United States Region 9 EPA 909/9-83-001
Environmental Protection 215 Fremont Street January, 1983
Agency San Francisco, CA 94105
EPA Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Arizona
Hazardous Waste
Facility
-------
January 1983
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
PROPOSED ARIZONA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
Toxics and Waste Management Division
San Francisco, California
Cooperating Agencies:
Arizona Department of Health Services
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Phoeni x , AM zona
Technical Consultant:
SCS Engi neers
Long Beach, California
In Association With:
Wirth Associates
Phoenix, Arizona
Aerocomp , Inc.
Costa Mesa, California
Sonia F. Crow
Regional Administrator
EPA Region 9
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PROPOSED ARIZONA HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY
LEAD AGENCY:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
COOPERATING AGENCIES;
Arizona Department of Health Services
U. S. Bureau of Land Management
PROPOSED ACTION:
Sale of Federal land to the State of Arizona for siting a
hazardous waste management facility.
ABSTRACT;
The State of Arizona has asked to purchase a one-square mile
parcel of land from the U. S Bureau of Land Management for siting
a state-owned, contractor-operated hazardous waste facility. At
BLM's request, EPA agreed to serve as lead agency in preparing the
EIS on the proposed land transfer.
This EIS addresses concerns related to selection of a facility
site. Impacts related specifically to the design and operation
of the facility itself would be addressed through future permits
issued by EPA and the Arizona Department of Health Services.
In this EIS, potential impacts have been assessed using represen-
tative facility designs typical of facilities which handle the
types and amounts of wastes generated in Arizona. Alternatives
considered are the State's proposed site near the community of
Mobile, alternative sites in the Western Harquahala Plain and
the Ranegras Plain, and the No Action Alternative. For each
site, the EIS considers potential impacts on ground water, air
quality, public health and safety, biological communities,
cultural resources, and other resources. Mitigation measures
are identified for those impacts which would not be addressed
through the facility's permits.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT;
Chuck Flippo, EPA Region 9, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105; (415) 974-8128
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Abbreviations
Summary [[[ S-l
Purpose and Need ........... . ........................ S-l
Proposed Site and Alternatives ...................... S-l
Affected Environment ............................... . S-2
Potential Impacts and Mitigation .................... S-3
1 Purpose and Need ....... . ........ . .......... .........1-1
Introduction .................. ........ ........... 1-1
Need for Action ............... . ..... .... ........ .1-2
The Facility and the Facility Permit ............. 1-3
Scoping (Issue Identification).... ............... 1-4
Further Steps in the Decision-Making
Process .................... ....... ..... .......1-7
2 Alternatives ...................... . .......... . ...... 2-1
Background: Site Selection ........ . ..... ... ..... 2-1
Site Alternatives ..... . .......................... 2-2
Potential Environmental Impacts .................. 2-4
Other Alternatives ....................... . ....... 2-4
3 Affected Environment ................................ 3-1
Introduction ..................................... 3-1
Mo bile Site ...................................... 3-1
Western Harquahala Plain Site ................... 3-30
Ranegras Plain Site ............................. 3-57
4 Projected Environmental Impacts ..................... 4-1
Introduction and Assumptions ..................... 4-1
Potential Impacts on Physical Setting ............ 4-1
Potential Impacts on Water Resources ............. 4-3
Potential Impacts on Air Quality ................ 4-10
Potential Impacts on Public Health and
Safety ........................................ 4_16
Potential Impacts on Ecological Resources ....... 4-34
Potential Impacts on Land Use ................... 4-37
Potential Impacts on Visual Resources ........... 4-38
Potential Impacts on Cultural Resources ......... 4-39
Potential Impacts on Soci oeconomi cs ............. 4-40
Consequences of No-Action Alternative .......... '.4-46
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Secti on
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources 4-50
Short-Term Uses Versus Long-term
Productivity 4-50
5 List of Preparers 5-1
EPA - Region 9 5-1
SCS Engineers 5-2
Aerocomp, Inc 5-4
Wirth Associates, Inc 5-5
Arizona Department of Health Services 5-8
Reviewers and Contributors 5-8
6 Coordination List 6-1
7 References 7-1
Appendi ces
A Federal Hazardous Waste Management Program A-l
TSD Facility Standards A-2
Facility Permits A-8
Transportation of Hazardous Waste A-12
B Arizona State Hazardous Waste Management Program....B-l
Relationship Between the State and Federal
Programs B-l
State Transportation Regulations B-2
Permitting the Proposed Facility B-3
C Hazardous Waste In Arizona C-l
Introduction C-l
Proposed Facility's Potential Waste Stream C-4
Wastes Excluded from the Facility C-6
References C-6
D Representative Designs for Proposed Facility D-l
Surface Impoundments (Ponds) D-l
Landfarm D-6
Secure Landfill D-ll
E Financial Liability E-l
F Water Resources Summary of the Proposed
Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility Site F-l
G Air Quality 6-1
Ambient Air Quality Standards G-l
EPA Air Quality Regulations G-l
Models and Inputs G-3
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendi ces Page
Emission Calculations - TSP G-6
Emission Calculations - Volatile Organics
and Hazardous Emissions G-8
References G-13
H Coccidioidomycosis H-l
History H-l
Disease Manifestation H-l
Geographic Distribution H-3
Dissemination and Exposure H-3
Attack Rates H-4
References H-5
I Land Use 1-1
Land Jurisdiction 1-1
Existing Land Use 1-2
Future Land Use 1-3
References 1-3
J Visual Resources J-l
Scenic Quality Classes J-l
Visual Sensitivity Levels J-l
Distance Zones J-2
Tentative Visual Management Classes J-2
References J-2
K Cultural Resources: Archaeological K-l
References K-3
L Cultural Resources: Historical L-l
References L-2
M Cultural Resources: Native American M-l
Contact Program Summary M-3
References M-5
N Public Health and Safety N-l
References N-4
0 Noise 0-1
Sound Measurement 0-1
Attenuation of Sound 0-1
OSHA Noise Standards 0-1
Community Noi se 0-4
Impact Assessment Method !o-4
References 0-7
11
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Locations of the proposed and two alternative
sites 2-3
3-1 Location of Mobile site 3-2
3-2 Surface water drainage at Mobile site 3-9
3-3 Major transit routes from Phoenix and Tucson
to the proposed and alternative sites 3-13
3-4 Land jurisdiction at Mobile site 3-19
3-5 Existing land use at the Mobile site 3-20
3-6 Visual resources within 3 miles of the
Mobile site 3-23
3-7 Location of Western Harquahala Plain site 3-31
3-8 Surface water drainage at Western Harquahala
Plain site 3-39
3-9 Land jurisdiction at Western Harquahala
Plain site 3-46
3-10 Existing land use at the Western Harquahala
Plain site 3-47
3-11 Visual resources within 3 miles of the Western
Harquahala Plain site 3-51
3-12 Location of Ranegras Plain site 3-58
3-13 Surface water drainage at Ranegras Plain site 3-61
3-14 Land jurisdiction at Ranegras Plain site 3-64
3-15 Existing land use at the Ranegras Plain site 3-65
3-16 Visual resources within 3 miles of Ranegras
Plain site 3_68
i v
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
4-1 Communities at risk from possible hazardous
materials incidents for the Mobile site 4-22
4-2 Communities at risk from possible hazardous
materials incidents for the alternative sites 4-26
A-l RCRA permitting process A-9
D-l Artist's concept of the Arizona hazardous
waste management facility D-2
D-2 Relative size of the active portion of the
site compared to the undisturbed surroundings D-4
D-3 Surface impoundment construction D-7
D-4 Double liner and leachate detection and removal
system for representative surface impoundments D-8
D-5 Membrane liner anchorage D-9
D-6 Landfarm construction details D-12
D-7 Secure landfill construction details D-14
D-8 Double liner and leachate detection/collection/
removal systems for the representative secure
landfill D-l 6
0-1 Typical noise levels 0-2
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Prospective Features of the Arizona Hazardous
Waste Management Facility 1-5
2-1 Summary of Potential Impacts 2-8
3-1 Properties and Features of the Soils in the
Vicinity of Mobile Site, Maricopa County 3-4
3-2 Temperature, Precipitation, and Evapotrans-
piration at Selected Locations 3-6
3-3 Ambient Air Quality at the Mobile Site 3-11
3-4 Emergency Response Capability in the Rainbow
Valley Area 3-14
3-5 Historical Resources Inventory and Sensitivity
for the Mobile Site 3-25
3-6 Native American Cultural Resources Inventory
for the Mobile Site 3-26
3-7 Estimates of Current and Projected Population
Within a 5-, 10-, or 15-Mile Radius of the
Mobile Site 3-28
3-8 Properties and Features of the Soils in the
Vicinity of the Harquahala Plain Site,
Yuma County 3-33
3-9 Temperature and Precipitation at the Harquahala
Meteorological Station 3-35
3-10 Depth to Static Water Table at Wells in the
Vicinity of the Western Harquahala Plain Site 3-37
3-11 Ambient Air Quality at the Western Harquahala
Plain Site 3-40
3-12 Emergency Response Capability in the Western
Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Areas 3.42
VI
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
3-13 Archeologica1 Site Inventory for the Western
Harquahala Plain 3-52
3-14 Native American Cultural Resources Inventory
for the Western Harquahala Plain Site 3-54
3-15 Estimates of Current and Projected Population
Within a 5-, 10-, or 15-Mile Radius of the
Western Harquahala Plain Site 3-56
3-16 Depth to Static Water Table at Wells in the
Vicinity of the Ranegras Plain Site 3-60
3-17 Archaeological Site Inventory for the Ranegras
Plain 3-69
3-18 Native American Cultural Resource Inventory
for the Ranegras Plain Site 3-71
3-19 Estimates of Current and Projected Population
Within A 5-, 10-, or 15-Mile Radius of
Ranegras Plain Site 3-72
4-1 Pollutant Emission Rates Used in Modeling
Analysis 4-11
4-2 Air Quality Impact of the Mobile Site 4-12
4-3 Air Quality Impact of the Western Harquahala
Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites 4-15
4-4 Assessment of Hazardous Waste Transportation
Risk: Tucson to the Mobile Site 4-19
4-5 Assessment of Hazardous Waste Transportation
Risk: Phoenix to the Mobile Site 4-20
4-6 Population Risk of Transporting Hazardous
Waste to the Mobile Site Along Alternative
Routes 4-21
4-7 Assessment of Risk During Transportation of
Hazardous Wastes to the Western Harquahala
Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites 4-23
4-8 Population Risk of Transporting Hazardous
Wastes to the Western Harquahala Plain Site 4-25
4-9 Projected Property Tax Revenue from the
Mobile Site 4-42
VI 1
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
4-10 Projected Property Tax Revenue from the
Western Harquahala Plain Site 4-44
4-11 Projected Property Tax Revenue from the
Ranegras Plain Site 4-45
C-l Hazardous Wastes Treated Onsite or Discharged
(tons/year) C-2
C-2 Non-Sewerable Hazardous Wastes in Arizona
(tons /year, 1980-81) C-3
D-l Estimated Land Area Requirement for the Arizona
Hazardous Waste Management Facility 0-3
D-2 Summary of Hazardous Waste Generation D-5
D-3 Characteristic Features of Surface Impoundments....D-10
D-4 Arizona Wastes Amenable to Landfilling D-13
G-l Ambient Air Quality Standards G-2
G-2 Significant Levels of Air Pollutants G-4
G-3 Estimated Emissions of Hydrocarbons G-ll
N-l Potential Impact Area by Hazardous Materials
Placard Class N-3
0-1 Maximum Permissible Noise Exposures for Persons
Working in Noise Environments 0-3
0-2 Lig Noise Levels at Selected Key Process Points
Throughout the SCA Model City (New York) Faci1ity.. .0-5
0-3 Typical Noise Levels at 50 Feet...,, 0-6
VI 1 1
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ADHS Arizona Department of Health Services
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CAP Central Arizona Project
DES Arizona Division of Emergency Services
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPS Arizona Department of Public Safety
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND NEED
The State of Arizona proposes to purchase a one-square-mile
parcel of federal land from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) for the purpose of siting a hazardous waste management fa-
cility. The land, near the community of Mobile, Arizona, was
selected by the State Legislature after reviewing a siting report
prepared by the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS)
which evaluated potential sites for a hazardous waste management
faci1i ty.
The proposed facility would be designed to treat, store, and
dispose of hazardous wastes that are generated in Arizona but are
not disposed of on the generator's property. The state would own
the land while a private contractor would finance, build, and
operate the facility.
Based on the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, BLM determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) would have to be prepared for the transfer of
federal land to the State of Arizona for the proposed facility.
This EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts which are
of concern to BLM in its decision on the requested sale of land.
Specific impacts related to the design and operation of the fa-
cility itself would be addressed through permits issued by EPA
and the state. An EPA hazardous waste facility permit, which
would be subject to public review and comment, would have to be
obtained before facility construction could begin.
PROPOSED SITE AND ALTERNATIVES
In its siting report to the State Legislature, ADHS recom-
mended three potential siting areas: Western Harquahala Plain,
Ranegras Plain, and the Mobile area (in the southern part of
Rainbow Valley). In February 1981, the legislature passed
SB 1033 (ARS 36-2800) designating the Mobile site as the location
for the facility. The proposed site and two alternative sites,
as well as the no-action alternative (i.e., no sale of BLM land
to the state) are considered in this EIS.
The Mobile site is located about 6 miles southwest of the
community of Mobile, which is about 65 miles southwest of
Phoenix. The Western Harquahala Plain site is approximately 90
miles west of Phoenix, south of 1-10. The Ranegras Plain site is
S-l
-------
about 100 miles west of Phoenix, a few miles southwest of the
Western Harquahala Plain site.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The proposed and alternative sites are located in broad,
gently sloping desert plains in rural areas. The population in
the vicinity of each of the three sites is low: 25 people live
within 5 miles of the Mobile site and 5 people live within 5
miles of each of the alternative sites (Western Harquahala Plain
and Ranegras Plain).
None of the sites is accessible via paved roads. The Mobile
site is served by an unpaved road between Maricopa and Gila Bend,
which is accessible from 1-10 via paved county roads to Maricopa.
The Maricopa-Gi1 a Bend road is also accessible from an unimproved
road from the northern part of Rainbow Valley. The two alterna-
tive sites are reached via unimproved roads from 1-10.
There are no perennial surface waters on any of the sites.
Washes at the sites may flow after a heavy rainfall. The Mobile
site contains larger washes than the alternative sites. The Cen-
tral Arizona Project (CAP) canal passes near the Western Harqua-
hala site.
Ground water is the primary source of water in each area.
The water table is estimated to lie at a depth of around 500 feet
at the Mobile site; 340 to 390 feet at the Western Harquahala
Plain site, and 320 to 340 feet at the Ranegras Plain site.
Air quality data suggest that the background levels of most
air pollutants in each area are below state and national ambient
air quality standards. Total suspended particulates (e.g., dust)
sometimes exceed the standards, but this is due to natural
weather conditions such as dust storms rather than man-made
sources of particulates.
Limited emergency services are available near the sites.
The closest community capable of providing emergency services to
the Mobile site is Casa Grande. The nearest community with emer-
gency services in the Ranegras Plain and Western Harquahala Plain
area is Quartzite. Otherwise, the closest emergency services are
in the Phoenix area.
Land on and around each site is used primarily for livestock
grazing. Some hiking trails exist near the Mobile site. Major
recreational activities in the three areas are hunting and off-
road vehi cle use.
No archeological , historical, or Native American resources
have been identified on any of the sites. However, several arch-
eological sites have been recorded in the vicinity of the Harqua-
hala Plain and Ranegras Plain sites. No endangered plant or ani-
mal species are known to occur at any of these sites. Some plant
S-2
-------
species protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law are found at
the Mobile and Ranegras Plain sites.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Physical Setting
The physical impacts would generally be the same at each
site. Approximately 58 acres would be permanently affected by
the facility and creation of new access roads into the site from
existing roads. Potential effects would include alteration of
the local topography, disturbance of vegetation and wildlife, and
increased wind and water erosion. Areas impacted only during
construction would likely revert to their natural state over a
period of years.
To mitigate the physical impacts, ADHS would ensure that the
facility contractor would make efforts during construction to
minimize the disturbance of soil and vegetation in adjacent
areas, erosion by either wind or water, and long-term stockpiling
of soil. In addition, adequate surface drainage would be pro-
vi ded.
Water Resources
Ground Water--
The potential for impacts on water resources would center
around contamination of the ground water. Based on available
data concerning regional geology, depth to ground water, ground
water flow rates, and protective measures required by federal and
state regulations, the possibility of hazardous contaminants
reaching water supply wells is remote. Such drinking water con-
tamination could occur only if (a) the facility released several
thousand gallons of waste or highly contaminated water (leachate)
over a long time, (b) the ground water contamination was not de-
tected through site monitoring, and (c) corrective action to pre-
vent further migration of the leachate or contaminated ground
water was not taken.
At the Mobile site, it would likely take from 270 to 370
years for contaminated ground water to reach the nearest existing
wells. At the Western Harquahala Plain site, it would take be-
tween 2,700 and 11,000 years to reach the nearest existing wells,
while at the Ranegras Plain site it would take from 2,250 to
6,750 years. Given the substantial time involved in movement of
contaminated ground water from the site to the nearest wells, it
is impossible to project the specific public health consequences
of such an occurrence.
Specific ground water protection measures would be addressed
in the facility's federal and state permits. The facility con-
tractor would be required to obtain site-specific hydrogeol ogi c
data. ADHS would work with the contractor to ensure that the
facility design provided adequate protection of ground water as
S-3
-------
well as the capability of detecting movement of hazardous con-
stituents out of the facility.
Surface Water--
At the Mobile site, rainwaters and floodwaters appear to
flow through well-defined washes crossing the site. If the fa-
cility were not adequately designed to withstand flooding from
intense storms, run-off from the surrounding watershed could
flood the facility and carry contaminants into Waterman Wash,
resulting in a potential public health problem downstream. Di-
version of storm waters around the facility as a flood protection
method could affect drainage patterns in the vicinity; the flow
of storm water into the Northwest (cattle watering) Tank could
i ncrease.
There are no significant, well-defined washes at either the
Western Harquahala or the Ranegras Plain sites. These sites are
subject to sheet flooding which drains into washes off-site. No
significant impact on area drainage patterns is expected due to
diversion of storm water run-off around the facility.
The potential for sheet flow to flood the facility is low.
However, flooding of the Western Harquahala Plain site is possi-
ble in the event of an overflow of the CAP canal nearby. This
could wash contaminants into Bouse Wash and pose a potential pub-
lic health problem downstream. Since the CAP canal is designed
to avoid or control overflow, such an event is unlikely.
Flood protection would be addressed in the facility permit.
At the Mobile site, ADHS would require the facility contractor to
design the facility so as to protect against a 100-year storm.
At the Western Harquahala Plain site, ADHS would require the con-
tractor to evaluate the potential for a flood caused by overflow
of the CAP canal. Drainage patterns in the area and appropriate
surface water controls should be carefully evaluated and incorpo-
rated into the facility design. Appropriate protective measures,
such as berms, ditches, dikes, etc., would be incorporated into
the faci1i ty design.
Ai r Quali ty
Emissions of total suspended particulates (TSP) (e.g., dust,
dirt) from construction activities would be expected to add an
estimated 10 ug/m^ to the ambient concentrations, exacerbating
occasional TSP problems from natural sources (e.g., dust storms).
Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from facility opera-
tions could exceed 300 tons/year, making the facility subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review if the emis-
sions were determined to be "non-fugitive." Based on the limited
information available for this analysis, the levels of hazardous
poT-lutants emitted into the air from facility operations (surface
impoundments, landfarm, landfill) would not be expected to be
si gni fi cant.
S-4
-------
The impact of particulates on air quality could be reduced
through the use of various dust control methods, such as paving
roads, using dust suppressants on unpaved roads or other dis-
turbed areas, ceasing construction during periods of high wind,
using dust suppressants on overburden storage piles and landfill
areas, and revegetating closed or unused areas. ADHS and the
contractor should carefully evaluate the potential for hazardous
emissions from the facility.
Public Health and Safety
Emergencies During Operation--
Experience at existing hazardous waste facilities shows that
a probability of 0.5 operational spill per year could be expected
at the proposed facility. The impact of a spill would depend on
the type of waste, weather conditions, and other factors. Toxic
air emissions could result from spills of materials which are
easily volatilized, or from fires.
Specific spill prevention, countermeasures, and contingency
plans would be prepared as part of the facility permit. The im-
pact of operational spills can be reduced by, among other mea-
sures, (a) monitoring to ensure early warning of released chemi-
cals, (b) grading waste handling areas to a centralized collec-
tion point for spilled liquids (where appropriate), and (c) in-
corporating an emergency spill collection and treatment system as
part of the overall engineering design. ADHS would work closely
with the facility contractor in developing plans for this facil-
ity.
Transportation Risks--
Transportation accidents (spill of hazardous waste during
shipment) present special problems. The risk of accidents from
the shipment of hazardous wastes is low, ranging from 0.02 to
0.13 accident per year from Phoenix to the Mobile site, depending
on the route. However, the population at risk from these acci-
dents is high, ranging from 104,000 to 133,000, depending upon
the accident probability and the size of population residing in
the potential impact areas located along the routes. The acci-
dent probabilities for routes from Tucson to the Mobile site may
range from 0.01 to 0.02 accident per year. The population at
risk along the same routes is lower than that for the routes from
Phoenix, ranging from 55,350 to 55,950 persons. The students at
the Mobile School, located on the Maricopa-Gi 1 a Bend Road, may be
considered a special population at risk from spills and other
t ruck accidents.
The risk of accidents on r9utes into the Western Harquahala
Plain and Ranegras Plain sites is greater than that on routes
into the Mobile area, due to the higher accident rates on the
roads connecting the completed sections of 1-10 west of Phoenix.
The accident probabilities for both sites, however, are low,
S-5
-------
ranging from 0.05 to 0.18 accident per year for routes from
Tucson and Phoenix, respectively. The population at risk is
estimated at 60,000 and 103,000, respectively, for hazardous
waste shipments from Tucson and Phoenix to the site. The
potential for spills into the CAP canal presents a special
hazard. However, the probability of a spill into the CAP canal
during actual crossing, or within a mile of the canal, is
extremely low because the trucks are in those areas for a very
short time.
In summary, the impact of a chemical spill to the population
on an access route to any of the sites could be significant. The
probability of such an occurrence, however, is low.
To minimize the accident rate and reduce the population at
risk, ADHS would (a) consider the frequency of accidents and the
number of people at risk in designating transit routes to the
facility; (b) work with the Arizona Division of Emergency Ser-
vices (DES) to revise the State Emergency Response Plan as needed
and to brief responsible agencies; and (c) work with the county
highway departments to ensure that access road improvements con-
sider safety concerns raised in this EIS.
Off-Site Emergency Response--
There is presently a lack of formal preparedness activities
with respect to hazardous waste incidents in the affected coun-
ties. The emergency response teams in nearby communities and the
Phoenix area could become overburdened if they are called upon to
serve the facility in addition to their present responsibilities.
To limit the severity of public health and safety impacts
from incidents, ADHS would continue to work with DES in upgrading
the State's Emergency Response System to ensure that the public
safety agencies would be adequately prepared with respect to
equipment, personnel training, and incident alert systems.
Val1ey Fever--
There is evidence to suggest that Mobile and its immediate
vicinity are a potential source of Valley Fever spores. The po-
tential impacts on workers during construction of the facility
could be significant due to the exposure to dense spore popula-
tions that may be released from soil disturbance. The probabil-
ity of significant impacts on persons outside the site would be
low. Occasional high winds could disperse spores from disturbed
areas at the site to nearby populated areas. Evidence suggests,
however, that the spread of Valley Fever, even under these condi-
tions, would be low, since immunity is presumed to have been
built up over time in most area residents.
There are no data on Valley Fever in the vicinity of the
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain sites. It is assumed
that the potential for Valley Fever impacts would be similar to
that at the Mobile site. The population subject to potential
S-6
-------
exposure to the spores, however, would be lower than at the
Mobi1e site.
The severity of a Valley Fever outbreak can be minimized
with appropriate precautions, such as (a) minimizing the area of
soil disturbance, (b) identifying "hot spots" by sampling soils
for spores, (c) confining soi1-disturbing activities to periods
of low wind, (d) landscaping and watering periodically or using
chemical dust supressants, (e) requiring the contractor to con-
sult with experts on the best practical control measures, (f)
using face mesh respirators, where appropriate, and monitoring
health records for indications of Valley Fever problems, and (g)
providing specific information to workers.
Odors--
At all three sites, the impact of odors is expected to be
minimal. Any odors originating at the facility would be expected
to dissipate before reaching nearby residents. ADHS would estab-
lish a system to respond to odor complaints and work with the
contractor to alleviate any problems. There are a number of mea-
sures that may be used to reduce odor impacts, including (a)
prompt cleanup of spills, (b) covering stored or landfilled
wastes, (c) screening hazardous wastes for odor generation prior
to placing them in the evaporation ponds, and (d) applying odor
reducing chemicals to wastes.
Noi se--
Minimal noise impacts are expected to occur in areas near
the transit routes through the major urban areas of Tucson and
Phoenix because of facility traffic. Residents within approxi-
mately 700 feet of the roads in rural areas could experience peak
noise at levels from approximately 65 to 85 decibels. Noise at
these levels could cause annoyance, but the frequency and dura-
tion of each occurrence is expected to be low.
At the Mobile site, increased truck traffic through the town
of Maricopa would be expected to cause noise at peak levels of
approximately 60 to 85 dBA. Since traffic would occur primarily
during the day, the same number of noise intrusions could impact
the Mobile School and the Maricopa School during classes. Other
communities along the Maricopa-Gi1 a Bend road, including Mobile,
would not likely be affected by noise intrusions because of their
distance from the road. Noise at the facility would not be
expected to affect Mobile because of the community's distance
from the site.
No truck traffic noise impacts are expected at Western Har-
quahala Plain or the Ranegras Plain sites. The existing truck
traffic on 1-10 is heavy compared to that expected to be genera-
ted by the facility. There are no permanent residences on main
access roads between 1-10, and these sites are not expected to be
impacted by truck traffic.
S-7
-------
Noise generated by power equipment and trucks at the facil-
ity would not be expected to exceed Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) standards for occupational noise
exposure.
To minimize noise impacts, ADHS would (a) require the facil-
ity contractor to restrict to daylight hours facility activities
which may generate traffic, (b) establish a system and procedures
for receiving and responding to public complaints about noise,
and (c) if requested, monitor noise impacts on schools along the
access roads and work with school officials to provide appropri-
ate mitigation of any adverse impacts identified.
Ecological Resources
No threatened or endangered animal or plant species would be
expected to be adversely impacted at any of the sites. Some
state-protected plant species could be affected. Vegetation
would be removed from those areas that are designated for con-
struction of the facility and access roads or operations follow-
ing construction activities. This loss of vegetation and dis-
turbance of land would affect food, shelter, and nesting habitats
of local wildlife. Some direct animal kills might occur. Since
only a small population of these wide-ranging desert animals
would be affected, the impact would be insignificant. The opera-
tion of evaporation ponds might pose a threat to the avian popu-
lation attracted to the ponds as a source of water. Over a
period of time, the bioaccumulat ion of hazardous substances may
increase the number of bird deaths due to poisoning, as well as
affect their birth rates.
All disturbed areas (with the exception of permanent struc-
tures) should be revegetated with native seeds similar to the
existing vegetation of a given plant community, or mature plants.
State-protected plants would be removed or relocated, where ap-
propriate. Enhancement of vegetation may be expected along the
access roads where drainage trenches would be constructed. Ap-
propriate methods (e.g., physical barriers) should be used to
prevent the intrusion of birds and burrowing animals such as rod-
ents.
Land Use
No significant impacts on land use would be expected at any
of the three sites as a result of the removal or loss of 640
acres (presently used for livestock grazing purposes) from the
existing BLM grazing allotments. Only a minor impact on the
recreation resources could result. Some of the uses, such as
grazing, may recur after the facility has been fully closed,
depending on the conditions of the permit.
Land use impacts could be mitigated by reimbursing the owner
or permittee for range improvements as applicable.
So
- o
-------
VIsual Resources
The facility would stand in significant contrast to the ex-
isting visual environment at the Mobile site. The impact of this
visual contrast, however, would be low because of the relatively
small number of recreational users of the area, and its distance
from population centers.
The visual contrast would be less significant at the Western
Harquahala Plain site because of the visual disturbances from the
Highway (1-10). Other disturbances including the CAP canal,
pipeline pumping station, the transmission line, and a microwave
station, also reduce the quality of the visual environment.
At the Ranegras Plain site, the visual contrast of the fa-
cility would be similar to that at Western Harquahala, though the
facility's visual intrusion may be significant to users of the
Kofa Game Range and a nearby Wilderness Study Area. However,
other visual disturbances already impact the visual experience:
the transmission line, a windmill pump and water tank, dirt
roads, and 1-10.
Landform and vegetation disturbance should be minimized
where possible to reduce visual impacts of the facility. Pro-
tective dikes and structures should also appear natural.
Cultural Resources
No recorded archeological , historical, or significant Native
American resources have been identified at any of the sites, so
no impact is anticipated. The facility would be expected to
eliminate the gathering of subsistence plants by Native Americans
on the site. Given the small area of the affected land, however,
this impact would not likely be significant.
Prior to facility construction, the contractor would be re-
quired to identify cultural resources or confirm their non-exis-
tence. In the event a cultural resource were identified, the
operator and ADHS would be required to coordinate with appropri-
ate agencies to institute protective measures.
Socioeconomi cs
No significant economic/demographic impacts are expected at
any of the sites. A small increase in tax revenues is expected;
the level would be similar for all three sites. Revenues would
be generated during the construction period from sales tax on the
purchase of construction materials within the county, and from
use tax revenue for out-of-state purchases. Because of conflict-
ing effects on land values, it is not possible to project the
impact of the facility on land values. Odors, traffic noise, and
anxiety with respect to other possible public health and safety
effects could cause deterioration in the quality of life to a
small number of people.
S-9
-------
Mitigating measures for socioeconomic impacts are identical
to those measures for mitigating land use and public health and
safety impacts. The contractor should consider local residents
for jobs at the facility as appropriate.
No-Action Alternative
BLM's denial of the request to transfer the parcel of land
to the state would mean that ADHS would either cease efforts to
develop a state-owned hazardous waste management facility, or
continue efforts to site the facility on land other than the
sites considered in this EIS. This decision would be up to the
State Legislature. In either case, development of a state haz-
ardous waste management facility could be delayed for several
years, if the siting effort continued.
Lack of an off-site disposal facility would leave the fol-
lowing options for waste disposal:
• On-site treatment, storage, or disposal. This option is
increasingly less viable as the cost of complying with
state and federal regulations for hazardous waste facili-
ties ri ses.
• Out-of-state shipment of wastes. The high cost of this
option has been cited as one of the reasons Arizona in-
dustries have supported the state site development
effort.
• Illegal disposal. State authorities and industry leaders
believe that lack of a commercial-seale hazardous waste
facility could lead to an increase in illegal and envi-
ronmentally unsound disposal practices.
• Development of a privately-owned facility. It is likely
that any private siting effort would meet strong public
opposition, thus making it difficult for a private firm
to succeed in developing a new hazardous waste facility.
Purchase of an alternative site using state funds would re-
quire new legislation. The Legislature's option would be to re-
consider sites already eliminated in ADHS's study or select a
site not previously studied in detail. An alternative site could
be on federal, state, or private land.
S-10
-------
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND NEED
INTRODUCTION
On May 18, 1981, the Arizona Department of Health Services
(ADHS) requested that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sell
one square mile of federal land for future location and operation
of a hazardous waste management facility. The state's request
set into motion the environmental analysis process required by
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This Act requires
all federal agencies to develop Environmental Impact Statements
(EIS's) for agency actions which may have a significant impact on
the human environment. BLM determined that the sale of land for
the express purpose of operating a hazardous waste management
facility was a significant federal action requiring an EIS.
Since it does not have expertise in the area of hazardous
waste management and facility development, BLM requested that the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) act as the lead agency
in preparing the EIS. EPA agreed, and has been joined by ADHS
and BLM as cooperating agencies in the development of this docu-
ment.
This EIS is designed to assess the potential impacts of the
proposed facility on the environment. It will be used by BLM in
deciding on the requested sale of land. Key concerns for BLM in
making the decision include:
t Whether resources of significant value exist on this land
which would cause BLM to retain it as public land for
another use; such values would include, but not be lim-
ited to, cultural, biological, and/or natural resources.
• Whether the land would be unsuitable for siting a hazard-
ous waste management facility.
• Whether the facility would be compatible with existing
and probable future uses of adjacent lands.
This EIS addresses the general impacts of siting a represen-
tative facility in three separate areas: the proposed site, near
the community of Mobile in the Rainbow Valley; an alternative
site in the Western Harquahala Plain; and another alternative
site in the Ranegras Plain. In addition, the EIS addresses the
1-1
-------
consequences of the "no action" alternative, that is, no sale of
land to the state for this purpose.
Specific environmental concerns related to the design and
operation of the facility itself would be addressed through per-
mits issued by EPA and the state.
NEED FOR ACTION
The Legislature's Site Decision
In February 1981, the Arizona State Legislature enacted
Senate Bill 1033 (ARS 36-2800). This law directed ADHS to pur-
chase a specific parcel of land in Rainbow Valley near the com-
munity of Mobile for the purpose of siting a state-owned, con-
tractor-operated hazardous waste management facility.
The Legislature's action followed completion of ADHS's sit-
ing report (1). The Legislature had mandated ADHS to prepare the
report when it passed Senate Bill 1283 (ARS 36-2800) in April
1980. In passing SB 1283, the State Legislature assumed direct
responsibility for selecting a site for the hazardous waste man-
agement facility. The Legislature took on this responsibility
partly because earlier efforts by ADHS to propose a site had met
publi c opposi tion .
ADHS's siting report evaluated a number of alternative
potential siting areas and recommended the Western Harquahala
Plain siting area as the location of the state hazardous waste
management facility (see Section 2) (1). It noted that two other
areas, Rainbow Valley and Ranegras Plain, were worth strong con-
sideration. The report also included an analysis of the need for
a facility to serve industries within the state which generate
hazardous wastes. A summary of this analysis is presented below.
Need for the Faci 1 i ty
In the past very little was done to prevent the discharge of
hazardous wastes into the environment. Traces of hazardous in-
dustrial pollutants have been encountered throughout the environ-
ment, including in humans, domestic livestock, and wildlife (1).
Problems associated with air and water pollution have been
largely addressed, but the problem of hazardous waste disposal,
particularly on land, has not been similarly addressed. Conse-
quently, adequate hazardous waste management practices need to be
implemented to prevent further degradation of the environment.
State and federal regulations have been set into place to
address this need for safe management and disposal of hazardous
wastes (Appendices A and B). The regulations are designed to
ensure that all such wastes are handled properly from the time
they are generated until they are ultimately disposed of or ren-
dered non-hazardous. Facilities which treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous wastes must meet federal and/or state standards.
1-2
-------
There are presently no approved off-site hazardous waste
disposal facilities in Arizona. Wastes currently generated in
the state are either stored, treated, or disposed on-site (at the
facility which generates the waste), discharged to a sewer or
waters of the United States, shipped out-of-state for treatment
or disposal, or recycled. ADHS estimates that, in 1981, over 4.6
million tons of hazardous waste were treated on-site, sewered,
and/or discharged to waters of the U.S. An additional 38,000
tons of hazardous waste required alternative treatment, recy-
cling, or disposal because they could not be safely and legally
disposed of in a sewer or waters of the U.S. (see Appendix C).
The quantities of hazardous waste generated in Arizona are
expected to increase 5 to 10 percent per year over the next two
decades, due to industrial growth in the state (1).
As noted above, the state has decided to develop a state-
owned hazardous waste management facility with the following
objecti ves:
• To dispose of hazardous wastes in Arizona without affect-
ing to any degree the health of this or future genera-
tions.
t To dispose of hazardous wastes in such a way that the
operation can be adequately monitored and regulated by
staff available to ADHS.
• To dispose of hazardous wastes by methods and in loca-
tions which would reduce the cost to the waste generators
as much as possible, thereby encouraging safe management
practi ces.
• To guarantee to waste generators in Arizona the existence
of reasonably available hazardous waste disposal facili-
ties.
THE FACILITY AND THE FACILITY PERMIT
Development of the proposed hazardous waste management
facility would involve two major federal actions:
0 BLM's decision on the sale of the proposed site.
• A subsequent decision by EPA to^issue or deny a permit to
build and operate the facility.
This EIS assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed
sale to ADHS of 1 square mile of federal land on which the facil-
ity would be built. The conditions of the land transfer, should
it be approved and take place, will include a provision for a 0.5
* The facility would also require a state permit, issued by ADHS
(see Appendi x B).
1-3
-------
mile buffer zone around the facility to restrict incompatible
land use adjacent to the facility and to monitor environmental
conditions while the facility is in use. BLM would retain title
of this buffer zone and it would be maintained through a coopera-
tive agreement between ADHS and BLM.
No detailed description of the proposed facility will be
available until a permit application and a design proposal are
submitted to EPA and the state. The state is currently in the
process of selecting a private company which, under contract to
ADHS, would finance, construct, maintain, and operate the facil-
ity. If the land transfer were to take place, the contractor
would be responsible for designing a facility which would meet
federal and state standards and for submitting the required
designs and permit applications.
For the purpose of assessing the impacts of the land sale,
representative designs were developed for each type of treatment/
disposal facility, based on typical practices for handling the
types and quantities of wastes currently being generated in Ari-
zona (see Appendix D). Table 1-1 summarizes the major features
of the representative designs which were considered in this EIS.
EPA's permit decision would be a key step in developing the
facility. The EPA permit would have to be issued before con-
struction of the facility could begin, and it would be function-
ally equivalent to an EIS on the design and operation of the
facility itself. A discussion of EPA's facility standards and
the permitting process is included in Appendix A.
The permit applicant would develop and submit to EPA site-
specific information needed to determine whether the proposed
facility design would adequately protect public health and the
environment. Site-specific concerns, such as site hydrogeology ,
which are addressed in very general terms in this EIS, would be
addressed more fully in the permit application. As with an EIS,
the permit would be subject to public review and comment.
SCOPING (ISSUE IDENTIFICATION)
After it was determined that an EIS would be needed for the
proposed transfer of land, EPA issued a Notice of Intent to pre-
pare the EIS. The Notice of Intent, which appeared in the
Federal Register (January 20, 1982), announced two public meet-
ings to be held in Mobile and Phoenix on February 18 and 19,
1982, respectively. The Notice was mailed to nearly 2,000 indi-
viduals, including representatives of federal, state, and local
agencies, as well as private citizens.
The purpose of the Notice and public meetings was to involve
the public and other government agencies in identifying signifi-
cant environmental issues which needed to be addressed in the
EIS. This process, called "scoping," was intended to focus the
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1.
PROSPECTIVE FEATURES OF THE ARIZONA HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
Feature
Surface Impoundment
(Pond)
Surface Impoundment
(Pond)
Surface Impoundment
(Pond)
Storage Tank and
Distillation Unit
Landfarm
Secure Landfill
Treatment/Disposal Process
Neutralize acids with bases
(or vice versa) by mixing
them, then reduce volume by
evaporation.
Reduce wastewater volume
by evaporation.
Destroy hazardous pro-
perties by chemical or
biological treatment, then
reduce volume by evapora-
tion.
Recover organic solvents
from waste stream by
distillation.
Mix organic wastes with
surface soils. The wastes
are degraded by soil
microorgani sms.
Bury hazardous wastes in
cells specifically con-
structed to avoid hazards
to workers and the envi-
ronment.
Waste Type
Acids/Alkalis
Wastewaters with Heavy
Metals
Dilute Cyanide
Solutions
Various Solvents
Various Biodegradable
Organics
Metal Sludges
Cyanide Sol ids
Pesticides
Reactive Wastes
Ignitable Wastes
Halogenated Organics
Miscellaneous Inorgan-
ics and Asbestos
All wastes will be treated prior to landfilling by stabilization, fixation,
solidification, etc.
1-5
-------
EIS on the important environmental issues rather than those of
little or no significance.
The public scoping meeting in Mobile was attended by over 60
people, while some 45 persons attended the Phoenix meeting. The
meetings were conducted by the League of Women Voters, in cooper-
ation with EPA, ADHS, and BLM. In addition to the comments made
at the public meetings, EPA received written comments from 14
individuals, agencies, and organizations.
Many concerns raised in the scoping process relate to the
design and operation of the facility rather than selection of the
site. These issues would be addressed by federal regulation and
the EPA facility permits (see Appendix A). The facility permit-
ting process would not begin until and unless the land transfer
takes place and a permit application is submitted by the contrac-
tor. The permitting process provides for public review of the
draft permit so the public may comment on the proposed permit
condi ti ons.
Scoping participants raised a number of questions about the
types, quantities, and sources of wastes to be received at the
proposed facility. They also expressed concerns about out-of-
state and nuclear wastes, and financial liability. Appendix C
addresses the issue of out-of-state wastes and Appendix E is con-
cerned with contractor financial liability.
The scoping process identified the following issues as per-
tinent to the selection of a site. They are addressed in Sec-
tions 2 and 4 of thi s EIS.
Alternatives
• Recycling as an alternative to disposal.
• Full consideration of alternative sites.
Physical Setting
• Potential for erosion.
• Potential for damage from subsidence and ground tremors.
Water Quality, Hydrogeology
• Seepage from the facility.
• Flooding problems.
• Need for extensive hydrogeologic data.
Air Qual i ty
• Hazardous emissions from the facility.
• Effects of dust storms and wind storms on the facility.
• Increased dust due to facility traffic and construction.
1-6
-------
Public Health and Safety
• Ability to handle fires and emergencies at the facility
• Risks of locating a facility near communities.
• Transportation safety and access routes.
0 Potential for contamination of dairy products and local
produce.
t Risks to the Mobile School.
t Lack of adequate phone service in the Mobile area.
• Mix of refinery and waste facility truck traffic.
• Potential for spread of Valley Fever.
Wild! ife
t Potential for birds to be attracted to surface impound-
ments.
• Impacts on threatened/endangered species.
• Potential damage to liners and containers by animals.
Other Resources
• Availability of mineral resources at the sites.
0 Potential impacts on historical resources, such as the
Butterfield Stage Route.
• Effects on the lifestyle of area residents.
• Effects on property values in the siting areas.
• Potential benefits for nearby communities.
A full summary of the comments made at the public scoping
meeting and a summary of the written comments are available from
EPA Region 9 in San Francisco and the Arizona Department of
Health Services in Phoenix.
FURTHER STEPS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
After public review of this Draft EIS, comments will be ana-
lyzed and a Final EIS will be prepared. The Final EIS will
address concerns expressed in the comments on the Draft, and will
be available for public review for a period of 30 days.
1-7
-------
After the EIS has been completed and public comments have
been received, BLM will complete a 60- to 90-day decision making
process on the proposed sale. As part of this process, BLM will
determine whether the proposed action meets the criteria for sale
of federal land under Section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA). This includes the criterion that the
sale of the land "will serve important public objectives" (FLPMA,
Section 203a). BLM will then issue a Notice of Realty Action and
a Record of Decision stating its decision concerning the proposed
action. The Record of Decision, which is a public document, will
state BLM's decision, identify the alternatives considered by the
Agency, and specify the environmentally preferred alternative.
It will also state whether all practical means to avoid or mini-
mize environmental harm from the alternatives selected have been
adopted, and if not, why. BLM may also discuss its preferences
among the alternatives based on relevant factors, including eco-
nomic and technical considerations and agency statutory mission
(see 40 CFR 1505.2).
The Notice of Realty Action will be published in the Federal
Register, and once a week for 3 weeks in newspapers of general
circulation in the vicinity of the lands being offered for sale.
The Notice will include the sale price, terms and covenants, con-
ditions and reservations which are to be included in the convey-
ance document, and the method of sale (in this case, direct and
noncompetitive). A period of 45 days after publication in the
Federal Register will be provided for comment by interested par-
ties.
No fewer than 60 days prior to the sale, the BLM is required
by law to notify the Governor, the head of the governing body of
any political subdivision having zoning authority or other land
use regulatory responsibility in the geographical area, and the
head of any political subdivision having administrative or public
service responsibility. The notice shall also be sent to other
known interested parties of record, including, but not limited
to, adjoining landowners and current or past land users. (This
requirement of the regulation will be met concurrently with the
publication of the Notice of Realty Action.)
If comments are received in response to the Notice of Realty
Action, BLM will analyze the comments and either proceed with the
sale, modify the sale or its terms and conditions, or cancel the
process. If the sale were cancelled or its terms were modified,
a second Notice of Realty Action would be published. Comments
may be dismissed, subject to the right of appeal to the Interior
Board of Land Appeals.
If the BLM decides to proceed with the sale, a Patent (deed)
will be written upon receipt of payment and after all the above
actions have been completed.
Section 203 of FLPMA requires that when lands are sold, the
conveyance document shall contain a reservation of all minerals
1-8
-------
to the United States. If the state wants to acquire the mineral
estate, it can file a second application, under Section 209 of
FLPMA. The Secretary of the Interior can convey the mineral
interests if there are no known minerals values, or the record
surface owner can demonstrate that development of the minerals
would significantly interfere with the surface use, and that the
nonmineral development would be a more beneficial use of the land
than its mineral development.
1-9
-------
SECTION 2
ALTERNATIVES
BACKGROUND: SITE SELECTION
The ADHS first began investigating potential sites for a
hazardous waste facility in the late 1970s. The department's
first efforts to propose a specific site met with considerable
public opposition. In response to this, the Arizona State Leg-
islature enacted Senate Bill 1283 (ARS Sec. 36-2800), which
became effective in July 1980. In this law, the Legislature
assumed responsibility for making the final decision on a facil-
ity site, based on ADHS's recommendation.
The current process of selecting a hazardous waste disposal
site began in August 1980. An ADHS interdisciplinary task force
was established from representatives of the Division of Environ-
mental Health Services. Technical advisors from other state
agencies, institutions, and the Governor's Office provided exper-
tise and policy guidance throughout the selection process.
ADHS's site evaluation process and its recommendations are
described in the siting study (1). To select a potential site,
ADHS developed a three-level screening mechanism. Level 1
screening, the first and most general level of evaluation, was
based on the environmental criteria mandated by ARS Sec. 36-2802,
and on institutional criteria provided by federal and state land
management policies. The purpose of Level 1 screening was to
eliminate unsuitable areas of the state. As the criteria were
applied and lands were rejected, 23 potentially suitable areas
were i denti fi ed.
Level 2 screening provided a more detailed assessment of the
potentially suitable areas identified in Level 1. Twelve of the
23 areas were eliminated from further consideration. The 11
remaining areas were then subjected to an intensive economic,
social, institutional, and environmental evaluation. The crite-
ria included costs of land acquisition, facility development and
operation, and transportation; health and safety impacts from
transportation and facility operation; nuisances to nearby com-
munities; scenic or aesthetic impacts; archaeological or histor-
ical impacts; surrounding land and water uses; land ownership;
depth to ground water; quality of ground water; annual precipita-
tion and evaporation; wind impacts; soil characteristics; biolog-
ical communities; and presence of threatened or endangered plant
or animal species.
2-1
-------
Details of ADHS's site selection process are described in
the siting report (1). After publishing a draft report, and
conducting public hearings on December 4, 5, and 8, 1980, ADHS
recommended to the Legislature the Western Harquahala Plain as
the location for the state hazardous waste management facility.
It also noted that the Mobile (Rainbow Valley) and Ranegras Plain
sites were worthy of strong consideration. Reasons for the ADHS
recommendations, as well as for elimination of the eight other
sites, are given in the siting report. The Legislature desig-
nated the Mobile site as the location for the state's hazardous
waste management facility in Senate Bill 1033 (February 1981).
This Bill was codified into law as ARS Sec. 36-2802, Subsec. 3,
and became effective in March 1981. It should be noted that sale
of a site other than the Mobile site would require a change in
the law to allow ADHS to make the purchase.
SITE ALTERNATIVES
Proposed Site - Mobile
The Mobile site consists of 1 square mile of land (640
acres) located in Maricopa County (legal description: Section
32, Township 4 South, Range 1 West of Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian) (Figure 2-1). In addition, there would be a 0.5-
mile buffer zone of federal lands around the facility that would
be managed cooperatively by ADHS and BLM. The buffer zone would
continue to be used for grazing or for another use compatible
with the facility.
The unincorporated community of Mobile is approximately 6
miles east of the site. There is currently no public access to
the site. The nearest paved road ends just outside Maricopa,
more than 15 miles from the site. A graded dirt road (Maricopa-
Gila Bend) comes within approximately 1 mile of the site. Access
from the east or west is from the Maricopa-Gi1 a Bend Road. From
Phoenix or Tucson, access would be from 1-10 to Maricopa via
county roads from Casa Grande or from the Gila River Indian Res-
ervation. Access from the north is from Highway 80 east of
Buckeye, or from 1-10 at Jackrabbit Road, to the community of
Rainbow Valley, and then via public roads to the Maricopa-Gi1 a
Bend Road. The Southern Pacific Railroad line crosses the area
south of the site and parallels Maricopa Road in a general
southwest-northeast direction.
Alternative Site - Western Harquahala Plain
The Western Harquahala Plain si£e consists of 2 square miles
of land in east-central Yuma County. It is bordered on the
southeast by the Eagletail Mountains and on the southwest by
Ranegras Plain (legal description: Section 25, Township 3 North,
* Effective January 1, 1983, the Western Harquahala Plain and
Ranegras Plain sites will be in the newly formed La Paz County.
2-2
-------
OTTefc**Kr»»* : • \
"'S"a.nXv7J?"A«™« *V
•* ^^§fl N«°«» ' '?!yf™
ii i_ \j i i_. r\ i ^
HARQUAHALA
iSrjJiff ffnwv,,
., , -, INDIAN */< N'if' A*
/ Y ,. ?''"*kl» i^LnMrv!
Figure 2-1. Locations of the proposed and two alternative sites.
2-3
-------
Range 13 West, and Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 12 West of
the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian) (Figure 2-1). Should
this alternative be selected, ADHS would identify one square mile
for the proposed site. Buffer zone arrangements would be the
same as those at the Mobile site. Selection of this site would
require legislative approval.
The site is 90 miles west of Phoenix and 50 miles southwest
of Wickenburg, and is located south of the 56-mile marker on
1-10. There is no convenient rail access to the site. Access is
from Interstate 10 at Exit 53, followed by an approximate 5-mile
drive on public gravel and dirt roads to the southeast.
Alternative Site - Ranegras Plain
The Ranegras Plain site consists of 2 |quare miles of land
in the east-central portion of Yuma County. It is bordered on
the west by the Bear Hills and on the south by the Little Horn
Mountains (legal description: Sections 9 and 10, Township 2
North, Range 14 West of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meri-
dian) (Figure 2-1). Should this alternative be selected, ADHS
would identify one square mile for the proposed site. Buffer
zone arrangements would be the same as those at the Mobile site.
Selection of this site would require legislative approval.
The site is 100 miles west of Phoenix and 60 miles southwest
of Wickenburg. There is no convenient rail access to this site.
Access is from Interstate 10 at Exit 53 followed by an approxi-
mate 6-mile drive on Hovatter Road to the southwest.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A summary of the potential environmental and socieoconomic
impacts of the hazardous waste management facility at the pro-
posed and alternative sites is presented in Table 2-1. Section 4
presents details of the impact analysis.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
No-Action Alternative
Under this alternative, BLM would not transfer land to the
State of Arizona for siting a hazardous waste facility. This
would cause the state either to stop its efforts to develop a
state-owned facility, or to obtain legislative approval for the
purchase of land other than BLM land. In either case, legisla-
tive guidance and/or new legislation would be required. Conse-
quences of the no-action alternative are discussed in Section 4.
Effective January 1, 1983, the Western Harquahala Plain and
Ranegras Plain sites will be in the newly formed La Paz County
2-4
-------
Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study
Additional Alternative Sites--
Of the 11 sites remaining after Level 2 screening, only
three were recommended for the proposed hazardous waste manage-
ment facility. Reasons for elimination of the eight other sites
are given in the state's siting report (1).
Recovery/Recycling Alternative--
ADHS intends to have the facility contractor practice
recovery/recycling of hazardous wastes to the maximum extent
practical. However, recovery/recycling of all wastes generated
in Arizona does not appear to be viable at this time.
The potential for recycling or recovering certain constitu-
ents (e.g., metals, organic solvents) from hazardous wastes is
dependent on the waste stream and associated costs and technol-
ogy. An assessment of the quality and characteristics of the
hazardous waste streams indicates that waste solvents would
probably be the only waste stream for which recovery would be
cost-effect i ve.
For waste recovery to be cost-effective, several criteria
must be met:
• The desirable fraction of the waste must be present in
sufficient quantities to offset the costs of recovery.
This is a function of concentration, the value of the
recoverable product, and the operational costs incurred.
• Readily implementable technology for the recovery of the
desired product must be available. There exist labora-
tory or theoretical recovery methods for virtually any
material; however, many are impractical or prohibitively
expensive when considered as full-scale systems.
• There must be a market for the recovered material.
Reuse of contaminated or dilute pesticides is not permit-
ted. Many pesticide containers are not amenable to detoxifica-
tion and reuse. For such wastes, secure disposal is the only
a 1ternati ve.
Many non-solvents may include relatively pure, outdated
chemicals, or chemicals with a sufficiently high concentration of
valuable components to be reused. However, it is difficult to
discuss the technology or economics of reclaiming these materials
due to the variety of chemicals and different reclamation tech-
niques involved. For example, completely different equipment and
technology would be needed to purify contaminated arsenic com-
pounds, cyanide solids, tri chl orof 1 uoromethane , and carbon disul-
fide. It is not possible to generalize reclamation schemes for
such a diverse waste stream. Further, it would be inappropriate
2-5
-------
to assume that these wastes could be reclaimed without more de-
tailed knowledge of the condition of these wastes and the degree
of contami nati on.
Some research has addressed the potential development of
methods for recovering metals from inorganic sludges and fly ash,
but none of these methods has been implemented on a large scale
to date. For an inorganic sludge, the recovery process involves
sludge dewatering, sulfuric acid leaching (possible use for waste
sulfuric acids), filtration, dilution, ion exchange, and a series
of precipitation/filtration processes with precise pH control.
Metal salts, which are produced by this process, could be sold to
a purification plant. They could undergo further purification
for resale as processed chemicals. However, at current metal
prices, electrolytic recovery of the actual metal is prohibi-
tively expensive. The profit potential of this recovery process
is dependent on the implementation of a technologically feasible
recovery method, as well as the value of the metals at any given
time.
Acids and bases are potentially reusable. Reuse would re-
quire storage at a hazardous waste facility for each discrete,
possibly reusable acid or base waste for potential future as-is
resale. In addition, separate evaporation basins would be needed
to store unusable acids and bases. Such extensive storage re-
quirements would be very expensive. Further, recovery of acids
and bases at the facility would require the use of purification
equi pment.
Use of a single neutralization/evaporation basin for all
corrosive wastes simplifies recordkeeping and is generally less
costly than monitoring a number of separate storage facilities
for discrete acids and bases. To begin with, an acid/base recov-
ery facility would require the construction of storage tanks.
Sizing the facilities becomes a problem in the absence of de-
tailed data on the exact types and quantities of corrosives, as
well as the potentially recoverable fractions. Whereas total
quantity and evaporation rate data are sufficient to design an
.evaporation system, storage tanks would have to be overdesigned
to handle any unsold corrosives, leading to unused capacity.
Depending on the requirements of potential customers, puri-
fication might be required. This could range from simple sedi-
mentation (creating a sludge problem in the tanks) to concen-
tration/dilution, to complete disti11ation/reconstitutions. At
this level of treatment, recovered acids cease to be cost-
competitive. The cost difference between simple evaporation and
recovery can be as high as two orders of magnitude, depending on
the level of treatment which might be required.
2-6
-------
In summary, with the exception of waste solvents, all other
wastes were excluded from consideration for potential recovery
for the following reasons:
• Prohibitively high costs associated with lack of readily
available technology for the recovery of identified
materi al s.
t Low recoverabi1ity potential.
• Lack of sufficient data on some waste characteristics.
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
i
oo
Mobile Site
PHYSICAL SETTING
Topography over an area of 58 acres
would be substantially altered locally
by the construction of the facility
and access roads. Soils would be dis-
turbed or removed. If erosion is not
prevented, this could result in increased
wind and water erosion due to the con-
siderable disturbance of the site's na-
tural vegetation. Following the con-
struction phase, some of the disturbed
land would likely revert to the precon-
struction conditions over a period of years.
WATER RESOURCES
The possibility of contaminants from the
facility leaking or leaching into ground
water is remote given the estimated
ground water depth of at least 500 feet.
Should ground water become contaminated,
regional hydrogeologic data indicate
that it would take 270 to 370 years for
the contaminated ground water to move
from the site to the nearest existing
water supply wells.
Western Harquahala Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Because of the estimated depth
to ground water of 340 to 390
feet the possibility of leaking
or leaching contaminants reach-
ing the water table is remote.
Regional hydrogeologic data in-
dicate that it would take 2,700
to 11,000 years for contaminated
ground water to move from the
facility to the nearest existing
water supply wells.
Ranegras Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Because of the estimated depth
to ground water of 320 to 390
feet, the possibility of leak-
ing or leaching contaminants
reaching the water table is
remote. Regional hydrogeo-
logic data indicate it would
take 2,250 to 6,750 years for
contaminated ground water to
move from the facility to the
nearest existing water supply
wells.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
i
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
I
I—>
o
Mobile Site
''non-fugitive." Based on the limited in-
formation available for this analysis, the
levels of hazardous pollutants emitted into
the air from facility operations would not
be expected to be significant.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Experience at existing hazardous waste
facilities suggests that 0.5 operational
spills per year could be expected at the
proposed facility. Impacts of a spill
would depend on the type of waste,
weather conditions, etc. Volatilization
of spilled wastes could potentially emit
hazardous constituents into the air.
Transportation risk assessment shows
that the potential for accidents is
low (0.01 to 0.02 accidents per year)
along three alternative routes from
Tucson to the site. Accident proba-
bilities for routes from Phoenix
to the site may range from 0.02 to
0.13 accidents per year.
Shipment of wastes from Phoenix and
Tucson poses risks to populations
residing along potential routes and
near the proposed facility. Popula-
tion at risk from Tucson to the site
would range from 55,350 to 55,550
Western Harquahala Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Transportation data shows that
about 0.05 accidents per year
can be expected from shipping
wastes from Tucson to the Har-
quahala Site. Accident proba-
bilities from Phoenix to this
site (via 1-10) are 0.16 to
0.18 accidents per year.
The population at risk is esti-
mated at approximately 60,000
and 103,000, respectively,
for hazardous waste shipment
from Tucson and Phoenix to
the site. The potential for
Ranegras Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Same as Western Har-
quahala Site alterna-
tive.
Same as Western Har-
quahala Site alterna-
tive.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
ro
i
Mobile Site
(depending on the route) while the
Phoenix-site route would place from
104,000 to 133,000 at risk. Schools
located in the Maricopa and Mobile
areas may be considered as special
cases of population at risk.
Fourteen communities, three of which
are near the site, could be exposed
to hazardous material emergencies;
thirteen communities could be affected
by a transit emergency. Phoenix and
Casa Grande are likely to experience
more transit emergencies than other
cities.
None of the nearby communities and
virtually none of the nonmetropolitan
communities have adequate emergency
personnel, equipment, and communication
equipment to respond to such emergencies,
Phoenix could become overburdened if
called upon to serve the facility in
addition to its present responsibilities.
Soil disturbance may pose a risk of
Valley Fever to those construction work-
ers who have not previously been exposed,
The probability of significant impacts
on persons outside the site is low.
Occasional high winds could disperse
Western Harquahala Site
spills into the CAP Canal
presents a special hazard.
However, a probability of such
a spill is extremely low, be-
cause the trucks are in the
area for a very short time.
Twenty communities, seven of
which are near the site, could
be exposed to hazardous mate-
rials emergencies; 20 comuni-
ties could be affected by a
transit emergency.
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Ranegras Site
It is assumed that the Valley
Fever spore population at this
site is similar to that at the
Mobile Site. The population
subject to possible exposure is
lower than at the Mobile site.
Same as Western Harquahala
Site alternanative.
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Same as Western Harquahala
Site.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
ro
Mobile Site
spores to nearby populated areas. Even
under these conditions, the spread of
Valley Fever would be low since immun-
ity is presumed to have been built up in
most area residents.
Since the proposed site is located in a
rural area with low population density
odors are not expected to be a major
problem.
Operational noise levels at the facility
would be considerably above background
levels, but the general noise level
would not be expected to exceed OSHA
standards. Facility operational noise
would not be expected to affect nearby
communities.
Western Harquahala Site
Ranegras Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Noise from truck traffic through or near
Mobile and Maricopa may be a nuisance.
No transportation noise im-
pacts would be expected, as
there are no permanent
residences along the main
access roads. Facility
truck traffic would be an
insignificant addition to
traffic on 1-10.
Same as for Western Har-
quahala Site alterna-
tive.
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Construction will result in loss of
vegetation and disturbance of land.
Food, shelter, and nesting habitats
for local wildlife may also be removed,
Same as
tive.
Mobile Site alterna-
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
FND
Mobile Site
Some direct animal kills might occur.
The operation of evaporation ponds may
pose a threat to the avian population
attracted to the ponds as a source of
water. Over a period of time, the
bioaccumulation of hazardous substances
may increase the number of bird deaths
due to poisoning, as well as affect
their birthrates.
LAND USE
No significant impacts on land use would
be expected as a result of the removal
or loss of 58 to 640 acres for live-
stock grazing purposes from the exist-
ing BLM grazing allotment. Only a minor
impact on the recreational resources could
result. Some of the uses, such as grazing,
may reoccur after facility has been fully
closed, depending on the conditions of the
permit.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The facility would stand in significant
contrast to the existing visual environ-
ment. The impact would be low because
of the relatively small number of recrea-
tional users of the areas, and its dis-
tance from populated centers.
Western Harquahala Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
While the facility would be
visible from 1-10, the existing
topography and presence of
other currently visible struc-
tures (CAP Canal, pipeline
pumping station, transmission
line, 1-10) would reduce the
visual impact of the proposed
facility.
Ranegras Site
Same as Mobile
tive.
Site alterna-
The visual contrasts of the
facility could be significant
to users of the Kofa Game
Range and a Wilderness Study
area. However, existing vis-
ual disturbances (transmission
line, windmill pump and water
tank, and 1-10) would lessen
the overall impact of the
facility on the visual ex-
periences.
-------
TABLE 2-1 (continued)
Mobile Site
CULTURAL RESOURCES
No recorded archeological, historical,
or significant Native American resources
have been identified at the site,
therefore no impact is anticipated. The
facility would be expected to eliminate
the gathering of subsistence plants by
Native Americans on the site. Given
the small area of the affected land,
this impact would not likely be sig-
nificant.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Economic/demographic effects would be Same as
minimal; increased revenue flow to tive.
regional and local jurisdictions:
generation of sales tax revenue during
construction period from purchase of
construction materials locally and
tax revenue from out-of-state purchases.
Because of conflicting impacts on land
values, it is not possible to project
the net impacts on land values. Odors,
traffic noise, and anxiety with respect
to other possible public health and safety
effects could cause deterioration in the
quality of life to a small number of people.
Western Harquahala Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Ranegras Site
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
Mobile Site alterna-
Same as Mobile Site alterna-
tive.
-------
SECTION 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the existing environment at the pro-
posed site (Mobile) and at the two alternative sites (Western
Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain). As required by Section
1502.15 of the NEPA regulations, this section is limited to a
description of the resources and a discussion of those aspects
which will help the reader to understand the impacts of the
available alternatives.
APPROACH
The description of various resources in the affected envi-
ronment for the proposed and alternative sites was primarily
based on secondary sources of information. A cursory field re-
connaissance was made for some resources (e.g., socioeconomics,
visual resources). The approach included (a) review and inter-
pretation of existing reports, previous studies, or maps within
the general areas, (b) extrapolation of data from studies similar
to the proposed facility, (c) personal contacts with federal,
state, regional, and local governmental agencies and institu-
tions, and (d) consultation with knowledgeable professionals.
MOBILE SITE
Physical Setting
The Mobile siting area, as defined in the initial ADHS sit-
ing study, is located in the Rainbow Valley, in south-central
Arizona within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province,
bounded on the north, south, and west by the Maricopa Mountains,
and on the east by the Palo Verde and Estrella Ranges (2). The
area extends northward from approximately 32°59'30" to 33°12'30"
North Latitude (3, 4). The proposed site is located approxi-
mately 3 miles northeast of Estrella and 0.5 mile north of the
Southern Pacific Railroad (Figure 3-1). The site is 1 mile
square, and comprises Section 32, Township 4 South, Range 1 West.
Topography--
The Mobile area, located between the Maricopa, Estrella, and
Palo Verde Ranges, is comprised primarily of valley fill depos-
its. The proposed site is situated on dissected fan deposits on
the east side of the Maricopa Mountains, with gentle sloping
3-1
-------
-^-:'-TifirferJir-raM-A?i--M
1 jJL I .._,_. / K I It ___ .nr_ .
I -^ ID a i ^hAirvLriiit., IT ^
Figure 3-1. Location of Mobile site.
3-2
-------
(approximately 1 percent) toward the east and north. Elevation
ranges from 1,390 to 1,440 feet above sea level.
Soi1s--
The U.S.
soi1 maps for
the fol1owi ng
Soi1 Conservati on
the proposed site
soi1 associ ati ons
Service has prepared generalized
and its vicinity, which identify
(5):
Gi1man-Estrel1a-Avondale.
Antho-Valenci a.
Ri11ito-Gunsi ght-Pinal.
Laveen-Cooli dge.
Casa Grande-Harqua.
Chirioni-Gachado-Rock.
All but the last soil association developed on alluvial sediments
from source materials of widely varying lithologies. An inter-
pretative summary of the pertinent generalized properties of
these soils is presented in Table 3-1.
Soils at the proposed site were described as being of the
Gi1 man-Estrel1 a-Avonda1e Association, dry loam and clay loam
soils in alluvium derived from the surrounding mountains, with a
moderate hydrologic transmission rate (5).
The Arizona Department of Health Services analyzed soil sam-
ples from three 150-foot-deep soil borings at the proposed site
(6). These samples were described as fine-grained silty to
clayey sands with abundant clays. This description conforms to
White's description of the upper 200 feet of the unsaturated zone
(7).
Geologic Conditions--
The area surrounding the Mobile site
west prong of Waterman Wash, sub-basin of
relatively flat plain which slopes inward
mountains and drains toward the northeast
situated within the
Mobi1e Val1ey, is a
from the enci rcli ng
The plain is composed
and alluvial sediment derived from the sur-
rounding mountains. The mountains were formed as the result of
Late Tertiary tectonic activity, thrust faulting, and folding;
rocks of Precambrian Age (gneiss and granite) are exposed (8).
of val1ey fill, fan
The basin contains deep deposits (on the order of 2,000 feet
deep) of Late Tertiary and younger sediments, formed from erosion
of the mountains. At several locations, low hills (likely the
remnants of deeply eroded mountains) extend above the valley
fill.
The proposed site is located in the southwest portion of the
basin, and is traversed by tributaries of the west prong of
Waterman Wash. The actual depth of the valley fill and the na-
ture of the underlying basement rocks are unknown. The sediments
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1. PROPERTIES AND FEATURES OF THE SOIL§ IN THE VICINITY OF MOBILE SITE,
MARICOPA COUNTY
co
Major Soil Association
Gil man-Estrel 1 a-Avondal e
Gil man loam
Estrella loam
Avondale clay
Antho-Valencia
Antho sandy loam
Valencia sandy loam
Ril lito-Gunsight-Pinal
Rillito gravelly loam
Gunsight gravelly loam
Pinal gravelly loam
Laveen-Cool idge
Laveen loam
Cool idge sandy loam
Casa Grande-Harqua
Casa Grande sandy loam
Harqua very gravelly
clay loam
Cher i on i-Gachado- Rock
Cherioni gravelly very
fine sandy loam
Gachado very cobby
loam
Rock outcrop
Parent Material
Mixed acid + basic
igneous rocks
Dominantly granitic
Dominantly granite-
gneiss, schist, basalt,
andesite, and limestone
Mixed source material
Granite-gneiss, basalt,
and site, rhyolite,
tuff, schist, and
granite
Slope
_[%}_
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-5
0-1
0-5
0-10
0-5
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-5
10-40
10-40
10-80
Permeabil ity
(in/hr)
0.6-2
0.6-2
0.2-0.6
2-6
2-6
0.6-2
0.6-2
0.6-2
0.6-2
2-6
0.06-0.2
0.2-0.6
0.6-2
0.06-2
Available
Water
Capacity
(in/60 in)
9.6-10.8
10.3-11.5
9.5-11.0
6.6-7.8
8.3-9.5
6.5-7.5
4.0-5.5
1.5-2.7
8.5-9.5
6.0-7.5
8.5-11.5
5.0-6.5
0.9-2
1.5-2.1
Shrink/Swell
Potential
Low
Low-Mod
Moderate
Low
Low-Mod
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Soil pH
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
8.5-9.6
7.9-9.6
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
* Source: Reference 5.
-------
in the vicinity are usually divided into two distinct units, as
follows (8, 9):
• Upper Uni t - comprised of unconsolidated sediments rang-
ing in texture from sandy clay to gravels; 800 to 1,000
feet thick. The top 200 feet is generally finer textured
than the underlying material.
• Lower Unit - comprised of poorly to moderately consoli-
dated, relatively coarse alluvial material; generally
greater than 500 feet thick (may locally exceed 1,000
feet).
These units thin dramatically around the periphery of the basin,
forming extensive areas of piedmont with relatively shallow bed-
rock. The contact between the valley fill and the crystalline
rock of the mountains is abrupt.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines computer data bank on mineral re-
sources does not identify any such resources either in the gen-
eral area or at the proposed site (10). The presence or absence
of faults in the alluvium and in the bedrock adjacent to and
beneath the site cannot be determined on the basis of the avail-
able data.
Climate--
The climate of the Mobile site can be best described by data
from the Gila Bend, Phoenix and Casa Grande meteorological sta-
tions which surround the site (11).
Temperature — Mean monthly temperatures for Casa Grande, Gila
Bend, and Phoenix are presented in Table 3-2. These data show
that mean temperatures range from about 50°F in January to above
90°F in July. The ranje of temperatures to be expected in any
one day may also be quite large. In January, the mean daily low
temperature is about 36°F with the mean daily high about 66°F.
In July, the mean daily low is about 75°F with an afternoon high
temperature averaging about 106°F.
Data from Phoenix indicate that the afternoon high tempera-
tures reach above 90°F for 162 days out of the year, and that
these days generally occur from May through October. Freezing
temperatures are experienced on an average of 15 days per year in
Phoenix, but this number should be higher in rural valleys such
as the site area (14).
Precipitation—Mean precipitation data for the local sta-
tionsa re shown TrT Table 3-2. Annual average precipitation is
estimated at 6 to 8 inches per year. May and June are the driest
months, and rainfall peaks in August. All three local stations
show a monthly total for August above 1 inch.
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2. TEMPERATURE, PRECIPITATION, AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
Normal Temperature (°F)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Casa
Grande
50.6
54.9
59.7
67.7
76.2
84.8
91.1
88.9
83.6
72.1
59.5
51.8
70.1
Gil a
Bend
52.6
56.5
61.4
69.5
77.9
85.9
93.1
91.5
85.8
74.7
61.6
54.0
72.0
Phoenix
51.2
55.1
59.7
67.7
76.3
84.6
91.2
89.1
83.8
72.4
59.8
52.5
70.3
Total Precipitation (inches)
Casa
Grande
0.76
0.67
0.69
0.35
0.11
0.16
0.95
1.56
0.79
0.63
0.56
0.88
8.11
Gil a
Bend
0.62
0.44
0.65
0.30
0.10
0.04
0.76
1.08
0.50
0.33
0.35
0.59
5.76
Phoenix
0.71
0.60
1.51
0.32
0.14
0.12
0.75
1.22
0.69
0.46
0.46
0.82
7.05
Potential Evapotranspiration (inchesj
Casa
Grande
0.44
0.64
1.64
2.70
5.05
7.41
8.46
7.71
6.17
3.26
1.11
0.49
45.6
Gil a
Bend
0.57
0.80
1.51
3.13
5.36
7.54
8.64
7.97
6.51
3.76
1.20
0.53
47.65
Phoenix
0.53
0.76
1.78
3.00
5.18
7.54
8.37
7.71
6.17
3.28
1.20
0.29
45.83
Actual Evapotranspiration (inches)
Casa
Grande
0.44
0.64
1.51
0.35
0.09
0.17
1.25
1.32
0.78
0.28
0.78
0.49
8.10
Gil a
Bend
0.57
0.56
0.62
0.22
0.11
0.07
0.82
0.91
0.47
0.36
0.45
0.53
5.69
Phoenix
0.53
0.76
1.78
0.42
0.12
0.07
1.06
1.06
0.82
0.44
0.62
0.29
7.38
* Source: References 12 and 13.
-------
The intensity of rainfall is as important as the monthly
average precipitation data. Most of the heavier rainfall comes
in the form of brief, intense cloudbursts, especially in the late
summer. These showers may rapidly flood the smaller gullies and
washes as well as lower portions of the valley floors. Phoenix
data show that the maximum 24-hour rainfall experienced in 28
years was 3.07 inches. The data also indicate that 24-hour total
precipitation may exceed one inch in any month of the year (14).
Thunderstorms may be expected on 22 days per year, and are most
frequent in July or August.
Insignificant quantities of snowfall are recorded in most
years, averaging 0.2 inch. The snow, however, melts almost imme-
diately on the desert plain (13).
Evapotranspiration--Evapotranspiration is the combined loss
of water by evaporation from the soil surface and by transpira-
tion from vegetation. Mean monthly potential and actual evapo-
transpiration data for the local stations are presented in Table
3-2. Annual actual evapotranspiration (6 to 8 inches) is very
low compared to the potential evapotranspiration (45 to 48
inches), indicating that the site is extremely dry.
Wi nd--Wi nd patterns are difficult to determine, especially
by interpolation between weather stations. Throughout these
areas of complex terrain, wind patterns can also be quite com-
plex. It is likely, however, that the vicinity of the proposed
site will have a prevalent mountain-va11ey breeze system in which
winds blow up the mountain slopes during the afternoon and down
these same slopes during the night and early morning (14).
Mean wind speeds at Phoenix average 4.4 to 6.4 miles per
hour (mph), and these same speeds should prevail at the site.
The lowest mean wind speeds occur during the months of November
through February. These winds are light, and periods of calm are
frequent. Winds are predominantly from the east during the win-
ter and fal1 .
Wind speeds in excess of 8 mph occur more frequently during
spring and summer months, when westerly winds become prevalent.
The highest mean wind speeds occur from April to July. The
strongest gusts of wind recorded in the Phoenix area (86 mph)
occurred in July of 1976, originating from the southeast. In
June and August of 1978, winds from an easterly direction reached
72 and 78 mph, respectively. Peak gusts of wind are associated
with the thunderstorms which move through the area. Gusts of 50
mph or more may be expected in any month. It is likely that in
local, intense storms, wind gusts may reach 100 mph or more.
During the thunderstorm season rapid changes in winds and tem-
peratures may be expected along with brief intense showers.
3-7
-------
Water Resources
Ground Water--
The principal aquifer in Rainbow Valley is composed of
basin-fill and exists under water table conditions. The aquifer
has been divided into an upper and a lower unit (14). The upper
unit has a saturated thickness of 700 feet in the southwest part
of the basi n .
No ground water measurements have been made, as there are no
wells at the proposed site. The closest well is 2-1/4 miles
northeast (downgradient) of the site. This well has been aban-
doned, but moist sand has been detected at 480 feet beneath the
surface (15). This information, along with measurements of depth
to ground water in the vicinity of Mobile, leads to an estimated
depth to ground water at the proposed site of at least 500 feet.
The ground water in the basin moves in a northerly direction
toward a large cone of depression, an area in which heavy pumping
of ground water has lowered the water table. This cone of de-
pression, caused by agricultural pumpage, is located 12 to 15
miles north of the proposed site. The ground water velocity in
the Mobile vicinity can be calculated using a transmissivity of
8,000 square feet per day, a saturated thickness value of 700
feet, an hydraulic gradient of 10 feet per mile, and a porosity
of 8 percent (16). This calculation results in an estimated
average ground water velocity of 0.27 feet per day, or 99 feet
per year. The hydraulic gradient in the northwest part of the
basin increases to 30 feet per mile. Using the same aquifer
characteristics and the new hydraulic gradient, the estimated
average ground water velocity near the cone of depression is 0.80
feet per day, or 290 feet per year.
In an environment as arid as that around Mobile, with an
average annual precipitation of 8 inches (1), direct rainfall
accounts for very little of the "recharge," or replenishment, of
the ground water aquifer except in areas near mountain range
fronts or stream beds (17, 18, 19, 20, 21). It appears, there-
fore, that the Mobile site is not in an area which is a signifi-
cant source of ground water recharge. Further evidence that the
ground water in the area of the Mobile site receives no direct
recharge from precipitation is the report that the upper 150 feet
of the unsaturated zone beneath the site contains less than 5
percent moisture content by weight (6).
Surface Water--
The only surface waters on or near the Mobile site are occa-
sional storm waters which drain through the washes on and around
the site, and water catchments or "tanks" for cattle. Tanks and
major washes are shown on Figure 3-2.
3-1
-------
MARtCOPA
MOUNTAINS
(I
I I
,'"O*^ ----- / 0-NORTHWE'ST t
•--'•** / X ..'.' t TANK f I
CONLEY v / . ,' , ,' '
TANK —^--::r*x _ ^ /, i ;
.--- <—^':' ""7// i '' v-
' -- '_-/ /'/ft! \ ;
APPROXIMATE -'/
LOCATION.--* ^'
T4S. Rl W. SEC. 32 *
// ,'
Figure 3-2. Surface water drainage at Mobile site,
3-9
-------
The area around the site is crossed by numerous drainage
channels that are tributaries of Waterman Wash. The larger chan-
nels cut several feet into the surface soil, indicating that
water from high-intensity rainstorms concentrates in these chan-
nels as it runs off the surrounding mountains. Three such chan-
nels cross the site itself. This suggests significant volumes of
intermittent runoff flows through the site. There are no 100-
year floodplain maps showing flood-prone areas at the site, but
the area is classified by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as Zone D, meaning that undetermined but possible
flood hazards exist.
Waterman Wash and its tributaries are subject to flash
floods (22). A U.S. Geological Survey gauging station on the
wash near Buckeye recorded a maximum peak stream flow of 6,300
cubic feet per second in 1967, with an average peak for the 1964-
1980 period of 1,608 cubic feet per second (see Appendix F). The
proposed site is within an 18.4-square-mi1e watershed for which
ADHS estimates a peak discharge of 4,000 cubic feet per second
for a 100-year, 2-hour precipitation event.
Although several tanks are in the vicinity of the site, all
but one are outside the drainage pattern of the site. The Conley
Tank is located nearly 2 miles northwest of the site. The North
Tank is 7-3/4 miles northeast of the site. A third tank is lo-
cated approximately 5-1/4 miles east of the site, while a fourth
is nearly 3 miles to the southeast. The Northwest Tank, located
approximately 1-3/4 miles northeast of the site, is close to the
western fork of Waterman Wash downstream from the site, and could
be affected by surface water draining through or near the site.
Ai r Quali ty
Background air quality data (from the air quality monitoring
stations at Maricopa and Buckeye, about 25 miles from the site)
are shown in Table 3-3 (23). Ambient concentrations of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead at
the proposed site are well within the federal and state ambient
air quality standards (AAQS) (see Appendix G).
The observed high concentrations of particulates (e.g.,
dust) noted in Table 3-3 are not unusual for central Arizona.
Since there are relatively few artificial sources of total
suspended particulates (TSP) in the area, high TSP values are
principally due to natural causes, such as dust storms, dust
devils, and high winds. An analysis of a 3-year wind record at
Estrella Sailport showed that high particulate concentrations are
primarily associated with the passage of convective thunderstorms
and/or fronts (13).
3-10
-------
TABLE 3-3. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT THE MOBILE SITE
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
1-hour
8-hour
State/Federal AAQSf
Primary Secondary
40
10
40
10
Ambient
Air
Quality*
3
1
Monitoring
Site(s)
Mari.copa
Hydrocarbons
3-hour (6-9 a.m.)
Lead
Calendar Quarter
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
Ozone
160
1.5
160
1.5
100
100
433
Maricopa
0.02-0.24 Buckeye,
Maricopa
Maricopa
1-hour (Daily Max.)
Parti culates
24-hour
Annual
Sulfur Dioxide
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
0.12
260
75
365
80
0.12
150
60
1,300
--
—
0.05-0.06
142-343
54-127
31
14
2
Buckeye,
Maricopa
Buckeye,
Maricopa
Buckeye
* Units ace ug/m , except for carbon monoxide and ozone, which are in units
of mg/m and ppm, respectively.
t Ambient air quality standards.
# Maximum second high values for 1981, as provided by Olmstead (23). The
ambient air quality data for ozone were taken from the 1980 Air Quality
Data for Arizona (24).
3-11
-------
Public Health and Safety
Spills--
The proposed site is located in a rural desert area with no
current industrial activity. It is thus assumed that there are
currently no hazardous material spill accidents at this site.
Risks from Transporting Hazardous Wastes--
The proposed site is located in a rural area with no indus-
trial or disposal activity. It is thus assumed that there are
presently little or no risks from transporting hazardous wastes
in this area. A planned Provident Energy Company oil refinery
(to be located near the Mobile School) may generate some ship-
ments of hazardous wastes.
Emergency Response--
Public safety is evaluated in terms of the effectiveness of
present response capabilities for both nearby communities and
communities located along the major transit routes (see Figure
3-3). The traffic counts for 1980 on Exit No. 162 from 1-10
total 20,000 cars per day; further down Maricopa Road to Mari-
copa, the count is 1,800 cars per day, and from Maricopa to Casa
Grande, up to 18,000 cars per day. The traffic count on the Casa
Grande exit off 1-10 (Exit No. 194) is 14,000 cars per day.
The present traffic count along the Maricopa Highway to
Mobile is 139 cars per day (25). It is estimated that this traf-
fic count will increase an additional 300 to 600 cars per day
when the Provident Refinery becomes operational. The current
traffic count on the road from the community of Mobile past the
Mobile site is 44 cars per day (25).
Site emergencies--There is presently no fire department in
the Rai nbow Vailey are a. The closest fire departments are all-
volunteer units in Gila Bend and Maricopa, both about 18 miles
from the Mobile site (Table 3-4). Since the Gila Bend department
usually covers an area of 10 miles from the city, it is doubtful
that they would be able to respond to a site emergency. The de-
partment provides minimal firefighting support; it is not pre-
pared to handle incidents involving hazardous materials or medi-
cal emergencies. The volunteer fire department at Maricopa is
even smaller. It is only minimally prepared to respond to medi-
cal emergencies or any incident involving hazardous materials
(see Table 3-4).
The proposed Provident Energy Company oil refinery at Mobile
is expected to have its own emergency response services. The
extent to which these services could be available to assist with
emergencies at the hazardous waste facility is not known at this
t ime.
Transit emergencies--The three Arizona counties primarily
affected by hazardous waste generation and transport to the pro-
posed Mobile site are Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. The degree to
3-12
-------
WESTERN
HARQUAHALA
PLAIN SITE
RANEGRAS
PLAIN
SITE
TRAVEL ROUTES
MOBILE SITE
ALTERNATIVE SITES
ieif ,c^
. , 1 s"»"a CirrwigJ, , /il3l»i«
Figure 3-3. Major transit routes from Phoenix and Tucson to the
proposed and alternative sites.
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY IN THE RAINBOW VALLEY AREA
CO
I
Communi ty
Maricopa County
Phoeni x
Tempe
Guada 1 upe
Gila Bend
Mobi 1 e
Pinal County
Sacat on
Cool i d g e
Casa Grande
Man' copa
Arizona City
Eloy
Pima County
Ma rana
Tucson
Di stance
from
Site
(miles)
52
46
40
12
5
54
60
39
18
50
54
21
103
Numbe
Fi ref i
Vol untee
0
0
0
25
0
8
0
20
12
16
17
38
0
r of
ghters
r Pai d
800
111
5
0
0
0
28
12
0
0
1
0
450
EMT's/
IMT1 s
800
111
15
2
0
0
16
32
6
0
1
0
450
Paramedi cs
100
18
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
5
Number with
Haza rdous
Materi al s
Trai ni ng
800
10-15
7
0
0
1
14
6
1
0
0
5
450
Hazardous
Materi al s
Equi pment
Yest
#
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Yes**
* Emergency Medical Technicians/Instructor Medical Technicians.
t 33-member HM response team.
# Uses Phoenix HM team.
** Part of HM response team.
-------
which each of these counties is prepared to respond to emergency
situations is described below.
Maricopa County's Department of Civil Defense and Emergency
Services has a formal emergency response plan for dealing with
hazardous materials incidents ("Peacetime Disaster Plan, Annex
G: Hazardous Materials Incidents") (26). The plan includes a
definition of such incidents, a task-specific operations guide
for the county agencies that could be involved, a specification
of responsibility for on-site coordination, and a list of re-
source agencies for chemical and radiological incidents. While
the department widely disseminated the plan by mail, the degree
to which other agencies are aware of the plan is unknown. Simi-
larly, it is also unknown whether county employees are aware of
the presence or contents of the Hazardous Materials Pocket Guide,
which the department has placed in every county vehicle.
The Mobile site is located within the jurisdiction of the
Maricopa County Sheriff's substation at Gila Bend. This substa-
tion, located about 35 miles from the proposed site, is staffed
with 13 officers and a supervisor. These officers have received
no hazardous materials training.
Maricopa County has no hazardous materials response team as
such, although the Phoenix Fire Department's Hazardous Response
Unit is authorized by the Phoenix City Council to respond any-
where in the state upon a request from Arizona Department of Pub-
lic Safety (DPS) or local jurisdictions.
Emergency services in Pima County are coordinated for the
city of Tucson and the county by the same department. The main
concern of this department would be responding to transit emer-
gencies within the city of Tucson (a point of origin) or on 1-10
wi thi n Pima County.
The State Division of Emergency Services developed a formal
hazardous materials response plan in November 1979. A major com-
ponent of the plan was the formation of the Tucson-Pima County
Hazardous Materials Response Team. The team is equipped and
trained primarily by the Division of Emergency Services. The
team is an interagency group composed of members of the Tucson
fire and police departments, the sheriff's office, DPS, and the
city-county emergency services office. The team, either as a
whole or in part (depending on the severity of the situation), is
dispa-tched any time that a hazardous materials incident is iden-
tified. Upon request from a city, the team will also respond to
an incident in a local jurisdiction.
The emergency services functions of Pinal County are incor-
porated in the County Administrator's office. Currently, Pinal
County has no formal plan to respond to hazardous materials inci-
dents, and no staff resources upon which to draw.
3-15
-------
Several communities in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan
areas are well equipped and trained to respond to hazardous mate-
rials incidents (Table 3-4). Other fire departments or districts
consist wholly or primarily of volunteer firefighters who have
little hazardous materials training and no specialized equipment.
Only Casa Grande appears to have emergency medical capabili-
ties. Outside of one independent ambulance unit, the fire de-
partment in Casa Grande provides the only medical transportation
vehi cle in the area.
Val1ey Fever--
Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is a disease normally con-
tracted by inhaling microorganisms (cocci arthrospores) that
float freely in dust clouds (Appendix H). The disease usually
occurs in a very mild form that resembles a bad c.old. In about
30 to 40 percent of all Valley Fever cases, the patient becomes
very ill. Some deaths have been attributed, at least in part, to
the di sease.
The fungus thrives in arid and semiarid regions. In Ari-
zona, Valley Fever has occurred primarily in the arid southern
half of the state. The pathogen is especially prevalent in the
Phoenix and Tucson areas (27).
The Rainbow Valley area has been characterized as a poten-
tial source for recovering the fungus spores from soil samples
(28). However, specific information on their concentration and
density at the Mobile site is presently lacking.
Odor--
Baseline odor level information for the Mobile site is not
available. Since this site is located in a rural desert area
with low population density, it is assumed that the site is char-
acterized by odors typical of rural desert areas, mainly from
creosote bushes.
Noi se--
Baseline noise level in
available. Since this site
population density, it is as
by low ambient noise levels,
decibels (29). The 10 to 15
the area on the Southern Pac
copa-Gila Bend Road, however
mittent basis (30). Diesel
noise levels between 85 and
(29).
Ecological Resources
Vegetati on--
The site features a creosote-bursage community on
flat plain. A detailed list of plant species that are
formation for the Mobile site is not
is located in a rural area with low
sumed that the site is characterized
typically in the range of 40 to 45
trains per day which pass through
ific Railroad paralleling the Mari-
, increase noise levels on an inter-
locomotives, for example, can produce
105 decibels at a distance of 50 feet
a broad ,
common in
3-16
-------
the area is provided elsewhere (31). The dominant plant, creo-
sote bush, may develop into near-pure stands, or may be in asso-
ciation with bursage. White bursage may be found in lower, drier
areas, whereas the common bursage dominates in the upper or mois-
ter areas. These two species may comprise over 90 percent of the
vegetational density in many areas (1).
No federally listed endangered or threatened species are
known to occur on or near the Mobile site (13). No suitable hab-
itat exists within the study area for any of the endangered plant
species of Arizona. However, four plants of night-blooming
cereus were reported at the Mobile site (13). This species is
protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law, and is currently
being considered as a candidate for federal listing as a threat-
ened or endangered species.
Other protected native plants which may be impacted include
the blue palo verde and the crucifixion thorn.
Hi Idl i fe--
The animals of the area are composed of distinct groups of
species which occupy specific habitats. These animals are highly
adapted to desert conditions, and are capable of surviving ex-
treme temperatures and very low humidity.
A listing and detailed analysis of wildlife that may occur
in the general area are provided elsewhere (31).
Amphibians and Repti1es--Amphibians which might be expected
in the area are primarily limited to the Couche's spadefoot and
the Great Plains toad. Reptiles within the area include tor-
toises, iguanas, snakes, lizards, and geckos. Two species which
are listed as endangered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department
are the desert tortoise and the Gila monster (14).
Bi rds--There may be more than 150 species of resident and
transient birds in the vicinity (1). One endangered species, the
peregrine falcon, may appear infrequently as a transient or win-
ter visitor to the area, since this species occurs in a variety
of habitats in Maricopa County.
Mammals--Rodents (e.g., kangaroo rats, pocket mice) are the
most common mammals found in the area. They provide an important
source of food for the numerous predators in the desert ecosys-
tem. Predators (e.g., coyote, gray fox, kit fox) and "big game"
animals are considered transient species, and may thus occur
almost anywhere within the area. These species, along with bats,
need to make periodic visits to sources of free water in order to
survive. Consequently, these species are not normally common in
areas that are very remote from free water. Several wildlife
water catchments are currently maintained by the Arizona Game and
Fish Department, primarily for the desert mule deer within the
Maricopa Mountains (32). The nearest of these is 6 miles to the
west of the Mobile site (1).
3-17
-------
Of the "big game" animals, only bighorn sheep are likely to
appear in the immediate vicinity. They generally concentrate in
the higher mountainous terrain where adequate supplies of food
and water exist year-round (14). The desert bighorn sheep and
the spotted bat are listed as threatened and unique species by
the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. The spotted bat is con-
sidered to be the rarest bat in the United States, and its occur-
rence is unpredictable (14).
Land Use
An area within 2 miles of the proposed site was delineated
as the study area, based on the premise that 2 miles represents
the maximum sphere of influence from a land use sensitivity per-
spective (see Appendix I for land use inventory).
Land Jurisdiction--
The entire study area is composed of BLM-managed public
lands, with the exception of 80 acres of Arizona State Trust land
in the northeast corner of the study area and 160 acres of pri-
vate land located in the east-central portion (Figure 3-4). Sub-
surface mineral rights are held by the Arizona State Land Depart-
ment (ASLD).
Existing Land Use- -
The major recreational activities which occur in the study
area are hunting and off-road vehicle use. Recreational use of
the area is light to moderate, because of its distance from popu-
lation centers, lack of available water, and extreme daytime sum-
mer temperatures (33).
Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department has proposed
an equestrian trail to cross the northern portion of the study
area. The exact location of the proposed trail is uncertain, but
it appears to follow what is presumed to be the Butterfield Stage
Route about 1.5 miles north of the site (34). Informal or unor-
ganized recreational activity also occurs on the Butterfield
Stage Route. Numerous Boy Scout troops work on the stageline in
this area to earn their historical badges. Interpretive signs
erected mostly by the Boy Scouts currently mark portions of the
trail.
A portion of one Wilderness Study Area (VISA) is located in
the extreme southwestern portion of the study area (see Figure
3-5). Unit 2-164, Butterfield Stage Memorial, consists of 9,566
acres, and is located 15 miles east of Gila Bend. This area has
a central core of rugged mountains that form the southern tip of
the North Maricopas.
Lands in the study area administered by BLM and the State
Land Department are predominantly undeveloped agriculturally, and
are used largely by ranchers with BLM and State Land Department
grazing permits and/or leases for livestock allotment. Nearly
the entire study area is within the Conley grazing allotment. It
3-18
-------
Figure 3-4. Land jurisdiction at Mobile site.
3-19
-------
CONLEY
RESERVOIR
Figure 3-5. Existing land use at the Mobile site
3-20
-------
should be noted that the study area represents only a portion of
the entire Conley allotment. The Conley allotment is managed as
a perennia 1-ephemeral range, according to the provisions of 43
CFR 4110, with the following qualifications:
• Season of use: year long.
• Class of livestock: cattle and horses.
• Base her,d qualifications: 4,158 Animal Unit Months
(AUM's) , the equivalent of 350 cows year long. This
base herd qualification was determined using a figure of
99 percent federal range.
The existing range improvements within the study area are the
Conley reservoir and the northwest tank. These are displayed on
Figure 3-5. Neither is on the site itself.
Arizona Public Service (APS) is proposing to construct a
230-kV transmission line between the existing Santa Rosa Substa-
tion, 7.5 miles southeast of Maricopa, and the Gila Bend Substa-
tion, approximately 1 mile west of Gila Bend.
The Southern Pacific Railroad operates a main line which
crosses the southern portion of the study area, and parallels
Maricopa Road in a general southwest-northeast direction. Mari-
copa Road, a graded dirt road, runs northeast from Gila Bend to
Maricopa. Unimproved dirt roads within the study area primarily
provide access to range improvements.
Future Land Use--
The Maricopa Association of Government (MAG) regional devel-
opment plan designates the study area's future land use as "gen-
eral rural." Such areas are considered urban reserves because
development is not anticipated until after the year 2000. Prema-
ture extension of metropolitan services to these areas is discou-
raged, although some residential development could occur on scat-
tered estates (35).
Maricopa County does not have an adopted comprehensive or
general plan. However, their unadopted report for future general
land use was apparently used to develop MAG's regional plan.
Therefore, goals, objectives, and policies concerning land use in
Maricopa County may be understood to be similar to those of MAG
(36,37).
The ASLD is the only governmental agency with the possibil-
ity of future development in or near the study area. This agency
is concerned with the agricultural, urban, or commercial devel-
opment of state lands. It is also the agency responsible for
* AUM is the amount of forage required to sustain one cow with
one calf, or their equivalent, for 1 month.
3-21
-------
selecting federal land for transfer to the state under an ongoing
program of land transfer between BLM and the state.
A remote possibility exists for selection of federal lands
around Mobile as part of this program. The proposed Provident
Energy Company oil refinery, south of Mobile, might stimulate
development of agglomerative industries (i.e., any type of indus-
try which would benefit from a location near the refinery either
in terms of supplying some type of raw material to the refinery,
or one which would aid in the production and distribution of pro-
ducts). If this industrial expansion were to occur, the state
might show some interest in acquiring land in the area. It
should be noted that the Governor's Task Force on In-Lieu Selec-
tion of Federal Lands has established guidelines and criteria to
guide the decision makers in selecting the best of the remaining
federal land due to the state. Selection of federal lands in the
Mobile area would not follow these criteria (13, 37, 38, 39, 40).
Future land uses are projected by BLM to be essentially the
same as at present (livestock grazing) (41, 42, 43).
Present possible land uses are directly related to zoning.
The 160 acres of private land which is under Maricopa County jur-
isdiction has been classified into the Rural Zoning District
(Rural - 190) - 190,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Principal
uses permitted in this zoning district include both farm and non-
farm residential uses, farms, and recreational and institutional
uses (44). Future development will depend on water availability.
Vi sual Resources
Visual resources were assessed for the area within 3 miles
of the proposed site (a total study area of 49 square miles).
(See Appendix J for an inventory of visual resources and an
explanation of Scenic Quality and Tentative Management Classes.)
Three miles is considered to be the extent to which the facility
might impact surrounding visual resources.
At the Mobile site, Class A (high) scenic quality was asso-
ciated with the Maricopa Mountains; Class B (common) resulted
from diverse vegetation and dissected landform adjacent to the
Maricopa Mountains; and Class C (minimal) was found in the creo-
sote bush flats, including the proposed site. The Class C land-
scape was assigned a Tentative Management Class IV, while sur-
rounding Class B landscapes were considered to be Manangement
Class III. Several areas were identified as Management Class II
because of high scenic quality and moderate viewer sensitivity.
Three of these areas encompass the Maricopa Mountains. Manage-
ment classes are shown on Figure 3-6.
3-22
-------
o „ o T o „ o y.o
lo/" I *?% •
LEGEND<
CLASS II (VISUAL CHANGES SHOULD NOT ATTRACT ATTENTION]
°"°"TI CLASS III (VISUAL CHANGES SHOULD REMAIN SUBORDINATE)
CLASS IV (VISUAL CHANGES MAY BE DOMINANT)
2
Figure 3-6. Visual resources within 3 miles of the Mobile site.
3-23
-------
Cultural Resources
An area within 2 miles of the site was delineated as the
study area for archaeological and historical inventories. Be-
cause a view of the proposed facility might constitute an impact
upon a Native American ceremonial site, the larger 3-mile study
area used to assess visual resources was also used to assess
Native American cultural resources.
Archaeologi cal--
No archaeological sites have been recorded within the study
area. While archaeological sites are likely to exist in the
area, the density of these sites is anticipated to be low. A
synopsis of cultural development in southern Arizona is provided
i n Appendi x K.
Hi stori cal --
There are four historic sites within the study area: the
Gi 1 a Trai1/Butterfield Stage Route, the Southern Pacific Rail-
road, the Telegraph, and Maricopa Road (Table 3-5). None of
these has been registered as an historic monument by either the
state or the National Register of Historic Places.
The Gi1 a Trai1/Butterfield Stage Route traverses the north-
ern portion of the study area about 1.5 miles north of the pro-
posed site (45). A military telegraph was established along this
portion of the Gila Trail in 1873 (46). Portions of the route
are marked with interpretive signs and used by Boy Scout groups
as a hiking trail.
The Southern Pacific Railroad traverses the southern portion
of the study area within 1 mile of the proposed site (45). Mas-
ter Title Plats on file at the BLM State Office indicate that
permission to cross government land was granted to the Southern
Pacific Railroad Company in 1879, and that permission to con-
struct telegraph lines across government land was granted in 1915
or 1919. An early automobile road, Maricopa Road, also parallels
the Southern Pacific Railroad (45, 47, 48, 49). None of these
resources currently has official status.
Further discussion of historical resources is provided in
Appendix L.
Nat i ve Ameri ca n- -
The study area is situated within the traditional territory
of the Maricopa, Papago, and Pima. A summary of the Native
American cultural resources inventory for this area is provided
i n Table 3-6.
A number of places in the general region were considered
sacred by these tribes. They include the Sierra Estrella and
Maricopa Mountains, Pima Butte, and Salt River Ridge. Of these,
only the Maricopa Mountains are within the 3-mile study area.
Rainbow Valley, together with the surrounding desert region,'was
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-5. HISTORICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND SENSITIVITY FOR THE MOBILE SITE
CO
i
PO
en
Name/Type/Description
Gila Trail/Butterfield Stage Route
Telegraph; 1915 or 1919
Southern Pacific Railroad;
1879-Present
Maricopa Road
Miles from Official
Proposed Site Status
1.5 North No
Within 1.0 No
South
Within 1.0 No
South
Within 1.0 No
South
Integrity
Undetermined
Altered
Altered/
Working
Undetermined
Principal
Sources
Bolton 1930, 1960;
Harris 1973; Walker
and Bufkin 1973;
Wagoner 1975
Master Title Plats
Myrick 1975; Walker
and Bufkin 1979;
Master Title Plats;
USGS 1973 (Mobile
and Butterfield Pass
15' quads)
Bryan 1922, 1925;
USGS 1973 (Mobile and
Historical
Significance
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Sensitivity
Moderate
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Butterfield Pass 15'
quads)
-------
TABLE 3-6. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
FOR THE MOBILE SITE
Site Approximate Miles
Type Site Location from Mobi1e Site
RELIGION AND RITUAL
Sacred Place Maricopa Mountains 3.0 west
Sacred Trail Maricopa Wells to *
Gila Bend
FOOD AND OTHER RESOURCES
Subsistence Rainbow Valley Vicinity
Area
TRAILS
Trai 1 Rai nbow Val1ey *
Precise location of the trails not determined in this study.
3-26
-------
an important subsistence area. Temporary camps were reportedly
occupied throughout the plain and the surrounding mountains to
obtain food and other resource items. Sheep and deer were hunted
in the foothills, and cholla, greasewood, mesquite, palo verde
beans, and saguaro were gathered here. Members of the Ak-Chin
and Gila River reservations continue to gather these materials.
Cholla buds and mesquite beans are prepared for food; greasewood
is used for its medicinal properties; and saguaro is an ingredi-
ent in wine used for annual rain ceremonies. In oral legend, a
road taken by the dead led westward from Maricopa Wells across
the Rainbow Valley and the Maricopa Mountains to beyond Gila
Bend. The Apache passed through Rainbow Valley on raiding for-
ages into Sonora.
Further discussion of the area's cultural development and
history is provided in Appendices L and M.
Soci oeconomi cs
Setting Summary--
The Mobile site is located in southern Maricopa County about
65 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Ak-Chin Indian Reservation
lies about 16 miles east of the site. The Gila River Indian
Reservation is situated along the western Pinal County border, 11
miles east of the site. Approximately 79 people reside in the
Mobile area, located 6 miles east of the site. The community of
Rainbow Valley lies about 15 miles north of the site. An unim-
proved road, paralleling some sections of the El Paso Natural Gas
Company pipeline, leads from Rainbow Valley to Mobile.
Populati on--
Based on the 1980 census data, topographic maps, and field
inspection of the area, estimates of current and projected popu-
lation within 5, 10, and 15 miles of the site are shown in Table
3-7. Potential for future development in the area, especially
within 5 or 10 miles, is impeded because of the limited water
supply. The 1980 Arizona Groundwater Management Act limits the
volume of individual domestic wells, and requires certification
of assured long-term water supply for proposed subdivisions.
A potential source of economic/demographic change in the
area is the oil refinery proposed by the Provident Energy Com-
pany. The proposed site is immediately south and east of the
Mobile Elementary School bordering the south side of the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks. Preliminary site preparation has begun,
and it is anticipated that construction will begin in the spring
of 1983, coming on line in mid-1985. The construction force will
peak at about 1,500 workers during the second year of construc-
tion. The labor requirement for the 47 ,500-barrel-per-day facil-
ity is anticipated to be about 300. It is the opinion of the
Provident Energy Company, as supported by their socioeconomic
studies, that the potential for population growth from this proj-
ect in the immediate vicinity of Mobile is very small due to the
absence of suitable housing and desired amenities (50).
3-27
-------
TABLE 3-7. ESTIMATES OF CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
WITHIN A 5-, 10-, OR 15-MILE RADIUS OF THE MOBILE SITE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Estimated Projected Projected Projected Projected
5 Mi les
10 Miles
15 Mi les
25
105
420
31
131
526
35
150
604
51
202
795
58
247
990
3-28
-------
Provident expects that between 10 and 20 percent of its con-
struction force might seek temporary accommodations in Maricopa
or Gi1 a Bend, with Maricopa being the most likely location once
the road to the site is paved. Most of the operations force
would be expected to commute from the south Phoenix, south Tempe
or west Chandler areas, although some might reside in Maricopa
and a few might commute from Gila Bend. It is not expected that
the proposed refinery would significantly influence local popula-
tion size or settlement patterns.
Communities within a 15-mile radius of the area include
Mobile and Rainbow Valley. It is estimated that a total of about
80 persons live within a 5-mile radius of Mobile. A few ranchers
and retired people live and remain in the Mobile area for work,
while most adults commute to Phoenix for work (51). They drive
to Maricopa, and then connect with Interstate 10 ( I -10 ) outside
Phoenix, a distance of 31 miles. Children in grades one through
eight attend Mobile Elementary School. High school students com-
mute to Maricopa to attend school in Maricopa District No. 20.
The three-member Mobile Elementary School District No. 86 school
board is the only form of government in the area. According to a
school official, residents are of a variety of religious faiths.
Although the local Baptist church had been unused for many years,
residents of different denominations have begun worshipping there
recently.
Rainbow Valley is a desert area which contains only scat-
tered residences. The Gila River lies along the northern border
of the valley, just south of the town of Liberty. Residents
often differentiate between the northern and southern portions of
the valley. The northern portion extends about 7 miles south
from Liberty, and is called either Rainbow Valley or Estrella
Dales; the southern portion is referred to as Deep Rainbow Val-
ley. Rainbow Valley as a whole includes about 275 households and
872 people. Local residents estimate that there are 75
households and 238 people in Deep Rainbow Valley.
No local government exists in Rainbow Valley. Elementary
students attend school in Liberty, while high school students
attend Buckeye Union High School. There are three churches in
northern Rainbow Valley, but none in Deep Rainbow Valley.
Tax Considerations--
The Mobile site is located in Tax Area Code No. 8600. In
1981, the comprehensive mill levy was $11.87 per $100 of assessed
valuation. Commercial property is assessed at 25 percent of full
cash value.
Employment, Labor Force, and Income--
There is no economic base in Mobile except for the elemen-
tary school and occasional working ranches in the general area.
Most area residents commute to metropolitan Phoenix for work.
The proposed Provident Energy Company refinery is expected to
3-29
-------
offer a large number of construction or operations jobs, as pre-
viously discussed, although few, if any, of the employees are
expected to live in the immediate vicinity.
Rainbow Valley is primarily a "bedroom" community for the
greater Phoenix area. Although there are several farms in the
area, one resident estimated that only three in Rainbow Valley
are currently being operated, apparently due to high ground water
pumping costs. The main crops are cotton and alfalfa. A cotton
gin and a small store are the only businesses in the area aside
from the farms. At this time, no businesses appear interested in
moving to or developing in Rainbow Valley. As Phoenix grows and
expands, Rainbow Valley will probably continue to house commu-
ters.
Tourists and Seasonal Population--
During the winter, a few campers stay around Mobile. An
equestrian trail is currently planned by the county about one-
half mile north of Mobile. The Estrella Sailport, located about
4 miles east of Mobile, has become internationally known for
advanced soaring pursuits. Off-road vehicles are common in the
winter. In addition, the area attracts 6 to 15 recreational
vehicles, primarily at a local ranch (about 15 miles north of the
site) that opens only during the winter.
WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE
Physi cal Setti ng
As defined in the ADHS initial siting study, the Harquahala
Plain siting area is located in south-central Arizona, in the
desert region of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province; it
is bounded on the north and west by the Harquahala and Little
Harquahala Mountains, and on the south by the Eagletail Mountains
(2). This area consists of approximately the southern half of
the western portion of the plain lying between the Little Harqua-
hala and Eagletail Mountains. The Western Harquahala Plain site,
located in the central portion of the siting area, is 2 square
miles (Section 30, Township 3 North, Range 12 West and Section
25, Township 3 North, Range 13 West) (Figure 3-7). The area lies
approximately 2 miles east of the Salome airfield which is aban-
doned.
Topography--
The Western Harquahala Plain area is located on a slightly
concave portion of the Harquahala Plain, with few hills between
the Little Harquahala and Eagletail Mountains. The area ranges
from approximately 1,345 to 1,395 feet above sea level.
In general, the area slopes gently toward the southwest. A
small area, approximately 4 square miles along the eastern edge
of the plain, slopes gently toward the east. The area slopes
very gently to the southwest at approximately 0.3 percent.
3-30
-------
% v- N ^ •"'$:.', -
WESTERN HARQUAHALA
PLAIN SITE
I '' ,-' / —- ^'
, •>'/ / : i \ x
rf HI*, /y /
T, /// ; ; \ \
Figure 3-7. Location of Western Harquahala Plain site.
3-31
-------
Soi1s--
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has prepared generalized
soils maps for the Western Harquahala Plain site and its vicin-
ity. These maps identify the following soil associations (52):
• Coolidge-Wel1ton-Antho.
• Gi1man-Vi nt-Bri os.
Soils of these associations are alluvial sediments. The
dominant source materials for these associations are mixed igne-
ous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. Table 3-8 summarizes
the pertinent generalized properties of these soils.
The Coolidge-WelHon-Antho Association is described as deep,
medium- and coarse-textured soils on lower alluvial fans and val-
ley plains (52). These soils exhibit moderate to moderately
rapid infiltration rates, possess moderate water capacity, and
contain moderate amounts of soluble salts in the subsoil and sub-
stratum. Soils of this association are used primarily for mili-
tary proving grounds and bombing ranges, home sites, wildlife
habitats, seasonal grazing, and recreational activities (52).
The maps mentioned above indicate that the soils at the Western
Harquahala Plain site belong to this association.
The Gilman-Vint-Brios Association is described as deep,
medium- and coarse-textured soils on floodplains (52). These
soils exhibit moderate to rapid filtration rates, and possess low
to high potential water capacity. Local areas of these soils are
slightly to strongly calcareous. All soils in this association
are subject to brief sheet flooding during rainfall events.
Soils of this association are used for home and industrial sites,
irrigated cropland/pastureland, wildlife habitats, seasonal live-
stock grazing, and recreational activities.
Geologic Conditions--
The Harquahala Mountains to the north of the plain and the
Eagletail Mountains to the south contain rocks ranging from Pre-
cambrian to recent in age. The mountains were upraised during a
period of tectonic activity in the Late Tertiary Age, and are
comprised of a variety of igneous, metamorphic, and volcanic
rocks. Detailed geologic mapping is not available for the area
around the site or for the surrounding mountains.
The area surrounding the site is underlain by valley fill of
Late Tertiary to recent age. These sediments, which may be simi-
lar to the alluvial materials found in the Ranegras Plain to the
southwest, have been divided into three distinct units, as fol-
1 ows :
• Upper Unit - consists of unconsolidated sediments with
textures ranging from gravels to silts and clays: gener-
ally 700 to 900 feet thick.
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-8. PROPERTIES AND FEATURES OF THE SOILS IN JHE VICINITY OF
THE HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE, YUMA COUNTY
OJ
I
CO
OJ
Major Soil Association
Cool idge-Wel Iton-Antho
Coolidge sandy loam
Well ton loamy sand
Antho sandy loam
Gilman-Vint-Brios
Gil man loam
Vint loamy fine sand
Brios sandy loam or
loamy sand
Parent Material
Dominantly schist and
granitic rocks with
some basalt, andesite,
tuffs and calcareous
sedimentary rocks
Mixed igneous and sed-
imentary rocks
Slope
0-2
0-2
0-5
0-2
0-2
0-2
Permeability
Mod rapid
Mod rapid
Mod rapid
Moderate
Mod rapid
Rapid
Available
Water
Capacity
(in/60 in)
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Shrink/Swel
Potential
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
1
Soil pH
7.9-8.
7.9-8.
7.9-8.
7.9-8.
7.9-8.
7.9-8.
4
4
4
4
4
4
Source: Reference 52.
-------
• Middl e Unit - consists of unconsol i dated to poorly con-
solidated sand and gravel; may extend to depths of 1,500
feet; 600 to 800 feet thick.
• Lower Unit - consists locally of interlayered volcanic
rocks (tuffs and flows) and coarse alluvial materials.
Available data are inadequate to assess fully the faulting
and mineral resources in the area or at the Western Harquahala
Plain site. Available mineral data indicate that there are three
mineral deposits northwest of the area (10). There are no data
to indicate the existence of mineral resources within the immedi-
ate area or at the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Cl imate--
Data collected at the Harquahala Plain meteorological sta-
tion 20 miles east of the site are used to describe the clima-
tological characteristics of the site (11).
Temperat ure- -Mean monthly temperature for the Harquahala
Plain stati on ranges from 48°F in January to about 90°F in July
(Table 3-9). The range of temperatures to be expected in any one
day may also be quite large. In January, the mean daily low tem-
perature is about 31°F with a mean daily high about 65°F. In
July, the mean daily low and high are 73°F and 107°F, respec-
tively.
Preci pi tati on--Tab1 e 3-9 presents mean precipitation for the
local station. Rain showers in the site area are commonly light
and of short duration, 30 minutes or less. Intense storms of 1
to 2 inches lasting for several hours occur occasionally. These
storms are primarily convectional in nature and are characteris-
tically local rather than widespread. Most storms have a diame-
ter of less than 3 miles (53).
The greatest 24-hour rainfall that can be expected once in 2
years is 1.4 inches, and once in 100 years, 4.0 inches. Snow is
rarely reported.
Evapotranspiration--No data on potential and actual evapo-
transpi rati on relevant to the site are available. Pan evapora-
tion in the region is estimated to be between 80 and 100 inches
per year, with summertime maximum of 14 inches per month, and
winter figures of approximately 3 inches per month (11).
nd--No wind rose data relevant to the site are avail-
able. Winds in the site area are strongly dependent upon the
surrounding topography. Wind speeds are generally low except
during storm frontal periods and thunderstorms (11).
3-34
-------
TABLE 3-9. TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATI0^ AT THE
HARQUAHALA METEOROLOGICAL STATION
Month
J a n u a ry
F e b r u a ry
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Mean Temperature (°F)
48.0
53.8
58.7
63.0
73.2
83.6
89.5
87.1
80.3
67.5
56.6
49.1
67.5
Total Precipitation (inches)
0.60
0.54
0.70
0. 16
0.09
0.08
0.57
1.02
0.66
0.43
0.48
0.67
6.00
* Source: Reference 11.
3-35
-------
Water Resources
Ground Water--
The principle aquifer in the Harquahala Plain is composed of
alluvial basin-fill material and exists under water table condi-
tions. These basin-fill deposits consist of clays, silts, sands
and gravels, and vary in thickness from less than 300 feet near
the mountains to more than 2,000 feet in the central portion of
the Harquahala Plain (54). Most of the water yielded to wells in
the area is from coarse sands, gravels, and/or loosely cemented
conglomerates near the bottom of the alluvial sequence.
The Harquahala Plains site is between Ranegras Plain and
Harquahala Plain ground water basins. The surrounding area is
known locally as Hubbard Plain, but it is thought to be hydro-
logically connected to the Harquahala Plain (54, 55). Ground
water flows toward the east-southeast and static ground water
tables taken in 1978 and 1980 seem to indicate that the area is
an extension of the Harquahala Plain ground water basin, but
there are not enough wells in the vicinity to confirm this (54,
56).
Table 3-10 lists all known wells in the vicinity of the site
and the depths measured to the static water table. The nearest
upgradient well is about 1.5 miles to the northwest. Depth to
ground water was 347 feet in January 1980. The nearest down-
gradient well is 3.75 miles to the southeast; depth to ground
water was 418 feet in January 1980. Assuming that the ground
water gradient is from west to east, a decline of about 5 feet in
7.5 miles results in an average gradient of 0.667 feet per mile.
Since some of this area is unsurveyed and lacks ground control
elevations, an assumed gradient of 0.75 feet/mile seems to be
reasonable. The depth to ground water in Section 25 T3N R13W
would then be around 340 to 345 feet while an approximate depth
to ground water in Section 30 T3N R12W would be about 360 to 365
feet. Well (B-3-12)19aaa one mile north of Section 30 was mea-
sured in June 1975 (55). Depth to ground water was 410 feet
which indicates that depths to ground water may approach 380 to
390 feet in the northern portion of Section 30.
Assuming a gradient of 1 foot/mile and a porosity of 20 per-
cent and using a reported permeability of 40 gal/day/sq ft at
Well (B3-13)23bbb (55), the average flow rate is calculated to be
14.6 feet/year. If an assumed gradient of 2 feet/mile and a
porosity of 10 percent are used, an estimated average flow rate
of 7.4 feet/year is calculated. Most likely the average annual
ground water flow velocity is between 1.8 and 7.4 feet each year.
Surface Water--
There are no naturally occurring year-round surface waters
on or near the Western Harquahala Plain site. The Granite Reef
Aqueduct, part of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), passes to
the north and is approximately 1,600 feet from the site at its
3-36
-------
TABLE 3-10. DEPTH TO STATIC WATER TABLE AT WELLS JN THE
VICINITY OF THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE
Loc
(B-
(B-
(6-
(B-
(B-
2-
3-
3-
3-
3-
ati
1
1
1
1
1
21
21
3;
3]
3]
on
)2dda
)1
)1
)2
9a
9a
ad
ad
3bbb
)28a
dc
Jan
J un
Jan
Jan
No
Date
uary
e 197
uary
ua ry
acces
Meas ured
1
5
1
1
s
980
980
980
to Bone Well
Depth in Water
( i n feet )
418
410
386
347
(?)
* Source: Reference 54.
3-37
-------
closest point (see Figure 3-8). This aqueduct is currently under
constructi on.
There are no deeply cut, well-defined drainage channels at
this site. Rainwater runoff apparently takes the form of sheet
flow across the site in a southwesterly direction toward a broad,
shallow wash some 3,000 feet to the south. The CAP aqueduct,
however, would block the flow of much of the stormwater runoff
from the surrounding watershed. Consequently, the flow of rain-
water runoff over the site would likely be minimal. The unnamed
wash into which rainwater would flow is a tributary of Upper
Bouse Wash, some 7 miles to the west. The 100-year flood boun-
dary map shows the site well outside the Upper Bouse Wash flood
area, the only such flood zone identified in the vicinity (57).
Two livestock watering areas are in the vicinity of the
Western Harquahala Plain site, one on the northern edge of the
site, the other located 1 mile south of the southern edge of the
site. Neither is a water catchment; both are tanks which appear
to be supplied by water brought in by truck.
Ai r Quali ty
Background air quality for the Western Harquahala Plain site
is shown in Table 3-11. Since there are no nearby air quality
monitoring stations, the Buckeye, Parker, and Yuma sites were
used to assess the ambient air quality (23). These sites are all
more than 50 miles from the site. Table 3-11 shows that the
levels of criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
ozone, and lead) are well within the state and federal AAQS.
Although there is no information concerning nitrogen dioxide
or hydrocarbons, ambient concentrations should be well below the
standards due to the rural setting and lack of significant
sources of those pollutants. Particulate excursions are primar-
ily due to natural causes, such as convective thunderstorms (dust
storms) and/or fronts.
Pub!i c Health and Safety
Spi11s--
The current spill potential at this site is similar to that
at the Mobi 1 e site.
Risks from Transporting Hazardous Wastes--
Trucks carrying hazardous waste loads to disposal sites in
California would likely travel on 1-10 through this area, though
the number of such shipments is unknown.
Emergency Response--
Public safety is evaluated in terms of the effectiveness of
present response capabilities for the nearby communities (Brenda,
Harcuver, Hope, Quartzsite, Salome, Vicksburg, and Wenden), and
for the two major transportation routes which currently provide
the best road surfaces (Figure 3-3).
3-38
-------
SALOME
EMERGENCY
AIRFIELD
POWER.LJNE
PRIVATE ROAD
EAGLETAIL
MOUNTAINS
Figure 3-8.
Surface water drainage at Western Harquahala
Plain site.
3-39
-------
TABLE 3-11. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AJ THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA
PLAIN SITE
State/Federal AAQS1"
Pol lutant
Carbon Monoxide
1-hour
8-hour
Primary
40
10
Secondary
40
10
Ambient
Air
Qualityff
13-15
6-8
Monitoring
Site(s)
Yuma
Hydrocarbons
3-hour (6-9 a.m.)
Lead
160
160
N/A
Calendar Quarter
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual
Ozone
1-hour (Daily Max.)
Particulates
24-hour
Annual
Sulfur Dioxide
3-hour
24-hour
Annual
1.5 1.5
100 100
0.12 0.12
260 150
75 60
1,300
365
80
0.09-0.24
N/A
0.05-0.10
145-343
76-127
31
14
2
Buckeye,
Parker
Buckeye,
Yuma
Buckeye,
Parker
Buckeye
* Units ace ug/m , except for carbon monoxide and ozone, which are in units
of mg/m and ppm, respectively.
t Ambient air quality standards.
# Maximum second high values for 1981, as provided by Olmstead (23).
3-40
-------
The traffic count along 1-10 is 7,600 cars per day, whereas
the count on Exit No. 45 (to Harquahala) is 53 cars per day (PS-
14). The most recent traffic count along Highway 60 shows a
total of 1,800 cars per day (58).
The Harquahala Plain site currently (1982) falls within the.
jurisdiction of the Yuma County Sheriff's substation at Salome.
This two-officer substation is responsible for a 2,500-square-
mile area. The deputy in charge of the station has had hazardous
materials training, but has no special equipment. Resources
available to him would include the Sheriff's Posse (if evacuation
were necessary), the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and the
Yuma County Hazardous Materials Team. Currently, no emergency
medical facilities are available in this area.
The extent to which the Yuma County Hazardous Materials Re-
sponse Team could provide assistance at this time is unknown.
The team was organized only about 7 months ago; its members in-
clude employees of the city of Yuma fire and police departments,
Yuma County Sheriff's Office, the County Emergency Services
Department, pesticide companies, and chemical applicator
groups. The team members' training in hazardous materials varies
widely, and they are not currently well equipped as a unit.
Their primary concerns are pesticide disposal problems and radi-
ological hazards due to the nearby military bases. The team has
just completed its organizational phase, and is now beginning to
determine its goals and the degree to which it can respond to a
variety of hazardous materials incidents. According to a spokes-
man for the team, the state's Division of Emergency Services
would probably respond to a hazardous materials incident in the
northern part of the county near the Western Harquahala Plain
site.
The population in the area immediately surrounding the site
is very low, about 1,677 people. In the four closest communi-
ties, no emergency response resources exist (Table 3-12). In the
three other communities located near the site, only volunteer
fire departments exist. Salome and Wenden are not likely to re-
spond, because they are both underequipped and have had no train-
ing of any kind on hazardous materials. Quartzsite is the unit
most likely to respond on a limited basis. The Quartzsite de-
partment is small, but some of its firefighters have had training
in hazardous materials, and were involved in two recent chemical
incidents, one requiring the evacuation of citizens in
Ehrenberg. Because this is the only unit with some experience in
As of January 1, 1983, both the Western Harquahala Plain and
Ranegras Plain sites will be in the new county of La Paz.
Since no information is available on emergency and protective
services in the new county, this discussion of Yuma County is
included to indicate the current situation.
3-41
-------
TABLE 3-12.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY IN THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN
AND RANEGRAS PLAIN AREAS
Distance from
Site (miles)
Communities
Yuma County
Brenda
Vicksburg
Hope
Harcuver
Sal ome
Wenden
Quartzsite
Maricopa County
Tonopah
**
Buckeye
Avondale
Phoenix
Tempe
Guadalupe
RP*
17
8
9
12
14
19
34
53
78
88
101
107
113
WHP1"
17
5
2
4
7
12
34
63
87
98
110
116
122
Number of
Firefighters
Vol unteer
0
0
0
0
16
8
14
0
140
11
0
0
0
Paid
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
5
800
111
15
EMT/IMT#
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
14
3
800
111
5
Paramedics
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
100
18
0
Number with
Hazardous
Materials
Training
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
0
37
16
800
10-15
7
Hazardous
Material s
Equi pment
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Yes (HM
equi pped van)
Yes
Yes (HM
response team)
Uses Phoenix
HM team
None
-------
TABLE 3-12 (continued)
OJ
-p.
OJ
Distance from
Site (miles)
Communities
Pinal County
Sacaton
Cool idge
Casa Grande
Arizona City
Eloy
Pima County
Marana
Tucson
RP*
140
158
152
161
166
194
216
WHP1"
150
167
161
171
175
203
225
Number
of
Fi refighters
Vol unteer
8
0
20
16
17
0
0
Paid
0
28
12
0
1
0
450
EMT/IMT*
0
16
32
0
1
0
450
Paramedics
0
0
3
0
0
0
5
Number with
Hazardous
Material s
Training
1
14
6
0
0
5
450
Hazardous
Materials
Equi pment
None
None
None
None
None
None
Yes (part of
HM response
team)
Ranegras Plain.
t Western Harquahala Plain.
# Emergency Medical Technician/Instructor Medical Technician.
f-ff
Figures used for Buckeye combine both city fire department and rural fire department that surrounds area.
-------
hazardous materials in the area, the firefighters handle inci-
dents along 1-10 from the California border to the Yuma-Mancopa
county line.
The Western Harquahala Plain site has high potential for
transit emergencies for two reasons. First, the transit routes
expose a large number of communities, although few people, to
possible danger (Table 3-12). Second, the best available transit
routes require all vehicles to pass through the Phoenix metropol-
itan area, and to use Buckeye Road (at least for the next few
years) to connect the two complete sections of 1-10. These sur-
face streets have higher accident rates than 1-10.
The transit routes west of Phoenix to the Maricopa-Yuma
county border pass through the communities of Buckeye and Avon-
dale. Outside of the major metropolitan areas (Phoenix and Tuc-
son), these are the only two potentially impacted communities
with a true capability of responding to a hazardous materials
transit emergency. Since both communities' jurisdictions now
include portions of 1-10 and/or Buckeye Road, the fire depart-
ments have begun to develop the capability to respond to a haz-
ardous materials incident with trained personnel and special
equi pment.
Valley Fever--
There is no information on the incidence of or potential for
Valley Fever ( Coccidioidomycosis) at the Western Harquahala
site. Because Valley Fever spores are endemic to desert areas in
Arizona, it is presumed that the potential at the Western Harqua-
hala Plain site is similar to that at the Mobile site.
Odor--
The affected environment, with respect to odor, is similar
to that at the Mobile site.
Noi se--
No data are available on background noise levels at the Wes-
tern Harquahala Plain site. It is assumed to have background
levels typical of a rural area (see discussion for Mobile site).
Traffic on 1-10, however, increases the overall background noise
level within several hundred yards of either side of the highway.
Ecological Resources
Vegetation--
The area around the Western Harquahala Plain site may be
considered within the Upper Bajada. A list of plant species
found in the area is presented elsewhere (31). Vegetation in
this area is sparse, and consists primarily of a Palo Verde-
Saguaro community with some creosote and bursage (53). Areas of
creosote are interlaced with trees of Palo Verde, saguaro, cacti,
and ironwood (59). No threatened or endangered plant species are
known to exist in the area (53).
3-44
-------
Wildl ife--
There are no specific data on species diversity for the area
of the Western Harquahala Plain site. Wildlife within the gen-
eral area includes mule deer, coyote, bobcat, kit fox, jackrab-
bit, cottontail, pocket mouse, woodrat, kangaroo rat, ground
squirrel, birds, and various small reptiles (59). The area is
several miles from the general range of the desert bighorn sheep,
a threatened animal species. Bighorn sheep appear to inhabit
areas outside the immediate vicinity. Some sheep are known to
change ranges with the seasons, while others remain in one locale
year-round (53). Therefore, an individual sheep may occasionally
be found wandering near the area. Herds of desert bighorn may be
found in the southern portions of the Eagletail and Big Horn
Mountains, south and northeast of the area, respectively.
Land Use
Land Jurisdiction--
A significant portion of the land within 2 miles of the site
(study area) is public land (Figure 3-9). These lands are situa-
ted primarily in the western half and southern portions of the
study area. Arizona State Trust lands are located north and
south of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal in the eastern
half of the study area. Private and other lands are located
along the CAP Canal in the east half of the study area. The sur-
face land and subsurface mineral rights are under the jurisdic-
tion of BLM and ASLD.
Exi sting Land Use--
The Arizona State Parks Department has supported the Arizona
Hiking and Equestrian Trails Committee in its effort to develop a
trail system adjacent to the CAP Canal (Figure 3-10). Immediate
priorities are canal trails in the Phoenix area and canal trails
associated with existing recreation areas. Eventual completion
of the trail system may include equestrian and hiking trails on
the canal through the Harquahala Plain. Recreational use of BLM
land within the study area is of a dispersed nature. Primary
existing recreation opportunities include hunting, rock and min-
eral collection, off-road vehicle use, and sightseeing.
A very small portion of one WSA is situated in the extreme
southeastern portion of the study area (Figure 3-10). Unit 2-
128, Eagletail Mountains-Cemetery Ridge, consists of 120,925
acres and is located approximately 65 miles due west of Phoenix.
The Eagletail Mountains-Cemetery Ridge study area encompasses the
Eagletail Mountains to the north of the unit, Cemetery Ridge to
the south, and the desert plain between the two ridges.
The majority of lands in the study area are BLM and ASLD
administered; the land is principally used for grazing livestock
(41). The study area is divided into two grazing allotments, and
K Lazy B and Clem Allotments, whose qualifications are listed
3-45
-------
Figure 3-90 Land jurisdiction at Western Harquahala Plain site.
-------
.
\h -fc. ' - + -
+ ++ ++
H- + + 4\\ + 4-: + -I +
\\+ + + A + -*-'vt|+ •
hv. + .+rv + ++|t+
+--,+ + 4j ,. t
-f + .-f + *
'&8%fr$f:f+
~ ^, ^ *
••••••^••^ •"••«<••«« ••••••«•••••• ^••••«
«^. I v,
Figure 3-10. Existing land use at the Western Harquahala Plain site.
-------
LEGEND
INTERSTATE FREEWAY
PAVED ROAD
MHMHB UNPAVED IMPROVED ROAD
- UNIMPROVED ROAD
._ _-— PALO VERDE-DEVERS 500KV LATTICE TOWER
TRANSMISSION LINE
••••••4 EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY PIPELINE
(30", 30", 26")
---- CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT CANAL
^ COMMUNICATION SITE
O K. B. WELL
CORRAL
—X X FENCE
BLM WILDERNESS STUDY AREA UNIT #2-128
K LAZY B BLM GRAZING ALLOTMENT
CLEM BLM GRAZING ALLOTMENT
PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
PROPOSED SITE.
Figure 3-10a. Legend to Figure 3-10.
3-48
-------
below. Note that the study area allotments represent only a por-
tion of the entire K Lazy B and Clem allotments (60, 61):
• K Lazy B Al1otment -
Range: managed as perennia 1-ephemeral
Season of use: year-long
Class of livestock: cattle and horses
Base herd qualifications: 1,861 AMU's, the equivalent of
165 cows year-long. This base herd qualification was de-
termined using a figure of 94 percent federal range.
• Clem Al1otment -
Range: managed as perennial-ephemera1
Season of use: year-long
Class of livestock: cattle and horses
Base herd qualifications: 3,216 AMU's, the equivalent of
400 cows year-long. This base herd qualification was de-
termined using a figure of 67 percent federal range.
Existing range improvements within the study area are the K. B.
well, corral, and fence. These are shown on Figure 3-10. None
of these is on the sections proposed for the site.
Currently, there is one 500-kV lattice tower extra high-
voltage line that traverses the study area (Figure 3-10). The
Southern California Edison Company transmission right-of-way
parallels the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) pipeline along the
southeastern portion of the study area. The EPNG owns and oper-
ates all of the natural gas pipelines in the study area. Three
lines (two 30 inches in diameter, and one 26 inches) are located
in the same right-of-way which bisects the southeastern portion
of the study area (62).
In 1964, the Colorado River Basin Project authorized con-
struction of the CAP Canal. The CAP Canal is a water-delivery
system which will furnish municipal, industrial, and irrigation
water to urban and agricultural areas within Maricopa, Pinal, and
Pima Counties. The Granite Reef Aqueduct portion of the canal
enters the study area in the northwest corner, and traverses the
northern and east-central portions of the study area.
The Salome Communication site is a radio relay station lo-
cated approximately 4 miles due south of 1-10 in the eastern half
of the study area (Figure 3-10). Both American Telephone and
Telegraph and Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph companies
utilize this facility.
1-10 is located east to west through the northern portion of
the study area (Figure 3-10). The only section of paved road in
the study area consists of an 1-10 overpass adjacent to the CAP
Canal. Two unpaved improved roads were identified. The first
road, generally oriented in a north-to-south direction, provides
access to the Salome Communication site, as well as serving as an
interconnection point to the EPNG pipeline and Palo Verde-Devers
3-49
-------
500-kV transmission line right-of-way from 1-10. The second road
is the utility access road which bisects the southeast corner of
the study area. Unimproved roads identified generally serve as
interconnection ties between other unimproved roads and the re-
maining roadway network.
Future Land Use--
The District IV Council of Governments is the regional plan-
ning and coordination agency for Mohave and Yuma Counties and for
various municipalities and special districts. The District has
prepared a Land Use Plan adopted in 1978 for their regional plan-
ning area. No specific future plans, however, exist within the
two Yuma County study area sites.
The Yuma County 1985 Comprehensive General Plan, adopted in
1970, is out-of-date and not adhered to (63). Note that the
study area will no longer be within Yuma County as of midnight
December 31, 1982. January 1, 1983, officially marks the separa-
tion of northern Yuma County into the new county of La Paz. A
three-member commission was appointed by Yuma County supervisors
to coordinate the planning of the new county.
Land uses projected to occur by BLM and the ASLD in the
study area indicate that the area should remain essentially the
same in the foreseeable future (38, 41, 42, 43). Livestock graz-
ing is the predominant land use. Yuma County has not zoned the
area for specific uses.
Vi sual Resources
The visual resources assessment was performed for the area
located within 3 miles of the Western Harquahala Plain site, re-
sulting in a total study area of 56 square miles.
The study area was identified as visual quality Class C
(minimal). Because of the high use-volume associated with 1-10
(considered to be a key observation point) and a foreground/
middleground distance zone (from 1-10), the northern half of the
study area was considered to be a Management Class III area (64).
The southern portion included a Management Class IV (background
distance zone) and a Class I area (WSA 2-127). Results are shown
on Figure 3-11.
Cultural Resources
Archaeologi cal --
BLM archaeologists reported a single artifact during the
Class II survey (65, 66). Five sites were recorded within the
study area: two temporary camps, two lithic scatters, and rock-
wall structures (Table 3-13). While additional sites are likely
to exist in the area, the density of sites is anticipated to be
low. A synopsis of cultural development in southern Arizona is
provided in Appendix K.
3-50
-------
LEGEND I
|| | |1 CLASS I (SPECIAL AREAS)
CLASS II (VISUAL CHANGES SHOULD NOT ATTRACT ATTENTION)
ooU°l CLASS III (VISUAL CHANGES SHOULD REMAIN SUBORDINATE)
CLASS IV (VISUAL CHANGES MAY BE DOMINANT)
Figure 3-11. Visual resources within 3 miles of the Western Harquahala Plain site,
-------
TABLE 3-13. ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FOR THE
WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN
Site Type
Temporary camp
Wai 1 structures
Temporary camp
Lithic scatter
Lithic scatter
Cultural
Aff 11 i ati on
Unknown
Unknown
Un kn own
Unkn own
Unknown
Descri pti on
Milling slabs, rhyolite core,
scraper, chopping tool and one
flake. Food processing.
Two rock-wall structures.
Possible hunting blinds.
Two milling slabs, one flake,
one chopper, possible hearth.
Two rhyolite lithic scatters.
Rhyolite lithic scatter.
* Source: Reference 66.
3-52
-------
Hi stori cal --
No historical sites are recorded within the study area.
Native American--
Tine Western Harquahala Plain was most frequently occupied
and utilized by the people of the Yavapai, Maricopa, and Pima
tribes. The surrounding elevated areas, in particular the Harqua-
hala, Eagletail, and Big Horn Mountains, were very important
locales for religious ceremonies, and figure predominantly in the
oral traditions of these tribes. However, all of these areas are
located beyond the study area. A summary of the Native American
cultural resources inventory for the Western Harquahala Plain is
provided in Table 3-14.
The Harquahala Plain was an important subsistence area for
agriculture, hunting, and gathering traditional plant
resources. Centennial Wash was also an important subsistence
source. Two trail systems passed through the Harquahala Plain.
The Ehrenberg-Ar1ington Trail, which was estimated to be in use
as early as the Hohokam Era, continued to play an important role
in the nineteenth century. Hohokam tribes in the Gila Bend area
traded with Colorado River groups via the Ehrenberg-Ar 1 ington
Trail. Cocomaricopa mail carriers travelled the route between
Mexico and California to avoid hostile Mojave and Yuman groups.
Trailside shrines are associated with this trail. Another trail
was used by the Panya travelling between the Gila River and
Parker Valley, often referred to as their "high road" or "best
road."
Further discussion of the area's cultural development and
history is provided in Appendices L and M.
Socioeconomics
Setting Summary--
The Western Harquahala Plain site is located in east-central
Yuma County, about 90 miles west of the Phoenix metropolitan area
and 50 miles southwest of Wickenburg, south of the 56-mile marker
on 1-10. North of the site, a few residents are scattered around
the Little Harquahala Mountains and along Salome Road which runs
northwest from 1-10 to the town to Salome. Populations are more
concentrated along U.S. Highway 60, which runs northeast 79 miles
from 1-10 to Wickenburg. Along U.S. Highway 60 is a cluster of
towns that are 13 to 20 miles from the site. The towns are
Brenda, Vicksburg, Vicksburg Junction, Hope, Harcuvar, Salome,
and Wenden. Within this cluster of towns, Hope, Harcuvar, and
Salome are located within 15 miles of the Western Harquahala
Plain site.
Hope is located at the junction of State Highway 72 and U.S.
Highway 60, about 13 miles northwest of the site. Today, one
family lives in Hope. A gas station, the only business in town,
serves the surrounding residents, farmers, ranchers, miners, and
highway travelers. A local resident estimates that 175 to 200
3-53
-------
TABLE 3-14. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
FOR THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE
Approximate Mi 1es
Si te from Harquaha 1 a
Type Site Location PIai n Site
RELIGION AND RITUAL
Trail Shrines Ehrenberg-Arlington *
Trail
FOOD AND OTHER RESOURCES
Subsistence Harquahala Plain Vicinity
Area
Subsistence Centennial Wash Vicinity
Area
TRAILS
Trail Ehrenberg-Arlington *
Trail Gila River to Parker *
Valley
Precise location of trail not determined in this study.
3-54
-------
people live in the surrounding area, not including Salome. The
Vicksburg Elementary School District No. 3 school board has three
elected members, and no other local government in the immediate
area exi sts.
Harcuvar is located on U.S. Highway 60, northeast of Hope
and 13.5 miles from the site. About 30 mobile homes and houses,
a few businesses, and a church are scattered along the highway.
The town businesses serve the local community, highway travelers,
and winter visitors. A local resident estimated that the popula-
tion is about 100 in the summer, increasing during winter months
when tourists visit the area. No local government outside of the
district's school board exists in the town.
Salome is the largest town in the immediate vicinity; the
postmaster estimates it has 300 to 400 people, with several hun-
dred more residing south of the town. It is located at the junc-
tion of U.S. Highway 60 and Salome Road, northeast of Harcuvar,
and almost 14.5 miles north of the site. Salome's businesses,
like those in Hope and Harcuvar, serve the surrounding area and
tourists. Salome consists of about 20 businesses, such as a
bank, cafe, gas stations, stores, motels, bars, recreational
vehicle parks, and an equipment company. The area's only high
school is located at Salome. Like Hope and Harcuvar, there is no
local government in the area aside from the school district.
Salome has a volunteer fire department. The town also has three
churches.
Populati on--
Based on 1980 census data, topographic maps, and field in-
spection of the study area, estimates of current and projected
population within 5, 10, and 15 miles of the site are shown in
Table 3-15. Growth in the area is expected to be slow and grad-
ual, primarily from tourism and retirees moving into the area.
Tax Considerations--
The Western Harquahala Plain site is located in Tax Area
Code No. 1900. In 1981, the comprehensive mill levy was $11.08
per $100 of assessed valuation. Commercial property is assessed
at 25 percent of the full cash value. Full cash value is defined
to be 85 percent of the market value (67).
Employment, Labor Force, and Income--
The major employers in the area are the Crowder Cattle Com-
pany, located in Vicksburg, and Shawler Farms, whose Agua Bonita
Farm is about 3 miles south of Hope. In addition, there are 30
to 40 smaller farms in the area. The main crops are cotton and
alfalfa. Other residents own or are employed by the businesses
and schools in the surrounding area. Tourism is a large business
in the towns. Travelers often use U.S. Highway 60 to reach Pres-
cott and the Grand Canyon from California. A large number of
retired people live in the area also. Mining for gold, silver,
and copper once flourished in the Little Harquahala Mountains.
Today, mining has been reduced to about six small operations.
3-55
-------
TABLE 3-15. ESTIMATES OF CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
WITHIN A 5-, 10-, OR 15- MILE RADIUS OF THE WESTERN
HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Estimated Projected Projected Projected Projected
5 Miles
10 Mi les
15 Miles
5
30
930
5
31
962
5
31
978
5
31
993
5
32
1 ,009
3-56
-------
Residents seem confident that the slow, gradual growth their
towns have experienced the past 10 years will continue. The res-
idents believe that the Central Arizona Project may bring some
new jobs. In addition, while the area's water system needs up-
dating to fill the increasing need, water is available (68).
Tourists and Seasonal Population--
Tourists are common in the area all year around, but primar-
ily in the winter. The Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, located 12
miles from the site, estimated 180,000 visitor-days in 1977.
Tourists visit the area for hunting, rock collecting, and driving
off-road vehicles.
RANEGRAS PLAIN SITE
Physical Setting
The Ranegras Plain siting area is located in south-central
Arizona within the Basin and Range Physiographic Province; it is
bounded by the Eagletail and Little Harquahala Mountains to the
east, the Little Horn Mountains to the south, and the New Water
and Kofa Mountains to the west (2). The 2-squa re-mi 1e Ranegras
Plain site comprises Sections 9 and 10, Township 2 North, Range
14 West (Figure 3-12).
Topog ra phy--
The portion of the Ranegras Plain around the site is con-
cave, sloping gently inward from the surrounding mountains and
ultimately sloping toward the northwest along the alignment of
Bouse Wash. Since the mountains on the east side of the area
rise more abruptly than those to the west, most of the immediate
area slopes gently to the northeast. The proposed site, located
in the west-central portion of the plain, parallels this trend,
sloping toward the northeast at approximately 0.5 percent. Its
elevation ranges between approximately 1,320 and 1,380 feet above
sea 1evel .
SoiIs--
Generalized maps prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Ser-
vice (52) identify hyperthermic-arid soils of the Coolidge-
Wel1ton-Antho and the Gi1 man-Vint-Brios Associations in the
vicinity. These associations are the same as those identified in
the vicinity of the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Available information is inadequate to permit an assessment
of faulting and mineral resources in either the general area or
at the Ranegras Plain site.
Climate--
The climatic setting of the Ranegras Plain site is similar
to that described for the Western Harquahala Plain site.
3-57
-------
Figure 3-12. Location of Ranegras Plain site.
3-58
-------
Water Resources
Ground Water--
The major aquifer in the Ranegras Plain is the alluvium that
fills the basins between the mountain ranges. Ground water con-
ditions in various portions of the northern and upper portions of
the Ranegras Plain have been described, but the total thickness
of the alluvium in the vicinity is unknown (55, 69, 70, 71). The
driller's log of Well (B-2-14)lOcdc , which is located on the
site, shows that there is a considerable thickness of clay and
clay to gravel mixture in the upper 340 feet of the well. Coarse
gravel, sands, and sandy clays to clayey sands are found at
depths up to 455 feet. Wells to the north and west of the area
have been drilled to over 1,000 feet with clay and clayey sands
being the main alluvial material. Ground water flows to the
northwest (55, 70).
The depth to ground water in Well (B-2-14) lOcdc was measured
in 1975 at 331.5 feet or a 0.5 foot decline since the measurement
made in 1968. Table 3-16 lists wells in the vicinity of the
site. At the Ranegras Plain site, depth to ground water is be-
tween 320 and 340 feet and ground water flows toward the north.
Assuming a ground water gradient of 10 feet in 6 miles and a
porosity of 15 percent, and using a reported permeability of 40
gal/day/sq ft (55), an estimated average flow rate of 4.1 feet/
year is calculated. If an assumed gradient of 10 feet in 2 miles
is used, then the estimated average flow rate of 12.3 feet/year
is calculated. Most likely the average flow rate is between 4.1
and 12.3 feet/year.
Surface Water--
The drainage channels at the Ranegras Plain site are not
very prominent, indicating that rainwaters run off the site as
sheet flow. Drainage is to the northeast, toward Upper Bouse
Wash. While the wash is subject to flash flooding, the site
itself is over 2 miles from the wash and well outside the flood
zone shown on the 100-year flood boundary map (57). In addition,
a drainage ditch paralleling a road south of the site appears to
divert some of the rainwater runoff away from the site toward the
east (see Fi gure 3-13).
There are no year-round water bodies on or near the site.
There is a cattle pond in the southwest corner of Section 10,
which appears to be fed by surface water runoff and supplemented
by water which is either pumped at the pond or trucked in.
Air Quality
The Ranegras Plain is located within 10 miles of the Western
Harquahala Plain on even terrain. Since it is in the same air-
shed and relatively close to the Western Harquahala Plain, it is
expected that both sites share the same air quality characteris-
tics.
3-59
-------
TABLE 3-16. DEPTH TO STATIC WATER TABLE AT W£LLS IN THE
VICINITY OF THE RANEGRAS PLAIN SITE
Locati on
(B-2-14)10cdc
(B-2-14)10cdc
(B-2-14)28cdc
(B-3-15)2dab
(B-3-15)2dab
(B-3-15)23bdb
(B-3-15)23bdb
(B-4-14)30cca
(B-4-14)30cca
(B-4-15)23daa
(B-4-15)23daa
(B-4-15)23ddd
Date Measured
January 1975
April 1968
1975
April 1968
August 1967
(reported in 1947)
August 1967
August 1967
November 1948
August 1967
April 1968
November 1948
Depth to Water
(i n feet )
331. 51"
332
306
188
192
287
282
187
186
172
179
158
* Source: Reference 70.
t Measured by USGS on January 16, 1975.
3-60
-------
CO
I
CT)
COYOTE
PEAK
Figure 3-13. Surface water drainage at Ranegras Plain site.
-------
Public Health and Safety
The description of the present environmental conditions at
the Ranegras Plain site (in terms of spills, traffic patterns and
transportation risks, emergency response capabilities, potential
for Valley Fever, noise, and odors), is similar to that given for
the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Ecologi ca1 Resources
Vegetati on--
A list of plant species which have been found within the
siting area is presented elsewhere (31). No federally endangered
or threatened species are known to occur in or near the proposed
site. However, there are several plants which are protected
under Arizona Native Plant Law. These plants include the follow-
ing genera: Opunti a, Caste!a and Peni ocereu s. Three plants of
night-blooming cereus were found growing among white bursage and
creosote bush (53).
WiIdli fe--
The wildlife habitat of the study area is typical of most
desert lands. A precarious balance exists between the environ-
ment and wildlife species. Animals which may be found within the
siting area are coyote, kit fox, badger, jack rabbit, kangaroo
rat, pocket mouse, ground squirrel, lizards, and birds.
Repti1 es and _ampjv[_bi ans--A wide variety of reptiles and
amphibians inhabit the lower Bajada Plain. The desert tortoise
has been observed in the vicinity, usually in areas where burrows
are easily dug (i.e., gravel wash bottoms) (59). The Gila mon-
ster has also been observed in the area.
Bi rds--Many birds have been reported on or near the proposed
site, although many are seasonal species. A significant number
of species avoid the desert and use the Colorado River riparian
area.
The U.S. Department of the Interior has listed the bald
eagle, Yuma clapper rail, zone-tailed hawk, osprey, and peregrine
falcon as endangered species. However, these species are rarely
seen within the siting area. A list of species which may be
found in the vicinity of Ranegras Plain is provided elsewhere
(31).
Mammals--Sma11 mammals such as mice, shrews, rats, gophers,
ground squirrels, rabbits, and bats are common throughout the
general area (59). Predators include the coyote, kit fox, and
badger. Herds of bighorn sheep are found outside the immediate
area in the Plomosa and Dome Rock Mountains. Occasionally, indi-
vidual sheep may wander near the site.
3-62
-------
Land Use
Land Juri sdi cti on--
Public lands comprise the entire study area with the excep-
tion of 320 acres of private and other land located in the north-
west and 560 acres of Arizona State Trust land situated in the
northeast (Figure 3-14). Surface land and subsurface mineral
rights are administered by BLM.
Exi sting Land Use--
A portion of one WSA is located in the southeastern part of
the study area (Figure 3-15). Unit 2-127, Little Horn Mountains,
contains 91,930 acres and is situated approximately 38 miles
southeast of Quartzsite, Arizona. Unit 2-127 includes the east-
ern half of the Little Horn Mountains, a large portion of the
Ranegras Plain to the north, and a small portion of the Palomas
Plain and Nottbusch Valley.
Recreational opportunities in the study area are similar to
those identified for the Western Harquahala Plain site: hunting,
rock and mineral collecting, off-road vehicle use, and sightsee-
ing.
As with the two previous sites, lands within the study area
are largely undeveloped agriculturally, and are primarily used by
ranchers with BLM and ASLD grazing permits and/or leases for
livestock grazing (41). Land in the study area is divided into
two grazing allotments, the Crowder-Weisser and K Lazy B. Note
that the study area represents only a portion of the entire Crow-
der-Weisser and K Lazy B allotments. The qualifications of the
Crowder-Weisser allotment are listed below (72); the qualifica-
tions of the K Lazy B allotment (60) are in the discussion of
agricultural land use for the Western Harquahala Plain site.
• Crowder-Weisser Allotment -
Range: managed as perennia 1-ephemeral
Season of use: year-long
Class of livestock: cattle and horses
Base herd qualifications: 25,306 AMU's, the equivalent
of 2,260 cows year-long. This base herd qualification
was determined using a figure of 97 percent federal
range. Existing range improvements are: Crowder Peak
Dikes, Coyote Peak Reseeding #1, Coyote Peak Enclosure
Fence, Salvation Well, Salvation Well Fence, Cattle-
guards, Trough and Storage, Windmill, and Corral.
The locations of all existing range improvements, with the excep-
tion of the Coyote Peak Reseeding #1, are displayed on Figure
3-15. The Salvation well, windmill, corral, fence, trough, and
storage are on one of the sections proposed for the site. Lo-
cated in the south-central portion of the study area is a series
of 3- to 4-foot dikes collecting runoff east of Coyote Peak. The
range development is fenced completely and portions are reseeded
(73).
3-63
-------
.-.-.•.-.I B.L.M. LANDS
STATE TRUST LANDS
OTHER
Figure 3-14. Land jurisdiction at Ranegras Plain site.
-------
cn
Figure 3-15. Existing land use at the Ranegras Plain site.
-------
LEGEND
m^mmm UNPAVED IMPROVED ROAD
.......... UNIMPROVED ROAD
PALO VERDE-DEVERS 500KV LATTICE TOWER
TRANSMISSION LINE
•••••••• EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY PIPELINE
(30", 30", 26")
COYOTE PEAK DIKES #1
O SALVATION WELL/WINDMILL
CORRAL
—x * FENCE
D D CATTLE GUARD
BLM WILDERNESS STUDY AREA UNIT #2-127
K LAZY B BLM GRAZING ALLOTMENT
CROWDER-WEISSER BLM GRAZING ALLOTMENT
PROPOSED SITE
Figure 3-15a. Legend to Figure 3-15
3-66
-------
Utility land use consists of one existing 500-kV lattice
tower extra high-voltage line and the EPNG pipeline intersecting
the study area in a general west-to-east direction (Figure 3-15).
The Southern California Edison Company transmission right-of-way
parallels the EPNG pipeline. The major pipeline corridor located
in the central portion of the study area is operated by EPNG (LU-
31). For additional information, refer to the discussion of
utility land use for the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Two unpaved improved roads are located within the study
area. Hovatter Road travels in a southwest-to-northeast direc-
tion, and primarily forms connections to specific use areas such
as range improvements. The second road is the utility access
road which traverses the central study area. One unimproved road
is situated in the study area connecting the EPNG access road
with Hovatter Road.
Future Land Use--
Future land use for the Ranegras Plain site is the same as
discussed for the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Visual Resources
The visual resources assessment was performed for the area
located within 3 miles of the site (a total study area of 56
square miles).
A small portion of the northern part of the study area was
classified as a visual quality Class C area of high sensitivity
(1-10 foreground/middleground distance zone) and assigned a
Tentative Management Class III (64). Approximately 60 percent of
the study area (including the site) was considered to be Manage-
ment Class IV because of minimal visual quality and moderate
viewer sensitivity. An undisturbed portion of the Kofa Game
Range was identified as Management Class II because of high sen-
sitivity in a Class B landscape. Finally, one square mile of the
proposed Kofa WSA, and approximately 12 square miles (adjacent to
the site) of the Little Horn WSA were identified as Management
Class II (2-127). Results are shown on Figure 3-16.
Cultural Resources
Archaeologi cal --
Three sites (two temporary camps and a trail) were recorded
within the study area (Table 3-17). While additional sites are
likely to exist in the area, their density is anticipated to be
low. A synopsis of cultural development in southern Arizona is
provided in Appendix K.
Hi stori cal --
No historical sites have been recorded within the study
area.
3-67
-------
W
o>
00
|| | || CLASS I (SPECIAL AREAS)
I] CLASS II (VISUAL CHANGES SHOULD NOT ATTRACT ATTENTION)
° ° °1 CLASS III (VISUAL CHANGES SHOULD REMAIN SUBORDINATE)
CLASS IV (VISUAL CHANGES MAY BE DOMINANT)
Figure 3-16. Visual resources within 3 miles of Ranegras Plain site.
-------
TABLE 3-17. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FOR THE
RANEGRAS PLAIN
Cultural
Site Type Af f i 1 i ati on Descri pti on
Temporary camp Unknown Basalt rock ring, quartzite
core and scraper.
Temporary camp Unknown Rock ring.
Trail Unknown North-south aboriginal trai
3-69
-------
Nati ve Ameri can--
The study area located In the Ranegras Plain was also occu-
pied and utilized by the Yavapai, Maricopa, and Pima. As with
the Harquahala Plain site, the surrounding elevated areas were of
particular importance. The closest of these are the Little Har-
quahala Mountains, located well beyond the study area. A summary
of the Native American cultural resources inventory for the Rane-
gras Plain site area is given in Table 3-18.
The Ranegras Plain was utilized as a subsistence area.
Creosote bush and Umsi (an important medicinal plant) were gath-
ered there by the western Yavapai. The two trail systems which
cross the Western Harquahala and Ranegras Plains are the Ehren-
berg-Arlington Trail, with associated trail shrines, and the Gila
River to Parker Valley Trail utilized by the Panya group of Coco-
ma r i c o p a .
Further discussion of the area's cultural development and
history is provided in Appendices L and M.
Soci oeconomi cs
Setting Summary--
The Ranegras Plain site lies 7-1/2 miles west of the Western
Harquahala Plain site discussed earlier. The Ranegras Plain site
is located 80 miles from the Phoenix metropolitan area by high-
way, and 60 miles southwest of Wickenberg. Access to the site is
from 1-10 at Exit 53, followed by a drive of approximately 6
miles on Hovatter Road to the southwest. The border between Mar-
icopa and Yuma Counties is 19 miles east of the site. The Kofa
National Wildlife Refuge is 3 miles from the site, but almost 20
miles along an unimproved road.
Of the cluster of towns located along U.S. Highway 60 men-
tioned previously, Vicksburg, Vicksburg Junction, Hope, and Har-
cuvar are within 15 miles of the site. Vicksburg is located 3
miles northwest of Hope on State Highway 72, and consists of a
few mobile homes, a bar that is closed, and a few other build-
ings. As in the other towns in the area, there is no local gov-
ernment. Vicksburg Junction is at the intersection of Vicksburg
Road and U.S. Highway 60. Vicksburg Road, an unimproved road,
connects Vicksburg and Vicksburg Junction; it then continues
south to 1-10. Vicksburg junction has a few mobile homes and
three structures, with a Baptist church south of the junction on
Vicksburg Road.
For a discussion of Hope and Harcuvar, see the discussion on
the Western Harquahala Plain.
Populati on--
Based on the 1980 census data, topographic maps, and field
inspection of the study area, estimates of current and projected
population within 5, 10, and 15 miles of the site are shown in
Table 3-19.
3-70
-------
TABLE 3-18. NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY
FOR THE RANEGRAS PLAIN SITE
Approximate Mi 1 es
Site from Ranegras
Type Site Location Plain Site
RELIGION AND RITUAL
Trail Shrines Ehrenberg-Arlington *
Trai 1
FOOD AND OTHER RESOURCES
Sacred Trail Ranegras Plain Vicinity
TRAILS
Trail Ehrenberg-Arlington *
Trail Gi1 a River to Parker *
Valley
* Precise location not determined in the study.
3-71
-------
TABLE 3-19. ESTIMATES OF CURRENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION
WITHIN A 5-, 10-, OR 15-MILE RADIUS OF RANEGRAS PLAIN SITE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Estimated Projected Projected Projected Projected
5 Mi 1 es
10 Miles
15 Mi les
5
30
535
5
31
554
5
31
563
5
31
572
5
32
581
3-72
-------
Tax Consi derati cms--
The Ranegras Plain site is located in Tax Area Code No.
0300. In 1981, the comprehensive mill levy was $11.89 per $100
of assessed valuation. Commercial property is assessed at 25
percent of the full cash value. Full cash value is defined as 85
percent of the market value.
Employment, Labor Force, and Income--
The discussion of employment, labor force, and income for
the Western Harquahala Plain site applies to the Ranegras Plain
site.
Tourists and Seasonal Population--
The discussion of tourists and seasonal population for the
Western Harquahala Plain site applies to the Ranegras Plain site.
3-73
-------
SECTION 4
PROJECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION AND ASSUMPTIONS
This section discusses the projected environmental conse-
quences of establishing a hazardous waste management facility at
the proposed or alternative sites. Section 1502.16 of NEPA regu-
lations for EIS's directs that this section form the scientific
and analytic basis for the comparison of the alternatives de-
scri bed i n Secti on 2.
Potential impacts are based on the representative facility
design described in Appendix D. This representative design
assumes the facility would be designed to handle wastes generated
within Arizona (see Appendix C). It also assumes that the facil-
ity would not include incineration or other high technology
treatment techniques (see Appendix D). Transportation-related
impacts are based on an assumption that approximately 2,300
truckloads of hazardous waste per year would be shipped to the
facility from Phoenix and Tucson. This covers approximately 90
percent of the state's waste stream (see Appendix N).
Following each discussion of the potential for impacts on
the various resources, mitigative measures are presented which
may prevent or alleviate these impacts. These measures would be
in addition to the conditions established in the facility per-
mits.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL SETTING
Assessment Approach
The potential physical impacts of the facility on the pro-
posed site were assessed in terms of the disturbance, removal,
and/or alteration of the topography, soils, and vegetation, and
the consequences of these actions. The suitability of the geo-
logic conditions for development of the proposed hazardous waste
management facility was also evaluated.
Mobile Site
Topography and Soils--
The topography over an area of about 58 acres would be sub-
stantially altered over a period of 30 years by construction of
both waste storage, treatment, and disposal structures and access
4-1
-------
roads into the site from existing roads. Since this affected
area constitutes approximately 9 percent of the total area of the
site, this impact would not be significant.
This construction would also result in considerable distur-
bance of the site's natural vegetation (see subsequent discussion
of ecological impacts). As a result, increased wind and water
erosion could be anticipated unless disturbed areas were properly
stabilized. Following the construction phase, portions of the
disturbed land would begin to revert to preconstruction condi-
tions. Some of the topography and soil would remain disturbed
for the life of the project and beyond. If stockpiling of soil
became necessary (i.e., topsoil for use as cover during closure),
such stockpiles would be highly susceptible to erosion.
Geologic Conditions--
Site specific geologic data is limited, but available infor-
mation indicates that the site's general geologic conditions are
suitable for development of the proposed hazardous waste manage-
ment facility, provided the facility is designed to minimize con-
tact between the wastes and the subsurface environment. More
detailed information would be needed to address specific impacts
as part of the permit process.
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites
The impacts on the geologic environment, topography, and
soils at these two sites would be generally similar to those de-
scribed for the Mobile site. However, the different nature of
drainage at these sites (sheet flooding rather than channelized
flows) could result in different types of erosion impacts.
Mi ti gati ve Measures
Topography and Soils--
More detailed site investigations would be required to
better define soils conditions. These investigations should
address:
• Engineering properties of subsurface soils (texture,
plasticity, permeability, etc.).
• Suitability of soils for construction purposes (moisture-
density relationships, remolded permeabilty, reactivity
wi th wastes , etc.).
that wi11 :
Stratigraphy and continuity of site materials.
or
ty
ADHS would ensure that the facility contractor would, based
on the above investigations, construct the facility in a manner
• Minimize soil and vegetation disturbance in adjacent
areas.
4-2
-------
• Provide soil stabilization measures in areas where dis-
turbance is unavoidable.
• Assure that exterior embankments of earthen structures
are constructed to minimize erosion by either wind or
water.
• Minimize long-term stockpiling of soils. If stockpiling
of soils is unavoidable, the stockpiles should be stabi-
lized to minimize erosion.
• Provide for timely rehabilitation of borrow areas that
are developed during facility construction.
• Provide for adequate surface drainage.
Geologic Conditions--
More detailed investigations would be required to better
define geological conditions and identify any subsurface indica-
tions of seismic (earthquake) activity, so that suitable miti-
gation measures could be designed for the specific features of
the site if necessary. These studies would be performed during
or prior to the design phase of the project, once the contractor
has been selected by ADHS.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES
Assessment Approach
The assessment of potential adverse impacts on water re-
sources was based on available data concerning regional hydro-
geology and water use, and on aerial photos. Primary emphasis
was placed on the potential contamination of ground water re-
sources. Surface run-off patterns and the potential contamination
of cattle watering tanks were also evaluated.
Ground Water
Because of the substantial depth to ground water estimated
at each site, contamination of ground water is unlikely except in
the event of a long-term leak of large amounts (several thousand
gallons) of contaminants from the facility. EPA's facility regu-
lations are intended to prevent such contamination through strin-
gent design and operating standards (see Appendix A). In the
event contaminants did leak and reach ground water, the regula-
tions require the owner/operator to take corrective action to
prevent the migration of contaminated water away from the facil-
ity (for example, by pumping out the contaminated water, treating
it, and restoring it to the aquifer).
The specific measures the facility owner/operator would take
to meet the requirements of EPA's regulations would be estab-
lished in the permit to build and operate the facility (see Ap-
pendix A). In this section impacts are addressed that are likely
4-3
-------
to occur if the preventive measures taken by the facility were to
fail such that ground water became contaminated and migrated away
from the facility site before corrective action were taken. It
should be remembered that, given the substantial depth to ground
water, it would likely take decades even for a large release of
contaminants to reach the water table after leaking from the
faci1i ty .
Mobile Site--
Calculations based on the average ground water characteris-
tics in the Mobile area (see Section 3), indicate that ground
water moves through the subsurface at the rate of approximately
99 feet per year, increasing to 290 feet per year within the cone
of depression (the area where pumpage of ground water is great-
est). Evidence from USGS studies in the Waterman Wash area indi-
cates ground water moves northwest toward the cone of depression,
some 15 miles north of the site.
The community of Mobile, some 6 miles from the site, is lo-
cated upgradient from the site (i.e., away from the direction of
regional ground water flow); thus, its underground water should
not be affected by the operation of the facility. Six wells are
located 7 to 8 miles north of the Mobile site. These are the
closest existing wells downgradient from the facility (i.e., in
the direction of regional ground water movement). Assuming an
average rate of ground water velocity in the basin and assuming
the ground water moves from the site to these wells, it would
take over 370 years for ground water contaminated at the site to
reach these wells. Using a more conservative estimate, of a
velocity of 135 feet per year', it would take some 270 years for
ground water to travel from the site to the wells (see Appendix
F).
These estimates are based on the direct movement of ground
water from the site to the wells. If subsurface geologic barri-
ers force the ground water to move in a less direct path, it
would take longer for any contaminated water to reach the wells.
If the contaminated ground water continued to move towards the
cone of depression, it would take some 100 to 150 additional
years to migrate to the cone of depression, approximately 15
mi les north of the site.
Considering the depth to ground water beneath the site, and
the average velocity of ground water movement within the Waterman
Wash aquifer, it is likely that it would take several hundred
years for any contamination to enter ground water and move to the
nearest water supply wells. This slow movement of contaminated
*
Average velocity is equal to hydraulic conductivity times
hydraulic gradient divided by porosity. Hydraulic conductivity
is equal to transmissivity divided by saturated thickness.
t Based on the highest recorded transmissivity in the basin.
4-4
-------
water would provide a substantial period of time in which to
detect a leak, establish a monitoring program, and take correc-
tive action. Consequently, the likelihood of well contamination
is extremely remote. Such an event would take place only if both
a significant, long-term failure of the facility safeguards and a
failure to detect and correct ground water contamination were to
occur.
If such a massive failure did take place, there are numerous
variables which would affect the extent of actual risk to public
health and the environment. These variables would include the
particular types and quantities of wastes released, the specific
characteristics of the aquifer between the site and the downgra-
dient wells, the extent and nature of water use at the time the
contaminants reached the wells, and the exact concentrations of
contaminants in the ground water at the point of withdrawal.
Because of the significant times involved and the qualified
nature of available data, it is not possible to project specific
public health risks associated with contamination of the aquifer
by a facility leak. Exposure of the public to certain types of
contaminants that could be handled at the facility may pose a
health hazard. If ground water did become significantly contami-
nated, the public could be exposed either through direct consump-
tion of contaminated water supplies or through consumption of
food crops irrigated by contaminated water or meat from animals
which have drunk contaminated water. While such exposure gener-
ally would not cause immediate (acute) health problems, long-term
(chronic) health effects could occur.
It should be noted that the probability that water users
will be exposed to ground water which is contaminated at a level
which would require public action (an "alert level") is very low.
Even if large quantities of contaminants entered ground water
beneath the facility, the concentrations of contaminants would
likely be very low by the time the contaminated water reached the
nearest wells. Many of the contaminants could be expected to
interact with the subsurface soil and thereby be removed from the
moving ground water. Other contaminants would be diluted over
time such that their concentrations in the ground water at the
wells would be below alert levels.
Nonetheless, the possibility exists that major long-term
failure at the facility resulting in the release of substantial
quantities of contaminants into the subsurface beneath the site
could, over a probable period of several hundred years, result in
the migration of contaminants to areas of heavy ground water use
within the basin. Continued use of the contaminated water in the
area could pose a potential health hazard to the population using
that water.
Widespread contamination of the aquifer could require either
extensive treatment of the ground water to remove contaminants,
provision of alternative water supplies, or relocation of the
4-5
-------
users of the aquifer. Since ground water is the only current
supply of water in the basin, provision of alternative water sup-
plies from outside the area could be very costly.
Western Harquahala Plain Site--
The nearest well downgradient from the Western Harquahala
Plain site is located 3.75 miles to the southeast. Calculations
based on average ground water characteristics in the area (see
Section 3) show that it would take between 2,700 and 11,000 years
for contaminated ground water to move from the site to the well.
The potential public health impacts of a contaminated aquifer are
the same as at the Mobile site, although the estimated times for
such impacts are much longer at the Western Harquahals site.
Ranegras Plain Site--
Based on the assumptions stated in Section 3 concerning
ground water at the Ranegras Plain site, and the location of the
nearest downgradient well (Bouse Wash Rest Stop), contaminated
water originating at the site would take between 2,250 and 6,750
years to travel the 5.25 miles to the well. Between 3,750 and
11,250 years would be needed for a contaminated plume of ground
water to move from the site 8.75 miles to Hope City, the only
other known domestic water supply well in the area.
The potential public health impacts are the same as at the
Mobile site, although the estimated times for such impacts are
much longer at the Ranegras Plain site.
Mitigative Measures--
The federal standards allow the permit applicant flexibility
in designing the facility, as long as ground water is adequately
protected. The standards focus on the following design options
for surface impoundments, waste piles, and landfills: (a) use of
a single liner, with a ground water monitoring system to detect
contaminants in the ground water at the facility, or (b) use of
double liners, with a leak detection system between the liners to
detect movement of liquids through the first liner. Ground water
monitoring is not required for the double liner/leak detection
system, since leaks could be detected and corrected before con-
taminants reached ground water. If a leak were detected but not
repaired, the facility owner/operator would be required to moni-
tor the ground water and, if potentially harmful levels of con-
tamination were found, take corrective action.
An exemption from liner requirements is allowed if EPA finds,
based on a demonstration by the owner or operator, that alter
nate design and operating practices, together with location
characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous
constituents into the ground water at any future time. See,
for example, 40 CFR 264.221(b).
4-6
-------
Actual design of the ground water protection system would
depend on the specific hydrogeologic characteristics of the sub-
surface under the chosen site as well as the overall design of
the facility. Available information on the proposed sites sug-
gests that using double liners with a leak detection system, or
some other combination of leak detection methods, would be more
appropriate than relying solely on a ground water monitoring sys-
tem to detect the release of contaminants from the facility.
Because of the substantial depth to ground water and the normally
low moisture content of the desert soils, it is possible that the
subsurface beneath the facility would be able to absorb a gre.at
amount of liquid before the liquid could reach ground water. It
could be many decades, then, before ground water monitoring could
detect the release of contaminants from the facility.
There are several methods that could be used to detect the
movement of liquid wastes or leachate from the facility. These
i nclude:
• Leak detection as part of the impoundment or landfill
design. This would involve use of the double liner sys-
tem. Between the two liners, there could be installed a
system capable of collecting liquids and conveying them
to a point or points where they could be measured and
collected for sampling and/or retrieval.
• Liquid mass balance for impoundments. For this, the
operator could maintain records on the amount of liquid
discharged to the impoundments, maintain meteorological
records to determine evaporation from the impoundments,
and maintain continuous measurements of the amount of
liquid in the impoundments.
t Unsaturated zone monitoring. For this, suction lysime-
ters could be installed beneath or around the facility.
(Lysimeters are devices designed to retrieve a sample of
liquid from the soil moisture in the unsaturated zone.)
Boreholes could be installed around the facility. These
would be capable of accornodati ng various types of geo-
physical instruments designed to measure changes in mois-
ture content.
• Ground water monitoring. This type of monitoring could
be used even if the double liner system were put into
place. For this, monitoring wells would be installed
both upgradient and downgradient. The quality of the
* The capacity of the subsurface to absorb contaminated liquids
leaking or leaching from the facility cannot be determined at
this time because of inadequate information about the hydroge-
ology at each site, and lack of sufficient scientific knowledge
about the way in which many hazardous wastes would act in the
subsurface.
4-7
-------
existing ground water would be determined from samples
from the upgradient wells and initial samples from the
downgradient wells. An on-going monitoring program would
sample in order to detect changes in water quality over
time.
The facility contractor would be required to obtain site-
specific hydrogeologic data. ADHS would work with the contractor
in the early stages of designing the facility to ensure the de-
sign provides adequate protection of ground water and the capa-
bility of detecting movement of hazardous constituents out of the
faci1ity.
Surface Waters
The main pathway of surface water contamination is rain
waters flowing through the sites. The EPA standards generally
require that facility units be protected against flows during
peak discharge of at least a 24-hour, 25-year storm. Conse-
quently, the facility would have to be designed to divert heavy
rain water flow away from areas used for treatment, storage, or
disposal of wastes. In addition, the facility would have to be
designed so that liquids collected within the facility (rain
water, spilled liquids, etc.) are contained on the site. The
following discussion is based on a facility designed to divert
rain waters in accordance with these requirements.
Mobile Site--
Adequate protection against storm waters would be a key con-
cern at the Mobile site, since the area is subject to intense
run-off from occasional storms. Inadequate protections against
storm water run-off cold result in washout of the facility, in
which case the flood waters would be expected to carry contami-
nants down to Waterman Wash and eventually into the Gila River.
The concentrations of hazardous constituents in the water would
likely be very dilute by the time it reached the Upper Rainbow
Valley area and entered the Gila River. Nonetheless, the pres-
ence of contaminants could pose a significant health hazard.
Under these circumstances, the requirement to protect the facil-
ity from a 25-year storm could be inadequate.
The diversion of run-on waters would increase the flow in
other washes. Construction activities at the site could also
result in blockage of existing washes and further diversion of
storm water flows into nearby channels or erode new channels.
The extent of these impacts would be expected to be limited to
the immediate vicinity of the site, probably no more than the
site and buffer zone. The flow of surface waters into Waterman
Wash downstream would not be affected. Diversion of surface
nw ^Xam5]f^ 42 SFR Parts 264.251(c), 264.273(c), and
301(c) and the Federal Register. July 26, 1982, pages
32360 et seq.
4-8
-------
waters away from the facility, however, could increase the flow
of rain waters into or around the Northwest Tank. Such an in-
crease could exceed the holding capacity of the tank and threaten
its structural integrity.
Western Harquahala Site--
Th'e flow of rain water from the surrounding watershed is
blocked by the CAP canal. Consequently, the quantities of water
diverted around the facility at this site would not be expected
to be large. No impact would be expected on the cattle tank
south of the site, since diverted run-off would tend to flow
southwesterly through the wash which is located between the site
and the tank.
A potential flooding problem could arise if the CAP canal
were to overflow or wash out due to extremely intense storms.
Overflow from the canal could flood the facility, carrying con-
taminants into Bouse Wash. The concentrations of hazardous con-
stituents in the flood waters would be expected to become dilute
downstream from the facility. Nonetheless, a potential health
hazard could exist downstream. Overflow of the CAP, however, is
not likely since the aqueduct is protected from run-on by adja-
cent floodwater retention and diversion dams. The design also
provides for the controlled release of canal waters where neces-
sary.
Ranegras Plain Si te--
The effects of diverting storm waters at this site would be
expected to be minimal. The area is characterized by sheet run-
off, and some of that is already diverted away from the site by a
drainage ditch to the south.
Mitigative Measures--
At the Mobile site, ADHS would require the facility contrac-
tor to design the facility so as to protect against a 100-year
storm rather than a 25-year storm, using berms, ditches, dikes,
or other hydraulic structures as needed to protect the facility
against flooding and washout. Drainage patterns in the area and
appropriate surface water controls should be carefully evaluated
and incorporated in the facility design.
If the facility were to be placed at the Western Harquahala
Plain site, ADHS would require the contractor to evaluate the
potential for flooding caused by CAP overflow. Appropriate pro-
tective measures, such as dikes, berms, etc., would be incorpo-
rated into the facility design.,
The specific design of rain water diversions and containment
systems would be addressed in the facility permit. The facility
contractor would be required to submit data with the permit ap-
plication to substantiate the effectiveness of the design. In
addition, ADHS would work with the contractor to minimize or
avoid adverse impacts on the Northwest Tank (Mobile Site) or on
4-9
-------
other potentially affected areas which might be identified in the
process of designing or constructing the facility.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY
Assessment Approach
The impact on air quality due to construction and operation
of the hazardous waste management facility was assessed by dis-
persion modeling and "screening" analysis (see Appendix G).
Table 4-1 shows the estimated emission rates for selected pollu-
tants originating from construction activities at the site and
the estimated rates for individual compounds in the landfarm.
These rates were used in the dispersion modeling analysis.
Maxima were established by considering various other wind sec-
tors. A dispersion modeling exercise is required to relate emis-
sions to ambient air quality. Due to its applicability to com-
plex terrain situations, the short-term (screening) mode of the
VALLEY model was used to estimate ambient concentrations down-
stream. The annual impact was computed by using VALLEY in the
1ong-term mode.
Mobi1e Site
Scoping participants were concerned with the air quality
impacts on nearby communities. Therefore, the analysis of air
quality impacts assumes the wind blows toward the nearest commun-
ity, Mobile. Results of the modeling analysis are summarized in
Table 4-2. Individual impacts for the various processes are dis-
cussed below.
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)--
As noted in Table 4-2, construction activity at the proposed
site is expected to add 10 ug/nT TSP (e.g., dust, dirt) to the
ambient concentrations. Since the 24-hour and annual TSP stan-
dards are already exceeded in the area (see Table 3-3), the con-
struction activity is expected to add to the problems. Additions
to the ambient TSP concentrations near Estrella and Mobile are
computed to be less than 5 ug/m and 1 ug/m , respectively.
Dust emissions resulting from tilling organic wastes into
the landfarm were estimated at only 4 tons/year (see Appendix
G). This emission rate is 50 times less than that anticipated
during the construction of the facility.
The results presented are probably conservatively high since
particulate deposition was not considered in the modeling analy-
sis.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions--
The estimated annual emission rates for VOC's from the im-
poundments, landfarm, and landfill are given in Table 4-1. EPA's
regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
of air quality require that any source of emissions greater than
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-1. POLLUTANT EMISSION RATES USED IN MODELING ANALYSIS
Process/
Pol 1 utant
Construct ion :
TSP - short term
TSP - annual average
Landfarm:
Allyl Alcohol
Dimethyl Sulfate
Formic Acid
Phenol
Emission Rate
(9/sec)
7.70
5.60
0.27
0.01
0.37
0.01
Emi ssion
Rate
(tons /year)
Total Volatile Organic Compounds:
Surface impoundment
Landfarm
Landfarm and solvent recovery
Landfil1
40
27-161
42-101
40-157
* These are ranges of estimated emissions. See Appendix G.
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-2. AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF THE MOBILE SITE
Max i mum
Addi ti onal
Cone.
Process/ Averaging Standard* Expected
Pol 1 utant Time (ug/m-3) (ug/nr3)
Construct!on:
TSP - short term 24 hr 150 10
TSP - long term Annual 60 10
Landfarm:
Allyl Alcohol
Dime thy
Formi c
Phenol
1
Ac
Sul fate
id
8
8
8
8
h
h
h
h
r
r
r
r
5
5
9
19
,000
,000
,000
,000
(1
(1
(3
(6
6.
6.
0.
3.
7)f
7)
0)
3)
7
<1
9
<1
* With the exception of TSP, the standard concentrations are
OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PEL). Entries for TSP are
the secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are
set by EPA to protect general air quality.
t PEL divided by 300. See text for discussion.
4-12
-------
250 tons/year be reviewed. However, fugitive emissions (i.e.,
emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack, vent,
or functionally equivalent opening) are not considered in deter-
mining the applicability of the PSD requirements. EPA has not
determined whether emissions from the facility would be consid-
ered fugitive emissions. If they are not defined as fugitive, a
PSD permit would be required. If they are, a PSD permit would
probably not be required, since the only other source of non-
fugitive emissions, the solvent recovery operation, would be
expected to emit well under 250 tons/year. The facility contrac-
tor would need to contact EPA and ADHS before beginning construc-
tion for a determination on the applicability of the PSD require-
ments .
RCRA does not require a treatment, storage, and disposal
facility to estimate airborne emissions. As explained in Appen-
dix G, the only other EPA regulation which may apply to the
facility is the emission standard for asbestos, which specifies
that "there shall be no visible emissions" from waste disposal
sites (40 CFR 61.25).
Emissions of Potentially Toxic Compounds--
Surface impoundments--As noted in Appendix G, hazardous
emi ssi o ns from the surface impoundments probably will be insig-
nificant, given the types of wastes expected to be treated in the
impoundments. Should any volatile organic compounds be emptied
into the impoundments, volatile emissions are to be expected and
could reach 40 tons/year (see Table 4-1).
In addition, the possibility exists that the mixing of acid
and alkali wastes could generate heat, thus fueling side reac-
tions or the evolution of organics or toxic compounds into the
air (74). Such reactions may prove to be negligible or non-
existent under normal operating conditions, but the possibility
of such emissions should be recognized.
Landfarm--The estimated ambient concentrations of four
potentially toxi c compounds which may be treated in the facility
are shown in Table 4-2. There are no emissions or ambient stan-
dards for any of these compounds, making it difficult to assess
the health or environmental hazards that might be associated with
such concentrations. The Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL's) for
these compounds are given in Table 4-2, and it is clear that the
calculated ambient concentrations fall far short of these limits.
However, this comparison does not necessarily prove absence of a
health hazard, since comparing PEL's with ambient levels for any
given compound is not necessarily justifiable. PEL's are in-
tended to provide limits for the workplace, are meant for an 8-
hour exposure period, and are set for healthy workers. Shen (75)
mentions that a "numerical value ranging from 1/100 to 1/300 of
4-13
-------
the TLV value has been generally used as a guide for ambient air
quality standards." It is evident from Table 4-2 that the ambi-
ent levels anticipated for the four compounds chosen are less
than the PEL's scaled down by a factor of 300.
Landfi11--In general, liquid organic compounds are "solidi-
fied" before being placed into a landfill by mixing with com-
pounds such as dust, soil, or garbage. The goal of this mitiga-
tion measure is to reduce the possibility of liquid organics
seeping into the ground water, but it is possible that such
treatment may lower the volatility of treated organics and thus
indirectly reduce organic emissions. However, other landfills
with organic wastes show high emission rates of organics, many of
which are potentially hazardous compounds (76). While the ex-
perience at other facilities may not be applicable to the pro-
posed Arizona facility, it does suggest a potential for organic
and/or toxic emissions from the landfill.
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites
The results of the modeling analysis for the Western Harqua-
hala Plain and Ranegras Plain sites, summarized in Table 4-3, are
practically identical to those presented for the Mobile site.
The ambient levels would be expected to be well below TSP stan-
dards and PEL's.
Hiti gati ve Measures
ADHS would ensure that the contractor minimizes the impacts
of fugitive dust created during excavation of soil on site or by
traffic on unpaved roads. The following control measures could
be used:
• Watering disturbed areas at the site.
• Ceasing construction during high wind periods.
• Using dust suppressants to reduce traffic dust until the
access road is paved.
To control fugitive dust during facility operation, ADHS
would ensure that the contractor do the following:
• Revegetate areas disturbed during construction to desert
conditions.
* Threshold limit values (TLV) are generally very close to PEL's
for any given compound.
t ADHS would encourage the facility contractor to use advanced
solification/fixation technology for all liquid wastes prior to
landfilling. As a result, the organic emission or leaching
woul d be mi mmal .
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-3. AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN
AND RANEGRAS PLAIN SITES
Max. Cone
Process/ Averaging Standard* Expected
Pol 1utant Time (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
Construction :
TSP - short term 24 hr 150 11
TSP - long term Annual 60 9
Landfarm:
Ally! Alcohol
Dimethy
Formic
Phenol
1
Ac
Sul fate
id
8
8
8
8
hr
hr
hr
hr
5
5
9
19
,000
,000
,000
,000
(16
(16
(30
(63
•7)T
•7)
.0)
.3)
10
<1
14
<1
* With the exception of TSP, the standard concentrations are
OSHA's permissible exposure limits (PEL). The entries for TSP
are the secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards which
are set by EPA to protect general air quality.
t PEL divided by 300. See text for discussion.
4-15
-------
• Pave the access road between Mobile and the site.
• Pave main areas of vehicle travel within the facility.
• Water or introduce chemical dust suppressants into over-
burden storage piles.
• Water or introduce chemical dust suppressants into land-
fi11 areas.
0 Water the landfarm area.
• Cap and revegetate closed landfill areas as required by
the permit.
ADHS and the facility contractor should carefully evaluate
the potential for hazardous emissions from the facility. Proper
operation of the facility could insure minimal impacts. For
example, acids and alkalis can be neutralized prior to introduc-
tion into the surface impoundment. Once neutralized, the im-
poundment would essentially contain a brine (salt) solution, and
subsequent emissions into the air would be insignificant. Evalu-
ation of potential methods for solidifying or stabilizing fluids
should consider their effect in reducing emissions.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Assessment Approach
Assessment of the risk associated with the transport of haz-
ardous wastes was limited to the transport routes from the Phoe-
nix and Tucson areas to each of the three sites. The risk analy-
sis involved determination of likely routes from these two metro-
politan areas to the sites, accident rates, the probability of an
accident involving a hazardous waste shipment, and the population
risk factor. Details of the risk analysis are given in Appendix
N.
The assessment of noise and odor impacts, Valley Fever po-
tential, and spill risks during operation relied on secondary
sources of information, particularly studies that had measured
these impacts at similar hazardous waste management facilities.
This information was analyzed and applied to those conditions
that now exist at the proposed and alternative sites.
The assessment of noise impacts considered two types of
noise: facility noise due to construction and operational activ-
ities, and traffic noise on access roads into the sites. Infor-
mation on noise levels at operating facilities was obtained from
two studies of existing hazardous waste facilities (77, 78).
Typical noise levels from trucks and automobiles was obtained
from other published sources (29, 79, 80). A summary of this
information is presented in Appendix 0.
4-16
-------
The information presented in Appendix 0 is assumed to apply
to noise levels generated by equipment at the facility and by
traffic to and from the facility. The noise impacts at each site
would depend on the nature of the background sound and the dis-
tance from the noise source to the sound receivers.
Emergencies During Operatioj^
Mobi 1 e Site--
Based on the experience of a California facility, approxi-
mately one on-site spill occurs for every 10 million gallons of
waste delivered to the facility (81). Based on these data, a
probability of 0.5 spills per year could be expected from facil-
ity operations (77, 78).
The impacts of an on-site spill or emergency would depend on
such factors as the specific hazardous substances involved, the
nature of the incident, weather conditions. Spilled liquids
would volatilize or be absorbed rapidly into the dry soil, and
would not be expected to penetrate to ground water. Volatiliza-
tion of liquids or fires could result in the release of contami-
nants i nto the air.
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites--
The assessment of spill risks at the Western Harquahala
Plain and Ranegras Plain sites is identical to that given for the
Mobi 1 e site.
Mitigative Measures--
EPA and state standards require emergency preparedness and
contingency plans at all hazardous waste facilities (see Appen-
dices A and B). These plans become part of the permit. ADHS
would work closely with the facility contractor in developing
plans for this facility.
Among measures that could be considered in developing pre-
paredness and contingency plans are the following:
• Where appropriate, grade waste handling areas to a cen-
tralized collection point for spilled liquids.
• Incorporate an emergency spill collection and treatment
system as part of the overall engineering design.
t Monitor to ensure early warning of released chemicals.
• Protect employee health and safety with protective cloth-
ing and equipment, training, health monitoring, and limi-
tation of certain wastes to specific areas and for spe-
cific handli ng times .
4-17
-------
Risks from Transporting Hazardous Wastes
Mobile Site--
The potential for accidents from the shipment of hazardous
wastes is estimated to be low, ranging from 0.01 to 0.02 acci-
dents per year along three alternative routes from Tucson to the
Mobile site. As shown in Table 4-4, Route B has the lowest pro-
bability of an accident occurrence.
Shipments of the hazardous wastes from Phoenix to the Mobile
site would have a higher probability of accidents than from Tuc-
son because of the larger volume of traffic near the Phoenix
area. Table 4-5 shows that accident probabilities may range from
0.02 to 0.13 accidents per year, with Route C having the lowest
rate.
The shipment of hazardous wastes from Phoenix and Tucson
poses risks to populations residing along potential routes, and
to communities near the Mobile site. These risks include explo-
sions, fire, and spills of materials which may be highly toxic.
The population risk factors, as shown in Table 4-6, vary as
a function of the accident probabilities and the size of the pop-
ulation residing in the potential impact areas located along the
routes. Route B, from Tucson to the Mobile site, has the lowest
population risk compared to the two other routes, and poses less
risk to the population. Route C offers the lowest population
risk in shipping hazardous waste from Phoenix to the Mobile site.
Figure 4-1 shows communities at risk from a possible trans-
portation emergency, and the communities which have emergency
equipment. The population at risk from Tucson to the site ex-
ceeds 55,000 people along feasible shipment routes. The route
from Phoenix to the Mobile site would place over 100,000 persons
at risk from a transit-related accident.
In determining transportation-related spill risks, other
considerations should be included, such as special populations at
risk (e.g., schools located near or along potential routes) and
the existing conditions of access roads to the sites. Schools
located in the communities of Maricopa and Mobile near the major
routes may be considered as special cases of populations at risk.
Visibility problems may also result on existing access roads to
the sites due to heavier traffic.
The access road outside Maricopa is deeply cut with banks 2
to 5 feet high reducing road visibility at some places. Road
visibility is further reduced because north/south drainage pat-
terns crossing the road create a "roller coaster" effect.
Western Harquahala Plain Site--
The probability of an accident during shipment of wastes
from Tucson to the Western Harquahala Plain site is estimated to
be 0.05 accidents per year (Table 4-7). The probability of an
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-4.
ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTATION
RISK: TUCSON TO THE MOBILE SITE
Route Highway Segment
Accident
Total Rate (ace/
Miles 12000 vm)
Accident
Probability
Hazardous
Waste
Transport
(acc/yr)
State of
Arizona
Accident ^
Probability
(acc/yr)
Tucson - Arizola- 107 0.0006
Mile Post 151 (1-10).
West to Casa Grande.
Casa Grande - Maricopa
site (Maricopa Rd).
Tucson - Arizola (1-10). 103 0.0004
Arizola - Casa Grande-
Maricopa - site
(Maricopa Rd.).
Tucson - Arizola (1-10). 107 0.0006
Arizola - Franci sco
Grande (1-8 and Inter-
change 167). Francisco
Grande to Stanfield
(Hwy. 84). Stanfield -
Maricopa - site
(Maricopa Rd.).
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.017
0.02
0.017
* Accident rate of 0.0005/1,000 miles based on state commercial vehicle accident
rate.
Source: State of Arizona, Department of Transportation, 1982.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-5. ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TRANSPORTATION RISK:
PHOENIX TO THE MOBILE SITE
Route Highway Segment
A Phoenix-Chandler-
Total
Miles
93
Accident
Rate (acc^
1,000 vm)
0.0004
Accident
Probability
Hazardous
Waste
Transport
(acc/yr)
0.07
State of
Arizona
Accident
Probability
(acc/yr)r
0.09
Arizola-(I-lO).
Arizola-Casa
Grande-Maricopa-
Site (Maricopa Rd.).
Phoenix-Chandler- 107 0.0006
Exit 194 (1-10).
Exit 194-Casa
Grande-Stanfield
(Hwy 84). Stan-
field-Maricopa-Site
(Maricopa Rd.).
Phoenix-Chandler- 42 0.0003
(1-10). Chandler-
Maricopa-Site
(Maricopa Rd.).
0.13
0.02
0.11
0.04
* VM = vehicle miles.
t Accident rate of 0.0005/1,000 miles based on state commercial vehicle accident
rate.
Source: State of Arizona, Department of Transportation, 1982.
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-6. POPULATION RISK OF TRANSPORTING HAZARDOUS WASTE
TO THE MOBILE SITE ALONG ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
Route
Tucson to Site A
B
C
Phoenix to Site A
B
C
Exposure
Miles
107
103
107
93
107
42
Hazardous Waste
Accident
Probability
(acc/yr)
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.13
0.02
Population
of Impact
Area
55,350
55,950
55,550
133,030
132,400
104,410
Population
Risk
Factor
1,101
559
1,111
9,312
17,212
2,088
* See Appendix N for more detail.
4-21
-------
ro
ro
SITE EMERGENCY
TRANSIT EMERGENCY
FROM PHOENIX
FROM TUCSON
COMMUNITY AT RISK
X
t-l
z
UJ
o
x
Q.
®
UJ
Q_
•5.
UJ
1-
(§)
a:
UJ
Q
z
X
u
•
Q
Z
UJ
CD
•*
H
ib
•
UJ
CD
0
*
•
•
•
«£
a
o
o
a:
<
2:
•
•
•
z
o
H
O
<
(0
•
UJ
o
z
^
or
13
<
o
•
H
HH
O
«(
z
o
N
t-H
a
<
o
j
UJ
<
z
cc
D
Z
Z
o
o
D
H
<£\
• INDICATES POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
O INDICATES AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT TO
BE UTILIZED FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE INCIDENTS
Figure 4-l«
Communities at risk from possible hazardous materials incidents
for the Mobile site.
-------
TABLE 4-7.
HAZARDOUS
ASSESSMENT OF RISK DURING TRANSPORTATION OF
WASTES TO THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN AND
RANEGRAS PLAIN SITES
Total
Route Highway Segment Miles
Tucson
A Tucson-Gil a Bend- 242
Accident Rate^
(acc/1,000 vm)
0.0006
Accident
Probability
Hazardous
Waste
Transport
(acc/yr)
0.05
State of
Arizona
Accident
Probability
(acc/yr)
0.04
(1-10 & 1-8).
Gil a Bend-Buck-
eye-sites (Hwy
85 & 1-10).
Tucson-Phoenix-
Sites (1-10)
Phoenix
Phoenix-Avondale-
Buckeye (Buckeye
Rd.). Buckeye-
site (1-10).
222 0.0007
110 0.0008
0.05
0.18
0.03
0.11
* VM = vehicle mile.
t Accident rate of 0.0005/1,000 miles based on state commercial vehicle
accident rate.
4-23
-------
accident on the route from Phoenix to this site is greater
(0.18), reflecting the considerable length of the route and the
relatively high accident rates between Buckeye and Phoenix.
Twenty communities along the transit routes to this site in
Yuma County (seven of which are near the site) may experience a
hazardous waste incident. Along 1-10, from Phoenix to the Yuma
sites, over 100,000 persons are at risk, and from Tucson, the
population at risk ranges from over 60,000 persons to over 150,00
persons (Table 4-8).
The existing access road between the site and 1-10 follows
the area's drainage pattern coupled with shallow road cuts; this
allows drivers good road visibility over the short distance.
Figure 4-2 shows the communities which may be at risk from a
hazardous materials emergency that would occur either at the site
or in transit to the facility. The potential for spills into the
CAP Canal presents a special hazard, as users of CAP water down-
stream could be at risk should a spill occur where 1-10 crosses
the canal and not be discovered before contaminated water reached
the users. However, the probability of a spill into the CAP
canal during actual crossing, or within a mile of the canal is
extremely low because the trucks are in the area for a very short
time.
Ranegras Plain Site--
The probability of an accident during shipment of wastes
from Tucson or Phoenix to this site is identical to that given
for the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Population risk assessment for this site is identical to
that given for the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Access from Interstate 10 crosses only three of four major
washes. Road visibility would not be a problem, as this road has
shallow road cuts (approximately 1 to 2 feet).
Mitigative Measures--
The following actions would be .taken to minimize the fre-
quency of transit-related accidents and reduce the population at
ri sk :
• Arizona's Law (ARS 36-2800) requires transportation rout-
ing regulations to be promulgated. In designing transit
routes, ADHS would take into consideration the frequency
of accidents and the number of people at risk.
• ADHS would work with the Arizona Division of Emergency
Services (DES) to make any necessary revisions to the
State Emergency Response Plan, the document which out-
lines the roles of federal, state, and local agencies in
the event of transit emergencies.
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-8. POPULATION RISK OF TRANSPORTING HAZARDOUS
WASTES TO THE WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE
Tucson to Site
Phoenix to Site
Route
A
B
Exposure
Miles
242
222
105
Hazardous Waste
Accdent
Probability
(acc/yr)
0.05
0.05
0.18
Population
of Impact
Area
60,225
225,000
103,415
Population
Risk
Factor
3,011
11,250
18,615
4-25
-------
i
INi
O>
SITE EMERGENCY
TRANSIT EMERGENCY
FROM PHOENIX
p~onM TiiP^nNl
COMMUNITY AT RISK
Z
UJ
a
z
LU
CD
•
•
I
-
UJ
V
u
D
CO
(§)
^
UJ
_J
<
(•)
->
X
n
z
UJ
o
r
0.
©
^>
UJ
a
z
UJ
t-
^
UJ
fl.
^
_J
«t
Q
<
^3
13
Z
0
1-
<
u
<
o
1-
l-t
o
^
z
o
N
hH
a.
<
>-
Q
_j
UJ
u
3
1-
^
• INDICATES POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
r\ INDICATES AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT
W TO BE UTILIZED FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCIDENTS
Figure 4-2.
Communities at risk from possible hazardous materials incidents for
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain sites.
-------
ADHS would assist DES in briefing agencies or departments
that could be called upon to respond along these routes
regarding their role in incidents involving hazardous
wastes, according to the Emergency Response Plan.
The facility contractor would work with the county high-
way departments to ensure that improvements made in
access roads consider safety concerns raised in this EIS.
ADHS would encourage waste haulers to limit particularly
hazardous loads to those times of the day and weather
that are likely to minimize the risk of a transit acci-
dent .
Of
f-Site Emergency Response
Mobile Site--
As mentioned above, a total of 14 communities could be ex-
posed to a hazardous waste incident if the facility were devel-
oped at Mobile. The communities near the site are most at risk
from a hazardous waste incident, with two notable exceptions.
The cities of Phoenix and Casa Grande are more likely to experi-
ence transit emergencies than other cities along potential tran-
sit routes, due to greater traffic loads in these areas.
Although some emergency planning is apparent, an integrated
system capable of responding to a major hazardous waste incident
(particularly one which occurs outside a major metropolitan area)
has not been established. The four affected counties also appear
to lack formal preparedness activities with respect to hazardous
waste incidents. While there are some county plans, the extent
to which they are col 1aboratively developed or implementable is
unknown, largely because these plans have not been tested.
The Arizona Division of Emergency Services (DES) is respon-
sible for developing a state response program to deal with haz-
ardous materials incidents. The approach is to support local
areas through training assistance and technical expertise, while
DES develops and reviews state emergency response plans. The
State of Arizona has adopted an interim Hazardous Materials Emer-
gency Response Plan, but the system may still be inadequate for
an effective response because of the low level of local training
and equipment and the time it may require for a coordinated state
response.
The operating principle of the Response Plan assumes that
local areas would respond first on the scene and take protective
actions. If the event exceeds the response capabilities of local
areas, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) would be
called in to coordinate the state response. DPS is the lead
agency for response activities by state government personnel to
hazardous materials emergencies. ADHS is responsible for
responding to spills involving potential environmental hazards to
public health and the ultimate disposal of spilled materials.
4-27
-------
If state resources are needed, the plan envisions six safety
specialists (Commercial Vehicular Safety Specialists from DPS) as
on-site response coordinators. These specialists are located in
different parts of the state and have received specialized train-
ing in hazardous materials. If called upon, these coordinators
would determine the resources needed to manage the problem and
would coordinate local and state activities. The state response
forces consist of designated specialists from a number of regu-
latory agencies, depending on the circumstances of the emergency.
Five areas of response resources have been assessed for haz-
ardous waste emergencies. These are outlined as follows:
Response Resource Assessment
Personnel County governments lack trained
personnel in rural areas. Fire
and police resources are in short
supply and personnel have little
training in hazardous materials.
Since they would likely be the
first to arrive on scene, even
immediate response tasks may be
difficult to perform.
The State Emergency Response Plan
states that the Department of
Public Safety will provide re-
sources when the emergency ex-
ceeds local capabilities. Six
on-site coordinators are avail-
able from DPS to manage the re-
sponse and to call in both state
and federal experts in depending
on the circumstances of the emer-
gency. The DPS is also responsi-
ble for state response communica-
tions. The coordinators and are
experts in the area of hazardous
material and are trained in
response organization.
Equipment Specialized equipment is not rou-
tinely available. The State Di-
vision of Emergency Services has
long-range plans to equip the
counties on a priority basis to
handle hazardous materials inci-
dents.
4-28
-------
Aval 1abi1ity of
Channels
Communi cati on
Access to Technical
Information
Response Resource Assessment
Field Emergency Medical The rural areas have generally
Capabilities insufficient resources for med-
ical transportation and medical
response to major accidents.
Outside of the metropolitan
areas, only Buckeye and Casa
Grande have limited medical tran-
sport capabi1i ti es.
A number of small rural volun-
teer fire departments have no
communication capabilities, once
at the scene.
Most organizations that provide
technical information on chemical
hazards and handling measures re-
quire the names of pure chemi-
cals. Information concerning
wastes and/or spills is not as
readily avai 1 abl e.
Almost all nonmetropolitan communities have only a minimal
capability to respond to a hazardous waste incident with appro-
priate emergency equipment, communications, and personnel, in-
cluding medical personnel. The communities near the proposed
site lack effective response capabilities. Although it has the
largest team of hazardous materials specialists in the state,
personnel based in Phoenix could also become overtaxed, as
recently illustrated when two incidents occurred at the same time
(82).
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites--
The description of emergency response for these two sites is
identical to that given for the Mobile site.
Mitigative Measures--
Once a hazardous waste incident has occurred, the ability to
limit the severity of its effects on public health and safety
relies on response capabilities. The mitigative measures covered
herein are focused on adequately preparing public safety agencies
to handle incidents once they have occurred. These include
acquisition of equipment, personnel training, and incident alert
systems.
Equipment acquisition--ADHS would continue to work with DES
in upgrading the state's Emergency Response System with the goal
of ensuring that fire departments or hazardous materials teams at
key points along the transit routes would be adequately equipped
or have access to adequate equipment. ADHS would involve the
4-29
-------
facility contractor in emergency planning and in emergency re-
sponse assistance to the extent permitted in its negotiated con-
t ract.
Personnel training--ADHS would continue to work with DES in
securing two types of personnel training needed to improve re-
sponse capabilities: recognition training and hazardous chemi-
cal s management.
Recognition training--ADHS and DES would seek to establish a
training program in recognizing and reporting hazardous materials
incidents for firefighters and peace officers in near-site com-
munities and in communities or jurisdictions along the transit
routes. This is the primary type of training that has been given
to firefighters in the cities of Phoenix and Tucson.
Hazardous chemicals management--ADHS and DES would work to
establish a more extensive training program in management of haz-
ardous chemicals. This training could be reserved for identified
hazardous materials specialists or teams in those communities or
areas provided with special chemical equipment.
In interviews with key personnel, insufficient funding for
either type of training was a major reason given for a lack of
expertise, especially in volunteer fire departments. ADHS would
work with DES to (a) seek resources to provide training, (b)
assess the training needs of local emergency response personnel
and to inform them of training opportunities, and (c) establish
training programs once resources were secured.
Incident alert systems--Interviews with public safety spe-
cial i"sFs~TrTdTcliTe~TTratalthough the state and some counties have
hazardous materials response plans, there was some confusion re-
garding coordination, on-site authority, and resource availabil-
ity. ADHS would work with DES to ensure the State Emergency
Response Plan is distributed to relevant agencies, that training
is provided, and the plan is tested.
Val1ey Fever
Mobile Site--
There is some evidence to suggest that the Rainbow Valley
area is a potential source of Valley Fever spores (83). Soil
disruption may pose a risk to the construction work force due to
possible exposure to large numbers of spores. The relationship
between extreme wind velocities and airborne soil containing the
spores is an important consideration during construction of the
facility. Although there are no data to indicate the extent to
which spores may be dispersed by the wind in the general area,
data from an outbreak in California suggest that airborne spores
may travel several hundred miles during high-velocity wind condi-
tions (84). Examination of the meteorological data from the
Phoenix area indicates that outbreaks of the disease could
develop following periods of gusty winds when the facility is
4-30
-------
under construction. Evidence suggests, however, that the spread
of Valley Fever even under these conditions would be low, since
immunity is presumed to have been built up over time in most area
residents. This is because previous disturbance of soils in the
area is likely to have exposed residents to the Valley Fever
spore already.
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites--
There are no data on Valley Fever in the vicinity of the
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain sites. Since desert
areas throughout much of Arizona may contain the Valley Fever
spore, it is assumed that the impacts would be similar to those
at the Mobile site. The population subject to potential exposure
to the spores, however, would be lower than at the Mobile site.
Mitigative Measures--
There is no method for completely eradicating Valley Fever
spores from the entire site. However, ADHS would work with the
facility contractor to minimize the severity of its outbreak
through such precautions as the following:
• Minimize the area of soil disruption activities occurring
during facility and road construction.
• Sample soils for spores to identify areas of especially
high spore density. Appropriate mitigation or avoidance
would be taken in such areas.
• Confine soil-disturbing activities to periods of low wind
velocity. This would reduce the potential for distribut-
ing airborne arthrospores.
• Landscape and periodically water the soil to reduce dust,
or use chemical dust suppressants.
• Require the contractor to consult with experts on the
best practical control measures.
• Monitor health records for the area for indications of
Valley Fever problems.
• Where appropriate, use face mask respirators as reliable
safeguards for occupationally exposed individuals.
• Disseminate information on exposure risks to the on-site
construction workers, especially regarding the practice
of carrying contaminated clothes to their residences.
Odors
Mobi1e Site--
Hazardous waste management facilities have the potential to
generate chemical odors from the treatment, storage, and disposal
of waste material, depending on the types of wastes handled and
4-31
-------
the methods of handling them. The transmission and movement of
chemical odors are related to atmospheric conditions.
Information on off-site odors at similar facilities indi-
cates that the concentrations have generally been low and not
threatening to public health. Most odors are known to dissipate
on site, but this may change depending on atmospheric conditions.
Odors generated at some hazardous waste facilities located in or
near urban areas have been sources of citizen complaints (78,
85).
The proposed site is located in a rural desert area with a
low population density, and is characterized by natural back-
ground odors. Given the distance from the facility to the near-
est residences (approximately 6 miles) odors are not expected to
be a problem off-site. This would depend, however, on the fre-
quency, amount, and type of spills, treatment techniques, wind
conditions, and odor-reducing techniques used at the proposed
faci1ity.
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites--
The environmental impacts of odor at these two sites are
similar to those described for the Mobile site.
Mitigative Measures--
Although odors are not expected to be a problem off-site,
there are a number of measures that may be used to reduce odor
impacts that might occur. ADHS would (a) establish a system to
respond to citizen complaints should a problem arise, (b) work
with the contractor to alleviate any problems that did occur, and
(c) through its monitoring program, ensure prompt cleanup of
spills, reducing the potential for odors. Technologies for cov-
ering stored wastes are available. The wastes could be tested to
determine the chemicals' suitability for evaporation in view of
odor generation. Oxidation techniques using ozone and chlorine
have been successful in reducing odor emissions from from wastes.
Noi se
Mobi1e Site--
Because it is a rural desert area, the background noise
levels around the Mobile site are generally low. Noise generated
by power equipment and trucks at the facility would be expected
to be considerably above background levels, but the general
(ambient) noise levels would not be expected to exceed OSHA stan-
dards for occupational noise exposure (see Table 0-1, Appendix
0). Noise levels above OSHA standards could be experienced
within a few hundred feet if particular pieces of equipment if no
mitigation measures were taken. Noise generated at the facility
would not be expected to affect Mobile, the nearest community,
4-32
-------
because of the six-mile distance between the community and the
site.
Truck traffic and, to a lesser extent, automobile traffic
would be expected to have an impact on areas near the access
routes. The specific impact would depend on the background noise
level and distance from the road. As trucks passed by, residents
within approximately 700 feet of the roads in rural areas could
experience peak noise at levels ranging from about 65 to 85 deci-
bels. Noise at these levels could cause annoyance (see Appendix
0). Each occurrence, however, would last only a matter of
seconds, and the number of such occurences would be low due to
the low number of trucks expected at the facility (an average of
one per hour during operating hours). Consequently, the impact
would be mi nimal.
The Mobile School and the Maricopa School are located next
to potential access roads into the Mobile site. Trucks passing
by could cause peak noise levels ranging from 60 to 85 dBA out-
doors. Noise at these levels could disrupt conversation in
classrooms which face the road, depending on such factors as the
number of windows in the room and whether the windows were open
or closed. Again, the impact would be expected to be minimal
because of the low number of trucks and the short duration of
each truck pass-by.
Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites--
The impact of noise generated at the facility would be the
same as at the Mobile site. Noise levels generated by power
equipment in use at the facility could exceed OSHA noise stan-
dards in areas close to the particular machine, but the noise
would not reach nearby residents or communities. No impacts
would be expected from transportation at either of these sites,
since access would be from 1-10. Truck traffic on 1-10 is
already heavy compared to that expected to be generated by the
facility, and the addition of facility traffic would not signi-
ficantly increase existing noise levels. There are no permanent
residences close enough to main access roads between 1-10 and
these sites to be impacted by truck traffic.
Mitigative Measures--
The facility operator would be responsible for meeting all
OSHA noise requirements for the protection of employees at the
facility. These requirements are enforced by OSHA.
* See Appendix 0 for a discussion of attenuation of sound over
di stance.
t Closed windows would block out much of the noise, but not as
effectively as solid walls.
4-33
-------
To minimize the impacts on communities and schools along the
access routes, ADHS would:
• Require the contractor to limit to daylight hours facil-
ity activities which may generate traffic.
• Establish a system and procedures for receiving and re-
sponding to public complaints about noise.
• If requested by local school officials, monitor noise
impacts on schools along the access roads and work with
school officials to provide appropriate mitigation of any
adverse impacts identified.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Assessment Approach
Assessment of the impact of the proposed facility on ecolog-
ical resources involved the analysis of growth characteristics of
the dominant vegetation, and the habitats and migration patterns
of common wildlife in the area.
Mobile Site
Vegetati on- -
Construction of the facility and its access roads would en-
tail the gradual removal of vegetation on 58 acres over the life
of the project. Food, shelter, and nesting habitats may also be
removed from this limited area of operation. Removal of vegeta-
tion would not result in significant impacts to the ecosystem,
since the acreage comprises only 9 percent of the site.
Natural revegetation of such areas could take a number of
years to approach the vegetative quality of undisturbed areas.
The resprouting of many desert shrubs will occur only if they
have been cut at the soil surface and no subterranean damage has
been sustained. Most perennial species are, by necessity, very
slow-growing and equally slow to reinvade areas that have been
cleared of vegetation. Revegetation in areas with more moisture
would likely occur more rapidly; however, species that reinvade
an area are usually different from those originally removed.
Once revegetation has been completed and secondary succession
occurs, the disturbed area (with the exception of the permanent
structures) would return to its approximate original productivity
(G-6). Enhancement of vegetation may be expected along the
access roads where drainage trenches would be constructed.
Wildllfe--
Probably the most significant impact on wildlife, other than
the actual construction of the facility, will be the intrusion of
humans into an area where access had previously been limited.
The direct impact of construction may include kills of some ani-
mals.
4-34
-------
Desert bighorn sheep are known to live within several miles
of the site. They are noted for their sensitivity to human in-
trusion. Their habitat, however, is far enough from the site
that no impact is expected. The probability of adverse impacts
on predatory species (e.g., coyotes, foxes, etc.) and such spe-
cies as rabbits is low due to their wide distribution throughout
the study area and their ability to elude human activity.
During construction, some dens and burrows of small and
medium-sized mammals could be destroyed. Such disturbances would
be expected to impact only a very small percentage of the total
population of these mammals (e.g., kangaroo rats, ground squir-
rels, gophers, pocket mice, skunks, and rabbits). Impacts on
most lizards and snakes would also be insignificant, as they are
widely distributed (53).
The disturbance or destruction of gullies in the surrounding
areas could cause mortalities of both reptiles and small mammals.
More mobile species, such as birds and larger mammals (e.g., rab-
bits, coyotes, etc.) would be expected to disperse to adjacent
areas during construction. As habitats became available follow-
ing revegetation , smaller animals (i.e., rodents) and other spe-
cies would be expected to reinvade from surrounding populations
(14).
The 1-mile access road into the site from the existing road
would not be expected to increase accessibility to the area.
Consequently, the facility would not be expected to cause any
increase in illegal hunting, wildlife harassment, or disturbance
by off-road vehicles.
The operation of evaporation ponds at the facility might
pose a threat to the avian population attracted to the ponds as a
source of water. Over a period of time, the bioaccumulation of
hazardous substances may increase the number of bird deaths due
to poisoning, as well as affect their birthrate.
Operation of the landfill portion of the facility should not
pose a threat to the avian population. Although a given site may
present numerous attractions for birds (e.g., food, warmth,
water, nesting habitat), the strongest attractant at a landfill
is generally food. Birds attracted to this type of food are
either scavengers (e.g., starlings, cowbirds, and crows) or birds
that by nature eat refuse and carrion. However, none of the
landfill cells at the proposed site will contain a possible
source of food in the form of putrescible refuse (found in sani-
tary landfills).
Rodents may create passageways which can cause increased
water percolation. However, unlike a municipal waste facility,
the proposed hazardous waste site will not contain a food source
for the surrounding animal population, and therefore will provide
very little, if any, attraction for rodents.
4-35
-------
Noise created at the facility may deter birds and animals
from entering.
Jjestern Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain Sites
The potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife at these
two sites are generally the same as those described for the
Mobi 1 e site.
Mitigative Measures
Vegetati on--
ADHS would require the facility contractor to minimize the
amount of vegetation disturbed during construction activities.
Vegetation should be removed from only those areas that are
designated for construction or disposal operations. Since many
desert shrubs will resprout following clearing, provided their
roots are not damaged, the contractor would be instructed to take
care not to destroy the roots of shrubs located in those areas
which need only temporary clearing for construction activities.
Maintenance and construction roads would be held to the min-
imum size necessary, in order to avoid increased access to vege-
tative communities. Revegetation of disturbed areas with "appro-
priate" native seed or mature plants would take place following
construction activities. "Appropriate" seed is that which is
similar to the existing vegetation of a given plant community.
The Arizona Commission on Agriculture and Horticulture and the
Arizona Game and Fish Department should be consulted during plan-
ning for revegetati on.
To meet federal regulations requiring coordination between
the RCRA permit and the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531), the
contractor would be expected to confirm whether the project would
affect federally protected species, although none are currently
known to exist at the proposed sites. Certain state-protected
species would be removed or relocated from construction pathways
This includes all cacti, ocotillos, and other species so desig-
nated by the Arizona Commission on Agriculture and Horticulture.
Wildlife--
Adverse impacts to wildlife would be reduced by minimizing
the extent of disturbance, where possible, and implementing a
revegetation program immediately upon completion of construction.
Contractors and their employees would be informed of the Arizona
hish and Game regulations protecting wildlife.
s.nt^nn contro1T-Tne G^e and Fish Department would be con-
sulted on appropriate control measures, should a bird control
e sfuVvT^H i Tnral meth°dS °f bird contro1 have b*en suc-
cessfully used including wire mesh screens and noise makers.
4-36
-------
Rodent control—If animal burrowings were to become a pro-
blem, ADHS would consult with the appropriate state agencies to
determine rodent control methods adequate for the type of fea-
tures at the site. ADHS agrees to consult with the Game and Fish
Department on appropriate control measures, should a problem
arise. Options include the use of cover materials (soils) which
are not amenable to burrowing, use of artificial barriers, and
trappi ng.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON LAND USE
Assessment Approach
For this assessment, only the physical impacts on land use
were determined. The functional, social, and economic aspects of
various land use categories were considered in determining the
significance of impacts on land use due to implementation of the
proposed project. It was assumed that the entire 640 acre site
would be removed from its current use as grazing land. Since the
facility is expected to use only a portion of the total site
(approximately 58 acres), it is possible that the remaining land
could continue to be used for grazing. The impact, then, would
be less.
Mobi1e Site
The primary impact on land use that is expected would be the
removal or loss of 640 acres currently used for livestock grazing
purposes within BLM Conley Grazing Allotment. Since this is only
0.7 percent of the total size of the Conley Grazing Allotment
(91,560 federal acres), this impact is not considered signifi-
cant. Some impact on the recreation resources of the area could
also result. Off-road vehicle enthusiasts may not object to the
inclusion of a hazardous waste management facility in the envi-
ronment unless it physically restricts their movement. Land uses
such as grazing may recur after the facility has been fully
closed, depending on the conditions of the permit.
Western Harquahala Plain Site
No major impact would be anticipated from the removal or
loss of 640 acres (or 0.5 percent) for livestock grazing purposes
with the BLM K Lazy B Grazing Allotment (total size of K Lazy B
Grazing Allotment is 128,466 federal acres).
Ranegras Plain Site
No significant impact would be anticipated from the removal
of range improvements (Salvation Well with trough and storage,
corral, windmill, and other related equipment), and the removal
or loss of 640 acres for livestock grazing purposes from the
Crowder-Weisser Grazing Allotment. This represents 0.2 percent
of the total 312,895 acres in the allotment.
4-37
-------
Mitigative Measures
Land use impacts could be mitigated by reimbursing the owner
or permittee for range improvements.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES
Assessment Approach
Visual impacts were considered in terms of duration, quan-
tity, and quality. The duration of a visual change was consi-
dered to be the life of the proposed action. Assessment of the
quantity of the visual change assumed the disturbance of the
entire site. The quality of the visual environment was based on
tentative classes derived from a synthesis of scenic quality,
visual sensitivity, and distance zones (see Appendix J). For
each of these classes, BLM has specified management objectives
and the degree of modification allowed. Finally, "sensitivity"
(a measure of the probable adverse effect that the visual
resources would suffer) was defined as visual contrast. The
major contrast at the proposed and alternative sites would be the
addition of structures to the landscape.
Mobile Site
The site is located in a Class C (minimal) scenic quality
area. Structures at this site would result in a strong contrast
to the existing landscape. The anticipated high visibility of
the structures from key observation points would result in poten-
tially significant visual impacts for a small number of recrea-
tional users of the area.
Western Harquahala Plain Site
The facility is expected to be visible from Highway 1-10.
However, other visual disturbances are currently visible from
1-10, including the CAP Canal, a pipeline pumping station, a
microwave station, and the utility corridor that includes a 500-
kV transmission line. The presence of these structures could
lower the contrast resulting from the proposed facility's struc-
ture. Also, the existing topography (and the location of the CAP
Canal) reduces the overall site visibility, and ultimately, the
visual impact of the proposed action at this site. The visual
impacts on users of Eagle Tail Mountains WSA 2-128 (located 2
miles southeast) would be similar.
Ranegras Plain Site
The proposed facility could be a major visual intrusion to
users of Little Horn WSA 2-127 (located adjacent to the proposed
site) and of the Kofa Game Range. It should be noted, however,
that the 500-kV transmission line which passes along the southern
edge of the site significantly impacts the visual experience
already. A windmill pump and water tank at a cattle pond on the
4-38
-------
site (Section 9) also intrude upon the natural landscape of the
area as do existing dirt roads. From some locations near the
site, 1-10 can be seen in the distance. These existing intru-
sions would lower the significance of the facility's contrast to
the natural environment.
Mitigative Measures
ADHS would ensure that landform and vegetation disturbance
would be minimized where possible. Protective dikes should
appear natural (e.g., approximating natural grades), and native
vegetation should be used to reduce visual contrast. Higher
dikes may reduce visual impacts at the Mobile site, depending
upon viewer location, by blocking structures from view.
ADHS would ensure that the contrast caused by facility
structures was minimized to the extent practical. Structures
should appear natural and earth tone in color. In addition, the
height of structures should be limited, if possible.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
Assessment Approach
Assessment of impacts on cultural resources entailed (a)
determination of the probability of encountering archaeological,
historical, or Native American resources, (b) identification of
physical (direct or indirect) and visual impacts caused by the
proposed action, and (c) determination of site sensitivity and/or
susceptibility to these impacts.
Direct physical impacts are those associated with construc-
tion-related activities, whereas indirect impacts are related to
increased access. Direct impact was considered to occur at less
than 0.25 mile from the proposed action, indirect impact up to 1
mile from the proposed action. Site sensitivity was determined
by considering legal status, historical significance, site integ-
rity, public significance, and scientific significance.
Mobile Site
No recorded archaeological, historical, or Native American
resources are on the site. Available evidence indicates the
probability of encountering any such resources during construc-
tion operations of the facility is low. The facility would be
expected to eliminate the gathering of subsistence plants (e.g.,
mesquite beans) by Native Americans on the site. Given the small
area of affected land and the sparse amount of subsistence vege-
tation at the site, however, this impact would be expected to be
insignificant. Noise from trucks hauling wastes could impact
hikers on the Butterfield Stage Trail or other users of cultural
or historic resources in the area.
4-39
-------
Western Harquahala Plain Site
No archaeological, historical, or Native American cultural
resources have been identified. If any were encountered within
or adjacent to the site during construction or operation of the
facility, they could be adversely impacted.
Ranegras Plain Site
The potential impacts on cultural resources at this site are
the same as those discussed for the Western Harquahala Plain
site.
Mitigative Measures
The facility contractor, as part of the permit process, must
either identify any cultural resources that exist at the site or
confirm non-existence of such resources. If any such resources
are identified, appropriate mitigation measures would have to be
taken.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS
Assessment Approach
Analysis of the socioeconomic consequences focused on the
economic and demographic effects of the proposed facility, the
effects of the facility on local communities, fiscal effects of
the project, and potential effects of the project on land values
in the project vicinity. Impacts on the quality of life in the
project area were also evaluated, using professional judgement.
Mobile Site
Economic/Demographic Effects--
It is not anticipated that construction or operation of a
hazardous waste management facility would affect economic or
demographic conditions in the communities of Mobile or Rainbow
Valley. The construction work force would be relatively small,
and the period of construction would not be long enough to jus-
tify relocation to the vicinity of the site. The operations work
force would be even smaller, and it is likely that they, like the
construction workers, would commute daily from the Phoenix metro-
politan area. As a result, there would not likely be any in-
crease in employment of area residents or any increase in the
population in the area due to the project. Although the facility
would be expected to impact the economy of Phoenix, the effect
would be indiscernible, given the large size of the metropolitan
area.
Community and Fiscal Effects--
Given the absence of economic or demographic effects in the
immediate area, there would be very limited community effects.
4-40
-------
The most significant of these are related to increased traffic,
which are discussed under Public Health and Safety.
A significant effect of the facility would be the increased
revenue flow to regional and local jurisdictions. The proposed
facility would be located on state-owned land, but all improve-
ments would be the property of the contractor selected to build
and operate the facility. The improvements would probably be
valued as commercial property and subject to property tax. Table
4-9 shows the projected revenue flow assuming 1981 mill levies,
and assuming two different levels of assessed value. The $4 mil-
lion figure is an estimate of improvements likely to occur
immediately, while the $12 million figure represents an estimate
of eventual development. Under these assumptions, it can be seen
that over $100,000 of property tax revenue would flow to local
jurisdiction at once with an eventual revenue flow of as much as
$350,000. Approximately 75 percent of the revenue would flow to
the Mobile Elementary School District No. 86.
Because the proposed hazardous waste management facility
would be rendering a service rather than a tangible product, it
would not be subject to sales tax (50). During the construction
period, some sales tax revenue would be generated from the pur-
chase of construction materials within the county. Materials
purchased outside the county would generate use tax revenue.
Land Value Effects--
Because of conflicting effects on land values, it is not
possible to project the impact of the facility on land values.
Improved road access to the site plus increased economic activity
in the area could cause land values to rise. On the other hand,
if there are real or perceived public health or safety conse-
quences of the facility, land values might be depressed. To
date, land values at the site have risen from approximately $400
per acre in 1981 to approximately $500 per acre. This rise in
value may be due to the location of the proposed Provident Energy
Company refinery in the vicinity.
Quality of Life Effects--
In 1980, the Mobile site had an estimated population of 420
persons within a 15-mile radius. Many of these persons find the
area attractive because of its rural desert nature and lack of
industrial intrusion. Very few will view the facility going to
or from their residence or work. Some residents, primarily those
living in scattered residences south of the road between Maricopa
and Mobile, may occasionally be annoyed by truck traffic associ-
ated with the facility. It should be noted that presently
approximately 1 train/hour passes through the area. More gen-
erally, many area residents have expressed a concern about public
health effects of the facility. Some will undoubtedly experience
anxiety because of the facility. Thus, even though the total
number of affected persons is small and the impacts on the popu-
lation minor, some will perceive a deterioration in the condi-
tions which originally made the area attractive to them.
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-9. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM
THE MOBILE SITE
1981
Jurisdiction Mill Levy
Maricopa County Flood 0.34
Control District
Central Arizona Water 0.03
Conservation District
County of Maricopa 1.78
Maricopa County Community 0.81
College District
State of Arizona 0.95
Mobile Elementary School 7.96
District No. 86
Total 11.87
Tax Revenue Tax Revenue
Assuming $4 Million Assuming $12 Million
Fair Market Value; Fair Market Value;
$1 Million $3 Million
Assessed Value Assessed Value
$3,400
300
17,800
8,100
9,500
79,600
$118,700
$10,200
900
53,400
24,300
28,500
238,800
$356,100
4-42
-------
Western Harquahala Plain Site
Economic/Demographic Effects--
Construction and operation of a hazardous waste management
facility would not be expected to have economic or demographic
effects on the local area in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The discussion of this issue for the Mobile site is relevant to
this conclusion. The work forces, both construction and opera-
tion, are small and would be expected to commute from Phoenix or
from the Colorado River towns. Because of the distance of the
Western Harquahala Plain site from Phoenix, some construction
workers might choose to stay during the workweek in one of the
small towns along 1-10. Since these communities attract both
tourists and seasonal visitors, local accommodations are plenti-
ful, and no adverse effects would be expected. These communities
may realize some economic benefits from having the construction
work force stay in the vicinity.
Community and Fiscal Effects--
As with the Mobile site, the only significant community or
fiscal effects are those associated with the flow of property tax
revenues to local jurisdictions. Table 4-10 shows anticipated
flows under the 1981 mill levy. As shown, these are very similar
in magnitude to those estimated for the Mobile site. It should
be emphasized that because of the recent creation of a new county
within which the Harquahala site is located, the mill levies
shown in Table 4-10 are only illustrative of what could actually
be expected.
Land Value Effects--
The land value discussion for the Mobile site applies equ-
ally to the Western Harquahala Plain site.
Quality of Life Effects--
The quality of life effects for the Western Harquahala Plain
site are similar to those for the Mobile site. In 1980, a total
estimated population of 930 lived within a 15-mile radius of the
site, most in Salome. Many area residents find the area attrac-
tive because of its rural, unspoiled character. Anxiety with
respect to possible public health effects could be viewed as a
source of deterioration in the quality of life for some people.
Because the interstate bypasses existing communities, truck traf-
fic to the facility should not be a problem.
Ranegras Plain Site
Economic/Demographic Effects--
The economic/demographic discussion for the Western Harqua-
hala Plain site applies equally to the Ranegras Plain site.
Community and Fiscal Effects--
The community and fiscal effects for the Ranegras Plain site
would be the same as for the Western Harquahala Plain site, ex-
cept that 1981 mill levies are slightly different. Table 4-11
4-43
-------
TABLE 4-10. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM THE
WESTERN HARQUAHALA PLAIN SITE
Jurisdiction
Vicksburg Elementary
School District
1981
Mill Levy
2.72
Tax Revenue Tax Revenue
Assuming $4 Million Assuming $12 Million
Fair Market Value; Fair Market Value;
$3.4 Million
Full Cash Value;
$0.85 Million
Assessed Value
$23,375
$10.2 Million
Full Cash Value;
$2.55 Million
Assessed Value
$69,360
Bicentennial High School
District
Arizona Western Community
College District
State of Arizona
County of Yuma
Total
3.59
1.63
0.95
2.19
11.08
30,515
13,855
8,075
18,615
$94,435
91,545
41,565
24,225
55,845
$282,540
* These figures are given for illustration only. The site is in the newly
created La Paz County (effective January 1, 1983).
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-11. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM
THE RANEGRAS PLAIN SITE
Tax Revenue Tax Revenue
Assuming $4 Million Assuming $12 Million
Fair Market Value; Fair Market Value;
$3.4 Million $10.2 Million
Full Cash Value; Full Cash Value;
Jurisdiction
Vicksburg Elementary
School District
Bicentennial High School
District
Arizona Western Community
College District
State of Arizona
County of Yuma
Total
1981
Mill Levy
3.62
3.59
1.63
0.95
2.19
11.98
$0.85 Million
Assessed Value
$30,770
30,515
13,855
8,075
18,615
$101,830
$2.55 Million
Assessed Value
$92,310
91,545
41,565
24,225
55,845
$305,490
* These figures are given for illustration only. The site is in the newly
created La Paz County (effective January 1, 1983.
4-45
-------
shows revenue flows that were generated under 1981 mill levies.
As was discussed for the Western Harquahala Plain site, these
levies are difficult to anticipate in light of the recent forma-
tion of the new county. Nevertheless, Table 4-11 is illustrative
of the property tax revenue flows that the proposed hazardous
waste management site could generate.
Land Value Effects--
The land value discussion for the Mobile site applies equ-
ally to the Ranegras Plain site.
Quality of Life Effects--
Except that the 1980 population estimated within a 15-mile
radius of the site is only 535 (mostly in Salome), the quality of
life discussion for the Western Harquahala Plain site applies
equally to the Ranegras Plain site.
Mi ti gati ve Measures
Measures for mitigating socioeconomic impacts are identical
to those described for mitigating land use and public health and
safety impacts. ADHS would recommend that the contractor con-
sider local residents for jobs at the facility, as appropriate.
CONSEQUENCES OF NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, BLM would deny the state's request
for transfer of the land. Because ADHS is mandated under law to
purchase the BLM site, denial of the request by BLM would leave
the state with two options: (a) cease efforts to develop a
state-owned facility; or (b) continue efforts to site the facil-
ity on land other than the sites considered in this EIS. Both
options would require guidance from the state Legislature and/or
legislative amendments to ARS 36-2800.
Cease Facility Development Efforts
Under this option, the state would either remain without an
off-site hazardous waste management facility or depend on private
industry to develop a facility without state assistance.
No Off-Site Faci1ity--
Without an off-site facility, Arizona waste generators would
have three options: on-site treatment, storage, or disposal
(TSD); out-of-state disposal; or illegal disposal.
On-Site Treatment, Storage, and Pisposal--State and federal
regulations now require facilities with on-site TSD operations to
obtain a permit and meet stringent design and operating stan-
dards. The cost of meeting these requirements can be very high.
Smaller generators are especially likely to find this option eco-
nomically unfeasible. Because of this, many generators who cur-
rently treat, store, or dispose of their waste on-site may choose
to discontinue or modify their operations so they do not need to
4-46
-------
obtain a hazardous waste permit. This appears to be the case
with 13 Arizona firms which withdrew their EPA permit applica-
tions as of September 1982. This supports a general national
trend toward increased need for off-site disposal capacities
(85).
Out-of-State Pisposal--The only legal option for those regu-
lated generators unable to treat, store, or dispose of waste on-
site would be out-of-state disposal. This is currently the prac-
tice of numerous Arizona generators.
The cost of transporting hazardous waste is high. ADHS
judges that this is one of the reasons Arizona industry has
backed efforts to site an in-state facility. A private company
recently opened a transfer station in Phoenix which combines
small waste loads into large, more economical shipments. This
may lower the transport costs for Arizona generators to some
extent. ADHS believes, however, the cost of hauling wastes long
distances to out-of-state facilities will remain high and may
encourage firms to use cheaper, environmentally unsound or ille-
gal disposal methods. Also, there are no assurances that out-of-
state facilities will always remain available to Arizona genera-
tors.
The risk of hazardous waste spills could be expected to in-
crease if shipments to out-of-state facilities increased.
II legal Disposal--Representatives of the City of Phoenix,
Maricopa County Highway Department, Arizona Chamber of Commerce,
Arizona Association of Industries, and Arizona Public Service and
other industry leaders believe that there may be a significant
increase in illegal disposal if no affordable legal options
exist. Because the state will be conducting inspections of
generators, many generators may want to remove the hazardous
wastes from their places of business in the most expedient way.
This may result in disposal of hazardous waste into sewers or
other unauthorized places such as the desert or vacant lots.
Development of a Privately-Owned Facility--
If the state-supported effort to develop a facility ends,
private firms may seek to develop a facility without state assis-
tance. Privately owned land for the facility would be acquired,
if not already held by the facility developers. Neither ADHS nor
EPA knows of any such efforts at this time.
It is likely any private siting effort would meet strong
public opposition from residents of any siting area. This has
been the experience in a majority of siting efforts nation-wide,
both public and private (87). This makes it difficult for a pri-
vate firm to succeed in developing a new hazardous waste facil-
ity. Current Arizona law does not provide for the state to over-
ride a local decision against siting a private facility. Failure
of private siting efforts under such circumstances in the State
of Washington led the state to propose a state-wide facility for
4-47
-------
extremely hazardous wastes similar to the Arizona proposal
(81). Additional discussion of the private facility option is
contained in the State's Siting Report (1).
Attempt to Acquire Alternative Land for State Facility
If the state's request to purchase land from BLM is denied,
the second option open to the state is to attempt to acquire an
alternative parcel of land on which to construct a state-owned
facility. Because ADHS has no authority from the Legislature to
acquire any land other than that cited in SB 1033, purchase of an
alternative site using state funds would require new legislation.
In the absence of an offer by BLM to sell an alternative parcel
in any of the three sites originally recommended by ADHS and con-
sidered in this EIS, the Legislature's options would be to recon-
sider other sites addressed in ADHS's study or select a site not
previously studied in detail. An alternative site could be on
federal, state, or private land.
The possibility of selecting any site other than one already
recommended by ADHS has been addressed in the State's Siting
Report (1). Any new effort to evaluate additional potential
sites would cause considerable delay in development of a facil-
ity. In addition, an effort to site a facility on federal land
not considered in this EIS would require preparation of another
EIS. Such delays would have the same effect as stopping the site
development process altogether until a new site could be selected
and approved. That process could take an additional two to four
years, or more, depending on the effort put into site review and
on whether another EIS was required.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
This subsection identifies unavoidable adverse impacts that
would result from implementation of the hazardous waste manage-
ment facility at the proposed site and the two alternative sites.
These unavoidable adverse impacts are summarized below.
Resource Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Topography/Soils Fifty-eight acres of land would be
permanently affected by the construc-
tion of the facility and access roads
into the site from existing roads.
Topography would be substantially
altered and soils would be disturbed
or removed. This would result in dis-
turbance of site's natural vegetation,
and, subsequently, in increased wind
and water erosion.
4-48
-------
Resources
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Water Resources
Ai r Qua!i ty
Public Health and Safety
Ecology
Soci oeconomi cs
Land Use
Visual Resources
Ground water would be adversely af-
fected only in the event of a major,
undetected long-term facility leak.
Existing drainage patterns for inter-
mittent surface water flow could be
permanently changed, to divert storm
water run-on .
Air quality at the proposed site would
be reduced during construction due to
fugitive dust. Pollutant emissions
(VOC) could be significant.
site and along
Soi1 di sturbance
Va11ey Fever to
Impacts also
and traffic nui -
Spill risks exi st on
the transit routes.
may pose the risk of
construction workers,
i nclude dust, noi se ,
sances for communities near the facil-
ity and those along the transit routes
during facility construction and oper-
ation.
Vegetation would be removed from those
areas that are designated for con-
struction or for disposal operations
following construction activities.
The operation of evaporation ponds may
pose a threat to birds.
Because of conflicting effects on land
values, it is not possible to project
the impact of the facility on land
values. Odors, traffic noise, and
anxiety with respect to other possible
public health and safety effects could
cause deterioration in the quality of
life to a small number of people.
Land occupied by the facility would no
longer be available for certain future
uses. Some uses, such as grazing,
could occur after the facility has
been fully closed, depending on the
conditions of the permit.
Impacts include visual disturbances
caused by facility structures and a
decrease in natural scenic quality.
4-49
-------
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The resources committed to this project would be similar at
all three sites considered. The project would result in a com-
mitment of a small area of land (approximately 58 acres) to dis-
posed hazardous wastes. This commitment would be irreversible
except by total removal of the wastes.
The material, personnel resources, and energy committed to
construction and operation of the facility would be irretriev-
able. Given the size of the project, however, the amount of re-
sources would be minimal. The state would commit resources for
monitoring and inspection programs for the facility. These re-
sources would represent a small portion (probably 3 to 4 percent)
of the total budget for the state's hazardous waste management
program. The state would also commit an undetermined amount of
funds (contributed by the facility contractor to the State Trust
Fund) for perpetual care of the facility after the 30-year post-
closure period.
Energy consumption at the facility would be minimal. The
greatest consumption of energy would be related to the transport
of wastes to the facility. Over 8,300 gallons of fuel could be
consumed monthly in transporting wastes to the Mobile site (based
on the estimated number of round trips from Phoenix and Tucson,
and assuming a truck fuel consumption rate of 5 miles per gal-
lon). Nearly 10,000 gallons per month would be consumed in
transporting wastes to either Western Harquahala Plain or the
Ranegras Plain site. This could represent a net energy savings
over transporting the same amount of waste to existing out-of-
state facilties, because of the greater distances involved.
The greatest resource which could potentially be affected is
ground water. The probability of ground water contamination is
extremely low. If it did occur, the impact could be reversible
through the implementation of corrective action. The cost of
corrective action, however, would represent an irretrievable com-
mitment of resources.
SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
This subsection describes the relationship between the
short-term use of the environment and potential future long-term
productivity. The short term has been defined as 30 years (the
estimated life of the proposed project), and long term as the
period thereafter. The relationship would be similar for all
three sites, unless otherwise specified.
Physical Setting
Within the life of the proposed project, the construction
phase would represent the period of greatest impact to the phy-
sical environment, involving disturbance of land for both the
facility and access roads. The construction of the proposed
4-50
-------
facility would entail the greatest short-term impacts. Following
the construction phase, some of this disturbed land would begin
to revert to its preconstruction conditions. Short-term use of
land for hazardous waste disposal would preclude some alternative
productive uses of that land over the long-term. Only an esti-
mated 58 acres would be affected, however.
Water Resources
Water resources should not be impacted by the proposed
action provided that suitable hydraulic barriers are properly
installed and maintained, and that the facility is operated in a
manner that minimizes leachate production. If the ground water
is adversely impacted, the effects could be long-term.
Ai r Qua!i ty
During construction, short-term minor impacts on air quality
would result from fugitive dust emissions. Ultimately, the
planting of suitable and hardy native vegetation would restore
the soil surface and reduce fugitive dust emissions to near-
natural levels. Long-term effects on air quality are considered
to be i nsi gni fi cant.
Public Health and Safety
To the extent that the proposed hazardous waste facility
helps to reduce the use of environmentally unsound or illegal
disposal in Arizona, both public health and the environment would
benefit over the long term. The uncontrolled release of hazard-
ous constituents from the facility, however, could pose a poten-
tial long-term health hazard to nearby residents, though the risk
of such a hazard is low.
Ecological Resources
Vegetation--
Short-term impacts are expected from the disturbance of veg-
etation over a portion of the site by construction activities.
Species composition would change during the successive stages of
natural revegetation, and it may take a number of years for the
existing vegetation to become reestablished. Thus, due to the
relatively slow recovery rate for disturbed desert vegetation,
short-term impacts may remain for a long time. Long-term impacts
can also be expected wherever vegetation is permanently de-
stroyed, or has been disturbed and is prevented from returning to
its natural condition.
Wildli fe--
The proposed action would not prevent continued long-term
use of the area by wildlife. Wildlife resources would be tem-
porarily affected by construction activities and to a lesser
extent by operations. After revegetation is completed and secon-
dary succession occurs, the disturbed areas, with the exception
4-51
-------
of permanent structures, should return to approximately the orig-
inal productivity and should support similar pre-existing popula-
tions.
Vi sual Resources
Short-term visual impacts would occur throughout the entire
project area. Long-term visual impacts would depend on closure
procedures.
Cultural Resources
Use of the Mobile site for
preclude the long-term use of a
gathering of traditional desert
Soci oeconomi cs
disposal of hazardous waste could
very small area of land for the
food plants by Native Americans.
Regional
short-term produc-
Regional and local economies could be expected to experience
short-term benefits from project-related expenditures.
and local tax revenue increases would provide
tivities. No short- or long-term dislocations of local infra-
structures are anticipated because of the small numbers
ers that would be required over the
the life of the project.
const ruct i on peri od
of work-
and for
Land Use
The site would be removed from grazing over the life of the
project. Long-term use of portions of the site for grazing or
other beneficial uses (e.g., recreation) could be limited because
of the potential hazards to humans or animals, or potential dam-
age to closed disposal units.
4-52
-------
SECTION 5
LIST OF PREPARERS
This EIS for the proposed hazardous waste management facil-
ity was prepared by EPA Region 9 with technical assistance from
SCS Engineers. Under subcontract to SCS were Aerocomp, Inc., for
the Air Quality subsections, and Wirth Associates, Inc., for
Socioeconomics, Land Use, Public Health and Safety, and Visual
and Cultural Resources. BLM and ADHS also contributed to se-
lected subsections of the EIS.
The following individuals participated in the preparation of
the technical sections of the Draft EIS. Their education, proj-
ect role, and experience are summarized below-
EPA - REGION 9
Charles Flippo, EIS Project Officer
M.P.A. - California State University, Hayward
Public Administration
A.B. - University of California, Berkeley
Politi cal Sci ence
Mr. Flippo coordinated the activities of the contractor and
the lead and cooperating agencies, and managed EPA's contract
with SCS Engineers. In addition, he prepared portions of the EIS
dealing with federal regulations. He has five years' experience
with EPA, most recently in liaison to the State of Arizona for
the hazardous waste management program.
Fredric Hoffman, Hydrogeologist
M.S. University of Nevada, Reno
Geology
A.B. - Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
Geology
Mr. Hoffman is a member of the Technical Staff of the Office
of Technical and Scientific Assistance, EPA Region 9. As re-
gional hydrogeologist, Mr. Hoffman prepared the sections on esti-
mates of ground water movement in the vicinity of the Mobile
site, and participated in the preparation of all section concern-
ing ground water.
5-1
-------
Kent M. Kitchingman. Engineer
B.S. - Portland State University
Electri cal Engi neeri ng
Mr. Kitchingman, a Regional Air Pollution Control Expert,
works in Region 9's Office of Technical and Scientific Assis-
tance. He reviewed air emissions estimates for this EIS and
assisted in prepared in preparing air emissions calculations.
Vivian Thomson
A.B. - Princeton University
M.A. - University of California, Santa Barbara
Ms. Thomson is an environmental scientist in the Air Manage-
ment Division of EPA. Her specialty is toxic air contaminants.
She assisted in the writing and analysis of the air quality
impacts and emissions.
SCS ENGINEERS
David E. Ross, Technical Advisor
M.S., University of California, Berkeley
Civil Engi neeri ng
B.S., University of California, Berkeley
Ci vi1 Engi neeri ng
Registered Professional Engineer, California and Virginia
Mr. Ross provided the project team with technical and admin-
istrative direction. Mr. Ross has participated in and managed
over 150 projects related to solid and hazardous waste manage-
ment, socioeconomic analysis, resource recovery, environmental
impact assessment, and water pollution control.
Jasenka Vuceta, Project Director
Ph.D., California Institute of Technology
Environmental Engineering Science
M.S., California Institute of Technology
Environmental Engineering Science
B.S., University of Zagreb
Biotechnology Engineering
Dr. Vuceta was responsible for contractual matters and work
quality, and coordination of all subcontractor activity. Dr.
Vuceta's recent experience includes managing several hazardous
5-2
-------
waste projects for the space shuttle programs,' including inven-
tory, classification, and development of waste treatability and
disposal alternatives.
Hang-Tan Phung, Project Manager
Ph.D., University of Florida
Soi1 Chemi st ry
M.S., Montana State University
Soi1 Sci ence
B.S., National Taiwan University
Agricultural Chemistry
Certified Professional Soil Scientist
Dr. Phung managed and provided technical review to the proj-
ect. Dr. Phung has managed numerous projects on land disposal of
hazardous wastes covering siting, disposal procedures, regulatory
compliance, and subsurface investigations.
Earl G. Hill, Senior Hydrogeologist
B.S., University of Maine, Orono
Geology
Certified Geologist, California and Maine
Mr. Hill coordinated the physical setting portion of this
project. Mr. Hill has been responsible for siting, geological
and hydrogeological investigations, remedial action alternatives,
and preparation of closure and post-closure plans for many haz-
ardous waste disposal facilities.
Lam Van Ho, Senior Project Scientist
Ph.D., University of Florida
Soil Sci ence
B.S., National Agricultural Institute (Viet Nam)
Agri culture
Certified Professional Soil Scientist and Agronomist
Dr. Ho prepared the conceptual designs for various disposal
alternatives, and assessed the no-action alternative of this
project. Dr. Ho has provided technical assistance to numerous
projects pertaining to solid waste management, economic analysis,
conceptual design, and environmental impact assessment.
5-3
-------
J. Rodney Marsh, Senior Project Engineer
M.S., Illinois Institute of Technology
Environmental Engineering
B.S., California State University, Long Beach
Chemi st ry
Mr. Marsh assisted in the analysis of current hazardous
waste generation in Arizona, and in the development of disposal
methods for the prospective waste streams. His recent experience
includes hazardous waste inventory, characterization, and treata-
bility, data management, and literature search.
Barbara A. Fontes, Associate Staff Scientist
M.S., California State University, Dominguez Hills
Geology (in progress)
B.S., California State University, Dominguez Hills
Environmental Geography
Ms. Fontes gathered background information on the physical
setting and water resources for the project. Her experience
includes mapping of aquifers, as well as preparing ground water
maps for Indian lands in Arizona, California, and Nevada.
AEROCOMP, INC.
Joseph A. Catalano, Project Manager
M.S., University of Missouri
Meteorology and Computer Science
B.S., University of Illinois
Physics and Mathematics
Mr. Catalano provided overall project coordination and tech-
nical review to the Aerocomp team. His experience includes
management of Aerocomp's air quality projects for the past 7
years.
Thomas P. Chico, Research Meteorologist
M.S., University of Arizona
Atmospheric Science
B.S., New York University, Bronx
Meteorology
Mr. Chico computed emission rates and prepared the air qual-
ity portion of this project. His experience includes model de-
velopment and air pollution meteorology.
5-4
-------
Frank V. Hale III, Research Programmer
B.S., University of California, Irvine
Information and Computer Science
Mr. Hale was responsible for developing emission and disper.
sion modeling. He has 3 years of experience in developing and
use of emission inventory and dispersion models.
WIRTH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Garlyn Bergdale, Project Manager
M.S., Utah State University
Landscape Architecture
B.S., Winona State University
Geography
Mr. Bergdale coordinated the land use, public health and
safety, socioeconomics, and cultural resources studies, and con-
ducted the visual resources assessment for this project. Mr.
Bergdale has extensive experience in managing and documenting
studies to comply with NEPA regulations and guidelines.
J a mes Cle1 and , Manage r for Cultural Resources
Ph.D., University of Virginia
Anthropology
M.S., University of Virginia
Anthropology
B.S., University of Michigan
Anthropology
Dr. Cleland was responsible for the technical review of the
archaeology, history, and ethnology of all cultural resources.
Dr. Cleland has conducted and managed the cultural resource stud
ies for transmission line sitings and assessments, urban redevel
opment projects, housing projects, master plans, hydroelectric
facilities, and pipelines in Arizona, California, and Colorado.
5-5
-------
Clyde Woods, Cultural Anthropologist
Ph.D., Stanford University
Anthropology
M.A., Stanford University
Anthropology
M.S., California State University, San Jose
Soci ology
B.A., California State University, San Jose
Soci al Sci ence
Dr. Woods conducted the study of Native American cultural
resources (ethnology) for this project. Dr. Woods has performed
numerous ethnological studies for inclusion in environmental
documents in accordance with federal legislation, including NEPA
and the American Indians Religious Freedom Act.
Cindy Smith, Researcher
Arizona State University
Graduate Studies (in progress)
B.A., California State University, Chico
Liberal Arts
Ms. Smith conducted the archaeological and historical re-
search for this study. Ms. Smith has performed similar research
for major cultural resource studies to comply with NEPA regula-
tions and requirements.
Mark Schaffer, Land Use Analyst
M.S., Arizona State University
Recreation (in progress)
B.S., Arizona State University
Geography
Mr. Shaffer conducted the land use study for the project.
He has previously assisted and coordinated in documenting numer-
ous land ownership and land use inventories and assessments.
5-6
-------
David Pijawka, Assistant Director, Center for Environmental
Studies, Arizona State University
Ph.D. , Clark Uni verslty
Environmental Geography
M.A., Clark University
Geography and Environmental Management
B.A., Brock University, Canada
Geography
Dr. Pijawka directed the Public Health and Safety section of
the study. He was primarily responsible for the assessments of
transportation spill risks, coccidioidomycosis, noise, odors, and
other public health impacts. He has specialized in the area of
environmental risk assessment, and has published widely in this
field.
Joann E. Nigg, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University
Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles
Soci ology
B.A., University of California, Los Angeles
Soci ology
Dr. Nigg researched and assessed the capacity of public
safety and emergency management agencies to respond to chemical
spills and site emergencies. Her experience includes social and
organizational response to natural and technological hazards with
emphasis on hazard mitigation policy development.
Pamela Stutts, Analyst
M.S., Arizona State University
Public Administration
B.A., Sonoma State University
Hi story
Ms. Stutts assisted in the socioeconomic research for this
study. She has worked on the Governor's Commission on Tax Reform
and School Finance where she was responsible for research on
local fiscal relations. For the Arizona Division of Emergency
Services, she coordinated work related to the relocation of three
communities in the Gila River floodplain.
5-7
-------
James A. Chalmers, Project Director
Ph.D., University of Michigan
Economi cs
B.A., University of Wyoming
Economi cs
Dr. Chalmers was responsible for socioeconomic research for
this study. Dr. Chalmers is credited with developing much of the
economic and demographic methodology currently used throughout
the western United States to assess siting and construction im-
pacts from development of new industrial activities. His experi-
ence includes aesthetic evaluation of impacts on visibility and
visual resources, social impact assessment, and assessment of the
effects of potential hazards on land value and land use.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Tibaldo Canez, Site Manager
B.S. - University of Arizona
Chemi stry
Mr. Canez is responsible for managing development of the
hazardous waste facility and for ADHS's hazardous waste data
system. He prepared portions of the EIS dealing with the state's
hazardous waste management program and the facility development
process. He also coordinated the work of the other ADHS staff
members who contributed to the EIS.
REVIEWERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
EPA
• Carole Beigler, Water Management Division.
• Mark Flachsbart, Water Management Division.
• Matthew Haber, Air Management Division.
t Rick Hoffman, Office of Policy, Technical, and Resources
Management.
• Fred Krieger, Toxics and Waste Management Division.
• Tom Rarick, Air Management Division.
• Don Thomas, Air Management Division.
5-8
-------
ADHS, Bureau of Waste Control
James Lemmon.
Sally Mapes.
Alan Roesler.
Norman Weiss.
Wi11i am Wi11iams.
Department of the Interior
• Patricia Port, Office of the Secretary, San Francisco,
• Frank Splendoria, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix
Di stri ct Offi ce.
5-9
-------
SECTION 6
COORDINATION LIST
This EIS has been sent to the following agencies and organiza-
tions for review.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers
U. S. Air Force
Department of Health and Human Services
Indian Health Service
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Highways Office
STATE AGENCIES
Arizona Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
Arizona Department of Health Services
Bureau of Air Quality
Bureau of Water Quality
Bureau of Waste Control
Local Health Services
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Division of Emergency Services
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Natural Heritage Program
Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development
6-1
-------
Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordination Commission
Arizona State Clearinghouse
Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer
Arizona State Land Department
Attorney General's Office
Governor's Commission on the Arizona Environment
LOCAL AGENCIES
Central Arizona Association of Governments
District IV Council of Governments
Maricopa Association of Governments
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Maricopa County Civil Defense
Maricopa County Development Agency
Maricopa County Health Department
Maricopa County Highway Department
Maricopa County Landfill Department
Maricopa County Manager
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Department
Northern Arizona Council of Governments
Phoenix District Sanitation Department
Pinal County Administrator
Final County Board of Supervisors
Pinal County Highway Department
Pinal County Planning and Zoning Department
Southeastern Arizona Council of Governments
Tucson City Attorney's Office
Yuma County Board of Supervisors
Yuma County Health Department
Yuma County Highway Department
Yuma County Planning and Zoning Department
INDIAN TRIBES
Ak Chin Tribal Council
Colorado River Indian Tribe
Gila River Indian Community
Inter-tribal Council
Papago Tribal Council
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Arizona Association of Industries
Arizona Cattle Growers Association
6-2
-------
Arizona Cotton Growers Association
Arizona Environmental Alliance
Arizona Farm Bureau
Arizona Mining Association
Arizona Parks and Recreation Association
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Arizona 4-Wheel Drive Association
Audubon Society
Environmental Council of Arizona
Izaac Walton League
League of Women Voters
Maricopa County Farm Bureau
Phoenix Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
Salt River Project
Sierra Club
Southern Arizona Environmental Council
Tucson Environmental Council
Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
University of Arizona, Council for Environmental Studies
Wildlife Society
Yuma County Farm Bureau
6-3
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
1. Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of Waste Con-
trol. Final Report to the Arizona State Legislature Regard-
ing Siting a Statewide Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility.
January 1981.
2. Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of Waste Con-
trol. Draft Report to the Arizona State Legislature Regard-
ing Siting a Statewide Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility.
November 1980.
3. U.S. Army Topographic Command. Ajo 1:250,000 Scale Topo-
graphic Map. USGS: Washington, D.C. 1969.
4. U.S. Army Topographic Command. Phoenix, Arizona: 1:250,000
Scale Topographic Map. USGS: Washington, D.C. 1969.
5. Hartman, G. W. General Soil Map with Soil Interpretations
for Land Use Planning [Maricopa County, Arizona], U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. March
1973.
6. Arizona Department of Health Services, Division of Envi-
ronmental Health Services, Bureau of Waste Control, Tech-
nical Support Section. Geotechnical Investigation of the
Mobile Hazardous Waste Site, Maricopa County, Arizona. July
1981.
7. White, M.S. Ground Water Conditions in the Rainbow Valley
and Waterman Wash Areas, Maricopa and Pinal Counties,
Arizona. USGS Water Supply Paper 1669-F. 1963.
8. SCS Engineers, Inc. Investigation for the Underground
Injection Control Program on Indian Lands in Arizona. Draft
Final Report. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9. Long Beach, California. June 1981.
9. Wilson, R. P. Availability of Ground Water on Federal Land
Near the Ak-Chin Indian Reservation, Arizona: A Reconnais-
sance Study. Open File Report No. 79-1165, USGS: Tucson,
AM zona. June 1979.
10. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Mineral
Information Location System (MILS) Data Base. February 19
1982.
7-1
-------
11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of land Management.
Final Report on Arizona Climate Inventory. January 1982.
12. U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatologica1 Data: Annual
Summary for Arizona, Vol. 84, No. 13. 1980.
13. Arizona Environmental Consultants, Inc. First Draft, Envi-
ronmental Impact Report for Provident Energy Company Oil
refinery, Maricopa County, Arizona. Provident Energy
Company, 1979.
14. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Ak-Chin Water Supply Project: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Phoenix, Arizona. [No date.]
15. Arizona Department of Water Resources. Basic Data for
Waterman Wash. Unpublished data, subject to revision.
1982.
16. Arizona Department of Health Services. Water Resources
Summary of the Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility
Site. May 1982.
17. Chun, R. Y.D., and E. M. Weber. Mojave River Ground Water
Basins Investigation. Bulletin No. 84. California Depart-
ment of Water Resources. 1967.
18. Malmberg, G. T. Hydrology of the Valley Fill and Carbonate
Rock Reservoirs, Pahrump Valley, Nevada-California. USGS
Water Supply Paper 1832. 1967.
19. Mann, J. F., Jr. Wastewaters in the Vadose Zone of Arid
regions: Hydrologic Interactions. Ground Water 14 6).
1976.
20. Maxey, G. B., and C. H. Jameson. Geology and Water
Resources of Las Vegas, Pahrump, and Indian Spring Valleys,
Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada. Nevada Water Resources
Bulletin 5, 1948.
21. Winograd, I. J. Radioactive Waste Storage in the Arid
Zone. EPS Trans. Am. J. Geophys. Union, 55(10). 1971.
22. Two Drown, Mother Missing in Flash Flood. Buckeye Valley
News. August 13, 1970. ~
23. Olmstead, E. (Arizona Department of Health Services)
Personal Communication. 1982.
24. Arizona Department of Health Services. 1980 Air Quality
Data for Arizona. 1981.
25. Maricopa County Highway Department. Report. Maricopa
County, Arizona. 1982.
7-2
-------
26. State of Arizona, Division of Emergency Services. Hazardous
Material Emergency/Spill Response Plan. Phoenix, Arizona.
December 1980.
27. Leathers, C. R. Plant Components of Desert Dust in Arizona
and Their Significance for Man. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap.
186: 191-205. 1981.
28. Leathers, C. R. (Arizona State University.) Personal
Communication. February 1982.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Ver-
sion of EPA Levels Document. EPA 550/9-79-100. November
1978.
30. Request for Proposals for a Statewide Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Facility, Appendix 4-9. Arizona Department of
Health Services. October 1982.
31. SCS Engineers. Ecological Resources at Proposed and Alter-
native Sites for Arizona Hazardous Waste Management Facil-
ity. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982.
32. Werner, W. E. (Arizona Game and Fish Department.) Personal
Communication, March 24, 1982.
33. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix District, Lower Gi1 a Resource Area. Unpublished
Steps 2-4, Unit Resource Analysis Report on Lands Within the
Rainbow Planning Unit and Standfield Area. 1974.
34. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Admin-
istration, National Flight Data Center, June 24, 1982.
Airport Master Records for Yuma and Maricopa Counties,
Arizona. Washington, D.C. June 1982.
35. Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation and Plan-
ning Office. Guide for Regional Development and Transporta-
tion. Phoenix, Arizona. July 1980.
36. Onderdonk, D. (Principal Planner, Advance Planning, Mari-
copa County Department of Planning and Development.)
Personnal Communication. July 19, 1982.
37. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Ak-Chin Water Supply Project: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, D.C. 1981.
38. McCrillis, C. (Arizona State Land Department.) Personal
Communication. July 19, 1982.
39. Arizona State Land Department. Annual Report. 1980-81.
Phoeni x , Ari zona.
7-3
-------
40. Arizona State Urban Lands Task Force. Final Report and
Recommendations. Phoenix, Arizona. January 1979.
41. Haun, L. (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.)
Personal Communication. July 19, 1982.
42. Kirby, M. (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.)
Personal Communication. August 5, 1982.
43. Mohan, K. (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.)
Personal Communication. August 5, 1982.
44. Maricopa County Planning and Development Department. The
1969 Amended Zoning Ordinance for the Unincorporated Area of
Maricopa County. Phoenix, Arizona. July 1981.
45. Wagoner, J. Early Arizona: Prehistory to Civil War. Uni-
versity of Arizona Press: Tucson, Arizona. 1975.
46. Rue, N. L. Pesh-Bi-Yalti Speaks: White Man's Talking Wire
in Arizona. J. Ariz. Hist., 12:220-262. 1971.
47. Bard, R. Settlement Patterns of the Eastern Mojave Des-
ert. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles. 1972.
48. Bryan, K. Routes to Desert Watering Places in the Papago
Country, Arizona. USGS Water Supply Paper No. 490-D. 1922.
49. Bryan, K. The Papago Country, Arizona. USGS Water Supply
Paper No. 499. 1925.
50. Gorrell, F. (Vice President, Transportation, Provident
Energy Company, Phoenix, Arizona.) Personal Communica-
tion. 1982.
51. Schrader, I. (Business Manager, Mobile Elementary School
District, No. 86, Mobile, Arizona.) Personal Communica-
tion. 1982.
52. Chamberlin, E. G., and M. L. Richardson. Report and Inter-
pretations for the General Soil Map of Yuma County, Arizona.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
July 1974.
53. U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Final Environmental Statement for Palo Verde-
Devers 500-kV Transmission Line. February 1979.
54. Graf, C. G. Maps Showing Ground-water Conditions in the
Harquahala Plains Area, Maricopa and Yuma Counties, Ari-
zona. Hydrologic Map Series, Report No. 1, Arizona
Department of Water Resources: Phoenix, Arizona. 1980.
7-4
-------
55. Schmidt, K. D. , and R. C. Scott. Report on Selection of a
Hazardous Waste Disposal Site in Arizona. For the Arizona
Department of Health Services. 1978.
56. Lemmon, J. J., and C. G. Graf. Unpublished Field Notes
and Data from the Harquahala Plains Area, Winter 1977-78.
Arizona State Land Department. 1978.
57. Flood Hazard Boundary Map: Yuma County, Arizona, Unin-
corporated Areas. Community Panel 040099 0031 A. U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal
Insurance Administration. Revised April 18, 1978.
58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development of an
Emergency Response Program for Transportation of Hazardous
Waste. NTIS. U.S. Department of Commerce: Springfield,
Vi rgi ni a. 1979.
59. Wirth Associates, Inc. Santa Rosa to Gil a Bend 230kV
Transmission System Environmental Study, Phase I. Arizona
Public Service Company: Phoenix, Arizona. June 1978.
60. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. K Lazy B Allotment: Grazing File. Washginton,
D.C. 1982.
61. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. Clem Allotment: Grazing File. Washington, D.C.
1982.
62. McKinney, C. 0. (Arizona Representative, State Governmental
Affairs, The El Paso Company.) Personal Communication.
August 3, 1982.
63. Esparza, A. (Yuma County Planning and Zoning Department).
Personal Communication. July 22, 1982.
64. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Unit Resource Analysis of Harcuvar, Little Horn 21 Vulture
Planning Units. 1977 (unpublished).
65. Simonis, D., and L. Rogler. Cultural Resources Survey for
the Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility- Bureau of Land
Management, Phoenix District Office: Phoenix, Arizona.
66. Vivian, R. G. An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Gi1 a
River, Arizona. The Kiva, 30:95-146. 1965.
67. Wehrle, J. (Chief Deputy Tax Assessor of Yuma County, Yuma,
Arizona.) Personal Communication. 1982.
68. Unit Resource Analysis of Harcuvar, Little Horn and Vulture
Planning Units. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management. 1977 (unpublished).
7-5
-------
69. VJilkins, D. W., and W. C. Webb. Maps Showing Groundwater
Conditions in the Ranegras Plain and Butler Valley Areas.
Yuma County, Arizona. Water Resources Investigation No. 76-
34. Open File Report. USGS: Tucson, Arizona. April 1976.
70. Briggs, P. C. Ground Water Conditions In the Ranegras
Plain, Yuma County, Arizona. Water Resources Report No.
41. Arizona State Land Department. 1969.
71. Metzger, D. G. Geology and Ground Water Resources of the
Northern Part of the Ranegras Plain Area, Yuma County,
Arizona. USGS Open-File Report. 1951.
72. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Crowder-Weisser Allotment: Grazing File. Washington, D.C.
1982.
73. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix District. Little Horn Mountains East (Unit 2-127)
Intensive Inventory Findings: Wilderness Review. Washing-
ton, D.C. 1981.
74. Thibodeaux, L. J. (University of Arkansas, Fayettevi11e. )
Personal Communication. 1982.
75. Shen, T. T. Estimating Hazardous Air Emissions from Dis-
posal Sites. Pollut. Eng. 13(8) 31-34, 1972.
76. California Air Resources Board. An assessment of the vola-
tile and toxic organic emissions from hazardous waste dis-
posal in California. February 11, 1982.
77. Ecological Analysts, Inc. Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Proposed Secure Chemical Management
Facilities No. 4 and No. 5 at CECOS International, Inc.
1980.
78. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Operations Report for the SCA Chemical Waste Services,
Inc. Model City, New York Facility. 1929.
79. Michaels, P. L. , W. T. Achor, G. R. Bienvenue, D. M. Dejoy,
R. L. Kerlin, A. H. Kohut, and J. H. Prout. Community Noise
Fundamentals. Pennsylvania State University College of Edu-
cati on. March 1976.
80. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Document
for Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emission Regulations. EPA
550/9-76-008. March 1976.
81. Washington State Department of Ecology. Environmental
Impact Statement: Proposed Hazardous (Non-Redioactive)
Waste Regulation and Disposal Site. December 1977.
7-6
-------
82. Vickers, E. (Hazardous Materials Program Coordinator, State
of Arizona, Division of Engineering Services.) Personal
Communication. 1982.
83. Leathers, C. R. (Arizona State University.) Personal
Communication. August 1982.
84. Douglas, J. "Valley Fever" Spores are Widespread Threat.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
California State Office. BLM Newsbeat. May 1979.
85. Ultrasystems, Inc. Draft Environmental Impact: Revocation,
Suspension, or Amendment of Unclassified Use Permit No. 71,
Revision 5, BKK Landfill Site. October 1981.
86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste
Generation and Commercial Hazardous Waste Management
Capacity: An Assessment. SW-894. December 1980.
87. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Siting of Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities and Public Opposition. SW-809.
November 1979.
7-7
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In response to growing concern over solid and hazardous
waste problems, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976. RCRA directed EPA to define and
identify hazardous wastes, establish a manifest system to track
waste shipments to ensure that they arrive at their intended des-
tination, and set standards for facilities which treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous wastes. The law requires that each person
who owns or operates a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facility obtain a permit for the facility.
As directed by Congress, EPA has developed regulations gov-
erning the handling of a hazardous waste from the time it is
created as an industrial by-product to the time it is finally
disposed of or rendered nonhazardous. The following is a brief
overview of EPA's facility standards and the permit process. The
full text of the final regulations is found in the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations (CFR) and in the Federal Register.
* Some firms which produce small amounts of hazardous waste are
exempt from these regulations if they comply with certain gen.
eral requirements. For most wastes, the exemption level is
1,000 kg/month. For wastes which are acutely toxic, the
exemption level is much lower.
[• When a federal agency issues a regulation, it first appears in
the Federal Register, which is published daily by the U.S.
Government Printing Office. Final regulations are incorpo-
rated into the CFR, which contains all federal regulations.
The CFR is divided into Titles; Title 40 contains environ-
mental protection regulations. Each Title is further divided
into Parts designating specific regulations. In citing the
regulations governing hazardous waste generators, for example,
40 CFR 262 refers to Title 40, Part 262, of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations. The CFR and current issues of the Federal
Register may be found in the documents sections of most major
public or university libraries, or may be purchased from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
A-l
-------
TSD FACILITY STANDARDS
The purpose of EPA's Standards for Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal (TSD) facilities is to:
• Prevent the unintentional release of hazardous constitu-
ents from a TSD facility.
• Detect any releases that do occur as early as possible,
and contain them before they pose a hazard to human
health or the environment.
• Ensure that corrective actions necessary to protect human
health and the environment are taken if contamination
occurs.
The TSD facility standards apply to all new TSD facilities
and to existing facilities which have received a permit. An
"existing facility" is one which was in existence when EPA's RCRA
regulations took effect (November, 1980). An existing facility
may continue to operate without a permit until EPA or the state
is able to process their permit if the facility meets standards
set in 40 CFR 265.
The TSD facility regulations include design and operation
standards, ground water protection requirements, closure/post-
closure requirements, financial responsibility and liability
requirements, and provisions for contingency plans and emergency
response procedures.
Design and Operation Standards
General Requirements (40 CFR 264.10 to 264.18)--
Facility permittees must inspect wastes received from off-
site generators to be sure they have received those wastes de-
scribed on the shipping manifest required under 40 CFR 262. They
must have an analysis of the wastes which contains all of the
information needed to treat, store, or dispose of the waste pro-
perly. Facility personnel must be trained in proper handling of
hazardous wastes and in emergency procedures.
Permittees must make inspections often enough to detect mal-
functions and deterioration in the facility structures or equip-
ment, operator error, and discharges in time to correct them
before they pose a hazard. in addition, regular daily or weekly
inspections are specified for each type of TSD facility to ensure
that particular operational requirements for that type of facil-
ity are being met, and that the integrity of protective design
features is being maintained. A log or summary of inspections
must be kept. Any problem that is detected must be remedied
before it poses a hazard to human health or the environment.
A-2
-------
Facilities must be secured to prevent unauthorized entry to
the facility, and warning signs must be posted. Precautions must
be taken to prevent the Accidental ignition or reaction of ignit-
able or reactive wastes.
There are two standards regarding the location of a TSD
facility. The facility may not be located within 200 feet of an
active seismic fault. If a facility is located within a 100-year
floodplain, it must be designed and operated to prevent the wash-
out of any hazardous wastes by a 100-year flood (unless the waste
can be moved to a safe location before the floodwaters reach
them).
Certain recordkeeping is also required (40 CFR 264.73). A
facility operating record must be kept, and must include:
• A description of each hazardous waste received, the quan-
tity received, and the methods and dates of its treat-
ment, storage, or disposal.
• The location of each hazardous waste within the facility,
and the quantity at each location.
Standards for Specific TSD Facilities--
Containers (40 CFR 264.170 to 264.178)--Containers used for
storing hazardous wastes must be in good condition, and must re-
main closed except to add or remove wastes. Storage areas must
have a containment system capable of collecting and holding
spills, leaks, and precipitation. The containment system must
prevent, or be able to contain stormwaters which may run on to
the area.
Tanks (40 CFR 264.190 to 264.199)--Tanks used to store or
treat wastes must have sufficient shell strength and pressure
control to ensure that they do not collapse or rupture. There
must be controls to prevent overfilling the tanks so that no
spillage occurs due to wave action or rainfall.
Land Facilities (40 CFR 264.220 to 264.316)--Treatment ,
storage, or disposalof wastes on land may involve the use of
landfills (burial cells), surface impoundments (pits, ponds, or
lagoons), waste piles, and land treatment units (1andfarming).
The regulations include requirements to prevent the flow of
rainwater or other liquids into a facility ("run-on") or off of a
facility ("run-off"). These include run-on and run-off control
and collection systems, prevention of overtopping of impound-
ments, and maintenance of the integrity of the design features
* A reactive waste is one which may violently react or explode
when mixed with water, or is otherwise capable of detonating
or exploding (40 CFR 261.23).
A-3
-------
such as containment dikes. Control of dispersal of wastes by
wi nd is also requi red.
A major concern with facilities in which wastes are placed
on or in the ground is leachate control. When a liquid solution
enters the ground in an amount which exceeds the capacity of the
soil to absorb it, the solution percolates down through the
ground. Such a solution is called leachate. Rainfall, for exam-
ple, may form a hazardous leachate if it passes through a waste
disposal unit and combines with water-soluble waste constituents.
If leachate occurs in sufficient quantity beneath a hazardous
waste facility, the hazardous solution could reach and contami-
nate an aquifer. Control of leachate from TSD facilities, then,
is a key element of the hazardous waste management program.
To control leachate from new land treatment (1andfarming)
units, EPA's design and operating standards for these units re-
quire that hazardous constituents be degraded, transformed, or
immobilized within the treatment zone. This must be demonstrated
for each waste before it is applied to the land. The owner or
operator must also monitor for migration of hazardous
constituents out of the treatment zone.
For landfills, piles, and surface impoundments, the design
and operating standards implement a liquids management strategy
that has two goals: (a) minimize leachate generation at the
facility; and (b) remove leachate generated to minimize its
chance of entering the subsurface environment. The key require-
ments are:
• New landfills, piles, and surface impoundments must have
a liner that is designed and installed to prevent any
migration of leachate out of the facility throughout the
active life of the facility.
• To minimize the amount of leachate present, new landfills
and piles must have leachate collection and removal sys-
tems, as well as measures to prevent run-on of storm
waters into the facility, and wastes contained by surface
impoundments must be either removed or solidified when
the facility or unit is closed.
• To provide for the long-term minimization of leachate
generation, any facility from which hazardous constit-
uents are not entirely removed at closure must be covered
to minimize rainfall infiltration into the facility. The
cover must be maintained for 30 years after closure.
A variance to the liner and leachate collection requirements
is available to any facility demonstrating that alternate design
and operating practices, together with location characteristics,
will prevent leachate from ever migrating into the ground water
or surface water.
A-4
-------
Other precautions must be taken to avoid or remedy leachate
problems. For example, no liquids (or materials containing
liquids) may be placed into waste piles, and control of wind dis-
persal of waste in piles must be accomplished by means other than
wetti ng.
Part 264.314 of the regulations also places restrictions on
placement of liquid wastes or wastes containing free liquids into
landfills. Containers holding free liquids may not be placed in
landfills. Liquids which are not in containers (bulk liquids)
may not be put into a new landfill unless the landfill is
designed to prevent any wastes from seeping out into the adjacent
soil. Alternatively, bulk liquid wastes may be treated or stabi-
lized so that they are no longer free liquids. Landfill owners/
operators are also required to maintain records showing the exact
location of each burial cell and the contents of each cell, in-
cluding the approximate location of each hazardous waste type
within the eel 1.
Incinerators (40 CFR 264.340 to 264.351)--Incineration is a
method of thermally treating hazardous wastes to reduce the vol-
ume of waste or transform it into chemically different substances
which can be safely released into the atmosphere. EPA's regula-
tions require that incinerators destroy 99.99 percent of the Pri-
mary Hazardous Constituents (PHC's) of the waste. Any hazardous
residue left after waste has been incinerated must be properly
disposed of.
Ground Water Protection Standards (40 CFR 264.90 to 264.100)
The design and operation standards for land units described
above are intended to ensure that permittees minimize the forma-
tion of leachate and its migration to subsurface soils and ground
water and to surface waters. A complementary set of ground water
monitoring and response requirements is intended to ensure that
permittees detect any ground water contamination that may occur,
and take necessary corrective actions. The ground water protec-
tion requirements establish a three-stage program to detect,
evaluate, and correct ground water contamination. The program
must be complied with throughout the active life of the facility
and 30 years after the facility is closed.
The first stage of the ground monitoring and response pro-
gram is a detection monitoring program, which requires the per-
mittee to install a ground water monitoring system (including
both upgradient and downgradient wells) at the boundary of the
waste management area. The permittee must monitor the ground
water in the upper-most aquifer to determine whether leachate has
reached the waste boundary. If leachate is detected, a second
stage, the compliance monitoring program, is established. The
compliance monitoring program monitors the concentration of spe-
cific hazardous constituents that are reasonably expected to be
in waste disposed of at the facility, and that are found in the
ground water.
A-5
-------
The results of compliance monitoring are compared against a
ground water protection standard. The standard requires that
hazardous constituents not exceed the following concentration
limits:
• The background level in the ground water.
• The maximum concentration limit for any of the 14 hazard-
ous constituents covered by EPA standards set for drink-
ing water (unless the background levels are higher).
• Higher concentration limits which the permittee success-
fully demonstrates to be fully protective of human health
and the environment. The permit would specify which con-
centration limits apply to the facility.
If the standard is violated, the third stage, corrective
action, is activated. Corrective action must continue until the
standard is met, even if it extends beyond the 30-year post-
closure period. Corrective action could mean treatment of the
contaminated water to restore its quality.
The regulations provide an option whereby owners or opera-
tors may comply with a more stringent set of design and operating
standards, and thereby obtain a waiver of ground water monitoring
and response requirements. These special standards include two
bottom liners (instead of the single liner generally required),
and a leak detection system between the liners (in addition to
the leachate collection and removal system generally required for
landfills and piles). If a leak is discovered, the leaking liner
must be repaired or replaced, or else the owner or operator then
becomes subject to the ground water monitoring and response re-
quirements. (Exemption from the ground water monitoring and re-
sponse requirements is also provided for piles that are inside
buildings or are periodically removed from their liners so that
the liners may be inspected for leaks).
Closure/Post-Closure Requirements (40 CFR 264.110 to 264.120)
When the useful life of a TSD unit is over, it must be pro-
perly closed to minimize the chance that any hazardous constit-
uents of the waste will be released to the environment. Upon
closing, all treated and stored wastes must be removed and pro-
perly disposed of. Disposal units, such as burial cells, must be
properly capped to prevent the intrusion of rainwater which may
cause leachate. All equipment which has been contaminated must
be properly disposed of. Each facility must have a plan showing
how it will be closed.
* For list of these 14 hazardous constituents, see the Federal
Register, July 26, 1982, page 32351.
A-6
-------
A closed facility must be properly maintained for 30 years
after closure to ensure the integrity of the caps and other pro-
tective measures. Monitoring wells to detect any contamination
of ground water must also be maintained during this post-closure
period. The permittee must prepare a plan to carry out post-
closure monitoring and maintenance. Both the closure and the
post-closure plans must be approved by EPA, since they become a
condition of the facility permit.
Financial and Liability Requirements (40 CFR 264.140 to 264.151)
A facility permittee must establish a financial mechanism,
such as a trust fund, to ensure that sufficient funds are avail-
able to implement the closure plan, and to provide for post-
closure maintenance and monitoring. The costs of carrying out
these plans must be revised annually, as necessary, to keep the
cost estimates accurate and to ensure that adequate funds are set
aside.
A permittee must also carry liability insurance to cover the
risk of damage to persons or property due to accidental occur-
rences involving the facility. For sudden accidental occur-
rences, such as a spill or fire, the liability insurance must be
in the amount of $1 million per occurrence, or an annual aggre-
gate of $2 million. For non-sudden accidental occurrences, such
as the slow leaching of contaminants over many years, the insu-
rance coverage must be $3 million per occurrence, or an annual
aggregate of $6 million.
Preparedness, Contingency Plans, and Emergency Procedures (40 CFR
264.30 to 264.56)
Facilities are to be designed, constructed, and operated so
as to minimize the possibility of fires, explosions, or unplanned
releases of hazardous constituents. The permittee, however, must
have certain equipment and take certain precautions to ensure
that facility personnel and local authorities can effectively
handle any emergency which may arise. Required equipment in-
cludes a device for summoning local authorities and emergency
response teams (such as a telephone or two-way radio), and fire-
fighting equi pment.
The permittee must have a contingency plan designed to mini-
mize hazards from fires, explosions, or unplanned releases of
hazardous wastes or their constituents to the air, soil, or
water. This plan must be carried out immediately whenever there
is a fire, explosion, or unplanned release which could threaten
human health or the environment.
The contingency plan must describe actions the facility per-
sonnel will take to respond to an emergency. It must also de-
scribe arrangements made with local police and fire departments,
hospitals, contractors, and state or local emergency services.
A-7
-------
The plan must include an up-to-date list of all emergency equip-
ment at the facility and an evacuation plan for personnel. The
plan and all revisions to it must be submitted to local autho-
rities.
At all times, the facility must have at least one employee
either on the premises or on call who is responsible for coordi-
nating emergency response measures. The emergency coordinator
(or the on-site designee) must immediately implement emergency
response procedures whenever there is an imminent or actual emer-
gency.
The permittee must notify EPA whenever there is
covered by the contingency plan.
FACILITY PERMITS
Any facility which treats, stores (for more than
an i nci dent
90 days) ,
A new TSD
operati on
descri bes
in the reg-
or disposes of hazardous waste must obtain a permit.
facility must obtain a permit before construction and
can begin. In applying for the permit, the applicant
how the facility will meet the requirements set forth
ulations governing TSD facilities (see preceding section). The
permit establishes the conditions and requirements imposed by the
agency on the facility. Figure A-l outlines EPA's permitting
process under RCRA. The permit regulations are contained in 40
CFR 122 and 124.
Applying for a Permit
At least 180 days before physical construction of a new TSD
facility begins, the owner or operator must submit a permit
application to EPA. Construction of the facility cannot begin
until the final permit has been issued.
The permit application consists of two parts:
(a)
Part A forms, on which the applicant describes the pro
cesses to be used for treating, storing, or disposing
of wastes, and the design capacity of these processes.
The applicant also specifies the types and estimates
the annual quantities of wastes to be treated, stored,
or di s posed of.
(b)
Pa rt B , whi ch
faci1i ty will
faci1i ti es.
is a narrative description of how the
meet the standards which govern TSD
The application must include:
• A description of various procedures to be followed at the
faci1i ty .
A-8
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD
PUBLIC NOTICE
OF DRAFT PERMIT,
COMMENT PERIOD,
AND HEARING
PUBLIC COMMENT
REQUESTS FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
NEW STATEMENT OF BASIS) FACT SHEET| OR DRAFT PERMIT
ISSUANCE
OF FINAL
PERMIT DEC.|
RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD
^
PUBL I C
HEARING
PUBLIC
NOTICE OF
HEARINGi
EXTENSION OF
COMMENT PERIOD
DECISION ON
REQUEST FOR
HEARING
Figure A-l. RCRA permitting process
-------
• Copies of the contingency, closure, and post-closure
pi an s.
• Cost estimates for closure and post-closure monitoring
and maintenance.
t Certain technical data, such as design drawings and spe-
cifications, and engineering studies.
• Topographic map showing surface water flow, the 100-year
floodplain area, surrounding land uses, prevailing wind
speed and direction, access control (fences and gates),
wells both on- and off-site, location of buildings,
roads, loading and unloading areas, operational units,
and barriers for drainage and flood control.
A full listing of the information required in Part B of the per-
mit application is given in 40 CFR 122.25.
Facilities located within a 100-year floodplain must provide
an engineering analysis of the forces which are expected to
result from a 100-year flood. Structural or other engineering
studies showing how the design of the facility will prevent wash-
outs must also be submitted. Alternatively, the applicant may
describe procedures to remove hazardous waste to safety before
the facility is flooded.
Issuing a Permi t
Step 1. Completeness Review--
After receiving a permit application, EPA must determine the
completeness of the application, usually within 30 days of its
receipt for a new TSD facility. If the application is incom-
plete, EPA will request the additional information required from
the applicant. If the applicant fails or refuses to correct
deficiencies in the application, the permit may be denied.
Step 2. Draft Permit--
Once the application is complete, EPA will make a tentative
determination either to prepare a draft permit or to issue a
notice of intent to deny the applicant a permit. If EPA later
reverses a decision to deny the permit, a draft permit will be
prepared, and the same procedures will be followed for review of
the draft permit.
If a draft permit is prepared, it will contain all the con-
ditions placed on the applicant to meet regulatory requirements,
all schedules for achieving compliance with the requirements, and
all monitoring requirements. For each draft permit prepared for a
major hazardous waste facility, EPA will prepare a fact sheet
briefly describing the principal facts and the significant fac-
tual, legal, methodological, and policy questions considered in
preparing the draft permit. This fact sheet will include a de-
scription of the type of facility and the types and quantities of
A-10
-------
wastes to be treated, stored, or disposed of; a summary of the
basis for the draft permit conditions; reasons why any requested
variances or alternatives to the required standards do or do not
appear to be justified; a description of the procedures for
reaching a final decision on the draft permit; and the name and
phone number of a person to contact for additional information.
The fact sheet will be mailed to all persons on the permit mail-
ing list (including citizens who have asked to be on the list).
Step 3. Final Decision--
After the public comment period, EPA will issue a final
decision to issue or deny the permit, and will respond to com-
ments. If a permit is issued, it will normally take effect 30
days after notice of EPA's decision is given. EPA's regulations
provide an avenue for appealing a permit decision to the EPA
Administrator (see 40 CFR 124.19). A petition for the Admini-
strator to review any condition of the permit decision must be
filed within 30 days after the decision has been issued. The
Administrator may deny the petition to review or accept the peti-
tion and institute the review. The Administrator's decision is
final. Any further review of EPA's permit decision must come
through court action (see Figure A-l).
If the permit conditions change, the permit must be modified
using the same procedures, unless the modification is a minor one
as defined in 40 CFR 122.17. Consequently, any time a facility
owner or operator wishes to change the facility in a way that
would affect the conditions of the permit (e.g., by adding new
treatment processes, or by expanding the facility's capacity
beyond that provided for in the original permit), the affected
portions of the original permit must be changed. The proposed
permit modifications will be subject to the same process, includ-
ing public review, as the original permit (40 CFR 122.15).
The Role of the Public in the Permit Process
EPA issues a public notice whenever a permit application has
been tentatively denied, a draft permit has been prepared, a
hearing has been scheduled, or an appeal for an Administrator's
review has been granted. The notice is sent to a mailing list
which includes anyone who has asked, in writing, to be on the
list. In addition, newspaper notices or other methods may be
used to publicize the notice to persons potentially affected by
the decision.
Any interested person may submit written comments on the
draft permit during the public comment period, or submit oral or
written statements or data at a public hearing. EPA may decide
to hold a public hearing if there is a significant degree of pub-
lic interest in the draft permit. If EPA has not scheduled a
hearing, an interested person may request in writing that a pub-
lic hearing be held by stating the nature of the issues proposed
to be rai sed.
A-ll
-------
All comments will be considered in making the final deci-
sion. A response to each comment will be issued when the final
permit decision is issued.
The Permit and Federal EIS Requirements
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) establishes a
national policy of encouraging productive harmony between man and
the environment. One requirement of NEPA is that federal agen-
cies must prepare an environmental impact statement on any major
action that may significantly affect the quality of the human
envi ronment.
A federal decision which results in the development of a
major hazardous waste facility is considered an action signifi-
cantly affecting the environment, and NEPA's EIS requirements
apply. EPA's decision on a permit, however, does not require an
EIS. This is because courts have generally ruled that an EPA
permit is the "functional equivalent" of an EIS, and is therefore
exempt from NEPA's EIS requirements. These decisions have been
based on the fact that an EPA permit involves extensive proce-
dures, including public participation, for evaluating environ-
mental issues. Also, EPA is an agency with recognized environ-
mental expertise. Therefore, an EIS will not normally be pre-
pared for a hazardous waste facility permit issued by EPA. (Fed-
eral Register, May 19, 1980, Page 33173.)
TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
EPA shares responsibility for regulating the transportation
of hazardous waste with the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) (R-l). Under its authority to regulate the inter- and in-
trastate shipment of hazardous materials, DOT has developed the
Hazardous Materials Transport Regulations (HMTR) which appear in
49 CFR 100-199. After EPA issued its hazardous waste regulations
under RCRA, DOT incorporated the EPA regulations concerning waste
transporters into the HMTR. Thus, hazardous waste became a sub-
set of the broader class of products and materials regulated
under HMTR.
DOT's regulations cover all modes of transportation (air,
rail, highway, waterway, and pipeline) and establish requirements
for:
Use of shipping papers.
Use of proper containers.
Marking and labelling of containers.
Placarding of vehicles.
Reporting of spills and other incidents.
Pre-Transportation Preparation
The shipper or generator is responsible for meeting DOT's
requirements for packaging, marking, and labelling of hazardous
A-12
-------
waste shipments. The regulations set packaging requirements spe-
cific to the various types of hazardous materials. Shipping con-
tainers constructed to satisfy these standards must be labelled
to identify which specifications they meet. Packages prepared
for shipping must be clearly marked with the proper shipping name
and the identification number of the wastes involved. The iden-
tification number is keyed to an emergency response guidebook so
that, in the event of an accident, emergency personnel can
quickly determine the hazardous material(s) and take appropriate
response actions.
In addition to clearly marking each package with the name
and identification number of the wastes, packages and containers
must be labelled with a color-coded warning sign which serves to
alert transportation personnel of the principal hazard of the
material or waste they are transporting. The label would show,
for example, if the material were explosive, flammable, or cor-
rosive. Placards are also color-coded signs denoting the prin-
cipal hazard of the materials or wastes being transported. Where
labels are affixed to each package or container, placards are
placed on the outside of the vehicle. This serves to alert
transportation personnel, emergency response teams, and the pub-
lic to the principal hazard or hazards of the cargo as a whole.
Transportation Requirements
DOT prohibits the shipment of hazardous materials, including
hazardous wastes, except in conformance with the packaging, mark-
ing, labelling, and shipping requirements set forth in the haz-
ardous materials transport regulations. These include specific
requirements for each mode of transportation. HMTR Part 174 (49
CFR 174), for example, covers rail transportation, and includes
such requirements as proper bracing and blocking of materials
aboard the transporting car and proper segregation of materials.
HMTR Part 177 (49 CFR 177) covers transport on public highways,
and includes loading requirements to prevent movement of contain-
ers within the vehicle and restrictions on materials that can be
placed together. In addition to the HMTR, DOT's Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (49 CFR 397) also govern highway transporta-
tion of hazardous materials.
A-13
-------
APPENDIX B
ARIZONA STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ADHS has adopted rules, regulations, and standards for the
management of hazardous wastes under the authority of Arizona
Revised Statutes 36-132.A.12, 36-136.G.11, 36-1707, 36-1855, and
41-1003. These regulations are contained in Arizona Regulations
R9-8-1801 to R9-8-1823 (Article 18).
The state regulations establish a program similar to the
federal hazardous waste management program established under
RCRA. It includes the definition and listing of hazardous
wastes, requirements for a manifest system, transportation of
waste, storage, treatment, and disposal of regulated wastes. Any
TSD facility operating in the State must have a permit issued by
ADHS.
Under the ADHS regulations, permitted facilities must meet
design and operation requirements to prevent the discharge or
release of hazardous waste, violation of an air quality standard,
contamination of ground water, or other problems which may pose a
hazard to human health or the environment.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Congress recognized that state governments would have to
play a substantial role if the national hazardous waste program
were to succeed. Consequently, RCRA provides for both financial
assistance to states for developing state regulatory programs,
and an authorization process by which EPA can transfer responsi-
bility for the federal program to states.
Congress recognized that development of state programs com-
parable to the federal program would take time, so RCRA allows
for "interim authorization" of a "substantially equivalent" state
program until a fully equivalent program is developed. The auth-
orization process is separated into phases to reflect the phased
development of the federal program.
A copy of the ADHS regulations is available from the Bureau of
Waste Control, 1740 W. Adams Street, Phoenix, Arizona.
B-l
-------
On August 18, 1982, EPA granted Arizona interim authoriza-
tion for the first phase of the RCRA program. The authorization
gives ADHS authority to carry out inspections and take enforce-
ment actions to ensure that generators, transporters, and "in-
terim status" TSD facilities comply with federal as well as
state regulations. While the state may inspect federally permit-
ted facilities, EPA will continue to issue and enforce federal
permits until Arizona is authorized to issue RCRA-equivalent per-
mits. The state plans to apply for its full authorization in
1984.
Currently, EPA and ADHS issue state and federal permits
jointly under the terms of a "cooperative arrangement" between
the two agencies. The arrangement provides for concurrent review
of permit applications by EPA and ADHS, and a joint decision to
deny the permit or prepare the draft application. If necessary,
ADHS prepares an addendum to the draft permit to incorporate
state requirements. ADHS has primary responsibility for carrying
out the public participation requirements, though hearings will
be jointly held. ADHS will revise the draft permit, as neces-
sary, to reflect public comment.
The decision on the final permit will be- jointly made by EPA
and ADHS. The EPA Regional Administrator, however, retains ulti-
mate responsibility to approve or deny the RCRA permit, except
that a decision by either agency to deny a permit prevails.
STATE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS
Arizona has adopted the DOT'S Hazardous Materials Transport
Regulations as its state regulations governing the transport of
hazardous materials, including hazardous wastes. The State De-
partment of Public Safety (DPS) enforces these regulations. DPS
inspectors and investigators routinely spot-check haulers for
transport violations, and inspect shippers (generators) for com-
pliance with the packaging and labelling requirements.
In adopting the state hazardous waste facility legislation
(ARS 36-2800), the Legislature mandated that the ADHS Director
promulgate specific regulations governing the travel routes for
the transport of hazardous wastes within the state. These regu-
lations should be developed prior to the start of facility opera-
tions. ADHS will initiate this process in early 1983, and
expects to have the regulations finalized by early 1984. The
process of developing transportation regulations will enable ADHS
to carefully review data, needs, and public input in order to
An "interim status" TSD facility is one which existed when the
RCRA regulations took effect and is allowed to operate without
an RCRA permit until one can be issued. These facilities must
meet standards set forth in 40 CFR 265.
B-2
-------
adopt routing regulations that properly address present and
future transportation problems.
PERMITTING THE PROPOSED FACILITY
ADHS will have a dual role as both regulator of the proposed
state-owned facility and co-applicant for the facility permit as
owner of the land leased to the operator. Because of its role as
co-permittee, ADHS intends to have EPA issue a RCRA permit for
this facility. The agencies may enter into a special agreement
for issuing this permit. The facility will also have a state
permit from ADHS.
ADHS would have primary responsibility for enforcing condi-
tions of the permit at the facility. ADHS staff would regularly
inspect the facility, and report their findings to EPA. EPA
staff would accompany the state's inspectors or do independent
inspections, as needed, to ensure compliance with the federal
requi rements.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
HAZARDOUS WASTES IN ARIZONA
INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) estimates
that Arizona industries generate over 4,666,000 tons/year of haz-
ardous wastes as by-products of their industrial processes. Haz-
ardous waste producers include most industries in the state's
manufacturing sector, including textiles, printing and publish-
ing, chemicals, food processing, primary metals, electrical
machinery , plating, and electronics.
Of the wastes currently generated, 4,628,000 tons/year are
treated on-site at the generating facility or are discharged
directly into a sewer or to waters of the U.S. Table C-l shows
the types and quantities of wastes in this category generated in
1980-81.
The remaining 38,000 tons/year are stored or disposed on-
site at the generating facility or are sent off-site for recycl-
ing, treatment, storage, or disposal. ADHS refers to these
wastes as "non-sewerable," that is, wastes which cannot be safely
or legally put into a sewer and which require alternative treat-
ment, recycling, or disposal. These waste types and quantities
are shown in Table C-2.
The following hazardous wastes are included in Table C-2:
t A limited amount of exempt small generator waste from
voluntary reporting by sma 11-quanti ty generators.
• Hazardous wastes generated and shipped by treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities.
• Hazardous wastes stored and/or disposed on-site by TSD
faci1i ti es.
• Hazardous wastes produced in Arizona by generators that
are not TSD facilities, and disposed in accordance with
the state hazardous waste regulations.
t Hazardous wastes which are used, reused, recycled, or
reel aimed.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l. HAZARDOUS WASTES TREATED ON-SITE OR DISCHARGED
(TONS/YEAR)
Waste Categories^
Ignitable wastes (D001)
Corrosive wastes (D002)
Reactive wastes (D003)
EP Toxic wastes (D004-D017)
Organic solvents, non-specific
Treated
On-Site
69,063
2,968,891
0
103
12
Discharged
to Sewers or
Waters of U.S.
0
0
0
1
0
Total
69,063
2,968,891
0
104
12
sources (F001-F005)
Electroplating wastewater and 1,472,842
sludges, non-specific sources
(F006-F009)
Other wastes, non-specific 0
sources (F010-F019)
Wastes from specific sources (K) 0
Chemical products or manufac- 0
tuning intermediates (U)
Acutely toxic chemical products 1
or manufacturing intermediates (P)
Hazardous wastes not otherwise 116,998
defined
Totals 4,627,910
0
0
0
3
1,472,842
0
0
117,001
4,627,914
* From: Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona Hazardous Waste 1981
Annual Generators' Report. 1981.
t Definitions of waste categories are given in 40 CFR 261.21 - 261.33. EPA
waste category codes are given in parentheses.
C-2
-------
TABLE C-2. NON-SEWERABLE HAZARDOUS BASTES IN ARIZONA
(TONS/YEAR, 1980-81)
Disposed on-site 15,511
Stored on-site^ 1 ,246
Recycled off-site 4,770
Treated/disposed off-site 16,569
Disosal/hand!ing method unidentified 146
Total 38,242
* From: Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona Hazard-
ous Waste 1981 Annual Generators' Report. 1981.
t Storage at end of reporting period.
C-3
-------
Table C-2 does not include the following hazardous wastes:
• The majority of exempt smal1-quantity generator wastes.
0 Hazardous wastes treated, sewered, and/or discharged to
U.S. waters by on-site TSD facilities.
PROPOSED FACILITY'S POTENTIAL WASTE STREAM
The state's objective in proposing the facility is to pro-
vide in-state disposal capacity for non-sewerable wastes gener-
ated within the state. In its initial planning efforts, ADHS
used preliminary estimates of the types and quantities of non-
sewerable wastes currently being generated, and projected a 5 to
10 percent annual growth factor over the next two decades. These
estimates, updated by the 1981 generators' report and a 1981 in-
dustrial survey, were used for purposes of this EIS. These
figures were revised again to reflect late generator reports;
Tables C-l and C-2 show these revised figures.
The following is a discussion of some factors which could
affect the actual hazardous wastes to be sent to the proposed
faci1i ty .
Industrial Growth
The amount of hazardous wastes that will be generated in the
state is expected to correlate with industrial growth, especially
in the manufacturing sector. Based on Arizona Department of Eco-
nomic Security projections of manufacturing sector growth (1),
ADHS estimates the amount of hazardous wastes generated in the
state may increase 5 to 10 percent over the next two decades.
The actual rate of industrial growth could be affected by the
state of the economy and other factors. The increase in hazard-
ous wastes associated with this growth could be affected by such
factors as the extent of on-site recycling/reclamation or changes
in the specific wastes regulated.
Potential Hazardous Wastes
A recent marketing survey of Arizona manufacturing firms by
the Bureau of Waste Control (BWC) indicates that approximately
92,000 tons of exempt or potentially hazardous wastes are genera-
ted annually in Arizona. There are wastes which do not meet the
definition of "hazardous waste" under state or federal law and,
therefore, are not subject to EPA or ADHS hazardous waste regula-
tions. Nonetheless, these wastes have unique characteristics
which may justify special treatment, handling, or disposal proce-
dures. Consequently, some of these wastes may be handled by the
hazardous waste facility. These wastes include waste oils and
lubricants, alkaline sludges, varnishes, adhesives, solvents, and
detergents.
C-4
-------
0ut -of-State Wastes
Although the state is proposing a facility designed to han-
dle wastes generated within Arizona, waste generators in neigh-
boring states may choose to ship their wastes to the proposed
facility. One recent study suggests that approximately 15 per-
cent of the total annual waste quantity likely to be transported
to the AMzona^faci1ity could come from New Mexico, Colorado, or
western Texas. This is a very rough estimate based on certain
assumptions about the waste streams in those neighboring states.
The study points out that a number of factors could influ-
ence the types and quantities of wastes actually shipped to the
faci1i ty , including:
• Trends toward waste reduction and reuse, and the result-
ing impacts on waste type and quantity transported off-
site for di sposal.
• Existence, location, capabilities, and timing of other
new or expanded commercial hazardous waste management
facilities that may be available to generators in these
states.
• Gate fee differentials among alternative facilities.
• Haul cost differentials which involve distance, condition
of roads, transportation requirements, geography, and
1abor costs.
• Trends concerning on-site disposal and treatment, and the
resulting influences on waste type and quantity trans-
ported off-site.
• Timing of industrial waste treatment and disposal capa-
bilities at the Arizona facility.
Variables influencing the potential for import of wastes
from California are even more complex. California is a major
generator of hazardous wastes, and is in the process of develop-
ing a state hazardous waste control program which would restrict
or discourage the 1andfi11ing of many types of regulated wastes.
Also, several disposal facilities in southern California have
closed or may close in the near future, leaving this major indus-
trial area without sufficient nearby disposal capacity. These
factors could encourage southern California generators to ship
their wastes to the Arizona facility. On the other hand, devel-
opment of new treatment facilities to handle the wastes which
* Preliminary Projections of Hazardous Wastes to be Delivered to
Arizona from Selected Out-of-State Sources, SCS Engineers,
September 1982. (This report is available upon request from
EPA Region 9).
C-5
-------
have been landfilled in the past,
state program, could make it more
the wastes within California.
plus other features of the
economically feasible to handle
Currently, California has sufficient in-state treatment and
disposal capacity to handle wastes generated within the state.
For that reason, and because of the complexities involved in
assessing the impact of the state's hazardous waste program,
California was excluded from the out-of-state waste study cited
above.
Out-of-state wastes were not included in the analyses pre-
sented in this EIS for the following reasons:
• Arizona is planning the facility based on its in-state
waste stream data, and has used this data in developing
its Request for Proposals (RFP) from potential facility
contractors.
• ADHS is considering methods through which the facility
would give higher priority to handling wastes generated
in Arizona (e.g., a differential fee structure).
• Given the complexities and the large number of variables
involved, it is not practical to make a realistic esti-
mate of the waste types and quantities which could be
sent to the facility from outside Arizona.
WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE FACILITY
Under the provisions of SB 1033 (ARS 36-2802), the following
wastes would be specifically excluded from the facility:
• Solid wastes generated by domestic households.
• Radioactive waste materials whose storage, transporta-
tion, treatment, and disposal are regulated by the Fed-
eral Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Arizona Radia-
tion Regulatory Agency.
REFERENCE
1. Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of Waste
Control. Final Report to the Arizona State Legislature
Regarding Siting a Statewide Hazardous Waste Disposal
Facility. January 1981.
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNS FOR PROPOSED FACILITY
For the purpose of assessing the impacts associated with the
proposed land transfer, representative designs were developed for
each of the prospective features of the proposed facility.
Actual site design and development will be provided by the con-
tractor/operator selected by the state. The prospective features
of the proposed state facility, along with the treatment/disposal
process suitable to the waste types identified in Appendix C, are
given in Table 1-1 (see text). An artist's concept of the pro-
posed facility is shown in Figure D-l.
Table D-l presents estimated minimum land areas that would
be required for the state facility's potential major features.
The active portion of the facility (58 acres) is relatively small
in comparison to the whole site (Figure D-2). It should be noted
that land area estimation is based on projections concerning the
quantity of waste which will be generated in Arizona within the
next 30 years, and which will be treated and/or disposed off-
site. The land area for each treatment or disposal facilty would
be substantially increased if out-of-state wastes and/or in-state
wastes currently treated/disposed on-site were accepted at the
proposed faci1ty.
The representative designs for surface impoundments (ponds),
storage tanks, and landfarm and landfill sites were based on haz-
ardous waste quantities specified in Table D-2. They are de-
signed to meet all of the permitting requirement^ for land dis-
posal facilities that were recently promulgated. The solvent
recovery facility would comply with regulations relevant to air
emi ssi ons.
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (PONDS)
Ass umpti ons
• Waste quantity increases at an annual rate of 5 percent.
• Life expectancy of each surface impoundment is 30 years.
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment System; Permitting Requirements for Land Disposal Facili-
ties. Federal Register, July 26, 1982, pp. 32278-388. See
also 40 CFR 122, 260, 264, and 265.
D-l
-------
EVAPORATION PONDS
OFFICE
LABORATORY
/EQUIPMENT STORAGE t
AINTENANCE BUILDING
TREATMENT
POND
RECOVERY FACILITY
STORAGE TANK
SECURE LANDFILL
RUNOFF CONTAINMENT
BASIN
LEGEND
L EMERGENCY SHOWER
ALL WEATHER ACCESS ROAD
NOT TO SCALE
= -- GRAVEL ROAD
Figure D-l.
Artist's concept of the Arizona hazardous waste
management facility.
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l. ESTIMATED LAND AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE
ARIZONA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY
Surface Area
Feature (ac)
State Facility 640
Peripheral Buffer Zone* 1920
Surface Impoundment^ 14
Recovery Faci 1 i ty ^ 1
Landfarrrr 5
Landfill1" 32
Access Road (52801 x 50' ) 6
* Width of the buffer zone: 2640 ft (see Figure D-2).
t Fifty percent of the land area is devoted to actual treatment
and disposal operations. The remaining land area is utilized
for construction of the facility's supporting structures:
access road, office, laboratory, maintenance shop, storage
shed, and parking lot for employees and visitors.
D-3
-------
BUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY
UNDISTURBED
BUFFER ZONE
SITE BOUNDARY
UNDISTURBED
SITE AREA
ACCESS ROAD
ACTIVE WASTE
TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL AREA
SCALE
= 10-ACRE AREA
Figure D-2.
Relative size of the active portion of the site
compared to the undisturbed surroundings.
D-4
-------
Table D-2. SUMMARY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION*
Waste Material
Aci ds/Al kal i s
Wastewaters with Heavy Metals
Cyanide Solutions
Vari ous Sol vents
Various Biodegradable
Organi cs
Metal SI udges
Cyanide Solids
Pesti ci des
Reactive Wastes
Igni table Wastes
Halogenated Organics
Miscellaneous Inorganics
and Asbestos
Total
Wei ght
(tons/year) '
9,665
528
149
300
238
3,865#
16
5
12
811
196
926
16 ,711
Cal cul a
Vol ume
2.31 x 106
0.13 x 106
3.58 x 104
6.01 x 104
4.76 x 104
0.77 x 106
330
102
238
23,169
6,316
14,866
ted
gal/yr
gal/yr
gal /yr
gal/yr
gal/yr
gal/yr
ft3/yr
ft3/yr
ft3/yr
*ft3/yr
ft3/yr
ft3/yr
* 1981 data; wastes currently being treated and/or reused on
site are excluded.
t Rounded to the closest unit.
# Assume 10 percent solids
D-5
-------
Features Applicable to All Surface Impoundments (see Figure D-3)
• Side slope (horizontal:vertical) is 2:1.
• Freeboard is 2 ft.
• Berm width at top is 6 ft.
• Impoundment is double-lined (Figure D-4):
- 30-mi 1 Hypalon membrane liner is placed so that it com
pletely covers the bottom and side walls of the pond.
Figure D-5 shows anchorage of the liner.
- Subgrade for the membrane liner is 6 in.
- 3 ft clay-cement admixed liner is overlaid on the syn-
thetic membrane.
• Leachate detection and removal system is installed be-
tween the liners (Figure D-4).
Type and Specific Features of Surface Impoundment
• See Table D-3.
LANDFARM
Assumpti ons
t Waste quantity increases at an annual rate of 5 percent.
0 Wastes to be land-treated contain 8 percent solids, and
are handled as 1i qui d.
Basic Design Specifications
• Annual application rate (wet weight basis) is 1,000
tons/ac.
• Operating area, based on estimated quantity of waste to
be received in the 30th year (including land area for
construction of berms and ditches), is 2.15 ac.
• Storage tank:
- Purpose: To ensure orderly landfarming activity, and
to store waste under inclement weather con-
ditions which prevent landfarming.
- Capacity: Sufficient to contain 3-month waste quan-
tity.
D-6
-------
o
I
> f-J^^^^^^^^^^^F&^^&^^^^Y^^
LEACHATE REMOVAL
STANDPIPE WITH CAP
RECOMPACTED SOIL
IX GRADIENT
LEACHATE DETECTION fc REMOVAL SYSTEM
RECOMPACTED
SOIL \WCLAY-CEMENT ADMIXED LINER
v
MEMBRANE LINER
IN-SITU SOIL
NOT TO SCALE
Fiaure D-3,
Surface impoundment construction.
-------
LEACHATE REMOVAL STANDPIPE
CLAY-CEMENT ADMIXED LINER
COARSE SAND
LEAK DETECTION fc REMOVAL SYSTEM
NOT TO SCALE
Figure D-4. Double liner and leachate detection and removal system for
representative surface impoundments.
-------
o
U3
MEMBRANE LINER
NOT TO SCALE
Figure D-5. Membrane liner anchorage.
-------
TABLE D-3. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
Waste Material
Acids/Alkalis
Wastewater with
Heavy metal s
Cyanide
Solutions
Treatment/
Disposal Method
Neutral ization/
Evaporation Pond
Evaporation Pond
Biochemical and
Chemical Destruc-
tion/Evaporation
Pond
Surface
Impoundment ^
Capacity (gal)
9,980,000
572,000
175,000
Surface
Area (ac)T
6.2
0.59
0.27
Operating
Depth (ft)
6.0
6.0
6.0
* Based on estimated quantity to be received in the 30tn year.
t Including perimeter berms.
D-10
-------
- Design: Above-ground 20 ,000-gal1 on concrete tank
with cover to minimize odor and with access
for pumpage and periodic cleanout.
• Pollution control measures (Figure D-6):
- Run-on diversion berms (perimeter berms):
Height is 3 ft
Width (top) is 10 ft
Side slope (horizontal:vertical) is 3:1.
- Runoff collection ditches:
Depth i s 2 ft
Width (top) 1s 6 ft
Side slope (horizontal : vertical ) is 2:1.
- Runoff containment basins:
Capacity sufficient to contain runoff water from a
25-year, 24-hour rainstorm
Operating area is 1,000 ft
Operating depth is 2 ft
Side slope (horizontal :vertical) is 2:1.
SECURE LANDFILL
Assumpti ons
• Waste quantity increases at an annual rate of 5 percent.
• Fill efficiency (volume efficiency) is 50 percent.
• Incompatible wastes are placed in separate subcells.
• All wastes will be treated prior to landfilling by sta-
bilization, fixation, solidification, etc.
Basic Design Specifications
t Site Area and Volume Requirements:
- The landfill has five separate subcells due to waste
incompatibility (Table D-4 and Figure D-7).
- Total volume requirement is 13,508,000 ft3.
- Landfi11 depth i s 33 ft.
- Surface area required for disposal operation, including
perimeter berms, is 16 ac.
• Landfill Construction:
- Cell excavation (Figure D-7).
D-ll
-------
ALL WEATHER ACCESS ROAD
STORAGE TANK
RUN-ON/SPILL CONTROL BERM
RUN-OFF CONTAINMENT
SUMP BASIN
RUN-OFF
COLLECTION DITCH
RUN-ON DIVERSION BERM
NOT TO SCALE
Figure D-6. Landfarm construction details.
-------
TABLE D-4. ARIZONA WASTES AMENABLE TO LANDFILLING
Waste Type
Cyanide Solids
Reactive Wastes
Ignitable Wastes
Pesticides
Halogenated
Organics
Metal Sludges
Misc. Inorganics
and Asbestos
Estimated
Base Line
330
238
23,169
102
6,316
51,740#
14,866
Quantity (ft3)
30-Year
Accumulation'
23,034
16,612
1,617,196
7,120
440,856
3,611,452
1,037,647
Waste
Cell
No.
1
2
3
4
4
5
5
Segregation
Cell
Capacity (ftj)
23,000
16,600
1,618,000
448,000
4,650,000
* 1981 data.
t Assumes that waste generation increases at an annual rate of 5 percent.
# Assumes that 50 percent volume remains after fixation/solidification.
D-13
-------
SUBCELL NO. 2 SUBCELL NO. 1 SUBCELL NO. 4 SUBCELL NO. 5
I
I—1
-F*
STANDPIPE FOR
LEACHATE COLLECTION
REMOVAL SYSTEM
STANDPIPE FOR LEAK DETECTION
e REMOVAL SYSTEM
IX GRADIENT
CLAY-CEMENT ADMIXED LINER
IN-SITU SOIL
LEAK DETECTION t REMOVAL SYSTEM
SYNTHETIC MEMBRANE LINER
\
SUBGRADE
Figure D-7. Secure landfill construction details.
-------
Surface dimension is 835 ft x 835 ft.
Landfill depth is 33 ft.
Side slope (horizontal:vertical) is 2:1.
Perimeter berm:
-Height is 2 ft
-Width (top) is 6 ft.
Landfill will be divided into five separate subcells by
clay berms (after liner system is installed).
Double liner system with a leachate detection and re-
moval system between liners will be installed (Figure
D-8).
A leachate collection system will be installed above
the clay-cement liner to remove accumulated rainfall
water.
D-15
-------
LEACHATE COLLECTION t REMOVAL SYSTEM
STANDPIPE-
o
I
LANDFILL CELL
5
IX GRADIENT
/
MEMBRANE LINER
/
IX GRADIENT
LEAK DETECTION t REMOVAL SYSTEM
NOT TO SCALE
Figure D-8. Double Hner and leachate detection/collection/removal systems for
the representative secure landfill.
-------
APPENDIX E
FINANCIAL LIABILITY
All insurance policies obtained by the facility contractor
would be based on federal and state regulations, and ADHS re-
quirements for the contract from the date of its formation to its
completion or termination. The types of insurance expected to be
obtained by the contractor are Comprehensive General Bodily
Injury and Property Damage Liability Insurance.
This would include bodily injury or property damage arising
from the discharge, dispersal, release, or escape of smoke,
vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids or
gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants, or pol-
lutants into or upon land, the atmosphere, or any water course or
body of water.
Excess liability insurance may also be required. If the
successful contractor were self-insured for primary liability and
property damage coverage, negotiations would be required with
ADHS and the Arizona Department of Administration's Risk Manage-
ment Division to satisfy the state's statutory requirements. All
worker's compensation and employer's liability coverages and lim-
its would have to conform to Arizona's statutory requirements.
In addition, the contractor may be required to submit to ADHS a
performance bond to be used to compensate ADHS for any opera-
tional or legal expenses incurred in the event of default by the
contractor. The bond would be returned when the initial facility
contract obligation has been fulfilled.
Since the land for the proposed facility will remain under
state ownership, the state will have inherent responsibility for
the site, and will concurrently be covered by its existing self-
insurance coverage.
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F
WATER RESOURCES SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED MOBILE
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITE
(Partial reprint of ADHS report dated May 1982.
Copies of the full report are available from
ADHS, Bureau of Waste Control, 1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007)
F-l
-------
Contents
• Section
Contents
Figures
Tables
Introduction
i -Soils
Gilman Soil
Estrella Soil
Avondale Soil
2- Geology
Upper Unit
Lower Unit
3-Ground Water
Hydrogeology
depth to ground water
ground water flow direction
Aquifer characteristics
Ground Water use
Water level declines
Ground Water Chemical Quality
future Ground Water Development
4-Surface Water
5-Discussion
6-Recommendations
Appendix A* Water Level and Well Construction
Appendix B Well location
Appendix C Ground Water Level Changes
Appendix D Chemical Quality of ground water
Appendix E SCS Method II
Appendix F References
Appendix G Monitoring Well, soil boring and
soil analysis costs
Appendix H Soil Analyses
Page #
ii
iii
iv
V
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-5
3-6
3-9
3-9
3-9
3-15
4-1
5-1
6-1
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
G-l
H-l
* Appendices A through H are available from the Arizona
Department of Health Services, Bureau of Waste Control
ii
-------
Figures
Figure #
1-2
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
4-1
Description
Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility Site
Maricopa general soil map
Soil Cross Section
Geologic cross section of the Basin and Range
physiographic province
Geologic map
Geologic log
Depth to ground water and saturated thickness
of aquifer
Ground Water contours
Ground Water level decline
Ground Water chemical quality
Sodium and salinity hazard of water
Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste
facility site watershed
Page #
V
1-2
1-4
2-2
2-3
2-4
3-3
3-6
3-11
3-12
3-14
4-3
111
-------
tables
'Table #
1-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
Description
Properties of soils
Summary of regional ground water data
Regional Aquifer characteristics
Estimated ground water pumpage
Streamflow records for Waterman Wash
near Buckeye, USGS station #09514200
Physical and chemical soil properties
Aquifer characteristics
Watershed characteristics
Method to collect data and protect site
Page #
1-3
3-2
3-8
3-10
4-2
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-4
IV
-------
•INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to summarize the water resources data for the
proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility Site and Waterman Wash Basin, Ari-
zona. The report includes a summary of the soils, geology, ground water and
surface water. The data included in the summary is a compilation of in-house
and/or available data. Very little new data was generated for this report.
But, an analysis of the data and recommendations for future data needs are in-
cluded in the summary.. The references used in this report are in appendix F.
The facility site is located in Mobile Valley, a geographic subpart of Waterman
Wash Basin. The township for the facility site is section 32 of Township 4
south, Range 1 west. The USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps for the facility site
and surrounding watershed are listed in the following: Mobile, Butterfield Pass,
Estrella and Conley Well.
Figure r-1: Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste
Facility Site
R 1 W
"
--!
*=!•
-»*' , .*
: ij *'
i
. 1 _,
1
•V^V"
j
" J*i:,:,
^,
T
4
S
SITE 3QUNOAAY
SUFFER ZONE BOUNDARY
-------
SOILS
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service conducted a soil survey suitable for general
planning purposes in Maricopa County, which included the Waterman Wash Basin
(Hartman, 1973). Additional soil data was collected by Roesler (1981) through
site-specific soil borings conducted on the facility site. The soil association
from the SCS survey, which is most abundant on the facility site, is the
Gilman-Estrella-Avondale Association (Figure 1-1).
The Gilman-Estrella-Avondale Association is described by Hartman (1973) as
nearly level (less than 1 percent), very hot, very dry, deep loam and clay
loam soils on broad valley plains and flood plains. The soils have been formed
in recent alluvium derived from the surrounding mountains (i.e., granite and
gneiss). The Association has the following percentage composition: 55% Gilman,
15% Estrella, 10% Avondale and 20% others. The soil properties are listed
below and summarized in Table 1-1. The hydro 1logic group for the soils is B
(i.e., moderate transmission rate). The erosion hazard is slight to moderate
and the re-vegetation potential is good.
Gilman Soil
The Gilman soil series is described as a yellowish-brown to light
yellowish-brown loam about 60 inches thick or greater. The soil
profile is moderately alkaline and slightly to strongly calcareous.
The permeability of the soil is moderate (.6-2.0 inches per hour).
The available water capacity of the soil is considered high (9.6-
10.8 inches of water per 60 inches of soil).
Estrella Soil
The Estrella soil series is described as a brown to light brown loam
about 24 inches thick with an old buried brown to yellowish-red clay
loam subsoil. The soil profile is moderately alkaline and slightly
to strongly calcareous. The permeability of the soil is moderately
slow to moderate (.2-.6 inches per hour to .6-2.0 inches per hour re-
spectively). The available water capacity of the soil is considered
high (10.3-11.5 inches of water per 60 inches of soil).
Avondale Soil
The Avondale soil series is described as a dark grayish-brown clay
loam about 12 inches thick with a buried light yellowish-brown to a
pale brown subsoil. The soil profile is moderately alkaline and
strongly calcareous. The permeability of the soil is moderately
slow to moderate (.20-.6 inches per hour to .6-2.0 inches per hour
respectively). The available water capacity of the soil is considered
high (9.5-11.0 inches of water per 60 inches of soil).
Roesler U981) obtained numerous "split spoon" soil samples from three 150 foot
deep soil borings within the facility site. A majority of the soil samples were
field-logged for moisture content, consistency, reaction to HC1, particle shape
and textural classification. A few of the soil samples were analyzed in a soil
laboratory for sieve analysis, liquid limit, plastic index (Figure 1-2 and
Appendix H}. The samples appeared to be finegrained (i.e., silty to clayey sands)
with abundant clays, which conforms with White's (1963) description of the upper
200 feet of the vadose zone.
1-1
-------
Figure 1-1: Maricopa general soil map
(Hartman, 1973)
Proposed Mobile
Hazardous Waste
Facility Site
I. Vary hot, »ory dry will.
A. Soil* From roconr alluvium.
mailmon-clrralla-Avandalo attaalarlan. Nearly leval
lam Milton volley plain and 'load plain.
mAnino-Valonelo anociallpn. Nearly level la aently
ilopina «ndy loam taili an alluvial fan and valley
plaint.
Pn Corr!»0-*>lc«-V1i»oiio«lorten. Nearly In*! landy
<-=-! Mill In .
I, Sailt ham old alluvium.
Mlllra-Ounfohr-mnal
1 aenrly ilaalna. gravelly la vary anvall
on old alluvial tarn and vail** plaint.
. Nearly level to
vally limy
20 MILES
Milt
1 cloy loam loili on old volley plain and alluvial font.
I Uvaan-Callage auodatlon. Nearly level, limy,
1 wndy loom and loam Milt an old alluvial tan and
volley plain.
I aan-ftnomr-riinieiil anoelarlan. Oanrly iloaing la
1 doping, gravelly and very aravelly cloy and clay
loam Milt on old alluvial tan of rde beta a*
mountain.
I CatoCranda-HaroM enoaiallon. Nearly level,
1 Mline-alkail, cloy loom Mill on old alluvial tan
end valley plain.
I Manall-Canrlno awKiarlon. Nearly level clay loam
' ond clay Mill an old alluvial lam and volloy plain.
C. Said of mountain and low Mill.
I OiMani-Cacraao-Docli Oureroaauaaia'ion. Moaer-
1 only doping la ttoaa, ihallovi and vary ihollow isili
on mountain and lo« hllli.
II. Hot and dry Mill.
A. Soili ftan eld alluvium.
••I Canrln*nMl-"nol*n»-Cava anaoiarian. Oortrly
•^" iloaing fa maaararaly doping cloy to loam Mill on
old alluvial (on at Mia bat* of maunMin.
•• larm-V«4ial>AmlMny omalatlan. Naarly laval
^^m la oonrty tloping, clay to tandy loam Mid on
vallay plain and alluvial Fan.
I, Salliofir-amalnandlawMlli.
mm Cttlor-Uhmon Hoek Outcrop anoeiatlan. Oantly
^^m ilapina lo vary ttaa», ihallow la vary ihalloo will
on mountain and low Mitt..
III. Worm, Mbhumld Mill.
• . SlUl si fimnnl-t o~< Iw MM.
I fark.rvlll.-Cab.
-KoefcOute
SCALE 1:500,000
i anoantlan.
Gontfy iloplnff lo vary tto*pf inallow ro vary
ihallew Mill on mountain and lo» Mill.
- Dock outerea anm of 200-400 acrat
' ftocfc ouroraa arm of 400 acroi or man
1-2
-------
ro
L.
ft)
Hap Symbol and
Major Soil
Components
Depth
from
Surface
(In)
I. Gllman-Estrella-Avondale
Oilman loam
0-1% slopes
(557, of Unit)
Estrella loam
0-17. • lope s
(157. of Unit)
Avondnle clay
loam, 0-lr.
slopes (107. of
Unit)
0-60
0-24
24-60
0-12
1Z-60
Estimated Properties of the Soils
Tex-
ture
Perme-
ability
(In/hr)
Available
Water
Capacity
(profile)
(in)
Shrlnk-
Swell
Potential
Soil
Reaction
pH
Corroslvltv
Uncoated Concrete
Steel
Other
Features Suitability as a Snuri-n nf:
Hydro- Sand i/or
logic Roadflll Gravel
Group 1 /
Top so 1 1
Association
1
1
cl
cl
I
.6-2
.6-2
.2-. 6
.2-. 6
.6-2
9.6-10.8
10.3-11.5
9.5-11.0
tow
I>OW
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
7.9-8.*
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
7.9-8.4
High taw
High Moderate
Nigh Moderate
High Low
IHgh Low
n Fair! HI. (Insulted
soil mate-
rial
B Fair: ML Unsulted
soil mate-
rial
R Fair: ML Unsulted
& CL soil
material
Good
Good
Fair! clay
loam
INTERTRETATIONS OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF THE SOILS
FOR COMMUNITY USES
Soil Limitation Rating and Restrictive Features Affecting Engineering Uses
(lap Synfcol and
Major Soil
Sanitary Facilities
Septic Tank I/
Absorption Field
Sewage Lagoons
Sanitary Lnnd-
fllls (Trench)
Shallow
Excavations
for:
Community Development
Dwellings 11
(Without Basements)
Locnl Ro.ids (*
Streets
1. Gilman-Estrella-Avondale Association
Gllman loam
0-1Z slopes
(557. of Unit)
Estrella loam
0-17. slopes
(157. of Unit)
Avondale clay loam
0-17. slopes
(157. of Unit)
Slight: severe
where flooded
Severe! moder-
ately slow
permeability
Severe: moder-
ately slow
permeability,
some areas
flooded
Moderate! se-
vere where
flooded
Moderate: ML
soil material
Slight; severe
where flooded
Slight: severe
where flooded
Slight
Slight! se-
vere where
flooded
Slight: se-
vere where
flooded
Slight
Slight
severe
where
1 looded
Moderate! ML soil
material: severe
where flooded
Moderate: ML soil
material
Moderate: moder-
ate shr Ink-swell
potential, ML,
CL material severe
where flooded
Moderate: Ml, soli
material; severe
where flooded
Moderate: ML soil
material
Moderate! moderate
shrlnk-swell poten-
tial severe where
f looded
-------
e
o
CM
I
0)
-------
GEOLOGY
White (1963) and Wilson (1979) have described the geology of the Waterman Wash
Basin as it pertains to groundwater. The basin is located within the Basin and
Range physiographic province of Arizona having been formed by northwest trending
reverse thrust faulting and normal faulting (Figure 2-1). As a result of the
faulting, the basin is bounded by outcrops of mountains which are composed of Pre-
cambrian igneous and metamorphic rock (i.e., granite and gneiss). These outcrops
are located in the following areas of the Basin: north by the Buckeye Hills, west
by the Maricopa Mountains, south by the Booth and Hayley Hills, southwest by the
Palo Verde Mountains and east by the Sierra Estrella Mountains (Figure 2-2). The
facility site is bounded on the north, west and south by the Maricopa Mountains and
east by the West Prong Waterman Wash.
The Basin is partly filled with unconsolidated to moderately consolidated sedimentary
deposits (i.e., well graded gravels, sands, silts and clays) which are commonly re-
ferred to as basin-fill (also referred to as valley-fill). The basin fill is gener-
ally very thin adjacent to the mountain fronts and is deeper in the middle of the
basin. The thickness of the basin-fill ranges between 1,000 and 2,000 feet, but it
does exceed 2,000 feet in some areas of the Basin. The thickness of the basin-fill
beneath the facility site could range between 500 and 1,000 feet thick (Wilson, 1979).
It is speculated that the relative thinness of the basin-fill beneath the facility
site is due to the presence of a buried pediment. This geologic situation may be
similar to an area studied by Lausten (1974) who documented a buried pediment and an
inactive fault scarp in the McDowell Mountains, Paradise Valley, Arizona.
The Basin-fill comprise the principal aquifer in the Basin. Wilson (1979) has di-
vided the basin-fill deposits into two basic units: the upper unit and the lower
unit (Figure 2-3).
Upper Unit
The upper unit is composed of unconsolidated sandy clay to gravel
and sand. This unit generally ranges in thickness from 800 feet
to 1,000 feet. The upper 200 feet of this unit is fine-grained con-
taining an abundant amount of clay (White, 1963). This observation
is supported by textural analyses of deep (150 feet) soil borings
which were conducted within the facility site by Roesler (1981). But,
there have been no laterally extensive clay beds discovered in the
Basin (White, 1963).
Lower Unit
The lower unit overlies the bedrock (i.e., granite and gneiss). The
unit is composed of poorly to moderately consolidated sandy gravel
to sand and gravel which contain small quantities of silt and clay.
The thickness is variable exceeding 500 feet, but could exceed 1,000
feet in central areas of the Basin (Wilson, 1979). Wilson (1979) stated
that the lower unit can be distinguished from the upper unit in geo-
physical logs by its more uniform and often higher resistivity, higher
density, lower porosity and higher sonic velocity. Also, the drilling
time shows a marked decrease in the rate of penetration in the lower
unit.
2-1
-------
Figure 2-1: geologic cross section of the Basin & Range physiographic province (Wilson, 1957)
/
EXPLANATION
SEDIMENTARY AND VOLCANIC ROCKS
•UHr TmUrj (Mbm* ««« 0«t»«w«|
T_thr? nliiJi ndk> •( riMt t.
tmv TWltatj to TMMfe Mk>ric mtat ta-
t^iJmj !«€>•>.
n««iriin»>itomi.«i.M>>«Li
OTHER METAMORPHIC AND INTRUSIVE IGNEOUS ROCKS
CM
I
-------
Figure 2-2: geologic map (Wilson, 1957)
N
T
4
S
R 1 W
MUcs
Onatto *ad i «!»!•< cnmulltaa
ScDM
mrlutn ,JKVH». r«»oiilr.
Proposed Mobile Hazardous
Waste Facility Site
2-3
-------
Figure 2-3: geologic log of well D030107bbb
(Wilson, 1979)
GEOLOGIC
LOG
DENSITY ,
PQRCS,ITY
KRJVH
GRAVELLY
SAI^D
-At
SAMDY
njy.
N
C£
LU
0.
wr
WE
T^ND-
C
-1000
«ft¥-
-1500
ewvetr
son
uur
RnriK
([fiN^F^
ANf
CO
GR;NITE)
•2000
2-4
-------
GROUND HATER
White (1963), Denis (1968 and 1975) and Wilson (1979) described the ground water
conditions in the Waterman Wash Basin. In addition, the Arizona Department of
Water Resources is currently compiling basic ground water data for a Hydrologic
Map Series Report due for publication in early 1983, The ground water data listed
below will be discussed in the following and is summarized in Table 3-1: 1.) hydro-
geology, 2.) depth to ground water, 3.) ground water flow direction, 4.) aquifer
characteristics, 5.) ground water use, 6.) water level decline, 7.) ground water
quality and 8.) future ground water development.
Hydrogeology
The principal aquifer in the Basin is composed of basin-fill and is
generally under water table conditions. Artesian conditions may
exist locally because of silt and clay lenses. Even though the con-
solidated rocks (i.e., granite and gneiss) may yield small quantities
of water where fractured (i.e., 10 gallons per minute), it is_not con-
sidered a primary source of water and will not be considered in this
summary. Wilson (1979) divided the basin-fill aquifer into two basic
units: The upper unit and the lower unit (Figure 2-3).
The upper unit is 800 feet to UOOO feet thick. It is composed of
unconsolidated sandy clay with interbeds of sand and gravel lenses.
The unit is generally higher in silt and clay content in the central
parts of the Basin and higher in gravel content in the northwest part
of the Basin. The saturated thickness of the unit ranges between 400
feet in the center to 700 feet in the southwest part of the basin (wilson,
1979).
The lower unit is as much as 1,000 feet thick and overlies the bedrock
(i.e., granite and gneiss). It is composed of poorly to moderately con-
solidated coarse sandy gravel (dark gray) to sand and gravel that con-
tains small amounts of interbedded silt and clay lenses. The entire
unit is saturated (Wilson, 1979).
The facility site probably overlies the upper unit and possibly a small
portion of the lower unit. It is unknown at this time whether or not
groundwater exists beneath the site. The closest well is located 1%
miles northeast of the site (C040123ca) and it is dry (moist sand) at
480 feet (Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1982). Wilson (1979)
estimated the saturated thickness of the aquifer to range between less
than 500 feet to greater than 1,000 feet in the area of the facility
site.
Depth to Ground Water
The depth to ground water ranges from less than 300 feet in the north-
west part of the basin to greater than 400 feet in the east-central
part of the basin along the base of the Sierra Estrella Mountains
(Wilson, 1979). The depth to ground water in the area of the facility
site is unknown, but is estimated to be greater than 500 feet (Figure
3-1 and appendix A)
3-1
-------
Table 3-1: Summary of regional ground water data
hydrogeology
aquifer is composed
of Basin-f i 11 ;
alluvium, unconsol idated
gravel, sand, silt and
clay; aquifer is under
water table conditions.
ground water flow direction
flows northwest toward a cone of
depression.
ground water use
primary use is agricultural;
approximately 67,000 acre-ft
was withdrawn from the period
between 1979 to 1980.
ground water chemical quality
suitable for domestic and
agricultural purposes; IDS ranges
from 600 to greater than 1,800 mg/1;
IDS is highest in the northwest
and lowest in the southeast.
depth to ground water
ranges from 300 feet in the
northwest to 400 feet in the
east-central .
aquifer characteristics
yield = 500 to 2,500 qal/min
Sp = 15 to 74 gal/min/ft
T = 5,400 to 11,000 ft2/day
0 = 8 to 20%
storage = 10.3 X 106 acre-ft
water level declines
ranges from 8 to 172 feet from a
period between 1952 to 1975;
the maximum is in the northwest
and the minimum is in the south-
west.
future ground water development
no current plans for a
significant ground water de-
velopment; located within the
Phoenix Active Management
Area.
3-2
-------
VI
o r-~
4. CTl
Olr—
o ••
-t-> c
O
jr 10
+-> •—
Q.T-
<1J 3
at
s-
cn
B*S6 FROM ARIZCNA OCPARTICNT OF
tnANSPOTTTATlpN ItlZS.TZO. I9S4-M
-------
Figure 3-1 continued
•400'
EXPLANATION
APPROXIMATE LINE OF EQUAL DEPTH TO WATER—Inter
feet
APPROXIMATE SATURATED THICKNESS OF BASIN FILL,
Less than 500
500 to 1,000
1,000 to 1,500
More than 1,500
Insufficient data
CONSOLIDATED ROCKS
TEST HOLE
Proposed Mobile Hazardous Haste Facility Site
Depth to water and saturated thickness of the
basin-fill deposits in the Waterman Wash area.
3- 4
-------
Ground Water Flow Direction
The ground water in the Basin flows northwest toward a large cone
of depression (approximately 50 square miles) located in the north-
west part of the Basin (T 2 S ,R 2 W ) (Figure 3-2). It was de-
veloped by large scale agricultural pumping (Wilson, 1979). The
hydraulic gradient is 30 feet per mile within the cone of depression
and 10 feet per mile in the Mobile area. The Basin is hydraulically
closed to the natural outflow of ground water in the northwest part
of the Basin, even though historically small quantities of ground
water may have flowed northwest through the basin-fill surrounding
the Buckeye Hills into the Salt River Valley Basin (White, 1963).
White (1963) speculated that a ground water divide may exist within
the southeast part of the Basin called Hidden Valley. This Valley
connects the Waterman Wash Basin to the Lower Santa Cruz Basin. His-
torically, ground water may have flowed northwest into the Waterman
Wash Basin from the Lower Santa Cruz Basin (White, 1963). But be-
cause of continued pumping in the Lower Santa Cruz Basin, a ground
water gradient reversal may have developed between the two Basins
which would indicate that ground water may be flowing southeast out
of the Waterman Wash Basin into the Lower Santa Cruz Basin (Bureau
of Indian Affairs, 1981).
Aquifer Characteristics
The aquifer characteristics for the basin-fill aquifer will be dis-
cussed below and are summarized in Table 3-2: well yield, specific
capacity, transmissivity and ground water storage. Wells which
penetrate the basin-fill aquifer yield between 500 gallons per
minute to 2,500 gallons per minute of water (White, 1963). In the
northwest part of the Basin, wells usually penetrate the upper unit with
only a few wells penetrating the uppermost part of the lower unit. These
wells yield between 1,000 gallons per minute to 2,500 gallons per minute
of water (Wilson, 1979).
The specific capacity of a test well in the central part of the Basin
was determined by Wilson (1979) to range from 15 gallons per minute per
foot to 74 gallons per minute per foot of drawdown for a well which is
perforated in the lower unit. The upper unit was cased off because it
was too fine grained to yield water ,%eadily.
The transmissivity of wells penetrating the upper unit ranged between
4,500 square feet per day to 13,000 square feet per day and averaged
8,000 square feet per day (White, 1963). The transmissivity for test
wells which penetrate the lower unit in the central part of the Basin
averaged 11,000 square feet per day (Wilson, 1979).
The porosity of the basin-fill aquifer ranges between B% to 20% in the
central parts of the Basin. Generally, the porosity of the upper unit
is greater than the lower unit. The specific yield for the aquifer has
been estimated to be 10% (considered to be low). This data has been
used to determine the quantity of recoverable ground water in storage
in the aquifer. In 1979 it was determined that 5.4 million acre-feet
of water was in storage to a depth of 500 feet below the water table
and that 4.9 million acre-feet of water was in storage to a depth range
of 500 feet below the 500 foot level of the water table (Wilson, 1979).
3- 5
-------
O
1/1
S-
3
O
O
O
+J
ret
3
C
O
s_
en
' BASE FROM ARIZONn CEPARt»«NT IF
TOfNSPtnrATtCN lllt«.T20. I95«-T«
0)
i.
3
cn
• «HOII!ttM
\
\
-------
Figure 3- 2 continued
EXPLANATION
•800-
WATER-LEVEL CONTOUR—Shows approximate altitude of the
water level, 1979. Contour interval 50 feet. National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
WELL
TEST HOLE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF AREA IN WHICH POTENTIAL WELL YIELD
IS MORE THAN 500 GALLONS PER MINUTE FROM PROPERLY CON-
STRUCTED WELLS—Queried where uncertain
BASIN-FILL DEPOSITS
CONSOLIDATED ROCKS
IRRIGATED AREA AS OF 1974—Land under cultivation or that
prepared for cultivation was considered irrigated. From
Denis (1975)
B
Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility Site
—Altitude of the water level, potential well yield,
and irrigated »rea in the Waterman Wash area.
3-7
-------
Table 3-2
aquifer characteristics
Regional aquifer characteristics
1. Well yield from
basin-fill aquifer
l.a. 500 to 2,500 gal/min
l.b. 1,000 to 2,500 gal/min in the northwest
basin and penetrating the upper unit
2. Specific Capacity (Sp)
2.a. 15 to 74 gal/min/ft of drawdown in the central
basin and penetrating the lower unit
3. Transmissivity (T)
3.a. averaged 8,000 ft3/day
3.b. 4,500 to 13,000 ft2/day for wells penetrating
the upper unit
3.c. averaged 11,000 ft2/day in the central basin
and penetrating the lower unit
4. Porosity (9)
4.a. 8 to 20% in the central basin
4.b. porosity greater in the upper unit compared
to the lower unit
5. Specific yield (Sy)
5.a. 10% (considered low)
6. Ground water storage
6.a. 5.4 X 106 acre-feet to a depth of 500 feet
below the water table
6.b. 4.9 X 106 acre-feet to a depth of 500 feet
below the depth of 500 feet below the water
water table
6.c. total of 10.3 X 106 acre-feet for 1000 feet
of aquifer
3-8
-------
Ground Water Use
The only source of drinking water in this Basin is ground water.
The primary use of the ground water is for agricultural purposes
(Denis, 1975). The total ground water pumpage for the period be-
tween 1979 to 1980 has increased 19% to 67,000 acre-feet compared
to the 1978 to 1979 period (U.S.G.S., 1981). But it is still a de-
crease from the 1977 to 1978 peak of 72,000 acre-feet. This may be
the beginning of a trend to decrease ground water pumpage (Table 3-3).
The northwest and central parts of the Basin are the primary areas for
ground water withdrawal. Within these two areas there are at least
80 wells located within approximately 120 square miles C7 wells per
square mile) (appendix B). The primary use of these wells is for agri-
cultural purposes (Arizona Water Commission, 1978). In addition, these
two areas contain all of the irrigated land (as of 1973) within the
Basin (Wilson, 1979). Thus, it would be reasonable to assume that the
greatest withdrawal of ground water occurs in these two areas of the
Basin.
The southwest part of the Basin is less developed than the other two
parts. There are approximately 12 wells located within 75 square miles
(.2 wells per square mile). The use of the wells is divided equally
between domestic and agricultural purposes (Arizona Water Commission,
1979).
Water Level Declines
Water level declines are occurring within the Basin because of the
approximate overdraft of 38,000 acre-feet per year (Arizona Water
Commission, 1978). The water level declines have ranged between 8
feet to 172 feet for a period between 1952 to 1975 (Figure 3-3). The
maximum water level declines have occurred in the northwest part of the
Basin (T 2 S, R 2 W, Section 9). The minimum water level declines
have occurred in the southwest part of the Basin near Mobile (T 4S ,R IE,
Section 28) (Denis, 1975) (appendix C).
Ground Water Chemical Quality
The ground water chemical quality has been studied by Wilson (1979),
U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (1979) and Denis (1968 and 1975). Denis
(1968) presented chemical analyses (i.e., major cations and anions) of
wells located in the northwest part of the Basin (Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5
and appendix D). Denis (1968 and 1975) and Wilson (1979) concluded that
the ground water is acceptable for irrigation purposes even though the
water has a high to very high sodium and salinity hazard. The total dis-
solved solids concentration ranges between less than 600 mg/1 to greater
than 1,800 mg./l. In addition, the total dissolved solids concentrations
are highest in the northwest part of the Basin and lowest in the south-
east part of the Basin. Many of the wells produce water which exceeds the
maximum contaminant level for fluoride and nitrate in drinking water in
the nortnwest part of the Basin. There is only a limited number of wells
with long-term chemical quality analyses available in the Basin. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (1979) has determined from this data that no sub-
stantial salinity changes have occurred in the northwest part of the Basin.
3-9
-------
Table 3-3: estimated ground water pumpage (U.S. Geological Survey, 1981)
Date
(year)
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Ground water pumpage
(103acre-feet)
45
45
52
54
60
55
55
57
55
69
64
70
72
54
67
3-10
-------
100
200
300
a
OJ
S-
01
4->
3
TJ
C
O
en
o
a.
at
o
4CO
100
200
300
400
500
Figure 3-3: ground water level decline (Arizona Oept. of Water Resources, 1982)
Time (Year)
50
I
^
^
1
i
\
1
i
96C
i i
l i
\
"K
!
t
^
i
!
i
i 1 :
i !
i
i
_J
197C
l
X
X
i
s
s
i
ma>
dec
\/
inn.
Mr
1 C
i <•
/^
V.
m v
e c
VJ t
)80
ate
f
nd
Ui
V
r 1
75
94
«
eve
tee
1
i
1
t 1
or
|
3-11
-------
-------
Figure 3-4 continued
EXPLANATION
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,
IN MICROMHOS PER
CENTIMETER AT 25aC
Less than 1,000
1,000 to 2,000
2,000 to 3,500
Insufficient data
WELL
TEST HOLE
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(CALCULATED), IN
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
Less than 600
600 to 1,200
1,200 to 2,100
Insufficient data
DS-1050
CHEMICAL-QUALITY PATTERN DIAGRAM—Shows major chemical
constituents in milliequivalents per liter. The
patterns are in a variety of shapes and sizes, which
provides a means of comparing, correlating, and
characterizing similar or dissimilar types of water
Mi Hi equivalents per liter
Cations An ions
JUU 1 Ulll
Calcium
Manne^ium
^-^,
"-- t
\
^^
\
«^ —
onionae
Bicarbonate
Snlfa-ha
DISSOLVED SOLIDS—Number, 1050, is dissolved solids
in milligrams per liter
CONSOLIDATED ROCKS
Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility Site
-Chemical quality of the ground water in the basin-fill
deposits in the Waterman Wash area.
3-13
-------
Figure 3-5: Sodium and Salinity hazard of water (Wilson, 1979)
3 4 5873 1000
3 4 5000
o waterman Wash area
100 250 750 2250
CONDUCTIVITY, IN NICRONHOS PER CENTIMETER AT 25° CELSIUS
Cl
LOW
C2
•EOIUI
C3
HISH
C4
VERY HISH
SALINITY HAZARD
Sodium and salinity hazard of water- Diagram adapted from
U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff
3-14
-------
Future Ground Water Development
Currently there has been only one major ground water development con-
sidered for the Basin, the AK Chin Water Supply Project. The Waterman
Wash Basin site has been chosen through an EIS evalatuion as one of two
alternative sites with Vekol Valley Basin as the primary site for the
water supply project (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1981). If the Waterman
Wash Basin had been chosen as the primary site (located in the central
part of the Basin), it would have produced 85,000 acre-feet per year for
25 years from the aquifer, it would have more than doubled the present
overdraft of ground water from the Basin. In addition, water level
declines of 200 feet and hydraulic gradient changes would have occurred
if this area was developed (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1981).
Since this Basin is within the Phoenix Active Management Area as
defined by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (1981), there is a
restriction on increasing ground water withdrawals for agricultural
use. In addition, as ground water levels continue to decline, it
may become prohibitive to pump the ground water. The result would be a
reduction of the quantity of ground water withdrawn. But, industrial use
permits can be obtained to withdraw ground water as long as there is at
least a 50-year supply.
3-15
-------
SURFACE WATER
The streams in the Waterman Wash Basin are ephemeral, surface water flowing
only in response to locally intense short duration precipitation events (i.e.,
thunder storms) during the summer season and only after persistant steady
rain in the winter. Even though the average annual precipitation is in the
range of 7.49 inches, during an individual event the monthly or annual pre-
cipitation may be exceeded.
The U. S. Geological Survey (1982) has a streamflow guaging station on Water-
man Wash near Buckeye (Long. 112°30' 33", Lat. 33*19' 49"). The peak stream-
flow for each year from the period between 1964 to 1980 is listed in Table 4-1.
The maximum recorded peak streamflow was 6,300 cubic feet per second in 1967
with an average peak of 1,608 cubic feet per second for the 1964 to 1980 period.
These streamflows are characterized as "flash floods".
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (1981) has divided the watershed in the Basin into
three regions: mountain slope, bajada and desert plain. The stream channels
in the mountain slope region generally have steep gradients with small well
defined channels. In the bajada region the stream channels generally have
flatter gradients with less defined channels. The stream channels in the desert
plain region are generally very flat with narrow shallow channels. Much of the
surface waterflow is sheetflow in the desert plain region.
The facility site is located in a 18.4 square mile watershed characterized as
a desert plain region (Figure 4-1). The watershed also contains mountain slopes
and bajada regions. The stream channels in the desert plain have a flat gradient
(40 feet/mile) with narrow shallow sandy channels. The watershed drains into the
West Prong Waterman Wash which goes into Waterman Wash. The peak discharge for
a 100-year, two hour precipitation event for this watershed has been estimated
by the SCS method to be 4,000 cubic feet per second (Arizona Department of Trans-
portation, 1968) (Appendix E).
The primary use of the surface water is for livestock drinking water. The sur-
face water is collected in stock ponds (i.e., detention basins). There are no
known stock ponds within the facility site watershed. But there are at least
four stock ponds or diversiton downstream from the watershed.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1: stream-flow records for Waterman Wash near Buckeye, USGS
station #09514200 (drainage area = 403 mi2)*
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1978)
Date (month-year)
9-64
7-65
9-66
9-67
12-68
8-69
8-69
9-70
8-71
3-72
73
9-74
10-75
9-76
10-77
8-78
Peak discharge (ft3/s)
2680
1200
5560
6300
560
400
1600
700
2080
2000
no flow
100
1200
1180
40
1150
————————— ——__—___
*the station is a peak flow crest stage guage
4-2
-------
Figure 4-1: Proposed Mobile Hazardous Waste Facility Site Watershed
». 2W.
«. 1 W.
N
>- no wow
••" Stream Channel
Q Facility Site
jjm watershed
4-3
-------
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this section a discussion of general conclusions concerning the data and
the adequacy of the facility as a hazardous waste disposal site are presented
first, followed by a specific discussion concerning each section (i.e. soils,
geology, ground water and surface water). It must be emphasized that^a
majority of the conclusions have been derived from regional data compiled
from reports describing the Basin. There is a severe lack of site specific
data to substantiate conclusions which will be used to obtain a State and/or
federal hazardous waste permit, therefore, the conclusions made can only be
used to plan for future data needs and to compare the suitability of this site
with other sites.
In general, the facility site appears to be adequate for disposal of hazardous
waste. A list of the major beneficial characteristics of the site are listed
below:
1) The depth to ground water is inferred to be greater than 470 feet;
2) The Phoenix Active Management Area will limit the development of
ground water;
3) There has been no documented subsidence or earth cracks; and
4) There are no documented active faults.
A list of the major adverse characteristics of the facility site are listed
below:
1) Flood prone areas are located within the site; and
2) There are no thick and/or extensive clay beds within 150 feet
of the land surface.
All of the above adverse characteristics can be modified through site design
and preparation. As an example, flood protection can be constructed to con-
trol surface water runoff, and liners and leachate collection systems can be
constructed to eliminate seepage of liquid waste. A specific discussion of
each section is presented below:
Soils
The_shallow (6 feet deep) soil properties defined at the facility site
indicate that they are moderately permeable, have a high storage capacity
and a moderate to low attenuation capacity. There are no physical bar-
riers in the soils which can substantially reduce or eliminate the infil-
tration of liquids.
The deep (150 feet deep) soil properties indicate a dry fine-grained
material, but with no thick, extensive clay beds. Textural analyses indi-
cate a low to moderate permeability. Deeper soils (i.e. greater than
150 feet deep) may be coarser since, as a general rule, alluvial deposits
grade from coarse-grained near mountains to fine-grained along the center
of basins. (Brown, 1976).
5-1
-------
Geology
The geologic data for the facility site indicates that the primary
geologic hazard is the potential of differential land subsidence and
associated earth cracks. This is because the facility site is located
near a mountain front where subsidence is most likely to occur. The
potential for future subsidence in the immediate facility site area
appears to be low because of (1) minimum ground water level declines
(ie.e 10 feet) and (2) the lack of extensive clay/silt deposits dis-
covered in the Basin.
In addition, even though subsidence and earth cracks have occurred in
adjacent ground water basins (i.e. Lower Santa Curz and Salt River)
(Laney, 1978), no subsidence and/or earthcracks have been reported in
the Waterman Wash Basin, even in the area of maximum ground water level
decline.
Ground Water
The ground water data for the Basin indicates that the basin-fill
aquifer is capable of yielding large quantites of water which are
generally suitable for domestic and agricultural purposes. In addition,
it is the only water supply for the Basin. Future ground water develop-
ment should be limited to domestic and industrial use only because the
Basin is located within the Phoenix Active Management Area. The aquifer
characteristics beneath the facility site have not been assessed because
of a lack of wells in the vicinity of the site. However, the site does
meet the State ground water standards since the depth to ground water is
greater than 150 feet (i.e. data from soil borings). In addition, a well
located 2.2 miles northeast of the site was dry at 470 feet in 1982.
Therefore it can be assumed that the depth to ground water beneath the
facility site is at least 470 feet.
Surface Water
The surface water data indicates that stream flow occurs seasonally
in response to rainfall and that a potential flood hazard exists at
the facility site. The larger streams in the Basin (i.e. Waterman
Wash) contribute limited recharge to the aquifer. Use of the water
is limited to ponds for livestock.
5-2
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because the data compiled to date for the facility site is general in nature
and becuase site specific data is required to obtain a hazardous waste permit,
it is recommended that site specific data be collected. The data collectea
would be used to further assess the potential for ground and surface water con-
tamination, and for the design and construction of protection and monitoring
devices at the facility. The following data requirements are not conclusive
and should be implemented in connection with a guidance document currently
being prepared by the Bureau of Waste Control for ground water and vadose
zone monitoring requirements.
Soils
Additional site specific data is required before designing the facility.
This data would include physical and chemical soil properties which can
be used to assess the permeability, storage capacity and attenuation
ability of the soil (Table 6-1, 6-4). This can be accomplished by con-
ducting an intense soil survey of the facility site. In addition, deep
soil (vadose zone) borings need to be drilled in conjunction with a
vadose zone monitoring program. Artificial liners should be installed
to prevent seepage. Clay liners should be excluded because of climatic
conditions. Vadose zone monitoring would include resistivity array,
lysimeters and neutron probes.
Geology
Additional site specific data would include monitoring factors associated
with land subsidence. This can be accomplished by measuring ground water
level declines and land subsidence, determining bedrock contours, and
defining geologic material and structures in the vadose zone and the
aquifer. This would require drilling to bedrock and performing a geo-
physical study (Table 6-4).
Ground Water
Additional site specific data would include obtaining aquifer character-
istics. This data would be used to define ground water flow direction,
flow rate, storage capacity, chemical quality and attenuation ability
(Tables 6-2, 6-4). This can be accomplished by conducting geophysical
surveys, installing monitoring wells and piezometers and conducting
aquifer tests.
Surface Water
Additional data would include defining the watershed characteristics and
climatic conditions which are related to quantity of runoff and erosion
(Tables 6-3,6-4). This can be accomplished by installing streamflow
gauging stations, defining soil properties, installing weather instru-
ments and eventual computer modeling of the watershed to predict runoff.
In addition, flood protection should be installed to control runoff from
entering or leaving the site.
6-1
-------
Table 6-1: physical and chemical soil properties
(Fuller, 1978)
Physical
Chemical
Texture
Permeability
Cementation
surface area
porosity
bulk density
moisture content
thickness
hydrous oxide (Fe)
PH
cation-exchange capacity
Table 6-2: aquifer characteristics
Physical
Chemical
transmissivity
permeability
gradient
geologic material
anisotropy
porosity
texture
thickness
vertical head distribution
chemical quality
Table 6-3: watershed characteristics
Watershed characteristics
Climatic conditions
soil characteristics
vegetation type/density
slope
moisture content
permeability
stream channel characteristics
streamflow
sediment/erosion
chemical quality of runoff
chemical quality of sediment
evaporation
wind direction
solar energy
temperature
humidity
precipitation
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-4: Methods to collect data and protect site
SOILS
artificial liners
resistivity matrix
shallow soil borings
lysimeters
neutron probes
leachate collectors
aerial photos
bore holes
GEOLOGY
bore holes
geophysics
tensiometers
surveying
geologic log
GROUND WATER
monitoring wells
piezometers
geophysical logs
aquifer tests
modeling
SURFACE WASTE
stream flow gauges
weather instruments
modeling
dikes
detention ponds
6-3
-------
APPENDIX G
AIR QUALITY
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 mandated that the EPA
Administrator publish national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards for each air pollutant for which an air quality
criterion exists. Primary and secondary air quality standards
are those required to protect the public health and welfare re-
spectively from any known or anticipated effects of a
pollutant. The Arizona and National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS) are summarized in Table G-l. They are also listed
in Title 40, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Protec-
tion of Environment.
EPA AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 introduced the concept
of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) which addresses
industrial growth. In each state, Air Quality Control Regions in
which the air quality was better than the NAAQS were classified
as attainment areas and construction of new sources fell under
PSD regulations. Those areas where the air quality was worse
were classified as non-attainment. Growth in attainment areas is
permitted only while the pollutant concentrations stay below a
specific level, whereas growth in non-attainment areas can only
occur if appropriate offsets are used. It should be noted that
only certain types of sources are subject to PSD regulations.
All parts of the country are considered either Class I,
Class II, or Class III for PSD purposes. Class II applies to
areas where moderate, well controlled and sited industrial growth
would be permitted; Class I applies to areas (primarily national
parks and monuments) where practically any deterioration in air
quality would be significant; and Class III applies where indivi-
dual areas would be allowed to experience the greatest degree of
air quality deterioration. The proposed site and the two alter-
nate sites and their environs are Class II Areas.
In order to be subject to PSD review, a new source must have
a potential to emit at least 250 tons/year of any pollutant regu-
lated by the EPA. Volatile organic compounds (VOC), an ozone
G-l
-------
TABLE G-l. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
. . ,
State and Federal AAOS1" PSD Increments
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide:
1-hour
8-hour
Hydrocarbons:
3-hour (6-9 a.m.)
Lead:
Calendar Quarter
Nitrogen Dioxide:
AAMf
Ozone:
1-hour (daily max.)
Parti culates
24-hour
AGM##
Sulfur Dioxide:
3-hour
24-hour
AAM
Primary^
40
10
160
1.5
100
0.12
260
75
--
365
80
Secondary** Class I Class II Class III
40
10
160
1.5
100
0.12
150 10 37 75
60 5 19 37
1,300 25 512 700
5 91 182
2 20 40
* Source: Reference 1. Units are ug/m except for carbon monoxide and ozone,
which are in units of mg/m and ppm, respectively.
t Standards:
Not to be exceeded more than once per year, except:
• In the case of ozone, the number of exceedance days is not to be more than
1 per year based on a 3-year running average.
• In the case of lead, never to be exceeded.
# Level necessary to protect the public health.
** Level necessary to protect the public welfare.
tt Annual Arithmetic Mean.
## Annual Geometric Mean.
6-2
-------
precursor, emitted at a rate greater than 250 tons/year could be
subject to PSD review.
If the facility is determined to be a major source, it will
be subject to PSD review for other criteria or non-criteria pol-
lutants emitted in quantities greater than a significant level
(Table G-2). These determinations are expected to be made in the
permi tti ng phase.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
EPA designates and sets emission standards for "hazardous
air pollutants;" to date, seven compounds have been designated as
NESHAP pollutants (asbestos, benzene, mercury, vinyl chloride,
beryllium, arsenic, and radionuclides). The only emission stan-
dard promulgated under these regulations which might apply to the
proposed facility is that for asbestos, which specifies that
there shall be "no visible emissions" from waste disposal sites
(40 CFR, Part 61.25). There are no other emission standards
under NESHAP which would force the facility to control emissions
of hazardous compounds to the air.
MODELS AND INPUTS
Model
The VALLEY model contains a bivariate Gaussian algorithm
applicable to both level and complex terrain (2). Calculations
are made in 22.5 degree sectors from the source. The terrain
treatment is made in a simplified manner, and thus the model is
only applicable to first-order estimates of pollutant concentra-
tions. The model can be run in a rural-mode for either flat or
complex terrain. The rural-mode with terrain variations was used
in this study.
Under contract to EPA, Aerocomp determined that maximum con-
centrations obtained from the screening mode related best to the
second highest 24-hour concentration produced by more refined
models, such as MPTER. Also, the highest and second highest con-
centrations calculated by VALLEY have been shown to correlate
well with monitored values in regimes similar to those considered
here.
The VALLEY model assumes sources which emit nonreactive gas-
es or particulates with negligible deposition. Both of these
factors are considered important in this application; and in a
more rigorous mode, they should be considered. However, given
the screening nature of this analysis, a certain degree of con-
servatism was allowed. Thus, by assuming no deposition of parti-
culates, conservative estimates of TSP are expected. Similarly,
neglecting reactivity of organic compounds is expected to yield
conservative results.
6-3
-------
TABLE 6-2. SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF AIR POLLUTANTS (PSD)
Pol 1utant
VOC
NOX
Sulfur Di oxi de
TSP
Lead
Asbestos
Be ry11 i urn
Level
(tons/yr)
40
40
40
25
0.6
0.007
0.0004
Pol]utant
Mercu ry
Vi ny1 Chioride
Fluori des
Sulfuric Acid Mist
Hydrogen Sulfide
Total Reduced
Sulfur
Reduced Sulfur
Compounds
Level
(tons/yr)
0.1
1.0
3.0
7.0
10
10
10
G-4
-------
The treatment of the pollutant plume is dependent on the
input of two parameters to the VALLEY model: terrain and sta-
bility. In the stable case, the plume height remains parallel to
the horizontal direction until the plume comes into contact with
terrain that is greater than or equal to the plume height. Be-
yond this point, the center of the plume remains 10 meters above
the terrain. Also, beyond this point, deflection of the plume is
simulated by an attenuation factor which decreases linearly from
100 percent at initial plume height to 0 percent 400 meters
higher. Concentrations calculated under stable condition are
valid only at receptors on the windward side of sloping
terrain. In the unstable or neutral case, the plume remains par-
allel to the terrain. Because of this, the unstable/neutral case
may cause underpredictions in complex terrain.
The model can calculate dispersion from area or point
sources. An area source is treated as a virtual point source,
which is located upwind of the actual source. Receptors are only
affected by a fraction of the area source at any given time, de-
pendent upon the fraction of the area source that falls within a
22.5-degree sector upwind from the receptor. Sensitivity tests
have shown that spurious concentrations are calculated by VALLEY
between the virtual point source and the actual area source for
large sources and multiple wind directions. For this reason, the
short-term mode was run for one wind sector at a time.
Meteorological Inputs
The VALLEY model was activated in the long-term and short-
term (screening) modes. The screening mode allows the user to
look at worst-case impact by choosing worst-case meteorology for-
matted as a STability ARray (STAR) deck. The long-term mode cal-
culates annual average pollutant concentrations using a STAR deck
generated from hourly observations at the Phoenix airport from
1955 to 1964.
In this study, the maximum short-term impacts on the sites
of concern were determined using the following meteorological
condi ti on :
• Stabi1ity Class F.
• Winds directed from the sources toward sensitive recep-
tors.
t Li ght wi nds (2.5 m/s ).
As noted earlier, the long-term simulation used STAR meteor-
ology at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport from 1955
to 1964. While the Estrella site has meteorological data avail-
able for 3 years, the data format is not readily usable in
VALLEY. Moreover, the cost of obtaining the data was beyond the
6-5
-------
budget of the project. If a more detailed analysis is under-
taken, it is recommended that the more representative Estrella
meteorological data be used.
Other meteorological inputs required for both the screening
and long-term modes were obtained from the Local Climatological
Data for Phoenix. Average temperature and pressure values were
used in VALLEY to normalize the concentrations to standard tem-
perature and pressure.
EMISSION CALCULATIONS - TSP
Particulate Emissions: Construction
Those factors considered to be the primary source of partic
ulates during construction are:
o Unpaved access roads combined with heavy traffic.
o Site excavation.
o Soil disturbance and subsequent wind erosion.
Emission estimates were made for these three sources of particu-
1 ates.
Particulate Emissions from Access Roads--
The following equation was used to calculate the emission
factor (EF) for vehicles on unpaved roads (3):
EF = (0.6)(0.81s)(S/30)(l-W/365)
where :
EF = emission factor (Ib/VMT);
s = si It content (%)
= 15% (4);
S = average vehicle speed (mph)
= 30 mph (assumed) ;
W = mean annual number of days with greater than 0.01
inches of precipitation
= 30 days (5).
The above resulted in an emission factor of 6.7 Ib/VMT (3039.1
g/VMT) for unpaved roads.
The following assumptions were made to determine the emis-
sion rate from the access road:
• Fifty employees during the construction period (6).
• One employee per vehicle.
• Ten service/delivery trucks per day.
• All traffic occurs within a 30-minute period.
G-6
-------
The last three assumptions are conservative (worst case) esti-
mates. The resulting emission rate (Q) was computed from the
unpaved road emission factor (EF) and the traffic volume (TV) as
fol1ows:
n = EF (9/VMT) TV (vehicles/hr
M 1609.3 (m/mi) 3600 (sec/hr
((3039.1) (120
(1609.3) (3600
Q= 0.063 g/m-sec.
Particulate Emissions Resulting from Excavation at the Construc-
tion Si te--
A truck and shovel operation was the assumed method of site
excavation. The emission factoc for such an operation is 0.037
Ib/ton (3). Assuming that 1 yd of overburden is equivalent to
1.3 tons (4), the emission factor then becomes 0.048 lb/yd .
Using the design specifications of the facility, the volume of
excavated material was determined to be approximately 907,000
yd , resulting in total annual particulate emissions (Q) of 21.77
tons:
Q= (.3lb } (907jOOQ yd3) (^ ^ = 21>?? tons/year
Particulate Emissions Resulting from Wind Erosion of Disturbed
Areas--
To determine the emission factor for wind erosion of dis-
turbed areas, an equation used to calculate soil losses from
agricultural tilling was employed:
EF = 0.01 a I K C L V (3)
where:
EF = emission factor (tons/acre-year);
a = portion of total wind erosion losses that would be mea-
sured as suspended particulates
= 0.01 (4);
I = soil credibility (tons/acre-year)
= 134 (4);
K = surface roughness (dimensionless)
= 1.0 (worst case assumed);
6-7
-------
C = climatic factor (dimensionl ess)
= 200 (4); , . , .
L = unsheltered field width (di mensi onl ess )
= 1.0 (worst case assumed);
V = vegetative cover (dimensionless )
= 1.0 (worst case assumed).
Therefore, for disturbed areas in central Arizona, an emis-
sion factor of 5,360 Ib/acre-year was computed. Using the as-
sumption that 1/10 of the site area (64 acres) will be disturbed
at any one time, an annual emission of 171.5 tons of particulates
was obt ai ned.
The annual particulate emission rate was computed by combin-
ing the emissions resulting directly from construction with those
occurring from wind erosion. Thus, the estimated annual emission
rate i s:
21.77 tons/yr + 171.5 tons/yr
= 193.27 tons/yr or 5.6 g/sec.
The daily emission rate is computed to be 7.7 g/sec, which is
higher than the annual average emission rate since emissions from
construction operations take place for 8 hours/day for approxi-
mately 250 days/year. Both the daily and annual emission rates
were used in the modeling analysis.
EMISSION CALCULATIONS - VOLATILE ORGANICS AND HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS
Ove rv i ew
The technique for estimating air emissions of hazardous or
volatile organic compounds from waste facilities are not well
developed, since such emissions have become of concern only in
recent years. In addition, very little is known about the types
and quantities of materials that will actually be treated at this
particular facility. As such, the emission rates given below
must be regarded as highly speculative estimates only, and must
be treated as such. However, assumptions made in this analysis
are on the conservative side, given the data in Table D-2, and
may actually overestimate emissions and the resulting impact on
the envi ronment.
Surface Impoundments
Hazardous Emissions--
Based on the types of waste generated in Arizona in 1982
(Table D-2), it is expected that three types of waste solutions
6-8
-------
will be placed into the surface impoundments: acid/alkali mix-
tures; cyanide solutions; and wastewater with heavy metals.
Since most of the potentially toxic materials in these solutions
will be solids or precipitate out of solution, no significant
emissions of toxic compounds from these waste categories are ex-
pected, under normal operating conditions. It is possible, how-
ever, that during mixing of strong acids and bases, the change in
pH and temperature could produce gaseous emissions.
Organic Emi ssions--
While the present design for the facility does not call for
disposal of organic compounds in the surface impoundments, facil-
ities receiving wastes from industries similar to those identi-
fied in the EIS have allowed disposal of volatile organics in
surface impoundments. Empirical measurements of hydrocarbon
emissions from surface impoundments in a somewhat similar facil-
ity in New York state show hydrocarbon emission rates of 40 tons/
year (7).
Landfarm
Volatile Organ ics--
Two types of wastes may be treated by injection into the
landfarm: "various solvents" and "biodegradable organics" (Table
D-2). In 1981, the amounts of wastes generated in these two cat-
egories were 300 tons and 238 tons, respectively, for a total of
538 tons/year of hydrocarbons (Table D-2). The following equa-
tion was used to estimate the emissions which could emanate from
the landfarm (8) :
„ _ 538
W
_
A - year
WA = emission rate (tons/year)
V = fraction of hydrocarbons which are assumed to be
volatile.
Two values for V (0*05 and 0.30) were used to obtain a range of
emission estimates:
WA = 27 tons/year (0.05 volatility)
WA = 161 tons/year (0.30 volatility).
These values for V were chosen because the volatility of
separator sludge, which is generally treated via landfarm
injection, has been shown to fall approximately in this range
(9;. Depending on the physical nature of the solvents which
are actually injected into the landfarm, the actual volatili-
ties may differ from the values chosen here.
6-9
-------
The present plan for the facility projects that all or part
of the compounds in the "various solvents" category may be
treated via solvent recovery instead of being 1 andf armed. In the
event that all 300 tons of the "various solvents" were treated
via solvent recovery, and assuming a 10 percent loss of hydrocar-
bons from the solvent recovery process, the hydrocarbon emission
rates from solvent recovery and the landfarm can be calculated as
f ol 1 ows :
W$R = (300 tons/year) (0.10) = 30 tons/year
W, r = (238 tons/year) (V) = 12 tons/year (V = 0.05)
h = 71 tons/year (V = 0.30).
Thus, the total emissions under these conditions from solvent
recovery and landfarm combined would range from 42 to 101 tons/
year (Table G-3).
Hazardous Emissions--
Emission rates were also estimated for selected specific
compounds. To make these estimates, it was assumed arbitrarily
that the chemical in question will be exposed to air on half of
the landfarm surface, and will be buried beneath 15 cm of soil on
the other half. The following relationship was used to estimate
emi ssi ons (10) :
E = (2M/22.4)(p/760)w[(D L v)/( TT Fv)]1/2Wi
where :
o
E = emission rate (ug/m )
M = molecular weight of the compound
p = vapor pressure of the compound (mm)
w = width of the landfarm (cm)
D = diffusion coefficient of the compound (cm2/sec)
L = length of the landfarm (cm)
FV = 1 (assumed)
Wi = weight percent of the compound in the waste (g/g)
The volatilization of the unexposed hazardous material is de-
scribed by Shen (10), as follows:
Wi =
6-10
-------
TABLE G-3. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF HYDROCARBONS
Treatment
Surface impoundment
Landfarm
Landfarm and solvent recovery
Landfill
Emission Rate (tons/year)
40
27-161*
42-101*
40-157*
* These are ranges of estimated emission rates, see text for
di scussi on.
G-ll
-------
where:
Ei = emission rate of the compound (g/sec)
D = diffusion coefficient of the compound (cm2/sec)
A = exposed area (cm2)
C$ = saturated vapor concentration of the compound
Pt = soil porosity (dimension!ess)
L = effective depth of soil cover (cm)
W.j = weight percent of the compound in the waste (g/g)
Emission rates were calculated for allyl alcohol, dimethyl
sulfate, formic acid, and phenol, as all are potentially toxic
compounds which may be treated in the landfarm (11). These emis-
sion rates are given in Table 4-1, main text.
Particulate emissions are expected during the tilling opera-
tion. The dust emission can be estimated using the following
equat ion (3) :
EF = 1.4S/(PE/50)2 (3)
where:
EF = emission factor (Ibs/acre)
S = silt content (%)
= 15% (assumed)
PE = Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index
= 18 (Mobile site)
= 6 (Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras Plain sites)
Therefore,
EF = 162 1b/acre (Mobile site)
- 1,458 Ib/acre (Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras
Plain sites).
The surface area of the landfarm is 2.15 acres; if it is
assumed the landfarm is tilled twice per month, then the particu-
late emission rate is 8,300 Ib/year for the Mobile site and
75,000 Ib/year for the Western Harquahala Plain and Ranegras
Plain sites.
G-12
-------
Landfil 1
Volatile Organics--
Emission rates estimated for organics evolved from the land'
fill were obtained by assuming 196 tons/year of halogenated
organics are processed in the landfill (Table 1-1, Table D-2).
Emission rates were calculated as follows:
W
A =
V =
(196 tons/year) (V)
emission rate (tons/year)
fraction of hydrocarbons which are assumed to be
volati1e.
Two values for
obtain a range
V (0.20 and 0.80) were arbitrarily selected, to
uuuai.. « icmyc of expected emission rates (Table G-3). Should
the volatilities of the compounds actually treated differ sig-
nificantly from the values of V chosen, the emission rates will
change accordi ngly.
REFERENCES
1. Arizona Department of
for Arizona. 1981.
Health Services. 1980 Air Quality Data
2. Burt, E. W. VALLEY Model User's Guide. EPA-450/2-77-018.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. 1977.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air
Pollution Emissions Factors. 2d Ed. Publication No. AP-
42. Office of Air and Waste Management: Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. February 1980.
4. Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. Fugitive Dust
Emissions. 1981.
5. U.S. Environmental Data Service. Weather Atlas of the
United States. 1968.
6. Canez, T. (Arizona Department of Health Services.)
Personal Communication. 1982.
7. Thibodeaux, T. 0., et al. Air emission monitoring of haz-
ardous waste sites. Proc. Hazardous Material Control Re-
search Conference, Washington, D.C., November 29-December 1,
1982.
8. Thibodeaux, T. J. (University of Arkansas, Fayettevi1le .)
Personal Communication. 1982.
G-13
-------
9- Randall, J. L., B. F. Jones, et al . Airborne hydrocarbon
emissions from landfarming of refinery waste - a laboratory
study. Presented at 181st National ACS Meeting, Atlanta,
Georgia, March 1981.
10. Shen, T. T. Estimation Emission of Hazardous Organic Com-
pounds from Waste Disposal Sites. Paper No. 80-68.8, 73rd
APCA Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada. June 1980.
11. Arizona Department of Health Services. Personal Communica-
tion. 1982.
G-14
-------
APPENDIX H
COCCIDIOIDOMYCOSIS
HISTORY
Coccidioidomycosis (kok-sid-ee-oid-o-my-ko-sis), commonly
known as Valley Fever, is a disease caused by the fungus Cocci -
dioides immitis (1, 2, 3). The disease was first reported and
described in Argentina in 1892; additonal cases were reported in
the San Joaquin Valley in California in 1896 (1). The fungus was
found in soils in California as early as 1932, and in Arizona in
1937; Arizona came to be recognized as an endemic Valley Fever
region. Studies of the disease in the 1930's in the San Joaquin
Valley found that there was a seasonal variation in incidents of
the disease, and that a greater probability of secondary infec-
tion existed for "non-white" persons (1).
In 1941, the first large-scale study of the disease com-
menced in the Southwest as a consequence of the location of Army
camps in the area. The program revealed a substantial number of
cases of Valley Fever. It was at that time that the first pre-
ventive measure, dust control, was implemented.
It is widely accepted that the Valley Fever spores are
spread by air and that they enter the body by the respiratory
route (3). Special problems arise when the spores become air-
borne and are transmitted to population centers. In 1977, a wind
storm in the San Joaquin Valley, transported spores over 300-
miles, resulting in a significant increase in the incidence of
primary Valley Fever in the communities where the spores were
deposited (4)-
Attempts to capture and isolate the spores in airborne dust
away from areas of origination have not yet been successful. For
example, a study in Phoenix in 1959 examined 89 air samples (more
than 610,000 liters [21,000 cubic feet] of air), of which only
two specimens proved positive (5). There is a critical lack of
knowledge about spore transmission through environmental media
(e.g., survivability in air, settling patterns, and density dis-
persion from the source) (6).
DISEASE MANIFESTATION
The more common, nonfatal form of the disease is known vari-
ously as San Joaquin Valley Fever, Valley Fever, Desert Fever,
and Desert Rheumatism. Valley Fever is normally contracted by
H-l
-------
Inhaling the airborne spores found floating freely in dust clouds
from previously undisturbed contaminated soils. It is believed
that over two-thirds of all adults living within these contami-
nated regions for several years or more have been infected by the
fungus. Individuals who have lived in the Phoenix area for a
period of at least 2 years have a greater than 80 percent chance
of contracting the disease (7). This particular fungus affects
the lungs and other internal organs.
Whether or not a person becomes ill as a result of the first
exposure to Valley Fever spores, the resultant infection confers
a life-time immunity to subsequent infection. The majority of
people exposed to Valley Fever spores (60 to 70 percent) experi-
ence no sign of illness at all. However, skin tests performed on
these persons will indicate the presence of infection.
Approximately 30 to 40 percent of those infected by the Val-
ley Fever spores become sick. In most cases, the primary stage
occurs in a very mild form which closely resembles a bad cold or
the flu. The first symptoms usually appear within a week to 10
days after initial exposure to the spores. The patient may ex-
perience any one or a combination of symptoms, including fever,
coughing, chest pains, nausea, and a general feeling of malaise
(1). A week or two after the fever rises, some patients may
develop a skin rash, most commonly on the legs (8). These symp-
toms usually disappear after 2 or 3 weeks of rest and a careful
diet, although it may be several months before the patient
regains complete strength.
During the primary stage, no special medication is required
beyond the body's natural defense system. The few spores which
are able to get through the body's defense mechanism may become
lodged in the smaller air sacs of the lungs, where they grow and
multiply. The body's immune system reacts to the inflammation of
lung tissue surrounding the growing fungus by developing small
patches of fluid (edema). Scar tissue may develop as a conse-
quence of this growth.
When the spores grow in the lungs and edema occurs, the
disease is said to be in its primary stage. However, if the fun-
gus is able to spread to other internal organs (i.e., bones,
lymph glands, intestines, spine, brain, or skin), the disease is
in a much more serious stage known as the disseminated stage
(7). The disseminated stage of the disease is very rare and usu-
ally proves to be fatal even with the most modern treatment meth-
ods. The number of serious cases may account for less than 1
percent (7). Patients who contract this stage often experience
high fevers and extreme fatigue. The disease cannot be trans-
mitted from one person to another, because the spore does not
have a communicable stage in its life cycle.
H-2
-------
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
The fungus is generally found in the semiarid regions of the
southwestern United States, from western Texas to central Cali-
fornia. The fungus thrives in the region defined by ecologists
as the "lower Sonoran life zone." This particular habitat is
characterized by long, hot, dry summers, followed by mild winters
with low to moderate amounts of rainfall (arid or semiarid cli-
mates) (3). The spores are generally recovered from sandy, alka-
line soils. The distribution of the fungus in the upper soil
layer is generally patchy.
There is some evidence that soil temperature and humidity
affect the distribution of the fungus. Recovery of the fungus
from soils at the ends of dry seasons was found to be much more
difficult than during wet seasons. In one test, the fungus was
recovered from the surface soil samples (1/4 inch below the sur-
face) at the end of the wet season, while fewer were recovered
from the surface during the dry season. In Arizona, spores have
been recovered in soils at depths of 1 inch to 1 foot (6). In
laboratory tests, a "drier strain" of the species was found to
die in 2 weeks at 50°C, but remained unchanged for months at tem-
peratures of -15°C to 37°C (3). It seems likely that, in arid
environments, the fungus may become sterilized in the top 1/4
inch of soil in summer, and remain at depths below its tempera-
ture tolerance. During the fall months, the fungus grows closer
to the surface as moisture is absorbed (6).
The spores are unevenly distributed geographically even
within endemic regions. In Arizona, contaminated areas occur
largely in the arid southern half of the state. The fungus is
especially prevalent in the Phoenix and Tucson areas. In 269
field samples tested by Leathers, spores which induced Valley
Fever were recovered from 31 samples. These samples were found
near the village of Maricopa, Arizona (5). The city of Florence,
between Phoenix and Tucson, is reported to have high attack rates
of Valley Fever. The Rainbow Valley area has been characterized
as a "hot spot" for recovering the fungus spores from soil sam-
ples (9).
DISSEMINATION AND EXPOSURE
The general consensus is that the spores are released as a
consequence of the disruption of soil and airborne. The spores
are known to be transported by wind, and may affect individuals
outside the endemic area. The spores are more easily recovered
in strong dust storms. On December 20, 1977, high-velocity winds
centering around Aryin, Kern County, California, gusted up to 99
miles per hour. The dispersion of soil containing spores re-
sulted in an epidemic of Valley Fever in an area of approximately
33,590 square miles. Topsoil had been removed to a depth of 6
inches, and a huge dust cloud had reached an elevation of approx-
imately 4,900 feet. Within 20 hours after the storm began, a
prevailing southerly wind carried the contaminated dust up the
H-3
-------
San Joaquin Valley to Sacramento, 310 miles to the north. The
settling dust produced hazy atmospheric conditions as far as 430
miles from the point of origin (4).
As a result, the California Department of Health Services
recorded approximately 550 cases of Valley Fever in the first 16
weeks of 1978. This may be compared to the 175 cases recorded
for the same period in any of the preceding 10 years. In Sacra-
mento County alone, 115 cases of Valley Fever were reported, in
contrast to a maximum of 6 cases per year recorded over the pre-
vious 20 years. The Kern County storm resulted in medical care
costs exceeding $1 million (4).
In Arizona, the incidence of infection increases during the
summer months; this increase may correlate with the occurrence of
dust storms affecting metropolitan areas (5). Seasonal variation
in infections may be related to regional rainfall patterns. The
incidence of infection increases in seasons with little or no
rainfall (3). The growth of the fungus requires only a few weeks
of moisture, and wind borne transportation of spores is reduced
duri ng rai ny season s.
While certain locations in Arizona are recognized as areas
of high endemicity, infections are geographically dispersed be-
cause of the spores become airborne. However, there is evidence
of concentrated infections occurring at particular sites where
soil disruption has resulted in heavy exposure to dust (5). The
relationship between Valley Fever and employment in soil-related
activities (e.g., agriculture, construction) has been recognized
for a 1ong time (6).
Activities that disrupt the soil surface, such as road main-
tenance and other construction work, contribute significantly to
the risk of infection for both residents and workers. Occupa-
tional Valley Fever is an ongoing hazard. Persons employed in
agriculture, archaeology, or construction (i.e., heavy equipment
operators and surveyors) face a greater possibility of contract-
ing the disease than the general public (3).
ATTACK RATES
It is believed that over two-thirds of all adults living
within endemic regions for several years have been infected with
the fungus. Approximately 60 percent of the infected persons do
not develop symptoms, and the infection is only confirmed by a
positive coccidioidon skin test. For the remaining 40 percent
(with symptoms), most infections are benign, but 1 percent may
develop a serious case (3, 7).
Current data indicate that natural reinfection is extremely
rare; thus, infections will usually occur only in individuals not
previously infected. There is some evidence that Valley Fever is
influenced by intercurrent conditions or superimposed diseases.
In a review of 25 fatal cases of Valley Fever in Phoenix, it was
H-4
-------
found that 84 percent of the fatalities had an underlying influ-
ential disease (3). Based on statistics for the 1970's, an aver-
age of 27 deaths are annually associated with Valley Fever in
Ari zona (5 , 6 , 9).
Medical authorities have recommended that individuals whose
occupations require close and prolonged contact with the soil in
endemic areas should take extreme precautions. There may be a
relationship between the concentration of exposure and the seve-
rity of the infection (6). It is possible to acquire Valley
Fever outside of endemic areas through contact with spores that
have become attached to clothing or other articles (4). People
have been known to introduce the spores into their homes after
bringing dusty clothes back from contaminated areas.
REFERENCES
1. Douglas, J. "Valley Fever" Spores are Widespread Threat.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
California State Office. BLM Newsbeat. May 1979.
2. Johnson, W. Occupational Factors in Coccidioidomycosis. J.
Occupat. Medi., 23(5):367-374. 1981.
3. Stevens, D. A. Coccidioidomycosis. Plenum: New York, New
York. 1981.
4. Flynn, N. M., P. D. Hoeprich, M. M. Kawachi, K. K. Lee, R. M.
Lawrence, E. Goldstein, G. W. Jordon, R. S. Kundargi, and G.
W. Wong. An Unusual Outbreak of Windborne Coccidioidomy-
cosis. New Engl . J. Med., 301(7):358-361. 1979.
5. Leathers, C. R. Plant Components of Desert Dust in Arizona
and Their Significance for Man. Geol. Soc. Am. Spec. Pap.
186:191-205. 1981.
6. Pijawka, D. (Arizona State University.) Personal Com-
munication. August 1982.
7. Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever). Arizona Lung Associa-
tion: Phoenix Arizona.
8. Braze! , S. (Arizona State University, Laboratory of
Climatology.) Personal Communication. 1982.
9. Leathers, C. R. (Arizona State University.) Personal
Communication. February 1982.
H-5
-------
APPENDIX I
LAND USE
The intent of the land use inventory was to identify, map,
and delineate all existing, planned, and officially designated
land uses within and adjacent to the three candidate sites. An
area within 2 miles of each site was delineated as the area to be
studied on the premise that 2 miles represented the maximum
sphere of influence from a land use sensitivity perspective.
The methods used in the land use study included review and
refinement of previous studies within the study area (1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10). In addition, an extensive investigation and
interpretation of related existing maps within and adjacent to
the candidate sites were undertaken (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 37, 38) Mapped information was verified during one
day of ground reconnaissance.
The following secondary sources provided the bulk of the
data portrayed in this report: (a) the Santa Rosa to Gila Bend
230kV Transmission Project Corridor Studies - Land Use Report
(10); (b) Palo Verde-Devers 500kV Transmission Line, Final Envi-
ronmental Statement (7); (c) Salt River Power Plant Siting Study,
Phases 2 and 4 (9); (d) individual contacts with federal, state,
regional, and local governmental agencies made by telephone and
meetings (39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45); (e) published maps,
reports, or other public documents (11, 10); and (f) BLM Master
Title Plat Maps and U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- and 15-minute
topographic quadrangle maps (34, 35, 36, 37, 38).
The following text defines (by study component) the land use
features identified in the results section. The land use compo-
nents are addressed according to all inventory categories listed
and descriptions of each land use subcategory.
LAND JURISDICTION
Land jurisdiction depicts the limits of administrative or
jurisdictional control maintained by the major landholders within
the study area boundary. Three categories of land jurisdictions
were identified and delineated, primarily from Arizona State Land
Department (ASLD) and BLM Surface Management maps (19, 20, 21,
1-1
-------
28, 30): Public Land (BLM), Arizona State Trust Land, and Pri-
vate and Other.
• Public Land: Includes all lands administered by the U.S.
Department of Interior, BLM. The management authority
for these lands stems from the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and follows principals of
multiple use and sustained yield in accordance with de-
veloped land use plans (46).
• Arizona State Trust Lands: Includes all land that is
under the jurisdiction of the ASLD, and represents lands
held in trust by the State of Arizona.
• Private and Other Land: Includes all land in the study
area not otherwise jurisdictionally designated in one of
the above categories.
EXISTING LAND USE
This category identifies the various types of land uses
found within the area at the time of study (July 1982). Defini-
tions of land use components addressed in this section are listed
below.
Parks and Recreation/Preservation
Two subcategories of parks and recreation/preservation areas
were identified: (a) hiking and riding trails (existing and pro-
posed trail systems designated by state or county parks depart-
ments), and (b) Wilderness Study Areas (WSA's). In 1976, the
FLPMA directed that lands under BLM jurisdiction be inventoried
and evaluated with respect to wilderness potential for possible
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The
initial wilderness inventory of public lands in Arizona was com-
pleted in September 1979. The BLM has conducted an intensive in-
ventory, which involved field verification of wilderness charac-
teristics of the remaining lands. Completion of a management re-
view resulted in the recommendation, subject to public review,
that only Intensive Wilderness Inventory Units 2-138, 2-142/144,
2-157, and 2-155B have wilderness characteristics that may qual-
ify them for approval as WSA's. The intensive inventory was com-
pleted in June 1980, and final WSA determinations were made in
November 1980 (46, 47).
Agri cultural
This type of land use includes livestock grazing and asso-
ciated range improvements connected with its use. Range improve-
ments, such as water developments, corrals, fences, etc., are
needed on most BLM grazing allotments to implement the grazing
systems.
1-2
-------
Uti Titles
This type of land use identifies significant linear features
within the study corridor. Utilities include all major existing
or proposed utility transmission rights-of-way. The subcategor-
ies are: (a) lattice tower transmission line; (b) wood-pole
transmission line; (c) major pipelines; and (d) major canals.
Transportati on
This type of land use identifies two subcategories: (a)
railroads and (b) highways. The railroad subcategory was defined
to include all railway transportation facilities in active use.
All significant roads and highways within the study corridors
were also identified, including Interstate Freeway, Other Paved
Road, Unpaved Improved Road, and Unimproved Road.
FUTURE LAND USE
This category defines all general and specific planned land
uses not otherwise identified in the preceding components within
2 miles of the candidate sites. Four types of future land use
information was included: (a) those project uses that are embo-
died in the officially adopted general and comprehensive plans
for the area; (b) specific development plans relating to future
urbanization; (c) comments from planning officials representing
federal, state, county, and local governmental agencies having
management responsibilities in the study area; and (d) existing
zoning ordinances.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior. Hope, Arizona, 15' Topo-
graphic Quadrangle. US6S: Washington, D.C. 1961.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Ak-Chin Water Supply Project: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, D.C. 1981.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Ak-Chin Water Supply Project: Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Washington, D.C. August 1981.
4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Provident Energy Company's Proposed Crude Oil Pipeline from
Kingman to Mobile, Arizona: Final Environmental Assessment.
Washington, D.C. August 1980.
5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Provident Energy Company's Proposed Crude Oil Pipeline from
Kingman to Mobile, Arizona: Draft Environmental Assessment.
Washington, D.C. 1980.
1-3
-------
6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Lower Colorado Region. Granite Reef Aqueduct Transmission
System, Final Environmental Statement. Washington, D.C.
1961.
7. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Palo Verde-Devers 500-
kV Transmission Line: Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Washington , D.C. 1979.
8. Wirth Associates, Inc. New Mexico Generating Station Out-
of-State Transmission Line Study. 1981.
9. Wirth Associates, Inc. Salt River Project Power Plant
Siting Study. 1982.
10. Wirth Associates, Inc. Santa Rosa to Gila Bend 230-kV
Transmission Project, Draft Corridor Studies. 1982.
11. Arizona Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division.
Arizona Aeronautical Chart. Phoenix, Arizona. 1981.
12. Arizona Department of Transportation. Arizona Road Map.
Phoenix, Arizona. 1981.
13. Arizona Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
Photogrammetry , and Mapping. General Highway Map, Yuma
County, Arizona. Sheet 3. Phoenix, Arizona. 1979.
14. Arizona Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
Photogrammetry , and Mapping. General Highway Map, Maricopa
County, Arizona. Sheet 8. Revision. Phoenix, Arizona.
1973.
15. Arizona Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
Photogrammetry, and Mapping. General Highway Map, Yuma
County, Arizona. Sheet 7. Revision. Phoenix, Arizona.
1980.
16. Arizona Office of Tourism. West-Central Arizona Multipur-
pose and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. Map 3. Phoenix,
AM zona.
17. Arizona Office of Tourism. Mid-Central Arizona Multipurpose
and Outdoor Recreational Facilities. Map No. 4. Phoenix,
AM zona.
18. Arizona Outdoor Recreational Coordinating Commission. Ari-
zona Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plan. Phoenix, Arizona.
1978.
1-4
-------
19. Arizona State Land Department. State Trust Land Surface
Map. Maricopa County, Arizona. Sheet 8. Phoenix, Ari-
zona. 1981.
20. Arizona State Land Department. State Trust Land Surface
Map. Yuma County, Arizona. Sheet 7. Phoenix, Arizona.
1980.
21. Arizona State Land Department. State Trust Land Surface
Map. Yuma County, Arizona. Sheet 3. Phoenix, Arizona.
1981.
22. El Paso Natural Gas Company. Pipeline Location Maps. El
Paso, Texas. January 1981.
23. Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation and Plan-
ning Office. Guide for Regional Development and Transporta-
tion. Phoenix, Arizona. July 1980.
24. Maricopa County Highway Department. Maricopa County Road
Map. Traffic Counts. Phoenix, Arizona. 1981.
25. Maricopa County Highway Department. Maricopa County Road
Map. Phoenix, Arizona. 1982.
26. Maricopa County Planning and Development Department. County
Zoning Maps. Phoenix, Arizona. January 1982.
27. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Lower Gila Resource Area Map. Washington, D.C. 1976.
28. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Surface Management Responsibility, State of Arizona. Wash-
ington, D.C. 1980.
29. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Wilderness Status Map. Washington, D.C. June 1981.
30. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Lower Gila South: Resource Management Plan Map. Washing-
ton , D.C. 1981.
31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix District. Eagletail Mountains-Cemetery Ridge (Unit
2-128) Intensive Inventory Findings: Wilderness Review.
Washington, D.C. 1981.
32. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix District. Little Horn Mountains East (Unit 2-127)
Intensive Inventory Findings: Wilderness Review. Washing-
ton, D.C. 1981.
1-5
-------
33. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Water Service Organizations, Central Arizona Project, Ari-
zona Map. Washington, D.C. 1975.
34. U.S. Department of the Interior. Hope, Arizona, 15' Topo-
graphic Quadrangle. USGS: Washington, D.C. 1961.
35. U.S. Department of the Interior. Lone Mountain, Arizona,
15' Topographic Quadrangle. USGS: Washington, D.C. 1961.
36. U.S. Department of the Interior. Little Horn Mountains,
Arizona, 15' Topographic Quadrangle. USGS: Washington,
D.C. 1962.
37. U.S. Department of the Interior. Butterfield Pass, Arizona,
7.5' Topographic Quadrangle. USGS: Washington, D.C. 1973.
38. U.S. Department of the Interior. Mobile, Arizona, 7.5'
Topographic Quadrangle. USGS: Washington, D.C. 1973.
39. Kirby, M. (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.)
Personal Communication. August 5, 1982.
40. McCrillis, C. (Arizona State Land Department.) Personal
Communication. July 19, 1982.
41. Mohan, K. (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.)
Personal Communication. August 5, 1982.
42. Molz, H. (Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.)
Personal Communication. August 19, 1982.
43. Onderdonk, D. (Principal Planner, Advance Planning, Mari-
copa County Department of Planning and Development.) Per-
sonnal Communication. July 19, 1982.
44. Poston, B. (Visual Resource Management Specialist, Bureau
of Land Management, Phoenix District.) Personal Communica-
tion. July 16, 1982.
45. Weiss, N. (Arizona Health Services Department.) Personal
Communication. July 19, 1982.
46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Wash-
i ngton, D.C.
47. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Wilderness Review, Arizona: Inventory of Public Lands
Administered by Bureau of Land Management. Washington,
D.C. November 1980.
1-6
-------
APPENDIX J
VISUAL RESOURCES
Visual resources assessment was performed for the area with-
in 3 miles of each of the proposed and alternative sites. Thus,
a total study area of 49 square miles and 56 square miles was
evaluated for the proposed and alternative sites, respectively.
The visual resources study was conducted with BLM's estab-
lished methods (1), which provided guidelines for assessing the
potential visual contrast of the proposed activities.
The overall process included an inventory of the inherent
character and quality of the landscape, the sensitivity of the
land and the people who use it, and a summation of viewer/land-
scape distance relationships from specific points and travel
routes. This information was synthesized to determine visual
management objectives for the range of conditions that exist. In
addition, the study addressed two related issues: the type and
extent of the actual physical contrast that could potentially
occur, and the level of visibility that each site would have.
The data base for visual resource assessment was obtained
from the BLM-Phoenix District Office and the Santa Rosa to Gila
Bend 230 kV Environmental Assessment (2). Additional data were
collected from 15-min USGS topographic quadrangles and a 1-day
field review.
The four inventory categories that have been established for
the visual resource study are Scenic Quality Classes, Visual Sen-
sitivity Levels, Distance Zones, and Tentative Visual Management
Cl asses.
SCENIC QUALITY CLASSES
All three sites were evaluated in terms of landform, vegeta-
tion, color, uniqueness, adjacent scenery, and existing cultural
modifications (1). Designations of Class A (high visual qual-
ity), Class B (common visual quality), or Class C (minimal visual
quality) resulted.
VISUAL SENSITIVITY LEVELS
Visual sensitivity is a function of three variables: the
attitudes of the public using the area, the number of people who
view the area, and the portion of the landscape that can be seen.
J-l
-------
User attitudes indicate the relative degree of user interest in
visual resources and concern for changes in the existing land-
scape character. BLM data provided the levels of visual sensi-
tivity (1).
DISTANCE ZONES
Once key observation points
were
H
established through the
use-volume inventory and "seen areas" delineated, foreground/
middleground and background distance zones were mapped, based
primarily
ti fied.
upon BLM URA's (1). No "seldom seen" areas were iden-
TENTATIVE VISUAL MANAGEMENT CLASSES
Tentative visual management classes were derived by combin-
ing scenic quality classes (A, B, and C), visual sensitivity
levels (high, moderate, and low), and distance zones (foreground/
middleground , background, and seldom-seen areas). Combinations
of the nine individual variables produced a range of possible
conditions varying from low sensitivity, low scenic quality and
a highly sensitive area which has
and is in the foreground (Class I or
unseen areas (Class IV), to
distinctive visual quality,
II).
This range of conditions was categorized into management
classes (I, II, III, and IV) that have definitive threshold lim-
its. Each class, as defined by the BLM (1), has specific visual
management objectives which clearly describe the degree of modi-
fication allowed, and the degree to which that modification can
contrast with the natural landscape.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
BLM Manual 8400: Visual Resource Management (VRM). 1978.
2. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix District. Lower Gila Resource Area Environmental
Assessment Report, Santa Rosa to Gila Bend 230-kV Transmis-
sion Line Project. 1982.
J-2
-------
APPENDIX K
CULTURAL RESOURCES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Early occupation (as early as 40,000 years ago) of southern
Arizona by a pre-projecti 1 e-point culture has been hypothesized,
but remains controversial (1). Sites containing fluted projec-
tile points typical of the Paleo-Indian period (12,000 to 8,000
years ago), an economy considered to have been based largely on
hunting of large game, have been recorded in southern Arizona (2,
3, 4, 5, 6).
As early as 9,000 years ago, the Archaic cultures of the
desert were beginning to emerge. These cultures are generally
considered to have been adapted to conditions of increased arid-
ity, and to have practiced a generalized hunting and gathering
subsistence strategy (7). In southern Arizona, there is tenta-
tive evidence of at least two major cultural traditions within
the Archaic (1).
The earliest manifestation of a western-based Archaic tradi-
tion is generally called the San Dieguito complex (8, 9). The
Amargosa complex represents a later occupation (about 6,000 years
ago), and the archaeological evidence suggests also a hunting-
gathering economy, but with an emphasis on seed grinding (1).
The southern Archaic tradition is generally called the
Cochise culture (6, 10). A three-period sequence for the Cochise
culture has been established in the San Pedro Valley: the Sul-
phur Spring phase (9,000 to 5,500 years ago), the Chiricahua
phase (5,500 to 3,500 years ago), and the San Pedro phase (3,500
to 2,300 years ago). Most of the known sites are small habita-
tion sites which contain a large number of grinding stones used
in processing wild plant foods. Most known sites are associated
with permanent water sources. Numerous lithic sites that are
probably Archaic have been found along Vekol Wash and it has been
suggested that the Mobile Valley may produce similar sites (11).
The Hohokam tradition existed in south-central Arizona from
approximately 2,300 years ago until less than 500 years ago
(3, 12). As opposed to their Archaic predecessors, the Hohokam
practiced agriculture, manufactured pottery, and lived in perma-
nent villages (13, 14, 15). Two separate branches of the Hohokam
have been defined, based on differences in material culture and
subsistence practices. The River Hohokam, concentrated in the
Gila-Salt Basin, relied on canal-irrigated agriculture with a
secondary emphasis upon gathering wild plant products. The
K-l
-------
Desert Hohokam, living in the more arid environment of central
Papaqueria, obtained the bulk of their food source through hunt-
ing and gathering. The Hohokam tradition disappeared about 500
years ago, perhaps as a consequence of unfavorable changes in
climate. It is generally believed that the historic Pima and
Papago are the modern descendants of the Hohokam.
Little is known of the Hakatayan tradition in southern Ari-
zona. It is generally accepted that the tradition began about
1,300 years ago and lasted into historic times (17, 18, 19)- The
Hakatayan people practiced maize agriculture and made pottery, as
did the Hohokam, but did not evolve as complex a social organiza-
tion as did the Hohokam, and generally practiced a more mobile
lifestyle (19). Hakatayan materials have been recorded along the
Gila River as far east as the Sierra Estrella Mountains (16, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24). The Hakatayan tradition is thought to be ances-
tral to the historic Yuma, Opa, and Coco-Maricopa of southern
Ari zona.
For the purposes of this EIS, an area within 2 miles around
each site was delineated and included in the assessment. In
accordance with general archeological theory which considers the
correlation between site location and environmental features
(25, 26, 27, 28, 29), certain environmental data, such as water,
vegetation, soils, and geology, are required to determine the
probability of encountering sites. These respective data were
obtained from Arizona drainage maps (30), maps of natural vege-
tative communities in Arizona (31), and USGS maps (32). The data
revealed that there are few sources of food and water available
in the study area, which is expected to have low archeological
site density.
The literature review and records searches revealed that the
study areas have not received intensive archeologica1 investiga-
ti ons.
The Phoenix District of the BLM conducted a Class II Cul-
tural Resources survey (sample survey) of the three candidate
sites in May 1982 (33). Five parcels of 80 acres were randomly
selected for each of the candidate sites. A single artifact was
found during the survey of the Harquahala Plain site. Previ-
ously, BLM conducted Class I overviews of the Rainbow-Stanfield
Planning Unit (34), Vulture Planning Unit (8), and the Little
Horn PIanni ng Uni t (35).
Other projects, primarily linear right-of-way surveys, tra-
versed areas adjacent to the candidate facility sites.
Gratz (of the Museum of Northern Arizona) surveyed a section
of right-of-way for the proposed El Paso Natural Gas Company mid-
continent/west coast oil pipeline (34). This right-of-way tra-
verses both Harquahala and Ranegras Plains. No sites were re-
corded in the study areas.
K-2
-------
In 1978, the Office of Cultural Resource Management of Ari-
zona State University conducted a survey for the Granite Reef
Aqueduct of the Central Arizona Project which crosses the Har-
quahala Plain (36). No sites were recorded in the study area.
Wirth Associates conducted a regional overview and corridor
studies, including survey for the Santa Rosa to Gi1 a Bend Trans-
mission Line Project (37). During the regional studies, it was
determined that the area in Rainbow Valley has a low probability
of encountering sites and no sites were recorded during the sur-
vey.
The Museum of Northern Arizona conducted a survey along the
alternative corridors for the Palo Verde to Devers Transmission
Line Project (38). WESTEC Services, Inc., surveyed the final
transmission line corridor, and has completed mitigation work for
the project (39). Sites were recorded along the section that
traverses Harquahala and Ranegras Plains. The sites consisted
primarily of temporary camps and lithic scatters.
REFERENCES
1. Irwin-Wi11iams, C. Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 7000-2000
B.C. In: Handbook of North American Indians, 9:31-42. C.
Sturtevant, ed. Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C.
1979.
2. Haury, E. W. The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Ventana
Cave. University of Arizona Press: Tucson, Arizona. 1950.
3. Haury, E. W., E. Antevs, and J. F. Lance. Artifacts with
Mammoth Remains, Naco, Arizona. Am. Antiq., 19:1-24. 1953.
4. Haury, E. W., E. B. Sayles, and W. W. Wasley. The Lehner
Mammoth Site, Southeastern Arizona. Am. Antiq., 25:2-30.
1959.
5. Haynes, C., and E. T. Hemmings. Mammoth-bone Shaft Wrench
from Murray Springs, Arizona. Science, 159:186-187. 1968.
6. Sayles, E. B., and E. Antevs. The Cochise Culture.
Medallion Paper 29. 1941.
7. Jennings, J. D. The Desert West. In: Prehistoric Man in
the New World. J. D. Jennings and E. Norbeck, eds. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois. 1964.
8. Rogers, M. J. San Dieguito Implements from the Terraces of
the Rio Pantano and Rillito Drainage System. The Kiva,
24:1-23. 1958.
9. Warren, C. N. The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and
Hypothesis. Am. Antiq., 32:168-185. 1967.
K-3
-------
10. Whalen, N. M. Cochise Culture Sites in the Central San
Pedro Drainage, Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
AM zona. 1971.
11. Meade, D. Personal Communication, 1982.
12. Weaver, D. E. , Jr. A Cultural Ecological Model for the
Classic Hohokam Period in the Lower Salt River Valley,
Arizona. The Kiva, 38:43-52. 1972.
13. Haury, E. W. The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen,
Excavations at Snaketown, 1964-1965. University of Arizona
Press: Tucson, Arizona. 1976.
14. Hayden, J. D. Of Hohokam Origins and Other Matters. Am.
Anti q. , 35:87-93. 1970.
15. Hayden, J. D. Pre-Altithermal Archaeology in the Sierra
Pinacate, Sonora, Mexico. Am. Antiq. , 41:274-289. 1976.
16. Schroeder, A. H. A Brief Summary of the Lower Colorado
River from Davis Dam to the International Border. U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation: Boulder City, Nevada. 1952.
17. Schroeder, A. H. An Archaeological Survey of the Painted
Rocks Reservoir, Western Arizona. The Kiva, 27:1-27. 1961.
18. Schroeder, A. H. Comments on "Salvage Archaeology in the
Painted Rocks Reservoir, Western Arizona." Ariz. Archaeol. ,
1-10. 1967.
19. Schroeder, A. H. Prehistory: Hakataya. In: Handbook of
North American Indians, 9:100-107. W. C. Sturtevant, ed.
Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D.C. 1979.
20. Breternitz, D. A. A Brief Archaeological Survey of the
Lower Gila River. The Kiva, 22:1-13. 1957.
21. Johnson, A. E. An Appraisal of the Archeologica1 Resources
of Five Regional Parks in Maricopa County, Arizona. 1963.
22. Rodgers, B. An Archeological Investigation of Buckeye
Hills East, Maricopa County, Arizona. Ariz. State Univ.
Anthropol. Res. Paper 10. 1976.
23. Vivian, R. G. An Archaeological Survey of the Lower Gila
River, Arizona. The Kiva, 30:95-146. 1965.
24. Wasley, W. W., and A. E. Johnson. Salvage Archaeology in
Painted Rocks Reservoir, Western Arizona. Anthropol. Papers
Univ. Ariz. , No. 9. 1965.
25. Butzer, K. W. Environment and Archaeology. Aldine Press:
Chicago, Illinois. 1971.
K-4
-------
26. Chang, K. C. Settlement Archaeology. National Press
Books: Palo Alto, California. 1968.
27. Clarke, D. L. Models in Archaeology. Methuen and Company,
Ltd.: London, England. 1972.
28. Jochim, M. A. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement:
A Predictive Model. 1976.
29. Thomas, D. H. Predicting the Past. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston: New York, New York. 1974.
30. Brown, D. E. Drainage Map of Arizona Showing Perennial
Streams and Some Important Wetlands. Phoenix Public
Library: Phoenix, Arizona. 1977.
31. Brown, D. E. The Natural Vegetative Communities of Ari-
zona. Map. Arizona Game and Fish Department: Phoenix,
Arizona. 1973.
32. Wilson, E. D. , R. T. Moore, and H. W. Pierce. USGS Geologi-
cal Map of Maricopa County, Arizona. Arizona Bureau of
Mines: Tucson, Arizona. 1957.
33. Simonis, D. , and L. Rogler. Cultural Resources Survey for
the Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility. Bureau of Land
Management, Phoenix District Office: Phoenix, Arizona.
34. Fuller, S. L. The Archaeological Resources of the Rainbow-
Stanfield Planning Unit of the Bureau of Land Management.
Arizona State Museum: Phoenix, Arizona. 1975.
35. Fritz, G. L. The Archaeological Resources of the Kofa and
Little Horn Planning Units. Ariz. State Mus. Archaeol.
Ser. , No. 84. 1975.
36. Dobbins, E. Granite Reef Aqueduct and Transmission System
Project: A Cultural Resource Survey of Reach 3 of the
Granite Reef Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Interim
Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation: Phoenix, Arizona.
1978.
37. Wirth Associates, Inc. Cultural Resources: Archaeology.
Santa Rosa to Gi1 a Bend 230-kV Transmission System Envi-
ronmental Study, Phase I. 1982.
38. Berry, C. Archaeological Survey of Alternative Transmission
Line Corridors Between Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
and the Colorado River. Southern California Edison: Los
Angeles. 1978.
39. WESTEC Services, Inc. A Draft Report of the Cultural
Resources Inventory and National Register Assessment of the
Southern California Edison Palo Verde to Devers Transmission
Line Corridor (Arizona Portion). Salem, Oregon. 1981.
K-5
-------
APPENDIX L
CULTURAL RESOURCES: HISTORICAL
Historical resources, termed "sites" in this report, are
defined as the remains or locations of past events or cultural
processes. For the purposes of this EIS, a study area within 2
miles around each alternative site was delineated and included in
the study. In addition to specific references cited, the de-
scription of the affected historical resources was also based on
the Arizona Survey plats (1) and maps (2, 3, 4), as well as
recent environmental studies in the area (5, 6, 7).
Although the earliest documented history of Arizona dates
from 1539, when the Spanish explored the northern outposts of
their empire in North America, the first extended explorations of
the region did not take place until 1699, when the Jesuit mis-
sionary Father Eusebio Kino made expeditions to the Gila River.
Father Kino traversed the area from west to east over a trail
which would later serve as an overland route to California (8).
This trail, the Gila Trail, generally followed the southern banks
of the middle and lower Gila River (9). From the Pima Indian
villages or Maricopa Wells to Gila Bend, however, the trail left
the river (to avoid the big bend in the river southwest of pres-
ent-day Phoenix) and went west across the "forty-mile desert."
The Spanish made no settlements in the area because of raids
by the Apaches, with whom they did not make peace until about
1790 (8).
During the 1820's, southern Arizona became part of the newly
independent Republic of Mexico and at the same time part of the
United States frontier (10). The Apache, no longer quiescent,
forced Mexican ranchers and Spanish missionaries to flee into
present-day Mexico. This left the Gila River and other waterways
open to Anglo-American fur trappers, who reopened the Gila route
to Cali fornia (11).
The acquisition of California was the primary objective of
the U.S. in the war with Mexico, which was declared in 1846.
During the war, the Gila Trail became a military route and later
a wagon road that served as a crucial overland link between Cali-
fornia and the rest of the United States until 1877, when the
Southern Pacific Railroad reached the area (12, 13, 14).
Beginning in 1848, thousands of "Forty-Niners" made their
way to the California gold fields via the Gila Trail. The first
L-l
-------
permanent Anglo-American settlements were established in the gen-
eral area in the 1850's, and in 1857 a mail route between San
Antonio and San Diego was operating along the Gila Trail (11).
Eventually, the stage route (known as the Butterfield Stage)
operated along the Gila Trail intermittently, and stimulated some
development in the area (15). The first "rapid" communication
began in 1873 with the implementation of a military telegraph
system constructed along the Gila Trail between Maricopa Wells
and Gila Bend (16, 17), while private systems came into operation
much 1ater.
During the construction of the transcontinental railroad,
temporary camps for the laborers were set up along the tracks
(14). On a more permanent basis, the Southern Pacific Railraod
established sidetracks, way stations, and/or water and telegraph
stations at such sites as Mobile and Estrella (18). None of the
stage stations, however, were located in the study area.
The two principal establishments were Gila Bend Station and
Maricopa Wells (19). In 1881, the Gila Trai1/Butterfield Stage
Route was replaced by the completed railroad. The railroad al-
lowed secure development in the region by integrating the South-
west into the industrial economy of the nation. Its first effect
was to permit the large-scale exploitation of precious metal re-
sources, due to increased accessibility (20).
The first automobile roads in the area followed the tracks
of the Southern Pacific Railroad so that assistance could be ob-
tained in case of an emergency. Later, more direct routes were
established for automobiles and trucks (21, 22, 23).
During World War II, practice maneuvers were conducted in
the general vicinity of Harquahala and Ranegras Plains. Bunkers
have been recorded in the area.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. General Land Office. Survey Plats, 1869-1973. Bureau
of Land Management, Land Records Office, Phoenix, Arizona.
2. U.S. General Land Office. Territory of Arizona. Maps,
1879-1909. Map collection, University of Arizona and
Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona.
3. U.S. General Land Office. State of Arizona. Map col-
lection, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. 1921.
4. U.S. Geological Survey. Topographic quadrangles, 1915-
1981. Map collection, University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona.
5. Burkenroad, D. Cultural Resources: History. Santa Rosa-
Gila Bend 230-kV Transmission Line Environmental Study,
Phase I.
L-2
-------
6. Simonis, D. , and L. Rogler. Cultural Resources Survey for
Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility. Bureau of Land
Management, Phoenix District Office.
7. Wirth Associates, Inc. Cultural Resources: History. Santa
Rosa to Gila Bend 230-kV Transmission Line Project. Arizona
Public Service. 1982.
8. Bolton, E. , trans, and ed. Kino's Historical Memoir of
Pimeria Alta. Arthur Clark: Cleveland. 1948.
9. Bolton, H. E. Rim of Christendom. Russell and Russell: New
York, New York. 1960.
10. Ezell, P. H. The Maricopas: An Identification from Docu-
mentary Sources. Anthropol. Pap. Univ. Ariz., No. 6. 1963.
11. Wagoner, J. Early Arizona: Prehistory to Civil War.
University of Arizona Press: Tucson, Arizona. 1975.
12. Bieber, R. , ed. Exploring Southwestern Trails. Arthur
Clark: Glendale, California. 1938.
13. Emory, W. H. Notes of a Military Reconnaissance, from Fort
Leavenworth, in Missouri, to San Diego, in California,
Including Parts of the Arkansas, Del Norte and Gila Rivers.
Wendell and Van Benthuysen: Washington, D.C. 1848.
14. Faulk, 0. B. Destiny Road: The Gila Trail and the Opening
of the Southwest. Oxford University Press: New York, New
York. 1973.
15. Walker, H. P., and D. Bufkin. Historical Atlas of Ari-
zona. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, Oklahoma.
1979.
16. Rue, N. L. Words by Iron Wire: Construction of the Mili-
tary Telegraph in Arizona Territory, 1873-1877. M.A.
Thesis, University of Arizona. 1967.
17. Rue, N. L. Pesh-Bi-Yalti Speaks: White Man's Talking Wire
in Arizona. J. Ariz. Hist., 12:220-262. 1971.
18. Myrick, D. A Chapter in the Life of Raso: A Railroad Ghost
Town. J. Ariz. Hist., 17:363-374. 1976.
19. Conkling, R. , and M. Conkling. The Butterfield Overland
Mail. Arthur Clark: Glendale, California. 1947.
20. Stein, P. Early Homesteading: Unearthing the Past.
Countryside, 63:56-58. 1979.
21. Arizona Highway Department. Map of Arizona. Phoenix, Ari-
zona. 1928.
L-3
-------
22. Arizona Highways, 1929-1930. Maps on back covers, February
1929 and June 1930.
23. O'Connell, T. S. Highways in Review. Ariz. Highways, 13:3-
5, 18-20. 1934.
L-4
-------
APPENDIX M
CULTURAL RESOURCES: NATIVE AMERICAN
Native American tribes which inhabited and utilized the
study area in Rainbow Valley were the Maricopa, Papago, and Pima.
The Maricopa settled in the area following their move from the
Colorado River. The Pima entered the study area from their pri-
mary ancestral lands situated to the northeast, and the Papago
migrated from their traditional area to the south. Other tribes,
such as the Apache, entered the study area on occasion for pur-
poses of trade and in times of war. The Maricopa, Papago, and
Pima utilized resources in the Rainbow Valley for subsistence.
The surrounding Sierra Estrella and Maricopa Mountains were also
important resource areas. Both mountain ranges played an impor-
tant part in their religious heritage. There are remains of hab-
itation sites, rock art, and reliquaries in the mountains.
The Maricopa (collectively the Opa and Cocomaricopa) at one
time inhabited the lower Colorado River area. By the time of
contact with the Spanish, however, they had moved eastward
through the Kofa and Castle Dome Mountains to live along the Gila
River (1, 2). They inhabited the lands on both sides of the Gila
from Sacate and Pima Butte to Gila Crossing with most settlements
downstream from Sacate and eventually allied with the Pima (2,
3).
At the time of Spanish contact, the Uto-Aztecan-speaking
Pima were settled in the San Pedro Valley from the Tombstone area
to the Gila River, the Santa Cruz Valley from Tucson to Red Rock
and along both sides of the Gila River from the Casa Grande area
west to approximately present-day Gila Bend (4). Currently, the
Pima share three reservations with the Maricopa and Papago. Tra-
ditional Papago territory included the mountains south of the
Gila River from present-day Tucson west to the Yuma desert (5).
Although the Papago utilized resources along the lower Gila River
from prehistoric times, they did not settle in the study area
until the latter part of the nineteenth century, probably after
the Cocomaricopa abandoned the area and after the cessation of
Apache raids. Papago settlements centered in the Gila Bend
region. At one time, they occupied an area along the lower Gila
River. Their actual territory, however, was primarily south of
the International Border (6). The Papago are currently one of
the largest Native American tribes in Arizona. Most are situated
on one of the two Papago reservations, although they share sev-
eral others with the Pima and Maricopa. Other Papago live off
the reservations in both urban and rural areas.
M-l
-------
Tribal groups with a cultural heritage in the Harquahala and
Ranegras Plains include the Gila Pima, Maricopa, and Yavapai.
Agriculture, gathering, and hunting were pursued in the mountains
and deserts surrounding the study areas. Habitation sites,
trails, rock art, and reliquaries attest to tribal activities
here.
Archaeological remains and historic documentation attest to
Northern Piman-speaking peoples utilizing the desert between the
Gila River and Parker Valley from prehistoric times to the nine-
teenth century (7). The Gila Pima, whose settlements lay along
the Gila River, sustained themselves through the use of varied
floral, faunal , and mineral resources of this desert region.
Gila Pima professional traders passed through the study area via
Centennial Wash to Panya County (8). During historic times, the
western Apache and Mojave raided Gila River Pima settlements,
which restricted Gila Pima settlements and curtailed their utili-
zation of the Harquahala and Ranegras Plain regions by the end of
the seventeenth century.
During the same period, the Panya, a Maricopa minority liv-
ing among the Pima, already resided on the Lower Gila River down-
stream from its Great Bend (9, 10). They raised food crops on
sand bars flooded by spring rises of the Gila River, and acquired
abundant catches of fish from the stream. They also ranged out
over the desert to collect wild plant food products, particularly
the fruit of the giant cactus and prickly pear cacti, and to
obtain stone to fashion into various implements (11).
Historic evidence indicates that much of the Pima and Panya
traders' travel was by way of a major trail between the Parker
Valley and the Lower Gila River. The trail left what is now
called Parker Valley near Bill Williams Fork. It turned south-
west across the Harquahala Plain toward Saddle Mountain and the
Palo Verde Hills, which were landmarks to guide them via Centen-
nial Wash to the Lower Gila River on its Great Bend near the
present city of Arlington (12). This route took travelers across
the study areas.
In 1827, a tribe of the Mojave invaded Parker Valley and
defeated the Panya, who fled across the desert above the Great
Bend of the Gila River (2, 13). Their association with the study
areas may have begun no later than the seventeenth century, and
actual habitation ended between 1827 and 1846. As late as the
early 1850's, the Maricopa collected in-season fruits of giant
cacti on the "Gila Bend desert" (14).
The Yavapai, divided into Western, Northeastern, and South-
eastern groups are a Yuman-speaking people who inhabited a vast
territory from the Bradshaw and Mazatzal Mountains of central
Arizona west to the junction of the Gila and Colorado Rivers
(15). This tribal group entered the western lowland desert
region, finding freedom from invasion only during the second
quarter of the nineteenth century. After the Northern Band Panya
M-2
-------
exodus in 1827, and fin
neither Pimans nor othe
the advance of Yavapai
are located in the cent
Yavapai territory (1).
territory after 1850, i
resulted in hostilities
ejected from the study
return to the area, whi
significance to Yavapai
CONTACT PROGRAM SUMMARY
Person/Organization
Dr. Ned Anderson, President
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona
Ms. Joan Enos, President
Mohave-Apache Tribal Council
Fountain Hills, Arizona
Mr. Max Jose, Chairman
Gila Bend Indian Reservation
Gila Bend, Arizona
Mr. Max Norn's, Chairman
The Papago Tribe
Sells, Arizona
Mr. Dana North, Sr. , Governor
Gila River Indian Community
Sacaton, Arizona
Ms. Leona Kakar, Chairperson
Ak-Chin Indian Community Council
Maricopa, Arizona
Mr. Herschell Andrews, Chairman
Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Community
Scottsdale, Arizona
Mr. Llewellyn Barrackman,
Chai rman
Fort Mojave Tribal Council
Needles, California
al disruption of native trading routes,
r Yuman-speakers appear to have delayed
invasions of the desert. The study areas
er of traditional western, or Tolkepaya,
Euroamerican intrusion into Yavapai
nitially accepted by the Yavapai, soon
In 1875, the Yavapai were forcibly
area by U.S. troops. Few were able to
ch continues to hold considerable symbolic
indi vi duals.
Date
07-16-82
08-17-82
08-20-82
07-16-82
08-03-82
08-20-82
08-24-82
07-16-82
08-03-82
08-04-82
08-20-82
07-16-82
08-13-82
08-16-82
08-20-82
Medi urn
Letter
Letter
Letter
Letter
Telephone
Letter
Telephone
Letter
Telephone
Telephone
Letter
Letter
Telephone
Letter
Letter
07-16-82
08-03-82
08-05-82
08-20-82
08-24-82
08-04-82
08-13-82
08-20-82
Letter
Telephone
Telephone
Letter
Telephone
Letter
Telephone
Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
Subject
Project Description
Referrals
Mailing List
Project Description
Solicit Input
Mailing List
Message
Project Description
Message
Concerns
Mailing List
Project Description
Message
Tribal Resolution
Mailing List
Project Description
Message
Project
Mailing List
Concerns
Project Description
Concerns
Mailing List
Project Description
Project Description
M-3
-------
Mr. Melton Campbell, Chairman
Tonto Apache Tribe
Pay son, Arizona
Mr. Anthony Drennan , Sr., Chairman
Colorado River Indian Tribe
Parker, Arizona
Mr. Vincent Harvier, Chairman
Fort Yuma Quechan Tribal Council
Yuma, Arizona
Mr. Delbert Havatone, Chairman
Hualapai Tribal Council
Peach Springs, Arizona
Mr. Clark Jack, Jr., Chairman
White River Apache Tribe
White River, Arizona
Mr. Peter MacDonald, Chairman
The Navajo Tribe
Window Rock, Arizona
Ms. Patricia McGee, President
Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe
Prescott, Arizona
Mr. Fred Miller, Sr. , Chairman
Cocopah Indian Reservation
Somerton, Arizona
Mr. David G. Ramirez, Chairman
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Tucson, Arizona
Mr. Abbott Sekaquaptewa, Chairman
Hopi Tribal Council
Oraibi , Arizona
Mr. Ted Smith, Chairman
Camp Verde Yavapai-Apache
Camp Verde, Arizona
Mr. Bill Tom, Chairman
Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation
Fredonia, Arizona
Mr. Frank Fryman, Archaeologist
Arizona State Parks
Phoenix, Arizona
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
08-20-82 Letter
07-16-82
08-20-82
Letter
Letter
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
Project Description
M-4
-------
Ms. Pat Giorgio, Archaeologist 07-16-82 Letter Project Description
State Director's Office 08-20-82 Letter Project Description
Bureau of Land Management
Phoenix, Arizona
REFERENCES
1. Schroder, A. H. A Brief History of the Yavapai of the Mid-
dle Verde Valley. Plateau, 24(3 ): 111-118. 1952.
2 Spier, L. Yuman Tribes of the Gila River. Cooper Square
Publishers, Inc.: New York, New York. 1933.
3 Hackenberg, R. A. Aboriginal Land Use and Occupancy of the
Pima Maricopa Indian Community. Arizona State Museum
Library Archives: Tucson, Arizona. 1961.
4 Ezell, P. The Hispanic Acculturation of the Gila River
Pimas. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Memoir 90, 63(5), Part 2.
1961.
5 Russell, F. The Pima Indians. Twenty-Sixth Annual Report
of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1904-1905. U.S.
Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. 1908.
6 Childs, T. Sketch of the Sand Indians. The Kiva, 19:27-
39. 1954.
7 Dobyns, H. F. The Kohatk: Oasis and Ak Chin Horticultural-
ists. Ethnohist., 21 (4) : 317-327.
8 Dobyns, H. F., P. H. Ezell, and G. S. Ezell. Death of a
Society. Ethnohist., 10(2) : 105-161. 1963.
9 Bolton, H. E. , trans, and ed. Kino's Historical Memoir of
Pimeria Alta. University of California Press: Berkeley,
Cali fornia. 1919.
10 Burrus, E. S. J. Kino and Manje: Explorers of Sonora and
Arizona. In: Sources and Studies for the History of the
Americas. Vol. 2. Jesuit Historical Institute: St. Louis,
Mi ssouri. 1971.
11 Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and
the Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line. Cul-
tural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park: California.
1978.
12 Ezell, P. The Cocomaricopa Mail. Brand Book Number One.
R. Brandes, ed. San Diego Corrall of the Westerners, San
Diego , Cali forni a. 1968.
M-5
-------
13 Kroeber, A. L. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bur-
eau of American Ethnology, Bulletin No. 78. Smithsonian
Institution: Washington, D.C. 1925.
14 Cremony , J. C. Life Among the Apaches. A. Roman and
Company: San Francisco, California (Arizona Silhouettes:
Tucson, Arizona, 1951). 1868.
15 Gifford, E. W. Northeastern and Western Yavapai. Univ.
Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol. Ethnol., 34(4):247-354.
M-6
-------
APPENDIX N
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
The assessment of the risks from transporting hazardous
waste materials is limited to examining the risks from shipping
wastes from the Phoenix and Tucson areas to each of the three
sites. Data on the volume of wastes generated in Arizona and the
amount transported off site to treatment facilities are available
through the ADHS (1, 2). According to the available data and
interviews with state officials, approximately 75 percent of the
wastes to be transported will be from the Phoenix metropolitan
area, and 12 percent from Tucson. Thus, the risk analysis
represents an assessment of nearly 90 percent of total wastes in
Arizona to be transported to the proposed hazardous waste man-
agement faci1ity .
The risk assessment used the State of Arizona's estimate
that 5 million gallons per year of wastes will be shipped intra-
state from the Phoenix area (3). The average volume of wastes
per trip was estimated to be 2,500 gallons. Therefore, approxi-
mately 2,000 trips per year would originate from Phoenix and 320
trips annually from Tucson, based on an estimated 0.8 million
gallons per year of shipped wastes.
The risk analysis followed these steps:
0 Identification of routes. Likely routes from the two
metropolitan areas to the proposed sites were identi-
fied. For each generation-destination path, a number of
feasible alternative routes were selected for analysis.
• Determination of Accident Rate. For segments of each
alternative route, the accident rate (number of accidents
per million vehicle miles) was determined, using the
accident statistics (4, 5).
• Determination of Accident Probability of Hazardous Waste
Shi pment^ The accident rate (accidents per 1,000 vehicle
miles) Tor each alternative route was first calculated.
The probability (P) of a transit-related accident involv-
ing a hazardous waste carrier (number of accidents
expected per year) was then determined by:
P(accident segment i) = x^ X 1
N-l
-------
where:
xi = the segment accident rate (ace/vehicle mile)
1 = the segment length in miles.
The risk assessment of transporting hazardous wastes was based on
estimating the probabilities of accidents of hazardous waste
carriers. Due to the lack of reliable data, the analysis did not
consider probabilities of spills from carriers in nonaccident
situations. Thus, the assessment may underestimate the level of
ri sk.
• Determination of the Population Risk Factor. This risk
factor can be defined as the product of the probability
of an accident occurring and the exposure of hazards to
the population if it does occur. The determination of
transit-related risks involves the probability of a haz-
ardous waste accident on a particular route times the
populati on at risk (6).
The determination of the consequences of transit-related
hazardous waste incidents (an occurrence which results in an
unintentional release of hazardous material in transit) along a
designated route is related to the types of material transported,
the density of the population, emergency response characteristics
(location/timing of occurrence, preparedness, and other related
factors). Thus far, no relationship between the damage (conse-
quences) and amounts spilled have been established using national
statistics. Thus, the assessment of potential accident impacts
was based on an evaluation of the distances that would likely be
affected by hazardous waste spills. Table N-l shows the impact
area for hazardous waste spills by class. However, a hazardous
waste spill may pose health hazards for longer distances, depend-
ing on the chemical, its concentration, and wind conditions.
Population along the alternative routes was measured using
data from the 1980 Census Enumeration Districts (ED's) within
impact areas in which population could be affected by a chemical
release. While the ED's did not always conform to the potential
impact area boundaries (they were often larger), in those cases,
population at risk was estimated by evaluating settlement pat-
terns and population densities, and taking a proportional share
of population from the ED's.
Population within the Tucson and Phoenix impact areas was
estimated on the assumption that 5,000 people would be exposed to
risk per mile of interstate travel from the center of the cities
(3). Lastly, the accident probability was multiplied by the
estimated population in the impact area along the alternative
routes to determine the population risk factor from which indivi-
dual routes can be compared.
N-2
-------
TABLE N-l. POTENTIAL IMPACT AREA BY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PLACARD CLASS
Class
Combustible Liquid
Flammable Liquid
Flammable Solid
Oxi di zer
Poi son
Explosi ves
Corros ive
Impact Area
0.5 mi (0.8 km) all directions
0.5 mi (0.8 km) all directions
0.5 mi (0.8 km) all directions
0.5 mi (0.8 km) all directions
Downwind 0.2 mi (0.3 km) wide x 0.3 mi
(0.5 km) 1ong
0.5 mi (0.8 km) all directions
Downwind 0.5 mi (0.8 km) long x 0.7 mi
(1.1 km) wide
* Source: Reference 7
N-3
-------
REFERENCES
1. Arizona Department of Health Services. Arizona Hazardous
Waste Statistics. June 1982.
2. Arizona Department of Health Services. Findings and Results
of the Arizona Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Survey. March
1982.
3. Arizona Department of Health Services. Report to the Ari-
zona Legislature Regarding Site of a Statewide Hazardous
Waste Disposal Facility. Appendix E. January 1981.
4. Arizona Department of Transportation. Personal Communi-
cation. August 1982.
5. Arizona Department of Transportation. Traffic on the Ari-
zona Highway System. 1981.
6. Urbanek, 6., and E. Barber. Development of Criteria to
Designate Routes for Transporting Hazardous Materials.
Federal Highway Administration. September 1980.
7. U.S. Department of Transportation. Hazardous Materials
Emergency Response Guide.
N-4
-------
APPENDIX 0
NOISE
SOUND MEASUREMENT
Sound is measured
Noise measurements are
perceived by the human
measurements, or dBA.
the change represented
greater than it would
in units called decibels, abbreviated dB.
often weighted to better reflect sound as
ear; these are referred to as "A-weighted"
Because the decibel scale is logarithmic,
by the difference between dB numbers is
be on a linear scale. On the decibel
scale, 90 is one-tenth the sound pressure of 100 dB, 80 is one-
one hundredth the sound pressure of 100 dB, 70 is one-one
thousandth the sound pressure, and so on. Typical noise levels
are shown in Figure 0-1.
ATTENUATION OF SOUND
di stance. In
Sound levels decrease, or attenuate, over distance. in a
uniform environment, where the sound, or "propagation," path is
homogeneous, sound will generally decrease 6 dB for each doubling
of distance (1). Thus, if a source emits sound at a level of 85
dB measured at 100 feet, the sound level at 200 feet would be 79
dB; at 400 feet it would be 73 dB; and so forth. The rate of
attenuation can be lower, depending on how sound spreads from the
source (2). The actual level of decrease over distance in a
specific situation also varies according to such factors as:
The amount of sound absorbed by the earth1
atmosphere, or objects in the propagation
s surface,
path.
the
• The amount of sound reflected by objects in the propaga-
ti on path.
• Weather conditions.
OSHA NOISE STANDARDS
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
set national standards designed to protect employees against
hearing loss caused by long-term exposure to high sound levels in
the work en vi rorrmen.t. These standards, presented in Table 0-1,
vary according to t'he amount of time the individual is exposed to
the sound.
0-1
-------
SOUND LEVELS AND HUMAN RESPONSE
COMMON SOUNDS
NOISE
LEVEL
(DB)
bH-fcCT
CARRIER DECK JET OPERATION|
AIR RAID SIREN
140
130
PAINFULLY LOUD
JET TAKEOFF (200 FT)| THUNDER- 120
CLAP I DISCOTHEQUE) AUTO HORN
(3 FT)
PILE DRIVERS 110
MAXIMUM VOCAL hH-UKI
GARBAGE TRUCK
100
HEAVY TRUCK (50 FT)| CITY 90
TRAFFIC
ALARM CLOCK (2 FT)| HAIR DRYER 80
VERY ANNDYINGt HEARING
DAMAGE (8 HR)
ANNOYING
NOISY RESTAURANT| FREEWAY 70
TRAFFICi MAN'S VOICE (3 FT)
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT (20 FT) 60
TELEPHONE USE DIFFICULT
INTRUSIVE
LIGHT AUTO TRAFFIC (100 FT)
SO
QUIET
LIVING ROOM| BEDROOMl QUIET 40
OFFICE
LIBRARYi SOFT WHISPER (15 FT)
30
VERY QUIET
BROADCASTING STUDIO
20
10
JUST AUDIBLE-
HEARING BEGINS
SOURCEt "NOISE AND ITS MEASUREMENT." U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY. FEBRUARY 1977.
Figure 0-1. Typical noise levels
0-2
-------
TABLE 0-1. MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE NOISE EXPOSURES FOR PERSONS
WORKING IN NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Duration Per Day
(Hours) Sound Level (dBA)
8 90
5 92
4 95
3 97
2 100
1.5 102
1 105
0.5 110
0.25 or less 115
0-3
-------
COMMUNITY NOISE
Outside of environments subject to consistently high levels
of noise (such as some industrial work settings), noise problems
generally relate to stress, annoyance, sleep disturbance, and
interference with normal activities, rather than hearing loss (2,
3). Noise-related stress and annoyance vary widely from indivi-
dual to individual and according to the particular circumstances.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHOD
Facility Noise
In order to determine the impact noise generated at the
facility might have on facility workers and nearby communities,
noise measurements were reviewed, for an operating hazardous waste
facility. Ambient noise levels throughout the facility were
found to be substantially below the levels permitted under the
OSHA standards (4). The results of this study are given in Table
0-2.
Although the ambient noise levels were found to be below
OSHA standards, various machines used during construction and
operation of the facility could generate noise at levels up to 95
dBA at close range (5). Table 0-3 shows typical noise levels of
such equipment measured at 50 feet. It should be noted that, due
to the attenuation of noise over distance, the level emitted by
the worst noise generator at one facility fell from 95 dBA at 50
feet to 69 dBA at 1,000 feet.
It is assumed that the highest noise level at the facility
will be 95 dBA measured at 50 feet; attenuation at a rate of 6
decibels for every doubling of distance would then result in a
noise level of 47 decibels at a distance of 12,800 feet (2.42
miles). Assuming the background noise levels in the three areas
addressed in this EIS are typical of rural areas, 40 to 45 dB
(3), noise generated at the facility should blend into the
background noise at a distance of 2 to 4 miles.
Traffi c Noi se
Table 0-3 shows typical noise ranges for trucks and automo-
biles. The major source of traffic noise at the facility would
be trucks; during the operating life of the facility, 2,500
truckloads of waste are expected annually. Assuming the facility
* The ambient noise level is the overall noise level within a
given area, as opposed to the specific noise level emitted by
a particular noise source within that area.
0-4
-------
TABLE 0-2. L1Q NOISE LEVELS AT SELECTED KEY PROCESS POINTS
THROUGHOUT THE SCA MODEL CITY (NEW YORK) FACILITY (4)
Locati on
L1Q Noise Level (dBA)
Sanitary Landfill No. 7
63
*1°
Drum Handl i ng Area
Receiving Lagoons
Redox Processing Area
Distillation Processing Center
Plant Entrance
Balmer Road
is the noise level exceeded 10% of the time.
L10 = 63 d means tnat Lio = 63 dBA witn limits of 59 dBA
and 73 dBA.
0-5
-------
TABLE 0-3. TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET (7)
Equlpment dBA (at 50 feet)
Automobi1es :
Passenger Cars 68 to 78
Sports and High Performance 70 to 87
Economy and Compact 70 to 80
Imported 70 to 80
Trucks :
Light 70 to 85
Medi urn 80 to 89
Heavy Duty 85 to 95
Earth Movi ng:
Compactors (Rollers) 75
Front Loaders 70 to 85
Backhoes 70 to 90
Tractors 75 to 95
Scrapers 88
Graders 85
Pavers 90
Dozers 80
Materi als Handli ng :
Concrete Mixers 75 to 90
Concrete Pumps 85
Cranes (moveable) 77 to 90
Cranes (derri ck) 90
0-6
-------
operates 6 days per week, 8 hours a day, an average of one truck
per hour would enter the facility. This volume of truck traffic
would not be expected to increase the ambient noise levels along
the access roads over a 24-hour period. The trucks would, how-
ever, cause intermittent noise intrusions which could be signifi-
cantly higher than background noise levels along the roads. Such
intrusions could be a nuisance or annoyance factor for exposed
individuals.
Speech interference outdoors could be an indicator of the
nuisance or annoyance impact of the truck traffic. Two persons
speaking to each other outdoors at a distance of 2 meters (a
little less than 6 feet) can effectively talk in normal voices if
the background noise level is about 60 dBA or less (PS-36). Us-
ing a typical peak noise level for a medium- or heavy-duty truck
of 84 dB (6) and assuming the same attenuation rate of 6 dB for
every doubling of distance, the peak noise levels of a truck
passing by could affect outdoor conversation within a range of
600 to 700 feet of the road. Again, this would vary according to
the various factors affecting noise attenuation as well as the
particular noise level generated by the particular vehicles.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
U.S. Envi ronmental
ment and Control .
Protection Agency. Office of Noise Abate.
About Sound. May 1976.
Michaels, P. L., W. T. Achor, G. R. Bienvenue, D. M. Dejoy,
R. L. Kerlin, A. H. Kohut, and J. H. Prout. Community Noise
Fundamentals. Pennsylvania State University College of Edu-
cation. March 1976.
3.
U.S. Envi ronmental
ment and Control.
si on of EPA Levels
1978.
Protecti on
Protect i ve
Document.
Agency, Office of Noise Abate-
Noise Levels: Condensed Ver-
EPA 550/9-79-100. November
6.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Operations Report for the SCA Chemical Waste Services, Inc.
Model City, New York Facility. 1929.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Proposed Secure Chemical Management
Facilities No. 4 and No. 5 at CECOS International, Inc.
1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Document
for Medium and Heavy Truck Noise Emission Regulations. EPA
550/9-76-008. March 1976.
Kerbec, M. J., et al. The Impact
Socio-Technological Introduction.
York, New York.
of Noise Pollution:
Pergamon Press, Inc
New
SPO SS9-315/131
S/IJ
0-7
------- |