the right
to provide the water withdrawn to the Water Works Board's customers for
consumption. The opinion's position on question (5) is that the County
as a riparian owner of the Cahaba River, is entitled to the reasonable
use of the water resources of the Cahaba River to the extent such water
is available after the Water Works Board has exercised its prescriptive
rights. However, in discharging treated wastewater into the Cahaba,
the County must meet applicable federal and state standards, and must not
interfere with the enjoyment of the Cahaba River by others, including
the Board.
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Key community service and facilities in the watershed study area
were surveyed to determine the capacity to serve the current population.
The services included are: public safety (police and fire protection),
public works (sanitation, pickup and disposal), schools and libraries,
health and welfare, and administrative facilities. Services and facilities
were surveyed in the individual towns within the watershed, as well as
at the county level, to determine the broadbased resources in whose use
the population of the study area may share. The material was gathered
both by interview with the pertinent public officials as well as from
available planning documents put out by the county planning boards. For
convenience the material is organized by county and contained in Appendix I.
11-66
-------
11. TAXES AND BUDGETING
Wastewater Systems
Jefferson County is responsible for the construction, operation and
maintenance of all wastewater treatment plants in Jefferson County. The
county is also responsible for planning and developing new trunk lines
as well as maintaining the existing trunk lines. The county also maintains
all pumping stations on county trunk lines. Individual municipalities are
responsible for the sewage collection system within their corporate
limits. This includes the construction and maintenance of connections
and lateral sewers and pumping stations. Municipalities in the study area
whicn operate and maintain their collection systems include the cities of
Hoover, Leeds, Trussville, Vestavia Hills, and Mountain Brook.
The operation of the Jefferson County sewer system is a major
budgetary consideration in the county's total budget. Table 11-26 pre-
sents the various revenues and expenses involved in operating the sewer
system. During the four year period (1973-1976) portrayed on the table,
it is evident that the county is experiencing increasing deficits in the
operation of the sewer system.
Operating revenues from 1973 to 1976 only increased by 25% while
operating expenses have increased by 37%. Net operating revenue deficits
have increased from $589,100 to $1,187,700 over the same period.
Much of this deficit has been caused by the inadequacy of the
county's sewer user charge system. In January, 1977 the County Commis-
sioners adopted a new user charge ordinance which should provide sub-
stantially more revenues for the county.
Non-operating revenues in the sewer system have increased by 403%
from 1973 to 1976. Most of this increase is based upon the substantial
amounts of federal funding available to the sewer system. Despite these
increases in revenue nonoperating expenses have also increased by sub-
stantial margins. From 1973 to 1976 nonoperating expenses increased by
34%. In 1976 there was a net nonoperating revenue deficit of $4,538,660.
In fact, the entire Jefferson County sewer system has operated at a
deficit during three of the last four years.
Operation and maintenance costs for the treatment plants in the
study area have also increased substantially. O&M costs include budgetary
items such as electric, water, telephone, chlorine, sanitary supplies,
salaries, materials and supplies, gasoline, uniforms, repairs to equipment-
natural gas, and training. The major cost items are salaries and olectric
As Table 11-27 indicates, each of the plants have experienced major
increases. The Trussville plant had a huge increase to allow for the
additional facilities recently constructed at the plant.
In January, 1977 the Jefferson County Commissioners adopted a new
sewer use ordinance for use throughout the county. This ordinance con-
forms to the requirements of P.L. 92-500 and will also generate addition^-,
revenues for the operation of the county's sewer system. The major feve^^
provisions of the ordinance are contained in Appendix I.
11-67
-------
TABLE 11-26
Operating Transactions
Revenue
Sewer Service
By-Products
Septic Tank Dumping
Total
Expenses
OSM
Sewer Construction
Debt Service
Total
Net Operating Revenue
Nonoperating Transactions
Revenue
Ad Valorem Taxes
Sales Tax
Interest
Property Sales
Local Participation
State Participation
Federal Participation
Transfer General Fund
Revenue Sharing
Private Contribution
Permits
Total
JEFFERSON COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
1973
19 74
1975
19 76
$3,178,887
5,198
29,219
$3,213,304
$3,662,138
11,387
54,782
$3,708,307
$ 3,696,764
13,466
34,194
$ 3,744,424
$ 3,980,000
13,000
35,000
$ 4,028,000
$1,974,670
159,526
1,668,208
$3,802,404
($ 589,100)
$2,172,222
196,891
1,625,828
$3,994,941
($ 286,634)
$ 2,545,932
55,158
1,609,693
$ 4,210,783
($ 466,359)
$ 3,612,650
48,400
1,554,660
$ 5,215,710
($ 1,187,710)
$ 745,514
$ 639,818
$ 687,898
$ 707,650
2,308,210
2,483,209
2,671,252
2,861,250
413,357
472,980
471,102
475,000
1,652
3,991
52,508
2,000
176,146
3,400
88,062
417,700
557,178
1,700,000
85,839
2,447,000
9,426,137
15,810,600
533,490
829,653
4,000,000
2,038,500
26,400
14,104
8,877
8,953
10,000
$4,696,012
$7,446,106
$17,405,912
$23,631,400
-------
TABLE 11-26 (Cont'd.)
JEFFERSON COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM
REVENUES AND EXPENSES
1973 1974 1975 1976
Nonoperating Transactions (Cont'd.)
Expenses
Capital Improvement $6,296,616 $6,566,278 $17,210,753 $28,170,060
Net Nonoperating Revenue ($1,600,604) $ 879,828 $ 195,159 ($ 4,538,660)
Surplus/(Deficit) - Annual ($2,189,704) $ 593,194 ($ 271,200) ($ 5,726,370)
Source: Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
-------
TABLE 11-2 7
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR
STUDY AREA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
1974
1977-78
(Estimated)
Leeds
$ 22,306
$ 57,300
Trussville
$ 27,293
$ 80,015
Cahaba
$150,022
$317,700
Patton
Total
$ 81,354
$280,975
$154,600
$716,600
Source: Jefferson County Department of Public Works.
Water Supply System
The Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham provides water to the
entire Cahaba EIS study area except for the municipalities of Trussville
and Leeds. These municipalities utilize their own wells and distribution
system for water supply. The Water Works Board recently adopted an updated
rate schedule, which is presented in Appendix I.
The Industrial Water Board of the City of Birmingham provides water
to large volume water users in the Birmingham area. They supply water to
many industries in the area and also supply the Water Works Board of the
City of Birmingham. The Industrial Board also recently adopted a new
water rate schedule which is presented in Appendix I.
Other Public Services
The variety of public services which are provided by local and
county government are supported by a tax structure which uses several
types of taxing methods to generate revenues. These include property
taxes, occupational taxes, sales tax, gasoline tax and a variety of
licenses. A review of the taxes collected by governmental municipalities
within the study area is contained in Table AI-33, Appendix I.
12. OTHER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
The following is a brief discussion of the existing and planned
studies that will have an influence on the decisions made for wastewater
treatment in this Environmental Impact Statement.
11-70
-------
Facilities Planning (Section 201 of PL 92-500)
The most significant recent study relating to water quality manage-
ment is the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan (201
Plan) completed in 1975 by County Commission of Jefferson County. The
201 Plan is an engineering feasibility study of future wastewater needs
for wastewater treatment conveyance facilities for Jefferson County and
portions of Shelby and St. Clair County that lie within the Cahaba
River Basin. This plan developed a number of alternative wastewater
management systems and recommended a plan that encompassed not only
wastewater systems but also presented suggestions for the resolution of
conflicts due to the provision of water supply and the needs for aug-
mentation of seasonal low flows. Unresolved environmental problems
resulting from the recommended plan were the basis for the Environmental
Protection Agency's decision to have an Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for the recommended plan in the portions of the planning area
within the Cahaba River Basin.
Areawide Planning (Section 208 of PL 92-500)
In March 1975, the designation of the Birmingham Regional Planning
Commission (BRPC) as the waste treatment management planning agency for
the Birmingham SMSA under Section 208 of PL 92-500 was approved by the
EPA. The BRPC has subsequently been funded for the purpose of preparing
a Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Plan) and is in the process of
preparing such a plan. The 208 Planning area encompasses all of the
area covered by the Environmental Impact Statement. The 208 Plan will
address itself specifically to the creation of a planning mechanism that
can be used to coordinate water quality improvements within the planning
area. Because of similarities, the 208 Plan and EIS will be coordinated
in four major work areas: population and land use studies, hydrologic
and water quality modeling, and review of 201 facilities planning. In
addition, there will be continuing contact and interactions between the
public participation programs in both studies.
River Basin Planning (Section 303(e) of PL 92-500)
The Alabama Water Improvement Commission has recently completed a
draft of a 303(e) Plan for the entire Cahaba River Basin. The intent of
the 303(e) Plan is to address and evaluate the assimilative capacities
of streams receiving waste discharges, recommended facility improvements,
set forth compliance schedules and cost estimates for improvements, and
establish monitoring programs. It is likely that decisions made for
facilities in the EIS will be reflected in the final draft of the 303(e)
Plan or in subsequent updates.
Northwest Shelby County Facilities Planning
A 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan has been prepared for Northwest
Shelby County and is currently being reviewed by the Alabama Water
Improvement Commission. Although the Buck Creek watershed is outside
of the study area of the EIS, the quality of water in the creek will
have an effect on the Cahaba River water quality below the confluence of
11-71
-------
the two. Because of the need to include Buck Creek in the EIS water
quality modeling effort, information on the background water quality
characteristics of the Buck Creek watershed were considered.
Wild and Scenic River Study
In April 1976 a joint study team made upon of the Alabama Forestry
Commission and the USDA Forest Service began a Cahaba Scenic River Study
for the purpose of determining the qualifications of the Cahaba River
for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. The section
of the river under consideration is the segment from U.S. Highway 31
south of Birmingham downstream to U.S. Highway 80 west of Selma, Alabama.
Geographically, the study areas of the EIS and the Wild and Scenic River
Study overlap approximately four miles in the area between U.S. Highway
31 and Buck Creek.
In July, 1977 the study team preliminarily announced that the
Cahaba River does not qualify to become a part of the nation's wild and
scenic river system under regulations established by the Wild and Scenic
River Act. Environmental groups are now attempting to get state action
to protect the river.
11-72
-------
CHAPTER III
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
-------
CHAPTER III
IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
PART A. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a systematic development of all
reasonable alternatives for the attainment of the objectives of this project
and to compare these alternatives with the aim of identifying critical
differences and selecting an alternative.
There are both structural and non-structural alternatives for the solution
of wastewater management problems. Structural alternatives include the con-
struction of new wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities or the up-
grading of existing facilities. Nine structural alternatives for wastewater
management have been developed in this study and are described in this chapter.
One of these alternatives is basically the same as the system proposed by the
Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan. Land disposal of
treatment plant effluent has been considered where appropriate and is discussed.
Other effluent disposal techniques addressed are deep well injection and reuse
of treated wastewater.
Several non-structural considerations are discussed in this chapter^. These
include optimum use of existing facilities, flow and waste reduction measures,and
use of individual disposal systems-
Water quality analysis of the streams of the study area was performed to
determine wastewater treatment requirements for the various structural
alternatives. With this information, a cost evaluation of each alternative
was performed and is described in this chapter. Additional factors used in
evaluating and comparing alternatives were operability, environmental impacts,
and implementability. The various evaluation factors were combined into a cost-
effectiveness analysis which ranks the structural alternatives and is presented
in this chapter.
In addition to structural alternatives, a no-action alternative has been
developed. This chapter describes the no-action alternative in detail,
including the associated land use and population projections, its costs and
environmental impacts, and operability and implementability considerations.
The no-action alternative is also compared to the preferred structural alterna-
tive.
III-l
-------
PART B. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
1. STRUCTURAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
In developing structural alternatives, consideration of a number of
factors is involved. These factors include the location of existing treatment
plants and service areas, existing and potential discharge locations, soil
suitabilities for on-lot disposal, existing and future land use, and projected
development patterns and resultant population density changes. Alternate
interceptor corridors can be identified based upon topographic features and
consideration of areas of environmental sensitivity.
Based upon consideration of such factors, five basic conveyance and treat-
ment alternatives have been formulated to meet the projected needs of the
Study Area. In addition, the recommended alternative from the Birmingham
Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan has been retained for comparative
evaluation. All six of these alternatives envision the abandonment of the
existing Patton Creek Plant and the conveyance of its service area wastewater
flows to an expanded Cahaba River Plant.
Three additional alternatives have been formulated which are based upon
the continued operation of treatment facilities at Patton Creek. The reteritiot
of the Patton Creek Plant could be combined with any of the five basic struc-
tural alternatives that have been formulated. However, it was decided to
combine the Patton Creek option with one specific alternative - the Upper
Cahaba - Cahaba alternative - to simplify the evaluation procedure. All ni.r\e
of these alternatives are described below.
In addition to discharge of treatment plant effluent directly to surface
waters, other means of disposal have been considered, including deep well
injection, reuse of treated wastewater, and spray irrigation. Spray irrigatiof
has been analyzed specifically for the Leeds and Upper Cahaba treatment Plants
the two most suitable locations. These alternate means of effluent disposal
are also discussed below.
Overton-Cahaba Alternative
The basic configuration of this alternative was the recommendation of the
Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan. This alternative
envisions the expansion of the existing Cahaba Plant, the abandonment of tbxe
existing Patton Creek Plant, with construction of conveyance facilities to
divert this flow to the Cahaba Plant, and the construction of a new regional
plant above Overton to serve the upper Cahaba Basin. Wastewater would be
conveyed from the existing Leeds and Trussville Plants to the Overton Plant
for treatment. Figure III-l depicts plant locations and major conveyance
facilities associated with this alternative. Major elements of this
alternative are described below.
II1-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
a. Complete the on-going infiltration/inflow evaluation and
rehabilitation work for the existing Patton Creek, Cahaba, Leeds,
and Trussville systems as soon as possible.
b. Expand/upgrade the existing Cahaba Plant.
c. Convert the existing Patton Creek Plant to a pumping station
and convey wastewater from the existing Patton Creek service area to
the expanded Cahaba Plant.
d. Extend the existing Cahaba River interceptor beyond Fullerton
Creek near Overton.
e. Operate the existing Leeds and Trussville Plants until they
reach their capacities. At that time, abandon these plants.
f. Construct a new regional facility on the Cahaba River
above Overton to treat all wastewater flows from the upper Cahaba
Basin including Leeds and Trussville.
g. Construct the proposed Trussville, Little Cahaba Creek,
Mt. Hebron, and Overton pumping stations and associated conveyance
systems to convey all upper basin wastewater flows to the new
Overton Plant.
The Overton-Cahaba alternative was recommended contingent upon reloca-
tion of the existing Birmingham Water Works water intake from the Cahaba
River to Lake Purdy. The construction of flow augmentation reservoirs in
the Black Creek area was also recommended in order to increase the assimila-
tive capacity of the Cahaba River, in lieu of providing more advanced
treatment.
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba Alternative
This alternative is similar to the Overton-Cahaba concept in that
a new regional plant is envisioned to serve the upper portion of the study
area, thus allowing the abandonment of the existing Leeds and Trussville
Plants. Expansion of the Cahaba Plant will allow the Patton Creek Plant to
come offline and will provide capacity for all wastewater flows from the
lower portion of the study area. Figure III-2 depicts the lay-out of this
system. A summary of the measures needed for implementation is provided
below.
a. Complete the on-going infiltration/inflow evaluation and
rehabilitation work for all existing systems.
b. Expand/upgrade the existing Cahaba Plant.
c. Convert the existing Patton Creek Plant to a pumping station and
convey wastewater from the existing Patton Creek service area to the
expanded Cahaba Plant.
d. Extend the existing Cahaba River interceptor sewer to Overton.
I1I-3
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
e. Operate the existing Leeds and Trussville Plants until they
reach their capacities. At that time, abandon these plants.
f. Construct a new regional facility on the Cahaba River above
1-20 to treat all wastewater flows from the Upper Cahaba Basin including
Leeds and Trussville.
g. Construct the proposed Leeds pumping station and the Upper
Cahaba interceptor to convey all upper basin wastewater flows to the
new Upper Cahaba Plant.
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba Alternative
This alternative is based upon the continued operation of the Leeds
and Trussville Plants at their present locations. The existing Patton
Creek plant would be abandoned and its wastewater flows conveyed to an
expanded Cahaba Plant for treatment. Service to unsewered areas would be pro-
vided by the extension of existing interceptors and/or the construction of
new conveyance systems. Figure III-3 presents the major facilities
associated with this alternative. A description is provided below.
a. Complete the on-going infiltration/inflow evaluation and
rehabilitation work for all existing systems.
b. Expand/upgrade the existing Cahaba Plant.
c. Convert the existing Patton Creek Plant to a pumping station
and convey wastewater from the existing Patton Creek service area to the
expanded Cahaba Plant.
d. Extend the existing Cahaba River interceptor sewer up the
Cahaba River to Overton.
e. Expand/upgrade the existing Trussville Plant to serve the
Little Cahaba Creek, Dry Creek, and Pinchgut Creek areas.
f. Expand/upgrade the existing Leeds Plant to serve the upper
Little Cahaba River area.
Trussville-Cahaba Alternative
The continued operation of the existing Trussville Plant is envisioned
under this alternative. The existing Patton Creek and Leeds Plants would be
abandoned and their wastewater flows conveyed to an expanded Cahaba Plant for
treatment. This alternative is shown in Figure III-4. A summary description
is presented below.
a. Complete the on-going infiltration/inflow evaluation and
rehabilitation work for all existing systems.
b. Expand/upgrade the existing Cahaba Plant.
III-4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
c. Convert the existing Patton Creek Plant to a pumping station and
convey wastewater from the existing Patton Creek service area to the
expanded Cahaba Plant.
d. Operate the existing Leeds Plant until it reaches its capacity.
At that time, abandon the Leeds Plant.
e. Construct the proposed Leeds pumping station to convey waste-
water flows to the expanded Cahaba Plant.
f. Expand and upgrade the existing Trussville Plant to serve the
Little Cahaba Creek, Dry Creek, and Pinchgut Creek areas.
Leeds via Cahaba River - Trussville - Cahaba Alternative
This alternative has the same configuration of treatment plants and
wastewater conveyance systems as the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative.
Instead of the Leeds effluent being discharged directly to the Little Cahaba
River, an extended outfall would be constructed to convey the effluent from
the Leeds plant to the Cahaba River. One advantage of this alternative is
that all wastewater discharges would be removed from the Lake Purdy water-
shed.
The extended outfall would basically follow the same route from the
Leeds plant to the Cahaba River as the interceptor sewer from Leeds to the
Upper Cahaba plant in the Upper Cahaba-Cahaba alternative. Construction of a
pumping station at Leeds would also be required. Other measures required for
implementation are described under the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative
section. The layout of this alternative is shown in Figure III-5.
Cahaba (One-Plant) Alternative
A one-plant concept, which would provide treatment for the entire
EIS study area, has been formulated for investigation. The existing Cahaba
Plant would serve as the nucleus for this regional facility. Existing plants
within the study area would be abandoned and their wastewater flows con-
veyed to the expanded Cahaba Plant. Discharge of treated effluent from the
expanded Cahaba Plant would be below the existing raw water intake on the
Cahaba River. A description of this alternative is provided below. Figure
II1-6 presents the system configuration.
a. Complete on-going infiltration/inflow evaluation and rehabili-
tation work for all existing systems.
b. Expand/upgrade the existing Cahaba Plant.
c. Convert the existing Patton Creek Plant to a pumping station and
convey wastewater from the existing Patton Creek service area to the
expanded Cahaba Plant.
d. Begin the extension of the existing Cahaba River interceptor
sewer up the Cahaba River to Trussville.
III-5
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
e. Operate the existing Leeds and Trussville Plants until they
reach their capacities. At that time, abandon these plants and con-
vey wastewater to the expanded Cahaba Plant.
f. Construct the proposed Leeds pumping station to convey wastewater
flow to the extended Cahaba River interceptor sewer.
Patton Creek-Upper Cahaba-Cahaba Alternative
This alternative envisions the expansion and upgrading of the existing
Patton Creek Plant, with discharge continued to Patton Creek above Lake
Paradise. With the retention of the Patton Creek Plant, future capacity
needs of the Cahaba Plant would obviously be lessened. This alternative
is shown in Figure II1-7.
Patton Creek via Cahaba River-Upper Cahaba-Cahaba Alternative
The existing Patton Creek Plant would be expanded and upgraded under
this option, with an extended outfall constructed to enable the direct dis-
charge of treated effluent to the Cahaba River. As a result, the existing
discharge of wastewater into Lake Paradise would be eliminated. Again,
with retention of the Patton Creek Plant, future capacity needs of the
Cahaba Plant would be lessened. Figure III-8 presents the configuration
of this alternative.
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba-Patton Creek Pretreatment Alternative
Under this alternative, the existing facilities at the Patton Creek
Plant would remain in operation. New primary clarifiers would also be
constructed to enable all wastewater to receive at least primary treatment.
Secondary and primary treated effluent from the Patton Creek Plant would be
combined and pumped to an expanded Cahaba Plant for additional treatment.
The major components of this alternative are shown in Figure III-9.
Treatment and Land Disposal
The previous wastewater management alternatives involve the discharge
of treated wastewater to receiving streams. Provisions of PL 92-500 require
that land application of treated wastewater also be evaluated for use as
a wastewater management technique.
There are several methods of land disposal of wastewater; the three
most popular methods are spray irrigation, overland flow, and infiltration-
percolation. All three methods require the prior treatment of wastewater
to levels adequate to protect public health, preclude odor problems, and
prevent clogging of soils or the distribution system due to excessive
solids. Selection of one of these methods is dependent upon site specific
conditions. Spray irrigation is most often the method of choice and, of
the three, seems to hold the greatest promise in the study area.
III-6
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The overland flow method requires a site with natural or constructed
uniform slopes of two to eight percent to control the rate of overland flow.
A grass cover is usually required, but harvest of this grass as a crop is
purely incidental. Most of the wastewater applied under this method eventually
leaves the site as runoff to surface waters and thus does not eliminate surface
water discharge. High BOD, suspended solids and nitrogen removal occurs,
but phosphorus removal is not high under this method. Because of the require-
ment for a carefully contoured site and because of the associated effluent
discharge to surface waters, this method was not considered in developing land
disposal alternatives for the study area.
The infiltration-percolation method of land disposal requires a site with
highly permeable soils such as sands, sandy loams, and gravels. No crops are
produced with this method. Because of these factors, this land disposal method
was not considered applicable in the study area.
The spray irrigation method is suitable for most agricultural soils and
eliminates surface discharge of treated effluent. It can produce a cash crop
that may partially offset the operation and maintenance costs of the facility.
The spray irrigation site may have slopes up to 15 percent for cultivated
agriculture and up to 30 percent for existing wooded terrain. For these
reasons, spray irrigation was considered to be the most suitable land disposal
method for possible use in the study area.
As part of the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan,
several candidate spray irrigation sites were delineated with assistance from
the U.S. Geological Survey. Depending on site specific conditions, spray
irrigation of treatment plant effluent generally requires 100 to 200 acres for
a 1-MGD plant discharge. Thus, the land disposal acreage required for the
smaller treatment plants proposed for the northern portion of the study area
under the various alternatives is not unreasonable. This is not the case with
the Cahaba WWTP in the southern portion of the study area, since this plant
will eventually discharge 16 to 18 MGD, depending on the alternative selected.
Therefore, emphasis was directed toward potential sites in the northern portion
of the basin.
In addition, since the Leeds treatment plant has the greatest potential
for successful use of land disposal, a suitable site near Leeds was sought.
There are distinct environmental and cost advantages to use of land disposal
at Leeds that are not generally associated with the other proposed or existing
treatment plants in the northern portion of the study area. Use of land
disposal at Leeds would eliminate treatment plant effluent from the Little
Cahaba River and thus retard eutrophication of Lake Purdy. Retarding the
eutrophication of Lake Purdy is desirable from environmental, recreational,
and water supply standpoints. The phosphorus removal processes currently used
at Leeds to reduce nutrient concentrations reaching Lake Purdy could be
eliminated if land application of effluent were used instead of discharge to
the Little Cahaba. Thus, the additional cost of a spray irrigation facility
for Leeds would be offset to some degree by the elimination of advanced treat-
ment at the plant.
III-7
-------
These advantages are not present for land disposal of effluent from the
other proposed or existing plants in the northern portion of the study area.
There are no distinct environmental advantages to eliminating surface
discharge of effluent from these plants since surface water quality is not
adversely affected by these discharges and since raw water supply criteria
can be met by the combination of adequate treatment and sufficient distance
from the water supply intake. In addition, since existing data and the
analysis described later in this chapter indicate that the minimum secondary
treatment is required for surface discharge from these plants, no reduction
of treatment level at the plant could be gained by land disposal of effluent.
Thus, since land disposal from these other plants would entail additional
costs with no major environmental benefits, these options were not pursued in
this study.
The most promising of potential spray irrigation sites previously identified
in the Leeds area is the Pine Mountain area north of Leeds. This site was
used to evaluate the general feasibility of spray irrigation of effluent from
the Leeds plant. If it is eventually decided to undertake land disposal of
the Leeds effluent and if additional promising sites come to light, those
sites should be evaluated.
The proposed Upper Cahaba treatment plant included in four of the waste-
water management alternatives described earlier in this Chapter would be
directly adjacent to the Pine Mountain irrigation site. Therefore, the
possibility of spray irrigation from this plant was also examined briefly.
The layouts of the spray irrigation options for the Leeds and Upper Cahaba
plants are shown in Figures 111-10 and III-ll.
Deep We11 Injection
Deep-well injection involves the discharge of treated effluent to deep
groundwater zones. An advanced wastewater treatment plant, pumping stations
force mains, and injection wells are the requisite major components of a deep
well injection facility. Treatment of the wastewater to advanced levels is
essential to minimize clogging of soil pores in the area of injection and to
prevent groundwater contamination. The pumping stations and force mains are
required to convey treated wastewater to the injection area. Injection wells
are used to force treated wastewater from the ground surface into a suitable
aquifer.
There has been limited application of deep-well injection of wastewaters
and consequently there are no established design criteria. Proper design of
a deep well injection facility requires the consideration of the needed
degree of wastewater treatment, receiving aquifer thickness and depth,
quality of the aquifer water, aquifer permeability, and potential of the
aquifer for clogging.
Details of the feasibility of deep-well injection for the study area
was presented in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plar^ ^
Because of the necessity for high injection pressures, associated high power
costs, and low injection rates which would require a large number of wells,
the use of deep-well injection was appropriately rejected.
III-8
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Treatment and Reuse
The possibility of reuse of treated wastewater for industrial purposes has
little potential here due to the lack of large volume users in the study area.
In addition, the water rights issues involved in reuse of municipal wastewater
are complex and would likely provide some barriers to ready implementation of
any such scheme.
There are numerous major industrial water users located in the Birmingham
region, but outside the study area. However, transfer of treated wastewater
out of the upper Cahaba River Basin to any of these users is not desirable.
One of the dominant reasons for most of the water quality problems in the study
area is the very low streamflow condition of the Cahaba River system during
certain times of year. Therefore, it is certainly preferable to retain treated
wastewater in the study area's hydrologic cycle to as great a degree as possi-
ble by discharge to surface waters or recharge to aquifers.
2. NON-STRUCTURAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The development of non-structural alternatives is a vital component of
the entire water quality management process. Effective and functional non-
structural control mechanisms for water quality management can be an important
adjunct to the structural collection and treatment facilities. Non-structural
considerations include a variety of regulatory, administrative and educational
procedures which can be used to supplement structural water quality control
techniques.
The application of non-structural methods may provide a means for lessening
the magnitude of structural facilities required for attainment and maintenance
of water quality standards. However the construction of wastewater treatment
plants remains the major technique for effectively controlling water pollution.
Therefore the principal focus of non-structural alternatives is their use in
supporting and supplementing structural alternatives and solutions. The
following review of non-structural techniques in the Cahaba River Basin will
consider the present utilization of various techniques in the Basin and their
existing or potential effectiveness. From this review proposed actions for
non-structural controls will be developed for possible use in the Cahaba
River Basin. The following non-structural techniques are addressed in this
section:
Optimum use of existing facilities
Flow and waste reduction measures
Use of individual disposal systems
Optimum Use of Existing Facilities
The effective operation and maintenance of existing wastewater treatment
facilities represents a primary use of a non-structural technique for water
quality management. Assessment of existing programs requires a review of
present staff, plant performance, and operation and maintenance problems.
III-9
-------
A well-trained and certified staff of operators is required to ensure a
good operation and maintenance program. The Alabama State Board of Certifi-
cation is responsible for the evaluation and certification of treatment plant
operators in the State. The Jefferson County Public Works Department conducts
training sessions at various treatment plants throughout the County for treat-
ment plant employees who are preparing to take the certification examination.
Training courses are also available at Auburn University and the University of
Alabama. The Trussville, Leeds, Patton Creek, and Cahaba wastewater treatment
plants each have certified operators. According to the Jefferson County
Public Works Department, the chief operator at each of these plants is certified
as a Grade IV operator, which is the highest level of certification in Alabama.
The operational performance of the wastewater treatment plants in the
Cahaba River Basin was discussed in the Man-Made Environment Section of Chapter
II. However, since the operational performance is an indication of the level
of optimum utilization of the facility, the performance of the plants are
reviewed in this section.
Patton Creek Plant. Operations at this plant have been hampered because Qf
hydraulic overloading at the plant. Design capacity for the plant is 3.0 MGD
but flows from September, 1975 to September, 1976 indicate an average flow of
4.2 MGD. For the period from September, 1975 to September, 1976 the plant
exhibited the following data:
NPDES Limit Average
BOD^, mg/1 35 28
Susp. Solids 35 26
BOD5, lbs/day 1700 980
Susp. Solids 1700 910
The GFC&C inspection of the plant indicates that it is well operated and
maintained despite the overloading problem. Sludge digestion has also been
hampered by the overloading problem.
New NPDES permits covering the period from November 4, 1977 to November 4
1978 have been issued for the Patton Creek and Cahaba River Plants. These *
interim permits were issued awaiting the completion of this EIS. The new
permit limits for Patton Creek are as follows:
Parameter Monthly Average Weekly Average
B0D5, mg/1 10 15
Susp. Solids, mg/1 30 45
NH3-N, mg/1 2 3
B0D5, lbs/day 250 375
Susp. Solids, lbs/day 750 1125
NH^-N, lbs/day 50 75
Cahaba River Plant. This plant has a design flow of 4.0 MGD. Flows from
September, 1975 to September, 1976 indicate an average flow of only 1.91 MGQ
The GFC&C inspection of the plant indicated excellent operation and mainten^n
This is supported by the plant's performance data: e"
111-10
-------
NPDES Limit Average
BOD5, mg/1 30 3.9
Susp. Solids 30 6.4
B0D5, lbs/day 800 62
Susp. Solids 800 102
The new permit limits for the Cahaba Plant are as follows:
Parameter Monthly Average Weekly Average
BOD^, mg/1
5
7.5
Susp. Solids, mg/1
30
45
NH3-N, mg/1
1
1.5
BOD5, lbs/day
167
250
Susp. Solids, lbs/day
1000
1500
NH^-N, lbs/day
33
50
Leeds Plant. This plant was recently expanded and upgraded to provide
improved treatment efficiency including phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen removal.
The GFC&C inspection indicated that plant performance has improved considerably
since the plant has been upgraded and expanded. Plant performance should
improve with continued testing and operation of the new facilities. The
following plant performance data indicates the inadequacy of the old plant to
meet the NPDES permit limits. However the expanded and upgraded plant should
improve overall plant performance significantly:
NPDES Limit
Average
B0D5, mg/1
20
50
Susp. Solids
30
47
BOD,., lbs/day
167
300
Susp. Solids
250
282
NH3-N, mg/1
10
8.2*
Total P
1
6.2*
* Based upon preliminary data. Plant operation not yet optimized.
Trussville Plant. This plant has recently undergone expansion and up-
grading. The upgraded plant was placed into operation in April 1976 and is
capable of producing excellent quality effluent. The GFC&C inspection
indicated first-rate operation and maintenance and clarified effluent of
excellent quality. The plant performance data since startup in April, 1976
indicates the excellent quality of the effluent being discharged by the plant,
NPDES Limit
Average
B0D5, mg/1 20
Susp. Solids 30
BOD^, lbs/day 200
Sasp. Solids 300
NH3-N, mg/1 2
2.3
10.7
17
80
Less than 0.1
III-ll
-------
Generally, all four of the treatment facilities were found to be well
operated and maintained and plant personnel appeared to be well qualified.
Effluent quality exceeded former permit requirements except in the case of
the new Leeds facilities which can be expected to meet permit requirements
when fully optimized. It is not likely that the Patton Creek Plant can
upgrade its effluent sufficiently to meet the interim NPDES permit require-
ments solely by improved operation and maintenance techniques.
Based upon these findings, it appears that the existing operation and
maintenance program could not be improved sufficiently to reduce future
capacity needs. However, the present good practices of the Public Works
Department should be continued in the operation of facilities recommended by
the EIS.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
Another important non-structural technique that can be employed in water
quality management is the use of water conservation and flow reduction
techniques. The benefits of these techniques can include reducing treatment
operating costs, relieving overloaded plants, and reducing the capacity
required in new facilities. Non-structural measures available for use in the
Cahaba River Basin for reducing water use and wastewater flow include plumbing
codes and flow control devices, educational programs, and water and wastewater
pricing. Reduction of infiltration/inflow into the sewer system has been
addressed in the Structural Alternatives section of this chapter.
The following discussion will review existing and projected water
consumption, existing flow control measures in the Cahaba River Basin, and
potential for available measures to reduce structural aspects of wastewater
management systems.
Existing and Projected Water Consumption. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., the
engineer for the Birmingham Water Works Board, has estimated that approxlmatelv
50,000 people are served by the Water Works Board within the EIS study area.
Malcolm Pirnie has also estimated that the existing per capita water demand
in the study area is approximately 127 gallons per day. Estimates of future
water demands by the Water Works Board indicate an expected trend of increaaino
per capita water consumption, based upon an assumed increase in the use of
water-consumptive appliances by individual households.
Existing Flow Control Measures. There has recently been significant
activity in Jefferson County which has focused upon water conservation and
flow reduction measures. On May 31, 1977 the Jefferson County Commissioners
adopted an amendment to the County Plumbing Code which requires all builders
to begin installing water-saving plumbing fixtures in new buildings in the
County. The amended code requires all new structures in unincorporated Portion8
of the County to have three-gallon-per-minute shower heads and three-and-a-
half-gallon-per-flush toilets. The availability of such water-saving deviCes
reflects the reaction of the plumbing fixture industry to the public's
increasing interest in water conservation. At present, no other municipally
have adopted plumbing code amendments similar to that enacted by Jefferson
111-12
-------
County. However, it is likely that similar amendments will be adopted by
other area municipalities in the relatively near future.
Another effective tool for water conservation and flow reduction is
education of the public. There are a variety of techniques that can serve as
a comprehensive educational program. Handbooks can be developed for home-
owners, apartment dwellers, and owners of commercial and industrial establish-
ments which would outline the various techniques available for flow control.
Information programs such as slide or movie presentations can also be developed
for presentation to civic and school groups. These presentations should
emphasize the importance of flow reduction and its relationship to increasing
cost of services, limited availability of wastewater treatment capacity, and
potential water supply shortage.
At present, the Birmingham Water Works Board has a limited educational
program that is aimed at water conservation practices. The Board has purchased
a film which displays various water conservation techniques. The film is
available to any organization or civic group interested in the topic of water
conservation.
Flow reduction may also be encouraged through water and wastewater pricing,
although this technique is generally ineffective. The theory intends that by
raising the price, the demand for water service would be reduced, thereby
decreasing required treatment plant capacities. User charges for water and
sewer in the study area are relatively low despite recent increases by the
Jefferson County Commission for sewer rates and the Birmingham Water Works
Board for water rates.
The rate schedule for sewer service is based upon $0.30 per 100 cubic feet
of metered water consumption. For single family residences, the charge is
levied on only 85 percent of the metered consumption. Industrial waste sur-
charges are levied at the rate of $0.07 per pound and $0.03 per pound,
respectively, for BOD5 and suspended solids concentrations in excess of 300
parts per million.
The Birmingham Water Works Board adopted a graduated rate schedule for
water service in October, 1976 which provides for decreasing rates for large
volume users. Such a structure does not encourage water conservation. How-
ever, due to the lack of large volume users in the Cahaba Basin, the effect
of this graduated rate schedule is not a significant consideration.
Potential for Water Conservation in the Cahaba Basin. Installation of
water-saving plumbing fixtures, in conjunction with a public education program,
holds the greatest promise for water conservation in the Cahaba Basin. As
discussed earlier in this chapter, the Jefferson County Commission has taken
a positive step by enacting a plumbing code amendment requiring flow control
shower heads and minimum flush toilets. In forecasting future wastewater
flows for use in the EIS, recognition has been given to the County's action
and to the likelihood that a water conservation program will be developed
throughout the study area by assuming that water demand will remain static at
127 gallons per person per day.
111-13
-------
Use of Individual Disposal Systems
Utilization of on-site individual disposal systems can be a treatment
alternative to the construction of collection systems and sewage treatment
plants. Individual, or on-lot, wastewater disposal systems include septic
tank-drainfield systems, cesspools, and seepage pits. Of these, a septic
tank-drainfield system is the preferred method of on-lot disposal.
The proper functioning of a septic tank system is dependent upon soil
suitability. Factors which affect soil suitability are slope, permeability,
flooding potential, depth to bedrock, and depth to the water table. Soils
overlaying limestone formations are generally unacceptable since limestone
fissures can allow the passage of raw sewage to contaminate groundwater.
Fourteen general soil groups have been identified in the study area;
these are described in Tables II-3 and II-4 given in the preceding chapter.
Of these soils, the dominant groups in the study area are Hector-Montevallo
and Minvale-Bodine-Fullerton, as shown in Figure AI-6. Table II-4 shows that
the Hector-Montevallo group has severe limitations for the use of on-lot
disposal systems and the Minvale-Bodine-Fullerton group has slight to severe
limitations, depending on the site. In general, most of the undeveloped areas
of Jefferson County would be classified as having suitable soils for on-lot
disposal, according to State of Alabama criteria. However, the State criteria
would also place most of these areas in the "poor" to "questionable" range
of suitable soils, based on low percolation rates.* Therefore, large scale
reliance on septic tank systems for wastewater disposal in currently undevelon
-------
It should be noted that the septic tank failures shown above are c
those which were readily detectable and only those for which complaint!
made. Subsurface failures due to soil conditions - i.e., failures bee.
percolation rates were excessively high, as could be the case in the v
of limestone formations - would generally not be detected or shown in the
above table. In addition, failures due to poor installation or neglected
maintenance of systems are also included in the table.
During 1975 and 1976, complaints of septic tank failures in the Cahaba
Heights, Mountain Brook, Overton, Vestavia Hills, Irondale, Trussville, and
Leeds areas were made.* The first five of these communities are in areas
with soil groups considered generally unsuitable for on-lot disposal systems.**
The soil groups in the Trussville area range from severely limited to generally
unsuitable for septic tanks, while the Leeds area encompasses both favorable
and unfavorable soil groups.**
On-lot disposal system configurations different than the conventional
septic tank-drainfield system are available for use in areas with unsuitable
soils. Typical of these is use of an elevated sand mound as a seepage bed
for the drainfield of a septic tank. However, such systems are most applicable
in lightly-populated rural areas in which soils are totally unsuitable for
conventional on-lot disposal and where the cost of providing central sewer
service would be exorbitant. This is not the case with the EIS study area
and large-scale dependence on alternate on-lot disposal systems is not
recommended.
In all of the structural alternatives previously described, consideration
has been given to the needs of existing unsewered areas within the Cahaba Basin.
These areas include Cahaba Heights, Overton, Jefferson Park, Roebuck Plaza,
and Moody. Existing and projected populations and densities are sufficient
to warrant extending central sewer service to each of these areas. In
addition, soil characteristics, as discussed above, make the continued use of
on-lot systems in these areas a matter of concern. Therefore, for the purpose
of wastewater facilities planning, service has been projected for Cahaba
Heights, Overton, Roebuck Plaza, and Moody under each alternative. Because
of its relatively isolated nature from other population centers and considering
its small projected population increase, central sewer service for the Jefferson
Park area is provided only under the Overton-Cahaba and Cahaba alternatives.
Under any of the other alternatives, the continued use of on-lot systems has
been assumed for other areas of the basin where low growth has been projected.
In summary, the use of properly designed, constructed and maintained
septic tank-drainfield systems in some parts of the study area could lessen
dependence on structural systems for wastewater management. However, due to
unsuitable or marginally suitable soils in many parts of the study area and
due to the existing and projected population densities in many parts of the
upper Cahaba River Basin, long-term reliance on septic tank-drainfield systems
is not recommended, for both public health and environmental reasons.
*Birmingham Regional Planning Commission, Map of Existing Septic Tank Problem
Areas, Jefferson County, prepared for the BRPC 208 Study, July, 1977.
**Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., "Memorandum for the Record, Birmingham Regional
Planning Commission 208 Study", July 1977.
Ill-15
-------
3. PROJECTED SEWERED POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
As a basis for estimating future wastewater flows in the study area, use
has been made of the subdrainage basin population projections which were
developed as previously described. From these population projections, future
residential and commercial wastewater flows have been estimated for each
alternative utilizing data on present daily per capita water consumption rates
Potential areas to which sewer service should be provided have been determined
with consideration given to factors such as existing and future population
densities, location of existing package treatment plants to be phased out,
location of potential and proposed residential development, soil suitabilities
for on-lot disposal, and areas of environmental sensitivity.
Table III-l presents estimates of sewered population for each alternative
along with corresponding wastewater flows. '
In developing the total wastewater flows for each alternative, allowance
has been given to unremovable infiltration/inflow quantities that are present
in existing systems. Estimates of existing infiltration/inflow quantities
for the service areas of the Patton Creek, Cahaba, Leeds, and Trussville plants
were given in Tables 11-15, 11-17, 11-19 and 11-21, respectively. The informa~
tion in these tables was derived from the infiltration/inflow analysis con-
tained in the Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Based upon conversations with personnel from the Jefferson County
Department of Sanitation, some of the infiltration/inflow data presented in
the Birmingham 201 Plan for the Cahaba plant were revised slightly. The
201 Plan concluded that exfiltration was occurring from part of one of the
trunk sewers servicing this area.* It was assumed here instead that 300 gal-
lons per day/mile/inch of sewer diameter of infiltration occur in this parti-
cular length of sewer. This assumes that no excess infiltration occurs in
this sewer length, 300 gpd/mile/inch being the maximum allowable infiltration
according to Jefferson County regulations.**
Best available estimates from on-going sewer evaluation surveys in the
study area indicate that 50 percent of the infiltration/inflow from the Leeds
Trussville, Cahaba, and Patton Creek service areas can be expected to be re- *
moved economically through sewer rehabilitation. Completion of this work
has been assumed by 1980 in projecting wastewater flows. Using the infiltratl
inflow quantities given in Chapter II and this estimate of 50% removal of i/j OTlJ
through sewer rehabilitation, unremovable infiltration/inflow for each ser-
vice area was calculated and is given in Table III-2. It should be noted that
for alternatives which include the phasing out of the Patton Creek plant, the
population presently served by this plant will be served by the Cahaba plant
and the unremovable I/I from the Patton Creek service area will flow to the
Cahaba plant.
*Black, Crow, and Eidsness, Inc., Birmingham Area Wastewater Facilities
Plan, August, 1975, p. 6-122
**Ibid , p. 6-16
111-16
-------
TABLE III-l
SEWERED POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
Alternative Plant
Configuration (1)
Tru8sville
Sewered Flow,
Population MGD
Leeds
Sewered Flow,
Population MGD
Overton
Sewered Flow,
Population MGD
Upper Cahaba
Sewered Flow,
Population MGD
Cahaba
Severed Flow,
Population MGD
Patton Creek
Sewered Flow,
Population MGD
Overton-Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
3,196
3,553
0.37
0.41
5,836
6,104
0.67
0.70
13,176
15,172
17,552
20,142
1.52
1.74
2.02
2.32
16,592
44,949
54,185
67,837
79,861
89,641
1.91
5.17
6.23
7.80
9.18
10.31
15,473 1.78
Upper Cahaba-
1980
3,196
0.37
5,836
0.67
-
-
-
-
16,592
1.91
15,473
1.78
Cahaba
1983
3,553
0.41
6,104
0.70
-
-
-
-
44,949
5.17
-
-
1985
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,757
1.47
54,185
6.23
-
-
1990
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,056
1.62
67,837
7.80
-
-
1995
-
-
-
-
-
15,727
1.81
79,861
9.18
-
-
2000
-
-
-
-
-
-
17,477
2.01
89,641
10.31
-
-
Leeds-Trussville-
1980
3,196
0.37
5,836
0.67
_
_
_
16,592
1.91
15,473
1.78
Cahaba
1983
3,553
0.41
6,104
0.70
-
-
-
-
44,949
5.17
—
-
1985
5,552
0.64
7,139
0.82
-
-
-
-
54,185
6.23
-
-
1990
5,961
0.69
7,960
0.92
-
-
-
-
67,837
7.80
-
-
1995
6,636
0.76
8,881
1.02
-
-
-
-
79,861
9.18
-
-
2000
7,225
0.83
9,964
1.15
-
-
-
-
89,641
10.31
-
-
Trussville-Cahaba
1980
3,196
0.37
5,836
0.67
_
_
16,592
1.91
15,473
1.78
1983
3,553
0.41
6,104
0.70
-
-
-
-
44,949
5.17
-
-
1985
5,552
0.64
-
-
-
-
-
-
61,808
7.11
-
-
1990
5,961
0.69
-
-
-
-
-
-
77,046
8.86
-
-
1995
6,636
0.76
-
-
-
-
-
-
90,778
10.44
-
-
2000
7,225
0.83
-
-
-
-
-
-
102,549
11.79
-
-
Cahaba
1980
3,196
0.37
5,836
0.67
_
_
_
_
16,592
1.91
15,473
1.78
1983
3,553
0.41
6,104
0.70
-
-
_
-
44,949
5.17
_
_
1985
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
67,360
7.75
-
-
1990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
83,007
9.55
-
-
1995
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
97,414
11.20
-
-
2000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
109,774
12.62
-
-
Upper Cahaba-
1980
3,196
0.37
5,836
0.67
_
_
16,592
1.91
15,473
1.78
Cahaba-
1983
3,553
0.41
6,104
0.70
-
-
-
-
26,332
3.03
18,617
2.14
Patton Creek
1985
-
-
-
-
-
-
12,757
1.47
33,897
3.90
20,288
2.33
1990
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,056
1.62
44,704
5.14
23,133
2.66
1995
-
-
-
-
-
-
15,727
1.81
54,729
6.29
25,132
2.89
2000
-
-
-
-
-
-
17,477
2.01
59,711
6.87
29,930
3.44
Upper Cahaba-
1980
3,196
0.37
5,836
0.67
_
_
16,592
1.91
15,475
1.78
Cahaba with
1983
3,553
0.41
6,104
0.70
_
_
_
44,949
5.17
18,617
2.14
Pretreataent
1985
-
-
-
-
_
_
12,757
1.47
54,185
6.23
20,288
2.33
at Patton Creek
1990
-
-
-
-
-
-
14,056
1.62
67,387
7.80
23,133
2.66
1995
-
-
-
-
-
15,727
1.81
79,861
9.18
25,132
2.89
2000
~
~
-
-
17,477
2.01
89,641
10.31
29,930
3.44
(1) Includes all
discharge
location
alternatives under
each basic
plant location
alternative listed.
-------
TABLE III-2
UNREMOVABLE INFILTRATION/ INFLOW FROM
EXISTING SYSTEMS, IN MGD
Alternative Plant
Configuration CT*
Trussville
Leeds
Overton
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Cr
Overton—Cahaba
1980
0.34
0.14
1.84
2.51
1983
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
_
1985
-
-
0.48
-
4.35
-
1990
-
-
0.48
-
4.35
-
1995
-
-
0.48
-
4.35
-
2000
-
-
0.48
_
4.35
-
Upper Cahaba -
1980
0.34
0.14
_
_
1.84
2.51
Cahaba
1983
0.34
0.14
_
-
4.35
-
1985
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
-
1990
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
-
1995
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
-
2000
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
-
Leeds-Trussville-
1980
0.34
0.14
_
_
1.84
2.51
Cahaba
1983
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
1985
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
1990
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
1995
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
2000
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
Trussville-Cahaba
1980
0.34
0.14
_
_
1.84
2.51
1983
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
1985
0.34
-
-
-
4.49
-
1990
0.34
-
-
-
4.49
-
1995
0.34
-
-
-
4.49
-
2000
0.34
-
_
-
4.49
-
Cahaba
1980
0.34
0.14
_
1.84
2.51
1983
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
-
1985
-
-
-
-
4.83
-
1990
-
-
-
-
4.83
-
1995
-
-
-
-
4.83
-
2000
-
-
-
-
4.83
-
Upper Cahaba~
1980
0.34
0.14
_
_
1.84
2.51
Cahaba-
1983
0.34
0.14
-
-
1.84
2.51
Patton Creek
1985
-
-
-
0.48
1.84
2.51
1990
-
-
-
0.48
1.84
2.51
1995
-
-
-
0.48
1.84
2.51
2000
-
-
-
0.48
1.84
2.51
Upper Cahaba-
1980
0.34
0.14
_
_
1.84
2.51
Cahaba with
1983
0.34
0.14
-
-
4.35
2.51
Pretreataent at
1985
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
2.51
Patton Creek
1990
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
2.51
1995
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
2.51
2000
-
-
-
0.48
4.35
2.51
(1) TnrlnHatt all discharge location alternatives under each basic plant location alternative listed.
-------
As a final component, existing industrial wastewater flows have also
been considered. As can be seen from Table III-3, the volume of these
flows is not significant. It should be noted that the largest source of
industrial wastewaters in the study area is the Gold Kist Plant, formerly
owned by Ralston-Purina and located northeast of Trussville. Treated
wastewater from this plant is discharged into the Little Cahaba Creek at
an approximate rate of 1.4 million gallons per day. At present, there
does not appear to be any compelling reason to route wastewater from
Gold-Kist to a municipally-owned facility.
Total wastewater flow projections are summarized for each alternative
in Table III-4.
4. TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITIES
Based upon wastewater flow projections, a schedule of recommended
treatment plant capacities has been developed for each alternative. The
schedule of recommended capacities is presented in Table III-5.
Due consideration has been given to the use of phased construction
for each alternative. Decisions as to phasing have been based upon reali-
ties associated with construction lead-time, expected rate of population
increases within subdrainage basin areas, and acceptability of existing
wastewater programs.
Phased construction can best be applied to the future capacity require-
ments of the existing Cahaba Plant and to extensions of the Cahaba River
interceptor to future service areas under the various alternatives.
Phasing concepts for each alternative are summarized later in this Chapter
in Table III-7.
5. TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
State and Federal regulations must be considered in determining
treatment requirements for proposed or expanded discharges of treated
wastewater. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500) require, among other things, that publicly owned
treatment works must provide a minimum level of secondary treatment. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) originally defined secondary treat—
ment as follows:
30-Day Average
(Monthly)
7-Day Average
Parameter
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliforms
BOD5
200/100 ml
30 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
45 mg/1
4°0/l00
pH
6.0 - 9.0
111-19
-------
TABLE III-3
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FLOWS,
IN MGD
Alternative Plant
Configuration (1)
Trussville
Leeds
Overton
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek
Overton-Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0,002
0.002
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Leeds-Trussville-
Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Trussville-Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.002
0.002
0.095
0.095
0.095
0.095
Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.002
0.002
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba-
Patton Creek
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba with
Pretreatment at
Patton Creek
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.08
0.08
0.093
0.093
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.173
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
(1) Includes all discharge location alternatives under each basic plant location alternative listed.
-------
TABLE III--4
TOTAL WASTEWATER FLOWS,
IN MGD
Alternative
Trussville
Leeds
Overton
Overton-Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
0.90
0.93
2.17
2.39
2.67
2.97
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
0.90
0.93
Leeds-Trussvllle-
Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
1.06
1.11
1.18
1.25
0.90
0.93
1.05
1.15
1.25
1.38
Trussville-Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
1.06
1.11
1.18
1.25
0.90
0.93
Cahaba
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
0.90
0.93
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba-
Patton Creek
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
0.90
0.93
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba with
Pretreatment at
Patton Creek
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
0.79
0.83
0.90
0.93
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek
3.75
9.52
10.58
12.15
13.53
14.66
4.29
2.12
2.27
2.46
2.66
3.75
9.52
10.58
12.15
13.53
14.66
4.29
3.75
9.52
10.58
12.15
13.53
14.66
4.29
3.75
9.52
11.70
13.45
15.03
16.38
4.29
3.75
9.52
12.76
14.56
16.21
17.63
4.29
2.12
2.27
2.46
2.66
2.12
2.27
2.46
2.66
3.75
4.87
5.74
6.98
8.13
8.71
3.75
9.52
10.58
12.15
13.53
14.66
4.29
4.65
4.81
5.17
5.40
5.95
4.29
4.65
4.81
5.17
5.40
5.95
-------
TABLE III-5
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT CAPACITIES, IN MGD
1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
OVERTON-CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville
Overton
Cahaba
Patton Creek
UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek
LEEDS-TRUS SVILLE-CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville
Cahaba
Patton Creek
TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville
Cahaba
Patton Creek
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
12.0
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
12.0
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
12.0
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
14.0
3.0
12.0
2.7
12.0
1.5
1.25
12.0
1.25
14.0
3.0
16.0
2.7
16.0
1.5
1.25
16.0
1.25
18.0
3.0
16.0
2.7
16.0
1.5
1.25
16.0
1.25
18.0
3.0
16.0
2.7
16.0
1.5
1.25
16.0
1.25
18.0
CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville
Cahaba
Patton Creek
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
14.0
14.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA-PATTON CREEK
Leeds
Trussville
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
4.0 (1)
3.0 (1)
(1) Denotes existing capacity
1.0
1.0
10.0
6.0
2.7
10.0
6.0
2.7
10.0
6.0
2.7
10.0
6.0
2.7
10.0
6.0
III- 22
-------
The fecal coliform parameter has since been dropped from the defini-
tion by EPA. Nevertheless, adequate disinfection must be provided in
order to ensure that downstream water uses are not impaired.
The State of Alabama has established various uses of waters within
the Cahaba Basin which are to be protected. These uses include public
and municipal water supply, primary contact recreation, and the propaga-
tion of fish and other aquatic life.
In cases where Alabama's water quality standards would be violated
by a secondary discharge, a higher degree of treatment is necessary so
that water quality standards are maintained. The Alabama Water Improvement
Commission (AWIC) has the final responsibility for determining the need
for secondary or higher treatment levels in any given instance.
The effects on water quality of the structural alternatives described
earlier in this chapter were analyzed by computer modeling to determine
wastewater treatment levels required to maintain 5.0 mg/1 of dissolved
oxygen in the study area streams during seven-day, ten—year low flow
conditions. The steady-state transport and interaction of dissolved
oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia, nitrate, and nitrate were
modeled. A detailed discussion of the water quality modeling is given
in Appendix II.
Several streamflow augmentation schemes have been proposed for the
study area as water quality improvement measures. Therefore, in addition
to the low flow analysis, preliminary treatment requirements for the
various alternatives were determined by computer modeling for the hydro-
logic regimes that would result from the streamflow augmentation proposals.
Computer modeling was also required to develop preliminary estimates of
the safe yields and resulting streamflows of the proposed flow augmenta-
tion reservoirs. This effort is described in Appendix II, as is the
derivation of seven-day, ten-year low flows for the study area.
The effects on water quality of the previously discussed structural
alternatives were determined for the following streamflow conditions in
the Cahaba River:
a. Existing Seven-Day, Ten-Year Low Flow. This flow regime
assumes that no augmentation will be provided and that essentially no
flow will pass over the diversion dam downstream of the Birmingham
Water Works Board intake. Flow in the river at the Cahaba plant is
approximately 2 cfs (1.3 MGD).
b. Addition of Ten Feet to Lake Purdy Dam. Preliminary estimates
indicate that increasing the elevation of the Lake Purdy Dam by ten feet
would provide an additional 11 cfs (7.1 MGD) safe yield. Assuming this
additional yield would be used for augmentation, the flow in the river
at the Cahaba plant would be increased to approximately 13 cfs (8.4 MGD)
during seven-day, ten-year low flows.
111-23
-------
c. Natural Seven-Day Ten-Year Low Flow. This flow regime assumes
that sufficient augmentation from Lake Purdy would be provided to restore
the seven-day, ten-year low flow at the Cahaba plant that would exist
in the absence of impoundments, withdrawals, and interbasin transfers.
Flow at the plant would be approximately 23 cfs (14.9 MGD).
d. Construction of Big Black Creek Reservoir. This proposal envisions
the construction of a dam on Big Black Creek for flow augmentation purposes.
Preliminary estimates indicate that the yield of this reservoir for aug-
mentation would be approximately 19 cfs. It is assumed that the water
supply withdrawal will continue at existing rates and that the additional
flow provided by the new reservoir would be allowed to pass over the
diversion dam. The flow in the river at the Cahaba plant would be aug-
mented to 21 cfs (13.6 MGD) during seven-day, ten-year low flows.
e. Construction of Three Reservoirs in Big Black Creek Basin. This
proposal includes the construction of flow augmentation reservoirs on
Big Black, Middle Black, and Little Black Creeks. Preliminary estimates
indicate that the total firm yield of these reservoirs would be approxi-
mately 41 cfs (26.6 MGD). Assuming this additional flow would be allowed
to pass over the diversion dam, the resultant flow at the Cahaba plant
would be approximately 43 cfs (27.9 MGD).
Summaries of the water quality modeling performed by GFC&C and EPA-
Region IV are given in Appendix II. From these modeling results,
estimates of the treatment levels that would be required for the pro-
posed discharges of each alternative under the different flow regimes
were made and are shown in Table III-6.
Treatment requirements for existing low flow conditions for the Cahaba
WWTP were determined based upon the results of EPA—Region IV refinements
to a preliminary model developed by GFC&C; these treatment requirements
are given in Table III-6. Table III-6 also contains a preliminary
estimate of the treatment levels required for discharges to the upper
Cahaba under different flow regimes and for the Cahaba WWTP for greater
than existing low flow conditions. These treatment levels were based
upon results of preliminary modeling efforts by GFC&C and are given in
terms of three increasingly stringent levels of treatment defined as
follows:
Treatment Level
BOD5
NHvN
D.O.
Level I
20 mg/1
2 mg/1
6 mg/1
Level II
8 mg/1
2 mg/1
6 mg/1
Level III*
4 mg/1
2 mg/1
6 mg/l
~Treatment Level III is considered to be the next level of treatment
practically achievable and only attainable with additional unit processes
beyond those proposed for Level II. The effluent limits shown for Level
III are generally accepted as the limits of this technology.
111-24
-------
TABLE III-6
TREATMENT LEVELS FOR STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
UNDER DIFFERENT FLOW REGIMES - YEAR 2000
Additional 10 Three Reservoirs
Existing Feet on Lake Natural Big Black in Big Black
Low Flow Purdy Dam Low Flow Creek Reservoir Creek Basin
(2 cfs)1 (13 cfs) (23 cfs)1 (21 cfs)1 (43 cfs)1
OVERTON-CAHABA
Overton
Cahaba
I
*
I
II
I
I
I
I
UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
I
*
I
II
I
I
I
I
LEEDS-TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
Leeds 2
Trussville
Cahaba
I
I
*
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEEDS via CAHABA RIVER-
TRUSS VILLE- CAHABA
Leeds
Trussville
Cahaba
I
I
*
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
Trussville
Cahaba
I
*
I
II
I
I
I
I
CAHABA
Cahaba
II
-------
TABLE II1-6 (Cont'd.)
TREATMENT LEVELS FOR STRUCT7 "^AL ALTERNATIVES
UNDER DIFFERENT FLOW REGIMES - YEAR 2000
Existing
Low Flow
(2 cfs)1
Additional 10
Feet on Lake
Purdy Dam
(13 cfs)1
Natural
Low Flow
(23 cfs)1
Big Black
Creek Reservoir
(21 cfs)
Three Reservoirs
in Big Black
Creek Basin
(43 cfs)-*-
PATTON CREEK-UPPER
CAHABA-CAHABA
Patton Creek
Upper Cahaba
C ah aba
III
I
¦k
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to
ON
PATTON CREEK via CAHABA
RIVER-UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA
Patton Creek
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
II
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
PATTON CREEK Pretreatment-
UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA
Upper Cahaba
Cahaba
I
A
I
II
I
I
* Required treatment level
7 mg/1 BOD5, 1 mg/1 NH3-]
(1) Streamflow at the Cahaba
(2) Phosphorus removal would
of 8 mg/1 BOD5, 0.5 mg/1 NH3-N,
I, and 7 mg/1 DO. Determined by
treatment plant prior to mixing
also be included.
and 7 mg/1 DO or, equivalently,
EPA-Region IV.
with effluent.
-------
The preliminary modeling effort performed by GFC&C was based upc
existing water quality data and several previous modeling studies of
the Cahaba River including:
•Water quality data collected by the Alabama Water Improvement
Commission (AWIC)
•Other water quality data available from the EPA STORET system
•Water quality modeling performed for the EPA by Lockheed Missiles
and Space Company, Inc. in 1974
•Water quality modeling conducted by AWIC for the Cahaba River
Basin 303(e) plan in 1974
•Water quality modeling done by Mr. Ronald Holley of AWIC as part of
his graduate degree work
In addition, information on performance of existing treatment plants was
obtained from the Birmingham 201 plan, the Jefferson County Public
Works Department, and site inspections by GFC&C personnel.
Near completion of the GFC&C modeling work, additional water quality
and stream velocity data, collected for the ongoing Birmingham 208
study, became available. This information was used to refine the model
which had already been developed by GFC&C; however, the results from the
application of this refined model are still considered preliminary and
subject to modification.
In an independent effort, the Technical Support Branch of the EPA,
Region IV, used the same information to further refine GFC&C's model
for the middle reaches of the Cahaba River. The result of this refine-
ment was a verified model that was used to determine new NPDES permit
and year 2000 treatment requirement for the Cahaba Plant. NPDES per-
mit limits developed for the existing 4.0 MGD facility were BOD5 =5
mg/1, NH3-N = 1.0 mg/1, and D.0. = 7 mg/1. Effluent limits for the pro-
posed 1983 and year 2000 facilities were equivalent to 8.0 mg/1 BOD5,
0.5 mg/1 NH3-N, and 7.0 mg/1 D.0.
In spite of uncertainties in treatment plant operation, effluent
monitoring, water quality modeling, and population and land use pro-
jections it can be stated with a fairly high degree of confidence that
the required treatment for the Cahaba Plant is appropriate. However,
as always, it is a good practice to initiate a comprehensive water quality
monitoring program after the proposed action is implemented. If unforeseen
developments, such as changes in upstream quality or quantity or the intro-
duction of new point sources to the river, take place in the study area
in the future, the Cahaba plant can be modified to account for such changes.
The conceptual design of the plant included in the proposed action, as
described in Chapter IV, purposely makes allowances for upgrading treat-
ment if necessary.
II1-27
-------
6. SELECTION OF TREATMENT PROCESSES
There are many processes available to attain the treatment levels
required for the various facilities alternatives that have been formulated.
Table III-7 presents combinations of processes which, by experience, have
proven to be effective in achieving intended levels of treatment. The
degrees of effluent quality achievable by these processes correspond to
the treatment requirements estimated through the use of the QUAL-II water
quality model described above.
In Table III-6 and in the cost-effectiveness evaluation of alternatives
described in the remainder of this chapter, the preliminary levels of
treatment referred to above as Levels I, II, and III are shown. * The two
equivalent treatment levels determined by EPA-Region IV to be appropriate
for the Cahaba plant during low flow conditions can generally be achieved
by the combination of treatment processes selected here for Treatment
Level II. This combination of treatment processes, which includes rough-
ing filters, a two-stage activated sludge process, and multimedia filters,
is capable of producing effluent with quality as good as 7 mg/1 BOD5 and
0.5 mg/1 NH3-N. The actual operation of the treatment processes will vary
depending in part on the degree of nitrification desired; however, the
small variation in the associated operation and maintenance costs is not
significant within the accuracy of the cost estimating procedures used here-
in.
In selecting the treatment process combinations, maximum use has been
made of existing treatment units at the Patton Creek, Leeds, Trussville,
and Cahaba plants wherever possible. Present treatment process methods
have been retained when appropriate and supplemented by additional process
units. Therefore, Table III-7 only shows new treatment units that will
need to be constructed and the capacities of these units. For the Cahaba
treatment plant, it is assumed that the existing aerobic digesters can be
converted to provide additional activated sludge aeration tanks and thus
reduce he additional aeration tank capacity required. Also, it has been
assumed that the roughing filters at the Cahaba plant will be double-loaded
thus halving the capacity required for these new units. ®
The evaluation of structural alternatives described in the EIS was
based upon wastewater treatment facilities with the unit process configura_
tions shown in Table III-7.
7. COST EVALUATION
Introduction
One of the most significant comparative factors in evaluation of alter-
native systems is cost. The EPA requires that wastewater management alter-
natives be evaluated on the basis of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effective-
ness principle requires the selection of the least costly, most environ-
mentally-sound, and most technically-sound alternatives for implementation.
*See the preceding section of this chapter for definitions of Levels I,
II, and III.
111-28
-------
TABLE III -7
TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (1)
(Ifait capacities in M3D)
OVERTON-CAHABA
UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA
Overton
LEEDS-TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level I
Level II
Level III
Raw Wastewater Pumping
-
10/0
10/0
10/0
-
10/0
10/0
10/0
-
-
10/0
10/0
10/0
Preliminary Treatment
3
16/0
16/0
16/0
2.7
16/0
16/0
16/0
-
-
16/0
16/0
16/0
Primary Clarification
3
12/4
12/4
12/4
2.7
12/4
12/4
12/4
1.0
-
12/4
12/4
12/4
Intermediate Pumping
3
16/0
16/0
16/0
2.7
16/0
16/0
16/0
-
-
16/0
16/0
16/0
Roughing Filter
1.5
6/2
6/2
6/2
1.35
6/2
6/2
6/2
-
-
6/2
6/2
6/2
Oxidation Ditch
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3
-
-
-
Activated Sludge
3
6/4
6/4
6/4
2.7
6/4
6/4
6/4
1.5
-
6/4
6/4
6/4
Final Clarification
3
8/4
8/4
8/4
2.7
8/4
8/4
8/4
-
0.6
8/4
8/4
8/4
Final Clarification v/Alum
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
-
Media Filtration
-
-
12/4
12/4
-
-
12/4
12/4
-
-
-
12/4
12/4
Carbon Adsorption
-
-
-
12/4
-
-
-
12/4
-
-
-
-
12/4
Chlorination
3
8/4
8/4
8/4
2.7
8/4
8/4
8/4
-
0.3
8/4
8/4
3/4
Post Aeration
3
12/4
12/4
12/4
2.7
12/4
12/4
12/4
1.5
0.3
12/4
12/4
12/4
Gravity Thickening
3
16/0(3)
16/0(3)
16/0(3)
2.7
16/0(3)
16/0(3)
16/0(3)
-
-
16/0(3)
16/0(3)
16/0(3)
Flotation Thickening
-
16/0(4)
16/0(4)
16/0(4)
-
16/0(4)
16/0(4)
16/0(4)
-
-
16/0(4)
16/0(4)
16/0(4)
Anaerobic Digestion
3
16/0
16/0
16/0
2.7
16/0
16/0
16/0
1.0
-
16/0
16/0
16/0
Vacuum Filter
3
16/0
16/0
16/0
2.7
16/0
16/0
16/0
-
-
16/0
16/0
16/0
Drying Beds
1.0
-------
TABLE III-7 (Cont'd.)
TREATMENT PROCESS SELECTION (1)
(Unit capacities in MGD)
TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA CAHABA UPPER CAHABA-CAHABA-PATTON CREEK
Trussville Cahaba (2) Cahaba (2) Upper Cahaba Cahaba (2) Patton Creek
Level X Level II Level III Level I Level II Level III Level I Level II Level III
Raw Wastewater Pumping
-
12/0
12/0
12/0
12/0
12/0
12/0
-
10/0
10/0
10/0
-
Preliminary Treatment
-
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
2.7
10/0
10/0
10/0
3
Primary Clarification
-
14 /4
14/4
14/4
14/4
14/4
14/4
2.7
10/0
10/0
10/0
3
Intermediate Pumping
-
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
2.7
10/0
10/0
10/0
6
Houghing Filter
-
7/2
7/2
7/2
7/2
7/2
7/2
1.35
5/0
5/0
5/0
-
Oxidation Ditch
0.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Activated Sludge
-
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
8/4
2.7
4/0
4/0
4/0
6
Final Clarification
0.625
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
2.7
6/0
6/0
6/0
3
Final Clarification w/Alum
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Media Filtration
-
-
14/4
14/4
-
14/4
14/4
-
-
10/0
10/0
6
Carbon Adsorption
-
-
-
14/4
-
-
14/4
-
-
-
10/0
6
Chlorination
0.25
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
2.7
6/0
6/0
6/0
3
Post Aeration
-
14/4
14/4
14/4
14/4
14/4
14/4
2.7
10/0
10/0
10/0
6
Gravity Thickening
-
18/0(3)
18/0(3)
18/0(3)
18/0(3)
18/0(3)
18/0(3)
2.7
10/0(3)
10/0(3)
10/0(3)
-
Flotation Thickening
-
18/0(4)
18/0(4)
18/0(4)
18/0(4)
18/0(4)
18/0(4)
-
10/0(4)
10/0(4)
10/0(4)
6
Anaerobic Digestion
-
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
2.7
10/0
10/0
10/0
3
Vacuum Filter
-
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
18/0
2.7
10/0
10/0
10/0
6
Drying Beds
(1) This table only shows new units that oust be constructed and does not include existing units.
(2) For Cahaba Plant, phased expansion for years 1983 and 1990 is represented by -/-
(3) For Primary Sludge
(4) For Secondary Sludge
-------
Costs also form the basis of determining financial feasibility and influence
the public acceptability and economic impacts analysis.
There are two general types of cost analyses that must be considered:
present worth analysis and local annual cost analysis. The present worth
analysis establishes comparative total costs of the alternatives over the
planning period including the federal share associated with construct on
grants. This analysis is a requirement of the EPA in the cost-effective-
ness evaluation. The local annual cost analysis compares the local share
of the cost of constructing, operating and maintaining wastewater systems
on an annual basis. This is a measure of annual revenue requirements and,
therefore, of the cost to the users.
In the following subsections are described the development of capital
and operation and maintenance costs of the wastewater and flow augmentation
facilities and the comparative cost analyses. A detailed description of
the procedures used in the cost development and cost analyses is ontamed
in Appendix II. It should be noted that certain facilities were excluded
from the costing because they are basically common to all alternatives.
These include collection sewers, certain common interceptors to serve individual
developments or communities, and private facilities such as package trt at-
ment plants, septic tank systems, and house connections.
Cost Development
A detailed evaluation of all significant cost components of the alter-
native wastewater management systems is required in order to perform t e
comparative cost analyses. Construction, project, and operation and main-
tenance costs were developed for each management system. Available lo^al
cost data and data from previous studies, standard costing sources, and
detailed engineering estimates were used in the cost development. All co; ts
were trended to 1977 price levels in the Birmingham area. This subsectior
describes the development of cost data for both wastewater facilities and
flow augmentation facilities.
Wastewater Facilities. The wastewater facilities which were priced for
the cost analyses include the wastewater treatment facilities which have
been described previously in this chapter and major wastewater conveyance
sewers and pumping stations required to provide service in projected service
areas.
Construction costs for treatment facilities were developed primarily
using detailed unit cost curves which were applied to the treatment process
units described previously. Interceptor construction costs were based on
detailed engineering estimates following determination of required sizes and
alignments. Pumping station construction costs were developed with appro-
priate costs curves. An allowance for related project overhead, such as
administration, legal, engineering, financial and contigency costs, were
included to establish the total project costs for each alternative. The
total project cost of each of the wastewater facilities alternatives is
presented in Table III-8. These costs include all three construction phases.
111-31
-------
TABLE III-8
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS TOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
u> s
K> ->•
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
(1)
Alternative Conveyance
and Treatment Configuration
Overton - Cahaba
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
Leeds via Little Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahaba
Leeds via Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahaba
Trussville - Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek via Patton Creek -
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
Patton Creek via Cahaba River -
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba with Patton
Creek Pretreatment
Upper Cahaba Spray Irrigation - Cahaba
Leeds Spray Irrigation - Trussville -
Cahaba
Alternative Treatment Levels for Cahaba Wastewater Treatment Plant
Treatment Level I
$28,018,000
$25,839,000
$20,335,000
$21,102,000
$26,348,000
$30,644,000
$26,813,000
$25,129,000
$25,332,000
$29,764,000
$22,907,000
Treatment Level II
$29,742,000
$27,563,000
$22,059,000
$22,826,000
$28,202,000
$32,498,000
$27,839,000
$26,155,000
$27,056,000
$31,488,000
$24,631,000
Treatment Level III
$35,550,000
$33,371,000
$27,867,000
$28,634,000
$34,382,000
$38,678,000
$31,185,000
$29,501,000
$32,864,000
$37,296,000
$30,437,000
All costs at 1977 price levels. Project costs include construction costs, land and allowance for legal,
engineering, financial, and administrative costs. Costs include all phases of construction.
-------
Operation and maintenance costs were determined for each wastewater
facilities alternative using applicable cost curves on a treatment unit-
by-unit basis. Operation and maintenance costs of existing facilities and
treatment units which will remain in use were also included. Operating
costs of interceptor sewers were considered to be negligible. The estimated
1985 operation and maintenance costs for each alternative are presented in
Table III-9.
Tables III-8 and III-9 indicate that, in general, the capital cost of
alternatives involving regional plants with long interceptor sewers and
alternatives involving phasing out of existing treatment facilities are high-
er than others. However, it is more costly to operate multiple plants
than fewer regional treatment plants.
Flow Augmentation Facilities. The various facilities for augmenting
the streamflow in the Cahaba River were identified in the previous section
on treatment requirements. Construction and operation and maintenance costs
were established for each of the alternative flow augmentation facilities
and are displayed in Table III-10.
In addition to the flow augmentation facilities described earlier,
a single reservoir on Big Black Creek downstream of its confluence with
Little Black Creek and Middle Black Creek was considered. This proposed
reservoir, referred to here and in the remainder of the EIS as the Big
Black Creek Basin Reservoir, could provide essentially the same flow
augmentation from this watershed as the three reservoir scheme, but could do
so at considerably lower cost.
Also included in Table III-10 are the costs of relocating the Birmingham
Municipal Water Works water supply intake from the Cahaba River to Lake
Purdy. This is included for completeness inasmuch as this was a component
of the 201 facilities plan's recommendation. The relocated water supply
would operate in conjunction with the Big Black Creek Basin Reservoir and
would involve pumping water from the Big Black Creek system to the Little
Cahaba River which feeds Lake Purdy.
Present Worth Analysis
As noted above, the alternative wastewater management systems must be
compared on the basis of their relative present worths in accordance with
EPA regulations. The present worth analysis establishes a total cost value
of the capital expenditures and operating costs of each alternative over
the duration of the planning period. The present worths for the facilities
evaluated in this chapter were developed for an 18-year planning period
ending in the year 2000 using an interest rate of 6.375%. In accordance
with EPA guidelines, allowances were made for salvage values at the end of
the planning period. Phasing of construction was also included in the
analysis for the wastewater facilities.
Wastewater Facilities. The wastewater treatment and conveyance facili-
ties project costs and operation and maintenance costs were analyzed in
accordance with present worth guidelines. The 1982 present worths of each
alternative are presented in Table 111-11.
111-33
-------
TABLE III-9
u>
-P-
1985 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS (1)
Alternative Conveyance Alternative Treatment Levels for Cahaba Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Treatment Configuration Treatment Level I Treatment Level II Treatment Level m
1. Overton - Cahaba $650,000 $734,000 $873,000
2. Upper Cahaba - Cahaba $611,000 $695,000 $834,000
3. Leeds via Little Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahaba $717,000 $801,000 $940,000
4. Leeds via Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahab&a $695,000 $779,000 $918,000
5. Trussville - Cahaba $619,000 $712,000 $858,000
6. Cahaba $542,000 $642,000 $798,000
7. Patton Creek via Patton Creek -
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba $805,000 $864,000 $975,000
8. Patton Creek via Cahaba River -
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba $690,000 $750,000 $860,000
9. Upper Cahaba - Cahaba with Patton
Creek Pretreatment $667,000 $752,000 $891,000
10. Upper Cahaba Spray Irrigation -
Cahaba $663,000 $747,000 $1,030,000
11. Leeds Spray Irrigation -
Trussville - Cahaba $692,000 $776,000 $915,000
(1) All costs at 1977 price levels. Costs Include existing facilities remaining in use as well as new facilities.
-------
TABLE 111-10
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AND ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE STREAM FLOW AUGMENTATION AND WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES (1)
Estimated
Safe
Yield
(cfs)
Lake Purdy Expansion (2) 11
Big Black Creek Reservoir 19
Middle Black Creek Reservoir 7
Little Black Creek Reservoir 15
Combined Black, Middle, and
Little Black Creek Reservoirs 41
Big Black Creek Basin Reservoir (2)(3) 41
Relocation of Water Supply
Intake to Lake Purdy (2) (4)
Total Project Cost
$ 6,960,000
6,458,000
2,207,000
5,075,000
13,739,000
9,500,000
18,000,000
Annual O&M Cost
$25,000
36,000
30,000
34,000
65,000
45,000
22,000
(1) All costs at 1977 price levels. Project costs include construction costs, land, and allowance
for legal, engineering, financial, and administrative costs.
(2) Based on cost information provided by Birmingham Municipal Water Works Board, and contained in
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. engineering report; "Water Supply Study for the Water Works Board of the
City of Birmingham, Alabama, April, 1977."
(3) One large reservoir constructed below confluence of Big, Middle, and Little Black Creeks, with
safe yield equivalent to total of three smaller reservoirs upstream of the confluence.
(4) Includes pumping water from Black Creek system to Lake Purdy system.
-------
TABLE III-ll
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL AND OPERATION COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS (1)
Alternative Conveyance
and Treatment Configuration
Alternative Treatment Levels for Cahaba Wastewater Treatment Plant
Treatment Level I
Overton - Cahaba $27,617
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba $26,573
Leeds-~ Trussville - Cahaba
$22,893
Leeds via Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahaba $22,759
Trussville - Cahaba $26,816
Cahaba $28,918
Patton Creek via Patton Creek -
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba $30,897
Patton Creek via Cahaba River -
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba $28,145
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba with Patton Creek
Pretreatment $25,934
Upper Cahaba Spray Irrigation -
Cahaba $28,913
Leeds Spray Irrigation -
Trussville - Cahaba $24,374
Treatment Level II
$29,977
$28,933
$25,253
$25,119
$29,245
$31,415
$32,478
$29,726
$28,300
$31,273
$26,734
Treatment Level III
$35,812
$34,768
$31,088
$30,954
$35,472
$37,735
$36,690
$33,938
$34,122
$37,108
$32,569
All costs in thousands 1982 present worths based on 18-year planning period ending in the year 2000, 6-3/8
percent interest, and 1977 price levels.
-------
The present worth tabulation indicates a significant variation among
the costs of the alternatives. A comparison of the costs among the alter-
native conveyance and treatment configurations indicates clear cost
preferences. The first six alternatives listed are the basic configurations
available in the Cahaba River basin; the final five alternatives involve
variations utilizing the existing Patton Creek treatment plant or land
disposal of wastewater. Among the basic alternatives it can be seen that
the lowest costs are associated with the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternatives,
which involve the greatest utilization of existing facilities and a
lesser amount of interceptor sewers than other alternatives. The Cahaba
alternative is the most costly basic alternative.
An analysis of the Patton Creek alternatives indicates that the
continued use of this treatment plant is either comparable in cost or
more costly than the basic alternative configurations. The two spray
irrigation alternatives are approximately 5 to 9 percent more costly, on
a present worth basis, than direct discharge to rivers.
The differences of the present worth levels among the three columns
in Table III-ll reflect the increased cost of providing higher levels of
treatment at the Cahaba treatment plant. The complete comparison of the
cost of basic treatment levels must be made in the context of the total
wastewater management systems. These management systems combine a level
of treatment with a stream flow augmentation facility required to maintain
an acceptable level of water quality, as described in the section on treat-
ment requirements. The flow augmentation and wastewater management system
present worths are described below.
Flow Augmentation Facilities. In Table 111-12 are listed the present
worths of the various stream flow augmentation facilities. The present
worth analysis indicates generally the greater costs associated with
alternatives providing greater amounts of augmentation. However, a
comparison of the Lake Purdy expansion with the Big Black Creek Reservoir
reveals that it is less costly to obtain 19 cfs of augmentation at Big
Black Creek than 11 cfs at Lake Purdy. Also, one large Big Black Creek
Basin Reservoir is less costly than the three smaller reservoirs on the
Big, Middle, and Little Black Creeks, which in total provide the same 41
cfs level of augmentation.
Wastewater Management Systems. As noted above, the alternative waste-
water treatment and conveyance systems were combined with appropriate aug-
mentation facilities to form alternative wastewater management systems.
The present worths of the wastewater management systems are displayed in
Table 111-13.
A general comparison of the basic management systems shown in the
table indicates that various levels of stream flow augmentation with lower
wastewater treatment levels at the Cahaba plant and the high treatment level
alternative with no augmentation are more costly than the intermediate
treatment level alternative with no augmentation. The greatest costs by
far are associated with the management system involving relocating the water
supply intake.
111-37
-------
TABLE III- 12
total Present worths- and local annual costs
FOR ALTERNATIVE STREAM FLOW AUGMENTATION AND WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
1. Lake Purdy Expansion (3)
2. Big Black Creek Reservoir
3. Middle Black Creek Reservoir
4. Little Black Creek Reservoir
5. Combined Big, Middle, and
Little Black Creek Reservoirs
6. Bdg Black Basin Reservoir (3)(4)
7. Relocation of Water Supply
Intake to Lake Purdy (3) (5)
Estimated
Safe
Yield
(cfs)
11
19
7
15
41
41
Total
Present
Worth (1)
$4,935,000
$4,713,600
$1,797,200
$3,764,200
$9,906,500
$6,850,000
$14,444,200
Local
Annual
Cost (2)
$ 645,000
612,000
227,000
486,000
1,290,000
892,000
1,627,000
(1) 1982 present worths based on 18-year planning period ending in the year 2000; 6-3/8
percent interest; and 1977 price levels.
(2) Local annual costs based on amortizing local project costs over 25 years at 6-3/8 per-
cent interest with 10 percent coverage; 1985 operation and maintenance costs; and 1977
price levels.
(3) Based on cost information provided by Birmingham Municipal Water Works Board, and con-
tained in Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. engineering report; "Water Supply Study for the Water
Works Board of the City of Birmingham, Alabama, April, 1977."
(4) One large reservoir constructed below confluence of Big, Middle and Little Black Creeks,
with safe yield equivalent to total of three smaller reservoirs.
(5) Includes pumping water from Black Creek system to Lake Purdy system.
-------
TABLE III-13
Alternative Wastewater
Conveyance and
Treatment System
1. Overton - Cahaba
2. Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
TOTAL PRESENT WORTHS OF CAPITAL AND OPERATION COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (1)
Alternative Wastewater Management Svstpws
No Augmentation
Treatment Level III
$35,812
$34,768
No Augmentation
Big Black Creek
Reservoir
Lake Purdy Big Black Creek Basin Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Expansion¦
Reservoir
3. Leeds via Little Cahaba
River - Trussville -
Cahaba
4. Leeds via Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahaba
5. Trussville
6. Cahaba
Cahaba
7. Patton Creek via Patton
Creek - Upper Cahaba -
Cahaba
8. Patton Creek via Cahaba
River - Upper Cahaba -
Cahaba
$31,088
$30,954
$35,472
$37,735
$36,690
$33,938
9. Upper Cahaba - Cahaba with
Patton Creek Pretreatment $34,122
10. Upper Cahaba Spray Irri-
gation - Cahaba $37,108
11. Leeds Spray Irrigation -
Trussville - Cahaba $32,569
Treatment Level II Treatment Level I/II Treatment Level II Treatment Level I
$29,977
$28,933
$25,253
$25,119
$29,245
$31,415
$32,478
$29,726
$28,300
$31,273
$26,734
$32,331/34,691
$31,287/33,647
$27,607/29,967
$27,473/29,833
$31,530/33,959
$33,632/36,129
$35,611/37,192
$32,859/34,440
$30,648/33,014
$33,627/35,987
$29,088/31,448
$34,912
$33,868
$30,188
$30,054
$34,180
$36,350
$37,413
$34,661
$33,235
$36,208
$31,669
$34,468
$33,424
$29,744
$29,610
$33,667
$35,769
$37,748
$34,996
$32,785
$35,764
$31,225
Relocate Water Intake
Treatment Level I
$48,912
$47,868
$44,188
$44,054
$48,111
$50,213
$52,192
$49,440
$47,229
$50,208
$45,669
(1) All costs in thousands. 1982 present worths based on 18-year planning period ending in the year 2000, 6-3/8 percent interest, and 1977 price
levels.
(2) Augmentation giving streamflow of 21 cfs just upstream of Cahaba WWTP.
(3) Augmentation giving streamflow of 13 cfs just upstream of Cahaba WWTP.
(4) Augmentation giving streamflow of 43 cfs just upstream of Cahaba WWTP.
-------
Considering that Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba is the most economical treat-
ment plant configuration, this basic alternative configuration utilizing
treatment level II at the Cahaba treatment plant with no augmentation
appears to be most desirable on a present worth cost basis.
Local Annual Cost Analysis
The local annual cost analysis differs from the present worth analysis
in several ways. The local annual cost reflects more closely the relative
impacts of the alternatives on the system owner, the Jefferson County Sani-
tation Department, and its users. For instance, the local annual costs are
computed accounting for the federal construction grant for the new waste-
water facilities. The remaining local costs of construction and related
project costs not covered by the federal grant are amortized as a 25-year
debt. This debt service together with the estimated operation and mainte-
nance costs of the facilities for one year are used in determining the local
annual cost for each alternative.
Wastewater Facilities. The local annual costs for each alternative
wastewater treatment and conveyance system are shown in Table 111-14. As
with the present worth analysis, the local annual cost analysis reveals that
the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternatives are the least costly. However, in
terms of the local costs, the cost difference among alternatives are reduced
All of the six basic plant configurations fall within a cost range of 10
percent, with the Cahaba alternative being the most costly. Again the
Patton Creek variations are comparable or slightly more costly than the
associated basic alternative, and the spray irrigation costs are greater
than direct discharge of treated wastewater.
Flow Augmentation Facilities. Local annual costs computed for the streai
flow augmentation facilities are displayed in Table III-12. These costs vere
computed with consideration that no federal funding would be available fQr
these facilities. The local annual cost analysis results are consistent
with the present worth analysis results discussed above.
Wastewater Management Systems. The results of the local annual cost
analysis of the alternative wastewater management systems are shown in Table
III-15. It is apparent that the management systems which do not involve
stream flow augmentation are the least costly in terms of local costs. This
reflects the relatively greater local capital cost obligation associated
with the augmentation facilities. Again, the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba waste-
water facilities configuration with treatment level II at the Cahaba plant
and no flow augmentation appears to be the most economical system.
8. OPERABILITY EVALUATION
A significant consideration in the evaluation of wastewater management
alternatives is the operability of the facilities. The operability evalna<.^0[|
must include three general areas of interest: reliability of treatment, fi
bility of operation, and maintainability of facilities. The reliability 6
111-40
-------
TABLE III- 14
TOTAL ANNUAL LOCAL COSTS FOR
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS (1)
M
h-t
I
Alternative Conveyance
and Treatment Configuration
1. Overton - Cahaba
2. Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
3. Leeds via Little Cahaba River
Trussville - Cahaba
4. Leeds via Cahaba River -
Trussville - Cahaba
5. Trussville - Cahaba
6. Cahaba
7. Patton Creek via Patton Creek
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
8. Patton Creek via Cahaba River
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
9. Upper Cahaba - Cahaba with
Patton Creek Pretreatment
10. Upper Cahaba Spray Irrigation
Cahaba
11. Leeds Spray Irrigation -
Trussville - Cahaba
Alternative Treatment Levels for Cahaba Wastewater Treatment Plant
Treatment Level I
$1,434,000
$1,334,000
$1,286,000
$1,286,000
$1,356,000
$1,400,000
$1,555,000
$1,393,000
$1,376,000
$1,494,000
$1,325,000
Treatment Level II
$1,566,000
4
$1,466,000
$1,418,000
$1,418,000
$1,501,000
$1,552,000
$1,643,000
$1,482,000
$1,509,000
$1,626,000
$1,457,000
Treatment Level III
$1,868,000
$1,768,000
$1,720,000
$1,720,000
$1,820,000
$1,881,000
$1,848,000
$1,686,000
$1,811,000
$2,071,000
$1,758,000
(1)
Local annual costs based on amortizing net local project costs over 25-years at 6-3/8 percent interest
with 10 percent coverage; 1983 operation and maintenance costs; and 1977 price levels.
-------
TABLE III-15
TOTAL ANNUAL LOCAL COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGHCENT SYSTHMS (1)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Alternative Wastewater
Conveyance and
Treatment System
Overton - Cahaba
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba
Leeds via Little Cahaba
River - Trussville -
Cahaba
Leeds via Cahaba River -
Trussville — Cahaba
Trussville - Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek via Patton
Creek - Upper Cahaba -
Cahaba
Patton Creek via Cahaba
River - Upper Cahaba -
Cahaba
No Augmentation
Treatment LevelTII
No Augmentation
Treatment Level -IL
Alternative Wastewater Management Systems
Big Black Creek Lake Purdy Big Black Creek Basin Big Black Creek Basin lfes.
° '- i* *—3 Reservoir^ Relocate Water Intake
Reservoir
Expansion-3
Treatment Level XAl Treatment Leveln Treatment Level I Treatment Level I
$1,868,000
$1,768,000
$1,720,000
$1,720,000
$1,820,000
$1,881,000
$1,848,000
$1,686,000
10.
11.
Upper Cahaba - Cahaba with
Patton Creek Pretreatment 51,811,000
Upper Cahaba Spray Irri-
gation - Cahaba $2,071,000
Leeds Spray Irrigation -
Trussville - Cahaba $1,758,000
$1,566,000
$1,466,000
$2,046,000/2,178,000 $2,211,000
$1,946,000/2,078,000 $2,111,000
$1,418,000 $1,898,000/2,030,000 $2,063,000
$1,418,000 $1,898,000/2,030,000 $2,063,000
$1,501,000 $1,968,000/2,113,000 $2,146,000
$1,552,000 $2,012,000/2,164,000 $2,197,000
$1,643,000 $2,167,000/2,255,000 $2,288,000
$1,482,000 $2,005,000/2,094,000 $2,127,000
$1,509,000 $1,988,000/2,121,000 $2,154,000
$1,626,000 $2,106,000/2,238,000 $2,271,000
$1,457,000 $1,937,000/2,069,000 $2,102,000
$2,326,000
$2,226,000
$2,178,000
$2,178,000
$2,248,000
$2,292,000
$2,447,000
$2,285,000
$2,268,000
$2,386,000
$2,217,000
$3,953,000
$3,853,000
$3,805,000
$3,805,000
$3,875,000
$3,919,000
$4,074,000
$3,912,000
$3,895,000
$4,013,000
$3,844,000
(1) Local annual costs based on amortizing net local project costs over 25-years at 6-3/8 percent interest with 10 percent coverage; 1985 operation
and maintenance costs; and 1977 price levels.
(2) Augmentation giving streamflow of 21 cfs just upstream of Cahaba WWTP.
(3) Augmentation giving streamflow of 21 cfs just upstream of Cahaba WWTP.
(4) Augmentation giving streamflov of 43 cfs just upstream of Cahaba WWTP.
-------
evaluation considers the ability of the treatment processes and facilities
configurations to maintain required treatment efficiencies. Operational
flexibility is a measure of the ability of treatment components to adapt
to changes in wastewater characteristics. Maintainability considerations
include complexity of equipment, frequency of maintenance down time, and
efficiency of providing required maintenance.
The above factors were considered for each of the wastewater facilities
alternatives and comparative ratings were established for each of the
categories. These relative ratings are displayed in Table III-16. There
are certain general conclusions which can be drawn from this evaluation:
a. Facilities with lower treatment levels are more reliable and
easier to maintain than those with higher treatment levels.
b. Multiple treatment plant configurations are more flexible, but
less maintainable than single, regional plant configurations.
c. New facilities are more reliable, flexible, and maintainable
than older facilities.
d. Spray irrigation of effluent is less reliable and flexible than
discharge to surface waters. This evaluation was based in part on the
operational unknowns associated with the soils and topographic conditions
at available spray irrigation sites.
The wastewater conveyance and treatment alternative receiving the highest
overall ratings were the Overton-Cahaba and Upper Cahaba-Cahaba systems.
Wastewater management system alternatives were also evaluated by
combining the above described ratings for wastewater facilities with rating
factors to account for the effect of alternative augmentation facilities.
The overall operability ratings of the wastewater management system alter-
natives are presented in Table III-17. The highest ratings of wastewater manage-
ment systems are associated with flow* augmentation by the Big Black Creek Basin
Reservoir in combination with treatment level I at the Cahaba treatment plant,
again in the Overton-Cahaba or Upper Cahaba-Cahaba configurations. Also
receiving a high rating was the no-augmentation system in combination with
treatment level II at the Cahaba plant in the Overton-Cahaba or Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba alternatives.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARISON
Procedures
An analysis was conducted to assess and compare the impacts of alter-
native wastewater management plans on the terrestrial, aquatic, and man-
made environments of the Cahaba River study area. This environmental
analysis utilized a variety of methodologies including open-celled narrative
matrices and interaction matrices. An open-celled narrative matrix
(Appendix II) was constructed for each alternative describing a cause-
effect relationship between a list of environmental parameters and each
proposed action. The degree of impact, beneficial or harmful, was
quantified where possible. This included lengths of interceptors, destroyed
111-43
-------
TABLE 111-16
OPERABILXTf EVALUATION COMPARISON OF
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
Alternative Treatment Levels for Cahaba Wastewater Treatment Plant
Alternative
Conveyance and
Treatment Configuration
Overton-Cahaba
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
Leeds (via Little Cahaba
River)-Trussville-
Cahaba
Leeds (via Cahaba River)
Trussvllle—Cahaba
Trussville-Cahaba
Cahaba
Fatton Creek (via Patton
Creek)-Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
Patton Creek (via Cahaba)
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba-
Patton Creek Pretreat-
¦ent
Upper Cahaba-Spray Irri-
gation—Trussville-
Cahaba
Leeds Spray Irrigation
Trussvllle Cahaba
Treatment Level I
Treatment Level II
Treatment Level III
Relia-
bility
14
14
11
11
13
14
11
12
12
12
10
Flexi- Maintain-
bill ty ability
11
11
11
11
11
9
10
10
10
10
13
13
11
11
12
14
10
11
12
13
11
Total
38
38
33
33
36
37
31
33
33
35
31
Relia- Flexi-
bility bility
12
12
9
11
11
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
9
10
10
10
10
Maintain- Relia- Flexi-
ability Total bility bility
11
11
9
10
12
10
11
34
34
29
29
32
32
27
29
29
31
27
10
10
11
11
11
11
9
9
10
10
10
10
Maintain-
ability Total
7
10
10
30
30
25
25
28
28
23
25
25
27
23
-------
TABLE 111-17
OPERABILITY EVALUATION COMPARISON OF
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Alternative Wastewater
Conveyance and
Treafent System
Overton—Cahaba
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba
Leeds (via Cahaba)
Trussvilie-Cahaba
Truss vUle-Cahaba
Cahaba
Pattoo Creek (via Patton
Creek) Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
Patton Creek (via Cahaba)
Upper Cahaba—Cahaba
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba-Patton
Creek Pretreafent
Upper Cahaba—Spray Irriga-
tion -Cahaba
Leeds Spray Irrigation-
Truss vllle-Cahaba
Alternative Mater Quality Management Systems
No Augmentation
No Augment:at i on
Big Black Creek
Reservoir
Lake Purdy Big Black Creek Basin Big Black Creek Basin Res.
Expansion
Reservoir
Treafent Level III Treafent Level II Treatment Level II Treatment Level II Treatment Level I
30
30
25
25
28
28
23
25
25
27
23
34
34
29
29
32
32
27
29
29
31
27
32
32
27
27
30
30
25
27
27
29
25
33
33
28
28
31
31
26
28
28
30
26
36
36
31
31
34
35
29
31
31
33
29
Relocate Water Intake
Treatment Level I
33
33
28
28
31
32
26
28
28
30
26
-------
acreage of wildlife habitat and forest, loss or gain of water-land inter-
face, and concentrations of nutrients discharged into surface waters. The
primary purpose of this matrix was to show significant differences among
the alternatives with regard to impacts on the environment.
An ad hoc committee of sanitary engineers, planners, economists, environ-
mental scientists, and aquatic biologists, in developing the interaction
matrix, assigned weighted values of relative importance to each environmental
factor. In each cell of the matrix, formed by the intersection of a proposed
action and an environmental parameter, a concise evaluation was made of
environmental change that would occur either directly or indirectly if the
action was implemented. These changes ox impacts were determined beneficial
or harmful and a number from +4 to -4 was assigned to each cell CAppendix II).
This value multiplied by the weight for each parameter yielded a weighted
score. These weighted scores were totaled to obtain a grand total of
impacts attributable to each alternative. (Tables 111-18, 111-19, 111-20,
111-21). This information, in turn, was employed in the cost-effectiveness
analysis of alternatives.
Significance of Environmental Parameters. Results of the environmental
comparisons for the -various alternatives are presented in Appendix II.
The parameters used were selected because significantly different impacts
in these areas were caused by the various wastewater management alternatives.
Some environmental parameters were not included in the analysis because
the degree of impact was too small to provide contrast between alternatives.
In many cases the predicted effect was exactly the same for all alternatives.
Parameters that fall into the non-significant category include climate,
air quality, noise, wetlands/water-land interface, groundwater, and resource
use. Other non-significant parameters include community services, economic
conditions, cultural resources, and transportation facilities.
Significant parameters include odor, topography, geology, soils,
plants, animals, surface water, and aquatic life. Some of these are con-
sidered significant because of their relationship to water quality.
Other parameters were placed in this category because of the magnitude
of predicted impacts associated with the construction or operation of
facilities included in the proposed alternatives. Several parameters have
low sensitivities and are impacted moderately. However, because of
distinctly different degrees of impact magnitude, they were placed in
this category to show contrast among alternatives.
Critical Impacts - Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment
Cahaba Alternative. The Cahaba alternative by diverting treatment
plant effluent from the Little Cahaba River and Patton Creek will decrease
nutrient loading into Lakes Purdy and Paradise with the potential for
decreasing the noxious odor produced by the development of hydrogen sulfide
in the lower water column. This impact will be similar to all other alter-
natives with the exception of Leeds - Trussville - Oahaba which will
continue to affect Lake Purdy. The Cahaba alternative has the greatest
potential to produce odor from algal bloom and organic decay in pooled areas
downstream of the Cahaba WWTP.
111-46
-------
TABLE III- 18
SCORING OF TOTAL IMPACTS ON
THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE CAHABA EIS
Surface
Water Land Raise Lake
Alternatives Discharge Disposal Purdy 10'
SURFACE HATER DISCHARGE PLUS
Black Creek Pretreated to Treated to Treated Into
and Lake Cahaba STP Patten Creek Cahaba River
Purdy Intake Patton Creek
Discharge Into
Cahaba River
Fron Leeds
Black
Creek
Leeds-Trussville
Cahaba
-18
-19
-33
-21
-10
Cahaba
-31
-32
-12
-38
-19
Upper Cahaba-
r_nhaha
-24
-25
-11
-37
-27
-28
-30
-14
Trussville—
P ahaKa
Overtott—Cahaba
-24
-24
-25
-25
-11
-11
-37
-37
-14
-14
Source: Gannett Fleaing Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
TABLE III-19
SCORING OF IMPACTS ON THE TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
BY ALTERNATIVES OF THE CAHABA EIS
Surface
Water
Alternatives Discharge
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE PLUS
Black Creek Treated to Treated Into Treated Into Discharge Into
Land Raise Lake and Lake Cahaba STP Patton Creek Cahaba River Cahaba River
Disposal Purdv 10' Purdv Intake Patton Creek From Leeds
Black
Creek
Leeds-Trussville
Cahaba
-19
-23
-34
-54
-26
-36
Cahaba
-39
-43
-41
-51
-45
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
-32
-36
-40
-49
-35
-33
-38
-40
Trussville-
Cahaba
-32
-36
-40
-49
40
Overton-Cahaba
-32
-36
-40
-49
40
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
TABLE III- 20
SCORING OF IMPACTS ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
BY ALTERNATIVES OF THE CAHABA EIS
Surface
Water Land
Alternatives Discharge Disposal
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE PLUS
Black Creek Treated to Treated Into Treated Into Discharge Into
Raise Lake and Lake Cahaba STP Patton Creek Cahaba River Cahaba River
Purdy 10' Purdy Intake Patton Creek From Leeds
Black
Creek
Leeds-Trussville
Cahaba
+6
+9
+30
+17
+10
+30
Cahaba
+13
+16
+30
+21
+30
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
+13
+16
+30
+20
+13
+10
+13
+30
Trussville-
Cahaba
+13
+16
+30
+20
+30
Overton-Cahaba
+13
+16
+30
+20
+30
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
TABLE II1-21
SCORING OF IMPACTS ON THE MAH-MADE
ENVIRONMENT OF THE CAHABA EIS
Surface
Uater Land
Alternatives Discharge Disposal
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE PLUS
Black Creek Treated to Treated Into Treated Into Discharge Into
Raise Lake and Lake Cahaba STP Patton Creek Cahaba River Cahaba River
Purdv 10' Purdy Intake Patton Creek From Leeds
Black
Creek
Leeds-Trussville
Cahaba -5
-5
+4
-5
Cahaba
-8
-4
Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
-5
-1
-8
-5
-5
-4
Trussville-
Cahaba
-5
-1
-8
-4
Overton-Cahaba
-5
-1
-8
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
This alternative will present the greatest problems in construction
design with the placement of 215,725 feet of interceptor and force main on
unstable shale bedrock. This will also result in the greatest potential
for temporary erosion until ground cover replaces the exposed soils.
The Cahaba alternative ranks third behind Overton - Cahaba and Truss- Llle-
Cahaba in the temporary loss of native vegetation and destruction of upland
wildlife habitat by the placement of 29,125 feet of interceptor. Eventual
secondary secession may provide increased diversity of habitat and upland
game along these interceptor right-of-ways.
The Cahaba alternative has the greatest potential for destruction of
bottom land habitat and temporary impacts on the aquatic environment due
to sedimentation from the placement of 184,050 feet of interceptor, including
25 streambed crossings. Because this is the habitat of the Southeastern
Shrew, this alternative will have the greatest impact upon the survival
and range of this species within the Cahaba River Basin.
The Cahaba alternative also has the greatest potential to improve
water quality and aquatic life upstream from the Cahaba WWTP. It is t e
only alternative which diverts 100% of study area wastewater downstream
of the municipal water supply intake. However, in relying upon the Cal ab
WWTP as the sole source of wastewater treatment in the study area, the
potential is greatest for water quality problems downstream of the plant
In stream reaches where the endangered goldline darter and Cahaba shiner
are found.
The Upper Cahaba - Cahaba Alternative . The Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
alternative will decrease the eutrophication odor by eliminating treatment
plant discharges upstream from Lakes Purdy and Paradise. It ranks third
behind the Cahaba and Overton-Cahaba alternatives in problems that will
be encountered with the placement of 150,400 feet of interceptor and force
main on unstable shale bedrock. This is the same footage encountered in
the Upper Cahaba-Cahaba-Patton Creek Pretreatment alternative.
Native upland vegetation and wildlife habitat will be affected by the
placement of 27,275 feet of interceptor. Only the Leftds-Trussville-
Cahaba alternative and thfe Patton Creek variations provide less impact
on this environment.
This alternative ranks third in the destruction of stream bottomland
habitat and possible temporary disruption of the aquatic environment due
to sedimentation from the placement of 123,125 feet of Interceptor
Including 14 streambed crossings.
By diverting 85% of study area sewage to the Cahaba WWTP, there is a
greater likelihood for improved water quality upstream of the plant. However,
the Upper Cahaba WWTP will discharge approximately 19 miles upstream of the
water supply Intake, as opposed to the present situation with a smaller
discharge from the Trussvllle WWTP 31 miles upstream of the Intake. Although
this configuration poses no definite public health problems, it still is less
than ideal from the water supply standpoint.
111-51
-------
Trussville - Cahaba. The Trussville - Cahaba alternative will decrease
eutrophication odor by diverting treatment plant discharges from Lakes
Purdy and Paradise. It ranks fifth in construction and erosional problems
that may be encountered in the placement of 123,625 feet of interceptor and
force main on unstable shale bedrock.
Native upland vegetation and wildlife habitat will be affected by the
construction of 34,275 feet of interceptor. Only the Overton - Cahaba and
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternatives rank below the Trussville-Cahaba in
the temporary destruction of stream bottomland habitat and possible
disruption of aquatic life by the placement of 120,475 feet of interceptor
including 15 streambed crossings. Only the Cahaba alternative diverts more
of the total study area wastewater flow downstream of the water supply in-
take.
Overton - Cahaba. This alternative will decrease eutrophication odor
by eliminating WWTP effluent from Lakes Purdy and Paradise. Only the Cahaba
alternative has more interceptor construction on unstable shale bedrock.
The Overton WWTP will discharge about 10 miles upstream of the raw water intake
as explained above for Upper Cahaba-Cahaba, this is less than ideal.
This alternative will impart the greatest impact upon native vegetation
and upland wildlife habitat in the construction of 81,425 feet of interceptor
It ranks fourth in the temporary destruction of stream bottomland habitat
and possible disruption of aquatic life by the placement of 118,650 feet
of interceptor including 15 streambed crossings. By diverting only 83%
of study area wastewater to the Cahaba WWTP, it has the greatest potential
for creating degraded conditions upstream of the water supply intake.
Leeds - Trussville - Cahaba. The Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative
is the only alternative that will continue to provide potential eutrophylng
and odor producing conditions in Lake Purdy by discharging treatment plant
effluent into the Little Cahaba River. One variation on this alternative
calls for the discharge of Leeds effluent into the Cahaba River. This
would alleviate the potential for odor production and eutrophication in
Lake Purdy. The Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative provides the least
impact of all alternatives in construction and erosion problems that may
be encountered by the placement of 79,800 feet of interceptor and force
main on unstable shale bedrock.
With the exception of the two variations of the Patton Creek-Upper
Cahaba-Cahaba alternative, it provides the least impact on native vege-
tation and upland wildlife habitat by the construction of 28,825 feet of
interceptor. It provides for the least impact of all alternatives on
destruction of stream bottomland habitat and disruption of aquatic life
by the placement of 54,975 feet of interceptor and force main including
6 streambed crossings. It will have the least impact of all alternatives
on the endangered Southeastern Shrew whose distribution in the Cahaba Basin
depends on the preservation of bottomlands.
By providing two discharges upstream from the Cahaba WWTP, this
alternative makes best use of the assimilative abilities of the Cahaba
River Basin and other than the Cahaba alternative provides the best
IIX-52
-------
opportunity for improved water quality over these upstream stretches of river.
Critical Impacts - Land Disposal, Flow Augmentation and Water Supply
Introduction. The land disposal, flow augmentation, and water supply
options identified above may be combined with the different wastewater
treatment alternatives. Because the impacts of these options do not change
depending on the treatment alternative they are combined with, they will be
discussed as individual entities.
Land Disposal. Positive impacts will result from land disposal of Leeds
effluent instead of discharge to the eutrophying Lake Purdy or from land
disposal of effluent from any WWTP upstream of the raw water intake. The
possible negative impact of groundwater pollution can be avoided by proper
design and operation. The degree of construction problems depends on length
of extra pipeline to be placed on unstable bedrock:
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba:
Trussville-Cahaba:
Overton-Cahaba:
. Leeds-Trussville-
Cahaba:
13,000 feet, entirely terrestrial
39,125 feet of which 375 feet crosses
streams in 4 places.
54,775 feet of which 43,775 feet follows
stream bottom and 375 feet crosses stream
bed in 4 places.
2,000 feet if Leeds only; 41,125 feet if
Leeds and Trussville; entirely terrestrial
There will be some destruction of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, and
temporary effects on aquatic life from construction-related sedimentation.
Surface water quality will generally improve in river reaches where a WWTP
discharge is eliminated in favor of land disposal. The degree of improvement
will vary depending on the percent of effluent to be diverted from surface
waters under the different land disposal options:
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba 15%
. Trussville-Cahaba: 7%
Overton-Cahaba: 17%
. Upper Cahaba-Cahaba-Patton Creek: 15%
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba: a) Leeds - 8%
b) Leeds and Trussville - 15%
Flow Augmentation Option - Lake Purdy. Raising the top elevation of
Che Lake Purdy dam 10 feet will increase the volume of oxygen-producing
surface waters by approximately 60%. The lower, odor-producing layers (20
feet or more below the surface) will increase in volume by approximately
120%. It is possible that, If a chosen alternative continues discharging
111-53
-------
effluent upstream, odor problems may increase. Even with removal of treats
ment plant effluent from the Lake Purdy watershed, nutrients and organics
tied up in the bottom mud may result in continued odors from Lake Purdy
for some time.
If this Lake Purdy expansion were to take place, there would be an
inundation of approximately 700 acres of land adjacent to the lake. This
would:
Result in a sudden input of oxygen-demanding organics into
the lake
Result in destruction of 700 acres of pine and hardwood forest
Destroy 57.9 acres of habitat necessary for the survival of
the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the Cahaba Basin
Increase the extent of the lake perimeter and the littoral zone
and result in increased secondary production and recreational fishing
Increase streamflow and improve water quality in the Cahaba
River below the confluence with the Little Cahaba River
Flow Augmentation Option - Big Black Creek. Impounding Big Black Creek
can be expected to result in thermally stratified layers of water that
may be odor-producing in the lower depths. The degree of odor production
will depend upon the nutrient loading and production of organic materials
within the reservoir. There may be some erosion during construction and
bank stabilization that could affect surface water and aquatic life in the
impoundment.
There will be a loss of upland vegetation and wildlife habitat from
impoundments in the Big Black Creek watershed, the acreage varying with
reservoir selection. The stretches of river lost to impoundment will
further limit the range of the Southeastern Shrew. By building impound-
ments in this watershed, the environmental conditions will change from
riverine to lacustrine in nature. This will bring about a change of aquatt
flora and fauna which inhabit the area. Mine drainage into the reservoir
could be limiting to the production of this body of water.
Streamflow augmentation from the Big Black Creek watershed will increas
the waste assimilative ability of the Cahaba River and is the only plan to
do so in the upper portions of the study area. This has the potential to
increase overall water quality within the study area while providing an
increased source of recreation for the rising urban populace.
Augmentation Option - Intake to Lake Purdy. By placing the municipal
water supply intake into Lake Purdy, there is an increased chance of odor
production from heavy draw-down of the lake during low flow conditions by
exposing the anoxic lower waters. Possible construction and temporary
erosional problems may be encountered during the placement of 26,000 feet
of water transmission main on unstable shale bedrock. This transmission
111-54
-------
main may cause the loss of the rare and endangered plant, Hymenocallls
coronaria. There may be a temporary loss of upland habitat from trans-
mission main construction. Heavy draw-downs during low water periods will
decrease the area of the productive littoral zone and may cause a fish
kill by bringing the anoxic and toxic lower waters to the surface. There
is a potential of increased fishing success from crowding of the fish pop-
ulation during draw-down. The water quality will be improved in the
Cahaba River especially below the present Cahaba Pump Station intake where
streamflow would increase.
Water Supply Option - Warrior River. Possible construction and erosional
problems may exist from the placement of water transmission main on unstable
shale bedrock. The length of transmission main will vary with the selected
plan:
Coosa River: 173,000 feet to Lake Purdy
. Mulberry Fork: 158,000 feet to Lake Purdy
Locust Fork: 158,000 or 181,000 feet depending on
location of intake
There will be a temporary loss of upland vegetation and wildlife habitat
along the chosen route of transmission main. The increased assimilative
capacity of the Cahaba River by its discontinued use as a source of muni-
cipal water will increase water quality and the level of aquatic life.
Water Supply Option - Warrior River/Cahaba River. Similar construction
and erosional problems and loss of upland vegetation and wildlife habitat
can be expected over the same length of transmission main planned in the
Warrior River water supply option. There will be little effect on aquatic
life or water quality in the Cahaba River Basin by this plan of augmenta-
tion, as there will be continued withdrawal of water for municipal supplies.
Ranking of Alternatives by Environmental Impacts
From the preceding summary of the environmental analysis, it becomes
obvious that the Cahaba alternative would result in the greatest
destruction of terrestrial habitat and in other significant environmental
impacts. The Overton-Cahaba, Upper Cahaba-Cahaba and Trussville-Cahaba
alternatives do not adversely impact the study area environment as greatly
as the Cahaba alternative. Of the five basic wastewater management alter-
natives, the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative has the fewest detri-
mental environmental impacts associated with it (Table 111-18).
From an environmental standpoint, the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba waste-
water management plan is considered the preferred alternative primarily
because of its minimal impact on the terrestrial environment. This
alternative makes best vise of the assimilative capacities of study area
streams. As the Birmingham population expands, this alternative has the
greatest potential for regionalization of facilities if the need is identi-
fied. This may become an important consideration, as the habitat of the
111-55
-------
endangered goldline darter and Cahaba shiner lies downstream.
The Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba configuration combined with one of the
plans of flow augmentation and/or water supply is the preferred choice
for the study area wastewater management plan, from the environmental
standpoint. Table 111-18 indicates the least negative environmental
impacts are associated with surface discharge of treatment plant effluent
combined with providing flow augmentation from an expanded Lake Purdy or
from the Big Black Creek watershed. Unfortunately, while expanding Lake
Purdy greatly benefits the aquatic environment, this option is generally
unacceptable because inundation of the habitat of the rare and endangered
Red-cockaded Woodpecker would result. Construction of reservoirs in the
Big Black Creek watershed has the potential to increase recreational
opportunities in the area and to provide flow augmentation to the Cahaba
River. However, federal funding is not presently available for this pro-
ject.
The Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative with surface water discharge
of treatment plant effluents falls next in line in environmental ranking
of variations on this basic alternative. It is evident from available
data that past nutrient loading from the Leeds WWTP has hastened the
eutrophication of Lake Purdy. If this alternative is chosen, the recent
addition of phosphorous removal processes at Leeds would tend to decrease
this adverse impact.
Surface discharge combined with land disposal in the upper basin la
the next logical choice of plans. This would eliminate nutrient loadine
into Lake Purdy from the Leeds WWTP. The variation of the Leeds-Trussvlli
Cahaba alternative that includes an extended outfall from the Leeds plant
to the Cahaba River would also remove treatment plant effluent from the
Lake Purdy watershed. However, construction of the extended outfall
will entail some negative impacts on the terrestrial environment,includin
temporary removal of some native vegetation. ®
The combination of augmentation from the Big Black Creek watershed
with the placement of the municipal water supply intake into Lake Purdy
produces the greatest degree of adverse impact on the environment and
therefore be unacceptable. In particular, moving the water supply intak
to Lake Purdy may result in the loss of the rare and endangered plant
Hyraenocaliis coronaria.
The Patton Creek modifications to the Upper-Cahaba-Cahaba alternatl
would be environmentally beneficial in that WWTP effluent would no longe^
be discharged to the eutrophic Lake Paradise. This modification in conih-f
nation with the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative and one of the accent-*
able plans of augmentation would also be environmentally acceptable.
10. IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION
Along with the selection of an alternative, cost evaluations, and th*
consideration of environmental impacts, the practicalities of implemen tin *
the plan are an important consideration. The prospects for successful
111-56
-------
implementation of a wastewater management alternative, in view of both
public and political realities within the study area, must be addressed.
To review the implementability of each alternative, a comparison was
developed to consider such implementation factors as public acceptability
of the various alternatives, management considerations for plan implementa-
tion, and the planning flexibility of each alternative. Table III-22
provides a comparison of the implementability of each alternative. This
evaluation was a qualitative evaluation of each alternative based upon
available information and correspondence. Based upon this evaluation the
alternatives of Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba and Leeds via Cahaba River-Trussville-
Cahaba, each with no streamflow augmentation, were given the highest scores
for potential implementability. The Trussville-Cahaba alternative without
augmentation was a close third.
Public acceptability of a wastewater facilities plan is crucial to its
total implementability. If a proposed plan faces stiff opposition from the
public, its implementation possibilities are seriously diminished.
In the evaluation of public acceptability, consideration was given to
available correspondence and comments on the various alternatives. Most of
the correspondence and comments have supported either the Trussville-Cahaba
alternative or the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative with its many varia-
tions. The so-called "development interests" groups favor the Trussville-
Cahaba alternative because it establishes a long interceptor in the Cahaba
basin and it removes wastewater from Lake Purdy. Others favor either the
Leeds via Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative or the Leeds Spray
Irrigation—Trussville-Cahaba alternative since they both remove sewage from
Lake Purdy. These alternatives are favored without augmentation since there
has been only limited information that was previously available on the various
flow augmentation schemes. In addition, there is concern for the eventual
costs and management of any flow augmentation scheme. This uncertainty and
potential resistance contribute to the low scores for public acceptability
of any augmentation alternative.
Another factor in the implementation of an alternative is the institu-
tional consideration. Institutional questions that must be answered include
who will own, operate, and pay for the cost of a particular alternative. This
is currently a fairly straightforward arrangement in the Cahaba Basin since
Jefferson County is responsible for sewage collection and treatment. From
an institutional and management standpoint, this favors no augmentation
since it represents a confirmation of the present management structure.
However, spray irrigation does get lower rankings because of potential
management problems associated with such a facility, including proper
operation to avoid odor, aerosol, and runoff problems and site control to
keep children and others off the property. Experience in these types of
management problems is not generally available among conventionally-trained
wastewater treatment plant operators.
111-57
-------
TABLE III-22
IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION COMPARISON
Alternative
Overton-Cahaba
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
Leeds-Trussville-
Cahaba
Leeds via Cahaba River-
Trussville-Cahaba
Trussville-Cahaba
Cahaba
Patton Creek-Upper
Cahab a-Cahaba
Patton Creek via Cahaba
River-Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
Patton Creek Pretreatment
Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
Upper Cahaba-Spray
Irrigation-Cahaba
Leeds Spray Irrigation-
Trussville-Cahaba
No
Augmentation
27
35
47
47
45
32
30
43
42
35
38
Big Black
Creek
Reservoir
20
30
41
41
39
27
25
37
36
29
33
Lake Purdy
Expansion
25
33
44
44
43
31
28
40
39
32
35
Black
Creek
Reservoir
21
31
42
42
40
28
26
38
37
30
34
Big Black Creek
Reservoir-Lake
Purdy Intake
18
28
39
39
37
25
23
35
34
27
31
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
The augmentation schemes also score lower because of the potential
institutional and management problems posed by constructing a Big Black
Creek Reservoir, a Big Black Creek Basin Reservoir, or a Big Black Creek
Reservoir along with a Lake Purdy intake for water supply. The Lake Purdy
expansion represents a smaller institutional problem since the basic faci-
lity already exists. However, all of the augmentation schemes will likely
be seen by the public as potential factors for increasing water and sewer
user rates.
The final factor in implementability is that of planning flexibility.
Planning flexibility is a measure of which alternative will provide the
greatest latitude for future planning decisions. The alternatives with
more facilities and therefore more options provide the greatest planning
flexibility. For instance, the multiple facility alternatives such as
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba or Leeds Spray Irrigation-Trussville-Cahaba would
score higher than a single facility alternative such as the Cahaba plant.
Once a treatment plant is taken off-line, it diminishes the future planning
dimensions available for wastewater facilities planning.
The augmentation schemes add a new dimension to all of the alternatives
and therefore increase the planning flexibility of each alternative. Flow
augmentation provides an important new addition to any wastewater facilities
planning effort.
11. COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
In the preceding sections, the alternative wastewater facilities and
management systems were evaluated on the basis of various considerations.
The advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives were identified
through the analyses of costs, operability, environmental impacts, and imple-
mentability. The selection of the best or most cost-effective alternative
requires that all of these factors be weighed together.
Methodology
The analysis of relative cost-effectiveness of the alternatives
under consideration was performed utilizing a numerical rating system which
combined the effects of the individual analyses into a single value. The
analysis procedure represented ratings for each evaluation category (e.g.
implementability) on a positive scale, while maintaining the relationships
among alternatives expressed in the comparative evaluations described pre-
viously. The total point rating possible for each alternative was selected
as 1000 points, with the maximum possible within each evaluation category
distributed as follows:
Evaluation Category
Maximum Point Rating
Environmental Impacts
Costs
Operability
Implementability
Total
350
350
150
150
1000
111-59
-------
Results
The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in Table
111-23. The cost-effectiveness ratings ranged from 433 points to 696 points.
The alternative receiving the highest rating was the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba
wastewater management plan with treatment level II at the Cahaba plant and
no streamflow augmentation. Receiving almost the same rating, with 695
points, was the modification of this alternative involving discharge of
the Leeds effluent to the Cahaba River rather than the present discharge
point in the Little Cahaba River. These alternatives are rated significantly
higher than other alternatives evaluated and can be considered the most
cost-effective solutions to wastewater disposal problems in the Cahaba River
Basin.
Summary Description of the Leeds-Cahaba-Trussville Configuration
The Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative involves retaining use of
three of the four existing County treatment facilities in the Cahaba
River Basin. The Leeds plant would be upgraded and expanded to 1.5
mgd capacity to serve the needs of the Leeds area. The Trussville plant
would be expanded to 1.25 mgd to serve the area surrounding Trussville.
The Patton Creek plant would be abandoned and flow to this plant would
be pumped to the Cahaba plant for treatment. At the Cahaba plant, an
upgrading and expansion program would take place in two phases. Initially
the plant would be expanded to 12 mgd, and in 1989 it would be further
expanded to 16 mgd. Service by the Cahaba plant would be extended up the
Cahaba River, with the Cahaba River interceptor constructed to Overton in
1989.
Treatment levels would be upgraded as required to protect water quality.
The new Leeds plant would include nitrification and phosphorous removal
facilities for continued discharge into the Little Cahaba River. At Trussvi]_^e
the present level of nitrification should be sufficient for discharge to
the Cahaba River. The Cahaba plant would be upgraded to include nitrifica-
tion and filtration in order to maintain water quality in the Cahaba River
with no streamflow augmentation.
Further study under an amended Step I, 201 Facilities Plan for
potential land application sites in the upper Cahaba River Basin will
be required for final decision.
II1-60
-------
Creek ]
ite Wat'
itment '
456
483
497
517
496
467
433
486
484
478
484
TABLE 111-23
CAHABA RIVER BASIN EIS
COST EFFECTIVENESS RATING OF ALTERNATIVES
Wastewater Treatment
and Conveyance
ConfIguratIon
No Augmentation
Treatment Level 3
WATER
No Augmentation
Treatment Level 2
QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Big Black Creek Lake Purdy
Reservoir
Treatment Level 2
Expansion
Treatment Level 2
SYSTEMS
Black Creek
Reservoir
Treatment Level 1
1. Overton-Cahaba
2. Upper Cahaba-Cahaba
3. Leeds via Little Cahaba
River-Trussville—Cahaba
4. Leeds via Cahaba River-
Trussville-Cahaba
5. Trussville-Cahaba
6. Cahaba
7. Patton Creek via Patton
Creek-Upper Cahaba-
Cahaba
8. Patton Creek via Cahaba
River-Upper Cahaba-
Canaba
9. Upper Cahaba-Cahaba vith
Patton Creek Pretreatment
10. Upper Cahaba-Spray Irriga-
tion-Cahaba
11. Leeds Spray Irrigation-
Trussville-Cahaba
567
596
633
631
608
559
552
606
599
566
599
620
653
696
695
665
612
589
649
656
623
659
572
602
638.
634
616
571;
557
602
604
573
601
587
613
651
643
628
592
567
613
614
583
611
580
611
645
640
623.
583
561
606
611
579
608
-------
PART C. EVALUATION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
1. INTRODUCTION
The no-action alternative represents the option to provide no further federal
funding toward the construction of expanded sewage treatment capacity in the
Cahaba Basin. In concept, this alternative does not restrict state, local or
private investment in wastewater management. However, without the support of
federal funds, the amount and the nature of additional treatment capacity in the
Basin in the future would be significantly different than under any of the
structural alternatives discussed above.
The no-action alternative is the baseline for evaluation of the expected
environmental impacts of the various structural alternatives, since it represents
essentially how existing conditions would be altered in the future by local
development pressures even in the absence of federal investment. In this regard
it is important to note that analysis of the no-action alternative shows conti-
nued growth in the basin, even if publicly owned and funded sewage treatment
facilities are not constructed. This growth would be in response to previously
committed investments and continuing pressures for new residential construction
that can be accomodated in large part either by individual on-lot treatment
systems (e.g., septic tanks) or by privately owned package plants. Thus, "no
action" does not imply "no growth" in the basin. The major differences between
the no-action alternative and any of the structural alternatives will be in:
the rate of growth; the pattern of growth; the viability of some of the private
real estate developments in the basin; and the total and individual cost of
wastewater management. In connection with the differences in rate and pattern
of land development, there will also be differences in imgact on the natural
environment.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The missing component in this alternative is federal capital funding for
wastewater management. Considering the magnitude of the capital cost of structural
wastewater management systems for the basin, it is highly unlikely that any
such system could be constructed if 100% of the cost had to be borne by state
and local governments (as contrasted with the 25% state-local share that is
required under Section 201 of P.L. 92-500). However, it is reasonable to expect
that other approaches to sewage treatment would tend to emerge in support of
development pressures. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that
the following would occur under the no-action situation:
a. On-lot disposal systems will be used wherever soils and topography permit
With septic tanks, population densities must generally be restricted to lower
levels than with sewers. For this analysis, it is assumed that densities will
be two dwelling units per acre on soils that are generally suitable for septic
tanks and one dwelling unit per acre on soils with limited suitability. No
septic tanks (and hence no development) are assumed on slopes exceeding 25%
or in flood-prone areas.
b. Package treatment systems will be constructed to serve new development
wherever feasible in terms of the size, density, and ownership of the development
Existing package plants will continue in use throughout the planning period.
These private facilities are assumed to provide treatment necessary to meet water
quality standards and to discharge directly to the Cahaba or Little Cahaba River.
111-62
-------
Developers in the CahVaba Basin will be faced with a choice between
using septic tanks with lower overall development density and constructing
a package plant that will be more costly but will allow more dwelling units
to be constructed in the same tract. It is assumed that package plants will
be preferred wherever they are viable, based on the criteria of cost, loca-
tion, and development size.
c. Renovations will be made as necessary to bring the existing public
treatment facilities in the basin into compliance with the terms of current
NPDES permits. These renovations would be paid for with local public funds
and would not result in any additional treatment capacity in any of the
basin's facilities. No inflow/infiltration correction is assumed in this
alternative. Also, since the Patton Creek, Leeds and Trussville plants
are presently operating at the limits of their capacity, there could be no
additional service provided beyond the present connections to these plants.
3. NO-ACTION POPULATION AND LAND-USE
Under the no-action alternative, population levels and land use patterns
will differ from those expected under the proposed action alternative.
However the difference in total population are not significant since develop-
ment pressure will continue in the Cahaba Basin throughout the planning
period.
The unconstrained population projections indicate a year 2000 population
of 138,209, a 49 percent increase in the basin population. The no-action
population projection indicates a year 2000 population of 135,430, an increase
of 46 percent in the basin population. The near equality of these projections
indicates that even under a no-action posture there will continue to be
development pressures in the Cahaba Basin.
The three ingredients of population growth under a no-action alternative
would be infill population, development population, and scatter population.
Infill population would be that development that would occur in previously
developed portions of the study area such as the Mountain Brook-Hoover-Vestavia
area, Trussville, and Leeds. Infill developments are generally associated
with individual construction activities in neighborhoods which are already
substantially developed but have not yet been "built out". Many established
residential neighborhoods often have a small number of available building
lots usually totalling between 10 and 20 percent of the maximum number of
lots. Another area where infill development is likely to take place occurs
between two or more large scale suburban developments. Such development
is represented by the conversion of farms or empty areas. This process results
in a filling in of the remaining residential lots by builders or owners who
in turn are capitalizing on the development of the infrastructure of a grow-
ing community.
111-63
-------
The second component of population growth under the no-action alternative
is development population. Development population would include new
development tracts in the basin. These are large tracts of land in terms of
both total acreage and projected population. These developments would
probably be supported by package plants. For this reason the only develop-
ments considered were those of a specific size and distance from the Cahaba
or Little Cahaba Rivers that would support annual sewer user charges of less
than $300 per household. Tracts not meeting this criteria were not considered
as viable developments and therefore were not considered.
Another component of no-action alternative population is scatter
development. Scatter development refers to the construction activity which
takes place throughout a rural area and which is neither influenced by large
scale development or infill. This type of development is difficult to
predict since the factors influencing it are unrelated to rational or even
political, social, or economic factors. In addition most scatter population
will utilize on-lot systems. Therefore they will occur on large lots and in
those areas suitable for on-lot systems.
Utilizing these three components, population projections for the Cahaba
River Basin study area under a no-action alternative have been developed. In
addition these projections have also been dissagregated to subwatersheds.
Table 111-24 provides population projection by subwatershed for both the
proposed action and no-action alternatives.
4. COST EVALUATION
An evaluation of costs of wastewater facilities that can be expected
to result from a no-action decision is required. In preparation of the no-
action cost analysis, more wastewater management facilities must be identified
and priced than with the comparison of the structural wastewater management
systems discussed previously. The following components comprise all of the
cost elements that must be considered:
1. Jefferson County Sanitation Department wastewater conveyance and
treatment facilities - Under the no-action alternative, this analysis
assumes that no new facilities would be constructed without federal grant
participation; however, the cost of operation and maintenance would, of
course, continue.
2. Existing package and other private treatment plants - The continued
operation and maintenance of these facilities will be necessitated by the
no-action alternative.
3. New package treatment plants - The construction and operation and
maintenance of several new package plants to serve newly developing areas
is envisioned with the no-action alternative, as discussed previously.
4. Collection systems- Under the no-action alternative, it is likely
that by the early 1980's all of the treatment plants will be operating at
111-64
-------
TABLE III- 24
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BY SUBWATERSHEDS 1
CAHABA RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
Subwatershed
A
BN
BC
Bs
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
1975
653
2,401
3,765
5,130
2,149
1,907
791
512
753
2,955
2,124
519
315
7,637
484
1,315
449
12
1,613
0
2000 Population
Under Proposed
Action
1.061
3.062
4,340
13,557
3,079
1,990
886
1,579
1,009
3,607
2,660
575
485
9,134
1,037
1,937
1,002
20
2,005
0
No-Action
2000
800
4,160
5,350
15,480
2,720
2,690
1,040
940
8,490
4,560
2,520
530
340
10,300
500
1,360
460
60
1,700
0
III- 65
-------
TABLE III- 24 (Cont'd.)
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BY SUBWATERSHEDS
CAHABA RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
2000 Population
Under Proposed
Subwatershed 1975 Action
S 5 11
T 5,896 6,584
U 0 0
V 0 535
W 16,506 20,847
X 2,474 2,908
Y 0 0
Z 0 0
AA 374 436
BB 0 54
CC 236 1,983
DD 27,606 33,256
EE 1,193 3,462
FF 121 3,361
GG 2,008 8,164
HH 517 1,038
II 302 2,345
JJ 12 200
Total 92,734 138,209
(1) See Figure III-12 for location of subwatersheds.
No-Action
2000
20
6,110
370
0
17,570
2,490
0
340
390
30
260
31,180
1,210
2,720
5,150
550
3,020
20
135,430
III- 66
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
permitted capacity, and therefore no further extensions of existing collection
systems will be constructed. However, collection systems could be constructed
in new developments served by package treatment plants.
5. Septic and other on-lot disposal systems - Maintenance costs will
be associated with existing septic systems remaining in use. Construction
costs as well as maintenance costs will be associated with newly installed
systems.
Of concern in this cost evaluation is the cost comparison of the no-
action alternative with the most cost-effective structural management
alternative identified earlier, the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-
Cahaba alternative. This comparative cost analysis illustrates the differences
in costs between the two alternatives; consequently, cost components which
are common to both the no-action and "action" alternatives need not be
considered. Table 111-25 lists the cost components of the two alternatives
that were analyzed.
Construction, project, and operation and maintenance costs were
developed for the components of interest. The cost analysis methods Included
determination of comparative present worths and local annual costs for the
two alternatives. A summary of the completed cost comparison is presented in
Table 111-26.
The comparison of the total present worths shows that the action
alternative has a greater cost, $44,697,000, versus $35,065,000 for the no-
action alternative. This result is understandable because the implementation
of a wastewater facilities construction program to effectively serve the
wastewater disposal needs over the planning period demands a significant
capital outlay. However, the no-action alternative, because of the prolifera-
tion of small plants, has a present worth only 22 percent lower than the
action alternative.
The local annual cost comparison is similar. In this case, the no-
action alternative has a local annual cost of $3,634,000, which is 25 percent
less than the $4,854,000 local annual cost of the action alternative.
It must be recognized that an evaluation of many diverse cost elements
cannot be as accurate as the previous evaluation of wastewater management
systems. However, based upon the evaluation performed it can be concluded
that, although the no-action alternative would involve a lower cost in waste-
water facilities than the action alternative, this cost advantage may not
be great enough to outweigh other considerations favoring implementation of
a planned wastewater management program in the Cahaba River Basin.
5. OPERABILITY EVALUATION
The no-action alternative presents particular problems in terms of
operability of the wastewater management facilities that would be expected.
This is because a greater reliance would be placed on private operation of a
111-67
-------
TABLE III- 25
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS
COMPARATIVE COST COMPONENTS OF ACTION VERSUS NO ACTION
Action Alternative (1)
County Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment Facilities
a. Construction of new project
b. Operation and maintenance
Collection Systems
a. Construction in newly serviced areas
b. Construction of extensions throughout
planning period
c. Operation and maintenance
Septic Systems
a. Construction for growth in unsewered
areas
b. Maintenance of new systems
c. Maintenance of existing systems in
areas not to be served by
County facilities
No Action Alternative
1. County Wastewater Conveyance and
Treatment Facilities
a. Operation and maintenance
2. New Package Wastewater Treatment Plants
a. Construction
b. Operation and maintenance
3. Collection Systems for New Package Plants
a. Construction
b. Operation and maintenance
4. Septic Systems
a. Construction for all growth
except that served by new
package plants
b. Maintenance of new systems
c. Maintenance of existing systems
Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba (Treatment Level 2)
-------
TABLE III-26
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE COSTS FOR ACTION VERSUS NO ACTION
Action Alternative (1)
Cost Component
Project 1985 Operation Project Local Annual
Cost (2) and Maintenance Cost Worth (3) Cost (4)
County Wastewater Conveyance
and Treatment Facilities $22,059,000
Mew Private Package
Treatment Plants
Collection Systems
Septic Systems
Total
32,506,000
775,000
$801,000
0
12,000
468,000
$25,411,000 $1,418,000
14,386,000
4.900,000
2,925,000
511,000
$44,697,000 $4,854,000
No Action Alternative
Project 1985 Operation Project Local Annual
Cost (2) and Maintenance Cost Worth (3) Cost (4)
$ 6,576,000
17,104,000
2,885,000
$613,000
243,000
0
507,000
$6,451,000 $613,000
8,610,000 830,000
13,500,000 1,525,000
6,504,000
667,000
$35,065,000 $3,634,000
(1) Leeds via Little Cahaba Rlver-Trussvllle-Cahaba (Treatment Level 2)
(2) Includes construction costs, land, and, If applicable, allowance for legal, engineering, financial, and admlnstratlve costs.
All costs at 1977 price levels. Costs Include all phases of construction during planning period.
(3) 1982 present worths based on 18-year planning period ending In the year 2000; 6 3/8 percent interest; and 1977 price levels.
(4) Local annual costs based on amortizing net local project costs of major construction projects over 25-years at 6 3/8 percent
interest with 10 percent coverage; 1985 operation and maintenance costs; and 1977 price levels.
-------
variety of facilities including not only package treatment plants but also
septic systems. It has historically been the case that private facilities
operations generally are not as well operated and maintained as public
facilities. This is due perhaps in part to the economic pressures facing
private enterprise, especially with regard to such auxilliary facilities
to the main interest of the enterprise. This evaluation must therefore not
only reflect the operability of the physical facilities but also the
institutional arrangements affecting the operation. Reliability, flexibility,
and maintainability are discussed in comparative terms for both the no-action
and action alternatives.
Reliability
The type of facilities envisioned under the no-action alternative are
generally reliable due to their simplicity; however, monitoring by operating
staff in small private plants is often infrequent. Rarely are such plants
manned full-time. Also, the increased use of septic systems in an area
limited in good soils could result in increased incidence of septic system
problems, which often are not reported until a health hazard develops. The
action alternative with the majority of the population served by well-operated
County facilities offers advantages over the no-action alternative both
in terms of plant operational reliability and less reliance on septic systems.
Flexibility
As with reliability, the flexibility consideration is a function of
both physical facilities and operator actions. Because multiple plant
systems are generally more flexible than single, regional plant systems,
the no-action alternative appears to offer this advantage. However, this
may be outweighed by the inability of operators to implement their plants'
flexibility both due to lack of training and lack of operational funds. it
is felt that overall, the no-action alternative offers no significant
flexibility advantage over the Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba action alternative.
Maintainability
Although package treatment plants are relatively simple in operation
and in mechanical maintenance requirements, their expected useful life is
less than larger plants resulting in increased maintenance problems at an
earlier date. Skilled maintenance staff can be retained by the Jefferson
County Sanitation Department more readily than by a small private operation.
These factors clearly favor the action alternative over no-action.
6. IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION
In reviewing the potential implementability of the no-action alternative,
the evaluation factors of public acceptability, institutional considerations,
and planning flexibility are all considered.
Under the no-action alternative the use of package plants and on-lot
systems have an implementability based upon private decisions and private
financing. Public acceptability is not a major factor because of the private
investment. However public influence could be a factor because of the per-
mitting functions administered by federal, state, and local government on both
111-70
-------
package plants and on-lot systems. Public acceptability will also influence
the potential marketability of development. However this would involve many
factors other than sewage facilities.
Institutional considerations are also minimized under the no—action
alternative. Since there would only be minor improvements to the treat-
ment plants and extensions of the collection system, the role of Jefferson
County as owner and operator of sewage facilities would remain essentially
the same as it is now. The ownership and operation of package plants and
on-lot systems would be the responsibility of private owners but would be
subject to governmental permitting and inspection regulations. Therefore
institutional considerations are not a major factor in implementability other
than the permitting function.
Planning flexibility would continue because of the proliferation of on-
lot and package systems. Those types of systems would be available for
eventual connection to a municipal system if there were federal funds avail-
able.
111-71
-------
CHAPTER IV
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED HI
-------
CHAPTER IV
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
1. INTRODUCTION
As part of the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in Chapter III,
consideration was extended to the monetary costs, operability, environmental
impacts, and implementability of each alternative action for the Cahaba
Basin. After the systematic evaluation and comparison of all alternatives,
including the no-action alternative, the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-
Trussville-Cahaba configuration was selected as the most cost-effective
resolution to the wastewater demands of the project area; further consid-
eration will be extended to land application in the Upper Cahaba Basin
as part of a follow-up study.
The Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba configuration
involves the phasing out of the Patton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
and the construction of conveyance facilities to divert this flow to the
Cahaba plant. The Cahaba plant would be upgraded to an advanced level of
treatment to meet water quality standards and would also be expanded from
the current design capacity of four million gallons per day (mgd) to an
initial phase capacity of twelve mgd. The existing Leeds and Trussville
plants would also remain in operation with expanded capacity provided to
meet future needs. The bases for the selection of the Leeds via Little
Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba configuration are:
(1) Water quality standards in the Cahaba River and major tributaries
above the lowhead dam will be met for the 20-year planning period.
(2) The wastewater discharge from the Patton Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which is currently adversely impacting water quality in
Patton Creek and Paradise Lake, will be removed.
(3) Least adverse primary environmental impacts are associated with
this configuration because maximum use of existing treatment and
conveyance facilities minimizes the need for construction of new
facilities and interceptors.
(A) Least adverse secondary environmental impacts are associated with
this configuration because the construction of new interceptors
through currently undeveloped and unpopulated areas will be mini-
mized and sewer service will be provided to existing population
centers with a minimum degree of encouragement of high density
development in currently unpopulated sensitive areas, particularly
above the Birmingham Water Works raw water intake on the Cahaba
River.
IV-1
-------
(5) Least total project cost is associated with this configuration
because it maximizes use of existing facilities and minimizes
construction of new facilities and interceptors.
(6) Maximum flexibility is provided with this configuration which
does not preclude future consideration of project phasing of
interceptor extensions or alignments, spray irrigation in the
Upper Cahaba Basin, flow augmentation, consolidation or region-
alization of facilities, or additional levels of treatment as
needs are identified.
2. POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
Based upon larger scale projections of the Birmingham Regional Planning
Commission, future populations for the study area have been forecasted in
five-year intervals for the period 1975 through 2000. These population
forecasts have been used in estimating future wastewater flows which will
be generated in the study area.
Future residential and commercial wastewater flows have been estimated
for the Leeds via Little Cahaba-Trussville-Cahaba alternative, utilizing
data on present per capita water consumption rates. Potential sewered areas
were determined with consideration given to factors such as existing and
future population densities, the location of existing package treatment
plants, the location of potential and proposed residential development, soil
suitabilities for on-lot disposal, and areas of environmental sensitivity.
In developing the total wastewater flow forecasts, allowance was given to
the unremovable infiltration/inflow quantities present in existing systems
as well as to existing industrial wastewater flows.
Table IV-1 presents the population forecasts for the study area, to-
gether with estimates of population sewered and total wastewater flows for
the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative.
3. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL FACILITIES
The proposed action does not require the construction of any new waste-
water treatment plants. Instead, the existing Leeds, Trussville, and Cahaba
plants will be expanded to provide capacity to meet projected needs and win
be upgraded to provide for the maintenance of water quality standards. The
existing Patton Creek plant will be taken out of operation and its wastewater
flows diverted to the Cahaba plant for treatment. Figure IV-1 shows the
location of these existing treatment facilities.
IV-2
-------
TABLE IV-1
CAHABA RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
FOR
LEEDS VIA LITTLE CAHABA RIVER-TRUS SVILLE-CAHABA
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
m Total Population 105,473 114,935 123,046 130,161 138,209
f
w Sewered Population 41,097 66,876 81,758 95,378 106,830
Total Wastewater Flow, 9.73 12.69 14.41 15.96 17.29
In million gallons per day
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Capacity
Based upon wastewater flow projections for the Leeds via Little Cahaba
River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative, future capacity requirements have been
determined for treatment facilities. In determining future capacities, it
has been assumed that an aggressive infiltration/inflow abatement program
will be pursued, with the removal of all excessive infiltration/inflow
occurlng before 1980.
The use of phased expansion has been investigated for the Leeds,
Trussville, and Cahaba plants. After consideration of construction leadtlmes
and wastewater flow projections, it appears that phased expansion of the
Cahaba can be utilized to meet projected conditions. Initial plant expansion
would be from 4 to 12 mgd. Based upon present estimates, an additional
Increment of 4 mgd would be needed by 1990.
Table IV-2 presents existing and recommended capacities for each, of the
treatment plants associated with the proposed alternative. It is not intended
that expansion of the Leeds and Trussville plants, prior to 1985, be precluded
should prevailing conditions make this desirable.
Effluent Requirements
As described earlier in Chapter III, Investigations were conducted into
the levels of treatment required for proposed discharges tinder each wastewater
alternative for the Cahaba Basin, by use of EPA's QUAL II program. Modeling
efforts were directed toward simulating water quality under a range of flow
regimes in the Cahaba River as affected by the proposed discharges under each
alternative. This evaluation provided information regarding the effects of
various flow augmentation schemes on required levels of treatment.
Table IV-3 displays the effluent requirements which are heeded to meet
water quality standards for each of the proposed discharges under the Leeds-
Truseville-Cahaba alternative.
Peecriptlon of Plants
Leeds. The existing Leeds plant is a 1.0-mgd trickling filter plant
located just north of Moore Creek and east of the Little Cahaba River, near
their junction. Expansion and upgrading of the plant was completed during
1976 to provide for Improved treatment efficiency including phosphorus and
ammonia-nitrogen removal. Treated effluent is discharged into the Little
Cahaba River upstream of Lake Purdy.
IV<-4
-------
TABLE IV-2
CAHABA RIVER BASIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RECOMMENDED TREATMENT CAPACITIES
IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAI
FOR
LEEDS VIA LITTLE CAHABA RIVER-TRDSSVILLE-CAHABA
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
•1980
1983
1985
1990
1995
2000
Leeds
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Trussville
1.0 (1)
1.0 (1)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Cahaba
4.0 (1)
12.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
Patton Creek (2)
3.0 (1)
_
—
—
—
—
(1) Denotes existing capacity.
(2) Patton Creek plant to be taken off-line and flows
diverted to the Cahaba plant by 1983.
-------
TABLE IV-3
TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
Treatment BODc NH3-N D.O.
Plant (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Leeds^-'^ 20 2 6
Trussville3 20 2 6
Cahaba^ 8 0.5 7
7 1 7
^Treatment Includes phosphorus removal.
2®oth sets of effluent requirements have been determined from EPA Water
quality modeling and are judged to be equivalent.
^Effluent requirements are based on preliminary modeling efforts.
iv-fi
-------
Major treatment units at the plant are summarized below:
Bar screen and comminutor
Rapid mix and flocculation basin for alum addition
Primary clarifier
Trickling filter
Rapid mix and flocculation basin for alum and polymer addition
Final clarifier
Chlorine contact tank
Aerobic digester
Gravity sludge thickener
Sludge drying beds
Continued operation of the Leeds plant will necessitate its expansion
in order to provide additional capacity to serve existing unsewered popu-
lation in the Leeds area, and to provide ultimate service to Moody. A total
capacity of 1.5 mgd has been determined to be sufficient to meet these needs,
in conjunction with the elimination of excessive infiltration/inflow through
ongoing programs. (A complete discussion of sewer service needs is presented
in detail in Chapter III, Part B under "Non-structural Wastewater Management
Alternatives" and "Projected Sewered Populations and Wastewater Flow".)
New plant units that will be needed for the proposed expansion of the
Leeds plant are listed below:
Additional primary clarifier
Activated sludge unit
Additional final clarifier
Post-aeration
Additional aerobic digester capacity
Additional sand drying beds
All existing plant units, which are now in operation, would remain as
part of the treatment scheme. The proposed two-stage biological system
(existing trickling filter followed by the new activated sludge unit) will
provide for a high degree of nitrification, along with enhanced BOD5 removal.
Phosphorus removal will continue to be provided through alum and polymer
addition.
Figure IV-2 depicts a schematic diagram of the proposed 1.5 mgd Leeds
plant.
TruB8ville Plant. The existing Trussville plant is located approximately
1,000 feet west of the Cahaba River near Alabama State Highway 11. The °riginaj
Trussville plant was built in 1936 as a trickling filter facility. In 1976, a
new 1.0-mgd oxidation ditch, new final clarifier, and new chlorination facilities
with post-aeration were put into operation. Treated effluent is discharged
directly to the Cahaba River, approximately 25 miles upstream of the existing
Birmingham Water Works raw water intake.
IV-7
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
COMMINUTOR
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
RECIRCULATION
ALUM
AEROBIC DIGESTER
\TRICKLING \
FILTER r
RETURN
SLUDGE
NITRIFICATION
BASIN
FINAL
CLARIFIERS
OVERFLOW
GRAVITY
THICKENER
WASTE
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
FLOW MEASUREMENT
CHLORINE
CHLORINE
CONTACT BASIN
TO LITTLE CAHABA RIVER
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE
LEEDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE ET-2
^EGEND
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
~ existing DRAFT EIS
[Mi- MEMMCD FOR
CSSS PROPOSED REGION ur U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Major plant treatment units are listed below:
Old Plant
New Plant
Anaerobic digester
Sludge drying beds
Primary clarifier
Trickling filter
Barminutor
Final clarifier
Coraminutor and bar screen
Oxidation ditch
Final clarifier
Chlorine contact tank
Post-aeration
The continued operation of the Trussville plant will require an
expansion to 1.25 mgd in order to provide additional needed capacity,
assuming that excessive infiltration/inflow in the Trussville system
will be eliminated.
Future service would be extended to existing unsewered areas in the
immediate Trussville vicinity, to the Little Cahaba Creek watershed, and
to Roebuck Plaza. These extensions of service will enable the abandonment
of several existing package treatment plants in the immediate area. It is
anticipated, however, that the existing Gold-Kist treatment facility will
remain on-line. (A complete discussion of sewer service needs is presented
in detail in Chapter III, Part B under "Non-structural Wastewater Management
Alternatives" and "Projected Sewered Populations and Wastewater Flow".)
In order to expand the capacity of the Trussville plant from 1.0 mgd
to 1.25 mgd, the following actions should be taken:
Increase the capacity of the existing oxidation ditch to 1.25
mgd with sufficient aeration to provide for nitrification
Construct additional final clarifier
Expand the existing chlorination facilities
The long detention time provided by the oxidation ditch system will
allow the activated sludge to proceed well into the endogenous respiration
growth phase. Consequently, excess sludge production will be minimal, and
any sludge which is wasted will be well stabilized. The existing sludge
drying beds at the Trussville plant should prove sufficient to handle any
excess sludge which is wasted from the system.
Existing trickling filter facilities at the Trussville site will not
remain as an integral part of the treatment system.
Figure IV-3 presents a schematic diagram of the proposed Trussville
plant.
IV-8
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE
TRUSSVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
legend
3 EXISTING
^ PROPOSED
FIGURE E7-3
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
REGION UT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Cahaba Plant. The existing Cahaba plant is a 4-mgd activated sludge
facility located on the north shore of the Cahaba River approximately 2
miles upstream from Highway 31. The plant, which went into operation in
March 1972, is the newest of the county plants in the basin and has ample
room to accommodate future expansion needs. Treated effluent from the plant
is discharged directly to the Cahaba River. Upstream withdrawals of water
by the Birmingham Water Works Board greatly limits the assimilative capacity
of the river at the existing Cahaba plant discharge point.
Existing treatment units at the plant are listed below:
Bar screen and comminutor at upstream pumping station
Aerated grit chamber
Activated sludge units (4)
Final clarifiers (2)
Chlorine contact tank
Aerobic digesters (2)
Gravity sludge thickener
Sludge drying beds
Emergency sludge storage lagoon
As indicated previously in Chapter III, the future capacity needs of the
Cahaba plant can best be accommodated by expansion in two phases which will
allow the extension of sewer service to area needs in an orderly fashion.
This phasing concept will also facilitate the adaptation of wastewater system
development to any unforeseen future conditions which may differ from present
projections.
The first-phase expansion of the Cahaba plant would increase available
treatment capacity from 4 to 12 mgd. This expansion should be implemented
as quickly as possible to allow the abandonment of the Patton Creek plant,
and to allow the provision of service to the Cahaba Heights, Riverchase,
Altadena, and Inverness areas. The extension of service to Altadena and
Inverness will permit the abandonment of existing package plants which are
now serving these developments.
The second-phase expansion of the Cahaba plant would increase capacity
from 12 to 16 mgd, and would be completed by 1990. Concurrent with this phase
of expansion, interceptors would be extended up the Cahaba River to provide
service to the Mountain Brook and Overton areas. (A complete discussion of
sewer service needs is presented in detail in Chapter III, Part B under
"Non-structural Wastewater Management Alternatives" and "Projected Sewered
Populations and Wastewater Flow".)
As shown previously in Table IV-3, a high degree of treatment will be
required at the Cahaba plant, in order to maintain water quality standards
in the Cahaba River. This increased level of treatment will be required at
the Cahaba plant due to the negligible 7-day, 10-year low flow of the river
at the plant's point of discharge.
IV-9
-------
To the maximum extent possible, utilization will be made of existing
units at the Cahaba plant as part of overall expansion and upgrading needs.
New plant units that will be needed are summarized below, according to the
1982 and 1989 construction programs.
1982 Construction 1989 Construction
Modify upstream pumping
station to handle 16 mgd
Construct new plant headvorks
to handle average daily flow of 16 mgd
Add 3 new primary clarifiers at 4 mgd
each
Add intermediate pumping
facilities to handle 16 mgd
Add roughing filters to
handle 12 mgd
Convert existing aerobic digesters
to activated sludge units at 2 mgd
each
Add additional primary
clarifier at 4 mgd
Add additional roughing
filter for 4 mgd
Provide new activated sludge
units for additional 6 mgd
Provide 3 new final clarifiers
at 3 mgd each
Provide media filters to
handle flow of 12 mgd
Increase chlorination capacity
to 12 mgd
Add additional contact tanks
Provide additional activated
sludge units for 4 mgd
Provide additional final
clarifier at 3 mgd
Provide media filters to handle
additional flow of 4 mgd
Add additional chlorination
capacity of 4 mgd. Provide
additional contact tank
Provide post-aeration for 12 mgd Provide post-aeration for
additional 4 mgd
Provide gravity thickeners to
handle primary sludge from
ultimate 16 mgd plant
IV-10
-------
1982 Construction (cont'd.) 1989 Construction (cont'd.)
Provide flotation thickeners to
handle; waste activated sludge for
ultimate 16 mgd plant
Provide, sufficient anaerobic
digestion rapacity for ultimate
16 mgd plant
Prov id-- it f i i.i'nt vacuum filter
capac.il. v i n: u J t. imate 16 mgd
Figues IV-4 depicts a schematic diagram of the proposed Phase I and
Phaje II programs at the Cahaba plant.
Putton Greet . The existing Patton Creek plant is a trickling filter
plant, with a d-sign capacity of 3 mgd. Average daily flows to the plant
currently exceed 4 mgd. The Patton Creek plant will be abandoned and its
wastew. :.er flows pimped to the Cahaba plant for treatment. The abandonment
of the Patton Crtv plant will enhance water quality in Patton Creek and
Par.xj :.' c L: .e.
>_liid^ ' Manaj.- merit
At present, the ultimate disposal of dewatered sludge from the existing
plants within the Cahaba Basin is not a particular problem. Dewatered sludge
is offered to the public at a nominal price, made available to the County
Par s and Recreation Department and School Board, or disposed of on treatment
plai.L grounds. At the Cahaba plant, these means of disposal are supplemented
by a £0-acr" sludge lagoon, to which digested sludge can be pumped. Thus far,
these methods of sludge disposal have been adequate. As a result, there has
be a no need for the County to engage in a large scale effort of transporting
de- ateied sludge to off-site areas for ultimate disposal. It may become
necessary in the future to haul processed sludge to sanitary landfills or
other land disposal sites. A review of landfill sites in Jefferson County
points to the Eastern Area landfill as the most accessible,adequately-sized
site for t:h disposal of sludge from the Cahaba wastewater treatment plant.
The proposed expansions to the Cahaba plant will be accompanied by the
gene atim f increased sludge volumes; the addition of alum at the Leeds
plant lor puosphorus removal, because of the continued discharge to the Little
Cahaba River, will also generate increased amounts of sludge that must be
disposed of. In addition, other treatment plants which are owned and operated
by Jefferson County, outside of the Cahaba study area, have or will be expanded
and upgraded, thereby producing even greater amounts of sludge to handle.
In view of these factors, a comprehensive sludge disposal study should
be conducted by the County in order to investigate available alternatives for
the ultimate disposal of sludge. The beneficial reuse of sludge should be
considered as a primary goal.
IV-11
-------
TO
SLUDGE LAGOON
SAND
DRYING BEDS
GRAVITY SUPER-
THICKENERS NATANT
VACUUM FILTERS
FLOTATION
THICKENERS
CHLORINE
CONTACT BASINS
TO C .HAB^ RIV'R
BACKWASH
uJ
MULTIMEDIA I ILT'.'RS
SPENT
BACK^ASi
GRIT
REMOVAL
SCHEMATIC FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE
CAHABA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
LEGEND
_ FIGURE EZ-4
[ I EXISTING
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
PROPOSED(1982) DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
PROPOSED (1989) REGION W U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Various alternatives that should be considered in such a study are
listed below.
Landfilling of dewatered sludge
Composting
Land application in either a liquid or dewatered form
Reclamation of strip-mined areas
It is important that maximum piping flexibility be provided for the
proposed sludge handling facilities, especially at the Cahaba plant. This
vill insure compatibility with any likely disposal method that may be ulti-
i itely implemented.
A continuous sludge monitoring program should also be initiated by the
Cornty at each plant in order to collect data regarding sludge composition.
Su h data will be useful in evaluating the nutrient value of the sludge for
agricultural purposes, as well as supplying necessary information regarding
potential problems with heavy metals and pesticides. Additional aspects of
sludge management are discussed in Chapter VI as mitigative measures.
Facilities Operation
The efficient operation and maintenance of the existing and proposed
treatment facilities within the Cahaba Basin will be necessary to ensure
their proper performance within permit limits. A good operation and main-
tenance program can best be accomplished through a well-trained and certified
staff of sewage treatment plant operators.
In the State of Alabama, a State Board of Certification is responsible
for the examination and certification of wastewater treatment plant operators.
There are several sources of training available to the prospective certified
operator. Three-day training courses are conducted at both Auburn University
and the University of Alabama. These courses are taught by faculty members
of each university and are intended to prepare the trainees for the certifi-
cation examination. The Jefferson County Public Works Department also conducts
its own training sessions for its treatment plant employees who are preparing
to take the certification examination. These sessions are held at various
treatment plants throughout the county.
The state certification examination is given once a year. Based upon
experience and successful completion of the examination, the operator is
then certified as either a Grade I, II, III or IV operator. Each grade
carries with it the authorization to operate certain types of treatment
plants. A description of the types of plants which can be operated by
each of the four grades of operators is shown below.
IV-12
-------
Operator Grade
Plant Description
Size
I
Non-aerated lagoons
Primary treatment plants
All
II
Trickling filter
Activated sludge
1.0 MGD or less
0.5 MGD or less
III
Trickling filter
Activated sludge
1.0-10.0 MGD
0.5-5.0 MGD
IV
Trickling filter
Activated sludge
Above 10.0 MGD
Above 5.0 MGD
Source: Rules and Regulations for Certification of Water and Wastewater
Operators, State Health Officer, State of Alabama
Each of the existing sewage treatment plants at Trussville, Leeds, Patton
Creek, and Cahaba have certified operators. According to the Jefferson County
Public Works Department, the chief operator at each of these plants is certified
as a Grade IV operator. This level of certification would enable the supervision
of operations at any of the proposed facilities.
Additional discussion is presented in Chapter VI "Mitigative Measures..."
with respect to the importance of a sound operation and maintenance program.
County Interceptors
The routing of interceptors for the proposed alternative has been
established based upon an analysis of present and projected sewerage needs.
Figure IV-1 shows the routing of existing and proposed conveyance facilities
associated with the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alterna-
tive.
Of utmost priority is the abandonment of the existing Patton Creek
treatment plant and the conveyance of its flows to an expanded Cahaba plant
for treatment. Construction of the necessary conveyance facilities should
proceed simultaneously with the first-phase expansion of the Cahaba plant
from 4 mgd to 12 mgd. An additional element of the selected alternative is
the phased extension of the existing Cahaba River interceptor. In the first
phase, the interceptor would be extended from its present terminus to the
vicinity of the confluence of the Little Cahaba and Cahaba Rivers by 1983;
in the final phase, the interceptor would extend to the Overton vicinity
by 1990. Use of the phasing concept will facilitate adjustment of the final
phase extension should future needs vary from current projections.
IV-13
-------
In addition to the expansion of the Cahaba service area, the service
areas of the Leeds and Trussville plants will be extended to provide service
to Moody and Roebuck Plaza, respectively, through the construction of new
conveyance facilities. Construction of a pumping station and force main
system to serve the Little Cahaba Creek watershed is also a part of the
Trussville program.
In designating the routing of conveyance facilities proposed as part of
the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative, special
attention has been directed to minimize the number of stream crossings.
The location of stream crossings are depicted on Figure IV-1. Environmental
effects and mitigative measures that can be utilized are fully discussed in
Chapters V and VI.
Summary of Recommended Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Facilities
Table IV-4 presents a summary of the wastewater program proposed under
the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative. Required
treatment plant expansions, interceptors, pump stations, and force mains
are included in the table.
Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Plants
There are currently 14 privately owned and operated wastewater collection
and treatment systems located within the study area. These systems are all
currently operating and are permitted by the Alabama Water Improvement
Commission (AWIC). Most of these systems service subdivisions with the
remainder servicing either industry or institutions. Currently, there are
private systems for a residential subdivision, three schools, one industry,
and one country club.
AWIC has also received requests for three additional privately-owned
wastewater systems within the study area. These requests are currently
under consideration.
Implementation of the proposed action will allow the ultimate connection
of a number of these plants to central treatment facilities. Table IV-5
provides a summary of the privately owned wastewater systems located within
the study area, together with their future status.
Collection Systems
Construction of the proposed major conveyance facilities for the LeedB
via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative will make sewerage
service available to a number of existing communities that are now unsewered.
These communities include Cahaba Heights, Mountain Brook, Overton, Roebuck
Plaza, and Moody.
IV-14
-------
TABLE IV-4
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED
LEEDS VIA LITTLE CAHABA-TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Phase 1 Construction Element
(1982)
Cahaba treatment plant expansion
from 4 mgd to 12 mgd
Phase 2 Construction Element
(1984)
Trussville treatment plant expansion
to 1.25 mgd
Phase 3 Construction Element
(1989)
Cahaba treatment plant expansion
from 12 mgd to 16 mgd
Cahaba River interceptor
extension from present terminus
to vicinity of the junction
with the Little Cahaba River
consisting of 21,875 feet of
42-inch diameter sewer
Abandonment of Patton Creek
plant. Construction of Patton
Creek conveyance facilities to
Cahaba plant, consisting of
6,225 feet of 21 to 30-inch
diameter gravity sewer, 8.63
mgd pumping station, and
8,375 feet of 30-inch diameter
force main
Construction of Little Cahaba Creek
conveyance facilities to Trussville
plant, consisting of 0.38 mgd
pumping station, 4,150 feet of 8-
inch diameter force main, and
7,000 feet of 8 and 10-inch diameter
gravity sewer
Leeds treatment plant expansion to
1.5 mgd
Construction of the interceptor to
Moody.
Construction of the interceptor to
Roebuck Plaza.
Cahaba River interceptor
extension from vicinity of the
junction with the Little Cahaba
River to Overton, consisting
of 32,950 feet of 21 and 27-
inch diameter sewer
-------
TABLE IV-5
PRIVATELY OWNED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
o>
Owner
Subdivisions
Inverness
Altadena
Cahaba Heights Estates
Eastwood Mobile Homes
Plaza Mobile Homes
London Village
Mobile Homes
Vann Trailer Park
Chateau Orleans
Schools
Mt. Brook High School
Size
200,000 GPD (1)
90,000 GPD (1)
20,000 GPD
45,000 GPD
14,000 GPD
65,000 GPD
15,000 GPD
35,000 GPD
23,000 GPD
Location
Shelby County - Located on State
Rt. 17 southwest of U.S. 280.
Shelby County - Located adjacent
to Inverness.
Jefferson County - North of
Irondale.
Jefferson County - Northeast of
Irondale.
Jefferson County - Northeast of
Irondale.
Jefferson County - West of
Trussville.
Jefferson County - West of
Trussville.
Jefferson County - South of
Mt. Brook.
Jefferson County - City of
Mt. Brook.
Future Status
Off-line to expanded Cahaba
plant (Phase 1)
Off-line to expanded Cahaba
plant (Phase 1)
Continued Operation
Continued Operation
Off-line to expanded
Trussville plant
Off-line to expanded
Trussville plant
Off-line to expanded
Trussville plant
Off-line to expanded Cahaba
plant (Phase 2)
Off-line to expanded Cahaba
plant (Phase 2)
-------
TABLE IV-5 (continued)
PRIVATELY OWNED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
Owner
Size
Location
Future Status
Schools (continued)
Rocky Ridge Elementary
School
Gresham Junior High
School
Industry
Gold-Kist
Country Club
Pine Tree Country Club
Proposed Facilities
Riverchase
Unknown
Unknown
20,000 GPD
25,000 GPD
1,080,000 GPD
15,000 GPD
650,000 GPD
650,000 GPD
650,000 GPD
Jefferson County - Southeast of
Vestavia Hills.
Jefferson County - South of
Mountain Brook.
Jefferson County - East of
Trussville.
Jefferson County - East of
Irondale.
Shelby County - North of Pelham
and Helena.
Jefferson County - Northeast of
Irondale.
Jefferson County - U.S. 280
crossing of the Cahaba River
Off-line to expanded Cahaba
plant (Phase 1)
Off-line to expanded Cahaba
plant (Phase 1)
Continued Operation
Continued Operation
Can be accommodated by
expanded Cahaba plant (Phase 1)
No central sewers will be
available
Can be accommodated by
expanded Cahaba plant (Phase 1)
1) Currently has a request to expand with an ultimate goal of approximately 400,000 GPD
2) Currently has a request to construct 70 additional apartment units
Source: Alabama Water Improvement Commission, March, 1977
-------
Existing and projected populations and densities of these communities
have warranted the consideration of extending central sewer service to each.
In addition, soil characteristics in these areas make the continued reliance
upon on-lot systems a matter of concern in terms of a long-term satisfactory
solution for wastewater disposal.
Table IV-6 presents a summary of the estimated lengths and diameters
of collector sewers, as well as pumping facilities, required to provide
sewerage service to each of these areas. These estimates have been based
upon a preliminary investigation into the extent of existing development
in these areas from U.S.G.S. topographic maps and should, therefore, be
construed as a first-cut indication of total needs.
4. NON-STRUCTURAL ACTIONS
The application of various non-structural strategies within the study
area is a necessary adjunct to the construction of wastewater treatment
and conveyance facilities in order to provide for the attainment and main-
tenance of water quality standards. Major non-structural considerations
are presented in the following paragraphs.
Use of On-Lot Systems
For certain areas of the Cahaba Basin, the continued use of septic tank-
drainfield systems will remain as a long term solution to wastewater needs.
These areas are relatively isolated from more populous areas in the basin
and are not projected to substantially increase from their exising popula-
tion. The Jefferson Park area is perhaps the largest center of existing
population in the basin for which on-lot systems will continue to be utilized.
Water Use and Waste Reduction Measures
An important non-structural technique is the use of water conservation
and waste reduction techniques. Benefits can include the reduction of
operating costs for wastewater facilities, and the reduction of capacity
required for new facilities. Water use and waste reduction considerations
pertinent to the study area are capsuled below.
Recent action in Jefferson County has focused upon water conservation
and flow reduction measures. In May, 1977, the Jefferson County Commissioners
adopted an amendment to the County plumbing code which requires all county
builders to install water-saving plumbing fixtures in new buildings. At
present, no other municipalities have adopted similar amendments. However,
it is likely that other area municipalities will adopt plumbing code amend-
ments in the relatively near future.
The Birmingham Water Works Board currently has a limited educational
program that is aimed at water conservation practices. Continued emphasis
should be placed upon the importance of water conservation in the Cahaba
Basin. This, in conjunction with the installation of water-saving plumbing
fixtures, holds the greatest promise for effecting water conservation.
IV-18
-------
TABLE IV-6
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
COLLECTION SYSTEM SUMMARY
FOR
LEEDS VIA LITTLE CAHABA RIVER-TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
WASTEWATER PROGRAM
Potential Area
to be Sewered
Cahaba Heights
Mountain Brook
Overton
Roebuck Plaza
Moody
Collector Sewer
95,200 feet of 8-inch
78,000 feet of 8-inch
23,700 feet of 8-inch
30,800 feet of 8-inch
5,000 feet of 8-inch
Trunk Sewer
4,000 feet of 12-inch
3,400 feet of 12-inch
18,000 feet of 12-inch
23,400 feet of 12-inch
Pumping Stations
1
2
1
Force Main
2,600 feet of 4-inch
5,600 feet of 4-inch
4,600 feet of 8-inch
-------
The reduction of infiltration/inflow within existing sewerage systems
is more appropriately thought of as a structural control measure. However,
the removal of excessive infiltration/inflow from existing sewerage systems
is reiterated here to stress the importance that this will have in reducing
wastewater flows and required capacities. The successful continuance of
ongoing sewer rehabilitation programs in the study area has been assumed in
projecting future capacities for the Cahaba, Leeds, and Trussville Wastewater
Treatment Plants.
Control of Non-Point Sources of Pollution
As part of this study, an investigation has been made into the significance
and effect, of non-point sources of pollution within the Cahaba Basin. Sources
and magnitudes of non-point source pollution are detailed in Appendix II.
Although non-point source pollution does not affect the levels of wastewater
treatment required at the Cahaba, Leeds, and Trussville plants, its existence
in the basin brings attention to the need for its control. Several important
mechanisms available for the control of non-point source pollution in the
study area are briefly presented in the following paragraphs. A more detailed
discussion is presented in Chapter VX.
Land Use. The importance of comprehensive land use planning within the
Cahaba Basin cannot be overstated. Although zoning ordinances and subdivision
regulations are in effect throughout almost the entire study area, there has
virtually been no activity in the area of comprehensive land use planning.
Systematic application of zoning and subdivision regulations can best be
carried out in the framework of a comprehensive land use plan. Such a com-
prehensive plan would set forth community development goals and objectives,
a master land use plan, a transportation plan, community facilities plan,
and an evaluation of environmental considerations.
An added consideration within the Cahaba Basin is the absence of flood
plain controls and ordinances. The adoption of appropriate ordinances should
be considered by all municipalities within the study area as part of the
comprehensive planning process.
Erosion and Sedimentation. Future construction activities in the Cahaba
Basin are a potential source of erosion and sedimentation. However, at present
erosion and sedimentation control measures are not required of construction
activities in the study area, either by Alabama laws or local ordinances.
Without adequate control plans or their proper implementation, abatement of
erosion and sedimentation cannot be expected in the study area.
Stormwater Runoff. Urban runoff is a major contributor to non-point
sources of pollution. The first step in its control is the preparation of
a stormwater management plan. A comprehensive stormwater management plan
should include certain phases of activity such as: data collection and
analysis of surface runoff and pollution washoff; inventory of existing
facilities; review of existing administrative, financial, and legislative
data; preparation of a runoff simulation model; development of stormwater
control alternatives; and selection of an alternative based upon cost,
environmental impact, and runoff control efficiency. The stormwater manage-
ment plan should consider both structural and non-structural control techniques.
IV-20
-------
Interface with 208 Planning. Section 208 planning is currently in
progress in the Birmingham area, including that portion of the Cahaba Basin
under study here. A major component of the on-going 208 effort is an assess-
ment of non-point source water quality problems and an evaluation of various
institutional and management techniques to control non-point pollution.
Appropriate land use control and stormwater management strategies will
doubtless be identified for implementation as part of an overall program of
continuing water quality management planning in the area.
5. COST OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
Monetary costs for the basic Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-
Cahaba alternative have been previously presented as part of Chapter III.
These costs are broken out into further detail here as part of this chapter.
Costs of collection facilities, which were not included as part of the cost-
effective analysis, are also presented.
County Conveyance and Treatment Facilities. Table IV-7 presents the
construction costs for the proposed conveyance and treatment facilities
which comprise the recommended alternative. These construction costs are
specific to costs in the Birmingham area for 1977.
Estimated annual local costs for the 1982 and 1984 construction elements
of the Leeds via Little Cahaba River-Trussville-Cahaba alternative are pre-
sented in Table IV-8. These estimates assume that the local share of total
project costs for facilities proposed for construction in 1982 and 1984 will
be financed through a single bond issue. In addition, the estimates have
been calculated using 1985 operation and maintenance costs and assuming equal
annual debt service payments.
Using the same assumptions, local financing of the 1989 construction
program would increase the annual debt service by $151,000.
Collection Systems. Estimates have been prepared for the cost of
constructing collection facilities to serve the areas of Cahaba Heights,
Mountain Brook, Overton, Roebuck Plaza, and Moody. These cost estimates
are presented in Table IV-9. The costs of house connections are not
included in these estimates.
6. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Prior to the funding of a Step 2 or Step 3 grant from the USEPA for
the wastewater facilities proposed for the EIS study area, several require-
ments must be met. These requirements, described in this section of the
chapter, include studies to examine some of the variations to the proposed
action that were discussed in Chapter III.
Several variations to the proposed Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba alternative
were considered in the cost-effective evaluation of alternatives, as
IV-21
-------
TABLE IV-7
Construction Element
Treatment Plants
Cahaba River
Expansion from 4 to 12 mgd $7^964,000
Expansion from 12 to 16 mgd
Leeds
Trussville
" Interceptors
^ Cahaba River Interceptor Extension
21,875 ft. of 42-inch dia. $1,942,000
32,950 ft. of 21 and 27-inch dia.
Pumping Systems
Patton Creek to Cahaba
6,225 ft. of 21 to 30-inch dia.
gravity
Patton Creek Pump Station
8,375 ft. of 30-inch force main
Little Cahaba Creek to Trussville
Little Cahaba Creek Pump Station
4,150 ft. of 8-inch force main
7,000 ft. of 8 and 10-inch dia.
gravity
Phase 3 (1989)
$2,255,000
$1,106,000
$ 401,000
$1,576,000
$ 293,000
$ 487,000
$ 930,000
$ 70,000
$ 92,000
$ 117,000
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR
LEEDS VIA LITTLE CAHABA RIVER-TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEM
Phase 1 (1982) Phase 2 (1984)
Total
$11,616,000
$1,786,000
$3,831,000
-------
TABLE IV-8
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROJECT, GRANT, AND LOCAL COSTS
FOR
LEEDS VIA LITTLE CAHABA RIVER-TRUSSVILLE-CAHABA
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT SYSTEM (1)
Construction Costs Project Costs (2) Federal Grant (3) Local Share Annual Debt Service (4) 1985 OgM Local Annual Costs
$13,402,000 $17,155,000 $11,760,000 $5,395,000 $529,000 $734,000 $1,263,000
(1) For facilities to be constructed in 1982 and 1984. Does not include 1989 construction.
(2) Project costs equal to construction costs plus 28% to allow for legal, engineering, financial, and administrative costs.
(3) Based upon 75% funding of eligible project costs. Assumed that 17% of the 28% allowance for legal, engineering, financial,
and administrative costs are eligible.
(4) Based upon 25 years at 6 3/8%, plus 10% coverage.
-------
TABLE IV-9
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
FOR
LOCAL COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Collection System Construction Cost Project Cost
Cahaba Heights
95,200 ft. of 8-inch collector $2,256,000 $2,888,000
1 Pump Station $ 40,000 $ 51,000
2,600 ft. of 4-inch force main $ 21,000 $ 26,000
Total $2,317,000 $2,965,000
Mountain Brook
78,000 ft. of 8-inch collector $1,849,000 $2,366,000
4,000 ft. of 12-inch trunk $ 120,000 $ 154,000
Total $1,969,000 $2,520,000
Overton
23,700 ft. of 8-inch collector $ 566,000 $ 725,000
3,400 ft. of 12-inch trunk $ 102,000 $ 130,000
2 Pump Stations $ 80,000 $ 101,000
5,600 ft. of 4-inch force main $ 44,000 $ 57,000
Total $ 791,000 $1,013,000
Roebuck Plaza
30,800 ft. of 8-inch collector $ 758,000 $ 971,000
18,000 ft. of 12-inch trunk $ 540,000 $ 692,000
1 Pump Station $ 40,000 $ 51,000
4,600 ft. of 8-inch force main $ 58,000 $ 75,000
Total $1,396,000 $1,789,000
Moody
5,000 ft. of 8-inch collector $ 119,000 $ 152,000
23,400 ft. of 12-inch trunk $ 702,000 $ 899,000
Total $ 821,000 $1,051,000
IV-24
-------
previously presented. These variations involve the basic Leeds-Trussville-
Cahaba configuration, either with spray irrigation of the Leeds effluent or
with the pumping of the Leeds effluent through an extended outfall to the
Cahaba River for discharge.
The Leeds Spray Irrigation-Trussville-Cahaba alternative entails the
spray irrigation of treated effluent from the Leeds plant in the Pine
Mountain area north of Leeds. However, as presented in Chapter III, the
spray irrigation alternative was not determined to be the most cost-effective
and has not been recommended for implementation at this time. A significant
factor in the cost-effective analysis was the existence of unknowns relative
to implementation of a full-scale spray irrigation system and its potential
for success, not only at the candidate land disposal site at Pine Mountain,
but also at other potential spray irrigation sites in the study area. There-
fore, it is required that a detailed investigation of land disposal of
treatment plant effluent in the upper Cahaba Basin be completed as a pre-
condition for Step 2 funding for the facilities proposed for 1984. Such an
investigation will be undertaken by Jefferson County and will determine the
feasibility and desirability of land application of effluent from the Leeds
and Trussville plants.
It is also required that studies of sludge disposal be completed and a
sludge monitoring program be initiated prior to Step 3 funding of the faci-
lities proposed for 1982. Jefferson County must evaluate current sludge
disposal practices at the Leeds, Trussville, and Cahaba treatment plants and
initiate a sludge monitoring program to identify potential contaminants
from industrial wastes that are discharged to municipal facilities.
Additional requirements, routinely included as Step 2 or Step 3 grant
conditions for this type of project, are:
. Development of an erosion control plan for the construction
of wastewater treatment facilities.
. Development of an operation and maintenance plan for pro-
posed facilities.
. Maintenance of a 30-foot vegetative buffer between the edge
of construction right-of-ways after construction.
. Performance of archaeological, vegetative, and geological
surveys during the initial phases bf Step 2 design.
In summary, implementation of the proposed Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba
alternative, Including the additional requirements described above, is the
most prudent, cost-effective action that can be taken at this time, based
upon existing conditions and projections of future conditions in the study
area. The flexibility provided by the proposed configuration does not preclude
the future possibility of removing the Leeds discharge from Lake Purdy or the
eventual consolidation of the Leeds and Trussville plants into a more regional
system, should this become more attractive based upon emerging growth patterns.
IV-25
-------
CHAPTER V
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
-------
CHAPTER V
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the impacts of the proposed
Leeds-Trussville-Cahaba facilities on the environment in the Cahaba basin.
Expected impacts on the natural and manmade environments are discussed in two
separate sections.
The proposed action will have a number of direct consequences caused by
the construction and operation of the proposed facilities. These consequences
include the improvements in present and future water quality that are the
basic purpose of the proposed action. They also include the losses of
vegetation and commitment of land to construction and expansion of facilities.
Certain environmental changes will also be induced by the expanded waste-
water treatment capacity recommended in the proposed action which in turn
results from the larger residential population that is projected to make use
of the wastewater treatment capacity in the future. The baseline, or point
of departure, for assessing these environmental impacts of the proposed action
is the environmental conditions expected under the no-action alternative. As
shown in chapter III, portions of the basin would develop to a significant
degree even if no federally funded wastewater management system were construc-
ted. Thus, the change that is likely to occur in the Cahaba Basin during the
planning period will not be due entirely to the proposed action. Considerable
impact will be due to land conversion and population growth that will occur
regardless of the proposed action. A limited discussion of impacts would
focus only on the differences in growth and impact that are due to the pro-
posed action. In this chapter, however, the full range of predicted impacts
is discussed in order to present as complete a picture as possible of the
Cahaba Basin over the planning period.
V-l
-------
PART A. IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. ATMOSPHERE
Climate
The proposed action will not affect the overall climate of the Cahaba
basin, but it may bring about minor micro-climatic changes near treatment
facilities and in the vicinity of newly developed areas. These changes will
mainly be slight increases in temperature where trees and other vegetation are
replaced by buildings and pavement. The conditions in these areas will be
similar to those in existing developments of comparable size and location in
the region. As such, these changes will be imperceptible at the scale of
development projected to occur by the year 2000.
Air Quality
Construction of the proposed, expanded, and upgraded treatment plants,
pumping stations, interceptors, and force mains will result in temporary
increases in dust, exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment,
and smoke from burning cleared growth and scrap material. With the use of
proper control measures such as those discussed in chapter 6, these transient
impacts should not create any adverse air quality conditions.
Operation of the treatment plants involved in the proposed action will
have no significant effects on air quality in the Cahaba River Basin, because
increases in emissions are to be relatively small. The number of air pollutant
emission sources within the wastewater management system will be reduced,
because one treatment plant will be eliminated. However, increased capacity
and the greater number of treatment units being operated at the three remaining
plants may slightly increase emissions of aerosols, particulates, and gases
from the treatment plants.
Air pollutants will be generated as a result of increased development in
the basin. These pollutants will come largely from increased automobile travel
in the basin and from home heating and cooling. The future growth in the basin
is expected to be mainly residential in nature, and no new industrial air
pollution sources are anticipated during the planning period.
Automotive pollution will come from three new sources: travel by new basin
residents; travel by those who live outside the basin but who come into the
basin to work or shop; and increased through-travel along the basin's major
roadways (1-459, 1-65, 1-20, 1-59, and U.S. 280). In particular 1-459 and 1-65,
when completely constructed, will carry substantial amounts of additional traffic
that does not originate in the basin.
However, the amount of pollutants released daily by the mobile sources wii^
decrease based on miles vehicles will travel and emission rates shown in Table
V-l. Automobiles and trucks emit several types of air pollutants, including
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. Considerable
effort has been made in recent years by the U.S. Government and by auto makers
V-2
-------
TABLE v-1. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS
FROM MOBILE SOURCES
Estimated Daily Vehicle •
Date Miles of Travel3 (VMT)
(xlO6)
1975
3.0 - 3.5
1995
5.0
Emission Ratec
(grams/mile)
Estimated
Gross
Emissions
(tons per day)
CO
HC
NO
49.4
6.4
4.1
163 - 191
21 - 25
14 - 16
CO
HC
NO
x
4.7
0.8
0.8
26
4
4
a See Part B - Impacts on the Man-made Environment for estimates of VMT in
the basin.
^Estimated according to data in AP-42, "Computation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors," U.S. EPA , 1972.
V-3
-------
to reduce these emissions from new automobiles. By 1995, these programs should
have achieved the reductions predicted in table V-l. Other factors reflected
in the estimate include the growth of truck and auto use in the basin, the
general age of the "fleet" of vehicles in the Birmingham area, and the
historical pattern of automobile ownership and use in the region. Light-duty
vehicles of 1995 will be composed entirely of automobiles that have low
emission rates in accordance with standards of the Federal Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control program; should these standards not be met, the estimated
emissions of air pollutants for 1995 would rise substantially.
These estimates of decreased air pollution are expressed as total annual
emissions, not as resulting concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere.
Estimates of atmospheric concentrations at any point can be made only after
careful study of terrain, meteorology, specific location of roadways, and the
level and timing of traffic volumes throughout the day. In general terms,
the concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides will be greatest
near the vicinity of the heavily travelled roadways, particularly at inter-
sections and interchanges. Hydrocarbons, however, are sensitive to sunlight
and may be found in various chemical forms at substantial distances downwind
from their points of origin.
2. NOISE LEVELS
Noise levels as perceived by humans are measured in A-weighted decibels
(dBA), which is a scale of measurement that compensates for the varying human
responses to different noise frequencies. The minimum detectable increase in
noise levels is generaly 3 dBA. A 10 dBA increase is perceived as a doubling
in loudness. At a distance of three feet , a background noise level of 62 dBA
necessitates raised effort to communicate, while a very loud vocal effort is
needed if the background is 68 dBA. A long-term day-night equivalent sound
level (Lp^) °f 55 dBA causes little or no community reaction, while sporadic
complaints can be expected with a LD^ of 60 dBA. Widespread complaints and
threats of legal action typically occur when the Lp^ reaches 65 dBA and vigorous
community reaction can be expected if the reaches 70 dBA.
Noise associated with the proposed project will be both short and long-term.
Short-term noise will occur during construction of interceptors, pumping
stations, and wastewater treatment plants. Long-term noise impacts will result
from operation of the facilities and from everyday activities in newly developed
areas.
Construction of interceptors and treatment plants requires removal of trees,
ditch digging, rock drilling, and possibly blasting, along with movement of
heavy equipment. Table V-2 lists some typical noise levels associated with
construction equipment. Since this equipment will only operate during daylight
hours, no adverse public reaction is expected. Residents along the route of a
new interceptor will be affected by elevated noise levels for a period of about
two to four weeks. Construction of treatment plants will take approximately 2
to 2 1/2 years; however, adverse noise producing activities will be completed
within a year of commencing construction.
V-4
-------
TABLE V-2
TYPICAL PEAK NOISE LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH
VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Sound Levels in dBA at Indicated Distance from Source^
Equipment
50 ft2
100 ft
250 ft
500 ft
1000 ft
2000 ft
Front-end Loader
84
78
70
64
58
52
Backhoe
85
79
71
65
59
53
Dozer
80
74
66
60
54
48
Tractor
87
81
73
67
61
55
Scraper
88
82
74
68
62
56
Grader
85
79
71
65
59
53
Earthmoving Truck
88
82
74
68
62
56
Paver
89
83
75
69
63
57
Concrete Mixer
85
79
71
65
59
53
Concrete Pump
82
74
66
60
54
48
Crane
83
77
69
63
57
51
Derrick
88
82
74
68
62
56
Pump
76
70
62
56
50
44
Generator
78
72
64
58
52
46
Compressor
81
75
67
61
55
49
Pile Driver
101
95
87
81
75
69
Jack Hammer
88
82
74
68
62
56
Rock Drills
98
92
84
78
72
66
Pneumatic Tool
85
79
71
65
59
53
Saws
78
72
64
58
52
46
Vibrators
76
70
62
56
50
44
1 - Noise levels at distances greater than 50 ft estimated assuming free field decay,
2
- Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Direct Environmental Factors at
Muncipal Wastewater Treatment Works. January 1976.
V-5
-------
Little or no adverse reaction is expected from residents now living near
wastewater treatment plants to long-term everyday operating noises at the
plants. Tne noisiest units at the plant sites are mechanical aerators, which
generate a noise of approximately 82 dBA at a distance of 10 feet. The nearest
residents to the expanded Trussville treatment plant will experience a noise
level of approximately 55 dBA, while the nearest residents to the Leeds and
Cahaba plant will experience approximately 45 and 34 dBA, respectively. This
represents an estimated increase from present noise levels at these sites of
approximately 3 dBA, which is a change barely noticeable over present levels.
Future noise conflicts may occur if new developments arise closer to the
treatment plants than present developments. New residents may object to noises
from the plants. It is important that new residents be warned of these noises
prior to their settling in homes near a wastewater treatment plants. Measures
to control noises may also be needed.
Additional development facilitated by the recommended plan will also change
noise levels throughout the basin. Where undeveloped areas are converted into
residential areas, everyday noise levels will change from about 35 dBA to
between 55 and 70 dBA during the day and to between 35 and 45 dBA at night.
These increases in noise will not affect the new residents in the developing
areas but may be objectionable to some long-time residents or recreational
users of the lands near the new developments.
3. ODORS
The proposed action will eliminate the Patton Creek wastewater treatment
plant and expand the Leeds, Trussville, and Cahaba treatment plants. This
will reduce the number of separate odor sources but may increase odor produc-
tion at the expanded plants. Most odors are not perceptible at distances of
more than 1000 feet from a wastewater treatment plant. Only one residence at
Leeds is now located within 1000 feet of any of these treatment plants. With
proper operation and maintenance, the number of odor-related complaints from
existing developments should not increase. However, as new development moves
closer to the treatment plants, new residents may find the odors objectionable.
Odor control will be more important in the future. New residents considering
a home within 1000 feet of a treatment plant should be warned of potential
odor problems prior to settling in such an area.
As discussed in chapter II, odors from the aquatic environment are localized
problems at several points in the basin. Improved effluent quality from the
Leeds, Trussville, and Cahaba treatment plants will help to alleviate these
odor problems. Removing a treatment plant discharge from Patton Creek should
reduce odors in Paradise Lake produced by nuisance algal blooms and slimes
that have formed from organic and nutrient enrichment (Frey 1976).
Odor problems may continue to develop within the Cahaba River from nuisance
algal blooms and decomposition of organic material in pooled or artifically
impounded areas, especially during low-flow periods. Conditions that may
presently be producing odors have been reported in the vicinity of the five
low-head dams between the Cahaba treatment plant and Birmingham Water Works
Board's pumping station (Frey 1976). Increased nutrient levels in the future
from sewage effluent may compound this problem.
V-6
-------
The waters from the lower depths of Lake Purdy are a source of occasional
odor problems when they are released downstream of the lake and also in the
fall of each year when the lake waters overturn forcing the bottomwaters to
mix with the atmosphere. Mixing does not occur at other times of the year,
because the lake is then thermally stratified. Reduction of phosphorus or
nitrogen levels being introduced to the Little Cahaba River at the Leeds
treatment plant can result in smaller concentrations of algae and thus less
oxygen depletion in the lower depths of the lake. This in turn would reduce
the lake's odor problems.
Transport and handling of the sludge generated by the Cahaba treatment
plant may create offensive odors at the plant, along the transport route to
the sludge disposal site, and at the landfill disposal site itself. To date,
the practice of distributing the dried sludge to the public at the Leeds,
Trussville, and Cahaba treatment plants for soil conditioners has encountered
no significant odor problems. Therefore, only the hauling and landfill
disposal of additional sludge are possible odor sources. Steps that can be
taken to reduce the risk of offensive odors are listed in chapter 6.
4. TOPOGRAPHY
The recommended plan will have only minor direct effects on the topography
of the area. At each of the three treatment plant sites, some landscaping
(such as cutting into hillsides, filling depressions, leveling slopes, and
constructing drainageways) may be necessary to facilitate placement of
expanded or additional treatment units. At the site of the Patton Creek
treatment plant, removal of structures will permit the site to be returned to
natural conditions except at the site of the future pumping station. The
extent of any landscaping changes at the treatment plant sites cannot be
determined until detailed designs of the plants are finalized. Landscaping
at the treatment plants will not encroach upon a flood plain at any point.
Right-of-way construction will necessitate some localized topographic
changes, most of which can be returned to natural conditions after construction
is completed. Some leveling of steep slopes to facilitate movement of equipment
and storage of pipe will probably be necessary. These altered areas should
then be restored to pre-construction conditions as much as possible. Nonethe-
less, some changes in local topography may be noticeable along rights-of-way
in steep areas.
Obtaining construction materials and disposing of debris from construction
will also cause some changes in topography. Obtaining crushed stone aggregate
needed for sewer bedding will cause localized topographic changes at the
supplying quarry within or outside the Cahaba basin.
New development in the basin will also cause localized topograhic changes,
especially in the lower part of the basin. These changes will include general
landscaping, leveling of small slopes, and cutting into hillsides. The local
propensity to develop on hillsides may result in excessive slopes and gully
formations, if erosion is not controlled. Roads and highways to serve the
new developments will cut into hillsides and fill depressions along the route.
V-7
-------
The disposal of increased quantities of sludge at the 355-acre Eastern Area
landfill will result in topographic changes at the fill site. The city of
Birmingham is presently filling this site with solid waste, so that sludge
disposal will accelerate but not alter the site's ultimate land use or erosion nearby.
5. GEOLOGY
The geologic features of the area will not be changed greatly by the
recommended plan. Effects include those of construction activities, changes in
rainfall runoff patterns, and sludge disposal activities.
Construction activities may necessitate some blasting in areas where bed-
rock is close to the soil surface. Blasting will occur mainly along the force
main route between the Patton Creek and Cahaba treatment plants and at the
treatment plant sites. As long as proper blasting techniques are used,
construction will have only a minor localized impact on geologic structures.
Much of the area through which the interceptor from the Cahaba treatment
plant is to run is underlined by shale which may cause problems resulting from
construction. If layers of shale are not closely adherent to each other, they
may slide when disturbed during interceptor installations. Such a sliding
force crushed 600 feet of pipeline near Altadena in the early 1970's.
The increased demand for ballast rock and aggregate used in constructing
interceptors, roadways, and new buildings may accelerate quarrying activities
in the region. The increased demand will shorten the life of the quarries used
and may necessitate opening new quarries.
One of the consequences of concentrated residential development in the
basin is the potential for changes in the patterns of rainfall runoff, which
can in turn alter the hydrogeologic regime. Increasing the impervious cover
by additional development will tend to reduce groundwater infiltration and
increase surface runoff. A reduction in groundwater infiltration in carbonate
areas will retard solution channel formation and weathering of bedrock.
However in areas where ponding of runoff occurs the formation of solution
channels will be accelerated. Under normal conditions in areas with solid
bedrock, the formation of a sinkhole may take thousand of years, but most
carbonate bedrock areas have numerous solution channels in all stages of
formations, making them susceptible to changes in weathering rates. Increased
infiltration may make some sinkholes appear prematurely, while a decrease may
delay their appearance.
The major geologic concern associated with sludge disposal at the Eastern
Area landfill is the potential interfacing of sludge not adequately filtered
by soil at a disposal site with a water bearing aquifer. Contamination of
potable water supplies would be a possible result and therefore should be
considered in the ultimate choice of any disposal site.
6. SOILS
Soil erosion resulting from construction activities affects soils and
local waterways. Right-of-way construction will expose approximately 92 acres
to accelerated erosion, while approximately 30 acres will be exposed at treat-
V-8
-------
ment plant and pumping station sites. The actual volume of soil lost from the
construction sites will depend on several factors, and this volume cannot be
accurately estimated until detailed right-of-way layouts and erosion control
measures are determined. Most of the eroded soil will be deposited on land,
but some will reach waterways and, as a result, increase sediment loadings
in rivers and streams. Increased development will also cause increases in
erosion. With proper control measures, erosion and sedimentation can be kept
to a minimum.
In addition, there could be a problem with a loss of soil from the sludge
disposal landfill area due to runoff. Steep land slopes will hasten this
process.
Local conditioning with sludge of the soils at and near the three treatment
plants will continue. No detrimental effects have been observed as a result
of this practice, and it will continue to be the sole means of sludge disposal
from the Leeds and Trussville treatment plants and a supplementary disposal
means from the larger Cahaba plant.
7. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Vegetation
There will be a loss of approximately 140 acres of habitat from the placement
of interceptors and force mains as shown in figure V-l through 50-foot wide
corridors. When construction is complete, these corridors will be maintained
as open 20 to 30-foot wide permanent rights-of-way. Revegetation of the
remaining width of right-of-way should take place within one month of completing
construction. An allowance of 50-100 feet on either side of the chosen routing
for the precise locations of construction is possible to avoid any locally
sensitive areas that may be encountered.
The uplands between Little Cahaba Creek and Trussville through which
interceptor and force main lines may pass are primarily agricultural and urban
in nature. Except where manholes are required, the interceptor should not be
noticeable in this area when it is complete. Between the Cahaba and Patton
Creek plants there will be a loss of approximately 15 acres of pine-hardwood
forest and 0.6 acre of pine forest due to installation of pipeline. Also shown
in figure V-l are the vegetative impacts should a force main-interceptor line be
constructed from Leeds to the Cahaba River as part of the implemented action.
There will be a loss of approximately 63 acres of natural habitat from
the placement of 55,000 feet of an interceptor and force main connecting areas
to the Cahaba wastewater treatment plant. This will occur primarily between
the Cahaba plant and the intersection of the Cahaba River with 1-459. In
addition, approximately 29 acres of pine-hardwood forest, 2.4 acres of pine
forest, and 0.6 acre of hardwood forest will be lost in constructing 28,000
feet of trunk sewers not shown in figure V-l connecting to the Cahaba plant.
The forested areas referred to here are habitats for many of the basin's
animal species. By removing trees and understory, interceptor construction
alters these hdbitats, but by creating additional clearings and edges, the
right-of-way may improve the overall habitat value of the forested areas it
passes through. Detrimental impacts on the habitats and forest life are only
clearly evident as long as construction continues.
V-9
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Interceptor rights-of-way should be immediately replanted with legumes,
vines, and grasses to prevent erosion and to provide biomass and habitat.
The species of vegetation to be replanted will depend upon soil type, slope,
and featured game management species. A detailed discussion of revegetation
as a mitigative measure is presented in chapter 6.
The alteration of forested habit by force main and interceptor construction
will be minor compared to permanent vegetation and habitat losses of approxi-
mately 16,000 acres from expected residential land conversion by the year 2000.
The majority of this development is expected to occur downstream of U.S. 280,
along 1-459, and in the Trussville area. These losses will cause significant
changes in the location and size of wildlife populations in the basin. To
reduce such losses the proposed alternative could bring with it a controlled
development of forested areas, if constructive land-use planning and wildlife
management practices are implemented. It is important also to leave large
areas such as the area west of Lake Purdy undeveloped and perhaps establish
conservation lands from particular acreages.
Wildlife
The loss of undeveloped lands due to interceptor placements will affect
population densities of game and non-game species. Animals that require open
areas with edge-and-clearing characteristics should increase in numbers and
diversity in the vicinity of the rights-of-way. For example, populations of
wild turkey, deer, quail, rabbit, and fox should benefit. However, construc-
tion and clearing along the rights-of-way will result in habitat losses for
squirrels, woodcocks, and.species of song birds and raptors that prefer dense
canopies or old mature stands of trees.
The loss of 16,000 acres of wildlife habitat from development by the year
2000 will have a much greater and more detrimental impact than the proposed
interceptor rights-of-way. In this case the habitat will be permanently
removed and it can be expected that the populations of all species will be
reduced. As much as 12% of the deer population, 10% of the turkey population,
12% of the quail population, and smaller percentages of other bird and
mammal populations may become permanently lost from the study area as a result
of urbanization (USDA 1971). Because of the turkey's requirements for large
acreages of undisturbed forest, its population has already been reduced in
the developing areas of the basin. However, it should be noted that squirrels,
rabbits, and many species of birds have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to
life on the fringes of suburban development. Part of the reason for this
adaptability is their natural preference to live at the forest edge. Another
reason is that a food subsidy often accompanies development in the form of
gardens, seeded lawns, edible garbage, etc. Thus, the effect of residential
land conversion is not to eradicate all wildlife, but rather to alter habitat
conditions to the advantage of some species and the disadvantage of others.
Semi-Aquatic Life
The Cahaba River and its tributaries are habitats for a number of semi-
aquatic species. These include commercially important fur bearers such as
beaver, raccon, muskrat, nutria, and river otter. Any construction activity
which harms the aquatic life upon which they feed or alters the river banks
in which they make their dens may decrease their distribution and value as a
harvestab]e natural resource.
V-10
-------
Wood ducks, mallards, and other semi-aquatic migratory and non-migratory
birds are found within the Cahaba River Basin (personal communication, Bill
Hollard, Alabama Fish and Game Department). The wood duck is more dependent
on forests than any other American waterfowl. Wood ducks prefer to breed in
places where trees provide nesting cavities and food near permanent freshwater
lakes and streams. Both the wood duck and mallard feed on mast tree fruits,
aquatic plants, and invertebrates. Future water quality monitoring to protect
the aquatic life upon which they feed and proper placement of force mains to
protect these species' feeding, nesting, and rearing habitats should reduce
detrimental impacts.
Destruction of vegetation overhanging the stream during the placement of
interceptors and force mains may also result in elevated water temperatures,
increased light penetration, increased primary production, thermal stratification,
decreased oxygen in lower depths, and modification of aquatic life distributions.
8. WATER QUALITY
Water quality in the Cahaba River Basin, in terms of dissolved oxygen
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate was analyzed
quantitatively with computer modeling described in Chapter III and appendix II.
The effect on water quality of phosphorus and chlorine in wastewater treatment
plant effluents was also analyzed, although not with a mathematical model.
The proposed action is designed to meet State of Alabama water quality criteria
and should not result in any public health problems, but some concerns may
arise due to nitrogen and phosphorus in discharges. Each of the major water
quality aspects of interest are discussed below.
Dissolved Oxygen
Adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in streams are vital to sustaining
aquatic life and to preventing public health and aesthetic problems associated
with anoxic conditions that particularly arise in lakes. The dissolved oxygen
profile presently occurring in the Cahaba River during 7-day, 10-year low flow
conditions was calculated and is given in figure V-2. By the year 2000, the
proposed action is expected to give the dissolved oxygen concentrations shown
in figure V-3 during 7-day, 10-low flows. It should be noted that the
computer projections of water quality on which these profiles are based involve
a degree of uncertainty, as do all future projections and mathematical models
of physical system and should be considered as a preliminary modeling effort.
Appendix II discusses the modeling limitations in detail.
As figure V-3 shows, the proposed action is expected to meet the minimum dis-
solved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/1 established by the Alabama Water Improve-
ment Commission throughout the entire length of the Cahaba River within the study
area. Some values of dissolved oxygen to be expected with the proposed action
during 7-day, 10-year low flows are highlighted on the map in figure V-4.
V-ll
-------
10.0 - -
8.0--
CAHABA RIVER MILE
EXISTING DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
DURING 7-DAY, 10-YEAR LOW FLOWS
FIGURE 31-2
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
REGION IE US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
10.0 --
z
UJ
CD
>
X
o
Q
UJ
>
_l
O
en
to
o
8 .0--
- 6 .0--
o>
E
4.0 --
2.0-¦
0.0
AWIC WATER
QUALITY CRITERION
180
170
160
150
140
130
CAHABA RIVER MILE
FIGURE 3Z-3
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE DURING 7- DAY, 10 YEAR
LOW FLOWS-PROPOSED ACTION, YEAR 2000
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
DRAFT EIS
PREPARED FOR
REGION 12 US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Nutrients
Nutrients, in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus species, represent a
second area of interest in assessing the water quality impacts of the proposed
action. Nitrogen is discharged from wastewater treatment plants as ammonia,
nitrate, nitrite, and organic nitrogen compounds. Phosphorus in treatment plant
effluent is found primarily as orthophosphate ion, with some polyphosphates and
organic phosphorus compounds. Total pounds per day of nitrogen and phosphorus
from each treatment plant in the proposed action are shown in table V-3.
Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds can stimulate the growth of aquatic
plants, including algae. Excessive plant growth, in turn, can adversely affect
dissolved oxygen in surface waters by increasing the diurnal oxygen fluctuation
and by depleting oxygen when plants die and decay. It has been established that
nutrient discharges can definitely cause problems in free-flowing streams (Hynes,
1970). The hypothesis is that phosphorus is the nutrient that limits growth of
aquatic plants, including algae. If this is true, concentrations of phosphorus
entering the Cahaba River must be controlled by not allowing phosphorus levels
to ri9e much above present values, which have been reported to be about 0.5 mg/1,
if aquatic plant growth is to be regulated. However, levels will tend to rise
because more wastewater will be produced. If necessary, phosphorus in wastewater
effluent can be controlled by physical-chemical treatment with alum, lime, or iron
salts. For sluggish streams like the Cahaba River, it is difficult to predict the
effects of increased nutrient concentrations. Light, instead of nutrients, may be
the factor that is limiting growth of aquatic plants in the Cahaba River because
of the highly colored nature of the water and the fact that the river is canopied
with tree limbs throughout much of its length within the study area.
Nutrients are also associated with the landfilling of sludge, creating the
potential of conveyance of nutrient-rich leachate to either ground or surface
waters.
Nitrate
In addition to its role as a nutrient for aquatic plants, nitrate is of con-
cern when the receiving water is used as a drinking water source. Methemoglo-
binemia or nitrate cyanosis may occur in infants that consume water with high
nitrate concentrations. As a result of this concern, the nitrate-nitrogen con-
centrations in supplies of treated drinking water can not exceed 10 mg/1.
Under the proposed action, average nitrate-nitrogen concentrations under
7-day, 10-year low flows are projected to be approximately 5 mg/1 immediately
upstream of the Birmingham Water Works Board intake. After mixing with flow
from the Little Cahaba River directly at the water supply intake, the water
withdrawn is predicted to have nitrate-nitrogen concentrations on the order
of 1 mg/1 or less. At the confluence with Buck Creek downstream of the Cahaba
wastewater treatment plant, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of about 10 mg/1 are
projected under 7-day, 10-year low flow conditions by the preliminary modeling
efforts. Nitrate concentrations at the water supply intake should not be of
concern under the proposed action. Relatively high levels of nitrates are pro-
jected for the downstream portion of the study area during low flow conditions;
however, downstream of the Cahaba plant there are no known water supply with-
drawals from the Cahaba River in the entire Birmingham metropolitan area, so
no public health problems are anticipated.
y-12
-------
TABLE V-3
PROJECTED NUTRIENT LOADINGS UNDER THE PROPOSED ACTION-YEAR 2000
Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Leeds
Trussville
Cahaba
Total Inorganic
Nitrogen-1-
(lbs/day)
190
160
1840
Total Phosphorus"
(lbs/day)
20
85
980
1) This assumes 2 mg/1 of NH.-.-N and 13 mg/1 of NO^-N in the plant effluents,
except that for the Cahaba plant o.5 mg/1 NH3-N is assumed.
2) This assumes 1.5 mg/1 total phosphorus in the Leeds effluent and 8 mg/1
total phosphorus in the Trussville and Cahaba effluents.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1977
V-13
-------
The projected nitrogen concentrations discussed above were obtained from
computer simulations of the Cahaba River. It is important to note that this
computer model probably tends to overestimate nitrate concentrations, because
certain mechanisms for nitrogen conversion such as nitrogen uptake by aquatic
life forms and by sediment particles cannot be quantified accurately and are
thus not included in the simulation. The degree to which the model over-
estimates nitrate levels varies according to rates of these nitrogen conversion
mechanisms which are not well understood.
In Lake Purdy, the nitrogen cycle is complex and not easily analyzed using
simplified models. Since the proposed action envisions a year 2000 discharge
of 2.1 cfs from the Leeds treatment plant upstream of Lake Purdy, the eventual
impact on water supply of this nitrogen input to the lake must be considered.
Simplified quantitative analyses of the physical, chemical, and biological
mechanisms affecting nitrogen in a lake are inadequate and often misleading.
However, it is possible to draw some general conclusions about the effect
of Lake Purdy on nitrate concentrations reaching the water supply intake, with-
out resorting to quantitative models. Since almost all the nitrogen entering
Lake Purdy from man-made sources will already be in the form of nitrate, it
is not likely that the lake itself will add to the nitrate levels reaching the
water supply intake, but processes occurring in the lake may reduce these
levels. (Such processes include nitrate uptake by algae and sediments and
chemical conversion to other nitrogen forms such as ammonia under anoxic
conditions). Limnological studies support this view. For example, data from
a moderately eutrophic lake in Wisconsin showed that less than half the total
nitrogen entering the lake from all sources during a one-year period appeared
in the lake's outlet waters. Sampling done in October, 1976 and May and June,
1977 for the Birmingham 208 study indicated that nitrate concentrations in the
Little Cahaba River were lower downstream of Lake Purdy than upstream of it.
The nitrate concentrations reaching the confluence with the Cahaba River are
presently an order of magnitude below the water supply criterion. Since the
proposed increase in capacity at the Leeds plant is only from 1.0 mgd to 1.5
mgd, it is not likely that any adverse impacts on the water supply from
excessive nitrate concentrations in the Little Cahaba River will develop.
Residual Chlorine
The proposed action envisions chlorination of effluent from the three waste-
water treatment plants in the study area for the purpose of disinfection. It
is recommended that sufficient chlorine be added to produce a residual chlorine
concentration between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1 in treatment plant effluents to ensure
disinfection. Residual chlorine in plant effluent is present as free available
chlorine (hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ion) and combined available chlorine
(chloramines).
Excessive amounts of residual chlorine discharged to streams can have
adverse effects on aquatic life. The fish and other aquatic species found in
the Cahaba River are generally more tolerant to chlorine than species such as
trout and salmon. However, the potential for adverse impacts does exist,
especially during low flow conditions.
V-14
-------
Although it is difficult to establish a chlorine criterion for natural
waters due to variables such as the types of aquatic species present and the
various chemical mechanisms which may remove toxic forms of chlorine from the
stream, a maximum concentration of 0.01 mg/1 has been proposed to protect all
but the least tolerant aquatic species. This would mean the effluent from
treatment plants with 0.5 mg/l of residual chlorine would need to be diluted
by many times more water than is in the effluent to achieve each chlorine
residue of 0.01 mg/1. Such large dilutions will not occur particularly down-
stream of the Cahaba plant. It is clear that the reach of the Cahaba river
immediately downstream of the wastewater treatment plants may be adversely
affected. Ways to reduce the effects are discussed in chapter 6.
Wastewater Bypasses and Plant Malfunctions
When a wastewater treatment plant has insufficient capacity to treat the
influent flow, a portion of the wastewater is bypassed untreated to the
receiving water. Raw wastewater has an ultimate oxygen demand that is approxi-
mately five times higher than properly treated effluent from secondary treatment
and can thus seriously affect streams with low assimilative capacities such as the
Cahaba River during low flow conditions. One of the primary results of the
proposed action will be to eliminate existing bypasses and to prevent future
bypasses resulting from insufficient treatment capacity.
During periodic maintenance of individual unit processes, treatment
efficiency may be lowered to some degree, but the expanded treatment plants of
the proposed action are designed to prevent bypasses of untreated wastewater
during maintenance. Required maintenance of this type should not be scheduled
during low flow conditions in the Cahaba River Basin so that potential adverse
impacts on dissolved oxygen levels streams can be avoided.
Raw wastewater bypasses during treatment plant construction activities
required by the proposed action do not appear to be a potential problem. Due
to the configurations of the existing plants and the proposed expansions, it
is not expected that any major bypasses will be necessary. The expansions
also are planned to be constructed before the treated capacity added by the
expansions is required.
Treatment plant malfunctions serious enough to significantly degrade
water quality on a short-term basis are not likely to occur under the proposed
action. Multiple structural units performing the same treatment process are
included in the three expanded treatment plants of the proposed action, so
failure of an individual unit will not result in a significant loss of treatment
efficiency. Loss of electrical power could cause the failure of several unit
processes, but emergency power sources are provided at the treatment plants in
the proposed action to prevent such an occurrence.
Reliability of effluent disinfection at the Trussville and Leeds treatment
plants is of particular interest, because these discharges are upstream of the
water supply intake. Complete failure of disinfection facilities is unlikely
due to multiple chlorination units and reserve storage of chlorine proposed for
these plants.
V-15
-------
If total failure of disinfection at these two plants should occur for some
unforeseen reason, water supply contamination is highly improbable. The time
required for effluent from the Trussville plant to be transported to the water
supply intake is on the order of one week, while the Leeds effluent takes much
longer to reach the intake due to detention in Lake Purdy assuming the Leeds
outfall is located along the Little Cahaba River. The implications of an
outfall along the Cahaba River or of spray irrigation are the same as for the
Trussville effluent. Unchlorinated effluent from biological treatment at these
pLants should already have undergone about 90% bacterial removal. The long
times of travel to the water supply intake will result in further bacterial
die-off. In addition, the raw water withdrawn from the Cahaba River is treated
and disinfected at the Shades Mountain Filter Plant before distribution to the
public. Therefore, bacterial and viral contamination of drinking water in the
event of disinfection failure at the Leeds or Trussville treatment plants is
extremely unlikely.
River reaches below the plant outfalls would probably be temporarily
unsuitable for water-contact sports in the event of loss of chlorination
facilities. Due to the generally long times of travel in the streams of the
study area, there should be sufficient time for public health officials to take
the necessary remedial actions in the event of plant malfunctions.
Should the sludge vacuum filters fail at the Cahaba treatment plant, a
less concentrated sludge will have to be hauled to the landfill area. More
volume of the less concentrated sludge will need to be disposed possibly in
a separate area within the landfill. It is not predicted that any health
problems would arise as long as enough area at the landfill site is available
for sludge disposal.
Phasing Considerations
The preceding discussion of water quality under the proposed action has
been primarily concerned with conditions for the year 2000, but interim
conditions in the Cahaba River also need to be considered. The major phasing
consideration in implementation of the proposed action is the expansion of the
Cahaba treatment plant and the accompanying abandonment of the existing Patton
Creek plant.
The proposed action includes expansion of the Cahaba plant from the
existing capacity of A mgd to 12 mgd by 1983 and the abandonment of the Patton
Creek plant at that time. Between now and 1983, hydraulic overloading at the
Patton Creek plant will continue as will occasional bypasses of raw wastewater.
This situation is likely to cause some violations of water quality criteria
in the Cahaba River during this interim period.
Residual chlorine concentrations were identified in the preceding
discussion as a major area of concern in the year 2000. Chlorine loadings
will increase as discharges from the treatment plants increase with population
growth and implementation of the proposed action. As the expanded Cahaba plant
is put into service and the Patton Creek plant is abandoned, residual chlorine
concentrations in the Cahaba River will probably reach the same orders of
magnitude as the concentrations discussed previously for the year 2000.
V-16
-------
Sludge Disposal
Under the proposed action, sludge at the Leeds and Trussville wastewater
treatment plants will continue to be processed in the same manner as at present.
Expanded sludge processing at the Cahaba plant will include gravity thickening
of primary sludge, flotation thickening of secondary sludge, anaerobic digestion,
and vacuum filtration. None of the sludge handling facilities at the three
treatment plants should have direct adverse impacts on surface water or ground-
water .
In the past, processed sludge from the treatment plants has been utilized
on the plant grounds and been made available to the public. This means of
ultimate disposal has been adequate to date, but is not likely to suffice in
the future at the expanded Cahaba plant. Processed sludge will need to be
hauled to sanitary landfills or other land disposal sites.
A review of the catalogued landfill sites in Jefferson County points to
the Eastern Area Landfill as the most accessible, adequately sized site for
disposal of the Cahaba treatment plant sludge. With the eventual completion
of Route 1-459, hauling the Cahaba sludge to the site will be approximately
a 40-mile round trip. The 355 acres of landfill area provide adequate leeway
to continue the Birmingham municipal dumping there as well as to accomodate
the need for sludge disposal. Partitioned areas within the landfill should
be utilized to separate the two fills and to properly manage the sludge
operation.
The primary potential impact of future sludge disposal is the leaching
action of heavy metals and nutrients from the landfill or land application
sites into the groundwater regime. With properly operating sludge processing
units at the Cahaba plant and with properly designed and operated land disposal
sites, this problem and problems of erosion or debris accumulating in Mountain
Lake should not arise. The soil at the landfill site is suitable for such use.
There are no flooding problems in the Eastern Area Landfill vicinity and there
have been no leachate problems associated with the Birmingham municipal
loadings. Surveillance of the area to identify only possible leachate problems
is recommended once sludge disposal begins. Leachate ponds may have to be
constructed in the future to prevent poor quality leachate from reaching
Mountain Lake.
Significant amounts of heavy metals have been observed in sludge at the
Leeds treatment plant, probably from local industrial waste sources. This
situation should be monitored closely, particularly as specific schemes for
land disposal of wastewater evolve in the future.
9. IMPACTS OF OPTIONS FOR EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FROM LEEDS
Effluent from the Leeds wastewater treatment plant can be disposed of in
three ways as follows:
a) By continuing to discharge into the Little Cahaba River. Due to the
potential for continued eutrophication in Lake Purdy, the treatment
processes at Leeds would include phosphorus removal.
V—17
-------
b) By conveying the effluent via a force main to the Cahaba River a
distance of about 2.5 miles to a discharge point near 1-20.
c) By spray irrigation at a site just west of Leeds. Phosphorus removal
would not be required under this option.
This section discusses the three options and compares their relative costs and
impacts on water quality, water supply, and overall environmental quality.
Relative Costs
The total present worth of capital and operation costs for the proposed
action with each of the three Leeds effluent disposal alternatives were esti-
mated to be: 1) Leeds effluent to Little Cahaba River - $25,253,000; 2) Leeds
effluent to Cahaba River - $25,119,000; 3) Leeds effluent to spray irrigation -
$26,7 34,000. A complete discussion of cost evaluation is given in chapter III
and the associated appendix.
The alternative that proposes extending the Leeds outfall to the Cahaba
River is the least expensive option. Although this option involves a greater
capital expenditure because of the distance of necessary pipeline, this is more
than offset by the assumption that phosphorus removal would not be required if
the Leeds effluent is not to enter Lake Purdy. If phosphorus removal prior
to discharge to the Cahaba River is deemed necessary, costs would show discharging
the Leeds effluent to the Little Cahaba to be the least expensive action. The
relatively higher cost of spray irrigation is due entirely to the high capital
equipment and land purchase costs to construct the conveyance, spraying, and
runoff control facilities.
Relative Water Quality Impacts
The impacts of the proposed action on surface water quality differ if the
Leeds treatment plant effluent is discharged to the Cahaba River via an extended
outfall or to the Little Cahaba River. The difference in impacts of these two
options is discussed below.
The dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/1 set by the AWIC should be
attained in both the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers under either Leeds
discharge option. Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations to be expected in
the year 2000 during 7-day, 10-year low flows are shown in figure V-4 for the
proposed action with the needs discharge to the Little Cahaba River. If the
Leeds discharge is moved to the Cahaba River, there will be no major point
source discharges to the Little Cahaba River, and dissolved oxygen levels there
should be well above the AWIC criterion. In the Cahaba River between Trussville
and the water supply intake, minimum dissolved oxygen levels of about 5.5 mg/1
can be expected during year 2000, 7-day, 10-year low flows if the discharge
from the extended Leeds outfall is used. All of the above conclusions are
drawn from the preliminary computer modeling efforts described in chapter III
and appendix II.
V-18
-------
If the Leeds effluent is discharged to the Cahaba River, nutrient inputs
to Lake Purdy will be significantly decreased. At the least, the eutrophic
aging of the lake would be slowed. An additional impact could involve reducing
the loss of recreational value of the lake that may have resulted from algal
blooms and related affects.
Effluent dumped into the Cahaba River from Leeds would be discharged at a
rate of two cubic feet per second and contain approximately 8 mg/1 total
phosphorus and 15 mg/1 inorganic nitrogen. Based on the 7-day, 10-year low
flow, this would increase inorganic nitrogen concentrations in the Cahaba
River directly below the outfall discharge to 6-8 mg/1. Total phosphorus
could increase from a present concentration of less than 1 mg/1 to approximately
2 mg/1 directly below the discharge. This increased nutrient loading may cause
algal blooms and high diurnal oxygen fluctuations in the quiet waters at the
dam belonging to the Birmingham Water Works Board. Concentrations in this
range are higher than desirable.
Impacts of Spray Irrigation
Spray irrigation of effluent from the Leeds treatment plant will have both
beneficial and adverse impacts on the environment. Beneficial impacts will
result from removing effluent discharge from the Little Cahaba River and from
recycling nutrients to the land. Adverse impacts may result from adding
effluent to groundwater and surface water that may have intermittantly higher
heavy metal concentrations than the effluent treated and discharged to the
Little Cahaba River. Groundwater quality in general may be impaired. Spraying
effluent into the air may result in local air pollution or odor concerns.
The most beneficial impact of spray irrigation will be the removal of
treated wastewater effluent from the Little Cahaba River. The existing
discharge is hindering the river's aquatic life and its use for recreation.
Removal of the Leeds effluent will better enable the river to assimilate
pollution from agricultural and silvicultural runoff. The amounts of nutrients
entering Lake Purdy would also be reduced, slowing the rate of eutrophication
in the lake.
Spray irrigation also recycles nutrients into the terrestrial ecosystem.
Plants in the spray field grow more rapidly than non-irrigated plants. Wild-
life populations in or near the site increase due to the increased availability
of food and shelter. Raptors and other predatory animals near the site will
have greater success in finding prey.
Spray-irrigated effluent requires a lower degree of treatment than effluent
discharged to a stream. Therefore less sludge is generated, and the pressure
on sludge disposal areas would be reduced.
The proposed spray irrigation site in the Pine Mountains area north of
Leeds includes some moderate slopes and small streams. Therefore, care must
be taken at the site to prevent excessive runoff of effluent which could have
adverse impacts on surface waters. Preventive measures would probably include
a series of collection ditches and a small pumping station with the piping
required to return the collected tailwater to the irrigation system. Soils at
the selected spray irrigation site should not encourage contamination of the
groundwater supply based on their water content, porosity, and chemical content.
V-19
-------
However, specific laboratory tests to confirm the appropriateness of the soils
may be warranted before spray irrigation is used on a full scale.
Flexibility Considerations
Discharge of the Leeds effluent to the Cahaba River provides an extra
measure of flexibility to the proposed action. The route which the extended
outfall would follow to the Cahaba River is essentially the same as the route
which the interceptor from the Leeds area to the proposed Upper Cahaba treat-
ment plant would follow under the Upper Cahaba - Cahaba alternative. As
described in chapter III, the Upper Cahaba plant is considered as a regional
facility serving the Leeds and Trussville areas. Therefore, if conversion
from the proposed action to a system including a regional plant in the upper
portion of the study area is desired in the future, the interceptor and
pumping station required to convey wastewater from Leeds to the Upper Cahaba
plant site would already be in place.
Water Supply
The impacts on water supply must be considered when evaluating the two
river discharge options for location of the Leeds treatment plant discharge.
The impact of spray irrigation on water supply would hinge on the paths of
runoff to local streams near the irrigation site and whether groundwater is to
be used as a water supply in the region. The primary differences in the impacts
of the two surface water discharge options would result from the different
times of travel for the waters of the river between the discharge and the
water supply intake and from the effects Lake Purdy would have on the
chemical and biological characteristics of the water flowing through it.
Additional time of travel between wastewater discharges allows the river to
better recover from the effects of the discharge before the intake. For the
option of discharging the Leeds effluent to the Cahaba River, the time of
travel from the Leeds plant through the extended outfall to the Cahaba River
and down the Cahaba River to the water supply intake is approximately four days.
To determine the detention time of Lake Purdy, it was assumed that the
reservoir was at its minimum storage, i.e., the 25% reserve storage described
in appendix II, and that the reservoir inflow and outflow were equal to the
7-day, 10-year low flow. The order of magnitude of the travel time from Leeds
down the Little Cahaba River to the water supply intake was found to be greater
than one month. The water thus has a much longer time of travel to recover
from the effects of the Leeds effluent when it is discharged to the Little
Cahaba River than when discharged to the Cahaba River.
The combination of wastewater disinfection, alterations of populations
of pathogenic organisms during transport by either discharge route, and
treatment at the Shades Mountain Filter Plant should prevent bacterial
contamination of the treated water supply regardless of which discharge option
is chosen. More persistent parameters, such as viruses, heavy metals, and
synthetic organic compounds, probably reach the water supply intake in small
concentrations at present and would probably continue to do so in the future
under either discharge option. Lake Purdy would cause some fraction of these
constituents to be more concentrated at greater depths and sediments. Annual
fall overturns of the reservoir would resuspend some of these constituents.
V-20
-------
The problem of nitrates has been addressed in the section of this chapter
on water quality impacts on the proposed action. For the proposed action with
the Leids discharge to the Little Cahaba River, it was concluded that nitrate
concentrations at the water supply intake would be an order of magnitude below
the niaximum allowable for water supply sources (1 mg/1 as opposed to a
recommended maximum of 10 mg/1). Discharge of the Leeds effluent directly to
the Cahaba River would result in higher nitrate levels at the intake, but
concentrations would still be well below the water supply standards under low
flow conditions.
Other Environmental Impacts
The option of the proposed alternative involving discharge to the Cahaba
River will result in the placement of 7,100 feet of 18" diameter force main and
7,450 feet of gravity flow outfall over hilly terrain varying in elevation from
540 to 800 feet. The routing will pass through the Decatur-Fullerton, Hector-
Montevallo and Bodine-Fullerton soil groups. The steep slopes and instability
of these soil groups may present problems in construction of the outfall. The
50-foot wide proposed right-of-way will cut through 1,056 feet (1.2 acres) of
pine forest, 2,112 feet (2.4 acres) of hardwood forest and 3,168 feet (3.6 acres
of pine hardwood forest. Because of the steepness of the slopes in the area,
the right-of-way shall be immediately replanted in Sericea Lespedeza or Serola
Lespedeza. Much of the forested area through which the right-of-way will pass
lies adjacent to urban areas. The impacts on wildlife will be similar to what,
is described in the previous discussion in this chapter of Terrestrial Ecology
and Wildlife.
For the spray Irrigation option, these same impacts would be felt. These
impacts that are described are not evident in the option of discharging the
effluent to the Little Cahaba River.
10. HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
The proposed action will affect the existing streamflow regime in the Cahab
River Basin by increasing wastewater treatment plant discharges and by altering
existing rainfall-runoff relations due to land use changes. The year 2000
discharge from the Trussville wastewater treatment plant under the proposed
action will be approximately 2 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Leeds treat-
ment plant will discharge approximately 2 cfs to the Little Cahaba River.
The Trussville discharge will not be large enough to alter the general stream-
flow characteristics of the Cahaba River upstream of the diversion dam located
near U.S. Highway 280, nor will streamflow in the Little Cahaba River be
affected significantly by the Leeds plant.
There will be a substantial increase in the Cahaba treatment plant dis-
charge from the existing 3 cfs to a proposed 23 cfs. This will affect stream-
flow below the plant outfall, particularly during low flow conditions. The
existing 7-day, 10-year low flow just upstream of this discharge is approxi-
mately 2 cfs, so streamflow below the plant as a result of the plant's
discharge will significantly increase during low flow conditions. During
higher flows, the proposed discharge will have proportionally smaller impacts
on streamflow.
V-21
-------
A second impact on the proposed action will be alteration of rainfall-
runoff patterns in the study area due to the land use changes associated with
an increased population. Increased development will mean larger areas
covered with impervious surfaces, resulting in increased runoff of rainfall,
decreased recharge of groundwater, and decreased low flows of streams.
Since projected land use information shows a decrease from approximately 220
square miles to approximately 190 square miles in undeveloped land, the
changes in runoff quantity should be noticeable but not major on a basin-wide
scale. However, the expected development is concentrated in certain sub-basins
to the degree that some localized hydrologic changes can be expected. The
effects of rapid and uncontrolled growth have been clearly demonstrated in
numerous other urbanizing areas of the country. Many of these areas are now
correcting problems using costly management and structural control techniques
whereas preventive action, such as land use planning, implemented before the
problems occurred could have had the same effect at much lower costs.
Land conversion in a watershed involves two basic hydrologic modifications.
First, a portion of the watershed is covered by impervious surfaces, such as
pavement and buildings, which not only cause rainfall to runoff rather than
infiltrate into the soil but also results in decreased travel time, both factors
contributing to significantly higher peak rates of runoff and increased soil
erosion. Second, the network of flow paths by which surface runoff reaches
streams is altered by the construction of an efficient runoff collection and
conveyance system. During storms, these alterations serve to increase and
to speed up runoff arrival at the receiving stream.
Existing residential and commercial land use is concentrated in the lower
third of the Cahaba basin with peripheral cores of development at Trussville
on the upper Cahaba River and around Leeds on the Little Cahaba River.
Population and land use projections indicate that by the year 2000 much of the
new growth will gravitate to the southern portion of the basin. This growth
is projected to occur in the already intensive residential and industrial/
commercial belt stretching from Mountain Brook south to Hoover. The high
levels of dense development in Mountain Brook and in most of the basin soutn
of U.S. Route 280 do produce adverse hydrologic impacts such as those
discussed above.
Sub-basin FF, GG, and II (see figure V-5) are expected to experience
significant increases in residential development. The percentage of land to
be used for residential development is projected to increase from the existing
7.7 percent to 73 percent in the year 2000 for sub-basin FF, from 9.9 percent
to 85 percent for sub-basin GG, and from 9.5 percent to bh percent for sub-basin
II.
Table V-4 identifies other Cahaba River sub-basins that are either
currently heavily developed or are expected to undergo major increases in
residential and commercial development. Based strictly on the extensive
literature regarding the general hydrologic response that can be expected as
urbanization replaces the natural cover, the potential for adverse hydrologic
impacts, such as flooding, is considerably higher for these sub-basins than for
sub-basins in the upper portions of the Cahaba basin. The fact that these
sub-basins are nearly contiguous compounds the net effect in the lower reaches
V-22
-------
TABLE V-4
SUB-BASINS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT
HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS DUE TO LAND USE TYPE
Percent of Area in Residential
and Industrial/Commercial Land Use
Sub-basin Existing Year 2000
M 27.6 46.3
0 17.1 47.2
Q 24.1 40.0
T 89.1 93.0
W 49.1 70.4
X 29.8 47.0
CC 2.0 17.7
DD 51.8 58.5
EE 43.0 67.0
FF 8.4 73.7
GG 10.6 85.2
HH 0.8 10.0
II 9.9 64.4
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1977
V-23
-------
of the Cahaba River, particularly below the confluence with Patton Creek which
is a major tributary draining a predominantly urban area. Increased peak flows
from these adjacent sub-basins can have a serious effect on the lower Cahaba
River. Increased peak flows may eventually cause the flood-adsorbing capacity
of the channel to be exceeded. Significant economic losses could occur, unless
flood plain management and zoning ordinances are implemented to prohibit new
development within the floodplain.
Urban development also has a detrimental effect on the environment quality
of the stream environment and the hydrologic amenities. A stream channel that
is gradually enlarged because of increased streamflows produced by urbanization
tends to have unstable and unvegetated banks, scoured or muddy channel beds,
and excessive debris accumulations. The natural biota is also upset by the
addition of pollutants and sediment. Results of this nature and extent should
not be noticeable in the entire Cahaba Basin, because the percent of the area
in residential and industrial/commercial land use categories is projected to
increase from the present value of 12.1 percent to only 22.2 percent in 2000.
Because forest and undeveloped land within the Cahaba Basin is only expected
to decrease from 79.9 percent to 70.1 percent in 2000, the overall stream
regimen within the Cahaba Basin should remain noticeably stable.
11. AQUATIC ECOLOGY
The decrease in concentrations of oxygen-demanding wastes discharged in
sewage effluent should raise oxygen levels and decrease slime populations.
This will enhance benthic invertebrate communities, increase the number of
fish nesting sites and egg survival, and increase the aesthetic appeal of
these waters for recreational use. The water quality resulting from increased
nutrient enrichment may have a countervailing effect on aquatic life.
An increase in nutrient loadings is expected within the study area from
wastewater discharges. Background nutrient levels will also increase as land
use changes. Higher nutrient levels may affect aquatic life by intensifying
the growth of algal and aquatic plant populations in existing problem areas
and by producing nuisance problems in previously unaffected river stretches.
There may also be effects of providing increased food supplies and habitat
for aquatic life resulting in larger populations. The danger lies in ponded
or impounded areas or during low flow periods when high diurnal oxygen
fluctuations may be experienced. Respiration from increased populations of
decomposers, viruses, fungi, and bacteria as well as algae and larger aquatic
plants could cause early morning oxygen depletions within the aquatic environ-
ment.
In stratified waters, such as Lake Purdy, decomposition of dead algae and
aquatic plants could result in maintained anoxic or near anoxic conditions in
the lower waters. Further, the removal of shade vegetation from stream banks
during interceptor construction or residential development may intensify these
problems.
An increase in suspended solids concentrations which could occur from
increased development and construction of force main and interceptor pipes
paralleling 55,000 feet of river bottom and crossing the river in 6 locales
can be expected to increase surface temperature, decrease light penetration,
V-24
-------
and decrease growth of aquatic vegetation. This would affect fish life and
benthic communities (EIFAC, 1965) by reducing disease resistance; preventing
successful development of fish eggs, larvae, and benthic organisms; reducing
food available to fish; and by clogging respiration apparatus and impairing
excretion. Mitigative construction practices and permanent erosion control
techniques can be practiced to decrease this hazard.
12. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The rare and endangered species of plants, animals, and aquatic life have
been discussed in chapter II of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Specific habitats have been delineated where possible. After exact pipe
routing has been designated and prior to construction, it is recommended that
a professional walk the proposed routing in order to further detect any of
these sensitive target areas through which force mains, interceptors, or other
construction activities may pass.
Terrestrial Plants
Of particular concern is the spider lily. Hymenocallis coronaria> which
may be affected by interceptor and force main construction. This species may
also be affected by expected development within the study area.
Terrestrial Animals
Of particular significance is the southeastern shrew whose bottom-land
habitat may be affected by the 55,000 feet of interceptor and force main
paralleling the Cahaba River between 1-459 and the Cahaba wastewater treatment
plant. The red-cockaded woodpecker, whose habitat consists of mature stands
of southern pines (long-leaf, slash loblolly, and short-leaf), has been reported
to exist around Lake Purdy. Interceptor construction and forthcoming develop-
ment are not expected to destroy any remaining stands of mature pines critical
to the distribution of this specie .
Fish
The goldline darter and the Cahaba shiner are proposed for inclusion on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's National Endangered Species list (Birmingham Post"
Herald, 12/2/77). Both are distributed in the Cahaba River downstream of the
study area for this EIS. These fish nay be affected by the impacts o£ develop-
ment and by nutrient enrichment and residual chlorine from the Cahaba facility.
These impacts would be especially evident during low-flow periods when the major
portion of the river's flow downstream will be contributed by dischar8e ^roin
the Cahaba treatment plant.
Just as chlorine is toxic to bacteria and other pathogenic organisins> it
is toxic to fish in natural systems. Previous studies have shown that such
warm water fish as the flathead minnow, golden shiner, and goldfish ate
susceptible to damage from chlorine concentrations. Effects that have been
noticed range from interference with breeding and reduced fecundity to c^eat'1.
The level of effect depends upon the concentration, the duration, afid t*ie
V-25
-------
frequency of the dose. Kills of 50% of bioassay populations have been reported
in fresh water systems with chlorine residual concentrations as low as 0.01
mg/1 in fresh waters, varying with fish species and frequency and duration of
exposures (Dickson et. al. 1977 and Brungs 1973). It is recommended, particularly
in lieu of potential affects on rare and endangered fish species, that continuous
in-stream levels should not exceed 0.002 mg/1, or 0.05 mg/1 for a period of up
to 30 minutes over a 24-hour period (U.S. EPA 1972 and 1976). This implies that
chlorine concentrations discharged from any wastewater treatment plants upstream
of the habitats of the endangered fish will need to be strictly controlled.
The effects of nitrogen discharged from the Cahaba and other treatment
plants on dissolved oxygen levels in the Cahaba River are predictable. The
preliminary modeling effort has shown, based In part on nitrification that occurs in
the stream that dissolved oxygen levels should reach a minimum of 5.0 mg/1 approx.
5.5 miles downstream of the Cahaba plant during low flow conditions. Biological
effects of nutrient inputs to the stream cannot be as easily predicted.
Excessive aquatic plant growths may be stimulated by nitrogen and phosphorus
in the Cahaba plant effluent, causing increased diurnal oxygen fluctuations
and additional oxygen consumption by dead, decaying plants. In order to prevent
adverse impacts waters, particularly downstream of the Cahaba plant, should be
monitored regularly with an emphasis on detection of nuisance growths of algae
or aquatic plants. If such growths develop and reduce dissolved oxygen levels
in the stream, the addition of phosphorus and/or nitrogen removal processes to
the Cahaba treatment plant should be considered. Predictions of these growths
are not possible.
!3- ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITIES
The following factors have been designated environmentally sensitive because
of their potential to be critically affected by the selected alternative and the
resulting development which will occur within the study area:
Presently good air quality is sensitive to increases in pollutant
emissions, particularly from increased automotive travel.
Sound levels are presently low and sensitive to noise associated with
residential growth, increased traffic, or traffic network changes.
With increased potential for steep slope development, land use planning
will become important to avoid erosion, increased runoff quantities,
and nonpoint pollution.
Development of low-land flood plain areas should be strictly regulated
to avoid increased flood damage hazards.
Nutrient enrichment and residual chlorine may have detrimental effects
on aquatic life, cause odor problems, and reduce recreational
opportunities. The potential for decreased water quality could
particularly affect the habitat of the goldline darter and Cahaba shiner.
The increased need to maintain a high quality of water in sufficient
quantities for municipal use will require consideration of additional
water sources because the present withdrawals from the Cahaba River
are at the maximum rate.
V-26
-------
PART B. IMPACTS ON THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
The man-made environment refers to the population and economy of the
Cahaba basin and the Birmingham area as well as to the larger network of
supporting facilities and institutions that provide service to the area.
It is a dynamic environment, reflecting the continual interaction of cul-
tural, political, demographic, and economic influences. This section
identifies the likely primary and secondary effects of the proposed waste-
water management system on key aspects of this changing environment. Pri-
mary effects are those impacts that result directly from construction and
operation of the proposed facilities. Secondary impacts are those that are
caused by the population growth and residential development that the pro-
posed facilities will support.
It should be noted that the economy of Birmingham will bring growth
pressure to the Cahaba basin whether the proposed wastewater collection and
treatment facilities are constructed or not. Strictly interpreted, the
impacts of the proposed action are the relatively small increment in growth
that the facilities will permit. However, in this section the impacts are
presented generally in terms of change in the conditions that exist at this
time.
1. POPULATION
According to the projections adopted for wastewater management planning
in Birmingham, population growth is expected both in the region and in the
Cahaba basin (see chapter II). This expectation is reinforced by the sub-
stantial development pressures and investment commitments to date in the
basin. With its generally favorable physical and land ownership conditions,
good regional accessibility, and positive image as an attractive residential
area, the basin is clearly poised for future growth.
There are large areas of land in the basin that will allow the use of
on-lot wastewater disposal systems. In addition, there are developments
underway of sufficient size and viability to use package treatment plants.
Because of these factors, it is expected that the basin's population will
grow even if additional federally-assisted sewage treatment capacity is not
constructed (see chapter III for a more detailed discussion of the no-action
alternative). A projection of this baseline growth is shown by sub-basin
in table V-5. This growth would most likely occur in areas contiguous with
existing suburban development.
If the proposed system for central collection, treatment^and disposal
of wastewater is established, the basin population is projected to be
somewhat larger than under the no-action alternative. These projections
are shown in table V-5. By the year 2000, approximately 2% more people are
expected to reside in the basin than under the no-action alternative. A
different land use pattern will also result, as described in the following
section.
V-27
-------
TABLE V-5.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY SUBWATERSHEDS
CAHABA RIVER BASIN STUDY AREA
2000 Population
Under Proposed No-Action
Subwatershed
1975
Action
2000
A
653
1,061
800
Bn
2,401
3,062
4,160
Bc
3,765
4,340
5,350
BS
5,130
13,557
15,480
C
2,149
3,079
2,720
D
1,907
1,990
2,690
E
791
886
1,040
F
512
1,579
940
G
753
1,009
8,490
H
2,955
3,607
4,560
I
2,124
2,660
2,520
J
519
575
530
K
315
485
340
L
7,637
9,134
10,300
M
484
1,037
500
N
1,315
1,937
1,360
0
449
1,002
460
P
12
20
60
Q
1,613
2,005
1,700
R
0
0
0
S
5
11
20
T
5,896
6,584
6,110
U
0
0
370
V
0
535
0
W
16,506
20,847
17,570
X
2,474
2,908
2,490
Y
0
0
0
Z
0
0
340
AA
374
436
390
BB
0
54
30
CC
236
1,983
260
DD
27,606
33,256
31,180
EE
1,193
3,462
1,210
FF
121
3,361
2,720
GG
2,008
8,164
5,150
HH
517
1,038
550
II
302
2,345
3,020
JJ
12
200
20
Total
92,734
138,209
135,430
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1977
V-28
-------
As the projections indicate, the increased population of the basin
will not be evenly distributed. Growth is expected to be focused in those
areas where transportation facilities and present land use/property owner-
ship conditions are most favorable. The existing developed areas are
expected to be more intensely settled and to expand into adjacent land.
Thus, development will be fairly continuous between 1-20 (Mountain Brook)
and the lower end of the study area (Hoover) on the Birmingham side of the
Cahaba River. This growth will be served by the existing road network as
well as by 1-459.
As development crosses the Cahaba River, it will be concentrated in the
area along 1-65 and U.S. 31, generally below U.S. 280. Several large-scale
residential development commitments have already been made in this area
(River Chase and Inverness, for example), and large parcels of property have
been assembled for other major developments. Expected population densities
are shown in chapter II, figure II-2.
It is important to bear in mind that the population projections shown
in table V-5 for the proposed action are estimates. As such they are in-
herently uncertain. The actual population levels in the basin by the year
2000 may well be different than what is projected, both in total number and
in distribution among sub-basins. As discussed in chapter II, the projec-
tions represent the population that is expected to be drawn to the basin by
projected economic and demographic influences. If these market factors are
stronger or weaker than expected through the remainder of this century, then
the eventual basin population will be accordingly greater or smaller than
projected. If population grows at a lower rate than is projected, then the
design capacity of the proposed facilities would be reached some time after
the year 2000 and the phasing of facilities construction would be extended.
If a faster growth rate is observed, then the design capacity would be reached
sooner than 2000 A.D. Additional population beyond the capacity of the pro-
posed system could be supported to some degree by on-lot or private disposal
systems.
Considering the type of housing that is being constructed in the basin,
the characteristics of the future population will reflect a continuation of
present trends in Birmingham's suburban areas. Single family units will be
the dominant type of housing, attracting families of larger than median size
for the region. Incomes in the basin will probably also be higher than the
regional median. There is no indication that these characteristics would
be materially different between the proposed action and the no-action
alternative.
With one exception, the region as a whole should not experience signi-
ficant adverse impacts on the man-made environment due to the increment in
population growth that the proposed action will permit in the basin. The
exception involves the trend of population decline in Birmingham's urban
areas, which had recently begun to show signs of slowing.
It is not possible within the limits of this study to determine
whether the development of the proposed facilities will add to the strength
of this trend toward suburban migration. However, it is worthwhile to note
several points. First, the Cahaba basin's fundamental attractiveness as a
residential area is one of the factors that has shaped the region's history
of urban decline. It is an attractive area with or without the proposed
V-29
-------
facilities, so that the underlying pressure for suburban movement will
continue in any case. Further, the demand for suburban housing is a
reflection of consumer preference. The housing market would respond to
this demand and provide some amount of suburban housing in areas outside
the Cahaba basin,if a lack of wastewater treatment capacity in the basin
limited its growth potential. Thus, central-city population losses in the
future are likely to be more significantly influenced by factors other than
the proposed action.
2. LAND USE
The proposed action is based on making maximum use of existing faci-
lities during the planning period; new construction sites are limited main-
ly to elements of the proposed conveyance system. Thus, a minimum of
permanent land use changes is expected, and there should be no significant
conflicts between major components of the system, such as the wastewater
treatment plants, and the land uses that surround them. No relocation of
families, businesses, or public activities is expected under the proposed
action.
The number of people presently living in the vicinity of the Leeds,
Trussville, and Cahaba plants is shown in table V-6. As population growth
continues in the basin, land use changes can be anticipated in the areas
surrounding these plants. However, since each of these plants has been in
operation for some years, it is likely that future land use decisions will
be made in consideration of their presence.
Table V-6 also shows an estimate of the number of people who live near
the Patton Creek plant. Eliminating the Patton Creek plant will allow for
a positive land use change in that this site can be reduced in area and be
turned to other uses. With this plant's history of odor problems, convert-
ing it from a treatment plant to a pumping station will eliminate an
existing land use conflict affecting these individuals. Eliminating use
of the outfall discharging to Paradise Lake will also be beneficial, not
only ecologically, but also in terms of future use of the lake as a local
recreational resource.
The right-of-way areas for interceptors and force mains will be
permanent changes in land use. However, their overall effect will not be
adverse, in that the right-of-way can be available for other public uses
such as hiking trails. The only visible evidence of the interceptor or
force main following construction will be the manholes located at various
intervals along the routing.
Another effect of the proposed action on land use involving the encour-
agement of residential groupings of homes in the basin will be substantial,
and such an effect may well be positive in comparison with land use pat-
terns that could be expected under the no-action alternative (see chapter
III for detailed discussion of the no-action "future"). Development would
occur in the basin even if the no-action alternative were followed. How-
ever, the development would likely be as a result of a greater number of
individual decisions to purchase property and construct residences, with
relatively fewer large-scale developments.
V-30
-------
TABLE y-6.
ESTIMATED POPULATION IN THE VICINITY OF
EXISTING SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
THE CAHABA BASIN STUDY AREA
Sewage Treatment Estimated*Population Within
Facility 1000 Feet 2000 Feet 3000 Feet
Leeds 3.5 7-10 90-100
Trussville 0 3-5 30-40
Cahaba 0 0 0
Patton Creek 0 70-80 230-250
^Estimates based on counts of residential housing units within given distances
of each plant. Includes only full-time residents and not day-time populations.
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1977
V-31
-------
This process of scattered development tends to encourage lower popu-
lation densities, with fewer areas specifically set aside for non-residential
uses such as open space. Street and thoroughfare patterns tend to be less
efficient. Certain services and facilities, such as storm drains, tend to
be provided after population growth has dictated their need and their loca-
tion. These trends would be reinforced in the Cahaba basin, where large
areas subject to development pressure lie outside of current municipal
boundaries in unincorporated areas of Jefferson and Shelby counties.
Under the proposed action or indeed under any alternative that pro-
vides central collection and treatment of sewage, the arrangement of sewer
service areas would exert a strong influence on the shape of future develop-
ments. There are two major factors in this regard. First, expanded treat-
ment capacity will allow continued development within present service areas.
This makes continued use of land areas and infrastructure already devoted to
residential use. Second, the proposed expansions of sewer service will
permit the continuation of development trends already in evidence in the
basin. To the extent that these show evidence of planning prior to develop-
ment, they offer an opportunity to deal with the problems of density, open
space requirements, public service needs, storm drainage, transportation,
and related concerns somewhat in advance of population growth. A map of
expected land use under the proposed alternative is shown in chapter II,
figure II-4.
Typically, one of the potential impacts of sewer service extensions has
been that interceptors to serve new areas tend to create growth pressures
along the interceptor route. This growth pressure in turn brings about land
use changes that were not envisioned or desired during the original land use
planning efforts. The proposed action involves the smallest distance of
new interceptor and therefore the lowest potential for unforeseen develop-
ment of any of the alternatives except no action.
3. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed action is a substantial investment of public capital.
The impacts of this investment on the local economy will fall into several
general categories, as follows:
a. The cost of the resources to be committed to construction
and operation of the proposed facilities is considerable.
These costs will be borne in part by the Federal government
and in part by the local economy.
b. The Federal share of the construction costs is a transfer
of funds from the economy at large to the local economy.
This transfer generates a transient increase in regional
demand for goods and services as the funds circulate
through the economy. Construction will create some tem-
porary employment, while operation of the facilities will
involve about 20 permanent jobs.
V-32
-------
c. The investment to implement the proposed action will allow
development of the Cahaba Basin as a residential area,
which represents positive regional economic growth.
d. Development of the basin will create demand for local public
and private services for the increased population. The cost
of these services is potentially an additional burden for the
local economy.
For the most part, these economic changes are not unique to the proposed
action - some of them would occur in any case. For example, it appears that
development will occur in the basin, even without the proposed action. Thus
investment of some kind will probably be made in wastewater treatment faci-
lities during the planning period. (Chapter III offers a discussion of in-
vestment under the no-action alternative.) Further, the demand for addi-
tional housing in the Birmingham region derives from general economic and
population growth, not simply from investments in public services. If
housing construction does not take place in the Cahaba basin, it will most
likely occur in other parts of the region, generating increased demand for
public services.
The external demand represented by the transfer of Federal funds into
the local economy is the major area of unique economic impact that is
directly linked with the proposed action.
Project Cost
Under P.L. 92-500, the Federal government will pay 75% of eligible con-
struction costs. Not all of the items involved in project construction are
eligible for Federal funding, so that a Federal grant of approximately 68%
of the total $23,051,000 project cost* is expected in this case, or
$15,675,000. For this project, the major ineligible item is the cost of
financing the local share.
The remaining $7,776,000 must be paid by local funds, to be raised in
this case through the issuance of revenue bonds by the Jefferson County
Sewer Authority. In addition, operating and maintenance costs expected to
be approximately $801,000 per year must be borne locally making the total
annual local burden $1,418,000. This is equivalent to about 5A
-------
rates are presently $0.30 per hundred cubic feet (hcf) of water consumption
for domestic and non-domestic users. However, it is estimated that the
costs of wastewater treatment under the proposed action will be about $0.40
per hcf of water consumed. This would incur an apparent deficit of about
$0.10 per hcf at 1977 price levels.
In considering the impact of this apparent deficit, several points are
noted:
a. The cost estimates refer to 1985 wastewater flows. As
flows increase after 1985, the average cost of treatment
should decline. Thus, deficits may be a temporary concern
beginning in 1982 and declining in significance after 1985.
b. The operating and maintenance cost estimates reflect 1977
prices, which will rise through inflation during the plan-
ning period. If sewer rates are not adjusted periodically
for inflation, the actual deficit in 1985 would be larger
than predicted.
c. The $0.40 per hcf treatment cost can be broken down to
$0.23 for operating cost and $0.17 for capital costs. The
Jefferson County Sewer Authority must cover operating costs
with operating revenues with the sewer rate of $0.30 per hcf
being operating revenues. Non-operating revenues can be
used to cover capital costs. Thus, the present sewer rates
are adequate to cover operating costs and a portion of capi-
tal costs. The remaining deficit could be supported by
increasing non-operating revenues, such as ad valorem taxes,
sales taxes, or special purpose transfers from general muni-
cipal funds.
d. The apparent deficit relates to only a portion of the aggre-
gate wastewater flow treated by the Jefferson County Sewer
Authority in all its plants. If the additional revenue re-
quirements are spread over all the Authority's customers, its
impact on users in the study area will be greatly reduced.
e. Relative to other cities, sewer rates in the Jefferson County
Sewer Authority's system are relatively low. Even a rate
increase of $0.10 per hcf would not raise rates to a compara-
tively high level.
Impact of Construction Expenditures
The estimated local share of project costs of 32 percent can be handled
only by diverting local funds from other competing uses. The 68% Federal
share of costs, however, represents new income to the region. To the extent
that these grant funds are spent on labor and materials produced within the
region, they will generate a temporary increase in regional income. Further,
these local purchases of goods and services constitute income that will be
spent locally many times, making the total, cumulative effect of the
Federal contribution an increase in local incomes that is larger than the
V-34
-------
contribution itself. The effect of this infusion of funds is temporary,
because at each round of spending a substantial portion of the income is
drawn off to purchase goods that are produced outside the region.
Economic Returns on the Investment in New Sewers
The proposed action will support development in the basin, as pre-
viously discussed. This development and the continuing economic activity
that accompanies it are a large part of the economic return to all public
investment in sewers, roads, water supply, and other development projects
in the basin. The return is realized as growth in regional production and
incomes and possibly a net increase in tax revenues from property, sales,
and income taxes generated in the basin. Strictly speaking, this return
accrues more to other investments than to sanitary sewers, since the develop-
ment will probably take place without large-scale public construction of
sewers and treatment works.
The economic growth associated with this development will include
growth in construction activity, retail/commercial activity, and in public
sector activity. Some 14,000 to 15,000 additional dwelling units can be
expected in order to accommodate the anticipated growth. Depending on the
type of housing that is eventually built and considering the related non-
residential activity, the economic value of this construction to the study
area could approach half a billion dollars over the planning period.
Demand for Additional Public Services
Development will create increased demands for public services in the
basin to serve the new population as well as to shift public service areas
to accommodate the new pattern of population density. Impacts of this
increased demand is discussed in a subsequent section.
4. HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
The recommended plan will not affect any historical sites on the
National Register of Historic Places. However, interceptor construction
will have a potential impact on archaeological resources along the Cahaba
River. The representative interceptor layout shown on figure V-6 passes
through four archaeological sites. Since the layout is representative, the
actual design of the interceptor may avoid most of these sites. The sites
labeled Je 47, Je 48, Je 34, and Je 35 were avoided where possible during
construction of the existing interceptors.
Loss of valuable archaeological resources could be avoided by salvaging
those resources located where right-of-way changes are not possible. Before
construction begins, a qualified archaeologist should examine sites along
the right-of-way route to determine their extent and significance. Sites
with significant resources should be evaluated by the Chairman of the
Alabama Historical Commission and the Secretary of the Interior to deter-
mine their eligibility for inclusion in the National Register or Historic
Places. If eligible sites cannot be avoided, their resources should be
then salvaged. During construction, an archaeologist should examine exposed
V-35
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
soil to locate any unknown sites along the routes. At this time, the
archaeological significance of these pipeline routes is not fully known,
where exploration has not taken place to date. Such significance dates
generally from the Woodland/Mississippian Occupation (ca A.D. 500 to
A.D. 1200). An archaeological survey will be performed during step II of
the wastewater treatment planning and construction program.
A number of parks have been proposed for the basin to be controlled
by county and municipal agencies. These proposals, which were identified
in the Jefferson County Land Suitability and Regional Parks and Open Space
Flans, represent planning toward the expected population growth in the basin.
Considering the availability of Oak Mountain State Park and the several
golf courses already in the basin, there would not appear to be any serious
deficiency in recreation facilities to serve the anticipated population in
the basin assuming future land use changes do not affect the area's recrea-
tional quality more than is anticipated by this study.
5. TRANSPORTATION
The proposed action will have minimal direct impact on transportation
in the basin. Three road crossings are required across the interceptor
that is proposed to extend northeastward from the Cahaba plant. These
crossings can be managed in such a way that if traffic is to be disrupted,
the interference will be temporary and traffic flow in both directions will
be able to be maintained at all times. For major U.S. routes and interstate
highways, it is required that sewer lines be installed by the use of tunnel-
ing rather than by open trenches.
Operation of the facilities will require that sludge be trucked away
from the Cahaba plant as flows approach the design levels. Six round trips
per day will be required by the year 2000. This may produce adverse Impact
in residential developments, because access to the plant is available now
only along residential streets. The sludge would be hauled to a local land-
fill for disposal. The Eastern Area landfill presently used by Jefferson
County for municipal solid waste dumping is to be easily accessible via
1-459, following its completion, except for the roadways near the plant
noted above.
As population increases in the Cahaba basin and as the currently planned
highway improvements are completed, motor vehicle travel will increase.
Future traffic volumes will include both through travel on major highways
aT»rf trips that are extended only within the basin. Table V-7 shows the
range of increase in travel expected along major basin routes.
Considering the projected Increase in population and the likely travel
character is t i cs of future residents, vehicle miles traveled each day by basin
residents could be expected to increase by as much as 40 percent, while
through travel on major roadways could increase by 25 percent.* Current
vehicle travel in the basin is on the order of 3 to 3.5 million vehicle miles
*These estimates are based on 2.7 trips per person per day in the basin, with
an average trip length of nine miles. Through travel in 1990 is to be as
high as 100,000 trips per day vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not available
trlthout extensive projection of development and travel patterns.
V-36
-------
TABLE V-7. PROJECTED INCREASES IN AVERAGE
DAILY TRAVEL ON MAJOR ROADWAYS
IN THE CAHABA BASIN
Roadway
Current Traffic Volumes
h ow High
Future Traffic Volumes
Low High
1-65
1-59
1-20
1-459
U.S. 31
U.S. 280
U.S. 11
25,310
5,900
12,410
26,150
7,480
1,630
30,620
7,210
23,960
27,660
31,410
9,980
25,800
55,200
12,600
19,200
27,800
45,200
25,400
39,000
30,000
37,200
10,600
32,400
4,000
27,000
Transportation Plan, Vol. 2, Birmingham - Jefferson County Regional
Transportation Study, 1974.
V-37
-------
per day. Future levels may be as high as 5 million vehicle miles traveled
per day. According to the 1990 transportation plan for the region, major
roadways will be adequate to accommodate these traffic volumes at reason-
able levels of service. However, secondary and feeder roads will probably
experience overloading, unless localized improvements are made as growth
occurs.
Growth of population and travel in the basin could lend support to
the future development of a bus transit system. Line-haul systems or
specialized systems such as the DART plan (Downtown Area Rapid Transit)
will not necessarily be made more viable by continued suburban development.
6. RESOURCE USE
The proposed action will use a number of local and manufactured mater-
ials for construction and operation of facilities. Table V-8 shows esti-
mated quantities of materials and resources to be consumed. It is not
expected that any of these resource demands will exert undue pressure on
supplies or availability.
The indirect impact of future growth on the basin's resource stocks
will be felt in the loss of 16,000 acres of land and its potential mineral,
agricultural, or silvicultural productivity of the land to development.
Projected residential growth is to pre-empt mineral extraction in several
areas of the basin, particularly in sub-basins GG, FF,and B (south), where
known deposits of coal will no longer be available for mining.
7. WATER SUPPLY
The proposed action will affect Birmingham's water supply in two ways.
First, the effluent discharges from Leeds and Trussville will continue to
be located upstream from the Water Works Board's Cahaba intake. No health
problems have been recorded in the past from this arrangement; however, this
does not guarantee such problems will not develop in the future, particu-
larly as larger wastewater flows at Leeds and Trussville are generated.
Taste and odor problems have also been reported by water supply users. The
effluent quality from these discharges is expected to improve under the
proposed action as long as the treatment facilities are properly operated.
However, this configuration of effluent discharges and water supply with-
drawal is less than optimum because of biological and chemical constituents
of municipal sewage not removed during wastewater treatment that enter the
water supply. The second area of impact on Birmingham's water supply cen-
ters at the various consequences of expected future development in the basin.
As discussed in this study, this development will possibly alter the hydro-
logic regime of the basin and introduce greater quantities of pollutants
through nonpoint source runoff than at present. The extent of the impact
of development on water supply depends on locations of development and
controls taken to reduce development's impacts on the area's water quality.
The distance from the Trussville outfall to the water intake is about
31 river miles, with a travel time of approximately 1 week under low flow
„rid average water use conditions. At the discharge point, the dilution
r«tlo» which is the ratio of stream flow to effluent flow is approximately
V-38
-------
TABLE V-8. RESOURCE AND MATERIAL USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED FACILITIES
Resource/Material
Category
Quantity Required
Land
Interceptor
Treatment Plants and Pumping Stations
Sludge Disposal
Electric Power
92 acres
10 acres
10 acres/year at depth of 1 foot
35,000 KWH/day
Chemicals (major requirements only)
Chlorine
Hydrogen Peroxide
Aluminum Sulfate
Labor
0.5 tons/day
0.25 tons/day
0.5 tons/day
20 additional jobs
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1977
V-39
-------
1:1 at low flows. The distance between the Leeds outfall and the water
intake is approximately 17 miles, if the discharge is to the Little Cahaba
River and approximately 19 miles if discharge is to the Cahaba River. Times
of travel for the waters are greater than 30 days and approximately 4 days
for these two options, respectively. The longer time of travel through the
Little Cahaba River is due to retention of water in Lake Purdy. At low flow,
the dilution ratio at the Little Cahaba River outfall for the Leeds effluent
is 1:1, while at the Cahaba River outfall the ratio would be approximately
4:1.
Adequacy of the Cahaba River as a Water Supply
The Water Works Board presently withdraws water from the Cahaba River
at the maximum rate during periods of low flow. Without additional impound-
ments or increased storage at Lake Purdy, future increases in average annual
withdrawals are not feasible on a continuing basis. Thus, any impact of the
proposed action on the hydrology of the- basin is potentially critical to the
continued viability of the Cahaba as a water supply.
As previously discussed on page V-22 of this chapter, land converted
for residential and related uses creates a strong potential for increases
in runoff peaks and reductions in base stream flows through increases in the
amount of impervious surface and alterations in runoff patterns. In at
least three subbasins upstream from the water supply intake, development is
expected to occur at a scale great enough to induce these effects (see table
V-4 and figure V-5).
These trends and changes do not create insurmountable obstacles to
continued use of the Cahaba River as a water supply during the 20-year plan-
ning period. They do, however, emphasize the inherent problem in using a
stream with flows as small and variable as the Cahaba as both a water supply
and a waste receiving stream.
To remedy the problems associated with using the Cahaba River for both
water supply and wastewater disposal purposes, a separate study suggests
alternative water supply sources to supplement or replace the current Cahaba
River-Lake Purdy water supply system. Under such alternatives, the use of
Lake Purdy would be supplemented or eliminated* and the use of the Cahaba
River for water supply would be eliminated. Costs associated with obtain-
ing the same quantities of water as are presently available to the current
water supply users range from $28 million for supplementing Lake Purdy with
water from a reservoir at Big Black Creek to $75 million for moving the water
supply outside the Cahaba River basin to the Coosa River or Mulberry Fork
(Malcolm Pirnie water supply study, 1977). Costs associated with other
sources of water to completely eliminate use of the Cahaba River and Lake
Purdy are greater than $75 million, while costs for other supplements to
Lake Purdy range from $37 million to $64 million. It is presumed that as
one of these alternatives is implemented, the discharge of wastewater ef-
fluent from Leeds would be switched to either the Cahaba River or the spray
irrigation site north of Leeds. Costs for this relocation of the Leeds
effluent discharge are not included in the water supply alternative costs.
Further, it must be recognized that these alternative costs do not reflect
V-40
-------
increases in the amount of water available for water supply uses. Additional
costs for these increased uses would be lower for any alternatives that
include additional demands to be satisfied by a proposed dam than for adding
the capacity to supply additional demand to the current Cahaba River - Lake
Purdy water supply system.
Health-related water supply impacts on water supply are largely a result
of upstream wastewater discharges. Parameters of concern when assessing
potential health-related impacts on water supply due to the proposed action
include nitrate, chlorinated organic compounds, heavy metals, and bacteria
and viruses. It does not seem likely that the proposed action will produce
major adverse impacts on water supply, but some undesirable aspects of the
existing water supply situation will continue.
Nitrate in a drinking water supply is of concern because of its relation
to methemoglobinemia. This issue has been discussed in the section of this
chapter on water quality impacts, with the conclusion that under the proposed
action nitrate concentrations at the Birmingham water supply intake will be
well below values generally accepted for a raw water source. Present con-
centrations of nitrate in the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers do not tend to
refute this conclusion.
In recent years, the presence of chlorinated organic compounds in water
supplies has been established. Disinfection of treated wastewater by chlorina-
tion often results in the formation of organic byproducts. These byproducts
are generally persistent and many eventually reach water supplies. When a
raw water source contains sufficient organic matter, chlorination of the water
before distribution to the public can also produce chlorinated organic
compounds. Several of these compounds are believed to be human health hazards,
and many other organic compounds found in water supplies are presently being
examined for possible health effects. The National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, established as a result of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
set maximum contaminant levels for several parameters, including four pesticides
which are chlorinated hydrocarbons. On February 9, 1978, the U.S. EPA pro-
posed a regulation regarding the control of organic chemical contaminants in
drinking water. The regulations propose to set a health standard for the
trihalomethane group of compounds, which includes chloroform, bromodichloro-
methane, dichlorobromomethane, and tribromomethane. These compounds are formed
during the disinfection process at a treatment plant. The proposed regulation
also calls for some water systems to install filtration with granular activated
carbon to remove organic chemicals present in untreated water due to upstream
pollution from industrial and municipal waste discharges and spills and from
agricultural and urban runoff.
At present, the Leeds and Trussville treatment plants presently discharge
a total of approximately 1.7 mgd which eventually reach the water supply
intake. Under the proposed action, this combined discharge will increase to
2.8 mgd in the year 2000. The water supply withdrawal has averaged 56 mgd
during the past decade. This withdrawal is not expected to rise significantly
in the future, as the Cahaba River system is presently being utilized at a
rate that exceeds the safe yield of 46 mgd (Malcolm Pirnie, 1977). It can be
seen, therefore, that treated wastewater presently makes up a small percentage
of the water supply withdrawal and will continue to do so under the proposed
action. Small amounts of the trihalomethane compounds undoubtedly reach the
V-41
-------
Birmingham water supply at present. Under the proposed action, the levels of
chlorinated sewage byproducts reaching the water distribution systems would
increase, although not significantly, assuming that the purification processes
at the Shades Mountain Filter Plant or the efficiencies of these treatment
processes are not changed.
Another group of chemical constituents of interest here are heavy metals
from industrial sources. Cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver are
metala which are currently listed in the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. Water quality data collected for the Birmingham 208 agency
indicate that existing concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and lead are an
order of magnitude less than the interim maximum contaminant levels.
Determinations of mercury and silver concentrations were not made.
These inorganic constituents are discharged through the wastewater treat-
ment plants or are washed into surface waters by rainfall at industrial sites.
Under the proposed action, industrial and commercial areas upstream of the
intake are projected to increase from the existing total of approximately 1
square mile to over 2.5 square miles. A corresponding increase in the con-
centrations of the metals reaching the water supply can also be expected to
occur, although the extent of this increase will depend on the types of
industries which locate in the study area, the extent of treatment prior to
reaching the rivers, and the control of quality at industrial sites. Future
water quality monitoring will be required to determine if any concentrations
of these constituents approach maximum contaminant levels and if any short-
term problems such as chemical spills pose any threats to the water quality
at the water supply intake.
Problems related to bacteria and viruses were addressed previously in
the discussion on treatment plant malfunctions in the water quality Impacts
section. It was concluded that there was very little chance of bacterial
contamination of the treated water supply under the proposed action just as
there are presently no bacterial contaminations of treated drinking water.
Viruses are much more persistent than bacteria,and small concentrations of
viruses probably are present in the existing water supply. As with chlorina-
ted organic compounds, virus levels will probably increase under the proposed
action. These increases should not be significant, however, since wastewater
discharges will continue to make up only a small percentage of the water
withdrawn for water supply under the proposed action.
Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)
The Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1974, was established out of
concern for the quality of drinking water supplies and calls for the estab-
lishment and utilization of Primary Drinking Water Regulations under U.S.
EPA management. The regulations consist of maximum contaminant levels for
ten different inorganic constituents, turbidity, collform organisms, six
different pesticideB, and radionuclides. Although the U.S. EPA is charged
with administering this Act, the Alabama Department of Health has been
granted primary enforcement responsibility for the public water supply
program.
V-42
-------
Eventually, as more data become available concerning the conditions
of the nation's water supplies, steps will be taken to correct situations
that are not in compliance with Federal standards. It is not possible to
predict how the Act will be applied to the Cahaba River basin, but it is
reasonable to expect that the levels of nutrients and residual chlorine that
will be introduced by the design discharges of the Leeds and Trussville
plants will be of added interest under the Act. If remedial action for the
Cahaba River is to be needed, the following corrective actions could be
taken:
a) Develop a new water supply outside the basin.
b) Provide additional wastewater treatment, if effluent
discharges are at the root of water supply problems.
c) Provide variations in existing water treatment facili-
ties and additional water treatment facilities to
remove specific harmful components.
8. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
As discussed in chapter II, there are several concurrent water quality
management programs underway relative to the Cahaba basin or to Birmingham
area as a whole. In varying degrees, these plans will be influenced by a
decision to pursue the proposed action.
Wastewater Facilities Planning (Section 201 of P.L. 92-500)
The Birmingham Metropolitan Area Wastewater Facilities Plan (201 Plan)
that was completed in 1975 recommended that the Cahaba basin be served by
an expanded treatment plant at Cahaba and a new plant at Overton. The pro-
posed action is a substantial departure from the 1975 recommendation; thus,
the Cahaba basin portions of the 201 Plan will have to be altered prior to
making application to the U.S. EPA for Federal funds. The portion of the
201 Plan that deals with the Warrior Basin will not be affected by the
proposed action. It is possible, since the proposed action has a lower
estimated cost than the 1975 recommendation, that the difference in costs
will be freed to be used in similar programs elsewhere in Alabama.
Areawide Wastewater Management Planning (Section 208 of P.L. 92-500)
The Birmingham 208 Plan is presently near completion. The 208 study
works at a broader level than the 201 Plan. Many of the project-specific
assessments and determinations that are involved in 201 planning are sup-
plemental to the 208 process, provided that the two levels of wastewater
management planning are consistent in their premises and basic data. To
ensure this consistency, this EIS was coordinated with the 208 study at
several key points such as water quality sampling data, water quality
modeling, and population projections. While the proposed action does fore-
close options for areawide wastewater management that would have been avail-
able to the 208 study, had it been completed in advance of the 201 Plan and
this EIS, it is unlikely that the outcome of the 208 study will be altered
by the decision to pursue the proposed action.
V-43
-------
River Basin Planning (Section 303(e) of 92-500)
The proposed action is in keeping with the purposes and recommendations
of the draft 303(e) study prepared by the Alabama Water Improvement
Commission.
Northwest Shelby County Wastewater Facilities Planning
The flows from Buck Creek are an important addition to the Cahaba River
flows downstream of the Cahaba treatment facility. As such their quality
should be maintained at the highest practical level in order to have maximum
assimilative capacity below the confluence of the two streams.
Results from this EIS show that the proposed facilities in the Cahaba
basin will meet the mandated 5.0 mg/1 dissolved oxygen level at a point
well upstream from Buck Creek. Therefore, the proposed action will not
affect the level of treatment required for facilities in Buck Creek with
respect to dissolved oxygen. The significant discharge of nutrients from
the Cahaba treatment plant upstream of Buck Creek will have to be considered
in the Northwest Shelby County 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan. However, it
is not clear what constraints nutrient levels in the Cahaba River will place
upon the Buck Creek facilities, because the impacts of these nutrient inputs
on the Cahaba River are not predictable quantitatively at this time. The
cumulative influence of facilities on Buck Creek, as well as on Shades Creek,
should be considered as part of the ongoing Birmingham areawide 208 study or
the Alabama Water Improvement Commission's River Basin Study.
9. WATER RIGHTS
The rights of various present and future users of the waters in the
Cahaba basin are discussed in chapter II. The Birmingham Water Works Board
withdraws considerable volumes of water from the combined flows of the Cahaba
and Little Cahaba Rivers, using all of the available water at times of low
flows. Water is also required for waste assimilation at each effluent dis-
charge point. This creates at least two opportunities for conflict. The
first is at the Leeds and Trussville plants upstream from the water supply
intake, where the disposal of treated effluent represents a use of the water
that may not return it to the stream "undiminished in quality," as generally
required under riparian doctrine. The second possibility is the increased
discharge of treated effluent from the Cahaba plant downstream of the water
supply intake. As development continues the demand for potable water will
increase and the altered hydrology resulting particularly from increased
residential development of the basin may well reduce base flows and extend
the length of low-flow periods. These contrary trends will result in conflicts
regarding legal water rights downstream from the Cahaba plant in the future.
V-44
-------
Future pressures to resolve these water rights issues may make it
necessary to develop an alternative potable water supply to replace part
or all of the Cahaba withdrawals for water supply purposes. A possible
long-term solution would be to move to another basin for potable water,
which would also relieve the potential legal conflict. The need to resolve
water rights conflicts is not due to the development of the proposed
wastewater management system, nor would they be solved by developing
another alternative proposed action.
10. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
Development will create demand for public services in the basin to
serve the new population as well as to shift public service areas to accom-
modate the new pattern of population density. Table V-9 lists the police,
fire, medical, educational public works, and other types of services that
could be required by the future population of the basin.
It is not possible to predict whether tax revenues will be adequate to
support the required levels of service, because this depends on which muni-
cipal or county government offers the service and whether these services
ar^. presently financially solvent. The adequacy of tax revenues also de-
pends on what tax rates are levied in the basin on real or personal property
and how such taxes are redistributed to compensate the affected municipalities.
From the data listed in chapter II with regard to current public ser-
vices, it appears that the following problems can be foreseen:
a) County fire service is not provided in Shelby County, which
will be the site of substantial population growth. In fact,
most of Shelby County's services are oriented toward the
center of the county rather than toward the Birmingham
metropolitan area.
b) Medical facilities are located mainly outside the basin.
c) The concentration of population along U.S. 31 and 1-65 will
encourage particularly heavy use of facilities in Mountain
Brook, Hoover, Homewood, and Vestavia Hills although large
portions of the new population will be outside the
municipalities.
11• TAXES AND BUDGETING
The proposed action will have two effects on the fiscal affairs of
communities in the study area. The first is the possible need to increase
either operating or non-operating revenues of the sewer system to cover
increased treatment costs. This will affect the Jefferson County Sewer
Authority directly and could indirectly affect the local municipalities, if
any decision is made to increase non-operating revenues through a tax
increase. The second direct impact is in the loss of 102 acres of poten-
tially tax ratable land to public rights-of-way for interceptor construc-
tion, expanded treatment plant sites, and pumping stations.
V-45
-------
TABLE V-9
PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
Type of Service
Public Service:
Police Protection
Level Required
to Serve*
Varies - Based upon local needs.
Jefferson Co.
1.8 per thousand.
Provided By
Shelby Co.
20 persons for the
entire county.
Municipalities
Varies from 2.3
to 16.7 per 1,000
Fire Protection
Required water supply varies based
upon size and type of community.
Varies - 0.8-1.1
full-time per
1,000
2.1-3.2 volunteers
per 1,000
Fire depts. located
in individual cities.
No county service
provided.
Varies - full-time,
1.4-3.4 per 1,000
Volunteer, 2.2-7.7
per 1,000
Health & Welfare:
f
¦e-
o»
Hospitals, Clinics,
Nursing Homes
The national standard for acute care
facilities is four beds per thousand
persons in SMSA1s. There is no pro-
jected need for acute care facilities
in Jefferson County through 1980.
Hospitals - 3,600
beds
Nursing Homes -
3,573 beds
One hospital - Shelby
Memorial
One Nursing Home
One Clinic
Education
Schools
Nursery School
1,000 persons - 60 Nursery Age Children
Minimum Area for 60 Nursery Age Children
Area
4000 SF
Classes
Schools Required
1
Nine separate
school systems with
an enrollment of
123,250
County School System
11,000 students and
800 employes
Student/Teacher
Ratio 19:2 - 27:1
Elementary Schools
1,000 persons - 175 Elementary School
Age Children
250-800 children per elementary school.
12-14 acres average area required.
Serves average of 5,000 persons.
-------
TABLE V-9 (continued)
PUBLIC SERVICES IN THE
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
Level Required Provided By
Type of Service to Serve* Jefferson Co. Shelby Co. Municipalities
Education: (continued)
Schools Junior High School
1,000 persons - 75 Junior High School
Age Children
800-1200 students per school
24-26 acres average area required
Serves average of 16,000 persons
Senior High School
1,000 persons - 75 High School Age
Children
1000-1800 students per school
40-42 acres average area required
Serves average of 24,000 persons
i-
Libraries
Type
Central
or Main
Branch
Sub-Branch
Area Population
Served Served
Whole City No Limit Jefferson County 8 community libraries
or and Varies Library and 17 and 1 county library
Municipality municipal Libraries
1-1/2 miles 25,000 -
radius 50,000
Detached Varies
areas and
smaller areas
Public Works
Sanitation
Collection Service
Service is normally justified if the
population density of an area is more
than 1,000-2,500 persons/sq. mile with
an equivalent lot size of 1 or less
to 1 acre.
35 collection
districts with
one operator
per district.
14 landfills
maintained by the
county and Che
¦unicipalities.
Services franchised
out to proviate haulers.
Three landfill sites.
23 municipalities
in Jefferson County
have established
collection services.
-------
TABLE V-9 (continued)
PUBLIC SERVICES IS THE
CAHABA RIVER BASIN
Type of Service
Public Works: (continued)
Sanitation
Level Required
to Serve*
Refuse Disposal
Sanitary landfill - Approximately 4
acres required per 10,000 population
served.
Incinerator - 10-20 acres required.
Provided By
Jefferson Co.
Shelby Co•
Municipalities
~Sources: -Planning Design Criteria, Joseph DeChiara and Lee Koppelman, 1969, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York.
-Coonunity Facilities Inventory and Analysis, Jefferson County Planning and Community Development Office, June, 1976.
-Shelby County Planning Conmission.
-Birmingham Regional Health Systems Agency, Inc.
-This table indicates the variety of public services provided in the Cahaba River Basin, including those presently provided and standards
for levels of service that should be provided. The right side of the table indicates the present level of services provided by Jefferson
and Shelby Counties and the municipalities in those counties. This information was obtained from the "Community Facilities Inventory
and Analysis" prepared by the Jefferson County Planning and Community Development office in June 1976. Information on Shelby County
was obtained from the Shelby County Planning Commission.
The column entitled "Level Required to Serve" indicates a standard level of public services that should be provided by counties or
municipalities. These are national standards and are subject to local and regional variations. Most of the national standards were
obtained from a publication entitled "Planning Design Criteria". This book offers a variety of standards that can be utilized for all
planning relocated matters including public services.
The intent of the entire table is to provide a comparison of the local level of public services with nationally accepted standards.
-------
Indirect impacts will affect public finances in all the municipalities
and governments of the study area. Increased demand for public services
will be needed to accommodate the increased future population of the basin.
Public budgets will have to be increased, and the increased demand may
cause the per capita costs of providing services to rise. These costs
would rise if the higher levels of population expected in the basin required
services whose costs were proportionately greater than the increased tax
revenues that will result from growth.
Considering that new local service areas may have to be delineated
for such programs as education and police protection, it is likely that
some capital investment will be needed to meet new demands. In general,
higher tax revenues are required to fund local capital spending. These
revenues can most easily be generated by increased property tax assessments,
higher millage rates, or the imposition e»f wage or personal property taxes.
12. OTHER PROJECTS, PROGRAMS, AND EFFORTS
The proposed action is related to other, various governmental activi-
ties that are underway in the Cahaba River basin.
Wild and Scenic River Study
An evaluation has been made of the Cahaba River based on a proposal to
include it as one of the rivers designated by the U.S. Department of the
Interior under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for its scenic quali-
ties. Such a designation would restrict dam construction and other uses of
the river that would be considered detrimental to its scenic quality. Pre-
liminary recommendations from the evaluation denote that the Cahaba River
not be further considered for this designation. Petitions have since been
initiated by interested parties to seek designation of the Cahaba River by
the State of Alabama as a protected stream.
Endangered Species Act
In 1977, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the
Interior proposed adding the Cahaba Shiner and Goldline Darter to the
nation's list of endangered species. Species in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range are to be classified
as endangered. This action would result in protective measures for the
Cahaba River that may affect the development plans for the basin. Special
protection for endangered species must be insured before major projects
could be approved. It would be unlawful to fund projects that would be
in violation of the Endangered Species Act. A public hearing regarding
this proposed classification of the two minnow species was held in March
of 1978. Final action has not yet been taken.
Control of Toxic Substances
Congress through the Toxic Substances Control Act and the 1977 Clean
Water Act has given the U.S. EPA the ability to control toxic pollutants in
waters. These substances are primarily industrial chemicals that have been
V-49
-------
discharged to waterways most heavily in recent years. Such toxic materials
pass through biological wastewater treatment processes used in secondary
treatment without being removed from the effluent. Researchers do not know
at what concentration levels many of these chemicals can be harmful to
humans, so Congress has established the goal of zero discharge of these
toxics. The U.S. EPA can now list pollutants as toxic chemicals without
formal hearings, thus speeding up control of these compounds. If further
studies found any of these chemicals not toxic, the U.S. EPA could move them
off the toxics list and ease their restrictions.
Under the 1977 Clean Water Act, industries must meet best available
technology standards for treating toxic substances by July of 1984.
Section 404, P.L. 92-500 Permits
Directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this section of the 1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments deals with regulating the
discharge of dredged or fill material to all waters of the United States.
The purpose of section 404 is to provide protection from dredge or fill
discharges to the biological/chemical integrity of aquatic systems.
Dredge or fill operations from any waters or from sites that require
modifications prior to construction must obtain a 404 permit from the Corps
of Engineers before such operations can be undertaken. Normal farming
practices are exempt from these requirements. For the proposed action of
this EIS, a 404 permit for each wastewater treatment plant upgrading that
requires backfill will be needed. Any modification of dams or fills asso-
ciated with development that affects water quality will also require a 404
permit. Enforcement by the Corps has been limited to dredge and fill projects
that directly affect a stream's water quality.
Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)
The Safe Drinking Water Act focuses Federal government attention on
potential problems with local water supply contamination. As previously
discussed, future application of the Act is uncertain at this time regarding
the control of trihalomethanes and other organic compounds in water supplies.
It is clear, on the other hand, that increased monitoring of the quality of
both untreated water supplies and treated drinking water is to be required.
Transportation Planning
Large investments in highways are underway in the Cahaba Basin. These
investments will add to the development pressure with which the proposed
action is concerned. The proposed wastewater treatment system will affect
the existing transportation developments in that mitigation of the adverse
impacts from development will require additional planning for control of
motor vehicle use. In addition, the increased numbers and densities of
populations will add to the level of usage of all transportation facilities
in the basin.
V-50
-------
CHAPTER VI
POTENTIAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
AND REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
CHAPTER VI
POTENTIAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
AND REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss measures that would reduce the
severity of potential adverse effects. This chapter reiterates the ex-
pected adverse impacts of the proposed action and lists potential mitigative
measures that can be taken to reduce their severity. These mitigative steps
do not apply to EPA alone, but also to municipal and state institutions
whose direct involvement would be beneficial to future environmental condi-
tions in the Cahaba basin. Because growth is projected for the basin even
under the no-action alternative, many of these measures could be usefully
applied in the future without regard to the wastewater management system
in the basin. The range of suggested measures covers technological, admini-
strative, and regulatory actions.
A. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
1. Air Quality
Both short-term construction impacts and long-term impacts from develop-
ment, including added traffic, are expected from the proposed action. The
short-term construction impacts of dust and equipment emissions will be
felt intermittently over the two-year construction period and will persist
in any local area for one to two months. They may be mitigated by the
following:
a. minimum open burning of cleared vegetation and scrap construction
material.
b. regular watering of cleared areas during construction.
c. immediate revegetation of cleared areas during and following
construction.
d. making maximum use of paved roads rather than unpaved roads for
movement of construction equipment.
e. employing construction equipment that meets current standards
for emissions.
The longer-term effects of air pollution emissions from motor vehicle
traffic will have been reduced substantially by the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program, as previously described. Further reductions will require
transportation planning to minimize the vehicle miles of travel associated
with the basin's population and to ensure that traffic in the basin flows
smoothly during periods of peak travel. Such planning could involve the
following:
VI-1
-------
a. Development of feeder and express bus routes along the major
radial corridors in the basin (1-20, U.S. 280, U.S. 31, 1-65), especially
in serving the areas of relatively compact growth.
b. Development of an efficient road network for traffic circulation
within the basin using free-flowing feeder routes to serve the higher
volume radial corridors.
c. Use of development controls to encourage compact and cluster
development or to encourage development along the major mass transit cor-
ridors into and out of Birmingham. These controls originate in land use
planning and can include zoning ordinances, transferable development
rights, value capture, control of utilities service such as sewers, and
other development incentives. While these measures can be of substantial
value in reducing total vehicle travel, they may also be used to encourage
efficient land conversion as well, so that allowances are made for open
space, recreational facilities, public land uses, and preservation of
sensitive lands.
2. Noise
The annoyances of noise associated with construction and operation of
the proposed facilities can be reduced in severity by the following measures:
a. restricting construction activities to daylight hours.
b. requiring sound muffling devices to be installed on noisy equipment,
c. providing natural or structural acoustical barriers at the treat-
ment plants and pumping station sites.
d. establishing routes for sludge hauling that avoid sensitive noise
receptors such as residential areas as much as possible.
The long term increase in ambient sound levels from development in the
basin will be virtually impossible to control. However, noise ordinances
can be instituted to discourage high peaks or night-time noises. Land
use and facility planning can also be used to provide acoustical buffers
between noise sources such as highways and sensitive noise receptors such
as schools, churches, and medical facilities. To a degree, measures that
are intended to reduce auto travel or to ensure freely flowing traffic
will also aid in noise reduction.
3. Odor
Impacts from treatment plant odor can be reduced by the following
measures:
a. control of surrounding land use to discourage new residences from
locating within 1,000 feet of a wastewater treatment plant, in favor of other
more compatible land uses.
VI-2
-------
b. providing a feed system using hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, or
ozone at the treatment facilities and pumping stations to control sulfide
odors. Such a system for the proposed action will require 90 tons per
year of hydrogen peroxide, assuming that odor control is required 50% of
the time. Chlorine is the least expensive of the three odor-controlling
chemicals, however the others may be less toxic to downstream aquatic
environments (see discussion of alternative disinfection methods in this
chapter).
Odors from sludge disposal can be controlled by:
a. Management of sludge at a wastewater treatment plant so that
odors are kept low while not inhibiting sludge treatment.
b. The use of covered, leak-proof trucks for transporting sludge to
disposal sites.
c. At the storage site, sludge loads should be covered with soil as
soon as possible after dumping, preferably within 2 to 4 hours.
Odors originating in the basin's waterways will be reduced as the ef-
fluent quality from the treatment plants improves. The odor problems in
Lake Purdy may be further relieved (although not eliminated) by removing
the Leeds effluent from the Little Cahaba River.
4. Topography, Soils, and Geology
Construction of the proposed facilities will involve clearing vege-
tation from construction areas and will likely involve blasting to remove
bedrock in certain areas. Further, land conversion that will accompany
development in the basin will involve the same type of activities on a
broader scale.
The laying of interceptor pipelines can create problems such as
occurred in the Altadena area where the pipeline was crushed as noted in
chapter V of this EIS. More carefully planned construction activities
will need to be followed in areas where similar problems can occur.
Adverse impacts from blasting can be reduced or avoided by the follow-
ing measures:
a. Following standard safety procedures for traffic control, clearance
of the area, blasting, and dust control.
b. Conducting site-specific studies to determine whether the carbonate
geology of the area will allow blasting to be safely conducted.
Loss of soil from clearing and construction can be reduced by the fol-
lowing :
a. Limiting construction activities to the narrowest potential right-
of-way .
VI-3
-------
b. Maintenance of at least a 30-foot buffer of vegetation between
the edge of construction rights of way and stream banks wherever possible.
c. Establishing construction specifications that call for timely
revegetations of disturbed areas. Table VI-1 shows a list of plant
varieties that are especially useful for revegetation to control erosion
and to renew habitat.
d. Imposing sedimentation and erosion controls such as siltation
basins, minimum length of open trench, quick revegetation, minimizing
steep slopes, and diverting runoff.
e. While constructing interceptors through wetlands and flood plains,
excess fill material in addition to the amount needed to restore the bottom
contour to its preconstruction status should be removed to an upland area.
Sludge disposal at a landfill must also be carefully managed to reduce
the risk of adverse impacts on soils and water bearing subsurface strata.
This involves the following steps:
a. Proper contouring of any landfill site to control runoff.
b. Seeding of the final soil cover as each section of the sludge
landfill is completed. Sludge should be worked into the final soil
cover.
c. The use of siltation basins and runoff diversions during the
time that a sludge landfill section is open. These measures would also
be useful in controlling leachate from sludge, which can potentially
enter the groundwater supply without proper treatment.
Prior to the final design of interceptor corridors, areas where
interceptors are to be located must be surveyed to determine the existence
of formations that may pose hazards to pipeline construction. Design
modifications or rerouting of interceptors shall be made if this survey
warrants such needs.
With respect to future development, adverse impacts on topography,
geology, soils, and water quality can be handled with proper advance plan-
ning for stormwater management and drainage control. These measures are
discussed in a subsequent section.
5. Terrestrial Ecology
Long and short-range impacts on the land will result from the pro-
posed action. Short-range impacts include erosion of the land and destruc-
tion of some plant and animal habitats at interceptor and treatment plant
construction sites. Associated with the availability of wastewater convey-
ance and treatment services will be the unavoidable long-range impact of
increased residential and commercial growth in the area. Approximately
16,000 acres of largely forested and undeveloped areas will be used for new
VI-4
-------
TABLE VI-1. RECOMMENDED REVEGETATION OF INTERCEPTOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY, CAHABA RIVER BASIN, ALABAMA.
Soil Type
Texture
Slope
Vegetation*
Hector
Gravelly Loam
Less than 30%,
Greater than 30%
Bahia grass
Sericea Lespedeza,
Serola Lespedeza, or
Lore grass mixed with
Bahia grass.
Montevallo
Silty-Loam
Town ley
Enders
Silty-Loam
Loamy
Less than 30%
Greater than 30%
Less than 30%
Greater than 30%
Less than 30%
Greater than 30%
Perennial rye grass,
Hairy or Crown
Vetch.
Sericea Lespedeza,
Serola Lespedeza, or
Lore grass mixed
with Fescue.
Same as Montevallo.
Same as Montevallo.
Fescue mixed with
clover (White Dutch
Ladino or Crimson),
Hairy or Crown
Vetch,
Sericea Lespdeza,
Serola Lespedeza or
Lore grass mixed
with Fescue.
*Personal communication-Oscar Steward, Supervisors Office, U.S.
Forest Service, Soil Testing, Montgomery, Alabama.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter , Inc., 1977
VI-5
-------
residential and commercial areas. This loss of habitat is virtually
permanent and will result in the eventual reduction of certain animal
populations. The additional population of people in the area will
increase the incidence of degradation from human activities in natural
areas adjacent to developed areas.
The anticipated short-term impacts from construction may be mitigated
by careful construction planning and timely revegetation; Table VI-1 lists
valuable plant species for this purpose. A survey of vegetation along
interceptor routes to determine unique or rare species to be avoided dur-
ing construction is required prior to such construction taking place. As
previously described, long-range impacts may be reduced somewhat by the
following:
a. Development planning that encourages the maintenance of environ-
mentally sensitive areas free of development and concentrates population
growth in other areas.
b. Zoning regulations that require developed areas to include open
recreational areas and peripheral buffer zones.
c. Regulations requiring planting around developments and wastewater
management facilities to provide isolation and to minimize enfringement upon
remaining natural habitats in adjacent areas.
d. Purchase by governmental units or citizen organizations of
environmentally sensitive habitat areas to preserve their use for natural
purposes.
e. Floodplain zoning regulations to control construction in present
and future expanded floodplains.
The probability of successfully employing the mitigative measures
listed above is increased by the fact that large undeveloped areas still
exist in the basin. According to land use planning shown in this EIS,
undeveloped and forested land will make up 70% of the basin area in the
year 2000, while residential development will make up approximately 20%.
The remaining 10% of the land is to be used for industrial/commercial
purposes, agriculture, recreation, resource production, public and semi-
public lands, and transportation/utility related purposes.
Immediate revegetation of interceptor and force main right-of-ways is
recommended to decrease erosion potential to provide proper game habitat.
It is recommended that a buffer zone of natural vegetation remain between
all streams and paralleling Interceptor right-of-ways primarily between the
intersection of the Cahaba River with 1-459, and the Cahaba wastewater
treatment plant. Recommended revegetation of interceptor right-of-way by
soil type and slope are shown in Table VI-1. Liming may be initially nec-
essary to bring soil pH up to 6.5 in order to establish the clovers. Pro-
per contouring and terracing will be necessary especially for acreages of
VI-6
-------
greater than 30% slope. These extreme slopes should be avoided during
construction where possible. Serlcea Lespedeza, Serola Lespedeza, and Lore
Grass are excellent In preventing erosion on steeped sloped areas, though
they do not provide as adequate a game food as clover. Local fish and
game officials should be contacted to assure that revegetation coincides
with the featured game management species.
6. Water Quality and Hydrology
The quality of the surface waters in the study area will be affected
by the proposed action. Short-range adverse impacts will include increased
turbidity and pollutants to the streams from construction activity, Local-
ized stream environments will be significantly altered due to the construc-
tion of stream crossings.
Increased discharges from the Leeds and Trussville treatment plants,
projected to total 2.8 mgd by the year 2000, will increase flows in the
upper reaches of the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers. These flows are in
addition to the natural flows in the rivers in those reaches, and therefore
will somewhat alter the stream habitats and floodplain. However, these
changes in the hydraulic characteristics of the rivers are not of important
significance.
Nutrients in effluents to be discharged from wastewater treatment faci-
lities may increase the impact on streams compared with present effluent
nutrient loadings. Also, an adverse impact may result from effluent
chlorination. The effluent from the Cahaba treatment plant will be low in
suspended solids and ammonia nitrogen so that chlorine dosages will not be
excessive, however even low concentrations of available chlorine may be harm-
ful to aquatic life when stream flows are low.
Mltlgative measures to control short-term water quality impacts from
construction include:
1) Imposition of sedimentation and erosion controls requiring use of
slltatlon basins, controlling the length of open trenches, quick revegeta-
tion, diverting runoff, and minimizing steep slopes.
2) Instituting restrictive construction specifications requiring
replacement of the natural stream habitat after construction is completed.
Mitigative measures applicable to long-term water quality impacts not
directly handled by the proposed action include:
1) Planning and zoning to reduce runoff flows and pollution loads to
streams. This may be accomplished by providing open pervious areas and
detention ponds which settle out pollutants. Pervious buffer zones can
be provided around impervious areas.
2) Improved runoff area maintenance. Runoff detention ponds can
improve the runoff's water quality. Regular street sweeping will attempt
to reduce pollutants in runoff waters. Also, sites exposed to rainfall need
to be maintained free of noxious chemicals or other substances that could
runoff the land and cause water quality problems.
VI-7
-------
3) Provide dechlorination following chlorination, or provide an
alternative disinfection method prior to discharging wastewater to a receiv-
ing stream.
The control of pathogens through the use of disinfection is im-
portant from a public health standpoint. However, traditional chlorine
disinfection has in the last few years been shown to be potentially toxic
to aquatic communities as well as to pathogens. Also, chemical formation
of undesired, potentially harmful compounds results from adding chlorine to
treated wastewater. Wastewater disinfection is now being required by the
U.S. EPA only case-by-case or sometimes on a seasonal basis when needed to
protect the public's health (JWPCF, Dec.1977). Alternatives to conventional
chlorine disinfection include the addition of a dechlorination process
following pathogen kills with chlorine and alternative disinfection methods
that would not have as serious effects on the downstream aquatic environ-
ment.
Dechlorination is accomplished primarily through the use of sulfur
dioxide, although sodium metabisulfite or activated carbon can also be
used for this purpose. Sodium metabisulfite is more expensive than sulfur
dioxide and is preferred for use only in urban areas where the storage of
sulfur dioxide is potentially very hazardous. The use of activated carbon
solely for dechlorination purposes is prohibitively expensive, and the pre-
sence of chlorine-nitrogen compounds (chloramines) considerably impairs
its dechlorination efficiency.
Dechlorination of free chlorine and chloramines with sulfur dioxide has
been shown to eliminate the toxic effects of residual chlorine to downstream
aquatic species (Technology Transfer, October 1977). However, the use of
sulfur dioxide requires constant monitoring of residual chlorine and sulfur
dioxide levels because excess amounts of dechlorination can cause lowering
of dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Alternative disinfection methods plausible for use at the Cahaba
treatment plant include ozone, ultraviolet light, and chlorine dioxide.
Ozone appears to be the most promising alternative to chlorine. Ozone is
not toxic to aquatic organisms, is a rapidly effective disinfectant, and
contributes to higher dissolved oxygen levels in the effluent discharged to
a receiving stream. Its primary drawback is the relatively high cost of
generating ozone at a treatment plant. Also, the mixing of ozone with the
effluent must be efficient because of its fast rate of decomposition. A
handful of wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. are presently using ozone for
disinfection and odor control with additional plants being in the planning
stages of its use. Ultraviolet light also does not impart lasting toxicity
to the treated effluent. However, certain compounds may be altered by
ultraviolet (UV) radiation resulting in chemical contamination. Research
with this disinfection technique is continuing. Chlorine dioxide technology
for wastewater disinfection is in its infancy. Wastewaters having a high
ammonia content are disinfected better with chlorine dioxide than with chlo-
rine, however chlorine dioxide is a hazardous gas that must be generated
at the location it is to be used and applied to treated effluent immediately.
Costs presently make the possibility of its future use limited.
VI-8
-------
The alternatives to standard chlorine disinfection have pre]
narily defined costs for sull scale use as follows:
chlorination 2.0(? per' thousand gallon
chlor. and dechlor. 2.3
-------
Phosphorus removal can be accomplished by the addition of alum,
lime, or iron salts to the wastewater before any of the clarifiers in the
treatment process. This type of chemical addition allows phosphorus to
combine with whatever metal is added and be removed either in the clarifiers
or, at the future Cahaba treatment plant, in the clarifiers and wastewater
filters. Costs for phosphorus removal using clarifiers and filtration are
estimated to total approximately 15c per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated
for effluent from a 10-mgd treatment plant (Technology Transfer process
design manual, U.S. EPA, April 1976). The costs for the clarifiers and
filters, however, are to be handled at the Cahaba plant for tertiary removal
of organic material. Therefore the costs to incorporate phosphorus removal
at the Cahaba treatment plant are reduced to approximately 2c per 1,000
gallons.
The hydrologic regime of the lower basin is likely to be significantly
disrupted by development as impervious surface area is created and as storm
runoff is collected and discharged more rapidly to area streams. Particu-
larly in the s lbbasins listed in table V-4, early planning should be
initiated to control these disruptive changes. Applicable planning steps
are the following:
a) Review development plans or trends against current zoning and
subr'vision and erosion control ordinances to estimate the likely
chai ge in peak flows throughout developed areas.
b) Consider measures for on-site detention of runoff, such as strategi-
cally located retention ponds, rooftop and parking lot storage, and/or
underground storage to mitigate local, downstream flooding concerns. Plans
for industrial development should also consider green space and infiltration
galleries.
c) Examine the possibility of implementing ordinances that set a
limit on impervious cover per unit of construction or restrict the increases
in flows allowed as a result of the development.
d) Prepare ordinances to control flood plain development, both to
reduce the extent of development subject to flood hazard and to minimize
encroachments into the flood-absorbing area of the stream terrace.
7• Aquatic Ecology
Aquatic organisms inhibited particularly downstream of the Cahaba
treatment plant, including the Cahaba shiner and goldline darter, may be
affected by nutrients and residual chlorine discharged from the Cahaba
plant. The addition of chlorine originates in the disinfection treatment
process; its impact can be alleviated by either removing the chlorine
following disinfection (dechlorination) or by using an alternative process
for disinfection, such as ozonation. Prior studies have shown that toxic
effects of chlorine are almost totally removed by dechlorination.
VI-10
-------
In order to reduce the impact of possible algal growths and oxygen
demand from nutrient discharges, it may be necessary to consider nutrient
removal processes at the Cahaba treatment facility. There is also a pos-
sibility that increased land conversion in the basin will also bring
greater nutrient loadings to streams from runoff. These can be control] d
to some extent by the measures discussed previously for long-term water
quality impacts.
B. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
This section addresses the areas of impact described in chapter V for
the man-made environment. It also includes a brief discussion of the tools
available for planning orderly growth and environmental protection in the
Cahaba basin.
1. Population and Land Use
Expected population growth and land use changes in the bar in a^-e
the prime forces that dictated consideration of improved wastewater
management facilities for the future. However, a variety of planning ind
regulatory tools is available to be employed by the municipalities anc
government agencies with jurisdiction in the basin. Use. of these cools
should also be considered in conjunction with the proposed action in
order to establish a framework for efficient, timely management of growtl
and environmental change. These measures, which have been mentioned in
specific sections of chapter V, fall into the general categories of ""and
use and development controls and long-term management practices, floe
plain ordinances, and non-point pollution source controls.
Land Use and Development Controls. In order to effectively plan and
manage limited land resources, there is a variety of techniques availabl<
to municipalities in the study area. The following specific land use anc
development controls are either presently in use or could be used in the
study area.
a) Comprehensive Plans - The comprehensive plan is the basis for almost
all development controls, because it provides a complete framework for
community development. This type of plan should set forth community develop-
ment goals and objectives, a land use plan, transportation plan, community
facilities plan, an evaluation of environmental considerations, and the com-
munity's relationship to the region and to adjacent communities. In the
study area there has been little comprehensive planning, except in Leeds
and Vestavia Hills.
b) Zoning Ordinances - The zoning ordinance is a strong tool for
implementing a comprehensive plan through the municipality's inherent
power to exercise reasonable control over property and persons under its
jurisdiction. Zoning regulations are fairly widespread in the study area.
Building and zoning permits are issued to individuals in light of pre-
established zoning ordinances. All Jefferson County municipalities pre-
sently have zoning ordinances, fllthough St. Clair County and Shelby County
nunicipalities do not. The real effectiveness of zoning as a land use and
Vl-11
-------
development control is hindered by the general lack of a comprehensive or
land use plans in the study area.
c) Subdivision and Land Development Regulations - Subdivision regula-
tions control the division of land into smaller parcels. Land develop-
ment ordinances control the improvement of land for any purpose, including
structures, streets, or other features. Both allow public control over the
impacts of using undeveloped land for building sites. Such regulations
are widely used in the study area, except in St. Clair County.
d) Planned Residential Development - A planned residential development
is an area of land developed under a single master plan for a number of
dwelling units of various types. Its purpose is to encourage innovations
n residential development so that housing demand can be met by a greater
variety of type, design, and layout of dwellings, together with efficient
use of open space. There is a limited use of planned residential develop-
ment regulations in the study area. Only Jefferson County and Mountain
Br>ok currently have PRD regulations.
e) Easements - Positive and negative easements are ways to acquire a
permai ant interest in land. Governments, individuals, and organizations
may obtain positive easements in order to establish the legal right to use
part of another's private land for certain limited and stated purposes.
Negative easements permanently limit an owner's use of his land, but do
not provide for public use. For example, the purchase of conservation
easements would limit development in critical areas such as woodlands, rugged
terrain, flood plains, and open space. There is presently no on-going acti-
vity in the study area to acquire scenic or conservation easements.
f) Fee Simple Acquisition of Land - The outright acquisition of land
can be accomplished through purchase and lease-back arrangements with a
willing owner. Land subjected to tax delinquency can be purchased at certain
auctions, or land can be acquired if there is a mortgage in default of pay-
ments. Gifts of land are also possible from citizens, groups, and corpora-
tions to municipalities, conservancies, and other organizations. There has
been little purchase of land in the Upper Cahaba basin for conservation
as natural areas. The major purchases of land have been for recreation
purposes such as neighborhood parks.
g) Staged Growth Policies - Under staged growth policies, the amount
of land zoned for development is based upon the reasonable development needs
of the community and its region. With these policies, public services can
be phased more efficiently. Staged growth concepts rely upon the develop-
ment of a comprehensive plan and a land use plan for accommodating future
growth of the municipality. The zoning ordinance in the municipality should
be compatible with the land use plan and should include only enough residential
commericial, and industrially zoned land to meet the growth needs of the '
community for the next five to ten years. Staging of growth will allow
compatibility with available supporting services such as public water and
wastewater facilities, roadways, schools, and recreational facilities.
VI-12
-------
h) Conservation Zoning District - These are established to control
development in areas where physiographic problems exist such as steep
slopes, difficult access, or outstanding natural beauty and environmental
value. These areas might be appropriate for uses such as forestry, re-
creation, agriculture, and perhaps even some low-density residential
development.
Table VI-2 presents an outline of the existing utilization of various
land use and development controls in the study area. The table indicates
a use of only the very basic types of development controls. There have
been virtually no planning activities in planning which serves as a frame-
work for other types of land use and development controls. The major types
of existing land use and development controls are zoning regulations and
subdivision regulations. However, in the absence of comprehensive and
land use plans, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations can be mani-
pulated to cause irregular development patterns which lead to suburban
sprawl, conflicting uses of adjacent lands, and strip development.
Floodplain Ordinances. As more and more land is developed, it is
essential that floodplains remain undeveloped and protected in order to
minimize damages resulting from flooding. Floodplain zoning districts should
protect, at a minimum, all lands located within the 100-year flood zones
of every stream. In general, no structures or fill should be allowed in
these areas, and land uses should be restricted to agriculture, recreation,
and other appropriate land uses. There are currently no such regulations in
use in the study area. However, several municipalities are considering
adopting floodplain ordinances.
Control of Non-Point Pollution Sources. There are a number of admini-
strative and regulating approaches to reducing the impact of non-point source
pollution. These include the following:
a) Soil Erosion and Sediment Controls - Under natural conditions where
soils are protected by a vegetative cover, only controlled amounts of
nutrients are released to flowing waters. However, when natural conditions
have been altered by removal of vegetation cover, the erosion process is
accelerated. Eroded sediments when transported to streams can destroy the
balanced biological conditions necessary for a diverse aquatic community.
Sediments also carry fertilizers which accelerate the aging of lakes and
ponds, pesticides which have a toxic effect on aquatic organisms, and heavy
metals which can also be toxic. In addition to being a pollutant, sediment
increases flood crests, because rainfall runs off eroded lands more
quickly, reduces the hydraulic capacity of water courses by filling stream
channels, makes surface waters more costly to treat for human consumption,
interferes with the assimilative capacity of waterways, and degrades the
appeal of waterbased recreation.
Soil erosion and sediment control plans should be required of all
construction activities which require the removal of protective vegetation.
These plans will minimize runoff during construction and provide for soil
stabilization immediately afterward. Alabama laws and local ordinances do
VI-13
-------
TABLE VI-2
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
JEFFERSON, ST. CLAIR AND SHELBY COUNTIES
Municipality
Comprehensive
Plans
Zoning
Ordinances
Building
& Zoning
Permits
Subdivision
Regulations
Planned Residential
Development Regulations
Jefferson County
Hoover
Leeds
Mt. Brook
Trussville
Vestavia Hills
St. Clair County
Shelby County
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Source: Birmingham Regional Planning Commission
-------
not require these measures during construction or subsequent soil stabili-
zation, except for surface mining operations.
b) Fertilizer and Pesticide Controls - Many adverse side effects can
accrue from the use of these chemicals. Fertilizer runoff into streams
is a major source of nutrients, which cause excessive aquatic plant growth
that consume large amounts of oxygen within the stream. Pesticides also
have many harmful side effects. Pesticides can accumulate in species,
particularly many predators higher in the food chain, and can cause impair-
ment of the animals ability to reproduce and other physical damages.
The Federal Pesticides Control Act of 1972 regulates intrastate as
well as interstate marketing of pesticides. The Act also classifies pest-
icides for general or restricted use; restricted pesticides must be used
by or under supervision of a certified applicator. In Alabama, pesticides
are regulated by the state Department of Agriculture and Industries. They
specify which pesticides and herbicides can be used and license the handling
and application of certain types of toxic pesticides and herbicides. The
Alabama Water Improvement Commission becomes involved in pesticides control,
if a fish kill or contamination of a waterway would be attributed to the
application of pesticides. AWIC would investigate and perhaps prosecute
if warranted under the law. There are no local fertilizer or pesticide
controls in the study area.
c) Stormwater Management - Storrawater is a major contributor to non-
point sources of pollution and causes local drainage and flooding pro-
blems. To deal with the problem of stormwater as a serious generator
of non-point sources of pollution could require a variety of structural
techniques. The first step in this process is the preparation of a
stormwater management plan, which would include certain phases of activity
such as: data collection and analysis of quantities and flows at surface
runoff and pollution washoff; inventory of existing facilities, review of
existing administrative, financial, and legislative data; perhaps pre-
paration of a runoff simulation model; development of stormwater control
alternatives; and selection of an alternative based upon cost, environ-
mental impact, and runoff control efficiency. The stormwater management
plan should provide a variety of both structural and non-structural tech-
niques that are available for dealing with the problems of stormwater
runoff. Implementation of the plan will then require efforts from various
professionals and administrative people in the study area.
d) Agricultural Runoff - As stated previously, agricultural runoff
can provide a serious threat to water quality mainly because of nutrients
and pesticides from these lands. Pollutants and sediment from land
activities and animals wastes are the major source of the problem. There is
a wide range of technical assistance available to farmers from the federal
and state Departments of Agriculture. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service
provides regular advice to farmers on various soil conservation practices
such as terracing and strip cropping.
VI-15
-------
There have also been a variety of manure management systems developed
which can reduce some of the water quality problems associated with daily
manure applications. The daily application of manure can have many adverse
impacts such as odor, excessive runoff especially during winter, insect
problems, and possible crop damage resulting from heavy application on
some crops. Manure management techniques available include: liquid manure
storage in an above-ground silo, a slotted dam system for manure handling,
earthen bank storage, and spray irrigation of manure. These systems allow
the farmer other alternatives for storing and managing manure rather than
the alternative of daily application.
2. Water Supply
The overall effect on water supply of future population growth and
increased sewage flows in the Cahaba basin will be to increase the risk of
water supply degradation or contamination. The risk will be manifest in
such trends as hydrologic changes that could reduce flows, increased non-
point source pollution from development, higher probability of chemical
contamination from industrial or other sources, and increased opportunity
for sewage-related pathogens or contaminants to enter the water supply. A
number of actions can be taken to reduce the significance of these trends,
including the following:
a) Move the water supply intake to the Little Cahaba River and
discharge the Leeds effluent into the Cahaba River. Another source of
water will be needed for water supply purposes to supplement the supply
available from the Little Cahaba River.
b) Implement flow augmentation from Lake Purdy or from new impound-
ments elsewhere in the basin. This would have the effect of increasing
the dilution of treated sewage at times of low flow. It would also enable
the water supply to be less affected by hydrologic change from development
in the basin.
c) Use spray irrigation as an option to stream discharge of treated
sewage from Leeds and Trussville. Pending site-specific studies of soils
and geology, spray irrigation is viable at the Upper Cahaba site for the
Leeds discharge, and the Trussville discharge could be conveyed to the
Upper Cahaba site provided that the site can be enlarged.
d) Exercise close control over development in the watershed. This
would require such steps as stormwater management; controls over use of
potentially harmful herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, or fertilizers;
discouraging the growth of industry in the basin; and control over raw
material storage. The quality of the untreated water used for water supply
would then not diminish as quickly.
e) Develop a reliable second source of water, to use in the event
of contamination of the Cahaba supplies. Such a source might be additional
rights to purchase emergency water supplies from Birmingham's Industrial
Water Board.
f) Carefully monitor untreated water as well as finished water at
the Shades Mountain filter plant in order to have quantitative early warn-
ing of unsuitable conditions. Increased monitoring is likely to be required
by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
VI-16
-------
g) Develop a new water source outside the Cahaba Basin. The
Birmingham Water Works Board is presently evaluating the cost effectiveness
of various water supply alternatives that include possible new water
supply sources for Birmingham area users such as the Coosa and Black
Warrior Rivers.
3. Mitigation of Other Areas of Impact Through Planning
The planning concepts discussed above can be applied to many of the
aspects of suburban development that have been mentioned previously in
this chapter. In particular, these concepts can be used to minimize
the disruptive effect of development on the following:
a) Community Services - As growth pressures grow to the level where
their magnitude and focus can be foreseen as clearly as in the Cahaba
basin, local governments can begin to incorporate the space and facilities
needed for public programs into development ventures directly.
b) Transportation - Planning for growth allows local governments
to establish a network of feeder routes and streets that both alleviate
congestion and tend to organize residential patterns. Air and noise
pollution can also be reduced using careful transportation planning.
c) Archaeological and Historical Resources - There is a potential
that archaeological and/or historical resources are present along the
Cahaba River that have not been detected. Construction of pipelines,
pumping stations, and other facilities could ruin the value of these
resources. Every effort is to be made to preserve these resources to the
satisfaction of the State of Alabama Historic Preservation Officer through
surveys to be completed prior to construction and preservation of these
resources in compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
d) Taxes and Budgeting - By incorporating all essential services
into early planning, increases in the cost of services can be kept to a
minimum.
C. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Certain actions must or should be taken prior to implementing the
proposed action. Following are requirements and recommendations to mini-
mize the adverse impacts identified through the EIS process. A requirement
is a condition that must be met prior to funding of a Step 2 or Step 3
grant from the U.S. EPA. A recommendation acknowledges the benefits to
be derived from implementing an action; however, such action is beyond the
ability of the U.S. EPA to implement.
1. Requirements
a) A detailed investigation of land application in the Upper Cahaba
Basin must be completed as a pre-condition for Step 2 funding for the
facilities proposed for 1984 (including expansion of the Leeds and Trussville
Plants).
VI-17
-------
Such an investigation will be undertaken by Jefferson County
to locate possible sites for land application of treated sewage effluent
in the Upper Cahaba Basin for the Leeds and Trussville Plants. This
study will be done by amending the Step 1 201 Grant.
The possibility of land application of wastewater from the Leeds
and Trussville wastewater treatment plants has generated considerable
interest in the study area. Sufficient data does not now exist for a final
decision in this EIS on its use. The detail of the the Jefferson County
investigation shall be sufficient to fully address the feasibility and
desirability of land application in the Upper Basin.
b) Studies of sludge disposal and sludge monitoring must be
completed and the program initiated prior to Step 3 funding of the facili-
ties proposed for 1982.
Jefferson County must evaluate the adequacy of existing sludge
disposal methods and current sludge disposal practices at the Cahaba,
Leeds,and Trussville treatment plants and must develop a sludge monitoring
program to identify potential contaminants resultant from industrial
wastes and other sources that are discharged to the municipal facility.
Increased sludge production is expected from the proposed expansion
of treatment facilities. The ultimate method of sludge disposal has not
been determined. Jefferson County will be required to evaluate ultimate
disposal methods for sludge from the three treatment facilities.
The quality of sludge generated is an additional concern.
Sludge generated at the Leeds facility may be contaminated with industrial
materials. The industrial contributions to the Cahaba and Trussville
facilities are minimal, but the quality of sludge generated is unknown.
The sludge studies must include an evaluation of the adequacy
of existing sludge disposal methods, the appropriateness of sludge uses,
potential sludge disposal sites and uses, potential impacts of its use
or disposal, and measures that should be taken to minimize adverse effects.
Furthermore, this investigation must establish an appropriate sludge
analysis program to monitor the characteristics of sludge. This work may
be done as an amendment to the Step 1 201 Grant.
The following actions are routinely included as Step 2 or Step 3
Grant conditions for this type of project. They are included here to pro-
vide a complete presentation of those actions that are required for this
project.
a) The development of an erosion and sedimentation control plan for
the construction of wastewater treatment facilities will be included as
a grant condition.
VI-I 8
-------
The development of an erosion and sedimentation control plan
during design (Step 2) and the implementation of this plan during construc-
tion (Step 3) of the proposed wastewater treatment facilities will be
grant conditions.
The development and implementation of this plan is essential to
minimize the impact erosion has on disturbed areas and siltation in
adjacent water bodies.
b) The development of an operation and maintenance plan for pro-
posed facilities will be a grant condition.
The development of a draft operation and maintenance plan for the
proposed facilities will be required during Step 2. The final O&M plan
will be required during Step 3.
Such a plan is required to ensure that efficient operation and
appropriate maintenance techniques have been adequately developed for
the proposed facilities.
c) The maintenance of a 30-foot vegetative buffer between the edge
of construction right-of-ways and stream banks will be required where
feasible.
The maintenance of a 30-foot buffer is required to minimize the
impact on stream edge vegetation. The root systems of this vegetation
are the stabilizing factors in the protection of stream banks from erosion,
Furthermore, maintaining ground cover vegetation allows for filtration of
the silt-laden overland runoff from construction activities. This
requirement will be Step 2 and 3 grant conditions.
d) The immediate re-vegetation of interceptor right-of-wavs will
be required.
Immediate re-vegetation is required to minimize erosion and sed-
imentation from construction activity. This requirement will be a Step 2
grant condition.
e) Archaeological, Vegetative, and Geological surveys will be
required to be performed during the initial phases of step 2 design.
Since the exact routings of interceptor lines are not known
at this time, detailed surveys could not be performed during the
preparation of this EIS. Surveys of the interceptor corridors will
be performed during the first phase of design (Step 2). These surveys
will be reviewed by the U.S. EPA prior to granting funds for construction.
There is a potential that archaeological resources are present
along the Cahaba River. No construction will take place until surveys are
completed to the satisfaction of the State Historic Preservation Officer.
VI-19
-------
Should resources be discovered, all requirements of the Historic Preserva-
tion Act of 1966 will be followed, and every effort will be made to pre-
serve significant resources.
Many of the Cahaba River's banks are in a relatively natural
state. There is a high probability that unique, rare, or otherwise
significant vegetative or animal communities may exist along interceptor
corridors. In the first stages of Step 2 prior to final design, a
detailed survey shall be performed and a map prepared identifying vegeta-
tive types, communities, and specimens that are unique, rare, or other-
wise significant, and alternative routings available to avoid impacting
these resources. These surveys shall be performed and the map prepared
and submitted to the U.S. EPA prior to initiation of final design. A
biologist or forester acceptable to the State Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources should be utilized to perform the survey.
Preliminary investigations of the basin's geology indicate
that formations may exist that pose a hazard to conventional inter-
ceptor design and construction. Prior to initiation of final design,
proposed interceptor corridors shall be surveyed to determine the existence
of such formations, and if necessary, appropriate measures (design
modifications or interceptor rerouting) shall be taken.
f) Emergency or stand-by power generating facilities will be
required ¦
The inclusion of emergency or stand-by power generating facilities
in all wastewater treatment plants will be a requirement of Step 2 funding
and will be included in the facilities constructed with Step 3 funds.
These stand-by power facilities are required to ensure that
treatment is provided continuously regardless of failure with the primary
electrical sources.
g) The development of a sewer use ordinance will be required.
The development of a sewer use ordinance will be required during
Step 3. A pre-treatment program is required as part of the sewer use
ordinance. This ordinance must be passed prior to final payment of Step
3 funds.
The sewer use ordinance and pre-treatment program are essential
to the operation of the proposed facilities to ensure that non-compatible
or toxic wastes are not admitted to the facility.
-Hi®—identification of the 100-year floodplain and the
implementation of appropriate protection measures will be required.
f ^ identification of the 100-year floodplain and the implementa-
tion of appropriate protection measures for treatment facilities will be
required during Step 2.
VI-20
-------
i) The efficient use of energy and resources must be considered
during the design of proposed Facilities.
According to the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, the County
must demonstrate that to the extent practicable, the most efficient
use of energy and resources has been included with the design of all pro-
posed facilities for each phase of the project.
j) Potential recreation or open space opportunities must be
analyzed during facilities planning and a report submitted to the U.S.
EPA demonstrating the evaluation of all potential recreational opportuni-
ties and the investigation of implementation methods prior to Step 3
funding.
The County must satisfactorily demonstrate that potential
recreation and open space opportunities have been analyzed in the plan-
ning process for each phase oF the project. Where possible, multipurpose
uses of interceptor rights-oF-ways should be encouraged to uses compatible
with contiguous land uses such as hiking trails and nature trails. This
report evaluating potential recreational and open space opportunities and
methods for implementation will be required as an initial task of Step 2
for each phase. Incorporation of recommended uses into the design of
the facilities must be completed prior to Step 3 funding for each phase.
2. Recommendations
a) The Birmingham 208 Plan should be reviewed and commented
on by local governments and approved by the 208 Policy Committee.
Section 208 planning is currently underway in the Birmingham
area, including that portion of the Cahaba Basin in the E1S. A major
component of the on-going 208 effort is an assessment of non-point
source water quality problems and an evaluation of various institutional
and management techniques to control non-point source pollution. The
various non-point source control and management programs or plans are best
addressed as part of 208 continuing water quality management planning
in the area.
Hie following specific programs should be addressed and appropriate
measures implemented through the 208 process:
1) An areawide erosion and sedimentation control program should
be developed, adopted, and implemented locally.
Alabama laws and local ordinances do not require erosion
or sedimentation control measures during construction or for subsequent
soil stabilization, except for surface mining operations. To minimize
water quality degradation from general construction activity and to main-
tain high water quality, a soil erosion and sediment control plan should
be required for all major construction activities which require the
removal of protective vegetation.
VI-21
-------
2) Stormwater and runoff control programs should be farther
evaluated and appropriate measures taken.
It is recommended that the development of stormwater manage-
ment programs, agriculture runoff programs, and planning and zoning to
reduce runoff and pollution loads to streams be further evaluated and ap-
propriate measures implemented by local governments. As development of
the Cahaba Basin proceeds, it is expected that additional stress will be
placed on the system from increased runoff and pollution loads. It is yet
uncertain to what degree the Cahaba River and its uses will be affected
by runoff, however there is sufficient information to indicate that the
impact of runoff on development will increase. Additional investigations
through the 208 process should identify the magnitude of impacts on
existing and future uses from non-point sources. Local governments
should take appropriate measures to minimize these impacts.
b) Comprehensive plans should be developed and adopted locally.
It is recommended that comprehensive plans be developed by all
municipalities in the study area. Comprehensive plans provide the frame-
work for community development and should include community development
goals, a land use plan, transportation plan, community facilities plan,
an evaluation of environmental considerations and sensitivities, (includ-
ing water supply protection), and the relationship of the community to
the region and to adjacent communities. Jefferson, Shelby, and St.
Clair Counties currently do not have comprehensive plans. Because there
is significant growth projected for this basin, planning to provide the
framework for this growth could avoid fragmented, haphazard provision
of services and facilities which are less effective and more costly.
c) An areawide floodplain ordinance should be developed, adupted,
and implemented for the Cahaba Basin.
Currently there are no restrictions on the use of floodplains
in the study area. Local governments should consider protecting all lands
within the 100-year floodplain and should consider restricting the allow-
ance of structures or fill in these areas. Major factors that should be
evaluated in the development of a floodplain program should be the pro-
tection of structures in the current and future flood prone areas and the
impact on existing downstream uses of floodplain areas. Upstream urban
development can significantly increase the severity and frequency of
flooding in downstream areas. Also development in the floodplain can
cause constrictions in the floodway which increases the frequency and
severity of flooding upstream. Both these factors indicate the need for
consideration of floodplain protection.
d) An in-stream water quality monitoring program should be
implemented.
As an adjunct to the proposed facilities, it is recommended
that a long term in-stream water quality monitoring program be developed
VI-22
-------
and implemented to establish water quality trends in the Cahaba River.
Such a program would provide the necessary data upon which to document
future in-stream conditions and would be the basic indicator of future
needs to evaluate treatment levels.
e) Alternatives to increase the available water resources of the
Cahaba Basin should be further evaluated.
The Cahaba River System is the water supply source for the
majority of persons in the Cahaba Basin. Existing pressures for use of
this water resource are conflicting. There currently are demands on the
river for water supply, recreation, wastewater disposal, and for use as
a habitat for aquatic organisms. Since significant growth and develop-
ment is projected for the Cahaba Basin, resultant point source and non-
point source pollution loads to the river are expected to increase. The
quality of this water resource will decrease, while demands for use will
increase.
In the evaluation of wastewater management system alternatives
in this EIS, various alternatives to increase the available water
resources of the basin have been considered. Notable among the options
have been flow augmentation/restoration schemes and alternative water sup-
plies. These schemes have been subjected to EPA's preliminary investiga-
ion in the EIS. This investigation indicates that there are potential
environmental benefits that could be derived in the Cahaba River below the
Route 280 low-head dam, if additional flow during low-flow periods could
be provided. However the proposed action, as described in this EIS, does
not include flow augmentation or alternate water supply sources. These
schemes were not included as part of the proposed system because: they
involve higher costs; there are unknown environmental effects from con-
struction of any dam(s) and impoundment(s); there are institutional and
management hurdles yet to be overcome with implementing these programs;
the time frame to implement these programs is too long; and there are
uncertainties concerning any future distribution of the additional water
resource.
A more detailed investigation of water resource management
alternatives should be conducted. This investigation should include a
comprehensive evaluation of alternatives to increase the continuous yield
from the basin and an evaluation of alternative water supply sources. The
study should investigate the economic and environmental costs and benefits
of various water resource management alternatives and should address
future competing uses of the available resource including the long-term
viability of continued multiple uses. It must be noted, however, that
EPA cannot utilize grant funds for this study or for construction of any
recommended project.
f) Measures to mitigate impacts on air quality should be taken.
A number of construction and planning practices are available
to avoid or minimize impact on air quality resultant from construction and
implementation of the proposed action. It is therefore recommended that
the mitigative measures, given at the beginning of this chapter be imple-
mented. In addition the following efforts are recommended:
VI-2 3
-------
1) Transportation planning to develop an efficient trans-
portation network.
2) Development of controls to encourage development that is in
compliance with the transportation plan.
Short-term construction impacts of dust and equipment emis-
sions may be realized during the construction of the proposed treatment
facilities. Both short and long-term impacts from development and traffic
may also be expected. The impact on air quality from these activities
can be minimized through implementation of good construction and planning
practices.
g) Measures to mitigate noise and odor impacts should be taken.
It is recommended that measures be taken during construction and
operation of the proposed facilities reduce the severity of noise and odor
impacts. These measures are given at the beginning of this chapter.
h) Measures to mitigate the impact on topography and soils shotljd
be taken.
In addition to previously listed recommendations and requirements,
it is recommended that the measures listed earlier in chapter VI be taken to reduce
adverse impacts on topography and soils during construction of the pro-
posed facilities.
i) Measures should be taken to avoid or minimize the impact of
chlorine residual on aquatic organisms.
Because of uncertainties and the potential for impacting fresh-
water organisms, it is recommended that appropriate steps be taken by
Jefferson County to minimize or avoid toxic chlorine residuals by
chlorination/dechlorination or alternative means of disinfection at the
Cahaba wastewater treatment plant.
The Cahaba plant currently chlorinates the effluent for the
purpose of disinfection. It is envisioned that the expanded and upgraded
Cahaba facility may also chlorinate. A chlorine residual of 0.5 to 1.0
mg/1 in treatment plant effluent is usually achieved to ensure disinfection.
During periods of seasonal low flow in the river, the Cahaba plant's dis-
charge constitutes the majority of the river's flow. EPA's Quality
Criteria for Water recommends that the total residual chlorine levels
should not exceed 0.01 mg/1 for most freshwater organisms. If the Cahaba
plant's effluent is chlorinated to maintain the 0.5 - 1.0 mg/1 residual,
then it is expected that recommended total chlorine residual levels for
the protection of freshwater organisms will be exceeded.
A significant factor to be considered is the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service proposal to list the Cahaba shiner and goldline darter
as endangered species and habitats of these species downstream from the
VI-24
-------
Cahaba wastewater treatment plant as critical habitats. The potential for
impact upon these species and proposed critical habitats from chlorinating
treatment plant effluent exists. However, the actual impacts to be
expected are not yet known.
VI-25
-------
CHAPTER VII
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
-------
CHAPTER VII
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
At the outset of the preparation of the EIS a public participation
program was developed to insure public involvement in all phases of the
EIS. The focal point of the public participation program was the develop-
ment of the Cahaba Advisory Committee. This committee included a variety
of representatives from governmental agencies, private organizations,
groups, and individuals interested in the future of the Cahaba River Basin.
Functions of the Cahaba Advisory Committee (CAC) included:
1. Identify local planning objectives.
2. Identify study area issues and conflicts.
3. Review existing conditions inventory.
4. Review and comment upon land use and population projections and
disaggregations.
5. Assist in comparison and evaluation of alternatives.
6. Review and comment on adverse impacts and mitigative measures.
7. Review and comment upon the draft EIS.
Representatives of EPA met with the public for the first time at a
208 Advisory Committee Meeting on September 23, 1976. At this meeting
the intent of developing a public participation program for the EIS was
presented along with a invitation to members of the community to participate
on the Cahaba Advisory Committee. Potential committee members were
screened by EPA from a list of interested and potential candidates. The
following is a listing of the members of the CAC and the organizations they
represent:
Local and Regional Government
Robert D. Irwin Jefferson County Commission
Mr. Karl C. Harrison Shelby County
Alternate: Thomas W. Stubbs, Jr.
Mr. C. H. Sain City of Vestavia Hills
Mr. John Hodnett City of Hoover
Mr. Daniel Wadkins City of Mountain Brook
Mr. Ormond Bentley City of Trussville
VII-1
-------
Local and Regional Government (Continued)
Mr. Danny Ausbun Leeds News
Mr. Chriss Doss (Co-Chairman)
Alternate: William Bondarenko
Birmingham Regional Planning
Commission
Mr. William H. Weems (Co-Chairman) 208 Technical Committee
Alternate: Lee Laechelt
Mr. David Vann
Mr. Walter J. Gregg
Mr. James S. Satterfield
Interested Citizens
Mr. Archie Jones
Mr. James W. Reeder
Alternate: Mrs. C. B. Grund
Dr. J. Walden Retan
Alternate: Mr. Victor Cohen
Dr. Steve Powell
Alternate: Mrs. F. A. Dickinson
Mrs. Clinton Tatum
Alternate: Mrs. Blaine A.
Brownell, III
Dr. Joseph J. Gauthier
Alternate: Dr. George B. Cline
Mrs. Robert A. Jackson
State Government
Mr. James Mclndoe
Alternate: Mr. Stuckey Godfrey
Mr. Bob Wise
Mr. Lee Walls
City of Birmingham
Cahaba Commission
St. Clair County Commission
208 Citizens Committee
Alabama Wildlife Federation
Sierra Club Cahaba Group
The Alabama Conservancy
League of Women Voters of Greater
Birmingham
University of Alabama in Birmingham
Concerned Citizens Coalition, Inc.
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
Alabama Forestry Commission
Alabama Department of Conservation
& Natural Resources
VII-2
-------
Business & Industry
Mr. J. W. Roberts
Alternate: W. H. Wingate
Mr. R. C. Douglas, Jr.
Alternate: Mr. Dara Longgear
Mr. Stan Parker
Alternate: John Wright
Mr. A. P. Foley
Alternate: Mr. Edward C. Miceli
Mr. William Wilkins, Jr.
Alternate: Mr. W. Ronald
Drinkard
Mr. Still Hunter
Alternate: Mr. Charles Bueltman
Mr. C. B. Reyman
Alternate: Mr. H. S. Savage
Mr. Bobby Shepherd
Birmingham Water Works Board
Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
Birmingham Association of Home
Builders
Birmingham Industrial Water Board
Metropolitan Development Board
The Cahaba Basin Land Development and
Owners Association
Associated Industries of Alabama
Birmingham Area Board of Realtors
Former Members Include:
Mrs.Louise G. Smith 208 Citizens Committee
Mr. J. H. Wurtele, Jr. BRPC
Mr. Ken McGraw AWIC
Mr. Ron Holley AWIC
Once the CAC was organized a series of meetings of the CAC were
held to present the development of the EIS and to receive their comments
and ideas. This following is a listing of the CAC meetings and the topics
covered during each meeting:
October 28. 1976 - This was an organizational meeting of the CAC to
introduce members of the committee to issues of the EIS and the plan of
study for completing the EIS. This meeting was followed by a public
meeting at which time similar topics were covered with the general public.
January 6, 1977 - The preliminary inventory of the study area's
natural and man-made environment was presented. In addition reports on
population and land use projections and a status report on water quality
modeling were presented.
VII-3
-------
February 7, 1977 - Discussions were held on population and land use
projections developed for the Cahaba River Basin. The development and
evaluation of alternative subsystem options and alternative systems were
also discussed.
October 13 & 15, 1977 - These two meetings were held to present and
evaluate the various alternatives for wastewater management in the Cahaba
River Basin. The alternatives development and evaluation included the con-
sideration of alternative treatment and conveyance systems; cost data; and
environmental impacts of the alternative wastewater systems.
January 24, 1978 - Chapter V of the EIS on Impacts of the Proposed
Action and chapter VI on Mitigative Measures were presented and discussed.
February 1, 1978 - Discussions and presentations on chapter V of the
EIS on Impacts of the Proposed Action and chapter VI on Mitigative Measures
were continued.
COORDINATION
During the preparation of the EIS many federal, state and local govern-
mental agencies, organizations and members of the community provided assis-
tance and information. The following listing provides the various contact
sources and the purpose of that contact.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CONTACTS
Contact
Purpose
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
EPIC,
Warrenton, Virginia
Obtain color infrared imaginary
of the Cahaba River Basin
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Athens, Georgia
Obtain and discuss modeling data
for the Cahaba River Basin.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials
Washington, D.C.
Obtain modeling data.
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
University, Alabama
Obtain flood prone area maps
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
EIS Preparation Section
Atanta, Georgia
Obtain reports and studies on
the Cahaba River Basin
VI1-4
-------
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CONTACTS (Cont'd.)
Contact
Purpose
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Technical Support Group
Atlanta, Georgia
Discussion of basin water
quality modeling.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jackson, Mississippi
Discussion of rare and endangered
species in the Cahaba River
STATE EIS
CONTACTS
Alabama Water
Improvement Commission
Water Quality Planning Section
Montgomery, Alabama
Obtain and discuss modeling
data for the Cahaba River Basin.
Discuss wastewater facilities
alternatives and obtain permit
status reports.
University of Alabama
Office of Archeological Research
University, Alabama
Obtain archeological data.
Alabama Highway Department
Montgomery, Alabama
Final EIS for 1-459
Auburn University
Zoology Department
Auburn, Alabama
Discussion of rare or endangered
species in the basin.
Alabama Ornithological Society
Birmingham, Alabama
Discussion of high-value
birding areas.
Alabama Air Pollution
Control Commission
Birmingham, Alabama
Obtain air pollution data for
Birmingham area.
Alabama Department of
Industrial Relations
Birmingham, Alabama
Obtain data on resource extrac-
tion in the study area.
LOCAL AND REGIONAL
EIS CONTACTS
Contact
Birmingham Chamber of Commerce
Birmingham, Alabama
Purpose
Obtain land use and property
ownership maps, and economic
studies.
VI1-5
-------
LOCAL AND REGIONAL
EIS CONTACTS
(Cont* d.)
Contact
Purpose
Birmingham Regional Planning
Commission
Birmingham, Alabama
Birmingham Water Works Board
Birmingham, Alabama
Shelby County Soil Conservation
Columbiana, Alabama
Metropolitan Development Board
Birmingham, Alabama
Jefferson County Department of
Sanitation
Birmingham, Alabama
Obtain the following:
Planning and Zoning Regulations
Water Quality Data
Population and Housing Pro-
jections
Land Suitability Reports
Economic Studies
Transportation Reports
Recreation Facilities Inventory
Historical Sites Report
Regional Map
Obtain water supply and hydrolo-
gic data.
Obtain soils information for
Shelby County.
Obtain industrial development
data for Cahaba River Basin.
Obtain the following data:
Status of I/I work on the basin
Wastewater rate analysis data
Project cost data
Sewage treatment plant operations
data
Conducted tour of sewage treat-
ment plants in the basin.
Jefferson County
Health Department
Birmingham, Alabama
Obtain data and maps for on-lot
disposal systems in the basin.
Obtain data on air pollution
and odor problem areas.
Jefferson County
Planning and Community
Development Agency
Obtained copy of Jefferson County
Community Services and Facilities
Plan.
OTHER CONTACTS
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
White Plains, New York
Versar Inc.
Springfield, Virginia
Black Crow and Eidsness, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama
Obtain water supply system data.
Share data on non-point source
modeling in the Cahaba River Basin-
Discuss 201 Wastewater Facilities
Plan and obtain pertinent data.
VII-6
~U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19 78 -746 -617/ 4551 R1
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |