Final
Environmental
impact
Statement
Greater Globe-Miami, Arizona
Wastewater Treatment Project
April 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
GREATER GLOBE-MIAMI
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT
EPA-9-AZ-GILA-Globe-Regional WWTP-76
April 30, 1976
Prepared By
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
With Technical Assistance By
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, CA 95814
In Association With
Don Owen & Associates
and
Gruen Gruen + Associates
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
-------
CHAPTER III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT —
FACILITIES 55
Introduction 55
Factors Influencing Alternative Development 55
Regionalization 57
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures 59
Proposed Facilities Common to All Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 58
Wastewater Management Options 60
Possible Alternatives 60
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives 62
Treatment Plant Site Options 71
Implementation Options — Financing
and Organization 74
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 76
Alternative 0 76
Alternative 1A 80
Alternative IB 83
Alternative 1C 83
Alternative 2A 86
Alternative 2B 88
Alternative 3 88
Alternative 4 90
Alternative 5 94
Summary 95
CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF THE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS 99
Introduction 99
Impacts Common to All Alternative Plans 99
Short-Term Impacts 99
Long-Term Direct Impacts 101
Long-Term Secondary Impacts 102
Impacts that Vary Among the Alternatives no
Biological Resources 112
Geology and Soils 113
Water Resources 114
Social 117
Public Health 121
Aesthetics 123
Financial 123
Land Use 125
Impacts of No Action • 126
-------
CHAPTER V. THE RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PLAN 129
Alternative Review and Selection 129
The Recommended Plan - Alternative 2A 131
Additional Study Results - Suitability of
Effluent Disposal Ponds 133
Globe Area 134
Miami Area 135
Flood Hazard 135
Globe Ponds 136
Miami Ponds 137
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 138
Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment vs.
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term
Productivity 139
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources 140
CHAPTER VI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ISSUES TO
BE RESOLVED 141
CHAPTER VII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 143
GLOSSARY 219
REFERENCES 221
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 225
APPENDICES 229
-------
SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Draft ( )
Final ( x )
GREATER GLOBE-MIAMI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT
EPA-9-AZ-GILA-GLOBE-REGIONAL WWTP-76
Prepared by: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest, Region IX
San Francisco, California 94111
Type of Action: Administrative
Date Available to CEQ and the Public: May 1976
Description of Project
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) encompasses
the description and evaluation of eight viable wastewater
treatment facilities plans to provide modern, comprehensive
wastewater treatment and disposal for the Globe-Miami area,
Gila County, Arizona. From among these plans, the alternative
expanding the aerated lagoon treatment and percolation pond
disposal systems at the existing Globe and Miami treatment
sites is recommended as most suitable for the region.
The character and content of planning for regional waste-
water management programs and the environmental setting for
this area are presented in this EIS. These conditions
establish the basis for determining and evaluating alter-
native wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Nine
-------
alternative projects, including the no action alternative,
are considered, and they include both regional and sub-
regional sewage treatment systems which are evaluated from
both environmental and economic viewpoints.
Analysis of the environmental, social and economic effects
of the alternatives resulted in Alternative 2A being recom-
mended as the most cost-effective and least environmentally
damaging. Alternative 2A uses the existing Globe and Miami
treatment sites to provide treatment and disposal to these
two incorporated areas through a system of aerated lagoons
and percolation ponds. Raw sewage from Globe, Miami and
serviceable unincorporated areas would be conveyed by gravity
flow from the major collection systems to the treatment sites,
The existing City of Globe, Cobre Valley Sanitary District
plant would be retained in service as would other small treat-
ment plants now operating in the area. These individual
plants may connect to either the City of Globe or Town of
Miami sewerage systems by agreement with an incorporated
entity. The recently-constructed interceptor would be
abandoned. Treated effluent would be discharged into ponds
where it would percolate into the groundwater system.
Groundwater in this area mixes with the subterranean flow
moving north to the Salt River. Alternative 2A has a 20-
year period 1976 present worth of $2,499,800. The sewage
treatment and disposal needs of the incorporated and local
improvement district areas could be served until beyond 1990.
Impacts of Project
Environmental impacts will occur during implementation of
the treatment plants and sewage conveyance systems. Except
for impacts associated with construction activities, most
impacts are not common to all alternatives because of dif-
ferent facilities locations and treatment processes. The
major direct adverse environmental effects among all alterna-
tives are related to soil disturbances and the discharge of
treated wastewater; groundwater surfacing in Alternatives
1C, 2A and 5; nuisance insect production in Alternatives IB,
1C, 2A, 2B and 3; and land use conversions in Alternatives
1A, IB, 1C and 3. Energy consumption is highest in Alterna-
tives 1A, 2B and 4; and capital construction and operational
costs are highest in Alternatives 1A, IB and 4. Alternative
2A is judged to have the least adverse impact on local
residents.
-------
Secondary environmental impacts relating to growth will occur.
A considerable part of the service area is presently sewered,
but new collection systems will eventually service most of the
incorporated area. Annexation or the formation of local
improvement districts is expected to expand the service area.
Population growth inducement will probably occur as a result
of the project in areas where the lack of suitable sewerage
is presently a constraint. Growth has been constrained
because sewage treatment and disposal is in violation of state
and federal standards. Other secondary effects (i.e., in-
creased energy and resource consumption, increased traffic,
decreased air quality and land use conversions) will occur
with population growth.
In addition to the mitigation of aesthetic degradations and
potential hazards to public health, the major beneficial
impacts that result from improving and upgrading sewage
treatment and disposal are more orderly growth and economic
development, any resultant increased employment, and compli-
ance with current water pollution control plans and standards.
Alternatives
Nine alternatives and sub-alternatives, including the present
sewage treatment plants (no action), were described, evalu-
ated and discussed in this draft EIS. They are:
Alternative
5Retention of the existing wastewater treatment and
disposal systems.
1A A regional activated sludge treatment plant located
near the confluence of Miami Wash and Final Creek
with disposal of the treated effluent to the copper
industry.
IB A regional activated sludge treatment plant located
near the confluence of Miami Wash and Final Creek
with disposal by spraying on U. S. Forest Service
land.
1C A regional activated sludge treatment plant located
near the confluence of Miami Wash and Final Creek
with direct disposal to Final Creek.
2A Aerated lagoons located at the existing Miami and
Globe treatment plant sites with disposal to perco-
lation ponds.
-------
2B Aerated lagoons located at the existing Miami and
Globe treatment plant sites with disposal by spraying
on U. S. Forest Service land.
3 A regional aerated lagoon treatment plant located
near Pringle Springs with disposal to percolation
ponds.
4 A regional activated sludge treatment plant located
on Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company property
with either reuse by the copper company or disposal
to adjacent company lands.
5 A regional aerated lagoon treatment plant located
near the existing Miami treatment plant with dis-
posal to percolation ponds.
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
Office of Federal Activities
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Water Program Operations, Oil & Special
Materials Control Division
Office of Legislation
Enviranatental Protection Agency, Region IX
Office of External Relations
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Flace, NW
Washington, r. C. 20006
Eepartaent of the Interior
Pacific Southwest Region
P. 0. Box 36098
45C Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Region IX
50 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
0. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Garth A. Fuquay
Chief, Engineering Division
P. O. Box 2711
Lcs Angeles, CA 90053
U.S.D.A. - Soil Conservation Service
Attn: John K. Peterson
Federal Building, Room 6029
230 North First Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85025
STATE AGENCIES
Arizona Department of Health Services
Bureau of Water Quality Control
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
State Clearinghouse
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1707
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Arizona Department of Transportation
Highways Division
Attn: Mason J. Toles
206 South Seventeenth Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Northern Arizona Council of Governments
P. O. Box 57
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Salt River Project
1521 Project Drive
Tempe, AZ 85281
LOCAL AGENCIES
Gila County Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 1043
Globe, AZ 85501
City of Globe
Attn: Mayor G. M. Williams
150 North Pine
Globe, AZ 85501
City Council
City of Globe
150 North Pine
Globe, AZ 85501
Lionel Blair, City Manager
City of Globe
150 North Pine
Globe, AZ 85501
Ms. Katie Weimer
Mayor, Town of Miami
500 Sullivan Street
Miami, AZ 85539
Gene Miller, City Manager
Town of Miami
509 Sullivan Street
Miami, AZ 85539
Town Council
Town of Miami
500 Sullivan Street
Miami, AZ 85539
LEGISLATORS
Honorable Barry Goldwater
0. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515
Honorable Paul J. Fannin
U. S. Senate
Washington, D. C. 20515
-------
Honorable John J. Rhodes
V, S. House of Representatives
Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Honorable Sam Steiger
U. S. House of Representatives
Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Honorable Morris K. Udall
U. S. House of Representatives
Longworth House Office Building
Washington,,D. C. 20515
Honorable John B. Conlan
0. S. House of Representatives
Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Honorable A. V. Hardt
State Senator, Gila County
12 North Broad Street
Globe, AZ 85501
Honorable Paul Castro
Governor, State of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Honorable Edward D. Guerrero
House of Representatives
House Wing, Capitol Bldg.
Phoenix, AZ 8500.7
PUBLIC INSPECTION LOCATIONS
Charles W. Buster
Associate Editor
Arizona Silver Belt
P. O. Box 31
Globe, AZ 85501
The Arizona Republic Newspaper
120 East Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Library
Old Dominion Library
Globe, AZ 85501
Linda K. Verges, Librarian
Arizona Office of Economic Planning
and Development
Phoenix, AZ 85007
CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Or. C. A. Bejarano
Superintendent of Public Works
Gila County
P. 0. Drawer L
315 East Broad Street
Claypool, AZ 85532
C. T. Brown, General Manager
Cities Service Company
Box 100
Miami, AZ 85539
Stephen L. Bixby
P. O. Box 311
Globe, AZ 85501
John Carollo Engineers
Attni Don Priesler
3308 North Third Street
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Dr. Robert Gumerman
Don Owen & Associates
2232 SE Bristol, Suite 206
Newport Beach, CA 927.07
Dr. Charles R. Hazel
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, CA 95814
Johnson, Shelley and Roberta
Attns J. Lamar Shelley
48 North MacDonald Street
Mesa, AZ 85201
J. G. Kuhn
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company
Inspiration, AZ 85537
Hal Marron
4532 Birchwood
Seal Beach, CA
90740
-------
Roberta Mundie
Gruen Gruen + Associates
564 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Pace Engineering, Inc.
55 East Weldon
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Mitchel D. Platt
Platt and Platt
P. 0. Box 398
St. Johns, AZ 85936
Phil Sawaia
Box 3
Gloo<>, AK 85501
John W. Stansel
Toups Corporation
4131 North 24th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Ms. Julia Steinke
Box 172
Miami, AZ 85539
Douglas MaeKay
918 North Aurora
Ithaca, KY 14850
Eva Marie Setka and Family
P. 0. Box 1081
Globe, AZ 85501
Laurie J. Vitt
Office of Research Grants
and Contracts
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85281
David E. Creighton, Jr.
P. 0. Box 1548
Phoenix, AZ 85001
Annie S. Koury
615 West Florida
Holbrook, AZ 86025
Edward Koury
3 Heather Road
Elliott, ME 03903
Bob Hampton
Patio Park Mobile Rome Park
Claypool, AZ 85532
Mr. George Larson, Councilman
691 Monroe
Globe, AZ 85501
Mr. Luis Aguirre, Councilman
136 Haskins Road
Globe, AZ 85501
Mr. George B. Ollson, Councilman
P. 0. Box 534
Globe, AZ 85501
Mr. Lynn M. Sheppard
County Suoervisor
P. 0. Box 2625
Globe, AZ 85501
Donald E. Weaver, Jr.
James Schoenwetter
Department of Anthropology
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85281
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Objectives
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
all federal agencies which propose actions that would signi-
ficantly affect the quality of the human environment to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these actions. The
EIS is intended to be a "full disclosure" of impacts which
would result from a project or action, and must follow speci-
fic guidelines established by the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ). In the selection of a wastewater facilities
plan, it is not the intent of NEPA that alternatives be evalu-
ated and a plan selected or rejected on the basis of environ-
mental considerations alone, but rather that the planning
process consider all significant environmental, social, and
monetary costs.
Because the Greater Globe-Miami regional wastewater project
can be 75 percent funded by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) as a part of the Construction Grants Program
authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amend-
ments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), it requires NEPA action. After
consideration of environmental, social and cost impacts, it
was decided by EPA to prepare an EIS that would encompass all
wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives that seem
appropriate for the area.
The EIS objective is to resolve issues of public controversy
that have arisen from the previously proposed Globe-Miami
project. This EIS, following the guidelines of the NEPA,
will objectively evaluate all feasible combinations of project
alternatives and determine which is considered the recommended
project. All relevant monetary, social and environmental
effects will be included in the analysis.
Data for this EIS has been compiled from various existing
studies of the Globe-Miami area, numerous personal conversations
with involved individuals and additional studies conducted by
the EIS consultant. A complete listing of references is in the
Bibliography.
The EIS process encourages public input into the decision-
making process. This EIS was prepared in draft form and
widely circulated for public comment. Announcements in the
-------
local press and a public hearing were used to solicit
responses. After a 45-day public comment period, all replies
were addressed and the final decision of a recommended project
is published in this Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Area Affected
The regional setting for the Greater Globe-Miami wastewater
project is Gila County, Arizona, about 90 miles east of
Phoenix and located as shown in Figure 1. (A detailed
description of the area is given in the chapter covering
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING).
Present Situation
Sewage treatment for Globe and Miami is presently provided
by raw sewage lagoons, an activated sludge plant for the Cobre
Valley Sanitary District, individual treatment plants for a
shopping center, hospital, trailer park and school, and septic
tanks in unincorporated areas. The sewage lagoons serving
Globe and Miami are totally inadequate to handle present loads
and furthermore, they do not comply with P.L. 92-500 and EPA
regulations which require secondary level treatment by 1977.
In addition to not complying to EPA regulations and being
environmentally unacceptable for aesthetic and public health
reasons, the inadequacies probably affect growth in the two
communities.
Except for the unincorporated residential and business develop-
ments connected to the Cobre Valley Sanitary District treat-
ment plant near Central Heights, individual units are in use,
many of which are reportedly inadequate. The matter of main-
tenance of individual systems and disposal of septic wastes
is a continuing problem. Numerous complaints relating to
septic tank failures have been made to the County Department
of Public Health. Soil conditions in upland areas are often
undesirable for septic tanks because of high clay content,
depth and slope.
10
-------
IIO°50'
53°30' -
JS'IS1
•.. *>-»PringI» Pump Station
V..
CENTRAL <
HE/etrrs
MIDLAND
HUUt :l CITY
ttftDE,
T.R-Toilings Pond
FIGURE I: STUDY AREA
-------
Background
Problems engendered by sewage were under community consider-
ation for some time before 1972. By resolution of their
governing bodies in 1972, the City of Globe, County of Gila,
Town of Miami and Cobre Valley Sanitary District agreed to
enter into intergovernmental contracts to participate in the
costs and benefits of a sewerage project to be known as the
Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project. The City of Globe is
the lead agency.
Subsequent to these community decisions, the Inspiration
Consolidated and Cities Service Copper Companies, by letter,
tentatively agreed to participate on a limited basis by using
treated wastewater in their operations.
The foregoing agency actions relate to data and information
contained in two wastewater facilities plans prepared by
John Carollo Engineers. Their Globe-Miami area wastewater
report (1971) encompasses a study of the area's sewerage and
sewage disposal situation with recommendations concerning
regional organization, a grant application and facilities
including gravity trunk sewers, the outfall sewer, two pressure
mains, three lift stations and an activated sludge treatment
plant. The 1972 report concerns the determination of sewer
improvement districts, costs for special features of the pro-
ject, and a breakdown of costs to the various areas.
An application for federal assistance was implemented on
October 31, 1972, for a project estimated to cost $3,964,000
with the shared costs amounting to: EPA, $2,973,000; Arizona,
$396,400; and applicants, $594,600. The project period was
to be from November 2, 1972 to November 5, 1975. During
December 1972, EPA prepared an Environmental Assessment and
determined that the proposed project "will not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment". A grant offer
according to the application was made by EPA to Globe. Addi-
tional planning and design of the project proceeded during
1973-75 and the Phase I interceptor was constructed from the
present Globe sewage lagoon to the confluence of Miami Wash
and Final Creek.
During 1973-74, actions on the part of Miami, the County and
individual residents of the lower Final Creek area also known
as Wheatfields, have caused withholding work on the treatment
plant portion of the project implemented by the City of Globe.
In the period before October 1973, the parties to the original
12
-------
agreement for the wastewater project were unable to come to
contractual understanding, and Miami and Gila County ceased
to participate in the project. By resolution Globe decided
to proceed alone and the Cobre Valley Sanitary District
decided to join with Globe. Miami retained a sanitary
engineering consultant to study the situation and advise
them as to their best course of action to alleviate their
violation of EPA regulations.
At least one public meeting on the Greater Globe-Miami project
had been conducted by the City of Globe — January 31, 1973?
however, the text of the minutes of the meeting indicates that
it was called "to acquaint major firms in the area with the
status of the areawide sewage plans" (Anderson, 1974).
Since 1973, several significant events have occurred which
resulted in the cessation of the project and the preparation
of this environmental statement. In July citizens living in
the vicinity of and north of the proposed wastewater treatment
plant site (Wheatfields), located near the confluence of Miami
Wash and Final Creek, objected to this location, to the lack of
public hearings on the project and to certain technical matters.
Dr. C. A, Bejarano wrote EPA (July 19, 1974) to explain his
concerns and Mr. Stephen L, Bixby, Dr. Bejarano, et.al., filed
a complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona to enjoin pro-
ceeding with the treatment plant at the proposed location.
Subsequently, the Arizona Department of Health Services issued
a notice of public meeting to be held on November 22, 1974, in
the City Hall of Globe, Arizona, to obtain comments and opinions
on the proposed location of the Globe wastewater treatment
facility. Mr. Bixby and Dr. Bejarano read statements of their
concerns at this meeting.
The comments of a member of the County Board of Supervisors,
Lynn Sheppard, regarding the treatment plant location were
sent to the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) on
November 24, 1974. This letter pointed out that a petition
containing about 300 names of residents living north of the
site was presented to the County Board of Supervisors pro-
testing the plant location. Supervisor Sheppard was concerned
with the effects of this location on future growth and liability
for damage suits.
The complaint of Mr. Bixby, et.al., was heard in the Gila
County Superior Court and found that EPA regulations had been
violated; however, an injunction was not granted for the reason
that EPA was an indispensible party to the action. Mr. M, D.
Platt, Attorney for Mr. Bixby, wrote EPA requesting that they
at least withhold further work on the project.
13
-------
On March 10, 1975, EPA notified the Mayor of the City of
Globe that further construction grants would be withheld
and that EPA would prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
In June 1975, EPA cited to the ADHS the issues that must be
resolved before proceeding with the Greater Globe-Miami
wastewater project. In August the city was authorized to
proceed with the Phase II interceptor because it did not
influence the treatment facility type or location, but with
the provision that no new services could be connected.
In September 1975 a contract was let by EPA to Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc., of Sacramento, California, to prepare the
Environmental Impact Statement in a 30-week period. An
Official Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement was sent by EPA, using OMB-A-95 procedures, to all
interested governmental agencies, public groups and concerned
individuals on October 28, 1975.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was distributed in
January 1976. A public hearing was held in two sessions on
February 18, 1976 in Globe, Arizona. The transcript of these
hearings and written comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement received by EPA were considered and responded
to in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Alternative
3 was selected as the recommended regional plan in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. As a result of information
supplied to EPA during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
review period, the recommended facilities plan was changed to
Alternative 2A. The reasons for this change are stated in
Chapter V.
No administrative action will be taken by EPA during the 30
days following the publishing and distribution of this Final
Environmental Impact Statement. EPA considers this document
to describe the project eligible for 75 percent federal funding
under PL 92-500. The EPA may supplement or amend the environ-
mental statement sometime in the future if substantial changes
are made in the proposed action or significant new information
becomes available concerning its environmental aspects.
14
-------
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
General Features
Location
The Globe-Miami area is located about 90 miles east of Phoenix
on Highway 60 (Figure 1). This area is surrounded by the
Tonto National Forest and the San Carlos Indian Reservation.
Globe and Miami are incorporated while other communities shown
in Figure 1 are not. Most residential and commercial develop-
ment borders the major highways and county roads. The
Inspiration and Cities Service Copper Companies are the major
land owners and employers in the area. The elevation range is
from 3,000 to 4,500 feet. Most of the area is drained by Final
Creek, located in the Salt River basin; however, a portion of
the City of Globe drains southeasterly to the Gila River.
Climate
The climate of Globe and Miami is characterized by hot summers
and cool winters. Climatological data for Globe and Miami are
shown in Table 1. The slight difference in climate between the
two cities, which are separated by a low ridge, is probably due
to influences from bordering basins. Precipitation occurs
chiefly in two seasonal periods, July 1 through September 30,
and November 15 through April 15. During spring and fall, pre-
cipitation is normally light (Earl V. Miller Engineers, 1975).
Summer storms are usually local in origin; whereas, winter storms
are large frontal systems that distribute moisture over a large
area. Snow occurs, but rarely stays for more than a couple of
days.
The prevailing wind direction is from the southwest, although a
southeast wind often accompanies summer storms. Night-time
thermal inversions are common.
Air Quality
The Globe-Miami area is in the Phoenix-Tucson Interstate Air
Quality Control Region. Sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
are monitored in Miami, Inspiration Copper Company property
and on Jones Ranch, located about one mile south of Miami.
15
-------
Table 1
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
FOR GLOBE AND MIAMI, ARIZONA
Globe
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
NoveraBer
December
Annual Mean
Extremes - High
Low
Temp.
42.8
46.9
52.4
60.2
68.0
77.0
82.8
80.1
75.1
63.6
50.7
44.6
62.0
111
18
Precip.
1.58
1.36
1.28
0.60
0.28
0.40
2.22
2.86
1.26
1.08
0.84
1.61
15.37
. —
—
Miami
Temp.
44.1
47.9
53.6
61.9
70.4
79.7
83.8
81.3
77.0
65.8
52.6
46.8
63.7
108
25
Precip.
2.07
1.83
1.72
0.77
0.29
0.32
2.34
3.30
1.46
1.14
1.15
2.11
18.47
—
—
Source: Modified from U. S. Department of Commerce, 1974.
16
-------
Temperature inversions may for short periods prevent the dis-
persion of pollutants, allowing concentrations of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to occasionally violate air quality
standards. The relatively high particulate matter concentrations
are primarily due to wind-blown dust from the southwest desert
area, unpaved roads, and mining operations (Earl V. Miller
Engineers, 1975). Sulfur dioxide pollution is due to the cop-
per smelting operation of the Inspiration Consolidated Copper
Company which also does smelting for other copper companies.
Vehicles are not a major source of air pollution in this area.
Traffic load (ADT) may amount to 17,000 cars per day. 1973
and 1974 air quality data and state standards for the Globe-
Miami area are shown in Table 2. The data in Table 2 does not
reflect the present degree of pollution controls in operation
at the smelter. These new controls are expected to prevent
violation of the sulfur dioxide standards.
Topography
The Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project lies within a broad
zone of nearly parallel mountain ranges extending diagonally
across Arizona from the southeast corner northwestward to the
Colorado River (Peterson, 1962). This Mountain Province which
is 60 to 100 miles wide, contains most of the large base metal
deposits in Arizona. The study area topography is shown in
Figure 2. The mountainous area between Final and Pinto Creeks,
a northwest continuation of the Pinal Mountains, is the location
of major copper mines. The Pinal range is characterized by
steep, narrow canyons and rugged peaks, e.g., Pinal Peak (7,850
feet). Slopes range from 5 to 70 percent.
Pinal Creek is the principal stream. Surface flow is inter-
mittent to ephemeral for most of its length, with flows occurring
following a heavy rain or snowmelt. There are many tributary
washes to Pinal Creek; Miami Wash, Russell Gulch, Webster Gulch,
Tinhorn Wash, Miami Wash and Gerald Wash. Surface flow in
washes occurs only during and shortly after storms.
Soils
Soils in the Globe-Miami area are warm, semiarid climate types,
usually found below 5,000 feet elevation. The general distri-
bution of soil associations was described by Vogt and Richardson
(1974).
17
-------
Table 2
1973 AND 1974 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA FOR THE GLOBE-MIAMI AREA
Particulate Data Summary (ug/m3)
Location
Inspiration Mine .
Year
1973
1974
Annual
Geometric
Mean
144
59
24-Hour '
Maximum
473
174
Average
Second
High
0
130
Number of
Samples
0
S3
1974 Chemical Composition of Particulates (ug/m3)
location
Inspiration,
Arizona
Highway 88
Benzene
Soluble
Qrganics Sulxates
Max. Max.
Avg. 24-hr. Avg. 24-hr.
1.4 4.9 9.4 31.4
Copper iron Lead Zinc
Max.
Avg. 24-hr. Avg.
0.34 1.07 0.8
Max. Max. Max.
24-hr. Avg. 24-hr. Avg. 24-hr.
1.2 0.3 0.7 0.12 0.20
1973 and 1974 Sulfur Dioxide Data Summary (ug/m3)
Nutber of Times
Standards Exceeded Percent
Location
Inspiration,
Arizona
Highway 88
Fire Station
Jones Ranch
Year Avg.
1973 52
1974 43
79
170
3-hr. standards Exceeded 24-hr.
3,127
2,669
2,817
5,992
5
5
19
542
482
575
1,785
Federal
Primary
4
2
10
Arizona
8
5
12
Data
Recovery
93.2
99.1
74.9
Particulate Standards (yg/m3)
State
Federal primary
Federal secondary
Annual
Geometric
Mean
60
75
60
24-hr.
Average
150
260
150
Sulfur Dioxide Standards
State
Federal primary
Federal secondary
Annual
Average
50
80
«
3-hr.
Average
1,300
— —
1,300
24-hr.
Average
260
365
»
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1975; Earle V. Miller Engineering, 1975.
18
-------
Figure 2
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF STUDY AREA. PRINCIPAL GROUND-
WATER BEARING AREA AND FAULTS ALSO SHOWN.
.... Major Fault
19
-------
There are five general soil associations in the study area:
Mabray-Lithic torriorthents association, Cellar-Lampshire-
Rock outcrop association, White House-Caralampi-Hathaway
association, Continental-Eba-Nickel association and Barkerville-
Moani-Faraway association. The first two are shallow gravelly,
sandy loamy soils covering bedrock with rock outcroppings.
The next two are deep clay and gravel soils found in old
alluvial fans and terraces. The last one consists of very
shallow and shallow gravelly loam and sandy loam soils.
Geology
General. The geology of the Globe-Miami area is described by
Peterson (1962).
Globe-Miami is a major mining district with copper the
single most important metal, although gold, silver, lead and
zinc are also extracted. Copper production has been predomi-
nately from the large low-grade, disseminated or "porphyry-
type" deposits. These account for more than 80 percent of the
copper mined so far. The most extensive copper deposits are
the Miami-Inspiration, Castle Dome, Copper Cities and Cactus
deposits.
The economic life span of mining at present production levels
is not known, but local persons estimate about 30 years.
Faulting and Seismic Hazards. Both major and minor fault
systems occur in the Globe-Miami area. The Miami fault runs
near Gerald Wash, south along the base of the Final Mountains,
through the Town of Miami and south into the Final Mountains.
Other faults are located in the Final Mountains and Globe Hills
(Figure-2). There has been no recently recorded earthquake in
the Globe-Miami area.
Seismic zoning maps prepared by Algermissen and Perkins (1973),
designate the Globe-Miami area as an area of low seismic risk,
based on historical earthquake occurrences, Mercalli intensity
and geology.
Biological Resources
Very broadly, the project area is in the Lower Sonoran "life
zone" as that term was described by Merriam (1890). Jaeger
(1957) characterizes the area around Globe as part of the
Arizona upland desert, the northeasternmost subunit of the
Sonoran desert. Kuchler (1964) mapped the "climax" vegetation
20
-------
of the general Globe-Miami area in three categories. Most
of the area west and north of Globe was characterized as a
transition zone between the oak-juniper woodland and the
mountain mahogany-oak scrub communities. The immediate
Globe area and areas south and east of Globe are character-
ized by Kuchler as grama-tobosa shrubsteppe. Areas adjacent
to the Salt and Gila Rivers are mapped as the creosote bush-
bur sage community
Vegetation. In the Globe-Miami area, the various shrub
communities in the surrounding hills and canyons often extend
into washes and arroyos to form a dry riparian community.
The upper portions of Final Creek and Bloody Tanks Wash and
the lower sections of Final Creek contain a cottonwood-
sycamore riparian community, which is dependent upon a con-
stant supply of subsurface water. The shrub communities are
comprised of small-leaved desert trees, shrubs and cacti and
the best development is attained on rocky hills, bajadas and
other coarse-soiled slopes. The primary desert trees are
foothill paloverde, sahuaro, iron wood, holocantha, and tree-
like chollas. Shrubs include creosote bush, teddy bear cholla,
ocotillo and brittlebrush.
The principal vegetation of the dry washes and arroyos are
the blue paloverde, mesguite, catclaw, jumping bean and netleaf
hackberry.
The riparian community found in the Final Creek and Bloody
Tanks Wash is composed primarily of cottonwood, sycamore, and
oak.
There is intermingling of plant species between the shrub
communities of the hills and the dry wash plant community.
The boundary between these two is not a distinct line but is
a blending of species (a species list is in Appendix A).
Native vegetation has been altered in many areas by ranching
and other human activities. In alluvial areas the soil was
historically cultivated for row crops and grain. This use has
generally ceased and these lands are in various stages of
successional growth.
Wildlife. Wildlife common to the Sonoran desert are adapted
to the hot, dry desert environment and are listed in Appendix
B. Although the list is not comprehensive, it shows the more
characteristic and commonly seen species.
21
-------
Reptiles are among the most conspicuous and common animals
observed in the desert. Lizards are usually seen during day-
light hours while snakes are more nocturnal. Most reptilian
species are carnivorous, feeding on insects, other reptiles,
small birds and mammals. Most reptiles are active primarily
in the warm season, hibernating during cold winter months.
Many small mammals also exhibit variable periods of torper
during the winter months.
Desert birds may be readily observed in the thinly foliated
desert shrubs. Most desert birds are either insectivorous,
predaceous or scavengers; however, some feed on scarce desert
berries, mistletoe and parts of succulent plants. Although
all birds are important ecologically, the Gambel quail and
mourning dove are also extensively hunted in the Globe-Miami
area.
Most desert mammals have nocturnal habits to avoid the daylight
heat. Some require very little free water, deriving most of
their water from their food; however, deer, coyotes, foxes,
bobcats, mountain lion and skunks do require some free water.
In the Globe-Miami area, deer, peccary and desert cottontail
are important game mammals.
Because there is little permanent surface water in the study
area, a significant fishery resource does not exist. Final
Creek from Pringle Ranch to the Salt River is the only perennial
surface flow in the study area. Fishes found in this section
of the creek probably include the longfin dace, mosquitofish
and Gila Mountain sucker. Roosevelt Lake at the terminus of
Final Creek supports a large warmwater fishery.
Rare and Endangered Wildlife. Ten species of wildlife iden-
tified by the U. S. Department of Interior (1975) as endangered
or possibly threatened with extinction could occur within the
study area. These animals are listed in Table 3 along with
their status, habitat and distribution in Arizona.
Of the ten threatened species of wildlife that could occur
in the study area, the Gila monster and coati mundi are
probably resident in the area. The threatened hawks and
falcons could occur in the study area for at least part of
the year. The habitat requirements and distribution of the
spotted bat are too poorly known to reliably assess the
probability of its occurrence in the Globe area.
22
-------
Table 3
RARE AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE WHOSE DISTRIBUTION INCLUDES THE GLOBE-MIAMI AREA
Name
Status Habitat and Distribution in Arizona
REPTILES
Gila monster
(Heloderma suspecturn)
BIRDS
Zone-tailed hawk
(Buteo albonatatus)
Southern bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus
leucocephalus)
Northern aplomado falcon
(Falco femoralis
septentrionalis)
Prairie pigeon hawk
(Falco columbarius
richardsonii)
Prairie falcon
(Falco mexicanus)
American peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus anatum)
Spotted owl
(Stirix occidentalis)
MAMMALS
Coati mundi
(Nasua narica molaris)
Spotted bat
(Euderma maculatum)
SU Deserts and wooded areas often near washes and
intermittent streams. Desert areas of Arizona.
Arid country and deserts. Breeds in central
Arizona.
Forested and wooded areas near water. Both resi-
dent a:,2 migratory in Arizona.
SU Arid, brushy prairie, yucca flats, very rare local
suirjne:. : ^sident in southern Arizona.
St' Cruld winter in Arizona.
Canyons, open mountains, plains, prairies, deserts,
resident in Arizona.
Mainly in open country, resident in Arizona.
Forest, conifers and wooded canyons, resident in
Arizona.
In wooded areas, cliffs, rocky areas often along
lakes and streams, resident in central and southern
Arizona.
Roosts in high cliffs and canyons, possibly
coniferous forests. Apparently feeds over open
areas and water.
STATUS;
E
T
SU
Endangered. A species or subspecies whose prospects for survival and reproduction
are in immediate jeopardy.
Threatened. Species or subspecies that are so few in number or so threatened
by present circumstances, as to be in danger of extinction.
Status-Undetermined. A status-undetermined species or subspecies is one that has
been suggested as possibly threatened with extinction, but about which there is
not enough information to determine its status. More information is needed.
Peripheral. A peripheral species or subspecies is one whose occurrence in the
United States is at the edge of its natural range and which is threatened with
extinction within the United States, although not in its range as a whole.
Special attention is necessary to assure retention in our nation's fauna.
Source: Compiled from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973; Federal Register, 37(98);
Peterson, 1961; and Stebbins, 1966.
23
-------
Aesthetic Values
The Globe-Miami area is located in a small basin surrounded by
the rugged and steep Final and Apache Mountains. Surrounding
areas are part of the Tonto National Forest and San Carlos
Indian Reservation and both offer excellent recreational
opportunity. Much of the surrounding area is in its natural
state offering the views and vistas typical of this desert
region.
When traveling in the Globe-Miami area, the most obvious visual
impact is the presence of the copper mining industry. An
operating copper smelter, old abandoned mills, slag and tailings
ponds, raising upward nearly 500 feet, dominate the local
scenery. Tailing pond embankments are light colored and sandy
in character and completely devoid of any vegetation. Many show
extensive water and wind erosion. The Town of Miami contains
many old and several delapidated buildings which appear almost
engulfed by mine tailings and mills.
The City of Globe, located on a hill east of Miami is also an
old mining settlement/ founded in 1879. The after effects of
mining and smelting are not as evident in Globe as they are in
Miami. Tailing ponds are noticeable immediately north of Globe
on Highway 60.
Aesthetic values are often a matter of viewpoint, training and
immediate interest. To some the visual aspects of the Globe-
Miami area are probably negative, while to many they are quaint
or positive in terms of history and social development. The
air pollution from the smelter is at times obnoxious and
probably harmful to human health, property and the general
environment. There are probably few persons that consider the
air pollution anything but an adversity. Photos of Globe-
Miami and the surrounding area are shown in Figures 3 through 6.
Archeology and History
Prior to the time of Hispanic contact, the sedentary village
sites were totally abandoned. The area was inhabited by roving
bands of Athabascan-speaking Indians. The assumed predecessors
of the Pima and Papago people were the Hohokam and they left
many abandoned farmsteads and village sites on the tributaries
of the Salt and Gila Rivers. There is also a high incidence
of Salado pueblo sites in this area. These sites are pre-1500
A.D. and have no ethnic connection to the present population of
the San Carlos Apaches.
24
-------
FIGURE 3
Looking east down Sullivan Street, downtown Miami.
pond in background.
Tailincr
FIGURE 4
Looking north down Broad Street, downtown Globe,
-------
FIGURE 5
Desert environment near Globe.
FIGURE 6
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, Miami operation
Miami Wash in foreground. Tailing ponds and smelter in
center of picture.
-------
During the mid-1800's, the project area was inhabited by a
small population of Euro-Americans engaged in farming and
ranching. Mining became the principal industry prior to
World War I. Up to this period of time, the most noteworthy
event was the Bloody Tanks massacre of 1864 when Colonel
King S. Woolsey and his party were dispatched to "pacify"
the Indians. They ambushed a band of Apaches and reportedly
the blood of the dead and wounded so colored the stream waters
that the present name "Bloody Tanks" was given to the area.
The name Miami is derived from early settlers who named it
after Miami, Ohio.
From 1907 to 1912, the Miami Copper Company and the Inspiration
Mining Company were begun and developed to a large scale.
The town has survived many booms and slumps in the interim,
but it still continues to thrive on the mining and processing
of low-grade copper ores.
The City of Globe started as a great Arizona mining camp. It
was settled in 1876 when silver was located in the area. It
derived its name from a globe-shaped chunk of pure silver
which is reputed to have been found on the hillside where
the Old Dominion Mine is now located. In the late 1800's,
copper replaced silver as the major mineral mined in the area.
From 1898 until it was shut down during the depression of 1931,
the Old Dominion Mine was one of the largest copper mines in
the world. However, Globe's continued development was due to
the copper deposits.
Originally, the lands were part of the San Carlos Apache
Reservation, but the silver miners encroached upon reser-
vation lands and forced their withdrawal from Indian control.
Although there are no identified archeological sites or
historical features on proposed project lands, two famous
prehistoric sites are near the Town of Globe, Arizona.
Besh Ba Gowah Ruins are one mile southwest of the city,
while Gila Pueblo is approximately three miles away. There
are extensive Indian settlement sites in the area.
Field Assessment. The proposed wastewater treatment plant
sites were surveyed on foot by an archeologist (report is
Appendix C) with all potential areas of impact carefully
examined for evidence of cultural material. All of the
project area lies within the floodplain of the Final Wash
and the Miami Wash with the exception of the four treatment
plant sites.
25
-------
There was no evidence of cultural resources within potential
impact zones; consequently, there is no predictable impact
on extant cultural resources through placement of the proposed
treatment plant at any of the alternative sites. However,
this is a high incidence area of Hohokam farmsteads and
villages and Salado pueblos, especially on the tributaries
of the Salt and Gila Rivers. The probability of site occur-
rence increases above the floodplain areas and along the
channel banks.
Water Resources
Surface Water
The project lies in the Gila River hydrological subunit of
the Salt River Basin. Final Creek and its tributaries drain
the project area. With headwaters in the Final Mountains
south of Globe, it flows north through the city joining the
Salt River just upstream of Roosevelt Reservoir. Along its
length, numerous washes join the main stream. The watershed
encompasses approximately 175 square miles (Figure 7).
Final Creek and its tributaries are generally ephemeral except
above Globe and below Pringle Ranch where Final Creek is
perennial to intermittent. Except for a few localized areas
of rising groundwater (due to shallow bedrock layers), surface
flow in the section between Globe and Pringle, only occurs
following rain or snowmelt. There is a significant subsurface
flow at all times. In the vicinity of Pringle Ranch, approxi-
mately 14 miles downstream from the confluence of Miami Wash
and Final Creek, the subsurface flow surfaces and forms a
perennial stream to its confluence with the Salt River, a
distance of about 4 miles. There are no gauging stations in
this section of the stream; however, it has been estimated
that the average flow is about 5 cubic feet per second (cfs)
but varies according to season and precipitation (Leffert,
pers. comm.). Peterson (1962) and the Arizona Department of
Health Services (unpublished data) have estimated the flow
at this point at 8 cfs. There is reportedly a low dam near
Pringle that pools water. Inspiration Copper Company pumps
groundwater from this area for use at the mining and milling
site.
26
-------
LAS V
SAN
SANTA / PEDRO
CRUZ
FIGURE 7
RIVER BASINS IN ARIZONA
SOURCE: MODIFIED FROM EARLE V. MILLER ENGINEERS,
1975.
27
-------
Data describing surface water quality are very scant. Hazen
and Turner (1946) conducted water quality analyses on samples
from upper Final Creek and several springs. Samples were
taken after a significant rainfall. Their results are shown
in Appendix D. Considering the lack of base data for com^-
parison to the reported data, there is nothing to distinguish
the results as aberrant. The water appears to be of fairly
good quality.
Surface water quality conditions in lower Final Creek are
reported in Appendix E. These data were taken by the Arizona
Department of Health Services. Certainly some of the reported
constituents are much greater in concentration in the lower
Final Creek than in the upper watershed.
ADHS (1974
Hazen & Turner & 1975)
O.946) Upper Lower
Final Creek Final Creek
vig/1) (mg/1)
Calcium 8.7-20.0 612-687
Magnesium 5.0- 8.6 60-461
Alkalinity 48-105 130-160
Sulfate 11-18 1,650-2,100
Dissolved solids 59-118 2,267-3,235
These greater concentrations have degraded the quality from
the upper to lower reaches of the creek. Because of a lack of
data that can be reasonably compared, it is difficult to
accurately evaluate surface water conditions. The U. S.
Forest Service is presently establishing a water quality
monitoring program for the Tonto National Forest, and water
quality monitoring on Final Creek has recently been imple-
mented .
A small increase in dissolved chemical constituents from the
upper to lower reach of a watershed is a natural phenomenon.
The large increases in dissolved constituents shown by avail-
able data Indicate that mineralized leachate from the mining
and mineral processing activities into the groundwater. The
principal source of dissolved solids in surface water is
thought to be surfacing leachates and overflow from tailing
disposal ponds. Also, air-borne particulate matter settles
in the watershed and during rainstorms washes into the creeks.
Thus, during periods of rain and stream flow, waste material,
including high concentrations of dissolved chemicals originating
in the copper industry, wash into surface channels.
28
-------
Groundwater
Water-bearing strata (aquifers) underlie most of the area in
the vicinity of Globe, Miami and lower Final Creek. The prin-
cipal aquifers are the Gila conglomerate and more recent
alluvial deposits along the creeks and washes. Deep, dry
wells indicate that some portions of the Gila conglomerate
are not permeable to water. The older sedimentary metamorphic
and igneous rock formations in the area are generally imper-
meable or non-porous and contain little water. Some limestone
formations in the Globe Hills and surrounding area are cavernous
and fractured and serve as aquifers (Hazen and Turnerr 1946)»
Aquifers at elevations above Final Creek alluvium are now being
extensively developed as domestic supplies.
Most of the water found in the Gila conglomerate is derived
from the percolation of surface runoff. Other sources of
recharge include drainage in the surrounding mountains into
zones of factured diabase, limestone and schist. Surface
water also enters the groundwater through the tailings ponds.
There appears to be considerable groundwater movement in the
Final Creek drainage. According to Hazen and Turner (1946),
the pattern of northwest trending, parallel faults in the
Gila conglomerate extending from the mouth of Icehouse Canyon
to the northwest, tend to force groundwater to move down the
valley to the west of Final Creek. This subsurface flow is
forced to the surface near Pringle Ranch, where bedrock rises
nearer the surface.
Based on calculations made in March 1945 (Hazen and Turner,
1946), the total available groundwater at the Pringle Pumping
Station was 6,000 to 7,000 gpm. The maximum underground flow
of the recent alluvial deposits under Final Creek at the
Pringle Pump Station was determined to be approximately 2,000
gpm. Approximately 4,000 to 5,000 gpm was available through
water-bearing strata in the Gila formation or from limestone
outcropping in the sides of the valley; however, these sources
are relatively small. Thus, most of the groundwater flow in
Final Creek at Pringle Ranch was predicted to be from the
upper stream portion of the creek and the Gila conglomerate
that underlies it. (Although the accuracy of the values cited
above is suspect due to changing conditions of groundwater use,
these values may still represent an "order of magnitude"
assessment of the current situation.)
29
-------
Groundwater quality is variable throughout the Globe-Miami
lower Final Creek area. Well water analyses done by the
Arizona Department of Health Services in 1974 (unpublished
data) revealed the water to be abnormally high in sulfates
CSO4), dissolved solid residue, iron (Fe) f manganese (Mn) and
^several anions (calcium, sodium, magnesium) content.
Abnormally high concentrations of dissolved substances in the
groundwater are thought to result from the milling wastes and
acid leachates used in extracting copper from mixed oxide and
sulfide ore. Milling and process waste materials, containing
soluble materials are pumped to tailing ponds where the water
either evaporates, remains bound to solids or leaches into the
groundwater. The proportional distribution is unknown at this
time.
Data on groundwater quality from numerous wells in the area
are presented in Appendices F, G and H. Some of this data is
compared for the different groundwater areas in Figure 8.
The generally poor domestic water quality areas appear to be
near Miami and Claypool, the Bixby Ranch area, and the Pr ingle
Pump Station area. These areas show generally high concen-
trations of sulfates and dissolved solids, while iron con-
centrations jar^ high in the Miami, Claypool and Bixby Ranch
"
The upper groundwater aquifer (less than 250 feet below the
ground surface) appears to be the most degraded, especially
in the vicinity of Bloody Tanks Wash, Miami Wash, and Final
Creek from the confluence of Miami Wash to the Pringle Pump
Station. Deeper aquifers (500 to 1,000 feet below the ground
surface) , as shown in the Central Heights area, produce good
mineral quality potable water. The shallow aquifers in upper
Final Creek above Globe produce relatively good quality water;
however, more data is needed to adequately assess this area.
Poorer quality groundwater, especially regarding mineral con-
stituents, is located near areas of active, long-term copper
mining activity.
Water Use and Supply
The two major uses of water in the Globe-Miami area are domestic
and industrial. The amount of water used for agriculture and
other uses is relatively insignificant. All water is from
wells that are located both in and outside the Final Creek
watershed. Domestic water for the City of Globe is supplied
30
-------
3»30 .
3*18'
171-7JI1 2D-9U 1.7W-1.M7 117-410 417-2,Ml
M*' SM-l.Mt 15V17J «eo-«40 1X-KS'
Ccbr. Vallt>
Sinitetioi Oiilrict
FIGURE 8: CHEMICAL 8 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUNDWATER
IN VARIOUS AREAS OF PINAL CKLEK WATERSHED. DATA COMPILED
FROM APPENDICES F.G.aH. 31
-------
primarily from well fields located at Cutter and secondarily
from a smaller well field located in the city. The Cutter Well
#ield is about 4 miles east of Globe and immediately west of
jthe San Carlos Indian Reservation.. and is in the Gila River
basin*
The total pumping capacity of the three wells at the Cutter
Well Field is 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) or 4.32 million
gallons per day (mgd). A safe annual yield, which is the
amount of water which can be withdrawn annually on a continuous
basis, has not been determined. No long-term records of static
groundwater elevations are available. The Cutter Well Field is
locally considered adequate to meet expected water needs to the
year 2000. A production of 4.32 mgd could supply a population
of about 43,200 at 100 gallons per capita per day. The 1970
population of the upper Final Creek area (Globe) was about
10,000 and the year 2000 population has been projected to be
about 25,000.
The Pioneer Wells, located in the city near Final Creek below
the confluence of Icehouse and Six shooter Canyons, are used
only as secondary sources of municipal water. These wells
are directly dependent upon annual precipitation and are not
considered reliable sources of water (John Carollo Engineers,
1975).
Water supply facilities (storage, pumps and distribution) are
adequate in some areas of Globe and deficient in others. Some
transmission and distribution facilities will need improvement
within five years.
Domestic water supply for Miami and the unincorporated areas
of Claypool, Central Heights, Miami Gardens and parts of lower
Final Creek^ (Wheatfields) is provided by the Arizona Water
Company. They supply approximately 3,041 customers (households)
from 13 wells located in the vicinity of Russell Gulch, Claypool
and Central Heights. All wells in the Miami area have been
abandoned because of unsuitable water quality. Present water
demand estimates were not available from the Arizona Water
Company; however, in 1969 the reported average demand per custo-
mer per year was 100,538 gallons or about 275 gallons per day
(about 100 gallons per person per day).
Considering a present 3,041 customers, there is a current
estimated annual demand of 306 million gallons. The system
storage capacity is 1.76 million gallons and presently-
operating wells have combined pumping capacity of 1,200 gpm
(1.73 mgd).
32
-------
A. E. Ferguson and Associates (1971) report the present
distribution and supply system for domestic water to be ade-
quate to meet the 1990 population forecast. The population
of Miami area is not expected to change substantially in the
future.
Water quality in the presently-producing Arizona Water Company
wells is generally of acceptable quality; however, several
wells are high in sulfate, manganese, and dissolved solids
residue. Water quality data from Arizona Water Company wells
are shown in Appendices G and H.
Large quantities of industrial water are necessary to supply
the copper industry. The Inspiration Consolidated Copper
Company and Cities Service Company supply their own indus-
trial processing water from pumps located throughout the
study area, the most important being at Old Dominion Miner
Burch, Kiser and Pringle Ranch.
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
Because of the high consumptive use in a water-short area, the
reuse of treated wastewater becomes a viable consideration.
The greatest nondomestic use is in the copper industry. Irri-
gation of large tracts of land is not being done except for
the golf course, which is watered by a mining company. Con-
sequently, the management of water supply in the area must
consider the industrial reuse of treated wastewater
Flood Control
Both Globe and Miami are susceptible to floodingf primarily
from intense thunderstorms. Stormwater runoff concentrates
quickly in the main drainage channels upstream from Globe
and Miami, and surge flows through these channels often exceed
their carrying capacities. Although not gauged, a flood con-
dition on July 29, 1954 produced flows through Globe estimated
to be 6,500 and 8,000 cubic feet per second at the upstream
and downstream city limits, respectively. Floods of comparable
magnitude also occurred at Globe in 1891 and 1904. Other floods
causing notable damage occurred in 1918 and 1940 with lesser
floods in 1928, 1929, 1932, 1949 and 1959.
33
-------
In Miami on July 20, 1954, a flood crested at an estimated
flow of 7,500 cubic feet per second. Similar Miami floods
occurred in 1928, with lesser floods in 1929, 1932, 1936,
1937 and 1949 (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1961) . The
1928 flood in Miami was estimated at 25,000 to 30,000 cubic
Jreet j>er second_ by Ipcal^ residents (U. S. Forest Service, 1942)
The Corps of Engineers (1961) has estimated flood frequencies
and peak discharges expected in Globe and Miami (Table 4).
Major drainage channels in this area are mostly steep sided,
rocky and sparsely vegetated. Very few modifications have
been made to Final Creek and Bloody Tanks Wash to reduce the
flooding of riparian lands. During the 1930's, the Civilian
Conservation Corps constructed several check dams in the
Upper Bloody Tanks drainage area; however, these dams have
deteriorated. Bloody Tanks Wash is channelized with concrete
walls through the Town of Miami; however, the concrete is
deteriorating and debris in the channel has reduced its
carrying capacity which is presently about 2,000 cubic feet
per second (cf s).
Population
Existing Conditions
The Globe-Miami area is the principal population center of Gila
County, containing over 60 percent of county residents in 1970
(Globe-Miami, 18,861; Gila County, 29,555). The decade census
populations of the Globe-Miami area from 1930 to 1970 are pre-
sented in Table 5. The population density of the area presently
exceeds 1,000 persons per square mile (Earle V. Miller
Engineers, 1975).
Overall growth in the project area has been relatively slow;
however, from 1960 to 1970, the population of Globe increased
by 18 percent, while the overall increase in the area was
about 9 percent (Ferguson, 1971). Although the Town of Miami
has experienced an absolute decline in population since 1930
(when it counted 7,693 residents), the Miami area, including
the adjacent unincorporated communities of Central Heights
and Claypool, contained about 8,000 persons in 1970. While
most of the growth in the Globe-Miami area between 1960 and
1970 took place within incorporated areas, a significant
amount (about 25 percent) took place in unincorporated areas.
Growth has been taking place in unsewered areas as well.
34
-------
Table 4
ESTIMATED FLOOD FREQUENCIES AND PEAK DISCHARGES
IN GLOBE AND MIAMI, ARIZONA
Uncontrolled Peak Discharges
Number of times that Final Creek below Blood/ Tanks Wash
flood would be equalled confluence with below confluence
or exceeded in 100 years McMillen Wash in with Liveoak Gulch
Globe in Miami
0.2
1.0
5.0
10.0
16.2
17.0
Cubic feet
per second
*34,000
***17,700
8,100
5,400
** 4,000
(#)
Cubic feet
per second
*26,000
***13,400
6,100
4., 150
(#)
** 3,000
* Standard project flood.
** Non-damaging.
*** 100 year.
# Not estimated.
Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1961,
35
-------
to
Table 5
HISTORICAL POPULATION DATA FOR THE
GLOBE-MIAMI AREA, 1930-1970
Year Gila Co. Miami Central Heights (U) Claypool(U) Globe
Other Unlncor-
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
N.T.
(U)
31,016
23,867
24,158
25,745
29,255
Not tabulated.
TT-|-i J TT__n_~ U~L~I n m i i 1 ii iH
unincorDoratea
7,693
4,722
4,329
3,350
3,394
areaa.
N.T.
N.T.
N.T.
2,486
2,289
N.T.
N.T.
N.T.
2,505
2,245
7,157
6,141
6,419
6,217
7,333
-
-
-
2,738
3,600
* Ferguson, 1971, Population and Economic Study.
Source: U. S. Census of Population-1970 and 1960: General Population Characteristics,
Arizona (Tables 6 and 10); 1950: Characteristics of the Population, Arizona
(Tables 11 and 12); 1940: Number of Inhabitants, Arizona (Tables 4 and 5);
1930: Reports by State, Arizona (Tables 13 and 16) (Arizona Department of
Economic Planning and Development, 1971).
-------
The 1970 population distribution by watershed and subunit, as
used by John Carollo Engineers in their facilities plan, is pre-
sented in Table 6. The total project area population differs
by 1,361 (18,861-17,500) in the data shown, and these figures
have not been reconciled.
Employment
Employment data are presented by industry in Table 7. These
figures are drawn from the 1960 and 1970 censuses and indicate
the industry in which residents of the area work rather than the
job counts within the jurisdictions.
Overall employment increased about 20 percent, while population
increased about 12 percent in Globe and Miami (Table 6}. This
1960-1970 disparity between population and employment growth is
not uncommon because women joined the labor force in large
numbers during the 1960's.
The data in Table 7 appear to indicate that mining employment
fell during the decade, but this was not confirmed by local
observers. It seems likely that census data collection categories
were revised and that mining jobs reported in 1960 were reclassi-
fied into the manufacturing sector in 1970 when smelting was
considered manufacturing rather than mining. Also, the "other"
category for Miami is probably largely mining; the latter
category was (for unexplained reasons) not separately tabulated
for the Town of Miami in 1970. Thus, mining and mining-related
manufacturing jobs held by residents appear to have increased
during the 1960's. However, employment in transportation, com-
munication and utilities in Globe and Miami was virtually the
same in 1970 as in 1960.
"Commercial" employment may be in offices or service establish-
ments as well as in retail outlets. Reviewing together the
three industry sectors — wholesale and retail trade; finance,
insurance and real estate; services — data presented in Table 7
indicates that these are not employment sources which have been
expanding rapidly; growth between 1960 and 1970 was under
3 percent.
37
-------
Table 6
POPULATION OF GLOBE-MIAMI AREA BY WATERSHED, 1970
Watershed
Bloody Tanks Wash
Russell Gulch Basin
Miami Wash Basin
Upper Final Creek
Lower Final'Creek
TOTAL ,
1970
Population
5,600
1,300
160
10,010
430
17,500
Components
Miami
Lower Miami
Claypool
1970
Population
3,400
800
1,400
Gila Basin neg.
Six-shooter.Canyon 600
Ice House Canyon 500
Globe 7,330
Echo Canyon 580
Quail Canyon neg.
Central Hts. Basin 1,000
neg.
negligible
Source: John Carollo Engineers, 1972.
38
-------
Table 7
Employment by Industry, 1960 & 1970
Major Indus-
try Group
Gila County
1960 1970
Globe & Miami
1960
1970
Agriculture, forestry
and fisheries
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, communi-
cations & utilities
Wholesale fi retail trade
Finance, insurance
fi real estate
Services
Government
Other/not reported
Total Employed
278
385
30
N.T.
2076
599
947
258
.463
201
907
381
199
7757
1804
621
1663
373
1676
225
2012
546
N.T.
9297
894
214
178
121
622
89
748
145
55
3035
N.T.
287
1493
118
658
140
696
211
978
3653
H.T." not tabulated
Source: U. S. Census of Population, General Social
& Economic Characteristics, Arizona, 1970
'(Tables 117 and 123) and 1960 (Tables 81
and 85).
39
-------
Future Trends
Population forecasts were prepared for the study area based on
the Bureau of the Census forecast of state population, the
assumption that recent trends in county populations as a pro-
portion of the state population will continue into the future
and, finally, the assumption that local communities will have
the same growth rate as the county in which they are located.
The latter assumption was set aside where local circumstances
made judgmental adjustments advisable. County forecasts have
been prepared by the Arizona Department of Economic Planning
and Development (1971) and local area forecasts by Earle V.
Miller Engineers (1975) for the Arizona Department of Health.
The local area population forecasts are presented in Table 8 •
The basin plan forecast for the year 2000 is 31,200 persons
(Earle V. Miller Engineers, 1975) . This compares with the
32,000-32,500 population forecast utilized by John Carollo
Engineers (1972) in preparing the Greater Globe-Miami Waste-
water Report. If the adjacent rural population is increased
from 900 to 3,600 to fit the data in Table 8, then the pro-
jected 1995 population would be about 34,680. Thus, available
population projections consistently forecast that the 1990-
2000 population will be 31,000-35,000.
The average increase forecast by subarea for the 20-year
period 1970-1990 is over 70 percent. Globe is forecast to grow
by 80 percent over this period, with the unincorporated areas
growing at a slightly higher rate. Miami's growth is forecast
at 30 percent. This comparatively small forecast increase pre-
sumably reflects possible extension of copper mining into the
town in future years. Both the Town of Miami and the City of
Globe may experience future growth due to annexation; annexation
accounts for part of the increase in the population of the City
of Globe in recent years. Aside from uncertainty concerning
future mining activity within presently settled areas of Miami,
there are several other potential influences on future popu-
lation growth. These are summarized below.
Future employment in the Globe-Miami area is expected to con-
tinue to be dominated by copper mining and processing. However,
the gradual reduction in dependence on the copper industry which
has been experienced in recent years is expected to continue.
For Gila County as a whole, employment in mining has grown at an
average annual rate of 2.3 percent since 1950. Employment in
various government positions has grown considerably faster (8.6
percent average annual growth rate), with the majority of labor
earnings from state and local rather than federal government.
A moderate growth rate in the government sector, which currently
ranks third in employment in Gila County, is expected in the
future (Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Development,
1971).
40
-------
Table 8
Miami-Globe Area Population Projections
Area
Miami
Claypool
Central Heights
Globe
Adjacent Rural Areas
1970
3,390
2,245
2,290
7,330
900*
1980
3,800
3,500
3,600
11,200
1,400
1990
4,400
4,100
4,300
13,200
1,700
% Increase
1970-1990
oO
83
88
80
89
1995
4,700
4,300
4,500
14,200
1,750
TOTAL 16,155 23,500 27,700 71 29,450
* In the previously presented 1970 population data, adjacent
rural areas have a population of about 3,600; thus the basin
plan forecast may be low.
Source: Earle V. Miller Engineers, 1975.
41
-------
Wholesale and retail trade ranks second after mining in terms
of number of employed persons in Gila County. Much of this
employment is in tourist-serving businesses, such as food stores,
eating and drinking places and gasoline service stations.
Continued growth in the trade sector and in services as well is
anticipated, based on both growth of resident population and
continued increases in tourist travel through the area. With
regard to the trade and service sectors as a whole, no signifi-
cant change in the scale of operation of present establishments
is expected. The fact that the major metropolitan centers of
Phoenix and Tucson are less than half a day's drive means that
a significant portion of local residents' demand for consumer
goods will continue to be satisfied outside the immediate Globe-
Miami area when price savings is a major factor.
The potential for significant new manufacturing activity in the
Globe-Miami area does not appear to be great. With the excep-
tion of the copper rod fabrication plant (an outgrowth of the
area's mining activity), there have been no significant new
industrial establishments in recent years. As no dramatic
increase in employment in the area is expected, population
growth attributable to employment expansion is expected to be
moderate.
While pass-through tourist traffic will continue to provide
important economic benefits to the community, it appears unlikely
that the area will experience significant residential growth
which is recreation-oriented. Similarly, the appeal of the area
to retired persons from outside Gila County appears at present
to be slight.
The present inadequacy in housing supply in the area may well
act as a retardant to future growth. At present, new residents
in the community report difficulty finding houses, particularly
rental units. As availability of housing is typically a criti-
cal consideration in location decisions of industrial firms,
the present tight housing market could certainly be a disin-
centive to major industrial growth.
Development constraints related to availability of developable
land and availability of utility facilities do not seem to be
recognized in the population projections discussed above.
42
-------
Land Use
In the total project area the principal land use is for copper
mining and processing. Large acreages are in tailings ponds,
open pits and processing compounds. These lands generally
surround Globe and Miami except to the north. The general
magnitude of tailings ponds use can be interpreted from Figure 1.
General land use in the project area is shown in Figure 9," "~
Concentrated residential and commercial development is generally
restricted to Miami, Globe and smaller unincorporated communities.
There is a tendency for strip, commercial development along
Arizona Highways 60 and 70. Outside the urban areas"residences
are scattered along the state highways and major county roads.
Agricultural land use is generally restricted to cattle ranching
along Final Creek north of Globe. Cattle ranching is dependent
on the permitted use of surrounding U. S. Forest Service land.
Open, undeveloped public land managed by the U. S. Forest Service
is wide-spread and surrounds the area.
Residential
The dominant type of housing in the study area is single family.
Of the total residential land in Globe and Miami, less than
2 percent is devoted to multi-family units.
Between 1960 and 1970, the number of housing units in the Globe-
Miami area (Globe, Miami, Claypool and Central Heights) increased
by approximately 3 percent; during the same period, the population
xncreased by approximately 5 percent. Changes in the number and
types of housing units during this period are presented in
Table 9.
Although quantitative documentation is lacking, it is evident
that mobile homes have become increasingly popular in recent
years. There is a tendency for mobile homes to be placed on
lots outside the incorporated communities of Miami and Globe.
Globe, as city policy, does not permit mobile homes throughout
much of the city. Building permit statistics for unincorporated
areas of Gila County in fiscal year 1973-1974 indicate that 60
percent of the 399 residential unit permits issued were for mobile
homes. The split between conventional and mobile homes is
probably about 50-50 in the unincorporated portions of the
Globe-Miami area (Stansel, pers. comm.).
The popularity of the mobile home derives from several factors.
Compared to conventional housing, the initial cost is low. It
is not taxed as real property (Puso, pers. comm.). It is more
flexible in that it can be moved from one location to another.
Land may be leased or rented for placement of the mobile home.
Finally, a severe shortage of rental units exists in the Globe-
Miami area and the mobile home serves what, in other urban
areas, would be the rental housing market.
43
-------
PftHMLE
PUMPIN6 STATION
MAJOR LAND OWNERSHIP
Bureau of lard Managenent
State of Arizona
U. S. Forest Service — Tonto
National Forest
San Carlos Indian Reservation
Private
Industrial (prijnarily
tailing ponds)
Itesidantial
3 CcnmeroiaJ
BARNES PEAK
. • IXBY RANCH
MOONSHINE HILL
INSPIRATION^ (
FIGURE 9
LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP
44
-------
Table 9
Housing Stock of Globe-Miami Area, 1960 & 1970
Miami
Globe
Claypool
Central Heights
Area Total
Tear
1960
1970
1960
1970
1960
1970
.3 1960
1970
1960
1970
HOUSING UNITS
Single-Family
Total Conventional Mobile Multi-
Year Round Construction Homes Family
1,185 10381 147
1,139 967 31 141
2,364 1902 * 462
2,486 2052 105 329
803
777
728
761
5,080
5,163
— 1
NOT TABULATED3'
Vacancy
Rate2 %
9.3
4.5
9.4
2.9
3.0
3.6
3.5
1.6
7.5
3.1
'Mobile homes not separately tabulated in 1960.
'Calculated as follows: (available vacant units) * (available vacant units & occupied units)
*Needs Study, p. 57, indicates that there were about 300 mobile homes altogether in
Miami, Claypool and Central Heights in 1970.
Source: U. S. Census of Housing, Characteristics for
States, Cities S Counties, Arizona, 1970
(Tables 58 and 62) and Characteristics for
States fi Small Areas, Arizona, 1960 (Tables
25 and 28).
45
-------
Other impediments to residential construction are the topography
and available financing. The relative paucity of flat, develop-
able land inhibits large-scale residential construction; conse-
quently, construction is conducted on an individual unit basis
at higher costs.
Utility availability may also constrain the supply of new
housing. The Town of Miami has a ban on sewer connections.
Water supply is a problem in some areas, particularly in the
canyons south of Globe (Six-shooter, Ice House and Keliner
Canyons). There is a ban on new natural gas connections in
the area due to the pervasive shortage of natural gas; new
housing units must be served by electricity for all energy needs
and the cost of electricity has been rising sharply. The cost
of home heating with electricity may be as high as the monthly
mortgage payment during cold winter months (Stansel, pers. comm.)
X
Finally, while no one disputes the need for increasing the
supply of housing, there is a lack of what economists call
"effective demand". The number of persons in the market for
new housing, either new residents of the area or area house-
holds wishing to move to newer units, is not sufficient to
support tract construction. As a consequence of all the above
constraints, there has been very little subdivision activity in
the Globe-Miami area. It has been reported that the Pioneer
Hills subdivision is the first in the area with financial back-
ing for more than 50 lots (Stansel, pers. comm.). The developer
is the Holgate Company, a subsidiary of Cities Service Copper
Company. The total number of lots is about 300 but less than
20 percent are currently built on and some completed units have
not been sold. These units have about 1,200 square feet and
sell for $30,000-$35,000. The overall housing picture is one
of a present shortage growing more severe with time.
Industrial
The principal economic base is mining and related activities.
Early miners sought silver deposits, but these deposits were
exhausted in 10 years. Thereafter, copper became the most
important metal. The local copper industry was recently
estimated to be worth $70 million annually and employing 3,500
people in the project area (Earle V. Miller, 1975). Inspiration
Consolidated Copper Company has the most extensive mining and
manufacturing operations in the area employing some 2,000
people. Cities Service Copper Company and Ranchers Exploration
and Development Company also operate copper mines in the area.
Asbestos is mined in Salt River Canyon and processed at a mill
seven miles east of Globe by the Jaquays Mining Corporation.
Lime is mined and processed north of Miami by the Moore Lime
Company.
46
-------
Most of the manufacturing activity in the study area is related
to the copper mining industry; it is estimated that 70 percent
of all manufacturing employment is found in copper smelting
(Arizona Department ol Economic Planning and Development, 1971).
Western Pine Industries operates a sawmill just east of Globe,
which processes lumber from northern Arizona. Soil Needs
Incorporated also produces soil additives and decorative bark
products in the area. A recent development is the organization
of Peridot Mining and Manufacturing Company employing about 60
workers on the San Carlos Reservation east of Globe.
Commercial
Globe is clearly the major commercial location in the project
area; most of the commercial activity is found in food stores,
eating and drinking pi ces, and gasoline service stations.
Residents make most of their pur^aases of durable goods outside
the county because they are relatively close to Phoenix and
Tucson (Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Development,
1971).
The commercial trade in Miami is similar to that in Globe but
limited by comparison. A small amount of commercial trade is
found in unincorporated communities such as Claypool and Central
Heights, e.g., a shopping center, including Sears, a supermarket,
a dime store, a free-standing restaurant, a free-standing bank
and a half dozen shops opened in 1974 near the junction of the
Globe-Miami Highway and State Route 88.
Public and Quasi-Public
Both Miami and Globe devote land to public and quasi-public
uses. Such entities as churches, cemeteries, parks and
schools are available to all members of the community.
These land uses in Miami include seven public schools, one
roadside park, one community swimming pool, a library, eight
churches, and locations for city government operations (such
as the police and fire department buildings). Miami also has
the Miami-Inspiration Hospital, a recently-constructed 51-
bed facility funded by Inspiration Consolidated and Cities
Services, primarily to serve employees of the copper companies.
Globe, as the largest city in the region, has a larger public
and quasi-public infrastructure than Miami. In addition to
more extensive public services, Globe has a large cemetery and
the Gila County Hospital. Globe also contains 22 churches, as
well as the Gila-Pueblo campus of Eastern Arizona Community
47
-------
College. The Gila County Courthouse is on Broad Street in
Globe and the site of the new courthouse to the east of Globe
Is at the junction of U. S. Highways 60 and 70.
Transportation
The major thoroughfare of the study area isU. S. 60-70, two
separate highways which are unified for this stretch of road.
U. S. 60 is a major artery to the southern and south-central
states, stretching the breadth of the continent from Virginia
Beach, Virginia to Los Angeles, California. Access to northern
and southern Arizona is provided by Arizona State Routes 77
and 88.
Table 10 presents estimates of average daily traffic (ADT)
along the principal highway segments serving the area.
Three trucking companies currently serve the study area.
Pacific Motor Trucking Company has a freight depot in Miami,
while ONC-Hopper and Western Gillette maintain freight depots
in Globe. All three carriers offer scheduled interstate
service daily.
Both passenger and freight bus service is offered by Greyhound
Bus Lines. In 1971, Greyhound operated four north-south and
four east-west buses daily.
Air transportation is provided by the Cutter Airport east of
Globe. No regularly scheduled commercial service is presently
available at the airport.
Solid Waste Disposal
There is one county solid waste disposal site for local
domestic and commercial use. Mine companies use their land
for industrial wastes. Certainly tailings disposal consti-
tutes the major solids waste disposal activity in the county,
and this activity has a significant adverse impact on aesthetics
and surface and groundwater quality in the Final Creek water-
shed.
48
-------
Table 10
APT (Average Daily Traffic) on Principal Area Highways
.Highway Segment
US 60-70/Gila Co. line to western boundary
of Miami
US60-70/Eastem boundary of Miami to SR 88
US 60-70/SR 88 to western boundary of Globe
US 60 east of Globe, OS 70 to Gila County line
US 70 east of Globe, Globe east to Cutter
SR 77 south toward Winkelman
SR 88 north to Tonto Nat'l. Forest
SR 88 north of Nat'l. Forest boundary to
Gila County line
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
1974 1973 1972 1964
5400 6600 6000 4000
18000
16JOOO
1100
2700
1100
3500
2QOOO
ispoo
1900
2700
1400
4900
2Q000
17/500
1700
2400
1300
4800
13200
1UOO
1600
2500
700
2500
920 1100
990
600
Source: Martin Osmus, District Engineer,
Ray Johnson, Planning Survey,
Arizona Dept. of Transportation
49
-------
Land Use and Impact on Natural Resources
Land use in the area has evolved from Indian villages containing
permanent structures and utilizing cultivated agriculture
through ranchers and fanners of European ancestry to primarily
mining and associated commercial activities. Large amounts of
land have undergone irreversible change as a result of mining
j^tiyitiesLtailings disposal and chemical pollution. The consump-
tion and pollution of water and resulting changes in Final Creek
Jiaye changed ranching and farming practices. Most of the flat
and sha 1 lowly-sloping land in and around Globe and Miami is con-
verted to residential and commercial use. The Wheatfields area
which was once farm and ranch land is relatively unused for
these purposes and some has been converted to mobilehome parks
and permanent residences. Historical mining operations damaged
lower Final Creek land and water. The mining companies presently
own much of this land or have other attached rights.
Future Land Use
In the Globe-Miami area, the availability of land for private
development is constrained by land ownership. Much of Gila
County land is in government ownership (federal and state) and
Indian reservation. About two percent is in private ownership
and the majority of this that is presently undeveloped belongs
to large landowners, mining companies and ranchers. Approxi-
mately 83,150 acres of private land in Gila County is considered
to be "developed" and devoted to the particular use shown in
Table 11.
The Globe-Miami area is bounded by land which is not available
for private development. Figure 10 illustrates this situation,
showing the ownership pattern of the federal government, the
Indian reservation (San Carlos) and the state government. The
map does not distinguish among types of private lands, but
ranching and, in the immediate Globe-Miami area, mining account
for the majority of private uses. Ranching is associated with
U. S. Forest Service grazing permits. The largest portion of
land in mining use is devoted to tailings ponds, with the mines,
smelters and concentrators using a smaller proportion (Arizona
Department of Economic Planning and Development, 1971).
The effect of the present ownership pattern is to restrict the
supply of land available for residential and other private
development. Undeveloped land north of Glode and Miami owned
by the mining companies and ranchers constitutes the bulk of
potentially developable land. In recent years, modest changes
in this situation have been reported. The U. S. Forest Service
50
-------
Table 11
Use
PRIVATE DEVELOPED LAND CURRENTLY
IN USE IN GILA COUNTY
Acres
Ranch and farm
Public & quasi-public
Mining
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
50,000
26,000
4,400
2,250
300
200
Percent
60.1
31.3
5.3
2.7
0.4
0.2
TOTAL IN USE
83,150
100.0
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Planning and
Development, 1971.
Figure 10
'•• «•*-•.•• *
°.«:«". • V'. .-.•-• :*• • *".j
. . o . . • „ * ° •-.»«. -Jt
&:«\t&j*s
Winkl«mon
LEGEND
National Forests
Indian Reservations
State Land
Private Land
Source:
Arizona Department of
Economic Planning and
Development, 1-971.
51
-------
,
has been engaged in a program of land exchange. Privately
owned land in wilderness and natural habitat areas may be
exchanged on a dollar value basis for U. S. Forest Service land
in developing areas (Arizona Department of Economic Planning
and Development, 1971). So far this program has had less of
an impact in the Globe-Miami area than in other urbanized parts
of the county (Payson, Young and the Strawberry-Pine area).
Although some mining company property has been sold in recent
years, the reluctance of mining firms to diminish their holdings
is widely known. Thus, no short-term change in the present
pattern of land availability and consequently land use is
anticipated.
In the long term lands owned by the mining companies found in
and around Globe and along lower Pinal Creek (Wheatfields) may
be developed for residential and commercial uses. No land use
plan predicting such future uses exists for most of the area,
thus one may only grossly speculate about future land use.
Land Use Planning
Land use planning in the Globe-Miami area is undertaken by
three local jurisdictions: City of Globe, Town of Miami and
Gila County. The planning and zoning authority of local
jurisdictions is established by Arizona state law through the
Urban Environment Management Act (UEMA) which took effect in
1974.
Prior to this act, municipalities had authority to zone, but
UEMA broadened the purposes of zoning and added flexibility to
zoning administration. The principal contribution of the act
was its specific grant of authority to conduct planning (which
had been practiced by some Arizona municipalities for many years
before this enabling legislation). However, municipalities are
not now required to plan, even if they administer zoning or
subdivision regulations. There is no specific requirement that
zoning or subdivision regulations conform to any existing com-
prehensive plan. Cities the size of Globe and Miami, less than
50,000, need not address the same wide range of issues which
must be addressed in the comprehensive plans of larger cities.
Finally, zoning authority is permissive rather than mandatory;
a municipality may zone part or all of its jurisdiction, but
may also leave some areas unzoned.
The UEMA made no change in state law affecting zoning and plan-
ning activities of counties. Counties undertaking such
activities must establish a zoning and planning commission, and
local jurisdictions may either name a planning commission or
name their local legislature (city or town council) as the
planning commission.
52
-------
Means of coordinating planning among jurisdictions are set
forth in state law. Each incorporated municipality may enforce
its planning, zoning and subdivision controls on outlying unin-
corporated areas within three miles of the city limits if
(1) those powers are not exercised by the county, and (TT the
area in question does not lie within another municipality.
Where the three-mile sphere of influence of two municipalities
coincides, the jurisdictional dividing line is drawn midway
between the boundaries of the municipalities. Where a county
government has undertaken planning and zoning activities, means
of coordination between actions in incorporated and adjacent
(within three miles) unincorporated areas are specified.For
example, plots of new subdivisions within a three-mile band must
be referred by the county to the city. While state law does not
give the city veto power in such a matter, a negative recommen-
dation by the city might be given heavy weight in the county's
decision.
An important power of Arizona's municipalities is that of
acquiring lands outside city limits for public purposes. Such
acquisitions can be outright purchases or the land can be taken
by eminent domain with compensation to the owner of the property.
Such property, once in municipal hands and if used for a public
purpose, is not subject to the zoning provisions of the surrounding
jurisdiction. "Where the power of eminent domain exists, a
political subdivision may locate its governmental functions
within the territorial limits of another subdivision without
regard to limitations created by zoning" (see City of Scotts-
dale v. Municipal Court of the City of Tempe, 90 Ariz. 393,
397, 368 P. 2d 637 (1962), quoted in Arizona Office of
Economic Planning and Development, 1973).
The status of local planning in the area is described below by
jurisdiction.
Gila County. The nine-member Zoning and Planning Commission
(three from each supervisorial district) is responsible for
planning and zoning activities in the county. A zoning
ordinance has been adopted (September 1958). A county compre-
hensive plan was prepared by the consulting firm of A. E.
Ferguson of Phoenix, and has been adopted. Subdivision regu-
lations were adopted December 15, 1971. There is no building
code. The principal implementation device is the issuance of
use permits. However, a large portion of the county is unzoned,
and no use permits are required for development taking place in
unzoned areas.
Town of Miami. Miami's seven-member Town Council sits as the
Miami Zoning and Planning Commission. The Miami Comprehensive
Plan was prepared by Ferguson, Morris & Associates of Phoenix
and was adopted in 1972. The town's zoning ordinance is cur-
rently being revised in response to the comprehensive plan
53
-------
City of Globe. Globe has a seven-member Planning and Zoning
Commission.A zoning ordinance (1446) has been adopted (May 20,
1968). A comprehensive plan was prepared by the consulting
firm of Hollinger & Booher of Scottsdale and was adopted in
1972. There are subdivision regulations in effect; an ordinance
(1488) regulating mobile homes and travel trailers was adopted
on August 21, 1972.
54
-------
III. ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Introduction
Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations for the
preparation of an EIS (Federal Register 38(11), 1973) require
that alternatives to a proposed project be developed, described
and objectively weighed when significant resource trade-offs
are involved. Alternative analyses are to allow an independent
comparison of environmental and financial cost differences.
The reasons why the proposed project is best must be stated.
A brief history of the project was described in theJLntroduction
to this report. Alternative wastewater treatment facilities for
the Greater Globe-Miami area were previously described in the
197.1 report by John Carollo Engineers. Resulting from their
report, it was intended by local government to provide a
regional wastewater treatment facility near the confluence of
Final Creek and Miami Wash which could serve the major portion
of the developed area by gravity flow. Subsequent to receiving
an EPA grant offer, the regional concept was abandoned by Miami
and Gila County. The project proceeded with Globe and Cobre
Valley Sanitary District amidst considerable public complaint
until EPA withdrew its support from the proposed treatment
plant portion of the project to prepare this Environmental
Impact Statement.
A principal, local objective related to the lack of consideration
of alternative wastewater treatment projects which some members
of the public believed to be more desirable. This statement
describes in detail the wastewater treatment alternative recom-
mended for implementation by John Carollo Engineers (1971),
alternatives which were previously identified in the Carollo
report and by local citizens as well as other alternatives
developed during the preparation of this statement.
Although this report concentrates on alternatives for the treat-
ment and disposal of wastewater, there are also a number of pro-
posed improvements relating to the construction of local sewers
and common interceptors. The 1972 report prepared by John
Carollo Engineers entitled "Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater
Project Report" describes in detail areas that may be sewered,
the locations and diameters of pipelines and the cost. These
non-grant fundable improvements are not contained herein except
for general identification and costs that have been updated from
1972 to mid-1976.
55
-------
Factors Influencing Alternative Development
In the development of the described alternatives there are
certain institutional factors influencing facilities selection
and cost estimates. The principal considerations influencing
the development of alternatives for the Greater Globe-Miami
project are:
_1. P.. L. 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.
2. EPA Secondary Treatment Information, Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 159, August 15, 1975.
3. EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines, Federal
Register, Vol. 39, No. 29, February 11, 1974.
4. Arizona State Department of Health, Salt River Basin
Plan.
5. Arizona State Department of Health and EPA, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
6. EPA Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best
Practicable Waste Treatment, Federal Register,
Vol. 41, No. 29, February 11, 1976.
Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, provides three dates which must be met by
wastewater treatment planning as well as in the operation of
wastewater treatment facilities. By July 1, 1977, all treat-
ment facilities should be producing an effluent which meets
EPA secondary treatment requirements. By July 1, 1983, all
municipal treatment facilities should be providing what is
referred to as Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology.
By July 1, 1985, municipal treatment facilities should have
reached a condition of zero discharge of pollutants. This
latter requirement is generally undefined and the nature of
any future actions is uncertain.
The EPA "Secondary Treatment Information" defined effluent
quality requirements for achieving secondary treatment and
thus compliance with P. L. 92-500.
The EPA through its "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines"
provides a uniform method to calculate cost in all wastewater
treatment project planning and they were used for the cost
information in this EIS. These guidelines delineate the plan-
ning period to be utilized, the elements of cost which must be
included, the method of handling prices for various components
of the system, the interest rate which must be utilized, service
56
-------
life of various facilities, and salvage value to be utilized
^r the proposed works. They provide a method of comparing the
costs of various alternatives within a given project; as well
as the costs of any given project in a state. Therefore, while
the monetary costs developed in the cost-effectiveness guide-
lines may not always represent the "true" cost of a project,
they do present a uniform method for comparison of alternative
projects.
Within the Draft Water Quality Management Plan for the Salt
River Basin (Arizona Department of Health Services, 1975), the
project generally described by John Carollo Engineers in their
1971 and 1972 reports was the favored plan for the Globe-Miami
area. It was pointed out, however, that considerable public
controversy had arisen over the site to be utilized in this
plan and that further considerations may give rise to alterna-
tive plans. In essence, therefore, the Draft Salt River Basin
Plan does not specifically recommend the plan which must be
implemented in the Globe-Miami area. The Salt River Basin Plan
does, however, recommend that all treated wastewaters reaching
the Salt River at or below Final Creek be treated in a manner
achieving 80 percent phosphate removal.
The Arizona Department of Health Services and EPA must review
and certify a permit for wastewater discharge, the NPDES permit.
Each wastewater discharger must possess a NPDES permit.
Regionalization
The objective of a regional system is to provide the most
cost-effective solution for collection, treatment and disposal
of wastewater in a given area. The term cost-effectiveness is
comprised of three very important costs: monetary or dollar
cost, environmental costs, and social costs. Within this
chapter, only the monetary costs are considered because subse-
quent chapters describe the environmental and social impacts.
The most cost-effective project is that project which has the
lowest overall monetary, social and environmental cost to the
project community. The use of common interceptors, a treat-
ment plant and wastewater disposal for the project area was
proposed in the 1971 report; and for those areas that are
sewered, the plan was generally accepted by local governments.
Several advantages can be attained by regionalization —
economics of scale in construction, wider distribution of costs,
one operating authority for the treatment plant, easier
inclusion of new residential and commercial developments into
the system and ability to plan for use of basin as a whole.
The principal disadvantage requires that local governments
enter into joint powers agreement that extend local responsi-
bilities beyond individual member control.
57
-------
The extent of regional!zation can be total or partial and may
be done all at once or in stages. For example, regionalization
may initially include Globe, Cobre Valley Sanitary District_
and Miami with later stages bringing in county improvement ~~
districts and lower Final Creek. The alternatives described
generally deal with full regionalization for the treatment
plant, except for sub-regional Alternatives 2A and 2B.
Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
Reductions in the amount of sewage entering the treatment
plant and major interceptors may be decreased by local
ordinances, operations and repairs. If reductions are made,
capital and operating costs for the treatment plant are
lowered. For example, if water supplies are metered, the
sewage charge may be, formulated on water use to cause a con-
servation in water use and thus reduce sewage. The connection
of roof drains to sanitary sewers may be prohibited by ordinance;
this will reduce peak flows during rains. Collection systems
may also be repaired or replaced to reduce the infiltration of
subsurface waters. In the Globe-Miami area, construction of
the Phase II interceptor and some new collection systems is
expected to greatly reduce infiltration to the treatment plant.
No other flow reduction measures are proposed.
Proposed Facilities Common to
All Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
Among the treatment and disposal alternatves, there is a
system of collection and conveyance common to all. This
section describes the general nature and cost of local
improvement district and main interceptor facilities which
are not dependent upon the location of the treatment plant (s)
and therefore do not affect selection of a project from among
the alternatives presented.
The 1972 John Carollo Engineers report entitled, "Greater Globe-
Miami Wastewater Project Report", identified seven local improve-
ment districts which can be formed to provide a financing
vehicle for the construction of the collection system trunk mains
(sewers on main streets) and lateral mains (sewers on side streets)
House laterals, which are the sewers running from an individual
dwelling to the sewer in the street, are the direct responsibility
of the property owner. Table 12 summarizes for each of these
58
-------
Table 12
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COSTS
Name of
Improvement District
Lower Miami and Claypool
Russell Gulch
Miami Wash
Sixshooter Canyon
Ice House Canyon
South Globe, Skyline, etc.
Central Heights
1972 Costs*
$ 695,600
611,700
232,200
351,900
114,600
1,253,200
418,000
$3,677,200
Projected
Mid
1976 Costs**
$1,174,900
1,033,200
392,200
594,400
193,600
2,226,700
706.000
$6,211,000
* From "Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project Report", John Carollo
Engineers, 1972.
** Cost expected to prevail in mid-1976.
59
-------
improvement districts the 1972 costs as shown in the John
Carollo Engineers report and a projected mid-1976 cost, a
cost which is anticipated to prevail at the initiation of
construction. The great increase in cost generally results
from the general rise in prices attributed to inflation.
While the costs presented above are for mid-1976, it should
be understood that construction of the treatment plant and
major interceptor is not necessarily dependent upon the
immediate sewering of all of these areas. Sewering of some
areas may not be required for many years. Formation of an
improvement district would require majority agreement among the
members of that district as well as approval of a method by
which financing and cost allocation to the participants would
be accomplished. The cost for the various improvement districts
is presented to generally indicate the magnitude of costs which
would be involved in each general area and how these costs are
increasing with time.
The local improvement district collection systems could con-
tribute flow to the major pipelines or interceptors. Local
trunk interceptors run through the middle of the collection
system at the lowest elevation, such as along a stream bed,
and contribute flow to interceptors carrying the flows from
several improvement districts. The 1972 John Carollo Engineers
report listed the cost of these interceptors, as shown in
Table 13. Costs were projected to mid-1976, for those inter-
ceptors common to all alternatives.
Wastewater Management Options
t . ^^^Mi^^B^M^^MI^^MMMBM^B^H^^MBMM^BM«M««Ma«^M^^M^MHMHBHIB
Possible Alternatives
During the preliminary analysis of wastewater treatment/dis-
posal needs several local features were decided to have
limiting influences on the choice of available alternatives,
Cost, capital and operating
Land availability
Operational complexity and reliability
.Social acceptability and aesthetics
Impacts on surface and groundwaters
Availability for reuse
Serviceability for future growth
Institutional constraints
Known public issues
60
-------
Table 13
PROJECTED COST OF INTERCEPTORS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS
Projected
1972 Cost* Mid-1976 Cost**
Local Trunk-Town of Miami 23,000 34,100
Local Trunk-Lower Miami & Claypool 81,000 120,000
Local Trunk-Russell Gulch 114,000 168,800
Local Trunk-Sixshooter Canyon 179,000 265,100
Local Trunk-Icehouse Canyon 116,000 171,800
Local Trunk-Echo Canyon , 61,000 90,000
Local Trunk-Central Heights 174,000 257,700
Highway 60/70 to Miami Ponds 155,000 229,600
From Gila Basin .88,000 130,300
Icehouse Canyon to Globe 66,000 97,800
Globe to Echo Canyon 114,000 168,800
Echo Canyon to Central Heights 310.000 459,100
$1.481,000 . $2,193,100
* From "Greater Globe-MiamiWastewater Project Report"
** Cost expected to prevail in mid-1976.
61
-------
The order of listing has no bearing on importance. There are
numerous options which fall into these general categories —
location of plant, treatment process and effluent disposal.
Within these categories the options shown in Table 14 were
identified, .analyzed and evaluated for feasibility to finally
select the alternative projects described in the subsequent
section.. The alternatives described comprise a combination
of options from the three categories. During the analysis,
certain alternative options were eliminated from consideration
based on the following rationales:
1. Treatment plant site locations near Wheatfields would
provide very little difference to the site proposed
in the John Carollo Engineers 1971 report and thus
would be redundant. Also, it is doubtful if land
could be acquired for this use.
2. The use of trickling filters would constitute a
situation similar to activated sludge in terms of
cost, construction, mechanical operations and
appearance, thus it would be redundant.
3. Oxidation ditches are a relatively new_ procedure -
in comparison to aerated lagoons and generally pro-
vide the same service as the aerated lagoon. Since
land disposal is contemplated, the increase in cost
relative to its increased merits did not seem justi-
fiable. Also the mechanical operation is more complex
than lagoons, thus the opportunity for failure is
greater.
4. Evaporation requires a large land area and land is
in short supply, also the evaporated water is removed
from reuse in a water-short area.
The choice of possible plant site locations was made based on
discussions with local interests, the availability of suitable
acquirable land and probable adverse environmental impacts.
Treatment and Disposal Alternatives
The_fqllowing selected treatment and disposal concepts are
described to acquaint the reader with their general character-
istics. Two distinct treatment concepts are being considered.
One is "activated sludge" which is identified in the John
Carolio Engineers reports as the contact stabilization process,
The second is "aerated lagoon" treatment.
62
-------
Table 14
EVALUATION OP POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Plant Locations
Near Globe - 2*
Near Miami - 2
Near Confluence of Final Creek
and Miami Hash - 1
Near Inspiration Consolidated
Copper.Company Smelter - 4
Near Hheatfields - 5
Near Pringle Spring - 3
Treatment Processes
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filters
Aerated Lagoons
Oxidation Ditches
Effluent Disposal
Directly to Final Creek - 1
Spray on Land - 6
Reuse by Mine Companies - 4
Evaporation - 3
Percolation -1, 2, 3, 5
+ + ONA--Q-- - o
+ + + NA - o o - + o o
+ + + NA - - o - + o o
+ - o NA + o + + + o o
o - - NA --oo- + o
o - +
- - + -
- - + -
+ + + +
+ - + o
+ + NA +
----
--o-
oo-+
-- o
00 +
- X
- o NANA o NA + -
+o NANA o NA + - X
+o NANA + NA o +
oo NANA o NA o o X
+ - o + - NA o -
oooo- NA o
+ +
* Refer to Figure 11 for Key Number.
Key:
Negative action
o Problematical benefits
+ Positive benefits
NA Not applicable
X Dropped
63
-------
\.
'
Scale in miles
\'-?<
i\
\
V
CLAYPOOL \ CENTRAL
HEIGHTS !\ GLOBE
I
:.t
VvX
•%\
^ M> ^
• / s
:' / ;
**••
s
\
FIGURE II
ALTERNATIVE SCREENING SHOWING GENERAL
SITE AND DISPOSAL LOCATIONS
64
-------
Four separate treatment wastewater disposal concepts are con-
sidered. The first is percolation ponds, which operate by a
combination of percolation into the groundwater basin and
evaporation of the effluent. The second is spray irrigation
upon National Forest Service or other lands, primarily for the
purpose of effluent disposal. The third disposal concept is
utilization of the effluent by either the City Service Copper
Company or Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company, or a combi-
nation of the two. The fourth disposal concept is direct dis-
charge to a dry creek or wash.
The Activated Sludge Process. The activated sludge process,
through the biological action of bacteria and other microbial
cells breaks down and stabilizes the organic material present
in the raw sewage. The activated sludge process consists of
two separable treatments referred to as liquid handling and
solids handling. Liquid handling consists of (1) screening;
(2) aerated grit removal; (3) primary sedimentation; (4) aeration;
(5) secondary clarification; and (6) chlorine contact (Figure 12).
The screening removes at the inlet to the plant materials such as
rags, boards, and other large objects which are detrimental to
pumps and other equipment. Material removed by the screens is
normally disposed of in an on-site landfill or by hauling to a
sanitary landfill. Following screening, air is pumped into a
chamber to continually agitate the raw sewage, while at the same
time grit, which is similar to sand, settles to the bottom of the
basin and is removed. The removed grit is normally disposed of
on the plant site and would eventually amount to approximately
3 to 6 cubic.feet per day. The next unit process is primary
sedimentation. where large pieces of organic material settle
to the bottom of the clarifier tanks. These organic solids ~
are removed from the tank and the remaining flow, which con-
tains primarily dissolved organic material, enters the aeration
basin. In the aeration basin, returning microorganisms (sludge)
are added from the secondary clarifier (this is where the name
"activated sludge" is derived), and the cells use the soluble
organic material as a food supply, thus purifying the sewage.
Air is added to accelerate the growth rate of the bacteria. As
the bacteria accomplish this stabilization of dissolved organics,
they grow in number and must ultimately be removed from the
sewage flow. Removal of the microorganisms is accomplished in
the secondary clarifier where the microorganisms are settled and
removed either to be returned to the start of the aeration basin
(to activate the process) or are pumped to the solids handling
operation. The above operations, i.e., transfer of solids and
liquids, are critical to proper treatment of the sewage and must
be constantly supervised. As the purified sewage leaves the
secondary clarifier, it enters the chlorine contact chamber where
chlorine is added for disinfection of the effluent. The chlorine
65
-------
HANDLING
O)
SOLIDS
HANDLING
TREATED
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
f
FIGURE 12: PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF ACTIVATED 3LUD9E TREATMENT
-------
serves to disinfect the effluent by killing most of the
bacteria and a significant portion of the viruses present
in the treated effluent.
In the solids handling portion of the treatment, organic solids
which were settled out in the primary and the secondary clarifiers
of the liquid handling operation are degraded and further
stabilized. This material is referred to as sludge. It is
likely that the following operations would be used to treat the
solids (sludge): (1) thickening; C2) anaerobic digestion? and
3) drying beds. Thickening compacts the sludge by removing
water to lessen its overall volume. The thickened sludge is
pumped to anaerobic digesters where bacteria and other micro-
organisms, which operate in the absence of oxygen, decompose
and stabilize the sludge. The remaining material goes through
a second anaerobic digester and is then put on sand drying beds
where a humic-type soil results.
Operation of a 3 mgd activated sludge treatment plant would,
according to the John Carollo Engineers reports, require up to
ten men with the presence of at least one or two operators at
all times. The advantages of the activated sludge process are
the_jBjoall amount of land required for the treatment plant, the
production of a high quality effluent suitable "for direct
discharge to a wash, and a high degree of flexibility and
reliability.
Figure 13 is a photo of a 5.5 mgd activated sludge plant located
at Corona, California.
Aerated Lagoon. Aerated lagoons, as contrasted to activated
sludge, have only a liquid handling phase. The first unit pro-
cess screens incoming raw sewage as in the activated sludge
process. (Septic tank^ pumper trucks would discharge_their^ cgiv-_
tents to a closed storage Chamber for gradual addition to~the
sewage flow just before the screens.) The second process is
the aerated lagoon which is a large open pond about 8 feet
deep and holding about five days' inflow of sewage. Floating
aerators are placed at several locations near the center of the
pond. Aerators mix the pond contents and supply air (oxygen)
to the bacteria in the pond which break down organic material
as described in the activated sludge process. Following the
aerated .lagoon is a stabilization (maturation) pond (Figure 14).
The purpose of the stabilization pond is to provide additional
biological treatment often referred to as polishing. In an
adequately-sized stabilization pond and with ample amounts of
sunshine, there is a luxuriant growth of algae. This growth of
algae is in itself a form of wastewater treatment since the
algal cells utilize dissolved nutrients present in the pond
water. Because algae cannot be readily removed from the pond
67
-------
water, the EPA definition of secondary treatment (maximum
level of 30 mg/1 of suspended solids) cannot be met, and dis-
charge to a dry wash would be prohibited. This situation
requires that the aerated lagoon treatment process utilize a
land form of disposal such as spraying or percolation ponds.
There is no solids handling operation in the aerated lagoon
process because all solids are degraded within the aerated
lagoon or stabilization pond and are not removed for separate
treatment* This results in a gradual buildup of humic soil
on the bottom of the ponds, but ponds do not usually require
cleaning more than once every ten to twenty years. The soil
removed from the bottoms of such ponds in an excellent soil
conditioner.
Operation of an aerated lagoon treatment plant is relatively
simple as contrasted to activated sludge, because the only
operation relates to maintenance of the aerators, maintenance
of the pumps, and removal and disposal of the material screened
out of the raw sewage. It is estimated that three to four
persons would be required for the operation of a 3 mgd aerated
lagoon treatment plant.
The basic advantages of aerated lagoon treatment are the
relative simplicity of the treatment process and the relatively
low cost of construction and operation of the facilities. The
basic disadvantage of the process is that the effluent quality,
as measured by EPA secondary treatment standards, is not as
high as for the activated sludge process, thus precluding its
disposal by open stream discharge.
Figure 14 shows a photo of aerated lagoons and stabilization
ponds located at Coolidge, Arizona and Figure 15 shows a flow
diagram for aerated lagoon treatment.
Percolation Pond Disposal. Percolation ponds are simply large
open storage ponds from which treated effluent either flows to
the groundwater basin by, percolation or to the atmosphere through
evaporation. The rate of percolation depends on the character of
the underlying soil as well as the distance to the groundwater
subbasin. The rate of evaporation depends primarily upon the
wind velocity, the temperature of the water, and the temperature
of the air. Figure 16 presents a photo of a typical percolation
pond, one which is similar to that which would be utilized in
any of the percolation alternatives. The basic advantages of
percolation ponds are their relative low cost of operation, con-
tainment of an effluent on the treatment plant site, and replen-
ishment of the groundwater basin. Disadvantages stem from the
amount of land required and a possible degradation of the ground-
water basin. Additional public health concerns relate to the
consequences of any treatment plant failure.
68
-------
FIGURE 13
5.5 MGD activated sludge treatment plant, City of
Corona, California.
FIGURE 14
Aerated lagoon and stabilization pond, Coolidge, Arizona
-------
r
RAW
vo
OR
/
PERCOLATION
SPRAY DIVOSAL
FIGURE 15: PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF AERATED LAGOON TREATMENT
-------
Spray Disposal. In the spray disposal of effluent from the
treatment plant, treated wastewater is distributed using
large impulse-type sprinklers, "rain birds", over open land.
This is essentially an irrigation activity. Figure 17 shows a
spray disposal field operated by Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc.,
Laguna Hills, California. A spray disposal system is normally
designed for an application rate of about 0.3 of an inch per
hour. It is common to rest certain portions of the spray dis-
posal field for one to two days at a time, meaning that the
gross application rate is actually somewhat higher than 0.3
of an inch per hour. The basic advantages are that effluent
can be disposed of in a relatively remote area that does not
have to be level. Also, disposal areas can be irrigated for
grazing or certain crop productions. Disadvantages are that
the effluent is lost by evapotranspiration, and there is sub-
sequently little replenishment of the groundwater basin or
other beneficial use of the water. There could also be both
mechanical and public health problems in the event of treatment
plant failure.
Copper Company Utilization. Several of the alternative projects
could convey the treated wastewater to the copper companies for
their reuse. In these cases the reclaimed water could be com-
mingled with other water. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Com-
pany has recently indicated that it has concerns regarding the
suitability of treated effluent for its production processes.
Direct Discharge to Creek. Effluent from an activated sludge
process would meet EPA requirements for direct discharge to a
creek or wash. The advantage of this method of disposal is
its relatively low cost and lack of facilities except for an
outfall pipe to deliver the effluent to the creek. The basic
disadvantages relate to any adverse environmental impacts
created downstream of the discharge, as well as a potential
for adverse impact to human health in the event of treatment
plant failure.
The initial screening of treatment plant location, process and
disposal options resulted in eight seemingly viable wastewater
facilities alternatives. Among these eight alternatives, some
retained the existing Cobre Valley Sanitary District plant,
while in others it was abandoned. Some of the alternatives
make use of the existing Phase I interceptor, while others
abandoned this existing facility. The remaining portion of
this chapter describes in detail each of the eight viable alter-
natives showing a graphic description of the location of the
various facilities, costs of the required facilities, and
photographs of plant and disposal locations.
70
-------
FIGURE 16
Typical percolation pond, City of Corona, California,
FIGURE 17
Typical effluent spray disposal operation, Laguna
Hills, California.
-------
Treatment Plant Site Options
_Fpur.prospective treatment plant sites were located along
Miami Wash and Final Creek (Figures 18 through 21}.,
Site 1. This site is located south of Bixby Ranch, west of
Bixby Road, north of the confluence of Final Creek and Miami
Wash, and west of the Globe Hills. It occupies about 28
acres of land that slope toward Final Creek. The Globe Hills
rise steeply on the eastern edge of the property. The vege-
tation (3 to 12 feet tall) consists predominantly of mesquite,
cat claw, holocantha, prickly pear cactus, cholla cactus,
golden bush and Datura. Cattle have removed most of the
grasses and herbaceous plants. Kings Canyon Wash bisects and
drains much of the site. There is no development on the
property. The Bixby, Bejarano and several other residences
are approximately 0.5 mile north of the site. This site is
owned by the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company and has
been deeded to the City of Globe for a treatment plant site.
An archeological survey produced no surface evidence of archeo-
logical importance on this area or any of the alternative treat-
ment plant sites considered in this report.
On November 28, 1973, John Carollo Engineers presented a Flood
Protection Analysis for this site to the Arizona State Health
Department. This analysis forecasts a peak flow of 30,600 cfs
for a 3-hour duration storm. A cross sectional area of Final
Creek used by Carollo Engineers in this calculation is presented
as Figure 22. site 1 would be protected from a 100-year flood,
_but the_access road which fords the channel would be impassable.
To alleviate this problem, the City of Globe originally proposed
to construct living quarters for the plant operators on this
site.
Site 2. This alternative requires expansion of the Miami and
Globe sewage lagoons at their present sites, i.e., additional
land. Lands adjacent to the existing facilities are owned by
the two copper companies.
Globe lagoon is about one mile north of the city east of and
adjacent to Final Creek at its confluence with Big Johnnie Gulch.
The creek at this point flows intermittently with creek water
and effluent from the sewage lagoon. Several large cottonwood
trees are located near the lagoon. About 6 acres of field corn
is grown and irrigated with sewage effluent immediately north of
the sewage lagoon. Cattle are also grazed in the corn fields
after the corn is harvested.
Access to the sewage lagoon is by a dirt road following Final
Creek. There are no residences within a mile of the sewage
lagoon. Commercial developments are located along Highway 60
west of the lagoon.
71
-------
EL 3300
EL. 3200
to
STATE ROUTE 88
100-YEAR FLOOD STAGE-EL. 3203
FLOW VELOCITY = 10 f p»
AREA = 3060 «q ft
FLOW* 30,600 cf«
SITED
BIX BY RANCH ROAD
SITE A
EL. 3225
28'
NOTE: ELEVATIONS AND HORIZONTAL DISTANCES APPROXIMATED
FROM U.S.G.S.
HORIZONTAL SCALE
0' 2001 400'
VERTICAL SCALE
O1
20' 40'
SOURCE: JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS, 1973.
R6URE 22
CROSS-SECTION OF FINAL CREEK LOOKING NORTHWEST
-------
FIGURE 18
Site for treatment plant as proposed in Alternative 1
Bixby Ranch Road in foreground and Globe Hills in
background.
*?*feyi
FIGURE 19
Existing Globe sewage lagoon. Feasible site for
expanded facilities as proposed in Alternative 2,
-------
FIGURE 20
Existing Miami sewage lagoon. Feasible site for
expanded facilities as proposed in Alternative 2
and Alternative 5.
FIGURE 21
Feasible sewage treatment site (Alternative 3)
approximately 6.3 miles north of Ranch, on
east side of Final Creek.
-------
It is estimated that Final Creek, at a velocity of 17.7 fps and
equal to the elevation of the road, flows at 8,700 cubic feet
per second. According to Table 4, the 100-year flood level is
17,700 cfs; therefore, the existing roadway would be flooded.
Realignment of the road and dike to a level about 8 feet higher
would protect the site from a 100-year flood. Existing EPA^
regulations would allow construction of percolation ponds which
are protected from 10-25 year flood stages. The main treatment
plant facilities would require protection from a 100-year flood.
The Miami Lagoons (also noted as Site 2) lie along the west
side of Bloody Tanks Wash north of Miami and are removed from
all residential and commercial developments. The water level
in the lagoons is presently about 5 feet below the top of the
earthen dike which also channels the wash. Calculations indi-
cate the channel may carry 15,200 cfs at an average velocity of
20 fps. Table 4 shows a 100-year flow in Miami Wash at Miami
to be 13,400 cfs. If 6,000 cfs is added for the Russell Gulch
contribution, the 100-year flow at Miami Lagoons would be
19,400 cfs which exceeds the estimated channel capacity. Con-
sequently, the existing facility may be inundated by less than
a 100-year flood and any new facility at this site would need
a dike meeting EPA requirements. Percolation ponds could be
constructed with a lower level of flood protection (10-25 year
flood). Additional analyses and discussion on flooding at
Site 2 is presented in Chapter V.
Site 3. This alternative site is located approximately 6.3
miles north of the Bixby Ranch on the east side of Pinal Creek
Road. Definite boundaries are not established, but it generally
encompasses about 33 acres of relatively level to rolling land
dissected by small gullies. The Caretto ranch house is located
across Pinal Creek Road from the site.
Vegetation on this site is similar to that found on Site 1;
mesquite, cat claw, prickly pear cactus, cholla cactus and
Spanish sword are the common species. Cottonwood trees are
growing on the edge of Pinal Creek. The site is owned by the
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company and is presently used
for cattle grazing.
Pinal Creek at this point is in a relatively wide valley.
Perennial stream flow begins downstream from this site near
the Pringle pump station. The site is located about 30 feet
above the Pinal Creek bed and according to local residents
(Hicks and Bixby, pers. comm.), above the historical floodplain.
73
-------
Data are not available to calculate a 100-year flood for this
location, but based on the 100-year flows given for upstream
areas, it was estimated to be about 35,000 cfs. Calculations
indicate that Final Creek could carry a flood flow of 135,000
cfs at this location without reaching the level of the road to
Pringle; therefore. Site 3 would not need protection from the
100-year flood.
Site 4. This alternative site would be located on Inspiration
Consolidated Copper Company property near the smelter or acid
leaching plant. Its location, although not precisely known,
would probably be in an area already disturbed by development.
Lack of a definite site precludes a description of its
environment.
Implementation Options — Financing and Organization
A variety of facilities are described: treatment plants,
outfalls, interceptors, and local collection sewers. However,
perhaps equally important to the technical and environmental
aspects which are considered are the following questions.
1. How will the facilities be paid for?
2. How will the cost of these facilities be allocated
to residents within the project area?
3. How will the facilities be operated?
In addition to the physical facilities, there are various
methods of accomplishing the above which must be dealt with
before a project is operational, and consequently these
subjects should be in mind while reviewing the alternatives
and their environmental impacts.
The first question — how will the facilities be paid for —
should be discussed first. This project is a part of EPA's
Construction Grants Program, and as such the Federal Govern-
ment, via EPA, would pay for 75 percent of eligible treatment,
disposal and interceptor facilities costs. The remaining
25 percent is the local share which may be paid for in part
by the state. It should be noted that the purchase of land
Is normally" not an eligible cost and would not be paid by EPA.
Percolation ponds may, however, qualify as an eligible cost.
The local collection systems would ordinarily be financed 100
percent by local residents, although there are federal grants
74
-------
which can apply. In considering possible methods of financing,
consideration must be given to the City of Globe, the Town of
Miami, a sanitary district — Cobre Valley — and a relatively
large area which is presently unincorporated. The incorporated
areas could finance their share of the required facilities,
using revenue bonds or general obligation bonds issued upon
the obligation of the incorporated areas to repay the incurred
principal and interest. Revenue bonds and accrued interest
are repaid from revenue collected for the services provided.
Several financing vehicles could be made available to the
unincorporated areas. At the present time, there is one
sanitary district encompassing the unincorporated area, the
Cobre Valley Sanitary District. This district could be ex-
panded to include all remaining unincorporated areas where
sewerage is needed; or a new sanitary district could be formed
either encompassing the Cobre Valley Sanitary District and the
remaining portion of the unincorporated areas, or simply encom-
passing those unincorporated areas not in the Cobre Valley
Sanitary District. Regardless of which method is selected,
local improvement districts could be formed within the sanitary
district(s) to pay for collection sewers. In Appendix I,
facilities and costs for seven local improvement districts
have been outlined as originally presented by John Carollo
Engineers in their 1972 report. The local improvement districts
could be organized to construct and pay for necessary local
collection sewers while the sanitary district as a whole could
be responsible for payment of interceptor sewers, treatment and
disposal facilities.
The next question is how could the cost of the various facili-
ties be allocated among the incorporated and sanitary district(s)
areas; and within these entities, what would be the cost to
individual residents. Before these questions can be answered,
an adequate Revenue and Repayment Program must be prepared for
the project area and thereafter approved by both local interests
and EPA. An EPA required aspect of any revenue program is that
all charges must be on a "fair and equitable" basis. This means
that all residents would pay for services in a manner directly
attributable and proportional to the cost of the services
provided. No one entity could be charged more or less than
another entity for an identical service. If an unequitable
agreement were approved on a local level, it would not' be approved
by EPA. The allocation of costs for treatment and disposal to
commercial uses is often based on a formula relating to metered
flow, BOD, and suspended solids. For domestic sewage, it would
more than likely be based only on average flow contributed to
the system. The costs for interceptors would probably be allo-
cated on a design peak flow basis. The local entity cost for
interceptors would be allocated on their peak flow contribution.
75
-------
Allocation of costs for collection sewers, constructed by local
improvement districts, could be based on a number of methods,
including front footage of lots, total assessed valuation of
lots, land value, lot acreage, or on a per housing unit basis.
Whatever method is finally implemented has to be approved by
those persons residing within the local improvement district.
The third question is how would the facilities, constructed as
a portion of this project, be operated. A number of organiza-
. tipnal configurations can be evaluated for the operation of
facilities. A joint powers agency could be formed comprised of
the City of Globe, the Town of Miami, Cobre Valley Sanitary
JDistrict and any other sanitary district(s) which may be formed.
The joint powers agency would then let contracts and employ
those persons needed for operation and maintenance of the
system. Another alternative could be for the City of Globe
to operate the facilities and charge the other entities for
their allocated operation and maintenance costs. A third
alternative would be for the Town of Miami to operate the
facilities, and a fourth possibility would be for the sanitary
district (s) formed for the unincorporated areas to operate and
maintain the treatment facilities. Another possibility coupled
with Alternatives 1-A and 4, where the copper companies use the
effluent directly, is to form joint powers contracts for a
copper company to operate and maintain the treatment facilities.
If this were done, one of the above arrangements would have to
be consummated for the operation and maintenance of the major
interceptors and local collection systems. Just as importantly
as the allocation of capital cost is the allocation of operation
and maintenance costs. Regardless of the method selected for
operation of facilities, again, the allocation of operation and
maintenance costs must be on a "fair and equitable" basis.
Important also is that prior to any EPA construction grant
award for facilities, the exact method upon which the facilities
would be financed, the manner in which costs would be allocated,
and the method in which the facilities would be operated and
maintained has to be contractually agreed to among the user
entities.
Description of Evaluated Regional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives
Alternative 0 — Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
In Alternative 0, no grant fundable action would be taken to
change the present methods and locations of sewage treatment
and disposal. Limited modifications, would be undertaken to up-
grade the performance of the existing treatment facilities.
Effluent from the treatment facilities would continue to be
disposed by the methods presently utilized.
76
-------
This alternative is not considered to be viable for several
important reasons. First, effluent quality of the Globe and
Miami treatment facilities would violate the present NPDES dis-
charge requirements. In addition to being an environmentally
undesirable situation, enforcement proceedings would likely be
initiated by EPA and/or the State of Arizona. Secondly, since
no expansion of treatment facilities would occur, additional
_Str_owthinJthe sewered portions of Globe and Miami would probably
be prevented or minimized by bans on new connections to the
existing treatment facilities. In addition, the formation of
local improvement districts to provide sewers in unincorporated
areas would probably be prohibited.
There are eight municipal and private wastewater treatment
facilities in the project area. These facilities serve only
a portion of the population; septic tanks and a few cesspools
are used by residents not connected to the sewer system. The
existing treatment facilities and their location in the study
area are shown in Figure 23. The Globe, Miami and Cobre
Valley plants serve major segments of the population, while the
"package plants" serve some small, private developments. A^summary
of the design characteristics of the existing plants is given
in Table 15.
City of Globe. The Globe wastewater lagoon located on pinal
Creek about one mile north of the city is 6 to 7 acres in size
and receives an estimated waste flow of 0.78 mgd. Monitoring
reports indicate the pond is discharging about 0.5 to 0.75 mgd.
This difference is not explained. In addition to municipal
wastes, septic tank contractors have dumped septic wastes into
the ponds at a rate of 15,000 gallons per week (John Carollo
Engineers, 1972). These ponds are severely overloaded with
sewage. The pond produces an objectionable strong sulfide
odor. Part of the discharge is used by a farmer to irrigate
crops and pasture located near the ponds. The remainder of the
discharge is to Pinal Creek. The effluent is turbid, foamy and
non-chlorinated. Recent efforts have been made to temporarily
improve the situation at the Globe lagoons.
Cobre Valley Sanitation District-Central Heights. This treat-
ment plant is a 200,000 gpd (0.2 mgd) "oxigest" package plant.
It was designed to service approximately 100 trailers, 175
houses and a supermarket in the Central Heights area; however,
only a few of the prospective residences are connected. The
present metered flow rate is 15,000 gpd. The plant operates
intermittently because of the low, loading and discharges^
chlorinated effluent into an unnamed wash tributary to Pinal
Creek.
77
-------
LEGEND
I CITY OF GLOBE
2 COBRE VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT —
CENTRAL HEIGHTS
3 CITY OF MIAMI
4 MIAMI HIGH SCHOOL
5 MIAMI INSPIRATION HOSPITAL
6 CLAYPOOL-SEARS SHOPPING CENTER
7 PUEBLO TRAILER PARK-GLOBE
_...., WASHES
ROADS
• TREATMENT PLANT
CLAYPCOL ^ \ CENTRAL
4» * H
/
FIGURE 23: EXISTING TREATMENT FACILITIES
IN GLOBE-MIAMI AREA
SOURCE: EARLE M. MILLER ENGINEERS, 1975
78
-------
r
Table 15
SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS OF TREATMENT
PLANTS LOCATED IN STUDY AREA
Type of Design Approx. Current
Plant Capacity .Inflow
Discharge
Point Cements
Owner
Year of
Construction
-j
vo
1. City of Globe
Oxidation 200,000 gpd 780,000 gpd
ponds, 6
acres
2. Cobre Valley Packaged 200,000 gyd 15,000 gpd
Sanitary District plant
Final Poor effluent, Municipal
Creek & odors
irrigation
Dry wash City of
(tributary Globe
of Pinal
Creek)
3. Town of Miami
Oxidation 150,000 gpd
ponds, 6
acres
250,000 gpd . Miami Wash In floodplain Municipal
4. Miami High School Packaged 20,000 gpd
plant
5. Miami Inspiration Packaged 15,000 gpd
Hospital plant
6, Claypool - Sears Packaged 20,000 gpd
Shopping Center plant
operator
Source: Modified from Earle V. Miller Engineers, 1975.
1974
20,000 gpd
30,000 gpd
Bloody
Tanks Wash
Russell
Gulch
Russell
Gulch
Good operation,
counteracts
overload
Maintenance by
hospital
School
district
Private
Private
1966
1965
1974
7.
8.
Pueblo Trailer
Park, Globe
Inspiration Con-
solidated Copper
Conpany
Packaged 20,000 gpd Varies
plant
Oxidation
pond
Sixshooter Poor ef f lue
Canyon odors
Webster
Lake
(industrial
reuse)
nt, Private 1968
Private
-------
Town of Miami. The Town of Miami operates a series of four
oxidation ponds totalling about 6 acres on the east side of
Miami Wash. This plant has a design capacity of 0.15 mgd and
receives an estimated inflow of 0.25 mgd. The average discharge
from the ponds is about 0.14 mgd. The Miami ponds like the
Globe ponds are overloaded and are producing a poor quality
effluent. The effluent is discharged to Miami Wash.
Unsewered Areas. A portion of the incorporated area is
unsewered. Septic tanks and some cesspools are still the
most common form of sewage disposal in older sections of
Globe and Miami. Winneberger (1970) reported that approxi-
mately 260 housing units in Globe use septic tanks or cess-
pools (10 percent of total units serviced), while in Miami,
58 housing units are on septic tanks or cesspools (6 percent
of the total units served).
The unincorporated areas of Claypool, lower Miami and Wheat-
fields and much of Central Heights are on septic tanks. Many
septic tanks are malfunctioning because of poor location and
failure of leach fields, especially in the Central Heights
area. These tanks are periodically pumped with the septic
wastes going to the Globe lagoons. Inadequate septic tank
capacity in some areas of Central Heights and Claypool has
resulted in residents discharging wash water and other non-
fecal wastes into gutters and washes (Croft, pers. comm.).
Alternative 1-A — Regional Activated Sludge
Treatment/Copper Company Reuse
Alternative 1-A is the collection and treatment of raw sewage
at a central location (the junction of Final Creek and Miami
Wash) as proposed by John Carollo Engineers in their reports.
Figure 24 illustrates the major facilities required for
Alternative 1-A, as well as their general locations. Figure 18
presents a photograph of the location for the sewage treatment
plant.
The routing for the raw sewage interceptor for the Globe, Central
Heights, Skyline, Ice House Canyon, and Sixshooter Canyon areas
is generally along Upper Final Creek. Raw sewage from Miami,
Claypool, and Midland City would be conveyed through an inter-
ceptor down Miami Wash to the proposed regional treatment plant.
This interceptor routing would allow gravity flow for all
sewage originating in Upper Final Creek and Miami Wash. Raw
sewage originating in the Wheatfields area would be collected
at a pumping station located immediately below the area of the
existing development and pumped through a force main to the
regional treatment plant.
80
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
—....-+~ WASHES
„ '- ROADS
EXISTING SEWER
NEW SEWER
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL
BURCH PUMP STATION
(EXISTING)
KISER PUMP STATION
(EXISTING)
COBRE VALLEY 3.D.
PLANT (ABANDON)
REGIONAL PLANT
(SITE !)
CITIES SERVICE
COPPER CO.
INSPIRATION
COPPER CO.
&CAl£ IN MILLS
FIGURE 24
ALTERNATIVE I-A — RE3IONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT.
DISPOSAL BY COPPER COMPANY KEUSE.
81
-------
The regional, activated sludge treatment plant would initially
be sized to treat 2.4 mgd, but would require expansion in about
1986 to 2.8 mgd to meet needs until 1996. About 10 acres of
land would be required for the treatment plant and related on-
site facilities.
In Alternative 1-A, the effluent would be used by either
the Cities Service Copper Company and/or the Inspiration
Consolidated Copper Company. Equalization would be utilized
to maintain a fixed average pumping rate throughout the day
and thus minimize both energy requirements and the size of the
pipeline through which the effluent is pumped. Prom the
regional treatment plant, the treated effluent would be pumped
from the flow equalization storage site through a force main
running south, parallel to Highway 88 and terminating at the
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company Riser Pumping Station.
This pipeline would pass adjacent to Cities Service Copper
Company's Burch Pumping Station and a provision could be made
to divert effluent to the Burch Pumping Station. At these
pumping stations, the copper companies could mix the effluent
with their other water supplies and pump it to their points of
usage. Delivery of effluent to the two copper company pumping
stations would represent the termination of the proposed
wastewater project. Contractual agreements would have to
require that the industrial users take all the effluent at
all times.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company has recently indicated
concern over the quality of the treated effluent. The company
further objects to any requirement that it take all effluent
at all times.
Alternative 1-A has a 1976 present worth cost for capital
and annual expenditures over a 20-year period of $6,968,700.
A summary of these costs as well as the computation of the
present worth is presented in Appendix J. The present worth
value is the amount of money which would be required to be in
a fund in 1976 to construct and operate the described facili-
ties until 1996, without the collection of additional funds.
In computing the present worth cost, an effluent charge to
the copper companies of $20 per acre-foot was used. This was
the value suggested by John Carollo Engineers in their 1972
report, but the actual amount that the effluent could be sold
for would have to negotiated with the copper companies.
A breakdown of the 1976 and 1986 capital expenditures is pre-
sented in Appendix J and summarized in Table 16 (page 101),
respectively. In addition, interceptor and collection system
facilities, which are common to all alternatives and that were
previously discussed, would be required.
82
-------
Alternative 1-B — Regional Activated Sludge
Treatment — Spray Disposal
;
Alternative 1-B, raw sewage would be collected in an
identical fashion to Alternative 1-A. Raw sewage from the
Central Heights, Globe, and Upper Final Creek would be con-
veyed by gravity down Upper Final Creek, and raw sewage from
the Miami, Claypool, and Midland City areas would be conveyed
by gravity down Miami Wash to the confluence of Miami Wash
and Upper Final Creek. Raw sewage from Wheatfields would be
pumped to the south, up Final Creek to the proposed regional
treatment plant site. The proposed treatment plant site No. 1
is near the confluence of Miami Wash and Upper Final Creek.
The treatment process would be the activated sludge process
and identical to that used in Alternative 1-A. In 1976, a
2.4 mgd capacity plant would be constructed and enlarged by
0.4 mgd in 1986.
The mode of effluent handling and disposal is the principal
difference between Alternatives 1-A and 1-B. In Alternative
1-B, effluent flow would be pumped from an equalization
reservoir to 'a spray disposal field located east of the plant
site in the Tonto National Forest. Figure 25 shows the location
of the principal interceptors, the treatment plant and the
effluent pumping station. The spray disposal field would re-
quire approximately 14.3 acres to the east of plant site No. 1.
Alternative 1-B has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth for
construction and operation of $7,183,800. A breakdown of this
cost in terms of capital expenditures and annual expenditures
for principal components is presented in Appendix K. These
expenditures relate to facilities which are not common to all
of the alternatives. The previously discussed interceptor
and collection system facilities which are common to all
alternatives would also be required and add to the total cost.
Alternative 1-C — Regional Activated Sludge Treatment —
Lower Final Creek Discharge
Alternative 1-C is identical to Alternatives 1-A and 1-B in
regard to collection of raw sewage, location of the treatment
plant, and type of treatment process. Alternative 1-C differs
from 1-A and 1-B in the method and location of effluent dis-
charge. Effluent would be discharged directly to Final Creek,
immediately below its confluence with Miami Wash. This alterna-
tive is essentially the project proposed by John Carollo
Engineers in their 1971 and 1972 reports, and the alternative
upon which some design work has been completed. Figure 26 shows
the locations of the principal interceptors, the treatment plant,
the pumping station, and point of disposal.
83
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
WASHES
„ »- ROADS
—+. EXISTING SEWER
> NEW SEWER
• TREATMENT PLANT
© PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL
REGIONAL PLANT
(SITED
COBRE VALLEY S.D.
PLANT (ABANDON)
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 25
ALTERNATIVE 1-8— REGIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT.
DISPOSAL BY SPRAY IK THE TONTO NATIONAL FOREST,
84
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
_ WASHES
,. ROADS
-*. EXISTING SEWER
. fr NEW SEWER
0 TREATMENT PLANT
PUMPING STATION
••• -OUTFALL
REGIONAL PLANT
(SITE I)
COBRE VALLEY S.D.
PLANT (ABANDON)
FIGURE 26
ALTERNATIVE I-C — RE3JOKAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT.
DISPOSAL TO LOWER PINAL CRKEK.
85
-------
Alternative 1-C has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth for
capital and annual expenditures of $6,494,800. A summary of
capital and operating costs and computation of the 1976 pre-
sent worth is presented in Appendix L. The present worth cost
is somewhat less than Alternatives 1-A and 1-B because only a
short outfall pipeline is required for effluent disposal, as
compared to the more structural facilities in 1-A and 1-B.
The cost of interceptors not common to all alternatives and
the collection system facilities must be added to arrive at
a total project area cost.
Alternative 2-A — Sub-Regional Aerated Lagoons —
Percolation Pond and Direct Creek Discharges
In Alternative 2-A, three treatment plants would be used to
accommodate regional needs. Two treatment plants would be
aerated lagoons and one would be the existing Cobre Valley
Sanitary District treatment plant. Raw sewage from the Miami,
Claypool, Midland City areas would be conveyed to an aerated
lagoon treatment plant located at the existing Miami lagoons
site (Site 2). The new aerated lagoon facilities would occupy
about 20 acres and have a treatment capacity of 0.8 mgd. Raw
sewage from the Wheatfields area could be pumped by two stations
to this treatment plant. One pumping station would be near the
north end of the existing development in Wheatfields, and the
second would be at a location approximately halfway between the
lower pumping station and the Miami aerated lagoons.
The City of Globe and areas tributary to Upper Final Wash would
also be served by an aerated lagoon treatment plant which would
be constructed on about 25 acres in the general vicinity of the
existing Globe treatment plant. The 1976 capacity would be
1.4 mgd with expansion to 1.9 mgd in 1986.
Both the Miami and Globe aerated lagoon treatment plants would
use percolation ponds for effluent disposal. The existing Cobre
Valley Sanitary District plant would be maintained, and dis-
charge would be continued to the nearby dry wash. This plant
would have to be doubled in capacity in 1986.
V
Figure 27 shows the general locations of interceptors, the
pump stations and the three treatment plants. Photographs
in Figures 19 and 20 show the general environmental features
where the hew aerated lagoon treatment plants would be placeS.
It should be noted that in this alternative the existing Phase I
interceptor extending from the confluence of Miami Wash and Pinal
Creek to the City of Globe lagoon would be abandoned.
86
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
• — WASHES
. ,_ ROADS
+. EXISTING SEWER
> NEW SEWER
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL
MIAMI -
CLAYPOOL
PLANT
EXISTING PHASE I
(ABANDON)
COBRE VALLEY S.D.
PLANT (MAINTAIN)
GLOBE PLANT /
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 27
ALTERNATIVE ?.-A — SU3-REGIONAL AERATED LAGOONS. DISPOSAL
TO PERCOLATION PONDS. 87
-------
Alternative 2-A has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth for
capital and annual expenditures of $2,499,800. A summary of
the capital and operating costs as well as the computation of
the present worth is presented in Appendix M. It should be
noted that the cost for 2-A is substantially less than
Alternatives 1-A, 1-B or 1-C principally because of the lower
costs for aerated lagoon treatment plants. The cost of the
collection system and interceptors not common to all alterna-
tives must be added to the alternative cost.
Alternative 2-B — Sub-Regional Aerated Lagoons —
Spray Disposal
Alternative 2-B is identical to Alternative 2-A except for
the method and location of effluent disposal. In Alternative
2-B treated wastewater would be disposed of by spraying on the
land. Effluent from the Globe aerated lagoon treatment plant
and the existing Cobre Valley Sanitary District plant would be
combined at the junction of Final Creek and the wash leading
down from the Cobre Valley treatment plant. At this confluence,
a pumping station would be constructed and effluent would be
pumped in a northeasterly direction into the National Forest
for spray disposal on approximately 10.8 acres of land.
Effluent from the proposed Miami aerated lagoon treatment plant
would be pumped to an area between Miami Wash and State Highway
88 and then sprayed on approximately 3.9 acres of land.
Figure 28 illustrates the major facilities required for Alterna-
tive 2-B, as well as their general location.
Alternative 2-B has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth
for capital and annual expenditures of $3,136,900. A breakdown
of the capital and operating costs as well as the computation
of the 1976 present worth is presented in Appendix N. In
addition to these treatment and disposal facilities costs, the
cost of the interceptor and collection system not common to all
alternatives must be added.
Alternative 3 —- Regional Aerated Lagoons Below Wheatfields —
Percolation Pond Discharge
In Alternative 3, the regional treatment plant would be located
in the lower Wheatfields area north of any existing residential
developments. The proposed location is in the southwest portion
of section 6 and approximately one-half mile north of the Setka
property. Raw sewage from the Globe area and upstream
88
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
w...^ WASHES
,_ ROADS
>. EXISTING SEWER
> NEW SEWER
• TREATMENT PLANT
® PUMPING STATION
OUTFALL
EXISTING PHASE I
(ABANDON)
MIAMI-
CLAYPOOL
PLANT
COBRE VALLEY S.D.
PLANT (MAINTAIN)
GLOBE
PLANT
**
^$?
^
£/^U MIAMI
*#*
%/
s\
u
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 28
ALTERNATIVE 2-B — SUB-REGIONAL AERATED LAGOON DISPOSAL
BY SPRAYING ON LAND.
-------
tributaries to Final Creek would be conveyed through the new
and existing Phase I raw sewage interceptor to the junction of
Miami Wash and Final Creek. The existing Cobre Valley treat-
ment plant would be abandoned with raw sewage from that
system being conveyed to the Final Creek Phase I interceptor.
Raw sewage from the Miami-Claypool area would be conveyed to
the junction of Miami Wash and Final Creek, using existing
and proposed new raw sewage interceptors. From the junction
of Final Creek and Miami Wash, raw sewage would be conveyed
in a single raw sewage interceptor about 7 miles north by
gravity to the treatment facilities. In this alternative raw
sewage from the Wheatfields and lower Final Creek area, when
it is sewered, could be conveyed to the regional treatment
plant by gravity. Figure 29 illustrates the location of the
major facilities required.
The location of the aerated lagoon treatment plant is in the
southwest portion of section 6, on the east side of Final
Creek. Figure 21 presents a photograph of the area of the
proposed treatment plant. The aerated lagoons would be
followed by stabilization ponds and percolation ponds for
disposal of effluent. Approximately 33 acres would be
required for the treatment facility.
Alternative 3 has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth for
capital and annual expenditures of $3,465,200. Appendix O
presents a breakdown of the capital and annual expenditures
required over this 20-year period and the computation of the
present worth value. The total capital costs of treatment
facilities required in 1976 is $3,131,500, and the total
capital costs of facilities required in 1986 is $140,400.
During the formulation of this alternative and subsequent
discussions with property owners in the Lower Wheatfields
area, a great deal of thought and discussion went into how
far down Final Creek the treatment plant should be located.
Certainly, there appears to be no reason for the plant to be
farther north than presented in this alternative. However,
it should be noted that this interceptor would cost about
$285,100 per mile of length in the lower Wheatfields area.
Alternative 4 — Regional Activated Sludge Treatment —
Copper Company Reuse
Alternative 4 was developed to eliminate any controversy over
possible impacts of a treatment facility upon any existing or
possible future residential and commercial areas. In
90
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
— WASHES
,» ROADS
•+• EXISTING SEWER
> NEW SEWER
• TREATMENT PLANT
© PUMPING STATION
COBRE VALLEY S.D.
PLANT (ABANDON)
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 29
ALTERNATIVE 3 — REGIONAL AERATED LAGOONS BELOW WHEATFIELDS.
DISPOSAL TO PERCOLATION PONDS.
91
-------
Alternative 4, the treatment plant would be located on
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company property in the
•general vicinity of the existing smelter. Raw sewage from
Globe and other areas tributary to Final Creek would be
conveyed to the junction of Final Creek and Miami Wash and
pumped through a force main generally paralleling Highway 88,
to the general area of the existing Miami Ponds. At this
point, flows from Miami and Clay pool would be connected at a
pumping station which would pump raw sewage through a force
main generally following Miami Wash, Highways 60/70, and
Inspiration Road to the next pump station. Final design
engineering should consider the possibility of moving this
second pumping station farther south to eliminate some piping
as well as to conserve energy by minimizing the lift required
for Miami and Claypool raw sewage. The third and final pump-
ing station would be located on Inspiration Road, leading up
to the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company. The exact
location of this pumping station would be determined during
final design engineering. It should be noted that this alter-
native requires a substantial length of force main to convey
sewage to the treatment plant as well as four separate raw
sewage pumping stations. Figure 30 illustates the major
facilities required to implement Alternative 4, as well as
the general location of these facilities.
The treatment process would be activated sludge treatment
which has been described in a previous section. The treated
wastewater would be used by Inspiration Copper Company, and
represent approximately 15 to 33 percent of the water utilized
by this company. The location of the treatment plant has not
been definitively selected because this would be done by
Inspiration Copper Company after they determine the ^
exact point of effluent delivery. It may be possible that
the effluent could be utilized for one particular process, or
as in Alternative 1-A, it may be more economical to simply com-
mingle the reclaimed water with other existing water utilized
by Inspiration Consolidated. As previously noted, Inspiration
Consolidated Copper Company has some unresolved concerns re-
garding the suitability of treated effluent in its production
processes.
In the past, there have been objections to any alternatives in
which a copper company would reuse the effluent. These objec-
tions have generally centered around the inability and/or
refusal of the copper companies to accept delivery of the
effluent while they are on strike or closed down for other
reasons. A key assumption in development of Alternative 4 is
that the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company would accept
92
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
. ^ WASHES
,- ROADS
+. EXISTING SEWER
NEW SEWER
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMPING STATION
COBRE VALLEY S.D.
PLANT (ABANDON)
MIDLAND
CITY
G LITTLE
ACRES
FIGURE 30
ALTERNATIVE 4 — REGIONAL ACTiVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT a REUSE AT
INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER COMPANY.
93
-------
the treated effluent to a suitable location in the event of a
strike or other plant shutdown. There are a number of factors
involved in this alternative which would require substantial
"negotiation: the location of the treatment plant, the location
of the force main facilities for conveyance of raw sewage, the
price of the effluent as delivered to the copper companies,
the charge for water to the copper companies during a plant.._
shutdown, and the mode of effluent disposal during a plant
shutdown.
Alternative 4 has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth for
construction and annual expenditures of $8,847,800. This cost
is substantially in excess of the cost for any other alternative,
principally because of the cost of the activated sludge treat-
ment plant, the force main and three pumping stations to deliver
raw sewage to the proposed treatment plant location. Appendix P
presents a breakdown of the capital and annual costs required
over this 20-year period and the calculation of the 1976 present
worth. As in Alternative 1-A, a value of $20 per acre-foot was
utilized for the reclaimed water, a value which would require
negotiation to determine.
Recognition should be made of preliminary testing conducted by
Inspiration in conjunction with this statement to determine the
compatibility of their flotation process and treated wastewater.
This testing indicated that reclaimed water is not as satis-
factory in the flotation concentration operation as their
existing water supplies. If additional treatment must be pro-
vided by Inspiration, this may lessen the value of the effluent
as a saleable commodity. In addition to these costs, the cost
of interceptors common to all alternatives plus the cost of
local collection systems must also be considered.
Alternative 5 -- Regional Aerated Lagoons at Existing
Miami Lagoon Site
In Alternative 5, the regional aerated lagoon treatment facility
would be located adjacent to Miami Wash in the vicinity of the
existing Miami treatment lagoons. This location is on the west
side of Miami Wash, between Miami Wash and Inspiration's tailings
pond No. 5, and approximately one and one-half miles north of
Highways 60/70. Raw sewage from the City of Globe and upstream
areas of Final Creek would be conveyed through new and the existing
Phase I interceptors to the junction of Final Creek and Miami
Wash. Flow from Central Heights would also be conveyed to this
location through existing Phase I interceptor facilities. The
existing Cobre Valley treatment plant would be abandoned. At
the termination of the existing Phase I interceptor facilities,
a pumping station would be constructed to pump raw sewage to the
94
-------
new regional aerated lagoons. A pumping station would be con-
structed in the lower Wheatfields area below any existing
development, and raw sewage from Wheatfields would be pumped
through a force main, generally paralleling Final Creek, to the
previously identified pumping station located at the junction
of Final Creek and Miami Wash. The combined flow would then
be pumped south, up Miami Wash to the regional aerated lagoon
facility. Figure 31 illustrates the location of the major
facilities required in Alternative 5.
The regional aerated lagoons would be identical to those
described in Alternative 3. The aerated lagoons would be
followed by stabilization ponds and percolation ponds for
disposal of the effluent. Approximately 33 acres of land
would be required for the aerated lagoon treatment facility.
Alternative 5 has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth cost for
capital and annual expenditures required of $2,817,600. A
summary of these costs, as well as a computation of the present
worth is presented in Appendix Q. The total capital cost of
facilities required in 1976 is $2,110,800, and the total capital
cost of facilities required in 1986 is $140,400. In addition
to these costs, the previously discussed interceptor and collec-
tion system facilities, which are common to all alternatives,
would also have to be constructed.
Summary
Eight feasible alternatives have been developed and pre-
sented in this chapter for treatment of raw sewage and dis-
posal and/or reuse of the treated effluent. For each alternative,
a 1976 present worth cost was developed for construction and
operation of required facilities over a 20-year period to 1996.
The 1976 present worth and a breakdown of capital and annual
costs of these eight alternatives is given in Table 16.
In addition, a number of interceptors which are common to all
alternatives and local collection sewers common to all alterna-
tives would also be required. The estimated cost of these
facilities, if construction is initiated in mid-1976 is summarized
in Table 17. At this time the application of federal funds to
those costs is undefined.
95
-------
EXACT LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED
LEGEND
...— WASHES
.- ROADS
EXISTING SEWER
> NEW SEWER
• TREATMENT PLANT
® PUMPING STATION
REGIONAL PLANT
AT EXISTING
MIAMI PLANT
COBREVALLEYS.D.
PLANT (ABANDON)
GLOBE PLANT
(ABANDON)
-.
1 1 1 1
SCALE IN MILES
*/' ' ;/
' 1 \
i
FIGURE 31
ALTERNATIVE 5 — REGIONAL AFRAT&D LAGOONS. DISPOSAL
TO PERCOLATION PONDS.
96
-------
r
Table 16
GREATER GLOBE-MIAMI WASTEWATER PROJECT
20-Year COMPARISON OP LOCAL COSTS - 7% INFLATION RATE*
(thousands of dollars)
vo
•j
Alternative
Total Present
Worth Cost
Present Worth
of Capital
Costs**
Local Share-
Present Worth
Local
Annual
O&M Costs
Present Worth
Value of
Total Local
Present Worth Cost
1A
IB
1C
2A
23
3
4
5
6,968.7
7,183.8
6,494.8
2,499.8
3,136,4
3,465.2
8,847.8
2,817.6
3,722.4
3,524.8
3,237.5
1,290.7
1,562.0
1,807.4
4,542.1
1,365.0
930.6
881.2
809.4
322.7
390.5
451.9
1,135.5
341.3
4,175.9 1,041.6
4,197.9
3,664.4
1,541.4
1,828.9
1,248.5
5,636.5 1,041.6
1,696.9
4,064.9
5,079.1
4,473.8
1,863.8
2,219.4
1,700.4
5,730.4
2,038.2
* 7% annual cost increases for inflation, Interest rate « 7%.
** 75% grant fundable by EPA.
-------
Table 17
ESTIMATED COSTS OF INTERCEPTORS
COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Projected Mid-
Item 1976 Cost
Interceptors common to all alternatives $2,193,100
Local sewer improvement districts
Lower Miami and Claypool 1,174,900
Russell Gulch 1,033,200
Miami Wash 392,200
Sixshooter Canyon 594,400
Icehouse Canyon 193,600
South Globe, Skyline, etc. 2,116,700
Central Heights 706,000
$8,404,100
98
-------
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE VIABLE ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
Introduction
This section of the EIS identifies and discusses the signifi-
cant environmental, social and economic impacts of the eight
alternative plans for the treatment and disposal of Globe-
Miami wastewater. Some impacts that may be conceived were
not discussed because they were evaluated to be insignificant.
The impacts discussed include not only the primary effects —
the immediate results of an action — but also secondary
effects — the consequences of the direct effects. Emphasis
is placed on the time frame of the impact (short term or long
term), its nature, general magnitude and associated indirect
effects. In some cases the analysis refrains from labeling
effects as either beneficial or adverse, since these desig-
nations often depend on the value system of the person evalu-
ating the impact. Measures which could mitigate (reduce in
magnitude) or avoid the adverse aspects of an impact are also
identified, where applicable, after the impact.
Impacts Common to All Alternative Plans
Wastewater treatment and disposal as required by the state
and EPA has some effects that tend to be relatively independ-
ent of any particular alternative plan. That is, whatever
variation occurs among alternatives is generally insignificant
in relation to the total effect.
Short-Term Impacts
Short term in this case is generally defined as that period
from the beginning of the plan to shortly after completion
of construction. During this period the short-term impacts
are those ordinary events associated with most construction
and the impacts are usually of short duration and can be
effectively mitigated. These impacts and common mitigation
measures are given in Table 18. Because of the different
locations involved, the place and time of these impacts will
change, but none were evaluated to be significant to the
community as a whole.
99
-------
Table 18
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTIOM IMPACTS
The direct short-term impacts of this project are related
to construction activities. These impacts are relatively
minor in effect and magnitude and in most cases the impact
can be effectively mitigated. The impacts considered, their
mitigations, and our judgment of their relative positive or
negative merit are given in the following matrix.
Eh
rt-T«
litigatic
Disruption of traffic during
construction of treatment
plant and interceptors
Creation of dust by distur-
bance of the soil mantle
during construction work
Increase in potential for
soil erosion during
construction
AAAAAAAA
A A A A AAAA
A A A A AAAA
Reroute traffic around construction areas. cannot
Provide flagmen in construction areas where traffic cannot
be rerouted.
Keep soil wetted down in construction areas.
Minimize removal of vegetation in construction areas.
Exposed slopes should be hydromulched and revegetated.
Effect of spoil disposal
AAAA • Locate spoil disposal sites in areas that would minimize aesthetic
impact and damage vegetation.
• Replant permanent spoil sites with native vegetation.
O
o
• Perform all equipment maintenance in designated areas, keep
maintenance chemicals
Increase in noise near con-
struction sites
Visual impact of construction
equipment and construction
site
Increase in emission of
aerial pollutants by con-
struction equipment
proper disposal of all waste products.
• Require all internal conbustion engines to have mufflers, baffles
A A A A AAAA other noise reduction devices.
• Perform construction work during normal daylight, working hours.
• Maintain construction equipment in areas that would not create
visual eyesores and minimize impact on vegetation.
AAAAAAAA • Fence or otherwise screen construction maintenance areas.
• Minimize the use of internal combustion engine-powered equipment
possible.
emission control devices.
or
where
Creation of attractive
nuisance and safety hazards
at construction site
AAAA
• Maintain construction equipment in an enclosed corporation yard.
e Keep curious "bystanders", especially children, away from construction
areas) both during and after daily construction.
• During pipeline trenching operations, leave no open trenches for
longer than one working day.
Temporary increase in local
and regional economic
activity
B B B B BBBB
• Hone
Temporary increase in
employment
D B B B BBBB
• None
-------
Long-Term Direct Impacts
Long-term direct impacts result from the construction,
location and/or operation of the facilities and generally
remain in force for the life of the project or longer. The
time span may be 20 to 50 years or longer. These impacts
tend to be on or near a facilities site or pipeline route
or in the area of wastewater disposal. Some are generally
common to all alternatives in that the magnitude of variation
in degree of impact among alternatives is small. These
impacts do not greatly influence the selection of a recom-
mended plan from among the alternatives even though the
impact may be significantly adverse. The following list
indicates those impacts considered significant to the
community and discussed in the subsequent text.
Impact on vegetation and wildlife
Possible disturbance of avcheological sites
Possible effects of earthquakes
• The direct impact of treatment plant location on
vegetation and wildlife.
Sewage treatment facilities require land and the removal of
native vegetation and wildlife. Depending on the alternatives,
the amount of land required will vary from about 8-100 acres.
Unless suitable, unoccupied habitat is found, most of those
animals displaced from the site will perish. Although not
quantified, this loss is expected to have a minor effect on
the total animal population of the area.
Vegetation removed from the local soils requires very long
periods of time to reestablish. Landscaping can be used to
revegetate base land and make it amenable to native wildlife.
The present plant sites at Globe and Miami are considered bene-
ficial to extant fish and wildlife because they provide the
source of a limiting resource — water.
• The location and construction of facilities may
disturb or destroy artifacts of historical importance.
An archeological reconnaissance of the listed potential plant
sites did not reveal any evidence that archeological or histori-
cal sites would be involved. A cursory review of pipeline
routing indicates a low potential for the encounter of artifacts,
Once detailed routings and sites are selected and surveyed, a
complete reconnaissance survey with subsurface testing for
archeological sites should be undertaken.
101
-------
Construction activities may uncover subsurface archeological
sites not detectable by ground surface survey. Should any
indications of buried archeological resources be encountered
during facility or pipeline construction, all work in the
immediate vicinity should be halted until the suspected find
is evaluated and recommendations for further action made by a
professional archeologist.
• Damage to facilities and disruption of operations
due to earthquakes.
The treatment plant, pump stations, trunk sewer lines and other
facilities are subject to being made inoperative by a major
earthquake or aftershock. The rupture of lines and tanks could
cause raw sewage to enter drainage channels. Based on the
history of seismic activity in the area, the probability for a
major earthquake (Mercalli magnitude VII or larger) is judged
to be low. There are many small and several large faults in
the Final Mountains and Globe Hills area; however, these have
not recently been seismically active. An examination of geologic
maps for the Globe-Miami area {Peterson, 1962) shows no fault
lines under the proposed treatment plant sites and the proposed
interceptor routes. A detailed geologic map which includes
Alternative Site 3 was not available to assess its location in
relationship to known faults.
Facilities should be designed to minimize physical damage which
can occur during an earthquake. Natural drainage systems should
be kept open to carry off raw sewage during a catastrophe.
Long-Term Secondary Impacts
Long-term secondary impacts are those that occur indirectly as
the result of a proposed action. These secondary impacts may
be significant, especially as they relate to future population
change, economics and land use in the study area. Common
secondary impacts of the proposed project are as follows.
Population growth
Economic growth
Increased size of government
Increased cost of government
Ability to pay
Property values
Land use
Biological resource changes
Aesthetics
Resource consumption
Air quality
102
-------
• Population growth inducement.
Growth in the Globe-Miami area is presently constrained by
several factors: lack of a rapidly expanding employment base;
lack of available land suitable for residential development;
inability of the private housing market to construct (or obtain
financing for) housing in the price ranges for which a housing
demand exists; and lack of utility facilities in various areas
(water, sewer, natural gas).
All alternative projects provide for a wastewater treatment
capacity of 2.4 mgd at one or more publicly owned facilities.
The rated capacity of the three existing public facilities
(Globe, Miami and Cobre Valley Sanitary District) totals 0.55
mgd; wastewater flows currently treated at these facilities
total 1.05 mgd. Thus, all alternatives provide 1.35 mgd of
treatment capacity above that needed to service the existing
sewered population in the Globe-Miami area. This excess capa-
city could be utilized to service existing unsewered residents
or to support future population growth in the Globe-Miami area.
Successful implementation of one of the alternative projects
would eliminate the sewer connection bans in Miami and Globe.
While such a situation might normally be expected to induce a
significant amount of new development, this seems unlikely to
occur in the Globe-Miami area. The existence of several other
constraining factors (mentioned above) will minimize the extent
of direct growth inducement attributable to the project.
The major role of any of the alternatives will be to accom-
modate longer term future development in the Globe-Miami area.
The rate of this future growth will be determined more by
general economic conditions and availability of land and
financing for new housing than by the existence of wastewater
treatment capacity at new or expanded public facilities. The
placement of new interceptor lines may largely determine the
location of future development; but existing constraints of
topography will also play a major role in this regard.
• Socio-economic impacts of growth.
Any development induced or accommodated by the project will
result in increased local economic activity and assessed
valuation and a consequent increase in the tax base for Gila
County, the Town of Miami and the City of Globe. This develop-
ment will also be accompanied by increasing demands for a
variety of public services and facilities. Transportation,
utility, educational, medical, governmental and recreational
facilities may require expansion to service the increased
population.
103
-------
• Failure to secure an administrative organization to
provide a regional sewerage system.
Presently there is no legal entity capable of operating,
maintaining and funding a regional sewage treatment plant and
common interceptor lines. Initial efforts were made by the
City of Globe, Town of Miami, Gila County and the Cobre Valley
Sanitary District to enter into an intergovernmental agreement
to participate in the project; however, the Town of Miami and
Gila County have withdrawn from participation in the project
(see INTRODUCTION section of the report).
Failure to form either a regional sanitation agency covering
the entire service area or a joint powers agreement assigning
responsibility and cost on the basis of use of the treatment
facility, prevents immediate implementation of any alterna-
tive involving regionalization.
John Carolio Engineers (1971) recommended three alternative
methods of organization:
1. The existing Cobre Valley Sanitary District could be
expanded to include all the unincorporated area to
be served.
2. A new county sanitary district could be formed to
encompass the area.
3. The City of Globe or the Town of Miami could annex
the entire unincorporated area to be served.
Combinations of these methods may prove feasible also.
• Costs of government and services.
Whichever alternative is selected, local jurisdictions must
allocate the local share of capital costs to their constituents,
who also must pay for the operating costs of the system.- It is
possible that, for some households with on-site disposal, the
costs of participating in a centralized system may actually be
less than costs they are now paying, as on-site systems may be
unreliable and subject to frequent servicing.
• Ability to pay.
As with any major public capital investment, the capacity of
the local resource base to bear the local share of the cost
is a critical consideration. An estimate of the cost of the
project to the average resident must await the development of
a financing plan and the specification of administrative
arrangements for project implementation and financing. Major
104
-------
issues to be considered include the determination of how areas
not presently located within existing municipalities or service
districts are to be brought into the financing of the project
(if at all), the principle on which capital costs are to be
allocated (such as per dwelling unit equivalent, per benefitted
acre, or some other principle) and the actual financing mechanism
(short-term assessment or long-term debt). All of these
decisions, as well as the alternative selection itself, will
affect the magnitude and distribution of costs.
A configuration of unique local circumstances makes these
decisions more important than they might be in other locations.
The Globe-Miami area is characterized by comparatively low in-
comes, higher than average median age, and relatively low resi-
dential property values. These are all indicators of possible
difficulties in supporting major public capital investment.
Where severe restrictions on the taxing powers of public
agencies exist, these problems may be aggravated. Each of
these circumstances is discussed below.
Income. The Globe-Miami area is characterized by lower average
and median incomes than the State of Arizona or the U. S. as a
whole. Table 19 presents 1969 income from all sources for
families in the U. S., Arizona, Gila County, Globe and Miami.
While incomes have risen since 1969 due to inflationary pres-
sures, there is no reason to believe that the difference in
local versus state and national income levels has altered.
More importantly, area incomes are significantly lower than
state and national income levels, and this is a factor which
must be taken into consideration in devising a wastewater^
facilities financing scheme appropriate to the Globe-Miami
area.
It should also be pointed out that the median age of the
population is higher than that of the state: 26.3 years for
Arizona and 27.5 years for Gila County (1970 Census). This
suggests that the study area has a greater proportion of ^
older and possibly retired persons than the state; as retired
persons typically live on incomes which do not keep pace with
inflation, this factor too must be considered.
Property Values. Values of residential properties, as well
as Incomes, are markedly lower in the study area than in
other parts of the state and nation. This comparison is
presented in Table 20.
While housing values for Arizona as a whole lag only slightly
behind the national average, values in the Globe-Miami area
are barely half the national average (Gila County average -
53 percent of U. S. average).
105
-------
Table 19
Family Incomes in 1969 of Globe & Miami
as Compared to County, State & Nation
Family Income1
Mean (Average) Median1 Family
Family Income Income
O. S. $10,999 $' 9,590
Arizona 10,501 9,187
Gila County 8,633 7,886
Globe 9,256 8,558
Miami 8,264 7,687
*For unrelated individuals (persons n6t living in a family
. setting) the distribution of incomes is comparable.
*Median: that level which divides the upper 50% from the
lower 50%.
Source: U.S. Census of Population, General
Social & Economic Characteristics,
U.S. Summary, 1970 (Tables 178 and
180 and Arizona, 1970 (Tables 118
and 124).
Table 20
Bousing Values in Globe-Miami- Area Compared
to County, State & Nation '
Median Value of
Owner-Occupied
Units*
0. S. $17,000
Arizona 16,300
Gila County 9,000
Globe 11,300
Miami 6,600
Claypool 7,000
Central Heights 9,600
*For one family homes on less than 10 acres with no business
on property.
Source: U.S. Census of Housing, General Housing
Characteristics, U.S. Summary, 1970 (Table
5) and Arizona, 1970 (Tables 23, 24, 27,
CO and 61).
106
-------
There are many reasons for this difference. Average lot sizes
are probably considerably smaller in the Globe-Miami area than
is the case elsewhere. For example, in the Midland City area,
lot sizes are typically under 2,500 square feet; in Central
Heights, typical lot sizes range between 3,000 and 5,000 square
feet. Smaller lots are not uncommon.
It also appears likely that average structures are smaller.
For a sample of 10 percent of dwelling units in Midland City
and Central Heights, excluding mobile homes, square footage
per house averaged about 900. The median age of owner-occupied
housing units in the U. S. is about 25 years (i.e., 50 percent
of owner-occupied units have been built since 1950). In the
Globe-Miami area, the median age is certainly higher than that
if mobile homes are excluded. Finally, as mobile homes are
included in the housing value estimates, it should be pointed
out that, at present, this type of unit accounts for about
5 percent of the total year-round housing stock in the U. S.
In Gila County, mobile homes accounted for about 11 percent
of the year-round housing stock in 1970 (HUD News, August
1975; Census, 1970).
All of these factors would work to keep housing values low,
resulting in lower per-housing-unit assessed valuation than
would be the case in other areas and limiting the amount of
revenue that can be raised from property taxation.
Institutional Arrangements. A number of practical obstacles
exist to the development of a comprehensive and equitable
financing scheme. First, portions of the area which might
benefit from a regional or subregional wastewater treatment
system lie outside established boundaries of cities and service
districts. While service can nevertheless be provided to these
areas, there appears to exist, at present, no administrative
mechanism to implement a cost allocation scheme. Second, even
where a sanitary district does exist, 20 percent of the voters
in that district can block a district taxation proposal.
Finally, there must be agreement among the parties cooperating
in project development on a fair method of cost allocation.
Among questions to be addressed would be whether cost should
be borne directly by users on a housing-unit-equivalency basis,
on the basis of projected use per se, on the basis of acreage,
on the basis of assessed valuation, or some other basis.
Alternatively, cost could be divided among participating juris-
dictions on the basis of the proportion of capacity they con-
stitute or on some other basis. This environmental impact
statement makes no recommendation as to the appropriate approach
for area communities to take. However, it does appear that
these issues would have to be resolved to local residents'
107
1
-------
satisfaction before a project could be implemented. Whatever
approach is adopted, property values and incomes in the region
are such that long-term financing of the local share appears
to be necessary.
• Effect on property values.
A wastewater treatment facilities system can affect property
values positively or adversely. An adverse impact on property
value may be experienced in the area adjacent to the treatment
plant. Other things being equal, a property affected by odors
emanating from a plant, within line of site of a plant, or even
on the same road as a plant, will normally have a lower value
than a property free of these attributes. Value discrepancies
due to treatment plant location can be reduced substantially by
careful attention to plant siting selection of treatment
process, attentive plant management, and other measures.
Where the supply of developable land is ample in proportion
to the demand, even a slight adverse effect of a sewer
plant may be sufficient to render adjacent properties un-
desirable for certain types of development. Where land for
development is in short supply, as is the case in the Globe-
Miami area, dramatic impacts on property values near a
treatment plant are less likely to be experienced, particularly
if the plant is attractively designed and landscaped, properly
buffered and operationally acceptable Ci.e., dust, odors,
vehicular traffic and other effects are minimized).
Alternatives 1C, 2A and 5 have the potential for increasing
the extent of rising groundwater on portions of the Bixby
Ranch, and thus could adversely affect property values in
this area.
In areas at the fringe of metropolitan centers in the O. S.,
it is often the case that the extension of sewer service to
areas not previously served has occasioned increases in pro-
perty values. Whether this would be the case in the Globe-
Miami area, and if so, the extent of such increases, is un-
certain. On the one hand, the provision of reliable sewage
removal and treatment will be an overall asset to properties
not now served. Housing units now operating with on-site
systems would experience an increase in value when sewerage
is extended to them. Vacant land which presently is not
served by public sewers would appreciate in value until it
attained the same value as that of comparable land which does
have sewerage service. On the other hand, if the total
acreage brought into the sewerage service area is large enough,
the increase per se in the amount of developable land will be
a factor in keeping values down, as landowners and developers
will compete to find buyers. Both of these effects — trends
toward appreciation and reduction in land values — are likely,
but it is not known how they will balance one another.
108
-------
• Land use changes.
It appears unlikely that the present mix of development would
be affected by any of the alternatives, or by the no project
alternative. Land use in the area is unlikely to alter sub-
stantially even in the long run, and existing conditions in
terms of types of uses will persist through the foreseeable
future. The impacts of those uses on the environment will be
substantially determined by local administration of planning
and environmental regulation. Because regulation and enforcement
policies are subject to change with changing public attitudes
and governmental administrations, the appropriate rating for all
alternatives is problematical. A mitigation measure to ensure
orderly growth in areas not now zoned would be the implementation
and conscientious enforcement of zoning.
• Biological resource changes.
Most secondary effects on biological resources relate to
changes in land use and resource consumption. Increases in
population growth cause conversions of land use. Open space
and agricultural lands are converted to use for houses,
business and industry. Vegetation and wildlife habitat is
usually lost with these conversions in land use. Biological
resources are also affected by changes in water quality.
Increases in hunting and fishing with population growth can
also affect game animals and game fish populations. Because
private lands represent a minute percentage of the total area
and no endangered species are known to be involved, the con-
version of habitat is probably not significant to the region.
• Aesthetic and visual changes.
Most aesthetic changes will be associated with land use. The
conversion of open space to homes, business and industrial
uses could be considered aesthetically displeasing. Increases
in roadways, traffic and noise are often side effects of growth
that also distract from the aesthetic value of scenery. The
type of impact is relative to one's viewpoint and therefore
problematical.
• Resources and energy consumption.
Increases in use of both renewable and non-renewable resources
would be expected to occur with population growth in the study
area. Its impact is of local and regional consequence.
109
-------
Demand for renewable resources such as water, lumber, food,
wildlife, etc., and non-renewable resources such as gasoline,
natural gas, and minerals, will probably increase proportional
to population growth. The extraction, harvesting and proces-
sing of these resources produces a variety of both beneficial
and adverse^nvironmental effects. Often, maximizing the pro-
duction of renewable and nonrenewable resources, to better
support continued growth, entails social and environmental
costs such as reduced aesthetic, recreational and wildlife
values, increased water and air pollution, and preemption of
alternative land or resource uses. Since nearly all renewable
and non-renewable resources used in the Globe-Miami area are
acquired from other areas, impacts related to acquisition,
production and processing of the resources will occur elsewhere.
Air Quality. Air emissions from mobile sources (automobiles,
trucks, etc.) and stationary sources (factories, homes, busi-
nesses) will probably increase in direct proportion to population
growth. The largest single stationary air pollution source,
the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company smelter, is pre-
sently on a successful air pollution control plan. Air pollution
control devices reduce particulate emission by 99 percent and
sulfur dioxide emission by 95 percent. Future air quality
problems relating to the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company
smelter should be minimal if the compliance plan remains in
effect.
Compared to stationary sources, mobile sources contribute
rather small amounts of particulates and sulfur oxides, but
are a major source of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and
nitrogen oxides. Mobile source emissions do not pose a signi-
ficant air quality problem in the Globe-Miami area, and EPA
motor vehicle emission regulations should prevent such problems
from developing in this area.
Impacts that Vary Among the Alternatives
Many of the project impacts relate to some alternatives but
not others and the level of significance may vary among affected
alternatives. These project specific impacts are listed in
Table 21 showing their applicability to individual alternatives.
Discussions of their effects follow.
110
-------
Table 21
LONG TERM IMPACTS SPECIFIC TO ALTERNATIVES
This list of direct and secondary impacts shows our
judgment of the relative positive and negative merits of
the impacts.
ic ?A if i < s
RESOURCES
Discharge of treated effluent
to Final Creek can affect
vegetation, wildlife and
possibly fish. F
the effect of ponding water
on vegetation and wildlife
F F F F
the disposal of treated
effluent by spraying on up-
land habitats and its effect
ea recitation and wildlife
CBOL06T MO SOILS
•ffeet of apray diapoaal of
effluent on aoil stability of
adjacent land
SJATCt RESOURCES
tffeot of an effluent surface
discharge on Final Creek
quality A
effect of an effluent surface
discharge on Final Creek
quantity A
•ffect on groundwater quality
by effluent percolation
•ffeet on groundwater quantity
by effluent percolation
A A
effect of disposal Betted on
> e e
flood hazard associated with
location and operation of
treatment plant
Opportunity for reuse of
treated effluent by copper
companies and effect on their
industrial water demand >
tease of treated effluent for
•ffrleultura
r t
•OCULL IMPACTS (DIRECT)
Increase in noise levels
because of treatment plant
operation
rroductlen of obnoxious odors
fro* sewage treatment plant
operation
{•pact of sludge disposal
r r
Impact of septic tank service
disposal
p » F
Increase in consumptive use
of electrical energy by
treatment plant
Increase in personnel needs
to operate treatment plant
AAABBBAB
• 1A IB 1C IA
FOBLIC HEALTH
Potential nuisance Mosquito
and other insect problems
resulting from discharge of
•ffluent to Pinal Creek and
land disposal of effluent
Vealth hazard of contact
with sprayed effluent
A A
Potential discharge of septic
and unsanitary wastes should
an employee strike, a major
equipment malfunction* or
Other unforeseen events occur
A A A A A A
Operational reliability and
protection of environment
Biological and mineral con-
tamination of domestic wells
the visual impacts of treat-
ment plant and other
sewage facilities
FIMAMCIAL
effect of treatment plant
coat
effect of treatment plant
location on property values
effect of treated effluent
spray disposal on value of
O. S. Forest Service
exchange land
Ose of existing Phase I
interceptor facilities
Otilliation of existing
Cities Service plant
IMP OCT
effect of treatment plant
on adjacent toning
Compatibility with land use
planning
IMPACTS OF HO ACTION
Retention of existing
inadequate waste treatment
facilities
tBGENDl A Adverse
B Beneficial
P Impact of unknown value
H Mo discernible impact
Blank not applicable
111
-------
Biological Resources
• The direct discharge of treated effluent to Final
Creek can affect vegetation, wildlife and possibly
fish.
Alternative 1C discharges treated effluent directly to Final
Creek just below the confluence of Miami Wash and Final Creek.
This discharge would result in surface flow of about 5 cfs
for an undetermined distance downstream. It is assumed that
the flow would percolate into the alluvium during the dry
season. This flow would probably encourage an abundant growth
of annual grasses, herbaceous plants (reeds and cattails), and
riparian shrubs and trees. The additional vegetation plus the
surface water source would attract birds and mammals, espec-
cially quail and dove, rabbits, squirrels and deer. Non-game
fishes could probably be established. Reptiles and amphibians
that feed on the other life would also be productive. Ponded
water and moist vegetation could encourage the seasonal pro-
duction of mosquitoes and other nuisance insects. Chlorination
of the effluent would cause it to be toxic and lethal to aquatic
animals near the point of discharge.
• The effect of ponding wastewater on vegetation
and wildlife.
Alternatives 2 and 3 use ponds for effluent treatment and
disposal. Aerated lagoons or ponds are designed to retain
the wastewater during the oxidation treatment process. Per-
colation ponds hold the treated water during the time it is
disposed of by evaporation and percolation into the groundwater.
If properly designed and maintained, there is no surface dis-
charge from such ponds. Grasses, tules and cattails tend to
grow around the perimeter of the ponds enhancing their value
for wildlife. Under normal maintenance procedures, however,
this vegetation is inhibited or removed. By raising the
level of groundwater immediately around the pond, the growth
of riparian-type trees, such as cottonwood, sycamore and
willow, can be encouraged.
Wildlife may use the percolation ponds for drinking waters;
however, large animals may be restricted from the pond areas
by fencing. The water could provide habitat for ducks, other
birds, small mammals, etc. If stocked, warmwater fish often
inhabit such ponds.
Mosquitoes and other nuisance insects can breed in the ponds.
Certain fish and invertebrates (i.e., mosquito fish, dragon
flies, and parasitic nematodes) could be introduced to assist
in the control of nuisance insects. Insects can also be con-
trolled by chemical treatment.
112
-------
• The disposal of effluent by spraying on upland
habitats and its effect on vegetation and wildlife.
Alternatives IB and 2B spray treated effluent on upland vege-
tation (i.e., mesquite, cat claw, palo verde). A few native
plant species receiving marginal amounts of effluent spray
may become more luxuriant, green and productive, but the '
plants present are desert types and would certainly die with
continuous watering. Annual grasses and herbaceous plants
that require rain for germination and moist soil for growth
and maturity would, over a period of time, populate the wetted
area. No field research has been performed to estimate which
local plants would fill this new habitat. Generally the present
plant cover of xerophytic shrubs and trees would convert to
grassland. To dispose of treated effluent in this manner would
convert about 10 acres. The difference in treatment processes,
activated sludge vs. aerated lagoons, would probably not alter
the impacts.
Wildlife would be affected by changes in vegetation species
and biomass and also respond directly to the spraying operation.
Certain wildlife species using the disposal area would be dis-
placed because of the constant moisture and altered vegetation.
No research has been done to determine either the species which
would be displaced or those which may remain to use the area at
least occasionally. Because of the change in vegetation, micro-
climate and food supply, animal species not now common to the
area would establish at least seasonal residence. The poten-
tial animal community for the wetted area is presently
undefined.
The change in vegetation on the spray disposal area would
increase the productivity of grasses and forbs and thus the
grazing value of the land to cattle ranchers. In recognition
of the inevitable change in vegetation, the spray disposal
area could be cleared of trees and brush and cultivated to
produce desirable pasture vegetation.
Geology and Soils
• Effect of spray disposal of effluent on soil
stability of adjacent land.
Spray disposal of effluent upon land is normally undertaken
at a relatively low average application rate of approximately
0.3 of an inch per hour. The application rate is normally
somewhat greater than this, as the soil is often allowed to
113
-------
rest and rejuvenate after being used for a day or so. Sta-
bility of adjacent land would be affected primarily by surface
runoff from the spray disposal area. Assuming that 0.3 of an
inch per hour is a satisfactory application rate, it would not
be expected that there would be an adverse impact from spray
disposal upon soil stability. Alternatives IB and 2B are
rated with the problematical impact upon land stability due
to the spray disposal operations.
Effluent is removed from the spray zone by evaporation, trans-
piration and percolation. The exact spray locations and method
of applying the wastewater are not yet defined. The main soil
type covering the prospective area of effluent disposal are the
White House-Caralampi-Hathaway association. In general, the
soils are deep and have moderate to slow permeability. Slopes
in the area are greater than 5 percent. Application of waste-
water if not managed properly could cause the soils to become
saturated and result in surface runoff to Final Creek, espe-
cially after a rainstorm. Surface runoff could cause accel-
erated erosion resulting in gullies. Saturated or heavily
wetted soils might be subject to soil creep or slumping.
The selection of location, method of application and opera-
tional safeguards can eliminate excessive surface runoff and
prevent adverse impacts.
Water Resources
• Effect of an effluent surface discharge on flows in
Final Creek.
Any discharge to the surface of Final Creek would definitely
increase the quantity of water available, either as surface
flow or shortly thereafter as subsurface flow in the creek.
Whether or not an increase in the amount of water in Final
Creek is beneficial or adverse depends upon the party ex-
pressing an opinion. For example, the Inspiration Consolidated
Company would more than likely feel it to be beneficial (as
long as the discharge occurred far enough upstream) since it
would result in a greater quantity of water reaching their
Pringle Pumping Station. Oppositely, property owners such as
Mr. Bixby and others whose property becomes "boggy" during
some high stream flow conditions, would consider an increase
in the quantity of Final Creek flow to be an adverse impact.
Since there are alternative methods available for the copper
companies to obtain the reclaimed water, the overall impact
of Alternatives 0 and 1C is considered adverse.
114
-------
• Effect of a surface discharge on water quality in
Final Creek.
Discharge of effluent directly to Final Creek can affect the
quality in two ways: the mineral and biological quality.
The Present Environment section of this statement generally
describes the mineral quality of Final Creek in the vicinity
of the Pringle Pump Station where the TDS, for example,
averaged over 3,000 mg/1. The mineral quality of the treated
effluent would be around 700 mg/1, and thus direct discharge
to the creek would tend to enhance the overall mineral quality
of Final Creek. As previously noted, Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Company has some concerns regarding specific chemical
constituents in the wastewater.
The impact on biological quality would vary throughout the
year, depending on whether the creek is about dry or carrying
runoff water. During a dry period. Alternative 0 definitely
has an adverse impact upon public health aspects of biological
quality because the effluent is poorly treated and unchlorinated.
Alternative 1C on the other hand, would have a problematical
impact on quality because the effluent would be a relatively
high quality activated sludge effluent and chlorinated. A
high chlorine content would cause the effluent to be toxic to
some aquatic organisms. Assuming proper operation of the
chlorination system, it would kill essentially all bacteria
and most of the viruses in the effluent. During high creek
flow conditions, the impact upon mineral and bacteriological
quality would depend primarily on the characteristics of the
storm flow. Storm runoff from urban and undeveloped land
often has a relatively poor mineral and bacteriological quality
due to the pick-up of polluting constituents. Mineral con-
tribution from the mine company land is high. It is not
expected that a surface discharge to Final Creek would have
any significant impact upon water quality during a wet weather
condition.
• Effect on groundwater quality by effluent
percolation.
As discussed in the PRESENT ENVIRONMENT section, groundwater
quality in Final Creek and Miami Wash is presently in a very
poor condition due to historical operations by the copper
companies. With regard to mineral quality, any alternative
using percolation as a disposal method would have a beneficial
impact upon groundwater mineral quality. There is conjecture,
however, that percolation would have a detrimental impact upon
bacteriological quality of the groundwater basin. The effluent
115
-------
would be chlorinated prior to discharge into the percolation
ponds. In addition, the movement of percolated effluent
through soil should remove most remaining bacteria and virus
through the combined processes of physical straining, adsorp-
tion upon soil particles, and detention time. It is possible,
however, for biological organisms to remain in the percolated
effluent for an extended time and distance from the point of
percolation. The degree of removal depends upon the type of
soil and other technical factors which are unknown in this
case. The effect upon groundwater bacteriological quality
is therefore rated problematical for Alternatives 0, 2A, 3
and 5. Of these, Alternative 3 would probably have the least
effect impact upon humans because the treatment plant and
percolation ponds are located downstream of any existing
domestic water supply wells.
• Effect on groundwater quantity by effluent
percolation.
Any of the alternatives which utilize percolation ponds for
effluent disposal will add to the amount of water available
in the groundwater basin, and thus have a beneficial impact.
The impacts associated with increased groundwater quantity
were discussed previously. Alternatives 0, 2A, 3 and 5 could
have an adverse impact.
• Effect of disposal method upon water available
for reuse.
Except for the spray disposal alternatives, the effluent stays
within the Final Creek watershed for direct or indirect reuse.
The spray disposal Alternatives IB and 2B would have a prob-
lematical impact upon water availability within the basin
because it is unknown about how much effluent would enter the
groundwater. All other alternatives would have a beneficial
impact upon water availability within the basin, especially
those alternatives with direct reuse features. Alternatives
that utilize percolation ponds or direct discharge to the
creek would add to the quantity of groundwater available for
reuse through wells.
• Opportunity for reuse of treated effluent by
copper companies and effect on their industrial
water demand.
Alternatives 1A and 4 would use reclaimed water directly in
copper processing. An indirect reuse, on the other hand,
could occur in Alternatives 1C, 2A, 3 and 5 by withdrawals
116
-------
from the groundwater. This withdrawal would occur through
existing copper company wells. Water is not generally avail-
able for reuse in Alternatives IB and 2B, in which the effluent
would be sprayed on land.
• Reuse of treated effluent for agriculture.
The only alternative which would directly reuse effluent for
agricultural purposes is Alternative 0 — the no action
alternative. This would occur at the existing farming opera-
tion which is immediately below the Globe lagoons. A possible
reuse would occur for Alternatives 1C, 2A, 3 and 5 as these
are alternatives in which effluent could reach the groundwater
basin via percolation ponds or direct discharge and subsequent
percolation, and would be available for agricultural reuse
downstream of the point of discharge. At the present time,
there is a limited amount of agriculture downstream in the
lower Wheatfields area, but should such agricultural operations
develop in the future, these alternatives would have an impact
upon the quantity of water available. The golf course is
presently irrigated by Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company
which could divert wastewater for this purpose as wastewater
becomes a component in their water supply.
• Flood hazard associated with location and
operation of treatment plant.
In the ALTERNATIVES section of this statement, an analysis
was presented of the effect of a 100-year flood upon the four
treatment plant sites located adjacent to Final Creek and/or
Miami Wash. All of these sites are above the 100-year flood
level or could be protected from a 100-year Jrlood (in.come
cases at substantial cost). Additional evaluation of flood
hazard problems at Site 2 is presented in Chapter V of this
EIS.
Social
• Increase in noise levels near proposed wastewater
treatment plant.
Pumps, generators and other equipment at the treatment plant
will produce noise levels of approximately 70-80 dBA periodic-
ally throughout the day and night. These noise levels could
be distracting to residents located near the proposed treat-
ment plant sites. It is assumed that residents up to 1/2 mile
117
-------
from the plant may hear noise under certain climatological
situations. Homes are located near Alternative Sites 1 and
3; the other sites are not located near any residences or
businesses.
Pump stations will be located along the interceptor route
where gravity flow is not available. These pumps could be
located in residential areas and be a source of noise. The
relative magnitude and importance of such impacts can only
be determined during the site selection process.
Pumps and other equipment should be housed in insulated
buildings or be installed with mufflers and baffles to reduce
noise levels in areas where they may be annoying to local
residents.
• Production of obnoxious odors from sewage treatment
plant operation.
The proper engineering design and operation of a sewage treat-
ment plant controls the production and release of obnoxious
odors to levels not detectable of the treatment plant property.
There may, however, be extraneous circumstances which could
lead to the production of odors, such as a power outage of
more than several hours duration at the treatment plant. Such
an outage would result in the creation of anaerobic conditions
and the release of obnoxious odors. It should be noted that
aerated lagoons could last through a substantially longer
power_outage without odor production than activated sludge
facilities. All alternatives, with the exception of Alterna-
rive 0, therefore, have a problematical impact upon the produc-
tion of such odors. In Alternative 0, the ponds are operated
in an aerobic/anaerobic fashion with little or no control
over the release of odors. Alternative 0, therefore, has an
adverse impact relative to odor production.
• Impact of sludge disposal from treatment plant.
Between the two types of treatment plants considered, the
activated sludge treatment plant produces substantial amounts
of dried, digested sludge. This sludge may be beneficially
used as a soil conditioner or as an alternative, it will be
disposed of in the local sanitary landfill. The aerated lagoon
treatment system does not produce sludge which must be removed
from the system more often than once every 10 to 20 years?
therefore, sludge disposal is not a factor. All of the alter-
natives using activated sludge treatment (1A, IB, 1C and 4)
would produce an impact resulting from sludge disposal because
capacity would be required in a sanitary landfill.
118
-------
• Impact of septic tank pumping disposal on treatment
plant operation.
The discharge of septic tank pumpings to a sewage treatment
plant can cause two problems. The first of these is a shock
to the biological system due to an immediate heavy loading of
solid organic material. The second of these is the cost of
operating the sewage treatment plant to accommodate this heavy
loading of organic material. In the engineering design of the
treatment plant, a closed storage facility should be included
to accept trucked septic tank wastes. The storage facility
acts as a balancing reservoir, allowing the gradual and con-
tinual discharge of septic tank wastes to the sewage treatment
plant which minimizes the impact of shock loading. All alter-
natives with the exception of the no action alternative can
be designed to accommodate the discharge of septic tank wastes
to the treatment plant. Alternative 0 presently has an adverse
impact as there is no opportunity for controlled discharge of
the septic tank effluents to the existing lagoons. The acti-
vated sludge process is most susceptible to shock loading
because it operates using a relatively short aeration detention
time in the neighborhood of 6 hours. The aerated lagoon treat-
ment provides a detention time of about 5 days, and therefore
is less prone to "upset" resulting from septic tank wastes.
• Impact of consumptive use of electrical energy
by treatment and pumping facilities.
With the exception of Alternative 0, all other alternatives
have an increased impact upon energy consumption. Alternative (
however, is not considered a viable alternative. The degree
to which the remaining eight alternatives consume energy is
presented in Table 22 divided according to the treatment energy
and pumping energy. It can be seen from this table that
Alternatives 1C and 3 consume the least energy. Alternative 4
consumes over twice as much energy as other alternatives and is
the most energy consuming of the eight viable alternatives.
With the exception of Alternative 4, all of the eight viable
alternatives consume roughly equivalent amounts of energy.
• Increase in personnel needs to operate treatment
facilities.
Between the two treatment processes considered, it can be
stated that the 3 mgd activated sludge process would require
approximately 10 operators and the aerated lagoon treatment
would require^ three. Alternative 0, the no action alternative,
is assigned no impact as no personnel are presently utilized on a
full-time basis for maintenance of these facilities.
119
-------
Table 22
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
ALTERNATIVE
i
1-A
1-B
1-C
2-A
2-B
3
4
5
Kilowatt - hours/20
TREATMENT
16,973,000
16,973,000
16,973,000
19,929,500
19,929,500
20,279,000
16,973,000
20,179,000
years
PUMPING
9,143,000
7,780,000
731,500
837,500
8,526,000
0
40,344,500
4,876,000
TOTAL
26,116,000
24,753,000
17,704,500
20,767,000
28,455,500
20,279,000
57,317,500
25,155,000
Source: Estimates provided by Don Owen and Associates,
pers. comm.
120
-------
Public Health
• Potential nuisance mosquito production from
percolation ponds, direct effluent discharge
and spray disposal.
Mosquito and nuisance insects can breed in the percolation
ponds, and small pools formed by direct discharge of effluent
or spray disposal. Mosquitos are a nuisance and certain
species can transmit debilitating diseases. Percolation ponds
are productive breeding places for mosquitos because of the
high organic and nutrient content.
Fish, such as the mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), could be
stocked in the percolation ponds to reduce mosquito production.
Chemical control of mosquitos is effective under some cir-
cumstances .
• Health hazards associated with direct contact
of spray effluent.
Alternatives IB and 2B involve the disposal of the treated
effluent over land by spray disposal. After treatmentf the
effluent will be chlorinated before it is sprayed over land.
Chlorination is very effective in killing bacteria and other
pathogens; however, its effectiveness in killing virus and
parasites is not completely known. Therefore, a potential
health hazard exists to persons who are exposed to sprayed
effluent. Disposal of the spray could be a problem on windy
days.
A chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg/1 should be maintained
in the effluent entering the pipeline for spray disposal.
Spray disposal areas should be clearly marked with a buffer
zone to preclude human entry into the area during periods of
spray disposal.
• Potential discharge of septic and unsanitary
wastes should an employee strike, a major equip-
ment malfunction or other unforeseen events
occur.
In general, the more sophisticated the treatment process and/or
the larger degree the system depends on pumping, the greater
the possibility of an adverse impact due to a major equipment
malfunction or an employee strike. All pump stations should
be designed with standby pumping capabilities in the event of
the failure of any of the installed pumping capacity. Thus,
a major malfunction of pumping equipment would not put a
pumping station out of operation completely. It can be
121
-------
stated that alternatives which rely to a minimum degree on
pumping, and/or utilize aerated lagoons, would be impacted
minimally by an employee strike. Thus, Alternatives 0, 2A
and 3 would have essentially no impact due to an employee
strike or equipment malfunction. Alternatives which rely
on a more sophisticated treatment process and/or significant
pumping, would be adversely impacted by an employee strike.
• Operational reliability of treatment facilities
and protection of the environment.
With the exception of the no action alternative, all of the
eight viable alternatives have sufficient operational reli-
ability to meet the existing and anticipated waste discharge
requirements. Any alternative which uses an activated sludge
form of treatment should, however, be recognized as an alter-
native which is more "finely tuned" and thus requires more
operational attention. An aerated lagoon is somewhat less
susceptible to upset because of few mechanical operations and
a longer detention time. Alternatives utilizing either acti-
vated sludge or aerated lagoon are considered essentially
equal in their protection of the environment if operated
properly.
• Biological and mineral contamination of domestic
wells resulting from effluent disposal.
Alternatives 0, IB, 1C, 2A, 2B and 5 all would have a proble-
matical impact upon domestic well water quality as a result
of effluent discharge. In all of these alternatives, effluent
would be discharged upstream of some domestic wells. The
effect on the mineral quality of domestic wells could in all
likelihood be beneficial because the mineral quality of the
treatment plant effluent(s) is anticipated to be substantially
better than the groundwater presently available in Final Creek,
With regard to biological contamination of the groundwater
supplies, no definitive statement can be made at this time.
Throughout the United States, there have been historical
activities where effluent has been percolated to the ground-
water basin and subsequently reused, and there are many
projects underway to further evaluate these concepts and
effect upon bacteriological quality of groundwater. Results
which are available at the present time are inconclusive at
the best. Therefore, it would have to be stated that bio-
logical contamination of downstream domestic wells is a
possibility, and the impact would be adverse. The farther
the domestic wells are from the source of percolation of the
122
-------
effluent, the less is the likelihood of biological contami-
nation. It cannot be conclusively evaluated until a project
alternative is implemented and monitoring wells are constructed
and operated to determine whether biological contamination
occurs. It should be noted, however, that existing facility
discharges and faulty septic tank systems present a public
health hazard of at least equal magnitude. Implementation of
a regional treatment system could produce a net reduction in
bacteriological contamination of groundwater supplies.
Aesthetics
• The visual impact of the treatment plant and
other sewage facilities.
The treatment plant and related facilities could aesthetically
degrade areas adjacent to their location. Alternatives 1A,
IB and 1C, which have the regional plant located near the con-
fluence of Miami Wash and Pinal Creek, are located near
Highway 88 and several residences. Residents near this
proposed site have objected to the site because of its nega-
tive aesthetic qualities. The present Globe treatment plant
could become more visible from Highway 60 just north of Globe
if the site is expanded as proposed in Alternative 2. The
Miami treatment plant site (Alternative 2) is located away from
residences and Alternative Site 3 is located in lower Pinal
Creek away from frequently traveled roads. One residence is
located about 1/2 mile and across the road from Alternative
Site 3. The treatment plant site for Alternative 4 would be
located somewhere on Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company
property. Its location is not adequately known to define its
aesthetic impact.
Aesthetic impacts can usually be effectively mitigated by
landscaping and architecturally pleasing building design.
Financial
• Effect of treatment plant cost on community.
As discussed in the section on aspects common to all alterna-
tives, a multitude of factors must be considered in the cost
impact of alternative projects. At present, it is possible
to rank the the alternatives in order of cost, but it is not
possible to evaluate the efficiency and equity of a cost
allocation scheme as development of such a scheme has not been
undertaken.
123
-------
The cost estimate of the alternatives falls into two distinct
ranges. Three alternatives show a construction and 20-year
operation cost of $3.1 million or less; the other four equal
or exceed $6.5 million.
• Effect of treatment plant location on property
values.
As previously discussed, the solution of present wastewater
treatment problems may have a beneficial effect on property
values. While this effect may be somewhat offset by the in-
crease in the amount of developable land that may be realized
as a result of sewer service extension, all alternatives will
have the same impact with regard to both of these factors, and
they have all been rated neutral in the matrix with regard to
impacts on property values on an area-wide basis.
Site-specific property value impacts, if they materialize,
would be most extreme in those areas where a sewage treatment
plant is least likely to be compatible with future uses. Thus,
adverse impacts are noted under Alternative 1 (zoned residential)
Plant location at existing plant sites or on copper company land
should have little effect on property value and has been rated
neutral. It is not possible to judge the property value impact
of a lower Final Creek site, and this impact has been rated
problematical.
• Effect of treated effluent spray disposal on
value of U. S. Forest Service exchange land.
Within the Tonto National Forest, land is presently being and
probably will continue to be exchanged for other parcels of
land. The purpose of these land exchanges is to consolidate
land within the National Forest into more contiguous zones.
It could be anticipated that spray disposal of effluent on
National Forest land could degrade the value of this property
with regard to any potential future land exchange, because it
may represent an irreversible use of the land. The value of
the land for grazing use would probably be enhanced. Adverse
impacts arising from spray disposal upon National Forest
Service land might occur through implementation of either
Alternative IB or Alternative 2B.
• Utilization of existing Phase I interceptor
facilities.
Prior to initiation of this Environmental Impact Statement,
Phase I interceptor facilities were constructed between the
junction of Final Creek and Miami Wash upstream to the general
124
-------
area of the existing Globe lagoons, as well as a branch inter-
ceptor up to the existing Cobre Valley Sanitary District plant.
When conforming with EPA requirements for the cost-effective
analysis, the cost of existing facilities cannot be included.
In other words, it is a "sunk" cost. The "sunk" cost of these
facilities is necessarily a cost which residents in the study
area must ultimately pay via retirement of bonds, thus it
represents a monetary impact upon the community. If these
existing facilities are abandoned or not used in the treatment-
disposal alternative ultimately selected, an adverse impact
would result. Alternatives 1, 2A, 2B would not utilize exist-
ing Phase I interceptor facilities, and therefore, have an
adverse impact. All other alternatives do utilize these
existing facilities and, therefore, represent a beneficial
impact.
• Utilization of existing Cobre Valley Sanitary
District plant.
As discussed relative to the existing Phase I interceptor,
the abandonment of existing facilities represents a cost since
the cost of these facilities still must be paid. The exist-
ing Cobre Valley Sanitary District plant, a relatively new
plant, would be abandoned in Alternatives 1A, IB, 1C, 3,4
and 5; and therefore these alternatives have an adverse mone-
tary impact. Alternatives 0, 2A and 2B would use this facility
and would have a beneficial social impact relative to payment
for this treatment plant.
Land Use
• Effect of treatment plant on adjacent zoning.
Selection of treatment plant Site 1 would place the treatment
plant in an area currently zoned residential (T-l-N, R-15-E,
Section 4). The zoning district is R1-D18, meaning that the
area is designated for single family houses on lots of no less
than 18,000 square feet. It is within the authority of a
municipality to utilize land in any zoning area for a public
purpose, and the municipality is not required to demonstrate
compatibility. However, it would appear that treatment plant
location in a residential district may have adverse zoning
impacts.
Continued use of existing sites would result in no change in
the zoning compatibility in those areas.
125
-------
North of Section 4 in which Site 1 is located, land along
Final Creek has not been zoned by Gila County. Development
may take place in this area without regard either to use or
to density. Thus, the question of compatibility with zoning
does not arise and the impact of this site selection on zoning
would be neutral.
A site on Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company land north
of Miami would probably be zoned for manufacturing, with which
a sewage treatment plant would be compatible. This compati-
bility has been assumed pending site specification. Impact is
judged to be neutral.
• Compatibility with land use planning.
The alternatives proposed would involve treatment plant develop-
ment either on the same sites as are now used for that purpose
(Alternatives 2 and 5), on land presently vacant (Alternatives
1 and 3), or on Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company land
not currently in mining or smelting use (Alternative 4) . Where
no change in use is proposed, the impact is rated beneficial.
This has been interpreted as the case both for Alternative 2
and Alternative 4. In the other cases, vacant land possibly
near existing residences poses compatibility problems and the
impact has been judged adverse. However, specific site selec-
tion and plant design could substantially mitigate this impact.
impacts of No Action
The no action alternative involves the consequences of not
proceeding with any of the proposed alternatives. The exist-
ing plants and processes for sewage treatment and disposal
would remain in effect for the entire area.
The impacts expected with no action are:
• Failure to comply with Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500) and EPA waste discharge
(NDPES permit) requirements.
• Subjection to fines because of failure to comply
with NDPES permit requirements.
• Continuance of public health hazard by discharge
of improperly treated raw sewage at the Globe and
Miami sewage lagoons.
126
-------
Potential devaluation of residential land because
of lack of adequate sewage treatment facilities.
Potential slowing or stopping of residential or
business development because of lack of adequate
sewage facilities.
127
-------
V. THE RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PLAN
Alternative Review and Selection
The eight alternative plans and the no action plan were
described, discussed and evaluated in relation to the natural
and human environment comprising the Greater Globe-Miami area.
Several environmental impacts and social issues were found to
be important and relevant to the selection of an implementable
project. All of these are discussed in detail in the fore-
going text. A summarizaton of interfaces between the environ-
ment and the alternatives is weighed and graded in Table 23.
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a judgment was
made concerning the ranking of these alternatives relative to
their suitability for the Globe-Miami area.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement identified three
alternatives which were considered to be favorable:
• Alternative 2A: Subregional aerated lagoons located
at the present Globe and Miami treatment plants with
effluent disposal into percolation ponds.
• Alternative 3: Regional aerated lagoons located near
Pringle Springs with effluent disposal into percolation
ponds.
• Alternative 5: Regional aerated lagoons near the
present Miami treatment plant with effluent disposal
into percolation ponds.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement identified Alterna-
tive 3 as the recommended plan because it was believed to
achieve the widest regional benefits without disruptive
environmental, social or monetary impacts.
The recommended plan in this Final Environmental Impact
Statement has been changed from Alternative 3 to Alternative
2A. This change has been made as a result of the information
derived from the comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (see Chapter VII) during the 45-day public review
period. Those comments revealed that there exists consider-
able opposition to the site location proposed in Alternative
3, particularly from several Wheatfields residents and the
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company. Also, several com-
ments highlight the difficulties expected in the institutional
129
-------
Tat
SUMMARY EVALUATION RATING 1
Impacts 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alteration of Final Creek
vegetation and wildlife A
Soil disturbance and erosion N
Surface flow in Final Creek A
Groundwater elevation
and surfacing U
Groundwater mineral quality N
Groundwater bacteria and virus A
Flood hazards A
Boise vs. humans N
Odor vs. humans D
Energy consumption rank N
& 4 »• **i*tt14v«» Iff
Air qua&icy H
Water supply and reuse N
Huisance insects A
Sprayed effluent and
public contact N
Aesthetics D
Archeology H
Land use conversions N
Construction activities N
SOCIAL IMPACTS
Land use compatibility D
Growth inducement/accommodation D
Local opposition A
COST IMPACTS
Capitol cost rank N
Operating cost rank N
Local cost rank
OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY A
INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
COMPLIANCE D
OVERALL RANK +
* Key to Alternative Plan ratings:
A Adverse
N None
B Beneficial
D Disruptive
U Undefined
+ Not viable
>le 23
IND RANKING OF ALT]
Altern
1A IB 1C
N N A
N N A
N N A
N N B
N N A
N N N
ODD
ODD
641
BAN
NAN
ODD
NUN
A A A
D D D
B B B
A A A
765
6 7 5
576
A A A
B B B
567
SRNATIVE PLANS*
stive Plans
2A 2B 3 4 5
N N N N N
N N N N N
A N N N A
B N B N B
A N A N A
N N N N N
N N N N N
A A N N N
3 7285
N A B B B
N A N N N
U A H N N
N U N N N
N A A N N
N D N N N
B B B B B
B B A B B
13 4 8 2
24183
24183
B A B A B
B B B B B
14382
130
-------
implementation of a truly regional wastewater treatment effort.
In response to these realities, the cost and environmentally
acceptable subregional alternative of upgrading and expanding
the existing Globe and Miami treatment plants has been chosen
the grant fundable recommended project.
Alternative 2A is expected to result in two separate projects
for the incorporated communities of Globe and Miami, with
adjoining unincorporated areas joining in at their discretion.
The projects simplify the financial and contractual agreements
needed for project implementation, hopefully expediting pro-
ject completion. Capacity will be designed into the treatment
plants to provide for the domestic flows of the entire regional
area for a 20-year planning period.
Additional studies to verify the adequacy of the Globe and
Miami treatment plant sites have been conducted. An analysis
of soil percolation capabilities and flood hazard conditions
at the proposed sites follow a more detailed description of
the recommended project. The soils testing results prepared
by Engineers Testing Laboratories, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona
are included as Appendix R.
The Recommended Plan — Alternative 2A
In the recommended project, three treatment plants would be
used to accommodate sewerage needs. Two treatment plants
would be aerated lagoons and one would be the existing Cobre
Valley Sanitary District treatment plant, which is operated
by the City of Globe. Raw sewage from Miami would be conveyed
to an aerated lagoon treatment plant located at the existing
Miami lagoons site (Site 2). The new aerated lagoon facili-
ties would occupy about 20 acres and have a treatment capacity
of 0.8 mgd. Unincorporated areas such as Wheatfields, Clay-
pool and Midland City could form local improvement districts
and by contract connect to the Miami system.
The City of Globe would also be served by an aerated lagoon
treatment plant which would be constructed on about 25 acres
in the general vicinity of the existing Globe treatment plant.
The 1976 capacity would be 1.4 mgd with possible expansion
to 1.9 mgd in 1986. Unincorporated areas in the upper Final
Creek watershed could contract with Globe for sewage treatment
and disposal services.
131
-------
Both the Miami and Globe aerated lagoon treatment plants would
use percolation ponds for effluent disposal. The existing
Cobre Valley Sanitary District plant would be maintained, and
discharge would be continued to the nearby dry wash. This
plant would have to be doubled in capacity in 1986 if addi-
tional unincorporated areas wish to be serviced.
Figure 27 shows the general locations of interceptors, the
required pump stations and the three treatment plants.
Because many of the interceptors and pump stations would
service unincorporated areas, they would not be constructed
until these areas form local improvement districts (LID) that
contract with Globe, Miami or the Cobre Valley Sanitary
District for treatment and disposal. Photographs in Figures
19 and 20 show the general environmental features where the
new aerated lagoon treatment plants would be placed. It
should be noted that in this alternative the existing Phase I
interceptor extending from the confluence of Miami Wash and
Pinal Creek to the City of Globe lagoon would be abandoned.
Alternative 2A has a 20-year period, 1976 present worth for
capital and annual expenditures of $2,499,800. This
represents a cost for full subregional development so that
it can be compared to other alternatives. A summary of the
capital and operating costs as well as the computation of the
present worth is presented in Appendix M. The cost of the
collection system and interceptors not common to all alterna-
tives must be added to the alternative cost. Because several
LID would not initially be prepared to contract with Globe or
Miami, the initial project expense to serve only Globe and
Miami would be somewhat less.
The development of Step 1 grant facilities plans by Globe
and Miami will identify the actual costs for projects to
serve their two communities. For example, the capital cost
(present worth) for the total project was estimated at about
$2.5 million and the portion of this attributable to the
interceptor and two pump stations serving Wheat fields was
about $0.5 million. Consequently, if the Wheatfields area
chooses not to form a LID and contract with Miami for treat-
ment and disposal, something more than 20 percent of the
capital cost would be subtracted. Other interceptors and
pumps also fall into separable categories and would also
reduce the initial project cost if the unincorporated areas
choose not to join either Globe or Miami. If agreements can
be reached, local improvement districts may be included in
the initial Globe or Miami facilities plan or they may delay
their action to a later date when they would initiate their
own action.
132
-------
This plan can provide wastewater treatment and disposal to
the total community with reliability. Raw wastes typically
rely on gravity flow. The treatment and disposal system is
the least complex of those meeting EPA standards and there-
fore requires fewer skilled operators and is more resistant
to biological or mechanical malfunction. Population growth
and land development can be accommodated throughout the project
area. Local concerns about noise, odor, contamination of
domestic water supplies, surface flow in Pinal Creek and cost
seem to be mitigated to a satisfactory degree by this
alternative. The matter of rising groundwater as cited in
the Bixby lawsuit is still a matter that is unresolved, and
without the expenditure of large amounts of money during
different water years to investigate the groundwater and
geology in detail, the Bixby contention will remain unresolved.
It is proposed, however, that responsible local, state and
federal officials monitor and mitigate the rising groundwater
situation in the lower Pinal Creek drainage area and continue
to pursue reclamation possibilities for the future. The dis-
posal option of intermittent seasonal percolation of effluent
during drier periods will be further studied during the design
phase of the project.
Additional Study Results —
Suitability of Effluent Disposal Ponds
Field percolation tests were identified as the most appro-
priate means for testing how well the soils in the disposal
pond areas would allow effluent to percolate.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company and Cobre Valley
Sanitary District readily gave their permission to conduct
percolation testing on their properties near the existing
City of Globe oxidation pond and the existing City of
Miami ponds.
Eleven potential percolation test sites were selected; five
in the vicinity of the Globe pond and six in the vicinity
of the Miami ponds. At each of the eleven sites, three
borings were made; one to 5 feet, one to 10 feet and one
to 30 feet in depth. The materials encountered were described,
properties of the materials noted, the depth to groundwater
recorded (where encountered), and constant head percolation
tests conducted after overnight saturation of the test holes.
Complete test results are included as Appendix R.
133
-------
The tests indicate that effluent disposal by percolation to
groundwater is feasible in both locations under Alternative 2A.
Pond areas totaling about 5 acres should be adequate in each
case, although provision for increasing pond sizes should be
made in case actual operations dictate a larger area due to
gradual loss of percolation qualities.
Globe Area
In the area near the Globe oxidation pond, one test location
was selected in the tailings containing the existing pond.
Percolation rates in this material, while not as rapid as
natural sand and gravels along the creek, were surprisingly
good. The percolation rate below the tailings was sufficiently
great to prevent filling of the 7-inch diameter hole, even
with water being pumped in at a rate of about 30 gallons per
minute. Borings 2 and 3 just upstream from the existing pond
showed excellent percolation qualities, except for the top
5 feet in test hole 2.
Test holes '4 and 5, about 4/10 of a mile downstream from the
Globe pond and on the west side of the road in a flat area
near the Cobre Valley treatment facility, showed unacceptably
slow percolation rates. Boring 4 encountered rock at 17 feet.
This area was excluded from further consideration as a disposal
site.
The results of borings 2 and 3 show that additional ponds
would be feasible upstream of the existing Globe pond and
in the area between Final Creek and the gravel road. From
currently available topography data, it appears that about
4 acres of ponds could be constructed in this area. About
2.5 acres of ponds would be required to percolate 1.4 mgd
of effluent, using the worst percolation rate of the three test
locations. A minimum of 5 acres of ponds should be considered
to enable periodic maintenance and to compensate for possible
gradual loss of percolation qualities in long-term use.
Additional ponds could be excavated in the tailings adjacent
to the existing Globe oxidation pond to meet these area
requirements.
Visual inspection of the creek downstream of this point
indicates that occasional rock outcroppings occur. It appears
possible that percolated effluent could surface at some
distance downstream. During periods of wet weather with
relatively high groundwater in the creek, the probability of
effluent surfacing would be greater.
134
-------
Miami Area
Near the existing Miami oxidation ponds, six borings were
made; two on the west side of Miami Wash and four on the
east side. Of those on the east side, two were taken up-
stream of the new Highway 88 bridge crossing and two downstream.
Borings 8 and 9, taken on the west side of the wash, just up-
stream of the bridge, showed unacceptably low percolation
rates. Percolation ponds on the west side of Miami Wash were
therefore excluded from further consideration.
Borings 6, 7, 10 and 11 on the east side of the Miami Wash
showed excellent percolation qualities. Two of the 5-foot
deep holes could not be filled with water at a discharge of
about 30 gallons per minute. In the 10-foot test holes,
three of the four borings also could not be filled. Perco-
lation tests were not taken in the 30-foot holes, since
groundwater was encountered at each of the test sites at
depths ranging from 18 to 23 feet.
Percolation data indicate that less than 1 acre of pond area
would accept the total design flow of 0.8 mgd from the City
of Miami ponds. However, installation of about 5 acres of
ponds is recommended to allow for loss of effectiveness due
to partial clogging and to allow for maintenance of ponds on
a periodic basis.
Three locations appear feasible for the Miami disposal ponds:
directly across Miami Wash from the existing oxidation ponds;
several hundred feet downstream where some diked areas pres-
ently exist; or downstream of the new Highway 88 bridge.
During wet years high groundwater may adversely affect the
operation of the disposal ponds. If the groundwater level
is at or near the bottom of the percolation ponds, the perco-
lation rate may be slowed and a groundwater mounding effect
created around the ponds. This could result in some ground-
water surfacing in the immediate vicinity of the ponds in a
very wet year.
Flood Hazard
The flood hazard potential was reviewed for the Globe and
Miami percolation pond disposal area described for Alterna-
tive 2A. Protection from a 10-year storm at the Globe
location appears practical and desirable. Protection against
greater frequency floods may not be practical. In the case
135
-------
of the Miami ponds, 10-year protection may already exist
from the levees along Miami Wash. Greater protection appears
feasible but would raise the flood level in the floodplain
by as much as 1 foot for the standard project flood, a possibly
undesirable consequence.
In order to evaluate the flood hazard, data developed by the
Corps of Engineers (Interim Report of the District Engineer
on Survey for Flood Control, Final Creek and Tributaries,
Arizona, 1961) together with the Globe, Arizona USGS 7-1/2
minute quad sheet dated 1945 were used. Cross sections were
drawn using the 25-foot contours and other map data combined
with visual field inspection. For the Globe ponds, normal
depths were computed for relatively confined reaches of Final
Creek upstream and downstream of the proposed ponds. Profiles
were then estimated for the intervening sections of the creek
for the 10-year, 100-year and standard project floods. Along
Miami Wash, normal depth capacity calculations were performed
for the existing leveed creek channel. Normal depth capacity
calculations were also performed for the floodplain west of
the railroad tracks at several flooded depths, both for exist-
ing conditions and with pond levees (obstructions) in place.
Globe Ponds
Computations at the proposed Globe ponds indicate that the
10-year flood along Final Creek would encroach upon the area
that is suitable for additional ponds. The area could easily
be protected by using rock slope protection along the creek
face of the pond levees. This would obstruct the flow
slightly and have the effect of raising the 10-year flood
level by less than 1 foot along the protected levees. This
should not create any problems at this location.
From inspection of the profile, it does not appear practical
to protect disposal ponds against the 100-year flood. The
large levees would raise the water surface by more than 1 foot
and would entail more elaborate construction. Whether protec-
tion against the 25-year flood would be practical would require
further study with more detailed topography and pond design
information.
Protection against the standard project flood would not be
practical. Such a flood would probably overtop the gravel
road, flood out the ponds and probably damage or destroy the
levees. Flow velocities were computed at slightly over 10
feet per second for the 10-year flood, and about 17 feet per
second for the standard project flood.
136
-------
The cost for protecting the percolation ponds along Final
Creek was estimated at $10,000 to $20,000, depending upon
actual location of the ponds relative to the creek and
materials used. Replacement would be required once every
10-25 years, depending upon actual protection provided, and
further depending, of course, upon the timing of major floods.
Miami Ponds
In the case of the Miami ponds, computations indicate a
capacity in the existing leveed channel of Miami Wash of
about 4,000 cfs. The Corps of Engineers projects a 10-year
flow of 4,150 cfs in Bloody Tanks Wash upstream of its
junction with Russell Gulch. Flood flows in Miami Wash would
therefore be slightly greater than 4,150 cfs. The existing
Miami Wash channel may be able to contain the 10-year flood.
This would prevent floodwaters from affecting the proposed
percolation ponds. However, relatively high velocities of
nearly 11 feet per second may erode the levees and allow
the 10-year flood to spread into the area where the ponds
would be located. Such breakouts have occurred in recent
years. Velocities on the floodplains after such a breakout
would be less than 4 feet per second and might not present
a threat to unreinforced dikes.
A greater flood, such as the 100-year flood (13,400 cfs
excluding Russell Gulch), would break out of the levees.
It would inundate most or all of the floodplain for a width
of 1,000 feet and to a depth of 3 feet from the creek to the
railroad tracks. The water would flow at a velocity of about
5 feet per second.
However, if percolation ponds were constructed in the flood-
plain, the levees would tend to obstruct the flow of water.
Calculations indicate that a 250 to 300 foot wide levee in
the 1,000-foot wide floodplain would raise the standard
project flood (26,000 cfs excluding Russell Gulch) about
1 foot higher than it would otherwise be, and would raise
the 100-year flood by about 6 inches. It would also tend
to increase the velocity of flow by up to 1 foot per second
as a result of the greater depth. This may have the effect
of increasing damage in other areas of the floodplain.
Protecting dikes for 5 acres of ponds against higher frequency
floods (particularly the 100-year and the standard project
floods) would add about $20,000 to their cost. Rock protec-
tion would probably not be necessary for the dikes for pro-
tection against the 25-year and lesser floods since the
velocities would be substantially less in the floodplain.
137
-------
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The recommended plan retains adverse impacts which are unavoid-
able:
• The adverse impacts associated with construction of
the project are given along with their mitigation
measures in Chapter IV, Table 18. None are considered
disruptive to the natural or social communities.
• Construction and use of the area will change the
land form and cause soil erosion.
• The percolation of treated wastewater into the ground-
water may allow some bacteria, viruses and parasites to
enter the groundwater. The effluent will be chlorinated
to meet state and federal public health standards.
• Population and economic growth in the area will increase
the emission of pollutants to the air.
• Nuisance insects, mosquitoes and midge flies will grow
in the treatment ponds and may fly to residential areas.
• Additional land in the area will be converted from natural
landscape to treatment plant, residential, commercial,
industrial and public use.
• The amount of electrical and fossil fuel energy will
increase as a result of wastewater conveyance, treat-
ment and disposal, and also by the growth associated
with improved sewerage.
• Sewage systems occasionally fail and cause aesthetic
and public health impacts.
• The cost of living or doing business in the project
area will increase in response to improved wastewater
collection and treatment facilities.
• The necessity of forming an operating authority through
joint powers agreements or another mode, reduces the
ability of smaller local entities to make unincumbered
decisions.
138
-------
Local Short-Term Uses of the Environment
vs. Maintenance and Enhancement of
Long-Term Productivity
All alternative wastewater treatment and disposal systems in-
cluding no action involve the acceptance of trade-offs among
beneficial and adverse project impacts. Selection of the most
"cost effective" alternative is intended to result in the
greatest beneficial effects obtainable at the least possible
environmental, social and monetary costs.
The principal beneficial effects of the alternatives analyzed
are the alleviation of adverse environmental effects related
to existing inadequate wastewater treatment plants for Globe
and Miami and malfunctioning individual septic tanks and
cesspools. These inadequacies result in public health hazards,
an unsightly and malodorous aesthetic environment and, by not
complying with state and federal regulations, the inhibition of
population and economic growth.
The recommended project would remove most of these adverse
community level impacts. On the other hand, impacts probably
seen as adverse by local citizens will be engendered. These
impacts relate to increased taxes and service charges and
interference with their ability to provide individual treat-
ment systems. Local government must jointly be responsible
for the completion and operation of the project which adds to
the responsibility and complexity of local government.
The recommended "cost effective" project generally responds
to the adverse community impacts by avoiding some and lessening
the total impact of the others. It reduces the concerns ex-
pressed by individual citizens relating to wastewater treatment
and discharge near the confluence of Final Creek and Miami Wash.
This alternative will generally have the adverse impacts on
natural resources shown in the preceding section. However,
when balanced against the need to provide sewerage for organized
and planned social and economic growth without significant
hazard to public health or aesthetics, the project should
assist in the maintenance of the long-term environmental pro-
ductivity of the area for humans and other life resources.
The short-term use of many physical portions of the environ-
ment is convertible to other uses in the long termi
139
-------
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Minor and major irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
renewable and non-renewable resources will occur. Significant
commitments of general irrecoverable resources, i.e., time,
building materials and energy, will be required during project
construction.
After construction, operation of the treatment plant will
require irrecoverable resources such as time, chemicals, energy
and maintenance materials.
The secondary effects of population growth result in the con-
version of open, natural land to urban development, reduction
in air quality, increased use of water, electricity, petroleum
products, timber and food, and increased demand for social
services. If growth occurs in a reasonably well conceived
manner, none of these effects are forecasted to be significantly
adverse. However, much of the area is not zoned or regulated to
obtain the best foreseeable growth uses and unless this situation
is altered, adverse impacts are more likely to occur.
140
-------
VI. IMPLEMENTATION AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Although a grant-fundable project is determined and described
in concept in this EIS, there remain several actions which
must be taken to reach construction and operation. Several
needed local actions are dicussed briefly. The details
can be readily determined during the preparation of Step 1
facilities plans by Globe and Miami.
Before a project can proceed to construction, a financial
and revenue plan must be developed and implemented. This
action usually requires elections for bonds and/or annexations,
Agreements establishing the sewerage authority would be ex-
pected to result from and in accordance with the financial
plan and revenue program.
An issue discussed but not resolved in the EIS pertains to
the relationship between wastewater disposal and the occa-
sional flooding of fields owned by Mr. Stephen Bixby. In
our conversations with Mr. Bixby, it was concluded that
his fields have flooded as a result of rising groundwater.
Available information does not allow one to describe the
groundwater system in sufficient detail to determine whether
such flooding would be intensified by the disposal of water
upstream of his property. One may assume that water added
upstream adds some increment to the elevation of the ground-
water, but whether this increment is significant or not'to
the total elevation is undeterminable without performing
long-term investigations of the groundwater system. Efforts
will be made during the design of the treatment plants to
minimize the probable occurrence of rising groundwater
downstream by providing for the intermittent disposal of
effluent upon percolation beds. During wetter seasons, the
wastewaters could be stored in sealed ponds designed for
that purpose. Also, future reclamation possibilities will
continue to be pursued.
141
-------
VII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Greater Globe-
Miami wastewater treatment project was issued in January 1976.
Public hearings were held in Globe, Arizona on February 18,
1976 at 1:30 p.m. and again at 7:30 p.m. Transcripts of these
hearings are included in Appendix S. Most comments received
at these public hearings dealt with cost and financing aspects
of the recommended project rather than with the Draft EIS
per se. These comments which dealt with the Draft EIS have
been dealt with through1 revisions incorporated into the text
of the Final EIS.
In addition to testimony at the public hearings, numerous
letters have been received commenting on the Draft EIS and
the alternative projects. Many of the comments contained
in these letters have resulted in revisions incorporated
into the text of this EIS. Other comments require a separate
response. The following pages present a copy of the notice
of public hearing and copies of all letters of comment
received through March 31, 1976. Letters requiring addi-
tional responses are presented first, followed by those
letters which are either self-explanatory or for which all
response has been made through changes in the text of the
EIS.
143
-------
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Review of Draft EIS for the Greater Globe-Miami
Arizona Wastewater Treatment Proiect
*Al
Kenneth E. Biglane, Director /JU,
Division of Oil and Special Material!-
DATE:
mtrol (WH-548)
Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region D£
Attn: Mark Zuckerman
m _
4i u) <
The comments of the Office of Water Program Operations on the
subject EIS are enclosed. Should any of the issues raised in these
comments require clarification, please contact Geraldine Werdig,
Chief, Environmental Evaluation Branch (202) 245-3054.
Project Description
Location: Globe and Miami, Gila County, Arizona
Description of Proposed Action:
The construction of a regional wastewater treatment system
consisting of an aerated lagoon with percolation pond disposal,
and collection systems.
Eight alternatives were considered, including different sites,
treatment methods, and disposal techniques.
Major Issues:
Public controversy over earlier plans concerning the location
of the facility and lack of public hearings.
Project Reviewer: David A. Eberly
Enclosure
144
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
Office of Water Program Operations
Comments on the Draft EIS
Greater Globe-Miami, Arizona
Wastewater Treatment Project
1. The discussion of population projection appears to be contradictory. On
page 10, mention is made of the stifling effect of the presently inadequate
sewage treatment on growth. On page 20, the estimated duration of
present mining production levels is about 30 years. The EIS brings
out the dependency of the area on the copper industry. On page 34,
the discussion of water supply for the Miami and the unincorporated
areas includes the conclusion that the population in the area is not
expected to change much in the future.
Population growth due to employment from manufacturing is expected to
be moderate (p. 43), yet table 7 shows that from 1960 to 1970 employment
by manufacturing increased from 178 to 1493. Also "the effect of the
present ownership pattern is to restrict the supply of land available for
residential and other private development. "
The population projections show an increase for the service area of 72%
for 1970 to 1990 (16,155 to 27,000). From 1960 to 1970, Miami increased
by 44 people, Central Heights lost 197, Claypool lost 260, Globe gained
1116 and other unincorporated areas gained 862. Thus from 1960 to 1970
the gain was 9%.
In light of the above, we do not understand the basis for the population
projections, particularly the 53% increase for Globe for 1970-1980. Many
other statements that appear contradictory appear throughout the EIS, in
addition to the above, and should be revised to reflect the basis for the
projections. Also, a stronger rationale is needed for the projections.
2. Sulfur dioxide, heavy metals, and particulate matter are monitored in
the Globe-Miami area (p. 15), yet Table 2 on page 18 shows only the
data for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Since concentrations
of copper and lead occasionally violate air quality standards (p. 17),
the data for heavy metals should be included.
3. The use of 1946 data for water quality in the area does not seem
relevant 30 years later. We suggest this be deleted.
4. The list of constraints on page 57 should include the comprehensive
plans for the area. According to page 54, Gila County, Globe, and
Miami have all adopted comprehensive plans. No mention is made
anywhere in the EIS of the conformance of the proposed action with
these comprehensive plans.
5. In the discussion of the no action alternative (p. 80) one of the
disadvantages discussed was the effect of additional growth on the
already overloaded facilities. Page 10, however, mentioned the
retarding effect on growth of no action and page 47 states that
Miami has a ban on sewer connections. The statement on page 80
requires clarification.
145
-------
6. The existing treatment plant for Miami has an inflow of 0. 25 MGD
and a discharge of 0.14 MGD (p. 18). This should be explained. -
7. The discussion on the effects of percolation on groundwater quality
and quantity are confusing. Apparently, the second paragraph concerns
the quantity, although entitled quality, and the concluding statement
does not apply to quantity but to quality.
8. Appendices J-Q are entitled the Cost Effectiveness Evaluation of the
alternatives. The discussion on page 57 correctly explains that cost-
effectiveness is determined by monetary, social and environmental
costs. The appendices give only the monetary costs and are therefore
only partial cost-effectiveness evaluations.
9. The EPA supplement to the Report for Alternative Waste Management
Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment (Federal Register,
Vol. 41, No 29, February 11, 1976) presents the criteria to be met
for the groundwater resulting from application of wastewaters. The
criteria should be considered in the EIS.
10. In the future, will you please send us a copy of the pre-draft version
of EIS's for review. This is in accordance with Appendix C, Section
IV, of the April 14,1975 Regulations for the Preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements.
146
-------
Responses to comments from the EPA, Office of Water
Program Operations, February 26, 1976
Comments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been dealt with in
the text of the Final EIS. In regard to Comment lf no
attempt was made during preparation of this EIS to develop
a special demographic or econometric projection for the
Globe-Miami area. In regard to Comment 4, the EIS points
out the relationship between zoning and comprehensive plan-
ning in Arizona. Since there is no requirement for con-
sistency between zoning and comprehensive plans, the EIS
analyzed alternative sites for compatibility with existing
zoning.
Comment 3; The use of 1946 data for water quality in the
area does not seem relevant 30 years later. We suggest this
be deleted.
Response: This data is the only groundwater quality data
available for the upper watershed areas. In addition, there
does not appear to have been much change in land use or
other factors in these upper watershed areas during the last
30 years. Thus, there is no a priori reason to expect a
substantial change in groundwater quality in these areas.
147
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY REGIONALIZING
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION
ER 76/52 BOX 36098 . 450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE MAR 22 1976
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 941O2
(415)556-8200 REGION EC
March 16, 1976
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Hearing Office HE-126
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Sir:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft environmental
statement for the Greater Globe—Miami Wastewater Treatment
Project, Gila County, Arizona.
General Comments
We suggest that photographs be identified in the text by figure
and page numbers. Also the maps and figures should show legal
subdivisions. Three maps (Figures 2, 9, and 10) do not indicate
the scale.
The statement provides a good general discussion of fish and wild-
life resources, and habitats and project impacts on these resources.
However, specific fish and wildlife species are not identified
within the project area. The statement fails to identify what effects
the various alternatives would have on these species.
In general, the professional engineering studies of alternatives
appear to have been reasonably extracted and reported by the
writers of the environmental impact statement.
Specific Comments
Page l_—The method of deriving environmental social and cost impacts
should be clarified.
Page 4.--The reference to the "no recently recorded earthquake"
should be supported by the date of the last one.
148
-------
-2-
Page £—The listing of references in the Bibliography shows most of
the biological information to be somewhat out-of-date, particularly
the use of C. H. Merriam, 1890 (page 142), as the basic reference.
Page 14—The reference to Notice of Intent does not state if this
complies with DEZ guidelines for using OMB A-95 Clearinghouse
procedures. The responses to the Clearinghouse A-95 procedures
should be a part of the record.
Page 15—We question whether the area is part of the lower Sonoran
Desert physiographic province.
Page 19-20—The discussions of soils and geology would be more use-
ful if the suitability of the various soils and near-surface
bedrock as foundations for the proposed installations and the
stability and resistance to erosion of the soils during excavation
were described.
Page 20—The environment of the project area is not adequately
described. The geology and ore desposits of the Globe-Miami mining
district is referenced, but the impact statement lacks a description
of geology in the project area. For instance, the installation of
sewer lines might encounter igneous rock necessitating costly
blasting Or all sewers could be laid in readily excavated trenches
in alluvium. More significantly, the proposed lagoons could lose
excessive water because of highly permeable formations or the presence
of caliche could preclude effective use of percolation ponds. The
mining activity or mineral resource development could be adversely
affected by implementation of the proposed project.
Page 2l_--The reliance upon Merriam has led to the inaccurate class-
ification of vegetation as a paloverde-saguaro community.
Page 22—A deficiency in factual data also is evident where it is
stated that eight species of endangered wildlife could occur within
the study area. The reader (and the decision maker) still does not
know if any endangered species are actually present in the project
area or if the proposed project will affect members of an endangered
species.
Although several unlikely species are included, no mention is made
of the spotted bat, Euderma maculata, or the Southern bald eagle,
Haliaeetus !_. leucocephalus. These two should be added.
Page 23—Table 3, "Rare and Endangered Wildlife Whose Distribution
includes the Globe—Miami Area" and the narrative on "Rare and
Endangered Wildlife" (page 22) are confusing. These sections
should be changed to reflect the official status as shown in the
"United States List of Endangered Fauna" (May 1974). The March 1973
publication "Threatened Wildlife of the United States" is not an
official list, but may be used as a reference and source of background
information.
-------
-3-
Pages 24-27—This should clarify the lack of recognition of Yavapai
presence, the placing of European Americans as farmers and ranchers
prior to 1850, the placing of Pimas and Papagos in eastern Arizona,
the confusion of Phoenix in contextual sense, the assignment of
Hohokam and Salado to separate areas when their sites occur side by
side or stratified, the extensive irrigation of "wild mesquite
beans" by the Hohokam, the lack of reference to the National Register
of Historic Places, the misidentification of the Office of the
State Historic Preservation Officer, the apparent avoidance of any
contact with the Anthropology Departments at the University of
Arizona, Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University,
Prescott College, or Southern Illinois University, or the Arizona
Archeological Center (NPS), the inadequate references to the Mescalero
Indians of east-central New Mexico, and the mididentification of
Dr. Gummerman.
Page 27—The sixth paragraph appears to be internally inconsistent.
Also the statement that "the project lies in...and is part of the
Salt River project" needs to be clarified. The author apparently
misinterpreted the information obtained from the Miller report.
The EPA fund-supported project for Globe-Miami is not part of the
Salt River Project, which was constructed under the Reclamation
Act.
Pages 27, 29, 31. 49 and 51^-Allegations blaming the mining industry
for occurrences of water and chemical pollution and for the high
mineral content of ground waters, are not supported by facts cited
in the text. In any mineralized area, natural oxidation of exposed
sulfide minerals will produce metal salts and mineral acids that
will enter the ground water. To imply, without factual data, that
the presence of these agents in the project area ground water is
solely the result of mining and milling activities, as on pages 31 and
49, is incorrect. Moreover such statements as, "Mining operations
damaged lower Pinal Creek land and water" (page 51), are not
germane to the impact statement, casting doubt on the document's
objectivity.
Pages 30-31—Since ground water is involved in the consideration of
all alternatives, we believe that the statement should include
somewhat more data on the existing round-water situation. Data
specifically needed in the appraisal of the evaluation include:
(a) enough water levels or depths to water from existing wells to
provide a basis for at least generalized conclusions as to the
principal directions of ground-water movement within the project
area; (b) aquifer transmissivities or specific capacities of repre-
sentative wells; (c) a map showing the approximate locations of
community supply wells, industrial wells, and perhaps representative
private wells for which water levels or other information might be
available; and (d) logs of wells.
150
-------
-4-
Page 33—The last statement appears to be subjective and should be
modified by an analysis in relation to "per customer." On an
assumed four persons per household (customer), a use of 69 gpcpd
appears low.
Page 49—The phrase in paragraph 5 "As a result of earth movement..."
should be clarified to remove the possible inference of seismic
activity of major extent.
Page 54--The statement is made that "Although some mining company
property has been sold in recent years, the reluctance of mining
firms to diminish their holdings is widely removed." This sentence
should be clarified.
Page 53—Land use planning by both the U.S. Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management is not mentioned.
Page 55_—We believe the following statement should be clarified:
"A principal, local objective related to the lack of consideration
of alternative wastewater treatment projects which some members of
the public believed to be more desirable."
Page 5_8—The following sentence is also confusing: "The connection
of roof drains to sewers may be prohibited by ordinance, detected
and enforced which will reduce peak flows during rains or collec-
tion systems may be repaired or replaced to reduce the infiltration
of subsurface waters."
Page 73_—The land ownership on Site 2 should be further described.
Page 104—The list of temporary impacts and mitigating measures
does not include spills of fuels, etc.
Page 105_—We are pleased with the attention that has been given to
cultural resources in the draft statement. It appears that the
proposed wastewater treatment plant sites have been adequately
surveyed. After detailed pipeline routings and pumping station
sites have been selected, we recommend that they be subjected to
an intensive surface archeological survey by a professional archeolo-
gist. Such a survey would be more feasible and more easily
implementable than would the "subsurface reconnaissance survey,"
mentioned on this page of the draft statement.
If significant cultural resources are identified by the survey
they should be described and evaluated for their National Register
potential. If they meet the criteria for nomination set forth in
Title 36, CFR 800.10, they should be nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places and the procedures outlined in Title
36, CFR 800.4 should be followed. A copy of the survey report should
151
-------
-5-
be made available to the National Park Service, Western Archeological
Center, P. 0. Box 49008, Tucson, Arizona 85717, and a summary of
the report should be included in the final statement.
The statement should also include a copy of the Arizona State Historic
Preservation Officer's comnents regarding the effect of the project
upon properties either listed on or in the process of nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places. The statement should
indicate that the National Register of Historic Places has been
consulted and that no National Register properties area to be
affected by the project.
The final statement should contain a commitment to stop construction
and to consult a qualified archeologist if buried cultural resources
are uncovered during construction. Such a procedure was recommended
by Tony F. Weber in his archeologist report contained in Appendix
C of the draft statement.
Page 116—The invertebrate dragonfly is erroneously identified as
a crustacean.
Page 118--It appears that recognition of the potential contribution
to or interference with water rights or pollution of the Salt River
Project has not been considered.
Page 133—Although alternative 3 may represent the best compromise
with respect to the many different goals needs and influences
listed on this page, the selection of this alternative is somewhat
surprising because it is neither the less costly nor the most energy
efficient alternative available.
In addition, the placement of the treatment plant and percolation
ponds several miles from the communities they serve increases pipeline
and pumping costs and assures that no recharge of the aquifer from
which the water originally was drawn will occur. Because water use
in the project area exceeds aquifer replenishment, and since greater
future withdrawals for the community and the mining industry are
anticipated, no wastewater treatment method that fails to provide
for re-use of treated effluent or direct recharge of ground water
should be considered. All three of the "viable" alternatives listed
on page 131 utilize aerated lagoons with percolation disposal ponds
and would represent significant evaporative water losses.
We suggest that provision should be made for verifying with reason-
able certainty the feasibility of recharging the principal aquifer
through the percolation ponds at the specific locations chosen
near Pringle Springs. (Ptehaps data from existing wells or test
holes would serve the purpose.) Such a preliminary step could be a
significant mitigating measure, for the possible presence of one of
the impermeable zones of the Gila Conglomerate beneath the percolation
ponds could either negate the ground-water salvage aspects of the
152
-------
-6-
project or cause "short circuiting" of the effluent flow to the
land surface or to streamflow.
Page 148 Appendix A—The creosote bush should be added to the list
of species.
Page 149 Appendix B—The list of "Wildlife Species Characteristic
of the Sonoron Desert Region of Arizona" should be more specific
to the project area.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
statement.
Cordially,
Webster Otis
Sped, al Assistant to the Secretary
cc: OEPR w/c incoming
Regional Director, FWS, Albuquerque
Regional Director, BOR, San Francisco
Regional Director, NPS, San Francisco
USGS, Reston, Attn: Larry Bonham
Director, BOM, D.C.
State Director, BLM, Arizona
Regional Director, BuRec, Boulder City
Area Director, BIA, Phoenix
153
-------
Response to comments from the Department of the Interior,
March 16, 1976
Comments relating to Draft EIS pages 4 (sic; page 20), 14,
21, 22, 23, 27 etc., 33, 49, 54 (sic; page 51), 58, 73, 104,
105, 116, 118 and 148 have been dealt with in the text of
the Final EIS.
Comment; Page 1 — The method of deriving environmental
social and cost impacts should be clarified.
Response: This comment appears to have no relationship to
the material presented on page 1 of the Draft EIS. The
appropriate page reference has not been identified.
Comment; Page 9 — The listing of references in the Biblio-
graphy shows most of the biological information to be some-
what out-of-date, particularly the use of C. H. Merriam,
1890 (page 142), as the basic reference.
Response: Merriam (1890) was cited as the originator of
the "life zone" concept, not as the source of biological
information used in the EIS.
Comment; Page 15 — We question whether the area is part
of the lower Sonoran Desert physiographic province.
Response: The EIS does not use the phrase "lower Sonoran
Desert physiographic province". Reference was made to
"lower Sonoran life zone" and to "Sonoran Desert"; these
two phrases are not synonymous. Jaeger (1957) specifically
cites the Globe area as an example of the "Arizona Upland
Desert" subunit of the Sonoran Desert.
Comment; Page 19-20 — The discussions of soils and geology
would be more useful if the suitability of the various soils
and near-surface bedrock as foundations for the proposed
installations and the stability and resistance to erosion of
the soils during excavation were described.
Page 20 — The environment of the project area is not
adequately described. The geology and ore deposits of the
Globe-Miami mining district is referenced, but the impact
statement lacks a description of geology in the project area.
For instance, the installation of sewer lines might encounter
igneous rock necessitating costly blasting or all sewers could
be laid in readily excavated trenches in alluvium. More
154
-------
significantly, the proposed lagoons could lose excessive water
because of highly permeable formations or the presence of
caliche could preclude effective use of percolation ponds.
The mining activity or mineral resource development could be
adversely affected by implementation of the proposed project.
Response: The EIS was not intended to eliminate the need for
a detailed facilities plan which should provide more detailed,
site-specific data regarding soil and geologic conditions.
The cost estimates in the EIS are only preliminary estimates
in the absence of a detailed facilities plan. The results
of the percolation tests performed in conjunction with pre-
paration of this Final EIS indicate the complexity of geologic
conditions in the area.
Comment: Pages 24-27 — This should clarify the lack of
recognition of Yavapai presence, the placing of European
Americans as farmers and ranchers prior to 1850, the placing
of Pimas and Papagos in eastern Arizona, the confusion of
Phoenix in contextual sense, the assignment of Hohokam and
Salado to separate areas when their sites occur side-by-side
or stratified, the extensive irrigation of "wild mesquite
beans" by the Hohokam, the lack of reference to the National
Register of Historic Places, the misidentification of the
Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the
apparent avoidance of any contact with the Anthropology
Departments at the University of Arizona, Arizona State
University, Northern Arizona University, Prescott College
or Southern Illinois University, or the Arizona Archeological
Center (NPS), the inadequate references to the Mescalero
Indians of east-central New Mexico, and the misidentification
of Dr. Gummerman.
155
-------
Response: Most of the above comments refer to Appendix 5,
rather than to pages 24-27 of the Draft EIS. The material
presented in the Draft EIS should be supplemented in a few
regards. Low populations of Yavapai originally occupied
areas east and northeast of Phoenix. A small band of Yavapai
were relocated to the San Carlos Indian Reservation in the
late 1800's. There are conflicting opinions as to whether
the Hohokam irrigated mesquite or crops such as corn, beans
and squash. The archeologists who prepared Appendix 5 have
presented their opinion of the evidence.
The Pimas and Papago were present in southeastern Arizona
(Spicer, Edward, 1962, Cycles of Conquest, University of
Arizona Press, pages 262-265; Spencer, R., J. Jennings, et.al. ,
1965, the Native Americans, Harper and Row, page 291). fEe
Draft EIS accurately states that the Hohokam and Salado were
contemporaries in the Globe-Miami area, but that they chose
different types of sites for their respective settlements.
Typographical errors have been corrected in the Final EIS.
The responses made to comments of Messers. Schoenwetter and
Weaver should also be reviewed.
156
-------
Comment; Pages 30-31 — Since groundwater is involved in the
consideration of all alternatives, we believe that the state-
ment should include somewhat more data on the existing ground-
water situation. Data specifically needed in the appraisal of
the evaluation include: (a) enough water levels or depths to
water from existing wells to provide a basis for at least
generalized conclusions as to the principal directions of
groundwater movement within the project area; (b) aquifer
transmissivities or specific capacities of representative
wells; (c) a map showing the approximate locations of com-
munity supply wells, industrial wells, and perhaps repre-
sentative private wells for which water levels or other
information might be available; and (d) logs of wells.
Response: Subsequent to release of the Draft EIS, percolation
tests were conducted adjacent to the existing Globe, Miami,
and Cobre Valley treatment plant sites. The results of these
tests are presented in this Final EIS. The detailed ground-
water data and well logs mentioned above would be quite use-
ful, but are not available. No special groundwater study was
authorized or conducted in connection with preparation of
this EIS.
Comment; Page 149, Appendix B — The list of "Wildlife Species
Characteristic of the Sonoran Desert Region of Arizona" should
be more specific to the project area.
Response: Due to the small acreage involved in any of the
alternatives addressed in the EIS, the abundance of comparable
habitat in the area, and the lack of literature references to
any unique biological features in the project area, it was
considered unnecessary to perform detailed biological field
studies at the alternative project sites. Thus, the discussion
of biological resources focuses mostly on a regional perspective,
157
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
6029 Federal Building, Phoenix, Arizona 85025
February 4, 1976
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Hearing Office, HE-126
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Sirs:
Following are the Soil Conservation Service's comments on the draft
environmental impact statement, "Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater
Treatment Project."
1. Page 34f Flood Control - The Corps of Engineers has a plan for
flood control for the Globe-Miami area. There is also an approved
application for PL-566 project assistance on Pinal Creek. Neither
of these were discussed.
2. Page 35, 4th paragraph - This paragraph is not clear. What are
you going to protect?
3. Page 39 - Suggest a watershed map showing relative locations of
population centers within each watershed be used to better display
this material.
4. Page 41 r Future Trends - How are the population projections
related to OBERS projections for the area?
5. Page 54f 2nd paragraph - Apparently EPA feels Arizona municipalities
have the power to purchase land outside city limits for public purchases.
We have not found that to be the case in our project activities. We have
asked the State Land Department to help us get an attorney general's
opinion on this question, and so far, have not received any answer from
the Attorney General.
6. Page 117, Geology and Soils, 2nd paragraph, 3rd, 4th, and 5th
sentences - Suggest these sentences be rewritten as follows:
"The main soil types covering.the.prospective area of effluent
disposal are the White House-Caralampi-Hathaway association.
In general, the soils are deep and have moderate to slow per-
meability. Some slopes in the area are greater than 5 percent."
158
-------
17. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
7. Page 110, 2nd item - We believe this pertains to groundwater quantity,
not quality.
ffe appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft EJS. -
Thomas G. Rockenbaugh
State Conservationist
159
-------
Response to comments from the Soil Conservation
Service, February 4, 1976
Comments 2, 6 and 7 have been dealt with in the text of
the Final EIS.
Comment 1: Page 34, Flood Control — The Corps of Engineers
has a plan for flood control for the Globe-Miami area. There
is also an approved application for PL-566 project assistance
on Final Creek. Neither of these was discussed.
Response: A 1961 Corps of Engineers study recommended 9,000
feet of channelization on Final Creek through the City of
Globe. This project ends about one mile south of the existing
Globe treatment plant site. Thus, the proposed Corps of
Engineers project has no effect on any of the alternative pro-
jects discussed in this EIS, and these alternative projects
have no impact on the Corps of Engineers' plan.
Comment 3; Page 39 — Suggest a watershed map showing
relative locations of population centers within each water-
shed be used to better display this material.
Response: This information was directly available only as
a table.
Comment 4; Page 41, Future Trends — How are the population
projections related to OBERS projections for the area?
Response: The OBERS projections were not utilized since
they apply to a three county area (Gila, Maricopa and
Yavapai Counties) rather than to the Globe-Miami area.
In addition, the OBERS projections rely on the Bureau of
Census "series C" population projections, which seem un-
realistically high.
Comment 5; Page 54, 2nd paragraph — Apparently EPA feels
Arizona municipalities have the power to purchase land outside
city limits for public purchases. We have not found that to
be the case in our project activities. We have asked the
State Land Department to help us get an attorney general's
opinion on this question, and so far, have not received any
answer from the Attorney General.
Response: The source of information referenced above is noted
in the text (Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development)
The state Attorney General's office has not yet responded to a
request for clarification of this issue.
160
-------
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Division of Environmental Health Services
11UL H. CASTRO, Governor
BZANNEDANDOY, M.D., M.P.H., Director
March 4, 1976
RECEIVED
REGIONAL HEARING CLERK
MAR 8 1976
REGION IX
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Attention: Hearing Office (HE 126)
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:
Gentlemen:
City of Globe - Project No. C-04-0128-01
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Comments
The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) has reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Statement prepared by EPA for the referenced project.
Based on that review, this office submits comments concerning the following
issues:
1. Phosphate Removal. The draft EIS does not address the possibility
of phosphate removal being imposed on discharges to Final Creek.
The Draft Salt River Basin Water Quality Management Plan report
reconmends that the total daily phosphate loading in the Salt
River below Pinal Creek be maintained at present levels by the
application of 80% phosphate removal for treated wastewater ef-
fluents that reach the receiving waters. Although the potential
phosphate load from treated wastewater is a small fraction of the
natural load, reduction of the wastewater load through wasteload
allocation among dischargers in the segment may be-the-^nost prac-
tical way to attain proposed EPA standards. This issue tends to
support the recommended project, or no-discharge alternatives.
2. Site Suitability. Regarding the suitability of the recommended
project site, there are some important questions left unanswered.
Before our office can approve the recommended project concept,
additional information and documents indicating land availability,
core sample analysis, percolation rate, and topographical charac-
teristics must be submitted. If the recommended general site is not
acceptable, major changes in the project will again be required.
3. Treatment Methodology. The ADHS agrees that aerated lagoons repre-
sent the most viable treatment method for this project in conjunc-
tion with a no-discharge effluent disposal alternative.
161
Health Building
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
-------
Environmental Protection Agency - 2
March 4, 1976
However, we feel that the oxidation ditch is a logical alternative
if the no-discharge concept is not feasible at the selected site
due to land area constraint or non-conducive soil content or
topography. In contrast to statements in the report the oxidation
ditch concept has proven ability to achieve the EPA definition of
secondary treatment. Although capital and maintenance costs to
install .and run oxidation ditch plants are probably greater than
those costs for aerated lagoons, they are typically less than
costs of conventional activated sludge plants.
The narrative on percolation pond disposal should include mention
of maintenance procedures that are necessary for effective op-
eration of the ponds. If operation experience at the Corona,
California plant is significant in any respects, this should also
be included.
4. Regionalization. This is a key issue in this project. Our office
feels that regionalization will occur some time in the future as a
necessity for future growth in the area. However, due to present
economic conditions, it is questionable and unlikely that region-
alization will occur in the near future to the degree that the re-
coomended regional plant can be adequately financially supported
by local means. Unfortunately, ADHS cannot mandate local entities
to participate in the project unless the Gila County Health Depart-
ment fails to resolve pollution problems and complaints resulting
from such problems. These are occurring in a limited county area.
ADHS can bring more effective pressure to bear on unincorporated
. areas by refusing to approve any development in the Final Creek
drainage basin when developers and landowners submit such plans.
However, none have been submitted in the past year.
The logical lead agency for the regional project is a sanitary
district which includes Globe, Miami, and unincorporated county areas
in Final Creek drainage basin. If this fails to occur and the region-
al project cannot be supported, Globe and Miami will still be required
to upgrade their treatment facilities to comply with NPDES permit
limitations and conditions. The ADHS feels that EPA should partici-
pate in projects grant fundable to these communities to upgrade their
existing facilities until such time as the regional project can be
implemented. Perhaps construction of this project can be phased to
accomodate the local entities water quality problems in the interim.
It is the opinion of ADHS that if the Pringle Spring site is proven
suitable, the recommended plan is the most cost effective and most
acceptable project to serve incorporated areas of Globe and Miami,
Cobre Valley Sanitary District, and unincorporated areas in Final
Creek drainage basin. A modified, or interim project must be
162
-------
Environmental Protection Agency - 3
March 4, 1976
developed and included in the final EIS to allow the communities
of Globe and Miami to solve their immediate problems as a con-
tingency for delay of regional project implementation.
Sincerely,
James A. Walters, P.B.
Construction Grants Administrator
Bureau of Water Quality Control
JAW:cp
cc: R. L. Miller, BWQC
S. Von Roberts, CRO
Rick McLoud, EPA - Region IX
163
-------
Response to comments from the Arizona Department of
Health Services, March 4, 1976
Comments 1 and 4 have been addressed in the text of the
Final EIS.
Comment 2; Site Suitability — Regarding the suitability of
the recommended project site, there are some important questions
left unanswered. Before our office can approve the recommended
project concept, additional information and documents indicating
land availability, core sample analysis, percolation rate, and
topographical characteristics must be submitted. If the recom-
mended general site is not acceptable, major changes in the
project will again be required.
Response: The EIS is not intended to take the place of a
detailed facilities plan. The information requested should
be a part of such a document. Preliminary percolation test
data and flood hazard evaluations are presented in the Final
EIS.
Content 3: Treatment Methodology — The ADHS agrees that
aerated lagoons represent the most viable treatment method
for this project in conjunction with a no-discharge effluent
disposal alternative.
However, we feel that the oxidation ditch is a
logical alternative if the no-discharge concept is not feasible
at the selected site due to land area constraint or non-conducive
soil content or topography. In contrast to statements in the
report the oxidation ditch concept has proven ability to achieve
the EPA definition of secondary treatment. Although capital
and maintenance costs to install and run oxidation ditch plants
are probably greater than those costs for aerated lagoons, they
are typically less than costs of conventional activated sludge
plants.
The narrative on percolation pond disposal should
include mention of maintenance procedures that are necessary
for effective operation of the ponds. If operation experience
at the Corona, California plant is significant in any respects,
this should also be included.
Response: Costs for achieving 80 percent phosphate removal
preclude consideration of direct discharge of treated effluent
to Pinal Creek as long as other means of effluent disposal are
available. The concern of the copper companies over the
quality of any treated wastewater which they might accept was
an additional factor leading to evaluation of the activated
sludge process rather than the oxidation ditch. No attempt
was made to evaluate all conceivable treatment processes which
might be utilized.
164
-------
CITY OF GLOBE
ISO NORTH PINE — GLOBE, ARIZONA 85SOI
February 11, 1976
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
ATTENTION: Rick McCloud and George Teramoto
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Greater Globe-
Miami, Arizona Wastewater Treatment Project
January, 1976
Dear Rick and George:
This letter will follow up on some of my verbal statements when you
were here in Globe, Tuesday. I want to reiterate that my comments
are meant to be constructive, not caustic.
I call your attention to the following in the draft:
Page 2 first complete paragraph: "The existing Cities Service
Company Plant (Cobre Valley Sanitary District)" should read "The
existing City of Globe Plant (serving a part of the Cobre Valley
Sanitary District.)
Page 5 Local Agencies, City of Globe: "Attention: Mayor G. H.
Williams."
Page 6 Legislators: "Honorable Raul Castro."
Page 15 first full paragraph type or location: "but with the
condition that no new services could be added."
Page 16 Climate, characterized by "warm" summers - also: Night-time
thermal inversions are "uncommon."
The entire reference to Air Quality should be rewritten in view of
the improved smelter situation.
Page 17, Wildlife, I believe Globe and Miami are in the "Chaparral
Area," not the lower Sonoran Desert.
165
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
February 11, 1976
Figure 6 should be updated to picture the existing smelter condition.
Page 29 lists no standard, but later pages indicate there are stan-
dards .
Page 30, Ground Water, second paragraph, our hydrologists tell us
just the opposite. Third paragraph, would the same thing happen to
our percolated effluent? Fourth paragraph refers to thirty year old
data.
Page 31, first and second paragraphs seem to conflict with comment
on page 29.
Page 33, second paragraph, the Cutter Well pumps are used at least
two shifts per day and our wells are "capable of" producing 4.32 (mgd)
Last parentheses, I know that the Arizona Water Company's consumption
records are accurate.
Page 34, first and second full paragraphs, it is common knowledge
locally that Arizona Water Company has serious problems as to both
quantity and quality. On Reclamation and Reuse, Alternate Three
would bypass one of Inspirations Well locations - The Fodera pumps.
Page 55, second paragraph, the use of the word "concept" seems
awkward. Last phrase is overly optomistic.
Page 57, at the end of the first full paragraph,"however it does
propose a limit on phosphates."
Page 62, I am told that Oxidation Ditches have been used extensively
in Europe.
Page 65, next to last sentence, Dr. Charles Bejarano made quite a
point that chlorination does not kill all viruses.
Page 69, percolation pond disposal - I have serious doubts about
the 4 feet per week rate of percolation/evaporation.
Page 72, direct discharge, first paragraph last phrase, would apply
to the failure of any type treatment plant. Second paragraph should
be "the existing City of Globe plant (serving a part of Cobre Valley
Sanitary District)."
Page 73, site 1, end of second paragraph, "The City of Globe did pro-
pose living quarters on the site to alleviate this problem.
166
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
February 11, 1976
Figure 19 should be updated to show that the weeds, cattails and
tules have been removed.
Page 77, Site 3, fourth paragraph, first sentence, it appears that
what can be calculated for one location could be calculated for
another in the same drainage area.
Page 78, last paragraph, since land is not reimbursable by EPA is it
added to the local costs. We have reason to doubt that it has.
Page 81, City of Globe, present measured discharge is from one-half
to three quarter million gallons per day through a calibrated weir.
Spetic tank wastes are no longer being dumped into the ponds. The
ponds are no longer overgrown with cattails and tules.
Page 83, No. 2, owner, City of Globe.
Figures 24 thru 31, the term "exact location to be determined" leaves
a lot to be desired since location was one of the primary reasons we
are having an EIS.
Page 90, Alternative 2-A, second paragraph, where are we going to
get 25 acres in the vicinity of our existing plant that is not in
a flood plain?
Page 94, third line, should read "The existing City of Globe plant
(serving a portion of Cobre Valley Sanitary District." Same para-
graph, we are not convinced the flow would be entirely by gravity
to the site shown in figure 21. Next paragraph, location is
section "6." Second full paragraph, are land and possible pumping
costs included in the $3,465,200.
Page 115 How are these impacts weighed?
Pages 118 thru 122 are unintelligable at least to me.
Page 123, I would like to see some backup for these computations.
Page 131, in my opinion Alternative 3 could have tremendous social
and monetary impacts if full cooperation between governments is
not achieved.
Page 132, same comment as for page 115.
Page 133, last paragraph, only if it works.
167
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 4
February 11, 1976
Page 140, should have a definition of SECONDARY TREATMENT
Page 145, Roberts, Mary, City Clerk, City of "Globe".
Personal regards,
Lionel Blair
City Manager
LB:mm
168
-------
Response to comments from City of Globe, February 11, 1976
Comments relating to pages 2, 5, 6, 15 (sic page 14), 16,
17 (sic page 21), 29, 30, 31, 33, 57, 62, 65, 69, 72, 73,
78, 81, 83, 90, 94, 118-122, 123, 131, 140 and 145 have been
dealt with in the text of the Final EIS.
Comment; Figure 6 should be updated to picture the existing
smelter condition.
Response: No other photograph is readily available.
Comment; Page 62 — I am told that oxidation ditches have
been used extensively in Europe.
Response: Refer to the response to a similar comment from
the Arizona Department of Health Services.
Comment; Figure 19 should be updated to show that the weeds,
cattails and tules have been removed.
Response: No more recent photograph is readily available.
Comment; Figures 24 through 31 — The term "exact location
to be determined" leaves a lot to be desired since location
was one of the primary reasons we are having an EIS.
Response: Precise site boundaries were never discussed with
the Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company. The intent of
Site 3 was to establish a location north of the Wheatfields
area where there would be minimal conflict with adjacent land
uses.
Comment: Pages 115 and 132 — How are these impacts weighed?
Response: No weighting factors were used.
169
-------
To whom it may ooncarr.:
I have investigated the archaeological aspects of the
attached, application for a federal grant or assistance with
the follo;-.'ing results:
ASU site files indicate no known archaeological
sites on the property in question, or surrounding
property tor a distance of one: (I) rrsiie,
The ASU site files indicate no known archaeological
sites on the property in question but do document
archaeological sites on adjacent property and the
probability is high that sites also occur on the
property in question.
The ASU site files include the following archaeological
sites on the property in question:
The following sites or. the property qualify for or
have been nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places:
The property in question should be examined by a
professional archaeologist since the area has not
been previously examined or has not been examined
in sufficient detail.
The following institutions should also bs consulted
regarding this application:
Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
K.'.seu:n of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.
Fuablo Grande Museum, Phoenix.
Additional Comments:
-------
' '-cfci •'** V.A1M
/_JL- * // ? * I
^-(.<.v-— W >/trv-C4-7' cx^«-cw? C^x
^
y / ' •/ ; ///
M^vA>f^-y^>-t-<-j/ v-^Vo—C->-r7 , / I/' (
^
AJO/^^L^JA^ .
171
-------
RfllfU 5. PERK £ R55DDRTE5
CONSULT ifUE RRCHEDLQEY
April 1 , 1 976
TO: Jones & Stokes Associates
• 455 Capitol Mal3 , Suite 835
Sacramento, California
SUBJECT: Response to comments on Greater Globe-Miami Waste-
water Treatment Prefect by Donald E. Weaver, Jr.,
Contract ArcheoH ogist , Department of Anthropology,
Arizona State University
In response to the comments of February 9, 1976, we wish to
assure all concerned that the investigator is a Southwestern
Archeologist with extensive survey &i.-d excavation experience
in that culture area. Our resumes and experience are avail-
able on request should anyone care to pursiie the issue.
The firm was informed that no federal lands were involved
within the scope of the present investigations. We are well
aware of the necessity for obtaining Federal Antiquity Act
Perinits as we have held eight for excavation and survey on
federal lands. We have held and do hold several federal
contracts and adhere to all regulations.
The State Historic Preservation Office is, under the law,
the central steward of extant cultural resources within each
state. If the records and files are incomplete and dis-
persed among many institutions, this situation effectively
blocks proper and required review by other archeologists.
It wcvJri benefit the profession if the records i
-------
ARIZONA STATI:
UNIVERSITY.
TEMPE. ARIZONA K5.\M
OEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
Comment on Greater Globe-Miami
Wastewater Project EIS
The cultural resource study presented in Appendix C, upon which is based
significant evaluations of the environmental impact of the proposed project,
is inadequate.
A. The work is inadequate because it is incomplete. The complete route
of the interceptor facilities was not surveyed, inclusive of survey of the
routes of existing interceptors projected for enlargement. Since the federal
project will establish wastewater facilities that will accomodate a larger
population, impact of the project will also be felt on cultural resources
through expansions of existing residential and industrial areas. Such ex-
pansion districts were not included in the cultural resources survey.
B. The work is inadequate because it was not accomplished to the level
of obvious professional standards. This is apparaut in at least two regards.
First, the check of records of previously identified sites was incompetant.
It is wall known to professional archaeologists that Arizona contains a great
many Kohokam and Salado ruins which were surveyed between 1920 and 1950 by
a now defunct research organization which was .located at Globe (Gila Pueblo).
Those records, now housed at Arizona State Museum, were not checked by these
investigators. Nor were the survey files of the other institutions in the
state checked. The investigators assumed that the files of the State
Historic Preservation Officer would provide adequate data since this is the
type of records check which is legally required. Their investigatory pro-
cedure was legal, but it was incompetant and unprofessional. Second, the.
foot survey and spot check study was not accomplished professionally as it
ignored legal requirements for archaeological investigation. Under the
Federal Antiquities Law of 190G, and under Arizona law governing State-
owried or -managed properties, permit a are required for archaeological survey
which studies or traverses Federal or State lands. Forest Service lands were
directly studied (or should have been for professionally complete study) in
sec. 29 of T2H, R15R and both Federal and State permits should have been
sought by Ann S. Peak and Associates. Their failure to do so documents lack
of professional coiupetance. v
James Schoenwetter
Associate Professor
173
-------
HIUIU 5. PERK £ R55DDRTE5
CONSULT INE RRCHEDLDBV
April 1 , 1 976
TO: Jones & Stokes Associates
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 835
Sacramento, California
SUBJECT: Response to comments on the Greater Globe-Miami
Wastewater Treatment Project by James Schoenwetter,
Associate Professor, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Our response to Professor Ja.jes Sehoenwetter's corments on
the archeological investigations will be to the individual
sections of his letter of February 13, 1976.
We must take exception to his unprofessional comments on
our alleged incoicpetency and unprofessional approach.
Such comments are unwarranted in view of the limited
data Professor Schoenwetter attempted to gather on our
expertise and experience.
Section A. The work is complete within the present scope
of the established alternatives and alignments. The report
spoke to the necessity of further intensive survey when the
selection of interceptor routes is finalized.
To arbitrarily suggest that all potential growth of resi-
dential areas be surveyed now is an unrealistic attitude.
No archeologist can assume the job of a planner/economist
and infallibly assess the direction of growth. Legiti-
mately, only the jurisdictional bodies have the right to
require additional surveys of land use change parcels.
Section B. Record research was done through the State
Historic Preservation Office. If its files are presently
inadequate, the responsibility for the correction of this
dispersal of valuable records should be of the utmost
concern to the participating agencies within the State of
Arizona. It seems more cost-effective to direct survey
funds to the immediate problem area ti.an to also conduct
a statewide investigation of scattered records.
174
UJI1 L nilJORLE WRV - FRIR DRKS - TRt iFDRflllR - R5b2B -
-------
Jones & Stokes Associates
April 1 , 1 976—-2
Although records were not reviewed at Arizona State Museum,
it would appear that the investigation was sufficient as no
sites had been previously recorded within the survey area
(see Weaver's letter, 1976, this E.I.S.). Apparently the
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office records were
correct.
In regard to the possibility of trespass on federal lands,
the investigators were assured that all survey lands (in
the present scope) were in either private or local agency
holdings. As the Principals of the farm have held eight
Federal Antiquity Permits for survey and excavation on both
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, their
judicious regard for close adherence to the 1906 Antiquities
Act should be reviewed before comments are formulated. .
It may be that the comments from Schoenwetter are not
directed to the competency of the investigation by our
firm, but instead reflect a more subtle bias.
Sincerely,
••'•> •">
; )
LfoU-iV^
-------
Comments on Greater Globe-Miami
tfastewater Project EIS
The portion of this EIS dealing with the herpetofauna is for all
practical purposes inadequate. Based on the demonstrated lack of
ability to utilize available resources on distributions and habitats
of this important animal group, it is likely that other faunal lists
included in this statement may be inadequate.
Two major types of errors are evident:
first, the list of reptile species is incorrect, neglecting
even some of the most common species in the locality. The authors
cite Stebbins, 1966 as their source of data on reptiles yet the
list is incomplete. In addition, amphibians have been entirely left
out, even though several species are very abundant!T
Second, the authors have made statements related to the ecology
of reptiles that are incorrect and have made several statements which
are later negated by other statements. For example, on page 21, it is
stated that most reptiles feed on insects, mammals and small birds.
In fact, many desert reptiles feed on other reptiles.'.' Also, it is
stated that they are active only during warm months. In fact, Uta
stansburiana is active year round and even reproduces as early as
February. On page 21 it is stated that the reptiles are adapted for
the desert habitat. If true, then how can the same author state on
page 114 that added water will increase productivity of reptiles?
If these are desert adapted, changing the habitat to a more mesic one
should adversly effect the so called desert adapted species. It also
seems highly probably that added water would attract cattle, resulting
in additional habitat deterioration.
I have only listed several of the errors and inconsistencies
which I ran across in this statement. However, the severity of the
errors in regard to the herpetofauna suggests that this study was
compiled by personnel with little or no biological background or
ability to retrieve or assimilate literature material. The important
data, e.g., densities, reproductive information and population data,
are entirely absent in this report and on the basis of data included,
I cannot believe that an accurate assessment of the impact of this
project can be made.
Laurie J. Vitt
Graduate Associate
Office of Research Grants
and Contracts
ASU, Tempe, AZ 85281
176
LJV.-ah
-------
Response to comments from ASU Office of Research
Grants and Contracts, March 4, 1976
Various portions of the text of the Final EIS have been
revised in response to the above comments. Due to the
limited acreage involved in any of the project alternatives,
the amount of similar habitat present in the area, and the
absence of any documented or readily observable unique bio-
logical features in the area, it was considered unnecessary
to perform detailed field studies of the biological resources
present on the alternative sites. Instead, a general over-
view of biological conditions was presented. No attempt
was made to provide a complete inventory of either the flora
or fauna of the area.
The impact discussion on page 114 of the Draft EIS relates
to the effects of increased flows in Final Creek, not to
spray irrigation with treated effluent. Increased flows in
the creek will enhance riparian vegetative growth and may
increase local insect populations. These factors would
improve habitat conditions for several reptile species
(directly or indirectly).
177
-------
David 2. Creighton, Jr. F.E.
r-.O. Box 15U8
Phoenix, Arizona 8$001
inarch 1, 1976
Regional Administrator
Segion IX
EnvironraentaQ. Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 9U111
Dear Sir:
Your Draft Environmental Statement for the Greater
Globe—Miami Waste-water Treatment Project, SPA-9»AZ-GILA-Globe-
Regional YfiYTP-76, has been reviewed.
l.'y comments on the environmentally inadequate but engineeringly
acceptable draft statement are enclosed.
Please include my comments in the record prepared for your
Final Environmental Impact Statement and furnish me a copy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
David i. Crei?thton,xJr. P/SJ,
Enclosure
178
-------
Comments on Environmental Protection AGency DBS
Glove-Miami Sewage Treatment Plant
*•• Page 1. par. 2. sentence 2. How can environmental social and cost
imapcts be promulgated? Clarify. Promulgate is a legalistic process.
2- £age 9. par. 4 . The listing of references in the Bibliography
shows the out-of-day character and inadequacy of most of th« biological
information and descriptions; particularly the employment of C. H.
Merriam 1890 (pg 142) as the basic reference.
3. Page 12. par. 4, sentence 3. The candor of the «|«ncy to •••it an
error of staff and executive judgment is appreciated. It polats up
the accuracy of a suspicion that the agency does not have the co«petence
that CEQ edicts have proclaimed it to have.
4. Page 14. par. 2. The identification of a contractor as having prepared
the EIS does not absolve the agency of the responsibility for adequacy
and accuracy. Also, this oblique reference to Notice of Intent does
not state whether this complies with CEQ guidelines for us^ing OMB A-95
Clearinghouse procedures. The responses to the Clearinghouse A-95 procedur
should be part of the record.
5. Page 15, par 1. last sentence. The area is definitely not a part of
the lower Sonoran Desert Physiographic Province. The error of relying
upon outdated nomenclature leads to cumulative questions regarding
the overall competence of the EIS.
6. Page 15, par 4. line 1. Tucson is misspelled.
179
-------
7. Page 4, par. 4. The "no recently recorded earthquake" should be
supported by a date.
8. Page 20, par. 6. and page 21. The reliance upon Merriam has lead to
the inaccurate Vegetation classification on page 21 of Appendix A
of paloverde-sahuaro community. In Appendix A - the listing of
17 species by common name and excluding creosotebus^ - (Larrea divaricata) ,
one of the most prominent species, indicates a lack of professional
competence and review. The further occurence of seven errors in
scientific names or spelling is inexcusable for a 17-item list. The
inclusion of sahuaro, ironwood, ocotillo, blue-paloverde, and mis-
spelling of "bajadas" as "bajados" indicates that the consultant and
agency should have been required to make an "on the ground inspection"
of the project area at the time the contract EIS work was initiated.
These errors further clarify the peculiar and often times ignorant
comments that originate from the Agency Regional office when commenting
on statements concerning Arizona projects. The consultants and the
agency personnel "do not know the territory."
9. Page 21. par. 8. The accuracy of perennial status given to Final
Creek for the Pringle Ranch to Salt River for this full reach should
be determined from field inspection not remote mahftgony desk flights.
Are the fish species identified from sampling. Particularly in light
of page 27, par. 6, 1st sentence.
10. Page 22. par. 2. Most biologists capitalize Gambel's quail.
180
-------
11• Page 22. pars. 3 and 4. and table 4. With highly unlikely species
included and referred to, why is no mention made of the spotted bat,
Euderma maculata. or the southern bald eagle, Haliaetus
leucocephalus.
12• Page 24-27, Archeology and History, and Appendix 5. This material in
general is atrocious and inaccurate. The following is a general list-
ing of the deficiencies. The lack of recognition of Yavapai presence,
the placing of Euro-Africans in a farming and ranching presence
prior to 1850, the racist reference to the Bloody Tanks Massacre, the
placing of Pimas and Papagos in eastern Arizona, the confusion of
Phoenix in contextual sense, the assigning of Hohokam and Salado
flatly to separate areas when their sites occur side by side or
stratified, the extensive irrigation of "wild mesquite beans" by the
Hohokam, the again racist classifying of the Apache as "sullen", the
lack of reference to the National Register of Historic Places, the
misidentificationof the office of State Historic Preservation Officer,
the avoidance of any contact with the Anthropology Departments at
University of Arizona, Arizona State University. Northern Arizona
University, Prescott College, or Southern Illinois University, or
the Arizona Archeological Center, (NPS), and the pitifully inadequate
references including the Mescalero Indians of east-central New Mexico,
and misidentification of Dr. Gummerman.
13. Page 27, par. 6, and top of page 28. This paragraph appears to be
internally conflicting.
181
-------
14. Page 27, par. 5, 1st sentence. "The project lies in ... and is part
of the Salt River Project." needs to be clarified. The author apparently
misinterpreted the information obtained from the Miller report. The
EPA fund supported project for Globe-Miami is not part of the Reclamation
Act initiated Salt River Project.
15. Page 33, last 2 lines. This obviously biased statement should be
avoided by a logical analysis and explanation in relation to "per
customer" as a customer in a household of several persons indicates
lack of professional analysis. On an assumed four persons per
household (customer) a use of 69 gpcpd appears low.
16. Page 49, par. 5. "as a tesult of earth movement" should be clarified
to remove the possible inference of seismic activity of major extent.
17. Page 56. The rationale for presenting institutional constraints to
obfuscate not presenting an alternative that would require some
legislative changes is not persuasive of any validity in the agency's
"full disclosure" sainthood look of "intent," Rather it appears to be
an attempt to justify a bureaucratic position under the guise of a
"legalistic" approach and ignoring of CEQ guidelines. Any of the
cloaking authority references and dates may be changed by legislative
action even though beyond the agency's authority. It would appear
that following the discussion of implementation options on pages 78-80,
the nonimplementation option of Alternative 0 be reported as Alternative
OR (for no action - repeal of legislation or ignoring the constraints
with no penalty imposed).
182
-------
18. In general, the professional engineering studies of alternatives
appear to have been reasonably extracted and reported by the writers
of the EIS. This, however, does not compensate for, or produce an
overall acceptable "full disclosure" document.
19. Pg. 116, par. 3. Is not the identification of the invertegrate dragon
fly as a crustacean a bit unusual.
20. Page 118, par. 2. It appears that recognition of the potential con-
tribution or interference to water rights or pollution of the Salt
River Project have not been considered.
21. In conclusion, it is suggested that you grade your Draft EIS by
classifying it EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory.
183
-------
Response to comments from Mr. Creighton, March 1, 1976
Comments number 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
19 and 20 have been dealt with in the text of the Final EIS.
Comments essentially identical to numbers 2, 5 and 12 were
dealt with in regards to the letter of comment from the
Department of the Interior.
Comment 9: Page 21, par. 8 — The accuracy of perennial
status given to Final Creek for the Pringle Ranch to Salt
River for this full reach should be determined from field
inspection not remote mahogany desk flights. Are the fish
species identified from sampling. Particularly in light
of page 27, par. 6, 1st sentence.
Response: Ms. Setka, a resident of the Wheatfields area,
has reported that Pinal Creek is essentially perennial as
it flows by her property (Appendix S). As noted on page 29
of the Draft EIS, Mr. Leffert of the U. S. Forest Service,
Peterson (1962), and the Arizona Department of Health Services
concur in the designation of the lower stretch of Pinal Creek
as perennial.
184
-------
B I X B V R A N C H
STEPIIl-N L. B1XBY Hl'GlSTERl-D lir:.KPOHD CATTU;
602-425-H26 GLJ; °AR;S;;;^ S55i,:
December 10, IT/5
Dr. Robert Gumerman
Don Owen £ Associates
2232 Southeast Bristol, Suite 206
Santa Ana, California 92707
Dear Dr. Gumerman:
After study of the "Sumary of Construction ond ?0-ve.r-r operation corts"
pertaining to the seven alternatives of the Globe, Arizona, EPA sewer project
No 04.0128, I still have some questions which 1 will, appreciate having answered.
1. What will be the total local costs of each alternative?
2. 'What are the principles of cost distribution between locals?
3. What are yonr estimates of costs to Wheatfiolds and other local areas
to participate?
4. What will be the estimated annual operating costs of each of the
seven alternatives?
I hope you will be able to answer these questions for me without doing
a lot of extra work.
As you know I am very concerned, along with my Wheatfields neighbors,
with the effects of those seven sewer alternatives. Alternative 3 should solve
our problems and all the other regional problems, if the Regional Areated
Lagoons fire locatpd fn.r enough north, beyond the Setka Ranch, to not create
a nuisance to residents of that location.
We really appreciate the objective attitude you an:] your associates
have shown in gathering the environmental nnd Roononic foots in on-thc-ground
examination and your study and discussion of these sever problems.
Sincerely,
; "•'
.. - * s • —' '" /
"\ >^d---k...v ^ . -—•'--t. i.--~
Stephen L. Bixby
185
-------
RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM BIXBY - 10 DECEMBER 1975**
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1.
The EPA will fund 75% of the eligible cost of pumping stations,
interceptors, treatment facilities, and outfalls. The remaining 25% of the
cost of these facilities is a local cost. Any expansion or modification of
these facilities, after the initial construction, is a 100% local cost. The
annual operating cost of these facilities is a 100% local cost.
The cost of local collection sewers and trunk sewers is 100% a
local cost.
Assuming that the EPA determines all grant fundable facilities to
be 100% eligible, the breakdown between initial local share costs and EPA
funded costs (assuming all collection systems are built initially) is as
fol1ows:
SUMMARY OF INITIAL LOCAL SHARE COSTS
ALTERNATIVE
1A
IB
1C
2A
2B
3
4
5
LOCAL SUM OF
PUMPING STATIONS, INTERCEPTOR, TREATMENT & OUTFALLS COLLECTION AND INITIAL
TOTAL 1976 COST EPA FUNDED COST LOCAL SHARE COST TRUNK SEWER COST* COST*
7,810,600
7,445,600
6,984,900
4,053,200
4,515,500
5,324,600
9,047,700
4,303,900
5,858,000
5,584,200
5,238,700
3,039,900
3,386,600
3,993,500
6,785,800
3,227,900
1,952,600
1 ,861 ,400
1,746,200
1,013,300
1,128,900
1,331,100
2,261,900
1,076,000
6,211,000
6,211,000
6,211,000
6,211,00
6,211,000
6,211,000
6,211,000
6,211,000
8,163,600
8,072,400
7,957,200
7,224,300
7,339,900
7,542,100
8,472,900
7,287,000
* Note - Does not include cost of collection and trunk sewers in
Wheatfields.
**
By Don Owen & Associates.
186
-------
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2.
The principal of allocating local share costs must be developed
and approved at the local level, and submitted to EPA in a Revenue and
Repayment Program. Before a grant can be awarded, EPA would have to approv-
this Program as being "fair and equitable", a provision which means that all
residents would pay for services in a manner directly attributable and
proportional to the cost of these services. Further discussion of project
financing is presented on pages 78-80 of this Statement.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 3.
The cost of collection sewers and trunk sewers in Wheatfields
has not been determined, and allocation of the local share cost of remaining
facilities cannot be done at present, as discussed above. Therefore, no
estimate can be made of the cost to Wheatfields.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4.
The annual costs increase through the years, as flow increases.
The following table shows the annual costs for each alternative over a
20-year period.
187
-------
ANNUAL COSTS -
BETWEEN BETWEEN
ALTERNATIVE 1976-81 1981-86
1A 159,300 173,800
IB 160,200 174,800
1C 139,800 152,900
2A 52,300 60,700
2B 60,100 70,300
3 43,600 47,400
4 205,300 230,300
5 55,400 62,200
$/YEAR
BETWEEN
1986-91
198,300
199,400
174,900
67,200
77,400
51,100
252,300
67,700
BETWEEN
1991-96
208,100
209,500
184,000
74,400
85,100
53,900
265,400
73,200
COMMENTS RELAYED TO ME FROM STEVE BIXBY ON 2 FEBRUARY 1976.
PAGE 77 - Under Site 3 - omit "along Horseshoe Bend Wash"
Change Sika to Caretto
^
Change 20 acres to 33 acres
PAGE 92 - Next to last line, change section
PAGE 94 - Same conment as p. 92
PAGE 138 - Add "not" on the sixth line
188
26 to Section 6
-------
The following letters are either self-explanatory or
for which all response has been made through changes
in the text of the Final EIS.
189
-------
Inspiration Consolidated Copper
INSPIRATION, ARIZONA B5537
March 5, 1976
REGIONAL HEARING CLERK
MAR 8 1976
REGION K
U.S. E.P.A.
Attn. Hearing Office
H.E. - 126
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Gentleman:
This letter is written in objection to your proposal for the
construction of the new Globe Sewage Disposal Plant. It is our
understanding that you are recommending alternate three as outlined
in your Draft Environmental Impact Statement. You describe alternative
three as "A regional aerated lagoon treatment plant located near
Pringle Springs with disposal to percolation ponds."
Our objections to the proposal are specifically outlined as
follows;
I. Deterioration of Pringle Area water supply.
We have recently had to install a chlorination system on our fresh
water due to new coliform bacteria contamination of the Pringle water basin.
This contamination probably comes from the trailers in the Wheatfields
area which is located 3 miles upstream from Pringle water basin,
Inspiration is currently chlorinating this water in order to maintain
a quality of water suitable for human consumption. Locating the sewage
treatment plant at Pringle would completely contaminate the Pringle water
basin to such an extent that we would be unable to use it as drinking water.
190
-------
Two
The other detrimental aspect of this type of discharge system would
be the contamination of the Pringle ground water with various types or organic
contaminants contributed by detergents and organic waste material. Since
much of our processing is dependent upon the adequate and controlled chemistry
within our system, the accumulation of these contaminants, would ultimately
result in metallurgical havoc. This plays an important fact since the Pringle
water source is split into fresh water and industrial water use. The injection
of the sewage effluent into the ground water system near Pringle would definitely
affect Inspiration's operation within a short period of time.
Under no circumstances should this material be discharged directly into the
ground water to contaminate the ground water system and then returned at random
where we would have no control over the treatment or the quality of the water.
If we should choose to take a portion of the sewage water effluent, this should
be at our option. The section as described in Page 86 of the Environmental
Impact Statement that all the water must be taken on a contractual basis at all t
times is prohibitive for our consideration.
The results of flotation tests using sewage water, show that even well run
sewage treatment plant effluents will adversely affect flotation. This indicates
that further treatment will be required from even the best treatment plants in
order for it to be used in a metallurgical process.
If Inspiration should have to curtail it's mining and milling operations
because of a lack of industrial quality water it would result in the loss of over
1000 jobs. This curtailment of employment would have a profound economic impact
on the community.
II. Impact on Property Value, Pringle Area.
Inspiration is one of the property owners in the immediate area of the plant
having full or majority interest in 557 acres.
191
-------
Three
This land along with adjoining land under various ownerships is prime
residential property that can be developed in the future. The impact on the
property values in the area has never been discussed with the owners yet on
page 134 of your draft environmental statement you state in part.
A. Construction on use of the area will change the land form and
cause soil erosion.
B. The percolation of treated waste water into the groundwater may
cause bacteria, viruses and parasites to enter the ground water „
C. Nuisance insects, mosquites and midget flies will grow in the
treatment ponds and may fly to residential areas.
This area is one of the few in the Globe-Miami area available for medium
income residential development. Construction of a plant of the type you
recommend would effectively exclude the area for such use,,
In view of the above we strongly object to construction of a sewage plant
of the type you recommend in the Pr ingle area.
Sincerely,
'
R. R. Hyde /
President
RRHrsk
192
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENOIlNCERS
P.O. BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA BOOS*
;'.-•'. ".:.uvf.j:«-::r":i:I:.->1. .'"cofcccv.ir-.i?
A »;:;»•) • '-'•*---,ri;\> -•".': > ! c -• . :;'. ? '.'.>
•:••«::• to.: IX
l',N" r--V1. fo- .>!..-. .;^;;:c
•c'.:fi : v::>;:r o *'C .'•'•.'•. '.-••'.'i. if;/It:-.:
L;.;.-it'1;' i;t.r-'".'•. •• •»'.'•. v:''" L':v '"'r-;-"
ru vll:v •-'•••••.' '1 .: ?-.-.• -JVOL^C !•--'; r"^-
••: >i: ilr.i'l ' "_.-•- «;.".*' -.:"r t-;-: . is
-r;r;'-- :vj I'. :' . ur. v:T..; c~'- ".r.. r-
for "l.c-V-c and
193
-------
SPLED-E 12 February 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact Mr. Robert
L. Hall, Chief, Flood Plain Management Section, telephone (213) 688-5420.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft state-
ment.
Sincerely yoxirs,
A. FUQUAY
Chief, Engineering Division
194
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
REGIONAL OFFICE
SO FULTON STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94IOZ O."IC£ OF
T*= REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Office of Environmental Affairs
February 27, 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Hearing Office, HE-126
Region IX
100 California Street 'j-
f.
San Francisco, California 94111 I.- -
Dear Sir: CT
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Greater Globe-Miami,
Arizona Wastewater Treatment Project has b«en reviewed in accordance
with the interim procedures of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare as required by Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act, PL 91-190.
We note that the project may be growth inducing. It is recommended that
the development of the Final Environmental Impact Statement address the
potential increased level of educational services and medical facilities
that will be required by an increase in population. The Statement should
include assurances that the State and/or local governmental units are
aware of the potential increases and are planning to meet then.
Sincerely,
)« Knochenhauer
Regional Environmental Officer
cc: CEQ
OS/OEA
V-
195
-------
RAUL H. CASTRO
A. O3DWAY
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
HIGHWAYS DIVISION
206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona £5007
February 25, 1976
WILLIAM N. PRi,
Stata Engine^,
Mr. Ralph C. Kingery
Arizona State Clearinghouse
Office of Economic Planning
and Development
1624 West Adams, Room 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Re: Greater Globe - Miami, Arizona
Hastewater Treatment Project
EPA-9-AZ-Gila-Globe-Regional
WWTP-76-Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
State Identifier - 76-80-0005
Dear Mr. Kingery:
The Environmental Planning Services of the Highways Division, Arizona
Department of Transportation, has reviewed the above referenced Draft
Environmental Impact Statement submitted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The proposal, as written, should not present any significant adverse
Impacts upon Arizona Department of Transportation Highway interests.
It will be necessary, however, for the Environmental Protection Agency
to maintain coordination with the Arizona Department of Transportation
1n regard to adapting the sewer plan to the highway system encompassing
U.S. 80 and 70, U.S. 66 and 70 and S.R. 88, all located in the wastewater
treatment project area. We note the various alternatives all involve
pipes under the highways but some of these are presently in place.
ones will require new right of way agreements.
M o*>*
I 1 d I«
The Arizona Department of Transportation has one highway construction
project scheduled in the current five-year transportation construction
program which could have some involvement with the study area. It is as
follows:
Project Number: F-022-3-531
Phoenix - Globe Highway (U.S. 60 and S.R. 60T)
(Willow Street - Hill Street (Globe)
Length: .65 mile starting at Milepost 250.5
Type of Work: Construct a 68' roadv/ay with grade, drain and
asphaltic concrete pavement. It will provide a safer route
by constructing a highway connection on U.S. Highway 60 in the
196
AERONAUTICS • MOTOR VEHICLE • PUBLIC TRANSIT • ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • TRANSPORTATION PtANM
-------
Mr. Ralph C. Kingery -2- February ?5, 1976
City of Globe beginning at Willow Street and Oak Street on the
north and terminating at Ash Fork and Hill Street on the east.
This wil i be mostly on new right of way as shown by the sweep-
ing curve on the map portion of the attached copy of a Public
Notice published on April 17, 1975.
Schedule: Construction projected for FY 1975-1976.
Coordination for this wastewater treatment project should be maintained
with Mr. H.M. Osmus, District Engineer, Arizona Department of Transpor-
tation, District VII, Drawer A.D., Miami, Arizona 85539, telephone
number: 261-7871.
We note the EIS finds Alternative 3 to be preferred over the other al-
ternatives. The fact that the proposed location for the aerated lagoon
treatment and percolation pond disposal in lower Pinal Creek is away
from frequently traveled roads, is certainly a favorable point in aes-
thetic consideration.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this draft Envi-
ronmental impact statement.
Yours very truly,
VIM. N. PRICE
State Engineer
MASON 0. TOLESNManager
Environmental Planning Services
MJT:ADG:kmc
Attachment
cc: ADOT - District VII
Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr.
197
-------
:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION L
iinTlfl
riUi IvZ
The Arizona Department of Transportation proposes to construct a highway connection on U.S. £
Highway 60 in the City o! Globe, beginning at Willow Street and Oak S reel on the north and •
terminating at Ash Street and Hill Street on the east, a distance of approximately .65 miles.
A CGsstCT;ON
ritou
WILLOW AK> OAK 3T»ItT3
TO
MILL A«O ASH
U.OSC ARIZONA
&1LA COUNTY
The Arizona Department of Transportation conducted a Corridor Public Hearing in the City of
Globe on April 28, 1971. At that time the State presented for consideration two corridor locations
of the proposed highway connection. The State, after due consideration of the comments received
during and subsequent to the Corridor Public Hearing and the additional factors that must be
considered in highway design, selected an alignment.
The selected alignment crosses Final Creek just south of Oak Street and continues southerly over
Maple Street and the seccnd crossing of Final Crse'<. The alignment then swings easterly over
the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and Broad Street to the intersection of Ash Street and Hill
Street.
The Arizona Department of Transportation proceeded with the Design Public Hearing conducted
in the City of Globe on March 8, 1972. At that Hearing the State presented for consideration the
major design features of tne proposed highway connection. The State, after due consideration of
the comments received during and subsequent to the Design Public Hearing and the additional
factors that must be consicerea in highway design, has ce;=;mined the major design features of
this proposed p/oject.
The major design features include an asphaltic concrete roadway varying from 60 to 68 feet in
width, providing four 12 foot traffic lanes, two in each direction, 4 foot shoulders on both sides
cf the roadway and a painted median varying from 4 to 12 feet in width. Curbs, gutters anc! side-
walks will be constructed on the left side of the roac.vay for the full project with oniy short
segments of curbs, gutters and side/oiks on the right s.ie of tne roadway at the project termini.
Drainage will be hancied cy conventional urban means on the curbed portions of the roadway and
handled by ditches, downcrams and outfall lines to Pin^l Creek on tne remainder of the project.
Three major structures will be required by this project. Tne first structure is a 210 foot Ion", 68
foot wide, 3-s?an structure over Final Creek approximately ICO feet south of Oak Street on the
new alignment. The next structure to the south is a 90 foo! long, 6S foot wide. 3-s?3n structure
over Vjpie Stree:. T-e :c"es! is a 1,010 foot !:ng, 60 foct wide. 8-span structure over Final
Creek, the Southern Pacific R3;:road tracks and Broad Street.
The Arizona Department cf Transportation has made a study of the environmental impact of the
proposed highway connection on the area in which the highway is located and on the public at
large that will be using the highway. The Environmental impact Statement is available for review
in the d'fice of Mr. Mason Toies. Division Manager, Environmental Planning Services, 205 South
17th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, telephone 261-7767.
Maps, drawings and other pertinent information are available for review in the office of Mr. H.M.
Osmus, District Engineer, District VII, Arizona Department of Transportation,Miami, Arizona S5539.
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HAS APPROVED THE LOCATION AND MAJOR
DESIGN FEATURES AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
WM. N. PRICE
Assistant Director
& State Engineer
198
-------
SALT RivtiR PROJECT
P.O.BOX 1 980
PHOENIX. ARI 7.0N A R50G1
POWER
February 17, 1976
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Hearing Office, HE-126
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Gentlemen:
Regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Greater Globe-Miami, Arizona Wastewater Treatment Project
dated January 1976, the Salt River Project (SRP) would like
to offer the following comments on the statement.
SRP supports the recommended alternative, that is, alternative
number 3 (a regional aerated lagoon treatment plant located
near Pringle Springs with disposal to oercolation ponds). This
would minimize the loss of water from the effluent discharged.
SRP does have an interest in the nhosphate concentrations in the
effluent. Any contributions of this discharge to phosphate con-
centrations downstream would add to the difficulty in achieving
the phosphate standards proposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
"v^usu^e^ /, (^c^^^^^-e^^^
Frank T. Darmiento
Environmental Division
rsk
199
-------
CITY OF GL-OBE
ISO NORTH PINE — GLOBE. ARIZONA 8SSOI
KKCUVKD
REGIONAL HEARING CLERfi
March 3, 1976 MAR 8 IS/6
. REGION DC
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Hearing Office HE-126
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Dear Sirs:
Please consider this letter a part of the record of that hearing
conducted in our city on February 18, 1976 and a follow up to the
comments of Councilman George Larson.
At their regular meeting on March 1, 1976, it was the consensus
of the Globe City Council that we request assistance of the EPA in
extending service to a sizeable section of our population. (Copy
of minutes enclosed) This will entail expansion of what is now
referred to as Phase II interceptor to include what Councilman Larson
has referred to as Phase IV and the lifting of a ban on new connec-
tions imposed by EPA on Phase II as a condition of that part of
the grant.
I am enclosing a map and a copy of the letter from EPA in which
I have emphasized the restriction. As you can see a major part of
Phase IV would be through unincorporated areas and would not be
subject to assessments by the City of Globe. This we believe
would qualify Phase IV as a regional project.
Regarding the restrictions on services, we have improved considerably
on our oxidation pond and further improvements are being made. We
believe that by the time Phase II and Phase IV are completed our
treatment will have improved to the point where all restrictions
can be lifted.
Respectfully,
Lionel Blair
City Manager
LB:dmm
Enclosure
200
-------
MINUTES OF THK RKGULAR MATING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Or THE CITY OF GLOBE, ARIZONA
MARCH 1, 1976
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Williams at 7:30 P.M.
W*s,?ive" fay Rev- Harold Brumagin, United Methodist
= « K r 5 5°llowed ^ the P1ed9e of Allegiance to the Flag which
was led by City Manager, Lionel Blair.
PRESENT: Mayor Williams, Councilmen Aguirre, Bennett, Chiono, Gibson
Larson, and Ollson.
Minutes of the regular meeting of February 17, 1976 were approved as
presented.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Letter was read by City Attorney Tippett to Mayor Williams from
Mr. Wm. Edward Crawford regarding the Fire & Police Department
building not being accessi ii.Va to the handicapped.
2. Letter was read by City JVLtnrney Tippett to the Mayor and Council
from Mr. Pete Termain of the- Gila Centennials requesting that
the block on Mesquite betw;.-:n Pine and Broad be closed during
the week of Septemb-r 10 - 19, 1976 for the setting up of
booths and street events.
3. Letter was read by ?ity Attorney Tippett to Mayor Williams from
Mr. Jonn R. Burleson regarding a meeting to be held March 4, 1976
in respect to the Older Americans Act Title VII Nutrition Program.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Councilman Bennett reported that he and Councilman Aguirre had met
with Mr. Osmus of the Hignway Department regarding the drainage
for Mrs. Renon. Mr. Osmus has advised them that the Highway Depart-
ment could not do this job as it was on private property.
Mayor Williams advised that Mr. Ellsworth requested that a plat
be made in detail so that everyone would know what exactly was
going to be done.
Councilman Aguirre advised that there is a plat to that effect
and that Mr. Rocky Miller has it.
Mayor Williams advised that a special meeting will be called on
Tuesday, March 9, 1976, for discussion and action on this situation.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Councilman Larson requested that the City send a letter to the EPA
by March 8, 1976, requesting permission to proceed with Phase 2 and
to add Phase 4 to the project. Phase 4 would serve the west and
south portions of Skyline Drive.
Motion was made by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Larson
authorizing Councilman Larson to meet with the City Manager and
send the letter to the EPA regarding Phase 2 and Phase 4. YES:
Councilmen Bennett, Chiono, Gibson, Larson, Ollson. NO: Councilman
Aguirre. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
Motion was made by Councilman Ollson, seconded by Councilman Chiono
to appoint Mr. Ed Hindenberg on the Planning & Zoning. Motion
carried unanimously.
Moation was made by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Larson
to appoint Mr. Jerry McCreary to the Planning & Zoning. Motion
carried unanimously.
201
-------
COUNCIL ACTION
1. Discussion .is to whether tlio City of Glola- should sign tho
Certification by Local Government o£ Need lor Assignmont of Health
Personnel by the National Health Service Corps.
Motion was made by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Larson
to approve the Certification by Local Government of Need for
Assignment of Health Personnel by the Nat'l Health Service Corps.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. Approval of transfer of Liquor License at Mark's Tavern from Mark
& Glady's Williams to C. Alfred Chartz
Motion was made by Councilman Ollson, seconded by Councilman La ;
to approve the transfer of liquor license at Mark's Tavern frc*
Mark & Glady's Williams to C. Alfred Chartz. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Approval to donate to the Bicentennial from the Revenue Sharing
Motion was made by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Aguirre
to donate $6,000 to the Bicentennial from Federal Revenue Sharing.
YES: Councilmen Aguirre, Bennett, Gibson, Larson. NO: Councilman
Chiono and Ollson. Motion carried.
Councilmen Ollson and Chiono clarified their vote by stating that
they were not opposed to donating the money, but they are opposed
to the money being taken from Revenue Sharing.
4. Approval of request of Steve Hyman to abandon a portion of the
cul-de-sac at the west end of Prickly Pear in El Mirador
Motion was made by Councilman Larson, seconded by Councilman Bennett
to approve the abandonment of a portion of the cul-de-sac at the
west end of Prickly Pear in El Mirador. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Approval of parking resolution at the intersection of Willow and
Broad Streets
This item was postponed pending the Special Meeting on Tuesday,
March 9, 1976.
6. Approval of change of parking on the west side of Hill between Oak .
and Cedar
Motion was made by Councilman Ollson, seconded by Councilman Gibson
approving the change of parking on the west side of Hill between
Oak and Cedar subject to written approval of the property owner.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. Approval of change of parking situation on the S. side of Oak Stroet__
from the alley to N. Pine
" \
Councilman Gibson explained that Miss Sawaia, owner of the Down Beat,
had requested the restoration of parking from the alley to N. Pine.
Councilman Bennett stated that he had discussed the situation with
Mr. Ostnus and that Mr. Osmus had stated that the parking restrictions
were only temporary until the bypass is completed.
Councilman Larson then stated that by the Sherriff's Office there
is parking from the alley on back.
Motion was made by Councilman Gibson, seconded by Councilman Chiono
to request the Highway Department to restore the 3 parking spaces
on the south side of Oak Street from the alley to N. Pine. YES:
Councilmen Chiono, Gibson, Larson, Ollson. NO: Councilmen Aguirre
and Bennett. Motion carried.
202
-------
PRESENTATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
cemetery. His
and the^ydrants
adjourn!35 ^^ ^ C°Uncilman
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M.
'^-rding the cemetery. He
W°rk being done on the
the sprinklers
to pro-
seconded by Councilman Chiono to
203
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
1OO CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111
5 ,975
Honorable G. H. Williams
Mayor, City of Globe
150 North Pine
Globe AZ 85501
RE: Globe Wastewater Treatment
Facilities EPA Project No.
C 04 0128
Dear Mayor Williams:
As agreed at our meeting in Globe on July 2, 1975, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated preparation of the Environmental
Impact Statement on your proposed project. At this time we would like
to clarify the intent and scope of the EIS and inform you of our decision
regarding the Phase II interceptor.
It is our understanding that the project which the City of Globe is
presently proposing for construction with Federal grant assistance
differs from the original proposal on which the grant was based in 1972.
We understand the present proposal to include interceptors and a sewage
treatment plant to serve only the City of Globe and the Cobre Valley
Sanitary District. This subregional project has been divided by the
City of Globe into three construction phases. Phase I, which has
already been constructed, is an interceptor from the existing Globe
lagoon to the proposed subregional plant site at the confluence of Final
Creek and Miami Wash, including a tributary branch to the Cobre Valley
Sanitary District sewer system. Phase II is an interceptor from the
confluence of Ice House Canyon and Pinal Creek to the existing Globe
lagoon. Phase III is a sewage treatment plant of the contact-stabilization
type which is designed for an average flow of 2.2 million gallons per
day and includes effluent storage and pumping facilities. However,
it appears that the Phase III proposal has been modified by the City to
allow intermittent discharge of treated effluent to Pinal Creek near the
plant site since the copper companies have made no firm commitments
for total effluent reuse.
Please advise us immediately if the project which the City of Globe
proposes to construct with Federal grant assistance differs from the
understanding described above. In the absence of a response, we will
204
-------
assume our understanding to be correct and will continue with preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement focusing on Phase III of the proposed
project.
Generally, the EIS will thoroughly analyze the project as described
above and all of its-viable alternatives. The analysis will address
alternative treatment facility locations, treatment capacities, treatment
processes, and means of effluent disposal. The purpose of the analysis
is to disclose and compare the potential environmental effects of the ,
project alternatives. Based on the analysis, EPA will indicate in the
EIS the project which is most acceptable given the economic, social and
environmental constraints.
Please be aware that the most acceptable project thus identified
may conceivably differ from your present proposal. If this should
prove to be the case, Federal construction grant assistance for Phase
III would be withdrawn unless the City should choose to revise its
proposed project. In this case, to retain Federal grant assistance
for Phase III the City could propose either the project as recommended
in the EIS or an alternative which had not been considered in the EIS
but which the City could demonstrate was equal or superior to the
EIS recommendation.
As implied above, however, EPA has determined that the Phase II
interceptor is not related to the environmental issues to be addressed
in the Environmental Impact Statement which we are preparing. Further,
we have determined that initiation of design and construction of the
Phase II interceptor will not foreclose any of the alternatives to
be examined in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Consequently, we hereby authorize the City to proceed with
finalization of plans and specifications for the Phase II interceptor.
These must be submitted in duplicate no later than February 1, 1976,
to the Arizona Department of Health. Services (ADHS) for review and
comment/approval. Upon joint ADHS/EPA approval of the Phase II
ineerceptor plans and specifications and demonstration by the City of
ability to finance the local share of this portion of the project, the
City will be authorized to advertise for and open bids on the Phase II
interceptor. ^
However, prior to submittal of the final plans and specifications,
the City must submit two copies of a brief report to ADHS analyzing the ,
Phase II interceptor concept and design criteria. This report will ,
either verify that the original proposal is consistent with current j
population projections and planned service area, or propose revised J
design criteria to ensure such consistency.
Please note that the Phase II interceptor must be designed to
deliver all raw sewage to the site of the existing oxidation pond
operated by the City of Globe until a subregional or regional sewage
treatment plant is complete and operational.
205
-------
Furthermore, prior to authorizing bid advertisement for Phase II,
EPA will require the City to agree to limit additional connections to
the sewer system tributary to the Phase II interceptor until the existing
overloaded oxidation pond is either replaced or upgraded. The City
must submit to ADHS and EPA a letter of intent to comply with this
requirement. Finally EPA will require the City to submit a brief
report indicating operational or physical improvements to the existing
oxidation pond which the City will implement to provide immediate
improvement to treatment efficiency and effluent quality.
If you have any questions, please contact Doug Mackay, the
Construction Grants Branch Project Evaluator, at (415) 556-2550,
Sincerely,
. \.i-v
Sheila M. Prindiville
Director, Water Division
cc: Arizona State Department of Health Services,
Attn: Bob Follett (w/incoming)
John Carollo Engineers, Attn: Don Priesler (w/incoming)
Mr. Mitchell Platt, Attorney at Law (w/incoming)
Mr. Jim Crosby, Special Assistant for Congressman
John B. Conlan (w/incoming)
206
-------
^
^•Av* a..*-? i-_ * --jpsif?
, ,.
207
-------
v->-'V~
.*
'•'• v£
*-*< (J'
208
-------
/
209
-------
C C
..•-> •'>•'•
..-..<. .
s
r
f
/•
-'
'.o,- vvv^-
f-f- '•' ••<•
s
-/-
V />
210
-------
^^sJxCS--
h ~f-
J»>AXiX^
AA^
\\ ~ v
211
-------
Globe, Arizona
March 3, 1976
U. S» Environmental Protection Agency wTmn?^**1*
H. E. 126 GI°NAL HEAR1NG CLER*
100 California Street MAR 8 1976
San Francisco, California 94111
KEGION DC
Dear Sirs:
This letter is to register our opposition to
placing the waste water treatment plant in site 3 or
in any and every other area in Wheatfields as
Is in Environmental Impact Statement in Greater Globe-
Miami, Arizona Wastewater ^reatment Project for the
following reasons:
1. project is not feasible because of high
cost.
2. discriminatory if plan is completed—
beneficial for some citizens but less
beneficial and even detrimental to
others who have to pay same
3. there will be mosquitos and other insects
and the smell will be there always
4. would take away our pastmre lease from
the company
5. will be disruptive as far as environmental,
social or monetary impacts are concerned
6. will pollute the water in the creek and
wells and bet it will pollute the water
in Salt River*
We do hope that you will reconsider these plans
and really think of the great damage it will do to
this area.
Thanking you for your kind reconsideration, we
are praying you will find another solution that will
solve the problem but will not hurt anyone or any
area.
Sincerely,
<- >?> v i s£r-
.;> • :. ; -^ x'<7>
212
-------
Dear Sirsr
This letter is to register our protest against
the Environment Impact Statementp. We are opposed to
the waste water treatment plant in Se
-------
Dear Sirsj
This letter is written to register our protest of
the Environment Impact Statement favoring site 3 for
a waste water treatment plant.
We are opposed to i4_and ar^project in the
Wbeatfield area. It would be very expensive and cannot
be controlled properly. How come it is beneficial
for some residents and detrimental to others?
The entire lower valley would tie ruined and at
one time it was the sole support for the entire
community. This could be necessary again in the
near future at the rate the land developers are
ruining Salt River Valley and other farming areas.
You are a protective agency. Who are you
protecting? Aren't all residents important and
aren't all areas to be considered very, very
carefully? ..-;/-•- '- - -- - "' 4' ' ' ' ~ c
REGIONAL HEARING CLERK
Sincerely yours,
^ . /-; >~; -,
' i\ -f "
V
MAR S 1976
REGION IX
'•'V
A .
/- }-
£•--;.. *'- - "^
V
^ '..',<•— ^ '"
./v-
A
u
'
"
214
f,
.
;•'•,. 1
•/,,,. •-
f. II- W ./
-------
Holbrook, Arizona
March 6, 19?6
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency r^-'
H. E. 126
100 California Street 1:_ ":.
San Francisco, California 9iilll -~-
—j
Gentlemen: =r>
I strongly protest the placing of the waste water treatment plant in Site 3
or in any other place in the area as is stated in the Environmental Impact
Statement in Greater Globe-1-aami, Arizona, Waste Water Treatment Project.
-It will benefit some, but it will be a hazard to others; it will pollute
the water in the creek and the wells in the area; it will also contaminate
tha Salt River—water goes to Roosevelt Dam and to the Salt Biver Valley
(greater Phoenix area).
Furthermore, there will be the awful odor and mosquitoes in the area. Its
planned location is near farms on which families live; they, too, should
have clean water and clear air.
It would also take away the pasture lease from the mining company for my
family who lives there. My family would also have to pay for this plant
and not get any benefit from it at all. Their neighbors would also suffer
as well as the people in the greater Phoenix area—through the Salt River.
The land developers are ruining our country. They build and sail hoir.es
I and lots with many promises. Then, they go bankrupt and do not have to
I neet the promises they made—like sever, water, etc. Then, they start all
j over again. This is not right either.
i
j The cost is prohibitive to go out that far from the Globe-Miami area. A
site closer to that area wculd be more feasible. A site should be chosen
where homes and farms are not located.
Please check into this matter before any decision is made in regards to this
waste water treatment plant site. Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
. John Koury) /f
:&5 West Florida I''
•Holbrook, Arizona 86025
215
-------
xJXTES POST.* 'T
*" -.^riSRh
MUHSFOT HSR HUE ty*j unoiinr^irvv z^r\
03/06/76 uiestern iniai IVIdllMlCll I I § Sr J
ICS IPMMT^Z CSP ^^ **,T~" «*
TD^T ELLIOTT MF ion oi-u6 nir-gp FST ******
f Mailgram
^ US EMVTWONVE'JTAL PROTECTION
W£l£6 10ft CALIFORNIA ST
SAKJ FRANCISCO CA 9fliU
I WISH TO FXORFSS MY OPPOSITION TO PI iCI^G T^fe ^ASTE *ATFH
SITE THREE IK; KHEATFIELD ARJZOMA AS in THE £.Mvi«nNKfc>;TAL
STATFMP.NT IN GPEA1FR GLOPfc-MIiMi ARIZONA *ASTt wATEH T»EATM£KJT PRO.TETT
OtTAlLFu LFTUR «ILL SOON
3 MtATHE"
ELLIOTT M
13JU? FST
216
-------
I command the EPA •\rr! tr^ir to-hr.icn.1 assistants in doir.;j a thorough,
objective and profession-;! job in compiling the Draft 213 on the Greater
Globs-Miami V'astewater Treatment Project.
I agree with the statement on pa»rr= 131 which nays: "Altwr.y.l.ive 3 is
the recommended plan, because it achieves the widest rational benefits
without disruptive environmental, social or monetary impacts".
Local taxpayers are rr.ost fortunate in the conclusion at the bottom of
page 3 which says: "Alternative 3 is judged to have the least adverse cost
impact on local residents".
If the City of Globe, the Town of Miami and the Cobre Valley Sanitary-
District will implement the plan and construct the unsophisticated sewage
treatment plant provided in Alternative 3 they can solve their sewer trrob-
leins. This should appeal to the residents and taxpayers of these corjcur.i-
ties because Alternate 3 will be the cheapest of all Alternatives to
constructy maintain and operate.
The implementation of Alternative 3 will also make a simple gravity-
flow sewer system available to the other unincorporated, suburban resi-
dential areas, if and when needed, in the future.
Many concerned residents and property owners in Wheatfi«lds hope the
Final EIS will be the snne as the Draft F.I3 without any major changes.
This EIS should result in protecting the human environment of the
Greater Globe-Miami Area and in the construction of a necessary modern
wastewater treatment and disposal svstem.
, . .
Stephen L. 3.ixby " A:>
February IS, 1976
P.O. Box 311
Globe, Arizona 85501
217
-------
GLOSSARY
ADVERSE - An impact which is unfavorable, detrimental or
harmful to man or nature.
BENEFICIAL - An impact which is advantageous or promotes
health and well being for man or nature.
COST-EFFECTIVE - A wastewater treatment project that results
in minimal economic, environmental and social costs.
EFFECTIVE DEMAND - The level of purchasing activity necessary
to stimulate new housing development.
EMINENT DOMAIN - A right of a government to take private
property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion
of the sovereign power over all lands within its juris-
diction.
ENVIRONMENTAL - The aggregate of biological, physical, social
and cultural conditions that influence the life of an
individual or community.
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement.
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency.
EPHEMERAL - Lasting a very short time.
FEDERAL REGISTER - Publication of the U. S. Government
describing administrative, policy and procedural regu-
lations of the various governmental agencies.
LIFE ZONES - A system of ecological classification in western
North America, based upon the observed altitudinal and
latitudinal distribution of plants and associated_animals.
These zones are mapped on the basis of plant species
occurrences.
LONG-TERM IMPACT - Impacts that have an extended time frame
of effect. These usually last the length of the project
or beyond it, and are often associated with its operation.
MITIGATION - Measures designed to reduce the intensity or
severity of an impact.
219
-^
-------
NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
NEUTRAL - An impact which has neither a beneficial nor adverse
effect.
PRIMARY IMPACT - A direct impact, one that is in first order
of time. For example, the damming of a river has a
primary impact on fish migration.
PROBLEMATICAL - An impact in which the exact effect is not
definite at the present time.
SECONDARY IMPACT - An indirect impact, one that usually occurs
as the result of another action. For example, a change
in land use zoning that would allow more residential
development in an area, could also create secondary
impacts of increasing traffic, air pollution, energy use,
etc.
SECONDARY TREATMENT - Processes to reduce the amount of
dissolved organic matter and further reduce the amount
of suspended solids in sewage. The effluent from the
primary treatment process is given additional treatment
with processes such as activated sludge or trickling
filter.
SHORT-TERM IMPACT - Impacts that have time frame of effect
that is less than one year. These impacts are often
related to construction effects.
TAILINGS PONDS - Large open pit type ponds that receive a
liquid slurry from copper mining and processing.
220
-------
Century Geophysical Corporation. Century Systems Division.
1970. Population for the Globe, Arizona urban area.
8 pp.
1971. Land use and resources report for the
Globe, Arizona urban area. 12 pp.
Federal Register. 1972. Vol. 37, no. 98.
1975. Vol. 40, no. 159. Secondary treatment
information.
1975. Vol. 40, no. 248. National interim
primary drinking water regulations.
1976. Vol. 41, no. 29. Alternative waste
management techniques for best practicable waste treat-
ment.
A. E. Ferguson & Associates, Inc. 1971. Population and
economic study Gila County, Arizona. 40 pp.
1971. Preliminary report, a study of public
utilities and community facilities for Gila County.
31 pp.
— . 1971. Preliminary report - history, physiography
and governmental relationships, Gila County.
—- . 1971. Preliminary report - land use, Gila
County. 22 pp.
. 1972. Comprehensive plan, Miami, Arizona.
44 pp.
Ferguson, Morris & Associates. 1971. General development
plan, Gila County, Arizona. 150 pp.
Gila County. Board of Supervisors. 1974. Gila County
annual report and adopted budget 1974-1975.
Gila County. Planning and Zoning Commission. 1958. Zoning
ordinance for unincorporated areas of Gila County, Arizona,
24 pp.
Hazen, G. E. and S. F. Turner. 1946. Geology and ground-water
resources of the Upper Final Creek area, Arizona. U. S.
Geological Survey. 55 pp.
Hollinger & Booher. 1973. A comprehensive plan for the City
of Globe, Arizona. 115 pp.
Jaeger, Edmund C. 1957. The North American deserts. Stanford
University Press. 308 pp.
222
-------
Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the
conterminous United States, American Geographical
Society Special Publication No. 36.
Lowe, Charles H. 1964. Arizona's natural environment. The
University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 136 pp.
Merriam, C. H. 1890. Results of a biological survey of the
San Francisco Mountain region and desert of the Little
Colorado in Arizona. U. S. Dept. of Agr. N. Amer. Fauna,
3: 1-136.
Earl V. Miller, Engineers. 1975. Preliminary report, Salt
River Basin water quality management plan.
Peterson, N. P. 1962. Geology and ore deposits of the
Globe-Miami District, Arizona. U. S. Geological
Survey professional paper 342. 151 pp.
Peterson, Roger Tory. 1961. A field guide to western
birds. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston. 366 pp.
Renn, Charles E. 1970. Investigating vater problems.
LaMotte Chemical Products Company, Chester-town, HD.
Stebbins, Robert C. 1966. A field guide to western
reptiles and amphibians. Houghton-Mifflin Company,
Boston. 279 pp.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1961. Interim report on
survey for flood control - Pinal Creek and tributaries,
Arizona.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1974. Climatological data,
Arizona, annual summary 1973. Vol. 77, no. 13. 16 pp.
1975. Climatological data, Arizona, annual
summary 1974. Vol. 78, no. 13. 16 pp.
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1962.
Public Health Service drinking water standards. Public
Health Service publication #956. 61 pp.
U. S. Department of Interior. 1973. Threatened wildlife
of the United States. Res. Pub. No. 114, 289 pp.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from
construction equipment and operations, building
equipment and appliance noise. 188 pp. + appendices.
223
-------
U. S. Forest Service. 1942. Floods in the Globe-Miami
area, Arizona. 13 pp.
U. S. Soil Conservation Service. 1969. An appraisal of
potentials for outdoor recreation development in Gila
County, Arizona. 23 pp.
Valley National Bank of Arizona. September, 1975. Arizona
statistical review.
Vogt, K. D. and M. L. Richardson. 1974. General soil map
Gila County, Arizona. U. S. Soil Conservation Service.
29 pp. + appendices.
Winneberger, John T. 1972. Septic tank practices in Arizona,
1972, part 1. 74 pp. + appendix.
224
-------
PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Anderson, Donna. October 9, 1975. Manager, Globe Chamber
of Commerce.
Arias, Puso. October 9, 1975. Clerk, Arizona Department
of Revenue, Globe.
Arizona. Department of Mineral Resources. October 3, 1975.
Bilson, Ed. Chief Research Metallurgist, Inspiration Con-
solidated Copper Company, Miami, Arizona.
Bixby, Stephen. October 28, 1975. Wheatfields resident.
Bixby, Stephen, Jr. October 28, 1975. Wheatfields resident.
Blair, Lionel. October 9, 1975. City Manager, Globe, Arizona.
Croft, Alan. October 9, 1975. Gila County Health Department,
Globe, Arizona.
Davidheiser, Maureen. October 8, 1975. Clerk, Gila County
Zoning and Planning Commission.
Eastlich, John. Head Geologist, Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Company, Miami, Arizona.
Flores, Irene. October 28, 1975. Miami City Council, Miami,
Arizona.
Guyer, Don. October 9, 1975. Vice-chairman, Gila County
Zoning and Planning Commission.
Guyton, James. October 15, 1975. Air Pollution Control
Division, Arizona Department of Health Services, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Hamernick, David M. October 24, 1975. Planner, Arizona
Office of Economic Planning and Development, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Hicks, Lloyd. October 28, 1975. Wheatfields resident.
Hillger, David. October 8, 1975. Butte Realty Company.
Ihrig, George. October 20, 1975. Arizona Water Company,
Miami, Arizona.
225
-------
Jay, JAMBS E. October 2, 1975. U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, Phoenix, Arizona.
Johnson, Dave. October 28, 1975. Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Company, Miami, Arizona.
Johnson, Ray. October 28, 1975. Planning Survey, Arizona
Department of Transportation.
Kuhn, Jack. Manager, Inspiration Consolidated Copper
Company, Miami, Arizona.
Lance, H. L. October 10, 1975. U. S. Forest Service, Globe,
Arizona.
Leffert, Robert. October 22, 1975. U. S. Forest Service,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Long, Paul. October 8, 1975. Long & Associates.
Mace, Robert. October 8, 1975. Mace Aviation.
Metcalf, Bob. September 23, 1975. Gila County Health
Department, Globe, Arizona.
Miller, G«ne. October 28, 1975. Town Clerk, Town of
Miami, Arizona.
Montgomery, Mr. October 28, 1975. Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Company, Miami, Arizona.
Neurot, Gary. October 15, 1975. Air Pollution Control
Division, Arizona Department of Health Services.
Oddonetto, Peter. October 9, 1975. Area Supervisor,
Arizona Department of Revenue, Globe, Arizona.
Osmus, Martin. October 8, 1975. District Engineer, Arizona
Department of Transportation.
Page, Robert. October 6, 1975. U. S. Geological Survey,
Menlo Park, California.
Phelps, John. October 6, 1975. Arizona Game and Fish,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Priesler, Don. September 23, 1975. John Carollo Engineers,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Roberts, Mary. October 29, 1975. City Clerk, City of Globe.
Sahlan, Bill. October 29, 1975. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles, California.
226
-------
Salamando, Mario. October 10, 1975. Pace Engineering, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Scott, Bruce. October 15, 1975. Air Pollution Control Division,
Arizona Department of Health Services.
Shafer, William H., Jr. October 9, 1975. Bureau of Water
Quality Control, Arizona Department of Health Services,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Silvey, Bill. October 6, 1975. Arizona Game and Fish,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Stansel, John. October 10, 1975. Planning Consultant to
Gila County, Toups Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona.
Swanson, Ed. September 23, 1975. Arizona Department of
Health Services, Phoenix, Arizona.
Verges, Linda K. October 10, 1975. Arizona Office of
Economic Planning and Development, Phoenix, Arizona.
Walters, James A. October 9, 1975. Bureau of Water Quality
Control, Arizona Department of Health Services.
Wirth, Fred. September 23, 1975. U. S. Forest Service,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Williams, Harold. October 28, 1975. Miami, Arizona.
Wilson, Marjorie. October 10, 1975. Arizona State Parks
Board, Phoenix, Arizona.
L
227
-------
APPENDICES
A Typical Vegetation of the Globe-Miami Region
B Wildlife Species Characteristic of the
Sonoran Desert Region of Arizona
C Cultural Resource Assessment of the Globe-
Miami Wastewater Treatment System Expansion,
Gila County, Arizona
D Analyses of Samples of Water Collected in the
Upper Final Creek Area, Globe, Arizona
E Surface Water Quality Data, Lower Final Creek,
Pringle Pump Station
F Analyses of Samples of Groundwater Collected
in the Upper Final Creek Area, Globe, Arizona
G Arizona Water Company Wells - Water Quality
Analysis, 1975
H Water Quality Analysis of Various Wells in
the Globe-Miami Area, 1974
I Summary of Projected Local Improvement
District Costs
J Alternative 1A - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
K Alternative IB - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
L Alternative 1C - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
M Alternative 2A - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
N Alternative 2B - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
0 Alternative 3 - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
P Alternative 4 - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
n Alternative 5 - 20-Year Cost Analysis and
1976/86 Capital Costs
R Results of Percolation Tests
S Transcript of Public Hearing
229
it •
Page
230
231
232
239
240
241
242
243
244
247
249
251
253
255
257
259
261
263
282
-------
APPENDIX A
TYPICAL VEGETATION OF THE GLOBE-MIAMI REGION
Common Name Scientific Name
Creosote Bush-Bur Sage Community
White bur sage (burro bush) Franseria dumosa
Creosote bush Larrea divaricata
Catclaw Acacia greggii
Blue paloverde Cercidium floridum
Foothill paloverde Cercidium macrophyllum
Mesquite Prosopis juliflora
Smoke tree Dalea spinosa
Brittle bush Encelia farinosa
Ocotillo Fouquieria splendens
Ironwood Olneva tesota
Grama-Tobosa Shrubsteppe Community
Black grama Bouteloua eriopoda
Tobosa Hilaria mutica
Creosote bush Larrea divaricata
White thorn Acacia constricta
Three-awn Aristida spp.
Galleta Hilaria spp.
Mentzelia Mentzelia affinis
Cactus Qptunia spp.
Dropseed Sporobolus spp.
Mesquite Prosopis luliflora
Oak-Juniper Woodland
Alligator juniper Juniperus deppeana
Oneseed juniper Juniperus monosperma
Emory oak Quercus emorvi
Ceanothus Ceanothus spp.
Nolina Nolina spp.
Oaks Quercus spp.
Sumac Rhus spp.
Mountain Mahogany-Oak Scrub Community
Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius
Gambel oak Quercus gambelii
Ceanothus Ceanothus velutinus
Cowania mexicana
Oaks Quercus spp.
Riparian Community
Cottonwood Pppulus fremonti
Sycamore Platanus racemosa
Oaks Quercus 'spp.
" 73TJ
-------
Appendix B
WILDLIFE SPECIES CHARACTERISTIC OF THE
SONORAN DESERT REGION OF ARIZONA
Common Name
Scientific Same
Common Name
Scientific Name
to
Fishes
Longfin dace
Mosquito fish
Gila mountain sucker
Agosia chrysogaster
Tf
Gambusia affinis
Pantosteus clar
Reptiles
Leopard lizard
Side-blotched lizard
Desert banded gecko
Gila monster
Desert horned lizard
Banded sand snake
Glossy snake
Spotted night snake
Black tailed rattlesnake
Western rattlesnake
Western diamond back rattlesnake
Birds
Pacific horned owl
Western burrowing owl
Barn owl
Elf owl
Long-eared owl
Desert warbler
Yellow warbler
Arizona crested flycatcher
Say's phoebe
Black phoebe
Desert kestrel
Red-tailed hawk
Black hawk
Turkey vulture
Gambel's quail
Mexican jay
Gila woodpecker
Common flicker
Ladder-backed woodpecker
Roadrunner
Purple martin
White-throated swift
Phainopepla
Kuttall's poorwill
Ravens and crows
White-rumped shrike
Texas nighthawk
Leconte's thrasher
Crotaphytus wislizeni
Ota stansburiana
Coleonyx varieglTtus
Heloderrna suspectum
Phrynosoma sp.
Chilomeniscus cinctus
Arizona elegans
Hypsigl'ena torquata
Crotalus molassus
C. virTcTis
C. atrox
Bubo virginianus pacificus
Speotyto cunicularia hypogaea
Strix pratincola
Micratnene whitneyi
Asio wilsonianus
Vermivora luciae
Dendroica petechia
Myiarch'os' tyrannuTus
Savornis saya
S. niqricians
Falco sparverius deserticola
Buteo bore^lis
Buteogallus anthracinus
Cathartes aura
Lophortyx gambeli
Aphelocoma ultramarina
Centurus uropygialis
Colaptes auratus
Dryobates scalaris
Geococcyx californianus.
Progne subis
Aeronantes saxatilis
Phainope'pTa nite'ns'
Phalaenoptilus nuttalli
Corrus spp.
Parrius ludovicianus
ChordeTles acutipennis
texensis
Mourning dove
White-winged dove
Costa's hummingbird
Cardinal
Pyrrhuloxia
Cactus wren
Mockingbird
Canyon wren
Rock wren
Cooper's tanager
Summer tanager
Western tanager
Desert sparrow
Abert's towhee
Gambel's white-crowned sparrow
Lark sparrow
Black-chinned sparrow
Western meadqwlark
Scott's oriole
Bullock's oriole
Lesser goldfinch
Mammals
Blacktail jackrabbit
Desert cottontail
Ground squirrel
Desert woodrat
Kangaroo rat
Deer mouse
Pocket gopher
Ringtail cat
Coati mundi
Gray fox
Mountain lion
Bobcat
Badger
Peccary
Hooded skunk
Spotted skunk
Mule deer
Zenaidura macroura
Zenaida asiatica
Cal
pte costae
Cardlna"li3 cardinalis
Pyrrhuloxia sinuata
Heieodytes brunneicapillus
couesi
Mimus polyglottus
Catherper mexicanus
Solpinctes absoletus
absoletus
rubra
Piranga rubra
P. ludoviciana
Source:
Compiled from Jaeger,
Stebbins, 1966.
Amphespiza bilir.eota
Pxpilo abertT>
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Chondestes gramnacus
Spizella atrogularis
Sturnella neglectc.
Icterus parisorum
I. bullocki
^pinus psaltria
Lepus californicus
Sylvilagus auduboni
Citellus spp.
Neotoma lepida
Dipodomys spp.
Peromyscus spp.
Thomoir.ys bottae
Bassariscus astutus
Nasua narica
Urocyon cinereoargentatus
Felis concolor
Lynx rufus
Taxidae taxus
Pecari anaulatus
Mephitis macroura
Spilogale putorus
Odocoileus hemionus hemionus
1957; Peterson, 1960; and
Toxostoraa lecontei lecontei
-------
Appendix C
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF THE
GLOBE-MIAMI WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM EXPANSION, GILA COUNTY,
ARIZONA
Tony P. Weber
for
Ann S. Peak & Associates
Consulting Archeology
8J32 Willowdale Way
Fair Oaks, California
232
-------
RUIN 5. PERK £ R55QCIRTE5
COnSULTItUB RRCHEntDBV
December 18, 1975
Jones and Stokes Associates
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335
Sacramento, California 95814
Ger.tle^en:
Ann S. Peak & Associates, Consulting Archeology, is
pleased to suamit the final report on the Cultural
Resource Assessment of the Globe-Miami area Waste-
waver Treatment System Expansion Project, Gila
County, Arizona.
It ie believed that the report, which details survey
techniques, results, impacts, and recommendations,
will i-atisf;- federal, state,- and local regulations
concerning identification and protection of cultural
resources.
It has been a/pleasure to work for your firm and we
nope we can be of service to you again.
Sincerely,
Ann S. Peak
President
AP:CL
LETTER OP TRANSHITTA1
INTRODUCTION
CULTURAL HISTORY , . .
Indian Period
Spanish Period ,
American Period
CONTENTS
RESEARCH
FIELD ASSESSMENT
FIELD ASSESSMENT: RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
IMPACT
MITIGATION
REFERENCES
MAPS 1-3, AREAS OF SURVEY
-------
N)
Ul
INTRODUCTION
The proposed wastewater treatment system expansion
project includes expansion of the Globe Sewage Lagoon and the
Kiami Sewage Lagoon treatment plants; potential construction
of new treatment plants at alternative sites No. 1 and No. 2;
an interceptor route along portions of Miami Wash; and an
interceptor route along Pinal Wash from just northwest of the
Old Dominion copper mine tailings to a point approximately
five miles north of the Bixby Ranch. Location of the project
is in portions of sections 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 23 T1N, R15E,
and sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 29, and 32, T2N.R15E, on the
7.5* U.S.G.S. topographic map, Globe, Arizona, and the 15'
U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle, Rockingstraw Mountain,
Arizona.
CULTURAL HISTORY
Indian Period. At the time of European contact with
the Kew World, this area of central and eastern Arizona was
populated by the Pima and Papago Indians, with a scattering
of Athabascan-speaking nonadie bands. In the greater Phoenix
area and its periphery, including the Globe area, there are
abandoned farmsteads and ruins of the Hohokam culture. The
Hoh'okam are the presumed predecessors of the modern Pima
Indians.
Along with the Hohokam people there appears another
puebloan culture (Salado) with distinct traits, who lived
harmoniously at the same time with the Hohokam. Besh-Ba-
Gowah ruins is an example of a Salado pueblo while Gila Pueblo
is attributed to the Hohokam.. . ' .
The Salado were plateau and canyon dwellers, while the
Hohokam lived in the valleys. Other differences occur in
pottery construction, style, and decoration; domiciles
1
(communal multi-storied pueblos for the Salado, with semi-
subterranean pit houses for the Hohokam); and in burial
patterns. Subsistence also differed as the Hohokac exten-
sively irrigated wild mesquite beans while the Salado culti-
vated the New World staples of maize, squash, and beans.
To the north of Globe lies the Kogollon Rim, which is
the southern boundary of the Mogollon culture. The three
cultures—Hohokam, Salado, and Mogollori—assimilated and
diffused traits from one to the other, with some buffer zones
showing a blend or overlap of cultural influence.
The San Carlos Apache, an Athabascan-speaking tribe,
were forced into the present reservation in the 1800's. They
continue to hold much of their original reservation lands,
with some area loss to later Euro/Acerican settlement.
Spanish Period. As the area surrounding the communi-
ties of Globe and Miami is generally arid and was considered
by the Spanish to be of low value in terms of productivity,
its utilization was of low intensity. Early settlement was
concentrated in more fertile land or in mining zones. In
addition to the poor quality of the land, the hostile Apache
tribes also proved to be an effective deterrent to Spanish
settlement. Spanish and Mexican influences were not direct,
although successful Apache raids against their villages
brought European goods into Indian possession.
American Period. Until the discovery of silver, the
area was virtually unused by the whites. In 1871 the land
had been designated as the San Carlos Apache Reservation and
set aside for the exclusive use of these people. The country
is ringed by impenetrable mountains and was so well defended
by the Indians that until 1876 it had been considered worth-
less for any purpose than the home for the 4,500 Apache.
-------
to
U)
Ul
Globe was first settled in 1^76 as a result of a silver
boom. The stampede of silver miners invaded the San Carlos
Reservation and caused displacement of the tribe. The city's
name derives from a globe-shaped boulder of almost pure silver
with surface scars said to resemble the earth's continents.
The globe was found on the reservation just inside its western
boundaries. Here the city was founded, about forty miles
west of the old San Carlos agency headquarters. As the center
of the conflict connected with Apache pacification, it was
referred to as "Hell's Forty Acres." With many more silver
discoveries within a 20-juile radius of the "globe," it was not
lor.g before the 12-mile land strip containing the precious
cetal was taken away from the Apache and given to the white
cen.
At the genesis of the silver strike, Globe comprised a
few tents and shacks on the east bank of Final Creek, which at
that time was a year-round creek. Waters now go underground
to flood the underlying vaults of the Old Dominion mine.
Isolation was the greatest problem the city faced as
for twenty-two years there were no rail facilities closer
than 120 i.dles. Raiding Apaches also added to the problems
of the early miners. The major mine of the terr: -.ory was the
Old Dominion Mine, founded at the location of the "globe"
discovery. Today the mine is the most famous historic land-
mark in the area.
As silver was exhausted, rich copper ore deposits were
found beneath the silver lode. Globe became important as a
copper producer after 1895, when the Lewiston Bros, of New
York bought control and invested millions of dollars. They
built a new smelter and a branch rail line which was completed
in 1S98. From 1898 to 1923 the Old Dominion was one of the
greatest copper mines ±n the world. It retained importance
usitil its closure during the depression of 1931.
The city of Miami is located seven miles west of Globe,
lying near the base of the Final Mountains. The mining canp
came into existence in 1908 as a result of the copper indus-
try's discovery of a cheap reduction for low-grade copper
ores. The large-scale milling process made it profitable to
mine the extensive deposits which were larger than those at
the Old Dominion Mine. The development of the Miami Copper
Company and the Inspiration Mining Company soon challenged
Globe's exclusive possession of the area's business and that
city's triumphant prosperity was threatened.
Both cities have survived many boom eras and interim
slumps. In 1917 many skilled hardrock miners left the terri-
tory because of a strike by 1,700 union miners against the
Old Dominion Mine. Martial law was declared and the 17th
Cavalry spent several months at the mine. Eventually they
were replaced by infantrymen who built barracks and stayed
almost two years.
After the closure of the Old Dominion in 1931, the
city of Globe never regained its boom years' prosperity.
Today it is a quiet town retaining its identity as the county
seat. Tourist traffic is on the increase, with a consequent
business improvement.
Miami still continues to thrive on the industry of
low-grade copper ore reduction. Although the city was hard-
hit by the depression slump, the advent of World War II
revitalized the mining industry. After the war, production
still continued and'remains active today.
RESEARCH
Records of previously identified archeological sites
and historic features were reviewed through the office of the
Arizona State Historic Officer, with ethnographic and local
historical literature also reviewed.
-------
to
to
Although there wore no recorded cultural resources
within the impact zones of the proposed project, two famous
prehistoric sites are near the town of Globe. Besh-Ba-Gdwah
ruina, a Salado site, is one mile southwest of the city,
while a Hohokam site, Gila Pueblo, lies approximately three
sille8 away. In addition, several Historic Points of
Interest are noted in and near Globe.
FIELD ASSESSMENT
The proposed wastewater treatment plant sites were
surveyed on foot by the archeologist, with all potential areas
of iopact carefully examined for evidence of cultural
material. All of the project area liea within the flood-
plain of the Pinal Wash and the Miami Wash with the exception
^ of the treatment plant alternative sites. The Globe Sewage
lagoon, MiaiLi Sewage Wash interceptor route from the conflu-
ence of Miami Wash and Pinal Creek to Alternative No. 2 site
was spot-checked but was not intensively surveyed.
FIELD ASSESSMENT: RESULTS
A:;D CONCLUSIOIJS
There was no surface evidence of cultural materials in
any of the intensively surveyed areas nor at spot-check points
along Pinal Wash.
The lack of archeological materials may result from the
fact that the area of survey lies within the floodplains of
Pinal Creek and the Miami Wash. Although today the creek is
generally dry, it was a viable stream predating the mining in
the area. The continuing 40-year drought and the presence of
the deep Old Dominion Mine vaults beneath the stream channel
are the main reasons for the present dry condition.
Pueblo ruins, in general, tend to lie above the flood
plains on protected terraces, with fori.;er use of the flood
plains for crop irrigation.
IMPACT
As there are no identified sites or historic features
within the project areas of investigation, there will be no
Impact on known cultural resources at any of the alternative
sites. The probability of buried sites is low, as most of the
project area lies in the flood plains. Pueblo settlements and
villages occurred along terraces or on protected stream channel
banks. However, in the event that structural walls or arti-
facts relating to prehistoric occupation have been buried and
are uncovered during construction procedures, it is recom-
mended that work be halted. A qualified archeologist should
then be consulted for further recommendation.
MITIGATION
No further survey work is required at this tiae at the
alternative sites or sewage lagoons. However, if subsequent
alternative sites or interceptor routes are to be considered,
these should be intensively field investigated for possible
presence of archeological sites.
It is noted that the general area has a high incidence
of Hohokam villages and farmsteads, and also Salado pueblos,
with probability of site occurrence increasing above flood
plain areas.
-------
REFERENCES
NJ
CO
Alsberg, Henry, and Harry Hansen, eds.
1966 Arizona, The Grand Canyon State. New York: Hastings
House.
Corle, Edwin
1952 The Gila. New York: Rinehart and Co., Inc.
Gladwin, H. 3.
1937 Excavations at Snaketown, Material Culture,
Medallion Papers No. 25, Gila Pueblo, Globe.
Gumingrnan, George J.
1968 Black Mesa. Survey and Excavation in Northeastern
Arizona. Prescott College Press,
Kaury, Ecil
A Hohokaia Site of the Colonial Period. Medallion
Papers, No. 11.
Jan.es, George Wharton
1917 Arizona, The Wonderland, Boston: The Page Company.
Johr.son, Alfred
1964 Archaeological Excavations in Hohoka:n Sites of
Southern Arizona. American Antiquity 24:2, 126-30,
Sor.nischen, Charles L.
1958 The Kescalero Apaches. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Yickrey, Irene
n.d. Besh-Ba-Gowah. Globe, Arizona, Chamber of Commerce.
Willey, Gordon R.
1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Vorciington, H. M.
1947 Prehistoric Indians of the Southwest. Denver Museum
of Natural History.
MAPS 1-3
Numbers indicate treatment plants and alter-
native sites intensively surveyed.
- - - indicates possible interceptor routes
which were spot checked by the archeologist.
-------
A ««*£'
. wo-Ofy;
au*«»v.
* *
^^A2&51V
•i
v
&
• -3
. 16 '
' '
L,_. s Bj
. GLOBE QUADRANGLE
'" • ••-
•»?sv."«'"™
"si '^S: ,
' - * *j T •
^ V • • -""•
'\t£*atf\ ' •,'
" r'^t\ •
• • r ', A
i .;•
" -:
' ^'^K*.
'. './.'•'• *VVX-» '
'<•/'"<• W
-::.. • - •
' •-'••
IV: >—••" • ' •• V:
j's 4 5 I- , 'r
.-F • ' V > \ . v •• ' -. '
;-'/•',!
ik: 1 '. : ,
'• . • v - • i
f ' ' ' *—'j
, < f ; \
•' ,-.., •',
•-,;v: .. ,<
, /:},
• «
I I
1000
SCALE I .MOOO
n
0 loco
__ _ . _ _
i i t- ^i^^i
i - '
Mapped by the Geological Survey Contour Interval 25 feet
NAllONAI GEOOEIJC VEBIIC«L DMJM p
MAP 1
b MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) .£5'~V .:'^^ 9-L^f— ~
\ '\ l X^ ^' '^^'^^f.
JS. W'--v^/ r'X ^S I-
Mapped, edited. §nd published by the Geological Surrey
MAP 2
-------
Appendix D
ANALYSES OF SAMPLES OF WATER COLLECTED IN THE UPPER FINAL CREEK AREA, GLOBE, ARIZONA*
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SAMPLE STATIONS IS SHOWN ON MAP
MS.
Sta. or
fell
».
Date of
Collection
Specific
Conduc-
tanoe
(K x 105
at 25°C)
Total
Dis-
solved
Solids
(calc.) (Ca)+ (Mg) + (NaK)+ (!CO3) + (S04)+ (Cl]
Total
Hardness
as
CaCOs
+ (F)+ (N03)+ (calc.)
Apr. 12, 1945
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
Apr. 13, 1945
Apr. 12, 1945
do.
14.8
10.
22.
19.
12.
17.
15.
23.6
20.6
59
99
118
108
8.7
18
,
21
5.0
7.7
8.0
8.6
6.7
9.0
14
12
8.0
48
105
89
103
57
-
89
1]
12
]
U
: •
11
16
3 — —
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
1.0
1.9
0.1
0.3
-•'
42
-
.-
s;
i
by J. D. Han, Quality of Water Division, Geological Survey (parts per million).
fey: Ca Calcium
Mg Magnesium
NaK Sodium and potassium
HCX>3 Bicarbonate
SO4 Sulfate
Cl Chloride
F Fluoride
N03 Nitrate
Source: Hazen and Turner, 1946.
239
LOCATION MAP
-------
Appendix E
SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA, LOWER FINAL CREEK, PRINGLE PUMP STATION
January 30, 1974 July 24, 1974 December 13, 1974 January 27, 1975 August 6, 1975
Specific
resistance
pH
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Copper
Manganese
Zinc
alkalinity
Chloride
Nitrates
Total N
Sulphate
Total P04
Fluorides
Dissolved
solid
residue
Total suspended
solids
Hardness
BOD
Arsenic
Chromium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Silver
600
8.0
612
461
70
0.10
<0.05
0.08
0.01
160
31
<1
<1
1,650
0.2
0.15
3,040
28
102
0.02
<0.05
<0.01
<0.05
<0.0005
450
7.8
680
60
<0.05
<0.05
0.05
0.05
34
2,267
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.0005
<400
7.8
687
101
63
0.48
0.10
0.15
0.06
136
42
<1
1,900
0.15
3,235
1,990
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.0005
<0.01
616
128
58
0.29
0.07
0.15
0.05
138
37
1,850
0.34
3,232
2,040
<0.01
<0.05
<0.0005
<400
8.2
652
94
70
0.09
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
130
33
2,100
0.22
3,155
2,020
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.0005
<0.01
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services; U. S. Forest Service, unpublished data.
-------
Appendix F
ANALYSES OF SAMPLES OF GROUNDWATER COLLECTED IN THE
UPPER PINAL CREEK AREA, GLOBE, ARIZONA
Meas. Specific Total
Sta. Conduc- Dis-
or tance solved
Well Date of (K x 105 Solids
No. Collection at 25°C) fcalc.) (Ca)+ (Mg)+ (NaK)+ (HCO^)+ (S04)+ (Cl)+
Wells
la Apr. 11, 1946
Ic do
7 Feb. 24, 1945
11 do
21 Apr. 12, 1946
39 Apr. 12, 1945
40 do
41 do
42 Apr. 5, 1945
47 Apr. 4, 1945
48 do
a/ Dec. 14, 1945
b/ do
a/ Old Dominion Mine,
b/ Old Dominion Mine,
98.6
111
51.0
112
42.3
39.6
25.4
29.9
28.0
76.7
51.0
— 2
662
670
298
728
249
227
__
172
—
459
286
472
,354
"domestic water".
"east side
water" .
142
138
39
157
45
40
—
30
—
89
53
98
28
16
19
24
13
15
—
11
—
39
22
28
317 190
Analyzed
41
58
37
49
30
27
—
18
—
26
23
21
78
268
317
121
235
183
209
—
126
—
384
234
254
256 1,
258
169
74
115
46
27
—
40
—
105
59
148
539
35
73
38
112
19
13
5
8
13
7
11
33
25
(F)+ (N03r
0.3 26
— 60
0.8 31
0.3 155
0.4 5.8
0.8 0.8
— — — —
0.8 2.1
— — — —
0.7 2.8
0.8 2.3
— —
Total
Hard-
ness
as
CaCX»3
h (calc.)
470
460
176
490
166
162
_»«•
120
— 1~~
382
223
362
1,585
Depth
of
Water
66
47
10
42
18
20
30
1 o
13
3
7
by Miami Copper Company.
Analyzed by
Miami
Copper Company.
Source: Hazen and Turner, 1946.
-------
to
*>
to
Appendix G
ARIZONA WATER COMPANY WELLS
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS, 1975
Data of Sample
Well Number
Specific Resistanc
pH
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Copper
Manganese
Zinc
Total Alkalinity
Chloride
Nitrate
Sulfate
Fluoride
Dissolved
Solid Residue
Hardness
Arsenic
Silver
Chromium
Cadmium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Color
Odor
Turbidity
Well Depth (feet)
August
3a
* 490
6.2
392
51
88
0.22
0.3
0.3
0.1
64
36
30
1,160
0.14
2,047
1,192
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
175
18, 1975
4b
490
6.3
374
52
92
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.07
84
42
44
1,120
0.16
1,997
1,152
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
153
6
2,000
14
3
113
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
240
12
2
6
0.34
343
49
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
1,088
7
2,266
7.9
31
10
53
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
0.05
192
14
6
12
0.40
309
120
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
588
8
2,166
8.0
30
11
67
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
216
15
3
5
0.19
314
120
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
1,000
9
2,466
7.8
38
13
36
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
192
12
2
8
0.24
284
149
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
900
10
2,006
8.2
35
10
74
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
0.09
230
14
4
6
0.33
326
130
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
1,000
11
2,260
7.7
56
9
35
0.07
0.06
<0.05
0.07
184
19
9
19
0.3
333
179
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
801
12
1,900
8.0
30
7
82
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
174
37
10
24
0.53
339
105
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
840
13b
1,900
8.0
42
13
59
0.05
<0.05
0.16
0.4
184
34
7
29
0.6
317
160
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.07
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
680
14a
1,200
7.9
109
26
53
0.8
<0.05
0.06
0.9
266
30
3
160
0.84
630
379
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
700
152
1,140
8.0
39
16
141
0.19
<0.05
<0.05
0.5
254
92
3
42
1.7
523
164
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.0005
<5
<3
<5
700
a Provisionally acceptable for domestic use.
b Rejected for domestic use.
Source: Ihrig, pers. conm.
-------
KJ
Appendix H
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS WELLS IN THE GLOBE-MIAMI AREA, 1974
I I ! i
,1 i i i i i y
gg 3 I a e c as;
I! 3
5.0-
9.0
0.3 1.00 0.05 5.00 limit 250 10 250
No
liait
0.1 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.05 O.OJ2 0.01
{4-Claypool
(6-Cf:T-.t. ifcftS.
»7-Cr.:it. lljts.
tl-C«il. lijts.
19-~.ait. lijts.
I10-C
-------
Appendix I
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COSTS
The following seven tables have been copied from "Greater Globe-
Miami Wastewater Project Report" prepared by John Carol!o Engineers and
dated November 27, 1972. On the bottom of each page is typed the
projected mid-1976 construction cost of these improvement districts.
I.OV;::R :\n.\:\:i AMD CL^vrooL j: ri-itov.vi-.iE.^T DISTRICT COST
, *
i:l^n Itx
t R"
1 '; • :
" .1 <_>
1- s'<
•- _) o '
-6 8n
-7 8"
-c°. 8"
\ __O D ' '
Piy
-—
Pipe
PSpp
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Pipfs
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
>t-; J ackvno
veint jrlopi
Ur.il
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SY
Trv.jik
Main
4 BOO
3P.OO
2100
-200
1600
1000
1900
-
— i
Lr; U:ra
— —-'.-
600
2200
3VOO
600
r SCO
42UO
600
1600
:
4, 800
600
3, 400
6, 000
600
.0, 000
1, 6dO
6,700
1,600
3 0 0
1,600
Total Construction «
18 % Admii; • olij'-ati v e
Tola] Project Cost-
Unit
Cort
J.-5. LiU
13.00
13. CO
Totals
$
13
13.
13
00
00
.
00
CO
00
00
13. 00
120.00
12. 00
62,400
7, 800
4--1, 200
78, 000
7, 800
130, OGO
75,400
20, 800
87, 100
20,800
36.000
19,200
'- ng/ nee ring
Total Trur.k
Total Lateral
16,800
24,300
$285,200
$410,400
589,500
_106, .iO£
$695,600
* From "Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project Report" John Carollo Engineers,
November 27, 1972.
THE PROJECTED MID-1976 COST FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS $1,174,900.
244
-------
li'JSSZLL CULCIi IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COST *
SIXSHOOTER CANYON IMFROVKMENT DIS1KTCT COST*
ro
j^
tn
L-l
L-3
L-4
L-3
L-6
L-7
Ik:--; '.".-.it
S>" p;?ir LF
!-." V\:K LF
J," Pl'.e LF
o" Pu>; Lr
8" Pile LF
3'' Pise LF
fc" P:>.- LF
Pcivumt Reel SY
Trunk L.iti.Tj.1 Total
;.' it. M.-iiu Units
900
700
4 (I'M
4600
3200
3300
2-100
-i£,00
5100
600
2300
5SOO
900
3, 100
8, SCO
10, 400
600
5, 500
9, 100
i, 600
Tot-.l Construction Cost
Lc' '/<, AdJ-nir.istraUvc k Kn
Total
Project
Cost
Ur.it
Cost
$
13.00
13.00
13. 00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
12.00
ginecring
Totals
*
11.
40,
114,
135,
7,
VI,
19!
$
700
300
400
200
800
500
300
EDO
518,400
93, 300
.4611. 700
Main
J-7
J-8
J-9
J-10
J-ll
J-12
.T-13
J-14
J-15
J-16
J-17
J-18
J-19
II.
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
8'
p
cm
' Pipe
1 Pipe
1 Pipe
' P'.pe
' Pipe
' Pipe
' Pipe
1 Pipe
' Pipe
> Pipe
1 Pi;.c
aveml Hep!
Unit
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SY
Trunk
1 800
800
600
200
3200
1800
500
-
_
Lateral Total
M.'in U'lil.i
1200
400
600
1200
700
3700'
1100
1SUO
300
300
300
300
1400
3, 00')
1, 200
600
1, 800
900
6,900
2, 000
2. 300
300
300
300
300
1, 400
8 CO
Unit
Cost
?
13. 00
13. 00
13. 00
13.00
13. 00
1".. 00
13. 00
13. 00
13. GO
13. 00
1 3. 00
13. 00
1L. 00
'i\-\ .:'.•-.
$ *
39, 000
!:••, MlO
ill vni
is), "Ou
j| 900
'•j C; .- 0
?. r-00
9, :•;••-
T')(rils
Total Tr.-.nk
Total Lal.cr.-il
Tot,<) Project C..-:•!.
13, 300
* From "Greater Glohe-Miami Wastewater Project Report"
John Carollo Engineers, November 27, 1972.
THE PROJECTED MID-197C COST FOH THIS
nr.VT.vr rTFTKTCT Tfl
-•1 1)'
9000
1, it ill, 7, 3dO
2, 300 .-,,900
10, iOO 13, ::>'iO
;oo 120.00
1,000 !2.00
Tol.-.L Construction Co:.t
1 8-;'-, At!mi'ii:;tr.Vi.ivc f; iCn
Totil Project Cost
'M, 900
63,700
171,600
12,000
12,000
354,200
_6_3._BOO
$418, 000
16. -100
$148, 000
$270,000
J-l
J-2
J-3
J-4
j -5
J-6
n>t Re
t.F
LF
LF
j.F
SY
Tol.ul T'ruj>-. t Ci f I.
From "Greater Globe-Miami Uastewater Project Report"
John Carollo Engineers, November 27, 1972.
THE PROJECTED MID-1376 COST FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS $706,000.
2000
MOO
* From "Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project Report"
John Carollo Engineers, November 27, 1972.
THE PKOJKCTED MID-1976 COST FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS fli>3,fyj.
-------
so'_ni; Gi.<;LJ:, :-.K VLi.\pK, ic'ic iMJ•Puvi;M;:;/r DISTKICT COST*
Tz-iiuU Lateral Tot
'..'.
C
G
(j
O
G
G
G
ain
-1
-Z
-'•
-•':
-5
-o
-7
G-&
n
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
-9
-K!
-1!
-li
-j3
-i i
-i:>
-16
-17
-IB
• !'.'
-20
-21
I;-.-.
8" Pipe-
s' Pipe
6'1 1'ijjc
B" Fi:v
t>'' Pi pu
V- :Ji-'.-
8'1 Pii>.
o'- Pip,-
6" Pipe
T T'ipr.
8" P^e
8" Pi'.ic;
ft1' 't-i'ip
M" Pi'),-
fc ' l-i',o
S" p;i>c
t" }>!•>«
6" P;-JC
;.;.• p(\~~
H'1 PijM.-.
Pipt! Jaching
IT-iit
LI'
LF
J/F
LF
LF
LF
LF
L"
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
J-.F
LF
LF
LF
SY
Main
9uO
500
'j(Jb
-
2-100
1000
.
6600
-
.
800
6000
1600
1100
_
500
1000
_
_
_
Total
M.-'ir.
700
2,000
1,600
1, KOO
10, -100
3, 300
1,600
11,900
300
200
2,200
1, 100
8, 1 00
i , aoo
1,7.00
1, 500
1. 000
1, 100
1, 100
200
2,000
.
_
1,
2,
2,
1.
12,
4,
1,
18,
2,
1,
H,
^
1,
2,
) t
1,
Z,
Z,
3.
Construction
18*/!i Adniinitiirativc-.
Toial Truii'-i.
To'-.i! i,V.:-j.V.
Total
ZZ, 900
Project
55, 100
Cost
V.I
1 S
600
500
100
SOO
bOO
300
600
SOO
300
200
201)
900
100
400
200
600
000
600
100
200
000
100
000
Cost
Ur.it
Co;
$
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
120.
1Z.
it
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
oo
00
00
00
00
00
00
Totals
$
20
32
27
23
166
55
20
240
3
2
28
24
183
4-1
15
33
13
20
27
2
26
12
36
& Enktine&rin^
$368
$885
$
, f.oy
, 500
, 300
,400
,400
,900
,800
,500
,900
,600
, 6l'0
, voo
, 3(10
,zoo
, 6UO
,800
, 000
,800
, 300
,600
,000
,000
,000
1.06Z.OOO
191,200
$1,Z53,ZOO
, 000
,zoo
* From "Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project Report"
John Carollo Engineers, November 27, 1972.
THE PTIOJECTED MID-1!>76 COST FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DISTKICT IS $2,116,700.
v..\vi v.'.\s:.' iM iv civi :•.!].:•••;• DISTRICT COST*
Trunk Laicral Totnl Unit
Unit M-rln . M-iin L'i:ii..i Cusl Tolnle
LF 7300 5500 12,800 13.00 166.400
J-F fiOO 800 1,600 13.00 20, KOO
LF - - 80 120.00 _ 9, 600
Tolol Coiisirui aoi, Cost $196,800
JE'll Anniinislr.itive k Lnj;ii»!cring 35, 400
Total Fi-.)ji."-.I Ci-jsL $?.32,200
8100 $130,600
•iV.J I.al,.-i-,;! 6300 $10!, 600
* From "Greater Globe-Miami Uastewater Project Report"
John Carol! o Engineers, November 27, 1972.
THE PROJECTED HID-1976 COST FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS $39P,,60O.
-------
Appendix J
ALTERNATIVE 1-A
CAPITAL COST
Treatment
fear Cost
1976 3,872.0
1986 960.0
TOTAL
SALVAGE 2,064
1996
TOTAL
UNNUAL COST
Treatment
Tear Cost
1976-81 135.0
1981-86 147.0
1986-91 169.0
1991-96 177.0
20-Year Cost Analysis
(in thousands of dollars)
Storage
Reservoir 8
Interceptor Pumping Plant Outfall
PW 76 Cost PW 76 Cost PW 76 Cost
3,872.0 855.2 855.2 228.0 228.0 660.5
487.9 -
4,359.9 855.2 228.0
533.3 427.6 110.5 68.4 17.7 294.3
3,826.6 744.7 210.3
Pumping Replacement
PW 76 Cost PW 76 Cost PW 76
553.5 24.3 99.6
429.8 26.8 78.4
478.4 243.1
352.2 29.3 61.0
263 31.1 46.4
E =
Minus P.W. of Effluent
1976 PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS $
i
PW 76
660.5
-
660.5
76.0
584.5
Total
PW 76
653.1
508.2
243.1
413.2
304.4
2,127.0
7,493.1
524.4
6,968.7
Total
PW 76
5,615.7
487.9
6,103.6
737.5
5,365.1
247
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1-A - 1976 CAPITAL COSTS
Component
1. Interceptor
2. Interceptor
3. Treatment Plant
4. Effluent Equaliza-
tion Facilities
5. Effluent Pumping
to Station
00 6. Outfall
7. Outfall
8. Force Main
9. Pump Station
(1) Plant has already
Component
Capacity or
Pertinent Information
Exist Miami ponds to exist Phase I
interceptor. L-77001; Dia.= 15"
Junction Miami interceptor & exist.
Phase I interceptor to regional
activated sludge treatment plant.
L » 2000'; Oia. = 27"
Regional activated sludge plant initial
capacity =2.4 mgd
5 Day storage
Pumps a 100% equalized flow from the
regional plant
Regional plant pumping station to
Burch P.S., L = 4500'; Dia. - 14"
Burch P.S. to Kiser P.S.; L = 9800';
Dia. = 14"
Lower Wheatfields area to regional
plant. L = 21,600'; Dia. = 8"
Lower Wheatfields area to regional
plant.
Construction
Cost
$ 177,100
$ 82,000
$3,520,000
$ 150,000
$ 150,000
$ 126,000
$ 274,400
$ 453,600
$ 40,000
Engr. &
Contingencies
$35,400
$16,400
$352,000^
$30,000
$30,000
$25,200
$54,900
$90,700
$ 8,000
Total
Cost
$ 212,500
$ 98,400
$ 3,872,000
$ 180,000
$ 180,000
$151,200
$329,300
$544,300
$ 48.000
$ 5,615,700
been designed. Cost is for construction contingencies.
ALTERNATIVE 1-A - 1986
Capacity or
Pertinent Information
CAPITAL COSTS
Construction
Cost
Engr. &
Contingencies
Total
Cost
1. Treatment Plant
Expansion to 2.8 mgd.
$ 800,000
$ 160,000
$ 980,000
-------
Appendix K
ALTERNATIVE 1-B
20-Year Cost Analysis
(in thousands
CAPITAL COST
TREATMENT INTERCEPTOR
•TEAR COST PW 76 COST PW 76
1976 3,872.0 3,872.0 855.2 855.2
1986 960.0 487.9
TOTAL - 4,359.9 855.2
SALVAGE 2,064.0 533.3 427.6 110.5
1996
TOTAL 3,826.6 744.7
ANNUAL COST
TREATMENT PUMPING
KEAR COST PW 76 COST PW 76
1976-81 135.0 553.5 25.2 103.3
1981-86 147.0 429.8 27.8 81.3
$86-91 169.0 352.2 30.4 63.4
1991-96 177.0 263.0 32.5 48.3
TOTAL
of dollars)
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
OUTFALL &
SPRINKLER
PUMPING PLANT SYSTEM TOTAL
COST PW 76 COST PW 76 PW 76
228.0 228.0 297.3 297.3 5,252.5
487.9
228.0 - 297.3 5.740.4
68.4 17.7 127.7 33.0 694.5
210.3 264.3 5,045.9
POWER REPLACEMENT TOTAL
COST PW 76 COST PW 76 PW 76
656.8
511.1
478.4 243.1 243.1
415.6
311.3
2,137.9
1976 PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS $7,183.8
249
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1-B - 1976 CAPITAL COSTS
Component
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
N)
Ul ,
C3 *
8.
9.
Interceptor
Interceptor
Treatment Plant
Effluent equaliza-
tion facilities
Pump Station
Outfall
Disposal
Facilities
Force Main
Pump Station
Capacity or
Pertinent Information
Existing Miami ponds to existing Phase I
interceptor, L = 7700'; Dia - 15"
Junction Miami interceptor & exist. Phase
I interceptor to regional activated sludge
treatment plant. L=2000'; Dia. ** 27"
Regional activated sludge treatment plant.
Initial capacity » 2.4 mgd.
Five Day Storage
Regional plant to spray disposal.
Outfall to spray disposal area
L •> 2300'; Dia. - 14"
Spray disposal facilities occupying
14.3 acres
Lower Wheatfields area to regional
plant. L - 21, 600' i Dia. - 8"
Lower Wheatfields area to regional
plant.
Construction
Cost
$ 177,100
$ 82,000
$3,520,000
$ 123,800
$ 150,000
$ 64,400
$_ 58,300
$ 453,600
$ 40,000
Engr. &
Contingencies
$ 35,400
$ 16,400
$352,000(1)
$ 26,200
$ 30,000
$ 12,900
$ 11,700
$ 90,700
$ 8,000
Total
Cost
$ 212,500
$
$3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$5
98,400
,872,000
150,000
180 ,000
77,300
70,000
544,300
48,000
,252,500
(1) Plant has already been designed. Cost is for construction contingencies,
ALTERNATIVE 1-B - 1986 CAPITAL COSTS
Comonent
Pertinent Information
Construction
Cost
Engr. &
Contingencies
Total
Cost
1. Treatment Plant
Expansion to 2.8 mgd
$ 800,000
$ 160,000
$ 960,000
-------
Appendix L
ALTERNATIVE 1-C
20-Year Cost Analysis
CAPITAL COST
TREATMENT
EAR COST
1976 3,872.0
1986 960.0
TOTAL
SALVAGE 2,064
1996
IOTAL
(in thousands
INTERCEPTOR
PW 76 COST PW 76
3,872.0 855.2 855.2
487.9
4,359.9 855.2
533.3 427.6 110.5
3,826.6 744.7
of dollars)
PUMPING PLANT OUTFALL TOTAL
COST PW 76 COST PW 76 PW 76
48.0 48.0 16.6 16.6 4,791.8
487.9
48.0 16.6 5,279.7
14.4 3.7 8.3 2.2 649.7
44.3 14.4 4,630.0
INNUAL COST
IEAR
1976-81
B81-86
1986-91
1991-96
IOTAL
TREATMENT
COST
135.0
147.0
169.0
177.0
PW 76
553.3
429.8
352.2
263.0
PUMPING
COST
4.8
5.9
5.9
7.0
POWER
PW 76 COST
19.7
17.3
12.3
10.4
REPLACEMENT TOTAL
PW 76 COST PW 76 PW 76
573.2
447.1
406.4 206.6 206.6
364.5
273.4
1,864.8
1976 PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS $6,494.8
251
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1-C - 1976 CAPITAL COSTS
to
(ji
to
Component
1. Interceptor
2. Interceptor
3. Treatment Plant
4. Outfall
5. Pump Station
6. Force Main
(1) Plant has
Comoonent
Capacity or
Pertinent Information
Existing Miami ponds to exist. Phase
Interceptor, L » 7,700'; D1a. - 15"
Junction Miami Interceptor & exist.
I interceptor to regional activated
treatment plant, L = 2000'; Dia » 27
Regional activated sludge treatment
Initial capacity « 2.4 mgd
Outfall to Pinal Creek; L « 600';
Dia. « 15"
Lower Wheatfields area to regional
plant.
Lower Wheatfields pump station to
regional plant.
already been designed. Cost is for
ALTERNATIVE 1-C -
Capacity or
Pertinent Information
Construction
Cost
I $ 177,100
Phase $ 82,000
sludge
ii
plant. $ 3,520,000
$ 13,800
$ 40,000
$ 453,600
construction contingencies
1986 CAPITAL COSTS
Construction
Cost
Engr. &
Contingencies
$ 35,400
$ 16,400
$352,000{1)
$ 2,800
$ -8,000
$ 90,700
•
Engr. &
Contingencies
Total
Cost
$ 212,500
$ 98,400
$3,872,000
$ 16,600
$ 48,000
$ 544.300
.$4,791,800
Total
Cost
1. Treatment Plant Expansion to 2.8 mgd
$ 800,000
$ 160,000
$ 960,000
-------
Appendix M
ALTERNATIVE 2-A
20-Year Cost Analysis
(in thousands of dollars)
CAPITALCOST
TREATMENT,
PERCOLATION INTERCEPTOR PUMPING PLANT OUTFALL
YEAR POND COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST
1976 980.4 980.4 783,7 783.7 96.0 96.0
1986 338.6 172.1 -
TOTAL 1152.5 783.7 96.0
TOTAL
PW 76 PW 76
1860.1
172.1
2032.2
SALVAGE 783.7 202.5
1996
TOTAL 950.0
ANNUAL COST
381.9 101.3
682.4
28.8 7.4
88.6
311.2
1721.0
YEAR
1976-81
,1981-86
1986-91
1991-96
TOTAL
TREATMENT
COST
49.4
56.7
63.2
69.2
PW 76
202.5
165.8
131.7
102.8
PUMPING
COST
2.9
4.0
4.0
5.2
1976 PRESENT WORTH
REPLACEMENT
PW 76 COST
11.9
11.7
268.4
8.3
7.7
OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS
TOTAL
PW 76 PW 76
214.4
177.5
136.4 136.4
140.0
110.5
778.8
$2,499.8
253
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2-A - 1976 CAPITAL COSTS
SUB-REGIONAL AERATED LAGOONS - PERCOLATION POND DISPOSAL
COMPONENT
1.
2.
Miami Lagoons &
Percol . Ponds
Globe Lagoons
& Percol . Ponds
3. Pump S
4. Force iv
COMPONENT
1.
2.
Globe Lagoons &
Percol. Ponds
Existing Cities
Services Plant
CAPACITY OR CONSTRUCTION
PERTINENT INFORMATION COST
Capacity for Miami & Wheatfields $ 292,600
0.8 mgd Capacity
Capacity for Globe & Upper P1nal $ 524,400
Creek. 1.4 mgd Capacity
ALTERNATIVE 2-A - 1986 CAPITAL COSTS
CAPACITY OR CONSTRUCTION
PERTINENT INFORMATION COST
Expand by 0.4 mgd $ 115,500
Expand by 0.15 mgd $ 166,700
ENGR. & TOTAL
CONTINGENCIES COST
$ 58,500 $ 351,100
$104,900 $ 629,300
)0
JO.
ENGR. & TOTAL
CONTINGENCIES COST
$ 23,100 $ 138,600
$ 33,300 $ 200,000
$ 338,600
-------
Appendix N
ALTERNATIVE 2-B
20-Year Cost Analysis
(in thousands of dollars)
JPITAL
IftR
376
m
mi
PAGE
$96
IAL
DUAL
IFftR
876-81
881-86
1986-91
$1-96
SJTAL
COST
TREATMENT
COST PW 76
869.5 869.5
322.9 164.1
1033.6
454.6 117.5
916.1
COST
TREATMENT
COST PW 76
49.4 202.5
56.7 165.8
63.2 131.7
69.2 102.8
ADDITIONAL
STORAGE
OUTFALL, &
INTERCEPTOR PUMPING PLANT SPRINKLER TOTAL
COST PW 76 COST PW76 SYSTEM COST PW 76 PW 76
783.7 783.7 336.0 336.0 333.2 333.2 2,322
15.7 8.0 172
783.7 336.0 341.2 2,494
381.9 101.3 100.8 26.0 146.0 37.7 282
682.4 310.0 303.5 2,212
PUMPING REPLACEMENT TOTAL
COST PW 76 COST PW 76 PW 76
10.7 43.9 246.4
13.6 39.8 205.6
364.4 185.2 185.2
14.2 29.6 161-3
15.9 23.6 126.4
924.9
1976 PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS $3,136.9
.4
.1
.5
.5
.0
255
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2-B - 1976 CAPITAL COSTS
to
COMPONENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
. Miami Lagoons
and storage
. Pump Station
. Outfall &
Disposal
. Globe Lagoons
& Storage
. Pump Station
. Outfall &
Disposal
. Pump Stations
. Force Main
COMPONENT
1. Globe Lagoons
& Storage
2. Existing Cities
Services Plant
CAPACITY OR
PERTINENT INFORMATION
Capacity for Miami & Whatefields,
0.8 mgd - 5 days effluent storage
Effluent Pumping Capacity
Outfall - L - 400', Dia. - 8"
Disposal Spraying Requires 3.9 AC.
Capacity for Globe & Upper Pinal.
Creek, 1.4 mgd
Effluent Pumping for Globe & Cities
Services Plants
Outfall - L - 2300', Dia - 14"
Disposal Spraying Requires 10.7 AC
Lower Wheatfields to Miami Lagoons.
Two required.
Lower Wheatfields Pumping Stations
to Miami Plant. L * 31,100', Dia. - 8"
ALTERNATIVE 2-B - 1986
CAPACITY OR
PERTINENT INFORMATION
Expand by 0.4 mgd
Expand by 0.2 mgd
CONSTRUCTION
COST
$ 297,600
$ 70,000
$ 36,000
$ 552,000
$ 130,000
$ 116,500
$ 80,000
$ 653,100
CAPITAL COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
" COST
$ 115,500
$ 166,700
ENGR. &
CONTINGENCIES
$ 59,500
$ 14,000
$ 7,200
$110,600
$ 26',000
$ 23,300
$ 16,000
$130,600
ENGR. &
CONTINGENCIES
$ 23,100
$ 33,300
TOTAL
COST
$ 357,100
$ 84,000
$ 43,200
$ 662,600
$ 156,000
$ 139,800
$ 96,000
$ 783,700
$2,322,400
TOTAL
COST
$ 138,600
$ 200,000
$ 338,600
-------
Appendix O
ALTERNATIVE 3
tWITAL
IEAR
1976
1986
IOTAL
SHVAGE
1996
DIAL
WNUAL
!EAR
1976-81
1981-86
1986-91
1991-96
TOTAL
20-Year Cost Analysis
(in thousands of dollars)
COST
TREATMENT INTERCEPTOR PUMPING PLANT
COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST PW 76
926.4 926.4 2,205.1 2,205.1
140.4 71.4 - - -
997.8 2,205.1
361.9 93.5 1,102.6 284.9
904.3 1,920.2
COST
TREATMENT REPLACEMENT
COST PW 76 COST PW 76
43.6 178.8
47.4 138.6
270.0 137.2
51.1 106.5
53.6 79.6
1976 PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL COSTS
OUTFALL TOTAL
COST PW 76 PW 76
- $ 3,131.5
71.4
3,202.9
378.4
2,824.5
TOTAL
PW 76
178.8
138.6
137.2
106.5
79.6
640.7
$3,465.2
257
-------
ALTERNATIVE 3 - 1976 COSTS
COM
1.
2.
3.
to
00
PONENT
Interceptor
Interceptor
Lagoons &
Percol. Ponds
UMI-HHIT UK CONSTRUCTION
PERTINENT INFORMATION COST
Exist Miami ponds to exist Phase I $ 177,100
interceptor, L = 7700'; Dia. = 15"
Junction Miami interceptor & exist. $ 1,660,600
Phase I interceptor to regional
aerated lagoons L = 36,900'; Dia = 30"
Regional Aerated Lagoons, maturation $ 772,000
(stabilization) ponds, and percolation
ponds. 2.4 mgd capacity
ENGR. &
CONTINGENCIES
$ 35,400
$332,100
$ 154,400
TOTAL
COST
$ 212,500
$ 1,992,600
$ 926,400
$ 3,131,500
1. Lagoons &
Perccl. Ponds
TABLE R
ALTERNATIVE 3 - 1986 COSTS
0.4 mgd expansion
$ 117,000
$ 23,400
$ 140,400
-------
Appendix P
ALTERNATIVE 4
20-Year Cost Analysis
CAPITAL COST
TREATMENT
YEAR COST
1976 4,224.0
1986 960.0
TOTAL
SALVAGE 2,196.0
1996
TOTAL
NiNUAL COST
TREATMENT
TEAR COST
1976-81 135.0
1981-86 147.0
1986-91 169.0
1991-96 177.0
1DTAL
(in
PW 76
4,224.0
488.0
4,712.0
567.4
4,144.6
PW 76
553.5
429.8
352.2
263.0
thousands of dollars)
INTERCEPTOR PUMPING PLANT OUTFALL
COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST
1,436.6 1,436.6 1,194.0 1,194.0 -
_
1,436.6 1,194.0
718.3 185.6 358.2 92.6
1,251.0 1,101.4
D.iMDTMr REPLACEMENT
PUMPING rnc;T
COST PW 76 LUil
70.3 288.2
77.3 226.0
900.0
83.3 173.6
88.4 131.4
TOTAL
PW 76 PW 76
6,854.6
488.0
7,342.6
845.6
6,497.0
TOTAL
PW 76 PW 76
841.7
655.8
457.5 457.5
525.8
394.4
2,875.2
9,372.2
P.W. Value of Effluent =
197G PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL & ANNUAL CO
STS
524.4
$8,847.8
259
-------
COMPONENT
1. Pump Station
2. Force Main
3. Pump Station
4. Force Main
5. Pump Station
6. Force Main
N)
rt\
Ul
o
7. Treatment Plant
8. Pump Station
9. Force Main
ALTERNATIVE 4 - 1976
CAPACITY OR
PERTINENT INFORMATION
Located at termination of existing
Phase I interceptor
Existing Phase I Interceptor to
location of existing Miami p'onds
L • 7700'; 01a. » 14"
At location of existing Miami ponds
Location of existing Miami ponds to
pump station on Inspiration Road at
Elev. 3425'. L = 14,000'; Dia. - 18"
Located on Inspiration Road at
Elev. 3425'
Inspiration Road pump station to
regional treatment plant L - 2000';
Dia. - 18"
Regional activated sludge treatment
plant. Initial capacity - 2.4 mgd.
Lower Wheatflelds Area
Lower Wheatflelds Area to termination
of existing Phase I interceptor
COSTS
CONSTRUCTION
COST
$ 275,000
$ 215,600
$ 340,000
$ 462,000
$ 340,000
$ 66,000
$ 3,520,000
$ 40,000
$ 453,600
ENGR. &
CONTINGENCIES
$ 55,000
$ 43,100
$ 68,000
$ 92,400
$ 68,000
$ 13,200
$ 704,000
$ 8,000
$ 90,700
TOTAL
COST
$ 330,000
$ 258,700
$ 408,000
$ 554,400
$ 408,000
$ 79,200
$ 4*224,000
$ 48,000
$ 544.300,
$6,854,600
ALTERNATIVE 4 - 1986 COSTS
COMPONENT
1. Treatment Plant
CAPACITY OR
PERTINENT INFORMATION
0.4 mgd Expansion
CONSTRUCTION
COST
$ 800,000
ENGR. &
CONTINGENCIES
$ 160,000
TOTAL
COST
$ 960,000
-------
Appendix Q
ALTERNATIVE 5
20-Year Cost Analysis
(in thousands of dollars)
CAPITAL COST
TREATMENT INTERCEPTOR PUMPING PLANT OUTFALL
YEAR COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST
1976 926.4 926.4 848.4 848.4 336.0 336.0
1986 140.4 71.4 -
TOTAL 997.8 848.4 336.0
SALVAGE 361.9 93.5 424.2 109.6 100.8 26.0
1996
TOTAL 904.3 738.8 310.0
ANNUAL COST
TREATMENT PUMPING REPLACEMENT
YEAR COST PW 76 COST PW 76 COST
1976-81 43.6 178.8 11.8 48.4
1981-86 47.4 138.6 14.8 43.3
404.4
1986-91 51.1 106.5 16.6 34.6
1991-96 53.6 79.6 19.6 29.1
TOTAL
1976 PRESENT WORTH OF CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS
TOTAL
PW 76 PW 76
2,110.8
71.4
2,182.2
229.1
1,953.1
TOTAL
PW 76 PW 76
227.2
181.9
205.6 205.6
141.1
108.7
864.5
$2,817.6
261
-------
ALTERNATIVE 5 - 1976 COSTS
Component^
1. Pump Station
2. Force Main
3. Pump Station
4. Force Main
5. Lagoons and
Percolation Ponds
capacity or
Pertinent Information
Lower Wheatfields area to junction
of Miami Wash & Final Creek
Lower Wheatfields pump station to
junction of Miami Wash & Pinal Creek
L = 23,400'; Dia. = 8"
Miami Wash and Pinal Creek
Miami Wash and Pinal Creek to
regional aerated lagoons, L = 7700';
Dia. = 14".
Regional aerated lagoons, maturation
(stabilization) ponds, and percolation
ponds, 2.4 mgd capacity
Construction
Cost
$ 40,000
$ 491,400
$ 240,000
$ 215,600
$ 772,000
Engr. &
Contingencies
$ 8,000
$ 98,300
$ 48,000
$ 43,100
$ 154,400
Total
Cost
$ 48,000
$ 589,700
$ 288,000
$ 258,700
$ 926,400
$2,110,800
TABLE X
ALTERNATIVE 5 - 1986 COSTS
1. Legoons and
Percolation Ponds
0.4 mgd expansion
$ 117,000
$ 23,400
$ 140,400
-------
X •••.;* )KlfS.
APPENDIX R
RESULTS OF PERCOLATION TESTS
Jones & Stokes Associates _.. „ , , „
455 Capitol Mall 25 March 1976
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Curtis Spencer
Re: Percolation Testing Job No. 612-117
Proposed Percolation Ponds Inv. No. 12-503
Globe/Miami Treated Sewage Disposal Project
In accordance with your request this firm has conducted preliminary
percolation tests in augered borings at 11 designated locations. Five
test locations adjoin Pinal Creek near an existing City of Globe sewage
effluent pond. The remaining six locations adjoin Miami Wash near tne
foot of two existing mine tailings dams. All test locations were field
staked by Jones & Stokes Associates. Three borings were drilled at each
location (nominally 5, 10 and 30 foot depths) to provide multiple
evaluations. Borings were advanced with 6.63 inch diameter hollow-stem
augers. Where possible, augers were withdrawn and tests conducted in
unlined borings. Where caving occurred in granular deposits testing
was accomplished through the center of the hollow-stem auger string.
Groundwater was encountered above the 30 foot level in borings 6 through
11, and percolation evaluations were only attempted at the 5 and 10 foot
depths. Additionally, auger refusal was experienced in boring 4 at
17 feet upon a rock formation, preventing testing at 30 feet.
'The results of the field exploration indicate the best potential sites
for percolation ponds occur at test boring locations 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10
and 11, where clayey soils are either non-existent or limited to a
shallow surface mantle.
Results of classification tests for typical recovered auger cuttings,
263
-------
Percolation Testing
Proposed Percolation Ponds
Globe/Miami Treated Sewage Disposal Project
Job No. 612-117
results of field percolation tests r and boring logs describing subsur-
face profiles are appended,
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of additional
service.
Respectfully submitted,
ENGINEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC
Geotechnical Services
-- . --:•-/
John P. Boy'd, P. ,E.
/jm v
copies to: Addressee (3)
264
-------
265
-------
TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS
Job Nn.612-117
Percolation Testing
Project.
Requested bv JPB/ETL
Material Subsurface Soil,
Location
Globe-Miami
DatB 3-24-76
Submitted bv RCY/ETL
HOLE
NO.
1
3
4
8
8
LI
LOCATION
to
CTl
-------
ENGtNEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC
3737 East Broadway
f 1 Phoeni*. Arizona 85040
" (602)268-1381
423 S. Otsen Avenue
Tucson. Arizona 85719
(602) 624-8894
2400 E Industrial
FlapuH, Arizona 86001
(602)774-4881
Lab. No..
612-117
Date 3-24-76
Date Rec'd 3-17-76
Percolation Testing
Globe-Miami
Source of Sample Test Borings 1 through 5, Globe Area
Material.
Subsurface
Borings
Submitted By RCY/ETL
Tested '
Boring
No.
1
1
1*
2
2
2*
3*
3*
3*
4**
4**
4
5
5
5
Boring
Depth
(feet)
5
10
30
5
10
30
5
10
30
5
10
17
5
10
30
Water Head
During Test
(feet)
4.5
9.5
could not
4.5
9.0
could not
could not
could not
could not
4.5
9.5
16. 5
4.5
9.5
29.5
c . , . RCY/ETL
Sampled By
D , D JPB/ETL
Requested By
TEST RESULTS
Measured
Drop Time Percolation Rate
(Inches) Interval in min./inch
6 80 sec.
6 40 sec.
fill at +30 gpm discharge
6 110 sec.
12 3 sec.
fill at +30 gpm discharge
fill at +30 gpm dishcarge
fill at +30 gpm discharge
fill at +30 gpm discharge
1 6 min.
3 4 min.
2 2 min.
2 2 min.
6 4 min.
6 30 sec.
0.22
0.11
0.30
0.0042
6.0
1.33
1.0
1.0
0.67
0.08
*Test conducted through center of hollow stem auger.
**Water standing at 3 foot level in 5 foot test hole and 4.5 foot level
in 10 foot test hole after +16 hours ENGINEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
(overnight).
267
-------
ENGINEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC
3737 tan Broadway
Phoenix, Arizona BS040
(602)268-1381
421 5. Olwn Awnue
Tucson. Amcma 85719
(602) 624-8894
2400 t Induilnal
Flavian. Ar..-onj 86001
(602)774-1381
REPORT ON FIELD TESTS
Lab. No. 612-117
Date.
3-24-76
Date Rec'd.
3-17-76
Project.
Percolation Testing
.Location.
Globe-Miami
Source of Sample Test Borings 6 through 11, Miami Area
Material Subsurface Borings
. Sampled By.
RCY/ETL
Submitted By.
Tested
RCY/ETL
. Requested By_
JPB/ETL
TEST RESULTS
Boring
No.
6
6*
6
7*
7*
7
8
8
8
9
9
9 •
10
10
10
Boring
Depth
(feet)
5
10
30
5
10
30
5
10
30
5
10
30
5
10
30
Water Head Measure
During Test Drop Time Percolation Rate
(feet) (inches) Interval in min./Jncn
4.5 6 15 sec.
could not fill at +30 gpm discharge
not tested below groundwater level
could not fill at +30 gpm discharge
could not fill at +30 gpm discharge
not tested below groundwater level
4.5 4 200 sec.
9.5 3 3 min.
not tested below groundwater level
4.5 1.5 4 min.
9.5 3 90 sec.
not tested below groundwater level
4.5 3 2 min.
9.5 3 35 sec.
not tested below groundwater level
0.042
0.83
1.0
•
2.67
0.5
0.67
0.19
268 ENGINEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
*Test conducted through center of hollow stem auger.
Pq. 1 of 2
-------
ENGINEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC
37)7 Easl Broadway
Phoenix, Arizona 85040
(602)268-1381
413 5. Olscn Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85719
(602) 624 6894
2400 t. Indoilrial
Flagstaff. Arizona SG001
(602) 774-4881
REPORT ON FIELD TESTS
lab. 612-117
Date.
3-24-76
Date Rec'd.
3-17-76
Percolation Testing
Location
Globe-Miami
Test Borings 6 through 11, Miami Area
Source of Sample
Subsurface
Material
RCY/ETL
Submitted Ry
Tested
Boring
Boring Depth
No. (feet)
11* 5
11* 10
11 30
Borings
Water Head
During Test
(feet)
could not
could not
not tested
Sampled By
Requested By
TEST RESULTS
Measure
Drop
(inches )
RCY/ETL
JPB/ETL
Time
Interval
Percolation Rate
in min./inch
fill at +30 gpm discharge
fill at +30 gpm discharge
below groundwater level
*Test conducted through center of hollow stem auger.
Respectfully submitted,
269 ENGINEERS TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
Pg. 2 of 2
-------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION ASTM: D2487
COARSE-GRAINED SOIL
MORE THAN 50% LARGER THAN 200 SIEVE SIZE
/
W:
;-A
»*.
$*
F'fl
w,
>•»
^
m
^
x
GW
GP
CM
GC
SW
»
SM
SC
DESCRIPTION
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND
MIXTURES, LESS THAN 5% - 200 FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND
MIXTURES, LESS THAN 5% - 200 FINES
SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEl-SAND-SILT
MIXTURES. MORE THAN 12% - 290 FINES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY
MIXTURES. MORE THAN 12V. - 200 FINES
WELL-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS.
IESS THAN 5% • 200 FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS.
LESS THAN SS - 200 FINES
SILTY SANDS. SAND SILT MIXTURES
MORE THAN 12% - 200 FINES
CLAYEY SANDS. SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
MORE THAN 12% • 20O FINES
MAJOR
DIVISIONS
GRAVELS
More than half
of coarse fraction
is larger than
No. 4
sieve size.
SANDS
More than half
of coarse fraction
is smaller than
No. 4
sieve size.
NOTE — Soils with 5 to 12 percent minus 200 fines should
be classified with dual symbols.
FINE-GRAINED SOIL
MORE THAN 50% SMALLER THAN 200 SIEVE SIZE
/
1
m
1
V,
%
/
ML
Cl
01
MH
CH
OH
DESCRIPTION
INORGANIC SIUS AND VEST FINE SANDS.
«OCK FLOUR. SILTY OB CLAYEY FINE
SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT
PLASTICITY
INOSOANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM
PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY
CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SUT-CLAYS
OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY
SOUS. ELASTIC SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY.
FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH
PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS
MAJOR
DIVISIONS
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
less than 50
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid limit
PLASTICITY CHART
SOU FRACTIONS
g»»p»i»««t Sin tango
to«M*r*
Cobblti
Gravel
Coario Gravol
Fin* gravol
find
Coano
fttedhra
Fin.
riiiM (fih «r clay)
Abov. 12 in.
3 to. to 12 hi.
3 hi. 19 No. 4 titvo
3 in. to % In.
tt in. la No. 4 litv*
No. 4 to No. 200
No. 4 to No. 10
NP. 10 to No. 40
No. 40 to N>. 200
Below No. 200 tiovo
PLASTICITY INDEX
o 5 8 8 6 8 8
FOR
1
FINE GRAINED
SOILS
AND FINE FRACTION OF
COARSE-GRAINED SOUS
Ml-
'*^
Ml '
Cl
/
Ml
..
/
. CH
f
CH
MH
/
OH
/
/
»I020JO«030*07080 90 '
LIQUID LIMIT
DEFINITIONS
Penetration Resistance — Blows per foot using 'A' rod and 140 Ib. hammer with 30 inch free fall unless
otherwise noted.
N Standard Penetration Resistance (ASTM: Dl586), 2.0 inch O.D. split barrel sampler.
C Continuous Penetration Resistance, 2.0 inch O.D. Bull Nose.
R Penetration Resistance, 2.42 inch I.D. Ring Sampler
Sample Type
R - Ring T - Shelby Tube • S - Standard Split Barrel B - Block
G - Grab C - Cutting V - Vertical Face Cut
Particle Size Distribution
Percentage shown on log denotes visual approximation ±5%.
Soil Classification
visual unless accompanied by mechanical analysis and Atterberg limits.
270
-------
f r
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
1
2
3
5
6
7
S
9
^
2
3
5
6
7
8
t?
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
BLOWS ' FT
C
N
M
'••• -J "
. H1
0.
U
<
C
t-
Z !L
a
0
C
......
5*
« z
00
dry
to
ligh
damp
Slic
damp
-••-
u
<
u
o
tiy
htly
—
DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND; Light Brown
Medium to fine sand.
GRAVELLY SAND TO SANDY
GRAVEL; Brown
Stratified, silty, non-
plastic to very low
plasticity.
Stopped @ 30'
No Groundwater
o
c iC
J
SM
SM
to
GM
X
rf4C
iy
DI*T*"BUT1ON %
K
W
D
0
o
S
0
u
to
-.-i
J
a
O
30
45
*
80
55
40
«
20
15
15
1
S°
a
J O 0
550-
X
XX
;;:;~ j s t
1 I
z a i o J a
o u o w - ui
: > j I I >
..'
.... . .
TICITV
I
z 3 i i
X
XX
CT°~~*C*~
ll.
U.
Ifl
Si S S J
CKMKN- *
TATION 1
J l»
Z < 0 J
X
X
_- -
1
.
-------
FIELD ENGINEER
RCY
DRILLER LP HELPER DP SOIL BORING DATA SIZE OF HOLE ?" TYPE OF DRILL CME
OCPTH
FT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
~_ 8
9
ib
1
2
3
4
5_
6
7
8
9
~ 20
1 "
3"
4
5
6
7
*" 8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ELEV.
HCtlftTANCft
• LOW*/ IT.
C
N
to
ro
—
—
—
...
i
w
a
...
....
.....
._..
—
E
o
ORING * PROJECT Fere. Tes ting-Globe/Mi ami DATE 3-15-76 JOB NO
MOISTURE
CONTENT
!lig
dam
Is
o
itly
> --
—
DESCRIPTION
GRAVELLY SAND TO SANDY
GRAVEL; Brown
Stratified, some silt,
non-plastic to very low"
plasticity, some cobbles
and considerable gravel
0-5', sands predominant
below 5 ' .
—
Stopped @ 30' ~~~
No Groundwater
— ••- —
-..--- -. .
•OIL
CLAS»iriCATION
1
SM
to
GM
z
M
X
8"
to
—
....
—
w
o
I
1
—
—
-----
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION %
1*
w
•
O
10
to
—
—
—
—
— -
J
W
K
40
20
—
— -
—
—
o
z
40
65
—
—
u
J
10
15
.....
—
— _
-------
DEPTH
FT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
'0
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
20
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
J'l
„-,.«* «. SOll. BORIIMO DATA •'-• Of «OL« 7- T v-,! o- o * , UU cMB
"E(.EV. "" " ' 'BORING 3 PROJECT s*e,rc , u'esting-GioDe/Miama.
PCNETRAT'ON
PCS STANCE
PLOWS ' FT
C
_
.._
N
M
"" • - "*J
(jJ
A ,
u
0.
u
o
C
Z k
Sk1
It
Q
1
"'"
U_
?• £
00
31ig
lamp
^
4
u
IS
o
itly
—
—
— . . .
DESCRIPTION
SANDY GRAVEL w/occasiona
sand lenses, some cobble
stratified, traces silt
fines .
. _
.... ... ,_,.., .. -
-
Stopped @ 30 '
No Groundwater
i
o
f-
•n -'
;|
1
s.
GP
to
GM
z
S
X
5"
DISTPIPUTION %
Jl
ft
0
o
bo
....
. __
i/i
-t
o
o
u
10
j
>
it
(3
50
40
a
z
35
50
o
«
;
5
10
DATE J-lD-VbjQB NO. 612-1
Si
K *-
j «
J 0 C
XX
....
"30°
3 z § §
5 5 S 5
X X
.-
"" ~ '
" -~ -
M
Z
U
o
z
D
5 5
o u -
j i
XX
o _
j *
Ul s. ,-
2 a 5 D S
O ui o w -
Z > -J I X
" •' -• ' ••-• •
. . _ — ....
.. — . .
z
Ul -
7 J D ,
o o u "
Z J 3 I
^
u.
i/)
t S ^' C *
S « P 5 <
(A L. U) > J
,
' ~
17
««M
z < n 2
iSsS
[
1
1
-------
FIELD ENGINEER
RCY
DRILLER LP HELPER DP SOIL BORI
ELEV.
DtPTM
»T
1
2
3
4
..... ^
"" 6
7
_1 8
9
10
1
2
3
4
___5
6
7
8
9
~~20
" 1
- ' j
3"
4
5"
6"
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
n
PINCTRAYION
RESISTANCE
•uowi'rr
c
—
—
N
to .
—
.__..
.._..
vi
«t r
-
U
«.
*"
H
2
5
G
...
—
.....
BORING 4 PROJECT Perc. Test
L
8*
>•
c
D
....
MOISTURE
CONTCNT
-PL
— -
neai
PL—
...
GRAPHICAL
LOS
----- ••
DESCRIPTION
CLAYEY SAND; Brown
--- -- — —
...--
SANDY CLAY TO CLAYEY
SAND ; Brown
Clays predominant w/some
sandy lenses.
.Refusal on rock formatic
: . @ 18' .
No Groundwater
— ....... .
.. .
- • -
S
5^
"S
4
U
SC
—
CL-
SC
n .....
^G DATA SIZE OF HOLE 7" TYPE OF DRILL CME
ng-Globe/Miami DATE 3-15-76)08 NO.612-117
X
M
M
•1
K
<
X
#4
_ ..
—
..._
:
—
—
—
-
N
8
1
— •
PARTICLE SUE
DISTRIBUTION %
:
•
8
— :
GRAVEL .
.
to
a
z
<
HI
60
—
60
40
—
....
SILT • CLAV
40
.._..
—
40
10
—
...
»
la 5
?;;
,x
—
_.x
ONAIN
SHAPE
ANGULAR
SUBANGULAR
ROUNDED
SUBROUNDEO
X X
X_X
--
RELATIVE
DENSITY
X
U?
X
....
- •
ORY
STRKNOTH
s 5
3 | i
2;*°;:
o;oS2.|
-
. —*L_.
PLAS.
TICIT*
NONE
LOW
MEDIUM
NICH
X
:::
x
—
—
CONSIS.
TENCY
ts& °
sis i
X
x .._..
— ....
.. . .
-- - -
. ._. .
CEMEN-
TATION
--II
i < a t
o " u "
z * I «
X
X
I
1
-------
DEPTH
FT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.._ 9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
" 9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
0
ftCSISTANCC
BLOWS/FT.
c
,
—
N
..
to
Ul
.—
C
—
_..
—
OBY DENSITY
per
<
h
.'... s:
—
—
—
MOtsruBC
CONTENT
-PL
ligi
dams
.ighi
damj
—
1
...
tly_
—
DESCRIPTION
CLAYEY SAND; Brown
-- •• -•- -
SAND with silt and
gravel traces ; Brownx
Stratified, medium to
coarse sand predominant
- - - —
SANDY" GRAVEL w/s i 1 1
traces; Brown
Stopped @ 30'
No Groundwater
- - — - - --
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
sc
SP-
SM
GP-
GM "'
-
z
M
N
n
M
Z
#4
, ,
- -
—
....
PAHTICLC BIX«
DfSTftlBUTION %
BOULDCBS
I "
...
W
kt
•
0
u
....
—
:
-
GRAVEL .
to
50
_..
o
z
M
60
90
85
40
„. _ .
V
u
S
40
10
15
—
10
22
5-
_J K
-J O O
S » o
Jii
X
_
X
K D
< bJ
J O
532*
5 S 5 i
fill
X X
X X
X X
.....
™!"""-«l
1 DENSITY [
HIGH 1 «
X
—
X
—
X
^3 »
Z > J X I
. .„ ,_
NONE
LOW
MEDIUM
X
X
x
• -
SOFT
FIRM
STIFT
VERY STIFF
X
. - , ...
. . . . .
. _ -
- -
.... .
. -
"T,ONN |
T U
u * 2 ;
Z u ° •
° t I a
X
X
X
1
SHFET
OF
-------
FIELD ENGINEER
KCY
D..IIER LP HELPER DP SOIL BORING DATA S IZE OF HOLE 7" TYPE OF DRILL CME
ELEV. BORING 6 PROJECT Perc. Testing-Gio&e/Miami DATE-3"1""'0 JOB NO. Di<'"~J-
OCPTM
rr
1
........
...... 3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
20
i
2
3
4
5
6
__.
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
riflCTRATION
NMIftTANCE
•tOwt'fT.
C
-. —.„
(
N
_ . ._. .,„
N>
Tl
I
....
—
Is
i
-
II
-PL
Slig
dam
to
damp
TT
a
htJLy.
p
DESCRIPTION
CLAYEY SAND; Brown
. .
SAND w/silt and gravel
traces, stratified,
medium to coarse sand
predominant .
Stopped @ 30'
Groundwater @ 20'
3-16-76 @. 11:00 a.m. _
-.- • • • — -• •
2
J
6
u
sc
SP-
SM
X
w
N
•
X
X
#4
->
—
— „. .
—
.....
PARTICLC CIZI
DISTRIBUTION %
•OULOKNB
II
—
8
i
u
—
_-.
GRAVCL
10
—
—
—
a
t
60
80"
—
SILT a CLAY
40
10
—
Ji
J K
> • 2
X
X
— __
, '
—
-^-^t-
9MAIN
SHA>K
ANGULAR
5UBANGULAR
ROUNDED
SUBROUNOCD
x x
x "x
.-'—--
__^_
1 •'
' ' :
L_u_
^-4.,.
U
Z
X
X
::
our
•TRKNOTH
'
— — -
. „
PLAS-
TICITY
NONE
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
X
K-
;
'
^
— ,
CONtlS.
SOFT
FIRM
STIFr
VERY STIFF
HARD
X
..
_.
- - ...-
TATION
I 0
UK 2 0
g22f
Z * * "I
1C
* :.:
....
—
—
---
—
17
-------
DEPTH
rr
1
2
_ 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
_.. 6
7
8
__ 9
~ 1
"""2"'
3
4
5
6
_ ._..
8~
9
30
_ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
ELEV.
RESISTANCE
• LOWE/FT.
C
—
i
N
. ^
—
—
—
— —»__._.
SAMPLE TYPE
"
•-
...
_..
--
'-•
.....
DRY DENSITY
PCF
BORIN
»
Jl MOISTURE
I CONTENT
blic
dam]
—
to
dan
TT
-=-
- —
O
GRAPHICAL
LOO
ntly
p
_..
7 PROJECT Perc. Testing-Globe/Miami DATE 3-16-76 IOR wn612-l
DESCRIPTION
SAND w/silt and gravel
traces; Brown
Stratified deposits,
medium to coarse sands
predominant.
- - — .-. . .
•
Stopped @ 3 0 ' ~
Groundwater @ 23'
3-16-76 @ 12:00 p.m.
-- - - -
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
SP-
SM
z
w
N
Si
M
X
h
—
—
—
PARTICLE Sill
DISTRIBUTION %
BOULDERS
—
-._
«
w
j
m
0
u
......
—
CRAVCL .
10
...
—
—
i
a
z
»
80
—
........
u
r-
M
10
— -
__.
5?
hi
X
—
— ...
•
—
—„ ....
—
«
t 3 J Z
Z 5 0
» S t
X«>
J I I
... ... -.,—„ —
. ._., _._
. ., ..-..-
, _*
, ,. ,, , ,,.
— — • — • •
. —
-". •
1
X
)
r z
ui 3
c z J 5
u O O u
> Z J I
X
.._-..
— 1 — ' — -
--.
.._
.
....
b.
u.
V-
5 t| ii
- 0 - H U
...
_..-. .
.. .
' ~- ' -
'
Z
D U * ~
: Z < o
X
-
17
J
-------
FIELD ENGINEER ™"*
DR.LLER LP HELPER Dp SOIL BORING DATA SHE OF HOLE 7" TYPE OF DR. LL CME
ELEV. BORINGS PROJECT Perc. Testing-Miami/GioBe DATE-i~lb~/b JOB NO. &-L^--L
PtH
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
\Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
"I'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PKNtYftATIOM
K«1I«TANC«
»LOW»-'FT
C
—
..._
_..
—
—
_,..
N
ro
00
.
£
u
3
S
G-
C
....
E
!6
s
y
•
II
88
ligh
damp
-PL
ligh
damp
to
damp
—
—
CMAPHICAL
LOO
tly
tly—.
— - -
DESCRIPTION
SAND w/silt and gravel
traces; Brown
"SANDY CLAY TO CLAYEY
SAND w/gravel traces;
Brown
..... .... ,
CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAND;
Brown; stratified, medix;
to fine sand.
— - — —
- - •-" — -•
Stopped @ 30'""
Groundwater @ 22'
3-16-76 @ 4:30 p.m.
6
SP-
SM
CL
m
SC
MAX Slit. IN
1"
3/4
;•
»A»TlCLt »tZt
OI*T*t»UTtON %
:
a
II
__
— -
o
u
—
tc
—
to
—
—
—
I ellAVCL
10
tr
—
20
40
---
—
•--
--
_.
c
\
75
40
60
...._
60
50
u
j
15
60
40
..........
20
10"
—
--
—
X
—
—
...
DRAIN
SHAPt
ANGULAM
SUBANGULAf
WOUNDED
SUaaOUNDC
X X
"x" x
X X
— „-.
_
- -
*-
w
z
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
X
—
.._..
—
Dflr
STRENGTH
£ -^
;5 |J
Z > J Z X >
XX
— ,
.._
PLA»-
TICITY
hii
i j 1 1
X
X
XX
._,.-.
CONSI1-
TENCV
k.
k
M U M > X
X
• — ' -
..
.
CEMEN-
TATION
X 0
« x 2 S
|2£ J
I * i 5
X
X
X
- • -
17
-------
ELEV. BORING Q PROJECT Perc . Teutinc
DEPTH
rT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
~ 2
3
4
5
~~ 6
7
8
~~ 9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
"" 8
9
0
PENETRATION
RESISTANCE
• LOWS'FT.
C
—
N
— — ..
K-.
—
—
"
-
SAMPLE TTPE
—
"
• —
—
_.
DRV DENSITY
per
c
c
~
•-"
MOISTURE
CONTENT
ligh
damj
ligh
damj
to
damp
"V
•s-i'
—
GRAPHICAL
too
tly._
tly
DESCRIPTION
SAND w/silt and gravel
traces.
CLAYEY GRAVELLY SAND ;
Brown
Stratified, medium to
fine sand. ""
_. -
Stopped @ '30'"~
Groundwater @ "20 '
3-16-76 @ 4:00 p.m. '_
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
SP-
SM
sc
—
z
u
M
X
X
y
iy
—
...
r— Miami/Globe
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION %
BOULDERS
.. ...
W
O
u
to
—
— -
GRAVCL .
10
20
40
_...
—
--
8
80
60
50
.....
—
-
SILT * CLAT
10
20
10
— .
—-
CRADA.
TION
U K
X
—
X
_....
- •
O AIN
• APt
ANGULAR
SUBANCULAR
ROUNDED
SUBROUNOED
X X
X X
Jill 1 H9IH
F— I""-
X
—
—
—
3-1B--7
DRV
STRENGTH
* a
X X * 0 J i
o u o u r w
2 > J I I >
6 JOB IM0.6X2-X17
T.C1TV
NONE
LOW
MEDIUM
K
- -
XX
• -
"TENC*"
SOFT
FIRM
STIFT
... . .
.
• -
- - •
--- - •
....
CKMCN-
TATtON
NONE
WEAK
MEDIUM
X
X
SHFE-T
OF
-------
FIELD ENGINEER
RCY
LP
"MILIE* nnr.r.r "Vn** • SOJLBORING DATA SIZE OF HOLE 7 TYPE OF DRILL ^E
CI.CV. OUKIINVJ XU DD(-MCrT Dor-/-. T«i-.4--l«~ «.:-.«.,• //• 1 _V~ : -5 T-? — Tf f 1 1 1 i •»
KPTH
rT
1
2
3
4
" 5
6
•p§"mn«««
7
e
9
To'
2
"3"
4
5
6
7
9
20
1
2"
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ttCSIITANCf
• LOWf/PT,
c
....
™™™^-~
N
i i n i
00 r
O
__
._.
t
m
\
C
_.
_.
_ -.
—
....
1
s
•VVHWBMH
...__.
ii
-PL
•••1 !•-
_
damj
to
"TT*
V
.._
1 I n mm
tif"
—
— •
DESCRIPTION
S I LT Y SAND AND CLAY ; "
Brown,. Micaceous.
SAND'w/silt and gravel
traces; Brown "
Stratified deposits/
medium to coarse sands"™"
predominant, some minor"
clay lenses below 18'. ~
Stopped @ 30'
Groundwater @ 21.5'
3-16-75 @ 10:30 a.m.
fr
SOIL f
CLA5S.TICATION r
*
sc-
CL
SP-
>M -
—
—
—
r
MAX SIZE. IN f
#1
2"
—
.._
—
vi
i
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
JLCUI1X/ U-LWiJC
DISTRIBUTION %
w
J
m
m
o
u
._.
—
—
—
-
w
o
- •
10
_....
...
—
— -
—
o
z
60
40
80
—
M
40
60
TO
—
—
— ,
u S
_x
—
—
—
—
QNAIN
IHAPC
J
j S a
iii
X
x_*
—,...
,. - .T.-. ..
— ~ *
DAI I
» i
ii
LOW
MEDIUM
X
x_
—
—
—
—
—
- J—AO—
(TRENSTH
S
shtl
Z > J X X
X
. .
.....
• -— — '
--.
' ° JOB NO.-1-
TICITV TENCV
NONE
LOW
MEDIUM
X
* "* ~
K i I* '
S;S 3
X
- -
e.— J.J. /
TATION
X a
U J | j
X t I *
K
X
1
-------
CPTH
FT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3'
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
•"2
3
4
5
7
8
9
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
ELEV.
RCGIttTANCC
• LOWS' FT
C
._.
N
N)
00 . .
H
— -
—
e-
_..
_
1
DAY DENSITY
per
C
V
— .
3ORIN
H
Sz
ligh
dair
to
damp
-y
'"-
£
l!
tiy__
p
:E
— —
11 PROJECT perc. Tes-c mr Miami/Globe nATF^-ifi_-7fi ,on M^ c-io_
DESCRIPTION
SAND with silt and qrav
traces ; Brown
Stratified deposits, me
..to coarse sands predomi
• --.-.-. .- ...... —
Stopped @ 30'
Groundwater @ 18'
.3-16-76 @ 9:00 a.m.
t
0
5
(A
1
ium
ant
SP-
SM..
—
.... . .
—
z
u
M
X
I
1
—
—
-.._
M
m.
w
o
J
o
—
—
- —
PARTICLE SHE 1
O STRIBUTtON % 1
COBBLES
—
--
— -
-
GAAVEL .
--
10
......
—
—
—
...
a
z
80
—
—
—
—
— .
._.
....
SILT A CLAY
10
. —
_
—
5"
J
s i !
.....
-X
—
_....
—
—
ORAIN
K a
. 3Q 1
III!
— — — —
.X -JX
~* — ...
"
""•""""—""••••"•
_ -
1
. —
C' I I [' f~T
*>•
31
LOW
MEDIUM
X
—
.—
—
....
/
\l\l\\
E Z > J I I
._,,
"" ~ —
__,
,
, .
. .. . , ...... ^.
— i-
, — _ _*..
__, — - — —
— — "
••— • ••--
-. — — •
—. U.
3
I *
Z * 5
0 0 "
z j at
x
. — . —
._ —
— - -
:_:-..
... ..
W
2 Ss P S
... ...
.:::
— _, —
z
u> * 2
z < a
o u u
X
..... .
1
1.17
J
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING
In Re:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOr
AGENCY
-and-
GREATER GLOBE-MIAMI
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT
No.
N)
oo
K)
Globe, Arizona
Wednesday, February 18, 1976
1:30 P.M.
X
en
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
POTTER, SPICER 81 WARMUTH
Court Reporters - Deposition Notaries
22 Luhrs Arcade
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
257-1593
-------
Jl
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
£££££. 2£
NAME OF SPEAKER: PAGE NUMBER:
MR. WALKER, Opening Remark* 4
MR. McLOUD, Opening Remarks 9
KATIE WEIMER, Mayor,
Town of Miami, Arizona 11 and 43
GEORGE LARSON, Councilman,
City of Globe, Arizona 13 and 46
EVA MARIE SETKA, Globe, Arizona 13
LUIS C. AGUIRRS, Councilman,
City of Globe, Arizona 21
MITCHEL D. PLATT, Attorney,
St. Johns, Arizona 32
PRANK DARMIENTO, Salt River Project, 33
Phoenix, Arizona
PHIL SAWAIA, Globe, Arizona,
Cobre Valley Sanitation District 35 and 44
BOB HAMPTON, Claypool, Arizona,
Patio Park Mobile Hone Park 40 and 43
STEPHEN L. BIXBY 42
LYNN M. SHEPPARD, Globe, Arizona,
Gila County Supervisor 49
x
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
THE U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HEARING, taken at 1:30 p.m., at the City Hall,
Council Room, 150 North Pine Street, Glove, Arizona,
before KAREN K. HEUTZENROEDER, Certified Shorthand
Reporter.
Representing the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9:
MR. MATTHEW S. WALKER, Hearing Officer
MR. GEORGE TERAMOTO, Team Leader,
Nevada, Arizona/ and Central California Section,
Instruction Grants Review Team of the Water
Division.
MR. RICK McLOUD, Environmental Enginsar,
Construction Grants Branch, Water Division.
WHEREUPON, the following proceedings
were held;
POTTER, SP1CER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
257-lSt!
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
U7-W1
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Administrator of E.P.A. Region 9 publicly announced
the intention of tho E.P.A. to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act on the proposed
Agancy action to make grants available for the
unknown disposal system of the greater Globe-Miami
Wastewater Treatment Project.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement
was circulated for comment on the 12th of January,
1976* and this hearing has been called to consider
that Draft.
Public notice for the hearing was
published in the Federal Register and also published
in the Arizona Silver Belt on the 15th of January,
1976. .
As to the procedure to be followed at
this hearing, this is not an adjudioatory hearing
or an adverse type hearing in the sense that we
are taking testimony under oath subject to cross
examination. It is informational. We are here to
receive comments from the public so that they may
be considered before any final agency decisions on
this project are made.
If there are any questions, I request
that they be addressed to the chair rather than to
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-4-
MATTHEW S. WALKER
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
We will now declare this public hearing
open.
My name is Matthew S. Walker, and I
am Bearing Officer for E.P.A. Region 9. This
hearing is called by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region No. 9, for the purpose
of considering a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater
Treatment Project.
The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, which is Public Law No. 91-190, also known
as NEPA, requires a detailed statement to be made
on any recommendation or report of any major
federal action.
The Federal Water Pollution control Act,
which is Public Law No. 92-500, requires tho
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agancy
to encourage waste treatment managemant that
results in a desirable environment to the extent
practicable and to be on an area-wide basis.
To quote a Federal Regulation; requires
that the environmental impact be assessed in a
statement pursuant to those regulations.
On October 28th, 1975, the Regional
POTTER, SPICER A WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOMNIX. »ai*o«i»
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the speaker, so that the hearing can go forward
as expeditiously as possible.
After the opening presentation/ we
have a procedure that gives everyone an opportunity
to be hoard without giving precedence to any
particular group.
There are registration cards at the
back of the hall that look like this, and the
young lady at the door will hand you one. You can
fill out your name and address and whom you
represent. We request that you do register. It ie,
of course, not required. This is a public meeting
and anybody can come, anonymously if you wish, but
if you do wish to make a presentation, I request
that you fill out one of these cards and indicate
in the box that says yes on the card that you do
have a presentation to make.
All persons who intend to make a
statement and who have registered, will be called
as nearly as possible in the order they have signed
up.
The cards will be sorted into five
groupings; within each grouping the people will be
called in order. The groupings are, first of all,
elected officials who will bs given precedence;
then unaffiliated private citizens; representatives
l
2
3
4
6
«
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of public agencies; representatives of special
interest groups and associations; representatives
of business, commercial or industrial firms.
The speakers will be called in the
following manneri elected representatives will be
firen preferential treatment. Others will be call*
by selecting a card from one of the other group* in
rotation. If one of the groups of cards is
substantially larger than the other groups, two
or more cards may be selected from that group before
going on to the next group. Prior appointments will
not be accepted.
Now, the gentleman on my immediate right
is Mr. George Teramoto, Team Leader, Nevada. Arisona
and Central California section, Instruction Grants
Review Team of the Water Division, E.P.A. Region 9.
On my left is Mr. Rick McJLoud,
Environmental Engineer, Construction Grants Branch,
Water Division, E.P.A. Region 9. Mr. McLoud will
have some opening remarks and then we will hear
from the public.
We have received some correspondence
with regard to this hearing. All of this
correspondence will be placed in the fiio an(j
will be considered as part of the public rocord.
It isn't necessary for you to repeat it here; we
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
117-lltl
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-8-
will consider it just as much if you repeated it
here at length as for those who have written
speeches. He will listen to you, of course. If you
have lengthy remarks and you do wish to submit
them in writing, you will be given every bit as
much consideration as if you read them at length,
and this gives time to others to speak.
About midway through the afternoon,
we will call a recess. This is customary to give
the court reporter a break; and during that period,
resource people from the E.P.A. will be available
for a question and answer period. However, that
will be off the record; it will not be part of
the formal transcribed proceedings. If you have
something to say that you want to be sure is on tho
record, you should make it part of the record so
that it will be transcribed and be a part of the
comments.
The proceedings are being recorded
by a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Karen
Houtzenroeder of the firm of Potter, Spicor t
Warmuth; and a copy of these proceedings will be
available in the regional office shortly after the
conclusion of the hearing. Anybody who wants a
copy for their own usa should make individual
arrangements with the court reporter.
i
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-9-
This is the first of a two session
hearing. We are going to continue the hearing
tonight at 7:30 in the same place. It will not
be necessary to repeat tonight whatever you hava
said here today, because it is going to be a
continuous record.
And now, I will call on Mr. HcLoud for
some opening remarks and then we will hear from the
public.
RICK HcLOUD
I would like to say good afternoon to
everybody.
The statement I would like to read is
as follows>
The Environmental Protection Agency
has written an Environmental Impact Statement on
the Globe-Miami Regional Sewer Project to try to
resolve the public controversy that arose from the
previous project.
A complete list of all various alterna-
tives has keen attempted. The recommended project
as outlined in the Impact Statement includes a
gravity f«4 regional sowage treatment system
including an aerated lagoon and percolation ponds
located north of the Wheatfields area. It is
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
157.|»fl
-------
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
estimated to coat naarly three and a half million
dollars.
The E.P.A. has expressed its
preliminary opinion of the beat solution to the
water quality problems of this area, and now we
ask you for yours. Every comment received here
today or in the near future by mail as mentioned
by Mr. Walker will be included and answered by
the E.P.A. in the final Environmental Impact
Statement. Also, the final Impact Statement will
contain the E.P.A. 's final decision about tha
Globe-Miami project.
Our target date for distribution of
the final Impact Statement is the 1st of April.
This project is complex and a lot of money is
involved. It is important for people to get
involved and share their opinions with us. Tha
E.P.A. is hoping for a new spirit of cooperation
among those involved so that this project can
become a reality as soon as possible.
I thank you.
MR. WALKER: The first card I have in
accordance with the announced procedure is Miss Katie
tfeimer, Mayor of the Town of Miami.
MS. WSIMSR: Right here?
MR. WALKER: Yes. We notice here that it's a
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
little bit difficult for us to see people if you're
sitting, so if you don't mind, we would like to
watch you and perhaps you would like to watch us
during the hearing.
MS. WEIMERj Is this hooked up?
MR. WALKER: I think it is. There's a little
slide on tha top that should go forward to make
sure it's working.
MS. WEIMERj It's going forward.
MR. McLOUDs It sounds like it's on.
KATIE WEIMER
I am Katie Weimer, Mayor of the Town
of Miami; and I'm here to tell the Hearing Board
that since you have okayed the lagoons in your
Environmental Impact Statement, our lagoons are
working and seem to be in good order; and ve have
reviewed your statement and wo feel like that if
all lagoons are updated to meet your requirements
that it would bo better for us than to have to go
to the 11 miles further down, because we — at this
time we cannot afford it and we can't afford to
carry the ball for the outlying communities, which
it seems like the Environmental people think that
the City of Globe and the Town of Miami should
share in the expense, and there's — there are
POTTER. SPICER * WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
J»7 IStJ
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, AHIZONA
JJ7.151J
-------
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-12-
more people in outlying areas than in the corporate
city limits of both towns.
So, Z would like your Board to review
the situation and I certainly want them to take
into consideration the fact that we do have aerated
lagoons and they seem to be percolating very well
as they are; and I thank you.
MR. WALKERt Thank you.
Mayor, Mr. Teramoto has a question for
-13-
you.
MR. TERAMOTO: If the unincorporated areas
should bear their shara of the cost, would Miami
be able to enter this regional system?
MS. WEIKER: Hell, Mr. Teramoto, Z — we
feel like that it would be a community — it should
be a community-wide thing, but having been involved
in this situation for such a long time and having
contact with our supervisors, Z, Z sae no hope for
the outlying areas to come into this at this time;
and the Town of Miami has a deadline which we have
to moot and we've, we've had cease and desist
orders that will come into effect, Z think by 1977,
and Z see no way that we could get the outlying
areas in unless they do start to have some sanitary
districts formed, and there has not been a thing
done with the outlying areas.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The only one is, Z think, the Cobre
Valley — Z mean, Central Heights. They have a
district formed and they're the only one that have
indicated that they would like to come in.
MR. TERAMOTOt Thank you.
MR. WALKERt Mr. George Larson, Councilman
of the City of Globe.
GEORGE LARSON
My name is George Larson. Z'm
Councilman of the City of Globe, and Z live at
691 Monroe Street in Globe.
Z have been involved in this sewer
situation since about 1971. We had a mass meeting
x
at Miami High School. As Z remember, there was
81 people there, representatives from moat all the
districts, and we all got the impact of what it
was going to cost by Carollo Engineers, and we left
there feeling like we might do something. Ever
since then, at least the City of Globe and the City
of Miami, have had many, many maatings, and we
haven't accomplished anything at all.
So, finally it came to the situation
of pressure on us by the State Health Department,
and the City of Globe started out themselves.
After we got a mile-and-a-half of what
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
UMIU
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
we call phase 1 in, we got a court order to stop.
We went to court, wo won this, we had a contract
left for phase 3, which is a water treatment plant.
We had a lot of money and time involved in this,
and then they — E.P.A. was contacted and we got an
order to stop that.
Since then we've been trying1 to get
what we call phase 2, which is a lino on up to
the forks of the road at Ice House, which we
haven't done. We haven't got the money, we've had
a bond issued trying to get this situation going.
I have here a survey of Ice House
Canyon, and I represent those people up there, and
othar than about 12 or 15, everyone that can get
on the north — Highway 70, is on the sewer line.
These other people, there's no chance
in the world they've got to go down, and I've
come here to ask you people if we're going to go
into any more phases, to put phase 4 and put a
trunk line in up behind so these people can gat
on at a reasonable price. Otherwise, those people
are pumping septic tanks as much as twice a month.
In fact, several people are doing that, and they're
suffering, and I sea no, no out for them.
People in Globe, in articles in the
paper, are asked, "Are you in favor of Globe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
growing?" How can we grow when we haven't got
any sewer system?
I made my mind up after about five
years of going to every meeting that was in this
town, and, you people, I've met with you several
times and we've got nowhere.
What I'm asking is for us to use our
lagoon down there for you to add on phase 4 to
help those people up — possibly a hundred homes -
up back south of Globe, south and east, and we'll
keep this.
Wa've been down cleaning this lagoon
out; we got a boat down there; wo drag cattails
and things out of there, and that's the best I
know w« can do. I gave up.
I don't think you will ever have
anything down below because you're not going to
gat these people to work with you, and if you
won't give us the go-ahead, I guess we'll just
have to let ours run down the creek too. That's
the way I feel about it.
MR. WALKERt Any questions?
MR. TERAMOTOt Are you going to make that
an exhibit?
MR. WALKER: Do you have a copy of your
remark to make as an exhibit?
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
JS7-ISH
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
117-tiM
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-IS-
MR. LARSONi No. No, but I can give you
one. That's the survey of Skyline.
MR. McLOUD: I haven't eeen that.
MR. LARSONi Well, that's what Carollo did
for us, and I have another. I'd like for you to
look at it, and we hava quite a few pieces of
Skyline on the sewer line going down 70, but we've
got nothing at all over on the other side; and
those people are suffering and they are wanting
help and we aren't getting any. That's the way
the situation is.
I happen to be the representative of
those people, and everyone else is on the sewer
line, most of then. Of courco, there are some
septic tanks, but septic is not working here.
There are so many contaminated places in this
county and I know people know it. I don't know
what you're going to do about it, but the City
of Globe has put out an awful lot of effort and
they've got a lot money tied up in this, and it's
buried down there in the creek, as you know, and
you people stopped this. We would have that in
effect right today ware it not for the lawsuits and
the Environmental people.
Thank you.
MR. McLOUD: Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-17-
MR. TERAMOTO: I would like to ask the sane
question» If this regional system goes through
and everyone pays their proportionate share,
including the people in the unincorporated areas,
would Globe be willing to enter this region?
MR. LARSONi I'm sure they will. The
situation right now is the fact that Globe has
quite a bit of noney invested down there in nothing,
and we had a bond issue here — we lost by six
votes — for water and sewer, and there's no use
us having another bond issue with the situation
the way it's running now, bocauau that would ba
throwing another bunch of money away.
We've"got to have the cooperation of
the whole district, or I'm asking for this phasa —
add phase 4 onto this Skyline situation and give
those people up there that are willing to go a
break, and we can run down to the lagoon until
something elsa happens.
Thank you.
MR. TERAMOTO« Thank you.
MR. WALKER> All right, we have a copy of
the report which will be marked in evidence. Sinca
that's going to be Exhibit No. 5, I'd batter go
through the first exhibits at this tirao.
I hava a Notice of Public Hearing by
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, which
will be Exhibit 1.
I have the Affidavit of Publication
of the Notice of Hearing from the Arizona Republic
stating that it was published on January the 23rd,
1976. That will be Exhibit 2.
I have the Affidavit of Publication
from the Arizona Silver Belt indicating that it
was published) and the Notice of Hearing was
published in that newspaper on the 15th of January,
1976. That will be Exhibit 3.
The press release issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, will be
Exhibit 4)
And then tho report that's just been
referred to by John Carollo Engineers, dated March
14th, 1975, and entitled Sewer System Report, 1975,
Skyline Area, City of Globe, Globe Arizona, will be
Exhibit 5.
I will now call on Miss Eva Marie Setka.
EVA MARIE SETKA
My name is Eva Marie Setka, S-e-t-k-a,
not S-i-t-k-a as in the E.P.A. book and newspaper
articles.
I live within one-half mile of Site 3,
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the proposed site recommended in the book.
According to the study, a petition
containing about 300 names was presented to the
County Board of Supervisors protesting any site in
the Wheatfields area. We, the Setka family, are
among the 300 as we really live in Wheatfields
many of the other people do not.
In the study are various false
statements t
One, discussions with property owners
in the lower Wheatfields area. We were naver
contacted in any time. We are and have been
property owners in the Wheatfields area since the
20's. At no time was anything said to us, and no
book was sent, brought or given to us. We are
also property owners in Globe.
How come the man who worked on this
long, long wonderful book never talked to us? We
never saw them once.
Two, that one residence is located
about one-half mil* and across the road from the
site. We are on the same side as the site; there
are several families living in the area.
Three, Site 3 is recommended because it
achieves the widest regional benefits without
disruptive environmental, social or monetary impacts
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
IS7-1SM
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ZT
24
25
26
-20-
How does this figure?
Four, it would bo adverse/ unfavorable,
detrimental or harmful to man and nature in Site 1,
but it would be beneficial, advantageous or
promote health and well being for man or nature
at Site 3.
Five, In the section between Globe and
Pringle surface flows only occurs — surface flow
only occurs following rain or snowmelt in the
vicinity of Pringle, rather than the flow forms a
perennial stream. That's not true because the
water runs right past our place.
Ha wish it to go on record that we are
opposed to Site 3 plan/ and any and every other
plan in our area.
Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Mrs. Setka.
Any questions?
MR. TERAMOTO: No.
MRS. SETKAt X guess not.
MR. McLOUD: Did you gat a copy of the
report today?
MRS. SETKA: Yes, sir, thanks to this lady.
MR. WALKER: The next card I have, I'm not
sure I can read: Luis C. Aguirre.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
; -21-
LUIS C. AGUIRRE
My name is Luis Aguirre. I'm a
Councilman here for the City of Globe, and after
hearing Mrs. Setka, that is probably one of the
biggest problems we have had. Our public
relations in linking this whole program has been
nil.
This program originally when it
started was a Globe-Miami wastewater project. It
was going to bo a metropolitan sewer system.
I went along with it from the start
because I thought that everything was going to be
handled through proper channels. As the program
progressed along, I found out that a lot of people
weren't contacted, like Mrs. Setka, Mr. Bixby,
Dr. McDonald, and the City of Globe kept going on
forward.
Well, I finally made up my mind that we
should stop it, and I'm thankful to you people
that you did for the City of Globe taxpayers.
The City of Miami and tha County
Supervisors decided there wasn't enough information
for them to go along, and I give them credit for it.
They stopped it immediately. Thay haven't cone ir.to
it simply because of tha reason that everything
wasn't presented from the start when it was first
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
117-lill
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
started here.
We have a report from John Carollo
engineers. We were told at the time by former
Mayor Rabogliatti that we had the money. We had
the money in the bank to complete the whole project.
That's as far as the City of Globe was concerned.
That's the only reason I went along with it,
because it was a good idea and we did have the
money. As it turned out, they decided that we
were going along with it, and I went along with
it because I still thought that there was a
probability that the other entities would come
into it, which was seven entities, seven districts -
sanitary districts.
After I started studying the John
Carollo'e report and looking at the figures that
he presented to us in the report for the intercepter
line and for the sewer treatment plants, and that's
the only thing that Globe needed, nothing more.
We have our sewer sanitation district already. We
have our arterial lines, and all we needed was the
intercepter line and a sewage treatment plant,
but in his figures it would cost the City of Globe
$233,000.00 to complete that project. Of course,
those figures were made up in 1972. To this date
we have already opent — my latest figures — about
.J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
$962,000.00 including federal money, which is tax
dollars coming out of my pocket and everybody's
pocket; and what do we have, actually have? We
have nothing. We have a sewer line down there
outside the city limits and it isn't going to do
us any good because you people cannot push the othe
entities into . coining in with us. There's no way
possible, and the City of Miami and the County
Supervisors were wise for not coming in.
They weren't consulted, they weren't
brought in and told all the facts. Just like I
wasn't told all the f&cts.
I have a map here that I want to bring
out, and this concerns the City of Globe taxpayers.
It's proposed improvements by sewer improvement
district, Globe area.
I would like to ask Mr. John Carollo
why we had to go to an improvement district. Wa
didn't have to. We had all arterial lines. All
we needed was the intercepter lines and the sewage
treatment plant. That's all we needed.
Here's another thing: Here you have
your sewer improvement district in the Globe area.
It takes in Skyline, it takes in south Skyline, it
takes in all the ares that Mr. Larson is worried
about, and I sympathize with you. I think the City
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
157-1ST]
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOCNIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-24-
of Globe should have gone ahead and made those
and had than in.
Prom here on down, from Ash Street,
there's no Improvements at all, and yet all this
part of town was going to be forced- into paying
for the improvement districts of this side of
town, of this side of the area; and this is mostly
in the county.
How, why weren't we informed of all of
this?
Now, for two and two point eight-tentha
mile that we have a sewer line down there, we have
already invested, like I say, over $400,000.00 of
city funds, general funds. Now, with that money,
we could have gone along and got all the
improvements needed, improved aeration ponds down
there and maybe brought them up to E.P.A. standards.
There's ways that we can do it, and I'm going to
rocotanend to the City Council and to the people of
Globe that we go at it by ourselves, because there's
no way possible that we can proceed along those
lines.
Wo have been coming back and forth;'
we have boon coming back here time after time, and
I don't blame you people; I blarae us because you
ware there to furnish the money and furnish the help,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-25-
but this program was prematurely started. The
people weren't consulted and the truth wasn't
brought out.
How much, is it going to cost when we
already have a million dollars in less than three
miles of 'sewer line down there?
I'd like to give you a figure here,
especially the City of Globe taxpayers —
KR. WALKER> Before you leave the issue of
the map, are you going to give us a copy?
MR. AGUIRRB: No, I'm going to keep the
copy.
MR. WALKERi Is it included in this report
of Carollo Engineers?
MR. AGUIRRE: No, this is in the November
27, 1972 Greater Globe-Miami Wastewater Project
Report for the Greater Globe-Miami area.
MR. WALKERt I will coraraont now and say
that we will ordinarily keep the rscord open for
submission of additional remarks, and the time will
be the 8th of March, 1976, which is 45 days after
the publication of notice. I will remark a little
later on how to do this.
Could you submit a copy of that map to
us at that time to be part of the record? It will
help us to review your coirmer.ts.
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. AGUXRRBt Vina.
«no«nax> on«
Table 2 taken from John Carol lo1 a book; Cost
Distribution. This is just for the interceptor
lino and for the sewage treatment plant. This
would be the cost to the City of Globe taxpayers,
and you have at least seven entities: Town of
Miami, Lower Miami and Claypool, Russell Gulch,
Miami Basin, Sixshooter Canyon, Icehouse Canyon,
City of Globe, Echo Canyon, and Central Heights,
Lower Final Creek and Gila Basin.
Gentlemen , it was a dream. It's never
going to coma about until you force some people to
do it, but anyway, this is project cost for the
City of Globe. It would have baen $1,556,000.00.
Okay, with grants of 85 percent E.P.A. money and
state money, it's one point three — three hundred
twenty-three thousand dollars (sic) . So the net
participated cost to the City of Globe for all we
needed was $233,000.00, and that's in the John
Carollo report. That's one reason why I went along
with it, because we did have money in the bank. We
don't have it any more.
Now we have here Table 3, which, correct
me if I'm wrong, it's a Distribution of Costs for
the improvement district on your report. The City
of Globe's total cost with H.U.D. participation
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
would nava t>««n one point «ixtty-ns.n« «nousana --
1,069,000, which is something that we didn't need
at all, and I'm sorry to say that I went along with
it. It was a dream. But after studying it, I
found out that the City of Globe taxpayers were
getting ripped off and probably maybe the county
and the City of Kiwi.
H«re w* have a section on the operation
and maintenance cost for the sewer treatment plant.
This is the thing that really set me off. When
we decided that we would proceed along the linos,
we had to do it ourselves and nobody else came in.
Well, our sever fees bring in
approximately $27,000.00 a year at a dollar per
sewer tax, and for the last eight, 10 years, we
have taken this money and we have done absolutely
nothing for the maintenance of our oxidation ponds.
We started doing work on oxidation
ponds about a year ago, and I know this because
I did work for the City, and I laid a lot of main
sewer lines.
Well, anyway, the total operation and
maintenance OB*t was $140,000.00 per year. Who's
going to pay for this maintenance aost? That
would have meant to me that we would have to raisa
our sewer fees to a minimum of at least six-fifty
POTTER, SPICER 8« WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
JS7-1SH
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
3S7-lit>
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-28-
per capita. I couldn't expect the City of Globe
taxpayers to do this; no way.
I have held it was about time to come
up and bo outspoken and that's one reason I fought
tha sewer and water bond issue, because the truth
wasn't told.
I would like to put this in Exhibit 2.
Section 9, Comprehensive Costs of
Wastewater Facilities — I don't know why, but the
city, the whole improvement district, would have
come about and the County and the City of Miami
would probably have more sewer tax than the City of
Globe, and yet we were sharing the biggest share of
tha costs, all of these comprehensive costs, that
is. Maybe because they think wo have more money,
and maybe Carollo thinks we have more money; and
this is the one that's really a kicker: Distribution
of Project Costs, Typical Cases, Costs reflect
participation by E.P.A., U.U.D. and State of
Arizona.
Case 1i Case 1 would be a sewer
property owner that would be already tied to a
sewer sanitation district which would be in tha
case of Globe, but his figures — your figures and
H.U.D.'s for the plant and interceptors, which is
the City of Globe, that's the only thing we needed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
That's the only thing we should have gone for; plant
and interceptors in Case 1, and that's the City of
Globe, would be $120.00 per property owner.
So, you people can figure it out. Wo
have 2600 sewer taps. That's 2600 properties.
That would be three-hundred-and-some-odd now. I
had it figured out, but I've lost my figures.
Mow, what, what do we actually spend
on that, and what do we have for the money we have
spent?
The latest figures are around 400,000
that we have spent out of general funds, and hare
we are coming back time and time again. I think
it's about time for the City of Globe to immediately
stop and take a good long, hard look at it, and
like Mr. Larson says, let's stop, let's stop right
now, and the City of Globe — Maybe wo can work
something out with you people. We're willing to
work with you, we're willing — Maybe we can
complete the intercepter lines from our oxidation
ponds up here. I'm willing to go that far for new.
You know, oxidation ponds on up here to our city
limits. We have $500,000.00 in reserves. I won't
fight that if it will go towards the improvements
of the oxidation ponda down there and for the
intercepter line this way.
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
MMItl
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
H7-ISIJ
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
When the rest of the county and the
City of Miami is ready to cone along and we can
get together, then I'll say let's proceed along
the metropolitan sewer sanitation district.
So, in all these figures coming from
John Carollo's book, and Case 2; and this would
concern — and maybe the City of Miami and the
County Supervisors have looked at this — like I
said, it would have cost tha City taxpayers 120
per property, property owner.
Class (sic) 2: A residence presently on
an individual waste system — septic tank, cesspool,
and so forth — where property is situated upon
ground that is level or mildly rolling. That
would run them $920.00.
Case 3: Tha same as Case 2 except the
property is situated in rough terrain and the
sewer main will only serve one side of the street.
That would have run him $1,420.00. That would have
outside the county. A lot of people can't afford
that. That's one reason why they're not going to
come in.
Case 4: A residence situated in a romot
area some distance from the end of a sewer main.
That's one thousand sixty-six hundred ninety (sic)
per property owner. These figures wore made
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
in 1972. How can we proceed along those lines on
these reports, on John Carollo's reports, and the
figures that we have had?
Now, we're in a, we're in trouble. We
should have never gone outside and taken the
Holgate sewer system. We had no business going
out there at all and, like I made a point last
night in the council meeting, I would like to give
it back to them for a dollar and, in fact, I'm
going to make a motion — I don't know whether
it's legal or not, but we have no business out
there whatsoever.
Cobre Valley Sanitation was probably
the only sanitation district that was ready to go.
I received two calls last night from
people in the Country Club area, and they said
they were ready to go, but they had signed petitions
and that's as far as they ever got.
Well, I have this to say: I was against
bringing in any part of the Cobre Valley Sanitation
and which would be Sunset.
Mr. Phil Sawaia — This was the
complaint I received. He's Chairman of the Cobre
Valley Sanitation, and he's hooked up already to
our sanitation district, but some of-those people
think that he could care less about proceeding
POTTER, SPICER 4 WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
1S7-1S9I
-POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
157-1SV1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-32-
because nothing has boon done about it for the
last four or five months.
Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you Mr. Aguirre.
Are you going to send us a copy of
the report you were referring to?
MR. AGUIRREi I will get copies today and
I'll give it to you before you leave tonight.
MR. WALKERi All right, it would help very
much in making a review of your comments if we had
the report you were referring to.
Mr. Mitchel Platt.
MITCHEL D. PLATT
Gentleman, I'm Mitchel Platt, attorney
for Steve Bixby, and perhaps some other Wheatfield
residents.
We have baen involved in this matter
for quita some time concerned about primarily the
location of the plant site.
We would like to say that wo have
reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement.
We feel that it was comprehensive and that it was
well-done, followed proper procedures and that it
has complied with the law in every respect.
Wo also foal that the decisions reached
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-33-
in the Environmental Statements were basically
correct. We think the change of alternative
locations, the preference indicated, is good, and
it avoids zoning problems that would have been
in conflict before and many other problems
environmentally.
So, we would simply like to say that
we basically do agree with the statement and feal
it was well-done.
Thank you people for your assistance.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
Mr. Darraiento, representing the Salt
River Project.
FRANK DARMIENTO
My name is Frank Darmiento, Salt
River Project in Phoenix.
Let ma give you a copy of the lettar we
sent Region 9.
MR. WALKER: Has this already been sent to
us? It's in the file.
MR. DARMIENTO: Yes, it has.
I might, just for the purposes of
clarification, I can restate it.
MR. WALKER: I will state, if I didn't
already, all letters received will be made a part
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
-------
2
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
of the file, and we do appreciate your bringing
them here. I will not make this an exhibit becauso
it will be considered as such.
Thank you. Go ahead.
KR. DARMIENTO: Okay. The Salt River Projectj,
in reviewing the Impact Statement/ supports the
recommended alternative. However, the Project
would like to point out that we do have some
concern with regard to the proposed phosphate
standards that the Environmental Protection Agency
is considering for the State of Arizona, in that
the potential phosphate discharges or additions
to the phosphate concentrations in the Salt River
watershed would be of some concern to the Project.
But since no specific discussion was directed at
phosphate concentration, I believe we really don't
have any specific comment to make.
It might be well to consider the
quantitative aspects of the problem. Okay.
MR. TERAMOTO: Do you feel that the phosphate
contribution from the effluence that is being
percolated would be significant then?
MR. DARMIENTO> I have no idea what the
concentrations —- what the contribution would be.
That's really tho question. We know that the
natural concentrations in the watershed will exceed
1
2
3
4
&
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the proposed standards in many instances, so any
addition will simply compound that problem.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
MR. MoLOUDt Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Phil Sawaia.
PHIL SAWAIA
Yeah, I'm Phil Sawaia, representing
the Ccbre Valley Sanitation District; and seme
remarks have been — eariler havo been said about
me that I was hooked up on — But one thing about
it is that a lot of people don't understand that
we have boon at it — Cobra Valley Sanitation
District has been at this for 10 years, and whan
we started it 10 years ago it was either the ono
man, one voto that kept us from doing what it is
representing, the one man, one vota deal; and wo
didn't, couldn't get a concentration from the
Attorney General's office of who could vote and
who couldn't. Property owners or people living
in the area, so it took us about three-and-a-half
years to get that decision, and by the time we got
that decision and started the, started the project
going again, there was something else; money or
something else, and then all of a sudden we get this
impact deal; so for 10 years we've just been one
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
JS7-IS»J
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-36-
problera after another.
As far as what's there now, we had a —
in November - no, I think it was June, we had a
-meeting ~ of 1975 — so, in November of 1975
through the engineering, engineering company of,
of Ellis — at that tine, Ellis, Holgato and
Johnson ~ we had a vote to determine if we should
make this and to — for the yea or no — and to
go ahead with our project in our entities; and
the vote — in other words, we had over 800 and
800 and some-odd property owners. We got 105 votox.
We voted this by mail.
Now, we're talking about November, 1975,
we voted by mail. 105 voted for, 126 voted against
of, of getting chargod for the sanitation and
improvement district.
All right, that left 400 and say a
little over 500 people that didn't say yes or no.
So, tho Board of Directors of the Cobre Valley
Sanitation District — Now, it was improper. In
other words, it was only 20 votes away or 21 votes
away of against, compared to who wanted it, and
there was over 500 that didn't care one way or
another.
So, if wo, we figured that we weren't
trying to stop on anybody's toes. I think wo on tha
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-37-
Board of Directors could have gone and said to go
ahead because there was 480 — I mean, over 500 —
ao there you would have another court case saying;
are those yes votes or no votes, and this would
take another two or three years.
So, we figured the best thing was to
keep our mouth shut and aoe what this Environmental
Protection Agency was going to do, because we had
this fight on and this is why wa haven't really
started anything since '75; and we have been
fighting it and, like I say, it has been one
agitation after another, and so we have just been
out there in the middle, and one thing about it
is: in 1968 and '69 Mr. Ward, I think most of you
would know Mr. Ward, which was H.U.D. At that
time, he was here during World War IX with his
housing project, and they had this sewer system
done on this — what we call governmental housing —
down in Claypool, and I talked to him and figured;
what was the beat way to do it, because wo wanted
one entity, and Miami wanted one, and Globe wanted
one, and he said, "Phil, I'm going to tell you one
thing: In the next five years —" this was '68 or
'69 — he said, "within five years they're going to
make you go to a unified sanitation district," and
ha said, "you better start working on it now."
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PMOP NIX. ARIZONA
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This was his words from the H.D.D., and I said;
well, this is our problem here. We do need an
area-wide sanitation district, so, so X says okay,
I will try my best, Z don't know. So, I kept ay mouth
shut figuring I was trying to get the Cobre
Valley Sanitation District into one body. We
do need one.
We got so many cesspools and the
health and welfare of the people out there isn't
any good because, like Mr. Larson had said, these
septic tanks just can't take it; this ground can't
take no sandy basin in that area.
I think the decision should be made
either one way or the other. I don't care where
the sanitation plant goes or anything else. A
decision has to be made. I don't care if it's in
the middle of town, because I have been to Tucson
and Phoenix. I have been to big cities, and some
of those aerated ponds and everything is right in
the middle of all the residential areas and they
don't have any problems at all. So, I think the
decision sould be made that it should at least ~
let's make it to where it should go and then work
towards that; and another thing is that I think
it's about time, because we have been at it 10
years — Mr. Larson with the City of Globe has been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
on it for five, and I think there's 20 or 30 people
fighting this for a good sanitation district for
the last 10 years; and I think the decision should
be made and stuck to it. I don't care where they
put the pond because, like I say, I have been
around all over the United States and Arizona, and
there's nothing that people are kicking about
where the plant goes, and we're ready for it,
because I'll toll you one thing: The taxpayers euro
getting tired of being kicked around especially
because in our area all of them are laboring
people. They're all independent house owners,
and, like I say, they figure they don't have a veta
and they figure we've got people representing us
in C«mgr«ss and in the State, and by-golly they're
not doing anything, and why should wo sit here and
fight the agencies when we can't even get our
own representatives to do what we want them to do?
So the little independent really thinks that he's
left out on second base, and I hope the Enviromaentajl
Protection Agency, regardless of where they put
this, that they do consider the small property
owner and the small man that really wants this
done. In other words, I think the decision's up
to you gentlemen or your agency, and I, and I hope
to God that you people come up with the right
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
5i7 ISt)
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
1S7-1}*]
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-40-
decision, irregardlesa of where it is, because
we need it becauae of the Health and Welfare
Department of H.u.D. says we've got to do it/ and
all we can juat tell — pardon the language — is
to go to hell.
Wo don't have the money because you've
kept it for 10 years. Come and get us, sue us
or take our property, we don't have it. The longer
we wait the more it's going to cost the independent,
because if — I figure, if you don't make the
decision, if, if you're going to pussyfoot this
around or baseball it or politically or otherwise,
and entity wise, or agency wise, by God it's about
time somebody made the decision that the small man
can do what he can.
Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Sawaia.
Mr.Bob Hampton, Patio Park Mobile Home
Park.
BOB HAMPTON
Hi, I'm Bob Hampton, Manger of Patio
Park, representing about 126 mobile home units,
approximately 400 families.
About August of 1975, Patio Park was
served with a cease and desist order from the
State of Arizona, and we have recently offset that
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-41-
with a permit to discharge wastewater.
A couple of alternatives expressed to
us at this time was that we could go in with the
City of Miami. Now, this would just magnify their
problem that they have already.
So, Patio Park would like to go down
on record as being in favor of the treatnent plant.
This would certainly help our problem as our
system is presently plugged up and we're discharging
wastewator down the creek.
So, and as the gentleman who just
spoke before me expressed, no matter where this
plant is located, where it's at, Patio Park would
definitely be in favor of being allowed to go into
this system and it would solve a lot of the stink
and a lot wastewater, and as far as I'm concerned,
the whole point of this meeting is for pollution
and that the Town of Miami and the septic tanks
are definitely polluting the area, and the whole
system; so, that's about all X have to say.
Thank you.
MR. McLOUD: One question, please.
I'm not sure where Patio Park is.
MR. HAMPTON: Patio Park is located in
Claypool, Arizona.
MR. McLOUD: Okay, thank you.
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
-------
T
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Hampton.
We have « card from Mr. Stephen L.
Bixby, representing himself. Mr. Bixby?
STEPHEN L. BIXBY
My name is Stephen L. Bixby. My
lawyer, Mitchel Platt, already made an oral
statement.
I have a short written statement that
I will turn in in triplicate.
MR. WALKER: Thank you very much.
MR. TERAMOTO: Thank you.
MR. WALKER: We will mark a copy of Mr.
Bixby's remarks as Exhibit No. 6 for the purposes
of thio record? and while I have that out, the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement has not yet
been marked. It will now bo marked Exhibit 7 for
the purposes of this record.
At the present time, this exhausts the
number of cards that have been brought up her* by
people who wish to make a presentation. Is thera
anyone here who has signed a card and wishes to
make a presentation or who has not signed a card
and wishes to make a presentation to us? w« arc
here for the purpose of listening to you.
VOICE: I would like to say something.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. WALKER: Mayor Weimer.
KATIE WEIMER
The gentleman that just spoke, I think
left the impression that the Town of Miami is in
dire needs of this sewer system, but our sewer is
working very fine and wo ara having people fron
the Health Department come in and test it, and
we are not polluting the area, or neither is there
any stench or anything, so I wanted to go on
record that our system is working very well.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
MS. WEIMER: I know that the Patio Park
has problems, but just like I said, we do not have
th« money to take them into our sewer system.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
For the record, I will note this is
Mayor Weimer of the City of Miami, who says her
system is working well.
Someone in the back. Sir?
MR. HAMPTON: Can I speak from back here?
MR. WALKER: We don't want to open this, to
public debate, so keep it brief.
BOB HAMPTON
Lik« to make an additional comment on
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2S7-II?)
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PMOBNIX, ARIZONA
217-lltl
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-44-
Patio Park, that we do not want to go into Miami's
sewer system. This is not our intent. Our system
works Just as well as Miami's.
If the Town of Miami is going to be
allowed to continue the way they are, Patio Park
should have a chance to continue operation until
this thing is resolved.
MR. WALKER! Is that all?
Thank you.
Well, that was Mr. Hampton, for the
record, who had spoken before.
Mr. Sawaia?
PHIL SAWAIA
Yeah, I would like to add one more.
I think I got carried away, but I just
want to let the Environmental Protection Agency
know that ma, as being the Chairman of the Cobro
Valley Sanitation District, wo haven't been asleep.
In other words, like I started to express myself
before, is that laws and, and court orders have
stopped us from really developing the Cobre Valley
Sanitation District; and, like I say, I hope that
you gentlemen, when you go back to your agency and
really get down to honest and earnest thinking of thin
thing, that you could help the whole area by coming
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-4_5-
out with the best of your knowledge and best of
your engineering, and placing this thing because
we know, and I know that there's been a lot of
adverse talk about nobody wants to do this.
Well, you can't really do anything until
you have a definite plan or a definite site of
anything you want to do, and I think that the
people in this area will go to it as long as they
have got a definite answer, and this is tho way it
has to b« irregardless.
I know it's a, it's a decision that
has to ba really made, and I think wo get a
decision that this would resolve very easily,
money wise, project wise and everything, because
I think we, as individuals and taxpayers,
irregardless of who we represent, sanitation
districts or the city or the town, or outside the
county and everything else, that if a decision is
made that we can work as individuals and as citizens
to make this thing the most proper thing to be
developed.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, sir.
As previously commented, we are going
to hold the record open until the close of business
on the 8th of March, 1976 for any supplemental
comments or additional material that you wish to
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHnFMltt. APliQMA
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
submit for the record. This material should bo
addressed to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Attention Hearing Office, and it will be
helpful if you put this code mark on the envelope:
IIE-126. This is included in the public notice that
was published and distributed. HE-126, 100 California
Street, San Francisco, California, 94111.
Any remarks that are sent in to us
and received by that date will be considered as a
part of the record.
Now, as previously —
VOICE: Road that again, please.
MR. WALKER: Certainly. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Attention Hearing Office, HE-126,
100 California Street, San Francisco, California,
94111.
Yes, sir?
GEORGE LARSON
The gentleman from Salt River Water
Users was talking about phosphates.
X was to a meeting here where the
State Health Department within the last 30 days,
and they brought up the same question: Phosphat*.
They even claim that the Salt River was getting
contaminated with phosphate from White River and
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Black River and on down from people's sewage.
There's not many people live up there, and I was
just wondering about it.
I was also wondering if you people
have a free pond as your No. 11 deal says you're
going to have or want to have. If that isn't
more or less a phosphate deal than the water
treatment plant and using the water with the mines
and things like that.
Really, it's a terrible thing to ran
this water clear down to Pringle as you're going to
and spray it out and try to catch scne of it when
you've got it right here where the mines can got
hold of it. I can't, I can't sae the point of
you at all, if this whole district goes into it
and has on« big water treatment plant, which they
have all over the west, that I know of, and people
use it to irrigate with, and they use it for
everything «lso. I can't sea sending that down
there and evaporating and spraying it out and
bothering these people because it's much worse than
a water treatment plant, because I've seen them.
W«'va got them right here in our district. There's
nothing wrong with them. The Holgate over there
has a plant that's been running for quite awhile.
You can go over there today and it's working
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
157 ISM
POTTER, S?ICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
IS7-1SI)
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-46-
perfectly.
There's oeveral smaller plants here,
and, really, your alternate C-l even suggests a
water treatment plant when the mines use the water,
and when they don't use it, turn it down the creek.
I can't figure your idea of that. You're afraid
the mines won't use the water» and then on 1-C
you suggest when they don't use it, to send it
down the creak. That's in your Impact book here.
It's very, vary funny, and I, I'm sure that some
of their measurements of distances and so on that
they've got printed is not right. I know, I went
and measured them myself.
MR. WALKERi Thank you, sir.
For the record, that's Mr. George
Larson.
Anyone else?
Oh, we have another speaker. Would
you come forward and give us your name, sir? Do
we have a card for you?
VOICE: No, I didn't think I had anything
to say.
MR. WALKER: Did you fill out a card?
VOICES Yes, I did.
-49-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LYNN M. SHEPPARD
My name is Lynn Sheppard, Gila County
Supervisor; and it seems as though the county and
the people in the county is coming under quite a
bit of criticism because they haven't gone into
the system. I know the Board of Supervisors has
been criticized for it, but it's beyond our
authority to declare any system or any part of the
county a sanitary district unless the people in
that particular area vote that thing in and set up
their governing body like it's supposed to be
done, and we can't cay that the people in tho
Wheatfields area or anywhere else is going to tio
to a sanitary district; are going to be a sanitary
district or if thoy don't we're going to sell the
property. It's completely beyond our jurisdiction
and rightfully so. I don't think anyone should
have that authority.
That's all I hava to say.
Thank you.
MR. TERAMOTO: I have a question.
MR. SHEPPARDt Yes?
MR. TERAMOTO: when you say the people of
the sanitary district in Miami and Globo are
included in the sanitary district, would they bo
counted as votes?
POTTER, SPtCER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. SHEPPARD: Yes, they're/ they're the —
no, not exactly. Each sanitary district, the way
it's set up, there are about seven, I think, all
together. I may bo wrong, one or so in that
calculation. It's been sometime since I looked
at the complete map on it, but each one of the
proposed sanitary districts, like Russell and
Sixshooter, Ice Canyon and Claypool and the Cobre
Valley Sanitary District, which has already been
formed for 10 years. There's got to be some more
information to the people in the county before
they're going to go into a sanitary district.
These figures that came out that says
approximately this areount of raonay to do this —
§800.00 to $1200.00 to $1500.00 to $3,000.00 to
what is the next figure going to be? I'm sure
that none of the people in the county are going
to enter into it until there's a cut and dried
figure as far as dollars is concerned.
As far as them entering into a
sanitary district and, like I say, the Board of
Supervisors does not have the authority to say
that Russell, Icohouse and Sixshooter Canyon are
going to enter into one particular sanitary district.
It's up to the people of that area to set up a
sanitary district, elact their people, their
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Chairman and their Board to represent them as a
sanitary district, and that makes them a separate
entity in their own self; just like Cobre Valley
is at the present time.
Thank you.
MR. WALKERj Thank you, Mr. Sheppard.
Any questions?
Is there anyone else who has or has not
registered who otherwise wants to speak this
afternoon?
Well, then, as previously announced,
we will then recess this hearing until 7:30 this
evening in this room.
During the recess, some of tha
technical staff from the E.P.A. and the consultants
will ba available for consultation, confrontation
or whatever; but that material will not be on
the record.
We will reopen the record this evening
at 7:30 p.m. here.
(Thereupon, the hearing was
concluded at 2:35 p.m.)
oOo
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
IS7.1SM
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
M7-UIJ
-------
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE
I CERTIFY that I took the hearing in the
foregoing matter in machine shorthand, and the
same was transcribed under my direction; that the
preceding 51 pages of typewritten matter is a true,
accurate and complete accounting of all matters
adduced to the best of my skill and ability.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am in no way
related to any of the parties hereto nor am I in
anywise interested in the outcome hereof.
DATED at Phoanix, Arizona, this
of February, 1976.
. ^ .
Karen K. Houtzonrceder
Certified Shorthand Reporter
ttjp-
. WARMIJTH
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HEARING
IN RE:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
and
THE GREATER GLOBE-MIAMI WASTE
WATER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
No.
U)
O
vo
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Globe, Arizona
February 18, 1976
7:30 o'clock p.m.
POTTER, SPICER S< WARMUTH
Court Reporters -- Deposition Notaries
22 Luhrs Arcade
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
257-1593
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
APPEARANCES I
MR. GEORGE LARSON,
Councilman, City of Globa
MR. LUIS AGUIRRE,
Councilman, City of Globa
MS. EVA MARIE SETKA
MR. GEORGE TERAMATO
MR. MATTHEW S. WALKER
MR. RICK McLOUD
Globe, Arizona
February 18. 1976
7:30 o'clock
MR. MATTHEW S. WALKER
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, we
will go back on the record. This is a contin-
uation of the second session of the hearing
called by tha Enviroraental Protection Agency
to consider tha draft lapact stateu&nt for the
Greater Globc-Miaai Waste Water Treatment Project.
This afternoon we had the project described
and sase consents made upon the Rules of Procedure,
We heard a nuaber of people this afternoon,
they're continuing this session to hear fron
others this evening. There are registration cords
at the door if you wish to register, we would
appreciate having your naiaa, address, in any case,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
if you wish to make a presentation. Ws do
request that 'you fill out the card so I cen lerow
up here who has requested and what their namo is.
Row, after the hearing this afternoon, I
was handed two documents and asked to make them
exhibits, Mr. Agtdrre has furnished ma with a
copy of the John Carollo Engineer reports that
ho referred to during his remarks. This is the
report dated November 27, 1972, and the title
page calls it Report of the Greater Globe-Miami
Waste Water Project, Greater Globe-Hiami area,
Arizona, and this will be marked Exhibit No. 8
for the record. And, I was also handed an
excerpt from the Arizona State Lavs which j?sn-
erally seems to come frocn Title 36 and is a —
I don't know whether it's all of Title 36, or
just soffiG of the sections that have to do with
the sanitary district, This issue came up as
to the sanitary district whare they may be
forned and established, this exhibit offered for
that purpose, it will be narked Exhibit No. 9.
I have two cards of people who have asked
to speak this evening: Mr. Georga Larson,
Councilman of the City of Globe has sose additional
remarks for us.
(Next page, p
POTTER, SP1CER 8c WARMUTH
POTTER, SPICER St WARMUTH
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. GEORGE LARSON
Mr. Chairman, I spoka to you people today
and a few people here tonight coxae up In tha
district that have a real lot of trouble with
sewer lines, and I thought I'd like to explain
to them what I brought up about what we call
Phase 4 and try to extend our trunk line, if
we ever get it going, on this sever, on up back
of Skyline to where it can take care of these
people. Possibly 100 homes up there and there
are some of then puaping as much as two times in
one month, people with fcailies. And, we
realise that our por.d down there is not very
complete but they're dumping there. It don't
make a bit of difference whether it runs down
there or whether you haul it in a truck or
anyhow, so if you can possibly complete this
Phase 4 that I'm talking about it would help
those people immensely. And, I've already told
you about the City of Globe is working real
hard on this. We got started and we got a law-
suit, and then we got stopped by the Environmental
people and, really, we are about broke, now.
And, I would say that we couldn't possibly go
by oursalf and get a bond icsua to finish this
situation. And — but we could put it in Phase 2
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and 4 and run this down to our plant and until
they decide whether they want the water trcatseat
plant or whether they want to go down below,
because these people are hurting real hard. I
see no reason why we can't go ahead with these
two lines and until something happens in the naxt
tea, Aft«en y«*r» o*yb*, why, wa can finish the
whole situation* Thank you.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, Councilman.
MRS. Eva Marie Setka.
MRS, EVA MARIE SETKA
My name is Eva Karie Setks, S-e-t-k-a,
not S-i-t-k-a as In the EPA book and the nawspaper
article*. I live within one-half mile of the
Site 3, the proposed site rccoanatided in the
book. According to the study, a petition con-
taining about 300 names was presented to the
County Board of Supervisors protesting any site
in the Wheatfields area. We, the Satka fsally3
are among the 300, as we really live in Wheat£ield£
many of the other people do not. In the study
are various false statements: One, discussions
with property owners in the lower WheatfieIds
area. We wera never coitacted in any time. Wa
ara aad have been property ocmers in the Wheatfielcs
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
l area since the 20a. At no time was anything
2 ever said to us and no book was sent, brought or
3 given to us. We are also property owners in Globo.
4 How come the man who worked on this long, long
5 wonderful book never talked to us? We never saw
6 them once.
7 That one residence is located about ono-
8 half mile and across the road. Thoro are several
9 families living in the area and our house io on
10 the aatno side as the site.
H Three, Site 3 is recommended because it
12 achieves the widest regional benefits without
13 disruptive environmental, social, or monetary
14 impact. How does this figure?
15 Four, it would be adverse, unfavorable,
16 detrimental or harmful for man or nature in
17 Site 1, but it would be beneficial, advantageous
18 or promote health and wall-being for man and
19 nature at Sito 3.
20 Five, in the section between Globe and
21 Pringlo surface flow only occurs following rain
22 or snow melts, in the vicinity of Pringlo, rather
23 than the flow forms a perennial stream. That's
24 not true because the water runs right past our
25 place. We wish to go on record that we are
26 opposed to Site 3 Plan and any and every other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plan In our area. Thank you.
MR. WALKHl: Thank you, do you wish to give
us a copy to be an exhibit for the record? Wo
have a transcript, If that's satisfactory to you?
MS. SETKA: Do you mind If I type It over
and nail It to you?
MR. WALKER: Incidentally —
MR. McCLOUD: The transcript should be
adequate.
MR. WALKER: We have a new Court Reporter
this evening, Miss Lisa Vitoff, of the same firm,
Potter, Splcer and Warmuth. Sorry I neglected to
introduce you.
I have one more card, Mr. Aguirre.
MR. LUIS AGUIRRE
My name is Luis Aguirre, representative of
the City of Globe. First off I would like to
start out -- I think there's been a heap of'abuse
thrown at you people and personally I feel that
it's much needed to protect the environment for
future generations. I don't quite agree with
everything you say, but these people in Wheatficld
and on down wouldn't have a voice and they should
be greatful that you are there because if wa
leave this up to the local government and special
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
.. .PHOENIX. ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER flc WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
interests we would be in trouble.
Now, I'll be going into another matter I
didn't quite bring up and this concerns the
City of Globe tax payers. I didn't go into it
today because it was the opposition of the
Holgate Sower Development Sewer System. I voted
to take in the sewer lines, and after awhile,
I see what was coming about. And, the first
Phase we took over a public utility and we took
off at least $122,000 off county tax roles, which,
by the vay, is in School District I, and in our
school district we have very little assessed
valuation and our school district is fighting for
every last dollar to educate kids who benefitted
by that Coppor City and Holgate. What ramification
coma out of that? We lost $26,000. The school
districts want monies. Now, who is going to take
the brunt of the whole thing? Are retired people
and people on fixod incomes? We have to make that
money up sorae way or other. Who is going to pay
for it, tha state tax payers? I aita to find out
whether it was legal that we do it and I also
plan to file suit, a class action suit, because
I know I do not believa that a city tax payer
should be subsidizing a sanitation district that*3
outside the city limits. It's well known that
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
sanitation is not a profit making business.
I'm going to look into the matter and if it's
possible I would like a motion that would give
it back to Holgate, would give them the dollar.
Now, we have some advice fron John Car olio
and Don Preisler, he was in charge of the
specification of selections of the vhole project,
the Holgate sewer development. I believe that
he was in conflict of interest working for then
and working for us. Now, at the next public
meeting I will make a motion to give it back and
I hope that Don Preisler reaenbers that we do
give it back because this long rango goal is far
away. We're losing money according to the audit.
We lost $500 in six months and as everybody can
tell you that studied this as of now. Holgate
is paying for the operating end is in charge of
the operation of the plant, and as of July 1st
we're going to have to take ovar the whole cost.
I'd like to see the* take it back, the City of
Globe takes care of its problems here. Mr. Larson
saitf that, that w« should go and help these
people of Ward I and I most sincerely agree with
you, but thare is other ways to go about it. Having
worked for the City ten — about eight,
years ago, I think Mr. Larson and other City
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
1S7-11U
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
117-11*1
-------
____^ 10
1 Councilmen — we put in main lines all tho way
2 up to Creotlinc, main lines down to the oxidation
3 pond with City revenues. I have suggested that
4 many times that what wo have paid tho engineers
5 and money that wo havo put in there we could
6 already havo sower systems up to the people in
7 Skyline put in. What have we got now? Almost
8 half a million dollars with your money, which is
9 our money, tied up down there. It's not going
10 to go anyplace. I believe it's time for tho City
11 of Globe and our Council to sit down and soo what
12 we're going to do for the people of Skyline.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. WALKER: Thank you.
15
16 MU. GEORCR TERAMOTO
17 In your — do you havo any comment on the
18 proposed alternative in tho draft, I address the
19 Regional System aa proposed in the EIS?
20 MR. ACUIRRE: I think probably — no, I
21 haven't rnade, you know, I'vo studied, but I
22 haven't made up my mind as of now. I think the
23 only solution to the whole thing will be if all
24 the entities get together before we go any further,
25 coma to an agreement how it's going to bo paid for.
26 I think that's the first thing in order, and talk
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
11
CO all of the people concerned, all of the people
In Wheatfields, they should havo consulted thea
from the very start, a lot of theaa weren't. I
think that would bo the arst thing In order to
get everything together before wo hava to 30 Into
the mechanics we have to find out how we're going
to pay for It. First of all, we can sit here
and talk ell night how we're going to pay for it.
Is the City of Globe going to pay for the who la
thing? Are you going to force the rest of the
county and Town of Miami to coma In with us?
Personally I don't think you can.
M&. TERAMOTOt Thank you.
MR. WALKERj Thank you.
This exhausts the cards I have before EC.
Anyone alse who has signed up a card requesting
time to apeak? Anyone else who desires to address
us this evanlng? I observe none.
Mr. Teraaoto, would you explain the
procedure of what happens next, what is going to
happen to all of this record, what happens next
and what conclusions can be expected.
Kit. TERAMCTO: Tho process calls for
addressing all the concents and quastions that
wore raised at the hearing here, alco, every
written cocaaont will be addressed to the f
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
EIS. The final EIS will be the document that
would be the end product. After publication of
the final document uhich would include a chapter of
your comments and responses, the Council of
Environmental Quality requires a 30 day waiting
period before any federal action can take place.
So, this is the period that if you have any other
conassuts to make or if the Council of Environmental
Quality has any coooonts to cake, this is in
Washington, they can address us at that time.
After tha 30 day waiting period is over than a
federal, any federal action can take place.
VS.. WALKER: The federal action in thla
case would be tha grant?
MR. ESRA13DTO! Tha grant offer or — yes,
the grant offer.
KR. WALKED: Yes.
2&. TSRAHXCO: Yes, sir.
KR. PHIL SANA*
Mr. Phil Sswaia from the Cobra Valley San-
itation District. You just commontad that
federal action would be as grants or anything else.
Now, would this mean if you coved the down lincts
down to Phoeo 3 that the fadarcl government would
come up with that nuch more coney than to tha
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
expense of the original Phase 2?
MR. WALK3R: I don't think wa can make a
comment as to what the grant is going to be. It
would have, of course, to conform with the final
Environmental Impact statement.
MR. PHIL SAWAIA: You would recoataend that
more federal money be granted if that expense is
further than whare the original plasa for It ware
before this court suit?
MR. TERAHXIO: Any eligible construction cost,
oca that is dccssd eligible tha federal covcriuasut
would participate in 75% of the total eligible
cons true cion cost. I mean, we have the obligation
to give you 75% of tha total eligible cost, but the
total eligible cost has to be dcteaalned by us
and the State — see, scaa of tha things in the
construction grant program are not eligible. For
example, acquisition of tha land that is not directly
related to the treatment process Is not eligibla,
so that the cost Is normally formed by tha applicant
Another example would be rights o£ \*ays and
acquisitions of rights of ways are not eligible.
Things that are eligible are consultant fees
directly related to the project, feas that are
used to preparo tha plans and specifications
and all construction costs of the project.
COTTER, SPICER a WARMUTH
PHOENIX. ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER B, WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
14
Does that answer your question?
MR. SAWAIA: That answers ny question.
MR. WALKER: I know it's a complicated answer,
it's difficult to bo precise and also be brief.
MR. LARSON: Still speaking on this Skyline,
Mr. Aguirre nore or less said: Taking cara of
people in Ward I, that isn't the idea at all. I
didn't ask anything like that, I asked for the
Phase 4 on that 75% to help those people. That
was the idea, we're not asking those people up
there, they can expect to pay their pro-rated
part, but they have to put a line up there for a
couple of miles aljsost, that will be an awful lot
of soney. They can't afford that, they —
what 1 was asking for is what you would call
Phase 4? You have Phase 2, is a line up to, woll,
it's up where it's turned to go to — the road
forks going to Ice House Canyon. Now, they have
a long line trunk Una to put up to get up to
them.
That's all I ask, is for this 75% to help
those people out the same as — they're on a
trunk line also, that's what I meant, it wasn't
for the City of Glebe to do that at all.
MX. WALKER: I think we understand Mr. Larson.
For the record, this Is remarks fron Mr. Larson.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This is one of the reasons we're having a trans-
cript so that we don't get: He said, I did not say,
situation. I thought I saw a hand up over there.
MR. AGUIRRE: I would like to clarify one
thing for Don Preisler: Phase 4 is the inter-
ceptor line, right, or is it Phase 3?
A VOICE: I have no comment.
MR.. AGUIRRE: Phase 4, I believe, is the
sewer Improvement.
MR. LARSON: Just -- I am Mr. Larson —
I asked, they had these people to put on Skyline,
there's no Phase 4 at all. It's 1, 2, 3. 1 and 2
is the trunk line and 3 is the water treatment
plant in our --
KR. AGUIRRE: That's Phase 1.
MR. LARSON: Phase 4 carae up today.
MR. AGUIRRE: I'm concerned — asked whether
the only people, the only way that the people in
Skyline, most of the District 1 is connected by
the sewer improvement district, that s ona die
City of Globe doesn't need. For this reason, that
it's included In the Globe area, I feel this way,
I feel that the City should help the people In
Skyline but I would feel that I should pay
your Improvement. Of course, the Ash Street this w
don't pay for improvement, this way I would like
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
POTTER. SPICER & WARMUTH
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
to clarify, X would go 100Z back to the people,
that's what I oeant, Ash Street all the way down
to the city lid to or here* There's no itcprovooeat
under the sewer improvement — not the inter-
ceptor*
KR. WALKER: Speaking for the federal agency,
our concern is what ifi the Environaantal Impact
Statement. Mr. Aguirre addrassed the Environmental
aspect of the project, ho?; the local agencies dealt
with their local problem is a matter for them,
a state law in which we .prefer not to intervene.
Furthoroora, which is Phase 1, 2, 3, 4 is all
eet forth in th« dcctraent so, I doa't think we
need to argue here about it. This Is, as I said
befara, the purpose of having a written record.
It would bo oa file with us, anybody elsa who
wants to read it can read it. If you want to
have a copy of your own you should, of course,
oaka independent arrangements with the Court
Reporter, they had agreed to rcake arrangements
with you, but as far as the internal affairs of
your local cccsaunity wa would prefer to leave
this to the local ccocunity. We hcva our problems
and it's quite a house full fis it is.
Kow, on the Environmantcl Icpact Statesaent
is there scything furtfcor to b&said tonight?
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. RICK McLOUD
I'd just like to Mention that we have one
additional copy of the Draft Impact Statenant
right here. We have quite a number of copies of
summaries of the Draft Impact Statement. Anyone
who would like to cooa up and get their own
personal copy please feel free to do that.
MR. WALKER: Plcjase don't tranple on the way.lr
MR. McCLGUD: All of oiae copy here.
MR. WALKER: Thank you sir, then it does
appear that we have coopleted our business for the
evening. I wish to thank all of you for your
attention and for your reasrks. I do wish to
assure you that all of the remarks, these that
are given verbally, those given in writing, will
ba given careful consideration and I will want
again to announce that we will keep the record
of this hearing open until the close of tha
business at the regional office in San Francisco
on the 8th of March.
Now, aay comment should be addressed
for delivery to: U.S.Environmental Protection
Agency, Attention: Hearing Office, HE -126
Region IX, 100 California Street, San Francisco,
California 94111. And, with tha exception or
the rcsfirks end cccaants that are yet to caaa i;n,
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
this concludes our hearing, Wa thank you all
very ouch*
i
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
. — — _ i-9
I, LISA VITOFF, having been first duly
sworn and appointed as Official Court Reporter
herein, do hereby certify that the foregoing
pages numbered from 2 to 13 inclusive, constitute
a full, true and accurate transcript of all the
proceedings had in the above matter, all dons to
the best of my skill and ability.
DATED thia-^ > day QSTl&lWft-iM . 1976.
a
' ^/yfl^^i ($//
iCourt Reporter
POTTER, SPICER & WARMUTH
------- |