-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(A -
US
(B 3
. p
i ?
s :t
U la,?
g on
U K£
o 2
§ 4>*J
S >:«
S !„-
t!
§
5 25
b I?
§ p^
| ?^
£ |£f
S ]>J
I fist
5 ss?
woo
w o> e
ki ^ V)
•S tiffs
ft CO
Wl
^ 10 M *H
no) M C
C CD >.Jn
CO ^ F-. P-H
•H p m o>
a ffi -o a
i- o "S.
tt) "D O
•»-> c QJ .c
CO CO (fl t
* WT)*»
CD o. m c c
D- ** (D "o. Q.
r~ o f\ >o
iX csi o" d
&^H 0)
d. 0- 4J
U -H CD
CO b 10 -< 4J
.C OJ .* T3 — 1
O * T- 1 .D
OJ O JO «H CO
C 0. OL * JI
f<\0^
SO (NO
8
QRR
i-H px P-(
8tf>
*>
I
a
5-10
S
*-• OS IA pK
CD K>r* ^ K\
21
,.?•
1
4->
S
(A
S
&
Z
bi
Q.
SO. O
•n _i
-u O O
a "
a-ss
f-i O -Q
31 o tn
•-* M 0)
ss .
•—i *J 0>
On
>,
S!
CO
u
I
I
*/ a?
3 »J
4- t
CO
u CU 3 »J
u C 4-
Q S O CO
' -H O)
is!
,
re ^ -^ <3
o
XT) ffl *J
•u 0> t*. C
i 01
§*n
oJ°—,
slt*'
(U OT "OwH
-< W O 0)
a> o u o)
1/1 O Ql/> ^
O'D
u
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THRU 5-4. cfWTAmsnN OF nisownw. M.IERMIIVE (WSE 3) in REnuwre
See f loures 5-1, 5-7, 5-3, 5-1 and 5-5 for Information an these alternatives.
(cnst- «>.
ruciun
D1SPWHE BLTEnMOTtvE (Case 3)
RECHAKOE ALtERNATIVE (Case 6)
Description
Reuse tjuant It If?*
rronnmlcs
cnst, plant
Capital cost, pipelines
and wells
Cost, total
Annual labor cost
Annual energy cost
Annual chemical cost
Annual materials cost
Inlal annual operating
Annual income
AnnualIzrd capital and
operating costs,
adju^'en1 for income
Value of water reclaimed
fnsts le-.-. benefits
Impact nn utility rales 2/
Resources ir^o1 or prnrlucnt.t
prr veai
Chlorine user)
I(me used
farhon used
Fnrrijy used -
Other chemicals used
Water reclaimed
rnnroer acre-fool, of water (Landsforri
et nl., 1977), the value of the reused water
would ho nhoiit $l5n,nnt) per year.
Comfiarative environments!
Plant producing potable water built at entsllnq she
In H.F.. El Paso. Pipeline htitll to serve recharpe wells
and power plant, existing pondr, would dry up. rtniire
S-4 shows location of faclllllrs; I Ignre 5-5
lllusrrales tlw? treatment sysipra.
a. OrlnVing water (recharge) 6.« npd
b. Power p)ant 7,0 mgri
c. City parks none
d. Wetland ponds none
e. Dlsrharoed to nia Grande none
25.2B3,(«}
fan .aao
«i,aio
7/7,000
730.000
7,237,000
109,500
i, no?, son
1,556,100
Average Increase monthly water t>111 $1.71
Avrratp Increase imithly sewer hill io.fifi J
14,000 pounds
3,CMS Inns
TOO tons pnwrfeted
37.*> tons granular
9.83O.OOO kilowatt lours
"5,650,000 pomrls carbon dioxide
124,000 gallons methanol
3O,nm pounds i
9,672 acre-feet
7,000 cuMc povnds/year
Provides more water for municipal needs, at a lower cnst
than alternative water sniplles. Economic productlvlly
associated with the reused water reflects value of
urban water, which Is high. Selves as prototype lor
large-scale recycling which would markedly improve
improve long-term availability of municipal water; aHn
will be a project of national and International prwn-
loaoce clue to Interest In potable recycling. Some
resource costs may he recovered; energy by use of
turbines lo recharge wells; lime l for hnlh options, and Includes credit for energy recovery «t treatment plant
(methane rnmhust.Ion).
5-16
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ALTERNATIVES FINAL EIS
5.4 ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS OF A RECHARGE PROJECT
Most decisions about the detailed characteristics of a recharge project
properly would be made during project design. However a few basic alterna-
tives must be evaluated during project planning. One major choice is the
extent to which wildlife habitat is to be maintained at the site; this is
addressed in more detail below (5.A.I). Another choice involves the selection
of a recharge method, which is discussed in 5,4.2. A third option involves
selection of the most effective treatment system, and is considered in Section
5.4.3. A number of other considerations are discussed in 5.A.4, including:
plant relocation; solids handling; resource conservation; operation and mon-
itoring; influent control; and flow reduction.
5.4.1 Wildlife Habitat (Wetland)
The Northeast El Paso treatment site presently includes 482 acres of pond-
ing area which provide a significant wildlife habitat (see p. 6-29 and section
6.4.1). If a recharge project were to be implemented, retention of the entire
ponding and habitat area would not be possible for the following reasons.
1. The most valuable pond (for wildlife) is within Ft. Bliss; the Army
indicates the overflow discharge onto military land must stop (see p. 6-30).
This position reflects specific opposition to the unauthorized use of the
military reservation, and general opposition to the nuisances associated with
the entire Northeast ponding area. Elimination of this pond cannot be avoided
under any alternative and would substantially reduce the value of the area as
wildlife habitat. In theory, the treatment ponds within PSB land could be
modified to provide ecological conditions similar to those which exist at the
Ft. Bliss pond. However, in practice deed restrictions may allow Ft. Bliss to
veto such an action.
2. Assuming that the Army would permit existing wildlife habitat to be
maintained at the remaining ponds (322 acres), there would be a perpetual com-
mitment of 1.75 mgd of water to offset evaporation losses. This represents
about 20% of the average flow which would be processed by a recharge project.
The water lost to evaporation would have a dollar value of $1.4 million per
year (at $1.19. per thousand gallons). A cost of this magnitude would cause
Case 3 (river discharge) to become cost-effective. (Note: this analysis
assumes the ponds would be lined to prevent pollution of ground water. An
alternative involving unlined ponds is given in Section 5.4.2.)
The economic considerations presented above illustrate a fundamental con-
flict which relates to the compatibility of a recharge project with the main-
tenance of wildlife habitat in Northeast El Paso. The purpose of a recharge
project (such as Case 6) is to invest a large amount of money and effort to
convert wastewater into a water resource which can supply municipal demands.
Such a project can be justified only if the need for municpal water is great,
and the prospective users of the water resource are willing to pay the costs
involved. Wildlife cannot pay such costs directly. Therefore, the price of
any water used by wildlife must be paid by the human users of the water.
5-24
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS
Agreement to pay such costs represents a decision that the intangible values
of an ecological preserve justify a commitment of high-value water which
otherwise would be available for municipal uses.
Different individuals would undoubtedly place different values on the life
support benefits of the Northeast Ponds. There is no direct way to determine
what value would be assigned by the 'average1 citizen of El Paso. However, an
indication of the value can be determined by developing a specific alternative
which would provide wildlife habitat as part of a recharge project. Such an
alternative, labelled Case 6A, is discussed in Table 5-6. Case 6A would have
a water cost of 600,000 gallons per day; use of the site would continue the
nuisance problems which now occur near the existing ponds (see Table 5-6).
The princial reason for selecting Case 6A over Case 6 would be to provide for
mitigation of wildlife impacts caused by the Hueco Bolson Recharge Project.
Such mitigation would benefit a variety of waterfowl and shorebirds, for which
comparable habitat is scarce or absent in El Paso County (see section 6.4.1).
Although the total acreage of open water would be reduced, special design and
construction of the habitat would maintain an area of shore habitat comparable
in dimensions and effectiveness to that which now exits.
During preparation of the Draft and Final EIS there was extensive public
discussion of Case 6A. Representatives of environmental groups such as the
Sierra Club and Audubon Society, as well as individual citizens, expressed
support for the concept that society should be willing to pay to protect the
existing habitat at the Northeast ponds (see discussion in Section 7.2.2).
They indicated that the added costs associated with Case 6A were small com-
pared to the benefits (measured both in dollars and water). These groups feel
that, given the historical destruction of habitat in the El Paso area, it is
especially important to protect such habitat when implementing a recharge pro-
ject.
Under EPA direction, PSB established a full-scale public participation
program to provide input to'the planning process (see Chapter 7). A Citizens
Advisory Committee was appointed to provide public participation during EIS
preparation. Committee membership reflected a full range of public attitudes
within the City, and provided a good cross-section of the community at large.
The recommendations of the Committee were considered by PSB and EPA to reflect
the opinions of the majority of El Pasoans. With regard to wildlife habitat,
the Committee supported the preservation of wetlands as a generally desirable
objective. However, the committee determined that under the special condi-
tions which occur in Northeast El Paso, the retention of habitat in associa-
tion with a recharge project could not be justified. The committee therefore
recommended that that Case 6A be rejected in favor of Case 6 (see additional
discussion in Section 7.2.1).
The Committee decision was based on an evaluation of the environmental
benefits and drawbacks associated with the use of water for recharge versus
wildlife purposes. A very large environmental benefit was assigned to the
recycling of water for municipal use. This benefit reflects the long-term
water supply needs of the City. Such needs are the basis for determining that
5-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Description
Economics
Renpflts
luawbacks
TABLE 5-6. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO MITIGATE WILDLIFE IMPACrS
RETENTION OF HABITAT AT NORTHEAST SITE (CASE 6A)
Modify existina oxidation ponds to create shore,
island, nesting and open-water habitat. Two ponrtinq
areas of 50 acres each could be developed, and supplied
with primary effluent from the treatment plant. The
first pond would contain fresh water (less than
1,500 mg/1 total dissolved solids; SOOO mq/1 water
would occur in the second pond. Existing natural seals
would prevent percolation; however, monitoring (using a
water budget) would be needed to verify that percolation
does not occur. Fences and/or patrols would be needed
to control trespass; mosquito control programs would be
continued.
Gross cost $a,615,OOO/year or $188,000/year less than
Case 6 (see Facility Plan), when water supply benefits
are considered, Case 6A would cost $l,548,200/year
while Case fi would cost $1,518,400 per year (including
salvage value). Thus SA Is J40,000/year more costly than
Case 6. These evaluations do not include any added
expenses for pond lining and/or habitat mortification.
1. Would provide ecosystem for life support of diverse
bird population, Including shore and nesting hahltat
which occurs in limited amounts elsewhere In El Paso County
The small wildlife sanctuary would offset
to small degree the elimination of habitat which
has occurred over the last century or more.
2. Proper design could enhance habitat compared to existing
overflow ponds; even though total acreage would be reduced,
net effect on populations could be minimal.
3, Committment of water (see below) is small compared
to regional needs.
1. Maintenance of 100 acres would require commitment
uf 600,000 gallons or' water per day; this water other-
wibe would be available for recharge and municipal reuse.
Over the long nn, more expensive water would neeri to
he purchased to replace this supply. The long-term
impact would be 50* greater, since foi each two gallons
recycle!) Into the municipal system, one gallon eventually
returns as wastewater suitable for further recycling.
2. Deed restrictions imposed by Ft. Bliss appear to
preclude official use of Northeast site for wildlife (or
other non water/wastewater purposes). Such use could
provide legal basis for reversion of ownership.
3. Access problems wnulct limit use of site for formal
recreation purposes. However, informal (trespass) rec-
reation could continue; indiscriminate discharge of fire-
arms could Jeapordize plant personnel and/or reguire
additional security measures.
4. Site would remhln potential source of mosquito breed-
ing anrt diseased waterfowl. Spraying for vector control
could present hazard to waterfowl.
5. Habitat value would be reduced by proximity to the
traffic noises and human activity at a hidden treatment
plant, which would he greatly Increased compared to
present levels. The mnre reticent fauna would no longer
visit the site. Fencing could restrict the presence of
larger mammals.
DEVELOPMENT OF HABITAT AT OTHER SITES
Develop tnan-made or man-modified shore,
nesting, open-water habitat. Locations
could bp any site having adequate land and
water, such as historic hosquo areas along
the Rio Rrande.
Not evaluated, but assumed to be similar to
6A, unless the land involved required
purchase.
1. Sites would potentially have benefits
similar to 6A, although a saline pond night
not be provided if the water used were clean
and could be allowed to percolate.
2. Sites could provide recreational and
educational benefits and avoid attractive
nuisance drawbacks of Case 6.
3, Sites along the river would help maintain
the Rio Grande as a major natural corridor
for the movement of birds and other wildlife,
and would compensate, to some extent, for
losses of habitat for municipal and agricultural
needs.
1. Maintenance of ponds would require water,
probably in amounts similar to Case 6A. The
value of this water would depend on the alter-
native uses to which it would otherwise be put,
anci the cost of replacement supplies.
2. Possible increased costs and/or impacts if
land to be used has present productive value.
This could be avoided if dedicated open space
or park land is available.
3. Habitat sites within Fort Bliss are not
supported by the Base Commander at this time
(Conyers, 1978). Habitat at a public park in
Northeast El Paso remains a possibility which
could be explored as park planning in the area
progresses. However, at this time no
appropriate site has been identified.
5-26
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS
a recharge project is cost-effective when compared to the river discharge
alternative. In the specific instance of Case 6, the project would require
committment of considerable resources (dollars, energy, chemicals). The pub-
lic participation indicated that, because of this commitment, the community
value of the water produced by the project was enhanced. In effect, the value
judgement was made that "if the need for municipal water is so great that
wastewater recycling is cost-effective (and there was no disagreement on this
point), then it is imperative that such recycling be fully implemented".
Diversion of water to non-municipal uses could be considered only under
unusual and compelling circumstances.
The principal of protecting wildlife habitats, and/or mitigating wildlife
impacts, was also assigned a high value. However, in the specific instance of
the Northeast Ponds, it was felt that this value was diminished for several
reasons (see p. 6-29). The site is considered an attractive nuisance, because
of its location in and near military land. Trespass by hunters and bird-
watchers is common, and in conflict with the military use of the area. Indis-
criminate discharge of firearms by some hunters presents a hazard to all
others who may use the site. Recreational use of the site by the general
public is not practicable due to access limitations. The site is a prospec-
tive source of mosquitoes and, perhaps, diseased waterfowl. The fact that the
habitat area was created accidently, as the result of an inadequate wastewater
treatment plant, was also considered. This situation, while not diminishing
the ecological value of tne ponds, was considered to make arguments for pre-
serving the habitat much less forceful. A natural habitat was considered to
have a much greater standing when making decisions to protect habitat or
mitigate wildlife impacts.
In discussing the comparative environmental benefits of Case 6 and Case
6A, the Committee indicated that there would be support for diverting muni-
cipal water to a wildlife use, i£ the habitat area did not have the drawbacks
associated with the Northeast Ponds. Consequently, a search was made for
alternative sites within the planning area which might provide substitute
habitat, with emphasis on locating sites which could provide either municipal-
type recreation, or safe hunting. Hunting sites within Ft. Bliss were ruled
out by the Base Commander (Conyers, 1978). The possibility of a combined
wildlife-recreation area in Northeast El Paso was explored during the planning
process (see Table 5-6). Good candidate sites do not exist (EPDPRD, 1978O.
Possible habitat development elsewhere in El Paso is to be discussed in the
context of a second facilities plan which is currently being prepared. The
study is separate from the Northeast El Paso facilities plan and is not
considered as providing mitigation for the impacts of a recharge project.
Upon determining that alternative sites were not available, the Committee
then judged the environmental benefits of using some wastewater to provide a
habitat at the Northeast ponds (Case 6A), versus use of all wastewater for
municipal use (Case 6). The unanimous decision was that the municipal use
carried a greater benefit to the El Paso community as a whole. Therefore,
Case 6A was judged to have a more adverse environmental impact than Case 6.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
NORTHEAST EL PASO ALTERNATIVES FINAL EI5
Put another way, the Committee determined that, for the specific circum-
stances of Northeast El Paso, the sole measure of cost-effectiveness would be
the degree to which an alternative met municipal water supply needs, unless
there were compelling reasons to divert municipal water for another use (in
this case, wildlife ponds). The Committee felt that there were not compelling
reasons to provide wildlife habitat at the Northeast site, and that alterna-
tive sites were not available. Consequently, the most cost-effective alter-
native would be that which provided the greatest amount of water for municipal
needs. On this basis, Case 6 was determined to be more cost-effective than
Case 6A.
Although economic factors were considered in the evaluation of wildlife
habitat, the discussions at Citizens Committee meetings indicated that the
final decision to eliminate the habitat was not based on the dollar value of
the water which would be diverted to wildlife. Similarly, the presence or
lack of direct economic benefits from a habitat area was not considered to be
of substantial importance. Based upon the considerations given above, reten-
tion of a wildlife habitat at the existing site is not considered cost-
effective by PS8. As mitigation would require commitment of water resources,
it is considered to be not practicable unless accomplished in association with
a municipal recreation site. Such mitigation is not feasible within the
ect area.
|_proj
5.4.2 Recharge Method
Percolation basins are an alternative to the use of wells for recharge of
treated effluent. Evaluations in the facilities plan indicate that the
lowest-cost option would involve removal of clay loam soils and caliche in
order to maximize the percolation rate. This approach would require 162 acres
jof ponds to dispose of 10 mgd. Additional acreage could be provided to
provide shoreline habitat, so that the ponds could function as a desirable
wildlife habitat. The cost would be approximately $3,800,000, including land
acquisition, which is considerably greater than the cost of drilling and
operating 10 recharge wells. Alternately, most of this cost could be avoided
by using the existing plant site. However, the site is poorly situated with
regard to placing water into the aquifer in a location where a large volume
will be recovered by municipal wells within a relatively few years. Instead
most of the water would flow toward wells on Ft. Bliss, and would not become
j part of the city supply.
A potential advantage of percolation is that passage of wastewater through
the soil provides additional treatment, especially the removal of bacteria and
other pathogens. This removal is very desirable for recharge projects which
involve a traditional treatment process which produces effluent containing
considerable amounts of contaminants. However, the approach of Case 6 is to
provide complete wastewater reclamation within the controlled environment of
the treatment plant, requiring no additional removal by uncontrolled natural
progress. Additional treatment during recharge is not essential to the
success of the project, but instead would be an additional safety factor.
5-28
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS
Use of percolation ponds would lead to evaporation of 0.88 mgd in an aver-
age year. This is water which, if recharged by wells, would augment the muni-
cipal water supply and have a dollar value of approximately $382,500 per
I year. An additional 7,000 acre feet of water valued at $2.7 million, would
I become a permanent part of the soil and would never reach the water table.
Evaporation would increase the salinity of the recharge water by about 10 per-
cent. Additional salinity build-up would occur because the percolating water
would dissolve out soil minerals. Consequently, changes in the salinity of
the municipal water supply would be greater than if wells are used for re-
charge. Ponds would be less effective than wells in accomplishing goals such
as the control of saline intrusion.
In summary, recharge by percolation would be more expensive than recharge
by wells, and produce greater degradation of the quality of ground water.
Benefits normally attributed to percolation are relatively unimportant, al-
though this approach would avoid the wildlife impacts associated with Case 6.
The fundamental problem, however, is that the approach would consume (through
evaporation) water of extremely high quality and value, which is counter to
the fundamental objective of a recharge project. Therefore, percolation is
not considered to be cost-effective.
Many of the same factors would limit the usefulness of well recharge into
the unsaturated zone above the water table. In addition, operation of wells
would be more difficult because back flushing would not be possible until the
unsaturated zone became saturated.
5.4.3 Treatment Alternatives
Production of potable water requires three steps: primary treatment for
. settleable solids; secondary treatment to remove soluble organic matter, nit-
rogen and some trace contaminants; and tertiary processes for further removal
of trace contaminants and for complete disinfection. Alternative approaches
to each treatment step which are considered in the facilities plan are summar-
ized in Appendix A.
No alternatives were considered regarding primary treatment, which would
involve primary clarification and use of anaerobic digestion for solids.
Three different biologically-based processes were considered for secondary
treatment: conventional biological treatment; the BARDENPHO process; and the
PACT process. Tertiary treatment options involve different combinations of
certain basic processes such as chemical coagulation, filtration, disinfec-
tion, and carbon filtration. The facilities plan indicates that this process
using the PACT system costs $1.055 per thousand gallons of treated product,
compared to $1.075 for 8AROENPHO, and $1.195 for a conventional system.
Although the overall costs of PACT and BARDENPHO are similar, the PACT system
is more cost-effective because it is considered to be particularly stable,
which is essential if potable water is to be reliably produced. The PACT
system is also more highly rated than other alternatives in the removal of
trace organics and inorganics.
5-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ALTERNATIVES FINAL EIS
5.4.4 Other Components of a Recharge Project
Plant Site. The existing treatment plant site is well-located in a remote
area and would produce no particular environmental problems once the existing
overflow problem is eliminated. The only sites available for plant relocation
are west of the railroad tracks, in areas which are desirable for urban devel-
opment. Land costs would be significant, and conflict with the future urban
land use would eventually occur if one of these sites is utilized. No bene-
fits result from relocation of the plant; hence relocation is not recommended.
Solids Handling. The only alternative considered for management of con-
ventional biologic sludge is dewatering and composting with sawdust. This
option permits recovery of the resource values in the sludge, and its sale as
a soil conditioner. The process is well-established and currently in use at
other El Paso facilities. Sludge from the high-lime process and ash from
regeneration of PAC are to be disposed of at the McCombs landfill. Based on
data in the facilities plan, the alternative of recycling the lime-sludge is
not economical at this time, but could become cost-effective in the future.
Resource Conservation. A number of actions to reduce resource use are
considered in the facilities plan. Carbon regeneration is proposed for both
the powdered and granular activated carbon. The PAC material would be recycl-
ed at the site using a wet-air furnace, while GAC would be returned for regen-
eration at the supplier's facility. Both regeneration options were selected
on the basis of lowest dollar costs, which in turn reflect considerations such
as energy use.
Energy use at the scale required for an advanced wastewater treatment
plant must be obtained largely through purchase of electricity. Where energy
can be recovered from by-products of the treatment process, such recovery is
proposed in the facilities plan. Methane from the sludge digestors can be
used to power some engines and pumps; heat from these machines can be used in
turn in the digestors. According to the facilities plan, solar technology is
not as yet sufficiently developed to make it economical for use in any capa-
city other than heating sludge digestors; the machine heat noted above is a
more efficient source of energy for the digestors.
The potential exists for some energy to be generated in the injection
wells, using down-hole turbines. According to the facilities plan, energy
valued at $135,000 per year could be produced; this option would be considered
in detail during project design, with adoption contingent upon results of a
pilot program.
Operation and Maintenance. To reliably produce potable water from sewage,
everytechnique of good operation and maintenance must be utilized. The
facilities plan considers no alternatives to a rigorous maintenance program;
rather it outlines the steps necessary to assure fail-safe operation. Flexi-
bility is to be obtained by measures such as flow-equalization to provide a
steady flow through the plant; piping which would permit any single unit to be
bypassed if it is out of service; and the recycling through the plant of any
5-30
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS
effluent which does not meet stringent water-quality standards. Reliability
is to be achieved by the use of several treatment processes which provide for
redundancy in the removal of contaminants such as metals, viruses, and organ-
ics. Criteria set by EPA regarding alarm-systems, stand-by equipment and
other essential components of a reliable plant would be used in plant design.
Operation of the plant would be assisted by computerized controls. Staffing
would be sufficient to provide close surveillance of the treatment system, as
well as continuous preventive maintenance and effective emergency repairs.
Monitoring would be a key component of plant operation. Figure 5-5 indi-
cates parameters to be tested to obtain process control. Product water is to
be sampled and measured routinely for all drinking water standards. Monitor-
ing would also include viruses, gross organic content and specific organics.
It is anticipated that bio-monitoring would be included in the project, using
cell-toxicity and/or animal-feeding experiments; post-injection monitoring
would also be performed using observation wells between the injection and pub-
lic supply wells. A detailed program is to be developed during the design
phase of the project. The program would include upgrading of the U.S.
Geological Survey computer model of the Hueco Bolson to permit more accurate
management of the recharge wells.
r
LJ
In the event that the reclaimed water failed to meet standards, it would
be stored in the existing oxidation ponds (which would be retained for this
purpose). At design flows, 30-days of storage would be provided. In the
event that plant operation remained inadequate for a longer period, excess
flows would be discharged into the overflow areas, as now occurs. Unless the
plant were inoperative for a period of 45 days, all inflow would be contained
within PSB land, and there would be no discharge onto Ft. Bliss. In the event
of overflow, the potential for renewed contamination of ground water would
occur. However, once the existing overflow areas are dried up, the soil be-
neath the ponds will develop a capacity to absorb a considerable amount of the
overflow before again becoming fully saturated. Until such saturation occurs,
the percolation from the overflow ponds would not reach the water table.
Influent Control. Presently the wastewater collected in Northeast El Paso
is free of industrial discharges and excess levels of toxic contaminants. To
maintain this situation the facilities plan proposes: a) to require any new
industrial dischargers to pre-treat effluent to control toxic components; b)
to initiate a public education program citywide to explain what should not be
discarded into the sewer system.
Flow Reduction. Water conservation programs in El Paso are already de-
signed to reduce wastewater flows, since water-saving fixtures are required in
all new construction and in remodelled buildings. Additional water conserva-
tion alternatives, discussed in the facilities plan are most likely to reduce
Ioutdoor water use and would have water-supply benefits and a small impact on
wastewater volume. Conservation is discussed further in Section 7.2.2.
Summary. Most components of a recharge project are either mandatory be-
cause of the need to provide reliable treatment or are best considered during
5-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ALTERNATIVES FINAL EI5
the design phase of the project. A few alternatives can be evaluated at this
time. Eeconomic considerations are the primary determinant of cost-
effectiveness in all cases. Examples of cost-effective options include:
retention of existing plant site; landfill disposal of lime sludge; energy
recovery from digestor gas and plant machinery.
B. ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
Three options available to EPA in executing its construction grants pro-
gram under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act include awarding additional
grants for the design and construction of the grantee's preferred alternative,
awarding additional grants on a modified or alternative project and denying
additional grants.
Awarding Grants for the Grantee's Preferred Alternative. EPA may award
additional grantsfor the design and construction of the recharge project.
Significant environmental effects associated with this action include hydro-
logy and water quality changes in the Hueco Bolson, increased risks to public
health, alterations to areas which contain biological and/or archeological
resources, increased use of energy, chemicals and financial resources, produc-
tion of solid wastes and enhancement of the area's water supplies (see Chapter
6 for a detailed discussion of these and other impacts).
EPA considers the preferred alternative to be multiple purpose in nature
because it provides benefits beyond meeting the enforceable requirements of
the Clean Water Act. Based on an EPA Headquarters review (Appendix B) it
Iappears that EPA's level of funding for this alternative would be 55 percent
| of the capital costs; exact dollar figures have not been finalized.
Awarding Grants for an Alternative Project. EPA may award additional
grants for the design and construction of an alternative or modified project
if it is more cost-effective and has less adverse environmental impacts.
Denying Additional Grants. EPA can deny awarding additional grants for
the design and construction of the preferred alternative if the project does
not meet EPA criteria for eligibility or if environmental impacts of the pro-
ject are considered significantly adverse.
j EPA is proposing to award grant funds for Case 6. This decision is made
despite the impacts to wildlife habitat which will occur, and makes no pro-
vision for mitigation of the impacts. EPA concurs with the majority of the
citizen input to the EIS, as reflected in the actions of the Citizens Advisory
Committee. That input states, in effect, that there is a need for developing
long-term municipal water supplies in El Paso which is so compelling that the
recycling of wastewater is clearly cost-effective, despite high dollar costs
and possible health effects. The willingness of El Pasoans to commit to this
approach demonstrates the overriding importance which they attach to the pro-
U vision of an adequate municipal water supply. In the face of this strong com-
fiitment, alternatives which dilute the effectiveness of recharge are not cost-
5-32
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ALTERNATIVES
FINAL EIS
effective, and it is appropriate that the alternative be implemented without
modification. Therefore diversion of water for wildlife purposes, which would
occur from alternatives such as 6A, is not cost-effective. Mitigation, which
would also require the commitment of water resources, is also in conflict with
the fundamental objective of a recharge project, and is not considered practi-
cable.
EPAs decision is specific to the circumstances of Northeast El Paso. Pro-
jects lacking conditions of a similarly compelling nature, and having adverse
impacts to wildlife, would not be supported unless adequate mitigation meas-
ures were undertaken pursuant to NEPA and Executive Order 11990.
5-33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
I Contamination at the existing wastewater treatment plant is inferred from
water-balance estimates and well records. Percolation from the ponds is esti-
mated at 2.9 mgd (see p. 6-30). This seepage must create a local recharge
zone, which should be reflected by a comparatively high water table beneath
the site. The exact location of recharge is difficult to predict because clay
layers and fractured caliche underlie the pond area, and may cause the seepage
to move laterally as well as vertically. Indirect evidence of recharge is
found in records from one well north of the ponds, where the rate of water-
level decline has slowed markedly since overflow to Ft. Bliss began in 1968
(PSB file data). Presumably, the recharge has caused local ground water con-
tamination, since the sewage contains comparatively high levels of salts and
nitrates (see p. 6-30). In addition, salts could be added to the water as it
passes through the unsaturated sediments. The clays would purify the sewage
of many impurities, but salts and nitrate would be little affected. There are
no wells which permit a sample to be taken beneath the site, so the pollution
Iproblem cannot be confirmed or quantified at this time.
Ground-water Management. In Texas, ownership of rights to ground water is
tied to ownership of the overlying land. In 1954, the Public Service Board
purchased all available private land in Northeast El Paso from the then city
limits to the state line, and thereby obtained control over much of the fresh-
water portion of the Hueco Bolson. Since then, most of the remaining private
water rights in the Northeast have been sold, deeded or committed to the
Board. However, there are substantial portions of the Bolson in New Mexico
and Mexico which are outside of City control, and perhaps half of the Texas
portion of the fresh-water aquifer lies beneath military land, and is control-
led by Fort Bliss.
About 150 major wells tap the Bolson in Texas, Chihuahua and New Mexico.
In 1977 nearly 126,500 acre-feet of water were withdrawn with El Paso (49 per-
cent) and Juarez (36 percent) being the major users. Industrial users (power
plant, refineries, natural gas facilities) accounted for 7 percent of the
water and Ft. Bliss pumped 4 percent of the supply (in addition to water pur-
chased from the City). The remainder of the supply was withdrawn by scattered
subdivisions, golf courses, and other users.
6.2.3 Summary of Water Availability and Use
The El Paso region has a complex pattern of water supply and consumption.
Important features of this pattern include:
- surface water availability has declined and quality has deteriorated
over time;
- good quality ground water is abundantly available at present, although
some supplies are becoming saline and the water table is declining in some
areas;
- surface water is managed via long-standing institutional arrangements
which cross political boundaries, while ground water is essentially un-
controlled and is not available across major political boundaries.
6-21
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FINAL EIS
In an effort to summarize the overall water supply and demand
characteristics of the region, a highly generalized water budget has been
developed for the EIS. Table 6-4 presents the budget, which is not intended
to be precise, but only to provide approximate values. The budget indicates:
- annual water use is about 570,000 acre-feet per year in El Paso County
and Ciudad Juarez;
- the renewable water supply of the region (including portions of New
Mexico) is 350,000 acre-feet per year, which is less than the demand;
- a reserve of about 50 million acre-feet of ground water is stored in the
major aquifers of the region.
Table 6-4 also shows the following for the City of El Paso:
j - the annual water use is about 90,000 acre-feet;
- renewable water supplies amount to 30,000 acre-feet per year;
- water rights permit economic recovery of perhaps 9 million acre-feet of
ground water from storage.
Regionally and in the City there is a net deficit in renewable water
supply compared to demand, which means that ground water reservoirs are being
mined. The deficit directly affects agricultural water users at present.
Fortunately, because of the large volume of stored water, no critical shortage
of drinking water is imminent. However, the excess of water use over renew-
able supply cannot continue forever; the data indicate that important deci-
sions must be made in the future regarding regional water management. Some of
the possible decisions are discussed in Section 6.2.5.
6.2.A Water and Wastewater Utilities
water utility. The water system of El Paso has a long and interesting
history (see discussions in USSR, 1973 and Bluntzer, 1975). Today the City
has a modern system which provides ample supplies of good-quality water to all
residents. The utility is managed by a five-member Public Service Board
(PS8), which includes the Mayor and four citizens appointed by the City Coun-
cil. The Board appoints a General Manager who oversees the daily operations
of the Utility. The water system of El Paso is unusually complex; it contains
many different sources of supply, numerous storage and pumping facilities, and
an extensive network of distribution lines. Figure 6-9 is a schematic drawing
which illustrates the functional relationships among the different components
of the system; Appendix E provides basic information about the facilities.
As described in Table 6-4 and Appendix E, El Paso draws upon three major
sources of water. The well fields of the Hueco Bolson have provided about 63
percent of the supply over the last decade; the Canutillo wells account for 25
percent; and 12 percent has come from the Rio Grande. Within the Bolson,
three-quarters of the supply comes from the Mesa-Nevins and Airport well
6-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
6.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
None of the alternatives presented in Chapter 5 would have a major effect
on the physical environment of the El Paso region. Minor soil disturbance
associated with construction would occur from the HBRP or any other alterna-
tive. For convenience, construction impacts are discussed together, in
6.4.2. The following section presents information on climate, geology and
soils of the EIS area, as background for subsequent discussions of water
resource impacts.
There are three distinctive natural environments or regions in the El Paso
area: mountains, inter-mountain basins, and river valleys. These environ-
ments are typical of the desert country in the southwestern U.S. Each region
can be subdivided (Figure 6-1), and described as to typical landscape, geo-
logy, soils, vegetation and wildlife (Table 6-1). Most low-lying natural re-
gions are urban or urbanizing, while some of the valley remains agricultural
and the mountains are largely open space. Major topographic features are
shown on Figure 6-2.
Climate. El Paso has a sunny, dry climate. Summers are hot, with an
average temperature maximum of 95°F in June, winters are mild, with an
average daily minimum of 30°F in January. Mean annual precipitation aver-
ages only 8.4 inches in the valley, and is slightly higher in the mountains.
In contrast lake evaporation averages about 73 inches per year, creating a
severe moisture deficit which limits natural vegetation to desert shrubs and
grasses. Most precipitation occurs as brief summer thunderstorms. Other cli-
matic features of interest include: very low humidity; unpleasant dust and
sandstorms, most often in spring months; frequent inversions which can trap
air pollutants near the ground, especially in winter; a long growing season;
and abundant solar energy.
Geology. The geology of the El Paso region is well described in many
reports, including: Sayre and Livingston (1945); Knowles and Kennedy (1956);
Davis and Leggat (1965); and Bluntzer (1975). There are three major geologic
units in the area, corresponding to the natural regions (Figure.6-1) and topo-
graphic features (Figure 6-2). The mountain areas contain upfaulted and
tilted sedimentary and igneous rocks. The basins between the mountains are
downfaulted structural depressions, partially filled with debris eroded from
the adjacent uplands. These basin-fill sediments are called bolson deposits.
In the Hueco Bolson (Figure 6-2), the deposits range in thickness from less
than 100 feet near the mountains to about 9,000 feet four miles east of the
mountains. The basin fill consists of many irregular lenses of sediment which
can be traced laterally for short distances. In the Rio Grande valley, up to
200 feet of alluvium covers the bolson material. Geologic resources in
Northeast El Paso are limited to sand and gravel deposits. Geologic hazards
include possible moderate-size earthquakes (Sayer and Livingston, 1945;
Sanford and Toppozada, 1974), and soils which can cause building foundation
Iproblems due to the expansion of bentonite (Kuhfal, 1977). No alternative
I would impact the resources or be significantly affected by the bentonite.
Bolson deposits which experience water-level declines, normally under-
6-2
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
fields. The contribution from the Rio Grande is declining as growing water
demands require greatly increased pumping of the Hueco Bolson.
Water use. In 1977 the El Paso water utility produced and distributed
92,814 acre-feet of water, or more than 30 billion gallons. Table 6-5 pro-
vides data on historic (and projected) water use, and reveals that the demand
has grown rapidly through the years due to population growth and increased per
capita use. Per capita consumption was about 210 gallons per day in 1977,
which is below average for a city in the western U.S. One factor which keeps
use low is that several large consumers have their own water supplies. For
example, in 1977 Fort Bliss withdrew 5,130 acre-feet from the Hueco Bolson (in
addition to water purchased from PSB), major industries (two refineries, one
power plant) pumped 8,603 acre-feet, and Vista Hills Golf Course used 1,034
acre-feet. Juarez, with a larger population than El Paso, used only 45,170
acre-feet, indicating that per capita use was much lower.
El Paso's water use has a strongly seasonal character. About 36 percent
of the demand occurs in winter months while 64 percent occurs in April-
September. During dry summer periods (especially June), weekly and daily de-
mands can be extremely high. On June 21, 1978, the peak daily demand set a
record of 164 million gallons. This peaking load places considerable stress
on the facilities of the utility, and requires that the water system invest
heavily in pumping and storage facilities which operate at full capacity only
a few weeks or months of the year. Presently the City's peak supply capacity
has no surplus compared to demand. A deficit in capacity exists on the east
side of the City, where recent growth has been rapid.
TABLE 6-5. WATER DEMAND
j~~FFiOM PSB FILES, AND TCWR (1979); no provision is made for the effects of water
Lconservation programs.
Year
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Population in
£1 Paso
96,810
130,003
276,687
322,261
424,000
526,000
625,000
735,000
850,000
970,000
Per Capita Flow
Gallons/day
95
134
165
195
210
218
225
230
233
235
Total Citywide
Demand Acre-
feet/year
10,300
19,500
51,200
70,400
100,000
128,500
157,500
189,500
222,000
255,500
Countywide
Demand S/
-
.
_
123,500
166,100
208,700
276,200
243,800
411,300
a. Domestic, municipal, industrial and other non-irrigation sources (TDWR,
1979).
6-25
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6-8. ALTERNATIVES FOR PROVIDING LONG-TERM WATER RESOURCES FOR THE EL PASO REGION.
Based on technical publications (Green, 1968; USB?, 1973; Bluntzer, 1975; TWDB, 1977; Landsford et al., 1977); personal communications
(Stalllngs, 1978; Gllmer, 1978; Reynolds, 1978; Kyburz, 1978; Hickerson, 1978; Moore, 1978); the facilities plan; and analyses made during
preparation of EIS.
ALTERNATIVE
A. WATER CONSERVATION
1. Maintain city water use at
current per capita rate by
use of rate design, building
codes, education.
2. Substantially reduce per capita
["use (50* or more) by rationing;
place a moratorium on new hook-
ups.
3. Improved efficiency of
agricultural water use by
use of drip method, ditch
lining, field levelling (by
laser), Irrigation scheduling.
B. INCREASE RIO GRANDE SUPPLY
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
City to obtain additional
water rights by lease or
purchase of irrigated land.
Weather modification in head-
waters area of Rio Grande.
Phreatophyte control in
upstream portion of Rio Grande
basin by clearing of salt
cedars.
Retention of all river water
for irrigation use, even as
farm lands are urbanized.
C. USE LOCAL SALINE GROUNDWATER
1. Desalinization of water from
Hueco Bolson and elsewhere.
Blending of saline ground
water with fresher water.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Essentially no cost to the City, but actual effectiveness
of available measures difficult to predict. Saves energy
(hot water, pumping), reduces wastewater treatment costs;
especially effertive in reducing peak demand, which markedly
reduces need for capital-intensive pumping, storage and
treatment facilities.
Direct impacts include those listed above. In addition,
significant disruption of lifestyle would occur; commercial
•and industrial expansion would be limited; population growth
would be curtailed or forced into areas outside city limits.
Most actions require considerable capital, which may not be
available in agricultural community. Some decline in yields
may occur; otherwise impacts generally beneficial, due to
reduction in waste of water.
Existing program adds 200 acre-feet per year at cost of
71 cents per thousand gallons; Increments above this would
require new contract, and are estimated to cost 64 cents per
1000 gals. Decrease in irrigated land would reduce green belts,
wildlife habitat, food and fiber production, and property tax
income. Ultimately, large portion gf City water demand would
be met, but water would be available mostly In summer, amount
would vary from year to year and not be reliable; water would
require treatment and be of only fair quality.
Environmental consequences are poorly quantified at this time
but may include Increased frequency of floods, hazardous
weather, and erosion. Hater yield may be improved by 10X with
reasonable dollar costs. This would provide the City with
an additional 1,000 acre-feet per year (and farmers with
0.2 acre-feet/acre/year).
Cost-effectiveness of this approach has been questioned;
environmental impacts are significant locally (habitat
destruction, possible increases in erosion); likely to reduce
salinity of surface supply
PROSPECTS
Widely recommended and completely
feasible. City would need to expand
jxisting programs; actual effectiveness
uncertain. The possibility of a more
ambitious program, which would reduce
per capita water used by up to 20* is
discussed in 7.2.2.
L«
Not essential if other alternatives are
implemented, and therefore unlikely to
receive public support.
Mill probably occur to a modest degree
over time as research progresses and
funds become available.
Existing contracts may be challenged
as to legality. New contracts may
eventually occur, but when and the
amount of water Involved are difficult
to predict.
Environmental unknowns make
Implementation of this option uncertain
as to scale, timing.
Effect on City supply would be small.
Same as above. Similar comments apply
to watershed management in headwaters.
Differs from option B-l in that water rights from retired lands Except for lands Involved in the
would revert to remaining irrigators, Increasing annual allot* existing City leasing program, this
ment for the land still under irrigation. No new water would be option will occur unless other
available to City; farm lands would decline as urbanization alternatives are specifically adopted.
proceeds; water supply at each farm would be enhanced; Option was recently endorsed at a
and there would be less reliance on saline ground water. meeting of those Interested in area
planning (Moore, 1978).
3. Use saline water for special
purposes, such as lawn watering
(dual water systems) or
industry, recreation.
Expensive, $2.42 per thousand gallons. Energy-intensive;
dewatering of fine-grained sediments may cause land
subsidence; concentrated brine waste must be disposed of.
Amount of water available is somewhat limited.
Already in effect for both municipal and agricultural
users. When proportion of saline water is large, municipal
customers may complain about taste; crop yields may decline.
Requires dual pipeline facilities, which are expensive;
generally most large-scale users who could pay the cost
require good quality water, and would prefer option C-2.
Seriously impaired by energy use and
costs. May become more competitive as
new technology is developed in future,
or as other options increase in cost.
Likely to continue and increase.
Unlikely.
I
I
6-32
-------
I
WASTEWATER RECYCLING
Use wastewater for agriculture
by continuing or Increasing
river discharge or developing
new farms in upland areas.
2. Recycle some wastewater for
special purpose uses such as
Industry, recreation, or dual
water systems (subdivisions
with separate pipes Tor lawns).
3. Recycle wastewater for
drinking water use.
E. IMPORTATION
1. Import ground water from
nearby New Mexico.
2. Import ground water from
Trans-Pecos area of west
Texas.
3. Import from East Texas or
beyond.
f. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
1. Renegotiate Rio Grande Compact.
2. Negotiate Interstate or Inter-
national compact on ground
water.
G. GROUND WATER MINING
1. Withdraw water from Hueco
Bolson in amounts greater
than recharge.
2. Withdraw water from La Mesa
Bolson (Texas portion).
Relatively inexpensive; supports agricultural productivity,
and aesthetic/wildlife benefits of farm land. Some health
effects may occur if wastewater Is improperly used, although
none are known from existing disposal practices. New farms
would create a newwater demand in a water-short area, and are
therefore considered an Inefficient use of a scarce resource.
Economic evaluations Indicate that this option Is feasible
for large uses, but cross-contamination must be avoided.
All forms of recycling (D-l, 0-2, D-3) are compatible with
the general goal of efficient resource use. If recycling
includes sewage now discharged to Rio Grande, agricultural
water shortages would Increase.
Comparatively expensive; raises questions about health risks.
Could provide up to SOX of municipal water demand.
If recycling Includes sewage now discharged to Rio Grande,
agricultural water shortages would increase.
Extremely large supply of water available at cost of
than $1 per thousand gallons. Environmental Impacts same as
mining (G-l). State Engineer of New Mexico indicates that
interstate transfer of ground wter from New Mexico is
Illegal; others challenge this Interpretation
(Reynolds, 1978; Moore, 1978).
Estimated to cost $1.19 per thousand gallons for a supply
of up to 3 million acre-feet. (Based on hypothetical
example and limited data). Would require large amounts of
capital for land, water rights, rlghts-of-way and construction.
Availability of supply uncertain; would dry up existing farm
lands; Involves extensive Impacts from construction of pipe-
line in difficult terrain; large energy costs for pumping.
Similar to E-2, but with much greater dollar and other
costs. Now being evaluated for Texas Panhandle. If this
proves feasible, then it night be extended to El Paso.
Has been suggested as means of implementing E-l, with same
obstacles.
Could enhance efficiency of ground water use and extend
life of the local aquifers.
Presently occurring. Low dollar cost of 15 cents per
thousand gallons. Salinity of supply will Increase over
time, especially in valley area; land subsidence is possible.
Major concern is that this water is an Important reserve
once it is exhausted, the water-supply problems of the area
will become critical.
Impacts similar to above, except that recharge rate is higher
and storage is less. Over the long run, more water can be
obtained by balancing withdrawals with recharge than by
depleting the storage.
Existing discharges likely to continue il
future, and increase in volume as City
grows.
I
I
Feasible where large industrial or
recreational use exists in proximity
to a wastewater plant, especially where
wastewater treatment must be advanced to
meet environmental standards.
Feasible where other water supplies tire
costly and/or scarce, especially whe;:e
wastewater treatment must be advanced '
meet environmental standards.
Not feasible unless and until legal
issues are resolved.
Depends upon acquisition of water
and demonstration of economic
feasibility.
NO firm proposals exist; all past
studies have indicated that this option
is not likely to be cost-effective.
Remote possibility at this time.
Despite several proposals for such a
compact, the directly affected partius
have not pursued the option at this ti
Will occur unless local water demand is
drastically reduced, or alternative
supplies are developed.
I
I
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
Present practice of balancing withdrawals
with recharge is likely to continue.
I
I
I
I
6-33
I
I
-------
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
local food production and perhaps an increase in food costs. It is possible
that these impacts would cause society to conclude that the amount of water-
rights transfers should be minimized; certainly that is the prevalent attitude
today.
The complex issues which are associated with use of the Rio Grande make it
difficult to predict the specific role this resource will play in meeting El
Paso's future water needs. For planning purposes an appropriate assumption is
that the role will be defined by existing contracts for an indefinite period.
Consequently, except for water obtained under the existing lease program, it
is assumed that in the foreseeable future there will be no substantial in-
crease in the amount of surface water available for municipal use.
Probable solutions. The alternatives in Table 6-8 which do^ appear to be
viablealthisEime~~are: conservation (A-l); continued leasing of water-
rights land (B-l); desalinization and/or blending of saline ground water (C-l,
C-2); wastewater recycling (D-2, D-3); imported ground water from the Trans-
Pecos area (E-2); and mining of the Hueco Bolson (G-l). Together with the
steady state supply available to the City from existing surface water rights
and ground-water recharge, these alternatives represent the primary water
resources of interest in long-range planning. Except for water conservation,
all of these alternatives have one or more significant drawbacks. Some are
expensive, energy-intensive, and have potential adverse environmental im-
pacts. Examples include desalinization, wastewater recycling and importa-
tion. Others, such as use of river water and the blending of saline water,
may be less expensive and have fewer adverse effects; however they provide a
relatively small amount of water. Mining of the Hueco Bolson, which provides
the largest and one of the cheapest resources, must be approached with cau-
tion. If this aquifer is exhausted before El Paso obtains adequate alternate
supplies, severe water shortages can be expected, with associated economic,
social, and environmental disruptions.
Although detailed evaluation of the water-supply alternatives is beyond
the scope of a wastewater plan and EIS, a simple analysis can be performed to
indicate the probable strategy which El Paso will adopt. This analysis is
based upon Figure 6-10. The figure provides a forecast of the cumulative
water requirements for the City in the period 1980-2050. The projection is a
linear extension of Table 6-5. A total of 14.5 million acre-feet of water
must be obtained during the 70-year period. Figure 6-10 also illustrates the
amounts of water which can be obtained from the available alternatives.
1. The steady state water supply is assumed to be 35,000 acre-feet per
year (Table 6-4), which would provide 16.9 percent of the projected demand
(2.45 million acre-feet).
I
I
I
2. Water conservation is assumed to maintain the projected 1980 per cap-
ita demand at 210 gallons per day; if such conservation can be obtained,
9.6 percent of the projected demand would never occur (1.34 million acre-
feet) . Conservation is not a water supply as such, but is included in the
figure to illustrate its quantitative significance. Refer to Section
7.2.2. for a discussion of the potential benefits of greater conservation.
6-34
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
These limitations do not affect the validity of the computer model for
purposes of generalized interpretations of hydrologic impacts.
The most useful long-term simulation for assessing HBRP impacts is
that which involves: recharge of 8,950 acre-feet for 10 years in four
injection wells; recharge of 11,770 acre-feet for the second 10 years in
the same wells; pumping of 33,000 acre-feet/year for the first 10 years
from existing wells; pumping of 43,000 acre-feet/year for the second 10
years from existing wells. A 20-year project life is used here for analy-
tical purposes only, and presumes that a new treatment and disposal system
would be implemented after 20 years. Conditions which result from this
simulation include the following:
1. A mound in the water table would build up near each recharge well,
and would have a maximum height of about 5 to 10 feet after 20 years.
(This is about half the drawdown typically experienced near pumping
wells.)
2. The water table in the Bolson as a whole would continue to de-
cline, but in the area of recharge the decline would be slowed.
Without recharge the decline would probably be 55 feet between 1978
and 1998; this is similar to the prediction of a 48-foot decline
between 1973 and 1991 made by Meyer (1976). With recharge the decline
would be reduced to about 35 feet over an area of 15 square miles.
3. As shown in Figure 6-11, the general shape of the water table in
1998, assuming recharge, would be similar to that which now occurs ex-
cept for the mounds near recharge wells.
4. The combined effect of water-table decline near pumping wells (and
in the Bolson as a whole), and mounds near recharge wells, would be a
marked increase in the water-table gradient and an associated increase
in average velocity of ground-water flow. Table 6-10 lists the velo-
cities which are predicted for a range of short-term (one-year) condi-
tions. For the long-term conditions specified at the beginning of
this paragraph, an average velocity of 300 feet can be predicted if
gradients are as shown in Figure 6-11. This velocity is about three
times as great as the natural velocity in the absence of recharge.
The prediction that recharge would cause an increase in flow velocity
to 300 feet per year probably understates the actual increase in flow
because: a) the model did not simulate the steep water-table gradient
which occurs near individual pumping wells; and b) it did not simulate the
more rapid flow which would occur in those layers of the aquifer contain-
ing the most permeable material. For this EIS a worst-case prediction of
flow velocities has been made using the following assumptions:
-hydraulic conductivity of 100 square feet per day (compared to an
average value of 30 to 50 feet per day);
6-40
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
The third benefit of the HBRP would occur if the project proves as cost-
effective as projected in the facilities plan, and if environmental and water-
supply conditions are as forecast in this EIS. In this case, the project
would serve as a prototype for expanded recycling which could provide from 25
to 50 percent of El Paso's long-term water-supply needs.
Other Changes. Some minor permanent changes to drainage may be necessary
in order to flood-proof the site. These changes are illustrated in Figure 22
of the facilities plan, and would involve construction of a dike which would
divert some runoff from the drainage area upstream of the treatment plant into
the drainage area southwest of the site. During project design, flood protec-
tion measures will also be considered for well sites. Figure 6-3 (p. 6-10)
illustrates a possible layout of recharge wells, and identifies areas where
flood problems are known to occur. It should be possible to site all wells in
areas where flooding is not a hazard.
The recharge process can lead to physical changes in an aquifer, such as
clogging. As analyzed in PSB (1979), and summarized in the EIS (see p. 6-46),
these impacts are expected to be very small.
Waste flows to the Northeast plant would be reduced by 0.6 million gallons
per day in the year 2005 as the result of a flow reduction program which is to
be incorporated into the HBRP. The program would include public education,
use of building codes requiring installation of water-saving fixtures, and
Imodifications to rates and rate designs. Refer to Section 7.2.2. for a
I discussion of the potential for a greater reduction in wastewater flows.
6.3 AIR AND SOUND QUALITY
6.3.1 Existing Conditions
Carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants and total suspended particulates
occur in concentrations which exceed air-quality standards in parts of El
Paso. Figure 6-12 shows locations where particulate levels exceed standards.
Excessive levels of carbon monoxide occur over the same area. The oxidant
problem is citywide. Table 6-14 lists Federal standards for ambient air qual-
ity, and summarizes data from the only monitoring site in Northeast El Paso.
Standards are being met in the Northeast, although the secondary standard for
particulates is equalled. Automobiles are a major source of air pollution in
El Paso. Industrial sources are also significant in the Northeast, and in-
clude a rock quarry, gravel pit and large power plant. Plans have been devel-
oped to deal with the major problems through controls on automotive and indus-
trial emissions. It is anticipated that nitrogen oxide levels may continue to
increase in the Northeast due to the presence of the power plant and growing
automobile traffic. Particulate levels will also remain high due to dust-
storms.
Odors do not appear to be a problem in Northeast El Paso. There are no
residences in the vicinity of the Northeast ponds, and there are no complaints
on record concerning odor from this facility.
6-48
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
Major noise sources in the region include the interstate highway and in-
ternational airport. In most of the Northeast area, noise levels can be ex-
pected to be typical of residential areas (30-60 decibels). The wastewater
treatment plant is remote and quiet except for the sounds of abundant bird
life, a few pumps and an occasional military convoy.
6.3.2 Impacts of HBRP
Construction of the HBRP would produce temporary alterations in vegeta-
tion, drainage and erosion, air quality, sound quality and traffic. For
convenience, all these short-term impacts are listed together in Table 6-15.
The table also identifies mitigating measures. The impacts are considered
small because: a) most construction will occur in undeveloped areas which are
relatively remote from populated areas and b) the changes in environmental
conditions will be very brief and comparatively easy to control.or mitigate.
Odors would not be expected to be a problem at any properly designed and
operated treatment plant built at the Northeast site. The remote location of
the site, which is generally downwind of developing areas, would help minimize
odor impacts from occasional plant upsets.
6.4 BIOLOGY
6.4.1 Existing Conditions.
El Paso is in the Lower Sonoran Life Zone (Chihuahuan Desert Aspect).
Each natural region has a characteristic suite of plants and animals (Table
6-1). The ponds at the Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant provide the only sig-
nificant wetland habitat in the Northeast, and one of the largest such habi-
I tats in El Paso County. Detailed information on the biology of the site is
j limited to bird sightings by the El Paso Trans-Pecos Audubon Society, and to
ecological observations made by society members. Zimmer (1978) reports that
the ponds are an important site for wintering, summering and migrating water-
fowl and shorebirds. Table 6-16 is a list of birds observed at the ponds.
The list includes the endangered peregrine falcon and rare birds such as the
prairie falcon, Mexican duck, masked duck, ferruginous hawk, white-faced ibis
and olivaceous cormorant. The ponds are the only known summering site in the
area for American avocets and blacknecked stilts (nesting is suspected) and
for eared grebes and black terns. Ruddy ducks and common gallinules nest at
the site in larger numbers than elsewhere in the county.
The ponds represent a diverse habitat and include: deep water with rocky
shores; shallow water with sandy beaches; and swampy areas with abundant emer-
gent vegetation (including some cottonwoods). Though all ponds are used, the
most popular is the southeast overflow area which provides the best cover.
Most of the nesting and 80 percent of the sightings occur in this area. The
reliable water supply also makes the ponds of value to other native desert
wildlife and their predators (Riley, 1978). Common species of mammals, rep-
tiles, and amphibians likely to frequent the ponds are those listed for the
6-51
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6-16. LIST OF BIRDS RECORDED AT FT. BLISS (NORTHEAST EL PASO) SEWAGE PONDS. Key to symbols: A « abundant; normally
'present in large numbers in proper habitat. C • common; normally present in moderate numbers in proper habitat, FC »
fairly common; seen most of the tine in smaller numbers. U * uncommon; seen irregularly in small nurebers in appropriate
envii-onuent. R = rare; occupies only small percentage of preferred habitat, or a specific limited habitat; usually
seen only by experienced observers. * « nesting species. Source: Ziuner, 1978.
Summer Fall Winter Spring
Summer Fall Mincer Spring
Avocet, American
Bittern
American
Least
Blackbird
Brewer ' s
Red -winged
Yellow-headed
Bobolink
Bunting, Lark
Coot, American
Cornorant
Double-crested
Olivaceous
Cowbird, Brown -headed
Cuckoo, Yellow-billed
Curlew, Long-billed
Dove, Mourning
Dowitcher. Long-billed
Duck
American Wigeon
Bufflehead
Canvasback
Gadwall
Lesser Scaup
Mallard
Masked
Mexican
Northern Shovelet
Pintail
Redhead
Ring-necked
Ruddy
Eagle, Golden
Egret, Cattle
Falcon
Prairie
Peregrine
American, Kestrel
Finch, House
Flicker, Common
Flycatcher
Ash- throated
Western Wood Pewee
Willow
Gallinule, Common
Godtfit, Marbled
Coldfinsh, Lesser
Crackle, Great-tailed
Grebe
Eared
Western
Pied-billed
Grosbeak,
Black-headed
Blue
Gull
Bonaparte1 s
Franklin
Herring
Ring-billed
Hawk
Cooper's
Ferruginous
Marsh
Red-tailed
Sharp-shinned
Swainson ' s
Heron
Black-crowned night
Great blue
House Sparrow
Hummingbird, Black-chinned
Ibis, White-faced
Junco, Dark-eyed
Kingbird, Western
Kingfisher, Belted
Kinglet, Ruby-crowned
Meadow I ark, Western
Merganser, "ed-breasted
Mockingbird
Nighthawk
Lesser
Oriole, Northern
U
FC*
C*
C*
R*
A*
R*
R
U*
U
U
U*
A*
U*
U*
U
FC*
A*
FC
FC*
C
A*
C*
A*
C
C*
c*
FC*
FC
R
A
FC
A
A
C
C
R
R •
A
U
C
U
FC
U
FC
FC
FC
U
R
R
C
A
FC
C
R
FC
R
FC
A
C
FC
R
LJ
U
FC
U
C
c
R
FC
R
A
c
U
C
A
FC
FC
C
C
R
C
R
A
C
A
A
A
U
R
C
R
A
U
C
U
U
FC
FC
U
c
FC
FC
R
FC
U
U
C
A
c
FC
FC
A
C
U
U
U
FC
FC
0
c
c
FC
U
A
R
A
FC
C
C
K
C
FC
R
C
FC
A
FC
C
C
R
A
1'
C
U
FC
FC
U
U
R
C
A
FC
U
C
R
FC
FC
A
C
FC
FC
R
C
c
FC
R
A
C
A •
A
FC
FC
C
C
R
C
FC
Owl
Barn
Burrowing
Pelican, White
Phalarope
Northern
Wilson's
Phoebe
Black
Say's
Pipit, Water
Plover
Black-bellied
Killdeer
Semi-palmated
Pyrrhuloxia
Quail
Gdmbel
Scaled
Rail
Virginia
Sora
Raven, White-necked
Readrunner
Sandpiper
Baird's
Semi-pal mated
Solitary
Spotted
.Stilt
Western
White- ruitped
Shrike, Loggerhead
Snipe, Comon
Sparrow
black-throated
Cassin's
Chipping
Lark
Lincoln's
Savannah
Song
Vesper
White-crowned
White-throated
Starling
Stilt, Black-necked
Swallow
Bank
Barn
Cliff
Rough-winged
Tree
Violet-green
Tanager, Western
Teal
Blue-winged
Cinnamon
Green-winged
Tern
Black
Forster's
Thrasher
Crissal
Sage
Towhee
Brown
Green-tailed
Turnstone, Ruddy
Verdin
Vulture, Turkey
Warbler
Wilson's
Yel low-rumped
Yellow-throat
Willet
Woodpecker, Ladder-backed
Wren
Bewick's
Cactus
Long-billed marsh
Rock
Yellowlegs
Greater
Lesser
FC*
FC*
FC
U*
C*
C*
R
C*
R
R
FC*
•-*
FC-
ll"
C*
U
c-
c*
R
FC
C*
FC*
FC*
U
R
FC*
U
C*
C*
FC
R
U
R
FC
FC
C
'J
R
C
R
FC
C
C
R
A
C
U
U
U
U
U
FC
R
FC
U
C
A
U
U
FC
"C
a
c
c
FC
11
£
c
U
U
c
U
c
FC
FC
FC
R
C
II
FC
FC
FC
U
C
C
R
U
FC
U
C
FC
C
FC
FC
U
R
FC
C
U
C
FC
r
C
A
C
U
U
U
(l
R
FC
U
C
C
U
U
FC
FC
M
A
C
C
c
FC
FC
C
C
U
FC
?C
U
FC
U
C
a
FC
u
c
FC
c
FC
U
R
FC
FC
U
R
FC
R
FC
C
C
k.
u
u
u
u
u
FC
R
CC
r
PC
A
U
FC
FC
U
A
C
U
u
c
c
u
u
c
a
FC
U
R
C
FC
FC
FC
FC
U
2
FC
R
U
FC
U
C
C
FC
FC
6-53
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FINAL EIS
Hueco Bolson in Table 6-1, including badgers, deer, coyote and bobcat. So far
as is known the ponds contain no fish.
Major riparian (riverside) habitats occur elsewhere near El Paso County.
Regional wetlands include (all to the north, unless otherwise noted): Bosque
del Apache National Wildlife Refuge (130 miles away), a major wintering area
on the Rio Grande that accommodates about 80,000 birds annually; Elephant
Butte Marsh Habitat Management Area and Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs
(75 to 115 miles); numerous salt lakes and flats frequented by shorebirds
(within 100 miles); and to the south in Mexico the Rio Carmen, Laguna de
Patos, and several large ephemeral lakes (75 miles).
Extensive riparian habitat once occurred within El Paso County, but is now
much diminished when compared to conditions early in this century. Prior to
channelization of the Rio Grande in the 1930's, the effective floodplain was
one or more miles wide and contained many seasonal marshes and swamps, with
associated emergent vegetation. Channelization, and drainage through irriga-
tion works, has eliminated most of these features. Although there are no data
available regarding the magnitude of the original habitat, a rough estimate
can be made by assuming a mile wide area on each side of the river, for the 55
mile length of the river through El Paso County. On the Texas side of the
border this would represent 35,200 acres of habitat.
Although such habitat is now absent in the downtown area, it does exist
(in modified form) in the upper and lower valleys. Most such habitat is
confined within the river levees, in thin strips averaging about 500 feet
across and amounting to perhaps 1200 acres (Smartt, 1980). Within or adjacent
to the habitat are salt cedar, willow and cottonwood trees. A few small ponds
with emergent, marsh-like vegetation occur, such as the Rainbow Lakes oxbow
area near Anthony, in the upper valley. In combination, the levee and ponds
provide habitat which is suitable for most of the bird species found at the
Northeast Pond. For example, migrating shorebirds are able to use the sandy
banks of the river during the low-flow season, while migrating waterfowl are
more common when the river bottom is covered by water. However, the
levee/pond habitat is certainly limited in total area, and does not provide
the yearround combination of wading and nesting opportunities which exist at
the Northeast Ponds.
Additional riparian habitat exists along the 1,000 miles plus of
irrigation canals, laterals and drains in El Paso County. The Bureau of
Reclamation has estimated that there are 23 square miles (14,720 acres) of
such features in El Paso County. A Bureau ecologist indicates the presence of
emergent vegetation makes the canals and drains more suitable than the
laterals as wildlife habitat (Schraeder, 1980). Frequent use by varied bird
populations (especially migrating ducks and wading birds) is reported and
occasional nesting has been observed (see Table 6-1).
On balance, it appears that the total amount of riparian habitat in El
Paso County is less than half the historical amount (35,200 acres versus the
present 14,720 acres in the irrigation system, 1200 acres along the river, and
6-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Listed Species: Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus); not known to nest in
I area, though may be present as a migrant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
I 482 acres at the Northeast Ponds). The Rainbow Lakes and Northeast Ponds pro-
vide the most diverse habitats. Additional large-scale riparian areas exist
elsewhere in the County, such as in areas of bosque (salt cedar) vegetation,
and at the sewage ponds at PSB's Socorro treatment plant. However, producti-
vity of the local riparian sites is limited by several factors. The river is
lined with concrete in places, has been under study for channelization down-
stream, is frequently dry, and preserves little of its original mix of wetland
and bosque vegetation. Irrigation drains and canals provide a the most con-
sistent and sheltered water supply, but are subject to disturbance by routine
maintenance; the canals are dry outside of the growing season. The Socorro
ponds are large but lack the vegetation, remoteness, and variety of habitat
that would attract large numbers of waterfowl or shorebirds (Zimmer, 1978).
Of the bosque areas, Rio Bosque Park may be the most significant due to its
relatively rural location and proximity to open water.
On balance, there is little yearround habitat which provides both wading
and nesting opportunities for shorebirds and waterfowl. Only the Northeast
Ponds and the Rainbow Lakes can be considered as providing such habitat in
I significant amounts.
Threatened or and Endangered Species. In accordance with Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act, as amended, EPA has requested that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service identify any plant or animal species in the area that is
listed, or proposed for listing, as endangered or threatened. The FWS list
was provided to EPA on October 12, 1979, and is as follows.
Droposed Species: Coryphantha scheeri var. uncinata; found in the rocky
hills of the Chihuahuan Desert. C. sneedii var. sneedii; known to occur
on limestone ledges of the Franklin Mountain desert and grassland areas.
Critical Habitat: none.
A survey of available information indicates that the peregrine falcon has been
sighted at the ponds, and that C. sneedii does not occur within the Bolson
area (Champie, 1980). State, Federal and private biologists familiar with the
wasterwater ponds and Northeast El Paso are unaware of any other endangered
species that frequent the area (Rische, 1978; Riley, 1978; Von Finger,
1978; Zimmer, 1978).
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FINAL EIS
6.4.2 Impacts of the HBRP
Construction of the HBRP or any other alternative would involve distur-
bance of vegetation; this impact is summarized in Table 6-15.
Because the prime habitat at the Northeast site is associated with over-
flow ponds, which must be eliminated to prevent pollution, the HBRP would sub-
stantially reduce the biological resources which presently occur in the area.
Once the project is operational, any ponding area which remains will be small
and much modified by construction and maintenance activities. Consequently
the site will no longer support any wildlife other than species which are
typical of the desert environment. Reduction or elimination of the wetland
habitat will have the following consequences:
-animals dependent on the habitat and unable to migrate to other habitats
(such as amphibians) would die;
-animals dependent on the habitat but able to migrate would be displaced
to other locations in West Texas, southern New Mexico, or beyond (this
includes most of the species found at the site);
-because there is little other wetland habitat in El Paso County, and
that habitat (Rio Grande Valley) is declining due to urbanization, few of
the displaced individuals would relocate in the immediate El Paso
vicinity, and local wildlife populations would thus decline;
-because comparable habitat is generally available in the region, the
elimination of habitat in Northeast El Paso would not cause a significant
decline in the total number of individual animals found in the region;
-no species would vanish entirely from the region;
-informal recreation (bird-watching, hunting) at the treatment plant site
would cease.
No mitigation measures are proposed which would offset the impacts listed
above, for reasons which are discussed in Section 5.A.I.
The biological value of the ponds depends to some extent on the scale of
concern. Regionally, much land has been set aside, either directly or in-
directly, for the use of birds and other wildlife, and the significance of the
Northeast ponds is small by comparison. Locally, the ponds offer a more
diverse and effective habitat than available elsewhere in El Paso County.
According to state and federal Fish and Wildlife personnel (Rische, 1978;
Riley, 1978), while the ponds are very valuable to local waterfowl and
shorebirds, they do not provide a habitat which is critical to the maintenance
of aquatic bird populations in the region.
6-55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO _ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES _ FINAL EIS
The significance of the lost habitat is difficult to evaluate because eco-
logical productivity and diversity provides benefits which are largely intan-
gible. The following considerations bear on the judgement as to whether the
impacts of habitat loss are 'acceptable1.
1. Regionally significant wildlife habitats no longer occur in the El
Paso vicinity, but do occur within 130 miles (e.g., Bosque del Apache, New
Mexico).
2. Only a small acreage of bosque and surface water in the Rio Grande
Valley of El Paso County is permanently committed to maintain wildlife.
Urbanization and water-table lowering are causing continued loss of re-
maining habitats in the area.
I 3. The decision to use water resources to support urbanization rather
than wildlife appears to be a conscious one; certainly this question was
explicitly discussed as part of public input to the EIS, and the majority
of comments favored urbanization in the specific case being evaluated.
4. The elimination of ecological productivity in favor of urban produc-
tivity is consistent with some provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and inconsistent with others.
5. The amount of water needed to maintain 100 acres of ponds is 0.656 of
the wastewater which could be recycled by the year 2030 (120,000 acre-feet
per year) .
NEPA permits the public to make a conscious choice to sacrifice some as-
pects of environmental quality in order to meet other objectives of society.
Public input to the EIS indicates that dedication of resources to urban use
rather than to wildlife is supported by a majority of area residents. Such a
decision would give highest priority to the provisions of NEPA which favor
enhancing "the quality of renewable resources" (Section 101(a)(6)), and the
achievement of a "balance between population and resource use which will
permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities"
(101(a)(5)). The public input indicates that such recycling is explicitly
considered as fulfilling "the responsibilities of each generation as trustee
of the environment for succeeding generations" (101(a)(l)), because water and
not wildlife is considered to be the most critical environmental resource
which requires protection. The decision would not fulfill the NEPA objectives
to "preserve important ... natural aspects" of the environment (101(a)(4)),
and would not support "the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment"
L1
The overflow ponds (at least the one on Ft. Bliss) represent a wetland
environment. Even though the environment is man-made and has nuisance as-
pects, it is the interpretation of EPA that NEPA and Executive Order 11990
(see p. 3-3) require mitigation of the wildlife impacts of a recharge project,
if practicable. As discussed in more detail in 5.4.1, mitigation is not prac-
ticable in the specific case under consideration, because: a) the use of the
6-553.
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FINAL EIS
Northeast ponds as a habitat area has drawbacks; b) alternative sites for
replacement habitat are not available within the project area; and c) actions
taken to diminish the water supply benefits of a recharge project are con-
sidered to reduce the cost-effectiveness of the project, and have a net
adverse environmental impact.
Elimination of the ponds would eliminate potential adverse impacts from
mosquitoes and diseased wildlife.
Endangered Species. The proposed endangered cactus species, £. scheeri,
which could occur within the Bolson, is so widely dispersed that construction
would have no measurable effect (Champie, 1980).
A biological evaluation was performed regarding potential impacts of a
recharge project on the peregrine falcon. The evaluation is summarized in a
letter from EPA to FWS which is reproduced in Appendix I (Appendix pages 24
and 25). The evaluation determined that the Northeast ponds represent margin-
al habitat which would be used only occasionally by the falcon, primarily as a
temporary feeding and/or resting station, and that it contains no habitat of
importance to nesting. On this basis, EPA determined that a recharge project
such as Case 6, which would eliminate the habitat, would have no effect on the
peregrine falcon. On May 5, 1980, the acting regional director of FWS re-
sponded to the EPA letter and stated that "I concur with your finding that the
proposed project is not likely to have an effect upon Federally listed species
I...". The FWS letter is reproduced on Appendix page 24.
6.5 ARCHEOLOGY/HISTORY
6.5.1 Existing Conditions
Humans have lived in the El Paso region for several millenia. The earli-
est inhabitants who left traces were pueblo and nomadic Indians. They were
followed by Spanish colonists and the first permanent European settlement, in
6-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
1682. There are numerous sites of recognized archeological and historical
importance in the area, as described in PSC (1975) and WTCOG (1976). Most
sites are in the valley. Some archeological remains are found in Northeast El
Paso as well.
Specific studies have been undertaken to identify possible resource sites
which would be impacted by construction of the HBRP. Reconnaissance and in-
tensive archeological surveys have been made of the Northeast plant. Gerald
(1975) found three possible sites near Pond No. 1 during a walkover survey.
The first was 130 by 230 feet, encompassing five concentrations of potsherds
which appeared to be from the Mesilla Phase of the Mogollon Culture (about
800-1,000 A.D). The second site was a fire-fractured rock hearth, mostly
buried and probably prehistoric; scatterings of purple glass were also
found. The third site resembled the remains of an ancient pueblo, 115 by 16
feet. Shortly after the Gerald walkover, a more intensive survey was per-
formed by the Texas Department of Survey Archeology (Lynn, 1976), which
included recovery of surface artifacts and subsurface sampling. This survey
revealed that the possible pueblo site was not a former habitation (Gerald,
1978).
Northeast El Paso is thought to contain a fairly high density of prehis-
toric sites (Davis, 1978). At present the El Paso Centennial Museum and the
El Paso Archeological Society are conducting a walkover survey of the newly
annexed area in anticipation of development pressures. Upon completion of the
survey, a map will be available locating major sites in the Northeast. Past
finds in the Trans-Mountain Road area and along U.S. 54 include rock art, a
pit house, and room complexes of the Mogollon Culture.
The Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR) has conducted a reconnais-
ance survey of possible pipeline routes and well sites which would be dis-
turbed if the HBRP is constructed (Whitsett and Fox, 1979). Of several arch-
eological sites located, two which were identified as possibly eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places were found to be in conflict with the
HBRP. One is an El Paso Phase complex, first recorded in 1964, which includes
ceramics, hearths and the (now-destroyed) remains of a small pueblo (site
41EP8). The site is greatly disturbed by past construction, although some
relatively intact areas remain. The second site is an oval, 500 by 230 feet,
containing ceramic and lithic remains from the Mesilla and El Paso Phases
(41EP319).
6.5.2 Impacts of HBRP
No sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places occur within the area to be affected by plant construction. A letter
to this effect issued by Robert J. Mallouff of the Texas Historical Commission
I is included as Part 4 of Appendix I. However, a walkover survey by TDWR of
1 the areas to be impacted by pipeline and well construction and access roads
shows that the areas do contain such sites. The TDWR recommends that meas-
, ures be taken to protect the sites 41EP319 and 41EP8, which are potentially
{ eligible for the National Register (Whitsett and Fox, 1979). Prior to con-
6-57
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
FINAL EIS
r.
Lv
struction, proposed pipeline routes, access roads and and well sites in the
vicinity of the two sites should be staked out and inspected by a qualified
archeologist. Provisions should be made for either mechanical or manual
testing, as required by the archeologist, so that eligibility may be deter-
mined, and any further necessary mitigative measures may be defined. Ad-
ditionally, if any significant resources are identified during construction,
work will be halted, the SHPO will be contacted and the ACHP will be afforded
an opportunity to comment, if appropriate. The Interagency Archeological
Services will be notified, pursuant to the Archeological and Historic Preser-
vation Act (Section 3(a)).
It is anticipated that the routing of pipelines and the siting of
injection wells will be flexible within limits. If archeological resources
are found during the surveys, minor rerouting or resiting would be feasible.
However, because specific impacts cannot be obtained at this time, an
archeological clearance from the SHPO will not be sought until the grant
conditions are in effect.
6.6. 50CIOECONOMICS; LAND USE
6.6.1 Existing Conditions
Population. Figure 6-13 provides information on the rapid growth of the
El Paso-Juarez metropolitan region, which now contains more than 1 million
persons. The figure also projects population through the year 2000, when more
than 1.8 million residents are expected to be in the area. WTCOG (1977) pro-
vides a similar projection for use in wastewater planning, and estimates
638,100 residents in El Paso in the year 2000. Northeast El Paso has been
growing somewhat more rapidly than the city as a whole, but less than the
Northwest and Southeast sectors. A population of 130,000 persons is expected
in Northeast El Paso by the year 2000.
6-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FINAL EIS
-The agricultural use (dairy) northeast of the 1976 City limits has ceased
and the land is reverting to open space.
Elsewhere in the City, major trends include the continuing conversion of agri-
cultural land in the lower valley to residential uses, and the rapid expansion
of residential development in the southeast sector between Interstate 10 and
U.S. 62-180.
The acreage in different land uses in the Northeast is given in EPDPRD,
1977. Compared to the city as a whole, the Northeast has a higher percentage
of vacant land and lower percentages of industry, public, and recreational
acreage. The recent annexation of land northward to the New Mexico border has
greatly increased vacant land in the Northeast (to 45,504 acres); and is the
major portion of the developable acreage within City limits.
Much of the recent development has been on Hueco Bolson land, a trend that
El Paso planners feel "should be encouraged" (EPDPRD, 1978b). The Bolson por-
tion of Northeast El Paso is particularly suitable in terms of its physical
environment. In addition to the large amount of readily developable land
available in large parcels (most owned by the Public Service Board), other
features in the Northeast are expected to make it more attractive. For ex-
ample, the extension of the North-South Freeway will eventually cut across
presently undeveloped land allowing reduced travel time within the sector and
to the downtown area. The development of Castner Range into an educational/
recreational/commercial complex will provide a focal point or hub for the area
(EPDPRD, 1978d). The establishment of manufacturing in the Northeast indus-
trial parks could provide local employment. The combination of all the above
factors is expected to return the Northeast growth rate to higher pre-1970
levels.
6.6.2 Socioeconomic and Land Use Impacts of HBRP
Water-supply benefits of the HBRP were discussed in Section 6.2.6, and are
a principal objective of the project. About 192,500 acre-feet of water would
be provided to the municipal system. This water has an economic value of
between 1 and 30 billion dollars (using assumptions given in Table 6-9).
The investments made to build and operate the HBRP will stimulate the
local and regional economy by providing construction jobs, a market for energy
and chemicals and 40 permanent jobs. Many of these jobs will require highly-
skilled personnel. Alternatives such as river discharge would have impacts
similar in type, but less extensive.
The cost of the facilities will be borne by Federal grants and utility
rates. For the HBRP, the average monthly utility bill for a typical El Paso
Iresidence would increase by $1.02 when compared to rates which would occur
from the river discharge option. This estimate assumes 65 percent EPA funding
of capital costs; the actual funding is expected to be in the range of 55 to
[_65 percent. A substantial portion of the bonding capacity of the Public
Service Board will be required to provide the City portion of the construction
funds, possibly limiting the ability to generate capital for other projects.
6-62
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6-20. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF HUECO BOLSON RECHARGE PROJECT.
Suoporting information is provided in Appendix H.
Criteria
Characteristics of Hueco Bolson Project
Source Control Only domestic waste would be recycled; tests
show the sewage to be very weak.
Treatment Eoual or exceeds technology applied elsewhere;
Technology effluent should be low In organic carbon and
nutrients and free of biological contaminants;
total mineral content would be reduced slightly.
Additives Reclaimed water similar to natural water.
Would contain more organics than natural water.
Dissolved solids, sodium would increase 1.55S
after dilution by ground water.
Standards Expected to meet all existing and proposed
standards.
Risk Data Q_ess than one increased cancer death per 100,000
persons per year, which is not detectaole.
Toxicity Effluent from limited H6RP pilot plant,
diluted with Bolson water, is not mutagenic;
undiluted effluent was. The nature of the
mutagenic substances is not known and it is
not known if such substances would remain in a
completely processed wastewater.
Dilution and Reclaimed water would be diluted about 20:1 by
Time Bolson water; would be 2-15 years before water
reaches wells.
Benefits; Beneficial as prototype for large-scale re-
alternatives cycling to provide needed water supplies.
Alternative water supply options are difficult,
expensive. Alternative wastewater disposal
options have comparatively few risks but do
not significantly alleviate the City's ultimate
water shortage.
Evaluation
very Favorable
very Favorable
Favorable
Very Favorable
Favorable, based
on public input
Favorable
Favorable
Vary Favorable
6-75
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES DRAFT EIS
trace levels. It is not certain that these contaminants would indeed increase
,—health risks associated with El Peso's water supply. If risk does exist, the
meager data now available suggest that the risk would be significantly less
than 1 increased death per 100,000 persons per year, which would not be
detectable through any available (or foreseeable) monitoring technique.
6.9. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS, SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERN
PRODUCTIVITY, AND IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
6.9.1 Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided
Minor amounts of noise, dust, soil and drainage disturbance and interfer-
ence with traffic would result from HBRP construction and cannot be avoided.
The most significant and major long-term adverse impacts include: an increase
in salinity levels in the Hueco Bolson and in the El Paso water supply; a
substantial commitment of energy and chemical resources; a substantial commit-
ment of financial resources which cannot be used for other investments; the
production of a small amount of solid waste material to be disposed of by
landfill; and the elimination of a wildlife habitat at the Northeast plant
site, with a corresponding reduction in the ecological productivity and diver-
sity of the area. The project could also have an adverse public health impact
if reclaimed wastewater is found to contain substances which cause chronic
health problems.
6.9.2 Short-term Uses of the Environment Versus Long-term Productivity
The purpose of the proposed action is to promote long-term productivity by
eliminating existing water-quality problems, and providing a supplemental
municipal water supply for El Paso. Long-term ecological productivity from
existing wildlife habitat would be lost, and any benefits which might be
obtained by alternate use of the public funds, energy resources, and chemicals
Irequired by the project would also be foregone. Executive Order 11990 (see p.
' 3-3), does not permit loss of wetland habitat if practicable alternatives or
mitigation measures are available. In this specific case, the determination
has been made that a project which involves a 100 percent commitment to re-
charge is more cost-effective and has less adverse environmental impacts (for
the community of El Paso as a whole) than a project which maintains wildlife
ponds at the Northeast site. Mitigation of the adverse impacts would be
practicable if alternative sites were available; no appropriate sites have
LJpeen identified in the project area. No aspect of the proposed action has
been identified which provides short-term gains at the expense of long-term
benefits. However, those who support retention of the wetland habitat
consider that the transfer of water from ecological to municipal use is
supportive of development goals which are less enduring than the goal of
preserving wildlife habitat.
6.9.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Resources to be used by the HBRP were itemized in Section 5.2.4; in addi-
tion energy and materials would be used in project construction. These com-
mitments are irreversible. Similarly the commitments of funds and operational
effort by the Public Service Board must continue on an ongoing basis. Restor-
ation of the wetlands habitat is foreseeable only in the context of a major
recreation project which provides substantial public benefits; a project of
this type is not foreclosed by the HBRP.
6-77
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO COORDINATION FINAL EIS
7. COORDINATION
' This Chapter presents a discussion of public participation in the develop-
ment of the Draft and Final EIS. Public participation during preparation of
. the Draft EIS was obtained primarily through a Citizens' Advisory Committee
j (CAC) formed by the Public Service Board. Selection of Committee members was
intended to provide representation from a broad range of public interests.
Appendix I (Part 1) lists the fourteen individuals who served on the Commit-
tee. The Committee held three afternoon meetings on October 19, November 14,
and November 28, 1978, to review information about the wastewater management
options available in Northeast El Paso, and to indicate public attitudes about
these options. All meetings were announced in advance, were open to the
general public, and were attended by representatives of the media. Extensive
publicity preceeded a fourth meeting on December 11, 1978, which was held in
the evening for the specific purpose of informing the public about the waste-
water management alternatives available in Northeast El Paso and obtaining
public input on the relative merits of these alternatives. A final meeting
was held on April 17, 1980. The Committee's recommendations on the preferred
Alternative are summarized in Section 7.2.1.
7.1. ISSUES RAISED DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS
The four Committee meetings identifed above involved discussion of several
issues, as summarized below.
1. Issue: what amount of Federal funding would be available to facili-
ties in Northeast El Paso, and how would different alternatives affect water
bills? Response: Federal funding is generally 75 percent of eligible costs.
However, additional funding is available for innovative projects, while multi-
purpose projects may receive funding for only that portion which is related to
the necessary treatment of wastewater. During Committee meetings, estimates
of effects on water bills were based on 75 percent Federal funding of design
and construction costs. As noted in Part B of Chapter 5, actual funding of
the Hueco Bolson Recharge Project (HBRP) would not exceed 65 percent. An
estimate of the increase in monthly water bills as a result of the HBRP is
given in Table 5-4.
2. Issue: how would qualified employees be obtained to operate a sophis-
ticated treatment facility? Response: to the extent practicable, new em-
ployees would be hired from the local labor pool. However, some skilled posi-
tions could require nationwide recruitment.
3. Issue: what are the potential health effects of a recharge project?
Response: the report by Wilson (1980) was prepared in response to concerns
about health effects, and was summarized in draft form in reports prepared for
the Citizen's Committee. Section 6.8 contains the same basic information pro-
vided to the Committee.
7-1
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
COORDINATION
FINAL EIS
4. Issue: how were Citizens' Advisory Committee members selected? Re-
sponse: Committee members were selected according to guidelines of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the composition of the Committee
was subject to EPA approval.
5. Issue: how feasible is it to design a plant to industrial standards
and later modify the plant to treat water to drinking quality standards? Re-
sponse: this alternative was screened out early in the planning process be-
cause industrial demand for reclaimed wastewater is too widely scattered to
make the project cost-effective.
6. Issue: over what time frame would ground water in the Hueco Bolson be
exhausted? Response: based on available projections, and assuming limited
new water supplies are obtained, the Hueco Bolson could be exhausted within
fifty years.
7. Issue: would it be possible to relocate the wetlands? Response: the
alternative of relocation of the wetlands was screened out because of public
interest in maximizing the amount of wastewater recycled for municipal water
supplies.
8. Issue: what are the potential recreational uses for recycled water?
Response: review of the City Parks and Recreation Plan identified relatively
few such uses in Northeast El Paso.
9. Issue: would any of the injected water flow into the Juarez area?
Response: while Juarez takes water from the Hueco Bolson, El Paso would not
be competing for water with Juarez as long as water levels are maintained.
In addition to issues raised at public meetings, three sets of written
comments were submitted during the planning process. The U.S. Army Air De-
fense Center at Fort Bliss requested that the overflow of wastewater onto the
Military Reservation from the Northeast El Paso treatment ponds be eliminated
and encouraged the upgrading of the treatment plant. All alternatives con-
sidered would be responsive to this request. The El Paso City-County Health
Unit staff recommended that the environmental problems created by the waste-
water treatment ponds be resolved through treating sewage which could be in-
jected into the soil to replenish the water table. The HBRP would accomplish
this objective.
The El Paso Regional Group of the Sierra Club commented that the decision
to use reclaimed wastewater entirely for recharge, rather than reserving a
portion for maintenance of the wetlands, was "unnecessary and irresponsible".
The Sierra Club recommended that EPA both commit to retaining the wetlands,
and require additional studies of the City of El Paso. The studies should
determine how much water would be required to maintain the wetlands, whether
recharge could be accomplished, and whether the wetlands could be used as a
part of the sewage treatment process. EPA responded by noting that no deci-
sion had been made in regard to the award of grant funds for the HBRP. The
environmental impacts of various alternatives, including the maintenance of a
7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO COORDINATION FINAL EIS
wetlands area, are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of the EIS. The majority of
comments have supported the applicant's current proposal, to use all of the
reclaimed wastewater for recharge. In addition, the Citizens' Advisory Com-
Imittee for the Northeast Plant adopted the recharge alternative, without a
wetlands option, at their November 28, 1978 meeting.
EPA requested a list of endangered species from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) on September 18, 1979, and received a response identifying
endangered species on October 12, 1979 from USFWS. This response provided the
basis for a discussion of threatened or endangered species in 6.A.I (see also
Part A of Appendix I).
7.2 REVIEW OF DRAFT EIS
The Draft EIS was distributed to the public for review and comment on
IFebruary 29, 1980. The following organizations and individuals were provided
copies of the document.
Federal Offices (other than EPA)
National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Public Health Service, Dallas, Texas
U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service, Temple, Texas
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Denver, Colorado
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Dallas, Texas
Federal Highway Administration, Ft. Worth, Texas
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Dallas, Texas
Farmers' Home Administration, Washington, D.C.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Federal Aviation Administration, Ft. Worth, Texas
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Honorable John Tower, U.S. Senate
Honorable Lloyd Bentson, U.S. Senate
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Denver, Colorado
U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Corpus Christi, Texas
Bureau of Reclamation, Amarillo, Texas
Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colorado
U.S. Army Air Defense Center 4 Ft. Bliss, Fort Bliss, Texas
Small Business Administration, El Paso, Texas
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado
£jJ.S. Geological Survey, Austin, Texas
7-3
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
COORDINATION
FINAL EIS
Bureau of Reclamation, El Paso, Texas
U.S. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico
State Agencies
Texas Historical Commission, Austin, Texas
Budget and Planning Office, Austin, Texas
Texas Antiquities Commission, Austin, Texas
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas
Texas State Department of Health, El Paso, Texas
Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Austin, Texas
Texas Department of Water Resources, Austin, Texas
Texas Railroad Commission, Austin, Texas
Other Agencies
Planning Department, City of El Paso, Texas
El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, El Paso, Texas
West Texas Council of Governments, El Paso, Texas
International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, Texas
[""Environmental Organizations
Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas, Austin, Texas
Sportsmen's Clubs of Texas, Wichita Falls, Texas
National Audubon Society, New York, New York
National Audubon Society, Brownwood, Texas
Audubon Society, El Paso-Trans Pecos Society, El Paso, Texas
Sierra Club, Southwest Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Sierra Club, El Paso, Texas
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
Izaak Walton League of America, Arlington, Virginia
Environmental Defense Fund, East Setauket, New York
Environmental Defense Fund, Denver, Colorado
Texas Environmental Coalition, Austin, Texas
Wildlife Management Institute, Austin, Texas
Texas Archeological Society, Dublin, Texas
Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP), El Paso, Texas
Nature Conservancy, Texas Chapter, Austin, Texas
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C.
Texas Organization for Endangered Species, Austin, Texas
Texas Committee on Natural Resources, Dallas, Texas
Texas Conservation Council, Inc., Houston, Texas
Citizens Environmental Council, El Paso, Texas
American Lung Association, Trans-Pecos Area, El Paso, Texas
New Mexico Conservation Coordinating Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico
7-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO COORDINATION FINAL EIS
Other Organizations
Southeast Improvement Association, El Paso, Texas
Future Progreso Comunidad de Val Verde, El Paso, Texas
League of Women Voters, El Paso, Texas
Citizens' Advisory Committee (El Paso EIS)
El Paso Natural Gas Company, El Paso, Texas
Water Resources Research Institute, Tucson, Arizona
American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado
Mortimer Hendler, Quebec, Canada
Harry Schwartz, Worcester, Massachusetts
Havens and Emerson, Inc., Saddle Brook, New Jersey
The official 45 day review period commenced on March 14, 1980, when EPA's
Office of Environmental Review published a Notice of their receipt of the doc-
ument in the Federal Register. The review period expired on April 28, 1980.
EPA held a public hearing on the Draft EIS on the evening of April 17,
1980. The Public Notice of the hearing was published in the EQ Paso Times on
March 1, 1980. The hearing also served as the forum for public input to PSB's
facility plan.
Section 7.2.1 summarizes the input received during the comment period and
at the public hearing. Section 7.2.2 summarizes the two major issues which
were raised by the public input, and identifies the responses to these issues
which are contained in the Final EIS.
7.2.1 Input to the EIS and Facilities Plan
In 1978, the Committee evaluated the facts available to it and unanimously
made the preliminary recommendation that wastewater in Northeast El Paso be
reclaimed to potable quality and injected into the Hueco Bolson, rather than
be discharged to the Rio Grande. By split vote, the Committee also determined
that the alternative of maintaining some wetland habitat at the Northeast
plant site was not to be recommended. The discussions which led to these
votes included specific consideration of the health risks associated with
recycling and the relative benefits to be obtained from water used for
municipal versus ecological purposes.
The CAC was included on the distribution list for the Draft EIS. A CAC
meeting was held prior to the EPA public hearing, on the afternoon of April
17, 1980. At that meeting the Committee reaffirmed its previous positions
regarding Case 6. By unanimous vote the Committee indicated support for re-
charge (Case 6) rather than river discharge (Case 3). The Committee then dis-
cussed the alternative of retaining a portion of the wildlife habitat at the
Northeast ponds, as part of a recharge project. Although the previous vote
indicated strong minority support for retaining the habitat, the discussions
on April 17th indicated that such support was of a general nature, and did not
extend to a specific alternative such as 6A. Committee members who previously
had supported the habitat stated that, upon further consideration of the mat-
7-5
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
COORDINATION
FINAL EIS
ter, the specific circumstances of a recharge project in Northeast El Paso
made it inappropriate to maintain a habitat at the site. The specific circum-
stances mentioned included: a) the overriding need to increase water supplies
for the municipal needs of El Paso; b) the conflicts between a wildlife use of
the site and the possible trespass which would occur through PSB and military
lands; c) the fact that the habitat was an accidential by-product of a pollu-
tion event, and not a natural phenomenon. Support for the principal of main-
taining habitat was still evident; however, it was felt that the factors which
led to the support for recharge were so compelling when compared to the
wildlife attributes in question that recharge should recieve 100 percent
support, without any diversion of water for other purposes. By a vote of 10
to 0, with 1 abstention, the Committee voted to support Case 6, and to reject
Case 6A.
Six citizens gave oral testimony at the Public Hearing on April 17, 1980.
The testimony is summarized in Part 4 of Appendix I (begining on page Appen-
dix-26). A complete, formal transcript of the hearing is on file in the fol-
lowing locations: EPA Region VI, Dallas Texas; PSB offices, El Paso Texas.
All the issues which were presented in the testimony were also discussed in
the written comments which are reviewed in section 7.2.2.
Seventeen letters were received by EPA as of April 28, 1980. All the let-
ters are reproduced in full in Part 5 of Appendix I (beginning with an index,
on page Appendix-28). Five letters recommended the selection of Case 6A
and/or the mitigation of wildlife impacts of Case 6; one letter (from a CAC
member) summarized the arguments favoring Case 6. Many of the letters had no
substantive comment and/or offered minor editorial comments. Two letters pre-
sented detailed substantive comments related to the contents of the Draft
EIS. These letters addressed two specific issues which were also raised at
the Public Hearing: the concern over impacts to the wildlife habitat at the
Northeast El Paso wastewater ponds; and a recommendation that PSB should
undertake a more ambitious program to conserve drinking water. The specific
responses to these comments are provided along with the letters in Appendix I,
and are discussed in general in Section 7.2.2. The Table of Contents of this
Final EIS (see Section 2) identifies all pages in the Draft EIS which have
been revised in response to the comments.
7.2.2 Issues Raised by Public Comments
Based on the testimony received at the Public Hearing and through written
comments it was determined that the Draft EIS required three types of changes
before a Final EIS could be issued.
1. Editorial changes were made to improve the accuracy and clarity of the
document. These changes were suggested in the written comments (Part 5 of
Appendix I) or were identified in the review of the document by the EIS con-
sultant. All pages containing such changes are reproduced in full in the
Final EIS.
7-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO COORDINATION FINAL EIS
2. Substantive changes were made to address concerns about the elimina-
tion of wetland habitat at the existing wastewater overflow ponds which would
occur if the Applicant's preferred alternative is implemented.
3. Substantive changes were required to respond to the recommendation
that PSB implement a more ambitious water conservation program.
Issue; Habitat Preservation. This issue is discussed in detail in Sec-
tions 5.4.1 and 6.4.2.Severalcomments received at the Public Hearing and in
writing were in support of Case 6A and/or the mitigation of wildlife impacts.
There is agreement among those supporting either Case 6 or Case 6A that: a)
recharge is the cost-effective alternative when compared to river discharge;
b) the wildlife impacts from a recharge project are significant; c) and, for
ecological reasons it would be desirable to select Case 6A or to otherwise
mitigate the impacts if practicable. The issue, therefore, is whether or not
it is possible to implement recharge in combination with a wildlife habitat,
and, if not, whether other mitigation measures are practicable.
As discussed on pages 5-25 to 5-28, the Citizens Advisory Committee gave
careful consideration to this issue. Their determination was that the diver-
sion of water from a recharge project would lessen the cost-effectiveness of
the project and should not be undertaken unless for compelling reasons. While
in principal the protection of wildlife habitat or the mitigation of wildlife
impacts would represent an appropriately compelling basis for decreasing pro-
ject effectiveness, there are numerous drawbacks to the use of the Northeast
site for wildlife ponds. These drawbacks were considered to be substantial,
such that the diversion of water for wildlife would be acceptable only if in
association with another site. No suitable alternative sites were found in
the project area. Consequently, the Committee made the determination that
Case 6 should be selected over Case 6A. Based on the same factors considered
by the Committee, the PSB has selected Case 6 as the preferred action and pro-
poses no mitigation for the impacts of a recharge project. EPA now proposes
to support the PSB decision, by providing grant funds for Case 6.
The record of the public participation process clearly shows that the
wildlife issue was the most widely debated question considered by the Com-
mittee, the PSB, and EPA. There are many factors which normally make the
protection of wildlife the highest priority in a federal action. In the
particular case of a Northeast El Paso recharge project, there were site-
specific adverse aspects of the wildlife habitat area which resulted in a
lower priority being assigned to that habitat. Further, the recharge project
itself placed an extremely high environmental and economic value on the muni-
cipal water which would be obtained from the recycling of wastewater. On
balance, the decision was made that the circumstances in Northeast El Paso
were such that the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial project
would be one involving a total commitment to recharge, without diversion of
water for a wildlife habitat, and without diversion of this resource for the
mitigation of the significant wildlife impacts which will occur once the
recharge project is operational. As discussed on p. 7-6, the final
recommendation had unanimous support of the voting members of the Committee.
7-7
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
COORDINATION
FINAL EIS
To summarize, the Citizens Committee, in speaking for the general public
in El Paso, viewed recharge as an necessary solution to both water quality and
water supply problems of the project area. Because this solution can be
accomlished only through a substantial allocation of resources (money, energy,
chemicals), it was considered important to ensure the project achieves max-
imum benefits. The diversion of wastewater from recharge for purposes of
maintaining a wildlife habitat or mitigating adverse impacts was seen as a
step which would reduce the effectiveness of a recharge project without, in
this specific instance, commensurate environmental gains.
Issue; Water Conservation. Testimony {oral and written) by the Sierra
Club was received in f^avor of implementing a strong water conservation program
in conjunction with a recharge project. This testimony indicated that the PSB
had available to it a number of measures which would effectively reduce the
demand for expensive municipal water resources, and that such reductions in
demand are necessary given the long-term water supply needs of the community.
It was suggested that a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use could be
achieved. With such conservation, per capita wastewater flows could be re-
duced compared to present levels (in contrast to the projection given in the
facilities plan, which indicates a nearly-constant per capita flow in the
future). The following specific recommendations were made.
1. PSB should develop an active program for leak detection and repair.
2. Codes should be amended to require insulation of hot-water pipes in
new and replacement construction, and, where practical, to require that water
heaters be centrally located.
3. Codes should be amended to prohibit sales of non-water saving clothes
and dish washers, and hose-washing of hard surfaces.
4. The accuracy of industrial and commercial meters should be checked.
5. Amend the code to prohibit hose-washing of hard surfaces.
6. Hours should be established when lawn irrigation would be permitted.
7. A cost-effective retrofitting program should be established to cut
toilet and shower use.
8. More effective educational programs should be developed.
Discussions with PSB indicate fundamental agreement that water conserva-
tion is of paramount importance as a water management technique in El Paso.
The PSB has provided the following specific responses to the recommendations
made by the Sierra Club (Hickerson, 1980).
1. The present program to replace leaking pipes costs $600,000 per year
and has cut system loses from about 16 percent in 1965 to 11 percent in 1978.
7-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO COORDINATION FINAL EIS
2. The City's Energy Advisory Board has under consideration a code
modification to accomplish the objectives of recommendation number 2.
3. Water-saving machines are widely sold and used. The PSB considers
economic incentives (increasing water and energy costs) to be the most
effective method for ensuring the use of such appliances.
4. A new type of industrial-commercial meter is being purchased to give
better accuracy and larger service in large water uses.
5. PSB has not observed large-scale hose-washing of hard surfaces, except
at gasoline service stations. Regulation of hose-washing would require con-
siderable manpower, for an uncertain benefit.
6. PSB anticipates the need for the regulation of lawn irrigation in the
1995-2000 period, when peak demand will approach system capacity. In the
meantime, it is felt that the new rate structure (especially designed to
discourage lawn watering) should be given a chance to work.
7. Retrofitting programs elsewhere in the U.S. have had only a small
direct effect on per capita water use, although they have served to increase
public awareness.
8. PSB wishes to take any steps appropriate to education of citizens
about the need for water conservation. PSB will review any specific recommen-
dations for additional measures which might be used to augment the existing
program.
A more general response to the comments requires consideration of three
questions: a) is a 20 percent reduction in per capita use reasonable to ex-
pect; b) would greater conservation lead to markedly reduced wastewater flows
to a Northeast El Paso sewage treatment plant; and c) if the answers to either
a or b are positive, is there any aspect of the proposed action which should
be modified or reevaluated?
There are at least two reasons why, even with implementation of a more
vigorous conservation program, the PSB does not expect to see a decrease in
per capita water use (Hickerson, 1980).
1. The City of El Paso has one of the lower rates of per capita water use
in the desert southwest, indicating that citizens are already conscious of the
need to conserve water. El Paso was one of the first U.S. cities to have all
customers metered. The protection of ground water through use of higher-cost
surface water was begin in the 1940's. Regulations to restrict the size of
residential water meters are in full effect. Recent changes have led to adop-
tion of new customer connection charges and water rates that penalize custom-
ers who use large amounts of water. The long-standing summer discount in
water price has been eliminated, even though such elimination was in the past
politically controversial. All these factors show that there is an effective
water conservation program already underway, and that the present rate of per
7-9
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
COORDINATION
FINAL EIS
capita water use is much less than it would be if the program was not in op-
eration. Consequently, while further steps may be appropriate, the additional
savings would not be expected to be as great as reductions accomplished in
areas which do not have a long history of conservation.
2. In the specific case of El Paso, there is at least one factor which
causes increases in municipal water use, but no change in regional water use.
This is the tendancy for those with their own water supply to gradually aban-
don that supply in favor of using City water. One example is the use of river
water for irrigation by homes in the valley area. During dry years these
homes depend upon the municipal water system to supply considerable amounts of
irrigation water. As the areas become more densely populated and urbanized,
the tendancy is for the use of water from the irrigation district to de-
crease. This also results in increased use of municipal water. Another
example is the major industries in El Paso who have for many years supplied
their own water needs by private wells. Over time these industries have been
converting to the municipal supply, thus increasing the apparent per capita
water use. Specific examples include ASARCO and Standard Oil.
The net effect of the above factors is to limit the extent to which water
conservation programs would cause a decrease in per capita water use. The
projection used in the facilities plan and EIS is that conservation will tend
to offset the effect of factor number two, above, and that the past trend of
increasing per capita use will end. Previous forecasts which anticipated ever
higher rates of per capita water consumption have been replaced, by a more
ambitious projection that use will stabilize at the present-day rate. Because
water use is already relatively low, and because of the effects of irrigation
and industrial use discussed above, it is not expected that per capita use
would decline. Although such declines could occur, a cautious approach to the
planning of facilities would not base design decisions on such declines. With
specific reference to wastewater flows, two factors suggest that there is no
assurance that water conservation would cause flow reductions beyond the
levels utilized in the facilities plan.
1. Most of the effects of water conservation programs would be reflected
in reduced outdoor use. Only a few of the measures described on p. 7-8 would
be expected to cause a reduction in wastewater flow.
2. El Paso's relatively low rate of per capita water use is reflected by
a low value for wastewater flow. For example, per capita waste flows in
Albuquerque New Mexico, a city with many basic similarities to El Paso,
average 110 gpcd (EPA, 1977), This is 10 percent more than the citywide
average in El Paso. Northeast El Paso has a present waste flow which is even
lower, 85 gpcd. If Northeast El Paso did not already have a conservation
conscious public, and experienced flows of 110 gpcd, then a 20 to 30 percent
reduction in wasteloads might be forecast. However, given the low per capita
flow of 85 gpcd, there is no firm basis for projecting substantially lower per
capita flows in the near future.
7-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO COORDINATION FINAL EIS
r
In summary, PSB feels that El Paso already has made progress toward water
conservation, and that additional measures would not accomplish as much
additional progress as experienced elsewhere. Further conservation is
necessary, but projections as to the quantitative effect of such conservation
should not be based on situations where water use was initially high, and the
potential for conservation was great. Because the prospects for substantial
reductions in per capita water use and waste flows are not firm, it appears to
be reasonable to base decisions on the water use and flow factors developed in
the facilities plan.
7.3 PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS
I Table 7-1 £/ lists the individuals who prepared this document, performed
consultation, prepared the background report (Wilson, 1980), or otherwise as-
sisted with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Resumes are on file
with Lee Wilson and Associates, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Personnel of EPA, Region VI, who participated in the review of this docu-
ment prior to public distribution were Mr. Clinton B. Spotts, Mr. Norman
Thomas, Ms. Darlene Owsley, and Mr. Gene Wossum.
a. Table 7-1 is unchanged; refer to page 7-5 of the Draft EIS.
7-11
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO APPENDICES FINAL EIS
APPENDIX I
RECORD OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW
\.
1. Members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee:
Mrs. Lawrence Duncan Mrs. Mildred Smith
3120 Devil's Tower 9520 Rutledge
El Paso, Texas 79904 El Paso, Texas 79924
Mr, John Foster Dr. Thomas G. Barnes
6044 Gateway East UTEP, Univ. Avs. & Hawthorne
El Paso, Texas 79905 El Paso, Texas 79902
Mr. Roberto Anchondo General Lloyd Leech (Ret.)
1715 Montana 2925 Stone Edge
El Paso, Texas 79902 El Paso, Texas 79904
Mr. Bill Resch Mrs. Helen Tullis
4531 Bliss 5808 Rob White
El Paso, Texas 79903 El Paso, Texas 79935
Mr. Haskell R. Street Mr. Merle Lee
8401 Hopewell 3406 Titanic
El Paso, Texas 79925 El Paso, Texas 79904
Mr. Bob Moreno Mr. John McKellips
9811 Dyer 9348 Dyer
El Paso, Texas 79924 El Paso, Texas 79924
Mr. Pat Hagarty Mr. Joe Wilson
9549 Dyer 3621 Hercules
El Paso, Texas 79924 El Paso, Texas 79904
2. Responses to Notice Of Intent.
EPA issued its Notice Of Intent to prepare this EIS on July 26, 1978.
Letters in response were received from the following:
George C. Marks - Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service
Louis S. Wall - Assistant Director, Office of Review and Compliance,
Denver, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
3. Correspondence related to coordination regarding archeological resources
I and threatened or endangered species.
Appendix-22
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Texas Historical Commission
Box 12276, Capitol Station
Austin, Texaa 78711
Tnim Larimer
£xccutfu« Director
March 5, 1976
Mr. John T. Hickerson
General Manager
El Paso Water Utilities
Public Service Board
320 South Campbell Street
P.O. Box 511
El Paso, Tx. 79999
Dear Mr. Hlckerson:
Enclosed please find a final draft of Archeologica*! Survey Report 15,
Archeological testing at the Northeast Seuage Treatment Plant, El
Paso Countyt Texas, by Warren M. Lynn, submitted to you in fulfill-
ment of our October 3, 1975 proposal for a subsurface archeological
Investigation at the Northeast Treatment Plant. Formal printing of
this technical report will soon be completed and several copies will
be forwarded to your offices. The printed report will contain two
additional figures concerning proveniences and distributions of re-
covered cultural materials.
As stipulated in the introduction and concluding section of this
report, the two investigated sites have been found to be ineligible
for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and need
not be maintained as State Archeological Landmarks.
We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with your agency for
the preservation of the cultural heritage of Texas. If we can be
of any further service, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
Robertjj. Mallouf
Director
Department of Survey Archeology
RJMrpc
Enclosure
Appendix-23
-------
* o ut c 3 *i • * fj *r- £> je p
Cl d, i NH> in X *•* M vt ** M +JF
«ei m V* p O 4J 4J "O t- X *' TJ
*J t U LCMO>~^OU«|-a«J.
£ w ej jc •— e3 o 3 a c ** «i *=> c> o
"o et e ** tn »J e « *j-w*j^rtjC"** *"
M c o c «j
«r-^ O •»- M M •«- X! VI k. M
ui u •» c. M b> ^j^vi^-^+joc;
Cm O jO 3 T3 <»- L O
<*- O *J C —* 11 •" O L. *- 3 f
O W C O "~ fl (y n -^ o n ^ i-i
O><-*^>Cj L» "O *- J3 V *Q
tncuMUx: i- p "u KL.MIL
CO BJ ^ *J U">(. X C M(7i
«QM Q«pia o o vi 5 y i—
«-p«^5 .-(u-ai. v*o»
C^L>U-C^1C X3 J3 O •- *4C
5-f 0-&.2
•31
' 'tS t*
i QI C
?g.
C «l C I
O tl * I
fc^l*
?,r?£§
u v- e> o •
c "u ** £ c
M «J
*5^c c"
1 «l O «J
b5-e
— •» a/
L
O M
o
c C -a— S I i
ova* 4O>->+J4
O W O +>e *^ »fl Mtiv'ig^.^."
WCr*7 O V- IT> C C C H- Q.J
*a A O u *> c o g-^ t?i
i/t^o\Mw oic:**-^->cvuvc«4
w<2 o£ T"iS.^No£^3W|
3 Of O
t -^ C
: u ••
I ti > J
: n -j O
CC ^m-vn*i=»
«->C Q C O +J •*-
v> O W R) >t
g
s;
,Zt.J!«E
i. a »-* 4* t*
-
i- W C -
ja L. *> s a
a, M 6 vi
c c v
O M J2 M U
i. o **• ^ *^ C «t
* X O "D O~
+J *- *V T3 C_ K t-
f j U C iy o CJ
^ t > «> 11 Ci 3_
t. C u -^ " " ^
_
O TJ 1 01
L. 5 O V
V O rC *^
fj +* f V *J
I W & L **- >, U
— KJ o ** >*. v ix
CMC
v . C i
u fl) O 4
S1 „ •;
i— c'5
-2S'
a £ i* •
0- CM
U-i Cl'w'y
c c. x:^ 5
Zoo '
*. v o *"
a C >.
C^ ^ M Irt ^«
?e -a « c «
(M *J
r-- «A
i S «• 0«
O C i. u I-*
C O V ••- 01
> il * L. OJ W
UJSF8~S
O ;:; O O ** L
X *-H L O in •»
g
X
2
Ul
Q
^ IB
(« V
0 0
5 -*
41 ki
u n -tf
V V 4
^i a L* 44
S"
155i
•«- • X
w u -a
u -o o c
b. ti a
3 V C 0*
U IM O a
0 4> ^ Cu
»-« 4 V til
c X.
^
s
&&
a s
•• S"3
U 7 -*4
u < u.
Appendix-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
J3
"
•g
V
4-*
at
«-*
V-
Cl
*•»
S
o
0
4
v
T3
|
VI
a
M
1
3:
"t
1 E
Is
""!•"
o •
.g
C. -r-
^ "
T!
1_
V
X
TJ
•9
M
•c
C.
tA
1
g
1
£
O
jC
4-»
i1
L.
O
*•»
P ,
» 1
u rj
vt
VI
l.
c
b
i.
O
M
I.
O IJ0
TJ D
f- —
03 •
41 .£3
•^ CL
«*- X
*/» U
.p. Q
f U
v»"o
*"c
0
S3
a! x
3
(
u •
-r. O
X U
«u ^
*- St
of
*j or
3
U 3
V J)
*»•
"9 V»
w
<*- O
(C U
ll
<£
E: o
4*
e* t
i C
c
0
o
e.
?
o
c
Q
41
cc
1.
CD
O
£
tj
u
en
l! M
»-» f
U L.
4JCL
• O
T3
(U
u
SS:
•t O
It 4J
c u
o^-
0 "-
o —
sr°.
> 4>
h. G
in E
||
HI
c ra
*>
XT 3
1- «
gf Q t
T! J
IP
•4 C X
TJ 3 C
C O .T.
uto
«D tft
a:l3
•o
u
tt C
4) O
o: u
m
i U.
v>
SI
U. O
"S
I4
t
u
4 T!
Is
q c
"c ?
« c
*!
a 19
£•£
iTS
T U
w
C • 0
5 "£
0 1 S
0.
41
o
VI
c
o
4-1
U
c
g
1
o
c
£1
O.
X
4^
U
u
5
u
I
«
c
X
O
H-
VI
-•J
ja
w
u.
fj
o
•4-
T?
'c
\ i
fl vt
V t-*
*4- <^
O 4'
TJ 5
L
ca *
!^'S
cn o
5
J«-» 41 vi -i— a
O 01 m
«j *J L. c P- n ^
VI *J *J U C
fe « ° °
o ^ •• -—
^- A Q C CL L ^>*
< D X Ovj"5 tnC^S
41 — u — EJ o ^; C
e-fi*^ »n c^^ii ^ *j ^
— >-^-C4lX— CiJQ. wl
(04l 41 C *J O 4J Jfl +J -C
^SWf—WCCTtJ *C&_
8 w 5 *.-«•** •— x o i_ _ _
CJ^34J(7SU-«-VJQ4J4J»-t. ~ •* 41 C -5 « — Q. "
c 4JivbOpr;-qaviuJ^- c — £ ^ c p « co»
•*• ^J^uw>L-4JjC---^- -O p a. ^— Sl°t>_^Cc
£I£!^u4j38*"
41 4> O °O O 1) 4-> IJ '^- 4-1 __ ^ ^__
5*i*^o"a*fc^'5'9>c^^ 'uL'S^^t's^vi
** .. 8 •** Z ~ "00=3 5?»- •= _ •*___..«
!clv!h§*^^§
£>23v»»»-ulj
U *^ JD Vf
•» »- f- VI ^
C7» *J -^
b *~» c «b •w"~'O-C'^X3
G^-
*.* fci crcj
U£2 O O O 3 3 cni-
CMCato*—— o 01
nj u
tt i. p
e ^j i^ *~ ^ ^*v 'O ciuot ^~ **-»- w •'• •—* c~. vi
•*- 41 0 £1 U&l 41 *J t; 4-< C £L4-'U« tf V -fl « •"
U Ct M (4 X° £cfi"c0C° *o3b^*j2*(3*^TJ — ^
4* j: c tj c v« o u v. vt bv*cncoooi4^c
ovi|uu^tiT3«-^o u j^mo.c'clo'Qa.u
— LHO>-C^-iOL^CO 4J^ j; !_ OJ U
TIUO-U^ o _'"~^p UT34l4-»X^'-J
tll^fe"
(b, •*- 4>
jC C* vt C O 01 O
s •) Dr * c
r.-.liSS01?0
W T3 01 4J
°^§
c 7 o
•»- V> 0)
t- » M
E. uj C
Of O
-j*- a
412 g
S£S
•t- U C VI O O 41 £ p-CL*-4>*
a. .c 6 i- a ;:
flj •— i. Irt U 4/1 4>* •— U
UJ O. C <•- O) U 3 41
X a x a o t.
-- -, - X Q O
— - — L.tf1 A-tAJTIUVlf+J1*-!-
> d. -r- -^ C ^4- vi t» X w D^ O ^ *n ft* O U O Cl
«J L-4»-OOviui 4J 4J O. .— «l£.O.— 4JO.WtCIC
& > u—u^ o i. ^- o e*u 5j^T»'aTI«aJc1?i^w
vi*-> at SJ cri ** fl u Ck. o -^ *j -*- x» x ovi<«
u«x>Xij O-M- vit-io^-evia- M
i: & *~ c ;' 35 t. M *<.*£*-* o " o *?'•-' **j *- c* rr f>
u*^r>o u o »j o >— (j>c: ex uu a --* j; *-» ™
5 ,* co j: " u * 4J i- 4ffCl4-> •— ' w
ai i-* 4^ 0) o *- v
cL « c * i: u u •
^4 U'Q-r- « LJ-*»
c S"a « « u «/ £""
o 2 vi 2 v a.a 4J jC
•*• * »- 6 LO VI W>
rt G -o C & t) c •*-
•0 U — Z3 *^ O 2
u vt s~ .a » n i
*- J. 4-» —- f J 4J 1? TJ M (J •*- « OV1V>4JOV1=IL.^
<4ir<4»wiil. j*, e c — u * c* a-«
u i. —i^-. n. f^-. +-» u c i: 3 4«io|ujJcxti>Mo
oo«-o^i"t*iMaju3«-*n —^-dj^o.u---ou
_J.- Irt-ftOHi-JCff^t; (J^l II 3 C A — *
•Q *> O C •» X 4)
i; c t o w»- u CA
*^ ^ *- «J O O
41 C *• U -^ i^
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
APPENDICES
FINAL EIS
4. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING NORTHEAST EL PASO
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, APRIL 17, 1980
Testimony of JOHN SPROUL, representing the El Paso Regional Group of the
Sierra Club
Mr. Sproul commended the Public Service Board for preparing now for
wastewater recycling which will be necessary in the future. The Sierra Club
recommends that EPA fund a recharge project for Northeast El Paso. The
preferred alternative in the EIS should not be funded; rather, two
stipulations should be attached to any grant for a recycling project.
1) The Public Service Board should be required to incorporate into the
recharge project a more ambitious plan for water conservation. Rather than
merely maintaining present levels of consumption, a goal should be set to
reduce per capita consumption by 15 to 20%.
2) The project should include maintenance of a wetland at the recharge
site (as Case 6A of the EIS). The present ponds and overflow areas are a
major positive step towards replacing the natural wetlands which have been
eliminated in the El Paso area. Although recycling of water for human
consumption is important, maintenance of the wetland is yet more important,
given the uniqueness and value of the habitat to wildlife. An allocation of
600,000 gpd to the wetland would represent only 1% of the pilot project sewage
flow and only 0.6% of potential citywide future flow. The lack of
recreational benefit at the present site is a non-issue. The wetland should
be maintained for ecological reasons; any recreational benefits would be
secondary.
Mr. Sproul pointed out that the wildlife cannot raise a voice for
themselves among those clamouring for water. Support for the Sierra Club
position is indicated by the fact that 5 of the 12 votes of the Citizen's
Committee were for maintenance of the wetlands. Mr. Sproul offered the
assistance of the Sierra Club to set up a management program for the wetlands.
Testimony of JOE WILSON, member of the Citizen's Committee
member of the Fort Bliss Rod and Gun Club
The wetland in its present location is an attractive nuisance. It is
close to the road, and thus easily accessible to four-wheel drive vehicles and
motorcycles. One's life is endangered in the area due to indiscriminate
discharge of firearms. Mr. Wilson would discourage maintaining a wetland in
relationship to the recharge site. He hoped that a good alternative site
could be found, though they have not located such a site to date.
Appendix-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTHEAST EL PASO APPENDICES FINAL EIS
Testimony of JO ELLEN WAROLIN, member of the Audubon Society
Ms. Warolin favored saving some wetland area.
Testimony of JANE FOWLER, member of the Audubon Society
Ms. Fowler expressed support for maintaining the wetland habitat. She
stated that we are not doing a good job as trustees of the environment for
future generations. If we destroy wildlife habitats and force wildlife to
extinction, with what shall we replace them? Animals have value apart from
whether we can use them, and they have a right to exist.
Testimony of ROBERT P. BLEICHER, president of the El Paso Trans-Pecos
Audubon Society
The Audubon Society hopes for a recharge project which will also leave
some area for wildlife. While they realize that some change must take place,
they urge a compromise between change and maintaining a place for wildlife.
There should be some balance so that life itself can have more meaning. Mr.
Bleicher stated that there used to be thousands of migrating species at the
Horizon Lake area, which is now drained. He is concerned that one by one, all
such areas will be eliminated until there is no place left for stopover or
refuge for wildlife. "Our main concern is that ... we just do not wipe out
all other forms of life so that all we have is each other to look at".
Mr. Bleicher pointed out that the nuisance aspect of the existing area is
caused by people, not by the birds nor the people concerned with maintaining
that environment.
Testimony of WEDAD J. SMITH
Mr. Smith indicated that priorities on water should be in the order:
people, birds, commercial. Industry should provide their own water.
Appendix-27
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO APPENDICES FINAL EIS
5. Index to written comments submitted in response to publication of Draft
EIS. m
Appendix Page
A. Letters requiring substantive responses, a/ I
1. John Sproul, Sierra Club, El Paso
Regional Group Appendix-29 •
2. Raymond Churan, Regional Environ- |
mental Officer, U.S. Dept. Interior Appendix-35
B. Letters containing recommendations or editorial comments. I
]. Pam Neilsen Appendix-39
2. Jane Fowler Appendix-39 •
3. George Baumli, International Boundary and |
Water Commission Appendix-40
4. Magdalena Heisl Appendix-40 M
5. Joe Wilson Appendix-41 •
6. Donald E. Harley, Budget and Planning
Office, Governor of Texas Appendix-42
a. Texas Dept. of Health Appendix-42 I
b. Texas Dept. Community Affairs Appendix-43 •
C. Letters containing no recommendations or editorial comments. •
1. Margaret H. Nellor, County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County Appendix-45 _
2. Robert D. Raisch, U.S. Forest Service Appendix-45 I
3. W.L. Hall, U.S. Dept. Transportation Appendix-46 ™
4. B.L. DeBerry, State Dept. Highways Appendix-46
5. Charles D. Travis, Texas Parks and •
Wildlife Department Appendix-47 I
6, George C. Marks, U.S. Soil Conservation Service Appendix-47
7. Louis S. Wall, Advisory Council on •
Historic Preservation Appendix-48 I
8. Billy G. McKenzie, Dept. Of Housing
and Urban Development Appendix-48 _
9. Jasper Coombes, Albuquerque District I
Pnrnc: nf Fnninppr<; flnnpnrliy_AQ B
Corps of Engineers Appendix-49
I
a. Many comments in these letters have resulted in changes to the Draft EIS;
the changes are contained in the Final EIS. Responses to comments are given •
in this appendix only when the comment did not lead to a change in the EIS or I
the change occurred on pages other than indicated in the comment. If there is
no response to a comment which is contained in a letter, then the change _
suggested by the comment has been made and can be found on the appropriate I
page of the Final EIS. •
Appendix-28 •
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J,
EX
> 1C
-^ X
- 01
y.
o
— a.
K££^X
fs±\
^U oj) Y
f cf^ln
o^-sia /
< UJ a. o:»^A
\ QS «T >Q
W^
V
U3
|
O)
0)
DC
»
S
O
Cn
*E
I- C
O O
(A ID *•>
^.£ fei
o -a *j
O CL
• U
O 00 —
CO I/* * «
Cn c «« *•> 4J
- |"g E
*^ •*- 13 c •—
U P— C O UJ
a. o o t-
' 5> > O
<*» U ft) d CM
I/) 01
j£
4J *J
u u
nt O
r«
w>
*— o>
(0 —
4J *>
e —
1 u
L, U.
> *>
**- tO
OJ
•«-> £
o] *J fc-
4-1 1-4 O
S t
2 • gj
01 -C
•a c *J
e) c u
n -o -c
S. *
E^ffi
C- X 4-»
1C
W (/) £
O *^ Oi
y- "o
^-» irt 4>J
(/>«)•*-
UJ X
-O 01 1A
-— ^
4->
IDr- >*-
4V UJ O
LTT
4-» "O
^
-------
I > «W 0.
II 3 -H „
' Si Ul O
i Q" .,-f
I -H A> £3 *
La O 3
8 §.
C VI T)
w a c •
M 5
s
o «3 :
O -H « -H
u rt u
CJ Of 01 111
JC O JZ ^
oJ M 4J
Ct» M ,«3
0 -t - q
•rf r-4 U-l Q
4-* *ti O O
-H >H
U IJ V -C
ac c u
CJ O -H
58."^
nf v
n e
w I
i n > u
i .O V Q
i O w "-»
iS O
duo
id Qt
w u
s «-s
W & M
W *J O
c
- «
fi M I*
U V
-H JJ
•;*!
o u
*3 g
O 3 C
U C C O
» 3 3 -H
ID — R »'
^ *^ O r~
O I l~
O -3"-
§
I .
U
W &-Q "
*-» re c i
tf> S- flj
S O */> £
%_ UJ J
1C 0.0
•M C
a. Q .E: m
u *^ "E.
|Q C OJ X
O "- Q>
wi E MJ •*-
j= a> i- 19
4-1 i. cr. o> c
^ g-0 > i-
O (U Q. »/* -*-1
r- C O O «O
o; -^ g* «*
k. « O* 4/1
(O
•D flJ • t
tft J3Z 0 -G
> tfl 4-1 3
0) *« c «/i
•o^" ° *a. **
r- *J C 0)
3 10 .«• 1/1 i—
O -C OJ A
•rls^ ^
^- w — tj T
"O tu cr
i— S -a; -M c.
C '1-
fl' E O
•o
*~ "" *n
'SS g
C Q>
.;: o
•U 00 r-
CT ** S
c"^
4-> (y v«
U Of W
C 4-1 V
(L *J J-
CT> C O O
C 4^
?^-- o »
TJ O ^
-f ui -o e w» c
2 r = o c n
.,- ,— ._ o ? JO 3
O g ' < ^ "O "=
— i/) v> s s
§1/1 QJ O I- *^
.z: *— n
. (-, 4-> <_' C\ JZ OJ 4J
O l/> -o
c i/> m
= g* «
Or- a> *
S'ic"0 Ul
0*0 flJ
L. *— i—
O C 3 X)
iw o O «
"- U r-
a> E d aj
o*?S O •" i cn ^-^ "** F—
iDi— ^CJ— -D *.1(U^IO*"CC c.
» 4» j_» ^ _C -J "O VlTJ *J^3'^- o
"eoa'i^So ^-ftUre-'irtE cr
^- ,— . . «j 01 "S.^ UOOJCUQ,' *JO-s. i:ot- o:
>. J- " - C «T
(D v»"
•»— o
a; er
c ra r«-
V OJ i/i
€ •* **
ft- o •—
e 4-»
5 "*^ "
•I? C\j 1 E D^ ft
"* £}S^ *
eu cn o cr
O ra o u ra
C 1-
2 a
u
oi" csj
l_ LT)
JC (U
*j i- v
t& s
in ^- ^T
M CM
QJ *O «
tj c m
C r? Qj
pro T>
Ul «A C
*•«- RJ
*^» Cl ^
•u
M C i/l
"* L? C
iO di *^
tn •*- ••
"» I
t. £ a
£ L.
c cr
o *J «
u a
— o -
SO *r
CM CV
C * '
c co in
ra «r
tn QJ
-_» rrn QI » O
CJ tJlt, a.
^ CJ t»- ^D C O S—
U*U t-'O D.— *JJZ"O OJ CJ
«9CJL. C *^W1"-3.£Zj "^
c-r-oi-'rac-1 f = y^uw1^
c f^ id ra u EL: re » *"• c w iZc.-*-iCj JTJ
^- o t— -*J QJ o »— "- cx-p- u ra •—
*d »-» jCl -^ Q >=**-t«Q> "O Oi
4j(^(F-^(j"'-£!*j ^ JS-54-^jB S
!•;!!""! | i-^lsi s
Q>r-*J(U>, J3'«""- U u J» ' — If*
!sox:%-c: QJC i- 3t»3C> aj
oCutJ3'*-'z:'t5 •" w o •— •»- cn
nj
O
0 -Cr-
S "-5
£( *—.
O r— t
= C- fl:
c,- >
a. u —
^ ra re
O O CJ
i*- 1/1 ra
o"^;
i U J±
•O £- ^.
t E 10
•*- '*~ O.
^- .— o
55"
=:' c 1-
S r- C
Q C
£ V QJ
4-3
-^ • U
•*J CJ
«J U "
CL C* —
CJ — 1 «/i
u c c
u i- c
»D C. U
-J O «C
O C73D. •
C 5- UJ >«£
t
i^ X *J &
O U C Ifl
u a.y, QJ ^ g_c g. ^ 2 *w c = a-
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-
'•S i
ID *—
r— 4->
Is
U E
C3c
§5.2
•^ re ifl
tn £ w.
W 3
3 "D L)
O r— trt
4ft 3 >^-
^ gy
c i" ^ w'E
-^ fji o" *» ?*^
t3 L. O t/1 i— t-
3l"
CJ *O Q>
(O *0 3
U 1- O
•^ QJ a* jj
3^
c-4-* c *- u-> c
(C lirt *— O (D — *O
•— re t— •-- e
a. X -^ +J O *
- 0 M
c. cu
81
tt
M
•*H
*J 41
S'g
IB O
Et!g
V C •
Sc°
85 S
<** X y
1M III 3
O u
^ M. 2 o
S e ° 3 X *
8,.2 S-S1.1^
u A t* O w
Foe o v) u
> o a;
QJ QJ -I—
*/• (/S *J
5*1
ft) ^ (A
Qr UJ Q ^ 13 > V) 0\
CO. D- (D « —* —•
3 ra a.'
u ^ * .«.*- tji
*-• 4->,— ft) m c 4* O
j! *4- m 0>--
oj O e EU «-•
_ ,
*n o *j E M
i- uc's
aj o. >flico
4J f-fc_O*^-J
OC J-i 1. — **
c o »3JjM-
4-*— c u *o ja
O JJ S- O E
ou tj^j^w
4->ID*Q
3 O)
-C
13 re
C 4>
R*—
c-
— i- O 7 c *O ^- QJ O»
3_ O GO L. "X3 n X) t» •*• ^T- 4J U
u o iS * S.^5 a
4^ O C *J « O QJ
i.*ju'5.ai'*Jp> '£•
c at QJ QJ K> a) Csi
f ul t3 •*- QJ "5 I- k0
a.' «c re ^ 3 *r- *c a>
O QJ Vi TJ T3 a
^r-S-fcjCC F-
'5 o > *>
-->caJCir4J4J
c en w i_ 4-» u «j
§CJ
o
i* W ,
, O «*
i O ^- C p— Q; Che^J
C_ «D CLtt C
& irt ^- O C ^ O!
J- re c «3 *-t
3 rt> > 1. E 0^ QJ
^ U 'M- r— *^ t- QJ
i t— •>- O. O ID O*
* g "• S"°.2 S"1
o en c • c QJ vi
d o t. ^ U vi *J
O- O*J Q.'s'S O*^
-^- CL G -^ u J
"E||^"s5
_CI"^1II«
• O L. » CJ
x e^^^g^^r
O*
£ o O
t/io <-<
O t to (J
* u- «^ ta « ^ fa.
U VI ^-> 4J *•» E
(D "COJ"-^ 1- -F~ =
ai c C a. c • o * i^
.
*J3-*-Qk.4->
Appendix-31
^ &
-X t-
gz
CO
irt i- irt
a. QJ ^
^1^
,— u i—
.- •*-» 3:
EC
—
OJ 33
*J CT I- >,
-^ fc. W .—
U *? «B
QJ 1- *B
J=
-------
E-O *-*
l/l
o>
o
u
c
I/I
t
i.
TO
1
c
c
c
»*-
0
ID
»
4*>
.0 ,«.
•F- 1,0
jc i-
ej
C. »/*
trt ic
"-* O2
C» QJ ™~
t/1 ^3 ^
CO O ^
c O"* x:
*j k.
*- s- *r § "S
t_ fO «D
3C t\l d» i
idu<» trial -commercial meters;
4
1*.
0
X
u
» accur
-C
a.1
-5
c re a» ^ T3 — QJ t— o 5 o -— * 3 > +J *J x: t. ' z
O* •-'c c: i/i xi *F- c U^JO.*B c QJ WQI ra
TOJ-»OO £ QJ U-O+J-^-S 0.^ £X)U«> 3 UJ O =
C TO i— • QJ -t-J W &^ 4^ r~~ C &* CJ C E *^ ^ OE "*
OJ -F- *J C- 4J 4-J c O C E iBfc- U T3 X C 3^O t. O TO (W -C
V- &. QJ OJ 2 Ok QJ Ol i/l fJ> O f) flj (A TO U XI ^ yi
L- rO 4~> > c U C "C O C i Q. «C *
S O ifl tl c TO < i. •" i-o TO O *J O"' QJ flJ 4-» ^ (fl C O " "^ O 3 i3 tn CT»
t -o c (/)"- ^-* f- *j x; •*-> 4-» o ••-* aj 4-> «j c £ z d. c aj TI c
d w, "^ rs & oj "- -*j QJ? rj> 4-* ^ to x) s- x: o x; -*^ > t-o *^
C t- f— Irt O C U 4V trt O "- 3 i^ tL ' ^ Q. TO 0> CP CJ =
**- 3 3 C V ^_ Q t • *r-0)QJviUk-- U C X: F— 4J 3 U O^T3 x: i^i Cr-
«/l f X (J O C QJ C A *•» fll ^ QJ l/l *C QJ *-— C Af *O "O *^- O QJ O 3 C"»
o X: *fc s- -C> 3D * ^ 3 4^ u -a i. *J 4^ a» o t- o «*- t^ -*-?. t_;
t/1 ^_ O (C t- O — ^U- 4^XkU^UCC^. (O Lf3 vi 3 O -F- 3 LJ l/l (J Q> 7 O F— £ in >*- t_ *J Q,' U *> tOr*- ••-
•»— Cl> t/l £ iJ GO O* LXt"Qt^4B> CJ Ul TO U *J ^ QJ -^ t- OJQJ * "~
o ** ajuu 4^ 4J o *JTO 0 ^ u r- irt wi e •*- w *. «3 *JM-JX:C
TO E I- CvJ E o' 'U t- -F- J£ *J X QJ ^ QJ * Q. t- * t/>iO> **-
O O XO3E -4-^{L 4-J L. CJ* Q i/) •»— F— • U ul K f C "** fc r~ O QJ •X-
QJ 0* > O- O TO G. C •— * r— -*J « Ck **- t- T- F— t^. £ • L. 3 CT LD tfl 3 S t-
fi f^ flj TO O Ol TO TO C drQV -C O QJ "O £ QV -1^ O CJ> V — S. OOJC Otflr- F^'"tnt3QJ »O r^ -o^g- CO QJ in *J m» -F- ft
TJ "t3 t-Xe V- M- O3 **» C F— •<- Lfl QJ CJ J GJ Ct -F- TO O TO ^ 4-» O " TO 1 |X LT9
Cj y TO W F-UJi-i F- U Q3 TO I- O> O X U TO TO U 4J 4-> US^OJUU r^XC CD
(Q 13 V. 4J (-3 O *-J W 'aj *" F- *4J 'JODQJ 0> *-• i^ -F-S Ul CJ C C TD CJ
O *J i, (LX >T33k- QJL 31- tTlrtfOOC Ol « 3 *•- CTi
.c t> 2 x: — cj tu c o TO xromT3o ra «3 QJ i- o TO 3 o > TO/
t | r—Xis t 1 F- "»• 3 "D TO U & |-»**-*i-Qj£; JX3E>iCkU CLtTOO' O-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
§2.
8
S
5
§ .
Is
° o
*O Oi
u ^ tu
£ *~ Ci <
s wi O
S. i~
C 32
Z o£
•** U t
(A V
= -DC-
C O
OJ re
? -=g-
(Q --* «J
O CftCJ •
ti
LiJ f) O
» (- "O
o a. a; trt
j=i ^ i
*•* Ol U O
.c at .c
"1= fS
f~ —io Oi»-
W
g
tJ
Ml
1
10
to
vt)
in
\o
rH
"I
J,
1
in
M
3
u
"O
V
V
i
Q
e
1
HI
in
C
s
U
3
U
•rl
•C
01
*
S
3
U
-H
*J
C
3
*j
q
«
£
>w
O
0
>
K
•H
based
w
g
•H
(9
.tJ
X
5
*M
j;
0
-H
C
•"*
g
0
c
o
.0
1
cr
•H
Ifl
U)
s
>9
4W
.*
IB
5
O
**
g
M
1
2
,H
>
— 1
§
*
TJ
M
U
JJ ffl
3J
O If
ty o-
x: N
c
"8 «
M C
3 *
X
'- u
C
s
1
u
o
4J
c
V
i
3
c
u
O
*s
**
5
tJ
^
>
;
>
"^
U
?
w
8
>.
, fc
U
3
c
u
-1
g
&
R
• ^
fj
.5
c
1
B
E
y
5
1
W
0
•g
"c
I
W
Of
u
•H
M
O
I
c
•o
-t
0
7
j;
j
**
*j
5
H
"5
i*.
0
V
§
1
u
C
C
o
u
u
Q.
0
U
£
•Q
I
V)
IJ
C
o in
OJ U *J r"
II
OJ
aj>a>
^ < j-: c
GJ U U
s.ea>a>
tu >
in i*j
a» 1
C"1
Q-O CJ
E O r—
(Q 4-4 •«-
"'.S
gS"
ID Ul -F-
OJ .
f « Q.1n -^
-• 1" 'o're'ij
> «
i£
J M
lP3T3>^Ha S
a.- *— L> a*.—
5 «: o c tj
••- t- "- >-.
c; •*-> c u
• O ^ C -C
SC^F— — QJ
= r04J
f- I- O O &
E 4J >, >, ^
•o^ at
•C 3 t< O 4J
cy K tu
c O "V O "
O T3 •«->!*
O —»t— r- •-> ^ O —
-<--fa
«>-Of—
tf. 01 ••- 3 UJ O CTx.^ *J
_ *c k, 4J i_ ,— t. t p— 4J »"- w 3
o o>
c>
U"-
-u
+> - v)
0 3
*J -^ CJ • O
e &J »- o —
- S-^ — * 0
tA4->f - £ ft) 4J
* •— tr U •*-» RJ »—
«3 >» Wl=l J2T3
*J J (J 0*1— — Of
-
, . '.
C K CJ C O ^- "~> O ^-
ro E +J - X- , c •*-
O S- -t-> lUC-^o^nOltJ
QJ W **- R5 O Li «^4/>Ol >
-^ Odr'C i-t»^rO»— ftJQO
1— r- >, O! CT-F- Q. •*- 2 S- ^
r.%4 *- — L. J2 ClJ CT 0.
W 1— t/)lU"-f— ••- ^
• C .£.^. JStftUJ«C4flr-
t^ i« o -u j a; u m "-=101=3
.C QJ O *<- -C O O
r- Q: "*- O -M rtS T3 5
Appendix-33
-------
revised to r
the favored
u »— «-
ovision to
or loss of
und project.
by Presiden
gation mist
uju
fljltr »^
t/ilre LU
BI 0,0
re !*•*. a) ijs,
c-lo &.ILI
£
_c
£
re
s.
u
*2
b-
o
(J
*«
c
CT
0.'
cc
o
IT
flS
CL.
LU
>,
re
4/1
»
i*-
>•
*=1
1
u
.— j
.£
Q.
CFl
J?
U
Cl
ac
c
c
o
CD
±1
"g
t*-
o
•g
re
1
CT
C
t_
o.
C
o
+J
fO
>
L-
o
V,
c
o
u
t
i.
a.-
4->
fD
X
a>
>
i/i
o
u.
F
Cji
R]
IO
s
•o
u
c
TJ
Jc
1
tp
re
i
re
re
E
C
t-
c.
s
4-1
a
L>
iZ
tv-
s
f.
f
4J
re
u
c
re
a.*-
Q C
0)
u
3:
o
i/i
c
u
o
£
Ct»
CJ
o-.
u
«c
*u
OJ
G£
e
o
if.
*c
cc
0
CJ
(U
OJ
u
0
u
c
o
re
PI
4J
i
>s
ra
•o
o
t —
in
•o
c
re
4-J
^
c
*^
.>»
"re
4-1
C
II
c
o
u
>
c
0)
>»
c
re
Vt-
0
4-1
L.
re
d
O> *n
C
OJ
*_:
O
o
o
z
4-1
*->
i
1
4-J
c=
a-
df
IS
t/i
J
&
O
(/l
re
c
O
-*-"
c
0
4-1
-J
re
t.
«s
3
U
4-1
L
A
a
>
4J
E
w;
t
c
re
4J
13
UJ
OJ
1™
4-*
3
-F-)
0
a
u.
-C
o
L.
w
o
S-
re
&.
"" • e
CT!
» o c:
rely yo
L
ss;
C Wi U (
jT F <1> •*
Appendix-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 s-
01 U: j; c s
S «: x - *
C; ^ f If. 5
*«.
tn
V
S1
a
V
g
5
4J
N
C
m
u
c
§
u
£
s.
w
5
u
m
m
u
C
•r4
0
u
V
*> J
£ q
>- 0 V
•H »J £1
1-2
a-
•a " c
•38.3
« c
5.S,
ti tr -a
>
C V 0
-H 4 U
jj n_
M r
•H U 0
X -H W
V £
S1 ?
3 * §
li«
2 v •
a -»-« tj
a ja a u
•rt u u V
f a o. •?.
" .2 i! U
t!g5
4J -0 US
?SS °
S'c.SS
"5 s a
* w s
a*I5
2.533
M "jr
o Q »
•0 « £
41 « 4> *J
U (S, C
SH So
1" |C
*J D) t)
?3
2-«
n
a
a -3 u
HUD
JHi
i- v S
Ifl V *J V
>* X c "O
*i w Qi -*
« tj III
fH ••*
« U
V ft) O
W T3 A C
•o
.2
'S
^
J
I
***0'
en
en
•»*.
o
30
1
oc
UJ
^,
LLJ
^
^
0 X
"! J
G tij
.5 "^
W 0
l_ a,
7^*-^^^
f^jj-^ /C*/
;*. ^ /
.— --'
(C
u
Z
C ~"
c ••
« CQ
u o
e, — ^.
-J (0 (S
0 c jrv
k- 0 1s*
o. *- — *.
c —
2-£5 J
C l/l C ft) u
5 *- — i
C uJ tf. I
> o I- — 1
c ^1
Z C
o *- c-
~ ^ -5 c
g ^ «, 5
- c — —
i C -0
5; -a o ~o
U < • fB
O "o z "o
" 6 | ov
o o*, c —
" >* C 3
CTi
-•? sjr
>'£—»'
! •? c -
3 IA 3 S
^> >* *S
•- : o =
c ^
-c < c' u
C w (D
C C -o 01 u u
I cwi-lt
1 C 0 _ ft
: S ^ £'-
- u «•>- «.t —
*A *- L. *-
& — c t. c
j x 9 ft fti
i ^ £ Z £
^ -
u
IE —
3 3
t) 5
(T 0
3 •—
*" ^
•;^
i i
Q.
3 -
c
£ S
c_
Q UJ
0
CD <->
'- X
4, 0
uo e
u c
o •-
C. u
re
u c
g
re
TJ
C
0
L.
3
S. Z
•o c
.•? 8
& -J
v <
c. ec
LJ
U UJ
U
c c.
c
~ If,
F.
^ ^
o ~
ft
-^ X
u «<
— (ft
« s
X —
4) Z
rc u
— ro
u:
0 f-
C
U
— c
_£ 8
rt
.
ft) >-
U M
»— L.
s. 3
t— U
3
C X
"^ C
a n:
U l/l
c r
ex. a.
£ ^ - ^
c ? 5
cue*
m ^ a? -
ai £ 3 ~
lr -• G. -
L. JO ^
•— i/1 E —
'C O C t,
— m t >
's c ^ -
V . c
"e ^ &. 3
x w w =
ir X w
0) *V *J
Ol O1. "O
Z u. rt CJ
> 5 r S
L. y C (C
V U I? U
^ i- E &
U - X
a— y -s
- «•> 7- u
>» Ml —
X w •—
6) -D O •-
i- C X U
x C ** rc
w ft) t! v».
C ^. OJ *«
O O «& 0
o
O E — —
•- S «C 3
"4- C
« X - *J W-
O rc «•>
W (A "D
a = —
— c
fc *~
>• •*-• X UJ
li'.JS
**-;
J .S S
4; ro ro
*J C Cv Cv
1- (C
<0 V, w 4)
Q.O 0 .a
f
p
c.
IT
c
c
-L.
i-
X
pc
V
W
0
I/I
0)
c,"
(C C
U 3
.- J
c'~
— tc
o
t X
u —
L. rc
i |
O >rt
t u
S S
"c ra
c o
c *-
O Q
o .5
*- tl •-
— »r. ^
VI —
> ^ -o
~ Z i-
(5 t C
C — S
IT. 4) t*
•o x -o
C. c
.i-;
11 1
u * "*«
c S
rc • &
c >-
— ** "
•D rc
>- !a ^
0 c
LA X
E.ki! .-
4fl .— U
w Ji
C *? i
*rf u- u*.
-- s
in o
ft] Z O
Dl — J3
CD E
•M 3
1) 0 C
> -o s
ai
rc t, **
x C 3
i. 0
K- Z
C IT
>.— rc
— ~ X
-. c t.
u U t
IT
- fC f3
1) if if.
(J L. (S
c' c c
U 0 •-
.- C. w
— *
s Ifcl k-
c. u
cl £
fD —
^ c
o —
l- - X
CJ1 C •»-<
M 3J 0
.-He
y ^ c
t* — T3
> -c i
Z S"
Q.
~ - 5
«» co t)
S a- E
Appendix-35
-------
as.
u >.
I-S
IT
U
w • 15 re
real i 7e t h«
it . Huwpve
fe habitat
e reu".c of
ysis. We
s pa r aniou
it a wi Id)
i accnptab
C -^ IB
" "c. V, S
t. a *-
f ! II
C C 3 'I
IS " T3 *-
a *n * t
^ '- C —
- — iJ
•f E V- Ci
IT «J X ,„
2 ™ * x
* !*5 i
^ *5~: S
Rf r.rcat So?
provis ion
the popul,
perhaps w
1
T
C
j:
0
inclusion
iqaipd.
*
^ *«
- |
** ^
c *s
u -jr
*-> U1
5 ^
tt £
in ^
* ^
C
C a.
C C
— • T>
II
L
C
!/•
C
L-
»t
in
O
C,
» cxi SUM
f
1/t
u
1
u
1
«r.
V
BJ
O
t oi a>
— — >
"s" I
ci - j:
IS
4) •
no"
C 41
4A W.
^ li X
X "^
a u £
o —
4) C
•*- O 4?
= ~ *-
ecu
C) '- *
*-?
— 0
t^s
•D U
(f- > -
I- 3
1^
D 4,
I-Sf
northeast
/i 1 £r» is n».
extent of
rf ton
t re-at-
ijneraT
3 4.
-e .£ t>
O «* —
1- t-l
e. c
*l<
c ^
^ ^ E
t = w
(C
<- u
0 C 0
cral resou
al ternalM
d clari fy
r the mir
proposec
•nl shou
*- ^ v
I2'
V — C
w t, ft?
C i. .£
'i™
O 4> C
•cue
*-r a
c t-
-o «-»
o »-
** D
U
IT -O
12
X C
z n
j-i
10 (ft ft]
r s ;
t; = -c
— yp
c u
0 ra 4.
u •-
^ c
u s >
D. — ~
IS.!
o a x
iesourc«*s
extent of
parent prc
*• CJ
4) *>
>- 0
*r C
> -
4) —
lA U
c «
£
_^ k_
"•§
-a C
.£
Is
a —
•c
l;i
£ u
»t|l IIJUJJM
)C3JD1? Ol|i
c t
iNs
n«-g
C - c tl
— — 41 o
f 'i =•
port ion o
page r«;,id i
ve 1 opmcn t ,
he propose*
i (B •—
i- -ac
u a
= i 1 1
— Cat
— — u
£ £•§-
«•" §J
CC i/) IT.
>. i '"S
u >
~ *- C 3
*» 5 a»
— C o —
*J 3 CJ
i J) C
U _C *J
0) M —
2 v. o
C 3 -D
f S «n
•n MTP plant
^erthelcs^,
al resource
CJ O X
U E
« CJ £
— 3 >.
O BJ 3
ini f i canl
1 minera
:uss mor«
•;. gr
cipate an^
facilities
documents
V
E
it
C
C
u
4)
0
U
It
i'
re
c
in
z. »/»
(C h-
x z!
area and <
SPECIFIC (
-D "3
Sf U
-D 0 ^
-= = O - ?
— a. «; c
* O 3 ft)
£&^ct
- r
*J C 01 n
b — u c
— O Q! 3
*H L. -C -C ^~
c — a- w
" 5 -£ 5 S
b 3 1 t
C S C • 0
t ^ C. CJ C.
£ t D c —
tf CJ Li E
W- >
~ - -c
— «««;•
w 3 w_ u ^
ti •- *
c " — j*
• ** C ** T3
C C Q. C
>• t if. = -t
OC V — 3 —
E ^m ? B
£ >- « S
*•- 2 3 j:
— w x « *->
^ rt 4> U "U
C.X w v
*o
c. >
3 n
15 -D
U C tf>
r; »c
X ^
fttJ
-Si
** Si
5 ?|
,-g — "^
ouc
S D **
*£i
W *J U
c -
S ^ 4f
c o a
* « -
3 ^
1 ^ 11
— "c w
c * §
^!
0) >.
•O — tfi .
(C JS — *-*
C «i i U
8 1st
I'g ^f
*— (C (P
-- ?
S ; I
: <*- ti *-
a TS
Or C
'« C J
f— EJ CTi
* < >
£ If tl
-I IT- 0)
Ul (D l/!
C 3
Ci — -O
in a£ —
? . ?
.- - j.
3!
1 E-
a. c
JC. * ^~
w *- o
•3 -5 —'
W ^
-a (j
r:
— t
i^i
Appendix-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h s s
\^ ^1
2 £ £„
3 c
* 2 • v
'^ C S n u
-( «j -c g, «
2 i u f i
s S s *
a:s' SK.
4J 4J .p-» jj
S p 5 *s 3
J'g £J
•s 3 & 1 3 .
£ 1? 3 >e
0 4J 'n ° "
g , S KSJ!
*3 o j * "
0 W ^ £** 8
) H >H 4 V)
D -H M 3
&3 e «
•o -a « »
>«•< *D Q* >•
•5 S 1 s a •}
1J3 §S^
1 * i '2 H s
^•5 8 «2 S
f 5 s *• ' ^
DC M 5 u
V 5 Q W fi «
Jil in
T:
4) TI
.C C 4> »^
t; C "c •- a/ .- &~ -0
4J .C .Q T) O ^ ' X 3 U C
apt •••- c •*• 3 y c v* i> x »•
^3 °tsis-!£ !»?• .s
£ e •" |f«i«85a " " t £ S
0; ** V i* *- >» T> u 1
*rf<6 *B "O G tfl *-• ID C *• if- T!
XX * C U -O 4! *- ^ X 41 4>
*— I 4) Ci- L « *-f ^ X *i 0 E 4) W- *- 4-' 4) 3 X * 4> X C 41 — L>
01 ^O -0'--OOU3X- ffiX4) x x x *- — i *- 3 | in
.- ** U ^•C>U^*'C— -CO' *-"
HJ 4J E (QIQU It 41 *O UkA> C
*- J E *J Q. — XT3 » w Of-*- — U
C 0 — X *<4)tiri>..ck/, uu c
E 43 i) X u — — E — £0 O S
-C E X C •— k- -D 4J -O £. -O 4) "- O
41*^ 19 U .- fl) i> — l_ C 4) — *J a *— 0^*"*-*— 01D >-
^ v i ^ inif'Q x ft — S — w v
— < T}iA X O*C.X*J - C X
3 f«1 -* "O "O *J 41 *- — ^3 — X O) GCO— "
C C O C C Q U <3 U *J 13 ft1 *
— O »l — 41 X » *« — *- rW k- — — -O JT
U h- kA^ ffl — •-*•*. TI UAOff U »A
i- gs >- *>uvX
•d— » •*D'fhA*k**l"» •> fD> *
£ O *3" *• ^ V — 4> ^\ X t/% *O «•-- vrt cO
rc i^ ^ IN re *" T> *^ (N i* ^ *^ ^ r^
— -a i t a *- > I^CAC i
«xir kA kA ••—•L)9t4i VA^QCO IA
u« — ^ c aj i .- x U— *»a
2 ^ 41 Ui/i"C'-»Cr 41 O
*- a CTI L. c — ID •- "-• encv.*-i4i 01
x-Ot *D Q-'-OQiOO C fl) O O — X fD
t/i
3
•o
OJ
U
0
TJ
^
*
HI
"S
c
s
JJ
>4
£
s
V
1
1
41
41
3
|
J
a
§
?
*l
•H
U
i
-H
4J
-H
§
-1
«
t!S
H
<
C £
•n
f S
J«
•S 2
c c
a p
H
•H -H
U ff
3, >•
5i
*.s
SS"
!i
M-
i*
§8|
j 0 4
»:i
8 «ii
o, u »I a
4A
V V k,
-e " i u o
*- u • +* — &
•0 w. J> a.
4« * O 4J ifl 3
I. C ti u L. V
o '— ^ (t u
w v w a -n
- £ V D C
£ gi 0- n
J 1) 5 C ~ 3
11 — 1 U
•Owl.— U
n u » .— i/i
i § S | u g
V 3 U 1. O U
- 5 £ u z .- -D a ' i
^'"'^IB'^'S'Z
IA u T) u in « *—
•SSf^oSl 1
c
§
u
41
tfl
C
4>
U
C
u
c
- 5 « i-fc ,3
*S|i;| 5
X 4) 3 X —
•• g — u M- — x
C -- O U UJ
TS U >*- -^ >
"3 X< -D *ft — —'
C -0 4* 3
— <-> e o t>
Ot 3 O 01 k- t0
§o v • js ".
* 1. E M
— « | w V —
>- 6 c •o u%
i w >--6 u i
S — — E « \c
£ — tj J£ &X
»- M IQ « «J QJ
— u m «i 3 o>
— » 3 >. o- *" n
T>
-i C
M TC
U TI
rJ
0 *J a>
w ti x
ta- & U
0 J=
U M
o 5 •*•
"Z u. °
u u u
U IA IB
K3 t
*- C *- .T
ID — t
O a! «
fc X •
si * f
i si 1
tr, ^
*-j fcou'|,S>'^x —
u u_ e ._ ^ ._ u
U > rfi 1. y *- (B O O
4) C — ID 0
CTi > i- .C tfl w 41
— (0 D. X ^ tft — 4) *->
at .c^SS! ~o
C t U Ul C — W lA U
^esl -cfcsug^x
XS5* *™??*^u^
fl t I tnU^-Q X
ID^6) (fl t -^ UJ X O"
X h- — (X X4->4)4)
. - 'I 2 « i * c g
tk (A irt "- . ft! ID
:|§ |J*|-~-
izr". Ill-; ITI
^5S |~g,|^u
C 41 K — U C O
— *^ *; Ji e — X S w i/i
w 0 E U U
jpwj 0 — -D K°'
InC *» ™ o — ts o •* c
Z C 3 U U S
•MM MX 0 E -0 —
WUX 41 X 2 *^- *^ C ft>
— X U C u u c 0 -
»*^ U ID "D "*- O 4* 4! O. O
™ 0- **4JO5i5.cXw
C >- < •• C C «J 0-
O* *J E — C O 4J O
... ^ QJD.OaXl.UTS
w .S -o - o « ^ c '> S
— —U * C U — 4) — *-
C O V> i »— Q. O >A *B X
O 0 6 «£4)Xt-CX^TJ
— mm jDvct4j*«' 4i
eta. v fr o —
41 TS Ol4-iC4JETJt«*-f
£-e ncxxoe — -
Appendix-37
-------
• c. o *-
w o «----.
c. v
LT1 — 4J
V U
3 O T5
G-.C c
W in ig
J *• U
C 3 4A
— V
! c 7- * E s
•- > TJ
E -c S
S en -
§tn-
^ i
3 U >
8 > £
i> k •»
5j-:
•DUO
b
V -B C
X •- O - -- -
_ G - *- *- X >
j — E *- 6 u
> 3 ~ . P T -P «
• * o —
I -Q •- l-
• c en o
• O O —
> '» —• lA
|S
— ft. U T3
E u ci g
"S t: ° >. -
(ft O *- O *»
e^ S £^
I- Oi O»
4i n o
i/\ L. —
41 41 O
re re o>
X C 3
fi? *J *0 U
0) C «-
X U U >•
•-i *J
'— re _
^ OS w
,- ,- QJ I
CO —
° i1
00 «-
8^
SJ!
19 • 4A
CUV
L. k. U
VOX
3 C
:£ 1
i — V
: re i- **-
. c£0
rt. ^v U
o c c
to n o
— u
— -o o
— 41 u
• O
.- «- . £ 3 - in
I u. — ... i/> f I .- —
C tl
feii:
O -
lA
^ -o
u c
re re
> — 3 — D —-
if IS O *- Q. W
v2 S
^ c
SA T)
,_ ._ O fti — O
3 *- *- O *- —
™ 5^
g |r
O C Ol 41 C
i *- 0 — u l >>
u x aw
^ v
. *J 41 C X O> C
' O X -C ~ C 3
, a - ^ 'c t
E w o e o
• •— 3 * l( Q.
E w 4> — a
u e. o
I/I (9 U
i Oi U "D •
L U *M
u u g
.. O U
»— 41 X
) > U fi
•EC
C U 16 V
> 0)
C X
V *J
+d U U lA «-
C fl> X ft) *D O
— c 3 "- Oi1"
Appendix-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i •?
1 -3
3- ?
3 *
S s
(0 r*
•g
a
5
B
•»
d
T> -V t> «
V ->i S §"
u
^ §
4 «>
I i
i §
".i
i
I
iititn
nd in
si
3 1
ale. -stM
icA o/te
a 3 it
!«*
* *• 0
•w en o
| s S
a M
•3 ». 5
5 ° o
-------
z
c
5>
\fi
I
I 5
e x
5 5
s C o o
5 I
c <
ls =
« c
s z
i
t£
C
O
£
i
5 <*>
5 5
•0
». C •">
o c •-
IB a *- £
*J C C ^ O
&. ». c c ui
in C i_ Or*
O CU u •—
• CJ 4) U
PC — 4J tg «
tfi ft w c «
0 u c us v u
*- 4 ** H
e ~ i e c
— » c -^ •- «
« c o u: u
U 0 h. *J cc
i- CJ c rg — c
£ PC u: -« U. C:
-st
•M Q
s*
h* *
a. K
ft;
"5 «
w _ .
V *H «
B u *j
« «j p
c u. v
B«l
«J C O
u u
s!«
£ 5 g
«T*Z
N h< *H
U >
&U £
5 I w
k. u 0
X U I*.
4< n
£ 3 0
CD
« n 0v
•> M rH
g» .
Vi t.t X
u n n
V. P 3
n v
hi - b.
C X
*j y *
R c n
4j ao x
j. ,, ,ff
S 5 S .
g. I?,S
in < n
« 0
z c xE
C B.
k — B u
2 «l ° S
C PC a V
U
19
|
K
£
D
4J
ffl
C
W
V
*J
c
•H
*J
o u o
w, w o
CQ hi w
a h< i
0 U
MM (J k
0 U
BJI"
-H C
•o ? o
•0 1i ^.
H« ft, p*
B * -
^ w
£i"
•^ u <»»
u
C « w
•*• 9
C Q
*- O .A
i=:
21-
S * S
^§s
M X CD
4
4- «-
W 19
,££
£ '§
(ft »- 0
BD £ Ul
n -M
in n h>
— dm
u C R
•-t B >
^H
a.
p.
n
v>
tat
AJ
IM
a
13
§
B
U
e
i-
1
o
£
0
p
*a c •*•
1 « s J
B B k B
•H U O «
£1 ?«*•.
i» 5cS"E
o *> H i-l 0) 9 fl
+> A *4 O
O> O 9 i-l H k
r4 U CO) O
k 0<-
B B k 4< *> B •
-Hi * C •>
i* ^
• U BoS^«flk
R » fH £.,0 k •
MWVUfukOO
Mb. £ B+> l> 0 .
J9 J)
"
r»« Bk B rlT43T>C
»l B O • O O O rt O >HC>H<>
i-i«< * ffi • J k • »> 10 B 0 « -C ^
»4H H O «J »> a 1) «) «HB««4«»UH)
bi «>BB*B>6 U0
J« f « • S ** O
"*"4*lp*J*H )3K?3S§
fc H *>
B *
•4 c
•D CO
«M 4» P- B FH
*> W ft *H k
£.°J^
§^
*• O T: * k tOJI
So « D*> *« e fC
•> B OB
Ml I B k T>
„ o i f *.H
t> It ij "O *> d
f r.5
?«
a
o v
U 0
•o
• tl
rtJi
Au
oS
15 &
i
K «M t"
B "e rj •
o B V a
*• e *
c
u
I
B O B« B O
«MO«1v4«B« I
*>'3*'D'o^ B«j'
B¥
_ - H • O
t » C », k t> KiB U v<
A J3iHilVil> *» fcc
4> ^C«>k £ k U 0 D B
*> •• *i^P.»C^>Oi-i
&J3p4k> »'CB» C.
U C: i
rt*2i«
C • • B** «H » ^ ^ p-l ^ B C k
£ fe fioP.5 >5JSo5t"efe.i° £
Appendix-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix-41
-------
Si/
X
•
V
: S
— c
* "3 —
^ (C « -
- t 0 -
c si w w
• c ^
1— 1A v
~ o •— « ••
t. c -
• >c.**«t
a. Q X *- 3
^ C W -* <
u
ft
SL
.£•
-S
o —
.- w
«J H
(0
1
o
•;
c
t,
— H
W *•»
5 1
c
0
*•"
o
u
*
I*
•«
*• n
C *•*
t* O
>» C J
CO"-**
3is
0 U O
in
^- a.
U B --
g
f
f
*
if
Mr. Vrtitcnhc
ti
o
O c
•*» 1C t
w
a M •
o. 5 -
£
t> a
(A 4.
ng ,
X «
tent ffi
C
^ JT
C M
1 |
VI ^
y
.j it
ft 1C
Is
R k.
1 U
|l
i.} C
M
- *
i O
.
V
•«tuat i«
• ».. .{ -...^^
i
«
1
c
•;
•s
(3
Li
3
x e c
-J M C ft
= i- - 3 c
C C t, *J -D C C
jl v. «. S ™ s, X —
i X 2 VI U CM
~,.-»ctt<..:.o>-».
h. O i- .... -' - C
C ti •- »j X X t. c n t
zi - r: ^ — C C --
*; ir. S s IA — C
C, 3 C — X L — ** U t
Stfr*-.-C — C C
L" " 5 fc «, ... _ g"
t.. o j: j: (, « .- -3
U-*-U^X»> >~Jb, ^
— X C — O ** mf
X <•• K — Lf V
S,-»(!C,CC.*E>J2k"S
t -.030 — 05
« -= x x — if. « e r
b C. •-• *J C. w C-
™t*.>SE-.-1"H>c
— . i. c *, o t •- wre
WKgn — t « -0
»5t{»j»6*e£— C**« w
C ruCZ-'Ru
u i u 6» c '.- r- c.—
ml — > t. If. Z ?OU
•t -J t ^, « — i v rs
3«t 9 k. J= » C u
oc'C-.wve..
c ** -a ^ c
<; = re •= e> *t — tc— —
C. — C«&3i-3w
M«- tt.-'f'3« £
t x r x a < .- E j-
X^£.w4E t =.
..c-a..t'er • x x c
~ 0 X U » X - C^
ltw-« (3 4t ». t» •= a.^
— _ Ift » fc- t -
c •*~aoccC'K
.- t £ -- C k- ;, C C
W£.xc— eft.^.-ci.
*— = ~ E K '•- *r, c, ». -1*
= c E -_ ,j ._ D 0
i/;--cx<£XbXt'
§S c u
V T* «
iP^
B 8 U O B
81S-32
I C U
65
o E
4>»
frl
Iff
a
IU
§
O
Ml
"
IS
I1
i X
u
! E
i.?
r§
; 3
I Sj
I O
I U
i a. '
s
i
B B
H
U
££
» a
K M
ff,S
S
tl
Appendix-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If
t< L
a. o
•- lO Si CO
- « 1 « -
K » r. *- u.
C — 1 -
— W C 5 C.
B - 0
iC*
il
: c
f *•
P
„
•3 •- a O
K - *i
0 O VI U
v rt j -H
B 0) B D
•o o c e c
C ». «l t- C
— U 1. C 3
ri C - O TJ
•rt K o
* a V s s
01 w V «
3 0 ^~,
75-243
C ••* •*•< .J e; *-s 4-*
i- O X
:" O
~ e c a —
c B.
i.l
. Q>
U W
" a- 01
« X 3
V id «
>. > ~ 0 f I
•O fl) O "" S «
O K « I |
If. PL, X ^ O
— E «J 5) I
O 11 E T> SI «
C 6 O E t. O
u = E r. •_> i
1
0 B~ E
^ Q) «• —
O 1- CN U3
! I
e- *
J O = i
3 e < *-
c I
- I
II. o — - —
S t.-
t> u
— H
I =
c c
o —
X S -
J b c Hi J
Appendix-43
-------
1 O CX* j
ui 0
rJ, ^ !
1 *?
0 i ;7
i r jf
i ~ X
x "
>—
i oi !
* 5|
= 1 i; 2
< J- <£ ' —
^i si -o i *""
«t *-,! Z
— » W» 11 'I —
, . 4> 2 j C
^ ** ^
rr ^ —
i U- =£
*•* C
C L,
B>
*•* 1 —
* I —
01 | '*•
1 *™ —
£ X
s £
4i 7-
«/» *
S j "
X *^
-"; *_r
Z! —
4J 4) JSI O
_ JZ w o^
4i c IM ^
§""-•*•*- i-
•— ^ o ,_ t
tA n • J
^-r-
C (p <•"
QJ e i. jj <
4i «O -O
1/1 W P-
C 41 « <
O "* 41
> W -
"" U i. 41 -
0> *Q O >*-
** u O *
n3 •- O U
j: *- o ij
*^ t, » h
SO O 1
f^> p <
*J LTt O *
U - " t,
tu y*-. IA o i*
•F^ U *— fcfj U
O C *o n
u *•* -w :
Q. * O >* C
0^^^
C flj 41 (
••- E vi 4
^«3.
(J •*- b.
X 41
41 U W
o* « «.
41 «- i 3.
L. «
i s c
*** 4) •*-
£ 1. >,
\ft U ^
*- ^ Q, •
O 4) 41 3 U
u l- w us
4) 41 4i
c -o -c \. >,
O C 3 41
o t_
I/I "- ^ 4) 4->
-C « O .O 41 J
H-|J|V. H
a: Cj t. Jo
*
*- 3 t-
S O "D O * T3 f
-> 4* i- w 4i -e >>
-.CC-CW)>t-'W
a u i. *J u i— 41
* T3 CJ U O ^ >
~ £ •'- 41 C 41 •/»
y 4-t o t -^ «-> *J
r IQ u *j o M "-
•» JI 113 E ^ 41
W C -C = M i,
J O W -- +J Q
* C i ^ *C
SO ••- U «J C -^
- C *J ^ 3 3-..-. r-
.-g j(-> j_«
= ilSS^.^S
! U>3£ U£ £!
u 0 -u E « -= fl
- ra £ o aj u
» S v =-^-o— o
_ flj *O C -jC ul
5 -o Oi *J « 3 n
•* 4i » j: u» (X
j *— CT* tn •*-"
0 U *3r~C*J»*
• >>X) O iQ 5 fl> uJ
u" 4l W I* O **™l
•i 4i »•* -C V C O 0>
ui.u^-*>^^ux:
« >., 4i c a.*^
4) u en M a
U J= 41 C «f
S *J t- — -M .— U
J •— 1} <— *^ -<-
•»- w u x: g Of
U i/l C7>
i. «' U ** 41 "* O
41 "O O -C 13 C.
33S^| =
tsSsS^«
^ 3 .3 *J C —
3 C ^ !_' 0) CT
41 L. •»- 4Z
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o c
tA a
0\ 0
<
^
k
c
c
Ul
e
? *
j
s • <*
5 20
5 -0
* T5 «
0 U "
® ?i n m
k o ° (™
5 r 'o>
j U 01 M
f « « 0
ff H H D
€ Wl4^ JJ
Q §0 -
„ t 10 CO
u 1) *>
" 0. C
< C
cn
C
«*4
•o
•H
D
m
^"l O
S K
O )f\
•H r**
JJ
CQ ifl
C a
U 0)
c
^j CD
tf> —
^ ^H
JJ O
C Ifl
QJ (C
E a.
a;
+J V*
CD UJ
.4J
U) *J •
*J CO W
o e o-
re JT "•-
a.'j o
E k
-" O O
z *-
(C *H U)
c t c
a> aj
E « e
cue
O 1 O
fa <-> (J
^ ^H O
C-H >
UJ O -m
CO 4J
^* Ifc. C
V. CO
men
O tU-O
0) *J IA
4-1 OJ D
«l ^ ^
tn 0} CD
JJ I M >
*j o> o re
O — H 4J £
in u * "c
£ > ffl -
u £ ra
re fc- x
in
UJ
V
c
o
c
tt
E
E
C
O
O
**"*
>.
*J
*c
3
U
0
o.
0 S
£ v\
*> \A
IM VA
O *"
= > r
s, -s ^
i g p^
B C 1 >
-
.
Mi x
Uv^U
CE \s
HH h
v^ « o
No
> Q)
a °£
t- O
S. a
X' ^*Jx| CO
e u
01 >
f— -^
y 3
f- U
tO m
Q ^
-7 U
li
< CD
H D
WAITi
f One/
-
ia;*J'oOQJ '"3-waoaic.c.o
OiC I3W^ 01 U «+* X W»O** «O
C3*J WCJifl^tA tfltJ
- •-
•*-> £ tfl O Q; OJ 3 a)4JirtSs.u>»Cn>
i/t+Ji/i ^^•ftidJCU-^O CO- OS
a> ^w+JaiaoNa <- fi.c\j o i. u C
> ^ >- ^* 5yt-»K'x1"-*-0 O
- -
w
T»ft>
oi t3
_
.^ft},*^ irt
*"C*J*J O^iO
'^3*O**^U^^
on*— o Sa
i-
«;
fc —
CD
U
0
U
U.
a
Q. «J 1^ « CC «A C >4^,gfO4JOt«
C-1 «U C W '•- (UOOl O 4J U i/l
^••~wo*Ji^ IV C ^~ U "O **"• ~~ V 1»
j>jCWXICIO>OOV fli ** C *-*J O
i»— u •— 4-» o wi a, xi . i, — -»- ID
5 —* ^ ^ » o 5 w ^o
__ _JW-*"'o^'-ue i* O C*4J
4->>L.4^COL. t,-^-»^Cft CL —t «- *rt
c
co
SI*
Q.1- e i« »-*-*«- •*->•*- X4=euoo *»-oj>
IrtO O I** " >> *— O — C k. *J O C •— •— >» « Q. Q. E i- £ C « C O C C C O OJ Q O OJ *
.^»,,rt = ^_ !_ jz*o p-ip .^ Q .^ -^ ,v, .,- aj Z»-"
* CTI*C. k. o i-— ^ n) ou re 3 w c ^~ i». &> ^ *o TS * T3 *o •*—
i fl> O- "^ tNI Enr— M
Appendix-45
ii j
-------
s
g»
S :
H Z S
Sy
M S
Q a.
U Q
5$
P!
t u *
Si »
«85
18
R O*
C «C
C' 41
gb<
H
c
hOI
-.00
> n
c 3 •
X 0
C CL
IS K
i 1
ig £
3
Q
t*.
cc «-
I
« E
SIS
Sis
w *B a
3 L.
*J t i
^S tt
^^ri
05
« m
8"
a « « n «
en fc c re
e w o u c K
C — 1 B B H
• oO< C ^ ^
u 4j pi, d ^4 n
2: o: u; — u Q
£"S
§lu
0
4) bO
5 §•
h o c efl
•^ x —i
Vt "V <
J£ ** A.
v« c a u
(Q W «C
& ^£§
£8
JS ^
3 o
fc u c
.S! .« o
">. u
8 '1
&
•tj
"S
,
o i3 j>
.P, j» v i
1 " I 2
1
;u
« I
J! §
M
3 fc
•H
•S 4J
Q) JC
Appendix-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
Bo
,
T. 0
Temp
7650
Soil
Corm-i
Service
c
c,
u
L
f^
i.
c
i
rntor <6A)
1 Protection Agency
U
IT
C
<
«c
c
0
R
I
C
j.
c
u:
W £&U5
_ c. •
3: a =
*J
C
u
v;
g
u:
o
fN
0
tN
»A
X
r^
(A
R
c
c
|
k.
Li
Vft
£
R
tl
the draft environmental Impart stntemr
astewatcr Treatment Facilities, Nnrtlu
lament adequately reflects thp Impnct!
1
•*
o
>
V
V,
tl
>
(C
s
3
"
c
J
w
u
c
*J
IA
g
b
n
j-i
en
f
^M
V
01
«^
•g
IS
u.itpr, and plant resources.
-"
1
U
£
**
c
o
o
>
n
^
opportunity of reviewing this stafpnn
£
Cj
r»
"-•
V
&
)u
C-
c,
c
s
,v
V \
JL
Mi
pr
Gporg
Kt.-itc
S z "
> 2 S
- _i U
I !I ^
i *f s«
c n - c C
> O
O CO
JD Ch
ll
^
•c
<
u o
t- 4-1
C t'
a «"»
— n
M
•g1-
—> c
£ w
H 8.
O 0
s
r" S S
i« 55
E> 5<
Appendix-47
-------
I
f
1
II
li
i?
U_ GT
o J
uj
O
£
•o
a
u
u>
E
s s
i <
)
> O
C r«
L: -
g.
IT)
a
z
* i
a a
2 g |
1 £ &
u a s
£ ti I
2 S a
a.
•o
jj
•D
I
Cl * I O
t —:
g «
nc c
*J CQ
U
Cl *i
ta o
o i
«u,
i/i
§!->
W
*-
£ B
3 g
v* -4 ^
r«.
Si
w a
41 *>
h. fl C
jj x a.
K 0) M
H
£ . u-
IS M
Q
90 k>
cr* o
*. ^-v.
°* 12
o
t""
re *->•
1 §
J5 E
Cl Cl
O.
0
IM
H £
C -C
o
U 01
to -z
f
e
e o
•H
w
U u
•H C
0)
u i
K -H
O 3
H U
* 01
S3
« •=
U (Q
4J W
H
n u
0
o
Sm
«H U
s -o
U ft
U 60
^*
0) >H
a o>
t*
5 h<
0 C
J* 0.
e g
Oi ^
13
a h*
•a -o
ffi 9
Q JS
G.1-H
rH
i"
n
•o
•a 9
41 «J
C
0) 01
IM tj
l*n »-
a s
o
ft> U
js a
pH fH
1H (5
n «
01 •-!
Q U
i-l
EU -M
n
JS
Lri -H
0 *J
4J -H
c
S
•H
rt-
-,
C J=
^>»-
o
c
^ 0
u
01 C
jj c
O «>4
U JJ
fe U
0)
a
tJ O
B *^
B jj
u 9
•H ID
M X
u C
W -H
O CD
^1
•«"!
U 4J
•D «
C
at ft)
h
n o
Ȥ
* J*
»*•!
0 ~4
U 1-1
41 D
(A V
* T3
t/J -P4
• U
-* 0
a
m x
*o 3
9
41 c
x-o
as
c u
•H U
•O Q
0 C
U
< <
0~
u
cr, 01
V J=
•H W
4J
b J=
01 «J
P
& DO
C
C JX
B U
i 1
t*»
•^* o
&"
fli b.
S 5
5 k
o o
M
a jt
SJJ
J3 «••(
O T«
•*4 U
> e
R O
2 t
i-H O
a t
a
"§
R9
U
t- oT
O ki
w 5
S^
O —
c
O P
u *-«
o> o
M O
O 00
u
re
K
« ("i
w
u r
w n
u
U> -4
w
«4
9
cr
V
o
n
e
o
9
>
X
o
>o
9
C
E
c
(9
m"
OS
^
1
•T
m •
M T)
01
<~s JJ
n ic
O •*•<
n u
v^ 41
u
4j a
Q &
a
a c
o
3 U
u re
3 01
& |
0) U
4J T)
UM 5
0' C
bfl 4J
C C
2 S
V I-
En
Fi
O •-!
^s
S S
« T3 >b4JOOI^4^O
l-r.-DOC3yj:v,0-l-
Appendix-48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
< *
UJ 0
O n *
2 2
111 tt
Z 5
a 2
J-£;2
r £
L- —<
i 5 I
e js. ^
re -j •—
Appendix-49
-------
-------
NORTHEAST EL PASO
REFERENCES
FINAL EIS
Cliett, Tom, 1979. Personal communication. Geologist, Public Service
Board, El Paso, Texas.
Hickerson, John, 1980. Personal communication. General Manager, Public
Service Board, El Paso, Texas.
Schraeder, Thomas, 1980. Personal communication. Ecologist, Bureau of
Reclamation, El Paso, Texas.
Smartt, Ric, 1980. Biological assessment, peregrine falcon, Northeast
El Paso Wastewater Facilities. Report prepared for Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas.
REFERENCES-8
-------
-------