CWSID Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Expansion Project The

Document Sample
CWSID Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Expansion Project The Powered By Docstoc
					         CWSID Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Expansion Project

The Central Weber Sewer Improvement District (CWSID or District) provides
wastewater treatment for residents of central and eastern portions of Weber County in
northern Utah. The plant serves a population of approximately 169,000 (2005). The
current treatment facility is a single stage trickling filter plant that was built and put into
service in 1959.

The WWTP effluent can discharge into the Warren Canal and the Weber River.
Currently, the effluent is only being discharged into the Warren Canal, which has less
stringent discharge requirements. Because the Warren Canal has limited capacity in the
future a portion of the effluent will have to be discharged into the Weber River and will
be required to meet more stringent discharge requirements. The existing process does not
have the capability of meeting these more stringent requirements.

The hydraulic capacity of the existing facilities is estimated to be 31.1 mgd during
Average Day Maximum Month (ADMM) and 66.4 mgd during Peak Wet Weather Flow
(PWWF). The estimated 2005 ADMM flow is 51.9 and the 2005 PWWF is 100 million
gallons per day (mgd). The existing facilities are not adequate to even handle the existing
flows into the plant. Therefore changes are required to expand and upgrade the WWTP
to handle existing and future flows and loads and also to meet more stringent discharge
requirements.

CWSID recently retained MWH to complete a Plant Process Evaluation Study. The
Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Evaluation Study was performed to assess the
condition and process capacity of the CWSID Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Some of the key findings of that study are as follows:

1.      The hydraulic capacity of the existing facility is limited and only provides about
        70 percent of the hydraulic capacity required to handle the estimated 2005 peak
        wet weather flow of 100 mgd.

2.      CWSID has historically a very high Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) rate. Repeated studies
        have indicated that it is more cost effective to treat the majority of the I/I than to
        eliminate it.

3.      The District has two permitted points of discharge. One is directly to the Weber
        River and the other is to the Warren Canal. For the past 20 years the discharge
        has been to the Warren Canal, which has less stringent requirements.

4.      The hydraulic capacity of the Warren Canal is limited to 62 mgd peak flow (32.1
        mgd ADMM). Any flow in excess of the Canal capacity must meet more
        stringent discharge requirements to the Weber River. The existing trickling filter
        plant can not meet the more stringent requirements

5.      The District continues to experience growth and requests are being made to add


                                                   -1-
       additional service areas to the District’s boundaries. In the next 20 years the
       average day maximum month flow to the plant will be 65.1 mgd and the peak wet
       weather flow will be 116.9 mgd. The effective hydraulic capacity of the WWTP
       will need to be almost doubled to handle future conditions.

Four alternatives were evaluated as part of the Plant Process Evaluation Study. The
evaluation showed that it would be difficult and expensive to increase the hydraulic
capacity of the entire existing plant because of limited room and the need to keep the
existing facilities in service while the existing piping is paralleled and/or replaced. Also,
improvements to the existing system would not increase the hydraulic capacity enough to
meet future demands on the system and meet the more stringent discharge requirements.

The basic recommendation of the Plant Process Evaluation Study was to construct a new
parallel activated sludge treatment plant to meet current plant needs and provide adequate
capacity for projected growth until 2025. The capacity of the In addition, the new
process train will be designed to produce an effluent quality suitable for discharge into
the Weber River.

The new parallel plant will have an initial capacity of 34 mgd ADMM. The total
capacity of the plant will be increase to 65.1 mgd ADMM and a 116.9 mgd PWWF The
parallel treatment train will be sized for projected peak flows and will use activated
sludge as the preferred biological treatment process. The plant will include headworks
(screening and grit removal); influent pumping; primary clarification; activated sludge
secondary treatment; blower building; secondary clarification; RAS/WAS pump station;
chlorine contact; sludge thickening; sludge digestion; and, new outfall to the Weber
River.

The preliminary estimated cost of the new parallel treatment train is $100-125 million.
This was the estimated cost given in 2005.




                                                 -2-
                                       Appendix A

Summary of Environmental Impacts from the CWSID Water Reclamation Facility

The project construction area is located in Weber County, Utah in T6N, R2W, Sections 1,
2, 10,11 and 12, USGS 7.5’ Plain City Quadrangle, shown on Figure 1, Project Location
Map. The project operation area includes the Warren Canal from the existing CWSID
WWTP discharge point into the Canal to the existing Canal discharge weir to the Weber
River near Plain City and the Weber River below the overflow weir to the Ogden Bay
Bird Refuge.

The affected environment (baseline conditions) of resources of the human environment
and environmental consequences (impacts) on the quality of the human environment
from the CWSID facility upgrade are documented in this summary. Baseline conditions
are the existing conditions of the impacted resources within the project impact prior to
commencing any construction activities. The human environment is defined in this EA as
all of the environmental resources, including physical, biological, chemical, and social
conditions occurring in the impact area of influence.

This document makes reference to the CWSID/ PVWS Water Reclamation and Reuse
Project DRAFT Environmental Assessment report dated April 2006. The Reuse project
is anticipated to follow the CWSID facility upgrade in 2011. The impact analysis
assumes that the environmental protection measures described as part of the project
alternatives are implemented and incorporates the standard construction procedures
(SCPs) described in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.4 of the CWSID Reuse Environmental
Assessment. A summary follows of the conclusions of the study with regard to the
affected environment and environmental consequences. Section headings are likewise
labeled as in the Draft EA.

                              3.2 Surface Water Resources

The facility plan update involves only issues and concerns regarding the impacts of
operation of the project on downstream surface water resources. Therefore potential
operational impacts were considered for the recipient waters downstream, that is, the
Warren Canal and the Weber River.

The project area is located on the lower Weber River drainage downstream of the
confluence of the Ogden and Weber River, northwest of the Slaterville Diversion Dam.
During the irrigation season, the Warren Canal supplies 70 cfs to the North and South
Branch of the Warren Canal in an approximate 40/60 split, respectively. Flows in excess
of 70 cfs back up into the Four Mile Reservoir (located northeast of the intersection of
1550N and 4150 W, about a mile up-canal from the irrigation split).

During the irrigation season, the overflow weir from the Warren Canal to the Weber
River is closed, and therefore very little of the excess canal flows spill back to the Weber
River. The Weber River receives irrigation return flows from the North and South
Warren Canal and other irrigation downstream of the Plain city gage, which eventually


                                           1 of 13
flow to the Ogden Bay Wildlife Refuge. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)




                                    2 of 13
establishes required minimum flows to the Ogden Bay Wildlife Refuge which are
typically measured at the Plain City gage and otherwise adjusted on a case by case basis.

Existing and projected CWSID WWTP effluent discharges into the Warren Canal were
analyzed to determine net flows in the canal after project implementation. The net
Warren Canal flows were analyzed to determine the potential spill flow from the canal to
the Weber River. Historic Weber River flows at the Plain City gage were analyzed to
determine the frequency of mean monthly flows below the MOA required flows during
the WRRP annual operating period. The effects of changes in Warren Canal spills into
the Weber River resulting from plant upgrade operations were then analyzed to determine
the change in frequency of mean monthly Weber River flow below the MOA required
flows.

The following would be considered significant impacts on surface water resources:
   • Permanent alteration of a surface stream or canal from project construction
   • Impairment of any existing surface water right
   • Greater than 0.05 probability of mean monthly flow in the Weber River below the
       MOA flow at the Plain City gage because of project operations

The average day maximum month (ADMM) flow is 51.9 mgd and the peak wet weather
flow (PWWF) is 100 mgd. The future 2025 ADMM flow will be 65.1 mgd and the
PWWF will be 116.9 mgd. Since the Warren Canal has a hydraulic capacity of 32 mgd
ADMM and 60 mgd PWWF, any effluent discharge above this will be conveyed through
the 72” outfall pipe to the Weber River after being treated to higher water quality
standards.


With the increase in effluent flows, the probability of a flow deficient months caused by
the project diminishes to less than the 20% calculated with the Reuse project.

Project activities may result in a short term increase of the overall discharge of the plant
into the Warren Canal and the Weber River with no significant impacts to the
downstream flows or floodstage in either the Warren Canal and Weber River.
Construction impacts will involve a temporary land disturbance along the outfall pipeline
corridor, but no impacts to the surface water resources of the area.

There is no finding of significant impact to surface water resources from construction or
operation of the project.

                               3.3 Surface Water Quality
Weber River

Water quality in the Weber River downstream of the Slaterville diversion dam has been
designated as 2B, 3C, 3D and 4 in the State of Utah Water Quality Standards, Water Use
Classifications. The following describes these classifications:



                                           3 of 13
Class 2B: Protected for secondary contact recreation such as boating, wading or similar
          uses.
Class 3C: Protected for non-game fish and other aquatic life, including necessary aquatic
          organisms in their food chain.
Class 3D: Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not
          included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including necessary aquatic organisms in
          their food chain.
Class 4: Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation or crops and stock
          watering.

The Weber River downstream of Plain City receives irrigation return flows and the
combined flows continue on to the Ogden Bay Wildlife Refuge. Water quality within the
refuge must meet the 2B, 3C and 3D standards.

Table 1, displays a summary of baseline (2009) monthly average water quality conditions
in the Weber River near Plain City. The selected water quality constituents shown in
Table 1 are representative of the constituents in the CWSID WWTP treated effluent.
            Table 1. Summary of Estimated Baseline (2009) Monthly Average
            Water Quality Conditions in the Weber River near Plain City, Utah
                                BOD        DO       Ammonia TSS Mean
                               Mean       Mean     Mean (mg/L) (mg/L)
                               (mg/l)    (mg/L)
                   April        3.90      9.15        0.27       38.83
                    May         4.44      8.10        0.30       70.59
                   June         3.85      7.29        0.61       31.28
                    July        4.45      7.28        1.03       28.50
                  August        5.70      6.69        1.48       18.79
                 September      5.72      6.89        0.91       33.41
                  October       4.97      7.88        0.71       19.30

Warren Canal

The water quality in the Warren Canal reflects the effluent quality discharged from the
CWSID WWTP. Fourmile Reservoir, which is connected to the Warren Canal, is owned
and operated by the WIC. No data are available to indicate the water quality of the
reservoir, which is presumably a mix of water from the effluent discharge, Fourmile
Creek and irrigation return flows.

CWSID effluent water quality

Currently the CWSID WWTP employs a trickling filter process. The planned upgrade of
the WWTP facility to incorporate an activated sludge process by 2010 will improve the
effluent water quality and may remove up to 97 percent of the suspended solids.

Since the Warren Canal has a hydraulic capacity of 32 mgd ADMM and 60 mgd PWWF,
any effluent discharge above this will be conveyed through the 72” outfall pipe to the
Weber River after being treated to higher water quality standards.



                                         4 of 13
As a result, the effluent discharge from CWSID to the Warren Canal or Weber River will
be of higher quality as it will have lower amounts of nutrients such as phosphorous and
nitrogen as well as lower turbidity levels. The decrease in nutrients due to the plant
upgrade will also have a positive effect in the dissolved oxygen levels downstream of the
wastewater treatment plant discharge.

Table 2 shows the current effluent discharge limits for water leading to the Weber River
and to the Warren canal. A new discharge permit is being developed for 2006 and will
include as an ammonia standard: 14.2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) summer; 14.9 mg/l fall
and spring; 15.9 mg/l winter. The plant will meet or exceed all other water quality
standards as required.


                      Table 2. Effluent Discharge Limits and Monitoring Requirements




                                                          Outfall                            Monitoring
                                                                           Sample Type       Frequency
    Parameter                       Units
                                               Weber             Warren
                                               River             Canal
    Total Flow                     mgd                                       Recorder        Continuous
    BOD5
     Monthly Average               mg/l          15                 25      Composite           Daily
     Weekly Average                              21                 25
    TSS
     Monthly Average               mg/l          25                 35      Composite           Daily
     Weekly Average                              35                 35
    Ammonia
                                                      1
     Summer                                     6.68             14.89
                                   mg/l               1                       Grab             Weekly
     Fall/Spring                                6.87             18.96
                                                     1
     Winter                                      7.4             25.54

    TRC (daily max)                mg/l        0.013                5.0       Grab              Daily

    Fecal Coliforms
     Max Monthly Average        no./100 ml                 200                Grab              Daily
     Max Weekly Average                                    250
    Total Coliforms

     Max Monthly Average        no./100 ml                2000                Grab              Daily
                                                          2500
     Max Weekly Average
    PH
      Daily Max                  Std units                 6.5                Grab              Daily
      Daily Min                                            9.0
    Dissolved Oxygen
                                   mg/l                                   Instantaneous         Daily
      Daily Min                                           5.5
    Mercury                         µg/l                  0.64            Composite/Grab      Quarterly
    Copper                          µg/l                  48.2            Composite/Grab      Quarterly
1
      Per discussions with State Division of Water Quality, ammonia requirements for discharge to
      the Weber River in the 2006 discharge permit will be: 14.2 milligrams per liter (mg/l) summer;
      14.9 mg/l fall and spring; 15.9 mg/l winter. (From MWH Technical Memo, Evaluation of
      CWSID Water Treatment Plant, 2005)


                                                    5 of 13
The following would be considered significant impacts on surface water quality:
   • Water quality in the project area is permanently deteriorated, violates water
       quality standards or causes harm to downstream users

The impacts of the project on Weber River water quality would include small decreases
in BOD and NH3-N concentrations after mixing the treated effluent with river water,
which would be a short-term minor positive impact on surface water quality. The DO
concentrations in the Weber River would either remain unchanged or increase slightly.
The increased DO concentrations would be a short-term, minor positive impact on
surface water quality. The estimated TSS concentration would increase slightly, which
would be a short-term minor negative impact on surface water quality. None of the
estimated changes in constituent concentrations would exceed the State Water Quality
Standards. The project would have no significant impacts on surface water quality in the
Weber River.

The project is expected to maintain or improve water quality in the Warren Canal from
the improved activated sludge treated effluent. The water quality impacts would not
cause a change in water use classifications for secondary recreation or compromises to
waterfowl or other water-oriented wildlife. The project would have no significant
impacts on surface water quality and associated uses in the Warren Canal and Fourmile
Reservoir.

                             3.4 Groundwater Resources

The project impact area for groundwater resources would include the conveyance
pipeline construction corridors, the Warren Canal from the CWSID discharge point to the
overflow weir into the Weber River, the Weber River from the overflow to the Ogden
Bay Wildlife Refuge.

The impacts that the project could have on groundwater resources involve infiltration and
changes in groundwater levels. The three main parts of the project that could have an
impact in the ground water resources are:
   • Impacts of pipeline construction and installation on the groundwater resources.
   • Impacts of surface water diversions on the groundwater resources downstream of
       the project.

Analysis of shallow well drilling records (less than 30 feet) in western Weber County
indicates that shallow groundwater levels range from two to 14.5 feet below ground
surface. The Weber River is a gaining reach throughout the project impact area with the
general direction of groundwater flow toward the Weber River and the Great Salt Lake.

The following would be considered significant impacts on groundwater resources:
   • A change in groundwater level that would change production from shallow wells
       in the impact area
   • A change in groundwater level that would impair ground surface use in the impact
       area (excavation for building, surface seepage, etc.)


                                         6 of 13
Potential flow increases in the Weber River could result in a short-term small,
immeasurable change in river stage and corresponding local accumulations in the shallow
groundwater table. These would not be considered measurable impacts on groundwater
in the project area.

Project construction and operation would not significantly affect groundwater resources.

                               3.5 Groundwater Quality

The following would be considered a significant impact on groundwater quality:
   • Contamination of culinary groundwater wells or other sources

Changes in plant effluent discharged to the Warren Canal or Weber River are not likely
to have any affect on the groundwater wells or groundwater quality. Therefore the
project would have no impacts on groundwater quality.

                                 3.6 Aquatic Resources

The project impact area for aquatic resources would include the conveyance pipeline
construction corridors, the Warren Canal from the CWSID discharge point to the
overflow weir into the Weber River and the Weber River from the overflow to the Ogden
Bay Wildlife Refuge.

Impacts on surface water resources and surface water quality were analyzed to determine
potential impacts on aquatic resources. Best professional judgment and experience in
analysis of similar projects were used to determine if impacts would exceed the
significance criteria.

The Weber River reaches in the project impact area are meandering and low slope
(Rosgen type E) and characterized by relatively warm late summer water temperatures.
Specific aquatic species data are minimal for the reaches of the Weber River within the
project impact area. The Ogden Convention and Visitor’s Bureau “Weber County Utah
Fishing” web page lists rainbow trout, brown trout, mountain whitefish and albino
rainbow trout as “likely catch” in the Weber River from the I-84 Bridge to the confluence
with the Ogden River. It lists Utah sucker, common carp, channel catfish and small
mouth bass as “possible catch” in the same area. Other typical game and non-game
species potentially present in the lower Weber River include western mosquito fish, Utah
chub, sunfish, black bullhead, black crappie, and bluegill. The Weber River also
provides habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates representing several orders.

The significance criteria that would be deemed as having impacts on aquatic resources
include:
• short or long term alterations in surface water resources that would place aquatic
    species at risk




                                         7 of 13
•   short or long term alterations in surface water quality that would place aquatic species
    at risk

Potential impacts on aquatic resources could result from impacts on surface water
resources or quality. The Weber River stage changes associated with the project would
be minor and likely not measurable. Water quality in the Weber River could change
slightly due to increased effluent flows, however the water quality criteria for effluent
directly to the Weber River would be more stringent and therefore the potential impacts
would be minor and likely not measurable. Therefore the no measurable impacts were
identified by the project.

Construction of the project would not have a long term affect on aquatic resources,
therefore, potential impacts from construction would not cause impacts on aquatic
resources.

                            3.7 Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Wetland plant communities in the project area consist mostly of riparian fringe wetlands
along streams or irrigation canals, wet meadow wetlands in the pip0eline construction
area and surrounding Fourmile Reservoir, as well as the littoral unconsolidated and
aquatic bottom wetlands in the body of Fourmile Reservoir. Hydrology in the project
area is dominated by shallow subsurface water with surface drainage toward Fourmile
Creek and the Weber River.

The following would be considered significant impacts on wetlands and riparian areas:
• net loss of wetland or riparian area
• long-term change in wetland or riparian plant communities, hydrology or soils
• long-term change in wetland or riparian functions.

Since there would be no change from baseline conditions, the project will have not
impact on wetlands or riparian areas.

                        3.8 Threatened and Endangered Species

The project construction and operation was analyzed for potential effects on TES based
on description of species distribution and life history in the literature and based on best
professional judgment and experience in performing similar analyses in other projects.
The federally listed species for Weber County (Utah Conservation Data Center 2005)
include Gray wolf, Bald eagle, Yellow-billed cuckoo, June sucker, Wasatch (Ogden
Deseret) mountainsnail, and Ute ladies’ tresses.

The following would be considered significant effects on threatened and endangered
species:
   • Taking of threatened or endangered species
   • Destruction or degradation of habitat that would exceed the estimated level
     necessary to maintain viable populations or sub-populations of any species


                                           8 of 13
   • Actions that lead to long-term disturbance in species migration and dispersal,
     breeding behavior or pollination that would threaten the viability of any population
     or sub-population of any species

The only specie that may be influenced by water quantity and quality changes in the
project area would be the June sucker, which naturally occurs only in Utah Lake and its
tributaries, primarily the Provo River. The June sucker does not occur naturally in the
project area. There would be no change from baseline conditions and the project will not
affect any threatened or endangered species.

                                3.9 State Sensitive Species

The project construction and operation was analyzed for potential effects on sensitive
species based on description of species distribution and life history in the literature and
based on best professional judgment and experience in performing similar analyses in
other projects. The Utah Sensitive Species listed for Weber County include two species
of mammals, eleven species of birds, two species of fish and two species of mollusks.
Many of these species were eliminated from further analysis because they do not have
habitat or recorded distributions in the project impact area.

The potential species included in the project area include kit fox, burrowing owl, short-
eared owl, ferruginous hawk, bobolink and grasshopper sparrow. Direct mortality from
construction activities would not be expected on the potential sensitive species in the
area. Construction disturbance could interfere with nesting activity of the avian species
but this could be avoided by scheduling work during months that don’t conflict with the
April through June nesting period.

The project therefore would not have significant impacts on sensitive species.

                    3.10 Terrestrial Habitat and Wildlife Resources

The project impact area for terrestrial habitat and wildlife resources would include the
treatment facility and pump station construction area, the conveyance pipeline
construction corridors, the Warren Canal from the CWSID WWTP discharge point to the
overflow weir into the Weber River and the Weber River from the overflow to the Ogden
Bay Wildlife Refuge. Construction and operation of alternatives were analyzed to
determine whether habitat disturbances and the impacts on wildlife populations would be
significant in light of species habitat preferences, home ranges and critical reproductive
seasons. Wildlife surveys were not conducted for the analysis.

The project area is generally within an area of human development and activity
consisting of a mixture of urban and agricultural parcels. The construction site for the
water treatment facility and pump station is on existing disturbed land at the CWSID
WWTP property. There is no usable wildlife habitat on the property. Minimal wildlife
populations would be expected in the project area because of its level of habitat
disturbance and high levels of human presence and activity. Only species typical of



                                           9 of 13
“urban/suburban” wildlife that are tolerant of human presence would be anticipated.
Resident mammals could include red fox, squirrels, skunks, raccoon, muskrat, rodents
(pocket gopher, mice, rat), coyote, a variety of bats and mule deer. Resident birds could
include American robin, black-billed magpie, American crow, house sparrow, house
finch and gulls. Amphibians and reptiles would be possible, but uncommon in the
cultivated habitat in the project area; they may be present in riparian corridors and field
edges. Representative species could include common garter snake, terrestrial garter
snake, gopher snake, tiger whiptail, great basin spadefoot, tiger salamander,
Woodhouse’s toad and boreal toad (UCDC 2006).

Significant impacts on terrestrial habitat and wildlife resources may include:
• Mortality of a large number of individuals that would place a wildlife species
   population or subpopulation at risk
• Long-term loss of habitat that would place a wildlife species population or
   subpopulation at risk

There would be no change from baseline condition of terrestrial habitat or wildlife
resources, therefore would be no significant impacts on impacts wildlife populations.
Construction and operation of the South Pipeline Alternative would have no adverse
impact on terrestrial habitat or wildlife resources.

                               3.11 Agricultural Resources

The project impact area for agricultural resources would include the tertiary treatment
facility and pump station construction area, the conveyance pipeline construction
corridors, the Warren Canal from the CWSID WWTP discharge point to the overflow
weir into the Weber River and the Weber River from the overflow to the Ogden Bay
Wildlife Refuge.

Since the project involves only changes in effluent going to the Warren Canal and Weber
River, there would be no impact on agricultural lands, production of State significant
farmlands from the project.

                       3.12 Transportation and Utilities Resources

Significant impacts to transportation and utilities resources would involve long term
(greater than 1 year) disruption of traffic patterns or travel times within the project area or
long term (greater than 1 year) disruption of utility service within the project area.

Neither construction nor operation of the project would affect transportation resources or
utilities. Therefore there will be no significant impacts on transportation resources or
utilities from the project.
                                      3.13 Air Quality

EPA data were reviewed for NAAQ air quality listings in Weber County or “Class I” air
quality preservation area designations. Standard Construction Procedures (SCPs) were



                                           10 of 13
reviewed for completeness and ability to maintain air quality at the project site and
surrounding Weber County.

The following would be considered significant impacts on air quality:
• Violation of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) beyond construction
   site boundaries
• Degradation of air quality in Weber County that would affect its listing for air quality
   non-attainment or future attainment.

There would be no change from baseline conditions. Therefore the project will have no
impacts on air quality.

                          3.14 Cultural and Historic Resources

Impacts would be analyzed following Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
guidelines that include: a file search for previous inventories and sites in the area, a
SHPO Geographic Information System search, ad pedestrian survey of the construction
corridors, recording of cultural resource sites identified, and the preparation of a cultural
resource report for the project.

If during the construction and replacement of the 72” outfall pipe any cultural relics are
unearthed, SHPO will be informed immediately and mitigation or recording of the relics
will be carried out as per regulation and practice. The possibility of encountering such
cultural relics are slim since the area has already been disturbed during past construction
of the outfall pipe. The Warren Canal may be considered a historic feature within the
project area. There is no anticipated physical disturbance or alteration of this or any other
cultural resource, and therefore the project would not have impacts on archaeological,
cultural or historical resources.

                              3.15 Socioeconomic Resources

Social and economic data on Weber County were analyzed to determine potential impacts
from project construction and operation. The following would be considered significant
impacts on socioeconomic resources:
• A greater than 5 percent change in long-term annual personal income in Weber
   County caused by the project
• A greater than 5 percent change in long-term property values in Weber County
   caused by the project
• A greater than 5 percent change in long-term employment in Weber County caused
   by the project

There would be no change from baseline conditions. The project will have no impact on
socioeconomic resources in Weber County.




                                           11 of 13
A secondary impact would be the ability to accommodate more growth in the service
areas. This would required additional public facilities, school houses, policemen, etc. in
the CWSID service area.

                             3.16 Public Health and Safety

The following would be considered significant impacts on public health and safety:
• Exposure of the public to hazardous levels of toxic or noxious materials or pollutants
• Violation of Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) standards

Project operation will deliver treated effluent to Warren Canal or Weber River in pre-
established standards and water quality concentrations that meet all concerns for public
health and safety. There would be no change from baseline conditions. Therefore the
project will not cause significant impacts on public health and safety.

                                3.17 Indian Trust Assets

Reclamation has a fiduciary responsibility to establish the area of effect for any and all ITA
or other reserved treaty rights for each of the three tribes with an interest in the proposed
weir modification area. This process is on-going at this time through consultation meetings.

Initial consultation letters were sent to two Indian tribes regarding ITA or other reserved
treaty rights. These tribes were the Uintah and Ouray Ute Indian Tribe and the Shoshone
Tribe. The consultation letters asked for tribal concerns about primary ITA such as water
and land issues. It also inquired about hunting, fishing, gathering or other traditional use
areas that may be considered to be other reserved treaty rights. Specific inquiry regarding
access to traditional plant gathering areas was addressed.

No Indian reservation lands are located within the project impact area. No Indian Trust
Assets or other reserved treaty rights have been identified for any of the Federally
recognized Tribes with potential interests in the project impact area.

Project operation would not affect Indian Trust Assets. There would be no impact on
Indian Trust Assets.

                               3.18 Environmental Justice

Year 2000 census socioeconomic data analyzed for Weber County indicates that people of
minority races constitute 17.2 percent of the Weber County total population (U.S. Census
Bureau 2006). People of Hispanic origin constitute 12.6 percent of the Utah County
population, and the remaining 4.6 percent of the Weber County population consists of
people from other minority races including black/African American, American Indian and
Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders.

Low-income populations (i.e., families whose annual income is less than $9,999) represent
9.3 percent of families in Weber County (U.S. Census Bureau 2006).



                                          12 of 13
The following would be considered significant environmental justice impacts:
     • Disproportionate impacts on persons of minority races
     • Disproportionate impacts on persons in low-income populations

Project operations would not disproportionately affect minority or economically
disadvantaged populations. There would be no disproportionate negative impacts on
minority or low-income populations.

                                4.0 Public Involvement

A notice of intent to prepare an EA and initiate scoping on the CWSID Water Reuse
Project was published in a Federal Register Notice on (date) (citation). Public scoping
meetings were held on July 21, 2004 at the Farr West City Office, Farr West, Utah and
July 22, 2004 at the Weber County Main Library, Ogden, Utah. The scoping meetings
were announced in the local newspaper and a mailing was sent to a list of potential
interested persons, organizations and agencies. There were no attendees at either public
meeting.

It is anticipated that a public meeting will be held for the CWSID plant upgrade.




                                         13 of 13